Carrier Rework Critique Part 2 – World of Warships

10,840 views
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (448 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...

More commentary discussing different aspects the new rework and how I’d like to see some changes. Hope you enjoy the conversation and have a wonderful day!

X Carrier Hakuryu

https://playtogether.worldofwarships.com/invite/OwzqAkj – Warships Friend Invite

https://discord.gg/33xzEjR – Discord Server

Related Ship Rage!

71 Comments:

  1. I think the flood mechanics needs to be changed, maybe slower gun reloading or something else (crew member needs to seal the flood gates) the current flooding system is just too punishing due to the new cv system

    • Also the flooding time should be reduced somewhat as well

    • I’d like to see sections of the ship have max flood damage. Most ships from WWII to modern day (and probably some in WWI) were split into different compartments so that a couple leaks wouldn’t mean the ship was doomed.

      WG already has sections of the ship (bow, stern, mid) that can only take so much damage before they don’t anymore. They could easily add another section type just for flooding, and have a lot more sections in it. Each section can only take so much damage (maybe 5-10% of the ship’s max HP) before it stops taking damage from a flood.

      Now, a torpedo hitting one of these flooded sections will still cause more damage, but the ship won’t take more flooding damage since it’s filled already.

    • The flooding mechanics should not be changed in its entirety, as ship to ship floods are fine. However, aircraft to ship floods should probably be less effective, working like how fire works presently.

    • I can remember a game named navyfield. In this game you can add addidional torpedo protection, but youre ship become heavier and much slower. Also you a second “protection” health bar which have to be destroyed first before enemy torps can hit youre standard health bar. I think this is the best solution for torpedos, you give up agility for protection and before a torp can inflict a flooding they have to destroy youre additional healthbar.

    • My suggestion:

      You should not connect flooding to HP.
      Make it ships have mid section, bow and stern. Bow and stern have 1 part and the middle section have 2 parts. You can only flood each section completely, they are separate and unconected. If you flood 3 parts, you sink.

      When you flood, your speed slow down and you have a larger turning radius.

      You can use repair party to remove flood. That makes you reload of armament slower when you are using it. You gain your speed back and normal turning radius.

  2. The Japanese do have armor piercing bomb, they used them in pearl harbor

    • imagine tallboy or fritz-x squadrons

    • So did america the 🇬🇧 exc. Fun fact Tirpitz was attack by cvs wile citing still guess what the AP 💣 bounced off her deck armor 😂

    • Guys frix x and tall boys where carried by medem and heavy bombers. So that’s a big fat not even close to realistic

    • +•_Lumia Art_• The AP Bombs (during attacks by carrier-based aircraft) that were dropped on Tirpitz were US 1600lb bombs (in addition to HE bombs). In the majority of attacks Tirpitz was obscured by a smoke screen and the bombs that failed to hit. Of the bombs that did hit, the vast majority were dropped at too low an altitude to gain the necessary velocity, although at least one bomb did penetrate the deck.

    • Nope, the ‘bombs’ used at Pearl Harbour were naval shells fitted with fins.

  3. I feel like if the aircraft is damaged there should be broken glass on the sides like fires and floods just to add a touch

    • Слава Сахно

      Are you really dont see it? That already implemeted, but wastly tuned down for some reason. Quick example: at 8:58 on chat field appear one of them.

    • This comes from the cv tst server without any nda agreements. Currently WG seeks to make the gameplay first to implement it as quickly as possible to increase the player base and just after that on the priority list comes the torpedo flood reduction if considered necesary and the artistic effects

  4. There shouldn’t be an unlimited amount

    • You have an unlimited number of shells and DD’s have an unlimited number of torpedoes. People complained when you run out of airplanes CVs are useless and boring and nobody wants to play that. Wargaming recognize that as an issue that had to be corrected.

    • i dont have an issue with limited CV planes…but they can always choose the middle ground where u get planes resupplied over time, so if u lose them too quickly u wont be able to have full squad and if u save them more often u can basically have unlimited numbers

    • +cobrazax This.

    • +cobrazax Well that’s basicaly what they did. If you loose a squadron now it fully resuplies after around 3 minutes time. They plan to extend this time so it will be noticable taking in calculation the flight and strike times of other squadrons but after they implement the rework on the live server

    • thats not what im talking about. reserves can be increased over time, in the RTS version

  5. I feel like carriers should be able to swap out armaments before the plane takes off. Like i choose dive bombers and a separate click to choose He or Ap bombs to be loaded for combat.

