Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
it3llig3nc3

Carrier Rework and the artificial fog around it

115 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
647 posts
6,787 battles

The situation regarding the carrier class is up for a debate for a long time now.

Having gone through the "Year of the Carrier" that was 2017, we are now at the spring of 2018 and yet very little is known about it - except the usual mantra from WG that is "We will let you know when the appropriate time comes".

 

The salt in this is that during the past few days it become evident that there were a lot of progression made behind the curtains that the Forum community is not allowed to hear about.

This realization comes a few months after iChaseGaming reported in his Youtube stream about his private discussion around carriers with SubOctavian during one of the Let' Battle tour events in the USA. Of course that was under NDA.

 

This weekend the Waterline episode 1 came out with the cliffhanger teasing about carrier rework to be discussed in the next Chapter

and

Having listened the most recent episode of Warships Podcast it was said that the DEVs showed the selected few the first iteration of the carrier rework during last week's community contributor event in StPetersburg. Of course under NDA.

 

Therefore my conclusion is:

1. WG / DEVs has already made decisions on how it will be done

2. It has been implemented up till a state so it can be shown to external people

3. An obscene and disgraceful teasing campaign is shaping up around the subject - instead of just giving community members some info.

 

There may be reasons for WG doing this.

However the frequent forum visitors do know that in this very forum there has been numerous threads and suggestions around this topic - for which WG NEVER commented anything.

This is why I feel very offended to face with such a ..... attitude on this subject.

 

Closing with the now become "old joke": carriers are still important for this game, so consider informing the community OR at least the 7 members who still plays this class...

 

 

PS:

and yes I do not care about the huge campaign festivity around the US cruiser line split so we are getting introduced to 6 "new" ships that was long overdue...

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
961 posts
4,957 battles

1. Swallow your entitlement. Wg is a company, not a charity. You have no business knowing what gets decided internally.

2. Watch waterline 1.1. It explains the concept they have in mind a bit. 

3. Why not be happy something is being done at all? I personally am worried that the changes will be bad, but this will enable more feedback and coming to a good solution. 

 

 

I get that cv mains are quite frustrated, but having 2 different suggestion threads per week on this topic really is not solving anything. 

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Players
6,592 posts
Vor 11 Minuten, it3llig3nc3 sagte:

The salt in this is that during the past few days it become evident that there were a lot of progression made behind the curtains that the Forum community is not allowed to hear about.

 

WG has stated several times that the CV rework will/should be a massive change for CV gameplay. So it is only logial that they don't publish ANY information while they are testing stuff. Leaking any information during this stage would have been a great mistake. It is not like the balancing of the US cruiser split, where you can release small bits of information...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,391 posts
12,027 battles

First, let me say, that as a non-CV player I find the secrecy and teasing to be in bad taste. Creating a smoke and mirrors atmosphere around the rework will just lead people to make assumptions, and those will be negative, as people will pick scraps of information and create a patchwork monster of half-truths and guesses.

 

If the decision is done, then they could at least sketch out how they imagine it to work. They don't need to present a nailed down working concept. But a rough overview of changes and perspectives would suffice.

 

1 minute ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

1. Swallow your entitlement. Wg is a company, not a charity. You have no business knowing what gets decided internally.

"He who pays the piper, calls the tune". As you said WG is a company. They want to make a profit. Pissing people off rarely ends in increased revenue. And WG is not entitled to our money.

 

3 minutes ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

Why not be happy something is being done at all?

Because the secrecy around it smells mightily fishy? If the change is so great, why the obfuscation?

 

4 minutes ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

I personally am worried that the changes will be bad, but this will enable more feedback and coming to a good solution. 

Yeah, reacting to feedback after a system has been implemented rarely works. What you need is a feedback process as the changes are designed.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, Players
5,287 posts

For OP : you not even CV player why even u post this

2nd for topic :

For sure this cv rework will be bad ,,,,

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,471 posts
10,088 battles
Just now, xXx_Blogis_xXx said:

For OP : you not even CV player why even u post this

2nd for topic :

For sure this cv rework will be bad ,,,,

 

Ill second your second statement... But I wont [edited] yet ... I wait to see :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EST]
[EST]
Players
811 posts
18,773 battles
6 minutes ago, dCK_Ad_Hominem said:

3. Why not be happy something is being done at all? I personally am worried that the changes will be bad, but this will enable more feedback and coming to a good solution.

If they spend enough time for bad solution we are the ones who WILL be stuck with it. They just won't scrap the time they spent bc they get negative feedback, they will just fix it soonTM.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Supertester
2,836 posts
4,219 battles
21 minutes ago, Profilus said:

If they spend enough time for bad solution we are the ones who WILL be stuck with it. They just won't scrap the time they spent bc they get negative feedback, they will just fix it soonTM.

