Jump to content

PhysixGER

Beta Tester
  • Content Сount

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    5260
  • Clan

    [UNICS]

About PhysixGER

  • Rank
    Able Seaman
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So, the CV rework. From the perspective of a guy who preferably played Graf Zeppelin for the last couple of months at "acceptable" level, and will likely stay a CV main. What has changed, from my perspective, and what hasn't? - The relatively long arming times of torps on almost all CVs and the only medium alphas on rockets mean I can't wreck DDs as I'm used to, it requires far more skill to cross drop in the new system than it does in the old one. Ships also have considerably more time to dodge than in the old system. Additionally, alphas are lower. Means: DDs in CV games got stronger than before, not weaker. - AA cruisers got slightly less relevant as the total density of flak bursts spewed in my way is determinant for effective AA, not if they come from cruisers, BBs or CVs. I still can't strike a blob of critical mass (= about 3 ships with reasonable AA), and won't as I almost always find an exposed BB or cruiser somewhere, so I don't need to. - Low alphas and long turnaround times make it useful to spread drops over multiple targets instead of alphaing off a single ship, making it overall less punishing for a target to get caught out of position (the BB has a chance to get back to the blob of his team. If he does it or not is a question of his skill) - Because of the above-mentioned points, to be impactful, striking BBs, heavy cruisers and CVs is preferred. - Damage averages stay largely the same (in my GZ: before rework 127k, now 120k) - Looking at statistics, on wows-numbers, overall playerbase and percentile damage averages between old and new CVs are largely consistent. - Winrates for new CVs, curiously, have a tendency to be a few (usually single digit) percentage points higher than old CVs, mostly pronounced at total population. Which implies that the impact of a CV in fact has increased, but only slightly. Possibly a result of less fighter play/more strike focus. - In terms of feel: the CV still needs the most situational awareness and meta knowledge to know where he needs to put his strikes. Fighter play and micro has been replaced by AA dodging tactics, which is still engaging in a way and needs its practice. The fear of "dumbing down" has not really come true at all, as I still have to look at the map, imagine AA ranges, find the best targets, and plan for a flight path. - Graphics look prettier. Overall, the rework has made the CV class easier to pick up for the average player, meaning that the punishing aspect of the skill gap (me punishing the noob directly) has completely disappeared such that he can have an impact in a way. Which of course doesn't mean that it will be that large if one doesn't have the muscle memory and mechanics knowledge. In terms of striking, the meta has only slightly shifted. So, why is there so much bitching on this forum right now? I'd assert, because people are just not used to play in the meta containing the CV, which has evolved now, but was mostly like this for all CV players in the old model. CV players were rare before, so the usual tactics used referred to games without it. DDs in CV games had an even more horrible fate than they do now with a competent CV on the enemy team. But they likely didn't perceive it as a large problem because the matches with one were so rare. Now, of course, we have 1-2 CVs per game normally, and it likely won't go away, so people will have to adjust their game knowledge. When DDs learn they can only cap when they have an escape or enough close AA ships, or use a preemptive smoke to hard-counter the rocket planes, and BBs and cruisers start sailing in tighter blobs (which they will more likely learn when CVs are the norm, not the exception), the frustration will go away and people perceive it as the normal counter play against the CV they have to do most games to be successful. What we see now is the frustration that techniques learned in hundreds of games before stop working as the meta has changed abruptly. If more players had spent in the order of 100 games on the test server, we wouldn't see the current bitching. But, no, we of course mostly had to test against bots. Your own fault, people. In total, reworked CVs are fine, they just might need some value fine tuning to become completely balanced. It is more a question of personal taste if you prefer RTS or the current action CVs. So, see (drop) you from the airs. Greetings Physix
  2. As on today's DevBlog post: I consider this a very bad idea. The fact that the high tier Soviet BBs also have 32mm plating (where that is, remains to see) means that the threat by HE cruisers by direct damage plus fires is far too high, especially if WG wants these to be close range ships. These BBs won't be like a Kurfürst that takes almost no direct HE damage and can push in. It will likely mean that if you push, you will get spammed by every HE cruiser because they know they can do direct damage and draw out your limited consumables, so you'll die much faster than a KF. Sadly, the BB meta at high tiers is to keep at a range where you can still disengage, or sit behind cover and tank damage, as who pushes gets almost always focused. As it stands, these Soviet BBs go completely against that and will likely not work well in randoms, rather being damage pinatas for cruisers. The problem with this I don't see in the average player, as until the mid-game, the limited DC charges will last, but in the better players who last through to the end of a match by timing their consumables and their aggression correctly. Having limited charges is unnecessarily punishing in these situations when having to fight a cruiser/DD/rocket CV at the end of a game, which artificially lowers the skill ceiling of the ships. However, there might be a use for the limited DC in competitive scenarios with less ships. Therefore, the following: Proposal for possible solutions: Give players a choice between using the short-cooldown limited-charge DC and the long-cooldown unlimited standard DC on the ship. Give the Soviet BBs a "limited superheal": as we know, healable damage is normally 10% of citadel, 50% of medium (penetration) and 100% of light (DoT) damage. The proposal is to lower the healability coefficient for "medium" from 50% to e.g. 15-25%, and giving the Soviet BBs access to a Conqueror-like heal. This would mean that players could heal all of the fire/flood damage (hence the Damage Control would be less necessary), while having to take penetrations more seriously, therefore not making it OP (we wouldn't have the Conqueror situation that enemy BBs can't do anything). This would make pushing in a conscious decision for risk to take permanent penetration damage (that is a calculated risk, as the amount is consistent), while reducing the danger of being punished for pushing in by stacked RNG DoTs greatly, therefore making the BBs work in the intended role. (the post for reference)
  3. PhysixGER

