Jump to content

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
145 posts

 

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

Spoiler

 

The major Carrier related issues which most Carrier proponents and opponents can more or less agree upon are:

 

  1. Handling multiple Carrier Squadrons in WOWS is apparently so difficult to master for most Carrier players that as a result higher skilled Carrier Commanders have a significant advantage over lower skilled Carrier Commanders. The result of which is that higher skilled Carrier Commanders can dominate lower skilled Carrier Commanders and consequently in some matches the whole enemy fleet, that is especially the case if the Carrier is top tier in a match. If both fleets have higher skilled Carrier Commanders they more or less cancel each other out UNLESS one of these Carrier Commanders is using a Carrier which is significantly weaker than the other Carrier due to the Flight Mode setup and the Aircraft specifications and Aircraft reserves. This is especially the case with USA Tech Tree Carriers which by design are overall weaker in WOWS than the Japanese Carriers and with the Premium USA Carriers which by design are overall stronger than all other Carriers and Premium Carriers in WOWS at their respective Tiers.

 

  1. Tech Tree Carriers: Japanese Carriers are generally significantly more flexible and powerful in terms of tactics, fighters, bombers and aircraft Flight Modes than USA Carriers. Most (but not all) Tech Tree Carriers are inferior to Premium Carriers.

 

  1. Premium Carriers: the USA Premium Carriers (SAIPAN, ENTERPRISE) are generally significantly more flexible and powerful in terms of tactics, fighters, bombers and aircraft Flight Modes than the Japanese and German Premium Carriers (KAGA, GRAF ZEPPELIN).

 

  1. Divisions which consist of higher skilled Carrier Commanders and higher skilled Commanders in battleships, cruisers or destroyers with a high Anti-Aircraft rating (including mounted Defensive Fire AA and with their ship Commanders specialized in the Anti-Aircraft role) can often times decide the outcome of match when faced by an enemy Carrier that is not in such a Division. This is due to the high Anti-Aircraft rating of the ships in such a Division, they can effectively create NO FLY zones for the opposing Carrier and at the same time can create FREE FLY zones for the Carrier in their Division. If the shipmates in such a Division close the range to enemy ships that then allows the Carrier in such a Division to bomb and sink any target that engages his Division shipmates within the protective AA range of his Division shipmates. The enemy Carrier Commander cannot intervene with his Fighters because the concentrated heavy Anti-Aircraft fire of such a Division prevents this.

 

  1. Tier 5 Carriers cannot use manual Aircraft attacks (Fighter "strafing", manual Bombing attacks) but the matchmaking process matches them with Tier 6 Carriers which are allowed to use manual attacks. This extremely handicaps a new and novice Carrier Commander when he is matched with a highly skilled Carrier Commander in a Tier 6 Carrier which is capable of using manual Aircraft attacks. As a result new and novice Tier 5 Carrier Commanders or players that might have been interested in learning how to use Carriers are likely to lose the motivation and interest in Carriers in WOWS when being repeatedly humiliated and beaten via manual Aircraft attacks by a highly skilled Carrier Commander in a Tier 6 Carrier. This issue affects the "recruiting" and "retaining" of Carrier Commanders in WOWS and thus affects Carrier game play indirectly in terms of Carrier player base.

 

  1. For various reasons most players that command a Battleship, Cruiser and/or Destroyer cannot adjust their game play when they are faced by an enemy Carrier. Instead they play a match the exact same way as if the enemy Carrier is not present. The most painful obvious result of this are battleships, cruisers and destroyers that go into a match with low and weak Anti-Aircraft ratings and then also choose to sail all alone outside the range of the Anti-Aircraft fire of other ships in their fleet. A solitary ship with a low Anti-Aircraft rating is generally the preferred target of a higher skilled Carrier Commander during a match. The results of this bad for game play, two of the most common examples are: (1) Destroyers rushing ahead of their fleet at the start of a match into capture points where they are either spotted permanently by Carrier Aircraft and as a result sunk by the guns of the enemy fleet or they are outright sunk by Carrier Aircraft (2) Battleships sailing all by themselves on the right or left of a map where they are easily sunk by Carrier Aircraft.

 

  1. Carrier Aircraft have superb spotting abilities virtually unmatched by anything else in WOWS. A higher skilled Carrier Commander can use these spotting abilities to give the fleet that he is part of a significant advantage over the opposing fleet if he is opposed by a lower skilled Carrier Commander. The result of which can translate into the fast and early destruction of enemy destroyers due to continued spotting. The loss of destroyers usually prevents the enemy fleet from capturing points on the map, which in effect almost guarantees loss of the match for the opposing fleet.

 

  1. A higher skilled Carrier Commander is able to focus and sink the most important enemy ships when he is opposed by a lower skilled Carrier Commander. The lower skilled Carrier Commander is usually unable to prevent this. The loss of the most important ships usually almost certainly guarantees the loss of the match for the opposing fleet.

 

  1. A higher skilled Carrier Commander is able use his Fighter and Bomber Squadrons to more or less completely stop enemy Aircraft Squadrons from having a meaningful impact on the match when he is opposed by a lower skilled Carrier Commander. The higher skilled Carrier Commander when faced by a lower skilled Carrier Commander will: (1) use his Fighter Squadrons to shoot down the majority of the enemy Fighter and Bomber Squadrons (2) use his Bomber Squadrons to quickly sink enemy ships.

 

  1. The number of ships with very strong Anti-Aircraft fire ratings and the number of ships with Defensive Fire AA has during the past 1-2 years steadily increased to the point that - especially at Tier 8, 9 and 10 - the very strong but program (computer) controlled passive Anti-Aircraft Fire in many matches forces Carrier Commanders to: (1) either hold off attacking with their Bombers till the last 10 minutes or so of the match until many ships have been sunk by the battleships, cruisers and destroyers of the fleet or (2) attack with bombers in the first 10 minutes of the match and risk losing every single bomber to the very effective but passive Anti-Aircraft fire of Tier 8, 9 and 10 ships. This makes Carrier play increasingly less interesting as more and more ships with very strong passive Anti-Aircraft fire are introduced. While bombers need to be ordered around via direct human player control the Anti-Aircraft fire in WOWS is in contrast and by design passive, meaning it does not need any actions from a human player. That the activities of a human Carrier player can be countered at Tier 8, 9 and 10 - and even fully negated in fact - by passive program (computer) controlled Anti-Aircraft fire (for example by WORCESTER, MINOTAUR) is not "good game design" for a Player-versus-Player based game.

 

  1. A higher skilled Carrier Commander is able use his Bomber Squadrons to very heavily damage destroyers, cruisers and battleships. In some cases sink them with one attack. The ability to attack and bomb so effectively by the highly skilled Carrier Commander is however only gained by these Carrier Commanders after having spent a great deal of time and having played thousands of matches with Carriers in WOWS. The proponents of Carriers in WOWS know how much effort it took them to gain that bombing ability, the opponents of Carriers usually miss the Carrier game play experience to fully understand how much time and effort it has taken the highly skilled Carrier Commanders to gain that bombing ability. The result of this is that Carrier opponents due to their lack of actual Carrier game play experience have no understanding of and as a result no respect for the demonstrated ability of the highly skilled Carrier Commanders. Indeed many of these Carrier opponents have a very emotional and very negative opinion of highly skilled Carrier Commanders and Carriers in WOWS in general. These Carrier opponents have an even more negative opinion of the lower skilled Carrier Commanders which are still in the process of learning to become better Carrier Commanders. While this issue is an indirect one, it does affect the "recruiting" and "retaining" of Carrier Commanders in WOWS and thus affects Carrier game play indirectly in terms of Carrier player base.

