Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'rework'.



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 24 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. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. With the Rework dropping soon, I was speculating on what even tiered Sky Artillery will mean for T5 and T8. Consider: if you bring a T5, the odds are good that you will be uptiered to T7. You can see a T4 Sky Artillery from time to time, but mostly, if you see Sky Artillery, it will be a T6. You will never face Sky Artillery two tiers higher than you since T7 Sky Cancer no longer exists. No more getting your T5 nuked by T9 planes from the ridiculously broken Saipan and the equally stupid Kaga. You'll still be fighting T7s, but at least you won't be facing T7 Cancerbotes. On the flip side is T8. At that tier, you will face T6, T8, and T10 Sky Artillery. You have a greater chance of facing Sky Artillery, including Sky Artillery that is two tiers better, than in an odd tiered boat. Ditto for T6. It seems to me that odd tiers are gonna be in a better spot, with less of a chance to face own-tier and +2 tier Sky Artillery. Am I reading this wrong?
  5. For better or worse, the rework is coming. I think there are going to be real balance issues with the game overall when CVs are in every match. I have three ideas on how the biggest issues that I foresee might be fixed. The core issues I see are, reduced concealment for surface ships across the board, CVs don't have to take the proper amount of risk to engage the enemy, and the lack of complexity/compelling game play with the reworked CVs. Fix the CV rework in three easy steps: 1) This one is optional, limited hanger (plane limit). Keep the current regeneration system but have a hard limit on planes. I'm fine with reducing the regeneration/rearming time as a trade. The limit doesn't need to be punitive, it should be balanced to be fair to all parties. 2) Remove shared spotting for aircraft. Have it so the ships aircraft spot only show up for the rest of the team on the mini map. You could give planes a consumable that works sort of like radar. This would allow the ships being spotted by the planes to be spotted by the rest of the team for a limited amount of time. This would add some teamplay dynamic for CVs. 3) Player controlled fighters. I know this one seems to be controversial, but it doesn't have to be balanced that way. Its simple, balance fighters so that can't completely cancel out the opposing CV player's attacks. You could have fighters only be able to shoot down half of a squadron, and/or make the rearming time for fighters longer than that of attack planes, that way it wouldn't be impossible to spam out fighters to cancel your opponent's attack. 4) Bonus fix. Remove the priority sector and replace it with player (manual) controlled AA. Number one is self-explanatory. The idea is CVs don't take enough risk to offset the rewards. A hard plane limit would require some amount of resource management that would help balance risk vs. reward. Again, this limit doesn't have to punitive. The point of number two is so we don't completely destroy the concealment game that so many ships depend on. With shared spotting being a consumable there would be a new dynamic to encourage teamwork for the CV player. This also adds complexity that should make for more compelling game play. Number three, the player controlled fighters is also for a more dynamic/compelling play style, and to have your own CV be able to directly help mitigate the attack of the enemy CV. This also adds to risk/reward and teamwork dynamic for CVs. You'd still only control one squadron at a time so you would have to choose to defend or attack, not both at the same time. Four, manual control of AA guns. I know AA will be the biggest variable that gets tweaked so I consider this idea as optional as well. I think the lack of meaningful/engaging interact between the surface ships and aircraft is an important element to why players are rejecting playing against CVs. My idea would to have AA be AI controlled by default, but the player can take control as desired. Manual control of the AA would give you a DPM boost somewhere between the priority sector and DFAA. The big difference is that you can improve your AA defense with player skill. That is a much needed element that is missing from the game. A plane limit and the removal of shared spotting WG could add in a very short amount of time. Manual AA and player controlled fighters would take a bit more time, but still very manageable, say a couple of months. This would push the rework back until the spring but I think it would give a much more overall balanced and enjoyable experience. Your thoughts?
