El2aZeR

I asked how you would change that to remove the RNG factor, not for a very bare bones explanation of AA mechanics.

Would love to know how exactly you're going to remove RNG from AA and fighter combat. Demanding it is one thing, whether it's actually feasible is another. Been there, done that, the result had IJN DDs nerfed so hard to the ground they never recovered, cruisers fade into obscurity while BBs proliferate to this day. Surely something this game needs.

Just give her back her CBT stats and she'd be fine.

According to dev data there are people who use IFHE on Mino. I think you should try that, too.

Point is that the guys who make commercials/advertisements for premium ships have no idea what they're talking about. It's your own fault for believing them. For example, in this video they actively recommend that you pick IFHE while showing that they've picked Expert Rear Gunner for the KGV. (3:50) It's best to look for community reviews instead.

Perfect, since you've acquired all this knowledge you're now in the position to tell others to git gud. :) Yeah, most probably won't, but that's not your fault. Honestly, I don't think it was supposed to be on this scale. I believe CVs were supposed to pick off occasional targets either by teamplay or enemy misplay and it did work fine in CBT because people actually learnt to stick together against CVs (even if it at first meant nothing because lol Haku 5 TB squads will kill you anyway no matter how much AA you stack, but that eventually got addressed). Then WG proceeded to overnerf CVs severely so the vast majority of the CV population simply died out. This was at the critical juncture of around the OBT release (or was it actual release? I don't even remember), so most players simply never learnt to stick together and basically matured in their play without ever needing to worry about CVs. Combine that with the fact that the few CVs that remained usually were among the most dedicated and skilled and it should hardly surprise you as to why the notion that CVs are overpowered perpetuated despite there being plenty of ways to counterplay them. Add to that that WG has made so many stupid decisions regarding CVs it's not even funny and you get the cluster-[edited] we have now.

Still, it proves that teamplay can be forced. Problem with CVs is that for the longest time CVs barely existed in random play, so the meta evolved without their inclusion, benefiting them heavily. Yes, you can. He clearly said that all he can do is to turn in to mitigate damage. That's far from the only counterplay option available to you.

What, you honestly believed the guys who told you to pick Expert Rear Gunner for the KGV? I'd say serves you right.

What serious IJN CV in random play has three fighters? By removing USN AS WG is forcing you to be useful for your team. Be glad about it. Personally I don't have particularly big problems playing Lexington against other CVs. It's not enjoyable, but it can be done.

So you will not get attacked. Perfect. It's a win-win situation. If you honestly believe it takes pro levels of communication to simply stick together then Jesus Christ the standards of play sure have fallen. Yes, you can. There are plenty of teamplay forcing mechanics out there in team based games. However, unlike in WoWs, they are accepted as part of the game and the community will shun and ridicule anyone who believes otherwise. In e.g. Counter-Strike, you either play as a team or you die an unrewarding death, giving the enemy team the advantage and eventually lose. And no one but the worst players will whine about it. This is precisely why CVs as a concept work in random battles. They not only rely on teams making mistakes, it is painfully obvious that they were planned around it. Singular role classes are boring to play, remember? Teams making no mistakes and playing at a high level are supposed to be rare, otherwise CVs would cater to an even smaller target audience than they already are. Still, that the theoretical possibility of a hard counter unbarred by RNG exists means that there have to be certain advantages to an ability. Giving them comparatively superior reliability is one thing you can do to trade it off. Last time there was a stream I tried asking whether or not it was intentional that AP bombs completely [edited] over cruisers while only giving at best comparable performance to HE bombs against BBs in high tiers. Surprisingly, I got no answer. I wouldn't necessarily remove RNG and/or automation from AA completely, but reliability and consistency is most definitely far from where it should be.

I agree the over reliance on AA skills is ridiculous. Before I spec'd BFT I felt like I struggled shooting down planes in my Mino. Now that I have it I routinely wipe entire squadrons in the blink of an eye. That's a difference of one skill. How did anyone think this was a good idea?!

You literally don't need any AA skill if you stack AA in a sufficient manner. Groups of 2-4 ships, depending on your nation and class, are usually more than enough. Awesome, no? You don't even need to actively go out of your way to hunt down CVs! They come to you! And then they run into an impenetrable wall of AA, get all their planes wiped and you get a stack of exp and credits for it without a single point of damage taken. Unless ofc you're alone, then you deserve to die.

You know what doesn't rely on RNG either? Enemy counterplay. CVs are the only class from which you can deny any damage 100% of the time by playing accordingly regardless of skill level of the enemy CV. Also on average I can fly ~5 full strikes per match. The advantage of reliability has severe trade offs whether you believe it or not. All you do is looking at the bright side of CV play while completely ignoring their weaknesses. Counters to CVs exist and they're effective, whether the majority of the playerbase is too stupid to use them doesn't concern CVs any longer. If we start balancing around the lowest possible denominator then quite frankly CVs should be even stronger and more reliable since a good portion of CV players is incapable of playing them as well.

