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

Fara vs WG Lead Designer on CV rework

149 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[ADRIA]
Players
402 posts
11,218 battles

fara: "here is a list of well argumented ideas and suggestions"

 

Wg lead game designer: "nope"

 

 

 

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
746 posts
2,918 battles

The extremely worrying thing is, the arguments and feelings currently flying around the reworked cvs, are pretty much exactly the same as artillery in world of tanks and that game has been trying to fix it for 8 years with no success at all.

 

Carriers have now become that no risk safe reward class that is detrimental to gameplay, brings great frustration for both sides, and makes no one happy.

 

its not a matter of balancing, cvs are now the same concept as artillery is in world of tanks and they have tried to fix that for the better part of 8 years now, with no success, because it is simply impossible to do so. Nerfing damage doesnt work, because it is still just as annoying taking damage from something that you are completely powerless about, it is extremely frustrating having to play the entire match around a "ship" which is limiting every action you take with no risk to itself. Same goes for the other side of the fence aswell, cause what happens is that people rant about cvs, so wargaming has the brilliant idea of just nerfing their damage, it removes no frustration for surface ships, it just makes cv players frustrated with low damage.

 

This cv rework is just a massive deja vu, same arguments, same frustrations as arty in wot, and as proven by wot, completely unfixable while keeping the concept.

  • Cool 23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TRID]
Players
85 posts
3,850 battles
22 minutes ago, quickr said:

fara: "here is a list of well argumented ideas and suggestions"

 

Wg lead game designer: "nope"

 

 

 

Sounds like our situation in PS2 all over again, same stuff different game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
746 posts
2,918 battles
4 minutes ago, TheAlba2014 said:

Sounds like our situation in PS2 all over again, same stuff different game

Robocraft also comes to mind.

 

Veterans: No dont do that, it will ruind the game

 

robocraft: *does it*

 

robocraft: *Loses over half its playerbase*

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
774 posts
4,773 battles

"Auto pilot always gets me beached"

 

I had a laugh about that remark as beaching big ships IRL is a most serious thing but not babysitting autopilot it will do that so he's right. He is right on a lot of things.

 

But he and we are not the game's designers, we don't get to decide how the game is set up. Still a good thing to let the devs know what may not be the best features or mechanics, but we can't force them to do anything however wrong they may be.

 

 

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
1,657 posts
6,503 battles

Auto consumables don't work.

 

In a game my Langley was detected, I took off some planes to try to deal with it, as I was making a turn over my cv I saw fighter planes taking off.

Why?

What Fighter planes gonna do to whatever (surface ships) is spotting me?.

 

The AI don't know where and when I want to press r.

Sometimes it's a matter of waiting a little and then press r. But no, the moronic AI press r for myself and then I can watch the cv catching fire again.

 

Taking the control out of the player's hands made it harder.

 

And as is, forcing the player to focus in one squadron, modifying that squadron in such ways t (like 1 torp per strike e.g.) the learning curve is steeper than before.

 

Noobs vs Unicoms , part II  

 

But thanks to fara I can see now that putting things back in the new gameplay... that ships has sailed.

 

Before I was achieving things (in co-op) now I don't do a thing (in co-op)

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,476 posts
14,599 battles

I think farazelleth is correct. 

 

 

WG - Seriously speaking, it's a bad idea to make so strong statements.

WG -Nope.

WG -Nope.

WG -Nope.

  • Cool 10
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TRID]
Players
85 posts
3,850 battles
7 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Robocraft also comes to mind.

 

Veterans: No dont do that, it will ruind the game

 

robocraft: *does it*

 

robocraft: *Loses over half its playerbase*

I'm hoping things will stabilise over the next few weeks/months with the CV rework and what they decide to do with the GC. In the meantime I'm spending my gaming time and money elsewhere at the moment, while keeping an eye on here as to how things proceed.

 

Let's hope WoWS hasn't went down the path of those games.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
15,926 posts
11,172 battles

I just talked with clanmates about this.

I was under the impression that the current control scheme was only temporary and WG would make it possible in the future to switch between planes and ships and back again.

If they plan to leave it like this, it is bad game design.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DSPA]
Players
387 posts
2,642 battles

Fara's questions were for a large part opinionated and most of the times the 'nope' was about the opinion in his questions. That's how I read the 'nope' answers. 

 

After a time I stopped watching. Also his argumention in the beginning was contradicting.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,357 posts
11,267 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

I just talked with clanmates about this.

I was under the impression that the current control scheme was only temporary and WG would make it possible in the future to switch between planes and ships and back again.

If they plan to leave it like this, it is bad game design.

I could understand this approach as "that's how it should work" in one - and only one - situation: if they actually planned to introduce CV hybrids and perhaps even make the normal CVs more "hybrid-y". As in: introduce CVs that have some actual main armaments and for the existing ones give the player direct control over the (biggest) secondaries, though probably not with very good stats...

