El2aZeR

Most s I see have hundreds of matches played in the particular ship they chose for battle and thousands overall. Just install the MM monitor for like a month or so and see how utterly abysmal this ed playerbase is. They don't get better because they are allowed to fail their way up the tiers far too fast without any repercussions. If anything they actually get worse because of that.

Which would extend AA exposure to the point of where a second attack practically becomes impossible against all but the weakest AA ships. A few seconds is all it takes for e.g. a Tirpitz to eat all strikes or wiping out a squad after the first attack. Which in turn makes having multiple attack runs pointless, attacking one of the fundamental mechanics of the rework. The very issue with attempting to improve the current situation is that it cannot be improved without compromising the rework one way or another. Take the AA change on the PTS for example, that'll completely murder CVs with low squad sizes, slow regeneration and/or reserves. And just like with any other attempt at improvement, it simply can't happen without wrecking CV play. Any sensible person would scrap the rework completely and start anew at this point, but alas you're probably right. It's gonna take months, maybe even years for WG to come to that realization.

Aren't we there already?

Which again doesn't solve anything. If you don't take enough damage to discourage a slingshot then slingshotting remains essentially the same, as such there is no point in changing anything. If you DO take enough damage while slingshotting it inevitably disrupts normal gameplay. So your change would either be pointless or killing reworked CV play entirely. This is because you're targeting fundamental mechanics of this dumpster fire. For example if you do take enough damage after a single drop to completely discourage slingshotting, there is no point in having multiple attack runs per squad either as the damage will inevitably be enough to deny any second attack. If you don't however then there was never any point to the change in the first place. And remember, you need to be able to execute not only a second attack, but a third and potentially a fourth one too. That alone means planes would have to be practically immune to damage after a drop as per your suggestion, at which point you may as well make them immune because it doesn't make any difference anyway. No you can't. Because the attack cd must not exceed the normal reengagement window which currently is about right. Slingshotting perfectly demonstrates how utterly ed the rework is. You can't remove it because it was meant to address something broken, you can't change it because either it wouldn't make any difference or it would basically kill off the rework and you can't leave it as it is too because it is a broken mechanic in itself. And the whole rework is built upon bull like this.

WGs business model in this game is to enable s to play like garbage without any repercussions via cash. As such you could say toxicity is precisely what WG makes money with as they're actively encouraging it (no matter what they say otherwise). Expecting them to do something against it is equivalent to asking them to make less money. It won't happen.

No, unless you make them near immune (which wouldn't solve anything) it'd still be untennable. Because taking damage you're supposed to avoid but can't is still bull. WG designed themselves into a corner here. There is nothing to be done without scrapping the whole system and starting anew. Just like with the rest of the rework.

Also can't be removed because you'd inevitably run into flak when you have barely any control over your planes after a drop.

Funny thing about slingshot is that it cannot be removed. You see, during testing slingshot didn't exist, meaning a CV could turn inside close range AA to reengage extremely fast. This inevitably meant high damage totals and few planes lost. Slingshotting was introduced to prevent that from happening. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. The whole rework is full of such shoddy patchworks.

Honestly, a 45% WR player is already incredibly garbage. The only reason why he is only slightly below "average" is because the majority is even more abysmal. This extends all the way to well over 50%. In my experience players only start exhibiting signs of intelligence at ~56% WR or above assuming a sufficient amount of matches played. MM monitor has taught me that you have to be grateful for MM giving you a 45% on your team however. Most players are way below that and struggling to break 30k average damage. In the T8 bracket.

iT iS iMPoSSiBLe tO kILL aLL 5 DDs WiThIn 10 mInUTEs Also we won that match. Because CVs are totally balans.

Here, have some more: And he hasn't stopped sending bull to @Saiyko either. That's it from me tho, he's on my blacklist now. As amusing as he sometimes is I can't put up with his delusional ation any further.

3 days? Try 3 years.

Look at this scenario. Goal is to kill the Worcester as the Hipper is already dead anyway. Impossible without a lengthy detour, right? CVs totally balans. /s

HE'S NOT STOPPING FFS. Also @Excavatus do you think that's ban worthy? Might wanna check with a dev on that. Sounds like a real life threat to me. Congrats tho, you're a Sith Lord now! :D

All I can find is videos proving how worthless AA is unless the enemy CV is bad and eats flak. Which lines up perfectly with my own experience. You've just provided proof to the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Lets not kid ourselves, Kreml has stupidly strong AA even if her numbers may not suggest it at first. It easily outperforms DM AA and when everything is considered (survivability etc.) may as well be the best AA ship currently in the game. Mino/Worcester may put out more raw DPS but they also die much faster to air strikes. The ship only has one hard counter when it comes to air strikes. Said hard counter is also the most powerful CV currently in the game.

Yo @Saiyko, someone finally noticed. Not to worry tho comrade, glorious Slava has even better AA!

See above for answer by @Operation_Crossroads_1. Ever since WG introduced star saving ranked hasn't been 7vs7, it's 1vs13.

Funnily enough a CV ignoring the fighter button for the most part is actually a sign that he's good.

IJN are pretty decent but heavily dependent on MM. They're specialized in making BBs and cruisers miserable but are lacking in ways of combating DDs. They're also more difficult to play in general. RN are... sub-par to say the least. Audacious is really the only decent CV in the line and even she is extremely meh.

Actually I found Haku pretty serviceable (in randoms). Definitely better than Audacious. In fact depending on MM I might pick Haku over Midway. I'm unsure of the ranked meta but assuming it is AA heavy Haku is obviously going to excel thanks to meme bombs. I also have a feeling that a lot of potatoes are playing Midway, dragging her stats down. As for Audacious... Well, lets not go there. It'd be like saying RTS CVs were weak because Ranger wasn't able to perform in T8 matches or sth along those lines. Besides, it has only been one ranked season with balancing apparently not yet finished. Any future T8 ranked season would probably show us the true ugly side of the rework and how badly WG botched it in multiple ways.

I'm pretty sure I remember even official guides/videos saying that you should island camp in the cruisers in question.

You have literally written recently that everyone who does not play CVs or sucks at it has no right to judge them. I can only ask again, on that basis what makes you capable of judging the surface ship experience then? You know, since you're objectively terrible at playing them. If nothing else that makes you an incredible hypocrite. Funny, Haku seems to vastly outperform all ships with the (expected) exceptions of Bourgogne and Kreml in ranked. In fact Haku does even better now than she did in the RTS iteration.

Aside from... other issues that this game would have to face, kamikaze attacks would also be a balancing nightmare. WG already can't even remotely balance CVs as is. So how about no?