Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Adm_Ballsey

New World of Warships Wows Aircraft Carrier CV Rework Changes Gameplay

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
51 posts
11,634 battles

After having a lot of fun testing out the cv aircraft carrier changes I wanted to share my thoughts and experiences with you all here being carrier captains.
Please check out the gameplay footage and give me your hard honest opinions on what you think on what wargaming has done right or done wrong if that's what you feel.
The brutal truth folks is what is required! My own personal opinion I thought it looked stunning!


Time Stamps

2:20 The proposed changes to the captains skill tree how they will affect carriers planes etc.

3:30 Japanese deep water torpedo bombers.

12:17 Rocket bombers/fighters
16:49 Armor piercing dive bombers
 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


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

I only watched the first part of your video - a  TB squadron flying around scouting & attacking a bit . Going down to just 2 planes while your CV is barely moving on auto-pilot?

 This is WoWP squadron play for WoWS while ship AA shoots down the planes.

This is NOT CV squadrons being choreographed like how CVs actually had to manage their planes.

This rework is a complete joke - a real bad joke.

This is just CV play for 'Simpletons'.

See many dedicated CV players rush for the Exit of this Burning Cinema Building.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
51 posts
11,634 battles

@antean Firstly I'd like to thank you for your opinions. They matter! This is indeed early beta testing and I would at this stage agree it's overly simplified. I would assume that a lot of major balancing work will occur throughout the whole testing process and at the moment it is quite easy to pick up and play. I greatly appreciate it when anyone responds as it helps me build a better picture of where we as a community think of what kind of place the cvs are currently at. All this feedback will help form my responses to wargaming throughout this beta testing process to hopefully make it consistently better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
2,233 posts
6,522 battles

The whole game is simple. RTS CV is simple as well. Clicking many squads around doesn't add much of complexity. Complexity is a combination of multiple properties and adding multiple squads are not multiple proterties. It's the same propertie. The micromanagement of multiple squads adds difficulty. You don't have that with the rework, instead you have to aim more and it's more about to control that single squad properly

 

I watched the video almost completly, can't really criticize much. Adding music is a method to skip waiting times, but I guess I would prefer talking while that for at least that short times. But that's only personal preference

  • Bad 1

Share this post


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

@Adm_Ballsey (great name btw) I applaud your video effort. I do not mean to be totally negative (in my earlier comment), however, this rework is going to cause many more problems than it solves. CV play has been established for years now. One does not throw the baby out with the bath water and  this rework appears to do just that.  WG has had these years to 'fine tune' current CV play which , imho, is decent enough 'now'. Look, also, at the numerous 'fine tuning' on all the other classes, be it DDs, CLs/CAs & BBs. Everyone has complained about all classes at one time or another. The  WG Buff or Nerf Bats have been wielded numerous times (as each case was dealt with). There has been many minor changes.

What about the CV Cpt skills that will need to be altered?

What about DD/CL/CA or BB Cpt skills that may need alterations due to the CV rework?

 Is WG planning on offering free Cpt Skill resets everywhere necessary?

What about the Signal Flags? Any alterations required there?

 What about AA? If the CV planes are so radically altered, what about a radical alteration of AA parameters?

 What other 'can of worms' will this rework open up?

This rework is, unfortunately, a major change and, imho, not one for the better. What is the real reason for the change? It does not appear to be for 'balance'. It appears to be a blatant alteration to accommodate the console device playing crowd. This is not my idea - this is prompted by other chat/forum commentators. I'm just pointing out that the current CV player crowd will not likely stay in WoWS (or if they do they won't be playing CVs).

In NA (my main account) I ground out & worked to both T9 CVs. I have the GZ (always w the original loadout, btw). I have five other CVs for a total of eight. I will likely play WoWS even if WG institutes this rework, however, I will just drydock/moth ball my CVs until WG returns their play to what it currently is.

