Vaderan

Ehrlich gesagt, ich würde es lieber sehen, dass es für jedes Schiff quasi eine Art "Bonus" Token pro Tag gibt. Wenn ein Spiel vorbei ist, kann der Spieler pro Schiff einmal am Tag einen Button drücken, der ihm den Bonus auf das Spiel gibt, der ihm sonst für den ersten Sieg des Tages gewährt wird. Das würde viel Frust nehmen, denn wer kennt das nicht: man jagt in einem bestimmten Schiff mehrere Spiele lang dem ersten Tagessieg hinterher, schneidet immer unter den top Drei oder als Klassenbester im Verliererteam ab, aber ausgerechnet in dem Spiel, in dem man dank RNG mit ner Munitionsbunkerdetonation nach 2 Minuten und mit 4k Schaden wieder im Hafen landet, reißt das Team alles und holt den Sieg... Gerade bei 3x/4x/5x Events kann das zu unfassbar frustrierenden Momenten führen.

Tougher would mean, they bounce big shells (which most cruisers can do with their belt armor, if they angle). "Avoiding" damage "broadside on" is not a matter of "toughness", it´s a matter of RNG ruining the skill-element of proper aiming. Ruined aim leads to shells hitting on areas where they simply overpenetrate, instead of inflicting damage. Cruisers have the healthpool to withstand a lot of overpenetrations, DDs don´t. Thats why DDs appear to die quicker. They might take the same ammount of damage from spread shells, but lack the HP to take plenty of those...

Not sure what your pictures of a massive, merely penny sized bullet, fired at some metall plate, should prove. Same goes for your "torpedo nightmare" picture. It doesn´t take too much effort in searching the web for various pictures of what damage bullets, shells, bombs or torpedoes can do to different targets, and of course you will always be able to find one or two, which suits your opinion best. To stick with warships, i dare to claim that it heavily depends on what type of ship is struck by what caliber of AP or torpedo. A DD hit by a 16" AP shell or torpedo will suffer much more from those impacts, than a BB. A BB will for sure take more damage from the impact of a 16" shell, than a 6" shell. The flodding caused by hits below the waterline will also largely depend on the size of the hole, punched by the shell. Topredoes usually cause the biggest holes and cause the most severe damage, if they manage to penetrate the torpedo protection systems. Otherwise, if they fail to do so, they just cause minor flodding on especially prepared compartments, which only cause a thread to a BB, if it occurs several times and on different locations (depending, on how good the below waterline protection of the specific ship is designed, of course). However, if the torpedo doesn´t even detonate (which wasn´t too unusual, especially during the early stages of WW2, something not at all represented in this game), it barely scratches the outer hull. Smaller, less protected ships, like light cruisers and destroyers simply lack the space and protection systems to deal with the same ammount of damage, a well build BB can take. Where a 16" shell might overpenetrate the BB and get stuck somewhere in the interior of the BB, not triggering the shell´s fuse, a DD might get overpenetrated on one side and receive an exit hole on the other side. Depending on the angle, the entry hole might be above water line, the exit hole below. This would cause a flodding, and since the AP shell penetrated several decks, the water will even have a way to work around the regular bulkheads, at least for a limited space. This of course won´t cause the flodding of a full torpedo detonation, but on the other hand: many DDs can´t take more than 1 torpedo hit, but they take several high caliber overpens. Concerning torpedo hits which don´t cause flodding in this game: usually, those hits happen if the torpedo hits the torpedo protection/armor belt of a BB. Those are the parts of the BB designed to withstand torpedo hits. The damage and local flodding of those hits are represented by the HP loss of the ship, simulating a loss of stability and structural integrity, just like fires do. From that point of view, it looks like a logic representation. Last but not least, nobody asks for AP shells causing the same flodding damage that torpedoes do. The idea was to add some "minor flodding" damage, since overpenetrations or even regular penetrations don´t take impact-results into account. They happen and thats it.

AP shells of any shipclass should have a chance to cause flodding on overpenetrations, if those overpenetrations happen on the target´s hull, not the superstructure. Limiting the AP shells of a specific class to cause flodding, or limiting the chance of flodding to a specific class, is nonsense. A shell either punches a hole below the waterline, or it doesn´t. I could agree with a mechanic like this, but on the other hand, it would turn repair mechanics upside down and would make the HP-recovery consumable a must have for any ship at any class, since any warship was able to fix minor damage below waterline and pump out water.

