Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Balance'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 28 results

  1. Widar_Thule

    The great Forum member opinion poll

    Hi all! On the forum one can see a lot of debating going on concerning the pros and cons of stats, ships, damage inflicted, national ship lines and ship classes, buffing/nerfing etcetera. It might be interesting to combine the opinions of the forum members into a single poll in order to determine the general state of the game in the eyes of the forum members. I hope that most of the forum members will participate in this poll for the benefit of new players to the game, the development team and of course last but not least to further aid forum members in establishing what they actually think of the World of Warships as it stands now. Thanks in advance to all forum members which participate in the poll! Kindest regards, Widar Thule Edit: As a general response to some critical comments posted below I have added some additional general remarks and clarifications. Concerning all poll questions: The point of the poll is to determine your primary response, this opinion poll and the questions therin do not exactly require mastery of rocket science to answer! When in doubt, go by your gut and give your primary response. The poll in some questions focuses on your broad general opinion, for example concerning ship classes etcetera, and not specific exceptions to the general rule or every possible context. Some questions have been mirrored on purpose for the same reason why this is done in professional opinion poles. The poll questions have been deliberately constructed in such a way that for some questions it is not always possible to answer questions with a "when and if", or "in context such and such then" or "I do not know" or "I cannot decide" etcetera response. Some questions have purposely been formulated in such a way that one has to choose an option which one might not prefer to see implemented. This is intentional because it is precisely the same as when the developers every now and then radically change and implement things in the game which you would not liked to have seen changed. The developers will nerf and buff things in future versions of the game whether the players like it or not, so it is better to at least have an opinion on what to nerf/buff first if one want to influence the developers. It is well known that one cannot have everything in the game the way one might want it to be, and in like manner so it is in some of the questions of this opinion poll. In such a case one chooses the lesser of the proposed "evils". If this opinion poll for any reason whatsoever does not meet the approval of a Forum Member than of course he/she should not fill out the opinion poll, and he/she should then also please do not write any negative commentary in the topic but instead he/she is better served by moving on to another Forum Topic. Paraphrasing a famous philospher: whenever one questions questions a lot, one becomes questionable oneself.
  2. cartman89

    Noch ein langer Weg...

    Grundsätzlich bin ich mit dem Spiel zufrieden aber es gibt einiges das mich noch stört und das möchte ich nun als Feedback hier abgeben. 1. Wirtschaft & Erfahrung Ja ich nutze zum Vergleich WOT (Ist ja derselbe Entwickler und Publisher). Man erhält bei gleichem Skill ähnlich viel Erfahrung obwohl im Schnitt ein Spiel hier doppelt so lange dauert. Dieser Umstand damit gepaart das die meisten Schiffe auch noch mehr EXP brauchen als bei WOT macht das Game noch Grindlastiger als je zuvor. Auch Das Geld stimmt in höheren Tiers nicht mehr (zumindest in der CBT). 2. Daily & Missionen Wieso erhalte ich für den ersten Tagessieg, nicht wie üblich, die doppelte Erfahrung? Für mich wieder mal ein klarer Beleg dafür wie WG versucht einen zu melken. Das fing ja schon bei WOT beim Top of the Tree Special an. Wie Sie die Zusatzerfahrung immer weiter abbauten, bis der Reiz gänzlich verloren ging. Daher diese 1.5 durch 2.0 ersetzen. 3. Balance 3.1 Schlachtschiffe Schlachtschiffe finde finde ich im Moment mit Abstand am schwächsten. Die geringe ROF gepaart mit grosser Streuung und schlechter Wendigkeit machen es zur Lachnummer. Niemand mehr hat "Angst" vor den BB. Meine Vorschlage wäre folgende. -Bis T5 die AA verstärken. - Brandschaden verringern, welcher im Moment absurd hoch ist. - Schaden der Salven sollte verdoppelt werden, Ihr könnt mir ja nicht erzählen, dass ein Schiff welches von einer 460mm Granate getroffen wird, noch Schwimmfähig sein soll. Ich war selbst beim Militär (Artillerieabteillung 54) Obwohl wir dort nur mit 155mm geschossen haben war der Schaden verheerend. Ich kann mir daher nur schwer vorstellen, wie 460mm aussehen werden, da wird nichts mehr übrig bleiben. Wenn man noch die Streuung berücksichtigt das von den Slaven 10-20% Treffen halte ich das für angebracht. - Jeder andere Klasse kann relativ gut für sich alleine sorgen. Sprich das Schlachtschiff ist zu Teamabhängig. Wenn man nicht mit Freunden spielt fahren einem meistens die Kreuzer weg (keine Flugabwehr mehr) - Treffgeneuigkeit der Sekundärbewaffnung erhöhen. 3.2 Flugzeugträger - der 4 Perk aus der Linie ist für Japanische Träger de facto nutzlos. Weil Kurvenkampfexperte nur für die langsameren Flieger gilt. Daher macht es überhaupt keinen Sinn bei Japaner ein Jäger Lineup zu machen. Mein Vorschlag überarbeitet den vierten Skill noch mal. - Beim Spielstart wenn man die Wegpunkte setzt, wird man sobald der Timer bei 0 ist in die normale Ansicht gezwungen. Einfach nervig und sollte eine Kleinigkeit sein zu beheben. 3.3 Zerstörer - Ich finde die Verborgenheit der US Schiffe sollte verbessert werden. 3.4 Kreuzer - Kreuzer mit hoher ROF sollten deutlich weniger Chance haben die Ziele in Brand zu stecken. Das wärs mal für den Anfang
  3. As I have been mostly playing aircraft carriers so far in the CBT I feel that despite the fun I'm having there is one huge problem that I just have to point out. The scaling of the aircraft. Any CV player should be able to agree that anytime you go up against a higher tier carrier your fighters will become absolutely garbage. Why is it that the difference between 1 tier matters so much when it comes to fighters? It's not uncommon to see a 100% increase in effective power (Damage + Survivability) and it's not uncommon to lose a whole squadron while only killing a single of the enemies planes who are just from a single tier higher carrier. Thoughts about this and what can be done? Making lower tier fighters slightly stronger?
  4. Hey there, one simply doesnt make a Fred about Torps and come unprepared. I even made a Video to back up my case! But before you give your "auto-and-infinite-minus" because i dare to insult your precious ship killers, please hear me out. At the moment in World of Warships there is no real way of making sure you dont get nuked by a Torpedo that so much as strokes you. Well i say the Game would only benefit from bouncing torpedoes. Give it a thought before you try to kill me PS: if this is the wrong location for this type of topic feel free to move it whereever it belongs im never sure...
  5. I don't know if these are bugs or balancing "features", but these things seem odd: Minekaze and Mutsuki have the same main guns as Wakatake, but much shorter range. They also have lower range than Isokaze, even though IRL their guns had about 50% higher max. range. Many 76mm guns are accounted only as AA, even though they were actually Dual Purpose, especially on US BBs. This means that with hull upgrades those ships have even less secondaries than they did historically (even if the 3" guns were not very effective against surface targets). Myogi has no AA guns even with an upgraded hull. Shouldn't she realistically have replaced her six 76 mm guns with dual-purpose ones during WW1 like Kawachi did? Tier 4 ship with no AA is kind of stupid. As said, I don't know if these are intended so or bugs/omissions. Edit: Omissions; not serious but easy to fix: St. Louis has her 3-pounder (47mm) guns (12 of them) in the ship model, but they are not implemented in the game (they were NOT AA guns, either, but intended as rapid fire anti-torpedo boat guns). While not very effective, they would contribute something to the secondaries. Also, when I tell the gunners to fire all guns at the enemy destroyer, I don't expect the 3-pounder gunners to have tea and biscuits . (The St. Louis also had four 1-pounder (37mm) guns, which could be used for AA in a pinch.) Albany does not have her 6-pounder guns (i.e. 57 mm, 10 of them) implemented in the game. Also, her final main armament was 8 x 5" guns with one 3" AA gun added during WW1. Interim main guns since 1913 were 10 x 5". The game features the original, less rational armament setup. Premium ships don't usually get upgrades, so I think the later main guns setup would make more sense for the Albany. Originally she also had two 18" torpedo tubes, which the game omits. These were removed during WW1. Chester (the Molester) does not have her two 18" torpedo tubes. Historically she probably carried Whitehead 18" (45 cm) Mark 5or Bliss-Leavitt 18" (45 cm) Mark 6 torpedoes, which at 36/35 knots with a 2 km range would be somewhat useful in the game. Chikuma does not have her three torpedo launchers.
  6. Rommor

