El2aZeR

My current fav is probably Enfield. Always wanted one but the stores in my area never carry them. T_T

Yeah, except in the current meta that difference can easily be utter dominance unless the team decides to support. Just like with CVs. Your point is? If you watch the minimap along with the clock for a bit and have some general understanding about CV play you can easily determine what target the enemy CV is most likely to strike and when he will come to do so. In fact I'd rate it as much easier than trying to guess where a DD is going to be as CVs are literally bound to the clock. Sure, a CV can operate "globally", but their dependency on certain factors also makes them predictable to the extreme. And if they were not people wouldn't WASD, pick hydro or vigilance and so forth and so on. They'd scream that DDs are OP, throw around bull about e.g. how it is unfair that they're way better at contesting caps and can launch torps from stealth while ignoring the few that actually play DDs telling them to "just WASD", "pick hydro/vigilance", etc. It just happens that WG didn't murder DDs but CVs. Doesn't make it any better but it's more comparable than you'd think. Am I? Your example isn't a problem at all from a balancing standpoint. The mechanic you describe is technically speaking perfectly balanced. Heck, on its own it may actually be a fun little short term game if you replace "losing 80% HP" with "straight up death". If you were to implement it into WoWs however it's from a game design standpoint for multiple reasons. However balance is not game design and more often than not it's impossible to make a mechanic fit the requirements of both categories at the same time. Except that it does. If you want to fix a leaky roof you don't do it by burning down the house. Problem solving doesn't work that way. CVs were designed upon the principles of this game, namely that this is a team-based one with an asymmetric class based system. Differences in potential match influence between classes are as unavoidable as the sunrise. That CVs have excessive influence beyond their inherent potential is for the most part no longer a problem with CVs due to the way CVs work. For example just getting rid of BB overpopulation would be a pretty big step forward in that regard.

Actually even automated AA has a target priority list and fighters are the lowest in it I believe. So even if you let a fighter fly in first, AA will automatically switch as soon as your bombers are in range.

Hardly a problem with CVs. isn't it? Balance is to provide contenders with equal chances outside of the human factor. That the majority of the playerbase is braindead doesn't pose a balancing problem. The same situation exists with when your DDs are braindead and rush to their death or just get taken out by a skilled player on the other side as happens regularly in randoms. Do DDs need a rework as well then? Lets face it, the current CV situation is most likely taken as an excuse to rework CVs so that WoWs can eventually be released on consoles. There is literally no other reason to throw the entire game on its head otherwise.

Fify. If you get your teeth kicked in by a CV you deserve it in 9/10 cases. I've met a couple of these players before. Quite frankly it didn't matter at all how skilled they are, my T button ensures I'm safe from any air strike and once their div mates fall the CV may as well not exist as far as I'm concerned. All it takes to defeat any of these divs is one or two more teammates that aren't completely braindead. But alas, those are in short supply nowadays, which is precisely why CVs do as well as they are and why such divisions can have ludicrous winrates. If 3 guys working together can decide the outcome of a 12vs12 game, that says a lot about the playing standard and little about anything else.

Upgrade is useless in randoms as you have to trade strike HP for it. Hardly an advantage. As for Worcester, she's essentially a Mino without smoke, which ironically makes her fairly easy to deal with. Just let your 5 BB mob do their job like with other AA cruisers.

Yes. Quite frankly nobody cares about whether people know how ships perform. You honestly think that's going to change in the future? That everyone will suddenly know how the Worcester plays when she's newly released? That people will know what a Stalingrad, a clan battle reward and thus a rare ship, will be capable of? That everyone knows every legendary upgrade? Get out of here, if you have failed to inform yourself beforehand via other sources you certainly won't be any smarter even after those ships have made it past testing. Especially considering Worcester is in fact already past testing and in her release state. The upgrade only gives a 20% bonus to ruddershift. You need to stack every rudder upgrade to achieve such values, giving up any other benefits in the process. And she trades one of her greatest advantages for it: Range. You seem to only look at the bright side of these upgrades and not what disadvantages they're going to have. You're just whining for the sake of whining at this point.

And how exactly is this unfair? Stalingrad and Worcester both have pronounced weaknesses which you failed to exploit. The Yamato special upgrade, while good, also has its trade-offs and was just recently nerfed. And it certainly wasn't the special upgrade that made you throw yourselves into your deaths, a Yamato with the normal reload mod would've even been preferable in that situation. There was nothing unfair about the enemy using these specific ships/upgrades. You didn't lose because the enemy had an unfair advantage, you lost because you were playing in a manner that can at best be described as incompetent. Deal with it.

