Jump to content
Mangrey

Rework of CVs

161 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
2 posts
656 battles
On 7/4/2018 at 12:35 PM, Sargento_YO said:

Also, WG's idea of a rework of an entire class it's "we will massively nerf them but add a little small and useless thing and call it "useful for the team" " like they did with arties in WOT.

To my mind, artys in WOT become better after 'nerf' because they always do something. 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,257 posts
7,302 battles
4 hours ago, michello_hero said:

To my mind, artys in WOT become better after 'nerf' because they always do something. 

Dude, arties had two massive nerfs. Prior to the last one I could use the T92 and hit for 2200 of damage with AP. Or around 1600 with HE. Now I can barely hit for 600 - 700 of damage, they have the same accuracy than before but does much, MUCH less damage, the whole stun thing it's a joke. Doesn't benefits me at all, need to depend of what the team does with it. ALso I have been in the receiving end of the stun (specially with my Maus) and it's just an annoyance, nothing more.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
853 battles

I signed up for this new CV rework test but I read the comments on the first test period & decided I'm not participating.

However, to be fair, I have played a CV in this second CV rework test.

#1 - why are Tier 1 ships even in this test?

#2 - a CV that once moving is uncontrollable? It just keeps going all the while your plane squadron is flying around?

        a CV that somehow is steering itself?

What a stinking idiot farce.

#3 - Plane squadrons that are being auto shot up  literally miles away from the target ship?

     - Fighter Squadrons that cannot engage enemy plane squadrons?

    - Torpedo Squadrons that barely have any torpedoes once the Attack goes in due to overwhelming AA defence?

   - Dive Bomber Squadrons that are shot up  before the attack & have Targeting Reticule issues.

#4 - One plane squadron in the air at one time? Is this for imbeciles who can't multi-task?

 

My conclusion is this CV rework is a total FARCE.

There is nothing good about this rework. T8 CVs with just 1 plane squadron in the air? FARCE. A CV that cannot be continuously controlled while a plane squadron is in the air. FARCE

Long range (7-8 mile) AA? FARCE  The new plane Squadron Visual? So What? This isn't WoWP. No Fighter vs Fighter mode. FARCE Rockets?  So What. Are T4 CVs getting them? FARCE

Altered mechanics for Torpedo and Dive Bomber Attacks. So What. Why was this even necessary? FARCE

I will never play CVs if any of this GARBAGE CV rework is instituted.

I will demand a FULL REFUND for my premium purchased CVs and for all the money I spent grinding any regular tech Tree CV in my port.

Two words describe this proposed CV rework ….

TOTAL FARCE

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SB]
Players
71 posts
1,512 battles

So while I cannot participate, I'd like to share my thoughts based purely on what I can see and read. I would have posted this on the official rework thread, but it's closed. Pinging @MrConway regardless, is it possible to pass this on to the team? It seems likely that you've thought of a lot of what's already in here, but maybe there's some new ideas that may be helpful.

 

This might and I stress might just work as a replacement for manual bombing, because then it forces a choice on the player: lose situational awareness in return for a pin point strike. As it stands we're losing a whole lot of gameplay, especially counterplay, in return for a slightly more involved manual bombing mechanic that looks good.

 

Let me be clear here visually this looks gorgeous. The first few times I had a grin on my face as the camera followed the planes in for an attack, it was a highly enjoyable spectacle to watch. Thing is, World of Warships isn't Halo or Call of Duty (and thank god for that), it cannot sell itself on graphics alone. This is a free-to-play game in the end, one played by people with potato PC's as well as high end gaming rigs - the game lives by it's gameplay. You know this, this isn't news, but I'm spelling it out here just to be on the same page. In the end, we all want to see this game successfully last for decades to come.

 

So, let's just recap on the reasons for the CV rework, near as I can tell.

 

- To address the overwhelming influence of a well played CV. Right now, CV's dominate the leaderboards when it comes to single player and division Winrates, scouting and damage output. It’s only in tanking that they lag far behind for obvious reasons.

