El2aZeR

- implies you cannot play without one class because you will get trashed - that class is suddenly equal to another and thus should be replaceable by it Nice to know you're still consistent in your contradictions.

Missouri best DD hunter lol #rockpaperscissors (Doesn't show it but I caused the death of the Z-23 as well)

Lets just assume this would be a viable idea. I personally don't, but I can see where you're coming from. Ironically this would make the basic teamplay of sticking together, something that already people do not want to rely upon apparently, much, much more important because your own CV cannot keep up fighter cover 24/7, which also eliminates any individual action that such cover allows. It would also devalue AS setups even further (though to be fair that isn't much of an issue considering AS setups are horrible anyway and should be removed), while in turn making strike setups much more powerful. It would also make DDs more powerful in terms of game influence since CVs cannot keep an overextended DD spotted for long, so that's just shifting game influence from the two most influential classes around, missing your goal entirely. Not to mention it devalues the already rare AA cruisers. I'm not entirely against the idea of fuel limits, but currently I don't see how this would impact both general and CV gameplay in a positive way. If you do not believe you are qualified, how about looking around at the proposition of others? See what you agree with and what you do not to form your own by process of elimination. Take mine for example and see where your opinion meets mine and where it does not.

How exactly do you plan on adjusting the inherent qualities of a class? CVs are in the game to spot, spotting is naturally one of the most powerful abilities in this game. If you plan on taking that away or tone it down you must inevitably improve some other part, which will probably go against the design philosophy of CVs. In terms of balance there is little to adjust in the basics. CVs can be countered, that counter is both easy to do and widely available. Whether or not people use them is not a concern of balance anymore.

Which, again, is inevitable if you intend to have a clear role distribution between classes.

No, but it would equalize the potential impact between cruisers and BBs. After all, according to you it isn't balanced that one class has more utility, thus more potential impact, than others, no?

You must be really sad about RN BBs not getting radar and hydro then, no? :)

Seriously funny, is it not? :) Which is an inevitability you will have to deal with when employing a class based system. Unless you want to make a class capable of excelling at every role (aka what WG is attempting to do with BBs it seems) while removing the other three classes and therefore lose diversity, there is no way you can work around it. It is literally impossible as it is seen in literally every other game that uses such a system. In a raid, your DD goes afk? No big deal, just takes more time to kill stuff now. Your healer/tank goes afk? You're completely, utterly [edited]. In e.g. CS, a rifler goes afk? Okay, time to adjust setups and deal with a numerical and utility disadvantage. Hard, but not impossible. Your sniper goes afk? The potential impact of literally every role that the enemy team plays skyrockets.

Because obviously server stats tell the whole story without analysis. Next you're going to tell me climate change has something to do with the decline in piracy.

Let me address that, then. Yet countering CVs is clearly a skill-based factor. The tools are all there, they are widely available. I highly doubt that you can deny that. That people do not use them has absolutely nothing to do with CVs. The team with the afk CV is at a disadvantage, that is true. And that is very much intended, having any afk teammates in any team based game, especially a class based one, after all always results in a horrendous disadvantage. You simply cannot balance around the assumption that someone is going to be afk, just like you cannot make every class have even remotely the same game impact if you intend to have a clear role distribution. Yet you can make classes so that a disadvantage in one is not so severe that it cannot be overcome through skill based play by making easy to use counters available. If you still lose but you have done all you can, yes, the afk CV is definitely to be blamed, but the enemy team has most likely at least responded just as well to your adjustments, at which point they deserve to win and you deserve to lose. Ofc that can be universally applied to every ship class. Lets take your example of epicenter on ToD. Your team obviously knows it has a severe disadvantage by having an afk/potato CV. Has your team tried a concentrated push? Has your team tried to adjust to the fact that you will have a disadvantage in spotting? Have your DDs tried to lay down cover for their teammates? Has your team made any adjustments at all? If not, your loss cannot be laid solely on the feet of the afk CV. (Ofc epicenter on ToD doesn't exactly lend itself to such tactics, but that is a problem with the map itself, as with many other maps WG seems to be unwilling to adjust for some reason.)

Benson/Lo Yang for utility. Akizuki for AA denial. Harekaze might be an interesting new addition as a more torp specialized option.

Let me guess what you're going to complain about next after you get your wish of removing CVs. Sounds whiny and ridiculous, no?

