Pikkozoikum

That's the thing, I know it, but many others don't

That's an analogy for this game to explain something. Explaining the meaning of damage. 100k average total damage on a CV has not the same meaning like 100k average total damage on a cruiser or bb

You got me wrong here. I was talking about the stats. If you implement the Admiral Hipper and that ship has x dps. And then you implement Prinz Eugen and give her 20% less dps. That wouldn't be balanced, so firstly you balance by a kind of "budget" in stats. If Prinz Eugen has less dmg, then it needs a balance somewhere else, maybe it should be more tanky. This kind of balance is only stat-wise and has nothing to do with the skill of a player.... as I said Though you will obvioulsly see that in the end in the player statistics, since they are not balanced. Beside that, as far as I know is WG looking at the whole playerbase. They look if good player play in ship x better than ship y, but also if bad or average player deviate. At least they had shown that once in a stream

I'm wondering, how much sense it even make to balance for professionals in a game, that has no real skill matchmaker or league system. It's mostly a mix of all skill levels anyways. Thus the game shouldn't be balanced around a specific player type. And especially in a game like Warships the balancing should be mostly about the stats itself, and those don't care about skill.

What does that mean? I tested Kaga in test room, with one corner not overlapping the BB. like ~10% of the full area not covering. And there was always one bomb going to that corner v_v

Eine kurze Antwort würde reichen. Mir ging es darum, dass ich A) eine Kremlin beschossen habe, die grundsätzlich als sehr tanky gilt B) auf hoher Reichweite (20km) Aus naher Distanz ist es nicht all zu schwer cit hits zu machen^^

20km Kremlin vs 12km Republique oder was wird beschossen? ^^ Und wie gesagt, was ich noch nie hatte. Hattest du mal 3 cits auf 20km Distanz gegen eine Kremlin? Edit, ah die andere Yamato? Das ist schon was anderes, zudem - welche Distanz war das?

No, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the consistency in gameplay/gamedesign or mechanics, not about skill. Guess that's right, though I don't see any context When I talk about high damage. Then I'm talking about the capabilities of the weapons. I talk about the damage, that it casues on hit -> Alpha damage I talk about the reload -> Fire rate I talk about ammo -> Different types of ammo can cause different damage. But I don't talk about different lifespan. If you do a comparison, it's mandatory to have the same initial conditions. If I compare the price of an apple and a peach, than I should do that with the same initial conditions: Same country, same year. I shouldn't compare the apple price of today in Germany, and the peach price of England in year 1500. And such thing we have with the average total damage. It doesn't show the actual dmg because it's influenced by lifespan. You can compare the average total damage of one CV with another CV. But comparing a CV average total damage with that of a BB is not meaningful, because the lifespan has to be considered, which influences the average number

No, it does only high average damage. But high average damage != high damage. When you have a deathmatch with 10 people in a city. The City is empty. 9 people get MGs, Sniper, grenades, heavy armament. Those cause heavy damage. 1 person, we call him CV, gets a pistol with weak ammo. Now the city is big, it takes 30-60 minutes to reach a person and the people to manage to find someone and one shot persons. But the one guy, the CV, has a helicopter. He flies in a minute to someone, shots him with 3 rounds, moves to the next, shots him, and he kills many people. He did a lot damage, but with a weak weapon. His pistol has not high damage, he just get the opportunity to do much. He get the time and speed. But the weapon itself has not high damage^^ The DPM is low, the Alpha is low. the Ammo is low, everything on that weapon is bad.

Yes, though that's not the only reason, also the reliability of the torpedos are a factor of that. But yes. But that's why the *average* total damage of a CV is kinda meaningless. If a CV does consistently 1000 times 100k dmg, because he lives always until the end, then the average is 100k While a a DD 500 times 10k dmg and 500 times 150k. This is in average 80k Would you now say, the CV has high damage? I think, that is also one reason, why some people excel so good with CV, because they can do consistent dmg, instead of "inconsistent" damage

Eh, not every ship has 20 minutes. Look at the death ratios... Some ships die more frequently early than others. Some survive more. A CV has high damage total numbers in average not because he has so much damage, it's because he has the opportunity to deal that damage. CV lives (mostly) the longest -> more time. Surface ships can live long, but also die early -> less time. Having less time means, less opportunties to cause damage. But that doesn't mean, a ship has low damage.