 

  1. For various reasons most players that command a Battleship, Cruiser and Destroyer do not setup and specialize their ship and ship-Commander in an Anti-Aircraft role. That translates into such players not being able to grasp the difference between "nice to have" and "essential to have" choices, in other words an error in terms of priorities is made by such players. These players prefer either "Hydro Acoustic Search" and/or other skills/modules/consumables for both their ship and their ship commander etc. over Anti Aircraft skills/modules/consumables. Even though the WOWS Developers have handed Battleship, Cruiser and Destroyer Commanders many very effective options to defeat enemy Bomber Aircraft, the majority of them simply refuse to make use of the Anti-Aircraft ship modules and Consumables (for example Auxiliary Armaments Modification, AA Guns Modification, Defensive Fire AA) and Anti-Aircraft related Commander skills (for example Basic Firing Training, Advanced Firing Training, Manual Fire Control for AA Armament etc.) While this is understandable for various reasons it is also an inexcusable error that is made by these players. Every player has to make a choice when outfitting his ship and training his ship Commander, it is either one specialization or the other. Apparently it is difficult for most players to differentiate between "nice to have" and "essential to have". Typically "nice to have" items such as "Hydro Acoustic Search" and a ship module that gives 7% less dispersion of the main guns (which translates typically into 22 Battleship main gun hits instead of 20 Battleship main gun hits in a match) are more important for these players than their ship being able to defeat and actually survive an enemy Bomber Aircraft attack which has the potential to sink their ship with one strike. Not maximizing the Anti-Aircraft fire setup of a ship is more or less comparable to building a car without a seat belt and airbag but with luxury leather seats instead. Normally you do not need the seat belt and the airbag in your car, but when you are in a car accident you need them to survive since the leather seats cannot keep you alive in a car accident. It is the same with Anti-Aircraft setups for ships in WOWS: a ship needs them to beat off enemy Bomber Aircraft attacks when facing an enemy Carrier. As a result of these players preferring "nice to have" items over "essential to have" items WOWS Developers seem to increasingly want to appease these sort of bad decision making players by introducing new ships which have it all (Radar, Hydro Acoustic Search, Defensive Fire AA, high AA rating) like the latest new five USA light Cruisers and latest two USA Premium Battleships. Although this issue is not recognized by all players, this is in fact a major issue that substantially increases the effectiveness of Carriers in WOWS.

 

  1. Various ships with very effective AA setups (for example KIDD, NEPTUNE, MINOTAUR, WORCESTER etc.) can remain invisible to a Carrier Commander while they in the meantime totally destroy Carrier Aircraft Squadrons in about 1-2 seconds. This is not only bad for Carrier game play for various reasons but it also further handicaps new and novice Carrier Commanders. This issue affects the "recruiting" and "retaining" of Carrier Commanders in WOWS and thus affects Carrier game play indirectly in terms of Carrier player base.

 

  1. The Aircraft Carrier User Interface (UI) is plagued by several bugs that have been there more or less since the alpha/beta stage of WOWS and that still remain unfixed up till now. Two of the most unfortunate Carrier UI bugs are (1) when fast switching between Aircraft Squadrons the game selects the Carrier itself instead of the Squadron that the actually player which leads to the Carrier getting a movement command towards the enemy fleet instead of the Aircraft Squadron getting that movement command (2) Sometimes a friendly Fighter Squadron that is locked in Fighter Combat no longer responds to player commands, the only way to undo that is by clicking on the enemy Fighter Squadron(s) that the friendly Fighter Squadron is locked in combat. There really is no possible viable excuse to not fix these sort of Carrier User Interface bugs over the last two year period.

 

  1. Some non-USA Battleships in WOWS have been intentionally made particularly vulnerable to AP Bombs. Some of these vulnerable Battleships are among the most popular Battleships in WOWS (for example the British, Italian and German ones), which does not make sense from a game play balancing point of view and also reinforces a negative image of Carriers for many Battleship players. Generally the newer the Battleship is in WOWS the more resistant it is to AP Bombs and the more Aircraft it is able to shoot down in WOWS matches. Repeated training room testing with GRAF ZEPPELIN AP Dive Bombers using 500 kg (1000 lb) AP Bombs has been able to determine that in WOWS the following Battleships are particularly vulnerable to AP Bombs: all British Battleships up to and including Tier 8, all Italian Battleships up tot and including Tier 8, all German Battleships up to and including Tier 9, all French Battleships up to and including Tier 7, all USA Tech Tree Battleships up to and including Tier 8, all Japanese Battleships up to and including Tier 8. Remarkably resistant to AP Bomb damage are the newest Tier 8 USA Premium Battleships ALABAMA and MASSACHUSETTS as well as the Tier 9 USA Battleships IOWA and MISSOURI. These four USA Battleships also inflict the highest Battleship AA damage at their respective Tiers. Of the Tier 10 Battleships the most resistant to AP Bomb damage is the Tier 10 USA Battleship MONTANA which also inflicts the highest Battleship AA damage at Tier 10. Something does not seem in order here when looking at the actual authentic horizontal deck armour of these USA Battleships when compared to their contemporaries in WOWS. Take for example the extreme AP Bomb resistance of the ALABAMA and MASSACHUSETTS - as to a degree also that of the IOWA and MISSOURI. That does not seem to make sense when examining the actual authentic horizontal deck armour layout of these ships in WOWS compared to other non-USA Battleships in the game. According to WOWS Developer statements over the past two years all ships in WOWS are meant to have authentic armour protection that matches their real world equivalents. It makes even less sense when examining the results of real world AP Bomb results by Aircraft Carriers, for example the TIRPITZ which in one bombing attack was actually hit by up to 16x direct and near AP Bomb hits from Carrier Aircraft demonstrated a remarkable real world resistance to Carrier Aircraft AP Bombs. The real world TIRPIRZ in one attack received 13x direct AP Bomb hits from 227 kg (500 lb) and 726 kg (1600 lb) AP Bombs of which at least three were the heavy 726 kg (1600 lb) AP Bombs. Currently the heaviest AP Bombs in WOWS are only 500 kg (1000 lb) AP Bombs. Of these 13x direct AP Bomb hits only 5x AP Bombs actually managed to penetrate the "weather deck" horizontal armour and of those 5x AP Bombs not one was able to damage let alone penetrate the "main citadel deck" horizontal armour. In other words not even heavy 726 kg (1600 lb) AP Bombs were able to inflict the amount of damage required to defeat the citadel armour and sink the TIRPITZ let alone put her out of action. In WOWS however Battleships that have less horizontal Deck Armour than the Tier 8 Premium TIRPITZ, like the Tier 8 USA Premium Battleships ALABAMA and MASSACHUSETTS, are almost immune to AP Bombs while the Tier 8 Premium TIRPITZ can be very heavily damaged by AP Bombs and even sometimes sunk in one strike by 2x or more Squadrons of AP Dive Bombers. For some reason USA Battleships in general and USA Premium Battleships in particular get a preferential treatment that makes them almost immune to AP Bombs in WOWS which these Battleships do not deserve based on their authentic horizontal deck armour arrangement when compared to that of their contemporaries. The example of the real world demonstrated resistance of the TIRPITZ to even 726 kg (1600 lb) Bombs makes clear that something is not in order here in WOWS. Premium USA Battleships should not get a preferential treatment over non-USA Battleships simply to drive up sales. And punishing Battleships players for not choosing a Tier 8-10 USA (Premium) Battleship when facing AP Bombers creates a "no real choice" situation which indirectly negatively impacts on the image of Carrier players as well. This is because Battleship players that prefer non-USA Battleships for whatever reason will continue to have an increasingly negative opinion of Carriers when their favourite non-USA Battleship is the main target of AP Bombs because USA Battleships are generally avoided as AP Bomber targets by skilled Carrier Commanders.