    0.8.0 PTS - Bugs

    1. Description T9 British Cruiser "Neptune" likely has misconfigured long range AA auras. In port statistics, two long range flak auras are shown. One produces 5 explosions per salvo, the other 6 explosions per salvo. The "AA guns modification 1" upgrade works on both auras, giving "Neptune" in total 4 extra explosions on the long range auras. This means that on full AA build, "Neptune" puts out 15 explosions per salvo total on the long range AA, which is far more than AA build Worcester (8) or Minotaur (8), and about triple the long range AA as an average non-AA build ship, and this even from 3.5-6.9 km, so essentially the best flak AA in the game. As this does not fit with the progression in the game at all, this is likely a balancing mistake. 2. Reproduction steps View AA statistics of Neptune in port. 3. Result OP AA. 4. Expected result Non-OP AA. 5. Technical details
  4. PhysixGER

    0.8.0 PTS - Bugs

    Same bug also happens on Hakuryu rocket planes: right at the end of 4th strike run, planes fly in circles and sometimes even get stuck in circles. Replay below: bug at 12:53. Reproducible. In that replay, also the "cannot launch any planes" bug is visible from 10:35. Seems to be provoked when launching squad very quickly after returning to CV from last squad. Also in the replay: when controlling the carrier, using manual secondaries (Ctrl-click) is not working. This is very important for secondary CVs like Graf Zeppelin for the dps boost. One more: please add back the auto-pilot control via minimap click. I'm used to that from the old version. 20181229_195840_PJSA110-Hakuryu_15_NE_north.wowsreplay
  5. Hey guys, I just did a short penetration testing session with the CV rework 0.8.0 PT round 1 Hakuryu AP bombs on Tier X ships; raw data below; maybe someone finds it helpful. (In fat are the ships I'd consider "vulnerable" after this test. Disclaimer: data are not extensive enough) Ship Penetration Citadel Non-penetration Overpenetration Yamato 26 8 1 0 Kurfürst 17 13 0 1 Republique 19 5 0 0 Montana 12 10 0 0 Conqueror 13 1 0 1 Moskva 6 6 0 0 Des Moines 6 6 0 0 Worcester 5 3 1 0 Henri IV 5 4 0 13 Hindenburg 6 6 0 3 Minotaur 7 4 0 3 Zao 5 5 0 0
  6. PhysixGER

