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
    • 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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 70 results

  1. I'm going to skip ahead and get these out of the way: 1) The unlimited planes thing is fine, and mathematically justified (more on that later) 2) I can 100% see both that and why this rework will piss of some players but in the same breath can 100% see this is needed 3) It's way better than a great many players are making it out to be 4) It is not flawless So I've played quite a [edited] of the rework, both iterations of the the PTS and think I've found a coherent response to it: it's pretty good. I'd go so far as to say, this is PROBABLY the way CV's should have been handled from the start, which brings in how point 2) above works: the perception problems around this are IDENTICAL to IJN DD's worked (or rather didn't) and were altered post 'end' of Beta: something was released in a horridly overpowered, too influential, and frankly boring to both play and play against state, and is now/was reigned in and that pisses off the people that were entrenched in it. I'm gona spoil the future of the game for many people: Complains and desires to return to the old CV system will never go away, much the same way people still pine for the Torp Soup of yester-year. The fact is that the CV's in their current iteration are just too damn influential. I have a Midway, I have a Hak; they are just too influential. They can project a degree of power, especially the Hak, that no single ship can rightfully claim in a balanced game and can too readily delete random ships at will. And people who like that power, are going to be loath to give it up. Because let's be clear: it is NOT about gameplay. The RTT/RTS style gameplay of the current CV's is, without question, the *worst* example of RTT/RTS style gameplay ever made. I'm an RTS/RTT fanatic, and if World in Conflict and Age of Empires set the gold standards for those two genres, these are the WEAKEST possible examples of both. There is too limited of control over units, no variety of units, no real management of units (setting of formations, facings, ect), and the UI was abysmally boring to look at for extended time. Anyone who claims to hate the shift from the RTS/RTT gameplay to this... I suppose 'action' style? is lying through their teeth: if you 'liked' this 'RTS' style, you are wrong. Your opinion, tastes, and attitude are wrong. And more importantly, you are lying: the gameplay of the RTS/RTT style is so poor, somehow being WORSE than Tom Clancey's Endwar (by far the WORST competently (read: no bugs) made RTS ever) that you cannot like it in favor of something else. No, I reject the notion from anyone that this is based on a gameplay preference, this is based SOLELY on power projection and the fact this does in a LARGE ways reign it in. Oh you can still do massive damage in this rework, but much less readily so. It will take work, a lot of work, something the old system did not (setting up cross drops is not some mystical science: if you've played even 1 RTT with tactical assets it is no different from setting up converging strafing runs against heavy tanks, maybe easier since things like land geometry/enfilade/defilade do not factor in at sea). I foresee the slog from Tier 4 to be both worse and better under the rework, as essentially landing single torp hits or relying on paltry rocket hits to be taxing on some people's patience who expect to put up big, 12k, 20k strikes. And that's the reason many players will hate it: it's going to take away A LOT of potential heavy damage. And that's why it's similar to the IJN DD's: CV's were broken on release, and now fixed, in a manner of speaking at least, and as such, people will pine for the days when they could reliably delete cruisers and DD's with a 3 way cross drop that simply isn't possible anymore. So taking my points 1 by 1: 1) The unlimited planes thing is fine, and mathematically justified This is what actually motivated me to download the PTS this time as I wanted to see if this was really a problem or not. It is not. In fact, I find that they might actually be short changing some CV's potential loadouts. Let me explain: So I made a point for several matches to try to exhaust my planes as efficiently as possible. So with the Lexington, I would fly up my bombers first, go directly to the enemy (no boost) and ensure they all got shot down as fast as possible (driving towards flack bursts as much as I could). I found, consistently across several maps, it took ~1:30 to go from my CV to the last plane shot down. With upgrades, it takes 68 seconds for TB's to reload a plane, and 60 seconds for DB's. You get 9 planes per squad and 18 (with upgrade) on the deck ready to go to start. So that means that first 1:30, you reload 1.5 planes, and have lost 9. You immediately launch the second wave, you go 1:30 minutes, reload another 1.5 planes for a total of 3 now on the deck and have lost 18. It will now take 6:40 to reload the next 6 aircraft to fill out a squad of 9 again, then 9:00 for the next 8 to reload after those are destroyed, and the cycle repeats. That means over the course of a single match, you can launch a total of ~36 planes, but in reality, it's less, as the last 9 cannot be used in time to be meaningful (launching at the 19:35 mark in game and thus don't have the 1:30 to reach the enemy). So that means, in total, the TB possible to EVER launch from a Lexington is 27. The DB's have a similar situation, with the key difference being it takes 6:00 to refill the 9 squadron the first time, and then 8:00 after that, with JUST enough time to get the final sortie in for a total of 36 possible DB to ever be launched. Now the Lexington could carry, with permanent deck park, 90 aircraft max, with most sources using 70 for most operations. Total possible, for the ENTIRE 20 minute match, is 63 DB and TB. Leaving between 7 fighter (which is what the Rocket planes are after all) and 27, depending on how you view deck