1MajorKoenig

Jo wir waren jetzt von einigermaßen realistischen Tonnagen ausgegangen um es uns auch nicht zu einfach zu machen. Wie sehen die anderen das?

Wut? Jetzt haste mich gerade verloren... die Eskalationsbauten ab 1938 passten doch von Anfang an nicht in die 1935 Tonnage? Oder was meinst du? (ab dann geht es wahrscheinlich eh nur noch um Kapa und weniger um Abkommen)

You mean fighters? I guess they will be brought in line with the „new“ CV fighters. Most logical thing would be a consumable of a powerful CAP patrol around the carrier. This would not only defend the CV but all ships close by. Like a catapult fighter but large squadrons. Assuming you can move your carrier with the fleet it could be a nice AA bubble made up of fighters.

Hab in Ranked bisher nur wenige getroffen aber dass WG da mal wieder eine Balancing-Sahnestück abgeliefert hat steht außer Frage. Wer auch immer nach den Stats dachte, die wäre auch nur annähernd gegen andere T10 Kreuzer gebalanced, fährt selbst eine. Ich hoffe die Zahl bleibt niedrig so dass der Schaden begrenzt bleibt (wie bei der Nikolai) Der TE hat in sofern Recht, als dass es komplett bescheuert ist, so eine Kreuzer in einem PvP Spiel zu bringen. Aber wie so oft macht der Ton die Musik.

Dankeschöndankeschön aber mein Geburtstag ist der 16. :-)

47.000t reichen nur für 2 Träger (7.000t Rest). Daher war die ursprüngliche Forderung 15.000t aber da wir bei 20.000t herausgekommen sind bekommen wir im Rahmen des Abkommen zwei Schiffe. Ein drittes würde ich aber als „Eskalationsbau“ andenken sobald die Runde sich fröhlich dreht. Bei den Grosskampfschiffen haben wir 3x10.000t Panzerschiffe, 3x25.000t Schlachtkreuzer und 2x35.000t Schlachtschiffe (und 8.750t Rest). Hier sind sogar ZWEI Eskalations-Bauten angedacht (45.000t BBs - kommen wir später drauf zurück). Alle weiteren Einheiten wären also Eskalationsbauten, auch weitere Panzerschiffe (wobei deren Nutzen ja eher beschränkt wäre).

Answer: KÖNIG ALBERT !! There is nothing better than a true Dreadnought! After that: - V-25 - Ashitaka - Emden - Karlsruhe (yes really ...)

DIE NÄCHSTE ABSTIMMUNG RUFT: “Vorschlag Tonnageverteilung“ Um a) die höchstmögliche Uboot-Tonnage und b) ausreichend Leichte Kreuzer für die Kampfgruppen bauen zu können (beides Bestandteil der Straregie), wurde folgende Tonnage-Verteilung vorgeschlagen: 1) 68.500t für Uboote (das sind 100% der Englischen Tonnage = unser Limit) 2) 90.000t für leichte Kreuzer (was entweder 9 x 8.000t + 4 x 4.500t oder 11 x 8000t entspräche) Um das zu erreichen müssten wir zusätzlich zu der uns für Uboote (24.000t) und CLs (67.000t) zustehende Tonnage folgende Tonnage anderer Klassen „klauen“: - 7.000t überzählige Tonnage CV - 8.750t überzählige Tonnage BB - 51.000t komplette CA Tonnage Würde heißen, keine CAs aber dafür den Gegenwert von 85 (!) Atlantikubooten! ——————— @Takemikazuchi_1121 @Dullman84 @Walther_K_Nehring @linkum @eXzession @Hargen_Tannhaus @DeadMemories @HaLordLe @_TIGER205 @Meltion @Graf_Orlok @GrossadmiralThrawn Und natürlich alle anderen - sorry wenn ich jemanden vergessen habe! ——————— Da es derzeit nur diesen einen Vorschlag gibt VOTED bitte HIER mit „like/dislike“. Wenn es mehr „dislikes“ gibt müssen wir es halt neu diskutieren. DIE ABSTIMMUNG LÄUFT BIS: DIENSTAG 11.09.2018 / 20:00 Vote here please !

Sorry hatte die Tage nicht wirklich viel Zeit. Ja der Vorschlag war, die CA Tonnage für Uboote und CLs zu nutzen. Zusammen mit der überschüssigen CV und BB Tonnage gab das eine ganz Runde Geschichte. Ich muss die Zahlen nochmal raussuchen, dann stelle ich den Vorschlag zur Abstimmung!

Well that HAS to change. No ship control would be a showstopper for me.

Exactly. When playing Asashio you have to play it much closer with the team. The myth of the independent damage dealer is a nice Flame-tale but not true in my opinion. However let’s get back to the CV rework - shall we?

Indeed personal preference. You probably won’t find a solution that makes everyone happy.

