lol

I shot down 115 planes with my Iowa earlier. This is absolutely insane what's happening.

Yeah its been hit or miss for me

Those are decent solutions man, that would probably solve the issues

Yup...

Why yes...yes it is your welcome. Welcome Back! and enjoy...

@@moonytheloony6516 hahaha thanks lol

I've already seen 112 lol

@@whereruaaron daaammmnnn 🤣

​@@whereruaaronI got 115, 1 was a fighter, in a match earlier in my Iowa full AA build. I think it was a kaga as well

Even the medals are fuckywucky :Ellis:

lol

The actual (historic) Kaga could carry up to 60 planes. 1 video game Kaga could unleash the amount of at least FOUR historical Kaga's in a single match, as demonstrated in this video. So Wargaming basically quadrupled the air strike capability of the historical Kaga in this update, which explains the absurd damage output that would make Skynet green with envy.

Never mind, you self reported at the end. Bot self diagnostics must be working well

It's quite literally the title...lol

@@whereruaaron well wouldn’t the number be infinite. It would be cool to have seen a stronger cv like the Saipan. Kaga has paper planes but has many of them to compensate.

lol. 230

It was mentioned in the vid!

@@whereruaaron my b, thanks for the time and video!

I mean that was the point...Kaga can produce the most

I think WW2 era max aircraft compliment was 50-60 planes not 250 😂

Reduce regen rate and damage output and maybe* a slight buff to AA but if you reduced damage and output that would probably be a very fair middle ground

Nope, just someone who doesn't rely on feelings to dictate how a game should be balanced

Mostly terrible suggestions that would just make more issues than solve

Invincibility lmao that’s a new one

@@MattttMan No, Carriers should be weak, very weak. They never should have been as powerful as they were pre-patch. Getting intel should be 90% for their job, not ruining the game by being able to get 500K damage games. Very few people play Carriers anyway, and it should stay that way. Only very highly skilled players should be able to do well in Carriers.

@@jacobbradford7229 I can thank the good Lord that you're not a part of the balancing dept, too much passion with 0 logic

@@MattttMan Well I'd still do better than you. Because we would need negative numbers to tell your logic rating.

Records are meant to be broken, not shattered day 1

I’ve not seen the numbers. So unaware of disparity. And it still stands. If the numbers were smashed, then indeed there’s a fault, but if the original intention was to *slightly* increase the effectiveness then the intention was maybe good - the execution is at fault. I say maybe, because maybe there was nothing wrong with CVs before the patch. But if there’s lacklustre usage, or off looking stats, then I wouldn’t be surprised at their attempt to tweak. That’s giving the benefit of doubt. I’d urge anyone to not take my original post as a defence to the patch, but more one of aiming to understand the patch intent and adjusting the aimed disgust. Again possibly mis-aimed hope that they’re well intentioned.

And to clarify. I’m totally open to learning and a big reason to tune into this channel is not only to learn but also a respect for what you convey. I’m new to the game since February. And aware I can come across a bit Sheldon direct, an eagerness to jump into the juicy interesting stuff. Thanks for the videos and opening debate.

@@whereruaaron well. I’ve tried them now, and I don’t find mechanics as enjoyable as before. It’s straight up, down, return. I’ve yet to try tier iii, but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s worse than tier V where getting to the other side of the map isn’t possible. So leaning your CV ship into the fray, only takes one bold cruiser or battleship to edge forward and delete the CV. Yet to test if full throttle doesn’t get you as far. The matches are very mixed, with very different approaches of avoiding the cv.

I have no idea who these people who kept asking for changes were but sure

@@whereruaaron You're right it just fell out of the sky. Or a WG dev accidently dropped his keyboard and this mess materialized!

@@sunquestenergyhomesolution96WG has never and will never use player feedback to make significant balancing change’s

@@whereruaaron I believe that as far as I can throw it. Besides, can you define what determines a significant balance change?!?! A small seemingly insignificant change can accidently become significant and that's what I suspect, in part what happened with this update.

You sound rather displeased with what you're seeing in the game regarding the CV changes. And you're blaming the "CV haters" for playing a significant role in influencing Wargaming's decision making. And you're asserting that Wargaming is trying to please everybody... On the latter assertion, really? The way Wargaming has gone about monetizing this game is demonstrable evidence that they are, as a company, not in the business of trying to please everybody. They are, like most companies, in the manipulation business because that is what makes money, not the other way around. Your claim that Wargaming isn't 100% to blame falls apart very quickly because it's their company. Their name is on their product, hence their decisions are final, not the "CV Haters" That's like shifting the blame away from a vehicle manufacturer who experiences a recall due to a defective part. Like Wargaming, they design their product, manufacture their product and sell it publicly hence they own it...and if their product has a defective part or mechanism, it's on them to fix it, hence they bear 100% of the responsibility. Which is why recalls are generally free of charge to the customer who owns the specific model in question. It's their fault, no one else's. Wargaming is no different. They have the final say in all updates that are approved. Period. Which is why Wargaming is 100% to blame for the poor implementation of the CV rework. They own that responsibility everytime, all of the time. You're making a claim in which you haven't met the Burden of Proof with demonstrable evidence. And if you are claiming that the existence of "CV Haters" and the results of the CV changes were heavily influenced by them because Wargaming is trying to please everybody, hence the CV Haters bear much if not all of the blame; then you're making a circular argument which is fallacious reasoning. It's on you to provide evidence that Wargaming specifically made these CV decisions based on "CV Hater" pressure, which would require you to conduct an internal investigation of Wargaming that would uncover how they arrived to their decisions regarding this specific CV update/rework. You don't have that evidence, my good man. And until ya do, ya haven't met the Burden of Proof regarding your claim. All you are right now is a bloke with a degree from Dunning-Kruger University.