PSA - You can now register to try out the upcoming changes to CVs on PTS (Also RNGesus lottery to get Enterprise and Musashi)

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

I haven't don ePTS in several years but in this case since I play some CVs the last year I think I actually will go there and see what's what. So, you can register here:

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/general-news/upcoming-changes-to-aircraft-carriers-register-to-try-them-out/

I really hope they dont screw the pooche with this one.

 

Edited July 6 by OldSchoolGaming_Youtube

[Wolfswetpaws]

I noticed the article in my Port screen "News", earlier today.  ("... CV Changes ..."

I clicked on the "Participate" button, of course, since I don't yet have either the Enterprise or the Musashi in my Port.

Thanks for sharing the news, @OldSchoolGaming_Youtube

Edited July 6 by Wolfswetpaws

[_KlRlTO_]

As I said in my post on this in the news section, I am actively looking for people to run AA troll divisions in the test. The more, the better!

I want to make CV players cry as much as humanly possible in the test.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

28 minutes ago, _KlRlTO_ said:

As I said in my post on this in the news section, I am actively looking for people to run AA troll divisions in the test. The more, the better!

I want to make CV players cry as much as humanly possible in the test.

Go for it.

The very definition of rigorous testing.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

I wonder how much WG has changed from their initial publication of the upcoming changes...given how poorly it was received.

I also wonder how many folks will just quit playing CV when the changes happen. That's what killed off the most balanced AA setup we have had in the rework era (0.8.5). The number of CV games played dropped so precipitously that WG reverted the changes within days.

The sad reality is that WG balances CV play based not on in-game performance, but on presence of CVs in the MM.

[Ensign Cthulhu]

1 hour ago, _KlRlTO_ said:

As I said in my post on this in the news section, I am actively looking for people to run AA troll divisions in the test. The more, the better!

I want to make CV players cry as much as humanly possible in the test.

Can you explain to me why your lack of objectivity should not warrant your complete exclusion from the test?

37 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

the most balanced AA setup we have had in the rework era

AA should not be, must not be, and IRL never was an automatic case of "Plane-B-Gone." That was the job of interceptor fighters.

39 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The sad reality is that WG balances CV play based not on in-game performance, but on presence of CVs in the MM.

You mean like the random battles I played this afternoon that didn't have a CV in them?

 

[Asym]

2 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

AA should not be, must not be, and IRL never was an automatic case of "Plane-B-Gone." That was the job of interceptor fighters.

Really, post your Statistics and where they came from....  In 1945, according the Navy's AAR, AA was 85% effective.  What>?  You want AA to simply "go away" so that the CV community can terrorize new and 2 tier down ships with complete impunity....???  Update 8.0 was exactly that, for the first several weeks, before enough players uninstalled the game to force our host to change it....  Some reinstalled the game after our host fixed 8.0...... 

We have not recovered to this day from 8.0. 

If they take "generic spotting' from CV's, no one can exploit their effectiveness.....  No exploit, no interest 'maybe'.....

I still don't play them and they and radar drove me out of PVP.....

[Tricericon]

1 minute ago, Asym said:

In 1945, according the Navy's AAR

BuOrd's postmortem on ship AA effectiveness was deeply flawed. It wasn't near that good.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, Asym said:

Really, post your Statistics and where they came from....  In 1945, according the Navy's AAR, AA was 85% effective.  What>?  You want AA to simply "go away" so that the CV community can terrorize new and 2 tier down ships with complete impunity....???  Update 8.0 was exactly that, for the first several weeks, before enough players uninstalled the game to force our host to change it....  Some reinstalled the game after our host fixed 8.0...... 

We have not recovered to this day from 8.0. 

If they take "generic spotting' from CV's, no one can exploit their effectiveness.....  No exploit, no interest 'maybe'.....

I still don't play them and they and radar drove me out of PVP.....

EC was blatantly arguing a strawman to try to discredit me. It's an old tactic with him.

My point was that in 0.8.5, WG upped AA effectiveness so that playing CV well was a challenge, but still a possibility. It was the most balanced air defense WG ever tried in the rework era. People stopped playing CVs en masse. Within DAYS, WG reverted the AA changes.

The CV rework they are proposing needs to have sufficient benefits for CVs that even low skill players can play them...because that's most of the playerbase.

