El2aZeR

To pad population numbers and point towards percentage of battles with CVs in them so they can sell the rework as a success even if it turns out to be a failure. Which is exactly what happened.

Uh, no. This is actually how the game works.

Do I think it's unfair that he lost his job? Nope, quite frankly he should have known better. Even when the opinions turned against him he kept fanning the flames. It's his own fault and he should deal with it. Do I believe things will get better now? Ahahahaha, no.

ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US! J/k, I just distinctively remembered that you bought the ship and did well in it.

I don't think WG has the capacity to create more than one or two ships for the dockyard per year tbh unless they want to hire new staff for it (which I suppose could be an option). They told us previously that artists spend months of effort creating a single ship. This is without the level of detail that a ship in the dockyard requires as you don't need to model out the internals completely. From an art perspective alone the dockyard presents a huge challenge that obviously takes time to complete.

@Sleepy_Bunny I believe this is your area of expertise.

I am aware. It'd entail losing money for WG, so the chances of it happening are minuscule at best. How do they or how should it be done? WG balancing is honestly completely arbitrary. Sometimes they make good adjustments which actually reflects the state of play, sometimes they don't do about mechanics that were or are still horribly broken. Anyone remember RTS CVs in cyclone e.g.? As to how it should be done, well... Actually, no stats are needed in this case. E.g. you can decide whether BBs constantly reversing is the state of play you wanted to achieve. If it is not, there are several ways to nerf it (one of which was explored but shouted down by BB players. And as we all know WG caters to BBs). Smolensk broadside tanking can also be directly or indirectly addressed if it is not what you intended by e.g. nerfing extremity, upper belt and deck armor to make BBs and heavy cruisers overmatch. Alternatively you could also nerf her acceleration, speed, maneuverability and so on. All of this will negatively impact her survivability so that her ability to broadside tank at close range gets mitigated. Again, what you designed matters in balancing. Again, the statistics skilled players provide tends to represent that under actual battle conditions. And if they discover a way to exploit your design in a way that wasn't intended, you need to decide whether it is working as intended or broken and needs to be fixed. Fun meanwhile is a different beast. Generally speaking the fun of one player in a PvP game inevitably comes at the expense of the fun of the opposing player. What thus needs to be done to ensure fun is to create mechanics are fun to use and that a sense of fairness is ensured. The former is fairly simple, it can be as little as firing your guns at the enemy and watch some damage numbers pop up. It can also be the satisfaction of watching a well executed flank paying off to pull up something more complex. Or it can be something as broken as watching an AA cruiser pop under an AP bomb strike. The latter meanwhile has to do with balance. To pick up the Smolensk as an example, seeing one broadsided to you at close range but you getting nothing but overpens runs contrary to your sense of fairness, after all you have learned that doing so should be a death sentence for a cruiser. Thus fun is kinda tied to balance because it avoids moments of inevitable frustration and the sense that you couldn't do anything against your opponent. But fun mechanics can also be incredibly broken. To put it in simple terms, fun can run contrary to balance, but a balanced game is always fun. So here are reworked CVs. Reworked CVs are designed to deal damage at any point and time regardless of what the target does without any chance or method of said target to fight back. In a perfect world, a CV will not only win in a direct fight against a single surface ship, but against multiple ones. Even CVs themselves do not fight each other at all and thus solely exist to grief other classes, there is nothing that reigns in their tremendous influence over a match barring their own competence. All mechanics are created around this core design, so all fun is tied to it. Thus if CVs cannot deal damage regardless of target input they automatically become unfun to play. On the other hand if CVs do deal damage at any point and time it is inherently unfair to the surface ship player as they can do nothing but decide how quickly they want to die. Hence why CVs can never be balanced and fun at the same time. And this is in fact already proven by 0.8.5, which was the closest reworked CVs ever got to balanced but also completely murdered their population.

You guys do realize that the average CV captain can't even hit a Kremlin, right? What is the point of the nerf then?

Which in itself I use to demonstrate why average stats are terrible as a balancing metric. Though to be fair WG does differentiate between effective damage and farmed damage at least according to what they told us, so this point in particular is (hopefully) unlikely to lead to another balancing disaster.

Wait, a gun DD that engages at mid range anyway shouldn't particularly care about concealment in the first place? Just saying, looks more placebo to me but I have no experience with FR DDs.

