El2aZeR

Then, again, how come it is okay for CVs to just destroy everything else no matter the circumstances? Seems to be very hard for you at least given that you're failing to give any sort of objective facts or arguments on your contradicting statements. Except the top players will obviously have a better perspective on it than the average player, as there are inevitably things the average player will not be able to accomplish and as such has a far more narrow and perhaps even wrong view of the whole picture. E.g. it is simple fact that all flak can in fact be dodged no matter the concentration as can be proven by skilled players. The average player on the other hand will not be able to dodge all flak and as such label some of it as unavoidable. We've seen examples of this on this forum aplenty. Thus the viewpoint of the average player is just as worthless as someone who has extensive experience of going up against CVs but has yet to play them according to your own standards. As usual you fail to give any sort of objective facts to support your statements in an effort to preserve your laughable narrative.

Considering that a CV already gets to dictate the engagement and has a slew of other advantages over regular surface ships with very few and largely inconsequential tradeoffs, not to mention that it is apparently both my job in e.g. a DM to be the "counter" to CVs, is it unreasonable to ask that an AA cruiser or even several can actually deny a CV strike? Besides, if you were so disinclined to give even certain "AA" ships an "auto-win button" then how come you're not speaking out against reworked CVs since they themselves have practically won any engagement before it even started with no option for a target to even remotely do anything against it? Or is it just that you want to keep your auto-win CVs? Except that "one particular isolated situation" can be applied to numerous others as well, making it the rule and not the exception. I can e.g. replace the DM with a Mino or a Worcester. Or even with small groups of ships that, supposedly, have good AA armament and as such should counter CVs according to people such as yourself. The end result still remains the same. All that potentially changes is the approach a CV needs to take to engage, not the outcome. Again, you have frequently contradicted far more experienced and skilled CV players than you on this and several other things regarding CV play despite their no doubt superior perspective. And now you want to portray this as your narrative? Really? Well, lets roll with it then. You're objectively either mediocre or awful in CVs, therefore you haven't even remotely seen what CVs are capable of. As such by your own standards your view on the matter is utterly incomplete and of no value whatsoever. Not that it ever was, really, but it's nice of you to confirm it yourself.

Has been in this game for a while. Has also been reported by several people. Simple truth is that it's a CV bug, therefore WG will never fix it. Because WG doesn't give a about how buggy their CV implementation is.

Except the majority of people, thus the majority of your statistical base, will never bother to RTFM. Do you still write that manual regardless? Except according to most here such a standard is not allowed when it comes to CV play. Apparently one has to encompass even the most underperforming potatoes in balancing which is ofc utter rubbish. No it doesn't, because you have no influence on what the enemy CV does. You can prevent yourself from dying to torps in a smoke e.g. by having the situational awareness to not camp in a smoke while there is still a DD on your flank. There is nothing you can do to prevent a CV from either killing you or causing your loss regardless of how much AA you stack, how you maneuver and how you are positioned.

There is nothing to disagree when you're simply wrong. It's equivalent to believing the Earth is flat. It's simple fact that e.g. no manual was ever written under the assumption that the majority of people reading it would fail regardless. Likewise no game mechanic was ever designed under the same pretenses. And yet the rules of the specific disciplines/games are always written according to the best performers with absolutely no regard to the casual player. The proven fact that such is possible without anything a surface ship player can do against it validates such complaints regardless of circumstance. On two occasions, once due to a question from Crysantos, TobiAssho mentioned that a complete lack of CVs made matches more entertaining and tactically diverse, thus it is for the better that KotS banned CVs for the time being. To which Crysantos wholeheartedly agreed. Was during the EU vs NA finals I believe. Can't be bothered to rewatch the whole thing.

Again, because it represents the potential of a mechanic under actual match conditions. And the potential of a mechanic is what you balance around. Whether players fail using it is irrelevant because you do not design anything around the idea of people failing to use them. In the Olympic games you literally have to be among, if not the best in the world to have a chance to gain medals. Every single one of the athletes competing is the equivalent of a superunicum. None of these people are potatoes and they are certainly not just above average. I meant ingame, not in public discussions or anything. CVs are negatively received ingame by an overwhelming amount. In CV matches you'll see the majority of people agreeing that CVs are terrible far more often than not. Likewise in non-CV matches you are far more likely to see more people cheering for the lack of CVs rather than complaining about it. This is especially prevalent in 4x or even 6x CV matches. It has come to the point where even WG employees openly admit that CVs negatively influence match conditions as seen during the last KotS stream. Yes it is. And the enemy can do nothing, not ONE thing, against it. Complete disregard for your teammates is the way to go if you want to be successful in playing CVs.