Any class can outperform others, player skills given. Any class is inferior to all others, player skills lacking. I personally always sucked at CVs. Do i complain? No, because i know i am just terribly bad with them. On the other hand, i am quiet successfull with cruisers and BBs, and i enjoy even those, others might call inferior. A friend of mine is excellent at CVs, especially when it comes to manual drops. He hates to play BBs on the other hand. The reason, BBs tend to be overpopulated, is, that the worse part of player community expoit their trades for "staying alive as long as possible", no matter, how poor they contribute to the match, since BBs can engage at long ranges and take a beating, once nothing else is left to be shot at...

Von einem Secondary Build würde ich auf Tier 4 prinzipiell Abstand nehmen. Die Sekundärbatterien sind einfach viel zu ineffizient, als dass die hohen Investitionen, die selbst für eine geringfügige Verbesserung erforderlich sind, lohnen würden. Ich habe mal meine Arkansas Beta auf Sekundär geskillt gespielt. Die Arkansas Beta ist eine downgegradede Wyoming mit 6 Modulslots, so dass hier die Upgrades für höhere Sekundärbatterie Reichweite und Genauigkeit, sowie Reload verbaut werden können, so, wie man es sonst nur af Tier 9 und Tier 10 kennt. Doch selbst auf >3km Reichweite und gegen ein anderes Schlachtschiff, trifft die 21 Rohre starke Sekundärbatterie quasi nix. Sich darauf zu verlassen, dass die Dinger dann nen anstürmenden DD aufhalten, ist sehr wagemutig! Geh stattdessen lieber auf Flak. Oder hol Dir die Ishizuchi, das japanische Tier 4 premium BB. Auch die König Albert auf Tier 3 kann überzeugen und bring eine sehr starke Sekundärbatterie mit. Ansonsten: entscheide Dich für das Schiff, das Dir am besten gefällt! Denn auch die auf dem Papier beste Skillung hilft nix, wenn Du den Pott (auf Dauer) nicht magst...

I recommend, play BBs up to tier 8, then come back and complain. No insult or offense intended, but the words "always hit the citadell" in combination with "BBs" put together is like "most democratic country in the world" and "North Korea", it doesn´t fit together. The most frustrating aspects about BBs is, that, no matter how good your gunnery skills are, RNG will always be the deciding factor. Indeed, BBs like to penetrate rather easily into broadside/headon cruisers, but for each citadell hit they might score, 20 shells go everywhere but where they were aimed at. Cruisers might lack the power of raw alpha, which BBs in theory possess, but they reload faster and are by far more accurate. Knowing when to load HE or AP and were to fire, is the key of successfull CA/CL piloting. If you like huge numbers but want to stay with cruisers, try to improve your playstyle in terms of torpedo use. Last but not least, BBs, when it comes down to WGs idea, are designed to counter cruisers in this game, and since they are beleaved to be easy to learn (but hard to master), they have turned into a rather overpopular and overpopulated class in this game...

all i take from that data sheet are 6 x 1 150mm C/35 and 2 x 1 C/28. So she will (hopefully) stick with her 8 single turrets, 6 with C/35, 2 with C/28. No fictional double turret or anything. Something else which confuses me, is the difference made between the two turrets of her main armament...?

Knowing WG, they will come up with balancing stuff anyway. So no need to go into detail about the 381mm´s. Derfflinger might be better protected than a stock Kongo, but with her latest hull-refit, i see her on an advantage, boosting more speed, bigger guns and upgraded armor. In addition, a historical accurate 1918´s version of the Derfflinger won´t have suitable AAA protection, even for tier 5, so WG will come around with fictional hull upgrades, as we have them on all german BBs of the branch. A 1918´s version of the Hindenburg would make a very attractive tier 4 premium ship, though...

