Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
j0e90

Wargaming's Response to Farazelleth's CV questions / opinons

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

141
[ANZAC]
Member
448 posts
15,053 battles

Worth a look for the 10 CV mains left on the server 😉

So yeah, their response is 'No' and 'git gud'

One commenter pointed out WG's insistence on auto consumables and single control makes sense if you think about how it would work in a console version of WOWS.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4
[CHIPS]
Member
8 posts
5,995 battles

Disgusting, totally disgusting

"Undoubtly best ability to carry damage in any chosen part of the map"

Yeah... obviously best carry damage in game...
Just look at this unrivaled carry ability

shot-19.02.16_14.41.10-0902.jpg

shot-19.02.16_18.41.56-0990.jpg

shot-19.02.17_10.02.23-0303.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,117
[TLS]
Member
1,835 posts
17,599 battles

Does someone have the TL;DR text version of the document? I cannot be bothered watching 25 minutes and hitting pause.

But it comes to be as no surprise with your even more TD;DRer summary of wg's position.

Thanks for sharing this.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
307
[LBAS]
Member
2,247 posts
11,579 battles
5 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Does someone have the TL;DR text version of the document? I cannot be bothered watching 25 minutes and hitting pause.

But it comes to be as no surprise with your even more TD;DRer summary of wg's position.

Thanks for sharing this.

Its lost in translation to be honest, and its not "nope" all the time but this is the full explanation of a redditor on wows that has the answers.

 

From a redditor named 

Let me be the devils advocate:

If you read the text on the screen as opposed to Fara reading it, essentially the Lead Designer says:

  • "We don't want to make a new unpopular hardcore niche class instead of an old unpopular hardcore niche class."

  • "Accessibility is a key principle in the new CV's design, and we cannot drop it for the sake of habits of hardcore people who can manage this. " -> The translator didn't quite catch the exact wording

  • The current controls are enough for "99.9%" of the task and autopilot will be improved now that more people are using it. WG cannot do a redesign of feature because it doesn't work sometimes.

  • The deficiency in CVs' defensive capabilities are by design a "fee" they have to pay as the ultimate spotter, indirect damager and initiative taker.

  • Two simultaneously controlled avatars is a "very hard conception for vast majority of players."

None of those seems very offensive or condescending. It says most players have difficulty multitasking and while that may sound condescending, many in this thread pointed out that a 46%er will indeed have problems. One of the problems of the RTS CVs were that they were too hard for the vast majority of players, and this was widely agreed by the community. Putting this into perspective, the devs were probably right.

Now let's look at Fara's original proposal:

  • The CV "should have the equal ability to defence without sacrificing its offense."

  • "Autopilot is unreliable and inaccurate no matter how much you refine it." Basically saying: your design is shit, your efforts will be in vain.

  • "Removing any control from the player towards Automation is just wrong." No explanation, no place that can be argued. Fara was not presenting an opinion. He was presenting an opinion as if it is a fact.

  • "Those of us who wishes to play the game properly without any assistance or loss of control feel we MUST have full control" A demand. Also implies people that doesn't do this is insecure and is not playing improperly.

If you think of it, it is very strongly worded. This is a given as Fara is an invested CV main, but was he right? The lead designer thinks "Nope" (which btw, is for some reason singled out in separate paragraphs for whatever reason), and reasons that it is a tradeoff the CVs must pay, and it is more accessible to other players that this "full sequential control" ability is left out.

For the sake of argument, let me also analyse what Fara's proposal will do:

  • The current automatic DCP is so strong. In my games I barely take damage from DoT anyways. Changing this to a semiautomatic system necessitates a massive nerf of CVs' innate DoT resistance and forces people to manage their DCP manually --- people who still uses automatic DCP will get punished extremely hard. This is extra strain on the CV player though it is somewhat justified.

  • I agree that at least you should see what your CV's rudder and speed is. Sometimes the autopilot is reversing and you don't know, or you want it to reverse but it is turning instead.

  • CVs will be able to pre-place their planes on various places on the map. Now imagine you fought off a Midway's torpedo bombers. Instead of it coming back with HE bombers in 40s, it will come back to you with a full squadron of HE bombers in 10 seconds. Enjoy your triple fires for the full duration. Don't forget the rocket planes near by that will guarantee all your fire slots are lit.

