El2aZeR

Found the Q&A Original thread here if someone here can speak Polish and wants to check the accuracy of the translation (though according to google translate it seems accurate enough): http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/54902-pytania-do-wg-watek-zbiorczy-vol-1/page__pid__1120734#entry1120734

You'd need a perfect strafe to do anything meaningful. Saipan loses against Hiryu in a click duel because her fighters are outnumbered (assuming both have taken AS and Hiryu has DE). That will never be the case with Kaga if she gets standard fighter squad sizes as we're assuming.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Your idea (that I inadvertently led you to) sounds interesting, though. Well, considering most players cannot even evade auto drops... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yet skilled players know how to counter CVs and will usually do so, making them balanced against such, while scrubs don't and whine about it, technically speaking making them overpowered against them but it applies to every class, not just CVs. That holds true no matter what gamemode you play. That is not the point in an asymmetric balance system such as WoWs, so why try it? Classes are made to depend on each other to compensate for their weaknesses and it can work very well as demonstrated by numerous multiplayer games out there. That some classes will have more carry potential than others when certain things fall out of place (such as, you know, the average player skill or underrepresentation of a class) is par for the course, but when played correctly it all comes together in a perfectly balanced environment in which the side that makes more mistakes loses. It's what makes winning in WoWs more reliant on teamplay rather than individual skill. And yes, CVs are no exception to that. And you're questioning MY intelligence lol Then let's see, CVs are meant to scout and pick off solo sailing ships. It just so happens that the majority of players playing random are scrubs and thus tend to sail solo, making themselves easy targets for CVs. Wouldn't that mean that CVs are balanced in their environment and working as intended? While I admit that having a playerbase consisting of purely skilled players is unrealistic, attempting to reach such a state is apparently foolish according to you. Which interestingly enough contradicts with your previous statement of Again, nice consistency. Let's see: Flexibility - the only place where you actually put down arguments. Arguments that dismiss themselves by either rereading the statements I made or having some experience with CVs. Obviously you have little of the latter. Arguing that HP pool alone makes CVs survive more punishment than a cruiser or DD without accounting for soft stats such as size, speed, consumables and maneuverability, you're hilarious. Heck, you dismissed the "ammo" part with simple semantics. Why should I bother replying when you've shot yourself in the foot? Survivability - Argument that plane losses per kill should be actual measurement of CV survivability; Dismissed as whining. Spotting - Planes gonna spot, anything else would be hilariously unrealistic; Dismissed as whining. Damage - CVs get high nuke damage as compensation for their limitations. Stat is also inflated by the virtue of auto drop being automated and most of the playerbase being unable to dodge said auto drops; Dismissed as whining. Yeah, sure only said "CVs are designed to do so". You on the other hand... In your own words:

While I agree, I feel like it'd be too risk free if you completely eliminate the DPS buff, at least on mid tiers where cruiser AA is for the most part rather worthless without it. Striking anything escorted by a cruiser should be a gamble and if said cruiser has Def AA and is paying attention he should be rewarded for such basic teamplay. It's what I'm trying to balance by making the DPS buff of Def AA staggered. Intelligent cruiser players will simply wait until planes get closer before they activate it, while scrubs are punished for using it too early. Using it too late however will still result in an accurate drop, thus it is in the best interest of the cruiser to not wait too long. Likewise a CV player will have a window to retreat without too many plane losses since long range AA wouldn't be buffed too much and will most likely be able to avoid plane losses completely if a scrub uses it early. This is ofc assuming he identifies that Def AA is being used in time, which brings me to my next point: We need some kind of indicator that Def AA is active without having to check your spread. And yeah, Def AA is a stupid mechanic, as is automated AA in general, but it's probably the best we get since manual AA would most likely be too taxing for the masses.

Nerfing a class on the basis that scrubs have problems with it while trying to make all ships have the same carry potential in an asymmetrical balance system? Nice logic. Bonus points for consistency. Oh wait. Let's see here: You want to nerf CVs to cater to randoms (aka scrubs), which would be in line with WG's supposed business model, yet you refuse to nerf any other ship class to cater to randoms. Then you admit that your goal was impossible to reach anyway, making your entire argument moot. And now you not only revive said argument, you want to make the game purely skill reliant, which would not cater to randoms and would not be in line with WG's supposed business model. On top of that you dismiss every counterpoint for your oh so great statistical evidence as whining. You're hilarious, mate. If anyone else is wondering, yes, I'm having great fun.

Devs are on it afaik. In the meantime, try using this to workaround it.

I feel like this would actually make CVs overpowered. I still remember the days when Def AA didn't exist and it wasn't pretty. Instead, keep Def AA as it is on USN cruisers. For everyone else, make the damage increase staggered (something like 50% long range, 100% mid range, 300% short range) so that there is at least a little bit of skill and counterplay to it rather than a simple "I win" button. The increased dispersion already pretty much ruins any attack a CV might be planning. Def AA itself is also archaic, made to counter planes that no longer exist in the game. I also feel like, from a purely historical perspective, that IJN shouldn't have it since their AA was so anemic, but that's probably going too far.

A Q&A quite a while ago revealed that (USS) Worcester will be implemented as part of the USN CL line. First time I've heard of Burlington, though.

1. CVs already take more fire damage. 2. CVs are already more "flammable" than other classes. 3. CVs get cruiser DCP, meaning short up time. 4. CV playstyle is not risk free. While you may not need to risk your vessel, you will need to risk your planes. And, unlike with ammunition, plane reserves are highly limited. Your ignorance is vast beyond belief.

