Culiacan_Mexico

The current AA system is not even close to satisfactory; and while I don't play CV or AA ships, watching squadrons being wiped out in game doesn't sound like good game design... more like a gimmick... and if I might say... a low skill passive gimmick.

I don't blame anyone, but I do wonder if this is the 'balancing' WG is seeking.

farazelleth stated that if was in a 'cancer division' he could win perhaps 90% of his games. I wouldn't put it past him. This also shows why the current AA mechanics are questionable.

Just my opinion. I would say the basics revolves around a failed concept WG tried to implement: we will make the most versatile ship, with limited active counters, the most influential, while at the same time restricting encounters to generally one vs one amplifying the disparity in skill between CV players. Battleships and cruisers have active counters and generally a health population, which creates a sort of game balance. A team of all cruiser vs one of eleven cruisers and a single battleships would not be a reason to been very concerned, because that BB would be focused and burned very quickly or they would have to hide and be ineffective. The same can't be said if the BB is replaced with a CV, because the only active counter to a CV... is another CV. As the number of DD players at mid-tier has fallen, the same issue is starting to appear... with regards to DDs. DDs have three active counters: CV, DDs and cruisers. In the current BB meta, cruiser abilities are restricted, DD numbers are way down (perhaps by 50% from previous levels), and CV are a mixed bag... the end result is that a decent DD player now has a greater influence on the games outcome; and the greater the disparity in skill between opposing DD players, the more pronounce the influence is. WG has spent three years adjusting CVs: this carriers will now be a 1-2-1 instead of a 1-1-3, changing the number of planes in a squad, adding massive AA abilities to some ships, or just adding gimmicks. These changes did not fix CV because none addressed the core issue, and until that is done CV balance is impossible.

That is pretty much a job requirement for a DD player, if you wish to be successful.

I believe WG is going to make fundamental changes to CVs because they have not found away to balance them to their satisfaction.

The skill difference between the teams CV players was rather dramatic. How do you suggest they fix that?

all this achieves yet another goal making ships less afraid to push ahead by giving them more tools ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously?

"When calculated, the probability of this happening is 1/1024 which is about 0.000967." So what is that... about every thousand games you play you should hit an unlucky streak of 10 losses in a row. All things being equal.

Short answer... no as the current concept is broken. Of course 2016 is the year of the CV, so WG might have a fix in the works.

Speculation on my part. While I would never argue that there wasn't/isn't a significant group of BB players always crying out for nerfs, I would like to propose that the actual problem with Japanese DDs plus their torpedo lies somewhere else: in the right players hands, Japanese DDs were just too good at killing other DDs. I believe if you ask the current groups of good players sailing Fujin, Kamikaze, or Kamikaze R, that you will find that they cap contest and with considerable effectiveness. The combination of great stealth plus very good torpedoes make them very dangerous opponents. When WG nerfed Japanese DDs tiers 3-5, they experienced a significant loss in their ability to sink ships. The relatively small amount of damage lost is rather insignificant when compared to a battleships or cruiser health pool, but is noticeable when compared to a DDs health poll. Pan Asian DDs, with good stealth and deep water torpedoes, do more of their damage to battleships and cruisers and thus bypass the problem the old Japanese destroyers had. I could be wrong. ;) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Player Average for Ships [ at 2015/12/12 ] Win Draw Lose Damage Ships sunk Wakatake 51.07 0.92 48.01 16672 0.72 Isokaze 50.75 1.06 48.19 22263 0.83 Minekaze 50.52 0.80 48.68 24055 0.82 Player Average for Ships [ at 2018/03/10 ] Wakatake 51.52 0.07 48.42 15235 0.62 Isokaze 48.28 0.06 51.66 18207 0.67 Minekaze 50.11 0.06 49.83 20762 0.64 Wakatake 1437 less damage with a 13.8% reduction in ships sunk. Isokaze 4056 less damage with a 19.2% reduction in ships sunk. Minekaze 3293 less damage with a 21.9% reduction in ships sunk. Player Average for Ships [ at 2018/03/10 ] Phra Ruang 47.80 0.04 52.16 14251 0.55 Shenyang 48.60 0.04 51.36 20630 0.72 Jianwei 45.52 0.04 54.44 15843 0.45

Is it possible that Japanese DD torpedoes were nerfed not because of the damage they did to BBs, but for other reasons?

MrConway - "The main issue is that the penetration mechanics are incredibly complex and small changes can lead to unintended consequences as we have just seen. Give our developers a bit more time and trust, they know what they are doing!" That seems fair.

Just a discussion. WG remove functionality from tier 4 and 5 carriers, and one could say 'get use to it', but can we not discuss the logic and effect on game play? As an example, I watch videos by farazelleth to get the views of an experienced player on the issue of tier 4/5 carriers game play, and his ideas what would make it better.

I think WG does wants to do something about BB over-population, just that they refuse to actually address the issue head on; and probably with good reasons. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 28 September 2016 Q; Might not be within your ability to answer but misght as well ask. Any plans to reduce the amount of BBs in game and improve CA/CL to make them more desirable? Sub_Octavain: We would like to make cruisers more popular. This is why they get rudder mod.3 in 0.5.12. Other tweaks will be introduced later. In our concept of ideal class distribution, BBs should have 25-30% of popularity. It works more or less, but on some realms/tiers they exceeded this limit. We don't want global nerfs and will try to avoid them at all costs - this is why we cancelled bow plating reduction. But some smaller, more precise actions will be taken.

Well, seems to me... WG is always fine with what they do. Self reflection is not their strong suit.

You disagree with my opinion "the rational for there introduction, how they were implemented, and the results to game play are fundamentally flawed". Ok, lets start at the start. Radar was not in the game upon release, and at the time, cruisers were not balanced because of it. So why was it added? Your opinion.

This is what I said: "I would argue otherwise, as the rational for there introduction, how they were implemented, and the results to game play are fundamentally flawed.

Is the problem intent or implementation? Remember thier first attempt to change the BB meta?

Where did I state anything with regards to the above post? Just to repeat with regards to radar... " the rational for there introduction, how they were implemented, and the results to game play are fundamentally flawed...."

Do they? Quote... semi quote from WG ---Battleships live too long--- "We didn't dislike the bug either, but if we make a change like this we want to do it properly and on purpose, stay tuned! :)" WG actions: AP bombs, perhaps a new DD designed strongly around a anti-BB role, plus more to come?

I would argue otherwise, as the rational for there introduction, how they were implemented, and the results to game play are fundamentally flawed.

Balanced in what way?

Most players, regardless of what ship type, play for themselves.