El2aZeR

Which is kinda key when landing. Take-off doesn't take airspeed into account, but landing very much does. It is easily observable if you move your CV around while landing a squad. Thus the description is imo accurate enough to not be misleading.

I've once seen an enemy Midway moving at full speed attempt to land a squad with EM. I sadly neglected to time it precisely but it felt like taking well over a minute. It was hilarious either way. The thing is, even if the skill were useful (which it is not), do you really need EM in Hosho? Most ships in those tiers don't really have AA anyway and while your reserves are meager they are more than enough to cover the few losses you'll be suffering. Wouldn't it be better if you were able to fly a couple of more strikes per game?

That simply means that you have no idea about game design or balance. Though to be fair neither does WG seem to do with what all the changes they've made recently, really. The cruiser/USN DD player in me can relate.

I'd like for CVs to be able to embark all of their reserves at once and all AA to be nerfed by 90%. This is a totally reasonable request and will not break game balance in any way or form, but will improve the overall gameplay experience for players of all skill levels.

Radar is WG's attempt at forcing the role of DD hunter onto cruisers by implementing another 1-button-I-win mechanic. It was always going to be badly designed considering cruisers were never supposed to hard counter DDs in the first place.

Tl;dr: Typical salty scrub is salty. On a more serious note, this has been in the game since literally forever (read: ever since Def AA was introduced). Maybe if the whining of scrubs (such as, you know, what you're demonstrating) hadn't driven CVs to near extinction WG would place more priority on fixing the plethora of bugs that plague CVs such as this.

Try landing while moving at top speed. It's hilarious how long you need. By the time they land you could've easily had them land, serviced and in the air again. I said it before when the skill was introduced. It's a noob trap as it severely limits the amount of strikes you can fly per game with landing time alone, while offering literally nothing that you need as you should focus on killing low AA targets anyway, which will be equally as unimpressed about the extra survivability as ships that tear through squads in seconds. NEVER EVER pick this skill.

Right, because making BBs not camp and support their teammates has never crossed your mind. It's a problem with abysmal average player skill as a whole, not just CVs. I agree that spotting is incredibly important, but it counts for nothing if the own team knows nothing to do with it and you yourself cannot get a strike through (as is often the case in high tiers when some single ships can shut down a strike completely. This is not a complaint about it but a simple fact). I've been in plenty of games in which my team won despite having a far inferior CV player, likewise I have lost games in which I achieved complete air superiority. If a CV can influence a battle tremendously then you and/or your teammates have given him the opportunity to do so, making it YOUR TEAM's mistake. Yes, having a bad CV player on your team is frustrating, especially in the context of how hilariously WG has neglected player guidance, but making it seem like it's only a problem with CVs is delusional, after all the influence a CV can potentially have on a match is in direct correlation with the average player skill of the teams, far more so than with any other class.

You're joking, right? A bad CV merely gives the enemy team a spotting advantage. That is not insubstantial but can be overcome. Everything else you're handing the CV on a silver platter. Alternatively the enemy team creates openings that the enemy CV can exploit. This simply means that your team got outplayed and probably never had a chance of winning the match anyway, even with a competent CV player. Either way the enemy CV deserves to rake in the rewards. This isn't to say that abysmal average player skill isn't an issue. It very much is and should be addressed as quickly as possible (for all classes), but to blame your loss on a single player is hilarious at best.

Regardless of how you view stealth fire, it was never an issue when CVs were around because a CV could just vector in a squad to spot. Besides, it's one of many problems we've had or are having, all because WG neglected to address the core issue. Cruisers may not be extinct but they're underrepresented in the majority of higher tier games, which has wide reaching balance implications and is partially causing the whole high tier camping issue. It's not the sole cause, low average player skill also plays a big role in it, but it sure doesn't help. Either way it's not healthy for the game, since it creates problems where previously there were none.

So you're gonna get balance problems, whether you like it or not. A recent example would be stealth fire, which was never a problem when matches still had all classes represented on a regular basis.

Which is precisely what most are doing and others complaining about. Which results in having a balance cluster-[edited] because WG balanced the game around every class being present. Also what dasCKD said about RPS. WoWs doesn't even come close to it, at this point it's not even a design principle. At best it's a loose guideline, nothing more.

USN. Fletcher is hands down the best torp boat in the game. You may not like the grind to her, however.

No, it isn't. The game is balanced around having all classes represented in a match. Take even just one of them away and you're gonna get problems like we've experienced or are experiencing. It doesn't matter how it is approached, if it needs fixing it's broken. I'd say the same if DDs were pretty much extinct due to cruiser overpopulation (although that's unlikely to ever happen).

So your points are that you'd rather have a broken game and personal enjoyment rather than having a well balanced game. Alright, if that's your opinion then don't let me tell you otherwise. but then by all means you have no rights to complain about DD overpopulation since it's a direct cause of BB overpopulation.

Since it's apparently too hard for you to understand: There's as much camping in matches with CVs as there is in matches without CVs because the average player skill is abysmal. CVs benefit tremendously from the camping meta, they don't induce it in any way or form. You honestly want to deny that?

I was talking about AA. I seem to remember that there was a patch that added a bunch of AA mounts to her. Google'd it and it came up with Patch 5.6, but I don't think that's the one as I distinctively remember it being back in beta.

Because all AA that does not murder entire squadrons the instant they're in range is bad. /s Also I do believe she was buffed thrice with one patch that added a couple of mounts to her. Besides, Tirpitz has plenty of other advantages so it's captains have no right to complain.

Which is why games without CVs have so little camping in them. Oh wait. Face it, as of right now CVs neither encourage nor deny passive play because scrubs will be scrubs.

Remember the times when WG specifically advertised Tirpitz' AA as one of her weaknesses? Yeah, it was supposed to be that way. Then they remembered that this is a BB and buffed it.

...I think I'm gonna go back to NF (which just got re-released in EU). The grind can't be any more painful than watching what WG does with this game.

Which is ofc why NC deserves a buff, right? Smh The reason why Tirpitz has low average stats is this: Every scrub seems to own one.

I'm guessing those torp hits went to BBs.

Strafe after a disengaging squad for easy plane kills.

Making a thorough tutorial so that new players don't go into playing CVs blind would be a good start. Applies to every other class. Then remove auto drop so everyone has to git gud eventually.