MAD_3R_Marauder

Thanks, would _never_ have looked there

Ok, on the risk of making a complete idiot out of me, where do you even _see_ those stats? There used to be a line in everyone´s profile during the CBT, but I can´t find that line anymore for the life of me.

No requirement to agree with me The reward/damage thing was just something off the top of my head. I think something similar could be implemented in the clan-wars? thing I hear about. It is probably not workable in random battles, but then, random battles and team-play are (IMO) pretty much mutually exclusive - you need a _team_ to have a team game

If WoWs is supposed to be a team game (which I kinda agree), the reward system is completely shot to hell. Add up all the rewards for the entire team (or perhaps half the rewards, to keep rewarding good individual play). Add up all all the damage received for the entire team Distribute rewards and damage amongst every team member (perhaps modified by tier, since higher tiers cost more to repair) This would do several things. 1. The team effort is rewarded instead of your personal effort. 2. Even if you, personally, didn´t deal a lot of damage to the enemy but did your job (as in AA support as a CA or scouting in a pure-fighter-CV without an opponent), you would be rewarded for doing your job 3. Hanging back and hoping the rest of your team will do the job won´t be much of a benefit, since with less ships into the actual battle, your team is more likely to lose and you will pay your part of the repair bill _of the entire team_ anyway. Add in VoIP into the game for each team, because let´s face it, when I´m in battle, I usually don´t have time to type and a "briefing" period pre-battle (a minute or two) to talk tactics for the battle. I´m not asking WG to do all this, as it would change the game quite a bit, but the thing I´m trying to get at is: If you want a game to be a team-game, you have to put in the tools and the mechanics to _make_ it a team game - actually, you have to start with the idea that this will be a team-game and then build the game around that idea, not make what basically is a single-player game and then tell everyone: "Hey, by the way, this is a team game". That just won´t work.

Simple. Remove networked targeting acquisition gear from the game. As far as I´m aware, there were no WLANs in ww2. So if you are in or behind smoke, you might receive data on the position of enemy ships outside/behind the smoke via radio (i.e. show them on the mini-map), but you can´t _see_ or _target_ them. I have to admit, that this networking was the one thing that struck me as the most odd thing when I started playing. I definitely expected smoke to be, well, smoke. You are in, you are blind. You are behind, you can´t see through it - period. Now, this is an arcade game, not a simulation, I´m aware of that and I´m not asking to get the mechanics changed (ok, maybe a little ), but gee, that is a kinda stupid mechanic for a game based in WW1/2 (all IMO, of course)

Getting that back would be a first step, yes I would envision something a bit more sophisticated though. As I said, the actual mini-map from the game, where you can double-click to highlight a square, for example, would enable you to say: East BBs and CAs go here and then move there, west BBs and CAs go there and there, DDs, cover those two passes. Yes, you _can_ do that in chat, but visuals are much easier to understand, even if you have difficulty with the language.

I agree with your assessment. WoWs is (mostly) a team-game without teams. This is actually not surprising, given random people are thrown together into a team. Add in, that some mechanics I would expect for a team-game are just not there. I, for example, would _love_ to have a pre-battle chat to talk tactics (perhaps 1 minute between loading and the game actually starting, with the mini-map up and the positions of the your team´s ships shown), let´s call it battle briefing. I´d also like an after-battle chat to talk about what went well and what didn´t work Sure, many people may not like to wait for another minute to enter battle and some might abuse the after-battle chat to point fingers, but perhaps that could be made a separate mode, similar to Co-op and Random (Team-Battle?) Perhaps I´m naive and this would never work, but coming from hard-core strategy games (WitP and Co) a short planning phase seems to be sorely missing.