- To increase the number of CV players. Right now a relative handful of players even bother with CV's and even fewer are interested in buying premium CV's.

- To make CV gameplay accessible to console players. Look, this is clearly a large factor. Please be honest and include it if only for the sake of completion in any subsequent reasoning, wargaming personnel. Thank you.

- To shift the focus away from planes versus planes to planes versus ships. Essentially to give more counterplay options for ships as well as limiting the degree to which CV’s fight each other.

 

Whatever rework is proposed needs to adress these issues. The thing is, I feel that this current rework turns the class into Artillery from World of Tanks - Please. Do not. Artillery is without fail one of the most hated features in World of Tanks. It will drive players away from the game. Aside from that, it seriously fails to adress criteria 4. There is very little counterplay for a ship at the moment, near as I can tell. Neither sector defense or the actual damage output from the flak puffs is enough to deter a strike. With the ability to apply multiple DoT’s to a ship it is a fairly simple matter to wait out the strike and RNG willing multiple fires/floods can take care of nearly any target. At this point it’s just a damage farm simulator. I do not believe that it will address the damage totals or Winrate of CV’s either unless their abilities are nerfed to the point that their only purpose will be to annoy players. CV players, because they cannot sufficiently affect the outcome of the match, slaves to the whims of RNG and the matchmaker. Artillery ship players due to persistent annoying scratch damage that they cannot effectively avoid.


A milder approach that keeps the RTS elements might be possible (it is certainly desired by the people currently interested in CVs). Going by the earlier points, I’ll try and come up with solutions and suggestions.

 

DAMAGE AND EFFECTIVENESS

 

To be frank, I would much rather have a concentrated effort aimed at raising the skill ceiling for every other class. Where it is possible to obtain CV damage numbers and win rates in every other class. Given that that would require a complete rework of every other class, I cannot figure out a feasible way to do this.

 

So a rework to carriers it is. Specifically, a nerf to some of their capabilities, preferably spotting and air control.

 

I do think the current rework is a good replacement for the manual drop. It might even serve as a good control scheme for the individual squadrons.

 

INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PLAYERS AND PAYERS

 

There is a screaming, burning need for proper instructions. A lot of newbs do not understand how to control a CV and label the class as ‘difficult’ or ‘boring’ in large part because there’s hardly any preparation for the way the class handles. A few images in the loading screen as an update is downloaded are nowhere near sufficient.

 

Specifically with the way 2017 was handled, it genuinely did not feel like the current system was given a fair shake. The removal of low tier manual attacks. The Graf Zeppelin debacle. The Clan Wars exclusion. The introduction of a fair number of high AA ships that pretty much invalidated airpower in a certain region (until they had arms stripped from them over the course of a match - more on that later). It genuinely felt like Wargaming did it’s level best to scare players away from the class rather than to play it.

 

Solution 1: Once CV’s become unlocked, new players must complete a tutorial battle where they are shown how to operate a CV, how manual drops work, what AA does, and some pointers on general gameplay. I’m not suggesting a full copy of Farazelleth’s guide is mandatory watching but get him on board and have him and other dedicated CV players help set this up.

 

Solution 2: Return manual strikes to early tier carriers and if sealclubbing is truly that big of a concern, then limit players that have ground out enough exp for the next tier CV to 100 battles in the Random Battles que. After that, co-op only for them. This gives new players the chance to experiment with manual attacks and carrier controls without running the risk of a sealclubber in a fully kitted out Langley coming along ruining their day (I admit I may or may not be guilty of this).

 

Solution 3: Allow CV’s into Clan Wars. It would not surprise me if more than a few potential CV captains find out the appeal of the class after a screaming need for decent CV captains arises. Simple supply and demand in action.

