LowSpeedHighDrag

I appreciate that, however if we read the rules it states to the relevant area: Repeatedly posting the same content Posting the same content in multiple threads The word usage of "Repeatedly" in that clause, disqualifies my thread. As it is my first thread started on the subject (for a long time, IF I have ever started one). As well as, not posting the same content in any other threads. Coming from the NA forum (my main domain for forum posts), I have never once experienced such actions from the moderators nor other forum posters without a clear reasons being stated. I just fail to see how my thread broke any rules.

I am not versed in the EU forum as much as I do on the other side of the pond (NA). It isn't up to me to decide whether one is questioned for their authority or not. However, clarity is a fundamental point when discussing in mediums such as these. If the thread gets locked, without valid reason, again. I will know not to pursue this any longer (waste of time & effort). But it would behoove the the powers that be, to formulate some kind of response that meets this Wargaming customers valid questions. p.s. thank you for your kind words.

There are my clauses (Forum rules) that makes any sort of complaint about moderation to be near impossible. Also, I can't undo the quote's colours. I do not see any option to change it. All I'm asking is to be discussed maturely, with level headed grown ups that we are. This is a "forum". Surely, they would understand that I wasn't intentionally stabbing my own back for one technicality. Otherwise, it would only strengthen my points above even more. Should that be the responses to be followed.

