Real issue of the meta - Carriers got shitty controls.

[Kazomir]

Right now, the meta is crap.

 

The addition of BB line did not help, ofcourse.

 

There is unrest on the forums regarding game balance, but the balance is mostly right.

 

What is not right is the following. Carriers. Not that they are OP or UP. its the fact that their interface is SHITE. And thats coming from Lesta who have an experience with RTS its damn ridiculous.

 

Because of that sole reason not enough players use carriers, and IMO each game should have AT LEAST ONE PER TEAM. Why? Because its the only class that can effectively sour the life of BB and DD players and keep their numbers in check. Games with no CVs.will turn into BB/DD fests ofcourse.

 

Imagine playing rock paper scissors without the paper.  Ofcourse people would use rocks.

 

 

Therefore I declare that making carriers playable by making their interface comfortable to use (even starcraft has easier RTS controls) is the TOP PRIORITY of this game. Coupled with the british carrier line to boost numbers.

 

 

Anybody is welcome to try and discredit my argument.

[Nechrom]

I think you'll find little to discuss about his.

It's pretty much agreed by everyone that CV controls are really bad.

 

Although I don't agree that games without CVs turn into BB/DD fests. But they do lose a dimension of play. 

[Syrchalis]

Carrier interface has been crap ever since. It has barely improved at all. WG doesn't seem to care or they would have done something in over 1,5 years of development.

 

Let's just face it - CV are there to provide planes to shoot and reasons for AA guns to exist on ships, nothing more. WW2 historic feel without CVs? Impossible, they were paramount - so they have to be in the game. But do they have to play well? Be as strong as other ships? Have meaningful counterplay against all the bullcrap mechanics that prevent them from doing their job? No. They just need to be their for entertainment of the other ships.

 

So why would WG put any effort into improving their interface if they are just there for decoration anyway?

 

(even starcraft has easier RTS controls)

I just want to point out that this is the worst example or wording. Starcraft is THE top RTS game. So saying "even starcraft" is like saying "even a racecar drives faster than a bike".

 

I would rather say it this way: Most indie RTS games have better controls. And RTS is by far the hardest game to lay the groundwork for in development. Sure, WoWs is not primarly an RTS, so as a "tacked on" gameplay it can't be all AAA - but it's still pretty bad nonetheless.

[Loran_Battle]

Let's just face it - CV are there to provide planes to shoot and reasons for AA guns to exist on ships, nothing more. WW2 historic feel without CVs? Impossible, they were paramount - so they have to be in the game. But do they have to play well? Be as strong as other ships? Have meaningful counterplay against all the bullcrap mechanics that prevent them from doing their job? No. They just need to be their for entertainment of the other ships.

 

So why would WG put any effort into improving their interface if they are just there for decoration anyway?

 

To be honest. You word out exactly how I feel about CVs at the moment. I never understood how they didn't focus on really balancing and fixing CV during CBT (then again, I think they had a fixed timetable of crapping out the game ASAP regardless of bugs/issues found). It has always felt like a poorly thought out thing that they grudgingly had to add.

 

I was looking forward to CVs, because I like the class itself and they look cool. But eventually I barely ever play them... Mostly because of the bad interface and bugs.

 

Anyone still seriously playing CV has my sympathy. You get shat on by about everyone for playing it (and called names), cause nobody bothers to figure out how to counter CVs. Even if we nerf them to the point where they would not do anything anymore, that will not change. There always has to be a scapegoat.

[Kazomir]

Carrier interface has been crap ever since. It has barely improved at all. WG doesn't seem to care or they would have done something in over 1,5 years of development.

 

Let's just face it - CV are there to provide planes to shoot and reasons for AA guns to exist on ships, nothing more. WW2 historic feel without CVs? Impossible, they were paramount - so they have to be in the game. But do they have to play well? Be as strong as other ships? Have meaningful counterplay against all the bullcrap mechanics that prevent them from doing their job? No. They just need to be their for entertainment of the other ships.

 

So why would WG put any effort into improving their interface if they are just there for decoration anyway?