 

  1. There are advanced Fighter "strafing" tactics in WOWS that most Carrier players are not even aware of that they exist because they are not adequately "taught" to the Carrier players in WOWS. In the around 1500 ranked and random matches that I have played with a Carrier at Tier 8 I have noticed that around up to 80 percent of the opposing Carrier Commanders do not even use Fighter "strafing" at all, let alone the advanced Fighter "strafing" tactics. The advanced Fighter "strafing" tactics that I refer to are commonly described as "Strafe-Out Tactics" and "Counter-Strafe-Out Tactics". In WOWS there is no decent introduction and guide to learning these crucially important advanced Fighter "strafing" tactics and also no reward driven incentive in the form of WOWS missions and rewards to teach them to new and novice Carrier Commanders. It is therefore not a surprise that both the basics of "strafing" and the advanced Fighter "strafing" tactics are used by so few new and novice Carrier Commanders in WOWS, as a result this adage is pertinent to this issue: "If the learner has not learned then the teacher has not taught". A Carrier Commander that knows how to "strafe" has such a huge advantage over a Carrier Commander that does not know how to "strafe" that the former usually easily shoots down the majority of the Aircraft of the latter. When a new and novice Carrier Commander repeatedly loses his Aircraft to Fighter "strafing" without even understanding why that is happening it is demoralizing. I have played on more than one occasion against new and novice Tier 8 Carrier Commanders that recalled all their Aircraft to their Carrier after heavy losses to my Fighter "strafing" and which they refused to even let their Aircraft take off again for the rest of the match. These "strafing" tactics affect the "recruiting" and "retaining" of Carrier Commanders in WOWS and thus affect Carrier game play indirectly in terms of Carrier player base. The WOWS Forum, WOWS Community Contributor instruction videos and the WOWS WIKI are only consulted by a minority of the WOWS player base so these cannot compensate for the almost complete absence of meaningfully "teaching and mission-rewarding" both "strafing" and the advanced Fighter "strafing" tactics.

 

I added a detailed description of the "Strafe-Out Tactics" and "Counter-Strafe-Out Tactics" on the WOWS WIKI: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Aerial_Combat

 

"Strafe-Out Tactic" Description

One of your Fighter Squadrons can engage, or be engaged by, an enemy Fighter Squadron via a mouse button left-click which then "locks" your Fighter Squadron into that Fighter engagement. Via the "Strafe-Out Tactic" it is possible to "break the "lock" of a Fighter engagement by giving a "strafe" command in any direction but it will cost the Fighter Squadron ammunition and one of its Fighters in return. When your Fighter Squadron "strafes out" of the Fighter engagement the enemy Fighter Squadron will receive a "stun lock" which prevents them from moving for a few seconds. The "Strafe-Out Tactic" allows a Fighter Squadron to "strafe out" of a Fighter engagement at any time. The tactic is especially useful when a friendly Fighter Squadron is "locked" in a Fighter engagement and is either losing that Fighter engagement, or is in danger of being "strafed" by another enemy Fighter Squadron or in order to prevent the friendly Fighter Squadron from being destroyed when running out of ammunition. The Premium Tier 7 Aircraft Carrier Saipan is currently the only Carrier that can let a Fighter Squadron "strafe out" of a Fighter engagement without losing a Fighter in the process. There is an additional major tactical advantage that the "Stafe-Out Tactic" offers which presents itself when a friendly Fighter Squadron "strafes out" of a Fighter engagement: the enemy Fighter Squadron that remains "stun locked" and thus stationary for a few seconds can be easily "strafed" by another friendly Fighter Squadron during those few seconds.

 

"Counter-Strafe-Out Tactic" Description

One of your Fighter Squadrons can engage, or be engaged by, an enemy Fighter Squadron via a mouse button left-click which then "locks" your Fighter Squadron into that Fighter engagement. If the enemy Fighter Squadron then uses the "Strafe-Out Tactic" in order to "strafe out" of that Fighter engagement it is possible to use the so-called "Counter-Strafe-Out Tactic" by selecting your Fighter Squadron and giving ONE movement command (not an attack or "strafing" command) in the direction where the enemy Fighter Squadron is "strafing out", this will allow your Fighter Squadron to get out of the "stun lock" that they normally receive when an enemy Fighter Squadron "strafes out" of a Fighter engagement. Then give your Fighter Squadron a "strafe" command in the same direction so that your Fighter Squadron will start "strafing" the enemy Fighter Squadron either immediately or shortly thereafter. Do not place the "strafe" command too close or your Fighter Squadron will first circle around to get into position. If executed properly the "Counter-Strafe-Out Tactic" will allow your Fighter Squadron to "strafe" the enemy Fighter Squadron as it "strafes out" of the Fighter engagement.

 

 

 

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)

Spoiler

 

Carrier Aircraft can only spot enemy ships for their own Carrier and they can not spot enemy ships for the entire friendly fleet. In other words whatever the Carrier Aircraft spot is only visible to the Carrier Commander that owns the Carrier Aircraft. This is not unlike for example the current "Radio Location" Commander skill which also only indicates the direction of the nearest enemy ship to the player that has a ship Commander with "Radio Location". This solution will solve the problem that Destroyers that rush to a Capture Point at the start of a match are constantly spotted by Carrier Aircraft and consequently then targeted by the entire enemy fleet. The CARRIER SHIP itself of course will still be able to spot ships just like all other ships only the spotting by CARRIER AIRCRAFT is proposed to be changed.

 

 

SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B)

Spoiler

 

Bombers without Bombs/Torpedoes and Fighters without Ammunition can not spot enemy ships and enemy Aircraft. This solution will eliminate a major game exploit that Carriers with fast Bombers can currently make use of when they are commanded by highly skilled Carrier Commanders. For example in ranked matches highly skilled SHOKAKU Carrier Commanders let their fast Dive Bombers drop their bombs to turn them into impossible to shoot down very fast spotting Aircraft. Currently in WOWS a Bomber without torpedoes/bombs gets a massive speed increase and as a result the fastest Bombers fly at considerably higher speeds than even the fastest Fighters in the game. This exploit for example gives highly skilled SHOKAKU Commanders impossible to shoot down spotting Aircraft that can keep the entire enemy fleet spotted for the duration of a ranked match.

