Uglesett

"Oh, but you just need to adapt to the meta". "It's an L2P issue" Bull. That's just a strawman argument used by someone who doesn't want to actually acknowledge that the game has serious issues. Newsflash, lots of players are going to have no problems (from a purely game-technical point of view) "adapting" to the rework. Lots of other players are never going to learn the game no matter what WG does. You'll find players of all types disliking the rework. And none of this matters. Whether or not any given player is capable of adapting to "teh new meta" is an entirely moot point if "the new meta" makes the game as much fun as painting your ceiling. Because then you might as well spend your free time and disposable income painting your ceiling instead. I'm pretty sure his point is that a T6 DD should be able to contribute somehow to the match, even though it's not capable of shooting down many planes.

Ah yes, I can't wait to sail beside "HMS Cockgobbler" and "USS Raging Hardon". And getting around word filters is one of first things the Internet teaches you.

WG are going to lose players and income short term. They have to realize that cocking up the game balance like this is going to cost them. They can't get hung up on short-term income in a situation like this. What they need to think of is long term player retention. This is the kind of situation where they should be generous because it can at least somewhat offset the pissing-off the CV rework is causing.

Ok, I'll have to add a bit of salt. You presumably want people to try the new CVs. If you're new to CVs, you're in for a rather long grind at T4, because there's no T5. And of course, all of the events going on require T5+ ships...

Fixed that for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzfkxAC-Bw8

I was expecting Azuma to be a coal ship. But honestly, I'm fine with this. I can get Alaska for FXP and then get Yoshino for coal instead of Azuma. I'll be missing out on the Jean Bart, but... eh, I've never been that excited for her anyway.

I wasn't interested in playing the RTS CVs. But I didn't mind having them in game, and I knew how to play against them and mitigate the damage they dealt. I think the rework is boring, and I'm not really interested in playing the reworked CVs either. But for other reasons. And thanks to the reworked CVs, DDs aren't as fun to play as they were. So yeah. Please go back to RTS version. Or at least get rid of attack planes.

Small UI comment: You should be able to click the ship icon in the centre of the AA priority control to reset to equal distribution (IE when you press "O" to open up the AA priority control, clicking the circle in the centre should reset to 100%/100%).

Not really. There's nothing inherently in the way of reverting components of the game in a new patch and leaving the progression as it is. I mean, it's basically the same process as they've done previously with ships that have had major changes (and just did once with the CVs). It's going to be a pain in the arse for the devs, and it's going to delay the RN CVs as well as screw up their internal schedule. But it's perfectly doable. Most of the changes that players have made are reversible, since you can presumably rebuy CVs you've sold with the free exp and credits you got from refunding them, and rebuy permacamos with the doubloons you got from selling them etc. And customer service are going to have a hell of a time for a few weeks. Of course, it's going to be a lot more work than if they'd just scrapped the rework at an earlier stage.

I actually lost a game thanks to this the other night. I'd set the end point inside a cap circle, but the CV just stopped right outside it, pointed straight at an island. I think we lost by 20 points, so if I'd been able to block that cap we would have won. And yeah, it is really daft that we can't control the hull at the same time as having aircraft in the air. "But then the CV player can control two units at the same time". Yes. And that's not a problem. Give CV players manual control over consumables and ability to hop back to the CV view and set speed and rudder commands. And then you can compensate by unnerfing DoT effects on CVs. (Or just revert to the RTS CVs.)

I'm 40, and picked "other", because currently I'm not decided. I wasn't interested in playing the RTS CVs, but I was fine with having them in the game. If you knew how to react to them, you could usually mitigate a fair amount of the damage they dealt, and their balance against non-CVs wasn't anywhere near as atrocious as is often claimed. The main issues were with the CV-vs-CV game. I don't like the rework as it stands, because the CV gameplay itself isn't terribly exciting, and the balance particularly against DDs is out of whack. And regardless of the other balancing changes they do, I doubt they can make the new CVs balanced against the majority of DDs. Primarily because I don't think they're willing to "kill their darlings" and do the one thing that actually needs to be done: get rid of the attack planes. (Of course, that's going to make the CV gameplay even more boring, so I can sort of see the point. But still.) Overall, I don't think I'll have issues adapting from a tactical point of view. I just suspect that the rework is going to make the game permanently less fun for me because one of the more interesting classes becomes less playable and the "more accessible" (i.e. boring) CVs do not make up for that.

So why on Earth do you spend so much effort defending the rework all the time?

I see I made the right choice for my first Tier 10

I'm pretty sure the "return to home after dropping ordnance" function and pressing "F" triggers the same effect.

I thought you were one of the fans of the CV rework

If WG actually wants players to join the PTS, the first thing they can do is not run PTS sessions for major game-changing patches in parallel with the ing Christmas grind.

How much of it is down to the changes to the F-key functionality, though, and how much is down to the changes to AA? I mean, that's part of the problem with this whole process, they keep changing a lot of variables at once, which can make it impossible to see the effect of any individual change.

CVs made all other capital ships obsolete, but the smaller surface ship classes still had (and have today) a significant role to play in the CV era. But cruisers and destroyers transitioned into more of an AA and ASW role until the development of surface-to-surface missiles made them capable of long-range strikes. It was mainly the battleships that became obsolete, because their striking power was severely outranged by the CVs, and they didn't have any other significant role besides that of artillery platform. Sure, BBs could and did make for formidable AA platforms, but you could get the same level of AA firepower with more flexibility by just building multiple cruisers for less cost, and the increased survivability of the battleships just wasn't good enough against aircraft to be worth it. Of course, a lot of naval war doctrine in the carrier era relies on your own naval air power being available to intercept enemy air strikes...

This. In the RTS era, even the most unicum CV players had their spotting ability limited by the fact that the other CV could force them to pull away just by moving their fighters into the vicinity. Those who claim that the old style CVs had greater spotting ability than the reworked ones don't seem to realize this.

AFAIK, the discussion you're referring to was about having both styles of CV play in the game at the same time in different modes. And from a software development point of view, that is indeed iffy* But having a CV-less battle mode wouldn't be any different from any of the other special modes like Twilight battles. *"iffy" in the "Oh my god, why are you torturing the poor coders like that, isn't that in violation of the declaration of human rights?" meaning of the word.

At the very least, I think it would be interesting to have it as, say, a special mode for a two week "event" in a couple of month's time.

I'm sorry, but why is this a good thing? One of the nice things about WoWS over other action games is precisely that it is slower paced and requires more thinking and positioning than reaction. And how many threads have we had in this forum only in the last year complaining about games ending too quickly?

Wondering about this bit as well and what they mean by it. Depending on how they implement this, it can really mess up ships that rely on mainly long range AA for defense (hello Atlanta).

Fixed.

So, how long is it since they were talking about one of the reasons for the rework being that they wanted to have more CVs in a match?