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

Ranger/Lex change suggestion

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

610
[-K-]
Beta Testers
1,791 posts
7,751 battles

Hello,

 

I want to give a suggestion concerning the upcoming Ranger/Lexington load out changes. Both ships has currently:

Stock: 111

AS: 202

Strike: 013

 

and these will be changed to a single new load out which is 112.

It's good and positive change that they removed both not viable/not competitive/broken options which is 202 and 013. However 112 is not a very good option too.

I finished grinding my Ranger with stock load out because that is the only half way decent load out and not AS nor Strike (and also tried several games with 112 Lex on PTS). My final performance is 63% WR, 75.8 k avg. damage, 21.3 avg. plane kills on Ranger (comp. 66% WR, 79.2 k avg. damage, 28.1 avg. plane kills on Saipan), just in case you wonder from what skill floor perspective I'm speaking.

 

The reason that speaks against 112 or 111 is simple: It 1 TB and 1 DB already has enough fire power (compare with my Saipan stat above). It has potential to delete bottom tier BB or heavily cripple top tier BB. Additional DB for 112 isn't gonna fix the real issue which is extreme passive stance that you have to take for having only one single fighter squadron. If the enemy CV knows how to use fighters half way decent, you are pretty much shut down to fly around your fleet until enemy CV does stupid mistakes and gives you some chance to deal damage. In addition, you have only 1 chance to strafe correctly when it comes to protect the fleet from enemy strike, you have only 1 chance to strafe correctly head-on against enemy fighters, you can't strafe exit and strafe with other squadron. What Ranger and Lexington needs is 211 load out. It's completely fine to give USN 2 fighters and strike aircraft at the same time.

"But USN Fighters are too tough. You can't give 2 squadrons less they will shut down IJN completely"

So what? Hak also has to go against 212 Midway with only 2 fighters and she does completely fine. Ryujo goes also against either same amount of USN Fighter sqaudron (111 Indy) or sometimes even against double amount of USN Fighters (201 Indy) but does fine. IJN CVs aren't meant to win dogfight against USN on 1:1 to begin with. They have more squadrons in the air counting both fighters and strike planes which means they can gain more map control, have spotting advantage, have more flexibility and 2 TB/ 2 DB are more forgiving towards mistakes in case you screw a drop.

 

Therefore I want to suggest to give Ranger/Lex 211 load out so that those ships can actually take some aggressive action against enemy and enable them to put more pressure with fighters.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,188
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,322 posts
9,387 battles

Guess you didn't hear.

Apparently, WG feels the Ranger and Lexington are too OP.

More nerfs are on the way.

Currently, anything less than AS (with supremacy) [A.S.S. ?] loadout is suicide if facing Enterprise or Shokaku.

Oddly enough, the AS Lexington is the same as the Enterprise --- without the torpedoes.

It's a paywall.  Divvy up the Free XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
663
[-VT3-]
Members
1,606 posts
3,346 battles

Sounds reasonable to me.  

 

I'd also say that some changes need to be made to the AP bombs.  In ST, there seems to be zero reason to take them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
319
[ASHIP]
Members
581 posts
5,190 battles

The current setup gives each nation's fighters some unique maneuvers. IJN fighters have all the advantages of multiple squadrons, such as lock/strafing and follow strafing, while USN fighters can use their larger squadron size to perform maneuvers which give poor returns for IJN fighters, such as head on strafing. As a result, it is difficult to directly compare the two setups. I agree with you that the IJN one is generally better, but there is still a qualitative difference in play style which a good player could exploit to consistently come out on top while using the USN fighters.

The problem with giving the USN fighters two squadrons is that they would then have access to all these abilities, making them irrefutably superior to IJN fighters. There would no longer be a qualitative difference in play style; the USN fighters would simply be able to do the same things better.

Sure, USN fighters are generally underpowered right now. But there's always gonna be a nation with worse fighters. At least in the current system there are some incomparable differences which might lead someone to prefer the USN setup. For instances, currently I usually advise new players to try USN first, as it requires less micro and a less refined understanding of strafing mechanics, but experienced players should probably pick the IJN line. If you gave the USN two fighters, they would be the clear choice for players of all skill level.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,506
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,680 posts
3,459 battles

^

 

In case you guys haven't figured it out he's a troll. User name is what it is for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50
[SOUS]
[SOUS]
Members
289 posts

I agree with OP and think it was a mistake to take the 211 loadout away from the Lexington in the first place... said so at the time. As for Essex, it should be a step up from Lex. If it has the same loadout, then it should get T9 planes or some other improvement(s).

Edited by Chief_Runamuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
504
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
1,665 posts

Nothing wrong with 202 loadout, would be nice to have 211 loadout. 

I free XP to the 2 fighter options the moment I get a new carrier, I'll never take a carrier into battle with less than 2 fighter squadrons, and if that means I never play carriers again then oh well, one less reason to log into the game and play. 

Thanks for nothing, WG.

