dasCKD

So what you're saying is that there is a game element that seasoned and experienced players approves off whilst the newbies and bad players dislike and so this game mechanic is...bad? Reminds me of a certain classmate, a long time support/healer player, got flamed by someone in arena for "cheating" by healing his allies. An opinion that is simply not shared by most of WoWS players, the developers, or any other gaming community. There's a reason that every single successful multiplayer PVP game (League, Overwatch, TF2) have characters with different play styles and designs who can levy their advantages to their player's success. A single arms game would be every single tier 1 match in WoWS. Even in a game where basically every character is identical like COD, there are still variations in weapons. I don't have "fun" when I'm out in a Hindenburg rushing smoke screens either when the enemy battleships starts shooting at me. Why can't the battleship players all just bugger off to their own game so I can hunt destroyers and cruisers in peace? Oh, that's right. Because this is a multiclass game, and no one wants to be the mouse whilst everyone else is playing the cat. Destroyers run around, waiting to implode a battleship with a salvo of torpedoes. Battleships waddle about, waiting to sink an AP salvo straight into the side of a cruiser. Cruisers lurk, waiting to leap out and rip destroyers to pieces or to turn an entire plane strike fleet into fireworks. Carriers roam the battlefield, picking off isolated ships and waiting for the enemy carrier to fly a large blob close to their fighters. Everyone wants to have fun, but everyone has to contend with their natural predators in the game. That's just how things are. Fun is relative. Some players have fun plinking at enemy ships before being blown up and being sent back to port, happy to never venture beyond tier 3 or co-op. One last thing. This is a free to play game with premium content that needs to be bought using money which is where the funds for War Gaming comes from. At present, I have 18 premium ships in my port. 10 of which are bought and paid for. 3 of which are tier 8 premiums. I have 10 sets of premium camouflage bought separately for those ships, valuing 21000 doubloons in all. I have 898 sets of premium consumable camouflage in my port at present, with a total value of 44900 doubloons (Not paid for, mind you). On top of all this, I have 25188 liquid doubloons in my port's bank. This is not counting the doubloons I invested on items that have been consumed/sold. The bill from this comes out at around 90000 doubloons plus the price for the premium ships. I will make this clear: I DO NOT like pulling rank on people. But to me, this is an attack on who I am as a person. This game isn't something I play when I have some time to waste. I MAKE time for this game. I might think that the owners of the game are akin to the slimy monsters of cheesy 80s horror movie, but I LOVE this game. I WANT to get better at this game. I WANT to try more ships, to meet more people, to see how far I can push the game mechanics and how I can make ships that almost everyone despises work for me. My clan gives away tier 8 premiums for competitions. Other clans gives away doubloons, premium camouflage packs, and premium ships. Some people might see this as sad. I don't see this as any different to those who pays thousands of euros for a pair of skis or for an excellent camera. Thousands and thousands of doubloons flows into the game to keep just a single clan moving, and the clans numbers in the hundreds. The game may attract some historical buffs drawn in by the ships, but ultimately they would just play a few games, get bored, and bugger off. Even with every resource possible with every XP flag, a premium account, and premium camouflage, it takes time and effort to grind up to the legends of history like the Bismark, Fletcher, Shokaku, Iowa, and whatever the future will bring. Time which someone who just wants a historical ship would just either get tiered and bored or would just pay for (like the Warspite). The potatoes who won't learn, who refuses, to learn, and whose only line of offense is to demand the nerfs or removal of what class offends their sensibilities WILL NOT be the ones who would still be with the game years from now, feeding the developers money all the way. The potatoes will just cripple the game which they will end up leaving eventually anyways. It's those who are willing to spend time and energy in the game that are the ones who will keep the game going.

So you were being focused by two players. What exactly are you trying to get me to feel? Sympathy? If a battleship was being focused by two cruisers, then the result would eventually be the same. How well do you think two carriers, not in teamspeak, could focus a coordinated strike anyways? Of course! If I attacked a super Unicum destroyer player, then I would get the EXACT SAME RESULT as if I was attacking a literally braindead bot! Why didn't I realize this sooner? If I just avoid AA, then I'll have a 6 KDR ratio in no time at all! No one did. You CHOOSE to play those ships. The Amagi has rail guns that cuts through everything and the accuracy that rivals some cruisers meanwhile being one of the fastest battleships in game whilst many consider the Hipper to be the worst cruiser of her tier to be considered besides the New Orlenes. You CHOOSE to pick ships with weak AA because of the other traits that ship offers you. Should the Amagi just get the same AA rating as a North Carolina? Once again, you CHOOSE to play a battleship. Should I start to whine about how I don't have 300 mm of armor if I CHOOSE to play a Fletcher? You CHOOSE to pick a ship that can wipe cruisers off the map with one salvo, the best HP pools in the game, the thickest armor protection, the largest number of heal consumables in the entire game, and speed equivalent to a cruiser's in the highest tiers. You paid for that for your vulnerability to carriers. Allow me to cry you a river. Some battleships don't even need to pay for their vulnerability to carriers. Yes, because as we all know if the destroyer players on your team were brain dead and sailed directly towards the enemy team or if all the cruisers on your team sailed broadside to a Yamato at under 6 km or if your battleships decided that it was a good idea to start backing away from their spawn until they hit the map border then NONE OF THAT will have ANY effect on your game. As we ALL know, the only players who has any effect on the performance of the team is the carrier player. Of course. Sure. If a battleship was in the same situation and that map grid was swarming with enemy destroyers, then the situation is the exact same. The player was caught out of position with their teammates dead. But as we ALL know carriers are THE ONLY SHIPS that could POSSIBLY exploit an isolated ship! Yes, because tier 10 carriers are just so common! They're practically everywhere! Also, if a carrier is lower tiered than you then that presents NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER to the carrier. Because as we know, carriers do not suffer from being downtiered EVER. It just doesn't happen, don'tchaknow? So matchmaking shafted you. Do you think I don't get a feeling of dread when I see a Gaede and Ognevoi on my team whilst the enemy has a Farragut and a Kamikaze and the game mode is domination? If you had to get to that point, then you have done literally NONE of the above. Do you see all the "and"s in the original quote? That insinuates that all those events had to all happen at once. It means that you picked a ship with those vulnerabilities. Didn't modify your ship or captain to compensate for those vulnerabilities. Took no time when the match began to survey possible threats. Didn't modify your behavior to account for your team's actions and deployment patterns. Failed to acquire any aide from your teammates. Didn't act in a way as to minimize damage to your ship. And made yourself an attractive target for the enemy. The common theme with all your complaints is that you lost out because a choice that YOU made. I mount hydroacoustics on my Hindenburg. If I end up with a match with nothing but Russian gunboats, then my choice is rendered useless. If the enemy had a Hakuryu or a Midway, then I just need to hope the enemy carrier has better things to do or that I could talk a Des Moines to sail around with me. If, in the future, I picked a heal on my Tashkent and I end up in a game where I'm the only destroyer in a domination match, then I'm screwed as well. Or if I'm in an Edinburgh, and I end up in a match with 5 radar cruisers on the enemy team. Like all things with the carriers, it could be avoided if I was just a bit luckier. But I'm not, so I just have to deal with it. I don't whine about how it's so unfair or how there was nothing I could possibly do. As often as I get shafted and I get placed in a situation where I'm nigh-useless, there are also times where I get lucky and I just get to run amok. Like if it's a double CV match and I was in my Atlanta. Or if I'm in my Hindenburg and I get an enemy team with 6 Atagos. Or if I'm in a Kamikaze and the enemy team has nothing but Kongos and 1 Nicholas. Only the deficient or disingenuous would ever so much as imply that this is something that is unique to carriers.

Ah, utilizing the power of the warp to mold reality to suit the narrative. Clever.

