Its Finally Time To Talk About The CV Rework

[@PotatoQuality]

What did you think of this first look at the CV rework? What changes would you like to see made to this class and how it interacts with surface ships? I'll be making another video about the rework soon and would like to cover what people in the community think as well. edit: I know this is a polarizing topic, please be respectful to others in the comments.

[@huzaifabaig8711]

As a DD player Im loving It

[@jasper5878]

I personally think that the proof of concept does not work for a sustainable solution to the core issues. WG are over complicating the solution. Take this as me only watching gameplay. 1- This so far appears to do nothing towards teamwork. It makes CV a selfish class. 2 - It makes the counter CV very unpredictable and inconsistent. 3 - I feel that there is going to be very limited opportunity to create variety between carriers. I fell that all the playstyle is going to feel samey. 4 - I don't see any path for this to bring CV into Competitive.

[@Lewiks]

I'm mostly with you on the takes you had in this video. I would really love to have them as an interesting class to play, as CVs were what initially drew me into this game. But thinking back to Open Beta, it feels like we went backwards in several scales. RTS carriers had finite planes. Losing planes would hurt just as much as taking damage as a surface ship. Can we even deplane a competent CV now? Instead of endless minor attacks, you would mass your flights into a single strike. As a surface ship, you could see an attack coming and prepare for it. Carrier fighters were a major threat, and a strong enough deterrent against strikes. You had to click plane squadrons to focus them down, the same way you do with secondaries. That felt like something, at the very least. Now, you might as well not have AA on most ships. Once the first CV rework got rid of RTS carriers I stopped playing them. Despite its flaws, which were massive, it was a system that mostly worked. The way it is now... I hardly see a way to make it work and be satisfying for both parts.

[@ethanrichards3268]

I think the largest issue with cv’s which this doesn’t address at all, is the fact that a lot of their battle impact comes from their capacity to synthesize crossfires. In fact they are probably stronger in that regard because they stay fully immune until their crossfire is set up. Sure they won’t spot as much, but in a 12v12 setting , that will only matter for the first few minutes. I suspect this will be worse for more people and only further pacifies the game

[@Caelum_NLD]

I think to get carriers in line with the rest of the surface ships, they need to play by the same rules. Core elements of surface ship combat: main armament range, concealment, project enemy movements and fire accordingly, shoot at risk for a counterattack through spotting. Giving CV armamant (planes) a max flying range already would even the playing field more and will give CVs more of a risk factor to play with, while they still keep the advantage of manouverable armament to balance out that they need to control it (edit: next to be able to hit targets behind mountains). Surface ships have fire and forget armament, but can't change trajectory to compensate. This change would bring CVs more into the battle too, instead of them parking their ship nearly outside the match and then forget about it.

[@destroyerkuroshiokai]

I'd rather return to RTS. I actually had fun playing against them in a DD. My most memorable dodges came from dodging cross drops from the super unicum competitive CV mains. CVs attention was split more and AA builds could actually eat up a CVs influence.

[@3men219]

It was just a better system, the American CV where the Fighter and dive bomber CVs, the Japanese had weak fighters and dope torps. Man there was so much flavor and we had no other CVS from other nations yet. The CV had THE tactical role, he had to deal with the enemy cv and set up the strikes without losing to many planes. Also def AA was useful because of the debuff to the aiming. the RTS system with manual secondary would be so much fun.

[@a36538]

LOL😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@jerry250ify]

Same on the receiving and dealing side for me.

[@quintiax]

I am intensely biased here, as I was one of these high tier unicum RTS CV mains. But there was a lot more risk to playing recklessly. A Worcester or a DM could wipe out entire stacks of squadrons, even without an AA build. Once you spotted one, you did a 180 on your planes and get the fuck out of there. Made a mistake early game and lost 3 full squadrons of torpedo bombers? You're punished for that. You weren't going to get these back. Empty hangar? No more game impact for you. That and you weren't only focussed on the enemy surface ships, as there was a whole battle in the air against the enemy CV. You also had the aspect that you HAD to manoeuvre your carrier itself. Planes weren't very fast and if you didn't take up more risky positions you would get outplayed by the enemy CV who did position more risky. He would be able to cycle faster and get his fighters back up in position sooner. It was very demanding to play a CV, but they were so much fun to play. I do truly miss them immensely. I fondly remember positioning my Saipan so aggressively that I was at the D or G line (close to the middle). Good times.

[@safety_doggo2]

@@quintiax Boy were those the times.

[@kevinweber2554]

100% on board with this Potato. They tried to re-re-work this and every time they butcher this more and more. BRING BACK RTS. It actually allows for carriers to still be a part of it and actually bring skill to the class instead of whatever the hell this is.

[@ibnu9969]

No need to bring back RTS. Simply remove surface spotting for planes, only minimap spotting. It is just that simple

[@TaskForce-ql3bx]

@@ibnu9969fun fact this is already in the console version and it works well. CV’s still try to target DD’s cuz they become the most critical class with that simple change. They also gave the plane squads fuel so 1 squad can’t fly forever. It also means radars get better. Of course it being WG they made the carrier damage higher/number of planes and plane recharge rate. The only thing console lacks is no Minimap targeting so you are just firing in the complete dark from minimap. But the plane spotting being gone has been incredible.

[@AshCatTrainz]

Fucking skill? Based on the videos I’ve seen and from playing blitz, you click and get 30k damage.

[@biorecords1506]

​@@AshCatTrainzto be fair, that sums up more than just carriers

[@Paisa231]

​@@AshCatTrainzwell depends how good the ship captain is to dodge, and skill of CV players to drop. It similar today, if a good CV player targets you. The difference between CV RTS and today, was firstly the finite numbers of planes you had. So if you lose to many early game you were useless in the end game. But yes a good CV player could determine the game in the first 3-10min. Then you got the famsct you had to manage several squads, to achieve these incredible first strikes. But if you didn't multitask, you could lose squads in other places on the map. And then the fact if you had a good CV teammate, he could prevent or obliterate enemy planes if they wanted. All of this is what WG considered to be to difficult to master for new players, and why we got this simpler system. That still is broken.

[@slip6699]

RTS CV best CV. With old AA mechanic. Risk and reward. Losing those planes hurts.

[@Traumatree]

I feel the very first version of the CV when it was introduced in the game was the right one as you needed to help protect it with other ships (for better AA) in some situations. What went wrong is to allow micro-management of the planes of T8+ CV that some players mastered and was just too leathal. WG just had to remove that micro-management of higher tier CVs and the problem would have been solved. Also, planes were not replaceable in the first iteration of the carriers! At that time, the CV felt like a tactical base that needed to be protected and provided what CVs did provided in WW2. The first rework WG did transformed the CVs into a flight simulator and that tactical aspect was removed from the game and result was even worst than the first iteration. What I don't like of WoWs ship's combat mechanics is that they differ too much from what they should be, and unecessary nerf are added to ship to balance things out (ex: when overpens on BBs were introduced to help DDs survive a salvo - that was pretty stupid imo as that was the only thing that prevent DDs to do a rush-n-torp maneover. And let's be frank here, if that 406mm shell over pens a ship, that ship would have a F-150 pickup size hole in its side which would render it quite vulnerable... Edit: Has any testing form WG in their games really representative of what the community really reported? No. It was true for WoT (that I played for over 30k games back in the days) to WoWS now that just tests "internally" and make us believe we had an impact on whatever outcome.

[@mayshiratoshi6390]

+1 Just let's the CV play full RTS game with unit type limit and only map spoted for surface ship will be best fixed. Without any micro management drop or staffing. It'll be simple for starter player and become best class for RTS starcraft high ranking level player.

[@bigpoppa1234]

no-one is playing WOWS for planes. get rid of subs, get rid of carriers. or the game will keep dying. That simple.

[@WrwfOriginal]

Ye I think the fact that airplanes could run out just made the game more balanced, this regen bullcrap is just too obnoxious to enjoy the game. Its just "oh well I lost a flight of Dive bombers"

[@AndyDustman]

At least with RTS, you were always in the role of ship commander. Now you're switching between being ship commander and squadron commander. Would be interested in return of RTS, with some limitations: Long duration fires on CVs. Can't launch/recover planes when on fire. Maybe add damage repair to compensate for long fires. CV must be moving forward 3/4 speed to launch recover (no camping in one spot and never moving). A fairly substantial delay for getting a new squadron onto the flight deck before it can be launched, or switched for a different type. Entire squadron drops, becomes undetected after awhile, then returns to CV. You could potentially still have the old torpedo crossdrops, but it would take a long time to set it up. Sold all CV and subs a few months back (did not buy the subs).

[@WrwfOriginal]

@@AndyDustman I agree with everything you said, I miss old WoWS it was alot more enjoyable, subs are disgusting imho. I get so stressed by bad players playing both subs and Cv's.

