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

CV Rework FAQ (Dev Blog)

108 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,440
[KWF]
Members
4,040 posts
6,190 battles
And a plain text version for anyone who can't see the FB post.
Spoiler

 

Commanders!
Today we have some interesting news for you and this series of posts will be very different from most of the news that we usually publish on this page. In the coming posts, we'll tell you about the new aircraft carriers, which you will see the in version 0.8.0. You will be able to read more details in a special series of articles on the official portal.
First of all, thanks to all the players that took part in the testing process of aircraft carriers. Your feedback, opinions and bug reports have allowed us to find and fix a lot of bugs and improve some mechanics.
New CV will be unbalanced.
The problem when you test something in a closed and separate environment, is that you cannot make a large amount of players truly emulate their production server behavior. While beta test is a great place to generate a major improvements list, adjust the priorities and see how the concept works in general, we cannot adjust all aspects: cool-downs, timers and DPS etc for each ship, especially when we talk about fine tuning individual ships versus each other. We will have to spend some time, we estimate approximately 1-2 months, after CV rework release. It's inevitable, but necessary. We're eager to have your feedback and impressions when 0.8.0 is released. We'd like to apologose in advance for any inconvenience that you may experience during this period.
Lack of direct CV ship control simultaneously when piloting planes.
We've met a popular request to directly control a CV despite autopilot improvements. There are different opinions on that, ranging from "it's crucial for gameplay" to "the lack of it is just dumb". Let's try to break it down:
Why do we think it's not really needed for the gameplay?
First of all, as players rightfully noticed, the role of CVs in battle is much smaller. The main "unit" under player control is a squadron. This is exactly what we wanted to achieve, as concentrating on the squadron allows us to create more action-packed and more visually epic experience. CV direct control is not needed for the majority of the battle - autopilot can take care of CV positioning. Most typical tasks, from plotting a course to the farthest corner of a map to parking a CV behind an island, can be done via tactical map, and done faster than with direct controls. Most players do exactly this with the current CV on live server, and there is really only one case left uncovered - precise dodging of torpedoes. And that leads us to...
What about torpedo dodging?
A DD that manages to get to the enemy CV should be rewarded - if a DD player succeeds in pulling this off, he either dedicated a lot of effort to it or a CV was positioned exceptionally poorly. The CV does have a choice to aggressively defend with its squadrons or to abandon plane control and directly control a CV for evasion. We strongly believe that adding opportunities for a CV to maneuver in CQC and still control the planes (and thus, making it harder to destroy in such an engagement) is not good for balance. Just imagine the case - a cruiser caught broadside will most likely be punished by a battleship. A careless battleship could be punished by an ambushing destroyer in the same manner. And a destroyer will surely have a hard time surviving a cruiser encounter at close range. The bottom line is: if a CV is engaged at close range, and without support, there should be a tough choice of either WASD-ing the ship or attacking the attacker.
What about immersion?
We do understand that the ability to directly control the CV is immersive and helps the player to feel more like a CV commander, as opposed to the squadron commander. The rework is indeed about commanding a squadron. Concentrating on it allows us to make the gameplay more dynamic, more entertaining, and more balanced. With that and what was said above in mind, adding this control just 'for the feels' is not justifiable. We also will be looking into more ways to customize the squadrons both visually and gameplay-wise, so that the reduced focus on the ship is compensated.
You think players can't manage two things at the same time?
Of course we don't think players are incapable of managing more than two things at one time. Our game is far from easy and that's one of its key aspects. There is a lot of multitasking and awareness involved when we're talking about good players on any class. And we do want CVs to have the same depth, but to have it centred mostly in the squadron - in the place which is the core of the new CV gameplay experience. What we really question here is the value from simultaneous direct control of two separated entities - a CV ship and a squadron - both in terms of game design and attention focus.
Сan it change some day?
Nothing is set in stone, and the possibility exists. We are not going to close this question now and forever. The point is that the top priority in the CV rework is focussing and improving on something that players will spend most of their time doing - controlling the squadrons and engaging in combat with them. We need to allow some time for tweaking the balance after the rework goes live and for players to familiarize themselves and get stuck into the new gameplay tactics of carriers.
Automated consumables concept. As recently announced, we're going to implement automatic activation of DCP and Fighter squadron on CV ships. We're well aware that some of you find it controversial at best. There are several reasons that has led us to this decision:
We observed that players understandably tend to concentrate on their squadrons, and despite all interface prompts and indicators (icons, timer, sound) for, say, fire alarm, many found it very difficult to notice and act upon. Again, it's not like we want to cater to everybody and avoid any punishment for mistakes or lack of awareness. But, please remember that the scope of rework is a shift from RTS to action, and all other classes manage the situation around one unit - the ship.
