Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'carrier'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 78 results

  1. xtraBlood

    IJN torpedo drop

    Hello, When playing IJN CV's I tend to try to drop my torpedo's as close as possible to guarantee a hit while other people say to drop farther because of the speed and range of the torpedo's. Just want to know if I should start dropping at farther range to conserve planes.
  2. Hello folks, Having played as and against subs, and being a submarine fanatic, I have seen that the submarines are currently implemented poorly. The matches I play as subs are either 150k+ dmg matches where you butcher a helpless enemy team, or frustrating 0 dmg insta-deaths where you get annihilated by swarms of depth charge bombers. The current implementation has serious problems, and much of the community would rather bandwagon on the hate-train against subs opposed to actually offering solutions that satisfy everyone. I intend here to provide a conclusive solution that will satisfy all players, submarine enjoyer and otherwise. The solution to submarines is as follows: 1: Remove homing torpedoes and depth charge planes. Reasoning: Homing torpedoes drag the skill floor of submarines way too low, and allow subs to strike targets they definitely shouldn't be. For example, these homing torpedoes can counter DDs/cruisers sitting in smoke, submarines even partially countering DDs is extremely silly. As for depth charge planes; this means that BBs become the primary counters to submarines, I can definitely testify to this from personal experience. The design of submarines should be focused on how they fit into the game as a whole, BBs countering subs better than DDs is insane. DDs should be the primary counter to submarines, more on this later. All classes of ship should have access to simple depth charges, with DDs possessing the best (greatest quantity of depth charges released). 2: Refocus the purpose of submarines to be anti-CV. Reasoning: CVs are known for playing an extremely safe, passive playstyle with respect to their ships positioning and movement. They currently have no counter, submarines can fill this void. Giving submarines increased damage, even a chance to land citadel torpedoes against CVs ONLY. This increased damage potential will motivate many submarines to seek out CVs. People will often go where their most reliable way to get damage and citadel ribbons is, this is how you can motivate anti-CV play. 3: Allow nuance in play for submarines by changing how sonar works. The submarine should draw inspiration from the Spy from Team Fortress 2, a backline assassin with a few distinct methods of play, either super stealthy but only able to harass a few (albeit more reliable) backline targets, or super high risk high reward (less stealthy). Here is what I mean, the sonar ping and hydrophone consumable should both be removed in favor of a toggleable sonar. When the sonar is turned off, you are blind, but are far harder to detect, only able to see other submarines at extremely close range (where you can hear their propellers). This allows for a low-risk way for the sub player to sneak past the frontline and sneak to the backline where its intended targets are, CVs and sniper BBs. The alternative would be to turn on the sonar which would reveal the submarine to other submarines underwater from a significant distance (5-10 km depending on concealment). This offers a higher risk, high reward style of play, with the sonar having a long range detection of underwater ships, while a shorter range (~75% of underwater) detection of surface ships. The hydroacoustic search consumable should only find submarines who either have their sonars on, or are extremely close (where the propellers can be heard by the hydroacoustic instruments). 4: Change how submarine spotting works. When a submarine spots another submarine currently, if both of the subs are near the frontline, they both get descended upon by tons of depth charge bombers and often both die before they can even kill one another. After my suggested changes, the subs will now be able to duel properly if they so choose to by turning on their sonars. However a submarine being a hard to spot machine itself, it being able to spot everything better than a DD makes no sense. So rather instead of a sub being able to spot enemy ships with its sonar, it instead only spots the ships for itself (and possibly for friendly submarines). If the sub is at periscope depth or the surface, the spotting functions as normal, but comes with the downside that it is detectable by nearby surface ships. 5: Revert the dive timer back to the battery. This is a no-brainer, simply make the sonar consume battery when it is on. This would make submarine duels extremely interesting games of battery management, juking/3D positioning, and leading torpedo shots. I suggest allowing submarine torpedoes to arm much sooner, allowing for closer knife-fights underwater. 6: Make the different depths matter, and partially revert the diving ability. The 60m depth should make the submarine extremely hard to spot, and reduce/eliminate the damage from depth charges. The downside of this would be purely the agility of the torpedoes themselves. Torpedoes can only rise so quickly, so this would significantly limit the subs ability to deal with close range targets, and without guided torpedoes the long range targets are much harder to hit. This balances itself out. The periscope depth should, like a few submarine updates prior, allow for the recharge of the battery. As for the diving ability, to prevent abuse it is good to leave the surface and the periscope depths as preset depths where you cant feather in between periscope depth and just below it, however below a certain depth the diving/ascent shouldn't be constrained by preset depths, only having a maximum depth which can vary by the submarine (this wont be too much of a problem in submarine duels if my point #8 is added). 7: Reassert the DDs place as the submarine counter. DDs (and light cruisers to a lesser extent) should possess innate vertical sonar, giving a cylinder of detection directly below itself, perhaps about 200m in radius. This, coupled with my change to spotting, means that if your friendly submarine spots an enemy sub, your DDs will know the general area to start searching and should be able to find the sub quickly. This combined with being able to release a long chain of depth charges should scare many subs away from trying to meddle with the frontline, as usual they must take a high risk for the potential of a high reward. 8: (New mechanic) Allow for torpedoes to be aimed both horizontally AND vertically. This would simply add another axis to being able to launch torpedoes, this is so sub vs sub fights can allow for leading shots in all 3 axes of movement, since subs can juke by changing their depth. As stated previously torpedoes are only able to ascend/descend so fast, limiting the ability for subs to strike at surface ships from too deep down. I am convinced that submarines can be a fun addition to the game, where they also improve the health of the game by discouraging unfun playstyles. Should my changes be implemented, CVs will no longer be able to feel "safe" every single match, and be able to just sit in the back and send their planes out. This will force team coordination on the part of the CV (definitely a good thing), as should the CV wander too far away from friendly ships, they will easily fall prey to a sub. As a person who also enjoys CVs, I hate seeing CVs that just sit back and play it super safe all game. CVs should move up and act more as a part of a battlegroup. This to me is the most enjoyable way to play as and against CVs, as it gives a chance for more daring players to attempt to pierce the battlegroup and strike the CV. I believe that subs can definitely function as a counter to the CV/sniper-heavy meta we've been seeing for a while. Subs will make the backline an extremely dangerous place to be, and encourage more active play on all parts. Thanks for reading my ten thousand leagues of text.
  3. rafael_azuaje

