World of Warships - State of Play
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2024
- It's been a rough old week on the high seas, and here's why. As luck would have it, at the time this video was being recorded, WG announced a hotfix to address all of these issues and a few others I don't mention. Links down below, including to iChases' infamous "Flying Shimakaze" video and a new video he just posted called "Why Your AA Sucks", both well worth a watch.
Carrier Hotfix Notes: / 080psa_first_cv_rework...
iChase Flying Shimakaze: • World of Warships - FL...
iChase Why Your AA Sucks: • World of Warships - 0....
All music licensed from www.epidemicsound.com and www.machinimasound.com
Patreon: / themightyjingles
Discord: / discord
Twitch: / the_mighty_jingles
Facebook! / themightyjingles
Twitter: / mightyjingles
Merchandise!
teespring.com/...
teespring.com/...
Discount Game Codes courtesy of Xenom Games: www.xenomsoftw...
For any business, press or industry related enquiries, please contact Jingles.business@gmail.com
System Specs: Core i7 4.3Ghz CPU, 32GB DDR4 RAM, nVidia GTX1080 8GB GDDR5 GPU, running at 1920x1080 resolution
If you have a World of Tanks replay you'd like to submit, upload it to a hosting service like wotreplays.com and email the link to your replay to charlton.paul70@gmail.com.
If you have a World of Warships replay, consider using a hosting service like replayswows.com/
Just be aware that I get hundreds of emails every week and I can't promise that I'll show what you send in.
Calling it a "rough week" for WoWS is like calling the German WW2 Invasion into Russia during winter a rough walk out into the countryside.
You Toxic streamer 😜😉😜😉😍😜😉😍
lord potato has spoken
Goodaaammn that made me laugh Flamu!!!!!!
Imagine being in one of those games where the Haku does 500k + DMG :))))))))))))))
For the German it was a walk until the winter came!
Just remember "overwhelming positive feedback" led to this :)
So overwhelming it couldn't be heard over the sinking ships as they flood to death
90% negative feedback, 10% positive feedback.... Comrade! file the negative feedback in the fireplace. Only positive feedback remains! OVERWHELMING POSITIVE FEEDBACK!
iChaseGaming any updates on that realistic naval game you spoke of a while back? I’m a whole lot more excited about that now after seeing the CV rework....
Gear down, Saddam. ;)
@@herk8762 Sadly no :( they've had financial trouble and it's been radio silent on that front. I'm still in touch with their lead dev but not much news unfortunately
Jingles: "Do let me know what you think down in the comments"
Me: "I could really go for a bacon and cheese sandwich right about now"
Mmmmm... bacon and cheese...
@@The_MightyJingles Now see. This guy's got the real answers!
You are a man of culture sir.
Why ruin bacon by adding cheese?
@@The_MightyJingles
@@BrauckMan You have obviously never had bacon & cheddar fries. Pure ambrosia.
Helping Ichase test it, and speaking with a few people the problem with AA is that you need a full AA setup with DFAA up to do reasonable damage with just passive DPS to enemy planes, however thats all divided amongst each plane IE each plane is taking more damage the less of them there are. So when a Mino/Worcester/DM is doing 1880 damage (Rough estimate of its midrange) its being divided between 12 seperate planes, not including the -10% of that damage because of Aircraft Armor. Then CE for +150 HP more, it takes a good 13 seconds of being in the midrange AA of any of these ships to have a plane get shot down, problem is, you just drop and F key away. This is also not taking into consideration the extreme speed of tier 10 planes, my Midway (not haku havent tested too much of her) could line up from 9km out, start the drop, be through the long, and mid, and short AA to do a point blank drop in less than 10 seconds. And people wonder why AA doesnt work at higher tiers but low tiers its VERY good at tearing planes a new one.
AA in WoWs has always scaled badly. the NC melting Japanese tier 6 planes before you could even see the NC comes to mind. IMO, AA power to plane health should always been almost the same. there should not ever have been the drastic difference between the higher tier AA and the aircraft HP shouldn't have scaled so fast. the AA power of the tier 6 Cleveland should not be that different than the iowa or the des moine. sure some difference but not huge. if they smoothed out the range of AA firepower, then they could adjust aircraft HP until a happy middle ground was found.
People have been telling me I'm a bad player because my planes got shot down in my Ranger. I'm Tier 6. In a Tier 8 game. This damage just obliterates my two torpedo dropping planes...
@klony yeah, I don't know why WG always seems to screw tiers up. warships was better because the tier spread didn't matter as much between ships as it did in world of tanks. but then with CVs they killed it. tiers matter the most for CVs because of the AA imbalance. they need to figure out if they want CVs to deal small amounts of damage over and over to support the team or if they want carriers to have big strike potential that takes a long time to pull off. I think the AA across all ships needs to be setup into power groups. the highest group can only be achieved with captain skills. make the planes all about the same but give top tier planes an armor bonus against lower tier ships. I think they just keep redesigning instead of balancing.
@@nicodemus7784 hear me out, cause I'm new to WoW, and I'm still trying to figure it all out(I'll figure it out more when I play Legends when that launches). As to the AA damage differences, the damage output should be according to type and number of AA guns, correct? So unless the Cleveland is bristling with AA and the Iowa has a bare handful of AA guns, they shouldn't be comparable at all, yes? Also, the tier of the CV should be the same as the tier of her planes, in my opinion. What do you think? Also, referencing your reply to Klony, I have really liked what I've seen in UA-cam videos that the tiers don't matter nearly as much in WoW as in WoT. To the CV strike capability, they could make it somewhat like Artillery in WoT as in they can give a big hit after a pretty good while, to support the team like you said. I didn't quite understand what you meant by the part after that, but then again I've only played WoW Blitz, and I haven't played PC version yet.
@Inawana Industries hopefully I can articulate my answers properly. the Cleveland used to be a tier 6 cruiser, it was first ship that had some serious AA, bristling as you said. its now a tier 8 ship. if we were going for realism only, then yes, an iowa would have more AA potential just due to shear numbers of guns but neither would be a slouch either. however, WG has never stuck very close to realism. Their model is an arcade game and therefore balance with playstyle variety is god. not all CVs have the same tier planes as the ship itself. so to explain what I meant by power groups, I was inferring that the ships have their AA balanced into groups, say 1-5. low tier ships have almost no AA so they would be group 1. group 1 would have a set DPM for the AA firepower. high tier ships that have good AA would be group 4 by default. make the captain skill that increases AA raise the ship AA by one group level. by making the AA firepower even and more consistent across the game, they can adjust only the aircraft HP and firepower to rebalance as needed. the issue was that CVs were too strong in the hands of a skilled player, and your team was screwed if your CV player didn't know what he was doing while the other teams did. they have moved to lower the skill cap and now have to rebalance the AA and tweak other stuff. but the issue I have is that each ship damned near has its own AA rating, so you do not have a baseline to measure from when you adjust aircraft. realistic? yes. good for the game? IMO, no, too hard to balance. personally, I think one CV line should be about time consuming but hard hitting strikes and the other should be about fast light rapid attacks that slowly eat away at the enemy team.
Wait a minute, this isn't subnautica
no it's better, there's content.
Nope, no fun is allowed.
I do not see the difference, it's all sea and salt water. ;P
I'd rather play Subnautica
No, it is upnautica
The most interesting fact about the "stealth drop" is, that I saw it first on Farazelleth twitch channel like four to six weeks ago. He made it on PTS server regularly. So the only question is how the hell could be WG staff surprised!?! The F key feature is just a side effect of bad decision making that WG staff made regarding the CV play. I wish they didn't change the RTS CV play to that action one but made some serious adjustment to RTS style instead (e.g. AP-bomb mechanic rework).
