PTS 0.8.0 Phase 2 Carrier Gameplay Discussion – World of Warships

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (697 votes, average: 4.40 out of 5)

Close Ad ×

Discussing my impressions of PTS 0.8.0 Phase 2 Carrier testing and sharing my suggestions on improvement. Hope you have a wonderful day and I’ll catch you next time!

Tier X American Carrier Midway Replay – Warships Friend Invite – Discord Server


  1. T4 CV gameplay is a little better, and AA is actually effective. But we still have a lot of work to do.

    -make flak more sporadic, and also predict lead on incoming planes. Even though when I played the PT, I found it challenging to avoid flak. In Flamu’s video, AA was very effective.

    -balance idea: increase time it takes for planes to rearm, and increase time to restock
    destroyed planes even more. This could force (poor choice of word) player to fly a different plane type instead of spamming one type.

    -balance idea: clouds. Rather than have your planes go all the way back to CV when you shift control to CV, have your planes go into the clouds away from enemy AA, you control your CV for whatever u need to do, and when your done you hit a key that shifts control back to your squadron right where you left it. This could eliminate the need for automated consumables (which was a questionable idea in the first place).

    -balance in general will take time to implement when it hits the live server, because the PT server player base is too small. The first month or two are bound to be chaos.

    • I disagree the tier 4 cvs are way to OP and I destroy players with eas.

    • I say we nerf the reload time for everything. Longer torp reload longer gun reload. O yea we only hate cv

    • T4 CV are harsh on some T4 with no AA or single Mg lol but T6 AA will eat those biplanes.

      IMO this game with such small maps do not suit CVs. Very rare CVs were so close to an enemy fleet.

  2. Scrap the new carrier system .. go back to rts and make changes on the old system, I would rather planes in old system to be dominated by RNG……than this Midway: 1943 gameplay…… New system is crap. This gameplay won’t increase the number of players playing as they want……. Carriers will always be at the top. That is why carriers are still in use today and dominate. You can’t change the system… it’s effectiveness is inherent to it’s design……. You can’t meta game (nerf) the system enough for everyone to be happy……. There is no skill to this…………

    • They wont because they need the new gameplay for Consoles.

    • I should have thought of that. So, in actuality, they just wanted to change the system to get to console. Figures… that way they can sell more RNG boxes during Holidays.

    • +Solomani A lot of people, me included think the Console release is the main reason, yes. I mean it has never really worked out for a company which managed to drive away their home playerbase for a new market, as far as i know. Atleast in the gaming world. We’ll see how it works out for WG because the current state of carriers, both on live and PTS are unacceptable. I don’t see myself sticking to the game a lot longer with the current path the game is taking.

      I personally prefer a remove whatsoever, but that is nearly impossible to do.

    • +N1c3s fuck…. I forgot they are pandering to plebs… Press F to pay respects to what was once the best PvP game ever made.

    • Christopher Jonasson

      +DysphoricSmile F

  3. they will ruin game with this

  4. The bots don’t have captain skills or modules equipped do they? Also are they changing sectors? I think a better test would be training room with your division mate and a full AA build to see how avoidable the flak really is.

    • All the enemies were spread out solo too, realistically players will be in clusters of 2/3. He also still took plenty of damage and still lost planes even as he was talking about how little damage he took. BS video is BS.

    • +Ralathar Renares the problem with clustering ships post rework is that AA upgrades no longer effect AA range, so instead of a mino being able to cover 8.9km of AA and being able to protect team mates, the AA range it can muster is realistically only for self defense unless you plan on scratching up your paint with another ship.

    • This. I tried CV gameplay at tier 8 in the PT against live players and it wasn’t just a case of ‘well just go around it ezpz’. When you have AA specced ships clustered together, a single mistake means your entire squadron is toast, and those losses add up if you are actually trying to kill people instead of just maneuvering around waiting for stragglers to show up. This video is deceptive. So you were popping solo bot Montana’s and low HP DD’s far away from anyone. Now do it against a Montana with 2 minotaurs and a Zao controlled by players following it.

    • ​+Alexander Kaiser If you need 8.9km to shoot down a significant amount of planes in an AA ship you’re doing something wrong OR your team is doing something wrong. People don’t end to be on top of each other. Planes fly through 2-4km on an attack run. When I’m shooting down 30 planes on a gearing (2 cv match, 8 kills were fighters) and 9 on a nicholas (single cv match no fighters), much less the heavier AA ships, it’s you. It’s not the range it’s you. Depending on the map you have 2-3 front. You should have 2-3 major grouping of allies and if you’re more than 12km from the nearest allies you’ll be food for DDs that sneak through and CVs, that’s just how it works. Fight alone die alone.

    • +SpenzOT I will 1/2 agree with you. If you are against DIVs that work together, maaybe. The rest of the time (in Randoms) it’s a crap shoot. The ability for a single ship to protect itself is bogus right now (see Notser’s videos about ship AA regarding the patch. I hope WG irons this out nicely, but there are other things that need to be fixed.) For example, during WW2, the Fletcher class DDs had wicked AA. To the point that the Japanese were sincerely afraid of their AA screen.

      Personally, I think this patch goes overboard with “”unlimited planes”” and the fact that the captain has to control them Ad Hoc. IMO, it was better before they started screwing around with it.

  5. when you build for the lowest common player the system is going to be super easy for good players. cant have both.

  6. Imperium Legio IX Gemina

    I can’t anderstand, why unlimited planes when you can loose all your aa ????

    • +Jerry Glaze and the irony is it’s the redneck that’s pointing out the math ?

    • Imperium Legio IX Gemina

      Thanks for the replies but a part of people must learn to read well : the question is to the reload of planes but the ulimited airplanes when in most games you will loose big parts of your AA from he and bombs.

    • Imperium Legio IX Gemina

      +Jerry Glaze you should learn to read better, the question isn’t about that

    • Imperium Legio IX Gemina

      +Peter Magro i know but the question isn’t about that

    • +Imperium Legio IX Gemina dude you dont get it…you need to learn that CVs HAVE LESS PLANES AVAILABLE IN A MATCH THAN THEY DO NOW. and AA module base HP was doubled to compensate help with your concerns. Further tweaks will be needed but stop with “but unlimited planes”…its a total fallacy. Do the math.

  7. I might have made a comment on a previous aircraft carrier video about player controlled AA, and I think you mentioned something like that too Notser, but I’ll make a quick blurb about it.

    I dont think it is an absurd idea to at least consider players on surface ships to be able to manually aim and control their AA suite. The Battle Stations games (Midway and Pacific) I think had a good system for switching through the available armaments on a ships (Artillery, AA, Torpedo, Depth Charge); and a system identical or similar to that might be something that would allow surface ships to do something else to discourage an aerial attack other than maneuvering. A good example to see what I am talking about for those that don’t is check out the ‘Divine Winds of Leyte’ mission for Battle stations Pacific.

    Thank you for covering this stuff Noster!

    • ShkNBke I have been saying that since the very beginning. If you make player controlled aircrafts then you need player controlled AA to make it player vs player instead of player vs RNG.

    • +Davy Jones I think its logical. The Battle Stations games were THE navy games for me back in the day and while they didn’t have the longevity and branding warships does, those games have systems that I think Wargaming could adopt and implement into this game play overhaul and benefit from it more than what is currently being shown.

      EDIT: I just thought about it and realized that the initial version of unlimited aircraft is quite similar to how carriers work in Battle Stations Pacific..except in that game you can actually control your carrier. So it’s possible Wargaming may have taken inspiration from that game, which if that is the case they should take more from that game other than just how the carriers work.

    • if they literally took the whole aircraft carrier concept from that game, i believe it would have been the best

  8. Sorry but I fell asleep watching the game play… The CV game play is poor

  9. See my issue here is that while you are saying “I can avoid all the flak and it never really effects me” you are hitting flak clouds as you start you attack run and as you pass over the ship while still locked in the animation. During those times you lost quite a few aircraft. Like you said, these are just bots with no skills, no equipment, and I highly doubt the use sector focus. I feel like the results being shown are fine for what you are fighting against.

    Right now too many people are sitting in this echo chamber wanting the old AA that just melts anything that gets close and they are basically immune to air attacks while their DFAA is up. It needs to stop. The CV gets to poke you (if he wants to bad enough), and you get to kill his planes if he decides to. The point of AAA isn’t to make it so planes can’t touch you, it’s to make it cost the CV time without that aircraft wing if he commits to attacking into a nasty AA bubble. Having AA cruisers that just completely stop a CV from dealing damage is just as unfair as a GZ clicking on a BB with AP bombers and nuking him into oblivion. The CVs lost that ability, now CAs have to understand and give a little also.

    • +Rob O Planes are unlimited in the sense that there is no limit built into the ships, they will continually respawn. However, given that matches are limited in length, the number of planes you can respawn during that time becomes a hard limit. So there is incentive in not getting all your planes torched. I’m still not entirely sanguine about this design choice, and I do worry, like you, that this will make CVs stronger as the match progresses and AA batteries are destroyed. There’s still so much we don’t know and won’t know until the rework goes live, and that is troubling.

    • And also it is historically accurate representation of how CVs changed warfare. BBs should fear attacking planes. They should feel that planes can threaten them. DDs going at it alone and capping and sniping is nice gameplay but they are only equiped with small AA guns, they never were supposed to take on whole squadrons and as was already mentioned they are nimble fast and hard to hit. AA seems fine to me, it is back and forth, you crush snakes head and snake bites your heel, kind of gameplay.

    • Harry Großschartner

      +Rob O Just as a side note:
      Except cv get unlimited planes… cruisers have aa mounte with low health that can get wrecked from he and from dmg from cv.

      1. Unlimited Planes isnt true. The more you sacrifice the less you get in return. Yes you cant be deplaned anymore, but a wing with 1-3 Planes is the most you can expect when beeing ruthless with your planes. The refill to a full squad is something never happens in the game. As soon as half of your planes are lost, you want get them back till the end of the game!

      2. AA Mount Health has been doubled. In PT2 i didnt managed once to kill off the enemy SHips AA Mounts solo with my HE Bombs/Rockets.. he must be under heavy HE Fire from ships to lose mounts.

      And with an AA Skilled gearing well.. see for yourself! 22 Planes shot down before even activating DefAA
      would really appraciate this test in a live enviroment, if Notser can avoid an aa skilled Gearing the same as he did with the khaba..

    • He only seems to take the flak when he follows a vector for too long, which is consistent with my experience. He over exaggerates when he says you won’t take any damage, but you won’t usually take enough damage to lose any attacks. Even the Montana can be hit through the flak reliably, but its short range DOTs cause attrition pretty quickly so you have to be extra vigilant about moving along different vectors continuously. The few planes lost and the rapid respawn rate you can have at t10 will at most cost you one attack, and maybe 20-30 seconds to get back and continue the stream of damage.

      It’s going to suck in particular for DDs. I had a similar experience this khaba had. Even stringing through multiple Des Moines, you simple can’t move fast enough to evade a rocket attack. DD AA might as well not exist if you avoid predictable vectors and have the basics of the firing templates down.

    • +Tanuvein Yes he doesn’t know what he’s talking about really. He says he’s a CV player but on previous videos he admits he doesn’t play them well and doesn’t play them often so I’m not sure how he’s the “authority figure” on CV play. Does he realize that yes maneuvering around does help you avoid AA damage but that affects aiming.

      He needs to watch farazelleth
      videos regarding AA damage and how effective it can be when players group up for mutual AA cover, like the current CV play now.

  10. I agree with Notser, looks cool as hell, could be fun, but needs to be tightened up.

  11. They could just let the WoPs players play the WoWs planes.

  12. Still looks unpleasant to play in anything but the CV. I was watching the comments over youtube regarding the CV rework, and i assume the active players will dropp… time will tell how mutch.

  13. 5:27 you could literally turn to avoid the damage… (It was ~4500hp)
    6:51 The Montana is a bot… It doesn’t realize it is being attacked… It doesn’t even turn the ship to avoid the torps…

    A Yamato that aims well, shouldn’t be rewarded with a citadel?