    Hornet QUESTION 11.4

    hello everyone, checking the Hornet in the armory I see a negative change, its aircraft points dropped drastically, I have some screenshots of version 11.3 and now 11.4 where you can see the change. was it a hidden nerf? hopefully not! :( in version 11.3 the Hornet planes had 69 points. now in version 11.4 now it has 54 points, that is, it was a hard blow for the Hornet :(
  4. rafael_azuaje

    Lexington question

    I have a doubt. yes the lexinton was sunk in 1942. because she has better aa and better planes than the hornet and enterprise. the enterprise was never sunk survived WW2 , received many modern upgrades . and in the game it has everything old.
  5. Today I saw a news from wowsblogs, where they say that they are going to nerf Chkalov, Please stop the nerf to PREMIUM Ships, players PAY something already tested by experts, and then people pay monthly what they blast with several nerfs. https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/321 buy premium ships and after paying, they apply nerf, what's the point of paying for it?
  6. Mr_Eko

    Carrier 8 Pobeda Ruso

    Hola. Quisiera expresar mi descontento, mi insatisfacción con el CARRIER TIER 8 - POBEDA - RUSO. Es un portaaviones muy mal equilibrado: los aviones no resisten nada; los misiles cazas son muy difíciles de acertar, lentos para lanzar; los torpedos dañan muy poco. Realmente tiene todas las características en contra. Sólo pido si pueden elevar esto a los desarrolladores para ver si lo puede mejorar. GRACIAS.
  7. Issue: This is where you should explain the problem that you're having. CV fighter planes can spot submarines at maximum depth when spawning if the drop point is placed above the sub. Expected Result: Tell us what should be happening. As per https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/general-news/submarines-again/, submarines are undetectable at maximum depth by air. Patrol fighters shouldn't be spotting submarines at maximum depth when spawning. How to Replicate: Give us examples on how to reproduce this bug. Sit at max depth with a submarine and have a CV drop their fighters on you. Screenshots/Replay/Supporting Info: Screenshots and Replays go a long way, so having this ready to go will really help. Replay is attached, see 11:17. Note, the fighters show up after the torpedo planes that drop them leave. My camera wiggles in confusion at this point. 20220326_202049_PGSS108-U190_18_NE_ice_islands.wowsreplay
  8. With support carriers being announced and the general displeasure the playerbase feels about being picked on by CVs I got an idea for a change. While more conceptual than ironed out, I think it has some potential. That is - a mechanic to discourage repeatedly striking the same target. I’d call it “Alertness”. For every second you have a priority sector active against planes your AA gets a cumulative strength increase. Similar to the special battle commands the Hannover and Satsuma have. If you AA hasn’t been active and “priority sectored” in a few minutes the bonus will start to tick down. Ships with defensive AA can give this an instant boost to 1/3rd its max upon activation. Maybe a little overkill, but if you have been struck by a CV 3 times in a row, and had your priority sector active against the planes all 3 times you unlock aa special battle command to instantly shoot down several planes. Unsure if it would be fair or not to let the CV see how much this “Alertness” bar is progressed on enemy ships or not. It could be similar to how you can see battery levels for submarines. If it was not visible and there are multiple carriers it would be a bit unfair for the other CV to be punished for the actions of their ally. You would also be able to slightly build your “Alertness” by priority sectoring Fighters/Air Strikes/ Depth Charge Bombers. A real alert captain could keep this bonus active without even having the CV strike them. This could also be an issue in smaller battles (like ranked), eg. 5v5 or 7v7. But I would argue that carriers shouldn’t be allowed in those smaller battle types to begin with. I also understand that this is a net nerf to carriers, but I think it is warranted. CVs should be considered a high-skill level class. A skilled CV player would be able to mitigate this change. And, attentive captains on the receiving end of attacks would appreciate a tool to defend themselves. A net win in my books.
  9. First off, let me start by saying that I am 2015 WoWs player and a 2009 WOT player, a Navy Veteran(both ship and squadron), a avid fan of history and a gamer that never posts in the forums. The ISSUE: - The current play style for CVs in WoWs is a fall from grace from what it used to be. It can be better it should be better. The SOLUTION: - Bring back the old school real time strategy that CVs incorporated. - Implement realistic turn angles of attack. - Buff AA and increase the penalty for unsafe approaches. The ARGUMENT: - I would like to believe that this game follows some historical record and account, hence the ships history being posted in game. History shows that carriers used multiple squadrons, attack angle and formations. It`s aviation doctrine. - In the life of carriers, they rarely fight alone.. it was usually two or more together. Put two carriers to a game, increase the rewards for shooting down planes. This would stress the importance for TEAMPLAY and strategy. Each ship has roles to play. - Will I chase a submarine for spotting and not be able to defend myself from an attacking DD? The old school and current play style needs to be merged. Does the game even read these posts? Am I the only one here asking for a change?
  10. Every day that I play with aircraft carriers, I suffer from not being able to get close to the ships I attack. Anti-aircraft are very powerful, compared to very weak aircraft. To make matters worse, the latest modifications empowered antiaircraft in cruisers and destroyers, and impoverished fighter attacks. Regrettable.
  11. Cada día que juego con portaaviones, sufro el no poder acercarme a los barcos que ataco. Los antiaéreos son poderosísimos, en comparación con aviones muy débiles. Para peor, las últimas modificaciones empoderaron antiaéreos en cruceros y destructores, y empobrecieron los ataques con cazas. Lamentable
  12. I wanted to do a CV for a long time. When I finally got to... I did my part as expected in aiding fleet instead of ignoring them and go about of randomly picking targets like some loner. As I felt from what I saw in fleet battles that winning apart from losing on high seas depends on CV support. I know from battleship experience how bad a threat destroyers can be. I not been in game for a while after CV squadron fighter changes became instant disappointment. No viewing tutorial helps in getting skills to do this terrible change. What was creators thinking in having commander of CV run off among squadron flight crew on attack runs? That is not how CV operates! I can see land base squadron fighters doing solo attack runs like this... not a CV. Problem with this change in squadron fighters is you are too busy caught up in getting it right that you can't at same time be aware of important chat messages or condition of your CV from enemy fleet. As if going blindly into battle. Recently upon returning to game I noticed fewer to near nothing of CV's were used. Yesterday I thought I would try again doing a CV. Near end of game I heard someone say something good about how well we did... only for me afterwards to get wrongfully condemned with Unsporting Conduct where all resources earned were confiscated. Was going to aid one ship against two enemy destroyers not for me to do... along with trying to gun down enemy squadrons?! Game also falsely accuses players of firing on allied ships... when PvE enemy side does not like to lose and will cheat it's fire power stronger than normally allowed. It looks like if you not get a bad rap from other players... it is game that is doing it. People look to feel good in playing a game. Bad enough if your ship is destroyed or game battle is lost.
  13. In light of the fire over CVs and Subs, as well as the lack of game modes, maybe a new game mode can be implemented as a random battle subcategory. You can choose to play regular random battle with all ship categories, or you can choose another random battle option that excludes, CVs, Subs, or even both. Then those who are willing to face CVs and Subs can play with them while those who wish not to play with CVs and Subs can play without them. This can bring back the old strategic gimmicks of WoWS pre-CV while still keeping CVs (and Subs) in the game. Thoughts?
  14. After playing Ryujo for two years now, I can definitely say that the maximum torpedo damage of 6,500 HP is totally incorrect. This needs to be fixed. The absolute maximum torpedo damage on ANY ship in the game is 6,000 HP (rounded off). The actual maximum for Ryujo is 5,97... something. The absolute maximum torpedo damage for Furious is 4,500 HP. This does not count detonations, which could be as high as 60,000 HP damage. Why would WG list Ryujo's max torp damage at 6,500 HP when it knows that it cannot go above 6k on ANY ship in the game? Is this a bug?
  15. Maddau

    Autopilot Astern

    It has seemed more difficult to back up using the autopilot on the map overlap. I have to click very close to the back of the carrier icon, otherwise the autopilot tries to swing me around. This is what it was several months ago, but a few patches ago it was made much easier to plot a course backwards using autopilot, and you could go a reasonable distance before the map tried to swing you around. Is anyone else noticing this? If I'm not just imagining it, I'd like it to go back to being easier to back up and keep your bow toward the incoming ordinance.
  16. Michael_Gary_Scott

    A Fully Loaded F/A-18F Super Hornet

    A photo of an F/A-18F Super Hornet fully loaded with 10 x GBU-32 1,000 pound bombs taken by by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Matt Matlage. Each jet can carry more pounds of bombs than a B-17 Flying Fortress of World War 2 (which I think is between 4,000 to 8,000 pounds from a quick search). An aircraft carrier's load of F-18's attacking an inland target, I am guessing, must match or even beat the destructive power of the mass bombing formations of long ago. With GPS level accuracy (within 5 meters) using JDAMS, even more amazing. Just a random thought.
  17. Because there are now new support skills for cvs, that can boost the effectiveness of the fighter consumable, has anyone had any success using a build like this on Graf Zeppelin? I was looking in the fitting tool and you can increase the fighters range to 3.6 km. Combined that with Zeppelins very fast aircraft means this cv could have the role of supporting teammates by warding off enemy carrier attacks, and then using secondary’s when ships get to close. Could be useful in clan and ranked I imagine Graf Zeppelin players, what are your thoughts?
  18. Please take the poll and then comment if applicable. I notice that a lot of people complaining about CV play and CVs have not/do not play CVs. This poll may be relevant for data and balancing purposes, so take it seriously. Edit: Results and takeaways Game designed for surface ships, planes broke. Most experienced CV players think there needs to be another total rework. There are large differences between how individual ships perform against aircraft and CV counterplay is dependent on teamwork vs an individual, thus is very difficult. Solutions: Most players want better control over their individual AA. Players also want the CV to be more limited in its capability to send and replenish aircraft. Reading and thinking about the comments and results, I recommend 4 things: 1. De-emphasize carrier vs destroyer gameplay. Carriers currently ruin the playstyle of most DDs and are a hard counter to DDs, especially early in game. This makes DD life very difficult. CV vs DD play should be focused more toward hunting and spotting one or the other. I note that I do play both ship types and the interaction is heavily dependent on the skill, pre planning, and team cooperation for both players. I've torpedo'd a lot of CVs, and had a lot of DDs sunk by rockets or spotting. Currently, my best recommendation is to reduce the rocket attack plane squadron size by one attack flight. 2. Emphasize carrier vs carrier gameplay. The two carriers should essentially be dueling for control of the air for most of the match. I know WG did not want to include dogfighting, but this may be a solution. Rocket attack planes for example could be used to intercept torpedo bombers and diver bombers, etc. Rewards should be adjusted so that CVs that engage the enemy CV are fairly compensated for their time and effort, and game mechanics structured to make this both engaging and rewarding. 3. Bottom tier all carriers for the time being. Tier 6 should only fight T6-8, Tier 8 only T9-10, and T10 is stuck in straight T10 matches. 4. Rework AA to make it more complex and involved. Players should be able to see in depth stats about their AA and chose how it targets planes and squadrons.
  19. With the rework looming ever closer, I thought it would be fun to dash any hopes of the rework actually improving the game for whomever reads this. It's not because it doesn't address a few problems with the old, or because it introduces new problems that the old didn't have. It's because Carrier gameplay is the complete antithesis of how most ships work in the game, and no matter how you try to rework them it will never change. What makes them so unfit to be in a game based on ships in an era where their dominance was most prevalent? First lets discuss why the old CVs do not fit. As a note, this is mostly addressing random and ranked battles, and not the higher skill matches of clan battles/tournaments. In those, CVs are actually a good fit, even though it's only if every ship is either specialized for AA or suffering the consequences. Old CVs are an RTS without the busywork of base building etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with RTS gameplay, it can be very fun and it pushes your awareness and reflexes to the limit. However the RTS of CV is a complete failure in WoWs for 3 reasons. A highly reactive, awareness driven