Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'rework'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - Asia Language Based Communities
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
    • 한국어 커뮤니티
  • Mod Section
    • Player Modifications
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL






Drag Interests

Found 16 results

  1. Fellow Gamers, I am not a Unicum, we're part of a small community that doesn't have much of a voice compared to EU and NA, and I am pretty much preaching in the void, but anyway. Thanks in advance for reading, at any rate. Sorry I didn't post that under the "buff CV" topic currently on top - I am not posting about buffing them, I am posting about, yet again, re-working them into something that doesn't frustrate anyone, be them CV players or preys. Sorry if some if not all these ideas have been pitched before (it must probably be the #748th topic about this anyway...) for I might not have come across them, but more generally it is more of a way for me to vent off steam than anything. I write this with my own background in mind, being first and foremost a DD player. I like the adrenaline, the knife fighting, the ninja strikes... But I am also very attached personally (if not romantically ^^) to carriers IRL - so much that I am literally making a game about them right now. But that ain't the topic. The point is, I fancy myself believing that I am not too biased, and that I did my best in order to keep balance and fun alive in this humble commentary. CV carriers in WoWs have always kinda surprised me. Whether it's pre or post-rework, there's something that immediately feels wrong about them - their target hierarchy and their means to deal with it. I know WoWs doesn't aim at historicity beyond the global feel, but we all know that there are a few logical assumptions that still work well: 6 inchers CL are nimble, fire fast and sweep away DDs ; 8 inchers CA prey on 6 inchers but feel naked against a BB, BBs penetrate everybody but are pretty bad at avoiding anything, DDs are sneaky and will ruin your day with a good torpedo spread. Immediately, there's something that doesn't feel right about that: the CVs in their current state are not somewhere in this close loop, what I will call our meta food cycle. They prey on everybody and fear technically no-one, being only vulnerable when their own team collapses or the CV player suicides. They are not actually part of the food cycle: much like us humans in our own environment, they are above it. Gameplay-wise it is wrong, we all know that, but first and foremost, it has no historical and logical basis. We know why, because we also know who should be its natural predator and is awkwardly nowhere to be seen in game: the enemy CV. See, IRL the target hierarchy of a CV would be something like CV first > then major combatants > DD Because obviously the highest level of threat comes first, then the major and easier targets come next in order. Somehow, it is perfectly inverted in-game: the first natural target of a CV has become the DD, then major combatants, then the CV when there's nothing left. To me, it defies any sort of common logic and makes it all the less intuitive to any new player having a vague idea of what a carrier battle is or was. But, again, we're not playing a historical simulation so whatever. Problem is, this has repercussions in gameplay too. It's tough enough for surface combatants to be left unable to get rid of the CV by themselves (which is understandable and follows historical logic) but what makes it worst is that they do not have any active way to get rid of what is thrown at them. The only actual defense (AAA) isn't even skill-based, which is in a way a big joke both to CV players and their targets. And don't tell me about maneuvering better: in order for the experience not to be too frustrating for the CV players, we ended up making surface combatants too easy to hit. Before Mikuma and Mogami got struck, anyone knows how many american bombs were dropped fruitlessly at surface IJN ships at Midway? Hell, Tanikaze got attacked by a grand total 61 SBDs that only managed a couple near misses. Directly attacking DDs should be the last thing a CV player who wants to conserve striking power would do. Doesn't mean DDs should be immune to the CV, but they should be dispatched by other means, that might include, erm, teamwork? I am not asking anybody to actually nerf the CVs. It's not about buffing them either. I am asking to have them live a new sort of life that will be respectful of the time CV player invest in their skills, while not being totally unbalanced for other categories, especially DD players who pretty much live in the permanent fear of being rocketed to death - or worse, not protected by their own carrier when that happens. I don't claim to have the solution to all problems, but obviously I think that carriers should have their own meta and XP system that encourages them to: - go after the enemy carrier(s), including with some XP incentive if needed - actively and passively support allied surface units through a number of new properties that would reflect IRL experience (scouting, directing CAP, hell even laying smoke!) - only feel the need to actively attack lesser, smaller, faster surface units (CA, CL, DDs) when there's no CV or BB around to strike, and be rightfully hampered by a low chance of hitting them when trying so. Harassing them with shadowing planes should be encouraged, on the other hand. A few examples : - We all see the abuse of the fighter cover system right now: CV players found that it is more interesting to drop CAP over an enemy target to keep it spotted instead of dropping it over a friendly unit... Well, just give carriers what they needed from the start: a scout consumable. Let them drop a long-term, high altitude scout consumable attached to an enemy target that would end up not being reachable by in-game AAA. The scout would follow the target and keep her spotted. You wouldn't abuse the system too much by simply : 1 - limiting the total number of consumable uses 2 - limiting the number of active scouts instances at the same time (2 for instance) 3 - make it countered by dropping some fighter cover over your tagged friendlies in order to get rid of it. BBs and CAs with the proper consumable in particular would find a new and useful use to their seaplane fighters, and wouldn't be left defenseless. This would encourage the CV player to drop shadowing scouts over smaller fries. As a DD player, I am perfectly fine with the idea of being shadowed by an enemy plane and needing extra help or extra time to get rid of it. In game logic, this amounts to the same as radar (which is limited by a well-known range, which makes it somewhat predictable to a careful DD player): if you get rekt after that, that's your fault and you had your chance. And even then, if you end up far behind enemy lines and get shadowed with no hope of extra help, you still have a chance as long as you can escape the enemy gunboats - to the very least, you're not gonna get immediately rekt around the clock by rocket planes you can't do anything against. If he comes for you with DBs and TBs, well twist your butt like you used to in pre-rework era - planes should be able to slow a DD to a snail pace and make it vulnerable to other surface units, and such a crisis should require skill from both the CV player and DD player in order to be solved. 4 - make scouting/naval search sexy. Give it an extra XP reward for CV players only, make them understand that it's in their interest to keep the enemy fleet spotted with their new tools. Hell, give them a good reason to keep you from hammering F7, it's in the interest of everybody, including their own. - Pre-war fleet exercises actually made provisions for the use of air-laid smokescreens. Put it in the game! It is no less historical than all these planes everywhere flying with rockets. Make it a consumable for the CV, that might lay down a screen for a long distance in a straight line. Such a screen can be easily defeated by a scout plane that wouldn't be taken care of, but then again that's your CV player's job to make sure that he just does that. Even better: encourage CV players to do just that by rewarding them with XP not just everytime they spot somebody, but also when using that sort of consumables they hide somebody. - There are many ways to encourage carrier players to go against other carriers. This include XP modifiers, but also new ways to make carrier hunting satisfying. Carrier should be much more nimble than they are. Let the players drive them like a normal ship already! And if you want to put a limitation to compensate for this, let's just add a "wind indicator" that will force them to go into the wind with a minimum speed to be able to launch planes at all. These are little touch that make driving CVs still skill-based, while they have something to care about on the long-term (that is, staying operational AND alive). - Future inclusion of submarines could very well give the CV's missions a new meaning, and give it yet another way to shine (or to worry about itself), the same way it would deeply influence the DD meta. TL;DR: If unable to fit in the main food cycle, CVs should have their own parallel meta-game happening at the same time as surface ships have their own. They shouldn't be part of the basic brawl but should be actively support it, and be rewarded creatively for that. Their main target should be the enemy CVs, and without being game-changing they should be able to influence it noticeably. Sorry for the long post. It's good sometimes to put things on paper. Helps with the burden. Don't get me wrong. I love the game. But I believe it could be a bit better for all of us, and entice more people to actually play carriers without generating some sort of full-scale [content removed] ... Good steamin', everyone! Inappropriate use of medical term. Post edited. ~Beaufighter
  2. HSF_Akeno_Misaki

    CVs are OP pls fix

    CVs have too much of an influence in the match. The CV rework was to fix this and and make them more accessible to players. However there has been a serious backlash. First of all when DDs are complaining about CVs, they seem to forget how before, CVs could keep you perma spotted easily. Now is not the case. The biggest difference between the rework and old rts system is that there are always CVs out there. Here are some of my suggestions to help balance things out yet also require CVs to step up their game and not spam things and farm damage. 1) Limit 1 CV per side at T8. Since T8 has all the premium CVs, they are basically just too influential on the game. An Enterprise and Saipan side would easily demolish a double Shokaku side. This shouldn't be the case. They can also gang up on any T6 ship and make him redundant 2) Give DDs the fighter consumable where they "CALL" fighters "FROM" the carrier to their location. This would give them protection and make them an intergral part of the game again. The fighters could even have a travel time from the carrier to the DD to balance things out.This ties into number 3. 3) Make fighters automatically aim for enemy aircraft as soon as they enter their effective radius. Currently carriers can easily get a premature run or escape before the fighters engage . This shouldn't be the case, fighters should automatically attack any planes that enter their effective radius. These are some of my suggestions and I would like to hear any responses. Destroyers have always hated games where there is a carrier, even before the rework. I find that people seem to be forgetting this. Superunicum carrier divisions were pretty common before the rework but I've noticed a drop in their number. Before you would always get some anchor T7 Saipan with two T8 AA ships division, this kind of div doesn't work as div anchoring doesn't work anymore. I don't consider the reworked CVs to be OP. It's just that they need a proper counter by the players and I thing making DDs have that consumable would help them. I personally like the new carriers as now everyone can fly.
  3. EmperorThor