"Spotting have killed the game" Many players, to the more famous gamers/streamers have been saying the above line about the new CV rework. Ever since the major RTS was shelved, with many seesawing of micro updates, to major patches along the way. The look and feel of the new "mode". Effectively, World of Warships have changed forever... I feel I need to include the following. Instead of starting another thread in the forum, nor restarting what is already been said many times since. Yes, Wargaming (WG) have essentially "succeeded" in raising the players to try the CV lines. That's a fact, to which I will not challenge. After all, the numbers do reflect the rise in CV usage according to their data. As well as in game. That was their intention (they proved many times during their public statements in many 'summits'), but was that the only intention? Doubt it. With any introduction of anything "new", (this case being CV changes) WG have placed many Premium CVs on their shops. Many were sold. Only to have the players who bought them the feeling of buyers remorse. Subsequent updates/patches later. This is not only a rumour mill (From NA players to EU players), it's a fact. I've spoken to many players directly on both sides of the pond. None of them were glad to have bought them. What WG have consequently done. Their drop in the ocean, is now being felt on the shores of all the playerbases around the regions. A message to players. Could we please keep any and all arguments of why there is a CV / or the need for CV in this game out of this thread. This is not about that. It's about working with what we have now, to make it hopefully better for all. No, I'm not a pro-CV or against-CV. I just play with what the WG have given access me. Back on topic. Let's face it. Going back is not an option for WG. After many, many months of work and money poured into it. We know that it isn't going to happen. We get it. Instead of pressing for the hard reset. Let's find a way to maintain the changes, and tweak what could be better for all player base/game itself. So the following is what I will suggest for the WG team to maybe bring to their next internal meeting, hopefully. Currently, the spotting mechanic allows for X amount of distance from plane to ship to be 'hard spotted'. Much like surface ships to surface ships spotting mechanic. The distance varies from ship to ship, and their individual configurations that users chose to use their particular ships. I do not think that the players are unhappy with such mechanic. The fact that a plane can spot a ship at a certain fixed distance is nothing new. This was also true from the RTS days. So I can't say that this could be the issue. What is questionable, and begs the question of "spotting have killed the game". Is something else from the aforementioned hard spot mechanics. What it does now? It allows for CV planes to spot ships anywhere on the map. The detection ranges of the ships plus the range of the planes spotting distance to the ships overlaps too closely. What does that mean? Let's say ship has air detection of 5km, the plane have hard potting distance of 6km. That leaves 1km buffer in favour of the the planes. If anything, this gap should be addressed. If it hasn't already. I feel I might get lost in my own words here, so let me just jump right into it. Suggestions: Dropped Fighters (Close air patrol - CAP): A: Their spotting ability is active as long as they are patrolling in their dropped areas. With an active "aircraft fuel" timer. I feel I need to write this, just in case the current mechanic will be drastically changed for something else. This mechanic is fine as is. As a DD player, I think this wouldn't impact me as much. Or any other ship types. B: Their spotting ability is only active for a limited period, while retaining the ability to fight other enemy fighters. For example: Spotting time for full strength fighter squadron = 45 seconds, CAP time = 60secs. So upon 45 second mark, the spotting will stop. But the air to air will remain until the timer runs out. Or until the Combat Air Patrol (air to air) area is still active until the planes are shot down. Then the area goes dark. C: Their spotting radius is decided upon how many fighters are patrolling the area. i.e. 6 planes maximum (insert arbitrary number here) spotting distance, 1 plane minimum (inset arbitrary number here) spotting distance from centre of axis/flight pattern. D: The fighters can be replaced by being reinforced by another set of fighters from the CV; Automated flight. This will need to be done by addition of a CV consumable. Players choice, selectable for Premium consumable or non-premium. This will free up the CV player to assist one side of of map, while not having to fly from across the map to drop fighters. (I fear this as the most vulnerable idea, that the public may not agree with) CV vs CV gameplay: What is a missed opportunity. Not having the ability to directly PvP against a CV, as a CV player in game. Currently the CV is in battle with themselves to get as much damage, not versus enemy CV player. No matter how much we dissect this mechanic. That is what it results to. In the older system, there were. Skill level was player input controlled, versus the RNG automated as it is now. Now it's drop the fighters, let the automated RNG figure it out. This is nothing close to what the surface ship players do. They position, they aim, they time, etc. To achieve a particular result of their choices and actions. Why should it be any different for the CV? Imagine, if destroyers, cruisers, battleships with a press of a consumable. Allowing the shells to land on target depending totally on the automated RNG without any other input form the player. I'm quite sure that the player would disagree with this, why can't the CV players actions reflect this too? Why make the CV gameplay automated when fighting versus another CV player? This is something that should be addressed, if CV is to be more than just a damage collector. Introduce a consumable for player controlled Air to Air dogfighting: When a player is flying their squadron, and sees/wants to engage with the enemy squadron. Allow the player to press a consumable or a key, to change the reticule to Air-to-Air mode to engage in their dog fighting. Once either side have been shot down, the remaining planes will switch to the current "flying" mode. Or please find another way for Air-to-air dogfighting to be player input related, and not automated. I just find that the exclusion of player controlled input with Air-to-Air is a huge missed opportunity during the current rework. Flying player controlled planes (Rockets, torpedoes, bombs): When a player is actively controlling the squadron. The fog of war will be lifted off the minimal. In conjunction with the main battle screen. As the flying squadron is moving from grid to grid/area to area. Think of the planes directly (Line of sight) spotting the ships while it is on coarse. The planes can turn around to keep the target spotted, provided it is still airborne. Also the squadrons spotting is limited to X amount of distance from the centre point of axis/formation. So the squadrons will have to actively seek to find a target, loiter the target area to receive spotting damage (this should be boosted & reflected to CV players, not just relying on damage alone when calculating the credit earning formula). If the squadron all gets shot down, effectively fog of war reactivating instantly. Or until another squadron flies into the unmasked zone. I'm quite sure I've missed more ideas at the time of this writing. Summary The battle space is no longer open "spotted" for the whole duration. It would give all the ships the option to maneuver freely (provided they are not being actively spotted). It would also limit the CV's purpose to farm just for their own needs (opposite of team play). Re-introduce the manual controls of player selected inputs for Air-to-Air dogfights. Wargaming, can we test this idea at least? @Sub_Octavian,

You know many things have been announced. Some have been shelved, some are still being 'tested', and some are being brought forward with 'balanced' updates.

Oh sorry, I read "Best DD firestarter" and thought CV rockets. I didn't know it was a question...

