Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Buckeyefan21x

Why does Wargaming have to limit CV US player options?

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

74
[-S-R-]
[-S-R-]
Members
151 posts
6,366 battles

I don't understand why Wargaming cant just add a additional Flight control module with the new set up they want to introduce in 6.14 so the people who prefer to use the old flight models can continue to do so? I don't understand why WG always has to set limitations to the available options to its player base?  It would be so simple to keep the current flight modules (making the CV community happy with options) and just add a new one if they want to give the midway crappy tier 8 torpedo planes while not adjusting japans carriers.  I Like my 1 fighter 1 torp, and 3 dive bombers on Essex, along with the strike package on the Ranger.  

As a side note,  Wargamings World of warships division needs to bring over the new World of Tanks sandbox engine because that new engine just makes the graphics of WOWS look so old/ugly

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,604
[SALVO]
Members
16,670 posts
17,308 battles

I think that it's a GREAT thing, and wish that they'd do it to all carriers.  Carrier play OUGHT to be about your skill in battle, not about the loadout lottery, i.e. seeing if the loadout you bring hard counters the enemy CV's loadout!!!

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[DRACS]
Members
3,360 posts

Yeah, I'm not sure why either. It doesn't make sense. Sure, AS should not be the only viable build ... but given the strength of USN fighters, AS should be at least an option. Otherwise, you run into too many 1/1/2 style builds that get stomped on by 3 fighter squad IJN carriers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,943
[SYN]
Members
14,379 posts
10,248 battles

Wait... you liked Strike Ranger?

The single most useless ship in the game right now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,344
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,528 posts
6,683 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

I think that it's a GREAT thing, and wish that they'd do it to all carriers.  Carrier play OUGHT to be about your skill in battle, not about the loadout lottery, i.e. seeing if the loadout you bring hard counters the enemy CV's loadout!!!

 

 

Well quite, they should also remove module options, flags, camo and captain skills from bbs, so everyone has the same, because Battleship play OUGHT to be about your skill in battle, not about the loadout lottery, i.e. seeing if the loadout you bring hard counters the enemy BB's loadout!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,583 posts
5,883 battles
22 minutes ago, Desmios said:

It is very simple: give USN 2/1/2. 

 

The carriers need to have roughly the same number of planes in the air as their peers.  The standard for T8 is 28.  This standard is followed (within +/- one) by upgraded loadout Shoukaku, Lexington, and Graf Zeppelin.  Enterprise is a special snowflake and gets 32 because T7 planes.  What you're asking for is 34, the T9/10 US standard (Taiho gets 32, and Hakuryu 37).  It's unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
610
[-K-]
Beta Testers
1,791 posts
7,786 battles

why do you need even other options??? They were not competitive and viable at all to begin with.

 

but muh AS shuts down enemy CV

 

Seriously looking at all those avg. CV players in randoms, they get themselves shutdown by non AS load out good CV captains so there is no point of taking AS.

What's the point of taking AS when your avg. plane kill is lower or similar than non AS load out captains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,344
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,528 posts
6,683 battles
56 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Yeah, I'm not sure why either. It doesn't make sense. Sure, AS should not be the only viable build ... but given the strength of USN fighters, AS should be at least an option. Otherwise, you run into too many 1/1/2 style builds that get stomped on by 3 fighter squad IJN carriers.

USN fighters, excepting the premium duo, will be caught by experienced IJN/Saipan and Enterprise opponents who will use the engage with one squadron to pin you, strafe disengage while simultaneously strafing with second squadron to wipe you out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[DRACS]
Members
3,360 posts
1 minute ago, nuttybiscuit said:

USN fighters, excepting the premium duo, will be caught by experienced IJN/Saipan and Enterprise opponents who will use the engage with one squadron to pin you, strafe disengage while simultaneously strafing with second squadron to wipe you out.

 

Yup. I'm actually not sure why WG went the 1/1/2 route on Ranger and Lex instead of the *significantly* more viable 2/1/1 route. Especially given the poor state of the USN AP bombers as seen on the Enterprise (long narrow drop patterns and unable to citadel anything other than KM BBs). The AP bombs on the GZ are much much better in every way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,344
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,528 posts
6,683 battles
Just now, KaptainKaybe said:

 

Yup. I'm actually not sure why WG went the 1/1/2 route on Ranger and Lex instead of the *significantly* more viable 2/1/1 route. Especially given the poor state of the USN AP bombers as seen on the Enterprise (long narrow drop patterns and unable to citadel anything other than KM BBs). The AP bombs on the GZ are much much better in every way.