The "shorter" range? Really? 18.5 vs the 13 or so an Atlanta can max have? Are you serious? I mean, if you find yourself unable to relocate often, perhaps you should learn not to overextend as heavily in the first place? Take note of enemy positions around the minimap and don't just blindly charge into the sights of multiple enemies. Use cover and concealment to find a favorable position that you can retreat from if necessary.

Still being as funny as ever, I see. You also still haven't answered my questions. It's like you retreat whenever the situation doesn't fit your hilarious narrative. For the "why are CVs fun?" part, refer to Exocet. He pretty much sums it up. The "fun" that you're now referring to is entirely subjective, thus completely irrelevant. As it was previously. I ignored them because, like you refusing to repeat whatever you said, I thought I'd do the same by referring to the very same threads in which I'm fairly sure I already made my opinion about your suggestions very clear. But since you're looking for suggestions from me and seem to be unable to use the search function yourself (despite telling people to use it for your stuff, hypocrite much?), look here: Just the most recent post out of many I've made about it. Oh my, going for personal attacks and spreading misinformation, how pitiful. Almost like our buddy avenger here. Are you perhaps the one running out of arguments?

I knew this whole "frustration vs challenge" thing would come up. Oh well. You know, if I were to say to you this or this or this You'd probably tell me to go l2p. Turn that on CVs however and it apparently becomes a compelling argument. I could literally copy your post almost word for word and make it target any other class. To which you would reply something along the lines of "git gud". Turn it on CVs however and everything you say is true and everything everyone who is opposing you says is false. See what's wrong? Fact remains that CVs are a frustration that can be overcome by playing accordingly, aka a challenge. Whether or not you enjoy it is completely irrelevant in terms of game design, as it is with the rest of the classes. And you do accept it by playing this game, no matter what you expected. Guess who doesn't have fun? The guy you're blowing to bits. The class that is being countered by yours. And in terms of game design it, again, does. Not. Matter. At all. All of which were universally bad ideas as I recall and expressed as much with backing arguments. Because we haven't totally seen what happens when CVs go extinct. Nope, not at all. That torpedo soup thing? Totally made up by people who justified torp nerfs. A game is always playable. That doesn't mean it is balanced.

Dude, how long have you not been playing? Effective usage of cover is almost as old as the game itself. Besides, if you simply let yourself be HE spammed to death by a ship behind cover you're doing something wrong. Change up your position, use cover yourself, rush him down, try to get your teammates to deal with them or retreat if necessary. The latter option especially most people seem to disregard entirely. There is no shame in running from a fight you cannot win.

DDs don't make the game more fun either. BBs don't make the game more fun, too. Technically speaking, none of the classes in this game make the game more fun for each other. Asking game mechanics to be fun before everything else will run any halfway serious MP game into the ground.

Apparently having CVs get nerfed with literally every major patch for over a year means nothing has improved for those that play against them. (Though to be fair a lot of the early nerfs were well deserved.)

AP bombs can only reliably get high damage against a few select ships. Those include - KM BBs T7 and above - Fuso/Nagato - a couple of high tier cruisers (that you never really want to drop anyway) (Dunno about new RN BBs btw. Also did I miss any?) For the rest RNGesus pretty much decides how much damage you deal.

I thought AR doesn't work with CVs?

Just because people can react correctly to a given situation does not mean it has to be tolerated.

Which is the job of the DD to counteract by not sitting in smoke with the rest of them. Alternatively your own CV can provide plane spotting. If they all sit inside of smoke with no spotting whatsoever then that is a sever misplay. Likewise if the enemy has several radar ships available and you still choose to go for that tactic then that is a severe misplay. If there is a radar ship you have not spotted then you get outplayed. There is nothing wrong with these scenarios. Whether or not the timed usage makes it a hard or soft counter is debatable (as is the inherent definition of those terms). It is completely irrelevant anyway. The only fact that is relevant is that it is extremely potent and does what it should be able to do, namely deny the inherent ability of a CV to spot.

Which is precisely what smoked up teammates near a cap do. There is literally nothing a CV can do against it. The usage of a timed consumable or that it is countered by radar, torps and hydro is completely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with CVs anymore. Fact remains that there is a hard counter strategy to plane spotting over a cap.

Guess what? They do, if the enemy team is responding correctly. A CV simply cannot strike against concentrated AA no matter what CV he plays or how skilled he is. He is reliant on the team to play the objective, spam down the AA of opposing capital ships and sniping AA vessels to have any meaningful impact beyond spotting.