    CV in matchmaking

    Can we not just get an option when going into match making to que up with or without CV's? Like they dont include them in clan battles so we not have an option to do random battles without carriers? There is just too much plane spam going on now. Playing randoms between t7 and t10 and you can get stuck with up to 3 CV's all just torp spamming the shit out of everyone and its just not enjoyable.
  4. No this is not a photoshop. 100% legit. No need to mask names, everyone played well. I'm just saying that post-nerf Haku can work hard all game and get no kills, not even any planes. Honestly I don't know how I even feel about that. I mean, @xxHomuraxx did well, got second place on the losing team, so ... mission accomplished WG?
  5. I guess at this point we all need to get together as a player base and face the reality. WG has changed a lot of things here and in their mind maybe it is for the good of the player base on the whole. We've invested lot of time with the game and it has become a part of our life, If I'm talking about me I've been playing this game since 2016 haven't been bothered about where this game was going but today it feels like something has really changed. And most of the people I know are frustrated about this change. If this keeps on going we might end up losing the interest in playing the game anymore. I've added all 4 classes as options because CV rework effects each and every class's gameplay. So each everyone's opinion matters and everyone has a right to express their opinion. Also please Post Your Opinions Honestly. No Trolling. No throwing personal insults at each other. Because at this point we really need to stand up to WG and their methods.(don't wanna end up with losing half of the player base) Here's a poll from forum mod, I made this separate poll because I wanted to know what are opinions of different class players not only CVs and Non CV players but opinions from DD,BB,CL/CA.
  6. PGM991

    CV rework FAQ

    almost an Hour long FAQ find out if one of yours question are answer here...
  7. Corsair_Zero

