Pikkozoikum

I was asking about the different base modifiers of ship types. There was once a post about those. That DDs get more for spotting, BBs get more for potential damage etc.

Well yes, but I meant the base modifiers. How much does a CV get for spotting, damage, potential, capping etc. I think it's pretty hard to compare the base exp from different ship types, because they have all different modifiers

Is there somewhere a list of the modifiers?

I would assume, that they can differantiate the damage coming from AA explosion and AA dps. I mean it's even in the game differentiated There are even captain skills, that differentiate the dmg, but well, it's an assumption.

I guess that is not patience? xD

Wenn Chrome und Warships laufen, was ist deine Auslastung? CPU und Arbeitsspeicher? Hast du Virencheck gemacht? Edit: Witzig, wie ein english sprachiger meinen Beitrag runter-voted, wo es darum geht, anderen zu Helfen :D

I have way more, 7!

Same here, though sometimes I take damage from CVs, or from two CVs, but major damages always comes from surface ships. An additional BB would be often worse, than a CV

Doesn't matter if CV is op or up, more classes always change the meta. When we had ranked with RTS CVs, the Meta was also different. It's also pretty difficult to talk about OP or UP. We can't go with 1vs1, because this is a teamgame and with some kind of scissor, stone, paper system. Also both teams have a CV. So teamwise the game is also balanced. Guess the major point is, when a tool (a ship) grants more influence, than another tool, thus a single player can have more influence on the battle, than other players. I would say, the CV has a bit more influence, mostly because of the flexibility of the CV. So a good CV can use the flexibilty to have more influence, than he would have in a slow BB behind an island. Though it become better with the rework imo. While the Rework CV could have a bit more influence than other, because of the flexibitly. The RTS had the flexibility plus a good player could also deny the influence of the enemy CV, which gave him even more influence on the battle. To make it more even, I would go with a samller decknumber, mostly around ~2 less planes of each type, and changing the spotting mechanic. I don't think, that CV should lose the spotting component, it should be just splitted, that a CV has to decide, if he wants go for supporting or for damaging. Just like a DD mostly go for spotting and playing safe, or going gun boat mode. But in general it's pretty hard to say, if somone has too much influence. I mean some DDs alone win the match, as long the own team is not full potato. I lost matches, because the enemy had good dds.

Well, many ideas are mostly opinions. If I say, manual control while flight would be nice - then it's an opinion ^^ I think the AA is totally fine. With fine I mean it overall, not in particular cases. The AA is shooting down planes, the effect is, that a CV can'T do all strikes, thus the damage is reduced. Most people just want, that AA makes them immune to CVs, which would be a bad design. The only thing, that I could imagine is, that the decknumber should be lowered, thus plane loses over the whole match would also hurt the CV. There was a statement, that WG is never listening to any ideas, which I don't believe, especially, when they do changes, what the community said. The whole statement of mine is just, that people should maybe think about, how it is to be in a company and do changes. Gamers alwasy think they know best. (Of course sometimes that would be the case. But here is the important thing. If you would go now to WG, you become a employee and start with your ideas, I promise you, the forum won't change. People will keep ranting and complaning. And I don'T mean that personal to you, if I would go the WG,and implement my ideas, people also would complain about those ^^ Guess there will never be all satistfied and that one company can't go for all ideas, that people have. As you say, it took years, and I wonder myself, why they do some decision, where I can just facepalm. Here an example. J5N on Haku als DB and TB. J5N is 1. landbased, not carrier based. 2. an interceptor fighter. So it's totally wrong, how can they make such a wrong decision? but when I said that in the forum, people told me, that they don't care... so it's mostly me and some others, who are bothered by that and it seems not important for the majority, although it's such a stupid mistake imo

Well, people can have ideas about the balancing as well? ;D But that's the point, you say, that people told AP bombs are bad for the game. I wouldn't agree there, I like AP bombs, and if they are too strong, you still can nerf those. So in my case, it's mroe a question about balancing, than a question of broken mechanic. And then we get the conflict. How can listen WG to people, who say "remove ap bombs" and people who are not agreeing with that. Those who think, that automated DCs are not good. What's the point? Different people can have the same idea. You didn't understand the statement. It's about, that people have different opinions, and one company can't listen to all of them. It doesn't matter if someone is bad or good. This game is not only for skilled players or only for bad players. In best case, it's designed, that everyone can have fun. But as I said, the point is, that there are many different opinions. If a super unicum says, that the CV is too easy, well, maybe it's because the is good? xD I remember, when someone said in For Honor, that one Class was too strong and easy. That guy had inhuman reactions, you could say, one of the best players on the world.... and with his skill, he could say that statement to every Class, because if he starts to master the Class, he would bash everyone. And watching him was like "yes that looks easy". Though I was pretty bad in that game

