CV Rework Discussion

[Uglesett]

59 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

Time for a CVs  In/Out referendum!

 

The only problem I see with that is the fact that CVexit is a damned mouthful to pronounce. (CuhVexit? SeeVexit?)

"Cexit"

 

(Pick ancient latin "c" sound or modern latin "c" sound depending on whether you want it to sound naughty or not)

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, xxNihilanxx said:

 

No argument from me on that score. So we went from terrible to even worse. This is not an argument in favour of returning to the "terrible". This is why I advocate the removal of aircraft because I prefer to move from the terrible to the better. There are, and always have been, matches where no CVs were present. In those matches NONE of the issues described above rear their ugly heads.

 RTS cvs needed adjustmensts... dont you think we wouldnt turn to old state of RTS CVs if WG actually gave a sh.t about the suggestions which were made?

 

[Sehales]

51 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Because your boss says so, unless you want your head to get acquainted with quarterly financial report freshly used to bash your superior or you're willing to part ways with quarterly bonus

Speaking of finances, question for WG staff @MrConway @Crysantos @Sehales

 

1st and 2nd Directives have missions for Boise/Nueve de Julio with accompanying rent offer in premium store, while 3rd and 4th batch of Directives have mission for premium CVs. Does that mean option to rent them will arrive to the premium store?

As usual, we do not reveal our plans for sales before they go live, but if we have any such offers, we will have them listed in an article on our portal, once the time has come. ;)

[ghostbuster_]

5 minutes ago, Sehales said:

As usual, we do not reveal our plans for sales before they go live, but if we have any such offers, we will have them listed in an article on our portal, once the time has come. ;)

and we should believe this after seeing what WG have been doing despite of things they said in the past? cool story bro. 

[BdW_Marecc]

So now that the CV rework is deemed "finished" by WG I went and brought out my Kaga once again. The battle was (obviously) a Tier 10 battle, what else, MM being a shitty as it is (Disclaimer: "shitty" in this context not being derogatory but the appropriate technical term to describe recent matchmaking, -> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/shitty  )

To make the long story short: 28000 damage done, with 93 aircraft lost during the battle. Fun and engaging. NOT. There was a time when I would have left "fun and engaging" just sit there and fully expect the oozing irony being really obvious, but these days I will not take that for granted anymore. 

 

So - yeah. CV rework finished ? I do not think so. Giving each and every Carrier +/- 1 regular matchmaking (as long as not playing in a division) would go far towards achieving balance between aircraft and AA. Kaga in particular was turned from a good tier 7 carrier into that burning pile of floating tier 8 crap we see today. Yeah, I thought I should end this on a positive note and say something nice about Kaga. This is as nice as I can do with a straight face.

[svadilfari]

just played 2 furios games, guess i was especially bored. holy crap how does anyone think this is fun? how does anyone enjoy this? it´s soooo boring.

(naturally lost both games, naturally top xp, naturally frustrated)

guess the "grind this crap cause i´m bored as fkkc" is postponed

[Culiacan_Mexico]

2 hours ago, antean said:

CVs were either broken or OP yet the game, in general, became quite well balanced.

For the day I first started playing WoWs RTS CV were never well balanced.   "Fara... I can sustain a +90% win rate in a three ship AA division).

 

The skill gap was extreme, and with the amount of influence a very good CV player had... it was problematic game design. 

 

I would note that many good RTs CV players had many suggestion on how to address issues... the don't seem to have been listened to.

[Toivia]

As far as the "do potatoes manage better in RTS or CV rework" discussion, I can say this:

  - I could have held my own in a low tier RTS CV in Coop and when I dealt with the bot CV, I had no trouble dealing with surface ship. When i dared going in Randoms, I usually could as well at least do some average DMG and help my team. (I was at least attempting to do manual drops/strafes to mixed results.)

 - After the rework, despite testing CVs even back on the test server and keeping up with new tactics/do's and don't's, I usually still can't do crap and am very fast anoyed by the gameplay. Eventually I do get some damage, but it's painful to play. And that's just Coop. Never dared getting into Random with that, no thank you. It'd be painful for my team and at the same time for the poor one guy I'd keep attempting to kill for the whole duration of the battle.

[DDMafiaAssociateMember]

Boost drops are being removed tomorrow. Hopefully a modicum of balance will return to high tier battles.

