El2aZeR

Yuo see Ivan, if kill our own soldier now, soldier can not die in battle! Seriously, though, what the [edited] is this.

Your point is? NC's AA is overkill, Bismarck's AA is more than adequate for dealing with same tier air strikes. Then again for someone who sucks this much at the game and who believes his paltry experience in high tier games to be adequate, yeah, I think you fit perfectly into the average playerbase this game has. :) And if you honestly believe that people can get to good stats with only RNG and luck, take a look here: Though I'm sure you will not believe it like every other hard fact you have dismissed so far.

Having faster fighters is actually detrimental most of the time and can be easily compensated for by good positioning. Or you can just bait the opposing CV into a fight he doesn't want to take. Even if he runs away you have still done your job or achieved your objective.

While NO and Mogami certainly aren't worse than their newer contemporaries, giving heal to cruisers ~T6+ in general wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

To be fair the art of the newer ones is actually pretty good. Touhou 6 (2002) on the left , Touhou 14 (2013) on the right. So yeah, even if you start off horrible, you'll eventually improve. :) EDIT: Forgot to mute KC in the background. Abukuma just scared the [edited] out of me.

According to the official dev blog we're apparently getting a follow up on the Halloween event.

The thing is that CVs do not synergize nearly as well as most people would think. You can always force parity by playing passive and denying enemy strikes, while you can scout almost equally as well as two CVs combined (you don't need to keep track of the entire enemy fleet, just on the immediate threats to your teammates). The only true advantage that is obtained is the ability to attempt a brute force strike against groups or AA ships, even that will usually fail when you add fighter cover to it. The enemy will inevitably have to make a move if they want to gain anything over you, parity is not something they want when they're up 2vs1, yet any move they make will cost them either their ability to prosecute targets or air superiority. It's no different dealing with a single USN AS player. In fact, it is almost just as easy.

Are you perhaps incapable of reading? Except it will kill all 27 before they drop in the first scenario, while murdering about half of the opposing strike force in the second one, most of them before they drop. And hey, that's just one ship. Imagine what a group can do. Tournaments had a starting point. I know it is hard to imagine, but back then these rules were invented to equalize the line-ups of clans and spare them the effort of trial and error. Except no, they would not, because people go into SC with an entirely different mindset. Winning is all there is, there are no exp bars or credits income, so you will do whatever it takes to win. It is a competitive game in which the only inherent fun aspect is to win, with everything else being completely subjective. This is a game that is not meant to be easily accessible nor attract a big playerbase. People love it for its unforgiving and competitive nature, not because it is "so much fun to play". That also means the higher you are in skill level, the more you can say about balance. No one cares about the scrublords who always get killed by cheeses because they either do not scout or are incapable of identifying a cheese if they do. If someone goes onto the SC forums with whines like "cheeses are op" and "it is not fun", skilled people will gladly tell you to l2p and won't miss you if you decide to leave the game. It is the same for any other competitive game, if you are incapable or refuse to adapt to a higher playstyle, then it is your own fault, the game does not need to conform to you nor your ideas about "fun". As previously said, impossible to achieve since different roles have different skill floors/ceilings and require entirely different skillsets. It is perhaps somewhat, though not completely, possible with two inherently different classes, as that allows a fairly equal distribution of important roles. It is thoroughly impossible with three or more if you want each class to have its own distinctive roles, so you don't even try and instead build a balancing system in which every class is needed, regardless of their game influence. This is also usually balanced by giving roles with higher game influence a higher skill floor and skill ceiling, so giving all classes equal effort actually works AGAINST balance. Remember, equality vs diversity, natural law and such. There is no way around it. Trust me when I say that this isn't true. I've had a far easier time shutting down two average AS players (with my teammate being afk) than trying to shut down a single skilled strike player.