Yep, all of these issues were well reported and documented by players, and they still rolled it to live servers, that's the most infuriating thing to me. If you're just going to ignore 100% of the testing, why are you surprised more people don't use the test server?
Thing is these problems where flagged before the rework went live. The Fact abuse, that AA wasn't strong enough, the stealth torping! All these problems where brought to attention before the rework went live yet wargaming went ahead with it anyway. Geez these devs have their heads stuck so far up their own ass it's ridiculous.
management probably thought “better than what we’ve currently got” due to all of the complaining so release the update anyway.
Same with all WG games it seems. Cc make videos of warning and nope, all arrive in the game broken.
@asaeampan So, you are basically saying, that the Test Server - exactly the place these issues were discovered - is rubbish and should be shut down, so upcoming patches can no longer be tested by a larger number of players. If you don't listen to CC, supertesters and the people on the test server, why should you listen to a couple more of your customers?
@@illyrocks1783 This tactic didn't work on the test sever as the bots didn't behave like people do.
@@chrisparkin6894 But the people playing on the test server do and they started using exactly these tactics. Usually developers tend to pay attention, when their most experienced part of the playerbase raises concerns. Which the CC, supertesters and the majority of the population on the test server most certainly is. All of these raised concerns were possible on the test server and people realised the impact these issues might have on the live server.
This was much better with RTS because only 0.01 % of players could abuse the carriers to the point of them becoming overpowered. Now every old fool can do it.
All they had to do was remove the alt attacks. This would lowered the skill cap so new players aren’t badly out classed
@@maceroni5869 It also made carriers very very boring to play. Honestly I just wish they would go back to the old way. Back when any carrier could manual torp.
Too bad this is the way things now, its either you adapt or watch yourself uninstalling the game..
@@LordEmperorHyperion I AGREE. we may wish for the past, but we have to adapt to the present.
Wishing for the past is useless, but just bending over to blow WG like Notser for example also does not help. We need to let WG know this shit is unacceptable.
I am a destroyer player. I specialised on playing japanese dd, capping, smoke support, sneak attacks with short range fast torps. I loved to play Shimakaze with the fastest torp and speed boost. 6.4 km range, but 81 knot speed.
Giving radar to every second ship was bad enough, but this FPS carrier play, unlimited, invincible planes, and rocket shooters made my DDs useless and unplayable.
I dont mind if something is difficult. But being useless is no fun. And I play for fun. When I am killed by carrier before I can even detect a single enemy ship that is anti-fun. Only option: camping beside AA cruisers. Terrible...
You shouldn't be playing DDs at the moment, the game is completely broken (you just can't maneuver fast enough and AA is ineffective.) They should really remove CVs from the game temporarily to fix this but I think what they'll do is try to patch it again and again.
i agree...but u really shouldnt use 6.4km torps...they r only usable if enemy charges u...or u get REALLY close where its easy to find and kill u. very situational.
i would at least recommend 8km torps...but ideally 12km (even more dmg) and possibly speed boost them to just beyond 10km if u want extra speed...
their concealment is also better as well as dmg! but reload a bit longer.
i personally use 12km and they r awesome. flexible and deadly.
Lol I hate DDs so I'm kinda glad they are having a bad day. The smoke and firing to me is the worst thing about the game
I played DD and I got a good game when there were two CVs in the enemy team. I died after 10 minutes into the match after getting hit by strike planes but I manage to to evade them most of the time, sank one DD and a BB, and cap to stop their ticker. It is all down to reading the map and outplaying the CV.
I play a Haru and have the same situation as you,, CV's are truly stuffing this game up.
My point made. Rework had nothing to do with balance.... and everything to do with getting this game on console. If it were, these issues would never had resulted... Once everything settles, regardless of changes...... the potatoes will cry "sky cancer" again, because the really good players (who figure things like this out) will continue to dominate the game.
New gamestyle: whole team is behind D line in a cluster like frightened chickens, long range sniping, advancing DD are dead in a minute. The game is ruined... All the fun is killed.
But bloody WG don't understand 😤😡😬
RTS CVs didnt cause any of this shit...AA was deadly vs them. DFAA was shredding them AND making attacks useless.
their own CV was able to defend the team and actually fight the enemy CV instead of spectate. plane losses were a MAJOR factor that made the CV much weaker later.
it was FAR more interesting and demanding...unlike the current braindead gameplay.
the RTS CVs just needed some tweaks...and IN GAME GUIDES FOR THE NOOBSWARMS THAT REACH T10
@@cobrazax exactly my opinion! thank you sir.
@@karlchenkarolinger5799
possible balancing options for the OLD CVs can be longer torp arming distance to give targets more time to avoid, and make it harder to devastate targets. AA increasing over time to prevent perma DD spotting. limiting spotting data to 1-2 squads at a time, with a delay switch with a similar concept to current AA sector switching. this will prevent total map spotting at all times, making u have to focus on a few squads for spotting info at a time. thats just a concept idea...other ideas can work too.
I play DDs alot, still do. And aircraft are the lest of my worries. Just have to pay attention to incoming aircraft and when you see them incoming, just go into a tight circle. It works. My Z-52 has a AA of 49 and has never been sunk by planes.
before rework: only good cv players can be overpowered
after rework: *everyone is overpowered*
excuse me sir, but you have misstyped in after rework, it should be. Everyone is overpowered
thank you for your constructive criticism, good sir
I suppose they made them invulnerable, as they didn't want to penalize the players for the inept pathfinding of the aircraft (just speculating here). I haven't tried the new carries out, but I assume the plane flies back in a straight line to the carrier and would even fly over a AA cruiser. So to avoid CV players becoming frustrated to losing all their return planes to inept pathfinding, they just made them imune.
I figure the same: it's not fun for a carrier player to suddenly start losing aircraft that they no longer have control over. I think a fair and balanced solution would be that squadrons can only be recalled if they're not in the AA range of an enemy, and craft that have completed their attack don't automatically break off from the squadron until they too are "safe" outside AA range.
Yep, that's why they did it. It was also to stop the returning planes leading enemy straight back to the CV. In the old system the player could dog leg the returning planes to lead enemy away from their ship and if you led them back to you it was your own fault. I think that's why WG's suggested fix is to just increase the time they are vulnerable instead of just taking it out all together.
That what happen in the old cv gameplay. Aircrafts when returning to ship automatically fly in straight line. They may fly over AA ship. And I have no problem with that. It is ridiculous to not loss health when pressing a key.
I think that's probably the reason too, and it would be pretty shit to loose a squadron due to bad pathfinding. But maybe that should be the choice the CV player makes. Rather than the planes bugging out when they drop, the stick with the squadron until you either press F and let them go back by themselves (risking losses due to random AA) or you fly the squadron out of the danger area and then press F to land them. If you press F you get to launch the next squadron immediately, but if you pull them out manually you minimize losses and thus maintain squadron size.
In my opinion, the planes should still have the potential to take full damage after their attack on a vessel, but the carrier player, once he presses the F key, should be allowed to plot a "return to the carrier" route by using waypoints, so that those planes could avoid most, if not all of the enemy AA fire during their return. I mean, how long does it take a player to plot that route, a few seconds? After that, he can take control over his next squadron, knowing that the old one will, as safely as possible, return to the carrier...
This patch took an entire year and they still managed to rush it out, but even with that said this is the situation we're facing. Said often by streamers - With this ship in this position I can control the flow of the battle. *Carrier Rework* Streamers - NO SHIP SHOULD HAVE THIS MUCH CONTROL OF THE BATTLE. Mr. Pot, this is Mr. Kettle... I see you've never met.
I'm surprised you didn't use the video from the 500k damage Hak game that happened a day or two ago on the NA server. I'm told its on the internetz somewhere
Check on Twitch Gaishu.
