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

5 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
44 posts
10,298 battles

Here is a technical paper I wrote on my feedback for the CARRIER REWORK HOT FIX 8.0.1. I decided to put it in this format to give the best feedback I can. I have not looked at other lists or posts, so there may be redundant items.   I don’t expect everyone to find the same bugs as I, have the same experience, or agree with my following suggestions.

CV REWORK HOT FIX 8.0.1 FEEDBACK BY Bigs

 

 BUGS:

 

1)    SOUND CUTS OUT RANDOMLY DURING TAKE OFF: This issue appears to have been resolved. I have not had it since the Hot Fix went live.

 

2)    PLANES LOCKED INTO TURNING LEFT OR RIGHT AFTER TAKE OFF: This issue still occurs randomly…The planes will take off either steering hard left or hard right and won’t respond to controls unless you push the corresponding turning key to the direction they are turning automatically. (if they are turning hard left, you must press the "turn left" key in order to regain control, otherwise they will permanently turn left.) 

 

3)    DISAPPEARING FLAK CLOUDS STILL CAUSING DAMAGE: There are still instances where flak clouds that have “dispersed” or “ended” still cause maximum damage when flown in the area they were spawned. In other words, you are damaged by invisible flak.  

 

4)    HE/AP BOMBS LANDING OUTSIDE RETICLE: In rare occasions when you turn the plane during a dive, the bombs will land outside of the entire bomb reticle. Its as if the sigma or dispersion is set to be higher than what the visual reticle shows.

 

5)    PAYLOADS DISAPPEARING FROM AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT: Occasionally, aircraft with rockets or bombs will take off but visually will not be carrying any payload. This occurs randomly so it cannot be replicated by the player. I do notice it more when playing ships such as the Saipan, Lexington, and Midway.

 

6)    PLANES RICHOCETING OFF MAP BOARDERS: This is a BIG gameplay issue…I have found that if you fly a squadron into the map boarder, they can almost instantaneously turn around, or as I call it, “Boarder bouncing” This allows a player to attack a ship close to the maps boarder, run into the boarder, turn around almost instantly, and be lined up for another attack rapidly on the same target. Planes should not be able to do this as it can be exploited to the players benefit to set up rapid attacks on a ship.  

 

The following is feedback to the Changelog items found in 8.0.1:

1)    To reduce the attacking and spotting potential of Attack Aircraft against destroyers in high-tier battles, the number of aircraft in the squadron was changed to 9, and in the attack group to 3. The changes affected the aircraft carriers VIII Lexington, VIII Shokaku, X Midway, X Hakuryu.

a.    I have found that it is harder to spot destroyers with the reduced squadron size.

b.    I have found it just as easy to score hits on a destroyer, despite the reduced attack squadron size, but I deal less damage.

                                          i.    I don’t feel that the damage is mitigated enough to feel “balanced” against attack fighters with the “Tiny Tim” rockets. These rockets take off a substantial amount of destroyer health per attack…I believe that making them perform “over-pen damage only" may help balance them. As-is, they can cripple a destroyer as badly as a penetrating hit from a Battleship AP shell prior to the AP over penetration fix for destroyers.

 

 

2)    Increased the height which returning aircraft need to reach in order to become invulnerable to AA fire. This will allow ships to fire longer on returning aircraft and will help to counter the tactic in which the player gives the order to the squadron to return immediately after the first attack group’s run (“F” key by default).

a.    This change has indeed increased the overall effectiveness of AA fire against “recalled” squadrons.

                                          i.    This does resolve the issue of “spam recall”.

b.    When a squadron is recalled within a ships AA aura, the recalled squadron can be completely eradicated in most scenarios.

                                          i.    I feel that while this does resolve the issue of “spam recall” it is a pretty hefty blow to a aircraft carrier player trying to keep their planes from being completely destroyed. In many cases, unless the squadron is flown outside of enemy AA, they will be completely lost when recalled. I think that AA is too powerful in this case since a carrier can rapidly lose all of one type of bomber squadron and unable to field another squadron for a significant amount of time during a game.

                                         ii.    To be clear, I am not stating this change isn’t necessary, but carriers shouldn’t be harshly punished to the point that it isn’t fun. I believe a more appropriate solution is to have planes return slower if they are recalled when inside enemy flak, or if they pass over enemy flak at high altitude increasing the time it takes to get planes that survived an attack back to the carrier for servicing.

 

 

3)    Maneuvering among the AA explosions allows you to reduce the damage received from air defense, even while in the AA range of ships with powerful air defense. We redistributed the efficiency of air defense between the constant damage taken and the puffs of damage from explosions - the efficiency was increased for the former and decreased for the latter. This will keep the tactics of dodging explosions still effective, but it will not allow planes to stay too long in the range of air defense without taking significant losses, especially when attacking a formation of ships. 

a.    I feel this change feels a lot better for surface ships defending themselves against aircraft, however, when a carrier with aircraft that are several tiers lower than the surface ship they are attacking (such as a Ryujo attacking a Cleveland), there is almost no hope that the Ryujo planes will even make it to the Cleveland. This is the case for many undertiered aircraft.

                                          i.    If this change is to remain in effect, carriers should not be matched up against surface ships 2 tiers higher or lower than their carrier’s tier. They should only be matched +1 or -1 of their tier. (i.e. A Tier 8 aircraft will only face T7 or T9 ships.)

 

 

4)    Changed several features of the Japanese torpedo bombers. Now, if during the preparation for the attack, the attack group maneuvers, your aim will not stabilize (aiming cone stops narrowing). And when maneuvering during an attack run - begins to widen. In order to carry out an effective attack, you need to preemptively choose the line of attack and try not to make last-minute maneuvers.

a.    I believe this change is a bit too much because it takes the specialty of the Japanese aircraft tree and makes it very difficult to utilize.

b.    I do agree that it does require players to make a more planned attack instead of last second drops.

 

 

5)    Reduced the chance of flooding by approximately a third for the Japanese aerial torpedoes in tiers IV-VIII, and by half for German (tier VIII) and Japanese (tier X) aerial torpedoes.

a.    I feel that this change was completely necessary.

 

 

6)    Significant changes have affected the alternative plane torpedo module for X Hakuryu.The attack run preparation is now longer, and more difficult - the parameters of the aiming were changed and the angles of the torpedo spread were increased even when aiming is at its most accurate. In addition, the speed of aircraft when returning to the aircraft carrier is reduced and the delay before the start of a new attack is increased. We have significantly changed the characteristics of torpedoes: reduced speed, increased detection radius and arming time.

a.    While this style of attack was very powerful, I feel that too much of it has changed and the Hakuryu no longer feels like a “torpedo specialist”. I feel that out of all the changes, the reduction of the torpedo speed was unnecessary. If the torpedoes maintained the same speed as before (50kts) and the detection radius was returned back to the prior setting (stealthier version) I would find the other changes actually balance this style of play.

                                          i.    In short, too much of a nerf was applied to the hakuryu, especially with it now having to face a substantially tougher AA system, and that its aircraft can now be completely wiped out when recalled early.

 

 

7)    To increase the effectiveness of attacks, we added resistance to AA damage for bombers at the time of readiness to attack (when the aiming indicator turns green). In this phase of the attack, all bombers will receive 30% less damage.

a.    I find this a welcome change since AA has become extremely powerful in this Hot Fix.           

b.    I would also like this value applied to attacking aircraft that have completed their attack run (dropped their payload) and have broken off to return to the aircraft carrier.

c.     This damage reduction should not apply to aircraft that still have their payload and have been recalled to the carrier.