    Matchmaking Woes!

    So I have been having some really bad luck with Match making it really really feel like this games idea of Match making to make it fair is give you Roughly 30% games you can win easily and 30% games you have no chance the rest being made of 50% chance, this picture is the example of the end game results I'm usually seeing. Now before anyone goes off half cocked, none of these people Am I shaming they did their very best they could, no one was unpleasant, its not an issue with the ships in our team this battle could of been very winnable by that standard but the match making either doesn't take into account anything but ship levels and even that at times is questionable (One team with 3 VI Battleships and the other with 1 VI Destroyer). I understand that this game is fairly new and still being improved but my main concern is it feels like DOTA2(Standard non-ranked) MM in the sense that its lazy MM it purely balances by forcing lost games and winnable games and a few actual proper drawn out battles, normally these lazy MM games seem to be decided in the first 3 kills. Anyone having a similar experience to me and my friends or is this abnormal, not every game will be like this by any means but they are frequent enough to become annoying. [This is the only photo I have of this its one of the most noticeable I had so i decided to make this thread and ask for peoples opinion but I'm sure I can provide more evidence for both assured loss and victory games]
  7. Hallo Kapitäne, Da mich der aktuelle Testserver mich ein weiteres Mal zu dem Schluss gebracht hat, das Wargaming zwar tolle Mechaniken um Geld auszugeben entwickeln kann, aber von dynamischen Gameplay an sich nicht sehr viel zu verstehen scheint. Die neuen halbherzigen Skills für den Kapitän ändern daran leider auch nichts und das Spiel krankt immer noch an den selben ewigen Problemen. Da wir als Spieler diese Probleme natürlich permanent live miterleben und gerade in dieser Community eine menge besonnener und kreativer Köpfe sind, würde ich mir die Möglichkeit wünschen Änderungsvorschläge bezüglich des Balancings an WG schicken zu können. Evtl. könnte man dafür einen eigenen Dauerthread erstellen, indem Vorschläge erbracht werden, anhand von Likes bewertet werden und bei gutem Feedback an WG übermittelt werden. Was haltet Ihr von dieser Idee? Da ich davon überzeugt bin, dass eine solche Kommunikation mit der Community beiden Seiten hilt (Uns wegen Spielspaß, WG wegen Sparen von Entwicklungskosten), mache ich gleich mal den Anfang. Ich hoffe ihr seid ein wenig Nachsichtig mit mir, da auch ich ein leidenschaftlicher BB-Spieler bin und damit auch immer schön pro BB argumentieren werde So wie ich das momentan sehe gibt es folgende klassenbezogene Problemzonen: Allgemein: AP-Granatenschaden ist meiner Meinung nach bei Schlachtschiffen viel zu hoch, dazu aber mehr im BB Kapitel. Auch der AP-Schaden der Kreuzer ist ein wenig zu hoch. Ein genereller Nerf von -400 Schadenspunkten auf maximalen AP Granatenschaden bei Kreuzern fände ich angebracht und wünschenswert. Ansonsten sehe ich momentan die größten Möglichkeiten für Balancingänderungen bzw. Features in den Kapitänsskills. Der Rest des Games ist gameplaytechnisch natürlich in Ordnung ;). Evtl. würde ich noch die HE-Penetration und Schaden von Schlachtschiffen ein wenig verschlechtern. Außerdem bräuchte das Game neben einem Hardcap für BBs von 4, Möglichkeit für zwei Träger im Hightier vor allem ein nochmals überarbeitetes Wirtschaftssystem. Und zwar ein System, dass positionsabhängig, zeitabhängig, und objektabhängig die Reperaturkosten, sowie schadens- und spottingabhängig die Einnahmen errechnet. Zudem sollten Schlachtschiffe im Unterhalt deutlich teurer werden, sodass sie z.B. ohne Premium/Tarnung kein nennenswertes Plus an Credits erwirtschaften und damit Kreuzer und Zerstörer wieder die "Brot und Butter" Klasse zum Creditfarmen werden. Die Dinger waren damals schon unwirtschaftlich und daran hat sich auch 2017 nichts geändert Flugzeugträger müssen sich auch wieder lohnen, vor allem wenn sie spotten und feindliche Flugzeuge abschießen. Achja und das Matchmaking mit +/- 2 Tierstufen sollte wieder in allen Tierstufen gelten.... Mit der Mikasa ins T1 Gefecht... was gibt es schöneres? Radar sollte nicht mehr hinter Bergen aufdecken, allerdings eine unbegrenzte Reichweite besitzen. Hydro sollte ebenfalls eine erhöhte Range haben, aber nur noch Schiffe aufdecken, die schneller als 13 Knoten (Viertelgas beim Zerstörer) fahren. Proximity Scan könnte dafür so um 700 Meter auf 2700 Meter erhöht werden. Zu guter Letzt würde ich die Zeit, die vergeht, bis der Sichtbarkeitsradius sich nach dem Schießen wieder normalisiert, kaliberabhängig machen. 