I like the idea of a german BC branch, since i consider those ships pretty iconic. The same does count for a british BC branch aswell. Regarding your idea/suggestion, i would make Moltke/Goeben a tier 3 premium, with Seydlitz a tier 4 ship. It´s design is comparable to the Kaiser class, with less armor but more speed, so it would suit tier 5. Derfflinger with fictional hull upgrades (with Hindenburg as a tier 4 Premium) would probably fit into tier 5, however, with just 8 305mm guns, it will be heavily outgunned by the tier 5 Kongo (which is a BC/fast BB design aswell), König and New York class. Mackensen at Tier 6 would go with 8x356mm guns against the much slower 8x381mm and 12x356mm BBs, while Ersatz Yorck brings 8x381mm, which even outclasses the Gneisenau, though it would lack torpedoes and brings her on pair with the british Hood, expected at tier 7 as a BC rather soon. Skip the O-class project and bring P-class at tier 8 as an upgraded version of the Gneisenau, then lead the branch back to the regular german BB line, or hope for WG finding some "top secret technical documents and blueprints" of even stronger german BC designs found in one of Stalins old wardrobes ;)

Thank you! Exactly what i am talking about

RNG on BBs is broken since Beta. Everyone knows it. DD and CA/CL lobby denies it, but complains about camping BB, ignoring the fact that BBs turned to campers, since it obviously doesn´t matter, from which distance you fire your weapons, RNG will decide anyway. Frontal citadells are intentional. BBs are "designed" to "counter" cruisers. It´s part of WGs idea, how to "balance" this game, therefore even ignoring historical data (like armor thickness), just to allow for certain overmatching and penetration mechanics. The issues are well known, but WG doesn´t dare to deal with it. The reason? The major issue of this game: it´s community. As soon as WG wants to adress class or meta changes, which includes a buff, nerf or change to a specific class, the connected (or opposed) lobby will rise up for a huuuuge sh*tstorm, blaiming WG for being whatever, making it hard for WG to differ between constructive criticism and furious cryouts. There are just too many players (or groups), who just care about their favourite toy(s), instead of a balanced game, and they don´t mind to stand in for their toys, no matter the facts or truth, as long as it serves their purposes. Nothing new, nothing unique for this game/community, but one reason, why we got the game we have these days...

Looking at the displacement, i expect this cruiser to come around pretty solid, considering his number of guns. Deplacement wise it already belongst to the heavy cruiser class, despite bringing light cruiser guns. I´d say, the cryout is by far too early. I wouldn´t be too surprised if WG comes around with something like a Cleveland playstyle combined with torpedoes. On the other hand, there is for sure no need for further 50´s era ships, especially with annoying traits like Atlanta or Kutuzow...

Most iconic. And, if anything, more challanging as many would consider. At least, if you want to play them good. You have to plan ahead, watch the minimap all the time, watch the team, watch enemy movement, DD positions, torpedo-squads. Deal with the fail of RNG with almost any shot you fire. Things you can ignore, if you "just play" them, but things to consider and take serious, if you want to succeed. Of course, this doesn´t suit the "anti-BB" movement, because BBs are easy, and too many, and OP, and easy of course...oh, and did i mention "easy and simple to play"?

