EARLY ACCESS TO U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, SHIP PARAMETERS DISPLAY IN BATTLE, UNIQUE UPGRADES AND MORE - CLOSED TEST 13.0

[Tricericon]

https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/498

[MidnightPhoenix07]

Yay, finally getting a Wiki patch!

[BOBTHEBALL]

Hmmm update 13.0.0, very interesting. Also besides the LMs and Patch not much interesting going on.

[Wolfswetpaws]

Quote

Ship Parameters Display in Battle

We have added a feature that enables players to see various ship parameters while in battle! Essentially, players will be able to click on enemy and allied ships in the Team window before or during a battle(press/hold the Tab key to access this window). Once selected, a tooltip will appear providing information on the selected ship, such as hitpoints, armament ranges, movement speed, and possible consumables, among other parameters. This feature also allows players to hover their mouse over attributes such as shells, torpedoes, and consumables in-battle and receive the data for those items, similar to how this functions in Port. 

It's important to note that this mechanic will show the best possible parameters achievable for enemy ships and allied ships that have not been spotted by your ship. For allied ships that your ship has spotted, actual parameters and chosen consumables will be displayed in the tooltip. As for enemy ships, the reason for showing only their best possible parameters is to not reveal their equipment, actual parameters, or overall strategy prematurely. As a result, enemy ships may have lower or different specifications in actuality than what is displayed in the tooltip. 

Best possible parameters would include any possible bonuses from Commanders, Upgrades including Unique Upgrades, Signals, and Modules. This feature will not include factors such as Unique Commander Talents, weather conditions, dynamic effects, or triggerable skills such as Dazzle, Adrenaline Rush, or Fearless Brawler.

We decided to add this feature in order to provide our players with as much information as we can in a succinct, easy-to-access format without having to memorize values present in our plethora of in-game content.

I wonder if this will work on "Test Ships", too?

[Ensign Cthulhu]

So begins the $64,000 question: what is the branch-off point for the second CV line? Ranger? Farragut? Or something else?

This will be the first CV line without a T4, and CV lines so far start at T4 branching off from the same-tier DD (they used to branch from the BB), so "Clemson" might not necessarily be the automatic answer.

 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

3 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

So begins the $64,000 question: what is the branch-off point for the second CV line? Ranger? Farragut? Or something else?

This will be the first CV line without a T4, and CV lines so far start at T4 branching off from the same-tier DD (they used to branch from the BB), so "Clemson" might not necessarily be the automatic answer.

 

I would assume these would be handled as a line split and you would branch out of Langley...

But I don't really know.

I'm mostly just disappointed that the fighter defense concept has been dropped. No line of Bearns allowed, apparently...though WG did not really try that concept.

[Nevermore135]

I find it a bit concerning that we are six weeks out and the event camos for the new CVs are still MIA, especially since there is no indication that the old models are being updated (I think WG would hype that up) as a possible explanation for the delay. Regardless, it will be nice to have Essex back in the game, even if she still has that terrible 25mm deck. 
 

Regarding the new UUs: IMO the GL upgrade is highly suspect, while the Elbing upgrade is more interesting. I do find it a bit amusing that the latter specifically buffs a consumable that was only added to the ship less than six months ago, though.

24 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I would assume these would be handled as a line split and you would branch out of Langley...

But I don't really know.

If I was a betting man I’d place my money on Independence being researched from Langley. Doing so would avoid having the two US CV lines yield different RP totals when reset, since researching Independence from Ranger (a la. the situation with German and UK CCs) would add an extra 500/1000 RP for the extra tier VI. I strongly suspect this was the reasoning behind the decision to make Nebraska the third ship researchable from Colorado when from a gameplay/smooth progression experience perspective implementing her as a “sidegrade” from North Carolina following the CC precedent would have made more sense.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Nevermore135

[Grantwhy]

4 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I wonder if this will work on "Test Ships", too?

Yes it will.

The ingame stats of Test Ships are public information 👍

[Gnirf]

3 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

I find it a bit concerning that we are six weeks out and the event camos for the new CVs are still MIA, especially since there is no indication that the old models are being updated (I think WG would hype that up) as a possible explanation for the delay. Regardless, it will be nice to have Essex back in the game, even if she still has that terrible 25mm deck. 
 

Regarding the new UUs: IMO the GL upgrade is highly suspect, while the Elbing upgrade is more interesting. I do find it a bit amusing that the latter specifically buffs a consumable that was only added to the ship less than six months ago, though.

If I was a betting man I’d place my money on Independence being researched from Langley. Doing so would avoid having the two US CV lines yield different RP totals when reset, since researching Independence from Ranger (a la. the situation with German and UK CCs) would add an extra 500/1000 RP for the extra tier VI. I strongly suspect this was the reasoning behind the decision to make Nebraska the third ship researchable from Colorado when from a gameplay/smooth progression experience perspective implementing her as a “sidegrade” from North Carolina following the CC precedent would have made more sense.

The important thing is that you should have same number of ships and equivalent FreeXP/credit/regrinding outlay/experience whichwver line you choose to grind or regrind.

[New_Jersey_prpr]

The sheer lack of contents of this devblog makes me more worried about the game's future.

The "new" line itself is reusing content from years ago, and they even can't present a WIP picture of the new camo, let alone refreshing the model of the ships.

New unique upgrades are indeed, good additions, yet they require much less development work. Also I wonder if we can get more of them in the future, I'm really looking forward to the unique upgrade for Vermont that can potentially significantly decrease her reload time.

https://blog.korabli.su/blog/480

Kure port "update" is just keep reusing what they left. I still think the best looking version of Kure port is during 2020~2021 New Year, but WG doesn't bring it back.