128mm --> 6s155mm --> 9s 203mm --> 12s 406mm --> 25s 460mm --> 30s Damit würden dann hoffentlich auch die ekligen Concealment builds auf Schlachtschiffen verschwinden^^ Zerstörer, können momentan kaum ihre eigentliche Aufgabe (Cappen, BB countern) verrichten, da ihre Torpedos zu schwach und ihre Gegner zu stark geworden sind. Es mangelt ihnen an der Möglichkeit unentdeckt zu bleiben, zu entkommen und Schaden auszuteilen. Zudem verzeihen DDs keine Fehler. Einzig die Gun-Boats machen momentan noch wirklich Spaß ;) Lösung: Schiffs-Topedosspeed stark hoch, Torpedoerkennung höher (damit man Torps trotzdem countern kann), Concealment verbessern, "RPF" vergessen Speziell hier sähe ich außerdem die Möglichkeit durch einen Buff der DD-Kapitän-Skills eine entsprechende Verbesserung zu erzielen. Kreuzer: Kreuzer haben momentan den schwersten Stand aller Schiffsklassen auf allen Tiers. Egal ob schwerer oder leichter Kreuzer, man wird momentan quer über alle Tiers, mal mehr oder weniger von Schlachtschiffen wegzitadellt. Dabei sind mehr als oft genug Situationen, in denen die quasi vollständige Vernichtung einfach überraschend und völlig random geschieht. --> Fun & Engaging....... :/ Umgekehrt hat man es schwer in eigene Gunrange zu kommen oder mit Schlachtschiffen im Verband zu pushen um so seine Verbrauchsgüter sinngemäß einzusetzen. Aufgrund der fehlenden Nachfrage an Flugabwehr ist man also inzwischen mehr oder weniger zu einem fahrenden "Devastating Strike" geworden. Schiffe wie die Zao, Dimtri Donskoi oder Moskau werden dabei als OP angesehen.... dabei sind das für mich die Kreuzer mit dem besten Balancing überhaupt Lösung: Bei allen Kreuzern, sollte das Autobounceverhalten bzw. die Normalisation stärker von der Plattendicke abhängen. So sollten schwere Kreuzer, wenn sie Bow-On fahren auch Schlachtschiffbeschuss widerstehen können, bzw. diese Treffer bouncen um ihnen so die Möglichkeit geben, agressiv im Verband mit Schlachtschiffen zu pushen. Die Deckpanzerung wäre dabei ja unverändert, s odass plunging Fire von BBs auf große Entfernungen trotzdem noch weh tut Zu dem sollten schwere Kreuzer ausnahmslos ALLE mit dem Heal ausgestattet werden, der zudem statt 30%, 50% des Zitadellschadens heilen kann und außerdem viel schneller wirkt (brit. Superheal). Dadurch können sie auch unter Feuer überleben, sind aber natürlich immer noch stark anfällig in der Breitseite. Das Überlebenskonzept der schweren Kreuzer beruht somit auf Bow-On pushen, ihren Consumables und ihrer Fähigkeit auszuweichen. --> Dynamisches Action-Gameplay Leichte Kreuzer hingegen, die offensichtlich als unterstützende Einheiten zu verwenden sind und daher nur in dritter Reihe fahren (also das was jede Kutusow jetzt schon macht), sollten keinerlei direkten Panzerungsschutz vor Schlachtschiffbeschuss besitzen. Das bedeutet, dass hier auch keine lächerlichen Bounces bei frontalem BB-Beschuss möglich sein sollten. Dafür sollten diese Schiffe über eine deutlich niedrigere Nachladezeit (vor allem im Lowtier), sowie eine angepasste Range, Shellspeed und verbessertes Concealment verfügen. Ihr Überlebenskonzept basiert somit auf Overpens, Reichweite und Verborgenheit. Schlachtschiffe: Meine absolute Lieblingsklasse...... die oft genug einfach nur fustrierend ist, da aufgrund schlechter Balancingentscheidungen übermäßig viele von den Dickpötten unterwegs sind. Das wäre noch nicht mal so schlimm, wenn verursachter Schaden von mir selbst beeinflusst würde und nicht von den Launen des RNJesus. Bei keiner anderen Schiffsklasse spielt Skill so wenig, aber Glück eine so große Rolle: 20km entfernte Chapaev bekommt nen Deva mit 4 Zitadellen aus meiner Tirpitz, während die Breitseitefahrende Atago auf 7 km über Overpens und Bounces lacht :/ (Ist mir wirklich in einem ranked Game passiert....) Klar reicht das Kevin aus, da er einfach linke Maustaste drückt und irgendwann bekommt auch er mal ne große Schadensnummer angezeigt oder ein armer Kreuzer platzt. Wer den Playstyle der BBs mag (träge, agressiv, viel einstecken viel austeilen und die Möglichkeit einen fliehenden Gegner wegzusnipen), ist allerdings sehr schnell gelangweilt... Vor allem weil man bei perfektem Aiming oft genug trotzdem keinen Schaden verursacht.... Zudem wird auf maxrange Sniping anscheinend immer noch zu sehr belohnt..... Deshalb mein Verbesserungsvorschlag fürs Schlachtschiff: Zunächst würde ich mir eine deutliche Steigerung der Genauigkeit wünschen. Im Klartext, eine Streuung die spätestens ab Tier 7 nur ein bisschen schlechter ist, als die der Kreuzer, allerdings trotzdem mit steigendem Kaliber leicht zunimmt. So sollte gelten, dass die Montana auf Tier 10 die genauesten Geschütze besitzt, gefolgt von der Kurfürst und der Yamato. Ich weiß damit ziehe ich jetzt unmengen an Hass auf mich, aber ich persönlich beschieße gerne gezielt und es fustriert mich (und euch wshl auch) wenn ihr einen breitseitefahrenden Kreuzer auf 8km nicht ordentlich bestrafen könnt..... Genaue Schlachtschiffgeschütze geben mir außerdem die Möglichkeit durch das auwählen der entsprechenden Munition und sorgfältiges Zielen, auch auf angewinkelten Zielen Schaden zu verursachen (natürlich keine Devas). Snipende Schlachtschiffe können dadurch auch eher bestraft werden, da diese meistens nicht gerade Meister im Ausweichen sind. Speziell BBs wie die Bismark mit würden unter gezieltem Plunging Fire stärker leiden, während Kreuzer weiterhin ausweichen können, sowie sich auf ihr Concealment verlassen. Kreuzer können dabei sogar besser ausweichen, da sie keine Random-Zitadellen befürchten müssen. Kevins, Chantalle und wie die ganze RTL II Bande noch heißt werden halt mit genauen