Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
viceadmiral123

Too many players refer to the 3/3/2 Hakuruy loadout change as a "buff"

41 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
923 posts
13,965 battles

I was watching CCs talking about the changes to Hakuruy - gets 1 less dive bomber and 1 more fighter in a 3/3/2 loadout, and Midway - gets 20 or 40 planes less.

I noticed even experienced players talk about these changes as a "buff" and a "nerf".

To clear up this misinformation, I would like to say both ships got nerfed.


 

Spoiler

 

Any increase in anti-air is a nerf, in this case the extra fighter. Any decrease in strike power is a nerf,  in this case 1 less bomber.

So a Hakuruy vs a Hakuruy will end up losing planes faster to fighters and doing less damage to ships with the 3/3/2 config. 

If you want to buff a CV, you buff the bombers. If you want to nerf it, you buff the fighters. This should be self evident.

If you don't understand this simple interaction, please ask me and I will try my best to elaborate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding Midway, it was interesting that WG decided to reduce the hangar size with the argument that it outperforms Hakuruy (really?), instead of increasing Hakuruy's reserves. Both tweaks should have been able to solve this, but they went with the overall carrier nerf strategy.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITA_C]
Players
261 posts
7,038 battles

the 3rd db was not so  so usefull  so it appear as a buff but it i not' because the total fighter number is lower  with 332  compared to 232 well if it is or not depends on how good it the player on managing 3 fighters instead of 2 so i would just say that it's "different"  not necessary better or worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
4,002 posts
7,213 battles

If the 3-3-2 setup is a nerf for you, can you explain why many top players (and I mean top players) played the Hakuryu in the stock setup 2-3-2? As this setup provides the most TB, which are undoubtedly the main (alpha) damage source. Two DB-squads are more then adequate to set a fire-dot. The 3-3-2 is an indirect buff for the Hakuryu.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,471 posts
10,089 battles
Just now, principat121 said:

If the 3-3-2 setup is a nerf for you, can you explain why many top players (and I mean top players) played the Hakuryu in the stock setup 2-3-2? As this setup provides the most TB, which are undoubtedly the main (alpha) damage source. Two DB-squads are more then adequate to set a fire-dot. The 3-3-2 is an indirect buff for the Hakuryu.

 

In theory:

 

If you managed to play SUPER UBER UNICUM level and never lose fighter squadrons: 2 3 3 have more damage output. Simple math.

 

2 3 3 > 3 3 2 damage potential

damage potential = score  (EVERYTHING IS ABOUT DAMAGE!!!)

From there, I will stop using math... but logic of average player:

Less damage  -> nerf.

 

 

Hope it helps!
Cheers.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,360 posts
11,268 battles
2 hours ago, viceadmiral123 said:

I was watching CCs talking about the changes to Hakuruy - gets 1 less dive bomber and 1 more fighter in a 3/3/2 loadout, and Midway - gets 20 or 40 planes less.

I noticed even experienced players talk about these changes as a "buff" and a "nerf".

To clear up this misinformation, I would like to say both ships got nerfed.

 

Any increase in anti-air is a nerf, in this case the extra fighter. Any decrease in strike power is a nerf,  in this case 1 less bomber.

So a Hakuruy vs a Hakuruy will end up losing planes faster to fighters and doing less damage to ships with the 3/3/2 config. 

If you want to buff a CV, you buff the bombers. If you want to nerf it, you buff the fighters. This should be self evident.

 

Regarding Midway, it was interesting that WG decided to reduce the hangar size with the argument that it outperforms Hakuruy (really?), instead of increasing Hakuruy's reserves. Both tweaks should have been able to solve this, but they went with the overall carrier nerf strategy.

Ok, let me put it this way. If you had to choose between 2/3/3 loadout and 3/3/2 loadout - which one would you be using?

If your choice is the one with more fighters (and that's what most experienced players would pick), then the change is a buff. The fact that you might meet another Hakuryu that got buffed too doesn't mean your ship wasn't buffed - it's just that it was the kind of buff that makes her more effective against "herself".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,439 posts
9,430 battles
3 hours ago, viceadmiral123 said:

I was watching CCs talking about the changes to Hakuruy - gets 1 less dive bomber and 1 more fighter in a 3/3/2 loadout, and Midway - gets 20 or 40 planes less.

I noticed even experienced players talk about these changes as a "buff" and a "nerf".

To clear up this misinformation, I would like to say both ships got nerfed.

 

Any increase in anti-air is a nerf, in this case the extra fighter. Any decrease in strike power is a nerf,  in this case 1 less bomber.

