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
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 39 results

  1. MEANN

    Opt out for cv

    Ok, let's try this again. Rules for this topic. Discuss the topic not the people having the discussion. It doesn't matter how good or bad they are let them have an opinion. debate the topic please. I would like to have the option to take myself out of the cv game play as it in my opinion it seems like it isnt the same game. There are a great number of plane games available to play in fact WG has one. Before we get into "there were planes in WWII for accuracy, if the game was accurate the us ships would be able to hit everyone with near pinpoint accuracy. " For me it is the fact that the current cv's are a super high skill cap boat and the player disparity causes for a team to loose or win based on one player. the new version will require very little skill or time to be able to take out a player of high skill. The time that a lot of the plays have invested in becoming "good" in a boat or type of boat to only be smashed by some unskilled plane driver is vastly unfair or disproportionate to the skill required to kill that player in a surface ship. Also the clan players that are known as good players will be the first victims. ZR, OPG, O7, ect. will be taken out of the game at an alarming rate. The effect on their stats, personal game play, as well as their win rate time in game will be negatively effected. With an option to opt out of cvs, what I would think a large group of players would be able to enjoy surface game play which is why the vast majority of players started to play the game for. At the moment just by using stats of number of games played. it is about 1 and 17 games are with a cv. there are 9990 players on the yamato pleader board. the midway has 997 on its board. on the na server there are 69,950 players. It seems to me that the smallest group is being able to force the larger group into playing with cvs. Let the 5 or 6k players that want to play cvs play them but leave the other 90% alone. Yamato 10 Battleship Japan 2 660 767 49.32 % 0.86 87 351 1 680 1.2 1.52 Montana 10 Battleship U.S.A. 2 557 583 49.12 % 0.87 79 478 1 600 1.71 1.61 Großer Kurfürst 10 Battleship Germany 1 775 912 50.75 % 0.91 82 295 1 530 1.45 1.55 Conqueror 10 Battleship U.K. 620 443 50.48 % 0.87 101 108 1 718 1.06 1.88 République 10 Battleship France 515 674 51.07 % 1.01 93 807 1 716 1.18 1.86 Midway 10 Aircraft Carrier U.S.A. 298 998 45.95 % 1.25 91 591 1 738 24.91 6.2 Hakuryu 10 Aircraft Carrier Japan 153 830 48.94 % 1.25 90 178 1 679 22.24 6.82
  2. MEANN

    cv opt out

    How about an option to opt out of cv play. that way players that dont want to have terriable cv players ruin their ship game. it would not even be hard to due. Make a mode of play that called cv. that way it is a choice to have cvs. it will also give you an accurate number of the player base that actually want cvs in their game. have it after 2 minutes fill in the missing players on each side with bots. I know a lot of players that are looking for a ship alternative for wows once the no skill cv rework is launched and they cant play a game without cvs being in it. WG you need to consider the number of players you stand to lose when you break the gameplay a it has been. Ship vs Ship was what made the game popular. not cv kill al the other boats. we tolerated the cvs and continued to play cause it was only about 10% of the matches had cv's. now it ill be 60%. I personally may be leaving the game. wg you have a planes game. dont ruin your ship game. give us a option to not participate. or make it a game mode not Randoms.
  3. MrConway just confirmed on WoWs stream that there will be a reset of captain skills.
  4. Aussie_Aussie_Aussie

    CV rework 8.0

    Hi all I've been reading a lot of pro's and cons for the CV rework and heard a lot of opinions on how a specific class of ship is going to be adversely affected by the CV. My only gripe about sky cancer rework is the fact that they will have unlimited planes. This to me will create an even more stale long range arty fest. I'm not a main of any line I play all of them except sky cancer, I wont play it. I've tried … I suck. I wont be trying the new CV either ( personal choice ) I didn't think much was wrong with the RTS style CV gameplay, I thought it just needed some tweaks like stopping the ability to use multiple squadrons grouped together i.e. torp planes firing 10-12 torps at once at a ship and reduced plane numbers in the squadron. Even if this meant a quicker turn around time for the CV. Anyway that's gone now so we have to deal with the new arcade style play. I don't think unlimited planes are the way to go as I don't think ultra effective AA will be a counter to this. Its just my opinion based on my experience since OBT and the changes in the game I've seen since. what ever happens I hope this game continues to be fun for the majority WG have a way of surprising us sometimes. I remember the uproar or celebration that happened when stealth firing was stopped depending on what side you were on it was the greatest thing that happened to the game or the worst. GLHF all
  5. Shannon_Lindsey

