Jump to content
You need to play a total of 1 battles to post in this section.
The_EURL_Guy

[UPD 11/2] Update 0.8.0.2 Hotfix

361 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
8 posts
7,590 battles

I think it is too early for any correct changes to be applied....it seems that dd whining is the case for the rush....

  • Cool 8
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 16
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHW]
Players
902 posts
2,537 battles

ehm .. that 404 error is what we shall expect from the hotfix ? because that's about what we got in the last update ....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
118 posts
1,656 battles

Yeah, all nerfs to CV. Whilst OP Worchester still go no nerfs. Even though they can eat a whole squadron of planes easily whilst the CV captain has dodge all black smoke clouds perfectly. How about bringing those down quite a bit as well?

 

  • Cool 13
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MBK]
Players
26 posts
12,704 battles

WOWs is a dead man walking. Dear WG employees, don't you realise you are on your way to destroy this game?!?

What are these constant buffs and nerfs on a weekly basis?!? Do you read the forums at all? Many players refuse to play your game anymore and unistall it.

You are digging your own digital grave, this is for sure.

I am one of your loyal players with more than 9 k games and over 700 days of premiun account but you really started to disappoint me...

  • Cool 17
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORPZ]
Players
122 posts
4,333 battles

I as a DD main felt very vulnerable when rework came yes, it's hard for DD to play with rework but it's not as hard as before of being constantly spotted by an fighter  now we can hide using a Smoke and CV circling us eventually get tired and go after Battleships or Cruisers while we can proceed to do our DD things  so it's only hard for DD on start of each match unless an CV is determined to sink you. Honestly I had no problem with this rework I kind of liked the CV gameplay even though I'm a big fan of RTS CV too (RTS is my favorite genre.) . Even after Rework CV isn't easy for players it's hard constant burst flake damage (Black smoke.) is harder to dodge for 90% of players and lose  their squadron even pro players will lose their planes most of the time.  

 

There can be a balance without altering the initial rework much

 

 my suggestions are as follows:

 

Smoke:Give more Smoke charges to Destroyers  (They use least 1-2 smokes to escape early game from CV.) maybe an extra of 2 charges more then what they have.

And as for BB/Cruisers their AA kind of handles the CV's attacks so no chances should be applied to them unless some of specific ships with very low AA has trouble.

 

Good luck and Fare seas Captains. :3

47395440_2912761602083493_862137018778386432_n.jpg

  • Cool 2
  • Angry 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
25 posts
7,549 battles

Thank you for the fixes!

 

Although there is little indication of - and I quote - "Overall Attack Planes vs. Destroyers balancing" ? Yes your advice is great, but how often you can't do anything against it (for example when you're playing the objective aka taking a capture point)? It's obvious there is a DD and CV can go there and spot you in seconds...

 

Not to mention that you can't really do a whole lot against planes coming at you over 200 knots... Even when AA turned off, your detection is about 3,5 - 4 km which is more than enough for a CV to guess and narrow down your location. Then CV strike you with 4-5 k rocketdamage easily while knocking out modules and starting fires. Then repeat... (not to mention you're being spotted so the whole enemy team will focus you)

 

It needs balancing WG, serious balancing... (although I still maintain that the general direction is good in my opinion). Can we expect anything meaningful changes on this matter other than reduced planes? (tho it is a good first step)

 

You hinted altered spotting mechanism for CV-s, I think that would be a splendid start.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 7
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
82 posts
5,207 battles

This does not fix the biggest issue hire!! The biggest issue is still that everything is based on RNG, no matter what u do to the numbers something will be OP, something underpowered and there will always be angry people!!!!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,508 posts
11,466 battles
Quote

Significant changes have affected the alternative plane torpedo module for flag_Japan.pngnormal.pngX Hakuryu. The attack run preparation is now longer, and more difficult - the parameters of the aiming were changed and the angles of the torpedo spread were increased even when aiming is at its most accurate. In addition, the speed of aircraft when returning to the aircraft carrier is reduced and the delay before the start of a new attack is increased. We have significantly changed the characteristics of torpedoes: reduced speed, increased detection radius and arming time.

WG. Are you NUTS?

The problems with this loadout was: bad for actual aimed attacks at specific targets. Good for making a torpedo soup. So, what is being nerfed?