    CV rework Exchange

    excuse me, I want to ask about this line on the WG news public test about CV "At the same time, the exchange of the researched aircraft carriers will only be allowed in reverse order (from the upper tiers to the lower tiers). For example, if you decide to sell the Ranger, you will not be able to keep the higher tier aircraft carrier (tier X Midway)." I am a carrier player in IJN line, but in my line now I only keep the higher CV tier in order to save my vacan slot (I sell hosho, zuiho, hiryuu, and only keep Ryujo and Shokaku).. my question is, if this system is implemented, am I must re-open the line from begining again??? I need explanation..
  8. My current CV Rework Rework (WiP) Preface Numbers are obviously subject to balancing requirements, what I have detailed is an IDEA and as such should be very much subject to change. Premise The current iteration of the CV rework is boring and 1-dimensional. We need something that has a little more gusto and dynamism. So I'm proposing changes based on: The action-based system will not change significantly AA needs to be relevant CVs need strike potential Easy enough to learn, hard enough to master Conditions Reduce ‘dot’ damage done by CVs, significantly reduce chance of fire/flood to roughly once every 2 drops. Reduce damage of each attack run a bit, so that ‘maximum’ theoretical damage output of 2 wings doing their 2 attack runs is 75% of a ships HP. Which I would guess should be 2 AP DB wings v BB. Limit number of attack runs for planes to 2 or 3. For each aircraft in a wing shot down, reduce damage output but a %, eg 2% or 4% per plane or something (obviously change as needed). Add ability to have 2 flights in the air at the same time. Two Flights I am proposing a 2-flight or 2-squadron system. Basically the you have 2 flights of your choosing, any combination. The key to that combination is the balance against different targets of rockets/DB/TBs. Why have two flights? Basically I find one flight boring and the gameplay is exceptionally repetitive and stale. So the trick is to have two flights, giving the player far more choice and allowing combination attacks and CVs to actually have some mastery involved. The trick is balancing the damage. How would Two Flights work? Basically you would be able to switch between which flight is active, the active one you would control and possibly be able to set course. Either way you would definitely be able to have the second flight follow your main one around, my initial estimate would be 5 km (as always subject to change). Essentially my proposal functions around being able to do 2 attack runs per flight with a maximum potential (perfect) damage of %75 of BB HP at tier. Obviously 0 DOTs for that 'max' damage combination. DOT Damage DOT or Damage Over Time damage is the damage cause by fires and floods. The more DOT damage you add, the more painful the game becomes. IMO warships has pushed DOT damage a bit too far lately (RN BBs anyone?). DOT damage should be a risk-reward thing, not an ‘expected’. Chance of Fire/Flood should be reduced to the point that it happens ‘sometimes’ and that if you are choosing aircraft for that feature, it feels like it’s worth it but not mandatory. Potential DOT damage should scale with real damage, the better chance you have of DOT damage, the less the real damage the wing can inflict. Aircraft Damage So the biggest issue people have with CVs (currently) is the strike potential, being able to essentially ‘1-shot’ you. So I’ll use AP DB v BB as a damage metric. Perfect hit, perfect RNG (ignore detonations here), 2 wings should never be able to 1-shot a BB. So let’s just put a random limit and say no more than 75% damage and talk about this in terms of a T10 BB. 100k HP 2 wings (AP DB), a total of 4 runs, 5 bombs per drop. 75% - 75k HP max damage 4 runs, 18750 per run 3750 max damage per bomb at T10. You’d be looking at a ‘good’ 4 runs by 2 sqns being 30-40k damage on a T10 BB. (That would be max possible damage by any combo.) This is just me brain-storming, but I think you can see where this is going. Basically the amount of damage will need to be effectively scaled to AA. For using HE DBs, Rockets or TBs, you are shifting the damage metric from raw damage to a bit of DOT or what it’s effective against. TBs – I would expect 2 wings with a total of 4 runs to inflict 1 flooding. Rockets – good v DDs, do little damage to other ships but decent fire chance, I would expect 2 wings with 4 runs to inflict 2 fires on non-DDs reliably but do almost 0 damage on CA/BBs. HE DBs – less fire chance than Rockets but more penetrating power, perhaps has enough pen to cita CLs? Effective v DDs, harder to land, effective against CAs but less so than v CLs. AP DBs – Can cita BBs and some CAs, good against ‘heavily’ armoured targets. 0 DOT Damage reduction Now you would need to balance this properly with AA but the idea is that as you lose aircraft within your wing, your maximum damage output is reduced. Doing damage to the different aircraft wings therefore actually means something. I’ll touch on this a bit more in the AA section. You could even apply a ‘max’ damage reduction (say 30%). Number of attack runs You have to limit this, there has to be a reason outside of AA to go back to your CV. There again needs to be that risk-reward to committing to an attack run. Why the detail? Now your two Flight choices matter… You balance things like TBs and HE DBs fire/flood and actual damage to make it a worthwhile choice to go AP DBs OR the TB/HE option when targeting CAs. Due to BB torp reduction, AP DBs are you best bet against BBs, unless you are lucky enough to get a flooding (‘lucky’ enough), you now have a risk-reward system. Maybe you go 1 AP DB and 1 TB so that you are pretty good against CAs and ok v BBs? Or maybe one of the BBs has insane short range AA so you want the TBs so you don’t lose as much damage? AA – How to make it work? Easy, you don’t want to completely destroy each flight after their 2 runs (maybe 3) but you want AA to do something. As mentioned earlier, apply a damage reduction to each plane in the flight that’s destroyed. In balancing it, they need to have some basic conditions to balance it to. For example: No one ship should ever be able to wipe out an aircraft wing in… 3 drops or 5 passes. No two ships should ever be able to wipe out an aircraft wing in 2 drops, 4 passes. Etc. You basically want to make it so that 90%+, CV players will get 2 drops off with both flights and then need to return to base against a concerted AA effort, say 3 ships, 1-2 of which have good AA. AA beasts? Well obviously they’re going to need to actually balance AA for starters. But if there are issues with how quick planes are getting shredded against AA Monsters, instead of adding aircraft HP (making them imba for other ships) simply add a cool-down between plane destruction. For example, 5-10s. So at minimum it takes 50-100s to take down a 10-plane wing of aircraft but while this cooldown is in effect, the next tier of damage reduction is applied. (So while the cool-down for the first aircraft being downed is active, 4% reduction in damage as opposed to 2%). DFAA? Easy, simply make it apply a damage reduction, either max (30%?) or possibly even greater if that’s needed, 50%. Spotting Basically I see spotting as eliminated from CV play outside of the 'active' squadron. Basically either have it so that the AA attack range is the spotted range or do something interesting... ... Make is so that aircraft only spot in a similar fashion to Cyclones, quasi-visible on the minimap. Conclusion So the whole idea is to have a bit of variety and combination (2 Flights active) and at the same time keep the core action-based reworked system. In furtherance of this is a shift away from DOTs and from either aircraft or AA being OP. You also want the risk v reward system to be worth it. A concentrated AA effort? Well maybe you only get the 2 attack runs per flight, not 3? Or maybe the damage reduction is making it not worth dropping on those targets due to DFAA? Maybe the AA escort around BBs is too much, need to switch to HE DBs to take out the CLs? Maybe the concentration of camping ships is so high that 2xTBs will land just about every torp? Basically my changes would allow anyone to jump in and have fun with CVs, while a good player could use the choices available and skill in managing multiple flights to maximise their contribution. By using the damage reduction system and clearly defining which planes are effective against which ships, a balance can easily be found. Thoughts from the floor?
  9. PanzerRunner

    Hurray, CV Rework!