[@MrTrool323]

The current test is just a mechanical test which as we did see...it is just bad The community was asking for a change...but Wee gee got their own take on this situation and we have reached the point where the FDR will be able to drop you with torps and hover above...where 6 more squads cannot be touched nor clapped by an ocasional flak puff Destroyers benefit because they are not spotted so easily Cruisers with DFAA will somewhat be ok Battleships are just food

[@kingharlausthe1st684]

I have recently grinded up my first CV line just out of curiosity and after reaching t10 I feel like the majority of players only enjoy them because they're fundamentally broken and it's quite literally childs play to torture any surface ship at will and to create horrible situations for them out of thin air in which they have to make lose-lose decisions basically. It's like everyone is playing regular chess but then both sides have 1 chess piece that is invulnerable and yet at the same time can attack any piece in any position it wants. I know removing CVs is unlikely to be an option at this stage (same with subs) but I don't think any suggested change that WG would realistically consider apart from removing them will ever make the interactions between CVs and surface ships feel fun / fair / balanced and instead frustration and negativity will always very much be linked to facing said ship classes I think no matter how this rework turns out.

[@InarusLynx]

Yeah because if they go back to limited planes like in the past, then CVs will be useless given the right conditions. This means CVs will fall in popularity because permanent deplaning would really piss off a lot of players. Maybe WGing can experiment with ways for surface ships having more of an impact during the attack phase. Maybe they could do some kind of manual flak mechanic while planes are in travel mode. Obviously this is even more coding and added complexity.

[@armydudert]

As someone who has leaderboarded a handful of CVs on NA but also plays surface ships I think this video has totally valid points. I feel you used your lack of CV experience to make it seem like you could have done a ton more in the CV game you showed but TBH what u did is practically it. if you try attacking ships together or a wooster you do 0 dmg but lose only 2 planes per attempt. The reticule doesnt start aiming until after the 8 sec decent and the 3-4 sec prep so on hak unless u go ~6km or more away you cannot turn back and "aim" the torps. I dont fully agree with everything but I dont hate CVs as much as you but do agree they are OP and gamebreaking as hell. One thing is you cant see Deplaning the CV as the goal with this new rework (and lets be honest on live only really bad cvs are getting deplaned anyway). Its now how much of the strike do I mitigate by my and my nearby ships AA. Is it enough that its not worth if for the CV to drop. 6v6 does a really bad job of showing what multiple mid AA ships can accomplish. I found a BB +1 other ship of almost any AA power consistently halved Haks torps squad. Lastly 100% agree that everything feels like FDR and I hate that. as a CV player I liked how Graf Zep felt so different in that its about droping only once and cycling squads as fast as possible using fast planes. Thats dead if things go through as is. One thing I will say is if you take the mechanics alone and ignore the numbers there is actually a lot of good for surface ships. like number wise CVs should lose a lot of hanger space if they go with this style but also Hak for example should really get a bigger torp flight even if you lower dmg per torp so it feels less bad on the CV end. Lastly DFAA should be infinite and all flighters should be "interceptors" which means no spotting but faster tag times. They did say they have planes for fighters that aren't in the test in the announcement if I remember correctly. I can go on a huge conversation on the changes both ways but youtube comments feels like the wrong place for it. If you want to check stats or pick a more experienced CV players brain its ANTIDAD on NA.

[@biorecords1506]

Thanks for the insight

[@IpodTouch171]

the fact the planes are still invincible when they're on their attack run is seriously so stupid as well.

[@GregoryKun]

it's a lie. i tried midway on tst, and i couldn't reach ships.

[@wesleyverhoeks4296]

clearly minimap spotting would have been more complicated than this. if the sarcasm wasn't obvious im being incredibly sarcastic.

[@danieldragisic1251]

I have always thought that an easy CV fix would be to have a loadout choice to have squadrons of spotter planes - that can't attack, but no attack aircraft can't be launched until they return to the CV. It would come at the cost of swapping out 1 type of attack squadron. Just my thoughts, but I still think subs are more busted than CV's.

[@mobilizedpanda3795]

I don't like this idea. Flying around in unarmed spotter planes would likely be the meta. It would lead to a lot of "Noob CV stop trying to use attack planes and spot." What we need in my opinion is minimal spotting, damage to aircraft performing the attack run. And an effective way for CVs to counter other CVs aircraft. Fighters being independent movable units would be cool. Instead of flying over your allies to pointlessly drop a fighter you vector fighters to intercept.

[@bamboo.tv1003]

The simple fix would be keeping the current version of CVs, make plane spotting minimap only like during storms AND remove the ability to 3D printing planes!

[@muchoyike]

The fighter plans spotting surface ships is likely to preserve features like Napoli smoke + fighter plane spotting, and using fighters to peak over islands. If I had to guess, the same code is behind the CV fighter planes and the surface ship fighter planes, so separating those two would likely take some time.

[@Stephen__White]

Fighters are losing their spotting at a later date, this was just a mechanical test to see if players would understand how things worked. Hence why the test server is so limited.

[@muchoyike]

@@Stephen__White Just CV fighters, or surface ship fighters as well? Or has that not been announced?

[@forge16hanadamaintenancedr43]

@@Stephen__White They are probably also concerned about how carriers would interact with lone battleships and hence the matchmaking style. It's probably even worse than they exptected so we can expect some extensive buff on the AA improvement from extended airstrikes.

[@Stephen__White]

@@muchoyike From the live stream it's going to be all aircraft(ship fighters/spotter planes) will have at minimum reduced spotting.

[@Stephen__White]

@@forge16hanadamaintenancedr43 As it stands lone BBs with at least passable AA can still reduce the incoming damage from CVs, so I doubt they are terribly unhappy with the results, but balance changes are going to happen. Hopefully solo AA doesn't see to many buffs, but with how people cry about it, I can imagine there is going to be quite the bit of changes around solo AA.

[@Spillrag]

WG did mention in the devblog that they’re looking into interactions with fighters, but didn’t have anything ready for this test fyi. From the article: “Additionally, we're working on updating interactions with Fighters and plan to expand on this in the future; however, we aren't ready to implement those changes in the current test.”

[@jaywerner8415]

Well thats good to hear.

[@grzegorzkapica7930]

To me carriers were great at their first Iteration; this game one plays as a captain. A captain of a carrier is a strategist. He does not sit in a plane. Also; it was a small game within a game. A lot of fun and something different. I miss them.

[@Dcarp7]

Same.

[@Dragewarrior]

Honestly, I believe that a simple fix to the CV issue is to give surface ships manual control/fire for the flak cannons. That way its a direct PvP engagement because a well placed flak shot can cripple or outright destroy a squadron. This is coming from a CV main, flak bursts are very easy to dodge IMO.

[@dalao-ok8wb]

a carrier is like the dealer of a blackjack game... they are subject to the same rules but because they are likely to go bust later than the players, it gives them a significant edge.

[@quantumx9729]

15:04 yeah, as Rei Yukiho alrealdy said, this test most likely only testing the new mechanics. Damage numbers and other balancing likely isn't a focus yet.

[@Mr_Secondaries]

Exactly. Potato Quality is making a lot of assumptions.

[@Rahn-AFK]

An interesting approach, imo, is to tie planes to CV health. He starts with 1 complete set of each plane type. As they die, the CV player can regen them, quickly (ie. 20-30s) but it costs him his own health. Anything from a % of the plane's health to the entire cost. The dynamic is the point, not the specific values, in this case. This resolves the "unlimited" issue, and allows an impact on the distant CV, as planes are killed and they're forced to regen them or be passive. Maybe they get 1-2 heals, on some CVs, and can heal back some portion of the health spent. This essentially creates windows of strength and weakness that be exploited by either side, depending on timing and puts their hulls at risk, if they consume planes and they will.

[@SteelxWolf]

As someone who enjoyed RTS CVs you are partly correct. Personally I think some of the changes to AA like priority sector and flak bubbles could still be applied to RTS style. However the other big thing about RTS was the ability to actually “support” my team with fighter cover. Lone BB out making a play but getting hammered by enemy CV? Just lay the fighters over him and or pursue the enemy planes and actually get positive response from your teammates. The original rework made carriers selfish farmers and thats it. The smoke support cvs is the closest we’ve got to an actual support role in a long time. Theres other little things like Hakuryus planes being overpowered simply because the old AA system didn’t really have a flak bubble mechanic so all of your planes could be stacked on top of each other and were fast enough to just fly into literally anything and not lose. Plane speed being toned down and a proper flak mechanic, AA skills and upgrades could bring back RTS with little issue. You could still have CVs like the Russians with one big attack squad and balance it accordingly. Also lets not forget that WoWs has far more AA strong ships in it now than RTS years ago

[@geraldleuven169]

For an online arcade game I think these new mechanics are just too complicated. What makes WoW so appealing is that you can learn the mechanics pretty easily but it takes experience and practice to hone your skills. This is what brings people back to the game. The casual is not interested in studying all these new rules. In my opinion they should have just removed the spotting ability by carriers, not sure why this didn't worked out in the beta testing.

