Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
The_Big_Red_1

looking at the recent patches for USN carriers...

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

57
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,208 posts
1,939 battles

i just browsed through the most recent patches for WoWs and surmise to say i am still extremely disappointed with WG's idleness/indifference in regards of fixing carriers (primarily USN). all they done was add new game modes, graphical tweaks/optimizations or balance changes to the cannon-based ships (eg. cruisers, battleships or destroyers). where are those changes for the carriers they promised us? it's 2018 now and i am starting to have doubts on whether they will really do what they say they will do.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,788 posts
5,664 battles

Do you even know how long it takes write code for this or any other game. If they decided to rework the CV that's about 18 to 24 months of coding and at least 3 month's of testing. Be patient your not doing the hard work. All they done, those game modes and tweaks can take millions of lines of code. Learn game coding and get back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,208 posts
1,939 battles

they could at least tell us something without breaking NDA, but you and I both know they have been very mum about it. instead of just making all these game modes, etc. they should concentrate all their time and resources in fixing carriers and then release a super big patch instead of the "little ones" we are getting now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,091
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,324 posts
6,609 battles

Changing the loadouts, changing the fighters. Totally no changes to USN CVs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,208 posts
1,939 battles
Just now, SireneRacker said:

Changing the loadouts, changing the fighters. Totally no changes to USN CVs...

my thoughts exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,091
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,324 posts
6,609 battles
1 minute ago, The_Big_Red_1 said:

my thoughts exactly.

Making big patches where basically everything changes from one day to another are not really preferable over changes that are done slowly. 

The loadout change got rid of the problems thag the different builds had. That the Air Superiority loadouts were noob-magnets is no secret, and resulted in the CV being very bad in supporting it‘s team with offensive actions. So WG gave them balanced options which allowed striking surface ships and still fighting other Carriers.

Then the fighter change to get those ships that overperformed back onto the ground.

Reacting to the things as they develop, because anything else would most likely result in a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,208 posts
1,939 battles
6 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

Making big patches where basically everything changes from one day to another are not really preferable over changes that are done slowly. 

The loadout change got rid of the problems thag the different builds had. That the Air Superiority loadouts were noob-magnets is no secret, and resulted in the CV being very bad in supporting it‘s team with offensive actions. So WG gave them balanced options which allowed striking surface ships and still fighting other Carriers.

Then the fighter change to get those ships that overperformed back onto the ground.

Reacting to the things as they develop, because anything else would most likely result in a disaster.

to add more insult to the injury WG still haven't added the Yorktown class carriers into the USN carrier tree yet (CV-6 Enterprise doesn't "count" as she is a premium ship in the game)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
303
[KNTAI]
[KNTAI]
Members
1,145 posts
6,022 battles
1 hour ago, Raven114 said:

Do you even know how long it takes write code for this or any other game. If they decided to rework the CV that's about 18 to 24 months of coding and at least 3 month's of testing. Be patient your not doing the hard work. All they done, those game modes and tweaks can take millions of lines of code. Learn game coding and get back to me.

WrYGNo8.gif.2d0277e60b0e2a47e62000f67354fbfc.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,091
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,324 posts
6,609 battles
38 minutes ago, The_Big_Red_1 said:

to add more insult to the injury WG still haven't added the Yorktown class carriers into the USN carrier tree yet (CV-6 Enterprise doesn't "count" as she is a premium ship in the game)

If the Tech Tree is full, why is it an insult that they don‘t squeeze another ship in?

Is it an insult that the Ise-class is missing as well?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,383
[HINON]
Members
9,037 posts
19 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

If the Tech Tree is full, why is it an insult that they don‘t squeeze another ship in?

Is it an insult that the Ise-class is missing as well?

It's an insult that the Shinano isnt in the tree of course. :cap_rambo:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[CUTER]
Members
31 posts
8,584 battles

You request these changes, but the amount of time it requires to implement such a change along with having to come up with HOW to fix the CV problem. 

Do you have any ideas on how to fix the gameplay? I certainly don't even as a CV player myself. The only things that I can comment upon are what is annoying as a carrier but I can come up with no optimal way to fix the problem.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
121 posts
1,519 battles

Not saying it isn't difficult to change carrier gameplay, but did they really need to remove AS loads for American carriers, yet now give them to Japanese carriers? That doesn't seem like tweaks to improve things so much as just screwing with the player base/catering to the weeb population... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18
[CUTER]
Members
31 posts
8,584 battles

The IJN line always had the AS loadout it isnt something that it only has now. 

The USN AS loadout is not necessary as it completely outclassed the Hakuryu in terms of air superiority in a fight with players of the same skill level. Even with the current loadout, I have yet to lose against a AS Hakuryu in my Midway with the new loadout. Admitedly, those players were not very good, but the point still stands. The USN AS loadout was not needed, it made it the easy choice for players who were less familiar with CV gameplay since it was much easier to control than the strike loadouts. 

 

Keep in mind all of this is my opinion and not something that should be taken as fact. Constructive criticism is appreciated, but hate helps no one. 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
937 posts
6,368 battles
On 2/24/2018 at 1:50 PM, RipNuN2 said:

It's an insult that the Shinano isnt in the tree of course. :cap_rambo:

Shinano will be a Tier VIII Premium someday I'm sure of it.  I only hope it is meme-worthy.  BB armor, small hanger, and uptiered ships.  It will be wacky (and opposite of Enterprise - since Enterprise gives yuge loadout compared to tech tree ship).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×