Jump to content

Widar_Thule

Players
  • Content Сount

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan

    [BTS]

About Widar_Thule

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

543 profile views
  1. Widar_Thule

    P. E. Friedrich is awesome, thank you WG

    I bought the PRINZ EITEL FRIEDRICH (PEF for short) for about 26 Euro on the day the ship came out. What little there was in the form of up to date reviews was rather limited and for 26 Euros a paying customer should reasonably expect a decent competitive and fun to play ship no matter what is said in any user (community contributor) made review 1+ weeks after release of a ship. All half-way intelligent people that can still think for themselves know: We the players have NO WAY of checking the REAL STATISTICS of WOWS, we the players have NO half-way reliable let alone indisputably reliable access to WOWS statistics and thus WOWS representatives can claim just anything about WOWS that they want based on "WOWS statistics" since we the players have no reliable way of checking any statement based on "WOWS statistics". As such bringing "WOWS statistics" as a justification into an argument is a bit like bringing "god" into an argument. There is no reliable way of checking anything about either "god" or "WOWS statistics", instead one has to accept them on "blind faith" and we all have seen were "blind faith" has led to the past few thousand years, have we not. I regret to have to point this out: the above statement that "PEF is doing very well statistically" is a baseless, ridiculous non-argument that is constantly brought forward by WOWS representatives year-in-year-out to consistently justify basically anything which is seriously wrong in the WOWS game and/or ignore repeated serious and obvious correct player and community contributor feedback about WOWS game related topics. Since that "WOWS statistics" non-argument is constantly brought forward year-in-year-out it led me to make this my signature on this forum a year or so ago: WOWS Developers seem to place full confidence in their "statistics" approach to ship design and "balancing". Which reminds me of… "A statistician waded fully confident through a river that was on average one meter deep. He drowned." - Godfried Bomans and there is more where that came from: “I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself.” - Winston Churchill and there is more like that: Statistics is the art of never having to say you're wrong. Numbers are like people; torture them enough and they'll tell you anything Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital. Like I wrote earlier about the PRINZ EITEL FRIEDRICH (PEF)and DUKE OF YORK (DOY) on this forum: - the PEF and DOY are really mediocre ships at best to really bad ships at worst, they are not fun to play and a disgrace for the 26 respectively 36 Euro which they cost. There can be NO justification whatsoever for keeping both PEF and DOY in their current state especially since they cost real world money and players paid real world money for them. I do not care about "free to earn", "steel" or whatever other excuse is offered for the current state in which PEF and DOY are: for real world EUROs I want a competitive and fun to play ship not the unmitigated mediocre disasters that the current PEF and DOY are! When I use PEF and DOY in WOWS they are about as much fun as getting a root canal treatment and when I face them as opponents in a match I cannot help but laugh at their consistent poor performance in-game in the hands of the vast majority of players that I have seen using them. Like the saying goes: "when ten people tell you that you are drunk, you better lie down". And concerning the PEF and DOY it is not ten people telling you at WOWS how mediocre and basically bad the PEF and DOY are, it is dozens of paying customers and even your own community contributors telling you! Now mind you, this post and many others like it concerning the PEF and DOY are written by your fans, by your paying customers, by people that want to enjoy your game and expect ships like the DOY and PEF to be fun and competitive and value for their (real world) money. Of course the PEF consensus player and community contributor feedback can continue to be ignored by those responsible for the PEF at WOWS, like was done with the DOY consensus player and community contributor feedback in 2018. But like I wrote earlier: that attitude is penny wise but pound foolish. The result of the state in which DOY was kept in 2018 led me for example to wait for reviews and study the in-game performance in the hands of the majority of players of new premium ships in 2018 and as a result I did not buy HOOD, VANGUARD and ROMA (ships that I would certainly have otherwise bought) to name but three examples. So that leaves me with this ostrich-with-head-in-the-sand image to sum up the attitude that "statistically everything is fine" WOWS representative statements invoke when they are given as a response to the majority consensus player-feedback concerning the mediocre-to-bad DOY and PEF:
  2. Widar_Thule

    Don’t buy PEF - she sucks hard

    When ten people tell you that you are drunk, you better lie down. The consensus of opinion of players that bought the PEF and DOY and those that face them in game is that the ships are mediocre to say the least. If WOWS is paying you to write this stuff on their behalf then they are paying you too much for too obvious, and if they are not you are wasting your time convincing no one that owns these mediocre ships or faces them in game.
  3. Widar_Thule