А player in a BB, DD or a cruiser manages the consumables directly and it totally makes sense, because there are meaningful choices, and the ship is the only unit under control. While playing reworked CVs, it's pretty simple - it makes no sense to wait for a second fire, it makes no sense not to deploy a Fighter squadron when in danger, and what's more, the overwhelming majority of gameplay is managing squadrons. BB can use damage control between its salvos, DDs - smoke, cruisers - their support tools, but from CV point of view, we believe, there is almost zero difference between "X happens, I push a button and then don't care" and "X happens, the button is pushed automatically, I don't care".
With the right balance settings for fire, flooding and fighter squadron the focus will be fully on the player's controlled planes (and the Squadrons consumables, which are managed manually of course).
To sum up, while these mechanics sound unusual, we believe it can help us to shift the attention of a player on this reworked class to the place where the real gameplay is - and this leads us to a very fundamental concern we will address in our next post.
Lack of gameplay depth and skill development.
To start the discussion on that, we would like you to think: how many battles do you need to play in the BB class to understand shooting mechanics, angling and tanking, damage control, shell choice, torpedo evasion and overall planning? A new BB player will probably start from almost mechanical skill of target prediction. Only after that he will go to deep strategy and understanding of meta. First 10-20 battles on a class is just the beginning. Such concept should work with new carriers, too. We wanted to make CV more accessible in some aspects, but by no means "simple" or "elementary". We have several features of the CV rework that should, by initial design, be discovered and mastered by those who are motivated and want to play them well. The CV rework is massive, and we cannot be 100% sure that every feature will be used as we predicted. Of course when the rework is released, players will find some ways to play the game that we never thought about. And we will have to address that and adjust our design concept. But for now, here's the preliminary list of things that should keep players engaged, while keeping the skill important:
  1. Avoiding long-range AA damage. Long range AA currently takes squadron direction and speed into account every few seconds, while constantly shooting at it. This results in AA explosions "bubbles" in path of a carrier squadron. It's definitely not recommended to fly into these bubbles, as they deal massive damage. Avoiding them is one of the first skills a player can develop, to prevent excessive plane losses, and for that, both steering and throttle controls should be used. Throttle controls also affect turning radius.
  2. Performing attack runs. This is the core gameplay for carrier, and each squadron type has some differences here. However, there are common factors that should be taken into account:
    1. High speed results in less time for target movement prediction, but the squadron spends less time under fire;
    2. There is choice of target, choice of squadron, and even choice of which ship part to target. The last matters, because rockets and bombs interact with armor (and AP bombs have proper ballistics), and torpedoes interact with torpedo protection;
    3. And of course, the general concept is that planning the attack run in advance results in the best spread;
  3. AP bombs. This mechanics was significantly reworked and it's much more complex and interesting now. They used to work similar to AP shells dropped from above at a 90 degree angle, and they basically ignored effective armor. Now they have advanced ballistics and their flight path and angle of impact depends on when you actually release them. They can even bounce against armor! When dive bombers start the run, you can release the payload earlier, at higher altitude with more chances of a deck hit. Or you can wait and release them very late when the planes basically stop the dive - and it will be more like a salvo to the broadside. That's like a separate AP shooting mechanic to learn and master!
  4. Managing the squadrons. That's more strategic - losing planes slows down the preparation of the respective squadron times. Each squadron type has independent consumable timers, so smart rotation of plane types will also benefit a player.
  5. Ship positioning. Irrelevant of direct CV control, positioning is still crucial. Being closer to the heat of the battle is more dangerous, but brings with it the advantage of shorter approach and flight times;
  6. Some special tricks. While this part will most likely develop along with meta, we can give you two examples of more advanced tactics which were a thing during the beta:
    1. IJN long shots: having long range and parallel course of torpedos, IJN torpedo bombers can try to perform devastating torpedo volleys from maximum range, taking the least damage (and possibly even staying concealed), but of course such drops will require a lot of good target prediction;
    2. Multiple quick torpedo drops: squadron/wing mechanics allow torpedo bombers launch several volleys in very quick succession. As a result, CV may attempt to provoke an evasive maneuver with the first "bait" drop only to launch the second, better prepared attack. Alternatively, such bait attacks can help a player to expose enemy ship broadside to the allies artillery;
  7. Defensive AA and AA sectors. Defensive AA increases AA damage, while AA sector increased the long-range "bubble" density. We're working on a clear presentation in-game of both AA effects so that a CV player sees what he is dealing with and we hope to see some smart counterplay cases as a result;
