G01ngToxicCommand0

Indeed, even if she is utter crap, which she'll probably will be given her IRL capabilities and limitations, I'll still throw money at WG for her

Met _FTD_ today in his tier 10 division on the enemy team while playing Shima, epicenter Tears of the Desert. Team started with ZOMG OMNI we have lost! and then proceeded to hide behind the islands as that obviously would secure a win... OMNI won BTW. The level of retardation and extreme cowardice on high tiers never cease to amaze me, it is only a game and the player don't risk his IRL life trying to have fun playing the game but most players seems so controlled by fear of dying that their reptile brain survival instincts completely rule their behaviour instead of their higher brain functions... Typical tier 10 battle unfortunately.

No frigging idea

What guns do you use? I did find the 12.8 cm guns lacking in penetration and only uses the 15cm ones which citadels more reliably.

I'd prefer a hardcap of 3 capital ships per battle and the introduction of a BB heavy game mode with up to 12 BBs per side so that BB players can truly be challenged in a battle of the titans. It could just be standard game modes only with more BBs or a entirely new game mode. I don't think players play certain classes for their credit or XP income but rather because they find them fun, challenging to play or just out of historical interest and limiting players in any way in order to try to force them to play other classes, tend to create spite and resentment which could increase the numbers of players that leave the game. I think the better strategy would be to turn the 40% BB playerbase reality into something positive for the game experience for the players; a BB heavy/only mode could be such a thing.

No one plays MMO only to be second violin to a select few, most play to have fun and there is no fun in supporting CVs with AA or ASW support while the CV farms all the damage, XP and credits. That would be practicing elitism in extremis. Unless it would be a selectable game mode which the players can opt out of then those who selects it would have fun bearing in mind that the chose it.

The planes are modules like the artillery and torpedos on the other classes are and they lose combat power as they lose those modules as carriers lose combat power when losing planes which can be proven with this one fact; that all classes have no combat power when all their offensive modules are destroyed and are all equally ineffective The hit point for carriers are the hit points, not the plane modules. The notion that the planes are the carriers hit points is simply wrong.

A guess would be; because the CV UI, game style and game mechanics appeal to a mindset that favours micro managing and a detail oriented approach to problem solving rather than general skills, a goal oriented approach to problem solving and shooting at the nearest or easiest target in sight of which the latter is how most people play?

The keywords being [.."will never work as intended"..] not 'will never work' as you imply - vast difference between the two concepts.

The same basic principles apply, and the basic assumption is that a force will on average inflict a certain number of casualties on the enemy depending on gun numbers and force multipliers given specific enemy unit type.

I'd love to be a shill, then I'd be paid for having to listen to the likes of you.

Also Ekin = M * V2 * 0.5 If we assume zero energy loss though friction and 100% engine efficiency then if a ship have to go from 28kts to 33kts or an increase in velocity of 5kts it will have to use 39% more energy for those last 5 kts or from 30kts to 33kts the increase in energy required is 21% or from 33kts to 35kts it will be 12.5% more energy making it exponentially energy expesive to attain higher and higher velocities to the point where fuel consumption and ship weight allocated to fuel, engines and burners will be so high that the endurance will so limited that the ship will be useless even with high efficency engines and burners.

Try to view subjects from more than one perspective will widen your horizon, don't let yourself be limited by narrow, singleminded biased thinking.

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws has probably more to do with the increase in ROFL stomp/short time duration battles, if true, due to a number of reasons; be it an influx of new and inexperienced/bad players that perform well below expected standards who is unevenly distributed on the teams by the matchmaking algorithm or the introduction of more powerful ships.

Alternatively increase the range of the cruisers' guns as most of those guns had ranges close to the ranges of the battleships' main batteries due to higher gun elevations, give all cruisers Repair Party and/or decrease the sizes of the citadels on cruisers so that their survivability increases vs. BB and cruisers.

LOL the developers of WoWS clearly ignored that axiom trying to force a certain gamestyle on the players - supposedly it is a good game now but I am not going back to it.

Have you tried resetting the router? I've had similar issues with both WoT and WoWS and sometimes, I stress sometimes, it deals with the issue when I reset/reboot the router.