Whether it's 50 topics a day or 10. More than 2 threads being posted about 1 subject, I believe should qualify for your arbitrary 50 topic posts. I mean 50 is just a random number you've pulled from the (planeless)sky, surely? Going off of your sentence there. Have you visited the NA forum? When the CV rework was in effect? or when the Radar changes occurred? or smoke fire was changed? or Stalingrads OP-ness? Or the current headline; Smolensk? Go visit the NA forum, just check it out. Just because there aren't as many (in your eyes) posts here about a 'topic' doesn't mean that 100% of the player base actively participates in the forums. This is a forum. That is precisely the reason why it exists. Go look up the actual definition of it. Hell, here I'll do you a favour. forum /ˈfɔːrəm/ a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. a website or web page where users can post comments about a particular issue or topic and reply to other users' postings. "Everyone has the right ideas", yes they could in theory. However, "But noone does it right." Just how should one do it right?

Sorry but your statements are nothing but indirectly worded insults to whomever you're addressing, at this stage in point. In this particular case, that would be me (as the thread originator) as well as the "people who make these threads". Instead of responding here like any other other poster does, you're coming in hot with "Here's my blue/purple stats, now shut the hell up". May I remind you that from the original thread. I have specifically, and kindly asked to keep any stat based arguments off the table. Saying that this thread is about more than this. Going back on topic. Do not tell me that you've never once dropped fighters anywhere, during your stardom climb to your purple stats. Do not also tell me that, you've never once "spotted" directly or indirectly. Any ships while you were flying towards a target that you wanted to inflict damage yourself. What you're suggesting is a very niche, what the world would define as isolated cases. It does not occur on a frequent basis. I've never once, not once (this is all the years I've been playing). Witnessed a purple unicum player only using the edges of the maps to fly to their targets. Thereby not spotting any targets until they are near their intended targets. That is the ONLY way spotting is not mattered for all. Players who are very proficient with ANY ship types are THE exception. They are not the large majority of the player base, thankfully. From the past posts here. It seems clear to me that you'd like all of us reading this thread to know about your wonderfully earned purple stats. So from a person who considers oneself as an outlier, an exception. Instead of fouling this thread with non sense. Why not back up your statements, (with the experienced knowledge you've obviously gathered) with constructive points or criticisms? Please do not derail this thread.

This has to be a troll post, just has to be...no? More gimmick is not what this game needs anymore. I'm gimmicked out.

I would agree, but with a small caveat. I play Co-op to get particular achievements done. So less human players = more chance for me to get that achievement or two.

I don't think you've thought this through. If as you say "It's not spotting", then why do we bother with all the detection related upgrades, and Captain skills, island hugging, firing from cover & not being detected, etc in game? Whether you like it or not (realise it or not). Spotting is one of the fundamentals that directly results in player actions. This applies to anything, here in WOWS to other games, to life in general. What is your point? Have I in any part of my original post complain about "ruining my games"? I do not believe so. Also are you drawing on examples using ships that were played twice, and twelve times? Do you realise the fault with that example? Sorry, but I'm not going to argue about anything based off of someones stats alone. This is more than that.

I think what I wrote, only confirms what I wrote above with your results of your ongoing test.

Hello all, After having played enough games to notice a trend, I have decided to post here to get your feedback and your thoughts of course. There is a guaranteed method to extract to the Portal without having to fight with other players, but with only AIs. This only works if NO one fires onto each other and agrees with the "truce". Also pressing P to disable secondary fire when near other players would help too. If you have agreed to a truce from the start. At least see it through. 40% of 100% is better than 0% of 100% when killed. If your intention is to back stab others at the last moment, at least be honest and state your intentions. Don't be the type of person that agrees to a truce, and camps by the Portal to kill others and take their collected filth (I've seen many Clan divisions that do this). For some, this may be a "tactic" but this is beyond what the game is designed for. It wasn't designed for us to back stab each other, otherwise other scenario types and consumables may have been available to encourage it. But this isn't. If your intention is to kill steal, at least be honest to yourself and not agree to the truce or say nothing or at least earn it honestly.

