Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
TD1

CV Rework (SEA)

41 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
221 posts
2,713 battles
Quote

 

I played a bunch of games in the CV rework test server, and here are my thoughts on the CV rework:

 

-The strike-craft are a bit unwieldy to use as of right now. For some reason I yet have to know (because this is the very first time I played the CV in the rework state), the dive bomber has a short delay upon confirming the area of attack (because of this, I missed many ships), and the torpedo bombers for some reason only release 2 torpedoes instead of all at once. The only consistent performer is the rocket strike craft.

-I could not control the carrier while in control of strike craft, which resulted in my death once when the Ranger ate a torpedo dropped by a Farragut that got too close.

-AA feels a tad bit ineffective (for now). This is because even when I tried the Worcester I couldn't shoot down more than 10 planes.

-There needs to be a button that resets AA effectiveness on both sides of the ship to 100%.

 

First session is a tad bit dissapointing: lost all but one battle when I was either in the Ryujo/Ranger (Midway was alot better), and only managed to sink one ship in 5 games; an already-crippled Fuso who was burning and on low health.

On the other hand, I welcome this Battlestations Pacific- esque gameplay (that game was hella fun, too bad it's now pretty much a graveyard), and I did dodge much more attacks than with the current CV iteration (dancing around torps, rockets, and bombs in the Shimakaze was hilarious af, and I even got a banter like "ha ha, you guys are lousy shots, can't even hit me!":Smile_teethhappy:. This goal of reducing CV's previously-excessive influence is working, given that I am happily dancing around ordance dropped from the skies and fearing torpedoes and surface guns more than CVs (I lost my Shimakaze twice to torpedoes fired by other Shimakazes).

 

Funnily enough, I encountered two people who are not happy with the CV rework and said that they would play World of Warplanes if they wanted to play planes, and one even hoped that the CV rework isn't accepted (well sorry but at this stage I think it's too late).

 

I posted that in my Naval Corner just moments ago. I then realized that this server, unlike the NA server (which I regularly fish complaints from :Smile_teethhappy:), has no dedicated CV rework discussion thread. Given that the CV rework test is NDA-free, I might as well make the thread.

 

If anyone here also wishes to discuss this rework, feel free to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
27 posts
4,520 battles

To be honest, I prefer the old style of CV gameplay. Maybe because its look like RTS game, which is one of my favourite genre. I just started to enjoy learning how to micro manage and properly deployed of my aircraft squads with the Bogue, and then the CV Reworks happened. After watching some footages and videos about CV reworks, suddenly I felt "Ok, this is not for me anymore". Maybe because I enjoyed what it's like to be a CV commander, orchestrating my aerial assets while adapt to changes in battlefield conditions. And honestly, if I want to fly an airplane, I play DCS World or IL-2 series, because the got a lots of details to offer.

But, if WG and majority of other players says the opposite... Que sera sera. :cap_tea:

I am more concerned about changes in AA mechanics. Since I spent a lot of time and resource to build ships and train captains dedicated to this role.

Edited by Sharr_Dextera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
221 posts
2,713 battles
40 minutes ago, Sharr_Dextera said:

To be honest, I prefer the old style of CV gameplay. Maybe because its look like RTS game, which is one of my favourite genre. I just started to enjoy learning how to micro manage and properly deployed of my aircraft squads with the Bogue, and then the CV Reworks happened. After watching some footages and videos about CV reworks, suddenly I felt "Ok, this is not for me anymore". Maybe because I enjoyed what it's like to be a CV commander, orchestrating my aerial assets while adapt to changes in battlefield conditions. And honestly, if I want to fly an airplane, I play DCS World or IL-2 series, because the got a lots of details to offer.

But, if WG and majority of other players says the opposite... Que sera sera. :cap_tea:

I am more concerned about changes in AA mechanics. Since I spent a lot of time and resource to build ships and train captains dedicated to this role.

When I heard of the CV rework I immediately sold both the Zuiho and Bogue; I wanted to play that. 

 

You are correct about playing IL2 if you wish for more detailed flight. But do realise that naval aviation is as much of a part of naval combat as surface and subsurface combat, so flying naval planes is still not that far off the mark given that WoWS is a semi-simulator of naval combat.

 

Remember that this CV rework is far from done. Best to trust WG and wait for further news in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
27 posts
4,520 battles
1 hour ago, TD1 said:

When I heard of the CV rework I immediately sold both the Zuiho and Bogue; I wanted to play that. 