 

MAKE THE CLASS ACCESSIBLE TO CONSOLE PLAYERS

 

The way I see it there are two tiers to this. The controls need to be ported and the gameplay needs to be adjusted to fit console controllers comfortably. The current system relies on mouse and keyboard to obtain the precision required for manual drops. It just will not comfortably work with a controller though. Here is where the current rework shines, it is extremely well suited for controllers.

 

So, first tier, porting the controls. Credit goes to Zelinko from the Spacebattles Forums for this:

259220787_ControllermapWoWS.thumb.jpg.87367fc8f62553ef6648a875e1a41b92.jpg

This is probably not the optimal layout, but all basic functions are represented. Testing is required to find the best way to map the buttons, I don't play consoles all that often.

 

Now rather than have the current manual drops be essentially ‘autodrops but better’ this would be an excellent place for the work already done. Autodrops would have a place in this system - they allow players to retain situational awareness. The new manual drops would be a trade off where a player can make an absolutely devastating pin-point strike but can’t control anything else for a short moment.

 

SHIFTING FOCUS TO PLANES VERSUS SHIPS

 

I freely admit this is the most complicated section for a simple reason: Fighters. Fighters are a CV’s main focus now, because fighters enable to CV to deny the enemy his drops or ensure his own go through. Many high level CV games are extremely micro intensive fighter duels first and exact ship strikes second.

 

In place of strafes, I’d suggest a drag and drop system for fighters. You can select an enemy fighter squadron with your own and it will then start a dogfight. Next when a player gives a move command to a fighter squadron in a dogfight, then that dogfight moves in the direction slowly. Like how currently bombers will stay moving even when engaged. If the enemy chooses to move elsewhere as their fighter is being pulled, then the squadrons disengage. The idea is to encourage disengaging. The goal of the system is NOT to attain aerial supremacy, it’s about spoiling the strikes of your enemy. The dragging system should result in players dragging enemy fighters over friendly ships so their AA can help out.

 

The focus should be on using the AA of friendly ships to deal a decisive blow to your opponent. Not your own fighters.

 

On that subject, ship AA. The rework does NOT nail this. Although the HP system is a step up from the current alive or dead dice roll* the sector system does not give ships sufficient counterplay options. I would propose direct control of heavy AA and leaving light AA as it is in the current rework. Lightweight AA is an aura that constantly drains HP from planes, but the heavy AA in this system is just another type of ammunition, under key 4 (even in ships without torpedoes, to avoid messing with muscle memory). A simple reticule for shooting at planes should suffice, with the accuracy and density of the flak bursts determined by the AA rating of the ship. While it is too much to ask of players to calculate lead time on the fly, there should be a noticeable difference between ships with VT fuses for their AA shells and ships without.

 

This will of course force ships to choose between focusing on AA defence and actually shooting their guns - well, yes, this is what escort cruisers were designed for after all. It should be a buff overall to the cruiser class, which should be the prime counter to CV’s under this system. BB’s counter cruisers, CV’s/DD’s counter BB’s, cruisers counter CV’s and DD’s. The relation between CV’s and DD’s should be more of an overlapping one I feel. With both classes broadly having the same role but different means of going about it.

 

Implied is a lower squadron count, with more drops per squads (both auto and manual) and maybe one or two fighters out at maximum. You can retain control of squads and the CV except during manual attacks in this system.

 

Also implied is that effectively, AA can never be totally suppressed. If unlimited reserves are going to be a thing, then so should there be unlimited counter-play, ergo knocked out guns should gradually be restored. Of course should limits on the number of aircraft return then it might be fair to keep the perma-disable, but emphasis on the might - some form of counterplay should always be available.

 

Thoughts? Criticisms? Other suggestions? Please give other suggestions. Just yelling about how everything sucks is not going to make the game better - stop, think, propose a fix and don’t be afraid to make a mistake in the process.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHW]
Players
905 posts
2,537 battles
9 hours ago, StatsBloke said:

Some folks might find this interesting...