Guess the GZ has the same issue like Shimakaze The Shimkaze torps are pretty bad in case of hitting chance. The reaction time is really high, and the reason is, I assume, because they do a lot damage and the Shima has a lot torpedos. If you would make the reliable, those would become monsters. I assume the same with GZ. The bomb pattern is a circle, that means theoretical the angle of approach doesn't matter. If the distribution is equally the bombers could approach from any angle. While Shokaku get great hits when aligned, the bombs willl have a bad hit rate, if approached from the broadside. The GZ; so in theory, would have a medicore approach from the side, from angled, from aligned. Always medicore. Guess that's the idea behind the accuracy I mean when I do 5k bomb hits with every approach is the same like I would do a 10k bomb hit, and then no hit (in terms of total damage). Though I wish I could play the GZ to test her by my own

Guess I would agree, if I would own her, but I was talking about the RTS GZ, they removed it from the shop and let people test her and help designing her

Well, going with community ideas is always in a conflict. One says, AA is too strong, the other says, AA is too weak. Try to go with both ideas ;) Also I'm pretty sure, that there were many community ideas, that WG takes. A few years ago I made a suggestion to make AA manual instead of the AA auras, that we had to that time. I had the idea of setting sectors... Not sure, if they read my thread back then, but coincidence? ;) (I would try to find the thread, but for some reason I can't find any older threads, the search function shows only new topics) Also people said a lot about CV, that they are too fast, the F-key spam etc, they changed that. That came all from the community. I assume, they test and think about community ideas, but they are not taking them all, just because random internet people want that. Just think about your own work, think about you work a lot on your project, and then random internet people say, that it is crap and you have to do this and that. And you get 100s of those posts, but they are often in conflict. You see the issue? Also this: Submarines: We wanted manual DCs and they implemented it. And lets see, what they will change with the 3rd test round. If they go with manual deck guns and silent running, then this would be the final proof (I'm hoping for those changes) Also, as I said, that happens almost in every company, it's pretty rare, where you here "the community will design the game", but also that fails often, remember the GZ? As long as I know the community participated on the design? ^^

The sad thing is, that people don't realize, that no pvp-game with such a variety is in a perfect balance. And most games have their bad balance moments** now and then. What bothers me, is the ranting about something, instead of coming up with improvements. Guess nobody said, that CV is in a perfect state, but if we would remove the CV, would be the game then perfect balanced? Smol, Stalin, Belfast, Nikolai, HE Spam, Radar etc For myself I'm not specifically pro-rework. I'm more about pro-improvements, and I see an improvement in the rework, which still can be more improved. **(Just a bit offtopic, games where I remembe,r they failed balancing. World of Warcraft, when the demon hunter was released - he was OP for a month or more League of Legends, the most imbalance I remember was the release of Xin Zhao, who was a one-man army, and the release of the old Mordekaise,r who did more damage, then most champions without any dmg items, thus he went for full tank and was impossible to kill. BFV, some weapons are stronger, some are weaker Steel Ocean, DD laforey - that dd was so op, stealth fire with powerful guns. Many companies fail in balancing extremly hard at some point)

But I have no patience

Yep, me, too. But in my case, that happens mostly only, when I play Kaga, and don't care too much about plane losses, until I realize, that I'm out of TBs and DBs xD Also that happens mostly, when the enemy team plays a bit smarter and is also about to win. Thus they are grouped all the time, the only way to minimize plane losses there, would be to not attack

Guys... I got a super container with nothing in it. Eh with 100 bonus-credits signal flags

I think lowering the decknumber slightly would be actually good. CV player have to be more careful and pick better targets, though without many plane reserves, the CV will also have less influence, because he can't afford wasting planes.

Yes, the unlimited plane complains are pretty stupid. If the CV player is not a unicum, it could happen, that they end up with low deck numbers like 1 or 2 planes for a squad, and those 1 or 2 planes can get shot before dropping, if the player approaches strong AA. Thus the CV not only did nothing, but also wasted time with a "dead" squad. I like the idea, that it is shown, how many planes the CV has at the current state.Sometimes, when I shot a lot plane, I'm wondering, how many are left in total, so it doesn't have to be even the numbers of different types, a total number would be for me enough

I give it up, you are right. There is no difference in ships, that stsand still. And ships, that try active maneuvering agast the CVs squads. Same hit rate. Must be the same dispersion

show me, how they are impossible to dodge against Cls and non-camping cruisers in way, that it is the same like a standing still ship.

We were talking about AP bombs of IJN. They get less accurate, when turning. Thus maneuvers make them less accurate, thus it makes a drop harder

So, moving makes aiming not harder? It's same when a target stands still?

Soweit ich weiß trifft man ab bestimmter Reichweite den Torpedoschutz und Zita, was zusammen weniger als 54mm sind