New CVs

[Allan_Ashcroft]

So this update is the big no, and i dont trust you to fix it, you never fixed anything rly, not the Conqueror HE, not the radar (you made it worse) nor the HE spam meta.

i guess you just can´t

 

Im sorry im not playing the game i enjoyed so much over the last years anymore i used to like you, but you changed...

[BdW_Marecc]

Playing Kaga is an incredibly frustrating and unrewarding experience. My highest damage battle uptiered against Tier X (which is pretty much the norm for any tier 8, sadly) netted me 15000 damage. That is less than 1/3 of the Kaga's own HP.

A "good" game against Tier 6 (in the rare occasions of being top tier) resulted in 45000 hp damage - still a lot less than Kaga's own 54000 hp. The airplanes are just way too squishy. Entire squdrons just vaporize on the approach to the target. My sugestion: increase the tier of the aircraft, increase the damage of the each aircraft, reduce the number of aircraft in each attack wave by one, keep the number of aircraft in the squadrons and on the deck the same.

That way, the Kaga's gimmick of "huge squadrons" wold remain, you'd just need an additional attack run to get them all through, and hopefully you would get more aircraft through and do more damage while having to linger longer would give non-CVs a realistic chance at doing damage through flak and aura damage over time.

[El2aZeR]

I suggest increasing the penetration of AP bombs on the Enterprise but also make their fuses less sensitive. As it stands she can citadel pretty much all cruisers in her MM spread yet only very few BBs.

[this_means_war]

I find this patch worryingly ill-conceived on so many levels and for so many reasons. Firstly, it has been poorly tested and WG admits that the entire player base are now lab rats in what is essentially a fundamental remake of the game done on the fly, with perhaps a quarter of the players at all receptive to even the concept behind the rework, let alone the particulars of the half—baked experiment that was just unloosed upon us. 

 

A great deal of the carrier rework just seems inexplicable:

 

*Why were odd—tiered CVs removed?

 

*Who on earth thought that it could ever be balanced for CVs to have unlimited planes spawning? IChase has already posted a video showing that you can abuse this mechanic by simply teleporting your squadrons back to the CV the moment you make your first drop, launch your next squadron and rinse and repeat to launch full health squadrons through the entire game.

 

*Has anyone thought about the end game and how CVs are now able to mop up low health ships with impunity?

 

I find this deeply disturbing because CVs now become more massively OP the longer the game goes on. It is ruining the endgame and shows how fundamentally flawed the unlimited plane spawn mechanic is. 

 

Offensive air squadrons must be limited in number because the carrier itself is essentially invulnerable to attack and so obviously grows exponentially in power as the game goes on if it can spawn unlimited planes. The patch shows that the CV ship is nothing but a shell, an afterthought, and the real power are the planes, so how can anyone then justify unlimited planes???? It's madness. 

 

Everyone has complained about BB spawn camping, lemming trains and static T9/10 gameplay, all justified criticism of the game before the patch. But the patch has only made these problems worse as BBs and cruisers clump together and DDs become an endangered species, making gameplay even more static and simply not fun. 

 

CVs were always something I endured, part of the price you had to pay I guess you could say, and I was always relieved when there weren't any in a match. CVs are not ships but planes. And now they are unlimited. This is a game of ship battles and right now the planes are dominating it to the detriment of its own raison d'être. 

 

 

 

[Flaming_Bunny]

14 minutes ago, this_means_war said:

I find this patch worryingly ill-conceived on so many levels and for so many reasons. Firstly, it has been poorly tested and WG admits that the entire player base are now lab rats in what is essentially a fundamental remake of the game done on the fly, with perhaps a quarter of the players at all receptive to even the concept behind the rework, let alone the particulars of the half—baked experiment that was just unloosed upon us. 

 

A great deal of the carrier rework just seems inexplicable:

 

*Why were odd—tiered CVs removed?

 

*Who on earth thought that it could ever be balanced for CVs to have unlimited planes spawning? IChase has already posted a video showing that you can abuse this mechanic by simply teleporting your squadrons back to the CV the moment you make your first drop, launch your next squadron and rinse and repeat to launch full health squadrons through the entire game.

 

*Has anyone thought about the end game and how CVs are now able to mop up low health ships with impunity?

 

I find this deeply disturbing because CVs now become more massively OP the longer the game goes on. It is ruining the endgame and shows how fundamentally flawed the unlimited plane spawn mechanic is. 

 

Offensive air squadrons must be limited in number because the carrier itself is essentially invulnerable to attack and so obviously grows exponentially in power as the game goes on if it can spawn unlimited planes. The patch shows that the CV ship is nothing but a shell, an afterthought, and the real power are the planes, so how can anyone then justify unlimited planes???? It's madness. 

 

Everyone has complained about BB spawn camping, lemming trains and static T9/10 gameplay, all justified criticism of the game before the patch. But the patch has only made these problems worse as BBs and cruisers clump together and DDs become an endangered species, making gameplay even more static and simply not fun. 

 

CVs were always something I endured, part of the price you had to pay I guess you could say, and I was always relieved when there weren't any in a match. CVs are not ships but planes. And now they are unlimited. This is a game of ship battles and right now the planes are dominating it to the detriment of its own raison d'être. 

 

 

 

I can give you an answer to why the odd tier carriers were removed.
I may not agree with it but in the videos released by Wargaming, they explained that it was directly related to match making logic.

It was (According to wargaming) a lot easier to make match making work with less carrier tiers.

 

This may not be the only reason but it was the only reason explained so far.

I am guessing that it may be related to ranked being on an uneven tier too.

 

 

Best Regards

Me

[Capt_Nocebo]

Same issue as before. You make players gamble on AA build for carrier games on no AA build for if there is no carrier.
- Most AA spec ships + captains are near impossible targets for most CV.
-Most ships without AA build are way too easy targets to cabable CV players.

So you end up with chance that CV will dominate the game if there's no cabable AA on other team. Even just 2-3 ships without proper AA that are noob enough to go alone will punish the team greatly. CV can easily sink those ships by damaging and keeping them in spot. Then  after only 5 minutes the teams are suddenly 12 vs 9.
I'm not sure if this is so much a CV problem or noob players matched with everyone else. However you could just make "some" AA mandatory on every ships so no ship is a sitting duck when a squadron spots it. Ofc you could have done this already on the previous CV version. You could have just taken fighter planes out and given more even AA cababilities to ships.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 hours ago, BdW_Marecc said:

Playing Kaga is an incredibly frustrating and unrewarding experience. My highest damage battle uptiered against Tier X (which is pretty much the norm for any tier 8, sadly) netted me 15000 damage. That is less than 1/3 of the Kaga's own HP.

A "good" game against Tier 6 (in the rare occasions of being top tier) resulted in 45000 hp damage - still a lot less than Kaga's own 54000 hp. The airplanes are just way too squishy. Entire squdrons just vaporize on the approach to the target. My sugestion: increase the tier of the aircraft, increase the damage of the each aircraft, reduce the number of aircraft in each attack wave by one, keep the number of aircraft in the squadrons and on the deck the same.

That way, the Kaga's gimmick of "huge squadrons" wold remain, you'd just need an additional attack run to get them all through, and hopefully you would get more aircraft through and do more damage while having to linger longer would give non-CVs a realistic chance at doing damage through flak and aura damage over time.

I guess it takes a few matches to get used to the new system.

 

I really liked Kaga so far - even if my games aren’t stellar yet either.

 

I think her “old” flavour is nicely translated into the reworked version. She seems rather forgiving 

[159Hunter]

Did some test runs on AA ship (Salem + Groz): 

- the difference between a Salem with DFAA and without it is massive: with DFAA it is an absolute no fly zone,. Without it, its AA is worthless (that is: if you encounter a CV that knows plane WASD hacks). Before this patch a CA without DFAA still had a chance to defend himself, now: no chance at all (as per caveat mentioned above).

- CVs just trigger your DFAA, recall planes the moment you activate it. By the time your DFAA is down they have a new set of planes on you and can farm you for the entire duration of your DFAA CD. Nothing I could do against it. 

- The ranges of AA have all been reduced yet air spotting remains the same. Very annoying with spotter planes: before they were always close to my CA AA range, now they have a few km of gap where they can safely spot me and I can't shoot them.

- A tier VIII CV in a tier X game is pretty bad. Even against DD AA (without DFAA on) his planes will melt. Whereas I struggle against tier X planes in the same DD.

