IJN Carriers need to be nerfed to the bottom of the ocean

[Zaydin]

Especially the Taiho and Hakuryu. In the latter case I went up against one with the AS loadout. He had four fighter squads in the air and two of each bomber squads. Even if I had been running the Midways AS loadout instead of the stock I still would have been drastically outnumbered in the air.

[MzFortune2001]

 

I believe we were, in War. now again. poor IJN, no love, no love. 

[ksix]

Except you aren't as you always win a 1v1 due to more (and stronger) planes in the squads. 4/2/2 is literally Haks only offensive option and its very challenging micromanaging 8 squads, in the other two loadouts it can get shut down by a Midway running anything but 1/1/3 but lets ignore that and just ask to nerf Hak in all respects because you got outplayed.

[NeutralState]

CVs in general should be nerfed to the bottom of the ocean. Even WG themself admitted CV has disproportional influence on a match. 

[ValkyrWarframe]

How about USN carriers need to be buffed from the bottom of the ocean?

[MasterofGladness]

The fact that they're not part of Clan battles says all you need to know about CVs. It's not one side or the other it's all CVs.

 

Manual drops are the most disgustingly overpowered things in the game. It's the only thing I know in game that has absolutely nothing to do with the RNG. Torpedoes are dropped so close you can bately maneuver in time to get away so you pray that you can run into them before they arm and that's in DDs any other ship just eats torpedoes. 

 

All you really have to do is pay attention to where the one or two ships with decent anti-aircraft are and the enemy fighters why you play a crappy version of Starcraft.

 

 

[mfumukoskoldpadda]

 

[JohnBlackJackGeary]

 No. USN CVs need better loadouts to chose from. I think it’s ridiculous how gimped some of the US CVs are. Can strike Lexington trade one dive bomber for a fighter please. Or one dive bomber for a torp bomber in AS. 

[Zaydin]

42 minutes ago, starksrevenge said:

 No. USN CVs need better loadouts to chose from. I think it’s ridiculous how gimped some of the US CVs are. Can strike Lexington trade one dive bomber for a fighter please. Or one dive bomber for a torp bomber in AS. 

Funnily enough, at one time the Lexingtons stock loadout was actually good. It was two fighters and one of each bomber. Then WG stripped out a fighter for no reason other than as a middle finger to US CV captains.

[JohnBlackJackGeary]

49 minutes ago, Zaydin said:

Funnily enough, at one time the Lexingtons stock loadout was actually good. It was two fighters and one of each bomber. Then WG stripped out a fighter for no reason other than as a middle finger to US CV captains.

Really? I don’t understand that move at all. Was lex really over preforming with that loadout? 

[pyantoryng]

2 hours ago, starksrevenge said:

Really? I don’t understand that move at all. Was lex really over preforming with that loadout? 

It made everything else pointless...probably even moreso than 2/2/0 of earlier Beta fame.

Ironically, the same could be said for 2/2/2 of the Shokaku

 

[hipcanuck]

6 hours ago, MasterofGladness said:

The fact that they're not part of Clan battles says all you need to know about CVs. It's not one side or the other it's all CVs.

 

Manual drops are the most disgustingly overpowered things in the game. It's the only thing I know in game that has absolutely nothing to do with the RNG. Torpedoes are dropped so close you can bately maneuver in time to get away so you pray that you can run into them before they arm and that's in DDs any other ship just eats torpedoes. 

 

All you really have to do is pay attention to where the one or two ships with decent anti-aircraft are and the enemy fighters why you play a crappy version of Starcraft.

 

 

Manual drops have nothing to do with it and thats been proven in tier 4/5 battles. CV's have not dropped in Avg damage after their removal.

 

They are not in clan battles because they would be an odd match for small teams. Every other ship in the match would be heavy with AA, with full AA setups, and the CV would be pointless other than for scouting.

 

You should know by now that if you wait until the drop to maneuver, its too late. You need to change course when your long distance AA starts up, 5-7km.  At roughly 3km, TBers are committed and cant abandon the run. The best way to dodge torps is to drop speed AND turn in. If you've been cross dropped you will still eat 3 out of 8, thats likely 12-15k damage for most BB's (unless its 3 TB squads), which is nothing compared to taking a couple of DD torps.

[OOM911]

It's not that the IJN need a nerf... It's that the USN needs to not be as specialized in it's setups.

All the USN setups are almost 100% one way or the other in a lot of cases with the only really balanced one being midway and enterprise...

[BlazerSparta]

8 hours ago, ksix said:

Except you aren't as you always win a 1v1 due to more (and stronger) planes in the squads. 4/2/2 is literally Haks only offensive option and its very challenging micromanaging 8 squads, in the other two loadouts it can get shut down by a Midway running anything but 1/1/3 but lets ignore that and just ask to nerf Hak in all respects because you got outplayed.

 

Yeah, the ship with the lowest W/R at T10 (Midway - 46.84%) totally craps all over the ship with the highest W/R (Hakuryu - 55.78%).

 

Midway players are totally just all really bad, and just randomly perform nearly 10% worse than Hak players despite having a better ship.

 

You definitely should never nerf Hak.

 

7 hours ago, ValkyrWarframe said:

How about USN carriers need to be buffed from the bottom of the ocean?

 

Because USN CVs are quite strong as it is.

 

They're just not as broken as the IJN CVs.

 

Go look at the stats. Other than W/R (Which, due to it's zero sum nature automatically means if IJN CVs are doing really well because they're super OP, USN CVs will be perform really badly), high tier USN CVs are right at the top with IJN CVs. Damage, survival, average kills, you name it.

 

You don't balance a strong class with an OP class by buffing the strong class, you balance that by nerfing the OP class.

[BlazerSparta]

19 minutes ago, OOM911 said:

It's not that the IJN need a nerf... It's that the USN needs to not be as specialized in it's setups.

All the USN setups are almost 100% one way or the other in a lot of cases with the only really balanced one being midway and enterprise...

 

No, it's IJN loadouts that need to be MORE specialised.

 

You can not have a class that's just straight up good at doing everything.

[SireneRacker]

1 hour ago, hipcanuck said:

They are not in clan battles because they would be an odd match for small teams. Every other ship in the match would be heavy with AA, with full AA setups, and the CV would be pointless other than for scouting.

This is not that much different from what we have now. Every Cruiser runs Hydro, every build is focused towards the main batteries and Survivability. It has become quite 1-dimensional in regards to the builds.

[BlazerSparta]

4 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

This is not that much different from what we have now. Every Cruiser runs Hydro, every build is focused towards the main batteries and Survivability. It has become quite 1-dimensional in regards to the builds.

 

And what if CVs were permitted in clan battles?

 

Either there's mirror MM, in which case, most clans will just proceed exactly as they are now.

 

The number of clans who can put out competitive CV players is probably going to be minscule - and now that I think of it, WG might have banned CVs in order to prevent match rigging by taking advantage of CV mirror MM.

 

If CVs are present, builds are going to be just as one dimensional - it's just that AA would be the focus instead of anti-surface.

 

CVs can not improve build diversity, because they're simply so OP that if there's one in the game, the game revolves around it.

 

CVs don't encourage diversity, they encourage conformity - just to another build.

[SireneRacker]

1 minute ago, issm said:

-snip-

It's not like I have said that having no CV is not much different from having a CV.

 

Did the removal of Carriers make Clan Battles any more flexible or diverse? No, it didn't. It's a battle of who has the most Radar ships. There is no reason to field more than one Destroyer, and even that one would idealy be a Z-52 or a Gearing. Shimakaze, the DD that would've probably struggled the most with CVs around, is still the worst choice. The choice of Cruisers has also narrowed down to Moskva or Des Moines. The other ships surely have their uses, some more than others, but in General the two aforementioned are just better. And in Terms of Battleships, it's Montana or Yamato.

Now I'm not claiming that it would be better with CVs around, but did the removal encourage diversity?

 

Bottom line is that the removal is a huge middle-finger against anyone who wanted to Play Carriers and that it changed the builds from favor-AA to favor-anythingbutAA. The only positive Impact it had is giving those Clans a Chance that cannot field a decent CV Player.

[HereCreeepers]

What I think people do not understand is that CV balance is not just black and white. You cant simply buff the stats of one ship and nerf another. This is why properly balancing CVs is to hard to do, because simple buffs to USN ones could break the paper thin (yet somehow massive) performance gap between IJN CVs and USN ones and make USN CVs OP and IJN ones bad.

[cometguy]

1 hour ago, issm said:

 

Yeah, the ship with the lowest W/R at T10 (Midway - 46.84%) totally craps all over the ship with the highest W/R (Hakuryu - 55.78%).

 

Midway players are totally just all really bad, and just randomly perform nearly 10% worse than Hak players despite having a better ship.

 

You definitely should never nerf Hak.

