Aircraft Carrier Beta Round 3 - Feedback Thread

[1MajorKoenig]

Did everyone get the questionnaire this time?

 

I didn’t receive one this round?

[aidenthedestroyer]

5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Did everyone get the questionnaire this time?

 

I didn’t receive one this round?

I only participated this round. As far as I know, I didn't receive one.

[gmomkey]

Has Anyone got their Thank You Flags and dubs delivered to their Live server acc ????? 

I did all the missions and still haven't received them on my Live acc.. But .. I did get them on the TST server ???? is this a bug ?? 

@MrConway     Please can you shed some light on this for me ...  

[Kuroyama]

2 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Did everyone get the questionnaire this time?

 

I didn’t receive one this round?

Yes, I got one.

 

 

@Wargaming

Let me try to be a bit more constructive about my complain about the Flak-Sektor-Selector-Menu and contribute to an effort to salvage at least as much as possible of the remaining gameplay.  As it seems the current day´s are the swansong for the carrier-gameplay for all who Need a bit more than simple run-and-gun, I would like to have at least adequate, and as comfortable to use as possible, Tools to defend myself against the cream of the crop of those who are happy with what carriers seem to be in the future.

The Sector-Selector as it was presentet in Test3 is very uncomfortable to use as it is. As the real reason for the rework seems to be that you want to make the game fit for console-play (which is the real death-sentence to RTS), the awkward System might stem from the fact that consoles have a lot less of keys available. So a System of: Keep button A pushed --> get menu --> hit crossbar left or right to select --> loose button A........... seems to be perfectly comfortable and fast on console ( I can´t really tell, as my total of console Play amounts to less than 4 hours over my current livespan of 36+ years), however it is not comfortable to use for on PC with hit button A, get menu, use mouse to click on left or right side of menu. I would estimate that that Needs at least 4times as much time than on console, and totaly throws your aim in that time..... which is kinda unfair to your established Player base who is currently solely using pc (and Laptop).

So please put at least enough effort and thought into it, to adress the somewhat (in future) different handling characteristics of the systems your Customers are using. The menu might do well for console, but for PC it would be much better to just use 2 dedicated keys.... a Standard PC Keyboard has no shortage of them.

 

A couple Points more:

     - From a non-cv perspective it feels unfair to have a lack of abillity to cripple an attack-run on your ship. Short of gunning down more than 2/3 of the entire

       squadron, there will be no loss in power of the first run, as a plane of the rest of the squadron fills in if an attacking one ist going down. For the second run

       you would still Need to shoot down more than half of the planes to cripple the attack.

 

     - I would apreciate it, if the skills of my carrier-captains are resett when the rework gets live and that I can retrain them on a ship of my choice for free.

       Quite frankly, as they are they will be useless for me, as future-carriers seem totally not my can of soup and it feels unfair to make me pay in Dubloons

       and/or copious amounts of time and Elite-XP to make them serviceable elsewhere.

 

 

As an afterthought.... let´s test what happens  when I write stupid.

Spoiler

I simply wrote the common opposite frase for the oppiste of intelligent again.

      

[antean]

4 hours ago, Kuroyama said:

I would apreciate it, if the skills of my carrier-captains are resett when the rework gets live and that I can retrain them on a ship of my choice for free. 

       Quite frankly, as they are they will be useless for me, as future-carriers seem totally not my can of soup and it feels unfair to make me pay in Dubloons

       and/or copious amounts of time and Elite-XP to make them serviceable elsewhere.

Moi, aussi. Me too. I will require a 'free respec' for all my present CV Cpts as I will refuse to play these reworked FARCE CVs.

I will need these 'respeced' Cpts for the DDs I plan on placing in my port so I can hunt & kill these reworked FARCE CVs.

 

[The_fighting_Temeraire]

Such a shame WG, as usual you have made things `nearly good`.  Yet you could have made it great...

[Toivia]

10 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Did everyone get the questionnaire this time?

 

I didn’t receive one this round?

I did get it. Then again one of the first questions was whether I participated in the test, so...