 - worse spread at maximum aim (irrelevant for torpsoup, bad for targeted attacks)

 - torps are slower (not much of a difference for torpsoup, extremely bad for targeted attacks)

 - worse arming time (irrelevant for torpsoup, removes the not-so-long-range option for targeted attacks)

 - increased detection radius (worse for both torpsoup and targeted strikes)

 - slower return (worse for both torpsoup and targeted strikes)

 

These changes make the tactic that should be eliminated (that should've been the very point of messing with this set-up!) into the only tactic viable for this loadout! What the hell!?

 

@MrConway, @Sub_Octavian, these changes as described actually make it harder for anyone wishing to use the loadout normally and basically push anybody willing to take this loadout into the one way of using it that is the real problem for the game!

 

Also, the F-fix seems like it fixes nothing. If anything, now it becomes more advantageous to hit "F" right away because when you notice the health of your planes dropping, it'll be too late. Instead of preventing the use of the F-key for immediate escape, you're punishing people who hesitate to use it, since you need the planes in better shape to be able to escape. Especially if you get into flak-capable aura and the escaping planes find themselves caught in it. This "fix" will most likely see increase in F-abuse, not decrease. Why couldn't the issue be handled by postponed effect (pressing F starts timer, planes blast off only after a couple extra seconds) so that the player would retain control and be able to still make the most of the planes' maneuverability and remaining speedboost to minimize the damage taken in the pre-disengagement period?

 

Also, technical question: do automatically returning planes (the strike detachment after attack) suffer from this penalty as well, making it more likely for planes to deliver an attack and then fail to return, dying outside of player's control?

  • Cool 10
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TWS]
[TWS]
Beta Tester
17 posts
5,877 battles

Well done for killing WOWS like you did with WOT....

 

 

3 CV's a side is crazy, 2 was enough unless you increase it to 15 ships a side. All CV's are OP and easier than ever to use and get kills with now.

 

 

*sigh*

  • Cool 11
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7 posts
11,592 battles

Do you really think they give a crap about our feedback. It’s like with the old Soviet 5 year plans everyone knew that they were rubbish but...... .

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BRIT6]
Beta Tester
13 posts
5,498 battles

I see nothing was said about overlapping AA ranges either...they still don't get it..smdh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,716 posts
4,167 battles

numbers. Give us numbers, precise changes, details.

 

This change log tells us nothing useful...

  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WAFU]
Weekend Tester
185 posts
1,272 battles

how about just take away the whole invulnerability mechanic all together that fix things up with the F key abuse.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-NYX-]
Players
135 posts
4,875 battles

I just dislike the fact that torpedo can be dropped through mountains....
So if you are behind a rock... torpedo will pop-up underneath it.... and hit / hurt or kill you

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LAWS]
Beta Tester
233 posts
7,838 battles
2 hours ago, eliastion said:

WG. Are you NUTS?

The problems with this loadout was: bad for actual aimed attacks at specific targets. Good for making a torpedo soup. So, what is being nerfed?

 - worse spread at maximum aim (irrelevant for torpsoup, bad for targeted attacks)

 - torps are slower (not much of a difference for torpsoup, extremely bad for targeted attacks)

 - worse arming time (irrelevant for torpsoup, removes the not-so-long-range option for targeted attacks)

 - increased detection radius (worse for both torpsoup and targeted strikes)

 - slower return (worse for both torpsoup and targeted strikes)

 

These changes make the tactic that should be eliminated (that should've been the very point of messing with this set-up!) into the only tactic viable for this loadout! What the hell!?

 

@MrConway, @Sub_Octavian, these changes as described actually make it harder for anyone wishing to use the loadout normally and basically push anybody willing to take this loadout into the one way of using it that is the real problem for the game!

 

Also, the F-fix seems like it fixes nothing. If anything, now it becomes more advantageous to hit "F" right away because when you notice the health of your planes dropping, it'll be too late. Instead of preventing the use of the F-key for immediate escape, you're punishing people who hesitate to use it, since you need the planes in better shape to be able to escape. Especially if you get into flak-capable aura and the escaping planes find themselves caught in it. This "fix" will most likely see increase in F-abuse, not decrease. Why couldn't the issue be handled by postponed effect (pressing F starts timer, planes blast off only after a couple extra seconds) so that the player would retain control and be able to still make the most of the planes' maneuverability and remaining speedboost to minimize the damage taken in the pre-disengagement period?

