Pikkozoikum

I think it was 4s until they shoot the rockets, so you have to give lead. But it seems that rockets have better dispersion. I think you use rockets only against busy or even stationary DDs, but not to hunt down primarly DDs. YOu could even use them against Crusers or some BBs (did once 12k hit on a french bb)

Naja, aber ist das nicht eigentlich nur fair, wen wendige Kreuzer eben auch ihre Wendigkeit nutzen können? Darüberhinaus wenn die Streuuung gebufft wurde, sollte es dann nicht etwas schwerer sein? Ich hatte vor kurzen über12k mit den japansichen Raketen an einem Schlachtschiff verursacht, dass hatte ich vorher noch nie, oder so selten, dass ich micht nicht erinnere. Denke da ist das nur fair. Aber wie gesagt, ich hab die US nicht und kann das nicht beurteilen, nur die Japaner, die haben 4s Sekunden, konnte aber auch einige DDs damit treffen. Hm, würde das zu gerne selbst testen, aber dachte mir, wenn die japansichen Raketen funktionieren, sollten die US erst recht funktionieren^^ Wie gesagt. Der Nerf bezieht sich hauptsächlich gegen schnelle, wendige Schiffe. Demnach sind alle Raketen, die nur gut gegen genau diese Ziele sind, davon härter betroffen. Die Tiny Tims sind doch die besten auch gegen langsame (gepanzerte) Ziele, daher sind die von so einem Nerf am wenigsten betroffen und werden evtl stärker "generft". Klingt für mich zumindest logisch. Ich würde sie einfach mal mehr gegen solche Ziele testen. Vielleicht kommt da ja doch mehr bei rum. Und es ist eine globale Änderung. Alle Flugzeugträger haben diese neue Mechanik bekommen. Da es aber eine neue Mechanik ist, wird die dennoch unterschiedlich ausfallen. Gleiche mit zukünftigen U-Booten, da werden verschiede Schiffe auch ASW Bewaffnung bekommen. Und da wird die Bwaffnung auch unterschiedlich ausfallen. Ich meine schau dir die kaga hat ,die hat die gleiche Verzögerung wie die Shokaku, dabei sind die Kaga Raketen eh schon ziemlich schlecht. Die sidn nun quasi komplett nutzlos^^ Wo da die Logik steckt, weiß ich auch nicht. Naja, aber immerhin ist es ein Buff und denke das kann für gute Treffer gegen große Ziele sorgen. Weiß nicht ob es wirklich ein Unterschied macht ob 4 oder 5 Sekunden, wenn es gegen BBs gerichtet ist^^ Aber von mir aus kann es 4.5 s sein. glaube die Japaner haben auch sowas wie 3.9 auf T8 und 4s auf 10 oder so ähnlich und ich fand das an sich okay. Ich meine insofern man einen nerf eben okay finden kann ;D

On the one hand, I think small changes might seem small, but can have way bigger effect, than a player could notice. On the other hand, I would buff and nerf way harder, Kremlin and all the russian ships get the icebreaker armor removed. Somehow I have that "feeling" that those ships would become acutal balanced ships then xD Actually I asked for submarines. But then like Chieftain said, never say never. Things can change. And a funny story: A few years ago, RTS -CV times, I actually had the idea and proposal to change the AA. Since they don't want manual AA and the automated AA is boring and weird with the click-thing, I suggested to add AA sectors. My idea was a bit different ,that you have to place a sector similar to the torpedo-spread visual-indicator. Well, years later we got aa sectors, not manual placeable, but still aa sectors. I'm really wondering, if they went with my idea of these sectors and just altered it, because it was really quite similar ^^ My idea was something between manual and automated. Well one thing is, that we sadly can't see their statistic. Once they showed it in a stream, that was very interesting, but they did that so rarely. And well, I think it'S good that they don't listen to the CCs, because that are very often more people, who rate gameplay over any other stuff. Just like statsbloke, I like that streamer, but he said he liked the submarines in the last test more, than in the current test. And well, the last test (not the latest) was so terrible. The latest was a bit better, that one before was way to much like modern submarines, totally not the gameplay, that I would expect from a second world war game. Arcade or not, I hope they do that with the surveys