Edited November 30, 2023 by New_Jersey_prpr

[GMMF]

Early access to US alt CVs but Kure port? Weird.

[New_Jersey_prpr]

3 minutes ago, GMMF said:

Early access to US alt CVs but Kure port? Weird.

Because WG is reusing whatever they get......they can't create new stuff, refreshing port decoration is also included on the "can't" list.

[Project45_Opytny]

In short: potentially the worst update ever thanks to both the Ukrainian War and the ill-implemented separation that detached the game's own developers.

Copy-paste of 2015 Vintage models notwithstanding, the Belgrade staff seems to struggle even with working ahead of update schudle so event permacamoes may be teased in related Devblogs.

2 hours ago, New_Jersey_prpr said:

Because WG is reusing whatever they get......they can't create new stuff, refreshing port decoration is also included on the "can't" list.

A cynic speculation is that perhaps WG Belgrade staff is having trouble finding codes and data for regular Kure as well as Festive New York, "Ships for Victory" Naval Base, regular Designer's Table, etc (or even being unable to change files to change festive ports back to regular ones without causing bugs).

The only remaining silver linings, for me, are free Scharnhorst 43 and better "Italian dockyard duo" of Michelangelo and Ferruccio.

[Nevermore135]

5 hours ago, Gnirf said:

The important thing is that you should have same number of ships and equivalent FreeXP/credit/regrinding outlay/experience whichwver line you choose to grind or regrind.

FXP and credit costs of lines already differ, and CVs and sub lines have always been worth less RP per reset. And yes, as I said, WG has chosen in the past to implement new lines/splits in a way that focuses on keeping the RB experience/rewards more consistent across lines. Implementing Independence in any manner other than being researchable from a tier IV ship (which is below the RP cutoff threshold) would not serve that purpose.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Nevermore135

[yss_turtleship]

13 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I wonder if this will work on "Test Ships", too?

This is interesting because IIRC I believe that ttaro has included this in his recent team panels mod.

 

You can go to his reddit post here: 

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 hours ago, Grantwhy said:

Yes it will.

The ingame stats of Test Ships are public information 👍

 

3 minutes ago, yss_turtleship said:

This is interesting because IIRC I believe that ttaro has included this in his recent team panels mod.

 

You can go to his reddit post here: 

 

I wasn't sure if non-disclosure agreements would prevent the function of this feature.  It's a pleasant suprise to learn that the feature works with Test Ships.
Thanks.

[yss_turtleship]

32 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

 

I wasn't sure if non-disclosure agreements would prevent the function of this feature.  It's a pleasant suprise to learn that the feature works with Test Ships.
Thanks.

Sorry, I think I accidentally mislead you with my response. I meant my reply to be in general and not specific to test ships. My bad...

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, yss_turtleship said:

Sorry, I think I accidentally mislead you with my response. I meant my reply to be in general and not specific to test ships. My bad...

 

 

[_KlRlTO_]

22 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

 

I'm mostly just disappointed that the fighter defense concept has been dropped. No line of Bearns allowed, apparently...though WG did not really try that concept.

When was that changed? I have yet to see a change in the parameters for that being removed. As far as I know, they are still getting the Bearn fighters.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

46 minutes ago, _KlRlTO_ said:

When was that changed? I have yet to see a change in the parameters for that being removed. As far as I know, they are still getting the Bearn fighters.

Did I read it wrong?

The last test iteration had not enough fighter consumables and having most of them tied to tactical squadrons means they are not flexible enough...

[Crokodone]

On 11/29/2023 at 8:59 PM, Ensign Cthulhu said:

So begins the $64,000 question: what is the branch-off point for the second CV line? Ranger? Farragut? Or something else?

This will be the first CV line without a T4, and CV lines so far start at T4 branching off from the same-tier DD (they used to branch from the BB), so "Clemson" might not necessarily be the automatic answer.

 

Line splits haven't broken off at t4 in a very long time. Similar to the MN +CA line I'd presume it would start from Ranger; as that would make more sense both in history and context. Ranger was an experimental CV, and the Independence was a stop gap/support CV (Jeep Carrier.) Also, both Ranger and Independence were at t6, I'd wonder if we'd get our perma camo's back for the later.

[Project45_Opytny]

So these are the event permacamoes that cannot even be presented on time. Ow.

https://worldofwarships.asia/en/news/public-test/public-test-130/

Versus...

https://blog.korabli.su/blog/503

[New_Jersey_prpr]

7 minutes ago, Project45_Opytny said:

So these are the event permacamoes that cannot even be presented on time. Ow.

And WG is even trying to milk something out from these historical yet simple camos.

The 'new' USN CV line is still using very outdated models that can't meet today's standards (just look at Essex's bow, it even has straight lines), if WG don't want to remake them at least don't lock these new camos behind paywall, jeez.

[Project45_Opytny]

9 minutes ago, New_Jersey_prpr said:

And WG is even trying to milk something out from these historical yet simple camos.

The 'new' USN CV line is still using very outdated models that can't meet today's standards (just look at Essex's bow, it even has straight lines), if WG don't want to remake them at least don't lock these new camos behind paywall, jeez.

Following recent WoWS/MK developments feels like a mental roller-coaster ride.

When WG's reputation seemed to hit bottom, a combined effort of teasing of Commonwealth cruisers and wide disillusionment caused by Lesta's super-submarines teasing and "Port Arthur Cross and the Flag of Viceroy Alekseyev" affair turned the tide overnight. And now we see these "hard works"...