Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
The_Big_Red_1

USN Carriers in 6.14

54 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

55
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,206 posts
1,939 battles

i just looked at the patch notes for 6.14 regarding USN carriers surmise to say it's not bad but it's not good enough either. IJN carriers will still come up on top when it comes to versatility/flexibility unless WG changes that too. To say I am disappointed/frustrated with their indifference and how long it took them just to figure it out is putting it mildly.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,206 posts
1,939 battles
41 minutes ago, Cruiser_Noshiro said:

This isn't the only change to CVs...

do you know something you can share without breaking nda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,623
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,677 posts
14,045 battles

WG stated they are happy with where IJN CVs are.  IOW, USN CVs will still fall to IJN CV flexibility.  When Ranked comes around, IJN AS will absolutely wipe the floor of USN CVs.  IJN CVs have options, USN with the changes, none.

 

Ryujo, Hiryu, Shokaku, 3 fighter squadrons for 12-15 planes total in AS spec vs 6-7 total USN fighters for most of the game.  Guess which one is going to get routed?

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,206 posts
1,939 battles

more nerfs on USN carriers is the last thing I need. first chase getting fired for rightfully calling out on WG for making a defective product and now this...i get a feeling that things are going to get more worse/ugly just like Tanks or Planes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,398
[CUTE]
[CUTE]
Supertester
4,085 posts
4,098 battles
28 minutes ago, The_Big_Red_1 said:

do you know something you can share without breaking nda?

 

 

Somewhere in video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
202
[ZR]
WoWS Wiki Editor
552 posts
4,747 battles
28 minutes ago, The_Big_Red_1 said:

more nerfs on USN carriers is the last thing I need. first chase getting fired for rightfully calling out on WG for making a defective product and now this...i get a feeling that things are going to get more worse/ugly just like Tanks or Planes

What nerfs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,615
[SALVO]
Members
16,721 posts
17,314 battles
1 hour ago, The_Big_Red_1 said:

more nerfs on USN carriers is the last thing I need. first chase getting fired for rightfully calling out on WG for making a defective product and now this...i get a feeling that things are going to get more worse/ugly just like Tanks or Planes

Come on.  Get your facts right.  iChase got fired for demanding that WG fire the GZ developers or whomever made the decision to allow it to be released.  He got what he deserved. It had nothing to do with his opinion on the GZ itself.  And if you think otherwise, you're just looking for conspiracy theories.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[SCCC]
Members
705 posts
5,462 battles

I also agree that if USN can only have one flight group then IJN should also get one flight group. Now IJN AS builds will just run over everything if they want. Wargaming seriously needs to get a [edited]clue.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
193
[90THD]
[90THD]
Members
2,738 posts
2,020 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

Come on.  Get your facts right.  iChase got fired for demanding that WG fire the GZ developers or whomever made the decision to allow it to be released.  He got what he deserved. It had nothing to do with his opinion on the GZ itself.  And if you think otherwise, you're just looking for conspiracy theories.

It's the way he called them out that got him removed. He attacked several of them "directly".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,783 posts
14,864 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

Come on.  Get your facts right.  iChase got fired for demanding that WG fire the GZ developers or whomever made the decision to allow it to be released.  He got what he deserved. It had nothing to do with his opinion on the GZ itself.  And if you think otherwise, you're just looking for conspiracy theories.

I don't agree with that @Crucis (you must be shocked!); I believe the act that actually got him removed from the CC list was telling players to demand a refund.

Telling WoW it's employees and policies are stupid: OK!

Costing WoW it's precious income: VERBOTEN!!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,346
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,540 posts
6,689 battles
1 hour ago, Umikami said:

I don't agree with that @Crucis (you must be shocked!); I believe the act that actually got him removed from the CC list was telling players to demand a refund.

Telling WoW it's employees and policies are stupid: OK!

Costing WoW it's precious income: VERBOTEN!!

Crucis is correct. Ichase was removed from the CC programme (not fired, as he was not an employee of WG), because he attacked WG staff, calling for people to lose their jobs. Whatever you feel about that, he violated the end user agreement (or whatever it is called for CCs) with WG. Zero conspiracy, nothing to do with demanding refunds (which are available on all purchases for upto 30 days after payment has been made - at least where I live, and always have been.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
695
[DRACS]
Members
3,374 posts

Honestly, while a balanced loadout is a great addition to USN CVs, it should be an addition to the existing loadouts, not a straight replacement. Having only a single fighter squad on all carriers before Essex is a straight out nerf to the very thing that makes USN carriers strong: their fighters.

 

At the very least, Ranger and Lexington should get 2/1/1 loadouts, not 1/1/2. No one wants two squads of AP bombers that can't seriously damage anything but German and some Japanese BBs. But 2 fighters with one torpedo bomber and one dive bomber could make them finally competitive.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,430 battles
1 minute ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Honestly, while a balanced loadout is a great addition to USN CVs, it should be an addition to the existing loadouts, not a straight replacement. Having only a single fighter squad on all carriers before Essex is a straight out nerf to the very thing that makes USN carriers strong: their fighters.

 

At the very least, Ranger and Lexington should get 2/1/1 loadouts, not 1/1/2. No one wants two squads of AP bombers that can't seriously damage anything but German and some Japanese BBs. But 2 fighters with one torpedo bomber and one dive bomber could make them finally competitive.

Wait do the one thing to make USA competitive.

 

Yeah the overlords who called the USA equipment "mass produced garbage"(direct quote btw) can't allow that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,783 posts
14,864 battles
34 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Crucis is correct. Ichase was removed from the CC programme (not fired, as he was not an employee of WG), because he attacked WG staff, calling for people to lose their jobs. Whatever you feel about that, he violated the end user agreement (or whatever it is called for CCs) with WG. Zero conspiracy, nothing to do with demanding refunds (which are available on all purchases for upto 30 days after payment has been made - at least where I live, and always have been.)

Yeah, I remember the incident, but disagree with your interpretation; many CC's have advocated for various WoW and WG employees to be either counseled or removed but this was the first time one was canned.

(and, of course, he was invited back, which he refused, for his own reasons)

and I'm sure you're totally amazed we don't agree.

By the way, nice match yesterday with your CV; cross dropping the Des Moines was classic, and our CV was not up to snuff. Good game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,346
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,540 posts
6,689 battles
2 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Yeah, I remember the incident, but disagree with your interpretation; many CC's have advocated for various WoW and WG employees to be either counseled or removed but this was the first time one was canned.

(and, of course, he was invited back, which he refused, for his own reasons)

and I'm sure you're totally amazed we don't agree.

By the way, nice match yesterday with your CV; cross dropping the Des Moines was classic, and our CV was not up to snuff. Good game.

That was a fun end game, I didn't expect to make it through, thought I was gone (I never do well in the air sup side of things, and had only a slight window of opportunity for dmg). It was a good game of bluff and counter bluff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,258
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,783 posts
14,864 battles
3 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

That was a fun end game, I didn't expect to make it through, thought I was gone (I never do well in the air sup side of things, and had only a slight window of opportunity for dmg). It was a good game of bluff and counter bluff.

It WAS a good game, and you played it well to win in the end; a total carry. Honestly, I couldn't believe that no one on our team was trying to take you out sooner, but oh well, they made a decision and paid the price. 07 on the win, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,737 posts
4,354 battles

It'll take a big slump in US carrier stats after this for WG to make even more changes...or make changes to JPN carriers...

For a carrier rework, the first digit in the version number has to change...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,086
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,700 posts
10,050 battles

If they're 'happy' with where IJN carriers are, does that mean they intend to kick Midway down from her mighty 1,400 games/week in line with Hak's measly 1,000 games/week?    - for reference Shima's at 23k games/week.

 

Several of the main carrier issues relate to their infrequency at high tiers, that no one wants to play them because it's too hard, that playing against a small player base of them with wild swings in skill is irksome, and that too many of the remainder are super-unicum. If they're happy with the IJN does that mean they're not going to do anything about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
413
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,022 posts
11,137 battles

well usn carriers gonna become useless in rankeds...

But midway can maaaaaaaybe can be fun again, because in that state its so 'meh' play with midway... too much AA, useless torpedo bombers, too much rng to bombers... is more fun play in a taiho vs TX then play with midway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,615
[SALVO]
Members
16,721 posts
17,314 battles
3 hours ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Honestly, while a balanced loadout is a great addition to USN CVs, it should be an addition to the existing loadouts, not a straight replacement. Having only a single fighter squad on all carriers before Essex is a straight out nerf to the very thing that makes USN carriers strong: their fighters.

 

At the very least, Ranger and Lexington should get 2/1/1 loadouts, not 1/1/2. No one wants two squads of AP bombers that can't seriously damage anything but German and some Japanese BBs. But 2 fighters with one torpedo bomber and one dive bomber could make them finally competitive.

I disagree, Kaybe.  IMO, all CV's should have only 1 loadout, possibly 2.  But even if there was a second loadout, it should be a slight modification of the stock loadout, with +1 squadron of one of the types.  In other words, an upgrade to the stock loadout, not a completely different one.

