Pawndemonium

Woah... statistics?! Is that this number stuff which will teach the guy a lesson who doesn't expect it, when 0.4.1 hits? Anyway, enough with this joking around, can you please explain AA mechanics in more depth? Seriously, I'm looking forward to that balancing patch! I want your feedback immediately when it hits, prepare your agenda for that stuff man, create a new thread for that please. Maybe we even meet when the Cleveland got nerfed, would be awesome.

Yeah, I'm just saying the main reason why I shoot down stuff are the DP guns alone. So nerfing AA doesn't necessarily mean it loses efficiency.

They didn't. Cleveland AA isn't strong because of those midrange guns. It's the first ship which can utilize DP guns with DF. That's the stuff which is responsible for CV tears, not those Bofors. So nerfing AA hardly matters, as this means lowering a random number of lower range guns, in the end it's about the burst damage of those guns which most seem to underestimate (it's just ... 24DPS right.... aaaahahahahahah, ahr no wait it's 36). Atlanta AA is ftw just because of that.

The second the Des Moines focuses squadrons and activates DF it's doomsday... this thing screens like a boss. It does the same thing with T10 squadrons like the Cleveland does with T5/T6 squads. So yes, escorting is useful... and both of these ships are pretty much the Alpha and Omega when it comes to escorting, just focus the targets... no idea what those germans were smoking. However, compared to CV fighters, cruiser AA is quite lackluster indeed. CV fighters shred squads without any active ability or focus, it's pretty much fire and forget, resulting in dull gameplay.

I'd laugh if the replacement gets 15 guns instead of 12... jk I don't laugh.

Re-earn their trust? What are you talking about, most of the players would return instantly the second any random crap patch gets deployed. Apart from that the OBT numbers are quite stable, it's normal to have a drop, but holy crap was it successful for WoWs. Now it's just about releasing the proper content/bugfixing to justify the OBT tag. People are pissed and angry because it's the internet.

You are wrong. That's just your opinion. It's pretty obvious that carriers will get rebalanced, expect different gameplay compared to other classes, just don't expect their current performance as working as intended. If you pick carriers to solely qualify as a "main damage dealer" you will be upset in some months, and that's actually something I'm looking forward to. edit: Some food for thought, imagine strike setups being quite risky. But even then this whole fighter mess needs some serious rebalancing, shooting down planes for profit is just a matter of time though.

CV squadron hitpoints need to be rebalanced completely, the Cleveland isn't the problem here. Lower tiers (4-5) need a buff to their squadron health, while their speed should be the main drawback to make them still suck versus T6+, just because CVs have an easy enough time in T4/5 games already (not saying this is bad, but CV players just need to get the grip on the different gameplay). Squadrons at T7+ need their health progression to be reduced (significantly at T9/T10, probably shouldn't even scale past T8). Reckless CV play should be penaltized with having to worry about reserve count. This obviously would ask for some adjustments on AA guns aswell, but that's more of a T9/T10 issue imo. Squadron health plays a huge part in why higher tiered CVs have such a big advantage over lower tier CVs. While there should be difference, it should be on the same level as ships progress... being in a T9 game as a T6 DD/BB/CA doesn't even come close in sucking so hard as being a T7 CV having to worry about a T9 CV (hell even T8 would be a waste). And yes, that T4 CV skill needs to be changed aswell (a skill to balance ridiculous tier balancing, being utterly worthless at T10... wtf).

Meh it's pretty obvious what's going on, I think it's a false alarm, this stuff would fill youtube/twitch with random videos aswell, apart from the points posted earlier. Third party stuff should be a bannable offense anyway (not talking about mods here, but considering how you can fiddle around with camera settings this might be a thing in the weeks to come).

The problem with BB RNG is, that most people who complain about it, solely try to engage targets at 15km+. I'm not sure if BBs are in the right spot tbh, occasionaly even short distance shots have too much variance, but considering the damage potential they generate it would probably ruin the game even further when shots at ~8km have way less RNG... thing is, if you want to be a solid BB you mostly have to seek out brawling fights, instead of playing it too safe. I'm not saying CVs should be littered with RNG stuff to balance them, that would be the wrong approach, but in their current form they deal way too consistent damage. It's even part of the game mechanics that torpedoes don't have RNG, that's totally fine, but sending a single squadron over 3 battleships and a dedicated AA cruiser, which has Defensive Fire activated, and not losing a single plane... needs to be resolved .p Dealing damage should come at a cost when being reckless.

Meh come one, CV's don't have a high skill ceiling because of basic vector calculations, this is a fracture of what you'd have to do with other classes. It's more about unit management, knowing when and where to strike and giving useful intel to your team. Later tiers make most of this stuff obsolete, as you hardly lose planes in most cases, and even if you do, you have enough to replenish anyway (talking about T9+ here). Asking for RNG in a game which from the start made clear that it has to be part of the game, is just logical. Why should CVs be an exception, but the blockade from CV players in that regard was quite apparent when DBs were discussed. Sure, having lots of RNG is not competitive, but this isn't a twitch shooter, any other class has RNG elements, why should CVs be an exception, RNG is part of the game (and it works).

