eliastion

CVs are also extremely bad at reacting to threats (bad handling and lack of direct control when flying planes + strange autopilot). But this doesn't really affect their survival rate significantly either. CVs have always been the class with ridiculous survival rates - and their speed, resilience, bad handling etc. are only tiny factors pushing it one way or the other. CVs are (one of) the last to die because their natural positioning just doesn't put them under fire in the first place. Even this patch, a CV caught off position by surface ships is a dead CV - melting too quickly for DoT to be the decisive contributor be it before or after the patch.

I think that's pretty inevitable with a class that's long-lasting by design (as in, the one class that doesn't really have much business putting their hull on the front line). The "close deathmatch" kind of game (where the game is decided by killing the entire enemy team with both teams going roughly head-to-head with the killing through the match) the most likely candidates for the "last man standing" on each side are the CVs. And when you add the fact that CVs have good AA, a fighter consumable AND that they are likely to be operating less-than-full squadrons near the end... well, I guess it can get a little bit silly.

They actually can't, afaik. Returning planes start by raising the altitude - once they get up there, they - disappear from the enemy map (not sure about allies) - no longer can suffer from AA - don't spot anything Returning planes don't participate in the battle apart from the short transition period after dropping the load/receiving the return order where they still take some time to climb to the cruising altitude. And as for air detection - DDs are actually pretty stealthy. If you don't have the DD located previously (perhaps in a previous fly-by), it's often hard to set up an attack unless you luckily find yourself flying almost in the right direction already. As a DD main I'm sad about the asswhooping I can get from CVs but I don't really think it's a viable idea to make DD air detection even lower across the board.

Wait, actually - can't it? The reason why normally only madmen pick AA-heavy builds is because CVs were so scarce. At high tiers you encountered CVs in one battle out of three at best and even then there was a chance that they are so unequal in skill that either the enemy CV gets neutralized by your own or has the opposite is true and the match ends up a nigh-guaranteed loss whether you build AA or not. By picking "reduced tankiness of a Yam" you were behind because you were building countermeasures against a threat that just wasn't there most of the time. Building tankiness was the standard and picking anything else was "reduced tankiness" - with AA, specifically, being a "mad prepper" kind of build where you unnecessarily spend resources (module slots, captain perks) on something that rarely comes into play and when it does - rarely is crucial. But let's assume that CVs are here to stay. Not in the launch day numbers, of course, but enough that a match without a CV is rare. In this case taking tanky low-AA build might end up not being the standard anymore - it's a trade-off. You seem to be assuming that people will go back to the old meta despite the changed environment - and that doesn't seem likely. If CVs remain a constant threat, AA skills won't be a rarely useful gimmick anymore. But, as you yourself say... Currently we are at the "oooh shiny new thingy" stage. Everybody and their pet hamster is playing them and it's impossible to predict at what numbers the CV population is going to stabilize and how dangerous they're going to be once we weed out the "overall good at adapting but not fans of CVs in the long run" and "complete potatos that treat flak bursts as collectibles and get frustrated over not being able to do anything" players.

Bismarck, alone, hidden behind an island? That sounds like a target for devastating strike, no restocking of planes necessary... And you were even set on fire by Worcester and forced to damage con just before - if the planes came right after that, the flooding would've killed you even if torp planes failed to alpha the remainder of your hp away. And then there are the dive bombers for preparation/follow up. To put it simply, the situation you're describing doesn't really sound like something specific to the new patch - it's just that Bismarcks aren't very good against CVs two tiers higher. Especially right after having been showered in fire by a light cruiser two tiers higher.

Personally? I'd wait until the last moment when the refund is possible. For now - premium or not - they are all heavily subject to balancing. If you get rid of the one that seems the least useful you might well find yourself regretting after it gets buffed (or some of your favorites nerfed). Unless you really need doublons right now, I'd just keep all and then make the decision as the refund option is about to expire.

1. Keep to always freeXP modules - never play a stock ship again! 2. Skip ships you don't want to play because they are bad or you too lazy and you just want something else down the line 3. Wait what freeXP special premiums WG might come up with I really fail to see the problem with having too much free XP In a pinch, if you really don't know how to get rid of it, you can get yourself an instant 19-point captain despite having no elite XP. The amount seems about right?

People don't need to act. People need to not play what isn't fun for them. And that generally isn't something people need to be made aware of - it's pretty natural to just give up doing something that's not fun. People who like to play it won't boycott it, though (they like it, after all). And people who don't like it and could consider boycotting it... won't play it anyway! I mean, they don't like it, right? Why would they be playing something they don't like, boycott or not? This makes any calls for boycott pretty ridiculous - just like in this case. Unless someone wanted a boycott of the game as a whole - that would be quite unrealistic but at least would make some sense on the level of concept.

I don't really get your point. There are two possibilities: 1. CV gameplay is really as bad as you describe. If that's the case, people will abandon them in droves, leading to CV population stabilizing even below the old numbers. It will happen naturally, no boycott needed. 2. CV gameplay is actually better and what we're seeing is mostly a combination of the "everybody and their dog plays CVs on the day of release" and lack of balance (a tweakable thing that was bound to happen to some extent, although it probably didn't need to be this bad). So, basically, you're either wrong or there's no need to take artificial actions because a "boycott" will happen naturally.

