Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cv rework'.

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. PD666

    I Miss Old Carriers

    Like the title said, I miss the old system carriers. The top down, RTS, death from above version of carriers. Yeah, it was unbalanced and cancerous, but it was the most fun I’ve had in a video game, ever. I have so much nostalgia for it. There was nothing more satisfying than getting all 6 of your torpedos to hit on a manual drop from an American torpedo squadron. I had so much fun making my way up the American Carrier tech tree. The Langley was fine, but it was SLOOOW, and you couldn’t do manual drops. The Bouge was also slow, but you could pick your configuration and do some real damage with the manual drops. I wasn’t a p•ssy, I played a 021 strike configuration. By the time I unlocked the Independence, I was regularly getting 100k+ games. The Indy was maybe my least favorite of the American CV’s that I played. Yeah it was fast, but it had pitiful aircraft reserves. The Indy was the only CV where I chose to play with the 111 balanced configuration. The plane reserves were just so shallow that I couldn’t risk hemorrhaging planes to enemy fighters. I didn’t do as well in the Indy as in the Bouge, probably because of the shallower plane pool and the leap in AA from other ships. There was nothing worse than getting into a tier 8 battle in the Indy. On to the Ranger. My favorite ship in the game. The speed of the Indy, a massive plane pool, and the giga chad 031 strike configuration. The couple of months where I got to play the Ranger were the height of my WoWS experiment. I’ve never been able to replicate(in WoWs) the thrill of curb stomping BBs with three dive bomber and one torpedo squadrons. That’s also when I realized that I was pretty fricking good at playing CVs. I was in the 1% of WoWS payers who not only enjoyed playing carriers, but were also capable of using them to really made a difference to their team. The crowning jewel of my CV career was a glorious game in my Ranger where I did nearly 250k damage, not doing more because I wasn’t paying attention and got myself sunk. I’m still sad that the WoWS replay system was crapand I didn’t get the game recorded. I’ll have to go back and see if I screenshoted the end of battle report. But the Ranger was as high as I got before I took a hiatus from the game, and by the time I got back into it, the rework had come along. It’s been my biggest video game related regret that I hadn’t spent more time grinding my way up the line. If anyone actually read through this entire essay of text…thank you? I just needed to dump my feelings somewhere, and the CV forum seemed like the right place.
  2. Since I'm one of those "bring back RTS CVs" types (and yes, I have quite a few battles in RTS CVs), feel free to take my opinion with a grain of salt. I've spoilered each segment to shorten it. Although I first started using CVs in the RTS days only because of my belief that the best way to counter any class in WoWs is to use it myself, I did come to enjoy RTS CVs quite a bit, advancing up to Taiho and Midway by the time the rework came around. Although I was not unicum level, I did become good enough with them that I could keep up with the likes of KotS CV commanders. After the rework, I tried the new CVs out but quickly found that it was simply not my cup of tea. Nowadays I mainly use the class in co-op to quickly rack up plane kills or spotting damage, and spend much more time on the wrong side of CVs than not. To me, the main problems with RTS CVs were: On the other hand, there were mitigating factors to limit the effect of RTS CVs, namely imo the presence of reliable counters: Although I ultimately stopped using CVs (at least in PvP) when the rework came, I do frequently follow discussions and watch videos about CVs post rework. From what I can observe, the rework did increase CV numbers and lessen the effect a skill gap could have on the less competent CV commander. However, I also notice the following problems. These are my suggested solutions, in no particular order of importance. I suppose it could be construed as combining RTS CVs with reworked CVs. I also threw in a suggestion for when submarines come out: Edit: removed strafe
  3. Opinions are like Aholes. Some are just bigger than others.
  4. After the current Puerto Rico outrage and the Naval Training Center outcry of a few months ago, many people are accusing Wargaming of being exceptionally greedy and trying to kill their Golden Goose, but I'm not so sure that is really what is going on. It is often said that the simplest answer is often the right one, but I don't think simple greed is the simplest answer, because that conclusion requires looking at a very narrow window of negative events. Now I have expressed this hypothesis before, usually in private Discords or chats, but I don't believe I have ever done a large forum post on it. I want to clarify, what I am going to suggest is a bit insulting and could be a serious wound to someone's pride internally, but I want to clarify that I am not talking about anyone in the North America office, as this problem originates from above them, and they are left stuck with damage control from the fallout, and I for one greatly appreciate the difficulty of what they continuously have to deal with. I am in no way asking any of you paid employees to comment on this, as I seriously doubt you can, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if some of you haven't noticed what I am about to call attention to. Despite being computer programmers or fairly successful business people, it seems like the top decision people in final game decisions seem to be very bad at math, and in fact nearly every major problem this game has had could be attributed to a failure to double check mathematical numbers and functionally considering them applied to a live game situation before the general gaming public discovered them. Allow me to take a look at some examples of this I personally know about, and many of which I was here for: 1) Kamikaze- This event happened before I began playing the game, but many people have described it as an early panic cash grab, hence why many people are bringing it up now. Mathematically, the number of Pearls was not enough to even come close to satisfy the player base, so after c=some community outrage, they increased the number. This example could be either possibility of a cash grab, or the planners not taking the number of players seeking the ship into full correct context in their event planning. 2) Graf Zeppelin- This ship was offered pre-order which was a mistake because it put them on a design deadline for a ship from a type they did not have enough experience designing premiums for. As a consequence, the first version of the ship was grossly underpowered, causing an emergency redesign after it had gone live that was then overpowered, which it remained until the rework. The main reason this wasn't a cash grab is because once it was redesigned and had clearly become overpowered, they were very reluctant to re-issue it, despite the money they could have made selling it. 3) Duke of York- The original version of this ship could yet make a return to the game slightly redesigned as the Prince of Wales, but it needed help. It was a battleship without a heal, and that means a very awkward play style that would be very difficult for players to handle. Ultimately, the design was changed before release, since it had seen enough press from the CCs so that a large amount of the market was acutely aware of the problems it was going to have. Despite this, it theoretically could be redesigned to appear in the future as a functional ship. The root of it's difficulties came from a lack of consideration of what it would take to make it playable. The math didn't work. 4) Eagles vs Sharks- This event came during the release of the US Cruiser split. The problem was the Sharks blew out the Eagles from day one on, making it an easy call what team to be on for more containers, and making the event fairly boring as a consequence. There was supposed to be a mechanic to give the losing team from the previous day extra help in winning, but it wasn't enough to make it even close. Literally the only reason to be an Eagle was if you preferred the Eagles permanent camo for Worcester over the Shark camo. The later Honor and Glory event for the Russian battleships would fix this event style, giving enough benefits to the previous losing team to encourage enough people to switch teams to keep it competitive. Really, there was no money for WG to release this event in it's dysfunctional state, so this was definitely a case of bad applied math. 5) CV Rework- Ah, the first major controversy of 2019. Not going to get into the intricacies of this one, except to say that while there was money to be made for WG, it couldn't have been enough to warrant calling it a cash grab relative to other events. The math problems came in so many ways like AA, torpedo damage, hit ratios, etc. that I don't even know where to begin. They said they needed the live server to be guinea pigs due to low PTS server numbers, but wow were there a lot of things to exploit early. 6 & 7) Naval Training Center and Puerto Rico- These are both so fresh in everyone's minds I don't really need to get into details, except to say that both events could be described in the context of being a cash grab and a case of WG failing to consider the real life math. Looking back on all of this, I offer for consideration that maybe the problem isn't just greed, but possibly the company has an issue at the top that they aren't using a discerning eye to consider the applied math before they do these things. I ask, are these mistakes something the company could fix by slightly changing their process and adding someone with practical experience in this field to proof check these events first?
