Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Moggytwo

The current state of play with the many undocumented changes to CV's.

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,179
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,497 posts
11,883 battles

So CV's were changed extensively in undocumented changes with the last patch, 0.9.9.  According to follow up posts from WG since the patch, some of those changes were intentional, and some were unintentional.  This obviously is extremely concerning, especially with the sheer number of changes that were made but not documented.

So _Thanagor_ from the NA server has posted a really good thread over there, with a really clear outline of what has changed.  I'll copy the details of that post below. 

Note the only CV related change listed in that patch was as follows: "We've changed the visual appearance of the aiming reticles for carrier squadrons, and also reworked the aircraft camera performance. This change will affect only the visual component of a squadron's interface, making it easier to aim with all types of armament without affecting gameplay."

Here is the write up about exactly what was changed:

Quote

 

The only good news here is that, with the latest game client, the replay of a CV game now shows aim reticle, although still often bugged.

 

And now comes the bad news. In case you don't know, the Chinese server of the game still runs at version 0.9.2, so someone was able to make a video to compare the differences. It turns out that in spite of the claim that the update does not affect gameplay, many aspects are nerfed, and the "bug" for which you lose more planes was not really a "bug", but merely a mistuning due to the change of the mechanism.

The video link is here: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1Fk4y1C7ms and I will try to give a summary here:

  1. Planes now have greater turning radius (this is not tested in his video, so I can't say for sure that this is accurate), 
  2. When you start an attack while turning, the turning is no longer slowed (this is not a big deal to me tho)
  3. Once you release W key, speed is immediately lost, and the energe regeneration now has a small delay (we are now aware of this)
  4. The divebombers of Hakuryu and possibly other CVs now have a much farther aiming distance (2.0km vs 1.5km)
    HAKDB.thumb.PNG.57baaeeb80049866a8c3b75dbc333d6e.PNG
    We used to be able to rotate the reticle without "swing" it too much, but now it becomes impossible. This is also why many people say the feeling is different. Additionally, you can no longer adjust your aiming with W or S, so if you start an attack while pressing S, your entire attack can be accelerated little with W.
  5. Finally the plane returning issue: In the old version, it takes 3 seconds (2.5 seconds for British carpet bombers) for a plane to reach invulnerbility; now there is no longer a fixed time, but all planes must reach a certain height. Basically, the lower your attack goes, the longer you take AA damage before returning. The tests give the following result:
    • Hakuryu DBs dropping bombs when reaching highest --- immediately reach invulnerbility;
    • Other DBs dropping bombs when reaching highest --- 3 seconds
    • Attack planes shooting rockets and British carpet bombers --- 6 seconds
    • German rockets --- 7 seconds
    • Torpedo bombers --- 8 seconds

And not mentioned in the test video, but I believe you already noticed this: if a ship sits behind a small rock --- no matter how tiny it is, you cannot hit the ship with rocket planes: https://clips.twitch.tv/BlatantDependablePigeonNononoCat

TLDR; CVs are very bad now; Hakuryu is affected the most. Thanks WG. So much for the "unaffected gameplay".

 

This is just phenomenal.  Many CV's feel quite different now.  The intra-class balance has been quite affected, with some CV's being a lot more negatively affected than others.  The class as a whole is much weaker.  CV population seems to be down a fair bit, and we should have stats on that in the next couple of days. 

How much of this is actually going to be fixed?  Will all of this actually be announced at some point?  I honestly haven't seen WG do something like this before, so I'm quite surprised.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
823
[LBAS]
Member
3,379 posts
15,845 battles

Whatever comes from Mainland. Don't give a speak a word about it.

 

 

 

This was intentional as some Clan battle members that in Mainland use to exploit the carriers

 

 

@S0und_Theif Problem detected.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,559
[REPOI]
[REPOI]
Member
6,779 posts
28,566 battles
33 minutes ago, IJN_Katori said:

Whatever comes from Mainland. Don't give a speak a word about it.

