El2aZeR

Managed a 5 star only because I ended up as the only random in a div team. Immediately gave up on the gamemode afterwards.

It's funny how they managed to balance one premium CV nigh perfectly (at least against something that can actually be called a CV, aka not Lex) and completely botch the other. I honestly thought that the WG balancing team finally learnt what makes a good CV and that Enterprise was a sign for better things to come. Oh boy was I wrong.

I wouldn't laugh, those are probably suggestions the balancing team over at WG will take seriously unlike the ones from us filthy skilled CV players.

Because the average player is horrible at this game.

Actually first time I've heard about it. Would've probably saved me some experimenting. xD

Oh, btw, I forgot to mention that hardmode maps often require certain fleet compositions and stats, so it's not too bad of an idea to keep a mixed fleet instead of just using one or two ship types. For example hardmode on map 5 requires: I wouldn't worry about hardmode too much at the beginning but you should clear them asap since some of the quest rewards are pretty good if I remember correctly.

Sure, but then you cannot tell me that both teams deserve even remotely equal chances of winning when one has a clearly better player than the other. And yes, this does apply to all classes, not just CVs. Obviously having the advantage in air control helps more than having the advantage in BB play on the basis of spotting alone, but such things are unavoidable when building upon an asymmetric balancing system. If we were to nerf CVs on that basis we would risk bringing down the entire system, but even if it doesn't DDs would simply replace CVs as the most influential class, putting us back into the same position as before.

Honestly perhaps all DDs T6+ should get a single charge (with no premium consumable available and unaffected by SI) of DFAA that doesn't increase their AA DPS but causes spread. Sort of a one-off safety net so that being out of position once isn't immediately catastrophic.

In this particular scenario? No. Others? Sure. For example you have multiple potato cruisers that constantly broadside in the presence of a good BB player, who proceeds to cut them down one by one. Or we get multiple potato BBs that constantly sail in a straight line and get taken out by a single DD. Or multiple stupid DD players that insist on rushing at enemies through the open and consequently get mowed down. Either way we end up with the same results that you described. The only point you have illustrated is that this is a team game and if some players on one team refuse to play as such then that team will most likely lose. End of story. Besides if the remaining players on a team that just had their potatoes gutted by the enemy CV are far more skilled than their opponents they still have fairly good chances of pulling out a win. I've seen it happen numerous times.

I stated that one of the consequences of CV extinction was what we nowadays call the "torp soup meta", not that we're playing it right now. It has long passed and as a direct consequence we now have BB overpopulation. We can actually agree on something. DDs are hard countered too much by CVs right now, however DDs aren't supposed to be independent from their team either. A simple buff, which I have in the past proposed, would be to deny aircraft the ability to spot torps no matter how unrealistic that is. Nah, actually low tier CVs were among the most overpowered CVs in the game. Low reserves didn't matter because almost nothing had AA. Your comparatively low strike potential didn't matter because everyone else didn't have survivability either. With the removal of manual attacks WG managed to somewhat neuter their impact at the cost of the average CV player becoming even worse. Ships sailing around alone, as you have correctly pointed out. That is the sole situation in which a CV can strike an opponent that is not an AA ship. Thus a CV's strike potential is by definition situational. Doesn't mean it is rare. On the other hand they can deny a CV's strike potential completely. No other ship suffers this hard of a counter. With others you can always shoot back and deal some damage in return. Not with CVs. Therefore it is an entirely fair trade-off that AA ships cannot actively hunt planes. Sure, cruisers are rare, but that isn't the fault of CVs. If you nerf CVs on that basis now you have done literally nothing to the core problem: BB overpopulation. If anything you'll be helping in letting it proliferate. That doesn't mean it isn't a viable or effective option. Whether the average player grasps it or not has nothing to do with CVs. See, here's where we get in depth into problems that actually plague AA and CVs. Namely: - +/-2 MM is too much of a spread to effectively balance AA. Balance in general would massively benefit from +/-1 MM. - the difference between having and not having AA skills and upgrades is far too high - AA mounts are far too easily lost, hurting consistency (was the case even before, but the introduction of RN BBs was a hilarious buff to CVs that they neither needed nor wanted) - cruisers are supposed to be the utility class, yet they have to limit themselves to choosing what utility they want to use. Even worse, BBs increasingly get consumables that were previously cruiser exclusive, effectively supplanting them in their role - AA progression makes no sense with almost no change in (or even deterioration of) AA abilities when progressing in some tiers and huge spikes in others There are a couple more with CVs themselves (balance between USN & IJN, UI, the friggin' Saipan, etc.) but these are the primary problems that affect CV vs surface ship dynamics (unless ofc I forgot something).

