Carrier_Junyo

Please consider involving more skill and less RNG in ship AA, aerial bombings and bring back fighter to fighter combat with skill involved. Please see Navyfield mechanics as an example. Disclaimer: I'm not promoting Navyfield, it is a 16 year old game that has flaws and is dated, however, it has very good naval aviation mechanics. Similar mechanics or even better ones could be employed in this game to improve CV gameplay. In Navyfield, players have manual control of Anti-Aircraft long range guns (while the local AA is automated). The AA is skill-based, and not RNG based or automated. Here is a video showing AA in the hands of highly skilled players shutting down large aerial attacks from CVs. On the other hand, here is a video of highly skilled CV players (against low skill surface ship players) able to one-shot yamato-class battleships. And this video shows player doing torpedo bombing attacks. Note how he is dodging actively AA fire by changing direction and altitude. Some of the core mechanics that make this game mode fun and skill-based: - Manual AA long range fire in player control - Carrier player ability to change the altitude of the bombers - Carrier player can choose number of type/composition of planes, number planes in a squadron, and have up to 6 squadrons in the air at any time, giving many tactical options. - Planes have fuel and can run out of it - Limited number of planes Not saying these mechanics are perfect, but IMO they are better than current and proposed WoWS CV mechanics, and worth taking a look at for ideas. I mean, in Navyfield a new player with limited AA guns that comes against a high tier CV that throws 14 bombers at you and one shots you is not fun. However, just like in historic battles, any ship with weak AA, or even strong AA, caught by overwhelming air attack has no chance. This is why, just like in real life, both in Navyfield and WoWs, the key has always been to encourage team-play, and have AA bubbles or AA escorts, which adds another tactical dimension to gameplay. Further to that, in NF, the fact that AA is skill-based and manual, means greater rewards and importance in the battle of high skill AA players who can shoot down planes with high reliability and accuracy. I find the gameplay quite epic with all that AA trying to take down an incoming air attack. It's truly epic. These is just food for thought. Just some ideas for Developers. Only intent is that I care about this game and wish it to have great CV gameplay. Please keep thread on topic of the mechanics suggested or described. This is not another "CV Rework" feedback. Thanks Junyo

Single squadrons, no ability to control the carriers in 3rd person directly, only 3 bombers attacking at any given time, unlimited planes, no player control over air to air combat are all, IMHO, huge flaws in the new game mechanic. With these new mechanics, my prediction is you will loose all your hardcore CV players, you will gain a lot of "beginner's interest" in the new game for a while, and then people will get bored and CV population will go down again. If you want lasting CV population boost, keep the CV gameplay challenging and interesting and fix the balance issues without dumbing the gameplay down completely to a full on arcade game that could be played on your iPhone while you are on the bus.

Hello crzyhawk, The intent of my post was not to stop Wargaming's efforts to take CV gameplay in a new direction, nor necessarily to cling to the RTS style gameplay. My aim was simply to provide feedback on Wargaming's stream and video footage of the core gameplay mechanic changes and highlight what I feel are core mechanic flaws. Sub_Octavian clearly stated that it's a WIP, that they have a plan of extensive closed and public testing (by supertesters, CCs, public testing etc.) so they are obviously looking for player feedback. The introduction of the 3rd person view may be a positive new feature, and there may yet many changes that will be made that will make this new core CV gameplay mechanic much better than the old one, but we need to provide feedback to help them improve the game (rather than make it worse). The gameplay mechanic featured in the preview video clearly shows the core mechanics, of which, the fact that you can at this stage only control one squadron, have only 3 planes in a attack run and have no player control over air to air combat is step backward IMO, and that's the main first impression I wanted to highlight. The main consensus at this stage does appear to be that the CV gameplay looks too simple and repetitive, and that Wargaming needs put some work into ensuring that the game remains fun, challenging and balanced for ALL parties (CV players as well as surface ship Captains). I think, we can all at least agree to that much.

Hello all fellow Captains and Wargaming, I have not posted on the forums for probably a year, and my game-time with World of Warships over the past 10 months has gone down from about 15 games/day average to about 15/games a week average if not less. For a little background about myself, and to put my feedback in perspective, I have been playing the game for over two years, I have over 5000 games played of which over 1000 games are in CVs. So I'm a well rounded player with about 20% CV class gameplay and almost equal distribution among all 4 classes, so I have a global perspective. The CV line is the only line for both USN and IJN for which I have never used free XP during the grind, due to the high learning curve and skill ceiling present in the CV class. A steady progression is key to be able to compete at high tiers and you cannot take short cuts. I have reached Tier X in both USN and IJN, and lastly, I have probably spend close to $1500-$2000 on this game (I'm afraid to actually count it up). World of Warships has been the exclusively game I have played for over a year (to the exclusion of all other PC or Console games). As of today, it is a game I play maybe once a week among half a dozen other games. This, should be a hint to Wargaming for a "Premium" member that has paid for this game for many others to enjoy for free. Now that that's out of the way, I'll provide my feedback in 4 sections: a) My specific interest in Carrier gameplay and what I look for in a CV game b) Feedback on the existing RTS style gameplay c) Feedback on the new 3rd person style gameplay d) My recommendations to Sub_Octavian and the WG Development Team a) My specific interest in Carrier gameplay and what I look for in a CV game I have always had a great interest and fascination for naval aviation and carrier warfare. Carriers were an instrumental and revolutionary leap in warfare introduced in WWII that essentially changed the nature of warfare in the past 80 years. I believe that just as the carriers replaced the battleship as the dominant naval force, in today's age, missile systems, submarines, stealth and detection technology have made carriers obsolete. As far as PC gaming, I have always been a fan of RTS games due to their requirement to think, strategize, multi-task and think about tactics on a multi-unit level. This type of gameplay fit perfectly for a carrier game because by the very definition, a carrier is composed of a ship and multiple air units. Just like the Battle of Midway or other famous battles in WWII showed, carriers were the dominant force in the seas and the main factor deciding the fate of WWII in the pacific was the implementation of correct strategic and tactical decisions. Battles were won or lost based on who detected the enemy first, who was able to anticipate the enemy movements, who had the better ability to deploy units in the battle and last but not least, who had the better timing in attack vs defense. b) Feedback on the existing RTS style gameplay Most of these elements were correctly reflected in an RTS style CV gameplay in World of Warships. A great CV player was one that scouted properly, defended their fleets and planes properly, chose the correct targets, chose the correct deployment of units in the correct sizes, and utilized the correct type of weapon systems at the correct time. A perfect example, was the tactic of "Alpha striking" the enemy CV. A CV captain without Defensive Fire had to expect an alpha strike at any point during the battle, and had to make a decision on whether to alpha strike the enemy CV themselves, whether it would be worth it as it would take a lot of time to route planes the "long way" to avoid detection, and leaving either your strike force or your CV vulnerable to enemy attack as you did not have enough planes to do both, just like in historic battles like the Battle of Midway, where the Japanese carriers were caught with their pants down when the Yorktown and Enterprise waves reached them first, and they were unable to defend themselves because they had sent out their strike force escorted by fighters earlier without success, and now they were re-arming the planes as they had the incorrect ammunitions. This error cost the Japanese probably the entire war. The primary problem with the current state of CV gameplay for a long time was the imbalance between Air Superiority and Strike loadouts, and IJN vs USN loadouts. This all or nothing approach, and the imbalance of fighters or bombers led to one CV captain always having an unfair advantage over the enemy CV captain. And, since only one CV per side was allowed, with no ability to change the loadout during the battle, it basically doomed CV captains during the loading screen before the battle even started. For the longest time, I have made my recommendation in my forum signature to implement a flexible customizable loadout that could be chosen in game much like in Navy Field 2. The other complaints which Wargaming is giving for the current system is the unpopularity of CV class due to the extreme high skill ceiling, the steep learning curve and the fact that the RTS gameplay looks drastically different that the core 3rd person surface ship gameplay. We all acknowledge this, but completely abandoning the RTS game was not the way to solve these issues in my opinion. Wargaming simply refused to make small incremental adjustments to the core gameplay over the last 2 years, only focusing on meta stats like number of planes per squad or plane and CV ship stats etc. There are so many things that could be changed in the RTS model to balance the game. Things like alpha strike damage, DOT damage, number of squads, plane rearming times, AA mechanics, targeting/aiming mechanics etc etc etc. I feel, "dumbing" the gameplay down instead of fixing the highly complex, fun and challenging RTS style gameplay is an error on Wargaming's part. c) Feedback on the new 3rd person style gameplay