Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Spotting'.



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 57 results

  1. Nothing here is new there are many posts that have covered these ships, this is just my take on what is probably now a stale idea. I am also not very knowledgeable. Please improve on these ideas with your thoughts. I think the Japanese cruiser line works well and does not need improvement except maybe a little on the Ibuki and Aoba (I do not believe this but some people have commented negatively about them). The following are just ideas if they ever decide to add more IJN cruisers. It will be a scouting cruisers line that will consist of 3 ships and three premium/resource ships. The Scouting Cruiser line Main advantage is slightly better (It could be made to be vastly better) seaplane consumables and better AA. I believe these uniquely designed ships will add something different to the game. The ships The ships will be the light cruiser Oyodo, the Mogami cruiser after being converted into a seaplane cruiser and the heavy cruiser Tone. Tiers There are three ways I see these ships being tiered. Tier 5 - Oyodo Tier 6 - Mogami Tier 7 - Tone Or Tier 6 - Oyodo Tier 7 - Mogami Tier 8 - Tone Or Tier 5 - Oyodo Tier 6 - no ship available Tier 7 - Mogami Tier 8 - Tone As a bonus tier, the Chikuma could be added but the only difference between Chikuma and Tone will be slightly better AA. That makes the following undesirable. Tier 5 - Oyodo Tier 6 - Mogami Tier 7 - Chikuma Tier 8 - Tone The Oyodo class Armor The ship will be less armored than the Furutaka. "Oyodo was fairly well protected when compared to allied light cruisers" - Wayne Patton, Japanese Light Cruisers of World War 2 in Action, p.55. I am not sure about the citadel situation Survivability The Oyodo will have less hit points than the Furutaka since it is a light cruiser. The hit points could also be the same since the difference in ship type is represented by the armor i.e. even with the same hit points the Oyodo will receive more damage than the Furutaka from the same hit. Also, the Furutaka has a similar displacement to the Oyodo and the Oyodo carried more crew member. Main Armament Two triple 15.5cm turrets at the front with similar characteristics to the ones on the 15.5cm variant Mogami aside from the range and no main armament at the rear. Range It should be worse than the Furutaka by about 8 percent according to Mark Stille's tables of Max ranges of different Japanese main gun types in his books "Imperial Japanese Navy Heavy Cruisers 1941-1945" and "Imperial Japanese Navy Light Cruisers 1941-1945" This could also be based on the ship's range finderradar limits rather than maximum gun range. In the end it should be a small and fair reduction in range from the Furutaka's. Torpedoes None are available which can be mitigated as a disadvantage by being implemented as reducing the base chance of a devastating strike. Though this will not be enough to justify the ship as competitive or even as worth playing over the Furutaka. AA It would be awesome if it had better AA than the Furutaka. "In late October (1944), four more single 25mm guns were added for a final total of 57 – 12 triple and 21 single mounts." - Mark Stille, Imperial Japanese Navy Light Cruisers 1941-1945, p.40 Speed 35 knots Concealment It could be equal to the Furutaka or better. Generally, I see Oyodo's concealment as being determined by tests given the lack of rear turrets, I am not sure how it will play. The Aircraft Cruiser Mogami It will need a name different from the Mogami to distinguish it. This could be a minor issue or possible a stressful one. Armor It will be similar to tier 8 Mogami which is why it could be too well protected for Tier 6 but the Graf Spee is at Tier 6 and it has better armor. Survivability It should have slightly less hit points than the tier 8 Mogami. Armament It will be similar to 20.3cm variant tier 8 Mogami aside from the range and there being no rear armament. Range It should be slightly better than the Aoba or the same. Torpedoes It will be similar to tier 8 Mogami. AA It should be better than tier 8 Mogami's AA. Speed It will be similar to the Tier 8 Mogami. Concealment It will depend on tests. The Tone Class Armor It is better than the Mogami Class. It should have a citadel that sits lower in the water. The main belt is slopped 20 degrees as opposed to Myoko’s 12 degrees. "This class was the best protected of the IJN's heavy cruisers. The total weight of armor and protective plating was nearly identical to that of the Mogami class, but since all the turrets were grouped forward, a heavier scale of protection could be provided over a more compact magazine area" - Mark Stille, Imperial Japanese Navy Heavy Cruisers 1941-1945, p.40. This is what will make it effective for tier 8. It being good at tanking damage. Survivability It should be better than tier 8 Mogami due to the better armour, there being no guns at the rear allowed for no chances of magazine detanation if shell land there and a greater space for the crew to spread. Also, as a bonus "These ships were reportedly the most comfortable of the Japanese cruisers, which were notorious for discomfort." - Wayne Patton, Japanese Light Cruisers of World War 2 in Action, p.54 Main Armament Four twin 20.3cm gun turrents at the front and none at the rear. If you enjoy variety even at the cost of including paper ships, four triple 15.5cm gun turrets at the front and none at the rear. “Before the construction of the ships had proceeded to the upper deck, existing naval treaties lapsed, so the triple 6.1 in turrets were replaced with twin 8in turrets.” - Mark Stille, Imperial Japanese Navy Light Cruisers 1941-1945, p.42. The guns could be made to seem more accurate due to them being positioned close to each other. Range It should be similar to the tier 8 Mogami Torpedoes Similar to the Myoko? AA I would expect them to be the best in the Japanese cruiser line, except for maybe the Zao, due to its numerous gun mounts and it's "more modern Type 94 high-angle director for the 5in guns." Speed 35knots Concealment It should be similar to the Mogami or may be better. Consumables This is where these ships' advantages over the standard Japanese cruiser line lie. The Oyodo will have 3 consumable slots like the Furutaka but with the option of spotting available i.e. Damage party, Damage party, Hydro/Defensive AA, Fighter/Spotting. The Aircraft cruiser Mogami will have 5 consumables (Damage party, Hydro/Defensive AA, Fighter and