Mad_Dog_Dante

Uncalled for sir. You checked my stats and you seem to be intelligent enough to understand I'm a decent player overall. You're correct. I'm a CV noob. I do enjoy learning new ships and tactics without expecting myself to be able to carry teams right off the bat, especially in the unbalanced state of the game. The CV's still need a lot of work but the last two days wasn't about mindlessly spamming ordinance like the first few days. To me that's an improvement. Edit: I looked up my own stats. My old Ryujo WR was 33% at 9 battles played. My new Ryujo WR is 71% at 7 battles played. The Ranger is where I actually suck: 25% with 4 battles played. Try to cherry pick the worst WR next time to make your point at least

Carriers are like WOT artillery with a build in reconnaissance aircraft. More accurately: Carriers are like introducing WOWP bombers in WOT.

I want to make a case for slowing down the airspeed of all carrier bomber planes. I think slowing bomber planes down will adress a few core issues I see with the current carrier rework. The main issue I see A major problem in the carrier rework I see is a heavily skewed risk vs. reward scheme for carriers compared to the other ship classes in the game. Carriers hardly ever have to risk their ship willingly to reap great rewards. And with the loss of the manually controlled fighter planes and the new strong automated carrier ship defenses, carriers lost their primary counter: other CV's. I think carriers should be operating closer to the rest of the fleet risking exposure of their ships. Carriers can be pressured into higher risk ship positions by lowering the airspeed of bombers. This change can deepen carrier strategies and makes the carrier ship itself an core factor into carrier risk-reward play. One simple change that might optimize the risk-reward play for carriers is to reduce the airspeed of all bomber planes. Increasing the risk vs. reward ratio The reduction of airspeed will greatly lengthen the current flight time to target areas (enemies, front line, objectives) Long fight distances will result in ineffective carrier DPM and force carriers to shorten the flight times to target By positioning the carrier ship closer to the target areas they can shorten the time it takes to get planes into action Positioning carriers closer to target areas will increases risks to the carrier ship The greater risk of being targetted forces carriers to seek positions that are controlled and protected by friendly ships Furthermore I think that slower airspeed will adress a few other key issues. DD harassment Carriers can target enemy DD's (high priority targets) in 0.8.0 at low risk and cost and at an unprecedented pace (harrassment). Lowering the airspeed of carrier bombers can correct this skewed risk reward ratio. A Carrier can still track and target a DD but at a slower pace and rate Due to the longer target aquiring time, the cost of tracking a DD is increased (carrrier will be able to aquire a key target but can't do other damage during time it takes to aquire that target) After unloading its ornaments onto the target DD, if the carrier decides to recall its planes to get a fresh set of planes onto the target, the carrier is forced to forfeit target aquirement for a longer period due to the slower speed of the new squad The DD can use this down time to relocate/escape/retreit When returning to the last known position the carrier is forced to re-aquire the target DD and start the prcoess at point 1 again Perma spotting a DD will come at a cost: the carrier is unable to farm any direct damage after unloading its current ornaments while perma spotting a DD. Only spotting damage can be aquired if teammembers are in the area. End game power creep Currently carriers are often among the healthiest ships at the end stage of a game round resulting in unbalanced endgame battles. It is vital to level the playing field at that stage as much as possible. Reducing airspeed of bombers might help with that. Slower air speeds of bombers will force carriers to be closer to their targets and expose their ships to damage in earlier stages of a match Carriers will more likely suffer permanent ship damage during the coarse of the round Carriers will enter the end stage of a round more vulnerable, leveling the playing field to their surface ship counterparts Due to the lower airspeed of bombers, carriers will no longer be able to spam bomber squads at a high rate unless they are within gunrange of most surface ships (high risk - high reward) Carrier DPM will decrease if the player chooses to increase the distance to it's enemies (flee: low risk - low reward) Carrier DPM will increase if the player decreases the distance to it's opponents (attack: high risk high reward) There's more to it, but I have to get back to work. Shoot

