MrWastee

o my, take a room already.... but, @aboomination, u might better be careful with letting her into ur barn.... ot: ofc, with that set of choices, it only could be #4. personally an increased chance of setting fire/improved DE also would be nice.

naja, von mir gibts in dem sinne einfach mal was anderes für auf die ohren. alles kann man gar nich haben und neue einflüsse bringen einen doch meist irgendwie weiter! schönen feiertag euch allen, ich mag den flickenteppich deutschland... solange alle hochdeutsch sprechen ...

ocean line not translates into ocean soul for me..... can't be a proper poll if the only real one is missing. which is: O C E A N S O U L . . . i sell em as soon as i get em

as we don't know what a rework in rts style would've generated interest-wise, we can't state that as sure as "solution". so, shifted problem, other solutions in rts possible matter of taste, with more commercial and work it at least had the potential to appeal new players, who've been uninterested in action gameplay yet. so imo, not really a point. what rts would've had in potential graphic-wise? we can't know, not really THE "solution" again imo. or shifted problem, other solutions in rts possible shifted problem, other solutions in rts possible. imagine they would've made attack-bombers airfight capable. in rts they simply could've removed fighters f.e... shifted problem, other solutions in rts possible shifted problem, other solutions in rts possible... btw, yet it seems there can be multiple cv's per match after rework on same side, so technically still possible? shifted problem, other solutions in rts possible.... and still in new one could get permaspotted (with given mechanics shown in the tease-test-vid). note: multiple fighters up at once. shifted problem, other solutions in rts possible. f.e. spotting only with newly class of reconnaissance planes, gated fuel reserves, ... no fix possible matter of perspective i think. if i read through the above i kinda not see a point which not would've been fixable in rts, in whatever way, or reallyis THE fix for em. i really can't say if most points u brought up are being really fixed with new system. i doubt 4 sure! .... i still think it's the console version, but we simply can't know. (edit: wowp playerbase might be a point as well, aKa the try to appeal em to play here and the other way round) i don't mean to say its all bollocks what u wrote, i just think WG not really fixes those things, but get on em in new shape. the things stay the same. edit: to me it only would be full viable if they merge up into a gamemode cross-game: so wowp in wows, no carriers at all but epic air fights over classic wows gameplay with brough-in-line-AA.

+1, ur def'o not one of the 95% lol ;D :x..... the question in this regard to me at least just is: do cv's benn so unpopular because of the poor implementation and balance (--> bugs/flaws in gameplay) and even poorer attempts to change things about it (active/passive: f.e. manuals, manuals removal, AA specs of later on released ships in other classes), or because really no one was interested in playing them? how about numbers on lowtier cv usage vs. hightier? players that tried and denied?... i really think without the, never to be known, answer on this question we really can't say anything on the real interest of the rts part. or in other words: because WG never really tried. to me it perceives a bit like (economical based) cowardism. i don't blame them for, in that regard i only blame for implementing rts in the 1st place to now totally scrap it. imo that just speaks of poor managment, not of poor interest player-wise. a good salesman generates his own interest, appeals customers for goods they never would've imagined they "need" and does sell sheeet so to say.

... hear hear.... ah yeah... now i got it... that's why they do the rework.... to change from certain number of planes per cv to...... certain number of planes per cv.... brilliant! .................. mjam

ok, u might be new to the thread, so i'll be nice ;): - thread NOT is about if cv's are balanced or not (no matter the opinions) - thread not is about HOW it could be balanced in rts or new mode (though good suggestions in between) ... this thread is about the CHANGE IN GAMEPLAY, from rts to action/3rdps in regard of the ship class of aircraft carriers! not other classes....... it is about the simple fact, that NOT A SINGLE PROBLEM WE FACE ATM WILL GET SOLVED BY THE REWORK. NONE! they just get shifted into the new mechanics, with a WHOLE LOTTA NEW PROBLEMS ON TOP! and that cv mains doesn't see any justification for this. coz there simply is none i'd be aware of! the only logical relation i can draw myself from my perspective is the work on wows legends, which "coincedentally(?)" fits the time of the cv rework... idk ofc, but i had to be blind to not see the "coincedence".... or simply that they can't code proper rts. (sidenote: proper rts, BALANCED!!!1!11!, even could be the unique distinction to other games of the genre to appeal even more players. players who are not interested in action arcade in the 1st place, but in the implementation of cv's we yet had.... weird guess i guess lol........) draw ur own conclusion or not, but plz note: this thread NOT IS ABOUT CV BALANCE, old or new. thx.

