thiextar

I proved it so many times i cant count, but it doesnt matter, because you cv apologist just put your hands over your ears and go nanananana overall wr is irrelevant to class balance, the only thing that it kinda shows is skill roof and balance between specific carriers. every carrier is countered by exactly one carrier on the enemy team, so ignoring the rare case where neither team wins, carrier winrate statistically HAS to average out at 50%, it is mathmatically impossible for it to be higher or lower(it will be a little lower because of those rare games where neither team wins.) The fact that you did not know this, makes you unqualified to draw any conclusions on stats imo.

Carriers can do way too many things way too effectively, thats the problem.

"oh no, there is literally one thing a cv cant do"

Of course nerfing damage wont solve anything, that is not what is creating this meta. Nerfing damage is just plain balancing...

Not this specifically, but everything. Wargamings youtube videos are spammed with comments complaining about carriers, the reddit is, the forum is, in game chat is, everywhere you look is spammed with complaints about carriers, and thats exactly the way i want it to stay, because it puts pressure on wargaming to actually do something.

Its not a forum war, im just seeing the game in a really bad meta right now, and if that doesnt change, i do not think that i will be able to continue enjoying the game for much longer... It needs fixing.

The conqueror cant scout the entire enemy team while dealing its damage, carriers can.

The problem isnt that they have the most damage. The problem is the the damage is waaay to good since carriers are also super strong at other stuff like spotting and decapping etc etc. You cant have everything. If spotting is great, then damage needs to be low. If damage is great, then spotting needs to be low. Carriers currently have both, while also being the safest class in the game to play.

That is misrepresentative tho. The only battleship that does more avarage damage than the carriers is the conqueror, and that is mostly due to fully healable fire damage. But if you check across the board, carriers have about 10k more avarege damage than battleships(sorted by top 50%, anything below that has too many anomalies to base anything on). The real issue though is when you start to look at all the other stats. carriers have much more avg kills, extremely much higher k/d, extremely more planes shot down, extremely much higher base xp. And of course it is also the best spotter in the game, just as a side product of doing attack runs. It would be fine that carriers trumphs battleships in avarege damage, but not while they also beat every other class in every imaginable statistic. Carriers have THE best utility in the game THE best spotting in the game THE best survivability in the game, etc etc.this should obviously come with the downside of having the least average damage in the game, but instead they have the most.

Now check the same stats for t10 carriers.

You are probably not gonna be able to find any clan that accepts you until you make your stats public. Even clans that take in beginners want to see your stats, because they need to be able to see what you need to work on, and if you are making progress.

Thats why im gonna try harugumo, my team gets a light cruiser, and the enemy team gets a useless dd

Carriers are a much bigger issue with much larger consequences thatn yueyang, thus they need to work quickly on them. Wargaming stated as much even before the rework, that the next couple of months would see a lot of fast response changes to carriers. And even with just 50k games in carriers, that would bring the margin of error down to well under a single percentage unit, especially since wargaming have good data manipulation methods. Not hidden to wargaming ^^ only to us non-developer plebs.

Punish wargaming who did it.

Well, since these changes are global, they can actually go on data collected from all same tier carriers, as they are balancing the class, not just a single ship at a time. Anyways, im not disputing that you guys should get refunds, i agree with it, because releasing premium carriers in this state, and calling them final, was completely unrealistic of wargaming, and a blatant cash-grab.