    Mid tier premium CVs

    With the CV rework about to go live, we are going to have an overabundance of premium CVs at tier 8, but none at tiers 4 or 6, which are far more ideal for ships meant for training commanders. At tier 4, can we expect to see Bogue or Argus in the near future? Also, at tier 6, could Shoho, Wasp, or Ark Royal be something to look forward to?
  6. So_lt_Goes

    Round 2 of PT 8.0?

    Any rumors about whether there will be a round 2 of PT 8.0 before the live update? They usually do two for any update, and make the announcements on the Wednesday preceding the weekend of the PT. I've not heard anything about it. Have you?
  7. To start off, no I am not a CV player, nor am I interested alot in the current RTS system. I haven't been able to play on the test servers due to limited time and different platform (Steam player with WG account). I would like to think of myself as open minded when it came to the CV rework and the new gameplay as it was shown however. I may even consider trying the rework for myself as well. It looks interesting, albeit still needing some work.... ...and then I saw tier IV CV footage from the PTS Imagine being a new player, excited to play a class with alot of historical importance. One would expect that the gameplay should be made in such a way as to make you excited in order to grind through the tiers and enjoy stronger and stronger carriers. Yet instead you encounter this. If this is the first gameplay a new player will have in CVs, I don't think many will have alot of interest in them. Add to that that with the removal of odd tiers you will have to play quite a bit to unlock a tier VI and yeah, I can see this becoming very tedious, very quickly. Of course, can't judge a whole rework from one video, so has anyone tried out the low tiers? Are they are bland as they look to be in the video?
  8. I've been polling people about this to try and gauge how the community likes this, so i figured the forums would be a good place to do it. here's the link: https://goo.gl/forms/LjGD3WFJErSTRtMo1
  9. Hi WG I think the release of the CV rework is way too early but since your going to go ahead anyway here is how I think it should be rolled out Roll out the CV rework 1 tier at a time. The reason for this is it reduces the work load and makes it easier to focus in balancing each tier. It will also produce additional feed back which can then be incorporated into the next tier in the next patch. I strongly urge a slow roll out because it will get messy if you roll out all the tiers at once and this is a better way of doing it so that improvements as they are made can be brought to each tier in the next patch. Make sure the lower tiers have access to torpedo bombers because by not having them until the mid tiers that means we will get a bunch of players in mid tiers who don't know how to torpedo drop properly. Historically rockets were not available to carrier borne aircraft till around 1943 and possibly even later then which means low tier cvs shouldn't have rockets at all! Because CVs have such an impact on the chances of a team winning there needs to be a definite cool down time for the players who think they can be afk in a cv.
  10. if your intending to get refunds with 8.0 there will be some things ull be legally entitled to cash refunds refuse the doubloons, make a ticket and a complaint with consumer protection.(takes 5mins, all on the web) https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/ https://www.accc.gov.au/
  11. Seriously, the reason wg gave us i think is just an excuse to prevent people to get these ships with the free xp compensation form carrier rework, Musashi and Kronshtadt are by no means, "too popular", specially the second one. I'm from 150k free xp away from Musashi, been saving for a long time and now this... btw, anyone know if Azuma will be coal or free xp (or steel )?
  12. To be blunt, I find the new AA Sector system for the CV rework a bit dull. I love the concept of it, but It's too automated and it doesn't feel like there is much depth, it feels too passive. You just select the sector and wait the 15 seconds or whatever...and that's it. With the old system there was some active decision making--manually targeting one squad instead of another at least got you a little more involved. So here's my suggestion for a possible alternate design: the AA Cone system. Essentially, the ship has an AA aura (like current), but in addition to this, it also has a cone of fire that the player manually sets. It's kind of a middle ground between actively manually aiming and shooting at planes, and the sector system. The idea is that you aim your camera in a specific direction, press a button, and this sets a cone of fire in that direction where the AA guns will automatically concentrate their fire on any planes that are in that cone. Whenever you want to redirect the cone, you aim in a new direction and press the button. Then, over the course of several seconds, the cone will move to that direction (like turret traverse). While it's moving, the AA guns can still shoot, they just still only shoot stuff passing through the cone. The nice thing about this design is that it has a lot of room for expansion in terms of tiers and upgrades and balance. Maybe you have the ability to set a wide cone that covers more space but does less damage, or a narrow cone that covers less space but does more damage. Ships with more advanced AA could have larger cones or upgrades might improve the AA cone's traverse speed. But most importantly, it's more dynamic and has more depth than the sector system, without requiring too much micromanagement (which I assume WG is rightfully concerned about). If you're engaged in a battle and then you notice planes approaching, you'd set the cone in that direction and then carry on. If you're really occupied you might set the cone to very wide so you can focus more on the battle. Skilled players of course would keep an eye on the planes and set a narrower cone and manually change the cone direction more frequently--but skilled CV players have a better chance of outmaneuvering narrow cones. Maybe there can also be an automatic mode where you if you target a squad (instead of clicking empty sky) then every X seconds, the cone's new target direction gets updated automatically. It's not as precise as doing it yourself and gives the CV player more time to maneuver around the cone between updates, but it gives the ship player at least some automated coverage (which would be helpful for newer players). Ships could also potentially have a left and right cone that can be aimed in different directions, which could allow for some interesting configurations (like aiming one to the front of the ship and the other to the back). I've included some rough mockup images to show how it might look when you're playing. Let me know what you think of the idea! I haven't really been on these forums before although I've been playing since launch so maybe this idea has already been brought up. But hopefully it makes for good discussion.
  13. It happens after I press “F” and when the camera return to my ship, squadron control does not show up. In the first image, clearly every plane has returned, no squadron control is showing up. However, the game does respond to take off command (as you can see in image 2).
  14. I've only played 25 games on the live server controlling a cv, but I feel the changes on the pt server are a step in the right direction. the changes made to the controls make it more engaging and I feel like I'm actually taking part in the battle rather than moving counters across a screen. one thing I have noticed tho is the change from the amount of damage the planes take from tier 6 - 8. tier 6 you do lose your planes but it seems it takes longer tier 8 you have to be very careful where you fly them maybe that's due to there being no odd tier ships. anyway that's my 2 pence worth, am I going to try CVS if this goes live yep
  15. Daring_in_the_Franxx

