Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Ishiro32

Feedback to Carrier rework concept presentation - Ishiro edition

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
2,303 posts
1,085 battles

Hello, as one of the people who was quite vocal on this forum regarding the need for CV reworks for years I feel the need to write something regarding todays stream.

 

First things first

What I find important during the stream was that WG focused their presentation on showcasing the core gameplay loop. Plenty of mechanics, quirks and most importantly statistics are not there. My feedback similarly will be limited to this core loop. Rest of the elements like stats or specific mechanics will be in general ignored. So lets start.

WcaA9zU.jpg?1

The Core

As of this moment, WG decided to deemphasize the strategic layer of the CV gameplay and focus almost all player attention on the screen.  For the purpose of the gameplay we have one very fast and nimble unit that can perform offensive action couple of time before reseting itself to the starting position on the carrier. 

Attacks are performed by entering "attack mode" in which aiming indicator is shown.

Attack mode is limited by time.

Early during the attack mode time, the accuracy of a drop is low. With time it increases.

Aiming and abillity to predict movement stays the same as it is right now, as the only thing changed is the controls and camera point of view. Principles themselves stay the same.

 

This is very promissing concept for a core. As of this moment the best thing and feeling carriers have is the mindgames between target and cv skipper. Considering that aiming principles stayed the same, this feeling of predicting enemy movement is safe. This concept also has proper tension flow and can be expanded further.

 

The Flow

Tension flow is just emotional state of the player during every step of the game flow. For almost all of the media it can be boiled down to,

  • Start high
  • Slow down
  • Increase tension above initial point,
  • Climax and slow down below earlier slow down. 

So in general you want to have good mixup of slowing down and building up tension for the climax to feel good. Slowing down emphasises the highs and other way around.

 

With that in mind lets have a look at the flow of the core on the very micro level. Lets focus on just the attack. So we have target and we fly towards it. One of the big elements in the concept is fact that operating plane is manual and you have to press button to enter time limited attack mode.

  • This pressing attack mode button is your initial increase of tension. You commit yourself to something. It is very short moment, but after clicking it you are engaged. The domino started.
  • Planes fly down for torpedo bombers/fly up for dive bombers. You observe initial animation which is a typical slowdown. You have no big control as of this moment and initial spike of decision making mellows down.
  • Tension rises through the dakadakadaka all around you. Considering you also have abillity to minimize your damage by dodging you are kept on your toes while you approach to the source of bad dakadaka. Here visual aspect is really important as you want for the player to feel the excitment of diving into a gunfire. This here is a fantasy those CVs want to fulfill. The tension rises way above initial decision making.
  • Then you press a drop button and for the DBs and Short torpedo runs you get your reward. Planes fly away and tension resets only for the circle to restart. 
  • For long TB drops the tension drops down after attack starts, but it isn't supposed to be end.
  • You observe planes flying back and going high in the air increasing feeling of safety.
  • Then you observer your torps swimming in water. If your prediction was correct, or wasn't.
  • Then you have your long drop TB climax on hit.

 

This is very good loop if properly supported visually. Additionally it is important that this concept focuses on this loop, as even with one squadron you will experience this loop fully for at least couple of times, before your planes will have to reload.

 

This is much better than right now in which game is focused on few attacks long time inbetween each other with high cost of failure.

Proposed concept is focusing on many attack with short times inbetween each other with low cost of failure (no deplane).

 

My only concern with it is that for Long Drops people might miss the buildup of the torps swimming in water and hitting the target, because they will be too focused on their own survival. After attack you kind of want to run away and not marvel at your drop. Rockets themselves also did not look particularly exciting, they flew flat and their hits just didn't have that oomf. In general though this section is the longest because damn... This flow is fine as f.ck

 

The Strategy

Spoiler

 

The other big change was the switch to action. So your carrier right now is anchor point from which you start using your main proper unit that is a fast living consumable attack. Unless you destroy anchor the proper unit in a way is immortal.

I don't think many players realise what this means for strategic layer. Right now carriers were a global threat that could perform multiple tasks at the same time. With this their capabilities are limited, but they still retain the aura of seemingless invulnerability combined with an abillity to fast respond to any threat on the map. You attack much more and have much more chances to trigger fire where you operate.

Basically this looks like support attacker. You will have to have great communication with team to properly understand where your now limited pressure can be applied. Your pressure is also right now more suited for assisting in duels because you should be able to start damage over times more often which will help your crusiers and BBs. In general I can see how knowledge of the game still will be critical and great players will still outplay any bad player just by the sheer knowledge to which side of the map fly at what point in game.

