El2aZeR

As the Chinese server proves the playing standard would actually improve with the introduction of bots in randoms tho.

Well, I just watched Aerroon play Haku. - he doesn't use boost to move around, only when attacking - he always shortens his squad regardless of target (he shortened his DBs against a friggin' Musashi) - he has no concept of AP DB drop height - flak avoidance skills leave a ton to be desired - I suppose at least his aim with rockets and TBs is decent enough Honestly I died a little inside knowing that this is likely way better than average already.

Finally committed to pushing through W13. Instant regret because W13 is pure . If it is ever announced for EN, for the love of god stack up on AA asap. Also avoid tier 3 CV nodes, they spawn so many planes they'll pretty much instantly kill your backline. This is how much damage my girls have to deal to get through 13-4 boss:

Hi there. Also Nueve is not an Italian ship. She's the USS Boise, a Brooklyn-class CL, bought and renamed by Argentina sometime after WW2.

I mean I don't like them as a CV player. They're unreliable at the best of times and frustratingly bad at the worst. Midway gets away with it via volume of fire, Saipan accuracy is overall better but firing only 6 rockets still makes them very RNG, sometimes even against bigger targets. When they do hit tho the damage is pretty high.

So... Enterprise too weak, pls buff? Thing is most matches do not go the full 20 min length. Average match time should be somewhere around 14-15 mins if my Excel table from like a year ago is still correct (which holds ~830 matches worth of data). The torps do actually have a decent spread tho, what matters is leading and drop distance which I still have not perfected (obviously), but their damage potential is undeniable. You can in fact get a second strike against a DM via proper heal usage assuming no DFAA (which is pretty common nowadays actually since DFAA is kinda meh now). Or using island cover. What I can already say for sure: This ship is stupidly broken when top tier. And I don't like the performance of the TiTs against DDs. Especially not when two of them are coordinating a rush on me.

5k? You do realize this is less than a well placed rocket salvo? C'mon, at least try to pick a more realistic number. I can almost kill a DM in 2 strikes with these TBs. Funnily enough Saipan isn't nearly as broken on the CN server as counterstrafing is pretty common knowledge there. Even a Ranger stands a pretty good chance of winning if a Saipan tries to abuse strafing mechanics in that case. And again, a well played Hiryu (which btw is I think the CV you mean) with 2/2/2 could in fact contest a Saipan. Besides, enemy CV is completely useless most of the time as well in the rework and I don't even need to go through the effort of destroying their planes.

If you honestly believe 6 matches is a representative number for WR to matter then I have rather bad news for you. (Neither is 50 btw.) And actually yes, she did in fact feel more powerful in high AA environments since I was actually able to push strikes through without much effort nor losses. You know, unlike with RTS Saipan where I can lose half my strike on the approach then lose the other half on the return against some of the worst AA in the game.

Which runs contrary to their inherent concept to make potatoes perform better. You see, if you have bad aim terrible dispersion actually helps you land the occasional hit. This kind of design philosophy is ingrained in pretty much every aspect of KM BBs. They have a near immunity to citadels so broadsiding isn't punished as much, they possess among the best armor against HE spam, pre CV rework their AA was among the best to decent enough depending on tier (post rework everyone has terrible AA), their general gunnery characteristics (shell speed, arc, turret traverse) are very comfortable, secondaries are an automated source of damage requiring no skill input and on high tiers they get hydro to provide close range recon along with protection against torps. So basically both their skill floor and ceiling are by design very low. Which personally I believe is terrible but it is what it is. That at one point made them so popular that WG specifically introduced AP bombs, another terrible idea, to reign in their numbers.

I'm actually pretty sure that achievements count as well. So stuff like "Confederate" which in itself can make you a target for reports by the enemy team.

Imagine reworked Enterprise with beta MM. Oh boy.

That's the one downside to Enterprise. She's kinda reliant on RNG with her AP DBs. Sometimes you completely annihilate everything, sometimes you get a bunch of pens and maybe a cit here and there. Sight stabilization generally gives pretty big buffs to E due to her unique aiming mechanics, so I'd say yes. Is it necessary for the AP DBs only? Well, a little. Against RN BBs (except Conq, that thing is immune) you actually need to drop slightly before you achieve max accuracy to reliably citadel them. Using SS gives you slightly better accuracy doing that as a result due to the timing.

Which is like saying "no offense, but" before saying something incredibly offensive, especially considering the narrative you're trying to push. Which is a general statement and as such untrue. If someone said "all black people are criminals" and then went "lol I only meant the black people who are actually criminals", how would that sound to you? Yup, like a very poor excuse. Let me quote what you said: You just tried to change your narrative from "lol everyone had a 50% to 100% difference" to "omg, only one of them had that". Emphasis on "try". Tell me again how you're not lying? But hey, not only that, you take a CV which you KNOW has T6 planes, as a result you now actually mean the gap between T6 and T10. Do you really want me to pull up the relevant numbers? Two words: Intellectual dishonesty. Ah, but it is you yourself who said that player performance is irrelevant when it comes to balancing and that we should balance around the ship itself, aka its potential capabilities, no? Something that I coincidentally agree with. And guess what, top player performance determines the potential of a mechanic, not average performance. Therefore this proves that with RTS AA a (rather small) blob was capable of shutting down a T8 CV strike regardless of CV player skill. This is no longer possible in the rework especially when island cover is considered unless the CV player in question is terrible. As such AA is in fact not stronger in the rework. It was far, far weaker. Likewise CVs were far more punishable in the RTS iteration. Also my damage and kill records in T8 are with the rework which managed to beat out years of RTS play in just a few months. This also implies that I wasn't the best RTS Enterprise player on this server. Too bad that isn't true either. PRECISELY. And that is why it is irrelevant. You have basically just proven that 1 out of 1000 is a better percentage than 1 out of 10000. Some basic logic will get you there, no need to calculate anything. So lets say there was 1 CV player before the rework. After the rework there is still only 1 CV player. The total population pre-rework however was 100, after it total population is 10. Therefore because the total population has shrunk, that means the rework has improved the population of CV players? Really? Your concept of what is relevant is especially laughable when one considers that this is a seasonal game with varying population depending on the time of year while RTS CV population at least largely stayed the same regardless as they weren't popular enough to be affected by it. Whether that is true of the rework as well remains to be seen but is very likely. Ofc it is. There is no use further discussing anything when you're proven wrong as usual. You quitting the discussion immediately afterwards only to reappear later on spouting the very same things again isn't exactly new.

