Jump to content
Server Maintenance - January 18, 6:00 CET (5:00 UTC) Read more... ×
Server Maintenance - January 18, 6:00 CET (5:00 UTC) Read more... ×

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'cv rework'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • 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

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 24 results

  1. Kapitanowie, Podzielcie się z nami opiniami, ocenami, wadami i zaletami nowej formy CV, któreś doświadczacie w testach beta. Napiszcie nam wszystko co myślicie i dlaczego tak myślicie! Wasze opinie będą przekazane dalej. WG_Lumberjack
  2. With the upcoming CV rework there is a lot of concern regarding the survivability of AA. WG said they're going to double the hitpoints of AA guns, but in the opinion of many players, that will hardly be enough to deal with the problem. It feels really frustrating to build your ship for AA and then have that effort completely negated on the first HE salvo of an enemy BB. As Notser phrased it for example: "You wonder why you even bothered". In the past there has been the suggestion to just disable AA mounts temporarily, instead of destroying them for good. Maybe we can discuss that suggestion in perspective to the upcoming rework. Especially since new CVs will have stuff like HE rockets, that can cripple your AA even quicker. There would also be the possibility to have AA disabled first and then destroyed, like currently happening to main guns. Disabled main guns can be repaired with Damage Control Party, to prevent them from being destroyed on the next hit. I don't know though, how hard that would be to implement into AA right now, and if it would just delay the problem for a few HE salvos...
  3. __Helmut_Kohl__

    [cv rework] no carrier limit ?