 

My only concern as of this moment is CV sniping. WG really did not focus on main ship during their presentation, but CVs always were vulnerable to the focused CV attacks as they often were sailing alone without cover. Current CV loop seems like it can be easilly used to burn down enemy CV at the start of the game. Enemy would have to go back to his CV with planes to call for the fighters. This can be easilly solved by giving carrier itself abillity to sortie a fighter wing, but maybe then it would make them too strong against snipe? 

 

My other concern is that pressure applied by CV has to be strong as they do not offer any body on the battlefield. They will not soak damage nor they will cap points. Against big blobs of ships their presence might be just a vulture, circling around enemy fleet trying to pick up small fries. Which they do right now and I do not think this is very exciting role... will see the balance, because meta is heavily decided by balance numbers. In general big concern is AA

 

 

The AA

Spoiler

 

I am very happy that WG decided to give more tools for both CV players and surface ship players in regards to AA. Switching sides of AAA focus is something we wanted to see for a while. I described how well dodge of the long range and mid range worked itself into the main gameplay loop.

My concern is stil regarding how polarizing the AAA will be. That dodging did not look like something you can rely on, more like something to mitigate damage to your ships. Right now huge issue was that there were multiplers of AAA on multiplayers, this combined with ridiculous tier by tier scaling did make this sick situation where AAA is either too strong or might as well not exist.

 

I kind of would like to see for surface ships to have more active AAA tools than everything they have now. I understand that AA in general is in the works, but I think it is also important to stress how important will be for carriers to have visual indicators if something "big" is happening on the enemy ship. Carriers should have information from what side AAA is increased or if something really big and bad is happening right now. No one likes to not understand why all your planes just melted ^^.

 

 

The Fantasy

As we discussed in the earlier sections the fantasy that WG tries to fulfill here is closer to the one of the pilot. I just want to say that I feel this is kind of sad. Old CV players started game because they were in love with the ships themselves and the strategic presence they commanded. Old guy sitting with a map trying to make sense out of the all the intel he has to make a good decision. Decisions that will bear fruits after quite a while.

While I can agree that this concept of rework is good and proper, there is some dichotomy here. Fans of the airplanes have better games to anwser their needs and I do not think there is many CV players that wanted to see this particular fantasy. As a result I do not believe many people will love the class even though more people will like it in general. 

 

The Potential

Spoiler

 

This concept is also fun because we can make some really fun things with it. Now since defined role of CV seems to be kind of support Attacker. How about we finally give CVs some support tools? The fighter consumable seems like good idea to relegate part of the CV job to the consumable, but maybe we can push it further? Especially since gameplay first. 
So why not consumable that calls from CV a plane that will make smokescreen in the place it was called it? Why not consumable that calls from CV scout plane? Why not consumable that calls from CV firefighter plane that would circle in the area and help any ally ship that is under fire in the region.

Sure all those things were possible earlier, but you really couldn't implement them because right now CVs are just broken. Adding stuff on them would be pointless. With proposed change the main loop looks fine, it should work, people should like it... We  might be able to actually add cool and dumb stuff on top of that, because fundamentals willl be there.

 

 

Edit. The Fighters

Spoiler

 

I talked with someone about fighter implementation and noticed that I did not talk about it here. Shock... Ukhm... I am happy that AS doesn't exist as of this moment in the core gameplay loop.

Reasons are two

 

1. Fighters as a hard counter unit that otherwise has low impact on the game is a unit that in itself breeds unbalance

2. Fighters were main reason why CVs were had so much scouting power.

 

In general right now we will have a situation where you always spread out your wings as a CV, find out where key ships are, then you find proper strike target and move fighters/empty bombers to the scouting positions. This created huge nightmare for DDs.

With current concept not only you do not have so many lingering planes all over the map. The initial scouting tactic of spreading wings is not viable anymore. To find a DD you have to spend some time you do not attack anyone, then if DD smokes up you either have to wait, which again is a lot of time or you have to blind drop. Blind drop in smoke without cross drop is in general waste of time. You can get lucky if you saw the gunshots and from that you know at what angle to attack, but it will be super difficult. DDs should be more than happy that there is one wing in the air.

 

Also it is worth noting that in the Flow section I describe why using attack planes in the current conept should be cool and fun to do. Fighters do not have the flow. Them being consumable is actually very fitting to their Hard Counter/Uselss outside of counter archetype.