[@----.__]

There's an easy way to sort out carriers: link microtransactions to a single game for WG staff, where the WG staff play in a normal surface ship and they face off against aircraft carriers. If the WG staff win, the player pays for the microtransaction, if they lose then the player gets the microtransaction for free. Aircraft carriers would be rebalanced within the hour.

[@comradevlad7459]

The largest issue with cvs from the surface perspective with these changes is that engagement time with is even more extremely limited. You now have maybe 6 seconds or less between squads coming out of travel mode and going into an attack run, for your aa to actually do damage. As soon as the attack run finishes, the squad is instantly back into travel mode and invulnerable again. So you have 6 seconds to counter the cv, meanwhile he has all the freedom and time in the world to lineup his drops. Quite terrible for BBs who can't turn nearly fast enough.

[@joedoe6444]

while i also despise the way CVs are in this game, i am down to the last few missions in the campaign section. 3 of them are CV only, one is for 10 mil credits, ok easy just takes some game play and a lot of hits to my karma. the second is also not terrible, i need a high caliber with a CV. the third one is the one i was dreading the most, it requires me to get top XP 5 times in a CV, and not being much of a CV player i wasn't looking forward to that one. when i do play CVs i think the best way to help the team is to spot/harass DDs till they are dead and spot caps to keep the enemy from taking them. by playing this way i never scored high because i didn't do much damage, but now CV play will be all about damage and big slow BBs are the best target to hit.

[@crw-bm7mm]

The big problem I have with the CV's is that they can light you up and be taken out by ships 20 km away that normally would not even know you were there. When a plane spots you, you should only be visible to ships within a certain distance, say 1.3 times you normally would by a ship instead of the whole map.

[@FunPoliceGaming]

this rework has shown that TB spam midway can get MORE damage than pre rework midway. also interceptors can be facedropped onto CV and are immune to AA, so you can troll CVs with interceptor build

[@GolfKata]

A pro wows player in an ultra favorable situation - double tier x carrier attacking 3 surface ships were barely able to inflict 60k damage with planes. I would guess you'd be able to do nearly that much just playing the ship as a cruiser without planes. I've come away from watching a few reviews by bb mains that whatever solution comes as close to removing CVs from the game is their preferred option and any commentary is just fluff to try to encourage that outcome. The whole "I'm not good at this, but could easily learn it if I wanted so its overpowered" argument over and over is an example of this. As someone that joined the game because CV were added the changes on the test server feel draconian purely as an appeasement to louder voices. The best way to describe the changes is it feels like playing a fps shooter with 8 seconds of lag introduced. You mentioned bb getting farmed, that is probably because its the only thing that can even be engaged now, but remember there is the safespace meter to prevent over farming. Any changes to the CV should not make the game feel worse to play. Harder to play is fine, but including 10km instant invisibility shields and multi stage input lag is NOT the way. How enraged would you be instead of smoke, a dd could click an invisibility sphere that covers 10-15km instantly or if bb reload timer was 2minutes instead of 20-30 seconds?

[@wamblyfish6159]

Ngl I miss being available to control multiple squadrons

[@moonik665]

So the best feel is for ships that received the greatest reduction in frequency of interactions with the cv... Who would've thought.

[@hughejass9461]

One of the main reasons I quit the game was the constant double cv and triple sub games; not a sub or cv player for sure. I see nothing in this proposed update that would encourage me to come back and play again. I'll spend my money and time in other games. Thanks for the video - it was very informative.

[@shotover7]

Some thoughts on CVs and the CV spotting rework in World of Warships: • CV is definitely the most powerful ship in the game, primarily through the spotting it provides to your team, as well as direct damage provided. Critical to reduce the multiplier impact (good player and bad player) of CVs both ways to their teams. • Disagree on CVs and Subs being excluded from the game. WoWs is basically an attempt to recreate WW2 like naval battles. CVs and Subs CVs played a critical role in redefining the entire nature of warfare - ending the era of direct surface ship warfare. Ask the crew of the Yamato… Rework mechanics: • Far too complicated and frankly just stupid. Basics like variable spotting if attacking or transiting makes no sense. Planes blinded when literally flying over a ship at torpedo attack height? • Makes even more random the spotting mechanics between ship classes. • This will make DDs impossible to find late game. Will encourage more passive game play. If you are ahead -- hide. • On more cumbersome plane striking, BBs will become bigger target as is only thing you can hit. Again more passive play. Hard to hit DDs, especially low detection, with setup now. This will make it impossible. • If fighter spotting the same, which is the main spotting tool, all this is irrelevant. Solutions: • Some balancing in the matchmaker for skill levels and ship strengths. Team with good CV driver should get weaker teammates. • Minimap spotting is the way forward, potentially for all ships. It could also be anonymous, so you do not know the actual ship, or maybe only be class in the minmap. This would also be more historically accurate. • Planes should have limited range or timer against them (1 minute say). So this limits the range they can go, or range they can go and return (half way). Equivalent of running out of fuel. Also restricts the loitering time, so if 50 seconds to go somewhere, you get 10 seconds on target. Vastly improves historical accuracy to WW2. Also means a CV has to move closer to action to be effective, so can clearly be more easily attacked. • Fighter spotting nerf. Fighters need same travel time to location as attack aircraft, so a delay. Currently they spot immediately.

[@Caelum_NLD]

1: CV's gameplay is just a completely different game. The game is all about slow ships, as PQ said tactical placement decisions that impacts but minutes after, and above all: CONCEALMENT. Because surface ships are so slow, concealment up to 100 meters can impace the game. What F's all this up is quickmoving, allspotting craft that can cover the map in less than a minute. And as PQ also mentioned, coming from a craft that can't be attacked in a counterattack, as the real ship is chilling at the end of the map. Apart from suicide CVs, the CV hull is completely useless gameplay wise as CVs 99,99999999999% only die when the rest of the team is killed, after which the CV is only a formality. If the CV player could spawn random planes from the edge of the map, the gameplay and threat to that play would stay the same. !!!!!!What would still make CVs strong, but have them take risks and enter them into the game, would be giving their planes limited flighttime/range, just like all the other ships in the game. They still would have 'shells' that they could manually fire, but then at least they would have to move and make tactical decision, plus would not be able to operate all over the map from one spot. 2: Wargaming testing is crap. I too don't believe WG's words that they tested all kinds of things that in my eyes would balance things out. If they would report on their findings to the community and explain why they think things didn't work, I'd be ok with that, but they didn't. Why they didn't is because the last few years, the CV class was the one with the least ships and the one they could sell the most of, I think. Thus you keep that class overpowered. 3: "CVs are not going to like these changes" (ingame chat 16:12ish). In online gaming, most people that have their Overpowered class, weapon, character etc. nerfed and/or balanced with the rest hate what is being done. With these changes CVs still don't run ANY risk, apart from having their dps cut. As I said before, CVs never run the risk of taking damage, let alone being killed, in the first half and 99% of the time in the second half of the match whilke being able to do damage to other ships from immunity of the back line. In the most advantageous situation they might be defanged, but then the plane respawn will fix that. 4: "Stealth DDs gonna love these changes" (PQ 16:20ish). They should be able to. All surface ships should be able to enjoy stealth. The number 1 stat when CVs were cut from the game due to the rework was Concealment. It was the stat that made this game the most fun, because it brought the most tactics. Do I shoot enemy A? Might enemy B see me? If I am fast enough, I might flank around Enemy C before I get into his spotting range The WHOLE of WoWS' surface ship fleet is built around Consealment. From the stealth DDs to the French BB speed boost to the low main run range of ships like Atlanta that kept you from being spotted by the enemy's friend sailing in open water behind you out side your gunrange while you were gattling their friend from behind an island to the tiny advantages in Consealment in olden camo's, captain skills, ship upgrades etc. Consealment was the most fun and tactical stat that dictated most the other stats and is totally cr*pped on by CVs and their ever spotting sonic speed planes.

[@trevorwalkerjr.9375]

I propose two and only two changes. Carriers only able to fully regenerate 40% of their aircraft, and a configurable AA mode. Unassigned: (unchanged) Primary sector mode: (unchanged) Attacking flight mode: AA Mounts with line of sight on the attacking flight will focus their fire towards it. Whole squadron mode: AA Mounts will prioritize the squadron as a whole for their fire, aiming to shoot down as many planes as possible.

[@OldDecoy3]

I don’t understand why they don’t just limit CV spotting to just appearing on the mini map for everyone else and perhaps give planes a maximum range to force the CVS to move and risk being spotted. That seems like a positive step forward to me.