- AFT and Manual AA feel kinda useless as AA skills. AFT increases dmg in the flak radius (planes flying into these bursts take massive dmg, but good players just go around them). Manual AA speeds up sector reinforcement (a mechanic that is still too slow to keep track of the planes as they go faster than you can switch) + the UI for sector reinforcement is too cumbersome.

- Mid and Long range AA mods with full HP build (Cpt skill and upgrade) do break down a lot less: this is most certainly a +1.

 

Conclusion:

- I dislike that a CV just recalls his planes and can (before they have returned) launch a new squad without any penalty. 

- DFAA - non DFAA: the gap between them needs to be smaller. I don't want to feel helpless without and godlike with it.

- Change DFAA duration and CD timers (both shorter) to avoid long gaps of farmeable time.

- Either reduce spotter plane ship detection or reduce air detection of ships or allow me to increase my AA range. (in relation to ship spotter planes, is not an issue with CV planes)

- BB with better AA than CA, why?

 

[G4tt4B0]

From no CV player point of view.

+ new mode for CVs looks more attractive, I might try it and maybe will spend more time playing

-+ DDs have harder times but I suspect more than I expected. Not a fan of DDs because they have/had too much impact on game result. I only play them when I want to affect victory chances and complete tasks, not for fun. Now, I can't even get to cap zone. Tried Hsienyang, made it half way towards cap when Hakuryu was already on me with attack planes, lost 1/2HP on first attack, fire and lot of modules damaged, second flyover another fire another HP portion down, third another fire rudeder, all torp launchers etc.. Couple seconds later he was back, another fire, was down to 1/4th, still not in cap because of dodging attempts. Shot down zero planes, no way to do anything. Idea that I would be in real torpboat (IJN) with no AA at all and worse turning radius is....

- BBs only tried Vanguard and Kii with relatively good AA and. WHAAAAAATTTTT??? Against the same tier CVs I am shooting down very little planes. Want my money back especially for Vanguard. BBs or ships which have majority of AA in midrange (Vanguard) are heavilly affected. I managed to devastate Midway planes in previous meta. Can't extend AA range and in 3.5km it is way too late to start doing some dmg!!!!!!!!!!! You must be kidding me. Even Ryujo is dropping me like nothing!!!!!

- why have you introduced CV rework without also changing flooding at the same time? That is just pathetic!!! Flooded to death

- unlimited planes count - so to counter planes you need your AA mounts and charges of consumables. Charges are limited, modules get destroyed with match progress. So CV value rises with game time and your attempts to shoot down planes will not bring you anything towards the end of game.

-planes speed and readiness- game only starts and planes are in few seconds already attacking you on the other side of map. Bad concealed ships are punished more, there is no surprise and initial temption what enemy strategy is. Why CVs have everything ready at start? I want my torps to be loaded as well!!!!! E.g. Zao would benefit from that a lot. Why do I have to wait more than 2min just loading torps while CV has planes ready immediately? Balance????

 

I am only going to play strong AA CAs and scenarios, maybe some more ranks (although that is another fail mode) from now on as this is ridiculous. Some CVs are still bad due to not good enough aiming so that is saving us from total disaster but that will change soon.

[InfinityIncarnate]

21 hours ago, Rowboat_Cop said:

I agree that it is mostly ¤"%"&%¤#¤% right now.

The reason for the rework

Some of you seem to have missed why this change was introduced in the first place.
Some of you think that the only reason was to make carrier play easier.
 

There were in fact a whole lot of different reasons for this rework.

Most, if not all of the feedback that lead to this rework was feedback from players that were not carrier players.

 

One of the biggest reasons was the fact that some carrier players managed to get soo good at carriers, because the carrier class has a potential to do so much more than any other ship class in the game to affect the outcome of a match.
 

A super-unicum cv-player could literally look at a dd and decide that you shall die, the dd simply would not stand a chance, he would be dead after the carriers first drop.
The same carrier could easily do manual strafe runs to take out the enemy teams planes in just a few seconds.

 

If you look at any other ship class in the game, there is not a single class that if the right person (just one player) was skilled enough could make such a huge impact on a match, basically carrying the whole team to victory.

This created an extremely big potential skill gap between teams.
The match outcome was basically decided by the presence of just one player before the round had even started.

