Pikkozoikum

1. It's a difference, if one CV is able to cross drop or multiple CVs 2. It's also a thing, when multiple bbs start crossfiring. That's called tactics. 3. Crossdropping won't be that an issue. What do you want cross drop? It looks like aiming at bbs is more easy, and for dd's you use Attackplanes with rockets. If it's really a thing, well then it's a well played tactic. No issue here

I prefer to be optimistic than pesimistic. If I would develop a game and say, it's a roleplay with knights and mages, where the mages are smurfs. Then I generally would have the plan to develop a roleplay game with knights and mages, where the mages are smurf... If Wargaming says, they want solve their addressed issues, I generally would say, say will or they try to do that. These list of balancing, did they a stream of it and said, these are the problems, that we're trying to solve? ;P the "imbalance" is caused by the combination of skill gap and impact of cv. Reducing one of that is solving the imbalance. They will reduce the impact of the CV, so they remove/reduce the imbalance. So it's relevant for imbalance/balance

DoT Stacking doesn't mean flooding stacking. You just have to wait, and you will see. It will solve the named issues. Well, that's your assumtpion, and I won't believe, that the CV rework is more broken than it is now. And as I said, it will be more fair. That is a relative value. That means, even if the future CV will be op, he will be less op, less op is more fair. Funny, you didn't understand me, sorry that I didn't explained it corretly. I explained in what way the skill gap is a problem in case of the CVs. It's a combination of the impact of CVs and the skill of good players. 1+1=2 If you reduce the impact of CVs, the skill gap is not an issue itself. You don't have to eliminate the skill gap What has Wargaming addressed has issue? Right the impact of CVs. What does that mean? Skill gap won't be an issue in future.

Don't know, if it's easy or not. But it looks like, that the AA rework is pretty nice, it has one component of skill needed (long mid range) and one component of safe defense (short range). Good players will get less damage, but they're not invincble, they will still get damage by short range. For me it sounds fair. Better than having ships that are invincible by op aa, and others ships, that are the opposite of invincible by bad aa. It still don't see a high flooding chance, also don't see why it is needed. I don't know how the aa is aiming, it doesn't look like, that aa is always firing in front of the planes. For me the AA rework looks thousand times better, than it is right know. The aa right know gives no interactive play. Assuming that he becomes way more op, than it is now is way more laughable The skill gap alone is not really the issue. It's the combination of the skill gap with the power of a cv. You have skill gaps at every ship type. but who cares about a unicum Yamato? 60% winrate with CV means, that you're better than average CV players and that you have huge impact by playing the cv. Guess the impact you cause would be less, if you play Battleship instead, while another player would play CV.

No, he is right so far they really get it worked like it is supposed to be. And I guess this will be the case. He wasn't talking about ,that better players are better. He was talking about that there is only one ship each team, which has more impact than every other ship. And if there is one good and one bad player in this ship, the team with the good player has a way higher advantage, than the other Team An example Team 1 CV Unicum BB Average BB Bad CA Average CA Average CL Average DD Average Team 2 CV Bad BB Average BB Unicum CA Average CA Average CL Average DD Average Which team will be better, when they would fight 100 games? That shows pretty good the difference, if a good player play a strong ship. Don't get me wrong, a Unicum CV player is not a free win, they still can lose. But it's more unlikey, that the Team 2 will be way better with a Unicum BB, because the bb has less impact

A single suqad is ineffective against any kind of serious AA - The rework, you have only a single squad... and you have to stay longer in AA fire than it is now. After you drop your torps, your remaining TB are still in AA firing, but not in a striking position. It's even harder for CV in the rework. And the flooding chance is higher? Do you really know that? 9 Torps hits, 2 floods = 22% That looks for me more or less the same. I mean they don't do 5 floods with 10 torps Name | Detection | Damage | base | Bism || Mk13 mod. 0A | 1.5km | 9867 | 71% | 18% || In the Video, he maybe could dodge the first, but only by flying away, the second hit just spawned inside the planes. Also we don't know how real aa ships perform, especially when you get 2 or 3 cvs per match, the meta will chance you there will be way more aa skilled ships. Then I can finally play the Kii :D That's in assue of bad and good players, not of balancing. If you get so many best case scenarios, it doesn't matter if current version or rework. Actually the rework is then still more balanced and fair, then it's now. A best case secnario with the current version for the cv is an alpha strike kill

