Figment

So inexperienced reader like you doesn't understand what I wrote. Nice. No wonder you disagree when you don't even know what you're argueing with.

I think you mean that self-entitlement superiority complex of yours. I've made a couple statements. If you're so sure of yourself, then please use that thing between your ears to make actual arguments, instead of childish insults. So until then you're just saying "you're right, but I'm so butthurt I'm just going to vent my frustration at being nerfed at you instead of making my point that me dealing 133K per match is just about where it should be civilly".

Well as far as I can tell a different one from the one that stuffed it down your throat and made you puke it out all day. I would like to hear you explain what is wrong about it and why. Just checked and you've been putting out exactly that amount of damage on average. Interesting.

So you're suggesting controls changing mid game are intended? Then why are you complaining?

Why do all of the complainers think they have to send their fighters into the middle of nowhere to fight? That's just stupid. Just draw them away and only engage over friendlies. Then you can one vs one squadron them.

Player has CV winrates of 33-35-38%. Plays a fighter setup (3 fighters) on Ryujo. Sails behind the nearest island. Stops. All his 3 fighters circle himself and aren't told to do anything even if aircraft are seen approaching his position, they're completely on automatic. Torp and Dive bombers fire on automatic mode only, in straight lines from his CV. Doesn't move when enemies close in, fire torps, or anything.

If they're that close between drops, you just ignore the TBs altogether. They don't do much direct damage, it's the fire damage you have to worry about with DBs.

No, Schmikaus. It's not the first time I've seen egocentric CVs using their fighters only for their own protection. But this was just stupid. I drew a single squadron of enemy IJN Ryujo interceptors towards his 3 fighters and they'd just hang there doing nothing till they were directly over his ship...

You start maneouvring as soon as you see the aircraft. Not by the time they drop. Try playing some more CVs, it'll help you understand the way a CV player thinks and you'll notice that BBs do incite a lot of panic, just not as much as a Cleveland.

The thing you're missing is, T10 US Midway has: 2 - 1 - 2 (deck 1) - max torp damage 9.867 x 6 = 59.202 max torp damage + 7.500 x 12 = 90.000 max bomb damage 1 - 2 - 2 (deck 2) - max torp damage 9.867 x 12 = 118.404 max torp damage + 7.500 x 12 = 90.000 max bomb damage 3 - 0 - 2 (deck 3) - max torp damage 0 max torp damage + 7.500 x 12 = 90.000 max bomb damage Average damage of a carrier typically lies between 80-120K for a very good player. Most people don't achieve that average damage. That includes torp, flood, bomb and fire damage. That means the torp hit rate and the damage per torp dealt is much lower than the maximum damage a torpedo does. But, you can at most have two torp bombers crosshatch. If you compare to the IJN line with the Hakuryu: 2 - 3 - 2 (deck 1) - 8.567 x 12 = 102.804 max torp damage + 4.600 x 8 = 36.800 max bomb damage 2 - 3 - 3 (deck 2) - 8.567 x 12 = 102.804 max torp damage + 4.600 x 12 = 55.200 max bomb damage 4 - 2 - 2 (deck 3) - 8.567 x 8 = 68.536 max torp damage + 4.600 x 8 = 36.800 max bomb damage That allows for extensive cross hatching and you have so many ground attack aircraft squadrons there is no way the enemy carriers can hold them all back. It also means that you can force enemies to take a hit, repair and then wait with a strike to force flooding or fire damage after they repaired. US carriers do not have as much of a luxury, they rely far more on alpha damage. The whining about IJN CVs becoming underpowered I think comes from people that don't really understand this part about indirect damage inflicting, which the IJN carriers have much more opportunity to, next to being able to box units in better to up the hitrate. On top of that, consider launch and turn around time, which for IJN carriers are shorter iirc.

I still don't get the "Oh noes, we might have a draw" mentality. Except that I get tactically underperforming players want to have better stats by rigging the rules so their scores suffice for a win...

Doesn't matter what ship. You want to avoid dive bombers? You simply don't let them get a angle down the length of your ship, period. IJN BB included. (Look at my IJN BB stats, they're fine). Since they're easy to dodge, you minimise the amount of fires they start. You immediately go back to dodging torpedo bombers. One or even two fires is simply acceptable if torp bombers are that close since you'll repair so soon after (when the TBs drop, unless they deliberately wait for you to burn a bit) it can't have done more than 4-5K damage total. Meanwhile, be sure you at all times manually focus AA fire on the torpedo bombers when they reach 4km. If you can manually target dive bombers with plenty of time between drops, do so, because it will reduce the chance of them hitting you through AAA panic.

Just show them your broadside, at most one bomb tends to hit if any. Just turn and show your side as they approach, from about 3km they can't change their approach route without having to go a long way around (which would cost them aircraft). That is enough.