    Some Thoughts about PT CV

    First of all I would like to reserve all my comments about should this rework go on or not because NaCl. 1. AA Played several grozovoi game, and CV do consistent damage to grozovoi with or without AA skill activated. I have no problem with CV even deleting DD who does not have DFAA because that's what used to be and that's what should be, but at least DD need something to counter CV, at least make the bombs/ rockets harder to hit. 2-3 ships sticking together will provide a decent concentration of mid/long-range AA smokes, and can shoot down several CV's plane. I didn't play a lot CA in PT but final game data-wise, CA can shoot down a lot of planes. So as a conclusion, DFAA need some buff but AA damage? They might be fine. 2. Fighters The fighters mechanic is not that miserable as expected, on thing is I'm determined to div with a CV at 8.0 so that he can put some fighters on me. I can see how different player skills will result in different time and location to use fighters, and that will cause significant impact on team. 3. CV-DD relationship In this paragraph I'm discussing unicun v. unicun CV game and competitives Role-wise, CV and DD are similar, before and after, mainly b/c their spotting role. What makes DD unique and still useful against CV is DD's ability to hold cap, and some DD(mainly grozovoi)'s ability to provide AA support. DFAA's significant effect on accuracy makes DD w/ DFAA playable in CV games. Because you have to go alone for a while to cap or do things, and only DFAA can save you under CV strike. After the rework, although CV's ability to do damage at multiple places is reduced to 0, they can still cause a lot of trouble to DD because CV squad's high speed. Yes it is true that in 12v12 CV might not want to bother you and if they do they'll spend a lot of time; if they start bother you stick with teammate and call your CV's fighter for support. But I as a DD player want at least some ability in my hand to limit CV's action on me, and I as a DD player want some ability to impact the result of CV game instead of sitting around teammate. This problem was not solved and will not be solved in 8.0 if nothing changed. In kots, yes, I can be just a smoke screen skill and a capping tool, because I trust my team and can give my back to them. But in random I have to do something other than that to win. 4. exp and credits gained... You are not serious about PT's exp and credits are you....... #CV(income)ImbaWgPlzNerf 5. game environment PT server has way to much CV's and that will be the biggest bias in everything I said above: with a 12v12 game and less CV per game, CV's effect might be much insignificant to DD. Everything I said is just based on what I see in PT. But yea of course, 0.8.0 won't be comfortable to play at all.
  16. DISCLAIMER: THIS IS PURELY CONJECTURE AND THEORY, TRY IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. Since the CV rework is fast approaching I wanted to check if there can be any obscure way to profit from it, thanks to the compensations you may get on your CVs. So while looking at the rules on this link something caught my eye: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/public-test/carrier-underwood/ This makes sense since odd tiers will be removed; what makes this very interesting is the current 50% discount we get on permanent camos of Tier V-IX. This leaves 2 odd tiers, VII and IX with permanent camos. The tier VII ones cost 1k doubloons, the tier IX ones 2k doubloons. What does this mean? If the rules do not change in the meantime, you can spend up to 6000 doubloons on the permanent camouflages at a 50% discount, to get back after the rework 12.000 doubloons back. And because the XP spent on the ships can be refunded you don't even need to play them, just Free XP to them, buy the perma camos and then get your double doubloons and Free XP back. Personally I am considering trying it out on the Hiryu. I would like to point out again that this is purely theoretical and that you won't know for sure until the rework happens and all the rules are finalized. As with any investment, there is risk involved.
  17. TheLucinator

