El2aZeR

Ofc I am sad! No longer will I have an easy time crushing people who think AS is a viable option. Where am I going to get all my Clear Skies from now? WG has ruined my enjoyment of CV play with this! T_T On a more serious note: AS is worthless in all situations. Glad to see it go for the sake of the game.

Yeah, go play WoWp because the spotter plane you launch from your BB/cruiser is useless in cyclones. CV haters are hilarious. On topic: The spotter plane increases your gun range, unless it enters the air spotting range of a ship while circling it won't do anything else. Air spotting range in cyclones is fixed at somewhere around 2-3km, while surface spotting range is fixed at 8km. I'm fairly sure the radius of the circle the spotter plane flies is around the same range as that (if not smaller), so the benefits you get for launching one in a cyclone for spotting purposes is minuscule at best.

tl;dr: Releasing a new line is an attempt to make money Thank you for such enlightening words.

Considering they found Fuso that should finally clear up the age old question of how she sank (broke in two by torps and bow part sunk by gunfire or just capsizing). Would love it if they go for Samar next. After all, it's just around the corner, no? :)

Yes, please quote something completely irrelevant. Different types of games follow inherently different design principles, an overarching definition does nothing to solidify your arguments. Mario Kart has specific items solely designed to ruin the fun of others, otherwise known as power ups. Most prominent example would be the blue shell. The design rule goes way back when the first sports where conceptualized. Even in ancient times it was understood that competition will eventually make players attempt to better themselves for the sake of outdoing others, while only having "fun" breeds complacency and boredom. Even in modern single player video games it is accepted that you need to present the player challenges so he does not get bored (difficulty depends on the type of game you want to make). It's why, for example, bosses exist that are more difficult to defeat than normal cannon fodder. Always winning, always "having fun" no matter how bad you are is in fact game design only suitable for the most short term entertainment. Unless that's something you're going for, "always having fun" as a design rule means you'll get a bad game, no exceptions. In a PvP game with sufficient depth and complexity, be it real life or virtual, you want to avoid that both sides have fun no matter the situation as much as possible. After all, what incentive does a player have to git gud if he has fun even when he is crushed to smithereens? Sure, you can still only "play for fun" and never attempt to get better at it, but then you have lost all right to complain about better players [edited]-ing on you at every turn. So what do you do when making such a game? Designing mechanics that can be fun when used correctly, but since those mechanics must affect both players it means that your opponent is inevitably going to suffer when you pull anything off successfully. Basic examples: - successfully passing the ball to your teammate in soccer/football - successfully defending an attack in StarCraft - successfully capturing an enemy piece with no chance of retaliation in Chess - deflecting a +2 card in Uno, making it +4 for the next player - taking an enemy player out instantly with a headshot in CS - even something as simple as deflecting the ball in Pong Or to apply it to WoWs: - nuking a cruiser in a BB (using the gun mechanics in WoWs has to be fun, getting sunk/damaged doesn't) - torping a BB to death in a DD (using the torpedo mechanics in WoWs has to be fun, getting sunk/damaged doesn't) - watching as planes fall from the sky under DFAA in a cruiser (*) - catching a DD in a cross drop with a CV (using your bombers has to be fun, getting sunk/damaged doesn't) Get the point yet? Literally every successful action you take means you've attempted to ruin the fun of your opponent even if such an action does not actually aim to hurt him directly (example: gaining an economy lead in any RTS). Likewise every failed action should evoke frustration from you so you tell yourself "I'll do that better next time". Whether it actually does depends on how serious the game is taken, but the potential is there. And it always has to be there as it is a principle every successful PvP game must follow. There is no middle ground to be found, no way to win without potentially ruining the fun of your opponent. By the design and very nature of competition it doesn't exist. And rightly so. To apply this to the original topic: - Fighter combat is fun for some, not fun for others. And that's alright, it is impossible to please everyone. - Being on the receiving end of the successful usage of fighters can ruin your fun by design (as with any game mechanic), complaining about this is silly as all out. * Technically speaking using AA should be fun, but since it is automated very few people will actually derive fun from it. This inevitably breeds frustration on both sides, however the oversimplification of AA mechanics is necessary to keep the rest of the game flowing smoothly. The very nature of interaction with other opponents would prevent you from using an AA system that requires active input. Could it be done better? Sure, but it could never have a decisive active component, as such it is a necessary evil we have to accept unless we want to completely change the way this game is played.