Ich bin kein Spezialist der Amerikaner, aber trifft die Änderung die Saipan nicht am geringsten? Zwar ist die MG-Feuerdauer ziemlich lang, aber das Ding ist, dass Raketen ganz allgemein nur noch bedingt gut einsetzbar sind gegen DDs. Demnach wäre es angebrachter die Raketen gegen andere Ziele einzusetzen und da sind die Tiny Tims doch am besten für geeignet dank der hohen Penetration. Also die Logik ist, dass Raketen allgemein schlecht gegen DDs sind -> Also auf große, langsame Ziele damit gehen. Da spielt der Verzögerung weniger eine Rolle, aber der Durchschlag eine umso größere. Da hat die Saipan dann einen Vorteilen Zusätzlich würde ich die Raketen vllt nun auch mehr als Sekundärbewaffnung betrachten, die zweite Wahl. (bzw. dritte) Hinzu kommt doch noch, dass die Saipan doch die HE Bomber hat, dachte die sind gut gegen DDs? ^^ Warum Belfast nicht geändert wird aber CVs. Das liegt an der Art der Änderung. Es werden CVs allgemein geändert und nicht die Saipan speziell. Wenn es eine Kreuzeränderung gibt, wird die Belfast auch davon betroffen sein. Denke von der letzte Änderung der Deckpanzerung war jeder Kreuzer betroffen? Ich persönlich mag die Änderung. Sie fühlt sich viel stimmiger im Spiel an, da so ziemlich alles eine Verzögerung hat, zudem sieht es gut aus. Einzige Problem, dass ich habe: Ich spiele nur Japaner und da sind die Raketen nie so richtig gut, sie waren ganz nützlich gegen DDs, aber das ist nun nicht mehr der Fall^^

Japanese ships also got balance patches after years... Balancing is something, that will never end in such type of pvp game. Just look at any pvp game with different classes. So I don't like the sarcasm about that, not saying, that I like the decisions made by Wargaming. I would do it compeltly different like WG is doing it, but also I don't like this exessive hate and sarcasm. If I would disagree in such a manner, I probably wouldn't play this game or write in the forum There is a lot questionable stuff in this game, but still I don't start to misquote and misinterpret their statements like this "we balance for popularity" For example the aircrafts on Hakuryu, the J5N as TB and DB. That's something I really can't believe, why they had this decision. The J5N is an interceptor fighter, that never launched from an aircraft carrier nor it carries heavy bombs or torpedos (max 1x250kg bomb, though Navalbombers had 500kg to 800kg bombs) It's so weird to me

well, not sure if you are serious or sarcastic. For the case you mean it sarcastic: Yes, rofl lol! For the case you mean it serious: They do, you can even see that lately, when they implemented deck guns, periscope depth and dive capacity. That were all player requested, and in case of the deck guns: They actually said earlier, they don't add them. They change it because of the players. The thing is, the players feedback is often in conflict. One says AA is op, the other says AA is too weak. Some say the AA is fine. You can't listen to all. Also it's pretty bad, if you only go with the players opinion. It would be very chaotic. Players often think they know it better, though they have only their view and experience, not the whole view and data. In my opinion the best would be, if they take the data, then a few good players and discuss that together.