Spotting.) The Tone will have will have consumables like Aircraft Mogami or 6 consumables (Damage party, Hydro, Defensive AA, Fighter and Spotting.) The fighter and spotting consumable will either have a slightly shorter cool down or a slightly longer duration as compared to the average. Something like 15 more seconds on spotting to allow a possible one extra salvo. The ships will come equipped with one more fighter than the base making the “Direction Center for Fighters” captain skill unnecessary. The ships will have the average number of consumables. The Premium/resource Ships IJN Sakawa Unfortunately the Yahagi exists thus this will just be a duplicate. A beautiful ship. Tier 5. Good AA for a Japanese ship with 10 25mm triple mounts and 42 25mm single mounts. IJN Agano-Kai (Possibly) Tier 6 or Tier 5 given how the Yahagi performs. A paper ship. The real Agano will just be a dublicate of the IJN Sakawa with weaker AA. I am not all that into paper ships but it could be fun. As opposed to the real Agano, it has an extra twin 15.5cm gun turrent at the rear. It has a longer hull, a larger smoke stack and an additional 8cm type98 HA guns in twin mounts. IJN Maya Tier 7.
  2. Lately (well, last 2...3 months at least) I've noticed a rather annoying tendency of ships to blink in-and-out of being spotted, and what seemed to me like slight delay in them actually getting spotted. After looking into it... In-match example: Ignore the aiming point / where shells are dropping. I took manual control over the camera in replay so you don't have the constant zooming in-out I tend to do. Derpitz is spotted, fires his guns, goes dark, gets spotted again. This shouldn't be a thing, should it? Nothing between me and him on the map either, nothing for him to "hide" behind for those couple seconds. He disappears on the map aswell. And this is jut one more obvious example of it. The ship doesn't even need to be spotted, after they fire they don't appear instantly: Not only this is 100% reproducible in Training Room, it's consistent on its own aswell. Fire, get spotted 2s later, disappear 19s after that. Total time from firing to stealthing up is 21s (hello 20s, where did you go?) So yeah, the hell is up with spotting? Nothing here works as it should. But you know what this does look like? Who here remembers the old days when we had immediate ship spotting on the map, then delayed spotting of the ship itself? When WG decided to get rid of it (approx. patch 0.7.4) their INITIAL solution was to introduce a delay on the minimap, creating exactly this kind of a result. Of course, they said it's exactly what they're not doing, and after I pointed it out + Flamu built some outrage about it they stepped back and removed the delays and introduced actual instant spotting. So when exactly has WG sneaked behind everyones back and re-introduced the delay that absolutely noone wanted? /tagging WG staff to maybe get an actual answer/ @MrConway @Crysantos @Sehales @Sub_Octavian
  3. I love the new carrier gameplay and certainly feel it should stay. But the balance is terrible, especially towards destroyers. I want all classes to be fun to play and have active roles. I don't feel that the answer lies in any balancing of AA scores, since that does not really help the DDs, and just makes either CVs or AA ships underpowered. (Some balancing is of course necessary, but my post is not about AA ships and carriers) I think the issue could be solved better by adjusting air detection for destroyers. Here are some possibilities I have thought of: 1) Give DDs zero (0) air detection. This means that planes will never spot a DD. The carrier can see where fire comes from, but never get any model to target. Basically it gives carriers "Deep Water" detection. 2) Give DDs a air detection of perhaps one or two-hundred meters. This means that a lucky flyover will reveal the general position of a DD to friendly team, but that a non-shooting destroyer is nearly impossible to attack with planes. 3) Combine reduced air detection with a shooting "Bloom" Same as with shooting from smoke, firing enlarges air visibility by a fixed distance. This could be dependent on the caliber of the guns firing like present smoke firing, or it could be the full range of the guns or AA system engaging the enemy - Like the present shooting mechanic. This method would give DDs back to role of spotting, area control, and cap capturing. It will also be a major indirect buff to torpedo destroyers, though I am not sure if that is a big problem. Gun destroyers have the possibility of going silent and avoiding planes. Carriers will almost only be able to attack destroyers if they have been spotted by friendly surface ships. Which I think is okay. It means more teamplay between carriers and surface ships (especially destroyers) as carriers would have to support DDs with fighters and dance with the enemy CVs to avoid their fighters and attack the enemy DDs. Rocket planes would still be relevant (and no too overpowered, I think) as they can quickly move to a DD vs. DD hotspot and give support to friendly DDs and radar ships. I know that historically rocket and gun armed planes were the terror and doom of destroyers in WWII, but that is no reason to oblirate an entire class in this arcade game. I play carriers, but I want good destroyer gameplay and to see it rewarded! (I apologize if anyone has made this sort of suggestion already, I make no claim to be a game designer genius)
  4. Hey guys, been out of the game for around 3 years. After logging back and realizing i cant play tier 8 or below battleships because carriers. So then I thought I could counter their shenanigans with a fully AA decked cruiser. Guess what? I was wrong, they close in and get me spotted, entire enemy team spots me, planes vanish into thin air but i get no planes shot down cause apparently when a plane says "screw you i'm going home" it means they become invulnerable. Thanks for making carrier vision control even more risk free than it already was, cause that's what the game needed. I played a lot of DD's too back in the day but apparently every new ship has a more fancier than before powercreeped anti DD mechanics and gimmicks. 3 Questions. Why are carriers even more oppressive and uncounterable than before the glorious rework? What's the point of playing a gunboat DD when every new addition to the game (including these assholes in the air) just make you want to go back to port? Why do ships have anti-air when click of a button gives your planes force fields and invisibility?
