Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[El2aZeR]

Want some new topkek footage?

Spoiler

 

Sound issues have nothing to do with the game btw.

 

This is what I would call an average game. I wouldn't even consider it particularly successful.

[gizaman]

i must say 200 k damage after 8 mins seems well pretty bad.

 

Could just imagine 2 cvs stacking together would be no chance to get near them anymore...battle of cvs...

 

While we cant see how effective DFAA is , it seems to clearly show that the number of attack waves happend too fast.

 

A nerf to time to launch next wave or air speed would solve a lot. It seems too high at the moment.

 

While I think you are a good player this is worrysome. And remember that WG wants to make 2-3 CVs in a game be possible. That is looking more and more impossible to balance.

 

Just imagine two CVs attacking dds from start. Like now but it will clearly be very very hard to avoid getting killed besides smoking up. And with radar ships you can easy be killed anyway.

[Darth_Glorious]

Lost 16 planes (10 to fighters + 6 to AA)

 

[gizaman]

Videos is better to post than just stats...so we can see it for ourselves.

 

But must say after so many tests it seems strange that the balance seems so bad still. What are they doing?

[Deckeru_Maiku]

2 hours ago, gizaman said:

But must say after so many tests it seems strange that the balance seems so bad still. What are they doing?

 

Probably drinking a lot of Vodka to forget... that's a russian national hobby...

[Prospect_b]

5 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Want some new topkek footage?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Sound issues have nothing to do with the game btw.

 

This is what I would call an average game. I wouldn't even consider it particularly successful.

my favorite moments:

- casually flying rounds above a mino

- 10-15k volleys with bombers + fires on bbs, which would make any conqueror cry cause he still has longer reload

- torping that missouri, and the moment you see the ribbons of your hits, your next wave is already half way of being on top of him

[Pikkozoikum]

 

I love that AA gun sound (9:30)

[Capra76]

7 hours ago, gizaman said:

A nerf to time to launch next wave or air speed would solve a lot. It seems too high at the moment.

 

Rather missing the point.

 

CV 2.0 (SkyPox) is pure damage farming, no real skill, no significant tactics, just point and click, if it can't even farm damage well then there's no point having it in the game.

 

The problem is fundamental, and that is the lack of any real counter-play by anything beyond sticking together in one big blob and hoping your AA is strong enough and the problem there is there are always going to be isolated ships to go after and the plane speed is fast enough to exploit that.

 

The developers seem to think this can be balanced by tweaking a few paramaters and adjusting dmg/AA up or down but there is literally no amount of damage output that can be balanced when the other side of the equation is zero risk zero cost farming, if x = y*z and y and z are both 0, then x is balanced at 0 also.

[1MajorKoenig]

5 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

Rather missing the point.

 

CV 2.0 (SkyPox) is pure damage farming, no real skill, no significant tactics, just point and click, if it can't even farm damage well then there's no point having it in the game.

 

The problem is fundamental, and that is the lack of any real counter-play by anything beyond sticking together in one big blob and hoping your AA is strong enough and the problem there is there are always going to be isolated ships to go after and the plane speed is fast enough to exploit that.

 

The developers seem to think this can be balanced by tweaking a few paramaters and adjusting dmg/AA up or down but there is literally no amount of damage output that can be balanced when the other side of the equation is zero risk zero cost farming, if x = y*z and y and z are both 0, then x is balanced at 0 also.

 

Well they try to increase interaction between CV players and ship players. Which isn’t a terrible idea by itself but I feel the solution is lacking in some ways.

 

Why didn’t they make AA guns player controlled for example? This would have been really played-vs-player rather than this stupid RNG-and-pray mechanics I absolutely don’t like 

[Capra76]

20 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Why didn’t they make AA guns player controlled for example? This would have been really played-vs-player rather than this stupid RNG-and-pray mechanics I absolutely don’t like 

 

Player overload, especially in smaller high RoF ships, it's just too much to ask them to jump between navigating, gunnery, AA plus everything else in the game.

[1MajorKoenig]

1 minute ago, Capra76 said:

 

Player overload, especially in smaller high RoF ships, it's just too much to ask them to jump between navigating, gunnery, AA plus everything else in the game.

 

...is it really...?

 

[gizaman]

Well sure that is the one of the issues.

 

Also el2zar is talking about just flying around those flak bursts is possible thereby reducing AA by 90% is possible. That seems an issue.

 

Stealth torping as shown other day is another...it is going to. 

 

Seems from videos that abandon squads with 1-2 planes is much better than try a final attack that do not work.

There seems to be a general way of playing to max out attacks. Changing weapon layout and how fast attacks occur.

 

 

[Capra76]

42 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

...is it really...?

 

 

I'm sure that's what WG would say if they answered the question.

[Darth_Glorious]

14 hours ago, gizaman said:

Videos is better to post than just stats...so we can see it for ourselves.

 

But must say after so many tests it seems strange that the balance seems so bad still. What are they doing?

I found the replays of those battle if you want to see :

20190111_234750_PJSA110-Hakuryu_16_OC_bees_to_honey.wowsreplay

20190111_193210_PJSA110-Hakuryu_18_NE_ice_islands.wowsreplay

20190111_205658_PASA110-Midway_16_OC_bees_to_honey.wowsreplay

 

 

[Prospect_b]

1 hour ago, Capra76 said:

 

I'm sure that's what WG would say if they answered the question.

Well duh, those are the ppl that decided for auto dmg con for carriers.

 

Soon coming to every ship near you.

[Humorpalanta]

I mean. WTF. I counted. 10 seconds from crippleing a DD and your next squad is right there again. With 40 sec repair consumables on DD... Not a effing chance.

My favourite was the CV vs CV action. Your torpedoes are still about to hit it and your next squad is already in the air.

Why having repair party at all? F it.

You have 0 chance to do anything if a CV wants your [edited]. On your knees and pray that he won't hit. That's all.

Jesus Christ and they want to release this shiet in 2 weeks...

 

[Prospect_b]

1 hour ago, Humorpalanta said:

I mean. WTF. I counted. 10 seconds from crippleing a DD and your next squad is right there again. With 40 sec repair consumables on DD... Not a effing chance.

My favourite was the CV vs CV action. Your torpedoes are still about to hit it and your next squad is already in the air.

Why having repair party at all? F it.

You have 0 chance to do anything if a CV wants your [edited]. On your knees and pray that he won't hit. That's all.

Jesus Christ and they want to release this shiet in 2 weeks...

 

I was thinking on making a poll thread on the second day after the launch, called "so, what game did you switch to?"

[Yedwy]

The changes that we ll most likely see in upcoming patches (if they even release it as it is now ofc) first boost to long range aaa (size/number of bursts rof or both) especially since many ships for whitch the sole reason to play them and endure all kind of drawbacks is the aa cover they provide to team depend on long range guns to do it not to mention that unless they intend to boost short/midrange to ridiculous ranges compared to long range the long range aaa will still be the main fleet aa defence source, after that is done they will most likekly make the lr aaa bursts invisible, make them appear only after they already do (some) damage to prevent the option of doging them completly, extend their range further or any combination theroff since unless aaa mounts are made undistructable (whitch isnt likely to happen) the long range aaa is the only thing most ships will have (same is true now as well) at the end if a long fight (le aaa usually stems from turreted high caliber dp monts or even main gun dp mounts) only other option to mitigate this farmfest would be to gimp new cvs drastically either by prolonging reload time on planes (killing dpm and fun for all) and/or increasing the plane loss penalties (increasing the skillgap) both of whitch would hardly serve the purpose if creating a numerous and healty cv playerbase and since that is the supposed goal of the rework would kind if negate the purpose of the said endevour

[kodos]

11 minutes ago, Humorpalanta said:

I mean. WTF. I counted. 10 seconds from crippleing a DD and your next squad is right there again.

And the difference to live is what again?

[Darth_Glorious]

In fact, I don't need to see the flak burst to dodge, just spam your A and D each 1-2 secs, keep W to change constantly between maximum speed and cruise speed because the plane will auto slow down each 2-3s due to exhausting afterburner if you keep pushing W without using booster.

 

 

[Nishi_Kinuyo]

14 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Want some new topkek footage?

  Hide contents

 

Sound issues have nothing to do with the game btw.

 

This is what I would call an average game. I wouldn't even consider it particularly successful.

Think I'd rather go play WoWP than CVs after seeing this.

 

Also, anyone got thoughts on HMS Exeter yet?

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, Nishi_Kinuyo said:

Think I'd rather go play WoWP than CVs after seeing this.

 

Also, anyone got thoughts on HMS Exeter yet?

Furrytaco running on 3/4 speed with shorter reload, without signature 25mm amidship and top kek 48mm deck, inferior torps, better camo and standard issue, tea box of gimmicks mk1 - smoke and heal.

[1MajorKoenig]

3 hours ago, Capra76 said:

 

I'm sure that's what WG would say if they answered the question.

 

I think it is perfectly fine to give player a choice to chose their battle = where they focus on. Could have still been that AA fired automatically but less effective - like today’s auras. But that you can take control to focus this and increase the effect significantly. 

 

Missed opportunity to enrich player control in my opinion 

[Aotearas]

4 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

...is it really...?

 

Yes it is.

 

Remember that aircraft can and will come at you from any direction. Smart CV players already fake or even commit to disadvantagous strikes just to force a ship to dodge and present a better target to say division mates, now imagine you'd have to manually aim your AA at a squadron coming at you from the opposite direction of where the enemy is. Suddenly you're going to have no eyes on who might be gunning for you. And you can't exactly just ignore the squadron because if you don't pay attention it will simply drop you when you're not busy manually controlling your AA.

 

 

Manual secondary control is something I could get behind because in the vast majority of cases you're still going to pay attention at the same direction, i.e.: enemy ships, with the odd DD popping up on a flank every blue moon.

But manual AA control in a 360° threat environment simply demands too much attention away from what a player ought to be doing, watching and engaging the other enemy ships and given how freely aircraft can move around the map (and let's not forget that there's no effective fighter zoning anymore) you WILL be dropped from directions that demand you switch your attention away from enemy surface ships.

 

If micromanaging multiple aircraft squadrons in CVs was too difficult for most players even though they typically didn't have to manage navigating under fire and firing mainguns at the same time, how on earth could you get the idea that having surface ships micromanage their gunnery and AA (against potentionally more than one attacking squadron mind you, WG wants up to 3 CVs per match after all and ganging up on a single target isn't the most complex of ad-hoc teamwork you could think of) would be any less of a problem for the same playerbase?

[1MajorKoenig]

48 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Yes it is.

 

Remember that aircraft can and will come at you from any direction. Smart CV players already fake or even commit to disadvantagous strikes just to force a ship to dodge and present a better target to say division mates, now imagine you'd have to manually aim your AA at a squadron coming at you from the opposite direction of where the enemy is. Suddenly you're going to have no eyes on who might be gunning for you. And you can't exactly just ignore the squadron because if you don't pay attention it will simply drop you when you're not busy manually controlling your AA.

 

 

Manual secondary control is something I could get behind because in the vast majority of cases you're still going to pay attention at the same direction, i.e.: enemy ships, with the odd DD popping up on a flank every blue moon.

But manual AA control in a 360° threat environment simply demands too much attention away from what a player ought to be doing, watching and engaging the other enemy ships and given how freely aircraft can move around the map (and let's not forget that there's no effective fighter zoning anymore) you WILL be dropped from directions that demand you switch your attention away from enemy surface ships.

 

If micromanaging multiple aircraft squadrons in CVs was too difficult for most players even though they typically didn't have to manage navigating under fire and firing mainguns at the same time, how on earth could you get the idea that having surface ships micromanage their gunnery and AA (against potentionally more than one attacking squadron mind you, WG wants up to 3 CVs per match after all and ganging up on a single target isn't the most complex of ad-hoc teamwork you could think of) would be any less of a problem for the same playerbase?

 

Well it’s fair to disagree here. One can always leave the automatic fire as a less effective „no-effort“ alternative. I think players are much more capable to learn than WG thinks. Dumbing down on the other hand leads to a very rough road.