Not sure how they select who gets the questionnaire.

[Martaloc801124]

This new system is bad, stay at the curent one , nobody asked this rework.

We have WoWs when we wanted play with warplanes.

[Nexis_Finn]

Vor 13 Stunden, 1MajorKoenig sagte:

Did everyone get the questionnaire this time?

 

I didn’t receive one this round?

I got the questionnaire.

 

I can tell you what i did, then you can match it with what you did. And maybe you find a difference ergo reason why you might not get a questionnaire.

- It was my first time that i have participated a test-round.

- I have solved all "earning xp"-quests/tasks.

- I played mostly cruisers, only a few times battleships and destroyers. Never played cv (simply not my playstyle).

- I fully equipped every ship with: camouflages (even premium camouflages), signals, consumables, modules. AA-focused. 

- I skilled all my captains/commanders in AA-direction

 

In short: i played in this test round as would i play on live server, nothing less. With focus on Anti-Air.

 

Maybe someone will not get the questionaire if he just collects xp quickly without equipping the ships. Which would prove that he does not seriously testing, but just wants to quickly pick up the rewards. 

 

Btw: i still got not the 500 dubs credited for my live-account  If any Dev reads this, a feedback would be nice 

[1MajorKoenig]

35 minutes ago, _Nexis981_ said:

I got the questionnaire.

 

I can tell you what i did, then you can match it with what you did. And maybe you find a difference ergo reason why you might not get a questionnaire.

- It was my first time that i have participated a test-round.

- I have solved all "earning xp"-quests/tasks.

- I played mostly cruisers, only a few times battleships and destroyers. Never played cv (simply not my playstyle).

- I fully equipped every ship with: camouflages (even premium camouflages), signals, consumables, modules. AA-focused. 

- I skilled all my captains/commanders in AA-direction

 

In short: i played in this test round as would i play on live server, nothing less. With focus on Anti-Air.

 

Maybe someone will not get the questionaire if he just collects xp quickly without equipping the ships. Which would prove that he does not seriously testing, but just wants to quickly pick up the rewards. 

 

Btw: i still got not the 500 dubs credited for my live-account  If any Dev reads this, a feedback would be nice 

 

Cheers and thanks mate. Yes participated in all 3 rounds and got the questionnaire for round 1+2. Maybe WG knows by now what I am thinking :-)

[GravityTrash]

38 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

Cheers and thanks mate. Yes participated in all 3 rounds and got the questionnaire for round 1+2. Maybe WG knows by now what I am thinking :-)

I got mine after i took one battle on live but i guess that could be random

[antean]

5 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Maybe WG knows by now what I am thinking :-)

WG knows exactly what I am thinking :)

5 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

got the questionnaire

& answered same

[CMHQ_Maniak]

Did anyone recive flags and doublons on line server from the test?

[Koalanetze]

1 hour ago, CMHQ_Maniak said:

Did anyone recive flags and doublons on line server from the test?

I did get the questionnaire and filled it out, I also did all the required tasks and even more to ...yes... test the gameplay.

HOWEVER:

I DID NOT GET ANY doubloons or flags credited on my life server account.

I asked the support but they just said that it will take several days. Not that it hurt, but WHY does it take several days?

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, Koalanetze said:

I did get the questionnaire and filled it out, I also did all the required tasks and even more to ...yes... test the gameplay.

HOWEVER:

I DID NOT GET ANY doubloons or flags credited on my life server account.

I asked the support but they just said that it will take several days. Not that it hurt, but WHY does it take several days?

 

...manual processes...?

 

@MrConway is it correct that not all testers get to fill out the questionnaire? It feels a little odd to do testing and don’t leave any feedback unless it is purely to collect numbers. But how good are these if you fight against 10 bots?

[Koalanetze]

On 12/2/2018 at 10:46 AM, gmomkey said:

Has Anyone got their Thank You Flags and dubs delivered to their Live server acc ????? 

I did all the missions and still haven't received them on my Live acc.. But .. I did get them on the TST server ???? is this a bug ?? 

@MrConway     Please can you shed some light on this for me ...  

SAME HERE! The doubloons and flags were credited to the TST server and not to my live server account. I noticed that during testing and thought the goodies will show up on my life account later as well.

[Koalanetze]

1 hour ago, CMHQ_Maniak said:

Did anyone recive flags and doublons on line server from the test?

No...still waiting. But it was credited to my TST server account. I think that is a bug.

[Koalanetze]

Even though I did not get the promised credits on my life server account...:

I think the testing was fun to play and the attack mechanics look and feel pretty good.

However, I can not see myself enjoying CV play in this mode as it is

- very repetitive

- has minor strategic  influence on the ongoing battle

- the air support feature (called in fighters) is too limited

- the actual ship control is very awkward (no back and forth switch between planes and ship)

 

A mix between the old style and the new style might be much better:

1. positioning and general moving of the various squadrons using the tactical map

2. Actual attack should then be done by the new mechanic

3. Plane management etc. as before

4. Limited plane number

5. Fighters/air support for team mates might be handled as larger areas that can be positioned on the tactical map.

6. Fighters should have limited air time so that perma spotting is also limited.

 

I do not know if all this is technically possible and better as the current or planned CV game play. It is just a suggestion.

[TinCanTub]

Hey all, I've had some thoughts since round one of the carrier rework and I wanted to share them in case they'd be useful and, hopefully, constructive:

 

1: Squadron Commanders (Multiple Carrier players on one Carrier)

So if WG is trying to invert/streamline CV gameplay so it's less RTS and more like the BB/DD/CA gameplay, maybe WG should entertain the idea of having multiple CV players taking off from a home carrier.  Primarily to retain the current sort of air attacks and tactics that everyone is familiar with, whilst adopting the new first/third person view and control for squadrons.  Could also open the door to a whole bunch of avenues to explore, which I think everyone can extrapolate on given the concept image i've worked up below:

 

2. Altitude as a new game mechanic

So kinda like how shot ballistics and armor arrangement is definitive for WOW BB/CA/DD gameplay, and the experimenting of Submarines with depth, why not apply the same for naval aircraft tactics and introduce Altitude to World of Warships:

 

Right now, the Carrier rework has it that the Rocket, Torpedo and Dive Bomber squadrons directly relate to attacking DD, BB and CAs respectively, which makes sense in a way because they're trying to rework carrier gameplay from a warships point of view, rather than a War Thunder or World of Warplanes sort of way, and I get that but I think this is a bit too contrived to be honest.   If you're going to rework Carrier naval combat then why not give it the same level or depth like with torpedoes, naval gunnery and armour physics and all - by that same extention shouldn't that be Altitude?

 

Aircraft at a higher altitude would have limited visibility of the battle and map below cloud level but would be out of AA flak range until they mount their attack, fighters at a higher altitude would have a diving advantage over aircraft at an altitude below, but once they've dived they themselves would be open to attack at a lower altitude, or won't be able to intercept bombers that are now above them (like what happened to the Japanese at Midway)

Dive bombers would have to pick an altitude to attack a ship below from, but then conversely the ship below can fire their AA Flak suppression barrage  with manual secondary fire control at a certain altitude the player thinks is best.

 

And torpedo bomber squadrons can pretty much fly in a similar fashion to DD players, but bob and weave at altitudes in order to mount a successful attack run in order to put up as solid a torpedo wall it can mount, whilst the defending Ship driver fires its secondary battery at the Torp squadron (again in a similar fashion like how a BB defends from a DD) in order to cut down or disrupt the Torpedo squadron's run.   Or hell if a Fighter CAP had been established over the defending ship, that CAP might automatically dive down and destroy that torpedo squadron, but by bringing the CAP down to sea level, an SBD squadron above would have a window of attack open to dive whist the CAP tries to recover slowly to a higher altitude again:

[antean]

TinCanTub,

Re: #1 ROFL! Do you really think more than one player flying planes from one CV would be a good idea? Knock, knock (on head), "Hello!"

