Jump to content


Photo

Update 0.3.1


97 replies to this topic

#41 Edmund

Edmund

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westminster, Colorado (Not by choice)
  • Interests:Tanks, Trains, Planes, and boats(Big boats)

Posted 15 May 2015 - 0853 AM

Finally downloaded 3.1 last night.  They took my Independence and gave me some little carrier.  Can't remember the name so I will call it Lil C.  Most irritating is that all my research for Independence was done except getting whatever was next but Lil C had none done.  Not sure if they gave me back my xp's or not.  Played Lil C any way after upgrading hull and planes up to 2 bombers and 1 torp groups.  

 

Long and the short of it Lil C did fine.  Or should I say the planes did fine.  Both teams were very heavy on BB's.  So that maybe helped.

 

Then I played Chester (Yes I got it again because of the American BB line).  Did terrible because I played bad. 

 

After that I played tanks with my brother. 


  • 0

#42 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 15 May 2015 - 0948 AM

Well the good news is you only need 2500 for the first bb so it shouldn't take long. Also for those without carriers they branch off the t3 bb now.
  • 0

#43 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 15 May 2015 - 1046 AM

Unfortunately the first two tiers of USN BBs are garbage, just like their IJN counterparts.  This patch has been such a disappointment I'm taking a week off to do the On Track in WoT.  :glare:


  • 0

#44 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 15 May 2015 - 1404 PM

IDK, US tier 4 BB has really nice broadside. Only a few battles, but so far nothing horribly wrong about it, other then being tier 4 and getting sucked in tier 7 battles.


  • 0

#45 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 15 May 2015 - 1531 PM

The issue was two-fold.  First was the lack of punch with AP shells.  I found the tiers 3 and 4 couldn't scratch their counterparts on the IJN line.  Second was accuracy.  If we ever get Acc numbers for these ships the low tier USN BBs would appear to rival the KV-2 in that dept.  Why in the world am I hitting water halfway between me and my target when I'm 5km away?!  Playing those ships felt like playing WoT arty and that's not a good thing.


  • 0

#46 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,958 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 17 May 2015 - 1156 AM

Carriers are pretty useless now, but I guess that's already known.


  • 0

#47 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Iberia, LA USA
  • Interests:Geomatics // Naval History // Soccer // Teaching

Posted 17 May 2015 - 1546 PM

Carriers are pretty useless now, but I guess that's already known.

 

I've never understood Wargaming's process of thinking when it comes to gameplay balance. They have zero concept of gradual changes, so their buffs/nerfs change so much there's little way to understand how it changes the metagame from the data they receive.

 

How are they going to see how carriers can be balanced if they introduce the IJN's carriers while simultaneously obliterating the USN carriers' antiship torpedo striking abilities while buffing dive bombers (To be fair, doubling nothing gets... nothing still) along with introducing battleships that have even more AAA than existing ships... which comes right after they arbitrarily buffed AAA across the board by 20%? That's way too many changes to get a feel for what changes are affecting what and how it all affects the metagame for literally 25% of the ship classes in the game.

 

Maybe I'm a drooling idiot who just happens to teach Video Game Design I/II to high schoolers, but wouldn't the better option be to hotfix changes every couple of weeks focusing on smaller adjustments to one aspect of the metagame?


  • 0

#48 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,958 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 17 May 2015 - 1658 PM

You are ertainly right. We have gone from entertaining if flawed carrier play to it being a worthless addition to the game in which they are more usefyl for their secondaries and AAA than for their air groups. I even hunted down an Essex with a Lex using the 5 inch guns. How much more ridiculous can it get?
  • 0

#49 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 18 May 2015 - 0234 AM

Carriers are pretty useless now, but I guess that's already known.

IMNSHO the best way to see balance is to look at what the best players are doing.  I remember when I was new to WoT and curious at just how bad the German line really was I spent an afternoon going through the top 100 players on the NA server.  To WG's credit this info has always been easy to find and look at on the WoT website (yes, I'm giving them a compliment because this is something they do right in WoT).  Most didn't even play German vehicles and of those who did their stats in them were lower than their overall numbers.  Pretty clear evidence there's a problem (you should always balance based on what the best do, not on what the average do).

 

Sadly WoWs is still in beta and apparently player stats are harder to come by (as far as I'm aware I can only look up player stats on the NA server and I have to be logged into their portal to do that).  There is one player that stuck out as someone who's played a lot (800+ games in the CB), who's good, and who loves carrier play: iChase.  Assuming his CV stats on USN ships were before 3.1 he was pulling a 67% w/r in carriers.  In the new IJN ones?  56%...  That kind of drop speaks for itself.

