TomBombardil

no, you cant play old VS new, prurely out of CV vs CV reasons. What you can do is...... ODD Tier old CV! (bring back my hiryu, and Taiho), maby AA is a little problematic, balancing and flak wise, but els, why not.

YES. ooh, aiming became a little more skill based. And dodging FLAK was introduced and is semi-skill. But that is kinda the extend of skill a cv has. Maybe the target selection processes with each take-off. But that is a HUGE downgrade in skill compared to the CONTINUES dynamic multi "target" selection of the old CV, (where on the map to focus your attention). The cv vs cv (fighter) interaction is gone, the scouting, DINYING scouting, zoneing, mobile AA defence. the ship vs plane interaction is gone, Baiting DFAA, sneaking in before DFAA (reconising DFAA ship to busy to notice planes). Dropping through DFAA, was allready nerfed with removal of "bug" (femmenly's don't re-aim ather DFAA is activated = no panic spread). true cross dropping is gone. Saving drop for repair to be on cooldown is gone (strikes are so numerous, just take an new squad). Allied torp interaction is gone, with the treat of old CV torp drop you could coax enemy ship in to allied torp. (Or by mistake do the opposite). Etc, etc, etc. IN SHORT, for the exact reasons you give.

Wow, you find this out now? This has been a meme for so long wiht the CV players (pre-rework Cv players). And one of he thing CV players wanted to adress wih the rework,. but it became a 3th person boming sim instead of a balnace rts rework. Rip, WoWs, Hello WoWp, Hello CONSLE. Yes they are magical.

Allright. I, TomBombardil (CV'ish main, since early CBT), am worried about CV rework. I have watched, struggeld and "excepted" that WG keeps on shitting on CV and CV "Ballance". Not only have they keept buffing AA, intruduce % wise more AA ship (% even more "AA no fly zones"), and nerfed CV. They also sold nerfs as buffs. And made the UI progressingly worse. BUT thats not why im worrierd, since i dont have a high regard for WG (let allone WGCV). But THIS IS: Year of the CVtm, CVrework is a front for: "Year of the Console", get CVWoWp console ready. Since CV do need work (UI, AA, fighter rng, etc) All players (including CV players) agree on CV need a rework! I suspected this wouldn't go in the direction cv players hope for in general. But now there are "confermed" rumours: (Waterline) & Jingles. Here the CV rework is being "rumourd" as making CV's to WoWp & console ready. Now i dont wanne go in to the details. but my question to the CV communatie is: IS there intrest for an Cohort (jointly) response or put up some jointly protests? Can we (the CV players) make a common "cv fist" vs the WG hammer? and is it worth the effort? Best Regards, TomBombardil One of the first haka match everrhh, ps; this video brought me back to WoWs (quited it soon afther lauche) & i hate lineriding, refused to do it. Still bashing about lineriding occasionally. should have know better VS aerroon

Capping? That's only for the super unicorn win rate%. It's way to dangerus! Above that. WHY, would a potato/statspader contest. It's not like CONTESTING gives EXP! But seriously, OK idea, don't let it be a 1 to 1 ratio tough. Rather something like: contesting ship blocks 100% first capping. 50% of 2nd capping ship capping speed & 25% of 3 th capping ship.

But, But, But that would be considered FIXING CVs! And that is beyond imaginable! Let alone lissening to the playing playerbase is against WG policy. Because if they actually lissend to CV paying playerbase and adressed the issue (and solutions) they gave. CVs would be fixed & played. And that goes against WG policy of making CVs as crincy as it can, to "validate" there removal (or WoWp "rework"). And dumd the game down even more. Teamplay! Why? No CV, no need. Allies are there to hide behind & be meat shields anyways. While I secure the 1 line, max range of courses, don't want a chance to get my paint scratched!

@everyone Thx for the Feedback. Im composing a message since i wanne do it right (wiht reverances and stuff)it's taking a while. it will be up sunday at the end of day.

YOU prove the OPOSTIE , INstead of DEMANDING your "requerment". from your lazy arm-chair. You prove " Power spike AA" AINT the reason why most CV grinds end. You prove Balance "increased" CV pop YOU prove cv got NOT harder and harder to play. every patch You Prove <insert poitn here> your "anti" point. Put the EFFORT in yourself! Easy demandign "Proof". even the notion " streamers" are more right than not streamers, since you want streamer "proof") i find disgusting, and thats an opinion. Like there oppinion, matters more than any 1 els. and therefore can be Qualifed as proof.

