Ubertron_X

Insult filters dont even work in child shows...

As @iJoby already explained we do not need additional credits or free XP, we need something to spend them on. And even if I have not yet managed to deplete the arsenal the only thing which is still a notable ressource for experienced players is XP (captain XP).

Back in my time we could actually test premium tanks on the test server in WoT, which actually made a lot of sense. And we even got the necessary gold to do so. I always wondered why WG isnt doing this for WoWs as it was a huge incentive to actually download and use the test server.

Oh, sure, because being spotted by a stray plane is more important than being spotted by an invisible DD, right? But, the stupid order is less of a problem, the main thing is... NO MATTER WHAT ORDER YOU PICK, EVEN IF YOU MAKE IT CUSTOMIZABLE BY PLAYER, IT WILL BE BS. What we need is a system that shows you in what ways your ship is detected, NOT just one option picked based on an arbitrary order. 100% support this. We - the players with at least 1 brain cell left - need to know about every single source that is actually detecting us, not some arbitrary order and just one more or less useless single icon! What is the difficulty in showing every single source of detection at once? So if I am detected by assured acquisition, radar and an airplane just display the fracking 3 symbols! Everything else is just dumbing down your own game.

Reducing the spotting capability of CV's vs DD's can come in any shape or form. Some examples from hard to less hard solutions: a) Remove it completely, i.e. only the CV can attack the DD (as already suggested above). b) Give DD's some kind of emergency button in form of a 'signal jamming' consumable that severely limits (like cyclone) or removes (like option a) CV team spotting for a certain amount of time. c) Give plane spotting the rendering delay that the upcomming radar changes will also feature (6 seconds if I am not entirely mistaken). d) etc.

No you are not losing anything. The mission is worded for base XP to make it harder/fairer. As such it does not matter if you have premium account you will get the same result as somebody who is using a free account. Depending on the tiers you play and on your performance in battle 40k base XP will always be something in between 25 and 80 (random) battles.

So you are saying you have 12k battles and still dont know what base XP is? (team score and/or left side of results screen will show base XP)

The thing which is annoying me almost as much as having to uncheck this box for every new ship is that the game does not remember your setting once you have removed the last flag (for whatever reason). For example if you dismounted all your flags for some coop grind and you want to play random games again, you have to again and again and again uncheck the box once you demount and mount some flags.

Dear fellow warship captains and game responsibles, as we are currently encountering a lot of problems due to the changes in CV gameplay and their respective balancing issues I gave those problems some major thought and this is what I was comming up with: The concept and necessary steps: 1) Set standard values for CV planes according to the respective nation, duty and tier 2) Use those standard planes in conjuction with quasi-restriced matchmaking for CV's 3) Balance AA around the standard planes Ad 1) First of all I would start assigning standard values for CV planes according to the nominal tier they are going to be used at. This includes but is not limited to plane specific values like hit points, plane speed, damage resistance, ordonance damage values etc. Once CV plane parameters for each tier, nation and plane type have been set we can move on to 2). Ad 2) Currently top tier CV's are often devastating versus lower tier ships and low tier CV's can be entirely powerless versus high tier ships, which is mainly due to the power increase (or drop) that the ±2 matchmaking is creating. This has been the reason for many complaints from both the CV captains ("useless carrier") as well as the ships on the receiving end ("useless AA"). But how can we ease this issue a little? My solution would be to use the standard value plane idea as per 1) and introduce quasi-restricted matchmaking for CV's, making them weaker while being top tier and increasing their power while being low tier. How could this work in game? Once teams have been assigned the server checks the CV's tier position for the given battle and assigns the appropriate plane tier and values. Example: a) Shokaku in a game where T6 ships are present as the lowest tier => T7 plane values are used (CV planes are downtiered to lessen impact) b) Shokaku in a game where T7 ships are present as the lowest tier => T8 plane values are used c) Shokaku in an entirely T8 game or scenario => T8 plane values are used d) Shokaku in an T9 battle => T8 plane values are used e) Shokaku in a T10 battle => T9 plane values are used (CV planes are uptiered to highten impact) Note that the actual planes models do not necessarily need to change, however the CV's will always use the respective plane tier and plane stats as explaned above. For example if a full researched T6 Ryujo were to meet a full researched T8 Shokaku in any single battle, both CVs would be using T7 plane values, i.e. the Ryujo would be using B5N2 Kate torpedo bombers with T7 stats and the Shokaku would be using B7A Ryusei torpedo bombers with T7 stats. So you might ask yourself, if both CV's are using the same planes, what is their difference and why should I level up? One answer to this is to have the CV's balanced against each other not by the planes they use but by other no less important factors like the number of planes within each squadron (e.g. T7 Ryujo 8 vs T7 Shokaku 12), the number of ordonance used per attack (e.g. T7 Ryujo 2 vs T7 Shokaku 3) or the flight deck plane respawn rate (e.g. T7 Ryujo 50 secs vs T7 Shokaku 30 secs). Ad 3) As a result of our conceptual changes to CV's and their planes the spread of planes that can meet any individual ship (or vice versa) will be reduced from a maximum of 5 tiers to a maximum of 3 tiers. Sticking to our example a Mogami will no longer face the T6 planes of a Ryujo and the T10 planes of a Hakuryu, most probably easily swatting the T6's and struggling hard with the T10's, but will just face T7 to T9 planes (±1 spread) which in theory should allow for much easier plane versus AA balancing than we can do now. I know that this concept is not entirely foolproof and has its own drawbacks, especially if there is just a minority of low or high tier ships within any single battle (a lone Amagi in an otherwise T6 and T7 battle will up the planes of a Ryujo and a lone Aoba in an otherwise T7 and T8 battle will lower the planes of a Shokaku), however I do consider these drawbacks minor in comparison to the balancing problems we are facing now (and have been facing in the past) and that the benefits of using quasi-restricted matchmaking for CV's are worth giving the idea at least some consideration. What do you think? @MrConway@Sub_Octavian