 

 

FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A)

Spoiler

 

Carrier Fighter Squadrons are turned into player controlled variants of the current Catapult Fighters without them having the ability to fight other enemy Carrier Fighter Squadrons so they can only protect a friendly ship from enemy Bombers when they are assigned to a friendly ship by clicking on that ship and only for as long as they have ammunition to do so, this Fighter "guard" mechanism is currently already implemented in WOWS. In other words the Fighter "strafing", Fighter "click combat" and Fighter "click Bomber escort/guard" ability are removed from Fighters in WOWS and only the "ship protection" or "ship guard" element of Fighter combat is maintained.

 

"Strafing" down enemy Aircraft is the part that I enjoy the most in the current WOWS Carrier play so this is a solution that I do not propose lightly. For game play purposes however I think this solution is best because highly skilled Carrier Commanders simply will fully dominate the novice Carrier Commander due to their expertise in "strafing". To further add to that issue some Carriers have been equipped with Fighters with superior stats in WOWS and/or have more Fighters than other Carriers (ENTERPRISE for example) which further increases the Fighter "strafing" and Fighter "ammunition" imbalance between Carrier Commanders even when they are of an equal skill level. The resulting total Air Superiority – often even Air Supremacy – will let the highly skilled Carrier Commander punish the entire enemy fleet with his Bombers as a result. New and novice Carrier Commanders that repeatedly have all their aircraft "strafed" out of the match by a highly skilled Carrier Commander will over time stop using Carriers which is an issue that negatively affects the "recruiting" and "retaining" of Carrier Commanders in WOWS. In the around 1500 ranked and random matches that I have played with a Carrier at Tier 8 I have noticed that around up to 80 percent of the opposing Carrier Commanders do not even use Fighter "strafing" at all, let alone the advanced Fighter "strafing" tactics. Again, the current aspect of Carrier game play which I find the most interesting and most fun is Fighter "strafing", but I have to acknowledge that the current "strafing" mechanism is bad for "recruiting" and "retaining" of Carrier Commanders in WOWS and it simply favours highly skilled Carrier Commanders too much to the extreme.

 

 

FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B)

Spoiler

 

Fighters never run out of ammunition in Fighter "click combat", instead Fighter ammunition is ONLY used for "strafing" and not for Fighter "click combat". Currently Fighters that have used up their last ammunition cannot disengage from Fighter "click combat" and the game forces them to remain in Fighter "click combat" until there are all destroyed or until the enemy Fighters run out of ammunition as well. This mechanism is not only difficult to understand and manage for new and novice Carrier Commanders but it also gives a clear advantage to Fighters in WOWS that are designed to be equipped with have large amounts of ammunition (typically USA Fighters in WOWS). The current WOWS Fighter ammunition expenditure mechanism punishes Fighters that in WOWS are designed equipped with little ammunition (typically Japanese and German Fighters) twice because: (1) Fighter with little ammunition cannot "strafe" often which severely limits their ability to protect their fleet (2) A full strength Fighter Squadron that consists of 4-6 Fighters that by design have little ammunition will all be totally destroyed in Fighter "click combat" by an enemy Fighter Squadron consisting of 1-2 Fighters when it runs out of ammunition without the player being able to do anything about it. The proposed solution addresses the current Fighter ammunition imbalance/limitations and increases the "comfort level" of Carrier play (especially for new and novice players) which as a win-win also benefits the whole fleet that the Carrier is part of.

 

 

FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C)

Spoiler

 

Fighters without ammunition get a speed boost (just like Bombers also currently get in WOWS when they have dropped their Bombs/Torpedoes) and they automatically disengage from Fighter "click combat" and they get a +75% Hit Point increase when they run out of ammunition. Currently Fighters that have used up their last ammunition cannot disengage from Fighter "click combat" and the game forces them to remain in Fighter "click combat" until there are all destroyed or until the enemy Fighters run out of ammunition as well. This mechanism is not only difficult to understand and manage for new and novice Carrier Commanders but it also gives a clear advantage to Fighters in WOWS that are designed to be equipped with have large amounts of ammunition (typically USA Fighters in WOWS). The current WOWS Fighter ammunition expenditure mechanism punishes Fighters that in WOWS are designed equipped with little ammunition (typically Japanese and German Fighters) twice because: (1) Fighter with little ammunition cannot "strafe" often which severely limits their ability to protect their fleet (2) A full strength Fighter Squadron that consists of 4-6 Fighters that by design have little ammunition will all be totally destroyed in Fighter "click combat" by an enemy Fighter Squadron consisting of 1-2 Fighters when it runs out of ammunition without the player being able to do anything about it. The proposed solution addresses the current Fighter ammunition imbalance/limitations and increases the "comfort level" of Carrier play (especially for new and novice players) which as a win-win also benefits the whole fleet that the Carrier is part of.

 

 

INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

When an enemy ship uses its AA Fire it should be spotted by the Carrier Aircraft it fires on, even when it is in smoke BUT it should then only be visible to the Carrier and not to the entire fleet that the Carrier is part of. Just like the "Radio Location" Commander skill that only indicates the position of the closest enemy ship only to the player that has a ship Commander that has the "Radio Location" skill. For new and novice Carrier Commanders, and even for experienced ones, it is often times impossible to notice than a hidden enemy ship is using its AA against Carrier Aircraft. As a result ships with strong AA setups like MINOTAUR, DES MOINES, WORCESTER can totally destroy a full Squadron before the Carrier Commander has had the time to get it out of range of that hidden ship. That means that especially new and novice Carrier Commanders, but even experienced ones too, have no player friendly visual indication that warns them that their Aircraft are going to be destroyed in about 2 seconds unless they withdraw them out of range of the hidden enemy ships. Currently all ships in WOWS get a clear visual indication that they are being fired upon in the form of shell tracers, but the Carrier Commander currently gets no clear unmistakable visual warning that his very limited amount of Carrier Aircraft are about to be destroyed in about 2 seconds by AA from a fully hidden ship. The proposed solution increases the "comfort level" of Carrier play (especially for new and novice players) and addresses the imbalance of passive not human controlled AA invisibly eliminating the active human controlled Aircraft of a Carrier Commander in about 2 seconds.

 

 

DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

A ship that uses the "Defensive AA Fire" Consumable is changed from colour RED into Colour BLINKING YELLOW. For new and novice Carrier Commanders, and even for experienced ones, it is often times difficult to impossible to see if an enemy ship is using the "Defensive AA Fire" Consumable. That means that especially new and novice Carrier Commanders, but even experienced ones too, have no player friendly visual indication that warns them that their Aircraft are going to be destroyed in about 2 seconds unless they withdraw them out of range of the enemy ship using "Defensive AA Fire". Currently all ships in WOWS get a visual warning that they are being tracked by the "Radar" Consumable or a visual warning that they are tracked via the "Radio Location" Commander skill, but the Carrier Commander currently gets no clear unmistakable visual warning that his very limited amount of Carrier Aircraft are about to be destroyed in about 2 seconds by "Defensive AA Fire" from an enemy ship. The proposed solution increases the "comfort level" of Carrier play (especially for new and novice players).

 

 

DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

All Tier 6-10 Destroyers will receive the Destroyer type "Defensive AA Fire" Consumable. This solution will protect Tier 6-10 Destroyers from Bombers during the first 5 critical opening minutes of a match when they rush forward to capture a sector without the help of friendly Cruisers and Battleships. Highly skilled Carrier Commanders currently can too easily take out the all important Destroyers in the first 5 minutes of the match which in most cases already decides the outcome of the match. This solution increases the "comfort level" of Destroyer play (especially for new and novice players) in WOWS.