    Yes, WG are actually reworking on CV. Idk if this is a bad or good news, its up to you. Oh yes, this is a quote from Notser video "They will not release any premium Aircraft Carriers until the rework is in the game." So hey, good news, no OP premium CV until the rework. But there could be a possibility that they will make CV involved in clan battles btw. WG better work on those CVs before BB get obsolete. For more details, here is the video : Edit : I dont know any sh*t about this mate, im not a professional, why am i even making this thread.
  10. As some of you might know, WG recently have changed how detonations work by making detonations only happen when a ship has less than 75% HP, and the rest is all based on RNG. This saves players from getting detonated in their DD's from the first HE shell hit, but there is still 0 skill in detonation anyways. Therefore, I purpose a rework on detonation as detonation is a fundamental part of this game and is historically accurate to make detonation as skilled based as possible. 1. Divide the citadel zone into 2 types, the engine room, and the ammunition chamber. Hits to the engine room will still result in the engine having a chance of getting knocked out and deals the current citadel damage. 2. For shells that hit the ammunition chamber, the gun turret corresponding to the ammunition chamber either gets knocked out the whole game, or the player detonates immediately. This change will make detonation more skilled based. Players will change to aim at the ammunition chamber of their foes to severely incapacitate their ability to fight or straight out delete them from the game. Instead of taking citadel damage from an ammunition chamber hit, players will now either get detonated or get their turret knocked out for their whole game, this makes players be aware of their weakness and try to angle so no AP shells will hit their ammunition chamber.
  11. From the US forums: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/159691-ultimate-frontier-scenario-impossible-to-do/?tab=comments#comment-3787021 Radar_X Senior Community Manager Administrator 629 406 posts Posted Saturday at 01:56 AM We very much appreciate your feedback! The team has done some balance changes which will arrive in the next update to address these concerns. If you were wondering why it’s harder in its current format: I think hard mode is okay for those who want to div up and play them. But for seven random players there an uphill battle due to coordination and ship choices.
  12. Like it says in the title, please get a lot of advice and feedback from people who know RTS games and mechanics when you do this rework. CV game-play is essentially RTS, so please do everything you can to make it a good RTS experience that is fun for the players and can compliment the rest of the team in a balanced way, even if that means putting aside a bit of developer pride.
  13. Retia