I love my Atlanta. I've played 270 matches in it so i know the ship well. I don't recognise her any more. The screenshot below is the result of 1 attack by 1 bombersquad of a tier VI Ranger on my full HP Atlanta. My Atlanta is fully AA specked. The captain is fully AA specked with the exception of the Manual AA ability. The bombersquad started the attack from my activated AA sector and I activated my defensive AA consumable at 5.5 km. The squad was able to complete all 3 runs, hit me successfully with ever run, took out several modules and guns in 2 of the runs, removed 11.000 HP from my healthpool and started fires. I had a Scharnhorst and a New Mexico within AA range with me. I shot down 3 planes. This abismal AA result is not an exception on my Atlanta.

I wanted to test my Atlanta tonight but couldn't find any Carrier to play against for 4 matches. I do welcome a little breather, I had very little fun last few days playing. I did play 2 tier VI carrier matches myself and had way way way more fun in 0.8.0.1. Tier 8 AA is insane for a tier 6 CV, but the tier VII AA, also no joke, actually felt like a great challange. I really had to think and plan my attack runs not to end up on top of a higher tier BB after dropping my payload. I think for now carriers should not be uptiered 2 tiers but just 1. I had 1 great DB run in on a tier 8 BB but only at the end of the match where his AA probaly suffered alot. Anyway, I'll try to test my Atlanta again tomorrow.

I for one had fun tonight as opposed to the last few days. i wanted to test my Atlanta again in 0.8.0.1 after 0.8.0 was a huge dissapointment for her. I didnt find one carrier in 4 matches. I can't say I feel sorry to have a small breather, even if it is just for couple of days. So I played some tier Vi carriers to fill the void, one tier VII match and one tier VIII. I had way more fun being fragile again. The F key hotfix is great. I really had to plan my attacks, avoid certain ship groups and pick my targets. Plan my runs, not only for a good attack angle, but making sure i didn't end up on top of tier 8 BB's after dropping my payload. No more spamming brainless truds, but play that requiers planning, patience and a bit of luck. The AA felt very frightning expecially in tier 8 but tier 7 was no joke either, which totally added to my experience. I had to take out half filled airgroups with only 4 or 5 planes in them at the last stand. That actually felt good to me as a carrier. Fair. I must say, being tier up from 6 to 8 feels very harsh. 5 tier VIII BB's and just two tier 6 ships of which one of the carriers was one. Undoable, but way more fun.

I had the same and felt holding back for a bit. But 0.8.0.1 happened and I wanted to test my poor sweet Atlanta again to see how she would hold up vs. the carriers. Im on my fourth match and havent met one carrier yet, so i can't test my AA. I can't tell you things might have died down with the hotfix. Not sure yet. I played tier VI carrier as well and it's way more fun now. No more brainless spamming, you actually have to think about where to attack, from what direction, because you don't want to end up on top of two BB's with fierce continuous damage after you dropped your first load. The F key nerf is great. So I suggest try it for a bit, in a ship you feel comfortable in.

Had the exact same experience. Last ship standing with 2\3rd HP left, attacked by 2 cv's for 3 full waves and only 4 planes killed in 0.8.0

@RAHJAILARI How is the Atlanta in 0.8.0.1 compared to 0.8.0 for you?

Same here. Most captains set to 0 points spent and waiting this one out playing CV's :P

I've compared 0.8.0 Atlanta and Flint AA values in my post about the Atlanta AA changes. So the old 0.8.0 values are listed there. I'll probably make a new comparison and play test when i get the urge to play a bit.

No where in my writing did I express a wish for any carrier to be nerfed into the ground. I want to have fun in carriers, destroyers, cruisers and battleships alike. I love this game.