 

 

 

This was intentional as some Clan battle members that in Mainland use to exploit the carriers

 

 

@S0und_Theif Problem detected.

what

i can understand every word in those 2 sentences and I still have no idea what you are trying to say

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,559
[REPOI]
[REPOI]
Member
6,779 posts
28,566 battles
48 minutes ago, Moggytwo said:

So CV's were changed extensively in undocumented changes with the last patch, 0.9.9.  According to follow up posts from WG since the patch, some of those changes were intentional, and some were unintentional.  This obviously is extremely concerning, especially with the sheer number of changes that were made but not documented.

So _Thanagor_ from the NA server has posted a really good thread over there, with a really clear outline of what has changed.  I'll copy the details of that post below. 

Note the only CV related change listed in that patch was as follows: "We've changed the visual appearance of the aiming reticles for carrier squadrons, and also reworked the aircraft camera performance. This change will affect only the visual component of a squadron's interface, making it easier to aim with all types of armament without affecting gameplay."

Here is the write up about exactly what was changed:

This is just phenomenal.  Many CV's feel quite different now.  The intra-class balance has been quite affected, with some CV's being a lot more negatively affected than others.  The class as a whole is much weaker.  CV population seems to be down a fair bit, and we should have stats on that in the next couple of days. 

How much of this is actually going to be fixed?  Will all of this actually be announced at some point?  I honestly haven't seen WG do something like this before, so I'm quite surprised.

i havnt played CVs since the patch cuz bad net but i might take a look and see I can feel a distinct difference 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,624
[FORCE]
Modder, Member
3,014 posts
13,728 battles

And I thought it couldn't be worse for Audacious....

High plane survivability? That gimmick is balanced by the the slow plane rebuild & small hangar size.

But if the planes get shot down as easily as the other CVs, what's the point of that gimmick?

 

No wonder my Audacious feels like gimped Midway, while my Midway is basically Hakuryu with American loadout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,559
[REPOI]
[REPOI]
Member
6,779 posts
28,566 battles
2 minutes ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

And I thought it couldn't be worse for Audacious....

High plane survivability? That gimmick is balanced by the the slow plane rebuild & small hangar size.

But if the planes get shot down as easily as the other CVs, what's the point of that gimmick?

 

No wonder my Audacious feels like gimped Midway, while my Midway is basically Hakuryu with American loadout.

audacious always played like a gimped midway wdym

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,624
[FORCE]
Modder, Member
3,014 posts
13,728 battles
1 minute ago, Drakon233 said:

audacious always played like a gimped midway wdym

I mean it's now basically Midway without barely anything to make it playable in the long run because the national gimmick actually makes it worse..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,624
[FORCE]
Modder, Member
3,014 posts
13,728 battles

Oh and since the planes take longer to reach the invulnerability after the attack, they can spot the surrounding area longer than usual if they are not wiped out.

Basically another bad thing for IJN torpbotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[SMOKE]
Member
2,504 posts
18,035 battles

Whether its so or not, WG had shown little or no intention to actually balance the CORE mechanism of CV vs surface ships interaction and so long there exist a gross in-balance between the 2 and a gross discrimination of the interaction towards the surface ship , the criticism, doubt, complain ( both way ) will not cease - the spotting , inability of AA to actually do AA, the notion that a CV player can within an interaction deal damage and thus significantly reduce battle efficiency and survival  ability of any surface ships while shooting down planes, even with whole squad pretty much do little to none against the CV and of course it goes way deeper than that .... should we talk ASW , CAP ,  Escort Patrol .....

what's documented there is only from one side of it, how the change effect a different ( but might be not better, not worse, yet to be seen ) , and the way I see it, its just yet trying to change for the sake of change to balance an ill implemented and basically unable to be balanced mechanism. It might yield a less effective aerial attack, but the key word is here, less effective , its still a one sided and decently effective affair in any of these interaction ... and so long the mechanism do not change to give the surface ship the same degree of ability to actually hurt the  CV just as the CV can hurt the surface ships ( or effect a kill ) and in the same efficiency and degree of damage & kill possibility. Well , nerf and buff this way or that way will come and it will still not be welcomed and still not be enough. The old CV mechanism basically do that by the limited planes roster and its a mechanism that should at least be considered for the current CV .... its not the best but its proven working

So long CV can just mindlessly dump attack onto surface ships with almost zero in retaliation able ... the mechanism , and the change to try to nerf it here and thee , will still not do it the balance ; and still the surface ships players are subjected to one sided interaction. I do not play CV on live but on the PTS I've noted that whatever the change ... its still pretty much the same as far as surface to aerial interaction goes ...

