Jump to content


Alpha Tester
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


About Gnomus

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Insignia
  1. Clan Base 2.0: WG favoring BIG clans again

    Small clans do have adequate prices. I will mark things down for you in form bonus/price so you can see how much "better" big clans can be and what it cost. Commander experience: Minor/small clans: +6%/3k Medium clans: +8%/13k Large clans: +10%/33k Combat experience: Minor clans: +2%/3k Small clans: +3% 10,5k Medium clans: +4%/26,5k Large clans: +5%/56,5k Free experience: Minor clans: +10%/3k Small clans: +15% 10,5k Medium clans: +20%/26,5k Large clans: +25%/56,5k Price of ships: Minor clans: -10%/3,5k Small clans: -12% 9,5k Medium clans: -14%/19,5k Large clans: -15%/39,5k Service Cost: Minor clans: -5%/2,8k Small clans: -10% 14,8k Medium clans: -12%/34,8k Large clans: -15%/84,8k Coal: Minor/Small clans: +5%/4k Medium Clans: +7%/ 24k Large Clans: +10%/124k Steel: Medium clans: +5%/60k Large clans: +7%/150k Super large clans: +10%/270k Small clans can get around half the bonuses for very cheap price. You need large player base if you are going for something like -3% extra service cost with 50k oil, and I'm not sure any large clan is touching that either. With coal small clans doesn't get punished. Having +5% with 4k while +7% cost 24k (doable for medium clans) and +10% is whopping 124k, so again not sure how many "large clan" is going to pay 100k oil for that extra 3%. Steel is little different, as first tier costs 60k (and 2nd and 3rd tier are almost untouchable to most clans, even the biggest). But then steel is resource only for competitive players (clan battles or ranked) and as others have pointed out there few percent is not going to mean much. As I see it small clans are getting very good deal with base 2.0. Of course they can't get everything same as big clans, but they can get most with much smaller work.
  2. New Arms Race Mode

    This seems fine addition to the game. Play meta is different, as you you can't count anymore on some "certainties" about camo or DD's not repairing hit points etc. I haven't played enough to say if this changes balance (too much), but at least it changes game style. If some radar CA or low camo BB have managed to get several camo buffs it can give you bad surprises. What WG messed up is that Arms Race is not progressing some missions. Now I need to decide if I want to progress TX special upgrade missions or play this new battle mode. If there is no good reason to exclude mode from missions then new modes should be added to old missions.
  3. Update 0.7.9 - General Feedback

    Do you mean your arsenal can't handle currencies of two events? Like others have pointed out, keeping tokens and buy option open for a week or until one more patch would alleviate all problems. There is no need to keep old currencies for long, but in current way you can lose (or rather changed to credits with bad ratio) all your tokens if you miss the last day for any reason. Like being forced to work overtime, having your kid get sick and spend night in hospital, having car broke down etc. Some times you plan to get permanent camo (200 tokens), but end up at 195 tokens before last evening and plan to get last missing on tokens on the last evening, but then real life interfere and you miss that day. Instead of getting Dasha and punch of flags with 195 tokens you end up with credits and all hard work wasted. Just few days grace period on spending tokens would cover most unexpected situations. For that you don't need to fill arsenal with tons of old tokens, just current tokens and tokens of last event. That should not be impossible task, compared to having unhappy customers and customer support handling tokens manually.
  4. British Destroyers

    This is (and already was on earlier similar missions) one of WG's bad jokes. Some get lucky and get T8 very fast others can even spend money on boxes and never get anything. As Vinyl pointed out, it is double stupid because they have blocked missions behind getting T7-8 DD. It is not so bad, if missions stay open after DD branch has been added and anyone can finish them, but if missions become unavailable after a week then it is very bad design. I have no idea why WG can't just give us ordinary missions to obtain T5-8 ships as they have done earlier. Then it would be up to working your way up, not getting (un)lucky.
  5. Suggestions thread

    First: Advance speed in WoWS is much higher than in WoT. You get both exp and credits faster than in WoT, so you need less battles to advance in tech tree. Add flags and camoes and speed of advancement is pretty high. Grind in WoT is much longer and harder in comparison. Last: I hope WG will not make battles any faster. I like slow battles where anticipating enemy movements and making long term tactical decisions are much more important than fast reflexes and good hand eye coordination. I liked WoT much more when it was not so fast paced and lethal as it is today. I understand that different people like different things, and I do not expect you to share my preferences. I just wanted to point out that some of us do like and enjoy longer and slower battles and prefer WoWS to WoT because of that.
  6. Demolition Expert underpower

    Hello @Xanta99 Thanks for calculations. There is still one major flaw. Having bigger fire change does not directly lead to more damage, at least not in linear way. Ship that is only shortly exposed and can either go behind cover or lose spot can use repair and remove fire. -> Not much damage done. Ship that is already burning will not get another burn (on same area) no matter how big your fire change is. -> Once ships is burning high burn change gives nothing extra. Fire damage can be repaired 100% (if given time) so it might give big numbers but do not necessary convert to performance in battle. Especially on high tiers where even cruisers have heals. Direct extra damage from increased RoF gives more reliable damage. Of course there is possible problems with damage saturation and penetration, but those doesn't generally seem to be the problem (at least not with IFHE). In addition direct damage can't be fully healed and being able to do more damage faster might mean enemy ship not escaping to heal or not being able to damage you while slowly burning down. On ships with already high fire change DE doesn't give much. Low fire change ships benefit more, but even there effective damage increase is much less than increase of fire change. TL:DR: 33% more fires doesn't mean 33% more (effective) damage when you include repair parties, ships already on fire and heals. Benefit from DE is much less than 33%.
  7. GO NAVY! Event

    Whole reward system was done badly. Instead of promoting thigh competition and going to help weaker team it just encourages to jump to winning team. Original reason to pick a one or the other side: - You like one teams permanent camo better. - You fancy Dash or Aliena enough to go for her team. - You like descrition of one team better than the other. With one team clearly more powerful than the other there is a big reason to stay on that team, or jump to it if you had picked the wrong team. Loyalty token business means that those aiming for permanent camoes has to stay in team, or change early and then stay on the team. Why go for the weaker side? There simply is no reason. You get extra box for changing side, but lose loyalty, and you miss the daily winning box. Bonus points for the team are just cosmetic and doesn't really help as FidelisRaven explained earlier: And reason it is just cosmetics lies here: Mainly: This multiplier only affects the points of the team - not the points you earned as an individual player! Had WG made that bonus influence players individual points there would be reason to change a team. Instead of "pick winning team for extra box" it would be down to thinking if grinding 750 points for 3 box and win box or perhaps change side to get some +25/50% bonus and get 4 boxes with 625/1000 points and possibly win box if your team got lucky. There should be some reason to change the team, _for the individual player_. Now there is none. Even with above change there still would be issue of loyalty tokens and them forcing people to stay in the team to get the permanents camo.
  8. What they failed was team bonus for weaker team. Currently it only gives extra +50/100% for the team points, but weaker team is still weaker. If they had made it so that weaker team bonus would affect your personal points (even if bonus was something smaller, +20/50%) we would see people jumping to weaker team because that would allow them to farm their personal 4 boxes in shorter time time.
  9. Thank you for your long post. I know that already, but as I wanted to keep post short I used points instead. Some of boundaries are arbitrary and subjective in nature and ships importance can be on different level to strict points. List was not meant to be 100% fit for everything list, but list showing that importance of ships is long continuum and not simple binary "was build / was not build". For example some unfinished ships like Graf Zeppelin is much more interesting than some late war destroyer that sailed few months "during the war" and never did see enemy. My main point was that you can't simply include every unfinished and planned ships as "just paper ship" (or you can for your self, but do not expect everyone else to think the same) and even constructed ships that sailed have different values depending on ships history. Something almost finished like said Graf Zeppelin or never constructed ships like Montana are quite different from some "plans" like H44 even if all were never finished. Warspite with it's long history of battles during both World Wars has more value than Kutuzov/Sverdlov even if both were constructed and sailed. At least for me.
  10. That's all fine. Just acknowledge that some other people do separate concept study from partially build ship. For me it is: 1. Ships that sailed with distinguished combat service. 2. Ships that sailed and participated in war. 3. Ships that sailed (Swedish, Spanish, post war etc. with no combat history). 4. Ships that were under construction, but not finished. 5. Ships that were planned and authorized, but never started. 6. Ships that were planned but not authorized (like turned down plans etc.). 7. Ships that were just design study, but not meant to be build. 8. Napking corner drawings. 9. WG fantasy department ships. And add in somewhere there WG implausible mutation fantasy upgrades on real existing ships. For me ships under construction are much more "real" than some theoretical design study. And that would be it.
  11. Try your luck Supercontainers

    If WG wanted they could balance randomness. Lets say base change for super container is 1%, then increase it by 0.1% or 0.05% or what ever every time player gets normal container. When super container emerges drop the bonus and start from base change again. This would make is so that everyone will get occasional super container after enough bad luck. Of course this all is "If WG wanted".... They seems to be fond of randomness on lot of things, like special missions to get ships. :(
  12. "Mighty massachusetts"

    Wouldn't work, as you can have only one individual ship in port. To do that you need something like ARP Kongoes, which are identical in performance, but game handles them as separate ships. The reason WG uses "You can only buy one" is failures on WoT side. There they did some nice special offer bundles that could be used to buy "gold" at much cheaper price than buying gold directly. This was possible because compensation for _bought_ duplicate tank/ships is given in gold/duploons (if you receive tank/ship as a reward it is compensated in credits). Of course some people used that loop hole to stack up gold in massive amounts. By limiting special offer to "only once" people can't abuse duploon compensation to get cheap duploons, or they can do it only once if they already had said ship in port.
  13. New American Campaign

    I do. This is not about not getting missions done. This is about badly designed tasks. If task is difficult, but doesn't restrict (too much) ships you can use. You can leave it active and get it done while playing like you would play anyway. This is not a problem. If task is difficult, but in form "do in a single battle", then you can try it as much as you want, and then pick some other task when you don't feel like trying it anymore. And then you can repick that same task when there is nothing else to do or you want to actively try it again. This is not a problem. Having combination of a difficult task, that is highly restrictive on ships (restricted tiers AND restricted nation AND restricted class) and you need to do it several times is just bad task design. You either need to keep grinding for a long time using those restricted ships only, or you play all nations and all classes and then it takes ages to get done as only small portion battles are suitable for the task. Or you can just cancel task and lose all progress you have managed to get. This is just bad design. Either such tasks should be removed or changed. Alternatively WG could make an option to keep progress saved if/when you pick another task. So if you had achieved 2/6 and pick another task your original task wont progress, but when you repick it you continue from 2/6 and not from 0/6.
  14. New American Campaign

    Please WG, reconsider mission objectives and restrictions. Do not combine difficult "gates" to difficult objectives. Prime example: Mission 3 Task 9: - Tier IX-X, so little more restricted than normal. - Battleship or cruiser, ok half the classes, but still restricts what you can play. - US only. This is pretty hard restriction. -> When you combine these all there is only few ships you can use. If mission objective was something not too hard this would not be so bad, but objective here is awful. Objective: High caliber or Confederate, so things that are not too easy to get and can be impossible to achieve depending on how battle progress. And of course it is not just getting Confederate or High caliber, but getting 6 of them. Combining hard restrictions to difficult objective that you need to do several times should never be done. It means that ether people need to play a lot of battles on very restricted choice of ships (this is not fun and/or make people play stupidly because they only try to get achievements) or they keep on playing normally, but then such mission is blocking their task choices (unless you want to cancel such mission when you have 3-4 / 6 done). Difficult objectives on single battle can at least be canceled while doing some other task meanwhile, so they are not so stressful and not leading to such a task oriented stupid play. Even Mission 3 Task 3 is little bad. Getting 50 citadel hits with T8+ US ships, because it forces to play only US ships for quite a long time or keeping the task unusable while playing something else. Instead making 50 (or even 100) citadel hits with 8+ tiers ships with no nation restriction would be much better. Difference is that current mission restricts what can be played while not having a national restriction would allow to just play and get task done at some point. TLDR: Think about balance between what ships can be used, what are task objectives and how many times it needs to be repeated. When usable ships are highly restricted then task objective should not be too difficult and at least it should not be in format "do 6 times".
  15. Suggestions thread

    It would be nice if all or nothing systems were changed. Mainly: 1. Torpedo damage to saturated area. Instead of 0 damage it should be something like 5-10%. Call it shock damage to still intact parts of hull or what ever, but some damage should go through so ships can't take 5+ torpedoes with no damage. 2. Repair of fire and flood (and is light damage 100% also?) damage should not be 100%, but something like 90-95% so some of damage would stuck even when repaired. Those would take worst out of extreme results rewarding hitting and making some damage, but not making torps and fire too powerful.