Mad_Dog_Dante

'For example, these changes may increase the popularity of destroyers. We are unsure though. Because we don't create this game. We suffer it.' I think it's hilarious by now ^^

Clans can't dodge ffs

There is no need or unavoidable natural reason for one class to be the most influential other then WG doing a bad job designing class gameplay. Eventually there will be individual ships that float to the top in a natural way, but a good class design gives every class a valid overarching equal influence in their own right without destroying gameplay for the other classes. WG deliberately destroys class balance and gameplay functionality in favor of accessiblity.

I remember my initiation as a level designer when the game was still a MOD. The first time I released a map prototype to a small audience of random people I was idling in the server waiting for players to start enjoying the map attacking objectives and shooting eachother. What actually happened was when the firs players spawned in, they checked out their surroundings and started humping steep terrain for about 10 minutes, leaving me speechless. Terrain was notorious for exploits back then.

One can get two collision cubes stuck into eachother if you're not careful from what I know. I've worked on a game where we had serious collsion issues (UE3) which were hilarious and quite horrible at the same time. Vaulting a prone soldier could launch you into space or kill you instantly. Before you know it you get into 'computer says no' area. ^^

I've noticed that mechanic, but it doesnt alsways works. It tries though. Physics in computer games, always a bit tricky. I saw a fellow forumite in a Cleveland being stuck for ages fighting off and killing battleships and surviving @Bear__Necessities Gitgut!

I like it. Lets be honest here, that is not what you did in reply #4097. It's okay though, I'm a big boy ^^

Absolutely. Radar is one of the aspects of DD counterplay which I really enjoy as a DD, because it plays into my role as a sneaky little bastard and is really satisfying when it works out. Getting caught is usually something I blame on myself too. Stealth radar though is an issue WG should not have reintroduced.

I apologise for the farting joke, a geste in poor taste i guess. I am debating your points and am indeed saying you were gaslighting the discourse in your reply to me, which you were as far as I'm concerned. So what I get from this so far is that you catagorise every and any passive defenses like dodging, angling, using smoke and hiding as a 'defensive counter', a term you made up and which was shown to be in inaccurate term for what you are talking about, yet you remain firm in your defenition. Well, all what remains in that case is that we agree to disagree then.

I know you mean well, but that is the actual point. That's a counter which still leaves a 12 km no go area for DD's on ships with low detectability, and the odd chance a team of randoms will actually focus fire important targets you scout, which is not often the case. And 12 km on these small maps is actually almost an entire flank.

The only thing that has become a problem is the sheer volume of 12 km russian radar that's been added to the game recently. Those 12 km's area denials for DD's are pushing teams even further back, adding to the boring long range face off meta WG seems incapable of handeling properly.

Interesting to see you choose dodging over countering ^^ Too bad you are deepening your dishonesty instead of actually making a decent point. I love a good debate, but I hate gaslighting. Your proposition to make up stuff as we go along is hereby rejected. The closest thing to 'defensive counter' is defensive counterair which includes damaging the enemy and denying them access to airspace. If you are going to make up new terminology, at least make an effort. We do not agree. Sorry to dissapoint. You looked really happy thinking we did. ^^ (*1) We disagree on smoke being a counter of any sorts. Smoke does not counter a carrier attack. It deflects it. (*2) 'Perhaps' you were lying about islands. Nope. You defenitely were. (*3) So you can't reliably hit air dropped torpedoes on aft or stern of battleships to avoid torpedo buldges and enhance your chances on floodings I guess? M'kay. (*4) Yup, angling doesn't deflect AP bombs. So you deflect the point made about AP shells vs. AP bombs to dodging. It is, yet again, not a counter of any sorts, it mitigates damage. Stop farting in our general direction ^^

