AgarwaenME

Please stop posting.

Yep. I have no problems with this map as such, but in a carrier its terrible. Your teammates can go in three directions, and following so closely as to be safe from ships coming from unprotected directions means you'll take fire from the meeting ships. Additionally, it further makes CV vs CV play (which already is troublesome) even worse. If you're in a fighter setup, the opposing CV can attack something on the opposing side on the map diagonally. And where your fighters are extremely likely to have to take AAA from multiple ships before getting there way too late. With non fighter setups, you know the teams will have far more grouped ships and you're very likely to be in range of another CVs attack planes that can hit you within 40-50 seconds from start, and there's very limited manouvering space that won't place you directly into gunfire. It's far too RNG for CVs. You can get extremely lucky in an attack setup and just send waves after waves, or you can get taken out within a minute or effectively so by having to spend your entire time running away and throwing bombs and torps against pursuers of the kind that has no problems avoiding them.

I feel that is sort of exemplified the problems with using peoples feelings and opinions as any sort of useable data. The OP (which still has a positive win/loss ratio), never thought he maybe had particularly good luck or MM when it looked good, but when it looks worse it's bad luck or bad MM.

This pretty much. Once you go into OBT/live and see the incomes you'll be having, and even more so should you be playing without premium, then those 30-50k freebies will look far more juicy.

You seem to be somewhat confused. Firstly, CVs are BBs hard counter, not the other way around. And if they weren't, given that cruisers have good to great AA, as good or better speed and manouverability and dedicated abilities against planes, and that DDs are more or less impossible to hit from the air, and that other CVs have both as good or better AAA and fighters, what do you suggest a CV players should be doing?

Sorry, was the topic about CA/BBs? No? Then your point is utterly.. pointless. However if even if it was actually the topic, it'd be unlikely to be a huge problem as the differences aren't large enough to let someone effectively use all their guns and at the same time kite you (nor are those faster ships likely to outrange you substantially).

I'm not sure what sort of BBs you're meeting, but any same (or even lower tier) BB can easily drop half their hp or outright kill them in a single salvo.

He clearly was from your perspective and with your bias.

However in the game, the speed is of nearly no consequence, only the turning time is, and the ability to pretty much turn faster than an equal tier TB squadron can circle into position from outside medium range AAA. Now, being able to avoid torps is fine, however US BBs can avoid them just by turning as they're dropped or spotted. However, I've found this to nearly be the case with many ships in 3.1, so it seems to me it's rather the general increase in turning ability ontop of the generous turning of US BBs that puts it somewhat into silly category (ie, turning in less than the length of the ship).

Capping is also very important for ship type balancing reasons. Without objectives like this you just get balls of cruisers and BBs sailing around in open water that no aircraft or DD can approach without being wiped out.

Capping in domination is a "do or lose" thing. Capping in encounters is a "do so you put pressure on the enemy and makes the battle favourable to you" thing. Reducing this game to a death match, is like a chess player reducing that game down to a game of taking units only. It might sound fun, but in the end it makes the game a lesser one.

On point #3. Afaik, the repair cannot repair damage due to flooding or citadel explosions, much like it cannot repair guns that are destroyed. It represents patching battle damage, not fixing things you'd need to be in drydock to do anything about.

Larger question is, why do you want to buy a premium? They provide a few things. *Easy access to higher tier play *Large credit income *Convertible xp *Speedy crew training/retraining I don't know of many people that buy premiums just to skip playing the normal tanks or ships, so I'll permit myself to discard that at once. In my case, both here and in wot, I use premiums to boost my credits and to help train crews. This has a positive feedback loop in that the crew used in the premium will be of very good quality, and exceptional quality for its tier. And if you want the convertible xp, you can just turn of accelerated training (that is assuming this will come in wows, which it is quite likely it will). If you have to use a crew only for the premium, then it will be quite a bit worse, likely so much as to make it a worse option than it would be in my case. In my case, that completely dismisses the gremy as there's no russian tech tree. The yuubari is tier 4, thus not really effective at earning credits nor xp, and additionally the ideal crew talents for it would not really fit any other ship, though that could be manageable. The sims (my choice) suits me because I find US DDs fun, it's t7 so an effective credit earner, and with the exception of the 3rd tier skill I'll be fully taking it to use to retrain my US CV crew in the lower tiers. Though again, this is what suits me for my needs.