  6. Notser
    I brought this up yesterday in your video and people seem to like the idea. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. The idea is that it would be nice if players could adjust the cruising altitude of plane formations. You know how after you die in a game you have “God view” of the battlespace and adjust the altitude of your view with your mouse roller. What if you could control plane formation altitudes like that? Or maybe if that is too hard just have a low, medium, or high altitude choice. This would enable dive bombers to approach from high altitude and torpedo bombers to approach from sea level. It would make things more realistic and interesting. Torpedo and dive bombers could perhaps avoid fighters by flying at a different altitude. Spotting ranges could also vary depending what altitude planes decide to use. Flying at sea level or at high altitude, planes might not be spotted by ships as easily. Planes flying at sea level would also lose their ability to spot ships as easily. That kind of thing. Penny for your thoughts?

    Oh, one more crazy thought. Japanese carriers having a Kamikaze squadron option.

    • The Japanese carriers should have kamikaze squadrons instead of rocket squadrons because from what i know they never used rocket armed planes in the war

    • Notser just over estimates the average skill of the playerbase. 60% of the people in random battles DO NOT THINK at all about what they are doing. You see Izumos drive into brawls, german bbs sniping, zaos and minotaurs rushing into caps at the beginning of a game and dying instantly and dds hunting enemy des moines and worcesters. all this rework needs it the ability to assign fighters to friendly ships and make them work and more control over the cv itself. all this stuff about make everything skill based is nonsense because the the whole point of the rework is not to bring skilled cvs back, but cvs at all. every last idiot in this game needs to be able to play this class and end up in the middle of the score board like with any other ship. im also against direct fighter control because then skilled cv players would just get their strafing back to dominate and cancel out noob cvs and we have the old problem all over again. first make the system like its made for total morons, then gradually implement systems that slightly reward skill

    • +Alex Alexutzu
      A cursory google search revealed 3 different rocket configurations for the IJA and IJN.
      Ro-San Dan (Ro-3 ordinance): weighing about 5 kg (for attacking aircraft)
      Ro-Go Dan (Ro-5 ordinance) : weighing about 30 kg (for attacking aircraft)
      Ro-Shichi Dan (Ro-7 ordinance): weighing about 300 kg (for attacking ships)
      Reference: aviationofjapan.com
      Though it is irrelevant even if there were none, for this developer does not make gameplay decisions based on historical data.

    • I had brought up similar on the forums a few months back, although I had included the ability to control multiple squadrons, and the ability to swap between them. Still think the attack run should be in the FPS style, mind you.

    • QuestionMan
      I never said unlimited planes. The option for Japanese carriers to have Kamikaze squadron would be cool.

  7. I’ve watched several videos on the new CV rework and they all make the CV gameplay look almost completely broken. If they introduce this resembling what I’ve seen Wargamming is going to see a huge drop off in players.

  8. The only thing i need is a checkbox like ‘I am willing to wait more for a CV free battle”. I don’t like them in any way, shape or form in my battles. I don’t like the idea of somebody playing RTS in my arcade game, and I feel the current rework is also a massive NERF to all cvs alltogether.

    • Not necessary a nerf. Just a change in style. T8 or above can 1 shot with a run rn but with this change, cv can do multiple run until they can’t repair and wait to die.
      And the bombing type seems to be favouring USN as they have a more versatile ammo. The IJN AP bomb, deep water torp and shotgun can’t counter dd correctly.

    • Richard there is a large part of the community that does not want them in ranked or clan battles. Maybe we can start a petition, serious.

  9. I get that this is a test. But should they implement it even remotely as it is now, i’m going to quit WoWs forever.. You know, I was pissed with the old system for being able to effectively oneshot BBs with combining squadrons into balls of death… And now you will be hit with dot after dot after dort and can’t even effectively target the aircraft?! WTF?! The ships in this clip feel like helpless ducklings swiming in their pond when suddly a hawk swoops down and kills one after the other without any way to fight back.

