El2aZeR

Depends on how hard the UI decides to screw you over. Sometimes fighters react instantly. Sometimes not at all. There is a weird timing window immediately after the enemy squad strafes out that I found works best but is still not entirely reliable.

Still refusing to answer questions despite saying previously that they can be easily done so. Loads of credibility found here as always. You know what didn't fail, though? Literally every other AAA game that employs an asymmetrical balancing system. There are plenty of reasons why a game such as Natural Selection wasn't successful. That can be said about literally all counter play found in the game. "Hiding behind cover is not fun!" "Angling and kiting away is not fun!" "Using WASD against an invisible enemy is not fun!" And so on. And quite frankly it doesn't matter in the slightest. If any one sentence denotes your inexperience, it is this one. Sure, a CV can stat pad all game by striking and killing all the camping scrubs. You know who that doesn't help, though? Your teammates, and therefore your ability to influence the match and win. The thought that you can use the entire map to strike is fundamentally flawed. Sure, a CV has the ability to do so, just like a BB has the ability to stay at 20km from its target and still shoot at it. It's still hilariously inefficient and cuts down severely on how many strikes you are capable of flying per match. The strike efficiency factor is far too low for you to ever consider flying around the entire map, risking your strike getting intercepted, just to kill the one guy camping at the border. It is why defensive play actually favors CV players, because they get the time they need to thoroughly plan out what targets to prosecute. Putting on pressure on the other hand fundamentally requires that a CV, like any other class, take action, because if he does not he and his team will likely lose the game. Hovering your planes to wait for a perfect opening simply isn't an option in that case. As for positioning, using islands can easily prolong the amount of time planes have to spend in your AA or make a strike entirely unfeasible due to teammates covering your flank, severe risk of getting intercepted or because it would simply take too long (strike efficiency, remember?). CVs easily become the most team-reliant class when the enemy has even a tiny amount of skill. You said it yourself, they have to wait until their teammates give them an opening or for the enemy to make a crippling mistake, not to mention they are entirely reliant on their teammates to contest and capture objectives. No other class is as influential as a CV, that is true. No other class has to deal with their restrictions, either. Both factors are inevitably tied to each other, cutting down on one end means cutting down on the other as well. Would you perhaps prefer it if your AA could only shoot down a fixed one plane per minute in exchange for reduced squad sizes, thus giving a CV the chance to deal guaranteed damage no matter what you do like any other class? Didn't think so. It goes against the design philosophy of CVs anyway. So before judging a class on hilariously flawed views then proceeding to write such bull-[edited] about it how about you go and play them yourself for a better picture? We have provided answers, you refuse to accept them due to subjective views. What else is there, really?

It's actually completely RNG as both squads have near equal performance. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Still, click fights in general should be avoided unless you're 100% sure you'll win or it achieves a higher purpose.

Says the guy who has the idiotic belief that every well balanced game has its classes have equal potential influence lol. Really, your pitiful agenda is far too obvious. Or, if you really believe that, you're actually stupid. I mean seriously, Because giving a class the ability to heal, even revive and refund a ticket or the ability to give yourself and your teammates a legitimate wallhack is totally equal to throwing around ammunition guys! Well, since you failed hilariously, how about we give you a second chance? Name one AAA game that employs a class based system in which it is the balancing goal that classes have equal influence. Since you said that every game that can call itself well balanced does this, it should be easy, right? I also still don't see you hating on DDs for their superior potential match influence.

Strafing was introduced because fighters were ridiculously useless against massed strikes. It also introduces a good amount of micromanagement where there previously was none. No idea why strafing out was implemented (player request perhaps?). You can actually punish it severely if you're fast enough. As soon as you see your enemy strafing out, move your fighters in the same direction then strafe after him to wipe him out. It's not exactly reliable (as the UI tends to screw you over) but it works from time to time, not to mention it is currently the only counter against a Saipan. Point is, strafing was introduced to accomplish a specific job and it does it well. It will not get removed nor nerfed, because it is working as intended.

Just got Taigei as a drop from 2-5. A bit lost on what to do with her. I know she's of no real use except for branching on 6-1 and some quest chain, but what does a sub tender actually do in combat?

CVs can also encourage aggressive play by scouting ahead and/or taking out key targets, which makes their influence on such very situational. To say that generally CVs cause any leaning towards defensive play is hilarious at best, especially considering even in games without CVs people prefer to "play defensive".

These things aren't all mutually exclusive, either. Which is a problem with player mentally (and, to be fair, a lot of missing information the game simply doesn't give) and not with CVs.

If it doesn't happen you've still done your job and can derive satisfaction from that. Whether you do or not is entirely subjective. You do realize sticking together in groups does not automatically mean camping and turtling, right?