I play all types of surfaceships with a preference for destroyers and cruisers. I never played carriers much because i was crap at the RTS style play, but i play carriers a lot now. The carrier rework was tailor-made for people like me actually. You are correct. Rockets are supposed to have low damage alpha because aiming them is the easiest to do of all 3 attacks. They are designed to just enough damage to low healthpool targets reliably. When a BB is at low HP i usually kill it off with rockets. It's easier and i can replenish the torp airgroup a bit if needed (hint it hardly ever is needed is in 0.8.0). Destroyers are (or used to be) a high value target. Chipping it to low health gradually, spotting it for the team every time a carrier does 3 passes over it or taking it out completely spamming planes until it's dead, is cashing in a high value reward. Harassing a DD is a low risk task unless the destroyer is inside a blob (which is already a reward because it is not scouting) or specialized in AA. You are pointing out the effort (skill vs. time) it might take to disable a destroyer. I agree with you there.

It's not the empty planes that players control out of flak range after the drop, i know. F-key abuse is insta recalling planes out of harms way by the click of a button that still have bombs, rockets or torps to drop. It's healthy for CV's to have to choose to either risk losing planes due to forfeiting plane control in favor of launching another squad, or try to prevent plane casualties by manouvering the current combat ready planes out of harms way by hand and then using the F key. Question: They opted to kill off planes that dropped their bombs as well?

It actually sounds valid to me. Cv's now actually have to manouvre planes safely out of flak and not just during the attack run? Provided continuous damage alows for it, it sounds like CV's will need to learn to disengaging properly instead of pressing the F key.

Reducing the airspeed has to re-balanced to other variables like damage taken. I am not suggesting we should drop airspeed to 50% of what it is now. Currently IJN torpedo bombers have a skewed risk reward scheme vs. the other attack planes in general. The higher tier IJN long range stealth torps having a low risk dropping the ordinance combined with a high potential damage output over time by easy to do spam techniques is why they are currently a problem. Rockets have a skewed risk vs. reward system vs. DD's. Your comparison to WOT artillery can help pointing out the flaws in current carrier design actually. I didn't mind artillery in WOT at all, i actually liked it. It was a great counter to dislodge stalemate camping positions and a fun counter to it's own class. I don't mind being damaged at long range by an enemy i can't directly engage in return, as long as I can find a way to disengage. In WOT, players can make an effort to get undetected by the enemy team if it wants to escape artillery focus or harrasment. Tank speeds, smaller maps, an abundance of hard and soft cover all make it possible to get unspotted in WOT if you want to. Once undetected there is nothing an artillery player can do about that. Artillery can't scout on it's own. Carriers can keep coming back to harrass individual players endelessly because they are the no 1. scout in the game as well. Ships can't hide in smoke forever and smoke consumables are limited. Islands don't break line of sight for planes that fly over them, maps are vast and bare of actual cover against planes and all ships are slow and sluggish compared to planes. Artillery in WOT fully relies on spotting by the rest of it's teammates. No spotting by the team = no damage. Carriers are by far the no 1. scouts in WOWS and they currently make it extremely hard for the number 2 scout (destroyers) to operate succesfully. They are way better at scouting, dealing damage while staying healthy then destroyers ever can hope to be. Traditional scouts or spies in succesful class based game are always vulnerable as a counter to their speed or detectability. Scouts and spies have little to no armor and low healthpools to balance their traits. Planes have lowered healthpools and armor but respawn at full health instantly when killed. If it's not the same bomber class another bomber class vcan be spawned at full potential, little harm done really. Destroyers can't respawn, dead is dead, yet destroyers have to risk their livelyhood for a lot of tasks. Planes don't, they simply respawn. Destroyers do not have a giant mothership with a massive external healthpool that sits at the back of the map. If destroyers could operate according to the same design features as carriers currently do, we only have to introcude harbours and shipdocks to pump out new destroyers whenever they get killed. Think about how disrupting that would be. Carriers are that disrupting to the game. As long as carriers can successfully operate from anywhere on the map without risking their ships they will always end up way too healthy in the last stage of the battle. higher tier carriers need more then just a damage balance fix. They need to be re-introduced to carrier ship risk vs. reward schemes. Nerfing plane damage and vulnurability will make carriers less potent and that will make them boring to play eventually.