It's not simpler than any other ship. And it's not that much simpler than current cv gameplay. Multiple squads doesn't make it more complex, just more difficult, that's the difference. Technically it's even more complex with the new rework. TB, DB, AP and Fighter vs TB, DB and Fighter. AA that actually hits planes and is dodgeable vs passive aura with calculated chances of destroying planes. WASD Movement (4 buttons) vs point and click (2 buttons, 3 if you want let count manuel drop as additional button ^^) + we don't know the finished version, maybe they add way more. The potential of the rework is way higher than the current one. and btw, flooding doesn't have to kill you, AP bombs will and while you're flooding ,you still destroy another ship while that

Changing the time would make sense, I mean smaller torps do smaller holes I don't know, but I could imagine, that the engine of WOWs can't provide a good UI. When you're in port, and you change some stuff, you know these micro freezes? Well, guess that's because of the engine, and they can't change it, only if they would start to develop a complete new game with a different engine. Just an assumption

Not said, that there are perma floods and fires, people only assume that. Even if, it's still better than instant death strikes by 12 torps or ap bombs. If flood will kill you, you can still fight as long they tick

Doesn't seem realistic to me, also you can to the same right now? Cause a flooding with one squad - let him repair, cause another flood. It's the same, the only difference is, that you can move only with one big squad, which will take damage with every strike, while when you use multiple suqads, only the striking squads can take damage. Since we don't know how it really works, we can only assume, how it will be. But in my opinion, you can't say, that you will do always the max damage with max floods. That's unrealistic, you don't do floods with every hit, you won't be able to do always all strikes, they have still AA. and every strike will damage at least with the short range aa your planes. Every additional strike means, that you have to stay longer in AA. Right know, you can fly quickly in and leave. done. YOu don't have to go 4 times into an aa buble with the same squad. The best case scenario will be more like this: You attack a bb, first wing casues flood. Know you don't want stay 3 minutes in his aa range, so you will keep using your torps, that means the bb will keep back the repair consumable (don't know the eng name). That means in a worst case scenario for him, he will have to keep the flooding for ~1 min, than he can repair. He don't get 2 floods, not even one full flood. This is only the best case for the CV. IF you don't cause a flood with the first wing, you might have only a total flood time of 30-40 s and if the aa shots down the last planes, the bb can repair earlier. I don't know why many people argue always like the best case scenario is the normal case, that makes no sense. The video clearly shows, that even a Zao can rekt plenty of planes with the midrange aa.

1. AA gets reworked 2. How is a dd effected right now by a CV? It's ways worse. Alpha strikes could kill the dd instantly, and if the cv misses, he can keep one squad there for spotting, while the rest is reloading. One big squad can't stay and fly back to reload at the same time. Also no Alpha strikes, hitting with 3 torpeds is harder than with 12 cross dropped torpedos I see no issue there

Yes, I totally agree. I'm pretty sure ,that one squad spotting will be way too op, not like it is now. Also that you can do multiple attacks with one squad! Now you have to alpha strikes, that instantly kill ships... that really sucks, I don't want instantly kill ships! And the Ui looks way more buggy than it is now. Also I don't want see much of the battles, I prefer single pixels and icons! The rework is really worse!

Nothing wrong with that

That's the point, I'm pretty sure, that the majority is pleased. Too many people are not happy with the current version. Flamu said in his video something funny, that wargaming can't make it worse than it is now

Over all stats show how are you generally play. If someone is good, he generally plays good. If someone is bad, he generally plays bad. If you start to play competitive - like a ranked game, where the win is only what counts. If you only count current perfomance. Lets say, you do one game and you do 4k base ep. So you're know the best player of the world? No, it's just one game, were you perfomed well. It could be luck. Or just really bad enemies, while oyur mates played bad as well. Single games doesn't give any information. That's why you use statisic. The get a good probability of perfomance of a player. If I would have 30% winrate, my base ep are 300 at 1000 games, would you say, I'm a good player, or a bad player? Same situation, I played 4 games, 30% winrate and alos base ep 300 - could you say with a high probability I'm a bad player?