Wargaming have extremely accurate statistics, that provides them with a skill-normalized curve of skill vs effect of the ship. Wargaming explained this in great detail in a Q and A session a while ago, i will post the relevant segment for you: Q: What metric(s) is chiefly used by the statisticians in the wargaming balancing department to evaluate the strength (deciding whether a ship/class/feature is overpowered or underpowered) after release to live servers? I ask this because I am routinely confused with some of the balance decisions by the team. I am not asking to share *all* the data, but some pointers would be great. Is it the winrate? is it the average XP? Is it data from competitive modes? From randoms? For example, Yueyang was considered to be over performing, but kitakaze is deemed to be fine. I would like to understand the thought process for that decision. A: Our methods have seriously improved since game release. We have much better tools at the moment. For example, while we still pay attention to avg. stats everyone usually discusses (WR, damage, etc) and popularity, we use MUCH more relative data nowadays, and it really helps. Your YY example is actually pretty good. I know it was not a popular change, but the ship was overperforming significantly, on Daring level, and there's the question: why YY was nerfed and Daring wasn't? Well, because we pay close attention to relative stats. For instance, we have a tool that allows us to see player efficiency distribution for a particular ship. Basically it looks like this (ship names specifically omitted, that's just an example of one ship group "Tier+class"): https://i.gyazo.com/e6ee5b18d21f14e70a5f52ccacc6b794.png Each curve corresponds to one ship, and in this particular case we can see the account WR distribution. Do you see this one ship shifted heavily to the right? Its players are really better than other ships' players - it can be either a test ship (CCT + ST + clan test + staff generally plays better) or some hardcore ship (owners of Stalingrad, Flint, Black, etc are generally much better), for example. And when evaluating ship's efficiency we take this distribution into account. Speaking of YY and Daring, they both were overperforming, but while Daring's audience "skill curve" is significantly better, YY skill curve was more or less in line with other T10 DDs. Same players showing better results = overperforming, means the ship "buffs" its players and allows them to show much better results than they can achieve on other ships. If we theory-craft a bit more, I'm pretty sure if we replace Shimakaze (most popular T10 ship with very average players skill curve) audience with Daring audience, Shima will look OP as well - due to various reasons these guys just play better. But that's not just it. We have special tools for making custom slices of all main performance metrics: winrate, frags, relative and absolute damage, lifetime and survivability, capture points in a ship group. Let's take Kremlin balancing, for example. Obviously we cannot balance it by avg.stats due to the same audience difference - hence we create a slice where we can see all combat efficiency curves relative to players. So we compare Kremlin player's results with their results on other T10 battleships / results of players with similar skill. E.g. 150 k avg damage (not real stats, just an example) looks scary, but what results these players / players of the same skill show on other T10 BBs? We answer such questions before we make a decision. The only challenge here is to get enough battles for certain ships, as all systems like that require quite A LOT of data to be precise. I'm honestly not sure we can go into such details for any announcement we make to general audience (I will think about your question and argument more, though). But what I really want to say: when we claim "this ship is overperforming" or "it is underperforming" we typically give it A LOT of research beforehand. It's not just "look up avg.numbers and scream"

Just made me realise, they said ranked was hard capped at 1 cv per team right? What the heavens will they do if too many carriers enter the queue?

Actually, i just realised, picking a destoyer might be viable. I can pick a harugumo and stick in the middle of my fleet, watching the dd that is forced into the enemy team die due to trying to play a destroyer role. Meanwhile i just watch as the enemy has a ship less while i sit in my fleet with what is essentially a light cruiser. Its probably possible to abuse destroyers like that, as it forces one into the enemy team aswell.

This is a rework, not balancing. You rework strenghts of ships if there is something broken about them, but they arent overperforming. This is balancing, the entire point of balancing is to change the overall power of a ship. If the ship underperforms, you buff it, if it overperforms, you nerf it. From the statistics that we have access to, we can see that high tier carriers are overperforming, while lower tier carriers seem more balanced. These public statistics are nowhere near as accurate as wargamings statistics of course, but they seem to tell the same story as wargamings statistics, as they acted in the way that they would act if a ship/class was overperforming.

Ugh, moskva i guess is my only viable option, but what used to be one of the best plane killers in the game, now has really crappy aa for some reason...

3. Your spotting circle is the distance that the destroyer can spot you, not the other way around. Most destroyers have between 5-6km range in which they can be spotted. Also, if a destroyer sees a radar cruiser coming towards him, then the right play for him is to sail away and abandon the cap. 4. The mods listed there can only report last known positions of unspotted tanks in various ways(which the standard game already does), and point at spotted tanks in various ways, but they cannot in any way get the current position of unspotted tanks, because that information is not available to the api. Anyhow, looking forward to seeing the replay, so we can shed some light on what happened to you ^^

1. You do have a replay, as replays are enabled by default. Check the "replays" folder in your world of warships folder. 2. Your radar doesnt cover your entire spotting range, it has its own range circle, make sure to enable it in the minimap settings. 3. The destroyer might have simply sailed away from the smoke when he saw a radar cruiser coming towards him. Its not like they HAVE to stay in the smoke for the full duration... 4. There was an old mod in world of tanks, that tracked trees falling over, thats the closest thing to what you are suggesting. Such a mod does not exist in world of warships, and is impossible to make, because the positional data of unspotted ships is only stored sever-side.

Nerfing is balancing. If a ship is overpeforming, you nerf it. What did you think that "balancing" meant?

One of two things will happen: Either it will go straight through that 450mm of armor, or more likely, it will scrape against the entire lenght of the ship, ripping a massive crack in the hull. The latter would be worse. As i stated above, a 71000 ton battleship, moving at typical speed, carries the kinetic energy equivalent of 1/10 of a small nuclear warhead....

Replay please