So a Hakuruy vs a Hakuruy will end up losing planes faster to fighters and doing less damage to ships with the 3/3/2 config. 

If you want to buff a CV, you buff the bombers. If you want to nerf it, you buff the fighters. This should be self evident.

 

Regarding Midway, it was interesting that WG decided to reduce the hangar size with the argument that it outperforms Hakuruy (really?), instead of increasing Hakuruy's reserves. Both tweaks should have been able to solve this, but they went with the overall carrier nerf strategy.

 

2/3/3 Haku was simply not able to stand up to Midway. 4/2/2 had poor strike potential, because the 3rd TB wave provides an exponential increase in actual damage output. 

 

The 3/3/2 is simply considered to be better overall than each of the previous setups. That is why it is called a buff, because it got better overall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
1,991 posts
11,817 battles
11 hours ago, viceadmiral123 said:

I was watching CCs talking about the changes to Hakuruy - gets 1 less dive bomber and 1 more fighter in a 3/3/2 loadout, and Midway - gets 20 or 40 planes less.

I noticed even experienced players talk about these changes as a "buff" and a "nerf".

To clear up this misinformation, I would like to say both ships got nerfed.

 

Any increase in anti-air is a nerf, in this case the extra fighter. Any decrease in strike power is a nerf,  in this case 1 less bomber.

So a Hakuruy vs a Hakuruy will end up losing planes faster to fighters and doing less damage to ships with the 3/3/2 config. 

If you want to buff a CV, you buff the bombers. If you want to nerf it, you buff the fighters. This should be self evident.

 

Regarding Midway, it was interesting that WG decided to reduce the hangar size with the argument that it outperforms Hakuruy (really?), instead of increasing Hakuruy's reserves. Both tweaks should have been able to solve this, but they went with the overall carrier nerf strategy.

Yes. Reverting ship from inferior to superior in air domination  clearly is not a buff.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
1,471 posts
10,089 battles
8 minutes ago, 15JG52Adler said:

Yes. Reverting ship from inferior to superior in air domination  clearly is not a buff.

 diki diki stfu :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BGNAV]
Players
264 posts
3,319 battles
4 hours ago, 15JG52Adler said:

Yes. Reverting ship from inferior to superior in air domination  clearly is not a buff.

Yes, it is clearly inexperienced decision from Wargaming. Instead of making them equal they once again made one better then the other. With 15 tier 10 fighters in 3 groups vs 14 tier 9 in 2 groups...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
1,991 posts
11,817 battles
1 hour ago, sisito0o said:

Yes, it is clearly inexperienced decision from Wargaming. Instead of making them equal they once again made one better then the other. With 15 tier 10 fighters in 3 groups vs 14 tier 9 in 2 groups...

Midway paid his "advantage" in fighters by tiering them down. I really don't see why those fighters should be t9.....the have less HP and less speed and DPS than 15 haku fighters. I really would like to know why are they t9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
923 posts
13,965 battles
12 hours ago, 15JG52Adler said:

Yes. Reverting ship from inferior to superior in air domination  clearly is not a buff.

Can't tell if sarcasm or newbie.

 

23 hours ago, principat121 said:

If the 3-3-2 setup is a nerf for you, can you explain why many top players (and I mean top players) played the Hakuryu in the stock setup 2-3-2? As this setup provides the most TB, which are undoubtedly the main (alpha) damage source. Two DB-squads are more then adequate to set a fire-dot. The 3-3-2 is an indirect buff for the Hakuryu.

I play Hakuruy with the default 2-3-2, and my winrate is top 5%. 3-3-2 is a nerf, and it seems people don't understand how this works. I thought I explained it in a short and clear way in the opening post.

 

Kudos to WG for nerfing CVs while players think it's a buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,360 posts
11,268 battles
8 minutes ago, viceadmiral123 said:

I play Hakuruy with the default 2-3-2, and my winrate is top 5%. 3-3-2 is a nerf, and it seems people don't understand how this works. I thought I explained it in a short and clear way in the opening post.

Your explanation was short and clear, yes. It was also inane.

 

It's like... imagine if Yueyang received Radar in separate slot. You're that guy that would be arguing that Yueyang was nerfed because now it will face DDs with Radar, clearly making her that much harder for Yueyags to operate comfortably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,221 posts
14,454 battles

3/3/2 is a buff.

If you can handle the increased micro requirements that 3 fighters + great striking potential demands that is. Which I imagine is a hurdle not many players will pass successfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
923 posts
13,965 battles
1 hour ago, eliastion said:

Your explanation was short and clear, yes. It was also inane.

