Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
BIGCOREMKP0I

NA Worst Server of the Year (Salty CV Rework)

132 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

265
[LBAS]
Member
2,151 posts
10,752 battles

RTS Players, Get off my lawn!

EDIT: TITLE UPDATED

NA region been ranting and bashing bout the rework.

 

Damn Republicans.

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/a72vu4/cv_rework_in_update_080_dev_blog/

Edited by BIGCOREMKP0I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,795
[SGC]
Super Tester
7,897 posts
8,180 battles

WoW, A server that is well known for notoriously bad cv players...

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
768
[MRI]
Member
1,872 posts
10,833 battles

They are salty for a good reason though. The rework is not ready, yet WG is all acting like it is. It going to be Graf Zeppelin all over again.

There are still plenty of issues that WG needs to look into. Tier 4 CVs are absolutely horrible to play, plus you are stuck with them until you hit Tier 6. AA is still an RNG fest with little skill involved on the surface ships' part. AA effectiveness is still too disparate between tiers and ships; during the TST as a Hakuryuu tier 8 ships were simply fodder to me, while my Montana was more or less impervious to any Lexington. Plus several other issues, not including the bugs that still crop up from time to time like the one where you lose all control of your planes.

WG needs to slow down and work out all the kinks, yet they are blazing through rework just like the reworked Midway fighters using Engine Boost.

The most hilarious thing is WG really, really, really doesn't want you to control the CV directly. You know, the one thing that almost all testers have been asking for since day 1. Here is WG's post on the dev blog:

For those who can't or won't access Facebook for whatever reason, here is what it says.
 

Spoiler

 

Commanders!

In version 0.8.0 of the game World of Warships, the new aircraft carriers will be introduced. The update will significantly change the gameplay of the whole class as players know it, moving away from the specific controls and gameplay, that is currently more in the realm of real-time strategy games. The main goals of the changes are to:
- increase the popularity of aircraft carriers,
- increase the entertainment factor when playing them
- improve the balance in comparison to other classes.

More than 5,000 players participated in the testing of aircraft carriers. Thank you for your feedback and the time spent on tests. You have allowed us to find, and fix, a lot of bugs as well as improve some mechanics.

Anyone will soon be able to try the new CVs. Their gameplay is gradually taking its final form. In this post, we'll tell you about a few recent changes implemented following test results.

The small opportunities of autopilot system is one of the reasons why players want to control the aircraft carrier independently and in parallel with the aircraft. It didn't allow the ships to move in reverse, so if the aircraft carrier crashed into an island, then you had to spend a lot of time to get it back on the right course. We have improved autopilot for all classes of ships. Now, if the player puts a navigation point in the stern sector relative to the current course of the ship, the autopilot will reverse. Thus, by plotting points in the tactical map view, you will be able to remove the aircraft carrier from the collision with the island, without the need to return/recall your active aircraft.

We know that there are other situations in which some players would like to use a squadron and an aircraft carrier in parallel. However, at the heart of the new gameplay is the management of only one game unit at a time - predominantly an aircraft squadron. This condition is necessary for not spreading the player's attention too thin in battle and reduce the current overload of micro management, making the class of aircraft carriers more accessible to everyone.

Another controversial point was the protection of the aircraft carrier from an enemy air attack. Players had to return the squadron, and only then, from the СV, use the necessary counter measures, including the fighters call. Not all players used this opportunity. Often they were unable to react in time or they were not ready to lose control of their planes. To solve this problem, we are working on an automatic activation system of the relevant CV consumables when it is in danger.

Speaking about fighters. The time during which they chased plane, has been reduced. Now it will be easier to run away from them. During tests, the circle on the minimap showed the trajectory on which the fighters were patrolling. Players couldn't figure out how far away from the fighters it was safe to fly. Now the circle will show the extreme boundary of the zone, the area within which your planes will be attacked. Thus, the working of the consumable "fighters" will become more obvious and understandable.

Balance is one of the hottest topics of discussion. It is important to understand that it is impossible to bring optimum balance to the final state of the class in the test environment, as players behave differently there than on the main server. That's why, the work on the balance settings of aircraft carriers will continue after their release. Within a few months, you can expect numerous changes to the parameters of aircraft, including the number of units and their types. As is the case with the initial test of new aircraft carriers, here we will count on your feedback and support to assist us in the 'fine-tuning' process.

Thanks to our joint efforts, the class of aircraft carriers will soon get a new life in World Of Warships. Thank you!

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary.

