T10 CVs, for or against?

[Horin728]

45 minutes ago, avenger121 said:

 

> barely reaches measly 60k DPG in TX cruisers

> hey guys, let me tell you about TX ships

lul

 

has 0 games played in CVs. Comes to every CV thread just to spread hate and argue without any substantial arguments. Oh and hides his stats just in case... 

 

Says he won't play "op faceroll ships" just shows how much you "know" about CVs.

Nuff said.

 

[avenger121]

32 minutes ago, Horin728 said:

 

has 0 games played in CVs. Comes to every CV thread just to spread hate and argue without any substantial arguments. Oh and hides his stats just in case... 

 

Says he won't play "op faceroll ships" just shows how much you "know" about CVs.

Nuff said.

 

 

Aww poor you, that evil guy is hating without any arguments against your fav class. I know I shouldnt be spoonfeeding you, but here just for you so you can bring up stats yet again, just like you did in the other threads, while having problems to reach 70k in ships like Mino or Hindenburg, lul.https://eu.warships.today/player/507353297/avenger121

 

Just because you failed to read my last post, here is the most simple and basic argument for you, CVs have far more influence on the outcome of the match than any other class, thus they need to be nerfed.

[ShinGetsu]

Well, I don't have a t10 CV myself, but I have more than enough in my clan.

Overall consensus :

- Hakuryuu is good, but Taiho is better. A proper 2-1-2 Midway is better in everything ===> Stay in the port.

- Midway is really good, be it strike or 2-1-2, but once every three game you just watch the match as you can't attack anything. ==> Stay in the port.

 

Conclusion : Essex and Taiho are better, period. You get unplayable matches way too often.

 

And I'm not talking about potato player there. I'm talking about 60+% WR in all classes and very good players in CV.

[159Hunter]

@avenger121 you again. Still hating CVs?

Still talking about ppls' stats whilst hiding yours?

[Kais_S012]

1 hour ago, avenger121 said:

 

Except they are not, just the snap shot is not updated, but that is probably too difficult for you to understand. Also I never said that I am a good CV player or could give advice in playing them, just as I said several times I wont play OP faceroll ships.

 

that kind of proves my point.

decrying one class of vessel as OP and leading a personal crusade to get them removed from the game/nerfed into the ground to suit your own selfish ideals without taking the time to try said class and see for yourself how you constantly put it "just how 'easy' they are to use and abuse" is nothing more than hypocrisy. people like you wont be happy until Wargaming persecutes carrier users to the point of extinction like how RT did with Arty in Armoured Warfare after they got rid of Obsidian.

 

the only one lacking understanding it seems is yourself, you do very little on this forum apart from derail every CV thread you come across with hyperbole and petty insults the second your lop sided arguments fall flat and offer very little in the way of constructive criticism or argument.

 

now back on topic,

personally I think the biggest issue with high tier Carrier (observed anyway, my highest ships are cruisers) is the huge gulf between capabilities of Carrier Jockies.

While probably the hardest thing to implement.  I think that the best course of action is to implement skill based match making for carriers only. but the question then becomes what stats do you match up CV players with with? and is one rule from one class and another for the other 3 really fair?

[Spellfire40]

47 minutes ago, Mymeara said:

now back on topic,

personally I think the biggest issue with high tier Carrier (observed anyway, my highest ships are cruisers) is the huge gulf between capabilities of Carrier Jockies.

While probably the hardest thing to implement.  I think that the best course of action is to implement skill based match making for carriers only. but the question then becomes what stats do you match up CV players with with? and is one rule from one class and another for the other 3 really fair?

Before you can even talk about skill based MM you need to adress the low number of overall CV players. If you cant even a lower skill CV cause some disruption of a good CV player because you cant asume your up agist a less skilled player.

 

Unless you want to get rid of Mirror MM and want to have skilled CVs Wreck withouut fear or any air oposition while you can defend vs a less skilled player without but his tools still can wreak havok even if he only does 20k dam but keep your DDs spoted.......

 

If we would have 1 CVs per side in every high tir games you could start talk about  going for skillbased MM otherwise its a pipedream. Of course you would have other problems then.

How you base your skillbased MM? I for example are a average CV player but i have 38% WR in the Taiho. would i get lower skilled oponents in her just because i stoped playing her in a Time were your Mirror usally was a Midway or old essex while i had a stock config?

[RamirezKurita]

16 minutes ago, Spellfire40 said:

Before you can even talk about skill based MM you need to adress the low number of overall CV players. If you cant even a lower skill CV cause some disruption of a good CV player because you cant asume your up agist a less skilled player.

 

Unless you want to get rid of Mirror MM and want to have skilled CVs Wreck withouut fear or any air oposition while you can defend vs a less skilled player without but his tools still can wreak havok even if he only does 20k dam but keep your DDs spoted.......

 

If we would have 1 CVs per side in every high tir games you could start talk about  going for skillbased MM otherwise its a pipedream. Of course you would have other problems then.

How you base your skillbased MM? I for example are a average CV player but i have 38% WR in the Taiho. would i get lower skilled oponents in her just because i stoped playing her in a Time were your Mirror usally was a Midway or old essex while i had a stock config?

 

Agreed that the low numbers of CVs is a significant issue, it's already a nightmare to get even just my T8 Shoukaku into a game during an off-peak time period and I'd imagine that it would be even harder for the T9s and T10s. Trying to get more CVs into high tiers is a bit of an issue though, as there's actually quite a few in the lower tiers but somewhere up the tiers everyone just abandons them - I see carriers in more than half of my games in my T4 ships, not that often in my T6-7s and basically the only time I see carriers in T8+ is when I'm playing them. It doesn't help that every single change WG implements for carriers seems to make them even rarer and force more and more carrier players out or the game or into other classes.

 

It also doesn't help that a good chunk of their changes for carriers over the last few years are simply making them harder to learn, but not any harder to master. Every single thing they have done to make carrier gameplay more "skilled" has actually just made carriers harder to learn, they have raised the bar for the minimum skill rather than raising the bar for how to apply maximum skill. This causes a massive gulf between good and bad carrier players, as the bad ones haven't even learnt the basics of what to do while the good ones have got the basics down. Ideally, you want the "easy to learn, hard to master" learning curve, where it's very easy to get some okay results but players who have fully mastered the carriers can get some decent results.

 

To be honest, I feel that what carriers most (but not limited to) need to solve these problems aren't really related to overall power level, but Quality-of-Life improvements such as UI changes.

 

Skill based MM could never use WR to decide teams - the whole point of skill based MM is to try to keep everyone at a 50% win rate. It would need to use a separate Matchmaking Rating or something like that to gauge how good each player is and then balance accordingly.

[El2aZeR]

3 hours ago, avenger121 said:

CVs have far more influence on the outcome of the match than any other class, thus they need to be nerfed.

 

Says the guy who has the idiotic belief that every well balanced game has its classes have equal potential influence lol.

Really, your pitiful agenda is far too obvious. Or, if you really believe that, you're actually stupid.

I mean seriously,

 

On 9/6/2017 at 6:21 PM, avenger121 said:

Every game that can call itself balanced. Let´s stay at battlefield [...] They both have their own strengths and still contribute the same to the victory.

 

Because giving a class the ability to heal, even revive and refund a ticket or the ability to give yourself and your teammates a legitimate wallhack is totally equal to throwing around ammunition guys!

 

Well, since you failed hilariously, how about we give you a second chance? Name one AAA game that employs a class based system in which it is the balancing goal that classes have equal influence. Since you said that every game that can call itself well balanced does this, it should be easy, right?

I also still don't see you hating on DDs for their superior potential match influence.

[Exocet6951]

26 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Well, since you failed hilariously, how about we give you a second chance? Name one AAA game that employs a class based system in which it is the balancing goal that classes have equal influence. Since you said that every game that can call itself well balanced does this, it should be easy, right?

 

 

Funny how that question has been asked to multiple people over the course of months, and there still hasn't been a single answer, let alone a mention of said question 

[Thracen]

22 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Says the guy who has the idiotic belief that every well balanced game has its classes have equal potential influence lol.

Really, your pitiful agenda is far too obvious. Or, if you really believe that, you're actually stupid.

I mean seriously,

Dude, calm down, oh and for everyone else let's ditch the stat shaming please.

 

Frankly I still stand by the fact that  AA cruisers are not stripping the sky of aircraft, any player worth his salt has last know position turned on and will scout his strikes if there was a baltimore or even an unspotted minotaur on the team list. I've just got to the des moines with 0 free exp spent, I have never once earned a clear sky in the line or even take down more than 12 planes in a match.

 

Oh and I also think that referencing the CBT is not constructive. It sounds like a different game entirely at this point, most people here have no experience of it and god know that the player base standard has dropped dramatically. This game needs to be balanced for the players it has not the top 5% that have been playing for 3 years. No amount of player education will help further more it's clear  that wargaming has no interest in improving the base line of players. Probably because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

Back on topic. We're now on page two and the best argument for T10 CVs being fun to play against is when they f up hugely (which in my experience almost never happens) or the smug sense of satisfaction of CVs avoiding you all game. When the best thing about a class is that you never interact with them then that's some screwed up game design right there.

 

Honestly this game is either balanced with CVs or without, it cannot be both and since CV number make it impossible for them to be in every match without screwing the Qs, well it's making me miserable in the matches where they turn up. Even when they avoid me in my des moines I see our dd get deleted and our CVs planes haven't even taken off yet and I know I've just lost in the first 5 minutes. This scenario happens all to often. How can you CV nuts defend being in matches like this as anything other than miserable?

 

[Thracen]

6 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

Funny how that question has been asked to multiple people over the course of months, and there still hasn't been a single answer, let alone a mention of said question

Name 3 triple A games comparable enough to world of warships to serve as an example of balance for world of warships? This is a stupid question, like your mentioned question it won't get answered instead being ignored for the pointless red herring that it is. You might as well reference checkers for pawn balancing in chess.

[Exocet6951]

1 minute ago, Thracen said:

Name 3 triple A games comparable enough to world of warships to serve as an example of balance for world of warships? This is a stupid question, like your mentioned question it won't get answered instead being ignored for the pointless red herring that it is. You might as well reference checkers for pawn balancing in chess.

 

That's not the question.
The question is: name one AAA game where all classes have an equal contribution to victory.

It's not worth ignoring, it's a crucial question.
There's whining that CVs are too influencial, and that every class should influence victory equally. Name one AAA game where that happens.
Simple question.
Every time it goes unanswered, it just furthers the fact that people deflect because they don't want to admit to themselves that asymmetrical balancing has been a thing since the dawn of gaming.

I mean, it doesn't even bloody exist intra-class in non-CVs.
A Yamato is more influencial than a Montana, a radar cruiser is more influencial than a long range fire spammer, a BB-murdering Isokaze is more influencial than a "what the hell am I playing this if not for the lulz?" Izyaslav

[Thracen]

OK you want an answer, here is a game http://www.naturalselection2.com/ it was based on asymmetric play. It failed because your success or failure relied too much on 1 player. They built in a game mode to exclude commanders and this mode was more popular.

 

Nobody is saying every class should have an equal say in a victory or a loss, it would be nice to have asymmetric classes that were perfectly balanced like that but it is not practical. However CVs have way to much say, the equivalent of multiple ships being played well or piloted by potatoes. Nobody wants to spend their camos and flags on a 20 minutes loss you had zero say in. You don't I don't nobody does however this is what is happening more often that it should.

 

Seriously there are CV mains out there with 30% win rates and 80% plus win rates. A better than average player wants a better chance of victory in proportion with his skill. Wins and losses should not be decided by 1 player.

[avenger121]

2 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Says the guy who has the idiotic belief that every well balanced game has its classes have equal potential influence lol.

Really, your pitiful agenda is far too obvious. Or, if you really believe that, you're actually stupid.

I mean seriously,

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

 

 

 

Oh yeah, it is very idiotic that every class should have the same chance to influence/win the match. Avg. WR for all classes should be around 45%, except for CVs ofc, they should be at least at 65% WR, ideal state of balance according to CV apologists. ))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

 

4 hours ago, Mymeara said:

 

that kind of proves my point.

decrying one class of vessel as OP and leading a personal crusade to get them removed from the game/nerfed into the ground to suit your own selfish ideals without taking the time to try said class and see for yourself how you constantly put it "just how 'easy' they are to use and abuse" is nothing more than hypocrisy. people like you wont be happy until Wargaming persecutes carrier users to the point of extinction like how RT did with Arty in Armoured Warfare after they got rid of Obsidian.

 

the only one lacking understanding it seems is yourself, you do very little on this forum apart from derail every CV thread you come across with hyperbole and petty insults the second your lop sided arguments fall flat and offer very little in the way of constructive criticism or argument.

 

now back on topic,

personally I think the biggest issue with high tier Carrier (observed anyway, my highest ships are cruisers) is the huge gulf between capabilities of Carrier Jockies.

While probably the hardest thing to implement.  I think that the best course of action is to implement skill based match making for carriers only. but the question then becomes what stats do you match up CV players with with? and is one rule from one class and another for the other 3 really fair?

 

Lol, every thing you are wrongfully accusing me of are you doing yourself with this post, which kinda makes me question your sanity. I have not enough experience to talk about this topic yet you dare to do so, with less than 400 matches, while I have ~ 5,5k matches played in tiers that see high tier CVs. You are a total newbie but somehow the purple guy with 6k matches isnt allowed to discuss balance, kek. I have nothing against CVs as long as they are balanced. Your lies and petty insults kinda prove my point, as soon as you talk about CVs the apologists go full panice mode, coming up with their "arguments" and upon further discussion their insults.

[RamirezKurita]

53 minutes ago, Thracen said:

Back on topic. We're now on page two and the best argument for T10 CVs being fun to play against is when they f up hugely (which in my experience almost never happens) or the smug sense of satisfaction of CVs avoiding you all game. When the best thing about a class is that you never interact with them then that's some screwed up game design right there.

 

 

There's a few obvious good reasons to have carriers in the game:

 

Firstly, they make the game far more proactive as they punish campers and snipers. Carriers deal more damage in longer games, so they encourage players to push harder to limit the potential damage the carriers can do. This goes double for preventing people dropping anchor to snipe, as stationary ships are much easier for carriers to pick on compared to ships underway. Yes, a Midway might have enough planes to solo pretty much any ship in the game, but if it takes them 10 minutes to do so then you can basically knock the Midway out by simply ending the game in the first 10 minutes.

 

Secondly, they provide additional map awareness, helping flush destroyers out of key points and keeping battleships permaspotted to prevent stealth builds overpowering all others. Stealth builds for DDs, CLs and CAs still remain useful though even against carriers, as they can get enough stealth to allow them to open fire on any aircraft that try to keep them spotted - BB stealth builds (the ones that people complain about most nowadays) don't normally have the concealment to get the first strike against fighters though.

 

Thirdly, they strongly encourage ships to support each other, so that they can huddle up in preparation for incoming air strikes. They don't need to always sail in close formation as CV haters cry out, they just need to be near enough that they can move to support each other when aircraft appear on the horizon. Supporting allies should be encouraged, rather than trying to turn the entire game into a YOLOfest where everyone goes off to their favourite corner to die. There's already plenty of reasons to spread out across the map, the game needs more reasons to move in to support nearby allies to promote decision making skills.

 

Fourthly, they are a major balancing factor for ships. So many ships are practically defined by their superior AA capabilities, particularly the cruisers and the majority of the USN ships, and without that AA they are basically just oversized hulks. The ships that people dislike playing as in the upper tiers? Cruisers and the USN battleships; ships that were basically balanced around matches where carriers are a serious force, matches where performing AA duty was a very important task for the good of the team rather than just being an incidental way to scavenge a bit more XP.

 

Fifthly, CVs promote mid and long-term decision making rather than trying to simply react to immediate events. They reward planning, map awareness and being able to predict the flow of the game far better than any other class. While engaging a battleship you can usually pull something out on short notice, which basically only rewards reflexes and hand-eye coordination, dealing with an impending carrier strike instead relies on choices made minutes ago.

[Thracen]

Honestly the counter play is not fun! huddling and hoping your AA ships position well is not strategy. Communication is either unreliable or impossible considering language barriers. I main CCs with AA in mind and I get almost no plane kills and get ruined by T8 CVs in my ibuki, they just trigger my AA with the loss of 2 or 3 planes then come back and end my game if I haven't been blown to hell by being perma spotted from outside my AA range.

 

They are broken as hell and ruin my games and I'm an average player that has spent months on this forum and multiple topics trying to figure out how to play against them and I get ruined every blood time because even if they don't come for me first they pick of my support and get to me in the end and by that time the game is lost anyways.

 

Yep, I'm salty and crying but every time I lose to a CV I look up their stats and vomit at how broken this is.

[Thracen]

1 minute ago, RamirezKurita said:

Firstly, they make the game far more proactive as they punish campers and snipers. Carriers deal more damage in longer games, so they encourage players to push harder

Categorically wrong, CVs punish ships that move forward first because they are the first spotted and most likely to have distance from their camping brethren at the back. Never seen a dd get struck then? 

 

2 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

s they can get enough stealth to allow them to open fire on any aircraft that try to keep them spotted

I think there are 2 ships in the whole game that can actually do this and require 19pt captains and compromised ship builds to do this. IJN cruisers meant to be stealthy, cannot do this and die to spotting without shooting down a single aircraft.

 

4 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

Fourthly, they are a major balancing factor for ships. So many ships are practically defined by their superior AA capabilities, particularly the cruisers and the majority of the USN ships, and without that AA they are basically just oversized hulks. The ships that people dislike playing as in the upper tiers

4k games and never saw this happen. The New orleans and pensacola AA are terrible and I have the balti too and I never get more than a dozen plane kills a game despite chasing them at risk to my ship. CV planes at high tiers are too fast to keep loose formations against. I find the game is more balanced without CVs just ask IJN dds. Rewards for plane kills are pitiful just ask current CVs that dominated games kill 30 plus aircraft and still come 5th on the team table. You are right in that AA cruisers are rare, because they suck and are utterly unrewarded and also happen to be the preferred class to blow up for BBs, often dead before the second strike from a CV. 

 

Cvs have too much power because they can strike the entire map, they can pick their perfect targets and wait for the imperfect targets to have their AA stripped from them. No other class can poop on their perfect targets so effortlessly, they scout for themselves too, for all your talk of team play the most solo class their is is a CV.

 

 

9 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

Fifthly, CVs promote mid and long-term decision making rather than trying to simply react to immediate events. They reward planning, map awareness and being able to predict the flow of the game far better than any other class. While engaging a battleship you can usually pull something out on short notice, which basically only rewards reflexes and hand-eye coordination, dealing with an impending carrier strike instead relies on choices made minutes ago.

This is  a particularly large pile of horse hockey, CV planes are the fastest thing in the game, you cannot position against a potential CV strike and engage the enemy effectively. Playing as if a CV can hit you at any moment is impossible without sacrificing so many other aspects of the game you will lose.

 

Answer this one question: BBs should be out in the open tanking, CCs, especially AA ones, cannot, not without tanking for their BBs :S. How are these ships meant to cover each other when they are played ENTIRELY differently?

 

Honestly I get the impression all these CV supporters are dreaming of a bygone CBT when BBs didn't delete cruisers in a single shot and BBs didn't sit at 18km plus and still top the scoreboard.

[Thracen]

41 people have voted that they are fun so far and not a single argument explaining why? I'm not impressed.

[Horin728]

 

 

All depends on skill. If the enemy CV is a potato and goes for the full AA DM you get (almost) 50 planes. If he uses his brain, you will get a dozen or so. If your team uses you correctly for AA you might get 30. Yes the clear sky achievement is absurd, since you have to kill around 67 planes vs a Haku and 74 against a Midway, but that should be another topic of discussion.

 

In order to really gain appreciation in the CV counterplay you first have to play them to understand the amount of work that goes into each strike. One whiffed/countered strike can have (and usually has) substantial impact on the whole match and this is where your enjoyment should come from. Did you get (only) 6 plane kills? But what were those planes - were they Midways only TB squadron that was attacking a yammy that just repped? Well you just prevented a major problem for your team.

[El2aZeR]

50 minutes ago, avenger121 said:

-snip-

 

Still refusing to answer questions despite saying previously that they can be easily done so. Loads of credibility found here as always.

 

1 hour ago, Thracen said:

It failed because your success or failure relied too much on 1 player.

 

You know what didn't fail, though? Literally every other AAA game that employs an asymmetrical balancing system. There are plenty of reasons why a game such as Natural Selection wasn't successful.

 

40 minutes ago, Thracen said:

Honestly the counter play is not fun!

 

That can be said about literally all counter play found in the game.

"Hiding behind cover is not fun!"

"Angling and kiting away is not fun!"

"Using WASD against an invisible enemy is not fun!"

And so on.

And quite frankly it doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

29 minutes ago, Thracen said:

Cvs have too much power because they can strike the entire map, they can pick their perfect targets and wait for the imperfect targets to have their AA stripped from them. No other class can poop on their perfect targets so effortlessly, they scout for themselves too, for all your talk of team play the most solo class their is is a CV.

 

If any one sentence denotes your inexperience, it is this one. Sure, a CV can stat pad all game by striking and killing all the camping scrubs. You know who that doesn't help, though? Your teammates, and therefore your ability to influence the match and win. The thought that you can use the entire map to strike is fundamentally flawed. Sure, a CV has the ability to do so, just like a BB has the ability to stay at 20km from its target and still shoot at it. It's still hilariously inefficient and cuts down severely on how many strikes you are capable of flying per match. The strike efficiency factor is far too low for you to ever consider flying around the entire map, risking your strike getting intercepted, just to kill the one guy camping at the border. It is why defensive play actually favors CV players, because they get the time they need to thoroughly plan out what targets to prosecute. Putting on pressure on the other hand fundamentally requires that a CV, like any other class, take action, because if he does not he and his team will likely lose the game. Hovering your planes to wait for a perfect opening simply isn't an option in that case.

As for positioning, using islands can easily prolong the amount of time planes have to spend in your AA or make a strike entirely unfeasible due to teammates covering your flank, severe risk of getting intercepted or because it would simply take too long (strike efficiency, remember?).

CVs easily become the most team-reliant class when the enemy has even a tiny amount of skill. You said it yourself, they have to wait until their teammates give them an opening or for the enemy to make a crippling mistake, not to mention they are entirely reliant on their teammates to contest and capture objectives.

No other class is as influential as a CV, that is true. No other class has to deal with their restrictions, either. Both factors are inevitably tied to each other, cutting down on one end means cutting down on the other as well. Would you perhaps prefer it if your AA could only shoot down a fixed one plane per minute in exchange for reduced squad sizes, thus giving a CV the chance to deal guaranteed damage no matter what you do like any other class? Didn't think so. It goes against the design philosophy of CVs anyway.

So before judging a class on hilariously flawed views then proceeding to write such bull-[edited] about it how about you go and play them yourself for a better picture?

 

38 minutes ago, Thracen said:

41 people have voted that they are fun so far and not a single argument explaining why? I'm not impressed.

 

We have provided answers, you refuse to accept them due to subjective views. What else is there, really?

[Thracen]

2 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

The question is: name one AAA game where all classes have an equal contribution to victory.

 Right, team fortress 2, Dota 2, league of legends, battlefield, every single one since 1942, a personal fav. The division, destiny 2, the titanfall's. All have classes, none of those classes have any hope of the consistent win rates achievable by by the best CVs and the loss rate of the worst CVs. Frankly I think it's absurd comparing such things but you needed an answer.

 

Right help me here, the only answers I've heard for the fun of playing against at t10 have been "being avoided in a AA cruiser" and "forcing team play, ships grouping together and pushing aggressively". I think it's fair to say the former is an argument but not a strong indication of positive CV interaction and I've have never seen evidence of the second one first hand in 4k matches.

Please if you could pick out the ones I've missed I will listen, but so far I find these 2 less than convincing. 

[El2aZeR]

2 minutes ago, Thracen said:

team fortress 2

 

Because a medic doesn't have more influence than a sniper.

 

3 minutes ago, Thracen said:

Dota 2, league of legends

 

Because a well balanced team doesn't totally beat one consisting only of one class.

 

3 minutes ago, Thracen said:

battlefield

 

Because the ability to revive and refund a ticket is obviously equal to resupplying ammo (as stated before).

 

4 minutes ago, Thracen said:

the division, destiny 2, the titanfall's

 

I'm sorry, the criteria was class based. Should've probably added PvP as well because balance in PvE games is fundamentally different.

[ForlornSailor]

2 hours ago, Exocet6951 said:

The question is: name one AAA game where all classes have an equal contribution to victory.

 

Easy. World in Conflict.

[El2aZeR]

2 minutes ago, ForlornSailor said:

Easy. World in Conflict.

 

I was very much under the impression that playing only tanks and air would easily steamroll any other composition because both infantry and support were incapable of opposing both effectively.

[gekkehenkie50]

So I was typing a rather long essay on this topic, then I decided that I might as well break it down to this:

A. Dont bash guys on their stats in an Opinion Poll, despite their claims being as mad as possible

B. My opinion is this: CVs add an extra layer of gameplay, they are the reason so many skills in the game exist as well as flags, builds and even certain ships. They are an iconic piece of history from WW2 and frankly I also enjoy them in game. Anytime I am hovered over or striked by a CV, I feel a slight amount of anger, but then usually playfully call him a piece of in chat for focusing me and move on.

C. If you really havent seen any sky-melts passed tier VI... Idk. weird RNG/MM, because I can tell you the amount of times I have had to sacrifice 4 entire squadrons just to get the decap on someone should have included you in one of them.