    Major Overhaul For Carriers

    Everyone's aware of the current state carriers are in. However aside from "nerf" "buff" and "remove" there aren't many sophisticated ideas on how to improve carrier gameplay. Well, a long time ago, in a test phase far far away, I made a post about how to improve, or better to say remake carrier gameplay. That post has since been lost in the void of time and space, however, the idea is still there. Some of the major issues of CV gameplay are: Aerial Superiority (Fighter loadouts) being ineffective compared to bomber loadouts A huge difference between rewards for bombing and shooting down aircrafts Aircraft/RTS controls being way too basic There are other minor issues and some major issues that will be fixed in 0.4.1, however the above mentioned problems will remain even post-0.4.1. (For example the tier difference of fighters will be fixed in the next patch) Rewards for Shooting Down Aircrafts Now fixing the rewards for shooting down aircrafts isn't much of a problem. Atleast that's what one would think, however the reason why (I assume) WG hasn't just simply changed the rewards is that while supporting allies with AA fire is encouraged it shouldn't be the main job of certain ships. There are a few possible options to avoid players to just run around other ships the entire battle. 1.) Only Buff Rewards for CVs The obvious 08/15 option is to only buff the rewards for CVs, making Aerial Superiority (AS) more appealing, while AA support for ships keeps being a secondary action. With the upcoming changes in the MM this should work well, since the current situation of one team having a CV while the other one doesn't won't happen anymore. The obvious downside is that AA support for ships won't be further encouraged. This could be countered by giving the Clear Sky achievement a corresponding flag that's valuable enough to be sought after. The obvious choice would be a flag, which increases AA/Fighter strength, however keeping in mind that these flags are supposed to be valuable enough to encourage players to actively try to get them something better is required. My suggestion would be a combination of the exp and credit flags with far lower bonuses. For example instead of 50% exp and 20% credits, this flag grants 10% exp and 5% credits... of course it stacks with the other flags(!). 2) Minor Reward Buff This buff would also grant better rewards for ship AA. The downside obviously is that the reward can't be increased too much, since the idea is still to have ship AA to be a secondary role. Aside from that, most things mentioned under 1) also fit here. Personally I find option 1) to be the most appealing, especially in connection with the upcoming changes in 0.4.1. And in combination with the other things I'm about to suggest below. Reworking Aircraft Gameplay Now this is the real deal. And since I'm not sure where to start I'll just pick a random point and move on from there. First of all... Focus on Aerial Superiority He who conquers the skies, wins the battle. During alpha a CV with the fighter loadout could devastate any bombers launched by the opposing CV. Obviously this ability was negated somewhat if the enemy CV had the hybrid loadout, or negated mostly if it was also running the fighter loadout. Generally you could say that during alpha fighters were the most important aircrafts, since they could render the opposing CV completely useless, all while dealing some damage to ships with it's dive bomber squadron. Ever since CBT started this changed, it changed to make CVs 100% about bombing targets, while Aerial Superiority became worthless. It's impossible to achieve Aerial Superiority in low/mid tiers, since all fighter loadouts lost 1 fighter squadron. This in return translates into the CV being unable to cover the entire map, thus bombers can and will fly through the holes inside the fighter protected area and launch their attack. In my opinion we need to see a return to the previous fighter focus. In order to do so several changes have to occur, giving the player better rewards is only a placebo, and the new ability for fighters to make strafe runs (Patch 0.4.1) will not change anything. (It's a useless ability that will get your fighters killed against any somewhat decent player) Instead what I'd prefer to see is a return of the old fighter loadouts. (3 Fighter squadrons for US CVs, equivalent amount for JP Cvs) However that's not all there is to it. Fighters need to have a much easier time obliterating unprotected bombers. However simply giving the fighters more damage would once again only be a 08/15 way to improve the situation. Which brings me to the next point. Height System Aircrafts usually operate on different heights, depending on their mission and position. A squadron of torpedo bombers will try to fly as high as possible to avoid detection, but prior to engaging it'll have to drop down to a few meters above the sea to drop torpedoes. Likewise fighters will attempt to gain high altitudes, not only to avoid detection, but also to dive unto their targets, the most favourable position for a fighter. Thus I suggest the addition of manually adjustable heights for aircrafts. These should be pre-defined heights in order to keep the game easy to control. The following heights serve as an example, I kept the number of heights as low as possible to once again keep the controls simple, while the gameplay becomes deeper. Sea Level This is the height the game uses for aircrafts when they launch/land and while they attack ground targets. It's also used for torpedo bombers, which will have to fly down to this height far before engaging their target. At this height AA guns get an accuracy bonus due to targets being easier to hit. (See below on how to get your torpedo bombers through AA despite them being easy targets) Dive bombers will have an easier time due to attacking from a hard to defend against angle, plus coming in with high speed and thus being able to escape faster than torpedo bombers. Standart Level The currently used flight height for aircrafts and also the height aircraft will go to after launching or attacking ground targets. Aircrafts are still below the clouds and can be spotted easily, in return they can also spot enemies without a problem. Unlike torpedo bombers, dive bombers