 

 

Thanks for the video. It confirmed my suspicion that they have no clue how to implement AA and that it will be RNG based as before, just much less effective.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,365 posts
7,893 battles
3 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Thanks for the video. It confirmed my suspicion that they have no clue how to implement AA and that it will be RNG based as before, just much less effective.

Pretty sure they have clue how to implement, it's good how they did it. It's only a matter of balance. Most people just don't understand, how the new aa really works

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHW]
Players
905 posts
2,537 battles
13 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Pretty sure they have clue how to implement, it's good how they did it. It's only a matter of balance. Most people just don't understand, how the new aa really works

Since there is NO information out (I have not seen an article on the main site that explains it), that part of your statement is true.

 

As for the implementation, I have watched some videos from the test and frankly I am rather disappointed ... It is still RNG and usually you won't be able to deter the strike. Your best option is to evade by ship manouvers. Long range AA is pretty random and short range has not enough damage to shoot down any planes. Also with unlimited reserves, there's really no point in speccing into AA at all. Simply try to evade the strike and that's it ... Do you call that effective defense ?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,365 posts
7,893 battles
20 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Since there is NO information out (I have not seen an article on the main site that explains it), that part of your statement is true.

 

As for the implementation, I have watched some videos from the test and frankly I am rather disappointed ... It is still RNG and usually you won't be able to deter the strike. Your best option is to evade by ship manouvers. Long range AA is pretty random and short range has not enough damage to shoot down any planes. Also with unlimited reserves, there's really no point in speccing into AA at all. Simply try to evade the strike and that's it ... Do you call that effective defense ?

Yes, there is RNG... like the whole game is RNG. That's an important part of the game. It's just about how the RNG is working, and it works now way better, since it's not completly RNG: It's RNG, where mid and long RNG aa is shooting, they have a hit probability. But that's the only way, how it works, if it's automated, there must be RNG. Beside that, short range is completly without RNG, it's consistent damage over time. So AA is not completly RNG, there are the factors of the skill of the CV and the short range.

 

Not skilling AA, I'm not sure, but do you know how enforcing one side is working? It says the denstiy increases/decreases. Denstiy is determined by mass and volume, so I guess it would change the volume where the aa shots in. Smaller volume would mean more hits, and since the aa is hard hitting, a few hits changes a lot. Guess it's compareable with max dispersion for guns, instead of a volume, you get there an area. A smaller area = more hits. The 7% modules doesn't do much, but the aa is about 25% to 60%, that's a lot.

But this is only speculation, no idea how AA really works, there are no information about that. Also this are only balancing and adjusting issues, can be done with the next test round

 

@MrConway, could we get an explanation, how the AAA (long and mid range) exactly work? Increasing the Density for one side is not much telling us. In physic density is g/cm³, would assume that g is here the number of AA clouds, while cm³ could be just the cube, where the aa his hitting?

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHW]
Players
905 posts
2,537 battles
5 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Yes, there is RNG... like the whole game is RNG. That's an important part of the game. It's just about how the RNG is working, and it works now way better, since it's not completly RNG: It's RNG, where mid and long RNG aa is shooting, they have a hit probability. But that's the only way, how it works, if it's automated, there must be RNG. Beside that, short range is completly without RNG, it's consistent damage over time. So AA is not completly RNG, there are the factors of the skill of the CV and the short range.

 

Not skilling AA, I'm not sure, but do you know how enforcing one side is working? It says the denstiy increases/decreases. Denstiy is determined by mass and volume, so I guess it would change the volume where the aa shots in. Smaller volume would mean more hits, and since the aa is hard hitting, a few hits changes a lot. Guess it's compareable with max dispersion for guns, instead of a volume, you get there an area. A smaller area = more hits. The 7% modules doesn't do much, but the aa is about 25% to 60%, that's a lot.

