El2aZeR

And that is comparable to the rework.... how exactly? Here is the news for you: Single ships or even small groups are no longer immune to air strikes regardless of full AA builds. While plane losses are inevitable, you can stretch reserves by shortening your squads very far. And while damage from a single strike isn't dramatic, it will pile up very fast. Harsh damage and kills are pretty much inevitable. That means everyone moves in a single blob or they suffer the consequences. And reworked CVs are a lot better at spotting single blobs than RTS CVs. Really, you have disqualified yourself from the discussion the moment you based your arguments on the old meta. Times have long moved on.

Considering CVs are currently banned from CBs that would help.... how exactly? And I would love to know what exactly you're basing your denial of reworked CV capabilities on.

Regular DBs with good HE pen instead of those weaksauce carpet bombers would be nice.

That's a joke and a half right there considering localized spotting for CVs has been buffed tremendously with the rework. And with the entire enemy team now forced to sail together or take guaranteed damage due to new AA mechanics localized spotting is all you're gonna need. That means reworked CVs are going to be much better at spotting in CBs than RTS CVs could ever hope to be.

Just use them to spot. Only use them to protect your teammates if you're coincidentally in the same area and see a strike incoming. Trying to actively protect your team is not only a waste of time but harmful as you allow the enemy CV to pull ahead in the damage race. Also fighters are currently hilariously bugged when it comes to shooting down planes. If you see a strike incoming, drop them and pray. You may get a few kills, you may not get any at all.

New details for the 2nd phase of the Azur Lane collab will be revealed at a live event aboard the Mikasa on April 6th. Source: https://worldofwarships.asia/ja/news/community/wows_al_yokosuka_2019/

Mini Event is called "Starry Sky over the Arctic Fjord", so... Introduces Coastal Artillery as a new mechanic, which reduces your movement area if you waltz into their line of fire. Info about the next phase of the WoWs x AL collab will drop on April 6th during a live event aboard the Mikasa btw.

If CV player is skilled: Go straight to great gulag in heaven. If they're not: See stuff above.

Don't think splash damage was ever considered beyond module damage - and it shouldn't be imo. Only direct penetrating hits.

How much faster would that make you kill a BB tho if those would do 10% (aka overpen) damage? 5 seconds? 10? I'd be extremely surprised if it would exceed the latter.

Kami only has 2x machine guns as AA. That means no flak, only DPS at close range.

So you're saying that if modules such as secondaries and AA guns, ONLY modules, not torp bulges nor spaced armor, would take 10% shell damage it would sound the death of angling and hit BB survivability hard? Jesus Christ...

Minorities are hated. Oh no. What a surprise. Tell you what, this kind of thing exists in pretty much every game with asymmetrical balancing. E.g. I got banned from servers by butthurt admins in Battlefield because I was halfway decent at flying jets. Or got screamed at how I don't have any real skill while winning via 4 gate cheese in StarCraft 2. When asked why my opponent didn't simply scout more profanities ensues. Funny considering you still consider irl factors to be a valid balancing argument for a video game. As if implying real life combat doctrines, tactics and limitations have any kind of value in an arcade shooter. No, I am giving WMDs in strategy games as an example of a weapon which is "gamebreaking" in real life but perfectly fine in a virtual environment. Because, you know, a game isn't limited by real life restrictions. Though if you really want a shooter, read again and see that I already gave one. So much for your ability to understand and see.

Except they all prophezied about how much faster they would die to shells hitting their AA mounts and secondaries and how angling would become completely useless. Guess what, if I haven't made it clear already I too disapproved of the change overall, I just stated that the part of it that made modules such as AA guns take damage is actually good. I was immediately attacked by players citing the "tremendous hit" to BB survivability this change would bring specifically. If that doesn't classify these specific players as whiny BBabies, what will? Have you ever considered that you're actually the biased one here?