Ah yes, the infamous four torpedo bomber strong flight control module just like that on the-um....oh, I know the...huh. Wait! I thought of one! The...huh? If there's no ships with strong AA around, just stick close to the other ships. If you can't avoid the torpedo bombers, then it's your own fault for putting yourself in a situation that the carrier can bomb you at their leisure. Can a destroyer dodge a cruiser's salvo at 5 km? Is that a cruiser balance issue, or the fault of the destroyer for getting themselves in that situation to begin with? This is a message to all players: if you're getting routinely sucessfully bombed by anyone short of Pape or the like, then it's not the carrier's fault. Edit: on a side note, can the anti-CV faction try to argue from a position or on the premises that aren't provably false? Edit again: So you say that there is no way to stop yourself from being torpedoed by a carrier then proceed to mention a list of ways that you can avoid being bombed by a carrier. Yes, the carrier can bomb you if you don't have a defensive fire cooldown. And you don't have sufficient AA. And you're with no allied ships that have sufficient AA. And you're not too close to landmasses that will screw with a CV's drops. And you don't have catapult fighters. And none of the ships around you have catapult fighters. And your carrier isn't providing air cover. And you failed to sufficiently maneuver to avoid the drop. And you're alone without even a single ally around. Then yes, the enemy CV can bomb you and there is nothing you can do.

Self awareness is hard

I would personally prefer it if War Gaming bound captains to classes instead of nations, where your suggestion would work excellently. Alas, you can only add so many classes but you can add as many nations as you like so War Gaming would probably reason that they would make more money if they retained their current system.

The Khabarovsk has the main advantage in her armor plating that makes her strong against even cruiser HE. I don't think the Grozovoi has that advantage whilst not being that much smaller and quite a bit slower. The Grozevoi has absurd AA, but then there are plenty of ships with that in the game right now considering how weak carriers have gotten towards high tiered AA. I can't think of many reasons to prefer her over the Udaloi or even the Z-52. Edit: I should state that I am a rather poor destroyer player, but those are my thoughts on the matter.

I would want to keep the free XP for the future, but the Missouri isn't my cup of tea. I'm saving up the free XP in case there's a ship I just NEED to have like the Enterprise or a ship which just seems like endless fun like the super-Akizuki. An Iowa, even one with radar, isn't something I'm personally willing to drop free XP on. Edit: I HAVE changed my free XP expending habits in the time frame of the Missouri, but it's not because I needed to do so. There were just some ships that had mandatory upgrades i.e. FCS and plane upgrades for the Taiho, or some ships I am just not willing to play any longer like the Emerald.

I was going to write a long meandering article today about how AA speccing for ship should be permanently removed from the game and how WoWS should be managing their art assets, but there aren't enough hours in the game and I need to spend some time drawing weeb bait to post in the Chinese cartoon addict therapy thread so instead I wanted to start a short thread here. Now I am the last person who would say that the tier 10 cruisers need a buff. My experience on the test server is admittedly quite limited as I would almost inevitably end up fighting against subpar enemies, but I find them all to be at least perfectly serviceable. This is just for fun though. You get two buffs for each ship, apply them as you like. I'll start. Because people don't like reading: I am NOT asking for a buff. This thread is just for fun.

It amazes me every time...

The only thing I really can see her as is a variant of the Tone class heavy cruiser as a semi-cruiser carrier.

Truly you are the prophet of our age -wipes away single tear-

The smoke issue could be addressed by removing the German DD firing penalty to make them more popular and giving non-premium tier 7 ships the radar consumable. The Pensacola really needs it. The Schors is a bit more debatable, though I think her AA weakness and her gigantic turning circle will offset any massive benefit that radar would bring her. If battleship players have no more counters to smoke, then they should pick ships that do. The game would work far better imo if players were encouraged to be flexible with the classes in randoms instead of fixating on one class endlessly and demanding endless buffs to combat the fact that their presence has chased away all the ships that were meant to combat their enemies.

Seems rather pointless really. Carriers require a very specific load out configuration that just benefits no other ship. An IJN carrier or even another USN carrier as a premium would be far preferable. The Unryuu is built to be compatible with the Aichi multipurpose bomber, so she could be a very nice variation on the Saipan on tier 8 (though with tier 9 instead of tier 10 planes to stop her from completely breaking the game). The Enterprise is another favorite, why the Grey Ghost isn't in the game but the rusty s#itbucket that is the Lexington is I will never understand.