[@davesbibliotheca6107]

they should make plane losses actually matter, instead of having unlimited planes. Ideally for me they would return it to RTS since AA actually did something back then (and plane losses mattered too) yes they could delete you but there was also a much higher skill ceiling, and you would run into a lot of terrible RTS cv players

[@pegasusted2504]

Concerning the damage output towards the planes and not being able to target all the flight, only being able to attack those who are attacking. I think this is better from both points of view. For cv's they don't have to worry about planes that are not attacking getting damage/destroyed without getting any benefit from those planes. At least now you can use all the planes in the flight. From the POV of the BB's and such I think it is better also as all your AA only has to attack the planes that are actually a threat at that moment so you are actually getting more concentrated fire on much less amount of planes. Given how the blinding effect works I believe this change will finally start to make more people, in randoms especially, work how I have always thought we should and sail more grouped up working for the team instead of just sailing how ever.

[@prakash86anish]

Absolutely agree. I was okay with how the CVs currently work. I used to be majorly torp (stealth) DD player and still managed to have fun. All my friends did complain all the time about CVs. For the last 1 year or so, I'm mostly playing with AA build Stalingrad, Yodo, Austin & Gouden Leeuw and going hard against CV planes. The only issue with CVs is the fast unlimited planes replenishment. Even if I kill 50 planes, they keep coming which makes no sense. According to me WG should have added the following to the CV rework 2.0: 1. Limit the number of planes of each type a CV could replenish. 2. The whole squadron could be shot down/damaged if the ship uses 'Defensive AA fire' or 'Fighter' consumable when CV is in 'Attack mode' or 'Recon mode'. context @43:30 3. Love the manual control on the guns on CV. 4. Only mini map spotting and 2D spotting of DDs if the DD is a beyond CVs 'Detectability range' in Recon mode for the first 10 seconds, if the DD is within CVs 'Detectability range' it can be reduced to 5 seconds. It is hard to be a good CV player (I'm not) and this rework makes it even harder to play CV like a pro. All this does is makes CVs more annoying as you can't go after CV planes and shoot them down at once with strong AA build ships. They'd keep coming one by one from the high altitude (skipping ships with good AA) and will keep harassing BBs.

[@Joey_Liu]

Fantastic video Potato! You summed up the problem with CVs very well in the beginning of your video!

[@YoshiXZ69]

As an older CV player just bring back the rts. Actually CV feel horrible for everyone, I m tired to see my torp do less than a BB pen and taking twice the time to land them. RTS was fair, we can attack and defend our team now a carrier cannot defend at all his team. Those change ll not help at all the problem is that carrier are zombie right now losing plane isn"t pûnishing and having skill isn't reward. Simple as that, RTS was abandonned because he was judge too strong but in fact with a good positionning it wasnt that strong, and as I already mention the carrier can defend his team if he wanted

[@shawndeaker790]

So.... I plays WoWs Legends on PS5 as I don't have a PC anymore and they did a massive CV rework recently. There were some bumps in the rework but it's in a pretty good place now. Essentially this is what they did: - Planes do minimap spotting only, except for their carrier - Plane speed increased but a fuel/range mechanic added (planes cant just stay airborne forever) - to compensate and make the CV's still attractive to play they have become damage dealers specifically. Damage slightly increased, regen rates slightly increased and some bomb accuracy slightly increased) I too don't feel like the gameplay against carriers is engaging at all and never play them, but the fact they don't spot now has made a MASSIVE difference.

[@LongingSubset9]

I just find this such a joke when you realize the OG CV rework was mainly due to good CV players being able to nuke most ships with one good strike, and your game being decided on who has the better CV player. So their solution is to make them even more DMG focused. That's totally will make the people crying about CVs quiet. Of course it won't. CVs are fine as they are now. The only change they needed to make was the Spotting to work the same as with Radar. So when a CV spots a ship, the rest of the team doesn't see them for the first 5 or 6 seconds. There are vastly bigger problems with this game right now than CVs. (superships, HE spam from all ranges, subs)

[@pingpong_]

So, this change improves all DD against other surface ships. Do they need any additional advantage?

[@themagician6310]

They need to just do a durability update to every single battleship in the game. During the sinking of the Bismarck, it took multiple torpedoes and like 20 ships shooting 800 shells at it to finally go down. Battleships against 2-3 HE spamming cruisers get melted, and only a few or so squadrons to become completely destroyed. Carriers can stay in the game but the durability of ships needs to go up.

[@rigsta]

43:10 Torp bombers have had a heal since the rework. Using it to tank through AA is just normal practice with them, it's one of the things that distinguishes them from dive bombers & rocket planes. WG have already made some changes - notably nerfing fighter plane spotting to 2km - so they've probably got a bunch of darts lined up to throw at the public test board. Assuming they do fix carriers, the real test will be how long they STAY fixed. Eg. the current iteration was approaching "good" but they kneecapped it with one-and-done squardons (RU CVs, tactical squadrons).

[@brandonsheffield9873]

If they remove plane regeneration, then all Ships will need to have limited Ammo and Torpedoes. I dont like CVs, but come you bunch of idiots. Planes are the main armament. You have no room to complain about that, you get unlimited ammo as a BB/ CA/ DD and Sub.

[@ImpendingJoker]

One way to look at it is that it could promote teamwork. Making AA cruisers dangerous to CVs, will make it more likely that they will hangout with the BBs, Large Cruisers and BCs to help protect them.

[@El_Guapo269]

I play CVs a lot. I think your metric of deplaning CVs is incorrect. I never worry about getting deplaned right now. What affects my game impact is the number of planes that can make a drop per sortie (because the time it takes to get a full squadron to the drop area is one of the main things that limits my damage). In the game as it is now, 90% of my sorties result in 2/3 full drops. Most of the time I don't bother with a 3rd drop since I know they planes won't survive a 3rd pass over the AA. What I hate most is when I get 1 good drop and have to recall because AA is chewing up the other planes. From that lens, the change where destroyed planes don't get replaced means that it's possible that I only get 1/3 or 2/5 planes to actually drop per pass. For a 3 squad sortie with 5 planes per squad, that's 2x3= 6 planes successfully dropping. In the game now, if I'm getting 2 full drops per sortie, that would be 10 planes dropping. Of course, I don't know under the new system whether that would be 2/5 planes surviving a pass of 4/5 planes surviving a pass, and that makes a ton of difference, but even if 4/5 survive that's 12 planes dropping instead of 10 (in my example). It would take a relatively minor change to increase/decrease AA damage or plane survivability to change the number of planes that survive to make a drop. I haven't been able to play on the test server, so I don't know how plane survivability has changed, but I'd encourage you to think less about deplaning as the metric of successful counter play, and more about limiting the number of drops per sortie as the metric. Under the current system, half decent CV players shouldn't get deplaned. Anyway, thanks for going through all of this for us

[@frankhey3812]

great video, perfect lenght for a showcase and initial breakdown to the changes

[@AGENT47ist]

In my humble opinion although I am still in the process of watching the video, I started playing the game back in 2016 were it was out of beta. My first ship class I played was battleships, the second was CV. I loved the RTS style of the CV, because that's how a CV Commander would actually fight back IN WW2, and in general modern aircraft carriers still operate like that. Their mission is given by the Commanding Officer in the briefing and the pilots execute the mission. As a CV Captain, you are supposed to give orders and focus on the big picture of the game. That said, I would love if those idiots at War gaming brought back the RTS but with some limitations in place. BTW I remember the old days, if you even thought of going near a Minotaur or a Worcester your whole squadron was wiped out in seconds

[@TheFman2010]

Why should a surface ship know if attacking planes are blinded? Should the ship’s captain also be able to look inside the planes’ cockpits? Being blinded is POV of the planes, not of the surface ship.

[@lucianotesta5019]

This is so cumbersome. Being in the game for so many years one thing I can see is that for us, surface ship drivers, nothing will change for the best.

[@thirdfey]

When contesting a cap in a dd on the tst server you get murdered by cv's. You didn't contest a cap until the rest of your team was in B.

[@foreverpsycotic]

Fighters still spot because they cannot decouple the spotting from all fighters. So your fighter plane on napoli can still spot a DD when you are travelling in smoke.