Just had my first game against a GZ in which I didn't earn Clear Sky. GZ now op pls nerf. On a more serious note, they fixed absolutely nothing about what makes GZ awful. My Enterprise fighters could actually consistently win 3/4vs5 engagements with minimal losses (against GZ Test I, so fighters were of equal tier with no DPS bonus provided from DE). Bombers got mauled even from head-on strafing passes. She's also extremely predictable due to her limited target selection. So yeah, I'd say this first revision is a giant failure.

Seeing their squads burst into flames because I pushed a button is pretty fun for me.

Not sure what I expected, really.

Oh right, I remember now. Makes me ask myself what the devs were thinking, really. Torps? Shooting into smoke via spotter? Planes (if there is no one else around to spot them)?

Afaik that's actually hitting a secondary/AA/primary gun or torp launcher, which gets listed as penetration (unless said gun has sufficient armor to bounce/shatter the shell ofc) but does no damage apart from potentially destroying it. Which is hardly unjustified considering the changes, decisions and statements WG has made so far.

Yes. Obviously no one at WG asked themselves how various mechanics would interact with cyclones when they implemented them.

Because WG wants to retain her gimmick of being DB only apparently.

The one thing I vividly remember was that for a period of time cruisers could reliably bounce BB AP shells. What exactly changed I for the life of me can't remember (overmatch? cruiser plating? AP shell performance? Auto-bounce? Plenty of potential causes out there). Certainly not. However it also shows perfectly how ridiculously braindead BB gameplay has become. L2p in this case doesn't make BB gameplay harder nor more skillful but much more easier and simple. For example in the case of shell types, you learn that you should disregard HE shells almost completely unless you're playing RN BBs. Considering all the advantages and ridiculous gimmicks BBs currently hold they break balance, ironically representing perfectly the dream of people advocating for equal potential of every class, because they are good against everything with no real weaknesses left for the other 3 classes to exploit. That they're capable of unleashing their potential with a comparatively much lower skill floor and ceiling is just adding insult to injury.

It was just to illustrate that your request is impossible to fulfill. There is no archive of both patchnotes and datamined changes that I can find. also I still love

How about you start digging up an archive of both CBT patchnotes and datamines if you're unwilling to take our word for it? I also love how you're completely disregarding meta and mechanical changes.

Perhaps comparing Fletch (and the rest of the USN DD line) to IJN DDs is wrong, but it is the closest thing imo. The beauty of the USN DD line is that with the exception of Gearing they're extremely versatile, capable of adapting to pretty much every situation. The line just ends with a ship that is extremely specialized which contradicts the philosophy of the rest. It isn't surprising at all Gearing is considered worse than Fletcher because she represents such a radical change and for the longest time I was of the same opinion until I changed up my build and playstyle completely.

The question shouldn't be what Gearing does better but what her role is supposed to be. Gearing is a knife-fighter and opportunist, she excels at utterly demolishing opposing DDs from an ambush position. That requires a fundamentally different, and imo much more difficult, playstyle than Fletcher, which is a torp and general jack-of-all-trades DD, but if pulled off right has potentially more game impact (as specializing in killing DDs usually does). Where Gearing specializes in, she dominates, while Fletcher offers more versatility at the cost of knife-fighting ability. This makes Fletcher more useful in a lot more situations to be sure but she is decidedly inferior to a Gearing in the key role the latter occupies. Thus trying to build a Gearing like a Fletcher and expecting her to perform as such or even comparing them is a mistake imo. They occupy entirely different ends of a spectrum. Fletcher plays the quintessential IJN DD role (and currently replaces them in it), while Gearing is perhaps closer in playstyle to USN cruisers (DM in particular), using positioning and map awareness to get the drop on your enemies, pumping them full of lead so fast they sink to the bottom of the ocean before they can effectively react, or abusing island cover to spam a rainbow into an enemy capital ship in the (usual) case that your torps are not available. Whether or not you like or can adapt to such a playstyle however is entirely up to you.

There were actually a lot of changes to AP shells. There were also a lot of changes in terms of meta and mechanics. Really, that's not even remotely comparable.

Don't bother, I have a feeling we will die from stupidity the moment we do.

Just to add to that: - shooting down 30 aircraft roughly equals doing 100% damage to one ship - a kill is worth about taking off 1/5th (or was it 1/3rd? I think it was 1/5th) of a ship's HP Careful, someone may actually take that seriously. Besides, unlike ~90% of the others OP actually asked in a polite manner, thus deserves a polite answer. Though I have to say I'm a bit shocked he hasn't realized that repair costs are fixed after almost 2,5k battles.