 

 

CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

All Tier 6-10 Cruisers and Battleships will receive a new Consumable type called "Concentrated AA Fire" which is incapable of damaging and destroying enemy Aircraft within range of their AA but which instead decreases the chance to hit of all Bombers within range of their AA by 75% AND all Cruisers and Battleships that currently have access to "Defensive Fire AA" will have that Consumable removed and replaced by the new "Concentrated AA Fire" Consumable. A ship that uses the "Concentrated AA Fire" Consumable is changed from colour RED into Colour BLINKING ORANGE. This solution will protect solitary Cruisers and Battleships from Bombers during the first 5 critical opening minutes of a match. Highly skilled Carrier Commanders currently can too easily take out solitary Battleships and Cruisers in the first 5 minutes of the match which is both bad for game play and for the morale of dedicated Battleship and Cruiser players, this to a large extent contributes to the antipathy that dedicated Battleship and Cruiser players have developed towards Carriers. A major advantage of the new "Concentrated AA Fire" Consumable is that Battleships and Cruisers can prevent enemy Bombers from sinking them with one strike while the Consumable is active. The regular AA of the Cruisers and Battleships can still damage and destroy enemy Bombers but the "Concentrated AA Fire" Consumable does not increase the lethality of the AA which is something that the "Defensive AA Fire" Consumable does. Instead the "Concentrated AA Fire" Consumable practically prevents the enemy Bombers from doing lethal damage while the "Concentrated AA Fire" Consumable is active. This means that a new and novice Carrier Commander will not see all his Bombers shot down in 1-2 seconds which is the currently the case if he attacks a Cruiser or Battleship that is equipped with the "Defensive Fire AA" Consumable. This solution increases the "comfort level" of Cruiser, Battleship and Carrier play (especially for new and novice players) which is a win-win for all these ship types in WOWS.

 

 

UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

Unique and Legendary Commanders get a +5% bonus to the "Aircraft Servicing Expert" (so that means "+10% to HP of carrier-based aircraft" and "-15% to servicing time of carrier-based aircraft") and "Dogfighting Expert" (so that means "+15% to combat performance of fighters for each tier of difference between them" and "+15% to fighters ammunition") skills. Currently the unique and legendary Commanders in WOWS get no bonus to any Carrier related skill. This further makes Carriers less interesting for all players of WOWS. The signal given off by excluding Carrier skills from unique and legendary Commander skill advantages is that Carriers are a forgotten and unwanted class in WOWS.

 

 

COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

The "Evasive Maneuver" Commander skill is changed into "-10% to detectability of strike aircraft" and "+75% to HP of strike aircraft" and "-10% to airspeed of strike aircraft". These changes will make the skill at least somewhat useful. The current setup of the "Evasive Maneuver" Commander skill is so bad that it is essentially useless because "strafing" enemy Fighters can still easily still shoot returning Bombers down even when they have 75% more Hit Points. With the proposed changes to the skill the "Evasive Maneuver" Commander skill becomes a more attractive skill during both attack and return of the Bombers but it still significantly handicaps the Carrier Commander due to the lower speed of the Bombers.

 

 

COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

The "Expert Rear Gunner" Commander skill is changed into "+10% to average damage per second of self-defense armament for aircraft with rear gunners" and "+10% to HP of strike aircraft" and "-10% to airspeed of strike aircraft". The current setup of the "Expert Rear Gunner" Commander skill is so bad that it is essentially useless because "strafing" Fighters can easily shoot Bombers down without the Bombers being able to even use their rear gunners. With the proposed changes to the skill the "Expert Rear Gunner" Commander skill becomes a more attractive skill during both attack and return of the Bombers but it still significantly handicaps the Carrier Commander due to the lower speed of the Bombers.

 

 

PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

Each WOWS player will get access to a new set of five Tier 6 level Carrier-only missions that can be completed only once by a player but which have no time limited completion period: (Mission #1) Shoot down 250 enemy Aircraft via Fighter "Strafing" with a completion award of 250 Golden Doubloons, (Mission #2) Hit 250 enemy Ships via manual attacks with Dive Bombs with a completion award of 250 Golden Doubloons, (Mission #3) Hit 250 enemy Ships via manual attacks with Torpedoes with a completion award of 250 Golden Doubloons, (Mission #4) Sink 250 enemy ships via manual attacks with Dive and/or Torpedo Bombers with a completion award of 250 Golden Doubloons, (Mission #5) Gather 25,000 Experience Points (XP) with any Tier 6 Carrier which will reward a special "Carrier Expert" badge and achievement to the player in addition to the final completion award of the new French Tier 6 Premium Carrier LA FAYETTE with a 10-skill point French Commander and a free Port Slot. The new French Carrier LA FAYETTE is an exact copy of the already existing WOWS Tier 6 Tech Tree USA Carrier INDEPENDENCE but she is equipped with an unique "Type 11" Permanent Premium Ship Camouflage ("-3% to surface detectability range", "+4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship", "-10% to the cost of ship's post-battle service", "+50% to experience earned in the battle", "+100% Free experience earned in the battle"), has a total of 45x Aircraft on board (1x4-Aircraft Fighter-Squadron with a total of 15x "Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat" Tier 7 Fighters, 1x4-Aircraft Dive-Bomber-Squadron with a total of 15x "Curtiss SB2C Helldiver" Tier 8 Dive-Bombers that can be equipped with either 1x HE 1000 lb ANM65 Bomb or 1x AP 1000 lb Mk33 Bomb, 1x5-Aircraft Torpedo-Bomber-Squadron with a total of 15x "Curtiss SB2C Helldiver" Tier 8 Torpedo-Bombers each equipped with 1x Mk13 Mod. 0A Torpedo).

 

This solution will likely both appeal to all players of WOWS and draw more players to play Tier 6 Carriers because it allows them to win 1,000 golden Doubloons and in addition rewards an unique French Premium Aircraft Carrier which offers a slightly similar – but not as overpowered – setup and play as the Tier 7 Premium Carrier SAIPAN. As a result of the setup of the five missions the players will have to both learn and gain an understanding of the pros and cons of Carrier play and especially of manual Aircraft attacks, meaning manual Fighter "strafing" attacks and manual Bombing attacks with Dive and Torpedo Bombers. Currently there is no reward incentive whatsoever for dedicated Battleship, Cruiser and Destroyer players to learn and gain an understanding of the pros and cons of Carrier play in WOWS via direct Carrier play experience, and there is also no special reward incentive whatsoever for new and novice Carrier Commanders to learn and perfect manual Aircraft Attacks. The best way to entice WOWS players to at least gain a minimum level of actual Carrier game play experience ("educating" the player base in other words) is to offer a reward that is simply too good for them to pass up. The proposed LA FAYETTE French Carrier uses a ship model, ship camouflage assets and stats, aircraft assets and aircraft armament that currently already exists in WOWS, meaning that no new content needs to be created to add this authentic French Aircraft Carrier into WOWS as a unique and interesting reward ship.

