General CV related discussions.

[steveraptor]

in other news.....

 

From what it looks like, WG is trying to handle the current CV problem by releasing new CVs which are more or less "toned down" (i.e trash), and by doing this hoping to  spread the CV population around those.

FDR was the first example so far, today I played 2 games with Parsavals in my team that pretty much contributed nothing to the game at all, and by looking at it throughout the game, had next to no impact, seems that even implacable is more effective than Parsaval.

From the looks of it, comparing Parasavel to Shokaku and Lexi is like comparing Gearing to Smite....

Will be interesting to see how this will unfold.

I think either more CV players will play those "Sterilized, balanced"  CVs , or the player base will get tired of it and just abandon  the entire German line and FDR, making them more or less dead content.

 

@Excavatus

Did you also get access to Parsavel and can share some...."no NDA" stuff on that?

[159Hunter]

17 minutes ago, steveraptor said:

in other news.....

 

From what it looks like, WG is trying to handle the current CV problem by releasing new CVs which are more or less "toned down" (i.e trash), and by doing this hoping to  spread the CV population around those.

FDR was the first example so far, today I played 2 games with Parsavals in my team that pretty much contributed nothing to the game at all, and by looking at it throughout the game, had next to no impact, seems that even implacable is more effective than Parsaval.

From the looks of it, comparing Parasavel to Shokaku and Lexi is like comparing Gearing to Smite....

Will be interesting to see how this will unfold.

I think either more CV players will play those "Sterilized, balanced"  CVs , or the player base will get tired of it and just abandon  the entire German line and FDR, making them more or less dead content.

  

@Excavatus

Did you also get access to Parsavel and can share some...."no NDA" stuff on that?

Why would ppl play worse CVs? They'll try them ofcourse, but if they really are terrible, they'll switch back to the others.

[AndyHill]

27 minutes ago, Figment said:

I think the first reason is poor, since the implementations we've seen have been poor and I think virtually anyone can see the glaring faults with both. It's no guarantee that another setup would fail.

I can summarize my view like this: I can not come up with a design that would be positive for the game, during soon 5 years of trying no-one else has convinced me they can either, and both implementations we've had have been disastrous to the game. Wouldn't I need to be crazy optimistic to still think that such an implementation exists? Of course I'm perfectly fine with removing carriers only until such a design exists. I have nothing to lose if they do that, even if the probability for a positive outcome isn't very high either.

27 minutes ago, Figment said:

Which is why permanent removal would be an affront to people losing access to what they grinded ages for.

I'm not saying that it isn't, but do note that this has already happened once. WG is fully capable of making such moves and they have already done it. There are many dedicated carrier players, who basically left the game and many more who are not interested in carriers anymore. This is one good example, as a WG employee she was of course very positive about the rework (which is what she is expected to, nothing wrong with that), but check out just how much she actually plays the reworked stuff: https://worldofwarships.com/en/community/accounts/1016036605-Femennenly/!/pvp/ships/?bestShip=hakury_16B_20_28_3C_2023_2E01_2E2019_29

27 minutes ago, Figment said:

Their representation doesn't need to be an exact replica of their abilities either. Compromises must be made for gameplay.

Would you say that the ability to strike without risk far outside gun ships' range as well as being able to recon way in excess of anything else afloat are integral parts of being a carrier?

27 minutes ago, Figment said:

The "optimal" solution you present is subjective though. Those who want carriers in will not be able to agree to this. A temporary removal till a tried and tested acceptable version is available is a different suggestion however than outright removal and never looking back.

If there are reasons other than historicity or because people like the safety and power offered by carriers, I'm willint to listen to those reasons. Actually liking carrier gameplay is an acceptable reason, but then we have something like a few percent of players who actually like the gameplay and the rest suffer for it. Easy choice.

[steveraptor]

35 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Why would ppl play worse CVs? They'll try them ofcourse, but if they really are terrible, they'll switch back to the others.

