eliastion

I have a quick quiz for you: 1. An aircraft carrier is a name of what type of vehicle? a) a plane b) a ship c) a tank Answering this question might help you find out which of the three games (World of Warplanes, World of Warships or World of Tanks) CVs belong to. And as for introducing infantry-carrying vehicles into WoT, the problems are threefold: 1. "World of ..." series makes a point of not including humans on the battlefield. You have empty vehicles sailing, driving and flying around - but you can't depict infantry this way. 2. Conceptually an aircraft carrier is a ship that has aircraft assigned to it. That's the way they are thought of: if ship-based aviation attacks something, you can say "the carrier attacked" and if you say "the carrier attacked" it's implied that the operation was actually conducted by sending planes after the target. The same doesn't really hold for transport vehicles for infantry. If you say that a vehicle of that sort attacked something, people will imagine the crew opening fire from on-board weapon systems rather than the vehicle letting out the troops inside to perform the attack. The infantry transported inside isn't treated as part of the vehicle at all (if anything, it would be the vehicle becoming "part of" some infantry unit). 3. Infantry transport vehicles aren't "tanks" in the first place, so they don't really fit the theme of "World of Tanks". By comparison, aircraft carriers are decisively "warships". Then again, this particular issue is of lesser importance consideting that tank destroyers and SPGs aren't exactly tanks either, showing that the WoT title at the very least is pretty liberal about including vehicles that don't fit the title to a T.

Detonations are a (not very popular among the playerbase, might I add) mechanic that doesn't really represent the shell/torpedo/bomb being powerful enough to destroy the ship in a single hit. The situation modeled is when the enemy attack sets off explosives onboard of the target ship. Basically - it's not the torpedo that dealt 26 000 damage to a BB. Torpedo caused some (perhaps badly stored and loosened during the fight) ammunition to explode, causing an explosion of the entire magazine and blowing half the ship sky-high. It's the BB that dealt all this damage to itself - the torpedo being merely a trigger. The same can be caused by a single unlucky shell, as experienced by many DDs in the game and some ships - like HMS Hood, for perhaps the best known example - in the real world. As for the signal... this can mean two things a) you weren't actually flying it or b) it's a bug that you should report But while we're at it - I'd strongly advise against using the anti-detonation signals on BBs. What you experienced happens sometimes but it's a very, VERY rare occurrence. BBs need to be extremely unlucky to get detonated - which is it's preferable to save the signals for when you play a destroyer or, at worst, a cruiser. You're quite unlikely to suffer a similar situation within the next 50 BB matches even without the signal.

Of course they are. But this doesn't mean that they won't be laughed at for what they post if it happens to be assessed by the vast majority of readers as profoundly stupid.