Why do you think the GZ attracted so much hate? There was a lot of reverse psychology in the "call it Garbage" campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[DRACS]
Members
3,360 posts
Just now, nuttybiscuit said:

Why do you think the GZ attracted so much hate? There was a lot of reverse psychology in the "call it Garbage" campaign.

 

Either way, I do hope they fix the minimum penetration values on the USN AP bombs soon. People were already complaining about the reliance on HE dive bombers before, but those HE dive bombers do much more damage to everything that's not German and carrying really big guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,344
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,528 posts
6,683 battles
2 minutes ago, KaptainKaybe said:

 

Either way, I do hope they fix the minimum penetration values on the USN AP bombs soon. People were already complaining about the reliance on HE dive bombers before, but those HE dive bombers do much more damage to everything that's not German and carrying really big guns.

Not true, they do their maximum damage to GK and Yamato, the RN and USN tier9 and 10 decks are virtually immune. In fact, German and Japanese ships are my favourite targets in game for this very reason, when I am playing the vanilla Zeppelin with 3 x HE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,583 posts
5,883 battles
42 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Not true, they do their maximum damage to GK and Yamato, the RN and USN tier9 and 10 decks are virtually immune. In fact, German and Japanese ships are my favourite targets in game for this very reason, when I am playing the vanilla Zeppelin with 3 x HE.

 

Erm, what?  Please explain this in different words, I'm not sure what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[DRACS]
Members
3,360 posts
30 minutes ago, _V12 said:

 

Erm, what?  Please explain this in different words, I'm not sure what you mean.

 

Basically, AP bombs need a minimum of armor to penetrate before they bomb fuse activates. In the case of the GZ, it's a fairly low amount, like 40 or 50mm. Plus the drop pattern is absolutely tiny. In the case of Enterprise, the fuse activates at 70mm of armor or higher. The reason why German BBs and some IJN BBs take more damage is because they have MORE deck and plating armor rather than less (sounds stupid because it is). The USN and RN BBs, using the all or nothing armor scheme, have heavy armor on their belt, but very little everywhere else. So the AP bombs don't fuse and just pass through the ship uselessly. The other problem with USN AP bombs on the Enterprise is that the drop pattern is long and narrow. So even if you get a perfect lined up drop, half the bombs will hit fore or aft, with only some of them hitting the centerline of the ship where the citadel is. GZ AP bombs (last I checked) have a very very tiny drop circle that doesn't even require manual dropping and who's placement is exactly middle of the ship.

 

tl;dr: German AP bombs is FAR superior to USN AP bombs at this current stage. 

 

Note: Again, this is last I checked. I haven't been following the GZ development in the last couple of weeks, so not sure if it's the same as I when I last read up on it.

Edited by KaptainKaybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[DRACS]
Members
3,360 posts
3 hours ago, _V12 said:

@KaptainKaybe, I was under the impression he was talking about HE bombs.

 

Nopers.

 

EDIT: Actually, you're right. DIdn't see the HE bombs part. Odd, though. There's no reason HE should do more damage against those targets other than the fact they have worse AA.

Edited by KaptainKaybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,583 posts
5,883 battles
Just now, KaptainKaybe said:

 

Nopers.

 

1 hour ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Not true, they do their maximum damage to GK and Yamato, the RN and USN tier9 and 10 decks are virtually immune. In fact, German and Japanese ships are my favourite targets in game for this very reason, when I am playing the vanilla Zeppelin with 3 x HE.

 

Well, I'm fairly sure....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
575
[PLPTV]
Members
1,457 posts
9,077 battles
3 hours ago, Buckeyefan21x said:

I don't understand why Wargaming cant just add a additional Flight control module with the new set up they want to introduce in 6.14 so the people who prefer to use the old flight models can continue to do so? I don't understand why WG always has to set limitations to the available options to its player base?  It would be so simple to keep the current flight modules (making the CV community happy with options) and just add a new one if they want to give the midway crappy tier 8 torpedo planes while not adjusting japans carriers.  I Like my 1 fighter 1 torp, and 3 dive bombers on Essex, along with the strike package on the Ranger.  