    CV Re-Work Poll

    You can probably guess my opinion but I fell like this needs to be put out there, I'm hoping that if a lot of players show their opinions maybe the Dev's will know what we want in regards to carriers. Please tell your friends about this so we can get as large a sample of opinions as possible. Please only comment if you have played the test or have read the dev blog on the changes.
  18. BladedPheonix

    Cruiser tone coming after CV update?

    Howdy sailors! So although I'm not partaking in the testing for CV reworks (no room for it on the PC, please don't judge) I have been following a few players on youtube for information and observation. during 1 match i noticed that a Yamato had what looked like a squad of at least 3-4 float plane fighters protecting it from a CV's torpedo strike. This got me thinking. If this current change to float fighters stays as is, will this change finally be enough for WG to add the very wanted Tone and Chikuma? Maybe even the IJN BBs Ise and Hyuga as well? Video for players who don't know what the ship is about. what are you thoughts on the matter? please comment below! Until next time, I'll C'ya on the Seas!
  19. Do the lower-tier British carriers feature the venerable Swordfish in their air wings?
  20. I am very invested in the CV rework. I wouldn’t call myself a CV main, but I have played a good amount of CV matches on live. For a time I was in the top 200 in some CVs on live in NA for a time. I know a thing or two about CVs. I love CVs and naval aviation. I waited until the balancing phase began to write this up. Here are my observations of the rework after Test 3 with a 19 PT captain with Air Armor, Improved Boost, Torp Accel, Improved Engines, AR, Survivability Expert, Fast Aiming and Concealment Expert THE GOOD: AA is great right now, honestly its really good. Right where it should be or close to it. A slight increase in DPM for close range AA would be good. But really this is nice, it strikes a great balance between engaging and passive. T8 CVs are wonderful. They are the perfect mix of speed, health, hangar, maneuverability and strike power. Go off that for the T10 CVs. They are fun to play but they don’t rule matches with their power. The afterburner feels good. It last long enough with captain skills to be reliable and get you in the fight fast. Its right where it should be THE BAD: Torpedo bombers need a tweak. Right now I can hit 3-5 torps and maybe get 1 flood. Combine that with smart players can dodge torps quite easy. When I do land torps they do minimal damage. a. Proposal: Either keep the lower damage numbers and make torp hits more reliable by speeding torps up and slightly reducing aiming time, or buff torp hit damage. The former is a better idea because it will reduce skill gap, and keep CVs from being game rulers. 2. Cross dropping is a problem for DDs, CVs shouldn't be able to blap DDs so easily. However, with the current version a skilled DD can very easily rush down a CV and it’s hard to do anything to it. This is because you have to line up a shot for "so long" against a DD, the DD can easily dodge or maneuver away. This in combination with minuscule DD air detection means you’ll detect a DD at 3ish KM and have only a few seconds to line up a decent shot on it. a. Proposal: Either make torp hits somewhat more reliable through a torp speed increase/aim time reduction or reduce the time to aim or rockets more. 3. Dive bombers are awkward. They aren't the most responsive, but that isn't a bad thing. IMO make the dispersion ellipse a circle, its time consuming and you lose a lot of planes whether to AA or fighters to line up a shot along the ship. Most players know you’re doing this and angle away, making your drop useless and that time you spent lining up the shot worthless. a. Proposal: Either make them easier to aim and a slight increase in handling to line up the shot or keep the current movements and make the dispersion ellipse a circle. 4. T10 Carriers are too comfortable. I don’t fear anyone when I’m flying. You need to have some sort of plan of attack, and with how fast and healthy T10 planes are you don’t need that. I don’t want CV overlords again. a. Proposal: Reduce T10 plane speed and health slightly. They have the hangar to handle it. 5. Please give some love to the CV models and their animations. Make the landing gear on planes animate to go up. Reward us naval aviation nuts with some nice eye candy 6. Fast aiming doesn’t seem to impact much. Fast aiming is a 4 point skill and I really can’t feel its impact much, I think it needs a slight increase in its usefulness. It would fix a lot of the problems currently with the strike planes. 