  6. With all the controversy surrounding the rework I feel it is high time for some hard data. Since some cannot or don't want to download the PTS here is the relevant AA stats for T10 ships. Note I did not include modules or captain skills, this is the base stats only. Battleships: DDs: CA/CLs CVs: Conclusions, Musings, and general TLDR: AA bubbles do not overlap. Short range AA is useless, if you are shooting down planes it is with your flak clouds. All flak clouds do good damage if they hit. The most important stats for determining if AA is good or not is number of flak clouds and range of medium and long range AA. This means at T10 the best AA ships are those with no short range AA. Conqueror, Rebublique, Henri IV, Daring, and Z52 fit this bill for surface ships. Worchester still has heavy AA despite it's blind spot. Montana and Gearing have poor AA now(with Gearing only being better than the Shimakaze). Speaking of DFAA it now boosts continuous DPS by 50% and flak damage by 100%. IT's nice IF you have enough flak to hit but otherwise does little.
  7. It definitely looks enticing for new players while also allowing the existing CV veterans to flourish. The new rocket-armed attack planes look cool as anything. My big concern, however, is that iChase says that you can dodge the long-range AA fire. This may just be me, but I'm a little worried that that will mean that Defensive Fire on cruisers like the Baltimore I just bought will be largely useless until it's too late. Otherwise, I think it looks OK.
  8. Does anyone like the new AA "priority sector" mechanic in the rework? It will replace the Ctrl+click on enemy aircraft. For those of you that don't know what it is, it allows you to prioritize the AA on either the port or starboard side of your ship. You get 115% AA on the prioritized side (15% buff) and reduced on the other side to 85% (15% debuff). It takes 20 seconds before the bonus kicks in, and another 20 seconds if you switch sides or set the AA back to 100% on both sides. The problem to me is it takes too long before the increased AA kicks in or to switch sides. A big issue to me is you are, generally speaking, best served trying to dodge incoming attacks and then the side of the ship with the priority AA is no longer in the right spot, and you can't make quick changes to correct it. Also, the controls feel clumsy to me. I think the priority sector mechanic is a straight downgrade to the Ctrl+click we have in the current system that stays with the planes and gives you a 30% DPM boost. The Ctrl+click is intuitive and much easier to use. I think we should keep the old Ctrl+click. I'm curious to know what you guys, and gals think.
  9. warheart1992

    CV Rework FAQ (Dev Blog)

    And a plain text version for anyone who can't see the FB post.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Come on WG forum staff, you already do wonderful work, why not post and sticky it yourselves? Cheers to @YamatoA150 for posting it first on a different thread, but I feel this needs its own separate. Commanders! Following yesterday's article about the next iteration of the carrier rework testing some questions have been asked which we had not properly addressed. We'll try to do that below and hopefully clarify the situation around odd-tiered aircraft carriers. Why did you decide to leave only even tiers of aircraft carriers in the game? There are three main reasons for that: The match-making will benefit from this Carriers always get into battle symmetrically, so if 20 people queue up with different aircraft carriers, each at a different tier between 4 and 10, then will be standing in 7 different queues. If only even tiers are available, then the number of queues decreases to 4, which means it will be noticeably faster to get into battle. Waiting times will decrease, while the number of balanced battles will increase. Progression between carriers will be better Many significant parameters of air groups which noticeably affect what they feel like and how they perform in battle do not change smoothly, but only in discrete jumps. An example of such a parameter is the number of aircraft in a strike group (these are the aircraft that are separated from the main squadron to make an attack with torpedoes, bombs or rockets). At tier 4, there are currently two aircraft in a strike group, while at level 6 there are three. This obviously does not leave any room for progression at tier 5, within this parameter. There are a lot of such parameters and having them change noticeably and clearly contributes to a feeling of progression, which is one of the effects we wanted to achieve. Gameplay becomes clearer Having a clear progression between carriers will also mean more clarity for a carrier's teammates and opponents. The mentioned differences in air group parameters will be more pronounced between even tiers than they are now, which will make it easier to evaluate relative carrier strength and choose how to counteract