KurtVonSteiger

LOL!....you expect people to provide proof to back up " this class/ship is OP,"..... This is the Internet - we don't let things like facts and proof get in the way of our indisputable wisdom and knowledge.

'Seal clubbing' , although a seperate topic is a lot harder to deal with as a lot of it is some people's desire for stats over all (stat padding) and means that they will always go for the ship/class regarded as OP and will target the weakest/ newest players. Currently in T4 a CV clubber will do well but that is not specificly a CV issue rather an individual player issue.

Unfortunately certain peoples attitudes seem to be rigidly set in regards to certain ships/ classes - as I have said before we are still in a testing phase and just about to get large numbers of players to generate a larger database of results to enable better adjustments of ship stats and gameplay. expressing concern and pointing out imbalance is fine but this whole "kill it, kill it with fire!" Mentality is not helpful....as the Devs have stated play the games and we will review the results and adjust accordingly - is this so hard to understand? I think this thread has probably gone about as far as it can due to the implacable attitude of the Remove CV's camp. And let me save some of you the trouble of looking - I have played a few games with CV's and I suck...I now mainly play BB's and Cruisers ( and still suck!)

Perhaps this will put to bed the whole CV players are low risk/ hide at the back of the map/ are cowards! Any navy that deployed carriers did so with the carriers in the centre of a defensive series of concentric rings of cruisers and destroyers often with Battleship support due to their great strategic importance and HIGH risk as the enemy's highest priority target. Sailing a huge ship with virtually no armour and only small calibre guns at the front line is not their best use

Let's try not to get personal about this! i have not found anyone who denies that CV's need some tweaks and that, for whatever deity you believe in's sake is the whole point of this TEST ( in caps to remind some people that this is still supposed to be a test!) heated, even passionate discussion is what the forum is for but calling for CV's to be removed is somewhat unrealistic and will just polarise the player base and confuse the new players - instead we should be arguing about HOW to balance CV's within acceptable limits.

The game still needs a lot of balancing and I think almost everyone can agree on that - Cleveland, I'm looking at you! but it's far to early in the game to remove an entire class of ships.....even AW included arty despite all the WoT haters and why? - because some players want to play arty and they think it can be balanced. so, let's just give it a chance to improve rather than just scrap it ( not that I honestly think WG ever will!)

I am certainly not denying the need for a bit of a re balance but consider the following: When your in a Bb with slow speed and maneuverability and get hit by 2 destroyers (or two cruisers or two battleships ) attacking from both sides doesn't matter if you see them unless RNjesus loves you then you are dead....so, we get rid of CV's and who's next?

Unless the RNjesus smiles on you any more skilful player you meet is most likely to eat your lunch ( in any class vs class ) as they know what they are doing - therefore by most reasoning shown by newbies their ship is OP. Re CV's the thing that kills most newbs (and I still include myself in this class) is target fixation or tunnel vision. When in battle you focus on your target NOT the mini map and it's this lack of situational awareness that gives the CV it's golden opportunity - of course a very skilled CV driver will still cause you grief but not paying attention sets you up for a fall!

This is because human nature and ego is such that "I can not possibly be bad at this, therefore it is broken/ op/hacks!" As opposed to "I suck and need to learn from my mistakes/others!" anyone remember when when the closed beta began and some beta testers were telling the alphas they were wrong after a whole 10 battles?

Most likely outcome is just negative reps when the WoT window licking crowd arrives....."you sunk my ship-nice hack!" Etc. it is what it is!

Just view it as WG gave you a free slot and some credits if you hate the ship. As a cheap Captain trainer it's ok and certainly not dreadful if handled properly - of course if you come up against a very skilled player it will struggle but that can be said for quite a few ships! The terms and conditions for the Beta were clear with no promise of ANY reward so we all came out ahead with regards to this.

Was lucky enough to make the 10% so a nice starter for the new grind - just sorry to see someone is unhappy that they didn't get everything as a reward for getting the chance to play a new game before the vast majority.

Personally, I would rather have voice prompts INSTEAD of all the on screen markers....more immersive and less noob friendly as you will have to pay attention to all the crew input rather than just look at all the helpful icons on screen. having both voice and icons IS less skill oriented but I can see everything moving towards full on noob friendly so I doubt things will revert. In reply to a previous post, you would have warning of incoming fire - the lookouts and the Captain would be watching for the flash of the enemy firing and alter course before the incoming shells arrived!

As mentioned by previous posters at times the Audio stutters/slows right down usually when there is a lot of action on screen. Not sure if only available at higher levels but the BB's damage control icon is not selectable (letter obscured, not activated by keyboard)

Perhaps limiting the number of fires to 1 would be a fairer solution?, that way if a BB is set on fire and uses his repair skill to extinguish and another fire is started by HE the BB will continue to burn until the repair skill cool down expires thus getting the continual fire damage in addition to the hit damage. It's just the stacking of fire up to 3 x that is OP. A cruiser (usually) has superior speed and mobility to go along with a greater rate of fire and if handled correctly can do significant damage or even sink a poorly handled battleship but they were never designed for or expected to go one on one with a battleship and saying ''But game balance'' is missing the point for this game - tactics and teamwork rather than ''game balance '' should be used instead - e.g 2 cruisers in concert vs 1 battleship or controlling the engagement to remain at maximum range thus being better able to dodge the bb's return fire whilst using your superior rate of fire to wear the bb down.