7. The current implementation of CVs is rather shallow. If anything it is more of a tech demo. It needs to be developed and deepened more than anything. Naval aviation nuts like me like it because I get to fly the planes I like so much, but for other people that won't work THE BUG: I keep getting a critical error and my game freezes a lot when I play. I have to do a while system reset to fix it. Once or twice my dive bombers have refused to drop. You press the button and nothing happens. At times I get massive frame drops when playing the CVs. I got from 60+ FPS down to sub 30. Only restarting the game helps with this. THE UGLY: T4 carriers are awful. Absolutely awful. You get so many hits and do almost no damage. I know you need to avoid seal clubbing but this current damage is way too low. I would get something like 30 bomb hits and 40 rocket hits and only get around 50k damage. I know most of it has to do with the armor of targets, so you can work with that. Because the T4 planes are so clunky, its hard to properly strike anything but a BB and they are the ones with the armor that shatters everything. a. Proposal: Slightly buff the damage T4 CVs can do. Its such a drag to play 2. Fighters are so annoying. Please rework fighters. The ones around the carrier are fine and quite good, but the button press for fighters to a region is so boring and annoying. A simple button press isn’t engaging and its annoying to be on the other end because you suddenly lose half to your full squadron. There is little to no counter play. a. Proposal: Make it a consumable where you control the fighters for a time if you choose and you can engage the enemy strike aircraft. This would be more dynamic and fun. If you don’t choose to control the fighters, allow strike aircraft to dodge and shake them off. This rewards skill and having to dodge fighters off increases how long they could be in ship AA and at least increases the time to strike, reducing DPM. 3. Let not continue the trend of US CVs being seen from the moon. The lack of mobility and control means doom for the big girls. 4. LET US CONTROL THE CV WITHOUT SENDING OUR SQUADRON BACK lol. For God’s sake idk if the engine or what can’t handle it, but this needs to be one of the first things to change. The auto pilot system is trash so relying on it to move your ship continuously is moronic.
  21. I have been thinking about carrier play and the rework for a while, and I would like to give my opinion through a retrospective of WarGaming’s CV design and the new elements that are currently being planned on being introduced. There will be a lot of text so I have included a tl;dr at the bottom. Past Failures of CV RTS Design I have played CVs since closed beta so I have been here with every twist and turn that carriers have gone through in balancing, and they have gone through a lot. There were times when AA was very oppressive, times when counter-play against carriers was possible without having to rely on captain skills or teammates, times when BBs were more heavily punished for being absent minded that a CV was in play, but the class has never really felt useless. The carrier class was always about bringing insane firepower onto a single ship to devastate it from a top-down perspective where the carrier has full control of the situation, and that is the major problem of the design. Whether it is done through alpha strikes or damage over time stacking, it does not matter since the goal of the carrier remains the same. Sure, other classes do this also, but here is where the detractions of the gameplay design come in. When you provide a RTS perspective for a player, you give him full control of the battlefield. No other ship type is given this boon. With a powerful strike package, a carrier can simply choose which ship lives or dies. No matter how the other player tries to avoid sinking to a carrier strike it is ultimately not in his control. The carrier gets to choose how many resources he dedicates to this, which is a part of the RTS (Real-Time Strategy) design. The other ship may be a full AA speced high tier cruiser, but all it takes is enough planes and enough patience to wait out the defensive fire and that Des Moines is almost guaranteed to be sunk. However, in pretty much all RTS games this is a battle between RTS players and not individual units. Sacrificing resources to destroy another player’s units may have the same effect but that unit is another player, and that is not something we want in this design. So, how do we fix it? How do we fix CV RTS Design? There have been many other games that have done this asynchronous gameplay of players being the units with there being one commander wearing the “RTS pants” really well. Games like Natural Selection and Savage: The Battle for Newerth. In both of these games, one player controls the commander from an RTS perspective while the rest of his team control his units. If WarGaming wants to learn how to tame CV play from an RTS perspective, they need to look at how these games do it. In these games, the commander is a supportive role that gives tech (research and upgrades) to his team’s units while managing resources. The commander gets to choose how the units play based on his choices of what tech they should receive and what part of the map needs to be controlled to gain those resources. This is exactly how the flow of an RTS game happens, while the units are soldiers that do the shooting and play as a team together which is what