AgarwaenME

That's just.. wrong. CVs of the time weren't amazingly large (late war types were at the size of a BB), which isn't shocking given that most version were just CA or BB hulls with the superstructure removed (or not built in the first place) with a flight deck on top. Who had the most easily seen sillouetes? Well, battleships and cruisers, who by necessity were top heavy with artillery and range finders (and later radar), unlike CVs who only needed a small superstructure to direct flight operations from. Hell, most even placed their stacks in a different configuration keeping their visibility lower (and of course, smoke would be as great an indicator as anything concerning the ships size and form). Also, again you conflate terms as risk vs reward with a game where there's NO actual risk. Risking the chance to sink DURING a battle doesn't mean you can talk about risk vs. reward as if it's a real thing in this game. And you are also incredible ignorant, possibly you just chose to be, of the fact that CVs are the only ship that puts their only offensive means right into harms way on EVERY attack and where you can have other ships dedicated to killing your only offensive weapons before they can do anything. Somehow sending your planes in, knowing most won't make it back, is "no risk". A BB never "risks" being in a battle where he can't fire a single shell if the MM puts him up against a higher tier "anti-artillery BB" or a DD being in a battle against ships with weapons designed to blow up his torpedoes before they can get close. Aircraft are PART of a CV, they're not merely ammunition. Basicly, you're just another clueless whiner. Shocker.

As far as I'm concerned the largest problem is still the wonky plane setups. Full strike loadouts just force CV zerg tactics (kill enemy CV before it kills all my planes or kills me), and makes it impossible to balance lower tier performance. Additionally add 30 secs or so to arm/fuel a new squadron if you lose the entire squadron to discourage zerg tactics. Just remove all full strike or air superiority setups and make three setups (and possibly a bad stock one) to each CV. One fighter heavy with some strike capability (2 or 3/1/1) one strike heavy (1/2/2) and one balanced (2/1/2 or 2/2/1) for example for US t9-10. With IJN getting more and better TB squadrons and US more and better dive bombers. As such you could probably change squadron sizes more. 6 TBs in an IJN TB squadron, 4 in an US (and then you can leave the increased spread for IJN) as an example. This will ensure all CVs in the match has some fighter cover, and some strike capability. Thus CV cooperation will be much more valuable and rewarding. Also it will be much rarer to have the "full air dominance" boredom you easily can get in lower tiers (which only gets broken in higher tiers because you can spam squadrons and just let them die, relying on your then accellerated squadron launch as he has to return his fighters to rearm) Also, having the IJN with worse fighters at every tier is just weird, both historicly and game balance wise.

Lmao, you think the only way the game is balanced is if DDs are doing the same average damage as CVs? Really? You're actually writing that a game where ships are very diverse, with wildly different HP values and damage potential and team role.. should have every ship with the same average damage. I can't.. fathom how a living breathing person could manage to argue that. Just get this into your narrow mind, I'll take it slowly so try to follow: *Different ship types will be targetting different other ship types. *The highest damage weapons in the game, are much easier to use against the ships with a high amount of hp. Ergo, ships with these weapons will be doing more damage than ships attacking other targets. *As far as the game is concerned, one ship is more or less worth the same (and before you go "domination values some ships more", that's because if it didn't the mode would be messed up by DDs being afraid to loose the match by dying early doing their job). *Thus 1hp is not the same as any other hp. BBs can absorb up towards 200k damage at the high end and good use of repair work. Ie, you can do nearly 200k damage and barely sink a single ship. On the other hand, you can do 40k damage to DDs and net two kills, or 100k in a combination and have sunk several ships at a far greater effect to the battle. That's the only evidence needed. It's evidence based on how the game is DESIGNED. Not some semi arbitratry stat and you demanding outrageous examples of things you're not going to find as the only way to disprove you, like some butt-hat creationist demanding a crocoduck. As for skill (realisticly of course, it's just you attempting to trash talk CV players in the same tired old WoT anti-arty way, which is odd as the only ship that isn't just mobile artillery in this game is CVs), I find the skill required different, but not greater for any sort of ship more or less, with the possible exception for BBs which pretty much are the simplest class at the moment (less abilities and less tactical possibilities after you've picked your early route).

