dasCKD

By that same merit, any ship that is shooting another ship that they can't see themselves should incur the same penalty considering that they will be using the same information as a ship that is sitting in smoke IRL. The outrage here is rather selective.

I would still personally still recommend balanced, but I'd rather expose myself to an enemy snipe and stay unable to help my team than literally be useless if my team are cretins.

I also took my Roon to Bastion lately and have realized that 203 German AP does basically 0 damage to Bastion forts. It's like they designed forts for 40 WRers in Tirpitzes to shoot at in perpetuity to make their back line camping feel less pointless and asinine. Key word being feel.

I guess I should be responding to the original post. Yes, actually mandating tutorial sessions in a carrier should be the default on all servers. Players should either learn to play carriers properly, or just don't play at all.

Edits have been made to correct the mistakes in the original statement.

I actually disagree with this particular sentiment. I am perfectly fine with a class being easier than the others, as long as it doesn't wield as much power as the others. I think, in fact, that cruisers would work best if they were not as powerful as the other classes but are still moderately relaxing for newer players to get into instead of the current system where cruisers from tier 5 and up just get ROFLstomped if they make a single mistake. A class that wields a lot of power should not be effortless to use. Battleships right now are the easiest class whilst wielding close to the most power which is what I think is the main issue.

Not quite as insanely impressive as everyone else, but I think this one's pretty good.

No, carriers are a high stakes class, it requires far higher skill to perform. They're aren't better, they simply benefit the team far more in the hands of a good player. They're basically useless in the hands of a bad player. Street fighter has that kind of character as well.

It's not about being "allowed" to scale. Carriers inherently gain power massively over any class just through the nature of their class. No nerf will change that.

The carriers could have dropped six or seven times and let the Yamato just slowly sink over the next few hours so they can go back home early for ice cream and tea considering how awful the IJN's damage control is.

Well she is significantly tougher than the average cruiser at that tier. A heal would help her perform far better.

Cruisers are almost absent from those tiers. Most of the ships that I have seen recently have been Spees, Atagos, and Kuzutovs. Almost anything else I meet are battleships. I think that the fact that cruisers, despite being both the universal class offering the most diverse types of ships and representing the largest numbers of lines, are used far less than battleships represents a fundamental problem with game balance.

I think that every cruiser from tiers 6-8 should have cruiser level heals extended to them. As they are currently, they are simply too punishing even for seasoned players.

What's his forum title?

Fubuki is the IJN's secret project's attempt to weaponize blandness.

Please stop it. Both sides of the argument here are far better served if we argued points instead of hurling obscenities.

Destroyer players are the ones I can most understand when it comes to animosity against carrier players. It's the battleship players (not naming any names here) who incessantly whine about carriers that I can't stand.

Well, I suppose that would be more true. I still disagree that the influence a player can exert using a class makes a class inherently OP though. If that was the case, then destroyers could be considered OP just for the fact that having bad destroyers cripples the team far more than having a bad battleship. A Shima who hugs the border and tries to use long lances against cruisers 15 km away hurts a team far more than a Yamato who sits on the one line especially how rare destroyers can be in a match. If one team has a destroyer and another doesn't has a massive benefit over a team that doesn't, especially in domination. The German battleships, in this framework, would be underpowered because a bad player wouldn't be punished as hard if they show a broadside to an enemy battleship which would mean that the gap between players is quite small. The point of bringing up the situation was to illustrate the limitations inherent to the class which weakens it. Versatility is a massive boon for a tactical multiplayer game where you wouldn't know about the situation you would be forced into, and so a class lacking options is a detriment to the class as a whole. Carriers are limited to attacking certain ships, at certain times, when they are not sailing in certain formations, and when they do not have certain consumables active. In return for that, they are able to provide a consistent service to their team across the game with relatively little alterations to player behavior required when it comes to playing in certain maps and game modes. I would argue that being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without anything inside the game being capable of stopping you is far more indicative of an overpowered class more than a class that can only do certain things, at certain times, when the enemy team isn't looking. Carriers are, more so than any class, limited to doing very few things. It's just that the players who excel at doing those very limited things are able to perform extremely well because those things (reconnaissance, formation sabotage, surgical strikes, etc.). I can see where you are coming from when you say that carriers are overpowered, but I simply don't agree that carriers are. At least not in the way that they need a nerf as I believe that this will not close the gap between the skilled and unskilled carrier players.

It would be an interesting thing for cruisers to have, though if normal shell rules follows then the new AP type will struggle against battleship armor. Having a shell type with guaranteed damage is something that probably needs careful testing however to stop it from breaking the game. Well, having the heals alone on what could be considered an average cruiser branch is probably something a lot of players would think as worth pursuing, especially with WG's push to make it so that there would be fewer premium ships in ranked and competitive battles.

Around 3-4, as they split down the two flanks. 5-6 on tier 10s, as most players tend to prefer to focus two caps which results in them grouping up. In my general observations, the only ships that splits from the fleet are the destroyers, Zaos, and Minotaurs.

Your new title. I thought of it just now. I'm not using it to dismiss your arguments, so the criticism is hardly valid. I differ with a lot of other CV players on this. I do not believe that the player needs to play CVs to a large degree to comment on their balance. I simply think that basic competence is needed, something that the other two don't have. I never had issue with you saying that CVs are influential, that is commonly accepted by basically everyone. I simply do not think that a ship class is overpowered just because it can carry teams if need be. An average CV player doesn't carry. An average player simply plays the game. Good players carry. Average players only carry games if the MM makes them the best or close to the best in terms of personal player performance. An average CV player only carries when the enemy carrier is worse than the average player is. If three radar cruisers begin to push, I can open fire on them before embedding myself into nearby islands so they will either be pushing into a torpedo spread if they want to get me or they will have their push pulled to a halt. I can throw some torpedoes their way before finding another part of the map where I can find myself useful. I can run back to my battleships so they'll be sailing to their deaths if they pursue me. I can also just go to my max range and rain invisible shots on their ships, great fun in the Yuugumo. If 3 North Carolinas decide to sail up my lane, I can either go away or send my planes back to my Shokaku. If ONE Iowa decides to sail up my line I have to do the same thing and battleships aren't even meant to counteract carriers in the context of the game. A destroyer can still do damage against a cruiser and can win if the player skill is different enough. A cruiser can do the same thing to a battleship. A carrier can't. The AA bubble is a fundamental block to carriers as a class. No level of skill will allow a CV to play around it.

Ah, speak of the devil. The head CV hater himself, we missed you! In any case, insults aren't Ad Hominem and most of the time we don't disagree with your insults, we disagree with the conclusions you draw from them. It is true that no class can carry as easily as CVs, but no class equally can doom their team as a bad CV. A class with a very high skill ceiling but a steep learning curve can hardly be called overpowered, especially since they can be rendered mostly useless by rudimentary teamwork. CVs are indeed a decisive class, but that alone does not make them overpowered.

Not necessarily. If I was in a ranked battle, I'll be in complete agreement. In randoms however, I find that having too many good players on one team just means that it becomes really difficult to get things done myself before my team steamrolls everyone.

My experiences with them on the test server haven't been too positive unfortunately (except for the Moskva where I just fire AP at battleships for easy citadels ) I find that their guns are fall too small to do consistent damage or set consistent fires.

I would rather he show up. Whilst being an insufferable git, he is at least a strong enough player to understand and work with and around game mechanics. You could still carry on a half-decent conversation with him before something innocuous triggers his inner [edited]and the thread dissolved into name calling.