I do believe the OP is judging this CV's performance verses their Halland's performance. Which is perfectly fine, because that's what actually mattered in their match.
Theory is great outside the game, but in-game results matter... in that game. That's not really something that can be ignored.
There's not anything to validate. OP used their Halland and murdered planes. They used their ship in a way that kept them safe and made the enemy's planes go down.
You don't have to go against the best Tennis Player in the world to prove you know how to play Tennis. You just hit the ball back well enough to win the match against the player you're actually playing against.
Ran the math for an AA-spec'd Halland ambushing a Nakhimov Skip Bomb squadron with Slot 4 HP Upgrade inside of 3.5km (no flak).
Raw Continuious results in full squad wipe in about 10 seconds.
---
Also, please stop using your Grainy video thing. Highlight clips look cool, but don't actually answer the point.
I don't believe he's talking about Flak really at all. The Raw Continuous time to kill 12 Midway Dive Bombers on an AA Spec'd Halland is about 25 seconds. If you set up the ambush and force a bad line on the Midway's Bomber, you could do that with only drop used against you.
The strength of the drop would depend on if the Midway player took the bad drop offered or spent time trying to force a better angle while under 1300 dps/sec.
This stopped being about his Halland's spec the moment you started speaking about the "competence"/expectation of the other CV being able to avoid Flak.
Much of your conversation has been turned to a display of your skill and an argument that X condition is more than enough to do Y. But, in the actual example provided by the OP... that wasn't the case. CV players do lose planes to AA, and even the non-AA spec'd Halland is quite capable at making such things happen when played correctly.
Depending on how the abmush is lain, you can absolutely increase the time the CV needs to find the angle to curl in for a drop. Midway Bombers may be sky ballerinas, but you can still force the CV Player to need to reset their line.
You're missing his point. He's saying the not all DDs have good AA.
This is true, just the same as not all ships have amazing armor. A Shimakaze has less armor then an Elbing and is vulnerable to overmatch mechanics the Elbing isn't.
All ships have their power budget spread across a variety of aspects. AA is a part of that power budget, so the Shima having poor AA just means it's stronger in other areas.
No, it doesn't. This situation would be used to display that Smalands aren't OP, which they aren't. Smalland is a ship which performs well in some hands, but not all hands.
The definition of "OP" is more about something which is so powerful that it literally cannot lose. It's more often used in slang to mean "something that's more powerful than it should be", so it's worth pointing out the definition.
Likely a combination of strength as well as popularity, but yes. The base kit of the ship gave it a lot of room to work with, and when played well it certainly stood out.
Skill is absolutely a factor in talking about CV Balance. I'd encourage you to play CV for a Hurricane team, where you will see high-end skill matched against high-end skill. While AA is automated and Fighters are static, they can be employed quite well by high-end players.
I believe you said you did? Something about sniping an enemy CV in about 7 minutes? Then you should be more than aware that a CV doesn't simply pick a target and kill it as easily as is being argued. Literally the thread is mocking the idea that AA doesn't matter... because it does matter.
In terms of balancing for a Game Population at large, you have to account for the middle/low skill players. You cannot get around them existing, and so they MUST be factored as part of the playerbase.
There was an excellent thread which talked about how CVs could be altered to lower the capability of the Unicums in a CV.
https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/248673-nerf-the-cvs-not-the-players/
No, I'm giving information. The CV matters and the Halland matters. They both matter at the same time.
The angle of "The Halland only mattered because X" and the angle of "The CV only mattered because Y" is where the theory comes in and this conversation stops being about reality.
The reality is that this thread is about a Halland doing well against a CV, which is an actual thing that happens. There is a narrative that exists which says it doesn't, and this thread was literally created as a response to that narrative.
I've never read anywhere that it did.
The OP is about a player that had a game where they did well against a CV. There's nothing about this thread that should make someone assume the Halland is plane-immune.
Are you referring to?:
This is an example of the:
There's a difference between somebody saying "X makes this really important" and "Y automatically wins"
The quote above is equivalent to saying that flak isn't important because player skill can negate it. The other player is saying, "planes don't matter because skill in this ship can negate it". Both are semantic arguements and not the reality of the situation.
No, the definition isn't wrong. The good part of this is that stuff like that doesn't exist in our game. That's an intentional effort on the part of our balancing staff, as real "OP" stuff kills games dead.
Something having more power in the power budget, or an aspect which is an outlier in and of itself is a balancing issue. This is why terms are important so that ideas don't get misrepresented.
Yes, I've heard all this for years. But as a CV player yourself, you should be aware that you aren't going to single-handedly Kraken O7 in a clan battle. You can spot and do damage to things, but you ARE limited by their AA and map position decisions.
The issue of the "OP" description is both a problem with people's use of the term and the basis of "theoretical power" that a CV has. As it "could" do a lot of things, the assumptions have to made that it 'will" do all those things... even though a CV can only do one thing at a time. The "threat" is a problem due to it's ability to move its threat to a new area in a rapid timeframe.
---
As an aside, I'm always game for talking about CVs in general. If you want to stop by and talk on stream, feel free to send me a message. But let's try to keep this thread relevant to AA and its ability to matter, please.
I realize this, which is why I wanted to set the definition for talking with me. I study game design and work in gaming, so my understandings of various terms will differ from common use.
The day I recognized that mattered was when I heard a League of Legends pro describe a Champion matchup. They said their character was brokenly OP, because if it came down to a mathed out fight, the math favored them by something like 7 HP. That IS the difference between winning or dying, but to an average player hearing "OP" they'd have no actual idea of what the meant.
This is an oft repeated narrative, but it lacks context. Massed AA can stop you from taking damage from a CV, but there's no reason to expect a situation where Player A should be unable to damage Player B in a 1v1.
Armor is circumvented by Torpedoes and Fire. AA is circumvented by Islands and Long Drops. There is no "immunity". Even the repeated line of "plane losses don't matter" is incorrect, as they do matter. The question is if the losses are limiting or not, which isn't always the case.
---
Countering a CV is more about the aerial space your AA is claiming, and the positions you take on the map which alter/block attack lines. These do not require massed AA to be effective, though due to a lack of resources (players) you won't be able to cover all the attack lines and someone will still likely get hurt somehow.
This thread feels pretty done. CV threads often require active moderation as passions ignite and I'm going to bed, so I'm going to put this thread to sleep as well.
Catch you on the next one.
devtrackers.gg