It's why I laugh when people think that any CV rework is going to fix the problems of an OP ship class. We've already been there, done that...and WG has shown they value having CVs in queue more than having a balanced game.

[_KlRlTO_]

28 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Can you explain to me why your lack of objectivity should not warrant your complete exclusion from the test?

AA should not be, must not be, and IRL never was an automatic case of "Plane-B-Gone." That was the job of interceptor fighters.

You mean like the random battles I played this afternoon that didn't have a CV in them?

 

Because there will likely be a lot of bots in the test, and WG should not be slapping an easy "pass" on this test. The new CV mechanics need to be put through harsh testing to properly make sure they aren't breakable in either direction, and with these new vision mechanics, it needs to be proven if there is a way to abuse the CV players, which I suspect there is. If there is, it needs to be caught now, and not when it goes live server.

[clammboy]

This may sound wierd but I have been playing a lot of the Agincourt and its in a lot of tier 6 and 7 games. It doesn't even have AA and honestly it's not that big a deal because AA kind of stinks down there anyway. I guess there are bad CV players to who are just learning so it's easier but you just have to not go to solo and dodge a bit and you can still do ok with no AA. Of course as in any tier if the CV really wants you he gets you. 

Edited July 6 by clammboy

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

42 minutes ago, clammboy said:

This may sound wierd but I have been playing a lot of the Agincourt and its in a lot of tier 6 and 7 games. It doesn't even have AA and honestly it's not that big a deal because AA kind of stinks down there anyway. I guess there are bad CV players to who are just learning so it's easier but you just have to not go to solo and dodge a bit and you can still do ok with no AA. Of course as in any tier if the CV really wants you he gets you. 

Low tier CVs do not have high damage output. You can, with good use of the rudder, prolong your inevitable death for quite some time...even without AA.

[desmo_2]

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The sad reality is that WG balances CV play based not on in-game performance, but on presence of CVs in the MM.

Really?  That's interesting...please post your source for this.  I'm not provoking you...I have just developed a habit of ALWAYS double-checking facts or realities I read on the internet.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

7 minutes ago, desmo_2 said:

Really?  That's interesting...please post your source for this.  I'm not provoking you...I have just developed a habit of ALWAYS double-checking facts or realities I read on the internet.

WG, of course, don't write down such things...but you can get a sense for how things are actually done if you pay attention to what they do and what they say.

I, and a lot of others, have been around WG communication and development for a long time. We can read between the lines and see how things are done.

One of the key components of the CV rework was a desire by WG to increase revenue by making CVs easier to play so that new players wouldn't be discouraged from playing and buying them by the hard to use interface and punishing 1v1 mechanics. A significant factor in their in game performance was making sure people actually wanted to play them.

WG has on several occasions balanced ships based on how popular they were chosen to be played...often buffing ships that were rarely played. This is a bit of a high level assessment of performance...just not very precise.

I know from past experience with CVs, that nerfs that were applied to bring CV power down to balance with the other classes were quickly updated with a plane HP buff when it became clear that upping AA effectiveness caused the population of players selecting CVs to plummet.

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-updates/update-0851/

WG stopped trying to make CV effectivenes more in line with the other classes at that point...because doing so risked losing CV purchase revenues.

WG does this with all ships in the game, it's just been more noticeable with CVs and subs because of how polarized the community is about their inclusion in the game.

[Asym]

3 hours ago, Tricericon said:

BuOrd's postmortem on ship AA effectiveness was deeply flawed. It wasn't near that good.

Sigh......  look, I don't disagree with the "winners" writing History and all that means.   But, my point is that, in Black & White, we have several WW2 post mortem's that are "facts"  -  decades later of some more or less "validity..."   It's what we have....

From talking to vets that were there, Proximity Munitions and VT on the Arty side seriously screwed up data.....  Innovations do that.

My point is that everyone wants "facts" in the forums we all read....  Who knows that that 85%, in B&W is flawed data cause.......it's in our Naval histories ! 

For the game, the entire AA and ASW "mechanics' were created by Alien Space Bats........lol

[Asym]

3 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

EC was blatantly arguing a strawman to try to discredit me. It's an old tactic with him.

