G01ngToxicCommand0

the level of retarded players is beyond what I am willing to accept, there really is not point in playing a game where most players are low double digit IQ windowlickers.

CV bingo continues.

Date: 31st of may to 1st of June 1916: Location: The North Sea approximately 100 nm west of the coast of Jutland. 250 ships, of which are 44 dreadnought type battleships, 14 battlecruisers, 6 pre dreadnought battleships, 8 armoured cruisers, 37 light cruisers and 139 torpedoboote and destroyers plus 1 minelayer and 1 seaplane tender, engage in the largest ever battleship battle in the history of mankind leaving more than 8.500 dead in its wake. That sounds like a pretty monumental and important historic event. Another year has passed by and still Wargaming has not made any events or campaign related to the largest battleship battle in the history of mankind - but the Battle of Midway and Sink the Bismarck gets rerun after rerun... Wargaming: Can't you be bothered to commemorate this monumental naval battle or do you deliberately keep world war one battles out of World of Warships? I mean there must be a reason for not to commemorate this important and massive naval battle because it is not due to ignorance of history so why no event related to this battle?

I have played multiplayer games for more than 20 years and World of Warships is the only game I have played that gives a single player the power to force an entire team to play a certain way merely to survive. Yes multiplayer games requires a certain degree of teamwork and coorporation but succesful games do not allow for one single player to dictate how all other players have to play and succesful games allow for multiple ways of coorporation and teamwork that result in success - World Of Warships carriers remove the freedom of action from all non CV players by dictating how they have to play just to survive. As i said before no one pushes the battle button to play second violin for one player that has the power to dictate how all other players have to play. That is not a succesful strategy because it is not a reasonable approach to mulitplayer games where all players expect to play in a fair enviroment where all classes have an equal influence on the game outcome - carriers do not follow that basic premise by being so much more powerful than all other classes to the point that there are no counterplay to them in dictating the game flow. Having the power to strike with impunity and deleting even the largest ships in one wave of strike aircrafts simply do not belong in a single life game that last up to 20 minutes because of the unbalanced and unfair differences in game influence. If the average game time was 2-3 minutes such as CS:GO with that game's balance then no big deal with single shot deaths because there are just the one player class and the balance is around weapons and armour. WoWS on the other hand is unfair and unbalanced at its core which works in single player enviroments but is poison in multiplayer games and praising that kind of failed multiplayer mechanics is demonstrating a severe lack of understanding on how human psychology works and thus why the carrier class do not belong in the random game mode where the vast majority of players have zero motivation and/or interest in team work. If you really like the CV class so much perhaps you should stop playing WOWS and find a multiplayer game where the player base find it fun and engaging to be nuked with impunity by players doing nothing more than clicking their mouse buttons - WoWS is not one such game as the ultralow numbers of CV players prove and high number of anti CV topics on this very forum prove. Again there is nothing reasonable in having CVs is this game with the current mechanics and no other game that I know of have similar mechanics. Small player base should make it clear for all that WoWS is not appealing to the masses and having an unfair and unbalanced core design certainly do not help recruiting new players.

Again you sidestep and refuse to answer why it reasonable for one single player to hold that kind of power in a multiplayer game. Please answer my question and not your own question. Again, why is it reasonable for one single player to have the power to dictate how 11 other players have to play just to survive?

Let me reiterate since you are unable or unwilling to answer and please respond to my question: No reply as to why it is reasonable to have one player have so much influence that he can force how an entire team has to play just to survive?

For cruisers you forgot the Leander, 8.6km detection range and with that ship you almost don't need destroyers for objectives.

No reply as to why it is reasonable to have one player have so much influence that he can force how an entire team has to play just to survive?

1 BB vs 1 BB: winner is the most skilled player unless RNG screws it up. 1 BB vs 1 CV: CV wins every time unless the CV player is AFK. CV very balanced, not OP at all. Why is it reasonable that a single CV player should force a certain style of gameplay upon the entire enemy team sans the enemy CV? it isn't, because the game is not made to make 11 players to be support for one single player in a OP class so he can stroke his epeen in glee over striking defenceless targets with impunity and no sensible player will settle for playing second violin to a class whoe primary reason to be in the game is stat and winrate whoring.

In my experience most cross team chat is GL HF and most negative/toxic chat is within the team when it is losing. Also if words are hurting you perhaps online gaming is not for you?

Thank you for the answer.

Wargaming agrees that carriers as a class is OP, by your own arguments you agree that carriers as a class is OP, yet you keep saying that carriers are not OP. This is not logic. You are not presenting arguments based on logic or rational thinking, you are presenting arguments based on emotions, thus they are not arguments but emotions. That is getting really boring.

Please stop being dishonest with your argumentation. You again present carriers as being overpowered but yet claim that they are "only" overpowered when there are more than one on each side. Thus you keep stating that carriers are overpowered but you wont admit that is exactly what you are saying, instead you perpetuate the argument that carriers are balanced, when solo. not realising that your argument defines carriers as a class to be so powerful that it will break the game balance if more than one is on each team. That is the very definition of a class that is overpowered and to claim otherwise is at best dishonest.