[@hakaner2398]

TLDR: 1. Most realistic option is also the healthiest for the game. No realtime spotting at all, not even on minimap. Planes should report last known position of ships on minimap when they return to the carrier. 2.CVs are important to have in the game. They are the one and only noob class as you can spectate the other players and learn the game that way. (I got into WoWs using this method) Take the tragic bombing run on Rotterdam in 1940 as an example. The planes couldnt be called back after Netherlands surrendered. For DDs, or anyone that uses stealth and unexpected angles, this means theyre not immediately dead or crippled when planes see them. They have at least the time it takes for the planes to fly back to reposition themselves and play mindgames with the opponent. For CVs this adds the skill expression of "Is it better to go for an attack run or return to the carrier to report the positions of the ships i just spotted asap? (still takes 30-60 secs for planes to return)" Why are they even considering such a gimmicky solution as the one they propose? If I was 16 and wanted to play Fortnite, I would. But Im not and I dont. There are other imbalances with CVs, but if you think about gamebreaking impact, 90% would be fixed with just finding ANY solution to realtime spotting. Realtime spotting ruins almost any proactive play made by not only DDs, but also Cruisers and shorter range BBs. The only ships unaffected are Yamato-type ships and island-hugging-banana-shooting-type ships. As I stated at the beginning, CVs are great for learning the game, but if they ruin the game after you learned it, then we didnt gain anything. They have a low skill floor, so they should have a low impact ceiling as well.

[@Billy-I-Am-Not]

>1. Most realistic option is also the healthiest for the game. No realtime spotting at all, not even on minimap. Planes should report last known position of ships on minimap when they return to the carrier I mean, just to nitpick but that's not really realistic. Planes had radios, especially by the time frame of nearly any aircraft carrier in WOWS except for maybe tier four carriers. Plane spotting was a *critical* aspect of carrier tactics IRL. The ability for planes to spot and attack enemy ships is nearly the whole point. Now you could definitely argue that its not good for the game, but its not really realistic

[@hakaner2398]

​@@Billy-I-Am-Not Youre welcome to nitpick. Could you provide some sources on the technology youre talking about? Most planes had radios, but I think youre mixing up radio navigation and radio communication. On aircraft the latter was either missing or a rarity for anyone but the usa. The most advanced technology I could find is the AN/APS-4 search radar fitted on F6F-3/5 night fighters, introduced to the end of the war in 1943. However this was used in combination of the ships radars and radio communication to more accurately saturate an area of the sky to repel aircraft attacks, as well as for the pilots navigation. The device has a precision of ~5° and the plane cant locate itself, only relative positions. So if you wanted to fire on an enemy ship, only relying on the information provided to you by an aircraft, you would be lucky if they landed close enough for the enemy to see your shells plunge into the ocean. This would mean in WoWs that T8 and T10 US carriers would realistically be able to realtime spot on the minimap, but everyone else can bring back pictures when they land. I tried to take the most favorable condition to your point. The japanese didnt even have radar homing back to their carrier, target acquisition was unthinkable for them. They only had some higher ranked pilots with questionable radio comms. The other pilots navigated back to the carrier with compasses, stopwatches and faith. Germans had potent radio navigation but failed to implement the comms until the end of the war. I glanced over some british aircraft with radio comms, but I didnt look into it.

[@jackielong3340]

if you want everything to be realistic, stop playing this game. You know why? Because in real life, Yamato got sunk by eating several aircraft torps.

[@Billy-I-Am-Not]

@@hakaner2398 Throughout, say, the battle of midway, aircraft were constantly spotting enemy fleets and reporting their positions back to their respective commands. Were it necessary to have to return to the landing field/carrier to physically report back, then the battle couldn't have occurred as it did. This happened all the time throughout the battle of the pacific. Secondly, radar is absolutely not necessary for aerial spotting. Just by nature of being up in the sky and moving quickly means aircraft can see very far away compared to a surface ship and sweep a large amount of ocean. Aerial spotting needs nothing more than a pilot saying *over the radio* back to the carrier "Hey, I see a large fleet of warships, located around *coordinates*" That's it. It's not necessarily always accurate, pilots can get their positions wrong or misidentify enemy ships(this happened a lot), but it is still critical to battle operations. But once spotted, it allows your own fleet to begin planning and maneuvering for an attack or retreat or whatever else. You may be confusing this kind of naval aerial spotting for something like ground-based aerial reconnaissance or artillery spotting. In the latter cases, a greater degree of precision is necessary. For air recon, aircraft generally use film cameras to produce high quality images of an area of interest and gain more precise detail of enemy troop concentrations and what not. That does require an aircraft to return to base for the images to be developed. But the most basic form of aerial reconnaissance requires nothing more than an airplane and a radio

[@Billy-I-Am-Not]

@@hakaner2398 Also air-based artillery spotting for warships was indeed a thing though not quite the same. many ships, especially battleships, carried floatplanes which they could use to assist in gunnery

[@Chikenlovelyfr]

Potato you really did it this time, i feel your warmth inside of me and your hate and love with cv flowing over my body.

[@kardondo]

Wasn’t it 3-4 months ago when WG said that Cv’s won’t be able to spot the whole team by flying across the whole map while on the edge enemy ships AA range??? Won’t be able to double cross attack aircraft runs??

[@stuffandwhatnot4401]

Spotting: not convinced 2D wouldn't work but... fine, keep it this way. I'd allow recon to be as long as you want but you take increased damage. AA: shorten DFAA and give more charges. Focus: no multi-flight squadrons. One of the most frustrating elements for a surface ship is the CV is multiple drops with, essentially no time in between. With the high level flight buff you can't really complain about the extra time - this might require a buff to damage output to compensate. My biggest complaint about CVs (since I've given up on playing DDs), and this holds true for hybrids and Dutch ships as well, is that they could be parked in a high walled extinct volcano at the edge of the map and still have all the effectiveness that their plane armament provides. Generally speaking, for most of the match, they are at zero risk. Nothing about these changes addresses that.

[@watchthe1369]

If they split the AA into 5 inch/dual purpose cannon to reach high altitude, then the medium/close kicks in during the attack there would be some balance found.

[@apijunrith7692]

I always have an idea kept in mind to get CV's to get closer into the battle zone. As of now, every carriers is able to get their planes back via regeneration from thin air. i think that this mechanic should be removed and rather we add Stations/Docks to Islands that are scattered around the maps. For the Carriers to be able to get their planes back they would have to manually or by using Autopilot Dock their carriers at those stations. I think that the further the station is from the battlezone/enemy spawn the slower the regeneration of planes where asthe closer they are to the battlezone/enemy spawn the faster their planes will regenerate. I also think that to stop or atleast counter DD's or subs from being able to stalk you and kill you, is to put those docks in different places according to differents maps and make it so that the docks are only able to be seen by their own teams on the minimap. (so it doesnt give out the carriers position early game for DD's to stalk) of course when DD's do get close, we all have to remember that Wargaming is making the secondaries on CV's manual (biggest caliber becomes manual) which practically means longer range and wayy more accurate and actually can be aimed at the super structure where it will actually pen. For Ocean maps i suppose they can add support carriers which are just unkillable bots cv that just house planes and when the CV get which in a range of it, the cv would start regenerating planes from that support carrier. Of course all of this is just my opinion but i've thought it thru and it seems to be quite nice. balances out the carriers like KAGA that are able to send out full squads even after 2 of the enemy team got AA expert.

[@Cheater2013]

The don't get planes from thin air, most of the planes are in the ships belly and have to be moved to the surface to supply the damaged squadrons. It's the most realistic version of plane resupply we ever had. The RTS gameplay was the peak of CV gameplay: High skill, high reward.

[@VerithT]

So I made this comment on another video when I did my own testing. I've played this game off and on since CBT and technically even one Alpha weekend before that. So one of the things I really wanted to test was how similar it felt to the RTS days when I had my AA Iowa (because my friend ONLY played CVs). To that end I did go for Full AA Montana to answer two questions. How it felt compared to then and if investing those resources were worth it. After all it isn't the greatest design choice for someone who invests nothing in a counter to be able to easily counter. After a few games, finally the CVs decided to focus my Montana, and I do mean the plural there. I took very little damage from them over all, probably 1/4 my HP after a single heal. I ended up shooting down 62 planes. I definitely think this 6v6 thing they're trying is silly because I avoided a lot of that damage because; A, I shot down most planes in the attack run (the fact they don't reinforce is a great change) and B, the small match meant I was mostly alone and could freely sail in circles without worry of eating a BB salvo to the citadel. Of my own personal experiences, the biggest thing I think they definitely need to change is how long it takes for any ship, BBs especially, to get the Automatic AA buff. I think they were too focused on making Def AA a strong pick over other consumables for ships that can choose by making that bar take a while to build so the free 50% is a nice boon. Beyond that Automatic AA certainly needs more to it to be the deterrent they want it to be. As that was their goal. It should make any normal ship like if they specced for AA and any ship that specced AA near worthless to try and strike. That said with AA Montana in particular those 62 planes shot down and so little in HP lost did feel good. I think only a Colorado(of all ships) game back in RTS days did I shoot down more planes.

[@tomriley5790]

Honestly my number one change I'd like to see which I think would make the biggest difference would be - REMOVE ROCKETS, before that dds were pretty viable against CVs (even RTS), also make CVs vulnerable to gunfire again - it's ridiculous that they're so armoured. Similarly enabling defensive fire to scatter drops (enlarge the reticles) again like RTS carriers would be a positive thing for me. All of this rework seems to be back to returning DDs to being more of the rock/paper/scissors against CVs... it could have been done much more easily. Would be interesting to see a full aa build bb in this one.

