ForlornSailor

As Seiranko already said: The ship is balanced around that armor. It already has the speed, a fast reload and the reload booster. On the contrary, JB can influence many situations quite heavily. Unlike other BBs, she can push in quick and punish DDs and Cruisers faster than any other BB could. Thats her thing. You need to be able to identify situations, where you can benefit, and make use of them. She is not like, say a Yamato, that will anker at a certain position and scare people with the sheer presence. It also might be, that the playstyle of JB is not what you are looking for. In that case, you might try another line of BBs, like the IJN.

When you see the first reasonable post after spening 20 mins reading the forum.

Exactly. Good that you finally accept the current AA. Now just learn the completly new class and in time you will git gud. IMO - its exactly the other way around. And who says the new style will be more attractive? I for one prefer the RTS version. Also: attracting more people with these T4s. lul. Its going to be like the old CVs - loads of people with 1 game and 0 dmg. The difference is: before people didnt knew how they have to work the CV, because nobody told them how to do so. You came from playing a BB and got pretty much thrown into a different game with different controls. aka they were better then you. But one thing strikes me: If you knew, a mechanic like strafing existed, then why didnt you ask in the forums? You are using it now, right? You´d have you answers within minutes. But the core of the problem i will acknowledge, because I was fighting literally for years over it: tell the people how to controll all functions! There needed to be a mandatory tutorial, before you could bring your CV to a random battle. Show people how to strafe, how to manual attack - for god sake, how to switch the map and start planes, because some people did fail at that! But no, WG didnt listen and instead removed manual attacks from low tier CVs because "skill gap" and "sealclub". Totaly the wrong direction. Not that I havent typed this paragraph more or less 500 times over the years but well.

Thanks, will have a look. And most likely do some games over the weekend myself. We need to give WG some feedback about the T4 CVs anyway, they are flying under the radar atm and they dont look good. "We want to make the CV-class more accessable for new players" WG 2018

Man, I didnt even knew that one. That could actually make it usefull - thanks mate!

The goal of the rework, as by WG defintion, was, to reduce the influence a CV has on the outcome of the match. MrConway confirmed this in one of his posts today here on the forum. So what you describe, is one of the goals, that WG wanted to achieve with the rework, in action. Telling them that is like a pat on their sholder sayin "well done". Im not sure, that was your intention here. But one thing is clear: at the end of the balancing, it will never ever be as it was with RTS CVs before, that should be clear to everyone by now. Im not sure how much of the hotfix was due to the whine of people. I hope they had their own data as a reason. Because if they reacted to the sensless wave of whine (with the exepction of Haku, that needed to be fixed), then in the future I shall never ever make reasonable posts about balancing but instead will whine without any argument and in the worst spelling I can come up with - maybe ill get my will then. He infact made some very good posts about how and what should be changed. But those threads / posts are drowing in the s***h*** the forum is right now. People like to freakin whine their eyes out right now and its getting annoying. And that goes for both sides of the whine (that should go without saying, but since ive been labeled a "CV apologist AND a CV hater within the last 7 days couple of times, I better mention it. Not that it will help) But hey - it was almost scary, how united the community was about the spotting-mechanic, now we are back to throwing mud at each other again. Home sweet home. And since you threw that question out in the room: Maybe it is infact the best for the game in the long-run, if the rework doesnt work out. I personally prefer the RTS CVs and had this opinion pretty early. If WG would put up a binding vote, with the options : keep rework - remove CVs - go back to RTS CVs - Id vote to bring back the RTS CVs as of this moment. But hey, maybe they surprise me and get it done. I personally dont see it.