Geschützen zerrissen, aber hey genau deswegen spielen wir doch dieses Spiel Genaue BB-Geschütze funktionieren allerdings nur unter einer Bedingung: Der drastischen Senkung des AP-Maximalschadens auf 10 000 bei der Yamato (-30%). Von da ausgehend sollt der AP Schaden je nach Kaliber runtergestuft werden, wobei die Deutschen BBs wieder einen AP-Buff bekommen. So sollten die 420er der Kurfürst/Friedrich ebenfalls 10 000 Maxschaden und die 380er der Bismark/ Tirpitz so viel wie die 406er der NC/Iowa/Montana verursachen. Dies hätte neben der Eindämmung vom Single-Hit-Quasi-Tot Phänomen auch noch den Vorteil, dass auch normale Penetrationen weniger Schaden verursachen. Bei der Yamato fällt damit z.B. der Penetrationsschaden von knappen 5000 auf 3000 ab. 2000 Schadenspunkte, die man merkt. Des weiteren sollte der Schaden der Überpenetrationen auf 5% Maxdamage gesenkt werden.... wenn ich nicht ordentlich treffe brauche ich auch keinen Schaden zu erwarten. Und DDs zu tode "Overpenen" sollte dadurch auch schwieriger werden. Die Penetrationsleistungen und Fusetimes der einzelnen Geschosse sollte dabei unverändert werden. Nachdem also alle BBs hinreichend genau sind, würde die Warspite ihr Alleinstellungsmerkmal verlieren. Man könnte ihr daher z.B. kürzere Fusetimes (wie bei den CLs) und/oder besseren Bouncewinkeln geben. Carrier: Mit Carriern kenne ich mich leider nicht gut aus. Ich finde es nur schade, dass so wenige davon unterwegs sind.... Ich perönlich mag es wenn meine gesamte Flak loslegt und über mir ein Luftkampf entbrennt, während ich versuche Bomben und Torpedos auszuweichen. Als BB-Fahrer kann ich außerdem sagen, dass meine Furcht vor Flugzeugen quasi nicht mehr vorhanden ist Ich würde an dieser Stelle am ehesten durch Kapitän-Skills, Verbesserungen vornehmen um den Carrierspieler trotzdem zu zwingen, sich zu spezialisieren. Ansonsten denke ich, dass generell jeweils 1 Flugzeug mehr pro Staffel und im Lowtier mehr Flugzeuge im Hangar helfen würden. Vlt. könnte man auch die Bedienung der Staffeln erleichtern. Mir persönlich fehlt außerdem eine Funktions (Taste) mit der ich ein Ziel für den Carrier deutlich und permanent markieren kann (solange es gespotted ist natürlich). Dadurch könnte ich z.B. ein frisch bombardiertes Schiff (in den meisten Fällen ein BB), das gelöscht hat, penetrant deutlich fürs Team markieren, damit sie direkt mit Focusfire Brände nachlegen können. Umgekehrt wäre so eine funktion natürlich auch auf jedem Schiff von Vorteil, sodass man nur für den Carrier sichtbar Ziele zuweisen kann. Das würde den Carriern wshl enorm bei der Zielauswahl helfen und auch den Schaden bei Fightersetups steigern. Speziell im Competitiven Bereich. Amerikanische DDs: Man kanns aber auch echt übertreiben mit den Shell-Arcs..... ein bisschen weniger wäre schön Deutsche Kreuzer: Weniger AP-Maxschaden, dafür amerikanische Bouncewinkel bitte für die AP-Nation..... Reduziert die Torprange auf 4 Km, aber verbessert das Turtleback der Kreuzer, sodass sie meinetwegen auf unter 7 km keine Zitadellen mehr bekommen können. Deutsche DDs: Bouncewinkel wie bei den Kreuzern, kurze Fusetimes, weniger Brandwahrscheinlichkeit und eine Aufdeckreichweite beim schießen entsprechend der Geschützreichweite und deutsches Hydro für alle Reichweitenbuff der 150mm Geschütze Russische Kreuzer/DDs: Biaaaaaaas 8 km Schneckentorps (mit entsprechend schlechter Detectability) bitte ab und einschließlich der Kirov/ Gnevny 10 km Torps ab der Tashkent Tashkent sollte die selben Granaten wie die Udaloi und Chabarovsk verwenden Japanische DDs: Schnellere Torps mit bessererm Tarnwert im Lowtier Besserer Tarnwert der Torps im Hightier Schnellere Geschützdrehung Amerikanische BBs Erhöhung des Shell-Speeds von NC,Iowa und Montana Bei Iowa und Montana stark, sodass auf <10km die Penetrationswerte gleich denen der Yamato sind (Natürlich hat die Yamato immer noch bessere Autobouncewinkel) Secondaries: Ich bin ein großer Fan meiner kleinen Kanonen, die fleißig mitfeuern wenn es auf kurze Distanz geht. Deswegen würde ich mir einen 25% Buff auf die Secondarydispersion auf ein Ziel wünschen sobald ich dieses manuell markiert habe. Secondaries, die nicht auf dieses Ziel feuern können, sollten allerdings trotzdem weiterhin auf alles feuern, dass sie erreichen können. Sieht cool aus, ist irgendwie logisch und gibt vor allem BBs die Möglichkeit noch agressiver zu pushen. Daher würde ich auch den Kapitänsskill "manual Secondaries" umändern in "advanced Secondaries", sodass er einfach einen generellen 45%igen Dispersionbuff für alle Tierstufen ermöglicht (Warspite Secondary Build Yeah ;) ) und diese wie gehabt von selbst auf alles Feuern was in Reichweite kommt. Dafür sollte allerdings die Brandwahrscheinlichkeit stark gesenkt werden, Bei deutschen BBs sollten zusätzlich die 150mm Geschütztürme mit den Zerstörer AP-Granaten (selbe gute Bouncewinkel, Schaden, kurze Fusetime) ausgerüstet werden. Dagegen kann man nämlich etwas machen.... Gegen den momentan Dauerbrand in der 10,6 km "No-Fun" Zone der Bismark eher weniger... Einzig die Iowa sollte eine höher Brandwahrscheinlichkeit bei Ihren Secondaries erhalten Puuh langer Post Danke fürs Lesen schonmal
  8. shr84

    DD vs BB is a joke

    in real life a single DD woud get rekt by a BB in a 1v1 fight.In world of warships you be lucky if you barely survive against this jet boats that spam with infinite torpedo ammo. I know this isnt real life but imho this game shoud try to immitate it to some degree.Every ship has its role they say, but DD´s beeing the master race in this game, giving every other ship a nearly impossible task for success if they be played at least basically right. The main problem is the totally over the top speed and manuverability of DD´s.2nd problem are the endless torpedo waves they can send out.In real life a DD had maybie 12 torpedos to reload when it carryed 2x 3 Torp tube launchers.I dont say it shoud be that way but they definitely shoudnt be available endlessly.I think it woud be ok to force people to act with some common sense, not encouraging the torp spamming. i think they had this in mind when they implemented DD´s Its a major flaw in this game, i feel this the most when ever i play destroyers.Its just too easy with little risk whatever you engage.
  9. Ok, allow me to being by saying that in my opinion CVs shouldn't even be a thing... Yes I am a CV player, but I also can understand the frustration of taking a bunch of torpedoes and barely surviving just so he can return with dive bombs and finish you off after you had to use DCP so that 1 tick of flooding wouldn't kill you.. just because the cruiser right next to you didn't use defensive AA.. or being dropped from 3 different sides in a DD at the start of a game, etc. But lets face it, CVs are a part of the game and are not gonna be removed... people spend money and time on them. Now that we got that out of the way, here are my suggestions on how to rebalance CVs. Remove auto-drops. Rewarding someone for selecting a squadron of planes and clicking on an enemy ship is just wrong.. Any actual CV player will understand this perfectly, how many times have you been in a situation where the entire enemy fleet is sailing together, there is float planes everywhere and tons of AA cruisers, oh and the enemy CV is shadowing your bombers the whole game, you use your fighters to lock him in while you prepare to get all your planes shot down, you maneuver around the enemy defensive AA and catapult fighters (only if they aren't smart enough to target your bombers manually) then you finally hit your target with the 1 squadron that made it through, 4 torp hits for all that effort, then you look at the minimap to check for what the enemy CV is doing: Auto dropping on the one BB in your team sailing in a straight line on his own.. hitting all of his torps, could that player actually hit all of his torps if he had to manual drop? Make all loadouts the same. So currently you have IJN and USN CVs, and both can go either air superiority or bomber loadouts: If you play USN CVs you'll get a bunch of plane kills, start some fires and maybe you'll get some torp hits and stay in the middle of the scoreboard most of the time with your fighter setup.. If you go bomber though, all you're doing is giving a bunch of free plane kills to the enemy CV. What happens if you play IJN? well you'll go bomber and do tons of damage all the time, if you can handle both things at once, you can protect your team and score some extra points with all the planes you shot down, I won't even talk about the IJN fighter setup because is stupid. Anyway here is the point I'm trying to make, sure, you can take fighter setup and make your team happy by killing all those nasty bombers, or you can take IJN "Bomber" setup and actually do something to influence the game. Imagine this: USN vs IJN CV, Fighter vs Bomber loadouts, 2 players of equal skill level who actually have an understanding of CV gameplay, how does the game go? IJN starts poking, looking for the DDs that go in the cap to score some early points, you send planes to different caps to maximize chances of success, guess what? The faster USN fighters are already there and there is nothing you can do, ok then, you pull back and wait for your fighters to get there so you can attack something, you're microing 8 squadrons of planes vs his 5, you have 2 fighters vs his 3, all he has to do is go at you frontally and click on your planes, lock them in and then chase your bombers with his extra squadron, wait you can strafe right? maybe that helps, guess what? if he goes at you frontally you'll never kill his planes with a strafe, he will actually kill your planes while they are stuck in the strafing animation, the only way to win is to get them from the back, but how? he is faster than you, and a good player will never just let you strafe his planes from the back, so your only hope is get him tied down by a catapult fighter and strafe, that is if his planes don't instantly kill the fighter and turn into you, turning your strafe pointless. So what did the 2 players get from this match? Maybe mid of the score board for both, USN gets lots of plane kills and a bit of damage, not enough to make an actual difference in the game, IJN gets almost the same amount of damage with that 1 or 2 bomber strikes that you damage to score while he was resupplying his fighters or maybe you played sneaky and split your planes so he couldn't kill all of them at once. Basically they just cancelled each other out: Both of them might as well not even be in that game.. So just give the "bomber" IJN setup to every CV and be done with it.. Rework the strafing mechanic and remove fighter lock: Same concept as the auto-dropping, selecting a squad of fighters and clicking on the enemy squad is stupid, so make it skill based, sure, we have strafing but that is not really enough as I explained above, make the strafe go for a shorter distance, give all planes the same ammo, improve the responsiveness since is pretty annoying when your planes just keep re positioning because they can't turn in time, and remove the damn static engagements, put a cooldown, lets say 5 seconds between strafes? to prevent spamming and abuse. You should however keep the fighter mechanic of clicking on bombers to attack them as I see no problem with this, is actually sub-optimal as you are being engaged by their rear gunners and that also keeps catapult fighters useful in this scenario, also is nice to click on enemy bombers with your fighters and focus your attention in something else. For my last suggestion I'm sure this has been told to you guys non stop, but dive bombs RNG on USN is ridiculous.. so yeah, get rid of that. Thanks TL;DR: Remove auto drops, make all loadouts the same, remove static dogfights and improve strafing, make interface more responsive.
  10. I'll make it short. Context: Stock Bogue CV, matched up against another Bogue that was running the Air Superiourity loadout and from looking how quickly my fighters dropped in the dogfights (dog fights, not Barrage!) also had the upgraded fighters too. Question: What in the seven seas am I supposed to do in this situation? This guy could just lock me down indefinately with his two fighter squadrons vs my lone one and either deter me from sending my planes outside my teammates supportive AA, or plain dogpile my squadrons when they ventured beyond it. It was either wait and do nothing, or have all my planes shot down and then wait and do nothing a couple minutes later. For all the good I did (a couple shot down fighters and three torpedo hits on a very gung-ho enemy cruiser that got close enough so I could sic my torpedo bombers on him without leaving the protective AA cover from teammates), might aswell been fiddling my thumbs or play solitaire. Is there something I could've done and I just don#t see it because I'm too inexperienced with CV gameplay, or is this match-up really so absurdly unfair as I think it is?
  11. As titled. What do you think of the secondaries in-game?
  12. GvD

    Yamato, ich liebe sie

    Ahoy, Also ich wollte hier mal meine meinung zu der yamato kundtun. das ding hatt mir schon vor dem patch angefangen spaß zu machen, jetzt rockt sie einfach nur.
  13. El2aZeR

    About the Iowa/Montana

    Browsing the American Forums, I've stumbled upon this thread: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/99212-confirmed-iowamontana-citadel-modeling-error/ For those of you too lazy to click that, it basically shows that the citadel model on both the Iowa and the Montana include a splinter deck which (obviously) should not be a part of it. This makes the citadel on both ships extend far above the waterline and is one of the reasons why they're so vulnerable compared to their contemporaries. Separating the splinter deck from the citadel would make them similar to the North Carolina and therefore much harder to hit at closer ranges. The official answer was: First of all, according to people in the thread (and I have no reason to believe they are lying) both Iowa and Montana are the only battleships in the game whose citadels are modeled to include the splinter deck (apparently the Yamato as well, but that is arguable). And I believe it is widely accepted that the Montana at least is the worst performing T10 battleship, being outclassed by both the Yamato and the G.Kurfürst in almost every category. Publicly available data supports this, showing that the Montana comes in dead last by a good amo in every relevant category across almost every server (a common trend for USN ships). The Russian server stands out as an anomaly, on which it on average sports slightly better damage and survival rates than the Yamato during the last two weeks. (I'm basing this off of warships.today, as wows-numbers is currently down, but I believe other stat sites will draw a similar picture) Of course, there are also things that will never be reflected in stats. Assuming a similar skill level, I think everyone will agree with me that a Yamato or a G.Kurfürst will usually win a fight against a Monty barring any divine intervention from RNGesus. The Montana simply doesn't have enough strengths to make up for it, most of her former ones taken away by the G.Kurfürst when it was introduced. Even some of the things it has going for it can be argued upon (for example Yamato is arguably better at weathering air strikes thanks to its absurd TDS value, as neither will be capable of wiping out a significant portion of T10 planes before they drop their payloads). This raises several questions: If being the most underperforming ship in its bracket is not enough to warrant a buff, what is? Sure, Monty deletes cruisers real good, but so do both the Yamato and the G.Kurfürst in addition to not being comparatively useless at everything else. And Monty is the most vulnerable to cruiser AP shells out of the 3. Does this perhaps mean that the game is only balanced based on statistics available on the Russian server? I've read otherwise, but WG employees are apparently no stranger to lying to the community as evidenced above. Is WG happy with the current state of US ships? If so, doesn't this validate everyone crying about "anti-US bias"? Including other facts like STS plating not being considered as armor (for those that don't know, that's 114mm of armor missing on the turret faceplate for the Montana alone), it'd be rather difficult to argue against that. It may just be that WG is waiting on how much the recent armor buff will affect the statistics before making further changes. Separating the splinter deck from the citadel would of course be a rather big survivability buff to the Iowa and the Montana, but the reasons given do seem rather questionable to say the least. Thoughts? PS: Well, this sure turned into a wall of text. It's my first post here, too *sigh*.
  14. Hi people. If there is one thing about the way people in this game cooperate that drives me nuts, it is the deliberate kill-whoring that seems to be present in all but the very low tiers of play. Some examples: 1. Players stop firing at the ship they are engaged with, to attempt to kill another low-health enemy ship - resulting in their death or loss of HP. 2. Players delay their barrage until the enemy ship is at low health, then unleash a full barage to sieze the kill. 3. Players disengage in a 2 v 1 fight and use cover until their teammate is dead, then swoop in to kill the damaged enemy. 4. Players See an easy fight with many of our team vs a couple of the enemy and turn around, abandoning their teammates. I cannot fully condemn this behaviour, because it is encouraged, in the most part, by game mechanics demanding kills for missions and achievements. I would appreciate if wargaming gently mnoved the focus of the game away from kills and more towards damage done. Even if they just awarded the "kill" to the player who has most damaged the target, it would be an improvement over the current situation. * Disclaimer - I understand that this is a team game, I understand that it belongs to wargaming so they can do whatever the hell they want and I understand that 99% of the replies I get to this post will be hostile. All I want is that people think about it a little - we are all wasting our time competing for an arbitrary game mechanic that rewards scumbags rather than tactical players! Fair skies and calm seas, comrades.
  15. xER0h0UR

    Change the name to Torpedo Wars!

