FWIW, You are Wrong About the CV Rework

[_RC1138]

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.

[HazardDrake]

After getting cross-dropped to death several times this weekend, despite running an AA build, I say bring it on.

Also, there never was “Torp Soup”. The ship stats never backed that up in either hit rate or average damage for the ships in question. 

[RyuuohD_NA]

2 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

After getting cross-dropped to death several times this weekend, despite running an AA build, I say bring it on.

Also, there never was “Torp Soup”. The ship stats never backed that up in either hit rate or average damage for the ships in question. 

Hit rate doesn't matter.

What matters is the psychological battle that happens after seeing your entire flank being flooded with torps.

[KnyxUDL]

8 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

After getting cross-dropped to death several times this weekend, despite running an AA build, I say bring it on.

Also, there never was “Torp Soup”. The ship stats never backed that up in either hit rate or average damage for the ships in question. 

Exactly, torp-soup was never anything other than hyperbole from the vocal minority.

The CV rework is really bad. Even full AA specs on good AA ships are having difficulty.

The fact that you have to spec and spend more focus on avoiding a ship that requires ZERO RISK TO ITSELF at any given time is just another example of why this game has always had a failing grade when it comes to balance.

Low risk should always offer low reward.  Even the new CV torps are far more deadly than DD torps, even with the low damage. Accuracy and reliability is more important, and with DoTs like flooding, consistency is paramount.

Now CV captains can equip the RPF captain skill and it now functions centered on the current operated squadron, giving CV players an automatic GPS tracker moving at 200 speed completely hard countering even DD players exhibiting high skill for again... absolutely zero skill and risk investment.

It is almost like Wargaming has the Guinness book of world record for worst balance in gaming, and consistently tries to beat their own record. 

[Sweetsie]

Keep in mind, anyone hating the changes to the CV's is probably a good CV player... and who wants their skill nerfed...I wouldn't. But the 1000's of potato's they have taken advantage of never post here or even know this site exists. Find me one potate with 7000 games and a 42% CV wr posting about how frustrated he is about the changes......won't happen.

So you have what seems like an outcry...  but its the same 12 dudes over and over.

[Ericson38]

I played the T8 IJN CV this weekend. You can only drop two torps per pass of squadron. You can't cross-drop. The carrier auto launches fighters to defend itself, and the CV secondary batteries open up on incoming DD threats, although less than a Bismarck would, so not very effective.

Once your squadron heads back to the CV due to no more torps or rockets or bombs, you can hit the F key and immediately be back to the carrier for the next formation launch.

IJN torps ran 4 km range at 55 kts, and about 4800 damage per impact.

I only ran into cool-down time limitations if I got completely deleted over the enemy after the two lead planes launched torps.

My biggest issue was simply the lack of directional control as it is very hard to get the squadron to fly where you want it to go, wasted a bunch of time over ships I didn't want to pass over and lost a lot of planes that way. If you get to the edge of the map in this goofy directional control mode, the planes will circle at the border for a few minutes regardless of what you want them to do.

The planes wiggle around like there is wind buffeting, and only settle down once you start that actual torp attack. But then, although the planes settle out and fly straight, you can't easily change their direction to get the proper lead. They feel locked on what ever bearing they are on once you start the run.

Is this all intentional to making sure the CVs aren't OP ?

[SeraphicRadiance]

I know I've been a large critic of the rework, but frankly, something did need to change. Whether this is a good or bad thing overall for the game, we'll have to wait and see how it performs on live servers, as much as I hate to admit it. The current system is all kinds of trash, at worst, we get to swap it for a different brand of trash. I'll be willing to see how things change with this rework, so I'll try to judge it fairly when it releases.

[SteeLeviathan]

As long as i dont get instantly deleted by a triple crossdrop or Midway jaws attack in my dd. I will be happy. I am hoping that the change will breath a new breath into the game. If wargame gets it right, maybe some characteristic of the game will change. 

[MaliceA4Thought]

1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

snip..........

Nice post.. I think you forgot one important point about those who claim to hate it though...

In the current regime, you see carriers infrequently and so it is possible to not suffer to badly if your surface ship set-up pretty much ignores AA/carriers..  in fact statistically that is the case, and as many have said..  if they see a carrier in queue, they will drop out of queue until it is gone...    however with the new re-work, it is probable that carriers will become much more common, which means there will be no "default" min-max setup on ships and captain skills which means that as the dynamic is changing, all the compfort zones are vanishing and there will be no effective all in one set-up as there is now for most ships.

Any major change in any game like this is going to have consequences, and some will change and run with it, some won't.