Check Panzerknacker's YT site
*550k damage. Edit: oh, and he did another 500k damage battle after that one too...
I was in that game, on the enemy team. Never felt so powerless in 3 years of playing this game. There was literally nothing my team could do about it.
Jesus. 300K direct damage and 240K in flooding. This is insane.
This has been my biggest issue with the CV rework: I came to play WoWS. If I wanted to fly planes I would have kept up with WoWP or reloaded Flight Sim '00 on my machine. So nothing anyone says is going to make me want to play my CVs anymore after the update.
You know when I suggested they actually add a torpedo-dodging minigame to help players get better at torpedobeats I didn't think it would be like this......
ROFL
No one seemed to have any issues a couple of years ago when the only AA ships were cruisers, and then they buffed ALL ships to have stupid amounts of AA killing all planes instantly. No one but the CV players complained then, we quit, and the game started to suffer from it going from world of warships to would of battleships. You were lucky if a CV player even joined. Then this update came out and now its a brand new mess. Its clear to me WG has no clue how to fix this issue but to only listen to the majority of players screaming yet again for another CV nerf. I was a pure CV player but quit after the silly AA buff were DD's were destroying my aircraft. Not surprised to see the state of CV's still the mess that it is and im sure after the nerf, CV players will lose interest once more. Shame because NavyFeild (Original one, not the new one) Had the best balance between CV's, BB's and Subs, it was so much fun and each class of ship had a major role to play supporting the team, WOWS is just go out and shoot stuff, very dull and uninteresting game-play. So sad because Warships was going to be my next game i hoped to put years into, didn't make it past 2.
When CV players left, the game got *better* not worse. You don't get more healthy when you have cancer, you get more healthy when cancer leaves you.
@@slyguythreeonetwonine3172 You know whats fun, when i have the game population for WOWS and you dont, your just a ignorant fool who likes to make stuff up :)
Now, now. To be fair he didn't say anything untrue. He plays CVs mostly, and it shows. This rework is for crap. CV's aren't cancer, at least they were somewhat balanced before. Now, the DD's will suffer endlessly (until the next rework), because everyone realizes the only real damage the CV can destroy reasonably quickly now, is the DD. So DD's have become the target of most CV players. The RTS version was better than this. Although, one could single shot (almost) a lone idiot in a Battleship, cruiser, or destroyer without AA build. Then they nerfed the crap out of CVs and rightly the CV's complained. Then the DD's complained about being perma spotted, since they went off alone and could be wiped out with a cross drop. How do you think the DD's are liking it now?
This is why I stopped playing until they fix this.
Hate to say it, but this garbage is likely here to stay.
haha spoken like a true pussy waaa waaa i dont like it waaaa waaaaa keep crying about it
They (WG) launched the patch compromising game play for all non-CV classes not only in random mode but also in coop and operations (the ai carriers no longer work). They broke the game so CV players could have fun and while I don't object to making CV game play engaging, it shouldn't effectively turn the game into a farce for everyone else. I thought they had 3 rounds of testing on the PT server, so how could they think this mess was good to go? Because it was someone's 'baby' at WG and it was being rolled out despite what the player base might think. Best of intentions...uhhhmm.
Dude, it's not even fun for CV mains. In a cv you're either op or shit, depending on the tier, and no matter what you do it's fly out, drop, f key back, rinse and repeat. No map control, no way to contest enemy air, no way to contribute meaningfully to the team.
CV mains did not want this shit. It was implemented for the gaming impaired.
" manouvering to avoid the torpedoes " hah i can tell you have not been a victim of a hakuryu jingles , because if you have , then you would know that the haku torpedos are NOT spotted untill they are LITERALY in your face , they have better concelemnet than deep water torpedoes of Yueyang .
This. It's not just the speed of the torpedo spam or the stealth of the bombers, it's the fact that the torpedoes just appear out of nowhere and hit you. It's easy to think when you see the video that people could just dodge them, but they can't see them.
@@aetius9 You have to think like a slow BB player after a DD is spotted in torp range of you. Assume the torps are coming and turn. And even then, it will mostly be too little too late.
Lol I think there needs to be balanced but if you are claiming stealth torpedoes just popped up with no warning, then you are not paying attention. If you see torpedoes planes coming towards you always assume they launched and are on thier way. Yes they can launched stealthed, but the planes close so fast you will see them before the torps get in range
There were so many ships there, they can see them going past the person in front of them, spotted by spotter plane, catapult fighter or sonar.
*figuratively
hey, at least WG make WOWS historically accurate by making every other surface ships obsolete with the CVs, and remember when WG said this year will be the true year of the CV? well, they finally keep their promise
In real life, aircraft carriers made all other surface types as offensive gun platforms to be obsolete.
The only real effective threat to a pre-cold war carrier is another carrier's attack aircraft...or a fast submarine. The loss of HMS Glorious is the exception to that rule and that is at least partially attributable to the flattop commander's lack of experience with carrier tactics.
Today's carriers may be subject to threats by over the horizon surfaced launched weapons (anti-ship missiles, for instance), as well as air and submarine attacks, but that's not being modeled in WOWS.
I'd play a game that had Gato class submarines in it.
Actually CVs were a problem only in tier 10 matches, and Hakuryu itself was singled out to be a huge issue because of the things outlined; in the lower tiers your planes get shredded even by single targets with not so great AA (like a Japanese battleship) very quickly and you are more susceptible to get fucked by flak because your planes maneuver like flying bricks.
*scrolling for comments telling Jingles what he did wrong*
You are more likely to see comments telling WG what they did wrong : pretty much everything :D
Here's the problem. It appears a significant majority of the player base just don't want CVs, regardless of the implementation. CV activity had reduced to 1 in every 10 games at tier 8+ and that was fine. That was a good opportunity to slowly tweak them (simplify so mere mortals could be vaguely competent) until they either died off completely or WG miraculously got the balance right . But no, instead they make us suffer this untested, ill considered cluster mess. I'm an average player with 6000 games. I spent a fair bit of cash on a game really liked. But in patch 0.8 my damage output dropped by 50% and my enjoyment 100%. I have now stopped playing. Despite the brave spin some of the community contributors are putting on this, I think this might be a point of no return for WOWS. And that is an absolute shame.
As someone who played the game since beta and gets sometimes really frustrated with the game I could only recommend to you to take a break, wait a patch or two to get things back on track (hopefully) and if you want we can then try the patch together. Since I personally don't get frustrated in a team a quick as I do solo.
I only got into the game recently, like a week or so before 0.8. I've been having fun, but am currently only at tier 5, where the problems seem to not be so bad when I have to fight tier 4 carriers. I am not feeling so good about going higher as I like my DDs and radar cruisers sound like no fun in them, plus these problems with the new carrier system
I have stopped playing random at high tiers because of this - ranked with only 6 other players I am playing as it is a more satisfying.... aircraft carriers are less popular in that format for which I am grateful - personally I think this could break the game. I stopped playing World of Tanks so much because of the toxic atmosphere with other players - this aircraft issue might destroy the game we generally older players play mainly because it is more tactical and strategic and less reliant on super quick reflexes as World of Tanks....
Ranked is tier 9 - no odd numbered carriers, so cannot be in ranked
For a moment there I thought I'd posted your comment, my experience exactly.
There are no CV at t9 so they are not less popular, they literally cannot enter, which no doubt is why they put it at t9.
Thank you for pointing that out. Finally someone who dares to address this issues directly. Every single bug / feature in this video was known on PTS. Or even further down the road. It's about the new mechanisms and numbers, nothing with stability of the client itself.
Or how WG has turned THE "Light AA cruiser" Atlanta, into as effective as the Akizuki was at killing planes. Full AA build Atlanta vs T6 Planes, 4 plane kills.. The fact that it's AA accuracy is 74%. Testing periods are not *just* about proving a new mechanic works but also that the counter play to that mechanic works. Or indeed that the role of ships actually *IS* what WG say they are. I can atleast say you've made the last week "interesting". As in the old chinese curse.