You argument is not making any sense. Allow me to quote you again: Why would you want to limit carriers if you do not believe them to be OP yourself? From the above quote it is clear that you believe that carriers are OP and in need of limitations; this is why your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Let us compare that to this: The first quote clearly states that CVs as a class is not OP. The first quote clearly states that CVs as a class is OP. Obviously those two arguments are contradictory in nature but let us put those aside for the moment and look at what Wargaming's actions with regards to carriers in their game. From tier 4 to 7 there can be a maximum of 2 CVs per side From tier 8 to 10 there can be a maxium of 1 CV per side Carriers can not face other carriers there are more than 1 tier higher or lower From tier 4 to 5 carriers can not utilise the manual attacks From tier 8 carriers has access to defensive fire in order to discourage carrier sniping Have on numerous occasions received nerfs to strike power. Let us compare those to the other classes: Battleships: On all tiers with battleships there can be a maxium of 5 battleships Has on more than one occasion recieved buffs to AA. Cruisers: No known limitations Have received buffs to AA Destroyers: On all tiers with destroyers there can be a maximum of 5 destroyers. Have received buffs to AA. Wargaming's actions speak for themselves and they clearly state that they consider carriers to be overperforming compared to all other classes and not possible to balance with regards to other carriers more than 1 tier apart. There can be no other logical explanation, as to why Wargaming has placed so many nerfs and limitations on the CV class, other than Wargaming recognises the class as being OP rather than balanced or even UP. Let us once and for all bury the argument that carriers as a class are balanced or so UP that is in need of buffs in order to be balanced; Wargaming clearly views it to be OP so any argument that it is not is illogical and thus false by definition. The two quotes at the start are clearly contradicting themselves and really need no further comments other than the poster needs to make up his mind about what he believes to be the real case. Now why would anyone want buffs to the CV as a classe that is the question...

I did that once on the WOT forum - 1 month read only ban as reward for doing that given by the same moderator that I complained about.

With exception of the CV that game looked really good tbh.

Wargaming it took you 6 years to nerf arty in WoT - when do you plan to nerf carriers to the ground or remove them entirely because they are makingf it impossible to play at the moment and mine and all non CV players game experience is getting ruined by the clicker players. You want the game to be won by capping objectives but carriers makes that near impossible especially when there are 2 CVs per side - why did you introduce carriers when they are acting against your intentions of the game which is to win by capping? Carriers, like arty in WoT destroys aggresive gameplay and force a passive gamestyle unto all non CV players which are utterly demoted to being support for the carriers. I do not play this game to be 1 of 11 that supports 1 CV player nor do I play to be the target of a non counterable strike with impunity style attacks from a class of ship that only benefits the player using it. No one wants to play second violin in online gaming and CVs force all other players to become exactly that. So when do you either nerf carriers to the ground, move them to their own game mode or remove them completely? because they do not belong in random game mode with their current strike with impunity mechanics. /rant.

Also I forgot. This is why people play battleships: It is not to play german battleships but to play a class that are power incarnate, I mean; seriously, look at the Bismarck when she fires both the main and secondary batteries and the shell splashes from the PoW and tell me that is not reason enough to play battleships? Unfortunately the game doesn't translate that kind of power successfully to the game experience as the ships still looks and handles like toy ships in a bathtub.

Remember that the problem with camping is only an issue because the maps have a predefined and limited size, had it been a true naval game with open sea and maps like in Silent Hunter there would be no problem with campers because it would be necessary to keep sailing in order to obtain favourable positions over the enemy and there would quickly be nothing to shoot at if sailing very slowly or even when stationary. It is easy to blame players for camping and a passive playstyle but the reality is that the game rewards some players more for doing that than it does for aggressive play. Assign the blame to where it really belongs: the game design and its mechanics which really doesn't suit naval warfare even in an arcade style game.

Wow, 6 pages of comments in under a a day, that's impressive even for super toxic topic such as carriers... Still waiting for the only relevant response which is from WG staff/developersv - Can't see why you even bother to comment here when it is meant for Wargaming. And before you begin, I will not be replying to anyone else than WG staff in this topic so don't waste your time commenting and expecting me to reply because you wont get any.

My best game in the Leander so far

Just make the Battle of the Line mode where it will be 10 BBs, 1 DD & 1CA/CL VS the same.

CV bingo is realz.

Duca d'Aosta is not an easy ship to play and requires the player to be experienced and comfortable at playing with light cruisers. I'm not trying to beat you in the head with your stats but they indicate that you are underperforming compared to the average and I suspect that you just need more experience in the game. The best approach to become better is to go to youtube and see how the very good players play their ships. Here are som reviews of the Duca d'Aosta: I hope you find those videos helpfull but feel free to contact me ingame and ask for guidance or do some division so you can improve your skill and have a better game experience as it is not a good experience to play in a ship that you really want to like but don't perform well in.