AgarwaenME

It's sort of a stupid cycle. Things are done that makes CVs less welcoming to play-> fewer people learn how to handle attacks from CVs and fewer people specc up their ships and captains to handle them-> even more gets surprised when CVs do appear in battles and ends up taking advantage of this lack of skill and loadouts-> those people go on forums to complain. Thus you end up in a situation more than 2 years after launch with people talking as if CVs are exactly like they were back then.

First of all, you're just inventing the "so easily shut down", as this isn't something "easily done". Unsurprising claim coming from someone who don't actually play the ships he pretends to know about. And a haku "instakilling" anyone the way you claim, nevermind 3 ships in a row including a DM? Either just a lie, possible you not actually understanding what happened at all. Possible sure, as possible as a t10 DD deleting 3 ships in 10 minutes worth of play, but not something (given the unverified truthiness to it) to talk about beside as a little story. Still, I can make up any story I want just to make CVs look UP so who cares what sort of story you present? The point is, which you keep ignoring because it breaks up your biased view, is that divisions matters a LOT MORE than the ship class you play. And the people you point at that also plays other ships, are also unicums in those. And these people division with other unicums. And it's not about people calling you whiners or flamers, it's about people whining and flaming, and getting called out for doing it. Again, CVs are designed to have a somewhat larger impact. So you would expect to see unicum CVs in division with unicum AAA CAs to get a larger gap. If you then go on to pick people who only play in a manner designed to never, ever have a "hard" fight (as in, being amongst the first people to level up CVs after CBT, thus barely if ever being the underdog then, and now more or less only playing as a t10 CV in an unicum division) then yes you'll see numbers that might shock you. OR you might just have been looking for numbers like these, no matter how irrelevant to 99.9999999999999999999% of players (see I can pull hyperbolic numbers out of my posterior too) just to have something "shocking" to point at.

Again, the SAME "idiot(s)" are the SAME people who decided to not have CVs in CW. You can't both argue that they know what they're doing and are so clever and also should be fired. Which is why you decided to so childishly edit my post so you could pretend you didn't argue against yourself. Well I guess you can, because "honesty" is a foreign concept to you. Nor have you any way of justifying it as having cost WG money. Nor is who they're making most money from (even more so the absurd 99% number you pulled out of the same orifice you pull all your "numbers") in any way relevant to game balance.

They can because the game isn't a 1v1 game. A team can very much make up for a difference in CV player skill, but sadly they either spend their time whining at their CV instead of actually acting smart, or do as you and others here do, whine on the forum. A better CV player does not at all mean an automatic win, no matter how many here who claims it, since they just use the "that team won, so they had the best CV, and the best CV always win so that means the CV they had were the best" circular reasoning. Guess what, an unicum CV player can get screwed over by 2-3 enemy AAA ships placing themselves properly, or a crap one can get an enemy team spreading out across every corner of the map allowing him to farm damage even using auto drops. But these are things that takes ACTUAL experience in CVs to understand. Also, "but only most of my examples falls flat" isn't much of an excuse for continuing to pretend listing up top WR as relevant to game balance. Especially given an example that's played 1.3k 3 man division battles.. and SIX solo battles.

So you want CVs to be 4-5 per team like other ships are? You want even more nerfs to a class just because you don't play it? What sort of nonsense greedy selfish BS is that? Guess what, whenever I join a battle as bottom tier, or in a stock ship, or in any ship where the matchup is unfavourable (which also includes many matchups in CVs), I know I'm going to have a lower impact. You just cherry pick the one where it justifies rampant CV hate. And it's the SAME people you want fired, who decided to not have CVs in a 7v7 mode at tier 10 so that .. well I could call it an "argument" but it's not really up to what that word requires.. basicly counters itself.

No, your point was very clear. It was just a very bad point. If that was so hard for you to understand I'll make it clear to you. Feel free to actually look at one other important factor for all these people (well, actually two important ones, the second just isn't easy to know merely from those statistics). The first one being "divisions". These people are by and large playing 80-90% of the time in divisions. The second one is WHEN a lot of their games were played. Attempting to point at CVs win rates when a huge amount of those wins came BEFORE CV mirror MM as relevant to CVs today is either just ignorant about that point (which wouldn't be surprising from a new player like you, so that's excusable), or in the case of others here that knows better, just dishonest. Nor does anyone here say that CVs don't have a larger impact, especially given the smaller player base and larger skill gap. Just that this is by game design and CVs get other limitations hampering them (which clearly is evident by their low popularity, as in ANY game with one "superior" choice it more or less by default becomes the most popular choice, funny that). The real difference is that some actually do play CVs, understands these limitations and has no particular bias against them, and others barely if ever play them, fails to understand them and simply looks at them from the "I don't play them so nerf them" point of view. CVs are by design supposed to have a greater impact, thus the difference in WRs between good and bad CV players will be larger. This isn't some "shocking" reason to demand nerfs for CVs, it's patently obvious. The only real discussion is how large the difference should be, and how to better enable new (or bad) CV playes to up their game. Which is where those of us that have some interest in them have been asking for better changes, improved UI, more linear AAA progression or whatever else, and not stupid things like delaying the learning curve for basic skills until tier 6.