If planes would be standardized that would not be much of a problem. I can totally see a Ryujo, a Hiryu and a Shokaku in the same (T8) battle using the same T7 planes. Ryujo getting its planes uptiered to account for being bottom tier, Hiryu stayes unchanged and Shokaku gets downtiered planes to reduce clubbing / overall impact. CVs could still be different regarding squad size, numbers of bombs or torps dropped per attack, deck plane reload rate or other relevant factors. The additional benefit of standardized planes is that it would also be much easier to balance AA.

Well...another option would be to keep the ±2 matchmaking but to change the plane specs according to the minimum and maximum tiers a CV could see. Example: Shokaku top tier in a min T6 battle uses T7 planes. Shokaku top tier in a min T7 battle uses T8 planes. (Shokaku in a entirely T8 battle uses T8 planes.) Shokaku in a T9 battle uses T8 planes. Shokaku in a T10 battle uses T9 planes.

The problem is, they can raise or lower the (damage) numbers the much they want and this won't fix exactly nothing apart perhaps making CV's so insignificant that nobody will be playing them anymore. They need to fix the fundamentals before going for fine tuning or balancing. And even while not playing CVs extensively I can tell at least two key areas they need to touch: Spotting and AA mechanics. The former is causing problems with classes that heavily rely on stealth (DD, CA), the later mostly with classes that need at least some degree of reliable self-defense from planes (CA, BB).

The one reason CV's are really hard to integrate is because of asymetric warfare & gameplay. Like in real life CV's in WoWs (have to) play their own minigame. Having said so, in its current state and especially when using the plane "vomiting" tactics the CV gameplay after the patch very much reminds me of battleships with guided shells and 3 ammunition types watching their shells using Z (plus of course all the spotting that comes with the planes). So if the delevopers goal was to make CV gameplay more similar to the other surface ships they at least somewhat succeded (which of course does not mean that the current iteration is working well).

Yeah, that is what works. All these people wandering about 3 km from the enemy ships before attacking, or making multiple attacks with the same squadrons, are the ones inflating plane kills and achieving very little themselves. Sounds very BB to me. Fire once every 30 secs...

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/112243-general-feedback/?do=findComment&comment=2847128

Some more general feedback: Please remove the icon for the returning CV planes from the minimap as it sometimes does create a lot of confusion on how many enemy planes are actually there and their heading. I know that the additional icon is only visible for a couple of seconds (until the returning planes gained sufficient altitude), however it does confuse me more than actually help me figuring things out.

It's called forced teamwork. Played a few games in my Shimakaze with one or two CVs in each game. It usually went quite well when I played very defensive and stayed within 5km of an AA heavy ally. This means that lone-wolving or stalling entire flanks on your own is not possible anymore. However it also extremely limited my spotting and damage potential and more often then not I ended up with more gun than torpedo damage (and that in an IJN torpedo boat). Also some of the games devolved into huge campfests because nobody dared to more anywhere.

Setting the AA sector currently is too difficult in the heat of battle plus it is not intuitive enough and needs to be improved. Possible solutions: 1) Setting the port and starboard sector by just pushing one of two separate, re-mapable buttons, e.g. O sets port, P sets starboard sector. 2) Setting the sector by mouse-clicking on the respective side of your ship on the compass.

Actually this is wrong. In order to change the sector O + mouseclick is enough. Once started time for sector re-inforcement will run without keeping O pressed.

I don't know if these are actually bugs at all but please take a look at the following two: 1) Fighter planes consumable description says circling range is 3km, whereas in reality it is only 1km: 2) BB Hood has two separate long range AA ratings:

If this is the case why has my Des Moines 5.8km AA range and my Worchester 6.9km AA range? Both are labelled cruisers and both are even from the same nation. I do think CV's still need to memorize the AA ranges of all ships they might encounter. Exempli gratia T10 cruisers: Des Moines: 5.8km Henry IV: 6.0km Hindenburg: 5.2km Minotaur: 6.9km Moskva: 6.6km Stalingrad: 6.6km Worcester: 6.9km Zao: 5.8km Totally uniform AA ranges...

Interestingly enough I do not switch ammo type for DD at all. Far more numerous switches happen when you are fighting opportunistic style e.g. you fight a bow-on enemy BB with HE and a cruiser opens up because thinks he can use your reload and HE ammo usage to make a turn. If you alter your targets often enough the skill is quite handy, especially if you are used to it (same as IFA). I even use it on cruisers with long reloads so you can better punish mistakes (e.g. Prinz Eugen where AP usage is very situational)

Fighter plane 1km circle Spotter plane 3km circle