1MajorKoenig

You understand that this would kill any online game do you? That can’t really be the target - there isn’t even an alternative out there

Einen hab ich noch: WK1 Wilhelmshaven :-)

Given that teamwork is made harder and harder I wouldn’t support this. If - again IF - WG should come the conclusion that CV spotting - even if already significantly reduced compared to RTS - is indeed still an issue that hinders overall fun and balance/balans? for everyone there are two very simple and very effective ways to solve it: 1) make a “transmit Recon” button that makes your team see what you (the planes) see for X sec. Button has a Cooldown of Y sec (so you need to pick your Recon reports wisely). It makes the whole story 100% configurable as you can play with Cooldown and Recon duration if needed. 2) if you don’t like reasonable suggestions (believe it or not there are companies out there who don’t) you can fall back to a less flexible and less elegant solution and implement a spotting transmission delay similar to radar. Meaning a DD has Z sec to get the hell outta there. A bit of a clumsy solution but bearable

Yes that one was amazing

Ah this proposal you meant. Well... possible but boring dir to the fact it removes another teamwork element.

Well ok - fine. Even better. So WeeGee has even TWO parameters to play with before making AA monkey-proof. The damage dealt by bombs, torps and rockets AND aircraft speed. So it is even much easier to balance even without -ing up Royale! That makes me somehow admire WG for their ability to screw things up nevertheless - it’s in its own way amazing

I didn’t say spotting isn’t important. I said I don’t see any problem with the way CVs spot. But that aside - what is not smart about the idea is that you are essentially become a map border sniper. Not spotting for yourself is as dumb as it can ever get

They already did this to a degree. A torpedo does now less damage than a normal AP pen. Of source one could go that way and adjust damage output that way. Certainly better than this AA bull- Low tier CVa also suffer from painfully slow planes (=looong coffee breaks) and tiny squadrons. They usually deal the least damage out of all ships - doesn’t need to be that extreme.

Why deal with that Pizza..? Haven’t seen a single constructive slice of information from him. Igno list is your friend

I know that you understand :-) Just wanted to stress this important aspect. With regards to player numbers: the door isn’t closed yet. If WG wakes up from their little ill-fated nerf-CVs-and-listen-to-haters-drug-Tour and finally understands that a critical mass of players need to be retained for the overall interclass balance this can still work out. And because I am on full painkillers some cheering words: “All will be good in the end - and if not all is good, it’s not the end”

The new “delete-A/C” button in 0.8.7 is more or less just that. It’s not even tight to any AA capabilities of a ship. Pretty much bull- Again there is no point in balancing for some individuals. The critical point is that the CV class (or any class for that matter) needs to maintain a critical mass of players to be balanceable (does that word even exist...? Anyhow). If you fall below this critical mass you will see exactly the same as what happened to the RTS carriers. Therefore WG should be VERY aware of CV player retention and don’t follow each and every request for nerfing - which quite frankly are a lot of times either selfish (“don’t touch my tralala”) or pretty uninformed.

Which is true for any class and shows more with higher class influence. But honestly and again - you can’t balance a class based on the best players. Simple isn’t gonna fly and frankly doesn’t make any sense. Which brings us to the core of this discussion - or at least your very own. Don’t get me wrong - I had a lot of sympathy for those who had to let go of „their“ game and I felt really sorry for those knowing how much effort it took to master this iteration. But a good part of the discussion on current problems is now only fueled by this feeling. What certainly isn’t overly helpful is “I had to give up my toy now I do everything to spoil someone else’s”.

Ich lach mich immer wieder scheckig, dass das Forum das deutsche Wort für Beleibt herausfiltert! Was machen die denn wenn ich gern erzählen möchte, dass ich über Weihnachten so viel gefuttert habe, dass ich mir ganz [edited] vorkomme...? Um auch was zum Thema zu sagen: Kii und T-61 habe ich bereits, beides aber schöne Schiffe

Wait... so you reported a bot to another bot and the other bot said don’t worry about the first bot...? Now THAT is a little creepy

Mir ist das gleich. @all bitte voted auf Hargen’s Post mit Like/Dislike. Dann lassen wir einfach die Mehrheit entscheiden EDIT: nur für den Fall, dass das missverständlich war: Like = aufgetaucht Dislike = getaucht

This post contains so much truth

Which is - quite frankly - not a very smart idea. IF spotting is an issue - which I would strongly challenge - one could think about some delaying mechanism as proposed multiple times now While I would like to overcome this “them vs us” the part you guys miss us that it isn’t only about the absolute power level of CVs but that the changes are contradictory to the CV mechanics making it to play

Liebe Leute, mir scheint, jeder beharrt auf seinem Standpunkt. Ich sehe kaum oder keine Überschneidungen! Die Vorabstimmung hat ergeben, dass qualitativ begrenzt werden soll. Im Raum stehen derzeit nur Richtungen, keine Konkreten Abstimmungsoptionen: - kleines Limit zwischen 500 - 1000 ts und Bestandschutzklausel - tonnagelimitierte „Große“ Boote (zwischen 1000-1700? ts?) nach Nationenfaktor und unreglementierte „kleine“ Boote (wiederum zwischen 500-1000ts) - allgemeine qualitative Grenze und Bestandschutz für einen Teil der großen Boote. Ersatz muss ins neue Limit passen Gibt es zu den Tonnagen, Vorschlägen, etc Ergänzungen, Wünsche? Wenn es schwierig sein sollte, im Plenum die Abstimungsoptionen zu finden könnte ich auch wieder einen Textentwurf ausarbeiten und an die Delegierten zur Vorabstimmung verteilen

Hi Pete, the dude you try to educate has a serious issue reading and understanding numbers in case you haven’t met him yet. So while I appreciate you try to explain these things to him I am not sure how fruitful this will be. Either way your effort is appreciated

Dude you impressed us in two threads already with your screaming lack of abilities to read and understand numbers. You are the last person on this globe to make Balancing recommendations. So yea - please stop annoying the grown ups

Playing them was already unpleasant before 0.8.5...

If these numbers are true they confirm what we already knew: T4 CVs are garbage

She is such a beauty!!!

Hatte letztens eine mit einem ST im Match. Holy cow das Ding schießt schnell. Der Kollege kam on top raus mit 3 oder so Kills. Ich denke, die ist speziell aber könnte äußerst spaßig werden!