  5. After careful consideration of some of the best criticisms of CVs, I have a solution that might improve some people's largest complaints about the class. Basically, aircraft carriers should take a cue from the submarines. They should be starting at tier 6 instead of tier 4. From a historical perspective, most of your tier 4 ships in the game we're never designed with the intention of interacting with enemy aircraft. They simply existed for aircraft carriers became any kind of mainstay. Starting at tier 5, however, with the exception of the German battleships, we're looking at ships that survived into the aircraft carrier era, and subsequently were equipped with some primitive form of anti-aircraft protection. If aircraft carriers were tier shifted, beginners at tiers 3 and 4 would no longer have to deal with them, and tier 5 would only see the earliest carriers. However, if aircraft carriers we restructured to start at tier 6, it would be unwise to have them at alternating tiers. Some of the previously removed carriers from the American and Japanese lines would have to be reintegrated. Also new carriers for the British line would have to be introduced. Thoughts?
  6. My clan mates and I have taken up training together after realizing we aren't coherent enough as a team to even succeed at the lowest level of clan battles. That said, our CV specialist recently returned after a long hiatus that had nothing to do with the game, and we decided to test out current CV effectiveness against ships that can stay in formation together. I should emphasize that this is a very good CV driver I am talking about, as 100k damage games are common for him, even now. The setup was this. We ran as a formation of three ships, a BB and two escorts. All he had to do was sink one of us in 10 minutes. After a lot of experimenting, we discovered he couldn't sink any of us as long as we stayed in overlapping AA formation, even though he was in Enterprise and we were all using tier 6 ships, even including a DD at one point. After this, we conducted one more test. I jumped over to CV to join him for a few battles, and even with two CVs, we were having difficulty succeeding as long as formation was held. For our last test, we both ran Midways, while our clan mates ran North Carolina, Mogami, and Atago. We nearly sank Mogami, but were unable to finish it within the 10 minute limit, despite focusing it the entire time. Our conclusion is that CVs are only seeing any success in randoms right now due to player's lack of understanding how to work against them efficiently. If CVs did enter clan battles, they would be great for scouting, spotting, and cap resets, but wouldn't consistently inflict enough damage. It's also a pretty strong piece of evidence that people who complain about CVs are...well...Git Gud?
  7. In my last post on this subject (CV Play) the CV Rework was just coming out, and I said I'd keep an open mind, and try it out for awhile, then see how it went. Well, here's my take pm it, at this point (6 Apr 19): The current Update to Carrier Play has caused quite a few players I know personally, as well as others I chat with during matches to simply refuse further CV Play, and many former CV players have even sold-off their carriers in disgust. I have tried to keep an open mind, hoping further "fixes" will make CV Play viable and enjoyable, but so far, have found it to be neither, and in fact, an extremely annoying WASTE of my precious gaming time, particularly when my Tier VIII CV is pitted vs. Tier IX and X ships—even a single, lone CL wipes out my planes before they can drop a single bomb. The CV aircraft flight model continues to be "jerky" (due to the time compression needed) and overall, CV Play has become increasingly "unrealistic" with each new "fix", causing some players resort to unrealistic "work-arounds" to "game the system" --departing even further from logic and historical practice so as to succeed in the faulty CV Play system. Although with practice, I will no doubt develop the proper technique for accurate aerial attacks-- while losing most or all of my attacking squadron by the end of my 2nd pass-- in its current state, I doubt I will ever find CV Play "enjoyable," much less "rewarding" and thus, will avoid it, keeping a token CV for "Spotting" tasks and little else. I have so far resisted selling-off my last CV in disgust, and have not enjoyed even a single mission yet. HOWEVER— aside from a much-needed toning down the fantastic hyper-lethality of AA in general, with some minor "fixes" using existing game mechanics, some of the more frustrating aspects of Carrier Play for both carrier and surface combatant players might be alleviated, as follows: SUGGESTION #1: British Dive Bombers should be allowed to carry, at minimum, 500-lb/230 kg bombs, and ideally, 1,000-lb/500 kg and heavier bombs, just as they did in real life. No aviation force would ever seek to attack armored warships with piddly little 250-lb General Purpose bombs, though they may have been adequate vs. small craft (E-boats, F-lighters, armed trawlers) and coastal freighters-- 500 lb bombs were the rule vs. smaller combatants, such as frigates and destroyers, and were the minimum vs. armored warships. E.g., in a 1944 attack, Fairey Barracudas attacked the battleship Tirpitz with with 1,600 lb (730 kg) and 500 lb (230 kg) bombs, scoring 14 direct hits, which even so, only put the Tirpitz out of action for 8 weeks. Had they used mere 250-lb bombs to which the game currently limits them, there likely would've been no significant damage whatsoever. [Note that of 42 attacking Barracudas, only ONE was lost to enemy AA-- a far cry from the uber-hyper-collossal lethality of AA as it currently exists, and I'm primarily a surface ship operator, and yet I'm embarrassed by just how unbelievably lethal even my little Leander's AA is-- enemy planes just melt away and do nothing, and I've removed all my AA builds, upgrades, and skills-- they're no longer needed, and I pretty much ignore attacking planes.] SUGGESTION #2: Have the ENTIRE attack aircraft squadron, whether Torpedo, Dive Bomber, or Rocket Aircraft launch its ordnance near-simultaneously with the "Squadron Leader" (the central aircraft