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

Why the CV re-work is a wont-work.

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
2,830 posts
17,286 battles

 

Why it (IMHO) wont work ?


the super short answer is:

cause its not radical enough

 

the somewhat longer answer is:

Cause WG is repeating the same mistake again as they did with the original CV system!

They have a Game in the Game!

and  here it doesnt matter if that sub-game is RTS or if that sub-game is Action focused

 

the problem that will persist is that gameplay and learned skills do not carry over from the original to the sub-game and vice versa!

 gameplay will be to detached from one another 

 

so at this point youre probably asking what then??

since criticism without a proposal what to do better should not be taken seriously ill give  a verry brief sketch what (IMHO) could work.

 

ONE thing that could work is

cv's shooting squads like super slow but homing shells (e.g. the squad will hit and drop if the target staysdetected till it arrives or is in spotting distance)

the focus would be that the armament is special but piloting and target selection and (partly)spoting would be shared with other classes.

 

TLDR:

game within a game is terrible

 changing from RTS to Acation does solve the core problem.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,624 posts
16,740 battles

Unless you're talking about the very basics, which every :etc_swear: should be able to learn regardless of whether they're transferable or not, the skills learned when playing a BB don't transfer to playing a DD either.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,556 posts
8,240 battles

What do you suggest about the "game within a game"? I guess that would basically mean, to lose all direct controll over the aircrafts, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,830 posts
17,286 battles
18 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

What do you suggest about the "game within a game"? I guess that would basically mean, to lose all direct controll over the aircrafts, right?

 

yes right

you do not need to controll the planes to make it exciting game play  there are so many options  to do this  if youre creative

 

also another problem is introducing skill into avoiding aa is just recreating the problem of high vs low skilled cvs by other means....

 

as i said its not radical enough.

 

[edit]

also i wonder why anyone thinks stuffing a less popular game that was entirely overhauled into another game will make it better

WOWP is basically proof that even a better version of the new CV gameplay is not that exciting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

Well since WG won't let CVs play in CW and they never will in the current format then why not go even further?

 

Just remove CVs completely and refund everyone for their time and effort...

 

It also makes you wonder if this new format has a place in CW as any good team of 7 is going to focus the hell out of that single squadron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,887 posts
10,798 battles
6 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

Well since WG won't let CVs play in CW and they never will in the current format then why not go even further?

 

Just remove CVs completely and refund everyone for their time and effort...

 

It also makes you wonder if this new format has a place in CW as any good team of 7 is going to focus the hell out of that single squadron.

 

Sub_Octavian said that after the rework is completed, they will see if there is a place for CVs in CW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,556 posts
8,240 battles
6 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

yes right

you do not need to controll the planes to make it exciting game play  there are so many options  to do this  if youre creative

 

also another problem is introducing skill into avoiding aa is just recreating the problem of high vs low skilled cvs by other means....

 

as i said its not radical enough.

 

Interesting. I needed to think about that for a moment, it actually doesnt sound that bad. It would eliminate CV-sniping (which will be a thing with the rework, im pretty sure) and give the CV a completly new role. Also, I agree, it would make transition between classes, looking at the gameplay, super easy. It would be basically like playing a sniping BB. All you need to figure out, is, how to balance the damage those squads are doing to the targets. But since especially BBs have a huge range on RNG, where you can do anything from 0 to devastating strikes, that shouldnt be a huge problem.

 

5 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

Well since WG won't let CVs play in CW and they never will in the current format then why not go even further?

 

Just remove CVs completely and refund everyone for their time and effort...

 

It also makes you wonder if this new format has a place in CW as any good team of 7 is going to focus the hell out of that single squadron.

 

I think this CV-rework as announced might have huge impact to the gameplay. Some things are hard to estimate at this moment. I have huge headache about T4 to T7 gameplay. There are a lot of CVs around atm. Its not so much the damage they bring to the table, but the spotting. Spotting of DDs especially. On higher tiers you have Radar. Who is going to spot the DDs in the future? And yea, there will be the one, unlucky DD that gets spotted by that one squadron and then tortured.

And yea, from what I yesterday saw I dont think that CVs will have a place in competitions. They dont seem to bring enough to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,529 posts
11,480 battles
1 hour ago, Gojuadorai said:

(...)

cv's shooting squads like super slow but homing shells (e.g. the squad will hit and drop if the target staysdetected till it arrives or is in spotting distance)

the focus would be that the armament is special but piloting and target selection and (partly)spoting would be shared with other classes.

(...)

Nice try, we all know what you really want :Smile_trollface:

350?cb=20150201084646

  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,509 posts
6,850 battles
1 hour ago, Gojuadorai said:

changing from RTS to Acation does solve the core problem

It kind of does....at least to an extent....

