Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cvs'.



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 15 results

  1. Hi Watching the videos of the CV rework and of course beta testers critiques and comments I am not sure the community at large is really aware of what is going on and while I do understand this is work in progress it has sparked in me some serious reservations and concerns about where the rework is going. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP3VZhRZZgk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPdF5wDaisU The Good CVs do need to be reworked so this is a step in the right direction and the UI is also going in the right direction and from what I can see it’s looking great. The Bad After watching the 2 videos and the comments and I can understand why the game play gets boring really fast. There is far less strategy or tactical thinking needed. The play seems to have been dumbed down so much that it almost seems to be designed for a 5 year old and this may drive some current CV players away from CVs but if WG is not careful here players may go play warships with another company. -CV players cannot control their ship -CV players can only control 1 squadron and the really ugly part… -CV players cannot control fighters The Ugly The rework as based on the videos has a few ugly aspects some of which are COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE: àUnlimited Aircraft: Whoever came up with this idea needs to be fired. This alone destroys the entire purpose of the CV rework. This will make CV’s so OP in fact more OP then they are now. Players will quickly figure out how to spot DDs for eternity. I have! Have you? Watch the videos and it’s easy to see that life for DDs will be more miserable then it is now. àMultiple Attack Runs: This will kill the game. A single squadron can now make 3-4 attack runs in A ROW! This seriously messes up BBs and CAs by making them so vulnerable to the point that CVs will dominate any battle more than they do now. By watching the video any one with half a brain can figure out how to cause multiple flood damage on all ships. But not only that. Does WG intend to rework the flood damage model for just torpedo planes or ship torpedoes as well? àNo fighter Squadrons Control & No Air-cover: So not only do CV players get unlimited planes but they can’t control fighter squadrons. Which means if you find yourself being attacked in your ship by dive/torpedo bombers well sorry mate you will get no help from your CV because they can’t. CVs can only get fighter cover for their planes. What WG needs to consider Get rid of multiple attack runs Get rid of unlimited planes Multiple squadron control at least 2 Introduce fighter control CV players need to control their CV A MORE ECONOMICAL FIX Get rid of large RTS map but instead give CV players a panoramic view of the battlefield either in 2nd or 3rd person view and get rid of the current top down 3D view. Implement the 1st person view in the rework only in attack mode and when a squadron gets within a certain distance of a designated target the system will auto transfer the CV player to a first person view where they now control the squadron. Like this you get all the benefits of the CV rework without really changing the game play that much.
  2. I wasn’t here in the beta and I had found out it was a petition that added this is the first place due to RNG of T7 fighters completely owning T8-9 fighters which should’ve had the advantage. I thank @Crokodone for providing me this information. My opinion of the re-work: Un-needed and a waste of time. No offense to the WG devs I hold my respect for them The main thing that had made a massive skill gap in the low CV population was people with the skill to use and abuse manual drops and strafing, the ability to de-plane a CV was so easy at low-tier WG fixed this problem halfway by taking the ability off T4 and 5 carriers. But being a T5 CV got a lot tougher because when you had a 4 CV game (2 CVs a side) and one of them was a T6 carrier, you could expect your planes to get completely wiped out. The solution to this wasn’t a massive re-work, it was removing the skill barrier. Those of you who didn’t like CVs because of the RTS style gameplay: There are three other ship classes to play if CVs aren’t your cup of tea. You literally can just play a ship that connects with your play style in this game, thats why many players keep certain ships because of how fun the ship is. This Re-work while not ready for release basically if used will wipe out any chance of us seeing any other historical CV classes, Ark Royal and Yorktown to name a few. The problem isn’t with the game, its the people un-willing to step out of their comfort zone and get used to something new. I personally enjoy the historical ability to command multiple squadrons at once. The new way CVs work: Takes the CV out of CV. I am not liking where this re-work is going so far. WG please listen to what the community has to say, and I want to see a Yorktown ship that is playable in game. I would Iike to know what many of you think
  3. Ace6steel

    RN CVs are on the way!

    Many of us have been wondering since the intro of the Royal navy tree: "when are the RN CVs coming?" Well I was surfing Youtube one day and found on Panzerknacker's channel a WiP video showing the upcoming RN CVs Note: No gameplay, more of a preliminary tech tree design In my experience this probably won't come out until the new year or well after the CV rework is released Video:
  4. Hello all, As many of you know, I am one of the best CV players in the game. I have not, however, played in months. I just received an e-mail stating they are updating carriers and they would like me to test it. Few questions: any idea how long these last for? How long will I have all the carriers unlocked w/ max commanders and silver etc.? Also, what exactly is changing? I can't find notes anywhere. Thank You, Desmios
  5. Whenever I play CV, I consistently get sunk midway through the game by a mob who managed to slip past my team. No, I'm not in the middle of the map. I find the farthest corner and sit there. Yet they always find me and sink me. I'm not talking about a lone destroyer or even two. I've been sunk by plenty of Cruisers and Battleships. I'm not trying to rage. Just venting a little. Please just keep an eye on your minimap and if you see the enemy getting close to your CV, head over and help out.
  6. Seadog_Supreme

    Liking CV Revamp

    After considering it, I think the arcade action will be more fun than the current 2D plotting. You have to be like an octopus now. The skill floor seems to be more accessible in this version. You will do damage and not get wiped by an uber CV driver. Frankly I don't find the current version to be that hard to do OK in but I'm not going to compete with somebody really dedicated. As it is, in a 2 carrier game, W/L depends very heavily on the CVs. The one really weird part is that Saipan, Enterprise, GZ and Kaga will have little relation to what they were intended to be when sold.
  7. Submarines in WOWS--It is an interesting concept. A few points to consider: 1. NEW Game engine--Macwrapper from Code Weavers will have to do a new wrapper for subs. They already are probably working on one for the new CV play. I wonder if the WOWs Halloween game will even play in October 2018 ? 2. Subs of WW2 vintage did around 25 knots on the surface. WW1 did 18 knots on the surface. Speed will drop to 8 knots or so submerged (this may not be an issue with the Oxygen meter). Depending on how long you are underwater, a sub may have to fire quickly before surfacing. There will be no Irwin Allen Seaviews or 1990s vintage SeaQuest DSV subs in the game doing 30 or more knots underwater. The vessels will be SLOW 3. DDs are getting overtaxed as the main sub hunter. CAs had provisions for subs. You can see the equipment on the Tier 3 Aurora. So does (yes) the Tier 1 sloops. Note that they have depth charge deployment devices on them. While any of these ships have a role in sub chasing ? 4. CV aircraft did a fair amount of sub chasing (as well as the Zeppelins of WW2 US Navy). What role would they have ? 5. While the German U-Boats fired fore and aft torpedoes, the American "O" and "S" classes, if memory serves correct, fired only from the BOW in WW1 and later. I will give WOWS credit for thinking of all the Gamers who have asked for submarines. It will be the hardest ship class to put in if they proceed. It would be a programmer's nightmare given all the changes needed to get submarines to work right. Astrosaint
  8. Yakuza137

    REWORK

    If you are going to rework the entire carrier gameplay and make it basically CV PLAY FOR DUMMIES and make it like some auto drop thing. Already it takes tons of skill to even kill something. Sure a cv player can look at something and if he or she wants it dead can delete it, but that requires skill. It's also the victim fault for dying in the first place. A cv cannot just go into a middle of a formation and drop a payload they get wiped out instantly. I see a lot of topics on these and they seem nice, but if that is what people want then DEFENSIVE AA needs to be removed. and all of these ships need AA reworked. if you do a normal auto drop with what we have now the planes get blasted out of the sky within seconds at higher tiers and not get a single TORP in. Okay do cross torps with two squads? THATS two squads you sacrifice when one squad gets the job done. You lose more plane reserves which is unfair and unfun. The average player in higher tiers can easily dodge all the torps that are AUTO dropped. I could have worded this better and put more, but yeah... CV can be reworked but I don't understand why the need to make it easier to play. You guys don't make battleships and cruisers and dds easier to play. You still have to lead your bullets the same way you have to lead your plane drops. Anyways this is coming from someone who is only good at cvs and is bad at cruisers, bbs, dds... My rant. All my cvs are well over 50 percent win rates while anything that shoots a bullet with a mounted cannon is below 45% win rate.
  9. Now I enjoy a good lower tier match from time to time. And you know a Texas with an AA build can just be down right fun trolling CVs and down right daring them to come after you... What is your down right fun AA CV Trolling Bote?
  10. I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless to do specing at all for AA. CVs show up maybe once in 30 times (1/30) If a CVs does show up, it is likely that the CV will target one of my 11 teammates - not me (1/12) If I have a ship known to be "good" against aircraft - I don't actually need to make the captain, modules or upgrades actually AA - the CV driver will assume I have and leave me alone (1/5) If the CV driver is good (1/4)...and decides to decides to target me, they will succeed, AA or not. Assuming I don't die before the CV driver decides to target me. (1/3) (1/30) * (1/12) * (1/5) * (1/4) * (1/3) = 0.00462962% chance that an AA spec will be meaningful. Therefore from a min-maxing perspective, AA is utterly stupid. Your thoughts?
  11. Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION
  12. (Place tongue firmly in cheek before proceeding. And remember: Irony is Truth) Invisible ships that whine about radar and battleship AP Big fat clumsy ships that whine about invisible ships, fires and walls of torps Floating citadels that win by hiding behind cover and lobbing lameness onto hapless targets that can’t fire back at them Smoke, smoke, smoke and some more smoke Fire-spitting smoke clouds featured prominently in the naval battles of the early to mid-20th Century Overpenetrations: 16” shells go right through a canoe, you know, for only 10% damage The Dispersion Slot Machine---feeling lucky? Well, are you, punk? Hair-pulling and rage incumbent upon the attempt to get a few digital stars next to one’s name through “competitive play” (mark you: there is no monetary compensation for this) Wailing, frustration and rage about the matchmaker Wailing, frustration and rage about “having a bad team” Wailing, frustration and rage about “losing 10 games in a row and it’s not my fault” Cyclones: “Well, Yuri Ivanovich, you have to encourage people to close the distance somehow.” “Great idea, Igor Semyonovich, let’s implement it!” (leaked conversation from WG St. Petersburg office, circa 2016). Angling: Because 2700 lb shells aren’t that dangerous if they hit you at 65 degrees. To borrow a phrase from WoT: "Bounced off!" Overmatch: The number 14.3 is extremely important in naval combat (who knew? I’ll tell you: The designers of 460mm Japanese naval guns. Smart!) One of the greatest innovations in naval strategy in this period involved pointing the bow of the ship toward the enemy and slowly reversing. Don’t you dare cross the T, noob. What do you think this is, a historical game? British battleships: Because to heck with your angling Great Naval Battles in bodies of water full of large masses of strangely-shaped land An aircraft carrier? Never seen one of those. Deep Water torps: Because battleship players are stupid and there are too many of them Radar: Because if your own DDs die, how will you ever see the little buggers? Egos and Tempers the size of the USS Midway Who knew the Soviet Navy boasted such a formidable surface fleet with artillery more accurate than anything any capitalist pig-navy could ever devise? “Destroyers in World War II primarily performed fleet and convoy escort, as well as antisubmarine warfare duties” Oh wait…. Detonations: “We at Wargaming.net believe in fun and engaging gameplay!” Detonations: “Buy this piece of striped cloth and hoist it up the mainmast. It will prevent the unlimited supply of torpedoes in your hull from going off when hit.” Fires: Because how else can a 127mm gun sink a 60,000 ton ship? 33% Skill, 67% Luck. Want to change that? Carry harder and git gud, scrub. “I play World of Warships because it helps me relax.” “I play World of Warships because of the friendly, welcoming and helpful community.” Losing credits? “May I interest you in a premium account, dear sir?” Armor penetration mechanics more Byzantine than organic chemistry Soviet Battleships: The End of the World is Coming
  13. I've been playing my Taiho a lot lately, (I always play Taiho a lot) and I've noticed that she is netting me a substantial sum of money. (on the order of 100-140k a game in profits, this is without Zulu, but with premium camo) I've noticed that credit earning seems not as much dependant upon damage dealt, although it does have a large effect, as it seems to be plane kills and spotting ribbons. (Which to me seems wrong, since those have a very low amount of gains associated with them.) For example, on a game that would have normally netted me a large loss, I got an abnormally large number of spotting and plane kill ribbons, and I did turn up a good profit. (about 60k) Has anyone else noticed the same thing, or am I just crazy?
  14. anonym_C2VCFahnN2vC

    The next line of CVs

    We have the Japanese and American CVs, oh and also a German one covered in controversy. I think the next line coming could be...British CVs!?? Here are a few examples of what we might see (someday?). HMS Ark Royal HMS Glorious HMS Furious HMS Illustrious Class Now me being very bias (part Japanese) towards playing Imperial Japanese Navy, I hope to see them in battle someday so I can sink them and their Tea toting Captains. Just a thought...
×