El2aZeR

Wat. I hope you realize how a group stage with a subsequent elimination stage tournament works. If you get a lucky draw or a top contender throws hard you can easily reach top placements despite being an inferior team skill-wise. Of course KotS is not skill based MM. It's a friggin' tournament. What do you even expect?

Are you claiming that the same doesn't apply to any other class? In a competitive setting CVs have extremely diminished impact on the battle. They're there to provide bursts of spotting by sacrificing planes and using fighters in an attempt to deny it. Striking anything in a successful manner is practically unheard of and thus a non-factor as the AA even of single ships is far too brutal for that. You could trim anyone who exhibits basic competence to play that way in a week. Basic competence is required of a CV in KotS as well as knowledge of the meta and the will to play with your team. Nothing more. The very idea that a top-tier CV player is required to take a KotS or any tournament is a joke at best.

Except that the potential match influence of a CV is directly tied to the actions of their own and the enemy team, far more so than any other class. If CVs are doing well, that either says the majority are playing extremely well to accomodate the CV, or they're all bad at the game. Just one match in randoms will tell you which is true. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Keep dreaming.

Probably because the only big RTS left is StarCraft II and it has a skill floor so high it makes CV play a straight up joke. CV play is far more simple and relaxing than any core RTS game out there and it fits the naval setting we want to play in. That's like asking "Why don't you go play CoD instead of WoWs if you want to play a casual shooter?" So? If it's news for you, the desired population for CVs lies at around 10% of the active population playing (which will ensure that almost every match has CVs in it). They were never intended to be a popular class. I guess the entire game needs to be reworked then. If you haven't realized yet, some classes are naturally more influential on the match than others. It's an inevitability of asymmetric game design and role distribution.

Wat. APM is short for Actions Per Minute. What does APM include that's not an action aka a command?! Map awareness is not APM. Game knowledge is not APM. Reaction time is not APM. APM is purely the amount of commands you're sending per minute and nothing else. And in WoWs having high APM in CV play is absolutely worthless.

High APM is the most worthless thing to have in CV play. It is in fact more of a liability as both the UI and playstyle not only don't support it, the UI is more likely to screw up if you spam commands. I'd be surprised if I break 80 APM when playing CVs which is laughably low comparatively speaking.

Just like they did with BBs. OH WAIT.

Jokes aside, I'm already tied down pretty hard between Monster Hunter World, KanColle, Azur Lane and Girl's Frontline. Thankfully can't motivate myself much to play WoWs nowadays or otherwise that'd get added on top, too. Stalingrad broke the last straw for me, now I'm just waiting for the game to burn down with the CV rework.

First of all Second, no, the guns are not more accurate. The guns are more reliable, but overall accuracy (aka dispersion) remains the same. Although really, that's semanthics and up to personal viewpoint.

Because clearly failing 2500 games is better than playing 100 games well.

Because as we all know the game is fought primarily one on one. You are getting more hilarious with every post.

Except that ironically one of the biggest reasons why CVs are so influential is because almost no one else knows how to play against them. A CV's influence on the battle is directly limited by both their own and the enemy team as seen in early ranked and competitive play. They can turn entire matches on their head if you let them, otherwise imo DDs are a lot more impactful as they're not nearly as restrictive. Besides, the (in-)action of a single ship of another class can often be equally destructive. It's just that the effects of such are often not immediately felt unlike with CVs. It may take the entire match for you to realize that one ship has lost the entire game by making one stupid play. E.g. just one ship suiciding at the beginning of the match is often more than enough to turn it into a default loss. Heck, sometimes the match is decided before it even starts when you see that one side gets all the worthless ships while the other gets super impactful ones. *cough* Plane reserves. * cough* And don't start that bull about CVs having unlimited reserves anyway. They don't. You only need to lose your strike two times before reserves become extremely prohibitive which is more than likely to happen against even "bad" high tier AA.

