CV Rework Discussion

[KillStealBoss]

10 minutes ago, Sidewayz said:

Is this the place where people are defending a broken game mechanic? Sure is =) Time to see what's in stock in this discussion.

I'm playing on every class and I want every one of them to be as balanced as possible.

But yeah ...WG

[Sidewayz]

Well then one of them is not balanced and ridiculously untouchable atm, so yeah, I want to see where this thread is gonna go.

 

*Grabs popcorn*

 

Edit:

Oh and I would love to see people stating that a carrier being attacked by 2 destroyers and shrugging it off with endless waves of planes is ok and perfectly balanced.

 

[KillStealBoss]

7 hours ago, Sidewayz said:

Well then one of them is not balanced and ridiculously untouchable atm, so yeah, I want to see where this thread is gonna go.

 

*Grabs popcorn*

 

Edit:

Oh and I would love to see people stating that a carrier being attacked by 2 destroyers and shrugging it off with endless waves of planes is ok and perfectly balanced.

 

The same as a Kita with 1100 hits a 1700 shells fired . And a shima that fired 75 torps. Of you wanna limit the plane number then limit other ammo. 

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, MacArthur92 said:

The same as a Kita with 1100 hits a 1700 shells fired . And a shima that fired 75 torps. Of you wanna limit the plane number then limit other ammo. 

The best part is, amount of planes on CV+recovery is already comparable or less than RTS carriers used to have

 

introducing ammo limit for guns would be the most pointless feature ever, as you would be VERY hard pressed to expend it all in 20min timespan and even then you would fail most of the times.

[KillStealBoss]

12 minutes ago, Panocek said:

The best part is, amount of planes on CV+recovery is already comparable or less than RTS carriers used to have

 

introducing ammo limit for guns would be the most pointless feature ever, as you would be VERY hard pressed to expend it all in 20min timespan and even then you would fail most of the times.

Yep that's what I mean

[1MajorKoenig]

22 minutes ago, Panocek said:

as you would be VERY hard pressed to expend it all in 20min timespan a

 

Ask Minotaur 

[KillStealBoss]

5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Ask Minotaur 

Mino, Daring , Akizuki-Harugumo, All USN DDs, Worcester, DM.... The list is long.

[Panocek]

10 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Ask Minotaur 

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-50_mkN5.php

400 rounds per gun

 

That gives 4000 rounds on board, divided by 187 rounds/min (18.7 rate of fire * 10 guns) gives us over 21 minutes of continuous fire to expend that amount of ammo  

[KillStealBoss]

6 minutes ago, Panocek said:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_6-50_mkN5.php

400 rounds per gun

 

That gives 4000 rounds on board, divided by 187 rounds/min (18.7 rate of fire * 10 guns) gives us over 21 minutes of continuous fire to expend that amount of ammo  

Damn that's a lot of ammo. Though DDs didn't have so much. Correct me if I'm wrong. Although the torps reload were having only Japanese DDs and it took a lot of time. 

[Panocek]

13 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

Damn that's a lot of ammo. Though DDs didn't have so much. Correct me if I'm wrong. Although the torps reload were having only Japanese DDs and it took a lot of time. 

Torpedo reloads on ships were rarity indeed and mostly IJN DDs and cruisers had them. And amount of shells per gun for "small" calibers is comparable to that of a Minotaur, if not more - ubiquitous 5"/38 used as secondary guns on US cruisers and BBs had 500 shells per gun, 350-400 for destroyers. Wooster had 400/gun as well. Heavy cruisers had around 150/gun, battleships around 100/gun

 

Lowest ammo count for DDs I can find is on Russian destroyers, with Gnevny class having as little as 100/gun. But then, early guns on these had difficulty lasting longer than that, so every time Project 7 destroyer would return for resupply, it would also have its barrels replaced 

[Yedwy]

Thats why smart navies never used full powder charge under normal conditions, shells were bit slower and range shorter but guns lasted way longer, RU on the other probably had them full loaded (or even slighty overloaded) partly to get maximum range since they were limited to mid caliber and partly couse they had an abundance of barrels awailable ie not costing them much in "planed economy", they most likely had more limitation in producing good quality shells then anything 

[Prospect_b]

21 hours ago, xxNihilanxx said:

Maybe, instead of constantly arguing with the guy, you should ask @El2aZeR for help instead. Not that it is his responsibilty to improve your skill level, that lies solely with you, but I have it on good authority that he is a really nice guy, a fluffy kitten,  if you will, with a massive amount of tolerance for the lesser-skilled players in this game.

Yea, about that...

You might want to update your sources.

[Longbowmann]

Instead of rage I suggest adding these:

AA rework -  sound editing and effects and get rid of sectors. I want to enjoy my AA and watch it doing something instead of awesome green circle across my screen.

Buff T4 T6 cvs so new players can have some joy of playing them. Flying across map in biplane and then heroically die to drop one slow torpedo truly brings new dedicated players to the fold.

Better take off sound for the star engine planes. Like that IJN attack preparation in Pearl Harbor movie.

Better sound of dive bombers even for those getting away without payload on full throttle. 