and reflexive gameplay does not mesh well with the slower, methodical and long term positional gameplay of the rest of the game. There is no skill based matchmaking (random/ranked) that is pivotal to RTS gameplay. This creates harsh games where one CV player is completely outclassed by another, and essentially locked down from having any real effect on the battle while the other goes on a rampage. The presence of a CV, and it's strength, reduces a lot of options other classes have, such as concealment, flanking, being aggressive etc. A CV usually forces a much more campy, reserved game along with the moans and groans of the players subject to it whether spoken or unspoken. And there really is no debate that old CV is a complete failure in the game. WG struggled trying to balance a class that was meant to have power based on it's real world era effect, but not so powerful that it ruined the experience for other players. Absolute fail on all fronts, from removed manual drops from low tier and stupidly strong high tier with strafes allowing good cvs to dominate weak ones, with some AP bombs that do well in defensive fire because F players. So, what will the rework change? Essentially 3 things. It removes most of the effect of cv vs cv, at least in terms of fighters. There is still some potential with cv sniping maybe. It reduces the awareness and reflexes needed to play, and it will increase the player count because it will be much easier, and it is. Unfortunately this is actually bad for the game because of aforementioned problems. You will still get that sinking feeling of seeing planes pop up on your viewfinder and know that there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop the first strike, and maybe not even 2. They will still force campy games simply because they exist, and low tier will still be hamstrung trash in how ineffectual you can be. And the best part is the more accessible gameplay will result in more games being subject to the forced campy playstyle by a ship with inexhaustible resources in which the only way to fight back is to hopefully not be the one he decides to pick on. Because make no mistake, if that CV wants you dead you are dead. With so many players jumping into their cvs in the hopes to cash in on the fxp when the patch hits, it's always amusing to see a normal player get picked on, deleted or just have their game experience ruined by that cv and to say "oh man I sure can't wait for the rework". Nothing is more sad than the naivete of that comment, because nothing will get better. Your experience in other ships will in fact worsen to the increased population, much like it is now before the patch hits. That is why the rework will fail, not because of the potential for players to enjoy the new gameplay of carriers, but because of the negative impact cvs will have on other ships, always, simply by existing in any form. They are a detriment to the balance of the 3 class triangle. This will be a dark and annoying quarter of 2019 for ships, born of WGs refusal to cut their losses and instead devote a year or more of resources to implement a new gameplay style that does not and can not address the fundamental problem that is a gameplay style of power with impunity results in bad experiences. I remember long ago when someone let us guess what the rework could possibly be, all the while getting a no/not even close to all our guesses. They weren't kidding, nobody could see this coming, because now instead of one cv in the game having the ability to hit whoever while he holds the other cvs hands behind his back, now both cvs are free of eachother and can lord over everything in a match. instead of a fighter counter, a damage race. No bad positioning mistakes to be had like with other classes, that have to take a lot of time to re position in hopes to be effective. Just turn a few times and drop away. Whats that, the last 2 strikes of your group got shot down? That's fine, just fire up another and be right back there within 30-40 seconds. Do yourself a favor. Take a break from WoWs. Find another game to idle your time with while WG tries desperately to rebalance new cv gameplay in a live server, and toss out all their old 'progress' of 3 years out the window. Or play cv yourself. YOU DO NOT want to be a ship in the rework, even with AA, because it probably wont stop you from being hit at least once, and if you're a DD just exit straight to port. Remember, after a cv strikes it has to turn around and wait for the timer to hit again. Thats about a time sink of 15-25 seconds. If you kill the rest of the planes after that first strike instead, that's still only 30-40 till the next full squad. Sure it will be a different type, but i'm sure it will be completely fine getting constantly harassed until you are dead with fires/floods etc. A rollercoaster of fun. Anyway, that was long winded, but the effect of this rework is important to talk about. I for one will spend my time playing another game or just playing CV, because at least if I am the CV I can't have my game ruined by one. See you at the apocalypse.
  20. Herr_Reitz

    Carrier up-tier must stop

    Devs, any WoWS people who might stumble upon this, look... Up-tiering carriers has to go the way of the dinosaur but not take that long to happen. IF I WANTED TO FIGHT AGAINST TIER 9 AND 10 SHIPS, GUESS WHAT - I HAVE TIER X CARRIERS. Up-tiering the GZ into tier X dds, cruisers and the odd BB or two is just completely stupid. Let alone other tier 8 carriers. Tonight I loaded up the GZ.. on the wait screen there were 20 plus carriers, FORTY SEVEN BB, 14 CRUISERS and 17 DESTROYERS. Know how long I waited to battle? Maybe TEN SECONDS. How nice. Not. Our team got roasted, nuked driving broadside to the reds, running back and forth on the map without sinking anything, and of course I'm left having to fight mostly tier X ships. On unequal ground. Yes, feel free to erupt in joyful laughter because it is hyena hysterical levels of duhdom to engineer such a farce in the first place. I'm happy I can say I didn't create this... mess. No way I'm gonna believe anyone who tells me oh the poor other carrier had waited nearly 3 minutes. Nor the BBs nor any of the other ship types. Sure I'd break nobody's heart if I walked away again, because this is getting old, WoWS. Old indeed. What's the problem with matching carriers TOP-DOWN? You know 10/9, 8/7, 6/5, 4... No problem, none whatsoever that I can see. There's always plenty of ships in those tiers. I know because I play all my ships. I have had great setup times, always less than 30 seconds. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I play those battles where there are NO CARRIERS in the game. If you don't have any carriers for that tier - or any ships to fight at that tier - USE BOTS. You're already doing that in randoms anyhow. HENCE, there is no longer any reason to up-tier carriers. Down tier them. Twenty minutes (or less) later, I'll take out a carrier that would fit into the tier and yup, UP-TIERED. I guess maybe you think the best way to winnow down the number of carrier players is to stuff them into battles two tiers ABOVE their designed tier? After that match I can go back to the other ships in that tier and yup, no carriers. I'm pretty tired of all the [edited] surrounding up-tiers, down-tiers, HYBRID SHIPS, constant scraffin with the carrier interface, on and on and on and yes, ON. I think I'm taking a break from playing carriers. Let em rot in port. Find your aircraft targets elsewhere folks. I'm just sick. And tired of this "dynamic game play".
  21. Gods_Eyes

    The only issue with CVs:

    This is World of Warships. Not World of Airplanes. Am I playing as a pilot, or a boat captain? Specifically all spotting ability needs to be removed from airplanes, including attack planes and torpedo bombers. Everything. Zero spotting ability. Allow me to explain: I just played a tier 6 match with two carriers working together. The first located and perma spotted the destroyers sitting BEHIND friendly AA cruisers(no issue here right). The second came in with rockets and killed the destroyers. If two carriers are banned from divisions, they should currently be banned from having 2 in a match together. Their ability to spot and work together with focus fire is unparalleled. However, this highlights the most important balance issue with CV. They can spot with planes. The ship itself is a tall ship, and should have super buffed spotting ability. Give the CV itself the ability to see concealed destroyers 8km away, but the planes need to have ZERO ability to spot at all. This would balance the game play to put it on par with a battleship. To draw a parallel: A Montana can shoot anywhere on the map. I devastating strike derpy players in the first 2 minutes of matches, easy. Despite having similar ability to strike anywhere on the map, The Montana Cannot Spot 25km Away. So let's take a step back. Saying the planes shouldn't be able to spot anything would be MUCH more balanced than the current iteration of carriers, but it's not perfect. So what would be? Here's some ideas: 1) Create "no spotting" zones within (about) 2km of all islands, where destroyers cannot be spotted by carriers whatsoever. 2) Penalize missed drops. If the Hakurya wants to drop some of his torpedos on an island to save planes, those planes should instantly explode when neither of their torpedos hit an enemy target. I hate that I have to game the system and drop bombers to stay relevant as a CV driver. It works around AA in a cheating way. ~ I love playing carrier. Recently regrinding the IJN destroyer line for research bureau, and it has become extremely apparent how big of a balance issue carriers have right now. Destroyers (ESPECIALLY AT THE LOWER TIERS) are irrelevant against Good carrier players. Yes, I can still use my destroyer in a relevant way occasionally, but that is ONLY against carrier players that have no idea how to play. As it stands, the carrier is a radar boat with 40km radar. 12km radar itself should be removed from the game, so tell me, how balanced do you think 40km radar is??
  22. Two items: 1) Use of main battle display mini-map to designate autopilot route. We USED to have this. You just held down the CTRL key then LMB clicked on the minimap WHEN you were playing a carrier. It may have worked for any ship but I know it worked for carriers. Why do this? To my knowledge, carriers are typically the only ships using autopilot. As nice as the "M" key map is to look at, in the middle of battle, having to use it takes time away from the player's combat actions, breaks game focus and often must be performed at the worst of times. Please bring BACK the use of autopilot on the main battle display mini-map. 2) The "M" map needs options. There is no zoom option for the map display. I cannot move the map about, it is a static display. Zoom PLUS map movement would add great value to the map. No configuration options. Oft times ships are so close together the text overlays make the map well, useless. Autopilot waypoints/routes need a COLOR option. If I plot a route on this map I want to choose a color that stands out to me. I also want the option to make it bold, bright - maybe even blink once every second or so. Of these two requests, the first should be an easy-peasy deal as it was coded up during the RTS days. I've said it before but I will say it again. It is a PITA being forced to open the overhead map just to designate a waypoint. The alternative, CTRL + LMB on the minimap would be excellent. There is one other thing that needs to work in a consistent manner - assigning way points. I'm not sure it does, currently. If I LMB click the overhead map, a way point should drop. If I move my mouse and LMB click elsewhere, the previous point should be erased. The new point is placed with a path to that point. If I LMB click again, the previous point will be erased. A new point and path should be drawn. Over and over, just one point. If I LMB with the shift key held, my points should stack/accumulate, so I can build a longer route, up to five way points. If I LMB click after placing five waypoints, everything should be erased and I will have only one point. I believe that's the way it is kind of designed to work... what I'd like to see is a more clearer method, perhaps using the shift in one scenario and the ctrl in another, so placing/removing way points functions every single time.
