![]() However, this seperate experience was something that WG felt was a problem, hence why the CV rework moved away from micromanagement of multiple squadrons to direct control of a single squadron at a time. Was it a bad idea to make carriers RTS in the first place, given WoWs is supposed to be an action game? Probably, but RTS CVs had a dedicated following, so there was clearly a group of people who felt such a system had enough value to be worth retaining, even if the RTS gameplay didn't appeal to the majority. Now, this isn't a bad problem to have by default. Let's look at each of these problems one at a time, and see how the current CVs compare to the pre-rework CVs.ĭifferent experience compared to normal WoWs. When Wargaming set out to rework carriers, there were four primary problems they wanted to tackle:ĬVs had a completely different game experience compared to normal WoWs, which partially attributed to the class' low popularity pre-rework.Īnti-air builds had generally low value, largely because of low CV popularity.ĬVs were highly skill-dependent pre-rework and there was a big gap between an average CV player and a great one.ĬVs simply had too much influence on the outcome of a battle. Let's rip the band-aid off, shall we? At this point, we've had the reworked CVs for a while, and the results are in: the CV rework has resolved very few of the actual problems with carriers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |