El2aZeR

If you pick your engagements like a total utter scrub, maybe. And to quote my good friend avenger, DD stats are largely irrelevant because most people can't play DDs to save their lives.

138m dispersion and people complain about sigma. Unbelievable.

- best knife fighter - best support - arguably best torps in the game (only held back by long reload)

A bit late to the party (because I haven't really been paying attention to the info thread lately), but I would like to point out that this is a slight translation error. Should be more along the lines of this: (He's referring to the alpha stage of the game, in which WoWs was centered primarily on long range combat. There is a bit of gameplay of it in the dev diaries videos if I remember correctly)

I mean, you could also give CVs control over their planes after they die. Make the time planes need to crash much shorter than is currently the case to compensate. Though tbh I don't think it's really all that necessary because if you die or get hunted down in a CV you deserve it and should be punished for it.

Tbh I'm more astounded at seeing only 4 BBs total in that game.

Still have this sitting in my playlist. Still get the shivers whenever it plays. :)

"Cruisers counter DDs" lol

Technically speaking that is already the case on the highest tiers. All we need is for lower tier cruisers to actually be able to do their jobs as well as in general being the most common class (as they are intended to be). Inherently a CV's influence is spotting and spotting alone. There is nothing else a CV can do without it being spoon-fed to him.

I highly doubt any skilled CV would fall for that. Just a single DB squad would immediately make me suspicious. A skilled Saipan can be sniped with Hiryu if he's alone, just takes a lot more effort and time dodging strafes than it is often worth.

I don't think it will ever truly be fun tbh without a severe redesign of the game. Giving manual control of AA to the player means that you will actually need to have time to use it. The hectic nature of battles in WoWs currently means that unless you have literally nothing else to do you will never be able to use your AA weapons against an air strike without risking to neglect surface combat. Let's examine the old NavyField for a second. That game put AA pretty much completely in the hands of the player in the form of DP guns (machine cannons were automated but largely worthless). You had to judge everything from lead to angle yourself, aside from plane shadows, which you'd actually aim for, the game provided you with no further target information. In return, CVs could change the altitude of their planes to try to spoof your targeting. This worked because the number of surface vessels actually engaged in surface combat was relatively small, cruisers and DDs had basically no other job than to swat planes and hunt down nearby submarines to provide cover for the BBs and CVs which will actually engage the enemy. Combat was also largely fought out at long ranges with usually well over 40 players total participating, making it a lot less hectic and ensuring sufficient role distribution. Now, while a similar system could be implemented in WoWs you'd have to ask yourself if that is really what you want. You would have to rework not only the specific roles of the different classes but some of the very fundamentals of the game itself. It simply cannot be implemented without such steps, as every class aside from CVs in WoWs is focused solely on surface combat with no capacity left for another layer of mechanics which require the complete attention of the player. For example, imagine if you're sailing into a brawl and you see an incoming air strike. Would it truly be fun for you to give up control of your primary weapons and let your enemy get in free shots so that you can focus your attention on only the planes? This is an arcade game through and through. Giving it simulation-esque mechanics would hardly be well received. It is also against the design philosophy of CVs themselves. A CV's attack is supposed to be easy to shut down to contrast their alpha strike potential and overall flexibility. Throw in manual AA and you'll simply pick groups of targets that you know will be too busy to shoot your planes, basically becoming unstoppable as your enemy will get wedged between a rock (disengaging from surface combat to focus on AA) and a hard place (continuing to fight surface action but eating an air strike instead).

Expect serious rant about how WoWs is visually behind. Get ponies instead. Wat. Seriously, though, there may be severe game engine limitations that WG has to adhere to (and programming a new one from scratch may take several years), not to mention their actual targeted audience. Giving a game a visually stunning look cuts off a good amount of customers, which is especially undesirable in a f2p game. What matters here is gameplay. Visuals have to be adequate, not amazing.

Honestly? Probably not, because the nature of battles in WoWs is too hectic to provide an adequate skill-based manual AA mechanic. Besides, the manual control element is already in the game. You use your WASD keys to either attempt to dodge the drop or to keep the planes inside your AA bubble as long as possible. In combination with making AA more consistent this should be more than enough actual player interaction.

The primary goal of CVs in the game's balancing system is to force teamplay. To do this a CV needs to be able to do massive damage to single ships while being unable to strike groups. This is currently implemented fairly well. A CV is also the hard counter to DDs, something that is a bit of a problem nowadays because WG tried to fix the absence of CVs by giving everything consumables against DDs instead of addressing the core issue, namely the lack of CVs. A CVs role in a match therefore rests on three pillars: - contesting air superiority - scout - deal damage Now, any CV that is unable to fulfill all three of these to a reasonable degree is bad as demonstrated by tech tree USN CVs. Reworking their loadouts is therefore the obvious solution. A CV's counter as well as the teamplay aspect is both basic teamwork and AA cruisers. This means a same tier CV should not be able to strike groups of 2-4 capital ships (depending on nation and class) or targets protected by an AA ship, which in turn makes a CV reliant on his teammates to either weaken the AA of said group or focus down the AA ship. This is also currently in the game and thus the basic concept requires no changing. What is however a problem is the progression of both planes and AA. Low and mid tier cruisers are largely unable to fulfill their role as plane deterrents, relying primarily on a timed consumable instead of their base AA values. On the other hand some battleships have excessively powerful AA as a basis in these tiers that overtakes the role of cruisers as plane swatters. Then you have AA upgrades and skills. For example, an Amagi has utterly worthless AA without any of them, yet becomes a very costly target to strike when built for it even when alone. The same applies to the T9 module for CVs which also gives them a hilarious jump in power in combination with their increased strike force. You also have noob traps like Emergency Takeoff and Evasive Maneuvers. Therefore we need a severe buff to the AA of most low and mid-tier cruisers while nerfing BB AA, then remove most of the skills and upgrades that affect plane health and AA to balance largely around base values. I do also believe that AA is stripped far too fast by enemy fire, putting far too much emphasis on the DP mounts. Making AA mounts more survivable and perhaps nerfing their DPS by a small amount to compensate would benefit consistency as well. Then you have the obvious UI problems that everyone should know about as well as factors that have absolutely nothing to do with CVs and are problems of the game in general from which CVs merely benefit, such as AA cruisers being almost as rare as CVs themselves and the ridiculously low average player skill. Auto drop as a mechanic needs to be removed. No other class has the ability to automatically target an enemy and ensuring a hit, neither should CVs. It also steepens the learning curve by teaching bad habits, therefore increasing the skill gap between average and skilled CV players. How to fix CVs can finally be summed up in the following points: - rework USN loadouts to make them competitive - make AA more consistent by smoothing out plane and AA progression - remove noob trap skills - nerf low-mid tier BB AA and buff their respective cruiser counterparts' AA to put them back into their designed roles - overhaul the UI - remove auto drop General problems that have an effect on CV performance also need to be solved: - BB overpopulation needs to go, make cruisers the most popular class. This ensures wide AA coverage from which other classes will be able to operate from. - implement thorough tutorials for every single class that teaches new players how to actually play the game - remove cruiser consumables on all tech tree BB lines. Primarily to the benefit of DDs, having one hard counter in the form of CVs is more than enough The basic concept of CVs is sound and doesn't require any changes. It's the implementation that needs severe reworking.

Which is not what I suggested. I suggested increasing the skill floor of BBs, which is currently the lowest in the game, over that of at least cruisers.

DDs have various counters already in place to make them difficult to play as well as unpopular to some degree nowadays. Having cruisers become the most popular class is the goal.

It's actually a fairly reasonable balancing approach. Make the most popular class also the most (or one of the most) difficult to play effectively.

Dank Memes Des Moines. Because - you see that BB? Burn that BB. - you see that cruiser? Nuke that cruiser - you see that DD? Radar that DD. - you see those planes? Oh, wait, what planes? On a more serious note, DM has the perfect balance between utility, maneuverability, concealment and firepower. Only thing that's truly lacking is survivability, which you have to make up for by utilizing cover as much as possible and in general playing smart. She rarely allows mistakes to be made without a quick return to port.