Re: #2 You spent a lot of time suggesting yet more WoWP like plane complexity. Kudos for that (I guess) Again, knock, knock (on head), "Hello!"

[antean]

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

how good are these if you fight against 10 bots?

All battles in TST I saw had, at least, four human players, two of which were CV players so I don't think there were 10 Bots unless population might have been low.

A very good point tho - just how good is the TST data when 2/3rds of the team are co-op like Bots.

Does the TST data even matter?

It is clear that once WG decides to rework CVs and they have committed money & resources, this TST is just window dressing.

WG Management has decided to shove this FARCE CV rework into WoWS  just to try to pull in additional money & players.

I like WoWS CV play as it presently is. It is challenging to play unlike the proposed CV rework.

Remember, any ship class (or specific ship) can be considered OP - the counter that is always available is to get better in that specific ship yourself.

 

[1MajorKoenig]

30 minutes ago, antean said:

All battles in TST I saw had, at least, four human players, two of which were CV players so I don't think there were 10 Bots unless population might have been low.

A very good point tho - just how good is the TST data when 2/3rds of the team are co-op like Bots.

Does the TST data even matter?

It is clear that once WG decides to rework CVs and they have committed money & resources, this TST is just window dressing.

WG Management has decided to shove this FARCE CV rework into WoWS  just to try to pull in additional money & players.

I like WoWS CV play as it presently is. It is challenging to play unlike the proposed CV rework.

Remember, any ship class (or specific ship) can be considered OP - the counter that is always available is to get better in that specific ship yourself.

 

 

Dude (Dudette?) - we get you don’t like the rework. But you are missing the point. The problem isn’t that the current CV gameplay is too challenging. It is too unattractive, too bad executed and creates literally zero immersion. Hence player just don’t play it apart from some very few who don’t mind a weak version of Starcraft. Much rather than whining about every single post here - and I don’t think WG is going to scrap the rework just because you personally don’t like it - you could give some constructive feedback. But that is of course up to you. 

[Koalanetze]

14 hours ago, TinCanTub said:

Hey all, I've had some thoughts since round one of the carrier rework and I wanted to share them in case they'd be useful and, hopefully, constructive:

 

1: Squadron Commanders (Multiple Carrier players on one Carrier)

So if WG is trying to invert/streamline CV gameplay so it's less RTS and more like the BB/DD/CA gameplay, maybe WG should entertain the idea of having multiple CV players taking off from a home carrier.  Primarily to retain the current sort of air attacks and tactics that everyone is familiar with, whilst adopting the new first/third person view and control for squadrons.  Could also open the door to a whole bunch of avenues to explore, which I think everyone can extrapolate on given the concept image i've worked up below:

 

2. Altitude as a new game mechanic

So kinda like how shot ballistics and armor arrangement is definitive for WOW BB/CA/DD gameplay, and the experimenting of Submarines with depth, why not apply the same for naval aircraft tactics and introduce Altitude to World of Warships:

 

Right now, the Carrier rework has it that the Rocket, Torpedo and Dive Bomber squadrons directly relate to attacking DD, BB and CAs respectively, which makes sense in a way because they're trying to rework carrier gameplay from a warships point of view, rather than a War Thunder or World of Warplanes sort of way, and I get that but I think this is a bit too contrived to be honest.   If you're going to rework Carrier naval combat then why not give it the same level or depth like with torpedoes, naval gunnery and armour physics and all - by that same extention shouldn't that be Altitude?

 

Aircraft at a higher altitude would have limited visibility of the battle and map below cloud level but would be out of AA flak range until they mount their attack, fighters at a higher altitude would have a diving advantage over aircraft at an altitude below, but once they've dived they themselves would be open to attack at a lower altitude, or won't be able to intercept bombers that are now above them (like what happened to the Japanese at Midway)

Dive bombers would have to pick an altitude to attack a ship below from, but then conversely the ship below can fire their AA Flak suppression barrage  with manual secondary fire control at a certain altitude the player thinks is best.