parks. This is a TOTALLY relealistic setup and thus the 'unlimited' planes thing is meaningless: You cannot launch ENOUGH planes in a 20 minute match greater than what was possible for one of these CV's to carry in reality (For tiers >6). The Midway is even more laughable, coming in about 80% of total possible launches per 20 minute match to what they actually had the carrying capacity for. And all this is true for the IJN Carriers at T8+ as well. So can we put this issue to bed? Because the reality does not out the actual problem with the unlimited planes given HOW WGing' has chosen to handle multiple squadrons. The reality is, a person even making the SEMBLENCE to keep some planes alive per run (or you know, actually do damage and thus have SOME planes to send back) could never exhaust a CV's plane supply, and trying to harp on THIS as a problem with the CV rework (when there are ACTUAL problems I'll go into later) is disingenuous at best, bold faced lying at worst. 2) I can 100% see both that and why this rework will piss of some players but in the same breath can 100% see this is needed As I said above, I can see why people who were farming HUGE damage counts will hate this new style, and likewise that they will NEVER accept this downgrade. I can also say it was 100% needed; CV's were neither fun to play against (important) nor that fun to play extended. And I choose those words carefully: fun to play. Oh you may enjoy the knowledge of doing HUGE damage or deleting enemy ships, but the ACTUAL interaction was very boring; and that's a reasonably objective appraisal. Game's are an interactive media, and the basicmost measure of interactivity is player control input: i.e. clicks/keystrokes. And the RTS/RTT CV Gameplay is VERY low impact in number of clicks/keystrokes at any given time. That's not true with the rework at all: it's VERY interactive heavy. Again, I'm talking purely mechanics, not if it's FUN to watch or do, just that you are DOING a lot at any given point of time. Even BB's, which spend the majority of their time waiting for guns to reload, are always doing something; be it looking for new targets, maneuvering, map awareness, paying attention to angles, ect. CV's had long stretches of nothing and this rework largely eliminates that downtime. That's important and needed. Also, this is probably the way they SHOULD have been from the start. And that's where the friction will come. But it is probably the only way you could make CV play viable in what amounts to a gunnery duel game. Really the only place RTT/RTS style gameplay would have worked would have been in a segregated CV only mode (which I still think should be, overall, what they do, as it would be both more interesting and easier to balance and WAY more indicative of what CV's role in naval battles were). But failing that, this is a good way to emphasis the 'zerg rush' attitude that CV warfare held and I am looking forward to both ends of it's combat. 3) It's way better than a great many players are making it out to be I am increasingly of the mind that many players who frequent these forums actually hate WoWs, and I get it; it's not the version of this game I wanted either. I wanted basically Battlestations Pacific but a little bit more fluid and realistic, but while also Single Player and that is NOT this game. I get it, but I wouldn't say I HATE this interpretation of the concept. But at some point, it starts to sink in a great many of you do, DO hate this game because it seems if ANY change happens to your class of choice, either directly or indirectly, you scream bloody murder. Baltimore was my favorite ship in the game when it was at T9 and complimented my playstyle perfectly. But it is a SHELL of what it once was and I refuse to play it anymore. I didn't scream murder over it, nor quit in a huff. I moved on to another ship that fits my style. Why on earth many of you cannot comprehend and own this idea is beyond me. If CV's new playstyle isn't your thing? Okay, I get that. I don't agree with it, but no one says you have to LIKE a change. But to decide the entire game is not worth it on that basis is just plain wrong as, as mentioned, that gameplay was the WORST example of it's type *ever* made. So if you really are only in it for the RTT/RTS gameplay, games like Age of Empires or Sins of the Solar Empire or World in Conflict will blow your [edited]mind in just how much better they are, but, again, I suspect those voicing objections along those lines are outright LYING. 4) It is not flawless So overall I think it's really good. It's way more interesting than the old CV gameplay was, and I suspect will be MUCH easier to balance (although how they will balance premiums in a way that doesn't make them WORTHLESS or overpowered or skin jobs, is beyond me). But there are a few key things I do not like at all and would like Wargaming to address. 1) Which planes are used. This is the big one. So the stats for these planes are BASICALLY 100% made up insofar as balance is concerned. Realistically, the F4U wasn't better than the F6F, just different. It definitely wasn't more SURVIVABLE that's for sure. So in picking which planes go on which ship you guys have 100% leway to make it up as you go... so why have you relegate important/interesting planes to worthless positions? The TBF Avenger, F6F, and most glaringly SBD Dauntless are all relegated to second class status by being the intro, T7 planes on the Lexington, meaning no one will ever play them once they unlock the upgrades. And for some reason, you left them off the Ranger and instead went with the Pre-war models. Now forgetting the historical dissonance that the Lexington never carried Helldivers or F4U's (since the problems associated with Carrier landings were not solved before the Lexington was sunk), you are basically ignoring and removing the most interesting planes from the airwar. You chose to make them T7, and as mentioned, the stats are largely made up (WHICH IS FINE), so why not let them be the T8 and put the endwar planes on the T10? Again, since the stats are made up, it's about the appearance, and not being able to fly these planes is a big loss. And I cannot help but expect that the T8 Premiums WILL have these planes, but with some gimmick that makes a T7 plane usable on a T8 hull. And to me, that is JUST not a good way to use the assets. If I were you, I'd take a good look at what planes people would WANT to fly, and make sure those are the top models at appropriate tiers. 