 

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,506
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,680 posts
3,459 battles

2-1-1 would be the best option. You have the ability to not get anhilated in air to air, you can do damage with torpedoes, and you still can experience a mental breakdown when your RNG Bombers miss perfect drops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
420 posts
5,617 battles

Funny thing is that years ago 2/1/1 was the stock loadout for the Lexington until WG nerfed it for absolutely no good reason. My guess is someone on the dev team was playing the Shokaku and lost to a stock loadout Lex.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
Members
400 posts
2,441 battles
On 11/21/2017 at 4:44 PM, Zaydin said:

Funny thing is that years ago 2/1/1 was the stock loadout for the Lexington until WG nerfed it for absolutely no good reason. My guess is someone on the dev team was playing the Shokaku and lost to a stock loadout Lex.

2-1-1 is trash. wont do any damage torpedo bombers will be shot out of the sky by A.A or the other Japanese fighter group and the one 2 planes that drop torps wont hit because the ship will just evade

Edited by sartt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
420 posts
5,617 battles
On 11/23/2017 at 10:25 AM, KilljoyCutter said:

Second test still has the zero-options setup on US carriers. 

Looks like they're bound and determined to ruin that line.

WG has a history of jamming their fingers in their ears and going "LA LA LA LA WE CAN'T HEAR YOU!" at the top of their lungs when players are telling them that changes they are making are not good when the dev team already has its mind made up.

Case in point would be releasing the Graf Zeppelin despite Supertesters telling them it wasn't ready for release.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
610
[-K-]
Beta Testers
1,791 posts
7,751 battles
20 hours ago, sartt said:

2-1-1 is trash. wont do any damage torpedo bombers will be shot out of the sky by A.A or the other Japanese fighter group and the one 2 planes that drop torps wont hit because the ship will just evade

 

211 does completely fine damage wise. As I already posted: I played Ranger with 111 load out and have 75k avg. damage. 211 will give more possibility do deal damage so if Ranger get's 211 avg. damage would go higher.

I'm playing Essex with stock load out 211 and have avg. damage of 103k.

1 torpedo bomber and 1 dive bomber does perfectly fine damage wise, it's just you have to be skilled with them. If you aren't able to deal that much damage with 1 TB and 1 DB, that's your skill's problem and not the load out.

Just in case you guys won't believe me playing stock, let me show you my research screen. I didn't research any other flight control :

Spoiler

4G8IP3A.jpg

nXYUgyJ.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
Members
400 posts
2,441 battles
2 hours ago, Treediagram said:

 

211 does completely fine damage wise. As I already posted: I played Ranger with 111 load out and have 75k avg. damage. 211 will give more possibility do deal damage so if Ranger get's 211 avg. damage would go higher.

I'm playing Essex with stock load out 211 and have avg. damage of 103k.

1 torpedo bomber and 1 dive bomber does perfectly fine damage wise, it's just you have to be skilled with them. If you aren't able to deal that much damage with 1 TB and 1 DB, that's your skill's problem and not the load out.

Just in case you guys won't believe me playing stock, let me show you my research screen. I didn't research any other flight control :

  Reveal hidden contents

4G8IP3A.jpg

nXYUgyJ.jpg

 

" skill " when you are fighting lemmings and people who don't dodge.  103k damage doesn't even give you credits at the end of the match. You are essentially paying just to pay a repair cost in a essex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
610
[-K-]
Beta Testers
1,791 posts
7,751 battles
2 hours ago, sartt said:

" skill " when you are fighting lemmings and people who don't dodge.  103k damage doesn't even give you credits at the end of the match. You are essentially paying just to pay a repair cost in a essex.

 

What do you want for t9, t10 economy? Want them to earn credits like Missouri or Tirpitz? 103k damage is sufficient to keep your credit plus. If you are doing 103k damage but still loosing credits, then you are choosing your targets wrong or you are having few sorties with success strike. That's your skill. 103k damage should consist of DD+BB+CA/CL. If you are going 103k only after BB, then your damage is less meaningful thus you gain less credits and experiences. Judging from your statement, you don't quite understand what skillful CV player is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[AK]
Members
93 posts
7,529 battles

Can someone from WG please explain to me (and many others I am sure) why they think giving the Midway tier 8 TB's is a good idea? I understand balancing, but really? two tiers lower? How is the Midway supposed to do any damage against tier 10 BBs when you cannot even get close to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[LEGIT]
Beta Testers
297 posts
15,741 battles
45 minutes ago, Nighteyez said:

Can someone from WG please explain to me (and many others I am sure) why they think giving the Midway tier 8 TB's is a good idea? I understand balancing, but really? two tiers lower? How is the Midway supposed to do any damage against tier 10 BBs when you cannot even get close to them?

 

I was hoping Midway's TB will be T9 but WG's dev team is probably trying to avoid old Midway insanely OP 222 T10 loadout. 

With this new loadout, I have to target T8 and T9 ships with TB and, later in the game, I can go after high tier ships once their AA, "hopefully",  have been knocked out by HE damage from the fight. I will also need to drop payload outside of close-range AA aura to save my TB attack squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
420 posts
5,617 battles
2 hours ago, Nighteyez said:

Can someone from WG please explain to me (and many others I am sure) why they think giving the Midway tier 8 TB's is a good idea? I understand balancing, but really? two tiers lower? How is the Midway supposed to do any damage against tier 10 BBs when you cannot even get close to them?

I'd honestly prefer they nerf the torpedo damage of t10 TBs slightly just to keep the better survivability and speed they have over tier 8 bombers.


Midway is going to suffer like a Shokaku with stock TBs does without the ability to upgrade to ones with better survivability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×