    I thought the missing limitation of CVs per team on PTS was just for testing reasons. But people say it will go live like this. Will there really be no limit on the live server @MrConway @Crysantos ? If there will be no limit: How is that supposed to look like ?! A match with 6 ships on each team, getting constantly swarmed by 240 knot planes with multiple drops each and unlimited reserves doesn't sound like a lot of fun. If there will be a limit: How many will be allowed ? Will it be a "soft limit" like the one for DDs ? Even 3 CVs sounds too much to handle, especially in a division.
  4. Hello guys, just wanna give you some hints and tricks, which could help you, when you decided to play the CV rework. Trying to make just short descriptions. Note: I'm seeing this from an IJN view and this is not a complete guide. Autopilot with CV and AAA I recommend to chose a zig zag course with your carrier, which makes aiming harder for enemy aircraft attacks. Also switching the AA side is recommend. The Screenshot in the 'spoiler' shows, that the CV moves in zig zag to the east, while switching the AAA to the right side (to the south) AP bombing with different impact angles. The angle of the impact of the bombs depends on the angle of the plane. Take a look at the screenshot in the 'spoiler'. Steep angles of the plane leads to a better impact angle, thus thicker armor could be penetrated, while a shallow angle won't penetrate thick armor, but has the advantage not to over-penetrate thin armor. Aiming with AP - dive bomber against light armored vessels (depends also on the AP bombs) The first example is about a stationary Cruiser and where to start the dive. Look at the grey crosshair. The grey crosshair mostly shows, where the dive bomber will be in the dive stage, thus aiming in front of the cruiser would lead, that the stage after the dive would be directly above the cruiser. The next screenshot shows how it looks like, if you're above the crusier. The planes are not steep angled, since the dive is already over. Now showing an example for aiming at a moving cruiser, where to start the dive. In many cases you will have to accelerate, since cruisers are pretty fast. And another screenshot: this shows, that AP bombs penetrate dds (Kagero). Note: Not all AP bombs work against all light armor vessels, especially T10 AP bombers have a high penetration capability. Aiming with AP - dive bomber against heavy armored vessels Against heavy armored targets it's recommended to drop the bomb while the dive. I'm showing you a screenshot, when to start the dive against a stationary bb. The grey crosshair is directly above the BB. The next screenshot shows how it looks like, when to release the bomb. The planes are in a steep angle. Now an example how to aim at a moving BB. It just needs a little bit lead, look at the grey chrosshair, it is aimed at the tip/nose of the BB, since they're slow, and the BB will be at that point, when you start the dive. My general advice for AP bombing Generally I use the AP bombs only against larger cruisers and battle ships, because the ap bomb mechanic and penetration capability is pretty hard to figure out. The Shokaku can dive bomb dds, while the Hakuryu can't. Also I had the experience, that I divebombed a Buffalo multiple times and got only overpens, but in the training room, shallow or steep bombing - both lead to citadells. So it's still somehow confusing. Accelerating and slowing down When the planes are at max speed or slowed down, it will affect the dive. If a target is close, and the squad is accelerated, the squad will often shoot over the target, so it's more recommended to approach a target with normal spead, or slow down. Turning The turning circle is smaller, when slowling down. This is pretty good for Divebomber and sometimes for Torpedobomber. Attackplanes often need some more range and a longer approach. So in case of the attack planes after an attack run - instead of a small turn - I accelerate to get farer away. Dive bomber = Slow down and turn Torpedo bomber = Depends more on situation Attackplanes = Accelerate and turn then Keyboard and Mouse usage Keyboard is mostly for maneuvering (avoiding aa), turning and coarse movements. While you should use the mouse for aiming. The mouse control reacts only in a cone of ~45°, outside of this cone area, turning with mouse is disabled. Beside that, the right mouse is for looking around, but it behaves in the same way like it would be with guns, thus the airplanes will move to the spot, where you aimed, before you hold down the right button. Important: If someone gets more information about the AP bombs, just tell it! I figured out that the Hakuryu can bomb the Minotaur and Neptune in shallow and steep angle.
  5. Apparently the new CVs will be able to use RPF on the planes, as seen for example in Faras new video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm13J5aLFCs So not only are the new planes twice as fast now, they can also locate the nearest DD with RPF ? How are non-AA DDs going to deal with this ? Smoke up and hope the CV doesn't come back when it runs out ? Considering the airspeed and the RPF on the planes, it sounds quite attractive to quickly come back for that DD. Maybe someone can explain to me why these crazy fast planes should have RPF in the first place.
  6. I'll straight up state that I don't like the rework for lots of reasons. AA is useless. CVs are basically going to be damage farming everything else. CVs have no real way of countering or outplaying each other besides consumables which are of dubious benefit, etc. I could go on but it's all been said already. There is however one issue nobody seems to have mentioned about this whole thing. Owners of CVs and Premium CVs will get some kind of compensation if they dislike the way things are headed - because the ship(s) they ground out or paid for are being radically changed. But what about everyone else? Example 1 - Someone buys an Atlanta or grinds enough steel for a Flint. One of the key selling points of the Atlanta/Flint is it's ability to shoot down planes - thanks in no small part to DFAA. In the rework DFAA is nowhere near as good as it used to be. AA in general is nowhere near as effective as it used to be. So these AA cruisers are nerfed by proxy - thanks to one of their key roles (shooting down flying stuff) being largely negated in the rework. Are the owners of these ships going to be compensated in some way - especially if money has changed hands? Example 2 - A player has HMS Hood - with that comedy DFAA system that basically downs everything with wings in a 1.5km radius. It makes up for the cross-eyed gunners who refuse to shoot what you're aiming at and the fact that your ship is three miles long. Under the new system DFAA won't work in the same way (e.g. it isn't as good) and I don't think you can boost the range of your AA like you can now - so you are stuck with the 1.2km range cap of the rocket AA. A nerf by default. Boo. Hiss. Example 3 - Players of USN Battleships. The AA of that line is currently excellent - so much so that it is one of the key elements of the US BB line - they can look after themselves or at the very least make a CV think twice before attacking them. Given that most of the US AA is focused in the short/mid range bracket - which is pants in the rework by the way - every USN BB is being nerfed. That applies for every line where strong AA is a characteristic - the ships with already weak AA won't notice the difference. People who bought the Jean Bart (again, strong AA) will find their ship FAR less able to defend itself the day 8.0 hits. Example 4 - (Last one I promise) - Anyone who buys a premium DD. If you have played vs. the reworked carriers you will know that a DD driver's gameplay experience has gone down the toilet. Stuff the Radar cruisers - those I can deal with. Being chased around the map by a 200 knot squadron of rocket-hurling planes - that's not so fun. In each of these cases the player experience is being changed (not for the better) and the Waterline video was stunning it's avoidance of talking about the SURFACE SHIP experience. Given that most players in this game drive around in surface vessels, some paid for, others ground out by FTP means - that isn't ideal - not with 8.0 looming on the horizon. So am I barking up the wrong tree? Or do we think that WG could at least register the fact that for a lot of people - 8.0 is going to nerf their ships indirectly and make the experience of playing this game a lot less enjoyable. *For transparency - I don't own Atlanta or Flint. I do own the HMS Hood, HMS Cossack and quite a few USN BBs. =)
  7. KarmaQU_EU

