|
|
-
Regarding Scout only CVs
04. 09. 2012 18:05
TeamNF_MK2
|
Hey guys,
We've had a number of players voice their concerns regarding Scout-only CVs. For example, players who might be leveling crews who resort to using this setup for efficiency or players who just wish to make use of their newly acquired ECVs.
We officially do not condone this action as it does negatively affect in-game balance. Doing so also goes against our server rule referencing attack capability of ships.
We will not be actively enforcing a rule against this at this time, but we do urge users to equip at least a single bomber or fighter. We will update if there is a change to our stance on this.
Thank you for your understanding,
-Randy
|
-
Re : Regarding Scout only CVs
04. 20. 2012 09:17
Biter_Wylie
|
Originally Posted by ljsevern
Originally Posted by Biter_Wylie
Originally Posted by ljsevern
Originally Posted by Biter_Wylie
Originally Posted by ChicagoBears
True fighter only CV doesn't contribute to team attack but they contribute extremly to the team by scouting, protecting BBs from bombers, and also keeping the enemy blind. So, argument invalid.
No they break the game. The set up developed in FL and HA then spread into GB. This FL and HA is nothing like how the game is played 99% of the time by most players. If the game becomes no fun it dies faster. Very simple.
I do not want to win in a BB because the other team was totally blind with no chance of winning. I do not want to loose this way either. I would prefer balanced CV's. This way BB can scout more. A fun game more of the time should be in the top of the priority list when balancing.
What breaks GB's is the autobalancer, the exp system and the terrible players that feel that they don't want to help the team. FL and HA modes play the exact same ships as other modes. The difference is that they play to win, not play to derp.
I agree.. but the game mechanics help players break the autobalance etc.
But anyway.. Every hour you spend on balancing this mechanism (which SDE should have done) is an hour less that could have been spent doing something productive. If SDE allows new content to break the game, what can players really do?
Sure, there are bugs that need to be sorted. CV system wise, there are 3 main ones (Backwards firing planes, COD bug, sightrange=engage range). In fact, the last one was an error in the game design. But that is not something we can fix. So SDE can work on that. In the meantime, we do productive things; like nerf the overpowered content that SDE brings in (like RM, like T5 scouts). But why do these things get rushed onto the server? Because the majority of players whine on the forums that they want new stuff. If the players would make threads and posts like I do that they would rather wait for things to be balanced, then great. Maybe SDE will listen. Because they are listening. They do seem to realise their limits now and are working with us since DarkGM took over NFNA and MK2 became community manager. This is a real chance to get stuff done; Rather than stamping your feet and complaining, help us.
Maybe I am being to harsh. And you and your team did do a good job in getting the RM ships sprite sizes adjusted. So well done for that.
I just feel CV balance is so so important. The reason my CV's and BB's now sit in harbour is for two main reasons
CV - FW CV is the defacto win setup. I do not enjoy this style of play. Sure I can FW with the best of them but it is tedious. As soon as you launch bombers your BB loose there eyes and you loose. CV players are being forced to either scout with fighters, or be BW and to hell with your team. Neither option is full to me. And I cant attack FW PCV's as they have to much damage resistance.
BB - Without a FW CV south to help you against another FW often the battle is already lost.
|
-
Re : Regarding Scout only CVs
04. 20. 2012 15:57
ljsevern
|
Originally Posted by Biter_Wylie
Originally Posted by ljsevern
Originally Posted by Biter_Wylie
Originally Posted by ljsevern
Originally Posted by Biter_Wylie
No they break the game. The set up developed in FL and HA then spread into GB. This FL and HA is nothing like how the game is played 99% of the time by most players. If the game becomes no fun it dies faster. Very simple.
I do not want to win in a BB because the other team was totally blind with no chance of winning. I do not want to loose this way either. I would prefer balanced CV's. This way BB can scout more. A fun game more of the time should be in the top of the priority list when balancing.
What breaks GB's is the autobalancer, the exp system and the terrible players that feel that they don't want to help the team. FL and HA modes play the exact same ships as other modes. The difference is that they play to win, not play to derp.
I agree.. but the game mechanics help players break the autobalance etc.
But anyway.. Every hour you spend on balancing this mechanism (which SDE should have done) is an hour less that could have been spent doing something productive. If SDE allows new content to break the game, what can players really do?