    Now let me tell you what the problem is… Of course balance in general… But the lack of mechanics, there is no learning curve, in 2 days you already know everything… And you play well.

    In balance terms, DDs are the most harmed with the update. As they have low HP pools and rockets are quite effective in killing them if they go slow…

    The only thing that worries me the most (like a TST and PT server player) is that the update comes in only 9 days to the Live Servers…

    • i personally think a little more randomness to the flak would not be bad. for one thing it would make the lives of weaker players easier, while increasing the difficulty on good players. as it stands, a weak player might lose everything without a chance while a strong player wipes the floor without thinking.

      I just hope that WG acctually spends many of the next updates BALANCING their game rather than introducing new ships and lines. (i much rather get that than Russian bbs)

  14. Does World of Tanks have World of Warplanes stuffed down their throats as well?

    • No, neither does WoWS or did WG shove Command & Conquer down your throat with the current CV model?

    • +CloneD Anon I love Command & Conquer . If you would have used Age of empires or Warcraft knock offs in you analogy I would have given you a thumbs up . Thumbs down for disrespecting C&C bye comparing it to this RTS crap that Wargaming failed at.

    • +rich livingston I dont care, insert any RTS game analogy for current CV gameplay.

    • The only thing like WoWp is the flak destroying your planes, and that only affects the CV… have you actually played WoWp or the new CV public test? They definitely different games

    • +gzerox2 I doubt any of the people calling this “WoWP” have actually played WoWP. Its all doom and gloom for them and for no real reason really since i doubt many of them play current CV’s anyway.


  16. The thing i liked about the old RTS carriers was that you had to actually think about where to position your aircraft and which ships to strike and when to strike them. Now it just seems like you strike everything randomly because the flak is so easily avoidable. I just hope WG gets it together before they release this rework.

  17. Gentleman agreement for CV not to attack each other while seal clubbing… LOL what a BS

  18. go play world of warplanes and leave ships alone!!!!!!

  19. So WG broke the game and they’re going to stick with their guns because they’ve dumped a lot of time and money into the rework. Too bad

    • They have not even implemented it yet, so how supposedly they “broke the game” already then?

    • You can clearly see that they are trying to make it better. The first PTR/super test is a distant memory compared to the newest PTR. They’ve said that once the update is public they plan on making balance changes the next patch

    • +gzerox2 Yep.

    • They need the rework because the game is broken – that’s why no CVs in Clan Battles, they are broken (a very good CV player vs a not so good CV player and there is almost no doubt which team will win, which is not true about any other class of ship). And now WG are trying to fix the CV problem with the rework – time will tell if it works – but I am not expecting it to work so that CVs are allowed into Clan Battles any time soon

  20. This video is quite bias against carriers and the way you are presenting the problem is not accurate in realistic settings. You say that a great CV player can avoid all flak without counterplay and completely dominate the game, when in the video you are getting planes shot down by straggler bot ships that are not even AA spec. You always make the argument that if the CV player is great then everyone is screwed, but never consider the other side where if the normal ship player is great. A great battleship/dd/cruiser player will always adapt to a CV match and stay close in groups to avoid being singled out by CVs just like what most people do in the live server right now. This makes it stupidly hard to strike into groups of ships that just create a no fly zone with flak that there are no counterplays for the CV player. I’ve played quite a bit of the new CV on the testing server and in my opinion the current AA is quite effective, especially within groups where you will instantly lose half your squadron within seconds if you fly near 2 cruisers, and this is before taking into account the fighters that cruiser and battleships get. If they extend the AA range t like you imply in your previous videos, this will make CVs irrelevant regardless of how good they are if the enemy is remotely competent. Any further buffs to AA will simply dumb down the normal ship counterplays against CV where all I need to do is press 1 button to shoot down entire squadrons by my self. I also notice how you imply that CVs can just throw out planes even if the strike fails since its infinite anyway, and that is entirely false, since the amount of planes that you can use in a game is entirely dependent on the time limit. Each failed attempt will cost 2-3 minutes of game time before another play can be made and this can snowball into extremely stompy games where if the enemy has dedicated AA squads, the CV player essential does not get to play the game.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.