How does posting a picture of a stationary ship getting blown to pieces make any sort of point?

Possibly. I play US DDs, which with their guns should (and does for me atleast) have a much more reliable damage output (more or less 2x my hp on my last two ships). As a truly significant amount of battles are getting recorded we can probably get some proper combines stats, ie WR+relative damage (ie, % of ships hp)+kills+caps/decaps etc. However even then I'm not sure the game will be better by enforcing some artificial parity on ship classes.

Wow, you're managing to sink to unheard of levels of derp. Must be annoying when you have to base your opinion on nothing but self-serving whining. As far as stats goes, well I average more kills in my Mogami than both of my t8 CVs (the lexington was played pre-nerf, so its stats are inflated), but then it's also above my New Orleans. Why? Part of it is I guess that the New Orleans is much more an AAA ship, a feature which has little value in the typical CBT game atm, while the Mogami has been played during HE spam days and with the 155mm it has a reload that much easier lets it snipe kills on DDs and the like. So the conclusions is.. nothing really. None of those ships have a similar role, the shokaku is pretty much only a strike CV (which means it either does twice the average damage, or none), the Lexington was played as a hybrid strike/AAA ship while there were barely other CVs around (which meant the fighters would control the skies against any amount of lower tier CVs), and both CAs are very different.

Indeed, using the 155s on the Mogami on CBT atm, and tried it on the 0.4 test, even more of a beast. Though you'll have to respecc your captain as you start using the mogami and when you're done.

Also, it more or less forces anyone playing CVs with a semi developed captain and average skill to spend gold to retrain. Especially us beta players if you use your free captain on your CV.

Check the 0.4 patch, it now costs 2 captain points to reduce the chance by more than twice of the increase the 4 point perk gives.

You could imagine a perk like that if the devs had no control over fighter dps, but they do. It would be incredibly easy to tune fighters to scale by a few % each tier, not by multiples of 2. Mind you, CV perks as they currently stand more or less demands you use gold to retrain captains. Might be the intention.

It's cute that you're actually trying (again) to turn things on its head. And the post you linked? It was entirely out of the context of this thread, as pretty much all of your posts have been. Also, I already replied to it.

So what you're going to do, is continue to lie about what I actually wrote. It's so much more convenient to make arguments when you can lie isn't it?

Strawman upon strawman. There's a large difference between "a force to reckon with and a threat to pay attention too and worth dedicating part of your effectiveness to hindering" and "center of the battlefield". And if you actually checked my stats, you'd see I also have more avg ship kills in the Mogami. And yes, plenty of that damage (and far far more than the shokaku) was against smaller targets. But again, what I want first and foremost is fun. Thus I want balanced plane loadouts that stops the inane "ignore air cover and sink enemy CV first by spamming strike aircraft and letting entire squadrons die.. or rather, ensuring entire squadrons die, so you don't have to waste time having them return to rearm" gameplay that high tier CV is about now. And I don't want an artificial limitation on player skill, and in particular one that forces every CV captain with a clue to retrain with gold on every ship upgrade (if you take your free bonus captain you can easily end up in the situation where you'll barely retrain at all before your next upgrade until t7-8 if those are the same as we got on the OBT test server). If anything they should change dive bombers around so there's actually a reason to use manual aim on anything but ...imbeciles.

On two different computers (one win8+nvidia, the other win7+ati), I've noticed a slight gfx glitch as I zoom out to map view. Areas where there's special effects for water, ie shorelines, around ships and the like, turn blurry and fuzzy.