[@renegadechewtoy1657]

new player question. Do i read the research bureau correctly? "Any XP that has not been converted into Free XP will be Transferred to the Tier 1 ship." Does that mean my gearing with over 7K ship XP will be enough to almost research the entire line without needing to use free XP?

[@icopgaming]

No one asked years ago to remove the RTS system of CV play. If anything, reduced alpha-damage from CV strikes was the primary recommendation. Instead, we saw RTS removed entirely in favor of an arcade game experience of overpowered monster CVs and simultaneously nerfed AA capabilities in order to promote higher numbers of players in the CV ship type. Similarly, no one has asked for any of the changes WG are currently testing. We asked for mini-map only spotting for CV aircraft. But WG, in their seemingly unending ability to claim to hear and listen to the player base, while ignoring the player base entirely, have introduced this horrible mess that will, as have other changes over the last five years or so, lead to game-breaking bugs, exploits, and tactics that the WG design team have not considered. Uninstalled a week ago and have no regrets. If things every actually improve (unlikely, imo) I can always reinstall. In the meantime, I am saving myself a lot of frustration and the need to participate in what will be another in a series of forced beta-tests on the live servers.

[@AlphariusOne-k5e]

I think they should use the same mechanics as WOWS Legends. Carrier can only spot for themselves and on the mini map, fighters don't spot enemies anymore. It's been an awesome change for dd players.

[@rilohn6504]

How do you know when to pop DAA to blind the squadron when you don't know if the planes are at high altitude or not, or transitioning down from high altitude, you could pop DAA and completely waste it on a CV that wasn't going to come down from high altitude, unless I am missing something? On spotting they should remove fighter plane spotting for sure.

[@csongorvassanyi6801]

I think what they should have done is make deplaning a carrier actually possible by giving them a limited number of aircraft for the entire match (like enough for one full squad after your first one was shot down) and making aa fire more effective, especially on dedicated aa ships like worcester or des moines to the point that aa cruisers are nearly impervious to damage from carriers

[@robbleeker4777]

Adding a range restriction would be a good suggestion. I mean, any other service ship is limited to a range of shooting, why not CV's? And I think that the player base will adjust, there will be less BB's, more of the other ships. Something I'm pretty sure of is that AA defensive ships are getting a lot more popular..

[@GeneralCox]

Having played the version before they announced the balance changes for next week (which I'm on holiday for), I'm pretty unimpressed. I've not played as a cv yet but I found almost no difference playing as a surface ship to what CV's are now, except that sometimes the planes don't see you. I dev struck a Worcester in a Yamato 1 minute into a match due to plane spotting, got spotted all to high heaven by fighters in a dd, struggled to shoot down many planes, and got bullied by the cv's while in that same yama whilst doing absolutely nothing back to the planes in return. At the moment it seems like all they've done is made the game more complicated (and from what I've heard for CV's a bit more skill based) for very little actual change. It seems insane that despite cv's being in the game for what 7/8 years now, it still feels like they have absolutely no idea how to balance them within the wider gameplay experience without making it misreble for surface ships or cv players.

[@davidsherlock5528]

Yeah, the RTS days were better all around than both current and this rework. CVs felt like they rewarded real skill and strategic thinking. Surface ships felt like they could hurt CVs a lot with their anti-air, and dodging was actually possible in more maneuverable ships - always felt godly to weave through an anvil drop in a DD.

[@Stephen__White]

CVs do lose fewer aircraft in this system, but every aircraft you do shoot down is directly reducing the amount of damage you take. For instance if you are being attacked by an Audacious's torp bombers, and you shoot down 1 plane, well now you've gone from potentially taking 17,799 to 11,866 your AA HAS now mattered. You have successfully reduced the damage you could possibly take and while you are unlikely to de-plane a CV with these changes, lets be real that's a mechanic that has never felt good from the CV's perspective. Sure you can make the argument of "well my ships main guns can be permanently knocked out!" yeah but how often does that really happen? Personally I've had it happen ONCE since March and it was a single turret on my Mogami, playing 2-3 battles per day on average, and I still had 12 of my 15 guns to use. I've had my CV's deplaned at least 15-20 times in that same time period while also playing CVs a lot less, and every time it happened I'm just simply out of the battle for the next 3-4 minutes as I try to muster up a single attack wing of anything. As someone who does play CVs, I actually found the rocket planes to be mostly unchanged, sure you have slightly more lead, but it's not as bad as the introduction of the machine gun delay. THAT was a long delay added to rockets and I've gotten used to it at this point. I found the Dive and Torp bombers the hardest to use because of my muscle memory kicking in and starting attack runs FAR to late. I would imagine what didn't work about mini-map spotting is that your stealthy DD would still be being spotted. You still would have been unintentionally seen by that CV heading towards the Worcester and GK, and the Worcester would have known to radar. The CV could also still focus you down no problem because you would still be an isolated target. Now that is just a guess because I wasn't there, I imagine some super-testers likely were, and are now under NDA, but as I'm not even a super tester I can't say for sure there. I also agree the spotting change is great for DD players and a good QoL change for them. What it's not a good QoL change for is everyone else. Let's be real, invisible Holland on your flank when you've got no radar and your DD is something like a Khabba/Delny or even an Elbing is going to fucking BLOW. Keep in mind all the DDs we have right now on the test server are all stealthy DDs, we don't have the fat gunboats yet. MM is going to become a lot more painful because of how it views a Khabba as equal in all aspects to a Shima when they aren't. Also yeah, CVs basically just can't strike DDs anymore period, not if the CV has to be the one to also spot the DD. Will I run an AA build on the main server? I already do on my AA ships. My Worcester for example is 90% of an AA build only missing the slot 6 upgrade. My GL is a full AA build. My Louisiana is the same 90% of an AA build my Worcester is, and my Iowa future Montana captain(as well as basically all of my BB captains) has a few AA skills as well, using AA Defense and ASW Expert as my 2 point skill because lets be fair every BB can safely take that skill as the other 2 pointers are kind of meh, and the bonus to consumable reload when people throw depth charges at you is really nice. Gunboat DDs are already AA builds, Cruisers are really the only ones that have to dedicate into AA builds specifically. From what I understand the burst damage is worded weirdly. It's taking it from 5% to 7.5%, it's not adding 2.5% of 5. So that is a decent extra little chunk of damage paired with the 50% faster using of the button. Though I agree it feels bad. Nice seeing Shipness in a game of yours, that person is never happy so you know. Take his comments with a grain of salt. He tends to hang out in the help chat a lot. (posting so I can reply with more comment before I hit KZbin's character limit)

[@Stephen__White]

It does really suck from both sides, CVs who already have to put a lot of effort into the damage they do get, have had their damage on average at least reduced by 1/3, in some cases 1/2 just because they aren't allowed to replace aircraft in the attack wave. Though personally I feel it sucks far less from the other ship perspective, because at least you are able to reduce the incoming damage. The CV player is not only dealing with a longer run up time(of around 7km for the attack) but also very likely having reduced damage when they do get there. Not sure I could get behind manual control of AA guns purely because that would then lead to overload for the non-CV, plus I do get your want to have something you can use against the CV planes, but why should you be able to full stop a CV attack, when that CV can never stop your attack? Montana with it's spotter active has a range over 30km, and can from the moment a battle begins the moment the CV is spotted fire at it, and while yes CVs have deck armour, it's still likely to take some level of damage from your salvo. Why should you in that Montana get special treatment in being able to prevent the CV from attacking you, when the CV can do nothing to prevent your attack? The real solution here is to encourage team play, by making AA damage more effective when you have team mates around. Imagine if it worked kind of like Furious, where for the first team mate lets say in 4km of your ship you get a 10% boost to your AA damage, and for every team mate after that you get 5% more. Suddenly everyone is an AA build by working together in this team based shooter. As for CV damage not being healable, that's just the nature of torpedoes. All torpedo damage is not healable. If the CV had been using it's bombs or rockets, just as much damage would be healable as the Montanta salvo. I get your point with the strike you did at 39:45, but here's a counter point. What is the punishment for you in your BB when you aim wrong? Does suddenly one of your guns break for 5 minutes? No, you get to reload in ~30 seconds and try again. What is the punishment for your DD when you miss your torp salvo? Depending on the DD it just means waiting a minute to try again, for FAR more damage than an entire CV squad can deal. Why should CVs be punished for mistakes when using effectively their guns, but no one else is? I'm not saying you're wrong to feel CVs should lose more aircraft but simply, "I want them to" isn't a valid reason when no other ship gets punished for mistakes when attacking unless said ship is making a bad play full stop. You know like a DD blundering into it's detection range while launching a torp attack. That's more of a skill issue than a proper mistake. The heal on torp bombers is nothing new, they have that now, and you can use it now to heal through a lot of the strong AA ships alone or a group of ships sharing AA to get a single attack off, it's only really good for one attack, but it's only on torp bombers. I honestly WISH it was on every squad. Would make playing the British a lot less painful given their main squad is bombers, not torp bombers like everyone else. The auto AA is complicated, because if you make it to strong suddenly surface ships aren't punished for making mistakes in their positioning and going off on their own, but you make it to strong and the CV loses the ability to play the game after a few attacks.