If they would drop that rework, CV would still need another rework. And the other rework wouldn't fit with the opinion of everyone. There will be always people who are against it. Some people don't want any change - but even here are people against it

I played only two ships in ranked, both above 100 games. Harugumo 51% winrate, Yamato 57%. Guess I took it not because damage advantage. More because of the higher success rate. Simple statistic. When you have to play over hundreds of games, statistic could help and than I pick the ship with the highest winrate. You can damage farm in kinda every ship. Take the Zao, stay on almost max range and behind allies and just keep farming. If you win with the strategy is discusable, but it gives tons of damage

The other Yamato, which support at 16 km does more damage, since it hits better at closer range. Sniping is not always rewarding

1. It matters a lot. You can't take the stats of random battles for ranked battles. The enviroment is completly different 2. You can't take current moments, you need data for the calculation. BTW WoW-Numbers is calculating a PR already. It also shows, that current perfomance is not working. Just because a player had one good game, doesn't mean, that he is a unicum. He just had one good game. That's why you need multiple games to figure out, who is good and who not. And good players should rise faster, than bad players. 3. Here the PR of some of my ships calculated by WoW-Numbers. I see no issues with that, though it doesn' seem to calculated with the Winrate, but I never said, that it must be included, just saying it's a possible parameter. And I would include it, just because people are then more focused on winning

Told you, only ranked stats matters, not random ;)

Well, then you might doesn't count as beginnger. I'm pretty sure, that most beginners are more like: "Full speed towards the enemy". Especially in low tiers you can do that without getting punished, because everyone is kinda doing it. The Arizona and ships like that are often recommended for beginners, because they're slow, and so they don't rush into death. I started with Japaneses ship... well I play almost only Japanese ships, but when I started with bbs, I had to learn ,that rushing in with a Kongo or Nagato is not the best way

If someone does nothing, he won't have a good winrate. If a player with a good winrate does nothing in one single battle, well, then he played this one battle bad and wasn't the key for success. But winrates are calculated by hundreds and thousands game. If that player is doing nothing for 1000 games, he won't have a good winrate. Also you still don't get it. I'm talking about the general idea of calculating the a personal rating. It doesn't matter, which stats you use. That's something that Wargaming has to figure out. Another point is also, that you can't take only base EP. Because earned base EP also depends on the ship type. You need multiple data and a way more complex formula, than I posted ;)

you got almost 5k battles. How did you played with a few hundred battles? ;D

1. it was an example for paramters could be in cluded 2. it's not a bad idea, when you play ranked with a ship, where you got a bad winrate, why should you get rewarded for that? That makes no sense. 3. I guess you think it's meant that it should be looked at only one stat. That's not what i meant. I was talking about calculating a personal rating by different stats, that express the skill of the player I make an example, JUST AN EXAMPLE, not that how it should be done. Winrate of player 0.6 (60%) * Winrate of ship 0.2 (20%) * base ep of player 1500 * base ep of ship 500 = Personal rating dived by 100 for better reading) -> 900 Winrate of player 0.6 (60%) * Winrate of ship 0.7 (70%) * base ep of player 1500 * base ep of ship 1600 = Personal rating (/100) -> 1008 The player gets a higher personal rating, when he plays a ship, that he is good with. Why should he be rewarded, when brings a ship to the ranked battle, in which he sucks? Also keep in mind, that only ranked battle stats count and not the random battle stats. Additionall you could calculate that with older stats of older seasons, but with a less weight. For example base ep of the last season were also 1500, but counts only as 750

Well, the idea behind removing the star is good. But the problem is also that raising will be even harder. There must be a differantiation to keep stars. If you know league of legends, they also have a system to keep points (a star), depending on your personal rating you lose/win points. Maybe they should change the whole system from stars to the same system they have for clan battles with winning points. The earned/lost points depends on a personal rating that could be calculated by WR, WR of the ship, base ep and base ep of the ship and other parameters. Good players with good overall stats would raise generally faster. The stats can be calculated with different ratings. That the current ranked stats have the most influence, while stats from previous ranked seasons have less influence