[Arrive_Alive]

6 hours ago, svadilfari said:

just played 2 furios games, guess i was especially bored. holy crap how does anyone think this is fun? how does anyone enjoy this? it´s soooo boring.

(naturally lost both games, naturally top xp, naturally frustrated)

guess the "grind this crap cause i´m bored as fkkc" is postponed

i seriously don't know...tried to grind that line too, but after every single Rework-CV game i need a break for some days. even shitty mobile games are more fun than this imo.

[Capra76]

2 hours ago, Toivia said:

After the rework, despite testing CVs even back on the test server and keeping up with new tactics/do's and don't's, I usually still can't do crap and am very fast anoyed by the gameplay. Eventually I do get some damage, but it's painful to play. And that's just Coop. Never dared getting into Random with that, no thank you

 

The new CV are terrible in co-op but much better in random.

 

The problem is that co-op games tend to be much shorter than random and since CV tend to live the longest of any class they need to accumulate damage more slowly than other classes hence it's difficult to perform in the shorter games. 

 

Also the other big ability of CV - spotting - is worthless in co-op becuase the bots don't make any attempt to use concealment or cover, whereas in random you can just park your planes above a 60%+ DD player and ruin his game that way.

 

So long as you can master the basic mechanics and hit stuff with the weapons you'd probably be better than 95% of the CV players I've seen down at T4.

[KillSlim]

I had a TX game on Ocean a few hours ago, that map has changed from 'awful' to 'diabolical' with carriers involved. From the first 25 seconds the entirety of both teams are spotted, and with it being TX, most of the bigger ships were in range. CV's were always broken in terms of spotting but now it happens faster than ever from game start. 

[Capra76]

Patch 0.8.2.0.1: https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/patch-08201/

 

We've introduced a soft limit on the number of carriers in Tier X battles. Now, in the majority of instances, no more than one carrier will be allowed per team

 

So evidently someone at WG has worked out that SkyPox has not been entirely well received by the players.

[Toivia]

30 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

The new CV are terrible in co-op but much better in random.

 

The problem is that co-op games tend to be much shorter than random and since CV tend to live the longest of any class they need to accumulate damage more slowly than other classes hence it's difficult to perform in the shorter games. 

 

Also the other big ability of CV - spotting - is worthless in co-op becuase the bots don't make any attempt to use concealment or cover, whereas in random you can just park your planes above a 60%+ DD player and ruin his game that way.

 

So long as you can master the basic mechanics and hit stuff with the weapons you'd probably be better than 95% of the CV players I've seen down at T4.

Both points are indeed correct.

I might get in Randoms at some point. However different Coop is though, I'm afraid I hate the whole mechanic of flying around in planes anyway. Never signed up for an aircraft game.

[AMONAS1]

I am an avarege player (die a lot for rushing). 

With a 1HP ship you have the full potential of your guns/torps against an enemy or even enemys

With 1 plane you can not attack 1 ship.

 

The ships stay close for better AA and they kill ALL the planes.

Waiting for 1 guy to be alone you have too wait 10 min. I want too play the game, not wait.

5min in game  i have no planes to do anything in the game exept spoting that does not give me alot of exp.

When I do the mistakes I have to somehow be punished for them = (no planes).

 

BUT the 1 HP ship has ALL the potential in her guns/torps.

 

DO NOT BUFF the CVs.

 

BUFF the potential and punish the bad game play.

 

Now you punish both the bad game play and the potential to do damage.

 

Maybe it is just me rushing and loosing my planes.

[Procrastes]

Hello!

 

I recently voted and posted in a poll titled "CVs and gaming enjoyment I WoWs: 2nd survey". Whether related to my wall of text or not - I do tend to digress - that thread was then promptly closed and the posters were directed to continue the discussion on existing forum threads (such as this one). While I regret to see the poll itself stopped in its tracks, I agree that the forum debate will be improved by not having multiple threads on the same subject. 

 

So, once more unto the breach: Here's my two cents on the CV rework, this far.

 

When playing in a CV

I like the new CV gameplay better than I did the old one. I am not very good at top-down strategic map control, and flying around in a 3rd person (3rd plane?) view is simply more entertaining. It's still less fun than driving around in a ship, though. Fly out, find target, drop bomb, miss, drop another bomb, hit, get shot down or press F3, rinse and repeat... it gets a bit repetitive.

