El2aZeR

CVs at release were barely any different. The only real changes to CVs balancing wise were flight control changes to USN CVs, removal of alt attacks in low tiers and the addition of AP bombs. The era you're referring to was changed in early beta, not at release. Aka WG used the feedback gained IN the beta to balance the game IN beta so that they would not release an unmitigated disaster. You know, UNLIKE the CV rework. Stop making things up.

I did. You're still just as horrible as you were at the beginning of last year. If there weren't any timestamps on the scoreboards I couldn't have guessed that your recent replays and the older ones are almost a year apart. You possess some grasp of the basic mechanics, which to be fair is more than most players will ever achieve, but beyond that there is absolutely nothing. You have corrected none of your mistakes that have been explained to you in this very thread nor have you shown any interest in taking advice to heart. Instead you repeatedly push the blame on others and deflect criticism of your play by any means possible. Every CV gets verbal abuse no matter how good they are, but I can see why you seem to get a lot more than others do.

Still completely ignoring that we can just watch some of your most recently uploaded replays here: https://replayswows.com/profile/500877276/sort/uploaded_at.desc/#ships and see that you haven't improved one bit.

Plenty of more experienced and more successful CV players have criticized you in this thread, yet you have taken literally none of that to heart as can be seen by the most recent replays you posted. How about you just admit already that you do not want any criticism at all regardless of source?

Judging by those replays, yep, you are still horrible. Keep deluding yourself into thinking you're any good, though. That'll surely help your issues.

Then why pray tell waste time posting your opinion on a public discussion forum in the first place? To make it visible for the devs? You're much better off posting on reddit then. Also clearly a bit of fun and banter can't be allowed either. Let me guess, you're German, aren't you? If you really want a serious discussion, here's my take on the rework:

Yuo see Ivan when rework make all other class obsolete people only play CVs so finally everyone is equal! Just like glorious Communism always intended! Xaxaxaxaxaxaxa!

And if you take them out DDs simply take their place. Yet for some reason I don't see you demanding DDs to be removed, too. If they are horribly out of position, yes. Fact is, CV attacks and even spotting can be denied by surface ships. If you don't, that's your own problem. I haven't been killed in a DD by a CV directly or indirectly for years without my team falling first. Unless said ship runs an AA build and/or DFAA (and doesn't waste it), then the drop does pitiful or no damage for most, if not all aircraft lost. Not to mention CVs also have the longest reload time by far. The last time a Midway attacked my Yamato of all things he lost 11 TBs for 3 hits on a cross drop. I don't even run AA beyond the 30% DPS boost upgrade. Now you're just straight up lying. A DM that doesn't run DFAA, doesn't use it or wastes it deserves to die (applies to any ship with DFAA really unless we're talking about Kron). There is no easier counterplay than pressing a button at the right moment, so misplaying that should be harshly punished accordingly. Hindenburg is among the two T10 cruisers that rarely take citadels from AP bombs. The other is Minotaur and out of the two Mino actually takes citadels more frequently than Hinden. The only KM BBs vulnerable to oneshots are Gneis/Scharn and Bismarck/Tirpitz. FdG can take citadels but is rarely oneshot, the rest is completely immune. In general USN HE bombs actually have higher damage potential than AP bombs, it's just that AP bombs kill select targets that CVs would normally have trouble dealing with. And if it is news to you, skilled CV players spoke out against AP bombs, which ofc led WG to believe that the performance of AP bombs is fine.

*laughs in Clemson*

One of these days you will realize that the skill gap with reworked CVs is actually a lot worse than what we have currently. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. You'll see for yourself soon enough anyway.

Kek no. With current CVs you have your strike efficiency to consider. The closer you are to the battlefield, the faster your strike cycles, the more strikes you can fly per match. That obviously carries a bit of risk with it if you aren't attentive enough. Reworked CVs are the only ships in the match which have good AA along with a pretty much permanent CAP. You can also just camp on the border of the map since planes are fast enough that you don't need to consider moving closer. So instead of CVs moving with the fleet other classes must cuddle their CVs for AA protection. Welcome to the CV rework.

This is funny because in the games I was referring to the enemy CV was actually taken out fairly early via stupid positioning, thus it didn't matter whether they were good or not (they weren't btw). Not that that mattered ofc since the enemy was still free to contest and take objectives at will since my one potato DD/BB proceeded to either be completely useless camping at the edge of the map or suicide, losing the match by points anyway. Hint: It is literally impossible for even a T10 CV to kill enemy ships at a fast enough rate to negate point income or effectively defend objectives against multiple enemies. That won't be an issue with reworked CVs tho. As for teams, they were fairly even except ofc for that one potato I had on my team more or less sabotaging us which then tipped the match. Hence one player in another class ruining the match for me and my team. To say that this doesn't happen is laughable at best. In fact, judging from my Excel table the overwhelming amount of default losses I suffered in my last ~600 matches were not from CVs but from BBs and DDs. I don't think I even registered a single default loss by CV. If you want to have a look yourself, here: I dunno, I had quite a bit of fun seeing how long I can maintain my 100% WR. I think I got to like 35 matches before PTS was over.

- UI was better ironically - a more healthy playerbase (regardless of reasons) - aside from early beta roughly same power as now. Note that the significant balancing changes were made IN beta, not upon release. So basically you just stated that WG is bound to it all up. When will you stop spreading your misinformation?

He's a ST in disguise or sth along those lines. While he has never given any source to his info, it has been accurate so far. He even posted a bunch of screenshots that would be inaccessible otherwise.

Aside from the Fiji who either hardcarried or got fed kills no one on the enemy team did significantly better than the players on your team. So... What exactly is this match supposed to tell us?

Man, I must have imagined all those default losses yesterday in which one in a BB/DD ruined the match. And that was despite me playing a CV. Reworked CVs have even more potential game impact than current CVs.

Well, can't be any worse than the first one, right? (Yes, this is legit.)

Nah, bots actually play the objective and therefore end the match way too fast so I could practically never farm. T_T That won't be a problem on the live server tho.

Because said "elitists" will not totally jump on the chance to exploit a broken mechanic to completely trash new or inexperienced players. You didn't exactly think that statement through, didn't you?

*laughs in HVARs* Seriously tho, considering that reworked CVs are conceptualized as DoT damage farmers any kind of DoT change seems to be rather ill advised regardless of whether these ships actually deserve it or not.

The torp damage given on the blog is way excessive, so I'm not sure how reliable these stats are. They don't follow the format of the other CVs posted either.

Regardless of the OPs personal opinion, is the poll biased? If not, then what are you even yammering about?

Honestly I am more excited for this than the upcoming patch.