G01ngToxicCommand0

The maps are generally not large enough for 15 ships in them and 12 ships is already stretching it; 8 ships would be a far better number compared to the current map sizes. The problem with divisions could also be solved by letting solo players only face other solo players and divisions only face other divisions.

It will not be possible to remove or even mitigate the passive/camping meta unless significant changes to core game mechanics are made which Wargaming will never do because they want the games to last no more than 20 minutes and preferably 10 minutes or less: If the passive/camping meta is to be removed or mitigated several things has to be implemented as below but not limited to: a) Ship survivability - gunnery mechanics Ship survivability will have to be increased by making it harder to hit targets, either by decreasing the map scaling from about 1:5 to 1:2 or 1:3 at most so that shell flight time is increased which will make it easier to dodge incoming fire or by introducing an artillery aiming mechanic that makes the process of acquring and shooting accurately at targets far slower and cumbersome than now, which will inevitable make it harder to hit fast moving ships. For example the proces of aiming could be: 1) Lock target with 'X' which will turn the turrets towards the bearing of the target while indicating the current range to the target and nothing else. 2) Manually elevate or depress guns to the desired range by using the Up/Down Arrows keys which will be locked untill the range is adjusted. 3) Manually traverse the guns to the desired deflection by using the Left/Right Arrows keys. The deflection should be locked until adjusted. 4) Fire and adjust by repeating steps 2-3. b) Ship survivability - torpedos Torpedos have to have IRL bounce angles so that combing the torpedos and having them bounce will be a viable tactic which will making it less lethal to push towards opposing DDs and torpedo armed cruisers and torpedo bombers. Other balance changes to torpedo mechanics would be needed of course such as detection range, damage and flooding probability now that they can be bounced for no damage. This would reward aggressive playstyles as torpedos coming directly at the bow can be rendered useless by skillful sailing. c) Ship survivability - smoke mechanics Changes to smoke mechanics will have to be made so that smoke is to be used primarily for defensivs purposes. Have every ship in the game have the possibility of laying down a smoke screen that extends from the rear half of the ship, which produce smoke over a period of 20s/the time it takes to be unspotted which each blob of smoke lasting 10s after being emitted. However it should not be possible to sit still and use it to cover in but only to run away from the enemy and cover the retreat. Number of charges TBD by testing results. Also the ability to shoot undetected from within smoke is to be limited to ships carrying a new equipment called 'Blind Fire Radar Mod 1 to Mod 2' which should be should be available from tier 6 on the 2nd slot from the left. This will give the user the ability to shoot from within smoke as per the current situation, however only at a max range of 8 to 10 km for Mod 1 and Mod 2 respectively. Implementation of Radar and Hydro Accoustic Sonar consumables on all classes of ships from tier 6 and up will be necessary to make it possible to self spot and use the Blind Fire Radar equipment. However this should be countered by a new consumable called 'Chaff And Sonic Countermeasures' which would cut the detection range of Radar and Hydro Accoustic Sonar by 50% Consumable slot placement TBD by testing results.

Great post. With regards to divsions I have thought long and hard over that subject and I have come to the conclusion that a 3 ship division has too high an influence on the battle's outcome whether the division is a unicum or ultrabad. If we compare the WoWS division with the WoT platoon it is clear that a 3 ship division has on paper a significantly higher influence than a 3 tank WoT platoon because a 3 ship division is 25% of the entire team whereas a 3 tank platoon is only 20% of the entire team. If the WoWS division was limited to 2 ships it would be 17% of the entire team which is closer to the 20% of a WoT platoon which has a better balance. Also taking WoT platoon mechanics in mind where arty can no longer play in a platoon perhaps it is time that carriers are prohibited from doing the same as the most influential and balance skewering division setup is a 3 ship division consisting of 1 CV, 1 BB and 1 DD and if the opposing CV is not in a similar division the battle's outcome is more or less decided before the actual battle starts. This would mitigate having a low skill/experience CV on one team vs a good one on the other as the good one will not be able to use division mates to absolutely rape the opposing team. In short; the game needs to limit the seal clubbing divisions so that more players can have a good time playing the game.

This is all you need to know:

I can't think of one reason not to recommend the Scharnhorst, it is simply the best premium ship for its tier you can buy for money while also having the most pleasurable gameplay experience.