With carriers backed by BS game mechanics ruling the seas, now seems like as good a time as any to be thankful that I have a long backlog of _other_ games to play. It's not like I lack options: between RE2, Horizon Zero Dawn, and AC Odyssey, I should be set for a good long while - and that's just the ones that came out in the past year or so.
Picking up Witcher 3, Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3, and Hitman on sale means I don't even need to worry about how long Phoenix Point or the new Subnautica will take to fully release - though I am pretty stoked for them, and for Cyberpunk 2077.
So I guess what I'm getting at in the end is: Thank you, WarGaming, for helping me concentrate like this!
You're in for a treat with witcher 3 which, unless you binge a lot, will keep you company for weeks and months to pass alone.
Getting re2 tomorrow, should be enough for a while. I haven't really felt the urge to play *anything* for 2 months now, only the RE2 30min demo got me hyped.
@@jvccr7533 Witcher 3 is an amazing game but the combat is complete shit house. The Witcher 3 Enhanced Edition mod fixes that.
@@iseeyou1312 thanks for the super important addition, I guess?
With some improvements I still think this is a better carrier mechanic. It's at least more visually appealing and that's what I'm here for to be honest! But it has the potential to be much more easily fixed and balanced I think than the old system. But then again, what do I know? I've not even played carriers yet!
I think simply changing the recovery mechanic so that planes have to actually climb above the AA before they become immune would fix a good portion of this. My biggest complaint continues to be the AP changes for maximum RNG overpen
Apparently WOW have not studied the history of Anti-aircraft warfare. In WWII the Allies, the US in particular were using VT fuses. Also known as the proximity fuse. This innovation made long range anti air gunnery deadly. Time of flight to five miles is 10 seconds. A 3 inch 50 packs an 18 pound warhead that will cut a plane in half. With period fire control and VT fuses maybe one or two planes of a full 18 plane squadron might get through to the medium range ring. Then they are peppered by a cloud of 40mm fire.
Then the 20’s and 50’s open up.
You assume too much WG cares about this aspect. They think AA works like how you fly straight a fleet of planes into a blanket of radar-controlled flak cannons, with some mid-range and short range guns capable of doing some more consistent damage.
Just a thought here, but: the more realistic they make this, the harder it is going to be for ships to fight off aircraft. Air superiority dominates modern navies for a reason, and that reason is how powerful aircraft carriers proved to be during the time period WOWS takes place in.
I have no horse in the race but I don't think we should call it 'abusing' the recall mechanic. They are using it as it was designed, if there is a flaw in the design we can call it exploit perhaps.
Looks like 1. scale back the flak burst damage, but allow the bursts to cover more volume; 2. beef up the medium AA; 3. REALLY beef up the short-range AA. That would be more historically accurate.
I'm surprised you didn't address what's happened to destroyers Jingles. That class has effectively retreated to Ranked.
Admittedly, this new update has got me trying out Carriers more. Back in the previous playstyle, playing carriers was an intimidating prospect, where you are automatically judged by everyone and their mother on how you handle your planes.
All "First" Commenters will be sent to the Gulag.
Okay comrade Stalin
i will take that any day over the salt mines
Aren't we all first?
You mean the salt mines, right?
First :V Bring 'em on!!!
One thing I have said too is remove torpedo flooding from carrier planes. Then reduce the aircraft range of sight to a flat 7km to BB, 5km for cruisers, 3.5km for DD's. That way while they see their target they are taking constant damage...
WarGaming. Breaking the game with CVs like a champ
Played five battles yesterday. Won't be playing it again for at least five months. Well done and thanx, WG.
Oh jingles, it’s cute that you give WG so much credit for best intentions. It seems more likely that WG put out this OBVIOUSLY broken mechanic so suck up gold while they can for people moving to carriers. And after the milking goes on a while; it’s whoopsie, better patch that. (Among many, the Maus buff in WOT)
I do think a rework was necessary, and it does have many issues, but these issues were inevitable. The test data from both the betas and the public tests is not accurate enough because people play different on the live servers.
All we can do as players be patient and make Wargaming aware of the issues that there currently are (and be polite while doing so)
So basically wargaming did what we all said they were goimg to do. Fully screw up carrier play and continue to ruin a great game.
First of all, we all know that Flat Tops don't fight close quarters naval engagements unless someone has royally screwed up like at Leyte Gulf. Even then, it wasn't full size Fleet Carriers but little escort carriers that were involved. This is a game mostly about WW I and WWII surface combatants. I don't see a real place for carrier operations unless we are talking about escort carriers, which have a very limited strike package. I personally don't think carriers have any place in World of Warships. It should be limited to surface combatants. One thing they might think about is perhaps trying out some night action battles like those that took place in iron bottom sound. Don't get me wrong, I think aircraft carriers are great and would love to play them, but they should be in a different gaming environment where the carriers and their squadrons are the centerpiece of the action and the surface ships are simply screening vessels. Adding submarines to world of warships makes more sense than having air craft carriers.
Another issue which is somehow lost (because most videos feature tier X carriers) is the performance of tier 6 and 8 carriers. They are now often playing ships 1 and 2 tiers higher than them. I especially suffered with the Enterprise (tier 8) which has tier 7 aircraft. When you fly in a tier X battle, it's basically impossible to do any attack runs as the aircraft get shot down before you can even attack. Now, this iChase-method of spamming torpedos may work there, but honestly - rocket planes and especially dive bombers (Enterprise-speciality as they have AP-bombs) were shot down everytime before I got even a shot off. Which is why I sold the Enterprise. So, no matter how good a good player in a Tier X-carrier may be, the way there via tier 6 and 8 is a very horrible one right now. And trust me, when you play a battle of 15 minutes or so and end up with 3000 damage, you stop playing carriers very quickly.
Yeah but no one wants to hear that, its the same drumbeat wot had against arty.
Well... here’s how I can think to help with the plane imbalance.
1) The longer aircraft are being shot at, the more accurate the fire becomes, stay in the bubble too long and you’ll lose all your aircraft.
2) Keep the whole “F to recall” thing. But make it so that planes need to fly UP and out of combat range, which will take time and still leave them vulnerable if they are inside AA Fire (they fly up off the battle field, then re-enter the map on the side closest to your carrier)
Well as of 2 days ago i completely quit World of warships after experiencing the complete breakdown of gameplay. I play DD's and cruisers and after numerous battles trying to give this update a chance, due to CV issues i gave up as it stressed me out. DD gameplay is ruined. Even cruisers struggle now. I have plenty of other games that dont leave me feeling angry, upset and dissapointed and cheated. WoW has been put on my PC shelf and will collect dust. This game was once great. Now its dying. A Shame.
Same here buddy. I am very angry about this, especially towards the devs. This will end very badly for them which I hope it will be.
I thought anout quitting then did 165k damage and was over it. I stay below t10 to avoid this crap until fixed
Honestly, I don't think it will die. But CV play, for me, is intolerably the wrong thing. I played World of Warplanes for like 8 games and knew I didn't like it. This feels too much like that, but worse, given before the rework you could make purposeful impact with the CV. Now the CV has been reduced mainly to a spotter role with constant DD harassment. It has driven DD usage (at least from what games I play) down way far. I have ideas to fix it, but Wargaming doesn't seem to take anyone's ideas seriously.
Well, DCS modules went on sale yesterday. Going to spend the next couple weeks teaching my warship buddy to fly a Harrier until it's all sorted. He was one of the very few very good oldschool aircraft carrier players so you can imagine how our games have been. We almost always win but it feels dirty and it isn't really very fun. Playing other ships... Well, most of our fun ships we like to play haven't got a lot of AAA, so third game in a row of both being deleted instantly we called it quits.