on the screen the carrier player "flies"). When the player hits his mouse key to "launch ordnance", remaining aircraft of the flight also launch their ordnance, but with a delay of, say, 0.1 seconds to 5 seconds. This will prevent unrealistic "robotic perfection" in the resulting bomb or torpedo pattern that surface ship players used to complain about. In the same manner, the Squadron Leader's (center aircraft) places its strike at the exact center of the "crosshairs" (or torpedo arc), subject to normal "dispersion", and remaining aircraft of the squadron launch their ordnance subject to dispersion from that point, as well possibly a short time delay, just as a volley of warship shells deviates within its "Maximum Dispersion" ellipse already. This is already included in the game mechanics, I believe, but it should be able to be "improved" via certain "Captain Skills" and/or via ship "Upgrades" (see further below). E.g., for dive bombers, bombs other attacking aircraft would have a similar "dispersion" within the "ellipse" that appears on the aiming diagram the player uses, and torpedoes deviate a few mils left or right (randomly) from the "center" of their assigned point in torpedo squadron formation. I.e., torpedoes would also have a "dispersion" of a few mils, left or right, and in time of drop, for each torpedo the squadron successfully drops. Thus, mass torpedo drops will have an appearance similar to a volley of shells, with each individual torpedo deviating slightly, at random, within the Maximum Dispersion parameters for the ship/squadron, just as in real life, and as surface ship shells do already. This would eliminate the unrealistic (and silly) game mechanism that allows only 1 or 2 bombs/torpedoes to "launch" from an entire flight of 4 to 8 aircraft, while the remaining aircraft of the squadron do nothing but fly along as targets, waiting their turn on the next target pass (which is utterly unrealistic, and NEVER done in combat). But it would also prevent the target ship from being overwhelmed with huge numbers of "un-dodgeable" torpedoes or bombs, as many will certainly miss, unless the attacking player is very lucky (as per warship volleys now). So— having the entire squadron attack at once, but with a slightly varying "time of drop" by say, 0.1 to 5 seconds after the "Leader" aircraft (reduced by certain "Crew Skills", as well instituting a "Maximum Dispersion" variance for torpedoes, etc.), targeted ships won't be overwhelmed by a concentrated "perfect" swarm of torpedoes, especially as they "shoot holes" into the attacking formation, and carrier aircraft will be far less exposed to the (already excessively lethal) ship AA defenses, but make attacks like their historical counterparts did, and with similar results.As a starting point, I suggest that the "mil dispersion" for Torpedo Aircraft be placed at +/-10 mils dispersion for early (Tier IV) carrier planes, and reduced slightly for each carrier tier above that, i.e., +/-8 mils @ Tier VI, 7 mils @ Tier VIII, and +/-6 mils @ Tier X, to reflect improved aiming equipment, torpedoes, aircraft, and training of torpedo pilots as the war progressed. Note that this mil dispersion is from each individual plane's position in the FORMATION, not from the Squadron Leader's aim point, as torpedo planes attacked in an on-line formation, spaced at intervals of 50 to 100 meters or more, ensuring a wide "spread" to increase the possibility of a hit for the squadron as a whole. Note that this also assured that it was virtually impossible for every torpedo, or even most of the torpedoes in the squadron's "volley" to hit the target, as many would automatically miss, depending on the target ship's relative course and subsequent reaction. [A "mil" (short for "milliradian) is a measure of angle, typically used in ballistics, i.e., a minute fraction of a circle. Easy to look up, if you're unfamiliar.]kills such as "Basic Firing Training" and "Advanced Firing Training" could be modified to give air squadrons a tighter Maximum Dispersion pattern, by, say, 2 mils each, as well as a "tighter" ordnance drop time relative to the Squadron Leader, say, by 1 second each. Thus a Tier VIII torpedo squadron with both Basic and Advanced firing training would improve its Maximum Dispersion to +/-6 mils, left or right, and drop their torpedoes within 0.0 to 3 seconds of the Squadron Leader's torpedo. For Dive Bombers, the Maximum Dispersion ellipse (that already exists) could be reduced in a similar manner, by say 5 mils "tighter" for both Basic and Advanced Firing Training, each. Thus, a dive bomber squadron with both skills would have its Maximum Dispersion ellipse reduced by 10 mils width and length. [A "mil" (short for "milliradian") is a measure of angle used in ballistics , surveying, etc. I.e., a tiny fractional "slice", if you will, of a circle. Easy to look up if you're unfamiliar.] "Sight Stabilization" Skill would remain as-is; "Aiming Systems Modification-1" might be extended to include reduced aircraft ordnance Maximum Dispersion as well. Later-war (Tier VIII and X) aircraft should be able to attack from higher up, and at much faster airspeeds, as improved torpedoes obviated the need for very low, very slow torpedo drops to prevent destruction of the torpedo. SUGGESTION #3: Aircraft Spotting of Surface Ships— THE PROBLEM: Aircraft are able to spot an enemy ship, so that other ships can fire upon it too easily and in real time, and yet, the range for aircraft spotting of an enemy ship is so limited that a flight of planes often loses sight of its target between passes. Currently, aircraft not only reveal far too much information to allied players, enabling any enemy ship they spot to be fired upon by all; they are also often taken under intense AA fire without even being able to spot the enemy ship that is firing upon them. DISCUSSION: Carrier aircraft of the period were totally unable to provide more than an enemy ship type and rough location and course to distant stations, and typically were, at most, in radio contact only with their own ship's Combat Information Center, assuming it was even in radio range, and long-range radios of the day were often Morse Code key sets, not voice comms, and the enemy