RN CVs are also crap, yet people play them.

People also buy trash like Indomitable.

Unicum CV players, obviously know what CV to play, but they are 0.1% of the CV population, the rest will play whatever.

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

50 minutes ago, steveraptor said:

RN CVs are also crap, yet people play them.

Ahem... well OK T8 Audacious is crap indeed. 

However the rest is fine. 

 

50 minutes ago, steveraptor said:

People also buy trash like Indomitable.

Unicum CV players, obviously know what CV to play, but they are 0.1% of the CV population, the rest will play whatever.

Still sorry I didn't get Enterprise... well there's always X-mas loot gamble boxes... 

[ThePopesHolyFinger]

Anyone watched Flambas video today?
The one where his Des Moines was hit for 13k damage, 2 fires and loss of 14% of AA, all from one attack by rocket planes.
Cos that's fun and engaging.

[Hawker_gb]

I thought that my CV stats are worse then any of other three class.

Then i look at stats and saw that CV stats is in fact my best PR class (7 point ahead of DDs)

 

And i am certain i suck in CV.

[redraven]

3 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Huge wall of text.

Why does this guy sound like someone who actually knows what he is talking about?

Also im gonna make a seperate topic with my yamato results. Wont flood a cv related post with yamato screenshots and replays.

[BLUB__BLUB]

52 minutes ago, Hawker_gb said:

I thought that my CV stats are worse then any of other three class.

Then i look at stats and saw that CV stats is in fact my best PR class (7 point ahead of DDs)

 

And i am certain i suck in CV.

Both confirmed... you seem to be a good player in most ships, nice DD numbers, and you also did RTS carriers. 

But the only Reework CVs that are any "good" are the T4 (others have too little games played). There's no AA down there mate. 

And somehow WG has seen fit to buff them, too. So... two times right. 

 

BTW I dunno how they calculate PR. Probably some (damage * ship-HP) formula. 

IMO it means zip as I usually end (wayyy) above my "red counterpart" and my PR is still crud. 

I guess some ships we like and some ships we hate, and they hate us back too. 

[steveraptor]

2 hours ago, DB2212 said:

Anyone watched Flambas video today?
The one where his Des Moines was hit for 13k damage, 2 fires and loss of 14% of AA, all from one attack by rocket planes.
Cos that's fun and engaging.

A CV that has useless torps, meh dive bombers and rockets which are only good against cruisers, then yeah they need to be effective at what they do.

[RepSrb]

there is the other solution... give ships manual AA and let them learn to use it. they have  tried it in alpha phase.

[VenividiviciNL]

@Excavatus

Could you please close this forum topic as the toxicity/salt towards (certain) people is getting bigger and bigger.

 

The way I see it is that WG does know about our complaints and probably will do nothing about it. The people in favour of CV (including myself, but adjustments needed as mentioned in a previous post) and people hating CV's in every way will NEVER come to an agreement, but only disagreement for that matter.

 

Why bother eachother on this forum, despite your intentions in the beginning to start a new topic on this subject.

 

It is only a game, but due to the comments of some people it looks like a personal vendetta or WW III will start soon...............

 

So close this topic to keep the forum polite and informative for that matter. In the current state it is NOT.

[Figment]

If you don't mind, I'm going to cut most of the conversation short, since I think we've got most of it covered by now. And then we can focus a bit more.

7 hours ago, AndyHill said:

No, they are literally just parameters. Torps count as main weapons (that can be operated by the player), they have different speeds, ranges, spotting ranges and hitting power as well as special attributes such as deep water. Every class of ships have torpedoes and every class of ships have ships in them that do not have torpedoes. Every ship has main guns. Except of course one class that is very different anyway. Only those aforementioned attributes change, not the mechanics. 

 

Spotting rules is literally the same for every single object in the game. If unit A is within unit B's visibility range and there are no obstructions in the way, unit B gets spotted.

