Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
1HandTiedBehindMyBack

AWhy is it ok that the Enterprise is vastly better than the Lex?

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,324
[KNMSU]
Members
5,882 posts
6,222 battles

Lexington is such a joke. It's really shameful handling of such an iconic ship that gave stellar service in some of the darkest months in the history of the U.S. Navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
683
[PVE]
Members
950 posts
11,889 battles
18 hours ago, awiggin said:

If you want American power, you must pay.....:Smile_teethhappy:

You see Ivan, when one wants to defeat western capitalism, one must use the capitalism against them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,666 posts
7,457 battles
5 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

Lexington is such a joke. It's really shameful handling of such an iconic ship that gave stellar service in some of the darkest months in the history of the U.S. Navy.

She isn't really bad, it's just that she is against far superior opponents like Shokakou and Hiryu that make her horrible. You have an inter-war carrier going against two early war carriers, it is just no real contest. Especially since she only gets 1 fighter squadron, what happens is that you opponent locks your fighters with one squad and then strafes the locked squadron wiping it out. That is why I believe Wargaming should get rid of strafes, if like me you are very bad at aiming them you are just screwed against someone who does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
315
[KOOKS]
Alpha Tester
2,847 posts
4,855 battles
12 minutes ago, Battlecruiser_NewZealand said:

Lexington is such a joke. It's really shameful handling of such an iconic ship that gave stellar service in some of the darkest months in the history of the U.S. Navy.

...and to think that Lexington was the point where things really started to look up in the old times with the 2 fighters and 2 torps loadout and epic AA that lets it somewhat defend itself against sniping...

She has been constantly mishandled since the addition of Japanese carriers...2FT/2TB removed entirely, the stock loadout being better than the "upgraded" ones (it was 2/1/1 stock, 2/0/2 fighters, and 0/1/3 bombers) so she was bestowed a fæces of stock loadout for tier 8 (i.e. the stock tier VI loadout!) and the "upgraded" ones the extremes of one another...and the rest is history. The only improvement she ever got was 1000lb bombs (did it kill the accuracy?). I wouldn't consider AP bombs an upgrade but rather a sidegrade that reduces its effectiveness against most any things that has thin decks...

Then again, they aren't Americans...they don't give an F about the iconic status...probably because her class has two ships............

1 minute ago, Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi said:

She isn't really bad, it's just that she is against far superior opponents like Shokakou and Hiryu that make her horrible. You have an inter-war carrier going against two early war carriers, it is just no real contest. Especially since she only gets 1 fighter squadron, what happens is that you opponent locks your fighters with one squad and then strafes the locked squadron wiping it out. That is why I believe Wargaming should get rid of strafes, if like me you are very bad at aiming them you are just screwed against someone who does.

I don't think the period matters as long as they handle the amount of planes that fleet carriers do (70 or more).

The problem is how carrier works in this game that had been broken for so long that might as well be considered beyond fixing as WG themselves also has no idea how to fix them, as evident in the Lexington...and the Independence. I don't think WG expected people to sacrifice their own planes in strafes, and that is only a part of it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,089
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,896 posts
6,671 battles
19 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

And by the by how many does Shokaku put up? Oh wait 24. But put on that handy tier 4 skill and she can hit 34, and no one says a word. Bit hypocritical if you ask me.

And FURTHERMORE, why does the USN get locked into 1 set up but IJN still retains the ability to pick far BETTER setups? 

Care to explain?

No, Shoukaku hits 28 in standard loadout, or 29 in AS loadout.  Lexington is 27.  

Why does the USN get locked into one setup?  Because it's far superior to the previous setups that all blew some major [edited].  

As for IJN having "better" setups, lmbo.  IJN cannot put as many bombers in the air as USN at relevant tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
966
[FML]
Members
2,696 posts
12,441 battles
2 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

 

You guys only looked at 1 stat column and then say everything's fine?

Aerial coverage with 1 fighter unit does not cut it at Tier VIII.  It didn't cut it at Tier VII against Hiryu, Kaga, Saipan where Ranger is failing (still) and it definitely doesn't cut it at Tier VIII against the likes of Enterprise, Shokaku.  Lexington does decent average damage with Shokaku.  But then again, look at EVERYTHING ELSE and she spectacularly fails.  She does the same average damage as Shokaku, yet has a worse Ship Kill Avg and a vastly inferior Kill / Death Ratio.  A measure of the usefulness in the match is XPs, and Lexington has a significantly worse average than Enterprise and Shokaku.