ship type and course reported was typically vague at best, and more than not, inaccurate. So as to go undetected, attack aircraft typically flew on "radio listening silence" until commencing their attack, could not communicate with other ships in real time, and went silent again for their return to their carrier, so as to not reveal its location. SOLUTION: To reflect this and improve Aircraft Spotting of Ships, non-spotter aircraft should be able to see enemy surface ships well before they enter the enemy's AA zone— but unable to pass anything more than that ship's type and location for at least 6-12 seconds afterward. Thus, non-spotter, attack aircraft and fighters should UNABLE to spot targets spot enemy ships in real time as if they were a surface ship—they could only reveal an enemy ship's basic type (not name), and only on the Mini Map. Sighting of surface ships by non-spotter aircraft should provide a player's allies ONLY a "shaded red/dashed red" outline of an enemy ship on the Mini Map ONLY, in exactly the same way an enemy ship obscured by bad weather, or spotted by others beyond one's ship's sighting range is currently shown on the Mini Map. Such "spotting" should be revealed to friendly players only after a slight delay— of say, 6 to 10 seconds, to reflect the time required for an aircraft's "home" ship to pass enemy location data to other friendly ships. Spotting Aircraft Use and aspects would continue unchanged. PROBLEM: Overly Lethal AA's Severe Impact on Game Balance: AA is so lethal now that I pretty much ignore incoming planes unless they're from a Tier X CV. The rest just "evaporate" and even if they hit me, they do about as much damage as an 8-inch shell strike, and torp hits virtually never flood. When operating a CV, I suffer from having my planes wiped out on approach to higher-tier and even sometimes to lower-tier ships. My planes are often "surprised" by hidden enemy ships and downed before they can escapey, even with Engine Boost and calling for Fighters to help absorb attacks. Such hyper-lethal AA guarantees that I can never even make it into the upper half of scorers on my team, and am almost always at or close to the bottom. SOLUTION A: Have dual-purpose guns (e.g., Atlanta's 5" guns; the 105mm dual-purpose guns of Prinz Eugen or Tirpitz; 100mm guns of Akizuki…) either fire upon surface targets, or vs. aerial targets, BUT NOT BOTH at the same time. The player must choose, or let the ship's AI decide— When under aerial attack, it fires all guns vs. attacking aircraft, or at least all guns on the "Priority AA" Side, unless the player chooses otherwise, by clicking on a surface target. Medium and Short-range AA guns, of course, would continue to defend the ship, as usual. SOLUTION B: Halve the Hit Probability of all ships— Really now, Continuous Damage Ph's of 88% and 95% (Tier VIII) and 100% (Tier X) are ridiculous for that era, and even for today. Leave Continuous Damage and Burst Radius Damage as is, but entire squadrons vanishing as they approach a lone Leander CL is just awful. Even if this is done, I predict that another "halving" will be needed in the future to bring CV Play into balance with surface ships. This will work, and be balanced as well, if the changes above are implemented I think. SOLUTION C: Stop listening to whiny surface ship players that complain they "…can never see an enemy CV, and therefore can't fight vs. such an "unseen enemy"— That's the just way it was, and is. A ship fights vs. an enemy CV's AIRCRAFT, as the enemy CV is hundreds of kilometers away, not lurking on a tiny map, trying to avoid surface detection and destruction by nearby enemy surface ships, as in the game. In all history, only three (3!) CVs are recorded as lost to enemy surface gunfire. If anything, CV players should be whining about the tiny maps. But don't think because I say this that I'm a CV fan boy, or even "enthusiast"— as, so far, I hate CV Play, and plan to run a CV only as a last resort for a battle task, as it's become a waste of my precious gaming time, unless things improve. Obviously, all this needs to be play-tested, but such changes, using existing game mechanics, could be easily incorporated to make Carrier Play more rewarding and enjoyable, while at the same time allow players to use Naval History (somewhat) as a guide for their tactics. OK-- Thoughts, anyone? Trolls need not reply-- we already know what you (don't) think...
  8. TheGoodS1r

    Odd-tiered CV proposal

    I have a thought. I'm fresh off a game in the Kurrywurst, in which I was spotted by the enemy Hakuryu not a minute and a half into the match, and subsequently got my face ripped off for only slightly less than half my health fifteen seconds later. I then spent the next minute or so hiding, contemplating my pathetic existence, after which the rage boiled over and I rushed a nearly dead Yamato. You can expect how that went. But rage aside, that's not my point. The root cause of all the shite CV's cause is the simple fact that there's no way to truly balance them. They are either too stronk, or too weak to be of any use. They absolutely need a hard counter. Enter my proposal - Every odd-tiered CV currently removed, is used for controllable fighters. Now hear me out. I remember before the rework all the different setups you could use. Part strike part fighters, primarily fighters single squadron torpedoes, all fighters, it made for some good gameplay. I couldn't stand the RTS interface and didn't play carriers myself, but I appreciated the support when that incoming torpedo cross-drop gank was ganked in turn by our Midway's fighter groups. We need this now. Some way to chase off the unlimited harassment at high tiers, and absolute bullying at low tiers. Sure, you would need to balance it, but the fact that a CV can unilaterally slingshot his way past your AA cruisers and blow his load directly into your backside (yes, that is intentional) just sucks all of the fun out of the game, on top of the HE spam meta we've got going right now. Weegie, you want to balance CVs? Bring back controllable fighters. Leave CVs as they are, stop screwing with the AA system that ultimately won't stop the drop, and let us have a way to shoot them down ourselves.
