dasCKD

What does the victory camouflage provide in terms of performance and XP boost? Also, in the future, can the gift store start listing the characteristics of a ship in the store instead of forcing players to go hunting down the information for the XP boost, credits boost, gun performance, health pools, and all of the other important characteristics that comes with making an informed purchase?

I stayed up late a few nights back to do some work, and before I had to wake up I spent time in my dream wandering in a desolate hospital infested with some threat I can't quite ever see, trying to find a place to sleep but being unable to. I woke up later, too late to get to close to class on time. Wanting to sleep but being unable to due to a fast approaching threat. Real funny, brain. F*ck you. With that completely irrelevant note out of the way, welcome to the second Bottleship Report. Not a guide. Edited As we are talking about carriers, here's a video of that one time a Taiho wiped 2/3 of our division using nothing but pure luck. War Gaming has began to introduce changes to ships that are directly overperforming whilst incrementally improving ships that are underperforming. Some of these changes are nice, such as the changes to the Mogami's turret traverse. Other changes, like the changes to the Shimakaze, is reminiscent of trying to fix a flood with a dishrag. The most egregious changes however is the changes being made to the Khabarovsk. Now a very strong case can be made for nerfing the Kebab, considering that in her current iteration she is basically a cruiser without a citadel hitbox that can outrun every single ship currently in the game with a side plating that makes her immune to the largest standard size of cruiser HE in the entire game. Considering that not even the most battleships and cruisers have that distinction, a strong case could be made for nerfing her. So, they nerfed her rudder down to painful levels. Instead of changing the stupid side plating that no destroyer should be allowed to have or nerfing her 9 second turret traverse speed to make her less potent in knifefights, they nerfed her rudder shift instead. Something that basically only a carrier can exploit on a regular basis anyways. Which brings me back onto the topic, before I could wander off into another endless ranting chasm that gets trimmed from all of these released articles due to necessity if nothing else. Carriers are Underpowered? Carriers are being shut out due to two issues: advancement and uncertainty. Team Fortress 2 and Gold Ammo Carriers are, in my mind, simply the ones who most obviously suffers from a fundamental design decision that goes into War Gaming. A design decision that I think has been carried over from World of Tanks and persists because it's unchallenged by anyone. It is in fact used as a point of argument in the general forums persistently in defense of essentially every ship class at some point or another. In order to talk about the fundamental and persistent issue in World of Warships, let's talk about Team Fortress 2! Level advancement is actually relatively rare for any type of competitive shooter, something that Warships is despite all of the cosmetics implying otherwise. Games that have an advancement mechanic usually have horizontal advancement, handing in their starter weapons or characters for different but mostly balanced items. This is done for what are quite frankly obvious reasons, as competitive games do not want to create a large gap between new and veteran players as that seals up the market and any ongoing game needs to keep bringing in new players to stay alive. Another feature of competitive shooters is their characters. I'll like to use the Heavy, the Scout, and the Sniper for this example. For those unfamiliar with the game, these characters are the tank, the high speed CQC, and the long ranged glass cannon respectively. Whilst you can access unique weapons from drops, the weapons do not significantly alter the way that a class plays. The player advancement system and the uncertainty that goes into a game. An Iowa knows not to get into a bow trade with a Yamato at close ranges. Unless you try, you'd never know if that battleship or cruiser is easy prey or if you'd get your attacking force wiped. This, combined with how you're essentially at the mercy of matchmaking, means that playing carriers long term is extremely draining. All things considered, the population of carriers at the lower tiers is quite numerous. As you go up the tiers however, the uncertainty and stress as you hope that matchmaker doesn't end your game before you even began weights on you until you're left drained and frustrated. I have seen various carrier veterans leave the class, and they often cite overpowered AA as the reason. I think that simply saying that AA is overpowered is far from the whole story however. Instead, I think that all carrier players subconsciously comes to know that what they can do is entirely left up to the whims of the matchmaker. Buffing carriers is not the correct decision here, the problem is far too convoluted right now to be fixed just by improving the health pool of the planes. Changes To carriers Quite frankly, the problem with carriers does not lie with anything inside of the carrier class. Nevertheless, there are things that should be done regardless. To AA Most of the problems with carriers stems from how shipborne AA functions. If the carrier population is ever to recover, the system behind AA needs to be completely overhauled. My main point is about ambiguity. Playing carriers, like any other class, should still be left largely to player intention instead of feeling like you are entirely at the mercy of matchmaking and being slowly driven out of the class. Ambiguity and insurmountable odds should be removed wherever possible and replaced with hard and fast rules that you can work with and play around. There are changes I would like to see to the carrier class, especially in regards to the balance between American and Japanese carriers but I suspect that this article has grown long enough. I was actually meaning to write an article on why half of the captain skills should be axed, but this takes precedence. This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate content

That's actually why I wanted to see tracers modeled as a priority for all carriers even on the lowest graphical setting. If they see one or two yellow streaks and lose no planes then see about fifteen yellow streaks coming from multiple ships and start losing planes, then they should get the hint. One of the primary issues with CVs right now is that it's hard to tell that you're even under AA attack until you begin bleeding planes.