xD..... cant even hold it lol.... maybe simply 95% of humanity is just stupid, evidence is just a look through the window or a random match in here away lol.... u think cv's gets nerfed?! xD xD xD.... no words, plz entertain MOAR place ur bets now: i guess it only gonna take a week after rework for 1st whine thread from u

lol, u again?!........ ...................... ... coz yet rts has been an integral part of the game since release in a unique and mostly working, but kinda only partially balanced way?.. like in: implemented and officially a part of the game?!... idc how u measure that simple fact, or what u think about the rts part of the game. it WAS in yet and appealed people to play it. but yeah, guess we're back at the my-fun-not-allows-ur-fun-to-be-fun-part, aKa ur yet selfly undiscovered hipocrisy?!... nvm, spare the answer or let it out, i won't waste more calories for now on such dirty glasses.... #kkthxbb

i'm pretty sure between 10.45 and 11.05 the 2 ships in mid cap 1st get spotted by fighter while rocket bombers approach for attack run, get unspotted when fighter is shot down and get spotted again after other fighter comes around. ...*sigh on so many levels*... (not on u, u know that ;P :D)

u... again... nvm, look ur posting history or mine for answers

edit: i'd like to conclude with another quote, bertholt brecht: "Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren." u can lose if u fight. u already did lose, if u don't fight. and in this small 1st world sandbox i think rts cv's at least are worth being defended, no matter that they gonna go down anyway.

how's the saying?! hard being a unicorn?! ;D :(....

quoted for truth! iknowiknow... that's what in the end destroyed sto pvp and many other things in general. the short-term-profit mentality. in germany we have a certain, and nowadays mostly forgotten lol, line in our constitution. that goes like "property obliges".... in that sense it would mean that a company is obliged to provide the best quality in goods and conditions (in- and extern), not the most possible profit no matter the costs (no necessarily monetary). coz in the long run that's what generates more profit in the end, beside all the other possible positive effects. but, as i stated, i know lol. that opinion might not too beloved nowadays in general. edit: 1 for classic... spock: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few kirk: ... because the needs of one outweigh the needs of many...

indeed, we don't really know. all we know is that the year of the carrier was announced while still giving out premium cv's afterwards and no real infomration (afaik) on what exactly they work or what they try to fix. manuals, loadout changes and biiiiit of plane-tweaking. that was the whole balancing before the rework, in what time? i even think i do remember a phrase in where they said that they are kinda hesitate on putting much ressources into cv's, coz they are least played (causality pretty much?). i'm not aware of much communication with players as well regarding cv's in whole (i not mean particular things like zep-gate, but the whole mechanic thing) in that time.... then the year of carrier been over (2017?).... they not gave options, they not tested in any transparent way so players might would've get a glimpse on what's goin on, or why something might not work. no info on that yet afaik, even not after rework got announced. and after all the waiting they finally show up with a total different style from what we had before. imo that's poor communication, even further: just bad mangement on many levels. this is not about belief, it's more about something i already experienced in other games and just dislike totally: the choice for quantity, not quality. the choice for catering people who do not know what they talk about, aKa mostly the masses and with that destroying imo unique or good things into something worse. in this case all the people that jump on the cv hate train while never played one theirself/tried to be understand em somehow (those are the best lol, ofc not all...). i am not even a cv main or such. i play bb mostly(!). i hate playing against cv's, i hate given balance! but i love the rts style and what i choose to not take is the attitude i perceive from WG in this case or some players in here... as much as i know that they won't get it... and as much as i know it won't change a damn thing if i'm posting here or not. call me cynic, but my bet is on console made a big potion of this whole thing... one more thing we'll never know... well, sun is shining, so what gives :D

as no preference mentioned: (I.: haku, midway... #njoyitwhileitlasts + likely headstart in new system? note: haku 1st for me) 1. henri, speed-bane of dd's and wounded bb's. the "open" bait boat, trolly on latematch closer engagements 2. sheme... just for being "the classic" sous chief in the kitchen 3. YY, versatile setupS and nightmare to dd's and bb's 4. Z, versatile setuP or simply put the "swiss knife" cap contester and dd hunter... note: some will bring a bowie knife or machete tbh... i have no clue what dd i would go for 1st (got shima before Z was released and that before YY was out), they're all good and competetive if played out right... but on haku, midway and henri i'm sure lol

