Jump to content
TheURLGuy

Future Plans for Aircraft Carriers

390 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

137
[ALL41]
Members
240 posts
6,324 battles

So, now that CV's are being re-introduced to co-op, are players going to get a free Captain re-spec, because many of us don't have them spec'd for AA?

 

I'd like to see AA targeting return to the "click-on a squadron" like it used to be.   Currently, if I prioritize half my ship for incoming aircraft, the aircraft merely need to fly to the other side of my ship to do more damage.     By clicking on an incoming squadron, it gives the surface ship player the ability to demonstrate defensive tactics against a recognized immediate threat.  

 

(edit:   receiving down-votes from CV players)   :cap_haloween:

Edited by ThumperD702
  • Cool 22
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
970
[-BRS-]
Members
2,496 posts
15,729 battles

Yea more nerfs to CVs:cap_like:

 

 Is this one of those overcome and adapt moments?

Edited by silverdahc
  • Cool 12
  • Funny 1
  • Angry 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[SF-E]
Members
161 posts
16,080 battles

I just bought Graf Zepplin main reason was the selling point "speed of the squadrons" with engine boost since planes are very fragile and now they are going to nerf the speed boost , wt@ i spent 60 bucks for the ship and its specific capabilities which are now being castrated, what happened to not F@#$$g with the prem. cv's.... :etc_swear:

Edited by spook_1971
  • Cool 23
  • Funny 5
  • Boring 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,782
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,754 posts
8,682 battles

so, DDs got what they wanted, nerfed HE bombs, just goes to show if you whine enough, WG will listen

  • Cool 26
  • Funny 5
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[JAWS-]
Members
14 posts

I dont think the scouting capabilities of a cv should be nerfed even more. They already have enough problems with stealth aa. If you want to improve aa control and effectivness, just get right click back and reduce the capability of HE shells to destroy aa modules (mm conqueror)

Edited by ReyWayvonRichthof
  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
94
[OGF]
Members
598 posts
23,092 battles

Wonderful.  Even MORE nerfing to bombing.  SMH.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[SF-E]
Members
161 posts
16,080 battles

I dont think WG'ing has thought this nerf or standardization (LOL) :Smile_trollface: out very well, unless they plan on buffing or (standardizing)  GZ's planes hp pool in-line with the other nations they should leave the engine boost speed alone, the planes are quite fragile as it is and the only thing that save them from utter annihilation is the ability to boost away from  aa zone quickly..... in addition i am not thrilled on hearing that they plan making a major change to a ship i just recently  purchased  not even a week ago, i purchased GZ for its "UNIQUE" speed characteristics as im quite sure other players did also and it's not like it was cheap either.... I feel like i got scammed bait and switch tatics to make money...   5 F@#%$^*g months and still cant get the cv right in their minds.   cant leave good enough alone i guess

Edited by spook_1971
  • Cool 12
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
519
[CVA16]
Members
3,148 posts
11,000 battles
3 minutes ago, spook_1971 said:

I just bought Graf Zepplin main reason was the speed with engine boost and now they are going to nerf it , wth i spent 60 bucks for the ship and its specific abilities which are now being castrated, what happened to not F@#$$g with the prem. cv's.... :etc_swear:

As long as it is an across the board nerf/change, like OWSF removal, WG has felt it was within stated policy to do so.  Not sure if it reaches a level where they will offer some form of buy-back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[TURN]
Members
18 posts
15,937 battles

Wonderful, I've spent a lot of time and xp to do the cv thing and since the change it's been nerf city. Might as well park in the corner and fly around and watch the game, check out scenery etc.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[BIER]
Members
3 posts
6,056 battles

I just started to get the hang of it.

