AA & CV's..This has gotta stop WG

[robihr]

 

EDIT: using article from 16/8/2015 as a source for CURRENT numbers of CV players? srsly? knowind that in the meanwhile that number managed to move into nearly none and back into "somewhat visible in a game" already? ever heard about such a thing like "outdated information"?

 

didnt even notice the date. nice spotting

[avenger121]

it is interesting that you argue here about low sample size not being statistically significant, but when i argue that statistics arent valid cause of the low player base of CV you are sticking to your story how i am blind to server statistics and they are unmistakable.

 

WR being statistically not significant due to low sample size =/= dmg statistics

DMG suffers not nearly as much as WR from low sample sizes. You can only win 1 time per match, but you have more than 1 chance to deal dmg within a match.

 

Also this is unfortunately the biggest sample size we can get, therefore the best source for balancing, we cant make ppl play suddenly 10-20 times the matches for a better sample size.

 

[1] because the only persons here mentioning CV being UP or in need of buff are you and the ppl throwing around the new fabulous sentence of "CV apologists"

How would you call people that, against server stats, call for buffs when CVs are more than fine, arguably OP. Even worse, some of them wrote nearly the same back in CV meta. ......... and no, I dont mean necessarly you with this. At least I cant remember you being active in these threads.

 

[2] by WG official logic CAs primary target is DD, BB primary target is CA, single CA kill is worthy at least twice if not more damage than single DD kill, so judging only from that if you really want damage per game be equal for both types of ships all ships have to have EXACLY SAME AMOUNT OF HP across all tiers with exacly same damage from guns etc. etc. this is the only way you can achieve the situation of expecting all ships having same average damage - also by the same WG official logic main target for CVs are... "big surface ships" oh guess who has the biggest hp pools out there?

You dont need to make all classes having the same amount of HP because they should deal the same damage per game. See WoT. I really dont know why someone would start to believe this, please elaborate. You can achieve good balance with different ships, look at the Zao and Montana DPG. They are close, Moskva is also good balanced, Yamato is little bit too high and Des Moines and Hindenburg could need some buffs.

 

WG´s Q&A is known for not being more as pleasing the forum masses, or do you really believe that we dont have dubloon/gold unification due to technical issues. How does it come that CVs are back in CBT/OBT Q&As "balanced" and then suddenly later come the big nerfs.

 

[3] never said that

[4] cames down to skill of not being spotted  - mind you spotted CVs goes down faster than a DD

[5] never said that one as well although if you mean they are somewhat capable of doing so, then gratz for not having idea what are you talking about

[6] gosh I swear that if I'll see you mentioning that CV apologist thing once more I'll put you on ignore list if that forum even has one - you are literally repeating it at everyone who dares to not agree with your twisted vision of the world and sound with it like a child who have learned new word.....

3-5: I dont want to argue with you what you meant and what I think you wrote.

 

6: See 1, how would you call people that want unreasonable buffs, CVs are fine, more than fine.

 

 

[1] completely AI controled AA is pretty much the reason why these discussion even surfaced - with AA involving anyhow skill of the atacked player vs skill of CV player CVs would be easy-cheesy to balance

Would definitely be more fun, but this, nealy 100% certain, wont come.

 

[2] no one here said CV are weak - the only ones who mentions such a statements are you and your now silent friend from "lets call out everyone who dissagrees as CV apologist" camp

If CVs are not weak, why do you call for AA nerfs then, I dont get is, please elaborate.

 

..........................................

PS. I'd love to say something more about how these changes affected CV gameplay, but I had extreme luck of all my CV matches since 5.6.0 being T7 matches in T7 CV with me losing only half of planes and being somewhat able to help my team to win the battle.

but that one single t9 battle I had in said hiryuu pre 5.6.0 is more than enought for me to say that t9 USN BB is more than capable of creating way too big literaly no flight zone for a t7 CV - dunno how it applies to CVs of his tier, but I'd love to see which other ship can be immune in late game to ship it can perfectly legaly see in the battle......

I dont know, I think a T9 ship, with one of its main characteristics being AA, able to shoot a ton of T7 planes done, is pretty reasonable.

 

PPS. also it is funny how avenger121 accuses everyone around about contradictions in statements when he either contradict himself really often, or uses very obvious double standards....

Point out where I contradict myself.  TLDR for you: CVs are not UP, therefore no AA changes are needed, people calling for CV buffs, may it be in form of AA ners are unreasonable, see server stats, DDs and cruisers could need buffs, CVs in general could need some mild nerfs, player controlled AA would be fun

 

EDIT: using article from 16/8/2015 as a source for CURRENT numbers of CV players? srsly? knowind that in the meanwhile that number managed to move into nearly none and back into "somewhat visible in a game" already? ever heard about such a thing like "outdated information"?

When WG could make max 10-15% of all players play CV in 2015, why should the interest in CVs suddenly have increased in 2016. Did the playstyle, way to control CVs change completly? Yeah, srsly, I used this article, please think next time before you call something outdated. CVs are not anymore a castrated RTS?!

 

 

didnt even notice the date. nice spotting

When WG could make max 10-15% of all players play CV in 2015, no matter what, why should the interest in CVs suddenly have increased in 2016. Did the playstyle, way to control CVs change completly? Yeah, srsly, I used this article, please think next time before you call something outdated. CVs are not anymore a castrated RTS?! Explain me why this info is outdated.

 

I am really interested in your thoughts while you wrote this.

[Sake78]

 

Come on, don't be so harsh, you can trust me. Especially since I play CVs and I do play them in every patch and iteration.

I understand your frustration towards "CV UP" mentality, but you must understand that a lot of it is coming from the fact that CVs are simply not enjoyable to play. Some love the concept that's why they stay with the class, but it doesn't change the fact it's often very annoying to play.

 

I know a lot of people called me apologist also, but it was back when people wanted to fix CVs by increasing AAA and adding torpedo duds and I just wanted for people to think about big picture. Those two would be horrible nerf bats back then and indeed WG decided to nerf CVs in different ways. Mainly killing strike setups and mirror MM, both things were requested by the community. You know that I myself was advocating for taking away strike setups before the game was released? All top players also predicted skillway domination way before it happened, I know because I was talking with them and everyone knew it will be an issue sooner or later.

 

Discussion between CV players and non CV players became very toxic on release, but please do not dismiss everything CV players say. Our experience does give us a lot of insight what is working, what is frustrating etc. Similary I don't think CV players should dismiss every concern non CV players have, most of the time their propositions for balance miss the point (torpedo duds, god... ), but fact is that frustration is frustration. Listen to everyone, just take something with the grain of salt. I market myself as someone who knows CV inside out, but I also made some dumb comments in the past or I did not predict game state well enough (I though balanced bogue would be OP with 120knots bombers for example).

So yeah... listen to people, if not what exactly they are saying, but what they are trying to convey. What is driving their comments, where the frustration comes from. I think it's needed if we want to have a good and productive CV discussion with all players input, no matter their preferance.

 

Firstly, thank you for being neutral.

 

Secondly, in my opinion, certain players, both Supertesters, Betas, Alphas, simple Joes, cannot be trusted with certain things, like ideas for balance, for certain ships. I said earlier in this topic that most players I don`t trust - some, I named, like Aerroon and cro_pwr. Why? You can see for yourself, and it is a fine line in offering semi-solutions only to offer them, so people see a change and think it`s the best idea WG can come up with, and to offer THE BEST solution you can come up with, simply because it hurts your class more.

 

Know what else is infuriating? The hypocrisy: How they are so eager to scream L2P and assume they can strike at will, but when THEIR planes are struck back, they scream murder. How their point of view as agressors holds more water than the defender. For one attack, there is more than a strike: there is the BB or ship moving into one of the plane squads, which already opens up its citadel to the enemy, especially if the CV is smart and forces said BB to turn to a certain direction. So, we have now torps from the CV AND just showing citadel to the whole enemy team, potentially for the BB that was actually pushing, as it`s a better target of opportunity than the ones in the back, having to traverse all the cruisers to get to it. And the cherry on top, said CV is now whining that none of his planes made it back, or few did, when the BB is a roll of the dice to die in one strike or not (combined strike + various firepower until it angles properly).

 

Someone once said and others repeated a bit the following: as a BB, if you survive for that long as to be 1 vs 1 with a DD or a CV, you survived too long and past your usefulness. Well, I ask you, why isnt the reverse equally true? "If you, as a CV, survived with all your strike planes to be in a position of 1 vs 1 with the enemy survivor, didn`t you survive for too long?" (obviously the question is related to the fact that he still has planes, and not about the fact that he camped in A1 all game long).

 

I am not absurd, but people should be willing to reason and compromise, not do what they are doing right now: "Oh, he called me a CV Appologist... I feel violated! I cannot reason anymore!!!". I do believe CV`s are a fun class for the ones that like it and should exist in the game AND offer some degree of satisfaction to their captains, but I DO believe their "targets" should have the same equal satisfaction from their ships, not roll a dice each time about being whored around and instagibbed within 3 minutes. Make them NO MORE of a threat than any other ship vs any other and/or it`s natural counter is all I am asking - honestly and really no more, not going back and forth between red herrings about things.

[countkaos]

i have to agree on this threath, i myself have played CV since the CB, and then in OB and now, (in the tier 8 from both nations) And i feel after the latest patch, i cant do anything, my planes get chewed up by AA from all kinds of ships exept DD´s, and i cant make a big impact on the game like i could before, i feel the CV´s has become a third role ship whit scouting, and sometimes be lucky to get a chance on hitting a ship whit bombs and torps. 

I found it was fine before the patch, ppl just need to learn to manouver around, i see many battleships sailing in a strait line and then turn when the torps are getting droped, and then stil gets hit by 2-3 torps. 

 

I have lately seen ppl in BB´s getting better to turn on time to avoid torps, so i cant see why wargaming have buffed the AA even more. Cruisers are ofc a bad idea to attack, especialy whit the AA ability, so i would apeal to wargming to nerf the AA back to what is was last patch again, as it was perfectly fine.

And i also play all other lines, and i have no problem avoiding torps from enemy CV´s exept if i am being torped from all sides, then ofc all would have a hard time. 

[pra3y]

 

I am not absurd, but people should be willing to reason and compromise, not do what they are doing right now: "Oh, he called me a CV Appologist... I feel violated! I cannot reason anymore!!!"

 

You are the one who is uncompromising. You yourself believe that a CV should be confined to a  scout/anti dd role. Yet WG's designed CVs in the first place to sink large ships with weaker anti-air like BBs and CVs while making both class rely on either AA cover from the CV's fighters or CAs AA to ward off enemy planes. The "OPness" of a CV does not come from a CV being strong in its strike planes. It came as a result of people not understanding the game mechanics and not playing as a team, where you see some CV players use their fighters only for themselves and not for their fleet, some BB players who camp at the back and therefore make themselves more vulnerable to CV strikes/yolo/go around the edges of the map to engage the enemy and finally some CA players who go off yoloing. This are most of the factors that contribute to why CVs are "OP", because people just go off doing their own stuff half the time without considering the fact that the action of 1 class of ship affects the others as well. If in a match you have a CA always screening the BBs against TBs & DBs, as well as the CVs providing air cover and the BBs pushing along with the rest of the team instead of being by themselves, you'll make life extremely difficult for the opposing CV player and suddenly that CV OP myth is shattered, because if he wants to attack the BB, then he has to get through the fighters and CA AA. He can risk his planes and attack through those cover, losing planes and not getting any/much damage. Or he can also wait till the enemy makes a mistake and then pounce on a BB which broke off from all that AA cover. A BBs and CVs AA is to help them limit damage from TBs and DBs, not finish off whole squadrons alone, which is the role of CAs as well as CV fighters. That is how the game mechanic should be like. 

 

I have not said that CVs should be buffed, neither have I disagreed that AA should be nerfed for all ships.. In fact I agree that BBs like the Fuso and Nagato probably needed the  AA buff given that the Kongo's ability to shoot down planes is much better than theirs. My gripe is the fact that BBs that already have very good AA capabilities get even better AA, where instead of being a form limiting damage, it turns the BB into a CA, which upsets the balance that I talk about above. Balancing a game like that is not balancing, just making the whole situation even worse. Balance would be introducing or buffing the AA effectiveness of CAs when they are within certain range of BBs, making AA even potent. Or similarly when CV fighters are within certain range of their own sides BB, they gain a speed boost to allow them to faster intercept enemy TBs and DBs.That is how you balance.

 

As for labelling is there a need to label people who disagree with you base on the class they support/ appear to support? I might disagree with the ideas of certain fraction of BB players, but I've stopped calling them mafia and stuff. They're just potatoes. Because there are people who while they support a particular class, also actually have an idea on how the overall game mechanic among classes actually works. They don't go off calling this class OP that class OP and then give some prejudicial reason to support their claim on why its OP. They actually give you an analysis as to why things are how they're like and why they believe it should be like this or that. The fact that you've been giving ideas and reasons without understanding the game mechanic already shows that you're uncompromising. You've only been considering the whole issue from 1 side without considering how it actually affects the other side. You then simply write off all arguments and proposals that don't meet your idea of how the game mechanic should be as that of apologist when most of them aren't and actually consider both sides. Which is why I feel that you've been absurd, unreasonable and uncompromising.

[Hawker_gb]

Historically CVs should be powerfull,much more powerfull then they are now.

 

Yet,this game has nothing to do with history except ship models.

[dasCKD]

 

Ehm, what, so CVs dont have high dmg and high survial rates, because the dmg CVs deal only counts the half, because the dmg CVs deal is counted in a different currency.

Are you deliberately obtuse, or do you just have a reading comprehension problem? You listed these two as separate points, I am pointing out that the high average damage is just a trait of a class with high survivability and not a special advantage that they have over everyone else.

 

Seeing that CVs deal around the same dmg as BBs at T7, while also having a lot of other advantages to influence the outcome of the match, I see that BBs somehow outperform them.

Logic: 10/10

BBs outperform CVs despite the fact that they die more often. A CV stays alive basically every game and they have the damage per game stats they do now. Battleships die to random 6 citadel salvos, detonations, destroyer torpedoes, and a plethora of other things within their performance history. Despite this, the Nagato still outperforms every single CV at her tier. Battleships have many games where they do little to no damage and yet the game they dominate in is still common enough that  they maintain an extremely high standard of performance. Why is it that so many people fail to understand this point? If two sprinters have the exact same average 100 meter sprint time but one sprinter is known to routinely stop in the middle of the track to take a drink, who would you wager is the faster sprinter in ideal conditions? Who do you think is the more overpowered one?

 

1. Vision on the enemy confirmed for useless.

Vision on enemies can't be an advantage if the enemy has the exact same advantage. They do, in case you haven't noticed. It's called mirror matchmaking.

 

2. BBs never seperate from cruisers, random people suddenly working together in a MMO, history of online gaming disproved, teamplay with strangers confirmed.

Are you not familiar with death balling?

 

3. Simply sailing away from planes = immune to CV attack

At this point you simply reveal your ignorance on the matter. Attacking a ship from the rear on is the worst thing you can do in a carrier unless you are trying to divebomb a destroyer. It's entirely logical. If you are moving towards an object, the time the object takes to get to you is smaller. If you are moving away from an object, the time the object takes to get to you is larger. Larger times means more dead planes, and a N. Carolina with no upgrades or captain skills will handily drop half a squadron of Shokaku's planes before they even have a chance to drop.

 

 

avenger121, on 04 June 2016 - 04:20 PM, said:

 

So much useful gameplay advice, wow, why havent you shared your wisdom with us poor scrubs earlier?

 

 Drop the sarcasm dear. It's not cute, and it's not clever. 

[dasCKD]

Historically CVs should be powerfull,much more powerfull then they are now.

 

Yet,this game has nothing to do with history except ship models.

 

I'd rather not CVs be as powerful as they are historical for gaming reasons. If they were, then the results of almost every game would be dictated by who got the best carrier player and that really won't be fair for everyone else.

[Elenortirion]

 

WR being statistically not significant due to low sample size =/= dmg statistics

DMG suffers not nearly as much as WR from low sample sizes. You can only win 1 time per match, but you have more than 1 chance to deal dmg within a match.

 

writing inside the quotes makes it hard to relate lol anyway:

WR of CVs is also weird thign atm because for one CV to win there will always be other CV to loose - whicha cannot be said on other types:

 

"How would you call people that, against server stats, call for buffs when CVs are more than fine, arguably OP. Even worse, some of them wrote nearly the same back in CV meta. ......... and no, I dont mean necessarly you with this. At least I cant remember you being active in these threads."

 

well I'm relatively fresh CV player and I haven't played teh game when CV were rulers of the game 

as for calling people who wants unreasonable buffs for one ship type, or nerfs to its counters these will be everywhere and tbh I'm just much against the phrase "CV apologist" as I'm against using phrase "BB mafia" - in both cases it indicates that the group belongs to one ship type - they won't - there are some for every ship type

 

and then there is not even single person like that I've noticed here that you called this way - welp maybe if Aeroon was behavign in teh past as you say he did - but that would be as much

 

You dont need to make all classes having the same amount of HP because they should deal the same damage per game. See WoT. I really dont know why someone would start to believe this, please elaborate. You can achieve good balance with different ships, look at the Zao and Montana DPG. They are close, Moskva is also good balanced, Yamato is little bit too high and Des Moines and Hindenburg could need some buffs.

 

I would not call out WoT as en example of good balancing tbh - the balancng in that game is one huge mess

as for zao and montana - assuming stuff on forums being true zao, montana, and moskva could have similar DPM because they are used against similar targets - yamato if same sources are to be believed indeed is slightly too powerfull, can't say anything om hindenburg and des moines afaik is used mostly against different ships in different manner than zao.

 

WG´s Q&A is known for not being more as pleasing the forum masses, or do you really believe that we dont have dubloon/gold unification due to technical issues. How does it come that CVs are back in CBT/OBT Q&As "balanced" and then suddenly later come the big nerfs.

 

with WG logic I was not refering to Q&A's though but mostly in-game content and stuff like - current boot camp perhaps?

 

3-5: I dont want to argue with you what you meant and what I think you wrote.

 

I was merely agreeing that most of AA buffs in recent patch were not really needed - dunno what you got out of it [and how - although don't worry it is quite often]

 

Would definitely be more fun, but this, nealy 100% certain, wont come.

 

would be a way better than what we have although last time WG refered to case they said that they do not see enought of game upgrade versus the increase in costs to simulate AA shell trajectories - which suggest the "alternatvie" of AA working as secondaries.... it is high time for WG to realise that changes are needed for the long term health of the game....

 

If CVs are not weak, why do you call for AA nerfs then, I dont get is, please elaborate.

 

we do not call for AA nerfs, we call out that more buffs to AA are not needed - and also some of us claim that AA2.0 is long ovedue update

 

I dont know, I think a T9 ship, with one of its main characteristics being AA, able to shoot a ton of T7 planes done, is pretty reasonable.

 

so you'd agree for such for example... amagi being 100% immune to fuso shells unless battered down by other t8 ships?

important note here was late game - as my last encounter with t9 BB I attemopted to fly even remotely close to it only when that Iowa and tirpitz was the last ships remaining in enemy team..... and Iowa have shot down my last full bomber squadron from further away I even realised it has range of AA when I tried to strike tirpitz.....

 

Point out where I contradict myself.  

the whole thing with server statistics when at one point you say that the statistical sample is too small for it to be good picture just after huge campaing about how we statistics deniers for one guy claiming that statistics of high tier CVs have too small statistical sample for being relevantly used in this discussion

 

When WG could make max 10-15% of all players play CV in 2015, why should the interest in CVs suddenly have increased in 2016.

 

because WG as every developper on such long run may change its mind and also - because it should not suddenly DROP in 2016 as it seems be doing considering constant nerfs when revamps are needed

 

Know what else is infuriating? The hypocrisy: How they are so eager to scream L2P and assume they can strike at will, but when THEIR planes are struck back, they scream murder. How their point of view as agressors holds more water than the defender. For one attack, there is more than a strike: there is the BB or ship moving into one of the plane squads, which already opens up its citadel to the enemy, especially if the CV is smart and forces said BB to turn to a certain direction. So, we have now torps from the CV AND just showing citadel to the whole enemy team, potentially for the BB that was actually pushing, as it`s a better target of opportunity than the ones in the back, having to traverse all the cruisers to get to it. And the cherry on top, said CV is now whining that none of his planes made it back, or few did, when the BB is a roll of the dice to die in one strike or not (combined strike + various firepower until it angles properly). [1]

 

Someone once said and others repeated a bit the following: as a BB, if you survive for that long as to be 1 vs 1 with a DD or a CV, you survived too long and past your usefulness. Well, I ask you, why isnt the reverse equally true? "If you, as a CV, survived with all your strike planes to be in a position of 1 vs 1 with the enemy survivor, didn`t you survive for too long?" (obviously the question is related to the fact that he still has planes, and not about the fact that he camped in A1 all game long).[2]

 

I am not absurd, but people should be willing to reason and compromise, not do what they are doing right now: "Oh, he called me a CV Appologist... I feel violated! I cannot reason anymore!!!". 

 

[1] if you have read half the posts in the thread with understanding, you'd notice by now that if he had cruisers escort as he should no one would be whining on strike force being murdered - issue starts when the single ship is capable of achieving immunity to attackes of the ship of other type that it can perfectly legally meet in the battle

 

[2] with any or all planes left? with most against a AA cruiser it could holds the same imo - with all against same cruiser - same - mayeb against DD as well - but against a battleship? it would mean that battleship have survived waaaaay beyond its usefullness, not CV....

 

[3] tell me who is actually unable to reason - the person who claims that further nerfs [indirect] are unable and usuas mostly reasonable arguments, or the one who barely uses reasonable arguments and just keeps calling out everyone who disagrees with them as "CV apologists and stats deniers"?

 

as for CV play - for my experience it is ok as long as I'm [CV] at best 1tier higher than the oponents and at most 1tier lower than then - for japs CVs up to hiryuu that goes true - but overbuffing rng machine being AA is not making it much fun.... also it would be much funnier if my oponents could show their skill while repelling my planes instead of having to rely on rng planekilling machine to shoot down my planes.....

[but as long at the match tier is 2tiers higher it is more of iritating struggle to accomplish ANYTHING - while being in match with ppl 2 tiers lower makes me sometimes kinda sad for them when obliterating those pooor souls]

[avenger121]

At this point you simply reveal your ignorance on the matter. Attacking a ship from the rear on is the worst thing you can do in a carrier unless you are trying to divebomb a destroyer. It's entirely logical. If you are moving towards an object, the time the object takes to get to you is smaller. If you are moving away from an object, the time the object takes to get to you is larger. Larger times means more dead planes, and a N. Carolina with no upgrades or captain skills will handily drop half a squadron of Shokaku's planes before they even have a chance to drop.

 

Overtaking the ship by flying your planes by flying 6km left of him, outside the AA zone and then attacking?!

[avenger121]

the whole thing with server statistics when at one point you say that the statistical sample is too small for it to be good picture just after huge campaing about how we statistics deniers for one guy claiming that statistics of high tier CVs have too small statistical sample for being relevantly used in this discussion

Once again, I already wrote this, WR suffers from low sample size, you can win only 1 time per match, DPG does not suffer nearly as much from low sample sizes since you have more than 1 opportunity to deal dmg within a match. I am tired explaing obvious things, especially when it comes to statictics, this is 9th grade stuff.

 

 

because WG as every developper on such long run may change its mind and also - because it should not suddenly DROP in 2016 as it seems be doing considering constant nerfs when revamps are needed

It seems to me you didnt understand what WG devs wrote/wanted to say. No matter what WG did, no more than than 10-15% of the playerbase played CVs. Even if they wanted to make CVs being 30% of all ships per match, they couldnt not make it happen.  This means that the majority of players are simply not interested in playing CVs, which is far more than understandable, since WoWs is pretty much a slow paced shooter and not a castrated RTS. CV gameplay simply doesnt not appeal to the majority of the playerbase, regardless of balance and there is no reason why this should have changed. Players like me simply want to play a shooter, guns and stuff, you know, if I want to play a RTS I would start MoWAS or WG:RD. Also I really dont understand how this piece of info can ever become outdated.

 

[Ast3lan]

 

Come on, don't be so harsh, you can trust me. Especially since I play CVs and I do play them in every patch and iteration.

I understand your frustration towards "CV UP" mentality, but you must understand that a lot of it is coming from the fact that CVs are simply not enjoyable to play. Some love the concept that's why they stay with the class, but it doesn't change the fact it's often very annoying to play.

 

 

The class is anoying to play because its no longer the monster it was at launch, just because you played CVs in every patch does not mean the rest of us didn't, no one like the nerfs but most of us adapted, whats at stake is now the latest AA buff which was unneeded since CV's are more or less ok to play, the issue is at higher levels where everyone just bands together because of repair costs, now add the AA buff and the game definately became unfun for everyone, go down some levels and its actually decent and the UI without being brilliant is functional and if people have issues pressing more than 2 mouse buttons and left clicking it his honestly their fault.

 

Block QuoteIshiro32, on 03 June 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

 I know a lot of people called me apologist also, but it was back when people wanted to fix CVs by increasing AAA and adding torpedo duds and I just wanted for people to think about big picture. Those two would be horrible nerf bats back then and indeed WG decided to nerf CVs in different ways. Mainly killing strike setups and mirror MM, both things were requested by the community. You know that I myself was advocating for taking away strike setups before the game was released? All top players also predicted skillway domination way before it happened, I know because I was talking with them and everyone knew it will be an issue sooner or later.

 

 

Mirrored Match Making was there for a reason and that was the lack of CV players or the fact that some suspects where sweeping the maps with high tier CVs agaisnt lower tiers where you could find yourself placed in your CV against 2 or against 0, no one ever complained about having the map for himself but everyone complained about fighting 2 CVs , and with good reason, the fighters on the US Cvs where so powerfull that they could just shutdown the IJN ones without breaking a sweat making the game boring for both parties.

 

I'm not even gonna coment on the fact that taking away strike setups was a massive whine in front of people advocating balance instead of removing what was one option of playing the game, once you had Mirrored MM the strike setups where only as effective as the enemy player allowed you to be but then again for someone that claims to have asked people to look at the bigger picture you never looked at it yourself.

 

 Discussion between CV players and non CV players became very toxic on release, but please do not dismiss everything CV players say. Our experience does give us a lot of insight what is working, what is frustrating etc. Similary I don't think CV players should dismiss every concern non CV players have, most of the time their propositions for balance miss the point (torpedo duds, god... ), but fact is that frustration is frustration. Listen to everyone, just take something with the grain of salt. I market myself as someone who knows CV inside out, but I also made some dumb comments in the past or I did not predict game state well enough (I though balanced bogue would be OP with 120knots bombers for example).
So yeah... listen to people, if not what exactly they are saying, but what they are trying to convey. What is driving their comments, where the frustration comes from. I think it's needed if we want to have a good and productive CV discussion with all players input, no matter their preferance.

 

Wrong, non CV players where arguing the point, and rightfully so, that while a BB or a CA have RNG and have to expose themselves CV players, smart ones, for the most part down, you lose planes which constitutes your firepower but a smart CV player keeps the squads moving making himself a harder target and picks targets of oportunity.

 

The real issue came when Aerron and the rest of the gang came out making fun of the playerbase and claiming L2P until one said youtuber posted a video of him mopping up a map with his CV practically alone.

 

So looking at the bigger picture as you so much like to say you cant ask for people to take what CV capts say with a pinch of salt, at the time and now because of what was done as said, which in all fairness is only to be expected , "you" ask for a BB cap to go up front and tank damage, to a CA cap to hunt dds so what was the CV party doing at the time? Making fun of the rest of the playerbase.

 

The nerfs had to come, not because people wanted it but be but because it was inevitable, in the end no one had any interest in balancing CVs, not the CV capts and not the other classes especially the BB players and the CA and DD to some extent.

 

Again i say what i did this thread, the latest AA buf was unneeded, the rest can stay as it is until WG themselves decide whats best.

[Elenortirion]

It seems to me you didnt understand what WG devs wrote/wanted to say. No matter what WG did, no more than than 10-15% of the playerbase played CVs. Even if they wanted to make CVs being 30% of all ships per match, they couldnt not make it happen.  This means that the majority of players are simply not interested in playing CVs, which is far more than understandable, since WoWs is pretty much a slow paced shooter and not a castrated RTS. CV gameplay simply doesnt not appeal to the majority of the playerbase, regardless of balance and there is no reason why this should have changed. Players like me simply want to play a shooter, guns and stuff, you know, if I want to play a RTS I would start MoWAS or WG:RD. Also I really dont understand how this piece of info can ever become outdated.

 

"the number stayed the same no matter the nerfs" sounds for me like "the players we got here are so sure to play the class that the nerfs does not scare them away"

CVs being 30% of the match would be extremely imbalanced thing even if it could happen

but 30% of playerbase playing CVs would be totally possible - and WG approach on the case could change in both ways - once for realising the importance of CV presence at balance some factors [recent whine about high tier torpedo soup was direct resulft of no CVs at those battles] OR could decide that it is impossible to balance it out and decided to kill of playerbase of the type to limit the "caualties" of them staying

 

and considering amouts of CVs that surfaced after rebalancing of planes at low mid tier it is at least for me clear that if properly balanced CV would get more players - and thats the outdated bit

 

Once again, I already wrote this, WR suffers from low sample size, you can win only 1 time per match, DPG does not suffer nearly as much from low sample sizes since you have more than 1 opportunity to deal dmg within a match. I am tired explaing obvious things, especially when it comes to statictics, this is 9th grade stuff.

 

lets put it this way - damage to be done is also limited resource per battle [no matter how you try, the amounts of damage dealt by a team in a match won;t exceedd the sum of hp pools by anything more than repair parties] and most goes to people who can deliver them reliably to the biggest hp pools and who can deliver them faster - aka with taking some corrections on ship type and primary targets the most skillfull is most likely to get most of the damage

 

considering really low amounts of active CV players and considering that everyone who was not good at them never left the mid tiers, it is quite likely the comparision of yamato to hakuryu will be biased because of quantity of hakuryuu players - AND the fair assumption that hakuryu class does not have a huge margin of potatoes that died their way into yamato and are lowering her averages

 

btw statistics are funny thing because the same data presented in different ways can give totaly different picture

 

Again i say what i did this thread, the latest AA buf was unneeded, the rest can stay as it is until WG themselves decide whats best.

 

GIVE THAT MAN A COOKIE!

 

jokes aside very well though post with alot of good points

 

although most of the past [and present] issues with CV balancing seems to be rooted in a fact that while WG seems to have quite well formed vision of how the balance between BB/CA/DD should look like, they seem as well to not have any good idea what to do with CVs.... :/

[Aerroon]

 

You completely missed my point, try reading what I wrote again, I am not saying that I think CVs are OP, I am saying that some people thinks that because of increased damage dealt by CVs compared to that player's average damage that means that CVs are OP - based on your response it appear that you believe me to part of the 'nerf CVs' crowd which I am not while it makes you look like you are part of the 'buff CVs' crowd, I might be mistaken there though but that is how I interpret your response.

 

To clarify; I do not blieeve the CV class to be OP but I do believe it to be broken from UP to OP depending on the circumstances while always bringing frustration and anger to either the CV player, the player's team or the enemy players hit by inescapable cross drop torps and/or RNG divebombs that either totally miss or utterly devastates the target with damage and fire. The CV mechanics are bad at this time and are not really fun to play, my own experience mostly because I don't like the CV interface and RTS feel, or to play against and in either case the CVs do not have consistent gameplay such as the other ship classes but rather tend to give extreme results where you either utterly ruins the enemy team and have great influence on the battle outcome or can do little to nothing due to AA and/or enemy CV using air superiority deck or, as I am limited to tier VII CVs, going up against AA from ships 2 tiers higher which again limits the CVs strike planes effectivenes to scouting for DDs which though vital in itself to the team but in return is not rewarded with XP or credits.

 

Also it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to make that a player which has significant better results in damage, kills and XP in one specific class that that class is OP as it is reasonable to expect that a player to have similar or comparable results for all classes, however I do not agree that WR is the best yardstick here as bad players should still lose just as much with OP ships as with UP ships because WR in WoWS is more connected to map deployment and the ability to observe and react correctly to changes in the tactical situation, making more damage only have local effect while being able to move to the right place at the right time have global effect if that makes sense?

 

Of course I'm part of the "buff strike CVs" crowd. My reason for arguing for CVs even back during 2015 Summer was that I could see the current situation coming and it came. The reason why I think CVs aren't OP like many claim is that I've never seen it if I'm on the other side of the equation: if I'm the non-CV player that is being attacked I do not feel powerless or that I couldn't do better to avoid it (except in torpedo destroyers). So, one of the reasons why this could be the case is that it is an issue of just how you play against CVs. And I realized this very early on: WG will change things that appear difficult to a big part of the playerbase instead of having them learn how to deal with it.

 

Playing agaisnt CVs was seemingly difficult for many players and thus it has been changed. Now it's a lot easier and the average player reacts much worse when a CV is attacking them. This is not what I wanted - it makes CVs weaker against players that deserve to get struck and it makes those that know how to deal with it even harder to deal with.

 

Against very good players that play in a semi-organized fashion CVs were pretty much always going to be relegated to scout roles. And Team Battles showed us exactly that. This is why I've always been arguing for *strike* CVs, not just CVs in general. There are/were only a handful of players on EU that could make strike CVs work in Team Battles and that just shows something's not quite right. The reason Team Battles are important to look at here is that in a Team Battles you get groups of players that are really good, so this is what you should expect if the playerbase gets better at the game and the game matures even more.

 

But frankly, at this point, I don't even care anymore. They can remove CVs from the game, they can make CVs so that you can only fighters or whatever. It just doesn't matter to me. I only argue here for entertainment, because I don't think WG cares about what I have to say anyway on this matter.

 

PS I still think, just like in CBT, that there needs to be something like ramping AA damage effect on (torpedo) destroyers so CVs can't permanently ruin their game. Eg if a plane is in the AA range of a DD for a long time the AA gets stronger and stronger and just murders the planes eventually.

 

The real issue came when Aerron and the rest of the gang came out making fun of the playerbase and claiming L2P until one said youtuber posted a video of him mopping up a map with his CV practically alone.

Except there are videos of this in essentially every class. Shall we nerf all the other classes too then? Oh no! A 9 kill destroyer game! Nerf destroyers!!

In fact, I'm going to be doing commentary on a 9-kill destroyer match in the next 30 minutes.

[_FTD_]

Buff Des Moines AA pls, its useless...

[ghostbuster_]

and dont forget the hindenburg. every single CV can attack to it without any problem. AA needs a huge buff.

[Aerroon]

Buff Des Moines AA pls, its useless...

and dont forget the hindenburg. every single CV can attack to it without any problem. AA needs a huge buff.

 

I think if you actually put Tier 10 CVs into a tier 10-only match then even if the CVs dont touch each other's planes they would get deplaned by just AA alone on T10 ships. Luckily, these matches only happen on the test server.

[ghostbuster_]

at least buff the BB AAs. yamato is really weak against planes. even montana cant defend itself.

[robihr]

Once again, I already wrote this, WR suffers from low sample size, you can win only 1 time per match, DPG does not suffer nearly as much from low sample sizes since you have more than 1 opportunity to deal dmg within a match. I am tired explaing obvious things, especially when it comes to statictics, this is 9th grade stuff.

 

it is not problem of DPG it is problem of number of players. 40 ppl isnt enough sample size to be using them in any kind of statistical research.

 

i already compared hakuryu and taiho earlier, and hakuryu doesnt have any reason to do 30k average damage more than taiho cause they both have same strike setups, and hakuryu is only sligtly boosted (5% in speed and 7.5% in plane survivability). and 30k average damage is 40% increase in average damage.

 

so pls explain to me and everyone else why hakuryu has 30k average damage more than taiho?

 

you cant? why? cause hakuryu isnt so much superior to taiho.

 

lets check leaderboards from last week again

 

taiho:

 

hakuryu:

it is clear that ships perform similarly, so isnt it problem with number and quality of players? hakuryu has about 40 players playing it, while taiho has 130.

[Mayv]

The reason Team Battles are important to look at here is that in a Team Battles you get groups of players that are really good, so this is what you should expect if the playerbase gets better at the game and the game matures even more.

 

You mustnt have played WoT.

[Ast3lan]

 

Playing agaisnt CVs was seemingly difficult for many players and thus it has been changed. Now it's a lot easier and the average player reacts much worse when a CV is attacking them. This is not what I wanted - it makes CVs weaker against players that deserve to get struck and it makes those that know how to deal with it even harder to deal with. 

 

In case you are wondering some of us are actually asking for some changes to be taken back.

 

 

Of course I'm part of the "buff strike CVs" crowd. My reason for arguing for CVs even back during 2015 Summer was that I could see the current situation coming and it came. The reason why I think CVs aren't OP like many claim is that I've never seen it if I'm on the other side of the equation: if I'm the non-CV player that is being attacked I do not feel powerless or that I couldn't do better to avoid it (except in torpedo destroyers). So, one of the reasons why this could be the case is that it is an issue of just how you play against CVs. And I realized this very early on: WG will change things that appear difficult to a big part of the playerbase instead of having them learn how to deal with it.

 

Buff them? What for? Those things where murderous machines, one reason it was tried in CBT to buff BBs turn rate was exactly that and it was proven that not only that was silly for the CV capts but also for everyone else. I could spin donuts with the Kongo and perfectly evade everything that got thrown at me in NY. 

 

Playing BBs was never hard, same for CVs things needed a tweak and valid input from the playerbase and instead all people got was whine from both sides for the most part.

 

 Against very good players that play in a semi-organized fashion CVs were pretty much always going to be relegated to scout roles. And Team Battles showed us exactly that. This is why I've always been arguing for *strike* CVs, not just CVs in general. There are/were only a handful of players on EU that could make strike CVs work in Team Battles and that just shows something's not quite right. The reason Team Battles are important to look at here is that in a Team Battles you get groups of players that are really good, so this is what you should expect if the playerbase gets better at the game and the game matures even more.

 

This isn't WoT and one of the reason you get to balance tanks better then Battleships is that tank battles are much more dynamic than a fleet fight.

 

Then again not every Team Battle player or Clan player is exactly an expert and there are alot of good captains out there that just play random games and give out solid tips now and then so what about those? You prefer input just because it comes from A and hes a known guy but B that is a million times better and gave better advice should be ignored? Look at WoT, despite things look where balancing the general game around Clan Wars led to.

 

 But frankly, at this point, I don't even care anymore. They can remove CVs from the game, they can make CVs so that you can only fighters or whatever. It just doesn't matter to me. I only argue here for entertainment, because I don't think WG cares about what I have to say anyway on this matter.

 

PS I still think, just like in CBT, that there needs to be something like ramping AA damage effect on (torpedo) destroyers so CVs can't permanently ruin their game. Eg if a plane is in the AA range of a DD for a long time the AA gets stronger and stronger and just murders the planes eventually.

 

 

Off course you don't, ur just a tad salty because people took your candy away from you and now you can't pump your WR anymore and sweep the boards, want to make good for the past ( which i dont believe in not even a bit ) start making better threads and stop acting like you know all and the game should be played to your tune, as good a player you are you are also a tad arrogant.

 

PS. Carefull with what you wish.

Aerroon, on 04 June 2016 - 09:23 PM, said:

 

Except there are videos of this in essentially every class. Shall we nerf all the other classes too then? Oh no! A 9 kill destroyer game! Nerf destroyers!!In fact, I'm going to be doing commentary on a 9-kill destroyer match in the next 30 minutes. 

 

Right, so way back when was the whole arguement about CV's? Who was here mocking people left and right and claiming L2P? Who was calling everyone a noob and whatnot ? Right you and others, for a guy that claims to have a long view of things ( which im starting to think all of you must be millionaires because with so much vision you gotta win the Lottery everytime with your good predictions ) you certainly failed about how CVs were going to feel the love of the nerfbat, either that or you were trolling WG and the playerbase big time.

 

But please do make a 30 minute coment on how DDs are OP, how HE on CAs is OP on how BBs and self repair is unrealistic and shout out for nerfs and dont forget your rant thread claiming how people dont use the items they should just to reenforce your point of view on how things work.

  

[Aerroon]

Right, so way back when was the whole arguement about CV's? Who was here mocking people left and right and claiming L2P? Who was calling everyone a noob and whatnot ? Right you and others, for a guy that claims to have a long view of things ( which im starting to think all of you must be millionaires because with so much vision you gotta win the Lottery everytime with your good predictions ) you certainly failed about how CVs were going to feel the love of the nerfbat, either that or you were trolling WG and the playerbase big time.

 

But please do make a 30 minute coment on how DDs are OP, how HE on CAs is OP on how BBs and self repair is unrealistic and shout out for nerfs and dont forget your rant thread claiming how people dont use the items they should just to reenforce your point of view on how things work.

Read my post again. I quite specifically mentioned that, in my opinion, the reason why CVs seemed OP was because people didn't know how to play against them. I also explained that this is why I didn't see CVs as an issue - because I was almost never on the "suffering" end of CVs even though CVs made up less than 25% of all my matches. So in other words, I had always kept the opinion that it was an issue of how people played against them and it still is. WG just went the route of removing the obstacle instead of having people learn to play around it.

 

And why would I make a 30 minute commentary about how DDs are OP? I never said CVs are OP, you're the one that claims that. You said that you found CVs to be OP because you saw somebody make a video where they swept the floor in a CV. I countered with "I'm going to be watching a replay where a DD sweeps the floor with the enemy team". How does this imply that I'm going to whine about DDs being OP? I thought CVs doing that was fine, and I think DDs doing this is fine. I also think BBs doing this is fine and the same goes for cruisers.

 

Also, lottery prediction is about guessing RNG. Predicting future events based on current events has a lot less to do with that - it's about looking at trends. I'm sorry for you if you can't tell the difference between those two.

[Ishiro32]

The class is anoying to play because its no longer the monster it was at launch, just because you played CVs in every patch does not mean the rest of us didn't, no one like the nerfs but most of us adapted, whats at stake is now the latest AA buff which was unneeded since CV's are more or less ok to play, the issue is at higher levels where everyone just bands together because of repair costs, now add the AA buff and the game definately became unfun for everyone, go down some levels and its actually decent and the UI without being brilliant is functional and if people have issues pressing more than 2 mouse buttons and left clicking it his honestly their fault.

 

How I hate this aproach. "You only complain, because you are not OP". CV players are complaining since the first days of CBT, they did it even when they were monsters... you know why? Because it isn't as it should be.

You can feel good and strong, without actually being OP you know? It's all in how well game is designed. This is what I want to see... fun and balanced for all.

 

Also I am telling you that CVs are not fun to play... Look at my recent winratio. I really hate this argument that OP=Fun.

 

I also like how you dismiss UI issues by insulting anyone who would like to have smooth and enjoyable experience without the need to fight game itself.

 

I'm not even gonna coment on the fact that taking away strike setups was a massive whine in front of people advocating balance instead of removing what was one option of playing the game, once you had Mirrored MM the strike setups where only as effective as the enemy player allowed you to be but then again for someone that claims to have asked people to look at the bigger picture you never looked at it yourself.

 

Strike setups were encouraging CV sniper meta which is horrible for the game. I don't care enough to explain to you why sincer I already did it like 3 times on this forum.

Thing is that WG had full strikes also on tier IV, V, X and IX before... Guess why they got rid off them before release? You know what it did? It made games much more fun for everyone. WG did a horrible mistake leaving 0/3/3 setups in the game for so long.

You must understand that I am a big big enemy of sniper CV meta and I am also against full strike USN CVs as I think right now they do not work and are unhealthy for the game. I don't like whole USN line to be honest.

 

 

The real issue came when Aerron and the rest of the gang came out making fun of the playerbase and claiming L2P until one said youtuber posted a video of him mopping up a map with his CV practically alone.

 

Well, it is L2P issue. Old CVs in organised play were not OP, but as many pointed out you can't expect people to know how to play. 

I get what people like Aerroon are trying to say and they are right, but at the same time they are wrong, because game as a whole was not balanced. Counterplay simply was too much to ask for randoms and it's not making fun on players, it's just a fact... Randoms always lack coordination. It's just how MMO games are when you have no skill-based MM. It's the problem of the game. So yeah, it had to be balanced around that. 

Anyway I don't even know why you anwsered my post. What are you even trying to argue? That we should not talk about CV potential issues and how to fix them? That people are ok with ignoring what other people with a lot of experience say? On what level are you arguing with me? Post you quoted is not even about whether recent AAA change was needed or not... 

 

 

[Ast3lan]

Read my post again. I quite specifically mentioned that, in my opinion, the reason why CVs seemed OP was because people didn't know how to play against them. I also explained that this is why I didn't see CVs as an issue - because I was almost never on the "suffering" end of CVs even though CVs made up less than 25% of all my matches. So in other words, I had always kept the opinion that it was an issue of how people played against them and it still is. WG just went the route of removing the obstacle instead of having people learn to play around it.

 

And why would I make a 30 minute commentary about how DDs are OP? I never said CVs are OP, you're the one that claims that. You said that you found CVs to be OP because you saw somebody make a video where they swept the floor in a CV. I countered with "I'm going to be watching a replay where a DD sweeps the floor with the enemy team". How does this imply that I'm going to whine about DDs being OP? I thought CVs doing that was fine, and I think DDs doing this is fine. I also think BBs doing this is fine and the same goes for cruisers.

 

Also, lottery prediction is about guessing RNG. Predicting future events based on current events has a lot less to do with that - it's about looking at trends. I'm sorry for you if you can't tell the difference between those two.

 

Excuse me? Are you changing sides now or what? Its not hard to search the forums after OBT and see your posts. Its easy to lose the perspective once those 25% have served their purpose right? Maths and probabilities and all 

 

Then again, and back to your 25% claim, if you where never on the receiving end of a CV what were you doing with the rest of your 75% of playtime?

 

 

Actually WG took their time and they nerfed DDs first, if i recall correctly it was the first smoke nerf , then came some BBs , CAs not much one or two and then they started to swing the bat against the CVs when the whine was at its finest with rants against supertesters due to things said and whatnot.

This to say that WG actually took their time to see if the playerbase adapted to the CV thing, im not arguing that theres people out there that cant even dodge a wall or hit a barn even if their lives depended on it but they haven't been that bad in this game ( to some extent ) as they have been in WoT.

 

 

 

 

Except there are videos of this in essentially every class. Shall we nerf all the other classes too then? Oh no! A 9 kill destroyer game! Nerf destroyers!!

In fact, I'm going to be doing commentary on a 9-kill destroyer match in the next 30 minutes.

 

Sarcasm is not your strong point it seems. Also the clip was one of many when CVs were flavour of the meta until they got nerfed.

[Ast3lan]

 

How I hate this aproach. "You only complain, because you are not OP". CV players are complaining since the first days of CBT, they did it even when they were monsters... you know why? Because it isn't as it should be.

You can feel good and strong, without actually being OP you know? It's all in how well game is designed. This is what I want to see... fun and balanced for all.

 

Also I am telling you that CVs are not fun to play... Look at my recent winratio. I really hate this argument that OP=Fun.

 

 

Excuse me? CV players where what? The most part where defending that things should remain as they are ever since CBT, the changes were so many i can remember when the TBs dropped the load at close range and tracked the target ship you could easely kill about anything with eyes closed.

 

Also nobody is claiming that fun must equal OP, what most people want here is for the latest change to be reversed because it is a bit too much.

 

 I also like how you dismiss UI issues by insulting anyone who would like to have smooth and enjoyable experience without the need to fight game itself.

 

Nobody is insulting anyone, the UI without being brilliant is indeed simple enough, unless you want something along the lines of Navyfield where you have to control altitude and approach vector and perhaps pray to the blood god for the torps to land properly on the water and actually take the direction you want.

 

The controls at the moment are simple enough but at the same time what makes them somewhat tricky is the fact you simply cant control everything, taking a good look at them you can also say that the solution the Devs found is quite elegant in its simplicity giving you enough control to manage the number of units you have without overcomplicating things.

 

If you want to have more buttons to press be my guest but you will exclude people out of CV play just to catter to the tastes of the few.

 

 

Strike setups were encouraging CV sniper meta which is horrible for the game. I don't care enough to explain to you why sincer I already did it like 3 times on this forum.
Thing is that WG had full strikes also on tier IV, V, X and IX before... Guess why they got rid off them before release? You know what it did? It made games much more fun for everyone. WG did a horrible mistake leaving 0/3/3 setups in the game for so long.
You must understand that I am a big big enemy of sniper CV meta and I am also against full strike USN CVs as I think right now they do not work and are unhealthy for the game. I don't like whole USN line to be honest.

 

 

Strike setups were amazing and gave you another option to catter to your playstyle and no they weren't OP, the problem was always the number of CVs or how you could find 0 CVs on the enemy team. A good CV cap could dodge the other guy snipe him or be screwed over Figther setups and people with a brain.

 

One of the few things WG said and they were right was that CVs where never meant to be static airfield hanging in the back of the map and launching wave after wave of fighters, this kind of setup actually encouraged people to move around like it should, you have autopilot to facilitate things and place waypoints while you can concentrate on your planes.

 

So yes i do understand that meta because i played it and sniped people, got sniped and guess what, all that time all i asked for was balanced matchmaking for carriers so that people had more or less an equal field.

 

 Well, it is L2P issue. Old CVs in organised play were not OP, but as many pointed out you can't expect people to know how to play. 
I get what people like Aerroon are trying to say and they are right, but at the same time they are wrong, because game as a whole was not balanced. Counterplay simply was too much to ask for randoms and it's not making fun on players, it's just a fact... Randoms always lack coordination. It's just how MMO games are when you have no skill-based MM. It's the problem of the game. So yeah, it had to be balanced around that. 

 

Its L2P issue but just not the way Aerron wants, because Aerron used CVs to pad stats, Dont think im the only one here that saw through it and dont patronise people thinking that all randoms are dumb, some of us actually just want to play the game and do have a grasp on what needs to be done without being vocal.

 

The game isn't balanced, right, but then again when will it be? WoT never got balanced although its a far cry now from way back when, still its not in such a bad shape that it is unplayable, the issue is the Matchmaker at the moment more then anything else and the hordes of bots and lemmings, then again, this game needs a diferent kind of balacing then WoT, because like i said, apart from DDs where things can get pretty interesting the game is pretty slow for the most part and sure playing the game with an organized team must be another thing but in randoms its nigh on impossible to balance around what teams do because it will never work due to the fact that you have "tons" of players each with his own skillcap and understanding on how playing ships works.

 

 Anyway I don't even know why you anwsered my post. What are you even trying to argue? That we should not talk about CV potential issues and how to fix them? That people are ok with ignoring what other people with a lot of experience say? On what level are you arguing with me? Post you quoted is not even about whether recent AAA change was needed or not... 

 

Dont get smart Mr.Supertester, just because you play this game for long that doesnt grant you the all knowing title. CVs do have issues, less now than way back when and as to your experience dont think for a second that you and a select few of more vocal people know 100% whats best because a whole lot of us that dont care about making videos or posting regularly here do know what is wrong and do know when to speak without having the "hey look at me i'm famous" complex and making a point of posting stats or anime pics just to make a point.

 

Stats are a wonderfull way to tell others what you want them to see and anime pics are just plain anoying. 

 

I just found it funny you making the claims you made and since this is a free forum and as long no one is insulting one another i can post my piece on what i think about what you wrote, especially when i saw your posts from the past and now i really have to suppress a chuckle at how predictable you people are and how fast you change your tune as long as it suits yourselves.