But this is only speculation, no idea how AA really works, there are no information about that. Also this are only balancing and adjusting issues, can be done with the next test round

 

@MrConway, could we get an explanation, how the AAA (long and mid range) exactly work? Increasing the Density for one side is not much telling us. In physic density is g/cm³, would assume that g is here the number of AA clouds, while cm³ could be just the cube, where the aa his hitting?

How long does the AA side switch take ? Because you will get a strike from one side, then the squadron will turn and strike you from the other side ...

 

As for the RNG, all of the ships (primary armament) you have a decent chance to control it. You have the dispersion envelope to work with and you can place the center of it as you like. With AA that is different. You have no dispersion envelope that you know about and you have no way to place it (just reinforce one side). You have even less control than secondaries with Manual Secondaries skill ..

 

Also the short range guaranteed AA has pitiful damage. It is evenly distributed across the attacking planes so unless on of them is already red when entering the range, you will NOT shoot down anything.

 

WG is creating a self-sufficient class that has the best strike potential of all the ship classes while being able to apply damage independently of the source. No other ship class is capable of that (perhaps torpedo boats to a very limited extent but their range is nowhere as large). Unless they implement a limited plane range, CVs are shaping up to be the new go-to damage farmers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,365 posts
7,893 battles
1 hour ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

How long does the AA side switch take ? Because you will get a strike from one side, then the squadron will turn and strike you from the other side ...

 

As for the RNG, all of the ships (primary armament) you have a decent chance to control it. You have the dispersion envelope to work with and you can place the center of it as you like. With AA that is different. You have no dispersion envelope that you know about and you have no way to place it (just reinforce one side). You have even less control than secondaries with Manual Secondaries skill ..

 

Also the short range guaranteed AA has pitiful damage. It is evenly distributed across the attacking planes so unless on of them is already red when entering the range, you will NOT shoot down anything.

 

WG is creating a self-sufficient class that has the best strike potential of all the ship classes while being able to apply damage independently of the source. No other ship class is capable of that (perhaps torpedo boats to a very limited extent but their range is nowhere as large). Unless they implement a limited plane range, CVs are shaping up to be the new go-to damage farmers.

Positioning is a thing... When I played ships, I was always moving, that the stronger side was mostly facing the planes. The positioning of someone is not RNG based. Also some ships can swap it fast, beside that, that has nothing to do with RNG, it's balancing, if it takes too much time to swap, WG can lower the number (which they did in round 3 I guess)

 

As I said, RNG is needed, and it's nothign bad. The RNG component of the live version is terrible. The reworked version is good.

 

You can't generalize the short range, since the short range is different for different ships.... and I lost planes against short range. And again, if AA is too weak, then they have to balance it, nothing to do with "It's only RNG omg"

 

The last thing is more an issue of the link recovery time. I already wrote that in all 3 tests as an issue.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
853 battles
On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 10:27 AM, Pikkozoikum said:

As I said, RNG is needed, and it's nothign bad. The RNG component of the live version is terrible. The reworked version is good.

ROFL!  The reworked version is a DISASTER.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OMPG]
Beta Tester
146 posts
4,782 battles

I have an idea for carrier rework.

 

Make carriers only played by bots and get them in random chance to games. That is how they are not present in every game and yet AA ships are worth their AA as there are games where carriers are present. This takes the skill of individual CV player out of the equation and CV players can´t kinda bully whoever they want unless you make bots work like that :fish_happy:.

 

Another idea would be that the air strikes come out of map boundaries and you never see the carrier. The AI aircraft spawn in some squares in the map and then proceed to attack a ship or recon some important parts of the map, loiter a while and then go to "reload". Carriers could do off-map carrier strikes too if they can detect the enemy carrier group (A chance of detection given recon capabilty and time + RNG). This could give more use to recon assets and flying boats, even spotter planes for normal ships. Scenarios already have AI controlled aircraft squadrons spawning at map squares so this could be implemented to the game rather easily in some form and tweak / improve from there.

