Jump to content

Carrier_Lexington

Members
  • Content Сount

    4,020
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    4825
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

998 Excellent

About Carrier_Lexington

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Spying from an air duct in the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    Space, Russian Destroyers, American CVs, being a nice person

Recent Profile Visitors

3,859 profile views
  1. Carrier_Lexington

    Yudachi Do not buy it.

    I mean, resurrecting it because it's topical with the Christmas Crates.
  2. Carrier_Lexington

    Yudachi Do not buy it.

    I'd argue that, with how slow her torps are, they should retain being surface torps but have a significant buff to their detection, something like 1.3 or less. Bad speed + Bad detection means that they will miss almost every ship they are fired at in a vacuum, even with TRB. That would be if they wanted to keep the flavor of slow, hard-hitting torps.
  3. Carrier_Lexington

    How did they keep this thing from rolling over?

    As I recall, they kept her from turning over by having her not be bombed and torpedoed. When the US bombed her and Japanese destroyers torpedoed her, she turned over.
  4. Carrier_Lexington

    CV Reword Autopsy: One year+ Later

    So, I want to point out something: I didn't go into depth, but there was a formula based on the hitpoints of the plane divided by some value based on the incoming damage to give a survival percentage of the planes (and, inverted, the chance that you would kill a plane.) I used to know this, actually, because the formula was either published on the wiki or covered in a stream, but I've since lost it to time. Anyway, it turned out that, unless you were a fully-kitted and AA-specced Des Moines, Minotaur, or Montana, your chances of shooting down a plane were pretty low until they eventually ticked-up. The healthier planes were, the longer it took to reach the 90% timer, which meant it took longer to guarantee a kill on aircraft. It could absolutely take longer to kill aircraft, and you could have aircraft survive a ridiculously long time. Hitpoints as a damage system both codify plane health and allow players to receive a reward for either killing planes or helping allies kill them, and they make plane health much more consistent. Instead of relying on some chance that you might kill a plane based on a pseudo-random number generator, it creates a much more attainable and less arguable guaranteed destroy condition. You don't have to decide which bound you are going to balance on or, alternatively, which statistical average you think is most representative and therefore want to choose to balance on. Instead, you have a number that you know is going to be balanced around.
  5. Carrier_Lexington

    CV Reword Autopsy: One year+ Later

    This is it, really. This is the single biggest issue in the Rework and the issue it was meant to address.
  6. Carrier_Lexington

    CV Reword Autopsy: One year+ Later

    There were definitely issues where RTS CVs were overpowered. However, I believe now that it would definitely have been doable to rework the CV mechanics while remaining in the RTS format and keep the class fun to play without moving to this new "rework," and there were ways they could have managed the rework so that CVs were still fairly playable without being pointlessly annoying.
  7. Carrier_Lexington

    CV Reword Autopsy: One year+ Later

    Weser, Rhein, Loewenhardt, Ranger, Langley, and Lexington would probably disagree with you. Also, 3 CV events in ONE year, not two, is a large quantity. More if you count the hype surrounding the Reworks themselves.
  8. Carrier_Lexington

    CV Reword Autopsy: One year+ Later

    Actually, I feel a better frame for this is: "You won't be any more detrimental to your team than you already are." I don't think we have a lot of data around CV popularity that isn't biased around a large quantity of CV events yet, but the sheer fact of the matter is, if you're an uptiered Tier 4, 6, or even 8, you aren't going to be able to do much while Yuro will destroy your team.
  9. Carrier_Lexington

    CV Reword Autopsy: One year+ Later

    I honestly feel like planes could have been made a bit more fragile in the RTS, or had their health used as a balancing factor, I'm going to address these in-turn: 1.) Surface Ships having control over AA sectors and numbers they can see is demonstrably more control than "put on upgrades and hope RNG rolls in your favor." It's maybe not what most would consider sufficient, but it's a step. 2.) This is still more variety than there was in the previous US vs IJN, though I agree that a lot of it is token variety thanks to the awful core system. 3.) Both the US and the British made and actively developed rockets for attacks on shipping. FFARs, HVARs, and Tiny Tims were developed for both ground and naval combat. Meanwhile, the British actively developed and manufactured and even deployed rockets like Uncle Tom and Red Angel, designed to fight against destroyers and cruisers; the Red Angels were absolutely designed around being able to destroy cruisers in a couple of good hits. Of course, these rockets aren't in WoWS with the exception of the US ones. 4.) There are bugs that remain, yes, but even the Autopilot has less bugs than it used to. Meanwhile, AA and plane-detection through solid islands has been addressed so that planes have detection points now. It is less noticeable, though, because of the new core system that is so bad it sucks what little good came out of the rework into a bottomless abyss.
  10. Carrier_Lexington