No they are not. Because they work in conjunction with abilities and handicaps. Sniper rules are not the same as shotgun rules. A medic in a FPS does not operate under the same rules as a heavily armoured grunt. They each have special abilities the other does not, yet they are in the same game. You might go and argue "but they both fire bullets". Not really, cause some might have area of effect weapons. Some might have different rules for bloom on their weapons, restricting what they can do with it.

 

If you say all chess pieces are equal, because they all operate by the same rules and then define the rules as:

 

- Taking the same square occupied by an enemy unit kills it in a single strike

- Moves from one square to another within the confines of the board

 

Then sure, they're all the same. This is what you did. You created a definition that suits your argument. By your argument, changing parameters should not change the rules for these units.

 

When you set parameters for each unit you create unique abilities however. Each of these pieces works by its own set of rules. The rules might be similar

 

- Pawn can only move forward and strike 1 square diagonal. Except if it hadn't moved yet it can move two steps for some reason. (only three units are distance restricted)

- Pawn can also strike another pawn if it moved by it with these two steps by NOT landing on the same square, but behind it. (this doesn't break the rules set out above btw, it just adds an extra rule for this unit)

- Pawn can become any unit you want it to be when it reaches the other end. (no other unit can do this)

- Queen can move any amount of spaces in any straight directional where there are no obstructions (no other unit can do this)

- Knight can jump over obstructions and move 2 by 1, but only 2 by 1.

- Towers can move horizontals and verticals only

- Bishops can move diagonals of the same colour only

 

And let's not get started on king movement restrictions and its special move that allows you to move two pieces at once and move a king by more than one step as an exception.

 

Are they still all chess pieces?

 

 

None of these units play by the same rules, even if their striking mechanics (move and land on another's field) are ultimately the same: the attacker lives, the defender dies. They cannot do what other units can do. They rely on other units who abide by other rules to clear their path and keep them covered.

 

 

As for spotting rules... Not true: radar and hydro. Proximity spotting distances vary as well per ship (which detects ships through solid objects).

 

 

Parameter combinations with game mechanics like special abilties are essentially creating different engagement rules for ships. That's what one calls a unit's (unique) gameplay.  This includes torps which are a special ordinance not available to all ships (that they're available to all classes is irrelevant, since not every unit in those classes has it). AP and HE isn't even available to all ships, making those abide by different rules (!)). Some ships can relatively safely sail towards fog and torps, while others have to take far greater chances. Different rules and risks therefore apply even if they use the same weapons with the same damage and pen parameters. I know you don't define rules in this way, but when we're talking about unit abilities, which is what we're doing, the above makes a world of difference.

[Figment]

7 hours ago, AndyHill said:

I can summarize my view like this: I can not come up with a design that would be positive for the game, during soon 5 years of trying no-one else has convinced me they can either, and both implementations we've had have been disastrous to the game. Wouldn't I need to be crazy optimistic to still think that such an implementation exists?

Not really, you've only seen a couple wildly different variants applied, none of which had severe restrictions or limitations built into it, particularly where it comes to range and attrition.

 

I'm quite positive it can be done, was in beta and still am. Like you I'm however very skeptical of the ability of WG making it happen. 

7 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Would you say that the ability to strike without risk far outside gun ships' range as well as being able to recon way in excess of anything else afloat are integral parts of being a carrier?

Not necessarily, no. Entirely depends on the restrictions you put on the aircraft mechanisms.

 

Currently there are a few, but not that many downsides. These need to be upped.

 

I've listed quite a few. Striking would be more limited. Recon would be more limited. What you'd get is temp spotting by CVs for instance vs continuous spotting by ships. In that sense a ship would be better at consistent spotting, but an aircraft more flexible at temp spotting. As said before, I'd make AA not be about taking out aircraft HP but hitting components, hence loitering within AA range would be risking punishment regardless of tier aircraft or AA.