 

I just want to point out that this is the worst example or wording. Starcraft is THE top RTS game. So saying "even starcraft" is like saying "even a racecar drives faster than a bike".

 

I would rather say it this way: Most indie RTS games have better controls. And RTS is by far the hardest game to lay the groundwork for in development. Sure, WoWs is not primarly an RTS, so as a "tacked on" gameplay it can't be all AAA - but it's still pretty bad nonetheless.

 

 

On to your second point. Starcraft is a good rts with good controls, but its hard. CVd due to their crap interface are even harder though, despite on paper you have like 5 or 6 units to control in contrast to sc which has you control way more crap.

 

On to the first. Try calling a competent hakuryu player an ornament. If anything we need more, BB tears or not.

[Azalgor]

CV controls are fine, just needs to get used to. Game without CV is crap - BB camp because noone can reach them but other BB (camping each other), noone goes into cap because noone spots DD, cruisers stay back because of BB, which ever team has less BOTs for DDs - wins! Do you find this fun? I had fun when there were 2 CV on enemy team and 0 on mine back in CBT, but since all the bufs/nerf teamwork in this game got extinkt, and now all complain that everithing is crap.

[Loran_Battle]

CV controls are fine, just needs to get used to.

 

You think it is ok that you can only click "sometimes"? I'm originally a RTS player. My clicks are too fast for WoWs to handle. It deselects planes all the time. And that nice drop circle? On my screen fully zoomed out I still have to make sure the planes are at least 2-3cm outside that circle, or they will start circling. Sometimes even indefinately. The interface lags constantly for me for some reason (even at 60fps). I also get lagspikes (only when playing CV).

And fighter engagements are stupid as well. if you engage an enemy fighter with 2 of your own, the enemy CV can attack the 2nd fighter group and it will SWITCH target. This kind of thing is just stupid.

[Hedgehog1963]

Right now, the meta is crap.

 

The addition of BB line did not help, ofcourse.

 

There is unrest on the forums regarding game balance, but the balance is mostly right.

 

What is not right is the following. Carriers. Not that they are OP or UP. its the fact that their interface is SHITE. And thats coming from Lesta who have an experience with RTS its damn ridiculous.

 

Because of that sole reason not enough players use carriers, and IMO each game should have AT LEAST ONE PER TEAM. Why? Because its the only class that can effectively sour the life of BB and DD players and keep their numbers in check. Games with no CVs.will turn into BB/DD fests ofcourse.

 

Imagine playing rock paper scissors without the paper.  Ofcourse people would use rocks.

 

 

Therefore I declare that making carriers playable by making their interface comfortable to use (even starcraft has easier RTS controls) is the TOP PRIORITY of this game. Coupled with the british carrier line to boost numbers.

 

 

Anybody is welcome to try and discredit my argument.

 

If you want there to be CVs in every game - play a CV in every game.

[Kazomir]

 

If you want there to be CVs in every game - play a CV in every game.

 

You must be thick. I cant, the interface is too shitty!

[Hedgehog1963]

 

You must be thick. I cant, the interface is too shitty!

 

Then don't demand others play what you're not prepared to play yourself.

 

 

 

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

i m ok with all these cvs , sure interface nothing good for np

[mtm78]

 

Then don't demand others play what you're not prepared to play yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

He is 'demanding' Lesta fixes the carrier UI.

 

[Kazomir]

 

Then don't demand others play what you're not prepared to play yourself.

 

 

 

 

...You are fooling yourself if you think I demand anything. I am expressing an opinion. 

[Shaka_D]

 

Then don't demand others play what you're not prepared to play yourself.

 

 

 

 

I think it's fairly easy to interpret that the OP is simply suggesting that every game should have a CV in it to help balance the rock paper scissors effect, and I'm pretty sure he's implying that in 'a general sense' CV's are less popular because of their current mechanic and as such less people play them. He's not demanding anyone play cv's, he's criticising the fact that, justifiably,  most players don't like them because they are too hard, less rewarding overall, and their mechanic is flawed.