2) New Captain Skills suck Too many of them are centered on increasing/increasing efficiency of the boost. Personally, I don't care much for the boost. It's much like the 33 knots on the Iowa, it's just fast enough to get you into more trouble than it gets you out of. I'd much rather have skills that effect survivability, maneuverability, and redicle size/angle. But iirc, 4? or 5 of the Captain skills all involve the speed of the plane and that's just not what's important here. Also, give AFT the range increase to AA again. Oh AA is much more effective than I think a great many people thing it is from the first PTS, but it's reasonably predictable now and tbh I cannot see a reason for any non-DD to take AFT at this point. 3) I get why you don't want players to control the CV, but you gotta give them a break So I get the REAL reason you don't want players to have to switch between the CV and planes: it's not multitasking (you could just have the planes orbit in place when you switch back to control), but that you DO want it to be helpless TO a degree when someone manages to get close. And I agree, to a degree, that it should be. CV's were not surface combatants after all, not really. But that said, they should at least have SOME recourse when ambushed and I think the fairest thing would be to give them baked in MSA levels of dispersion on their secondaries and a 1.5 buff to range over the default for individual gun pieces (so if the range by default is 5.0 km on the secondary when mount on say a CA or BB, it's default is 7.5 on the CV). This way you're secondaries can keep an approaching enemy busy for a bit while you reorient your planes for the appropriate counter to defend yourself. 4) The AA 'zone' is a bad way of implementing that As it stands, I see no reason to ever focus AA on one side of my ship or another. Given that attack runs always draw the squad to the OTHER side of the ship, that means by definition that half my AA every run is taking a debuff. It makes no sense to not just keep it at overall 100%. As such, and I see what you're going for with it and appreciate it, I think you should alter how that works. Make it only take 5 seconds to switch sides, but AA guns are silent while this is going on. This way there's motivation to try to follow the run of attacks but a penalty for doing so if timed poorly (especially for putting up flack curtains). Other than that, I love the new AA and especially how it looks although I think it's time to animate secondary DP guns firing AA. Take the month to do it, as while a minor detail, it's very immersion breaking at the moment.
  2. MrConway just confirmed on WoWs stream that there will be a reset of captain skills.
  3. There's been a rather alarming influx of players in the game who get from noob to high tier and learn absolutely nothing along the way. It's to the point that winning a game is becoming more of a prize for beating your head against a wall enough times than the norm for many players. I myself am so frustrated that I've got more chat bans than a conservative on twitter. I'm hoping there are still enough players left who give a crapabout their game and want to see it be fun and enjoyable again. I'd like to offer to help new players who are just learning and old players who need to learn new game mechanics. I primarily play battleships, and will be happy to help anyone who feels stuck or who wants to improve. I have a bit of experience in cruisers and destroyers as well, but I'm hoping there will be more qualified players to assist in those areas, along with the new carrier gameplay when it hits the live servers. Ideally I'd like to do this in-game, because i feel hands on experience is the best way to learn, but if you've been playing for a bit and just need a few tips or general help, I'm happy to answer. To be clear, i don't want this to be just another passive help thread with outdated videos being posted. I really want this to help people, to answer their specific questions and to provide real, hands on help. Also, please don't shoot down each others answers. What works for someone may not necessarily work for someone else, and I'd like everyone to share what they've learned that makes them successful in-game.
  4. With the rework looming ever closer, I thought it would be fun to dash any hopes of the rework actually improving the game for whomever reads this. It's not because it doesn't address a few problems with the old, or because it introduces new problems that the old didn't have. It's because Carrier gameplay is the complete antithesis of how most ships work in the game, and no matter how you try to rework them it will never change. What makes them so unfit to be in a game based on ships in an era where their dominance was most prevalent? First lets discuss why the old CVs do not fit. As a note, this is mostly addressing random and ranked battles, and not the higher skill matches of clan battles/tournaments. In those, CVs are actually a good fit, even though it's only if every ship is either specialized for AA or suffering the consequences. Old CVs are an RTS without the busywork of base building etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with RTS gameplay, it can be very fun and it pushes your awareness and reflexes to the limit. However the RTS of CV is a complete failure in WoWs for 3 reasons. A highly reactive, awareness driven and reflexive gameplay does not mesh well with the slower, methodical and long term positional gameplay of the rest of the game. There is no skill based matchmaking (random/ranked) that is pivotal to RTS gameplay. This creates harsh games where one CV player is completely outclassed by another, and essentially locked down from having any real effect on the battle while the other goes on a rampage. The presence of a CV, and it's strength, reduces a lot of options other classes have, such as concealment, flanking, being aggressive etc. A CV usually forces a much more campy, reserved game along with the moans and groans of the players subject to it whether spoken or unspoken. And there really is no debate that old CV is a complete failure in the game. WG struggled trying to balance a class that was meant to have power based on it's real world era effect, but not so powerful that it ruined the experience for other players. Absolute fail on all fronts, from removed manual drops from low tier and stupidly strong high tier with strafes allowing good cvs to dominate weak ones, with some AP bombs that do well in defensive fire because F players. So, what will the rework change? Essentially 3 things. It removes most of the effect of cv vs cv, at least in terms of fighters. There is still some potential with cv sniping maybe. It reduces the awareness and reflexes needed to play, and it will increase the player count because it will be much easier, and it is. Unfortunately this is actually bad for the game because of aforementioned problems. You will still get that sinking feeling of seeing planes pop up on your viewfinder and know that there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop the first strike, and maybe not even 2. They will still force campy games simply because they exist, and low tier will still be hamstrung trash in how ineffectual you can be. And the best part is the more accessible gameplay will result in more games being subject to the forced campy playstyle by a ship with inexhaustible resources in which the only way to fight back is to hopefully not be the one he decides to pick on. Because make no mistake, if that CV wants you dead you are dead. With so many players jumping into their cvs in the hopes to cash in on the fxp when the patch hits, it's always amusing to see a normal player get picked on, deleted or just have their game experience ruined by that cv and to say "oh man I sure can't wait for the rework". Nothing is more sad than the naivete of that comment, because nothing will get better. Your experience in other ships will in fact worsen to the increased population, much like it is now before the patch hits. That is why the rework will fail, not because of the potential for players to enjoy the new gameplay of carriers, but because of the negative impact cvs will have on other ships, always, simply by existing in any form. They are a detriment to the balance of the 3 class triangle. This will be a dark and annoying quarter of 2019 for ships, born of WGs refusal to cut their losses and instead devote a year or more of resources to implement a new gameplay style that does not and can not address the fundamental problem that is a gameplay style of power with impunity results in bad experiences. I remember long ago when someone let us guess what the rework could possibly be, all the while getting a no/not even close to all our guesses. They weren't kidding, nobody could see this coming, because now instead of one cv in the game having the ability to hit whoever while he holds the other cvs hands behind his back, now both cvs are free of eachother and can lord over everything in a match. instead of a fighter counter, a damage race. No bad positioning mistakes to be had like with other classes, that have to take a lot of time to re position in hopes to be effective. Just turn a few times and drop away. Whats that, the last 2 strikes of your group got shot down? That's fine, just fire up another and be right back there within 30-40 seconds. Do yourself a favor. Take a break from WoWs. Find another game to idle your time with while WG tries desperately to rebalance new cv gameplay in a live server, and toss out all their old 'progress' of 3 years out the window. Or play cv yourself. YOU DO NOT want to be a ship in the rework, even with AA, because it probably wont stop you from being hit at least once, and if you're a DD just exit straight to port. Remember, after a cv strikes it has to turn around and wait for the timer to hit again. Thats about a time sink of 15-25 seconds. If you kill the rest of the planes after that first strike instead, that's still only 30-40 till the next full squad. Sure it will be a different type, but i'm sure it will be completely fine getting constantly harassed until you are dead with fires/floods etc. A rollercoaster of fun. Anyway, that was long winded, but the effect of this rework is important to talk about. I for one will spend my time playing another game or just playing CV, because at least if I am the CV I can't have my game ruined by one. See you at the apocalypse.
  5. There coming in 3 weeks and we need to talk tactics instead of complain (and yes I have done more than my share!) When fighting strike Lex if the team was packed tight then planes cpuld never get through. That might be the best thing here. Catapult fighter will be more useful than ever because there are no fighters to get rid of then. Also island camping will no longer work! If you sit you die. So if you play a ship stoped behind and island you should start practacinf a new shoot and scoot style. Even BB that sit still and go back and forth are in big trouble. Maybe Hendry and Kaba is the best because you cant catch it! What are other ideas or play stokes that will work? And again please no haters or CV cancer stuff. That is not what this question is about. We need to disscuse tactics not hate.
  6. Are tasks such as this still feasible with the carrier rework? I'm genuinely curious and having only played a little bit of Langley on the PTS this weekend, I've no real idea if tier 10 carriers can shoot down 250 planes rather easily or if it will take months, and even years to grind them out. If such tasks do require changes, when can we expect to see them implemented? Thanks.
  7. TheHunter2_EAD

    Junyo if is possible?

    Awhile back a few months I finish model IJN cv name Junyo. It was Kashiwara Maru( an ocean line) then converted into a Shokaku class. The Bridge same one on Taiho & Hakuryu. The next part I'm reading off the Instruction: It first saw Action in MI Operation in June 1942 in the attacks in Dutch Harbor on the 3rd & 5th, early October saw action in Solomon's, Guadalcanal Attacks, the battle of the South Sea, & 3rd battle of the Solomon's ( 9th of Nov.). It was damage near Okinoshima Island on Nov. 5th 1944 by US submarine then towed back to Kure by IJN cruiser Tone. The last battle it became Flagship of the 2nd IJN air fleet in the Battle off Mariana between 19th & 20th of June after that it receive 2 direct hits at funnel then torpedoed while in transportation to Brunei on 9th of Dec. sent to be repaired at Sasebo for the last time. The repairs started in March of 1945 then suspended in April of 1945 and then scrapped in 1947. Specifications for the Junyo: Trail Displacement: 27,555 tons Waterline length: 215.3 m Maximum breadth: 26.70 m Maximum speed: 25.5 knots Number of planes carried: 48 regular & 5 auxiliary Flight Deck: 210.3 m in length & 27.3 in width Date of Completion: May 3rd 1942 at Mitsubishi Nagasaki Dockyard Modernization: 8/1944 12 x 1 - 25/60 96-shiki & 6 x 28 - 120 AA rockets My option a well rounded tier 8 CV. Probably same tier aircraft as Enterprise. It maybe good can date for a premium ship. Let's see WG going to do?
  8. CV's had been an endangered species. They had largely disappeared from the live server. I could play more than half my battles without a CV and sometimes closer to 4 out 5 battles. This meant that for some time now, CV's have been nothing more than an occasional irritant. Many of us have enjoyed the lack of CV's. I personally have relished it. It also shows that CV's aren't needed for any real reason in this game. However, CV's are back with a vengeance. The fact that players are grinding CV's prior to the rework has brought them flooding back in their admittedly 'less than perfect' state. So we have to deal with the 'old' CV's for two weeks, and then we get to deal with the 'new' CV balancing test on the live server after that. For me, it's already having a negative experience on my game. I don't like CV's as they currently play and I am hoping that the new rework will make them tolerable. Honestly I think testing them on the live server will take longer than expected and the game play will not improve to a level that will make people like me happy. Some issues coming up: New players aren't going to have any idea what's really going on Many regular players who don't keep up with all the 'latest' news are going to be surprised when the rework hits Game play is going to be changing drastically on the live server with each adjustment Some people have already decided to take a few weeks or months off Some of us are happy without CV's and are going to resist the rework on any level Sounds like fun right?
  9. I am really curious as to the popularity of this opinion among the playerbase. I think I am quite thorough and this poll covers every possible opinion on the subject. If you support other changes to matchmaking and CVs, leave a comment below.
  10. Hipper's too feisty and I'm at a loss of description for Aurora. ...not that all this would matter 'cos much of it'll become unused when CV rework hits, anyway...
  11. BloodDragon41

    Y el Graf Zeppelin cuando?

    Buenas.... A pesar de que lo veo poco, en algunas partidas logro ver el mitico cv aleman Graf Zeppelin, se que en el pasado tuvo sus problemas y fue retirado de la tienda premium y que ha estado en proceso de rework constante. Mi consulta es con la nueva actualización ¿pondran el Graf Zeppelin? Y de no ser asi ¿alguien tiene noticias sobre los avances o de cuando volvera? Gracias.
  12. I'm not a CV player, but looking at what is happening right now with this CV rework and everyone afraid of what Will happen with the AA being useless. Why not use the odd tier CV as fighters only? We could have matches with two CV per side, being one strike, even tier, and the other AS, odd tier. They could be used to fight the enemy planes, protect the fleet, spot DD, even Smoke up an área. I know many people would complain about It not being Fun, but WG could introduce at least a hability to strafe ships with Machine Guns, It wouldnt be much damage, but at least could damage DD. What u guys think? I see Saipan being Very strong on this function.
  13. warheart1992

    CV Rework FAQ (Dev Blog)

    And a plain text version for anyone who can't see the FB post.
  14. Lets face it we need some variety. Carriers: The entire UK Line which they are working on. The Graf Zepplin rebalancing. Italian Carriers: Aquila: Guessing around T VII (51 planes 30 Knots) planes are on the low side for T VII but it has a lot of AA and comparable speed to other CVs. Sparviero: T V? (20 knots 25-34 planes) compares well to Bogue/Zuiho French Carrier: Bearn: T V - VI : . (21.5 knots 35-40 planes. Oh and Torp Tubes?) It would be nice to have the Sparviero and Bearn go at it in Tier V. Joffre: T VI: (33 knots 40 planes. Comparable AA to Tier) German Carrier: Wesser: (Seydlitz refit) T VI: (32 knots 20 planes but of an advanced tier [VII Bf 109 and Ju 87] to make up for low numbers. Another with Torp Tubes lol.) When I did this list I was doing it for Carriers who didn't have a line already or one coming. This list is by far not complete there are a ton of other Japanese Carriers and other Carriers for UK and US too.
  15. Been playing UF a couple of times tonight. 2 with the Ranger and 1 with the New Orleans. One CV game seems to click nicely. The other 2 not so much as in abject defeat. Questions to the wise out there. How to keep my Ranger planes from getting wiped out by theirs. Also of course trying to get after the enemy CV. Any other wisdom too from those who are playing the current round. Thanks
  16. 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.
  17. Poisonous_Lily

    OLD but GOLD

    Now I know that everyone probably saw this video atleast once. And during the video there is a PUNK version of Taiho starring the kitty purfurst as a captain. @Radar_X or @Gneisenau013 can you suggest WG central that is in St. Peter to make this Taiho camo for real so we can have it in-game port ( like Lex Ovechkin camo).
  18. jags_domain

    Add altitude to cv

    WG there is no time line for the CV rework. Everyone just wants it done right. Please add altitude to the game play. The DB just do not work. They go up a tiny bit then go down. Its just not emerisive. If you could make them go up to 10k at least that would make it so much better. Also give us fighter control. I know you want it to focus of bombing but what if I want to fly around and shoot down planes? You might not think its fun but some of us do. I know this rework is for consol and mobile. But if your going to do it please go all the way and do it right! Also do an entire tech tree!
  19. New_Horizontal

    CV rework should be canceled

    This is quite a while since my last comments on this forum, and yes, this is all about current carrier rework. After I watched a couple of videos about new CV rework and a lot of discussion with my friends who play the reworked version (yes, I cannot get into CV test due to problem with my PC lately and IRL stuff.). I find it is boring and horrible to play with due to how design was, even my friend told me they will quit CV altogether if this reworked is going to be implemented. The reasons why this is horrible idea > RTS gameplay is vastly different from normal gameplay other class has to offer, removing this feature mean removing a variety of game and thus dumbing down a game which current CV rework doing. Speaking of RTS, People hates RTS gameplay due to micro/macromanagements and rather see this gone than adapt to it. (I know wows has one of the worst RTS control, but that's because how poorly optimized and engine that not support RTS handling) > CV is not a completely OP nor broken class, but heavy MM reliance due to how stupid AA/Planes interaction works. If you are thrown into heavy AA MM you might as well quit and play another game because your effect in game was vastly dismissed by AA an on other way around that CV just dominating. The rework doesn't address this and will lead to another mess after rework namely "AA and planes" and "RNG" > CV is hard to play well and require player to have a lot of practice and perfect it unlike other class, the skill that CV player gathered and mastered for almost 3 years will be wasted. If new CV came out, they will have to relearn everything and feel disgusted because they wasted time for nothing. It is slapping a CV player in the face with drastic changes that will break their will to trust WG and thus no longer supporting nor playing WG title games. > Most player that support new CV gameplay mostly want this rework just for sake of getting rid of CV rather than really wanted to play the class, certain players simply want CV removed altogether as many previous CV threads has shown. Why would they want CV to be reworked if not for make sure CV lose their charm and hope for elimination for good? > New gameplay of CV encourage sniping and spamming planes against surface ships which is frustrating for targeted ships if they keep getting attacked and rely on their AA and with no fighter control, Defend a sniping is virtually impossible. Frustrating to know that you cannot stop CV sniping with new rework. > Catering less skilled playerbase will kill the game in the long run because the one who really care about the game is skilled one since they spent a lot of time and money into this game and even bother to get good at it. most Good players can deal with CV problem but not the lesser ones And many more that I could include into this topics but these are primary reasons And … I didn't make a topics without an alternative solutions, so how the rework should be. > Rework UI: CV UI currently is arguably one of the worst UI for RTS gameplay and not even good for normal gameplay due to how buggy it is. I know this will take time but just do it for the better for all gameplays not just CV. > AA reworks should remove RNG and use planes health vs AA DPS directly: AA spotting ships for whole game is not fun I know. Why not just make AA not RNG dependent and allow low AA ships to be able to counter the planes, also AA arc should be included in consideration of AA VS plane HP because current system just dumb that you can use starboard side AA to shoot incoming planes that was on port side. > Educating people (This is hardest part btw) you cannot get good at CV if you have bad CV understanding: CV take different approach of gameplay thus an intensive CV guide is needed by setting a guide as barrier before first game in CV which all players must learn basics of how to CV, how to use planes, how to launch, how to do manual attack, how to strafe, etc. this can be done with scenarios mode that set specially for CV tutorial and set reward as you completed the tutorials (20 - 30 minutes should not be too much for you to learn) > Manual attack should be available as soon as you play first game in CV: people can't learn CV if you cut off vital tools to use > Adjust squadron between USN/IJN CV to balance out each other to make both side fair to fight down to individual understanding of CV > rework graf zeppeling: this thing is utterly overpowered and broken at the same time, a lot of nerf need to be done because this is how "let average playerbase balance" is worst idea you could achieve > disable different tier division since this is main reasons for exploit "anchoring division" There are a lot more that I could add up and make a conclusion. I know Wargaming will not stop this based on feedback yet I want wargaming to reconsider another way to rebalancing CV instead of total rework because this was a net loss if wargaming let this pass.
  20. After the CV rework is complete I am expecting to see a lot of planes in the air. Just like DD's, the CV's prime target will be BB's. (DD's are to nimble and CA have too good AA) This means in order for your high value BB's to survive they will need a cruiser to follow them close everywhere they go. And as we know a BB will not come closer that 20km to any enemy ship, which is outside the range of cruiser guns. So, that means the new role of cruisers will be to shoot down planes and protect against DD's. In this new role, what will become the most popular cruisers for say tier 7 and 10? Got to think Atlanta is on that list. or Do you think cruisers will continue to operate the way they do now and leave BB's helpless against planes and destroyers? Appreciate your thoughts.
  21. kukailimoku