All very interesting and amusing, People STILL trying to get testers to breach NDA and lots of upset over preliminary and quite possibly incorrect stats - at least people got to play HMS Warspite before the rage posts began. I appreciate that we have a passion for the game and our favourite ships (in or coming to the game) but at the end of the day it is a game and thus no one ship is going to dominate all others and it is going to be this that makes or breaks the game. In WoT as everything is based on alpha massive calibre guns are the way to go if you want to win but so far WoWS is far more diverse and long may it remain so!

Can you at least stop making arbitrary statements without thinking things through? The ship(s) with the greatest speed controls the engagement...a 20 knot BB can not close the range with a 30 knot cruiser if the cruiser wishes to stand off. Also, if the game spawns you in a more unfavourable position relative to the enemy deployment good luck getting out of the way with that 10 knot disparity. Of course, sometimes BB captains make mistakes and get in a bad place but as per the above sometime ship happens! So, don't be so quick to say it is always the BB's fault!

If I get sunk tomorrow I shall be the first to post the "OMG! - this patch ruined the game "

First off, stop for a second and reflect on the fact that you are arguing with extremely experienced testers who have been playing for many months before you even entered the game.....second, think before making arbitrary statements that are in fact completely untrue eg. 'Turning away is DOING IT WRONG!' - in fact you either turn into or AWAY from torpedoes depending on angle of travel (whatever direction is faster to achieve 0 degrees or 180 degrees relative to the incoming torpedoes - head on or directly astern) edited as a bit too early in the morning for me! :-)

Personal observations: benefits of this mod - higher chance of first shots fired hitting, targeting otherwise concealed players (max range, behind Islands etc.) improved chance of citadel hits. negatives of this mod - toxic effect on the player base. "Was it skill or a mod?" Conclusion - provides an advantage to (a good percentage of) players. Feedback from testers: Although there has been some impassioned responses the feedback has been in the majority for the mod being disabled New testers do have a right to an opinion on this despite perhaps not fully understanding the game mechanics. However, when the response from the Alpha testers is also in the majority for the mod being disabled this leads to understandable concern that perhaps a more positive response from WG should have occurred sooner. It seems that patch 3.1 might see the end to this mod but is a shame that the poison spread by this has done so much damage to a potentially great game.

HMS Warspite and KMS Scharnhorst if you want to get picky!....the range part is immaterial but the fact that the 14" has range and pen shows that it is hardly a step back to WW1. Since when the range is established salvos are usually fired a 10 shell straddle is more likely to score a hit than an 8 shell .

You do know that at 22.8km the 14" had greater penetration than the 15" gun right? Not to mention greater max range....not really a step backwards, greater pen plus 2 extra guns seems a step forwards to me!

As per the post title I wish to ask some of the player base to actually stop for a few moments and look at the existing topic threads before starting yet another 'OMG - this ship is crap!' Currently for example we have four or five topics in the English section all arguing about HMS Warspite for example and the forum is getting very cluttered. Also, I would ask those players to actually pause for a moment before hammering out another impassioned argument and remember that we are in fact Beta testing the game and pretty much every aspect of the game is potentially subject to changes before we reach the Open beta (and of course long after that!) If your favourite ship is not performing a it should - keep playing it, so the Devs can get some hard numbers relating to the ship's actual combat efficiency - a large pool of data showing poor win rates will get a tweak or two. Shouting how bad it is as it does not meet your expectations or fit your play style is not as effective! Remember as this is a TEST and all stats will be wiped for Open beta win rates are meaningless ( I will now hunker down and await the inevitable flaming these comments will attract!)

Thank you - reasonable and rational answers!....just frustrated and feeling slightly guilty as a lot of the 'OMG - this is crap' posts seem to originate from Beta testers and was hoping they might read and reflect. Passionate responses are fine but arguments need to be rational - I am a Brit and of course I greatly admire the RN but that isn't a guarantee of Best in Show! Same for when we get the German tree and the US BB's - there was no overall best as each nation fielded some fine ships (and some not so fine! )

As I have replied to another similar post, WG needs to use either Historical data OR gameplay balance as currently using both is leading to loads of rage posts. If you balance for gameplay that is fine and everyone can accept it (but you do get a distorted view of the ships performance) If you use historical data, also fine but we must live with the inevitable butt hurt of finding our most cherished ships are not as good as we imagined them to be - obviously ref WoWS this might mean some adjustments to tier levels. Using both...well, as is human nature people are always going to complain about any perceived nerf, so saying stat x is historical but stat y is for balance leads to the inevitable "but historically......!" response. Add national pride and things get heated very quickly.