 

And torpedo bomber squadrons can pretty much fly in a similar fashion to DD players, but bob and weave at altitudes in order to mount a successful attack run in order to put up as solid a torpedo wall it can mount, whilst the defending Ship driver fires its secondary battery at the Torp squadron (again in a similar fashion like how a BB defends from a DD) in order to cut down or disrupt the Torpedo squadron's run.   Or hell if a Fighter CAP had been established over the defending ship, that CAP might automatically dive down and destroy that torpedo squadron, but by bringing the CAP down to sea level, an SBD squadron above would have a window of attack open to dive whist the CAP tries to recover slowly to a higher altitude again:

Now, I find part of his concepts very interesting. In consequence one could also completely remove the CV ship itself and replace the "CV commander" by a "squadron commander". So it would be a pure plane game play instead of a ship gameplay. Interesting but I do not know if and how this would find acceptance by the dev. and the gamers.  Nevertheless, this be a much more consequent development for the CV rework than the current version. Now you have this plane gameplay (ok but half hearted) with a rudimental ship gameplay (only temporary control of the CV itself).

DEVELOPERS: You realized a good looking plane attack mechanics. Different weapons for different classes. No hard alfa-strike potential etc. BUT: The CV ship control is ridiculous and tactical impact is basically removed.

I think that everybody want to have planes involved. Now these planes should do:

1. Attack (you got this right)

2. Scout (no longer there and this was the other main feature of the old CV gameplay)

3. Defend/protect from enemy plane attacks (this was good in the old version but is not good in new version, including the latest one)

 

So, you got 1st point right. Now you need to come up with a attractive solution of points 2 and 3.

I think that the suggestions from TunCanTub have several nice aspects for those...

 

 

[Kuroyama]

17 hours ago, TinCanTub said:

 

Now, THIS looks rather amazing..... at least animation wise. Flipping the sqad over left or right wing, plane for plane, that is worlds better than that weard pulling up till the planes stall to beginn the dive. And it seems not to have that strange perspective somewhere in between first person and 3rd person like in the test.

Is this taken from another game? Or where ist the screen from?

Aiming like this however would be too easy on the one side.... on the other side, it would be a kind of aiming more konsistant with the rest of the game. Might work if you have to position the squad sideways of the target, that could kinda throw the aim. Like setting the drop circle oval not straight but under 45°, then the perfect attack would be under 45° from behind... with shipmovement and squadmovement that would be quite interresting to aim.

 

About altitude and multiple players and the other suggested mechanics..... not so much. Pls not.

[TinCanTub]

1 hour ago, Kuroyama said:

 

Now, THIS looks rather amazing..... at least animation wise. Flipping the sqad over left or right wing, plane for plane, that is worlds better than that weard pulling up till the planes stall to beginn the dive. And it seems not to have that strange perspective somewhere in between first person and 3rd person like in the test.

Is this taken from another game? Or where ist the screen from?

Aiming like this however would be too easy on the one side.... on the other side, it would be a kind of aiming more konsistant with the rest of the game. Might work if you have to position the squad sideways of the target, that could kinda throw the aim. Like setting the drop circle oval not straight but under 45°, then the perfect attack would be under 45° from behind... with shipmovement and squadmovement that would be quite interresting to aim.

 

About altitude and multiple players and the other suggested mechanics..... not so much. Pls not.

Heh, thanks man, naw I just took screengrabs and then just photoshopped this for concept arting purposes.

But yeah, like one of the great things that grabbed us when WOW first came out was the fact that you had really realistic looking ships and environment, looking jaw droppingly awesome AND coming to life in seemingly realistic action.

So if they were trying to do that to CV play, then realistically, shouldn't the Dive Bombers and Avengers and Swordfishes and Stukas fly in realistic formations, and feel like they're flying in realistic way, climbing and diving at altitudes in manners that reflect actual naval aviation combat ways?

 

How the CV rework has been going is definitely much more visceral than having to play RTS style from the overall map, but yeah.. to me it still feels really 'Game-y' like you've been saying.   I just want it to look and feel just as good as BB, CA and DD play really.