Yes, that one. First of all, there was only one part of it that was horrible, namely that it affected spaced armor and torp bulges as I already outlined above. The other aspects of the proposed change would've addressed the issue discussed here to a T, namely that penetrations of modules such as secondaries and AA guns would deal 10% shell damage. When I brought up that this part specifically was actually a decent change I was shouted down by half a dozen BBabies all screaming about how I was promoting the death of angling. I'm not even joking. If insufficient armor pen is registered it should be a shatter, no? Just saying, ribbons can be rather mysterious from time to time as we all know. You have a point about the code tho.

Did you just create a topic complaining about how utterly abysmal the average player is? How long have you been gone?

Thing is, don't modules just soak damage from AP shells, too? As such I think this is kinda unrelated to the nerf. That said, a change was tested recently, wasn't it? It got discarded because BBabies labeled it as the death of angling, complaining that their precious secondaries and AA guns wouldn't be able to endlessly soak damage anymore. (I realize that it affected torp bulges and spaced armor as well which was indeed stupid, but the whining took it way beyond that.)

Isn't this line of reasoning flawed considering playing a CV still demands an entirely different skillset compared to other classes? Even with the rework now sharing the basic control scheme with the other classes, practically no skills transfer over. In fact in my experience skills needed haven't particularly changed when compared to the RTS iteration when looking beyond the controls and removal of fighter play. To pick the RTS iteration as the extreme example, isn't it e.g. natural to assume that someone who excels at RTS games would perform much better with CVs than other classes? Likewise players not used to RTS games should obviously perform worse? Also on a bit of an unrelated note, recent patchnotes said something about the economy of the Enterprise being brought back in line with other T8 premiums. Does that mean she now earns more or less than before? Been wondering about that.

The skill gap takes into consideration the gap between worst and best players, you know? Because in a video game you are not constrained by the laws of the universe? Shocker, I know. Lets take a quick look on how the RTS iteration solved this. Contrary to popular belief RTS CVs weren't particularly good damage dealers (after their loadouts have been adjusted). While they had decent alpha strike and accuracy, they also had to content with opposition every time they attack, something no other class deals with, and they also had the longest reload by far. This naturally made them opportunists and nothing beyond that. What the devs did instead is to give them an entirely different primary role, namely scouting. Obviously this made CVs hugely influential, but at the same time ironically heavily dependent on the team. As such the inherent concept is balanced decently enough as a starting point. And by giving CVs a long reload along with a second health bar in form of depletable and highly limited plane reserves you can easily adjust the risk/reward curve. Planes are extremely flimsy compared to other armaments and unlike the weapons of surface ships it is far easier to deplane a CV than to destroy every single weapon a ship carries. And I don't see surface ships having a decent chance to get their armament destroyed simply by firing them either. If anything it is a myth that plane reserves doesn't equate HP. Heck, even WG acknowledged that. In fact there are many situations in which a surface ship can deal damage but cannot be touched in return, same couldn't be said about CVs. This however ran smack dab into three problems. 1. AA was only truly effective when fully AA spec. This wouldn't have been necessarily a problem if either CVs would appear in sufficient numbers or a full AA spec was the only build viable (like during the early days). Either way the sensible option would've been to remove most skills/upgrades and buff base AA instead. 2. Unlike in other team games such as CS where a large part of the playerbase understands that it is a team game, WoWs suffers from a ludicrous amount of ignorance on part of the average player across all classes. Thoroughly unsurprising considering the amount of instruction offered by the game. This leads to opportunistic classes, the most effective of which are CVs, becoming far more influential beyond their inherent design. 3. The meta was developed during a time when CV play was being utterly murdered by WG. Instead of addressing the issues of the class they just piled on nerfs after nerfs in an attempt to reign in the unicums, practically killing off the average population overnight. Ironically this meant people practically forgot how to play against CVs and ofc the emergence of the glorious BB meta that continues to exist. This all heavily turned the situation in favor of skilled CV players. CVs were able to be countered, I laugh in the face of anyone who denies that. But more often than not you simply didn't have the pieces necessary to do so, especially in low and mid tiers where full AA builds were of even higher rarity and the incredibly sad state of AA/plane progression in general. This however was in the hands of the developer - and they chose to worsen the situation by introducing highly balans AP bombs etc. A little known game, often heralded as a shining example of balance, called StarCraft? Nukes aren't even particularly effective weapons there unless your opponent severely misplays. Besides, if the only goal was to give both sides access to a mechanic, well, CVs were and still are mirrored. Technically speaking that means you could call any kind of CV implementation balanced based on that. And yet it is because the game is balanced asymmetrically that fundamentally prevents anyone from making such a claim. I could point towards any other mechanic that have excessive influence and practically force other players to fundamentally change up their playstyle to play around them, yet are as a whole perfectly balanced. And would be considered gamebreaking if real life was a game. The AWP in CS is another one.