TLDW : Just another patch that supports the lowest common denominator. With the older CV playstyle, i had respect for them even though i felt irritated when my ship got nuked, because it took skill to use the RTS system. This?....well the results speak for themselves. In the end it's like War of the Worlds, with surface ships as the humans and the smug, pretentious pricks who support this patch as "balanced and fair" and cry about how the old system was too difficult for them as the CV's.
I would like to believe that WG can fix this, but i wouldn't hold my breath. Business is business after all, and if thousands of complete potato's with daddy's credit card love this patch, than in the end, nothing really matters to them.
So irritating and so true. Giving up is the *only* best option here.
Totally agree with you!!! Always respected the good / great carrier players on the old system, even when being done over by them!! Loved it when two good carrier players met in the same match and duked it out!
Not liking this muck!! No fun - No more!
I would love for the RTS system to come back, but I'm not holding my breath. It was vastly better than this system. There was skill in effectively managing 3, 4 squadrons at a time. And to WarGaming's point that a good carrier player holding a disproportionate amount of power in their hands, well good, that's how it should be, and that's how it is on the sea. Carriers do hold disproportionate amounts of power compared to other ships. The old system was almost a game of chess when you encountered another good carrier player, as you had to make sure you had your fighters in the right place at the right time, that they had enough ammo to engage, and you weren't letting too many of the enemy torpedo/dive bomber though to your team, or yourself. I've even been in nailbiting situations against a battleship, at almost point blank range, having to take one of my own torpedoes to get him. And having to _manually control my carrier_. Imagine that, a carrier being forced to manually control their ship, while simultaneously controlling 2 torpedo squadrons, and a squadron of dive bombers, when a battleship getting your broadside, only a couple km away. That was exciting. I was done in by a destroyer after, but it was f*cking exciting playing. Now, lower tier carriers are just terrible. Dropping one torp at a time is rough, and hella hard to hit anything. I hope WarGaming will bring the old system back, but I doubt they would.
@@VigneshBalasubramaniam
On the one hand, disproportionate power is unbalanced and not fun.
On the other, in the old system I gave up playing when my 6 fighters died to 4 fighters while over an allied ship and I couldn't even try to disengage. That was my second game against human players. Within a few minutes I lost half my fighter group. What was I supposed to do then? Be a constant disappointment for fifty games until I got XP for skills?
It's good we have you Jingles. Greetings from Poland. I've finger crossed for the hot fix.
Wait a second. Aircraft, don't fly in a straight line! Sounds familiar.
Jay Johnson Ace Combat? lol
Not sure how some of these 'over sights' made it to live but the fix's are pretty simple.
- Remove the immunity of recall for planes, its not needed AT all.
- Remove the sector system,
- Decrease the damage from flak, but increase the Damage over time AA fire. (More steady damage, less spikey damage)
- Rework defensive fire, Lower duration, lower cooldown, lower damage increase, but unlimited charges. (That will take a few attempts to get the balance right)
- Add consumable to Carriers, Fighter support, allows the carrier to assign a squad of fighters to a friendly ship to help protect it. (Fighters can spot torps)
Start with those changes, and see how it plays out
What ever happened to play testing? I understand not picking up unusual or minor issues but the issues here are straight out gameplay issues. It's totally unforgivable to release such an unsatisfactory product.
Playtesting does happen, it's the management not listening to the playtesters is the problem.
It confirms what i have known for about a year (speaking as a successful and now retired professional game developer):
That the current Design and QA Test team on World of Warships is lead by desperately inexperienced and under-qualified game design staff with insufficient capacity for AAA multiplayer game design. If you dont believe me, you have to ask yourself what were they implementing and testing, if they didn't realise that these very basic behaviours by players were not tested or known about before release.
The job of *professional game designers* and internal quality assurance professionals is to know about the weaknesses of their implemented design mechanics before release and anticipate and remedy those issues before players get hold of it. It's a fact that even excellent Game Designers don't always get it right, but players should have to hunt hard, and really work at it, to expose game exploits. NB: Crash bugs, hardware and technical faults are a different issue and not relevant to this.
That this went live, in this state, also says that the senior Wargaming management who decided to release this patch either don't care enough or that the current working environment is so poisonous that no one more junior dare tell them the truth for fear of repercussion. And that either way Wargaming know the fan base are passionate enough about the product to keep putting coins in the slot regardless as longs as they just keep messaging "positively" to negative player feedback.
Have no doubt that they will tell you they "care deeply about the game and their fans", and that they "didn't see this coming". They aren't stupid, but they must think you are, at the least, very naive about game development or they wouldn't have released the version patch in this state. Why?
Well, that they are ready with a "hotfix" so quickly admits significant and widespread (internal to Wargaming) prior knowledge of the issues involved in this patch. It takes significant time to both change and then effectively test gameplay to ensure you are not going to create more problems than you are looking to remedy. It is a fact of game development that anything that even 0.5% of the player base experiences, per game, is going to have a significant impact on gameplay and player perceptions in a very short period of time. Most especially when 100's of thousands of 24 player multiplayer games per hour are being played. Either Wargaming have forgotten this important point, or they don't care enough not to just shovel both the patch and the "hotfix" out the door.
It's not as if you are getting attacked, then healing , then moving on. It's constant and when you are in a Kamikaze R with no AA left it seems like a waste of time playing.
Kamikaze R has AA?
@@ainumahtar I think it's two Ensigns with .22s.
.22 pistols, that is XD
@@ainumahtar Now, now, at least one of them has a rifle. ;)
@The Mighty Jingles Great video as usual! One crucial correction though. Carriers can't recall mid-drop; as shown, they drop the payload and then recall; or get auto-recalled if it's the last element in the squadron. I think it's important to--
...Jingles?
*gunshot*
19:30 This is NOTHING like a Shimakaze ... because the Shima has to WAIT FOR ALMOST 2 MINUTES before the torps are reloaded. This is more like 2-3 Shimas.
2-3 Shimas who can't take damage (carrier itself) and instead may get a small reload penalty when they get hit while only the secondarys are allowed to shot them.
Shimakazea torps can delete a full heath battleship in one volley. Air drop torps had thier damage severely nerfed. But not saying tweaks aren't needed, because they are
Remember the kitakami? 40 torbs on one destroyer? This new carrier gameplay is flying the kitakami with invicibillity.
@@David-ys4ud In the stealth torp replay, the Izumo lost 75% of its health. CVs can totally dev strike a BB, even now. It used to be it took a CV 40s to reload its torp planes but now the only waiting is flying the torps to the target. As far as realistic torp DPS, CVs outmatch DDs. DDs can't guarantee more than 50% of their torps land, but CVs can guarantee most of the torps land and have much faster cooldown times.
I have played on and off since Beta. I got my 1st T10 just before the carrier patch, The daring. All I get to do now is dodge constant rocket attacks until my constantly spotted ship is in range to be finished off by surface ships. On the plus side, I have at least had a lot of missions completed to shoot down aircraft.
I'm a dd main. Idk y WG hates dds so much. There's this issue with rocket spam. Even in my Grozo, I can only last so long because there are actually other ships to worry about besides Hakus and Mids (DM, Moskva, Wooster, etc). Then there's the issue where for a sec I thought WG was coming to back up dds some by limiting the first 6 seconds of radar to only the ship who was using radar. But then, oh crap, Moskva gets a longer radar (among other Russian cruisers and ships like Black)?? Well gee, DD life just plain sucks now. I can't even play objectives anymore. Caps are basically a thing of the past. I'm constantly spotted between CVs, DDs, and radar cruisers and then I'm staring at my port screen. Y? Just y? I hate that I'm punished so hard for playing a class.
