Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Kaa1el

The game needs a mode without carriers

87 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
135 posts

A game with carrier on each side is simply unplayable for most ships in the game. DD will get instaspotted, CA and CL and BB will be instadeleted with the sheer will of the opposing carrier player.

 

This is a more serious unbalancing factor much worse than the DD invisibility problem. Some will disagree with this but I think most players think game without carrier is a more enjoyable and playable experience.

 

So I propose a switch or a tickbox next to the Battle button for players to choose whether to join a game with or without carriers. This will cater to both CV players and those who doesn't want to play against them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,138
[BROOK]
Banned
2,260 posts

LOL

 

CVs are fine. They make things more interesting. Besides they had them IRL during WW II.

 

Now if you ask me, I'd get rid of the DDs and cruisers altogether.

 

:trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,544
[PSA]
Members
5,118 posts
3,754 battles

Only if there's a switch to not see battleships when I'm playing cruisers, not see cruisers when I'm playing destroyers, and one to not see destroyers when I'm playing battleships.

 

Fair?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,197
[KMS2]
Members
10,919 posts
4,863 battles

Go play an AA cruiser, then talk to us again.

 

​Or, any American BB that's partially fitted out for an AA role, and any cruiser with an average AA armament and AA scatter ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,477 posts
4,779 battles

I had one in mind involving a french theme. You sail around to french music on a giant cake. Your ships of choice would be a Baguette (BB), a Croissant (CA) and a Crepe (DD). It'll be fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

This forum needs a mode without your threads.

 

Translation: You disagree with me, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to speak.

 

Oh, wait, I can say that to!

 

Forums needs a mode that filters out anyone who wants CVs in the game.

 

LOL

 

CVs are fine. They make things more interesting. Besides they had them IRL during WW II.

 

- No, CVs are not fine. Even more defenders of CVs will admit that CVs are not fine.

 

- CVs make the game more interesting in the way sawing off your leg would be interesting.

 

- And IRL, CVs couldn't send a single sortie out in 20 mins. Don't bring up RL to justify game elements, it just makes you look like a moron.

 

Only if there's a switch to not see battleships when I'm playing cruisers, not see cruisers when I'm playing destroyers, and one to not see destroyers when I'm playing battleships.

 

Fair?

 

There's no comparison.

 

CVs are mechanically distinct from all other classes in the game.

 

A "no CV" tickbox is a tickbox to remove a set of mechanics from your matches.

 

It's more like a tickbox to say "I don't want to see domination matches" than a tickbox saying "I don't want to see DDs".

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,138
[BROOK]
Banned
2,260 posts

 

Translation: You disagree with me, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to speak.

 

Oh, wait, I can say that to!

 

Forums needs a mode that filters out anyone who wants CVs in the game.

 

 

- No, CVs are not fine. Even more defenders of CVs will admit that CVs are not fine.

 

- CVs make the game more interesting in the way sawing off your leg would be interesting.

 

- And IRL, CVs couldn't send a single sortie out in 20 mins. Don't bring up RL to justify game elements, it just makes you look like a moron.

 

 

There's no comparison.

 

CVs are mechanically distinct from all other classes in the game.

 

A "no CV" tickbox is a tickbox to remove a set of mechanics from your matches.

 

It's more like a tickbox to say "I don't want to see domination matches" than a tickbox saying "I don't want to see DDs".

 

Remind me when your 12th birthday is again so that I can buy you some camo.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
800 posts
7,359 battles

We already have that, it's called tier 10.

 

Btw do you think about a new thread everyday or are you just presenting everything there's in your head little by little so we don't get overwhelmed?

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
770
[WG]
[WG]
Administrator, In AlfaTesters
1,119 posts
24,125 battles

 

Translation: You disagree with me, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to speak.

 

Oh, wait, I can say that to!

 

Forums needs a mode that filters out anyone who wants CVs in the game.

Have you even looked at any of this other guy's threads? In any case, if I wanted to discuss this topic, I would go to the thread created by Battleship_DukeOfYork, which is on exactly the same topic and actually presents some reasoning instead of hyperbole and bait.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

Remind me when your 12th birthday is again so that I can buy you some camo.

 

Ooooh, the good old "you're a 12 year old" non argument.

 

Why don't you go take a ap until you're mature enough to actually address the points being made, instead of throwing around petty insults?

 

(Oh, and my birthday is today, and I'd prefer a Tirpitz instead of camo).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,094
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
3,004 posts
13,225 battles

 

Translation: You disagree with me, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to speak.

 

Oh, wait, I can say that to!

 

Forums needs a mode that filters out anyone who wants CVs in the game.

 

 

- No, CVs are not fine. Even more defenders of CVs will admit that CVs are not fine.

 

- CVs make the game more interesting in the way sawing off your leg would be interesting.

 

- And IRL, CVs couldn't send a single sortie out in 20 mins. Don't bring up RL to justify game elements, it just makes you look like a moron.

 

 

There's no comparison.

 

CVs are mechanically distinct from all other classes in the game.

 

A "no CV" tickbox is a tickbox to remove a set of mechanics from your matches.

 

It's more like a tickbox to say "I don't want to see domination matches" than a tickbox saying "I don't want to see DDs".

****

 

Content Moderated by Mezurashi.

Edited by Mezurashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

Have you even looked at any of this other guy's threads? In any case, if I wanted to discuss this topic, I would go to the thread created by Battleship_DukeOfYork, which is on exactly the same topic and actually presents some reasoning instead of hyperbole and bait.

 

I don't give a damn about his other threads.

 

If this thread is stupid, you can either ignore it, or point out exactly how it's stupid. If he has a history of making stupid points, you can point that out.

 

I further don't give a damn about the "hyperbole and salt" because for some reason, whenever hyperbole and salt is spewed from the other side, people like you oddly don't show up to point it out. (Whaaa, AA is too strong, whaa, CVs don't earn enough credits)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,115 posts
6,734 battles

So you're mad that a good carrier player can spot DDs and I'm not sure what your argument about cruisers and CVs is...yes a carrier can sink a cruiser, but it will take a lot what makes CVs good assets away. Unlike any other class CVs have limited ammo so to speak, so by focusing planes on a cruiser you're kind of just wasting your time.

Early tiers CVs might be a little OP because no ships have any decent AA until tier 6 or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,665 battles

****

 

Content Moderated by Mezurashi.

 

Yet another moron defending CVs who has nothing but meaningless insults.

 

I made claims and arguments in that post you responded to. Maybe try pointing out how what I said was incorrect? 

 

More likely: You can't, you know I'm right, but refuse to admit it, and because of that, you throw out an insult and pretend you've made a rebuttal.

Edited by Mezurashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
770
[WG]
[WG]
Administrator, In AlfaTesters
1,119 posts
24,125 battles

 

I don't give a damn about his other threads.

 

If this thread is stupid, you can either ignore it, or point out exactly how it's stupid. If he has a history of making stupid points, you can point that out.

 

I further don't give a damn about the "hyperbole and salt" because for some reason, whenever hyperbole and salt is spewed from the other side, people like you oddly don't show up to point it out. (Whaaa, AA is too strong, whaa, CVs don't earn enough credits)

 

I did point out how the thread is stupid in my response to you, if you didn't notice; it's redundant and offers no material on which to base a discussion, while the other thread created on this exact same topic provides decently reasoned points. My first post was dismissive because, based on his thread history, the OP simply makes threads to poke the hornet's nest.

 

"people like you" That's an interesting sentence coming from you, issm, containing both a strawman and an ad hominem, when you claim to base your arguments on logic. Implying that I support those arguments and suggesting that it's indicative of a lower character on my part, real cool.

 

CVs are mechanically distinct from all other classes in the game.

 

A "no CV" tickbox is a tickbox to remove a set of mechanics from your matches.

 

It's more like a tickbox to say "I don't want to see domination matches" than a tickbox saying "I don't want to see DDs".

 

Funny how I don't have a tickbox to disable overmatch mechanics, or concealment mechanics, or torpedo spotting mechanics, or...

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×