Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
MrConway

Aircraft Carriers - Plans for the near future!

232 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
4,085 posts
6,232 battles

Thanks for the update, much appreciated. Good to see, you are aware about the things, that are concerning the community right now.

  • Cool 8
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10 posts
6,583 battles

Be a lot easier to just remove Cv from game. Your client base with wallets don't want it !!!

Pity you don't know who buys the expensive ships etc and pays your wages.....................

 

  • Cool 13
  • Funny 3
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,712 posts
9,928 battles
51 minutes ago, MrConway said:

To solve the problem of "F-spam" (when the player, after an attack, could recall a squadron even under heavy air defense fire with impunity), we significantly increased the period of vulnerability of aircraft (climb) when returning. Now recalling a squadron to the aircraft carrier should be done only after leaving the zone of air defense, otherwise losses are inevitable. The same mechanics currently affect aircraft that have just carried out an attack - they need to gain the same altitude before they become invulnerable. Taken together, the problem of F-spam was solved, but, as many rightly noted, the loss of aircraft after attacking increased. To mitigate this, we will reduce the invulnerability ceiling for aircraft that have carried out an attack, but the squadron that a player returns using F-Key will still return via the higher altitude. This will soften the exit from the battle for the planes, but at the same time to avoid the return the "F-spam" exploit. Taking into account the new mechanics of calculating the damage of intersecting zones, significant changes in this area may not occur if other changes sufficiently affect the survival of aircraft.

Thanks.

 

 

On a sidenote, how's the notification system coming along? I'm still not receiving notifications despite being subsribed to this forum section and I presume that's still due to scheduled posts.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,712 posts
9,928 battles

Also I just want to take my time to acknowledge the tag on this topic: tip of the hat.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
1,805 posts
9,601 battles

@MrConway Just out of curiosity: Do you guys have numbers on how many people, especially at t8-10, have changed their surface ships into medium and full AA builds? If so, would you be willing to share some numbers? Thx

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FDUSH]
Players
1,194 posts
6,749 battles

And still you don`t adress the problem of not being able to control the carrier and the planes at the same time. The player should be able to manually use the carrier's cannons too.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOATY]
[BOATY]
Players
1 post
2,810 battles
1 hour ago, MrConway said:

 

  • The same can be said about the interaction of aircraft carriers and destroyers – the search for opportunities to mitigate the unpleasant scenario in which the aircraft carrier can effectively shutdown a destroyer with exhaustive attacks are already underway. We're testing changes to the settings of the Attack Aircraft and other potential improvements. There are chances that radical solutions will not be required, since the problems with the scenario described above play a serious role in the confrontation of the "Destroyer – Aircraft Carrier".

 

Just REMOVE rockets and and have fighter aircraft return to their role of air to air..as a dd player it’s extremely exhausting trying to progress up a dd line with the constant bombardment of rockets from cv players to the point it’s not fun to play as a dd anyone you can’t flip caps or spot as once you try to advance your  permanently spotted by aircraft while also being constantly being focused by rockets as if the game wasn’t already over populated with rapid fire radar cruisers now you’ve got to deal with both rockets and radar to the point your not playing to have fun anymore.. if you were to do anything just remove the rockets and it will fix a lot of the current problems faced.

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,712 posts
9,928 battles
3 minutes ago, Saiyko said:

@MrConway Just out of curiosity: Do you guys have numbers on how many people, especially at t8-10, have changed their surface ships into medium and full AA builds? If so, would you be willing to share some numbers? Thx

I doubt many people did. With fixed AA ranges and flakbursts that that can bring aircraft HP so low with a single connection that continuous dps can kill it of in very short order there's not much incentive to go for full AA builds. If anything most people probably ditched AFT (exceptions would be >139mm dakka machines for added main battery range), like BFT if you still wanted AA bonuses, otherwise other utalitarian perks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MORIA]
[MORIA]
Players
108 posts

Nice! :cap_like:

 

"The same can be said about the interaction of aircraft carriers and destroyers – the search for opportunities to mitigate the unpleasant scenario in which the aircraft carrier can effectively shutdown a destroyer with exhaustive attacks are already underway. We're testing changes to the settings of the Attack Aircraft and other potential improvements. There are chances that radical solutions will not be required, since the problems with the scenario described above play a serious role in the confrontation of the "Destroyer – Aircraft Carrier"."

 

Yes, as you mentioned above, the solution should not be preventing a CV to be able to sink a DD when there is a CV-DD confrontation. 

 

 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester, In AlfaTesters
430 posts
7,941 battles
  1. General Balance I would have thought you had already made enough changes to the AA environment to understand how the individual CVs perform within that environment relative to each other at this stage, but this point is too generalised to really make any specific comments on. I certainly hope some IJN CVs are going to receive some individual tuning soon based on problems that are not related directly to their HP vs AA survivability.
  2. Overlapping AA The diminishing returns for overlapping AA auras sounds good, although how it works exactly is not clear, does this mean that multiple far auras will experience diminshing returns? If they have different constant DPS values which ones will be reduced? Also, I feel players would benefit from seeing damage numbers on their squadron because sometimes the effects of constant DPS are not that obvious.
  3. Losing Aircraft After Attack This will be a welcome change.
  4. Economics AA contribution should certainly be rewarded.
  5. Interface Improvements The priority air defense sector interface to become clearer for whom, CVs? It never seemed particularly unclear to me as the ship using AA reinforcement but its totally unreadable as a CV yet why would you give CVs information about this, isn't it supposed to be a counter? And I don't know how you can make plane readiness clearer or more convenient, that seems fine to me, but maybe I'm just not aware of issues raised about the interface in this respect.
  6. CV Spotting Power I approve of the removal of RPF for CVs and I would not be opposed to a brief cooldown at the start of each battle during which I could not launch, similar to how all other ships start the game with weapons not loaded.
  7. DD Bullying Would a change similar to the DD AP protection be considered radical? I think you should also consider a change to how easy it is to knock out modules on DDs with aircraft as well. I'm keen to hear specifics on how you plan to resolve this particular issue, although I also believe that some DDs do not do enough to protect themselves from CVs by adapting their play style.
  8. Autopilot Improvements That would certainly be welcome, but please at least give back control of our speed while on autopilot, or even perhaps full WASD control, while viewing the tactical map.

It's nice to see a response to popular feedback, although I would have liked to have seen some comments regarding interactions between AA and smoke as this can cause some grief as well.

 

The roadmap and commentary is greatly appreciated.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
402 posts
11,208 battles

Those are some nice proposed changes and a step in the right direction. Finally something positive from WG.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Players
342 posts
7,965 battles

Free respecs for those CV-captains that have RL?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
466 posts
1,698 battles

This sounds largely positive, sensible and moving in the right direction – nice one. The removal of RPF is an excellent move imo, though I'd add my voice to those above and elsewhere suggesting that the detection warning for planes should be removed too – as I've said elsewhere, any squadron being remotely useful will of course be spotted, so it only becomes a tool for mercilessly hunting stealthy ships, when CVs shouldn't really even need that crutch. The 'Aircraft carrier detected', 'AA fire' and 'Fighters' symbols should all be enough to be going along with.

 

Some thoughts on possible ways to go about changes to spotting (none of them terribly original; certainly should not be all applied together!):

1) Planes only spot on the minimap. Sorta represents pilots not being able to give a brilliant sighting report while in the midst of a combat mission.

2) Planes only spot with, say, a 180-degree arc in front of the plane, representing the pilot's field of view (okay I know I'm grossly oversimplifying here on several counts – other crew, field of view actually wider etc. – but some oversimplifying is necessary in wargames).

3) Planes only spot for friendlies within X km of them (maybe things could be spotted on the minimap but not rendered). Weaker radios, innit.

 

I can't say I'm able to foresee how all of those might work out, so maybe they might have undesired consequences that people with greater understanding than myself will immediately see. But they seem to reduce the permaspotting and might help DDs out too, and make semi-decent sense in the fluff too.

 

*If* anything else beyond this is needed to help DDs against attack planes, I'm damned if I know what. I can understand WG's softly-softly approach here to some extent though – we still don't know what level the CV population will stabilise at when the hype wears off, and if they stabilise below where they are now and with max. one per game, maybe DDs will be back in a good place...?

  • Funny 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
402 posts
11,208 battles
22 minutes ago, Altsak said:

Free respecs for those CV-captains that have RL?

If I'm not mistaken, we'll get another free cpt respecc with patches 8.1 and 8.2

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JR-IT]
Alpha Tester
838 posts
7,381 battles

I like all the proposed changed but one:  the aa stacking. They are working on the opposite direction in witch Imho the should: They should nerf the aa value of all the ships to be more or less 60% of what they are now, for all ships ( but dds) but leave the stacking as it is right now. In this way you don't  have, like now, ships that are simply immune to cvs ( hello mino) but at the same time getting closer toghether rewards you with increased protection.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
188 posts

I assume the amount of carriers will stay at the same level as before the change. The lack of introduction has not changed and people will be bored of flying planes very soon. It would have been better to take carriers away in general. All they currently doing is making the game into sth. for people in division.  If you cant - you get excluded of certain kind of gameplay.

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
50 posts
14,285 battles

I was never a CV player and was just starting to get properly into them in their new state but even though DD's became priority targets since CV rework, that was only because all other classes are too strong to attack with any regularity. The Haku nerf was so vicious that it is mainly Midway in battle now at the highest tier.  God help any player trying to move up tiers in these CV's as they are now. I strongly agree that DD's needed a CV counter play that is viable but CV's need to be able to do something rather than just fly around hoping a single ship goes alone. Serious rethinking is needed if CV's are to become in any way a playable class suitable to all.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-FF-]
Players
757 posts
5,660 battles
16 minutes ago, Blondito said:

even though DD's became priority targets since CV rework

DDs have always been priority targets of decent CV captains, even before rework.

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PLD]
Players
42 posts

Not sure what you are trying to achieve with the rework any more all i see is idea´s of making the cv game play as boring as possible.

When a average player can get 100k + damage from all ship classes in a bad game but the cv player has a hard time getting over the 50k damage in a good game you are on the wrong track.

  

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DUXTR]
Alpha Tester
619 posts

U will disable the RPF. Great.

How about removing the "detected" notification?

That's a dead giveaway for the CV player that there are DDs nearby.

I didn't use RPF on the PTS, but I still got the DDs cause I got detected.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,997 posts
13,142 battles
2 hours ago, 10ThousandThings said:

This sounds largely positive, sensible and moving in the right direction

That's what I thought - an excellent announcement! Then i got to worrying....

image.png.127093bc0c831a499730799a956ce95c.png

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[VV]
Players
110 posts
12,417 battles
4 hours ago, BigRed_Potato said:

Be a lot easier to just remove Cv from game. Your client base with wallets don't want it !!!

Pity you don't know who buys the expensive ships etc and pays your wages.....................

 

I am part of the client base with a wallet and i want them.. to stop nerfing the cvs into the ground!

 

as i recall it was WG intent to increase CV population , well right now its even less then before 0.8.0 , so clap clap for that i guess

 

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×