Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Captain_Rawhide

Is WG intentionally trying to ruin older ships.

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

463
[WOLFG]
Members
867 posts

I know this sound like tin foil hat time, but I seriously have to wonder.  With some of the unbelievable nerfs WG has been implementing (IFHE destroying lower tier cruisers..Flint, Atalanta etc., CVs, constant individual ship nerfs) it sounds like there must be an overall objective, and it isn't balance.  By making the older ships less appealing to play they are forcing you to regrind new lines or buy the newer premium ships.  Some people just refer to this as power creep.  This clearly puts dollars in their pocket.  Some have said the newer ships suffer the same, but I disagree.  They will be 'balanced' based on the new criteria.   

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,433 posts
14,165 battles

It is called power creep but they seem to be attempting to do something about it as most new lines and new premiums are not more powerful than their predecessors allowing room for later buffs.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,552
[TARK]
Members
6,653 posts
2,527 battles
9 minutes ago, Captain_Rawhide said:

I know this sound like tin foil hat time, but I seriously have to wonder.  With some of the unbelievable nerfs WG has been implementing (IFHE destroying lower tier cruisers..Flint, Atalanta etc., CVs, constant individual ship nerfs) it sounds like there must be an overall objective, and it isn't balance.  By making the older ships less appealing to play they are forcing you to regrind new lines or buy the newer premium ships.  Some people just refer to this as power creep.  This clearly puts dollars in their pocket.  Some have said the newer ships suffer the same, but I disagree.  They will be 'balanced' based on the new criteria.   

Welcome to a mature understanding of the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
Just now, BrushWolf said:

It is called power creep but they seem to be attempting to do something about it as most new lines and new premiums are not more powerful than their predecessors allowing room for later buffs.

^^

The OP seems to confuse powercreep and nerfs, or I have misread/

Recent tech tree releases (notably Italian and British heavy cruiser lines) have reversed the trend of power creep. new tier X usually get about 3 to 6 months grace of being slightly OP, before they are nerfed (Kleber = recent example). 

As for Flint (and Atlanta), when it was released, it was horribly overpowered, the nerfs to AA (cv rework) and HE (ifhe rework) were long overdue. These two were the very definition of powercreep, in their heyday.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,552
[TARK]
Members
6,653 posts
2,527 battles
4 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

^^

The OP seems to confuse powercreep and nerfs, or I have misread/

Recent tech tree releases (notably Italian and British heavy cruiser lines) have reversed the trend of power creep. new tier X usually get about 3 to 6 months grace of being slightly OP, before they are nerfed (Kleber = recent example). 

As for Flint (and Atlanta), when it was released, it was horribly overpowered, the nerfs to AA (cv rework) and HE (ifhe rework) were long overdue. These two were the very definition of powercreep, in their heyday.

His point about game balance being less important than revenue generation is important though...because its true.

WG does not adjust the ships only on in game balance data.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
463
[WOLFG]
Members
867 posts
8 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

^^

The OP seems to confuse powercreep and nerfs, or I have misread/

Recent tech tree releases (notably Italian and British heavy cruiser lines) have reversed the trend of power creep. new tier X usually get about 3 to 6 months grace of being slightly OP, before they are nerfed (Kleber = recent example). 

As for Flint (and Atlanta), when it was released, it was horribly overpowered, the nerfs to AA (cv rework) and HE (ifhe rework) were long overdue. These two were the very definition of powercreep, in their heyday.

No, you are correct.  Even though they are not the same, nerfs do affect power creeping.  As far as Atlanta and Flint are concerned, the IFHE rework has completely neutered them.  Don't think you will find too many Atlanta drivers that will disagree.  It's the 'extent' of the nerf I have issues with.

Edited by Captain_Rawhide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,715
[SOFOP]
Members
2,439 posts
14,361 battles

Let's see what happens with the new Soviet Cruiser lines before making the assertion that WG has "changed their ways".  If that line comes out balanced, I'll agree that they have changed and are trying to release more balanced ships.  Most people seem to agree that the new cruiser line with not be balanced though (based on WIP stats), and we will hear from everyone and their mother about Soviet bias that entire patch.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
3 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

His point about game balance being less important than revenue generation is important though...because its true.

WG does not adjust the ships only on in game balance data.