 

You are correct about playing IL2 if you wish for more detailed flight. But do realise that naval aviation is as much of a part of naval combat as surface and subsurface combat, so flying naval planes is still not that far off the mark given that WoWS is a semi-simulator of naval combat.

 

Remember that this CV rework is far from done. Best to trust WG and wait for further news in the future.

Thats why I said before, Que sera sera. It's just not my taste (CV reworks), and I already accept that.

But then, there are much more different aspect to enjoy and having fun on WOWs. So, it is fine for me, as long as it is (still) enjoyable.

Edited by Sharr_Dextera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,107 posts
7,849 battles

After novelity wear off, its become boring.

There lack of pvp feel, i just fly to red side and go attacking ships. 

It might be good for casual play once in a while, but you need thousand games to progress the tier up. And im getting kinda bored after just 6 games in it. 😕

and idk how the play on each cv unique trait or tier gonna differ with each other. You just control limited number of aircraft, there prob factor like aircraft speed, or torpedo speed - but tbh, with that kind of gameplay was it even matter? (it feel still the same)

the control is still rough and the ui too, but the concept is the one that need to be look out. Imo its kinda not sustainable.

i read mouse article in na, that wg try to attract player that have cv experience or can play cv, but chose not to when given option. I think i prob fit that bracket, and im actualy not that interested into play new cv since its kinda boring, and tedius to think grinding hours to progress with that kind of gameplay.

this just my oppinion though, dont get worked up about it

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
103 posts
4,846 battles

While I can see why they go to a squadron simulator direction, I don't understand why they abandon the RTS gameplay of carriers (of all things) in the first place. I probably never will. They are carriers. They are meant to be different. To me, that's the selling point of carriers. The battlefield is entirely within my sight and delivering strikes anywhere is my job.
The RTS style also allows easy control of the carrier at the same time as the planes, as well as allowing easy addition of hybrid ships like Ise-class (she's in WoWS Blitz now, btw).

The current state of the CV rework is still hazy. Certain plane weapons deal so much damage and certain ships have more AA power than they should be. As of now, balancing those is still a secondary goal, and there are still a bunch of other things that need to be done.

They aren't done yet and they act like everything is done. We even have RN carriers in the Dev Blog.
Hold your horses there WG.

 

Why not start with re-balancing damage of aircraft weapons? Changing squadron size and number of squadrons? Testing how a gameplay without Manual attack would work, and with a more accurate auto drop, or maybe adding a universal cooldown for Manual attack? Reworking AA and increasing plane's HP so planes don't die as often? Letting carriers have unlimited planes but longer service time?
Why don't start there? Why jump the gun to an entirely different gameplay?

Heck, they can incorporate some aspects of the new gameplay into the old RTS gameplay. Like, new AA system. Like, press a button while selecting a strike squadron and you can switch from RTS bird's eye view to the new simulator style and control the planes manually, just like the new gameplay. Other strike squadrons can only do auto drop as ordered. No more 3-squadron manual drop alpha strike. Fighters get to do their job without being turned into consumable. You still have full control of the carrier. This is still a warship game.

Just some suggestions. A 5-minute thought.

 

I just don't get it.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[HMASW]
Beta Tester
50 posts
6,102 battles

For the sake of full disclosure, I am not a big CV player in WoWS have up to tier V CV's then gave up. I do have an occasional run in the Saipan though.

I hate playing against them as they currently are with the biggest problem is team balance.

If you have one team with a very good CV player and the other with a poor one there is a huge disadvantage to the team that has a low skill CV player. Now this has somewhat ben dealt with with the removal of fighter A/C being able to obliterate the low skill players squadrons but not entirely as the bombers and rocket equipped A/C can run as fighters for a limited duration, so I like this aspect but not the fact that still an imbalance can occur. Do I have an answer on how to fix this part NO.

 

As far as the look and feel goes, Hats off to WG development staff, as a first cut CV test this is brilliant. Th look and feel and emersion with the AA fire bursts and the controls for attacking phase are simply awesome, love them. The fine control during the terminal phase of the attack is still a bit clunky, perhaps this is intentional?

As for the AA spec of the CV itself for self defense I have found attacking an enemy CV that is spotted is expensive in terms of A/C being knocked out. With a full squadron of 4 you will get on most occasions 2 torps away.Again I believe this is part of the balance mechanism to do away with defensive A/C fighter squadrons.

 

More game play needed for now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
590 posts
2,995 battles

Hi All, 

Please remember that the rework is being done as the old way wasn't working. 