Quoted for accuracy.

Agreed. Every tier will have to be balanced according to average tier ship speeds and map sizes.

Carriers won't have to rely on teammates to position themselves to his ship to protect him. Nobody does. The carrier captain will have to position himself relative to the team. Everyone else already does. Every class has to decide how to position themselves close enough to their target area to be successfull while trying to stay relatively safe. Currently carriers are the only class that don't have to answer to that challange.

Seconded.

Exact same story. I played WOT for a few years up to the point where it's gameplay became too chaotic to my liking. I also did not care for the growth and abundance of added variables after it's second year (crew consumables on top of tank consumables etc). I tried WOWP for a bit but I didn't enjoy it's gameplay at all even though I love flying planes in other games, it feels like a mobile phone game on PC. I see the same unlikable airplane gameplay emerging in WOWS, but worse. I fell in love with WOWS the first time I played it and have been playing it as my exclusive go to online game for years now. But I just mothballed my captains. Carriers and their spammy gameplay design ruined playing surface ships in general for me. I'll be playing the CV's for a bit but I'll probably get bored with it very soon though, just like WOWP. I'm just gonna sit this one out for a bit.

This is what bothers me most about the update actually. I play WOWS to relax and avoid spammy games made for kids.

Not quitting but certainly taking a break up to 0.8.1. My Blyska is gathering dust in port since the ivisifire change. I agreed with the global change but I wasn't amused that the Blyska didn't get a stealth upgrade to compensate a bit. I sold the Belfast when they changed fire-in-smoke blooming. Again, I agree with the global change, but sold it anyway. My Atlanta's AA has been nerfed to bits compared to pre 0.8.0 and now the GC is being uptiered. I want to exchange both as they lost a big part of their appeal. I can't stand the annoying and constant swarms of planes that are buzzing around in 8 out of 10 matches currently. I've tested my favorite go to ships (Atlanta, dd's and the occasional Missouri), played the new CV's and found the game to be lacking in it's current state. I tried and tested but being harrassed in the final stage of a battle by overly healthy CV's spamming 100% full plane squads at the last remaining surface ships of the losing team only to be grinded to 0 HP slowly in an unrelenting spam of planes without a proper counter is aggrevating. Only douchebags enjoy doing that. Most matches end up like that now due to the abundance of CV's. They announced limiting the number of carriers per match as late as 0.8.1 and not asap. as I would prefer. Instead of easing in changes they are carpet bombing the game. I am seriously considering to stop playing until they limit the carrier numbers per match. That means premium time game wasted for weeks. I know, that is my own choice, but it's their fucked up game state. I am not amused. Not mad, just very dissapointed.

I've had an instance where my Flint guns were able to fire through a solid looking part of an island. Hit detection or hit boxes can be screwed up. I forgot where it was and didnt screenshot it

I agree. A 'Preparing air group' countdown timer for carriers at round start is a very valid suggestion. We have simular timers for many functions on other ships, so players are already used to it. Players are used to loading guns, loading torpedoes, countdown timers for consumables etc. In fact I think it could be valid for launching new air groups in general. Launching a plane squad takes as much if not more time as loading a large caliber gun. There is no reason to step away from loading timers for the Carrier class. A 'Preparing air group' countdown timer at round start combined with a slower airspeed might very well balance the startup of the match vs. destroyers. We just have to make sure planes and destroyers can get to the centre line of the map in a straight line at roughly the same time. We haven't talked about the amount of speed reduction much yet. You can't state that any reduction of the current speed wil be instant boredom. Seasoned carrier captains were used to slower speeds and players of other classes like battleships are also used to slow traverse speeds. The point of the speed reduction is not to make flight times longer and more boring, it is to pressure carrier captains to move their carrier ships closer to the front line so their flight distances become shorter. When players get used to that that there will be zero extra flight time, just added risk to their ships.