Guess DDs wont get harrassed quite as hard now tho

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[SF-E]
Members
161 posts
16,080 battles
1 minute ago, Sabot_100 said:

As long as it is an across the board nerf/change, like OWSF removal, WG has felt it was within stated policy to do so.  Not sure if it reaches a level where they will offer some form of buy-back.

for graf zepplin most definitely will....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
869
[H_]
Members
1,901 posts

Again, CV's brought under some sort of control but; not enough....   Give the Destroyers designed for AA, AA radar and an increase in AA capabilities for all ships in their active AA radar zone....  Right now, we are forced to "group up" and that has changed the entire game....  We aren't voluntarily grouping up for offensive tactical reasons, we are grouping up just to survive aircraft; and, only a few CL's are AA ships and almost none of the DD's are AA picket's as they were actually designed to be !!! 

The IJN Akizuki's were designed as AA pickets and had AA Radar.....   Give that to those ships in that tech tree line and let them "do as they were designed to do !"  AA Radar pickets !!!   Then, the US and IJN designed radar picket AA ships can participate "equally" in the Air Wars you all created....  Balance the force to allow the SAG to fight tactically and let the Air Wars to the Carriers and the AA ships.........  That makes sense !!!  And, it gives the IJN their due and some radar equality that was historically used....

Post script:  the carrier meta drivers don't seem to understand that this is World of Ships..........not planes....  What, you don't want balance, do you..........?1

Edited by Asym_KS
  • Cool 8
  • Boring 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,160
[DRACS]
Members
4,331 posts

The change to the USN HE bomb ellipse is *sorely* needed. Making it closer to the Enterprise AP DB ellipse would go a long way to balancing them in line with other dive bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[RSF]
Members
73 posts
8,695 battles

OMG really more nerfs to cv. DD are hard enough to hit now. Now my bombers will be  even more useless.

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[CANNS]
Members
4 posts
2,073 battles

Well, there goes any hope of me spending any cash on the game for a few years..  gratz wg .. you literally just  Patched yourself out of 70$ i was considering to get a perm camo for a ship...Went US CV line in particular because of the circle shaped DB's..  i hate the British ellipse.. if i wanted wide area carpetbomb id have gone UK

 

We already had our scouting nerfed..    our fighters were already nerfed so its harder to hit DD's...

 

now our one effective US weapon.. the HE bomb.. is being nerfed hard..   and it will be a massive nerf since now we have to change how we line up on BBs and cruisers .. meaning our planes get chewed up even more as we already cant approach any cruisers at T10(Mino and woosters and DMs already can eat squads without a pinch of damage)

 

So instead of following the decent players that had adapted and were countering CV's very wel.. you patch based on the ones who refused to change.. brilliant...  guess WG are as foolish as Epic games

 

Hmm im within my 30 days on 2 purchases.. wonder if i can reverse the charges since the product is no longer as advertised

 

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[HORDE]
Members
1 post
4,685 battles

What a mess!   Aircraft carrier play was ruined with the changes and the continued changes keep getting worse.   Don't like to admit mistakes I guess.   Please go back to the original aircraft carrier play!  Currently, I have sold all my carriers and have no plans for going back.

Keep moving to play like WoT and you won't have many years left.   Just saying.

Please stop making changes to what was once a super game!   You are just going ruin it completely.   

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
945
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
3,618 posts
14,756 battles

WG, you may lose my interest in CV play with this. I want to point out one sentence in your web posting - 

This in itself is normal, but there is a problem: evasive maneuvers on the part of the destroyer being attacked by bombers don’t do enough to prevent being hit.

There IS a problem. As a DD main, dabbling in CV, the problem is the DD isn't maneuvering! If a CV noob like me can get a dev strike on a Benson with my dive bombers it isn't because I am good but the DD captain didn't WASD. That was the only reason I nailed that DD. He was too focused on shooting something to even maneuver - so I earned the DevStrike award. Please don't penalize the CV for this shortfall. I guarantee you when I am in my DD I WASD like a mad man to shake off those attacks and 90% (+/- 5%) of the time it works.

Still working out the kinks, I know, and I will be trying this out in PT.