    WOWS PC 2019 Legendary Commanders

    A problem might be that the family of these naval officers will have to give permission to WOWS for using the name and image of their ancestor. There currently already is a real world British naval officer in WOWS: William Tennant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tennant_(Royal_Navy_officer) His nickname was "Dunkirk Joe". It is safe to assume that his family did not give permission for him to be used in WOWS so instead only his image made it into the game and the fake name of "Jack Dunkirk" was given to him since he relegated to the status of Unique Commander in WOWS instead of Legendary Commander.
  4. Widar_Thule

    WOWS PC 2019 Legendary Commanders

    You missed the point completely. First of all WOWS PC and WOWS Xbox/PS both make use of the same resources as you can hear from SUB OCTAVIAN in the second video I linked, but more importantly the resources (the artwork for the commanders) already exists. The commanders in WOWS are simply put images with a name and some characteristics. It is not rocket science to add them in WOWS PC since the artwork is already complete and adding a commander is as easy for WOWS development as adding the 1500 doubloon unique commanders.. Since the six new commanders are already made I would like to see them also added to WOWS PC as well since adding them really is as minor as adding the 1500 doubloon unique commanders that you can currently buy in the arsenal. Adding the six new commanders at the current rate of 1x Legendary Commander per year would take six years, which is rather absurd for something that already exists. I assume WOWS PC might have a campaign for "Maximillian von Spee" like was done for Yamamoto and Halsey but if we have to wait for six (!) such campaigns at the going rate of 1x per year then things are getting more than a little ridiculous, especially since WOWS Legends will have all eight of these Legendary Commanders available at launch.
  5. Widar_Thule

    Don’t buy PEF - she sucks hard

    I bought the PRINZ EITEL FRIEDRICH (PEF for short) for about 26 Euro when the ship came out. What little there was in the form of up to date reviews was rather limited and for 26 Euros a paying customer can expect a decent competitive and fun to play ship no matter what is said in a user made review. After many matches in the ship and studying the performance of others in the PEF in matches I can only agree with what many players that also bought the PEF have written about the PEF in this forum topic. 1. The PEF is both generally bad/weak and unremarkable across the board. 2. The PEF is not fun to play at all. 3. The PEF in WOWS is rated as a battleship but in that category the ship is significantly weaker than other battleships. 4. The PEF has no remarkable redeeming characteristic to make up for its mediocrity. 5. The PEF can barely make a decent consistent performance in Tier 6 matches and even less so at Tier 7+. I do not care if people can "win" the PEF for free in WOWS. I paid 26 Euro for it and for that price a paying customer reasonably can expect to get at least a decent product. The PEF is not only NOT worth the money it is simply speaking a disgracefully weak product whose only redeeming quality is that the ship 3-D model is nice and well made. The in-game performance of the PEF however is bad to say the least compared to other Tier 6 battleships and especially so when the PEF is involved in Tier 7+ matches. I did not buy the DUKE OF YORK (DOY) for 36 Euro but I know people that did. The DOY was another weak product for even more money. I do not care if the DOY and PEF can be won by playing matches in addition to being bought for real world money. When you offer a ship for real world money it has to be made to be worth the money. When WOWS sells a ship for real world money the ship should be fun to play, competitive and most of all not weaker than other ships in the same category and tier. Whoever takes notes of the customer remarks/feedback in this topic for WOWS might consider this feedback irrelevant because whoever bought DOY or PEF already were "foolish" enough to spend their money on the ships so it is "too late" for them to do anything about it. That however is penny wise but pound foolish because the end result of buying a product like the PEF is that I am very unlikely to make any further purchases of ships due to this experience. I bought the PEF on good faith in your flagship December 2018 product, for other products that I wanted to buy I took a longer time till reviews and my own in-game experience versus some ships were clear. The result of that attitude was that I did not buy for example the following ships which I otherwise would have bought: ROMA, HOOD, DUKE OF YORK, VANGUARD. So if you want to keep sales of Premium ship sales low then by all means keep PEF and DOY like they are now. If you want to sell more premium ships however than improve both PEF and DOY to make the ships both competitive and remarkable and WORTH THE MONEY!
  6. Widar_Thule

    WOWS PC 2019 Legendary Commanders

    Several commanders have been announced for WOWS Legends, the Xbox One and PS4 version of WOWS, as can be seen at 0:09 minutes in this video: Based on that link the WOWS artwork for these Commanders has already been completed: USA William Sims Norman Scott William Halsey (already included in WOWS PC) JAPAN Togo Heihachiro Raizo Tanaka Isoroku Yamamoto (already included in WOWS PC) POLAND Jerzy Swirski GERMANY Maximillian von Spee The above mentioned eight WOWS Legends (Xbox One, PS4) commanders are all based on real world naval officers, six of them are not currently available in WOWS PC. In WOWS PC the current two Legendary Commanders Yamamoto and Halsey are also based on real world naval officers and the WOWS PC Unique Commanders (of which there are currently ten) are not. Generally speaking the WOWS PC Legendary Commanders offer more interesting special/bonus features than the WOWS PC Unique Commanders. It would be nice if we could get some more information from the side of WOWS representatives when WOWS PC will also get the above mentioned six new Legendary Commanders, hopefully that will be in early 2019. Since WOWS Legends (Xbox One, PS4) will go live in 2019 with these eight Legendary Commanders it would make sense to also add the above mentioned six new Legendary Commanders to WOWS PC in 2019 to keep things fair. Especially if we take the statement given at 1:32 minutes in this video at face value: "WOWS PC along with you guys, our players, is the most valuable thing, for many of us and for the studio in general." - Philip "SUB_OCTAVIAN" Molodkovets
  7. Widar_Thule

    The state of CVs - why the rework is necessary

    Yes indeed. Just for fun: In percentages those 18x Bombers were 37.5% of the total offensive air power of my Carrier and the 12x Fighters were 50% of the total defensive air power of my Carrier. I can just image the endless complaint topics on this forum if any other ship class in WOWS (Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships) would PERMANENTLY lose 37.5% of their offensive power in a mere +/- 4 seconds without having ANY way to recover from that for the whole duration of a +/- 20-minute match. Making up till 3x such attacks against an AA setup high Tier Battleship or a "Defensive AA Fire" Cruiser (the AA setup only becomes apparent in a match when Aircraft actually attack the ship, so when it is already too late to disengage for most Carrier players) will let most Carriers in WOWS lose 100% of their offensive power in a match, effectively turning them into match spectators. That plays a key role in new players quitting Carriers for sure. Fully Passive AI-controlled AA that can fully negate and even eliminate the offensive power of a human player is apparently part of WOWS being "fun and engaging". A week or so ago in an EPICENTER type random match I watched some poor sod in a SHOKAKU make 3x Air Attacks on what appeared to be a solitary Tier 8 Battleship. He did not realize that near that Battleship there was a MINOTAUR hiding in a smoke screen near some islands since he certainly could not spot the MINOTAUR. His first Air attack cost him all his Bombers to that hidden MINOTAUR for no positive result whatsoever. Then he came in for a second Air Attack which again cost him all his Bombers to that hidden MINOTAUR for no positive result. So when he was making his second Air Attack I decided to warn him in chat by asking him how flying inside the AA range of a hidden enemy MINOTAUR was working out for him. Apparently the SHOKAKU Commander did not take the hint (or had the text chat turned off) and he sent in his third and last Air Attack which again cost him all his Bombers to the hidden MINOTAUR for no positive result. I doubt the MINOTAUR Commander even noticed the SHOKAKU Air attacks, he was too busy sinking enemy ships while his passive AI-controlled AA was slaughtering the poor human controlled SHOKAKU Bombers. When I checked the SHOKAKU Commander his stats I found that he was a fairly new Carrier player in WOWS that had no doubt invested a lot of time - and maybe even money - to get his Tier 8 Carrier. I certainly cannot blame him for not knowing about the existence of invisible super AA ships such as the MINOTAUR. Examples such as these no doubt play a large role in new players quitting to play Carriers. And that is solely a result of how WOWS decision makers have implemented and expanded AA, especially at high Tiers, and even more importantly of not "learning/teaching" new Carrier players what they have to know and master at each key Tier (Tier 4, 6, 8, 10). The SHOKAKU Commander in the example is just another case that highlights that WOWS has never introduced a mechanism to "educate" and "teach" new Carrier players the key Carrier play concepts which highly influence and even dominate Carrier play at each respective Tier. If new Carrier players are not "taught" and "learned" Carrier game play concepts via the usual (pavlovian) "action-reward" mechanism that is used in WOWS for basically everything EXCEPT Carriers, then they cannot blame the new Carrier players for not "learning" and thus not "staying" in the game. A old Roman saying sums it up best: "Eventus stultorum magister est" (Experience is the teacher of fools) And since many Carrier players do not want to repeatedly be made a fool of when using a Carrier, like that SHOKAKU Commander I mentioned in the above example, they just quit WOWS and move on to other games. With the exception of the hardcore Carrier Commanders that have learned through experience. It will be interesting to see if the hardcore Carrier Commanders will stick around to play Carriers when the "long term" dumbed down XBOX/PS4 Controller "Carrier rework" play is finally introduced in WOWS.
  8. Widar_Thule