Well. I didnt play/interact with T4 CVs after hotfix yet so that might be the case aswell. Thats why I was asking for the replay. Anyway, its possible. The interaction is a mess and I dont see how to balance this, because some CVs span across 3 to 4 tiers. (T8 CVs = T6 ~ T10). There needs to be a fluid AA/CV interaction to make is even possible to balance this. Otherwise, higher tier ships will always poop on lower tier CVs while higher tier CVs will always poop on lower tier ships. Both is bs. There was a good approach from @DFens_666 yesterday or so... Id link it directly but atm, you cant find s*** in this mess of a forum. Where are the mods again and why dont we have a dump for all CV-thread as we have for the Radar?

Doesnt matter what exactly it means. His post is completly contradicting itself. He whines about, that other players have been whining, while he whines himself after 1 - ONE - ! game. How serious would you take a player with 1 game overall in wows crying about the game? This is a new class. And we are in balancing. Whining like this doesnt help anyone, only makes the forum a stupid mess. Its time to shut these people down right away. Quite frankly, there should be a "CV whine Megathread" where the mods should move all that stuff, no matter in which direction people are whining atm. But yea, mods are never there when you need em...

I see you are adapting well? Anyway. Post is completly useless because A) 0.8.1.1 B) See Allied_Winter above

My guess includes the words "keyboard", "face" and "roll" But seriously, that was possible before, but since its so slow, you cant really use it for anything helpful.

What did I say about the state of the forum yesterday, @El2aZeR ? ^^

Actually... IF done right, this doesnt effect the rest that much. But you´d need my mentioned 5/7/9-model. Take a T7 CV as an example: He could be in a game with a range of T6-T8. So the game itself still has a +/-2 spread, while for the CV its a +/-1. But I know, this has other impacts on the matchmaking like some ships would only be able to face one single CV type (like T7 surface ships would only see a T7 CV). And with anchoring you could get better mm for your T8s f.e. And there might be more problems, which im not thinking of. And anyway not realistic, since CV tech tree just got reworked and 3 CVs per line is even worse then the current 4. So its not really a suggestion, just speaking a thought out loud ^^

With the current tech-trees, you´d need to place CVs on uneven tiers. which would eliminate another CV, because we´d have CVs on Tier 5/7/9. @Ubertron_X its a good idea. Similar ideas have been brought up to minimize the effects of T8 cruisers, when in T10 games (like make a heal available for them in such cases). Since WG didnt go for that, im not sure theyll concider your idea. But they should, imo.

Oh sorry, I didnt notice, you werent looking for any helpful advice, just are here for the rage. Here, have some pitchforks instead. Or maybe you want to explain to us, how other people manage right now? Why am I looking at stats from a Midway right now, from today, 9 games, 100% WR, 3 avg kills, 133k avg damage if that is all impossible...

Dont drop last set, fly out of AA-zone, recall.

It indeed is. But in return, the planes have more health. The problem is really, to find the middleground. Like the formula you posted, needs to find such values, that attacking with a CV is possible but so is defending. Then you need to take into account: Tier span (in case of a T8 CV this ranges from T6 ships to T10 ships) AND you need to take into account, that some - especially cruisers - should have a stronger position as beeing AA-cruisers. I can truly understand, why that is hard. Thus I was always in favour of giving CVs a +/- 1 mm. This is ofc not really possible with CVs sitting on even tiers, because they would need to be 5/7/9... which means, we would have to kick out another CV. Not really an option anymore. But to return: I dont think a T8 CV should just stomp every T6 ship to the ground, and neither is it ok that a T8 CV is useless in a T10 game. (this pretty much goes for T6 CVs aswell - goes without saying). And on top of that, we dont have a cooldown anymore, as in if you still have planes you can just start the next one. They COULD balance things easier, if there were such a thing, but obviously they dont want to, because it would make gameplay boring. Which I can even understand to a degree, depending, how long you´d have to wait inbetween... Different unit, same numbers One could move the TBs manually out of the (short) range AA and then recall the planes. Could be achieved in different ways. Either WG removes this auto-recall after the last set is dropped (questionable that this will happen?) or you dont drop your last set, fly out and recall with atleast one set not dropped. But then again: Giving BBs such a strong short-range AA, that makes them the best AA-ships in the game was questionable in the first place. I remember when @Darth_Glorious posted the first table with the AA-numbers and I went like "lol, nice idea WG". Not like the community was crying for years to teach the playerbase . And well, the unimprovable might get the constant feedback "CVs are not for you". Which is... pretty much the same as before, when people were rock-botteming their Midways at a Winrate of 20~30% but still didnt care. So in that sense: nothing is ever gonna change, wheather we like it or not...

