DFens_666

People living in social media echo chambers tend to become like that. Truth and facts dont exist for them, and neither does other opinions. They already got the confirmation for their own view from other like-minded people, who declare their view the ultimate truth. As can be seen all the time nowadays around the world...

I shmell secondary CV

You tell me, but you claim a ship cant be OP unless - it wins every game - its played in ranked And you claim you dont play CVs in ranked (which was a lie), yet here we are... What is your point actually? Enterprise is not OP because...? Meanwhile its your most played ship, which is just a coincidence?

So who did if this wasnt you?

So a ship is only OP when it wins every game? What happens when the ship is present in both teams? World implodes? And why do you only play Enterprise and not Kaga or GZ, if they are not worse than Enterprise? must be a reason you have 84% of your T8 CV games in Enterprise

I guess the BB could do it, but then he kinda needs someone to spot the enemies almost in spawn... guess that would be a CV then Not to mention for a BB to succeed with that you need 50% misplay + 50% RNG luck. As to dying to DD torps 2 mins into the game: I wonder how you would manage that, except maybe for 100% misplaying, aka speedboosting straight ahead into the enemies, which also requires you to be a DD pretty much. Otherwise DDs have usually ~1:30 torpreload + up to 1 minute traveltime of the torps, so... A CV neither needs to be lucky or rely on misplaying on the enemy part. Ofc we can argue about, if smoking in your own spawn is a misplay or not Radar and Hydro counter CVs? CVs counter CVs? CV can account for WASD. You can attack ships despite having a full ranked teams AA.

Everyone knows, when you play ships with DefAA + AA flag that you dont see CVs anymore ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well, you asked me if i like to get devstriked by a Shikishima, when i asked you if you would accept to lose your entire squad to someone who would be skilled using AA manually. I just explained the difference in getting devstriked by Shima torps (as i said, i misread shima with shikishima, but im gonna stick with the DD now) and getting smacked by a CV. - I get devstriked because i take too many torps -> its my own fault. There are ways to not let this happen, and they mostly depend how i play. Like angling towards the DD, might still get hit by a torp, but i dont die from full health. - I get 3x cit AP bombed by Haku -> I dont have to misplay. I can play perfectly and still receive 20whatever-k it is after the nerf. Only the CV "decides" how much damage i receive. Contrary to taking torps, where first it matters where the DD throws his torps and 2nd depends, how well i can dodge or throw off the DD. So how does that translate to AA? Well the problem is, its only 1 or 0. CV gets drop through -> i get damaged (with "some" RNG). CV doesnt get drop through -> i dont get damaged. Maybe AA should get buffed, but having planes within multiple ships of AA shouldnt increase AA damage, but increase the reticle so you cant get accurate drops in. So to say, you dont get damage from multiple AA auras, but the AA "distracts" your planes so you cant multicit or have 7-8k+ rocket strikes on DDs. Essentially what DefAA used to do back in the days. That would be a mechanic, which especially lowers the impact for good CV players, which is needed imo. In a case like that, the closest ship should use its AA damage. Ill continue that down south* Right now the best CV players can drop a bunch of ships. Is that fair? I dont think it is. Meanwhile, others fail at attacking one single ship. And a CV that cant attack is not useless - he can still spot. DDs often do that aswell, especially on hightiers with Radar Cruisers. Thats why i think, removal of spotting might just be the easier way to solve a lot of issues. It probably might fix CBs with it. * If the above mechanic would be implemented, we could have some ships (looking at AA Cruisers here), be "immune" to CVs, while not break the balanced if they bunch up. Only if the CV is gonna strike the Cruiser, will he have a hard time or get deplaned doing it. Just an example: - 3 Ships within 5km, say a Shima, Mino and a Montana. - CV wants to strike the Shima, so the Shima AA counts, but the CV will get a debuff from attacking a group of 3 Ships, so he wont get an accurate strike (you could increase the size for the reticle depending on amount of ships, so 1 ship is best possible drop, 2+3 somewhat bigger, and 4+ ships it wont get smaller at all f.e.) or - CV wants to strike the Mino (or gets too close to him), he will lose a lot of planes, because Mino has superstrong AA. That way we - dont get nofly-zones - make Ship grouping not better or worse than it is now - could have dedicated AA ships which dont make it impossible to drop anything for the CV - decrease the skillgap, as it hits especially good CV players tbh, the more i think about that, the more i like it

The problem is, no matter how much i stack the odds in my favour (lets say grouping with several ships up in one blob), a SU CV can still strike a ship in that group. Will he lose some planes? Yes. Is it worth it? Depends, but if he deems thats its necessary, then its worth doing it. About bad players dying to flak: I think its bad game design that we have such a huge skill gap (or result gap if you would say), despite WG claiming RTS CVs had a huge skill gap. The gap got even bigger, only that it doesnt matter so much anymore, since we have enough people who are not able to play properly. I know atleast 2 58% players (streamers) who seem to be incapable of dodging flak. They just go straight in... says a lot how useful even Flak is They still manage to get enough damage in to influence the game. And they are somewhat capable of fighting DDs, who can hardly defend themselves. Also one of them claims, Kidd can defend itself from AA strikes when i claimed, it cant. I have no issues spanking Kidds. Striking a blob of ships is possible, yet you just recall after first attack and only lose a couple of planes. As i stated above, it might still be worth it. If you manage to decimate that group, the plane losses might be irrelevant. Going alone when a CV is in the game is a deathsentence IF the CV knows what he is doing. Ive also had a game against 2 CVs, who were both bad and werent able to drop properly and i killed almost 80 planes from them... Doesnt mean CVs are balanced, actually quite the opposite, because if i would have faced 1 good CV player, i would have died.