    Where is the Balance for the larger Battleships when going into server I was faced on numerous occasions with multiple cruisers and destroyers firing time and time again numerous Torpedoes Why arent there any counter measures for the large Battleships ? A depth charge or something that can be released to give a 50 /50 change of survival ? Its ridiculous the amount of people just getting up the cruiser destroyer tree needs some balance there guys.
  16. Spartan41

    Arkansas Beta no AA at tier 4

    the Arkansas Beta should be upgraded to the WW2 version I can deal with speed and range of guns but no AA at tier 4 makes the Arkansas Carrier meat please upgrade this wonderful ship just with AA everything else I can deal with
  17. Jean_Bart79

    Yamato, Stealth Zao seriously?

    We could probably say OP for following ships.. 1. stealth Zao 2. Yamato is there, seriously is there any ship that can be treated as OP ship from USN? No I don't think so? What I want to talk here is that we do not want any OP ship for US, German and Soviet Navy ship tech tree, but we need the balance. so, let's discuss about those ridiculous OP ships. 1. stealth Zao - as we hardly see CV that can spot enemy ships around the field once Zao is invisible, nothing can stand against it. -Its armor is thick as BB(so funny hey? lol), it even protects itself from 16inch shells with just a little bit of angle.. -Hindenburg and Des Moines, according to the stats Zao definitely has the highest AVG dmg and win rate(At least one has to be at the top but you will know what I am saying here as you see how big the gap is between Zao and other T10 cruisers.) -It has lowest HP, but who the Fuxk cares seriously? It can even grind every battleships and cruisers alone with unbelievably high fire chance, range and shell travel speed... -Can, anyone say cons about Zao reasonably? Everyone who says Zao is not OP usually gives us funny [edited] 2. Yamato -What is the cons about Yamato? Slow turret turning speed? well I think that is it? -AS there are only two T10 battleship lets compare with Montana -compare what? If those two ships fight 1 vs 1 Montana will lose above 90% of chance <- and stupid MM makes this sad reality even worse lol -Some people say that Montana is stronger against other classes like DD and Cruisers <- this might be the worst [edited]ever. let me explain why Because Yamato has uncomparably strong Bulge armor that reduces torp damage and way better secondaries<- strong against DD's and CV torp bombers Yamato's 18inch guns can penetrate literally anything even though the target is properly angled <- OP against all battleships it has low concealment but has overpowered accuracy and range when Montana only has 23.6KM of range with ugly dispersion. At max range and any range above 15KM, Montana's 16inch shells cannot give satisfactful damage to Yamato but Yamato can give enormously high damage to Montana at its max range. -Someone said, we have to play Montana like cruisers -> how can I play this ship like cruisers? Yamato can turn faster lol -Montana should use HE for fighting with Yamato? Even though it sets fire on Yamato a lot, still Yamato is superior to Montana... -Montana's armor is underpowered, WG even nerfed it by ignoring historical fact -> please check the details of armor structure of real Montana and in-game Montana. -Yamato was born to be the beast and I know that.. however WG loves not giving a crapabout historical fact. My opinion is not only mine, I am very confident to say most of players could agree with me. for fair and fun game there has to be an adjustment with these ships. I always respect all other opinion, however if it's not reasonable or way far from the real fact I may think it as [edited]and I have seen a lot in the forum. Please do not waste reader's time.
  18. Verdius

    Modifications/Upgrades

    I would like to open this thread for the discussion of Modifications Firstly I would like to say that a do like the fact that some of the modifications actually have a trade off where they can actually influence your playstyle like the battery modifications that slow down/speed up reload while having an opposite effect on turret turn time. I personally think that it is a good idea that modifications should not just give you a flat bonus and I would actually personally like to see this expanded as I find this more interesting than many of the modules in World of Tanks like the gun rammer which is basically a must have for every tank that can mount it which limits your freedom of choice since there is a clear optimal choice. If there is a negative side to a modification then the choice of upgrades will be far more dependant on personal taste and would likely increase the gameplay variety as some could really change the way you need to use a certain ship or have a risk attached to them which you would have to take into account. One of my issues with how it is currently implemented is that some ships would benefit from modifications that are not available to its tier. The other issue is that some modifications, like the detectatbility modification which lowers detection range by 10%/12%, might make balancing more difficult since it means that ships of tier VIII have a significant advantage over ships of tier VII and lower, especially when it comes to destroyers and cruisers. In these cases when you are bottom tier you are at an disadvantage not just because your ship is a lower tier and probably has lower stats, but also because your opposition might have modifications which you cannot mount. I am also quite curious if people like the World of Warships modification system in which you chose a modifictaion in every category more than the World of Tanks one where you can just get 3 modules but can chose any module that they would like for every slot. Please state why you made your choice or if you have a different idea to the ones already listed on how you would implement the modification/upgrade system.
  19. LordoftheLavalamp

    Momentane DD Balance..

    Moin Moin Leute.. Ich weiß ja nicht wie es euch geht bzw. wie eure Lobbys so aussehen. Ich habe seid den letzten gefühlten 50 Games fast immer 10 DD´s in einer Lobby. Dann aber nicht 5 pro Team sondern Grundsätzlich 6/4 bzw 4/6. Hieß es nicht im letzten Patch dass, das MM für DD angepasst werden sollte ? Bei 3 Shimakaze im Gegnerteam kann man seinen Kurs/Geschwindigkeit anpassen wie man will man entkommt so nem Teppich nicht.. Das nimmt mir teilweise den kompletten Spielspaß.. Desweiteren kann man die Idee nicht mal verbreiten die DD's pro Team zu begrenzen? 3 Stück sollten eigentlich genügen.. Besonders T8 aufwärts ..
  20. Hi all, I had 7 "Domination" games today - in all of them my side had 1-2-3 less DDs by MM... We were at HUGE disadvantage at the start and, of course 6 of those 7 games were lost despite the best effort... So, WG, please make DDs MIRROR in "Domination" game mode because it is simply not fair to be fighting almost certain losing battle - the number of DDs is what counts in "Domination" mode! Leo "Apollo11"
  21. LeopardXI