I'm afraid your statement is untrue. I have been using the MMM to track my progresses. During which time there never was a 90% accuracy of knowing which side would win purely using the said MMM. i.e. One side was a sure winner, but the actual result didn't agree/match up with the MMM predictions. I can say that your 90% is off by 40%. Okay, maybe 35%.

I think you'll only encourage a more static games if the mechanic shifted (or stays as status quo as it is now) towards rewarding "damage", more so than "contributing" actions. In my humble opinion. This is why most clued in players, fire HE rounds from afar collecting damage. Not having a care in the world about caps, or helping other ships, just with one goal in mind. Dealing (farming) as much damage as possible. Sometimes spewing in chat with "I did 100k damage" as a trophy, even when the game is headed towards defeat. IF the games rewarded more or the same amount as damage dealt for "contributions", this (selfish gameplay) wouldn't happen...as often. Maybe I misunderstood your words, but this is how I interpreted it. As an example. Currently, in a CV. Spotting (contributing) is not as rewarded as much versus damage dealt. Specially when reviewing how much is earned/lost after each battle. I know this, since trying to see if spot damage is worth as much as direct damage. None of my past CV games have shown me that, when trying to contribute (to the team, by sacrificing my damage rate for eventual and guaranteed credit loss), I get compensated for my team play actions. Even when our team have won. With current meta. If the CV player does not deal damage, and by a far margin. CV player will always lose credits. So taking my example above. Who's fault is it? Is it Wargaming for not adjusting the CV credit earning formula to encourage the players to "contribute"? Or the players themselves making sure to mitigate credit losses with the current meta? I can't blame the players for doing what they are doing (right or wrong), due to the fact that the environment provided by WG; directly or indirectly encourages such behaviours/gameplay.

"CVs dont spot torpedoes." To be more accurate, planes do not spot torpedoes. All of them.

"Spotting have killed the game" Dropped Fighters (CAP) on map Option A: Their spotting ability is active as long as they are patrolling in their dropped areas. Option B: Their spotting ability is only active for a limited period, after being dropped. But their Combat Air Patrol area is still active. Option C: Their spotting radius is decided upon how many fighters are patrolling the area (i.e. 4 planes maximum spotting distance, 1 plane minimum spotting distance from centre of axis) Option D: If they are all dead, no spotting. No pew pew from air to air. Flying player controlled planes When a player is actively controlling the squadron. The fog of war will be lifted off the minimap. As the flying squadron is moving from grid to grid/area to area. Also the squadrons spotting is limited to X amount of distance from the centre point of axis. So the squadrons will have to actively seek to find a target, loiter the target area to receive spotting damage (this should be boosted & reflected to CV players, not just relying on damage alone when calculating the credit earning formula). If the squadron all gets shot down. There will be a countdown of X amount of seconds until that area goes dark, effectively fog of war reactivating. Or until another squadron flies into the unmasked zone. Summary The battle space is no longer open "spotted" for the whole duration. It would give all the ships the option to maneuver freely (provided they are not being actively spotted). It would also limit the CV's purpose to farm just for their own needs (opposite of team play). Wargaming, can we test this idea at least? @Sub_Octavian, @Flambass

"I assume this is also why BBs have effectively become the Class in the Game which gives the least Reward but causes the Highest Losses to CVs." I will have to disagree with you there. BB's doesn't not qualify to be classified as the "least reward" ship class. With Destroyers one would need to triple their damage dealt in respect of their HP pool count to better their progress to the "land of purple". Battleships, do not need three times (not even double) the number of their ship HP pool as with destroyers do. Certainly not with credit earning calculations, nor with win rate ladder. "Simply because WG knows that otherwise all the CVs would go Hit the Pinatas rather than doing anything useful." With respect, you do not know this. This is just based upon your assumptions. If not, give us a valid proof stating this otherwise. Also, it is actually annoying to read such assumptions towards CV players too. Not all CV players are "Hit the Pinatas" players. Not all CV players are obtuse as one labels them here. Not all CV players are self-serving (although I slowly understand why, they would seem to be as time goes).