I can play my DDs, CLs/CAs & BBs instead. I will do everything I can to encourage all players to sink all CVs (of the new type) whenever seen in battle so that these reworked CVs will get whined about continually. Then, maybe, WG & the current anti-CV whiners will get the message.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
600 posts
451 battles
5 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

RTS CV is simple as well

If the current CV play is 'simple' (as you put it) what is the new rework CV play to be considered? 'Imbecilic' play?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

Additional comments, Adm_Ballsey;

2:20 I could not read the Cpt changes - illustration was too tiny

3:30 Ijn deep water TBs - OK, a new/revised ability - how well is this going to work by removing Ijn TB planes ability to torp DDs? Is this even historical? (just wreak Japan some more)

12:17 Rocket bombers/fighters - Correct me if I am wrong here but weren't 'rockets' as a plane armament a late WW2 development? Hence, a high tier weapon. Is WG forcing high tier CV play here? (sure looks like it)

16:49 Armour piercing dive bombers - Another question about later WW2.  AP bombs for Armoured  CV Flight Decks. Again, a later WW2 development. Is WG, again, forcing players to high tier CV play? (sure looks like it)

 It's good you show these features, Adm Ballsey, if only to illustrate just how 'farcial' some of this appears to be (actually is).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEOND]
[LEOND]
Alpha Tester
1,191 posts
4,885 battles
30 minutes ago, antean said:

12:17 Rocket bombers/fighters - Correct me if I am wrong here but weren't 'rockets' as a plane armament a late WW2 development? Hence, a high tier weapon. Is WG forcing high tier CV play here? (sure looks like it)

air-to-surface missile were developed pre-WW2

eg the Soviet RS-82 was developed in 1929 and officially entered service in 1937.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
2,233 posts
6,522 battles
1 minute ago, antean said:

If the current CV play is 'simple' (as you put it) what is the new rework CV play to be considered? 'Imbecilic' play?

For me it's simple as well, it's just a different gameplay.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
2,233 posts
6,522 battles
15 minutes ago, kodos said:

air-to-surface missile were developed pre-WW2

eg the Soviet RS-82 was developed in 1929 and officially entered service in 1937.

Even if it would be late WW2, we got ships post-WW2, no issue here

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
51 posts
11,634 battles

If wargaming spent as much time addressing the shortcomings in the matchmaking balancing as they did in all these proposed changes I suspect this would become a far superior game. I've been playing for 3 years now and my own personal experience is seeing the vast majority of games is one decent cv player matched against a poor one repeatedly, which leads to the poor one being overwhelmed quickly and then it becoming a seal clubbing exercise for the other poor 11 souls on that team who will suffer the consequences for their poor cvs inadequacies. However on the very odd occasion where u get cv captains of similar skills it leads to more closer contests which is far more engaging for all 24 players involved in that match. Wargaming will only address the poor matchmaking issues only when the community comes together and demands it.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
51 posts
11,634 battles
55 minutes ago, antean said:

Additional comments, Adm_Ballsey;

2:20 I could not read the Cpt changes - illustration was too tiny

3:30 Ijn deep water TBs - OK, a new/revised ability - how well is this going to work by removing Ijn TB planes ability to torp DDs? Is this even historical? (just wreak Japan some more)

12:17 Rocket bombers/fighters - Correct me if I am wrong here but weren't 'rockets' as a plane armament a late WW2 development? Hence, a high tier weapon. Is WG forcing high tier CV play here? (sure looks like it)

16:49 Armour piercing dive bombers - Another question about later WW2.  AP bombs for Armoured  CV Flight Decks. Again, a later WW2 development. Is WG, again, forcing players to high tier CV play? (sure looks like it)

 It's good you show these features, Adm Ballsey, if only to illustrate just how 'farcial' some of this appears to be (actually is).

 

please use fullscreen video to view captain changes, its recorded in 1080p so just enlarge to read. I didn't want waste a ton of time reading proposed skills that I couldn't even test yet.
from the testing so far when playing IJN cvs one can only counter enemy dds effectively with rocket squadrons. I'd like to see IJN cvs given the choice of using deep water or normal torps maybe.

as for the AP bombs they felt way too strong but its beta testing so its all up for grabs still. I do hope and still believe wargaming will listen to the community here and heed their fears and advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
2,233 posts
6,522 battles
26 minutes ago, Adm_Ballsey said:

If wargaming spent as much time addressing the shortcomings in the matchmaking balancing as they did in all these proposed changes I suspect this would become a far superior game. I've been playing for 3 years now and my own personal experience is seeing the vast majority of games is one decent cv player matched against a poor one repeatedly, which leads to the poor one being overwhelmed quickly and then it becoming a seal clubbing exercise for the other poor 11 souls on that team who will suffer the consequences for their poor cvs inadequacies. However on the very odd occasion where u get cv captains of similar skills it leads to more closer contests which is far more engaging for all 24 players involved in that match. Wargaming will only address the poor matchmaking issues only when the community comes together and demands it.

The issue here is, you can't match by skill in a 12vs12 game, especially when there is low/medium playerbase.