But how do you avoid ramming when well over half the playerbase doesn't even know how to use their WASD keys?

Do you use any mods? If so, uninstall them and try again.

Guys, I'm looking for my faith in humanity. I seem to have lost it somewhere. Can anyone help me find it?

I agree, best BB build. Very viable for DDs, too!

The only one who gets down-tiered fighters is Essex. Which will at least theoretically create a state of balance between her and Taiho, as you still win a one-on-one click fight and/or head-on strafes but have to be wary about strafe flanks and enemy AA. This gives both players the opportunity to outplay each other, making such an engagement largely skill dependent. On the other hand I agree that Essex didn't deserve to have her TBs downtiered since she only has one squad of them. Also we were promised stronger AP bombs for higher tiers. Where are they? The current ones are hardly adequate, even seen in their newest update video in which two squads get a paltry 18k damage roll on a GK.

To be fair if you search for "IJN Asagumo" instead the results all have nothing to do with KC.

I meant that for the suggestion of RAHJAILARI, buffing lower tier ships against higher tier ones. Some ships up-tier a lot better than others, but these could be potentially tweaked if necessary. Not premium ships, though. It'd be much better to simply level the playing field instead of favoring one side over another.

That would make some untweakable (read: premium) ships even more overpowered than they already are. Belfast is an easy example.

Your definition of a game is so wrong it isn't even funny. Quite frankly per your statement almost every single multiplayer game out there that pits people against people isn't a game. But instead of wasting time I currently can't be bothered to spend tearing it down piece by piece, I'll let you convince me otherwise. Name me one successful PvP game in which it is not the principle design to have fun by ruining the fun of others. To balance it out, let me name a couple of franchises that actually follow that design: Counter-Strike Call of Duty Battlefield DotA + all derivatives StarCraft/Warcraft Command & Conquer Age of Empires Super Smash Bros. Mario Kart Your turn.

Clearly it is my arguments that become funnier with every post. Let us just examine your latest failure to understand game design. When escorting a CV in WoWs, a cruiser simply has to sail along it. Since a CV will tend to stay either further away from a battle or in cover, that means you get to do literally nothing else other than follow your CV the entire game, having close to zero potential to actively interact with anything other than your WASD keys. And since CVs will tend to stop very often, even that is questionable for a good chunk of time. Aka gameplay would be utterly boring for you, when a CV is in a good position you may as well go afk next to it and you could have the same amount of impact on the game. When escorting a CV (or anything else) in NavyField, you have to consider the following: - your own position so you do not become exposed to long range fire or a potential submarine/long range torpedo threat (since, you know, cover does not exist) - elevation of your guns judged by the flying height of the enemy planes, eyeballed from experience with your mounted weapon of choice and altered if the enemy CV decides to change altitude - keep a constant appropriate lead depending on distance and the guns you chose, again judged by experience - prioritize between targets - keep an eye on your ammo count depending on the ship you're playing, the guns you mounted on to your ship and/or how much ammo you decided to bring along with anything else that I forgot to mention here. So it's a full time job. And as fighters were largely incapable of denying strikes due to either sheer mass or because of fighter escorts you always had something to do. That doesn't even account for trying to kill floatplanes to deny the enemy vision. You're always interacting with the different mechanics the game has given you and you will rarely experience a lull in action. You don't do your job by just sitting there, making your mere presence enough to deny enemy strikes, you were actually playing the game. And before you say it, no, such a system is completely infeasible for WoWs because WoWs is not only inherently different in almost every way when gameplay is concerned, but targets a broader, more casual audience as well. The two games have almost nothing in common aside from their premise. Really, you must have been joking when you wrote this.

