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

The Carrier Rework Kneejerk

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Member
355 posts
4,620 battles

Ok, this is going to sound horribly, horribly disorganized and my wording is probably going to be incorrect.

Look at the forums. Look at external discussions. What's the first response you see on the carrier rework?
"It sucks, _____ is broken, RTS was better..."

...really? Let's look at why. Is the general narrative logical, or is it grounded in emotion and an inability to adapt? 

The Bad

I think I'm going to remind people about how... awful the state of pre-rework carriers was. The class was... zombified. Active good player numbers were in the two-digit range and the rest were terrible. Does anyone remember the shutdown effect of 788/9XX anchoring and AA divs? Does anyone remember a single player spreading 3 or more groups of squadrons and the spotting influence it had? The UI glitches? Does anyone remember how first getting into the class was impossible due to the high skill ceiling of low tier carriers when they still had alt-drop and when low tier clubbing in carriers was still viable? Or how the subsequent changes made low tier carriers almost dead while shifting the wall of harsh progression to T6 or T7? Was the class not so different in being an RTS that it was barely presentable to anyone to even make it appealing to pick up?

Ironic that people would take refuge in the pre-rework carriers and throw all those complaints out the door suddenly when presented with a rework. Perhaps the vocal majority really did shift?

Some of the reasons why are... not so glorious.
- I don't know the new mechanics
- I don't want to learn or adapt
- I just don't want to see carriers at all
Something along the lines of that.

Let's be real. The World of Warships playerbase is not good at changing or learning. If people picked up things from experience failing to T10 with a 2000 game grind and a winrate of less than 45% wouldn't be something you witnessed daily. The same can be said for the carrier rework. Non-carrier players weren't used to seeing many CVs, had an inherent dislike for CVs (which is somewhat justified but sometimes taken irrationally over the line) and just took comfort in the "old" World of Warships where most games just didn't have a carrier at all, ignoring the occasional 1-in-5 or 1-in-10 that did, and those games that did have a carrier went... poorly. They took refuge in a "more comfortable" past.

There's another group of people in the mix. People who tried carriers. A very small group of players was legitimately good in carriers. They went above and beyond, against the odds to succeed in a frankly screwed class. Yes, they may have benefited from its less desirable aspects, but for better or worse they sunk time and effort into RTS carriers, and it was taken away from them. I don't blame this group of players for their animosity towards the carrier rework, even if it's more emotional than objectively better. 

The (True) Ugly

I have a... questionable reputation for fighting harshly for a CV rework. I predicted first person plane control features on the forums over a month before they were announced. I spent countless hours ranting over the issues plaguing the so-called "Most Hated Class" on the Reddit Discord and other WoWs communities and to be honest, the only conclusion turned out to be that people didn't really have one clear solution to fix the CV. And with that being said with the rework in swing...

I'd be lying if I was satisfied at the end result.

The problems were obvious from the get-go and I'm not in the best frame of mind to touch on them all. Radical changes hit one after the other, including the removal of ship control and odd-tier carriers. Then came the actual release. A clear showpiece would be the suffering of destroyers. The initial iteration of attack planes was not kind to them, neither were loopholes in the very different new mechanics like the (now presumably fixed) fearsome "0.4 second enlightened drop" caused by players discovering how bombs fell in the aiming circle. Even currently, it's visible how rare destroyers are becoming, and how much the carrier oppresses them.

Apart from that, new AA mechanics have gone on a roller coaster, jumping between being totally useless to shoot down planes and being the Bermuda Triangle depending on who you ask, or what ship you used, or the skill of what player attacked you, or what version of the game you played (noticing how frequently such mechanics change with confusing redistribution of AA performance constantly underway). A truth is even beginning to surface that certain flight patterns mess with how flak bursts form, and you can almost totally negate the damage dealt by them, simultaneously as we are presented with cases of single flak bursts downing 9 planes at once.

Imbalance? Look at the new 550k Hakuryu record as a prime example.

tl;dr in brief the carrier rework was an unrefined mess.

Primarily the issues we see are numerical disparities, or loopholes in the mechanics introduced en-masse, discovered and exploited by good players, but frankly not good for the health of the game. Wargaming was too optimistic, too ambitious in my opinion. They had a concept which had potential, but chose to add too much to it they were unable to handle in a manner that would be perceived well by players, while removing or limiting some things people liked, like covering allies effectively with fighters. I hope for the best, but fear the developers have a rough ride ahead of them.