My point was that in 0.8.5, WG upped AA effectiveness so that playing CV well was a challenge, but still a possibility. It was the most balanced air defense WG ever tried in the rework era. People stopped playing CVs en masse. Within DAYS, WG reverted the AA changes.

The CV rework they are proposing needs to have sufficient benefits for CVs that even low skill players can play them...because that's most of the playerbase.

It's why I laugh when people think that any CV rework is going to fix the problems of an OP ship class. We've already been there, done that...and WG has shown they value having CVs in queue more than having a balanced game.

The entire concept of having Carriers at all is simply dumb........ 

1925 and Mitchell ended the BB and it took 20 years to figure that out.....  And, here we are:  trying to "balance" a dissimilar weapons systems that ended Naval Surface BB centric Warfare !   There is no safe space on our small maps.....  Ask a Fabuki being chased by planes he can't out run; can't hide from; can't fight back against; and, the only person with a heal is the carrier !    Been there, done that and quit PVP.  There's no point even playing with Carriers in the game. 

It's oxymoronic to even use the word "balance (carrier)".   

You can't fix "dissimilar weapons"........because, they are dissimilar !!!   The only real solution is that Carriers have to fight the enemy CAP and AA "before they can launch anti-ship" operations...  No air superiority no attaching enemy ships......

 

[Asym]

1 hour ago, desmo_2 said:

Really?  That's interesting...please post your source for this.  I'm not provoking you...I have just developed a habit of ALWAYS double-checking facts or realities I read on the internet.

We don't have a skill based MM !  Imagine a Barney level CV player playing against my Grandson with 8 ships with the CV coming from a crate!  It's luck of the draw !  And, it just gets old getting wiped out by carriers whom there is no way to shoot down planes.........  Zero chance. 

Take a Fabuki out and be the last ship in a Random match where its you and a carrier.....   Abandon all joy.  Game over man !

This is the way........    to lose customers.  I haven't played a Random match since then (years now !)

Edited July 7 by Asym

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, Asym said:

The entire concept of having Carriers at all is simply dumb........ 

Ah, but WG envisions this as a WW2 game, which means carriers should be part of it in their mind...

1 minute ago, Asym said:

1925 and Mitchell ended the BB and it took 20 years to figure that out..... 

Except Mitchell didn't do anything of the sort in 1925, as his planes had trouble hitting a stationary target, and refused to allow the target to be assessed for damage as agreed so the US could get meaningful data from the experiment.

Ship based planes would not have the capability to change naval warfare until the mid-1930s at the earliest.

3 minutes ago, Asym said:

nd, here we are:  trying to "balance" a dissimilar weapons systems that ended Naval Surface BB centric Warfare !   There is no safe space on our small maps.....  Ask a Fabuki being chased by planes he can't out run; can't hide from; can't fight back against; and, the only person with a heal is the carrier !    Been there, done that and quit PVP.  There's no point even playing with Carriers in the game.

This is absolutely correct. Planes so changed the game that the very idea that they could be balanced is an absurd delusion on the part of WG staff.

Of course, WG staff understand very little about naval history or tactics...so their ignorance is at least understandable...though not excusable.

5 minutes ago, Asym said:

It's oxymoronic to even use the word "balance (carrier)".   

You can't fix "dissimilar weapons"........because, they are dissimilar !!!   The only real solution is that Carriers have to fight the enemy CAP and AA "before they can launch anti-ship" operations...  No air superiority no attaching enemy ships......

A point I have been trying to make for literal years.

I was hoping that the USN support CVs would allow actual air superiority tactics to return like we had back with the RTS CVs...but no, WG was too afraid of it to make it real.

Basically, our only real choice is to find another game. WG won't fix this one, I bet.

[Wolfswetpaws]

11 hours ago, Asym said:

Really, post your Statistics and where they came from....  In 1945, according the Navy's AAR, AA was 85% effective.  What>?  You want AA to simply "go away" so that the CV community can terrorize new and 2 tier down ships with complete impunity....???  Update 8.0 was exactly that, for the first several weeks, before enough players uninstalled the game to force our host to change it....  Some reinstalled the game after our host fixed 8.0...... 

We have not recovered to this day from 8.0. 

If they take "generic spotting' from CV's, no one can exploit their effectiveness.....  No exploit, no interest 'maybe'.....

