Syrchalis

T6 torpedo bombers? How can anyone even have any fun in this ship? T7 is where AA starts getting beyond ridiculous and this ship has planes... calling them paper planes would be a vast overstatement of their durability. I remember when I leveled through it a year back you wouldn't lose 4/8 torpedo bombers when trying to attack a lone ship with bad AA before even dropping torpedos, and of course losing the other 4 bombers on the way back. This ship would suck even with infinite reserves right now. I really don't know what WG is thinking. Well, back to playing Taiho, only CV in the game right now that is remotely fun. As long as you stay clear of 75% of ships and only go for DDs.

My issues isn't how the rework was done. My issue is the fact it happened now. Why? If there is a huge general CV rework coming, why try to fix the US CVs right now? They have been trash for ages (namely since early 2016 - that's nearly 2 full years!) and suddenly WG decides to give them a do-over while a general complete CV rework is scheduled for 2018? What does that mean? It means WG will either gradually throw patches on all their CV issues, crappy half-solutions like this US CV rework OR worse yet, it means the general CV rework is so far in the future that they saw it necessary to fix the close-to-useless US CVs so they might exist in this game as anything but troll-ships. One might consider the idea that WG just wants to do a quick and easy fix for the US CVs until the rework comes and it doesn't mean the rework is far in the future... my response to this is: Be real. WG has forsaken CVs for years. They barely fix bugs, they didn't improve the UI, they fucked up the gameplay and they overbuffed AA to the point of complete ridiculousness. Does anyone really think they suddenly do a small US CV rework to please the non-existent player-base for these ships for a few months until the big CV rework? Don't make me laugh. Now the rework itself: I hate it, most of it at least. I... I will just make a list. No more options, one loadout for all - yes kill all player choice before it even starts, also huge disadvantage if enemy CV knows exactly what you're playing before the battle starts. Low tier planes (essex fighter/tb, midway TB) - I understand the need to balance the rather strong 2/2/2 loadout, but this isn't the way. Low tier planes should not exist, period. In fact, the whole plane tier system is rubbish and should be abolished right away anyway. It causes CVs to be nearly untouchable if high-tier and absolutely garbage if low-tier. It would be much better if the planes durability would scale directly with the battle tier and not some arbitrary stat depending on the ship. Getting a bigger ship with more reserves, faster planes (not more durable planes) and new loadouts was always the fun part about advancing in the CV tree. Durability NEVER got better from tier to tier because AA got better too. In fact, T4/5 have by far the best durability in relative terms and T8/9/10 suffer insanely under the overbuffed AA. DB-focus - as long as DBs are this random and poorly designed I don't want to use them, they are unsatisfying to play with and very annoying to deal with as the bombed ship too. Torpedoes have great outplay potential on both sides but DBs are just "click and let RNG decide", just like the old fighter duels. "Unsmart" design - you know what never bothered a midway player? Losing planes. The insane reserves of this ship even made players kill their planes on purpose before the "losing squad penalty" was introduced. So giving them T8 TBs is actually a pretty bad way to balance it. Though, here is what I like: AP bombs - yay at least one choice to make... though it's probably going to be one of those "A is strictly better than B" pseudo-choices Focus on bombers instead of fighters - screw the idea of air superiority, bombers are what connects CVs to other ship classes. Fighter-heavy CV meta means CVs fight their own little battle while the rest of the game is pretty much unaffected. That's boring as hell. Might as well make a "World of Aircraft Carriers" without BBs/CAs/DDs if you focus on fighter setups. So uhm, good job on NOT doing that. It's not really like I trust WG when it comes to game design anyway, but if this is a taste of what is to come for the CV rework in 2020, then ugh... please no.

I think you didn't understand what I said. A bad choice isn't a choice with only bad options. A bad choice is a choice with only one good option, meaning that it isn't actually a choice but a mere calculation with a definite correct answer. A good choice is one with many valid options. I also extremely disagree with your sentiment that it would make it too complex. Captain perks are far more diverse and complex than 1-3 loadout options for CV. Not sure what game you're playing but if you consider that as "too complex" then the whole armor/penetration system of the other ships is about 100x more complex and shouldn't be in the game either. And no the fundamentals are terrible. WG designed themselves into a corner with the 6 / 4 plane squads. It makes it disgustingly hard to balance loadouts and that's why US loadouts have sucked so badly for ... well since the game existed. For example Langley and Bogue are horrible to balance because there is simply no options for their loadouts. 1/1/0 and 1/1/1 are the only options WG has BECAUSE of the 6-plane squads that US has. IJN is much easier to balance (that's why they have better CVs and have got a rather acceptable update long ago) - because 4 plane squads allows for a lot more fine-tuning. A loadout too strong? Replace 1 fighter with 1 DB, replace 1 TB with 1 fighter etc. If you try to do that on US CVs that will completely make or break them. Okay example time: Hiryu There is a ton of options for it's loadouts. What would be other options than in the game? You could do a 1/2/3 loadout, a 3/2/1 (if Hiryu needed a buff), 2/1/3 etc. Ranger What possible loadouts can you do with it? 2/1/1 was even too strong on Lexington... no idea why though. 1/2/1 - nope, double TB banned by WG. 1/1/2? Yeah that's coming with the rework, because it's the only really valid option here. What I'm saying is that the less squads you have and the bigger the squads the less options the developers have to design loadouts. Worse yet, you can't even make squads smaller, because Hakuryu already has 8 squads which is annoying as hell (and exhausting too) to control. There is just no way to make this system work - at least not from a designing/tuning perspective. What would need to happen would be that all plane types are relatively balanced and the players can choose their loadout. I mean, let's be real. Everyone would go with a fighter/tb heavy loadout right now - but that's just because DBs are so horrifyingly useless. Fighters would need to play a bigger role in spotting (aka spotting would need to be harder and rely more on CVs in general) and DBs would need to be MUCH more reliable and provide much more damage. Or TBs would need a massive nerf in effectiveness. Either way, you feel gimped because WG chooses your planes and on top of that they are making it hard for themselves to balance CVs with it. It's just a lose-lose mechanic.

While I applaud your will to be a teamplayer, you need to consider this: What wins games? If you suck as a CV player you are better of with fighters, because they are easy to use and you put the power into your teammates by keeping them alive longer. However, if you are good at CVs you are much better off increasing your own power by having a lot of bombers. That's the plain theory, but the math is also heavily in favor of strike setups. God I actually need to make this my signature because I'm getting really tired of explaining why air superiority LOSES games: Extreme case: Pure fighters vs. pure bombers. If you do your job perfectly the enemy CV does 0 damage, you do 0 too. In this case you will probably spot more, improving your chance of winning SLIGHTLY over the enemy team. However, if the enemy CV just gets one strike off during the entirety of the game, he will have considerable damage contribution and due to the bursty-ness of CV attacks probably taken out a target, while all you provide is spotting. I can't count the games I won by killing 1-2 DDs while the enemy CV prevented most of my other attacks afterwards and then merely spotted my DDs. Yeah... my DDs died... eventually, but his DDs were long dead by that point. I'm not saying your mentality is wrong, I'm just saying it's a bad idea to play air superiority if you want to win. The only exceptions are clan battles with all unicums because you will never deal enough damage with strike against AS to justify the spotting you lose (since unicums use spotting 10x better than random players and they are also 10x better at avoiding damage from a CV).