Hmm individual players, I think you mean rather the skill level of players. They have charts, where the can see, for example via winrate, if one ships deviates from other ships. For example if a 40% cruiser wr of some players have 35% with a specific cruiser. Or if a unicum with 70% Wr on CV has 80% wr with a specific CV. Something like that It's not like that they just look at a single player ^^ There was once a stream about some of their charts, but I don't have that video sadly

You know what a hyperbole is? ;P

Hope the potato-earth was at least understandable

It's not about opinions. The CV, that sunk earlier is still sunk late. Look at the survival rates. And yes, we don't have the nesscary numbers, that's why I say, that the average total damage is pretty bad for comparison. Only same ship types are somewhat compareable like cruisers with cruisers or BBs with BBs or CVs with CVs. And in fact, that makes the number lower just because of the lifespan. It has different conditions. I think the issue is ,that I can't explain the real meaning for a match and the connection with the average damage number. When you say, something has high damage, then I understand, that you are saying that the weapon casues high damage. And if you compare two weapons, would you test that under same conditions or under different conditions? If you want compare the damage of a M16 and a AK47 Would you compare the damage by shooting with both weapons for 1 minute Or would you compare the damage by shooting for 1 minute with M16 and with the Ak47 for 10 minutes (limitless ammo)

Still not understand the point. And wrong context. If you are in your BB. You have 50 points. The enemy has 12 ships with full HP. 950 points and 3 caps. Now you do 50k damage, before the match ends... How meaningful was that damage for the victory (of the enemy)? Beside, the major topic is about the lifespan, and that average total damage is bad to compare with other ship types.

I don't know, how you translate that, but it has the name "Potsdamer Gravity-Potato" (german: Potsdamer Schwerekartoffel). Not even sure, if "gravity" is a accurate translation, it's the "heaviness" or "mass" meant. But well, that's what I meant, and that's often the case, that the perspective matters. of course is our earth not a potato, but in that perspective of mass destribution, it has that kind of shape and is called potato ;D

If you think, that is my opinion, then you didn't understand my point^^ Look at the survival rates... As I said earlier, the CV tend to survive longer... thus he has more time to do damage. thus the average total damage is higher, even if the CV is actually not doing much more max damage. I'm wondering, if my comments are actually fully read, because I'm repeating myself all the time, bringing the examples, which get ignored. I also have no idea, how to explain it in a different way. That the conditions are too different, that the lifespan has to be considered. Actually that is not a CV thing, also if you compare DD damage with lets say BB damage, it's questionable. And as you said, we don'T have the statistics for that. But that's why I say, that the average damage number is quite meaningless

Good, that you give me an example with the potato, why people keep misunderstanding it, and why I try to explain. With Potato I'm takling about the Potsdamer potato. Thats a model of the earth by it's mass. So in this case, the earth is a potato ;D

The explanation wasn't orinally supposed for you ;) But you mentioned, I would justify, what I didn't do, I was explaining... context please :P I don't see the point here, though you can create training rooms without carriers, if you want :P Eh yes, it's meaningless, when you still win, because the match is already decided. It's "dead" damage, that doesn't change the outcome. Lets specify it. You have a match. 990 points vs 500 points. Team red has 6 surface ships with good hp and 3 caps. The other team as one CV. And now the CV does in the last seconds 20k dmg. What meaning has that damage? What does it change? Will he win now? It's meaningless damage, it doesn't contribute to the win, because it's already lost. And that is an effect, that the carrier has, he is extremly often the last one, who does this kind of damage, that changes nothing, it only boosts the average total damage number. Oh no. That's completly wrong, as shown above, there is meaningless damage. Early high damage has extremly higher impact, then later damage. If you sink a ship in the first 2 minutes, this ship will be gone for the rest of the match. If you sink a ship in the last minutes, then this ship had the whole match impact before it got sunk. So it really matters, when how much damage is dealt. If you believe in fate, you could say, every damage is meaningless, since everything is already determined :P But I was more about a logical view. At some point a match is unwinable. Just like the the earlier example, 10 points left with 3 caps, there is no possiblity to win that as a single carrier-

What ever you say, but it's not arguing, I'm explaining why the earth is a potato Yes, in this case the damage would be meaningless. But the thing is. The carrier tend to do that meaningelss damage alsmost every game, because he is always the guy in the backline. While BBs are not always the guy in the backline ;) Every CV match will be one CV, that is only farming the damage at the end of the match without any meaning. But not every match will be a BB that does that. And you say it here: We cannot consider that damage, and that's why the average total damage is so bad for comparison. Because we can't consider the actualy meaining of damage. Because the conditions are too different. So if comparing total average damage would only come somewhat meaningful if looking at the same type of ships. BBs mostly tend to have a similar playstyle. Of course there are differences, but these difference are by far smaller than the difference from CV to BB. Thus the conditions are way more similar, and that makes it more comparable.