  • Now imagine two Midways instead of one.

  • Of course, potatoes will forget about their planes and lose them all.

Will you agree to all of that? Most certainly no, especially some people that want CVs deleted. But instead of thinking about the dev's arguments, of which some are in your interest, we dismiss them because the tone of the script reader and semantics.

Now, that is what I think will lead to the death of this game.

Edited by BIGCOREMKP0I
  • Cool 7
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,117
[TLS]
Member
1,835 posts
17,599 battles

Thanks for the sorta semi-neutral perspective. (The redditor's commentary does not exactly keep it neutral)

As a non-CV main, my pov is:

1. Yes, CV = OP, pre 0.8, post 0.8. You essentially had to have a different skillset to use a CV.

2. This is already becoming a new unpopular niche class as opposed to an old unpopular niche class. A lot of it stems from the lack of a proper testing procedure and feedback prior to throwing it out live.

3. The old model actually was in a state of delicate equilibrium after years of complaints and rageing.

4. The new CV model is not as "accessible" as the devs put it out to be, especially in its current unpolished state. I for one have given up on this new model because of the bad returns for the amount of effort needed.

5. Losing manual drop in the low tiers was a bad idea because that is where you learnt how to cv. To my knowledge it was dropped because of the pros sealclubbing at low tiers.

6. Which brings be to this: uneven CV player matching. Hell, even the other classes are improperly matched, but with a CV it is more noticable because of the larger influence it wields. What I am going to say will definately displease the hardcore, but if blizzard can do it then so can wg: Match your player skill level better, especially for CV. Fix matchmaker first.

7. CVs never had any significant defence apart from running and using your planes to deter your attacker. It was always deficient. Right now the perception that the defence is even worse because you cannot manually control your ship. Autopilot sucks for any ship class. From the beginning, it always crashed into islands because it didn't properly take into account turning circle and speed. And those hidden bits of islands when you run aground. People are quite skeptically about "improving autopilot" because it has been around since whenever and there has not been any improvement. Even the bots in OPs are terrible when they run into islands but wg did nothing to rectify the issues in a timely manner.

8. This rework IMHO is coming because of the RN CV line: lack of new gimmicky features for a new class. Previously IJN was TBs and firebombers. USN turned into AP citadel. Now, IJN is AP citadel, wtf torpedoes, USN is rocketeer. RN firestarters. - whatever -

9. Previously planes were limited and players had to decide how to risk their limited supply. Now planes are essentially "unlimited", but capped with a limited regeneration rate to "simulate limited supply"

10. The current situation now is like Brexit: The ones that never wanted CV are just using this as an excuse to remove them (and with the fiasco it is now, I am leaning towards them), the ones that want cv but don't know how they want it (old vs new style), the ones that couldn't care, and whoever else that I have left out.

11. WG hasn't been exactly forthcoming and explaining their reasoning properly when they do something and this with #2 above and the perceived biases in the game, doesn't exactly earn trust with many in the community. Right now there is the smoldering GC uptier issue which isn't helped by this lack of trust. Right now they are not pissing off a small set of the players, but the large majority.

Right now, wg's options are damned if they do, damned if they don't and they are taking the "force through this rework because we have rn cv deadline" route. IMHO, they should do a GZ and pull cvs from play and through it back to the STs and selected community players to at least rebalance things properly first THEN add new features.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
141
[ANZAC]
Member
448 posts
15,053 battles
1 hour ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Does someone have the TL;DR text version of the document? I cannot be bothered watching 25 minutes and hitting pause.

But it comes to be as no surprise with your even more TD;DRer summary of wg's position.

Thanks for sharing this.

You asked, and here you go

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A7cRexA5E9fjUgZRXdPW43F7QqW63thn/view

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[G_R]
Member
381 posts
15,256 battles

Well my hats off to them for trying something. It may not be perfect but for ffs only been live for a few weeks and something this major will take weeks if not months to sort out. To me it feels a whole lot better than the old system but obviously needs work.

Give WG some time to sort out the kinks people. Now about those premium ship prices .......

