Meneleus

Spotted Dropsiq this weekend. Unfortunately our team was filled with potatoes, me not being amongst them for once. I hope your fever subsided ;) Cheers, M

Why argue over T8 cruiser citadel sizes? In the end it all amounts to the same. There is a reason why in close matches there generally are no cruisers left in the end. Welcome to explosion city, population you. Cheers, M

Since I have written some feedback regarding the 5.3 changes regarding to captain skills, and claimed they were poorly designed, I thought I should ante up and try to write a constructive piece concerning this element of the game. Core principle Kicking off I think I should share the philosophy I think captain skills should adhere to. As Sid Meyer once said, and I am paraphrasing, a good game challenges the player to make meaningful choices. Choosing your captain skills should incorporate that train of thought. Practically this means that there should be a solid array of interesting skills to choose from for every ship type and nationality. Players should be challenged to make choices as much as possible. Ideally there should be different competative builds catering to different preferences of play for the same ship. The concept of diminishing returns An elegant element that can prevent the abuse of certain skills is the idea of diminishing returns. Within the context of this game this would mean that if a skill offers an advantage that advantage would diminish the stronger a ship is with regard to the attribute the skill enhances. Existing examples of this are expert marksman and concealment expert. My take on skills So without further ado my take on the skills. Note that I purposefully use very broad strokes in their description. In my view it is the concept that merits discussion, the specifics can be figured out later. I have divided the skills into their usual five levels and used spoilers for ease of perusal. Level 1 skills Level 2 skills Level 3 skills Level 4 skills Level 5 skills Thank you for taking your time reading. Please feel free to leave your comments, input and ideas below, I am curious about the sentiments of other people. Cheers, M

Yeah, there seem to be a lot of german cruisers in games lately. The numbers of Omaha and Kuma class cruisers at the other hand seem to have evaporated. Personally I had a B-hull Omaha cruiser with AFT for the occasional fun game or mission since I already have a Murmansk. I sold it as soon 5.3 hit the shelves, I guess I am not the only one. Regarding the Russian cruisers we must bear in mind that everything is as of yet subject to change. If the general gist of the Russian cruisers with regard to their low-tier ships armed with 130mm guns holds true however then the BFT/AFT changes are one big joke and the devs truly have been talking out of their arses in the 5.3 FAQ. I am getting the feeling the "balance" is maintained by a group of people with a very technocratic mindset and an overblown focus on statistics. Cheers, M

Regarding diversity I think you can always identify three catagories of skills: Offensive skills - Skills that directly enhance the ability to take down opponents Defensive skills - Skills that improve the longevity of the player Utility skills - Skills that give more control over given situations (for example Situation Awareness and Superintendent) Three catagories does not seem much at first glance. The trick is to force choices. This can be done by overloading skill choices (give the player a wide array of skills to choose) and presenting various solid high-tier skills (of which the player can only choose one or two). Regarding cruisers I have tried to do several things. - Seperate the effect that BFT/AFT have on both the main battery/seconday battery and AA capability for the sake of balance and choice. - Expand on the number of skills that might affect the main battery and let them have impact on 203mm and similar calibre guns. - Attempt to create/modify survivability skills so they have a more worthwhile affect for cruisers. - Increase the number of viable skill choices, notably level 4 skills. Note that in no way I pretend to present the holy grail here, I am sure my suggestions can be improved upon. One problem I stumbled upon is that it is easy to brainstorm and come up with skills that seem innocuous at first yet have a huge impact on the game. For example: Smoke generator, a level 3 skill that would enable the player to exchange one regular consumable on a cruiser for the smoke consumable with one charge. This seems pretty innocent at first until you realize that with premium smoke and the superintendent skill every cruiser could use three charges of smoke. The game might change from "World of Warships" to "Gorillas in the Mists" in no-time. I think the current approach to skill selection is an excellent way to stimulate players to make choices regarding their skills by making high-level skills a real investment. Cheers, M

At first glance it seems the Russian cruisers are going to be everything the devs said they thought was problematic about light cruisers. Ah well, wait and see I suppose. At least I am glad a new line of ships is going to become available. Cheers, M

An option to exchange previously bought premium ships for their price in dubloons might be a good idea. The same courtesy shown to owners of the Kutusov was not shown to the owners of other premium ships who suffered similarly, a fact that the developer FAQ article does nothing to alleviate. Cheers, M