This I agree with to a great extent, however what it really boils down to is carrier players were having way too much DIRECT control over the performance and damage output of their planes, where too great skill differences between opposing would only further aggravate this issue. But do notice, that the main issue is too much DIRECT control over the performance and damage output of their planes, and why do I say is? I say is because they've actually just made that even worse, because now carrier players have even GREATER DIRECT control over the performance and damage output of their planes, and it's even more flexible now than before, because now they can strike several different targets or same target mutiple times before going back, where the old carrier gameplay would allow for ONE strike and then return to resupply and rearm. But now it's not carrier gameplay any longer, it's a very simplified version of world of warplanes with very bad controls, and it really shouldn't be necessary to remind WG and other players, that what we're playing is a game about controlling warships, not warplanes. And now the gameplay is even worse, but now for everyone when planes are involved!

The main issue was and is, too great direct control over the performance and damage of the warplanes/squadrons - this issue could easily be fixed WITHOUT having to switch the rework we have now, and certainly not by giving players even greater direct control, because that just further aggravates the issue, and as we can see it did, in many more ways. The way to fix it would be to limit the direct control and change it into being more indirect, just like it would be in RTS games, the player gives the order and the units carry out the order based on their ai and possibly other parameters set, where the skill comes from knowing what to use and when to use it, knowing what counters what and so on. By limiting the amount of direct control of the warplanes/squadrons the carrier players have, we're also directly impacting how much and how a carrier player can actually impact the game, even when there is a greater skill difference the carrier players.

So how do we fix the old RTS gameplay? Firstly we would need to revert back from this monster of a rework.
To be able to fix it, we need to acknowledge the problems and deal with them CORRECTLY, the main issue as noted from above is carrier players having way too much direct control over the warplanes performance and damage they deal. So we need to limit that, which we do by replacing the DIRECT control with INDIRECT control over the warplanes, I will go over this a little later. As a carrier player it's about having options available to deal with different types of situations, warships and warplanes, where being able to adjust while in battle is important, even if that is within a more limited selection of "items" brought into the match. Where items, could be different types of warplane armaments, warplane ammo types, warplane armors, and similar things that would make sense for a carrier to be able to carry for it's warplanes. Warplanes should not be a limited resource as they're what allows a carrier to do it's job, just like torpedos allow a destroyer to do it's job, just like primary cannons allow cruisers and battleships to do their jobs, and you don't don't see destroyers being out of torpedos, you don't see cruisers and battleships being out of shells. Especially with replacing the direct control with indirect control, it's only reasonable that they become an unlimited resource just like torpedos and shells are an unlimited resources, however that doesn't mean that other parts specific to the carrier gameplay shouldn't be a limited resource, and even with the warplanes being an unlimited resource just like ammo is, that doesn't mean there should be something that controls how many will be available to send in the air - like for instance what we see in the current rework. Changing the direct control to indirect control, it basically means that the only means of direct control over the warplanes that the carrier player will have are:

• Warplane type and loadout
• Pilots and Ai
• Fuel amount
• Orders and Parameters
• Targets

Warplane types, would seem self-explanatory, but would have different statistics, including weight, fuel capacity, ammo capacity, and so on.
Loadouts, armaments (fighter armament, rocket types, torpedo types, bomb types), armors (light, medium, heavy types)
Pilot, experience level which will affect overall performance of the warplane and the higher the level the better the bonuses, but the higher experience pilots will be a limited resource, where there always will be rookie pilots available.
Ai, cautious, normal, aggressive, possibly others, these will affect how they behave and engage their targets, affecting specific statistics.
Fuel amount, seems self-explanatory, however it's resource that could be quite important as it could affect the performance of warplane greatly, like if it's carrying a lot to be able to stay out longer, or carrying little to be able to fly faster.
Orders, could be anything from scouting, hunt fighters and engage, protect/escort strike team, strike warships, etc.
Parameter, more advanced parts of orders, which would rules of engagement, what to avoid, what to ignore, how many warplanes to use per strike, return when out of radio range, those kinds of parameters.
Targets, are obviously those set by the carrier player and can also be changed changed while the planes are in the air.

Notice, the fuel amount. It's one I think would be really important as it means that even if the carrier player is only providing intel through scouting, at some point it will be necessary to go back to refuel, or that one may choose to go with only what would be necessary to be able to reach one target - to be as fast as possible, and one important part right here, is that it could be made so the plane also needs enough fuel to be able to return, but if they don't there should be a negative consequence of losing warplanes that gets destroyed from running out of fuel.