FPS (first person shooter) games do. Now, this is just one formula and World of Warships obviously cannot follow that exactly since surface vessels do not need to receive tech, and forcing everyone to listen to a commander would anger pretty much everyone in the current player base. Even though this would mean that the carriers on the team would be put into a more passive role, we can still take much of what these other games do right and put them in World of Warships. The first is the supportive aspect of the RTS role. Currently, this is only done through fighter control to provide spotting and deny the other carrier any vision. WarGaming has always very poorly implemented this, as this can functionally be ignored as we see it done by almost every CV player since as win rates have proven it is much easier than and just as viable to treat your fellow teammates as pawns and meatshields. Enemy surface vessels are treated as free kills for the most part so most of the focus goes to denying the enemy carrier the ability to farm them like you would be doing. Surface vessels largely have no say in this matter, and this is where we can bring in the successes of parallel RTS/FPS gameplay. In order for the carrier role to function properly, surface vessels need to work in tandem somehow with their carriers, whether it is for providing some bonus effects like resources for the carrier or keeping the carrier alive. I am not sure how this could be done but this would vastly improve on the current system, as carriers not having to rely on their team as their team relies on them is where a large part of the frustration comes from for surface ship players. Another problem is the very direct role of doing incredible damage for only a risk in resources (planes). While this may be balanced, it is very unfun for the surface ships. Surface ships should not have to feel like they are worth just a few planes for the enemy CV. This is possible in the RTS/FPS hybrid games that I have listed since they are competitive in nature so a sacrifice of one unit to for an advantage by destroying some resources to win a game is not a bad experience for the FPS player. However, this will not work as we need to treat surface vessels as equal individuals not in a competitive environment. This means the player gets full control of his ship on the strategic level and has counter-play against any dedicated carrier strikes to take him out. At certain points in CV balance and in the rework, this was possible, since even the most dedicated strike can be and should be thwarted by good gamesense, positioning, and dodging of strikes from the surface vessel without any team co-ordination or strategic play on the RTS scale. This is possible in the current rework and is something I like from it. So let’s talk about that next. The CV rework Quite a few players hate the rework, and I understand why. Removing the RTS gameplay entirely from carriers is a big fat mistake. This not only alienates the entire current CV player base, as well as also destroying the interesting parallel between RTS gameplay and surface ship shooting gameplay. There is a BUT here though, and a very big BUT. The current CV rework does fix a majority of the problems plaguing the game that have to do with carriers and in a way is a step forward more than it is a step back. I do think the game needs direct control of planes in order to make counter-play work between carriers and surface vessels, as this includes some level of skill to pull of proper strikes while having an interesting mechanic involved. The CV rework solves a big problem in that the devastating striking ability of a carrier actually takes effort finally. Many CV players will hate me for stating the ugly truth that the striking gameplay takes almost no skill at all. To manual drop even a destroyer for great effect is not hard at all, involves little counter-play from the defending surface ship, and is an almost guaranteed demise when pulled off properly. Sure the destroyer can use speed boost, smoke, evading tactics to attempt to mess up the cross drop of torpedoes that will remove his health pool but given free roam of the skies it is so easy that there is no reason that any even mildly experienced CV player should not be able to pull it off. The only real difficulty of striking comes from controlling the air and teamplay between enemy ships but as we have discussed earlier this is not something that really happens in non-competitive environments like those that we see in random battles. The interaction between players in providing AA cover is mostly incidental. This is why we see players with terrible winrates that play frankly worse than bots, send in their autodropped bombers in to some helpless unsuspecting victim and come back from a coffee break to have a higher average than you would see on most ships. Yes, I am talking about you high tier USN CV players. We all know you love to make everyone else in the game suffer with minimal effort and want your air supremacy loadouts back so you can turn other CV players into your