SkollUlfr

no i didnt. even if the smoke is at a different angle for each speed setting(which id like to see quoted), rather than just a side effect of the smoke trailing the target as it moves at different speeds, its pointless beyond x range dependent due to gfx settings. for people using medium gfx, that means the only smoke seen past 10 to 12km is the dead engine indicator smoke. if even that. also, that would be a poor gui mechanic for communicating movement to the player, let alone requiring them to go outside of the game and remember the speed of half the ships in the game. furthermore, ranging shots irl, would be taken AFTER, calculating the targets range, heading and speed as a compensation for weather or other such factors. the heading and speed part being sorely missed in this game due to there being no obvious fixed point on featureless moving ocean, to judge motion from.

personal experience is irrelevant to the feature i am suggesting though. also, your answer only applies to targets moving at their standard top speed. also, what i am suggesting would not be "Getting everything just handed to you" any more than having the flight time of shells to target does. or, should that be removed because its too much like "Getting everything just handed to you"? about the only thing my suggestion would do is help people who actually use the gui to get a reference to the target ship rather than fire-miss-adjust-fire-miss-adjust-fire-miss-adjust-fire-hit-fire-hit-fire-miss-adjust etc, based on how much they miss by. something especially useful on ocean where there are no other visual references to the speed of the target like players could use in wot.

the problem with that is situations where you are busy shelling something when captain fresnel specks crashes into you, just as you are about to put out another salvo, which they catch with their superstructure. had a ******** in a cl do that to me 2 weeks ago, only to post in chat "lol f*** you, i needed the kill for myoko, thanks for teh compo".

yea, thats very general. not to mention distance and gfx setting dependant. most certainly not a clear indicator of knots the target is doing.

if there was to be ANY aim help for guns, having the target ships angle and speed displayed on screen would do it. aslains has a mod that shows the angle already, so integrating that into the game properly and adding speed to it would be a solution that isnt just a "shoot the X to hit". and it would be somewhat realistic since these ships would have had the facility to determine a targets course and speed. we already have aim time thanks to the traverse and elevation speeds of the guns, and bloom would be utterly game breaking at higher tiers for anyone who didnt carefully snipe for citadels with every turret. which would basically be a nurf to anyone not in a BB.

making munitions cost 10x the base amount if they hit friendlies along with an exp gains lockout that is 10x the exp value for the damage dealt would put a lot of people off TKing. being unable to fire torpedo's if there where friendlies that could intersect them around would also help. given the noobs firing their 5km range torps at a ship 15km away, only to hit a friendly CL...

nope. fighter set-ups are countering any DD's trying to do surprise attacks. keeping ca's spotted for bbs to kill. and keeping bbs spotted for whatever the team want to do with them. all that is on top of the direct head to head of chasing off the enemy CVs bombers so friendly ships can attack without worrying about having to evade all bombers. CV gameplay is like an underdeveloped rts slapped into a vehicle based shooter. as such, elements from rts apply beyond the myopic 1vs1 scenario you just described. being a recon/observer and force multiplier for the other 'units'(player ships in this case) being a major part of that. even if its implementation is hackneyed, shallow and unrewarding.

you could probably find what i mean from youtube, formations changed the ability of strike craft to focus fire. wall and claw(a vertical X with central fighter trailing) where good for offence which could be implemented with a short damage multi up to engagement. line(what the fighters do now) and delta(v formation like you see in movies) where better for more defensive fights. the postures (aggressive, standard and evasive) worked like rock paper scissors, other factors considered. i say this because wg have made teh same mistake with CVs here as they did with arty in wot, essentially added half of a different game into the main game, and didnt flush it out so it would integrate properly. the problem with removing air superiority setups is you would then force a situation where CV players focus on spamming as many TBs as possible. which will result in another torp nurf among other balance changes to try and counter what would be a situation of mindless spam. yes, its easy to just remove these set-ups, but then you need to rebalance the other factors in the game around the result. which is already almost an oil and water situation. which wont be simple either for players or wg, leaving CVs even more difficult to balance. you are right however about CVs currently being a rock+scissors scenario. thats part of what i meant about CV play lacking depth, and why i said DBs should be able to act as fighters once they drop their bombs. it would allow the player with fewer fighters to choose to ditch the bombs to even the odds a bit against an air superiority set-up.