Because basically no matter what they do it will get negative feedback. People here can't even agree what they want and any change or choice will cause a forum meltdown. In that context of such a toxic community it makes 100% sense they don't tell us anything until it's done. They would also be correct to ignore any immediate feedback (read: whine) on release until a few months of stats are in.

 

I personally trust they know what they're doing and look forward to the result.

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,219 posts
2,535 battles
42 minutes ago, it3llig3nc3 said:

Therefore my conclusion is:

1. WG / DEVs has already made decisions on how it will be done

2. It has been implemented up till a state so it can be shown to external people

3. An obscene and disgraceful teasing campaign is shaping up around the subject - instead of just giving community members some info.

 

1. They have built prototypes of some ideas and ,.....

2.  ..... shown them to the CC's under NDA. Nothing is decided or fixed in stone as of yet

3. WG know how emotive the CV rework is to the player base. Because nothing is finalized yet they are not going to build up peoples expectations by showing something that is not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,822 posts
6,919 battles
46 minutes ago, it3llig3nc3 said:

Therefore my conclusion is:

1. WG / DEVs has already made decisions on how it will be done

2. It has been implemented up till a state so it can be shown to external people

3. An obscene and disgraceful teasing campaign is shaping up around the subject - instead of just giving community members some info.

  1. They have made decisions how it will PROBABLY be done, there is an idea that they are going with
  2. It's implemented far enough so that they can test it and tweak it
  3. There's no reason to tease something that you aren't sure is going to happen. Just look at the T-61. Teased, then effectively cancelled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Beta Tester
2,902 posts
5,794 battles

The rework will be hated regardless of what it is.

 

If its a tweak to the RTS style then there will be complaints its not a rework, and the people that dont play carriers still wont.

 

If they do a totally different gameplay style then they might get lots of new CV players, but the existing ones are likely to hate it.

 

The fact that they have announced they have a playable version, and a hint as to what it will be like means its likely to be reasonably close to being on PTS (by reasonably close Id guess August?)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,881 posts
12,596 battles

The tiny bits of "information" they released in Waterline 1.1 lead me to believe that it'll be a completely different playstyle. 

The fact that they are reworking AA at the same time shows that they want to come up with a balanced solution.

 

That being said, I've got a bad feeling about it. But hey, they mentioned compensation, so if I don't like it I'll hopefully be able to make a good amount of free XP and credits?

 

@Sub_Octavian can you guys at least hint us when you'll be able to release some more information? The fact that you teased us in Waterline shows that you are pretty far ahead, so when can the rest of us join the party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FDUSH]
Players
1,194 posts
6,749 battles

Everything points to a massive nerf so noobs wouldn't complain about being sky-clubbed.
Seems carriers will be ruined. 2017 "year of the carrier" all what they did was removing the manual attack on low tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
647 posts
6,787 battles

Well first of all thanks for the feedback on the subject - no matter if it is positive or negative.

Without doubt I'm very emotional on this subject, especially because I like carriers as a warship class in real life, want to play it in WoWs, but came to realize that for a casual player like me the current iteration is non-enjoyable. But even with that I had some time and effort to discuss it on the Forum with others, studied the ideas that were raised around it and saw all of them sunk because it was never elevated by WG staff to a level that ANY meaningful info was provided.

Furthermore I can see and feel that while the current CV class is problematic in many ways, this game needs a functioning carrier class so all ship class balances / functions can achieve full capacity.

 

Last but not least being a constant paying customer for this game AND having invested time in providing feedback on this story in writing in the very forum I believe it is FAIR and more importantly POLITE that some information is provided about this subject. 

Many companies managed to achieve such information flows to players interested in certain subjects. I just give you one example: limited access forum sections in which subjects are discussed, let alone surveys and opinions collected.

 

We all need to remember the past two years history of this game: hard evidence shows that WG / DEVs always came out better and more successful when stories, plans, situations were discussed with the players: their customers.

 

God know only why it is different now.

This is what makes me angry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
1,991 posts
11,811 battles
2 hours ago, it3llig3nc3 said:

The situation regarding the carrier class is up for a debate for a long time now.

Having gone through the "Year of the Carrier" that was 2017, we are now at the spring of 2018 and yet very little is known about it - except the usual mantra from WG that is "We will let you know when the appropriate time comes".

 

The salt in this is that during the past few days it become evident that there were a lot of progression made behind the curtains that the Forum community is not allowed to hear about.

This realization comes a few months after iChaseGaming reported in his Youtube stream about his private discussion around carriers with SubOctavian during one of the Let' Battle tour events in the USA. Of course that was under NDA.

 

This weekend the Waterline episode 1 came out with the cliffhanger teasing about carrier rework to be discussed in the next Chapter

and

Having listened the most recent episode of Warships Podcast it was said that the DEVs showed the selected few the first iteration of the carrier rework during last week's community contributor event in StPetersburg. Of course under NDA.