Okay here is the deal with Air Superiority and the AA debate: Air Superiority The gameplay sucks. If AS is the way to go (aka optimal playstyle) it means CVs just shoot each others fighters down. They have no interaction with the rest of the players. They might as well get their own game, as I said above. Secondly, it's not fun. It's an underdeveloped boring part of the game. Shooting ships, choosing HE or AP, considering their armor, their ship class, their angle, where to aim... that's very good gameplay, because you have many valid choices and there is a lot of ways to deal with a lot of situations. Fighter engagements are either RNG rightclicking or strafe until someone screws up (or more realistically gets screwed by the laggy shitty interface). What gameplay is that please? Bombers, especially torpedo bombers on the other hand are much better. You need to consider angle, turning circle, rudder shift, speed and predict these things for the ship, while the ship has to outsmart you. But that's just the drop. Before that you have to select targets smartly. Where are the enemy fighters (and this is the only valid reason there even is fighters), where are the cruisers, do the cruisers have good AA/consumable? Is the target within AA range of other ships? AA debate Basically WG said "yo, we want it so that AA actually shoots down planes before they drop torpedoes/bombs" - and that's it. There is actually no other reason AA is this strong right now other than that. People feel like AA is useless because it doesn't "reduce the amount of damage they take" if it's weaker. But this is false. CVs will just be balanced for the fact that they lose X planes when attacking. Whether I hit with all 14 dive bombers for 30.000 damage or if 7 get shot down but the other 7 also deal 30.000 damage because they got buffed to compensate for the AA doesn't matter. Only when AA starts getting destroyed this is relevant. And this sucks as a mechanic. Mainly because of the +100% durability module (alternatives are pretty meh) and the fact that you definitely do not want to target a damaged ship because of wasting your strike power. Worse yet, making damaged ships especially juicy targets just frustrates the players further. Because who will hate CVs more? The 50% BB who is in the heat of battle and just gets "godfingered" out of the game or the 100% sniping BB who drops to 30% and can repair? Still worse - who SHOULD get targeted? The brawler or the sniper? Yeah guess what, the game promotes killing the brawler. (Part of the issue is also that CAs are so squishy so they have to hide with the snipers and inadvertently keep them safe).

I would really appreciate it if people on these forums would stop assuming things like that. If I ask for "no low tier planes" I'm not saying "give me high tier planes and don't nerf anything so it becomes OP" - im saying "no low tier planes, find another way to balance it, one that makes sense and actually improves gameplay". The deal with low tier planes is that they are just more extreme. Against an undamaged AA ship they cannot do anything at all and against a burned out ship with already bad AA they will absolutely obliterate it. Essentially what you fear will be reality if this goes live like that. Imagine you're in a 70.000/97.000 HP BB with serious damage to AA guns (~70% of mid tier is knocked out) and you find yourself at the edge of a group of ships for just a minute while you're turning and suddenly you get 14 AP bombers and 12 torpedo bombers your way. You're done. At the same time the same planes will still evaporate the second a Des Moines so much as glances at them. And this extreme difference is what makes CVs this broken mess - either played by an average player who gets punished insanely hard for his mistakes. Or played by a really good CV player who simply doesn't do a big mistake and simply obliterates everything. The loadout thing is still this: No Choice < Bad Choice < Good Choice. The balance thing is true, but if WG seriously can't balance several loadouts for merely 2 CVs per tier... then why do they even bother? It proves their ability to design and implement CVs is not sufficient. The Essex vs, Taiho thing is also more of a pathetic attempt of WG to just copy the ship. A 2/3/2 Taiho has extreme torpedo bomber potential, while the Essex will have high dive bomber potential. But since it's AP bombs it's essentially the same thing. 2x5 T9 fighters vs. 2x7 T8 fighters should balance out more or less. So they just made the ships really really similar. That is really boring. There is a million ways to make CVs more interesting, more fun and maintain balance - not just that, but also provide a system that is easier to balance. Part of the issue with CVs right now is that balancing them is really hard - and that's because of the very inflexible way they are implemented. You have US with a fix 6 planes per squad, IJN with 4. You have pre-set loadouts. You have just 3 plane types. The plane types are very imbalanced to each other. It's a huge mess and that's why they struggle to balance it.

It's been some time since the changes to the ship that elevated it from T9 Trash to T9 Solid. I just got the ship myself (if you stalk my profile you will see I skipped Pensa/New Orleans because I ain't dealing with that crap) - and I'm surprised by the Baltimore. What surprised me on the negative side is how your armor is completely garbage against BBs and you eat citadels through the front and back like angling isn't a thing. I also thought the USN cruisers were a bit faster. The AA isn't also quite what I expected, mostly because I haven't specced for it and I need hydro so much that I usually don't have defensive AA. However, on the positive side - this thing carries games, holy hell. You completely deny a cap with radar, your HE shells work well against DDs, despite the shell arc and your AP is disgusting. Semi-angled cruiser? Might as well be broadside. Broadside battleship? Enjoy 7-10k every 8sec. I play it with reload module, because I rarely hear myself saying "damn, if I had 2km more range right now..." - the ship is only effective close range anyway and burning BBs long range is something you could do if you weren't that vulnerable and slow. The rudder of the Baltimore is great and dodging stuff is definitely easier than in other T9 cruisers. My gameplay usually consists of denying cap and being super careful early on, because you die very easily in the first five minutes. Your value skyrockets the longer the game goes, because of hydro and radar you're the worst nightmare to DDs (without hydro you're still terrifying, but vulnerable). DD's value also goes up significantly if the game drags on, and since you can expose and get them killed early and hunt them down later, you WILL hard-carry games, just not by damage dealt. I had okay games in the Baltimore, but no 200k+ games. Even my Kutuzov has 220k games. You still top the XP board because you will often have a lot of damage dealt to DDs and cruisers, which counts more than on BBs. Your damage is also not easily healable (DDs mostly don't have heal and cruisers you fight with AP), so 100k on your Baltimore could easily count much more than 200k on a Zao. Overall a fine T9 cruiser, but hard to play. Definitely better in carrying than some of the more damage-farming cruisers. P.S.: I know there is another Balti topic, but the first few pages are a year old, before it got reload buffs and are very misleading for a lot of people... mainly those who don't check the date and read topics from page 1.

My experience with the Conqueror is more in line with Flamu, but not as ridiculous either. But I do get some nasty 10k salvos with multiple fires regularly and that's pretty much why it's OP. 2nd game I did 230k dmg, high caliber, arsonist, witherer and more. It's really easy to use and barely takes damage.

I liked the Lion a lot when it was released. Now it feels really mediocre. Yes it's still a good BB, but the HE spread is so horrific, you barely hit anything at 15km aside from the biggest BBs. Shooting a DD at 13km? Forget it. That really kills it for me. What use is 48% fire chance, better pen/alpha damage on HE if you can land 1-2 shells at best on longer ranges? I don't want it to hit full salvos, but if I aim correctly I don't want to see zero hits because dispersion half of the time, even on ships like Bismarck... Now add the horrible turret arc of the back turret and you got yourself a mediocre ship. Meanwhile the Conqueror has better arcs, great accuracy on HE and a gun more... seems balanced?

Why so insanely short-sighted? If you buff HP of cruisers you can take away from their negative strengths in turn. The whole idea behind it is that cruisers don't have to fear getting absolutely wrecked by BBs from all ranges, angles and everywhere. I think you haven't understood WHY good players do well in cruisers. It's because they can make something weak work. They abuse the mechanics of the game to the max and they also abuse bad players. If you put a really good cruiser and a really good BB against each other the BB will still obliterate the cruiser with no chance for the cruiser. In a DD/CA or DD/BB scenario the power difference is a lot closer. In other words - if looking at the best players fighting the best players, cruisers are too fragile. If looking at the best players pwning n00bs they can do that with cruisers too...

Oh, players already forgot how to play against CVs and that it's their own fault if they eat a full strike... that's the price you pay for having all CVs be total crap and driving away the good players with useless UI and crappy gameplay. If I never met a good DD I wouldn't know how to deal with them and then complain about it being OP too.

Just WG doesn't realize that making a good game, with healthy design will bring in more players, keep more players and end up with more revenue in the long run.

MM ignores skill, skill matters a lot, even in an RNG-heavy game like WoWs. Thus a lot of games will be very unbalanced skill-wise. 2 Solutions, which both suck: 1. Skill-based matchmaking = much longer wait times 2. More RNG so skill matters less... I think it's clear why that sucks...