Calculating averages as a basis is now failing at analysis. I mean, you can keep ignoring the parts that do not fit your pitiful narrative. Does wonders for your credibility. You have also failed to answer my questions. Big surprise as they also do not fit your pathetic agenda. But let me ask you again: - Why do you believe CV stats are representative where DD stats are not? - Why are you against nerfing DDs when it is obvious that DDs have much more potential influence than cruisers or BBs? - Why are you against equalizing consumables between cruisers and BBs when it should very much be done according to your idea of balance? Sounds like someone never learned to scout, so instead of improving he'd rather have things that do not fit his playstyle nerfed. Ladies and gents, a typical scrub. Aka precisely the thing you do not want to balance your game for. http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

Which are just things that we've been trying to point out to WG for, oh I don't know, the past year or so. But no worries! The great CV rework will potentially come next year! It has just been promised for the "year of the CV", a year ago, and again for this year! Doesn't that fill you with confidence? On a more serious note, a small number of cruisers/BBs, 2-4 depending on what class and nation you're playing, is already fairly immune to same tier air strikes. You do not need to mass AA into a big blob. Heck, in this game a Taiho foolishly focused on sinking my severely overextended Missouri (alone behind an island trying to cap A on North), which has already been through a thorough shower of HE shells. He eventually managed to do it at the cost of almost every single one of his TB reserves. (Taiho gets 24 TBs reserve total) And he didn't even prevent me from capping. Unsurprisingly, he did not have much impact on the match afterwards. If a single ship with damaged AA can do this, what do you think a full HP ship can do? Or, god forbid, two of them? Please also note that I run no AA skills whatsoever aside from range.

Combine that with actual facts such as pretty much no one playing AA cruisers, the average player being dumb af and a CVs ability to auto attack, it should not be really surprising to anyone to see CV stats soar. And ofc none of these statistics outline their inherent weaknesses. You on the other hand keep pointing your hand at stats with no analysis whatsoever. You will ofc keep denying hard facts to further your pathetic agenda, but still, I have to ask again, how come you aren't on a crusade against DDs? By comparison DDs have a much larger potential influence than cruisers and BBs, yet you've shown yourself adverse to any more DD nerfs when you should in fact be welcoming them. Or are you perhaps upset that the RN BBs will not be released with hydro and radar? It's after all an important gap to bridge between cruisers and BBs. According to you it should be unacceptable that cruisers get tools to deal with other classes whereas BBs do not. Or maybe we should take DD stats at face value like you always do with CVs and extrapolate from them that DDs are thoroughly underpowered? But wait, didn't you say DD stats are an unreliable measure for their performance? Why exactly are CV stats reliable to judge their performance then? Your logic and behavior is full of holes and contradictions everywhere. You can do a raid without a dedicated damage dealing class, just takes much longer. You cannot do a raid without a healer. What is the point of different classes? 1. To balance out the overall system. Applies to pvp games only. Usually done in a RPS-like fashion, which in turn makes in inherently impossible to make every class have the same potential influence, as some will always excel over others in different situations regardless of player input and skill. 2. To provide different styles of gameplay. Big diversity here will make it impossible to balance a game so that every class has the same potential influence for the same reasons stated above . Now, given that you do not even understand the most basic game design as proven here, what exactly makes you think you are fit to judge game balance? I mean really, show me one successful team based MP game that achieves your ridiculous dream of having a big class diversity where each of them has the same potential influence on a match. If it is such an essential ideal to achieve then there must be thousands of them adhering to it, not to mention every successful e-sport title that fits such a genre.

Tbh, firing HE for pure alpha is often a waste of time even in a bow on fight as your opponent can simply repair all damage you do. AP over-/pens to the superstructure are much more effective in that regard. If your opponent is also getting focused by supporting teammates however it is certainly not be a bad idea to fire a couple of HE salvos to either force DCP or set a few fires.

Expect? Well, they had an armored flight deck which in turn limited plane reserves compared to their USN counterparts. That means to make them viable RN aircraft need to be notably faster, have more durability and firepower or appear in higher numbers than their contemporaries. The latter option would be severely limited in terms of usefulness by low reserves, though, so making them kinda like Saipan would be the most obvious approach. But that'd be the logical. Knowing WG they'll try to fit some ridiculous gimmick in there somewhere.

Explaining how extremely successful game devs, including notable examples such as Valve and Blizzard, balance their extremely successful MP games is now elitist. 10/10 logic But yeah, better cut your losses now as you have brought nothing to this discussion but your own opinions backed up by no evidence whatsoever.

Pretty sure it was already confirmed that KM won't get a full CV line. And if they do someday WG will probably be at a point where no other line of note needs to be implemented, at which point this game will probably be a decade or so old.