It is not the same. An icon on a Blue carpet is different to a 3D model in a simulated 3D Environment. I find the latter more immersive

I don’t share this opinion. The RTS perspective alone puts some distance between the CV player and the rest of the players. The only interaction is through sketchy icons. When in a normal ship I tend to mostly ignore the icons completely unless the distance shows they are coming for me. Of course the CV needs to play with the team - given his exceptional capabilities compared to normal ships but I can’t say I feel any close to my team when in a CV. They are just other sketchy icons.

The problems are actually pretty accurately summarized by WG. Whether you like their solution approach or not is a different topic

Nice write up again but she needs to be at T4

This AP topic for BBs - it’s a “me too” kind of argument. You are missing the point about T4+5 because I assume you learned CVs long time ago and didn’t experience the learning with the removed ALT attacks yourself. Getting used to CV play initially is more difficult than sailing your BB towards the enemy. Point is - directing 3 squadrons to different points at the maps, keeping an eye on multiple changing situations takes a lot of your focus when you are a newbie. Worrying about that without constantly shot out of the skies by a seal-clubber-master-strafer helps to get you into it. Once you know what to do with your squadrons the next step is manual drops and strafing runs. I assume it is hard to understand if you have learned it long a ago why it is easier in the currrent form. Downside is you have a harsh jump in learning curve at T5 and T6 but it is doable. So the removal didn’t hurt the CV leaning curve at all in my opinion. But it is fine to agree to disagree. The more pressing problem remains the attractiveness unfortunately.

I truly hope the rework will be a success. And I also hope - even if I don’t know if it is even possible - that the “old” CV guys come to like it as well. I would like to see CVs becoming a less detached part in the game. Hope WG orgnizes the testing in a way they can draw the right conclusions out of it. Typical if you only test with unicums you end up with something nobody else will understand - if your testers’ level is too casual the mechanics might end up too simple. certainly not an easy task and I wish WG all the best of luck as the Rework is a “must-win” part

Sorry but just no. This fairy tale about missing ALT drops at T4+5 being an issue is as wrong as it can be and plain nonsense that ppl keep parroting over an over again. I went through this and the last thing a CV newbie wants at T4 is manual drop. Map overview, spotting, attacking is more than enough for the beginning. All it does is to promote some seal clubbers to play T4 and feel great to farm newbies. Honestly, I just watched Fara’s Rework comment. None of the “old” CV player will be able to help here. They like the old model which others don’t. They defend it and I respect that. But it will never be a good fit for WOWS - no matter how much lipstick you put on it.

Again, the issue is attractiveness (you can get at least decent of you practice but oh dear). I really tried to like it but it is awful.

Ja 4 Einheiten Z1934 haben wir als Ausgangslage - WIP

Because ppl watch you tube ..? It is not about NOT KNOWING. It is about learning curve. First you learn what to do on the map with multiple units - second you start straging and ALT attack and third you embark on a very long journey to get gud EDIT: which you won’t manage all at once of course. So all manual attacks do is support seal clubbers who get horny by 200.000k damage games @T3

See and this is where we disagree. I think the RTS model is unfortunately conceptually wrong and is not the right solution for CV gameplay in WOWS. It is entirely against everything else in the game I don’t think it can be fixed in a way that it becomes attractive to a wider community. The fact that the technical execution / implementation is also pretty poor makes it worse but isn’t the root cause in my opinion. And as Ela2zer brought it up - I don’t think removing ALT attacks for T4+5 made the situation worse. I did another trial run to force me into liking CV gameplay at that time and it was a better learning curve after all - not worse. But the overall concept was still not appealing to me - so I stopped again. I fully understand what people are missing in the current model.

1. look at how many ppl play the class. Ask ppl who tried why they didn’t continue. Look at other games which managed to make CVs fun. 2. „Balance“ not equal to „Design“ 3. yes WG wants to make money and it is a problem that CVs are grossly unpopular. 4. „Rework will be great“? I don’t know. I honestly hope for the good of this game. I do see some potential but they need to add a lot of stuff to increase the amount of interaction in my opinion. Eg. I am not sure whether the fighter model will work - we need a better insight there. The general concept of one big manually controlled strike wave is a lot closer to actual CV battle than the current „homemade-Starcraft“. So that is at least encouraging but a lot will depend on how it is done. We agree though that CV gameplay shouldn’t be too dead simple. Meaning fighters need some meaningful role, CV should be controllable through WASD and plane losses should have some consequences.

Not disagreeing that these CV unicums understand the current model best. But again - these ppl could only help to tweak the current solution - which will not be enough as WG wants to trash the current model. They came to the conclusion that the current model will never be attractive enough in the context of this game. Even if slightly tuned & polished. STs btw are just testers. They have literally NOTHING to do with design. All they can do is test what has been done and check if things work a) as designed and b) give some “player” feedback. WG will listen but the influence of ST is small. EDIT: seeing that things like RN BBs got through supertest you could argue about the overall value. Either the STs found this garbage great and didn’t see the incredible stupidity of it or WG doesn’t listen to them. I assume the latter unfortunately