Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'carrier rework'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 6 results

  1. Since there are enough ranting post about carriers makes the destroyers job and life pretty "hard" (I would like to use a more extreme word here, but I have to keep calm and civilized) I rather ask the community and those from the Wargaming staff, who thinks it's manageable to play as a destroyer when carriers in the match. So the real point of this topic is in the title: How to play as a destroyer against carriers? How to avoid getting permaspotted by planes which faster than me ? How to avoid getting swarmed by rockets when you are trying to avoid the incoming rain of shells from the rest of the enemy team? How to secure a cap, when the carrier just drops a fighter squad before returning, if you survived the first airstrikes? How to scout for your team, if being separated from their AA bubbles makes you the best target for a carrier? (ohh wait, a destroyer is always the best target for a carrier) What else to do, if the objectives are occupied by planes? What else to do if you can't leave your cruisers anti-air protection field? What to do to be useful for your team, if the carriers deny your job? How to fight back against an enemy, which is far out of your gun or torpedo range, but still can spot and attack you? (at least you can hide from battleships and cruisers if you can't shoot back) I have more question like these, but for starters, it's enough for now Another question to @MrConway You once replied a questionin a stream, regarding to limit heavily the carriers presence in the game (to some extreme as deleting the class) that the Wargaming staff have a lot of work in the carrier rework, and you seemed pretty insulted by those questions and suggestions. My question concerning this, as the Wargaming is some sort of service provider too. How does this justify still a bad work? There is no place or service where you can get away doing a bad job by stating that you have a "lot of work" in it. The usual reply for this that you either redo it, or you are fired, regardless how hard did you worked on it. Why are you getting so arrogant towards the community, which actually provides your income? Last one, to close this post: How is that acceptable in any way, that in a match with carriers, only the carrier players have fun, while mostly the destroyers and to some degree the other classes are frustrated and agitated?
  2. As of currently then when I have reached Shokaku so far in World Of Warships.. I mostly was also apart of the test for the new Carrier Rework.. and I really felt the unfairness in that of how big the difference was between USS Carriers and IJN Carriers.. American squadrons always reaching their target with over half of the squad still alive and doing a fairly good amount of damage due to the amount of stuff their squadron carries and damage they do.. While Japanese squadrons have the problem of the little amount of health, the small amount of stuff they give to do damage towards ships.. and such.. Always losing under the half the health of the squadron when attacking.. And commonly the whole squadron on an attack. - American Carriers are much much more stronger than Japanese Carriers in a nutshell and has better damage and influence than their counterpart.. - But while British carriers are coming out soon as well, then it seems they are staying on the side of the Americans.. Also being strong and influential.. And mostly then the players who played Japanese carriers before the rework, never had the chance to either change nation to the American counterpart.. and get the equivalence of what they had.. _____________________________________ I'm mostly just thinking, since the rework promised the balance between each other and more carrier play... Of course then that's true, but Americans and the British are the most active ones.. while the Japanese are the ones which are slowly dying... (Or maybe even quickly).. It feels as if it's not even worth playing Japanese carriers due to the unfairness given and always having a bigger chance of not being influential as carriers are in battles.
  3. Bavi0014

    Carrier Rework Round 3. My notes.