Lets pick CS. In CS there is a weapon so powerful in certain hands it can single handedly win matches. It was even nerfed once based on the performance of just one player. That's the AWP. However the AWP is not without counterplay options. It has a slow RoF meaning double peeking a player equipped with it and at least trading is an option. Likewise you can use a small financial investment to purchase smoke or flash grenades to prevent them from having a clear shot, often forcing them to give up their position and relocate. If you're particularly ballsy/skilled you can even take a fight straight up and potentially pull out a win. How about SC? Any cheese strategy is basically the gatekeeper of the meta. If you don't scout early enough (or don't understand what you've scouted) you risk being cheesed with little to no chance for a recovery. If you do however there is plenty you can do against it and put the enemy into an unrecoverable position instead. Battlefield perhaps? An enemy tank is dangerous if taken on alone, but can be fairly easily taken out if you work in tandem with a few other players. In almost all multiplayer games with an asymmetric balancing system it is preserved by a system of play and counterplay. For especially powerful mechanics with high potential, such as e.g. aircraft in Battlefield, there are even dedicated hard counters put in to curtail them. To claim that this makes asymmetry worthless when it in fact makes asymmetrical balancing possible in the first place is far fetched at best. Which is why game balancing doesn't take the human factor in at all as the human factor is what is supposed to decide the match in the end. What you balance around is the potential of a mechanic, skilled players just represent said potential in actual match conditions. Hence why skilled players are relevant while average players are not. If that were the case then CVs clearly need severe buffs as the average player, aka the target audience, is doing terribly with them. I also fail to see how a CV is welcome in any way. In the grand majority of matches I play people tend to despise CVs far more often than not which is thoroughly unsurprising. There is nothing welcome about seeing a SU CV player take your team apart without anything they can do about it. Likewise there is nothing welcome about seeing your average CV teammate being essentially afk as he misses strike after strike, loses all aircraft to flak and tries to worthlessly provide fighter cover for teammates, being equivalent to an afk in terms of match impact. A reworked CV objectively provides nothing for their teammates, as is seen in their fundamental design philosophy of being egoistical damage farmers with no active team utility.

Then the great majority of multiplayer games, including pretty much all of the hugely successful ones, are "lost" according to you. Except teamplay is meaningless in the face of reworked CVs unless taken to a destructive degree where over half the team sits in a single grid and therefore is almost guaranteed to lose the match regardless. This is actually untrue. Reworked CVs can claw back matches from utterly ludicrous positions that are impossible to hold in any other class due to their enormous damage and killing potential that cannot be influenced by their opponents in any way, granting them more map control than entire flanks. Having the cap and map control advantage is utterly meaningless in the face of a skilled reworked CV player as they are capable of easily making up the difference. The flank they are on is guaranteed to fall, there is nothing the enemy ships can do except giving up that flank and extending their life for a little while or die for nothing. This means that the enemy team can in fact do nothing against a skilled reworked CV player. Every option they are given either leads to them losing map control or losing ships. As such, again, the only thing that keeps a reworked CV in check is if their own teammates play "the cap is lava" or something equally speshul. Almost every other situation is very much winnable alone. In fact I have made it a routine to grant the enemy the cap advantage from time to time just so I can farm more damage.

So lets imagine the following scenario: I play a DM which is a supposed AA ship, am full AA spec aside from MAA since I know that it does nothing for my ship and a Haku approaches me with her AP DBs. I use the SR mechanic and DFAA while attempting to maneuver to give the Haku the worst possible target. The Haku meanwhile ignores flak completely since he is not a potato and compensates for my turn, halving my HP on the first attack. But not only that, he manages to get a second attack off, almost killing me. Apparently there is NOTHING I can infer about AA strength here? Especially if I know that DM AA, despite being inadequate, is among the better AA in this game? But please, tell us why you believe AA strength can only be judged when playing CVs yourself, especially since you previously contradicted CV players far more skilled and experienced than you? And that's an issue since unlike Chess WoWs is not 1vs1 where a single player is in control of all pieces. It's a 12vs12 team based game, as such every mechanic, naturally including all classes, needs viable counterplay options. Thus since reworked CVs by design can't have any they are broken beyond repair.

Because surely AA strength can only be inferred from playing CVs? Except every other enemy piece can capture a Queen in Chess or put it into dire situations. Aka there is counterplay to a Queen despite her being the most versatile piece on the board. Now imagine if the Queen were invincible unless every other piece has already fallen. That's basically CVs. The only thing that can keep them in check is the incompetence of themselves and their own teammates. The enemy team has no influence on their impact whatsoever. The RPS principle in WoWs, or generally a lot of games, is only followed in so far that every strategy, unit, weapon, etc. can be counterplayed. As soon as this no longer applies to a specific mechanic, such as CVs, it becomes overpowered. RPS is often used as a simplification so even speshul people can roughly understand the framework behind a much more complicated design. It isn't to be taken literally. Actually there is a T-shirt, too. Doesn't seem to be in the WG store but it was given out at GC. Looked similar to this: I can provide a picture if needed. Not sure where I stashed it tho.

Neither will do a lot of spotting because potatoes do not understand the value of it. As such the value of potato CVs is measured purely in damage numbers I'd say. And quite frankly I found even potato RTS CVs to be much more willing to spot if asked for it in chat than potato reworked CVs. Comparing past records on maplesyrup shows that low tier RTS CVs generally did more spotting than reworked ones, albeit marginally (24k vs 21k). Reworked T6 CVs e.g. also have so many more players below 10k damage in comparison it isn't even funny, with a good chunk even below 5k. It gets even worse when looking at T4 CVs. Despite having a combined ~153k players listed T4 RTS CVs has comparatively few players below 5k avg dmg. So yeah, even in low tiers potatoes fail even harder than before.

