AgarwaenME

To address the topic more clearly, since it's so hard to have any thread mentioning CVs without someone coming around to troll and turn it into another anti-CV trollfest.. Having one player (by lack of skill or intention) try to throw the game in a 7v7 would be basicly just as effective no matter the ship. The only reason for people attempting it with CVs is the lack of them in the queue and the way MM works. Ie, it's not about CVs, it's about players.

Except not in the least in the way he said.. (also, by that token BBs would be just as bad since they hardcapped them to just one). As for attitude, again, when someone makes blanket statements that aren't in the least true, then they're the one with an attitude problem. (just like ignoring fallacies and biases and attacking someone for arguing against a clan mate shows a poor attitude too).

Sensible isn't making statements like you did. Adult conversations isn't making statements like you did. And how can you say it's about games with vs those without, when the statement was about games WITH CVs, not those without? How can a game without a CV be decided by the better CV? Here's a hint, it can't. So, maybe if you said something that wasn't nonsense, would people not call it nonsense. Try that next time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Going "a good CV does this" or "The best CV always wins, so the team that just won had the best CV so that proves the best CV always wins the game". The simplest fallacy people use to protect their biases.

Nice going ignoring the fallacy in his original post there, and how this comment was about how this was entirely contradictory to itself and instead try to quote mine However that still doesn't make games autowins with a better CV, it, again, was merely to point out how he used two entirely contradicting things to attempt to prove something.

You get called on your nonsense, cry that you get called on it. Then (maybe) realising that not everyone falls for such blanket statements you actually try to justify it by being slightly more reasonable, using arguments that more or less prove your earlier blanket statement wrong. SO ye.. Actual mud slinging is just throwing out memes about CVs like you did, not pointing out they're nonsense. So maybe next time try to take a measured approach from the start and you won't have to have your BS called out like this.

WIthout going into how you love to use no true scotsman fallacies. And how you don't understand what "meta" means.. Any good ANYTHING can change the way a game plays out. A "good", low vis, DD can entirely negate a flank too. As can a "good" BB deny flanking attempts, or a "good" CA cover a cap, neutering multiple DDs. And you can just as easily twist it around "without CVs you leave some ships able to spot with impunity, making counter play impossible". Just actually look at how CW battles plays out, which is usually EXTREMELY static. The lack of a CV to spot means almost nothing, while CVs in a battle would be fairly easily neutered by organized use of AAA. Indeed the lack of even the possibility means that ships gets to be set up to entirely ignore AAA and thus people (like you) gets so used to never caring about them to the point where even a semi capable CV will be effective against you. Though at least you've progressed from the raw nonsense of every whiny newbie "better CV means automatic win omg omgomg!!" and try to be slightly more reasonable.. I guess that's something.

Utter nonsense. Even more ridiculously so as you first claim it's so overwhelming in unorganised play, and then refer to organised play as evidence. /And reasons for no CVs in CW is similar to reasons for only one BB being allowed. 7v7 play is very different from 12v12.

Nonsense

How about your k/d? Your average damage? Your hit rates? Your survival rates? All of them are abysmal. Your teams aren't unbelievably bad, you are. Indeed, people like you getting to ranks they can't lose is what makes higher ranks of ranked so bad to play. Your real problem is that you're under a horrible delusion where you think you're an actually good player, when you don't even apply to just be bad. Getting to "well below average" would be a huge step up for you.

Fixed by removing all the bits that he's wrong about.

Also, the slowest torps are in bottom tiers, which do not face speed boosted t10 DDs.

They never did anything.

But this is typical WG doublespeak. They never just go out and say "oh ye, this is absurd, we'll change it at once", it's always a matter of trying to pretend it's them discovering that something needs to get changed. They just need a time period to try to make people forget they got told it was silly from the very start. And that one ship out of 12 has to kill 80% of total planes in a match is obviously very very silly.

I had to account for merely 12 players per team Though that BB should probably be rounded down to 0 I

I wish they'd changed the ship caps to be in line with history. So something like 1 BB 2 CVs 2-3 CAs 5-6 DDs.

But then this is the only "attack" that can compete with CVs in terms of time between each. So much like people who desperately compare CVs to wot artillery, it's merely using an insulting term where it makes no sense as an insult when they have nothing else. It's less about the technicality of there literally being no DD that can fire that many torps in one salvo (or close to it with TRB), and more about it being entirely nonsense as a term to describe torpedoes.

BBs have 4x as high hit rates (if not more) with their guns, which has higher dpm, as DDs do. Nor does shells have random failures like what you want torps to have. And this is easily seen in what level of damage either ship class actually does. And "spamming 18 torpedoes" is not something any DD does, though there are plenty BBs who fire equally damaging salvoes less than 30 seconds apart.

If he keeps his planes "over" you they get shot down. Just like tbs/dbs sitting in wait to try to punish poor dmc usage, they're either so close you have to be turning, at which point they're under your AAA, or they're so far out that you just need to not be positioning yourself really badly. And a "continued period", or rather, a small period where he tries to line up an attack, is not "dodging them all the time". But then you're simply using language that tells me you really have little clue about what someone playing a CV actually does.

I made a point about rate of fire. You twist it into somehow being about chance of hitting per attempted attack (which, like damage per attack needs to be different for ships with different rates of fire), which it was not. Then after this is pointed out you start to cry about "insults".. you off all people. This is best described with another word "hypocrisy", but I'll allow you to furiously spam the report button as you so much love to do. As for skill, if you're that skilled and knows the mechanics, then talking like you do just proves your dishonesty. You ignore anything that doesn't fit your bias by choice (as you so say now), whichmakes you dishonest, QED. The real irony is people who say why they don't, and try to justify that for asking for nerfs or the entire removal of the class. And people with ZERO games in them trying to use the massive dip at tier 8 as justification for them not even trying. You didn't play to t8+ only to discover why people stop playing them, or play them way less, you're just piggy backing on others who did, trying to pretend you talk for them. You don't.

Whilte I realise you have no intention ever of having an honest discussion, by your complete lack of understanding mechanics mostly, but also you're utter biased hate toward CVs... but still Do try to follow the point. It's not about how they're aimed, but rate of fire. No matter how much those planes can adjust for a ships movements, the CV will still not be able to launch anything remotely close to the amount of attacks even the slowest firing BB would. Honesty, try it just once. /also, just since you really seem to need the hints. BBs dispersion can make any turn you take to avoid those shells moot. And any competent captain can fire guns in a manner that forces a turn and save a couple turrets worth to punish them for taking that bait. Also of course, as you do that your turrets don't spontaneously explode as planes can and will. Nevermind how there's easily several other ships ready to exploit a forced turn (caused by any sort of ship, DD torps, BB shells, even a CVs attack) near instantly, something CVs really cannot do.

The ability to have more CVs per team does in no way create more CVs to fill those possible slots.

The only way you "click" more with a CV than any other ship, is if you're completely incompetent and don't use keyboard shortcuts for squads. Every ship in game points and clicks to fire their guns anyhow, funny how some fail to remember this. CV attacks are the slowest "rof" weapons in the game. So how can you be "dodging them all the time" and this being something bad about them and not complain about the other 11 firing at you with 20-30 times the amount of attacks per minute?

Just like how you'll define "whatever CV player was on the winning team as the best CV player" to make sure that the "best CV always carries battles". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Pure nonsense as could only be said by someone who never sees it from the other side.