Jump to content

FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

Players
  • Content Сount

    3,175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    22843
  • Clan

    [1FA]

About FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

Recent Profile Visitors

2,651 profile views
  1. FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

    Udaloi 'B' hull - A downgrade?

    Dude, it's a gunboat, not a torpedo boat.
  2. FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

    People NEED to stop reporting CV

    People need to stop playing CV.
  3. FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

    Why Grand Battle is a great idea badly implemented

    Don't care about these "flaws". Don't care at all about Super BBs in general. Completely irrelevant. The only bad things about the mode are 1) CVs allowed 2) no team damage. But those flaws are more than balanced by a great many upsides: - loads of clumsy BBs to torp - daily win bonus never goes away - relatively few CVs ever (about the same as Tier IX or less) - loads of decent DD players cuz they all noticed the above.
  4. FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

    Grand Battle, two games, two perspectives.

    Is it a bug / oversight that the daily win bonus never goes away in this mode? Or is that some promo this weekend, for all modes?
  5. FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

    Premium disappeared?

  6. FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

    My impressions of grand battles

    Why do Grand Battle results not count towards Naval Battles? Even Co-Op counts. There seem to be very few carriers there, which combined with the reduced team line-up makes for more fun than any other current mode, I don't even go there to unlock any dumb Super-BBs, just to keep torping them.
  7. That point was proven even before the release of the CV rework. By WG themselves. When Wargaming's own PR mouthpieces, at the CC summit in St Petersburg, openly admitted that they would "re-balance" (=nerf) AA whenever the CV population threatened to drop. They are intent of keeping CVs "popular" at any cost, by which they mean "enough people play them". Keep the CV population above a certain threshold. And they have been using nerfs to AA efficiency as a tool to achieve that, from the very start. It's not even a debate. "What is understood, need not be discussed."
  8. One more clue (as if there weren't enough): What WG does offer is signal flag recommendations, as we all know. Different ones for different ships (although I suspect they offer one single identical recommendation for each class from a specific nation, i.e. the same signals are recommended for all Japanese DDs, for all US BBs etc. Haven't looked into that too deeply though so can't say for sure. Anyway.) The point is, I can't recall ever having seen the AA flag (November Echo Setteseven) when mounting "recommended signals". Not on on surface combattants anyway. They definitely do not recommend that enhancement for AA destroyers like Kidd, Friesland, Halland or Smaland, even though those would be the ships where those flags would be the most effective. Arguably this could be based on WG wanting to protect players from wasting flags, because there is still a chance that these ships will not run into CVs in Randoms, even though it is a very small chance (20% on Tier VIII, maybe 35% on Tier X). However, WG does not even recommend running the AA flag on all aircraft carriers themselves, even though per the matchmaking rules, they have a 100% certainty of getting a CV on the enemy team. In a quick and small survey, the only ships I found that WG recommends using the AA signal on are German CVs.
  9. FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

    A proper introduction to a Soviet Cv....

    Best Conway impression ever.
  10. What do you want? A purely perfunctory effort at spreading more blatant lies, after they openly admitted so many times that AA is a mere placebo? That would just cost money, not make any.
  11. FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

    Combat Discipline: Disabling Friendly Fire

    The straw that broke the camel's back. More dumbing down, because there weren't enough "casual players" in the game already, apparently. Selling my accounts as soon as this goes live.
  12. FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

    Why is game play so different depending on battle type ?

    Ever notice how the bots in Co-Op are mostly totally dumb and rush headlong into the enemy? That of course also makes them super easy to hit. Real players dodge, which makes them much harder to hit, so casual players prefer to choose easier targets, even though it makes no tactical sense.
  13. FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor

    Can we have a few more minutes in Raptor Rescue?

    This might explain it.
  14. WG literally admitted in so many words AA is only there to make players feel better, not to actually do anything in the way of "preventing a strike". This means it makes very little sense to waste any ressources on it on most ships, other than those where enhanced AA is more of a side effect, like MBAAS. Neither the Dutch airstrike garbage nor the many other new idiotic premiums with airtrike capability will change that, but by then, they will also remove team damage, which will be the final straw to not just take a break for a patch or two but actually delete this game from my existence for good.
  15. More to the point, could we have an adult version of the girls from the Pin-up video? I mean the dumbing-down for profit's sake seems complete, the "casual players" have completely taken over... https://replayswows.com/replay/133333#stats so the rest of us needs a reason to hang around and WG need another avenue to further increase profits. Tiddies are the obvious way to go, it is a win-win if ever there was one.
×