1MajorKoenig

Ok easy mate. You are bringing up two points: DDs having trouble with being spotted and AA not effective enough to protect your ship. I didn’t really see a big difference in your point 1. and 5. Tbh... AA - agree that this needs more work. Not necessarily the pure strength but more the possibility to make use of skill to improve AA effectiveness. It’s the same as before but because CVs were no factor in the game it didn’t matter. I would like to keep what is now there but add a way to man the guns yourself to be able to defend yourself better. Not sure how much support that sugggestion would get but it would enable the player to either prioritize AA effectiveness or manoeuvring/dodging With regards to spotting the DDs - it’s not any worse than before but before we didn’t really have many carriers in the game. In case this changes now and people stay on CVs (also after the “hello world” phase) DDs will need some buff to compensate. What that would be? Maybe a Concealment buff for spotting from the air? As to your last question: no I don’t receive my bonus from WG :-) I play the game since 2015 and I still very much like it. I have seen many changes, some I liked, some I hated with passion. But regardless I am still around. And yes - I like the new CVs as a refreshment and I would like to see them succeed.

Well sorry to burst that bubble but the old system was extremely unrealistic. Or have you met a CV commander ordering where to shoot or drop the ordonance? Or commanding squadrons of 3 planes? Telling them which piece of air to shoot at to fight enemy planes? I mean really? CV commanders ordered waves and loadouts and gave priorities to the strike aircraft. But that would be a little boring for a game (although I have seen a game doing exactly this). No It’s not any more realistic than the new one in case that would really be an issue which I honestly have my doubts. @Mards agree with the passion part - that is quite obvious. However some 15 loud angry ppl don’t necessarily make a majority. I am not saying these don’t have some valid concerns but the whole emotional rage makes me highly suspicious to say the least. There is very little constructive discussion - just complaining. And how the old System can be fixed - these suggestions exists since years. While I don’t think it can be fixed at all that doesn’t really matter any more.

That is a reasonable suggestion!

Well about sheer player numbers gained/lost - we’ll see. That is something for WG to assess. However to your points: 1) direct control of the CV ship - agree and we should leave that as a feedback. That should be changed 2) your second point is “they should have kept the old system and fix it”. I don’t think the old system could be fixed though as it’s main issue was lack of attractiveness. Not buggy UI, strange mechanics and such. But we can disagree here no problem. You want your old RTS back, I prefer the new system. Ok nothing we can do to solve this one I guess 3) balancing (“against all other classes”): yes and here is where we should much rather give constructive feedback to help develop this. Rockets for example might be a bit too nasty against DDs at the moment.

Well ok if he doesn’t like planes he shouldn’t bother with aircraft carriers at all should he? The Interface before wasn’t exactly feeling like a ship either was it? Green icons on a blue plane? How was that a ship?

“Komm schon meine Dicke...Fliiiieeeeg!”

Ok you made me curious. You played about 90 CV games out of your roughly 550 Random games. So you are still on the “fresher” side - nothing wrong with this and no insult intended. What exactly disturbs you with the new rework?

Jup mir auch

Because they apparently felt that they couldn’t finalize it only behind closed doors. And I am not saying everything is fine. I do see that there is still work to be done. But I am positive about the overall concept and would like to support it so it can be finalized. So again - what is your problem?

Good to see some positive remarks among all the fuzz

If you are really just dissatisfied than enter into a civilized discussion. That isn’t my impression though. You come across like a spoiled kid not getting its will and screaming until mummy comes to save it. In case that perception is wrong - just put in writing what your problem is. Rocket planes? Being spotted?

Also: erstmal +1 weil du eine sinnvolle Diskussion aufmachst statt nur ins Forum zu kotzen wie ein paar andere Spezies. Meine Spiele als CV werfen für mich tatsächlich die Frage auf, wie das Balancing zwischen DD und CV entwickelt werden sollte. Mit den pfeilschnellen Jägern der GZ zum Bespiel kann man DDs ziemlich übel grillen und de facto beim ersten oder zweiten Anflug Mission-Killen. In meinen (paar) DD Spielen hatte ich keine größeren Probleme aber das mag zu einem Teil daran liegen, dass die CVs im Moment noch ziemlich lausig zielen. Das wird sich aber bald ändern. Gefühlt muss man als DD nun etwas vorsichtiger agieren. Aber ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass WG die Jäger-Raketen noch ein bisschen entschärfen muss.

*Edited

Well fighters is certainly an element I dislike about the new system. I think the CAP part is reasonable but I don’t like the rest. Do you have a suggestion for fighters in the reworked system?

Didn’t claim the new one simulates actual CV battles. But the RTS one literally has nothing to do with actual CV battles. Less than zero

Strafing was a try to overcome the stale “fighters lock up each other” situation which was incredibly dull. But you are right that “strafing” has literally nothing to do with air-to-air combat and is another stupid an non-sensical element in the old RTS model. Problem was more that the model itself wasn’t good enough to simulate proper air battles either - hence this dirty workaround. Which in turn created new problems. I like your “manual changing loadouts during battles at the costs of a reload time” VERY much. Just have a look at what happened at the battle of midway. That would give players a reasonable tactical option. This would even work with the reworked system!

You are of course free to dislike the rework but the point is: WG will need to measure how many people play CVs going forward. That’s what is important. And I am sure some people will dislike the changes system even if it will be successful. I guess that’s life However saying “the new system” has nothing to do with carriers is absurd. It is as good of a CV model as the old one. Just different. If you would really look at it from a “sense”-perspective the old RTS model makes much less sense actually. How did CVs work at that time? Prepare one huge strike wave put up a small CAP and give the bombers a direction and priorities for the strike. That’s about it. Sounds exiting? Anyway - Micromaniging small squadrons constantly is a totally contradiction to how CVs actually worked.

A poll of what? 200 frustrated players out of how many...? Yeeeaaaa sure dude. Take a deep breath, take a chill-pill (have done that myself - works) and if you are a good sport - give the new one a try. Maybe you even come to like it once the first frustration is gone

Sehr sachlich

Das stimmt zwar und nur die Zeit kann zeigen ob ich recht habe aber das neue System ist zugänglicher. Es werden sich wahrscheinlich mehr Spieler damit beschäftigen. Das Problem am RTS war ja nicht, dass es schwierig war oder man es nicht lernen konnte, sondern, dass sich kaum jemand darauf eingelassen hat. Beim Rework starten alle von 0 und ich könnte mir gut vorstellen, dass die CV Population damit höher wird was dann auch zu einem ausgeglicheneren Skill Level führen würde. EDIT: die AA... oh je - da liegt noch etwas Arbeit vor uns fürchte ich. Ich hätte ein paar Feedback Ideen aber ich versuche erstmal noch etwas zu testen (auch mit den verschiedenen Skills)

Just because YOU don’t like it doesn’t mean WG needs to take a deep breath dude

Jup habe ich tatsächlich (zum testen der Prem CVs) aber keins verloren EDIT: Kraken - wer kann der kann :-)

Das stimmt so nicht aus meiner Sicht. Die Skillgap wird sehr wahrscheinlich kleiner werden. Auch ist der Schaden nicht wirklich geringer. Das neue System ist einfach etwas anders. Was definitiv wegfällt ist das „an mehreren Punkten“ auf einmal

(edited)

Hinweis: Geschwindigkeiten der Designs „A“ und „B“ angepasst nach der letzten Diskussion. Die Geschwindigkeiten sollten nun (hoffentlich) bei normaler Zuladung angeben sein. Sie liegen sehr nah beieinander - könnte also gut passen