I'm not asking for a buff, as I said in my opening thread. I, for one, think that the Hindenburg is probably the best ship in the game to my knowledge and that the Zao is very good at doing what she does. The thread is here in the vein of "if you could change one thing, what would you change?". It's not a thread about whether or not the changes are necessary. They're really not. Apart from maybe making the Hindenburg go faster. I mean seriously, outpaced by a battleship?

She is a ship with very large guns, torpedoes, and a trainer for 4 developed and 1 sub line of ships. The Dunkirk, at present, is a stand alone premium you can't use to train anyone or anything. Edit: I would assume that this is also the reason behind the disparity between the Leningrad and the Blyskawica.

Firstly, jets are already not part of the game. Go check the tier 10 ships if you don't believe me. That is a change I personally consider completely unnecessary considering that tier 8 and 9 carriers simply don't have to worry about facing the tier 10 carriers and their jets anymore. Some planes also can't be launched from certain carriers. The Aichi for example can't be launched from Shokaku because she was not designed with those planes in mind and her elevators can;t support hybrids the size of the Aichi. Even if we ignore the historical nitpicks, there is simply not an issue with carrier plane tiers if we simply locked matches down to 2 carriers per game maximum. In that case, as long as both members are fully upgraded, plane tier differences is a small issue. Simply ramping up the FCS control system is also a bad way of balancing things if the planes maintained a relatively low level of combat efficiency. It would mean that carriers would not be able to touch higher tiered ships because their plane relative strength would no longer scale. Meanwhile, lower tiered ships would be ripped apart my the pure volume of fire that higher tiered carriers now have. It used to be that a Hiryu and Shokaku has the same burst damage potential, but with this system a Shokaku would squash a Fuso without any issue whilst she can't touch an Izumo or even a North Carolina, owing to the fact that a larger deck doesn't do very much when your planes are too weak to put up with the AA firepower of enemy ships. If the AA mechanics remained unchanged, then these are the problems that WILL be introduced to the game. If the AA mechanics were tweaked however, then that introduces its own issue. Considering that most carriers would have similar plane performance, the AA of all ships would be tooled to be almost identical as to not upset the new plane setup. The Kongo won't have awful AA, but neither will a Montana be capable of wiping out the strike wings of two Hakuryus alone. That presents issues of its own however. Higher tiered ships are longer and their are slower to turn. They're bigger and more sluggish to manuver in general. If we normalized the AA to stop the carriers from being useless against high tiered ships and choosing to do nothing but pick on and ruin the game of lower tiered ships, then we'll have an even larger issue. Higher tiered ships would just become gigantic XP pinatas as they are far easier to hit without the sting that their AA used to pack. Normalizing plane performance is a non-starter. Firstly, the Zuiho is a far better seal club than the Hosho, what with her generous hangar and tier 6 planes. Tier 5 carriers also receive protected matchmaking, meaning that this new system does nothing to protect tier 3 and 4 ships against carriers. The concept of having a separate mandatory game mode is probably a good idea with a class as demanding as the carriers, but the proposed tiers would simply not resolve the issue. Seal clubbing will happen anyways, especially with other ships. I would argue that the Imperator and Gremmy are far larger offenders of newbie abuse than any carrier. I do like the idea of players being able to get straight into trying out carriers the moment they start the game however. That would be something I would be for WG implementing. The problem is that most of the suggestions either won't work or are spectacle with little substance and does little to add to carrier gameplay. Planes are nice to look at from the inside, but as a carrier you are commanding a plane fleet and not a plane. The intricacies of plane command should be left up to the simulation game. In a tactical shooter game like this, the units should be driven to perform their separate roles to the best of their abilities. It might be a change, but most even semi-experienced carrier player would want to revert to the old meta, as poor as it is, the moment changes like these are implemented. As much as I would like to laud your concepts, they won't fix the fundamental issues with carrier gameplay as it is right now.

"It would look cool" appears to drive too much of the motivation here. You could take control of the plane yourself, but in that case you are either limited to one plane or your planes would still be forced to adhere to the same in-formation "flying on tracks" look. There is also no real reason in terms of in game mechanics that would necessitate the creation of pilot commands. Piloting is largely a realm of the real world and adds nothing to the player experience in what is effectively a squad based tactical shooter. As a carrier currently, your performance is tied to your ability to command and coordinate your attacks as well as a larger tactical overview which already overwhelms most player. There is a reason that carriers are never chosen as callers despite having the best view for it out of any ship class. The extra adrenaline is not something I would give up for even the currently clunky and uncontrollable game mechanics. The WoWS forum website is stupid, so I'll continue this in my next post.

