El2aZeR

Lets check that claim, shall we? Last year's PEF grind was released on December 19th. The snapshot from December 22nd: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/pastrecords/20181222/eu_week/average_class.html shows a rather normal amount of battles played. The event and associated campaign ran until January 22nd. This is the snapshot from January 19th: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/pastrecords/20190119/eu_week/average_class.html While number of battles played is elevated, it doesn't reach nearly the proportions of the current week. To say that the current amount of battles played is abnormal would be an understatement, especially since no noteworthy population changes have occurred and the snapshot was taken within the week the dockyard patch was released.

Dockyard patch (0.8.11) was released on December 11th. Snapshot from December 7th, before the PR grind was released: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20191207/eu_week/average_class.html Snapshot from December 14th: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20191214/eu_week/average_class.html Notice anything? Despite only small changes in population, the number of battles played has outright doubled. Might be a bug with maplesyrup itself, but if it is true I would reckon bots are running rampant currently.

Tend to see the most default losses via incompetent teammates in Hakuryu for whatever reason.

Overall USN offers the most utility against DDs. IJN RFs become extremely deadly to DDs at T8+ as well, though more difficult to use. Ofc all of them pale in comparison to Enterprise.

Now lets imagine that chemo were the only effective way of treating cancer. That'd just be the reality of the situation, no? Again, it'd be a superflous poll, but to call it biased on that basis would be a rather big stretch. Sure, if you were to take this poll literally it's biased as it doesn't allow people to express precisely what they want to, but on the other hand statistics in general are worthless without analysis and interpretation, in this case that more people are unhappy with the current state of CVs and not that they want their outright removal, so meh. Just to clear this up, that was not my intention. I just picked the first thing that came to mind which most people will agree with. Could've also picked "murder is bad" or "stubbing your toe hurts" or sth along those lines.

There are actually quite a few important game design rules that the rework breaks which make removal the objectively superior option, but lets not get into that. So if I were to make a poll like "terminal cancer is bad, yes/no", that is somehow biased? It most definitely is superflous as I know the grand majority of, if not all people will agree with me, but to call it biased based on that would be a rather big stretch. Likewise this poll basically only reaffirms the (forum) community's (dis-)taste of the current CV situation which by this point is fairly common knowledge, nothing more, nothing less.

If the option of keeping CVs as they are, which again is what WG considered fine and balanced, is clearly objectively worse than removing them then that's simply the way it is? The poll doesn't portray one as worse than the other, the reality of the situation just makes it so. Sure, since "removal" strays into the realm of fantasy just as much as "re-rework" or "return to RTS" I suppose more options could be given, but forcing you to choose between the current situation or removal is exactly what the poll wants to do. That's not bias, it is forcing you to make a choice within confinements that you're unwilling to accept.

Well, that'd be people missing the point of the poll. If you believe CVs aren't in a fine state right now, your opinion stands in direct contradiction to what WG believes. And if WG has proven anything, it is that they believe their opinion trumps ours. Again, what we have is what we get. So do you believe we should get it or do away with it? (Though removal is ofc just as unlikely for the same reason.)

Except it does matter what WG thinks, as what we have now is what we get. You're supposed to judge CVs on their current state because this is what WG considers as balanced. No return to RTS, no continue to make large changes, no re-rework. Based on that it shouldn't be too hard to make up your mind about whether you want CVs to stay or go. As for a "Don't care" option, sure, but personally I believe a poll about CVs (or any game mechanic, really) is better off without it as it forces people to make up their minds. There's plenty of times in life where you have to do that, so just judge this poll as one of those. If you personally don't care, just judge the current state of CVs on whether you believe it is good for the game, in support of your friends/clanmates who love/hate them, just want to see the whining go or anything else. Shouldn't be that hard to find at least one reason which swings your opinion one way or another. Does that make the poll "biased"? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it isn't representative. I mean, I could also show you this and tell you about how much better the rework is in allowing me to dumpster all ships in such situations now? In fact almost all of them would be misplaying in the rework because using island cover against reworked CVs is a big nono.

Well, @Capra76 is in fact asking you to judge CVs based on their current state. He's not giving any additional options as WG considers the rework as complete and their current state as balanced, though he acknowledges that removal is just as unlikely. How is that hypocritical in any way?

Indeed. Why do you think WG is concentrating on releasing so many glorious T9 premiums?

I've actually played a bit of Helena recently. Out of 6 matches I was bottom tier in 5.

Because MM is now often creating T10 only matches, meaning T9 ships essentially get preferential MM allowing them to dumpster lower tiers.