 

 

Edit2. The Ideas for developers

Spoiler

 

What I would love to see other than obvious stuff like more information about AAA and good balance with numbers is for development team to maybe build a small bridge between old guard and the New CVs.

The core is single screen and action based, but I think there is still a chance to appeal somewhat to the old players that wanted to think about a game in more strategic way.

  • In The Potential section I mentioned how can we add more consumables to the planes. The idea of flying around and giving orders to the different type of planes like it is the case with fighters is appealing. I don't think it should be too overbearing on the players, but if we could pick couple of support planes that we could order around as consumable on high cooldown it would go a long way to give players this feeling of being in control without actually stressing them out or providing them with too much raw power. We could have:
    Fighter consumable
    Smokescreen consumable 
    Firefighter plane consumable 
    Mine setup consumable (easily shot down by enemy AAA so has to be set up in advance)
    Attackplane consumable (only rockets and DBs with very low damage)
    Not all of them need to be available all the time, but if we were forced to have fighters and selection of two picked ones would give CV players 3 consumables with a lot of support capabilities. With very long cooldowns they shouldn't be too OP
  • Controlling CV is a must, otherwise no one will play aggresively. You need precision in case you need to dodge torps or shots.
  • I would like to see  toggable cinematic camera in the corner of the screen after TB drops. I mentioned that I worry that from first person perspective no one will have time to properly watch the torps swimming which is a huge part of excitement tied to this type of drop. It can be toggable in options if someone doesn't want it. I am not sure if there is place in UI for such feature, but it could also be used for BBs and gunfire if there was a place for it.

 

 So in general... You kind of betrayed people who love strategy, throw us a bone and give us some interesting tools to play around. I do think if you base your whole class around damage, class which has this finger of god design, it will be kind of annoying to balance. I think you should push it still into more of a toolbox approach. If I don't see any opening I will fly to the flank and drop some mines or setup smokescreen for someone. Not too much so they think about 10 different cooldowns or elements and distract themselves from the core, but healthy dose of variety. Fact is also that if you will need to scale down damage of carriers, support capabilities are perfect counterbalance to still keep them relevant. Pure damage I think will be a mistake.

 

 

The Reaction of mine

In general I must commend WG dev for actually doing some proper work. Earlier work of WG on the class was straight up embarassing and many of the class problems were selfinflicted. This one at least looks like properly thought up. I find it funny that idea of playing from the point of view of planes is something I actually already was playing around in games with bots way back. You can try doing it on your own, the camera is garbage and you fight with everything just to stay in that view, but if I was trying to do it on my own years back it means that there is some inherit curiousity in this approach. The big draws to this idea really is the visual aspect (so something WG can deliver).

I do have a lot of the concerns regarding specific things like, if I want to play my carrier aggresively I need a good quick way to control it in a situation when it is in danger. The tactical map is absolutely not good enough and never will be good enough! So unless WG wants for people to play very defensively with their carrier, this has to be adresssed.

 

In general though, just because of how I like the main flow of the core loop. I will play this, I will come back to the game to try it. It looks proper, not something I will love, but concept of the fast response support attacker that has to have amazing map awarness. Might be fun, but I just kind of wished they went with the old guy with a map fantasy, the deep strategy layer.

 

Looks fun though

 

tldr; What I most wanted to talk about is the flow of the new concept in the flow section. So in general to analyse why I think this type of gameplay should be universaly liked. 
The other big part is that when you analyse the core of the presentation you see that they try to appease pilot fantasy with it and this creates dichotomy with the carrier fantasy those ships supposed to fulfill. That is why they will not be loved and by some they will be hated as it is betreyal of the concept.

  • Cool 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,303 posts
1,085 battles

Added section on fighters. I actually like the idea of them as consumable and it is a neat solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,772 battles

The biggest conceptional issues (all actual damage numbers aside for now as those can and will be tweaked) I'm seeing with the rework right now are the following three:

 

  • Manual aiming for ship AA - How much attention/focus will players have to put into this to create a somewhat effective defence to properly scale with their AA profile? If it takes lots of minute corrections as the attacking planes are dodging then the distraction value alone is going to directly reduce survivability as it's attention not spend to watching the enemy ships, angling etc.. If it takes too little effort then it's basically just maximum AA performance all game long and we're right back where we started with all or nothing AA that WG wanted to do away with.

