Jump to content

awildseaking

Members
  • Content Сount

    2,018
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    7082
  • Clan

    [DUCC]

Community Reputation

541 Excellent

2 Followers

About awildseaking

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Birthday 07/28/1993
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

988 profile views
  1. awildseaking

    If you could change the meta on NA servers

    Your semantics are cute, but your relativist fallacy has been exposed a million times over. If losses mattered, why aren't they mattering to me? I'm not even that good. Watch any unicum play CV. Do you see them getting deplaned? If losses mattered, why are damage averages up across the board? I don't play reworked CV much because they ruin the game. I'm not going to ruin the game for people except when missions force me to. It didn't use to be this way, but CV are truly now the arty of WoWS. So you're suggesting that because I've barely played nu CV, that means I'm bad at them. You're also suggesting that if I were bad at them, that means my being bad must be due to being a bot or troll. Good to know you're just a troll. 1/10, nice to meet you.
  2. Just because you keep asserting your semantic [edited] doesn't mean that planes are limited. They regenerate at a significant enough rate that any planes I lose throughout the course of the game are offset. I never lose the ability to attack, but I would if planes didn't regenerate. If plane losses have no effect because the planes literally keep coming back, how is that not unlimited?
  3. awildseaking

    If you could change the meta on NA servers

    Planes are unlimited, stop with the semantic [edited]. If something regenerates over time, it is unlimited. Torpedoes aren't limited because of reloads. Ammo isn't limited because of reloads. Why do you think planes are any different? I have never been deplaned. I have never been unable to launch a full squadron except for end-game scenarios where I'm throwing everything recklessly because it doesn't matter anymore. Any minor losses I sustain regenerate, thus making those losses meaningless. My ability to attack throughout the game is unimpeded regardless of plane loss. If that isn't unlimited, what is it? It's demented that you lie about how CVs work just to keep them in their broken state for as long as possible.
  4. Best stop-gap solution is removing CVs, removing plane regen, and testing on the actual [edited]test server for once instead of killing the game by testing on the live server. I say this as someone with prem CVs and as a pre-rework CV apologist who wants them to stay in the game no matter what.
  5. awildseaking

    If you could change the meta on NA servers

    I would remove unlimited planes so CVs will have hard counters and DDs/low passive DPS ships will matter in the late-game meta again.
  6. Ammo counters for surface ships but unlimited planes for CV...lmbo
  7. awildseaking

    What do you think the future holds of WOWS?

    Zero future and not another cent from me (it's been almost a year now) until CVs are removed or the rework is reverted and planes are limited again.
  8. awildseaking

    There is certainly risk in good CV play

    CVs used to take risks when planes were limited and you could actually get deplaned (planeless CV was just a point brick), but now that you can control your losses and effectively have infinite planes, yeah, there's no risk at all. I get off every time the "planes aren't infinite" mafia downvotes the truth. [edited] LWM and your [edited] logic, especially that retarded strawman. Durr, everyone who disagrees with me never played CV! This Reddit tier sophistry does not change the fact that CVs have regenerating planes that, bar user error on your part, will never run out or be diminished. I have never run out of planes and I never will because they are INFINITE. Every single little loss here or there comes back as if nothing happened at all. Unless I take actual hull damage or use consumables, the game becomes easier with every passing second because AA dies PERMANENTLY, ships die PERMANENTLY, and consumable charges are used PERMANENTLY (inb4 Atlanta). My planes remain unaffected, unlike pre-rework CVs, where my losses throughout the match are permanent and I have to be more thoughtful about who I attack and with what. Late game scenarios where a crippled CV had to deal with a DFAA Gearing were genuinely difficult. Now it's an absolute [edited]joke for the CV.
  9. awildseaking

    Super Unicum Seeking Advice on CV Counterplay

    This [edited]retarded logic needs to stop. Infinite has nothing to do with the total number of planes fielded. Infinite means an unlimited supply. Can any CV lose enough planes to the point that it can't field any attacks? Or substantially fewer attacks? Or diminished attacks? Unless you're terrible, the answer is no. Nobody worth their salt is losing enough planes because AA is weak, flak is 100% avoidable, and there are tons of strategies to minimize AA exposure. Do you even realize how terrible your logic is? You're comparing plane reserves now to plane reserves with fighter aircraft that no longer exist. You're also comparing permanent losses to temporary ones. If you had 18 torpedo bombers and lost all 18, that was it. Going through 80, 100, a million, or 10 planes is completely irrelevant. You have more planes now for the attacks that you want than you did before. CVs can sustain all they losses they want and come the end of the game, they will still have full squadrons while you're isolated in your [edited] DD that can't even shoot down a single plane because you have single digit passive DPS. EVEN IF ALL OF THIS WERE NOT TRUE, average damage is up across the board. This is really simple and only on an internet forum could so many people be so moronic. IF PLANE LOSSES ARE PERMANENT, THEN PLANES ARE FINITE. IF PLANE LOSSES ARE NOT PERMANENT, THEN PLANES ARE INFINITE.
  10. awildseaking

    It's hard to take CV feedback to the devs when...

    The number of planes generated has nothing to do with whether or not they are unlimited. The fact that they are even generated in the first place, by definition, proves they are unlimited. What's weird is how you are so fixated on this single point. CVs could launch one plane at a time and if they did as much damage as before, would that mean planes aren't unlimited? The objective facts are simple; plane losses regenerate and average damage is up across the board. You misunderstood what I meant about squadrons. An air group was self contained. It had one attack and that was it. There was no ability for a 6 plane torpedo squad to launch 4 separate attacks. It could only launch one and that meant that every time it attacked, all 6 planes were on the table, whereas now you can waste attacks to retreat part of the squadron and expose a smaller number of planes to heavy AA. 59, 100, or a million planes would have nothing to do with infinity or not. Infinite means that they are unlimited in supply. You can shoot down more planes now than hangars had in total before the rework. Worse yet, those hangar totals included a significant portion of fighter aircraft that are no longer in the game. The problem right now is that when AA heavy ships inflict losses throughout the game, those losses are not significant enough for the regen rates/hangar size/deck space to actually limit a CV's ability to attack. Nobody is getting deplaned except for shitters and they were getting deplaned before the rework too. The result of this system is that when you get into the late game and AA isn't as intense, a CV can have full squadrons, as if the game had just begun, while you have weakened AA and fewer teammates. This means the previous losses inflicted are meaningless and the ability of the remaining ships to deal with the CV(s) are diminished because they have to do the same amount of work and then some. Of course this is an impossible task because if it were possible, it would have happened earlier. Stop trying to insist that 2+2=5. You made this same terrible argument before and you're right that I've beaten it to death. The maximum number of planes is unrelated to whether or not planes are infinite. If planes continue to regenerate and cannot be stopped, then they are infinite. The number of planes available is irrelevant, especially since average damage is up. If planes aren't endless, then tell me why I never run out of planes when I play CV. It literally has not happened yet. If I always have full, 100% squadrons, from the first minute to the last minute, what is that if not endless?
  11. awildseaking

    It's hard to take CV feedback to the devs when...

    They're endless unless you're bad enough to lose substantial planes. The effective reserves are not similar or less than pre rework. Pre rework, you had a single attack squadron, you could not mitigate AA damage, and losses were permanent. Stop with this semantic [edited]. Infinite is infinite.
  12. I can count the number of times I've flooded out on one hand. I also believe I have <10 liquidators lifetime. That says a lot about the reality of torpedoes and where damage comes from in this game.
  13. awildseaking

    Super Unicum Seeking Advice on CV Counterplay

    Without making any additional changes, I want WG to test a limited planes mode again. Keep everything as is, but bring back the old hangars. CVs are going to get a lot more interesting when you have to be significantly more deliberate in who you attack as well as when and how you attack them. DDs have to be passive because even if they make it to end game, CVs effectively have lost zero health or attack power. Along with this, one other minor change; select how many planes you deploy in your squadron. It's stupid wasting attack(s) to save planes. Just let people choose how many planes they launch. If I want to bring 12 planes so I can attack someone 4 times, I will. If I'm going against a Minotaur, let me bring one attack group.
  14. awildseaking

    Flip KGV and Monarch

    I'm not sure you realize just how similar KGV and Monarch already are. They have identical HP, belt armor, speed, rudder shift, turning circle and concealment. KGV has 1 more gun and 6% higher fire chance in exchange for smaller guns and slightly lower shell damage. It's not so much that Monarch isn't as good tier for tier; if Monarch were a T7, it would be objectively worse than KGV. There isn't much disagreement that Monarch doesn't fit T8 at all, but simply by having more DPM in exchange for less deck armor, KGV would already outperform Monarch. Would KGV be enough for T8? It might need some buffs, but I was trying to address this issue from a more fundamental design perspective. Monarch's innate design characteristics are underwhelming for T8. KGV's characteristics are not. Myoko/Mogami were not swapped 1:1 with no buffs or nerfs, but fundamentally, another large, tanky cruiser didn't fit at T8 as well as an insanely powerful CL did. I know there's no subclass distinction between KGV and Monarch, but KGV almost plays like a battlecruiser while Monarch plays like a traditional BB. Both KGV and Monarch are unique for T7, but only KGV is unique for T8.
  15. Liquidator was always a stupid medal because it's 100% RNG dependent. You can't time enemies using DCP when your torps are already in the water. The other problem is that most of the people bad enough to flood out are also bad enough to take 3-4 torps from a salvo and don't take enough damage from flooding for you to earn a liquidator, even if they flood out and die.
×