    AA to strong for CV play?

    Hello all, An opinion question: At what tier do we think the Ack-Ack of the ships become too high for effective (i.e. fun) play of carrier strike aircraft? A different way to ask the same question: What AA value of ships is the cut-off between pretty fun to torp the enemy and dammit-all-my-planes-get-shot-down-before-the-drop-point ? Already in my VI Ryujo I'm finding matches where I find many ships are likely to shot down most of my planes before I can release ordnance. In more then a few MMs I'll find that I can really only realistically hope to attack a couple/three CAs or CLs - anything else is likely to shot the kr@p outta my planes. (of course DDs aren't a AA threat and I guess I could chase those around with my planes, but its also stupidly hard to get mucho hits on those, as well as a "waste" of CV power to target DDs). So I'm asking this question of the community's opinion because I'm at the decision point on whether or not to buy CVs above VI. Seems like a lot of grinding/credits wasted on something that might only be intense frustration as I watch two sorties of my planes evaporate. Are higher tier planes able to better absorb (in proportion!) the higher tier ack-ack? Seems to me that ack-ack increase each tier is pulling out ahead in front of planes' robustness. Your thoughts???
  22. Those of you who played the recent CV test, surely saw that Ranger was a T6 instead of the usual T7. I read somewhere on the forum that the CV rework would also include re-balancing of ships. My theory is that they plan to do away with Bogue, "demote" Independence, Ranger and Lexington down one notch and then introduce Yorktown as the new T8. Thus: IV LANGLEY V INDEPENDENCE VI RANGER VII LEXINGTON VIII YORKTOWN IX ESSEX X MIDWAY And why stop there? IV HŌSHŌ V RYŪJŌ VI HIRYŪ VII AKAGI VIII SHŌKAKU IX TAIHŌ X HAKURYŪ I did my research of the real life specs of Akagi and Hiryu, and they are nearly identical, save for Hiryu's higher speed. My reason for placing Akagi in T7 (she was T8 during the game Alpha stage) is that, like Lexington, she was a converted battlecruiser. Also, Akagi on Tier 7 and Yorktown on Tier 8 match their premium sisters, Kaga and Enterprise, respectively. As for Wasp and Shinano, they could be released as Premiums, either for pay or for XP. So, what do you think? Plausible or laughable? ADDENDUM: What is the optimal color for all of this forum's modes? (Classic/White/Dark/Space)
  23. In all the old pictures of USS Langley when she was a full CV rather than a collier or a seaplane tender, I always see that she didn't have an island or a control tower, just a flight deck. A quick Google search showed me that her bridge was located underneath the flight deck, and with all the steel beams and other structural bits that can be seen, it must have made navigating the ship and managing her planes extremely difficult, particularly since she was built well before radar was a thing. I wonder if there was any practical reason for why the USN did this, aside from just the fact that she was the first CV they ever had and they were likely sorting out a lot of bugs with her. Obviously this was something they never did again, since Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, and every other American CV built afterwards all had island bridges and control towers.
  24. CVs need work, we all need know this and many ideas have been floated on how to do it. Some good and some bad. Below are some of the best I think. Carrier Captain skills. Carrier planes Health. Fighter Strafe. Alt-attacks Thanks for reading and I'm looking forward to a discussion. (I put everything in spoilers because block quoting annoys me, sorry for the inconvenience.)
  25. I found out in this late night Random. https://replayswows.com/replay/34176#stats As a DD I was just along for the ride.
×