I have seen a picture somewhere on the forum that meme this! Can't find it tough. Anyone know where it is.

Notice the date! Even afther multipe question, WG doesnt even releas info about plane spotted mechnich. Let alone balance with "spotted" range or give ingame info about these ranges I do Agree that a Small "!' icon by planes would be VERRY usefull (boarderline OP for Unicorns in current meta). but since these are UI and CV inprovmetns, i personally dont have my hopes up (since 2015).

@Infiriel The precetage of ship that are "Helpless", is low (talking about tier 6 and up), and even those have some AA and a team. While the % of "No flyzone" is High, and gettign higher by the new ships introduced (French BBs, USN cl split). Only need 1 "no fly zone" ship needed to diny a area! With the fact that the even mediocer AA ships can SPEC to be no flyzones (hindenberg), and a "no fly zone" Ship can increas it readius and effectifness. (without sharing that info to the ones that need it, the CVs).

You mean: Year of the CONSOLE (cv ready). NoZoupForYou interview with jingles but I'm straighing from the op topic, AA diversity by (capt) builds.

well you see my well researched piece about; "invis AA" has 0 replies, but when i make a Shouting post. It gets noticed, this is what i partialy mean with "shouters", And that Everyone (including WG) should try to avoid a "shouting" match to deictate there polecie.

@dasCKD Holy crap DAS what a great piece, worth of a university Essay. (might wanne read it again from some "spelling/traslation" issues, they are hard to understand, before giving it to your professor. ). But i give it a 8+ (only shows i read it well) IT reminds me of when i took the time and effort to write these essays for WG about CV gameplay (link to my old & semi-outdated 0.3.x CBT essay's). Now a days i found that "spamming" is actualy what WG cares for more, than a well tought out and effort Esays. the masses/shouters are there targeted audiances. Personaly i sometimes still try to give some CV balancing advice by shouting too. Capain Skills & Ship Upgrades. You really hit the nail on the head wiht this part. Loved your new " Cross Sectional Fire Power". I know where these numbers come from (AA*timeR), but might wanne eddit the formula in. Defective fire In my opinion you missed an opportunity here to show the increas of CSFP whit DFAA since DFAA: Scatters, SLOWS (all squads) & uses the "adjusted" 3xmultiplier. Let alone the power of the DD 4x multiplier. Becouse why bother? Your part about "psychologies" , what do people remember, is really hard to understand. Personally (my opinion) I think you could have explaned that: “I had a game ONCE" is NOT the same as OVERALL & MANY, strengthening your argument about psychologies, and about “balancing by the occasional” Tom's View In addition what you allready posted in original post (the major issue are UI + Capt Skill & upgrades). I feel that invisable(/late detectead) AA is a major secundaire issue. With a minor, the info a CV has, Explained in THIS "essay" patch 0.6.x (i think). Best Regards TomBombardil PS, hope @Crysantosreads this and relays it back to WG, but i think even if it reaches WG (and wanne lissen to CV players). thery''re allready to far in to the CV rework rabbit hole.

Check Original formula first Tom before making asumptions about skylons math

HAHAHA. vake nuews! facke niews1 @MrWastee im sorry, it to funny to let slip. esp the "back to school part" Amzaing!

I don't recall witch exect MightyJingles video it was. But when Wows came out of CBT HE (as you reference him to) talks about how NERFIN CV (WG just took the CBT USN CV loadouts away + introduced/reworked captain skill + moduals.) Is devestating for CV population &respect , and therefor the GAME. As he explains that players just started to respect cv and play acordingly TEAM ORIENTATED, shutting down cvs. WG nerfed the hell out of cvs, players not respecting cv, and thereby abandoning teamplay. Giving the occasional goid CV again room to manouver. Leading to more cryout -> more nerf -> less respect ->LESS TEAMPLAY-> more room for now only the unicums since cv became harder to play. -> more cryout, etc. I, a Super Unicum CV don't respect cvs when playing a surface ship. why should I? they can only tickle me a bit, I know how to deal with one. that's why the first reaction to "cv are op" = have you played them? Maby do and you learn what surface ships can do to shutdown a CV, And yes, baiting out a TB drop on your dogeing DD to draw attention away from your fighting BB is ONE OF THEM.