    • wah wah wah this cv rework actually looks amazing, you arent constantly being op you can do multiple runs in planes instead of one massive strike dds dont get one shotted by bombers bbs can survive littler longer in ap bombs torps arent being multi sided aa does better, this is a test to fix out bugs n make it better as a bb captain i could enjoy bombers actually being like this same with torp planes n rocket planes the rts design was absolute garbage even watching other videos of the rts you are being extremely useless in some parts where you actually could be used now you have an excuse to be stupid n not be helping players cover in certain area and it owuldnt be your fault where as rts its deff you cvs fault for not being able to manage properly sending your fighters or other planes to spots where its actually needed

    • While it is true that they are zero skilled captains with No AA modules. I should point out, that even the Worcester, with it’s insane AA array relies 100% on luck to do any damage to the enemy aircraft. I have played multiple games in the wooster where enemy Midway captains didn’t even seem to care they were flying through the center of my AA bubble. They just flew straight at me, made zero attempts to dodge flak, and proceeded to drop ordinance on me or those around me. Sure. When the occasional stray flak cloud struck them, it lit them up decently (although it was a 50/50 chance whether or not they lost craft) and once or twice they lost a large chunk of their flight. But on NUMEROUS occasions, they simply plowed through unharmed. Even in the midst of 3-4 ships including wooster all clustered together. This shouldn’t happen. That should be a WALL of death. And to top it off… DFAA is still limited to 4 charges and the enemy CV has UNLIMITED aircraft, and can throw them out in rapid succession. So if you thought that enemy CVs can outright kill you if they want you dead NOW… it’d be worse if the current set up went live. I am aware that it’s a work in progress.. but I seriously hope they balance out Aircraft and AA… cause otherwise….

    • Doesn’t that mean that the carriers are also 0 Point captains and no modules? Because if that is not true the whole test is useless.
      No modules or skills for anyone should balance out and mean that with them equipped it wouldn’t change a thing.

    • OLD system could have been fixed by a many means much much easier and now we wouldn’t have been wasting time with this shit re-work

  10. Ah, the good old days where CVs were always the last to die (unless sniped) as they curb-stomped everything else.
    Sounds like fun game play for everyone who isn’t a CV, doesn’t it?
    Meanwhile, Notser, you surely don’t need to be told to check any knowledge you have of how naval warfare of this period really occurred before playing the game. Fact is it was the Bofors 40mm mounts on Allied ships that gained the majority of kills v attacking aircraft. The fact that WG made heavy AA the most significant in terms of effectiveness, further affected by skills, tells you how relevant such knowledge is. Even proximity fuses of the later war years (something only the Allies got, incidentally, that MASSIVELY increased their AA effectiveness) didn’t change that fact, as the 40mm shells also got those fuses.

    • Well i can assure you that on the cv test there are no captain skills or ship modules thar affect the AA and that the battles exepting the CV’s and maybe 1 or 2 players extra are made out of bots

    • 40mm didn’t got proximity fuses until 1980s, smallest proximity fuse round they could made at that time was 76mm, that’s why post war you got automatic 76mm AA guns.

    • @arczer
      Interesting, for some reason I thought they had. That kind of makes the point as to how effective the med/light AA was, then, as they still were responsible for more plane kills as far as the reading I’ve done shows.

    • @Alex
      Yes, I was wondering about that. I’ve no doubt it will be somewhat different vs players, but I suspect Notser and others are still correct about ease of farming damage and layering DOTs in the current iteration.
      I played through alpha and closed/open beta, then some post-release before quitting. Nearly everyone back then suspected WG would never balance CVs effectively as it was clearly very difficult to do so. I’m yet to see anything that suggests otherwise.

    • one of reasons could be that early war there were not much efficient large caliber AA guns and every nation had different approach to that until late WW2.
      literally early war you had only US 127mm/38 by combination of fast rate of fire, train rate, FCS and fuse setters along with 127mm round.

  11. Noster this is nothing but a disaster. the RTS WORKED for a reason. it jsut needed some tweaking. and with RTS style there was a finite amount of planes to there was cost. now I can keep tryign again and again. you think people hate CVS now? they will hate them much worse after this. THis is the wrogn freakign direction and WG should scrap the bulk of this now.

    • Whimsical Pacifist

      Bull. All that in real time? And the aircraft is going to also enumerate the location, spead and bearing of all torpedoes in the vicinity? Nope. Modern AWACS =! WW2 spotter aircraft. Also ships calling in blind fire from ships on the other side of an island? More bovine scatology.

    • Its interesting that for three years RTS was ok, but now the game is going to consoles and they want 12 year olds to be able to play CV. I hate CVs, but I would much rather they keep the RTS and work on them. I would be more inclined to play the current system.