Maybe it was his attempt at humour Cheers, M

I think the changes regarding the captain skills have been very, very poorly executed. Basic firing training I think the implemented change to this skill was unwarranted. Expert loader Still useless. Expert Marksman Why? Last Stand In my view this skill is far too powerful for the two points it costs. Torpedo acceleration From what I have heard this skill works in combination with torpedo bombers as well, making it very useful for carriers. Regarding destroyers it can be very useful for IJN vessels of T6-10 and for USN ships of T9-10. Unfortunately retraining captains on lower tier premium ships will be an issue, especially for Japanese captains, as the modifiers will disable the ability to launch torpedoes outside detection range. Advanced firing training Would it not have been better to have the skill grant diminishing returns on higher calibre guns instead? Surivability expert I think this skill is poorly implemented. A bonus percentage to the hit points of the ship depending on the type would have been preferable (high for destroyers, low for battleships). It might be made interesting for higher tier cruisers and battleships by allowing it to buff the Repair Party consumable. Manual fire control AA I have not tried this skill yet but might give it a go on my Iowa. Combined with the improvements made to long-range AA armament and the synergy it has with other skills and upgrades improving AA capability this skill might very well simply be unwarranted. Manual fire control secondary From what I have seen this skill is pretty strong, especially when combined with other skills and upgrades improving your secondart batteries. Looks like an interesting skill. My general gripe about the skill changes is the massive hammering light cruisers have received this patch, in my view it has been grossly overdone with modifications to three major skill choices commonly associated with them. Another point is that the current set of skills offer a lot more choice and usefulness to some ship types and nationalities then to others. With some you are spoilt for choice, with others there is not much on offer. In my view, this is a product of a poorly constructed set of skills. Cheers, M

Yeah, setting someone on fire from stem to stern with a well-aimed manual drop is so useless. Instead of maing a new post I will just edit this one: I don't know if giving the Lexington a standard 1/1/1 air group is a good idea. I think it really gives players who have taken the trouble to get this far in the line the feeling they are not making any progress since it is the standard loadout on the Independence and Ranger as well. Heck, you have even given this loadout to the Langley. In essence I now consider it a better ship then the Bogue, having a better air group and more planes. If I would not know better I would have gotten the idea WG was trolling the community. I wonder if it has been considered giving squadrons a standard size in order to balance the air groups of the USN and IJN ships better. Cheers, M

To be honest I think this is a useless feature, it adds nothing to the game. Cheers, M

Instead of a mostly aesthetic commodity, what I had been expecting, it has been turned into a commodity of convenience by adding XP bonuses to the camouflage patterns, thereby inflating the price. I think this is a pity. Cheers, M

Yeah, it only changed major elements of the game up to T8. Weird people would discuss it at length right? Cheers, M

To exclude 140mm guns as found on the Tenryu and the Kuma. There are no 139mm guns in this game. Because the reason it has been put at 139mm is to exclude 140mm guns. yw. Cheers, M

QFT Cheers, M

Well, that was rather uncalled for don't you think? A sentiment I generally share, though I feel some legitimate concerns are glossed over. We both know full well in advance what effect this will have on the Mogami for example. I would like to hear an explanation if it is on offer why it is apparently considered a good thing that some premium ships will hold a clear advantage over regular ships, as it will be the case at T8. The reason given for improving the Kutusov is that the player expectations on the moment of purchase have to be met. Some people have asked why this has not been a consideration for other premium ships, like the Yubari, Marblehead and Murmansk. I think this is a very legitimate question. CHeers, M

Not really. He is grossly misrepresenting the OP. 4. Please buff the Cleveland = (part of) the madness is filling up the entire Gameplay forums. Cheers, M

I am so bad with names... Aerroon Flamu Kurbain Troublemaker_CRO (seems everybody sees him everywhere) Trigger_Happy_ Dad (hope I spelled that right) Babykim Whiskeywolf T0byJug EsaTuunanen Hanszeehock I know I have seen more folks but my memory fails me atm. Cheers, M

I'd agree with you, the New Orleans is not a very effective ship. At least with the Atago one can argue that many people have played it while being very inexperienced in the game, in essence throwing themselves to the sharks. Cheers, M

Damn, we actually agree on something! Cheers, M

A very nice idea to be honest. Personally I think it is a better idea to look for ways in which carriers from different nations distinguish themselves from one another, a lot of the problems seem to stem from the choice not to mirror squadron sizes along the board, such as issues with torpedo bombers and deck setups. I'd rather have the USN and the IJN navy have equally sized squadrons and have ideas like yours worked out and implemented to give carriers that themed style of play the various lines commonly have. Cheers, M

Well, I will have to experience the changes for myself since I have not played on the testserver. With regard to the changes to the Essex and Midway however I can only breathe a sigh of relief. One may wonder why. The reason is that in the hands of a skilled USN carrier player those torpedo bombers are practically impossible to dodge. You will eat torpedoes and they will wreck your ship. Using two torpedo bomber squadrons is what I call "double dipping" and it is like teabagging; facepalmworthy and tiresome. It does not matter what you play; battleship, cruiser or destroyer. You will be destroyed. Thus I will have to disappoint the OP and apologise, for I have no sympathy in my heart for his plight. Cheers, M

Aye, especially since the New Orleans, besides the excellent AA capabilities, is basically a floating rustbucket. From what I have seen only the Hipper brings something competative to the table, her long range and the excellent AP capabilities. Any idea how she (the Hipper) compares to the premium T8 ships? Cheers, M