 

It should be said that a large part of this repetitiveness is most likely due to the fact that I am a very bad carrier player. I have a long way to go to get even halfway competent, and as it is, I miss a lot more drops than I hit. I have also yet to acquire the tactical instinct on where to go and what to do when I'm in a carrier. I currently only play carriers in co-op, since it would be unfair to my team mates to enter a random battle in a carrier as things are now. I will keep playing the odd carrier game and see how it goes. I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

When playing against CV:s

A good CV player can still thrash you, whether you play in a destroyer, cruiser or battleship. A mid-level skilled one can be handled, and a bad one is no real threat. So no change there, I guess. The real change is, that even a good CV player can now only be at one place at a time. Bad luck for you if that place is on top of your ship, of course - but again, that's nothing new.

 

If there is just the one carrier on each team, I think this is usually good for the gameplay. It adds an extra tactical element to the battle, it helps destroyers out in their spotting role, and since the carrier player can only be at one place at a time, the impact of the carriers - for good or bad - is kept somewhat in check.

 

The problem arises whenever there are two or more carriers on each team (that is, four or six in the battle as a total). When that happens, those goddamn planes are everywhere. You keep shooting them down and they keep laughing at you all the while and then coming back for more and there are rockets and bombs and torpedoes and swarms of little fighters and it's like a combination of a tropical mosquito attack and a New Year fireworks show...

...ok, slight exaggeration. But still a bit of a hassle, especially if you're in a destroyer that is not the USS Kidd.* And as many have said, there is not that much of effective counterplay unless you manage to team up well and create a no-go AA death zone.** (It can of course be argued that the last part is actually a good thing, since this is a team playing game and team play should rightly be rewarded.)

 

All in all, I am cautiously optimistic with this aspect of the new carrier gameplay as well. It can be hoped that as the hype dies down over time, the profligation of carriers will decrease to more normal levels. If not, other balancing efforts might be called for. Wargaming recently announced that tier X matchmaking has been tweaked so that battles with more than one carrier per team will increasingly uncommon, but that matchmaking at lower tiers will stay the same - for now. While I personally would welcome the same change to be implemented at all tiers, I can see that this would also have the effect of prolonging the pre-battle cues for carrier players. And that wouldn't be very fun for them. Hopefully, some sort of balance can be reached over time.

 

In conclusion?

There are still probably a few wrinkles that need ironing out with the CV rework. The only thing that I have a bit of an issue with myself at this stage, is that when there are two or more carriers on each team, the carriers tend to have too much of an impact on the battle - kinda like the bad old days, when even a single (good) carrier player could dominate a battle. If this is solved - and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be - I believe that the CV rework will work out well in the end.

 

Cheers!

 

 

* I've played quite a number of games in the Kidd, lately.

** Actually, there is a kind of 'taking a bullet for your team' kind of counterplay, namely "the Dance of Dragons". I played a game in my T-61 yesterday, with two carriers to each team. At least one of the enemy carrier players went directly at me at the start of the match. By turning into his rocket plane attacks I managed to evade his first two attack runs altogether, and I probably would have dodged the third one as well if I hadn't been obliged to turn away from incoming artillery fire. The third attack hit me and took off about a quarter of my health, whereafter he flew off, having lost four planes in total to my valiant AA crews. In the meantime, my allied Minekaze had quietly taken the cap we were fighting over, and so we came out of that one well on top. I have absolutely no problem with this sort of carrier-inclusive gameplay; on the contrary, it is team work at its best. But it does require a modicum of tactical awareness from both you and your ally.

[makhot]

Maybe WG could test a new game mode of splitting random matches to normal and Non-CV randoms. Even if the latter would require going through CAPTCHA every time you press battle, probably around 70% of the player base would still only play Non-CV.

[Procrastes]

1 hour ago, makhot said:

Maybe WG could test a new game mode of splitting random matches to normal and Non-CV randoms. Even if the latter would require going through CAPTCHA every time you press battle, probably around 70% of the player base would still only play Non-CV.

That would probably lead to a very large number of CV-only games - that is, six carriers battling it out without interference from other types of ships. 'Midway Mode', in other words. *

Given that player-controlled planes can no longer directly attack each other, it would likely be boring as hell.