Alternatively, you could make spotting done by dropping spotter aircraft in a similar way that fighters are dropped now, while reducing the spotting capacity of assault aircraft to map only spotting. Those spotters can be easily remidied and it would make ship spotters fastly more important. In fact, it'd be a huge nerf to CV while fending off attackers with the aid of allied ships.

[thisismalacoda]

Seen the Richthofen today being played by a ~80% CV player. He made like 400 XP. 

[Yosha_AtaIante]

3 hours ago, thisismalacoda said:

Seen the Richthofen today being played by a ~80% CV player. He made like 400 XP. 

Well of course. This is what the community wants. It also shows how bad the rework truly is. 

[Excavatus]

7 hours ago, VenividiviciNL said:

@Excavatus

Could you please close this forum topic as the toxicity/salt towards (certain) people is getting bigger and bigger.

 

The way I see it is that WG does know about our complaints and probably will do nothing about it. The people in favour of CV (including myself, but adjustments needed as mentioned in a previous post) and people hating CV's in every way will NEVER come to an agreement, but only disagreement for that matter.

 

Why bother eachother on this forum, despite your intentions in the beginning to start a new topic on this subject.

 

It is only a game, but due to the comments of some people it looks like a personal vendetta or WW III will start soon...............

 

So close this topic to keep the forum polite and informative for that matter. In the current state it is NOT.

 

Yeah, If It would be so easy like that :) 
We need this sticky CV topic. Because CV discussions always revolve around same points, and always devolve into the same black hole.. 

It is like, someone comes shoots a meteor towards a blackhole, it just goes in a shrinking orbit, and finally sucked by the Black hole.. 

WG says they are happy with the CVs, same people come here and complain about CVs and same people come here and defend CVs.. 

Nothing changes :) yeah.. we need this topic to keep the rest of the forum cleaner.. 

 

13 hours ago, steveraptor said:

 

@Excavatus

Did you also get access to Parsavel and can share some...."no NDA" stuff on that?

 

Yeah.. no :) sorry..

I only can say.. I'm interested.. 

they are different.. can't say bad or good etc.. 

because I didn't play them much.. I need to get a hold of them.. 

But I'm interested.. a new gameplay style.. new carrier style.. 

 

16 hours ago, Figment said:

One reason probably is that they invested a lot in a rework like this. Telling your boss you screwed up (or that the decision taken by its management was flawed is probably not going to go down well in a Belarussian working environment - I'm assuming it's fairly authority oriented with a large power distance though. Not entirely sure, but saving face and denial of critique thrives in that sort of environment and it's something I've seen a lot). However, they've said that about a lot of things before. Maybe if the make-up dev team changes and it's not their personal baby anymore...

The thing is, 

When you look at the company perspective.. 

 

They planned a huge project.. 

Project aim: To make more costumers use XXX product., and make it easier to use so we don't have only expert users and potato users, and lets tone down this speshul product's affect on the general environment. 

 

Project completed. 

Project report: 

- More costumers use the XXX product (Completed) 

- It is much more easier to use now, so even though we have more expert users, and more potato users, now we have a bunch of average users too (semi success at worst) 

- general affect of the product is less. Now they cannot completely remove other products (semi - success at best) 

 

So, If you paint these results into a good report and support with the numbers of your choice, 
this can be an amazing success story to present to your boss :) 

then you add, a comparison between year to year sold Premium CV numbers I've bet 2019 is better than almost any year :D

[Aethervoxx]

1 hour ago, Yoshanai said:

It also shows how bad the rework truly is.

I second this assertion.

[Phayk]

21 hours ago, Miragetank90 said:

 

 

You guys don't read the dev QnAs do you?

 

Where would I find such a Q&A?

 

Considering that WG apparently thinks current CVs are fine and fun to play against, I wouldn't put much trust into their internal testing. Why were none of the more extreme changes ever on the PTR?

[Miragetank90]

44 minutes ago, Phayk said:

Where would I find such a Q&A?