Like WG cares what we write... I dont get payed to do WGs job. If they think its fine, well then they dont have to wonder if me (or others too) leave the game, and i personaly would advice anyone against playing WG games and spending money. At this point, ive lost all hope that WG tries to remotely balance this game, all they are interested in getting the maximum amount of money with as little as possible work being put into it (AL Littorio exact copy of Roma anyone? or B ships which are same ships as standard, only in "cool black camo"?) What does that even mean? (btw i read shimakaze and not shikishima the first time lol) If i happen to be in the game with Erazer, he will kill me? When i get devstriked by torps, i mostly have to blame myself for being oblivious and i most likely misplayed. If a CV gets 3 citadels with AP bombs, it has nothing to do with misplaying on my part. I can play perfectly, yet still get smacked into oblivion. The point is the outcome of it. If a SU CV player can still guaranteed strike me, even with perfect use of manual AA, then its not worth it. If you want, there needs to be an outcome where both can "win" and not always the CV. I know what you are trying to say, but if teamplay isnt even allowed to make a ship less useful (no, a CV that cant strike is not useless, he can still spot or attack somewhere else) then how is it balanced? If there are 3 ships behind me, lets say BB/CA/DD and im alone in a Cruiser, should i demand that i can just faceroll them by myself? Everyone would say, thats crazy, yet here we are... At best, i can just fight back somewhat, hoping i survive as long as possible.

If i add captain skills and modules, then its still not my personal skill which decides if the CV can strike me or not. Erazer will strike me with or without AA build, while a bad CV player will die with or without AA build. And if he manages to get through, there is a high chance he [edited] up the drop anyway. There is very little i can do when facing a Superunicum CV player, except hoping that he wont go for me. Against SUs in other classes, there is atleast the chance of fighting them.

Unless someone convinces me with a mechanic which actually works, yes, i would be against it. Not to mention, WG has shown time and time again that they are incapable of proper balancing... Not having new stuff added to the game is favourable to me currently, as new stuff only tends to make the game worse, but thats just me. Thats not iffy. If there is a BB straightling, it can get devastated by torps from a DD. The point is, Manual AA has to work better than automated AA, otherwise there is no reason for it to change. Vice versa, bad players might also get shafted more if they are incapable of using their AA properly. Lets compare to how it is right now: - Good CV vs good non-CV: can attack, will eventually kill - Good CV vs bad non-CV: same as above - Bad CV vs good non-CV: Most likely dies to flak - Bad CV vs bad non-CV: Same as above. 2 Bad players facing each other should be able to damage each other within their limits. Also 2 good players facing each other will make it harder for each other. With CVs, this is not the case, but @El2aZeR has said that a million times by now: CV Players are fighting against an automated mechanic, thus CVs are basicly playing PVE. If only the skill of the CV player matters, you will have results like we have now.

Read again? As i said, i dont have anyhing against it, i just dont see it working properly in actual game environement. There is a difference between wanting something, and actually think about how it should be implemented. Lets say this would actually work, would you be willing to lose your entire squad without getting an attack through against manual AA if the player is skilled?

Sure, thats why DDs have double the spotting damage of CVs... oh wait, its actually the other way around In any Case, DDs usually rely on their team to kill ships which they spot, so they can attack ships themselves. DD spots radar Cruiser, team kills radar Cruiser, DD can go torp BB.

We cant even aim torps and guns independently from one another*. How should surface ships aim with AA guns in between? In theory, id like manual AA guns, but its pretty much impossible to do, especially for those ships which are designed to be AA ships (Cruisers) while it heavily favours those, which actually should be prime targets for CVs (BBs). A BB has not much to do between his 30 sec reload, while Cruisers with fast reload cant do both at the same time. Also i think its funny, how CVs cant do 2 things at the same time (Planes + hull, or even consumables), but surface ships could be expected to do that (guns + AA) and all that other stuff ontop of it. With manual AA guns, you probably would BBs also demand to get manual Secondaries (real ones that is)... which would be a good point actually. * if i would have been able to do that, i could have turned a CB game, while having a Moskva on one side and a DD on the other. I had to look to the Moskva till i could launch my torps, while i could have shot the DD if i could have locked my torps in place...