 

Basic general information on the authentic French Carrier LA FAYETTE can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_La_Fayette_(R96)

 

A colour image of the French Carrier LA FAYETTE in Mers-el-Kébir.

https://imgur.com/a/9r29LQa

oDNohK2.jpg

 

A colour image of a French Flottille 1F-Aeronavale  - Grumman F6F-5 'Hellcat' like the ones that were used aboard LA FAYETTE

https://imgur.com/a/YqqbhTX

eHDcAMK.jpg

 

A colour image of a French Flottille 3F-Aeronavale  - Curtiss SB2C 'Helldiver' like the ones that were used aboard LA FAYETTE

https://imgur.com/a/2i7Fgle

U9urdNA.jpg

 

TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

Tier 5 Carriers will never be matched with Tier 6 Carriers in matches. This will prevent new and novice Carrier Commanders in Tier 5 Carriers from facing highly skilled Carrier Commanders in Tier 6 Carriers. This solution is necessary because Tier 6 Carriers can make manual attacks in WOWS (Fighter "strafing" and manual Bombing attacks) which is something that Tier 5 Carriers cannot do. A new and novice Tier 5 Carrier Commander simply cannot fight highly skilled Carrier Commander in a Tier 6 Carrier on even remotely fair terms which more often than not leads to humiliating and morale shattering defeats for the Tier 5 Carrier Commander which is bad for "recruiting" and "retaining" of Carrier Commanders in WOWS. The current matching of Tier 5 Carriers with Tier 6 Carriers simply favours highly skilled Carrier Commanders in Tier 6 Carriers too much to the extreme. This solution increases the "comfort level" of Tier 5 Carrier play (especially for new and novice players) and it does not negatively impact on Tier 6 Carrier play.

 

 

CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

Tier 6 to 10 Carriers are not allowed to be part of a Division. This solution prevent the extremely effective use of Carrier-AA Divisions which consist of higher skilled Carrier Commanders and higher skilled Commanders in battleships, cruisers or destroyers with a high Anti-Aircraft rating (including mounted Defensive Fire AA and with their ship Commanders specialized in the Anti-Aircraft role) to more or less instantly decide the outcome of match when they are faced by an enemy Carrier that is not in such a Division. The Carrier-AA Divisions with higher skilled Commanders generally have a win rate and effectiveness that is far above that of the individual players in those Divisions when these players do not operate in a Carrier-AA Division. As a result these Carrier-AA Divisions with higher skilled Commanders basically upset game balance for both fleets in a match. I do not propose this solution lightly, since one of the most fun elements of WOWS is playing with friends in a Division, especially when in a Carrier-AA Division. On the other hand I have to acknowledge that the Carrier-AA Divisions when they consist of highly skilled Commanders are generally bad for game play balance for all players on both fleets that take part in a match in which such a Carrier-AA Division with highly skilled Commanders is opposed by a new and novice or even fairly skilled Carrier Commander.

 

 

NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION

Spoiler

 

Fix the (hidden mechanism) deck armour values of USA Battleships so that they too have the same vulnerability to AP Bombs that the Battleships of other nations have been given in WOWS when these USA Battleships have more or less the same horizontal deck armour protection levels of non-USA Battleships. This mainly concerns the Tech Tree USA Battleships IOWA and MONTANA and the Premium USA Battleships ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and MISSOURI.

 

Since the (hidden mechanism) deck armour values of these five USA Battleships makes them considerably more powerful in terms of horizontal deck armour protection level against AP Bombs in WOWS the logical thing to do is to bring their horizontal deck armour protection level down to the level of comparable non-USA Battleships in WOWS. It is not a viable solution to increase the deck armour protection level of non-USA Battleships to the AP Bomb resistance that these five USA Battleships enjoy because that would essentially make AP Bombers useless against Tier 8, 9 and 10. Currently some non-USA Battleships in WOWS have been intentionally made particularly vulnerable to AP Bombs (TIRPITZ for example) even when their horizontal deck armour levels are more or less that same as those of certain USA Battleships and even when these ships demonstrated a real world resistance to AP Bombs (TIRPITZ). Some of these vulnerable non-USA Battleships are among the most popular Battleships in WOWS (for example the British, Italian and German ones), which does not make sense from a game play balancing point of view and also reinforces a negative image of Carriers for many Battleship players. Premium USA Battleships should not get a preferential treatment over non-USA Battleships simply to drive up sales. And punishing Battleships players for not choosing a Tier 8-10 USA (Premium) Battleship when facing AP Bombers creates a "no real choice" situation which indirectly negatively impacts on the image of Carrier players as well. This is because Battleship players that prefer non-USA Battleships for whatever reason will continue to have an increasingly negative opinion of Carriers when their favourite non-USA Battleship is the main target of AP Bombs because USA Battleships are generally avoided by skilled Carrier players.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,024 posts
13,569 battles

Oi mate! Are you nicking my format?

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,673 posts
13,098 battles

Sorry to say this, but everything you've written has either already been suggested years ago (spotting, fighter control, strafing, MM, tutorials, UI) or is utter non-sense (divisions, targets vulnerable to AP bombs as GZ AP bombs have superior performance). Results are the same, WG isn't interested in changing anything regarding CVs in their current state. And haven't been for the past ~2 years.

If you had bothered to do just a little bit of research you could've saved yourself the trouble of not only writing a monstrous post, but adding such an amount of tags as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JR-IT]
Alpha Tester
605 posts
5,931 battles

it's a long post, buti agree wioth you, if i have to choose between the option you did:

-spotting alternative b, and i like it

-fighters c, removing the strafe is not a good option imho

- on the fire in the smoke stuff i don't agree, it should be like back in alpha, if you don't turn your aa off, you get spotted (by everyone)

-like the def aa solution ( the one that tell's you when a ship is using is def aa) but  disliked the "concentrated fire"

-i cannot agree enought about the cancer aa division

-i don't agreee on the ap bombs stuff, they are broken, but not in the way you thinks:

1) they delete cruiser with 1 strike

2) is damage that is not healable (10%) and that's retarded, because  a player in a AP vulnerable ship can do crap against a manual drop, and can't heal it back

3) the  bloom that you get under def aa still allows you to  land 15-20k salvo ( per squadron) on an ap-vulnerable ship 

12 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Sorry to say this, but everything you've written has either already been suggested years ago (spotting, fighter control, strafing, MM) or is utter non-sense (divisions, AP bombs). Results are the same, WG isn't interested in changing anything regarding CVs in their current state. And haven't been for the past ~2 years.

 

 

why i smell the fact that you are the first one to abuse the aa-cancer division? The fact that ap bombs are retarded in concept as it is now is non-sense? lol

 

WG won't hear us, we know, but at least we can still try. A lot of changes are not something hard to do ( like the fact that empty fighters should have +25% more speed when empty ( but be unable to spot)

And still, haku has been changed even in this period of stall

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OM]
Beta Tester, WoWs Wiki Team
3,195 posts
10,992 battles
Vor 1 Stunde, Widar_Thule sagte:

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.

You should change your source, WG already said in some Q&As that the CV rework will be here much faster than you think.

Sorry to say that, but your long post is pretty pointless at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,673 posts
13,098 battles
32 minutes ago, Flavio1997 said:

why i smell the fact that you are the first one to abuse the aa-cancer division?

 

Actually I'm a solo player. And I have no problems with AA divisions.

If you don't believe me, my stats are publicly available.

