El2aZeR

As I said before, skip through these lists: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html Apparently it's impossible to achieve what some of these people are achieving. How is a cruiser supposed to counter a DD (aside from radar since that was a mechanic introduced much, much later and is basically a giant monument to how incompetent the balancing team over at WG seems to be)? A DD needs to be spotted in order to be attacked, DDs can attack other targets without being spotted or are alternatively nimble enough to avoid fire while spotted. Therefore the logical hard counters are other DDs and aircraft´, which can either spot other DDs and present a target for their own team or capable of striking and killing opposing DDs themselves if their own team is incapable of doing so. Hard counters are not all about damage as anyone with a basic understanding of game design and balance should know. Which goes back to CVs being the teamplay forcing mechanic. Besides, a single AA cruiser is still capable of wiping out an airstrike completely on its own. As for AA skills, I have stated numerous times that most of these need to be removed to balance around base values rather than leaving those who do not choose them out to dry. Let me summarize what I've just stated: - CVs have higher match influence due to spotting alone, not due to their damage dealing abilities, because the latter is situational. If the enemy team allows such situations to frequently happen however then that's not a problem with CVs. - it is the responsibility of the team to play accordingly if they happen to have a bad CV player and the enemy a good one. If they don't, the enemy CV is allowed to be a major factor in their loss and rightly so. - on the other hand if you have played accordingly but the enemy team is providing opportunities for their CV to deal damage and leverage their advantage in air superiority then you've got outdone in terms of teamplay. Either way blaming only the bad CV player for losing is nothing short of absolutely idiotic. Nice try at deliberately misinterpreting my words or conveniently only referring to passages out of context, though. I guess this is the only way you can keep up this discussion. And I'm the one who only sees what I want to see lol

You said that it isn't possible to achieve such WRs with any other class. Statistical data proves you wrong. You proceed to talk bs. No, because actually CVs are the hard counter to DDs, while cruisers are (supposed to) counter CVs. How that stacks up in the game however is different due to several errors WG made with cruiser design over the past "balancing" patches, that however has very little to do with CVs. Depends on the tier. At T8+ every ship other than some DDs has sufficient AA to stack it with 2-3 others and therefore become nigh invulnerable to air attacks. AA cruisers are also dedicated counters, being near just one of them will make you impossible to attack. At low-mid tiers however problems occur because the progression of both AA and planes makes no sense at all. Besides, not every ship can counter *insert any of the three other classes here* either. Yes, because his team has allowed the enemy to leverage that advantage in air superiority. A CV strike can be 100% denied, which means it is 100% your own team's fault if you do not take necessary action against it. Sure, you may still lose but you will not have lost due to enemy air superiority, but because the enemy team knew how to play out what they've been given correctly. This is a team game, the team that plays better as one wins, CVs or not. Blaming a loss on the CV on your team is hilarious at best given the context of their abilities.

- makes statement - statement gets refuted by statistical data - "omg I dont need to prove anything everything I say will get dismissed anyway" They should if they were the hard counter to DDs. Too bad that is not the case. Lol what do you mean "we". You're the only one. Everyone else wants CVs removed for their own personal reasons. This would be bad if CVs didn't have counters outside of another CV, but since they do it should have a much more marginal effect (if everyone wasn't so abysmal, not just CVs). Air superiority inherently provides only an advantage in spotting, that's not insubstantial but can be overcome. They were also never meant to be a popular class, nor one everyone is capable of playing. That potato CVs get shut down without being able to do anything is not only well within reasonable bounds in that regard but necessary in terms of game design. The only thing that WG has failed to do here is to impart basic and advanced knowledge on how to play CVs to new players, like with every other class.

Just get a Fletcher if you wanna play a torp boat. High tier IJN DDs are a lost cause and have been for some time.

What you're suggesting is adding a bit more interaction to what is still a passive mechanic. And in my book that falls under "improving current AA mechanics". :) I was thinking more along the lines of full control over AA armament including altitude and lead, which I do believe is unfeasible. Sorry for not making that clear.