Then the side with the super unicum still deserves to win while the side with only potatoes doesn't deserve even a chance of winning? You can hardly tell me otherwise.

The fact that I agree with you is a truly sad statement about average playerskill in this game. However he has a point. It is indeed a repetitive task that once done has the same result for potatoes and super unicums. You're basically adding an intelligence test to the current mechanics that would work right now only because the average player is so hilariously abysmal. Once that passes however we'll be back at the same junction as we are now (let's just assume that it will someday pass, okay? I know it's not very likely but we can dream). Some actual options (like the fields of fire idea that's been thrown around since forever) that put into question your decision making skills does sound a lot better in that regard.

Guess what can be done to a CV, though? Be completely locked out of a game no matter how skilled he is. So basically any other class you need luck or bad play on their behalf to shut them down. With CVs you can actively diminish his capacity to strike you regardless of his input. Sounds like a fair trade if you ask me.

And what exactly does this have to do with the scenario at hand? If both teams are equally skilled except for one player, a super unicum for one team and the other a total potato, then the one with the super unicum will usually win (barring any game-deciding mistakes) no matter what class these particular two players play.

Replace CV with any other class and the outcome remains the same.

Stick together and push as a team. Put pressure on. Take some risks. Playing defensive also plays into the enemy team's and especially their CV's hands, as they get to leverage their superior spotting ability while the enemy CV has all the time in the world to pick out targets as he likes. They're in no hurry to take risks in changing the course of a battle that already favors them, you are. So do something about it. Ofc your team may be unwilling to do so (as is often the case), but if you honestly believe that you deserve to have a chance at winning when your entire team plays bad then boy do I have some bad news for you.

It does, actually. After all average players across all classes are ridiculously abysmal, not only CVs. Which means good CV players can shut down bad CV players and also kill almost everyone else on the enemy team because they're too stupid to play accordingly. Still means the responsibility lies on the whole team, not only the CV. Really, if ONLY CV players were on average abysmal we'd probably have hundreds of whine threads about how CVs are underpowered while the more skilled CV players would actually have to defend and prove that CVs do not need any buffs.

Because they got the CV treatment for quite some time now, WG just stacking nerf after nerf upon them until they fade back into obscurity. Which brought us to BB overpopulation. Tooltips haven't been changed since the start of CBT. The game itself has changed however. If you're catering to the lowest possible denominator you may as well not balance the game at all, as both achieve the same result. Besides, reducing the skill floor of CVs is a double-edged sword. Making them too easy to play will quickly make them overpowered. Reducing their game impact means they will potentially be unable to carry out their designed roles. Situational does not mean rare, it means it can be used in one defined scenario. What you're describing is a symmetrical RPS based balancing system that is fundamentally different from an asymmetrical one. It has literally nothing to do with WoWs. Which again is fundamentally wrong. AA ships counter CVs. Basic teamplay also counters CVs. How easy a counter is to do also defines the power of said mechanic. Sticking together isn't hard to do, therefore CVs must be able to sufficiently punish, if not outright kill any target that doesn't

I did not say this guy is good. I stated that a loss cannot be solely laid at the feet of a CV. He may contribute to it but to blame him alone is hilarious in the context of what CVs are and are not capable of.