 

Considering that WG apparently thinks current CVs are fine and fun to play against, I wouldn't put much trust into their internal testing. Why were none of the more extreme changes ever on the PTR?

 

On the WoWs Discord, there's a channel there with all the questions and the answers the devs gave. 

 

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/community/discord-launch/

[Deckeru_Maiku]

17 hours ago, steveraptor said:

in other news.....

 

From what it looks like, WG is trying to handle the current CV problem by releasing new CVs which are more or less "toned down" (i.e trash), and by doing this hoping to  spread the CV population around those.

 

WG does balancing by "averages in spreadshiet"... so in the current desaster it means:

• old ships - CVs and others - aren't changed or at least not much, due to that needing some real balancing work, which they obviously don't seem to be able to manage... see reeework for details about that
• new CVs are entered with below average abilities, so they have a smaller OPness and therefor lower the average impact of CVs as a total
• new ships - see EU DDs and (probably) russian CLs gain additional abilities - like dual purpose main guns ^^ - to keep the impact of old CVs on them lower than for old(er) ships

The second two points assure that the average impact of CVs gets lowered, without any need to invest in serious balancing of the class. Goal for WG achieved, even when the old ships still get f*cked royally by the old CVs. But spreadshiet says it's on average okay and we all should adapt and have fun :)

 

3 hours ago, Excavatus said:

The thing is, 

When you look at the company perspective.. 

 

They planned a huge project.. 

Project aim: To make more costumers use XXX product., and make it easier to use so we don't have only expert users and potato users, and lets tone down this speshul product's affect on the general environment. 

 

Project completed. 

Project report: 

- More costumers use the XXX product (Completed) 

- It is much more easier to use now, so even though we have more expert users, and more potato users, now we have a bunch of average users too (semi success at worst) 

- general affect of the product is less. Now they cannot completely remove other products (semi - success at best)

 

• more consumers of CVs... might lead to a drop in players of other classes in the end though, if people understand that WG has no intention to really balance the game. Might turn out a pyrrhus victory in the long run...
• CVs are "much easier to use" for some. I did way better in RTS CVs - which is the reason why I now rarely play CVs, as I don't want to be a liability for my team - and also preferred that playstyle a lot more, as there was some interaction between opposing CVs - like in reality; enemy CVs were the main target of CV task forces - which now has been completely taken out of the game as a kind of "potato saver" meaning that even the worst CV player in the game can still send out his planes happily and doesn't have to fear to get sniped by the enemy Unicorn CV player, while both happily destroy the non-CV players' ships. Of course this leads to point one being a success, as some players who manage and like the new playstyle now can play without much thought about having to do anything then sending their planes out to do damage.... if there was any need for tactical abilities in CV reeework playstyle, I bet the numbers of CV players would drop like a dead rock... No success at all imho
• "general effect" of CVs isn't less. They do nearly completely remove DDs from the battle. They further the need for static or blobbing gameplay. And the difference between potato, average and unicorn CV player is even bigger than before the reework, except that they don't take each other out of the game anymore. Still a unicorn CV will destroy enemy targets more effectively and rapidly than a potato or average CV player. So for me that goal is nowhere near a success

[AndyHill]

10 hours ago, Figment said:

No they are not. Because they work in conjunction with abilities and handicaps. Sniper rules are not the same as shotgun rules. A medic in a FPS does not operate under the same rules as a heavily armoured grunt. They each have special abilities the other does not, yet they are in the same game. You might go and argue "but they both fire bullets". Not really, cause some might have area of effect weapons. Some might have different rules for bloom on their weapons, restricting what they can do with it.

 

If you say all chess pieces are equal, because they all operate by the same rules and then define the rules as:

I have to admit that I missed the whole point of the post, since besides misunderstanding the basic definition of what rules are, I'm almost certain that you understood pretty well what I meant. Just as a reminder, here's a typical definition for what rules are: "an accepted principle or instruction that states the way things are or should be done, and tells you what you are allowed or are not allowed to do" or "Rules may be defined as statements and directions that must be followed within a given game in order for it to be played correctly. They are often fixed as "rulesets," created by the game designer and agreed upon by the players. The interactions between rules create the formal system underlying any given game."

 

And yes, rules for the shotgunner and sniper are exactly same, for ships and planes they are not (notably movement and respawning are very different). And the bad thing is that since planes completely defy the limitations to movement and they can strike pretty much with impunity, they are a badly disruptive element in the game.

 

10 hours ago, Figment said:

17 hours ago, AndyHill said:

I can summarize my view like this: I can not come up with a design that would be positive for the game, during soon 5 years of trying no-one else has convinced me they can either, and both implementations we've had have been disastrous to the game. Wouldn't I need to be crazy optimistic to still think that such an implementation exists?

Not really, you've only seen a couple wildly different variants applied, none of which had severe restrictions or limitations built into it, particularly where it comes to range and attrition.

Well there's also the part where people (and me) have tried for years to come up with something workable. Limitations and such will probably make the problem less bad, but why have a problem in the first place when it's so easy to just remove it? This is why it's so important to understand why we need to have planes in a ship game to begin with.

 

Let's try it this way; when you are in a carrier-free game, what do you think is missing? What do you think is worse than in a carrier game?

10 hours ago, Figment said:

17 hours ago, AndyHill said:

Would you say that the ability to strike without risk far outside gun ships' range as well as being able to recon way in excess of anything else afloat are integral parts of being a carrier?

Not necessarily, no. Entirely depends on the restrictions you put on the aircraft mechanisms.

I was referring to the abilities of real aircraft carriers here, not the game implementation. Anyway, it's not very important since historical/reality arguments are not very interesting to begin with.

 

[POIfection]

I was in my Indianapolis the other day (short and unenjoyable affair) and a Shokaku literally one shot-ed me with AP bombs. I had 0 chance of detonation as was carrying magazine flag. It was noted as a Dev Strike.

 

10/10 for realism. 

0/10 for enjoyability.

 

Poi

 

[CptBarney]

25 minutes ago, POIfection said:

I was in my Indianapolis the other day (short and unenjoyable affair) and a Shokaku literally one shot-ed me with AP bombs. I had 0 chance of detonation as was carrying magazine flag. It was noted as a Dev Strike.

 

10/10 for realism. 

0/10 for enjoyability.

 

Poi

 

poi is sad in world of wardanks atm. donate to poi todeh.

---

Has anyone faced the new cv's yet? and if so what do you think of them so far?

[VenividiviciNL]

6 hours ago, Excavatus said:

 

Yeah, If It would be so easy like that :) 
We need this sticky CV topic. Because CV discussions always revolve around same points, and always devolve into the same black hole.. 

It is like, someone comes shoots a meteor towards a blackhole, it just goes in a shrinking orbit, and finally sucked by the Black hole.. 

WG says they are happy with the CVs, same people come here and complain about CVs and same people come here and defend CVs.. 

Nothing changes :) yeah.. we need this topic to keep the rest of the forum cleaner.. 

 

Fair enough your explanation, but still...... The toxicity/salt is pretty high, even to my opinion yours as you are defending yourselves, like some other people. It is getting too personal, despite the good intentions of EVERYONE.

 

To my opinion we are getting into the same dark environment as in World of Tanks (no wonder that general chat was closed for that matter), but we all want to play a fair game with CV's and Subs if they are BALANCED.

 

At the moment they are not and people like me get angry and frustated as it depends on skills, map awareness and tactics. And that is with these 2 classes currently NOT the case.

 

I do not mind when a company is making money on me, but they are not listening to the input of their playerbase. It is all about spreadsheets, but you know what: spreadsheets can be manipulated.......

 

Sorry to bother you again on this topic, but I am loosing faith of the good intentions of WeeGee, like many more people in WoWs if you look at their criticism on several issues.