xxNihilanxx

You know, I do think that you honestly believe that. I seem to be a victim of the old adage - "never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

You don't have a case - you said that it was untrue that CVs have many squadrons. It's there in black and white for all to read (until such time as you delete/edit it out of embarrassment).

Incorrect - the CV has 3 squadron types - dive-bombers, torpedo-bombers and rocket-planes. CVs can field many squadrons of each of these types (the exact number determined by a combination of loss rate and recharge rate). If you lose a single squadron to a Worcester you have many more at your disposal over the course of the match. squadron /ˈskwɒdrən/ noun noun: squadron; plural noun: squadrons an operational unit in an air force consisting of two or more flights of aircraft and the personnel required to fly them.

Who the phuq said anything about Shimas? Quote me where I mentioned Shimas - or indeed any ship other than CVs (and, I guess, Worcesters since you brought them up). We are talking about CVs. CVs that have many squadrons. Something that you said was not true. For the love of god will somebody please take that spade off him.

Again, nothing whatsoever to do with my statement that CVs have many squadrons. There isn't a single CV in the game that can field only one squadron and if he loses that it is game over for him. I really can't believe you are still digging. What your reply does do, however, is solidify my actual point that it would not be wise to fly your planes "willy-nilly around unspotted areas of the map" - particlarly if you happen to be in a Saipan but still true in any CV. You have made a great case for how much of an impact losing a whole squadron to an unseen Worcester would be and so, if you were to lose your squadron in such a fashion, then you can surely understand that you just misplayed really badly. Misplays get punished in this game. I recommend you don't do that. Like I said, I don't see a problem with removing aerial spotting - if as a result a CV player loses an entire squadron to an unseen Worcester then the only problem I see is the one that exists between keyboard and chair.

You are talking about something completely different to anything I said - please refute the point I did make instead of creating an entirely new point to refute. I said "even if you do lose a squadron to a Worcester it is just one among many" to which you replied that I "know this not true". It absolutely is true (even if you did edit your post for some reason to talk about Saipan - though even Saipan can field many squadrons.) Your statement was wrong. It is demonstrably wrong. There is no way you can spin it to make it not wrong. When in a hole it is advisable to stop digging. Seriously the inability of people to follow a simple conversation these days drives me to despair.

That is just absurdly untrue. It may be convenient to think that way but it is far from accurate. Smart DD players recognise that CVs need fundamental changes just as much as the not-so-smart DD players. Please stop creating total fictions.

What does that have to do with what I said? Different CVs have different reserves but none of them have only one squadron of each type available for the whole game. All CVs can field many squadrons. Losing one squadron is one among many. You said this wasn't true but it, uncategorically, is true. Rather than change the facts to fit your argument it is wiser to change your argument to fit the facts.

I'm sorry, what? Of course CVs have multiple squadrons. If a CV loses a whole squadron it is one squadron among the many that they can field. I fail to see what you are getting at here at all. I know it is absolutely true.

Well maybe don't just fly willy-nilly around unspotted areas of the map. Wait for ships to be spotted by surface ships and pick your target accordingly. Even if you do lose a squadron to a Worcester it is just one among many plus you have the advantage now of knowing where the Worcester is and so know which area to avoid. I'm not really seeing a problem here.

Could this also be behind the recently reported cases of incorrect Priority Target values being displayed? I read someone on here complaining about getting shot at by two ships while PT showed only one and, similarly, I have had multiple cases recently of being shot at despite PT showing no ships having me targeted.

I think most of us in this community are way past taking S_O, or anyone at WG, at their word. They speak with forked tongue far too often for that. Most of what they say is, at best, PR fluff and/or typical corporate doublespeak.

It's not so much that, it's more a case of when I get into discussions I do people the courtesy of actually paying attention to what they say so as to understand their point of view, rather than just looking for a single point I can disagree with or twist to suit my purposes like so many others you meet. That and I have a really good memory.

It was good to meet you in battle but was a terrible match for me. I really don't do well on that map and so, as usual, was caught out of position. It didn't help that I was the only player, apart from my div mate in the DD, who didn't join the "blob of doom" making me the only viable target for your planes. Plus, as you say, I was in my Iowa which seems to be a bit of a cursed ship for me.

This would require the CV player to use his situational awareness (the player skill not the in-built perk of the same name) just as all other classes have to. We all know there is a stealthy DD out there somewhere, part of the fun of this game is using our brain to work out where he might be and anticipate where his attack may come from. Given the way things are at present I don't think arguing that the CV player will be defenseless against a DD is going to cut any mustard as, currently, in all but a small number of cases, the exact opposite is true. It cannot be held true that DDs being defenseless against CVs is ok but CVs being defenseless against DDs is bad. If the CV player, using his situational awareness, feels that a DD may be closing on him then I would argue that relying on autopilot at that moment may not be the wisest move and that instead he should be actively manoeuvring his hull accordingly. This is still possible with the rework as long as the player isn't simultaneously flying his aircraft. It is what the other classes have to do when they see the "detected" symbol telling them there is an unseen enemy lurking nearby. It is possible that CV players may need to travel nearer their fleet more instead of parking at the back of the map somewhere but that would be a small adaptation to make. I would also imagine that, as a partial counter to the situation you described, WG could possibly revisit the concealment values on CVs a little. As for endless tears of lonely, border-hugging CVs (or any class for that matter) I personally don't think we should tie ourselves in knots shedding tears for those folk. Any BB would be in the same position if alone on the border against an unspotted DD and, let's face it, nobody here will argue that this situation has led to "only pros" playing BBs. Bad players will be bad players (and bad players get killed).

