G01ngToxicCommand0

This is almost ship porn I really like the idea of multiple hulls for a premium ship as that would give a more varied game experience and a history lesson as well and I would definately throw money at this ship - I mean come on that is one fine looking and sexy ship

It is working as intended, I don't like it but that is how Wargaming wants the game to be played: Quantity over quality which is also why they don't have skille based matchmaking in any of their titles.

Someone make a CV bingo chart pls.

Hardly anyone play carriers so if anyone is being delusional it would be you by sticking to your extreme minority opinion about carriers. It is time you wake up an realise that most players don't share your view on CVs thus in the larger picture your point of view is irrelevant.

Just as yours do, except that mine is correct.

Perhaps the lack of comprehesive game guides can best be explained by Wargamings expectations of the intended target audience which is the same as mine?

It is definately a balanced ship with strong and weak sides but no strengths or weakneses that makes it UP nor OP, it could do with a couple extra kilometers of gunrange though.

Well yes, I have after a long life of experiencing the general lack of ability in the average person.

You have too high expectations for the game IMHO.

That is one of the problems, that Wargaming only balance CVs VS. battleships. None of Wargaming's titles are successful competetive multiplayer games with regards to e-sports and in game competetive measures - they are all meant to entertain the masses and are not competetive minded games such as CS:GO is. It is an error to believe that WoWS is a competetively minded game, it isn't, it is a game designed for and targeted to the masses in order to provide casual entertainment. Thus having classes in the game that requires a high degreee of teamwork to be balanced is counter productive to the goal and intention of the game and is contrary to the target audience's motivation and reason for playing the game. WoWS is a casual game for casual players, it is not a competetive minded game with competetive game play as its core purpose.

Not to mention that the way maps are designed as corridor maps a DD player will inevitable be spotted by CV squadrons at some point in the game. Wargaming wants the battles to be won by capping objectives but at the same time has a class of ships that can completely deny and counter the class which is designed to cap objectives the ability to cap without any counterplay possible. The only times that CVs doesn't ruin a DDs game is when the CV player is a sub 45% winrate player is either AFK, late loader, botting or doing whatever harebrained actions that helps the enemy team more than his own. I stopped counting the amount of times Ihave or observed teammates or enemies either been spotted and sunk or rendered useless by a CV for the rest of the game while sailing in a DD or done so myself while playing CV.

Which is why the CV class needs to be balanced with the average players' skill level in mind and that requires requires the removal of the CVs ability to enter into divisions or severely nerfing their ability to single out and destroy DDs or any other class of ship for that matter, because the average player is playing lone wolf. Team play is the exception not the rule and it will never change with the way WoWS is currently working and the audience it is targeted against which is low skill casual players that have no interest in nothing else than shooting guns and torpedos at whatever ship they can see in front of them. Capping and defending objectives, while the primary game mechanics for winning, designed and stated as such, while also allowing a single class to completely deny the class that are designed to cap objectives through a mechanic that has no counterplay in a game enviroment with this kind of audience, is a bad decision. CV as a class can only function as intended in a game enviroment where every team and every player are ideal games and ideal players, which obviously only happens on a blue moon i.e. so rarely that it is clear that the CV class is not suited to games played by the average gamer.

Indeed, the Hood lacks in offensive firepower and while the 15 inchers are accurate they lack the range and consistent DPM the other tier 7 BBs have. When facing higher tier BBs the lack of range, penetration combined with low rate of fire really shows and when compared to the Scharnhorst which has on paper worse gun stats with regards to penetration and alpha damage it makes it the least competetive BB on tier 7 when not top tier. The Hood needs more range and rate of fire to the main battery to make it at least on par with the other tier 7 BBs.

My opinion on this matter is that Wargaming should make the same decision they made in WOT with regards to artillery: remove the CV class the ability to enter into division due to their higher potential to influence game outcome. A single CV without division mates will not have the same influence if the player is either super good or super bad and the team will not be punished so hard if the CV player is worse than the enemy team's is giving the team a better chance to defend itself from strike aircraft attack.

Kutosov really needs a nerf in fire chance.

Those are the ones that are 5 star missions/mission no. 8 in the lower right corner of the missions interface.

So far it has only brought out the sub 47% winrate carrier players en masse making carriers irrelevant in the games at best.

Ship is ok to above average, however it can not carry the average window lickers that play this game.

I have a more 'honest' language that SirFoch, perhaps I would be a better choice

Indeed, those are not Warspite turrets, feels more like Scharnhorst turrets with 36s/180 degress with EM.

You can't fight stupid..

No need to fix chatban this game is dying anyway.

It is a matter of thermodynamics. Let us assume that the average player has exactly 1 player influence on the battle's outcome as a point of reference. Good players we set to 1.5, very good to 1.75, unicum to 2 players and superunicum to 2.5 players. Bad players we set to -0.5 player, very bad to -1 player, super bad -2 players and ultrabad is set to - 4 players. The bad players is set to negative values because most of their actions benefits the enemy team more than their own. But why do I set the negative influence on bad players higher? That is because of the entropy and chaos bad players inflict upon their own team has a higher magnitude than the order a good player can excert with the same amount of work put into the battle from a thermodynamic perspective; i.e. the team with the least amount of chaos and disorder wins over the team with greatest amount of disorder and chaos. In short; the team that is best at causing confusion and making the enemy team to react to their actions wins because that makes it easier to kill the ships and cap objectives. From that perspective a good player has to put more work into the battle to first negate the chaos the bad player has caused by decreasing the chaos and disorder before that player can use the work to negate the chaos caused by enemy players and then cause a higher degree of disorder and chaos on the enemy team, than the bad player has to increase the chaos and disorder on his own. Example of team influence based the above with 2 player values different in team 2: Team 1 player values: 1; -0.5; 1; 2.5; -4, -2; -1; 1; 1; 1.75; -4; -2 for a total sum of -5,25 Team 2 player values: 1; -0.5; 1; 2.5; 1.5; -2; -1; 1; 1; 1.75; -4; -0,5 for a total sum of 1.75 By replacing 2 bad players with 2 players that combined averages as 1 average player the balance of power is greatly shifted in favour towards team 2. By comparing the two teams it is obvious that team 1 will not have far better chances of winning by replacing 2 average players with 2 super unicums as that will only give the total team sum a value of -2,25 I hope the above gives a better understanding on why the number of bad players on a team is the single most influential factor on battles' outcome rather than the number of average and good players?

Aerroon is wrong. Bad players have more influence on the game outcome than good ones on a 1 per 1 basis and for each ultrabad player it takes about 1½ unicum player to offset the negative effect so the more bad players on the team, as is the case during events and special weekends, the lower winrate good players should get due to the high influx of bad to ultrabad players. The major issue with the bad and ultrabad players is the complete impossibility of predicting their behaviour and the general high probability of getting teamkilled, accidental or not, by them, or they are AFK, botting, late loaders, don't want to cap objectives or block the enemy from capping etc. etc. You can't fight stupid and when the team has too many stupid players even the very best individual have zero influence on the outcome. Winning in that kind of enviroment is almost entirely random when playing solo and when comparing winrates for the 'special weekends and events' that draws the hordes of stupid and ultrabad players we all dread to the normal days there should be an easily recognisable pattern of lower winrates on those 'special weekends and events' compared to the normal days. For 3 ship divisions the effect will be smaller obviously but for solo players the effect is easily felt.