That is a rather broad generalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
943
[WOLF6]
Members
1,849 posts
5,553 battles
9 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

^^

The OP seems to confuse powercreep and nerfs, or I have misread/

Recent tech tree releases (notably Italian and British heavy cruiser lines) have reversed the trend of power creep. new tier X usually get about 3 to 6 months grace of being slightly OP, before they are nerfed (Kleber = recent example). 

As for Flint (and Atlanta), when it was released, it was horribly overpowered, the nerfs to AA (cv rework) and HE (ifhe rework) were long overdue. These two were the very definition of powercreep, in their heyday.

Very true.

I get confused as people complain concurrently about power creep and then say 'The new PE DDs are crap blah blah'.

The latest premium carrier Indomitable too certainly isn't the carry powerhouse that some of the others are either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
9 minutes ago, Sumseaman said:

Very true.

I get confused as people complain concurrently about power creep and then say 'The new PE DDs are crap blah blah'.

The latest premium carrier Indomitable too certainly isn't the carry powerhouse that some of the others are either.

Indomitable is misunderstood but among those who have revised their CV skillsets, and their objectives (except for winning) she is OP., because she has one thing no other CVs can compete with, superfast attack planes, which are the best scouts / vision control planes in the game. While it is difficult for a CV to be anything but OP, Indomitable makes one of the biggest complaints surface ship players have (CV spotting) even worse. But you will hear fewer complaints about Indomitable, because it such a rare CV in random battles.

The t5, 6 and 7 PE dds are fairly balanced, in my opinion, not too bad to play, but certainly not dominant. Good torps vs crap guns.

Oland, the tier 8, on the other hand, with both powerful torps (speedy and 12 km range) + good guns (modest range but comfortable handling and ROF), good concealment and a reasonably tanky setup (Repair Party), is overpowered. I suspect we'll be hearing complaints as more get their hands on the tier 8, 9 and 10 PE, for being OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,590
Members
6,621 posts
20,677 battles
20 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

^^

Recent tech tree releases (notably Italian and British heavy cruiser lines) have reversed the trend of power creep. new tier X usually get about 3 to 6 months grace of being slightly OP, 

You realize that both of those lines are destroying older lines. The RN are holding close to 50% more damage and higher win rates at tier 9 and 10 and 25% more than their Smoke sitting sisters. Also destroying the numbers of all the others. Italy line is as well.

These numbers are slaughtering the old ships... it isn't slight bump for the old argument "better players are distorting the numbers"

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
8 minutes ago, Waxing_Gibbous said:

You realize that both of those lines are destroying older lines. The RN are holding close to 50% more damage and higher win rates at tier 9 and 10 and 25% more than their Smoke sitting sisters. Also destroying the numbers of all the others. Italy line is as well.

These numbers are slaughtering the old ships... it isn't slight bump for the old argument "better players are distorting the numbers"

 

I've said it many times and I'll say it again, without being able to compare a large spreadsheet of owners of ship x vs the same owners who also own ship y, higher/lower WR is meaningless.

It is because of this methodology, comparing ships x & y driven by the same players, that I have won my forum debates about Brokengrad. People being obsessed about colourful but selective stats filtered by 3rd party websites, (whose content is selectively made available by WG and their API) are barking up the wrong tree. Why do you think no 3rd part website allows you to compare the performance of Goliath, only by those who own both Goliath and Des Moines, for example?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
943
[WOLF6]
Members
1,849 posts
5,553 battles
17 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

Indomitable is misunderstood but among those who have revised their CV skillsets, and their objectives (except for winning) she is OP., because she has one thing no other CVs can compete with, superfast attack planes, which are the best scouts / vision control planes in the game. While it is difficult for a CV to be anything but OP, Indomitable makes one of the biggest complaints surface ship players have (CV spotting) even worse. But you will hear fewer complaints about Indomitable, because it such a rare CV in random battles.

Oh yes a formidable scout I'll agree with the speed and additional charge of fighter drops. Was exempt too from the attack run nerfs.

Seems spotting never corresponds quite as well as damage done when it comes to XP calculation though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,263
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,131 posts
4,088 battles

Intentionally? No. Are older ships suffering? Yes.

WG has no reason to purposely nerf old ships, they're just not that great at realizing all the consequences of changes they make. One example. Remember when 16" was the standard for T8-10 BBs, and only one ships had bigger? Yeah, now 16" is on the bottom, and even 18.1" can't claim the top spot any more. So Montana is starting to lose on her firepower advantage, not to mention the overmatch for cruisers gets worse and worse.