 

Here's another perspective of how that 1/1/1 is failing Lexington and her teams in Ranked.

Bc3ijDP.jpg

The absolute dregs.  Lexington was the first of the US CV Revamp ships to go through the test of Ranked, and WG's concept of how Tech Tree USN CVs should be has so far spectacularly failed.  That is a 10% disparity in WR% between Enterprise and Lexington and 6% disparity with Shokaku and Lexington.  Everything else outside of Damage Avg is absolutely terrible and markedly inferior.

Hi. Sorry you didn't read what I had written. I obviously didn't look at only 1 column, given I mentioned damage, plane kills and winrate. Also, at no point did I say it was fine. Instead, as a non carrier driver, I thought it was interesting that only 10k damage and 7 plane kills more per battle had such an impact on the ships performance - from the talk on these forums I was expecting 50 per cent more, or something like that. 

It is pretty clear that the Lexington, Ranger and most USN carriers are underpowered (except Midway, of course! Hah) but the aggregate numbers were closer than I was expecting given similar damage differentials etc in other ships don't lead to that kind of WR change. 

Feel free to misunderstand this post, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,701
Supertester, Alpha Tester
6,051 posts

Jean-luc Picard vs. Stanley H. Tweedle.

I know who gets my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
386
[NUWES]
Members
2,356 posts
7,471 battles
18 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Everything's better than Lexington at Tier VIII since her nerf in 2015.  The revamp did not help her at all.

 

Her air coverage is absolutely atrocious with 1 fighter unit at Tier VIII.

 

Give Lexi back her 2/1/1 spec she had at launch and then she can be something to be respected.

It helped, but it was not nearly enough. She can't fend Enterprise or Shokaku off or provide any meaningful fleet defense with 1 fighter. Ranger has the same problem and is in an even worse boat (pun intended) because it faces Hiryu, Saipan, and Kaga. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,124
[WOLF3]
Members
20,902 posts
19,321 battles
8 hours ago, UltimateNewbie said:

Hi. Sorry you didn't read what I had written. I obviously didn't look at only 1 column, given I mentioned damage, plane kills and winrate. Also, at no point did I say it was fine. Instead, as a non carrier driver, I thought it was interesting that only 10k damage and 7 plane kills more per battle had such an impact on the ships performance - from the talk on these forums I was expecting 50 per cent more, or something like that. 

It is pretty clear that the Lexington, Ranger and most USN carriers are underpowered (except Midway, of course! Hah) but the aggregate numbers were closer than I was expecting given similar damage differentials etc in other ships don't lead to that kind of WR change. 

Feel free to misunderstand this post, too. 

Just as long as you understood you were commenting on a subject you didn't know much about.  It's fine then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,233
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,665 posts
8,851 battles
19 hours ago, UltimateNewbie said:

Curious how only 10k more damage and 7 extra plane kills on average leads to an extra 10 per cent higher win rate. I wonder if carriers are more finely tuned than other ships, or whether only good carrier drivers bought the Enterprise...

My Graf Zeppelin vanilla now gets trashed by the reworked and buffed Lexington, so OP it brings tears to my eyes. Has forced me to play Enterprise to get my daily CV dose. Horror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
966
[FML]
Members
2,696 posts
12,441 battles
2 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Just as long as you understood you were commenting on a subject you didn't know much about.  It's fine then.

Interesting how you mistook a question as a comment. 

But I'm sure you're a renowned and published expert in all things you've commented in. 

Regardless, can you explain the process for me to make posts on topics you think you know things about, ideally in advance of me making such posts, so I don't draw your ill-placed ire in future? That would be helpful going forward. 

Edited by UltimateNewbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,196 posts
3,930 battles

The Enterprise was actually a fantastic foray into what USN loadouts should have looked like.  Smaller loadouts than current but more of them.  WG crossed their eyes and screamed "DDUUURRRR!" and we got...one loadout that's inferior to IJN loadouts until T10.  ...okay and T5 but the Bogue is such an odd fluke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×