Nobody 'forgets' anything. Your 'point' is ignored because you are not making a compelling case. You keep resorting to weird comparisons and forced examples and subsequently claim they don't make sense. Lets disagree on what you actually mean when discussing counters to carriers. Because that is where misinformation starts. To counter something indicates an action that is aimed at damaging an opponents attack or argument to nullify it at a minimum, preferably damage the opponent in return when applied successfully. The only 'counter' the attacked ships have against air attacks is automated AA, static AI controlled fighters, and the ability to actually damage the carriers hull directly. Most of what you call 'counters' are in fact parries, deflections, mitigation or defensive stances. To counter your answers one by one (pun intended ^^): Take the magical 'defensive counter' for instance, smoke. Nice try. I googled it, because I never heared of 'defensive counters'. I found the definition of 'defensive counterair', which actually means 'All defensive measures designed to detect, identify, intercept, and destroy or negate enemy forces attempting to attack or penetrate the friendly air environment.' Other results mention counter attacks. Counter defense isn't a thing unless it is to destroy the enemies ability to attack. Smoke doesn't destroy planes now does it? Islands. Where you say 'in all cases to attack a warship with hard cover (island) requires flanking'. Really? How exactly do dive bombers need to flank a ship that's sitting behind an island? They don't, and you as a carrier player knows that perfectly well, so you resort to a lie. Divebombers simply fly over the island directly, which is actually the best possible attack route. In fact, the island helps the carrier shielding it's incoming attack from AA damage. Also, time? Try flanking at 38 knts instead of 180 knts. As for 'Dodging works'. Dodge DD torpedoes launched at you from 2 km distance. Or dodge incoming shells from a surface ship fired at you from 4 km. Because that is what ships dodging air attacks do. Dodging only works mitigating damage if the carrier pilot is bad or RNG messes up the air attack. Again, you as a carrier pilot knows this. Angeling and torpedo protection is the only instance where the mechanics are somewhat simular. If you aren't able to place your air dropped torpedoes on aft or stern instead of straight into the torpedo buldge of battleships, you're not the carrier player you claim to be. Oh, and angling against AP bombs so they will deflect? X for serious doubt. I'd like to close with the folowing thought experiment. Imagine a carrier is being attacked by a DD that weaves in and outside the carrier's secondary range, say the carrier has slotted manual secondairies, for a laugh. It has no planes to launch though. No manual way of attacking the incoming threat. None. How much chance you recon that carrier has using secondairies, dodging, angling and island hugging to 'counter'? Oh and the DD's teammates are shooting at you by the way, since you are spotted

I think losing ship HP when losing planes is not a good idea, to get that out of the way. I get your point about carriers playing alone in a seperate 'aireal' layer against a 'surface' layer. It is because WG made it so. They are in fact disconnected from enemy skill levels by a barrier of automation, even seperated from the class itself. Carriers amongst themselves aren't even in the same space, they can't manually attack enemy planes as they used to be able to, all they have is a static marker of fighters, absurd design by WG. Carriers are truely 'alone' and are not even manually fighting enemy planes. That is where your ideas break. You cant just throw in more carriers if all they can do is attack surface ships and can not manually attack enemy planes.

This is the gem: 'the CV is always alone'. That is the actual issue WG created by releasing one of the worst pvp gameplay design I have seen in 25 years of gaming. It is the actual problem. How is carriers always being outnumbered when attacking a blob different from the current situation, and how would manual AA suddenly break that? Why do you think carriers are limited to 1 per side? It is because AA is useless in most cases, planes and plane health grow on magic carrier trees and spotting is so broken WG is making absurd game rules where a plane can't see a 100 m long ship at 1.5 km. It's not the planes themselves that are causing this, it is everything around them that is being set to absurd values to somehow protect carrier players from melting like snowflakes. Oh buy the way, your 'example' is bizarre, like almost all your examples... like... what?

Really. Multiple ships focusing down 1 seems unfair to carrier flight groups? What is it with carrier players that makes them feel so entitled to being protected from other players, including other carriers? So tell me, what is 'fair' about a surface ship being attacked and spotted by a carrier flight group AND targetted by 3 to 5 enemy ships because of that spot?

Thanks to @ShotGunHank for being the perfect radar companion when killing it in my Jutland

Yup. Nerf Jutland. Neked no camo 6 kill extra-fraganza Thanks to @ShotGunHank for being the perfect radar companion I forgot the camo, k? People forget sometimes. Yeah old people do.

<- me

WOWS is a mobile game format crammed into a PC title.

Still have these stutters, mainly concerning torpedoes it seems, but that could just be me having a biased view on things.

I just slapped a Kitakaze in the face in my Jutland in a one on one. It's at the end of the battle replay if you're interested. Our flank had both enemy radar ships and a Kitakze. My team didnt target the 2 radars on my flank, so all I could do is tactically retreit and give as little room for them to push as possible. The Kita chased me, we got into a brawl, I won with half my HP intact in the end 20200915_115049_PBSD109-Jutland_25_sea_hope.wowsreplay

Yup. 4 CV game. 1 point captain. Nerf Isokaze.

I don't mind. I want 18 km secondaries. But no one else gets em. Well, mbe you. I wanna be a floating Xmas tree

At 18 km, I want to hit every ship with secondaries, like its 1999