don't need to get down to the Sea Level before launching their attacks. They can, thus, attack from any selected height. AA guns will still do considerable damage. (About as much as they do now) Above the Clouds Up here is where things start to get interesting. Ships can't spot aircrafts at this altitude and likewise aircrafts won't be able to spot ships. However if aircrafts or ships get spotted by other means they can be targeted. Additionally to this ships can decide to open fire into the clouds with their AA guns, this however will reduce their concealment greatly, and while the AA guns fire into the clouds they obviously can't deal with other threats. Accuracy for AA is also greatly reduced. Dive bombers can still start their attack from this altitude, however they will take longer to reach the perfect height for their attack run, hence will be inside the enemy's AA fire for a longer period of time. High Altitude Aerial combat often revolves around getting higher than the enemy to easily get into a favourable position. This height is a potential 4th one, however it might make the game too complex. My idea is to only let high tier (VIII+) fighters operate at this height. After gaining experience on low and mid tier CVs the player should be able to handle a 4th height. AA guns won't hit targets at this altitude. Bombers can't reach this altitude since they're too heavy. (Realistically they could, it would just take forever and WoWS is not a realistic game, so...) And now for the major plotpoint that makes these heights and usage of them so important. Fighter Dive Bonus Fighters diving on targets will get a damage bonus. Depending on the target they dive upon the damage will vary. Bombers being caught in a dive attack will take severe damage due to their bad maneuverability. Fighters will take higher damage, however it will come down to making the difference of 1-2 additional aircrafts lost rather than 1 aircraft lost for each side in a regular encounter. (Both squadrons being of the same strength) As you might imagine this is a huge point. Fighters will be capable of obliterating cocky players that refuse to cover their bombers or gain altitude. This change alone should (theoretically) cause a major shift towards Aerial Superiority. The majority of CV gameplay will now happen far above any ship and both dive bombers and fighters will become far more important. Meanwhile torpedo bombers will be the mid-/endgame game changers when ship AA won't be as much of a problem anymore, because... Strafing AA How to deal with the improved ship AA? What to do with your fighters after obliterating the enemy's air forces? Simple, order your dive bombers and fighters to make strafe runs on the target's AA to open a path for your torpedo bombers. So here is the first prototype on how this could work. Dive bombers will automatically open fire with their guns after dropping their bombs, dealing low to medium damage to the target's AA armament. In addition dive bombers can be ordered to focus on enemy AA, translating in lower damage/fire chance from bombs but far higher damage to enemy AA armaments. Fighters can be ordered to launch strafing runs to damage/destroy enemy AA. Since they lack bombs and their guns are equipped for anti-aircraft rather than ground attacks they'll do less damage than dive bombers. They will use a lot of ammunition while strafing, which is why it should only be considered while the enemy fighters are downed or busy elsewhere. Torpedo/Dive Bombers The original torpedo bomber squadron should be a hybrid squadron. I.e. instead of launching them with torpedoes they should have the option to launch with bombs instead. Changing the loadout will add +5 seconds to the resupply, in the beginning of the battle/prior to the first launch the change will be instantaneous. The bomb loadout will be weaker than the official dive bomber squadron's and torpedo bombers lack the guns to deal additional damage to AA armaments. This way torpedo bombers won't be useless early game, however sneaky/clever players can still try to utilise torpedo bombers early game if they find a way to get past the enemy's aircrafts/AA. Dive bombers won't be able to mount torpedoes. Possibility to mount small bombs on fighters while reducing the fighters' speed. Final Conclusion I probably forgot to mention a thing or two again. Sadly I don't have access to the old post of mine, which I could've expanded upon instead of re-writing the whole thing with the addition of the experience I gained post OBT. Lastly this is a very basic prototype. Obviously it lacks exact numbers, however the general/basic idea of making carrier gameplay more interesting, while raising the bar, while keeping it as simple as possible to understand should come across. Personally I think the upcoming changes in 0.4.1 are not enough, and I also don't think that WG will keep it at that. They've already mentioned nerfing JP CVs among other things. However, like I mentioned above... that's the 08/15 way to do it. A complete remake of the system would be the better choice in my opinion, and if anything right now is the time to do it. The game is still fresh and major changes to the gameplay need to happen prior to the full release that will eventually knock on the door. Anyway, that's me writing a gigantic wall of flesh words. If you've read it all, ggwp. If you've skipped past all the annoying letters and words... Mfg Retia