    0.8.0 PTS - Bugs

    1. Description Hakuryu dive bomber aiming/dropping flight of the last drop is bugged. If the dive bomber squadron is down to its last 3 planes and a drop run is initiated, instead of going up, down, forward (as normal), the planes go up, then start flying down in circles uncontrollably. Therefore, the drop reticle wobbles sideways in an undefined way, instead of going towards the normal 2.0 km point of aim. (Checked: only happens with Hakuryu, not with Shokaku, Ryujo or Midway)  2. Reproduction steps 1. Get a Hakuryu dive bomber squadron 2. Drop the first 3 strikes off such that only 1 strike remains 3. On 4th strike, bug happens 3. Result Strike reticle is thrown off its normal path, accuracy does not converge normally, accurate drop on target impossible 4. Expected result Planes fly normally straight up and down onto the previously displayed 2.0 km point of aim, accuracy circle converges, drop goes on target 5. Technical details Replay (Ocean training room) attached, multiple, consistent occurrences 20181229_013046_PJSA110-Hakuryu_00_CO_ocean.wowsreplay
  7. PhysixGER

    Preserving RTS CV - Action CV in parallel?

    League of Carriers. Nice idea. With actual space ships
  8. PhysixGER

    Preserving RTS CV - Action CV in parallel?

    The dev said that they want to remove the limitations on CVs for the action mode completely. Means there can be up to 12 CVs per team.
  9. PhysixGER

    Preserving RTS CV - Action CV in parallel?

    What will be the difference? Your average low tier player who doesn't know much about the game will see squadrons coming towards him which drops torpedos or bombs, in the new and the old mode (assume that in the new mode there will be multiple CVs on each side per game!). He won't influence the AA dps that much anyway, so the number of planes shot down will be the same for either CV type. And the approximately 60kn torps dropped by the "new" torpedo bomber are even harder to dodge than the old ones. After all, when WG wants to make a mode that is "planes against ships", as they want, the Action CV players will expect to do be able to do high damage to BBs and CAs (well, now a bit spread out over time), but, hence still none of them will stop crying anyway. Tier X CVs will still expect to do their 100k+ per game, otherwise no one will play them.
  10. PhysixGER

    Preserving RTS CV - Action CV in parallel?

    I disagree with the "1vs1" thing. At tier X, cruiser AA and therefore AA cruiser bubble positioning is far more dangerous to CV strikes than the enemy CV. If it's a guy with 2-3 fighter squadrons, you can get these locked up or killed by fighter micro, creating the space you need to strike. Against AA cruisers, the only thing you can do is bait the Def AA. Also, the aspect of having to micro against the enemy CV is one of the main fun things in the mode.
  11. PhysixGER

    Preserving RTS CV - Action CV in parallel?

    I remember the dev saying on stream they are looking into using the same AA values for the Action gameplay. So in theory there should be no problem keeping the mechanics in place. They could even get the new AA explosion feature into the old system; would shake up things a bit. (As we saw, we can't even manually control altitude in the new system, so all happens in a 2D plane that the game specifies. So it should be no problem to keep the mechanics the same)
  12. Dear community now that we have finally have seen the concepts of the "CV rework", there has been a multitude of different reactions: curiosity, from all sides: about the good-looking action CV gameplay, especially AA clouds and the close third-person view criticism: that certain DoT effects might be too strong, that the mode with one squadron is not complex enough and therefore fun and engaging over the long run resignation, from parts of the CV community: the assumption that developers will not listen to forum comments to a satisfactory extent, and therefore holding premature funeral addresses on the old mode while the new one is still in the prototype stage. I want to highlight a couple of points regarding the RTS mode, and argue it does not have to be dead necessarily. In recent times, RTS CV balance between nations has improved a lot, especially at high tiers. Ever since the US CV rebalance and the subsequent changes, at tier X, both Hakuryu and Midway have become valid choices, for their different reasons, and are used in Ranked as well (some minor over-the-top mistakes like Worcester AA or Haku legendary module not included). Wargaming seemed to have started to get an understanding of how to balance ships in this mode; and it would be a comparatively easy task to extend this down the tiers to give new CV players a balanced experience (for example: revisit the air control balance at tiers 4-7; e.g. remove the 312 Ryujo, give the Ranger more fighters in the squadron, reintroduce at least manual fighter controls for tier 4 and 5, decrease strike squad sizes or torp alpha for tier 4 and 5 etc.) Good counter play against CVs is happening at high tiers. AA cruisers usually spawn towards different caps and deny a lot of area at the start, while people have learned to stay together. It would be easy for WG to make low tier players aware of such counter play (e.g. make a play time helper system like in the Total War series, which for example says things like "Ecce! Aircraft carrier present. Stay in groups for defense!", "Planes heading our way. Get ready to dodge now!" with respective danger indicators, "Planes getting close. Use the Defensive AA when they get in range!" or even "Cruiser, stay close to fleet mates to protect them from planes!", and increase the cruiser AA and def AA consumables at mid tier.) RTS CV offers a good level of variety to other ships' gameplay: In terms of vision, that works both ways. Both teams have more targets to shoot, as opposed to waiting for something to get spotted. It also forces teamplay, so players must play closer to each other and more around cover. And that is what a game of WoWS should be about: it not playing out the same for each map, but having as many influences that can change the way people make decisions. High vision games are not a problem, as WG is thinking. There is a CV player base that used 500h, or 1000h+ to learn the system, and which is still here especially because WoWS has an RTS-like system that challenges their strategic thinking and multitasking. RTS CV is a system which has its own appeal for game variety's sake. WG will throw that out of the window when completely replacing the CV system, and make everyone start new and unskilled, dumbing down the game experience and wasting players' precious time and muscle memory. Let's put it that way: If I play football and my club closes, I look for another club that plays football by the same rules a learned to get good at. This option doesn't exist for WoWS CVs, unfortunately. The main criticism that CVs do too much alpha can be in many cases mitigated by teaching counter play - a good CV will not strike a blob with too much AA because of plane losses, and if a Def AA cruiser gets deleted, he likely made the mistake of timing his Def AA wrong. Also, AP bombs can be rebalanced and BBs with great vulnerability (Tirpitz, Bismarck, Friedrich, Kurfürst, North Carolina (in terms of GZ AP)) could receive a Def AA (maybe a CV-like one with very long lasting time, but probably without the damage boost) After all, I assert after this that RTS CVs still have to offer far more to the game than the problems they cause, and therefore it is unnecessary to remove them. For this reason I petition WG to find a middle ground between the new and the old system, and keep both in the game. The new system has its appeals, as does the old one. The solution could look like this: There is a switch or modules to allow the CV player choose if he* wants to play RTS or Action mode. There are different matchmaker queues for RTS and Action CVs. A matchmade game can either be with RTS CV (with the current limitations), or with multiple Action CVs (without limitations, as dev stated). AA values for action mode could be seperately balanced by a factor, or purely by plane health on the Action module of each CV Also, it would remove the necessity for WG to give out excessive refunds. Additionally, it would be possible to introduce counter-divisions for RTS CV (division of two CVs, same tier, to play against each other in randoms) for a better CV to teach a worse one introduce the aforementioned runtime tutorial system for all modes, including RTS CV. Both systems will have their different playerbases, which are people interested in a respective different kind of gameplay, and are partly disjunct - in terms of player retention and game content, this might be the most sensible solution, while removing a whole mode is the sledgehammer method Wargaming is sadly known for. At last, the argument is that for a game that people may spend hundreds of euros on over its lifespan, ergo multiple times as much as on a usual AAA title, players may expect that level of tactfulness towards their progress in the game they enjoy. I seriously hope Wargaming will therefore reconsider their plans, and thank you all for the attention.
