Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cv'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 330 results

  1. As I've stated before the post was taken over by people trying to drive the conversation any where else but on the post's actual topic, and were trying to make sure no one would talk about the issue. So I'm reposting it here, and letting the anti-cv crew go nuts in the other topic, which if the mods could please delete that one instead of this one I would be grateful. testing on the PTS with the new rocket planes. This was done by a different tester, I didn't assist in this test by any stretch of the imagination. CV Prep Time Attack Delay Lexinton HVAR 3.0s 4.0s Lexington TinyTims 3.0s 6.0s Midway HVAR 3.0s 4.0s Midway TinyTims 3.0s 6.0s Shokaku 2.0s 4.0s Hakuryu 2.0s 4.0s Implacable 3.0s 3.0s Audacious 3.0s 3.0s Parseval 2.5s 2.0s Richthofen 2.5s 1.5s As you can see from this list, this shows that rocket attacks that are being tested on the PTS are increasing the attack setup time needed for CV rocket planes from 1.5 to 6 sec on top of the 2.5-3sec that is currently there for no other reason then apparently we hurt DD's. That ship class would be the only ship class that would benefit from this as it's the hardest ship class to maintain sight and contact with while setting up a attack run. As it stands now with the 3 second setup we typically will lose contact with our targeted DD and have to guess how he's reacted to being spotted, usually we are able to get a strike or two off. depending on surrounding AAA fire. Now with this setup our attack runs will have to look something like this with the added timer. find target. Click to start the setup for attack 3 sec prep starts after that 4.5 sec attack window ( better have guessed and aimed right while keeping the tightest reticle as you can as to where that DD went in that time period.) then you have to wait ANOTHER 1.5 sec (for KM) to 6 sec (for US CV's) before your rockets leave the rails. You have to do this while maneuvering, the planes flying ahead avoiding AAA, because they don't just stop to keep your target in the reticle. All the while depending on the AAA environment your having planes fall out of the sky. All the while some charming folks here with "but muh unicum stats" will be saying it's fine etc, etc. This is not equivalent to turret rotation this is attack. Turret rotation would be the planes getting to the target. This would be like a Atlanta having a firing chain like this. click to fire. 3 sec prep, you now have 4.5 sec to aim and fire, if you do not fire in that time you have to wait 5 seconds before you can fire again. once you've clicked to fire you now have to wait a additional 4 seconds before your guns will shoot. reload time, rinse repeat. Now if you think this is fine applied to your favorite ships on top of what you have to do now to fire. Then please support this addition to cv's and Your ships as well. Everyone deserves this kind of special attention. I mean it's only fair right?
  2. Ah all for the sake of balance, another patch yet another nerf bat come down on CV's. 9 seconds, so basically just tell CV"s to never hunt DD"s again. So what brilliant reasoning was used for this spreadsheet. I'll be nice, how about all other ships have to share the nerfs they have placed onto CV's for their attack abilities. You have 9 seconds from the time you pull the trigger till your shells leave your guns or leave your tubes. Every time you attack someone else your guns get hurt and degraded your effective range and accuracy. You only get 60 shells or 2 loads of torps, you only get back what you hit with. Or we could just go with, every nerf a cv gets, gets shared to every other ship in the game, ya know because of fairness. testing on the PTS with the new rocket planes. This was done by a different tester, I didn't assist in this test by any stretch of the imagination. CV Prep Time Attack Delay Lexinton HVAR 3.0s 4.0s Lexington TinyTims 3.0s 6.0s Midway HVAR 3.0s 4.0s Midway TinyTims 3.0s 6.0s Shokaku 2.0s 4.0s Hakuryu 2.0s 4.0s Implacable 3.0s 3.0s Audacious 3.0s 3.0s Parseval 2.5s 2.0s Richthofen 2.5s 1.5s
  3. Introducción Para empezar, este tema no pretende generar controversias entre los jugadores de las distintas clases. Al contrario, el objetivo de este post es reunir diferentes opiniones y puntos de vista que ayuden a corregir las mecánicas y la influencia de los portaaviones en las partidas; especialmente, de aquellos jugadores más experimentados del juego competitivo. Si bien el post no está en inglés, invito a toda la comunidad del habla hispana, para que puedan aportar sus experiencias en este tema. Por otra parte, se preguntarán ¿por qué quiero que me gustaría que sean escuchados con mayor atención los jugadores con bastante conocimiento competitivo en el juego y no los jugadores casuales? Según mi punto de vista, la respuesta es simple y paso a explicarla. Para competir en las ligas mayores como la Liga Tifón y la Liga Huracán, los diversos jugadores requieren dominar ciertos aspectos de la batalla que los jugadores regulares o casuales no han incorporado aún a su estilo de juego; en otras palabras, la competencia demanda diferentes estrategias, combinaciones de barcos, distribución de puntos de comandantes; además de posicionamientos correctos, momentos de sincronización o timing y muchas otras variantes, que se pueden dar a conocer en partidas de la alta competencia. No obstante, todos son bienvenidos a replicar este asunto. Recordando al obsoleto RTS CV Antes de nada, recordemos al famoso modo RTS (Real-Time Strategy) de los CV, que se caracterizaba, principalmente, por tener una perspectiva de la partida completamente diferente al resto de las otras clases de barcos; una visión aérea de la totalidad del mapa en modo estratégico. Entre otras particularidades se encontraban los siguientes factores: Control de múltiples escuadrones; Daño alfa muy elevado por cada ataque; Sincronización de ataques simultáneos; Defensa manual y en seguimiento mediante fighters; La dificultad aumentaba proporcionalmente con cada tier; Gran diferencia de habilidades entre jugadores de portaaviones. En efecto, en esta vieja modalidad RTS, los portaaviones eran más difíciles de controlar y su curva de aprendizaje no era amigable. Asimismo, los puntos anteriormente mencionados, si bien le otorgaban al jugador una