Oh how I got cursed at yesterday in another thread, when I said that.

That seems to be, whats happening, yes. Or most likely the AA-sectors have infinite height, while logic would say, that the sectors are more like a dome, so that at a certain height/distance combination, youd be out of range.

This. I dont see a reason to run AFT atm. Especially when talking Minotaur, you can replace that with RPF f.e. and get much more value out of it.

Since he turned into a back-line camper, he doesnt need CE anymore

It was about time for a free XP DD... I really thought, the neurtral sashimi will be the one. I want my Dynamooooooooo

Chill mate. Please dont join the crowd throwing these words around, we have enough of them already. I know you are a reasonable guy. (yeah and I saw you two figured the misunderstanding out, just saying, we shouldnt jump to conclusions so fast, what we think our discussion parnter meant. Forum is snappy enough right now) About the alpha-strike from CVs/TBs: I think looking at the raw value is as usefull as looking at AP damage from BBs. In theory you will reach numbers like 5,xx million damage for a Yamato per game. So calculating by the raw numbers, that a planesquad does, is not really that helpfull. Sure, sometimes you will get that damage - as you will get those heftly volleys with a BB - but its super super rare. Pretty much this: Also: Because you have a professional background, that WG seems to lack? It actually might be that. Or they used a different approach / had different ideas in mind. Id wish theyd share this process, but they didnt.

A lot of people are afraid of DDs with 40k avg dmg tho . The thing for CVs might be: need to focus more on DoT. As in look for targets, which your team has pulled a DCP off or help your team to stack DoT by pulling DCP. It was literally in WGs explanations, that they want to reduce alpha-strike capability of CVs. What actually would be interesting is, to read a feedback from WG, if the current state is, what they where aiming at to achieve or how close it is. We can only guess right now. Seems impossible right now. Maybe start topics for T4s / T6s but im sure some people will start talking about Haku there aswell (as its even happening in topcis, completly unrelated to CVs)

To come to a closure at this point: I do understand what you mean. I know you where looking for better data (I was myself) but it sadly isnt available to my knowledge. So I made observation, what I found problematic and looked for data to support it. I´d gladly take overall and avarage values, even if they would show, im wrong - id be the first the admit it - but yea, its not available. And like I said, that problem from my view got solved with the hotfix, so case closed ;) Should be all. Its not so easy in some cases tho. Against Minotaur you will slip in/out of detection range and in/out of his AA-range because of the speed of the planes. Ah, that explains some 0 data I found. I was wondering, how that was possible. Thanks for the clarification As I said above: the hotfix changed a lot. And unless you find a way to extract the data for those specific days, we will never know. And its not that important anymore either way. The game has moved on, so it hardly matters anymore. I dont think its a problem anymore right now. Also because games with 2 CVs are pretty much gone now (which might have been a source of the extensive spotting aswell, not only the way CVs work itself now)

Yes, I know someone, who exclusivly went for this setup (even trying the 4-TB-spam in comparision) and it overperformed aswell. IMO - a lot of these problems are created by the incompability of how CVs can cause DoT now and how DCP functions on almost all ships. But hey, dont worry, the russian BBs are around the corner, they will counter that peeerfectly (what a coincidence right). So right now, AA across the board is overcompensating to stop CVs from stacking DoT, while we need a solution for this DoT-model in the first place (give all ships russian-style DCP? - creates its own problems, as it will throw balance of cruisers vs BBs and DDs vs BBs over board.)