Jump to content

byungnam

Member
  • Content Сount

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2941

About byungnam

  • Rank
    Lieutenant (junior grade)
  • Insignia
  1. byungnam

    CV Rework : What do you want to see?

    I don't know whether my opinions are not even plausible, but I give some of my opinions here. Some of them are just my wishes 1. Change the dive bomber's bombing mechanism from RNG-based drop to a certain position (for example, a line or a cross-shape) while limiting only 3/4 of drops can be hit for a battleship even if the drop was perfect. 2. Change the torpedo bomber's suppressed bombing(spreading) mechanism from a wide fan-shape drop into a (non-suppressed) rectangular-shape drop but making each of torpedoes to head different random directions(+-30 degrees from its heading). 3. Change US carriers to have the same number of squadrons and the same number of planes in a squadron to that of IJN carriers or vice versa. 4. Change US carriers to have at least one torpedo bomber squadron for air superiority loadout. 5. Add recon planes to US air superiority loadout which have longer detecting range. 6. Make dive bombers do deal more damage directly, not by fires (or add AP shells for dive bombers). 7. Add a new ability for fighters to fire at an enemy ship while making the fighters more vulnerable to AA. 8. Add more torpedo bomber squadrons while making the torpedo bombers more vulnerable to AA. I think the current zero-range drop is not even realistic, but it is the only effective way to attack because of the accuracy. This is because the enemy ships can easily avoid the torpedoes when they are coming from a long distance. I want to change this mechanism to be more realistic. I want torpedo bombers drop their torpedoes far away from enemy ships which I say more realistic. For a compensation, CVs should have the more squadrons to make another shot at a predicted position. (Yes, this is just my wish, definitely)
  2. byungnam

    0.5.3 did not kill USN CVs

    +1 for this.
  3. byungnam

    This is not right.

    Yes, you can. I often do near 100k damage with my carriers and cruisers. I've already reached the 4th part of the mission, half completed, whereby I play 3-4 hours a day.
  4. byungnam

    How do I actually win a game?

    If you think you are doing good enough, then I think its time to wish that your team would be as good as yourself.
  5. byungnam

    Whats your average exp gain per battle?

    Damn... That should make this poll almost useless since the premium accounts would almost get more than 1200.
  6. byungnam

    Whats your average exp gain per battle?

    I wonder if the stats are affected by exp boostings such as flags, first win 1.5x, and premium accounts.
  7. byungnam

    Whats your average exp gain per battle?

    There are tons of dummy accounts and I just cannot get a statistically meaningful information. Or can you link the page for me?
  8. I've been thought unskilled players would gain exp below 700, the moderate and skilled player would gain more than 800, but recently, I think I might be wrong. I see some players even in high tier play bad, I mean, bad at decisions they make - i.e., leaving almost captured enemy base even if we are about to lose, cruisers leaving fleet even CVs or BBs request for AA support), but some of they have above 800 average exp gain per battle which confuses me. So... would you please vote? Edit: Please refer and vote the value shown in this page (official WoWS profile page)
  9. I myself say a moderate (or an expert) CV player, especially when I play with torp planes. See how much I deal with IJN CVs (tier 6 : ~0.4.1, tier 7 : 0.5.3~) with their high win rate. Is there anyone thinking the damages are from DBs? No, lol they are from TBs. I see the most ppl in the forum say that USN DBs now became much stronger and should be happy with them. But I still feel (from the ages ago) DBs are such a full of waste and I think ONLY DAMAGE BUFF for DBs is a freaking terrible idea. - I think they need a deterministic mechanism not RNG-based one. I've managed to do fine with my USN CVs with balanced (stock) layout because both upgrade layouts lack of TBs. But now, I am nearly forced to upgrade my flight control and either use fighters + DBs or 0/1 fighter + 1 TP + DBs, whichever I feel bad. So, I'm concerning I give up USN CV and switch to IJN. What a shame.
  10. I wonder WG ever catched the exact reason why USN CV uses stock loadout so much. I cannot assure, but as a tier 8 USN CV player myself, I assume it is just because the "upgraded" loadouts are such an extremism in their composition of squadrons - forcing players to lose either torps or fighters. I would have satisfied if USN CVs could select any balanced loadouts in one of their flight control research (like IJN CVs which I love to use). If Lex has any 2/1/1 loadout in research, it would be fine (at least, for me).
  11. So, still I see there is no number-, stat-based reason. huh?
  12. From 2/1/1 to 1/1/1, it became a stupidly large ranger. Was there any reason that WG removed 1 fighter squadron from Lex? I want numbers.
  13. byungnam

    Did Lex has removed its secondary turrets?

    Nvm. I saw Lex shot secondaries
  14. byungnam

    Did Lex has removed its secondary turrets?

    Enemy DD was on the right side of me.
  15. byungnam

    Did Lex has removed its secondary turrets?

    Maybe, but I don't think so.
×