victims. Thankfully, the CV rework fixes this entirely. For once AP dive bombs are not oppressive to surface ships, having them be dropped a few at a time so there’s plenty of time for AA to chew threw your planes and not to mention the awesome effect of having to actually drop your bombs with effort into enemy citadels like surface ships have to! One of my favourite parts of the rework. Reworking the CV Rework Let us go back to discussing why the CV rework is so flawed and how we can fix this. We have established that the CV rework does fix many of the problems, and keeping CV RTS gameplay is essential; so why not implement the rework while keeping the RTS elements? This can be done by replacing the current almost braindead manual drop mechanics with the interesting direct control mechanics seen in the rework. Whenever a CV player goes in for a strike, give him the option to manually control the strike with accurate split-squadron strike groups as well as simple, less accurate automatic drops that use the entire squadron. I imagine that cross drops with this would be difficult but very rewarding. This should not be very difficult to implement as both mechanics exist on the playtest and live. Next, we need to keep some functional fighter gameplay. Not having fighters in a carrier strategic game is not good. Let carriers control the fighters to defend areas or ships and attack enemy planes. This can still be possible while the carrier is in direct control strike view by implementing fighter AI. If the carrier goes into direct control mode with his strike, the simple commands he has given beforehand to his fighters can still be followed but it would make it impossible to control other squadrons while in direct control mode. We fix this by implementing an AI that when it achieves the task it was given before it would go to the nearest ally ship or area and patrol it. If it were to stray into the AA bubble of the enemy it should break off to keep the squadron intact, but this can and should be changeable with simple RTS UI elements that are found in other RTS games like telling them to hold position, engage at will, or patrol. Other bomber squadrons in AI control mode should be able to stay out of harm’s reach and run away from fighters. So not only are we implementing the direct control mechanics, but also enhancing on the RTS elements of CV gameplay. Great. We can also put those damn near-useless rocket planes to use by letting them engage enemy planes as the fighter-bombers that they should be. A big hurdle we have to deal with here would be fighter on fighter combat. Obviously, it should not be as simple as clicking on an enemy squadron and letting them do their thing. With the addition of fighters and direct control mode, we can meld these two elements together. Instead of the unintuitive strafing mechanics, we can let carriers directly control the fighters in some way, in order to effect the outcome of a fighter duel to a degree with micromanagement. My suggestion would be to let the carrier direct control the fighters in some way that gives them a damage boost but lowers their defense, making it a risk/reward so that it still keeps automatic fighter combat even if CV players would prefer to micro their strikes instead, but adds some finesse to fighter combat. All of these changes are to keep the CV playerbase from not being alienated due to lack of RTS gameplay, while fixing the current gameplay by making it more simplistic in terms of control with a better perspective that account for surface ships being actual players that need to enjoy the game and not feed oppressed by CV elites. Our next topic is a recent update on how CVs function in terms of their progression and their abilities in the game. The CV Tech Tree I’m not much of an expert on naval engineering and history so I’m sorry if this part is opinionated while lacking knowledge; please correct me if you feel like those parts are not accurate. In their recent blog posts, WarGaming revealed that the new tech tree for USN carriers would look like this: I feel like this is mistake. Based on what WG has alluded to in their blog post, it seems like these ships will have similar functions with minor changes in loadouts in the same tier, like perhaps one consumable and AP bombs vs HE bombs. This is very boring and frankly a step backward from how the tech tree is implemented now. It also ignores the interesting history of CVE/CVLs. We can implement CVE/CVLs as a separate tech tree and make them much different from standard carrier gameplay. I have noticed quite a few people really dislike the ideas for supportive gameplay, after all why should they be baBBysitting when they want to do damage? Others have disagreed and said that instead of focusing on damage they want to be the supporting backbone of their team by using air superiority and spotting. We can use this rework to implement both. If we separate the tech tree between CVE/CVLs and CVs it might look something like this: Langley v > Bogue Ranger v v Casablanca Lexington v v Croatan Yorktown v v Commencement Bay Essex