You implied it, your argument is based on this premise. You said people won't be damage controlling it. And why wouldn't they? Because the consequences of letting it continue aren't worth it. Ergo - it's inconsequential enough to be ignored. I didn't say you used these words. But this doesn't change the fact that that's the argument you're making - people won't find flooding important enough to damage con so it will be allowed to deal damage. But making it so weak that people have the freedom to ignore it is the very opposite of buffing. You also said it's a buff for IJN DDs, your exact words being "For IJN DDs it is a buff (,uch needed) as now people will not insta repair one flood." You called it a buff when the change: - nerfs the acting time of flooding - nerfs the DPS of flooding - adds the option for double flooding that potentially deals more DPS to ONE class (with much shorter time) but requires you to land torps on both front and aft halves of the ship (something that rarely happens to IJN DDs that excel in dealing big damage per torp and almost always flood the target but rarely get to land many fish on different parts of the ship, because they are relatively visible, allowing evasive maneuvers that not only limit the number of torp hits but also tend to concentrate their damage on one end of the ship) I never was a fan of all-or-nothing nature of DoT - this mostly applies to flooding but fires are too all-or-nothing as well, since a fire can't be started on a ship with DCP active and a fast-activated DCP doesn't allow you even one tick of damage. And the rework doesn't really address the main problems at all - it just conceals it a bit, making flooding less DCP-worthy so that the effect of bad all-or-nothing nature of DoT is going to, perhaps, be slightly less visible. If it's powerful enough to be worthy of DCP charge, then it will be insta-repaired and won't deal any damage, so your whole argument crumbles. You are arguing against yourself here. But I guess it's mostly a misunderstanding on your part (apparently you actually have much more problems reading than you believe), since - for someone touchy about allegedly having words put in their mouth and trying to give an example of good discussion habits by quoting "exact words"... you end up actually putting some in my mouth in the very next sentence you write. And unlike in your case - the words you try to push on me were neither written nor even implied by me. So, let me clarify: I didn't say it would be "irrelevant compared to fires". My words were "so irrelevant that it's not worth the DCP charge anymore". If I were to compare new floodings to fires, it would be more along the lines of "as irrelevant as fires". Fires, like the new flooding, are not worth a DCP charge on BBs that can get the hp back. They only become a problem to be addressed ASAP in specific situations (when you're very low hp, for example) or once you stack more of them. The old flooding used to have this power (being worthy of DCP) all on its own, because it was a much, much more pressing threat, dealing with which right away was extremely relevant to the ship's very survival. Oh, but would it, really? You see, you can technically stack more DPS but it also lasts only 40 seconds. And that also means that anti-flooding modules (usually taken to deal with fires anyway) and signals (that can be taken without compromising the build), as well as the basics of survivability skill, actually have an impact. Before, their shortening of flooding time by 15, 20 and 15% respectively wasn't very useful. Now they will actually provide a significant survivability boost, cutting down the duration of a single flooding to mere 24 seconds. That's much shorter than you could expect from getting an "old" flooding even on a BB mid-DCP reload (even assuming premium DCP, of course) - and completely laughable compared to a battleship "nailed" with a follow-up torp just as the consumable goes on CD (something achievable surprisingly reliably by TRB Kageros and Yugumos). Oh, and we're only talking BBs and premium pseudo-cruisers as the target here, of course. On normal cruisers, DDs and carriers the new (single) flooding deals less DPS than a single fire - you can't possibly get to old single flooding DPS even by stacking two "new" floodings. Not that it matters for DD targets, obviously, as they don't exactly have a habit of living through two torps that don't strike the same section. Also, as stated before, we're talking in the context of IJN DD torpers that will rarely get to flood both front and aft of a ship. Their torps hit hard but are easy to at least partially dodge, to they are usually taken only on the bow or only on the stern (and very often it's just one at once in the first place). If something eats more IJN torps, suffering hits on both ends, this usually means that you caught them completely broadside and in these cases the main reason to celebrate is the sheer amount of alpha damage you get out of this (often dev-striking your tier BBs unless they were basically full hp). Flooding is the most important for these cases where you DON'T get these lovely multiple-hit spreads but rather land just one, maybe two hits on the enemy bow - and the target either just so happens to not have DCP ready (lots of damage for you), or needs to use it right then and there, making themselves the primary target for every fire-spamming friendly ship around (lots of damage for your team, as long as you manage to call fire on the vulnerable target). Nice advice. Problem is: if you applied it to yourself, most of your last post wouldn't have been written. So... should I just reciprocate with a friendly advice to start with yourself before preaching to others, because you're not coming off as a very respectable person when you're accusing someone of alleged wrongdoings while in the same breath doing exactly what you accuse them of.

CVs have a bit different... useflness/time characteristic than most ships. CV's early-game usefulness is basically restricted to hunting DDs and spotting. The big advantage of CVs is that they tend to live long (if they decide to compromise their usefulness they can practically guarantee remaining alive - nobody will waste time on trying to look for a CV at the map border) and that they are the more dangerous the more dispersed and more damaged the enemy fleet is - both factors, obviously, tend to be at their peak in the end game. This means that CVs make very good janitors - hunting down the remnants is where they can sometimes really shine, more than making up for their limited usefulness in the earlier stages. On the other hand, this is also why the average damage dealt by CVs is deceptive when combined with other classes - these big numbers only really matter in a reasonably even end-game, because most of it is that very end-game damage. CVs can turn matches no other class could... but usually it doesn't. Usually it just constitutes last struggles of the defeated or the cleanup by the victor. Both scenarios have in common the fact that the game is decided long before CVs can trully flex some muscle against anything that's not a destroyer. Another thing that should be noted is that all this analysis assumes that the CV puts the bare minimum of effort into conserving the planes properly. If you deplane yourself, you'll see just how "infinite" your planes really are. As lethal as an end-game CV is, this doesn't really work that well when you see a DD coming for you while you yourself have the magnificent choice of taking off with 2 rocket planes, 1 torpedo bomber or 4 AP dive bombers because you managed to, errm, misplace everything else.