Cute, really. First of all let's see. A B-hull NC has 66k HP, a Montana 96.3k. This represents an increase of about 31.5%. B-hull Bismarck vs GK: 34.6% B-hull Amagi vs Yama: 31.8% A Lexington TB had 1860 HP, a Midway 2060. This represented an increase of 9.7%. After the plane HP buff a Lexington TB has 2080 HP, a Midway 2290. This is an increase of 9.2%. Difference Shokaku vs Haku RFs before: 19.4%. Difference Shokaku vs Haku RFs now: 9.7%. Difference Lex vs Midway DBs before: 30.8% (which I believe is the biggest out of them all) Difference Lex vs Midway DBs now: 9,2% Difference Imp vs Auda TBs before: 18.9% Difference Imp vs Auda TBs now: 9.3% I'll spare you the humiliation and won't go any further. Point is your narrative is already wrong. You should've really checked that before throwing your salt at me. But not only is your narrative a lie, the part about where plane health increased by at least 50% is even more so. Maybe you should reevaluate this statement because it is, ironically, a lie. Ouch. Says the guy who thinks percentage population is relevant when overall population differs. Single samples are relevant depending on topic. For example in determining whether CVs are overpowered or not.

*laughs in Enterprise*

Is this really what you want to nitpick? "Oh, look, but THAT is true. Ignore what this discussion is actually about where I blatantly lied!" I know you like to ignore facts and you never admit you've been lying the entire time when you're proven wrong, but still.

What is this? I lost all my planes before they could drop because I was an idiot and attacked a Monty covered by a DM that had DFAA? And why are my planes grayed out with a fat 0 on their symbol? Could it be that I'm being *gasp* punished for my stupid decision making? What the heck, I only got 60k damage in a T10 match, lost almost all my strike planes and had to actually support my team to secure a win? Clearly the rework is so much better now. I can't just all over AA ships in the RTS iteration. Boo. And while we're at it: Near fastest possible first strike in rework: 1:30 mins Near fastest possible first strike in RTS: 2:44 mins (and required DD to play bad, turning into a torp he already dodged) Same map, same CV, pretty much same damage dealt. Clearly the rework too is much better in this regard. /s

I have something way better: As you can see, the MM from beta was much more fair than what we have now. T4 vs T8 just screams ultimatest balans, no camrades?

Meanwhile at WG:

Except that's a lie. I know, I too am surprised.

<4 mins ADE. "Skillgap is smaller than before" LOL.

Again, battle conditions objectively favor the rework precisely due to the difference in mechanics which need no test to compare. Meanwhile planes shot down at the beginning also severely weakened the strike and potential damage received. And perhaps most importantly, planes could be wiped before they drop with minimal effort. Nice of you to omit that detail. The disgusting dishonesty you put on display here isn't totally obvious at all. I just played 5x T10 matches in Saipan in a row. I've had no issues at all in terms of plane reserves. If you can't make her work, it's all on you.

In my mind a lower survival rate for high tier KM BBs can easily be explained by people suiciding into enemy fire because "MUH SECONDARIES". In general I'm rather skeptical about how representative average stats are. According to these high tier USN BBs have terrible performance, yet knowing how effective these ships are it's hard to argue that they need buffing.

Aha, so you do actually admit the skill gap is bigger now? Which just proves our point of the fundamental concept itself being flawed and as such unsalvagable. Thank you. Meanwhile in RTS: - if you're terrible you take moderate damage from bad CV players and crippling/game-ending damage from good CV players - if you're good, you avoid all or take minimal damage from CV players regardless of skill WHILE punishing them for attacking you So basically instead of the surface ship being able to do something against strikes it all comes down to the skill of the CV player in the rework. You just admitted that reworked CVs have no counterplay. Good job. Guess what, without a full strike due to AA actually being punishing along with fewer reserves it'd probably be outright impossible in the RTS iteration, once again giving the advantage to the rework.

Then how about you write it in a way that isn't intentionally misleading and as such intellectually dishonest? Besides, it's not like T7-9 AA couldn't be as brutal in the RTS iteration. While the jump from T9 to T10 AA in the rework is rather extreme in quite a few ships, the AA performance doesn't even come close to what it used to be even below that. Oi, you're the one who claimed that I literally had 0 battles. Really telling of the narrative you're trying to push. To prove that reworked CVs are in fact not weaker than RTS ones contrary to popular belief. Uh, yeah. That's just what I did.