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

Ranger or Hiryu? Thoughts. Rebalancing Tier 7 carriers.

Ranger or Hiryu?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Thoughts. Rebalancing Tier 7 carriers.

    • Buff the ranger by adding another fighter squadron (maybe reduce number of fighters on both) or adding another torp squadron?
      7
    • Debuff Hiryu by removing a fighter squadron (1-2-2)?
      2
    • No change at all
      11
    • Completely rework Carriers so they're better balanced across all tiers with more loadouts available to change up gameplay?
      16
  2. 2. Ranger or Hiryu?

    • I like the Ranger
      5
    • I like the Hiryu
      12
    • I like both
      12
    • Screw Carriers, they're all annoying hives of scum and villany
      5

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
5 posts
2,604 battles

I own the ranger myself, and often find that the Hiryu is capable of dominating with it's two fighter squadrons able to counter your fighters, while attacking your strike group or utterly decimating your fighters while your strike group tries to run.

 

Carriers aren't played often, so less people run the AA defensive fire ability, and no sensible/sane CV captain will fly over one of these ships (ie: Cleveland, Atlanta etc). And often times you're left circling your aicraft around not being able to do much or they end up destroyed, or you have to sacrifice your fighters just to squeeze one full strike group through, before losing 60-100% of your strike aircraft. It's utterly unbalanced from Tier 5-8 with carriers, and I've seen many people say this over the years as well.

 

No update seems to have an answer or solution to this & IJN carriers are just out right better in this tier, before USN carriers become competitive at Tier 9 and 10.

 

Feel free to vote in the poll, post your findings, opinions, thoughts and such below. It'd be good to see some positive change result from this thread so carrier gameplay is actually balanced again, rather than being an RNJ slog hoping you're against another Ranger while playing yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TRAV]
[TRAV]
Players
2,501 posts

Carriers, as well as AA on all ships, are getting a complete overhaul.

Not my poll vote. Wargamings statement in various recent interviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,176 posts
6,755 battles

CV rework is coming. There is no need to invest time in trying to make Ranger work right now, that would be a massive waste of time & resources. Class rework as a whole will change basically everything, up until then - there's no point in any US CV below tier 9

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
765 posts
12,146 battles

Leaving aside the fact that a rework is in progress, both ships are good. My average stats with Hiryu are practically unmovable by now (hard to make a dent in any direction after 1800+ battles with her, 1600+ of them in randoms), so those with Ranger are for now a bit inflated compared to her silver counterpart. I think that's because I went up and learnt with IJN CVs first, hence the USN ones feeling a lot easier with the exception of Lady Lex: I really can't make her perform the same as the other CVs. Although it's true that she faces a tougher opposition at the usual MM T8 ships end up.

 

Salute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,381 posts
13,776 battles

I'd give Ranger 1000lb HE bombs along with reducing service times of tech tree US squads in general. While that won't make her equal to any of her contemporaries in terms of air control, it'll at least allow her to be more competitive in the striking department.

 

Regardless of whether the CV rework is coming or not, qol improvements like this are easily implemented. And I don't think it's a particular secret that Ranger is tier for tier the worst CV in the game right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DSPA]
Beta Tester
256 posts

To be honest I would remove them completely. carriers are broken.

 

high tier ones make too much of a difference - practically the team with the better carrier player wins majority of matches

even a low  5 or 6 tier can get close 100.000 damage / match in a good game. That is [edited] for something that has such a high  destruction ratio and no retaliation for the one being attacked. 

 

There is no place for carriers in this game. It's impossible to balance them without either ruining them completely or making them terrible OP.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,501 posts
10,499 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

And I don't think it's a particular secret that Ranger is tier for tier the worst CV in the game right now. Since launch

Fixed it for you :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,381 posts
13,776 battles
28 minutes ago, clocky said:

That is [edited] for something that has such a high  destruction ratio and no retaliation for the one being attacked.

 

Ah, yes, the action of pushing one button to clear out entire strikes is clearly not retaliation enough.

Here's the harsh truth for you:

CVs aren't doing well because they are inherently overpowered. CVs are doing well because 90% of the playerbase is braindead and likes to play BBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DSPA]
Beta Tester
256 posts

LOL.

 

I will let you pick any ship you want from tier 10 other than a DD or jap carrier and I will invite you on a 1 vs 1 against me in a CV. 

