General CV related discussions.

[Nibenay78]

32 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Flying back IS a massive reduction. But so is 30secs waiting time... 

And so is armor if we want to talk about that. A piece of steel that I can nicely angle against incoming shells. 

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

To make a quick approximation, I'll be dead fast or marginally slower 

I'm sure @El2aZeR can back me up on this one!

 

But after all since the CV can go everywhere from any angle, a little bit of marginal reduction is too much.

 

We might have different experience, when you always die against CVs.

But then, this is not a calculation of the DPM.

 

I didn't talk about, how fast a CV can kill or not. I didn't talk about, if a CV can attack about any angle (though that's also really depending on the ships, since the CV has to go many kilometers for surround, while ships have a turning of ~700m)

 

I was talking about, that AA is a mechanic, that reduces the DPM of a CV

Every ship has a max raw DPM. For surface ships it's easy to calculate, while for CV we have to set certain conditions, because their DPM are variable, depending on distance.

The max DPM is archieved, if less distance is to travel. That means using all wings in a squadron gives way more dpm, than using only 1 wing each squadron.

 

Here, a very theoretical example with fictive numbers

A. 45s flight time. 3 wing-attacks (15s), each 10k dmg. -> 30k damage after 1,5 minute

B. 45s flight time. 1 wing-attack(15s), 10k dmg.  -> 10k damage after 1 minute

 

A. In 10 Minutes: Could do 6,6 tripple strikes, though lets go with 6 = 180k damage

B. In 10 Minutes: Could do 10 single strikes = 100k damage

 

Common sense should already show, that tripple strikes have more dpm than single strikes, but the result is 180k damage vs 100k damage, and that even with not counting the 0.6 in, the 0.6 for A would be enough for a single strike. So A does 80% more damage... and we don't even take into acount, that multiple strikes could cause perma-flood/fire, only pure dmg.

Even if the calculation is not 100% accurate, the mechanic should be very clear here.

 

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

6 hours ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

Yes, they took a plane-game and "inserted" it. 

And then bodged the interactions.

 

Second time you know, first time it is a gamble. This is no different from when you spot a DD. 

You will have to gamble wheer he is and press the attack, when he goes visible then you know if he is straight or angled.

 

IMO they shoved two different gameplays together.

 

Different but the same. IMO all the stuff that they have "improved" could have been done in RTS as well.

 

67%WR is not unicum at all in CVs. The only CVs that I take FLAK are Ark Royal and FDR.

The rest of them only if I screw up, which is why I am average - I screw up.

 

It is true that some people wil always complain. 

This is like, they want to take a ship that is invulnerable to something. 

Meanwhile they then complain about somebody else that takes a CV, which is indeed invulnerable. 

 

In fact you seem to agree with most on this, like @Excavatus. 

And it would not be THAT hard to fix it up. But hey, this is WeeGee. 

 

That I agree on. You can now annoy the hell out of a CV, but only if he is no good, and you are somewhat good.

Or if he took the wrong CV and you took the right ship.... and have the right moment. 

 

Some probably did. But some actually got even better. However WR does not say it all. 

You can no longer just block/kill/whack the other CV. But still the WR is not affected much. 

That DOES have an implication. Meanwhile the max score remains around the same. 

If you cannot kill the greatest influence anymore, but still it remains same --> it means CVs got more powerful.

 

Generally I find CVs easier to play. Mostly because of the interface, and less stutter/crashes/etc. 

 

In RTS we did play a Hood and a Sims at T7, and we were sort of immune to CV. 

He'd only try get us when he was all out of better targets. Because he'd lose a lot of planes which he'd not get back.

But when he did attack us, usually it was all over in one or two attacks. 

 

I think we need a major brainchange for WeeGee. 

Sometimes I think, hey WeeGee, you have done something good there, you are getting better.

And just when I think that, then they come with the next crappy thing. 

 

Neither do I. I play 30%CV, 30% BB, 30% cruiser. The rest DD. 

However, CVs need to be improved - meanwhile there is no choice, we are stuck with them.

Meh, I answered it and at the last quote, I pressed accidently the 4th mouse button for "one page back" v_v

 

 

[Nibenay78]

10 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

We might have different experience, when you always die against CVs.

They are a significan contributor to my deaths, despite usually being just 1 of them. The persistent spotting is worse than the direct damage. But I'm generous with reports anyways.

 

10 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

But then, this is not a calculation of the DPM.

 

I didn't talk about, how fast a CV can kill or not. I didn't talk about, if a CV can attack about any angle (though that's also really depending on the ships, since the CV has to go many kilometers for surround, while ships have a turning of ~700m)

 

I was talking about, that AA is a mechanic, that reduces the DPM of a CV

Every ship has a max raw DPM. For surface ships it's easy to calculate, while for CV we have to set certain conditions, because their DPM are variable, depending on distance.

So for surface ships you simply calculate how fast the shells can come out the barrels? No other consideration for it's effectiveness? 

 

10 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The max DPM is archieved, if less distance is to travel. That means using all wings in a squadron gives way more dpm, than using only 1 wing each squadron.

 

Here, a very theoretical example with fictive numbers

A. 45s flight time. 3 wing-attacks (15s), each 10k dmg. -> 30k damage after 1,5 minute

B. 45s flight time. 1 wing-attack(15s), 10k dmg.  -> 10k damage after 1 minute

 

A. In 10 Minutes: Could do 6,6 tripple strikes, though lets go with 6 = 180k damage

B. In 10 Minutes: Could do 10 single strikes = 100k damage

 

Common sense should already show, that tripple strikes have more dpm than single strikes, but the result is 180k damage vs 100k damage, and that even with not counting the 0.6 in, the 0.6 for A would be enough for a single strike. So A does 80% more damage... and we don't even take into acount, that multiple strikes could cause perma-flood/fire, only pure dmg.

Even if the calculation is not 100% accurate, the mechanic should be very clear here.

Sure, it has a marginal effect 

Maybe we can also implement ablative armor for all ships in this case? Yamato hits you and you lose 5mm of your armor...

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, Nibenay78 said:

So for surface ships you simply calculate how fast the shells can come out the barrels? No other consideration for it's effectiveness? 

Eh, that was the point....

That AA reduces the DPM of a CV

So you take the max raw DPM and look at the effect of AA, if it reduces or doesn't reduce.

 

Raw DPM minus observered effect = DPM

 

We don't look at player skill, that never lose a single player in their whole life, we don't look at RNG drops. Only at the mechanic, that AA reduces DPM.

 

Again: The question was about features of a CV. A positive feature of a CV is the travel speed of planes. A negative feature is, that the CV loses DPM by AA, which is a unique mechanic, AA works only on planes.

 

14 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

Sure, it has a marginal effect 

Maybe we can also implement ablative armor for all ships in this case? Yamato hits you and you lose 5mm of your armor...

Yes, if it's marignal, then you can deactivate your AA as AA-cruiser from now on. Shouldn't make much difference? :)

Having 50-80% less dpm is super marignal :D

 

The context of ablative armor is not really seen for me. Especially at some point ships would get only overpens, because there is no armor to stop them, weird suggestion

 

 

 

[BLUB__BLUB]

1 minute ago, Nibenay78 said:

And so is armor if we want to talk about that. A piece of steel that I can nicely angle against incoming shells. 

You're not suggesting an anti-AA umbrella thing eh. 

 

[Nibenay78]

42 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Eh, that was the point....

That AA reduces the DPM of a CV

So you take the max raw DPM and look at the effect of AA, if it reduces or doesn't reduce.

 

Raw DPM minus observered effect = DPM

which we can call effective DPM, sure.

I agree, it has some effect, yet either not enough (El2) or simply too much (mr 40% guy noobing into flak).

 

42 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

We don't look at player skill, that never lose a single player in their whole life, we don't look at RNG drops. Only at the mechanic, that AA reduces DPM.

 

Again: The question was about features of a CV. A positive feature of a CV is the travel speed of planes. A negative feature is, that the CV loses DPM by AA, which is a unique mechanic, AA works only on planes.

 

Yes, if it's marignal, then you can deactivate your AA as AA-cruiser from now on. Shouldn't make much difference? :)

Having 50-80% less dpm is super marignal :D

When end result still being mostly helpess against a good CV player. One think I think everyone here agrees on is that first strike is designed to go through. Thus AA can only stop the "surplus" damage at best.

 

42 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The context of ablative armor is not really seen for me. Especially at some point ships would get only overpens, because there is no armor to stop them, weird suggestion

AA is supposed to be the "main damage mitigation" against planes. As mentioned before by several others, DPM will go UP because AA tends to get destroyed. Effectively an "ablative armor". 

[BLUB__BLUB]

6 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

yet either not enough (El2) or simply too much (mr 40% guy noobing into flak).

That is why manual FLAK would be good.

Concentrate on one plane, and create a gap. 

 

It would hit unicums just as well. And it would diminish the rest of the FLAK.

So it would also level N00bies, well maybe. 

[Nibenay78]

47 minutes ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

That is why manual FLAK would be good.

Concentrate on one plane, and create a gap. 

 

It would hit unicums just as well. And it would diminish the rest of the FLAK.

So it would also level N00bies, well maybe. 

Good and we both know its not going to happen. WG said that understanding that radar and sonar doesnt go through (edit:) mountains is too hard to grasp for the average player. Do you think manual AA is a possibility?

[BLUB__BLUB]

19 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

Good and we both know its not going to happen. WG said that understanding that radar and sonar doesnt go through is too hard to grasp for the average player. Do you think manual AA is a possibility?

Yeah, we both know it is not going to happen. 

But they'll also keep CVs. And I am shivering for when we get Russian CV. 

[Nibenay78]

Just now, BLUB__BLUB said:

Yeah, we both know it is not going to happen. 

But they'll also keep CVs. And I am shivering for when we get Russian CV. 

They will be grand. Fun and engaging! I'll probably get one myself so i can test out these amazingly famous ww2 russian CVs

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

which we can call effective DPM, sure.

I agree, it has some effect, yet either not enough (El2) or simply too much (mr 40% guy noobing into flak).

Yes, but it's not even about, how much it effects, it's was only about "what are negative features of a CV". And that a CV loses planes, which results into dpm lost, is a negative feature. Same like low HP is a feature of a DD. This low HP is technically a negative feature, but it has nothing to do with if a player is good or bad and uses this low hp effectively

It was really only about, what are features

 

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

When end result still being mostly helpess against a good CV player. One think I think everyone here agrees on is that first strike is designed to go through. Thus AA can only stop the "surplus" damage at best.

Ok? Don't see the context here about the feature, that AA reduces DPM ^^'

 

Also don't like the phrasing "mostly helpess". Just because someone takes damage, doesn't mean, he can't win a match xD

If I take 10k from a kremlin behind a rock 20km away unspotted, or 10k for a CV. I see not much difference there. I'm wondering, if other games have the same topic, in Steel Ocean I can't remember, that people complained about "I'm helpless against CV strikes", though people seem often upset about sniper and artillery. At some point I think, it might be better, that people should change the game, if they don't like these concepts ^^

There are games, where people always have "fair" conditions

 

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

AA is supposed to be the "main damage mitigation" against planes. As mentioned before by several others, DPM will go UP because AA tends to get destroyed. Effectively an "ablative armor". 

1. Who said, it's supposed to be the main damage mitigation?

2. I would say a mix of AA and maneuvering are the main damage mitigation of air attacks.

3. If AA is stacked or with AA cruisers, it deletes 50-100% of the air strike. Which is a damage mitigation.

4. It's a wrong wording. It's not a dpm boost. It's a less DPM reduction. It's same like you would say, when I use my broadside to shoot all guns, I boost my dpm. But actually you don't you don't get more dpm, you just don't reduce your dpm by using less guns. ^^

5. Mostly you lose no AA, unlesss it's an HE Spammer BB. That is an issue with those BBs. So the HE should be changed on these BBs, imo

I checked that and did often Screenshots, where I took a lot damage, but never lost AA. Often >90%

 

 

 

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, BLUB__BLUB said:

That is why manual FLAK would be good.

Concentrate on one plane, and create a gap. 

 

It would hit unicums just as well. And it would diminish the rest of the FLAK.

So it would also level N00bies, well maybe. 

Manual AAA would be so great. It would be huge fun. In Steel Ocean every ship had long range AA, for example 4 to 10. Then you could fire single shot or all together at one moment, then they had a "cool down" of a few seconds or reload

But it would be also fun, because then people can't cry around because of "i'm helpless", then it's up to the player, to do something ^^

[El2aZeR]

25 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

It was really only about, what are features

 

Yeah, not like we can't just go back a few pages and see that you have completely switched around your narrative.

On 4/20/2021 at 4:12 PM, Pikkozoikum said:

The CV has the risk to lose dpm. No other ship has these kind of risks.

 

Any other fantasy stories or worthless opinion pieces you would like to tell?

[Nibenay78]

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Yes, but it's not even about, how much it effects, it's was only about "what are negative features of a CV". And that a CV loses planes, which results into dpm lost, is a negative feature. Same like low HP is a feature of a DD. This low HP is technically a negative feature, but it has nothing to do with if a player is good or bad and uses this low hp effectively

It was really only about, what are features

Well we agree then, AA does reduce DPM. You call it massive, I call it marginal.

 

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

 

Ok? Don't see the context here about the feature, that AA reduces DPM ^^'

 

Also don't like the phrasing "mostly helpess". Just because someone takes damage, doesn't mean, he can't win a match xD

I can win a match by being AFK. Happens when I run to the toilet when I have to puke from CVs 

 

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If I take 10k from a kremlin behind a rock 20km away unspotted, or 10k for a CV. I see not much difference there. I'm wondering, if other games have the same topic, in Steel Ocean I can't remember, that people complained about "I'm helpless against CV strikes", though people seem often upset about sniper and artillery. At some point I think, it might be better, that people should change the game, if they don't like these concepts ^^

There are games, where people always have "fair" conditions

People don't like mechanics that gives them the feeling they can not do anything against it. 

It doesn't feel great when CV is your cause of death (either by massive damage or persistent spotting) and you shoot down 20 planes! yay! well you're still dead and CV can still fight. WoWs somehow manages to keep some fairness between the 3 classes, but not the 4th.

 

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

 

1. Who said, it's supposed to be the main damage mitigation?

I did and I still think so. Feel free to disagree. 

 

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

2. I would say a mix of AA and maneuvering are the main damage mitigation of air attacks.

it's in fact the only two ways to mitigate damage from CVs, of which the defending player can only control one.

 

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

3. If AA is stacked or with AA cruisers, it deletes 50-100% of the air strike. Which is a damage mitigation.

Only if the stacking is incredibly massive. (which leads to losses and boring gameplay, but hey, indeed it is mitigation)

 

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

4. It's a wrong wording. It's not a dpm boost. It's a less DPM reduction. It's same like you would say, when I use my broadside to shoot all guns, I boost my dpm. But actually you don't you don't get more dpm, you just don't reduce your dpm by using less guns. ^^

effective DPM goes up, not raw. Call it whatever you like. It is not comparable to shooting with various amounts of turrets. If AA truly disrupts the early strikes but less so the later in the game, this is not a thing the attacking player can control in the same manner as a ship can make the choise to fire only front or all turrets. This change is caused by a somewhat predictable change in the game as a factor of time. 

 

4 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

5. Mostly you lose no AA, unlesss it's an HE Spammer BB. That is an issue with those BBs. So the HE should be changed on these BBs, imo

I checked that and did often Screenshots, where I took a lot damage, but never lost AA. Often >90%

Sure it can be more or less frequent, as however WG decides, yet it happens. I would also prefer HE BBs to be turned into "mostly" AP BBs.

That said, AP shells do knock out AA too occationally.

 

[gabberworld]

21 minutes ago, Nibenay78 said:

People don't like mechanics that gives them the feeling they can not do anything against it. 

It doesn't feel great when CV is your cause of death (either by massive damage or persistent spotting) and you shoot down 20 planes! yay! well you're still dead and CV can still fight. WoWs somehow manages to keep some fairness between the 3 classes, but not the 4th.

 

 

i think that this feeling goes away at some point, probably when user self start play better or some other reason.  as i personally not think too much about that anymore like i todo before.

[Nibenay78]

1 hour ago, gabberworld said:

 

i think that this feeling goes away at some point, probably when user self start play better or some other reason.  as i personally not think too much about that anymore like i todo before.

In some cases yes, it's a matter of learning the game. I mean - there's always some BB player that whines that shimakaze is OP. Understandably this person feels it's frustrating to play against invisible DDs. 

Same for Thunderers at 22km and Smolensks in smoke..etc.

 

It's also learning when playing against CVs:

Don't flank

Don't go alone

Don't set up crossfire.

Don't hide behind mountains.

Don't try pushing up against enemies

 

and expect the first drop to always come through! As a minimum.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

Well we agree then, AA does reduce DPM. You call it massive, I call it marginal.

Had now 2 Haku games in ranked and did 40k and 50k total dmg. The AA was massive, and ships were smoked in caps. It feels massive to me

 

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

I can win a match by being AFK. Happens when I run to the toilet when I have to puke from CVs 

The difference is, when you are AFK, you contribute nothing to a win. When you fight "helpless" against a CV, you still can contribute to a win.

As I mentioned earlier. I had a match with a Marceau, which moved straight into the cap, I gave her big braodsides with rocket planes, she kept pushing around an Island, and killed our DD, while I was getting my next squadron ready.

The Marceau was so helpless, that she killed another DD, while under heavy focus of CV and surface ships v_V

 

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

People don't like mechanics that gives them the feeling they can not do anything against it. 

It doesn't feel great when CV is your cause of death (either by massive damage or persistent spotting) and you shoot down 20 planes! yay! well you're still dead and CV can still fight. WoWs somehow manages to keep some fairness between the 3 classes, but not the 4th.

That's right, same like against a smoked HE spammer, or Thunderer HE spammer, or 50mm bow plating bow in cruiser, or invisible DDs torping from nowhere, because nobody spots the DD.

And I don't see any fairness between the 3 classes. I don't even see fairness inbetween a single class, because they are so different. I mean compare Smolensk -> Zao -> Stalingrad. They are so different inbetween the class cruiser^^

The reason, why I can live so easily with the reworked CV is, that he gives me way more chances, then the old RTS, espeically in an aa weaker ship.

It's best shown, when you play Nagato vs a T8 CV and compare that with T8 RTS. For ships like Nagato it's just way better and more fair

 

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

I did and I still think so. Feel free to disagree. 

The thing is, it's not about agreeing or disagreeing. WG and their developer decide, if this is the case or not. And I actually think, that WG wants no extremes like: CV is not touched by AA, but also CV gets annihilated by AA. So a CV won't dev strike one ship after another, but also don't get fully denied. It's a way inbetween.

 

I actually wish, they would give us a week of RTS back, just to see, if people really prefer all the dev strikes and dependency to aa-cruiser and CV players ^^

You know, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence^^

 

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

it's in fact the only two ways to mitigate damage from CVs, of which the defending player can only control one.

But I actually think it's not a bad concept. When you have good AA like Wooster, then you will kill 70-100% of the planes, if the CV keeps going for you. Though you still have to maneuver at least one strike, as long the CV is not taking flak hits, which still can happen. And this single strike can do sometimes good damage, sometimes no damage.

Idk, but this is for me quite similar design to surface combat, where you can maneuver against it, but even angling might help nothing. You can take big hits after being angled.

 

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

Only if the stacking is incredibly massive. (which leads to losses and boring gameplay, but hey, indeed it is mitigation)

Depending on ships, 2 can be already enough. And I also think different. Grouping should not be boring, it's even more realistic, that's what they did irl against air attacks, they grouped with AA ships and escorts. There were ships, that had only the purpose of AA cover.

But I'm actually more a team player, so I don't mind grouping gameplay and I also like more realism, even if we go further away from that, sadly.

 

1 hour ago, Nibenay78 said:

effective DPM goes up, not raw. Call it whatever you like. It is not comparable to shooting with various amounts of turrets. If AA truly disrupts the early strikes but less so the later in the game, this is not a thing the attacking player can control in the same manner as a ship can make the choise to fire only front or all turrets. This change is caused by a somewhat predictable change in the game as a factor of time. 

Well, I was initially talking about the raw DPS, and I would mostly go with the DPS I have and then reduce it from there. I know, what is meant with "the dpm goes up", but in the context it's wrong.

When I talk about raw dpm, then the dpm goes not up, the dpm gets less reduced.  ^^

Also the AA is not always down, it depends on what is hitting. So even in late game, it can happen ,that multiple ships have >95% AA

 

2 hours ago, Nibenay78 said:

Sure it can be more or less frequent, as however WG decides, yet it happens. I would also prefer HE BBs to be turned into "mostly" AP BBs.

That said, AP shells do knock out AA too occationally.

I'm pretty sure, that a BB like Thunderer would work perfectly, if that ship would get HE compeltly removed. I sadly don't have Thunderer, would like to test that. I mean that ship has enough unqiue traits to be special even without that insane HE.

Just look at Shiki vs Yamato. The only real difference are the seoncaries/AA. That's it. There is a different gun-setting, but it's not that much different

 

 

 

[AndyHill]

3 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If I take 10k from a kremlin behind a rock 20km away unspotted, or 10k for a CV. I see not much difference there.

Isn't this example kind of loaded, though? If you have a Kremlin behind a rock his guns can't shoot through it and even if they can shoot over it, the Kremlin can't see you if he's also unspotted.

[Pikkozoikum]

3 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

Isn't this example kind of loaded, though? If you have a Kremlin behind a rock his guns can't shoot through it and even if they can shoot over it, the Kremlin can't see you if he's also unspotted.

That doesn't matter. It's the normal case, that Battleships shoot over the half map and over islands and you take damage. And not every map is designed like Two Brothers ;)

[AndyHill]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That doesn't matter. It's the normal case, that Battleships shoot over the half map and over islands and you take damage. And not every map is designed like Two Brothers ;)

The thing is, a Kremlin alone can't spot you from 20km away behind an island and attack you unspotted. That is completely impossible in this game. To do that he needs help from his teammates (and odds are that the one enabling his shot is of the class that does double the spotting of the next best spotters), whereas a carrier has no such limitations. Also if a ship positions well and blabs you he probably played the game better than you with the same tools that are available to you, so he kind of got the better of you in a fair contest. I'm kind of ok with that when that happens.

[El2aZeR]

8 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

That doesn't matter. It's the normal case, that Battleships shoot over the half map and over islands and you take damage.

 

Except with some basic situational awareness you can prevent yourself from taking damage from a BB firing at you that far away - and that is assuming he can even fire at you, aka has a spotter which puts you in a 1vs2 situation.

Funny how you keep making comparisons that show how broken CVs are.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

The thing is, a Kremlin alone can't spot you from 20km away behind an island and attack you unspotted. That is completely impossible in this game. To do that he needs help from his teammates (and odds are that the one enabling his shot is of the class that does double the spotting of the next best spotters), whereas a carrier has no such limitations. Also if a ship positions well and blabs you he probably played the game better than you with the same tools that are available to you, so he kind of got the better of you in a fair contest. I'm kind of ok with that when that happens.

I was not talking about the features of different ship types. I was talking about damage sources, that occur.

 

1 hour ago, AndyHill said:

fair contest.

There are no fair contests in this game. Even if the same ships fight against each other, then these ship might have different captains or different HP (one more damaged than the other ship)

 

 

[AndyHill]

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I was not talking about the features of different ship types. I was talking about damage sources, that occur.

You literally said

5 hours ago, Pikkozoikum said:

If I take 10k from a kremlin behind a rock 20km away unspotted, or 10k for a CV. I see not much difference there.

The difference there is that the thing you compared carriers to is actually not possible in the game. It's true that 10k damage is 10k damage, except that I wouldn't actually take that 10k from the Kremlin in that situation (because the situation is not possible). In fact since I'm a good player I would probably do much more than that to him and win instead of getting chunked.

8 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

There are no fair contests in this game. Even if the same ships fight against each other, then these ship might have different captains or different HP (one more damaged than the other ship)

Matchmaking can screw you, but statistically the reds get screwed more, equally or less depending on your skill. And if you spec a high tier captain and equip your ship well enough, that's enough to guarantee your enemies will never have much of an advantage against you to begin with.

[El2aZeR]

36 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

There are no fair contests in this game. Even if the same ships fight against each other, then these ship might have different captains or different HP (one more damaged than the other ship)

 

And now you're attempting to justify a hilariously unfair mechanic by misconstruing the entire game as unfair.

Amazing.