I still don't play them and they and radar drove me out of PVP.....

Antiaircraft Action Summary
World War II

https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/a/antiaircraft-action-summary.html

I assert that in-game AA is more effective than actual Naval AA effectiveness duirng WW-II in the Pacific theater of action.

[OT2_2]

1 hour ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I assert that in-game AA is more effective than actual Naval AA effectiveness duirng WW-II in the Pacific theater of action.

Exactly! I really don't understand people complaining about AA - effectiveness ingame. With my somewhat limited but very intensive experience in CV - gameplay, playing CVs every day in different tiers and modes like Random, Ranked and Ops, I meet lots of ships that you can't even come closer to without being shredded. Playing CV particuarly at higher tiers is demanding a high level of preparation and minimap awareness otherwise you will loose all your squadrons in no time. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

28 minutes ago, OT2_2 said:

Exactly! I really don't understand people complaining about AA - effectiveness ingame. With my somewhat limited but very intensive experience in CV - gameplay, playing CVs every day in different tiers and modes like Random, Ranked and Ops, I meet lots of ships that you can't even come closer to without being shredded. Playing CV particuarly at higher tiers is demanding a high level of preparation and minimap awareness otherwise you will loose all your squadrons in no time. 

Yes, though it sounds like you could use some practice in flak avoidance...which helps.

[OT2_2]

8 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Yes, though it sounds like you could use some practice in flak avoidance...which helps.

Of course, I'm still learning and dodging flak is one main goal. Getting better all the time. 

[UnderTheRadarAgain]

6 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Yes, though it sounds like you could use some practice in flak avoidance...which helps.

It's really easy to dodge the flak from a lone ship. Even the AA monster Woester. But when there are 2 with overlapping flak bubbles - forget it. Squadrons get deleted before you can say "oops". 

I will never forget Flambass playing FDR - telling chat how useless AA is when he lost an ENTIRE squadron in an instant to flak that he was actively dodging. "Oh" was all he could manage. I had to laugh, because 5 minutes later he was once again telling chat AA does nothing (while losing many planes as he uttered those words). 

[HogHammer]

14 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I wonder how much WG has changed from their initial publication of the upcoming changes...given how poorly it was received.

I talked to a veteran CV player yesterday (one of the top CV captains in the game), and we compared the original statement to the just-released one. Other than some formatting clarity, we found very little difference between the two documents.  He still hates the changes and views them as basically killing the role of CVs in the game.

His biggest problem is the fact that (1) the vast majority of better CV players admit changes needed to be made, but (2) suggestions they have put forward basically fell on deaf ears over time (individual CVs and the class overall).  

He sees no logic in the WG approach and considers this a knee-jerk move to appease the community for all the wrong reasons.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

7 minutes ago, HogHammer said:

I talked to a veteran CV player yesterday (one of the top CV captains in the game), and we compared the original statement to the just-released one. Other than some formatting clarity, we found very little difference between the two documents.  He still hates the changes and views them as basically killing the role of CVs in the game.

His biggest problem is the fact that (1) the vast majority of better CV players admit changes needed to be made, but (2) suggestions they have put forward basically fell on deaf ears over time (individual CVs and the class overall).  

He sees no logic in the WG approach and considers this a knee-jerk move to appease the community for all the wrong reasons.

I felt the same way about the initial proposals.

My worry is that WG is going to spend a lot of time on this idea...implement it, then recoil in horror as people just stop playing CVs.

Which outcome the players will love...and WG will anger more by trying to buff CVs again.

48 minutes ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said:

It's really easy to dodge the flak from a lone ship. Even the AA monster Woester. But when there are 2 with overlapping flak bubbles - forget it. Squadrons get deleted before you can say "oops". 

I will never forget Flambass playing FDR - telling chat how useless AA is when he lost an ENTIRE squadron in an instant to flak that he was actively dodging. "Oh" was all he could manage. I had to laugh, because 5 minutes later he was once again telling chat AA does nothing (while losing many planes as he uttered those words). 

Multiple ship flak gets aggregated into the same pulses and distribution as single ship flak. There is just more of it. You can still dodge it.

What catches people out is the fact that the flak might not end when you get into attack position on your target...the other ships flak is still firing at you.