 

I'm going to track him and some other players (though the few others I've found seem to already have soured on the CB or haven't played since the patch) to see how their CV win rates change.  I'm expecting more of what I saw above (assuming they're still playing).


  • 0

#50 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 18 May 2015 - 2057 PM

There has to be something bugged with bombers.

 

I jumped into the PvE battles to hone my manual aiming with them (I hate feeling like a liability in a normal match).  There's six markers on the USN bomber groups so that means six potential hits... right?  On several almost perfect runs (oval over middle of ship, matching ship direction, only the slightest edge of it on water) the most hits I ever got was... 3.  Some were just 2!  :blink:

 

I find it hard to believe upwards of 2/3 of my bombs being dropped are all going to the edge of the oval.  Either the visual depiction is wrong (intentional or bug) or they're just bugged, period.

 

Also, the best match I had against bots that like to beach and go in straight lines was 18 hits and 10 fires for a net dmg total of all of 50k.  That's well below what I was pulling before 3.1 with 99% dmg coming from torp bomber runs.


  • 0

#51 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 19 May 2015 - 1332 PM

So speaking of FCO's gradual changes can everyone agree that we've seen enough of the current fire mechanics and their probability and dmg should both be reduced by about 2/3?  To add to the small-changes-to-do-in-a-hotfix give back the old USN flights as well as the shorter repair CD.

 

I'm seeing next to zero positive feedback about this last patch (which I second).  Not sure what could be hurt by making some small changes.


  • 0

#52 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,958 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 19 May 2015 - 1421 PM

Agreed, just had a game on Lady Lex and despite my best effort it was a waste and a drag on the team.


  • 0

#53 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 19 May 2015 - 1721 PM

My one real game last night summed up what's wrong with the current loadouts.

 

Ran the fighter loadout on the Ranger and got two enemy carriers that went bomber/torp loadout.  Parked one fighter outside each enemy carrier and completely shut down their torp planes all game.  I think they got in... 3 runs total between the two?  (Basically when I was on reload.)

 

Did it matter?  Nope.  We lost.  Shutting down other carriers when they can't do anything even when ignored isn't helping.

 

As for bombers did my best to put them to good use but even mouthbreathers dodge better than the PvE bots I was practicing on earlier (DBs are maybe hurt even more than torp bombers from the every-ship-now-turns-on-a-dime-buff this last patch).  Over the course of that match I landed all of like 5 hits for just a few fires and none of the latter were close enough to burn while someone had repair on CD.  Had one fairly good run on one of the carriers after it had used repair where half the oval was still on the ship yet nothing landed (manual drop, too, so smaller target).  :glare:


  • 0

#54 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 20 May 2015 - 0753 AM

Glad to have my decision to stop playing carriers in Alpha validated. 


  • 0

#55 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,324 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 20 May 2015 - 1039 AM

If im not mistaken...torpedo bombers were historically much eaiser to shoot down than dive bombers?  Had to do with the attack profile IIRC. Does WG restrict the number of carriers in a match like arty in WoT? 

 

What is the tier spread in WoW?  Is it three as in Wot?  Would a 2 tier spread make more sense?


  • 0

#56 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 20 May 2015 - 1338 PM

The tier spread in WoWs is unfortunately larger than in WoT.  It appears to be influenced by server pop, though, so when high you see what you see in WoT though when low it's 4-5 tiers?  FWIW ship balance currently is pretty bad so it's not as big a deal as it was in WoT when that game launched.

 

As for carriers they're restricted to just 2 per team.  Teams are smaller, though, in WoWs.  Limit is 12 instead of 15 and you'll often get games where one side has 12 and the other 8-10 (this latter team usually has more high tiers to supposedly balance).  In the last iteration of the game 2 carriers was plenty.  In the hands of a good player they could influence matches.  In the current version... not so much.


Edited by Skywalkre, 20 May 2015 - 1352 PM.

  • 0

#57 zaarin7

zaarin7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 May 2015 - 1525 PM

The main issue with early CV's IMHO is the bomb loads are so weak that dive bombers can not do the damage torpedoe bombers do.


  • 0

#58 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,958 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 20 May 2015 - 1628 PM

Thevsame happwns at tier VIII
  • 0

#59 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 20 May 2015 - 1804 PM

The main issue is they don't hit.  How is it I have 90%+ of the target oval on an enemey ship and only get a 50% hit rate?  Something is broke there.


Edited by Skywalkre, 20 May 2015 - 1809 PM.

  • 0

#60 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,390 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 20 May 2015 - 1959 PM

Tried the Ranger 8 times in real games the last two days for a record of 4-2-2 (did get 1 100k+ dmg game... in a draw...).

 

So much... wrong.  Carriers are off the shelf til next major patch.


  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users