It should be noted that there is a bug with the bug as well (*bugception intensifies*). From time to time when your squad is only locked from the enemy side your squad will not accept any commands, even if you tell them to attack the enemy squad that's currently engaging them. No fix for that, you'll just have to accept that your squad is going to get wiped and play accordingly.

...buy a Saipan?

I think this says everything that needs to be said about the GZ. Seems like one thing that skilled GZ players tend to do is go for a snipe. And truly I cannot fault them because that is the only way they're ever going to be useful in a match, but against anyone who can watch the clock it's a futile attempt.

Passive mechanics aren't necessarily bad IF active mechanics would be unfeasible or utterly unenjoyable. AA is one of those things. For example, imagine the following scenario: You're in a brawl with an enemy ship and planes come swooping in to capitalize on you. If AA was an active mechanic, you would have to give up engaging one of these to focus on the other, giving the one you do not focus on a free pass to farm you for damage. The nature of combat in this game simply wouldn't allow you to split your play between surface and aerial threats in any but the most extreme circumstances. With an active AA mechanic the mere presence of planes would be able to decide games, dodging and weaving through AA so that the rest of the team can descent upon helpless targets. (Not to mention it will require an even greater amount of skill, teamplay and coordination out of a playerbase that thinks it is too hard to even stick together.) You're obviously right with WG attempting to dumb the game down in ridiculous and utterly stupid ways (I think no one really disagrees that removing manual attacks at low tiers was a stupid [edited] idea) and current AA mechanics can and should be improved upon, but that AA is passive is a necessary evil.

I could ask you the same, considering you haven't come up with a way to refute solid statistical evidence contrary to your statements. Certain mechanics (such as, for example, HE shells) are completely independent from enemy skill and require little individual skill to use, as anyone with half a brain should know. Making mechanics that have no counterplay too powerful will obviously making them overpowered. You're grasping at straws at this point. Damn, a CV can outplay a potato who uses DFAA too early. Surely the fault of the CV. A DM has an AA range of 7,2km. It isn't too hard to wait until they've closed the gap to ~4km to use DFAA and kill all enemy planes. Baiting DFAA is exactly that, baiting, as in you're allowing yourself to get outplayed. That's bad play on your part for which you rightfully should be punished. Is it, really? Because that is what making all classes equal in potential, like so many idiots who know jack about balance demand, entails. Regardless of the superior match influence of CVs, anyone who has played this game should know that DDs are more game influencing than the remaining two classes as well, thus, according to these people they also need to be nerfed to get them "back in line". But wait, cruisers have consumables that also provide them more game influence than BBs, so either BBs need these consumables as well or cruisers also need to be nerfed to provide every class with the same match influence. This goes on until all classes play the same, have the same abilities and so on. Equality and diversity are two different ends of a spectrum. It is fundamentally impossible to unite them. Some people here are unable to realize this (or do but continue to rage against CVs to further their own pathetic agenda). I was not saying that CVs do not have superior match influence than the rest of the classes (because they obviously do), but if you want equality it must be applied to every class as well, not just CVs. It was, actually. There are just too few CV players left even on the forums to make waves of it. See, here's the deal: The abysmal players in this game (aka the average ones) are so bad that it makes other, slightly better but still bad players look good. These will strike DDs with DFAA, but they will not be smart enough to attempt to bait DFAA or pull back when they have done so. A good CV player will usually not bother attempting to kill a DD with DFAA available unless said DD has severely misplayed because it is a waste of time and resources, thus this buff targets primarily bad players while good ones remain unaffected.

Yeah, I recommend it. I almost never auto-drop, really. Manual drop is barely larger than a Bismarck's citadel, so you're almost guaranteed good damage totals unless RNGesus seriously screws you over.

Well, that must've hurt.

...Woah, never thought about that. Well, I'm primarily a solo player as you can surely check on various stat sites. :)

Well, we USED to have that. Gotten a lot better over the months but the primary offenders will still jump on it every single time without fail. The thing is that they already do, but buffing DFAA on DDs for the sake of diversity is stupid as all out since DFAA is pretty much a mandatory pick for the DDs that can slot it instead of speed boost anyway. There is literally nothing this buff changes nor achieves, neither in DD nor in CV play, which makes it superfluous EXCEPT against potato CVs, the people that supposedly WG wants to make CV play easier for. I honestly wonder what the balancing guys over at WG are thinking when testing changes like this. Then again maybe I'm better off not knowing since I fear my brain will start dying once I do.