SPOT ON!!!!!!
glad someone agrees with me :D
Oh wow. I spotted iChase last night; really glad I was on his team, now!!
Hm did Bethesda make this patch for Wargaming ?
@@JaylemagnifiqueGame planes invincible and suddenly dissapear says enough.
Yeah, by "flying shimakaze" I thought the video meant that literally. I was sticking around for _that_ bug!
So no longer the need to avoid these flak burst, just taking the shortest route towards the target to minimize time in the flak aura...
That's an improvement !
I loved the old WoWs. That was my cup of tea, my game. I sunk about 2.000 hours only in the last year in this game. Spent a good amount of money on it, as well, and did so without regreat. Because it provided me with a good output.
It isn't the same anymore and I fear: It never will be. This is too big a failure to simply address it with a hot fix. This rework is actually worse than the original RTS gameplay. And I don't think they're gonna withdraw from this rework. This is farewell, I guess.
For the F key abuse, one way to fix it is to have the CV players flying the aircrafts outside of the AA zone(s) before they can press the F key. That's what DD players have to do: they are not just rushing into enemy ships and YOLO torping them, they need to plan an escape route to avoid being sunk on the way out.
It,s not only the CV reworks but it,s also eliminate the role of DD,s , getting points with their spotting but now do all the plains that spotting for them. Yesterday i have try to play the game with the BB Musashi and within 5 minutes i was down to the bottom of the sea because a vc was spaming his torp, i not like this way of playing this game it,s have nothing to do with skills anymore. Also 6 CV,s in one game thats overkill.
Agreed. Musashi is helpless now if there is a CV in the game.
Who needs DD's anymore? Where I can have a whole squadron of flying DD'S at my disposal..
But what will be left from the entire gameplay when CV,s airplanes are able to fly with a speed of 200 Knts to a enemy zone , drop torps and press the F key and directly fly with the whole squadron again direction the enemy zone and while his old torps still in the water he drops a new torp attack? What is the fun in the game for all players when you are in a battle like ua-cam.com/video/R5bBhKBfmIk/v-deo.html ?
Musashi is completely helpless vs CV, its AA is so weak it might as well not have any right now.
Jingles please read this ,
Possible Fix:- Remove the aircraft health bar and carrier players won't know when to call back and when attack run is initiated you cant call back the squadron at all, they have to go through the attack completely. Returning aircraft immunity may be fixed by two things:- They take reduced damage or they implement an AI that would dodge enemy ships and fly over friendly ships to get back and also take longer.
8.0 is and was a giant fluster cluck....... They really screwed up game play, and while I realize they needed more game play to understand the issue, there were ways to avoid ruining the game for everyone as they attempt to actually manage this change.
A) Offer real incentives for PTS play that compensate for paid time on the live server. PTSers should get at least one Premium day for every "x" minutes played on the PTS.
B) Increase queue time on the PTS to a max of 3 minutes... instead of 30 seconds. This was a joke and resulted in no progress in play testing. It was a waste of time that seemed to be intentional.
C) Roll out the new CV's over weeks. Remove all current CVs and put only T4 back in play - work out the issues and then after it seems stable, apply changes to T6 and add those and repeat. Changes to upper tier AA will be irrelevant, ,as there will be no upper tier CVs initially.
D ..and finally.... listen to the user base when they tell you that things are not working.
Certainly agree with A, B and D, why have a test server if you're just going to ignore what is done there...As for C, t4 CV are actually not super broken, they don't lose planes even without F spam, but they also don't do a very large amt of dmg. T6 seems to be pretty weak, t8 seems like the sweet spot to me and t10 is just lolwtf broken, I don't think a staggered rollout would have fixed this, though.
@@ainumahtar The only point of "starting" with T4 only is for everyone to get a start on game play at a slower pace. This was a major change that affects the entire game structure and play. A slower roll out would have avoided much of this angst and allowed the system to be tweaked at a more stately pace.... as it is they dropped a giant bomb in the middle of everything and scattered it all.
I haven't loaded the game in almost a week.
Yeah I can see that, although I do also feel people shouldn't need too much adaptation from a gameplay perspective, playing the CV is simple as shit, way easier than playing other ships, especially anyone that ever touched the old CV should have no issue getting it in 1 maybe 2 matches, the rest is polish like better drop techniques and such, but a large part of the playerbase will never learn those anyway, just like large parts of the playerbase never learn how to play regular ships well
I fully agree with this. Just because very few players were on the test servers, *doesn't* mean the mechanics should be implemented. This is a plain slap in the face for me after countless hours put into CVs. Really made me feel very angry about it.
@@ainumahtar well, reason why he wrote D, was because WG does not listen to feedback.
feedback pointed out how cvs are not ready for release,
feedback pointed out how TBs are op and need nerf
feedback pointed out how AA was innefective
feedback pointed out how carriers are too easy to play
feedback pointed out how carriers do not get punished for bad play.
wg did not fix any of the mentioned problems, or tried to adres them
wg did not result to balance the ships before the release on the live server (for which the test server exists as well)
this wasnt just for cvs, ohno. we did the same thing for Azuma, Stalingrad, Borgogne, Conqueror, Kutuzov, LoYang, Scharnhorst, GrafZ...
WG is hosting test servers just so people can experience the shit before its out on lvie servers so they can have a head start on everybody else.
test servers are just a formality, not functionality !
I believe returning aircraft should have two modes when F key is used, low and fast to lower their visibility but increase their damage taken when spotted or high alt evasion which increases their visibility but decreases their speed and vulnerability to damage.
Wonder when they’ll learn that cvs can’t be balanced
How about 1k torpedo dmg and 0% flooding chance, 200 max bomb dmg, 0 rocket dmg? 😛
Two years after you quit. Oh wait, you did twice already, right?
Midway seems fine it is Haku and the AA in some cases that is the problem. Plus the F button abuse ofc.
@@CamaroZ28Nut3 Carriers are like arty on steroids. They are not even comparable. Tier 8 and up SPGs have between 35-45 seconds of reload time and your camo rating is absolute shit even with a net and fully trained crew. Nah, the only people complaining about arty are little camper bitches that don't want to be disturbed in their bush. Get over it.
This is why you'll never see playable aircraft carriers in War Thunder.
Influence the battle, but thats how it was in WW2. The Battle of Midway. a battle fought completely by aircraft Land based and CV based. So yes, CVs have alot of power when played by some one who knows what they are doing.
Played five games since the patch, catastrophic results, permaspotted in my dd's making capping impossible, or doing anything else except smoking up and waiting to die.
Next WG needs to add a "No CV" checkbox in the game filter option :P
As primarily a DD player I will not be playing WoWS PVP for some time.
Lol sorry but even before this rework I hated DDs the smoke and invisible cloak was the biggest mistake imo. Enjoy your other games
Carriers are here to stay, if you can't deal with it then just leave, vainly hoping this will change is like waiting for bigfoot to appear..
@@LordEmperorHyperion Apparently you are not aware they are already changing toward more balanced play. Perhaps you should attempt to be less judgemental in your comment.
@@michaelsebastiane4454 I hate to say it, but i agree with you. It needs balance. I really enjoy playing CVS now. However i fear they will nerf CVS back to irrelevance again.
Like many others, I am concerned that putting carriers into such a small map is like trying to stuff a 900 pound gorilla in your carry-on luggage. When I tried the new CVs, I found the maps were so small and the planes so fast that I didn't really have any difficult decisions to make. There was nowhere for the targets to hide, and it didn't require much thought to pick out the most vulnerable target. It was just repetitive attack runs that quickly become boring.
It's not even that the old Carrier Game play was that hard, you just had to pay attention constantly. I have tried this, and I didn't like it one bit and in my opinion just created dull gameplay.
