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

Let's discuss something.

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

725
[LBAS]
Member
3,078 posts
14,510 battles

Again. To those who create Anti Carrier rants and leave. Can you please reply to your own OP? This is getting downright silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725
[LBAS]
Member
3,078 posts
14,510 battles

To the person or who is reading this thread (the one who created no carriers in random battles). If it's you. Shame on you. You cannot remove Carriers on the tech tree. Can't Adapt to the game? Play other games please. Nerfing wouldn't help balancing the game either.

Edited by IJN_Katori
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,964
[CLAY]
Beta Tester
4,518 posts
19,928 battles

Planes go ZOOM!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,184
[CLAY]
Member
2,836 posts
12,635 battles

So... nut up or shut up?

You don’t have to like CVs, but you have to accept they’re not going anywhere (because the average CV player forgets their ship has engines and just moves their planes 😛 )

If you have a good understanding of CVs from both a surface ship and a CV perspective, then you can comment about any changes which may balance or improve gameplay. So long as it is done in a sensible manner and not retreating old arguments.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725
[LBAS]
Member
3,078 posts
14,510 battles
15 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

So... nut up or shut up?

😛

I was mentioning the CV hater and his argument is toxically confusing at this point. I mean. He did said he wants to remove carriers entirely from randoms and that cannot be done much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[TR_MU]
Member
325 posts
5,100 battles

so what you thinking about M. Richtgofen ? I love the CV in game but in my last games , or actually when i play with Kremlin, everytime i'm playing against to Richthofen ( bad luck i guess) . She's divebomber too op and fighter is too strong. i get almost 27 - 30 k from every bomber attack and fighters never can be destroyed until second attack is done. 2  attack drop getting almost 60K damage. Already Kremlin hp is 105K. This is not too much ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
551
[KAMI]
Member
1,543 posts
12,755 battles
5 hours ago, Neufert1 said:

so what you thinking about M. Richtgofen ? I love the CV in game but in my last games , or actually when i play with Kremlin, everytime i'm playing against to Richthofen ( bad luck i guess) . She's divebomber too op and fighter is too strong. i get almost 27 - 30 k from every bomber attack and fighters never can be destroyed until second attack is done. 2  attack drop getting almost 60K damage. Already Kremlin hp is 105K. This is not too much ? 

russian high tier ship are all  susceptible  to any form of AP Bomb if you dont do turning manuevers. Coupled with the high alpha damage of german ap bomb, is not a overpowered factor   but rather you have lack of knowledge on how to reduce the damage that can be dealt by the carrier

 


 

 

Edited by Gummiheng
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,542
[151ST]
Member
2,611 posts
10,427 battles
11 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

So... nut up or shut up?

You don’t have to like CVs, but you have to accept they’re not going anywhere (because the average CV player forgets their ship has engines and just moves their planes 😛 )

If you have a good understanding of CVs from both a surface ship and a CV perspective, then you can comment about any changes which may balance or improve gameplay. So long as it is done in a sensible manner and not retreating old arguments.

Anyone can have valid input but definitely should be assessed in view of their experience.

I mean if they brought a new set of information to the table that changed everything, that'd be really interesting.

But yeah, rocking up calling for CVs to be removed when that'll never happen objectively and then when pushed for why just recounting the 10 evidences of flamu... ...

lol!

I always do wonder how folks get to one extreme conclusion? Does no one take a step back and reassess the information at any point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[TR_MU]
Member
325 posts
5,100 battles
5 hours ago, Gummiheng said:

russian high tier ship are all  susceptible  to any form of AP Bomb if you dont do turning manuevers. Coupled with the high alpha damage of german ap bomb, is not a overpowered factor   but rather you have lack of knowledge on how to reduce the damage that can be dealt by the carrier

 


 

 

Yes you're right but you can never move with Kremlin 🙂 He's tanky, and Kremlin first objective is take cover and defend this area without moving.  Because Kremlin range is low than same tier ships, if you move, you'll be open target . I'm stucking with kremlin when i see M. Richthofen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,229
[REPOI]
[REPOI]
Member
6,576 posts
26,552 battles
1 hour ago, S4pp3R said:

mean if they brought a new set of information to the table that changed everything, that'd be really interesting.

if only that ever happens, you know how the drill goes

-skrub dies in game to something he doesn't know how to counter

 

"XXX must be OP"


-rants on forums for removal of "OP thing" because apparently he's the only one who's seen the light 

-:jerry: they arnt treating me as the internet messiah!