Then that still means they deserved to lose as almost any 1 BB + 2 CA/L combination would've wrecked them just the same. Besides, watching the replay right now. The Gearing practically suicided, both near full HP Yamatos camped in the back and eventually got torp flanked by the enemy Gearing while cruisers rushed into the guns of the Yamato/Stalingrad in an attempt to be greedy. Enemy didn't even need to take B cap. They misplayed the situation so hard it's not even funny and more than deserved to lose. Ah, yes, the mythical Yamato shooting every 15 seconds. The legendary upgrade gives a 6% bonus to reload speed, shaving off 1,8 seconds. That's exactly half of the bonus the normal reload upgrade provides. Adrenaline Rush with 99% HP lost stacks another 19,8% (equals ~5,6 seconds) on top of that, giving a near death Yamato a 22,6 second reload. Also please note that the Yamato in question only got 4 kills, which isn't enough to trigger the Yamamoto special skill if that was even an option. So how about you stop spouting such utter bull and start educating yourself? Next up, Stalingrad is of no particular danger to your line-up if you had played it right. The guns can't overmatch T10 cruiser armor and her HE shells are if that particular test iteration even had any, thus if your teammates had simply stayed in cover and angled instead of rushing out they would've most likely killed her with ease. Your team ignored the Worcester so hard despite her being spotted for ages. A Worcester is about as fragile as a Mino, one of your Yamatos looking at it the wrong way would've sealed her doom. Worcester is an extremely map dependent ship as it is practically a T10 Atlanta and Loop is perhaps one of the worst maps for cruisers in general. Your team chose to ignore her, your team payed the price. And finally, your own plays were abysmal. You guys don't even belong in the middle of the scoreboard, if it were up to me you'd be rock bottom with at most 100 exp earned. You think rushing to your death in your top tier ships one by one was smart despite having 2 caps and no need to push any further? Seriously, if you want to know why you lost this game, look no further than in the space between your chair and your monitor. That you even have the gall to come here and complain about stuff being overpowered when you've essentially outplayed yourselves is amusing to no end. But hey, it's always easier to blame something else for your loss instead of admitting that you're incompetent, isn't it?

Wait, you're telling me that with - numbers + quality advantage - cap advantage - position advantage - 200 point lead you still lost?! Yes, that's fair then. They weren't carrying, your team failed. Hard. Seriously, how in the name of RNGesus do you even trade six for only one?

Naming and shaming is not allowed. Posting private messages from support is not allowed. Just sayin'. The report system actually doesn't do anything except for the chat ban function as per official statement afaik. And while I agree that afk'ing is not punished hard enough, making the playerbase govern itself is just asking for trouble as the current chat ban system already demonstrates.

Any full AA spec capital ship at T10 will easily wipe out entire strikes even without DFAA. Quite honestly this would be an unfair scenario for you. Nah, you're the guy who doesn't understand a thing. The one button mechanic I'm talking about is this: Strafe uses two buttons and is easily defeated anyhow.

Ah, yes, the action of pushing one button to clear out entire strikes is clearly not retaliation enough. Here's the harsh truth for you: CVs aren't doing well because they are inherently overpowered. CVs are doing well because 90% of the playerbase is braindead and likes to play BBs.

Pretty sure you mean "CAV" not "CVE" as CVEs are Escort Carriers and already in the game (Bogue). Also quite honestly I fail to see how manual aircraft control can be merged with normal surface combat. It maybe could've worked with the current RTS playstyle but with how the rework looks like now it'd be impossibly micro intensive or make any hybrid ship camp in the back like a normal CV, defeating the purpose of hybrid ships.

Picked Iceland because I like the color combo. Yes, I'm not a football/soccer person.

I'd give Ranger 1000lb HE bombs along with reducing service times of tech tree US squads in general. While that won't make her equal to any of her contemporaries in terms of air control, it'll at least allow her to be more competitive in the striking department. Regardless of whether the CV rework is coming or not, qol improvements like this are easily implemented. And I don't think it's a particular secret that Ranger is tier for tier the worst CV in the game right now.

Meh, Mino eats citadels on a fairly regular basis. Usually not enough to oneshot her, but I see ~20k damage often enough.