You post two arguments from me that have nothing to do with each other and don't contradict each other. The first is about balance the second about healthy gameplay. Something can be balanced but unhealthy. Or unbalanced but healthy. The reason good players do well in cruisers is because they hide like chickens behind islands - you can't do anything else really. It's unhealthy gameplay. Why make a game in a way that 10 people per match have to hide for 10 minutes? If cruisers were tankier and more maneuverable they could play a game of "dodge and predict" with BBs, which would promote skill and be MUCH healthier and more fun than just not taking part in the game for 10 minutes. Balancing cruisers after a serious buff to "BB resistance" is something you can do afterwards, when the gameplay has become more fun and healthier. I have to say it really pisses me off how people in this forum care not at all about the argument or goal of a discussion but rather at fighting each other personally or proving each other wrong, no matter what it costs.

Rofl at this statement. Any game made Edited does EXACTLY that. You always balance for the best players, because it will inherently be balanced for any other skill level too then (not perfectly, but well enough). However, if you balance for your average joe, then the game is likely to be completely broken for the best players. The reasoning behind this is very simple. If you balance for the best players nothing is broken if played perfectly. But some things can be really weak when played at average joe level - because they require more skill to be effective (e.g. CVs). If you balance for the average joe then some things (namely those that are better when played perfectly) will be utterly broken when the best players play them... again CVs as example. That's why you never balance for casual players first. You can adjust your game that is already balanced for the top players, so that it's more balanced for average joes too, but best players need to come first if you don't want broken balance. This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.

HE spamming BB that is clearly OP - oh finally BB-Mains will stop demanding CV nerfs? Wishful thinking on my part.

I wonder I wonder, why is the balance triangle so skewed? To wreck a BB in a DD, there has to be a lot of variables right for it to happen. Either I need to ambush it and immediately disappear behind an island so his AP and secondaries can't obliterate me (and pray his 50% torpedo protection isn't enough) - or the BB needs to not know I'm in the general direction and drive broadside to me while not slowing down or turning. Also DCP needs to be on cooldown and not active anymore. I also need to get relatively close, exposing myself to my counter (CAs). Man, that's a lot of if's. To wreck a DD in a CA I need to get up close so I can properly hit it (<15km in every CA, in many even closer), exposing myself to my counter (BBs). Either I have hydro (and give up def AA for it) and I need to take a great risk, or I have radar and can efficiently strip the DD of it's defense. I have to make the few salvos I can shoot count, because many won't focus the DD - this requires good aim and judging the speed of the DD well (EXTREME variance in shell velocity from DM to Moska etc. also makes this pretty hard when switching ships) - in short, skill is needed. To wreck a CA in a BB it just needs to be "not behind an island". Angle, distance, dodging are all largely irrelevant. Good thing games usually have 2 BBs, 5 CAs and 5 DDs per side, so the skewed triangle is at least somewhat offset by the popularity of ships. Oh wait... In short: DD tries to counter BB? Gets radared and killed by CA. CA is in position to radar and shoot DD? Gets obliterated by a single BB salvo. BBs? All save and sound at 15-20km, enjoying only having to face their own class.

So you're saying I'm on point, but due to my exact word choice you disagree? I see balancing as a delicate thing and just because WG does not, doesn't mean I have to adjust to them. A massive nerf in a different game (Starcraft/LoL) is 10-20%. For WG that is a slight adjustment. BB AP should easily deal 20-30% less damage to cruisers and they would still rock at killing them (as their purpose is) but without forcing cruisers to hide behind islands for the first 10 minutes. And against DDs... how about 50% less damage? I mean, if I shoot a BB as cruiser I don't expect it to blow up in 2 salvos either... so why can BBs demand to blow up DDs in 1-2 salvos?

