Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
LoveBote

British Carriers finally! no wait..

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,315
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,468 posts
6,648 battles

 

Well, at least this is recognition by WG that the UK had carrier borne aviation, hopefully somewhere, deep in the WG slave pits, a goblin dev worker is busy crafting RN cvs for some future release (2018?)

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,315
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,468 posts
6,648 battles
11 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Not until after the CV rebalance

British CVs would rebalance CVs. best way to balance, introduce new tech tree. Balancing when there are only two trees is like trying to balance a playground seesaw, or trying to balance a game of rock and paper, without scissors; stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,012
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,539 battles

No, they are completely over-hauling the mechanics.  Just throwing out RN CVs only the change the mechanics from underneath them is so colossally bad, I can't imagine even WG trying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
325
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
1,320 posts
14,667 battles

I'm more in line with it will be "fixed" with more ships.  Between IJN and US each has a ship or load out that will trump the other (sometimes sacrificing damage for plane kills or vice versa) and it determines a winner assuming players of equal skill.

 

Having a third line introduced that provides a different strength will keep it interesting.  I honestly don't really want WG messing around with it any more after their last "minor tweaks."

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,476
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,410 posts
3,410 battles

I'm half-expecting the RN CVs will end up being Air Superiority focused; making both IJN and USN CV players extremely salty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,315
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,468 posts
6,648 battles
12 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

I'm half-expecting the RN CVs will end up being Air Superiority focused; making both IJN and USN CV players extremely salty.

I saw rockets in that vid, I also noted the emphasis on the Battle of Taranto with torpedo bombers attacking at sea level using the stealth of night beneath the max depression of Italian AA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,476
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,410 posts
3,410 battles
Just now, nuttybiscuit said:

I saw rockets in that vid, I also noted the emphasis on the Battle of Taranto with torpedo bombers attacking at sea level using the stealth of night beneath the max depression of Italian AA...

 

To be fair; WG can discuss one thing and do something else, so I'm not fully putting my weight behind it. Of course, my statement was also poking at some other people's insistence for a triad balance within the CVs.

 

I do admit the rockets were interesting though. Anti-ship rocket strafing was one of the things I recall being a highly demanded request; the ability for fighters or rocket bombers to freely strafe ships and do some collective damage; either by strafing one ship lengthwise and set 2-3 fires on it, or strafing a closely traveling pair of ships  and potentially setting 1 or 2 fires on both of them in one strafe (moreso if it's a cluster of ships hiding in smoke). I could already see the advantages; rockets would give far less time to react to, even if their individual damage was lower than a proper bomb. And if rockets were placed on fighters, they could first rocket strafe some ships alongside some bombers before shifting to aerial denial duties. Otherwise, it'd be rocket bombers instead of DBs or TBs, depending.

 

I do expect though that RN CVs will get unique drop patterns for any TBs and DBs they get as part of balancing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
207
[ANZAC]
[ANZAC]
Members
598 posts
5,024 battles
6 hours ago, YamatoA150 said:

I'm half-expecting the RN CVs will end up being Air Superiority focused; making both IJN and USN CV players extremely salty.

With the upcoming change to US CV loadouts that force them to be balanced it would make sense for the RN to take over the AS role

This would totally suck though. I'm looking forward to how the armored CV's will shake things up, and I hate playing AS. It would be awesome though if RN replaced DB's with dual purpose fighters that can strafe or fire rockets at ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,042
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,661 posts
9,977 battles
9 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

No, they are completely over-hauling the mechanics.  Just throwing out RN CVs only the change the mechanics from underneath them is so colossally bad, I can't imagine even WG trying it.

If they are over-hauling the mechanics, then any RN CV line will hit the same issue as the being-tweaked-next-patch USN CV line.

From the fact that WG are just putting new loadouts on USN CV's with this change, are faffing about around the edges with the damage control/fire coefficient change and I believe (but can't find) that Sub_Octavian said there would be no UI change (which seems to be a big chunk of the problem from the feedback I hear) I suspect the change is going to be minor.

Either over-hauling the USN CV's before changing the mechanics and potentially wasting that effort is bad - or there is no real rework.

8 hours ago, Warped_1 said:

I'm more in line with it will be "fixed" with more ships.  Between IJN and US each has a ship or load out that will trump the other (sometimes sacrificing damage for plane kills or vice versa) and it determines a winner assuming players of equal skill.