Many bad things happen from best intentions. You want a positive change, but come with ideas which are not completly thought through. CVs, by far, are the most powerfull class in the game. Already. They are the last class within this came, which truly depends more on skill than everything else. This is, why maybe 80% ov CV players (including me) have no clue or just suck, when playing them. This is, by the way, the only reason, why complains about CVs are relativly calm these days, compared to other complaints and whines. Those who know CVs, enjoy them. Those, who suck with them, complain or blame it on other things. It´s probably the same with BBs. The basics for BBs are easy to learn, even more easy than those required for CVs. That´s one aspect, why BBs are so popular. Another aspect of BBs is their iconic status. You may have some iconic cruisers, DDs or CVs aswell, but most legends and cool stories are around BB, that´s why everybody wants to play them. BBs, as we have them in the game right now, are annoying for two reasons: the numbers they show up in almost any match, and the way they are played. Cruisers players and some of the bad DD players will of course also complain about OP BBs wrecking them, but if you would investigate their stories and claims, you would find out, that the reason of their quick death was bad play by them. If we go with the limitation of BBs to 2-3 per side, lets try to think this through. What would happen? Would it stop BB-Kevins play their BBs? No! They would still prefer their BBs over all other classes, regardless the increased waiting times for a match. Those players, dedicated to BBs, won´t switch to CAs or DDs aswell. The opposite would be the case. Knowing that they will have to face less of their own class, combined with the expectation of finding even more CAs to counter the CVs and to feast on, more BB-players will line up, hoping for more prey, thanks to the limitations of the MM. Even worse, with less long range BB fire to fire, more HE spam and torpedoes to expect on medium range, and an even further decrease of BB-player skills, the quality of BBs within the teams will become even worse, since the more versatile players might switch to their cruisers and DDs, for shorter waiting times and more fun with the other classes. As a result, the games will change towards more onslaught between cruisers and DDs, with BBs still hugging the map borders for long range sniping. People then will complain again, missing the big HP-pools on the frontline (where they are a rare find these days anyway), still raging about long range citadells. That´s why the following idea is even more useless and worse thought through: Where would that lead to? BBs got nerfed into oblivion during alpha and beta, an impact they still suffer from these days. I dare to say, that any dedicated DD player, enduring those nerfs to his favourite class, would have instantly deleted the game or thrown himself infront of the next fright train. The nerf of BBs was, what is probably the fundament of the current BB meta: stay away and snipe from behind the cover of meatshiled cruisers and DDs. BBs are the biggest gamble in this game. They can delete anything withing one salvo, or try to inflict a mere 10k damage with 4 salvos, if RNG is against them. They are unreliable as hell. That´s why players stay away and snipe. If damage is a lottery, no matter the distance to the target, why at all move into targets range? However, all this did not stop players of going for BBs. It just results in players doing stupid things with this class, but it didn´t stop them from playing. We seriously might have an issue with BBs in numbers, especially with the popular german ships. This popularity has two reasons: 1.: the german BB line boosts several hyper-iconic ships, with the Bismarck shining above them all. 2.: the german BBs are the most versatile and reliable BBs in game. They can take a beating in close combat, and have a reliable source of damage outout, thanks to their secondary guns. In addition, they are capable of defending themselves actively against DDs at high tier. That´s why you can find them within the frontlines from time to time, being played as everyone in here expects his BB teammates to play their ships. However, exactly these people completly fail to accept and value this behaviour. Instead of being thankfull for having those damage-sponges within their own lines, they complain about these damage sponges being to powerfull and effective, when fighting against them, asking for nerfs. This, by the way, is the true problem this forum, this game, this community suffers from. Everything is okay, as long as it suits the own needs. Nobody complains, when the so-called op BB ally next to him takes a devastating salvo, or kills the charging cruiser with just a few shells, when the cruiser was going for a torpedo run or AP-salvo to delete the own ship. Then, BBs are fine. They are just wrong, if they have to face them as enemies, or when the teammates are not offering themselves for assistance. This, by the way, goes for any class, not just BBs. As long as this mindset is the dominating one for maybe 80% of the community, nothing will change, no matter, what WG does or will change. Class limitations per side, buffs and nerfs, they won´t change anything, as long as the game doesn´t show up with mechanics to support teamplay drastically. Nerfs, buffs and changes within classes will only shift the weight of those classes, their impcat. We had complains about CVs, DDs, BBs, always, at several times, and they won´t cease, because there will always be a lobby complaining about a different one. The game needs an overhaul in terms of teamplay, not further restrictions on specific classes or ships.

If anything, i would like to have back the gameplay of alpha. That was back then, when something like rock, scissors, paper really existed. The, with Beta and increasing numbers of whiners, the changes, additions, buffs and nerfs came, and everything went out of controll, since whining and hasted "fixing" of issues took over reason...

