Do you know why China still chooses the ramped up deck over the angle deck design? Is it more versatile for larger and slower aircraft?
Ramped foredeck is a cheaper and lower tech way to launch fixed wing aircraft without needing tech of high energy catapult(sling) launch such as seen on USN CVs(Aircraft Carriers). This often means that aircraft using such systems aren't able to launch and fly on missions using their full potential of payload = fuel plus weapons.
Angled flight deck is a system/design that allows for aircraft to land on the stern(aft/rear) part of the ship while the front/fore is usable for launching aircraft. Hence the ship can both land and launch aircraft at the same time, with some flight-deck space to move and handle aircraft involved in either operations.
Basically both "angled" and "ramped" flight deck designs/systems are compatible with each other and your "question" suggests someone either not knowledgeable with what both are and/or confused about how both can work together within a same ship design.
Aside from number of launch and land systems and equal operational capability for flight deck operations/actions, the other major concern is number of elevators to transfer aircraft from flight to hanger deck, and turn-around in terms of repairs, refit, replenish, etc. of aircraft from hanger(fix em) to flight (use 'em) deck status.
In addition to this is the type of aircraft that can be used/supported by the vessel/aircraft carrier(CV) and their usable launch weight(payload) of fuel and weapons. Generally designs using ramp launch systems mean the aircraft will leave the ship short on either fuel(range) or weapons load(punch); or both!
To recap; an ramped flight deck design usually implies an attempt to provide maximum operational flexibility allowing for means to land and launch aircraft simultaneously. It is often a cheap solution for lack of tech to make powerful enough catapult systems to sling fully loaded aircraft from the deck in initial launch profile.
An angled flight deck design means allowance for retrieving aircraft without interruption bow launching operations/settings.
What really matters in measuring an "aircraft carriers" abilities and threats potential is;
1) How many aircraft, straight wing, high load capacity, can it carry and operate in normal configuration ???
2) How quickly can it land, then service, arm and prep for relaunch aircraft that come to/land upon it ???
3) What capacity does it have to store and service aircraft in it's hanger deck versus need for a quick time turnaround to get back to another mission within less than a few~couple hours. ???
4) What chances does the aircraft carrier have to survive assorted threats during those initial hours/days of opening war situations while it is filling the gap as a mobile airbase to block and counter threats from the hostile side. ???
5) What abilities above and beyond defense of self and task force does the CV(Carrier) have that will allow it to also employ an aggressive role in being an attacking force/treat as well as preserve it's threat potential in the conflict area ????
.............
In short, a major warship CV must not only present a significant self protection ability, but AT THE SAME TIME present an equal and dangerously threatening system of attack/harm to the enemy it has to deal with.