  23. https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/63 CONCEPTION TEST ST, CHANGES TO AA AND DETECTABILITY RANGES BY AIR Please note that all information in the development blog is preliminary and subject to change during testing. Any showcased features may or may not end up on the main server. The final information will be published on our game's website. Soon there will be a closed test session of changes to AA and detectability range by air: Detectability range by air of all ships significantly reduced — by between 40-60%; When activated with the 'P' key, AA defenses will no longer instantly operate at 100% capacity, but will instead gradually increase in efficiency, reaching 100% after 7 seconds. The inverse applies when deactivating AA with the same key; AA guns start preliminary firing at planes at a range 30% higher than their maximum value. When flying in this outer aura, shell explosions appear above and below the course of a squadron, and continuous damage is not dealt. These changes will allow players to choose between fighting planes or relying on stealth to avoid them in different situations. After lowering detectability ranges, AA guns could start firing while the ship was hidden. The mechanics of preliminary fire will exclude such situations, and the gradual increment of AA damage will protect planes from sudden and unexpected waves of AA fire after the guns are activated.
  24. So I know that people are going to get angry at me and tell me CV's should be garbadge and be removed, but I'm going to say this anyway Tier 8 carriers, when uptiered to tier 10, are woefully underpowered. There. I said it. Let the angry comments and negativity flow! All kidding aside, I feel that tier 8 carriers are in a good spot at their tier. At tier 8, I feel that most carriers are in a pretty good spot with some even being borderline overpowered. Sure you can have a CV focus you down if you're alone, but usually you won't do a huge amount of damage or get an absurd number of kills (in my experience). There can be exceptions, *cough American CVs cough*, but for the most part, carriers are not as rewarding as surface ships are. However, notice that I said they were fine at tier 8. When these ships are uptiered, it's a nightmare! Now I am not saying that tier 10 ships shredding planes is a bad thing, I've gone full AA builds on my Des memes myself, but it would be fine if there was about 3 or 4 tier 10 ships as you can try and avoid them and wait for ships to isolate themselves from the rest of the pack. But the constant matchmaking I often have is that the entire enemy team is filled to the brim with tier 10. In that situation, the best you can hope for is to maybe get some chip damage on enemies while having all of your aircraft lost at the first half of the battle. In something like the saipan, where your aircraft replenish slowly, you have to rely on getting your armament on target while being sure you will be completely deplaned. That's why I consider it the weakest aircraft carrier in the entire game as of now. In short, I feel that tier 8 carriers are so underpowered for the constant tier 10 matchmaking they are faced with. But I want to keep this positive so I wanted to give a few suggestions to any of the dev's who might be listening. After all, we should try and give feedback to help make things better. My first idea is the most straightforward. Make it harder for the matchmaker to uptier carriers. Heck, maybe make it harder for some other ships to be uptiered like cossack and z-39. Other ships which have heavy problems with being bottom tier. Maybe after a certain time, the matchmaker allows these ships to go into tier 10 battles just like tier 10 double cv games were solved. My second idea was a little bit more risky. Nerfing the AA of tier 10 ships to tier 8 aircraft. Not tier 10 aircraft, tier 8, ok? Good. As I said this is a bit more risky since this could be exploited by unicums and statpadders alike so I am not sure about this option. Finally, my last idea was to give tier 8 carriers planes a little more health. This isn't the best idea either and is pretty much here just for the rule of threes. This could be easily exploited by sealclubbers who could slaughter enemies without fear of taking heavy damage. Anyways, these are my thoughts on this. I may be wrong about some things so I would love feedback from others. I don't want carrier's to be broken or horribly unfun to play as or against. I do want to see this rework succeed. I hope this layed out my, and other's, issues to those who were willing to read this gigantic vomit of text. Have a great day out there wherever you are! (And please don't get me started on AP bombs vs HE bombs. That's a topic for another day)
  25. Holy... I wasnt believing... It is real! I got an Enterprise! My missing Big E!!!! I am shaking! Equiping Enterprise AL commander and skin! In all community streams i asked for enterprise, not on boxes, but to get her... I was asking on EU in german, english, on NA, i bothered @crysantos , @tucci, @Hapa_Fodder and @MrConway a lot! Now i finally got it, and i wasnt believing it was real! the drop rate cant be small... @El2aZeR now i can tell you, not all carriers are OP, Enterprise need a nerf. Her bombs are double kaga average power. Kaga usually his for 7 to 8k, enterprise 15k.