Ah ok, that sounds better So basically, modify the cross-hairs, so that leading by 3/5/however many "markers" (for lack of a better word) would have the same result in each ship. In a ship with fast shells/low trajectory, the markers would be closer together and in a ship with slow/high trajectory shells, the markers would be further apart, as in Slow/high trajectory gun |--------|--------|--------O-------- 3 2 1 Fast/low trajectory gun |----|----|----O---- 3 2 1

Not sure I understand completely. Wouldn´t that marker have to be adjusted to the speed the target is traveling? If the target is stationary, the marker for 0 seconds and for 15 seconds shell travel time would have to be at the same place If the target is moving at 15 knots, it would have to be like this |-----|-----|-----O-------- 15 10 5 While if the target is moving at 30 knots, it would have to be like this |----------|----------|----------O------ 15 10 5 Which, as I understood it, was kinda what that aim-mod did. Or am I completely misunderstanding you?

Absolutely agree, islands are _totally_ OP. I mean, I can ram a BB into the ground but when I ram one of those triple darned islands, it just stands there and laughs at me.

No, as I tried (apparently unsuccessful) to explain in my post, it´s not about _being right_, it´s about feedback from a new player! His feedback is as valuable as that from an old hand - not in the same areas, obviously, but valuable nonetheless. A game is successful on it´s first impressions. If those first impressions are that the game is broken, the game will fail. To get the message across that, at the current state, the first impression _is_ that it might be broken (even if that is completely wrong) is _important_ because only then something can be done to correct that first impression. As I have also said in my above post, it´s not about nerving/uping _anything_, it´s about taking steps to correct that wrong impression. Or are you gonna tie new players to their chair and force them to play at least 200 games before they are allowed to decide if they like the game or not (clockwork orange style)? Yeah, I´m exaggerating. @everyone Frankly, the way some old hands (not you, @Userext) talk down to new players/testers is sickening! If a new player is wrong then he is wrong and it can be pointed out to him in a polite manner. Note: I´m not talking about the obvious "whine" threads like the one in the German forum who complained that it was WG´s fault that his rig couldn´t run WoWs at 60fps, those people deserve all they get.

When I´m in a cruiser I do this, I really do, but then, 6 out of 10 times, the BB starts to hug the island on the engaged side and there is hardly any place between the island and my cruiser. I have no bloody idea why a BB would want to hug an island, but they still do (similar to why I have no idea why in every battle at least one BB wants to enter close, confined space between several islands, also knows as "destroyer-country"), so I have to change to the unengaged side of the BB, where I can´t really fulfill my role as AA support and am equally badly positioned to fight off DDs (yes, I´m not a great shot and I have a really, _really_ hard time hitting an evading DD at 12+ km) But to be honest here, while I try to stay a few km towards the enemy from "my" BB in the opening game, once the fighting gets real (i.e. range closes), I usually pull back to the other side of my battle line, simply because if I don´t I´m dead within a minute, 2 at the most. The fact of the matter is (in my experience) that the enemy usually shoots the closest target, which, if I keep positioning myself between my battle line and the enemy, is me - and cruisers are _really_ ill suited to take that kind of punishment. Is it "fair" to have the BB being the focus of the enemy´s attention? I don´t know, but I kinda think that´s what they are there for and drawing fire for 1 minute (before being sunk) compared to being able to support them with rapid fire mid-caliber gunfire over the course of the battle seems to be more useful (at least to me, even if some self-preservation may be part of that (and yes, I still die _a lot_ )

I have to speak out for the OP here, I´m afraid. Yes, he has only played for a week and yes he has some, let´s call it wrong impressions (at least as far as many experienced testers are concerned) but what he wrote are his first impressions. Those first impressions don´t have to be actual fact, they are _impressions_! It doesn´t really matter if his impressions are correct. Those are his impressions - period. And let´s not forget, those first impressions (his and from others) will be what will make the game a success in the end - or not. After the game is released, those first impressions will be a lot more important than what those experienced testers feel, simply because there will be a lot more new players than there will be old players, and if 70 or 80 or 90% of the playerbase talk the game down, it will fail, no way around it. Getting those first impressions out there and making WG react to them, or not, is _also_ what beta testing is for. If those impressions are objectively wrong, perhaps adding a tutorial (several set-up matches vs. bots that explain stuff) would help correct them early on (just to throw an idea out there). Perhaps some other means could correct that view or perhaps WG is fine with this and won´t bother at all. However, they can only decide to act or not to act if they are _told_ those first impressions. @Userext: And that is the reason your statement: "I think you should keep your feedback hidden until you reach at least around 200 battles in PvP." Is, (IMO, obviously) completely and utterly wrong, _especially_ in a Beta.