He literally just gave you three ways to avoid getting killed by CVs (turning into torp spreads, using islands to your advantage, sticking with teammates), then afterwards proceeded to rightfully call you out on your misguided views. Then again, as he stated it's easier to blame the game than to blame yourself, no? CVs are meant to straight up kill you when you're alone unless you're playing a dedicated counter. They're the primary teamplay forcing mechanic that literally every team game has. A CV's survivability is primarily in plane reserves. Whether or not you can damage the hull is largely irrelevant. CVs risk their planes every time they attack. Without their aircraft CVs are worthless. If you honestly believe killing planes is purely defensive in nature that's laughable at best.

Nothing about the CV rework? I am disappoint. Seriously, how long is WG going to let this fester? Or are they still padding themselves on the back for switching the USN loadouts up a bit?

If you take it into context of inter-class balance, yes they are unless you literally make all of them the same. One class will be better than another at one thing and worse in another. Since all three of these are valued differently this will inevitably create a disparity, but that isn't bad as all three roles are needed, therefore no class becomes irrelevant and they remain playable. Classes don't need to be balanced against each other because no class is supposed to be universally capable of everything (and unless every class is universally capable of everything that means that no class will come even close to exerting the same amount of potential influence on a match). As long as you have a clear role distribution, making every class relevant and/or playable, along with providing both teams with roughly the same chances of winning literally nothing else needs to be done. WoWs, like any other example I've listed or can list, is balanced as a team game, not for the individual player. Unless ofc you want to change that and completely rework the entire game concept. But I have to stress again that the three races all still maintain the same basics of play. That is not an asymmetric balancing system. Playing Zerg does not mean you suddenly have to mine minerals only, playing Protoss does not mean you suddenly don't need to build workers anymore, playing Terran does not mean your units can only kill buildings and so on. Macro and even some micro knowledge you gain from playing one race is transferable to another. On the other hand try to play a BB like a DD and you will fail 10/10 times. Same here, except your solution to a cracked wall is to burn the neighbor's house down. I've given plenty of reasons as to why CVs are too dominant in current play, none of which have something to do with CVs themselves. Therefore addressing these issues does not entail nerfing CVs directly. As long as their drawbacks, trade-offs and counters exist it doesn't matter if CVs are more influential than other classes (which they will remain to be based on spotting alone even if in a picture perfect scenario, as can be seen in competitive). CVs are too powerful not because they inherently have more potential match influence than any other class, but because the meta has pushed them into their position. Almost everything that can go right for CVs has gone right, but at the same time if things had gone a little differently CVs could've easily ended up in a state which the average player would describe as weak and demand ludicrous buffs. Heck, even now in this CV favored meta we're getting such complaints, against which I have and will continue to argue. Currently in random play there is only one drawback to CVs: That they cannot cap in any but the most extreme circumstances. Their damage dealing capability, which is supposed to be situational, can be applied far too often at far too little price. That however is not the fault of CVs as counters have proven to be (generally speaking) both widely available and extremely effective. No one can tell me AA doesn't do its job when applied right. How AA is structured and distributed among tiers is another matter. To remedy this by nerfing CVs directly is utterly moronic as it doesn't solve the actual problems but potentially creates new ones. Just like the introduction of radar did. So how do you actually fix these issues (at least those within the control of the devs)? By addressing the following: It is arguable how much devs can influence the playerbase to better themselves or to force them to play less BBs (on the other hand they could at least friggin' try), but the issues listed above are all well within their ability to fix.