 

Edited by Mechfori
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[-CAT-]
Member
3,409 posts
13,592 battles
1 hour ago, IJN_Katori said:

Whatever comes from Mainland. Don't give a speak a word about it.

 

 

 

This was intentional as some Clan battle members that in Mainland use to exploit the carriers

 

 

@S0und_Theif Problem detected.

Have not touched my CV for a while and have less time playing lately, but seesh WG, what the fudge!

 

Secondly, what is WG goal over these changes?

BTW, Is there still a CV boycott for clan battles? :fish_book:

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
823
[LBAS]
Member
3,379 posts
15,845 battles

 

2 minutes ago, S0und_Theif said:

Have not touched my CV for a while and have less time playing lately, but seesh WG, what the fudge!

Secondly, what is WG goal over these changes?

BTW, Is there still a CV boycott for clan battles? :fish_book:

I still don't understand what WG is still fixing, Using a carrier is still Super wonky even though its fixed.

They did said that they are doing this for ASW and Hybrid ships, as well as the WIP Werner Voss.

No. there isn't a CV Boycott.

Edited by IJN_Katori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[-CAT-]
Member
3,409 posts
13,592 battles
3 minutes ago, IJN_Katori said:

No. there isn't a CV Boycott.

I see. :fish_book:

 

3 minutes ago, IJN_Katori said:

I still don't understand what WG is still fixing, Using a carrier is still Super wonky even though its fixed.

They did said that they are doing this for ASW and Hybrid ships, as well as the WIP Werner Voss.

If they are going to test something, at least test them in a Sanbox server rather than PTS and Live server.

WoT has a separate server for Sandbox testing. Separate from PTS and Live server.

 

I think WoWs dev team is testing them in PTS and the devs forgot to roll-back the changes, and carried over to patch 0.9.9.

That's why we have the 0.9.9 CV mess. As well as probably a visual change which made the game lag and stutter alot.

 

I am also not sure if WoWs team keep a previous version(s) of their patches. This way, they can easily roll-back the changes they made.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,391
[MRI]
Member
3,791 posts
16,857 battles
3 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

How much of this is actually going to be fixed?  Will all of this actually be announced at some point?  I honestly haven't seen WG do something like this before, so I'm quite surprised.

Yes this patch has been an absolute mess. I can't tell what is intended or not, what is a bug or merely an unannounced change.

Who knows how many more undocumented or unintended changes there are. For example, I noticed the RNG has been greatly increased when it comes to the spread of aerial dropped torpedoes, which may or may not be a side effect of this change:

Quote

Aerial torpedoes can no longer be dropped at the same point and cross their paths, with the exception of a converging aiming cone. Bombs/torpedoes/rockets can no longer be dropped crosswise, intersecting trajectories of other shells. Bombs from the planes positioned left will be dropped to the left side, from planes positioned right – to the right side.

It seems like a unimportant change but in game it has very, very noticeable effect. After this patch I noticed some of my aerial torpedoes run parallel with another torpedo so close until they almost overlap, while another torpedo heads off on a completely different tangent. If this was intended, it deserves its own patch note or at least greater clarity on the existing note.

1 hour ago, S0und_Theif said:

If they are going to test something, at least test them in a Sanbox server rather than PTS and Live server.

WoT has a separate server for Sandbox testing. Separate from PTS and Live server.

I suspect WG pushed the Sandbox test version by mistake, or there was some miscommunication somewhere and whoever compiled the patch included the changes made in the sandbox version when they were not supposed to. That's why we have a whole cluster:etc_swear: of changes, a lot of them unannounced and unintended.

Overall very sloppy work from WG.

Edited by Thyaliad
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[-CAT-]
Member
3,409 posts
13,592 battles
1 hour ago, Thyaliad said:

I suspect WG pushed the Sandbox test version by mistake, or there was some miscommunication somewhere and whoever compiled the patch included the changes made in the sandbox version when they were not supposed to. That's why we have a whole cluster:etc_swear: of changes, a lot of them unannounced and unintended.

Overall very sloppy work from WG.

That scenario is also possible.