Grüsse von ´nem weiteren "erfahrenen" Gamer (51) und PC gamer _fast_ der ersten Stunde (Amstrad 1512 war mein Einstieg Mitte der 80er) Bin seit 4 Wochen hier und WoWs ist mein erster Kontakt mit WG

Schon ein paar Tage her, aber für eine Yubari (und für _meine_ Verhältinisse), denke ich, kann sich das Ergebniss sehen lassen (und die 3 Gefechte vorher, wo ich sang- und klanglos untergegangen bin vergessen wir mal lieber

Wow, _that_ was doing that. And here I thought my keyboard was failing

Hatte gerade 4 Matches in Serie, in denen praktisch _alle_ BBs in meinem Team am Rand der Karte herum geschippert sind, während die paar DD und CL/CA versucht habe zu retten was zu retten ist und natürlich sang und klanglos versenkt worden sind. 4 Cap points, 3 vom anderen Team eingenommen aber nöööööö, warum sollten die BB Kutscher riskieren sich den Lack an ihren schönen Schiffen verkratzen zu lassen. Ich bin erst seit 2 Wochen hier und vielleicht verstehe ich das Spiel noch nicht so ganz, aber die Spielmechanik "Mache 1000 Punkte und du gewinnst" war mir schon nach den ersten 2 Matches klar. Und in der Medizin diskutiert man, ab wann man hirntot ist! Also, mein Aufruf an alle (BB)Skipper: Geht verdammt noch mal ran an den Feind! Wenn ihr nur in der Gegend herum fahren wollt, bei Amazon gibts den Frachschiff Simulator. Ok, sorry, aber ich mußte hier mal etwas Dampf ablassen.

Do I show my age when the first thing that came to my mind when I read "ELO" was "Electric Light Orchestra"? On topic: Not sure how to do this. If (once?) there are fixed teams facing off against each other, it could work fine, but with the randomly thrown together teams _very_ difficult to do. Sure, you can look at the hit-rate or the kills/death stats, but it all comes down to: How many damage did you do compared to someone else. This, of course, leaves out the other stuff, ship-classes are supposed to do. What about that cruiser that stuck to the BBs and discouraged air attacks and perhaps chased off a DD but didn´t do a lot of damage because he didn´t have a target to shoot at? What´s with that DD that put smoke screens in front of your battle-line and scouted ahead, enabling your BBs to rip the enemy battle-line apart, but couldn´t score a lot of hits himself, because, well, he was busy scouting and smoking? BBs and CVs are more straight forward, I guess (A CV with an all-fighter outfit would still be screwed, I believe, even if he cleaned the sky from enemy bombers). In the end, I do fear it would make many (most?) players play even _more_ egoistic, trying to deal as much damage as possible and lead to even _less_ support for other classes.

Normally, I go by "Hawkeye" on forums, but that name was already taken. With my two all-time favorite non-PC games being BattleTech and Shadowrun, it was either MAD-3R Marauder or Dunkelzahn Since this is more of a wargame, I thought the BatteTech reference more fitting.

This is _very_ helpful and clears up a lot of questions in my head Thanks a ton, mate!

