El2aZeR

Which they have previously represented as fine successes. Basic example are RTS AP bombs. Sometime after those have been released devs stated in a Q&A that their performance is fine. Yet when the rework was first announced suddenly RTS AP bombs were labeled as a toxic mechanic (which they most definitely were). You can't even say that the situation changed because AP bombs were never changed ever. in fact WG only made things worse by introducing GZ with AP bombs far superior than their USN counterparts. See, the issue is not that they make mistakes, everyone does. It is that they label these mistakes as completely fine and working as intended first. It would be MUCH better if they had not said anything at all or given us the usual "we're looking into it" instead. But since they insist on that everything they do is great regardless of whether it actually is they do nothing but undermine their trustworthiness. Putting faith in anything they say at this point is a complete and utter dice roll. It is the direct opposite of transparency. And while I most definitely do not condone death threats or other some parts of the community likes to fling around, a good amount of flak the devs catch is well deserved because of that. No worries, no hard feelings here either. :)

I'm not even holding that against them. It's a common company policy in this industry to never talk bad about anything your company does. Still, it means putting trust in their words is unwise to say the least.

This isn't exactly the first instance they've lied directly to our faces.

Total RTS CV players still far outnumber the total amount of reworked CV players by virtue of the former having existed for a far longer time span. If what you were saying is true then there should be far more abysmally performing RTS CV players than reworked CV players. Because from a gameplay perspective there is nothing particularly positive about reworked CVs. Sure, I could say that e.g. the visuals are pretty good, but the negative aspects far outweigh the positive ones, thus the latter are not worth talking about. From a business perspective on the other hand I'm sure reworked CVs have been a success so far, but does that really matter to us?

More like a hilarious liar. We have hard data that there are players that do just as well as in the RTS iteration. Meanwhile potatoes are reaching levels of failure that we have never seen before in all the years of RTS CV play. This means the skill gap has most definitely not decreased. S_O basically assumes we're too stupid to check stats.

What nerf lol? The HE DB adjustment is actually an incredible buff.

Pretty sure the lolis are permanent.

Yes. Hilarious, I know. On the contrary locking out alpha strike is a logical consequence of the rework being based upon single squadron gameplay with multiple attack runs which are gameplay principles. And because you only have a single squadron with multiple attack runs that squadron has to be able to deal damage in any realistic scenario, otherwise there is no point in single squadron gameplay nor multiple attack runs. It has absolutely nothing to do with tempering the impact of skilled CV players, no measure WG has taken so far had that goal in mind.

Except without any of these gameplay principles reworked CV play as it is cannot exist. That makes them objectively true. Take the ability to attack and deal damage in every realistic scenario for example. If that didn't exist this rework would be both incredibly inaccessible and, more importantly, unfun. Having multiple attack runs per squad likewise would be completely pointless. That means it would fail several goals you listed previously. Which mean jack since WG has outright lied to our face at pretty much every turn. And please, this isn't your personal interpretation? Because WG certainly hasn't said that. They now claim the skill gap is something entirely different and it has been precisely that what they meant all along.

Is that all you can say after failing to show us the supposed gameplay principles of the rework, mistaking WG's goals for them instead? Good to see you know how to separate goals from gameplay principles. Still means you failed to show them to us.

Another few well earned reports I'd say.

Goals are now gameplay principles. Okay.

My own experience with the rework and game design. They also said the skill gap between experienced and beginner CV captains is too high, yet now the skill gap is the performance gap of a player in the ship classes they play. Or back when they introduced RTS AP bombs they said their performance is fine, yet now they've been labeled as a toxic mechanic. You must be delusional to still believe in whatever WG says.

Uh huh, and you're denying this based on what exactly?

What are you, a wizard?

I've had no issues with the WGC whatsoever.

They actually tried that. I'm not even joking.

*breathe in* boi.

Capabilities have to be there, not necessarily be used. The former is a design requirement, the latter is what (should) decide matches. While I share your sentiment of not needing to do jack for my teammates in reworked CVs, that is more because such capabilities are incompatible with how reworked CVs play anyway. Hence why this is a fundamentally flawed issue. E.g. sending fighters to assist teammates in the RTS iteration was easily done. Doing the same in reworked CVs is an extreme bother and in fact neither benefits you nor your team funnily enough.

The main issue with this proposal is that I can't imagine it being very fun to play. The RTS iteration kept you engaged via micromanagement of multiple units WHILE planning your next strike in its waiting times. The rework keeps you engaged by letting you spam planes ad infinitum. How would this proposal keep you engaged in its downtimes?

A bit off topic, but isn't it a known issue that replays are currently unwatchable or did they fix that already? At least the last time I tried watching a replay (with the same version as the game) I got into an infinite loading loop on the title screen. Remember seeing quite a few topics about that as well on here. Admittedly that was like a week ago or so and I haven't tried since.

Almost every formation that isn't 6+ ships is an opening. Which is funny because reworked CVs either need the same time or are even faster in their initial first strike on a DD. And every subsequent strike afterwards. There is no scenario in which a higher tier reworked CV will kill slower than its RTS counterpart. Unless ofc played by a potato, but those were never relevant anyway. Which has simply been shifted from the CV to flak. Nothing has changed in that regard aside from giving skilled CV players no way to oppose each other which is to the severe detriment of surface ships. Because a skilled CV nowadays does not need to expend effort to deny the opposing CV, he simply does it himself. You could even see that as a buff to CVs if you so wish. I can do you one better and just send you a replay of a match yesterday in which I kill a Grozo that is being covered by a Worcester while both have DFAA enabled and lose like 6 planes total or so for it in my Midway once I get off work. @Saiyko can confirm if replays are still broken. 1. The fundamental gameplay of the rework is built around the CV always being able to deal severe damage unless in the most extreme situations (which would be e.g. a bunch of 6+ capital ships with good AA all in one spot). This means there are no effective counterplay options to reworked CVs. 2. Reworked CVs play solely for themselves and have no true team supporting abilities. This is exacerbated by CVs being fundamentally incapable of effectively opposing each other. In what is supposed to be a team game this is unacceptable. 3. Reworked CVs have no true downsides nor limitations when played competently. Unlike their predecessors they can be anywhere at the right time if the situation calls for it, ironically giving them even higher flexibility and power. Likewise plane losses can be severely mitigated and play practically no part in their tactical play anymore. Hull survivability too has been improved to the extreme. 4. Because these are the principles reworked CV play is built upon they cannot be altered without severely compromising the rework one way or another (which is e.g. what your suggestions above would do). As such it is unfeasible to even attempt saving it, the only viable option is to scrap it completely. What happens after that is up in the air (rollback, complete removal, something entirely new etc.).

While I did tell you to l2p, I claimed that specializing for AA was broken (as in you should not need to specialize into AA to be effective against CVs). Funnily enough specializing into AA is even more broken now because it offers pitiful returns for points invested while l2p no longer applies since what would be a safe formation back in the RTS iteration is now extremely vulnerable to reworked CVs. So much for "old RTS was more broken" lol.

A fundamentally flawed product cannot be saved and deserves to be scrapped precisely because it is fundamentally flawed. But again, so many of you seem convinced that the concept of a class that can always and at any given time absolutely murder any other class aside from themselves can somehow be balanced. I have yet to see a single objective argument as to why that is. The irony of labeling our stance as "lazy" when we have given pretty good reasons as to why we believe that the CV rework cannot be saved while you have yet to give us a single objective argument to convince us otherwise is rather amusing, no?

Not for me because they no longer have any effects on CVs.