 

Also, technical question: do automatically returning planes (the strike detachment after attack) suffer from this penalty as well, making it more likely for planes to deliver an attack and then fail to return, dying outside of player's control?

Try it out first, then judge :).

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TRRC]
Players
600 posts

The usual bloody Yankee attitude of WG... R I D I C O L O U S !!!!!!!

 

So they nerf my Shokaku, my torps planes, but they forget, of course, that a US Lexington when attacks with torps launch N° 3 (Three) torps, while the Jap launch only 2 torps at a time... May be it's not a problem of Shokaku, but it's a problem of faulty US CV players....!

I'm surprised? No at all.

 

You just need to check which ships are sailing almost safe since the introduction of this unfortunate CV rework: Which one? Sorry, can you repeat louder? Did you say US ones? Did you say UK ones? Did I hear well? Yes, those bloody yankees US/UK ships can sail almost safe with their AA ranging from70 to 90....

Have you ever tried to get close to a Minotaur? A Worcester? A Salem? A Conqueror? Just name it, its' not going to be any other nation than those two bloody ones!

 

So this release HOT FIX is just the kind, servile answer to the rant of US CV players.... good job! You ruined this game with this CV rework, now you ruining every player that do not play a bloody US/UK ships... ! Ah, ah, ah....

 

You should change the name of this game to: WORLD OF US/UK WARSHIPS or just US/UK WARSHIP WORLD

 

 

P.S

Am I wrong? Sorry I'm not!... read Developer Bulletin 8.1.... what's coming next?? Sorry what?..... ah, ah, ah... UK Carriers.... ah, ah, ah.....

Change the name of this game if you are a little honest! Txs WG!

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORSK]
Players
1 post
2,149 battles

i really enjoy the new carrier gameplay and i am looking forward to future updates! But i have a suggestion...

since there is sooo much hate around this new concept, why not make a "on/off" solution in the meny. toggle carriers ON if you want to play or face them in a match or toggle OFF if you do not want them in a match at all? 

 

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HEAT]
Players
26 posts
4,062 battles

USN CVs need massive buff, or IJN CVs need massive nerf. This is not balanced, not even close...

 

1651593780_Screenshot(1083).thumb.png.f418f5cc1a0bb2ffdd39c4f6b446ce86.png

 

Source

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,868 posts
8,719 battles
27 minutes ago, RedAnark said:

The usual bloody Yankee attitude of WG... R I D I C O L O U S !!!!!!!

 

So they nerf my Shokaku, my torps planes, but they forget, of course, that a US Lexington when attacks with torps launch N° 3 (Three) torps, while the Jap launch only 2 torps at a time... May be it's not a problem of Shokaku, but it's a problem of faulty US CV players....!

I'm surprised? No at all.

Thank god you haven't checked speed, range and damage US aerial duds have, as well speed and concealment of USN TB:cap_tea:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
10 posts

Thx for the information on AA was interesting, was this available before patch ?

I don't remember any videos having any in depth information help inform players.  Tbh the pre patch Info was sales pitch made to avoid obvious problems just my view?

Anyway I'm going load my shima with Accelerated Torpedo Tube Reload and sail in shadow of BBs and launch torps at max range.

No amount of AA tinkering going make any difference to Shima.

However this will be tedious and will soon remind me why I'm having break from game since patch and am actually doing something more constructive.  Be back when Alaska is here so 6 months perhaps or not?

Good flak dodging and excessive manoevers to all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-CC-]
Players
11 posts
9,581 battles
Quote

To reduce the attacking and spotting potential of Attack Aircraft against destroyers in high-tier battles, the number of aircraft in the squadron was changed to 9, and in the attack group to 3.

This will just nerf dmg ,but not solve problem with spotting. Few sec visibility less won't save dds that much. Just make so planes will spot for CV player only and problem solved. He/She still can communicate to his team dd's position but it won't be a death sentence like it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[U-35]
Beta Tester
44 posts
6,169 battles
6 hours ago, The_EURL_Guy said:

We're already making changes based on your feedback. Read about the changes coming in 0.8.0.1.


Read it on the portal

Very odd hotfix, instead of fixing CV AA issue against surface ships, you are actually nerfing CV's in general to improve DD's performance, bad move....

  • Cool 10
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×