 

32 minutes ago, Flavio1997 said:

The fact that ap bombs are retarded in concept as it is now is non-sense? lol

 

It's not that. Everyone and their mother knows that AP bombs are a broken mechanic that never should've made it into the game at least in their current iteration but hey, WG ofc didn't listen to the feedback of skilled CV players. Again.

It's how he tested AP bombs and deemed ships vulnerable that doesn't make sense. GZ AP bombs vastly outclass standard tech tree (aka USN) AP bombs in performance. Almost every cruiser and BB is vulnerable to GZ AP bombs while USN AP bombs can only score citadel hits on a select few targets, most of them being cruisers and lower tier ships. (Also the entire "but in real life" stuff is ofc completely irrelevant.)

That means the list of ships vulnerable to AP bombs that the OP compiled is highly inaccurate as a whole, thus potentially misleading. That's the thing I was calling nonsense. Should've probably clarified that.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
729 posts
11,468 battles

Quite the time and thought put into this, I commend your effort.

 

There are a few small inaccuracies and missing things, nothing really important apart from the effects of AP bombs (some BBs do suffer a lot while others don't, true, but they're more like an anti-cruiser weapon, putting extra pressure on that class even when rightly played), in your analysis but it's spot on for the most part. About the proposed solutions, the education via tutorials/missions/operations goes first and foremost (with some tweaking), then fixing the UI, while most of the others are mere patches that wouldn't do much (some of them, in fact, could be detrimental for novice players, and giving temporary immunity to certain classes against others would be a bad precedent, not to mention that it wouldn't help educate the general -both CVs and non-CVs- playerbase while generating new bad habits) unless the first two are thoroughly applied.

 

The thing is, as El2aZeR has pointed out in his first comment, that these and related issues have been discussed since before I started to play the game, yet nothing meaningful has been done in order to correct them. Particularly, I somewhat consider the pinnacle in CV UI smoothness the patch when the alternative controls were added (0.6.3 IIRC), going back downhill from there on.

 

Salute.

Edited by Estaca_de_Bares
Mixing up a couple of Spanish words due to pronouncing them English-like in my mind. Nothing serious, move along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RNG4]
Beta Tester
1,568 posts

Every time I opened a spoiler I expected a picture illustrating the paragraph. Every time I became more and more disappointed... :Smile_amazed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MORSE]
Players
243 posts
595 battles

Note: I have only have limited experience with cvs, only up to t5 as of now. Other experience is mostly from watching vids on how they operate.

A very good read, gonna say some of my feedback on some of the points.

 

agree with the points on t5 carrier MM, should really never be ever matched with t6s, or give t4-5s back their strafe only

 

for spotting I say go with option B, but make it so all planes can still see other aircraft no matter what is the state, so you won’t get strafed out from nowhere.

 

For solving invis fire have them revealed to the entire carrier’s team for the duration the squadron is alive in the aa fire, once the said squad has managed to get out of aa range/said ship turns off aa(provided the squad is not in air detectablity range) or destroyed, the ship goes back into stealth after 3s.

 

For AA defence just make the control+click on squad create a panic effect which messes up accuracy like defensive fire, but not as much as it(I say less the half) since I’m not entirely sure that WG wants to rework consumable loadouts for all ships, only then have to potentially rework them again once the cv rework actually goes though

 

Proposed Div system is a big no from me, it’s more of a group issue that has been consistent in pretty much most games with group systems.

 

erything else is a whatever for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
145 posts

 

@Commander_Cornflakes

 

Pointless

Spoiler

 

It could be argued that your 2,814 posts on this forum are for the main pretty pointless since WOWS Staff pays little attention to them. What you have posted is however of interest to those people that read your posts.

 

 

Sources and Statements

Spoiler

 

Consider the source of those WOWS Staff statements you refer to. The track record concerning reliability of official WOWS Staff statements regarding Carriers speaks for itself: they have been proven to be unreliable at best over the past two years.

 

Some examples to refresh our memory.

 

2017 Year of the Carrier

Several official WOWS Staff statements in 2016 and 2017 claimed that 2017 would be the year of the Carrier because in 2017 the major Carrier rework would be implemented. The actual result: no major Carrier rework was implemented.

 

 

The GRAF ZEPPELIN Rework

A GRAF ZEPPELIN related Statement by three WOWS Management Team members (Daniil Volkov, Development Director World of Warships - Alexander Nikolaev, Regional Publishing Director, World of Warships, NA - Artur Plociennik, Executive Publishing Producer, World of Warships) – concerning how the GZ would be reworked via direct communication and interaction between the GZ owners that bought her in August 2017 during GAMESCOM and the WOWS Developers, Super Testers and Community Contributors on the GZ rework Facebook Group @wowsgraf. The three WOWS Management Team members stated: "All owners of GZ will be invited to provide feedback about her and to communicate with the dev team alongside with community contributors, super testers and WG employees in a special Facebook group created specifically for this purpose."

 

LINK HERE:

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/85694-graf-zeppelin-update-from-developers/

 

This vaunted direct communication and interaction that was to take place on the GZ Facebook Group @wowsgraf between the GZ owners and the WOWS dev team alongside with community contributors, super testers and WG employees in fact never ONCE happened over a period of six months and the main GZ owner feedback that practically all owners agreed upon on @wowsgraf during this six month period was in fact never seriously addressed by the WOWS Developers: the too weak GZ Fighter setup. The final version of the GZ that was released with update 0.7.3 now has even less Fighters than the August 2017 GAMESCOM GZ version had.

 

To make matters worse WOWS Staff communicated  - on the official GZ rework Facebook Group @wowsgraf  - at the end of the last stage of GZ testing on 14 March 2018 that the final version of the GZ that would be released with update 0.7.3 would have Fighters with increased Hit Points ("Fighters received increased HP Fighters") than the August 2017 GAMESCOM GZ version. Then on 10 April 2018 WOWS Staff again communicated - in an Email to all GZ owners – that the GZ would be released with update 0.7.3 would have Fighters with increased Hit Points ("Fighters received increased HP Fighters") than the August 2017 GAMESCOM GZ version. So @Commander_Cornflakes you might trust statements made by WOWS Management, Developers and other Staff members but I am a little sceptical to take these statements at face value based on past experiences with regard to Carriers in WOWS. And that is an understatement.

 

 

Long, Medium and Short Term Carrier rework speculation

Spoiler

 

At this point we can still only speculate what the vaunted Long Term Carrier rework will bring.

 

Just for the hell of it we can speculate.

 

It can be reasonably assumed that "Plan A" of WOWS is to rework the Carriers to such an extent that they can be played with a controller on the Xbox and PS4. Since naval games by nature are part of a niche market that attracts fewer people than for example tanks it would be smart to combine all Xbox, PS4 and PC WOWS players on the same servers. Whether or not that is part of "Plan A" in the long term I do not know. But if that is the case then it is safe to assume that Carrier play needs to be changed from the current mouse and keyboard Carrier game play to a controller based simplistic system.

 

I am not that sure that a controlled based Carrier rework will be successful either on Console or on the PC and there are reasons to assume that such a simplistic controller friendly Carrier rework might fail even before it is released. "Shooter" oriented players that typically play on consoles are more likely to prefer "guns on ships" and not simplistic aircraft control. So it is very likely that current Battleship, Cruiser and Destroyer players are not in the least interested in using reworked Carriers even when they can be controlled with a console controller. Players interested in Aircraft are more likely to be interested in the arcade flight in WT or in PC based Flight Simulators than in a naval game with super simplistic Aircraft controls.

