Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
BigRed1

U.S. Carrier: Fighter experience...

41 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
14 posts
1,889 battles

I guess I'll submit this again since it appears that someone deleted thread about giving a serious bump in experience points for U.S. carriers that shoot down enemy planes.  A special experience modifier needs to be given to U.S. carriers in matches so that the experience gain with fighters is similar to the Japanese carriers with all their torp planes.  I have wiped out all enemy planes on numerous matches and experience is only a fraction of what the Jap carriers get for using their torp planes.  Either give the U.S. the same amount of torp planes, or increase our experience for shooting them down, because as it stands Japanese can outlevel a U.S. carrier any day of the week.

[content moderated - inappropriate language]
~PrimordialSlime


 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
143
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
522 posts
10,175 battles

Please don't use such hateful terms with regards to the Japanese. Either refer to them as Japanese or IJN.

 

One experience equation for all. That is fairest to everyone. To my knowledge, the USN CVs take less expensive xp to move through the tech tree anyway so there's that to consider as well.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,102 posts
403 battles

Please don't use such hateful terms with regards to the Japanese. Either refer to them as Japanese or IJN.

 

One experience equation for all. That is fairest to everyone. To my knowledge, the USN CVs take less expensive xp to move through the tech tree anyway so there's that to consider as well.

 

I can say that's quite false

 

It takes 1,197,500 EXP to go from Langley to elite Midway

 

It takes 1,185,500 EXP to go from Hosho to elite Hakuryu.

 

As expected of weeaboo scum to slander the real winners of the pacific war. (joking)

 

On a side note, god damn, I hadn't tallied up the number before this, but the EXP numbers for carrier are crazy. 1.2 million to elite a Midway and only 887k to elite a Des Moines. Even if you only buy one of the loadout upgrades, that only saves 84k, and your EXP total is still 1.16 million.

 

Who at WG thought this was a good idea?

Edited by Awesomecopter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
43 posts

I think increased experience for shooting down any plane by anyone will be a great improvement. This would encourage many different game play styles, like active CA escorts.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
14 posts
68 battles

I think increased experience for shooting down any plane by anyone will be a great improvement. This would encourage many different game play styles, like active CA escorts.

 

Yeah, this would fix all of the "carrier OP" issues if people started having actual incentive to set up AA screens.

 

Generally speaking, there should both be an XP boost across the board for aircraft, and there should also be more flexibility for both nations' carrier trees when it comes to loadout.  Carriers are supposed to be flexible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
57 posts
4,975 battles

Please don't use such hateful terms with regards to the Japanese. Either refer to them as Japanese or IJN.

 

One experience equation for all. That is fairest to everyone. To my knowledge, the USN CVs take less expensive xp to move through the tech tree anyway so there's that to consider as well.

 

****

[content moderated - inappropriate language] 

~PrimordialSlime

 

 

 OP- I am hoping for extra xp from plane kills as well. I'm working on the Bogue right now and have had no choice but to use the 2 DB and 1 Torp plane setup. This isn't fair to my teams, imo, because once my planes are all shot down I simply leave the match. I have seen tons of other players do the same as well.

 

...oh and Buff Dive Bombers, geez they are terrible.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,102 posts
403 battles

 

Japs is simply short for Japanese. If the word bothers you and your over the top Political Correctness then I'd suggest avoiding these forums or game altogether.

 

It's really not, it was acceptable and then it became not.

 

It's similar to calling someone chinese a chinaman, or a black man negro. Used to be the norm, now offensive.

Edited by Awesomecopter
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
57 posts
4,975 battles

 

It's really not, it was acceptable and then it became not.

 

It's similar to calling someone chinese a chinaman, or a black man negro. Used to be the norm, now offensive.

LOL you gotta be kidding.  This is mostly a WW2 game, there were even..... dare I say.... nazi's in that war. May I ask what we can refer to them as?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

LOL you gotta be kidding.  This is mostly a WW2 game, there were even..... dare I say.... nazi's in that war. May I ask what we can refer to them as?

 

Nazis. Because Nazi is not an offensive word for German. It was a political party, not an ethnicity.

 

"Jap" is an offensive word for Japanese, similar as above to Negro. Is 'IJN' really that hard to write out? It's the same number of characters and is 100% less racist.

 

As for the issue, I've been suggesting a boost to anti-air rewards for a while now. Screening duties as well as fighter cover should be rewarded because they're team-support actions that really have an effect on the game's outcome-- and don't happen very often. What's needed is proper incentives. Higher XP gains or possibly some sort of special flag or camo reward for "Clear Skies".

Edited by Cruiser_Wichita
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,102 posts
403 battles

LOL you gotta be kidding.  This is mostly a WW2 game, there were even..... dare I say.... nazi's in that war. May I ask what we can refer to them as?

 

you certainly can say nazi, as that's the proper name of the organization in question. What's less acceptable is to refer to germans as a whole as "kraut" or "hun". That's exactly like the difference between calling the Imperial Japanese Navy the "IJN", and calling Japanese as a whole "japs".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
12 posts
405 battles

ATM in my bogue the only way I get decent EXP is if I get a clear skies award... but so many times IJN CV's will just ground their planes and screw us both out of any more EXP... it's kinda mind numbing the grind on USN CV's...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
248 posts
381 battles

 

Japs is simply short for Japanese. If the word bothers you and your over the top Political Correctness then I'd suggest avoiding these forums or game altogether.