    A topic borne of desperation

    It is past the time of egos and stuff, I don’t care if I make an [edited]of myself as long as there is even the slightest chance the CV concept can be helped. I have in the past made a large amount of highly wishful and far fetched thinking on concepts for the CV rework, including straightforward but drastic suggestion of measures such as removing all torpedo bombers and solely balancing/designing CV gameplay (at least initially) around the other less dreadful types of bombers. Other examples included separating CV tech trees into smaller escort carriers and larger fleet carriers, which have broad implications including MM fixing and fine tuning. But I digress. Recently I am beginning to follow WG’s line of logic better, keeping the game simple while just playable and interesting enough. And here lies a critical flaw. One of the most difficult yet critical systems in this game, the Vision System, is an Achilles heel in the whole design structure. And the disproportionate effect the CV has on this area was already well known even before the rework, from DD griefing, torpedo spotting, surprise torpedo-insertion on BBs due to planes having stealth range as well, and last but not least, CV sniping using plane stealth. While I cannot make a hasty conclusion on whether stealth and vision system for surface ships is good or bad, though it was copied off WoT systems and not custom-made for naval combat, it certainly was not very compatible with CV gameplay at all. And a critical flaw of the current rework is how few direct improvements, or even adjustments, were made to the way CVs interact with the vision sphere in the game. While torpedo spotting was outright removed, and ship spotting nerfed, the reverse which was plane spotting was not, and in fact as they themselves mentioned in their public address, stealth torping (with TB!) was still a minor “exploit” turned tactic. In more conclusive terms, the very essence of CV gameplay in a strategic or tactical sense which was area and info control aka. ‘Spotting’ was not fixed nor improved into their rework, and CV interaction with the surface sphere in this sense was also outright ignored or shoved aside (just remove their total spotting ability and interaction). And you don’t fix a faulty part by simply removing the part, or completely isolating the part from the rest of the system. It’s just not good practice. In complex systems like this, balancing is also a larger job than just making sure the AA maths and don add up. There’s “qualitative” things too, like fuzzy maths, like capabilities that can’t be simply summarized into numbers, and how actual human thought processes work. - Furthermore, in poetic irony, in their rush to make WoWs, and CV, compatible with consoles, they neglected the zeitgeist of console gameplay, which is a very heady, rushing, flow-based kind of gaming. A confounding mechanic like the vision system is not something a console player would enjoy while they are trying to have fun, they simply can’t be bothered to put in the extra mind-power, and the separate category of mental processes needed for that particular form of thought. Thus, I believe, they will not enjoy getting surprise-rudder insertions by planes materializing out of nowhere (or in reverse, getting jump-scared by a DD suddenly hammering your CV out of nowhere), nor enjoy the game much with ships that adversely rely on the vision system at all, because even on PC it’s a fine dance of managing your pathing and constantly doing distance-tallies and mental notes of what ships are all around you (including enemies). But on console on a big screen it’s just not that kind of experience, if you get this. - So in conclusion, even if the current rework gets the go-ahead, and it is still playable after all, there is still this theoretical danger that WoWs on console will not be very popular, and one of the key reasons could be because of how vision works in this game, and how this game is adversely affected by this hidden factor, just as how CVs were adversely affecting the game due to how their mechanics worked, and this is making the console experience far less than ideal. This is the key danger. The secondary danger is that due to how detached and incompatible (unintegrated) the CV reworked gameplay is from the practical intricate workings of the present surface ship system (such as the example given how all vision related things were just swept under the carpet), that even after 1-2 months of “balancing”, CV gameplay will still be a sore thumb in this game, and a far cry from what some of us in our heart of hearts had dreamed it would bring to WoWs, a breath of fresh air, masterful and creative design, to not just save CV, but save this game, and give it second wind to continue improvements in its very design. (I would like to call for an emergency stop in this rework, and the reasons in writing above is why. I understand I have no authority nor proven knowledge to make such a call but I am doing it shamelessly anyways, because I will shamelessly claim that I as a player love the CV as a concept and what it’s gameplay could have been, and this rework as it is, as a concept, is not something that someone could love. I am incapable of expressing with concise grace exactly why, but it just feels very wrong. So wrong that I am desperate.)
  8. Because not all good points come up during when the official feedback threads were live. The rework ain't over. Please keep the feedback going.
  9. Hi guys! Please provide us with your feedback about the current state of the CV rework that you were able to try in the Beta test. Let us know what you think - what aspects did you like or dislike - and most importantly, why you feel this way. We really appreciate your feedback! Known issues: The game client hangs and becomes unresponsive when observing the take-off of aircraft in the death cam Airplanes may twitch when flying over land and trying to fly around high obstacle When taking off from the deck of aircraft carrier, airplanes can fly through high terrain Greetings, Crysantos
  10. wilkatis_LV