Very much true, but doesn't invalidate my statement. All BBs need that, really.

Refer to @AgarwaenME's post above. Oh, I very much agree, however that's not exactly something that has to do with CVs. I have in fact asked for more consistency in AA several times, that includes more survivability for AA mounts (perhaps at the expense of a very slight nerf in DPS). WG went a stupid direction with their philosophy of "every new line must be full of gimmicks". No one would've said "lol this is garbage I'm not going to play it" if they had modeled the RN BB line after the Warspite, instead we got stupid gimmicky abominations to further the powercreep. Me neither, which is infuriating really. WG has since day 1 refused to teach new players how to play their game. Do you even know how many games I've spent broadsiding in CBT until I finally noticed that it's an incredibly stupid thing to do? There is literally no ingame guidance whatsoever, the current basic tutorial barely tells you how to move your ship and shoot your guns. Still, that has little to do with balance. If you're balancing a game after the lowest possible denominator you may as well not balance the game at all as it wouldn't matter in the long run anyway.

Pointless whining will naturally see little love from me in return. So, why is that? Is it too hard to stick together? Obviously not. Is AA ineffective at what it does? Nope. Have AA ships become a rarity? Actually yes. Is the average player abysmally bad at the game? Yep. Now, obviously there are several problems with AA and CV interaction as well as cruisers as a counter (which I have detailed numerous times). These however would have marginal influence if the average playerbase was anything but abysmal and we'd have a healthy class distribution. CVs scale extremely well with individual skill, on the other hand CVs also scale astronomically in the opposite direction with enemy playerskill and composition. Cutting one end inevitably means cutting the other, which in turn would go against the inherent design philosophy of CVs. "Bringing CVs back in line", a contradictory statement in itself, ironically has a very high chance of making CVs overpowered, because it is fundamentally impossible on the balancing basis this game builds upon.

It actually makes sense in a different way. Having a CV in a 7vs7 game, especially at T10, limits tactical options extremely, as there is not enough AA to spread around when splitting up. The standard 9vs9 on the other hand would've most likely worked in that regard. Anyway what I gathered from the official post about it is CVs are too good at spotting, too weak in striking power and are too difficult to play. Whether that's the right interpretation to tell out of current CV play is questionable ofc. No, because CVs are incredibly easy to shut down. CVs have widely available and easy to do counters, if the majority of the playerbase doesn't use them it's not a problem with CVs. Filter. After. Winrate. On. Individual. Ships. Or do the easy thing and check here: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html Next you're going to tell me everyone who appears on these lists with a high WR are all cheating scum?

That is not how f2p games work. The average potato will never spend much money, if ever, on the game.

Basic game design and balance? From all points of view it makes sense. Game design A CVs primary role is spotting as it is the most suitable class for it dictated by realism. That alone gives it more game influence than other classes. They are the primary teamplay forcing mechanic as that too CVs are most suitable for. Which means in a meta where everyone refuses to teamplay, CVs will excel. AA ships are the primary counter to CVs. If those become a rarity, CVs will obviously excel. Balance CVs are an all or nothing class, sacrificing certain gameplay aspects completely, thus they must excel in those they have left. CV strikes are incredibly easy to shut down, therefore they must hit sufficiently hard when they're not. CVs have both a higher skill floor and an astronomically higher skill ceiling than other classes, meaning they must be sufficiently powerful if played well and must scale accordingly with individual player skill. All points and more obviously apply to other classes as well. There is no line in which the three other classes fester while CVs speed off ahead, there is a ladder. Which is fine because it is balanced as a system overall when including all 4 classes as any class based game and not individually, as that'd be utterly ridiculous and fundamentally impossible.