Carrier play should NOT be about the damned loadout lottery!  It should be about your skill at managing your planes and not about getting lucky and having your loadout choice being a hard counter to the other carrier player's loadout choice.

 

Having said this, I agree with your comment about the Ranger and Lex.  Just because I greatly prefer the concept of the single loadout doesn't mean that I  agree with the actual choice of that single loadout.  Oh, I think that 111 is probably fine for the Bogue and perhaps the Indy.  But for the USN CV's that run 4 squadrons, I agree that 211 seems preferable to 112.

Of course, I also believe that the IJN CVs should get this same treatment, i.e. a single base loadout, and perhaps an upgraded one (i.e. +1 squadron) based on the stock loadout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,615
[SALVO]
Members
16,721 posts
17,314 battles
4 hours ago, Umikami said:

I don't agree with that @Crucis (you must be shocked!); I believe the act that actually got him removed from the CC list was telling players to demand a refund.

Telling WoW it's employees and policies are stupid: OK!

Costing WoW it's precious income: VERBOTEN!!

It's ok that you don't disagree with me.  To the best of my recollection, you do so in a civil manner which counts for a lot.

Honestly though, I think that you're refusing to take WG at their word.  They said that they dumped iChase because he attacked some WG employees in his video.  You're assuming that they're essentially lying and that the real reason is something other than what they stated.  Personally, unless I have good reason to do otherwise, I'll take them at their word.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,206 posts
1,939 battles
10 hours ago, Crucis said:

Come on.  Get your facts right.  iChase got fired for demanding that WG fire the GZ developers or whomever made the decision to allow it to be released.  He got what he deserved. It had nothing to do with his opinion on the GZ itself.  And if you think otherwise, you're just looking for conspiracy theories.

you're wrong WG was selling a product that was blatantly defective/incomplete and had chase stayed silent about it they would have fleeced a lot more customers than they did. i may not have business major but i know from a moral and ethical standpoint that if a business sells a product to customers that is defective and not say a word that is a d*ck move because eventually customers will catch wind of what they are up to and believe me they will not be happy. any company pulling off that type of scam it is a very difficult stain to wipe off.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,615
[SALVO]
Members
16,721 posts
17,314 battles
3 minutes ago, The_Big_Red_1 said:

you're wrong WG was selling a product that was blatantly defective/incomplete and had chase stayed silent about it they would have fleeced a lot more customers than they did. i may not have business major but i know from a moral and ethical standpoint that if a business sells a product to customers that is defective and not say a word that is a d*ck move because eventually customers will catch wind of what they are up to and believe me they will not be happy. any company pulling off that type of scam it is a very difficult stain to wipe off.

I disagree.  iChase could have ripped the GZ as a terrible premium ship and stayed on as a CC.  He verbally attack WAG employees and demanded that they be fired!  That was why he got canned.  Period.    There have been other weak premium ships and tanks that CC's have ripped without getting canned.  The problem is that iChase and that guy who got canned as a WoT CC both crossed the line, and thus deserved to get canned.

The problem I see here is that people have become so used to being able to be j@ck@sses that they seem to think that it's perfectly acceptable behavior and that you shouldn't be fired for being one when calling out an employer.  All one has to do is read the comments in the aftermaths of the iChase and the other guy's incidents to see this.  Some people think that those 2 CCs' behavior was just fine, because the ends (i.e. calling out a bad premium vehicle) justifies the means (i.e. verbally attacking WG employees and whatever the other guy did, which at the time I felt was also wayyyy over the line, but no longer remember the details).  I'm sorry, but the ends do NOT justify the means here.  A moral, civil person can be an honest CC and still call out WG on bad premium vehicles WITHOUT crossing the line.  And there is NO EXCUSE for crossing the line.  None whatsoever!!!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,338 posts
3,779 battles
11 minutes ago, The_Big_Red_1 said:

you're wrong WG was selling a product that was blatantly defective/incomplete and had chase stayed silent about it they would have fleeced a lot more customers than they did. i may not have business major but i know from a moral and ethical standpoint that if a business sells a product to customers that is defective and not say a word that is a d*ck move because eventually customers will catch wind of what they are up to and believe me they will not be happy. any company pulling off that type of scam it is a very difficult stain to wipe off.

Plenty of other people criticized the GZ release and somehow failed to get canned. I'll repeat what I've said before: when someone gets canned for a seemingly minor incident, like going a bit too far in anger, it's because they've pushed the line before and now it has gotten bad enough that something needs to be done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×