Pikkozoikum

Well, that's something. But 200 is not that much, but beside that, it's also the question, what kind of people are participating there. I mean in this forum are (feeling, guess) around 90% only here for trolling, complaining or boasts. That's why people think the majority doesn't like the CV, because many people just come to the forum for crying around. People who just okay with that, are rarely coming to a forum for that. It's often a behavior in the forum, that only people comment, who are against something, rarely for something. I notices some people, who always commenting something against others, never like "Hey, great idea, you're right" - never saw that! But I appreciate more data and facts. It's just that I generally like the poll of Wargaming more, because of what I said, and because at the Test are all people, who are interested in the CV, interested to go with it or disagree. And at last point. The question is wrong set. Wargaming mentioned, and we all know, that the balancing is still happening. So the question of "is it better" would suggest, that the unbalanced state have to be better than the RTS after years development. For a fair question would it be, is the reworked beta better than the beta RTS back in the old days? I didn't played there, but a friend told me, that the RTS CV was totally OP at the beginning. The Question should be "Do you like the reworked CV in general?"

That's true, but I guess there is still a majority, who likes the rework. And off the 50%, I guess the most people are more about, that there fine with the general idea, but don't like certain things. Best example ist Fara, who has fun with the rework, but don't like the lack of vessel control - such things doesn't make the rework bad. No issues with criticism

The planes have a flight deck with a reload timer. If a CV loses planes, he won't be able to start new, until they're reloaded. Wargaming mentioned, that the AA is right now too weak, and that's why it seemed, that CVs would have unlimited planes, but they're buffing the AA.

It's nothing wrong with the method... that's not what I meant. When I would drive a Lamborghini, but I drive only 50 km/h or 50 mph, makes that the car to a slow, bad car? If there is a tank, who can be potentially OP, than the tank is op? OP means that the tank is not balances. There are only a few players, who can use the high perfmonce, but the tank is broken with his values. The high skilled players just showing it, how broken it is. But that's what I wrote earlier. I just wanna say that balancing is about the ship values They uses different opinions, nothing wrong with that? That has nothing do with that op ships have to be balanced. no matter if a skilled player or a newb is playing that. The different sights are especially important, since it could be otherwise pretty subjektive. I mean the elite is always saying "it's too easy", the bad players say "It's too hard" - and maybe both are wrong, because it's totally well balanced and only their skill makes it easy or hard :)

I see an issue with the current system, were some ships are invulnerable against planes, while others are defenceless

The current system allows in high tier only 1 CV vs 1 CV and there are only 2 types of CVs. That leads into a 50-50 Winrate. It's below 50% because of hidden statistics. With a full statistic the WR would be almost exactly 50%. So I don't count the winrate of the RTS Winrate, since you can't generate a significant winrate. It's just not possible. ;) If the rework will really allow 3 or 4 CVs per team, it would be a more clear statistic. But as I said, it's only an indicator, but maybe not the full truth. You always have to take a closer look. It's not that simple. That's not true, I want a good balanced game. But I also think, that a CV should win against a single ship always, as long the CV is hidden. Good non-CV players should be able to give a CV a hard time. e.g. that a good CV player has to waste >6 minutes and tons of planes, just to get sunk a single player. Just an example Yes, that has nothing to do with balancing of a ship. If the other players also good, they will know how do minimize the damage of the enemy bb and burn that bb down. Skill shouldn't be part of ship balancing. Do you know League of Legends and Nightblue? He says always "this champ is broken"... but actually many champs are not broken, just he is so good, that every champs looks broken. So you don't balance the champions, just because he is good with them. If you have a knife fight, then nobody should get a gun You can't balance ships because of the skill. The current issue with carrier is, that they're not balanced, they have too much influence. If you give now a good player something that is not balanced, then it will overwhelm most of the games everything. (There will still be games, where the CV won't be able to carry the match) As I said, on a knife fight, everyone should get a knife. If you give now the best fighter a gun, the end should be obviously. If two get a gun and the rest knives, then the better gun fighter will more likely kill the other guy with the gun, who maybe don't even know how to unlock the weapon, and kill then the rest. (Don't come up with throwing knives :P )

Eh, that makes no sense, how to punish that CV then? Maybe only for testing?