  9. Right. So I've been away from this game for about a week, first for a largely disappointing trip to Nebraska to see the spawn of my oldest sister (not happy with those kids right now, a pair of right jerks they've turned into), and second because I went back to finish a playthrough of Mass Effect 2 that I'd let collect dust for too long. I've finally gotten around to trying to get back into the swing of things (not that anything's changed in the time I've been gone, just trying to get my 'captain's instinct' back), and I take Musashi out in co-op to help grind out some daily crates and try to get my aim back. Lo and behold, a wild pair of bot Lexingtons appear (one on my incomplete team, and it's twin for the reds). Now I don't expect good play out of bot CVs, but even they should be a reasonable threat to a weak AA ship like Musashi. Instead, I get a nice lovely reminder of how 'balanced' AA still is. I know more changes are on the way, but when an IFHE secondary build Musashi with about 12 triple 25's and a grand total of 6 twin 5 inchers for an AA loadout can single-handedly ruin a Lexington's day (even a poorly played one), something is off to a point that it should never have gotten to. The replay itself can be found at https://replayswows.com/replay/59173#stats.
  10. What follows is somewhat tongue in cheek but some of these do seem very convenient coincidences. Break out ya Tin Foil Headwear... The CV rework wasn't about CV's at all. It was about majorly buffing BB's, particularly making them easier for the "casual" player. A side effect was allowing re-release of Graf Zepplin to enable showing some better numbers on the spreadsheet for the creation of that abomination. 1) CV alpha strike eliminated to the point that it shouldn't even have that title. No more Midway's blasting T10 cruisers out of the water with 2 DB squads. No more GZ players instantly deleting most of the KM cruiser and BB lines with auto drops while watching reruns of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. No more cross torping... all of it, gone. 2) Adding a strike capability that's tailor made specifically for combating DD's. This addition hit IJN torp boats the hardest, specifically the best surface units for punishing bow camping BB's. Jump to June.... Release of RU BB's. You can argue that bow camping is wasting most any BB's capability and you're right. But, we all know the majority of BB players are either bow campers, 10 line flankers, or broadside cruisers. RU BB's have several features that make them particularly suited for camping. 1) Heavily armored mid decks at high tier making them more resistant to IFHE than any other line. A few have mid decks so thick that only IFHE KM heavy cruisers and Henry IV can pen the midship deck. Yeah I know the bow and stern plating is easy to pen like all BB's. I'm glad some of you can pinpoint your aim over 50% of the time, most players can't. 2) Strategically placed bow armor making RU BB's nearly immune to frontal cits with even the slightest angling. Yamato player: "I can bow cit any BB at any angle." Vladivostok player: "Hold my Vodka." A couple of bones were thrown to CV and DD players, mostly as a way to distract. Plane spotting of torps eliminated. GZ finally released from jail. Now you'd have to believe certain residents of St Petersburg are a lot smarter than many give them credit for... but...
  11. Flamu just posted the raw video from the CC Summit involving the CV rework, start 40 mins into when dev "answers" some good questions from Flamu.
  12. Im sure this has been brought up but just to add to it. Got a Lexington today and did a compare to Ranger games! At Tier 8 AA is so intense that half the time you actually CANNOT see the target because there are too many flak bursts Due to the intense AA getting only 1 attack per run is possible and even than you might lose the whole squadron before you start your attack run. Torpedoes are a joke. You have to drop point blank because they are too slow. Dive Bombers bombs fall way too slowly Planes are too slow Ship fighters are idiotically OP and need to be seriously toned downed Spotting is broken. Its dumb that a DD can see a target that I cant see from a plane. Attacking squadrons are too small. They need to be more like 6 attackers at once instead of 2 or 3. This gives the CV player more tactical options and more chances of a hit. It makes harder for AA to shoot everyone down Over all the quality of play is very poor. You feel ineffective because no attacks get through and if your attacks get through the damage you do is between light and moderate. The game play is not intense its boring. I find your better off scouting for the first 10 minutes and attacking the random ship here and there. At Tier 6 While AA is intense its not the insanity at Tier 8-10 . I feel this is where AA at Tier 8-10 needs to be At least in this tier getting 2 attacks in is possible but not 3 maybe at the end of the battle Torpedoes are a joke as in tier 8 just too slow. Dive bombers are more effective maybe because your planes get through or the bombs fall faster Planes are way too slow Ship fighters are idiotically OP and need to be seriously toned downed Spotting is broken as above Solutions Tone down AA intensity in TIER 8-10 while AA in Tier 6-8 seems reasonable but could probably be toned down a bit. The solution is to bring in fighters. See below Remove fighters from ships. Create a hybrid RTS screen in the top right corner where the CV player can direct fighters to provide cover to a specific ship Speed up torpedoes by 10-15 knots Reduce the number of attack runs to 1-2 maximum but increase the size of the attack squadron to 2 flights of 6. Give CV players some variety as in the previous mod. A CV player should be able to choose his load out between Torpedo, Rockets, Fighters, and Dive Bombers Give CV players control of the ship and consumables Reduce CV survivability and give them the same damage effects like everyone else Make CV counter play a thing Buff the alpha slightly on all weapons maybe except rockets Speed up all the planes but remove the engine boost CV planes need a 30 second load time at the start of the battle Return all spotting values back to 8.0 or the RTS spotting values All in all I am done with CVS. The system is brain dead boring and requires no strategy other than managing your planes. I ve never been deplaned in a Ranger and after a few games in a Lexington all you really do is scout for 10 minutes, attack the odd ship here and there and after the 10 minute mark go do the CV attack thing; it is really stupid to create a new system but the players using it cant enjoy it and the players who have to fight against it really have no defense or counter play. You NEED TO BRING IN FIGHTERS WG and make the ATTACK SQUADRONS BIGGER..2 flights of 6 aircraft each!!!