denied. adjusting fighter engagement set-ups in a way inspired by the formation and posture settings in homeworld, along with altitude settings to effect initial attack bonuses to make engagements more player skill/planning based, and to allow bombers to act as fighters(if not great ones) after they drop their main ordinance would be much more interesting. carrier play needs much more depth to its tactics, not removal of what little strategic planning one can make since its so gorram boring and often unrewarding as it is now. by taking air superiority setups that cv player is choosing to sacrifice personal reward in order to be a force multiplier for his team-mates ships. by spotting and protecting them so they can engage more aggressively thanks to not worrying about evading TB drops or DD ambushes. and allowing more opportunities to attack without direct LOS/being spotted.

they already have a method they could use. the profitability margins players face for (free)exp/credits. if these adjusted daily, or throughout the day, based on the ratio's of classes being played, it would make a lot of players change classes to reflect this. put a window on the port screen with an icon for each class of ship, with an income modifier beside it based on the tier of the currently selected ship, to let players know which class will under or over pay, due to there being too many or too few respectively. sure you will still have the stat-w***** going directly for the most advantageous boat for damage or kills, but it would still allow players to adjust their choices in a way that nudged class representation toward desired ratios.

sounds like an attempt to address the complaints about higher tier dd's i have been reading on these forums.

would it be possible to get a 3rd turn setting added between half and full rudder that tracked with turret traverse? just sees like this would be a functional/quality of life change to keep a little more turn rate while keeping the guns on target without having to micromanage the turn rate on boats with slow turrets.

can you send some of them to tier 5 & 6? id really like to get my arp mission done but im getting game after game with no destroyers at all.

ha. i didnt even realise the game had munition cost.

is this is the bogue vs zuiho thing again? on a 1v1 fighter squadron basis, yes, ijn are weaker, but quite simply, if you are going head to head knowing this then you are a bigger threat to yourself than the usn cap. even something as simple as baiting their fighters over a friendly cleavland with your db flights will make their day go south quickly. since even if their fighters can out fight yours, the usn cant replace them the way the ijn can.

could be fun to use these crazy-boats as a sort of boss ship in pve. but really, putting them in the hands of players would destroy the mm.

stop it with the kill quests. you build the whole game around damage rather than kills, something effective at mitigating kill stealing, only to use mission that are antithetical to this, by making them based off of only doing the last 1hp of damage to register a kill. please find a better way that isnt at odds with the nature of the game. thanks.

biggest problem for me is dissonance between the nature of the game and the function of the missions, resulting in the magically non-existant kill stealing. outside that the only option viable would be the ability to block the toxic players. since both clans and vote to kick and heavy clan emphasis can be abused maliciously. either by kicking players just for the lols, or excluding players who arent in a clan. further action, would be expansion of the player compliment/report system to be more specific. since 'plays poorly' is a bit simple, and doesnt communicate 'why' the play was poor. where they a coward that hid in a corner all match? did they yolo after one target for a quest? did they sacrifice a team-mate so they could farm easy kills? all of these are things that would help with filtering toxic players.

lag spike when tracking a target near the limit of your traverse speed seems to contribute to this. clicking x to switch targets seems to help, but probably just a placebo.

just had a match where i rounded this island to kill the enemy carrier, only to see nothing but a flight of his TBs at altitude where they would be on the deck of the now vanished carrier. the great fun being, when i screencapped the motionless fighters, there where not in the image, yet they still managed to fire off torps which hit me half a second earlier. this some sort of lag-switch bull****? or is the aimbot now the least of legit players worries.

thats not what the planes where doing. they where stationary at carrier-deck level. where i had the cross-hairs in the sc was directly where the planes where. the cv would needs to have gained dd levels of mobility for that to be the case. ok, so after a quick google, i didnt have replays enabled... which seems to make this thread pointless.

ok, how do i post a replay? yea, no ****! thought the image would have done showing the weird position of the planes, but apparently not since they seemed to vanish between hitten prtscn and ctrl-v

just had a game where our cv spawned with the enemy. had to laugh at this situation. leaving it to them for bug report. just wondering, how common are these things are in wows, and how did it happen?

this is something that can be avoided, both the kill stealing itself, and the animosity it generates. given this there is no reason to leave the cause of this in the game reducing enjoyment for players. something that the ARP missions recently demonstrated and massively exacerbated. the idea i have is that all ships are worth 10 'kill points' with each point representing 10% of the targets hp. this way, when the ship dies, players are rewarded for the effort they put in, rather than just sneaking in a last salvo to grab a mission statistic. possibly changing the stats for 'warships destroyed to 'engagement rating' based on this, to re-empasize doing damage over just last shotting too. would also help during normal play, since it would result in all players who where useful in doing damage got rewarded for the kill. any other ideas about how to fix the player incentive system to stop leeching? improvement to this one?

this is finally the people in the thread getting back to the point i am trying to make. its like basic comprehension is banned on this forum.