Just ignore that guy... seriously... .p

Pretty much what I complain about carriers the most atm. T9 and T10 CVs are easier to play than lower tiers, as not only you have ridiculous reserves, you don't even lose a noteworthy amount in the majority of matchups to begin with (which is MM related atm, but it's still an issue, as it's not the case when it comes to ships). I never understood why the devs took such an odd part when it comes to plane balancing, but I'm pretty sure this gets resolved quite soon.

It gets trolled by any T2 and T3 cruiser already, would be sad if torpedoes were an issue aswell .p

CV squadrons shouldn't scale so well when it comes to toughness, should cap out at like... 1400hp at T10 .p Needs some fighter and AA rebalancing aswell, but sending a lone squadron over 4 ships and not losing a single plane is just bad balancing, regardless if it's 2 tiers above (which shouldn't even be an argument in WoWs matchmaking, it works for any other class). CV MM alone isn't the problem here, carriers just have this odd plane balancing which is totally out of place compared to other classes, I don't get the reasoning behind being immune to lower tiered CVs at all, this needs to be changed to at least lose some planes in an engagement. Same with the AA role in general, everything below T7 is just toast, but starting from T8 up, the CV player has an easier time to unleash hell, with way more planes to replenish on top of that... many people consider the CV the ship with the highest skillceiling. While I tend to agree to some extend, as I think reconaissance, and team support play a huge part there (while damage capabilities are just easy mode mechanics), this most certainly is not the case at T9 and 10, where those ships have way too much influence on the outcome, as unit management doesn't even matter anymore.

Torp rating of 8 with 8.2km... what's the damage and speed on those then? 5200 at 43 knots? xD

That try before you buy stuff sounds good, but I guess this would screw up a lot of premium ship plans (there will be terrrrrriiiiiiiibbblleeeeeee choices .p). Small guns have a lot of DPS indeed, but their firing arc makes them a bad a choice at long range engagements, while I'll stick to me Cleveland aswell this has more to do with being too lazy to level up a new commander, retraining is not an option as the Cleve is a keeper, so I pretty much intend the swap the commander between the Altanta and the Cleveland, 'til some german cruiser stuff comes up for a new grind to T8. edit: get the Atlanta if you favour teamplay, including AA support, just don't expect to faceroll everything, it's only broken if your opponents allow it (which basically means they have to suck).

The problem is, when people shell out over 30 bucks, they probably expect more than an AA ship which manhandles DDs at ~7km ranges. ^^ I like the role, it's just not what most expect imo (at tier 7).

It's pretty much in the same spot as the Omaha, except with less agility (which is a problem). As long as you let it deal damage it's broken, but the second your grab some attention you get dealt with easily (even by lower tiers). tbh I think it shouldn't have been reintroduced, this is not a ship for the majority of players.

In their current form it's unreasonable, but if they get more RNG on their damage capabilities (including TBs)... ^^

Of course they hurt when he's able to unload 14 guns, at that range this stuff is quite accurate, thing is he didn't get punished for being so bold... ^^

At 7-8km range that was either bad RNG, or bad aim. Pick one... or both... .p Seriously, you handled this terribly and paid the price, the Atlanta even gave you a full broadside.

Well... I could bash Microsoft, EA or Ubisoft all day for their policies, but WG? For doing something they said from the start? Not so much.

Ofc it's not, but you should do it in a less misleading way, it's perfectly viable to raise your concerns, but coming up with conspiracy is useless imo. Ofc they want to make money, they're a company. But in the case of the Warspite they did everything in the customers favour. It was communicated from the start that it won't last through OBT, I think initially the post stated it only will be available in the CBT. Having a one day notice is short indeed, but it's too much to ask, when even people from the OBT had the chance to get that ship (without any hidden traps, the Warspite delivers what her stats promise). I guess they initially planned that with the Bismarck... but so much for conspiracy. .p About low tier premiums... I never understood the reason behind them, not even in WoT, more so when ships like the Murmansk outperform or at least are on the same level like the ship it originated from in the tech-tree (with the added bonuses of a premium ship on top of that). The disparity at lower tiers is just too low to balance this out correctly I guess, and yet they blessed us with the Arkansas... tbh they're a waste of dev time, but apparently there is a market. .p I just don't enjoy low tier stuff as much as mid-tier+.

How did you criticize anything? You just made stuff up, which didn't make any sense to begin with. Wawawa they don't release premiums I want... wawawa they only want to make money, because they're a company, waawawawa panic buy. Seriously? How is that criticizing a company's policy? This looks like whining to me. edit: No I didn't buy the Warspite, even though I think it's a beautiful ship with a proper role.