Überpenetration ist, wenn die Granate zur einen Seite des Schiffs rein und zur anderen wieder rausfliegt, ohne zu explodieren (zumindest ist das wie ich es verstehe, spiele erst seit ein paar Wochen). Bei den Tiers mach ich keine großen Unterschiede (ist vielleicht falsch). Kawachi hatte einen 305mm Gürtelpanzer und Fuso auch. Das Panzerdeck war bei der Fuso etwas dicker aber nicht wesentlich (30 - 50mm statt einheitlich 30mm). Lediglich der Kommandoturm war deutlich stärker gepanzert. Von daher sollte in der Panzerung _im Spiel_ eigentlich kein großer Unterschied sein. Gilt im übrigen für verschiedene Kreuzer ähnlich. Tenryu, Tier III, 63mm Gürtel, 25mm Deckspanzerung - Furutaka, Tier V, 76mm Gürtel, 36mm Deckspanzerung Cleveland, Tier V, 80 - 127mm Gürtel, 51mm Deckspanzerung - New Orleans, Tier VIII, 76 - 127mm Gürtel, 30 - 60mm Deckspanzerung Bei Kreuzern mit 20,3mm Geschützen gehe ich andere Kreuzer generell mit AP an, bei schwächer bewaffneten (155mm oder gar 127mm) kommts manchmal darauf an (die hohe Feuergeschwindigkeit dieser Kreuzer macht HE natürlich noch viel attaktiver - burn Baby, burn

Ich _glaube_ die 2 sind Überpenetration, insbesondere da das Ziel ja ein DD war würde das Sinn machen Persönlich halte ich mich daran wie es in echt war. Auf alles was größer oder wesentlich kleiner ist mit HE auf alles was plus/minus gleich ist, AP. Also Kreuzer gegen DD und BB HE, gegen andere Kreuzer AP Der Gedanke dahinter ist, daß AP bei DD überpenetrieren und bei BB einfach abprallen würde. Ob das im Spiel auch so ist, kann ich nicht sagen (zur Zeit wohl eher nicht, HE rules )

Have to agree. I played with the thought of getting one, then looked at the stats and went: "You gotta be kidding me!"

Wenn die AP Granate z.B. die Antriebsturbine trifft, dann ja, dann geht sie wahrscheinlich hoch. Ich hab aber mal ein bißchen mit den Zahlen gespielt. Ein Zerstörer der Fletcher Klasse hat eine max. Wasserverdrängung von 2.500t Stahl hat eine Dichte von rund 8g/cm^3 oder 8t pro m^3 2500t / 8t/m^3 = 312,5m^3 Stahl D.h., unterhalb der Wasserlinie befinden sich in vollbeladenem Zustand 2187,5 Kubikmeter leerer Raum. Dazu kommt noch alles was _oberhalb_ der Wasserlinie ist (schätze der Einfachheit halber nochmal so viel) aber lassen wir das mal beiseite, weil ja auch leichtere Materialein als Stahl verbaut werden (auch wenn Holz oder ähnliches eine AP Granate wohl kaum zur Explosion bringt) Dann besteht ein Fletcher also zu 12,5% aus Stahl (und anderen, leichteren/weicheren) Stoffen und zu 87,5% aus Luft. Die Chance daß eine AP Granate also glatt durch geht scheint mir ziemlich groß zu sein. http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/G/u/Gun_Specifications.htm Armor piercing shells were designed to penetrate armor plate through sheer brute force, with the fuse setting off the bursting charge twenty or thirty milliseconds after hitting substantial armor plating. This gave the shell time to pass into the interior of the ship where its fragments would do the most damage. However, an armor piercing shell hitting an unarmored target might well pass entirely through the target without every hitting anything substantial enough to activate the fuse Anmerkung: 20 Millisekunden bei 800m/s Geschossgeschwindigkeit sind 16 Meter, ein Fletcher ist aber nur 12 Meter an der breitesten Stelle

Ist Sinsheim nicht eher der Ort wo Du einen Torpedowerfer _her_ bekommen kannst?