21 minutes ago, Adm_Ballsey said:

please use fullscreen video to view captain changes, its recorded in 1080p so just enlarge to read. I didn't want waste a ton of time reading proposed skills that I couldn't even test yet.
from the testing so far when playing IJN cvs one can only counter enemy dds effectively with rocket squadrons. I'd like to see IJN cvs given the choice of using deep water or normal torps maybe.

as for the AP bombs they felt way too strong but its beta testing so its all up for grabs still. I do hope and still believe wargaming will listen to the community here and heed their fears and advice.

The AP bombs for T6 felt a bit weak in my opinion, the Hakuryu bombs were nice, but not sure, if they 're too strong. Cruiser were able to dodge them quite effectivly and rarely hits the citadell, bbs get of course more damage. But peopel are often complaining about op bbs or bb meta, maybe it ends here :D

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
600 posts
451 battles
3 hours ago, Adm_Ballsey said:

then it becoming a seal clubbing exercise for the other poor 11 souls on that team who will suffer the consequences for their poor cvs inadequacies

What utter crap, Ballsey, as if just one CV is so OP that it can 'dominate' 11 other 'poor souls', as you put it. What a complete nonsensical anti-CV rant. You show your true bias.

Fact is, it's as easy for one good DD, CL/CA or BB player to do exactly the same. How convenient you ignore these other three classes of ship.

Fact is  (depending on the relative abilities of the two teams) it takes from 3 - 5 (or more) good or decent players working as a 'TEAM' to dominate any battle.

One or just two players? In your dreams (tho 2 might pull it off)

The % of battles decided by just one player (no matter the class of ship) is abysmally small & you and any player with any intelligence will know & acknowledge this fact.

* The real one or two players who affect battles are those idiots who run out & die early. That fact, I can believe.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRON7]
Players
600 posts
451 battles
3 hours ago, kodos said:

air-to-surface missile were developed pre-WW2

eg the Soviet RS-82 was developed in 1929 and officially entered service in 1937.

OK & how effective were those?

I don't recall seeing many films of air to ground rockets from 1937 - 1943.

I see or have seen late war (44 & 45) films of airplane mounted rockets - you know when the technology was good enough to actually be effective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
2,233 posts
6,522 battles
1 hour ago, antean said:

OK & how effective were those?

I don't recall seeing many films of air to ground rockets from 1937 - 1943.

I see or have seen late war (44 & 45) films of airplane mounted rockets - you know when the technology was good enough to actually be effective. 

We got ships, they were never built. We got ships, that were built 1953, but rockets used in world war 2 (1944-1945) are an issue? :fish_palm:

Also low tier doesn't mean, they never existed in late war. Many "low tier" ships existed until the end

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEOND]
[LEOND]
Alpha Tester
1,191 posts
4,885 battles
1 hour ago, antean said:

I don't recall seeing many films of air to ground rockets from 1937 - 1943.

I don't recall many films that have historical accurate warfare and most of them are US focused

they did not had those before 1943 and it was not an effective weapon until December 1944 

 

the early Soviet ones were ineffektive against German armour and tanks but proved themselves fired in bulks at larger targets

 

the Royal Air Force started using their version of aircraft rockets in 1942 effective against German medium tanks and successful as Anti Submarine weapon.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
[GURKA]
Players
2,233 posts
6,522 battles
1 hour ago, kodos said:

I don't recall many films that have historical accurate warfare and most of them are US focused

they did not had those before 1943 and it was not an effective weapon until December 1944 

 

the early Soviet ones were ineffektive against German armour and tanks but proved themselves fired in bulks at larger targets

 

the Royal Air Force started using their version of aircraft rockets in 1942 effective against German medium tanks and successful as Anti Submarine weapon.

You say ineffective against (german) armor - some people say the rockets of the attack planes do no damage - so it's accurate? :cap_haloween:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEOND]
[LEOND]
Alpha Tester
1,191 posts
4,885 battles

First Soviet models were to inaccurate to hit small moving targets, while British models were not able to penetrate German Heavy Tanks

US rockets did not carry explosives at first as they thought it would not be needed against submarines/ships

 

From what I have seen on the testserver the weapons behaved as expected from what I read about them

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


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

Rockets could be an option only on high tier planes/late war commissioned CVs when they were more 'effective'.

Every other proposed change for the CV rework is a total FARCE.

I've played a reworked CV & it is a JOKE.

Talk about dumbing down CV play so even 5 second attention span imbeciles might play them.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×