Culiacan_Mexico

WG plans to nerf Giulio Cesare were 'bad', because they were told before they sold it that it was OP or near OP, but they sold it anyway. Once they had the cash then they wanted to nerf it... that is rather poor ethics. I don't own the ship, but if WG was serious they would have refunded the cash, then re-balanced it. I believe WGs ethics are showing up again in premium CVs, grab the cash and then in the future we will globally nerf all CVs. I don't believe global nerfs to CVs is the correct path, because the stats available do not show Tier 4 CVs performing like Teir 10s or tier 8s. Some silver CVs are going to suffer disproportionately with global nerfs.

So it is Farazelleth's fault? He was fairly focal in his belief that RTS CV game play needed improvement, as were many other highly skilled and successful RTS CV players. Personally, I don't see an issue with pointing perceived issues; and as for blame when implementation of change is poor... that falls solely on those doing the implementation (WG).

You can always break out the data separately. I believe I did that previously, perhaps one or two months ago. I think it is very informative and show significant differences in how each ship performs.

I made a similar argument year ago, never the less, this is how WG balances.

...and what do you conclude from this?

Not actually relevant with regards to how WG balances ships. The have said they do not balance ships based on players, but on games. They examine the top, middle, and bottom 5 percent of games and use that for balancing.

I would not put much faith in overall CV win rates, because they are not able to see hidden accounts. CV win rates (High Tier and Low Tier should equal 50 percent.

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190427/eu_week/average_class.html

CVs as a group are still over performing. Player Average for Shipclasses [ at 2019/04/27 ] exp damage Kills Base Def BB Higher Tier 1564 64473 0.71 4.48 CA Higher Tier 1562 54322 0.66 7.04 CV Higher Tier 1888 71726 0.95 12.66 DD Higher Tier 1488 37057 0.65 5.71 BB Lower Tier 950 33760 0.74 5.87 CA Lower Tier 846 20537 0.71 7.04 CV Lower Tier 1039 34356 0.72 12.46 DD Lower Tier 826 18833 0.73 3.93

Andorra fielded a number of helocarriers during the WW2 that were base below Lake Engolasters for security purposes. I also can't wait to see them in game.

Russian CVs.

Yes, midtiers make them less money than hightiers.

Player Average for Ships [ at 2019/04/27 ] survived US CV 4 Langley 54.38 US CV 6 Ranger 62.49 US CV 8 Enterprise 76.67 US CV 8 Lexington 73.38 US CV 8 Saipan 77.93 US CV 10 Midway 76.83 Player Average for Ships [ at 2019/01/19 ] survived US CV 4 Langley 57.56 US CV 5 Bogue 56.24 US CV 6 Independence 66.49 US CV 7 Ranger 56.81 US CV 7 Saipan 81.67 US CV 8 Enterprise 77.5 US CV 8 Lexington 63.79 US CV 9 Essex 70.31 US CV 10 Midway 74.89

I understand your opinion on the subject.

Raw data, so rather hard to make a determination. Higher Tier DD plays has decreased 4%, but conclusion from this are difficult to draw... other than Higher Teir DD play is down about 16%. Player Average for Ship classes [ at 2019/01/12 ] DDs High Tier 24.5% Low Tier 24%

It is not an easy design issue, that is for sure.

Player Average for Ship classes [ at 2019/04/27 ] Two months High Tier DD 20.5% of ship played. Average per team 2.4 Low Tier DD 23% of ship played. Average per team 2.7

When it comes to DDs and AA, I don't think this can be the primary form of DD defense against aircraft (in game). Sure some DDs can do well against your average CV player, but the majority of destroyers were never primarily designed historically to be AA platforms, so WG is going to have to take a lot of liberties if they want to continue down that path. Design issue. In this META some DDs are doing ok, while some are not. It just depends on the DD. Two Months Win Exp Damage Kills Player Average for Ships [ at 2019/01/12 ] SN DD 10 Grozovoi 51.63 1565 48403 0.8 Player Average for Ships [ at 2019/04/27 ] SN DD 10 Grozovoi 51.96 1620 46533 0.76

Zero sum. Any change in Meta will effect individuals differently, so if you are doing better, due to game changes, then others are doing worse. 0.8.0 Hakuryu was completely OP/Unbalanced and many players, up until its release, were completely red stats players... even in CVs. After they were Super Unicom players with +70% win rates, which of course means by default there were players with horrible win rate to balance that out. deep in the red Win Exp Damage Kills JP CV 10 Hakuryu 51.95 2289 108124 1.16

US DDs average aircraft destroyed. EU server. Two months. Using the capabilities of the destroyer Kid to justify their position on DD AA is no more valid that someone using the destroyer Wickes to justify their position. Note: Kidd has the highest average aircraft kills of all DDs, regardless of nationality. US DD 3 Wickes 0.11 US DD 4 Clemson 0.29 US DD 5 Nicholas 2.82 US DD 6 Farragut 1.22 US DD 6 Monaghan 2.79 US DD 7 Mahan 0.98 US DD 7 Sims 3.4 US DD 8 Benson 2.21 US DD 8 Kidd 6.31 US DD 9 Benham 0 US DD 9 Black 1.68 US DD 9 Fletcher 1.86 US DD 10 Gearing 2.36

Really? OK. Quote: "Played three games this morning, and Im not sure that I think the whole revork is as bad for DDs as people make it out to be." Using three games played to conclude anything regarding the overall Meta across four regions... is questionable.

Check server stats for all four regions.

I would like to vote a different option. With CVs, but just not with this iteration.

Do you find tried other than 7 or 8 less enjoyable?

No, nothing to do with CV. The core mechanic itself.