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
950 posts
3,636 battles

I like the new cv play, its very enjoyable, but as player posted their results above, tier 10 hakuryu does avg 30k dmg a game.

I get the odd battle of over 100k dmg, but its extremely situational, like all WG products!

Same can be said for my yamato, so I think hakuryu is pretty much spot on par with other ships now.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,117
[TLS]
Member
1,835 posts
17,599 battles

Having read the document, I am prepared to add the following:

1. Fara was just only asking for CV control, imho, either the translation into english or the dev himself sounded more arrogant instead of the other way around. To me it sounded like the lead dev saying: "You will play it how I deemed it should it should be played. We will not consider any input for improvement".

2. Fara didn't even complain about the other aspects of current CV play that have essentially neutered it unless you have bot assisted aiming.

3. The fallicies in the dev's dd counterargument: In a CV, you are controlling the "weapons themselves" not the launcher. A weapon that can be shot down, reducing it effectiveness. A weapon that can be avoided, reducing its effectiveness. To further advance this, the hypothetical dd without torpedoes still can a) move b) smoke c) fire guns, essentially immediately if you lose one weapon.

4. In the most simplistic terms, a CV is a battleship with a very long reload weapon("gun"), that yes, granted is semi-homing but still subjected to the vaguries of RNG dispersion, travels slower than an artillery shell, and a long-range spotter plane. In essence, you are a guided missile ship with SSMs. A CV ultimately fulfills her intended role: power projection. People can hate CVs for that but that is her role.

5. Pre 0.8, a CV could effectively deny their counterpart on the other team this power projection through power use of their available options.

6. If the dev so insists on making a dd comparison, then give CV a target prediction overlay just like torpedo launchers. I am too lazy to do the math (nor do I think the math can be done) but the now the damage for the effort (returns for effort) is terrible. Maybe if you are not an average player you can achieve it but as wg "want to popularize the cv class", I doubt players will spend time for a class with poor returns on investment.

7. The previous version did sacrifice defence for offensive power. This is where Fara's point falls into a hole. Your CV controls were yes there but hobbled because of your prespective for moving it. If using that dd analogy: now you can pilot a cv just like any other ship, you just cannot shoot back. Last I remembered, while piloting a dd, I could shoot back.

8. Pre 0.8, a CV had the ability to deal damage in a very short time, but this was balanced by the fact that if you had all your 5 haku squadrons out to nuke a target, you  are going to have a long time before you can launch another wave. Post 0.8, the model is now dealing tiny damage but more frequently (if your planes get thorough).

PS. I'm not taking that "give it time for them to fix things" argument as an answer because testing and implementing was clearly not well thought out.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
381
[LBAS]
Member
1,372 posts
6,146 battles

one 'have to' completely forget about RTS CV to get a grip for this rework.

e.g.1 if a new player who never experience WoWs before at all play this new CV, said new player will not feel anything wrong to this rework.

e.g.2 old player who play extensive amount of RTS CV will feel everything wrong to this rework.

in other wotd, WG want player to change mindset completely.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
994
[MRI]
Member
2,124 posts
11,661 battles

Man I really hope that some things were lost in translation, because the WG comes off as being rather arrogant in this one.

If you haven't done so already, I suggest people take the time to listen to the video. Fara elaborates a bit on his requests and his opinion on WG's response that can't be found in the document linked above. Because contrary to what people think, this video is NOT about Fara protesting the CV rework, but about why such simple requests like non-automatic consumables and direct hull control were denied by WG. Regardless of what you feel about the CV rework, if you read between the lines, this Q&A does give a lot of insight into what WG thinks and how they envision their game. And I do not like the implications.

Firstly, their attitude about automatic consumables and player control. Basically WG do not see players being unable to control their ship as a bad thing. Yes, this is the lead game developer saying less player agency is a good thing. In a video game. Let that sink in for a moment. 

A video game is about interaction and control. If I want to automate everything, why even play the game? Why not just automate my ship, automate my guns, automate everything. Might as well turn this game into Gratuitous Sea Battles or something. Also this is World of Warships, yet I can't even control my own ship properly. At least give players the option to turn off the automatic consumables. But WG won't because they don't see limiting player freedom as a big issue.

