Culiacan_Mexico

Spotting damage is down... it varies... but as to why? RTS CV had more air groups to utilize, plus their air speed was slower, so I don't think lower spotting damage or overall spotting would be a surprise from this version of CVs. However, not all spotting is created equal, so it is possible that the current version of CV is more effective overall at spotting.

I don't know who did that, but I did post data showing CV "spot damage" was lower, but "base defense" was considerably higher. Actual "spotting numbers" I don't believe are available outside of WG.

Sure the Tier 4s are in a interesting place, but is average damage that much of an issue? Isn't the other capabilities of the new aircraft that are in question?

IMO. My experience with mid-tier destroyers, in-particular Japanese, if you average player has some kind of idea where a DD is, even if in concealment, hitting them with torpedoes is low probability, because they know they need to take some kind of defensive action. If the DD is not just in concealment, but also in stealth, your average player is just incapable of taking effective preemptive action; and they actually wait until the game tells them torpedoes are inbound, which can knock off 3-4 seconds of their reaction time.

IMO. Maintaining stealth is a huge factor in how successful someone can be in many mid tier DDs, a group of fighters flying over the top of you is a pretty big tell to the opposing team.

DDs with fighter consumables.

So the average player is being asked whether they prefer being disemboweled or flayed? Perhaps they would prefer a third option.

World of AA guns.

I believe WG is correct when it says spotting is lower now than RTS. Spot damage Player Average for Shipclasses [ at 2019/05/11 ] CV Higher Tier 53237 CV Lower Tier 21786 Player Average for Shipclasses [ at 2018/02/10 ] CV Higher Tier 57156 CV Lower Tier 25062 I just don't believe that WG grasps that the increased speed of the reworked aircraft allows players to use their aircraft more effectively for map control. Base defense Player Average for Shipclasses [ at 2019/05/11 ] CV Higher Tier 12.31 CV Lower Tier 11.9 Player Average for Shipclasses [ at 2018/09/15 ] CV Higher Tier 5.35 CV Lower Tier 4.07

While WG may confidently believe that spotting is a number on an excel spreadsheet, they are incorrect. Quality vs quantity. Thus their talk about a meta change.

I like the part with regards to spotting, because when 0.8.0 came out they were confused why players were concerned about spotting... they believe it was less of an issue under the new system.

I was surprised when RTS CVs were removed without an honest effort by WG to balance them, perhaps in +4 years this version of CV will meet the same fate. With regards to your suggestion -no spotting-, I am not sure WG would consider this, because for the +3 plus year WG has been attacking concealment, at least with regards to DDs, either intentionally or out of ignorance. I believe it is the former, as most of the player base simply can not deal with the concept, so they have nerfed its effects. I am in no way against having WG give your ideas a test or that it might have merit, just that WG seems to have counter ideas with regards to CV spotting. Just to note: many DDs have very poor AA, so air concealment would seem to be a way to give them "defensive capabilities" vs aircraft. It may or may not work.

It doesn't take much to see that the current iteration of CVs, for the most part, are not balanced. But what specifically needs to be changed on the Enterprise to bring it into balance... how would I know without having played it? Should the effectiveness of HE be changed and by how much... I lack the knowledge to truly understand the details.

I don't know if I fall in the CV hater crowd, but... To your statement... no. In the past, a tactic used by some RTS CV players when discussing this ship type, in anyway, was to that state unless you played CV extensively then your opinion was invalid. This of course was ridiculous, because someone who has never played CV can still see some of the effects of CVs on the overall game through observation. However when it come down to changing CV in specific ways, to alter their capabilities, lack of experience limits ones ability to understand the details. El2aZeR, Farazelleth, and others gave detailed suggestions on how RTS CVs could be altered to improve overall game play, and can undoubtedly do the same with the current CVs, but those with limited to no experience or skill really can only guess about changes but little else.

?

A traditional type of submarine doesn't really seem viable in this game, or at least not in randoms. Scenarios are a possibility though.

US Submarines were very successful in sinking Japanese combat ships. JAPANESE NAVAL AND MERCHANT VESSELS SUNK DURING WORLD WAR II By UNITED STATES FORCES Naval Vessels Merchant Vessels Total Vessels Sinking Agent No. Tonnage No. Tonnage No. Tonnage Submarines 201 540,192 1,113 4,779,902 1,314 5,320,094 Surface Craft 112 277,817 11 43,349 123 321,166 Army Aircraft 70 62,165 240 639,667 310 701,832 Navy-Marine Aircraft 172 724,638 447 1,608,959 619 2,333,597

I think there is a place in this game for some form of CVs, because they can offer a unique game play experience. Just to note: there were considerably more submarines built during the WoWs time frame than carriers, but that doesn't mean they could or should be implemented in game.

So, massively buff in-game CV performance?

Not impossible, but why should they remove CVs? Yet us speculate that WG comes to believed that CVs are in such a state that is detrimental to them, and that they are unable to find a balancing solution that works..why remove them, as that would come with a financial element. More likely they would just institute global nerfs, until only a few still play them. (See RTS CVs)

The are no DDs in this game. What is given that name in game doesn't really 'perform' like destroyers, but instead like some kind of DD/DE/SS hybrid.

That would be an acknowledgement by WG that the multi-year CV rework had failed. That would never happen.

"Snowflake is a derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are over-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions." That sounds like many of the players that go on rants in chat, then come to the forum to whine that the are being held accountable for violating WG policy.

Tier 4 CVs statistically, when compare with other Tier 4 ships, are middle of the pack in experience.