 

 

* Or was that the battle of the Coral Sea, where only carriers took part? 'Midway Mode' sounds more catchy than 'Coral Sea Mode', though!

[ghostbuster_]

2 hours ago, AMONAS1 said:

I am an avarege player (die a lot for rushing). 

 

 

Maybe it is just me rushing and loosing my planes.

there you have your answer.

[El2aZeR]

32 minutes ago, Procrastes said:

Given that player-controlled planes can no longer directly attack each other, it would likely be boring as hell.

 

Indeed, a stark contrast to previously.

Or at least I actually found Fara's Strike Group tournaments (3x CV + 1 BB teams) pretty exciting to watch back in the RTS iteration. Sadly never had the time to participate.

[Asakka]

1 hour ago, makhot said:

Maybe WG could test a new game mode of splitting random matches to normal and Non-CV randoms. Even if the latter would require going through CAPTCHA every time you press battle, probably around 70% of the player base would still only play Non-CV.

Maybe WG could test a new game mode of splitting random matches to normal and Non-DD randoms.

[ChatBanForSayingTruth]

Rework is a good step forward for CV plays (not for rts lovers but in general). I like it. Furious was fun to play and grind through. AA wasn't a big threat unless you are vs majority of tier 8 ships. Implacable was harder. Win rate i got was a potato levels although other stats were purple or close to it. Was even manageable in tier 10 battles. That's where the fun factor normally goes away. Audacious feels ok for now but only few battles in it. Problem with these 2 ships are poor efficiency of rockets and bombs. Bombs drops too slow, hard to hig, very rng. Rockets good vs DDs but still only more for harrasing not actually destroying it. Left me using torps as main armament.... Need more games on saipan but feels like you need to be well above average player to be constantly efficient in it (very high player's skills demanding playstyle).

Hakuryu definitely needs a buff to make it at least enjoyable to play. Now it feels like the carrier is only for those who likes hurting themselves or don't have another CV in port. Or just love being underdogs.

Imo all tier 8 CVs should only rarely face tier 10 ships because AA difference is enormous.

[Procrastes]

23 minutes ago, Asakka said:

Maybe WG could test a new game mode of splitting random matches to normal and Non-DD randoms.

Why not go the full ten yards, and make it possible to have battles where no ships that have any kind of advantage over your own ship, would be able to take part?

 

This would of course lead to a lot of single-ship matches - that is, only one team, and only one ship in that team - but at least it would be fair since all those matches would automatically end in a draw.

In fact, one could probably simplify this battle alternative even further, so that clicking on the 'Battle!' button would immediately transport you to the (very brief) post-battle report screen, with a lot of zeroes in the various stat categories and a snazzy 'DRAW!' proclamation on top. What do you think?

---------

 

Please note that the above text was put together in assumption that your post was (likewise) mostly in jest. But in the event that it wasn't: There have been earlier instances where people have suggested mechanisms for opting out of various battle setups that they, personally, happened to dislike. Me, I'm not a huge fan of the 'Epicenter' game mode, for instance. But any steps in that direction would be likely to lead to a huge increase in pre-battle queueing time - which would be bad for everyone. Taking your random fortunes from the matchmaking Gods, the good with the bad, is part of the dynamic of the game. Lessening this aspect of randomness would lead to a gradually stagnating gameplay. I don't think that would be good for the game.

[xxNihilanxx]

24 minutes ago, Asakka said:

Maybe WG could test a new game mode of splitting random matches to normal and Non-DD randoms.

 

The issue being discussed here is surface ships versus aircraft, not specific classes of surface ship.

 

So sure, have an opt out for surface ships by all means.

[El2aZeR]

21 minutes ago, xxNihilanxx said:

The issue being discussed here is surface ships versus aircraft, not specific classes of surface ship.

 

Nah, it's someone trying to prove that CVs are bad for the game (something that I currently do not disagree with but still) via showing that people would rather avoid them than face them.

Which given that this is a PvP game is completely irrelevant. E.g. would I like all radar cruisers to be gone when I play DDs? Ofc I would. You could do this with any but the most popular ships and the gamemode that excludes them would naturally be more popular.

 

It's like how most public servers in CS used to ban AWPs and auto snipers. Or lobbies in RTS games enforcing "no attacks until 20 min mark" rulesets.