    General balance in game

    Some people say that WoWS is ready for open beta realse, i completely disagree. A few functions (ammunition and consumables, crew barracks) are not in the game yet, we still have to test them. But the main problem with the game now is the balance of power between the classes. The cruiser class is in my opinion balanced. Thats not the case with the other 3, the Aircraft Carrier, Destroyers and Battleships. That basically comes to 2 things: RNG and torpedoes. The huge RNG on Battleships means you need a lot of luck to perform well. The guns are too inaccurate. As for their health and speed, its what you expect from them, big health pool and their slow. For the Aircraft Carrier and Destroyers: nerf their torpedoes, especcially in low to mid tiers. (tier 2-7). If destroyers get really close, they become OP as hell. 1 or 2 spreads of torpedoes is enough to sink a full health battleship. For lower tiers: 1 or 2 torps is enough to kill everyone. 1 more thing: whats the purpose of bombs from an Aircraft Carrier? they do little damage and can only start a fire. Come on!! To counter this: - Increase the acc a bit on the battleships (not to acc, you still need to aim wel - General damage nerf on torpedoes, especcially at lower tiers. 2-3 torps should be enough to cripple a tier 3 BB but not completely destroy it! - Increase the damage of bombs This game gets a 6 for now on a scale 1 to 10. With the buffs in place that can increase to 7. Im also missing some the fun from World of Tanks here.
  22. Killerbee60

    Co-Op Gefechte

    Hallo liebe Community Seit Spielbeginn habe ich immer von der Taiho geträumt und letzte woche konnte ich sie mir endlich erforschen und kaufen. Also nutzte ich noch etwas gold um mir das Flugdeck mod 3 zu erforschen also das 2/3/2 setup und klickte mich in die co-op gefechte da ich zufallsgefechte nicht mag da ich gefühlt immer mit schlechten spielern zusammenkomme. Beim 1. Gefecht im Co-op ist mir aufgefallen dass der Bot schon alle upgrades hat was ich unfair finde und ich nur das flugdeck mod habe und sozusagen eine tier 9 shokaku bin. Der Bot hat LEIDER das 3/2/2 setup was mich tierisch nervt, da 1. er schon die tier 9 Jäger hat 2. Schon den besten rumpf mit stärkerer AA und 3. da ich das noch nie erlebte bis jetzt also von der Hosho bis zur Shokaku hatte der Bot immer das setup welches ich auch hatte. und auch etwas das plötzlich komisch ist, dass meine jäger ich hab mittlerweile die tier 9 jäger, im kampf mit den des bots immer vernichtet wurden obwohl ich auch tier 9 flugzeuge habe und bei all den vorherigen meine seine immer dominiert hatten. plötzlich war es einfach anderst . Das zwingt mich ja auch nochmals mühsam 25k xp zu grinden um mir auch das botflugdeck zu erforschen, damit ich eine chance habe aber so habe ich echt keinen spass mehr. Erzählt doch auch mal eure story vlt kennt ihr das ja
  23. I am only wondering if hard facts concern people. Hard fact is something like statistics, data collected over a year or more from ships performance. Knowing WG is keeping a close eye, i can't help but wonder if the trend of Premium ships (and it is consider Premium even if it was a reward for participation in Alpha or any other case) toping the charts and stats consistently, is something they actually worried about. Since the majority of the playerbase do not, i only hope the Dev team is striving to have a balanced game. In this case, the stats are hard facts, someone cannot simply invent excuses dressed as arguments to sleep well at night. It is what it is. I hope the future, the meta, will be taken as a priority for the game. [i wish for a healthy and balanced game and after 20 years of gaming i would actually prefer if all games would be just plain B2P, so no one could use euphemism and excuses for the unbalanced experience of some games, but that's a personal opinion, nevertheless not so biased or subjective.] Another thing. To me CV's do not seem weak. I do feel biased here as i always hated them in this game. My worst game experiences are attached to them. Stats show them toping the charts at DMG, Survivability and that is enough for me right now. So, what will it be? As usual with WG i am not expecting them to even consider anything the playerbase says. Not even discuss it among them or see reason or even more, do something to balance things out. My experience shows that people love having the upper hand by paying for something, rather than using wits or skill etc. There is a tendency to disregard and ignore, instead of thinking and discussing issues, not just here ofc. "Common sense is not so common" and every day i feel the witness of this. This could not be any different here.
  24. Cesky_reznik

    Feelings (Mainly balance complain)

    So I decided to try this before War Thunder release ships and UK tanks. I have no problem with that fact that this is Arcade. First few battles was OK. (tier 1 vs tier 1 or max 2) Today I bought my second T2 ship.. Gained some "skill" because my enemies was (Sorry but It's needed to say) DUMB. So I get like 3 kills with one ship taken only 2 shoots and survived... So game decided to put me with stock tier 2 against 1 Tier 5, 3x Tier 4 and Tier 3... Like srsly? This is balance? So you just have low tier ship which is good for you, you win some matches and then it place you against tier 5. And tier 5 "heroes" just loose some battles to decrease their "skill" so they can sealclub tier 2... Yeah I see that logic: Your enemies are potatoes so we will put you against high tier where you die on first contact. I will leave this game on my HDD for a month and I will hope that you will do something better for balance. (Cough cough* War Thunder Battle Rating *Cough Cough*) Pros: NO bugs and glitches and crashes Nice graphics (But ships should be more HD) Easy control and play So rating: As arcade turn off from day it's good.. But after tier 2 it looks like it will turns into 24/7 grind or buy premium. And unbalanced. If you are good you are soon placed in +3 Tiers battle... If you are bad you are placed in -3 Tier battles. Just repair balance and it will be good arcade.
  25. Crusherheads

    They are Back - TX

    Finaly, never saw so many montanas and yamatos straigh on each TX match, finaly...the BBs are back Also enjoying driving my Yamato in this lastes matches! So far been a good Update imo.
×