Mad_Dog_Dante

Except carriers can spot everything in one go at round start which 'resides in the limitations of the game itself' but is still horsecrap for game dynamics ^^

Ofc I agree. ^^

Thats pretty awesome man ^^

Nope. The point you have been trying to make so far failed on all accounts due to your own 'phrased' scenarios, exaggerations, wrong assumptions, cherry picked examples and straight out falsehoods. You latching onto this little nugget emphases the void you left behind earlier. ^^

This is what we are talking about. So again we agree.

This was a direct answer to BLUB's forced example you are leeching off now and has nothing to do with 'scenarios people come up with' that you've been trying to showcase so far. You have plenty of arguments remaining from our previous conversation to adress directly.

Which is what usually matters ^^

If a 1% HP battleship fires even one gun (or nothing when he's spotted miles away by that single bomber) he's dead next. Sent to port. If a carrier has bled out on planes, he will be able to spot and wait until he has 2 or 3 planes to send off to a target. If it's low on HP he has a good chance to kill it without being sent to port himself. That is how it is reversed too. ^^ If a BB has 1% HP left and no more heals, and the carrier has 1 plane and no more heals, guess who's got the upper hand within a minute?

So you basically stopped trying to come up with arguments I see, even as flawed as they were so far. I'll stick to the conversation instead if you don't mind. This is just rubbish. Nope, that right there is an argument that carrier damage accumilation suffers from landslide games, which is true for many playing that match. If a player yolos squadrons into blobs because he's afraid to miss out on damage, he bleeds, like everyone who yolos bleeds, in any class. Also, late games aren't so called ' late games'. They are actual late games in which carriers have a high probability to dominate isolated HP bled targets that have damaged AA resulting in one-sided one on one engagements.

All carriers have an armor layout scheme like every other ship, they are in fact armored. I have citadelled the light armored parts of low tier carriers with HE sometimes, as I did to cruisers like the Omaha or Smolensk. I think I've even citadelled Battleships with HE occasionally. It's all irrelevant. Armor is not a specific vulnourability of carriers, unless you want to compare them to Battleships which you just did, which is silly for a lot of reasons, but the designed battleships role as damage sponges would be one of them. Higher tier carriers even feature armored decks that can easily bounce a lot BB shells. That doesn't mean you can't penetrate carriers or get citadels in general, but stating carriers aren't armored is simply not true and placing it in brackets won't help. And again, it's peculiar you say 'When someone doesn't like a particular thing they tend to come up with over exaggerated scenarios to try and make that thing seem worse than it really is' when it is what you do to make things look better then they are in general instead. You even tossed in 1 specific personal experience as an example, which is fine, but does not refute anything I've mentioned in regard to your earlier statements. It is a simple example of something that can happen. Great. It is not usabale as an argument that carriers aren't armored or whatever it is you are trying to adress with it. I am not exaggerating here, and if I do, just point to the specific instance and we can discuss it instead of dripping in white rooms or ITF Taekwon-do and other weird generalizations. Carriers have the highest survival rates of all classes in the game because of a vast set of features that help them survive abnormally long when compared to the survivability any other ship class. I don't think they are OP, but I think they are stupid, broken in many cases, and simply too boring and at the same time frustrating to play and play against. I am also not saying carriers are 'all that' whatever that means. I'm just refuting your arguments and examples with information. You are exeggerating here and posing another example of something that isn't a problem unless a player is bad at managing it's carrier and planes. Also, carriers can't control more then one squad is another moot point made just as saying carriers dont have main guns. Carriers can spawn fighters to spot for example and thus can actually spot in two places simultaniously, three when we consider it's hull. Most surface ships can't even spawn a single controllable squadron. Wut. The DD or BB 'could be in trouble' too. What kind of main argument is that?

No i dont think CV's are always in the perfect situation, I am describing features specifically designed to accomodate carriers. Your 'arguments' however are exeggerated, very situational and right out nonsense sometimes. Carriers are armored. Carriers have autopilot which works fine in most situations so decent players can steer and fly at the same time. Carriers can attack surface ships with all squadron types and do not have to wait for anything to return unless played poorly and out of all plane types. Carriers are quite fast actually. Carriers dont have main guns the same as most surface ships dont have squadrons of airplanes, how is that even an argument? Carriers have the highest high survival rate in the game by a mile, so they are more often then not among the last ones to survive, even when played by bad to mediocre players. Because carriers are indeed often found in the same places, simply because carriers are a class designed to 'force teamplay' on everything else but almost always sit somewhere obscure far away from their team themselves. Carriers can one shot plenty of ships that are not full HP, which makes it quite funny you are suggesting I 'white room' arguments or whatever, when you basically do it yourself by adding a full HP condition. The situational examples you bring up are usually the result of a carrier that plays poorly or is the last survivor on a losing team in a stomp for example. Every ship should be vulnerable in those situations, even carriers.

CVs can't be detonated but can detonate one shot everything else, even with a single rocket. They can sail away to avoid being torped, have armored decks, are artificially protected against fire, pings and floods and only bad players run out of planes. Speaking about tales in a vacuum.

Yes they get more broken at the end of the rounds with ships that have been fighting eachother except the carrier hulls being on their last end with half operating AA and oneshot rocket HP left scattered around.

No it cant. Destroyers get stronger later in the game, Carriers get more broken.

God this realism bait is getting pathetic.

I fart in the general direction of Lesta and WG for ridiculing our navy by adding these stupid airstrikes,

But why?

Iconic for me would be the Blyskawica which is not on the list. Why is there a list? It was my second premium. A historic ship that still exists, a beautiful ship to the eyes as well. I sadly never visited the real ship, but I've had lots of fun checking up on it's story and checking out the photographic material while invisifiring and laughing all the way to the XP and credits bank. Then the global invisifire nerf happened, very much needed, yet breaking the first rule of premium ships and a first glimpse on the future of WOWS.

Sounds legit. Most carriers released the last 2 years have looked like they were a new test case experimenting on thge live server with different 'solutions' to the poor ideas they rammed into the live server around 0.8.0. The entire carrier rework is a prime candidate for a GDC post mortem horror story ^^ Then again, WG has managed to churn through quite a few failed new IP releases last few years from what I've been told. They simply aren't very good at pvp gameplay, I guess their strength is asset production and player churn which is basically a poor mans gamedesign on mobile game production applied to a PC title.

These rentals have been and will be available every week until the tech trees are added. Subs are already stealth added to the game and will be added to all modes eventually. Permacoop 4 U i'm afraid :-(

Actually a two edged sword, as good players have a better chance of influencing the battle to a positive outcome still at the same merit. At lower personal skill levels, luck starts to play a bigger role.

Menin B

Im guessing WG found that there is more money to be made from this customer base in (loot) then (loot + effort). Maybe it's an age thing ^^ More money then time so to speak :D

Ignore. Double post, forum wonky.

Probably because it takes about 2-3 years for Lesta to identify problems with new features ^^