    XP you *should* get for refunding CVs

    It's just a basic list of how much XP did the CV cost + how much xp the upgrades cost. Draw your own line wherever you are For example I'm looking at nearly 1.2mil as both lines will be at stock t9. Not too bad I guess
  11. Gute Tag, die meisten wissen es wahrscheinlich noch nicht, ich habe es auch gestern erst erfahren aber in Rahmen des reworks werden die Carrier im Baum gestutzt, es wird nur noch 4(!!!) Carrier pro Baum geben !!! Über die Hälfte darunter einige namenhafte wie Hiryuu fallen raus. Quelle: https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/public-test/cv-rework-changes/ Im englischen Form sind sich bereits entsetzt (the Queen is not amused) Das macht die Hoffnung auf ein vernünftiges rework zunichte.
  12. Captains! Given the gameplay is still in development the server requires regular reboots. We'd like to publish the restart schedule for this weekend so these procedures have as little impact on your experience as possible. Day Time (UTC) 2018-10-19 12:00 18:00 2018-10-20 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 2018-10-21 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 2018-10-22 00:00 06:00 12:00 Updated server restart schedule: Day Time (UTC) 2018-10-22 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 2018-10-23 00:00 Server turned off Please note: - The server will wait for the ongoing battles to be finished for 20 minutes (those players who left these battles will be kicked from the server and won’t be able to login back) - After the last battle is finished the server will go for restart (it takes about 10 minutes) Action Stations!
  13. I might have missed some points, can anyone give suggestions? Can add to poll if early feedback. Just a quick poll-based response to the youtube video. More in-depth writing on the actual rework will be a separate topic.
  14. From the announcement on the main page here: https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/general-news/carriers_rework_starting_pack/ Apparently only "active" CV players were chosen, and there will have to be AI bots to even guarantee matchmaking smoothness. So I'll be 'that guy' and say I am quite disappointed in this chosen course of events. It shows you value AI bots over your actual players. Pretty much it. As for only current CV players allowed, then why send that email to all prior CV players? Even though they have no chance of getting into the test? Some kind of stupid marketing stunt? Shouldn't the opinion of all players be valuable, and tenfold moreso for a rework of this magnitude? Both players and non-players of CV, both high tier and low tier players, both current and past players, both console and non console players, both RTS and other genre players? I mean, isn't the point of a CV rework partly to coax back past CV players, and other lost players from the past due to CV? Wouldn't you want a balanced array of opinion and impression feedback from players of different bands of the timeline? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I remember back in the actual 'open' beta, and brief 'honeymoon period' from the beginning of launch, where all kinds of players from all kinds of dispositions played the game, and people simply enjoyed it for fun. Before the exploitative, hardcore grinders and griefers, (that includes me sorry) and the kind of players WG 'caters to', irreversibly twisted the meta of the game towards something less generally enjoyable and more depressing and limited. The kind of players who would have still stayed with WG over all this time (while actively playing) are, (without point fingers specifically though I understand this is a bit offensive but I am quite mad), players who more likely buy into this grindfest of a game WG tries to sell than not. And letting only those players participant in a test is akin to what people sometimes accuse me of ... sitting in your own ivory tower, listening only to desirable feedback from your own little echo chamber, WG. P.S. It seems someone was right about WG not even wanting to spare the extra electricity and CPU power for a chance to improve the game and player experience. I had disagreed with them because even I thought WG wouldn't be that stingy.
  15. Not sure if I need to make myself a tinfoil hat, but here goes. I have a theory CV's after the rework are going to start at T6 Remember a while back somebody data mined the RN CV line images? Only 5 ships were found. Would fit starting at T6 The CV rework beta test, T6 and T10 only, with Ranger moved down to T6, and confirmation from WG that CV tech trees are going to be changed as part of the rework. What do you think? It kinda makes sense from a historical point of view, T5 and T6 ships were really at the start of the CV age. And it means T3 & T4's could be reworked and have the false AA they currently have removed.
  16. loppantorkel

    CV rework suggestions

    I just want cv planes not to provide direct vision for the team. They could spot and a ghost icons of the enemy ships could appear on the minimap, they could make torps visible, but I think the permaspotting of dds should be a thing of the past. I visual indicator on the minimap should be enough and not enable the whole team to open fire unless spotted by a proper ship. It's all I got for now.
  17. Tora_XX

    CV Rework - Top oder Flop?