 

Should that be so then it is more than likely that a controller friendly Carrier rework is not very likely to gain many new friends/players in anywhere near significant numbers. Instead such a controller friendly Carrier rework is almost guaranteed to lose the current comparatively small but quite loyal WOWS Carrier players that currently play Carriers on the PC.

 

If the vaunted Long Term Carrier rework fails even before it is released then it is safe to assume that WOWS will fall back to a "Plan B". The only viable "Plan B" would be to improve the current Carrier Game Play and restrict Carriers to PC and not introduce them to the Xbox or PS4.

 

And then the possible short and medium term improvements to the current Carrier play become relevant.

 

 

 

 

 

@Tungstonid

I can understand your disappointment when you saw only text under the spoilers instead of nice pictures! A lot of people like pictures! So by special request I will indulge you with a spoiler that hides…. Pictures!

Spoiler

 

A colour image of the French Carrier LA FAYETTE in Mers-el-Kébir.

https://imgur.com/a/9r29LQa

oDNohK2.jpg

 

A colour image of a French Flottille 1F-Aeronavale  - Grumman F6F-5 'Hellcat' like the ones that were used aboard LA FAYETTE

https://imgur.com/a/YqqbhTX

eHDcAMK.jpg

 

A colour image of a French Flottille 3F-Aeronavale  - Curtiss SB2C 'Helldiver' like the ones that were used aboard LA FAYETTE

https://imgur.com/a/2i7Fgle

U9urdNA.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

GZ AP Bombs

Spoiler

 

The GZ is not the subject of this topic but I will comment on some GZ remarks that were made to set the record straight. I have extensive experience with the GZ since I own one. That experience was gathered with the broken August 2017 GAMESCOM GZ version which I used in about 400 matches, the various GZ Test ships which I used in about 400 or so matches the during the six months GZ rework period and finally in about 700+ or so matches with the final version of the GRAF ZEPPELIN since update 0.7.3.

 

The main general remark with regard to GZ AP Bombs is that RNG (a "die roll") more often than not decides if an attack by 2+ AP Dive Bomber Squadrons turns into devastating damage of say more than 22000 points of damage or only inflicts say around 22000 points of damage. Some ships in WOWS however will never take say 22000 or more damage points from an attack by 2+ AP Dive Bomber Squadrons.

 

The earlier remarks that I made concerning the particular vulnerability or lack thereof of various Battleships in WOWS to GZ AP Bombs comes from testing in the training room and from actual GZ AP Bomb game experience in about 1000 matches. Only someone that actually owns a GZ can claim to have that kind of GZ AP Bomb experience, something that some forum members that do not even own a GZ certainly do not have.

 

Based on my experience as a GZ owner with GZ AP Bombs the following general remarks can be made (there are exceptions but I will not list every exception because a GZ that uses AP Bombs is already too predictable in target selection options as it is): (1) Light Cruisers and Destroyers generally take fairly little damage from GZ AP Bombs so that it is not worth attacking them unless there is a tactical necessity to do so (2) Some Heavy Cruisers can regularly incur very heavy damage from GZ AP Bomb hits or even be outright sunk by them but that is rare and usually up to RNG (a "die roll") and some Heavy Cruisers generally always take little damage from GZ AP Bombs. As far as Battleships are concerned I refer to the remarks I made about them earlier in this topic.

 

Sometimes however RNG (a "die roll") will let GZ AP Bombs randomly inflict heavy damage on Destroyers, Light Cruisers and some Heavy Cruisers that normally do not incur high damage from GZ AP Bombs (at best that translates into a rare 8400 to 11000 damage for 1x GZ AP Bomb hit). Often however these same Destroyers, Light Cruisers and some Heavy Cruisers only take 840 points of damage from these same GZ AP Bombs or only suffer damage to a module by 1x GZ AP Bomb hit.

 

 

The relevancy of real life AP Bomb vulnerability

Spoiler

 

I will comment on some remarks that were made with regard to the relevancy of real life AP Bomb vulnerability of ships for WOWS. WOWS Staff on many occasions have claimed that the one thing they do not compromise on in terms of authenticity is the armour protection of the ships, which of course also concerns the Battleships in WOWS.

 

Since the damage done to a ship in WOWS is mainly determined by the armour protection of a ship in relation to whatever hits it in WOWS, it thus becomes important to acknowledge the fact that some Battleships that authentically have no better horizontal armour protection than others for some unknown reason are more vulnerable to AP Bombs in WOWS even though they should not be. An example is the horizontal armour protection of the ALABAMA and MASSACHUSETTS (about 38+127 mm deck armour on average) that is not at all significantly better than that of the TIRPITZ (about 50+100 mm deck armour on average).

 

Yet in WOWS the TIRPITZ is very heavily damaged by AP Bombs (sometimes even outright sunk in one strike by 2+ AP Dive Bomber Squadrons) while the ALABAMA and MASSACHUSETTS never take the same amount of AP Bomb damage that the TIRPITZ repeatedly incurs. Looking at the effect of real world 726 kg AP Bomb hits on the TIRPITZ one can conclude that this ship was not at all easily sunk by AP Bombs. And no Carrier in WOWS has anything better than 500 kg AP Bombs.

 

So since the real world TIRPITZ has a proven and good real world horizontal armour protection against AP bombs then why is it so overly vulnerable to AP Bombs in WOWS while the ALABAMA and MASSACHUSETTS are not? Even though the horizontal armour protection of the ALABAMA and MASSACHUSETS is not significantly better than that of the TIRPITZ? This is something that is not correct and it should be addressed for reasons of play balance and reasons of authenticity in armour protection, which is a concept that WOWS Staff have claimed to adhere to. For the reasons given above this matter has a direct relevance for the perception of Carriers in WOWS by Battleship Commanders, since most of the Battleships that currently are overly vulnerable to AP Bombs in WOWS are mostly non-USA Battleships and they are among the most popular Battleships in the game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,673 posts
13,098 battles
9 hours ago, Widar_Thule said:

GZ AP Bombs

 

No one is questioning the effectiveness of GZ AP bombs, but your list of ships vulnerable to AP bombs is presented as universal when it only applies to the GZ. USN AP bombs are far inferior in performance and incapable of scoring citadel hits on the majority of targets you've listed.

 

9 hours ago, Widar_Thule said:

WOWS Staff on many occasions have claimed that the one thing they do not compromise on in terms of authenticity is the armour protection of the ships, which of course also concerns the Battleships in WOWS.

 

Something that has been violated ever since the very first tech tree addition. Safe to say that such statements are of no value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,143 posts
9,348 battles
8 hours ago, Commander_Cornflakes said:

You should change your source, WG already said in some Q&As that the CV rework will be here much faster than you think.

Sorry to say that, but your long post is pretty pointless at this time.

 

To be fair, given WGs earlier words on CVs that would barely make me believe it will be before 2021.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
145 posts
On 7/18/2018 at 12:24 AM, El2aZeR said:

 

Something that has been violated ever since the very first tech tree addition. Safe to say that such statements are of no value.

 

 

Apparently that indeed seems to be the case even though this "no compromise in terms of authenticity regarding the armour protection of the ship" is still the "official" line as communicated by various WOWS representatives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×