Whilst the rework is being tested, super testers are also running these tests (From memory on a dedicated server) so when Wargaming collect all feedback, they can propose and make changes. 

WG have to do something different with the cv's to make them more playable and this is the current preferred option, but that doesn't mean it will be the one they go for. 

Again, the CV re-work is a Work in Progress - so anything that you may see, feel and believe may actually differ from end results

My biggest piece of advice is to 'Watch this space'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
220 posts
11,643 battles

I think they have explained in detail enough why it was done in the latest waterline video about cv rework. imo balans > all.

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
14 posts
14,266 battles

Although I haven't participated in the test there seems to me to be an argument for off map CV / land based aircraft.  This relieves the cv player of need to protect his ship or rely on team mates.  This would also expand the number and  types of available aircraft.

 

In the interests of full disclosure I gave up on cv s when my Hyru keep getting matched against Saipan,  unless you have switched on cruisers in your team, soul destroying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
259 posts
5,832 battles

I'm one of those players who would probably play CVs more if it wasn't so complex and hard at higher tiers. (I have a Hiryu sitting in port for most of the year, having stopped playing CV outside or Ops)

I'm also one of those players who, as a multi-type player, hates the dominance of CVs over other types in any game (though I concede this may be because a. I seldom spec AA for any ship, and b. I seldom have any of that dominance when I play CV).

As a CV player, the two things I hated most were;

A) Coming up against higher tier ships, or AA ships in general, where my planes would be shredded as I got near and I could do little to stop it.

B) Coming up against a CV player who could completely outmatch me.

As a player of other ship types, what I hated most about CVs were;

A) Spotting ability, concealment is so vital in current meta. Air spotting nullifies DDs most powerful ability even worse than radar, rendering them near useless, and CAs, CLs, and BBs can get slaughtered while running away, without being able to break contact.

B) Alpha strike ability, A good player could outright kill you, or take most of your health, in the opening of the game, with little resistance. Minutes into the game, if you find you've misplayed, put yourself on the wrong flank with no support, come up against superior enemy numbers, you're still 15-20km away from the enemy ships, you still have time to run, not so if you get targeted by a CV.

C) Lack of defense against CVs. This is a big sticking point for me, which ties in to the power granted by the two above points. While many ships accept that they have certain weaknesses (such as being citadelled from any angle), there are still methods to avoid damage, cover, maneuvering, concealment, running. Few of these are as effective against CVs. If you are a ship with bad AA, or not specced for it, there's not much you can do against a CV who wants you dead.

In conclusion, As a CV player, what I would like to see is less direct competition between yourself and enemy CV, and also being more fair against ships with really strong AA. Bringing the chances of causing damage in a CV more into line with the chances of other ships. So far, the new CV rework seems to be moving I this direction (at least in concept), so, well done, I look forward to seeing the fine tuning.

And as a player of other ship types, what I would like to see is a ship which you can use counter methods for, which are more in line with the counter methods of other ships, i.e being able to avoid damage by running, hiding, using cover or maneuvering, also less chance of being sunk in first 5 minutes, and not having to worry about your usefulness being nullified because you are spotted for the whole game. Again, the concept seems to be in this direction as well. Though I have not seen much of the counter CV play yet.

Side note: Mostly, as a player playing other types against a CV, I hope that my defense can come down to my skill, not which ship or which spec I am, and certainly not relying on other players to shield me. As a solo player on the Asia server, I am vehemently against any 'standard counter method' for a ship type to be 'sail with your team.' Expecting players to regularly sail within 5km of each other is a little too much.

Overall, I like the concept of the changes, and I hope they work, it may even get me to play CV again, though I am more concerned at this point about the effect it has on the other ships. Though I would love a day when I can see CVs on the map, and NOT think, 'oh god, another one of THESE games'.

Though I do hope they rethink regarding direct controls on the CVs, you need to be able to assume command immediately in order to dodge torps, as you cannot expect assistance from  allies.

As a final thought. CVs deserve to be in the game, they were a significant warship in naval history. The RTS controls, while accurate for the type, have never matched the game, and probably should not have been included in the first place (even if they are fun).

I look forward to seeing how this pans out, and applaud WG for their very careful and thoughtful approach to this, don't rush, and keep up the good work.

You may now question my logic and sanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
259 posts
5,832 battles
39 minutes ago, HMAS_Currimundi said:

Although I haven't participated in the test there seems to me to be an argument for off map CV / land based aircraft.  This relieves the cv player of need to protect his ship or rely on team mates.  This would also expand the number and  types of available aircraft.