Kneejerk
The negative response to the new carrier lies first in the rigidness of the playerbase, some of whom are justified, but others who are perhaps too entitled to their personal emotions, agendas or unwillingness to change and accept it. Combine it with a frankly very rough and unrefined introductory lap of sorts for the new carrier that frankly would put off anyone, and widespread negativity was unstoppable.

But... it's not all a sad story. Think of what was actually achieved that got overlooked against the mess that ensued.

The (Overlooked) Good
The rework did, in fact, meet some of its objectives.

-Carriers are more accessible now, and I like that. Yes, T4 CVs are weak, pitifully limited... but that sort of protects the immediately less-skilled from being hammered too hard with consequences, and anyone can get into them and with a bit of effort can find the inclination to pick up the class and develop the mechanical ability and game sense to use them. The style of gameplay is more inline with other classes. It is more presentable.

-With that came new life for a dying class. CV population right now may be excessive especially with the premium sales in swing, but with correct balancing one can hope over time a healthy yet not top-heavy carrier population will form.

-A lot of issues with the class were shifted, from something that was conceptually more challenging to something that could be fixed with numerical changes. This leaves potential for the issues to be fixed on a scale unlike before.

-The performance and user interface is not flawless, but is better than before. At least I have not run into UI bugs on the same scale.

-The immersion is better. You see plane maneuvers, you see strikes coming.

-Is map coverage influence down? Yes, it is.

-AA. Not perfect, far from perfect, I dare call it bad, but as a silver lining an element of skill has been added as desired, and that leaves potential for the future.

Do I enjoy the new carriers more? This is just my opinion, but... yes.

Maybe in the long term things will come crashing down just like the RTS carrier did. Or maybe it'll finally achieve the difficult task of shoehorning a type of ship that never stood near to the battle lines striking into fleet actions into a game that requires them to. I don't know, but with all due honesty the initial response is not the final truth.






 

Edited by InterconKW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R0GUE]
Member
303 posts
8,822 battles

It is a fair critique regarding to CV rework progress. I also predicted a shitshow to be happen for CV rework back in January. It really was a bumpy ride for last couple of months.

However, I had tons of fun playing or play against the new CV class and also learning those new mechanics. Rework in fact reignite my interest in the game, otherwise the game was becoming quite stalled and boring after 2 years of constant grinding.

Eventhough, there are still many fundamental problems yet to be solved. The balance is get better in every patch since rework started. So I was right and wrong. It was a shit show then it wasn't, and I am glad WG did it after all.

Edited by sunlo2013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,808 posts
11,321 battles

People think RTS is bad because they barely see any CV during that period of time. What they are saying is that they don't want to face CV.

Not having to face CV means less thing their brains have to solve to find a solution. Less brain action equal less stress equal not liking to adapt.

Oh yeah , they never get to see how RTS CV can and literally remove a poor person from his game for one wrong play on his part. It could be anyone , as long as they are not that one poor guy they are okay with it LOL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
838 posts
7,273 battles

My kneejerk reaction was always "hmmm, better wait and see how this plays out, hope WG actually addresses the issues surface ships have with CVs, and not just make the class more accessible" But I've trained myself not to act negatively about every change I encounter in my life. (and approaching with caution and identifying challenges is NOT being negative, unnamed colleagues).

That said, I've found that the new CVs are easier to deal with in BBs and CA/CL than they used to be. Only real downside is that they are in more matches now, so you have to deal with them more. Which kinda undoes the 'easier to deal with' thing. But whatever.

Most of the hardcore haters want CV's gone completely, and are using the rework to try to prove that no matter what WG does, CV's will always be broken and should be removed, that's why we have umpteen different threads about CVs.

Myself personally. I find the new CVs harder to play, I accept that's partly because I am not used to them, and partly because I am starting at T4.

I'm pretty sure they other reason why they are so hard is because I have a slow interent connection, and flying a plane feels exactly like steering a ship with a slow rudder shift. The point and click was much easier to aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[R0GUE]
Member
303 posts
8,822 battles
2 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

I'm pretty sure they other reason why they are so hard is because I have a slow interent connection, and flying a plane feels exactly like steering a ship with a slow rudder shift. The point and click was much easier to aim.