If we check the leaderboards of T8+ RTS CVs on wows-numbers we can easily see that in the ~3 years of RTS we've had 4 players that have managed an average damage below 10k. In rework CVs meanwhile we have dozens, a good chunk of which are below 5k along with one particularly speshul individual even below 1k. Quite frankly potato CVs are even more useless in the rework than they ever were in RTS. Also it was pretty much impossible to deplane a T7+ RTS CV in the opening minutes due to the service time penalty.

This... works surprisingly well.

Kaga K2 has actually been confirmed, now that we have a new catapult it shouldn't be too long until then. Gonna guess Winter event latest. https://kancolle.fandom.com/wiki/Recent_Updates *cries in lack of blueprints* I actually have everyone who requires a catapult except Taiyou and Hyuuga remodeled already. Latter I should be able to get next month with another BP.

Reducing the number of players would make matches even more frustrating as you become more reliant on teammates who are more often than not going to be incompetent. Unless you play CVs ofc.

Finally done with Saury fishing. I now have 3 catapults. Hope one of these goes to Intrepid but doubt that she'll get a K2 anytime soon, if ever.

MUST. RESIST. URGE. TO. SPEND. MONEY.

A quick look at reworked CVs should give you the answer to your questions. Spreadsheet says you have fun camrade.

In the end CVs deal at least the same damage in the same timespan. A higher RoF simply grants them more flexibility. Also killing a DD in the first minute via crossdrop was impossible in RTS CVs as service time alone prevented that. Even a 3-way crossdrop could also be foiled by DFAA. Nothing stops rockets from killing a DD. Sounds more like a buff to me. CVs are not like any other class, so this point about them is moot. By giving them the ability to attack the whole match is to make them unpunishable and as such overpowered. 1. The rework concept relies on the CV being able to all over everything else, as such anything that goes against this concept will inherently murder it either in effectiveness or in popularity. 2. Sure, but this is entirely useless as it doesn't stop a CV from completely murdering a flank. Aside from the fact that a flank only needs spotting information on that specific flank anyway. 3. See 1. 4. Considering cross drops still exist I fail to see how this will make any appreciable difference. Generally speaking TBs are already a pretty good choice against cruisers and can be against DDs. It's currently just not worth the effort to set up cross drops as rockets are a more reliable and easier to use choice. 5. Biggest maps are only 48x48km. Also see 1. It's not. Just like you've harped about my points your changes would make CVs pretty much unplayable for less skilled players. Even worse you've just potentially buffed skilled players.

Same can be said about many other blatantly overpowered ships. Yet for some reason CVs need special treatment? Except for the fact that such players have no chance whatsoever against a skilled reworked CV player. What makes reworked CVs overpowered is that they have objectively no counterplay, which is requirement for the rework concept to work. When you e.g. meet a 80% WR BB player, you have options to deal with and outplay him regardless of what class you play. If you meet a 80% WR CV player on the other hand there is literally nothing you can do except for praying that his team is incompetent to the extreme. And even that may not be enough for your own team to win the match. Whether something is balanced or not isn't purely written in stats.

This is one of the "viable" alternatives the mechanics of the rework leaves us with, yes. The other would be for CVs to remain hilariously overpowered, being able to singlehandedly decide matches without any input from the enemy team. As it stands now a skilled CV player can only be defeated by, ironically, their own team. There is no middle ground.

Which is just fine because player skill is irrelevant to balance. Sure, you'd lose most of the playerbase but that's the natural outcome when your fundamental mechanics are severely flawed. If someone were to have the desire to play CVs without getting completely demolished, they would just have to git gud. CV play requires an entirely different skill set, more so than any other class. As such how average players perform in other classes is irrelevant since a comparison cannot be made.

Since average stats is only representative of how hard the average player is failing at CV play, why would that matter?

Uh, no. The question is whether it is actually relevant that theoretically speaking ships are being limited in ammunition by their reload speed and match time just like CV aircraft. The answer to that is ofc no. What is relevant is the amount of aircraft CVs can field as well as whether AA is capable of putting a significant dent into such reserves. And to that the answer is quite simple, CV reserves are humongous and AA is pitiful.

I frankly fail to see how this is relevant to the question at hand. Also funnily enough it was literally impossible to deplane T7+ CVs early due to the service time penalty. Likewise this didn't guarantee victory as surface ships had viable options to completely lock out the enemy CV from the match. Now bad CV players are still completely useless, not only because they lose all their planes to flak and as such don't require an enemy CV to deplane them, but also because they can't hit jack with their ordinance. Their influence on the match now is almost equal to someone who goes afk. Meanwhile surface ships lost all practical means to defend against air attacks so eventually a skilled CV will just kill them all if time permits it. Thus having a skilled CV vs a potato CV matchup gives you at least just as good/bad odds to win or lose as previously, aka the potential influence on a match a CV can have is the same as before.