  5. "Spotting have killed the game" Many players, to the more famous gamers/streamers have been saying the above line about the new CV rework. Ever since the major RTS was shelved, with many seesawing of micro updates, to major patches along the way. The look and feel of the new "mode". Effectively, World of Warships have changed forever... I feel I need to include the following. Instead of starting another thread in the forum, nor restarting what is already been said many times since. Yes, Wargaming (WG) have essentially "succeeded" in raising the players to try the CV lines. That's a fact, to which I will not challenge. After all, the numbers do reflect the rise in CV usage according to their data. As well as in game. That was their intention (they proved many times during their public statements in many 'summits'), but was that the only intention? Doubt it. With any introduction of anything "new", (this case being CV changes) WG have placed many Premium CVs on their shops. Many were sold. Only to have the players who bought them the feeling of buyers remorse. Subsequent updates/patches later. This is not only a rumour mill (From NA players to EU players), it's a fact. I've spoken to many players directly on both sides of the pond. None of them were glad to have bought them. What WG have consequently done. Their drop in the ocean, is now being felt on the shores of all the playerbases around the regions. A message to players. Could we please keep any and all arguments of why there is a CV / or the need for CV in this game out of this thread. This is not about that. It's about working with what we have now, to make it hopefully better for all. No, I'm not a pro-CV or against-CV. I just play with what the WG have given access me. Back on topic. Let's face it. Going back is not an option for WG. After many, many months of work and money poured into it. We know that it isn't going to happen. We get it. Instead of pressing for the hard reset. Let's find a way to maintain the changes, and tweak what could be better for all player base/game itself. So the following is what I will suggest for the WG team to maybe bring to their next internal meeting, hopefully. Currently, the spotting mechanic allows for X amount of distance from plane to ship to be 'hard spotted'. Much like surface ships to surface ships spotting mechanic. The distance varies from ship to ship, and their individual configurations that users chose to use their particular ships. I do not think that the players are unhappy with such mechanic. The fact that a plane can spot a ship at a certain fixed distance is nothing new. This was also true from the RTS days. So I can't say that this could be the issue. What is questionable, and begs the question of "spotting have killed the game". Is something else from the aforementioned hard spot mechanics. What it does now? It allows for CV planes to spot ships anywhere on the map. The detection ranges of the ships plus the range of the planes spotting distance to the ships overlaps too closely. What does that mean? Let's say ship has air detection of 5km, the plane have hard potting distance of 6km. That leaves 1km buffer in favour of the the planes. If anything, this gap should be addressed. If it hasn't already. I feel I might get lost in my own words here, so let me just jump right into it. Suggestions: Dropped Fighters (Close air patrol - CAP): A: Their spotting ability is active as long as they are patrolling in their dropped areas. With an active "aircraft fuel" timer. I feel I need to write this, just in case the current mechanic will be drastically changed for something else. This mechanic is fine as is. As a DD player, I think this wouldn't impact me as much. Or any other ship types. B: Their spotting ability is only active for a limited period, while retaining the ability to fight other enemy fighters. For example: Spotting time for full strength fighter squadron = 45 seconds, CAP time = 60secs. So upon 45 second mark, the spotting will stop. But the air to air will remain until the timer runs out. Or until the Combat Air Patrol (air to air) area is still active until the planes are shot down. Then the area goes dark. C: Their spotting radius is decided upon how many fighters are patrolling the area. i.e. 6 planes maximum (insert arbitrary number here) spotting distance, 1 plane minimum (inset arbitrary number here) spotting distance from centre of axis/flight pattern. D: The fighters can be replaced by being reinforced by another set of fighters from the CV; Automated flight. This will need to be done by addition of a CV consumable. Players choice, selectable for Premium consumable or non-premium. This will free up the CV player to assist one side of of map, while not having to fly from across the map to drop fighters. (I fear this as the most vulnerable idea, that the public may not agree with) CV vs CV gameplay: What is a missed opportunity. Not having the ability to directly PvP against a CV, as a CV player in game. Currently the CV is in battle with themselves to get as much damage, not versus enemy CV player. No matter how much we dissect this mechanic. That is what it results to. In the older system, there were. Skill level was player input controlled, versus the RNG automated as it is now. Now it's drop the fighters, let the automated RNG figure it out. This is nothing close to what the surface ship players do. They position, they aim, they time, etc. To achieve a particular result of their choices and actions. Why should it be any different for the CV? Imagine, if destroyers, cruisers, battleships with a press of a consumable. Allowing the shells to land on target depending totally on the automated RNG without any other input form the player. I'm quite sure that the player would disagree with this, why can't the CV players actions reflect this too? Why make the CV gameplay automated when fighting versus another CV player? This is something that should be addressed, if CV is to be more than just a damage collector. Introduce a consumable for player controlled Air to Air dogfighting: When a player is flying their squadron, and sees/wants to engage with the enemy squadron. Allow the player to press a consumable or a key, to change the reticule to Air-to-Air mode to engage in their dog fighting. Once either side have been shot down, the remaining planes will switch to the current "flying" mode. Or please find another way for Air-to-air dogfighting to be player input related, and not automated. I just find that the exclusion of player controlled input with Air-to-Air is a huge missed opportunity during the current rework. Flying player controlled planes (Rockets, torpedoes, bombs): When a player is actively controlling the squadron. The fog of war will be lifted off the minimal. In conjunction with the main battle screen. As the flying squadron is moving from grid to grid/area to area. Think of the planes directly (Line of sight) spotting the ships while it is on coarse. The planes can turn around to keep the target spotted, provided it is still airborne. Also the squadrons spotting is limited to X amount of distance from the centre point of axis/formation. So the squadrons will have to actively seek to find a target, loiter the target area to receive spotting damage (this should be boosted & reflected to CV players, not just relying on damage alone when calculating the credit earning formula). If the squadron all gets shot down, effectively fog of war reactivating instantly. Or until another squadron flies into the unmasked zone. I'm quite sure I've missed more ideas at the time of this writing. Summary The battle space is no longer open "spotted" for the whole duration. It would give all the ships the option to maneuver freely (provided they are not being actively spotted). It would also limit the CV's purpose to farm just for their own needs (opposite of team play). Re-introduce the manual controls of player selected inputs for Air-to-Air dogfights. Wargaming, can we test this idea at least? @Sub_Octavian,
  6. ClappingLollies

    Spotting

    What do you guys think about spotting as it is now? Should WG change it? I think the spotting mechanic is outdated and needs some looking at. In my opinion WG should rethink the whole deal or at least start rewarding it properly. I don't think many DD's or CV's are interested in spotting any longer. Or it atleast seems that way. I don't blame them not spotting tho. Why should they spot? The only reward they get is better WR if doing so. But who cares about that these days? Spotting should not be something that the DD's accidentally does on their way to the next border humping BB. It should be some incentive to light up enemy ships for your team. Ive had so many games where the CV's and DD's are simply uninterested in spotting for their teams. It then usually brings along boring gameplay. Damage should NOT be the all mighty modifier for all classes or ships. I would happily play DD's and spot for my team if i actually got rewarded for it. My last Henry game, i had to get close enough to the enemy to spot them for our team and WASD like a madman trying to stay alive. The fact that i did that basically won us the game. Our ships on the south side of the map could then farm broadsides. Which got 2 cruisers and 2 BB's killed. The funny part about this was there was a Shima sitting in smoke 1km behind me.... Shooting. So i had to spot with a poorly concealed cruiser and he sat there trying to DMG farm with one of the best concealed ships in the game. I feel like this is a good example to mention because imo this is not how it shouldn't be. But it is sadly very common. That DD should want to spot the enemy. Not sit there and pew-pew with he's tiny slow firing guns. Its not as bad at lower tiers i feel. Or am i completely wrong here and spotting is fine?
  7. HI all, INFO: For DD player vs. CVs - change AA sector without enabling the AA guns to remain unspotted! Great info from Reddit: Source All credits to original author: "agnaaiu" !!! Leo "Apollo11"
  8. Hello everyone, I recently came back to WoWs after a longer hiatus and decided to main Carriers after their rework. I am having a blast but, as with many others, I feel that they are a bit too strong now. (Although weaker than before the rework, there are A LOT more of them playing) In my opinion the primary reason that the Carriers are so strong is their unparalleled ability to spot enemy ships. The global lack of concealment hits the Destroyers especially hard since it is their primary means of survival. Currently the Carriers sits at a comparable damage potential to Battleships while at the same time having a far greater spotting potential than Destroyers. My suggestion would be to greatly reduce the Carriers ability to directly spot for their team by only having the Carriers spotting showing up on the minimap of their teammates. This would bring back a lot of the spotting role to the Destroyers. However, there are times when as a Carrier you can’t reliably strike the enemy without taking heavy losses due to them grouping up effectively (as they should be). In order for the carrier to still be useful in such a scenario I would give them a new consumable called “Radio Relay”. This consumable would enable the Carriers to relay spotting information to their allies, effectively enabling them to spot ships like normal. The duration and cooldown could be comparable to the radars available to Cruisers. The suggested rework would: A) Remove the CVs ability to keep the enemies permanently spotted. B) Bring back the majority of the spotting role to DDs. C) Make CV spotting more of a tactical tool rather than a strategic one. TL;DR: In order to nerf their effectiveness make CV spotting only show up on the minimap of its teammates unless a new consumable “Radio Relay” is used.
  9. TL;DR or "short version" Strike planes (Attack plane, TB, DB) losing the ability to spot for teammates, only minimap spotting. Reconnaissance aircraft is the only plane type, which can spot Reconnaissance aircraft has a "special attack", where the plane can observe other ships and decreases the max. dispersion for teammates. The reconnaissance aircraft adds 50% of the damage done to an observed target caused by teammates to the CVs damage counter, while observing a target. The Observation run could also reveal information about the target like the current speed. Reconnaissance aircraft are single planes with small HP pool. DDs (counter) can handle them easily. CVs can't strike and spot the DD and other ships. Only spot or strike. Reconnaissance aircraft has special spotter consumables. Table of content Introduction Reconnaissance aircraft for Hakuryu Possible consumables Observation flight (attack run) Gameplay Bonus: Reconnaissance aircraft on second branch CV (Support CVs?) Introduction Many people complain about perma spotting. I'm more neutral about that, but what I really don't like: At the begin of a match every ship is bunched up and attack there would only cost many strike planes. So generally it's more about to scout with the strike squad. But only scouting is kinda boring and weird with strike planes. Thus I would prefer, if there would be a plane type made for this role, which would also solve the "perma spotting" issue. My idea is to add reconnaissance aircraft for CVs as a 4th option. The strike planes would lose the ability to spot for other teammates and would be only possible to spot for themself (they could scout on the minimap only), while the reconnaissance aircraft would be able to spot for the team. The reconnaissance aircraft would also have an "attack run" and I will call it observation flight (tell me, if you have a better name for that) and it works like the a normal attack run with left mouse button. Reconnaissance aircraft for Hakuryu Aircraft type: C6N Saiun Hit points: 1257 Max. speed: 241 Knots (with boost) Squad size: 1 Flight deck reload: 182 Sek. Concealment: 7.5 km Flight deck size: 2 Possible consumables (not all, just a collection of ideas) Crewman: Spotter I (alternative name: Binoculars I) Increases the concealment to sky of enemy ship for the reconnaissance aircraft by 20%. Also the reconnaissance aircraft is able to spot the last known position of firing ships (even smoke firing ships). Duration of the consumable: 30 seconds Cooldown: 80 seconds Charges: 3 Crewman: Gunner I Reduces the damage taken from fighters by 75% and the rear gunner starts to shot at planes behind the reconnaissance aircraft. (Kills ~1 plane) Duration of the consumable: 10 seconds Cooldown: 80 seconds Charges: 3 Patrol flight I The reconnaissance aircraft starts to patrol in an area (Like the fighter consumable). The player loses control of the reconnaissance aircraft and can return to the CV with the 'F' key. Duration of the consumable: 30 seconds Cooldown: 120 seconds Charges: 3 External fuel tank I Using Engine boost or air breaks won't cost any energy, but the aircraft takes 33% more damage, while it lasts. Duration of the consumable: 20 seconds Cooldown: 80 seconds Charges: 3 Observation flight (attack run) The Observation flight works like the attack run of an attack plane or torpedo plane. But instead of attacking a target, they go into an observation mode - a bit like the periscope of the submarines at the Halloween event. Thus the recon aircraft observes a target with binoculars and is able to mark a target for the team. If the enemy ship is targeted/marked by the reconnaissance aircraft (IJN) the max. dispersion is reduced by 20% for team mates and 25%, if it's an USN reconnaissance aircraft. Additionally the damage done by team mates while observing the target will be added to 50% to the CVs damage counter as well. So the CV gains base exp for being a spotter only and gives team support by reducing the max. dispersion. As a userfriendly help, there are two indicators for the teammates. First the observed/targeted/marked enemy will get a graphic indicator, that the teammates can see it in-game. The other indicator is a chat message similar to the chat messages of using a radar. Something like "The reconnaissance aircraft revealed a weak target on D4. Focus fire!" Gameplay In randoms and especially in clan battles the CV would have a better gameplay in the first minutes. The CV starts a reconnaissance aircraft to spot the enemies movements and if there is a good target, he will aim for that ship, so the teammates can shoot at it. The early spotting would be way more fun and not only flying around and do nothing. It would be more engaging, if the spotting is more active, less passive. The dds won't have much trouble with the reconnaissance aircraft, because there is only one with low hp, thus it will be shot down pretty fast and the CV would try to avoide DDs. If the CV decides to start a strike squad against a DD, then he won't spot the DD for his teammates and he would have to deal with the DD alone, thus the DD can focus on dodging the CVs aircrafts The USN are considered to have a better reconnaissance aircraft, because the IJN have long range torps, which can be used out of the AA range, this shall give the Midway more value and make her to a good alternative choice. Bonus: Reconnaissance aircraft on second branch CV (Support CVs?) We know, that there will be a second branch in the future and Wargaming mentioned some ideas of Support-CV. The reconnaissance aircraft could be also implemented on those CV but a stronger variant. The reconnaissance aircraft on Support-CVs are in a squad of 3, or 6 planes and could also carry bombs for example. The Support-CV would be a better and way more effective spotter than the Strike-CV Actually, my reconnaissance aircraft idea would solve the alternative line. The Strike CVs would have: Attack aircrafts Torpedo bombers Dive bombers Single reconnaissance aircrafts The Support CVs would be still have strike potential, but more focused on the spotting mechanic So Support CVs would have: Reconnaissance aircrafts in squads with HE-bombs Torpedo bombers AP-dive bombers (USN) / HE-dive bombers (IJN) weak attack planes (Kaga sytle)
  10. Kurogane79

    Unspotted but still getting hit

    Hi, ive played for some years now and lately get some games that i cant explain.. For example.. I played my yamato was complete unspotter and have not been spotted in that game yet. but 2 ships from the enemy team shot and kept shooting accurately and hit everty single salvo,.. there was no smokescreen near, no radar or hydro or plane detection showing.. nothing.. how is it possible to be completely unspotted but still get shot at that accurately?
  11. An idea that might help DD and a lot of other ships As it is right now once you get spotter by anyone or anything, everyone and their mother Can shoot at you, as long as they are in range. Due to this the gameplay, has gotten kinda stale a lot of the time, big blobs, border camping BB, DD hunted to near extinction by CV and islands hugging CA. I suggest a change to way spotting works, a tweak, Add something akin to radio range into, where only ships within you radio range can target ships you are spotting, Let's set a radio range of 10km, a good value in my opinion, Example 1, a DD is ranging forward to scout, he spots an enemy BB, There are 2 CA within 10km of his position, and they can both fully see, target and shoot at the BB, But further back, near map border a BB is camping, is more the 10 km from DD, And only gets the enemy BB on mini map, and can not target him Example 2 an lone DD is trying to sneak up a flank, carefully keeping his range, The enemy CV send his planes the flank to see if any DD is trying to sneak by, Spots DD, but unfortunately for CV, no other ships are within 10km of his planes, So only the CV can engage the DD with is planes, though everyone still gets him on mini map I used 10km range, I don't know if that should be the value, or if it should be the same value for all ships!l Give feedback on what you think, polite if the is within in your skills, If you are socially challenged and only knows how to reply rudely, that is okay to 😁😉
  12. Hi. Having given the CV rework time to settle down it is clear that DD play is still severely impaired. Even in the likes of the Kidd or a full AA spec Gearing, being spotted by air means taking fire and eventual deletion. DD gameplay seems to be dying. I have 3 years and hundreds of pounds invested in this game and need to make an informed decision about my future investment and even whether it is time to move on entirely. If anyone has the attention of the Dev team or any news as to the future of CV/Spotting, I would be very grateful to hear it. I really hope I don't have to leave the game I love. Thanks. Edit. This thread is not a request for tactics. I just need information on the direction WG are taking regarding CV's spotting. Thanks again.
  13. FukushuNL

    Another radar ship

    1 Day and I'm already done with the Alaska. I was interested in getting her as I haven't gotten any of the other BC yet, but nowadays, between the English cruisers, the Russian cruisers and the American cruisers, I am permaspotted when trying to contest a cap. And now we have another radar ship in our midst. I did a game in my Jutland and have been camping an island for like 5 minutes, no kidding, because I had a continuous radar icon above my ship. If the Neptune's radar was on cooldown, the Worcester went on, followed by the Alaskas. I now refuse to buy the ship as I don't want to be putting other DD captains in that position. I'll wait for the Asuma or the T10 Japanese.
  14. Hi all, have some suggestions for the CVs 1. Add Smoke bombs consumables to planes to switch the Fighters consumable. One smoke plume that last 30 sec. Pretty good for Clan wars. 2. Airplanes can spot only in front of them! Player must keep the airplane pointing in the ships direction in order to keep him spotted. View area can be balanced 60 degrees to 90 degrees. This should make the CV players choose between roles spot or attack, and @ same time give dds a chance to hide. What do you think?