It was a reply to another ones comment. I think the point of a forum is to discuss and talk. And if someone says, "I like strawberry ice" and I say "But chocolate ice cream is also nice", then that is just a reply for my side and it's ontopic for what the person said before^^ I wouldn't generalize that one. There are too many scenarios, were it doesn't matter. -At the beginning of a match, it doesn't matter much, if they know, where a DD is, a few minutes later, the DD will be completly different spot. -Using guns and/or smoking does also give the position, still it can be good to kill another DD. It's the same principle. Showing for killing DD/Aircraft. (Of course an enemy DD has more value, but then the risk is also higher) -If that helps the cruiser to survive longer, it can be a late game goal, to have a less depleted HP Pool. -It's my playstyle and my experience, and I do well in DDs. My Hayate has 58% WR in ranked. And it would be way higher, if they would finally buff the rudder/turning, because the major threat are DD-Torpedos, those are sadly undodgeable. And that's my point of aa-weaker DDs. That they should use their AA in specific situation, and not only Halland. Someone said, that only those have good AA, and I was adding as an additional comment, that I would still use the AA of other DDs, even if they are weaker, because they can remove some planes. If a DD mate gets attacked, I might open fire as well, so he takes maybe one less strike and survives longer. If nobody cares, then there is no need to talk about. And there might be more focus on those people, who care? Though you already said, why it makes a difference. a Shima kills 1-2 planes. If 12 planes attack and a cruiser can shoot down 6 ,so an aircraft carrier could strike 2 times. With shima he he would only get 1 strike out. That is a huge difference. It can a a difference of perma flood and perma fire or only the damage of one strike.

Yes, and "low damage" is not clear, what it means. If I have a Pistol and a tank gun. Then I would say, the pistol does low damage compared to a tank. But what if I use this pistol and shoot for 1000 years against a wall, every day a full magazine. I think the damage is then high as well If a CV causes every minute 5k damage, would you say, that is high damage? He lives 20 minutes and does than 100k damage. The BB shots one time, casues 30k damage after minute, but detonates after 2 minutes by a double torpedo hit. He casues in that 20 Minute match 60k. That is less damage. Still I would say, that a BB has "high damage".

I was more refering to average total damage statistic. Even the "Camper" might die earlier, than the CV generally

That question can't be answered, because it's yes and no, depending on the perspective and detail. It can be seen as something completly different ,and it can be seen as something very similar depending on the scale of the question and in what degree asked

Die GZ hat halt die aller besten Sekundäre im Spiel. Aber mit den Japanern habe ich keine all zu große Probleme Kreuzer oder Schlachtschiffe zu treffen. Allerdings sind sie gegen Schlachtschiffe meistens nicht so gut und gegne Kreuzer nehme ich meistens AP Bomben. Aber ja, ich sehe sie halt als Sekundärbewaffnung, wenn TBs und DBs verbraucht sind und ich irgendwas für die Zwischenzeit brauche. Ich sehe das jetzt nicht als Problem, zumal ich an sich die Änderung gut finde, nicht im Sinne das ein Nerf gut ist, aber wie das gameplay und die visuellen Effekte sind, es macht irgendwie Spaß damit anzugreifen. Es ist leider nur nicht sehr effektiv xD

The question is, what do you mean with low damage? DPM or total damage? That is something different. A CV lives generally longer than any other ship, thus he gets obvioulsy more time to apply damage. That doesn't mean, he has high dpm, actually it would mean the opposite.

Kaga has HE Bombs. Calculating the DPM is quite difficult in case of CVs. While for ships you just need Gun number * reload * damage, the CV is different there, the dpm depends the range he has to travel, and while in theory you could go always with a full squadron, there is in most cases never the full squadron attacking. And that also lowers the dpm. While a ship can actually quite often reach the full dpm at least for a short while (not the full match) If looking at the total damage numbers of ships, we have to consider in case of the CV, that the CV often survives very long, thus he mostly has more time to get higher total damage numbers, even though his dpm is lower than some other ships. Thus he gets more time to reach higher average total damage numbers.

You could have done a lot. I mean, there are multiple scenarios possible, were it happens. And in both examples at some point it might be unavoidable in both cases. So yes, 20k are sometimes unavoidable. But also it is avoidable in both cases. Actually it is kinda new to me, that a player, when he gets killed says "Oh my bad, I played bad, I could have done better, it's ok, that I took big damage.". It's mostly like this "Only campers, where is my team?" xD

After such comment, it's not worth my time to go with any arguments. I prefer more factual discussion, than such kind of statements. Also it doesn't matter, if the question is relevant for the topic or not, it was a question I asked. What your wrote was also not releveant to my original comment, and yet I answered. But well, I don't see, how this can become a decent discussion

That doesn't even answer the question, but ok then. Don't bother to quote me again :)

Is it okay for you, when you take 10-20k damage from a BB, when you angle, maneuver etc?

Same reason, why people hate sniper in shootern, or specific classes in Mobas and RPGs, or artillery in tank games.

I know, I often still hope, that some people are open for a normal discussion, but often you get put into one of the extremes. CV hater or CV apologists. That some people try to look at it more neutral doesn't exist. I mean, I'm a allrounder, I play all ships more or less equally^^

Aren't those good against larger ships anyways? While I realy like this change, just because it looks pretty and it's actually more fun to aim with, it feels kinda bad for japanese planes, further more for Kaga. I mean Kaga rockets were bad before, but now they are pointless^^ And that's what I don't like, they could remove the Zeros then, but having something so uselss reminds me on the Dive-bomber setup for Kaga before rework, where the Kaga could have 3 DB squads. It was so pointless to have that... xD