  8. Line-of-sight gameplay. With reworked CVs we can finally switch the squadron vision and detection to line of sight. There are quite a few maps with remarkable terrain and LoS works with smoke screens as well, so now there is the opportunity for planes to use terrain as cover either to avoid AA or even to close in undetected and launch a surprise attack. Torpedo bombers are the most interesting in this aspect because they have long attack runs and when they do it, they dive really low, making most of terrain a good cover.
  9. Fighter squadrons. Fighter squadrons are consumables now, and the element of direct fighter control is gone. It is a great tool for team support, and a good player should probably always seek an opportunity to dispatch fighters where needed. Let's not forget that each CV squadron can dispatch fighters independently, so a player may maintain 2 or even 3 active for some time. Fighters also interact with other fighters, adding some CV counter-play element. With the latest updates we're going to show the "danger" zone on minimap to make fighter interaction more clear.
  10. New carriers with new roles. There are possibilities and considerations for the future alternative or completely new CV lines that could see unusual additions to their gameplay. It's too early to confirm anything now, but we do think that slightly more complicated and less "direct" CV gameplay may be introduced with these ships in the future, to keep the game fresh and to bring more variety.
So to sum up, We want gameplay to be more accessible and more action packed compared to the current CVs, we indeed took away some RTS-level depth, but we tried to add a lot of places for tactical depth, skill development and smart play in the design. We fully realize that not all of them may work, and some new layers may be discovered, but we really ask you - the players - to consider trying it out and discovering some tricks that you might have missed on Beta.
Lack of player feedback influence. We're very well aware that some of you feel that we're pushing the rework despite the concerns, issues and reservations from the playerbase, and that your feedback is widely disregarded.This is definitely not the case, so please allow us to explain;
  1. The CV rework was done because it requested by the players. Our responsibility was to answer the question "how";
  2. The gameplay you see is not only the result of our work, it is a result of beta test. While not everything that was requested has been achieved/implemented, A number of UI improvements and fixes, as well as changes to gameplay were made based on your feedback:
    1. all initial balance changes
    2. camera settings for all types of plane
    3. plane reserves UI
    4. attack timer addition
    5. changes to the inertia of the plane
    6. improved terrain avoidance system for planes;
  3. We are proceeding with the rework, despite being controversial in some aspects, because as shown below, it gathered good results from beta testing. For example, after the latest test we have the following data:
    1. On average, worldwide: 32,1% liked the rework (for testers with 10+ battles it's naturally higher, 38,3% on average);
    2. 50,8% liked some aspects and disliked other aspects;
    3. Only 13,2% disliked it (and 4,0% had no opinion);
    4. We also cannot confirm that CV rework is enjoyed only by those who are inexperienced: the results from the testers with 1500, 3000, 6000 and 6000+ battles on live server are not that different, and the same is true for those who play carriers on live versus those who don't. However, there is no denying that those who have the most CV battles on live tend to enjoy the rework the least, up to 25% of feedback being fully negative. This is understandable and was covered in CV rework Waterline episode.
    5. These results do show some negativity and challenges to overcome. CV rework is a massive undertaking, and unfortunately, we cannot hope to hit full satisfaction from everyone at launch;
We know that we will need to work more on CVs, to tune their balance and to see what issues are a priority, but we firmly believe that the beta period did it's job, and CV path should continue on to the live server, so the whole playerbase experience, passion, skill and feedback contribute to it.
Console influence.
We also noticed some talks about CV rework being a result of WoWS Legends development and overall "dumbing down the game for the consoles". Please let's be very clear. World of Warships PC is a successful and accomplished game, and this game, along with the players, is the most precious and valuable thing for many of us personally as well as for Wargaming Saint-Petersburg. CV rework gameplay could very well fit in to WoWS Legends, and if it works well, we will be happy to share it with our console colleagues for them to assess it's suitability in what is a separate title and project. But there is zero chance we are risking our main game, our years of work and our loyal audience because of a new title that is being developed. It just does not make sense, CV are not a hard requirement to launch in Legends, and they have their own development timeline.
So
We implement the CV rework to fix the balance, to make the class more popular in the game, and because you told us it was needed. We will do our best to deliver fresh, enjoyable, engaging gameplay, but we understand that the work is not over with the first release. It will be quite a journey for us along with you. At this moment beta test did its job and to move forward we need to see how you guys play it on live server. We will listen, adjust the priorities for further development, and while it's a challenge, we think its worth it, because ultimately we're responsible for keeping the game fresh and interesting for as many of you as we can. Thank you for your time, attention, feedback, patience and assistance. Good luck and fair seas!

