Jump to content

GiN_nTonic

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    772
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    6401

Community Reputation

239 Valued poster

2 Followers

About GiN_nTonic

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

847 profile views
  1. One CV per game max is what WG should have tried before beating the type with a nerf stick. Perhaps there would have been longer que times for CV players but id imagine they'd rather have that then what they have now.
  2. GiN_nTonic

    Is the current radar delay making the DD skill gap worse?

    CVs, CVs, CVs.... Id take 3 more radar ships on enemy team as a DD player than a game with 2 CVs. Obviously for clan wars this isn't a factor - so I see the OP's point there. Its just typical games aren't easy on DDs in this game meta. An odd mix for sure.
  3. GiN_nTonic

    Think DDs have too much hp

    You aren't a bias player or anything....
  4. GiN_nTonic

    2 CV's per team is killing the game slowly

    Fully FULLY agree.
  5. GiN_nTonic

    2 CV's per team is killing the game slowly

    Overall player population numbers don't support your comment above.
  6. GiN_nTonic

    2 CV's per team is killing the game slowly

    I'm serious.... For the following reasons (old meta): 1. True AA builds could counter CVs...so you had some effective counter-play. 2. CV's had to play the enemy CV #1 objective - so it felt more competitive. 3. Longer periods of time planes had to go back to CV and re-arm which made it seem less "constant". Now, that is mostly gone and CV's can tee off endlessly on a ship if they want (like DD). 4. CV's were rare due to skill level needed. Maybe 2 in 10 games had a CV...and 1 at that. Small impact on the game. 5. Concealment is important balance mechanic in this game and current meta just wrecked key balance issues. 6. CVs had to consider losing planes and at the end of game how that factored in sync with health of remaining ships. Im not saying they can't fix CVs and improve them in the current meta, but start by making the impact less with 1 per side max.
  7. GiN_nTonic

    2 CV's per team is killing the game slowly

    I do agree with this....i personally think CVs should have player controllable counter to enemy strike aircraft. I can't think how this could be done, but that is one thing I liked about the other CV meta.
  8. GiN_nTonic

    2 CV's per team is killing the game slowly

    Actually right now Id say a lot of it has to do with the missions. Id also suggest the skill level required for CV play was brought down so now you have more bad players trying it. All i am really saying it the general feeling in the game towards CV's is negative. I think limiting 1 CV per match would make sense.
  9. GiN_nTonic

    Time to Rebuff the Khabarovsk

    Id almost say perhaps it should get an AA consumable as a slight buff for the current meta - since I think most play without smoke and really do use it as a light cruiser. Id support that kind of "buff".
  10. GiN_nTonic

    2 CV's per team is killing the game slowly

    I dont agree with that statement at all. Its pretty obvious most DONT like the rework. Heck, the number 1 ranked clan in the game (stat based) renamed themselves: [RIPCV] RTS Was Better -- Roll Back CV Rework FFS https://na.wows-numbers.com/clans/ Personally, im fairly indifferent about the changes EXCEPT that 2 CVs per side/per game is too much.
  11. GiN_nTonic

    2 CV's per team is killing the game slowly

    Most players I know don't like the CV rework...i know some probably do. I dont see WG rolling back the design of CVs, but that aside, I see a lot of bipartisan in-game disgruntlement when a match has 2 CV's per side (4 total). Speaking personally, I don't mind the CV rework apart from when a game has more than 1 per side....so i put myself in that group. Does anyone know if there is talk about limiting the CV's to 1 per side?
  12. I know about 8 in 10 of the people I played with stopped or massively reduced their playing time due to CV rework. CVs are way better today, but like me I went and got into other games and simply don't have the urge to come back the same way I used to. I was spending over $100 a month in this game and now average $0. WG really screwed up - and its just the fact they were so willing to do that which made me not trust them going forward. Id like to see some of the directors of the studio get fired and maybe then we can trust they'll do the right thing.
  13. GiN_nTonic

    CV spotting

    Even on DD's its not very helpful now. Many cruisers need concealment as well. The game's meta before valued concealment greatly (as does WoT) and added rich game-play decisions. Now, you are purely subject to near chance to keep concealment.
  14. GiN_nTonic

    CV spotting

    The recent hotfix did deal with some of the unforeseen game-play issues . However, plane spotting, and how it effects the previously established game meta, is still one of the biggest unresolved issues. People will be quick to point out that the previous CV meta had a similar issue - although, I think what mitigated the previous meta was the fact CV's had a finite number of planes. Spotting ships also meant risking your flight groups to AA and ending up with depleted resources. As we all know, the endless supply of planes now makes kamikaze-like attacks common, and losing planes to spotting is no big deal. Risking planes isn't the deterrent it was. Should plane spotting be the same as surface ship spotting? What about making attack planes only able to spot ships via the mini-map for tactical reasons, but not allow them to spot ships on par with a surface ship's ability? There is historical justification for this, as planes can report general locations of ships - not precision targeting info (other than perhaps the surface ship's own reconnaissance planes). The game-meta for concealment needs to come back and mean something.
  15. The main issue IMO isn't the strength of the ships relative to each other, its the fact WG is probably trying to make CV's less "fun and engaging" to play... the secondary consequences to CV's in the game is part of the problem. 1 CV here and there doesn't ruin this game. 2-3 CV's per side does....old system or new. In some ways they are just increasing the skill level again - and perhaps that isn't the worst idea.
×