Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
GreyFox78659

I see a sign of hope with the latest GZ update

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles

Last test will be soon. But that's not the sign.

 

She basically will be left with her original load out plus a torpedo load out with deep water as an option.

 

Also sounds like someone listened to me she is getting acoustic search.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
2 minutes ago, _Maho_Nishizumi_212 said:

Listened to you? All German botes have hydro. Although I am glad to hear she may be available again.

I suggested she get hydro pretty early on in the debate because she fights short range and lived to hunt DDs. I was met with the standard line what does a Carrier need with hydro.

Edited by GreyFox78659
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,481
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,862 posts
7,177 battles
6 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Last test will be soon. But that's not the sign.

 

She basically will be left with her original load out plus a torpedo load out with deep water as an option.

 

Also sounds like someone listened to me she is getting acoustic search.

You failed to note the fighter scout nerf (2 squadrons to just 1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
5 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

You failed to note the fighter scout nerf (2 squadrons to just 1)

I read 2-0-3 and 1-2-1 were the final load outs. Basically sounds like they read our suggestions.

Also the circle of death stays.

If they make this the final version I might rethink purchasing it again.

Edited by GreyFox78659

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,481
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,862 posts
7,177 battles
2 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

I read 2-0-3 and 1-2-1 were the final load outs. 

no, nothing is final, the 1-2-1 is the proposed final loadout. Read the syntax carefully, the 2-0-3 appears to be offered in the test so that testers can make a direct comparison. The 2-0-3 does not seem on offer as the final outcome of testing (for now). The wording lends itself to ambiguity, it is true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
2 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

no, nothing is final, the 1-2-1 is the proposed final loadout. Read the syntax carefully, the 2-0-3 appears to be offered in the test so that testers can make a direct comparison. The 2-0-3 does not seem on offer as the final outcome of testing (for now). The wording lends itself to ambiguity, it is true.

 

Even if the go to 1-0-3 I might be tempted. 9 fighters in a squadron was nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,481
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,862 posts
7,177 battles
5 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Even if the go to 1-0-3 I might be tempted. 9 fighters in a squadron was nice.

nice, because easy to master. But quickly unexciting once mastered. Whiel in all cases, one less squadron in the air = big nerf to scouting, and huge nerf to dd hunting, while of limited advantage when acting in defence of your fleet (techncially a disadvantage, because fewer eyes in the sky = fewer opportunities to spy incoming strike and organize a successful intercept). It is a horrenduous tactical nerf to GZ, for a very situational buff (and only one kind of situation - fighter vs fighter / assuming you are not strafe locked). Upcoming cv changes will make testers regret their preference for one fighter squadron too, as scouting mechanics are going to be overhauled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles

At this point I don't scout anyways I kill things that get to close. That was one thing GZ taught me screw the team my planes protect me not scout for everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,481
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,862 posts
7,177 battles
5 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

At this point I don't scout anyways I kill things that get to close. That was one thing GZ taught me screw the team my planes protect me not scout for everyone else.

but this is your very personal playstyle. (and I have played against you, and been soundly thrashed, belying your terrible stats ;) it is a very reductive and narrow way to go with only one squadron, and while it would appear to leave you unaffected, those who play "vision" and other strategies, will be in effect, badly nerfed.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles

Wait we played against each other? 

My stats suck because I dont have many high tier ship to pull my numbers up. That and I blame the two brothers chute as a good fur ball is hard to pass up.

Although because everyone hates Huanghe and won't learn how to play it. So now I am able to over perform on it to bring up my WTR on occasion now.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
137
[SPTR]
Members
1,771 posts
848 battles

What are you on? Having high tier ships isn't a "higher WR" button. Usually the opposite. Also, The german "thing" is hydo, so it makes sense that she'd have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,481
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,862 posts
7,177 battles
3 minutes ago, GreyFox78659 said:

Wait we played against each other? 

My stats suck because I dont have many high tier ship to pull my numbers up. That and I blame the two brothers chute as a good fur ball is hard to pass up.

Although because everyone hates Huanghe and won't learn how to play it. So now I am able to over perform on it to bring up my WTR on occasion now.

I think you have tunnel vision when you play a CV (which is why you probably never noticed me in your Enterprise) :Smile_glasses:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[GRFOX]
Members
2,242 posts
4,796 battles
1 hour ago, nuttybiscuit said:

I think you have tunnel vision when you play a CV (which is why you probably never noticed me in your Enterprise) :Smile_glasses:

No to busy making sure things get sunk while not losing planes to enemy planes.:cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4 posts
77 battles

Personally, I'm quite excited for the Graf Zeppelin to return. I'm a relatively new player in the Wargaming franchise but I've been researching about the ship and I'm mostly up to date with everything that is going on. The only thing with the new update (or test) is with the default load out. I do favor the default loadout over the newer one with some exceptions. The 3 squadrons 3 bombers loadout does give the player some good advantages when it comes to sacrificing a squad when being tailed by an enemy fighter or giving the ability of being more flexible with smaller numbers. But personally, the number of bombers per squadron is way to small. 1 squadron can be completely obliterated by an enemies AA and if an enemy fighter does reach a bomber squadron. It'll only take 5-6 seconds until the squadron is completely wiped out. Yes, the player has 2 squadrons of fighters but the attacking force is way to weak for the aircraft carrier to gain some kills. This is my personal opinion with the Graf Zeppelin, curious if anyone else feels the same way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[TSPC]
Members
2 posts
6,502 battles

I cant help but think that the measure WG go to diversify the various cvs are unnecessary? like the graf zep has unique drop patterns for both torps and bombers, so why even mess with AP and deep water? Im not sure theres a need for gimmicks. the planes can be balanced well enough through ordnance damage, plane speed, health etc. We already see that the ijn cv line favors torp bombers while the usn favors DBs, why not let the rn cvs when they come favor AS (balanced though) so each line has its own strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×