    Das "Geheimnis" ist gelüftet und was soll man sagen....... es ist wie nach den ersten Ankündigungen eingetroffen. Die einen feiern, die anderen trauern. Was sagt ihr zum neuen Gameplay? Spielt ihr selber CV und/oder könnt ihr es euch mit dem neuen Gameplay vorstellen zu tun? Meine Meinung: - Das neue CV-Gameplay gleicht sich dem Rest des Spiels an. Also noch mehr Actiongeballer und der Wegfall eines für mich erfrischenden strategischen Gameplays. - Breitere Spielermassen sollen erreicht werden, da der notwendige Skill für die CVs zu hoch war. Stimmt, als Anfänger hatte ich oft auf die Mütze bekommen, bis ich mir selber Tutorials suchte und mich durch lernen und spielen verbesserte. (Hier hat WG leider nie ein vernünftiges Angebot an guten Guide geschaffen) Und mal ehrlich: Wenn ich nen Anfänger in nen Kreuzer, DD oder BB setze wird der von nem Pro der im Lowtierbereich trollt genauso schnell weggehaun sobalt er nen Fehler macht. - Das neue Gameplay sieht nicht unbedingt einfacher zu handhaben aus. Es nimmt nur den Spaß an einer alternativen Spielweise. Unübersichtlicher ist es aber allemal. - und ein Punkt der mich schon lange stört: CVs sind zu stark? Ja warum? Weil fast jeder auf das defensives Flakfeuer pfeift. Lieber Hydro/Motorboost mitnehmen und Damage farmen. Aber wehe es kommt der böse CV und nutzt eine selbst verschuldete Schwäche aus. Das geht natürlich nicht.... Ich weiß nicht ob ich das neue Gameplay genau so oft spielen werd. Ich weiß nur, dass es mir eine strategische Spielweise als alternative im Spiel nimmt und die mochte ich sehr als Langzeitmotivation. Ich hoffe es wird einen Umtausch für CVs geben wie in "Waterline" Anfang des Jahres angekündigt. Bei einer kompletten Änderung der Spielmechanik wäre das auf alle Fälle gerecht nach meinem Empfinden. Ich glaube es wird nen kurzen Hype geben aber langfristig wird sich an den Spielerzahlen nixs dolles tun bei den CVs. Sie sind und bleiben zu speziel zu spielen. Nun hat man ihnen lediglich ihre alternative Spielweise genomen und sie "verallgemeinert". Ich denke man verprellt langjährige CV-Spieler und erreicht nicht viel damit. Vielleicht irre ich mich auch und es gibt künftig mehr CV Spieler. Oder WG besinnt sich doch darauf endlich gute CV Tutorials für Anfänger zu machen und Änderungen an Gamebalance oder am Matchmaking zu machen, um das Problem mit den Spielerzahlen im CV bereich zu lösen. Ich bin jedenfalls enttäuscht bisher.
  18. A Bloom-based CV control scheme can be visualized with the "AA bubbles" ships expunge as spatial "blooms" which the player must guide their planes to weave through and perform a strike on the ship. Different placement angles of ships will incur different setups of "bloom", and different AA protocols such as activating defensive AA will also cause changes to the form and intensity of these blooms. CV diversity can be achieved by taking a leaf out of WoWp's book, planes will vary depending on speed, toughness (for when you do plough through the AA blooms), agility to weave and turn around those blooms, and general handling (such as when damaged). Variable handling can also be achieved depending on squadron size, squadron strike protocols/formation, and actual strike procedure will obviously differ by loadout as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- All in all this is actually quite a solid retake of "CV gameplay" for WoWs, and I cannot say I do not think there is a future in a "bloom-based" gameplay. For instance, it will add vertical spatial scale to the aerial sphere which will make it much more atmospheric, while former CV sphere had only horizontal space of activity. This will truly make planes "3D", and make the gameplay much more resembling the WoWs trailers where planes dodge up and down to strike a ship amidst cross-firing AA. It will probably be quite entrancing and enjoyable for a lot of players. And it will fit the arcade-action style gameplay of WoWs better than an RTS style CV gameplay, in compatibility and similarity of logic. However, many problems still remain in case of this scheme of CV rework being considered as the final direction. The most prominent one being the CV still has difference in plane types. How to manage all those plane types and multiple squadrons while engaging in this "1st person" mode may prove more tedious to design for than reasonable. If automation and dumb-A.I. is used, its fairness and competitiveness will be a large question as well. Thus, control capability, and how smooth, easy and intuitive, and graceful all this is designed, is a large concern. A second main concern is how this is still a very weak form in its expressiveness and potency. "Arcade" is often used as a derogatory term within WoWs for good reason. It may also be less fitting for immersion by player agency than optimal, i.e. when players play a ship they imagine themselves as the ship, but when they play a CV do they imagine themselves as the planes, or as the launch ship, or as neither? Or in another perspective, the planes are by extension loadout and ordinance. Their roles is to weave through the hindering and troublesome AA blooms as torpedoes would around obstacles, and shells through armour, to their intended target. But when we play as ships, we don't imagine ourselves embodied in the shells and torpedoes we launched, but as the base entity which is responsible for the possibility of the projection of force. The third main concern is still perceptions of fairness. In yet another perspective, from the surface-ships on the receiving end of an airstrike under