  13. I need some help. I don't know if there is a new meta in the game or some ships have become overpowered, but I need some help from the more seasoned players to help me adjust to this new meta. So I just recently started playing WOWS again. I had decided to finally start playing because I had heard about the carrier rework and the izumo bluffs (couldn't tolerate it enough to get the yamato last time I played). I loaded into a battle with a tier 8 carrier on each side along with another ship I had never heard of called the henri 4. As we were approaching a cap, our friendly shimakaze is detected by these new planes (fighters?) And almost instantly, he loses a third of his health. I was thinking "what the hell happened to him! Did he misplay?" As he started making smoke to hide himself. The planes come around a second time and shave another third of his health off so he is on only 8k or so! I didn't understand, but decided to keep playing and lend some fire support. He died soon after to these planes that came back again. I asked him why that happened and he said it was the new meta. A few minutes later, I spot the yamato broadside at 14km away. I know yamato is very vulnerable to citadels so I let loose with my 9 guns. All the shells land around him or over penetrate. Kind of frustrating but I decide to move on to another ship. I spot this new Henri 4 ship and he's broadside! Woohoo! I take a fair lead and aim at the waterline. All of my shells fall short because apparently he goes 45 knots (as he later told me). He trains his guns on me and starts to fire faster than a Des Moines! I get a tripe fire and damagecon. He sets another 2 permanent fires in his next salvo, all while being 18km away from me. I try to disengage, but then I get spotted by aircraft, The carrier is coming for me. I actually get a little excited to try our the new AA (I know about sector reinforcement) and set it at the attacking squad. He then proceeded to slaughter me with 3 dive bomb attacks while I shot down 3 of his aircraft. All the while, the henri 4 is spamming me from the back and all the while I keep missing because he keeps slowing down and speeding up to juke my shells! Like, destroyer levels of agility! What!? I got finished by the CV soon after. My team lost and I did a total of 10k worth of damage. I just sat there and wondered what had happened? I genuinely want to get better at this game, but I don't understand why that happened and what I should do next time. I am sure I misplayed, but I felt like my aim was solid. Can someone make any suggestions for what to do in that situation next time? That would really help
  14. Based on my experience the upgraded torp boomers that attack 4 at a time are not in a well balanced state right now. Regardless of how much damage can be done they just don't feel good to use. A combination of slow torps 40 KT, long arming time and long attack run set up time, make them miserable to use. My balance suggestion would be torp speed buffed to 50KT, and to reduce attack run set up time to 3 seconds. If that makes them OP then I would suggest nerfing the range a bit.
  15. Original link: (refreshing) also, check: (not by me of course) existing threads(updating): 1. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/189363-aa-rework-a-proposal/?tab=comments#comment-4442036 Proposal: 1. Using 'P' key to switch on/off AA(as usual) 2. When AA is on, you can use number key to switch to manual AA in the way you switch ammo types. Auto AA will hand over when 'P' key is still on and you're not in manual AA mode. 3. When you're in manual AA mode, a fan-like crosshair like the one you see when firing torpedoes will pop up, you move the crosshair by your mouse along the side aircrafts attack and manual AA constantly fires on target, the closer(horizontally and vertically) and the more overlapped planes are with you crosshair, the faster planes die. 4. Manual AA is the substitute of current AA reinforce sector mechanism. 5. As for ships with dual-purpose guns, Harugumo, Kitakaze, Akizuki, Gearing, etc. the same mechanism is applied that when firing your main batteries, your AA is taken care of by Auto but more accurate AA in compensation for DPS(Because that's what you're supposed to be in history - AA spec'ed ship). 6.The spread of crosshair can be switched.(Wide and Narrow) 7. As for balance, CVs use fighters and Auto AA as defense; BBs have rather ample time to deal with incoming aircrafts during main battery reload, but can't obviously deal with multiple squadrons using manual AA, which is as they historically were; CAs/CLs have burst DPS as deterrent to attack and inflict great damage on planes insisting on attacking but can't evaporate planes; DDs can choose to be pin-point shooters(maybe using the British single torpedo launching spread), quickly shooting down a small number of aircrafts but are vulnerable to squadron attacks. 8. AA firing range, air detectibility, accuracy in detail, AA guns reload, etc. are not discussed here. 9. AA accuracy must in correspondence with history. Say, Yamato and Bismarck had hilarious AA power as we all know. 10. Airplanes lose accuracy under AA fire. The more focus, the more the loss. 11. Auto AA has much less impact on planes than manual. (in case of #CVLivesMatter) *Consequence: It'll be rather hard for CVS to do much damage in average, i.e. ships are moving in clusters. DDs can be approached but at a price. Spotting CLs/CAs/BBs/CVs will be the thing CVs do mostly throughout the game. But if a CV is decided to sink one ship(apart from BBs/CVs), DDs will still be the easiest to go for, attack on (USN) CLs/CAs will most likely result in temporary shortage of planes. Simplified Version: You can choose to control your AA like how you control your torpedo tubes. You're automatically switched to Auto AA when you are engaging surface targets.
  16. the tier 10 cvs are ridiculous. their planes never stop regardless of aa spec or fighters launched. just finished a match the hak singlehandedly kicked eveyones @rses its ridiculous. this needs to be nerfed.