  13. This is meant as a try to fight the current toxicity in the CV discussion by analysing the current player base. Sadly, towards the symptomatic state of CVs, there exists an excessive amount of cliché usage in the discussion. People (especially non-CV players) see it as common sense that "CV population is very low" or even "for the last 7 CV players on the planet...", and trying to make assumptions based on such purely blanket claims. So, let's consider actual numbers - the graphic below shows the total number of games by tier for combined IJN+US CV vs certain "semi-representatively" chosen other classes, Q1 2018 EU server, such that it is a recent time frame. Firstly, we can clearly see that the number of low-tier CV games is healthy, and stays about in line with the other classes up to and including tier 7 (!), while only dropping slightly along with the IJN BBs. At this tier, the data show that non-premium ships (Hiryu 164k, Ranger 266k) are the by far dominant contribution over premium (Saipan 67k, Kaga 55k). It is only at tier 8 that the very large meta shift begins to happen - CV games drop fairly, while USN CAs extremely. The trend for CVs continues up to tier 10 with the population dropping to about 17% of its maximum, while the considered CA line recovers and generally for all other classes except CVs the trend reverses towards tier 10 (there is a "tier 9 hole" in the game - one more thing WG needs to address, but this is not subject of this article). So we can see that the main problem is exactly not a lack of CV players - the CV population in the low-to-mid tiers is acceptable and in the range of other comparable ships - but rather the steep loss of players towards tier 8-10. This firstly shows that there is no problem with the acceptance of RTS CV mechanics as such - for example, getting a stock Hiryu costs about 225k XP, upgraded 272k XP, stock Ranger 205k, upgraded 225k. This is, for a free-to-play or casual player, a large time investment already, so these players have been likely playing and enjoying the CV gameplay up to that point. The question therefore narrows down to reasons for the loss of players towards high-tier CVs. Let's again compare sample numbers (this time wows-numbers). Total Hakuryu winrate on EU is 48.08%, Yamato 49.12%. Top 5% players winrate Hakuryu 77.95%, Yamato 66.95%. Consider tier 7: Total WR Hiryu 50.99%, Nagato 49.72%, Top 5% WR Hiryu 73.77%, Nagato 68.15%. For other combinations these numbers might fluctuate slightly, but overall winrates of CVs are quite consistent with or slightly higher than other classes (except certain high strike power ships like Kaga or GZ). So the reason is at higher tiers not that the ships would be imbalanced. Let us now look at the change that the respective player faces towards higher tiers. - AA gets much stronger, there exists more diversity between ships. - players of other classes are more skilled; actively avoid drops, blob up to overlap bubbles - susceptibility for certain weapons diversifies (deck armor, torpedo protection) - usually more skilled opponents - a slight edge in fighter skill can mean complete shutdown - higher detection ranges - more squadrons This requires players to: - learn ship characteristics and tactics to avoid the AA - learn to predict exact ship movement (e.g. dropping DD with single squad) - learn strafe meta, correct prediction of the squad inertia - learn to pick good targets - learn positioning - increase APM and micro All that while other classes usually carry on using their core mechanics continuously. Of course, other ship classes need positioning too, and also know their targets' armor. But they can reasonably get away with shooting anything that moves if they want to be "just average"; while this is not really possible in a high tier game in a CV where a (non-super-)potato would waste his squads in AA. So, does the game teach any of the aforementioned core CV mechanics? No. WG did not spend the time to make a comprehensive strafing, exit strafing or dropping tutorial or practice mission (as would be possible; look at the equivalent practice missions in StarCraft II), also tells the new player nothing directly about AA. All other classes are to a degree self-explanatory, while the advanced CV tactics are not. The conclusion from this must be that CVs in their current state have an extremely high skill ceiling, while having a low skill floor. Both of these aspects are represented in data. An important outlook would be this: Does changing the CV squad gameplay to a certain type of action/per-squad third person camera thing anything about the skills a good CV player must have? From the opinion of a CV main (I've purposefully avoided this phrase for the rest of the article), no, it won't. You will still have to put in very high APM to manage your squadrons, positioning, target, fighter control and AA knowledge are still necessary, and because of not having the RTS-style interface, the overview over the situation will be even harder to achieve (assuming squad configs staying the same). For this reason, I'm going to go so far to say that WG risks increasing the CV skill cap even more, therefore dissuading casual people from playing CV more than today, while probably reducing the current high-skill population drastically. Sadly, it seems some singular devs at WG have their eyes zealously set on "reworking" CVs that way, and will be hardly dissuaded from their goals and the work they probably have put in by now; this is in itself not despicable. What, however, is, that they are trying to throw a working game mechanic out of the window, instead of trying to introduce ease-of-life improvements that tell newer players what to do, or reduce lag, or whatever. Another type of CV mechanic might probably be functional, totally. But if it doesn't offer an improvement, there is no real point to it. WoWS is becoming an "old" game by gaming industry standards. The change would be like changing real-life football to RTS style after decades. With my current prediction I have to make the following two proposals: 1. WG, if you insist in putting out an "action" CV mechanic in the game, make it so that players can choose between RTS style and "action" style elements, effectively keeping both in the game. 2. Start already to make actual core improvements to CV UI and tactics teaching.
  14. PhysixGER