 

Also clan wars could have more strategic carrier gameplay with this kind of system, before the actual clan battle starts carrier player or clan leader should play a offmap round where he sets search patterns in a bigger map to try to find the enemy carrier assets and perhaps to get intel what kind of lineup the enemy might be using. Who has better recon, search patterns and of course RNG luck could then try to dictate the battle and try to counter the enemy force with preliminary or ingame offmap carrier strike and / or to be able to choose ships after seeing the enemy lineup.

 

I think the game needs aircraft because AA is important for the game variety and is very historical in many ways. These are my suggestions for a bit more fair carrier gameplay in randoms (completely AI controlled) and more comprehensive or should I say strategic carrier gameplay for team-based battles (clan wars player pre-battle offmap tactics for example).

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
[WG-EU]
WG Staff, Alpha Tester
2,701 posts
2,666 battles
On 12/9/2018 at 11:56 AM, Pikkozoikum said:

Yes, there is RNG... like the whole game is RNG. That's an important part of the game. It's just about how the RNG is working, and it works now way better, since it's not completly RNG: It's RNG, where mid and long RNG aa is shooting, they have a hit probability. But that's the only way, how it works, if it's automated, there must be RNG. Beside that, short range is completly without RNG, it's consistent damage over time. So AA is not completly RNG, there are the factors of the skill of the CV and the short range.

 

Not skilling AA, I'm not sure, but do you know how enforcing one side is working? It says the denstiy increases/decreases. Denstiy is determined by mass and volume, so I guess it would change the volume where the aa shots in. Smaller volume would mean more hits, and since the aa is hard hitting, a few hits changes a lot. Guess it's compareable with max dispersion for guns, instead of a volume, you get there an area. A smaller area = more hits. The 7% modules doesn't do much, but the aa is about 25% to 60%, that's a lot.

 But this is only speculation, no idea how AA really works, there are no information about that. Also this are only balancing and adjusting issues, can be done with the next test round

  

@MrConway, could we get an explanation, how the AAA (long and mid range) exactly work? Increasing the Density for one side is not much telling us. In physic density is g/cm³, would assume that g is here the number of AA clouds, while cm³ could be just the cube, where the aa his hitting?

 

Basically a number of X overall AA "clouds" is generated on both sides of the ship, then when you focus on a sector the number X is decreased on the not focused side and increased on the other one. 

 

in this is indeed the number of AA clouds, whereas the volume is the sector you are focusing the AA on.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
[NKK]
Beta Tester
1,591 posts
8,634 battles

This rework is the typical thing that the community says is a big mistake and WG goes ahead with it, whatever the rest of the planet say.

 

It's just crap. One more.

 

It is to make the system of CV compatible with the WoWs Legends and although that kills them on PC, these people do not care, perhaps they think they have bled enough our purse and now try to do with the console while they can.

 

The only feasible thing with the rework is simply to throw it to the landfill of which it never had to leave.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DIC]
Players
203 posts
9,397 battles

At least now we can estimate when the rework might go live, based on a remark Little White Mouse made in her Prinz Eitel Friedrich review. Of course, based on current plans and timetables as far as Mouse might know them.

 

"in about a month"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KURLA]
Players
4,367 posts
16,858 battles

January 24th to be precise. The date of the next patch has been pretty clearly laid out within the PEF missions description.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,365 posts
7,893 battles
On 12/16/2018 at 6:01 AM, Timberjac said:

This rework is the typical thing that the community says is a big mistake and WG goes ahead with it, whatever the rest of the planet say.

 

It's just crap. One more.

 

It is to make the system of CV compatible with the WoWs Legends and although that kills them on PC, these people do not care, perhaps they think they have bled enough our purse and now try to do with the console while they can.

 

The only feasible thing with the rework is simply to throw it to the landfill of which it never had to leave.