Agree. Sloppy work from WG indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,406
[151ST]
Member
3,555 posts
11,949 battles
15 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

BTW, Is there still a CV boycott for clan battles? :fish_book:

There was an attempt by some top clans to boycott CVs in CBs...

The hilarious part is that while some may still be doing it, most just gave up after the movement lost it's initial 'hype'.

It was never a big thing to begin with, particularly on Asia.

Basically if you enjoy the game and want to keep playing, CVs are in your life whether you enjoy it or not.

And in my experience the only place they're any shade of 'broken' is lower tiers (3-5) where AA is non-existent. (Spotting issue aside)

13 hours ago, Thyaliad said:

I suspect WG pushed the Sandbox test version by mistake, or there was some miscommunication somewhere and whoever compiled the patch included the changes made in the sandbox version when they were not supposed to. That's why we have a whole cluster:etc_swear: of changes, a lot of them unannounced and unintended.

This wouldn't surprise me but I doubt it.

It more looks like some under-the-hood tinkering to prep for certain things like Hybrids or ASW planes.

This sort of thing where a patch breaks something is pretty common in WG history, particularly Warships. Most of the time it doesn't completely kill a class though.

Think back to the EM bug recently...

I strongly suspect that Warships is spaghetti code (not good spaghet like RM).

The issues they've had over the years changing spotting-related things and even basic stuff like rental Midway indicate to me that their coding and most of all QA systems are completely borked/not functional.

At the very least they aren't doing a stack of in house testing correctly because major bugs like these are often apparent to anyone who actually plays the game...

Edited by S4pp3R
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
542
[REPOI]
Member
1,104 posts
21,793 battles

mandatory downvote because Moggy is posting and I don't like his opinions because they are well thought out and logical

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[AUSNZ]
Member
438 posts
24,570 battles

Despite all of the players on Reddit I saw who were really happy about nerfing CV's like this, they all missed the core component of the changes being pushed without any any patch notes or prior notice which while it may work to your own benefit this time around may not work so well further on down the track.

Any changes of this magnitude being pushed with no acknowledgment is a really unhealthy direction for the game to take.

 

15 hours ago, LordTyphoon said:

mandatory downvote because Moggy is posting and I don't like his opinions because they are well thought out and logical

LOL 🤣

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,624
[FORCE]
Modder, Member
3,014 posts
13,728 battles
10 hours ago, Bob778_ said:

Any changes of this magnitude being pushed with no acknowledgment is a really unhealthy direction for the game to take.

This!

They find no issue with it because it only affects the one thing they hate. Had it affected the other classes like DD for example, they would have been much louder against it.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,406
[151ST]
Member
3,555 posts
11,949 battles
11 hours ago, Bob778_ said:

Despite all of the players on Reddit I saw who were really happy about nerfing CV's like this, they all missed the core component of the changes being pushed without any any patch notes or prior notice which while it may work to your own benefit this time around may not work so well further on down the track.

Any changes of this magnitude being pushed with no acknowledgment is a really unhealthy direction for the game to take.

We have come up with a term for the anti-CV and overly negative/emotive folks in the cominity (most of the Warships reddit); floupies...

It comes from flamu+groupies...

Floupies don't seem to realise just how bad it is

But yes 100% agree and it's a really bad way to go, either through spaghet code, ineptitude or just plain devilishness, seriously not good.

I hope it's none of those and an honest accident/mistake but given WGs history, probably not.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,230
Member
5,692 posts
9,504 battles

This is my comment for the official thread addressing the matter:

"I'm having a hard time believing that such massive changes in gameplay went undocumented/unpublished.

At least, you [WG] could have said that you were redoing some technical aspects of the game to achieve certain goals, and warn players that these changes may cause unexpected results."

There was no such notice/warning in the Patch note.

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
755
[SALT]
Member
2,123 posts
10,571 battles

The changes seems unintended. There is no way criss crossing torpedoes is intended. It just to wonky to be true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,347
[TLS]
Member
4,857 posts
21,287 battles
6 hours ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

This!

They find no issue with it because it only affects the one thing they hate. Had it affected the other classes like DD for example, they would have been much louder against it.

yes. imagine if it had been say... dd concealment secretly nerfed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×