I also play CV on NA server, I know slow internet connection have great impact on plane control, around 100 ms is acceptable. At 200 ms you will felt very sluggish to turn the squadron and often you over turn squadron because you try to turn harder to compensate sluggishness. If it is over 400 ms squadron will become uncontrollable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
341 posts
4,138 battles

@InterconKWNice write-up, good sir.


I'll not be the first to admit I'm not that good in World of Warships. I mean, I'm not that bad (51% WR that I managed to maintain despite several disastrous loss streaks) but any good streamer/CC/player worth his salt can beat me (Yuro will kick my stern to ship Valhalla and aft).

I personally find RTS CVs to be both difficult and powerful at the same time. I wasn't that terrible with it (I did, in my early days in WOWS, deal 80k damage with the Hosho at Tier IV, after all), but I just wasn't that good. It was quite easy for someone better than me to shut me down completely then go on to massacre the rest of my team. This discouraged me from venturing much into carriers, and even then only in Operations where there was no pressure on me to be better than the other team's guy.

 

The rework isn't perfect though.

One of the things that constantly perplex me was how fighters seem to be inconsistently strong. Sometimes they don't do anything to incoming air attacks due to their passive, protective behavior (this is why Jimmy Doolittle stopped asking his P-51s to fly in formation with B-17s and instead go pounce on the Luftwaffe wherever they could, mind you; staying within a fixed range just isn't very effective as far as air defense is concerned) yet when they latch on to someone, they drink out the health of the squad faster than a Tiger II drinks fuel. 

I also wasn't that much of a fan on how quick CVs can spot us, because off the bat, right away, they would be able to launch planes. I personally suggest a timer (like 60 or 90 seconds) that allows ships to get in position and such before CVs can launch their first planes.

But really, those are the only things I have beef with, as I cannot find anything else.

 

As for the playerbase, let's just say Yuro deserves points for calling out how inflexible they can be. "Clearly the rework that was needed wasn't reworking the carrier, but it's reworking the playerbase" (airhorn). There's not a shortage of people who hate CV rework; browse long enough around WOWS, and you can probably find more than one.

I noticed that unicums tend to be the most vulnerable group to any sort of change however. Flamu, for example. @Thyaliad summed it up quite well; he has a rabid fanbase, and he himself is a unicum streamer who flourished under the rules (whatever they were when he became very good) who will hate any system change, as it will mean he has to relearn everything and may not be the best anymore after he finishes relearning. Of course he will not react well to any major system changes. But why does Yuro like it even though he's unicum you might ask? Well... I actually saw him admit once that he wasn't very fond of the RTS either (something about being a bit behind in micromanaging) and preferred the new carriers. Kind of like me (I've had trouble with micromanaging, and my APM is a measly 30-50 during Starcraft II sessions in the past). He wouldn't have as much trouble as Flamu would in switching over to the new system.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
269 posts
368 battles

Well written post kamerad, people just forget the main objective of CV rework is not balancing CV againts surface sheep. ITS TO LURE people to play CV. Also new CV allow you to kamikaze at bunch of AA sheep and still have plane.

 

Player complain because they must depend on RNG and the skill of CV player. Its basically nothing changed from before.

 

This CV rework just lack 1 thing :

 

"We need AA rework"

AA should be more skill based like our current CV rework

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,261 posts
5,789 battles

have you guys ever heard the terms "Overadaptation"?

I think that's we are right now with the CV thingy.

we're 'too' adapt to them despite how broken and misfits they are.

:Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
765 posts
7,943 battles
11 hours ago, sunlo2013 said:

I also play CV on NA server, I know slow internet connection have great impact on plane control, around 100 ms is acceptable. At 200 ms you will felt very sluggish to turn the squadron and often you over turn squadron because you try to turn harder to compensate sluggishness. If it is over 400 ms squadron will become uncontrollable.

I've screwd up countless drops due to the ping suddenly jumping up...annoying as hell and even cost me the entire match a few times.

10 hours ago, TD1 said:

I personally find RTS CVs to be both difficult and powerful at the same time. I wasn't that terrible with it (I did, in my early days in WOWS, deal 80k damage with the Hosho at Tier IV, after all), but I just wasn't that good. It was quite easy for someone better than me to shut me down completely then go on to massacre the rest of my team. This discouraged me from venturing much into carriers, and even then only in Operations where there was no pressure on me to be better than the other team's guy.