Because you balance the game over 10 people, right. Nevermind if cherry picking stats from people who merely replies in this thread is somehow relevant, we can start off by demanding nerfs on every ship you have that carries your WR more than the rest too right? No, wait, that's madness.

They seem to want the 1st april bath tub mode as the only way to play the game.

Again, trying to sidestep the CV hating threadjackers, and looking at this reasonably. Slightly better def fire on DDs is going to matter in only a few scenarios. Ie, when a lower (or same) tier CV gets into range of a t9-10 DD with defensive fire (or even the odd lower tier ones, but in those tiers they're far less prevalent as def fire has a higher opportunity cost, ie losing guns for it). What this means is that ships that before could easily take out a squad (or more) while it was up, can now drop twice that many. Effectively this was mostly noticeable if you took say, a t8 CVs planes and happened to get into range of some of these DDs. However with the added change to AAA spotting mechanics this might very well end up being mostly an even exchange. The DDs most favoured as targets by CVs are still in the same place, even slightly nerfed (I'd say Akizuki in particular as an example). Odds of dot stacking a DD to death is pretty low as it is, so that change is not relevant to any large extent. In the current meta the one ship class that could deserve some extra help vs CVs is indeed DDs so I'm not really opposed to DDs getting more means against them, however this is a bit rife with potential unforseen consequences if you do things like change torp spreads or the like. As for the AAA detection, as already said it's barely more than a fix and a normalisation of the mechanics to current spotting in general.

What strikes me most watching that battle, is how much the OP is focusing on "cheaters" instead of you know.. using his own DD in any sort of meaningful way to protect his team, even so far as spending 5-10 seconds extra to start firing on a DD in smoke he's spotting with hydro, because he's too busy typing his whines in chat.

Quite frankly, while it's nowhere need the attention CVs do need, the only issue there actually affecting CVs is making AAA behave similarly in relation to detection as ships now do. Dot stacking on DDs or CAs weren't really a important ability CVs ever had, and not having entire t8-9 strike packages deleted before you have any chance to move planes away from a hidden neptune/mino etc is certainly helpful in some situations, just without addressing the huge overall AAA power creep over the last 2 years.

Do you do nothing but post blitheringly inane whines?

Got nassau and st.louis cammos (from event containers), none of which I have in my port.

Except this change does nothing for the DDs that are the preferred targets. It only makes DDs who already had good AAA able to slaughter planes. The only real change is that it makes it a bit less of a cost to take def fire on the sub t9 USN DDs.

You mean, except actually being somewhere useful from the start instead of trying to get from the far corner of a map to cap.

That you're lying?

Except that's just not true at all, it's just your BB-ego getting away with you.

So we're back around to pretending any changes to BBs will cause BBs to camp again? As if bad BBabies needed an excuse to camp. Or an excuse to blame other for "abandoning" them as they do nothing to actually support their team, while pretending everyone else not a BB is there to "escort" them? It's also particularly amusing to see people refer to t10 battles earlier in WoWs history as "full off" shimakazes with "walls of skills" when even then BBs were more numerous, and doing more damage with their "salvoes of skill"...

Well, they could adjust CE to give 10% across every ship class. 10% of a BBs concealment is already a far larger buff, nevermind 14%.

Actually you can turn of chat. And while you're lookomg for how you can do that, google the word "hypocrisy".

It's been fairly consistent that you need, or would want, a higher tier ship to get free premiums during events. So while it certainly is harder than some here makes it sound it's fairly similar to other comparable things. And given the time allotted it should be very much doable even at t4-5. Smells a bit more of "but I want those extra containers, gib moar free stuff!".

And this is simply wrong. You can't just pretend you weren't making accusations because you added a question mark at the end, unless you're fox news level stupid. "Is Mandalorianer a mass murderer? Just asking a question." <- this is how stupid it sounds

Funny how some snowflake who thinks he deserves everything easy and cannot understand it's just him not doing well enough who stops him from getting what he wants opts to invent fiendish schemes that makes no sense in any sort of way. And no, a loaded question like that is not a "simple question" and you're not dumb enough to pretend it is. Well, maybe you are but I'm granting you reasonable doubt. If WG wanted to make it harder, they could do what you suggest, intentionally change the formula for a few days just for those who still haven't done that very doable task, risking bugs or other inconsistensies, or.. they could just increase the value required. Occams Razor applies.