experiencia más realista en cuanto a la gestión de un portaaviones, resultaron ser muy negativos en lo que respecta a la jugabilidad. Por consiguiente, no era habitual encontrar portaaviones en una partida y, en definitiva, la clase era poco popular. Las estadísticas, de una baja cantidad de usuarios que utilizaran portaaviones en una partida, alentaron, durante un tiempo, una reelaboración de las mecánicas de la clase. En consecuencia, a partir de la actualización 0.8.0, llegó una nueva dinámica de juego de los portaaviones. Los nuevos portaaviones En los inicios del 2019, WG retiró el RTS de los portaaviones por un estilo de juego mucho más dinámico. Esto alentó a que nuevos jugadores se animaran a utilizar esta clase que, de alguna manera, estaba olvidada. Debido a su aumento de popularidad, actualmente, encontramos portaaviones en las partidas de manera muy frecuente. Por lo cual, independientemente de la experiencia de cada jugador, la clase tiene una gran influencia en la partida que no puede pasar desapercibida. Y lo redacté en negrita porque su impacto es muy visible ya que, las restantes clases, adoptan diferentes movimientos ante la presencia de un portaaviones en una partida. ¡Y mejor ni hablemos de cuando hay 2 por equipo en una misma partida! xD Influencias del portaaviones en una partida Quizás para los que no estén muy interiorizados en este tema o, peor aún, aquellos que aún no interpretan al juego de manera global, se cuestionarán: ¿de qué manera un portaaviones repercute en una partida? Pues, revisémoslo juntos. No arriesga puntos de vida o hit points (HP) Si bien este punto es algo retórico y discutible, la gran mayoría de los jugadores de portaaviones, por lo general, tienen tendencia a jugar toda la partida en los extremos del mapa, por detrás de la línea de defensa dispuesta por la formación de barcos aliada. Por tanto, la probabilidad de su detección mediante superficie o por la aviación enemiga es muy baja; en consecuencia, el riesgo de que sufra daño directamente por otros barcos es escasa. Rango operativo de aviación ilimitado A diferencia de las demás clases, que están limitadas por un rango máximo en sus baterías principales, en sus baterías secundarias o en sus torpedos, la aviación posee la capacidad de operar por todo el mapa, sin restricciones de distancia, independientemente de la posición del portaaviones siendo, de esta manera, una clase que puede prestar servicio en diversos lugares del mapa y en cualquier momento de la partida. Reconocimiento de la flota enemiga El traslado en toda la extensión del mapa le otorga, a la aviación del portaaviones, la capacidad revelar las posiciones enemigas siempre que los aviones entren en el rango de detección por aire de los barcos. Sin dudas alguna, es el “mejor armamento” de un portaaviones. Competencia para ejecutar ataques cruzados En relación con los barcos de superficie, en cada una de las partidas y, particularmente, en Batallas por Rango o en Batallas de Clanes, el posicionamiento está orientado a lograr el mayor rendimiento posible en la partida, sin necesidad de comprometer sus debilidades. En cuanto a la aviación de los portaaviones, su maniobrabilidad y el rango operativo ilimitado le permite ejecutar ataques desde los ángulos más débiles de los barcos enemigos como, por ejemplo, efectuar maniobras de ataques utilizando las islas para bloquear el daño AA de medio y largo alcance, hasta frenar el avance oportuno de un push con torpedos en un lateral del barco. Este tipo de accionar, que puede ser aplicado en cualquier lugar y momento de la partida, le otorga al portaaviones la capacidad de desasir formaciones enemigas. Restablecer puntos o zonas de captura fácilmente La suma de puntaje del equipo, mediante la captura y la conservación de puntos o zonas estratégicas, es un factor determinante para trazar el camino hacia la victoria en cualquier partida. La obtención de éstas requiere que los barcos ingresen al territorio de dichas zonas durante un tiempo determinado, sin recibir daño, para efectivizar la misma. Por lo que se refiere a la aviación de los portaaviones, al tener un rango operativo bastante extenso, con diversas combinaciones de armamento con diferentes ángulos de ataque y, sumado a la capacidad de reconocimiento; le confieren, potencialmente, la facultad de restablecer puntos o zonas de captura con mucha facilidad. Soporte aéreo efectivo Por un lado y a diferencia del modo RTS, en el nuevo concepto de portaaviones, los cazas son un consumible y pueden ser llamados a la batalla por el jugador cuando sea necesario. Además, a partir de la actualización 0.10.0, la actualización de habilidades de los comandantes trajo consigo nuevas habilidades especiales para portaaviones que mejoran las características de los cazas. Por otro lado, el llamado de cazas en lugares estratégicos y sincronizados con el posicionamiento y movimiento de los barcos aliados, posibilitan al portaaviones el bloqueo efectivo del avance y de los ataques de la aviación enemiga. De esta manera, en su máximo resplandor, un jugador de portaaviones puede anular y dominar la presencia del portaaviones enemigo en la partida. Control y dominio total del mapa En consecuencia, a los puntos anteriormente mencionados, asociados a una curva de aprendizaje y a una jugabilidad más amigable, un jugador de portaaviones experimentado, a través de diferentes modos de ataque y/o soportes sincronizados a barcos específicos, puede lograr una supremacía aérea en toda la extensión del mapa. En resumen, cuando el portaaviones interpreta de manera precisa la distribución, la posición y el tipo de barco del enemigo y aliado, posiblemente su reacción en consecuencia le permitirá, como portaaviones, ejercer su influencia en toda la partida, a través de un control y dominio total; una característica propia de esta clase. Puntos de discusión INTERACCIÓN CV VS AA IA (¿NO PLAYER vs PLAYER?) Por lo que se refiere al armamento antiaéreo, uno de los comentarios más frecuente, luego del rework, es el siguiente “las AA antes eran manuales y ahora ya no lo son” y, realmente, es un mal concepto. Las AA dentro del juego, al igual que las baterías secundarias, funcionan de manera automática controladas por la IA (Inteligencia Artificial). En el caso de las AA del modo RTS, uno podía seleccionar a uno de los múltiples escuadrones que atacaban a nuestro barco, dirigiendo toda la artillería hacia un escuadrón en específico, pero nunca la controlábamos, ya que el barco las disparaba de manera involuntaria hacia el grupo aéreo seleccionado. Por el contrario, a diferencia de las baterías principales o de los torpedos, donde los diferentes jugadores pueden manifestar sus habilidades entre sí durante una batalla, la interrelación entre los jugadores de la aviación del portaaviones y de otras clases, NO ES DIRECTA. En otras palabras, el jugador de portaaviones, a través de la aviación, se enfrenta a la defensa aérea dominada por la IA del barco enemigo y no al jugador en sí mismo. De esta manera, podemos observar que no hay un duelo de habilidades entre la aviación y la defensa aérea del barco de superficie. Por último, los jugadores solamente pueden modificar el equipamiento y las habilidades del comandante (además de los consumibles y la prioridad de sector) de su nave para potenciar la eficiencia de los montajes AA controladas por la IA; pero NUNCA podrá controlarlas manualmente. De esta manera, por ejemplo, el jugador de crucero no puede interactuar directamente con la aviación del jugador de portaaviones. Puesto que las AA estén controladas por un IA y no por el jugador de manera directa, probablemente, debe tener como objetivo “ahorrar preocupaciones” o “evitar mecánicas adicionales” para que el jugador de superficie priorice su interacción contra otro barco de superficie, mientras que la AA hace su trabajo de manera independiente; pero todo este último párrafo es una suposición mía y es totalmente discutible. INTERACCIÓN DD VS CV En mi opinión, la interacción entre jugadores más difícil de balancear. Desde la introducción de cruceros con radares de largo alcance, sumado al aumento de popularidad del portaaviones, el trabajo de los destructores se fue dificultando con el tiempo. En efecto, estos últimos se han convertido en la punta de la lanza de todo equipo debido a que, entre otras cosas, pueden capturar puntos estratégicos con mayor facilidad, proporcionar coberturas a los aliados mediante cortinas de humo, demorar avances agresivos de los enemigos mediante el lanzamiento efectivo de torpedos, y por último (y lo más importante), proporcionar inteligencia y revelar la posición enemiga gracias a sus buenos parámetros de ocultamiento. Como he mencionado anteriormente, en la sección de Influencias del portaaviones en una partida, la mecánica de reconocimiento proporcionada por la aviación del portaaviones es, sin duda alguna, el “mejor armamento” de un portaaviones. Esto se debe a que el impacto de esta mecánica del juego es imposible de bloquear, excepto con pantallas de humo, pero sólo de manera transitoria. Y sí, lo mencione como transitoria porque, por ejemplo, el ocultamiento del destructor mediante humo puede ser, luego del reconocimiento provisto por la aviación, vencido por la activación de un radar con alcance suficiente para hacer retroceder, e incluso, obligar al destructor a retirarse de la posición de su humo exponiéndolo, nuevamente, a la mecánica de reconocimiento de la aviación del portaaviones. Por tanto, la repetición de esta secuencia de mecánicas, disminuyen drásticamente la jugabilidad del destructor, limitándolo a tal punto que, su impacto en una partida es entre escaso a nulo. Entonces, lo que quiero demostrar con este ejemplo es que, en mi consideración, no es el daño directo ni la habilidad del jugador de la aviación del portaaviones la principal preocupación de un destructor, sino que, lo que entorpece la jugabilidad de esta clase es la mecánica de reconocimiento de los portaaviones. ¿NERFEOS AL CV REALMENTE SON CORRECTOS? (RNG Y DAÑO) En cuando a lo que respecta a la aviación del portaaviones, debido a la falta de adaptación por parte de los jugadores de las demás clases y por una AA controlada por una IA, no ha podido WG lograr, al día de la fecha, un balance eficiente del portaaviones. Por el contrario, siguen apareciendo nuevos barcos de esta clase, que tienen una jugabilidad bastante peculiar, son divertidos, pero independientemente de la habilidad de cada jugador de cv, siguen impactando de manera drástica en una partida. De esta manera, considero que, el agregar nuevos barcos de esta clase, sin balancear las otras mecánicas producen, por lo general, un odio y rechazo a los cv por parte de la comunidad de World Of Warships; además de una indefinida cantidad de reportes (créanme que lo sufro día a día). En consecuencia, debido a la incapacidad de balanceo de la clase, los portaaviones han sufrido muchos nerfeos a sus parámetros de daño y a su RNG (Randon Number Generator). Seguro se preguntarán ¿cómo te das cuenta de que se modifica el RNG?; simplemente, los juego todos los días y me doy cuenta inmediatamente de estas modificaciones que, quizás algunos, la pasan por desapercibida. Entonces, hoy en día nos encontramos con lo siguiente: Una línea alemana de portaaviones cuyas bombas son un dolor de cabeza (y hay que cruzar los dedos para hacer daño por ciudadela) porque su retícula aumento drásticamente de tamaño, provocando un aumento en la dispersión de estas. Una línea estadounidense que tiene el mismo problema para lograr impactos con bombas a los destructores. Su modificación en el RNG fue tal que, hoy en día, es casi imposible de golpear a un destructor. (y eso que todavía no mencione nada sobre la modificación propuesta por la PTS 0.10.5). Una línea británica que, si bien es divertida, hace años no destaca en nada, por lo cual no puede ser considera para el juego en competitivo. Salvo excepciones, un AUDACIOUS aliado es considerado, por la gran mayoría de los jugadores, como un “ya perdimos la partida”. A pesar de estas cuestiones, el problema no es el daño de la aviación ni la habilidad del jugador lo impacta sobre el juego, sino la falta de un sistema de mecánicas eficiente que, en el caso de cruceros y acorazados, les permita a los jugadores la posibilidad de decidir entre enfrentar manualmente a la aviación o disparar a los barcos de superficie que estén a su alrededor; y en el caso de los destructores, le permitan moverse con mayor tranquilidad en toda la extensión del mapa. En conclusión, a partir de lo todo lo expuesto, y considerándome que soy principalmente jugador de portaaviones, vengo a proponerles a los desarrolladores de este juego, posibles mecánicas que permitan, quizás, balancear estos impactos de la mejor manera, evitando destruir a las clases. Propuestas de nuevas mecánicas EXPONER AL PORTAAVIONES A LA BATALLA Mi primera propuesta es lograr que los portaaviones sean móviles y que no sean estáticos. De esta manera, como a cualquier otra clase, los cv también se exponen al daño directo de la flota enemiga. ¿Cómo podemos hacer esto?, de la siguiente manera: Limitar el rango operativo de la aviación respecto al barco; de esta manera, los portaaviones, al igual que el resto de las clases, tienen un rango máximo de alcance. Limitar el tiempo de control de la aviación por el jugador a través de un contador de combustible tiempo dependiente. Esto debe realizarse de manera proporcional a las diferentes características de los escuadrones y portaaviones; así, se limitaría a un cv estar todo el tiempo operando con el mismo escuadrón. La limitación del alcance de la aviación debe obligar a los portaaviones a moverse por el mapa para poder operar por sectores y no por la totalidad del mapa. Disminuir el ocultamiento del portaaviones de manera proporcionada para permitir el desplazamiento. Debe exponerlo al daño enemigo (no puede tener el ocultamiento de un destructor), pero tampoco tiene que ser visible desde todo del mapa. Reforzar la dispersión de batería secundarias en portaaviones. En la actualidad, por ejemplo, no tiene sentido utilizar un Manfred Von Richthofen a secundarias si no se puede defender efectivamente. Como el portaaviones se expondrá mucho más a la batalla mediante su desplazamiento continuo, las secundarias deben ser ajustadas para que el barco sea más autónomo. De esta manera, la exposición del portaaviones es balanceada por una build de secundarias, que estará disponible opcionalmente por el jugador de la clase a través de la distribución de puntos de comandante. NUEVO SISTEMA DE RECONOCIMIENTO AÉREO La segunda propuesta es optimizar la interacción de la mecánica de reconocimiento entre la aviación y el destructor. El objetivo es que el spot aéreo, trabaje de manera similar a un radar; de esta manera, cuando el límite de detección por aire de los destructores sea superado por la aviación, estos puedan ser descubiertos por el portaaviones de manera instantánea para sí mismo, pero revelados, tanto en el mini mapa y como en rango de visualización, a los enemigos luego de 7 segundos. Por un lado, el jugador de la aviación de los portaaviones podrá elegir si mantendrá posición dentro del límite de detección del destructor para aportar información a los aliados, o si continuará su camino para atacar a otras clases. Por otro lado, durante este periodo de latencia de 7 segundos, el destructor podrá adoptar acciones evasivas con mucha anticipación hasta que su revelación, hacia la flota enemiga, sea efectiva. En caso contrario, si el jugador de destructor decide activar sus montajes AA (que tiene que ser de menos a más), y la aviación enemiga se encuentra dentro de su rango de AA, su posición es revelada instantáneamente a la flota enemiga, omitiendo la latencia de 7 segundos. De esta manera, el jugador de destructores podrá elegir entre dos escenarios diferentes: Mantener sus AA apagadas, activando el periodo de latencia de 7 segundos, para adoptar acciones evasivas o; Activar sus AA de manera, omitiendo el periodo de latencia, para combatir a la aviación al mismo tiempo que su posición es revelada a la flota enemiga. NOTA: los montajes AA de los destructores deben activarse de manera proporcional, por ejemplo, en un período de 3 segundos desde el 50 al 100% del daño (sin incluir la prioridad del sector); compensando, de esta manera, el riesgo adoptado por la aviación del portaaviones. NOTA 2: los fighters deben tener la misma restricción que la aviación del portaaviones, en cuanto al sistema de reconocimiento. Para el resto de las clases, la mecánica de reconocimiento y el daño de las AA debe mantenerse tal cual se encuentra en la actualidad. Nuevo sistema de defensa antiaérea En este último ofrecimiento, quiero proponer un nuevo sistema de defensa antiaérea que le permita a todas las clases, decidir entre defenderse de manera manual contra un portaaviones o mantenerlo en modo automático, mediante la IA, para combatir a otros barcos de superficie. La posibilidad de diseñar un nuevo modo defensa AA es lograr que, tanto el jugador que controla barco de superficie como el que controla la aviación, puedan batallar entre sí de manera directa, exponiendo sus habilidades en cuestión. Este nuevo sistema deberá contar con las siguientes características: Un modo AA manual que le permita a todos los barcos controlar la dirección del disparo de sus baterías AA, facultando a los mismos la posibilidad de interactuar directamente contra la aviación. Un modo AA automático que, en caso de estar en un combate directo contra otro barco de superficie, les permita a todos los barcos amortiguar el ataque de la aviación o, al menos, dificultar este ataque. De esta manera, todas las clases podrán adoptar entre dos escenarios posibles para defenderse del ataque de la aviación. Por un lado, podrán protegerse de manera manual pero no podrán maniobrar las baterías principales; de esta manera, la eficiencia AA dependerá de las habilidades del jugador y no de la IA. Por otro lado, la utilización de la AA en modo automático tendrá como objetivo resguardar al jugador mientras controla las baterías principales; así, la eficiencia AA será mucho menor que el modo manual, y será controlado por la IA. En consecuencia, lo importante es que cada jugador tenga la libertad de elegir que quiere hacer; si defenderse de la aviación o atacar a otros barcos con sus baterías principales; pero lo importante es DARLE AL JUGADOR LA POSIBILIDAD DE ELEGIR entre las opciones que mas les sirva ante cada situación. Conclusión Para finalizar tanto palabrerío, los que me conocen saben que soy un jugador, principalmente de portaaviones, y debido a que es un juego al que le presto un buen tiempo de mi vida, y que, por lo general solo veo comentarios negativos, vengo con estas propuestas que pueden ser discutidas; a algunos les gustaran a otros no, pero la intención de proponer esta y es lo importante. Saludos a los miembros del clan ARMADA DEL SUR y a SUR_S
  4. Is there anywhere published HOW to skip bomb? I find they are very erratic, bounce OVER targets and nowhere do I see what the 3 bars of the aiming reticle represent Would appreciate advice on technique
  5. MaxMcKay

    10.3 patch

    A group of CV skippers from different clans, sat down to review the current state of CV's. We've discussed how overlapping flack has become to overwhelming and plane stripping. There is no way to even nip at the flanks of such a group as we can not turn out the rest of the squadron from the strike and just use the strike planes to do damage. You lose a entire group to do 6k damage now, AAA was supposed to be a deterrent NOT out right punishment for daring to attack a ship. Also it seems American and UK plane armor has become wet tissue paper for some of the most heavily armored and well built planes in the war. We understand the need for "balance", and thought we'd have struck a good chord just before this patch, where we did lose planes, and would lose entire wings of a type if we made serious mistakes and got punished for it. Now, we do everything right and we still are being punished harshly for it. This is forcing CV players into tactics that are causing friction with teams because of these issues. We are getting reported to lose karma as punishment because teams want us to do certain things, that because of these changes we just can't do anymore, if we want to have ANY planes left to effect the out come of the game. If we do, do these things that are being asked (IE:such as trying to finish off a ship near a group, try to get a spot on a destroyer for our team. among others , etc) we turn into floating flak barges again ala the RTS days. Or we get yelled at to keep trying to do things with 1 or two planes that we've managed to save up to try to spot with because we couldn't survive these patches flak to attack. I remember the RTS days, I remember how those days ended, how manual dropping was removed, how auto dropping only was allowed, how fighter strafing ran off so many CV players.(edited) Take the MVR for example, it started off as a CV that rewarded a high level of skill for it's dive bombers, but now RNG has reduced needing any skill due to it's effect on bomb release and where the bombs impact. The entire ship could be in the reticle and the bombs will figure a way to miss or hit something that will do no damage to the target. This is one example of the many drastic changes that've been made. That the regular player base don't see but the CV players know very well. It's easy to keep hating on CV's when that's what's making someone popular. CV's have started to become useless again, it seems like wg is intentionally drawing down the player base for the CV's. This is on top of the repeated lowering of damage, and other nerfs. They stack up after awhile. People notice this! Take the FDR of all CV's, it struggles now to get 2 strikes in for a launched strikes, you will lose 10 planes while trying this. That's 20min of waiting to get those planes back....for 1 min of work. No other ship has been treated to this extent. We get punished for attacking by an automated system that attacks our ability to do damage. Our ability to influence the game keeps getting it's ability to survive and operate changed, how it's targeting is changed and played with (with no notes or warning mind you). It's players harassed by people who don't like the CV's, with WG doing NOTHING about it. Now you've still got a dedicated group from those days spreading the same hate and the same message from those days doing the same things over and over. They're easy to see, they're using the same chants, the same msg's, the same drama. Us? All we are asking is please just balance this so that we can have fun as well. We aren't asking for everything, we are just asking to have fun.
  6. A group of CV skippers from different clans, sat down to review the current state of CV's. We've discussed how overlapping flack has become to overwhelming and plane stripping. There is no way to even nip at the flanks of such a group as we can not turn out the rest of the squadron from the strike and just use the strike planes to do damage. You lose a entire group to do 6k damage now, AAA was supposed to be a deterrent NOT out right punishment for daring to attack a ship. Also it seems American and UK plane armor has become wet tissue paper for some of the most heavily armored and well built planes in the war. We understand the need for "balance", and thought we'd have struck a good chord just before this patch, where we did lose planes, and would lose entire wings of a type if we made serious mistakes and got punished for it. Now, we do everything right and we still are being punished harshly for it. This is forcing CV players into tactics that are causing friction with teams because of these issues. We are getting reported to lose karma as punishment because teams want us to do certain things, that because of these changes we just can't do anymore, if we want to have ANY planes left to effect the out come of the game. If we do, do these things that are being asked (IE:such as trying to finish off a ship near a group, try to get a spot on a destroyer for our team. among others , etc) we turn into floating flak barges again ala the RTS days. Or we get yelled at to keep trying to do things with 1 or two planes that we've managed to save up to try to spot with because we couldn't survive these patches flak to attack. I remember the RTS days, I remember how those days ended, how manual dropping was removed, how auto dropping only was allowed, how fighter strafing ran off so many CV players.(edited) Take the MVR for example, it started off as a CV that rewarded a high level of skill for it's dive bombers, but now RNG has reduced needing any skill due to it's effect on bomb release and where the bombs impact. The entire ship could be in the reticle and the bombs will figure a way to miss or hit something that will do no damage to the target. This is one example of the many drastic changes that've been made. That the regular player base don't see but the CV players know very well. It's easy to keep hating on CV's when that's what's making someone popular. CV's have started to become useless again, it seems like wg is intentionally drawing down the player base for the CV's. This is on top of the repeated lowering of damage, and other nerfs. They stack up after awhile. People notice this! Take the FDR of all CV's, it struggles now to get 2 strikes in for a launched strikes, you will lose 10 planes while trying this. That's 20min of waiting to get those planes back....for 1 min of work. No other ship has been treated to this extent. We get punished for attacking by an automated system that attacks our ability to do damage. Our ability to influence the game keeps getting it's ability to survive and operate changed, how it's targeting is changed and played with (with no notes or warning mind you). It's players harassed by people who don't like the CV's, with WG doing NOTHING about it. Now you've still got a dedicated group from those days spreading the same hate and the same message from those days doing the same things over and over. They're easy to see, they're using the same chants, the same msg's, the same drama. Us? All we are asking is please just balance this so that we can have fun as well. We aren't asking for everything, we are just asking to have fun.
  7. Adding a visual to @vikingno2 thread here... Here I present a double CV match (REPLAY) in where I am playing DD... Everything was great, exciting, and everyone is having fun like before the current (0.8.0 patch) CV... At the beginning of the 8 min mark (Yes I am giving you timestamps but not much details)... The match just changes to the WOWS version of WOWP... From that case on... We were treated to the exact reason CVs are just adding to the relationship strain with the other surface ship... The replay... 20210504_221327_PJSD025-True-Kamikaze_41_Conquest.wowsreplay If I were to put my narrative on the situation... From the 8th min on down, it was worse then seeing two BBs looking like old grandpas throwing stones at each other's yard... This descriptor, best describes the narrative I live ATM compared to the start of the match, up to the 8 min mark. It complete halted every feel good emotion everyone felt... Oh I forgot the cherry on top... CV driver "entitlement." expressed by near the end of the game in chat... After I reviewed the replay, I have to disagree with you final analysis... Enjoy WG's creation boys... The concept is getting expanded to other surface ships... I still ask myself the basic human question allowed in the forums in my behalf.... WHY? Full Disclosure; I am not against the inclusion of CVs... I do believe they belong in the game in some way shape or form.. I disagree with the current manifestation, monstrosity creation of the CV class in the game currently... It is causing a rift in the relationship with other vessels in a given match.
  8. A_Horde_of_Sharks