Carriers can not work as intended in WoWS unless in CW or team battles just like communism can never ever work; the assumptions behind them are based on the requirement that 100% of the players/population act ideally which can be theoretically proven to be impossible thus it wil be impossible to attain those ideals. Translated to WoWS it means that team work will never work as intended because of language barriers, players not wanting to team play, players not being able to see the benefits of team play and a host of reasons too many to list. As carriers as a class require 100% of the players to be working as team to be able to properly balance them it will never be possible for Wargaming to balance carriers for random play thus, depending on whether CVs are in random play or CW/team battles they will either be OP in random or UP in CW/team battles for the simple fact that if the CVs are balanced perfectly for random teams with zero teamwork they will be more or less worthless in CW/team battles and if perfectly balanced for CW/team battles they will be massively OP in randoms. With the current situation with randoms where 12 solo players on each team are the norm it is impossible to have balanced CVs in both randoms and CW/team battles. This is what some players can't grasp and this is why those players kick and scream when their precious carriers are getting balanced simply because of said players inability to see the broad picture with regards to CVs as class. Carrier players have to get into their heads that the CV class can not force team work and dynamic playstyle on random players because of human psychology dynamics, language and cultural issues together with an almost limitless pool of reasons which prevent team work from happening - the belief that CVs will make players work together is based on fallacious reasoning and assumptions that only exist under ideal situation i.e. only in dreams and fantasies, not in the real world where it counts. Wargaming has to decide whether carriers as a class will have to be balanced for the chaotic world that is random play or for CW/team battles as it can be theoretically proven that a class such as carriers can never be balanced for both scenarios and never fully for random games because of the chaotic nature of the player base. Personally my advice to WG would be to balance carriers for CW/team battles only, remove them from normal random play and place carriers in their own CV vs CV game mode where multilple CV on each side can play against each other together with non CV players that like to play as escort ships for the carriers so that they can be reasearched and bought like the other ships. The CV vs CV game mode should be made player selectable as the Encounter and Assault game modes in WoT are and in normal random mode the CVs strike aircraft could be replaced by a single use airstrike equipment slot as used in WoT in SH with arty/airstrikes.

Yes,a ctually I do believe WG listens to the players, mostly those that stop playing which is why we will see the removal of manual drop on tier 4/5 and SF. Those features probably made too many players uninstall and as a business Wargaming has to make sure that the largest number of customers enjoys their product enough that they will play and pay and if the removal of said features is benefitial to more players than by retaining them then it is the right decision from WG's part. We have to realise that features such as manual drop and SF is only used by a minority of the player base and that removing those will probably be benefitial to the vast majority of players contrary to retaining them which will only help a select few. Money talks as they say and happy customers = more money.

Removing SF will not only make some people leave the game, it will also make new players, that hitherto have not wanted to play the game because of that feature join or old ones that stopped because of SF return. We just have no way in advance to know exactly what happens and we don't know how many of the players that uninstalled WoWS did it because of SF and told WG that as the reason in the post uninstall questionnaire. I have about 5 buddies that tried out WoWS and they all stopped playing because they felt SF was a gamey/retarded feature and they didn't like to be nuked by carriers in tier 4/5. Those 5 guys might return now that SF will be removed. My point is that we just can't focus solely on the negative effects on the WoWS community by removing SF, we also have to consider that there will be positive effects on community size. Personally I believe that removing SF will be a boon for WoWS in the long run because it equalises the community and takes away one of the major sources for some players to exploit a game mechanic a major part of the community do not even know exist.

There are no 'bad' BB at tier 6 IMO, they all have their strengths and weaknesses but none have so glaring weaknesses that they can be considered bad.

I see no evidence that carriers as a class can be designed to be balanced when it comes to random games, for CW/team battles yes as those are always playing as a coordinated teams but in random where most players don't even speak a common language no, there is no way to make CVs balanced in randoms. We have to realise that most players, for a multitude of various reasons, simply are not able to team work to a degree that can prevent CVs from being super OP in randoms and will have to be ultranerfed to the point where that class will be utterly useless in CW/team battles in order to balance them with regards to randoms. I am convinced that CVs should either be completely removed from the game, because the class can never be properly balanced as it will either have to be balanced for random play or for CW/team battles as a balance for both is simply not possible, or moved to a CV+escorts game mode only so that the class can be researched and used in CW/team battles.

Ok I get it, you love your carriers to the point of being blind of the negative consequences that class has on the game experience for the vast majority of the players but that still makes you wrong with every single point with regards to carriers in WoWS. The game can't focus on pleasing the miniscule and inconsequental minority that is playing carriers, Wargaming have to focus on the average player that are not unicum CV players and whose game experience with carriers are almost exclusively negative and if the masses dislike carriers to the point they leave for port when in games with carriers as some do or leave the game entirely the carrier as a class has to go. It is all about the bottom line not your personal enjoyment as a carrier player but it doesn't seem to enter your mind that money comes before your personal satisfaction.

Execpt in endgame scenarios where a lone CV without planes can still win the battle simply by surviving til times runs out or the team reaches the 1000 point mark, or in other scenarios where the loss of the CV would give the enemy team enough points to win; CV survival is thus a factor for the outcome of the battle.

Maybe we are not playing the same game? Most toxic comments ingame are mostly directed towards carrier players and destroyers invisi torping/firing which all have one thing in common: low risk high reward clicker style gameplay, well not so much against the DDs as against the carriers. The reason is that clicker style game mechanics where the player using it are toxic to any kind of any MMO for reasons that should obvious to all. You have to ask yourself three questions: 1) Why is it a good thing to have low risk/ high reward 'clicker' classes in a MMO? and 2) What positive game experience does it bring all the non clicker players that they are forced to play a certain way or be destroyed by the enemy team's clicker while not being able to strike back? 3) Why is reasonable that 1 to 2 players on each team have the power to dictate or at the minimum exerct an disproptionate influence on how the remaining 83 to 92 percent of the players has to play or not play and takes away from them playstyle options they otherwise would have had if there weren't carriers present?