Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
warheart1992

Oficial WG explanation of odd tiered CVs (Dev Blog)

47 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

824
[HYDRO]
Members
1,794 posts
3,935 battles
 
Come on WG forum staff, you already do wonderful work, why not post and sticky it yourselves? :cap_fainting:
Cheers to @YamatoA150 for posting it first on a different thread, but I feel this needs its own separate.:Smile_honoring:
 

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):

46524045_2231811697145165_18254481168374
IJN tech tree
 
 
46804250_2231817613811240_48906205907019
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)

46931312_2231813110478357_27563122702784
IJN tech tree
 
46512229_2231813203811681_69571671992114
USN tech tree
Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,395
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
16,173 posts
9,527 battles

While they didn't mention it this also solves the plane up tier scaling, even one tier higher had a huge advantage, that has dogged the game from the beginning.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[AAA]
Members
467 posts
5,874 battles

Am I the only one who thinks that CV play is fine as it is? I feel like this re-work will completely change the game.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[DOG]
Members
458 posts
5,960 battles
2 minutes ago, wstugamd said:

Am I the only one who thinks that CV play is fine as it is? I feel like this re-work will completely change the game.

I don't play CVs, and I think it's mostly fine most of the time.  However, I won't miss the reds having 5-6 squadrons in the air perma-spotting my DDs the whole game.  Or being gang-banged by multiple torpedo bomber squadrons cross-dropping on me.  It's a valid historical tactic, but in a game it's annoying to be able to see it coming, know exactly what they're going to do, and not being able to do anything about it.  In the end, if it's a competent CV player, no amount of maneuvering or changing speeds is going to save you.  All you can do is hope your AA takes them out first.  Which, to be fair, it sometimes does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,183
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,945 posts
4,831 battles

So lemme get this straight...the Essex and Midway are apparently comparable? 

Taiho and Hack are aswell? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,909 posts
5,692 battles

As I said in that other thread where YamatoA150 posted this, my concern is WG's insistence that these odd tier carriers "MUST BE DIFFERENT" than the even tier carriers. Why is it so wrong that both Hiryuu and Shoukaku exist on the same tier and perform the same basic role in-game? Players are going to pick one or the other based on personal tastes or history, etc.

The_Painted_Target had a good idea that differentiates the CVs, while not crippling one lines combat capability:

Quote

Removing almost half of the carriers in the game? Aight WG.

If you want to keep your 4 6 8 10 carrier spread, consider the following:

image.png.dcebbb95e44cc2f39ed8e7fc97546879.png

Instead of shoehorning the US carriers and IJN carriers into these weird roles that cannot be changed, why not give us back a little bit of that player choice? Keep the 4 6 8 10 carrier setup, but add 2 CV per tier. Each one is part of a sub line where it's either general (standard, already present loadout in test) and the other is a specialized. You can change the types of armament to whatever you think works best, but removing Essex from the line, putting Yorktown class entirely behind a paywall (or removed, RIP Essex, I didn't like playing you but you're still imporant) is not cool.

The rework already rips apart the current CV gameplay into something that nobody in their right mind would readily call "viable" unless every star in the sky aligns. Be sure to put something in the line or rework that isn't a spit in the face to current CV players.

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/175282-cv-rework-odd-tier-cvs-removed-premium-cv-are-moved-to-t8/?do=findComment&comment=4123439

 

I like this better than the obvious sledgehammer approach WG is going to take to the odd tier CVs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,395
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
16,173 posts
9,527 battles
3 minutes ago, Dr_Venture said:

So lemme get this straight...the Essex and Midway are apparently comparable? 

Taiho and Hack are aswell? 

 

They will be when they are balanced to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,500
[RLGN]
Members
8,620 posts
17,866 battles

What a load of horse manure WG.

Are you even trying? Or just throwing stinky stuff at the wall and seeing if it sticks?

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[AAA]
Members
467 posts
5,874 battles
17 minutes ago, zubalkabir said:

I don't play CVs, and I think it's mostly fine most of the time.  However, I won't miss the reds having 5-6 squadrons in the air perma-spotting my DDs the whole game.  Or being gang-banged by multiple torpedo bomber squadrons cross-dropping on me.  It's a valid historical tactic, but in a game it's annoying to be able to see it coming, know exactly what they're going to do, and not being able to do anything about it.  In the end, if it's a competent CV player, no amount of maneuvering or changing speeds is going to save you.  All you can do is hope your AA takes them out first.  Which, to be fair, it sometimes does. 

Don’t disagree. 

I hate when the refs have a top shelf cv driver and my team has a cv out of planes two minutes in or fails to head the repeated warnings of an impending alpha strike on our cv seconds into the game but that’s the roll of the dice in randoms. 

Also going to change captain skills on all ships and hurt the USN ca/l and bbs that are heavy AA ships. Not to mention the no fly zones called Atlanta and Flint will lose some utilization. 

I maybe a weird one but I love cv games except when I play dd. 

Really going to throw the entire balance of the game. Even eliminating cvs change the capt specs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
791
[SF-A]
Members
2,942 posts
5,869 battles

What about Aviator?

Poor fella will be the last of his kind, and he doesn't even get to launch planes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
583
[-SYN-]
Members
2,749 posts
8,747 battles

So, what happens if a Ranked season happens to be on an Odd Tier, as well as the Odd tiered operations, whats it going to mean for the CV's then. Or was this even though through at all.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,516
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,528 posts
3,555 battles
2 hours ago, warheart1992 said:
 
Come on WG forum staff, you already do wonderful work, why not post and sticky it yourselves? :cap_fainting:
Cheers to @YamatoA150 for posting it first on a different thread, but I feel this needs its own separate.:Smile_honoring:
 

Like I said in that thread, CVs are now looking to be the Support/Auxiliary ships of WoWs.

I can't wait until I waterbomb and smokebomb my allies, but then get angry reports for not "doing my job".

To be fair though, it also becomes a possible source of griefing, just dropping smokebombs on enemies or waterbombs on the ship you worked to set 4 fires on.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
Members
569 posts
3,109 battles
4 hours ago, Dr_Venture said:

So lemme get this straight...the Essex and Midway are apparently comparable? 

Taiho and Hack are aswell? 

 

I don't think they even know what they're doing. With the proposed changes and the global concealment nerf Midway is going to have a max conceal of something like 16km. I feel like they've gone way too far in trivializing the actual aircraft carrier platform.

Edited by ksix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[USFTW]
Members
196 posts
1,997 battles

Well it could work... Could...

I would just hope they don't over specialise it. Eg give odd tier some damage and mostly support, and even some support and mostly damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
768
[POD]
Beta Testers
3,054 posts
4,719 battles

i actually want to see the finished mechanics,no ammount of historical CVs on a single tech tree will save a class hampered by terrible RTS mechanics.

until the CV rework comes,my independence will remain playing scenarios,because she will lose most of the time to ijn squadrons.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,731
[5BS]
Members
4,937 posts

The only part of this that pisses me off is that the amount of compensation does not seem to even out, at least how they've described it. As it will more or less mean I will lose a T9 and T7 CV, get ~1/4 of their value in free XP, and, then one day, have to re-earn them even though I already have them NOW.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[RNJR]
Members
220 posts
4,338 battles
20 hours ago, wstugamd said:

Am I the only one who thinks that CV play is fine as it is? I feel like this re-work will completely change the game.

No one thinks one ship seeing all 3 caps spoting DDs and at the exact same time torpedoing your BBs and AP bombing des moines through defensive AA.  

And no one thinks a scrub CV on their team is a good idea either.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[W-P-E]
Members
24 posts
7,559 battles

The odd tiers compensation calculation is unfair.  Even tiers you don't need to worry the difference between old and new xp research difference,  but for odd tier, WG wants to adds up 2 old tiers' xp and subtract new tier xp then give free xp.

It should be just straight old xp to free xp conversion since we already own the new even tier that is below the old odd tier.  For the Zuiho example, free xp amount should be 13600+1850=15450.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,677
[-Y-]
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
5,238 posts
7,571 battles

WG announces rework to increase number of cv players, WG rework removes odd tiered cvs because not enough players. 

is this a fair summary?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
298
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
1,882 posts
8,332 battles
On 11/23/2018 at 3:56 PM, BrushWolf said:

While they didn't mention it this also solves the plane up tier scaling, even one tier higher had a huge advantage, that has dogged the game from the beginning.

This was only with fighters; Since there are none the purpose is defeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,495 posts
3,874 battles
1 hour ago, o4x4 said:

The odd tiers compensation calculation is unfair.  Even tiers you don't need to worry the difference between old and new xp research difference,  but for odd tier, WG wants to adds up 2 old tiers' xp and subtract new tier xp then give free xp.

It should be just straight old xp to free xp conversion since we already own the new even tier that is below the old odd tier.  For the Zuiho example, free xp amount should be 13600+1850=15450.

Essentially the way it works is that you get FXP for the difference in cost it would take you to get to the new tier IV versus what it cost to get to tier V. Note that if you only had the IV, they are actually giving you XP in effect for the research(because the new progression is more expensive). If you give up the new line, then you get back all of the new CV's XP cost as FXP. This means that you can't get XP by giving up the new CV's, only get back all the XP you put in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
479
[XBRTC]
Members
1,625 posts
7,886 battles
On 11/23/2018 at 1:23 PM, Dr_Venture said:

So lemme get this straight...the Essex and Midway are apparently comparable? 

Taiho and Hack are aswell? 

 

 

USS MIDWAY (CV41) was both the first of her class to be commissioned and the last to be decommissioned. She was around until 1992. Her sisters were decommed in 1990 (CORAL SEA) and 1977 (FDR).

The last ESSEX was decommissioned in 1991.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×