 

It's like... imagine if Yueyang received Radar in separate slot. You're that guy that would be arguing that Yueyang was nerfed because now it will face DDs with Radar, clearly making her that much harder for Yueyags to operate comfortably.

I am glad you understand how this works and are making a sensible argument. But a better analogy would be if Yeyang got hydroacustic, but his torpedo fire rate was slightly decreased. The result would appear to be an overall buff, but in reality it will just counter itself, while being less efficient vs other ship classes because of less torpedoes and more torpedo spotting.

This is exacerbated for carriers, because t10 carriers are available to only 2 nations, not many as the dds are. They are also limited to 1 per team, unlike dds. The CV "buff" is a net decrease in CV strike power and increase in anti-air power. No going around that fact.

If Wargaming didn't remove a dive bomber and straight-up gave Hakuruy a free fighter, it would still be a nerf. If they gave him 10 fighter squads for free, I wonder if people would still think it's a buff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,458 posts
7,854 battles
On 4/29/2018 at 11:28 PM, Boris_MNE said:

 

In theory:

 

If you managed to play SUPER UBER UNICUM level and never lose fighter squadrons: 2 3 3 have more damage output. Simple math.

 

2 3 3 > 3 3 2 damage potential

damage potential = score  (EVERYTHING IS ABOUT DAMAGE!!!)

From there, I will stop using math... but logic of average player:

Less damage  -> nerf.

 

 

Hope it helps!
Cheers.

 

Exactly... and some of us still remember this from Hiryu/Ryujo nerfs few years ago... They were more powerful before nerf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
923 posts
13,965 battles
On 4/29/2018 at 11:28 PM, Boris_MNE said:

 

In theory:

 

If you managed to play SUPER UBER UNICUM level and never lose fighter squadrons: 2 3 3 have more damage output. Simple math.

 

2 3 3 > 3 3 2 damage potential

damage potential = score  (EVERYTHING IS ABOUT DAMAGE!!!)

From there, I will stop using math... but logic of average player:

Less damage  -> nerf.

 

 

Hope it helps!
Cheers.

Somehow I missed that comment, sorry for that.

Losing the 1 dive bomber is a small part of the nerf. Yes, 2-3-3 has more strike that 3-3-2.

However, the biggest part of the nerf is the +1 fighter. That is a raw 50% mobile anti-air increase, and a huge decrease in enemy strike.

So, the +1 fighter is the true nerf of t10 carrier gameplay, and WG has the balls to sell it off as "US vs JPN" balance. And believe it or not, players buy that crap. Remember when USN got a buff to fighters ammo? Did that help carrier gameplay? Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
290 posts
3,507 battles

I don’t know about this, I can see your point, but I see it more as a balancing Move than a buff or a nerf.

 

Damage isn’t everything, controlling the battlefield is also an important part of this game. With an extra set of fighters you gain the ability to gain more control of the battlefield (note I said ability). If you have more control, you have the potential to do more damage, just as you would with an extra squadron of DBs.

 

I’m not a carrier player, I gave it a shot and I was terrible at controlling the battlefield and got steamrolled, so I went the DD way instead, where I only have to gain control of the area surrounding me in order to make plays. So yeah some might say I’m not entitled to an opinion because I don’t play carriers, but I do see carrier gameplay up close when I’m capping and flanking, and I know what kind of carrier I’d want on my team ☺️

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
923 posts
13,965 battles
22 minutes ago, PapVogele said:

Damage isn’t everything, controlling the battlefield is also an important part of this game. With an extra set of fighters you gain the ability to gain more control of the battlefield (note I said ability). If you have more control, you have the potential to do more damage, just as you would with an extra squadron of DBs.

That is incorrect. The "battlefield control" that the extra fighter gives you is only control over enemy carrier. It gives you zero control over anything else.

And since matchmaking is mirrored, this means enemy gets more control over you as well.

More fighters = more plane loses in mirrored matchmaking for CVs, less ship kills, less spotting.

Imagine what would happen if all cvs just got 10 fighter squadrons and no bombers.  Insane anti-air, lol so stronk, but what is the point?

 

Wargaming could have buffed Hakuruys hanger size and give midway some more strike power, but instead they went with the exact opposite and nerfed both ships. Year of the carrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
1,991 posts
11,817 battles
11 hours ago, viceadmiral123 said:

Can't tell if sarcasm or newbie.

 

I play Hakuruy with the default 2-3-2, and my winrate is top 5%. 3-3-2 is a nerf, and it seems people don't understand how this works. I thought I explained it in a short and clear way in the opening post.

 

Kudos to WG for nerfing CVs while players think it's a buff.