It's "with Wargaming premium account" and "with Warships premium account", the latter being more powerful but only applicable to WoWs. I do think we should be getting "standard" and (whatever premium you are using) tallies rather than two versions of premium (as seems to be the case when running "standard premium") but the tallies are not the same.

Old controls are completely incompatible with new approach. More realistic would be to hope for an alternative control scheme that would allow drastic maneuvers with mouse alone (so that the planes would make sharp turns when you move the mouse by a lot instead of only allowing minor course adjustments and ignoring the mouse position if you move it far enough from the center).

Something's happened to sound settings? Especially getting hit is weirdly loud (compared to the previous builds) when in binocular mode... Perhaps it should be loud (to give you a feeling of urgency) but it just seems like this was suddenly turned up by quite a bit and feels weird.

I feel the need to correct you. Only a minority of Radars got duration buffs - the ones where the duration was long enough that it didn't matter anyway didn't receive better duration - most of them got a range buff as a consolation instead

And what exactly are we supposed to comment on? We get no option to try the CVs and the economy of the arc and collection are going to be completely different on live, so feedback on that is completely useless as well, what with all these containers from that strange challenge that most definitely doesn't seem like it would be making it to live... the only important thing we could comment on are bugs - but for that we have another section. This thread seems completely redundant, doesn't it?

No. It's really, REALLY not a buff and you need to be very disconnected from reality to think otherwise. At best it can get them slightly higher numbers - because you now can get a couple thousand damage from some inconsequential flooding here and there. And that's the point: inconsequential. BEFORE the flooding rework there were two options: a) the target had DCP ready; getting hit by an IJN torp usually meant flooding, which meant an insta-repair - so thanks to that torp, the target was now vulnerable to DoT (be it fire, that you could sometimes set yourself btw, or flooding). If the target was threatened by some sources of DoT, forcing his DCP was a big step towards getting rid of him, even if not rewarded appropriately with XP. b) the target had DCP on cooldown; getting hit by an IJN torp meant A LOT of damage AFTER the flooding you won't deal anywhere near as much damage if DCP is on cooldown and you can't even force DCP (especially painful for torp reload Kagero and Yugumo for which it wasn't that rare to force DCP and then benefit themselves). The change is a buff but not to DDs. It buffs two classes: - BBs (the class that suffers from long DCP cooldowns, so is the most susceptible to perma floodings) - cruisers (because while some do have torps, they still suffer torpedo hits more often than they deal them and the flooding on cruisers basically ceases to deal damage compared to before - even getting double-flooded means less DPS than a single flooding previously did, and the duration is pretty short) DDs simply lose a significant chunk of power. And saying that "it's a buff because now flooding is so inconsequential that it will be ignored" (that's basically your argument) is inane. It's not impossible that the flooding damage numbers for DDs will slightly go up with this change - but even if that happens, this will only be proof that flooding is so irrelevant that it's not worth the DCP charge anymore. And the ones to lose the most impact are actually the IJN DDs that have powerful torps with good flooding chance - but relatively easy to avoid. It's less common to see enemies helpless enough to actually suffer torpedo strikes on both bow and stern, so IJN DDs won't even really benefit from the "double flooding" option (it would've been a different thing with three flooding spots, one of them hidden behind torpedo bulge where most torps don't cause floodings but IJN ones do - but that's not how WG designed the new mechanic). In short, yes, it's a definite nerf to IJN DDs. If you play them, your power to influence the battle is going down this patch, even if your damage numbers go up a tiny bit.

RPF helps you a lot against DDs, but... you just don't need that help. You learn the general location of a DD by flying within <your planes detection radius> and noticing that the planes had been spotted. Then you make a circle and find the DD. Then you proceed to make the poor guy's life miserable. RPF lets you circumvent the initial steps but even without it you are so powerful that it feels like spending 4 points on a crutch you just don't really need.

To be fair, it sounded more like a stereotypical "back in my days" old man rumbling rather than a cynical analysis, though

"One is a combat bonus of noticeable value on pew-pew DDs, the other is an economic signal that only really starts having some value while combined with with others." is what I'd say had you not mixed up Papa Papa with Sierra Mike I mean, PP is still significantly cheaper for coal (and is one of the signals most often given out in various missions and containers) but still: credits can only buy you combat signals. The economic ones are coal only (or resupply for doublons).

You REALLY need to check what people are responding to Hint: it was not ColonelPete who brought up realism. He was retorting to the OP who did.

Well, for starters, the demands for alpha are ridiculous regardless of balance issues - OP basically wants one of the things that were consciously removed by WG as one of the goals. CV's potential to make people go boom with a single massive strike was seen as one of the problems (a massed drop on a clumsy BB or a cross-drop on a DD were seen as exceedingly deadly combined with CVs flexibility to, at least in theory, seek out the vulnerable targets anywhere on the map). Basically, it's not something that disappeared as a side effect of the rework - it's one of the things the rework was made to remove. And the whole way AA is supposed to work is balanced based on that - AA isn't there to completely stop strikes (I mean, a t8 squadron is unlikely to reach a full AA Minotaur with the right sector reinforced but that's a pretty special case). Unless massed up from a couple potent AA ships, it's there to make you pay for strikes with planes AND to prevent repeated strikes (where a squadron turns around for another go) - making it less of an all-or-nothing deal (where you either get a huge strike on weak AA or are overwhelmed by strong AA) and more into "degree of protection" kind of thing where the better your AA, the more costly the attacks and the less of them in one sortie the CV player is capable of performing (since the more you attack, the more battered your planes and the less of them to spread the damage, until they finally start falling down en masse). Allowing a full squadron strike is a concept that goes against the core idea of how CVs are supposed to attack and how AA is supposed to hinder them post-rework, since then you're back to the "AA monster will remove your squadron, average AA won't do sh*t" as only shooting planes on the initial approach really counts as protecting your ship. On another note - I'd be skeptical about whether the overall meta is that much more hostile to CVs. Now AA is stronger and more people build for it but also the factor of enemy CV fighters is removed, so one big hindrance to your damage dealing is gone. Although, of course, the fighters aren't going to be making an appearance so this is less relevant to "how much damage can we expect CVs to be doing now". Then again - when it comes to the meta, the question to be asked is not "how harsh for CVs is the current compared to pre-rework" but rather "how harsh is it compared to what we can expect when dust settles post-rework" and that heavily depends on what popularity the CVs are going to end up having. If we'll end up with most matches having a CV, AA builds will remain a thing. If, however, we go back to pre-rework level scarcity, people will also drop AA modules and skills and we'll be back to square 1. While we're at it though... Personally I believe that one of the bigger mistakes (what's more infuriating: REPEATED mistakes) of WG in regards to the Rework is that they failed to scrap most AA-boosting additions. We could do with only one AA module (in a slot with limited competition) and some low-cost mediocre-effect skills for the captain. Full AA build should require much less investment but it should also offer only maybe 15% more overall power or something like this. Then the number of CVs would affect the AA power of the average team to much lesser degree (since even no-AA-builds fleet wouldn't be that much weaker AND a "let's build AA just in case" wouldn't be a humongous point and module slot waste when you end up not meeting enough CVs). Also, if they really wanted more options for AA, they could combine some AA-related effects with other popular mods. Want more flak? Well, we have aim-improving and range-improving modules. Want more constant DPS? A couple % bonus could be added to the reload-improving mods. Stealth modules could mess up the accuracy of drops within a small radius from your ship (as it does with shells aimed while locked onto you). These are just random I-just-came-up-with-these-on-the-spot ideas so they aren't completely thought-out in detail - thing is, however, having modules that are for AA only (but are powerful at boosting AA) is basically having people gamble with their builds considering that even the stated goal of the rework when it comes to CV population was "a CV in most battles" rather than "a CV with practically every battle"...