Just want to say a couple things: 1. You can't tell what the other CV did with its units based on the amount of kills attained. For all you know it did 80K of torp, bomb, flood and fire damage but didn't get the last hit on seven ships. 2. Taking out aircraft should be worth something more to the fight than just protecting the CV and I think the domination mode is key to this value. Personally I think it should both earn exp and earn and lower the points in domination mode. The carrier itself should only be worth its points minus the points its squadrons are worth. -1/+1 point per two aircraft for instance. 3. Protecting friendlies should be respected more, as it too contributes to the game similar to how a healer can save time by healing under attack or a tank in a MMO tanks damage the team would have suffered. The amount of exp earned should increase, a little bit as if you're critting modules on a ship. 4. Fighter setups should probably have a larger supply of dive bombers and fewer fighters in reserve as it is all you have against ground units. Same for scouting damage. A team member that cannot damage ground targets over time even a little is a liability, even if it potentialy saves some hp damage taken by other ships.

The up-part with 10km torps is that you can reload for a second volley while the first are still on the way though.

Zuiho, won every match except one, top 1-4 all the time. Very frequently down more fighters in a match than dual Bogue killed of mine. I don't expect problems higher up the chain, I know what I'm doing. Not kidding, I don't need to have played higher tier IJN to device a strategy and given the AA range of most friendly ships at higher tiers is 6-7km, there is no way they can avoid friendly AA if I don't allow it. No way they can both multitask chasing your fighters and other air given you have double the units, you can make faints, bait, push and force engagements. You have more tools to work with than USN CVs. Figure something out. Strength in numbers doesn't help them if you control the terms of engagement. For crying out loud, I won with Ranger against Essex back in early CBT. Don't tell me about underdog positions!

I play for fun as well. That's not an argument. Some people are just better than others. THAT is an argument. IO'm not sure you are capable of understanding this isn't a job to anyone though. Some of us are simply equiped with more insight.

Nope, I think you're just not willing to adapt your playstyle to accomodate the increased threat of fighters and having to play fighters yourself. I'm quite sure the special fighter ability is wasted on you as well, it's very situational, but you can actually make it work quite well. If you're any good with fighters, of course.

I played WITH Lexington during CBT. And it's a lot harder than IJN CV ever been. Tsukotaku, on 11 September 2015 - 04:42 PM, said: The enemy CV must be an idiot to follow your fighters or engage inside the AA range of your allied ships. Let's keep making balance judgements based on the stupid (To not say anything worse) behavior of random dumbs you find in MM. Well yeah, pretty much 80% of the players are, so what's the surprise there? They have to engage at some point, especially if they're fighter setups. So just control the place their units can strike and you control them. This isn't really hard, not even against a player with a conservative fighter setup. I'm sorry, but don't make me think you're all bad players, cause you're not. You're just not used to being challenged on IJN CVs.

Yes. Because I've taken out many US CV fighters without losing a single one of my IJN fighters in the process... You might be good when you have a lot of bombers, but clearly you have no idea how to play with fighters and how to use friendly SHIP ANTI AIR GUNS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE. Learn it. You might think you're done learning, but the fact of the matter is that concentrated AA fire still beats a USN CV squadron with ease.

Good to hear you feel you're improving and glad to be of help. "Tuning stats". If it's so easy, then why don't you just "tune your stats" instead of starting this topic?

Nah, only makes me look "evil" by the ones who feel addressed, rest tends to fully support what I say. Even then, you presume I care what a Chaz-type of person thinks of me. The denial reactions just make me shake my head and smile. Just look at the claims e makes now, about low level seal clubbing, as if you can't tell the difference between a seal clubber and a good player. Which you can, thanks to... Stats. But he doesn't want to understand that stats reveal that sort of thing very well.

Humbug, when someone actually WANTS to be educated I'll act extremely helpful. When someone is just angry with the world and scapegoats and insults others I will just laugh in their face and point out how pathetic they are acting.

Chaz, if stats don't mean anything, please explain why someone can be consistent in high winrates regardless of unit used. Do tell that RNG favours this person over everyone else, make yourself look even worse. Please. Go on. Someone disagreeing I can handle fine and respect. Someone spouting absurd nonsense to cover their own ego from self critique while insinuating others who perform better are equally bad or mediocre is a type of arrogance I can't stand. And yes, you're being incredibly arrogant and rude just to retain your state of denial. I don't respect that at all.

Ah poorly hidden insults. Cute. Throw some more childish tantrums and please, more insults, it makes me giggle and makes you look even more pathetic than your argument is. Which is quite an achievement, really. Look Chaz, you're only throwing a fit because of your inferiority complex. You much rather explain your own failures and your team failures by pointing at the RNG, but RNG is the same for EVERYONE. So what actually differs is how and where people play and how well they play. THIS is what creates differences in stats. Is performance affected by RNG? Sure, it is AFFECTED, but mitigated by player skills such as position, range control, target prioritisation, focusing fire, working together, protecting flanks instead of getting circled, etc. And fact is that people who do these things right can get consistent results, whereas people who just do whatever without thinking about how to play will get worse and far more random results. So is performance solely determined by RNG as you claim? NO. Anyone who says so really needs a reality check.