  17. After taking my time looking at how the CV rework has panned out through my own experiences, I've noted several things and thought up some changes that I believe will help out game-play against CVs without nerfing them in the sea bed. First thing i noted was that the Carrier serves as the Great Equalizer, smashing pre-existing class imbalances into oblivion. Granted this comes at the cost of having each team having a very strong ship. Second, The Great Equalizer doesn't fairly affect all ship types, DDs suffer the worst. However this also doesn't affect all tiers the same. DDs at tier 6 suffer more from rocket attacks than bombs, and DDs at high tiers suffer from bombs more than rockets. So I thought up several changes that should be able to fix most of the DD suffering while not obliterating the CV game-play either. 1. Reduce the flight speed of the rockets fired from the strike aircraft by 25%-50%. I personally think that the strike aircraft should be quick attacks to damage to targets in high AA and to smack around other vessels that are not well armored. They also are effective scouts but not the best for every nation. This job title doesn't need the rockets to be insta-damage. Requiring more lead on a target will allow targeted vessels to have better chances of dodging an attack while also allowing the strike aircraft to retain their spotting and speedy attacks. It also allows for the reduction of the set-up time for the rocket aircraft for a little bit better easy of use. These next two changes are in specific relation to the Midway, as Midway is the DD murdering psychopath of the high tiers. 1. Reduce bomb damage from 11200 to 9200 or 10000. Midways bombs do a LOT of damage, nerfing the damage down to Lexington's level or just reducing the damage to 10k should increase the chances of survival against the HE bombs from Midway. Another possible change that could be placed in would be decreasing fall speed of the bombs, but I dont think this would have much effect for DDs because Midway players like to drop their bombs at the last second on DDs which is so low that it wouldn't make much difference. 2. Change the Torpedo Bombers from their 3x3 (3 attack runs of 3 planes each) to a 4x2 (4 attack runs of 2 planes each) and increase the torpedo damage from 4233 to 6467(Lexington torp damage) or to 5350 (middle ground damage) Part of the reason why Midway players stick to DBs or strike aircraft is becasue their TBs suck. Incredibly wide spread, with very slow torps, and low single torp damage makes them effectively worse than Lexington's TBs. With Midway you are lucky if more than 4 torps hit a maneuvering target while you could hit all 3 with Lexington, causing more damage. By changing the TBs damage, but also reducing the amount of torps dropped in a single run the TBs are an actual upgrade but also not game-breaking. And with actually usable TBs players wont be targeting DDs as much as its easier to hit CAs and BBs with TBs. So am I crazy? Stupid? Or do i have a good idea here, even if it is just a starting point?
  18. You know when i first heard of the impending CV rework this last fall after I had pretty much switched all of my gaming to WOWS instead of about 50/50 with WOT, something in the back of my mind was prompting me to be concerned that somehow WG would find a way to take this superior game and trash it the same way that had happened to World of Tanks. Between the artillery rework, the matchmaking changes, and the introduction of more abundant totally OP premiums and nerfing of the light tank class, to go along with the already prevalent meta of giant guns hiding in bushes all game; for me at least, the finer art of armored breakthru took a backseat to standoff weapons that just sat and waited to punish any kind of offense. Of course unicums and good players will say that offense is still possible in that game, but it stopped being fun to me outside of Frontline mode. But surely WG would have no reason to spoil the excellent WOWS with a completely balanced gameplay whereas the smallest and most lightly armored ships could still have a major influence in the fighting, where the overwhelming power of CV's was offset by a higher degree of difficulty therefore ensuring a limited amount of people have access to it, allowing Cruiser's and BB's to still be the primary focus of the game. After all this game was somewhat more complicated and complex than WOT, so people tended to be more knowledgeable at mid tiers as far as tactics, and save for a few cv's, the majority of premiums were capable but not ridiculously OP as in WOT.. So to make a long story short, now any arcade player can can ruin gameplay for dd's, force teams into ridiculous lemming balls that are afraid to advance anywhere near caps often enough, and produce more 15 to 3 routings than I have ever seen before. Battleships seem way more eager to just sit back and "snipe" all game, turning many more matches into stagnant half TD like matches from WOT. So here is the point where people will people will call me a whiner, say dd's should spend the entire game effectively dodging CV attacks if they are good' and that my stats shouldn't allow me to have an opinion worth anything. And you know what; you are right. Yeah..i am an average player , but a player that can effectively help a decent team and have fun doing it. But not good enough to save moron teams that seem to be all i encounter these days. And with even occasionally being on the winning side of a 15-3 rout, the game is not as fun as it was, IMO. And I can't understand why this company now wants to negatively alter gameplay with 4 CV's in about 2/3's the games now, many of them Graf Zepps and Saipans... So you're right, the game is what it is now, have fun with it, I'm gonna check out what this MK11 is all about ...later
  19. I have started down the path to the dark side and have played my first Random battle in my Saipan. It took me 60 battles in Co-op to get the courage up to play a round in Randoms but it was a successfull #1 place win in a T10 match. As a DD main I consider this an accomplishment - especially since I trashed a Gearing in the opening minutes. It was even more hilarious because the opposing Enterprise declared he was going to sink me. I overcame his attacks by launching a new sortie and dropping off a fighter to help protect my CV with it's internal self defense fighters. I think I'll quit with a 100% win rate while I am ahead... PLUS, more importantly, for those who truly understand the significance of this glorious day, I wish you all a Happy Easter... God is great! Allahu Akbar! Dios es grande! Deus e bom! Gott ist Grosartig! Dieu est Grand! Bog Velik!
  20. ricochets_and_more

    Mid Tier DD gameplay "against" CVs

    I'm currently grind the US DD line and after watching some threads I have this come to mind: (I'm a Farragut thus I'm speaking from tier VI to VIII perspective, and this thread will be my understanding of DD under current meta and me asking for advice before step into Mahan, Benson to face tier Xs and Midway, Haku) Part I: 1.This is the part I'm taking about the whole strategy not tactics Since in terms of spotting ability CVs overwhelm DDs, DDs are most likely to take direct damage from planes and additional focus fire from surface vessels: (1)As a DD if your side has already been occupied by enemy CV(s), you quickly take cover(which is less likely if you are in the open sea where the Cap is) to take less damage from focus fire and play the defensive, and get into position(I find it not likely to happen at most time because of the sequential air strikes) while (hoping) friendly carrier(s) do the counter-spotting to hinder the enemy push and the enemy DD(s) doing the same. (2)If your flank is not occupied by CV(s) currently, you do the same stealth meta strategy: (US DD) Limit the movement of enemy DDs, Hunt for enemy DDs, Gain Cap control, Support allied DDs/flank and finally Deal some damage. (If you've checked and are wondering why my stats(in Farragut) look so peculiar, well... you can call it sheer luck, and here's my explanation: in terms of 1(1), I pretty much fail to retreat and am focused to death; as for 1(2), I often fail at the last stage of my listed role because allies get the kill or make them retreat, or I'm just blown out of water under focus fire) 2. If you are suddenly radared while commencing the 1(1) stage of action, at least for me, "Ugh, FK this why I'm so screwed up..." and take constant damage(*to death) from CV(s) while (hoping) our CV(s) descend the same fate on my enemy counterpart(s). Or, I just retreat instantly which means surrender Cap control and hope being able to carry out both stage 1(2) then 1(1) (which is even more unlikely to be done because teammates won't be evenly distributed around caps and carriers have bigger fishes to feast on) 3. Never rush tier VIII CVs, spotting them is not even recommended, that's CV's job (Doing so will result in high chance of double carriers immediately focusing you to death or at least make you cost dearly for spotting them) Part II: New and first time putting up a thread here, glad you have the patience to reach here. After reading the whole, you pretty much find that I'm still quite a noob as a DD captain apparently and that's why I'm asking for help & advice for improvements. (I'm a American CA reroll and I grind this line according to my experience in CA before the rework. After reaching Gearing hopefully, I'll re-grind the American CA line to come up with strategies against CVs) It's very kind of you to point out my misplay as much as you can. Or if you agree with me, I'll just keep to this strategy until I feel just fine with my skills to move upwards.