The current problem is that it's impossible to balance the current CV gameplay and that it has little to no appeal (visual or otherwise) to encourage new players to try it. The change might not solve all problems, but it sure as hell fixes a lot more than it causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,556 posts
8,240 battles
1 minute ago, domen3 said:

The current problem is that it's impossible to balance the current CV gameplay and it has little to no appeal (visual or otherwise) to encourage new players to try it. The change might not solve all problems, but it sure as hell fixes a lot more than it causes.

 

But do you think the new style is more attractive? For me, personally, its not (and I didnt even play the current CVs :cat_paw:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,509 posts
6,850 battles
Just now, ForlornSailor said:

 

But do you think the new style is more attractive? For me, personally, its not (and I didnt even play the current CVs :cat_paw:)

I do, yes. When (most) people want to try new things, they tend to look for the action. I think that one of many things that also discourages players from trying CVs is the fact that they're (at least visually) so far away from the battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,565 posts
10,242 battles
1 hour ago, Gojuadorai said:

 

Why it (IMHO) wont work ?


the super short answer is:

cause its not radical enough

 

 

 

 

 

What is radical enough in your opinion?
Considering I do play CVs, and I see nothing same as before.. I do not know how to call these changes but radical.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,624 posts
16,740 battles
7 minutes ago, domen3 said:

I think that one of many things that also discourages players from trying CVs is the fact that they're (at least visually) so far away from the battle.

 

Current low tier CV population is actually pretty healthy. Seeing CVs is a regular occurence down there in my experience.

Now there can be a plethora of reasons as to why many don't "survive" into mid or even high tiers. Getting demolished by unicums, literal AA wall starting at T6, high learning curve that the game never tells you about, the :etc_swear: UI making itself more apparent since you get more squads to manage, etc. etc. etc.

 

But since enough people are willing to give CVs a try to sustain low tier matches it means the concept in itself is actually a success initially, but fails hard later on. That never got addressed regardless of how many times we've complained about it. In fact it only got worse over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,830 posts
17,286 battles
14 minutes ago, domen3 said:

It kind of does....at least to an extent....

The current problem is that it's impossible to balance the current CV gameplay and that it has little to no appeal (visual or otherwise) to encourage new players to try it. The change might not solve all problems, but it sure as hell fixes a lot more than it causes.

 

well i agree its a bit better  and it will revive CVs for a while and then CV will be either dead or broken (too good to not play)

i think ultimately most of the problems will resurface because the underlying problem that gameplay is to different

 

3 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

What is radical enough in your opinion?
Considering I do play CVs, and I see nothing same as before.. I do not know how to call these changes but radical.

 

for people like you i specifically stated that.... if you dont even bother to read the whole post why answer it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D_R_M]
Players
905 posts
17,165 battles
51 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

It would eliminate CV-sniping

Just so great with a game that try to eliminate what CVs actually did in real balanced battles. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UTW]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
8,752 posts
7,249 battles
10 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Current low tier CV population is actually pretty healthy. Seeing CVs is a regular occurence down there in my experience.

Now there can be a plethora of reasons as to why many don't "survive" into mid or even high tiers. Getting demolished by unicums, literal AA wall starting at T6, high learning curve that the game never tells you about, the :etc_swear: UI making itself more apparent since you get more squads to manage, etc. etc. etc.

 

But since enough people are willing to give CVs a try to sustain low tier matches it means the concept in itself is actually a success initially, but fails hard later on. That never got addressed regardless of how many times we've complained about it. In fact it only got worse over time.

Honestly, I played Kaga a bit for a change of pace lately (sold all my CVs except Kaga and Saipan and I was at Taiho).

 

Actually, it's not the UI, it's not the gameplay and it's not even the AA that put me off the most when playing CV.

From my perspective, what keep me the most from playing CV is that you actually have a global view of the battlefield. And so you can see your team royally f*cking up and losing every single advantage while you desperately try to save what can be salvaged.

 

Yesterday for instance, playing Kaga, there was 4 DD in the game, and the matchmaking was tier 6-8 against a Ranger. I dominated the fighter squadrons of the Ranger, I almost got the first blood on one of the Bismarck (it got finished seconds after my first strike), I permaspotted all four enemy DD and killed three of them, including two devastating strike, and did 123k damage. I didn't deny many strike from the Ranger, but I tried my best to cover our own DD.

Yet we lost. We lost because our DD overextended, because our BB fled all objectives, and because at some point I had two Bismarck line J, behind my own CV. And that makes me so freaking mad. I get terribly mad every time this happens when playing CV. You win the aerial battle, but even with almost a kill per plane rotation you still lose because your team die even quicker.

 

In a way, a more action focused gameplay will really rekindle my interest in this class, because I may see a bit less my team screwing up from above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,565 posts
10,242 battles
Just now, Gojuadorai said:

 

well i agree its a bit better  and it will revive CVs for a while and then CV will be either dead or broken (too good to not play)

i think ultimately most of the problems will resurface because the underlying problem that gameplay is to different

 

 

for people like you i specifically stated that.... if you dont even bother to read the whole post why answer it

Why it (IMHO) wont work ?