Please, go ahead and try how a full CV pick works out against a balanced one. It isn't like there are several dozen videos out there which demonstrate that a single cruiser is perfectly capable of shredding and surviving massed air attacks from multiple same tier CVs, the fact that they're captained by bots made up for with additional numbers. Not to mention their other fundamental limitations and weaknesses. Heck, even just one extra CV in tournament play is bound to be more of a liability than anything else, because their inherent role (scouting) can be fulfilled perfectly by just one with their damage capabilities becoming moot due to their enemies not being whiny scrubs, while you lose out on valuable firepower or utility by replacing a BB/Cruiser/DD with it. You can apply this to any kind of composition, really. The balanced one in WoWs will, assuming a higher level of play, always win. All CV/DD/Cruiser/BB compositions do not work because they either have inherent weaknesses that can be exploited or are incapable of countering some strategies due to a lack of utility that other classes have. Tournament rules are there to spare teams the effort of coming up with what composition works best via trial and error, not to restrict the numbers of "op classes". Heck, if you wanna use tournament rules as a guideline there were afaik talks to replace T8 CVs with T9 ones because AA in tournament play is too effective. Should we take from that that CVs are actually underpowered and need severe buffs? Obviously not. The reason why Blizzard games, and StarCraft in particular, are well balanced is not because everything is "equal", but because every strategy has a viable counter in every situation as long as you are capable of identifying the play in a timely manner (or just blind counter it, but that's another thing entirely). Cheeses in SC perhaps represent this best, a cheese is pretty much impossible to shut down when it is already tearing down your front door, but if you have scouted and identified it at the start of the game (as you should) then it is possible to adjust your play and counter it. Whether or not the player will scout (or refuses to do it because "it is not fun") doesn't matter at all, since all that is actually relevant is that a viable way of counterplay exists. With CVs identifying the play is easy, just look at the scoreboard or the minimap. The counter is also viable, widely available and easy to do. Anything else is no longer a concern regarding CVs. What you're talking about is not equality, it is in fact the very opposite of it because with a clear role distribution, and with them inherent strengths and weaknesses, someone is going to end up with the short stick in terms of game influence, yet because that class covers the weaknesses of others or provides utility that no other class has it becomes important to have it in a line-up. For example it is perfectly viable to complete a dungeon with only healers and tanks, DDs are technically speaking not needed at all, but because you don't need a mass of healers/tanks and DDs speed up the process significantly DDs become viable despite their non-importance. So yeah, CVs do conform to your dream of "equality" (which, again, is not equality at all) according to the games you've named as guidelines, whether you like/acknowledge it or not.

I have no words, really.

Also seriously funny because Bismarck is actually one of my best performing ships. You do realize two out of three secondary skills also increase AA, right? Oh, wait, you probably don't, considering all the other nonsense you're spouting. *looks at stats* Yeah, I too would be mad if I sucked as hard as you.

Last time you asked me for proof in terms of CBT changes in armor penetration, this time I'll do the same. Since having all classes be equal is apparently the pinnacle of balance then it should be substantially easier for you to name just a single successful AAA PvP game which employs a class-based system, in which the different classes are not only fundamentally different in terms of roles and playstyle but also have close to the same potential influence on a match. Do keep in mind the games we've already dismissed, though. It is when you do not understand how this game is balanced (along with the great majority of other games, really). There is an inherent overarching system and role distribution, which makes it fundamentally impossible to give every class EVEN CLOSE to the same amount of potential influence, but as a whole can be perfectly balanced. That doesn't even go into the fundamental design choices that went into this game. Trying to implement such a flawed idea of "equality" is not only impossible on several grounds, but actually destroys the balancing system. I mean really, if you still want to try to equalize the different classes, look no further than the new BB lines which represent your ideals perfectly. After all, having BBs close the gap in potential match influence between them and the other classes is, according to you and others, highly desirable. Yet for some reason I do not see you or anyone else advocating for such idiocy singing praises to WG for their decisions. Really weird considering they're fulfilling your dream of balance. Equality always comes at the cost of diversity. That is natural law not only in game design but in real life as well. Make up your mind as to which you prefer. You cannot have both because they're different ends of a spectrum.

I don't see how that is broken considering Enterprise can do much the same, has much better bombers/fighters AND gets TBs to boot. (Also Flamu should've used one squad to drop the Bismarck to get Double Strike, but meh, details.) Unless ofc you're simply saying that AP bombs are ridiculous, to which I agree. Then again I'm not particularly sympathetic towards KM BBs who take the brunt of the damage anymore due to all the coddling they get from WG.

This is seriously funny because Bismarck has a lot more powerful AA than Amagi. Really, though, l2p. Or at least get your facts straight.

Nah, I believe it. I feel like average player skill actually gets worse once you get past T7 and is especially bad at T10.

Weird, last time I tried striking anything close to a DM even in my Haku my squads simply evaporated. Which is in line with my experience playing DM, really. Perhaps he took hydro instead of DFAA, which is nowadays not even a bad choice. But forcing cruisers to make a choice between hydro and DFAA is imo wrong anyway. Forcing the utility class to limit itself is ridiculous, then again the problems with cruisers and AA go far deeper than that.