  21. _KlRlTO_

    Current CV thoughts

    Wargaming, you are very close to the balance you are looking for. After several CV battles today, I am beginning to get comfortable with the new gameplay. There is, however one huge problem remaining. A CV that is bottom tier with ships two tiers higher, can very easily be completely useless, especially tier VIII facing tier X. Sadly, many people have suggested going to a +1/-1 matchmaker, but I don't think that is mathematically feasible. With no CVs at odd tiers, if enough CVs are in the cue, it makes battles where tiers IX and VII are middle nearly impossible, creating a drag effect on the tier X matchmaking, creating small top tier battles, and effectively breaking endgame content. That can't happen. So please find a way to make the tier VIII CVs able to be just a little productive when facing tier X.
  22. Wargaming has spent years developing a new CV platform. First promised in 2016, it was delayed for years to get it right. Years spent coding, ensuring quality. Weeks. Just weeks after release and we've come across fatal flaws in the system. Fatal, because this problem shows how the system is poisoned to the core. First, let's explain the exploit (or rather, feature) shown above: Dive bomber dispersion patterns can be manipulated via speed and release point such that the actual area they strike is far smaller than indicated. This was recently showcased in the King of the Sea tournament, where we saw frequent 5-digit damage hits on destroyers. That wasn't RNG - that was this "feature" being used. What this shows us is that, despite Wargaming having spent the equivalent in time that it takes to develop a AAA game, they were unable to verify that their dispersion algorithm worked properly. This has vanquished my confidence level in the game development. Balancing issues happen to everyone. Server issues - common. Misguided game direction choices - common. But the revelation of this pattern, which is only possible with a complete lack of QA from the first lines of code to release, is uniquely bad. I remarked to a friend this evening - "holy crap, this is actually becoming coded worse than NavyFIELD". There needs to be a culture change at the heart of Wargaming if we ever want this game to work properly.
  23. I experimented to see how far the arming distance is on both loadouts, and you can see how the arm time might be one of the factors really hurting the 4 drop right now. Should this be changed or should something else about the 4 drop be improved?
  24. After update 0.8.0, CVs got a period of glory. Lower tiers were a different story, but Hakuryu and Midway were absolutely amazing. Some called them overpowered, but it did require some skill. Aiming properly, baiting DCP to set up perma floods, not suiciding your planes, the list goes on. But WG was so worried about what the top 1% of CV players like Gaishu could do that they screwed over the average players. This so called "hotfix" that is 0.8.1 just broke them, especially Hakuryu. Now ships have more power and groups of ships are basically invulnerable. A T8 CV with stock planes in a tier 10 battle is the most torturous thing in the whole game. The 4 drop version of the J5N Tenrai on Hakuryu has been ruined, you have to start attack runs from 8km away and they fly at flak level and get shredded quickly. The torpedoes are slow and don't reliably set up perma floods. And then they nerfed Midway. Hakuryu and the lower tier CVs need to be buffed and made great again. The global changes they have made to flooding and the F key and AA have hindered CVs enough, at least keep them at the full power they were before. Only the expert CV players get impressive numbers in them (250k+) consistently anymore. It is truly sad, and I am glad that many people are finally speaking up about it. Anyone who can make suggestions and feedback to WG, please do. We need to stop this pointless nerfing and restore CVs to their power. 0.8.0 Hakuryu is still the funnest ship I have ever played. Whiny players and their DDs and complaints about weak AA and unlimited planes when they never even played CVs really irritate me. Hopefully WG will get the message. So, let's try our best to make CVs great again!
  25. Everyone says right now that the 2 drop J5N Tenrais are the way to go on Hakuryu. I decided to go old school and researched the 4 drop variant instead, and tried it out in a few random and training battles. I would say the torpedoes themselves are very nice, high alpha damage and 4 of them. If they all connect they do a lot of damage. The Tenrai itself is also a very beautiful plane, and the word Tenrai means "Heavenly Thunder". The problems with them is that the handling and aiming when in attack mode is awful, and the arming distance is very long so it's not super accurate. And you have to start the run from quite far away, and it can be quite difficult when the enemy team blobs up especially since the planes fly at flak level, making aiming and seeing much harder. What it would need to be in a good place are the following: -Slightly better aiming speed, preparation time, and general handling. I think an about 50% reduction to that extremely long preparation time and a 25% reduction to the time it takes for it to get tight, or something around that. -Make them fly below flak. It makes no sense how they are the only torpedo bombers that do not fly below flak, they are very vulnerable in this position and tend to die quickly. Plus all the extra flak in your face makes it harder to see and aim properly. -Decrease the arming distance by about a fourth or so. The arming distance is very far which can make accurate drops a bit hard to do, especially when islands are involved. They can be pretty fun but still need work. I will make sure to practice these more and in case they are ever buffed that will be good news.