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

Preserving RTS CV - Action CV in parallel?

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[UNICS]
Beta Tester
14 posts
4,705 battles

Dear community :cap_horn:

 

now that we have finally have seen the concepts of the "CV rework", there has been a multitude of different reactions:

  • curiosity, from all sides: about the good-looking action CV gameplay, especially AA clouds and the close third-person view
  • criticism: that certain DoT effects might be too strong, that the mode with one squadron is not complex enough and therefore fun and engaging over the long run
  • resignation, from parts of the CV community: the assumption that developers will not listen to forum comments to a satisfactory extent, and therefore holding premature funeral addresses on the old mode while the new one is still in the prototype stage.

 

I want to highlight a couple of points regarding the RTS mode, and argue it does not have to be dead necessarily.

  • In recent times, RTS CV balance between nations has improved a lot, especially at high tiers. Ever since the US CV rebalance and the subsequent changes, at tier X, both Hakuryu and Midway have become valid choices, for their different reasons, and are used in Ranked as well (some minor over-the-top mistakes like Worcester AA or Haku legendary module not included). Wargaming seemed to have started to get an understanding of how to balance ships in this mode; and it would be a comparatively easy task to extend this down the tiers to give new CV players a balanced experience (for example: revisit the air control balance at tiers 4-7; e.g. remove the 312 Ryujo, give the Ranger more fighters in the squadron, reintroduce at least manual fighter controls for tier 4 and 5, decrease strike squad sizes or torp alpha for tier 4 and 5 etc.)
  • Good counter play against CVs is happening at high tiers. AA cruisers usually spawn towards different caps and deny a lot of area at the start, while people have learned to stay together. It would be easy for WG to make low tier players aware of such counter play (e.g. make a play time helper system like in the Total War series, which for example says things like "Ecce! Aircraft carrier present. Stay in groups for defense!", "Planes heading our way. Get ready to dodge now!" with respective danger indicators, "Planes getting close. Use the Defensive AA when they get in range!" or even "Cruiser, stay close to fleet mates to protect them from planes!", and increase the cruiser AA and def AA consumables at mid tier.)
  • RTS CV offers a good level of variety to other ships' gameplay: In terms of vision, that works both ways. Both teams have more targets to shoot, as opposed to waiting for something to get spotted. It also forces teamplay, so players must play closer to each other and more around cover. And that is what a game of WoWS should be about: it not playing out the same for each map, but having as many influences that can change the way people make decisions. High vision games are not a problem, as WG is thinking.
  • There is a CV player base that used 500h, or 1000h+ to learn the system, and which is still here especially because WoWS has an RTS-like system that challenges their strategic thinking and multitasking. RTS CV is a system which has its own appeal for game variety's sake. WG will throw that out of the window when completely replacing the CV system, and make everyone start new and unskilled, dumbing down the game experience and wasting players' precious time and muscle memory. Let's put it that way: If I play football and my club closes, I look for another club that plays football by the same rules a learned to get good at. This option doesn't exist for WoWS CVs, unfortunately.
  • The main criticism that CVs do too much alpha can be in many cases mitigated by teaching counter play - a good CV will not strike a blob with too much AA because of plane losses, and if a Def AA cruiser gets deleted, he likely made the mistake of timing his Def AA wrong. Also, AP bombs can be rebalanced and BBs with great vulnerability (Tirpitz, Bismarck, Friedrich, Kurfürst, North Carolina (in terms of GZ AP)) could receive a Def AA (maybe a CV-like one with very long lasting time, but probably without the damage boost)

 

After all, I assert after this that RTS CVs still have to offer far more to the game than the problems they cause, and therefore it is unnecessary to remove them.

 

For this reason I petition WG to find a middle ground between the new and the old system, and keep both in the game. The new system has its appeals, as does the old one. The solution could look like this:

  • There is a switch or modules to allow the CV player choose if he* wants to play RTS or Action mode.
  • There are different matchmaker queues for RTS and Action CVs. A matchmade game can either be with RTS CV (with the current limitations), or with multiple Action CVs (without limitations, as dev stated).
  • AA values for action mode could be seperately balanced by a factor, or purely by plane health on the Action module of each CV
  • Also, it would remove the necessity for WG to give out excessive refunds.

Additionally, it would be possible to

  • introduce counter-divisions for RTS CV (division of two CVs, same tier, to play against each other in randoms) for a better CV to teach a worse one
  • introduce the aforementioned runtime tutorial system for all modes, including RTS CV.

 

Both systems will have their different playerbases, which are people interested in a respective different kind of gameplay, and are partly disjunct - in terms of player retention and game content, this might be the most sensible solution, while removing a whole mode is the sledgehammer method Wargaming is sadly known for. At last, the argument is that for a game that people may spend hundreds of euros on over its lifespan, ergo multiple times as much as on a usual AAA title, players may expect that level of tactfulness towards their progress in the game they enjoy.