There is no middle ground. You can either spot and/or contest caps or you can't. There is no "you can spot but just a little" or "you can contest caps but only a bit", one class will always be superior in these aspects and therefore overpowered in your eyes unless you make them all equally capable of doing so. Which in turn kills diversity. Shuffling roles around will not change that as you're simply making one class less influential and the other overpowered. No, the races in SC aren't radically different. The game of StarCraft is primarily a game about macro and economy, regardless of what race you play that doesn't change. Understanding the basics of that will carry you until about high Diamond or even low Masters. Your choice of preferred race matters little until then, as long as you can maintain the bigger army than your opponent, regardless of whether you play Zerg, Protoss or Terran, you stand good chances of winning. SC's balancing system falls apart rapidly in anything other than 1v1 (as it is specifically balanced around 1v1 play). There are extremely cheesy strategies you can play in any other match up and get a tremendous lead when picking races alone. For example in 2v2, Protoss + Protoss can amass the almost invincible late game death ball in the early mid game to crush any opposition. Protoss + Zerg can play early game Mutalisk max + static defense which will utterly destroy the enemy economy while remaining completely safe from counter attacks. Neither of these strategies can be countered unless scouted early enough (or your opponent plays an even chessier, more powerful strategy), even then depending on what race the enemy plays you still stand a tremendous, disproportionate chance of winning the game based on your race picks alone. And again, even in 1v1 no race stands equal chances of winning depending on the game phase. If you let a Protoss player get to a late game army as Zerg you've basically lost by default. If you let a Zerg get to a huge economy lead in the early game as Terran you again have little chances of winning later on. The beauty of SC isn't that all races are equal and different at the same time (which, again, is impossible to achieve anyway), it is that for every strategy your opponent plays, there is a counter strategy available to you (even if it is as simple as "kill your enemy before he can achieve what he sets out to do"). Expand, produce units, set rally points, keep up on supply, harass, attack, defend, etc. etc. etc. will remain the same regardless of whether you play Terran, Zerg or Protoss. If you do it with one race you can do it with all. The basics of play, not only the goals of the match, remain the same no matter what race you play. Unlike the different classes in WoWs. Seriously, have you played StarCraft? Because literally everything you've said about the game is wrong to some extend. Gladly. In a RPG a dedicated damage dealer is basically entirely unneeded, you could make do perfectly fine with only healers and tanks. Thus both tanks and healers are more important than pure damage dealers. If tanks or healers go down during a fight, the team will fail. If damage dealers die, all that will affect is the time it takes to clear the fight. Examples include pretty much any popular MMORPG out there. In Battlefield the Scout or Assault class is vastly superior in game influence than the Support due to their ability to provide intelligence or heal/revive respectively. In Counter-Strike players assume different roles such as ingame leader, entry fragger and so on, each of which has different potential impact on a match. A dedicated AWPer has higher potential influence e.g. than a "simple" rifler. So why isn't everyone playing healers or tanks? Why isn't everyone playing Scouts/Assaults? Why isn't everyone picking up the AWP in CS? It is because the other classes/roles are either needed or just playable despite their inferior game influence, even if the reason for which seems negligible at first (e.g. faster clear time with damage dealers). The general goal of game balance in PvP games is to provide fairly equal winning chances to contestants outside of the human factor, regardless of how. In an asymmetrical balancing system such as in the case of CS, BF or even WoWs, the contestants aren't the individual players themselves but the teams they play in. That, I believe, is what you're utterly failing to grasp. That means that yes, technically speaking you could e.g. make 11 out of 12 players WoWs completely useless, give one player per team all the power in the world and then call the game balanced as both teams still stand equal chances of winning. That however is bad game design. So every class needs a role that is either needed or just viable. If one class' role is only to deal damage, it is largely unimportant in terms of game influence but it is still needed to, well, deal damage. If one is made to only provide intelligence, it is extremely important but pretty much worthless when alone. Singular role classes however are often extremely boring to play, which is why you need to combine roles and implement counters and trade-offs accordingly. In the case of CVs, their primary role is to provide intelligence, which makes them hugely influential. As a trade-off they have almost no capping ability whatsoever, so if their team fails, they typically fail as well. Their alpha strike is the most reliable in the game along with the greatest range which is a stand-out ability among all classes, so it has by far the most harsh trade-offs out of all attacks, having the least attacks per match and being easily countered by enemy action. They technically have the highest survivability out of all classes, so their "weapon supply" and "durability" is by far the lowest, having to put them into harms way every time they attack, defining their survivability not by their hull but by the reserve of "weapons" they have at their disposal. And, just like in StarCraft, as long as there are trade-offs and/or counters available to an ability, the availability/effectiveness of such being defined by its power, it, or at least the principle behind it (as everyone with half a brain will admit that the execution of CV play is rather lacking in most aspects to say the least), cannot be called overpowered or badly designed. Whether such counters are used or the trade-offs made irrelevant by whatever bad play the vast majority of players are making isn't a problem that concerns neither game balance nor game design anymore.

Funny when you prove my words in your very next statement. Sure, you could nerf DDs to make them irrelevant. Which in turn will buff BBs/cruisers in their roles to spot or contest caps. Any nerf and buff you make to one class has effects on every other and will affect how well they can play out their roles (or if they can at all), as is usual when all classes are designed to counter each other. Nerf DDs into irrelevancy and it will fall to BBs to contest caps, while cruisers (and some BBs) will become the primary surface spotter. Thus you have done nothing but shuffle game influence from DDs to the other classes, in turn making them "overpowered" in your idiotic view of balance, as is usual in an asymmetric balancing system. So unless you make all classes equal in this manner (aka give all classes the same ability to spot or contest caps), inequality will exist in this (and any other) aspect of the game. Perfect, you have still failed to name a single team-based PvP game which uses an asymmetrical, class based balancing system that at the same time has as it's goal to have each class be capable of asserting the same amount of potential influence on a match. Thus what you're dreaming of is not only fundamentally impossible but has no evidence at all to back it up, while my argument is backed up by actual experience as well as several examples taken from the most successful multiplayer titles. You just shot yourself in the foot mate. Because none of these fundamentals are equal. Distributing them among four different classes will always result in inequality when they are supposed to have completely different playstyles, mechanics and roles. Yes, classes share these fundamental basics. Three out of four share the basic control scheme. They share literally nothing else. Playing a DD requires an entirely different skill set compared to playing e.g. a cruiser. None of the knowledge gained from playing one class is transferable to the other (unless you're playing something that is basically another class in disguise).