    • I would be more inclined to play the RTS than this. People do not play CVs because its like PVE instead of PVP. Whether you sink a ship has more to do with AA decided by RNG than skill. This rework is to port the game to consoles.

    • oh so the rts worked?? then why the fuck is all your planes always somewhere else instead of scouting the flank? why do you leave your planes circling above esspecially fighters circling not even in action.. the rts never worked work even the best cv players arent that good at the rts of the game as it not as simple rts like command n conquer or aoe.. you have players to multi task to kill while protecting other players the whole rework was to make it so not only will blame cvs sucking dick be baseless it makes obvious that if you arent in one area u cant be blamed for leaving your flank open which makes more fault of those who left it open rather then cvs..

    • then done for the wrogn reasons. even more so RTS can work on consoles. Halo Wars proved that

  12. Flak guns are designed to work at specific ranges. It won’t work as effectively at shorter ranges. I’m not saying that your points are not valid, but historically shooting flak at point blank is not better than shooting at optimal ranges.

    • There is no optimal range just a time delay fuse/altitude fuse depending on the application, the only safe distance consideration is for the debris to not hit your own firing position, you could have large caliber AA fire at 1km or so without problems …. and FLaK is a German short for AA cannon, so it applies to anything larger than a machine gun (20mm and up).

    • AA was always a poorly thought out game mechanic before, that ring of death yet half the ship’s guns on other side were firing yet couldn’t see plane through ship or shoots through islands, main/sec guns shooting at both ships and planes at same moment, etc, just made such an important part of naval combat so unchallenging to use.

      When we used to shoot at air targets in my military days it was far easier to hit the closer the target got but obviously closer is not what you want with someone trying to bomb you.

    • Lubos Soltes Flak has a timed fuse after firing, especially for large calibre guns, so firing them at short range will result in nothing but over penetrations, if they hit of course which is highly unlikely because the flak shell is designed to maximize AoE by exploding covering a large volume of space

      At shorter ranges, the weapons used are AA guns not flak, which are nothing more than a machine gun

  13. I wish they’d implement the new CVs as ‘ESCORT’ carriers, and keep the RTS style as FLEET Carriers (possibly limiting fleet carriers to higher tiers). Add fuel duration to FLEET carrier squadrons to prevent perms-spotting of DDs by fighter squadrons and limit the number of planes on Escort Carriers to removed the unlimited plane feeling. I think that would make way more sense.

    • Considering this is exactly what took place to give us this rework, if you recall WG was “developing” small attack CVs with just this kind of play style in mind, looks like they have expanded it to all Cvs.

  14. 6:07 I think the problem is that you have 12 planes in a squad, and can make 6 torpedo runs with that squad.

    • Perhaps, but it is not much worse than having 5 ships spewing HE fire spam at you. You are dead once that happens, all those fires.

    • 5 ships hitting you with HE is a significant portion of the enemy fleet attacking you. 6 torpedo runs is all from 1 enemy ship, that’s a lot of power in one ship

  15. (I know this is just a test but,) I have see quite a few CCs testing this and I am not really sure about what I am seeing. Yes CV gameplay has changed however, the results are not much different. CVs used to be able to nuke ships, now it just takes more time, and if they don’t kill them outright they cripple them. CVs used to have to fear defensive AA, now they don’t even really have to fear AA at all. The system used to be too punishing to new players, now there is little skill involved and almost every strike gets a hit of some kind. CVs used to have to be strategic about how they used their planes, now they can just throw them away with impunity. The dots are extreme and broken in a game where they are already ridiculously punishing. Sure those BBs won’t camp anymore because they will be dead, but so will BBs on any part of the map. Cruisers will also be toast as they carry less AA than BBs and some are still the same size. DDs may not have to worry as much about permanent spotting but the rocket planes will be enough to ruin your day. All from a ship that is not at risk at all (most of the time) and will just reload its planes and be back to do it all over again when the squadron that’s attacking you now is done with no damage control to stop the bleeding. But wait the friendly CV won’t even be able to help you as he doesn’t have fighters under his control to take the edge off the carnage, nor will his AA help either. So yeh, the whole “this is to address the power imbalance with CVs” thing kinda seems crazy to me having seen this. The other classes will just be a damage farm for the CVs, and god forbid yours isn’t as good as the other teams.