 

I agree with the OP fully. I like CV'S and enjoy playing them, but their gameplay mechanic is not nearly refined enough. I spoke with Tuccy at the Chatham event last weekend and he mentioned WG realise CV's need rework and it's something they are looking into with sincerity. He said they are hard to play and they want to make them easier in a sense, but not too easy that everyone wants to play to dominate all games. At least this is what I interpreted from Tuccy's words. Given that CV's are hard to get the balance right with it will take time and losts of feedback and analysis. But all in all, WG are aware of the issue with CV's. They've not forgotten about them.

[havaduck]

Theres even a need for a discussion on how shitty the CV interface is?

 

I am not a fan of carriers myself but I DO criticise that broken a$$ mess of a UI that would be an embaresment for an open beta, let alone release, let alone a year after release. So theres that .....

 

If its WG plan to counter the OPnes of CVs by the how abysmal the UI is, than thats a pretty big fail by itself ......

[Elderdaddy]

CV controls are fine, just needs to get used to. Game without CV is crap - BB camp because noone can reach them but other BB (camping each other), noone goes into cap because noone spots DD, cruisers stay back because of BB, which ever team has less BOTs for DDs - wins! Do you find this fun? I had fun when there were 2 CV on enemy team and 0 on mine back in CBT, but since all the bufs/nerf teamwork in this game got extinkt, and now all complain that everithing is crap.

 

UI is't fine, its totally fucked up. U cant drop torpedo's if that green rectangle will touch anything (chat, minimap, player list, ect). U cant properly attack some1 who is hughing red line and so on son. All those bugs are unfixed since alfa so please stop talking crap

[steviln]

Game without CV is crap - BB camp because noone can reach them but other BB (camping each other),

 

I would rather claim that CVs cause camping rather than prevent it. CVs make it more important for ships to hold together, so most BB and even CA stay at the back so not to lose benefit of other ships AA for defense if attacked by planes. What CVs do is exactly to force ships to stay more together, making games more boring I think. 

[mtm78]

 

I would rather claim that CVs cause camping rather than prevent it. CVs make it more important for ships to hold together, so most BB and even CA stay at the back so not to lose benefit of other ships AA for defense if attacked by planes. What CVs do is exactly to force ships to stay more together, making games more boring I think. 

 

You might think that, but you would be wrong. 

 

Fleet movements/formations is a GOOD aspect of the game, it depends on TEAMWORK which is the strong point ( or well, it's already being demolished slowly so not sure how long this will keep on going  to be a valid argument... ) of the game. This isn't WoT on the water, with heavy tanks parked next to islands sidescraping and ..... ow crap... 

 

nvm, nothing to see here, moving on  

 

ps. CA's don't stay back because of planes, that's such a silly statement to make it made me giggle. 

[Hedgehog1963]

 

If you want there to be CVs in every game - play a CV in every game.

 

 

You must be thick. I cant, the interface is too shitty!

 

 

Then don't demand others play what you're not prepared to play yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

...You are fooling yourself if you think I demand anything. I am expressing an opinion. 

 

 

 

He is 'demanding' Lesta fixes the carrier UI.

 

 

Oh I'm sorry, I mistook: "...not enough players use carriers, and IMO each game should have AT LEAST ONE PER TEAM"      ...to be a demand... All that shouting and so on.

[SkybuckFlying]

So far I notice japanese fighters can strafe pretty fast and subsequently... while us fighters kinda suffer and need to turn a lot and need to fly back to strafe point and such... perhaps that's even a bug... kinda weird.

[MoveZig]

I haven't played CVs a lot (hell I still have less than 500 battles total) but my issues have been as follows:

 

- When the match starts, the game pulls you to the less useful local view. There's no reason to even use this mode at the match start.

 

- From the strategic view, I cannot see the type of ship I'm looking at. That a huge oversight. I need to know if that BB is a Ishizuchi or a freaking Texas, without having to go to the local view. At least show it under the player name when holding down Alt.

 

- Double-clicking to ping sectors in chat should be disabled for CVs. It's too easy to do it accidentally when clicking around on the strategic map.

 

- iirc you have to zoom in to see the health of enemy planes. In general, the strategic view should give more feedback for CVs. Local view should be mainly for aiming torp drops and maneuvering the CV. You should not have to zoom in to get critical information.