 

So there you have it. WG's reasoning is that they don't want players to be distracted. :Smile_facepalm:

Yeah WG is assuming players to be so bad at multi-tasking that they would fall out of their chair if they ever had to had to switch back and forth between the CV and the planes. (Then again to be fair to WG, judging by the average skill level of the playerbase, I am not surprised if they are actually just that bad. As I type this, I just encountered a Zao who died to a bot CV in coop, because he sailed in a completely straight line for 3 separate torpedo attacks. Next game encountered a Baltimore who did the same)

Not only that, but WG is so adamant about not allowing CV control that they are going to implement an automatic consumable activation system! Why not just give :etc_swear:ing CV control in the first place instead of dumbing down the game even further?

But I am going to address the elephant in the room and state what I think is the real reason why WG refuses to allow plane-CV control switching , the real reason which WG doesn't want to admit.

The game engine is unable to handle it.

WG doesn't know how to implement plane-CV control switching but they don't want to admit it, hence all these stupid reasons for not allowing CV control. Why else would they not want to add such a seemingly simple feature which was  almost universally asked for since day one? The bug I mentioned earlier, where you can launch your planes but can't control them except by using the mouse because the keyboard is still tied to CV control, is a clear piece of evidence. So either WG is downright lying and misleading, or apparently the playerbase is just that dumb at multi-tasking. Don't know which is worse.

So what we have is CV gameplay that is forcibly modified to be playable on for consoles, on a game engine that can barely handle it, being rushed out way too early. Add to that how WG just downright ignored or glossed over player feedback, and you can see why so many players, including myself, are very salty.

Edited by Thyaliad
  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[LBAS]
Member
2,151 posts
10,752 battles
1 hour ago, Thyaliad said:

They are salty for a good reason though. The rework is not ready

:Smile_hiding: Too Late, it has been decided, Players are forced to be in this rework, EU, RU and half of SEA are supposed to enjoy the gameplay while NA....

 

Play another RTS for Pete's sake guys.

Salt and Balance®

Edited by BIGCOREMKP0I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[LBAS]
Member
2,151 posts
10,752 battles
3 hours ago, icy_phoenix said:

WoW, A server that is well known for notoriously bad cv players...

Have to agree with you, most of them are BBabies and such, now with the Soviet BBs they cry again because no Italian cruisers announced. :Smile_hiding:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
768
[MRI]
Member
1,872 posts
10,833 battles
5 minutes ago, BIGCOREMKP0I said:

:Smile_hiding: Too Late, it has been decided, Players are forced to be in this rework, EU, RU and half of SEA are supposed to enjoy the gameplay while NA....

Yeah so what's the hurry? Why is WG rushing this? This is the biggest change since the game went live. I know WG is aiming to finish it fast, just so they can say "Ring in the New Year with the new CVs" or something like that, but they should be taking as much time as needed to implement this carefully and properly.

What worries me is WG has not said anything about non-CV captains and if they will get captain skill resets. With WG stating that the balancing process will be done on the live server, I feel that ALL captains should get free skill resets for the entire balancing process, or at least the initial part of it. Non-CV players should be given the opportunity to spec into AA for free if they so wish.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[LBAS]
Member
2,151 posts
10,752 battles
2 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

Yeah so what's the hurry? Why is WG rushing this? This is the biggest change since the game went live. I know WG is aiming to finish it fast, just so they can say "Ring in the New Year with the new CVs" or something like that, but they should be taking as much time as needed to implement this carefully and properly.

What worries me is WG has not said anything about non-CV captains and if they will get captain skill resets. With WG stating that the balancing process will be done on the live server, I feel that ALL captains should get free skill resets for the entire balancing process, or at least the initial part of it. Non-CV players should be given the opportunity to spec into AA for free if they so wish.

There is a huge chance of Commander reset because of the Dual Catapult Fighter skill.

 

And i do like Unlimited Catapult Fighters. funny as hell.

Edited by BIGCOREMKP0I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,910 posts
6,036 battles

There are a few reasons I'm against the rework:

1. CVs are vastly different from BBs, DDs, Cruisers and, of course, submarines. Those ships have 5 - 12 main guns and 4 - 15 torpedo tubes, CVs have 20 - 120+ aircrafts. All of which can be deployed and used at the same time. Each aircraft is similar to a gun/torpedo tube - each carries the ammunition to the targets. But each aircraft cannot deliver those weapons the same distance as artillery guns. Fine control of many "weapons" is inherent and tied to the very definition of this ship type. RTS gameplay for CVs makes sense, the RTS gameplay that WG made just sucks huge balls. In other words, WG cannot make good CV gameplay does NOT mean RTS CVs in WoWS is impossible.

This rework makes CV play the same as other ship types, losing their entire identity. 1 fixed set of weapons, just like other ship types.