I'm not really a proponent of the 'add a tree to fix' approach. The USN cruisers didn't become more playable when German ones came out, they sucked at a bunch of tiers until they were buffed - in some cases hugely.

 

 

My view in short is that WG can't do carriers - Graf Zeppelin has taken over 4 months to not-balance and the latest test versions are disgusting. If WG can't balance one T8 carrier there is zero chance they can balance a line of seven. They should save their modelling, developing and testing resources for something worthwhile, and which may get more than 3 games per day at T10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
418
[NATO]
Beta Testers
1,766 posts
5,805 battles
1 hour ago, mofton said:

My view in short is that WG can't do carriers - Graf Zeppelin has taken over 4 months to not-balance and the latest test versions are disgusting. If WG can't balance one T8 carrier there is zero chance they can balance a line of seven. They should save their modelling, developing and testing resources for something worthwhile, and which may get more than 3 games per day at T10.

 

While I tend to agree with you in that WG cannot figure carriers out....they are over simplifying the most complicated warship ever built, and not simplifying them the simplest way either!....you may find that once a third CV line is introduced the CV player population may grow significantly. Especially if they make CV's easier for the masses to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,609
[INTEL]
Members
8,410 posts
25,252 battles
8 hours ago, YamatoA150 said:

I do admit the rockets were interesting though. Anti-ship rocket strafing was one of the things I recall being a highly demanded request; the ability for fighters or rocket bombers to freely strafe ships and do some collective damage; either by strafing one ship lengthwise and set 2-3 fires on it, or strafing a closely traveling pair of ships  and potentially setting 1 or 2 fires on both of them in one strafe (moreso if it's a cluster of ships hiding in smoke). I could already see the advantages; rockets would give far less time to react to, even if their individual damage was lower than a proper bomb. And if rockets were placed on fighters, they could first rocket strafe some ships alongside some bombers before shifting to aerial denial duties. Otherwise, it'd be rocket bombers instead of DBs or TBs, depending.

 

 

That would really suck for the people who came to play the game, and not be mere XP pinatas for CV drivers. I hope they never implement this garbage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,042
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,661 posts
9,977 battles
9 minutes ago, hipcanuck said:

 

While I tend to agree with you in that WG cannot figure carriers out....they are over simplifying the most complicated warship ever built, and not simplifying them the simplest way either!....you may find that once a third CV line is introduced the CV player population may grow significantly. Especially if they make CV's easier for the masses to play.

I have my doubts on CV population increasing, more likely existing CV players will move over to playing RN carriers some of the time. I certainly wouldn't play them without a major rework.

The USN 'rework' I think adds squads to most load outs - increasing the difficulty, micro-managing and complexity. That's going to have the opposite effect, especially if T8 TB's need to be shepherded very carefully around T10 AA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
493
[SCRAP]
Beta Testers
1,427 posts
4,527 battles

I seem to remember an airborne rocket was the equivalent to a 6in shell...

Interesting (though terribly slow) way to deliver a single broadside.

 

They also emphasised the importance the FAA placed in reconnaisance. Can't see how that would transfer into this arcade game environment, without adding new mechanics that affect line-of sight, visual range etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
819 posts
3,823 battles
13 hours ago, YamatoA150 said:

I'm half-expecting the RN CVs will end up being Air Superiority focused; making both IJN and USN CV players extremely salty.

Then the RN CV players would get extremely salty that they can't have a decent strike configuration. :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,315
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,468 posts
6,648 battles
6 hours ago, mofton said:

I have my doubts on CV population increasing, more likely existing CV players will move over to playing RN carriers some of the time. I certainly wouldn't play them without a major rework.

The USN 'rework' I think adds squads to most load outs - increasing the difficulty, micro-managing and complexity. That's going to have the opposite effect, especially if T8 TB's need to be shepherded very carefully around T10 AA. 

Errm, not really, the rework removes fighter squadrons, total number of squadrons remains quite unchanged for the most played tiers (7&8), trainer wheels to keep players new to CVs happy at tiers4-6 have been added. Reducing fighter numbers of fighter squadrons the type that require the most micro management, reduces complexity. Hence dumbing down gameplay; both in terms of teamwork (from scouting/spotting and pegging surface ships) and CV v CV battles for air domination /  both of these latter elements of gameplay are in effect, being removed from the USN CV skillset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
2,254 posts
24,696 battles
17 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

Not until after the CV rebalance

Unless its a premium CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,042
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,661 posts
9,977 battles
36 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Errm, not really, the rework removes fighter squadrons, total number of squadrons remains quite unchanged for the most played tiers (7&8), trainer wheels to keep players new to CVs happy at tiers4-6 have been added. Reducing fighter numbers of fighter squadrons the type that require the most micro management, reduces complexity. Hence dumbing down gameplay; both in terms of teamwork (from scouting/spotting and pegging surface ships) and CV v CV battles for air domination /  both of these latter elements of gameplay are in effect, being removed from the USN CV skillset.