Trust me, when you get a second screen, open up Matchmaking Monitor (pretty much WoT's XVM for WoWS) and then you see the sheer stupidity in randoms, even from top tier ships whether in the match or from the tech tree, in a messed up way it becomes plausible that the old RTS mode for the CVs was hard for them: when they can't even pay attention on a normal ship to more than the ship they are aiming at (pretty much tunnel vision), not even the fucking minimap, do you expect them to comprehend CV gameplay that required you to maneuver several squadrons and also look pretty often at the minimap?
@@Ultrakillerism Maybe, if playing RTS style is too hard, don't play it. Also, I am not a great player at all, not even at RTS (I know how to play and what it takes to win, but no where near the level of some of my friends), but I am average and understand that situational awareness and micromanaging is important in the old carrier gameplay. Nowadays, it's just spam one type of aircraft and just respawn the planes if the flak is strong.... It's a bad implementation of a dull and boring gameplay
@@michaelritzen8138 that is because the rework was not implemented in order to fuck us up (which in the end it did but without expecting it from the beginning), but to release the game on WoWS, so we had to swallow the major change from RTS to the current arcade squadron flying minigame as such as well for WG to mainaint development consistency.
@@Ultrakillerism but that doesn't mean that we have to like it, and I won't be playing carriers, even though I did enjoy the RTS style gameplay and invested quite some time in it. I also feel that the number of aircraft should be limited or AA ratings "Immortal" or the defensive fire ability unlimited, just as the aircraft.
@@michaelritzen8138 my problem is not that I don't like it, I don't play carriers and surely won't play them because the grind is masochism with squishy planes that maneuver like flying bricks and barely any torpedoes dropped at tier 4, assuming your planes survive even against a lone ship, not a cluster of them.
At high tier however, particularly tier 8 and 10 carriers are still as annoying as artillery is in WoT: all they do is they constantly harass you with torpedoes dropped so close to you that you virtually can't avoid them if you drive something bigger than a DD.
The problem I encountered with manual drops remains: Counterplay consists 90% of (no skill) AA. To make skill matter, the minimum attack range and visibility should be such that a player can maneuver to reduce incoming damage.
Revert to the previous mechanic, remove manual drops and strafing and tweak the AA accordingly. I want plotting room gameplay only. If you want to fly planes, go play a different game.
It is not just a matter of balancing. Being on the receiving end is just being a bot. Being able to decide which side of your ship the AA bot is sitting on is a pale excuse for having any control over the situation. Compare that with the central reason that people play WOWS of predicting what another player will do and using your own skill to aim and fire.
Professional players, like yourself, may enjoy the extra challenge of trying to outmanoeuvre torpedoes, bombs and rockets that suddenly appear from all directions but as you repeatedly comment, casual, weekend and noobie players already have more than they can handle dealing with surface threats which are relatively slow moving. And the consensus amongst such players seems to be that the time without carriers was a blessing. We enjoyed the game more.
However, there are also those that are really enjoying this new carrier game. So let them have a new type of battle, CV players against CV players, each with an escort of other surface ships played by bots that they must attack and defend. CV kills could replace capture points. For what it is worth, that would be realistic of what happened in the pacific.
Then the two could be integrated in tier ten only matches or single tier clan battles.
I like your idea... except that no, please, no "integration". Nobody wants to be the bot for tier 10 CVs.
Also, this mode really feels like an excuse to waste all our free XP to get to the only viable ships right now, Hakuryus... or British CVs, however you may get them.
@@maianoguillaume Those tier 10 or clan battles would only be for those that wanted them, those for whom WOWS is not complex or challenging enough
It will say that, although my first impression after playing the rework was "this is fairly alright", the abillity for a carrier player to just say no to take any damage just by pressing the F-key is plain and simply dirty. Glad that WG will try to fix these issues though.
Well I personally mean at least they try to fix it and i will definitely not touch my Yamato
@RazorBlade - The entire IJN line relies heavily on 25mm AA (which prior to 0.8.0) had a range of 3,5 km. Now it is at 1,9 km which means that attacking aircraft doing 150 knots have time to release their payload (thus rendering them immune to AA) before your short range AA does meaningful damage. Check your Yamatos AA rating and AA ranges in comparison to other lines. Sorry...
@@frankhilmar7847 ?
Haven't played since the new carrier play came out. Figured it would give me more joy watching vidoes like these of exploits being found....and it does. Thanks Jingles!
Uhh, sorry, but giving CV players continous play does not make "the pace of gameplay the same as everyone else's". See, everyone else has to drive ships for minutes at a time to start, then drive for periods of time to engage enemies, and wait for reloads while doing that. There is tons of waiting in matches for all other ships, so giving CV players continuous play of fast moving aircraft hypes their damage potential to an amazing extent over all other ships. Does WG not even know this from playing their own game? /smh
Nah, the problem is that BBs should have 3s reload times. /s
Another crybaby with daddy's credit card that wants a game suited to his needs. Go fuck yourself moron.
AA not being effective, constant waves of air attack, all ships performing evasive anti-air maneuvers hmm... Wargaming really nailed how WWII naval combat felt
How could it happen that WoWs did not anticipate the obvious to happen by bringing those monster CVs onto the life server. A final reality check by WG before release would have shown that there is something seriously wrong: 10secs for planes to reach the first cap: 30 secs to open up the whole map and enemy positions and 30 secs for the next squadron wave to arrive at enemy targets. This results in rendering the ‘concept of concealment’ as meaningless.
I call this the fallacy of ‘ideological priesthood’ by WG with regard to CVs (or may be for future console gameplay), a term borrowed from the Brexit debate in the UK.
Apart from all of the flak WG is getting with the CV Rework, you got to admit that the AA visual effects are quite stunning to behold since the Closed Beta Test.
It certainly is an insane situation
Stealth torping is nothing unusual, the overpowered DD's have been doing that since the game started. And it's even easier now WGing nerfed BB guns against DD's.
Maybe in addition to "fixing" this WGing should do a two week long questionnaire asking if players want to opt out of carrier battles.
Put buttons on MM so you wont go into a game with a CV so you don't waste skill points on an anti air build and there's no CV.
Just make the rewards slightly less if you use this option.
Hell you can go all the way and have MM with buttons so you only go into a battle where you only face ships of the same class.
I can see the much abused BB players loving games where there is no invisible DD endlessly spamming over fast torps or flame thrower cruisers burning them down.
There you go DD players, wouldn't you love a game with nothing but DD's? :)
DDs don't travel at 200 kts and have a button that makes them invulnerable to damage if they want to get away. Their torps also reload in between a minute or two and not 20s. They also can't cross torp you.
@@TJackson736 Your comments still don't address the issue I raised. That stealth torping is nothing new. It's just that now aircraft can do it too.
And some DD torp's do reload in 20-30 seconds if your playing the lower levels or have the reload booster
This comment assumes the playerbase is large enough to accommodate such restrictions without waiting in queue for 20-30 minutes.
There's a simple and easy way to fix the flak burst issue that doesn't require WG to over-strengthen the constant DPS mechanic of short/medium range AA.
DMG/[(4/3*Pi*R^3)*Air Resistance factor]
This is the actual saturation of flak exploding in a spherical burst. R is radius, or the distance away from the center of the flak burst that the planes happen to be. You don't have to be hit by flak directly to take damage. However, the effective damage of flak decreases (and significantly) the farther you are away from the flak burst. This means that if a CV captain is hard maneuvering their planes and actively avoiding flak, they should be able to get away with taking relatively little damage during things like approaches, maneuvering for the ideal drop angle, etc.
However, when they start charging in on target to make a drop, the linear path that the planes need to take lowers the distance from the flak bursts, causing more damage and emulating the effect you'd see in real life.
