AgarwaenME

First of all. AP is still the largest and most consistent damage source in game. And ships did, and does burn. A warship isn't a tub of steel. It's a tub of steel filled with fuel, ammo and all sorts of fittings made of volatile and/or combustible materials. And it would be amazingly easy to fill this thread with examples of ships that sank partly or completely due to fires.

It's hardly new that a game has a "mode" that puts some pressure on some players to play ships they don't favour (as a vanilla WoW player having to slowly explaining to our "dps warriors" that we do need them to tank now since this bloody boss requires 9 "tanks" it's really not new, and I expect many have similar experiences). Myself being in a clan with a mix of players, some who have barely any t10s, and others like me with most t10s means some have to play that one ship they have (or even a loaner) and I have to play a t10 I'm not the most fond off but that fits the players available for that session. Being a bit open about it, stating the realities of "ye, you want to use this ship but it's not a solo player mode so everyone has to give and take" does help. As for commanders, as a side effect of no CVs there's somewhat less a need of 19pt captains, since the typical advantage of so many points is to be able to specc into some amount of AAA and there's less value to be had for those points in other skills, though still there's an advantage. But then I seriously doubt the players who have no access to any highly skilled captains or any CW viable t10s of their own choosing, are in clans with serious aspirations anyways. Hell, a Zao set up for long range flanking/support in CW could get away with 10 for the skills you really can't get away from having, with 12-15 being nearly optimal. You just can't base your entire team on ships like these.

Oh.. upcoming windfall of ship slots and credits I guess.

The hilarious hypocrisy and projection is.. as expected from you.

Maybe, but it's definately a lot easier to actually learn the game there before buying premiums you have no capability to use.

Just to point out how desperate and dishonest this person is, he keeps pratting on about survival rates for CVs even if he knows it's completely irrelevant to their effect in battles. As far as strongest, last two weeks the Taiho is 3rd on winrate, barely edging out the Lion... but again those pesky annoying facts that gets in the way of cherry picking irrelevancies and personal hateful bias. And why does "arcade game" mean that every class has to be exactly the same? Do you really want me to list every "arcade" game where each player isn't playing merely a carbon copy of whatever everyone else has? Indeed even THIS VERY GAME in situations without CVs (in fact, no CVs cause these variances often) have other types being a lot more important or with more carrying potential. But again, as usual, they're ships you do play so you ignore these since it might be in your favour, instead opting to bring your hate to the one ship class you do not play. And again, you do not speak for "everyone" as I don't have the fun sucked out of it whenever I face a CV while not in one, hell for many of my ships NOT having one reduces my ships utility in the battle by a lot. Because unlike some I don't just look at the gameplay as being for me only, but actually speccs ships to account for what a team needs. Being less selfish might be an idea to try for you.

Same nonsense as expected. Keep asking for CV nerfs, pretends he doesn't ask for them. Cherry pick ships to compare, defines ships as "op" whenever it's needed, not when it's actually justified, just because his arguments needs them to be. Particularly, but not surprisingly, hypocritical (besides the strawman) to pretend I only want one player to have an advantage, as you keep demanding one of them to lose every advantage. As for your first post, it's full of ideas who are incredibly bad, which again is unsurprising from someone who clearly have no idea how CVs actually work. /and no, he does not have "below average WR" in those ships, there are no ships with that high averages.

No, you have give your opinions, this does not make them "valid" for other people by default. And talking about "cry babies" as one talks like you is just ridiculous. And no, not playing a ship DOES mean you lack understanding, even worse it means you have a skewed one sided idea where you only see what they do to you, and never experience the frustrations and limitations they have. And it is very much applicable as much as your attemp at refuting that person over his CV stats were.

Actually the only thing it proves that a very good player (he's not in any way "mediocre" in other ships, indeed he's as good or better than you) has a positive effect on his teams chances to win. He's within 1% win ratio on his two most played ships, one being a CV and the other a BB. His third most played has the same WR as your own fiji. Unlike you, he's just the sort of player who plays ALL sorts, and thus isn't in your biased position of "I don't play them, so nerf them". And again, no one is saying CVs don't have a higher impact, or somewhat larger effect, but not enough to not be justified given the games design and other CV limitations (nevermind the already dwindling relative population of players still playing them). /btw, your stats prove you have no idea what you're talking about when talking about CVs, yet you keep pretending you do. Using others peoples statistics while whining that people refer to your completely lacking experience isn't that just a little hypocritical... just maybe?

The only DDs that would be affected much would be the ones trying to play them as torp spammers from long range or from the flank. Ie, not the ones pushing caps. If anything it would mean DMs wouldn't also be fielding sonars (because why not) and CAs wouldn't be able to specc out of every AAA skill just to reduce radar CD, add radio location etc. Nice straw man. And given how your answer is just "maybe you are wrong" instead of actually trying to use you know.. facts or even your opinion based on little experience at these tiers and even less in CVs, then yes it's becoming clear at which position you are now. No, arguing when you only have your biases opinion against actual realities doesn't work. You really are better of sticking your fingers in your ears. "ofc it is" really is how those with total bias talks after all.