the bloom-based CV design, would they perceive their AA blooming versus the plane maneuvering-to-strike as "equals"? Is action inputted versus action required balanced and fair? This concerns perceptions of fairness, aka. the no-skill clicker hiding safely at 30km while using the equivalent of "tv-guided missiles/drones" to harass us. However, the current CV design suffers in this category as well, but mutually inclusive: current CV gameplay too often directly correlates input with reward, and skill, instead of intent, with input. Especially when the placement of that "skill" is misguided. And the personal concern I have is strong reservations against action focused CV because this very design direction had been considered by by me as far back as when I wrote the notes, and it was discarded, after lots more reasoning and concluding with more reasons than I can bother to remember atm or actually present here. I personally do not like it. It leaves little room for imagination, elation, in extension immersion and pure experiencing of a game. A shallow game lacks endurance and will fail to strike passion within players in a healthy manner. So even though by mimicking the feeling of the planes in WoWs trailers this action-based CV design can be claimed as more "atmospheric", heady, and direct, it will quickly become stale and players will see through its limitations and futility much too easily, precisely because it is too direct in both concept and control. I fear it will have no "mystery", no 'magic', no charm, and no profound revelations to the context (of naval history) at a meaningful, alive kind of level. It will offer no true "elation", purity and transcendence in concept of gameplay, only excitement and cheap thrills. And if even the design itself is too afraid to say its own conclusion out loud, I doubt players will do it for it. So while some clear-cut problems with the current RTS style CV control-scheme can be addressed by changing it to a "bullet-hell" resemblance of an action-based control scheme, whether this is actually good for the game itself and not just as a solution for CVs only, and whether this will make the game in whole better amongst other games out there, still has a lot to be desired and worked for.
  19. So, there is a number of hints of what is coming next. 1. Next arc - UK DDs 2. CV rework by the end of the year 3. RU BBs? Did I get it right? Anyone picked up something else? Question is where are IJN DDs - alternative line?
  20. Admins Pls Delete double post.
  21. 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
  22. Disclaimer: this is pure speculation So anyway, I have been playing a reasonable amount of the Op of the week (Cherry Blossom), and there are two interesting things about the CV's that turn up, particularly as there is a CV rework in progress, and because WG has used Ops before to try new mechanics. The first is that one of the CV's (Bunker Hill) has an area of effect heal. Now this is nothing new for Ops, lots of them have some healing ship to give a respite due to the number of enemy ships. So what makes this different? Well those that remember back to CBT might recall that WG's original vision for CV was for them to be sailing at the centre of a fleet, being a support ship. What quickly happened of course was people realised that sailing a huge, easily spotted, not particularly armoured, ship that had no real guns, and couldn't launch planes if on fire in the middle of a fleet was a terrible idea. Instead people quickly swapped to hide behind something at the back of the map, or at best trail behind the bulk of the team a safe distance away. We know WG want to make CV more like playing a regular ship. We know they had a vision of them being the centre of the fleet, doing support stuff. So what if they plan on having them have an AoE heal? This would make them more able to survive being shot, AND make them have a support function. Throw in a few other things so they are a bit more tanky (probably make the skill of launching planes while on fire be a default part) and they might be closer to WG's original vision. Basically make them the "healer" class. Second is the fighters. We know WG want to lessen the influence of CV, and we know that CV's spotting ability - namely being able to send squadrons to virtually anywhere, AA permitting, to scout/spot multiple locations at once is one of their strongest abilities. We also know that WG want to lessen the skill gap on CV, and atm a huge difference between a bad CV and a Unicum one is their map control and scouting/air control. We also know WG want to make playing CV more like playing the other classes. So what makes the fighters in the Op different? In "normal" co-op the AI CV behave like human players, albeit bot level ones, so the fighters fly off to vaguely scout, and go after TB. In cherry blossom they don't. They fly in a circle ~4km away from their host ship, and attack any TB that come close, but they don't venture further out. Sound familiar? This is the same behaviour as a catapult fighter that BB/CA launch, just with a squad instead of a single plane. This ties into the support healer role - What if for the CV to provide "air cover" they need to actually be with the fleet? This removes the spotting ability, makes the mechanic easy to understand/the same as other classes, and makes the skill difference who is better at positioning rather than who can micromanage the map more. Anyway, this is just pure speculation based on seeing how these AI CV behave.
  23. lankylad11_lankylad