The problem is WG needs to introduce new things, and it's really hard to not have the new things be better things. They've done a decent job, but at this point there really isn't an old ship that doesn't have a flat out better competitor. 

The CV rework just screwed everyone equally. The IFHE rework was WG stating that 16" guns are no longer enough at T10, not to mention a huge nerf to T7 CLs (seriously WG? unable to pen T8+ BBs? Did you guys just not think that through or do you really think that's a good idea?).

Bottom line, while not intentional older ships are starting to become obsolete. WG is so focused on pumping out new things they're ignoring upkeep of older elements (CVs are fine, we're moving on:fish_palm:). IMO they need to just take a break for 6 months from new lines and ships, and focus on bringing old ships and mechanics up to par. There are a bunch of older lines that need a second look. Not to mention core game mechanics. The smokescreens not rendering at all zoom levels issue is back, and the ship rendering delay is also making a return. The AP penetration mechanics have been wonky for a long time. We're still getting multiple BB AP pens (pens, not torp pens) for overpen level damage. WG needs to admit that engine has an issue, and needs to fix it. It's really irritating to see I got 5 pens, and only did 2K damage. I don't care if they shouldn't do damage or whatever, then don't show it as a pen. But a pen should do 33% damage, so something needs to be fixed there. Also there are numerous little errors with armor models. All little things, but together they're showing a lack of basic upkeep. Take the time to fix them properly. Short-term profit may suffer, but if the game's around longer as a result, that's better in the long run. And WG really needs to acknowledge CVs have serious issues. Most of the playerbase hates them (not dislike, downright hates). Remember what happens when you don't listen to the players? Either fix the CVs (or the AA, preferably both) or yank them completely. WOWS is doing OK right now. But there's a bunch of problems that if ignored will kill the game. And WG isn't showing any real signs of addressing them...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,031
[EQRN]
Members
2,034 posts
17,519 battles

World of Warships attracted people of all kinds of backgrounds and interests and is increasingly appealing to one subset of that population to the detriment of other groups: what kills WoWs isn’t going to be CVs, subs or the next gimmick of the month, it’s going to be an utter lack of interest in the game.  

The tech tree releases when I started the game were exciting times.  The last few? I couldn’t be bothered with.  I used to spend a lot of time, and sometimes money, to get as many early access ships and bells and whistles as possible.  Last tree release I only got the Hawkins in the second to last crate - and I didn’t care.  This system they’re using for PE DDs will guarantee the Visby to everyone that finishes the Directives, and I frankly don’t care again.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
395
[WOLF5]
Members
1,081 posts
8,929 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

That is a rather broad generalization.

It was, for example, explicitly stated during the CV rework that CVs would be buffed until they were played at a rate desired by WG regardless of their actual in-game performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
2 minutes ago, DJC_499 said:

It was, for example, explicitly stated during the CV rework that CVs would be buffed until they were played at a rate desired by WG regardless of their actual in-game performance.

are you not imagining this?

CVs were nerfed, at EVERY patch, following 0.8.0 (CV rework launch).

You want an argument on this? Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,552
[TARK]
Members
6,653 posts
2,527 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

That is a rather broad generalization.

It is not.

WoWs is a free2play title with a pay2advance business model. The gameplay ITSELF has to monetize revenue.

Wargaming does NOT use in game performance ALONE to balance ships.

9 minutes ago, DJC_499 said:

It was, for example, explicitly stated during the CV rework that CVs would be buffed until they were played at a rate desired by WG regardless of their actual in-game performance.

Exactly.

6 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

are you not imagining this?

CVs were nerfed, at EVERY patch, following 0.8.0 (CV rework launch).

You want an argument on this? Seriously?

Easy, the number of carrier battles were too much.

Speaking seriously though, carriers have not been nerfed every patch.

Remember when Langley could only attack with one torpedo bomber?

I do.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
14 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

It is not.

WoWs is a free2play title with a pay2advance business model. The gameplay ITSELF has to monetize revenue.

Wargaming does NOT use in game performance ALONE to balance ships.

Exactly.

Easy, the number of carrier battles were too much.

Speaking seriously though, carriers have not been nerfed every patch.

Remember when Langley could only attack with one torpedo bomber?

I do.