v v Saipan Midway Just from a historical perspective, this keeps all of the ships that we love from the current USN tree while implementing other historical and interesting vessels to play with. This also allows us to see those pancake planes and jet fighters that were removed from the game earlier in development. From a gameplay perspective, this will allow for the two styles of play that I have mentioned earlier. Support vs strike. In their post, WarGaming alluded to planning to introduce some support abilities, which would be perfect for CVE/CVLs. These ships would have a modest hangar space, if any at all. Their squadrons would be very small and perhaps in the fighter department (at least for Saipan) quite powerful. However, their main power would come from their supportive abilities. WarGaming mentioned on plans of implementing planes that can drop hydrocaustic buoys, smoke screens, and seaplanes that can capture points. Add radar to them, and this line of ship would be perfect for this sort of gameplay, while still keeping CVs around as they were without any abilities that players often call “gimmicks”. Of course, we could also have gimmicks for CVs as well. I’m sure some players might be interested in a torpedo bomber reload booster, some access to CVE/CVL skills, or carriers with heavy secondary armaments. Premium buyers do not need to worry, as their premiums would still fit nicely into the tech tree while allowing some new premium ships to appear (Gambier Bay, anyone?). The current Saipan could be renamed to her sister ship CVL Wright, and be a downtiered Saipan which would make sense because her planes were higher tier to begin with. So here’s the tl;dr I promised for those that hate reading: - Implement CV rework while keeping (and improving) on RTS elements by learning what other games did right. - Remove manual dropping and strafing but keep direct control as in the rework for similar gameplay functionality. - CV rework is good but it does not need to take a step backwards. - Allow for better control of planes with guard mode and patrolling functions using already build-in AI. - Keep fighter gameplay, make it more intuitive. - Instead of splitting up the CV line like in the blog post, implement CVE/CVLs instead and have them be support oriented.
  22. Seeing all this info on the rework of the CV's and the way WG is going to basically make the people that have CV's researched force play them. Because they haven't offered people the choice if they want to keep grinding the lines after the rework. How does WG know people want to keep playing the CV lines? Maybe WG should take a poll or a survey with the people that own CV's and see if they even want to keep playing them. For me I pretty much would like all the XP I researched back and credits I spent on the CV's because its gonna be a big change and one I am not gonna care to play again. So it would be nice if WarGaming gave the players a choice instead of forcing players to keep playing the CV's that they are not gonna want to have anything to do with. I know if I had the choice when I started playing the carrier lines then I wouldn't of started going down the lines and wasting my credits and time on the carriers. It would be nice just to get the exchange of XP and credits and also able to have the captains set back to be rest on the skills. I don't know what anyone else thinks but would be nice to see what people think about not having a choice? So here is some feedback for ya Wargaming.
  23. So far WG has said Carriers will no longer run out of planes after the rework. If they change this than it better be due to the elimination of unlimited ammo on all other classes. Cause if WG handicaps Carriers like that again they might well just save the money and leave things alone. Right now it’s the only thing I see that makes the rework work. Planes too dominating? Make them weaker. It doesn’t matter as much their unlimited it just means you to try again. If you limit them than any nerfing of planes is magnified three fold. Now you have to do I have enough planes to try again or try anything else.
  24. Scorpion_Class

    Cannot download CV Rework Client

    So I received an invitation to join the CV Rework from Developers along with login email and password and the instructed method to download the client . When I searched it for on ' install additional game instances ' I cannot find TST . After reading a similar post on forums , I first reinstalled my game center . That didn't helped . Then I uninstalled the game and Game Center , leaving nothing related to Wargaming in my PC . I downloaded everything once again , restarted my PC , but still I don't have the option to download the TST client . I have logged into game center with the same account I participated in CV Rework and received my credentials .
  25. So I got the email to participate in the CV test 2 and I went to download the test, was logged into my main game center account went to download the client and the only region options I get are NA Asia CIS Eroupe and PT no TST, what am I missing? Plz help