Straffing of ships for fighters when no planes around would be nice.

Kamikaze run for last plane of IJN squad shouting "BANZAI"  would be awesome.

 

Thank you

[Sunleader]

5 hours ago, MacArthur92 said:

The same as a Kita with 1100 hits a 1700 shells fired . And a shima that fired 75 torps. Of you wanna limit the plane number then limit other ammo. 

 

As a Navyfield Player. I would be all for it.

And as Someone Liking things a bit more Realistic. I would be in Favor of it even more.

However. The only Classes really Hurt by this would be Destroyers and Carriers.

Because Cruisers and Battleships Generally Carried more Ammunition than they could Possibly Fire in the 20 Minute Time WIndow of the Game anyways.

 

 

 

Taking the Bismarck as Example. It was Supplied with 960 Shells for its Main Battery.

It got 8 Guns so 120 Shells per Gun.

 

In Reality its Reload was 18 Seconds under Optimal Conditions.

So even in Reality it would have been able To Continuesly Fire for 36 Minutes under Optimal Conditions.

Assuming Half HE and Half AP it would have been able to Fire HE for 18 Minutes non Stop and then AP for another 18 Minutes non Stop.

So even with the Realistic Reload you would basicly need to Hold Down the Fire Button Constantly to even Deplete One of your Shell Types within 20 Minute Limit.

 

In the Game however the Bismarcks Reload is Nerfed Hard to 26 Seconds per Shot. (I wonder why......)

The Maximum Number of Salvos is 46 assuming you really Just Hold down the Fire Button from the Start of the Battle.

But you got 60 Salvos of HE and 60 Salvos of AP Ammo in Stock.

So even if you basicly never Stopped Shooting you would never even Manage to Deplete one Ammo Type.

 

 

 

And Pls Note.

The Bismarck was one of the Ships with Fairly Small Magazines for a Battleship. Having only 960 Shells Stored when your using Guns which can Fire 3 Rounds per Minute meant the Bismarck could Empty its Ammo Storages in 36 Minutes which is Extremely Fast Ammo Depletion for a Battleship.

 

The Iowas Class whose Realistic Reload was 30 Seconds which it also Gets in the Game. Could Carry 1200 Shells for its Main Battery Guns.

So you got over 130 Salvos of Ammunition.  So the Iowa could Continuesly Fire for about 1 Hour and 20 Minutes before it would have Depleted its Ammo.

 

In the Game Even with Reload Mod reducing the Reload to 26 Seconds you again come down to the 46 Salvos Maximum you can Fire in a Random Battle. Meaning even you held down the Fire Button. You would not even Manage to Deplete one Type of Ammo if they Introduced the Third Ammo Type and you took all 3 Along.

 

 

 

For CVs such a Change would be Incredible Hard.

Instead of Numbers like 120-150 Losses and sometimes even more on Enterprise and Kaga.

You would come down to 70-90 Planes Total available.

 

For DDs it would also be Harsh.

The German 1936 Class carried 600 Shells for its Main Battery Guns. It had 5 Guns and in Good Conditions would Fire something between 12 and 15 Rounds per Minute.

(Pls note. Just like Bismarck and Iowa. Training Conditions Fire Rate never Happens in Actual Combat of course)

Now lets go with the Higher Estimate of 15 Rounds.

We got 120 Shells. So 15 Rounds per Minute would mean that a Destroyer Could in Fact Deplete his whole Main Battery Ammo in 8 Minutes if he just Kept Firing.

 

The Really Harsh part for DDs would be the Torpedoes. Because DDs in Reality only Carried 2-3 Sets of Torpedoes for their Tubes.

German 1936 Class for example only Carried 1 Reload. Meaning it could only Fire 16 Torpedoes before it was Empty. (Each Launcher Twice)

Japanese DDs later in the War at least had 3 Sets. A Kagero for example was Stocked with 16 Torpedoes early in the War and then got Stocked up to 24 later on.

 

Meaning that Torpedoes would become an Extremely Limited Ammo.

 

 

[DreadArchangel]

Also the thing about torps they were also very very expensive.

[CaptainOkita]

6 hours ago, MacArthur92 said:

Damn that's a lot of ammo. Though DDs didn't have so much. Correct me if I'm wrong. Although the torps reload were having only Japanese DDs and it took a lot of time. 

Correct. One salvo for non IJN dd's. IJN suffered from some difficulties around the torp stowage but i forgot where i read about it.

[Sidewayz]

8 hours ago, MacArthur92 said:

The same as a Kita with 1100 hits a 1700 shells fired . And a shima that fired 75 torps. Of you wanna limit the plane number then limit other ammo. 