0.8.0.1 CV nerfs

0.8.0.2 CV nerfs

0.8.0.3 CV nerfs

0.8.1 UK CVs released

0.8.2 CV nerfs

0.8.3 CV nerfs

0.8.4 CV nerfs

0.8.5 CV nerfs

0.8.6 CV nerfs (Hak loses long range torpedo bombers)

0.8.7 AA buff (priority sector)

0.8.8 no record of buffs or nerfs to CVs.

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/?category=game-updates

(I may have missed some hotfixes in between the major patches.) Many of these nerfs were necessary, but painful for those of us who play CVs a lot. Buffs of any kind to CVs during the 6 months following 0.8.0 were extremely rare (when they occurred they were quite minor).

Now please stop spreading misinformation. 

e.g from WG patch notes :


Quote

 

In Update 0.8.0.1 we will carry out balance changes and improvements of aircraft carriers and AA stats.

  • 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 flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png VIII Lexington, flag_Japan_740b57e1da9b5d3fe46b61e09e3dcda1f34dfd7afdafe98714cb20012d5c1f0e.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png VIII Shokaku, flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png X Midway, flag_Japan_740b57e1da9b5d3fe46b61e09e3dcda1f34dfd7afdafe98714cb20012d5c1f0e.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png X Hakuryu.
  • 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).
  • 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. 
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Significant changes have affected the alternative plane torpedo module for flag_Japan_740b57e1da9b5d3fe46b61e09e3dcda1f34dfd7afdafe98714cb20012d5c1f0e.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png 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 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.
  • The speed of all aircraft when returning to their carrier is reduced.
  • 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.
  • Bug fixes: the aiming for the stock attack aircraft on the carrier flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png VI Rangeris now similar to the aiming for all American attack aircraft. The characteristics of the basic 'Fighter' consumable for flag_United_Kingdom_c1f75d7cca85dc4b48208e9ff7f96c35c7002b584a1081fa4633022e48ca5676.png standard_874a3bdc3134b8da4fd6f52186f1b2b682f13ef78688732d3016785c0649a424.png V Emeraldare 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.
  • 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 flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png premium_1114542bcd311c388080eea3a4d54a7ea6fdc8706b019fcbf16ace9951f3a000.png VII Atlanta, flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_874a3bdc3134b8da4fd6f52186f1b2b682f13ef78688732d3016785c0649a424.png VI Pensacola, flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_874a3bdc3134b8da4fd6f52186f1b2b682f13ef78688732d3016785c0649a424.png VI Dallasand battleships flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_01624cacb82f39f77a4e677a7b9fdf4df20dafd61f971f4b2d3e54c3065e2892.png VII Coloradoand flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png premium_1d0cabf1997104fd727039ab9c09819260343ab3a9e862f361434d7f42270eb3.png VI Arizona.
  • If the ship has no 30 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.

Update 0.8.0.3 will affect the interaction of carriers with destroyers, the "Fighter" consumable, and the individual balance of some ships.

  • Due to the good maneuverability and precise aiming even when changing direction of attack, Attack Aircraft are excessively effective against destroyers. The latter have almost no opportunities for counterplay, even with active maneuvering. Given the high speed, Attack Aircraft successfully repel destroyers from control points and, in the early stages of battle, force them to keep close to allies, so as not to suffer from airborne attack. Taking into account the above factors, we have reduced the effectiveness of attack aircraft against maneuvering destroyers, but at the same time preserved the main features of the planes. These changes will apply to Attack Aircraft of all CVs:
    • Increased preparation time for the attack, which will not allow instant attacks on destroyers.
    • Changed the parameters of aiming: now planes get a large aim penalty when changing their direction during an attack and will not be able to accurately shoot rockets when maneuvering.
    • All attack aircraft will have a reduced attack time. The aiming reticle now has a wider area when entering an attack, but the maximum reduction of the aiming reticle remains unchanged. Thus, this type of aircraft will reward players for choosing the right vector of attack and consequently leave less chance of a successful attack if carried out at the last moment.
    • Maneuverability during the preparation for the attack and during the attack run is reduced, which will not allow Attack Aircraft to easily aim at a maneuvering destroyer if the approach of the attack was originally on the wrong vector.

 

  • Thus, the destroyer, which actively maneuvers and takes into account in advance the attack vector of the squadron, will be able to successfully dodge the attack. The interaction of attack aircraft with ships that do not change their course or, due to their  characteristics, cannot do it quickly enough, will remain at the same level.
  • Visibility of all ships from the air is reduced by 20%. This will reduce the reconnaissance potential of СVs at the start of the battle and will help destroyers to remain undetected for a longer period, provided that their AA is turned off with the help of the P key.
  • To improve the efficiency of the "Fighter" consumable, we changed its settings. Now, fighters quickly begin pursuing enemy squadrons in their area of influence.
  • Also increased cruising speed, increased the number of aircraft called by consumable on the squadron from 2-3-4 to 3-5-7, respectively.
  • We have also significantly reduced the hit points of fighters, which will emphasize their weakness against ships and low efficiency as an intelligence tool. In addition, the radius of patrolling fighters for squadrons has changed with tier progression: at tier VI it has been reduced to 2.5 km, tier VIII is unchanged, and at the X tier it is now 3.5 km.
  • Due to the excessive efficiency on account to the large number of torpedoes in the attack flight, the attacking potential of Midway’s torpedo bombers is reduced: their torpedoes have been replaced with weaker ones (the maximum damage is now 4233 instead of 5367) and the chance of flooding is reduced. Other parameters remain unchanged.

 

Changes that have affected the premium aircraft carrier Enterprise:

  • Bombers in all respects have become similar to the SB2C Helldiver bombers found on aircraft carrier Lexington, but they still carry AP bombs. This change will increase the survivability of the squadron.
  • Reduced torpedo arming time. The torpedo aiming is now similar to the TBF Avenger torpedo bombers of the aircraft carrier Lexington. Previously, the torpedo aiming reticle was tightened slowly, but the penalty for maneuvering was lower. Now, the aiming will be faster, but the penalty for maneuvering will be higher. Thus, when it’s the right time to attack, the torpedo bombers will be able to drop their torpedoes more quickly and accurately.
  • Replenishment of Attack Aircraft on the deck has been accelerated, allowing for faster compensation for the loss of aircraft in battle.

 

Other changes:

  • Fixed an incorrect cooldown for consumable "Defensive AA Fire II" on destroyers. Now it is lower than the "Defensive AA Fire I".
  • Reduced the size of bomber squadrons for British aircraft carriers, and increased fall time of the bombs. Due to the specifics of dropping bombs, British aircraft were too effective compared to other bombers. These changes will allow them to retain their features but will lead to a more balanced damage output.
  • Changed number of attack aircraft in the attack flight for the base plane module of the aircraft carrier Furious, and for the attack aircraft on the aircraft carrier Indomitable. Now there are two planes instead of three in the attack flight, which will make three attacks possible in one squadron instead of two.
  • Fixed a bug that caused the guns of the ship HuangHe to be displayed as floating in the air when a special Lunar New Year camouflage was equipped.
  • February 23, the port of St. Petersburg will be decorated to celebrate the Defender of the Fatherland Day. Its appearance will remain festive until the release of update 0.8.1.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[FDK]
Members
1,251 posts

Good question. WG changed Scharnhort's maing guns sound.

Edited by Xwing_Red1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,552
[TARK]
Members
6,653 posts
2,527 battles
10 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

Now please stop spreading misinformation

Right.

So, you deny that the change to have Hosho have 6 instead of 3 torpedo bombers and each attack wave be two instead of one torpedo was a buff?

Dude, I am not the one spreading misinformation here.

Have CVs been, in general, extensively nerfed since 0.8.0? Yes. Does that prove the OP correct?

ARGUABLY YES.

So...what is you point here?

You think that we should all expect a balanced game from a pay2advance game business model? Thats a very unrealistic expectation.

WG is going to balance partly on revenue generation...because they HAVE TO.

If you do not accept this TRUTH, then this game is going to make you frustrated.

Accept it. Enjoy the game for what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
324
[SIMP]
Members
1,302 posts
10,775 battles
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

I've said it many times and I'll say it again, without being able to compare a large spreadsheet of owners of ship x vs the same owners who also own ship y, higher/lower WR is meaningless.

It is because of this methodology, comparing ships x & y driven by the same players, that I have won my forum debates about Brokengrad. People being obsessed about colourful but selective stats filtered by 3rd party websites, (whose content is selectively made available by WG and their API) are barking up the wrong tree. Why do you think no 3rd part website allows you to compare the performance of Goliath, only by those who own both Goliath and Des Moines, for example?