    ST Midway huge hangar capacity nerf criticised

    After the last announcement via blog and @Farazelleth's video, I basically want to thank the WG devs for listening to this thread, and putting likely the suggestion from the original post onto the ST. Now only data will show if the attempt works to balance out the fighter power. PS @Farazelleth: it's still on ST, not PTS yet.
  15. WoWS Dev Blog, today: I am going to argue here that this nerf is absolutely going in the wrong direction. So firstly, let's take a look at the current situation of Tier X CVs, and how Midway fits in. Currently we have a meta where AA strength at Tier X is still considerable because base AA values are high, but it still can be seen as a "low AA meta" - almost no one builds full AA for random battles because CVs are quite rare, "Def AA suffices". Also, AA ranges are comparatively high, so there is no ability of a CV to strike into a blob of ships without losing most of the plane waves. The current Midway has a large enough hangar that it can regularly force drops through on ships, not being worried too much that it will be losing too many, and is therefore able to play very aggressively on the back of its hangar. Still, I would say that this and the resulting damage numbers (the 130k average for the top CV emblem is a very realistic ballpark figure for a good CV player (look at wows-numbers)) are very acceptable in the current version of the ship. There is no real need to nerf the Midway's strike capability in the current state. On top of this, another effect becomes prominent for balancing: How would the current Midway fare in a "high AA meta", e.g. multiple AA build ships on the enemy team? "Luckily", sometimes one comes across unicum divisions of 3 with 2 AA ships (AA Minotaur, Desmo, Montana, Gearing, ...) + 1 Midway in randoms, so one can get a glimpse of that. With full AA builds, AA strength at tier X is locally more than double that of the current meta. This means that the smoked up AA cruiser practically shoots down both the Midway's torpedo squads before they can even reach a ship to drop. I would call this balanced because it shows that people can build against CVs if they want to, but also creates the necessity that the CV is balanced in a convenience-of-use fashion such that it can survive the battle even in such cases without being deplaned halfway through. So the large hangar is absolutely necessary in these games. Summarizing the preceding point: If WG wants more carriers in the game, they have to balance them to be able to cope also with a "high AA meta", as will evolve with more carriers in the game - therefore this change is the wrong way. Current Midway is overall one of the most balanced CVs in the game, and you are trying to take one of its main strengths away. What would the change lead to? Me thinking twice about dropping the Montana, but rather going even more for DDs and stomping Tier VIII BBs. This is totally not what you want. On to the comparison with Hakuryu. Right now, Hak has all Tier X planes, while Midway has the Tier VIII TBs and the Tier IX fighters, while having comparable numbers of strike planes in the air. This of course implies that the Midway should have slightly more strike plane reserves because the planes are lower tier and get lost more quickly. On the other hand, Hak only has 100 planes total, which is really too few in the current meta, especially against AA (sic!). Additionally, the fighter strength of the prevalent 233 Hak against the Midway is too low in terms of squadrons. So what becomes clear is that the ship needing rebalancing (buffing) is the Hakuryu (and the whole Japanese CV line). I propose buffing the Hakuryu's plane capacity to about 130 instead. This will, as mentioned by WG itself, not impact the early game much at all. However, it will make the Hakuryu more forgiving in the long run, and able to waste planes like the Midway can, so it stays competitive. Next thing a good CV player wants is competitive fighter control with the opponent. So the flight controls must be rebalanced. Current Midway has 2x7=14 fighters in the air. Considering conservation of squadron size, a competitive Hakuryu setup will need to have 3x5=15 planes up. The one more plane will be counterbalanced by the weaker strafes (optionally one may give Midway the tier X fighters back when Hakuryu is rebalanced that way). A change in strike plane number might not be necessary for Hakuryu, although one might think about taking away one dive bomber squad to nerf spotting power a bit. So the proposed setup for a Hakuryu that is balanced in the current meta would be 332 with 130 planes total (maybe add AP bombs, maybe not), and maybe removal of the 422 and 232 setups. TL;DR: WG, don't destroy the good work you've done with the US CV rebalance. The capacity change is horrible. Rebalance Japanese CVs already.
×