Nice, very well written. Succinct too. *insert thumbs up emoji*

I think we give too much credit to WG, full stop. We as players, may have noticed certain features of the game that are "incompatible" to the rest. WG reads the "player base" concerns. However, they may notice in a totally differently, from complete opposite direction. Opposite direction to what the player base have requested/suggested. Heck, this type of approach have been repeated over the years with their sole decision to implement some aforementioned "features, and fixes". There are players on both servers (I'm sure all regions, but my experiences are limited to NA and EU servers), that have very good ideas and suggestions to the issues that arise during the patch progressions. Even surpassing the famous CCs, and Streamers (Don't be easily fooled, 'cause these people have an agenda. To monetise and prolong their "jobs"). These silent forum warriors (sans sarcasm), have been pounding their feet, and shouting at the top of their lungs to no avail. If their points go "viral" (as much it can get within WOWS community), there's usually some form of generic gibberish response from the WG. Otherwise, it is drowned out by the obviously biased forum participants from all sides of the DD/CL/BB/CV mains. What we are forgetting, is also the mindset of the people that work there. The culture. It is not what you and I are used to outside of Russian work culture. If you hail from Russia, and or have an intimately close and long experiences with dealing with people from Russia. You'd have a better understanding of why I wrote the preceding two sentences, about bringing the "culture" into this. I'll break it down in the simplest example as possible. What's the first thing that comes into your mind when you see or read this word? BATTLESHIP I'm hoping you're thinking of some cool movies that you saw them in. Or the sheer size of the ship that our brain couldn't comprehend. Or the majestic beauty, and awe one feels when near it, or how small we feel on it. It's all positive things. Cool! Amazing! That's what players must think! I wan't one! You wan't one? Let's sell them! That is why WG seems to be "pandering" to the public more with this than with other ship types. Unless one is of particular enthusiast of the Navy, old or modern. The various types of ships means nothing to the uneducated (in the subject). Most of the mass public know what a "battleship" is in their minds, whether their interpretation is off by 1, or 1000 does not matter, they "know" it. Ask the same mass public what a destroyer or frigate or a cruiser or type XX class ship is? They will need a minute or two to arrive with an answer. Bottom line. It's the players that effect the game play. Not the WG's affect of game play.

What is your point exactly? Do you have a suggestion to your point, to be considered productive? I have read the forum posts from start to recent. Yet, with the walls of texts and the never-ending run on sentences. I've literally fallen asleep with the laptop on my, lap (could be the heavy dinner I've had as well). Could you in concise manner. Ideally in a "millennial" friendly format. Help this Gen X understand what this thread is really about?

This is quite true too. Unless a particular player served on a particular ship, and in a heated discussion with another player who served on a different ship class. Even then, there wouldn't be as much idiotic animosity between them. I think your statement smells a bit biased towards battleship players (or those that support any boost of BB in game). I would have to agree that playing the battleship class out of all given. It is the easiest to pick up and learn. The basic fundamental is not missed with battleships, in fact it is still very crucial. Not so much with other classes. When I do play a decent secondary spec battleship. Specially with my speed boost, and decent secondary guns on my Georgia. I always push a flank, when the opportunity shows itself. Or I make/force it upon them (this is more common nowadays, due to static game play versus the past), as for friendly ships that I've driven past on the way. They still barely understand the "Why" I pushed, still holding on to that single grid on the map no posing any threat to the enemy ships creeping up slowly to our caps. Whilst I realised that the friendly ships who initially agreed to push with me, turned tail and left me to burn.

Yeah, that's a HMS Hermes. Yes, I might as well fly the Harriers if I can mod skins to my own desire.

Something to note, Smolensk shell behaviours are vastly different than that of Worcesters shells. I'd argue having smoke even not using it is quite useful in many situations, than not having any smoke consumable option.

Rework or not. Where's the Legendary Upgrades (LU) / Unique Upgrades (UU) for the CVs? It's not like they were introduced after the LU/UU to be excluded. Why aren't they utilised yet? It has been many months or updates, reworks, etc.