I think that was along the lines of for example overpens dealing more damage than they should. Afaik nothing has changed in that regard. Personally I can still do the same with my Mino on higher tier BBs. Probably has something to do with the spaced armor French cruisers have. Perhaps penetrating only the outer layer does no damage, like with the torp bulges on some other ships. I mean, I could be wrong but personally I haven't observed any big discrepancies. Then again with the amount of bugs WG seems to introduce with every patch anything is possible.

It's not. Destroying modules such as secondary and AA guns as well as turret and barbette penetrations will be shown as penetrations but will not actually deal damage as whatever module you're destroying simply "eats" the shell. Cleve for example has a [edited]-load of AA and secondary guns surrounding her superstructure, therefore you have a high chance of hitting said guns and get 0 damage penetrations.

Severe lag maybe? Can't think of anything else that could cause such behavior.

Because it is naturally impossible to combine diversity and equality, unlike any other ideals which can at least be worked towards. Seriously? All these explanations about how SC is not utilizing an asymmetric balancing system and you still keep on going? Really? That's easy, because SC is balanced in a way so that every strategy has a counter strategy. Every play your opponent makes can be outplayed on your part if you're capable of doing so and have identified the play early enough. However not every strategy, or even counter strategy, gives you the same chances of winning even if the human factor on both sides is a literal copy. SC equalizes players with this system. No strategy, regardless of how powerful it is, is unbeatable. That however still doesn't mean all races stand the same chance of winning per game phase. One race for example may be better at early aggression and map control but is comparatively weak late game. There are trade-offs to each race which must be accounted for if you want to master one. A far more suitable comparison with the current CV situation would be if you playing SC refuse to scout then inevitably loses to a cheese. And instead of simply scouting in the future, you go to the forums and complain about how overpowered cheeses are and demand they be nerfed or removed from the game. Have you even played StarCraft? Because these are basic fundamentals of the game anyone who has played it in a somewhat serious manner should know. Fundamentally different classes perform fundamentally different roles. None of these roles have even remotely the same amount of potential influence on the match.Therefore it is utterly, completely impossible to even remotely equalize WR in this manner unless you plan on redesigning the game completely. For example a good DD player will always have more potential match influence than a good BB player based on spotting and capping ability alone. Unless you make BBs equal in these factors that will not change. Unless ofc you want everyone to play one universal class? A perfect balancing system, like any other example you've named, is an ideal that is improbable to achieve but can be worked towards under the assumption of perfect conditions. Even under perfect conditions it is impossible to unite equality and diversity unless you live in some sort of fantasy world in which you can bend reality itself. It's not my primary occupation but I have studied it under some notable names in the industry. And so far you have checked every little thing they have said would happen when arguing with a player who neither understands game design nor asymmetrical balance.

The "problem" is that by nerfing one class you're automatically boosting the abilities of another, as is usual when different classes are supposed to counter each other. As, you know, can be seen in the history of WoWs itself. - cruisers get nerfed, CVs get more powerful - CVs get nerfed to extinction, DDs become more powerful - DDs get nerfed, BBs become more powerful - BBs get buffed and buffed and buffed, cruisers fade into obscurity, DDs become more prevalent, the few remaining CVs get absurdly dominant There is nothing even close to equality to be achieved here aside from removing at the very least two out of four classes, if not three.

Which it isn't unless you've severely misplayed at literally the beginning of the game. Which in turn should be taken as a lesson not to do so in the future. It is honestly pathetic to see you give a meaningless definition that has nothing to do with game design only to attempt to make yourself look better. In game design there are various ways to achieve balance in an asymmetrical system. None of them include having each class have the same amount of potential influence on a match as this is a fundamental impossibility unlike all other examples you've named. Crime free society? Technically speaking possible. You can never be injured in a car crash? Also feasible, limited only by the pace of technological advance. Both of these things are improbable, but theoretically achievable and therefore goals that can be worked towards. On the other hand, combine diversity and equality? Fundamentally impossible, as these represent completely different ends of a spectrum. It's not even worth considering and should be discarded by anyone who has half a brain immediately.