I've had a couple occurances of being able to more or less turn around torps fired at me in my Nagato. Coming at one at a bit of an angle, I can turn as it's passing my bow and then have it avoid my stern. And this takes a minimum of effort in one of the less manouverable ships. US BBs can more or less turn in about the length of their ship. This means attacking with less than one torp squadron more or less futile. And the only thing required of the captain is going full rudder to one side and keep spinning on a spot as you need longer time to fly around than it takes it to force you to fly even longer. This also causes issues with dive bombers (on auto of course, as manual just guarantees 100% misses), as this changes the approach direction so wildly that they stop their attack and spend 15 seconds going back out (while under AAA) to try again. Prior to 3.1 it wasn't all that hard to avoid torp attacks if you paid attention to the map, your position and space for manouvers, but now you don't need to think about it until the attack is already well underway, and even then you can easily avoid more than before.

I'd prefer something like a soft zone around the map where you loose max speed, manouverability and weapon accuracy: And then a hard zone farther out that is more like the current one, just with even worse penalties.

At best. Realisticly (partly due to higher number of squadrons) you'll get some through, possibly by just feeding aircraft to the US fighters until they're off the board for a minute to rearm. And at that point you're affecting the battle while the US CV is not (and never will be able to do much beyond a few k damage from its single DB squadron and some scouting). Actually it'd be preferable to be able to have ONLY fighters to X fighters and Y dive bombers, as that setup could guarantee stopping 1-2 enemy cvs totally (at least if those aren't decently fighter capable, at which point it's a 1v1 trade of for the teams more or less).

You never expect to have things replaced like that in a beta.

I've seen it after taking a 0 damage hit.

This is the human brain at work.

Orlunu, on 27 April 2015 - 12:17 PM, said: They get appreciably better. You get health, DPM, AA and armour rising pretty steadily across the board. Any more differentiation and you'd just get the stupid setup you have in WoT where you get tanks just unable to do anything. This SOO much. At this point in state of the game, and especially blessed given the MM you can get in mid to higher tier battles with the limited player pool, more or less never being unable to put some hurt on anything makes it a lot more fun the "I hope I can find the two tanks on the opposing team I have any realistic hope of damaging" gameplay you can get in WoT. Sander93, on 10 May 2015 - 05:34 PM, said: Did anyone else playing the Americans also get the feeling that the New Orleans / Baltimore AA were better than the Des Moines? Des Moines' 76.2mms and 127mms can engage at huge distances (7-8km with upgrades/skills) they don't seem to kill nearly as much as my Baltimore AA did. With the Baltimore I sometimes got 20-30 airplane kills without even hunting squadrons while the Des Moines usually barely manages to kill 2-3 planes in one pass. Despite having a much better AA rating, the Des Moines actually seems to perform worse in my experience. Or it could just be me. That's because the long range guns have much lower DPM. But as a CV player I can tell you that long range guns, while maybe not always as detrimental for my stocks of aircraft, as as annoying if not more. In particular as it increases the range of defensive fire, which is the real way you protect friendly ships, and because the range takes away so much map real estate that no longer are free areas where you can fly your planes through or have them idle or scout. Additionally of course, you get multiple ships covering the same area so the overall DPM on your planes are higher, just coming from a larger number of ships.

Because to test how the game will be live, they need to test all parts of it?

So nothing like WoT or WoWp then.

So, you want to have 4000 crew members on a BB?

"inept" Anyhow, you somehow seems to think it would be "balanced" that CVs wouldn't be forced into playing like a CV would be expected to play, ie. providing BOTH fighter cover and attacking ships. Secondarily, actively using your fighters, both to scout, to protect your attack aircraft and attack other attack craft is part of what takes up your time playing a CV. As is manouvering your attack aircraft into good positions. You write like you're merely ordering your aircraft once every 3 minutes, and if that's the case then the problem is that you're playing extremely poorly, not that there's not enough things to do. I'd find it far more boring if CV play was reduced to merely sending my torp/dive bombers every 2-3 minutes. And crying that the matchmaker doesn't give you perfect opponents is even more silly. As if it should do so for anyone.

If you'd spend half as much time trying to play in different ways as you try to justify yourself when you say CVs are ineffective, then maybe you'd not be as ineffective.