 

In the interests of full disclosure I gave up on cv s when my Hyru keep getting matched against Saipan,  unless you have switched on cruisers in your team, soul destroying.

This would also make CV's unsinkable and unstoppable, or, if they were based on map on an island, unable to run when airfield is attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[HMASW]
Beta Tester
50 posts
6,102 battles
3 hours ago, HMAS_Currimundi said:

Although I haven't participated in the test there seems to me to be an argument for off map CV / land based aircraft.  This relieves the cv player of need to protect his ship or rely on team mates.  This would also expand the number and  types of available aircraft.

 

In the interests of full disclosure I gave up on cv s when my Hyru keep getting matched against Saipan,  unless you have switched on cruisers in your team, soul destroying.

In my opinion off map would make it worse, the biggest problem is similar to that faced by WoT players in Arty in that you can lose 1/3 of your HP or more in extreme cases without ever seeing or getting a shot at revenge. The suggestion for off map attack aircraft would make this worse.

The two challenges for WG are the above plus th imbalance if one team has a skilled CV player and the other not they can influence the game too heavily to one side unlike a good DD, CA or BB player.

I like what WG have done as a 1st crack at it the play is engaging and fun unlike the previous game play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
259 posts
5,832 battles
50 minutes ago, Ranork said:

The two challenges for WG are the above plus th imbalance if one team has a skilled CV player and the other not they can influence the game too heavily to one side unlike a good DD, CA or BB player.

Correct, a CV should be no more or less influential on the outcome of a battle than any other ship type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
259 posts
5,832 battles
1 hour ago, tsuenwan said:

There shall be 2 type of battles, CV and Non CV.  then it is a lot easier to model the game mechanics.

So... All CV matches will be either ALL CV, assuming there are the player numbers, or half CV, and half AA Ships . Because no non AA spec ship will ever willingly go into battle against a CV.:cap_rambo:

Edited by Grygus_Triss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,356 posts
8,888 battles
8 hours ago, Paladinum said:

While I can see why they go to a squadron simulator direction, I don't understand why they abandon the RTS gameplay of carriers (of all things) in the first place. I probably never will. They are carriers. They are meant to be different. To me, that's the selling point of carriers. The battlefield is entirely within my sight and delivering strikes anywhere is my job.
The RTS style also allows easy control of the carrier at the same time as the planes, as well as allowing easy addition of hybrid ships like Ise-class (she's in WoWS Blitz now, btw).

The current state of the CV rework is still hazy. Certain plane weapons deal so much damage and certain ships have more AA power than they should be. As of now, balancing those is still a secondary goal, and there are still a bunch of other things that need to be done.

They aren't done yet and they act like everything is done. We even have RN carriers in the Dev Blog.
Hold your horses there WG.

 

Why not start with re-balancing damage of aircraft weapons? Changing squadron size and number of squadrons? Testing how a gameplay without Manual attack would work, and with a more accurate auto drop, or maybe adding a universal cooldown for Manual attack? Reworking AA and increasing plane's HP so planes don't die as often? Letting carriers have unlimited planes but longer service time?
Why don't start there? Why jump the gun to an entirely different gameplay?

Heck, they can incorporate some aspects of the new gameplay into the old RTS gameplay. Like, new AA system. Like, press a button while selecting a strike squadron and you can switch from RTS bird's eye view to the new simulator style and control the planes manually, just like the new gameplay. Other strike squadrons can only do auto drop as ordered. No more 3-squadron manual drop alpha strike. Fighters get to do their job without being turned into consumable. You still have full control of the carrier. This is still a warship game.

Just some suggestions. A 5-minute thought.

 

I just don't get it.

This. So much this.

I really don't get the reason why WG decided to remove the current RTS system when they never even bothered to try and rebalance it in the first place. There are so many things they could have tried tweaking testing. Like you said, some aspects like the new AA and unlimited planes could have easily been integrated into the current RTS system.

Instead WG tries to present the RTS system as some sort of bogeyman that is the root cause of all CV woes. When anybody who bothered to play CVs for any decent amount of time knows that is not really the case. The real problem has always been the amount of influence CVs have on the game, followed by the skill-gap problem (which stems from said influence) and buggy UI, among other things. The fact that WG never even bothered to teach players how to play CVs is just icing on the cake. God, watching that Waterline video where WG talked about this really triggered me so much, I felt like punching a wall. It confirmed my suspicions that WG has no idea whatsoever on anything related to CVs. Seriously, watch Farazelleth's first response video to see what I mean.