[300ConfirmedKills]

Hedgehog1963, on 24 September 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

Oh I'm sorry, I mistook: "...not enough players use carriers, and IMO each game should have AT LEAST ONE PER TEAM"      ...to be a demand... All that shouting and so on.

 

Well, if you take what he said in context, you can see that what he is really interested in is a proper class distribution - which naturally entails a healthy CV population. Applying your initial solution to that problem gives us "if you want a balanced class distribution in every match, play all of the classes in every match," which isn't very helpful.

[Namolis]

The UI is bad, no issue form me there.

 

I do think Lesta is working on it though. They have said on numerous occasions that they are unhappy with the UI in its current state. Clearly there is some techincal wrinkle that has proven extremely hard to iron out. There are stuff that we know the UI can do - such as orders by list - that they have chosen not to include in the game because they felt it was buggy.

 

To be honest. You word out exactly how I feel about CVs at the moment. I never understood how they didn't focus on really balancing and fixing CV during CBT (then again, I think they had a fixed timetable of crapping out the game ASAP regardless of bugs/issues found). It has always felt like a poorly thought out thing that they grudgingly had to add.

 

I was looking forward to CVs, because I like the class itself and they look cool. But eventually I barely ever play them... Mostly because of the bad interface and bugs.

 

Anyone still seriously playing CV has my sympathy. You get shat on by about everyone for playing it (and called names), cause nobody bothers to figure out how to counter CVs. Even if we nerf them to the point where they would not do anything anymore, that will not change. There always has to be a scapegoat.

 

I think ancient sea warfare is fairly uninteresting, because people largely fought (or at least tried to fight) as they would have done on land. Ships were only transport vessels for infantry until they met in combat, and then they served as a stage for the infantry to fight on. The ship itself didn't matter too much, only how many fighting men it could carry. If the enemy had a big and mighty ship; no problem, just bring ten smaller ones.

 

Then, along came gunpowder and changed everything. Sea warfare was suddenly not just an analogue to land warfare - it was dominated by cannon, while land warfare was all about infantry. The Ships themselves became "characters in their own story". This is what makes them interesting to me.

 

This persisted all the way up to when the flattops made other capital ships obsolete. Sea warfare was now only a special case of air warfare. It didn't matter if the air fight was set over a brown field or a blue ocean; it would play out the same way regardless. It didn't matter if the attacking wing came from ten small ships or one large, all that mattered was the raw number of (and quality of) aircraft that could be fielded. The ships themsleves were irrelevant. Once again, capital ships became little more than transports with no actual role except as backdrop for someone else to win glory. Don't get me wrong; I still think there is plenty of interesting story to tell about heroics in the skies, but they are not ship tales in quite the same way.

 

So... WG wanted to make World of Warships, but set it to an era where fighting warships were obsolete even if not everyone realized that right away. The awkward fit of CV in game (and the reason so many hates to play against them) is the same as its reason in RL for relegating the surface warship to the role of glorified radar station: the aircraft with their speed and range can choose where and when to engage. The surface ship gets no say in the matter, it just needs to take whatever is served and make the best of it. In a CV vs Surface Ship fight, the CV either wins or he has chosen his fight poorly.

 

Funny enough, they chose NOT to include the only fighting ship that has was vitally important during WWII and - even today - has retained its "navalness": submarines. Note: I'm not saying I want submarines or that they would make a good addition to the game, but I still find it a bit odd that they would be comfortable cutting them, and (as I agree with you) that CV was still something

 that they grudgingly had to add

 

[mtm78]

Funny enough, they chose NOT to include the only fighting ship that has was vitally important during WWII and - even today - has retained its "navalness": submarines. Note: I'm not saying I want submarines or that they would make a good addition to the game, but I still find it a bit odd that they would be comfortable cutting them, and (as I agree with you) that CV was still something

 

It's not even close to 'funny enough' as anyone with a brain would realize submarines have NEVER been used in fleet operations. 

[Shagulon]

Agreed with OP about the interface, but also would like to point out the glaringly obvious to WG that any attempts to balance a game where the CV is missing is futile...