it, even just by looking at the battle loading screen. So what's the plan? Here's where it gets interesting, as there are many options to choose from. Obviously we haven't spent months modelling these odd-tier carriers just to scrap them. At the moment we intend to transition them into second carrier branches of aircraft carriers with alternate gameplay styles - another way to influence the battle, a different approach to claiming victory for you and your team, as well as different interactions with allies and enemies. There are a lot of different options here: they could do a little less damage and assist their allies more instead in different ways like spotting enemies or through other advanced capabilities which were abundant with aircraft. It's possible that some types of aircraft in such alternative branches would be able to set smoke screens, saving heavily damaged ships from destruction. They might also be able to help allied battleships with putting out fires, or even land on water and capture objectives. Aircraft might even have something in their arsenal to help combat submarines should that ever become necessary. These are just some of the options and you should understand that they are meant as auxiliary interactions that can be done together with directly causing damage to the enemy team, not instead of that. Certainly not all of these ideas will make it into the game, but those most promising ones have a good chance of seeing it through. Most likely such carriers and their squadrons would be slightly more difficult to play than simple strike setups, which would make them a good choice for those players who will have mastered the initial post-rework carrier gameplay. Why not simply shift all aircraft carriers to even tiers and release 2 branches immediately? In this case, same-tier carriers in one nation would be almost identical in terms of gameplay. We're doing a lot of work to make aircraft carriers of various nations different from each other. However, we can't make multiple branches different, yet equally interesting and balanced using just the existing parameters of dropping bombs and torpedoes or launching rockets. These ships deserve a different, more interesting fate, but it will take some time to make that happen. When can we expect these new branches? We are currently focusing all our attention on the mechanics themselves and the balance of these initial strike carriers. After the rework is done we will start work on these alternative branches. To give you a perspective of what the future might look like, here are screenshots of the American and Japanese tech trees: The state of the branches of the new aircraft carriers at the time of the carrier rework release (note that the information is preliminary): IJN tech tree USN tech tree Estimated state of the branches of new aircraft carriers by the time of the introduction of alternative carrier branches (note that the information is preliminary) IJN tech tree USN tech tree
  13. 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.
  14. Maybe I am the only one, but here lately I have become very irritated with the in-game daily containers. I select containers with the purpose of getting what the items that the container claims to contain, not a whole bunch of random crap that I didn't choose. Let me start by saying that I am very appreciative to WG for allowing us to obtain Premium items for free on a daily basis, it keeps me playing with no worry of having to spend doubloons on Damage Controls. However, could we please REWORK the containers to ONLY give out items from the selected category? I opened 115 containers tonight because i stockpile them for the fun of it and open them at the end of each month. Tonight was supposed to be a fun night of seeing how much stuff i had gotten from the containers that i had chosen. Sadly i did not get even close to what i had EXPECTED from the containers i chose. Coal is a new resource, so as avid players we want to stockpile this new resource, so we select the coal containers expecting them to be loaded with coal to spend in the arsenal. This is definitely NOT the case. 95% of my coal containers were loaded with items other than coal. I got free exp, flags, a port slot and other junk in my COAL containers. Coal Container Rewards are as follows: Coal/Flags/Flags: 10% Coal/FreeXP/Flags: 10% Coal/FreeXP/FreeXP: 75% Coal/Coal/Coal:5% Roughly the same numbers for the Consumables Containers I opened tonight as well. WHY? Why is there so much unrelated crap on containers. If I wanted free exp I would grind it. If I wanted credits I would go for the credits containers. If I wanted flags, I would go for the flags containers. If I want consumables, I will go for consumables containers. does anyone else feel kinda cheated when they select what they WANT from a branded container, only to get something that IS NOT supposed to be in there?
  15. 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.)
  16. Vulgarr

    New CV Rework Footage

    https://youtu.be/_RsU5I6V0fs
  17. “Me hundió un portaaviones porque me fui solo al culo del mapa lejos de cualquier forma de vida aliada”, “El portaaviones enemigo se comió a todos mis aviones porque en lugar de prestar atención traté de rushearlo“, “Los portaaviones me hacen daño y eso no esta bien, nadie debería tocar a mi barquito mientras soy imprudente y me alejo del equipo” Esta es la clase de retroalimentación a la que le presta atención Wargaming, las quejas y sugerencias de jugadores que recién comienzan una línea de portaaviones y que poca o ninguna idea tienen de lo que significa un RTS. Jugadores que nunca han disfrutado una buena partida de videojuegos como StarCraft, Age of Empires o incluso Warhammer. Jugadores que esperan que las compañías hagan caso a su limitada capacidad mental mientras comen una bolsa de Cheetos, ven un gameplay de Call of Duty y esperan partida con su barco favorito, el Conqueror. Aquí en Reporte de Batalla, como nos importa nuestro leal público, hemos preparado una apreciación respecto al cercano rework a la línea que es pesadilla de todos los mancos: Los portaaviones. Además del hecho que Adam me amenaza constantemente para que escriba artículos mientras incluyo comentarios forzados. – ¡¿Que dijiste?! ¡Nada! Nada señor, por favor no me quite el agua. ¡Primero! Para aclarar un poco el asunto, el artículo esta basado en la información brindada por Wargaming en uno de sus últimos videos. Les dejaré el enlace aquí. ¡Empecemos! Rework Quiero aclarar que no me opongo al cambio, soy una persona muy abierta a eso y prueba de eso son mis muchas mudas de ropa. Lo que personalmente me desagrada es la dirección que está tomando Wargaming. Como bien se dijo en el video: “We’re not, just leaving aside all the issues and all the problems that carries have gameplay-wise, it’s just the sole idea and the sole conception of playing an RTS game is not appealing to the vast majority of our player base” Ahora, dividamos la frase en 2 partes. “We’re not, just leaving aside all the issues and all the problems that carries have gameplay-wise” Primero tratan de dejar en claro que no están dejando de lado el hecho de que los portaaviones necesitan un estilo de juego más inteligente. Ahora bien, ¿qué es lo que hace atractivos a los portaaviones? No se que es lo que piensen ustedes, pero para mí lo que los hace atractivos es justamente eso. Su estilo de juego apela mucho al pensamiento y la estrategia. Esquivar todo ese cáncer llamado AA, luchar contra los cazas enemigos para al final tus aviones de ataque lleguen a tu objetivo e infligirle daño masivo o muy poco dependiendo del RNG y tu habilidad. ¡Eso! Eso es lo que adoro de los portaaviones. Recompensan tus buenas decisiones así como tu habilidad al momento de usarlos compensando que tu vida no tenga sentido alguno y tus decisiones te lleven a la esclavitud. – ¡Sigue trabajando! S-Si señor… It’s just the sole idea and the sole conception of playing an RTS game is not appealing to the vast majority of our player base. Los jugadores no consideran atractivo el estilo de juego RTS por lo que deciden no tocar a los portaaviones. ¿Enserio? Porque a una parte de la comunidad no les guste algo no significa que sea lo correcto. Tomemos por ejemplo a los acorazados estadounidenses. Debido a la poca capacidad de pensamiento de la base de jugadores angloparlantes del servidor NA se decidió darles lo que tal vez sea uno de los buffos más grandes del juego: reducirles la ciudadela. El objetivo era hacer el juego “mas sencillo” así como hacerlos mas competitivos. ¿Que se logró? Un montón de jugadores oligofrénicos que nunca aprenden de sus errores porque desde ese punto ya no se puede castigar las malas decisiones como antes. Ahora cualquier barco que les haga ciudadela es OP por lo tanto merece ser nerfeado. Y sin irnos muy lejos, está el típico caso del usuario que jamás en su vida tocará a los destructores porque “son para cobardes” y “solo se esconden y torpedean”. Porque en la lógica del jugador promedio un destructor debe enfrentarse a cañonazos con un acorazado sin importar que le tires papas mientras el te lanza camiones. ¡Más frases! I might be wrong with the numbers, but i believe about 90% of our player base never played a single carrier game. It’s not because they don’t like the gameplay, it’s just they don’t like the concept and they see no value in playing an RTS game. ¿Enserio? Lo que yo entiendo aquí es que no les gusta el estilo de juego porque es un RTS. Veo una contradicción aquí. El RTS se caracteriza por determinado estilo de juego, entonces, ¿si no te gusta el juego por ser un RTS significa que no te gusta el estilo de juego? Ahora bien, si el 90% de la base de jugadores JAMÁS ha tocado un portaaviones ni ha tenido partidas con estos, ¿no se han puesto a pensar que es simplemente porque no quieren hacerlo? “No les llama la atención el estilo de juego”. ¿Cuantos de ustedes no tocan toda una línea porque no les llama la atención el estilo de juego? Me desesperan los cruceros ligeros estadounidenses por sus característica y forma de usarse. ¿Esto significa que son malos? ¿que deberían ser ajustados a mis gustos particulares y a los de muchos otros que sienten como les crece la barba mientras caen los proyectiles? Volviendo al punto de arriba. ¿90%? ¿Quieren decir que las quejas vienen de ese 90% que jamás ha tocado un portaaviones? Así dijera “Tal vez me equivoque con los números”, decir 90% es demasiado atrevido como para no estar lejos de la realidad. Por lo tanto, Wargaming está prestándole atención a la retroalimentación de jugadores que jamás han usado a un portaaviones. But if a carrier player makes mistakes and if he plays poorly, it will ruin the experience of all his teammates. ¿Solo esto ocurre con los portaaviones? Significa que yo siendo el único destructor de mi equipo puedo cometer una estupidez, ser hundido en los primeros 3 minutos de batalla, y no afectar el desempeño de mi equipo ¿Cierto? Yo como uno de los tres acorazados de mi equipo puedo suicidarme y no afectará el resultado de batalla, yo como el único crucero con radar puedo ser hundido al principio del combate y mi equipo seguirá desempeñándose bien. ¡Claro que no Wargaming! Si aplicamos esa lógica, todos los barcos presentes en el juego merecen un rework porque perder uno o que juegue mal arruina la experiencia de los demás. Y esto es EXTREMADAMENTE notorio durante la temporada de rangos. Second to second gameplay, make it also a little bit easier. Well, maybe not easier, but a little more interesting, step away from the strategy level and make it more action oriented, maybe. Me asusta. En verdad, eso de querer alejarlos de un estilo más estratégico y orientarlo a la acción me da mala espina. ¡Parece un juego de tablet por Dios! ¿Puedes pensar en otra cosa Wargaming? No estoy diciendo que sea malo o no sea atractivo, admito que me llama la atención. Pero el querer simplificar las cosas… No me parece una buena idea. Yes, Carrier year – 2019! Aveces me sorprende que hubiera un año del portaaviones. Lo único que hicieron fue agregar más y más AA al juego. Al final… Al final todo es decisión de la empresa. Debo admitir que me agrada, me gusta como se ven los portaaviones y su estilo de juego pero no creo que sea saludable. Al simplificar tanto el asunto se pierde la esencia del portaaviones. Ya no habrán esas luchas encarnizadas por el control del mapa, similar a cuando peleas por la última galleta del frasco. Se está siguiendo un sistema similar al de las artillerías en World of Tanks el cual, pese a considerarlo entretenido, soy consciente de que no es lo ideal y le hace daño al juego. Tampoco afirmo que la simplicidad sea similar, de todos modos los controles son distintos, pero la forma de jugarlas si lo es. Pide muy poca habilidad, casi nada en verdad, todo esto a favor del marketing y un estilo más amigable a la mayoría de usuarios. Existen muchas cosas a considerar y dar una conclusión a todo esto se encuentra fuera de lugar. Tengo mi opinión, otros tienen su opinión, pero Wargaming tiene la última palabra. ¡Si leíste todo te agradezco! Al final es solo lo que pienso. Puedo estar equivocado. Nah… nunca me equivoco. Tal vez. Aveces… Bueno. Opina (un poco ofuscado) – YamiKai También pueden leer mis notas en Reporte de Batalla: https://reportedebatalla.wordpress.com/
  18. I know there's so many of these subjects but there's something that concerns me and it hasn't been posted so far. I never posted on this forum for this time the CV rework brings me in. There's something that I would like to be considered: I bought some premium CV and honestly so far I'm considering maybe for a refund maybe to stop. Before going into any directions I will of course try the rework and maybe my mind will change. But what I like in CV is the fact that you can control multiple things at the time. It's to have numbers of squads under your control that to me, makes this fun. Now that that it will be a single squad at the time, I don't think I'll still be interested into that. So here's the point: I played only CV since I started this game. I grinded up to t10 all the way and it tooks soooo long (cv is the longest grind because you have to shift to same tier 2 times). So now that I have the Midway I'm just disappointed to see that my only t10 will become unfun to play. I would just think that it would makes it more fair to have a way to get another t10. Take back all my CV if you want I just don't want to grind back from t1 to t10 again without any t10 to enjoy. By this I mean, I would be satisfied to be able to trade CV line for a BB or DD or Cruiser line. Anyway it's not like we (CV main) would win on the trade because, like I said, CV is the longest grind of all. To me it would just be a compensation so that not all the effort of grinding that I put on CV are now none. Thanks for constructive contributions here
  19. Vulgarr

    CV Rework Part 2

    In case you missed the new footage that we CC's received from Wargaming this past week, here it is.
  20. Anunciado un Rework De los Portaaviones El día de hoy a sido anunciado un gran Rework para todos los portaaviones que modificara completamente el modo de juego de estos. MrConway y Sub_Octavian, anunciaron el día de hoy en Stream desde el Canal de youtube oficial de World of Warships que se ara una modificación completa al modo de juego de los portaaviones, a lo cual modificara tanto el modo de juego de estos y a su vez el meta game. El nuevo modo de juego incluirá una animación diferente de lanzamiento tanto de torpedos como bombas, que esto al inicio podrá traer los siguientes problemas a los jugadores que fueron mencionados por Sub_Octavian. Problemas: -Alta dificultadas -Baja popularidad -Alto impacto -Sistema AA -Desconecciones del juego -Configuraciones AA y Habilidades AA nulas Menciono que estos problemas serán tratados de la mejor manera posible para evitarlos a largo plazo. Pero como también hay problemas, hay cosas ventajosas -Mejor curva de complejidad -Divertido gameplay -Una base para jugadores mas amplia. -Mas opciones de combate para CV´s -Los CV´s serán geniales denuevo Las Diferencias también serán muy notables -Control WASD directo -Aviones podrán maniobrar para evadir las AA -Los ataques pre planeados serán mas efectivos -No todos los aviones atacaran ala vez. -Podrá seleccionar múltiples objetivos -Mejor probabilidad de Inundación o incendio -Cambio de nuevos escuadrones rapidamente -Todos los aviones pueden atacar a los barcos - Los cazas ahora poseen misiles -Los cazas de combate ahora posen la habilidad de activar combate contra otros cazas -No mas barridas El uso de las AA también sera severamente modificado con un nuevo sistema que tendrá: -Cada avión tendrá su propia cantidad de HP -El rango mas pequeño de las AA garantiza daño -Rango Largo y mediado de AA pueden seleccionar objetivos - Puede ser esquivado manualmente -Los barcos pueden concentrar sus AA en un solo lado -La AA incrementa su daño en un punto determinado. -La AA reduce su daño en un punto no determinado. Cabe recordar que se menciono que las configuraciones AA y habilidades concentradas AA serán literalmente inútiles en este rework y se tendra que enfocar mas en el trabajo de equipo para defenderse de los ataques aéreos. A continuación mostrare unas imágenes mostradas durante el Stream. Lanzamiento de Torpedos estilo Histórico: Bombarderos Manuales, muy pero muy manuales Cazas lanzamisiles Kamikaze :P El Link del Stream se los dejo aquí si quieren revisar a las preguntas hechas a Sub_Octavian y a MrConway Se acerca un nuevo modo de meta game Preparanse!!!! Informa - UsagiGumi Megpoid
  21. In case you missed it live.
  22. Granted CVs are a dying class in the upper tiers and I have been more then vocal advocate for change in the class. After a recent game in the US DM, I can not express my frustration to way people despise the current balance of CV to surface game interaction. Here are the carnage in the pics. Man after this game I hope that Midway driver took a shower sheesh. Again I am not mad at the guy, he did what ever WOWS allows him to do. Wiping out close to 42k in one pass is not only brutal but I think unrealistic even for arcade standards of WOWS. But here is my evidence to the Developers to get a kick laugh at untill the CV rework is done. Later everyone EDIT* We lost the game.
  23. CV rework explained to a puppy moan, grumble, rts, idiots, rant, tear hair out, bite finger nails, dumbing down, lies and fake news, winter is coming, puppies, etc ... @farazelleth UPDATED.
  24. Full discloser I don't play carriers, but I want to see them in the game. I've watched CC vids on the new play style and Flambass had a good point, are they going to be fun and worth the grind to play. Doesn't look like it for me, so perhaps its time to just let AI play them.
×