  16. TheWildcard4542000

    CV’s are about to become the most hated class in this game, from I’ve seen so far. I, would like a check box in options, so I do not have to see CV’s in que with this re-work. This looks very OP. Not that they are not now with a competent CV player, but at least you knew that he would eventually run out of planes (Hopfully) and couldn’t orbit over you constantly applying DOTS over and over and over and over…. Every video I’ve seen on this has two CV’s per team and guess what? The two CV’s have been last players’ in the match. When this goes live, it’s just going to be the CV’s trying to snipe each other at the beginning and whichever team has a CV left is going to win, hands down.
    I’ve been with this game since the beginning, and this is the first time I’ve considered leaving it for good once this goes live. Makes me sad, because I’ve really enjoyed this game to this point and have supported it with my wallet. Because I wanted to help it succeed. But this rework has me rethinking where I will be spending my hard earned Dollar’s.

    • The Invincible Iowa

      >in other news: CV still a broken mess
      i wish they would either let people choose to match up with CV’s or remove them from the game, NO class is fun against CV.

    • I guess you should stop playing the game if you can’t look at the positive outcomes of this rework. As a CV playing against Worcester is equally painful. What did they do? Reduce radar range!! Yamato, the legendary ship that can pen anything and do loads of damage. What did they do? Increase the accuracy!!

      Please do stop playing.
      Btw even I donot like the CV but this is a good way to decrease the skill gap between players.

    • The Invincible Iowa

      LMAO
      >if you dont think like i think you’re wrong and bad.

      instantly discredits your own ability to comment, you complain about me, yet i offer a solution rather than bitch and whine, and make strawmen like you. why dont you do yourself a favor and mature as a person.

      so i suggest you stop playing and grow up.

  17. I feel like the back-and-forth and back-and-forth continuously attacking one ship is an extremely frustrating experience for that ship. He basically can’t do anything except try to avoid bombs or torpedoes and is extremely vulnerable to fire from other vessels. I guess that’s just like focusing a ship however you can’t angle, you can’t try to shoot anybody on the water etc. you just get attacked by mosquitoes or bees and I could see it driving people nuts.

    • I felt this way when being the target of CVs. Because people are new at flying it is fairly easy to turn and avoid CV damage but that also just takes you out of the battle as you won’t have guns aimed etc.

  18. Couldn’t disagree more about the dots. WG needs to absolutely buff cruisers ability to punish CV attack squadrons; that run on the Worcester was definitely OP. However, battleships deserve to be punished for going it alone. WG badly needs to encourage team play, and battleships can be some of the worst offenders; especially considering the impact one battleship that goes rogue can have on the rest of the team. CV’s being able to completely obliterate battleships that decide to ignore cruiser escort is absolutely appropriate and should be encouraged. Besides this “punishing” type of meta already exists. Tell me the difference between battleships being focused down over time by a CV, a cruiser being obliterated by a single battleship salvo, and a destroyer pulling off a successful torpedo run . . .the difference of course is that battleships, in a target rich environment, can obliterate someone every thirty seconds. No other ship has that type of power. Even in an ideal environment a destroyer has to wait for torps to rearm, a CV has to run several attack waves, and poor cruisers have to hope to catch a destroyer out in the open or slowly burn down a battleship. At the end of the day, CVs are the perfect counter to battleships. Now if WG chooses to make that happen through dots or increased torp and bomb damage, either way is fine by me, although personally I think the dot idea has the benefit of drawing out the attack waves and is more forgiving than simply increasing raw damage. Of course this rework has the added benefit of being historically accurate, realistic, and consistent with the way the game works now. It’s all about checks and balances, and hopefully with the CV rework, battleships will think twice about going it alone with a CV on the field.

    • Cole I agree that WG needs to encourage team play, but I don’t think making CV squads immune to AA is the way to do it. Sure, DDs can ninja torp a BB… From one direction, and in a single salvo. They can’t throw torps to port, wait for the DC, then come again from starboard and last down the bow to negate evasive action.

      Nor is it as historically accurate as you claim. Late BBs, especially USN, we’re built with AA as a primary task. USN AA should be as punishing as German secondaries.

  19. How about they only get damage with torps in the place they hit. Basically it counts just like a shell hit nothing more.

  20. So if you get unlimited Planes how is that fair especially for a ship with crappy AA your guaranteed to be first targeted, what em I missing here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *