Jump to content
Han951753

Again! nerf on US CVs! WG trying to rewrite world history again!

42 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IDLK]
Beta Tester
76 posts

So nerf on us again. Obviously this is a game for IJNS. The IJN ships are way more than historical almost seince fiction now. And the US NAVYs are heavily nered. One trueth, check this link out, "http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1399" the US top TB can carry 4 tropedos once and in game only one. So I want to ask where are the other 3. Another example, by manual bumbing, the IJN tropedos goes together and us tropedos away from each other, so why? At least the trops should go parallel. Where is the historical part for US NAVY? Nevere the less you always have to make a choice between lost one squad, no TBs or no Fighters, which never hapend in the real history. Also for fighters, the us top feighter should be F7F-4N twin-engin fighter which is speciall designed for Midway, because Midway have the capacity loading heavy fighters. F8F is designed for Essex. They only buff the op one and nerf the powerless one. Even more they always justifiy their actions by some imagined reasons.Warming always say that they want a historical and fair game, but I only see op IJNs in this 2 patches. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG]
WG Staff
2,779 posts
13,266 battles

Balance.

You really want a squadron of 6 TB dropping 24 torpedoes at you with the same spread as Japaneses? Any sane player have to say no. 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTTX]
Players
1,841 posts
7,432 battles

Don't argument with historical reasons please. If you want to do that then I could argue against the way almost every single mechanic in the game works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sailing Hamster
3,124 posts
1,275 battles

So nerf on us again. Obviously this is a game for IJNS. The IJN ships are way more than historical almost seince fiction now. And the US NAVYs are heavily nered. One trueth, check this link out, "http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1399" the US top TB can carry 4 tropedos once and in game only one. So I want to ask where are the other 3. Another example, by manual bumbing, the IJN tropedos goes together and us tropedos away from each other, so why? At least the trops should go parallel. Where is the historical part for US NAVY? Nevere the less you always have to make a choice between lost one squad, no TBs or no Fighters, which never hapend in the real history. Also for fighters, the us top feighter should be F7F-4N twin-engin fighter which is speciall designed for Midway, because Midway have the capacity loading heavy fighters. F8F is designed for Essex. They only buff the op one and nerf the powerless one. Even more they always justifiy their actions by some imagined reasons.Warming always say that they want a historical and fair game, but I only see op IJNs in this 2 patches. 

 

So you want CVs capable of firing multiple times the number of torpedoes of Shimakaze. Clearly the top tier games don't have enough torpedoes already.

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,279 posts
7,619 battles

OMG!! This is clearly a WG conspiracy! to go back in time and make Japan win WW2 by nerfing US carriers! :ohmy:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,015 posts
4,182 battles

In all honesty, the fire chance on current USN DBs is insane. Think of them as cruiser killers due to lack of panic when Defensive Fire is on. On top of it all, bombs do massive alpha damage.

 

Speaking of in-game torpedoes, USN do more damage and are easier to land good hits than with IJN ones. However, last I checked, IJN had the best torpedoes of the war and no WWII plane carried more than one torpedo. Don't bring history into an arcade game. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
172 posts
11,436 battles

this guy, he amazes me with how oblivion he is to what he actually says, do actually believe in what is coming across his texts?

 

USN dive bombers deserved a nerf, they where the 1 major reason CV sniping are a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
339 posts
218 battles

Historical? Well, wait until you've got IJN kamikaze pilots plunging into your ship. :playing:

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
110 posts
6,606 battles

I love to read people complain about "historical" nerfs, and how the class should have or not, Friend only 1 fact, this is a arcade not a simulator, and if u want to give US Cv there "historic" planes u need to do it to all other classes and nations not only ur preference, and btw IJN always had the best torps in WWII,ex: the torps that are used my myoko/mogami and up have 30/40 km (historical hits) range and here u have 10km because balance, so if u want to buff 1 class think twice plz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRAVD]
Weekend Tester
3,802 posts
8,377 battles

Fun fact, the 1000lb bombs currently have 198% fire chance (the 500lb is slightly lower). This is barely a nerf, but I guess people have to cry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
695 posts

In all honesty, the fire chance on current USN DBs is insane. Think of them as cruiser killers due to lack of panic when Defensive Fire is on. On top of it all, bombs do massive alpha damage.

 

Speaking of in-game torpedoes, USN do more damage and are easier to land good hits than with IJN ones. However, last I checked, IJN had the best torpedoes of the war and no WWII plane carried more than one torpedo. Don't bring history into an arcade game. ;)

Actually many planes carried more then 1 torpedo, although most of them indeed were not operated from aircraft carriers. However on the topic - BTD currently used on Essex/Midway cvs in game definitely carried 2 torpedoes in a standard torpedo loadout.

XBTK on Midway could carry 3 torpedoes in some proposed configurations or four 1000lbs bomb or 2000lbs bomb+2x1000lbs. 

 

As for real life torpedo range - mind that game "compresses" distance by a 1.5-2.0 factor, speeds up torpedoes and ships twice for the sake of speeding up the game , not balance. This LL torpedoes you talk about had that range using 35kn speed - meaning they would travel for 40 mins to their destination. Also if you give Yamato realistic 42km gun range consider that realistically shell would travel over 3 minutes to the destination, and even at short range like lets say 5km (DD duelling each other), the shell flight times would be upwards of 7-8 seconds instead of current 2-3. 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
617 posts
4,809 battles

Nerf fire for bombs, no problem... But hell give the US CVs better loadouts! make Ranger and Lexington strike 1-1-2 and give the Bogue 1-1-1 as stock setup.

 

The problem with the US CVs at the moment  is, if you are good and can fool the other CV, you smash him and his team without any chance. If he is to good to be fooled, it is a fair game, but few players are... So nerf US CVs, it will help the infelxible CVs... :fishpalm:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,015 posts
4,182 battles

Actually many planes carried more then 1 torpedo, although most of them indeed were not operated from aircraft carriers. However on the topic - BTD currently used on Essex/Midway cvs in game definitely carried 2 torpedoes in a standard torpedo loadout.

XBTK on Midway could carry 3 torpedoes in some proposed configurations or four 1000lbs bomb or 2000lbs bomb+2x1000lbs.

 

 

Yup, I was referring to the carrier borne planes. B-25, Ju-88, He-111 just to name the few planes which could and did carry 2 torpedoes.

 

Modway was built too late to have any impact on WWII thus I excluded her and her planes from the comment.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
5,150 posts
11,801 battles

If that plane could carry up to 4 torpedoes, I can sure as hell assure you that it wasn't taking off from a carrier, and it was carrying just enough fuel to get it to its target, and come back to the airfield, gliding the last 5-10 kilometers.

 

In fact, I'm pretty sure the only moment in time when those large piston-driven planes could take off from carriers fully loaded was when the first catapults were fitted on carriers, because there is simply no way a monoprop plane armed with over 4000kg of bombs/torpedoes can take off in less than 300m, even if the carrier was going full speed ahead into the wind.

 

Hell, the B-25s during the Doolittle raid, with two huge engines and a massive wingspan had to remove anything that wasn't essential to the planes just to keep the weight down....and they were carrying less bombs ! Those barely made it off the deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sailing Hamster
3,124 posts
1,275 battles

The plane had a powerful engine and Midway has catapults. Besides it was more powerful that the B-25, although some maths is needed. I can do it later on since I'm in uni now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
130 posts
9,521 battles

Japan carrier OP ?

 

Huh ? Even with my Independence (with 0/1/2), I manage to sink one Ryujo with AA superiority in a game. Using one squad of bomber like a bait. That noob send all his fighters for the alone bomber squadron (sorry guys).

 

During that sad time, my TB and the second bomber squadron went to the Ryujo without any problems.

 

The Ryujo did not follow the fleet but act like an airport but not like a carrier.

 

So the time to move his carrier, i simply use the good manual drop of torp and the Ryujo takes 5 torp ... and  sink.

 

RIP Ryujo.

 

 

And even, IJN carrier are not OP if the player can use US carrier like a boss. Dont be a fool and use your mind !

 

Last game, I lost my Hiryu by be focus by 2 carrier (Ranger and Ryujo). Our second carrier the Independence (AA sup) does nothing to protect our fleet and lost all his fighters by sending them near 2 Atlanta (to hunt 1 TB squad).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
119 posts
8,935 battles

I really don't understand, why WG thinks that US dive bombers are overpowered ATM. I got Midway, Lexi, Shokaku, Ryujo so I know both sides. Whenever I go with Shokaku and see that the enemy Lexi brings a strike 0-1-3 layout, I lean back because I know it's gonna be an easy match. Actually it's quite easy to neutralize most of the attacking bombers using 2 fighter squads and barrage. I can't remember any instance, where I was successfully sniped in my Shokaku by a Lexi. If I see a Lexi using 95 point AA, I simply go for the other ships, because the Shokaku always wins the damage race. Dive bombers are overrated mostly by noobs using auto drops while torpedo bombers with good manual aim are so much better.

 

My stats also proving my point:

Lexington: battles: 131, avg damage: 58,441.89, top damage: 150,184

Shokaku:   battles: 28,  avg damage: 87,814.57, top damage: 211,404

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,198 posts
5,570 battles

Fun fact, the 1000lb bombs currently have 198% fire chance (the 500lb is slightly lower). This is barely a nerf, but I guess people have to cry about it.

 

Sorry but no, you obviously have no idea how probability ( chance ) is calculated and summed in practice.

 

If each bomber have 33% fire chance ( just an example here ), the combined chance to cause at least one fire if all 6 bombs hits is 1-0.66^6 = 91.7% chance

 

Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability#Summary_of_probabilities

 

If I see a Lexi using 95 point AA, I simply go for the other ships, because the Shokaku always wins the damage race. Dive bombers are overrated mostly by noobs using auto drops while torpedo bombers with good manual aim are so much better.

 

My stats also proving my point:

Lexington: battles: 131, avg damage: 58,441.89, top damage: 150,184

Shokaku:   battles: 28,  avg damage: 87,814.57, top damage: 211,404

 

Do you think the average CV captain is using "good manual aim" for torps or do you think they are using auto drops for bombs?

 

I can totally understand wargamings reasoning here since they need to balance mostly on the average player, and Carriers have a huge skill distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
617 posts
4,809 battles

 

The problem is, on avarage the USN CVs to T8 are not competitve to the IJN ones.
 

Bild1.jpg


 

Its easy to see that in the winrate. To T8 USN CVs have a by 4% lesser winrate than their IJN couterparts. That says NOT, that they are OP or UP to each other. It says they are less contributing to the team.

Yes CVs are more direct linked to the skill of the Player, then other ships, but that should even out over the number of Players. So the conclusion is, the problem of USN CVs is not the strength of teir bombs. The problem is their lower versability.


 

If weakening there bombs makes that better? I dont think so...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
617 posts
4,809 battles

 

The problem is, on avarage the USN CVs to T8 are not competitve to the IJN ones.
 

Bild1.jpg


 

Its easy to see that in the winrate. To T8 USN CVs have a by 4% lesser winrate than their IJN couterparts. That says NOT, that they are OP or UP to each other. It says they are less contributing to the team.

Yes CVs are more direct linked to the skill of the Player, then other ships, but that should even out over the number of Players. So the conclusion is, the problem of USN CVs is not the strength of teir bombs. The problem is their lower versability.


 

If weakening there bombs makes that better? I dont think so...

Bild1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
695 posts

 

 

Yup, I was referring to the carrier borne planes. B-25, Ju-88, He-111 just to name the few planes which could and did carry 2 torpedoes.

 

Modway was built too late to have any impact on WWII thus I excluded her and her planes from the comment.

 

BTD Dauntless was meant for many other CVs too, and its in game on Essex as well. It definitely could carry two torpedoes - 28 were built and stationed on carriers too, just none saw action.

I find it also interesting that on Midway, the upgraded plane (XSB2D) is actually the PROTOTYPE for the stock plane (BTD). BTD was superior in pretty much every aspect (armor, carried armament, speed) to XSB2D, with one exception - at late stage of development, US military decided that there is enough air superiority to make the rear gunner obsolete - so BTD had the 2nd seat/rear gun removed, which let them fit more "other stuff" making an overall superior plane. This doesnt seem to be the case in game - BTD has rear gunner, and XSB2D has better flight characteristics. While im not a purist enough to care much, but i guess they could at least make the "production" plane the actual tier X, and switch the prototype to previous tier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
6,753 posts
7,907 battles

So nerf on us again. 

 

Yes, 10% less chance for bombs to cause fire...let's have a look at some games with my Ranger in the last days:

 

 

 

 

13 bomb hits -   9 fires (33k fire damage);

136aj05.jpg

 

 
17 bomb hits -   11 fires (28k fire damage);

Spoiler

1712j9i.jpg

 

 
19 bomb hits -   13 fires (25k fire damage);

Spoiler

19dvklj.jpg

 

 
23 bomb hits -   13 fires (34k fire damage);

23eojb1.jpg

 

 
26 bomb hits -   9 fires (47k fire damage);

Spoiler

26gmjgj.jpg

 

 
30 bomb hits -   17 fires (33k fire damage);

30azk31.jpg

 

...so 10% less fire chance next patch?

 

I don't really care, there will still be enough fires...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PRAVD]
Weekend Tester
3,802 posts
8,377 battles

 

Sorry but no, you obviously have no idea how probability ( chance ) is calculated and summed in practice.

 

If each bomber have 33% fire chance ( just an example here ), the combined chance to cause at least one fire if all 6 bombs hits is 1-0.66^6 = 91.7% chance

 

Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability#Summary_of_probabilities

 

 

 

maybe you should know game mechanics then?

 

First of all, this the the stats of the 500lb bombs from 3dgamesmodel. You can see it has burn probability of 1.56 (I can't see the stats of the 100lb bombs because I'm not paying 5 bucks).

12.JPG

 

 

Now, from Tedster on the NA server (supertester)

 

View Post_Zergling, on 29 March 2016 - 12:56 PM, said:

 

True, but you arent accounting for the anti fire coefficients for the target ships. When i hit a single bomb on midways I only start fires 40% of the time.

 

time for math

 

equation:

[ship's base anti-fire coefficient] x (1 - [Damage Control Mod 1] - [Fire Prevention]) x ([shell's base chance to set fire] + [Demolition Expert])

lets assume the ship is a T10 and has everything to decrease fire chances.  thus DCM1 is 0.05, FP is 0.07, and the coefficient is 0.5005 (demolition expert doesn't apply because doubt a CV will take it)

formula is 0.5005 * (1-0.07-0.05)*1.98 = 0.872

 

current calculation is 87.2% chance for fire, with the current number.  lets change to the new number

 

0.5005 * (1-0.07-0.05)*1.80 = 0.792, or a 79.2% chance to cause a fire to a T10 ship running full fire prevention mods.

 

not sure off the top of my head of any fire chance decreasing flags, as I think this formula might pre-date them (it was published by RU Devs though)

 

12.JPG

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
765 posts
8,230 battles

they just need to stop nerfing US CVs and put them back to open beta form.  people would start playing them again, it should require team work from the enemy to stop a tier 10 CV.  By the end of WW2 ,CVs were the main striking force.  You hardly ever see CVs in high tier games these days which is a shame

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×