AndyHill

OP never said anything about devstrikes, you're the only one who mentioned anything about those. And they are very rare indeed. As for what the BB should be more afraid of, here's the average damages and average spotting for CVs: If I'm a BB that looks far, far scarier to me than anything DDs bring to the table.

If we take a look at what reality is actually like, this is what the lowest 17 average damages (rightmost column) at T10 look like: As we can see, in reality torp boats do less than 60k (or less than 50k excluding Somers) per battle, which is less than half of one BB with heals. Even if we only look at unicum-level players they do about 10k on top of the average. Among DDs, it's the gunboats (and the steel ship) that actually top the damage scores. DDs devstriking BBs left and right every match is a myth. And more often than not it's the bright red tomato king Captain Broadside who munches on all the fish.

So what's the ultimate CW CV meta like at the moment?

That's way too binary thinking. There is no single group of "people who hate carriers" who either play 100% or don't. Many have left entirely, many are playing less (including me) and definitely paying less (definitely including me).

When conditions are favorable, WoWS is still a pretty darned good game and the hope of getting one of those decent matches still makes you click battle after everything we've been through. The situation is also somewhat maddening. Of course WG is entirely focused on making money, but making the game better is a big part of it. Carriers are such a small niche within the game that the amount of money they bring in can't possibly compensate for the harm they do. In this regard the playerbase and WG share the same goal, it's likely that the real problem lies somewhere in the middle management where someone's ego or/and job is on the line for too big promises on the carrier rework. And poking at the sore is the only thing we can really do so that's what we do.

I was kind of thinking that Flamu might have been exaggerating when he claimed that Deadeye removal was going to be a cash grab because WG did say that skill changes would come with free resets, but seeing how badly the whole thing is being handled makes me think we probably wouldn't even get Deadeye resets without all the fuss around it.

I frankly didn't quite understand what you meant by passive play in defending (which is kind of obvious in itself I think). The point is that every mechanism adds or reduces passive play, it's not binary. The inherent design in the game - as well as most others - favors passive play due to simple logic. Then there are game mechanics on top of this basic fact that either reduce or increase passiveness in the base design. Usually they are of course designed to favor aggressive play just because of this. These are all examples of mechanisms designed to reduce the passiveness inherent in the design, just like cover, concealment and most importantly capturable objectives in WoWS. Yes. But much less. Which is the point. Carriers spot about double the amount DDs do, so if that's your measure for passive play CVs are twice as bad - not including their ability to do damage (again twice the amount of DDs) while completely mitigating cover. The Kleber was actually chased away by the carrier so you had little to no vision and nobody scouting torps. That's what CV counterplay is supposedly supposed to look like, BTW. Passive play did not come with any of those things. But all of those things (well carriers existed from the start rework didn't change it that much) increase passive play and if they are changed, the meta becomes less passive. A specific question: If the design is so inherently passive, how did the reds manage to push and take the cap? Also: If you are 5 ships vs 2, what changes in the core design that enables you to go aggressive?

Again, it's not binary. Pushing is harder than defending in this game as in many others (and reality), which creates passive play. However, there are mechanisms that can generate MORE or LESS passive play, which is the point of the discussion. In your screenshot for example the Kleber is in a carrier countering position, which deprives your team of vision and moves the "frontline" towards you (which can be considered aggressive by the red team). Also evident is a smoke spammer (possibly a DM, which is a far greater threat than any torpedoes btw) and a radar, which will lock the cap down for your team pretty effectively. In fact your team's lack of radar will allow the reds to push in and take the cap, so the fight is going to be pretty difficult for your team. It would be interesting to see the replay if you still have it, but that situation looks fairly typical for the game. As for the carrier's role as far as pushing goes - He can easily turn that flank's 3v3 into a 3v4 unless of course your carrier decides to participate - He can make sure you stay spotted at all times and prevent you from disengaging - He can torp you and keep you flooded easily if you have to angle towards the Monty or DD torps (he can bomb or rocket you whenever regardless) - He can bully the Kleber around making sure your team doesn't get good vision (was the Kleber pushed initially out of the cap by CV or the DM?) None of the above is the one and only reason you'll have a hard time pushing in, but all of them contribute to making it harder.

Why is that Kleber hugging you like he wanted to drop a smoke?

Not only that, but especially when within effective range of enemy ships, anything that works against ships is usually a misplay against planes and vice versa. This creates an actual screwed if you do, screwed if you don't -situation when trying to be aggressive in a carrier game.

What should happen to someone who overextends, then?