Well, now that both ingame mechanics and statistical evidence don't support your pathetic whining you have nothing left but to attack me on a personal level, I see. But hey, continue to blame RNG for your lack of skill, all the while whining about how RNG favors everyone else better than you. It'll surely take you very far as you're proving nicely. :) Because the game engine does not use things like gravity, velocity or any other real life values when it determines trajectory. Things like angle of fall are simple values to put in, not calculated from several factors that would matter irl. But sure, continue to demonstrate your excellent game knowledge. :D - demand all BB citadels to be raised - gets called a BBaby for it Topkek

And why should anyone care? Divisions naturally have a stronger influence on the game by design. There will be nothing you can do about that, even if you decide to take CVs out of them. No, but it is your fault that you have fundamentally failed to understand the game's design and balancing system. To give an example the loss of CV player numbers was one of the direct causes of DDs proliferating, eventually leading to what we now affectionately call the "torpedo soup meta". DDs have never cared about high cruiser numbers until the introduction of radar, which in turn was implemented due to, guess what, the almost extinction of CVs. Wrong, if the metagame dictates that you should feed yourself to CVs then it is a failed one, no matter how many people play it. These arguments are not a circle because they all hold true at the same time, since they are not contradictory to each other. - The current meta dictates that you should behave like an idiot. - CVs excel due to people acting like idiots. - CVs can get shut down by basic teamplay 100% of the time. None of these statements are mutually exclusive. Or let me ask you this: If the metagame would dictate that you should bolt for the corner of a map immediately, would you call the one guy who takes that opportunity and caps all objectives overpowered, broken and everything else you're accusing CVs to be of? Because that is the level of stupidity you're arguing on. Nice try again at spinning some worthless tale. If the metagame dictates that you should create these situations without fail in 99% of all random games then that is not the fault of the CVs. A situational advantage you can use because the enemy allows you to in almost every game is still highly situational. Untrue, actually. If I may pick up on your example, if a DD falls in a raid no one will bat an eye, yet when healers or tanks fall the whole raid is screwed. It is technically speaking possible to omit DDs entirely from a raid setup, but because it would take ages to clear one without them it is not done. Still it means DDs are far less important than healers and tanks. You're right ofc that asymmetric balance is done easier in a classic RPG, but that still doesn't mean every class has the same amount of potential influence. Asymmetric balance is exactly that, asymmetrical. It is therefore fundamentally impossible to have classes have the same amount of potential influence and classic RPGs are actually shining examples of the principle.

Not one of the people mentioned but I'll answer anyway. :D There are level caps for LB. It's noted right next to the "accept" button when using LB here: Level caps are 10/30/70. They're used as LB material for SR ships. Tbh I just spent them more or less freely, but the smart thing to do would probably be to use them on event ships as they won't be available anymore afterwards (at least I think so). You get a couple of them through monthly quests and attendance anyway, though, so technically speaking I don't think you need to stock up on them too much. I keep a DD in every fleet for torps (DDs get much better torp stats than cruisers). How "tanky" they are mostly relies on RNG as they also have better evasive stats. Had a couple of times when my cruisers took far more damage than my DDs during a sortie. If you mean stripping every normal DD of her equipment and scrapping them that sounds like way too much effort tbh. The cash you get from them is negligible even in large quantities anyway. If you mean whether or not you should just scrap white equipment, there is no reason to keep them afaik, especially considering your space is fairly limited.

I think they have just slightly better penetration, but the difference is like ~10mm from what I remember. More importantly, GZ has a lot more of them, obviously translating into a higher alpha strike. Give them equal numbers and I reckon you'd notice no difference.

Because that'd be listening to the skilled CV playerbase. We all know WG out of principle will not do that no matter what arguments we bring or how compelling they are, as they've proven time and time again.

I'd be highly surprised if they're ever going to put out another T7 CV considering the Saipan still exists in her current form. Until she is fixed (which we all know is never going to happen) everyone will inevitably say "yeah, just go get a Saipan instead". Unless ofc they make it equally overpowered.