Zwarte Piet? Crap aside it should use a lion as befitting a kingdom.

My eyes hurt...

All them gold teeth are heavy - hope she made it safe to Brazil, Chile or Argentina or perhaps even the secret Antarctica base.

I wouldn't have settled with a chatban, I would have gone for pink.

You are doing something wrong then

The french tech tree has the same point as all the rest, which is to grind it from tier 1 to tier 10 while being frustrated in every single battle?

Just give me a Ticonderoga CG with VLS, half SM-2 and half Harpoon/Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile and lets call it a deal.

Or adjust the XP and credits income for BBs so that they score full XP and credits for: - Inflicting damage on enemy BBs and CVs - Capping objectives and only 10% of the XP and credits income of the above when dealing damage to CA/CLs and DDs. This would give far less incentive to shoot at cruisers and destroyers as primarily shooting at them would mean that the battle ends with a credit loss and very few XP thus increasing the grind to the next tier, if using standard BBs. Targeting BBs primarily and helping capture the objectives would reward the BB player with suffcient XP and credits income to make it the only viable way to play battleships. It probably wont change a thing with regards to camping Kevins but at least it would punish them harder for doing so.

That nailed it spot on and there is really nothing that can effectively change that.

Is this what you have in mind? I've changed the colours of the permanent camo for the North Carolina in the camouflages.xml file so that every NC using permanent camo will look like this. Other types of camo could be modified similarily and if desireable make it one of the USN only types of camo look like this. I've attached some versions of the camouflages.xml where the differing USN credits only camos has Measure 21. First one is withe North Carolina's permanent camo in Measure 21 the other are the different USN types. Rename camouflages_typeX_measure_21.xml to camouflages.xml and place in current res mod subfolder. P.S. I do requests. USN measure 21.rar 109.21K USN measure 21.rar

How so? which mechanics would have to be changed? The game seems to be balanced better when there are no carriers around as that means that the non CV classes is in a better rock paper scissors balance. I can see if cruisers could get player controlled spotter planes but other than that the balance between the BB, CA/CL and DD classes seem to be in good enough balance that the game work as intended. And, you don't hear anyone complain ingame that there aren't CVs present, rather you hear players complaining when carriers are present.

But that distguishing feature did not exist IRL and if introduced would improve torpedo carrying cruisers' and destroyers' survivability a bit as most wont have to show broadside when firing their torps which is the major limiting factor when deciding to use torpedos or not. I really can't see why wargaming wants it to be almost suicidal to fire torps from most ships when spotted as the main gun firepower is so great that showing the broadside is an almost guaranteed one way ticket to the port.

The class will still have the same negative issues as arty in WoT, which is the ability to deal damage with impunity and without any real counter that threaten the carrier's survival. In online PvP gaming that kind of mechanic is a big no no unless respawns are available because it will only lead to frustration and toxicity amongs the players which will inevitable hurt the buttomline if too influential on the game experience. The worst experience a player can have in a MMO is the lack of agency and lack of counterplay against other players as that takes away the players' experience of having influence on the game's outcome, being able to show their worth and skill to themselves and others and reduces that player to being nothing more than a source of income for the players with the classes that has the above mentioned traits which no players want to play a game for. Translated to WoWS: Carriers only benefits the players using them while reducing the non cv players to be nothing more than something that the CV players takes a dump on while their victims can do nothing meaningful to defend themselves, during what can best be described as a violation of sort - this kind of experience is not what players in general are looking for in a MMO as no one wants to be subjected to this kind of abuse that brings pleasure and fun only to the perpetrators of the violation that an arty/carrier strike is

Why exactly? If you take a different perspective you might as well include land based strike and fighter aircraft for that is all an aircraft carrier is; a mobile aerodrome. I mean why stop at carriers when land based airplanes were used for the same purpose in all theatres of war and can just as justifiably be included in the game.

Yes this subject has been debated quite a few times and no, alas Wargaming will not be changing the Gneisenau to her real life configuration.

True.

Thank you for proving me right.

Edited.This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inflammatory remarks

Edited. This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inflammatory remarks

Anyway the lack of a swaztika is off putting, either use the swaztika or don't place a symbol.