I suppose I didn't make that very clear, now that I read back the article to myself. That might need editing. The advancement I am referring to is the advancement of the captain and the skills they gained. The more dispensable skills a ship's captain has, the more difficulty a carrier captain will have. The problem is that whilst ship tier advancement and the improvements to AA and protection that comes with it can be balanced, the captain advancement certainly can't. A ship's AA capabilities can advance to an insane level, whilst the plane health advancements can only go so far. I don't think creating counterskills that raises plane performance to the issue either. I think the ability to make any changes whatsoever to the AA performance of the ship should just be entirely removed, flags exempted. The idea is that any nation would put the very best suites they have available on their ships, and ships like the Iowa and Alabama don't have an excessive difference in terms of technological level. Tier 8 planes in a tier 10 game sounds silly, but that is largely a product of our meta. Tier 10 carriers are powerful, so tier 10 AA is completely overpowering in order to deal with said carriers. This means that when a tier 8 carrier gets into a tier 10 game, they're useless. I think the game should be modified in such a way that, operated correctly, a tier 8 carrier can excel in tier 10 battles. I believe the best way to do this is to nerf the AA performance of tier 8, 9, and 10 ships. This can be achieved through the removal of extra AA suites. AA might still need to be reigned in, especially the AA of high tiered cruisers like the Minotaur, Des Moines, and upcoming Henrietta, but overall I think that if AA levels didn't peak to such an insane degree at the higher tiers then things should be fine. It could be a good change actually, especially as it would stop complete immunity from either side. It will probably need some proper justification in game though, especially as higher tiered ships tend to be larger and therefore easier targets for carriers. I really don't think that having any more than 2 plane squads is needed for anything, especially as most carrier captains, me included, generally treats even the two smaller squadrons as one lone larger squadron. War Gaming insists on maintaining squad side however, and so having a squad size of 3 would mean that you can get more squads more often whereas in the current system you only get the extra torpedo bomber squad at tier 9. The smaller squad will also weaken lower tiered carriers which could be argued is needed. I would obviously prefer that AS didn't exist and that balanced is the only thing available. WG seems to want to keep the AS idea however, and so I think the next best thing to do is to make sure that players can tell, just by the ship's name, what is expected of the carrier. I'm not suggesting a second tree per se, more like a specialized carrier as a sidegrade. Not the most elegant of solutions admittedly, but I still believe it is better than the current arrangement.

The Kebab range nerf is an old nerf. Take AFT. Edit:I got ninjaed :<

The tier 10 premium permanent camouflage grants a ship servicing discount of 50% whilst the lower tier camouflage grants a lower discount respectively. The lower tiered premium camouflage costs nearly as much as the top tiered one and many need to keep a hold of lower tiered ships for training purposes as they are the typical ships needed for competitive. Have you considered extending the 50% servicing fee discount to the lower tiered premium camouflages as well? If not, why not?

What?

I have a video staring the Tirpitz OC that everyone loves so much, staring another victim of RNGsus from OM, enjoy

Do you just not realize that considering how the game is right now and how British cruisers play, giving the British cruisers better ranges would be a nerf to their performance?

Chappayev has a 17.3 km firing range. Zao has a 16.3 vanilla firing range. Chappayev > Zao, WG anti-Japan bias confirmed! Zao is worse than a tier 8. Nothing but the firing range matters!

The argument that being iconic ultimately is one that has no basis whatsoever considering the fact that the game is spread over the entire world and yet there is basically no variation in top ships. Globally, every single server in the last two weeks has their top 3 tier 8 ships played taken by battleships without exception. Take for example the fact that in every region listed in the entire world in the last two weeks, the Bismark tops EVERY SINGLE top played spots in the entire world. The Bismark might be iconic in Europe, but in North America? Do you think that the people in Asia or Russia have ever even heard of the Bismark before they picked up World of Warships? I certainly haven't. What about the Amagi? Why is she such a popular battleship? The real Amagi was a bloody carrier! In North America, or more precisely the United States, in particular, carriers are far more culturally relevant that battleship can ever even hope to be to the point where strategic bomber and missile countermeasure technology has far outstripped any need for carriers yet the navy still spends billions keeping their carriers afloat. Yet people don't play the carriers just because they're iconic. The argument of battleship being iconic also blatantly goes in the fact of the meta about a year ago where most ships were cruisers and destroyers. What about the Zao? The ship that doesn't even exist and was never even planned? What explains her popularity? What about the Mikhail Kutuzov? Has anyone in Europe even heard of the MK before she was released as a premium? To argue that ship performance matters less to the players of this game than ship renown borders on delusion.

They could just give them 2 different HE shell types with different performances, like the York has but with AP on a separate slot.

I saw it happen before. I just always thought it was a server-client latency issue, the aircraft command not being set to "spread" when the defensive fire cross equals true. I never actually realized it was a bug in the game.