    Oh no....

  9. This is a huge change. With the squadron consumable upgrade in slot 5, this will allow a patrol time of almost 2 min (112.5 s to be exact), and effectively instant interceptions for 105 s. The skill is now well worth the 4 points. The 10 point "full interceptor build" will be very strong in T8 and T10 competitive game modes, and possibly even in random games. Kudos to WG for making a viable alternative for those who seek a more defensive role for carriers.
  10. combatmufin

    Did Midway get nerfed?

    The bombs on midway do not feel as powerful in 10.2. Is it rng being mean to me or did midway get nerfed?
  11. dad003

    WHAT is AA ?

    What is AA ? apparantly it doesnt work they say ! MIne work so well ! https://youtu.be/GL47HtrmxUE
  12. Tyberious_Invader

    Graf zeppelin--is it playable?

    I've been trying to use my Graf Zeppelin as a training ship while I regrind my german CV's, and oh my god it is terrible. -My rocket planes will completely miss destroyers with a perfect side-on strike, and half the time I'll typically get one or two hits and do 1.5K -AP bombers get a cit maybe one in ten pens on a BB, but you need 10 strikes to get ten pens when my reticle has a BB worth of space on either side. I've tried low altitude and high altitude, I've tried side-on and nose-on. I've tried aiming at the deck and the side plate. I literally can't make these bombers feel useful except maybe as scouts since they're wicked fast. -Torpedo planes are still meh, but at least I can get some semi consistent damage out of them. The secondary armament is stellar but that's only 10% of the game, when you take out an overly ambitious DD or low health cruiser. Am I missing something? Is there something the planes (DB especially) can do that I'm missing? I remember this ship feeling a heck of a lot better last year and now it feels like a low skill low reward newb boat.
  13. Hello.I’m a relatively new player to World of Warships. I am enjoying the game, but the more I dive into it I’m hearing more and more complaints about the current state of the CVs in the game, their playstyle and the lack of a good counter. I have some thoughts that I would like to share. I am a relatively new player, but from a couple of sources, primarily RADM Jingles in a video entitled ‘State of Play’ (posted 27 Nov 2020), I am beginning to understand some of the frustrations of the player base. One of the primary concerns seems to be the lack of an effective counter to carrier aircraft and their vulnerability of all of the other classes of ships to a carrier’s strike capability. As an amateur student of naval history, primarily the struggle between the USN and IJN in the Pacific during World War 2, I believe I have a solution that would both add in a counter to the existing carrier’s ability to strike at will and be rooted in historical naval doctrine. By early 1945 the US Navy had begun using some of the carriers in the fast carrier task forces as primarily fleet defense. Carrying a larger-than-normal fighter complement, they would protect the fleet from the increasing numbers of kamikaze attacks by Japanese air forces, leaving the other carriers free to continue their strike missions. I propose adding this element into World of Warships. I would reclassify the existing carriers from just CVs to CVAs (Cruiser, Aviation, Attack). These would continue to provide a long-range striking arm against the enemy fleet. I propose adding a second carrier line to the tech tree and call them CVE (Cruiser, Aviation, Escort). This line would be primarily made up of carriers that have never been in the game, with maybe a few that were removed during the CV rework. These carriers would be defensive in nature, fielding squadrons of fighters to patrol over the friendly ships and engaging enemy aircraft as they approached. In addition, once submarines have been introduced to the game, these carriers can then be upgraded with ASW aircraft to assist the destroyers in keeping the back-line battleships and carriers safe from enemy submarine attack. This could also be an opportunity to bring back the previous style of carrier gameplay. I believe this might keep the existing set of people who are enjoying the new CV gameplay but also reward skilled play in the fleet defense role. This would also necessitate a reevaluation of how XP rewards are given to better reward the teamplay nature of the CVE role. A properly-played CVE (pre-submarine) would have no kills, no citadel hits, no penetrations, no captures, no fires set, no floods caused. How would you reward this player then? Increase the rewards from Spotting ribbons and Defended ribbons. This would also have the added benefit of rewarding the destroyer captains who do most of the spotting already, and possibly adding a ‘damage done because of my spotting’ reward as well. Give them XP for enemy aircraft killed and a bonus for squadrons eliminated. Give them a bonus at the end of the battle for the number of teammates alive. I’m sure there are other options. Once submarines are introduced, then these players can earn kills, but they should be weighted higher than others due to difficulty of localizing and killing enemy submarines. If that isn’t enough, the CVE player could possibly have an ability on their fighters called “AA Suppression” or something where they could strafe an enemy warship and temporarily reduce the amount of AA fire coming from that ship, clearing the way for the strike aircraft from the other carrier. For this to be balanced, AA fire from existing ships would need to be increased, or maybe a different method of calculation could be used where the AA suppressions incapacitates the small-caliber stuff (40mm and less) but leaves the higher caliber guns unaffected. For the US, I would propose using carriers such as the USS Sangamon, USS Bogue, USS St. Lo, USS Commencement Bay and topping out with the USS Independence light carrier. For the Imperial Japanese Navy, I’d suggest Taiyō, Kaiyō, Shin'yō, Chitose, and Zuihō . The Royal Navy could use HMS Argus, HMS Archer, HMS Dasher, HMS Pretoria Castle and HMS Majestic. For the Kriegsmarine it’s a little tougher, but the Jade class, German aircraft carrier I and II would be a good start. Considering all the other things the Germans designed during WW2 I’m sure there’s more plans for small carriers that 5 minutes of googling could find. Even if the ships used aren’t the ones I’ve suggested, I would suggest moving up the escort carrier development trees and ending at Tier X with one of the fine light carriers that the respective fleets developed towards the end of the war. In conclusion, I believe adding a new class of carrier to the game will help smooth the current imbalance between CVs and the rest of the surface fleet and help change up the meta and is beginning to ossify. I also believe that CVEs will provide a ready-made counter to overly aggressive submarine captains vs the always-charging destroyers.
  14. anonym_PS6817KZGfrj