Well, to be fair, you're basically experiencing something similar what we'd expect pre-patch if you entered a game in a DD and found yourself facing 2 CVs per team. The difference is that pre-patch the hard maximum was 1 CV per team and the standard: 0 CVs. Today, however... Well. I doubt there are many matches with less than 2 per team. Let's wait until WG impose the 1 CV/team limit again and the "freshness" passes a bit. I don't even plan on trying. Ok, MAYBE I'll decide to punish myself with a round of some DD with decent AA and AA consumable to check if it makes any difference in how fast I go down. But I doubt there would be much improvement since the scattering effect is gone, the rockets are easy to land on small moving targets and the base AA is still DD-grade, so mitigating a strike by killing the planes before they drop their load sounds unrealistic.

Tier 5 is the first "adult" tier where you're let out of the kindergarten of max +1 MM. T5 ships can meet t7 enemies. T4 ships don't find themselves in t6 battles. The first 4 tiers are introductory and WG doesn't want to encourage seal-clubbing by making it a viable way of grinding missions. I mean, even without that we are still getting people with many hundreds of games on t1. And as for your suggestion to just free premiums from tier constraints: do we REALLY want people routinely grinding dailies in Impregnator? Sealclubbers will club seals no matter what you do, but there's little need to make it more comfortable and profitable for them.

As someone who's likely to stay with IJN for various reasons - I'd gladly give them back in return for these USN double HE ones of which each has notably more damage than that single IJN AP And yes, I do know that if I manage to land a full tripple citadel I do get to SLIGHTLY surpass USN 6-HE drop's alpha. And it's even harder to repair, oh my, what a treat

Well, let's be fair though: the period right after new line launch often creates ridiculous situations. And here it's two lines of the same class that never existed in this game before (new CVs play differently enough that the novelty is comparable to suddenly seeing submarines, maybe even more). And people actually often get some ships ready to play right off the bat. It's obvious that MM and gameplay are going to be a mess for a long time - and that's regardless of the inevitable balancing problems. And, well, the new CVs might have lost the omnispotting power but that becomes a moot point when you have 3 of them in each team. One CV can't send planes around all the caps but once you have more CVs than caps... good luck remaining unspotted

No problem, I was in a hurry, sorry if I sounded harsh. Just yesterday I created a thread on the gun bloom change while there were two ongoing already

There's even official response from Tuccy's mouth.

This is objectively false - you can be detonated by a shell that does NOT hit you, making your whole reasoning invalid

Nah. While there's very little clean support, the opinions are very divided: - there are people who believe CVs are too strong - there are people who believe CVs are too weak - there are people who believe that there's something wrong with balancing of certain plane types because they're too weak/strong (IJN DBs are a bit of a joke, rocket planes are by many considered too powerful in countering DDs) - there are people complaining about AA being too strong/weak/illogical/strangely balanced between various ships - there are people who hate the idea of seeing CVs in the game in the first place Basically, while lots of people have lots of complaints, most of them aren't against the very idea of the rework AND many of them are directly contradictory to each other (most obviously CVs can't be simultaneously under- and overpowered as a class and both opinions can be heard). So I'd say that the first picture isn't all that out of place

It's easy being civil when everyone agrees even before any discussion starts, though

It's nice that you want to give me so many awards (though you misspelled the nick, it's "Eliastion"), but perhaps you should look back to your post. Do tell me whose words were these: Because it sure as hell doesn't sound like something said by the CCs supposedly whining about new CV weaknesses.

I take the part of your post where you are wrong/show lack of forethought and I answer to them. When there are parts of your post that don't seem to be in much need of answering - I don't answer to them. That should be pretty natural, no? It's not my fault that you contradict yourself and the parts that seem ok (where you mention that real players will likely be much more capable than bots in fending off airstrikes, so that it shouldn't be a problem for them) are then followed by parts where you ask for CVs to be nerfed to the ground based on the grounds that CCs were still capable of having some modicum of success against bots.

Actually, I'd be slightly surprised if they pull back for the 8.0 since there's so little time - if I were them, I would be afraid of breaking something by changing it now, the patch should be long ready to deploy right now. The best outcome I expect would be a "quick fix" bringing the "bug" back in a week of time.

WG doesn't normally have a habit of refunding things you've already used. Had you not played a ship with the permanent camo, that would probably give you some grounds for asking for a refund - but I doubt that's the case. And specifically for permanent premium camos... it's really common sense to make sure you like a ship before you invest in that. I can understand getting misled by reviews into buying a premium ship you end up not liking - but as for premium camo, there's really no excuse. Now, as for the camos from various events - these are basically freebies, often for ships nobody would normally buy premium camos for. It's only natural that we don't get the option to sell them - that's why they can be given out so freely. If it was possible to sell them (especially for doublons) they would appear much, MUCH less often.

Soviet technology, mate. Armor of pure stalinium and bearings oiled with blood of the bourgeois.

This does not, however, invalidate the poll in the slightest. A lot of people will take time to notice. A lot of players won't care. Still, a very strong - and very one-sided - response on the forum is indicative of something. The players that do read the patch notes came to the Forum and complained. Compare with many extremely controversial changes in the past. I dare say that the response was never simultaneously this strong and this one-sided. Yes, sometimes people were interested but when that happened, they were also divided. There were issues where people were in agreement - but that usually meant that relatively few people were really interested enough to voice their opinion.

It seems like we're going to see limited release (t4,6,8 for special currency gained through the event) in 8.1 and then full release in 8.2.