  14. Hi All! Currently I think the Carrier Class is overpowered. I haven't played it too much so am not sure of its downfalls but I'll outline why I think it needs to be reworked below. I also think AA needs to be changed up a bit, a bit of manual input to make it more accurate would be nice, rather than press 'p' if required, target the squadron you want dead and then wait. To me, carriers are super OP destroyers, their bombers have the power to sink ships, they can scout over and around cover, their planes move incredibly fast (ducking in and out of AA quickly), and they can constantly change drop angles and re-adjust their bombs until ready, all the while leaving themselves fully protected from their target (usually). Rock, Paper, Scissors - This is the tone the game takes without the carriers, each ship counters one another, however there isn't a counter for a carrier. Carriers are the apex predator of this game, and in real life. Playing the other classes it makes sense to work together, however a carrier doesn't need anyone, especially early game. With every other class, each engagement puts you at risk of sinking (with the exception of stealth torps, which requires great prediction skills), carriers attack without consequence (a few planes here and there). I'm not sure what needs to be changed on carriers or to what degree but somethings that I would consider changing are below with greater reasoning further below, with the main emphasis around making them more vulnerable. -More detectable (think BB range as they are the same size) -Lower ship topspeed (planes do most the leg work make running not possible) -Less 'airtime' (make players want to get closer to the fight and make purposeful movements and make running to a corner more of a penalty) - Make torps invisible for fighter and bomber planes - Reword DD spotting (infrequent position or required them to be incredibly close [with AA off]) - "relay delay" (make them commit to a bomb run further out and make planes respond to orders slower) DD vs CV As a DD your power is your stealth and torpedos, when targeting a carrier you first need to break though the rest of the enemies fleet, find the carrier and then chase it down, predict its path and then torp/gun it down. This rarely happens. From the 20 min mark before you even get close to an enemy ship a carrier can have a fighter squadron above you. DD AA is nothing and if the carrier wants to it can end you with torps, mag you with dive bombers, spot you for the rest of his team and alert teammates of incoming torps. Now lets argue that for once your carrier preoccupied the CV and you've managed to kill a DD or two and break through. 1st, you have to spot the CV, which is done by tracking planes, So you follow them towards the CV, More likely than not the CV is in a corner, or behind and Island and will usually spot you coming, raising everything it has to kill you whilst turning and running from you, giving it minutes more time to counter your push. The only counter you have is your maneuverability, couple the CV's bombs/torps with some stray BB/CA fire and you're probably not going to succeed, as you hopelessly try to burn the ship to a ground and place some torps so well that knowing their path from launch the CV cannot avoid them. Oh and if you happen to be up against 2 CV's forget it. Especially when your smoke practically useless CA vs CV If you manage to get a CV on its own as a CA it either means the CV isn't paying attention to what its doing or the rest of it's team is dead. Once again though, you need to determine where the carrier is, then chase it down and gun it to death. Something that is made easier by your AA and high fire ratio, however 2-3 torps and you're dead. Playing cruisers in the early game isn't really hindered by CV, however as you're the 'counter' to CV you're expected to protect your teammates and shoot down enemy planes that are stupid enough to come close to you for some measly experience. If you don't support your team, the CV will kill your team, and then you. Maybe you first if you're closest. Oh and if you find yourself with no support against 2 torp squadrons, say goodbye. BB vs CV You will lose 9/10 times and you will only ever come up against an opportunity to kill a CV 1/100 games. BB's are the CV's easiest prey, if you manage to be the BB with the least AA support, kiss your ass goodbye, whilst you can eat a lot of damage you will have to limp the rest of the game, sure to lose any BB encounter. CV vs CV This can go 3 ways 1 - You each throw all your planes at one another from the start of the match, 1 CV sinks 2 - One of you has superior fighters and spends the game tearing down squadrons and keeping every DD lit up until they sink 3 - You ignore one another and leave your teammates to fend for themselves while preying on what ever kill is easiest. In essence killing a CV boils down to decimating the enemy team. You will always find CV's behind the rest of the team, whilst they launch the most offensive assaults. CV's have the pros of all the other ships (power, AA, maneuverability, low detection) with none of the disadvantages. The only 1 I can see is that you can't cap points (sanely). -landing hits from a CV required the least amount of patience and skill adjusting all the way until drop circle (unlike long range shells) -CV's always get a broadside, positioning your ship will do nothing but help a CV, hiding against an island? only 1 way to turn now. Turning into/away from bombers? You're rudder is now set, readjust bombers line and drop. - And CV's never put their ship at risk. I just feel that the outcome of each game is influenced too much by 1-2 players. oh and CV players, I'd be interested to know your thoughts especially the con's and how to take you down ;) Pseudo
  15. Pseudoscope

    Mahan Rework

    Hi Dev's Just thought it'd be cool if you could re-order the torp pods (1 central, 1 either side) on the Mahan, currently the centre turrent is no.1. This mean that the first salvo or torps can go left or right, I think it would be better if your first salvo was from the dedicated left or right pod, meaning you could fire in the order you want, ie: left, right, right, - (currently not possible) left, right, left left, left, right, and similarly firing from the right side. Currently 2 or the 6 possible torp orders are not available due to numbering. I think this would be simple to fix and allow players to fully utilize the ship. Cheers Pseudo
  16. Pseudoscope

    Mahan Rework

    Hi Dev's Just thought it'd be cool if you could re-order the torp pods (1 central, 1 either side) on the Mahan, currently the centre turrent is no.1. This mean that the first salvo or torps can go left or right, I think it would be better if your first salvo was from the dedicated left or right pod, meaning you could fire in the order you want, ie: left, right, right, - (currently not possible) left, right, left left, left, right, and similarly firing from the right side. Currently 2 or the 6 possible torp orders are not available due to numbering. I think this would be simple to fix and allow players to fully utilize the ship. Cheers Pseudo MOVED TO SUGGESTIONS