But the hybrids are so far a big "maybe" and I'm almost 100% sure we won't see the normal CVs with main batteries, no matter how gimped.

 

Unfortunately, WG side has been pretty vehement about not allowing direct control of CV. To the point where forget steering - you sometimes don't even know if your genius autopilot decided to reverse or go forward and turn. I'm sure there's some method to that but for me it sometimes seems random. And at least once I died because I was sure I'd go reverse... and, well, I didn't, my CV gleefully sailed forwards to meet the coming enemy fleet  :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,471 posts
10,088 battles

I am old RTS player. I loved it, and I understand it is not for everyone. Doesn't take much time to figure out I am not that happy with rework overall, but that is my personal taste. I think old style had more charm... and gosh I hate droping 2,3,4 torps and rest of squadron is behind me.  :cap_fainting:
Also I am not fond of auto controls for consumables or even ship. I think I have enough awerness to do it myself, yet no one left me option to pick if I  want or AI.

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
774 posts
4,773 battles

You can actually use the simple autopilot to go nearly everywere you like, including back up. For backing up you just draw a straight line over your CV to behind your carrier...it will go in reverse. For anything else just plot a course with waypoints, can be done in a few seconds. For fine movements around islands just not let it make huge turns at high speed.....it is a big ship and it doenst turn well, doesn't do that in direct control either....

 

I have my opinion about the fun of auto-consumables but i have not lost a ship that i could have saved having full control instead of auto consumables.  I think this auto-stuff works well enough in combination with the tremendous arsenal of AA carriers have, and they can auto-launch fighters too. The only thing you can do is have the carriers speed out of harms way anyway ( auto pilot with waypoints good enough ) or go back in direct control and evade torpedo's yourself.

  • Bad 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,701 posts
7,341 battles

Haven't watched it all but I do feel that Farra is getting overly fixated on hull control.

 

It's a nuisance, there's no logical reason for it, it doesn't enhance gameplay but in terms of balance issues it's like worrying about the wine list on the Titanic, we may not have 1945 Mouton Rothschild available but you're going to be dead in 20 minutes anyway so can I recommend the 1970 Coq du Rod Laver.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,199 posts
14,454 battles

"Removing any control from the player towards automation is just wrong."

"Nope."

 

I am unsure whether to laugh or cry.

  • Cool 14
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
1,807 posts
9,603 battles
4 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

"Removing any control from the player towards automation is just wrong."

Tbh, I am quite amazed the new targeted AA with sectors isn't fully automatic.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,018 posts
7,773 battles

I feel like it's a 25-minute video about stuff that are REALLY niche problems with the CV rework.

 

I really don't need the hull control (without recalling the current plane squadron). I guess sometimes, but it's a scenario that's more like a 1-in-100 than a 1-in-10 game thing. Almost always just periodically resetting your autopilot waypoints from M view (which you CAN do without recalling the planes) will keep your ship out of trouble. 

 

I'd be 99% happy if we just got some improvements to the autopilot and the M view:

  • tie WASD when in M view to the hull, so we can use W+S to adjust hull speed 
  • maybe allow zooming of the M view with mouse wheel, so we can better set tight routes
  • make the autopilot do less dumb stuff in general.

Automated hull consumables -- I guess again I agree in principle, but not a big deal.

 

It needs to be said the rework CV's don't seem to have a problem with the skill gap being TOO small (i.e. the gameplay too simplistic). Some people really suck with them, while others' stats are pretty fearsome. I think they still reward general tactical/situational awareness (where to put yourself, where to attack etc.) plus surprisingly much stuff inherited from the RTS CV gameplay (reading AA bubbles, planning approach vectors, anticipating target movement, etc.).

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NSVE]
Players
55 posts
6,250 battles
1 minute ago, jss78 said:

I feel like it's a 25-minute video about stuff that are REALLY niche problems with the CV rework.

 

 

 

thats the GIst of It for me - Not "This is a bad idea as a whole" but "Its not what I wanted it to be".

 

Cant see CVs being any more popular now than they were before and CV usage certainly seems to have declined.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,241 battles
14 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

"Removing any control from the player towards automation is just wrong."

"Nope."

 

9 minutes ago, Saiyko said:

Tbh, I am quite amazed the new targeted AA with sectors isn't fully automatic.

 

Guys, be carefull. They now targeted consumables as a way to "remove the skill gap". They straight up said, that this is the reason for it. Who says, they will stop at CVs? What would remove the skill gap between, lets say, BBs? exactly... auto-DCP!

  • Cool 10
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,241 battles
9 minutes ago, jss78 said:

I feel like it's a 25-minute video about stuff that are REALLY niche problems with the CV rework.