 

 

 

You don't get to decide what is offensive or not, or what is an ethnic slur or not.  It was a term that was commonly used in a non-offensive manner prior to WW2, but during the war it turned into a derogatory slur.  It's still seen as such by members of that community, which means it still represents the hate that was tied to it.

Much like the 'N' word or any other ethnic slur, using it as a form of shorthand is not cool.  The use of that term can attract the mods also and people have been banned for it's use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
184
Alpha Tester
993 posts
1,106 battles

>MFW most people who find it offensive are likely not japanese

>MFW my japanese ex never found it offensive, and used it herself.

 

 

Anyway. I agree. I have no desire to go up the US line because I like playing with torp bombers, and I really dont want to be playing with myself when theres no CV on the other team or if it's a US CV, dogfght for the sake of dogfighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
57 posts
4,975 battles

   I can kinda see it being offensive if used in a negative connotation cursing someone. But in a WW2 game forum when simply refering to ships it's a long stretch to take that offensively. I agree that the Liberals are probably the most offended and no one else. If this was a Revolutionary War game could I say "brit" , that certainly derogatory in the late 1700's.

 

 

On Topic: whats WG logic with the Dive bombers being the major dps of US CV's? They are simply terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
750 posts
1,271 battles

So nobody is going to point out the context of the term "Jap"? Does ANYONE think he was talking down the Japanese people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
184
Alpha Tester
993 posts
1,106 battles

So nobody is going to point out the context of the term "Jap"? Does ANYONE think he was talking down the Japanese people?

 

Context doesn't matter.

 

Oh wait, yes it does, because if I call someone a &%$#ing potato, you can't say thats not inflamatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

Why are we arguing about the word 'Jap' when IJN is the same number of keystrokes and accomplishes the same message with 100% less objective racism.

 

IJN means Imperial Japanese Navy, which is what the Japanese ships are/were a part of.

 

As for the issue, it's a long-standing problem with aircraft not being valued as much by the experience reward system as they are valued in the actual game. Losing aircraft is a big deal, shooting down aircraft is also a big deal. But you're only given pennies for it.

 

As for USN carrier damage being centered on dive bombers, this has and will be a problem until WG buffs dive bombers to the levels they should be to reflect their effectiveness in the war.

 

The most famous examples are the Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, which was widely used during the opening stages of World War II, the Aichi D3A "Val" dive bomber, which sank more Allied warships during the war than any other Axis aircraft, and the Douglas SBD Dauntless, which sank more Japanese shipping than any other allied aircraft type. The SBD Dauntless was also famous as the plane that won the Battle of Midway, and was also instrumental in the victory at the Battle of the Coral Sea, and fought in every US battle involving carrier aircraft.

 

Does this sound like it describes aircraft as they exist in WoWS?

Edited by Cruiser_Wichita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,102 posts
403 battles

Whats the problem with 'jap'anese? Seems like an abbreviation to me more than anything. 

 

 

 

what's the problem with [edited], it's shorter than Chinese so it's an abbreviation as well, and n***** is shorter than african american.

 

Then go up to a Chinese person, call them a [edited], and see how well it goes over.

 

It's not any slower to type IJN so just do that in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
750 posts
1,271 battles

Why are we arguing about the word 'Jap' when IJN is the same number of keystrokes and accomplishes the same message with 100% less objective racism.

 

IJN means Imperial Japanese Navy, which is what the Japanese ships are/were a part of.

 

As for the issue, it's a long-standing problem with aircraft not being valued as much by the experience reward system as they are valued in the actual game. Losing aircraft is a big deal, shooting down aircraft is also a big deal. But you're only given pennies for it.

 

As for USN carrier damage being centered on dive bombers, this has and will be a problem until WG buffs dive bombers to the levels they should be to reflect their effectiveness in the war.

 

 

Does this sound like it describes aircraft as they exist in WoWS?

Subjective racism. It's impossible for a feeling to be objective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

Subjective racism. It's impossible for a feeling to be objective. 

 

Now respond to my comment about the thread's actual issue, relating to aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
750 posts
1,271 battles

 

Now respond to my comment about the thread's actual issue, relating to aircraft.

Needs more rewards for shooting down planes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,947 battles

Needs more rewards for shooting down planes. 

 

So we're in agreement, then. Shooting down aircraft needs more rewards, there needs to be an incentive to promote doing this so people will actually do it.

 

Rather than (or on top of) increased XP, how do you feel about signal flags or unique camo pattern rewards for "Clear Skies"?

Edited by Cruiser_Wichita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
161 posts
4,190 battles

An issue worth addressing in this game and SJW trash spam the thread with garbage about something irrelevant

 

I've got 140k free exp banked from playing the Minekaze, and a lot of matches are lost when mediocre IJN carriers own the rest of my team by right clicking them with TBs. I've been considering going US CV and running fighters for CAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
750 posts
1,271 battles

 

So we're in agreement, then. Shooting down aircraft needs more rewards, there needs to be an incentive to promote doing this so people will actually do it.

 

Rather than (or on top of) increased XP, how do you feel about signal flags or unique camo pattern rewards for "Clear Skies"?

i would lower the experience for damage down slightly (5-10%) and increase the xp for planes shot down across the board. I think a "clear the skies" medal could drop a +25% income bonus flag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×