I would say, the overall balance hasn't been altered that much. Old CVs were hard to learn but easy to have any impact on the game(after learning)...

New CVs on the other hand are really easy to get a hang of but influencing the outcome of a battle is extremely difficult. The alpha is just not there, you have to repeatedly strike someone to death and hope that he doesn't get into AA cover in time.

Edited by _TAMAL_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
765 posts
7,943 battles
7 hours ago, Akyamarukh said:

This CV rework just lack 1 thing :

"We need AA rework"

AA should be more skill based like our current CV rework

And this also^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
406 posts
8,968 battles

so ..... -AA. Not perfect, far from perfect, I dare call it bad, but as a silver lining an element of skill has been added as desired, and that leaves potential for the future. 

yeah, and that mean everyone except CV themselves , and likely them too when the enemy team's CV decide to have a go at their own peer ... sorry potential for future is not enough, it break the game and that is nothing to be excused of when the game is majority surface ships ... in such it again reflect WG's over skewed view towards certain gene of players, its BB then and now its CV and leave everybody else being suffered from their in-balance biased towards these type of ships ( one way or another ) ...

its termed and promoted as a naval combat game , then as a game, please made it fair and equal for all players ... and right now tha is not the case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
63 posts
4,368 battles

And now we have 40 CVs in line waiting for a game everyday with 10 BBs 20CCs and 0 DDs . Thats why they should remove DDs from the game, become obsolete. Just introduce Seaplanes for CV and they can Cap objectives with planes.

Edited by AxEyBoI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
4,300 posts
4,866 battles
9 minutes ago, AxEyBoI said:

And now we have 40 CVs in line waiting for a game everyday with 10 BBs 20CCs and 0 DDs . Thats why they should remove DDs from the game, become obsolete. Just introduce Seaplanes for CV and they can Cap objectives with planes.

That's not purely due to the rework.  That's the hype from a new line and multiple prem CVS going on sale.  It will die off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
355 posts
4,620 battles
16 hours ago, Mechfori said:

so ..... -AA. Not perfect, far from perfect, I dare call it bad, but as a silver lining an element of skill has been added as desired, and that leaves potential for the future. 

yeah, and that mean everyone except CV themselves , and likely them too when the enemy team's CV decide to have a go at their own peer ... sorry potential for future is not enough, it break the game and that is nothing to be excused of when the game is majority surface ships ... in such it again reflect WG's over skewed view towards certain gene of players, its BB then and now its CV and leave everybody else being suffered from their in-balance biased towards these type of ships ( one way or another ) ...

its termed and promoted as a naval combat game , then as a game, please made it fair and equal for all players ... and right now tha is not the case

People wanted an element of skill involved in AA, and we got it. However, there were an abundance of flaws and loopholes on both ends of the system to bypass AA and/or deal disproportionate damage which relates to how AA power is distributed, and sometimes shifting AA sector focus isn't even beneficial.

Will it be fixed over time? I'll only say read the devblog. But how well is not within our control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
330 posts
1,474 battles
28 minutes ago, InterconKW said:

 

Will it be fixed over time? I'll only say read the devblog. But how well is not within our control.

At least WG should know what players' concern are. as their testers and designers did not appeared to be gamer or even trying to be one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
355 posts
4,620 battles
1 hour ago, tsuenwan said:

At least WG should know what players' concern are. as their testers and designers did not appeared to be gamer or even trying to be one.

The issue of the "0.4s enlightened drop" was responded to within days of the outcry, as was the overperformance of first release IJN carriers, so I'd say an active attempt is being made.

All this being said, I feel like it's more of a "check-and-damage-control-panic" than an organized style of finding and fixing issues.

Edited by InterconKW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
330 posts
1,474 battles
1 minute ago, InterconKW said:

The issue of the "0.4s enlightened drop" was responded to within days of the outcry, as was the overperformance of first release IJN carriers, so I'd say an active attempt is being made.

More like a reactive attempt. as result of their under-performing testers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
7 posts

I think WG said upfront that they could only "balance" the new CV's so far on the test server, they needed to go live to fine tune things. The first two weeks were too strong but the changes made so far seem to be effectively winding things back, bit by bit. I do hope that they can continue to remove any exploits quickly, as they occur. Who knows, the elusive "balance"** may yet be obtained! So having only one CV at T10 is working well, from my perspective that is.

 

**Whose "balance" that is will be discussed for a long time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
761 posts
16,006 battles

Who is having this kneejerk reaction? I for one already anticipated a host of issues even before the 'public test server testing' was complete. It was not ready in January despite what their PR says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
330 posts
1,474 battles
1 hour ago, Thorpe_53 said:

I think WG said upfront that they could only "balance" the new CV's so far on the test server, they needed to go live to fine tune things.

Life server and player population shall be testing large data and scale related issue. Scenario issues are not scale related and should have been tested in the test server with WG own testers. as long as these testers had the sufficient gaming background. This is called Domain Knowledge and Expertise in gaming,  which a NORMAL game company should have trained and equipped their tester to perform the  proper game design acceptance test, and find the issue before it release for public test.

This is the place WG pointed the finger at the community testers and saying they found and not report the problem but use it as exploits.

Edited by tsuenwan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
761 posts
16,006 battles
1 hour ago, tsuenwan said:

Life server and player population shall be testing large data and scale related issue. Scenario issues are not scale related and should have been tested in the test server with WG own testers. as long as these testers had the sufficient gaming background. This is called Domain Knowledge and Expertise in gaming,  which a NORMAL game company should have trained and equipped their tester to perform the  proper game design acceptance test, and find the issue before it release for public test.

This is the place WG pointed the finger at the community testers and saying they found and not report the problem but use it as exploits.

Thanks for summing things up clearly. Both of us are thinking alike. Basically it has not gone through proper quality control checks. If you were on PTS, I think you will realise that no one actually does "testing" there. I've been on there and the population is so small and if most people are like me, they use it as a platform to check on other ships. Right now, they are using the entire player base as live testing guinea pigs. FYI, WOWS isn't even out of beta testing as the version number indicates. If this were any other game, we are all currently playing on an "EARLY ACCESS" build.

Honestly I considered signing up for the ST program, but after considering it carefully, would they even take the feedback seriously for the ST work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SEARN]
Member
25 posts
11,454 battles

Having read all of the above, I would like to say I really enjoy the new CV's play style.

1.it's far more immersive than before:  I get to personally fly the planes.

2. It has a higher skill level and a steeper learning curve.

3. Am I good at it no.  But I am getting better every time I try it.

4. My main concern is that it is very difficult to get a decent score with it and I think the damage numbers need to be looked at more carefully in an effort to entice people to actually feel that it is worth giving the CV's a go.

5. Another con is that all the CV haters will hate, and that tends to make it miserable for any player trying to become good at the current CV meta.   The first thing they see or hear is "oh no there is a CV in the match."  Tends to be a downer.

6. Every new patch they are tweaking them....trying to make them better.  I personally believe that they will get them balanced as well as the AA, the flak and every other issue, we just have to give WOW a chance to accomplish this.

Finally:  As mentioned in the original post.  People and especially WOW players don't like change, especially when they have been comfortable with something in game for so long.   But we need to give this time and we need to try and make it work with out being too negative.   Besides if you think this is bad.....wait until they bring in Submarines and depth charges on DD's and Cruisers, then you will really hear an uproar!!!!   lol  🤣   :cap_cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
406 posts
8,968 battles

I dearly do not think its the case that players do not like changes, what they do not like is changes that practically ruin the game and unfortunately the CV rework is exactly that, I do agree in part that much of the blame should not be levied towards the CV and CV game play as those are indeed improvement over the old ones, what however matters is how these changes had been to all the others. the faulted AA, coupled with how WG change the way thing interact really mean they have only in due course made CV work but also making everyone else counter play or play not working and when players see their game and game play not working without a change to balance or introduce new ( and hopefully improved ) play that will made their ships work ... then all they see is that CV brings about the problem and in part that is true and in part that is false.

I've heard many argument that WG should give the chance to do the Balance but no .... not for all the other players .... especially light force DD and CL players the Q still ... why should we be the scapegoat so you guys can have it ... no, Game Balance and a fair chance should be there always .. and its not right now and that really is why the uproar .... its no longer day 1 or even day 10 of the rework. its been a while and there is no intention or any hint to balance and made things work again ( for all type of ship to carry out their intended the way they can and in the specialty they have ) EXCUSE is EXCUSE ... the end is game is not in proper balanced form and it need to be, it should be  addressed yesterday ... its already overdue

 

Edited by Mechfori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×