Ok I will have in mind that it is YOUR opinion.


the super short answer is:

cause its not radical enough

Not radical enough? I don't know what to answer, everything changed.

 

the somewhat longer answer is:

Cause WG is repeating the same mistake again as they did with the original CV system!

Not really.

 

They have a Game in the Game!

And? It will be always like that.

 

and  here it doesnt matter if that sub-game is RTS or if that sub-game is Action focused

Does matter.

 

the problem that will persist is that gameplay and learned skills do not carry over from the original to the sub-game and vice versa!

 gameplay will be to detached from one another 

No idea what to answer.

 

so at this point youre probably asking what then??

Yes I do, when you have critics probably you know what should be done.

 

since criticism without a proposal what to do better should not be taken seriously ill give  a verry brief sketch what (IMHO) could work.

Enlight us.

 

ONE thing that could work is

cv's shooting squads like super slow but homing shells (e.g. the squad will hit and drop if the target staysdetected till it arrives or is in spotting distance)

the focus would be that the armament is special but piloting and target selection and (partly)spoting would be shared with other classes.

LUL.

 

TLDR:

game within a game is terrible

 changing from RTS to Acation does solve the core problem.

 

Game within game is awesome. I like to compete vs enemy carrier. With new version there will be less of that.

Changing from RTS to action solve:
Uber devastating power.

Outplaying enemy cv so hard.

Less influence if CV is bad.

Infinite reserves.

 

 

 

Your proposal to solve those problems is even worse than wargamings. sorry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BBMM]
Players
939 posts
4,429 battles
49 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

also another problem is introducing skill into avoiding aa is just recreating the problem of high vs low skilled cvs by other means....

A skilled player should be able to out-play an unskilled one, that's the benefit of experience. The problem we have with the current state of CVs is that a good CV player can dominate an entire battle rather than a single engagement and if you've got a poor CV player facing him, that battle is as good as lost early on as the good player quickly gains control of both vision and the map for his team by spotting, taking out DDs, air superiority, etc.

 

To extend the example to another class, a good DD player should win a one-on-one encounter with a poor DD player in the same ship, same captain skills, etc. What we have at the moment, however, is the good DD player going on to score a Kraken and racking up 200k damage with little to stop him because the only direct counter was the other DD. Even if someone gets lucky and sinks the good DD it doesn't matter because he'll have another in the same battle 30s later.

 

The changes to CVs appear radical because they are - it's a complete reworking of the class and yes, there's an arcade focus but that's to be expected for an arcade game. Good CV play right now is locked behind a skill wall so high that Trump has asked to copy the plans.

 

I think there will be some transferable skills, knowing how much lead to give, where to hit a ship for the best results for the ordnance you're delivering (e.g. torpedoes on bow to guarantee flooding, rockets into superstructure for easier pens) and there's still an awful lot that needs to be addressed before the changes are ready for testing, not least how spotting will work and how fighters can be deployed (I'm not a fan of the click-here approach described yesterday) but as someone who's dabbled with current CVs enough to see the skill wall even at tier 6, I think it's a positive move for the game and look forward to seeing how it'll polish up.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D_R_M]
Players
905 posts
17,165 battles
1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

 

5bf.jpg

As in battles where both sides had about the same amount of effective aircraft carriers, that was four battles at least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLOBS]
Beta Tester
5,161 posts
11,433 battles
1 hour ago, Negativvv said:

Well since WG won't let CVs play in CW and they never will in the current format then why not go even further?

 

Just remove CVs completely and refund everyone for their time and effort...

 

It also makes you wonder if this new format has a place in CW as any good team of 7 is going to focus the hell out of that single squadron.

How do tehy track how much you paid for captain retraining ect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,624 posts
16,740 battles
5 minutes ago, steviln said:

the same amount of effective aircraft carriers

 

Because all CVs were created to be as equal and balanced as possible.

Just face it already, applying realism to an arcade game is hilarious at best. And no, WG will never make WoWs anything close to a simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[D_R_M]
Players
905 posts
17,165 battles
1 minute ago, El2aZeR said:

Because all CVs were created to be as equal and balanced as possible.

Just face it already, applying realism to an arcade game is hilarious at best. And no, WG will never make WoWs anything close to a simulator.

You have never been able to understand that there is a difference between something being a simulation, and something resembling the theme it is depicting. Why base something on a theme if you will have no resemblance with the theme at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
2 minutes ago, Spellfire40 said:

How do tehy track how much you paid for captain retraining ect?

Well yes that's the thing... 

 

I've grinded 4 CV captains to 15+ pts so that's a lot of time poured into a dead class now as the rework is that much of a departure. 

 

I get why WG are doing this even if personally I disagree. Guess we should wait until release before deciding if we want refunds.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PARAZ]
Beta Tester
11,624 posts
16,740 battles
Just now, steviln said:

Why base something on a theme if you will have no resemblance with the theme at all?

 

Because it earns you more money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×