Not saying anyone in your example did what I was saying, just generally speaking games get thrown far more often due to factors other than CVs, yet for some reason when it comes to "losing by default" CVs always get the blame. Don't get me wrong, I know why, but it's.... lets call it interesting how most people will only ever blame CVs and nothing else.

Meanwhile I had a match in which I got shut out of by a Seattle on one flank and a DM on the other. I'm not going to deny that the current iteration of CVs has a lot of problems (although a fair share of them are global or have nothing to do with CVs. Such as BB overpopulation or the bow camping meta). You'd have to be completely to do that. But a complete overhaul like they're planning + it being easy enough to play on consoles can literally break the game. It could very well turn into which CV kills the other team faster with no options for surface ships to counterplay it. And quite frankly a game in which you lose by default because all of your DDs suicide isn't a joke? Or all your BBs running for the map border at the slightest hint of danger? In my experience that happens a lot more often than losing by default to a CV. In fact even as one of the best CV players on this server I can't do jack when that happens. What you're referring to is a problem with average player skill as a whole, not just CVs. Reworking CVs won't change that.

Every gun, be it large or small, has a certain amount of deviation to it even in perfect weather conditions. The greater the distance, the bigger said deviation gets. This is why you adjust the sight to the gun and not the gun to the sight. It's e.g. one of the reasons why when they modernized the Iowas they kept the existing mechanical computers and gun directors in place. The solution they could produce was more accurate than the guns themselves, hence why replacing them with a more accurate system was a waste of time. So that RNG decides whether your shell lands on target or not is in fact realistic. You are already correcting your firing solution, it's called aiming. If you aim too short, you naturally correct forward and so on. Correcting your aim however naturally doesn't affect your dispersion.

Been wondering why maintenance in KC is taking a lot longer than usual btw. Apparently they're implementing the new HTML5 version.

Precisely. To achieve that you have to make CV play laughably easy so even the most braindead potato can eventually do some good, just like with every other class. Combined with what little but essential details we know about the CV rework everything points to a ludicrous increase in striking capability. Just saying that you shouldn't expect WG to nerf the striking capability of CVs. By increasing their striking ability, decreasing their counterplay options and making them easier to play CVs will inevitably rise in popularity which is precisely what WG wants. Refer to this thread for more information:

Oh, it could be plenty fun, but I have no confidence whatsoever in WG being able to balance it right, which is inevitably going to hurt my enjoyment of other ships and thus the game overall. Don't just look at CVs. Look at the bigger picture.

Oh boy, you won't believe what's gonna come for you. All the things we know about the CV rework points to a harsh increase in striking capability. No, I'm not joking. Whether it's fun for you or not on the receiving end is irrelevant for every PvP game. Tell me, is it fun to take citadels?

You have to remember that currently CVs are built around spotting and not dealing damage too. So for losing both spotting and the ability to stack multiple squads to increase damage, you'd need to both increase striking capability (either via pure alpha strike or DoT) and nerf AA in a hilarious fashion for such gameplay to be remotely viable. Which is precisely what is going to attract potatoes to the new reworked CVs. It's a win-win scenario in their book. Sure, us skilled players will likely suffer, but when has WG ever cared about us anyway?

Also console stuff here: https://wowslegends.com/forums/topic/20-intro-faq/ In game dev terms that basically means the new CV rework is being built for consoles.

Well, you don't have to take it from me. Take it from the devs instead. It's the first point that they talk about here:

They'll probably just way overbuff CVs so even braindead potatoes will be able to farm huge amounts of damage. At which point the game is likely to just straight up die. Maybe someone will be able to get a CBT/OBT build of the game running on a private server someday. I'd play that.

Actually the Jingles "teaser" does reveal a single piece of crucial information. There was someone in the background shouting "Pull up!". This means we'll have altitude control, so restricting vertical movement but not horizontal makes no sense at all. And yes, it has already been confirmed we'll only be able to control one squad at a time.

Because WG wants to release WoWs on consoles. RTS gameplay on consoles doesn't work all that well. As for multitasking, you simply don't apparently.