Actually when it comes to "being in line" with other classes BBs fall behind by far. Everything else has superior game influence due to their inherent roles and abilities. So what is it now, are BBs overpowered or underpowered? Filter for winrate on individual ships. Also: T3rr0rz - 13 solo battles pape - 46 solo battles Macie - 514 solo battles, average in every other class Feld - 44 solo battles, hasn't been online since at least several months (last I seen him in fact was in CBT) Erica - 1743 solo battles, plays only CVs FTD - 668 solo battles, decidedly average in other classes lobus - 1213 solo battles, excels in every class TriATK - 254 solo battles, inactive until recently uocat - 954 solo battles, excels in every class Yeah, nerf divisions too I guess.

I guess we should continue to nerf DDs to get them "in line" with other classes as well? Oh yeah, and cruisers, too! Absolutely bs that cruisers can have game carrying consumables such as hydro and smoke! All ships should have equal capabilities in all areas so we can finally remove 3 out of 4 classes in the game! If that sounds ridiculous to you, it's exactly what you're demanding.

You haven't been able to compliment people in your division for quite some time now. :P :D

GK has better reload if you use the 406mm guns, which are the better choice anyway since they have better penetration characteristics at all but extreme range. The 420mm guns don't offer any advantages in terms of overmatch, either. The difference in penetration capability between Monty and FdG/GK 406mm guns are barely noticeable at all ranges. 10/10 demonstration of basic game knowledge. "OMG STATS ARE ONLY RELEVANT WHEN I GIVE THEM YOU ARE ALL WRONG I DON'T SUCK AT THE GAME SHUT UP!!!11111" Ladies and gents, let me present to you a typical scrub. (Also last I checked a camping BB is almost always a KM one, because those are the most played by far.) Premium ships usually perform better than tech tree counterparts, which is why people don't include them in balancing discussions when it comes to tech tree ships. Gun performance is also not the end all of balance, something you apparently refuse to acknowledge. Besides, sigma only influences how lucky you tend to get, it has no direct influence on dispersion as dev posts have previously explained. Top 5% of all players is apparently not high level enough for you? Also Izumo has better gun performance by far (better accuracy, penetration and ballistics). Newsflash: Izumo has better or same accuracy than Iowa up until ~10km if Iowa slots the accuracy module. If Iowa doesn't, she is barely more accurate than FdG and one of the most inaccurate BBs in the game. 10/10 demonstration of basic game knowledge. Again. And why, pray tell, would that be relevant in a balancing discussion between the different BB lines? Also the general consensus among skilled players is that USN BBs is one of the more, if not the most skill-reliant BB line to play (see Flamu's video for example). On the other hand KM BBs are the 2nd most braindead, just recently having their crown stolen from them by RN BBs. Considering how easy it is to get good results in my Bismarck/FdG, it's an assessment I wholeheartedly agree with. The actual reason for which I'm sure you won't like. You've hit your skill ceiling, this is as far as you will ever go and no higher because you're not good enough. The spread in your individual performance averages out to what it is and the game does a fantastic job of keeping you there because you don't deserve to go higher due to your own performance. Sucks to be you. RNG will screw you over from time to time, but if you consistently cannot citadel a USN BB it is your own fault. Then I guess for a player of your ego it is easier to blame everything on RNG than admitting you suck at the game. While it doesn't, impact angles are perfectly modeled in accordance to real life values as proven by various tests. And again 10/10 demonstration of game knowledge. All statistical evidence show a similar picture. That is, according to you, contradictory. Then I guess you're trying to grasp at straws now that your precious statistics show a full picture instead of a limited one. Remember what you said? Ohhh, isn't that contradictory to what you're jabbering about now? So let me summarize on where you stand: - extremely limited experience in high tier play - don't play the line you call overpowered - extreme incompetence in basic game knowledge - blame RNG for your own lack of skill - outright lies Yeah, you're the pinnacle of credibility, aren't you?

It's not a problem of being teamed up with weaker players. It is that the average player is so hilariously weak that it makes other, technically speaking still weak players look like straight up gods. I mean really, if anything the Halloween event has shown us it is that the average player is too stupid to even use consumables.