2. Fighters are consumables. I find this so hilarious, it's ridiculous (and sad).

3. Apparently WG didn't even bother trying to do any of the following: removing Alt-attack mode/strafing on all tiers, adjusting aircraft weapons to minimize "alpha strike" damage, adjusting the number of squadron per CV, and adjusting the number of planes per squadron. Alt-attack mode/strafing is the biggest gameplay gap that separates and creates "good" and "bad" CV players (that and battlefield awareness, but all ship types require that anyway).

4. True hybrid ship's gameplay is almost impossible if plane control and ship control cannot be switched at will. Old CV gameplay allows me to launch planes, control those planes to a target, order those planes to attack a target, and while the planes are on their merry way, I can switch to my ship and fire the guns.

 

 

I do see the upsides of the new gameplay. I think I'm gonna play CVs in this rework for a bit. I have my agenda to carry out, not because I like this new gameplay.

 

And yes, NA server is the pool of toxicity, saltiness and self-entitlement.

 

PS. Sad Faza is sad. Also making a lot of 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV8tWCbt1cY

 

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
690
[CLAY]
Member
1,205 posts
8,130 battles

I haven’t played any of the testing so I’m not sure about the fine details.

I don’t care too much about removing the RTS part, I don’t play CVs much, and the rework might make me play more.

What I am most concerned about is AA of surface ships. Which we have seen little about so far. What I hoped this rework would do is balance CVs against surface ships, so it is no more difficult to fight off or mitigate damage from a CV than it is from any other ship. I.e against other ships you can angle, manoeuvre, run, dodge, hide etc... Against current CVs, all you have is RNG AA, (no, you can never rely on allies for support).

While I like that WG have made dodging AA skill based FOR THE CV, I am concerned that there is still little skill involved in countering air attacks from the surface ship’s perspective. There needs to be skill on both sides, can’t just be up to ship type, Captain skills, mods etc...

And can someone clarify if CVs have infinite or finite planes in rework? I have heard people say both things.

If planes are infinite, then that makes the whole, ‘no direct control of ship’ simpler, because you can cancel you current attack, go back to ship, move, relaunch etc... then relaunch again once threat is over. If planes are finite, then it’s an issue, because cancelling the attack makes your planes fly back automatically, and losing any would be a blow.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
463
[LNA]
Member
1,925 posts
11,681 battles

Seems awfully rushed. I participate in 2 of the test and i can guarantee that CV is not ready. Not without 2 more patches worth of time to short out : ui bugs , mechanic bug ( yes theres a few of them ) and aa vs plane durability escalation. Some ship are completely immune to CV , while other cry water fountain for no AA.

Not to mention CV in +1/+2 MM stand little chance against top tier AA.

If mods and devs read this , be sure that you don't recreate the Rubicon of WoWS. It is not a wise move for a game with a small player base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
341
Member
1,316 posts
5,985 battles

made CV into two person control ship

one control ship and their secondary like main gun

other control plane

😄

 

seriously...

I start to think that no matter WG do it's impossible to make CV fit well in the game.

IRL CV is game changer which rendere big ship big gun obsolete. nowadays navy is only CV and AA packed DD. (and sub)

in game, they try to made all of 'em sit well in same battle field which is near impossible.

 

RTS style, those who master it control the whole match at their finger tips, those who don't get all the salt...

new style, many more issues looming on horizon.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
479 posts
1,474 battles

CV should be the replacement of BB. 

Air vs surface battle. Very different MM, Very different arena, Very different ship roles and capabilities. Game design should be very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
690
[CLAY]
Member
1,205 posts
8,130 battles
5 hours ago, Thyaliad said:

Yeah so what's the hurry? Why is WG rushing this? This is the biggest change since the game went live. I know WG is aiming to finish it fast, just so they can say "Ring in the New Year with the new CVs" or something like that, but they should be taking as much time as needed to implement this carefully and properly.

What worries me is WG has not said anything about non-CV captains and if they will get captain skill resets. With WG stating that the balancing process will be done on the live server, I feel that ALL captains should get free skill resets for the entire balancing process, or at least the initial part of it. Non-CV players should be given the opportunity to spec into AA for free if they so wish.

Maybe they don’t want players to knee jerk react and set all their captains to AA immediately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
292 posts
368 battles
13 minutes ago, 9mm1n said:

just give CVs a seperate gamemode

problem solved

 

just give manual AA to surface ship, problem solved

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[LBAS]
Member
2,151 posts
10,752 battles

>Sees WoWs Reddit

 

>NA Players throwing their salt on reddit again

 

Yup, shows much alot of dissappointment on NA Server, F to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[LYNMF]
Member
355 posts
10,910 battles
15 minutes ago, BIGCOREMKP0I said:

Also keep in note that Subs are coming too.

Can somebody post the WG interview about they will not implement submarines in the game.