Out of the first impressions, I agree the most with Community Contributor Flambass. He nailed it in his YouTube video when he stated that in it's current state, the new proposed game mechanic is completely boring, monotonous and will get old after just a few games. While, in contrast, the RTS gameplay as it stands is infinitely more complex, challenging and variable from game to game, although it always had great room for improvement. The primary and biggest disappointment on my part is the "dumbing" down of CV gameplay to accommodate players unwilling to spend hours to perfect and learn the craft of carrier gameplay. For those of us that spent thousands of battles to refine and learn the system, the new gameplay is an insult to all the effort and time we put into learning and appreciating the existing mechanics. With the current system, the best, most fun and challenging core aspect of CV gameplay has been removed. That aspect is the ability to control multiple units concurrently at the same time and multi-tasking. The new gameplay allows players to control only a single squadron of planes, and only have a wing of 3 bombers to execute a bombing run at any given time. Essentially, Wargaming as turned "planes" into a ship that flies in the air. The core and basic characteristic of carriers is the ability to project power over vast distances, to multiple locations simultaneously and deal with several threats at the same time. This is in contrast to any single surface vessel which can only do one thing at a time in a single location. You can only be at one place, see one thing and target a single enemy. While this may be fine when you are shooting a Gearing's 127mm cannons every 3 seconds, it gets completely boring when you can do "one" attack run every 2 minutes with a plane squadron. Essentially, due to the nature that planes can carry only one torpedo or bomb, the way you make it interesting to the player is to give the CV captain something to do at all times, whether it is scouting, routing your planes of the battlefield, taking control over your CV itself, or a number of other things that other games allow to do (such as selecting type of armament and squadron composition for the next launch). Everything else in the new gameplay is secondary and insignificant next to this glaring game mechanic flaw. If there is any hope to retain any of the "old" CV captains such as myself going forward, the new gameplay must allow for multi-tasking, and multi-unit control. The other glaring flaw of the new system is the total elimination of air to air warfare from player control. d) My recommendations to Sub_Octavian and the WG Development Team My first recommendation would be to stick to realize the problems with the single unit mechanic and go back to multi-unit, simultaneous control given to the player. RTS is obviously the best game mechanic to allow multiple unit control at the same time, so my recommendation would be to go back to that and perhaps use elements of the new gameplay and combine them. For example, utilize the RTS style to issue move and deployment orders to multiple squads, but then give the player the ability to take control of a single squad when making an attack run. If the RTS is really to be killed, then at least give the player the ability to switch between several squadrons and take control of any one of them at any given time to give the CV captain the ability to control multiple units concurrently. My second recommendation would be to re-introduce fighters and air to air combat. I feel without this element, CV gameplay is lacking 50% of it's core mechanic. My last recommendation would be to avoid dumbing down CV gameplay to please players who are too lazy to learn complex game mechanics. One of the things that makes World of Warships great is the balance between "arcade" style gameplay and realism/simulation. The RTS CV gameplay allowed for some sort of realism and complexity. The new gameplay completely dumbs down gameplay to full "arcade" mode. If you proceed with this gameplay, you will lose all the players like myself that enjoyed the simulation/strategy/tactics aspect of this game over the "arcade" shoot, reload and repeat gameplay. Whether you decide that the new gameplay is not successful and not implemented and go back to working on the RTS style gameplay, or whether you decide to try to improve the current style, I ask as a premium member of this game, to please ensure that CV gameplay remains challenging, complex and gives the player great freedom of choice in what they can do. Chief among these, please bring back air to air combat, multiple squadron control at the same time, and ability to control CV from third person view with WASD. And, if you really wish to make this particular CV captain super excited about a CV gameplay rework, please introduce like I have stated in my signature for years, to allow custom plane loadouts to be chosen by the player during the battle. In other words, the ability to determine squadron size and composition, with larger squads taking much longer to launch. I.E. look at the Navy Field 2 CV gameplay mechanic, which IMO to this day, with all its flaws, remains the best example of carrier gameplay in any game to date. Thanks for considering this feedback. Carrier Junyo

I've been dreaming of getting my hands on CV-6 for a long time. Shame that she is "balanced". If there is any ship that deserves to be OP it's her, not the Saipan. Especially at Tier 8, where you seee T10s more often than T6s in a CV. At the very least, she should have been on par with Shokaku, with it's own personality and uniqueness. But from what I've seen and heard, she's weaker than Shokaku. For the record, even if she had 500 planes in reserve, it would not matter, as under-tiered planes get shot out of the sky before you can accomplish anything. I'd rather have strong squadrons with low reserve, than weak squadrons with high reserve.