 

 

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 5
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,306
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,855 posts

I don't believe a word they say as to why they're doing this.  Not one word.  They've been dishonest and evasive, said one thing and then done another, withheld information to build hype, asked for feedback and then utterly ignored it, said things about the game that are transparently untrue, so much, so often, that there's a massive trust deficit they'd need to overcome before I believe anything. 

 

And for those who claim this rework is going to fix the real problems with CVs, here's a clue on the fact that it will not

" Multiple quick torpedo drops: squadron/wing mechanics allow torpedo bombers launch several volleys in very quick succession. As a result, CV may attempt to provoke an evasive maneuver with the first "bait" drop only to launch the second, better prepared attack."

That is, to make it plain -- THERE WILL STILL BE CROSS DROPPING.

 

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,037 posts
7,048 battles

Every other ship type in the game has the ability to fight back against DDs with their main armament while simultaneously dodging torps. Are guns not supposed to be considered a separate entity to the ships' hull? Why are planes any different? Why are CVs the only exception to this?

I'm sorry, but that's just flawed thinking. Every ship type in the game can fight back against an attacker while actively dodging or attempting to dodge incoming attacks, but the new CVs aren't allowed to as well?

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
673
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,505 posts
11,213 battles
10 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

Every other ship type in the game has the ability to fight back against DDs with their main armament while simultaneously dodging torps. Are guns not supposed to be considered a separate entity to the ships' hull? Why are planes any different? Why are CVs the only exception to this?

I'm sorry, but that's just flawed thinking. Every ship type in the game can fight back against an attacker while actively dodging or attempting to dodge incoming attacks, but the new CVs aren't allowed to as well?

Agreed, this is a preposterous at best and dubious at worse argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,440
[KWF]
Members
4,040 posts
6,190 battles
4 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

Every other ship type in the game has the ability to fight back against DDs with their main armament while simultaneously dodging torps. Are guns not supposed to be considered a separate entity to the ships' hull? Why are planes any different? Why are CVs the only exception to this?

I'm sorry, but that's just flawed thinking. Every ship type in the game can fight back against an attacker while actively dodging or attempting to dodge incoming attacks, but the new CVs aren't allowed to as well?

Personally I see this as a moot point in general. Very rarely at high tiers do we manage to kill the red CV before the timer runs out or we win on points. My guess is they want to make it all even "simpler".

Quote

A DD that manages to get to the enemy CV should be rewarded - if a DD player succeeds in pulling this off, he either dedicated a lot of effort to it or a CV was positioned exceptionally poorly. The CV does have a choice to aggressively defend with its squadrons or to abandon plane control and directly control a CV for evasion

I particularly like this justification and praise for the DDs that ignore objectives and go after CVs in every battle.

 

 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,502 posts
14,121 battles

They missed my question... 'should blindfolds and cigarettes be issued with the CV execution or not?'

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,845
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
28 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

I particularly like this justification and praise for the DDs that ignore objectives and go after CVs in every battle.

Well why not? The caps are a deathtrap now and have been for ages.

Edited by KiyoSenkan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
10,267 posts
4,608 battles
1 hour ago, KilljoyCutter said:

That is, to make it plain -- THERE WILL STILL BE CROSS DROPPING.

In any given round of testing, you could do a bait drop or just a normal one with the intent to hit and then launch an attack from the side.

The key difference that you are being dishonest about in your claim of cross-dropping is that by the time your planes have flown back up and have turned them around for attack #2 the first set of torps have either hit or missed.

That's NOTHING like current cross-dropping that happens at the same time from one single player, and that change is a good one.

 

Now onto the parts I don't like. Still no manual control of the ship with planes in the air. And the auto-consumables.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[SBS]
Members
5,231 posts
25 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

" Multiple quick torpedo drops: squadron/wing mechanics allow torpedo bombers launch several volleys in very quick succession. As a result, CV may attempt to provoke an evasive maneuver with the first "bait" drop only to launch the second, better prepared attack."

That is, to make it plain -- THERE WILL STILL BE CROSS DROPPING.

I was working on cross drops in the tests.  Its nowhere as simple as it is in the RTS version.  You can't cross drop where you hit with a ton of torps from both squadrons like you can now.  First you have to launch from behind your target, release the torps somewhat far away.  These torps are to try and lock your target in a straight path.  Then you have to fly out, turn and make an attack run from the side.  You have to time the attack and drop so the target can't turn out of the way or he might risk hitting the torps from your first drop.  The timing isn't easy.  It only has a chance to work on BBs as cruisers and DDs are way too fast and maneuverable to be trapped by your first drop.  A successful cross drop will only net a couple of low alpha torp hits.

23 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

I'm sorry, but that's just flawed thinking. Every ship type in the game can fight back against an attacker while actively dodging or attempting to dodge incoming attacks, but the new CVs aren't allowed to as well?

The flawed thinking is allowing a ships type in the game that can attack and largely be immune from attack itself.  This having to choose between plane or CV control is a very small balance compromise. 

17 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Personally I see this as a moot point in general. Very rarely at high tiers do we manage to kill the red CV before the timer runs out or we win on points. My guess is they want to make it all even "simpler".

I agree, although I'd say that true at pretty much all tiers.  Tiers 4&5 are more vulnerable but that has more to do withthe inexperience of the player at that level. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,059 posts
2,528 battles
2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I agree, although I'd say that true at pretty much all tiers.  Tiers 4&5 are more vulnerable but that has more to do withthe inexperience of the player at that level. 

And the fact that T5 CV players saw T6 CVs who had manual strafe and drops in matches.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,502 posts
14,121 battles

JAer53V.png

32-38% of people liked it.

Sounds amazing.

Roll it out!

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,666 posts
93 battles
1 hour ago, KilljoyCutter said:

And for those who claim this rework is going to fix the real problems with CVs, here's a clue on the fact that it will not

" Multiple quick torpedo drops: squadron/wing mechanics allow torpedo bombers launch several volleys in very quick succession. As a result, CV may attempt to provoke an evasive maneuver with the first "bait" drop only to launch the second, better prepared attack."

That is, to make it plain -- THERE WILL STILL BE CROSS DROPPING.

 

THAT IS NOT CROSSDROPPING.

Cross-dropping requires TWO squadrons of torpedo bombers to perform. The upcoming rework only allows for ONE squadron control. 
What this means is that with your ONE squadron, you could bait enemies to think you're about to launch torpedoes, making them perform evasive maneuvers, and then you cancel that run, and perform another one immediately while they're off-guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[SBS]
Members
5,231 posts
Just now, mofton said:

32-38% of people liked it.

Sounds amazing.

Roll it out!

I'd like to own a Ferrari.  I think they are an amazing bit of engineering.  I also have a long list of things I don't like about owning one, the cost, hard to use as a everyday car, and so.  The point is you probably have to add that 50% to those that liked it, that's over 80%.

Edited by Slimeball91
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,666 posts
93 battles
13 minutes ago, mofton said:

JAer53V.png

32-38% of people liked it.

Sounds amazing.

Roll it out!

And conveniently leaving out the 50.8% of the test population who still liked it (albeit with some parts they dislike, but still they responded positively) and the paltry 13.2% who negatively responded with dislike.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,759
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
6,715 posts
12,281 battles
17 minutes ago, mofton said:

JAer53V.png

32-38% of people liked it.

Sounds amazing.

Roll it out!

NEW PILL CURES EVERY TYPE OF CANCER, test subject feedback.

32-38% like it. 

50% of the people like it, but hate how it gives you bad farts for 6 months. 