Another interesting tidbit is their attitude towards good players. Another reasoning WG gave for forcing automatic consumables is they do not want good players to outperform the bad players, as they figure only good players are able to utilise non-automatic consumables effectively. Regardless of what you think about the player skill gap, or the general ability of the playerbase, it is a nice bit of insight into WG's thinking. Explains a lot about their balance changes actually.

Also that last bit limiting player freedom as a "fee" for CVs being effectiveness. WG is basically saying it is alright for a ship to feel frustrating and unfun to play to balance out it is effectiveness. Not sure what correlation WG sees between the two but nevertheless a very interesting bit of insight there.

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[DS]
Member
222 posts
12,887 battles

As a player hearing this Automated system of taking controls away from the player is fine from "The Lead Game Designer". I can take it as nothing but
A straight insult.

Most players who play this game enough will know the Automated "Avoid Collision" system is one of the thing that will get you killed a lot of time so you have to turn it off.
I play enough video games to know getting my control taken away by some automated system will most of the time COST ME SOMETHING in gameplay.
Guys, I think it is safe to say.... We see enough.

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
257
[REPOI]
Member
1,322 posts
11,816 battles
4 hours ago, MikuChrome said:

As a player hearing this Automated system of taking controls away from the player is fine from "The Lead Game Designer". I can take it as nothing but
A straight insult.

Most players who play this game enough will know the Automated "Avoid Collision" system is one of the thing that will get you killed a lot of time so you have to turn it off.
I play enough video games to know getting my control taken away by some automated system will most of the time COST ME SOMETHING in gameplay.
Guys, I think it is safe to say.... We see enough.

Pretty sure he was having some russian drink before posting it/replying to it..

But then again I don't really side with farazelleths points because some of them seem just out of rage and not really thought out examples.

Coming to main topic that's what I was on about from the start of the 0.8.0 patch. WG is like basically pushing all the feedback aside and doing everything as they like or seem fit to. They do whatever they like and expect the player base to suck it up and be cool with it. And some people here love to do that, "we wait and see what's gonna happen" "Be Patient". Surely even now they're gonna be patient about this. This attitude has been there for a long time and still it is just a sample of what WG thinks of it's playerbase.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
888 posts
8,662 battles
On 2/17/2019 at 11:36 PM, MikuChrome said:

As a player hearing this Automated system of taking controls away from the player is fine from "The Lead Game Designer". I can take it as nothing but
A straight insult.

Most players who play this game enough will know the Automated "Avoid Collision" system is one of the thing that will get you killed a lot of time so you have to turn it off.
I play enough video games to know getting my control taken away by some automated system will most of the time COST ME SOMETHING in gameplay.
Guys, I think it is safe to say.... We see enough.

He insulted you by suggesting automated ship controls are fine?  That seems like a pretty massive overreaction.  Do you get insulted every time someone has a different opinion to yours?

One of the primary problems of RTS CV's was the skill gap between good and bad players making battles one-sided.  Well part of fixing that is to make the class a bit easier for less skilled players and reduce the ability of highly skilled players to out play their opponents.  This is what automated CV movement and consumables does.  It's a good thing for the game, even if you may not personally like it.

WG consider the aircraft as the primary vessel. The CV itself is secondary.  You get full control of the aircraft, including consumable usage, but, just like secondary guns, a lot of the CV control is automated.  This is in keeping with their design philosophy.

Right now if you look at the impact on the battle and the difference in performance between the best and worst players of the class, CV's are pretty close to other classes.  So clearly they have got the balance pretty much right in that respect.  Given this, they are quite simply not going to change the automation of CV's, so either accept it or play a different class if you find it too frustrating.  I personally don't find it impinges on my game play much at all.

Also, as to the original video from Fara, he is basically making demands of WG, which is never a good way to have a conversation.  His arguments are poorly represented, regardless of what you think of their merits.  With such a demanding tone, the WG dev response seems quite restrained in comparison.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 6
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
141
[ANZAC]
Member
448 posts
15,053 battles
22 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

He insulted you by suggesting automated ship controls are fine?  That seems like a pretty massive overreaction.  Do you get insulted every time someone has a different opinion to yours?