    State of Aircraft Carriers and the future

    Hi, Love the game, I've been playing since the start of open beta and have taken a liking to aircraft carriers because I am a fan of RTS games. I have Midway, Hakuryu, Kaga, Saipan and Enterprise at present. Could I ask what you are planning regarding carriers and the future. Particularly the state of US Carriers right now. On three servers, the win rate of all seven regular Japanese carriers is above the win rate of all seven regular American carriers. On the fourth, at each tier, the Japanese carrier has a better win rate than the American carrier. What do you intend to do about this and how long might this take. Sub Octavian said in June that American Carriers would be made "more flexible" in one or two updates but we haven't heard anything since. Further to that, what steps are you going to take to make carriers more popular and a more regular sight in battles? I feel as though the strafe mechanic needs looking at because it drives casual carrier players away from playing them and places too much emphasis on skill
  24. Hi Leute.....JA und schon wieder ein CV THread.....ich weiß, ich weiß. Aber es wurden einige Dinge veröffentlich, die ich mit den CV Fahren teilen möchte. Und Los gehts: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/6wbxox/tldw_of_a_brief_qa_with_ev1n/ 3) (09:39) Q about GZ which is no news here, will probably get TBs with deep water torps if they proof suitable. 13) (18:43) Half the dev team are navyfield veterans. Initially the CVs had a kind of artillery view so they played relatively similar to the other ships and there, the CV concept worked out because of this. Balance was fairly ok back then, but we had no really good idea how to rework the CV concept for the new top down view. We maybe have an idea where you could control your planes the same way you follow your shells, but here you could actually control the panes, which would enable a sort of skill shot. Well, it's but one idea. 15) (21:08) He thinks that there'll be a BB tech tree each year. Ev1n makes it clear that for him there should be an European tech tree release each gamescom. German lines are in the game already, strong "nein nein nein" for German CV line. 18) (25:00) Next CV tech tree will be British, but no comment on when they'll come. We still need to rework the CV gameplay before that anyway. IJN Tone is also tied to this rework, as are other hybrid vessels, meaning they'll certainly not come before the CV rework is done. Zuerst mal etwas was ich schon am WE vermutet habe, als ich den WoWs stream von der Gamescom zur Zeppelin gesehen hab.....sie bekommt DWTs. Dann ne neue Ansicht für die Staffeln, was ehrlich gesagt komisch klinkt. Dann ein SEHR starkes NEIN zu einen deutschen Trägerbaum, was abzusehen war, da es nur Blaupausen gab und noch die halb fertige Sydlitz. Und dann der letzte Punkt.....RN CVs, denn Rework gibt es noch und die IJN Tone gibt es auch noch. Wer weiß, vlt sehen wir noch die Aquila und vlt die IJN Ise. Wer weiß, vlt wird dann 2018 das Jahr der Träger (sollte ja schon dieses Jahr sein)
×