Guess what you can do in a Warspite.... Hint: It's citadel'ing other same tier BBs through the bow. And, unlike with the Bayern, your guns are actually accurate.

I can also claim that I once sunk a DM with a Langley while I suffered 0 plane losses. Without replay, tho, I have no proof. You're still omitting key details. Were they together, did the Moskva have Def AA, did they take AA modules and/or captain skills, were they alone or with their team, did they have fighter cover, etc. etc. etc. Chances are said purple ship was never going to win in the first place if his team is full of potatoes regardless of CV presence. Likewise a blue CV will not win if his own team consists mostly of scrubs and the purple has a halfway decent team. If both have decent teams the power the CV can project drops dramatically, giving the purple player the advantage. Likewise if both only get potatoes the CV enjoys the advantage since the class he plays is basically designed to punish mistakes. Still, the outcome of both latter scenarios is far from written in stone and it's fine this way because WoWs is a TEAM game. And next you're gonna tell me that you want to nerf DDs because a blue DD can and will outcarry a purple BB most of the time. It's what happens when you design an asymmetric balance system which most of your playerbase are unable to comprehend. And unless you try to make people actually understand how certain game mechanics are supposed to work that's not going to change. Alternatively, you'd have to tear down said system itself and start from scratch and that's certainly not going to happen. Better deal with it.

Any option should work. I just unticked and ticked something again and the game suddenly let me target planes and ships as normal.

404 not found. Oh, please, USN AS is hilariously easy to outplay. Going up against it is a walk in the park if you apply some basic game sense. Besides, simple scores are inconclusive without actual replay. Who knows what you attacked or how the enemy behaved? It doesn't even have anything to do with the topic at hand. You said it yourself, the average player sucks, so the chance of most of them being unable to master manual drop is pretty high. Let's see. You want to nerf CVs to cater to scrubs, but you don't want to change anything else despite there being plenty of things that should be nerfed on that basis. You also spout conflicting statements and stats that you're failing to interpret, putting your ignorance about game balancing on obvious display. In addition to that you're unable to specify how exactly you would nerf CVs to achieve your goals without making CVs obsolete. Meanwhile I want to leave what is a fairly balanced system in place and attempt to improve the average skill of the playerbase instead. And I'M the one that's wrong? Okay then.

Or you could sail with a couple of teammates and not care about planes at all. If a CV can trade planes favorably for damage it is your own fault and you're rightfully being punished for your mistake. While a DM not shooting down any planes at approach is indeed possible, the chance of that happening is very low, especially if Def AA is active and/or the DM in question is also sailing with teammates. Really, do me a favor. Take your Ranger and fly your planes straight into a same tier enemy formation, preferably with a cruiser or two with Def AA in it and see how long they last.

Wouldn't be the first time WG deviated from historical progression in favor of balance. There are very reasonable arguments as to why KGV should be no higher than T7. The most important of all is imo that she carries 14" guns and thus would be unable to overmatch the bows of most T8 cruisers, enabling them to outgun her. While a very slight adjustment to overmatch would take care of it, WG is not exactly known for their fine-tuning balancing work, thus I would prefer it if they don't touch overmatch mechanics at all.

Honestly, do we even play the same game? Don't you see the planes incoming? Are you telling me that AA is incapable of shooting down aircraft?

First of all, CVs do not limit aggressive playstyles at all, it only limits your ability to yolo. The core gameplay mechanics of WoWs generally encourages teamplay while discouraging solo actions and CVs only cement that principle. You have a highly flawed view of CVs. While it is true that CVs don't have to put their vessel in harms way, they have to deal with something else entirely: Plane reserves. It makes the whole concept of K/D ratio and CV survivability moot, a more accurate measure as to show the effective "K/D ratio" of CVs would be average plane losses per kill. You're also wrong in the fact that targets cannot retaliate or prevent such an attack. Grouping up with 1-4 other capital ships is often enough to sufficiently blunt or outright deny air strikes from same tier CVs depending on what ships you and your teammates are playing (low tiers excepted). In fact, if you're playing an AA cruiser or a fully AA spec'd BB you don't even need teammates until you've been through a thorough showering of HE shells (and even then you may still present a highly undesirable target).

I've found that you can workaround it by changing an option in your minimap settings. After doing so everything should be working as normal again.

Remember the last time CVs were basically extinct? Fun times with 7 DDs per team.

Fact remains that Shima overspecializes so much in torpedoes that she is good for little else. Then you have to consider that 1. Shima has to deal with a fairly long torp reload, making her "primary armament" rather situational 2. torpedoes aren't the most reliable weapons with all the things that can spot them nowadays (not to mention skilled players are rather hard to hit in the first place) and 3. 15 torpedoes is overkill more often than not. 10 torps are more than adequate in most situations Besides, most of the ideas for buffs here was not to increase her capabilities against BBs, but to make her more competitive against enemy DDs. (I do believe my suggestion of buffing her torp reload by 10 seconds is the only one of that kind.) Her effectiveness against BBs was never up for debate.

So you're adaptable AND had it easy because the enemy played AS. Good for you. Doesn't represent the majority of the playerbase however. Bet you're gonna tell me again that you want to nerf CVs to cater to scrubs, no?

Most potatoes seem to think it's too difficult. Besides, I doubt you can judge considering you have no experience whatsoever. Whoops, yeah, sorry about that. Again, WHY will CV stats be jumping? It's not because there are no counters to them, as clearly proven by the ability of a single AA cruiser or, alternatively, a small group of ships banding together to shut down a strike easily. It's because their counters simply aren't used by the majority of the playerbase. That's not a problem with CVs, however.