One of the primary problems of RTS CV's was the skill gap between good and bad players making battles one-sided.  Well part of fixing that is to make the class a bit easier for less skilled players and reduce the ability of highly skilled players to out play their opponents.  This is what automated CV movement and consumables does.  It's a good thing for the game, even if you may not personally like it.

WG consider the aircraft as the primary vessel. The CV itself is secondary.  You get full control of the aircraft, including consumable usage, but, just like secondary guns, a lot of the CV control is automated.  This is in keeping with their design philosophy.

Right now if you look at the impact on the battle and the difference in performance between the best and worst players of the class, CV's are pretty close to other classes.  So clearly they have got the balance pretty much right in that respect.  Given this, they are quite simply not going to change the automation of CV's, so either accept it or play a different class if you find it too frustrating.  I personally don't find it impinges on my game play much at all.

Also, as to the original video from Fara, he is basically making demands of WG, which is never a good way to have a conversation.  His arguments are poorly represented, regardless of what you think of their merits.  With such a demanding tone, the WG dev response seems quite restrained in comparison.

Then why have a controllable CV at all? May as well just have CVs represented by some fixed, or even off field air strip with automated AA and shore mounted gun batteries.

Its just too artificial as it stands. Allowing CVs to switch from plane control to hull and back, do you seriously think that would raise the skill bar?  You would still be only doing one thing at a time, and if you cannot remember what you were doing on switching back, well, I duuno that player would probably have trouble remembering where he lives. The only impact would be allowing CVs  to fine tune their controls and respond to attacks. 

And I have 0 issues with Faras tone, you are reacting to his VIDEO repsonse from WG,. The questions and responses were all carried out in writing, so just keep that in mind. Using words like must etc in the initial questions just indicates how strongly he holds those opinions. I've spoken to a couple of CCs, and they've said that discussions with WG are often, well brusque. I bet his tone is a lot lighter than someone like flamu...CCs are worthless if they haven't got the balls to say what they mean. 

I tried the new CV on PTS and found it very meh, and the lack of ship control was a big part of that. Certainly didn't make me want to give CVs another go.

 Its not impinging on your gameplay because  the CV pop is falling back through the floor again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
888 posts
8,662 battles
2 hours ago, j0e90 said:

Then why have a controllable CV at all? May as well just have CVs represented by some fixed, or even off field air strip with automated AA and shore mounted gun batteries.

Its just too artificial as it stands. Allowing CVs to switch from plane control to hull and back, do you seriously think that would raise the skill bar?  You would still be only doing one thing at a time, and if you cannot remember what you were doing on switching back, well, I duuno that player would probably have trouble remembering where he lives. The only impact would be allowing CVs  to fine tune their controls and respond to attacks. 

Yes it would definitely raise the skill bar.  Good players would do it better, and that would give them more of an advantage over poor players.  Right now on live the game impact of good CV players vs bad CV players is similar to other classes.  Any further complicating of the class, even if it's something that seems simple to you, would absolutely have the effect of widening that skill gap.  One of the most important reasons for the rework was to lessen the impact good CV players had on the win.

More to the point, apart from that it would be nice to control the CV directly on command, does it really matter to game play?  Is your game play being so negatively impacted by auto consumables and waypoint control while flying that the class is no longer fun?  I certainly don't feel that way, the new CV's are enjoyable, and there is plenty of depth for skilled play to do well without further complicating the class.

2 hours ago, j0e90 said:

I bet his tone is a lot lighter than someone like flamu

Well I don't know about that.  Flamu has a tendency to state his opinions clearly - if something isn't very good, he'll say it in a way that leaves little room for doubt.  Fara on the other hand is basically telling the devs what they must do, which is a completely different thing.  It's good that he has passion on the subject, but he definitely doesn't come off looking better in his exchange with the devs.  In this case I don't think it would matter what he says, the devs have clearly made up their minds on the subject, but a person is much more likely to have their position swayed by a civil, well reasoned argument than by ultimatums.  The issue is when he takes exception to the tone of reply from the devs when his tone is much worse - it's hypocritical.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
141
[ANZAC]
Member
448 posts
15,053 battles
1 hour ago, Moggytwo said:

Yes it would definitely raise the skill bar.  Good players would do it better, and that would give them more of an advantage over poor players.  Right now on live the game impact of good CV players vs bad CV players is similar to other classes.  Any further complicating of the class, even if it's something that seems simple to you, would absolutely have the effect of widening that skill gap.  One of the most important reasons for the rework was to lessen the impact good CV players had on the win.

 

Oh, come on. You are comparing the old system where people had to SIMULTANEOUSLY control 5, 6, 7,8 things at once to this new system where people control 1 thing at a time, having to switch between plane / ship. There would be a rise, but it would be insignificant. Hell, WG could limit it to T6 and up if there was a perceived need to ease players in. There needs to be a encouragement for some skilled play. I don't like saying this but you are coming across as a bit of a WG shill.

And he's not being hypocritical, he's just calling WG out. He's not professing to be virtuous or anything like that which would make this hypocrisy. Being rude or harsh does not equal hypercritical. Maybe pot calling Sure he doesn't like what they are saying. So?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
888 posts
8,662 battles
5 hours ago, j0e90 said:

Oh, come on. You are comparing the old system where people had to SIMULTANEOUSLY control 5, 6, 7,8 things at once to this new system where people control 1 thing at a time, having to switch between plane / ship

No I'm not, I'm comparing the new system with current CV controls to a system where you could control both your planes and ship manually as needed. The old system has nothing to do with it, it's gone. 

5 hours ago, j0e90 said:

There needs to be a encouragement for some skilled play.

There's plenty of opportunity for skilled play with the current system. The impact a skilled CV captain has on the battle is similar to other classes now, and there is plenty of depth to the class. 

6 hours ago, j0e90 said:

I don't like saying this but you are coming across as a bit of a WG shill.

So disagreeing with you makes me a shill? My opinion is my own, based on my own experience and reasoning, where you don't seem to have expressed an opinion that doesn't involve blindly following someone else's lead. In your many post-rework CV battles has the lack of manual CV controls been a primary issue to you? Look at the major issues like the effect on DD's and the meta in general, and tell me auto CV controls are even worth discussing compared to that. 

6 hours ago, j0e90 said:

And he's not being hypocritical, he's just calling WG out

He's complaining about their tone of reply while having a much worse tone. What would you call that? 

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
994
[MRI]
Member
2,124 posts
11,661 battles
9 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

Well I don't know about that.  Flamu has a tendency to state his opinions clearly - if something isn't very good, he'll say it in a way that leaves little room for doubt.  Fara on the other hand is basically telling the devs what they must do, which is a completely different thing.  It's good that he has passion on the subject, but he definitely doesn't come off looking better in his exchange with the devs.  In this case I don't think it would matter what he says, the devs have clearly made up their minds on the subject, but a person is much more likely to have their position swayed by a civil, well reasoned argument than by ultimatums.  The issue is when he takes exception to the tone of reply from the devs when his tone is much worse - it's hypocritical. 

Ehh I don't know man.

Fara was being very, very civil considering how WG has been treating him and other CV players. Fara has been raising this issue about autopilot and the lack of sequential hull control right from day 1 of the CV rework gameplay reveal all those months ago. Each time WG just kept on going "nope" without giving a good reason why, so I can understand Fara is being a bit exasperated. Honestly his tone was fine.

Talking about reasons, I noticed WG keeps changing their reason why they refuse to add hull control. First they said they do not find it to be necessary, but that they would add it if players demand it. Then they changed their tune and said they won't add it because they want players to focus on aircraft. Then now they are saying it is to balance player skill. Something is definitely fishy and Fara has every right to be upset and suspicious.

11 hours ago, j0e90 said:

I've spoken to a couple of CCs, and they've said that discussions with WG are often, well brusque

I remember Fara relating in one of his videos about how back when tier 5 Ranked Sprint was announced, he asked WG devs on their discord if they would add allow CVs and if so, whether they would allow them to strafe and manual drop again. It was a serious question, but WG didn't even bother to give him a proper reply, instead just spammed laughing emoticons. No answer, no reasoning given, just emoticons. Imo that was extremely rude, not to mention childish.