@ OP and @Susan_Ivanova LittleWhiteMouse is a still very active and thoughrow researcher on NA (Reddit/forums). the New-comers section is your friend, especially the very old but still very usefull post from sharana. if anything spotting exp rewards are crap, only dmg done while spotted is rewarded, and as they are shared with all spotters, and as soon as "spotted" fires guns, it's being detected by everyone, so spoting exp is divided by all "spotters".

I, a top CV player, always played the 2-3-2 Haka, yeah that's correct the stock loadout. Not the 2-3-3, (due to plane plane reserve distribution) as OP stated an extra fighter to shutdown enemy CV works both way, enemy CV also has an extra fighter to shutdown you. There is MORE ANTI AIR, in the game than before the 3-3-2 was introduced. And doing dmg to ships or dinying them space, is still the main goal of the game. with the 3-3-2 Haka, cv become more observers to the battle below, than actually participating. Above this the skill gap between cv players is harder punished. With a the Same skill gap, the CV 3-3-2 has more tools to shutdown the enemy cv, making this 1vs1 again more influential. Now I as a top cv player should like to shutdown enemy cv since 8 out of 10 I'm capable of doing it. But shutting down enemy cv doesn't mean you win games, that's why you didn't see the 4-2-2 Haka much around. The AIR to Service capability has diminished (extra fighter dinying airspace). Aka A NERF. so both CV are crap now: Midway to few reserves to battle the massive ship based AA, (if mirrored midway). And run over in the air by 15 tier x Haka fighters who reload like crazy comepared to midway. Haka , forced to play 3-3-2 to match the enemy's 15 tier x fighters, and to diny airspace as the enemy CV does. I have been avoiding Playing Tier X CV games, meaning the LAST Eu CBT Haka receiver/tester, who was still cv main stoped playing tier X. Maby useful for you @Sub_Octavian. WG bullied us all (@Aerroon, @Sharana, @DanJun84 (Azell?), @iChase (public figure@Ishiro32) away with bad direct and indirect CV "balance" decision. Doesn't build much faith towards cv rework. your regards TomBombardil

I do wanna take you seriously, since you clearly put some effort to it and some thought. And your "conclusions" do have valid point. BUT this graph..... comparing # of CVs with # of DD/CL/BB of 1 nation. And than also random line? Or lowest populated (my guess). it undermines your whole "conclusion" part. It saying look there Are just as manny "Pears" as "Granny Smiths" (an apple type), and draw conclusions about the # of apples vs # pears from that. No matter what the conclusions says. You can't take it seriously, and with that the rest of your post. if you did all #CV vs #DD/CL/BB. You can actually compare #. No matter what it said, it show that you know what your doing. and if your smart and know that you need around a 1:4 ratio for "even" amount of played #. We can take the rest of your post more seriously. And yes there some nice points I agree/disagree with, and are worth discussing. But that graph, you could have better done without (since, you go in to winrate anyhow)

If my, first reaction to this post (haven played or read patch notes of 7,4). is here comes the p2w or the p2w cry out, says of course a lot about me, and about the Game. So I don't agree on "no staps made". the barrier to buy flag just got a lot lower (as people call this rightly a rip off) and show INGAME that you can BUY flags, INDIVIDUALLY. So as I admit, not being informed about only economics flags, and adjust my statement. In this one I'm sticking. This is "a steps toward" p2w.

Thanks god for that, still the steps are getting closer and closer. Question is not "IF", but "When". i see the forum already lighting up "why can you buy ant-deto? I want to buy better heal, etc. still a step towards p2w again.

The last resort of this game last argument of "maybe not p2w" just got breached! you can BUY signals now. Spend your $$, and you don't get DETONATED boys,

Met @El2aZeR yesterday, neither of us in our CV, still had a fun bow tanking shootout with each-other, in our cruisers. Until I had to abondon it for various reasons, cough*allied torps* cough. ( luckily, KIDD told me in time) While my team secured the game, thx team (@WolfGewehr) for giving me space to have some fun.

That is called "picking the right target" There are 2 seperate ideas in my ideas. #1 @VC381 proposition reduces the binary problem. #2 Mine reduces planes serviceability randomness. Without changing the way CVs works. Now, the only think I don't have a well tough and argumented solution for is (one sided) spotting (tops). The only think I can think of is reward spotting more, AND INFORM that spotting is rewarded (and dinying spotting) so this becomes a core concept. That bad players also get/learn. Instead of ONLY the very good+ one's