.... the real interesting number in that regard is the one we'll never know, nor will they. the question, how many % it would be if they would've worked on cv fixes and on balance issues from the very start on? just replace cv with bb and take a guess on how long it takes to fix stuff there. they didn't even try. they gave us this rts placeholder, announced year of the carrier and it ends up in year in which cv's get killed by planes (pun intended). ...sto and pvp lol, allover.... neglect a part of the playerbase for years, promise/bait, just to kill it off in a sudden strike. to me as a customer that is disgusting dismanagement. next time WG, DA HELL, leave it out from the start and just code ur kiddies gameplay right there dang! /bitofrantsry, nothing personal

...this rework not really solves actual problems! it just shifts them into a new mechanic, with the need to rework all from scratch that only would've needed proper tweaking. they not fixed any of issues over years and wonder why no one plays cv, all hate cv's.... the problems now need the very same ammount of tweaking, even more as it is such a different design. place ur bets now on how that is gonna work out...... no word of bumming off players who gets appealed by rts. everything in here mentioned, the guys who hate cv's coz they can't deal with em will just cry as hard as they do now after the rework and wg will have lost a unique part of the game. however, i feel ya OP. btw, i HATE playing against cv's (sometimes even when being on one myself ofc lol)! but i don't blame it on the class or how it is setup or implemented. i blame it on how it is balanced!!! yeah... coz with a balanced class in rts style that not would be the case?!. and that's the point people u people don't get! ............ while "lost" might be the battle for perception and imagination... introduce fuel stat for planes, TATAAA, one step less to balance.... but yeah, let's just eat what they throw. the most possible dumped down version, from "be strategical lead on the helm of an aircraft carrier" to "be the squadleader"... yay! what was lost is a battle between quality and quantity, giving win to quantity once again. GJ! nvm, i really hope i'm done now dealing with the lack of imagination. i'm just glad i not jump the hypetrain where it's not due and am not into ruin others fun, but rather search for a way everyone can have their fun!

my fun funnigly enough not allows ur fun to be fun.... yeah............................. who would ever think that it's not the rts style that's a problem, but WG incompetence in this regard to balance it properly?! ...I T I S N O T R T S T H A T ' S P R O B L E M..... it's the way it is set up in terms of AA to plane to plane to ship to dmg.... -balance (including plane spotting mechanics!)... but yeah.... *sigh*

- finally replace "mount/demount" dialogue for signals with simple checkboxes plz(!!!)

plz elaborate

da schaut man nur nochma kurz rein und dann so einer .... ich denke ich werd die taste in zukunft sicherheitshalber überall hin mitnehmen, danke für die anregung ! ... nur mit dem schlafen könnt sich jetzt doch verzögern, obwohl das grinsen die augen zuzieht

.... ea an illuvatar, wir brauchen noch mehr hobbits

dafür meinen respekt. ... in meinem fall hoffe ich eher auf das gute im menschen, glaube aber im ersten moment lieber an gar nichts und schaus mir erstma an... erfahrungswerte ;D...

nur um ma kurz auf den moralischen kompass zu klopfen: der TE hat sich nicht entschuldigt. eine entschuldigung setzt eine gewisse einsicht vorraus. die kann ich beim TE nich erkennen, er is beleidigt und kanns nich lassen nochma zurückzutrollen/das letzte word zu haben. in diesem zusammenhang lassen sich auch mehrere fehlannahmen seinerseits im anderen thread finden, die er aber nich als eigene vermerkt, sondern als informatinosdefizit seitens des publishers.... auch nach mehrmaligem hinweisen auf ebenjene (unabhängig der art, man hätt ja auch einfach die eigentliche information annehmen und cool bleiben können)... ich bin ja auch nich dafür ungerechtfertigt auf irgendjemandem rumzuhacken, ABER(1!11!!!) in diesem fall seh ich das als durchaus gerechtfertigt. wer sich nicht helfen lassen will bzw. jegliche reflektion eines möglichen eigenanteils zu ignorieren, dem kann man auch nich helfen. und wenn derjenige es dann drauf anlegt... nich besser verdient imo. ... ne sehschwäche... hab ich, -0,75 dioktrin lol^^... selbst wenn die so ausgeprägt wäre, hätte man bissl mehr sagen können als "sehschwäche", weil wir ja auch alle wissen wie gut er gucken/wie gross der tv is... wie auch immer, die aussage von wegen entschuldigung jetzt hat mich nur interessiert.