This pretty much brings it up in detail, the main issue we got in WoWs. As has been pointed out on a different thread, players want to play the game, not get deleted within the first minutes of a match. As a result, they choose minimisation of risk over reward, since the bonus on a reward is lower on a "quick death, high intensity game", compared to a "stay alive till the end due camping, and hope for lucky shots" game. To improve/solve that situation, either rewards for high-risk actions have to be increased dramatically, or the survivability for ships has to be increased dramatically on those actions. Any class, besides CVs, usually struggles from an increased ammount of attention an nasty focus fire, as soon as it shows up within firing range (ofc, CVs attract that attention aswell, but usually at the latest state of the match). For that reason, players do anything within their possibilities, to prevent that attention. DDs (try to) stay hidden, BBs camp at the back of the pack, CAs try to smoke themselves or stay close to smoke, or get wrecked while attempting to do something usefull. How to get people to change their behaviour? My suggestion would be: make longe range fire with any weaponsystem less effective, increase the effectivenesse of any weaponsystem on shorter ranges, and make speed a matter of defense. It could work like this: Change on dispersion/accuracy: - rework the dispersion values on all ship artillery in game. Right now, we have an indicator for max dispersion on every single ship. Reduce this dispersion, depending on the caliber of the gun. The bigger the caliber, the bigger the numbers to vary. The base reduction needs to be drastically, so it is balanced towards the defensive boost through speed, i will suggest and explain later. - Now set a base dispersion for each gun/ship, while making 50% of the max range of the ship the base value of dispersion. -Starting from this base value, the dispersion of the guns will change with the distance to the target. Each from 51-100% maxrange, the dispersion will increase by 1%. From 50-1% of max range, reduce the dispersion by 2,2%. (Yes, theoretically, this could result in bonus higher than 100%, but wait!) As a result, a ship fighting on max range, will receive a malus of 50% to it´s accuracy, while a ship engaging and closing in to the enemy, whill receive a higher chance to score successfull hits and a better self-defense. At ~ 10% and below of it´s max range, any ship would have a 100% accuracy buff. Now, speed comes into effect. The value of speed: In addition to the dispersion buff, there needs to beed a defense by speed buff for balance. - Take the max speed of a ship. 50% of that max speed means neither a buff nor a malus in defense. - From 51-100+% of maxspeed, any ship receives a defense buff of 0,5%. This could work like the buff on some camos we already have ingame, which decrease the enemies accuracy by a certain ammount of %. Flaggs or boost consumable would add up and stack to the 100% speed defense buff, so camo, flaggs and consumable allow for higher values than "just" 25% increased dispersion on the moving ship. -From 50-0% (including moving backwards), the chance to get hit increases by 1%. This means, the slower you move, the higher the chance to get hit by an enemy. Example: A BB at 50% range, moving at full speed (100%), firing on a bow on camping BB will have a 50% accuracy bonus on the camping BB, while the camping BB has a 25% reduced chance to hit the full speed moving BB. At 25% of its maximum range, the moving BB will have a 100% accuracy buff on the camping BB, while the camping BB only has a 25% accuracy bonus (50% bonus for range, -25% defense buff of the moving BB). This is of course just an idea and might require further tinkering with the numbers, but i think, you get the idea. Speed/movement would become a strategical self-defense bonus, as would the decrease of engagement distances. On the other hand, increased distance and camping would become less attractive, especially to BBs, but it would also increase the risk of ships hiding within smoke screens. Especially prone bow campers, like the Yamato, will consider their strategy twice, if engaging cruisers hit with extremly high accuracy, causing fires every 10 seconds. This way, short range engagements could be turned into much more rewarding actions, while camping becomes less rewarding and much more dangerous for the camper...

Bring CVs back to live, make BB main batteries more accurate, remove smoke meta and limit any torpedo range to 6-8km, reduce secondary armament to ~8km with upgrades, so brawling will not end in an automatic torpedo/secondary armament [edited], and players may consider to go back to medium to close range engagements. Sounds no good? Well, then you might belong to one of those lobbies, which turned the game into what we got these days. A patchwork of buffs/nerfs, half thought through changes and not any more working concept...

Calling out the "BB-lobby" as WG favourite crybabies, but not doing any better but whine about the countermeasures applied to get a hand of DD dominated games. If this is representative, the DD-lobby obviously consists of as many crybabies as the BB-lobby, it appears. Besides the fact, that WG came up with some very strange ideas to "balance" DDs, which neither did any good for the game, balance or player-happiness, DDs are still the class to play, if you want to be more or less independent. We got how many BBs in game that come with anti-DD consumables? Four? How many BBs can reach out to 9+km with their secondary batteries? Bismarck, Izumo, Yamato, maybe the both H-class germans aswell? But only if you fully spec them towards secondary armament and sacrifice a different specialisation? Community was demanding for how long on WG to implement/change BBs to be less of a camper class. A handfull of them now can be seen in close combat, and as a result, CA and DD-Lobby cry out for nerfs, because those BBs don´t show up at the frontline as pure cashcows and XP-piniatas, but are able to defend themselves, if RNGesus allows for it. No way! And, considering Bismarcks-hydro, the nerfs are already coming. As they came loong ago, when BBs were removed from close combat the first time, with nerfs to all of their weaponry. It´s almost ridiculous to complain about torpedoes, being unreliable. Don´t launch them at max-range, then. You want to know, what´s unreliable? Bring a BB into close combat and watch your shots miss at below 3km range, thanks to RNG. Bring your DD into that range or below, and well aimed torpedoes will wreck the target. No trigger failure, no torps deciding to go for a sharp turn right after it left the launcher. Besides the Bismarck maybe, can you name a complete branch of BBs, that can be considered as area denial weapons? No! However, any DD, especially the IJN branch, are still considered as area denial weapons. Don´t go, where they are, or you cannot blame anyone but yourself if you get wiped out by them. I don´t say, this game is fine, or balanced. It has major flaws and weaknesses, and BBs in their numbers, are a part of those. But claiming BBs start pushing away or dominating DDs? Please...