You play 2-3-2 and for sure now you will have harder time with 3-3-2....yeah....reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
290 posts
3,507 battles
3 minutes ago, viceadmiral123 said:

That is incorrect. The "battlefield control" that the extra fighter gives you is only control over enemy carrier. It gives you zero control over anything else.

This is indeed incorrect. I don’t know how recent your high tier DD gameplay is, but the mere presence of any type of plane has a huge impact on both friendly and enemy DD gameplay. 

 

After I wrote my above statement I thought to myself, why is it that support gameplay such as spotting, denying areas to enemy CV and DD etc. is not seen as anything by carriers, why is it that damage is everything?

 

rewards, supporting your team is not rewarded. The spotting system is flawed like mad, carriers are not rewarded for protecting teammates other than keeping more steel between them and the enemy catching up. However, this does not mean that the potential to help you team more has not been buffed. Another squadron to remove enemy squadrons, another squadron that can spot DDs and torpedoes. Its a buff in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
923 posts
13,965 battles
1 hour ago, 15JG52Adler said:

You play 2-3-2 and for sure now you will have harder time with 3-3-2....yeah....reason

Did you even read any post in this thread?

1 hour ago, PapVogele said:

This is indeed incorrect. I don’t know how recent your high tier DD gameplay is, but the mere presence of any type of plane has a huge impact on both friendly and enemy DD gameplay. 

 

After I wrote my above statement I thought to myself, why is it that support gameplay such as spotting, denying areas to enemy CV and DD etc. is not seen as anything by carriers, why is it that damage is everything?

 

rewards, supporting your team is not rewarded. The spotting system is flawed like mad, carriers are not rewarded for protecting teammates other than keeping more steel between them and the enemy catching up. However, this does not mean that the potential to help you team more has not been buffed. Another squadron to remove enemy squadrons, another squadron that can spot DDs and torpedoes. Its a buff in my book.

Quick debunking of your false argument:

 

1. Spotting is king, Spotting is the best. HOWEVER, more fighters = less spotting. More fighter means enemy keeps you away from his fleet, and you keep enemy away from your fleet. Net result = less spotting because of stronger enemy anti-air, carrier spotting power is nerfed.

2. You can spot with any plane, it doesn't have to be a fighter. A bomber can both spot and deal damage. A bomber denies an area better by spotting and being able to actually attack ships. Result = less damage available, carrier strike is nerfed.

3. Both these nerfs have a synergistic effect.

 

I have yet to read a reasonable argument that -1bomber/+1fighter is a buff.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
290 posts
3,507 battles
18 minutes ago, viceadmiral123 said:

Did you even read any post in this thread?

Quick debunking of your false argument:

 

1. Spotting is king, Spotting is the best. HOWEVER, more fighters = less spotting. More fighter means enemy keeps you away from his fleet, and you keep enemy away from your fleet. Net result = less spotting because of stronger enemy anti-air, carrier spotting power is nerfed.

2. You can spot with any plane, it doesn't have to be a fighter. A bomber can both spot and deal damage. A bomber denies an area better by spotting and being able to actually attack ships. Result = less damage available, carrier strike is nerfed.

3. Both these nerfs have a synergistic effect.

 

I have yet to read a reasonable argument that -1bomber/+1fighter is a buff.

 

 

I again disagree, as a DD main my biggest concern is fighters, not bombers, bombers will spot, drop, return. Fighters will more often than not, stay around and spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,458 posts
7,854 battles
33 minutes ago, PapVogele said:

I again disagree, as a DD main my biggest concern is fighters, not bombers, bombers will spot, drop, return. Fighters will more often than not, stay around and spot.

The only carrier you've played above T5 is Saipan, so you really have no experience to say how it actually works. You have total of 30 games in carriers and you pretend to be an expert with flight decks. Those T4-5 carriers play completely differently and in low tier games you can get away with "fighter heavy setups" if your team deals a lot of damage. Most low tier carrier players with limited experience tend to think more fighters is better, while all experienced ones know that more strike is "always" better in randoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
290 posts
3,507 battles
9 minutes ago, Kenliero said:

The only carrier you've played above T5 is Saipan, so you really have no experience to say how it actually works. You have total of 30 games in carriers and you pretend to be an expert with flight decks. Those T4-5 carriers play completely differently and in low tier games you can get away with "fighter heavy setups" if your team deals a lot of damage. Most low tier carrier players with limited experience tend to think more fighters is better, while all experienced ones know that more strike is "always" better in randoms.

If you read my first (or second) post, I’ve stated this already, and I’m expressing my opinion from the recieving end of the carrier, an opinion that should be as valid as yours.

 

If they balanced around the opinions of CV only players this game would be destroyed. :)

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.

×