Except BBs wouldn't be smoked within radar ranges, but sit behind to be able to delete those trying to push to radar them. Indeed the changes to smoke and just one BB is what allows CAs to actually push to use radar in CWs at the moment. And a Zao, while not great, is a very passable AAA ship, with detection range from the air close to max AAA range, meaning you cannot very easily just drop a plane on it to permaspot it. And again, in CW it shouldn't ever have to defend itself alone against air attack. And I'm not trying to change your mind, it's pointless to try to change the minds of people like you, but you can make sure others understand where you're wrong.

Or if they added more BBs they would just sit in a blob exchanging fire from 20km, you cannot deny this. Or if they hadn't nerfed smoke just before CW you'd only see massive smoke clouds filled with BBs, you cannot deny this. And a ship going wide isn't going to be "picked off instantly", you actually have to have ships close enough to kill them. Also you ignore how this means that #1 Your own CV isn't paying attention and #2 That CV would then dedicate squads to follow it leaving it more vulnerable or less effective elsewhere. Also, the lack of CVs also means the ship balance get twisted by itself, favouring ships with no inherent advantage against AAA, or allowing some ships to specc for everything as the usual opportunity cost is removed. Here's a tip, there's a CV on BOTH teams. Two non potato BBs invariably mostly counters each other in such scenarios. Realisticly, what you'd get would be hakus (and the odd midway) with AS loadouts because every other loadout leaves you with an opposing CV who can dedicate enough fighters to cover yours, and have enough spare to stop any attack. Also, there's another issue with the far smaller CV playing population, especially for t10, for my own clan with our moderately small amount of members, and even fewer doing CW, I'd be the only available, which would make it very impractical to plan CW on days where I cannot justify dedicating my evening for it.

Hilariously clueless and biased. Still, it also argues directly against what most CV haters try to say is the issue, "they're so hard that a good CV player automaticly dominates a bad one" so there's that at least.. Still, you get 1 derp point for doing the ridiculous "Hey guys, don't people hate artillery in wot? I'll just pretend they're similar so then people will automaticly hate them too! I'm sure noone ever tried that here before! Just because the actualy similar class in this game are BBs is no reason not to try this stupid trick right?"

Which you can as easily give the "one BB" rule credit for. Mind you, in a 7v7 at t10 it's a VERY different sort of game from 7v7 at t8 or lower. I'd have wanted CVs there, but maybe adjusted a bit for the lower player count (dropping total squads in the air by ~40% and total reserves in a somewhat similar fashion). Using the inane roundabout logic that "WG doesn't want CVs in 7v7 battles means CVs in 12v12 is OP" (while you just happen to forget they capped BBs at one and not discuss if this shows BBs as op) just shows you're only here to try to make that point, not actually discuss their merits in CW.

And as usual you fail to grasp the actual point. Now try for once to stick on topic.

"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

And why are you convinced you are right, do you have anything but your personal bias as proof?

Utter bollocks.

Sure, and then you just have to rebalance every other ship, taking away one possibility of variety from what they have, remove float planes.. sure, "easy". And of course you could edit your comment and replace CV with any other ship class and it'd make as much sense.

Lets just find just two examples (there are more) "Carrier tiers? Could not care less. I still remember what a completely retarded OP crap carriers were once. They are stll not balanced and need more nerfs to be brought in line with the other classes." "Carrier tiers? Could not care less. I still remember what a completely retarded OP crap carriers were once. They are stll not balanced and need more nerfs to be brought in line with the other classes." Comments which you then proceeded to defend: "Carrier tiers? Could not care less. I still remember what a completely retarded OP crap carriers were once. They are stll not balanced and need more nerfs to be brought in line with the other classes." So, not only do we have people calling CVs "OP", we have YOU refering to those posts. The question then only becomes, have you merely "forgot" you read these comments and "mislaid" your reading aids or are merely entirely dishonest? And his example was about EXPERIENCE, attacking the example for not being explicitly the same is thus an amazingly silly excuse And so very simplisticly and stupidly you just redefine battles to where the CV that was on the winning team was "dominating" thus you can always have the team with the "dominating" CV win battles. Talk about having no arguments indeed.