I seriously hope Wargaming will therefore reconsider their plans, and thank you all for the attention. :cap_rambo:

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC-DK]
Players
2,066 posts
23,555 battles

Afraid this will never work in practice. Simply by in the new system AA is going to be reworked too. Don't think the two modes needed will be compatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC-DK]
Players
2,066 posts
23,555 battles

How about the surface ships how do you want them to opt out of meeting RTS CV's??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHN-P]
Players
9 posts
9,619 battles

I agree, keeping the RTS CV in game while slowly improves the Action CV is a good idea. If WG makes the new Action CV real fun to play, maybe people will stop playing RTS CV.

In this way, players who liked the current CV play style will feel less abandoned. Such players makes at least 5% of the player base, many of them are hard-core players.

 

But with the CV rework comes the AA rework. Keeping 2 kinds of different CVs can be challenging for the new AA mechanism. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
900 posts
4,142 battles

Branch off RTS CV into its own standalone title for hardcore fans, continue arcade ships for those who want it. Share premium time and doubloons between the titles so players can try both with the same bonuses. The only die-hard fans of RTS CVs appear to be those players who can dominate a battle with them, which is exactly why they're so broken right now.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC-DK]
Players
2,066 posts
23,555 battles

Last thing people need is to have more things to confuse them.... 2 different systems is bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester, Sailing Hamster
226 posts

It won't be possible to have two systems for CVs due to balancing reasons. Also, the RTS concept has serious problems and could never be balanced. The gap between good and poor players was always too big, especially because playing a CV is a 1vs1 most of the time.

 

The new CV concept will avoid the problem of 1vs1 battles, because there are only AI controlled fighters.

 

Regarding the concerns: It is far too early to even think about balancing. What we have seen is just a preview on how the new concept could work. The damage numbers we have seen are not relevant at all, since there hasn't been any balancing yet. It doesn't matter if, for example, a torpedo does 1 damage or 100000. It is just a gameplay preview without any balancing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
14 posts
4,705 battles
10 minutes ago, hgbn_dk said:

Afraid this will never work in practice. Simply by in the new system AA is going to be reworked too. Don't think the two modes needed will be compatible.

 

I remember the dev saying on stream they are looking into using the same AA values for the Action gameplay. So in theory there should be no problem keeping the mechanics in place.

They could even get the new AA explosion feature into the old system; would shake up things a bit. (As we saw, we can't even manually control altitude in the new system, so all happens in a 2D plane that the game specifies. So it should be no problem to keep the mechanics the same)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester, Sailing Hamster
226 posts
Gerade eben, PhysixGER sagte:

 

I remember the dev saying on stream they are looking into using the same AA values for the Action gameplay. So in theory there should be no problem keeping the mechanics in place.

They could even get the new AA explosion feature into the old system; would shake up things a bit. (As we saw, we can't even manually control altitude in the new system, so all happens in a 2D plane that the game specifies. So it should be no problem to keep the mechanics the same)

 

Again: It is an early preview. Things can still change. To be honest, I would like to be able to change altitude. I think it should be possible to dodge AA fire by changing course and altitude and I hope the devs will implement it during the further developement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
14 posts
4,705 battles
9 minutes ago, Arty_McFly said:

It won't be possible to have two systems for CVs due to balancing reasons. Also, the RTS concept has serious problems and could never be balanced. The gap between good and poor players was always too big, especially because playing a CV is a 1vs1 most of the time.

 

The new CV concept will avoid the problem of 1vs1 battles, because there are only AI controlled fighters.

I disagree with the "1vs1" thing. At tier X, cruiser AA and therefore AA cruiser bubble positioning is far more dangerous to CV strikes than the enemy CV. If it's a guy with 2-3 fighter squadrons, you can get these locked up or killed by fighter micro, creating the space you need to strike. Against AA cruisers, the only thing you can do is bait the Def AA. Also, the aspect of having to micro against the enemy CV is one of the main fun things in the mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
894 posts
11,126 battles

The only thing I could see (and want, too) is the old CVs getting a switch in Training Room for the "classic" rts-mode, but WG probably won't bother with this either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
14 posts
4,705 battles
12 minutes ago, hgbn_dk said:

Last thing people need is to have more things to confuse them.... 2 different systems is bad

What will be the difference? Your average low tier player who doesn't know much about the game will see squadrons coming towards him which drops torpedos or bombs, in the new and the old mode (assume that in the new mode there will be multiple CVs on each side per game!). He won't influence the AA dps that much anyway, so the number of planes shot down will be the same for either CV type. And the approximately 60kn torps dropped by the "new" torpedo bomber are even harder to dodge than the old ones.