Well, many people complain about the rework... but they got over 5000 test players and all received a poll. So they should now, if 4500 player are against it, or just 100. If almost all people would see it as fail ,they would completly rework the rework, I'm pretty sure ;)

 

Beside that: If it would be only for making it compatible for Console, that would mean RTS is fine? Then they would make the RTS compatible for console... RTS is no issue for consoles. :etc_hide_turtle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
853 battles
On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 7:23 AM, Pikkozoikum said:

Well, many people complain about the rework... but they got over 5000 test players and all received a poll. So they should now, if 4500 player are against it, or just 100. If almost all people would see it as fail ,they would completly rework the rework, I'm pretty sure ;)

*** You must believe in tooth fairys still - WG management is shoving this FARCE onto WoWS simply to sell to the future new console crowd players.

Beside that: If it would be only for making it compatible for Console, that would mean RTS is fine? Then they would make the RTS compatible for console... RTS is no issue for consoles. :etc_hide_turtle:

*** Over four years of RTS CV play & suddenly, RTS is found wanting. ROFL. There is another reason , entirely, why WG is wreaking CV play.

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
853 battles
On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 9:01 PM, Timberjac said:

This rework is the typical thing that the community says is a big mistake and WG goes ahead with it, whatever the rest of the planet say.

 

It's just crap. One more.

 

It is to make the system of CV compatible with the WoWs Legends and although that kills them on PC, these people do not care, perhaps they think they have bled enough our purse and now try to do with the console while they can.

 

The only feasible thing with the rework is simply to throw it to the landfill of which it never had to leave.

Required repeat for this accurate assessment of the CV FARCE rework.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
853 posts
853 battles
On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 7:03 AM, 44smok said:

January 24th to be precise

If this is the date when the proposed CV FARCE rework goes live then this will be the date I sell all my CVs and convert their Cpts to DDs so as to hunt said FARCE CVs.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
3,365 posts
7,893 battles

So far I tested the AP bomb mechanic. In the first Test rounds I was worried about ,that AP bombs are useless against low armored ships, especially the Hosho, which has no torpedo bombers. But with angleing the bombs, the AP bombs can even citadell a light armored cruiser.

 

I tested this in a training room Ryujo against Leander.

 

11 hits in a steep angle while dive: 8 overpens, 2 pens, 1 cit

10 hits in a shallow angle after diving: 2 overpen, 5 pens, 3 cits

 

Not a large amount of numbers, but it doesn't look like coincidence, especially I saw this happening in normal battles and coop as well.

 

Beside This seems they changed the AAA a little bit. The mid range was in the first test rounds easier to predict. There were always barrages following by more barrages at the same spot. Now it seems like single explosions everywhere.  After I was dead, I observed a Midway and the AA behavior. It looks like that Mid and Long range is hitting inside a volume, which is always giving a small lead in front of the planes, which changes every 1 or 2 seconds to recorrect the aiming. So dodging seems to be harder, if someone is only reacting visually like before, and I assume dodging happens more about "knowledge", that the aim gives always a lead and that the planes have to change the direction every second or 2 seconds. I observed how one played did that The AA was shooting left of him, then suddenly changed all the fire to the right side of him, but the player turned again, so both aiming directions of the Midway were wrong calculated and missed everything.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
160 posts
9,682 battles


RIP cv is what they will do with this change, goodbye to all the tactics of the cv, when they take out this crap, I will surely stop playing them. It is also that they do not even have a sense of how they have done what should be, now the difference between a good cvs player and a bad one will be 10,000 damage so they do not bother
1 single squad will not be too difficult to handle 2 hahahahaha
0 tactical
0 spot
0 air combat
0 fun, is like carrying a battleship with guided projectiles
Coffee for all is what you have.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
160 posts
9,682 battles

 

I was also new (noob) to take cv and I learned (you can learn xd) and today there are enough AA cruisers to shield from bad aerial combat (eye that sometimes I lose them) what I come to say that precisely should not be an excuse to reduce the cv to subnormal with wings that is what the reform of the cvs

I just love them because they have a lot of tactics (and if I recognize that they are powerful in battle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×