Sorry, but this is just wrong. I could post endless screenshots of battles where I dominate the opposing CV at t8-9 yet cannot carry the battle. This is particularly noticeable at t8 where you get uptiered so extremely often, but also at t9. You don't need a huge amount of AAA ships to lock down a t8-9 CV (it does get harder against a t10 relatively speaking), hell for a t8 CV many t8-9 BBs are either a death zone, or will give you heavy losses even sailing entirely alone (far too much to be something you can afford to do early in a match). 2-3 decent AAA ships can make any approach on the enemy team more or less fruitless. And on top of this you have opposing CV fighters. Oh and sorry, but playing a stock t9 CV isn't going to tell you much, even a worse CV player has such a ridiculous raw statistic advantage to make any fight between you very unfair. But then this is just another issue CVs have worse than other ship classes. Though imo the skill level in players from t8-9 is also a fair step higher, partly a result of the lower popularity of CVs (in spite of their supposed dominance, going against anything you see in any game where the most OP things sees most play) but also partly due to the messed up earnings in higher tier CVs /oh btw, if anyone is going to go "but if you didn't carry then you didn't dominate the other CV so I'm still right", just leave the horrible little dishonest argument at home

I realise you struggle to follow a discussion, or you just don't care about being honest but.. Yes.. only selfish players would look at the game going "I want divs who I use to stay, but CVs who I don't want to get nerfed". And in this thread it's clear who is who. Also, 60 battles in a t4 CV and a very few in 5-6 is what I actually specified as "barely or not playing CVs". So your point here is.. well, meaningless (also desperate and dishonest in ignoring what I actually said). And yes, if someone who does not play DDs but do play BBs want DDs gone, then yes that IS VERY MUCH SELFISH. It's also ever so common on this forum or in game. It's actually very telling how after the first massive CV nerfs the BBabies switched to crying about DDs and torps, until we got to the point where BBs are half the ships queuing for battle because every counter that was effective against them (aside from other BBs) have gotten nerfed into oblivion. And today we're at a point where barely anyone can manage to find a way to justify crying about non BBs. Also, again, if you actually were less interested in just pretending others were wrong without actually backing it up (while defending one line insulting threadjackers), and took a look at what CV players are saying, you'd see them ALSO BEING ANNOYED AT AAA MECHANICS. But that would get in the way of your bias wouldn't it. It's telling how you only see things from the CV-hater side though. You see the passive AAA as an issue for you only, and totally ignore how those mechanics are at your advantage just as often, if not more often. Just as expected from people who #1 Lack the experience to know and #2 Has a bias that makes them look at things black and white only.

No, merely looking at things from one side is NOT enough. You don't see the frustrating games where you're locked out of most of the game due to AAA bubbles that kills entire strike packages in seconds, or even single ships who can sail solo and still be nigh unattackable. You don't experience a messed up UI which can mean you lose entire squads to strafing even if what you see on screen should have a very different result. And you also don't properly learn how to counter CVs if you never learn their shortcomings. Few people play only CVs, but many never play them at all, leaving those who do play them at a significant advantage in avoiding their attacks due to this experience. And of course, if you DO play them, unlike those of you that barely if ever do, you don't just look at them as "these things can sink me, and since I don't play them I want them gone". Ie, the most selfish kind of bias. As for your story, anyone can make up one, or refer to similar stories in other ships. And "just baiting out" def fire means you stay inactive for a minute, which other ship gets to be locked down for a minute just because an opposing ship pressed a button? Nor can you really "bait out" a smart DM, since even without it he'll slaughter t8-9 planes easily, and has the range to protect himself and others while waiting for you to be well within its range before popping it. And of course, things like the Mino who can swat planes like flies from within smoke, just soon not out in the open well before being spotted himself. It's also hilariously hypocritical to pretend others are only using insults, since it's so easy to scroll back in this thread to see who entered it only actually spewing ad hominems. And it's true that those who got called it did it (or directly quoted and defended those who did), again just scroll back in the thread. And again, referring to less than a handful of people out of hundreds of thousands as relevant to game balance is just an absurdity. Does having a CV in a div make them even more able to carry? Sure, but only a few % over those without, unlike divisions themselves which can get them 20-25% higher WRs. Also you have no proof of your "75% people suddenly getting 85% with a CV" claim. And of course you can't "see" any fix for divs, because again it's something you yourself benefit from. As for how we got here. The initial post was hyperbole clearly, as I and other CV players here have said already (something you forgot to pay attention to). However "we got here" after a certain couple rampant CV haters came along to post one line insults and trolling, you know, the type you're pretending we use, in their usual attempt to sideline any actual discussion and make it into a CV v anti CV flamewar. And people like you then jumped in to defend him instead of being objective about the actual topic. The difference is, I can look at the OP and think "ok, that's not really a solid argument" even as someone who do play CVs (even just as my 4th most played class, and the only class I still don't have a t10 in) and point that out, and I don't defend him "just because". While some here looking at someone coming in with his one note "cv apologists" crap goes into full "he also dislikes/hates CVs I have to defend his insults" mode.

Or you just define the DDs you hit as having misplayed, and those you miss as playing well.

As an added bonus, for the next two months we will be getting even more high tier ships specced entirely out of AAA due to CW.