If they can see them, if there are no obstacles in the way. And the same in reality. It's common that the one getting spotted is close to the enemy and potentially attacking. This is especially true in games like WoWS where everyone has ranged weapons. You still get passive plays without CVs, but you get more passive play with them. Not binary. Was there some kind of protection for pushing or how did the not knowing protect the people pushing? As for the submarines, I anticipate them becoming something like minefields to avoid - one more reason to hang back - but that remains to be seen. Attacking is by default more difficult in general (and especially in this game) unless conditions favor the attacker. In reality for example as a rule of thumb you want 3:1 odds for a ground assault to have a good chance of success. In WoWS these favorable conditions are basically cover and concealment, which work against battleships and destroyers, but not against carriers. Tanks as a special class and healers helping them are one way to mitigate the intrinsic problem of pushing into an enemy and getting focused. In WoWS that role is given to concealment and cover, so anything that negates those makes the meta more passive.

Yes you do. People shoot the target they can hurt, not the one they can't. Also in reality. Because pushing is harder than defending and very risky, since vulnerable targets tend to get concentrated by everyone who can shoot at them. You have to look beyond binary choices, those rarely exist in anything. Simply reducing factors that make the meta passive does not necessarily make it hyperaggressive all of a sudden, just less passive. Submarines are too slow to flank, they will congregate near objectives, where enemy ships need to push into them - if they dare. Thus far submarines have been pretty much like slow, extreme concealment zero gunpower ambush-based DDs and that doesn't sound like something that would encourage more aggression. Attacking is more difficult in pretty much any combat game I've tried, because it is so in reality, for very simple logical reasons. What causes more passive or more aggressive play is precisely the point, since the core design is what it is, basically inevitably so. So that's why you'd send the healers or DPS dudes to rush in first in those other games?

Of course it matters, because that's how the game works. And focusing the easiest target is not really a part of this game's design, it's an implicit rule in basically every combat game of any kind as well as reality. Of course everyone shoots the target they can kill, not the one they can't hurt. That's always going to be the case and there is no way around it, so it's a moot point. What actually matters is the incentive for pushing. Basically this game usually has objectives near the front lines, which makes people push forwards. Then again, aggressive ambush positions are also usually near the action where you can create crossfires. Then it's all about stuff that enables people to push and tilts the risk/reward ratio more in favor of the latter. Best examples of this are probably concealment and cover in the forms of islands that help you maneuver so that you can control the amount of incoming fire or disengage if things get too hot. Incidentally, carriers destroy both of these since you can get spotted anytime anywhere and hugging islands - which is usually necessary when making aggressive plays - is like a dinner bell to a carrier. It is true that in this game as in reality, pushing is harder than defending. That's why stuff like Thunderers, Smolensks, carriers, deadeye, castrated secondaries and with all probability sooner or even sooner submarines are so harmful to the meta. They are all things that make pushing even more dangerous than it would be otherwise and/or camping more profitable and powerful.

On another note; one thing I've noticed throughout the years is that after a lot of talk about how carriers create a more challenging environment, the argument for carriers ends up being that they actually take skill out of the game and that's somehow a good thing. I happened on Ahskance's stream just as he too basically said just that. If some of you guys agree with that can I just ask why and what's left of the game if making good tactical moves is not an option? Loud sounds and neat explosions? Here's the clip: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1011222192?t=01h12m30s

If that BB is unspotted he's fine and can disengage. It looks more like that DD can keep him lit, though, in which case the BB made a miscalculation and is now paying for it - as it should be. Pushing is not an either-or -thing. There are a number of factors one needs to guesstimate before making a choice on the appropriate level of aggression. The most important factors are concealment and cover (basically the ability to control the situation with intelligent positioning), both of which are much less of a thing when carriers are in play.

(emphasis mine) The entire game for all kinds of ships is all about balancing the risk/reward relationship. You get results by taking risks - which is good design in general - and the better you are at it, the better you do in the game. The worst possible position for a torp DD is somewhere where there is no risk involved. And again we can look at actual facts (from proships.ru, EU server last month results): - With the exception of Somers that beats Moskva and Nevsky, DDs are all at the bottom of the damage dealing department - In survivability DDs tend to be towards the bottom of the spectrum with Somers and Småland being the only ones in the better half of the list The myth of the untouchable lone ninja DD torping everything in full control of the situation is just that, a myth. DDs are a very powerful class of ships due to their cap and vision control, but they pay for that by low damage ability and very risky gameplay in general. Are there statistics for this - it could be really interesting? I only played carriers on the test server and didn't have much trouble with BBs. It is absolutely relevant to this case. You brought up the DD to BB interaction as an example of one class being able to damage the other without taking any risks, but if you look at the actual statistics (damage and survival rates) as well as the implications of the BB AP vs DDs nerf, the actual reality is that at least before the nerf the interaction between those ships in most of the actual gaming situations was so lopsided in favor of the BBs that WG resorted to rather drastic measures to help the DDs. In reality, properly played DDs in normal gameplay situations got shot at and damaged by BBs so much that WG stepped in to help them. And as we all know, that is not the case at all in the interactions between CVs and other ships. I don't really know what the situation is at the moment, it would be potentially interesting to see if you have relevant statistics from more modern era. Would you consider carriers a powerful unit if all they could do was to knock turrets and torp tubes out temporarily (and perhaps sometimes permanently)? As above, this is basically fantasy. DDs do the least damage and are typically the least survivable class. In reality they take more risks than any other class in order to be effective - and trying to do damage from stealth is actually usually not a very effective way to play them to begin with.