What the actual [edited]? Atago and Kutuzov are only OP compared to the trashy unusable crapboats that the other T8 cruisers are. They are not at all OP compared to the other T8 ships. Also balancing for a 5 BB environment is exactly what we need. What you're suggesting is "leave BBs completely OP, borderline game-breaking, but somehow magically make players not play them so there is only 2-3 OP ships per side per battle".

That is an unrelated issue. I completely agree that the best T8 cruisers shouldn't be premium - rather the silver ships should be brought up to their level. But Atago/Kutuzov balance compared to the T8 BBs is pretty decent, and that was my point here. The pay2win aspect of the two cruisers sucks but it doesn't matter if you look at the balance alone. I personally wouldn't mind cruisers and battleships having the exact same HP values. BBs still have massive armor after all... and more repairs, better repairs (since they take much less unrepairable damage than cruisers) and at lower tiers. Another way to balance BBs would be to make their repair unavailable until they have taken no damage for 30sec at least - so their tankiness is locked behind playing and planning well. If you have to fully disengage to repair then BBs will get harder and less tanky as a result, two things that are quite desirable at the moment. (Though I'm not really saying this is the ultimate solution... just saying this would be an idea in the right direction of things). Where do you get T10 cruisers performing far better from? If you include all the useless PoS T8 cruisers sure... but if you look solely at Atago and Kutuzov, which are the poster childs of T8 cruisers, they perform as well as their T10 counterparts. I was mostly refering to playstyle here with why T8 is a good example. In T10 I have to hug islands and essentially play maximum p*ssy to even see the second half of battle in a CA (which most people know in T10, thus the higher survivability) - in T8 you can do a lot even without hugging islands and many people there don't know how to play that well, so there is a lot more potatoes getting one-shot. My whole point here is - cruiser fun and playstyle suffers insanely under BBs. BBs are FAR too deadly for cruisers (while cruisers are not as deadly for DD and DD are not as deadly for BB). And WG refuses to balance for 5 BBs per side every single game - so this state is going on since years. What they need to do is nerf BB deadliness against cruisers MASSIVELY and then they can also allow more than 1 BB in clan wars... .

Let me dissect your response (not in a negative way, just going through it). First part: RNG is as mechanic in games there for two reasons: Reducing the predictability (e.g. tic tac toe is very calculable even for humans, because there is just 765 states, so the game becomes completely calculable from the start and thus boring, that's why no-one but young children play it) Reducing the skill-dependency (if a game is all skill then better players will crush bad players, since WoWs doesn't take into account skill when creating matches there CANNOT be too much importance on skill) So yeah, RNG will always "counter player skills and skill requirements" because that's why the mechanic is used in the first place. What's important is the degree of RNG and how exactly it affects the other game mechanics. The problem is that RNG favors BBs in most situations. RNG decides over BB damage (not so important) and cruiser survival (important) - a bad salvo won't frustrate a BB player, but getting hit by a lucky salvo is quite terrible for cruisers. Same with detonations. It's barely fun for the one causing it, but the one receiving it ... yeah he probably ALT+F4's out of the game instantly. To rephrase, just so everyone gets it: BB shoots, shells hit water because unlucky salvo - frustration small, relevance for game small, you move on and can play normally. Cruiser gets hit by lucky salvo - your game is ruined, either you're dead or need to retreat and run for your life (not shoot anymore, hide behind islands... the usual boringness of cruisers), impact on game large, frustration massive. Meanwhile DDs are completely non-random when it comes to countering BBs. They lay torps and that's it. If BB is smart it simply dodges. There isn't any "lucky" torpedoes that suddenly go homing in on your ship and knock out your engine. Another weapon of some DDs and most cruisers is HE - fires can be extinguished very often and their damage is 100% repairable... meanwhile citadels cannot be "prevented" as in pressing a button and 99% of the damage it WOULD HAVE caused is gone - and also can't be healed. By now it's 33% at least, but just a reminder.... that was 10% during the first year of release. Second part: Survivability of BBs is way way way too high. You feel it so much due to the amount of BBs in random battles, but the amount itself is NOT the issue. Would limiting BBs to 2 in random battles fix balance? It would improve a lot. Would it fix the underlying problem? No. That's the whole reason the "1 BB in clan wars 7vs7" thing raised so many red flags. BBs simply have too much HP in general. It's fine IMO that they can retreat and repair, because that rewards good planning and skill. But why does a BB need to have more than twice the health of a cruiser? Especially with citadel hits so massively reduced on them, while BBs can citadel cruisers at all times? Why is T8 balance so good compared to other tiers? Because cruisers have 40k and BBs have ~65k HP. Kutuzov and Atago (best cruisers at T8) have 40k health and the BBs have around 66-69k. That's not MASSIVELY better, but it's much closer. T10 BBs have 100k and cruisers 40k health. The only cruiser that is actually tanky enough for T10 is Moskva with 65k and 50mm mid-section armor. Sure, Hindenburg with it's relatively solid citadel protection makes for a decent cruiser too, but it's an exception in that regard. Most cruisers are very very vulnerable to citadels and for that to be balanced they should have around 70-80% of the HP of BBs and heal.

