Uglesett

The problem is that the only really good suggestion, WG didn't listen to: Scrap the CV rework sometime back in Jan.-Feb. There genuinely isn't any "constructive" feedback to give beyond "start over", because the CV rework is fundamentally flawed and never should have been implemented in the live game. Because what it boils down to is that CVs don't fit into the basic design of the game. They aren't subject to the restrictions used to balance the other classes, and their only role is to be the fun police for every other class by basically negating all skill related to positioning and use of concealment. Meanwhile, they don't really have any actual counter play options any more beyond gambling for misplays by the CV. The reworked CVs will never be balanced to play against while being actually enjoyable to play. If I was going to give one option that might semi-salvage this show until they can get a second rework going (or they just give up and scrap CVs entirely) it's to basically make them behave a lot more like the RTS CVs: -Reduce plane speeds and/or introduce a delay between recalling one squadron and launching another -Remove multiple strikes per squadron - the entire squadron strikes as one. -Increase AA damage across the board This is basically going to cause the following -Losses before a strike actually count -Less loitering over targets, which reduces the impact of CV spotting -More turnaround time giving time to react and reposition before a new strike Unfortunately, this is going to require basically a complete restart of the balancing process. Squadron sizes, plane health, ordnance damage... all these will have to be redone. Again.

Didn't have an awful lot of non-scorescreen screenshots, but there's one here at least that shows the UI in 2560x1600.

As I mentioned in my previous post, historically CVs weren't really involved at the sort of engagement ranges this game represents (unless someone screwed the pooch), and as has also been mentioned earlier, aircraft weren't really involved once surface ships started engaging each other due to difficulty identifying targets. Aircraft engaged surface ships on their own outside of surface engagements.

"CVs are warships, they belong in a warship game".... well, not really. It's not as if there aren't plenty of categories of warships (e.g. mine layers and sweepers, any number of coastal and littoral ships etc.) that aren't included, because there isn't really a good way to include them that doesn't make them pointless or breaks the game in other ways. TBH, if WG had made the decision a couple of years ago to not include CVs, would anyone really have missed them? All in all, I do think including them in the first place was a mistake. As for whether that mistake can be corrected? Well, I am genuinely unsure whether just removing them altogether at this stage would generate any more noise and trouble than the rework has done. As for arguments for why they don't belong in a game like WoWS... well: 1) From a game design/game play perspective: CVs are fundamentally different from the other three ship classes that the game is primarily designed to represent, and they ignore all of the balancing factors (detectability, weapon range and reload speed, armour layout and angling, gunnery mechanics...) that apply to the other ship classes, and instead depend on an entirely separate system of mechanisms of attack and counter play that are... at best, severely flawed. Yes, there are issues with other ships, but none of them are as fundamental as the basic disconnect between the CV game play and the game play of the other classes. And that's not something that can ever be really solved. 2) From a "realism" perspective: Barring a handful of incidents that were either down to bad luck or sheer incompetence, CVs just didn't belong anywhere near the gun range of surface combatants. They'd do whatever they could to stay the away from anything that could shoot a large calibre gun at them and launch air strikes from over the horizon. A CV that was as close to the action as they are in this game was awfully misplaced. Saying CVs belong in the game because they belong in real life just completely ignores the setting of battles in this game, which is visual range combat.

If my 780Ti can do the job in 2560x1600, I can't see why not. Don't remember the settings, I think I run it on high, 60-ish fps. Visiting the parents right now about 500 km from my desktop rig, so I can't check though. And the UI looks perfectly alright at those settings. When I'm on the laptop later I can look through my earlier posted screenshots.

Well, I spent 24 games on the Langley and 27 on the Hosho. But that's with premium time at least for a fair amount of games, usually at least +150% from camos and signals and a fair few +200% first win bonuses. That said, I don't think I'd buff them. They're not that bad against T5s if you just stay away from those until they've spread out a bit, and any buffs would make them stupidly powerful against T3 and 4. My impression so far is that T6 CVs have a lot more problems being uptiered than T4s.

Because being focused on by 12 ships isn't fun and engaging enough.

Well, neither the Hosho's nor the Ryujo's rockets are anything to shout about, so often torpedoes end up being the most effective weapon they have against DDs.

Have I missed something, and they decided to make her into a premium after all? According to the dev blog post, she's supposed to be an alternate Tier X tech tree ship.

Hard to understand Is the meaning of this thread And bad haiku too

Fixed.

In the long term, the increased fire duration is going to do a lot more damage than the rare torpedo hit that could have been dodged by marginally faster rudder shift.

Considering how much money you'll probably have to "pay" for them (i.e. by throwing money at Christmas containers until you happen to get one by chance), I'd say that neither Belfast, Kutuzov, Missouri, Kamikaze or any of the other normally unavailable premiums are "worth it". No other ship in my port gets me the credits or free exp that I get from the Musashi (maybe the Kobayashi Kii, but Musashi is more idiot- and matchmaking-proof and therefore more reliable in terms of performance). But you can't get her any more, so for that reason alone there's no point in recommending her.

"Camo". Erm, no. That's the nice thing about premiums, you can assign a captain to it without retraining. And if you're retraining a captain (because you're moving him to the next tier ship, for example), you can perform the retraining in a premium ship instead. The captain will not have diminished effect of current skills while retraining.

Are any of the paid for premiums really "worth it"? I mean, if you want a credit printing press, you can always get one of the tier 9 freemiums for coal or free exp, and they'll do as well as or better than anything you can buy. So whether a premium ship is worth your coin depends on whether you find it satisfying to play or if what they offer otherwise (e.g. getting to retrain captains with less hassle) is worth it, and that depends entirely on your preferences. Sure, some premiums are just crappy (but even they may have some redeeming features that make them fun in the right hands), but of the ones that are decent-to-good it comes mostly down to personal preference. Personally, I'm a fan of the premiums that offer something different from the tech tree lines in terms of play style. E.g. Graf Spee, Scharnhorst, Haida...

Out of curiosity: What do you think CV players would deselect?

There is no dynamic repair bill, the service cost is fixed regardless of damage taken or even if you're destroyed. The variable cost comes from ammunition expenditure and plane losses.

Jokes aside, though: I've basically reached the conclusion that I'll grind all cv lines to T6 because then I can use them for events requiring T5+ ships. I doubt I'll be playing them much outside of that though, since I just don't find the CV gameplay terribly interesting.

I read that article, it was what prompted me to write my earlier post

Some players don't know how to avoid damage. News at 11.

No I didn't. I'm wondering why you have a problem with this:

So why should CVs have a chance against three AA cruisers working together?

How does a battleship deal with three destroyers working together against it?

Not half bad for a completely stock Ryujo. And a few more games in the Langley, and I'll never have to play a T4 CV again.