Oh wait, they already had........

====================================================

The CV tweak are not properly fix as the tester try to play them, yet they wanna hurry to release it. Bug and glitch still happen in the game & yet it took them a year to notice them.

On the other side, I began to hate where this game heading on in the future. They keep & keep making new contain, more stupid premium, stupid gimmicks (what next - nuclear bomb??) rather to fix the game properly.

I can tell in the future WG wanna head to "fast-profit" rather than "long-term-profit", which end up backfire to them, just look what happen to major game publisher this year.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
150
[LBAS]
Beta Tester
527 posts
49 minutes ago, ArchKongou said:

I can tell in the future WG wanna head to "fast-profit" rather than "long-term-profit", which end up backfire to them, just look what happen to major game publisher this year. 

This team don't need to look at other game publishers, because that's too far for them, they can just look at where her next door sister (WoT) has ended up is enough to tell the story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
144
Member
388 posts
4,593 battles

While I also have (minor) concerns about them releasing CVs that early (its not uncommon for rush jobs to go badly wrong because the implementer didn't think things through)

 

NA is probably the saltiest server on WoWS, filled with people who not only fail in giving proper feedback, but shout down those who have a different opinion. Insults and personal attacks are commonplace there, and most of the time the server looks for the next big thing to complain about and complain about it. I think I can eat McDonalds' large fries for 2 days straight, and I will still have taken in less salt than a 30-minute surf on the NA forums.

One of my favorite topics to see them complain about was West Virginia not being in her 1944 rebuild. Which only redoubled when WoWS Blitz got it :Smile_teethhappy:. On the positive side, their response opens up the possibility of premium ships of the same name but different ship type (e.g Scharnhorst armored cruiser vs Scharnhorst raider battleship), or even different versions of the same ship (e.g the aformentioned West Virginia 1941 vs West Virginia 1944).

 

Very few people on NA know how to give proper feedback, and would rather insult/swear/bash WG needlessly/threaten to cut off buying/whatever than say, politely, what they want to say, and give "evidence" if necessary. I dunno about the Alabama debacle since I wasn't here yet, but I can tell that they can and will listen if you know how to make them listen (see the whole torpedo bulge penetration mechanic thing, which after CCs managed to convince them it was a bad idea, made them shelve it)

Want to know why Foch got disciplined? It's not because he said something WG disagreed with (and when WG stepped into this territory, that's when the community rose up in arms against WG and attacked them en masse), but the way he said it. Spending at least a minute ranting, cursing and swearing in the Chrysler K GF review/rant, and ending it with a "[content removed] WG": that is a BIG RED FLAG IN REGARDS TO GIVING PROPER FEEDBACK. Contrast that with Mouse's rather harsh but well-worded panning of the Graf Zeppelin when it first came out. 

 

@Thyaliad may disagree with me in terms of the CV rework (largely because I'm a bit too naive to see the crazy), but he's a lot nicer in saying it than the average NA pubbie. So are the others here. I'd rather converse with them and learn more (especially since I'm rather new here), than deal with the average NA Forums denizen.

Profanity. Post edited.

~Beaufighter

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
768
[MRI]
Member
1,872 posts
10,833 battles
5 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

And can someone clarify if CVs have infinite or finite planes in rework? I have heard people say both things

It is a mixture of both. In theory it is infinite, but in practice there is a soft limit.

How it works is you have a fixed number of planes in the hangar. But that number regenerates as planes get shot down. For example you have 10 planes in the hangar, you take off a squadron of 6 planes, so now there are 4 planes left in the hangar. 2 airborne planes get shot down, so now you have 8 planes left both in the hangar and in the air. Since 8 < 10, your CV will start making more planes and place them in hangar. It will continuouly make planes until your total number of planes (both in the air and in the hangar) hits 10 again, then it stops until another plane gets shot down.

So if you lose all 6 planes in the squadron, you will only have 4 planes left in the hangar. You can sortie them immediately, but you will only have 4 out of 6 planes in your squadron. If you want 6 out of 6, you need to wait until your CV makes those 2 missing planes. If you lose all of them, you will have to wait quite a while before you can send up a full squadron again.

So yes, it is possible to run out of planes in the short term if you are reckless with them, but you will never be completely deplaned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[SMOKE]
Member
659 posts
10,090 battles

Sounds like disaster brewing to me , anyway if they simply do not take care of the AA disparity so so apparent among different ships ( even of same tier and suppose to be similar AA capability ) this just won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,795
[SGC]
Super Tester
7,897 posts
8,180 battles

I just wan't CV players from both teams to be equally shit or equally Unicum, and most definitely not the same player playing CV on both side which is pretty common in SEA.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×