-:jerry: they have different opinions!

dunning Kruger intensifies 

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,174
[MRI]
Member
3,608 posts
15,477 battles
13 hours ago, IJN_Katori said:

Again. To those who create Anti Carrier rants and leave. Can you please reply to your own OP? This is getting downright silly.

What makes you think they want a genuine discussion? No, these anti-CV rant threads are just that. Rant threads. They aren't interested in fixing CVs or anything. They just want to complain.

2 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

I always do wonder how folks get to one extreme conclusion? Does no one take a step back and reassess the information at any point?

No they don't. Because that would require actual critical thinking.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,964
[CLAY]
Beta Tester
4,518 posts
19,928 battles

This has become an anti-anti-CV-thread-thread.

I truly take my hat off to you all.

I mean, I AM Max but this is some next level ship.

Grats and 'spect.

:Smile_medal:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[IWN]
Member
265 posts
2,862 battles

As have been proposed before, if you fix the economy, then you fix the game. My proposal is that 
1. reduce damage of AP bomber for all carrier, sure scoring something like 30k damage less than 1 minute in one attack is fun but certainly is not for whoever getting it. I dont mind nerfting the carrier, but they should kept the fun for whoever receiving those AP 
2. Kept the fun in playing CV, what I found boring the most of carrier is you are flying in a whole squadron yet when you attack there is only 2-3 plane, so changed it to 6-7 plane (half of squadron) but decrease the damage of torpedo so one attack does the same amount of damage like right now in each attack. while for AP bomber kept it like now, I dont really see needing to change formation of AP bomber except reducing it damage like I said above. 
3.Fix the economy, if you nerf the CV in it attacking then give the CV more credit and XP for doing supporting job like scouting for dd or cruiser, bb. I think it would incentivize player to do more supporting than just mindlessly farming damage and dont care about supporting the team like scout or provide AA to some DD (but doing that might some time make other player know that there is a dd there). 

If this implement into the game it would benefit everyone, first of all give people more reason to use torpedo in case that they wouldnt do, example: attacking a dd, or a cruiser with good maneuverability since with 2 torpedo you wouldn't really had a lot of option, but with an array of torpedo with 6-8 of them it would be easier to hit a destroyer, before you said this is bad for a destroyer remember in game right now with 1 single torpedo hit from a CV you already lose something like a third or half of your health (9333 damage from Hakuryuu torpedo) depend on dd you playing, but with what I suggest getting an torpedo from with my mechanic, there is a good chance that you will survive longer, and the same applied to other ship too, and bb wil also had better chance of surviving, with my mechanic instead of constantly having to watch out for whenever a torpedo plane came back for a third attack because you just use your damage control on their second attack for flooding and if they attack now which make result in a second flood, but with my mechanic you dont had to worry about that, since each attack the chance of you getting a flood is higher, but you only getting it for one time and if they came back for another attack (last attack, since they could only do 2 attack with each costing half a squadron) then you are already under repaired or the flood could had gone out and when they attack again you could use your damage control and well no more flood. And Yes I'm a CV player 

Aside from that I think WG (the only time I compliment WG) did a good job with the rocket reticle and dd concealment since now is really hard to attack a dd which persuade me from constantly attacking dd to attacking other target. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,542
[151ST]
Member
2,611 posts
10,427 battles

Interesting point you raise @TakemoriKohoto.

I don't agree with all of it but the XP rewards - 100%

The XP system is completely skewed towards damage, indeed the whole game is.

The problem with this is that a classes value and impact just becomes about their damage numbers.

This isn't even half the real impact.

Spotting is probably the single biggest influencer yet is hardly rewarded...

XP rewards rewards are screwed and having them as they are means balancing is far more difficult IMO.

Share this post


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

×