My general impression? More. But I haven't played much Midway, mainly on PTS. Haku torps (the 2-TB option) are reasonably fast and (when fully aimed) drop in a tight spread but if you want to hit anything, you need start your attack pretty damn far away and the arming distance is an issue even with their speed. And then, even best case scenario: you get two torps in. And if the torping aim is too wide, you can't count on reliability of "something sticking" due to sheer number of torps (Midway with bad spread but a nice broadside target can count on something hitting due to sheer saturation of the area and the drop being closer, so they don't have space to really spread all that much). The supposed upside of Haku's torps - their range - isn't worth sh*t because 1. You have no torping indicator so you need to assess lead while moving at high speed with no reliable means of assessing enemy speed, especially since the moment you start seeing smoke and wake, you're deeply committed to the attack run and can't do big corrections 2. The torps are fast for a CV torps but for a ship they would be pretty damn slow 3. Enemy sees you coming and the moment of drop is made obvious by the squadron separating All things considered, dropping at longer range is basically for AFK enemies. If the target is moving, then even hitting a straight-liner is a challenge and any opponent showing a minimum of reaction has more than enough time to dodge everything, especially with only 2 torps coming their way. So if you plan on hitting something, you're stuck with the same point-blank drop you'd be attempting in a US CV, having to start the run even further and dropping less torps. They do hit harder per torp and their speed means that dropping from rear angles is more viable than for Midway, however, I'll give them that. Also, the US "shotgun spread" I mentioned comes in sets of two instead of neatly saturating the area - so they aren't as impossible to dodge as it might seem. Overall, the USN advantage isn't as big as the rest of my post might imply. Adding the IJN TB stealthiness that can surprise targets (you pop up while entering attack run, basically) I'd say that IJN TBs are about on par with Midway overall... but "on par with the competition" doesn't really seem to cut it for something that's supposed to be Haku's strong point. And there's also the problem of 2-plane strike detachments that can be a problem because they're a separate squadron so until they disappear, they are going to suffer full damage directed at just two planes rather than the bigger squadron... making them more vulnerable than 3-plane detachments on the way back. Can mean more planes never making it back after dropping their payload.

To be fair, I don't really mind the amount of power Haku holds after the nerf. The problem is the handling of their staple weapon (the torps). Seriously, if they think them too powerful, they could even lower their alpha (flooding chance is non-existent anyway already ) a bit, but bring back the handling that made them enjoyable to use. Maybe not as extremely comfortable as before the hotfix, but, ffs, not as bad as we have it now...

Well, it's not meant to be realistic, gameplay trumps realism every time. That's why we get magic DCP button on all ships except CVs that have a magic DCP button that presses itself whether you want it or not Well, it depends on a couple factors: - how good the enemy CV player is (dodging flak) - how conservative with his planes the CV player is (how fast he is to pull out) - what CV the CV player plays (t8 CV planes are much more fragile, IJN TBs strike only 2 at a time making the "escape after strike" phase much more lethal to them) - how badly battered your AA is when the planes come - if there are some other ships with potentially stronger AA, giving them a better chance of being the ones to score the kills The important thing about the first two points is that currently the effects of your AA don't just come down to "how many planes died, how many of them before the drop". Let's say that the enemy Hakuryu attack you with TBs, drops two torps on you and then escapes with the rest of the squadron (or maybe comes once again after burning the plane heal if it was off CD) - chances are that you'll find yourself with very few plane kills over the match even if he goes after you like this many times. But it doesn't mean that your AA had no effect - it made the enemy perform a very inefficient attack pattern with a lot of flying between his hull and you. Because he was too scared to perform a more intense attack since that would mean much greater losses - instead he opted for the "safe" option, getting him an effective DPM comparable to a Zao with four times the normal reload on his main battery.

Bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

How exactly? They would be penalizing these if they introduced skill-based MM, yes. But balancing ships so that their scaling with player's skill is less dramatic isn't a penalty by any stretch of imagination. Oh, that would spell the end of the game. Then again, according to the Forums the game has already ended with every major change (and some of the minor ones) so... Oh, sure, they'll nationalize your skill and give it to someone else Well, progressive taxes and "other equalization BS" is a staple of all developed countries in the world. The only two questions the developed world is asking is "how much is needed" and "how do you enforce that" because hardly anybody wants to go back to the social relations characterizing the much purer early capitalism. Buut, I think this is off topic, so let's better leave this topic aside. Actually, no. Pointing towards automated AA and secondaries is a very simple retort to "we must control everything". It's just saying: WoWs has a lot of automated things. We always had. So making strong statements along the lines that it's not acceptable anything to be automatized are pretty ridiculous - as the game had always a degree of obvious automatization. Yes, management of DCP is important. Which is why leaving this in the hands of players makes it all the more important to manage it properly, punishing hard players that would focus on their planes rather than the ship in the back. Taking it out of their hands is, therefore, a small (just two buttons, as you said) but significant step to make the worse (not as good at splitting their attention) players suffer less. The class had a huge skill gap. And it will most likely retain a bigger skill gap than most other classes. Which is why WG tries to rectify this in places where they can get some "equalizing" effects without touching the core gameplay. Simplifying and automating things related to the hull is a way to do just that.

It's a bit of an offtop, but... You claim that WG pursues profit first and foremost, prioritizing money over everything else. Fair enough. But then you connect that to them "coming from socialist block". I don't mean to nitpick, but "Money first, have them buy, buy, buy - and let's cater to those that buy more" isn't exactly the staple attitude of socialism

I get your point, but I don't think you really want to get into enumeration of the mechanics a BB to show how many things a BB has control of compared to a CV... Engine boost: accelerate, decelerate (and it's used continuously, not on/off, that's much higher level of control than normal consumables get) Engine cooling: use or not and when Plane heal: use or not and when Fighter: use or not and when Attack run: enter or not and when (can be used for defensive purposes as well, it's more than just an attack mechanic! Gives you a survivability boost at the cost of limited maneuverability and lowers your altitude - that's literally a whole new dimension of gameplay ) Attack: finalize the attack or not, and if so: at what point; aiming is also much more challenging since you need to coordinate with your movement better than on a ship Partial control over the CV hull: setting the points to follow on the map Just flying the torpedo bombers can rival the controls complexity of a BB. And there's the option to send them home and switch to a whole another set of controls for the hull and squadron selection - and yes, the "I'm a ship" minigame is very simplified compared to playing it as the main PoV avatar, but that's just a fraction of what you get. So, no matter how hostile you might be to the idea of automated consumables, saying that having auto-consumables on CVs is just like having them on other ship classes is... intellectually dishonest. The control of the hull - as limited as it might be - is just the extra complexity on top of the plane controls. Automated hull consumables mean less additional complexity. It doesn't make CVs less complicated than BBs - it's making them not as much more complicated as they could've been otherwise.

The problem is - the other things are parts of the core CV gameplay (they touch onto what playing a CV means) so they are more "fragile". Consumables are less important. Also, I have to disagree - fires are a potent source of damage and the flooding after the nerf will have some power too. Remember, CVs don't get to heal from "recoverable" damage, damage dealt by fires is damage that sticks. And HE bombs and rocket planes are pretty good at setting fires. If CVs suffered DoT damage like other classes and didn't have super-DCP on auto (but rather a normal consumable) you'd be seeing A LOT of CVs suffering early death. A couple shells when briefly spotted by enemy CV, a raid with HE bombers followed by a couple strikes with rockets, some DCP mismanagement along the way - and you'd see CVs burning bow to stern on regular basis. And with no way to recover hp, they would be dead quickly. It doesn't seem important because all the anti-DoT mechanisms are already in place, so you don't appreciate the challenge of keeping your hull alive if they were taken away Well, it would close the skill gap. But since BBs don't suffer from excessive skill gap in the first place (it's in line with if not smaller than for the other classes), there's no reason to contemplate any drastic measures to close it.

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/game-updates/flooding-and-radar-changes/ You called?