Eh sorry, but if there is a huge event in which I can earn 5000 doubloons and other standard stuff I don't care. But if you miss things that give you a clear cut advantage that are otherwise not available (not even for money, though that wouldn't be that great either) then uh... yeah I feel a bit cheated. That wasn't the point though. It just adds to my frustration as a customer. I want the game to develop and get better, but I get constantly disappointed. And to TOP IT OFF I get slapped in the face with events that give real advantages in-game that you cannot do anymore and have no way of getting the rewards. I mean, league or WoW do this exclusive content too, but in their case it's pretty much 100% cosmetic and often you can get things later through inferior means. Like - icons, in LoL you can get a lot of icons for ingame currency when they are released - but nearly all are available later for 250 RP (2€ or so). In WoW certain achievements are only available during the time the content is current - and that's fine, because they lose all meaning otherwise. But the achievements don't get you anything, they aren't even increasing your achievement score (whoever cares about that) - but they serve a purpose, kind of as a badge "took part in the content and defeated the end boss".

Of course per year. I'm just really mad I leave this game for 6 month and come back to finding that I missed some event where you got some free OP stuff (like special captains or modules) that are otherwise unavailable or exceptionally hard to get - but they didn't actually improve the game and did nothing at all to my main class. It pisses me of sooooo much - because this isn't just a one-time-event. I always leave for months before I give the game another shot (gotta give the devs some time...) and then get horribly disappointed.

Yes, but WG owes it to everyone who had to suffer through the last two years to prioritize them over anyone else. Imagine all DDs would get their torpedo damage cut in half and then left like that for two years. Isn't it a bit unfair to then ALSO exclude them from clan wars instead of fixing them first? No? And the BB limit thing... yeah. Let's keep BBs so OP that you can have only one in clan wars, but randoms with 5 per side - who cares, right? Not the 5 cruisers and 2 DDs... right? Why not make BBs more fair and counterable for CAs and DDs, thus allowing more in CWs and at the same time SIGNIFICANTLY improving random battles? Nah that would be smart, can't do it. I don't think we are really disagreeing here, we just see it a little different with the same ideas in mind.

What are we discussing? How it came to this mess. WG does not care for high-end balance. They don't even really care for random battle balance (which is fine to a degree). And part of that is them giving a rat's butt about CVs. The sole reason they didn't fix CVs in 2016 as promised, and still didn't in 2017, and probably still won't in 2018 is because the player base for CVs is too small for them to care. They have really low player numbers in WoWs, like what 100k? And maybe 5% of that play CVs. Sure it would be 20%... maybe 40% if CVs were fun, but they don't see that. They see 5% playrate, aka 5k players, they do the math 5k players*5€ average revenue per user = 25k - and that's the maximum budget for CV rework. That's maybe the salary of one guy. And because CVs are in their extreme state of "trash when bad player, godlike when good player" they can't be part of clan wars. Nothing wrong with that - it's just that they should fix CVs before releasing clan wars.