As a side note,  Wargamings World of warships division needs to bring over the new World of Tanks sandbox engine because that new engine just makes the graphics of WOWS look so old/ugly

 

 

They are too lazy to balance all the modules across nations. Look at everything thats been happening with Graff Zepellin, and thats just one CV. 

 

Ultimately its laziness, stupidity and lack of initiative on behalf of WG thats responsible for the terrible state of CVs in this game. They refuse to consider fundamental changes in the game. Their version of fixing CVs is putting another f*cking bandaid on the problem. They refuse to change mechanics, or implement new ones. They refuse to consider twin engine aircraft, new types of planes, new squad size options, new types of aircraft weaponry and etc.

Think about it...

-Why not less us change aircraft weaponry midgame? HE vs AP bombs, normal vs deep water torps, and etc.

-Why not implement twin engine aircraft? Fewer aircraft per squad, but carrying heavier payload and packing more HP?

-Why not introduce 2-3 different loadout per CV and just throw it all on the test server and let supertesters test the sh*t out of it? 

-Why NOT change the dive bomber mechanics so they have better bombing sigma/accuracy when manual dropping? Such an easy change and yet WG doesnt even consider this.

-Why not remove the torp spotting mechanic for aircraft? A good CV player essentially nullifies any effect an enemy DD has on the game, lets give them a break and at least allow them to use their torps even when a DD is perma spotted.

 

Carriers will never be fixed. They will simply become slightly less broken. They need to be completely reworked, NOT fixed.

Edited by Ulthwey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,344
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,528 posts
6,683 battles
53 minutes ago, _V12 said:

 

Erm, what?  Please explain this in different words, I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you own and play the Graf Zeppelin (aug 2017 version)? if so it is obvious, if not I cannot make it clearer. The HE bombs in game are optimized for max alpha damage versus the IJN and KM battleships, t6-10/ Their 165% fire chance is on top of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,600
Members
17,826 posts
5,089 battles
1 hour ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Well quite, they should also remove module options, flags, camo and captain skills from bbs, so everyone has the same, because Battleship play OUGHT to be about your skill in battle, not about the loadout lottery, i.e. seeing if the loadout you bring hard counters the enemy BB's loadout!!!

 

Thing is though, a 0-point captain in a stock, unequipped BB isn't hard countered by a fully done up one, just at a bit of a disadvantage. And that's perfectly fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,583 posts
5,883 battles
4 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Do you own and play the Graf Zeppelin (aug 2017 version)? if so it is obvious, if not I cannot make it clearer. The HE bombs in game are optimized for max alpha damage versus the IJN and KM battleships, t6-10/ Their 165% fire chance is on top of that. 

 

Yes, I'm actually playing a test version right now, and you are incorrect.  The bombs will detonate and do damage to any target, as long as they hit (and not hit an AA mount).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,344
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,528 posts
6,683 battles
6 minutes ago, _V12 said:

 

Yes, I'm actually playing a test version right now, and you are incorrect.  The bombs will detonate and do damage to any target, as long as they hit (and not hit an AA mount).

I spoke of the vanilla version which is still in your hanger (unless you sold it), with 3 x HE divebomb squadrons. After 300 random battles with it, I assure you, I am quite correct. :Smile_glasses:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,583 posts
5,883 battles
12 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

I spoke of the vanilla version which is still in your hanger (unless you sold it), with 3 x HE divebomb squadrons. After 300 random battles with it, I assure you, I am quite correct. :Smile_glasses:

No, you are not, because that is not how HE bombs work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,344
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,528 posts
6,683 battles
5 minutes ago, _V12 said:

No, you are not, because that is not how HE bombs work.

I remain correct on the basis of average dmg done in battle, with empirical experience thereof. (Which you seem to lack on this topic). Not theoretical spreadsheet knowledge. GK and Yamato, for example, have comparatively poor AA, with deck armour that is favourable to the HE bombs carried by GZ vanilla. This means more bombs get through, and on average, each bomb does more dmg, than versus their peers the Conq and Montana.

Dust off your vanilla GZ play a 100 battles, then come back to me. Until then..

I could not help but notice, you have only ever fought ONE battle with the vanilla GZ, since your purchase of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×