I like the idea of the consumable. It should probably be placed in a spot in lieu of another consumable though, battleships really shouldn't have consumables tacked on to the end like cruisers do. On a separate note, they should hurry up and make it so that KM battleships should have to pick between a plane or the hydroacoustic search.

Radar. Torpedo reload booster. Cruiser heals.

I agree. It's the cretins who play battleships who think they can have the advantage against everything and never bother learning the game mechanics, instead opting for the inane rock, paper, scissors that has been irrelevant since somewhere before the Cambrian. At least when a destroyer spots a Hindenburg at 6 km, they know to run the other way instead of charging her down.

ASM on Essex and Midway planes

That's the issue though. To many cruisers, battleships have become easier targets than destroyers. Cruisers are still the easiest prey for battleships on most tiers, but then there are ships like the Moskva, Zao, or Hindenburg that are more than comfortable with never leaving the spawn and burning battleships to the waterline from that range. Destroyers are so small and fast and guns at the higher tiers have such range and power that the only ships that can consistently hunt down and kill destroyers is other destroyers. I probably did more damage to destroyers in last night's Z-43 game than in the last 10 games in my Zao combined. The changes to the game has only made it more difficult for rock, paper, scissors to function, and this will only cause a bigger issue as the game evolves and more ships with their unique functions are introduced. The whole game system needs to be balanced around the assumption that it will need more than just a ship class that no one might want to play to control the numbers of another ship class. Given 5 minutes, I am reasonably sure that I can have a Yamato dead. I can't say the same thing about the Shimakaze. That might be so, but that doesn't necessary translate to a healthy game. I have played the Yamato more than the Hindenburg in the last few weeks despite having a far lower average damage and win rate (nearly 20k and 6% less) in my Yamato because at least I can justifiably get close and brawl. I could kite and burn all the ships all I like, but I don't find it fun or interesting. I like to get in close, brawl, and hunt smoke camping ships. I like gliding past battleships, doing 10k every 8 seconds with AP salvos. Things like that are just so rare in the current meta though, so I just have to sit back and burn ships. I can deal with it but, and this will sound selfish, I don't like it. They're still pretty weaksauce compared to the American or even the German torps. I would prefer if they at least hard parity with the Americans, it's basically the only thing the Japanese destroyers are any good at. I'm also not sure that the torpedoes being a threat to battleships and only battleships is a good thing as it causes the AA ship conundrum (if a ship is too good at dealing with a prey, the prey will disappear and leave the specialized ship useless). It's why buffing the destroyers is not my preferred approach. I think that the torpedoes of the IJN should at least be somewhat viable against cruisers and destroyers as well. With the USN or KM torpedoes, I get caught out if I'm not paying attention. This basically never happens with the Japanese. I would still argue that the current system encourages camping more. Battleship guns are the most instantly lethal weapon in high tiered games save for carriers. People err towards protecting themselves from negative consequences over getting positive results, which is why people tend to stay back even if they could be doing more damage up close. When people know that they can keep the guns of the battleships mostly ineffective by just staying back and letting dispersion do its thing, they won't move because they have no reason to. Whilst I don't think that improving battleship accuracy will necessarily stop camping, it will at least reduce the amount of time that a flank is bogged down and allow the game to move on. I would argue that bad battleship dispersion is a thing that discourages aggressive behavior more than anything in this meta.

This is perhaps the biggest problem with logic. No one understands that something being logical has no effect on whether or not it is true. It might be entirely logical to you that cruisers are to fulfill the rock paper scissors roles or they won't be rewarded, but you are presenting what we call garbage in, garbage out. Your premises are blatantly false, so any conclusion drawn from the premises will also be completely useless whether or not it is logical. Cruisers do not fulfill the rock, paper, scissors role. They can't fulfill the role. Stubbornly insisting that they do changes nothing. Premise 1. Cruisers can't deal with battleships Premise 2. Cruisers can deal with destroyers Conclusion. Cruisers need to deal with destroyers and avoid battleships. Always. Premise 1. Elephants are pink Premise 2. Charles is an Elephant Conclusion. Charles is pink Both of these extrapolations may be logical, but it is also false. The RPS model is broken, and demonstrably so. The fact that the previously prevalent RPS missions have been purged from the games are testament to this. There is no rock, paper, scissors system in the game. The reason behind this has been extensively outlined in the opening post, the various post that follows, and by everyone who has seen a Zao fight a Yamato or a Schors fight a Gneuisenau. Insisting on trying to promote rock, paper, scissors in the face of reality will change nothing.

Speaking of which, has everyone heard of the rumored upcoming Tirpitz secondary buff that brings her to parity with the Bismark?

Met Robihr in my Yamato with him in his Gearing. I will therefore now gloat, as I came first

Oh stop it. I've tried her out. She'll be fine. Still feels infinitely better than the Z-46 and Z-54 to steer.

The thing is that I have little issue with her HE power or the fact that she's insanely hard to hit. It's just that when she does get hit, she has a 50% chance of taking literally no damage. That needs to change quite frankly.

Have a timer that makes it so that, after 5 minutes in the game Kitikami bots are spawned into the player spawns