But they are adding squadrons at T10 unless I'm mistaken? T10 being the tier with the biggest drop off in play. I'd not considered the squadron management workloads so good point otherwise - but overall WG don't seem to be doing much of a fundamental rework in shuffling some squadrons around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,315
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,468 posts
6,648 battles
Just now, mofton said:

But they are adding squadrons at T10 unless I'm mistaken? T10 being the tier with the biggest drop off in play. I'd not considered the squadron management workloads so good point otherwise - but overall WG don't seem to be doing much of a fundamental rework in shuffling some squadrons around.

Just removing two fundamental roles of CVs from the game, scouting (inc pegging and disabling of dds), and contesting air sup. Just the two elements that decide who wins most well fought random battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,042
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,661 posts
9,977 battles
7 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Just removing two fundamental roles of CVs from the game, scouting (inc pegging and disabling of dds), and contesting air sup. Just the two elements that decide who wins most well fought random battles.

They'll still scout. They'll still make DD's miserable. They'll still try for air superiority - it's now impossible that they not, and even recently GZ's been tested with multiple fighter squadrons. I don't see any removal of air sup fighting, and I've been harried by all types of planes.

I don't think this USN change reflects much improvement in anything, and it certainly does little to address skill imbalances between CV players, the rubbish that is the tier/AA system, the crummy UI anon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,315
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,468 posts
6,648 battles
Just now, mofton said:

They'll still scout. They'll still make DD's miserable. They'll still try for air superiority - it's now impossible that they not, and even recently GZ's been tested with multiple fighter squadrons. I don't see any removal of air sup fighting, and I've been harried by all types of planes.

I don't think this USN change reflects much improvement in anything, and it certainly does little to address skill imbalances between CV players, the rubbish that is the tier/AA system, the crummy UI anon.

GZ always had multiple fighter squadrons, from vanilla release. The latest test version cannot make dds life a misery, how with only one scout squadron and only one dive bomber (assuming they have HE loadout for it)?

Sorry Mofton, but on this topic, you are frankly, talking nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
690
[DRACS]
Members
3,342 posts
21 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

No, they are completely over-hauling the mechanics.  Just throwing out RN CVs only the change the mechanics from underneath them is so colossally bad, I can't imagine even WG trying it.

 

Except that we said the same about CV premiums at the start of the year ... and then they released three of them. So I have no doubt that WG will be happy to release more premiums and even tech tree ships prior to this unicorn level myth that is the supposed CV overhaul.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,940
[SYN]
Members
14,366 posts
10,224 battles

Exactly what 'flavor' do people imagine with a third CV line and how do they think it ties into 'balance'?

Right now, we have Strike, AS and Balanced.

  • USN Strike is utterly crap
  • USN AS roflol stomps everything else, but is utterly crapat carrying
  • IJN Balanced (Strike) is OP
  • IJN AS is still OP

What could WG possibly add into here? Even stronger AS? and then the even stronger AS gets something useful, like rockets and fighter bombers? Sounds balanced. :fish_glass:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,042
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,661 posts
9,977 battles
8 hours ago, nuttybiscuit said:

GZ always had multiple fighter squadrons, from vanilla release. The latest test version cannot make dds life a misery, how with only one scout squadron and only one dive bomber (assuming they have HE loadout for it)?

Sorry Mofton, but on this topic, you are frankly, talking nonsense.

Previous very recent GZ versions had multiple fighter squadrons. Now the Midway's going from 2-1-2 to 2-2-2 which is an extra squadron and more micromanagement - I just don't see the latest changes as systematically trying to make things less difficult, reduce the skill ceiling or workload or anything really.

But I don't play carriers, so I may well be wrong - i just don't want WG to waste their time on an RN Carrier line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,022 posts
11,126 battles
On 15/11/2017 at 10:37 AM, crzyhawk said:

Not until after the CV rebalance

So... never?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×