It's very hard with a projectile weapon to hit a target that's moving laterally to you while also changing its course and speed. However, a target that's charging you it's far easier to shoot accurately for obvious reasons. No need to change your horizontal angle, you simply point your guns directly at, or just in front of, the target charging you.
This effect already exists to some extent in-game, just give the flak a wider (and more physics realistic) area of effect. This system will still reward maneuvering (a good CV player should be able to avoid the actual bursts under most circumstances), but it just won't reward it as much. You either high speed charge your target to limit your time spent in the AA bubble (and lose accuracy on your drops), or you linger and alternate speeding up and slowing down (gaining drop accuracy but keeping yourself exposed to the AA fire for longer, losing more planes in the process).
It could ultimately be more fun for everyone involved. A side benefit of this is that close flak hits would still have reduced damage relative to their full puffs catching a plane full on. It will still do a lot of damage if a flak burst explodes directly on your plane (as it would in real life), but you're less likely to see it wipe out an entire squadron if the CV is smart enough to decide to disengage.
This would limit the hand of our lord and savior RNGesus, effectively making lower tier carriers more viable in a high tier game, but also making it so that consequence free drops would rarely exist, and the CV player will need to weigh the pros and cons of each attack strategy.
It would make DDs reliably able to chip down a few aircraft (because DDs depend so much on the flak bursts to do effective anti plane damage), but it would also make it so that cruisers weren't really able to auto-kill a squadron passing within their AA range, instead making their full squadron destruction incumbent on how that CV decided to attack. A risk-averse CV drop isn't going to be nearly as effective (which is a good thing) but keeps their planes more intact. A daring drop might net a very healthy pile of damage, but pick the wrong target or read the map wrong, and that whole squadron can get sent back to your ship before it even gets a chance to complete a drop.
Lucky for me, I play at the lower tiers 6-7 and I don't have to deal with that craziness.
I now realize why I didn't believe CV players being OP: I only have a Tier 6 CV and the Ranger really can't pull off the Tier 10 carrier shenanigans.
Lead Dev 1: Hey, our -moneybags- players are probably going to complain we nerfed CV damage output with the rework;
Lead Dev 2: Yeah don't they always?
Lead Dev 1: lol true, anyway I thought up a cunning plan;
Lead Dev 2: Does it involve a turnip?
Dead Dev 1: No you idiot. I mean, what if we intentionally make CVs powerful even for the average windowlicker..
Lead Dev 2: Go on..
Lead Dev 1: Well, people won't be able to cry about how the rework killed the dmg output, a big portion of our players will actively start playing CVs because it makes them feel powerful, and if we then apply some 'fixes' later we'll look like awesome devs that listen to the playerbase!
Lead Dev 2: Hah, I like your style. Do it.
I feel like there was a definite risk involved when they tried to make carrier gameplay more accessible to the masses. And the line got crossed because there were things to be exploited that didn't get to be properly tested. I am glad they are trying to fix it though.
That all well and good for tier 10 CV's , but tier 4 CV's are just a joke. 1 torp dropped at a time, all planes being shot down with one flak burst however you try to avoid them, slow ass planes its just not fun at all.
Taigan - having been on the receiving end, Tier 4 rocket-equipped strike fighters are no joke - at Tier 4 DD's don't have a whole lot of health to begin with.... :)
Another great video. Soooo glad wow is fixing this mess up quickly. I watch all your video's and really enjoy your insight. I just started playing this game (WoW) 3 months ago so I'm still learning.
also, the AAA is too short range, the 5.5km for "long range" with mostly burst damage that can be dodge and the aircraft starting their attacks from 10km away and fling at sound speed is not balanced, the big puff of smoke dealing huge damage but dodgeable should be shoot from 5 to 10 km with a slow rate of fire, middle range should be from 2 to 5 km and be a mix of spraying bullet that does constant and moderate amount of damage with some medium puff of smoke that does reasonable damage shoot at a good rate of fire, then from 2 to 0km the short-range AAA should kick in with only spraying bullet that do a FAIRLY BIG amount of damage to all plane in range, crazy enough to be that close.
Maybe a repair and rearm timer penalty for returning planes that are damaged could be an interesting mechanic to add.
They should remove CVs or revert them to the old CVs and actually balance them rather than have consolify them. I'm not coming back till then.
The other issue beyond all of the things that are getting changed in the hotfix, is that basically the only CV vs CV combat is when one CV drops on the other CV. They have very little capability to use their fighter consumables to protect friendly ships against air attack. The main purpose of the fighter consumable is instead if you fly past an enemy DD, you can summon some fighters to circle the area and keep them spotted. As we saw in iChase's video, the enemy dropping a fighter in his strike area was completely useless.
And with CVs not meaningfully contributing to fleet air defense (despite how this ought to be a big part of a CV's job), that means the only "CV vs CV combat" is a DPS race. The green CV and the red CV are simply seeing who can sink the other guy's team faster. As terrible as the pre-rework CV system was, it at least made it important for each CV to deploy his fighters property to stop the enemy CV's bombers.
Wait.. WAIT.. Won't you catch us next time!?!?
No he won't. He is camping the D line to avoid getting instagibbed by a CV.
One VERY big fix would be aircraft torpedo range. It used to be respectively short. Now it seems to be quite far. Even a slight reduction in air dropped torpedoes would go a long way (sorry, I just noticed the pun :/)
Look, it's simple. You're limiting CVs ability to strike. Cause with the f-key spam fix and the AA efficacy improved, they can't drop on a cluster of ships, period, they'd loose all their planes and then have to wait 12 minutes to get them all back. That means CVs aren't going to strike, at all. No, instead CVs will circle the enemy, like vultures, providing even more spotting than before, and patiently twiddle their thumbs for 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes until a weak AA ship isolates itself from a group, and then they'll pounce, mercilessly.
In turn, this will make surface ships huddle together even closer, because now there's 2 CVs that have literally nothing else to do for 20 minutes than wait for any ship to slip up and isolate from the group.
Personally, as a surface ships main and CV tryout, I would hate for this to be the predominant meta (more spotting, more huddling, more doing nothing for everybody).
This! People are ignoring the alternative. If you increase AA then you need to increase the respawn rate, few ordnance gets through, but the CV isnt deplaned and useless.
It seems a lot of players just dont like that the CV can do any damage to them. I debated that last night. My buddy said his cruiser should be able to shoot down all planes before they get to him. My response was if you are the last ship vs a CV are you saying it should automatically go to you because he cant touch you at all?
@@David-ys4ud I don't like CVs as they where before the rework, and I don't like CVs as they are after the rework, and I'll probably don't like CVs as they will be after the hotfix. I'd like CVs to work, but with the design philosophy that WG is taking (matching a skillcurve (CV) vs. no skillcurve (AA)), I just don't see that happening, you can't balance that.
@@pyalot you really cant balance the thing that killed off the other. It was aircraft delivering precise ordnance to a target that killed the battleship "meta". If you have it to where CVS cant strike as you said they will just orbit and spot.
they want have to wait for planes,,just planes of the same payload..not going to stop the attack
I'm pretty sure they decided to allow them to be invulnerable because they would fly over enemy ships automatically as they returned and would be shot down AND the CV player would have no control over their flight path on the way back. Allowing control would add that much more work to the CV guy. It''s obvious they missed the possibility of abuse.
The same guy showed how easy it is to spam torpedoes bombers into an enemy fleet. not doing anything special to actually hits ships but to have so many torps in the water that they spend all their time dodging and not fighting.
As to the state of the game? when I see two carriers on the enemy team I just go ahead and ignore them (at least at lower tiers) since I know that 9 out of 10 times they are just learning how to use them. The torp drops head on and from kilometers away, as well as the 'Missed by A Mile' splashes are a telling indicator.