This is the life of every ship in the game that isn't a CV. It's fine for them. A lot of people enjoy WoWS exactly because it is a slower paced shooter, let's face it, there are plenty of fast-paced shooters out there. What you have described is equally true of the other three classes and so doesn't explain why one class should be exempt from this. It will bring CVs in line with the other vessels in game, or to put it another way, it would be balanced. Again, that same boredom and frustration applies to all other classes and has done since day one. We have all been in a situation whereby we start to bring our guns to bear on a target only for it it disappear just before we could get a firing solution. Sure, it can be frustrating at times, but that's WOWS. As for the class being "compensated in some equally big way" well this is the same issue we had with the RTS CVs in that every time people put forward suggestions to "fix" them other people insisted that the "fix" should be accompanied by something else that kept them equally as strong as before the fix. Of course I am thinking about this from the perspective of a surface ship player, just as you are thinking about it from the perspective of a CV player - that is exactly why we discuss things, to give each the other's perspective. Sure it will be an improvement for the surface ships to the detriment of CVs, that is exactly what many of us feel the game needs. (As evidenced by a four and a half month long and counting $hitstorm) The very fact that WG are even contemplating testing these things shows that, at least in part, they acknowledge this. As for how many people would want to play CVs in that format, sure they may suffer an initial drop in popularity due to teddies being hurled from prams but beyond that I don't think it would be too bad. All that is being proposed is that they suffer the same spotting restrictions as everyone else in the game and, outside of some ungodly hours, I have never found myself in an empty game. I do think there would be fewer "CV exclusive players" and instead they would just be one of the four classes that people play depending on their mood at the time - just as the other classes are. You know me so well, I have always been a vocal advocate of CV removal, however, if they suffered the same spotting restrictions as all the other classes then I think they would fit better into the game and, as such, removal would be unnecessary. I could finally stfu about CVs and move onto other issues. WG's port UI/chat system/division window anyone?

That's the current situation you are describing, this thread is discussing the changes being tested - one of which is hull spotting only. I think I understand your confusion now, you are in the wrong rework thread.

I wouldn't say it was unintuitive, it is just a continuation of the current spotting system with "AA gun bloom" making the vessel visible to aircraft. Messing about with changing values over the course of the battle would be silly and gimmicky but to just remove aerial spotting entirely would make perfect sense. I don't see how it is incompatible with the reworked CV play, far from it, though I would expect some damage buffs for CVs as a result. That is the kind of tweaking they could do once they got it working right. Given that we are rapidly approaching month five of the rework $hitstorm I think it is safe to say that the great majority of players feel that something has to be done. I think removal of aerial spotting would be just the thing to make those same players happy once more. Personally, as I said before, I don't think WG will do it - their super-secret-data will show that it didn't work - but that is not really the point. The point is if they should not if they will. I think it's a great idea, I even suggested it some time ago, and I have yet to see anyone give me a solid reason why it's not a good idea.

While it is a major alteration of gameplay for CVs the idea of removing aircraft spotting is not really all that radical. All it does is bring the handful of CVs that we have in line with every other single ship in the game. It wouldn't even take that much adapting to. People are behaving as if turning off AA would make CVs blind the whole match but the reality is they would be able to attack the ships that were surface spotted just like the rest of us do. I know that WG will never introduce it, the idea is far too sensible for that to happen, but I do think it is the prefect fix to CVs if they are to remain in the game.

What are you talking about? The removal of spotting from aircraft and reducing it to spotting by the ship's hull only is literally the topic being discussed in this thread and I am still waiting for you to tell me why it is such a bad idea. Every other ship type in the game manages this, why is it such a good idea for them and a bad one for CVs? What you are describing as avatar spotting, if you want to call it that (hell you can call it Shirley, for all I care) is just semantics and we both know it and I know it, not so sure about you. You are attempting obvious mental gymnastics to avoid answering the question. Yes it would reduce the effectiveness of CVs to a degree but that is the whole point. That is why it is being tested. As I said before, when it comes to CVs, something has to give. Removing spotting from aircraft would be an ideal fix.

Where did I say anything at all about other ships' aircaft spotting? I was talking about hull spotting. Fighter/spotter plane spotting is occasional, at best, and obviously would be removed along with all aircraft spotting. How do you think we manage in games without CVs? We manage just fine. With hull spotting. I'm still waiting for you to actually explain "the stupidity of this braindead brain fart" as so far you have just garbled some nonsense about removing hull spotting which is the oppposite of what is being discussed.

Are you even capable of discussing things in a civilised manner? EVERY other ship in the game manages perfectly well with hull spotting, why do CV players feel they need to be an exception? So go on, show me the stupidity of "this braindead brain fart". Explain to me how it is so bad for CVs to have the same spotting limitations as every other class?

Until he gets shot at then gun-bloom will light up the target. It isn't reasonable to expect CVs to be invulnerable. They have near-immunity most of the game anyway, it's fine that they die if they are the last ship left alive. Personally I would go further and have the team that loses all of it's surface ships first count as a win for the other team. This is, and always has been, true of every other surface class. People have argued for some time that the old RTS system could have been fixed but then as now we see every suggestion to "fix" CVs being railed against. Something has to give. Why shouldn't CVs have to rely on surface spotting? It seems like the perfect solution to me.

So you do that and manage to kill the ships on your flank. Now everyone else is on the other flank, you can see this on the minimap, but you cannot see the enemy so you sail across to the other flank in your slow [edited]BB doing nothing... ... for 5-7 minutes. Yay, fun times. What competent game designer designs an aspect of a game that has the players unable to play for over 25% of the game you designed?