NavyField is an entirely different game, with an inherently different design, aimed at a completely different market. You can't apply its principles on WoWs. In WoWs AA ships can do other things while escorting their fellow teammates. Escorting a CV on the other hand will rarely, if ever give them the chance to interact with literally anything other than their WASD keys. Even that will not be necessary from time to time. Which you have totally demonstrated. And again, if all you can do is bait then there is no hope for you. If you stick around to constantly bait an enemy who is clearly not falling for it then it is your own fault that you're wasting your time. So now you're basing your argument on fighter gameplay not being fun, which is a completely subjective opinion, as well as on your own painfully obvious inexperience. And you honestly believe you have a valid concern on your hands?

So you should put your vulnerable hull at risk just so your teammates can huddle around it. You will not totally get focused into oblivion or something. That would be incredibly silly. I'm honestly questioning whether you've actually played CVs at this point. What you're envisioning isn't teamplay. What you're envisioning is babysitting. Utterly idiotic because not only do you deprive your teammates of necessary escorts but it is extremely boring for the players escorting the CV as well since they have no chance to interact with anything unless the enemy CV is dumb enough to attack them or the rest of the fleet is dead and the enemy is coming to kill the CV. But don't stop there, no. Not only does a CV have to be babysat by fellow cruisers at the expense of other players, they themselves now have next to no responsibility to reply in kind. After all the only remaining job a CV has is to prey on enemy surface assets, turning CVs into a griefing class in what is supposed to be a team-based game. Their very presence becomes a liability to everyone but themselves, at that point it would be a mercy to remove CVs entirely and rebalance the whole game. Regardless of standpoint, whether it be gameplay, design or balancing, your proposal is so full of stupidity it is beyond comprehension. And you wanna tell me you understand game design lol.

Some official source on this would be great. I've certainly never heard of it.

Also literally the first thing you put up as a proposal is to buff the AA on CVs so they remain immune to CV sniping. And you wanna tell me that you aren't going against fundamental design principles? Don't make me laugh. Synergy is with other classes, not within themselves. Concentrated AA is not meant to be overwhelmed.

Yes, actually I have. And I still do. As for being a weird argument, I can only repeat what I've said before: As per fundamental principles of this game every class must be capable of both synergizing with and able to fight each other. For CVs that means being capable of killing other planes outside of using their actual hull as their playstyle doesn't put emphasis on it. Fighters provide such an ability. Likewise they provide a basis for teamplay with the other classes, opening up a playbook of tactics that would otherwise be impossible without them. Therefore fighters are a crucial element of CV play, taking them out would be idiotic. Thus your desire to see fighters removed is against the very fundamental principles of this game.

Which is your personal opinion and has no basis in game design. You can have it, sure. Doesn't change that you remain completely wrong, though.

Collision speed is actually a factor in ramming. Ram a ship too slow and you will both only lose a portion of your HP (though the rest will be rapidly drained if you remain in contact).

Yeah, seen that before though I didn't notice an increase in power. My best guess would be a fighter or two somehow got slingshot in some other direction, thus causing the icon to display erratic behavior.

8, once in Hiryu, once in Taiho. Both times I LOST. Also once in Fuso apparently but I don't think I have a screenshot of that.

Which obviously isn't an option for CVs as their actual hulls are mostly irrelevant. Damage to CVs is dealt by air losses, so, in keeping with the fundamental design principles of this game, CVs need to be capable of destroying aircraft outside of putting their actual hull at risk. That ability is provided by fighters, making them a crucial part of CV gameplay. Whether or not it is fun to get your aircraft destroyed by fighters is thus completely irrelevant. Thank you for making my point.