    The state of CVs - why the rework is necessary

    Well I remember once running into a French Tier 9 Battleship ALSACE that was setup for AA, the effects of which surprised me so much that I kept a screenshot of the after action report and watched the replay of the match afterwards. That ALSACE shot down 30x of my Tier 7 Hit Point level GRAF ZEPPELIN Aircraft. Which was kind of remarkable because I rarely - if ever for that matter - lose 30x Aircraft to the AA of a SINGLE enemy ship even in Tier 10 matches. The 30x Aircraft lost to the ALSACE breaks down as follows: I lost 12x Me 109 T-1 Fighters that were strafing enemy Aircraft at the very EDGE of the ALSACE max. AA range. The 12x Me 109 T-1 Fighters were all shot down in about 1-2 seconds before they were able to fully fly out of the max. AA range of the ALSACE. At that time I actually thought the 12x Me 109 had been shot down by an enemy MINOTAUR which was behind the ALSACE. The MINOTAUR was about +/- 2 Quadrants away from the Me 109 T-1 Fighters. The MINOTAUR at that range normally does not shoot 12x Me 109 T-1 Fighters down in 1-2 seconds when they are flying away from her, but at the time I thought it might have been possible if the MINOTAUR had an AA setup and manually targeted the Me 109 T-1 Fighters. Then after the enemy MINOTAUR moved to another part of the map I sent 3x full strength Dive Bomber Squadrons with 18x Ju 87 C-1 Dive Bombers to that ALSACE which was by then completely solitary and stationary in capture point A between two islands (sleeping giant map). To my surprise the ALSACE shot down all 18x of the Ju 87 C-1 Dive Bombers in a few seconds and only 1x Dive Bomber Squadron survived long enough to score 6x AP Bomb hits on the stationary ALSACE for a total of 19,489 damage. Needless to say I avoided getting anywhere near that ALSACE with Aircraft for the rest of the match. Watching the replay of that match made clear that the enemy MINOTAUR had in fact been too far away to use her AA against my Aircraft and she thus had never fired on any of those 30x Aircraft that the enemy ALSACE had shot down, so the 30x Aircraft were all lost solely to the AA of the ALSACE in just a few seconds. To be fair, that is the only time that I can remember running into a French high Tier Battleship that was using an AA setup.
  9. Widar_Thule

