Ishiro32

Oh so those 15k people you are saying stopped playing were all on tier IX and X? Then my bad, because we were talking about those tiers. Tiers V to VIII IJN strike which generated most grief for players will be nerfed as stated by devs.

It sounds like basis of your complaining is the fact that CV force teamwork. Yes, ships do need to move together. Yes, you can't really dodge torps at that tier. That's what the game devs wanted to achieve at high tier. How much torps you can take in your Iowa though? How much time it will take for a tier IX CV to "remove" lone Iowa when it is focusing only it? Do you think CV can attack formation of 4 ships of the same tier and get any kind of meaningful results or anything at all? If you want to nerf CVs so alone can deal with them, they would have to nerf power of formation which right now is pretty much immune to air attack, but with nerf that would let lone ships brush off good CV players, CVs would have just no place in game other than scouting (thrilling concept). Also I don't think AAA is as weak as you say it is. Tier X Carriers do end up without planes and we don't have games filled with tier X and IX ships, so imagine what will be happening when we will have bigger high tier playerbase.

Artyleria pomocnicza jest w pelni symulowana.

I am confused good sir. Did you by any chance thought I directed my post to you? If so I apologize for this egregious misunderstanding. Galadul is playing on Iowa and I do want to know how he has so much problems with high tier CVs as that ship has probably most brutal AAA in game. Tier IX and X games are usually filled with Atago's which have crap AAA and players who use that ship usually are not really great. Check also stats of top CV players, the difference from tier VI and X is not really that huge and difference in the ship health and anti-torpedo buldges is considerable. I just don't understand how especially high tier is the problem. I do know how game looks when MM is filled with ships like montanas or des moines.

You have problems with aircraft carriers in Iowa? I understand that rest of your team in that situation is "Team Atago" and you are complaining about MM, because I don't see how tier IX or X are OP if the teams are balanced.

Cute No it's the spread that starts wide but the longer it is in the water the tighter it is getting.

Fun is most important stat for a good player as for the rest, they are useful and you can get some information from them but they are not as important as some would like to believe. If you want to set yourself a goal so you have motivation to improve, I advice you to check stats of forum users and find the best ones for each class as each class.

The numbers were there just to represent the concept. From the gameplay perspective point where planes are locked into attack is most important and time frame from it and to the point when torp hit is the time enemy ship has time to evade. This time is not so small as some would like to belive. Ships may increase that time by taking evading manuvers before planes are locked into attack as they can deny correct approach angle. A lot of the people are tunnel visioned and react to the torps either when after activate or when they are hit. Increasing activation time for people who react only when they receive voice torp indicator is simply pointless. Anyway for IJN there is planned reverse drop which will change the situation as most devastating will be long drop.

Maybe from another angle. Why longer lock time/activation time is not great idea. Let’s say that almost 90 degree turn which would nullify damage of the carrier takes 10 seconds.Let’s say that auto drop from start to torp hit takes 9 seconds. Let’s say manual has to do be dropped from the same distance as auto or slightly less 8 seconds.Let’s say that activation of torps is taking 4 seconds. Now let’s take player A and B. One is looking at the sky constantly and is starting his rudder shift before drop is locked down. Player B on the other hand is starting his turn when the torps activate (new players only know about torps when the green indicators show up and the sounds indicitor sounds). Player A because he started turn before auto drop (first second of turn has no change in course at it is mostly changing rudder). Is able to fully turn and dodge all torps from auto. If used manual drop he will either dodge everything or take minimal damage.Player B started his turn really late, he has about 5 seconds to turn so he will still dodge something from auto but will for sure get hit. From manual there is “no chance” to dodge and for him there was “nothing” that could be done to prevent it as he saw the torps just before they hit him.You can’t nerf drop without making decent players immune to it. And there is some skill in doing manual drops, so it should be rewarded.Auto performing the same as manual was in one patch and it was horrible patch where I done this: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/15954-adventures-of-2-apm-hosho/page__fromsearch__1