 

 

8)    Bug fixes: the aiming for the stock attack aircraft on the carrier VI Ranger is now similar to the aiming for all American attack aircraft. The characteristics of the basic 'Fighter' consumable for  V Emerald are brought to the same value as 'Fighter II' and the minimum speed of the stock Japanese bombers of all tiers does not exceed the minimum speed on the researchable bombers.

a.    I find that both of these changes are welcome and much needed.

 

 

9)    If the ship has no 25 mm AA guns, medium-range AA defenses start at 1 km. These ships' AA configuration will now be emphasized if you can't shoot planes inside of a 1km range.

a.    Ships with this type of layout did need a buff to their protection, but in some cases, such as the X Salem, it creates a rather monstrous AA platform.

                                          i.    I think that AA guns firing inside of their normal range should have a decrease in efficiency of some type.

 

 

10)  Short-range AA defenses now include guns up to 30 mm. This change will combine weak medium-range AA defenses with short-range AA defenses, strengthening the latter and removing the zone where the effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns was low. This will affect ships such as, for example, the cruisers Atlanta, Pensacola, Dallas and battleships Colorado and Arizona.

a.    This is a welcomed change to ships in general and I feel it balances them a bit better against Aircraft.

 

 

BIGS’ SUGGESTIONS:

1)    At Tier 4…there is currently no team play tools available for the carrier player to use to assist an allied surface ship. I would STRONGLY recommend that each T4 bomber squadron gain access to the escort fighter consumable but when they are called into action (activated) they only call in a wave size of 2x fighters. Again, this will allow carriers at T4 a way to protect their allies (which is currently not possible at all) and to get new players a chance to learn the mechanic without A) being absolutely punished by it, and B) not knowing what it does until higher tiers.

 

2)    When a plane squadron is recalled early, all planes that have not dropped their payloads should take normal anti-aircraft damage when climbing to "safe" altitude on their way to proceed back to the carrier. If a plane has attacked (dropped their payload) and breaks off to return back to the carrier, these planes should receive the 30% AA resistance that aircraft get while attacking surface ships (when their attack run reticle turns green). I feel this would reward players for using their planes to attack as much as possible, while punishing those that are attempting to spam the recall action, aka  "F Spam". 

Edited by Bigs_Destroyer_of_Worlds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[5D5]
Members
1 post
5,836 battles

After playing a few matches in Hakuryu, I have to believe that there will be another hotfix in the near future.  I played a match today where a Kagero all alone wiped out an entire squadron of mine before I could even drop my payload.  And it's much worse when trying to strike ships with halfway decent AA to great AA.  The nerf on the F key delay seems too excessive; I tended to lose the rest of my remaining squadron after the strike anyways, either by trying to maneuver out of AA range or by using the F key.  Is anyone else having issues playing their CVs after the hotfix???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
652
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
1,646 posts
2,637 battles

Love the in depth post. More in one topic than I have probably seen total from all the CV naysayers. Havent playe randoms yet, so I wont run my mouth... but after a quick glance, can you confirm and be certain that #2 isnt a keyboard issue? Your keyboard might be old, or if it is wireless low on batteries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
44 posts
10,298 battles

Can confirm that #2 is not a keyboard issue. I have tried 3x different keyboards to see if it was my ASUS keyboard that was the issue. I used DELL, and Logitech as well, all three had this bug. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9
[MVKS]
Members
28 posts
9,574 battles

CV  nerf was way too strong.

Planes can make a single drop then need to return back to ship or be deleted. AA is way to powerful if ships are in decent formation (6 to 8 km) apart. Out of planes  10 min. into game now 

Mino  AA  will delete squadrons before you can turn away. 

Damage  went form 100k  avg  to 50 k avg.

Prior to Patch

I think the planes can turn too sharply, I  could simply just keep a DD spotted until either AA killed me or the DD was dead.  I think changing the turning radius of planes would help that aspect.

The instant relaunch of planes seems to be a major issue... I think a 10 to 15-second delay would have fewer planes in the sky and increase the DD's ability to go undetected and be able to survive a little better.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×