    CV/No CV game modes

    What do you think of CV/No CV game mode?
  15. TopGear764

    Brawl CVs

    I really want to like this game but its getting harder. I like the idea of the brawl and its a great mode but I just had a game against a CV and never saw him once. Never capped. all I did was tank damage as much as possible and it didnt matter because CVs in this game right now are crapand ruin the game. How the hell is that fair. The brawl mode is good but needs to be refined aka remove CVs from it until they find a way to balance this crap. Honestly [edited] you wargaming [edited] you, [edited] you, [edited] you, and [edited] YOU PS. [edited] you
  16. Hi everyone, I've played a lot of games in Saipan in the last year or so and before the commander skill change this month the 1 point ability (now retitled Air Supremacy) used to give +2 aircraft on deck in addition to the -5% faster plane regeneration time. On many CVs the +2 aircraft isn't too noticeable, but on the Saipan and its clone Sanzang, those extra two aircraft are sorely missed. I think if the plane regeneration time is going to stay the same, both boats ought to have those two aircraft per air wing permanent. Playing in randoms is hard enough if you're up-tiered (but almost too easy against tier VI boats) and those extra two aircraft are extremely important to being viable in the later stages of a game. Thank for listening, GB
  17. For CV commander skills I'm using the following: #1: Air Supremacy (on most carriers) or Improved Engine Boost (the latter on Kaga) #2: Improved Engines (on most carriers) or Torpedo Bomber (the latter on Kaga) For #3 and #4 I consider the following skills to pick from: a) Aircraft Armor (-10% continuous AA damage reduction) b) Survivability Expert (+25 HP per ship tier) c) Enhanced Aircraft Armor (-25% damage reduction from AA shell explosions) So far I've always picked Aircraft Armor or Survivability Expert as skill #3 (open spoiler box for details on how I chose one of the two): As skill #4 I'd then pick Enhanced Aircraft Armor. However after reading a bit more on how flak works, my understanding is that the continuous damage portion is non-dodgeable, but the flak burst portion (which is buffed by Enhanced Aircraft Armor) is. That would indicate to me the following: Survivability Expert might be generally better than Aircraft Armor, because it also helps with a flak burst that the player fails to dodge. So perhaps this should be skill #3 in most (if not all) cases? Perhaps skill #4 should then be Aircraft Armor, since the damage from flak bursts is avoidable (how much would depend on player skills). And finally - assuming that the two points above are more or less correct, should Enhanced Aircraft Armor just be deferred to a later time or perhaps skipped altogether? It would be great, if more experienced CV players could provide some feedback on my thinking about those skills and provide corrections and additional thoughts where necessary.
  18. Guess it didn't take long for that to happen. Please be polite, no personal attacks etc.
  19. Their is no way for surface ships tier 3 to 7 to enjoy 4 cv matches... Please come play the na server and enjoy being screwed. 3 out of 4 tier 6 battles.... Tier 8 n tier 6 cv.... So much fun in an Italian tier 6 bb....
  20. Since I love the idea of a support carrier focused more on protecting my teammates than dealing damage, I tried a full interceptor build (all four of the support skills along with Squadron Consumables Mod 1) on Audacious in random battles during 10.0. I ended up switching back to a more standard (for me) damage mitigation and accuracy skills before the end of the free skill resets with 10.1. I've kept an American 19 point captain with the full interceptor build, however, for use in ranked and eventually clan battles. I made good use of this full interceptor captain in this last ranked season, and I saw on YouTube that @Ahskance (a much better CV player than me ) preferred this as well for ranked. With the smaller number of friendly ships to protect, you can make it work, and it is very powerful against FDRs, which are fairly common in competitive. What cripples the use of the full interceptor build in random is the -25% patrol times that is the penalty of the 4 point Enhanced Reaction skill. With the Squadron Consumables Mod 1 in slot 5, the longest you can keep the Interceptors on station is 67 seconds, the first ~7 seconds of which are warm up time, where they won't shoot anything down. Without the SCM1 in slot 5, you are limited to 45 seconds patrol time, with, again 7 seconds of that for warm up when you first call them to patrol. I've found that I'm more effective in random battles using SCM1 along with the 1 point Search and Destroy skill as well as the 2 point Patrol Group Leader skill at preventing strikes against my teammates due to the 90 s patrol times this allows. I've shot down more planes on average using this configuration as well, since the red CV is less likely to wait out the patrol fighters, and more willing to hazard sending his planes into the fighters for a strike in the hopes of recalling his surviving planes before my fighters shoot them down. Unless Wargaming wants the full interceptor/support CV to be limited to competitive modes, they need to eliminate or significantly reduce the -25% action time of the fighter/interceptor consumable that is attached to Enhanced Reactions. A 25% penalty is a high price to pay for any 4 point skill. Alternatively, they could leave ER as is and move it down to a 3 point skill, while moving Interceptors back up to the 4 point skill where it started and adding a buff that prolongs the patrol time if you select interceptors, effectively cancelling the -25% penalty on ER. ER is a great skill, and makes fighters work they way I always wanted them to, but the negatives outweigh the power of the skill except in ranked and (I'm assuming) clan battles.
  21. To begin, a brief summary of the current discourse regarding CV and AA balance: Surface Ship Player: CVs are OP. No matter how many planes we shoot down, they get a drop off. Our AA does nothing. CV Player: Are you kidding me? If I get uptiered at all, I get shredded. I'm launching half-strength squadrons two minutes in. Now, a brief history lesson: AA guns were not placed on ships to shoot down enemy aircraft. Fleet aircraft were the primary weapon against enemy aircraft. They were emplaced to protect the ship. If every aircraft of an enemy squadron survived, but they were unable to drop effectively due to the intensity of the AA fire, the primary mission of the gunners was a success (although the secondary mission, to attrite enemy men and materiel, would be a failure). Similar to covering fire during an infantry movement, ship AA was dependent upon the self-preservation instincts of the enemy pilot to be fully functional. This is (partially) why the kamikazes of WWII and the Exocets of the Falklands were such effective weapons: neither a missile nor a man bent on self-immolation has much of a penchant for survival and as such, the AA battery must destroy the incoming threat, as it cannot be deterred. But what does this have to do with my arcade game? Prior to update 8.0, the DFAA consumable affected incoming aircraft in the same way that intense AA fire would have historically. It dispersed the incoming attack, reducing the probability of a successful attack. 8.0 took the CV player off of the bridge and into the cockpit, and DFAA was likewise changed to a simple DPM boost. The surface Ship now had no option but to shoot down the entire incoming squadron, which now functioned like guided missiles, rather than planes. After all, it would make no sense if shots the player fired directly suddenly scattered just because their intended victim activated a consumable, would it? Enter Dazzle Under update 10.0, a mechanic has been introduced which temporary increases the dispersion of incoming fire when activated. DFAA can, and should, function the same way. Whether this is is accomplished by increasing the size of the aiming reticle, by increasing the dispersion of the ordinance dropped, or by shaking and buffeting the squadron (such that a CV player could learn to pilot through it, thus adding an element of skill to CV play), I will leave to the developers. This provides warship players with a more effective counterplay, without drastically increasing the numbers of aircraft lost during strikes, all while retrieving some of this historical accuracy the game has lost over the years.
  22. ST 0.9.12, balance changes and changes to test ships, removal of Somers. - Development blog BETA (worldofwarships.com) IV HŌSHŌ: The number of torpedo bombers in a squadron lowered from 6 to 5; The size of an attacking torpedo bomber flight lowered from 2 to 1; The number of torpedo bombers on the deck lowered from 9 to 8; Torpedo bombers restoration time increased from 59 to 71 s; Maximum torpedo damage increased from 5,400 to 5,800. IV LANGLEY: Maximum torpedo damage lowered from 4,233 to 3,500; The chance to cause flooding on torpedo hit reduced from 33% to 30%. ----------------------------------- I guess this is one way to push the seal clubbers out of T4 CV?
  23. Being a big fan of Jingles......
  24. Lose_dudes