 

Therefore my conclusion is:

1. WG / DEVs has already made decisions on how it will be done

2. It has been implemented up till a state so it can be shown to external people

3. An obscene and disgraceful teasing campaign is shaping up around the subject - instead of just giving community members some info.

 

There may be reasons for WG doing this.

However the frequent forum visitors do know that in this very forum there has been numerous threads and suggestions around this topic - for which WG NEVER commented anything.

This is why I feel very offended to face with such a ..... attitude on this subject.

 

Closing with the now become "old joke": carriers are still important for this game, so consider informing the community OR at least the 7 members who still plays this class...

 

 

PS:

and yes I do not care about the huge campaign festivity around the US cruiser line split so we are getting introduced to 6 "new" ships that was long overdue...

 

CV are just not important to them....1% of players play it....so everything else they do is more beneficial to the game.

 

that is the truth behind any CV talk....it is business decision that they just dont care for CV because what ever they do to them it will be to complexed game play from their player base (which they threated like [edited] for years and now we have almost FB type of game withh 1 button to push).

 

P.S.

you have "players" in t10 DDs with DW torpedos who repeatedly trys to torpedoe othher DDs....what more to say about player base and their expectation of this game.

 

CV play is, and ever will be just to hard for average G.i:Joe raised by WG

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
136 posts
3,209 battles
3 hours ago, it3llig3nc3 said:

Therefore my conclusion is:

1. WG / DEVs has already made decisions on how it will be done

2. It has been implemented up till a state so it can be shown to external people

3. An obscene and disgraceful teasing campaign is shaping up around the subject - instead of just giving community members some info.

 

 

 My opinion is that WG is not completely sure about what to do with CVs, so they don't release much information.

 

It is most likely to prevent situation that we had with Graff Zeppelin and its many iteration. When ship provided to public was different than the tested versions that were shown to us by Community Contribiutors. This leads to massive criticism by most and even to someone losing his CC position.

 

WG decided not to provide info so they can not be criticised for fake advertisement on changes, because said changes may not be final ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,219 posts
2,535 battles
3 hours ago, Boris_MNE said:

 

Ill second your second statement... But I wont [edited] yet ... I wait to see :D

 

I cant't see this rework being a major overhaul of the class which alot of people seem to think is going to be delivered.

 

If you overhaul the CV class and adjust the mechanics in a big way, you affect all the other classes as well and we end up with WG having to firefight and rebalance the game after the CV overhaul and new mechanics are implemented.

 

All I can see happening is a major rework of the CV User Interface (UI). Same  or slightly tweaked mechanics , just a different way of interacting with them that doesn't make you think you are playing C&C or some other RTS, for example, this first person squadron view that seems to be floating about at the moment.

 

If it is just the UI which is new, there are gonna be alot of unhappy players, alot of people seem to think that some sort of major overhaul of the CV mechanics are coming too - but I don't see how that can be achieved without breaking what we already have.

 

Whatever happens, I cant wait for the changes. I started playing over 12 mths ago and have put off touching CV's because I keep being told a major rework is on the way. I don't want to invest time and effort into learning the current CV UI and game play, if it's suddenly going to be changed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WJDE]
Beta Tester
551 posts
8,741 battles

"Indirect" classes have no place in shooters, arty in tank games is the same as cvs in wows. Sure, there's historical context, but gameplay-wise? No. Just remove carriers and be done with them.

  • Bad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
1,991 posts
11,811 battles
22 minutes ago, orzel286 said:

"Indirect" classes have no place in shooters, arty in tank games is the same as cvs in wows. Sure, there's historical context, but gameplay-wise? No. Just remove carriers and be done with them.

BBs are Arty in wows. Get your crap together. 

 

What has longest fire range, highest shell dmg, no way to avoid shell except been out of range or behind iceland? CV not for sure. 

 

Also in wot when you find arty and get in range it is dead. Here your trouble just starts because oneshooting death star is more precise + some of them have torpedos and secondaries. 

 

So pls tell me again What class in wows is Arty?

 

 

P.s.

Also wasnt remove Cv So 2016? No they will not remove them. And no CVs are not "guilty" for your tomatoing thrue this game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,881 posts
12,596 battles
27 minutes ago, orzel286 said:

"Indirect" classes have no place in shooters, arty in tank games is the same as cvs in wows. Sure, there's historical context, but gameplay-wise? No. Just remove carriers and be done with them.

If that's how you feel then I suggest you stop playing this game now that you're still new. WG will never remove CVs from game.

So spare yourself the pain of dealing with them and us the future forum topics about how OP they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
647 posts
6,787 battles

Reading through the responses to this thread it is confirmed for me that there are very diverse opinions about carriers in the vocal part of the community - and honestly for me this is the most important part: that most of the players DO have an opinion.

This is exactly I'm surprised and sad that for so long DEVs / WG wants to protect us from their plans, their own opinion and vision.

To me this is an equally big mistake like when they tried to "save" the EU region from having to play Xmas missions during the holidays. (remember the Christmas Convoy disaster...)

 

I honestly believe that the lack of information is always more poisonous than having some information that comes from professional game designers such as WG DEVs.

 

No information means the community will create and fill up gaps with fears, beliefs and opinions that will unreasonably extrapolate and eventually explode.

 

Last but not least:

4 hours ago, Fat_Maniac said:

 

1. They have built prototypes of some ideas and ,.....

2.  ..... shown them to the CC's under NDA. Nothing is decided or fixed in stone as of yet

3. WG know how emotive the CV rework is to the player base. Because nothing is finalized yet they are not going to build up peoples expectations by showing something that is not going to happen.

While I have no clear understanding as how WG DEVs are working, but based on symptoms and "reading in between the lines" in communications my best guess is they work with a so called AGILE development methodology.

This concept allows flexibility during development (gradual "interpolation" of the endproduct), however it requires some grand scale definitions of understanding where you want to go (in SCRUM the "Epic")

If I'm correct the development methodology is especially allows that the high level development objectives are defined in a loose business / real life manner, and not as software development specifications.

Just by sharing the carrier rework "Epic" stories and maybe some hints about the "Definition of Done" or the "Minimal Workable Product" would give us interesting hints in everyday language.

 

This is why I believe they know what they are doing - with the reservation that obviously in software development you can never be certain about the endproduct

 

Therefore not tell us anything is still "bad" in my book

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Beta Tester
2,902 posts
5,794 battles

Problem with a small amount of news is that unless you have the whole picture you can't really judge.

 

For example the minotaur is fine - the combination of smoke, very low detection, zombie heal, short fuse AP, and insane rate of fire make it very potent.

 

However when it was in testing the news came out that it doesn't have HE. Loads of people hit the roof declaring that a lightly armoured cruiser with no HE was completely unplayable, an insult to RN, yadda yadda.

 

If you're at the point where you can reveal the whole picture then you're at the poin t where it can go on PTS.

 

 

Tbere are LOADS of variables we dont know - we know they'll be more "action orientated", and theres something about controlling 1 squadron at a time. However, is the AA going to be completely diffferent? Are all the captain skills and AA equipment going to change? Will they have new abilities (like they did for halloween)? Will the health pool be the same? (Great gorgon had 400k+ and healed) Will it still be mirror MM? Will they still be limited?

 

Without this info we can't really judge. You'll also probably find they are still trying things tk see what works and what doesnt

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
136 posts
3,209 battles
1 hour ago, it3llig3nc3 said:

If I'm correct the development methodology is especially allows that the high level development objectives are defined in a loose business / real life manner, and not as software development specifications.

Just by sharing the carrier rework "Epic" stories and maybe some hints about the "Definition of Done" or the "Minimal Workable Product" would give us interesting hints in everyday language.

 

This has already been provided in Waterline 1.1:

CVs are supposed to be strike focused, damage dealers where player takes direct controll over single squadron. The amount of recon CV is providing is being reduced. AA is to be reworked by allowing more interactions between surface and air. If CV owner doesn't like the class after rework, some kind of compensation will be given.

 

 

How the heck are they going to accomplish all that? No idea, but basic outline has been shown.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WJDE]
Beta Tester
551 posts
8,741 battles
16 hours ago, 15JG52Adler said:

BBs are Arty in wows. Get your crap together. 

 

What has longest fire range, highest shell dmg, no way to avoid shell except been out of range or behind iceland? CV not for sure. 

 

Also in wot when you find arty and get in range it is dead. Here your trouble just starts because oneshooting death star is more precise + some of them have torpedos and secondaries. 

 

So pls tell me again What class in wows is Arty?

 

 

P.s.

Also wasnt remove Cv So 2016? No they will not remove them. And no CVs are not "guilty" for your tomatoing thrue this game

Both arty and cvs play a different game from other classes. this was never about range, it was about mechanics and playstyle that set those apart from others and make those two pretty much unbalanceable.

16 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

If that's how you feel then I suggest you stop playing this game now that you're still new. WG will never remove CVs from game.

So spare yourself the pain of dealing with them and us the future forum topics about how OP they are.

I didn't say cvs are op, I did say they have no place it this game.

 

EDIT.

Edited by Kampa1987
Insults
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,881 posts
12,596 battles
15 hours ago, orzel286 said:

I didn't say cvs are op, I did say they have no place it this game.

 

EDIT.

But hey, if they are not OP, then what's the problem, why can't they be in the game?

 

Also, GG on the namecalling.

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.

×