Oh you're one of THOSE, thank you, true colors are shining indeed. Son, I've been around since the closed beta, I remember carriers being capable of being equipped with fighters *exclusively* and cance- oh I mean **valuable players playing carriers** never complained about the plane limit back then, so please, spare me the bull about you wanting all of the classes to be balanced and giving that argument =) If you want to keep unlimited planes, then I say unlimited fighter squadrons and unkillable AA on ships. Oh and I want to be able to fire my guns after I'm dead, not to mention I want to be able to spot the enemy after my ship is sunk. BALANCE =)

Carrier player base is the smallest in comparison to other classes, most vocal and most hated; wonder why? Let's see, carriers are already usually the last to be killed in a game, there's nothing to stop them now from spamming those planes endlessly picking on anyone giving chase and often a battered lone destroyer has no capability of defending itself from waves and waves of NEW and SHINY planes, while the carrier is shrugging off damage from guns and running. You can't disengage, because guess what, unlimited range for planes. Balance =) Moreover they reap spotting bonuses, spotting damage, and there is literally nothing stopping them from picking on a single ship without any chance of defending one self or retaliation. Again, balance. Torpedoes you can dodge, outrun, outrange, shells, you can dodge, move out of range. Planes? You can't do neither.

 

In the RTS system if you were not careful you were penalized for kamikaze'ing your way through a match, and if your cance- there's this word again, dear and beloved ally playing a carrier, was utterly bad, you could at least hope to outlast the planes, knowing that your battered AA was somewhat mitigated by the plane limit on the other end. THAT was ACTUALLY BALANCED, as are the other classes right now.

And before anyone starts saying that 'waah there's a reason carriers are kings of the seas right now' This is World of Warships, not World of Boatplanes, if you want to play planes, then there's more than one title for you out there.

[KillStealBoss]

2 minutes ago, Sidewayz said:

never complained about the plane limit back then,

Because now you don't have the same number of planes on deck as on RTS. Enterprise with 54 planes on deck now? Same with Kaga? And on RTS you could bring all planes at once and AA couldn't kill off all of them and do devastating strike to a ship. 

[CptBarney]

5 hours ago, Yedwy said:

Thats why smart navies never used full powder charge under normal conditions, shells were bit slower and range shorter but guns lasted way longer, RU on the other probably had them full loaded (or even slighty overloaded) partly to get maximum range since they were limited to mid caliber and partly couse they had an abundance of barrels awailable ie not costing them much in "planed economy", they most likely had more limitation in producing good quality shells then anything 

Probs used nuclear vodka instead and shells they simply 'redistributed' them from the masses. Imagine in ww2 with the german fleet going to engage some russian fleet consisting of sinop's and izmails with some krispy kremes, only to hear russian hardbass in background getting louder...

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

We need skilled MM for CVs. Do I even need to explain why?

[Redcap375]

On 7/17/2019 at 4:24 PM, Sunleader said:

We know that you Liked it when CVs were Practically Godmode and could Freely Massacre whoever they liked without any Fear of losing Planes.....

 

I stopped reading it after that drivvle. 

 

What do you know about "Old" CV's? 

 

Those "Old" CV's your on about was one of your worst classes.  So much for spanking everything, you could hit a barn door in your old CV's.

 

And now look at your CV's now? 

 

Your top 5 damage dealing ships your CV's account for 4 of them. 

 

So what did you say about the old CV's owning things?

 

On 7/17/2019 at 5:21 PM, Sunleader said:

Because before 0.8.5 this Game SUCKED for everyone but CVs as soon as a CV was in the Match.

 

Never heard so much Shite in my life. 

 

Do you think people are enjoying what's happening now? In your rework Hark with 127, 570 ave damage?

 

Talk about a hypocrite.  The fact of the matter is since this re-work, you know how strong they are and bolted onto it and your loving it.  It's by far you best ship class and you found something of which to spank other players.

 

Because you was awful in the old CV's....That's how strong they were ay? Don't make me laugh. 

 

Sorry if that sounds harsh but that really needed to be said as I can smell that BS a mile off. 

 

That first comment makes me laugh *god mode* lol. 

[Operation_Crossroads_1]

13 hours ago, MacArthur92 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong. Although the torps reload were having only Japanese DDs and it took a lot of time. 

 

There's really two ways to look at torpedo reload in game:

1. there were about 10 DD for every BB, so each reload represents another DD;
2. IRL torpedoes were devastating if they hit, whereas in game a single hit is "ouch" but manageable, so let's view a full launch of 8-10 torps as maybe 1-2 IRL.

I think option 2 makes a bit more sense in game, the alternative would be something that you never see and would kill you outright with one hit, the "reload" mechanic is actually a bit of a quality of life buff for BB, since with a bit of skill you can avoid or at least mitigate the damage.

[Operation_Crossroads_1]

18 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

 

I stopped reading it after that drivvle.

 

Steady on mate, I'm pretty sure @Sunleader is one of the first to admit that new CV are broken.

[Redcap375]

Just now, Operation_Crossroads_1 said:

 

Steady on mate, I'm pretty sure @Sunleader is one of the first to admit that new CV are broken.

 

What, when he comes out with a comment like that one?

 

Practically god mode? Unless he was being sarcastic.. If he was then I apologise, but I didn't get the memo.

 

You say things like that when you have something to back it up with...He didn't. 

 

 

[KillStealBoss]

25 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

 

 What do you know about "Old" CV's? 

He meant pre 0.8.4 but after 0.8.0