    Carrier Rework Round 3... Feedback from me and what I think needs to be improved. I don't know where to post the feedback from the rework but I just did it here After being apart of the Rework testing then I found out a lot of stuff for the people wondering. 1: The Torpedoes were very different... USA having the best.. The carriers of the 2 nations of course were very different from each other... USA of course focused on the Fighter squadrons... With them having a highly damaging one or a lot... The problem though was that when you reached the last tiers of each carriers in the rework between IJN and USA... Then it clearly showed that USA was easiest to play... IJN was lacking A LOT to be balanced with the USA Carriers... The IJN didn't have a change in how many torpedoes it could use at attack one over the course of all the carriers it had in it's tech tree... It was always 1 per plane... While the American torpedo planes had 2 on each plane..and a lot of planes used while attacking... Sadly enough then the Japanese side needs to be fixed on their way of carriers... Even if the Japanese focused on the torpedoes then it should be shown in the gameplay of the Japanese Hakuryu 2: The fighters were very different in the end The fighters were fine in the start.. each side had a balanced term of rockets that they used each time... and it was great.. You couldn't see any difference between each other until the Tier X carrier... The fighters for the Hakuryu of course was just as the american side... But of course then due to Americans focusing on fighters then yeah... But it still had a big difference between each side... The americans used A LOT MORE rockets than the Japanese did... which was also a probem 3: Bombers Gladly then the bombers were fine... Both sides were balanced and yeah 4: Planes used in an attack Even though we see the amount of planes used in doing an attack.. then Americans use a bit more... I think the Japanese still does more damage..but this should be optional In general then it needs improvement for balancing.. What we know so far then we already know that the Americans focus Fighter planes.. even though the British should do that... And that the Japanese should focus on torpedoes.. even though they don't... They pretty much focus on nothing it seems as... I of course show no hate towards Wargaming... But this is mostly my notes to what needs to be improved Oh and uh.. A lot of stuff that I have written here might be wrong.. Since I haven't tried the rework in some time since they closed.. but yeah... I hope balancing will be improved... It's a problem which needs to be fixed as quick... Bugs: I have only encountered around 3 bugs.. but can only remember two 1: When spectating someone's carrier and not squadron.. then I have seen that some planes take off from a group.. out in the sea and gets teleported onto the runway of the carrier.. a bit weird and hard to describe but yeah.. 2: When I spawned in then the camera was just stuck to the air at where I was spawned..and not the carrier.. but when I spawned in my squadron then it was fixed. Improvements: 1: When spectating a person's squadrons.. then we need to be able to see it up close.. since when I spectate then it's mostly almost from a far... Maybe make the camera a bit closer 2: I have also found out that you can use the mouse to move... instead of WASD... The mouse though needs to be 360* in movement since it seems that you have to look forward and use the (around 80*) degress of angle that you can move the squadron wtih mouse 3: When spectating carriers then we should also be able to see all the squadrons on the carrier instead of there being none.. a little boring 4: And the last one is pretty much is to make the planes on the carriers to have their back wheel onto the carrier..instead of floating.. I of course know it's gonna be done in the publishing of the carrier rework but yeah... And for those that read all this long text,... Good job!
  4. Ydoum

    TST server

    Since the invitation doesn't specify where exactly to post regarding the rework and the TST server on which the testing will be conducted, I am asking my question here: Is the TST server even operational? There are no info to be found anywhere if there are specific test times and whatnot, the email with the invitation is written in a such way that the test should already be ongoing. Ideas?
  5. KarmaQU_EU

    “CV” —

    The Asashio situation is set, no more good to be done further fussing over it. Time to focus on the only thing I truly care about, CVs. It would be best that we write whatever we want to write, and say whatever we want to say, this time, before WG finishes the wip on the CV rework. For once they finish this rework it is unlikely they will do another. The purpose of this thread is two-fold. One is to gather ideas from the forums on what we should examine whilst considering this CV rework. From what perspectives, using what methods, asking what questions, gathering what data and insights, would an analytical approach to the intention of CV rework benefit from. Two is to gather personal ideas on what is the most definitive, representative, singular and final view of CV you hold. What is your version of the definitive CV experience. What in your imagination is the concept of the CV. What is your most symbolic experience in the old CVs. What do you hope for in the new. What will you carry on in memory to the new. I myself will be preparing a writeup akin to a mini-version of notes. It will be subject to some of the same standards, but will be exclusively focused on CV in context of this rework. It will be a bit tasking so I should probably not waste any more attention cracking jokes and ranting sarcasm for a while. Seeing which aspects of the CV the people on the forums believe is important will also help me in defining my own plan and approach to the concept, while reading on the experiences and memories of fellow CV players will possibly provide insight and inspiration. Thus I would like to invite you to please kindly post your “last words” for CVs, and your “final say” on this concept, in this thread. I personally wish this collective memory of CVs to be exempt from meaner, rougher thoughts, as well as dismissive treatment in its characterisation, if possible. We need not patronise nor objectify WG in this either; as ideally concepts are just concepts, pure and ideal. Remember the CVs as what not we had managed to make of them, but as what they deserve to be, and what their portrayal carries collectively and ideally, timeless and final.
  6. Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION