Why We Need Aircraft Carriers, Espcially At The Higher Tiers

[db4100]

Tier 8-10 matches turns more into a game of "Call of Duty" than a naval game when there aren't any aircraft carriers.  Without aircraft carriers the game of "World Of Warships" turns into a game of a first person shooter game where everyone is hiding behind islands, very little team work, and everyone is afraid to push.  With aircraft carriers in the match, you can't play hide and seek when aircraft will delete your static [edited].  We need more aircraft carriers at the higher tiers to stop the rampant camping behind islands with a play style that is equivalent of an infantryman.  Give a bonus, or some other incentive to play aircraft carriers.  Otherwise with all the static play, "World of Warships" turns to crap.

Yeah, yeah....here comes the dumb [edited] comments from the peanut gallery like "get gud" and "play aircraft carriers".  For one if "getting gud" means to play high level matches like it was "Halo", or "Rainbow Six", then I am out.  That is just not fun, and gets old very quickly.

[KiyoSenkan]

Funny, the ability to punish stationary battleships bow-camping or island-camping is the exact reason battleship mains whined carriers out of the game to begin with.

[BladedPheonix]

6 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

Funny, the ability to punish stationary battleships bow-camping or island-camping is the exact reason battleship mains whined carriers out of the game to begin with.

yup......

[Hiroe]

Interesting viewpoint. I mostly agree.

[khan1670]

Make Ocean great again!! 

[SkaerKrow]

Currently, aircraft carriers can delete ships whether they're mobile or static; the only real counter is your ship's AA rating. Ergo, the addition of more carriers doesn't make the game more interesting, it just punishes lines with bad AA. 

 

If static play is a problem, then there are far better solutions than ramping up the participation of the game's most dysfunctional class.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

There have been 3 traditional threats that BB worry about.

 

Torpedoes & DDs.

 

Carrier Air Power.

 

Interestingly, these same 3 things have received plenty of heavy handed nerfs since Launch.  Coincidentally, BBs are the most played ships in the game.  There's nothing wrong with Cruisers.  They get deleted just fine by Battleships.

[SgtBeltfed]

I don't think it would help. The huge clump of ship's hiding behind (pick island of your choice) is pretty much impossible to attack with aircraft. A combined AA rating of 400 or so, not including a cruiser with a cooldown hiding somewhere in that makes it impossible. All it does is tell the Shimakaze where to put the torps when it's lucky enough to be on the team that actually does something.

[Pata1985]

Imagine T10 matches with 2 CV's per side ... lulz.

[BlazerSparta]

58 minutes ago, db4100 said:

With aircraft carriers in the match, you can't play hide and seek when aircraft will delete your static [edited]

 

My [edited] will stay as static as I damn well please as long as I am/am with a DM/Minotaur.

 

If CVs can't attack through AA cruisers, they are ineffective in forcing ships to move.

 

If CVs can attack through AA cruisers, they're blatantly overpowered.

 

CVs can not solve this problem.

[BlazerSparta]

51 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

Funny, the ability to punish stationary battleships bow-camping or island-camping is the exact reason battleship mains whined carriers out of the game to begin with.

 

Ignoring the fact that DDs are the ships hardest impacted by CVs....

[KiyoSenkan]

Just now, issm said:

Ignoring the fact that DDs are the ships hardest impacted by CVs....

This is true but it doesn't change the fact that battleships did most of the complaining.

[BlazerSparta]

4 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

This is true but it doesn't change the fact that battleships did most of the complaining.

 

And on that note, who's doing the complaining is completely irreelvant if the complaints are valid.

 

How about you give up the irrelevant nonsense and address the complaints themselves, and if they're valid?

[HazeGrayUnderway]

Battleship life is so difficult!  It's a shame if something were to scratch that paint.

[db4100]

Yeah, destroyers are affected by aircraft too, but that feeling you get when you are in destroyer and you find a lone, undefended aircraft carrier......such a feeling.  That is what aircraft carrier drivers fear, right?  A rogue DD coming in at you undetected and uncontested.  

[m373x]

1 hour ago, db4100 said:

you can't play hide and seek when aircraft will delete your static [edited]

 

 Good luck deleting my 18km average distance traveled per game Des Moines 

[KiyoSenkan]

11 minutes ago, issm said:

How about you give up the irrelevant nonsense and address the complaints themselves, and if they're valid?

 

Because when I do that, you still call it irrelevant nonsense.

[BlazerSparta]

Just now, AraAragami said:

Because when I do that, you still call it irrelevant nonsense.

 

What else am I supposed to call it when you whine about how easy CVs are to kill once spotted when they're hardly ever spotted?

[knice_destroyer]

3 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Battleship life is so difficult!  It's a shame if something were to scratch that paint.

AP bombs causing multiple citadel hits, Tier 9 and 10 Japanese CV triple torp drops literally 1 kilometer from the ship ignoring 100 AA speccd battleships getting dev strikes, I hardly call that just scratching the paint.  I'm not saying some planes should make it through...however an experienced cv captain can straight wreck a bb moving or not.

[KiyoSenkan]

Just now, issm said:

What else am I supposed to call it when you whine about how easy CVs are to kill once spotted when they're hardly ever spotted?

 

Because that's the only thing I've ever said about carriers.

[BlazerSparta]

Just now, AraAragami said:

Because that's the only thing I've ever said about carriers.

 

Remind me. I don't bother memorising bad arguments; it's not that hard to just debunk them.

[KiyoSenkan]

7 minutes ago, issm said:

Remind me. I don't bother memorising bad arguments; it's not that hard to just debunk them.

Not gonna bother since you clearly don't care and won't be swayed. It'd just be a waste of time.

[BlazerSparta]

1 minute ago, AraAragami said:

Not gonna bother since you clearly don't care and won't be swayed. It'd just be a waste of time.

 

Yes, I care so little that I'd be willing to go through and debunk your arguments point by point, and explain exactly why, with proof, how your arguments are irrelevant nonsense.

 

Could it possibly be that you're afraid of having your ideas challenged?

[ReddNekk]

25 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

This is true but it doesn't change the fact that battleships did most of the complaining.

Thanks for the laugh DDriver! Talk about willful ignorance.

[KiyoSenkan]

7 minutes ago, issm said:

Could it possibly be that you're afraid of having your ideas challenged?

 

Nope. I just don't think you're worth the time. It'd just be a waste of time and effort. Not because you'd debunk everything, but because you literally cannot be convinced of anything that was not already your idea.

 

I've been interacting with you for 2 years. I know how stubborn you are. And I know you're just trying to manipulate me into giving you something to bite down on so you can feel good about how you "beat" me.

 

I'll just be over here, deconstructing your psyche like the good ol' days.

 

5 minutes ago, ReddNekk said:

Thanks for the laugh DDriver! Talk about willful ignorance.

 

I love people who assume I don't play battleships or that I wasn't around since CBT to see all of this unfold firsthand.