  15. Hi all, Dear WG - simple "Quality of Life" idea - Place "*" in front every ship name that is spotted ONLY by player! Because we all have been in situation in game when we wondered whether we are the only ship that is spotting certain enemy or not... Leo "Apollo11"
  16. While I am of the opinion that the game atm is in an awkward state because of everyone wanting to try the new CVs, not giving us a realistic look at what CVs mean in normal day to day matches, I think the biggest issue isn't CVs camping in the back, nor the infinite amount of planes they got in the ship, nor the damage. It's the way they spot the whole field. I think that when CVs only can spot with their active squardon and in particular DDs get a lower air detection, things would be a lot better. So would life be better for all if returning planes would not ve able to spot and DDs' air detection concealment would make it easier to dodge planes? This way there is a better balance between the speed, range and versatility of CVs and being able to spot key targets. I also want to stress for fairness of the CV discussion, that firstly CVs had at least 4-5 squadrons in the air in the old days with more chances to spot DDs and there was less complaining than there is now and secondly both sides have an equal amount of CVs, so while comparision "CV vs every other type of ship" is one that everyone likes to discuss, this counts for both sides. Sure, your personal score is important and as a DD you want to be able to put a good score down, but in the end it's a team effort and both teams have to deal with the same issues. Thirdly, we had a long time where CVs only apeared in 3 games in a dozen, while now we will probably see many more games featuring CVs. And this logically will change the way we gotta play the game. The game we got to play up till now was only because CVs were unpopular. And I still think their meta is better than the Radar meta ;)
  17. It is past the time of egos and stuff, I don’t care if I make an [edited]of myself as long as there is even the slightest chance the CV concept can be helped. I have in the past made a large amount of highly wishful and far fetched thinking on concepts for the CV rework, including straightforward but drastic suggestion of measures such as removing all torpedo bombers and solely balancing/designing CV gameplay (at least initially) around the other less dreadful types of bombers. Other examples included separating CV tech trees into smaller escort carriers and larger fleet carriers, which have broad implications including MM fixing and fine tuning. But I digress. Recently I am beginning to follow WG’s line of logic better, keeping the game simple while just playable and interesting enough. And here lies a critical flaw. One of the most difficult yet critical systems in this game, the Vision System, is an Achilles heel in the whole design structure. And the disproportionate effect the CV has on this area was already well known even before the rework, from DD griefing, torpedo spotting, surprise torpedo-insertion on BBs due to planes having stealth range as well, and last but not least, CV sniping using plane stealth. While I cannot make a hasty conclusion on whether stealth and vision system for surface ships is good or bad, though it was copied off WoT systems and not custom-made for naval combat, it certainly was not very compatible with CV gameplay at all. And a critical flaw of the current rework is how few direct improvements, or even adjustments, were made to the way CVs interact with the vision sphere in the game. While torpedo spotting was outright removed, and ship spotting nerfed, the reverse which was plane spotting was not, and in fact as they themselves mentioned in their public address, stealth torping (with TB!) was still a minor “exploit” turned tactic. In more conclusive terms, the very essence of CV gameplay in a strategic or tactical sense which was area and info control aka. ‘Spotting’ was not fixed nor improved into their rework, and CV interaction with the surface sphere in this sense was also outright ignored or shoved aside (just remove their total spotting ability and interaction). And you don’t fix a faulty part by simply removing the part, or completely isolating the part from the rest of the system. It’s just not good practice. In complex systems like this, balancing is also a larger job than just making sure the AA maths and don add up. There’s “qualitative” things too, like fuzzy maths, like capabilities that can’t be simply summarized into numbers, and how actual human thought processes work. - Furthermore, in poetic irony, in their rush to make WoWs, and CV, compatible with consoles, they neglected the zeitgeist of console gameplay, which is a very heady, rushing, flow-based kind of gaming. A confounding mechanic like the vision system is not something a console player would enjoy while they are trying to have fun, they simply can’t be bothered to put in the extra mind-power, and the separate category of mental processes needed for that particular form of thought. Thus, I believe, they will not enjoy getting surprise-rudder insertions by planes materializing out of nowhere (or in reverse, getting jump-scared by a DD suddenly hammering your CV out of nowhere), nor enjoy the game much with ships that adversely rely on the vision system at all, because even on PC it’s a fine dance of managing your pathing and constantly doing distance-tallies and mental notes of what ships are all around you (including enemies). But on console on a big screen it’s just not that kind of experience, if you get this. - So in conclusion, even if the current rework gets the go-ahead, and it is still playable after all, there is still this theoretical danger that WoWs on console will not be very popular, and one of the key reasons could be because of how vision works in this game, and how this game is adversely affected by this hidden factor, just as how CVs were adversely affecting the game due to how their mechanics worked, and this is making the console experience far less than ideal. This is the key danger. The secondary danger is that due to how detached and incompatible (unintegrated) the CV reworked gameplay is from the practical intricate workings of the present surface ship system (such as the example given how all vision related things were just swept under the carpet), that even after 1-2 months of “balancing”, CV gameplay will still be a sore thumb in this game, and a far cry from what some of us in our heart of hearts had dreamed it would bring to WoWs, a breath of fresh air, masterful and creative design, to not just save CV, but save this game, and give it second wind to continue improvements in its very design. (I would like to call for an emergency stop in this rework, and the reasons in writing above is why. I understand I have no authority nor proven knowledge to make such a call but I am doing it shamelessly anyways, because I will shamelessly claim that I as a player love the CV as a concept and what it’s gameplay could have been, and this rework as it is, as a concept, is not something that someone could love. I am incapable of expressing with concise grace exactly why, but it just feels very wrong. So wrong that I am desperate.)