In regards to spotting, it should not render ships in the gameworld to other ships, but should mark them on the map for a limited time.
 

So as you can see it's certainly possible to change the old RTS system in way that would solve the issues with too much direct control over the warplanes performance and damage output, while also solving the issue with skill differences between opposing carrier players being too great, and even managing to improve the RTS gameplay even further.

@MrConway - Please do consider the above as a suggestion on how to improve the old RTS carrier gameplay, as I officially do not support the current rework of the carrier gameplay, and I know most of the playerbase were not in favor of the now implemented rework!

[Dukewerth1]

19 minutes ago, InfinityIncarnate said:

This I agree with to a great extent, however what it really boils down to is carrier players were having way too much DIRECT control over the performance and damage output of their planes, where too great skill differences between opposing would only further aggravate this issue. But do notice, that the main issue is too much DIRECT control over the performance and damage output of their planes, and why do I say is? I say is because they've actually just made that even worse, because now carrier players have even GREATER DIRECT control over the performance and damage output of their planes, and it's even more flexible now than before, because now they can strike several different targets or same target mutiple times before going back, where the old carrier gameplay would allow for ONE strike and then return to resupply and rearm. But now it's not carrier gameplay any longer, it's a very simplified version of world of warplanes with very bad controls, and it really shouldn't be necessary to remind WG and other players, that what we're playing is a game about controlling warships, not warplanes. And now the gameplay is even worse, but now for everyone when planes are involved!

The main issue was and is, too great direct control over the performance and damage of the warplanes/squadrons - this issue could easily be fixed WITHOUT having to switch the rework we have now, and certainly not by giving players even greater direct control, because that just further aggravates the issue, and as we can see it did, in many more ways. The way to fix it would be to limit the direct control and change it into being more indirect, just like it would be in RTS games, the player gives the order and the units carry out the order based on their ai and possibly other parameters set, where the skill comes from knowing what to use and when to use it, knowing what counters what and so on. By limiting the amount of direct control of the warplanes/squadrons the carrier players have, we're also directly impacting how much and how a carrier player can actually impact the game, even when there is a greater skill difference the carrier players.

So how do we fix the old RTS gameplay? Firstly we would need to revert back from this monster of a rework.
To be able to fix it, we need to acknowledge the problems and deal with them CORRECTLY, the main issue as noted from above is carrier players having way too much direct control over the warplanes performance and damage they deal. So we need to limit that, which we do by replacing the DIRECT control with INDIRECT control over the warplanes, I will go over this a little later. As a carrier player it's about having options available to deal with different types of situations, warships and warplanes, where being able to adjust while in battle is important, even if that is within a more limited selection of "items" brought into the match. Where items, could be different types of warplane armaments, warplane ammo types, warplane armors, and similar things that would make sense for a carrier to be able to carry for it's warplanes. Warplanes should not be a limited resource as they're what allows a carrier to do it's job, just like torpedos allow a destroyer to do it's job, just like primary cannons allow cruisers and battleships to do their jobs, and you don't don't see destroyers being out of torpedos, you don't see cruisers and battleships being out of shells. Especially with replacing the direct control with indirect control, it's only reasonable that they become an unlimited resource just like torpedos and shells are an unlimited resources, however that doesn't mean that other parts specific to the carrier gameplay shouldn't be a limited resource, and even with the warplanes being an unlimited resource just like ammo is, that doesn't mean there should be something that controls how many will be available to send in the air - like for instance what we see in the current rework. Changing the direct control to indirect control, it basically means that the only means of direct control over the warplanes that the carrier player will have are:

• Warplane type and loadout
• Pilots and Ai
• Fuel amount
• Orders and Parameters
• Targets

Warplane types, would seem self-explanatory, but would have different statistics, including weight, fuel capacity, ammo capacity, and so on.
Loadouts, armaments (fighter armament, rocket types, torpedo types, bomb types), armors (light, medium, heavy types)
Pilot, experience level which will affect overall performance of the warplane and the higher the level the better the bonuses, but the higher experience pilots will be a limited resource, where there always will be rookie pilots available.
Ai, cautious, normal, aggressive, possibly others, these will affect how they behave and engage their targets, affecting specific statistics.
Fuel amount, seems self-explanatory, however it's resource that could be quite important as it could affect the performance of warplane greatly, like if it's carrying a lot to be able to stay out longer, or carrying little to be able to fly faster.
Orders, could be anything from scouting, hunt fighters and engage, protect/escort strike team, strike warships, etc.
Parameter, more advanced parts of orders, which would rules of engagement, what to avoid, what to ignore, how many warplanes to use per strike, return when out of radio range, those kinds of parameters.
Targets, are obviously those set by the carrier player and can also be changed changed while the planes are in the air.