 

The thing is: the points he is making in this video, he has been critizing since the first videos of the gameplay came out. He said those things way before we had 0.8.0, Haku torp-spam or the discussions about permaspotting wasnt a thing, since during testing, CVs mostly played against bots. Unless I missed it, there is no info when he actually engaged WG with this letter and how long it took them to respond. So yea, crucial points about the current problems are missing, but they might not have been problems at the time fara was writing that letter?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,160 posts
19 minutes ago, jss78 said:

I feel like it's a 25-minute video about stuff that are REALLY niche problems with the CV rework.

 

I really don't need the hull control (without recalling the current plane squadron). I guess sometimes, but it's a scenario that's more like a 1-in-100 than a 1-in-10 game thing. Almost always just periodically resetting your autopilot waypoints from M view (which you CAN do without recalling the planes) will keep your ship out of trouble. 

 

I'd be 99% happy if we just got some improvements to the autopilot and the M view:

  • tie WASD when in M view to the hull, so we can use W+S to adjust hull speed 
  • maybe allow zooming of the M view with mouse wheel, so we can better set tight routes
  • make the autopilot do less dumb stuff in general.

Automated hull consumables -- I guess again I agree in principle, but not a big deal.

 

It needs to be said the rework CV's don't seem to have a problem with the skill gap being TOO small (i.e. the gameplay too simplistic). Some people really suck with them, while others' stats are pretty fearsome. I think they still reward general tactical/situational awareness (where to put yourself, where to attack etc.) plus surprisingly much stuff inherited from the RTS CV gameplay (reading AA bubbles, planning approach vectors, anticipating target movement, etc.).

 

That is pretty close to how I felt having watched the video, and your (very valid) point of an improvement to the Autopilot was more than hinted at in the Dev response. Personally I don't think it's a big leap to improve that significantly and maybe allow some, or full, control of consumables in the autopilot view, if suggested in the right way as a refinement of the autopilot it could possibly reach the aim of both parties, reading between the lines I think the Dev left that door open too.

 

Do I feel Fara has overreacted a little? Yes, do I understand why he's quite annoyed? Yes. Is the Dev's argument of forcibly closing the skill gap between the unicum CV players and the spuds or learning CV players valid? Yes. 

 

CV's were ludicrously OP before the re-work, they're ludicrously OP since the re-work and the hotfixing cycle is causing all sorts of mayhem for CV and surface ship players, which quite honestly should never have been inflicted on the Live server and it has damaged their reputation and driven customers away. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
2,144 posts
10,210 battles
11 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

 

 

Guys, be carefull. They now targeted consumables as a way to "remove the skill gap". They straight up said, that this is the reason for it. Who says, they will stop at CVs? What would remove the skill gap between, lets say, BBs? exactly... auto-DCP!

Exactly this.

 

Otherwise, Fara has been putting up very concise and clear arguments about pretty much all things CV related way before this rework was even announced (it was so painful watching his reviews of the multitudes of Graf Zeppelin test versions seeing the next iterations were always the opposite of what he advised -> we ended up with the stupidly broken GZ).

CVs could have been salvaged years ago had they listened to guys like Fara. Instead we got this nonsense. And yes, I don't think it can be salvaged and thus am fully for the removal of CVs from any PvP (because they clearly will not revert or make any radical needed changes).

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
402 posts
11,218 battles
32 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

Haven't watched it all but I do feel that Farra is getting overly fixated on hull control.

 

It's a nuisance, there's no logical reason for it,

 

16 minutes ago, jss78 said:

I feel like it's a 25-minute video about stuff that are REALLY niche problems with the CV rework. 

 

I really don't need the hull control

 

10 minutes ago, peter_s_price said:

thats the GIst of It for me - Not "This is a bad idea as a whole" but "Its not what I wanted it to be".

 

 

 

He is right tho. If i were a CV main i would take it as an insult: "you are too stupid to control both ship and planes so you can have only one. oh and those ship consumables, yeah, we will do that for you too"

And even if he is making a case only for himself and not the entire player base, the persistence he is showing only tells me he has deep love and passion for the game.

All of those players that are being vocal on forums and/or reddit, spaming with posts, repeating the same thing over and over and over again.... I'm fairly sure all those players, well most, deeply care for this game and are concerned about the direction it's heading.

 

 

 

Entire CV rework is a fiasco. First and foremost you can't balance something that is inherently unbalanced. Something that so immensely influenced naval warfare. It's just impossible.

But since WG decided to tackle the issue, for whatever reason, they should have listen and taken into account all the input, advises and suggestions from more experienced players. From someone that played way more games in CVs than anyone on their staff. It's a show of arrogance and disrespect to the community that love(ed) and care(d) for this game.

 

 

  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×