Just make it up to tier 6, and you will have all the thrills and challanges you are looking for. In addition, however, you might find yourself targets which are capable of shooting down your planes, so be carefull...

In meinen BBs wünsche ich mir eigentlich nur eins: dass meine Trefferausbeute und der erzeilte Schaden durch meine Fähigkeiten im Umgang mit "Zielen", "Vorhalten", "Abdrücken" bestimmt werden, und nicht durch die Willkür eines Zufallsprogramms, dass meine Granaten nach eigenem Ermessen quer über ein Gebiet von der Größe eines Stadtviertels verteilt. Ich bin von meiner Einstellung her ein sehr aggressiver Spieler. "Führe und inspiriere von der Front aus!" ist meine Einstellung, so, wie sie es bei jedem guten Offizier sein sollte. Doch was bringt mir diese Einstellung, wenn ich an der Front im Kreuzfeuer stehe und meine Bewaffnung auf Point-Blank-Range und trotz zugewandter Schokoladenseite des Gegners halt nicht die Zitadelle trifft, sonder die Insel hinter meinem Ziel, nur damit ich im nächsten Augenblick ne Torpedosalve, oder aber selbst den Zitadellentreffer kassiere, weil RNGesus dem Gegner gnädiger war? Nix! Im Prinzip ist das auch die Rolle, die BBs einnehmen sollten, denn sie sind die einzige Klasse, die das auch über einen gewissen Zeitraum hinweg durchhalten kann. Leider kann sich aber der "Offizier", so denn man das BB denn in diese Rolle stecken möchte, an der Front nicht auf seine Waffen verlassen. Jeder Offizier, bei jeder Armee der Welt, würde den Dienst quittieren, wenn er mit Waffen ausgestattet werden würde, die der Zuverlässigkeit der BB-Hauptbewaffnung in WoWs, und dem "Folgewillen" seiner Kameraden in WoWs entsprächen. Genau so handhabt es dann auch der gewöhnliche BB Spieler. Er quittiert den Dienst, indem er statisch hinten bleibt, und dem Treiben zuschaut, während er "Langstreckenunterstützung" gibt. Wie schon zutreffend erkannt wurde, das statische Gameplay wird nicht durch die Reperaturkosten bestimmt, sondern durch den Wunsch der Spieler, am Spiel teilzunehmen, und zwar länger als 5 Minuten/Match. DDs können das, da sie unsichtbar agieren können. CVs können das, da sie ebenfalls ungesehen agieren können. BBs können das, wenn sie sich einfach aus allem raushalten und snipern. Da erfolgreiche Treffer mit abnehmender Distanz zum Gegner nicht proportional wahrscheinlicher werden, im Verhältnis zur Gefahr, beschädigt oder versenkt zu werden, nutzen BB Spieler, ebenso wie DD und CV Spieler, die ihnen zur Verfügung gestellten Mechaniken, sich einkommendem Schaden zu entziehen. Bei BBs ist es halt "verwerflich", da sie fälschlicherweise als "Tanks" betrachtet werden. Hinzu kommt, dass Kreuzer sich eben nicht am Gefecht beteiligen können, ohne sich direkt der Beschussgefahr auszusetzen. In dieser Angelegenheit sind Kreuzer die gekniffene Klasse. Deshalb werden sie zunehmend unpopulärer. Lösungsvorschläge gibt es in vielen Varianten, schon seit Monaten. Zustimmung finden die Wenigsten, da DD- und Kreuzerlobby, ohne jegliche Weitsicht, sofort Sturm laufen. Also rangiert WG um das Thema herum, schraubt statt dessen an DDs und Kreuzern, Trägern, Kapitänsskills und Spielmechaniken, und sorgt so für noch mehr Verdruss, ohne das Problem zu lösen. Je höher das Tier, desto größer das Problem...

Low-tier: kleine Karten, geringe Reichweitenunterschiede in Sachen Artillerie zwischen den Schiffsklassen, Schlachtschiffe die nix Treffen, geringere Torpedoreichweiten, weniger Torpedos/Torpedowerfer pro Schiff, weniger bis keine Consumables, auf die Masse genommen weniger ausgebaute Kapitäne, viele unerfahrene Spieler und deutlich einfacheres Wirtschaftssystem. High-Tier: riesige Karten, große Reichweitenunterschiede in Sachen Artillerie zwischen den Schiffsklassen, Schlachtschiffe die nix Treffen, große bis sehr große Torpedoreichweiten, die ganze Kartenareale in no-go Zonen verwandeln können, erhöhte Anzahl an Torpedowerfern pro Schiff, viele "Konter gegen irgendwas" Consumables, auf die Masse genommen besser oder voll ausgeskillte Kapitäne mit "Buff für XY oder Konter gegen XY Perks", ein noch immer zu hoher Anteil unerfahrener Spieler und ein sehr "teures" Wirtschaftssystem. Jeder Punkt für sich mag nur einen kleinen Unterschied darstellen, in der Summe führen sie zu drastischen Verschiebungen im Gameplay. Das Problem ist alt, das Problem ist bekannt. Anstatt die notwendigen Änderungen direkt anzugehen, wird seit Jahren munter an verschiedenen Schräubchen gedreht, werden unnötige Änderungen (Buffs/Nerfs) vorgenommen und viel Effekthascherei betrieben. Nichts Neues also, und es wird sich auch nichts ändern.

Omaha is pretty unique for the USN cruiser tree, only comparable with its predecessor. The Cleveland could be considered as the peak of USN cruiser line, before finally reaching it´s bigger brother at tier X. Especially the tier 7 cruiser, the Pensacola, is considered as a real downfall from the Cleveland, since it lacks almost everything in terms of survivability, the Cleveland has to offer. I like the Pensacole pretty much, but she is a challanging ship, and a demanding one aswell. If you like the Omaha and want to keep her playing, you might consider to get a Murmansk, the tier 5 russian premium cruiser. It is basically an Omaha, improved by superior russian technology, outclassing the regular Omaha in almost any aspect. Not by far, but better...

Well, you still don´t provide facts. You tell me, why you don´t like the changes (since you prefer to ruch through the lower tiers, which is the wrong way, in my opinion, since you learn the basics of the game down there), which are basically personal impressions. Further more, as i mentioned, i agree with the opinion, that a removal of any of the "alt-abilities" on tier 4-5 CVs was a bad decision, simply because CV players need to learn these mechanics right from the start. However, you don´t complain about this latest change for the reason and purpose of learning and player improvement, but because of the impression of a personal loss/handicap or change in your prefered playstyle. In addition, you dismantle your own argumentation, with complaining about mechanics on tiers, which you claim you want to ruch/pass as quickly as possible. While i can understand this position from an alpha-veterans point of view (i rushed straight for the Bismarck, instead of grinding through the tiers, for example), i don´t understand the complains about the changes of tiers you won´t play (for long), anyway. That´s why i cannot agree elastion aswell. I might lack the experience with CVs at all, since i never played them much since alpha, with the exception of some testbed excursions. However, while his points could be considered true, i assume he misses to provide the complete picture. AFAIK, IJN CVs get more strike squadrons and different squad setups, and going on full anti CV setup on an US CV means hard handicaps in anti-ship abilities. This was always WGs way to "balance" those two branches of carriers. I don´t say, its good or balance. I disagree with the latest changes, since it affects "learning" CVs drastically, but i still won´t beleave you are not complaining about your favourite toy being taken from you. Regarding your sidenode: Blocking your profile because you don´t like to being judged by others, who don´t understand your numbers, is pretty...well, not convincing. Either your stats speak for themselves, or they don´t. If they do, no reason to argue with judges, if they don´t, but you can explain/justify them properly, you can still decide to deal with judges, or ignore them. Hiding something always leaves the impression, you don´t want others to see the truth.

Correct me, if i am wrong, but besides the removal of the alt function (which i consider as a bad move, anyway), nothing has changed in terms of low-tier CV stats or balance. So nothing new within the meta. IJN CVs at that tier will remain the "anti-ship" CVs, US CVs the more versatile, arguably anti-CV fraction. Since you blocked you profile for inspection, i can´t tell otherwise, but this somehow smells like "they took away my favourite sealclubbing-tool, now i need to complain, but make it look less obvious." Feel free to correct me, with facts ;)