:Smile-_tongue:

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,502 posts
14,121 battles
3 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

And conveniently leaving out the 50.8% of the test population who still liked it (albeit with some parts they dislike, but still they responded positively) and the paltry 13.2% who negatively responded with dislike.

If I'd wanted to leave it out, I would have just snipped the top row for the image.

The 50.8% is a weak question, vague enough to use for whatever you want. My view would be that people will only play things they actively like, one of the major problems with carriers is a tiny player base, if they're initially not very popular (only 32% of players actively liking them) how will the population sustain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,513
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
8,502 posts
14,121 battles
1 minute ago, HazardDrake said:

NEW PILL CURES EVERY TYPE OF CANCER, test subject feedback.

32-38% like it. 

50% of the people like it, but hate how it gives you bad farts for 6 months. 

:Smile-_tongue:

NEW PILL ACCELERATES HAIR GROWTH TO UNPRECEDENTED LEVELS

32-38% like it

50% of the people liked the hair growth aspect alone, but hate how it makes all their teeth fall out.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,306
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,855 posts
32 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

THAT IS NOT CROSSDROPPING.

Cross-dropping requires TWO squadrons of torpedo bombers to perform. The upcoming rework only allows for ONE squadron control. 
What this means is that with your ONE squadron, you could bait enemies to think you're about to launch torpedoes, making them perform evasive maneuvers, and then you cancel that run, and perform another one immediately while they're off-guard.

Exact same effect. 

And no, it's not about bait-and-cancel.  It clearly states that the drops can be close enough together in time that the first drop sets up the second drop to be far harder to avoid.  

And that is the exact same effect that cross-dropping has -- one spread can be dodged at the cost of going broadside to the other.  

 

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,499
[ARGSY]
Members
18,290 posts
12,748 battles
38 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

THAT IS NOT CROSSDROPPING.

Agreed. What they are describing is not that far removed from what you can do right now with a fast destroyer (especially in a close-range attack); one set of torps to confine the target's movement; the second a short time later at a different angle for the hit. It's very clear to me now why they're taking the opportunity to remove torpedo bombers from Tier 4 carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
10,267 posts
4,608 battles
5 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Exact same effect. 

And no, it's not about bait-and-cancel.  It clearly states that the drops can be close enough together in time that the first drop sets up the second drop to be far harder to avoid.  

And that is the exact same effect that cross-dropping has -- one spread can be dodged at the cost of going broadside to the other.  

 

Harder to avoid =/= automatic hit with multiple torps and impossibru to avoid as in the current meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[SBS]
Members
5,231 posts
Just now, KilljoyCutter said:

Exact same effect. 

And no, it's not about bait-and-cancel.  It clearly states that the drops can be close enough together in time that the first drop sets up the second drop to be far harder to avoid.  

And that is the exact same effect that cross-dropping has -- one spread can be dodged at the cost of going broadside to the other. 

I've played in all three rounds of testing and I'm telling its not like that, not even close.  The cross drops in the rework are very hard to pull off even against BBs, and you only net a couple of hits when it does "work".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,306
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
13,855 posts
9 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I've played in all three rounds of testing and I'm telling its not like that, not even close.  The cross drops in the rework are very hard to pull off even against BBs, and you only net a couple of hits when it does "work".

Most players won't care, they're going to see it as the same setup for unavoidable torpedo hits and be just as angry about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,648
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,827 posts
4,361 battles

I'm more annoyed by the lack of loitering time limits. It would have opened the way for more strategic skill options such as modules that allow shorter turnaround time, but at the expense of loitering duration, meaning the CV has to get closer to the action to deploy, or a module that does the opposite; allows for longer loitering, but at the expense of longer turnaround times. More unorthodox would be ones that add extra ammunition to rocket wielding squadrons, but have less fuel due to heavier armaments, or being able to launch an extra set of 3-4 planes but at the cost of longer turnaround. As well, with fuel limits, allowing for things like a power boost into or out of a combat area, but at the cost of increased fuel burn during the duration. When the squadron runs out of fuel, they auto-return to base, irregardless of whether or not they still have any ammo left, but those count towards decreasing servicing times. Things like that and more.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,845
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles

How much you want to bet that all these people whining about unbeatable, unavoidable carrier attacks are the same ones who say AFT, BFT, and Manual AA are worthless skills and that hydro is far more valuable than Defensive Fire?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×