Different roles have different potential influence on a match depending on how the game is designed. A ship that takes the primary role as a spotter is not only a direct counter to one whose forte is concealment, but is massively more influential than, say, a ship whose primary role is to soak damage. Hey, you are the one trying to paint a false picture, not me. And for the record, I think in balance in this game in general would massively benefit from +/- 1 MM. Pit any class against itself with a two tier difference and it wouldn't be fair, not to mention hard to balance. Was T7 CV vs T9 CV fair? Hardly, a T9 CV back then would've gotten smashed thanks to a little something called the Dogfighting Expert skill (which back then gave a hilarious 100% DPS bonus per tier, also strafing didn't exist). Langleys could win air fights against Midways easily thanks to it, but Midways retained their higher strike potential, so both sides had advantages and disadvantages. Ironically that made the tier difference in CVs much more bearable than in any other class. Precisely, but even if the opposing CV was a total scrub a CV is rendered so ineffective that even for scouting, their supposed inherent ability, they have to sacrifice their limited resources. That goes to show that the amount of teamplay required to shut down just CV strikes isn't nearly as high and, in fact, quite simple and easy. Whether or not people use them is no longer something that concerns CVs.

Which is why in competitive play CVs dominate everything. Oh wait. That CVs are restricted to one in higher tier matches has more to do with the performance issues dozens of planes in the air caused. Mirror MM on the other hand was a player requested feature. WG was actually perfectly willing to let it sit as is. That CVs are restricted to auto-drops in low tiers is because WG dismissed all player feedback to glorify their own decision.

Which is precisely what WoWs is trying to achieve. CVs excel at scouting and dealing damage to isolated targets. DDs at contesting caps, harassment and concealment. Cruisers at general utility. BBs have armor and firepower (or should have, really, but nowadays they excel at almost everything). Naturally such a role distribution prevents the different classes from having even remotely the same potential influence, as some roles are naturally more powerful than others, yet is (or rather can be) perfectly balanced as a system, something that SOME people apparently do not understand. Or refuse to in order to further their own pitiful agenda. Imo that is more because the game rewards individual play equally as much or even more than team-oriented play. For example, sitting in the back taking potshots and eventually constantly kiting away as a BB is equally or even more effective in garnering exp and credits as sailing to the front lines, pushing and tanking for your team. That's a problem you obviously don't have in, e.g., WiC, as there tiers don't exist, therefore winning is all there is and you should do your utmost to achieve victory, which in turn means working with your team. In WoWs on the other hand losing is perfectly acceptable as long as you get a good amount of exp and credits while doing so, playing egoistically is usually the easiest, if not the most effective way to do so. There is little, if any at all, in the way of rewards when smoking up teammates or using radar for a target you yourself cannot shoot at. The vast majority of income comes from raw damage. That should, imo, change. Let's take a look back at Battlefield. A player playing a Medic can easily top the scoreboard even if he has few kills and died numerous times, because healing, reviving and playing the objective is rewarded equally or even higher amount of points than simply playing for frags. No. Spotting or the ability to contest a cap will always be more valuable than raw damage dealing ability, for example. I can only repeat myself, really.

Fair point on the arty, but I'm pretty sure medium helicopters were fairly capable against AT units as well, perfectly covering the weaknesses of heavy tanks, which in turn could easily deal with AA. Thus a combination of air and armor was, in my experience, the most effective composition only weak to infantry in cover, which in turn could easily be leveled by support abilities.

I have to admit I didn't play WiC MP very much (though the campaign was outstanding imo), so I can only share what limited knowledge I have (which I believe I made clear by "I was under the impression of"). Then again servers tended to place ridiculous limits on classes like "only 1 heavy and 2 medium arty" or "only 2 medium helicopters". Perhaps for good reason?

I guess CVs are well balanced but the average player is simply bad is a perfectly reasonable argument then. If all classes had the same potential influence then they should be replaceable by each other, yet that is obviously not the case. The ability to revive and refund a ticket is infinitely more powerful than any other ability found in the game. That makes the Medic/Assault class by far the most important one, in fact it is so powerful that a team consisting only of it will find a reasonable amount of success. Playing without it on the other hand is an insurmountable handicap. Playing without Recons, Supports or, on an infantry-only map, Engineers however is very much possible, even desirable in certain circumstances. No, it doesn't. You can simply create your own class out of a pool of every ability in the game. There are no fixed inherent abilities, thus disqualifying it as an asymmetric class-based game. There are also weapons and perks that are usually considered best-in-slot and stand head and shoulders above others in terms of utility and game influence, even if it is by DPS only.

I was very much under the impression that playing only tanks and air would easily steamroll any other composition because both infantry and support were incapable of opposing both effectively.

Because a medic doesn't have more influence than a sniper. Because a well balanced team doesn't totally beat one consisting only of one class. Because the ability to revive and refund a ticket is obviously equal to resupplying ammo (as stated before). I'm sorry, the criteria was class based. Should've probably added PvP as well because balance in PvE games is fundamentally different.

A fairly bad one, apparently, yeah. Though it recommended to keep her as a sub tender for reasons stated before.