Of course you did. You wouldn't ever cherry pick stats to attempt to make a point. I mean, it's not like you started talking about HP/battles when nothing in my original post had anything to do with stats, though you still managed to not answer when I replied about how meaningless such comparisons are is (and if cherry picking stats from you I could easily argue that other ships should be nerfed or buffed alike, however I would find it silly to argue that you should do as much HP damage in a CA as an equal tier BB). And no, I expected people to maybe laugh a bit and possibly think how it would feel in a different ship to get reduced to only clicking for large period (and in particular if using a good captain and not spending gold to retrain, on the OBT test server I pretty much had to retrain with gold or I'd have been without manual aim most of the time until into t8 area, unlike when playing CA where I merely lost some effectiveness.). The point is, as others have said in other threads, that it's not FUN to only use auto aim. However, should CVs be a huge and present danger in a battle? Yes I think so. Think of it like this, when a ship type is limited to a few per battle, yet as many or more ships will be using captains and mods or merely overall bristling with AAA guns, reducing CVs to a parody that is basicly no more of a threat than any other ship, will effectively be a nerf to several other ships. Why would you bother with a US CA or BB, and spend precious mod slots or captain skills on AAA, when what you get is of no real use since endless nerf crying have removed the teeth from CVs? And no, someone that only throws in a reply consisting of nothing but a personal attack, that's a troll. Much like your last post. Now, do you have something to say, do so, if not find some other thread to poop in.

98k in a ship that mostly attacks high hp target vs 40k in a ship that mostly targets mid to low hp targets. When are simpletons going to get through their thick skulls that 1hp on a BB isn't worth the same as 1hp on a DD? Also, I'm sure it was entirely accidental that you picked the CA I perform worst in and not the mogami, certainly entirely accidental And, this post wasn't even a skewed view at CV effectiveness, it was a skewed view at the nerf to the skill ceiling, but understanding that might require you to.. well.. read. Nor was the post I replied to anything but a troll post, as he did nothing but throw out an insult in his typical style.

Well my apologies for sinking ships in a ship designed to sink ships. Go troll somewhere else.

Wow, an entire post of wrong. How fresh and original.

Just add a small border around maps where anything a ship can do is nerfed to 25-50% of normal (call it bad weather or something) and the a hard border farther out, 1-1,5 times the turn length of a ship.

It's almost as if it's a beta and they're trying different ways to balance them and gathering data on who wins more or less with different things being weighted more or less. And thus seeing odd things would be expected.. oh wait, they are, aren't they

Really? You're using risk vs reward as an argument in a game like this? Does any ship have permadeath? No? Then it DOES NOT !")#(¤/¤(/"!#¤ BELONG AS ANY SORT OF !Q"=)(#/¤)(/!&¤!#" ARGUMENT. Also, why would a CV based on a cruiser hull be more visible than that cruiser? Or a CV based on a BB hull be more visible than that BB? Particularly as they don't have the large superstructures with very visible silouettes. "- When engaged by AA squadrons should always be using the largest and least effective formation and torpedo spread. So.. as every ship at t5 and higher has some AAA, TBs would ALWAYS get the worst possible spread.. ye sure. "- No torpedo attack when attacking over a landmass should be possible within at least 2 km of the landmass so that island/hill popup will not be possible." So, the EXACT tactic used during the attack on Pearl Harbour should be disallowed because.. you want to have an easy safe spot. How about we rather make it impossible for large ships to even approach within several hundred meters of any shore as they'll easily go aground there? If you don't want to get attacked from behind an island, DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND IT. "- Increase the turn radius of all strike aircraft so that they will have a harder time enganging highly mobile targets" You want aircraft to struggle keeping up with warships. Wait.. did I actually read that, you want AIRCRAFT to struggle keeping up with WARSHIPS . As it is aircraft are already remarkably slow and clumsy compared to ships, but for some people that's still not enough "-When making torpedo attacks at extremely close range the torpedobombers will have to pass over their targets so that will have to subjected to more AA fire and thus an increased risk of losing aircraft making close drops a high cost/high reward style of play." This is ALREADY THE CASE. And if you weren't so utterly incompetent and underqualified to talk about CV play you'd know what happens to attack aircraft after attack runs on high tier BBs.

OP should possibly look into some easy facebook game or something

Relative sizes are a large part of the difficulty in hitting targets. Seems more or less just be a way to make hitting ships more or less easy depending on the size the ship would have been IRL. If ships had varied even more in size, then you could end up with BBs nearly being guaranteed to get hit or the smallest ships nigh impossible to hit.

While one can argue about how effective things should be, do try to avoid one common error. Don't mistake this game for WoT. If a tier 6 BB is in a match with you, you shouldn't expect to be killing it merely because you're in a higher tier ship.