xxNihilanxx

It's not that I don't recognise that it's that I don't agree. And still you are missing my point. In any other ship-v-ship engagement I can end the engagement by permanently killing the other ship. Some encounters are easier than others but in all cases it is possible to end the engagement by killing my antagonist. In this case I have not only stopped my antagonist from killing me but also ensured that he does not kill anyone else on my team. WIth a CV versus ship engagement that is not the case. He may lose some planes or he may move his planes to engage an easier target. On top of this not all of my ships have sufficient AA to deal with even the planes and so, in those cases, the most I can do is mitigate the damage - be that by dodging the torp drop or turning side on to a bomb drop to increase my chance of rng going in my favour. What I cannot do is end the engagement by sinking my antagonist. To say that a deplaned CV is basically dead is also a fallacy - I have seen deplaned CVs win a game by both ramming the last remaining enemy whilst we still had another ship and also by capping. A deplaned CV can also help in the victory by drawing fire and or spotting. I have also seen an enemy CV win the game by killing a DD with his secondaries so no, while a deplaned CV may be rendered 99% ineffective it is still not basically dead. With the announced rework it has been said that CVs will have unlimited planes so we can't even deplane him. Don't get me wrong, I am, in my own way, totally gutted for the CV players who are losing their preferred playstyle - I know I would be up in arms if it happened to me - my point is that they should never have been included in the first place and that, instead of attempting to rework them, WG should just bite the bullet and remove them entirely and compensate players for their removal rather than for their reworking of the class. Alternatively I have another proposal. Keep CVs as they are now BUT if you choose a CV you get to play solo against another CV and instead of just playing rts with your planes you also both get a small fleet of ships that you can rts around the map so you can try to sink each other's fleet. One of the most problematic symptoms of the issues that including CVs has brought is that, with very few exceptions, the result of a match with CVs in is determined entirely by the one-v-one between CV players. The team with the non-potato CV wins in all but the most exceptional of cases. Because of that the other 22 players may as well not be there so let us not be there. Have your one-v-one but leave the rest of us out of it. Either remove CVs entirely or make them a one-v-one mode.

TWO players required for that so not really a good example. Also a skilled Worcester player could, in theory, end that engagement by firing into the smoke and killing the Harugumo or by killing the spotter. When a CV strikes the most he can ever lose is a few planes, the vessel itself is not there to take return fire so, unlike with every other class in the game, the engagement cannot be ended by sinking the CV.

Fewer.

In the context of whether or not it is possible to fight a ship that isn't there it absolutely is relevant. As you can see I brought it up in response to the argument that torpedo boats were equally impossible to kill in a typical engagement which the numbers show they are not. Not by a huge margin. Not by fractions of a percent or even by a few percent but rather by a few hundred percent. The two are not equatable at all. I do not understand why people are arguing this when it is a well known historical fact. CVs rendered naval-gunnery between surface ships obsolete because they were able to attack and sink those ships without being present. All the time the same is true of CVs in game they can not be balanced versus surface ships. This has been both true and well accepted for the entire history of the game. CVs have always had the most impact of any ship in the game. What I am trying to point out is why. My entire point is that, because of this unavoidable fact, WG should have never included them in the first place if they ever intended to make a balanced game because you simply cannot include both one type of warfare and the very thing that rendered that entire style of warfare obsolete in a balanced game. This isn't rocket science.

Torpedo boats are present in the engagement. They might be stealthy, they might be harder to kill than other boats but they are there and they die like flies all the time.. Compare the average survival rates of torpedo boats with the average survival rates of CVs. Why is there such a glaring disparity in those two figures? Because torpedo boats have to be present in the engagement whereas CVs do not.

The problem with this is the manner in which CVs rendered naval-gunnery obsolete. Prior to air power entering into the sphere of naval combat it was necessary, in every high-seas duel, for both antagonists to be present. Shots would be traded from ships that were actually there. With the advent of the CV this was no longer the case. The CV could strike at an enemy ship without the CV actually be present to take return fire. There was NO WAY for the target ship to end the combat successfully, the most it could hope for would be to survive the waves of attack aircraft. How are WG going to balance this issue with any number of tweaks? The fact will always remain that the CV is not present in the engagement, only the aircraft. So what do you propose? Make the aircraft just ornamental details and have the CVs as a secondaries-only platform?* Of course this is a ridiculous notion but it would be the only way to get around the fact that CVs rendered naval-gunnery obsolete by virtue of their ability to strike without being present. No amount of tweaks or balancing is gonna get around that because YOU CAN'T FIGHT A SHIP THAT ISN'T THERE. *I suppose, technically, WG could give the aircraft very limited range - equal to that of the average gun range of that particular tier, and have them be visible every time they launched planes (as a way to mimic the gun-bloom mechanics that all of the other classes suffer), but that would just make CVs incredibly vulnerable and so equally unbalanced the other way.

The thing with the supposedly OP ships is that anyone can get them and, believe me when I tell you, a potato in a Kami or a Cesare is still a potato. Don't fear the ship, fear the player. If it's going to be like other ranked seasons then all the good players will be at high rank very quickly so the chances are you will just be facing off against lesser-skilled players. Looking at your ships, the Emile would not be a bad choice, or maybe the Furutaka. If anything, looking at your profile, it is your relative inexperience in PVP that is more likely to work against you than a lack of any particular preferred ship. Best of luck though, mate, whatever ship you end up going with.

They are planning a full suite of compensation for CV owners with the rework, they could just remove them entirely and give the same compensation. I can't see it hurting them too much on financial grounds, it's not like the meagre CV population is keeping the game afloat (pardon the pun) and legally they are in the same boat (apologies again, I really should stop) with the rework. I've said it before and I'll say it again, regardless of how attached people are to their CVs, it is just not possible to balance naval-gunnery based surface ships versus the very thing that made their entire style of warfare obsolete. WG really need to learn the value of Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS) and just limit the game to one style of play - surface ships lobbing big chunks of metal at each other. The bulk of this game is played out, in essence, on the X&Y axes, bringing in Z axis gameplay, in the form of aircraft or subs, is just overcomplicating what, at heart, is just a simple game. Given the interplay of the various classes of surface ships there is enough complexity coming out of that basic simplicity that we really don't need all the additional fluff that WG seem to love so much.

They actually said that if they get the rework right they will look at raising the cap on CVs per match. Nothing is set in stone. I agree with you when it comes to having little to no faith in WG's ability to balance them correctly so surely the answer must be to remove CVs entirely or else, as you say, they will be replacing a broken class with an equally broken class. I am sure you can agree we don't want broken classes in the game?

How does anyone grind their cruiser lines to high tier in the first place? There is little to no radar up to T7 so, by your logic, cruisers should be totally unplayable up to that point. It's an interesting hypothesis but, I am afraid to say, it isn't supported by observation. People do just fine in all ships at the tiers where radar doesn't exist, this argument is deeply flawed.

This is a product by WG and you checked for integrity? Of course you didn't find any.

It was a pretty hard-fought battle that could have gone either way for most of the match. Giving up your HP to flush out the Nagato was probably a waste as he was worse than useless, in all honesty, and I believe my mate earned himself a chat-ban by telling the guy as much. Good seeing you, mate.

Same symptoms here. The first battle of each session loads into map then freezes and I have to Alt-F4 out and restart client.

Second time in my WoWS history I have had a 7-kill loss. Our div killed 9 out of the 12 enemies but could the rest of our team kill 3 between them? Could they chuff!

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.