xxNihilanxx

Not that it's any consolation but it was a pretty rubbish game for me. Nice seeing you again, mate.

Of course you will, sweet-cheeks.

Ironically, making a post phrased thusly makes you look far more childish than the people you profess to be decrying. Grown-ups don't talk to each other like this. The offer in question isn't a "welcome bonus", we have invite codes for that, it is a way to entice more people to spend money but excludes those that regularly do. Somebody could have multiple T10s, way in excess of 10K battles and never have spent a penny on this game and qualify for this offer whereas someone else could have bought one T2 premium ship after playing 10 battles and be disqualified. How does that translate as a welcome bonus? Do us all a favour, mate, and think before you spew your inane garbage all over the forums.

Even though it really is.

Don't apologise for that, mate, it ain't all it's cracked up to be.

"Guys, if you can't say anything positive about being discriminated against then don't say anything. Don't be envious (learn the correct words ffs) of the people who aren't being discriminated against. BTW, one of my mates, who isn't being discriminated against, is very happy to not be discriminated against so if you are being discriminated against then why can't you be as happy as him? Just enjoy being told that your loyal custom counts for nothing" Sounds about right to me.

Yeah, I saw that and thought "typical Wargaming", gotta love those "brand new customers only" offers. The flip side of this is how much money would WG make if they had opened the offer to everyone?

In both instances the BB can just sail away whilst changing course. It's incredibly difficult for a DD to score more than a lucky hit under those circumstances. In the second instance the Cruiser behind the island needs a second ship to spot the BB so it is at least a 2v1 engagement. Versus a CV the target ship cannot change position or course faster than the aircraft. Plus the aircraft can attack from multiple angles, something no surface ship can do. Not even remotely the same.

OK, on this point - isn't the requirement for multiple players in a game to band together in order to offset the effect of one player about as far from balance as you can get? Before we even get into the actual practicalities of how this could be achieved in a group of random players with no voice comms I am sure you can see that the basic principle is completely out of balance. Why should it take multiple players to counter one? How does that say balance to you? Consistent how? Give every ship in the game, regardless of class, the same AA strength? Give every ship at each tier, regardless of class, the same AA strength? Weak AA, Moderate AA or Strong AA? I am asking for details, not notions. Remove or adjust which mechanics that artificially raise the skill floor? Auto-drop or manual drop? It is arguable that auto-drop is easier to learn than manual drop and therefore it is manual drop that is responsible for the raised skill floor so I assume you would remove manual drop completely from the game? Or would you adjust it? If so how? How would balancing CVs of differing nations balance the CVs versus surface ships? Balancing CVs against each other is only half of the equation. To balance versus all other classes some criteria must surely be met? 1. In an engagement between two ships both should be equally capable of damaging the other. Not necessarily equal amounts of damage but certainly equal opportunity of damage. Among other things isn't this why stealth-firing was removed? 2. In an engagement between two ships both should be equally capable of avoiding or mitigating damage from the other. 3. In an engagement between two ships player skill should be the deciding factor and not class chosen. How would you balance the CV vs surface ship engagement to satisfy these criteria? Yeah, it is not exactly news that WG make poor decisions in terms of game design. Indeed - this is one of the difficulties faced with regard to balancing CVs in game, no argument from me on that score. Don't get me wrong, fella, I am not trying to pick a fight or give you a hard time I am merely trying to illustrate that CVs cannot be balanced for the reason I have stated in two posts in this thread. They represent a completely different style of naval combat to everything else that exists in the game with regard to the three surface vessel classes. The CV renders all other ships obsolete. The combined navies of the world couldn't mitigate that fact and nor can you or WG.

At first glance I can't say I am that impressed as I do not like the idea of even more "magical" bonuses conferred onto ships. That said this is without having seen or tried it and so I have to accept that it may possibly be fun. I doubt I will play it much if I do try it as I prefer the KISS approach to game design.

Well it's certainly a simple statement but the underlying concept is quite a complex one. Explain how this would be implemented in terms of flight-times, operational ranges etc. What would it look like from an in-game perspective. As I intimated in an earlier post this is absolutely the only way to achieve any form of balance. Balance simply cannot be achieved in a game that combines one type of warfare with the very thing that rendered that entire style of warfare obsolete and redundant. The combined navies of the world could not balance traditional naval gunnery warfare with carrier-borne aircraft, which is why naval gunnery warfare disappeared forever, so there is no way on earth that WG, with or without the assistance of unicum carrier players, could achieve it. IT ISN'T POSSIBLE! Undoubtedly a proportion of the playerbase who enjoy CV gameplay would be annoyed by the removal but if they truly value a balanced game they could not object from any position other than one of self-serving disingenuousness. Refunds and compensation would need to be given and yet, with the impending rework, that is already the case so, if WG truly desire to create a game that is balanced among all classes, they should sieze this opportunity to remove CVs now. While true balance may be difficult to fully achieve with a rock-paper-scissors system, the inclusion of a class that renders the whole style of warfare of the other three classes obsolete is tantamount to trying to balance a rock-paper-scissors-atom bomb system. Good luck with that.

How would you balance the current CV iteration?

Mate, accusing us of making an "oh, I can never be safe no matter what I do" argument is a little below your usual standard of debate, that isn't what was being said and I think you know it. I already operate on the principle that it is far better for me to sacrifice my cruiser if it saves our DD but there is a huge difference between doing that and losing both, which is what your proposed solution would end up with. On the subject of broken, the counterplay you describe, which would inevitably lead to the loss of both DD and support cruiser, is the best we can hope for against a single player who, at most, would lose a few of his infinite plane reserves while he is sitting safely away from the combat taking no risks whatsoever in the described exchange? To illustrate my point, why don't you take your CV into the cap at the start of the match to provide close range support for your DD and let him smoke you up for your safety.? I'm not talking capping an unattended cap late-game, we have all seen multiple CVs do that, we are talking about cap contesting here. If you have such faith in your proposed solution then I am sure you will be only too willing to demonstrate just how successful it can be.

No offense, mate, but you could have changed tier/ship class. I know I would have done.

Well I might be tempted but I've bolded the part that precludes me from your statement anyway. In all seriousness, though, as you point out, there are multiple factors to consider and this is why, upon consideration of all of those factors, it doesn't happen and won't happen.