Capra76

And herein lies the problem. Balance has two sides, you can't just look at the raw damage output without looking at what the ships offer back in return, what the surface ships give back is obvious but with CV's survival being so good to be balanced their damage output would need to be nearer to single figures. More importantly the argument has never been soley about whether CV do too little or too much damage but instead about the wider impact on the game in terms of loss of mobility and the end game problem. Trying to reduce the argument to "damage is in line with other classes so everything is fine" is again dishonest.

Your point might be more convincing if DD didn't have the lowest survival rate and damage output of any class in the game.

Inconsistent Autowin and shutdowns are terrible game designs and should never be allowed against CV; autowin and shutdowns are fine against surface ships becuase it's a team game. Dishonest Dismissing anti-CV faction as "haters"; replying to one small part of a post and ignoring the more significant points; failing to address inconsistency in argument when raised; falsly equating plane losses with ship losses as "trading"; dismissing the above as "parroting" without addressing the point (evasion); falsly equating CV invulnarability to surface ship tactics such as island camping whilst ignoring counterplay options (or lack of in CV case); failing to address the above point when raised (avoidance).

Except it's not one strike getting through, it's 3 or 4 strikes followed by the same again shortly after until the surface ship sinks, and if being sunk is not a shutdown then I'd like to know what is. Ditto. You're argument is inconsistent and dishonest. Agreeing with other posters is not parroting and what you are using here is evasion by dismissing the point raised out of hand. So go on, prove us wrong, demonstrate that exchanging planes for ships is a fair or even comparable trade. And all the above have limiting factors and counterplays not available against a CV, and trying to equate them is again dishonest.

But then CV get autowin against surface ships meaning they stop being part of the game at all, either by denying them movement or sinking them. To echo @El2aZeR the trade is largely inconsequential for the CV player, akin to a BB trading AP shells for a cruisers HP, but in this case the cruiser doesn't get the chance to fire back and take some of the BB's HP in return. Your position seems to be that it's perfectly fine for CV to shutdown and autowin against surface ships because it's a team game, but at the same time any hint that surface ships should be able to do the same back to the CV player is "idiotic game design". I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in your argument, and the result of that is that you're getting angry and throwing insults around, that says a lot about the strength of your arguement.

Well, that's not what you said earlier.

So you have no problem then with some ships having "autowin" against CV.

Good CV player 1 v 1 against any surface ship, I'd say that's going to be a win for the CV almost every time. Also CV are strictly mirrored so WR% is meaningless anyway. Edit, oh, any number, how about @Sunleader's WR% in the last season of ranked sprint.

What has numbers got to do with it?

I agree autowin is terrible, that's why CV should be removed from the game.

Better than nothing, and harder for them to dismiss several hundred opinions rather than one.

Easy enough to start a thread with a poll in it, it'll at least give the forum's opinion on whether CV should be in ranked. Perhaps something like: Ban CV from this season of ranked? Yes; No. Why? Voted no; OP/too great an influence on outcome; incompatible with arms race mode; incompatible with smaller team sizes; I hate all CV. Other (please specify). Suggest that you allow multiple responses to the second question.

Well okay, but if it's a choice between one or the other (and it somewhat is), the game was fine largely without CV for 3 1/2 years, without DD it seems to be much worse. There are some very good CV players on here who'll tell you otherwise. Edit: Ninjaed.

Nope. You might not want to go one v one against a DD in a BB, but if you undersand the game you certainly want to see a healthy population of them. Remove DD and responsibility for capping and other DD tasks falls on to the cruisers and they become the next persecuted class bearing the brunt of the CV damage farming, the omnipresent 5 BB per side and with DD removed from the game much of their role and ability to infulence the outcome goes too. What do you think that would do to the CA population? Follow it to the logical conclusion and the typical MM would be 1 or 2 CA per game, 2 or 3 CV and 8 or 9 BB all sitting in a blob spamming HE at each other whilst waiting to be farmed by the CV, does that sound like a game you'd want to play?

One time only. What the OP was talking about is the new player progressing a line/lines for the first time, who has to set up one way to be competitive up to T7, then pay to respec to continue beyond there.

Because if the mods close down all the threads complaining about CV, then there are no threads complaining about CV, and thus CV are balanced. WG logic

That's a double edged sword though, your CV spotting the enemy also means the red one is spotting you. And in terms of countering stealth torpedoes and island camping, you're replacing something that can be dealt with by skill and map awareness with something that has no counter.

I'd say it's the lack of any counter and the survivabilty of the class, which means they're a pure negative for surface ships, CV ruin their games and don't offer anything back in return. OP is perhaps the wrong word, it's more a case of a bad design that just makes the game worse for everyone.

If you can work out a way for the game to work out who was at fault in a collision please let us (and WG) know.

I may have an explanation: This is on the front page of MapleSyrup's site (and is new for the last week only): He seems to be saying that the weekly averages have a 10 battle minimum applied wheras the 2 month averages include all games, thus the weekly averages could dramatically underestimate the number of individual players, the "unit based" 2 month average indicates that there are just over 13,000 unique players, so broadly in line with Proships. All previous datasets for the 2 month average were "player based" and they continue to show about 1,000 unique players, I'm at a loss as to why this differs so greatly, are there really something like 12,000 players who've got the ship and played it less than 10 times or is there something else in the calculations going on? Either way it looks like the 13,000 figure may be correct after all, I'm just surprised that so many players have bought such an expensive ship and played so few games in it. On a related note, his methodology for calculating WR% for the weekly stats is (in flamu's words) "questionable".

Yes, and we disputed it on that thread too. It seems to me very unlikely that co-op or ranked/clan could account for the difference, the numbers are just too far apart.

Are we sure about that 11k number? There were only about 200 individual players of the ship last week according to MapleSyrup, and I've never seen more than 1,500 in any one week so 11,000 players with the ship but only 200 using it sounds doubtful for something so expensive. Also, isn't 11,000 about 25% of the active players on the server, seems a very high proportion to me.

They've been ramping it up for a couple of years now, the DoY event at the end of 2017 was when it started to become obvious plus things like reduced rewards from April fools and Halloween events. It's where we are in the game's life-cycle, 2015-2017 was launch and growth, once the game matured the focus stopped being about delivering a fun and enjoyable game and instead became about extracting as much revenue as possible over the remainder of the game's life. How much longer has the game got? I don't know, maybe towards the end of next year there won't be a whole lot left.

The players who will use it are the players who lack the skills or situational awareness to use concealment properly and are the most likely to straight line and die to torpedoes, thus even if only a small minority of players use the upgrade the effect on DD playes is far greater than the numbers using it might suggest.