Meh, on the other hand it's nothing we're not used to from the Minotaur, except this time they can't hide in smoke. Only true question in my mind is: Can they be meme'd by AP bombs?

Except that they aren't misleading at all when it comes to why you're struggling to make money even in mid tiers. Your average experience is extremely low across all ships, translating into low income. It doesn't matter at all what you think, such a performance will net you low earnings if any at all. On the other hand the performance of others proves that making money even at T10 without premium account, camo or flags is very much possible. Thus to make meaningful income you need to adjust your playstyle regardless of whether you think it's necessary or not.

Clearly. Because clearly that makes my solo experience invalid. So? Does that make Missouri any less deadly against DDs? Does that make Hood any less deadly against CVs? What is even the point of your argument? Just because Missouri doesn't solely exist to counter DDs doesn't make her any less effective at it. Well, useless vs useless is hardly a contest. Floatplane fighters are easily predictable and too slow to catch attacking planes unless they're extremely close. They also keep attacking a squad until it's dead and, contrary to popular belief, do not change targets even if you mark another squad, so you can just go in with DBs first, let the DB that gets tagged stay around and attack with your TBs uninterrupted. An intelligent CV player will never feel the impact of your fighter. It's only when you mass them that they become effective but massed AA deters strikes in general, so floatplane fighters are completely useless in an AA role. Scouts can be easily avoided in any DD with halfway decent air detectability range. Unlike radar. Thus there is no trade-off involved. You either take radar or you're stupid.

Ah, yes, lets ignore that you've essentially painted a picture that always assumes the Missouri is an idiot, that the entire enemy team is garbage, that you're always capable of maintaining a ludicrous distance and that at such a distance you can catch a Missouri with enough torps to sink her in a timely manner. Totally not absolutes. "Adapting" to the Missouri essentially means not playing DDs as you have demonstrated in all your arguments. I play solo as well. And to me the Missouri is hilariously broken, because this is precisely what makes it fundamentally broken. Except that Missouri is an undesirable target in general, can easily become untouchable by all CVs and that the catapult fighter is completely, utterly useless in an AA role. Trading the fighter/spotter for radar is so hilariously favorable it doesn't even remotely register as a trade-off. It is by far the better choice period. Yes, we probably will, because the worst part of the playerbase needs more catering to. Doesn't mean it's balanced.

As said, all DDs if the Missouri player isn't braindead. 10km is way too far away unless you get lucky and catch him with an anticipated spread. And unless you gamble everything on an ultra dense spread, which is even less likely to hit, you get at best a single torp hit. Or none. No, but the skill formerly known as Situational Awareness, now distributed to all players, combined with the minimap basically does. In a highly stealthy fast ship that can easily cripple or outright kill any DD with a single salvo while being practically impervious to counter fire . Doesn't sound broken to you? Even if the radar hits nothing however that's massive amounts of information gained and can be easily used to discern where a DD is in all but the most extreme situations. Good, because you've been using nothing but absolutes. In any realistic combat scenario it is impossible to always maintain such a ludicrous distance from a ship you're supposed to counter and have any impact on the match, especially considering said ship is one of the stealthiest capital ships around and cannot be taken out easily. Cover and surprise factor is straight up negated by radar, any ambush attempt is thus easily defeated by the Missouri not being completely stupid and passing near an island without using radar for information. And lastly, my favorite part, gambling that the enemy team is stupid and doesn't focus you is hilarious at best. You're the one assuming that the Missouri player is always the dumbest motherer around. Well that's fine and dandy but it's also irrelevant for balance. When balancing a game you always assume that the player is at least competent (as otherwise balance is practically unachievable). And a well played Missouri has very few weaknesses, none of which include torpedo DDs, a class conceived to counter BBs.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks for the great laugh and don't let the door hit you on your way out!

Uh, yes obviously. While the Iowa can sneak around even if she pops up at close range she has no means to detect you unlike the Missouri. If you can't make use of Mo's radar in an effective manner, git gud. You're the one saying that DDs should "simply" stay out of effective torp range from a Missouri. That this is how you should deal with her in any DD with a torpedo focused armament, meant to be countering BBs, is fundamentally broken.

If he has any brains it'd be a difficult endeavor at best. You know, just like any other BB. And that's ofc assuming you have more than 10km range in the first place. Yeah. If you're playing on Ocean.