[@communisticus191]

@@Stephen__White I quite regularly permanently lose torp racks on torp DDs, especially the Halland. Honestly I have better luck with torp racks on BBs and cruisers staying till the end of the game. Multiple times in the past week ive lost half my damage for almost the entire game (perma lost the tubes to the first shot to hit me before). And thats with doing everything I can to boost torp tube and module HP (including not taking torp mod because it makes the tubes more fragile). Why should carriers not have to deal with something similar?

[@Stephen__White]

@@communisticus191 Here's the issue with anecdotes, we are both correct. You might be experiencing some bad luck with your torp tubes, I've not had any playing my IJN DDs, had some tubes knocked out temporarily but the last time I had one permanently knocked out was around a year ago, and my go to for T7 ranked has been Yudachi so I've played her quite a lot lately, into a lot of HE spam. The main issue here is PQ is basically saying, a CV should lose it's main armament because it made a mistake when aiming. I could see an argument to CVs losing reserve aircraft when being shot, then being destroyed on the deck and such, but seeing as CV aircraft are their guns, and CVs can no longer see what they are flying into, they should not get punished for taking a bad shot because no other ship class does. Even more so as CVs now lose part of their salvo while that salvo in on it's way to the target. If you shoot down a test server CV's aircraft you have reduced the amount of potential damage you are about to take. Imagine if your torps worked like that, if people could shoot the water and suddenly your torps explode early. Now they can be functionally immune to your torps, or at least heavily reduce the damage they would take. Wouldn't feel very good now would it?

[@zander8752]

I love the changes to spotting, I don't really like the time it takes to conduct attacks as a carrier. And whilst I do like the travel mode I am annoyed that the whole squad isn't put down to lower altitude whilst conducting attacks on enemy surface ships. I agree with Potato that it feels like the AA feels ineffective when you're only able to engage a small portion of the enemy squad at a time. Much too little consequence for CV players making mistakes. Although I really do like the changes to the manual gun control (biased as the only carrier I can be bothered player is the Graf Zepplin)

[@jamesngotts]

Remove spotting in attack mode, that should be recon mode only. From a “realism” perspective, pilots or weapons chiefs wouldn’t be able to multitask like that. Their focus would be on the primary task, either preparing an attack run or observing and reporting via radio the enemy. Also, plane regeneration should go away now. Having a finite amount of planes was a great feature of the old CV system. With the introduction of this safe travel mode, this should be re-implemented.

[@jamesli9092]

What if we encourage CVs to fight each other more and protect Allie ships? CVs can only choose to launch either a fighter(spotter) squad or an attacker squad. Fighters can spot all ships except DDs and enemy planes at high altitude and can attack planes at the same altitude. Attackers can only spot at low altitude but gain resistance at high altitude from AA so they can approach and attack ships. This way CV players face opportunity losses since they can only choose between spotting/protecting or attacking. They have to think more critically to utilize friendly AAs.

[@jamesli9092]

This way fighters will have more map control and attackers will be more of a risky play, reducing the overall drops on surface ships. But through a good setup using friendly ships' AA as cover, good CV players can drop on enemy ships without taking so much risk from enemy fighters.

[@alfredium99]

Maybe if they make it so planes can be attacked in travel mode by AA it would be make the cv players think about where the planes go after the strike and be punish for not playing well, also it will make the automatic AA charge faster for ships that have no defensive AA

[@berbold]

PQ, when playing shima you had AA switched off. If you had it on, would your AA start firing at the planes attacking Worcester and give you away (even if you are blinded to them)?

[@Taeschno_Flo]

Well to be fair to regenerating planes, the same magic applies to dds and sometimes cruisers. Most destroyers did not carry reloads for torpedoes and those that did, only in a limited amount and i doubt ships like the Akizuki could carry a few thousand shells in their magazines. CVs still suck to play against though. Considering this update, i think wargaming misunderstands high altitude, since to be out of most heavy AA Ranges, you need to be above 8-10 km straight up try getting down from that altitude without overspeeding or missing by a mile...usual travel altitudes were well in AA range

[@memph1ston]

Step 1.) Drastically reduce current plane spotting range (

[@oldmangames9292]

My AA Yodo already has 7km AA range (And DFAA).. So are we saying here that DFAA gives no range benefit to this AA-focussed ship?

[@DarthSkyCo]

Time frame of getting a SINGLE plane back is longer than all gun armament in game. So throwing the "if I lose my gun- torp rack permanently" is far from comparing apples to apples. Meanwhile main armaments' guns and torps do vastly more damage than planes.... so think about that. As some1 who plays all classes, the complaints about CVs should be about the USSR ones, since they can drop their arms before the entire ITALAIN tech line can even fire their AA. Over all, change needs in the game in regards to spotting via planes, subs, and Destroyers. With the damage out put is an argument all around and all parties- the ships that rely on their ship torps that do EXTREME damage need far longer reload times, or 1 time use since very FEW destroyers could even carry spare torps.

[@Mortifix]

They should make it so the carrier gets spotted for like 5 or 10 seconds when they launch planes or something. That's the main difference between the ships. Every other ship gets spotted when firing.

[@LongingSubset9]

That would probably not make a difference as then the CV would just move to the edge of the map since they would be focused down otherwise.

[@YTPartyTonight]

How many CV reworks have there been now? I quit WoWS two years ago and lost track.

[@Spreadie]

CVs spotting alone makes them impactful, even if you could shred their attack flights, you've still got cross-map shots from BBs to worry about. Nerf the strike potential and give them extra XP for spotting damage.

[@thelonelyturkey7902]

CV player take on this. So i have played all classes and so I agree with people on some points. Yes the air spotting can be annoying. Playing DD I know how to somewhat avoid this but as the CV and as the other class if the CV wants to find you obviously they will. I do not believe in "accidental spotting" if I am looking for you i am looking for you if not then its no different than someone not knowing an enemy is right around the corner as they travel around it, oh well tough. IMO solution: allow planes to spot but only from the front to certain degress EG: pilot/camera in plane and not behind or 30-60% of the sides of the plane depending on plane model/nation. this will signifigantly reduce spotting. Blind CV is like blind DD except that it is permenant and not by choice. I do not like the idea of being blind in my ship nor would anyone else. This includes AA blinding, it would be the equivilent of being blinded in a surface ship everytime you took a hit from HE or a module goes boom. Being not able to spot anything when no teammates on a whole side of the map to spot makes for you is about as useful as a Montana with only its secondaries on one side and no main guns. Same with spotting a DD. I feel like that is a bit much to not see them at all. They can just waltz the flank, come around and yolo/stealth torp the CV to death and laugh in the chat. It would be the exact opposite of what is occuring now. Yes it should be harder to spot them but not impossible. Some DD have a air detection so small right now I cant even target them properly because they appear behind my reticle when spotted. Therefore making them untargetable, not being able to see them at all makes thay even more impossible to defend from them if they decide to rush the CV. Yes I have whacked a good number of them with a CV but I have faced both low and skilled DD and the skilled DD makes it really difficult to hit them at times even if perma spotted. Imagine not being able to see them at all. As a carrier I would say the big thing about DD is a good chunk of the time they are being predictable. Going straight for the cap at full speed by themself or just insta turning on the AA because they dont want me around. Granted some DD and cruisers can rip my planes to shreds but most of the time it doesnt (mentioned below). Playing differently than you normally would which I have done as a DD or have seen done allows you to go about your business free of charge. The smart ones stay with the cruisers and then run for the cap or they go in uncommon areas and then flank the opposing destroyer without me spotting them. Which can be done I have seen/done it myself. Granted this is situational and can rely on many factors. I have mixed feeling on the altitude. I like the idea of being able to move around the map free of AA in exchange for not spotting, but I do not like the idea of multiple "modes of travel" I feel like you should have just regular mode and high altitude. Would make it less complicated for the Carrier while giving surface ships a break from the hassle of being contantly spotted and the carrier has the benefit of peril free air travel with a payment of temporary not spotting. This goes into the prep time for attack. if i am unable to attack that makes me unable to defend myself. It puts me as the CV at a severely compromised position when a DD is so manuverable as it is. Many DD are already able to get into position to avoid some of my attack or just outright be able to avoid it with proper skill today or due to nation traits of the carrier/destroyer because they can spot the planes before I spot them and they know I am coming for them even if I do not know where they are. So from a defense/attack perspective I do not like this change. Similar argument for I have submarines which I will not get into here. I like the idea of only two attack planes and rest of squad stays up. surface can shoot em down and gives the CV a challenge to overcome without risking its entire compliment on an improper taget. AA does need to be buffed but not to the point of making planes paper. I like the idea of the new AA but it needs some work. there are some ships even now that as a CV I cannot hit because of full AA build, great for them but I lose all my planes so I like this better for both parties. Current AA i agree can be laughably weak. Hence my Ryujo being one of my highest xp ships due to that fact. So i agree with people on this. Boost/Brake needs to stay. Gives player way better control than static speed. A range limit would be actually interesting for me as a CV. It would give carrier incentive to actually move around. I move mine around all the time but i see dozens who just park or never move at all and then wait for their planes to move all the way back from other side of map or until they are the only ship left. Obviously inefficient for all involved. I think it sould be like so many kilometers, then it acts like the edge of a map and pushes the planes back and they can go no further. this would limit the players they can scout and target while giving the cv incentive to move as mentioned. No fuel limit, as this would make for poor gameplay decision making and severely limit the class ability to do damage/defend as needed and would make it a timer rather than an actual distance limit. As for damage to the CV mentioned for counterplay, I dissagree with this. Even during the old RTS CV which I did play I always tried to hide because a DD or a range build ship could easily target me and potentially take me out of the game early. Which surprisingly happened a lot, especially with the destroyers. Yes you cannot target the CV at range but you can't target the Battleship that is beyond your firing range that is dumping AP on you or the DD either if they stealth torp from beyond detection range or dump torps on you from behind an island because they know you are coming around the bend. If I have missed anything or any of you have questions feel free to reply.

[@Posilepton]

39:50 that's a silly question to ask, on live server you would have spotted all those ships way before you started attacking. You'd also be able to time your heal to heal through all the AA and attack anyway. 43:15 every TB at tier 8 and above has heals. It's quite unfair to say that it was easy to pull off that drop when you had to use a limited resource with a very long cooldown to save a single drop. You're attributing too much to your lack of skill when it's clear that CV DPM has dropped significantly instead.

[@kovacsj7823]

For me, this new rework seems an unneededly overcomplicated " solution ", when they should just tried to test minimap spotting on the PTS. Instead of that, they gave BS excuses in the past like " it was awkward for CV players to see the others attack the water ". Pure BS. I'm pretty sure they never tested it. Knowing WG's track record, this gonna be a clusterfuck again, which gonna drive even more players away, while WG gonna try to " balance " this till the next inevitable rework. I dont have any faith in WG listening to playerbase either, they always has been headstrong about their probably vodka-overdose induced stupid decisions. Still, thanks for your insight, PQ !

[@2_protects_the_1]

I havent played the test servers, but im a cv main, and I look forward to these changes with open arms. its going to make several nation tech line cvs not dogshite anymore. in regards to farming damage. as of right now german cvs are pretty much just a spyglass. if you try to go all out like an american cv, or british cv, you will lose all your planes to aa before the 10min mark. so I think this change would be huge it will certainly make IJN torp planes very OP since you wont have to worry about losing your bread and butter in 1 drop. I think the Russian line will become obsolete if its still going to remain the same drop all at once. it may also make Hybrid ships a little less useful. I may have to trade in my Ise Halfard and Louisiana. I did enjoy the OG RTS cv gameplay back in 2015-2018 but only the INJ line was extremely op and the American line was 70% rng and 30% skill. all you had to do was get two trop planes in the air force a bb cruiser to go broadside to avoid your first wave of torps if they didn't want to eat them, then eat 4 torps while broadside to your team on the map. It was very much like a cat playing with its food in the hands of a semi decent cv player. assuming however the other cv player was not very skilled at fighter placement which is primarily all the american cv players did and pray to rngsus their bombs would hit a ship atleast 50% of your games as an american cv your bombs would 75% of the time miss the target even if the drop was perfect on the map. and if it did hit you would more often than not see non penatration or richochet and maybe 10% of that a fire. and very very rarely maybe 1 in a hundred games 1 bomb would det a ship instantly. I played the American line all the way up to midway in the RTS version of the game and it was a real grind. the IJN cv line was hard to but the gameplay was significantly easier by comparison, Don't know if you will read this or not Potato, but I've been a fan of your channel for many years and always enjoy watching what you put out when I have the time to do so.

[@deaninchina01]

As a dd player who only uses F3s I am completely salivating at the prospect of not being randomly spotted

[@AllAhabNoMoby]

It's all been said before. Minimap spotting would solve 90% of the CV problem. They would still be OP, but at least they would no longer create instant crossfires and be dangerous to only one ship at a time. But WeeGee says No.

[@locutusvonborg2k3]

but if i move to the cv and attack it with my guns or torps, am i not aggressive ?

[@TheAddanz]

I really want to see CV planes implement "fuel" by limiting flight time to something like 40-60 seconds per flight... This would force the CV to have to get closer and also limit the time on target ... Risk reward.

[@outofcontrolsjsgaming]

See this as a massive buff to FDR. Those planes are tanky and the other planes won’t take damage now when attacking.

[@jackielong3340]

What about planes having minimap spotting and also has a separate consumables for normal spotting but only last for a certain amount of time?

[@anidiot2818]

I was a CV main during RTS days. Dropped the class almost entirely when the first rework hit. So i want to give my own opinion from another perspective. One of the reasons i quit paying CVs is mainly because i find their gameplay to be extremely boring. I'm coming from other RTS games, so that was great for me. Imo RTS CVs were far superior from what we have to day, but i would like to note some differences. CVs were extremely rare. This comes mostly because good CV players not only dominated the enemy surface ships, but also carrier, making it extremely frustrating for them, probably reducing the popularity massively because of it. Another thing is, CVs had a very poor economy. You could do a 3k base xp game and still get very poor economic results. Don't know what the numbers were, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was -50% when compared to normal surface ships. Returning planes could be shot down which was huge. Not just drop and mindlessly ignoring what other ships might cross their path. Being spotted also allowed players to track the enemy CV easier. Burning CVs had far longer prep time, as well as BB fire duration and standard dcp. Technically they couldn't launch planes while on fire, but every CV picked the 2 (or 3?) point skill that allowed you to launch planes while on fire anyway. Though as mentioned, it still increased plane prep time by 50%. AA worked through terrain. Yeah... not missing that tbh. Every shot down plane reduced the chance of being hit and the alpha strike. Def. AA panic effect. Made bombers technically useless and torp bombers tedious to use. Most CV players come close to trigger it and moved away to wait till the consumable was on cool down because of it. It effectively kept planes away, but don't be mistaken it gave you great plane kills. Though it should be mentioned, that "AA traps" with strong aa ships were quite common and a big menace. Ships only launched 1 fighter. But unlike the big squadron now, it caused the panic effect too, which was nice for BBs, while also slowing the plane squadron it was attacking. It also killed more than 1 plane before returning. Though it could be shot down, even by bombers. With many squadrons in the air, CV spotting was far, far worse. New CV damage records already exceed what we had back then. To be fair we had much more alpha strike, so the ships wouldn't be farmed slowly for bigger damage numbers. RTS carriers knocked you out in one or 2 punches. Now they bite you to death with never ending swarms of mosquitoes. Probably many other things i forgot atm. Overall i would say RTS CVs were the best system if carriers have to be implemented at all. They have more depth than the new boiled down version. I think they should've kept that system and worked on that base, by changing how plane spotting worked on them and reducing their alpha strike potential, making CVs not as oppressive for the enemy CV, while giving a fair economy. You know, like they do now. Keep the system, but make changes on that.

[@darkroom0716]

How do russian CVs work now?

[@unknown-ou7pk]

Are you thinking the Immelmann will most likely be one of the strongest carriers since it is torps and skip bombers only?

[@stevef3685]

Played carriers a lot in the RTS mode, stopped completely once they changed it, haven't gone back since.

[@vogan7505]

40:00 On current interaction you not lost all your squadron. You just not coming into this place and try to attack either, and going somewhere else instead. So instead playing carefully ans safe planes for better attack moment or play dump and lost all of them you roll dice (because AA ships are invisible until they start fire to you) and lost or not lost that pair planes.

[@shipness]

As the Yamato in the 4th game there was nothing I could do to stop them from dropping on me. The cv never would have died if he didn’t come in close. If this was a 12 v 12 there is no way he dies and I die every time

[@Gary-lg1wv]

I’m curious if/how these changes will affect AA related skills for commanders and if those skills would be worth it to have. I was also curious if the plane modes are to be the same for hybrids.

[@darkroom0716]

I don't know about anybody else, but changes to the spotting fighter blobs is what I was hoping for the most. Really annoying that they havent been changed.

[@ramelfonville1422]

One question. What are f3s?