After all, we should never forget that when the car and the train were invented..  it was known without doubt (and even raised in parliament in britain)  that anyone who travelled at more than 4 miles per hour would suffocate and therefore travellig by either means was risking death :)

[SeraphicRadiance]

1 minute ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

Nice post.. I think you forgot one important point about those who claim to hate it though...

In the current regime, you see carriers infrequently and so it is possible to not suffer to badly if your surface ship set-up pretty much ignores AA/carriers..  in fact statistically that is the case, and as many have said..  if they see a carrier in queue, they will drop out of queue until it is gone...    however with the new re-work, it is probable that carriers will become much more common, which means there will be no "default" min-max setup on ships and captain skills which means that as the dynamic is changing, all the compfort zones are vanishing and there will be no effective min-max set-up.

Any major change in any game like this is going to have consequences, and some will change and run with it, some won't.

After all, we should never forget that when the car and the train were invented..  it was known without doubt that anyone who travelled at more than 4 miles per hour would suffocate and therefore travellig by either means was risking death :)

That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Non-AA builds were the norm, and everything was fine and dandy until you got placed in one of the few matches that had carriers, and then you had a bad time (though to be fair everyone had a bad time in this aside from a few select ships).

[MaliceA4Thought]

Just now, SeraphicRadiance said:

That isn't necessarily a bad thing. Non-AA builds were the norm, and everything was fine and dandy until you got placed in one of the few matches that had carriers, and then you had a bad time (though to be fair everyone had a bad time in this aside from a few select ships).

Oh personally I agree it's a good thing..   For far too long now, this game has been pretty basic and stale and I like the fact that this will mean people have to think more about how they get setup in the game.

[Battleship_Elisabeth]

Carriers in any iteration are cancer. I don't care about any opinion but my own.

[_RC1138]

15 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

Nice post.. I think you forgot one important point about those who claim to hate it though...

In the current regime, you see carriers infrequently and so it is possible to not suffer to badly if your surface ship set-up pretty much ignores AA/carriers..  in fact statistically that is the case, and as many have said..  if they see a carrier in queue, they will drop out of queue until it is gone...    however with the new re-work, it is probable that carriers will become much more common, which means there will be no "default" min-max setup on ships and captain skills which means that as the dynamic is changing, all the compfort zones are vanishing and there will be no effective min-max set-up.

Any major change in any game like this is going to have consequences, and some will change and run with it, some won't.

After all, we should never forget that when the car and the train were invented..  it was known without doubt that anyone who travelled at more than 4 miles per hour would suffocate and therefore travellig by either means was risking death :)

That's why I think AFT needs to increase range of AA. As it stands, it doesn't benefit AA ENOUGH to warrant *4* commander points. 3, maybe, if combined with BFT, and 2 for sure, but not 4. If it increased range, at least where your AA Curtains start to open up, that would be very different, but as it stands it becomes moot. And as such, non-secondary BB's and CA/CL's have no reason to take AFT which for me was a consistent mainstay of many of my ships. As it stands, it will just, from my point of view, just streamline loadouts for BB/CA/CL's as even MORE straightforward, with further emphasis on survivability/stealth.

[mofton]

58 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

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).

This is a well put together post and you are touching on some key points across it. This one though I disagree with.

I don't think 'realism' is the main complaint about carriers hosting 'infinite' plane reserves. The problems are all gameplay.

The problems are -

• The CV is not seriously penalized for mistakes, misplays or out-plays resulting in aircraft losses, it may occasionally be delayed but with 2 waves per type ready to go and 3 types you are likely able to launch something pretty much continuously from what I've seen, in comparison I can easily stumble into a random torp in a destroyer, one radar+ friends can kill me, if I push and get targeted by 3 ships while unable to disengage I'll die fast in a BB while the carrier might suffer inconvenience
• Unlike any other defense (which in fact may improve thanks to saturation...) AA gets weaker over time as it gets damaged and cannot be repaired, in theory there is some chance of balance that as your AA is depleted the carrier is running lower on planes and maybe launching partial strikes, that is currently pretty unlikely

 

As an aside even if a carrier had the plane reserves to basically never be deplaned in a 20 minute game, they shouldn't be able to launch all those planes - you give a minimum of 36 DB, 27 TB and X fighters if losses are pretty much total. That means the Lexington is launching on average a plane every <20s, while presumably having to land some as well, so clear the deck, raise the crash barriers etc. (even if not rearm them). That's pretty optimistic, spotting a launch to deck, up the elevator, into position, catapult on some ships. Launch a plane at higher tempo than a battleship can reload its main battery? Everything I've seen historically is that yu might get a wave off at 45s intervals doing well, then need to group up another one by running the elevators.

1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

I am increasingly of the mind that many players who frequent these forums actually hate WoWs,

If you're here, it's more likely that you don't hate it and do care about it (ignoring the troll 'aimbots are everywhere I quit' posts). People get much more upset about things they like and care about than things they don't. I cared that my cousin was making bad life decisions, so gave him a hard time about it more than I gave a toss about some random stranger doing dumb things. That's human nature.

 

The worst thing about this rework to me looks like there is no more real interaction with the carrier, the sector system looks silly and ineffectual, carriers will now strike from both sides, lemming train group up remains the order of the day and there's been no real effort to balance the massive swings in AA from T6-T10, nation and build/no build.

 

7 minutes ago, Battleship_ContediCavour said:

Carriers in any iteration are cancer. I don't care about any opinion but my own.

Username relevant!

[HazardDrake]

49 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

Hit rate doesn't matter.

What matters is the psychological battle that happens after seeing your entire flank being flooded with torps.

By that logic, the game today is “Torp Soup”.

[Schnauzahpowahz]

Oh look, downvotes. Because its not the mob fav of bashing it 

Shocked 

[_RC1138]

5 minutes ago, mofton said:

The CV is not seriously penalized for mistakes, misplays or out-plays resulting in aircraft losses, it may occasionally be delayed but with 2 waves per type ready to go and 3 types you are likely able to launch something pretty much continuously from what I've seen, in comparison I can easily stumble into a random torp in a destroyer, one radar+ friends can kill me, if I push and get targeted by 3 ships while unable to disengage I'll die fast in a BB while the carrier might suffer inconvenience

I suggest going and testing what I did: you are DEFINITELY penalized for playing like a dunce. If you lose two full waves of TB's, it's nearly *half* the match before you can raise a full squad again. This is in fact a GREATER penalty than the CURRENT system that can just spew a new squad every 1:45. And, again, by the numbers, you are NOT getting any free planes.

6 minutes ago, mofton said:

Unlike any other defense (which in fact may improve thanks to saturation...) AA gets weaker over time as it gets damaged and cannot be repaired, in theory there is some chance of balance that as your AA is depleted the carrier is running lower on planes and maybe launching partial strikes, that is currently pretty unlikely

What I found, is that it's flak bursts as you fly OVER the target after a run that kills your squad the most, and those guns, the DP guns, generally DON'T get knocked out during the match. And even if they did, this is no different than an HE spammer losing overall dmg efficiency over the course of a match as target's are more and more saturated.

8 minutes ago, mofton said:

As an aside even if a carrier had the plane reserves to basically never be deplaned in a 20 minute game, they shouldn't be able to launch all those planes - you give a minimum of 36 DB, 27 TB and X fighters if losses are pretty much total. That means the Lexington is launching on average a plane every <20s, while presumably having to land some as well, so clear the deck, raise the crash barriers etc. (even if not rearm them).

While I agree with this in principle, everything about dispelling this reality applies 100% to Destroyers not just reloading torps, but reloading WHILE under fire and maneuvering. If it's okay for them, I fail to see why it's NOT okay for CV's. To say nothing of the fact that a CV could launch an entire *wing* all at once, so have all 36 DB 27 TB over a single target *at once* (hows that for deletion?) and yet here they get but one squad at a time. So I don't think this is a bridge to far and again, it is important to say this over and over: any T8+ CV in the rework could *never* be deplaned over the 20 minute match. So the unlimited planes thing is total, and complete, [edited]. If you put little numbers over the respawn timer that equated to a full wing, it would change literally nothing else beyond perception. Of all the hills to die on over this rework, this is the dumbest.

 

[Wye_So_Serious]

1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

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 Essex 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.

Nice post. All I know is even with the rework I still suck with CV play and not much better with anything else. But I enjoy the game.

[_RC1138]

2 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

By that logic, the game today is “Torp Soup”.

It's much less.

Torp soup definitely was a thing. I was there. I contributed to it. It was a problem. I remember the old version of Islands of Ice, when it was big giant ice bergs to the North West and the little path of tiny bergs in the South East and a BIG HUGE ALLEY down the middle, and at T10, it was just WAVE AFTER WAVE AFTER WAVE of torps. Constant. Never ceasing. Whether they HIT things or not, it was just NOT fun to play against and was a *MISTAKE*. IJN DD's have *largely* been reigned in and I feel most are in a good place, with the sole problems being the IJN Gunboats (they need a torp reload nerf) and the overall mistake that was the AP nerf against (seriously, how many buffs did DD's need before people admit they are a frankstein class that was NEVER effective as an anti-BB class?) The sooner Subs get here, the better, as I feel overall balance will be improved by having a 5th class (to say nothing of the *fact* that Warships is *mathematically* broken as it fails to follow the basic mathematics of RPS+ (n-1)/2 crosses).

[Nachoo31]

All I can say, the change will put the CV in Clan Wars.

[So_lt_Goes]

I played 40-ish matches on PTS, mostly in Midway and various cruisers with experimental builds (15-point captains).

I'm not a CV fan, so I leave the carrier game play aspect to those who enjoy it. I found it to be repetitive, but my opinion on that is irrelevant since I won't be playing them live.

The biggest practical changes to the game over-all that I can envision are:

1. Near-stationary island-humping and bow-tanking will be very dangerous. Aiming at big, slow botes is too easy, even for a sickly old crippled-up potato like me.
2. The multiple-pass CV attack motif means surface ships will spend a lot more time squirming around evading, making positional tactics difficult and result in more frequent exposure of vulnerable broadsides.
3. For cruisers, even IJN and RN, AA builds and rudder shift upgrades will outweigh concealment in priority. There will 1 or more CV in every match for the foreseeable future.
4. The days of unicum CV domination are gone. Finito. Ende. Kaput.

In the spirit of dis gustibus non est disputandum, everyone should form their own opinions. I was just looking at practical considerations.

[JCC45]

1 hour ago, _RC1138 said:

 

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.

 

Excellent post.

As to the point above I think that is the main balance stick that WG will use going forward once they have reliable data from a month or two of the live server.

They can also fiddle with torp damage, torp speed and bomb damage (especially the IJN bombs which do seem to have been nerfed a bit from the last PTS iteration). Rockets, over all, seem to be in a good place for both side.

 

[RyuuohD_NA]

1 hour ago, KnyxUDL said:

The CV rework is really bad. Even full AA specs on good AA ships are having difficulty.

Spoken like a true fool who didn't even try the latest PTS, where AA is a legit threat.

[RyuuohD_NA]

9 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

The biggest practical changes to the game over-all that I can envision are:

1. Near-stationary island-humping and bow-tanking will be very dangerous. Aiming at big, slow botes is too easy, even for a sickly old crippled-up potato like me.
2. The multiple-pass CV attack motif means surface ships will spend a lot more time squirming around evading, making positional tactics difficult and result in more frequent exposure of vulnerable broadsides.
3. For cruisers, even IJN and RN, AA builds and rudder shift upgrades will outweigh concealment in priority. There will 1 or more CV in every match for the foreseeable future.
4. The days of unicum CV domination are gone. Finito. Ende. Kaput.

In the spirit of dis gustibus non est disputandum, everyone should form their own opinions. I was just looking at practical considerations.

#1 and #2 are very welcome changes. #3 is a reasonable trade, and #4 is what we definitely need.

[_RC1138]

8 minutes ago, So_lt_Goes said:

I played 40-ish matches on PTS, mostly in Midway and various cruisers with experimental builds (15-point captains).

I'm not a CV fan, so I leave the carrier game play aspect to those who enjoy it. I found it to be repetitive, but my opinion on that is irrelevant since I won't be playing them live.

The biggest practical changes to the game over-all that I can envision are:

1. Near-stationary island-humping and bow-tanking will be very dangerous. Aiming at big, slow botes is too easy, even for a sickly old crippled-up potato like me.
2. The multiple-pass CV attack motif means surface ships will spend a lot more time squirming around evading, making positional tactics difficult and result in more frequent exposure of vulnerable broadsides.
3. For cruisers, even IJN and RN, AA builds and rudder shift upgrades will outweigh concealment in priority. There will 1 or more CV in every match for the foreseeable future.
4. The days of unicum CV domination are gone. Finito. Ende. Kaput.

In the spirit of dis gustibus non est disputandum, everyone should form their own opinions. I was just looking at practical considerations.

Did you play the last round? Round 2? Because the buff to AA is *extreme* and you cannot quickly multipass as loitering will see your entire squadron downed in short order.

5 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

Excellent post.

As to the point above I think that is the main balance stick that WG will use going forward once they have reliable data from a month or two of the live server.

They can also fiddle with torp damage, torp speed and bomb damage (especially the IJN bombs which do seem to have been nerfed a bit from the last PTS iteration). Rockets, over all, seem to be in a good place for both side.

 

What I was talking about was pure model. Just the PHYSICAL appearance. I want to fly the F6F or the TBF Avenger and since the stats are [edited], they can place anything at any tier. IMO there's no real reason to have removed the T7's. And because they've decided to do that, they can at least make sure iconic planes are the 'top upgrade' on each tier. And the Ranger is baffling, as the T6 Indy *had* F6F's and Dauntlesses.