These encounters are very rare and usually result from moves made by you and your opponent. With carriers it's almost without exception one sided and by design. Torp DD vs a battleship is the most common example and also a pretty good one. For example in 1v1 it was far from a done deal when a DD had to fight a BB for caps. The DD has to land torps (one of the least effective weapons in the game in general), since they usually can't take on a BB in a straight fight. In randoms T10 torp DDs typically do about half the damage of a T10 BB (without significant healing and not all of that is to BBs), so the absolute deletions are necessarily somewhat rare. Lastly, what do you think is the main reason BB AP's effect against DDs was massively nerfed some time ago?

The really interesting question about all the matchmaking rigging theories is "why". What is the benefit WG get from rigging matches? Obviously the rigging has now made one of their loyal customers very unhappy and less likely to spend money on the game, has it made many more happier and more likely to spend in return? How? Anyway, I'm a bit bored and I'd like to take a look at them and see if I can get any of my stats things to work with a replay to see who the players are and what the odds were at the start and then how the match went. Drop 10 latest qualifying games and I'll take a look, not promising anything but if I find something interesting I'll let everyone know.

The biggest problem with manual AA is that it doesn't do anything to change the fact that no matter how well you hit the planes it's still a question of how much damage the carrier does to you and the best you can hope for is to not take damage while your opponent doesn't take any damage either. Frankly I'd rather just not bother focusing on that kind of an interaction and I'm kind of happy that the AA does its thing on its own, while I concentrate on actually playing the game and fighting other boats.

You literally said The difference there is that the thing you compared carriers to is actually not possible in the game. It's true that 10k damage is 10k damage, except that I wouldn't actually take that 10k from the Kremlin in that situation (because the situation is not possible). In fact since I'm a good player I would probably do much more than that to him and win instead of getting chunked. Matchmaking can screw you, but statistically the reds get screwed more, equally or less depending on your skill. And if you spec a high tier captain and equip your ship well enough, that's enough to guarantee your enemies will never have much of an advantage against you to begin with.

The thing is, a Kremlin alone can't spot you from 20km away behind an island and attack you unspotted. That is completely impossible in this game. To do that he needs help from his teammates (and odds are that the one enabling his shot is of the class that does double the spotting of the next best spotters), whereas a carrier has no such limitations. Also if a ship positions well and blabs you he probably played the game better than you with the same tools that are available to you, so he kind of got the better of you in a fair contest. I'm kind of ok with that when that happens.

Isn't this example kind of loaded, though? If you have a Kremlin behind a rock his guns can't shoot through it and even if they can shoot over it, the Kremlin can't see you if he's also unspotted.

what the actual Just a few examples of how ships risk losing dpm: - Being dead drops your dpm to zero for good - Not being in range of anything drops your dpm to zero - Not being able to spot anything to shoot drops your dpm to zero - Having islands or other stuff block your shots drops your dpm to zero - Getting your turrets or torpedo launchers knocked out momentarily drops your dpm for a while <- this is what carriers also suffer from (in fact the only thing) and what makes their life soooo miserable - Getting your turrets and torps destroyed drops your dpm for good - Having so many red ships in range that you need to stay concealed to not get killed drops your dpm to zero - Losing your hitpoints so that you don't dare to get spotted drops your dpm to zero The only reason losing planes feels like such a big deal is because it's literally the only thing that limits carriers in any way. Most ships for example can't even start to engage before several minutes into the game purely because of range, positioning and spotting. Then the rest of their game is literally spent on trying to compete for locations and spots to keep their and their teammates' dpm higher than the red team's. Pretty much the entire game is all about using all means available to you to not lose too much dpm. So I ask again, what the actual

You literally just said it yourself: And that's actually exactly the point. When DDs or any other surface ship is the best spotting platform, they take risks to get those spots and compete for it. They don't choose to have an accident, they choose to take a risk to get a reward and evaluating those risks is one of the most important skills in the game. DDs also do the least damage of any class in the game and they are vulnerable, which compensates for their ability in spotting and cap control. Additionally you can use islands and stuff to control the reds' opportunities for spotting, which is another big part of the game.