Uh, no. Most BBs are by far the worst targets to attack as they are the most effective AA platforms in addition to taking the longest to kill. DDs and cruisers are far easier targets which often have higher priority anyway.

Frankly? Nothing. WoWs is a monopoly that has no direct competitors. As long as this remains true WG can essentially do whatever they want short of making their game fundamentally unplayable.

Got something mixed up and thought French actually use US dispersion. And gonna be honest, I forgot pasta BBs even exist.

And that's E-6C done. Didn't bother with any higher difficulty as the rewards didn't seem to be worth it.

German BB accuracy was buffed to US/RN BB accuracy. US/RN BB accuracy was never that good to begin with. It is the 2nd worst BB accuracy for a reason.

Frankly you might as well ask if people want to die of starvation and sleep deprivation or not.

I mean, rockets are whined about in general over here in EU. And while some of it attributes almost mythical capabilities to them, a fair amount of criticism is also very valid as well. Mid range flak was actually somewhat easy to avoid via a combination of boost, misdirection and just plain attacking which changes altitude, something the flak system in general does not do well with. I think regardless of our like or dislike of the rework we can both agree that CVs and the mechanics surrounding them generally need changes that WG is unlikely to ever make.

That's actually doable with TiTs due to the shorter attack prep time. With HVARs, probably not. To be fair I have to admit I gave up pretty quickly on the HVARs after they nerfed the rocket handling. Maybe I should revisit them. You need slightly better prediction skills with TiTs as they're slower and don't have a big spread, true. Heh, you know it. :) The thing with less flak predictability or generally generating more reliable hits with automated flak is that now it is unfair for the CV player. After all if they're doing all they can to dodge flak and still get hit while the surface ship does practically nothing but exist, it wouldn't be a particularly fun or balanced experience either. Did subs even have AA in testing? No doubt it's going to be completely useless tho. Oh god I think forum is dying. Please don't make this post appear more than once.

Generally speaking if a CV can attack with rockets the reticle is near or already at max accuracy. What turning in does is basically shorten the potential time to attack, hoping that the enemy CV overshoots. If it is against a CV with vertical dispersion they don't particularly care about angle. And well, if a CV does actually overshoot they can always try again, now from behind which you have no chance to escape. Do you not run Sight Stabilization maybe? Damage mitigation against CVs is not really counterplay as the enemy CV isn't sacrificing anything. He's still getting a successful strike on you. And well, isn't that the definition of incompetence? To be unable to do something? Or do I have my vocabulary wrong? I've been told that HVARs are the preferred rocket type on Lexington as the spread isn't as high and their handling is better. Midway HVARs I found to be unwieldy and too inaccurate to be effective against DDs, they do fine against larger targets but so do TiTs. The decrease in accuracy simply isn't worth the extra ordinance when compared to Lex HVARs. Performance of Lexington TiTs is also said to be mediocre due to a lack of volume of fire. TiTs actually have bigger and more effective splash damage so they're just as well suited to strip AA off of ships. In my opinion the biggest advantage of Midway TiTs is that they do not care about the attack angle if you know how to aim them, so you do not need to rely on your enemies to give you a nice broadside. In combination with their short attack prep time that makes them, imo, the superior DD hunters in addition to providing great utility against all other targets. So lets say for every DD that gives you broadside for Midway HVARs there is a DD that actually turns and angles. In theory that gives you one target on which you deal more damage than with TiTs and one that makes you deal less damage. In the end it will equal out, but the weapon type which damages all targets equally will grant you higher flexibility over the one that situationally damages one more and the other less. Indeed. I used to be an AA main for my clan in NavyField, so I can relate. The issue with active AA input is ofc that this is supposed to be a more casual game, but automated AA vs manual plane input is the cause of pretty much every issue reworked CVs have on a fundamental level. Without resolving this the rework will remain problematic one way or another, hence why I see no other choice than to scrap it and start from the drawing board. Whether that is implementing full 3D control for aircraft and AA or going back to the RTS and actually fixing the issues with it, I don't care. As long as we end up actually improving the situation rather than making it arguably worse as the rework did. Oh boy, you're in for a treat. Because it wasn't even on the GZ specifically. It was on ships like Lexington and Ranger. I know. You can't just help and go , right?

Balancing in itself ignores player skill as that is what is primarily supposed to decide the outcome of an encounter. E.g. in the perfect world that a balanced system emulates a Gearing will always win a duel against a Shima, but due to skill differences (and RNG) that will not always happen under actual match conditions. Yes.