 

You actually compare winrate curves for the ships, similarly to the WoT.

Then you get an idea across the player base regardless of which ships are owned.

Edited by _cthulhu_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,016
[IRNBN]
Members
3,397 posts
9,822 battles

     This update had two effects on my beloved cruisers. The old 8" heavies got a nice (and sorely needed) armor buff, and the IFHE change for the 6" lights just meant that I could dump IFHE and run DE instead and turn them into dedicated flamethrowers and save a skill point. So it's a buff to CA and a meta shift for CL. At least that's how I sussed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
10 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

So, you deny that the change to have Hosho have 6 instead of 3 torpedo bombers and each attack wave be two instead of one torpedo was a buff?

I do not, I explicitly state that anecdotal buffs to CVs occurred in the 6 months following the CV rework release with 0.8.0, anecdotal, i.e rare, unusual, uncommon.

24 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

0.8.0.1 CV nerfs

0.8.0.2 CV nerfs

0.8.0.3 CV nerfs

0.8.1 UK CVs released

0.8.2 CV nerfs

0.8.3 CV nerfs

0.8.4 CV nerfs

0.8.5 CV nerfs

0.8.6 CV nerfs (Hak loses long range torpedo bombers)

0.8.7 AA buff (priority sector)

0.8.8 no record of buffs or nerfs to CVs.

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/?category=game-updates

(I may have missed some hotfixes in between the major patches.) Many of these nerfs were necessary, but painful for those of us who play CVs a lot. Buffs of any kind to CVs during the 6 months following 0.8.0 were extremely rare (when they occurred they were quite minor).

Now please stop spreading misinformation. 

e.g from WG patch notes :


In Update 0.8.0.1 we will carry out balance changes and improvements of aircraft carriers and AA stats.

  • 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 flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png VIII Lexington, flag_Japan_740b57e1da9b5d3fe46b61e09e3dcda1f34dfd7afdafe98714cb20012d5c1f0e.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png VIII Shokaku, flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png X Midway, flag_Japan_740b57e1da9b5d3fe46b61e09e3dcda1f34dfd7afdafe98714cb20012d5c1f0e.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png X Hakuryu.
  • 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).
  • 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. 
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Significant changes have affected the alternative plane torpedo module for flag_Japan_740b57e1da9b5d3fe46b61e09e3dcda1f34dfd7afdafe98714cb20012d5c1f0e.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png 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 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.
  • The speed of all aircraft when returning to their carrier is reduced.
  • 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.
  • Bug fixes: the aiming for the stock attack aircraft on the carrier flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_84f55678325d4b492215390a7f0b43008f3947ab201502cd979dcf4c37633cf3.png VI Rangeris now similar to the aiming for all American attack aircraft. The characteristics of the basic 'Fighter' consumable for flag_United_Kingdom_c1f75d7cca85dc4b48208e9ff7f96c35c7002b584a1081fa4633022e48ca5676.png standard_874a3bdc3134b8da4fd6f52186f1b2b682f13ef78688732d3016785c0649a424.png V Emeraldare 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.
  • 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 flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png premium_1114542bcd311c388080eea3a4d54a7ea6fdc8706b019fcbf16ace9951f3a000.png VII Atlanta, flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_874a3bdc3134b8da4fd6f52186f1b2b682f13ef78688732d3016785c0649a424.png VI Pensacola, flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_874a3bdc3134b8da4fd6f52186f1b2b682f13ef78688732d3016785c0649a424.png VI Dallasand battleships flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png standard_01624cacb82f39f77a4e677a7b9fdf4df20dafd61f971f4b2d3e54c3065e2892.png VII Coloradoand flag_USA_dd9fc06d19a8638f4077ab2fe200d227bf8ac8784efe8f3313be33ebbf37ae19.png premium_1d0cabf1997104fd727039ab9c09819260343ab3a9e862f361434d7f42270eb3.png VI Arizona.
  • If the ship has no 30 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.

Update 0.8.0.3 will affect the interaction of carriers with destroyers, the "Fighter" consumable, and the individual balance of some ships.

  • Due to the good maneuverability and precise aiming even when changing direction of attack, Attack Aircraft are excessively effective against destroyers. The latter have almost no opportunities for counterplay, even with active maneuvering. Given the high speed, Attack Aircraft successfully repel destroyers from control points and, in the early stages of battle, force them to keep close to allies, so as not to suffer from airborne attack. Taking into account the above factors, we have reduced the effectiveness of attack aircraft against maneuvering destroyers, but at the same time preserved the main features of the planes. These changes will apply to Attack Aircraft of all CVs:
    • Increased preparation time for the attack, which will not allow instant attacks on destroyers.
    • Changed the parameters of aiming: now planes get a large aim penalty when changing their direction during an attack and will not be able to accurately shoot rockets when maneuvering.
    • All attack aircraft will have a reduced attack time. The aiming reticle now has a wider area when entering an attack, but the maximum reduction of the aiming reticle remains unchanged. Thus, this type of aircraft will reward players for choosing the right vector of attack and consequently leave less chance of a successful attack if carried out at the last moment.
    • Maneuverability during the preparation for the attack and during the attack run is reduced, which will not allow Attack Aircraft to easily aim at a maneuvering destroyer if the approach of the attack was originally on the wrong vector.

 

  • Thus, the destroyer, which actively maneuvers and takes into account in advance the attack vector of the squadron, will be able to successfully dodge the attack. The interaction of attack aircraft with ships that do not change their course or, due to their  characteristics, cannot do it quickly enough, will remain at the same level.
  • Visibility of all ships from the air is reduced by 20%. This will reduce the reconnaissance potential of СVs at the start of the battle and will help destroyers to remain undetected for a longer period, provided that their AA is turned off with the help of the P key.
  • To improve the efficiency of the "Fighter" consumable, we changed its settings. Now, fighters quickly begin pursuing enemy squadrons in their area of influence.
  • Also increased cruising speed, increased the number of aircraft called by consumable on the squadron from 2-3-4 to 3-5-7, respectively.
  • We have also significantly reduced the hit points of fighters, which will emphasize their weakness against ships and low efficiency as an intelligence tool. In addition, the radius of patrolling fighters for squadrons has changed with tier progression: at tier VI it has been reduced to 2.5 km, tier VIII is unchanged, and at the X tier it is now 3.5 km.
  • Due to the excessive efficiency on account to the large number of torpedoes in the attack flight, the attacking potential of Midway’s torpedo bombers is reduced: their torpedoes have been replaced with weaker ones (the maximum damage is now 4233 instead of 5367) and the chance of flooding is reduced. Other parameters remain unchanged.

 

Changes that have affected the premium aircraft carrier Enterprise:

  • Bombers in all respects have become similar to the SB2C Helldiver bombers found on aircraft carrier Lexington, but they still carry AP bombs. This change will increase the survivability of the squadron.
  • Reduced torpedo arming time. The torpedo aiming is now similar to the TBF Avenger torpedo bombers of the aircraft carrier Lexington. Previously, the torpedo aiming reticle was tightened slowly, but the penalty for maneuvering was lower. Now, the aiming will be faster, but the penalty for maneuvering will be higher. Thus, when it’s the right time to attack, the torpedo bombers will be able to drop their torpedoes more quickly and accurately.
  • Replenishment of Attack Aircraft on the deck has been accelerated, allowing for faster compensation for the loss of aircraft in battle.

 

Other changes:

  • Fixed an incorrect cooldown for consumable "Defensive AA Fire II" on destroyers. Now it is lower than the "Defensive AA Fire I".
  • Reduced the size of bomber squadrons for British aircraft carriers, and increased fall time of the bombs. Due to the specifics of dropping bombs, British aircraft were too effective compared to other bombers. These changes will allow them to retain their features but will lead to a more balanced damage output.
  • Changed number of attack aircraft in the attack flight for the base plane module of the aircraft carrier Furious, and for the attack aircraft on the aircraft carrier Indomitable. Now there are two planes instead of three in the attack flight, which will make three attacks possible in one squadron instead of two.
  • Fixed a bug that caused the guns of the ship HuangHe to be displayed as floating in the air when a special Lunar New Year camouflage was equipped.
  • February 23, the port of St. Petersburg will be decorated to celebrate the Defender of the Fatherland Day. Its appearance will remain festive until the release of update 0.8.1.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
395
[WOLF5]
Members
1,081 posts
8,929 battles
44 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

are you not imagining this?

CVs were nerfed, at EVERY patch, following 0.8.0 (CV rework launch).

You want an argument on this? Seriously?

This was a direct verbal quote from Sub Octavian that I remember oh so well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×