 

 

Because USN CVs are quite strong as it is.

 

They're just not as broken as the IJN CVs.

 

Go look at the stats. Other than W/R (Which, due to it's zero sum nature automatically means if IJN CVs are doing really well because they're super OP, USN CVs will be perform really badly), high tier USN CVs are right at the top with IJN CVs. Damage, survival, average kills, you name it.

 

You don't balance a strong class with an OP class by buffing the strong class, you balance that by nerfing the OP class.

Looking at the two week solo stats of all CVs, Taiho, Enterprise, and Kaga are damage outliers, but everyone else is in line with their tier. CVs aren't OP, Taiho, Enterprise, and Kaga are.

[hipcanuck]

5 hours ago, HereCreeepers said:

What I think people do not understand is that CV balance is not just black and white. You cant simply buff the stats of one ship and nerf another. This is why properly balancing CVs is to hard to do, because simple buffs to USN ones could break the paper thin (yet somehow massive) performance gap between IJN CVs and USN ones and make USN CVs OP and IJN ones bad.

CVs are exceptionally hard to balance because they've introduced too many variables to the balance equation and now its a clusterf@#k.

 

The Dev's should have known better, they played NF, they knew how (very) balanced those CV's were.

 

Problem is, the devs dumbed down just about everything to make the game easier to play and then they went and made CV's more complicated from a balance perspective. 

 

The fix is simple, but drastic. Use US setups for EVERY CV and balance planes and their weapons to give nationality flavour.

[HazeGrayUnderway]

5 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

It's not like I have said that having no CV is not much different from having a CV.

 

Did the removal of Carriers make Clan Battles any more flexible or diverse? No, it didn't. It's a battle of who has the most Radar ships. There is no reason to field more than one Destroyer, and even that one would idealy be a Z-52 or a Gearing. Shimakaze, the DD that would've probably struggled the most with CVs around, is still the worst choice. The choice of Cruisers has also narrowed down to Moskva or Des Moines. The other ships surely have their uses, some more than others, but in General the two aforementioned are just better. And in Terms of Battleships, it's Montana or Yamato.

Now I'm not claiming that it would be better with CVs around, but did the removal encourage diversity?

 

Bottom line is that the removal is a huge middle-finger against anyone who wanted to Play Carriers and that it changed the builds from favor-AA to favor-anythingbutAA. The only positive Impact it had is giving those Clans a Chance that cannot field a decent CV Player.

 

Not having CVs also narrows down what builds to ideally take.

 

No CVs guaranteed? Well, guess all those points, upgrades can go into other matters entirely.  An AA Build DM can skip it entirely and boost other aspects, and go Radar + Hydro.  CVs also force the bunching of ships, which ironically is what you want to throw torpedoes against, but hey, let's forget that fact 

[Vekta408]

14 hours ago, NeutralState said:

CVs in general should be nerfed to the bottom of the ocean. Even WG themself admitted CV has disproportional influence on a match. 

I have 1 ships that is full AA spec....

The only time I ever take it out is for events that require be to shoot down X number of planes...

Know why...

Because CV on NA are not really that common. Why nerf a class of ship that has little presence on the server?

[BlazerSparta]

9 hours ago, cometguy said:

Looking at the two week solo stats of all CVs, Taiho, Enterprise, and Kaga are damage outliers, but everyone else is in line with their tier. CVs aren't OP, Taiho, Enterprise, and Kaga are.

 

Every single thread, someone with the memory of a goldfish comes and talks about how "CV damage isn't OP", forgetting that every single time they open their mouths to say something so stupid, I'll be right there to point out that DAMAGE IS NOT THE ONLY WAY CVS EXERT POWER.

 

ALL CVs are OP, because in addition to the damage, ALL CVs hav the best spotting ability, and best survivabilty (and yes, that includes planes - T6 is an exception, not the rule) in the game, bar none.

[cometguy]

43 minutes ago, issm said:

 

Every single thread, someone with the memory of a goldfish comes and talks about how "CV damage isn't OP", forgetting that every single time they open their mouths to say something so stupid, I'll be right there to point out that DAMAGE IS NOT THE ONLY WAY CVS EXERT POWER.

 

ALL CVs are OP, because in addition to the damage, ALL CVs hav the best spotting ability, and best survivabilty (and yes, that includes planes - T6 is an exception, not the rule) in the game, bar none.

You said to go look at their stats, so I did.  Their stats are inline with their tier baring the ones I mentioned. Don't ask people to do things you don't want them to do.