During the increased lock circle patch the auto was buffed so it was droping torps closer to broadside. Otherwise you would never be able to hit any half competent player with a torp on low tier. Horrible patch that created true clicker class. If you could dodge every torpedo then carrier class would be worthless and with correct manuvers you can minimize damage. Also while alone targets are prone to air attacks, formations of the same tier ships are pretty much immune. At low tier planes are slow, ships are small and turn faster. Reserves are low and there is little AAA. You are supposed to dodge in CA and DD while BB should take probably 1 out of 4 torps with correct movement. At high tier planes are fast, ships are big and slow. Reserves are big but there is a lot of AAA. You are supposed to move in a team and cover each other, you are not supposed to dodge torps at this point in any ship other than DD. You have CA AA barrage skill which makes drop wider and then you can dodge it. BBs at that tier will always take a hit, but have anti-torpedo buldges and HP to tank it. There is no big problem with close drop other than readability. Increase in activation time will mean nothing because people are complaining about torps which are activating near the broadside, making them swim longer does not change it, we will just drop it slightly further. If you don't make correct manuvers before planes drop then you will get hit anyway.

I do not like talking about my stats. I do prefer to be known for my opinions, not results, but I do think that 5-8 IJN are overperforming. In CBT for a short time we had an increased locked circle for planes. It was pretty much forcing planes to commit to attack earlier so target had much more time to perform evading maneuver. Result was that manual drop became impossible to perform at low tier (that change broke low tier CVs as they were only using auto) and high tier were pretty much unaffected. It was a failed experiment and it really didn’t change the performance of CVs much. I even had rather large wall of text regarding “clicker class” CV at that time where I went into more details. Issue with “close drop” is that it lacks feedback and readability what exactly happened and when. You can increase activation time and whatever, it will not change that people should look at the sky and do maneuvers based on the plane movement not the movement of torps in water. You don’t balance game because new players don’t know ways to counterplay something, you need to think about teaching them and making everything more clear.I might accept some changes to activation time or changes to attack circles etc. but not because someone was killed and is thinking he couldn’t do anything. It is simply not true. What I would propose? The same thing I proposed one month ago and the same thing people were asking since 0.3.1. Force balanced setups which we have on tier IV, IX and X. This will lower the damage and at the same time will make CV vs CV gameplay a bit more interesting. We will have it in 0.4.1 with fighter rebalance which should hopefully make IJN fighters a bit more useful. I would also lower chance for flooding on tier IV and V. 8k torps are really strong anyway and fact that you can kill tier IV BB with 2 TB wings is a bit too much. If BB will get only one flooding in two attacks he will get a lot of damage but he will survive. It shouldn’t impact performance of new players as they really don’t stagger their attacks to abuse the damage over time debuffs. After that? Well we need at least a month so the community will adjust their gameplay style to the changes, after it we need to reexamine new set of global numbers again. Also we need to see what impact will have reverse drop when/if introduced. I would also add air boarder to get rid off the advantage map edge gliding is giving in CV vs CV matchups. After it? I would focus on AAA, crusier AA skill and Fighters so main anti-air elements in game. All are ridiculously simplistic, automatic and there is no real skill in using them and there is no real counterplay available against them. Skilled defender and escort should be rewarded by increase in performance, but at the same time it should leave some holes so skilled CV player can also perform even better. Please read my thoughts about fighters (they are rough and probably right now I have a bit different opinion in how they should be changed, but it is still showing where I want carrier gameplay to expand), I do belive a lot of the CV problems are coming from the oversimplified and boring countermesurments.

So bias means that someone has different opinion that you? Also I doubt anyone from ST would use such a primitive wording. Since you are using quotation marks, please give me the direct link to the post as I would like to see it. If you are paraphrasing then still please forward me to the post you are making fun off. I think you did not fully understand it, If this is all you got from it.

Fine, I will bite. Biased towards what? Do you measure bias with a winratio?