Premium CVs currently have extremely limited data, thus using those to formulate any kind of analysis is completely worthless. To put this into perspective, someone (forgot who, sorry) calculated that I'm the sole reason why the Enterprise is ahead of the Lexington in terms of overall statistics. I'm not even joking. And your choice to use PR as a meaningful value is laughable at best. As for what I'm basing my own observation on, the fact that I can soar even higher with the rework compared to RTS CVs while average stats have gotten WAY worse and despite facing a far more hostile meta maybe?

To be fair I believe exp gain when bottom tier in a CV is heavily inflated. Several times I've gone out of a T10 match feeling like I've done all in my Enterprise and yet managed to grab top spot with 2k+ exp. (Although that could just stem from my target preferences. ) Not trying to discredit the guy tho, he clearly pulled his weight according to your description.

Untrue. You can initiate the attack almost point blank. The reticle shows you the minimum distance you need for your torps to reach minimum spread assuming no maneuvers whatsoever. You can choose to drop your ordinance well before that happens. Against bigger ships you also don't need your reticle to narrow down completely. At the later stages the drop is usually much tighter than the reticle would suggest. In fact, having your reticle narrow down completely can even be harmful as it gives more maneuverable enemies giant gaps to maneuver through whereas having a little spread ensures proper saturation of the target area. Attack preparation distance is also affected by speed, meaning that the slower you are, the less distance you need to drop your ordinance. I do agree however that the amount of effort it takes to make these torps work isn't exactly worth their effect.

Funny how "muh realism" is never a valid argument until it comes to CVs. I don't disagree that the rework is fundamentally broken but trying to paint the inclusion of a what irl would be a "gamebreaking" weapon into a video game as impossible on grounds of realism is laughable at best, especially considering video games have done so since pretty much forever. WMDs in strategy games are the perfect example. Thing is, player numbers have been stable for ages with the previously "broken" RTS CVs. Even with the rework player numbers have overall remained stable (beyond the typical decline this game suffers every year). That likely means the game is saturated (the alternative would be that the game cycles through players incredibly fast, which given the niche appeal of the genre seems unlikely to me), thus removing CVs may actually cause a decline in player numbers as people who threatened to leave due to CVs, well, haven't or are statistically insignificant whereas losing ~10% of your active playerbase is actually a pretty big hit.

I would love to know what exactly you're basing this on considering statistics we players have access to tell us the disparity between average and best players is equal, if not higher than in the RTS iteration. Likewise my personal experience with the rework is that while I suppose average CV players are no longer made impotent by an opposing unicum CV via fighters, they get left behind so immensely in the ensuing damage race that their team is left at an at least equally huge disadvantage as it was in the RTS iteration. And that is assuming said average CV player is capable of doing anything meaningful at all when faced with the new aiming and AA mechanics which have practically replaced fighter play as a major hostile element to CVs. So if you could shed some light on how you came to the conclusion that the skill gap issue has been resolved that'd be very much appreciated.

If you need to heavily readjust your aim with Midway TBs you're already doing it wrong. Make adjustments before you attack, not while attacking. Minor readjustment without worsening aim is possible via mouse otherwise. Under no circumstances should you use AD if you have a near perfect drop lined up.