Notice, the fuel amount. It's one I think would be really important as it means that even if the carrier player is only providing intel through scouting, at some point it will be necessary to go back to refuel, or that one may choose to go with only what would be necessary to be able to reach one target - to be as fast as possible, and one important part right here, is that it could be made so the plane also needs enough fuel to be able to return, but if they don't there should be a negative consequence of losing warplanes that gets destroyed from running out of fuel.

In regards to spotting, it should not render ships in the gameworld to other ships, but should mark them on the map for a limited time.
 

So as you can see it's certainly possible to change the old RTS system in way that would solve the issues with too much direct control over the warplanes performance and damage output, while also solving the issue with skill differences between opposing carrier players being too great, and even managing to improve the RTS gameplay even further.

@MrConway - Please do consider the above as a suggestion on how to improve the old RTS carrier gameplay, as I officially do not support the current rework of the carrier gameplay, and I know most of the playerbase were not in favor of the now implemented rework!

Fuel is a good idea for the old carrier

[Timberjac]

22 hours ago, Tugnut said:

Just don't surgest thats the reason for the change :P

Reason, is give CV's to Leyends,... the game of console that use resources from WoWs. The rest is a big lie from WG.

[Flaming_Bunny]

An additional note on the DD rage in this thread :)

I just played a random battle in my midway.

I was able to basically end the life of any destroyer in the match because of my speed and agility, this made it possible to keep destroyers perma-spotted and possibly perma-raged.

 

Suggestion:

Make destroyers detection by air a whole lot smaller.

Like, stupidly small :)

 

This would probably balance out the newly added dd issue.

 

 

 

And..   regarding destroyers thinking that you need better AA on your destroyer and that you get perma-spotted...

Stop having your AA enabled, it makes you easier to spot.

Your detection range gets increased when you have your AA guns firing.

 

 

Do not think that you are supposed to kill the planes in your little destroyer, not even in your AA optimized Kidd or Sims.

 

Your role is to be a destroyer, not an AA-Artillery.

It is a team game.

Depend on your teams AA.

 

Best Regards

Me

 

 

--- It is always better to be "solution oriented" than being "problem oriented"

[InfinityIncarnate]

Heck, even removing the manual drop and strafing ability from the old RTS Carrier gameplay would actually solve a lot of the issues with players having too much direct control over the warplanes performance and damage, and it would also solve the issues with too great skill differences between opposing carrier players. I think this would be a lot better than the current rework! But obviously, it wouldn't be solving any other issues with the carrier RTS gameplay, like for instance AA being too strong on high tiers.

[elblancogringo]

I'm overall quite satisfied with the new CVs. However, I still have a few concerns:

main one is planes speed: it has several impacts. 1st is it allows quick spotting of ships. I would turn off the ability of CVs to spot for their team. Showing ships position on minimap only instead? 2nd is it makes the new AA side reinforcement useless and painfull. Always switching sides or never, pick your choice. I would remove that feature to go back to the old click on squadron to increase damage.

Another concern is the AA damage itself. I don't like the high flak damage because it's inconsistent. Flak bursts damage should be decreased, aura should overlap.

Cheers.

[elblancogringo]

15 minutes ago, Rowboat_Cop said:

 

Suggestion:

Make destroyers detection by air a whole lot smaller.

Like, stupidly small :)

It's already very small and if you don't know where they already are it's hard to plan an attack.

I'd prefer the CV showing them only on minimap to other teammates 

 

[invicta2012]

Dear WG.

 

Sorry, but I hate it. 

 

I only ever played RTS CVs up to Tier VI. After that the clunky interface and fighter aggro tactics like Strafe made it a hassle to learn and no fun to play. I was hoping this rework would improve things, so I've had some games in a Langley and Ryujio. I now have a headache. We are constantly telling you that your Public Testing always involves Tier X Unicum players looking to get a preview of the new mechanics (and so get an advantage on the other players). No-one ever seems to Test Tier IV, V or VI stuff properly. And it shows.