I am actually enjoying CV play and am learning as I go. even this loss taught me something - 

Spoiler

shot-19_05.06_10_11.10-0900.thumb.jpg.a76e84931a174bdeca64b85d1aaa9caa.jpg

I may be a potato...

shot-19_05.06_10_11.19-0350.thumb.jpg.66690a3f856b0c0b1291ca89c6a65eac.jpg

...but at least I was the head potato!

 

 

Edited by Khafni
  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
61 posts
9,964 battles

FIRST OF ALL:  DO NOT INCLUDE CV IN RANKED/CLAN BATTLES AS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE CHANGES IS UNCERTAIN!

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[SF-E]
Members
161 posts
16,080 battles

WG'ing If you do decide to make the  negative change to engine boost and it affects GraF Zepp or Saipan which i have purchased i will be asking for my money back  and for not doubloons or any type of compensation.  I want real world cash since product will no longer be as advertised when purchased.   as for the tech tree ships i have all but stopped playing them .   I am all for improvement of the GZ bombers but if the speed boost nerf is collateral damage of the buff keep it and leave engine boost alone unless there are plans to impove the GZ planes over all hp pool... 

Edited by spook_1971
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
159
[VVV]
Members
714 posts
11,286 battles
53 minutes ago, suttontron said:

What a mess!   Aircraft carrier play was ruined with the changes and the continued changes keep getting worse.   Don't like to admit mistakes I guess.   Please go back to the original aircraft carrier play!  Currently, I have sold all my carriers and have no plans for going back.

Keep moving to play like WoT and you won't have many years left.   Just saying.

Please stop making changes to what was once a super game!   You are just going ruin it completely.   

So much this just undo the "rework" wargamings stated "reason"was to INCREASE CV play well that seems to have failed and they went and screwed everything up. Just undo the rework bring back the odd tier carriers put kaga and saipan back where they belong and recompensate players. 

Edited by yamato6945
  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[-FBR-]
[-FBR-]
Members
10 posts
2,572 battles

Guess my two major beefs with the whole CV rework was the accuracy of the planes, and the idea of an AA sector on the boat. For the first issue, out of 10-20 planes, only one plane might actually hit their target. The best squadrons (elite pilots) sometimes got 2 - 3 hits and this was on huge targets like the carriers and BBs. Second issue is the idea of having AA sectors and not having them stack. Captains would prioritize a squadron to target like the old way, not one half of a ship. I know this is supposed to be "arcade" style. But if the carriers get unlimited planes, then they should suffer from lack of accuracy and the AA on boats should fully stack with other boats.

Edited by Jedisilentwolf
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,361
[WGA]
Administrator
1,185 posts
482 battles
14 minutes ago, Khafni said:

WG, you may lose my interest in CV play with this. I want to point out one sentence in your web posting - 

This in itself is normal, but there is a problem: evasive maneuvers on the part of the destroyer being attacked by bombers don’t do enough to prevent being hit.

There IS a problem. As a DD main, dabbling in CV, the problem is the DD isn't maneuvering! If a CV noob like me can get a dev strike on a Benson with my dive bombers it isn't because I am good but the DD captain didn't WASD. That was the only reason I nailed that DD. He was too focused on shooting something to even maneuver - so I earned the DevStrike award. Please don't penalize the CV for this shortfall. I guarantee you when I am in my DD I WASD like a mad man to shake off those attacks and 90% (+/- 5%) of the time it works.

Still working out the kinks, I know, and I will be trying this out in PT.

I am actually enjoying CV play and am learning as I go. even this loss taught me something - 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Hey Khafni,  the intent of these changes is to make adjustments which will increase options available to DD players when targeted by CVs (especially bombing).  While I have no doubt your experience feels accurate, did that captain state to you he wasn't paying attention?  How can you be certain you would have hit him if he wasn't shooting something? 

Overall the goal of these changes is not penalize CVs but ensure proper balance between ship interactions (and in this case that's CV vs DDs).  Again keep in mind this is going to PT and if adjustments need to be made, we'll absolutely make them.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×