G01ngToxicCommand0

The game mode 'Epicenter' is clearly to complex a type of game mode for the vast majority of players and especially on high tiers where everybody but the DDs camp their hearts out near the map border the game experience is horrendous to say the least. I can't tell if it because most players are cowards, stupid, don't understand the concept of winning by capping the center or it is because they just don't like the game mode but it is absolute hell to play in games where it is the gamemode. Epicenter brings nothing but frustration and toxicity and it must be removed.

There are plenty of CV topics on this forum and I do no not want to be dragged into a CV rage fest, however the similarities and effect they have on the game experience between arty in WoT and CVs in WoWS are obvious.

Indeed, games such as WoT and WoWS should be balanced around the average random player and not around clans as those will always look to min maxing their teams when playing CW/team battles and creating their own CW/competetive game meta. With this in mind carriers are not well suited to random games but are without doubt an invaluable class in CW/competetive team battles. In random battles having a 'clicker' class that has the potential to utterly dominate all other players is just not a good developer decision as it only serves to make the game pleasurable for a select few(derogatory adjectives omitted) by reducing the game experience for the vast majority which are those that float the bill. Carriers should either be completely removed from the game or just be removed from the random game modes and placed in a carrier + escorts game mode(s) only so that carriers can be researched and used in CW/team battles. The current situation is detrimental to the game and as seen in WoT with arty, the class is universally viewed with disdain due to the 'clicker' no risk/high reward gamestyle and adds nothing positive to the random game modes but rather adds only to the toxicity which is just what the game needs more of.

It ialready is WoT just with ship skins; We have: Corridor maps, game meta that foster campers and punishes aggressive playstyle, silly detection system, invisi shooting(though soon to be removed), low risk high/reward classes aka. clickers/arty/CVs/etc., non skill based matchmaking and I am sure more things not mentioned here. Ignore that WoWS has a naval setting, it really is just WoT with a naval skin as it have no real maritime physics or effects that affects the game i.e. the sea in the game is flat and waves are just animations not a moving object controlled by algorithms and nothing affects the ships' handling or gunnery because of that. Just like in WoT.

Play the ships that you like only and/or in division with some friends tends to help on the experience. And I do know the feeling; even if you win sometimes it still feels frustrating.

Honestly I can't wait till SF is removed, this feature is so gamey and should never have been in the game.

Ughh, that is bitter to have what should have been an epic win fizzle into defeat.

It would be reasonable to assume, as she has the turtleback armour profile, that she would have the same strength, armourwise, as the Bismarcks just more vulnerable to plunging fire citadels. However I would not expect the secondaries to be anything remotely useful for anything other than DDs. Would still buy if crap

Carriers are not vulnerable enough and the risk free gamestyle needs to balanced by making them more vulneable. I suggest that carriers have their probability of catching fire when hit by HE to be increased by a factor of 3, the firedamage ticks to make 3 times the normal fire damage and an increase in the DCP cool down time by 25% It is only reasonable that if a carrier gets caught within gun range that it should be an almost certain deathsentence for the ship contrary to the current situation where all that highly inflammable aviation gasoline is as flammable as a watered down bottle of wine. Also this will force gameplay on teams with carriers as they will need support from other players in order not to get caught with their pants down.

Very good points there.

Deploy smokescreen and retreat, it doesn't always have to be used to sit in and spam HE.

No cherry picking here mtm78. There isn't much difference in the USN and DKM in effective gun range and US DDs are already detected when shooting their guns when in the guns' effective range so nothing has changed for that line really. As for the IJN it is the exact same deal; they are most effective when inside their detection range so nothing has really changed. Also before the DKM DDs came out there were a lot of whining and anger that they couldn't SF but not now and that behaviour is just being repeated, nothing new in player communities whining over changes being implemented instead of waiting to whine untill they have experienced them in the game.

Playing DKM DDs the new meta is already old news and it is not an issue that has any measurable negative effect on my games nor is the forum overflowing with whine topics crying about how german DDs suck and how shafted they are because they are allways detected when using their guns. There really is no reason to blow this out of all proportions and I think that the fear or reprehensions people have is founded on the anxieties that all new things brings with them. The removal of SF is a good IMHO.

Mostly playing cruisers and destroyers and TBH I can't see this will have a major negative impact, rather quite the contrary as it will force DDs to play the objectives and team play rather than trying to farm damage.,

It is not my problem if you are unable to understand my arguments but at least could you refrain from using strawman arguments and ad hominems or is that too hard?

Nothing but the flag itself, its promise of luck is just as elusive as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow I'm afraid.

No, this is a topic about carriers not about BBs and you attribute an argument about BBs that I have not expressed anything about, that is the very definition of a strawman argument so please don't make such. And BBs shots can be defeated by angling to a certain extend, strike aircraft can't.

Do you mean when you have the choice between eating bombs and torps from a carrier strike or eat multicitadels which is the gamestyle carriers impose on other players. And since AA is pure RNG even the Des Moines can have 5 enemy squadrons attacking the BB 2km away and still only down 3 planes through pure probability and you know that.

Obvious strawman argument which do not belong here.

It is a game inspired by real events thus having carriers ingame is not mandatory nor required for good gameplay. The open sea stealth fire ability is now being removed for the exact same reason that I logically argumented for ultranerfing, removing or replacing carriers from this game; because it allows some players to deal damage to other players with impunity and without the target being able to defend himself or locate the source of the attack. In short: Wargaming themselves do not like an ingame ability to deal damage while undetected and with impunity. One can only speculate why some players are so fond of such an ability but I think it is pretty obvious.

You are wrong. Carriers are the arty of WoWS because they limit aggresive playstyle and has the absolutely worst game mechanic a MMO can have; namely the ability to deal damage without fear of taking damage in return and without the target having any effective means of avoiding or preventing such attack while not being able to determine from where the attack originated. In WoT it has taken WG 6 years to finally come to the conclusion that arty either have to be nerfed to the ground or be removed if the former option still doesn't work. Yes it sounds arrogant what i say but nonetheless it is entirely correct; Player controlled classes in MMOs can not have the ability to deal damage with impunity and without the ability of the target to strike back as it ruins the game experience for the target player, takes away any influence of the game outcome their skill has and imposes a static and passive gameplay on the game itself, due to the fear of movement it induces. Whatever dedicated carrier players think of this is utterly irrelevant as they are so small a minority that their opinion in the larger scheme of things have no value. No one wants to be the target of players that they can not strike back at and which completely neutralises the influence their skill has on the game outcome without them having any way to counter. Carrier has no counter and cruiser AA is not a counter to them despite what you try to make us believe. The reality is that carriers has the ability to strike with impunity and have the ability to destroy any ship in the game with one wave of strike aircraft when using those to the maximum of their potential and the ability to prevent DDs from capping objectives simply by parking their planes over them and keeping them spotted to the point where DDs simply don't go to objectives when there are carriers in the game because they will get spotted and destroyed. Therefore carriers must either be nerfed to the ground or completely removed from the game or replaced with a 'carrier strike consumable' of which i prefer the latter so that the bot controlled AA has a reason to be in the game.

IMHO manual drop or carriers as a class should be removed entirely - that class brings just as fun and engaging gameplay as arty in WoT and really don't belong in the game as carriers were strategic weapons not tactical as used in this game. They are simply out of the scope of the game.

Well, 75-80% of the player base are bad at the game so what do you expect? Having said that I think it reasonable to divide the playerbase after winrate and let good players be on good teams only and vice versa and let it be random which skill level team they meet - that is the only fair kind of matchmaking.

Well it does deal with the headache effectively..