    CV Reword Autopsy: One year+ Later

    I got Aerial Defense Expert in a Moskva the other day off of a Manfred von Richthofen, killing 44 planes. I still got bad rewards afterwards because I kept getting beat up by the ships that would perpetually see me, and it was still annoying.
  11. Carrier_Lexington

    CV Reword Autopsy: One year+ Later

    I did mention that, but I'll say it again: I am not sure that is necessarily due to CVs being good as to them being novel. We don't really have access to Wargaming's internal records.
  12. Alright, so it's been over a year now, perhaps a year and a half, since the CV rework, and I feel like there should be a lot of consideration about what went wrong. There were a lot of promises made about the CV rework and a lot of us, myself included, said for a long time that we should just wait and see. I think it's time that we stop waiting and seeing and start talking and discussing, because if we don't, no one will. And let's not fool ourselves, a LOT went wrong. I'm not going to sugarcoat any of this, because what little "good" that has resulted from the rework is inevitably mired in what is wrong with it and almost inevitably directly linked to things that are wrong with it. I also know that this post is likely not going to change anything as Wargaming seem like they've dug their heels in, but I think it's worth it to consider for anyone ever developing games in the future or any reworks that are considered of other classes in the future. Let's start with the old RTS system, which had its own problems. I'll list some of these here: Carriers, mostly being a few specific examples, were extremely powerful Carriers had a different playstyle from surface ships, meaning that there was a divide between the skills required for ships of all other classes and CVs There was an intense skill-gap in CVs, where experienced players could absolutely destroy inexperienced CV players or their teams There weren't that many CV-specific modules and skills to choose from There were also only two CV lines, and premium CVs tended to, on average, be better than tech tree counterparts, sometimes oppressively so, like with Saipan. And, there were some decent things that came to help some of those issues: Planes having hitpoints instead of RNG deciding if all your planes die at once/who gets a plane kill and who gets denied what would have been a hard-earned Clear Skies Surface Ships have some level of control over their AA sectors and can see and get rewarded for the damage they do to planes CVs have a lot of Captains skills and modules to choose from to tailor their way of playing Rocket aircraft are a strong addition to represent an important form of carrier-born aviation and warfare A lot of bugs surrounding CVs got fixed, like AA through islands and air-detection issues So how did this go so wrong? Namely, the systemic rework that removed the RTS-lite components in favor of what is in the game now. The ability to support your team is gone; you have one consumable for spawning a couple of fighters to oppress DDs or sit there oblivious while enemy aircraft go right past them. Aerial torpedoes do pathetic levels of damage, almost never cause flooding, and flooding itself is almost worthless as a damage source. Any CV that is not top tier is worthless to play when uptiered, because Tier 8 and Tier 6 ships have long AA ranges and massive AA damage compared to Tier 6 and Tier 4 planes. If you thought Wargaming was adding a German line this year, I am so very sorry for you. That's not a line, that's a worthless dead-end of experience and credits that you might as well not even bother with. Limiting CVs to one squadron at a time is hard, because to compensate the CV, their squadrons would have to scale to ludicrous strengths... except they didn't do that. And you can't enjoy these features because everything that surrounds them is just bad. The core mechanic is bad. What was accomplished in this? There is still a skill divide. There may be CVs more frequently in matches now, but that is probably more attributable to the steady influx of new CV lines than CVs being fun or interesting to play. There is still a heavy skill gap and now it's even worse; just watch a video by Yuro and try to emulate it. Chances are you won't. CVs are still annoying to play against in that they can spot you for long periods even if they aren't trying to attack you, and can still focus ships down "with impunity." (Arguably with even more impunity now because many CVs just won't run out of aircraft even though they theoretically have soft-caps on how many they can have) A lot of RTS Veterans, either of CVs or who played against CVs, left CVs and either went to other ship classes or left the game It is actually hard to look at the new CV lines because those lines would have probably been feasible and even decent in the RTS system. German paper aircraft would have meant something, because they would have been the quintessential glass cannon, and players would have had to manage their aircraft much more strictly than those of other nations. Now, though, they feel like a kick in the ribs every time you look at a match and see almost all Tier 8s in your Weser or, worse, the E. Loewenhardt you paid $25 for (if you were like me and thought you might treat yourself this paycheck.) If you bought the "Admiral Pack" for $50.... ohh boy am I sorry for you, and I can only hope you haven't played it yet and can still get a refund. Meanwhile, the British CVs would have been slower and tougher, making it harder to fight over disparate areas of the map but easier to focus on small areas to fight in. Instead, well... CVs are worse than worthless on your team in an uptier and difficult to play even when top-tier. This is why the Rework did not go well: Wargaming shifted everything around like they did in Artillery 2.0, but they reduced the CV to a damage farmer instead of a support ship and then reduced its damage farming capabilities to a mere token. They put in national flavors around this rework but didn't address the issues that made and still make certain nations somewhat strong and certain nations pathetically weak, and they didn't address the issue that, if CVs are somehow supposed to operate off of one squad at a time, that that squad is going to have to be ludicrously strong to make-up for it. The end result is that the class was thrown by the wayside and just outright ignored despite the promises of attention. I haven't done a dive into things like the atrociously bad CV economy or the desperately-wanting sense of accomplishment for a grind (grinding a ship over a month is infinitely more rewarding than grinding half a ship over a month because Wargaming decided there would be one ship every two tiers.) Don't get me wrong, these aren't new issues, but they are infinitely worse after the rework than before it.
  13. Carrier_Lexington