Sure, there are bugs that need to be sorted. CV system wise, there are 3 main ones (Backwards firing planes, COD bug, sightrange=engage range). In fact, the last one was an error in the game design. But that is not something we can fix. So SDE can work on that. In the meantime, we do productive things; like nerf the overpowered content that SDE brings in (like RM, like T5 scouts). But why do these things get rushed onto the server? Because the majority of players whine on the forums that they want new stuff. If the players would make threads and posts like I do that they would rather wait for things to be balanced, then great. Maybe SDE will listen. Because they are listening. They do seem to realise their limits now and are working with us since DarkGM took over NFNA and MK2 became community manager. This is a real chance to get stuff done; Rather than stamping your feet and complaining, help us.
Maybe I am being to harsh. And you and your team did do a good job in getting the RM ships sprite sizes adjusted. So well done for that.
I just feel CV balance is so so important. The reason my CV's and BB's now sit in harbour is for two main reasons
CV - FW CV is the defacto win setup. I do not enjoy this style of play. Sure I can FW with the best of them but it is tedious. As soon as you launch bombers your BB loose there eyes and you loose. CV players are being forced to either scout with fighters, or be BW and to hell with your team. Neither option is full to me. And I cant attack FW PCV's as they have to much damage resistance.
BB - Without a FW CV south to help you against another FW often the battle is already lost.
I completely agree. But changing the entire CV system is something that can't be done overnight.
|
-
Re : Regarding Scout only CVs
04. 20. 2012 21:39
Elliot2lazy
|
Originally Posted by Shimakaze
Wow, so we are going to harass the few CV players that are out there because of running scouts only, when we have nearly 50% of the BB players not running scouts, AA moltke leeches not running scouts............ Perhaps we should have a feature that does not allow one to run their own set ups and run only the default setting for a class of ship.
+10
|
-
Re : Regarding Scout only CVs
04. 21. 2012 01:25
zanon
|
raise the amount of mines u can put on a cv.
it is bad that it maxes on 50 , think about the cash ,the money, $, gold.
atleast cap it where bombs and torped space caps on a cv
|
-
Re : Regarding Scout only CVs
04. 21. 2012 06:47
Plazmadj
|
Originally Posted by zanon
raise the amount of mines u can put on a cv.
You know, I put in a support ticket with this suggestion to the GMs about a year ago, and they said they would consider it and still haven't done anything about it. It does seem kinda dumb to not raise the amount of mines able to be put on a CV since they are a Premium Item and could be a bigger money-maker for $DE if they did this...
|
-
Re : Regarding Scout only CVs
05. 04. 2012 13:09
Filimon
|
Its my dream to have a recon whore cv with 6-8 120 scouts ;)
Imagine the whole battle lit from start to finish.
t5 scouts can protect themselves and drop mines.
I don't really see the point of criticizing recon heavy cv's. Sight is what the BBs require.
That's my $0.02
|
-
Re : Regarding Scout only CVs
05. 04. 2012 17:18
RADB
|
Why don't you just sell the ships with locked guns, ammo, planes, engine, armor, fcs; and restrict the sailor slots the same way BO slot is, and then we all play the same way. So this guys who can't see anyone playing different than they are happy?
Seriously, what's your problem with only scouts? aren't the 90% of BB's players crying about cvs not scouting? well, a cv only loaded with scouts, is going to scout!
Yeah, sure your ship should be able to make damage, that doesn't mean that you're going to make damage or that you're going to help your team.
Let the people play as they want or change the game so they can't use their ships as they want. But don't make the game give you the freedom and then go hunt them cause they don't play as you'd like them to.
BTW, I'd recommend you to play missions, so you don't have to worry about what the other people is using, or how they're playing.
|
-
Re : Regarding Scout only CVs
08. 09. 2012 03:45
Krazysride
|
just wanted to point out something since i am mainly a cv player who plans on makeing a scout whore. u talk about attack capabliles so here is my point regrauding that.
when i set up in this manner i carry guns of some sort. and constantly setting up mines in emeny postions. just wanted to know ur take on this before i follow though on making this crew. since my man goal is to provide sight for team and once an emeny breaks our lines when in this set up i normally chase him down and unleash on him with my guns, since i also am running engs on cv as well.
|
-
Re : Regarding Scout only CVs
08. 09. 2012 11:28
AlexCaboose
|
Scouts can be used in addition to fighters and/or bombers, but we do not condone Scout-only CVs.
|
-
Re : Regarding Scout only CVs
08. 29. 2012 15:40
AlexCaboose
|
Please keep this on topic. And Quenirland, please note that the post you are quoting was made on 4/15/2012 - 4.5 months ago.
|
|
|