 

  • Trading Alpha for DoT - The result is largely the same just that except for nuking a ship in one massive drop you instead strike it once, get a flood and force DCP, then come back again, get a another flooding and violá ... enjoy flooding back to port. The quality of life improvement (pun intended) for the victim is negligible at best unless WG completely overhauls the DoT numbers all the same (which is unlikely as that would mean a complete damage rebalance across the board really).

 

  • CV Strike meta coming back - With extremely limited fighter play and no more CV number limitations (or at least much more inclusive numbers per match) I foresee CV strikes becoming the new (old) norm again. Also probably going to be a comeback of CV divisions with a dedicated AA pet cruiser just to counter this and oh boy is that going to be fun for the AA pet just sitting there next to the CV for half the game.
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ICI]
[ICI]
Players
787 posts
4,490 battles
23 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

 

  • CV Strike meta coming back - With extremely limited fighter play and no more CV number limitations (or at least much more inclusive numbers per match) I foresee CV strikes becoming the new (old) norm again. Also probably going to be a comeback of CV divisions with a dedicated AA pet cruiser just to counter this and oh boy is that going to be fun for the AA pet just sitting there next to the CV for half the game.

You don't know that. Since WG have stated not knowing what to do with the ship yet. You might control the ship, or it might be placed as an base outside of the map. All of this is speculation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,279 posts
6,432 battles

I must say, it is the first time in years that carriers have peaked my interest. Really looks like something new, and i like the rockets... I am sure it will be something exciting to test. :Smile-_tongue:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
11,772 battles
18 minutes ago, Linkaex said:

[...] or it might be placed as an base outside of the map. [...]

And effectively reduce the CV player's ingame presence to one squadron of airplanes flying around with no way for the opposing team to attack it's source, just an infinite amount of strike potential all match long?

 

I don't think so.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BSDUK]
Players
14 posts
7,075 battles

I agree, this looks like a great step forward. The one concern I have is carriers being OP at the end of a battle. With infinite squadrons available to the CV, a ship that has had most of it's AA knocked out by HE during the battle will be easy pickings, whilst the CV will be able to fly full strength squadrons. I think it risks carriers being able to wipe out late game ships too easily. I do wonder if a cap should be placed on the number of planes a carrier can launch (which adds diversity to the different CV's in the game as well as makes CV players use their planes wisely) or the planes should get weaker over the duration of the battle to reflect the battle attrition that would have been incurred.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,545 posts
16,696 battles

While it looks fun and all, the problem I have with the rework is WG giving us only binary outcomes once again. If you make AA too strong CVs are practically worthless because they provide no real utility beyond striking. If you however allow a CV to strike whenever then they practically become capable of killing targets at will due to their extreme focus on dot stacking.

 

The latter scenario is clearly seen in the video. Most of the "losses" shown were actually planes returning to the CV after their ordinance is spent, getting automatically subtracted from the current squad (not sure if people realize that), the amount of planes shot down by AA was actually extremely pitiful across the board. S_O even said that the player that played in the video was rather bad so in more skilled hands it is likely to be even more effective than shown.

 

Unless they rebalance fires and flooding as well, likely to the detriment of the other classes, I can't see this turn out in an acceptable fashion.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NIKE]
Beta Tester
3,216 posts
6,518 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

While it looks fun and all, the problem I have with the rework is WG giving us only binary outcomes once again. If you make AA too strong CVs are practically worthless because they provide no real utility beyond striking. If you however allow a CV to strike whenever then they practically become capable of killing targets at will due to their extreme focus on dot stacking.

 

The latter scenario is clearly seen in the video. Most of the "losses" shown were actually planes returning to the CV after their ordinance is spent, getting automatically subtracted from the current squad (not sure if people realize that), the amount of planes shot down by AA was actually extremely pitiful across the board. S_O even said that the player that played in the video was rather bad so in more skilled hands it is likely to be even more effective than shown.

 

Unless they rebalance fires and flooding as well, likely to the detriment of the other classes, I can't see this turn out in an acceptable fashion.

In several of the runs the AA was turned off. MrConway me tioned he thought the close range AA was set to zero for the video.

 

The rocket strike on the zao (?) Was more telling. In addition to the 3 leaving after the initial strike, they also lose 4 to a flak cloud and another somewhere during the attack. This reduces it from 4 volleys down to 2 volleys + possibly a single plane volley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,545 posts
16,696 battles
14 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said:

The rocket strike on the zao (?) Was more telling.

 

The thing is that judging by the puffs you seem to be able to easily dodge them by simply tapping A and D. (Which to be fair a lot of players already fail at in ships.)

How effective close range AA is remains to be seen ofc.

 

Although murderous AA is contradictory to WG's goal as that'd turn people off from playing CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,464 posts
7,357 battles

I personally don't find the core concept promising at all. It's, as of now, RPG mini game level engaging and complex, with the whole novelty of it probably wearing off after 3-4 days, 2 weeks at best. The whole idea of using consumables as a way to diversify the gameplay is neither engaging nor exciting since it is pretty much "fire and forget" level. Yes, consumable use and decision making about it have the potential to be game changing but it still would simply be pushing a bottom and since tye system forcefully limit you to one squadron it limits your involvement completely. In fact, powerful consumables may make the carrier gameplay unforgiving because most players have no tactical and strategical sense, it'd be too difficult for them to properly identify when to use them. That is, unless WG allows to control more than one squad, which I highly doubt WG will allow, we'll see.

 

Of course I'll dive into this and participate in the beta with all my heart and good intentions because I'll probably end up playing this rework because my inner historical CV enthusiast demands it but it will probably be something I'd play sporadically, not something I'd dedicate my energies and attention as much as I do now.


 

Spoiler

 

Also, that was overly pompous and full of floriture for something that is basically Warthunder planes lite. Could have used way less words to describe the same.

 

 

 

PD: The only thing exciting me about this is the posibilities of CV cooperation, then again:

 

>Any WG title

>Teamplay

 

tch.png.39ebc5f18160356abe3ff05985b5ac09.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGNAV]
Players
264 posts
3,348 battles

For me they made a phone gameplay inside a PC game and they might as well switch the planes for dragons since it is so arcade that it might as well be a fantasy game...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

I agree with the point that CV play changed from being "too unforgiving and consequential" is a good thing.

 

I could not read anything meaningful from the rest.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,303 posts
1,085 battles

 

9 hours ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

I agree with the point that CV play changed from being "too unforgiving and consequential" is a good thing.

 

I could not read anything meaningful from the rest.

 

What I most wanted to talk about is the flow of the new concept in the flow section. So in general to analyse why I think this type of gameplay should be universaly liked. 
The other big part is that when you analyse the core of the presentation you see that they try to appease pilot fantasy with it and this creates dichotomy with the carrier fantasy those ships supposed to fulfill. That is why they will not be loved and by some they will be hated as it is betreyal of the concept.

 

Rest is fluff pretty much. I actually just spoilered all the stuff I don't consider essential to make it more readable. I agree that it was a bit of a incoherent ramble, but I am not playing anymore so I did not want to really spend a lot of time on writing proper essay.

 

22 hours ago, Aotearas said:

Trading Alpha for DoT - The result is largely the same just that except for nuking a ship in one massive drop you instead strike it once, get a flood and force DCP, then come back again, get a another flooding and violá ... enjoy flooding back to port. The quality of life improvement (pun intended) for the victim is negligible at best unless WG completely overhauls the DoT numbers all the same (which is unlikely as that would mean a complete damage rebalance across the board really).

Oh CVs most likely will still be hated by people who are attacked by them. Damage over time approach is not the best for the victim. Not to mention they still retained pretty much manual drop capabilities and finger of god philosophy which was annoying so many people ^^. 

Still this is more of a balance thing and if the core gameplay loop is as enjoyable as I think it is... You should be able to find middle ground. There is also one big element in the current concept. The replenishment of forces happens only after you use all attacks. So you can't attack someone, leave some forces in the air around to wait for repair and in the meantime recover attack planes you just used. If you wait for someone to repair, you are pretty much 100% spending your time on just that. I think this might limit how oppresive DOT approach is, but it is defenetily something to look out for if I were a dev.

 

The big thing is though, that even if you make CVs slightly underpowered, if the core gameplay loop is well designed, the population still will be there. Similarly if core loop is broken, even if the class is OP, it will not be very popular (like CVs were even at its prime OPness)

 

9 hours ago, Sigimundus said:

It is me or really most of CV avatar?  :cap_yes:

I am THE avatar fag of this forum. 

Spoiler

 

4aOWCML.jpg?1

Or at least was, when I was posting more. Please don't compare me with others.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,288 posts
15,196 battles

Great post, OP! :Smile_honoring:    Excellent description of the flow and emotions involved in the new mode.

We don't yet know how the final version of the rework will turn out. I just have hopes and fears at the moment.

