AgarwaenME

Clearly the 3rd highest performing player on the opposing team made that impossible to win. If anything you should look at your own team; your best AAA platform has one aircraft kill, half the team doing 300x worth of worse. And of course, you yourself did way more damage than that carrier, given you having 500 more base xp on a loss. Infact given those numbers, and discarding the win bonus, that CV wasn't even top 5. So.. nerf BBs? +edit Looking at it again, it's even worse, as that CV was alive for a long while. Quite frankly he'd have to have been fairly inept to not do better, which doesn't really go either way as far as your argument goes, just that this CV clearly wasn't the defining factor in this battle.

Except this thread is about something rather different, nor made by some random scrub with illusions of knowledge, nor does the fact that one guy made a thread vaguely about the same topic make either him or you correct. But feel free to ask the OP if "more DDs means automatic win" is correct.

Indeed so sharana, the ranges in the game would really be incredibly unlikely. Aircraft might be involved but the actual carriers would be far away. However that would be boring, and the non CV people deserve to get to sink the CVs too

I don't even see what point there is to such threads as these. How large of an ego do you have to have to believe that your feelings on this issue is going to trumph WGs design choices? Do you really think they'll read and go "oh, this cosmonautilus got sunk by a carrier and want them gone, he even said please, we better go right at it right now, and throw away years of development and tons of cash and a game that's ready to launch just so he won't have his ego bruised!" And I just facepalmed at the "defended by the loud mouthed minority". Maybe OP should reread those threads and note the "loud mouthed" minority of a few players that keep making new threads more or less whining the same drivel, just with a different angle each time?

Gimme the USS Trogdor!

I agree to an extent that it would be nice to have a way to not let fighters permaspot forever in some fashion (using strike aircraft to do so has a built in cost of not letting you use them). The problem is implementing something that's newbie friendly enough for WGs intentions and while I'd like different modes/stances for aircraft (think Homeworld style) that might not be usable.

Userext, on 01 July 2015 - 10:02 PM, said: i m not talking about ship fuel i am talking about the plane fuel. Not as station but planes had fuel and believe me its not so fair when a fighter squadron can perma spot me for 15 mins. If they can make those fuel limit between 2-3 mins i think it would be alright. Planes that go 120 knots have 324m/s speed. in 120 sec they can go 38.8 km. If you dont waste much time it would happen. Anyway with fueling system planes can be bit more realistic in game for balance purposes and it would require people to plan their attacks. You know if a BB or CA takes evasive maneuvers a CV wouldnt be able to change the attack while risking his planes While I see the point on fighters with nothing else to do just loitering over DDs forever and (given that the CV by that point probably have nothing else to use them for, so losses from random DD AAA isn't a concern) permaspotting DDs and never having to go back to the CV is a bit.. silly, saying that it should take a significant extra amount of fuel to reposition an attack vs a ship that's extremely much slower (though in this game, aircraft are merely a fraction of the relative speed they would be IRL) doesn't make much sense. As it is, such a limit wouldn't make any difference to strike planes. Anyhow, part of the reason for this, is the way AAA works. As aircraft flying height seems completely irrellevant (you take as much damage from just passing over a ship at what would in reality be far beyond most AAAs range) they can't yet have "active" spotting where you'd go to an ideal height to spot and identify ships (and probably take more AAA fire) vs. just flying past. And sure, a dedicated spotting aircraft (which for some reason, CVs don't have) would have optics to spot far more effectively. Which really is how AAA should work too, high to extremely high attrition rate while you descend to attack and try to gain height afterwards, neglible against aircraft at max flying height. Ie, increased AAA dps overall, but ranges should work vertically as well as horizontally. But that's another discussion and thread. Sander93, on 01 July 2015 - 09:59 PM, said: If you think the best way to play battleships is camping at max range you are horribly, horribly mistaken. And I'm not. It is however how a large part of the BB players are playing them.

Sander93, on 01 July 2015 - 09:42 PM, said: I fail to see your comparison to World of Tanks, battleships do not compare well because in order to shoot at targets they have to put themselves within spotting- and firing range of the enemy. (Do mind that with SPG I'm referring to artillery, not tank destroyers). They do kind of resemble TDs actually. This is the one aspect that I'm comparing with: SPGs in WoT and CVs in WoWS can both hit targets without exposing themselves to direct fire / LOS. I never said SPGs are equal to CVs, I only wanted to state that their damage output mechanics are similar and what WoT had done to balance that. I know low spotting range might not be realistic but we don't play this game for realism over gameplay. Actually, BBs outrange most other ships and get to fire until people close in (they just don't get oneshot when they do get fired at). And as played in the game in mid-higher tiers BBs tend to attempt to do this exclusively (and why would you close range when you can do damage and take no damage). Also you're confusing fighting capability and ship hp. A CV doesn't put the ship itself in danger, but it does put it's aircraft in danger, which (like a ships hp) is a limited number and when you're at 0 (actually a lot before that for a CV) you're effectively out of the match. Again, you're taking the single similarity they have, usually not being seen until they get to die with little chance of defending themselves and forgetting all the other that are make for a far better comparison to BBs, high rng factor to damage, long range artillery fire. In reality it's also a bad comparison, it's just less bad than yours. Both are irrellevant to a WoWs discussion, so do try to not use it. Userext, on 01 July 2015 - 09:50 PM, said: its not historcally senseless. They had to refuel planes and they didnt have endless fuel. But i seriously think they have to bring the fuel system back. they had fueling system for planes at early alpha. But WG thought it would require skill so they deleted it. Seriously thats a bilion dollar idea to make CVs balanced. It is because the space needed for aircraft fuel was tiny compared to the space needed for most other things (like the ships own fuel). So sure, they would need to fuel but they wouldn't need a "station" to do it at. As it is, they struggled with fuel because IRL they would launch from ranges absurdly beyond those in WoWs, as far as they could because the closer they got the easier they would get spotted by.. aircraft. And the less the chance they would get sunk before even launching (during Midway much of the attack on the US fleet was by planes who even by that time had lost the CV they would need to land on).

Would just be a mess and also makes no sense logicly or historically. As it is, there's no fuel system, but on the other hand a CV only gets to use a fraction of their aircraft on every attack (whereass IRL they would mass up and strike with every aircraft they had). However a game where 100-200 planes came from each side, sank half or more of both teams (including all CVs) would be no fun for anyone.

If DDs rule the battlefield, and CVs are kings on it, won't that be sort of a mess? Or maybe you're just a clueless whiner spewing out hyperbole? Well, one of those.

Aircraft spotting is incredibly low powered in this game compared to "real life" as it is. How on earth would an aircraft having less view range than a half blind guy sitting in a dingy make any sort of sense? Also, CVs are in most respect (and more than some other ship classes in this game) entirely different from wot SPGs. Using that as a comparison is the typical attempt to put the same sort of bad feelings onto CVs as plague wot SPGs. Ie, it's a comparison designed to insult the class from the start. Think of it like this, if you take the ship class that actually MOST resembles wot SPGs (ie, BBs) and reduce their personal spotting range to 3km for another battleship, 2km for cruisers and 1km for DDs, how would that in any way make sense, or be usable in the game.

So how do you balance the game then? Make people drive 5 DDs at the same time so their power is equal?

Stop comparing CVs to wot SPGs, they're not alike. Also, merely balancing amounts is of little value unless you do that balancing based on air groups on those CVs.

That was the case weeks ago. Those joining today wouldn't be up in the tiers where MM can be iffy anyways.

The biggest problem WoT has, is people with your attitude.

so much this..

Again people seem to confuse "balance" for "I should be able to always avoid all torpedoes" (as if you expect to be able to avoid all gunfire too? no?) and "turning doesn't work" for "I personally can't manage to do it".

Cool, so are you going to tell all those people queueing that they won't ever get into a game?

You're very unlikely to find many CAs picking that ability over defensive fire.

WG is doing a great thing in removing all the difficulty in playing CVs with the removal of manual drops as a default ability. But clearly we need to take it further. Aircraft should just launch and attack on their own, thus us stupid CV captains can be left to manouvering our ship around only. Or better yet, lets make that automatic too, it's much more fun to sit and watch things being done without your input. Also, since other ships are also too hard, I propose this: The difference between people that can aim and those that can't is far too large.Make aiming and firing your guns a captain ability. Until you spend out of your limited amount of captain skill point your main guns should work like your secondary guns. Also double the spread on all guns. Even point blank you shouldn't be able to just.. aim and hit. That would be unfair to those who can't ever turn or pay attention to those that fire at them. Likewise with aiming and firing ship torpedoes. At 200m range a DD should only be able to hit 1 torpedo out of a full spread or so. But as noone will be able to hit them back even if they just run alongside that BB or CA that's perfectly balanced We CAN reduce the skill ceiling if we just work even harder at it!

It's more or less what I've been asking for in several CV related threads. Part of what makes high tier CV play annoying at the moment is the ridiculous all or nothing plane setups that turns CV vs CV play into no more than "zerg opposing CV before he zergs you or before he's killed all of your aircraft". Also, it's much harder to balance CVs vs other ships if you can have loadouts that either makes the other team a shooting gallery for you (your "strike" CV vs no other CV), or where you can do nothing (your "air dominance" CV vs. no other CV).

Did I say that? No, so stop putting words in my mouth. What I said was that ship vs. ship balance wasn't the topic, and you persist trying to make it about that, when in fact it was about changes done that reduces skill ceiling and fun while playing. That has nothing to do with disagreeing or agreeing, but about one person insisting on using poor arguments against something entirely different. The only one here discrediting your "arguments" is yourself.

You're in my thread, being off topic endlessly repeating the same tired and poor argument. So who's the troll? I do find it cute how you'll argue completely differently about DDs. I wonder why...

More likely, sitting in the back letting the CAs on the team take the beating in the front while he's raging that even then someone could actually cause damage to him.

HARGLABLARAGAAA AVERAGE DAMAGE DEEEERP How clueless do you have to be to think that average damage is the only measure on what makes a team win. The horse, it's dead, stop beating it.