 

Want to bet money on  deleting  you off the map from first strike or the second? :D

 

PS: Obviously you didn't understand what I tried to explain above. Torps and Bombers attack battleships , cruisers and dd's and another carrier in the other team is not a guarantee you can stop them.  and those ships can't retaliate back fast enough to stop a carrier attack. Your clicking trying to strafe doesn't work against experienced players that manuver a lot.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
887 posts
8,163 battles
8 minutes ago, clocky said:

 

 I will invite you on a 1 vs 1 against me in a CV. 

What does a 1 vs 1 prove?

You do understand it is a 12 vs 12 in randoms?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,102 posts
11,613 battles
1 hour ago, tank276 said:

What does a 1 vs 1 prove?

You do understand it is a 12 vs 12 in randoms?

Yeah someone just did the WoWS version of "1v1 me noob" after being facerolled in a team game :cap_popcorn:

 

Also Ranger got reworked and ppl still ask for re-balancing? It's WG we're talking about here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GEUS]
Players
58 posts
3,510 battles
15 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

CV rework is coming. There is no need to invest time in trying to make Ranger work right now, that would be a massive waste of time & resources. Class rework as a whole will change basically everything, up until then - there's no point in any US CV below tier 9

 

 

 

It did not take massive time and resources to nerf the Midway and buff the Hakuryu, so why would a buff to the Ranger be any different ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
7,381 posts
13,776 battles
2 hours ago, clocky said:

I will let you pick any ship you want from tier 10 other than a DD or jap carrier and I will invite you on a 1 vs 1 against me in a CV.

 

Any full AA spec capital ship at T10 will easily wipe out entire strikes even without DFAA. Quite honestly this would be an unfair scenario for you.

 

2 hours ago, clocky said:

Obviously you didn't understand what I tried to explain above.

 

Nah, you're the guy who doesn't understand a thing. The one button mechanic I'm talking about is this:

Consumable_PCY003_AirDefenseDisp.pngConsumable_PCY011_AirDefenseDispPremium.

 

Strafe uses two buttons and is easily defeated anyhow.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,207 posts
10,378 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Nah, you're the guy who doesn't understand a thing. The one button mechanic I'm talking about is this:

Consumable_PCY003_AirDefenseDisp.pngConsumable_PCY011_AirDefenseDispPremium.

 

Strafe uses two buttons and is easily defeated anyhow.

 

What is this ? Never seen this before ...

I have repair, hydro, spotter plane and heal on my cruisers !

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7 posts
11,648 battles

I want the AS layout back. Or atleast a layout with focus on air superiority, e. g. 2 fighter wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,102 posts
11,613 battles
1 hour ago, Vandent said:

I want the AS layout back. Or atleast a layout with focus on air superiority, e. g. 2 fighter wings.

Well for that you either need T9 Essex or T10 Midway.

 

Alternately pay money for a Saipan or Enterprise. If either are actually on sale anymore...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,207 posts
10,378 battles
1 hour ago, Vandent said:

I want the AS layout back. Or atleast a layout with focus on air superiority, e. g. 2 fighter wings.

 

Imo it's a good thing they changed the USN CV loadouts.

AS was just stupid, Strike or stock were superior.

 

I played nearly all my Ranger battles as Strike, only at the end (since I was close to unlocking the Lexi), I tried the AS loadout for a handful of battles, and lost all of them. There's no point dominating the skies if you lack the ability to strike and depend on your team to deal damage / win the battle for you.

 

Imo it's good as it is now - perhaps an alternate loadout such as 2-1-1 could be viable (but 2-0-2 was nearly useless).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
765 posts
12,146 battles
On 16/6/2018 at 3:23 PM, Vandent said:

I want the AS layout back. Or atleast a layout with focus on air superiority, e. g. 2 fighter wings.

On 16/6/2018 at 4:55 PM, lup3s said:

Imo it's good as it is now - perhaps an alternate loadout such as 2-1-1 could be viable (but 2-0-2 was nearly useless).

Even before the USN CAW unification, hell, even before starting to play USN CVs I already advocated for the logic of "no CAW without either fighters or TPBs", which meant 211 for AS Ranger and Lexington, 112 for strike CAW on the same ships (and the base 111 untouched). The problematic ones for such implementation would have been Bogue and Independence, though. Also, in spite of deviating from the aforementioned policy, "special" CAWs could have been kept just as premium ships' flavourings.

 

I agree that the unification was a step in the good direction, I just feel that it could have been done better without such a drastic measure.

 

Salute.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,749 posts
9,899 battles

IMO I don't see why the Ranger needs a buff. USN CVs demands a player to have better skill/tactics/control. You need to know how to strafe well and make full use of that 1 fighter squad, which is actually sufficient if you know what you're doing.

Share this post


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

×