  • I hope that more people play carriers and that it helps to "detoxify" them.
  • I'm glad that I get a chance to take my favourite real live ships  into battle - albeit only their aircraft (however they ARE their "raison d'être" after all). I hate the RTS style of the current carrier, which is the main reason for me not playing them.
  • I fear that the "AA fortress" will remain. Strong AA should be a build option, but I hate these extremes.
  • I'm sad that players who played the old (current) carriers and put effort into actually mastering them now have to face such a radical new style of play. I hope they get huge compensation.

 

Given the code is still there, is there ANY chance that WG could create an "old-style" Carrier v Carrier game with bots as support ships, so that people who prefer the current CV style could still have their fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
3,401 posts
8,787 battles
4 minutes ago, Admiral_H_Nelson said:

I fear that the "AA fortress" will remain. Strong AA should be a build option, but I hate these extremes.

If the rework results in more people playing CVs more consistently, it should make AA builds viable again - this might allow some better balancing, if we're lucky?

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
921 posts
14,635 battles
23 hours ago, Linkaex said:

You don't know that. Since WG have stated not knowing what to do with the ship yet. You might control the ship, or it might be placed as an base outside of the map. All of this is speculation. 

23 hours ago, Aotearas said:

And effectively reduce the CV player's ingame presence to one squadron of airplanes flying around with no way for the opposing team to attack it's source, just an infinite amount of strike potential all match long?

 

I don't think so.

I agree with Aotearas. The only kind of scenario where not having a "physical" ship but planes coming out of nowhere could work would be a standard random battle, or in some operations. I've seen many times in domination or epicentre the bulk of each team reaching the other team's spawn. How to determine the entering point for the squadron then? Not to mention the impotence of not being able to retaliate: I had a battle long ago where, due to faulty autopilot, my Shokaku ended within range of 3 BBs at the very beginning (around 3 minutes into the battle), and I'm sure they were more than happy about being able to reduce my HP to around 2k all by themselves, not being sunk because I managed to break contact.

 

Salute.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Weekend Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
4,920 posts
10,635 battles
13 hours ago, Ishiro32 said:

 

I am THE avatar fag of this forum. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

4aOWCML.jpg?1

Or at least was, when I was posting more. Please don't compare me with others.

 

 

 

 

Argh forum eat half of my message :cap_viking:

I want to write that there is some strange correlation because most of the CV main/good players have an anime avatar/profile photo on the forum :Smile_honoring:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,545 posts
16,696 battles
15 hours ago, Verblonde said:

If the rework results in more people playing CVs more consistently, it should make AA builds viable again - this might allow some better balancing, if we're lucky?

 

Honestly, lets hope that AA builds will be a thing of the past. Trying to balance the "possibility" of full immunity against one of the supposed core classes of the game has already ended in failure no matter how you look at it.

WG should've always balanced primarily using base values in the first place, not make players spend dozens of points and upgrades on AA.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
5,894 posts
7,229 battles
On 4.9.2018 at 5:23 AM, OVanBruce said:

PD: The only thing exciting me about this is the posibilities of CV cooperation, then again:

 

>Any WG title

>Teamplay

I bet there'll be more cooperation between the 1-3 CV players per team than between the 9-11 other folks who get singled out and sunk. Maybe not on a very high level, but "You left, me right" is likely something most other CVs would be fine with to coordinate a cross torp, if they realise it's beneficial and easy. Easier than coordinating an AA defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NSVE]
Players
220 posts
9,914 battles

Could this change the BB meta we now have to a cruiser meta? Could the AA changes make the US AA cruisers redundant or invaluable?

 

As we've seen a CV concept demo, I'd like to see a AAA concept demo. Seeing both sides of the coin might answer some questions before the pitch forks come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[K-H]
Players
8 posts
6,857 battles

The addition of a carrier into the game play always subtracts from my enjoyment of the game. I don't see this changing because of different game mechanics. 

 

It's simply not fun to be attacked by an enemy you can't really defend against. It's going to be like cruisers behind islands and in smokescreens only much much worse. 

 

At the moment the only defense against carriers is to group up with good AA ships, severely limiting your tactical freedom. It may seem like it should make the game more tactical, but this is not the case thing when most random battles are ether lemming trains or as coordinated as a herd of cats.

 

Carrier play is like arty in world of tanks. It's introducing a mini game into the greater game. It hasn't worked til now and I don't see this as being any different. Having such wildly different game mechanics introduces two classes of player, the ship captain and the pilot. They are not playing the same game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×