    modern ships

    So, as far as missiles and Modern Ships go, Wargaming was testing Missiles sometime at the end of 2018 but decided that there was really no fun and interesting way to implement them and model them properly. They were either absurdly overpowered or basically not worth doing anything about... and this is pretty much how it went in Real-Life. Once there were missiles that were capable of penetrating CIWS (which is different from AA, mind you, because the target is much smaller, faster, and generally can only be accurately tracked at very close distance), it was basically Game Over for all doctrines that were built around gunnery. And then, once there were aircraft capable of firing these missiles, it was the end of the Battleship. A Fleet Carrier could perform all of the duties a Battleship could while staying way too far away to hit and doing the duties a carrier could, and can be heavily-armored to-boot. Shore bombardment? Launch CAS planes and helicopters. Interdicting enemy trade? Launch aircraft with Harpoons, Exocets, AGM-158Cs, or Helicopters with Penguins. Attacking an enemy fleet? See previous step. Intelligence and E-War? Prowlers and Growlers can launch off of a Carrier, as can the Hawkeye. People often misquote that the Aircraft Carrier made Battleships obsolete, or that Battleships were safe but could not deal harm to the enemy. In truth, the Battleship was extremely expensive and only good at one thing: firing unguided munitions at really long range while remaining fairly resistant to counterattack. In any situation where a floating artillery fort wasn't necessary, a Battleship was too expensive for what value was gained, and can't easily be made more versatile. Sure, we put Tomahawks on Iowas, but that was more a means to an end: get more ships out with long-range missiles quickly while we build purpose-built Guided Missile Ships. Even with Tomahawks, the Iowas were too expensive to maintain and keep seaworthy. Now, in-game, you'd have to limit Missiles to the most fragile ship classes, ie: Destroyers and maybe submarines, to even have a remote chance of balancing them. You would likely have to limit their uses, as a sort of damage-dealing consumable, but the ships that would have these would have to sacrifice other armaments, so they would be extremely gimmicky but also capable of dealing large amounts of undodgeable damage (because if they were dodgeable, you would have to increase the damage to compensate, which is a bad spiral). And that's the problem: with only moderate amounts of damage, those ships just aren't interesting to play or play against. They slaughter anything with low health, but otherwise are only an annoyance. As that damage goes down, the annoyance level goes up, and as the damage goes up, the overpowered-ness level skyrockets. What might be fun would be certain rocket or inertial-guidance missile-armed ships... but Rockets kinda go where you point them and work like Cleveland would if Cleveland had a bunch of guns that could fire very rapidly but had a very long reload and ships with non-Nuclear Inertial-guidance missiles that would be fun in the game likely don't exist.
  14. Carrier_Lexington

    modern ships

    When this show came out:
×