    The story of Ark Royal

    This is for all of you who only know the superficial details. The life story of an old aircraft carrier. I was gonna do more about snoopy but changed my mind.
  25. warheart1992

    CV Rework, 2 years on.

    It's been two years since update 0.8.0, or as it's also known, just CV rework. Thought it would be interesting to take a look two years back down the memory lane. More specifically, the goals and motivations behind the rework as stated by WG itself, the huge change that was undertaken, and the outcome that I guess is still ongoing. I won't be including my own opinion on the rework that much; not here to pass judgement or offend anyone. Just showing a few milestones on how the rework came to be, up until 0.8.0 was released to the masses. Things started near fall of 2018; CVs were a major talking point in general, and there was some talk on reworking them into something more popular, player friendly, and not that disconnected from surface combat. Then this announcement comes in: https://thedailybounce.net/world-of-warships/world-of-warships-cv-rework-announced/ People were understandably wary, but at the same time optimistic, as RTS CVs were relatively unpopular as a class with huge gameplay impact, especially at the hands of skilled players. In addition tests were announced for players to see for themselves the way the revamped CVs worked. Of course, there were still concerns as is usual of new things anyway, so in December some more details were given to address some of them in a FAQ. https://www.facebook.com/notes/world-of-warships-development-blog/cv-rework-faq/2257558527903815/?comment_id=2257606844565650 Again however, most people were cautiously optimistic for something fresh and interesting. Of course there was a camp that hated CVs in every form, as well as veteran RTS CV players that considered the time they had devoted to learning the ins and outs of RTS CVs to be completely wasted by such a move. Still, the release date of 0.8.0 was fast approaching, with the patchnotes and set date being announced on January 29th: https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/update-080-takeoff/ https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/cv8-how-to-play/ I won't delve much into the details of what happened during that patch, will just link a video of a battle by Gaishu_Isshoku a week or so after the patch. ....And here we are, two years on.... Any similarity of the thought process behind current, proposed, or future reworks/content additions is entirely coincidental and completely unrelated.
×