One funny thing is WG said the RTS style is too different which is why they are removing it. And yet flying a plane as opposed to a ship is not different enough? Being unable to control directly control you ship in a ship game is not different enough?

And yeah the worst thing is WG is acting like everything is done and dusted, like they have done a good job, and now they are proudly showing off submarine gameplay and their intent to bring submarines into WoWs. Come on WG, you have showed that you were unable to handle CV gameplay, and yet want to introduce another class on top of that? This is the very epitome of putting the cart before the horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,843 posts
8,112 battles

Rocket planes for zeroes is totally fictional, as well as the F4F-4 Wildcat

 

Originally. CVs should make them as fighter bombers than rocket planes and also fights other fighters as well

 

The F4F and the A6M2 Zeroes are fighter bombers while A6M5s are Fighter Bombers and F6F Hellcats carries bomb or Rockets.

 

D4Y Suiseis carry rockets or bombs

B7A Carries torpedoes or bombs.

 

The rest are good but Consumable Fighters..... uhh probably going to say NO. Fighters are the critical and main priority of CVs, Rocket planes should be introduced at Tier VIII than on Tier VII or VI

Edited by BIGCOREMKP0I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
67 posts
1,374 battles
34 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

So... All CV matches will be either ALL CV, assuming there are the player numbers, or half CV, and half AA Ships . Because no non AA spec ship will ever willingly go into battle against a CV.:cap_rambo:

Fundamentally, CV centric operation and Battleship centric operation has very different dynamics and match makings. They are almost exclusive in real life.

The current AA mechanics was an attempt to keep the surface gun battle to go on while allowing air operation to happen at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
660 posts
3,532 battles

Listen all of you, i know that most of you complain new Arcadey planes is lame and non fictional  fighter with rockets, but Lets be honest here,

RTS is boring for most new beginners sort especially those who don't like RTS. You expect CV RTS is going to bring love to some players? I mean RTS strategy starting to die nowadays.

Now, i played TST game and most of the veterans kinda enjoyed new arcadey battle. Yes there is a flaws left and right but , do we have a choice to go back to RTS? Do you want to remove CV?

Its just like ppl whining bout , I WANT FREAKING ARCADE ON CV, while the other mutt says NO I WANT RTS. Make up your mind guys...  Historical or not , Its always an unhappy community here and there.

 

Lets face it, you want more ppl to join in or you want this to end up like WT dead playerbase... Pick your choice.

Edited by LawrenceXVIII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,843 posts
8,112 battles
18 minutes ago, LawrenceXVIII said:

Listen all of you, i know that most of you complain new Arcadey planes is lame and non fictional  fighter with rockets

A6M with rockets sounds fictional, they only carried 100kg bombs, same for the F4F Wildcat. 

I'm only complaining these because they only have bombs historically, both the IJN and the USN have Fighter Bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
103 posts
4,846 battles
2 hours ago, Thyaliad said:

Instead WG tries to present the RTS system as some sort of bogeyman that is the root cause of all CV woes

I saw a comment on Dev Blog that goes like this "because it's for XBox".

Pandering the console peasants by ignoring the very selling point of CVs? It's not like RTS style will be an issue on a controller. Just make a new control scheme ffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
660 posts
3,532 battles
25 minutes ago, BIGCOREMKP0I said:

A6M with rockets sounds fictional, they only carried 100kg bombs, same for the F4F Wildcat. 

I'm only complaining these because they only have bombs historically, both the IJN and the USN have Fighter Bombers.

I dont mind your complains because i know rockets are fictional exception of Vought F4U with Tiny Tim Rockets but, again as i said. Lets face it, you want CV to die and removed by WG without notice or you want more ppl in the CV to face challenge?

Its like Submarine too. You guys love Historical right?

Edited by LawrenceXVIII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,843 posts
8,112 battles
5 minutes ago, LawrenceXVIII said:

I dont mind your complains because i know rockets are fictional exception of Vought F4U with Tiny Tim Rockets but, again as i said. Lets face it, you want CV to die and removed by WG without notice or you want more ppl in the CV to face challenge?

Its like Submarine too. You guys love Historical right?

Id choose CV, And also replace Spotting Aircraft as Seaplane Bombers so Battleships and Other Cruisers can fight back Aircraft against Aircraft instead of spotting and increase range, Its necessary to be them carrying seaplane bombers to attack a nearby ship instead of a spotting plane circling around the Battleship/Cruiser. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×