You read it wrong and that's what I try to explain all the time. First of all, does the CV has the highest damage? I mean, in my example he has not the highest damage and when I look at the statistics, I don't see that (At T10 only FdR comes to high numbers, but that's not really the most representive carrier imo, I mean, I don't midn in nerfing FdR). But even then. What do you mean with highest dmg? The higest average total dmg? Because that's the thing ,this damage is not really compareable with other ship types.

Actually that's your interpretation, though not what I'm meaning. I see it not as broken. Though I agree with that we need some changes for improvements. But that's something different. Broken would be, if a CV could do 60k dmg with one drop. That would be broken. Yes, that's technically also meaningless damage, but as a coutnerweight is the early suiciding BB Example of 2 matches. Match 1 BB camps in backline and farms 180k damage and loses. CV stays in backline and also gets his damage ~120k Match 2 BB suicides early and does 20k dmg, CV stay in backline and does 120k dmg. CV average damage is 120k, BB average damage is 100k. But the BB has the higher max damage. Such thing is not shown in the average total damage. And that has to be considered, when looking into average total damage. Eh what? If 6 ships vs 1 CV play, and this 1 CV doesn not 10k or 20k to other ships, how is that meaningful, when the target and it's team won already? It's meaningless damage, but boosts the average total damage. Every ship can cause such meaningless damage, but the CV has a significant higher rate of causing that type of damage.

I'm not justifing, I'm explaining. It also has nothing to do with Simulation or arcade game. Battlefield is also quite arcady and yet they have sniper, and nobody likes sniper. Many arcade games have a design, that is unliked and it doesn't even matter, if it's broken or not And your last point is, that what I'm refering to. The average damage in the statistic is artificially pushed in case of carriers and not compareable, because you have always to consider, that the CV lives longer. That means even if his team got stomped, he will keep doing damage and get higher and higher numbers even though that damage is completly meaningless.

Hm, I actually got lately compliments in CV and even in Chat stuff like, that I played very well. That kinda surprised me But ontopic, just reporting for that is stupid v_v

Ahskance mentioned, that the summit is often misquoted or misunderstood and thus I watched some stuff of it and came to the point "they balance for popularity". And I actually think this is a heavy misunderstanding. The question was something like, if WG wants the influence of CVs closer to the other ship types and the guy answered something like yes, but they also watching a popularity and they don't want them uncomfortable to play. I think what he means with that: They don't want cut down the influence in such a hard way, that the CV becomes underpowered. Underpowered means uncomfortable to play, and uncomfortable to play means lower popularity. So in other words, he just wanted to say, that they want balance them, but in a steady way, so they don't nerf them too hard. That's how i understand it and it sounds actually more logically^^ Flamu even asked, if they aritfically boosting popularty by buffing that class, and he answers with no ^^

Well, if a ship is underperforming, then the skill of the player still doesn't matter, because you would look how that ships performs compared to other ships by players of the same skill level You would look at players with 60% Wr in Cruisers, and if one cruiser has 45% Wr, then this ship might be too weak. But you would also look, how it is for players with 50% Wr, if the curiser is below 50% And if you put that into a chart, you can see, if the ship is underperforming at every skill level, then this ship might be too weak.

ugh, it lagged - double post removed

I think the benefit is larger, than the loss. For example it stops some angry-kid teamkilling. And for me: I can finally use my Yoshino torps without being afraid, if one minute later a friendly DD decides to turn around and into my torps Once a Kleber moved with max speed into a position, were the enemy was before, a minute later, he moved a pretty far distance and the torps hit him. I didn't see him anwhere close at that positon xD

-.-,dawdad