XP can be changed by modifiers. WG have done so in the past, recently they lowered CV XP modifier, because they tend to be topspot quite often? Its natural tho, since smacking DDs gets a lot of XP. And since WG wont tell us exactly how XP is calculated and the modifiers at work, it doesnt actually mean anything if the numbers are balanced right now. If all ships would have no modifiers, then it would paint a clear picture. Basicly they can artificially lower or enhance XP for certain ships - which we dont know either. And the inability to devstrike comes from the rework. For huge alpha strikes, you need more downtime between attacks, otherwise the damage output would be insane. Imagine AP bombers would drop all at once, and you could devstrike any ship. Within 5-6 mins you probably could devstrike half the team. So i dont think thats a point at all. So leaves us with capping... as i said before, i think DDs would be happy to get ~double the damage without being able to cap anymore. Atleast i would take that trade happily. CVs have the highest average kills tho. So they definetely get them.

Personaly i think they are. Ive stated the reason for that before. You could say, the more impact a class has, the less damage they deal (roughly, Cruisers/BBs can differ a lot, like radar Cruisers obviously have more game impact than non-radar Cruisers). CVs counter the class with the highest game impact, DDs, and can also spot better than DDs, thus they arguably have the highest influence on the game, paired with being best damage dealers. So, if we would keep CVs as they currently are, they should have ~ DD average damage. Drop the spotting, which has a huge impact on how you surface ships can play, they can keep their damage imo.

The other T8 Cruisers dont have much more damage? Some have even less. Even tho, the average is pretty irrelevant, as it only depends what you can do personaly with it. Also we dont know how those people are playing. F.e. if a BB player usually dies after 6 mins, because he just steams into the enemies, he wont have any benefit from SI... since he is always dead before he can use all heals.

Nah its ok to kill a class, to have another class* in the game *which most people dont want to play

They are free to look at my stats (f.e) and i do have unicum damage on most of my ships. So i can backup my build suggestions with success in game. For all i care you can skill all 1pt and 2pt captain skills if you think its not trash. Doesnt make it any more useful tho. And now you can check which ships have armor between 60 and 73mm ... which you can ofc also see in game, not much use in being able to citadel Kuma in a T8 Cruiser

There is a difference between: - Losing aircraft without having an impact on your ability to strike targets - Losing more aircraft then you can regenerate because you eat flak for breakfast Had a game in Mogami once, where i went down to 5k HP or so before i had any damage... ended the game first place with >100k damage. Did it hurt me losing like 80% of my health in the first 4-5 mins of the game? No, on the contrary, having AR it helped me dealing even more damage. Same can be applied to planes: If i would have 1000 planes in reserve, would i mind losing 800 planes? No, i still have enough to spare. Numbers exaggerated to make a point.

1. assuming, that average players cant make GZ work in T10, but for some reason they could make Enty work. Or assuming, they could make any other ship work except some CVs (GZ atleast). As @El2aZeR said, average surface ship player cant deal with CVs, but that usually doesnt matter, as they get told to "git gud". 2. proclaiming, that minekaze/kamikaze would perform well or even be OP in T10 MM, i guess also played by average players? You are just looking 4+ years in the past, where people in Umikaze could spank T10 ships - big surprise, since there was no radar and i guess not even hydro BBs? (pre-german BB?, i wasnt there so i have to speculate). Its a big joke and either being oblivious our outright lying, that those ships would perform in T10 MM, while T8 CVs "cant perform".

eh... he has higher WR in GZ? Damage and kills are not as relevant, as long as he gets his WR. Apparently getting more kills in Enty doesnt give him a better WR... But you completely ignored the point anyway: You ask for balance by average players, yet claim some CVs are worse than others. Newsflash, that happens by balancing for average. There will be ships which are just better when played by good players, because the average person cant reach the potential maximum. To your Haku/Midway attempt: Small sample size? Swap 5 losses for wins and you would have 60% WR...

Assuming average players are better with Enterprise than with GZ... I thought you want balanced by average players so you have to accept that some ships are just blatantly OP in good hands while others are... well not? Like, why should a good CV player pick GZ over Enty? Guess if he wants to lose more often How about give Bourgogne to average players, i guess it would need buffs immediately Thats why, balancing by good players is the only real way, as it shows what the potential of the ship is. If some ships are worse than others in average hands, well than the concept is bad or the skill floor is higher. Even managed to find one with meaningful games in both ships looks fine to me? And that player is even above average, so if anything, he should perform better in Enty, but he doesnt? (all solo ofc)

Islands? Smart use of DCP? Except CVs have somewhere between 70-80% more damage than DDs, so that point is kinda moot. Except if the CV is skilled enough, then he basicly will hit me. But yes, Torps are the easiest to dodge of the 3 attack aircraft. Doesnt mean i can dodge Rockets or Bombs, unless again, the CV player is not skilled enough and cant account for my dodging. I mean, ive seen CV players attack a spotted target with rockets, but manage to overshoot Clearly those are not an indication if something is balanced or not. Kremlin would disagree with you. But even if, look at low-midtiers, where its also not a big issue when BBs can overmatch each other. Doesnt mean, ships like Nagato are worse than others, even if the caliber is one size too big. But on hightiers, BBs basicly cant do it except Yamato and co.