    The state of CVs - why the rework is necessary

    While your topic is interesting, there have been many others like it on the forum the past few years. From what I glanced you have played about 27x or so random matches in a Tier 10 Carrier, less than 100 random matches in a Tier 9 and Tier 8 Carrier and less than 500 Carrier random matches in total. So your point of view is probably closer to an opponent than a proponent of Carrier play in WOWS. By contrast I have played about 1500+ in Tier 8 Carrier random matches alone last time I checked. And that is still nothing compared to several forum members that have played well over 10,000 Carrier random matches. In all Carrier play is not that bad in WOWS, it is actually quite fun depending on the setup of the match (enemy Carrier Commander skill, enemy Carrier flight mode setup), but some serious issues could and should be addressed to make Carrier play in WOWS better. A more recent forum topic on the subject of Carriers in WOWS - albeit in a different presentation and format than your topic - for example is the one I recently posted on both the EU and NA WOWS forums: In my Carrier topic I have listed 16 of the major Carrier related issues which most Carrier proponents and opponents can more or less agree upon, they are based on both my own observation and what I have read over the past 12 or so months on the North American and European Union WOWS forums concerning Carriers. The only thing I have left out in my Carrier topic is a description of the Carrier User Interface bugs which could easily have been fixed if the decision makers at WOWS had wanted to do so in the past few years. The 16 solutions that I mention in my topic could easily been implemented the past few years by the decision makers at WOWS. And they could still do that even now. But the decision makers at WOWS for the past 2 years have refused to even fix the Carrier User Interface bugs, let alone do anything serious to promote and improve Carrier play in WOWS. One of the key (pavlovian) mechanisms in WOWS is enticing players to "do" something for a "reward". This comes in the form of unlockable commanders, missions, campaigns, rewards etc. etc. You only need to take ONE look at the Carrier related unlockable commanders, rewards, missions, campaigns, etcetera: there virtually are none! That means the decision makers in WOWS are not interested in promoting Carrier play, not interested in educating the Carrier player base and not interested in generally supporting Carrier play in WOWS. The reason for that MIGHT be that the WOWS decision makers consider that their WOWS main player base is mostly interested in "pew pew" cannon play instead of Carriers, because Carriers require a different mindset and skill set. Whatever the real reason for it is, it is a fact that the WOWS decision makers have for the past 2 years made no real effort to promote and improve Carrier play in WOWS. One of the worst issues affecting play balance between Carrier Commanders is that most Carrier Commanders in WOWS do not use Aircraft manual attack. The majority of Carrier Commanders that I have met in matches still have not learned and mastered Aircraft manual attack (even at Tier 8 and up) and the reason for that is that players are not "nudged" or "coached" in WOWS to learn and perfect the Aircraft manual attack. Like I stated before on the forum: "if the learner has not learned, the teacher has not taught". And there lies a major Carrier related issue in itself. What could the decision makers at WOWS have done to "educate" the player base concerning Carriers, for example to close the gap between Carrier Players that use Aircraft manual attack ("strafing", etc.) and those that do not? The issue of Aircraft manual attacks alone separates the new or novice Carrier Commander from the skilled Carrier Commander and it leads to highly unbalanced combat between novice versus skilled Carrier Commanders. I gave one quite possible solution example for "educating the player base" in my Carrier topic which I will repeat here: PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION With such a solution it is highly probable that most of the player base (even the ones that only like to use Battleships) would give those Carrier missions a try to get the 1,000 Golden Doubloons while Carrier enthusiasts might be more interested in getting the LA FAYETTE which would "nudge" or "coach" them to learn and master Aircraft manual attacks. In any event players that would try out these missions would be enticed to learn and perfect the use of manual attacks ("strafing" etc.) or at the very least get an understanding of them. But NOTHING like this has EVER been done to my knowledge. WOWS decision makers are fine with having the majority of players having no understanding of Aircraft manual attacks, their pros and cons and their effectiveness. And that is just one major example of what basically is disinterest for Carriers by the WOWS decision makers. Many PC Carrier players, including me, have stated it: the Carrier Rework that is being worked on now is likely only being done to be able to port WOWS to consoles (XBOX, PS4). In other words, WOWS likely needs to be dumbed down to a level that allows it to be played on console with a controller. So the less mouse and keyboard input required the better for this purpose and only from that perspective. So the likely goal is NOT to improve WOWS Carrier play and it is also NOT to get MORE players to use Carriers in WOWS. The likely goal of the "long term" Carrier rework is to keep Carriers in WOWS in a fairly unattractive play state but playable with a controller instead. What the WOWS decision makers have made clear in the past 2 years is that Carriers are not really desired in WOWS, they are tolerated but the Carrier game play is kept overall unattractive (including keeping major Carrier User Interface bugs in place) to make sure that the Carrier player base remains small AND that the main WOWS target audience - the "pew pew" cannon interested player base - keeps playing WOWS in large numbers. Some examples of what can likely be expected from the "long term" solution "dumbed down" WOWS Carrier play which will allow WOWS Carriers to be played with a controller on XBOX/PS4 instead of a mouse and keyboard can be glanced from what has been done in other games. These two videos for example.
  10. Widar_Thule