Sounds weird, but if it's not working, I'm pretty sure, they will change something about it. The topic is too hot for not reacting fast on it

Hmm ,well the US have pretty strong rockets, so maybe RN should get pretty strong bombers, idk

The first point... that has nothing to do with balancing... that is about the match making. Balancing is about the tools, which have to be fair, not about the players skill. A game is only fair, if the conditions are the same. Balacning ships should not be related to the players skills. The problem is, that world of warships has no matchmaking depending on skill. But that has nothing to do with the balancing of ships. So there have to be differentiated related to fairness between the ships balance and the players match making, The third point is more close with the rework, than with the RTS. The fourth point. Yes the hull is invulnerable, but it's a different mechanic. You can shoot down the planes. So while you can shoot down the planes, you can't shoot down the shells of enemy bbs. Thus the strikes of a bb are also invulnerable. Of course you could break the guns. But that requires the mains guns and not passive aa, which is just there The fifth point: Planes are not really "unlimited", you can't have e.g. 50 torpedobomber. There is a punishment for losing planes, and that affects the perfomance of the CV "However, unlimited reserves come with cooldown for each plane lost, so when AA works as intended, there will be big noticeable difference for a CV that actively sacrifices the planes.", Sub_Octavian -Why you can't balance the damage output? I saw people saying, that the T8 is fine. So the T10 just have to be balanced like the T8 is balanced. If there is too much damage, than lower it, is there too few, than increase. Somewhere most be the break even point. -Actually the victims reward is so much better with the rework than in RTS. When I play the RTS CV, I often feel bad about one shoting dds and that kind of stuff. It's not about the skill alone, it's about that one CV will suffer hard from the dominating CV, who is just better. Thus all the other ships suffer as well. That's more broken than the rework. Also people always talking about "dumbing down" and "easy class", but then you can observe the difference of good players and bad players. I read there so many contradictions about the reworked CV and I just guess, that we often don't see the whole thing. Just one example: Many people thought, that returning planes would show the location of the CV, but since test round 1, the planes just disappear after 1 or 2 seconds for the enemy. Otherwise, we will see in one or two month :) ( I would say in 6 month, since Wargaming is always slow, but I guess they will be a bit more faster with balancing for the CV than usual) EDIT: Something really important: Balancing doesn't mean to make something 100% fair and even. It means, to get close to 100% as much as possible. It's impossible to get 100% in a game with different conditions like having different ships. So a good indicator for me would be a winrate of a ships around 49-51 %, closer to 50% would be better of course Just saying: it will be never balanced, there will be always ships, that are slightly better or slightly worse, so the CVs will be also slightly stronger or slightly weaker than other ships

Urgh, wie kann man wirklich glauben, dass man ein PvP Spiel nicht balancen kann, wie z.B. den CV Rework

Let's talk next month again....

I worked as application developer 3 years. Can't believe, that you don't know, how balancing works. The Developers can change the code in a way they wish. I would even now how to balance the RTS style xD How? By being more even/similar to the ship gameplay: -Aiming -Controls -Mechanics

The easiest way to balance something is to make it more even to the rest. The rework is more even to the other ship types than the RTS gameplay is. This is easier to balance than the RTS gameplay.

They said multiple times, that they will keep balancing. That is what happend the last 3 rounds and will be continued. "Please don’t treat any balance settings on PTS and further 0.8.0 release final – they are not. We realize that bad game balance on PTS spoils the perception of CV rework in general, and the rework itself is controversial to many of you", Sub_Octavian

Absolutly everything can be balanced.

In my world, I go with facts, and I was indirectly quoting the youtube video.

I just wish people would understand, that balancing is a continuously process

Mit spotten meinst du aber, dass du hinter einer Insel stehst und dein Radar dafür benutzt und nicht aktiv spottest? Denn aktives spotten ist nicht umbedingt die Aufgabe der Kreuzer, das machen die DDs. Die leichten Kreuzer der Amerikaner wie die Cleveland haben besonders gute Arcs. Also sie können sehr hoch schießen, demnach können diese Kreuzer gut hinter einer Insel stehen und drüber schießen.

If you want believe that, it's your business. I would go to the chuch, if I want believe in something

Not really, the second option was something like "I like it, but would like some changes". It was a general like, not a dislike. So a general like was something around >80% https://youtu.be/D6e-qpq1Zt8?t=2861

The AA gets a buff Not really, we're playing a PvP - Warship shooter. It's about balancing and game mechanics. If anyone is looking for realism in this game, then this person should look for a game like Silent Hunter or another simulator. This game has Radar, that goes through mountains. Destroyers with plenty of torpedos and 100mm guns, which destroys battle ships. It has no earth curvature, but ships, that never existed. The game is accelerated times 3. So it's nonsense in a nonsense game ;)

some ships are post world war like some russian ships, Minotaur etc. So that wouldn't be an argument against that. But having jets wouldn't fit. The planes were way to fast. On the test server got the speed of T10 planes already nerfed, so jets really wouldn't fit

24th, in 20 days Planes in general have lower flooding chance, even on the live version. While DD torps are around 80% (depending on the torpedos of course), have planes more like 20%. DD's won't suffer a lot from floods. It's not that hard to dodge the planes

I made mysefl a rule many years ago, when I started with Steel Ocean: Never use torpedos from the second line. Never. Your teammates sailed into your torps, because your teammates don't expect, that an ally drops torpedos on them. Nobody is looking for "allied" torps behind them, because they mostly look at the enemy.