 

First I tried playing against CVs. I can support what everyone says above. Sector system is clunky, changing sectors needs to be part of the normal HUD. I miss CTRL+click, being involved in selecting my AA's targets. Sector control is something I forget during an intense battle - it's like switching to a the tactical Map when you're in a DD knife fight. Why would you do it?

 

The AA auras don't make much sense. They seem to make ships behave in odd ways, and they are a mechanic which can be understood and exploited by the CV player and to which the Ship player has no counter, other that those silly Catapult fighter squadrons and DFAA, all of which can be baited into irrelevance. DFAA should be changed to be a function which the player can choose to use (CTRL/Click and hold). You should get 30s/20s charge time but it only fires when you select it. If CVs are going to be a constant threat, I want much more manual control over my AA. 

 

Third, Destroyers are suffering. Massively. They cannot have enough AA to ward off the constant attentions of a CV and stealth is rendered useless. DD play was such a fun, exciting and involving part of the game and it has been ruined. 

 

As to the CVs: you won't get many new players with this meta. It's still too complicated and doesn't relate to the rest of the game. Based on playing Langley, the problems with this ship and the rework are as follows:

 

1 - Planes too fast, Planes too slow. The thing about RTS was that you launched your planes, and they behaved like other ships. You kept them near the action zones, you brought them into play when you needed to. When one squadron had completed its attack run, you had other squadrons to manage. This system wants to be like that, but it becomes more like tedious shuttle runs to and from the CV to the front. Langley is incredibly bad in this regard. Her planes are OK for spotting, but too slow for attacking - AA starts being effective before you're in the range where you can start an attack run, so even with boost you will tend to lose your entire squadron rather than just the attack flight. Which means back to the CV and another 45-60 seconds before you've flown back to the action, having achieved nothing. This is only fun if you think shuttle runs are fun. 

 

2- Poor visibility.  Positioning of planes prior to your attack run is key. But you have no binocular view or zoom, making it difficult to see the enemy ships and track their movement. Are they going towards you, away from you? It's hard to tell until you get close enough for them to shoot at you. 

 

3 - World of Reticles and sloppy controls. In World of Warplanes, your have a direction indicator (where you are going), a firing reticle (where your guns will fire) and a bomb reticle (beneath your planes). All three appear to have a close and friendly relationship. In WoWs these three appear to have fallen out, quite badly. The firing reticle lurches after the planes like a grumpy child being pulled along by its parents. The player view of the planes appears to be completely detached from it. What's worse is that the first aiming reticle is often too small and doesn't indicate where you will fire. When using rockets or dive bombers the final aiming reticle often appears a way behind the location selected with the first reticle (often being off the screen, if they are DBs) and your planes have insufficient manoeuvrability to correct the error. This isn't like changing the lead on your guns. It's horrible.

 

4 - One Torpedo???? One of the things about RTS CVs was that they gave you a fair go. You could be useless, but you could probably hit something with a torpedo squad. The new CVs don't even give you that. A Langley player has to deal with 1,2 and 3 above and their reward is one torpedo, which can be easily dodged by a bot in a Kawachi. I know we complained about Lexingtons dropping six torpedo spreads but this is much too far the other way. 

 

5 - Flak bursts. These aren't as easy to dodge as people say they are. 

 

6 - Bugs and crashes. Five games, three client crashes. No idea why.

 

On the good side - ships like Huang He, with decent AA, smoke and versatility, now feel more useful than before. So I'm going to go and play that.

[invicta2012]

Ps - turn the Spike Milligan buzzer on the boost off, please. Although I did find that playing this during a new CV game improved my mood no end.

 

 

[Panocek]

6 hours ago, Hauptbahnhof said:

It's quite silly that the end game Japanese T10 torpedo and divebomber is the J5N Tenrai, a twin engine prototype interceptor that was never designed for nor capable of landing on aircraft Carriers.

 

I seriously hope this model is just a placeholder or mistake.

 

The best fitting historical models I can find would be:

1.) the Aichi B7A3 Ryusei, a proposed upgrade with a 2200hp engine ( Dive and Torpedo Bomber )

2.) D4Y5 Model 54 , a planned upgrade with a 1,825hp engine ( Dive Bomber )

 

 

I also think it's quite silly how the Kaga is no longer anything close to the ship I bought. Royal Navy stock Carriers or other premium Carriers now seem to have way more lethal torpedo attacks and except for an almost endless reserve of paper-planes that look nice when they explode from AA there is not much the Kaga can do now that it was up-tiered to T8 apparently without any upgrades.

Midway could swap models on her strike aircraft - in real life BTD Destroyer was replaced by AD Skyraiders while in game its other way around.

 

Though list of "historical inaccuracies" is longer

-IJN using rockets - just give them small HE bombs with high accuracy and instant dive animation, used in Graf Zeppelin

-USN tier 10 attack aircraft, F8F are overloaded with rockets to the point they clip through each other - historically they could carry 4 HVARs/2 Tiny Tims at best. So replacing model with F4F4 Corsairs, 8 HVAR/2TinyTim. BUT, that it payload tier 8 Lexington already have, so either increase damage OR make Midway Corsairs much more accurate to be more reliable damage dealers

-B7A potentially unfit for Shokaku class due to plane length being longer than elevator well allows, so replacing them with B6N, while stock aircraft use B5N

 

[Cosimo_Botejara]

 

1 hour ago, Rowboat_Cop said:

--- It is always better to be "solution oriented" than being "problem oriented"

I will try to point to solutions this time. And to do that I will try to regroup the problems detected "solution oriented".

 

1. Problems with the operative (OP scouting, AA sometimes awesome sometimes useless and a lot RNG, damage done and received, non-historical and unreal planes, ...). These kind of problems would be solved by rebalance and improvements over the new rework.

 

2. Problems with the intercourse (players doing phalanx to combine AA, DDs role changed or useless, damage done with planes changed to a slow and boring demolition instead of the previous all-in crushing blows, ...). Some of this problems are intented results of the rework, and WG will not consider them problems but solutions, and the others would be corrected by player's attitude in the future ... or may be not.

 

3. Problems with the concept (to man a plane not a ship, repetitive and boring procedure, role of the CVs changed and unreal, ...). These kind of problems cannot be solved with the rework done, cause are inherents to the concept.

 

Obviously WG will like to work with the first ones, and let the second ones to be assumed-solved by the players themselves. And will pray at the business gods that the thirds ones don't ruin the game entirely.

[Admiral_Noif]

I try to love this new CV gameplay but I feel these airplanes and damage to be utterly useless and **** because enemy AA are too strong to my airplanes. I barely can make a lot of damage in T8 and higher. You torp or bomb your target and entire **** airplane squad is already dead. ****** AA are scary OP. No wonder this is boring and waste of time if your planes can't do any ****.

 

 

[DreadArchangel]

The AA is a tad to strong more so when you have the saipan in a tier 10 battle its squadrens very rarely get thro to press home their attack because of it.

[quickr]

Tier 6 and 8 CVs are pain to play..... No real dmg impact on the game. Planes get shredded instantly.

 

Tier 10 in other hand, oh my... You can do some real dmg there. But still, not as nearly as before. So far, I would say, tier 10 is best balanced (not perfectly, but close) when it comes to CVs plane HP and AA strenght. Tiers below tier 10 need additional work.

 

 

[rage1750]

My feeling is that WG needs to take a deep breath and admit they made a mistake with CV's.

 

When they have done that consider removing CV's entirely as CV's in this game is trying to fit the square peg in the round hole.

 

 

In reality though I will have more luck finding a Unicorn that poops skittles and whose farts smell of freshly baked bread than any of the above being realised 

[TheBrut3]

23 hours ago, Rowboat_Cop said:

The reason for the rework

Some of you seem to have missed why this change was introduced in the first place.
Some of you think that the only reason was to make carrier play easier.
 

There were in fact a whole lot of different reasons for this rework.

Most, if not all of the feedback that lead to this rework was feedback from players that were not carrier players.

 

One of the biggest reasons was the fact that some carrier players managed to get soo good at carriers, because the carrier class has a potential to do so much more than any other ship class in the game to affect the outcome of a match.

No, the only reason to do it this way was to make it possible to get WoWs running on consoles. They just f*cked up a great product by doing so. That's also the only feedback I can give: reverse it or just take CV's out completely. If it really was to make super unicums less powerfull there were much better options, like take away the strafe + manual drops.