    Suggestions thread

    Introduction This post not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION
  11. Introduction This topic is entered in the game play section of the forum because it not only concerns Aircraft Carrier game play but overall game play in WOWS. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" has been mentioned on and off over the past two years. During that time the current state of affairs of Aircraft Carriers in WOWS has not been significantly altered by meaningful changes let alone improvements. The only two noteworthy changes with regard to Carriers that have been implemented are (1) the new Flight Modes of the USA Carriers that was introduced at the end of 2017 and (2) the vastly increased number of new ships with very powerful Anti-Aircraft setups and/or Defensive Fire AA (for example ALABAMA, MASSACHUSETTS and the five new USA light cruisers). As a result there remains a virtual absence of meaningful WOWS Carrier changes to address some of the major Carrier related issues. The vaunted WOWS "Carrier rework" will in all probability not be implemented until somewhere around late 2019 at best, in other words it is a long term event. In order to improve the Carrier game play that currently exists in the short and medium term, that is in 2018-2019, some plausible solutions can be proposed and implemented to address the most serious issues for the benefit of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers in WOWS. This topic therefore aims to offers such possible and plausible solutions for the 2018-2019 short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The solutions proposed are intended to be ones that can/should be fairly easily implemented by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and all need to lie within the framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. In other words, the solutions proposed in this topic are NOT intended as radical solutions which are a full departure of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. Instead the solutions proposed want to build on the strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. The Current Carrier Related Major Issues Proposed Short and Medium Term Carrier related Solutions The individual solutions proposed in this section are to be regarded as possible solutions for the short to medium term to improve Carrier game play from the perspective of both the opponents and proponents of Carriers. The idea is to offer solutions that should be fairly easily to implement by WOWS Developers with a minimum of effort and that lie within the overall framework of the current Carrier and general WOWS game play and game play mechanisms. As such these solutions are intended to build on the existing strengths and possibilities of the current WOWS Carrier game play and current overall WOWS game play. SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative A) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative B) FIGHTER SOLUTION (Alternative C) INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION DEFENSIVE AA FIRE SOLUTION DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION CRUISER AND BATTLESHIP PROTECTION SOLUTION UNIQUE AND LEGENDARY COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 1 SOLUTION COMMANDER CARRIER SKILL LEVEL 2 SOLUTION PLAYER BASE EDUCATION SOLUTION TIER 5 CARRIER SOLUTION CARRIER-AA DIVISION SOLUTION NON-USA BATTLESHIP AP BOMB VULNERABILITY SOLUTION
  12. Update. @TheKingOfUm @Tuccy @MedvedevTD @IsamuKondera Thanks to all of you for your help! Thanks to you I have found most of the texture files that I was looking for. (1) Thanks to @MedvedevTD his response I now know where to find the green favourite ship bar texture. I now only have to find out how to actually edit that service_lib.swf file. (2) (3) (4) Thanks to @TheKingOfUm his response I have found all the "SNOWY", "CONGRATULATORY" and "TYPE 12" Camouflage Pattern gun turrets/superstructure texture files. I have now modded some of those gun turrets/superstructure texture files so these Camouflage Patterns look a bit more like authentic Camouflage Patterns. Some of them are used by other Camouflage Patterns as well so here and there one has to compromise when editing them. (5) Thanks to @IsamuKondera his comments I have found some of the texture files that are used for the Carrier Aircraft Icons during a WOWS match.I now only have to find out how to actually edit the.swf files. (6) @MedvedevTD I have found the file that contains the snow flake that is used in the Hamburg Harbour. The file is called "particles0.dds" and it is located in the folder "\particles\textures". The snow flake is in the top right corner of that file and I removed the snow flake texture from that file and as a result I do not have to look at snow flakes any more in the WOWS Hamburg Harbour. Having no snow is more appropriate during the summer! (ad 5) @MedvedevTD To answer your question: the Aircraft Icons I refer to are the Carrier Aircraft Icons at the bottom of the screen that appear during a match. They are used to indicate the ammunition status of the Squadrons of an Aircraft Carrier during a match. These Icons have Bullets, Bombs and Torpedoes which change from coloured "full" ones to empty "outline" ones when the ammunition is expended by the Squadron Aircraft during the match. Apparently there are two sets of those. One Carrier Aircraft set is used for the icons in the Harbour (those are in dds files and I had already found and modded them) and the other Carrier Aircraft set is used for the icons during a match (those apparently are in swf files). @MedvedevTD @Tuccy regarding the swf files I have a question: are players allowed to edit/mod the swf files? I seem to remember someone stating that editing those swf files was not allowed because it could be used for cheating. Is that right? If so then please let me know because then I will not do anything with those swf files. And if it is allowed to edit swf files, how do you at WOWS advise me to edit them? With what tools?
  13. @Tuccy @MrConway Could you please help me out here and ask someone from the WOWS Development team where to find the above mentioned files, specifically these files: (1) I am trying to find the file in that WOWS uses to indicate your main/favourite ship, the file should contain a green bar. I already found the file WOWS uses to indicate a unique commander, the file with the yellow bar. But I have had not luck finding the file with the green bar. Which file is it that contains the green bar that is used to indicate the main/favourite ship in the Graphical User Interface (GUI)? (2) ... (3) ... (4) ... (5) I am trying to find the files that are used for the Aircraft Icons during a WOWS match. I have found the ones that are used in port, but during a match WOWS uses different icons from the aircraft icons that are shown in port. (6) I am trying to find the file or files that contains the snow flake or snow flakes that are displayed in the Hamburg Harbour.
×