You can assume that most forum posters are members of clans, or at least extremely close knit communities. There is an immediate issue with implementing anti-clan divisioning. I'll speak from my personal point of view: I am a part of the clan 5D with 3 active clan tags to my knowledge. This means that it is quite often that I would be dropping into a battle with this kind of configuration as an example: [5D] dasCKD [-5D2-] username2 [-5D3-] username3 Meaning that as far as war gaming is concerned, this isn't a clan division. Would we make it so that NONE of us would be matched with players who shares ANY of our clan tags? Assuming that the game won't match us with any players with ANY of our respective clan tags, the problem also persists when I drop into the Forumite chat for a change of pace. If we managed to end up in a match with a division from one of our respective clans, would WoWS's algorithm also prevent that? If it does, then I'm afraid that this mechanic is insanely exploitable. Imagine for example if some high profile clans wanted to statpad at the higher tiers. I'll use TTT and OM as the example here. If they came to an agreement, they can effectively cross division in order to basically avoid a large number of the best players on the server at any specific time frame and therefore further increase their already considerable power. i.e. Division 1 [OM] username4 [OM2] username5 [TTT] username6 Division 2 [OM2] username7 [TT2] username8 [TT3] username9 Now the two divisions never have to meet each other. A large scale implementation of this could have massive fundamental issues especially as server population could drop as low as 2000 players at certain times and we are further narrowing for tiers and team compositions. The simple fact is that any algorithm that is disclosed would simply be far too exploitable, and any algorithm that isn't disclosed would eventually be discerned.

Well there you go. I think the system is fine as it is right now then. Divisions tends to be far more dangerous than 3 solo players so as things stand I think it works out for the best.

The matchmaking can either be blind, biased towards placing members on one side, or biased towards splitting members between sides. I, for one, would think that forcing clan members into opposing teams is far better than defaulting to putting them into the same team. Could you imagine the kind of chaos a 6 player or 9 player division could wreak?

This will make it extremely difficult if not outright impossible for slower battleships to have an effect on the game without literally charging nose first into a den full of destroyers. It would make battleships nearly useless in most cases. I think that battleships are as overpowered as the next person, but even I don't want battleships to sail around blind hoping for destroyers and cruisers to be stupid enough to break their concealment. Most of them have to basically throw a die to decide whether or not they would land good hits even with the current aim assistance mechanics. It means ships that depend on long ranges i.e. Russian CLs will be rendered useless extremely quickly. It will make RN cruisers ludicrously powerful, able to annihilate destroyers by charging forwards and crushing them with impunity without any of the destroyer's allies able to shoot back. It, in fact, makes it so that in-smoke shell spammers and those ships who operate close to them would be more powerful than ever. It would make ships that depend on allies i.e. radar cruisers/hydroacoustics destroyers for focus fire very much obsolete. It would make carrier and destroyer spotting nearly useless. It would be a massive overall buff to gunboat destroyers which, quite frankly, are not the ships that need help right now. That would be extremely difficult to implement fairly. That would make competitive play insanely difficult, as any strategy is relegated to luck and personal awareness over cooperative skill. It would be a massive disadvantage for ships with poorer turret mechanization. It would be a massive nerf to ships who exploit islands to do their damage. It limits the amount of ships that can fire at a target, diminishing focus fire and the ability for a team to focus fire. Most ships inside of smoke screens don't shoot at ships not in their direct line of sight anyways. The main advantage of smoke screens is that you can be in someone's line of sight, shoot them, and not get shot back. This mechanic will have close to no impact on the effectiveness of in-smoke shell spammers like the entire British cruiser line and the Kuzutov. This mechanic places unnecessary load on servers and client computers. The mechanic makes no practical sense. If a ship is outside of another ship's line of sight, why would it matter whether or not the ship is inside of smoke screens or not?

Camping battleships, presented without comment. Artist page