Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About snst

  • Rank
    Lieutenant (junior grade)
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. snst

    CV Rework

    I only see two scenarios: More CVs per side and loadout change. More CVs is never a thing. Put a poll asking whether people would like more CVs in a match and I am 100% sure majority would have voted 'no'. There is already flexibility given three loadouts. If anything, have WG force one type of loadout. Either AS (not a single attack squadron) or strike (not a single fighter squadron). If CVs have only AS loadout, they can play their little merry game of shooting planes down without affecting the gameplay of 20-22 players, and if the players are decent enough they will help scout enemy boats. If CVs have only strike loadout, they can play their little merry game of farming damage the fastest. Honestly you don't have to change anything about the mechanics of CV. The main problem is the Matchmaker, because it allows one-sided tryhard CV division.
  2. snst

    CV Rework

    When you thought having a potato CV teammate vs a unicum CV enemy player is bad enough, now you get 4 potatoes CV teammates vs 4 unicum CV enemy players!
  3. snst

    ASIA Q&A, round 1

    Will you consider implementing separate Random Battles; Solo Queue a.k.a Random Battles without divisions and Div Queue a.k.a. Random Battles with divisions only? 1) Newcomers will not face sealclubbing divisions so they will find their gameplay more comfortable. 2) Players in division will likely find their gameplay more exciting, strategic and tactical because these players tend to be more cooperative and coordinated. So, essentially a Team Battle but a 12v12 variant of it.
  4. snst

    German BB dispersion: rant warning

    It's fine as it is right now. This is an arcade-styled game with a dose of RNG in it.
  5. snst

    Enable a no CV option already for queing

    No CV queue is too drastic. Something like a solo queue would be better, because nothing is more fun than you getting a solo queued CV teammate while the enemy CV brings 2 +1 tier div mates into the game.
  6. snst

    Koreans migrating into ASIA?

    Pretty sure everyone appreciates more ▯▯▯▯▯ in-game.
  7. snst

    How Fare the IJN DDs?

    Competent players can do well in IJN DDs, but put the same player onto USN or VMF DDs they will do even better.
  8. snst

    ARP Boats + Ranked

    The best player in Ranked for SEA that has attained Rank 1 has 69.49% WR, and almost exclusively plays DD, and does that in only 118 battles. What this means that for most of the games that he was on the losing side, he was top of his team and therefore didn't lose his stars. Just the simple act of capping a point provides a nice amount of base XP, and is why DDs are so prevalent in Ranked because you want to 1) win 2) be top of the team if you ever lose And just bringing DD enables both. You will almost never see a CA/BB pushing into/capping points, much less a CV. Just imagine how a player that mains CV suffer in Ranked, because he WILL lose a star if he loses. WG needs to re-look into the mechanism of rewarding XP in Ranked, else we should expect to see something like this much more often:
  9. snst

    U ask, we Talk

    BaBBy here, started playing in OBT. Question: Have you considered doing mirror matching for DDs just like how CVs are currently matched against each other i.e. same tier matching, maximum 3 DDs per side (currently 2 CVs per side)?
  10. I don't have photographic memory, but anyway it doesn't look like it goes into double digit territory whenever I queue high tier. Queuing time is a no-issue during primetime hours even with CVs.
  11. More often than not, the Matchmaker does not consistently follow its 'mirrored ship' mechanism. I believe another mechanism is taking priority, then again, I am not discussing about the Matchmaker. If my suggestion is followed, you can have 3 DDs per team (2 Kagero and 1 Shimakaze), since there is a total of 3 Shimakazes, 4 Kageros and 1 Benson. The remaining Shimakaze and Benson can be matchmaked into another game session.
  12. I have tested the new torp options in the test server, and honestly they feel underwhelming. I believe most players will likely stick to the default 20km torps because they enable what Shima does best: area denial. The new torps will likely be useful in scenarios similarly found in Ranked Battle. DDs' waiting time in queue is comparatively shorter than CVs though.
  13. Take a look at this. Let's not talk about the matchmaking because we do know it sometimes give balanced matchmaking sessions with its patented algorithm. I wanted to talk about DDs in this particular game session. As you can see, we have a combination of 4 Kageros + 1 Shimakaze on the opposing side. It's a Standard game mode on Hotspot, meaning just base capping and team being split at the very start of the game. As you know, high-tier IJN DDs excel in area denial, which is probably why those that spawned away from the team's cap point decided to sail towards the base cap (typically most games have that side of the team push towards enemy base). Now here comes the 'fun' part. The middle of the map is pretty open, and it suits torp spam for area denial. How nice for a 4+1 IJN DD combo right? The result is what you see above. Will the outcome of the game be different if they pushed towards the enemy base instead? Possible, but highly unlikely. Now back to DDs. Is it so difficult to restrict the number of DDs per team? CVs are being restricted to mirror matchup by tier and a maximum of two per team. I don't think it's impossible to implement the same for DDs. I'm suggesting the following: Maximum 3 DDs per team. In Domination mode, there are three cap points available, so it is only logical to have at least 3 DDs to contest cap points. You can still fill up a Division of 3 DDs without any problems. Mirrored tier. A Shima will always have to face another Shima or Gearing or Khabarovsk Mirrored number of DDs on the other team. Because 5 > 2+1 Feel free to give your opinions.