After all, when WG wants to make a mode that is "planes against ships", as they want, the Action CV players will expect to do be able to do high damage to BBs and CAs (well, now a bit spread out over time), but, hence still none of them will stop crying anyway. Tier X CVs will still expect to do their 100k+ per game, otherwise no one will play them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC-DK]
Players
2,066 posts
23,555 battles

Just one question. How do you expect people playing the other classes volunteering  to chose to play against multiple squadrons, when they will only face one with the new system??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CU]
Players
133 posts
12,891 battles

Would love them to do this as I do (at times) enjoy the stress of it all - will miss playing current style of CV. Sadly that one blob of bombers would just get strafed down unless they removed fighters from the RTS CV as well (and give them the AI consumable maybe). Aint gonna happen but nice idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
14 posts
4,705 battles
23 minutes ago, hgbn_dk said:

Just one question. How do you expect people playing the other classes volunteering  to chose to play against multiple squadrons, when they will only face one with the new system??

The dev said that they want to remove the limitations on CVs for the action mode completely. Means there can be up to 12 CVs per team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,103 posts

I've said for some time that the current CV's simply don't work in the game (apologists stand down, they don't, unless you regard the comical stomps as working), but that they could work with a few UI improvements and played in their own dedicated RTS game mode. Give each CV a small fleet of bot AA ships they can station like their plane squads and then you could have 5v5 CV games playing things like the Battle of Midway.

 

It would be great fun, easy to balance, the bot AA values could be set simply, and there wouldn't be any issues of it screwing up the surface ship game.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CU]
Players
133 posts
12,891 battles
51 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

I've said for some time that the current CV's simply don't work in the game (apologists stand down, they don't, unless you regard the comical stomps as working), but that they could work with a few UI improvements and played in their own dedicated RTS game mode. Give each CV a small fleet of bot AA ships they can station like their plane squads and then you could have 5v5 CV games playing things like the Battle of Midway.

 

It would be great fun, easy to balance, the bot AA values could be set simply, and there wouldn't be any issues of it screwing up the surface ship game.

We could add lanes and a handful of heroic bot ships into the mix. Maybe some towers and some global consumables to boost your fleet at times. 1v1 much easier to ladder as well. I support this plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
14 posts
4,705 battles
4 minutes ago, Muppeteer said:

We could add lanes and a handful of heroic bot ships into the mix. Maybe some towers and some global consumables to boost your fleet at times. 1v1 much easier to ladder as well. I support this plan.

League of Carriers. Nice idea. With actual space ships :cap_haloween:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AXIS]
Beta Tester
4,070 posts
17,316 battles

What I said, CV had too much impact on a game compared to other ships, and it had to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
366 posts
1,500 battles
2 hours ago, Strappster said:

Branch off RTS CV into its own standalone title for hardcore fans, continue arcade ships for those who want it. Share premium time and doubloons between the titles so players can try both with the same bonuses.

While I agree that it would be a bad idea to keep.both systems in one game, 'World of Aircraft Carriers' might be a good idea. One could, I imagine, make some changes that inter-class balance makes difficult in WOWS. Total War Arena or whatever it's called already exists in the WG 'collection' as a top-down strategy game with multiple players controling multiple units at once, so maybe not impossible...

 

I can't say I'd necessarily play it, for the same reasons as I don't play CVs atm or TWA (basically, I think I'd suck [EDIT: yes, more than I do already] andher – mainly DD – gameplay appeals to me more), but would certainly look at the finished product with an open mind. Obviously it all depends on whether WG reckon there's sufficient profit in it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,299 posts
1,085 battles

Ug8ef5g.jpg?1

 

No

 

RTS carrier gameplay was so messed up from design perspective that rework of the whole system was the only possible solution for the balance. Sheer existance of CVs warped everything and WG in their infinite wisdom decided to throw gallons of fuel of this dumpster fire of a class for the last 3-4 years. Even if they wanted to do CVs as RTS, everything would still have had to be reworked. There was just too many issues with current implementation on the most basic levels. Accept it

 

I do think that WG should appease more strategic inclined players by adding more support oriented consumables to the core gameplay they presented recently. So smokescreen planes working similar as they made fighter consumable. Fire fighter planes or other stuff like that. Just make sure that all "consumable" planes are not "summoned" buy called to fly from your CV in a way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CU]
Players
133 posts
12,891 battles

I accept that some people will say "kill it, kill it now" to RTS CVs but putting it as an option in the game as a 1v1 thing would not be a bad thing. Many games have subgames (think of your own examples) and the tech exists.

 

Keep it.

 

Ladder it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×