Edited by Thyaliad
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
888 posts
8,662 battles
1 hour ago, Thyaliad said:

Ehh I don't know man.

Fara was being very, very civil considering how WG has been treating him and other CV players. Fara has been raising this issue about autopilot and the lack of sequential hull control right from day 1 of the CV rework gameplay reveal all those months ago. Each time WG just kept on going "nope" without giving a good reason why, so I can understand Fara is being a bit exasperated. Honestly his tone was fine.

Well the conversation was pretty civil on both sides.  I was specifically referring to Fara and quite a few others (the thread on reddit has quite an outpouring of angst) being upset about the 'nope' replies and how rude they thought that was, but if you look at the questions that Fara asked to get those 'nope' replies, particularly 'we MUST have full control over our ships and how we play them', they are basically telling WG how to make their game - ie ultimatums.  I have no issue with Fara, I watch his content and think he is great.  I don't think he can complain about them replying 'nope' to those questions though, and I thought his comments specifically regarding those responses were hypocritical given the statements that drew them.

1 hour ago, Thyaliad said:

Talking about reasons, I noticed WG keeps changing their reason why they refuse to add hull control. First they said they do not find it to be necessary, but that they would add it if players demand it. Then they changed their tune and said they won't add it because they want players to focus on aircraft. Then now they are saying it is to balance player skill. Something is definitely fishy and Fara has every right to be upset and suspicious.

You're right, they have given a few different responses to the same issue...

This isn't ideal, but having said that all of those responses seem reasonable, except for the 'they do not find it to be necessary, but that they would add it if players demand it.'  They're just backing themselves into a corner there.  They might change their mind on that, and then they'll look bad, plus precisely how many people have to 'demand it' before they consider it something worth adding?  I suppose you could also argue that Fara was 'demanding' just like they asked players to!

Overall on this subject though, I think they're unlikely to add full hull control to CV's, especially not in the short term where they have real balance issues to solve that affect the whole game, rather than what can only be described as a quality of life issue that only affects CV's.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,368 posts
7,238 battles
2 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

You're right, they have given a few different responses to the same issue...

This isn't ideal, but having said that all of those responses seem reasonable, except for the 'they do not find it to be necessary, but that they would add it if players demand it.'  They're just backing themselves into a corner there.  They might change their mind on that, and then they'll look bad, plus precisely how many people have to 'demand it' before they consider it something worth adding?  I suppose you could also argue that Fara was 'demanding' just like they asked players to!

Overall on this subject though, I think they're unlikely to add full hull control to CV's, especially not in the short term where they have real balance issues to solve that affect the whole game, rather than what can only be described as a quality of life issue that only affects CV's.

we already got full control before. i dont get why they take it away.

their full auto is nothing but a retarded system.

>automatically launch fighter if spotted by aircraft. so when planes are just spotting in the first minute, it already launching fighter planes.
>automatic damage control. but hey lets make it DD cd so even if its auto there wont be much problem right?
>auto pilot that cant figure out if its going full speed or reverse. it cant even make a correct course even with waypoints.

hell they cant even make anti collision works. that thing only make things worst. if they really want to take away control from players. they should make things work first.

Edited by yansuki
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
888 posts
8,662 battles
7 hours ago, yansuki said:

>automatically launch fighter if spotted by aircraft. so when planes are just spotting in the first minute, it already launching fighter planes.

CV fighters last 10 minutes on a 40s c/d.  Who cares if they launch at the start of the battle?

7 hours ago, yansuki said:

>automatic damage control. but hey lets make it DD cd so even if its auto there wont be much problem right?

I'd prefer manual DCP, but given it lasts 60s, it wouldn't be that often I would hold off on a DCP, mostly in the case of one fire when I know I might take a flood soon.  It's very much a rarity that the situation comes up, and on the list of things that CV captains should rally behind, it's a long way down.

7 hours ago, yansuki said:

>auto pilot that cant figure out if its going full speed or reverse. it cant even make a correct course even with waypoints.

I've never had a problem with autopilot.  It goes forward when I want it to, and goes back when I want it to, and basically does what I ask of it. You have to not go too close to islands, and if you want it to go forwards to somewhere behind you, a couple of waypoints are required to bring it round.

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×