You think about it wrong way. For example you will find me on forum trying to talk people out of some ideas for nerfs, direct or indirect, like increasing low tier AAA. I do feel the need to argue with some propositions as they are coming from players who most often did not play this class, only against it. Their view on the matter is very narrow and their propositions often would end up either not solving anything or making class unplayable. I do hope I am able to convince some people with my arguments. I do like this class and I do want it to be fun to play as and to play against. I will oppose changes I do not agree with and really you must understand that we as experienced carrier players do have more insight what would work and what not. This opposition you are thinking about is there just because a lot of changes proposed by some players in the community are simply... bad. You may nerf a class and have players of that class thank you for it. You can buff a class and have players of that class curse you for it.

You are cute. Impact of reverse spread so far is a mystery. I expect it to increase damage done to the bad players, which will mean that at top tier damage will go down. WG is balancing based on stats so damage/torpedo speed in water buffs are highly possible. It is a speculation for the moment and most likely will change with time and with more information we will get. Now let me anwser to my favourite part of your post. So much spite. Just before OBT started I have created this topic: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/17729-patch-0401-carrier-gameplay-issues/page__pid__322623#entry322623 You will see here that forced balanced setups is something that was actually requested by the carrier players themselves and actually CV players wanted those configurations mandatory since introduction of 0.3.1 and IJN CV line in the CBT. Those will be nerfs, IJN CV line should be more equal to USN after it, it was needed and I doubt you will find experienced CV player that does not agree with this change. My sealclubber toys will still be in tact though, as biggest counter to the CV is teamplay and god knows you can't find it on low tier games unless you take the lead yourself.

Reverse spread which is planned for IJN will throw balance out of the window anyway, so this bet doesn't make sense. In the current form, high tier CVs are not OP. In games populated by Montanas, Yammies, Shimakazes and Des Moines, CVs should be in a right place more or less. Just because team Atago can't handle tier X doesn't mean they are OP.

Then explain why most players that plays Chess have better stats in Chess (Average Win rate) than in other games like for example bowling?

It should come with fighter rebalance which was also rumored for 0.4.1 with the nerfed IJN strike configuraitons.Until we get official news and official data it is very hard to talk about it. If both changes end up true it will be very intresting patch for CVs and will change power structure quite a bit.

planned for 0.4.1

This is current ultimate moneymaker for me. Tier VI IJN CV has low sortie costs, earns as much as tier VIII premium, has low risk of bad performance, MM finds games for her instantly and is overall fun ship with fast rudder shift and great stealth.

specialkha, on 30 July 2015 - 08:53 AM, said: Once WG will have enough data regarding T9-T10, They will be nerf as well. They will not be nerf. Don't be shock when they will be very slightly buff or AAA on high tier ships very slightly nerf.

@Dominico This is just cold calculation. Crusiers not supporting carriers is not optimal play for the team, as carriers do try to hunt each other and carriers are strongest damage dealers in game. Carriers picking fighter setup is not optimal play for the team, as the benefits of the strike are safer and bigger than any other setup offers. I do want to win most of the games. Balanced setup in random is just bad choice. You can be sure that in organized play we will be picking up fighters much more often, as we will know with whom we are playing and we will have a guarantee to face another enemy carrier. I am not picking strike setup because I want to have most kills and damage in team, I am picking it because I can do most to help my team win that way.

So is this topic asking IJN CVs why they don't take fighters? Fast, mean but true anwser. Why would you defend someone who you don't know and you don't know abilities off when you can simply have more attack and do most of the stuff yourself? Taking fighters is a gamble which you usually lose. Also balanced setups are actually hardest to perform really well as you need to really see everything on the map, each move of enemy plane and you need to focus on manual attacks to the same extend as you need to defend your team. So not only you gamble with results, but you also have harder gameplay. Additionally because of the high tier AAA you need every plane during attack it to go through it so having more planes means simply that you lose less during bombing run and your attacks are more deadly. Don't expect IJN carriers to defend people at randoms, they will help your team much better in DPS race. Also 0.4.1 might change some things, will see. Spread nerf I would assume in the end was buff as average damage went up.

Draws are counted as loss.

Damage control party skill for IJN has % chance that they will actually cause additional explosion or fire instead of repairing something.