I could also point out the recent Midway buff? A ship that did perfectly fine yet looked weak in average stats simply because the majority of skilled CV players migrated to Haku after the nerfs. One only needs to observe the player numbers when USN DB accuracy was nerfed. As to how and why WG does something, that has become irrelevant since 0.8.7. It is painfully obvious that they'd rather make more money than have a balanced game. Our respective point of views are irrelevant because good game design and balance is quantifiable. Completely ignoring the rest of my point because it doesn't support yours, huh? It's quite simple. You balance around what you actually designed the mechanic to do. E.g. AP shells are meant to inflict massive damage on a citadel hit, but as a counterplay method players can angle and/or dodge which either mitigates or completely denies damage done. Whether players then actually do angle is completely irrelevant because you want player skill to primarily decide the outcome of the engagement. This is then balanced. The statistics produced by skilled players simply reflects your design because they're more likely to use mechanics as you intended. This is why their stats are relevant whereas average stats are not. And reworked CVs are simply designed to kill anything and everything regardless of circumstance. Their entire playstyle is build around this fundamentally flawed core, as such there is no way to make them both balanced and fun to play. This is why they will remain broken until the rework concept is completely scrapped.

There is no need to agree. You fail to procure data that supports your point, I meanwhile have provided supporting data that proves mine. You are thus simply wrong. Your agreement to that is irrelevant. Ah yes, another case where balancing with average stats will fail. Not only does it include legacy data, the ship will look fine because it has a completely braindead playstyle and farms meaningless DoT, hence why your average player will likely do decently in it. You do realize that this is not the original point at all? It is used as an example as to why balancing around average stats fails, not something about player representation.

Yeah, now. Not back then. Do try to stay on topic please.

Except that was exactly the case. So whether you agree or not is irrelevant. You do realize that someone actually calculated that I was the sole reason why Enterprise even remained above the stats of tech tree CVs back then? So you had a ship which was already extremely strong but it didn't show as I was quite literally the only skilled CV player playing her. The WR gap to the 2nd place on wows-numbers was like 20-30%. She wasn't overbuffed, she got buffs she never deserved in the first place precisely because balancing around averages is a terrible idea.

Hits to modules such as torpedo launchers deal no damage.

Aha, and what was the cause of that? After all nothing about her damage potential actually changed with those buffs, only plane health and regeneration. Could it be that *gasp* skilled CV players just ignored the ship until much later, hence she was only played by mediocre CV players? And again, North Carolina. How come no buffs?

You were talking about average stats and that they're relevant for balancing. According to you there'd be nothing difficult about this. Though fine then, North Carolina average performance is also pathetic in comparison to her contemporaries. Severe buffs would thus be justified, yet any skilled BB player would tell you that NC does not need such buffs. How come? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Her current performance does not matter, Enterprise was deemed weak enough only a couple months prior to her sale ban to warrant several extremely severe buffs because of her terrible average performance. How come balancing with average stats failed here when it is supposedly the way to go?

Then how come Enterprise was pulled from sale when she was supposedly weak enough just a few months previously to warrant several severe buffs? Though I could also ask why e.g. Gearing isn't getting some serious buffs despite her terrible average performance.

Then why does it fail when actually applied?

To the previous state means an enjoyable state, not RTS CVs. Which means you're missing the point of a forum by battering discussions aside via "lol just don't play" excuse.

Well, that's rather difficult now, isn't it? Not only is there no other game out there in this particular genre (at least none that isn't dead or of severely inferior quality), but this game used to be a lot more enjoyable too. Wanting the game to return to the previous state is only a natural desire, no?

And what objective reason do I have to do that?

Again, provide a specific example perhaps? And I'm sure you can provide an actually effective counterplay option that doesn't rely on the CV outplaying themselves.

You know, low tier CVs weren't always infested with seal clubbers. They were actually somewhat balanced, albeit boring to play. Too bad that also meant they were extremely unpopular, which ofc implied that the rework was a failure. WG couldn't have that, so they buffed low tier CVs extremely to artificially keep their numbers up via seal clubbing. And it worked. Hence the answer is yes, they are.

Actually they haven't. But since you said that they have done so, it should not be an issue for you to provide a specific example, no? That's not how balancing works. Balancing naturally excludes player skill as that is what is primarily supposed to decide the outcome of an engagement. Though I can tell you easily why balancing around averages is a horrendously stupid idea. Enterprise was balanced around averages.