  18. NOTE: I posted this earlier in the suggestions thread but since (1) the OP there is not updated and people in the recent replies are talking about submarines, (2) other people have made similar posts outside of the suggestions thread and because (3) it's now an active topic of discussion & focus of development, different from all the hypotheticals and wishful thinking, I decided to make a separate post. I love the preview, and I'm really eager to see some of what was shown brought to any testing environment ASAP. I've been playing CVs, and I can say I'm mediocre-ish: got a solid grasp of the fundamentals, I've had my moments and some luck. I've been paying attention to the constant drama surrounding CVs, and I'm pretty sure I understand WG's position in all of this. However I do think some sort of compromises ought to be considered: - MAKE FIGHTERS A DEPLOYABLE, NPC-like, drone-like blob, that receives commands to either escort your strike squadron, or be sent around the 3D world (not the minimap) to fly combat air patrol (CAP) over an area, over a friendly ship, or stay "home" and fly CAP over your carrier. This could be done by having a radius around your strike squadron, within which you can POINT & CLICK (or press a key) to set the fighters' target location or object. Maybe add a good amount of cooldown time, for how often they can receive a new command. "Summoning" fighters out of thin air just seems kooky to me. - NERF ALL CARRIER PLANES' SPOTTING ability by having enemy vessels spotted by just carrier aircraft (including the strike craft) ONLY APPEAR AS "OUTLINED" SHIPS to the rest of your team, giving a rough location on the minimap, but not visible in the 3D viewport - no target lock, no aim-assist mechanics, someone has to go and deal with the threat the old fashion way. This would negate the current, much lamented mechanics of CVs planes being omnipresent & spotting those ships which really don't want to be targeted. Realistically, I imagine that a group of planes trying to avoid AA and focusing on their attack runs would have a really hard time walking friendly artillery onto its target in the chaos of battle. - ADD LOW, STATIC CLOUD COVER - plumes scattered over the maps (maybe randomized?), to give planes a hiding place. The concealment on these would work both ways - diminish the effect of incoming enemy AA, but the planes would lose sight of all enemies around them. Make RADAR penetrate these clouds or maybe add a separate AIR RADAR consumable. Also make CYCLONES limit planes abilities in a similar way, or even more (affect accuracy, speed, maybe get damaged, etc). This to add to the feeling that you're controlling an air asset, navigating through different features, not just a Z-clipped surface asset. Also because the airspace looks bland with the current "skybox above, water texture below" situation. My main reasoning about fighters and spotting here is that instead of completely removing some features, we should keep them to retain an authentic feel to the CV role, but nerf them to the point where they require luck and strategic foresight, instead of who's got better ping / RNG / clicks per minute. The same goes for people's concerns on the Twitch stream regarding CV sniping and side-rushing DDs: you won't be caught with your pants down if you pay attention and have a bit of foresight. What do y'all think?
  19. Just trying to imagine if supportive role, such as tanking damage for your team, or spotting enemy constantly, resetting caps etc... would actually give more exp than doing direct damage to enemies. How do you think WOWS would be different from todays game meta? Write down below what YOU think WOWS gameplay would be like if this become true. Would there be more teamplay? Or perhaps more campfest? Maybe the game meta would be the same as today? Guys, time to use our imagination !!
  20. moin zusammen, die neuen ribbons für aufgeklärte schiffe find ich cool. dabei wird nur deutlich, daß es mehr ribbons für aufklärungen gibt, als final nach dem gefecht als anzahl aufgeklärter schiffe aufgeführt ist. hier kann man sich über das wording streiten, ob ein mehrfach aufgeklärtes schiffe auch zählen sollte. die ribbons beantworten die fragen mit ja, die aufklärungsanzahl mit nein. hier wäre es glaub ich sinnvoll, ein konsistentes system zu haben. dabei frag ich mich nun auch, wonach die xp-vergabe für aufklärung erfolgt: nach ribbons oder dem counter der aufgeklärten schiffe. so richtig rund ist das noch nicht, aber die philosophie dahinter gefällt mir und ist glaub auch ein schritt in die richtige richtung.
  21. vipersocks

    Spotting Ribbons

    So, does anyone know if we get xp for spotting now or is it just a ribbon?
  22. wilkatis_LV

    BBs that outspot cruisers

    Obviously BBs outspotting cruisers isn't anything new (as evidenced by the fact that NC has that same 11.8km detection as Conq), decided to make a list of all BBs which outspot cruisers that they can meet in their games, I mean - how many there could be, right? 39. That's how many All the comparisons are at max concealment or those ships, so with camo (if applicable), with concealment expert skill, as well as concealment module (if applicable)
  23. Hello all, a few thoughts crossed my mind recently regarding the way air planes work in the game. Now in before anyone gets his panties in a twist, the following are just mere suggestions for changes which I think could benefit the game. Please point out aspects I have overlooked or consequences I have not foreseen. Also, let's keep this a civil discussion. Without further ado: 1. Ships should always counter spot the plane that is spotting them (possibly excluding carrier strike craft). I guess we have all been in a situation in which we were plane spotted without knowing where exactly the plane in question was. I believe it would be beneficial and allow for counter play if one could at least see the plane. 2. Ships engaging planes with aa (outside of smoke) should be spotted regardless of distance. Yes, Minotaur players, I'm looking at you. The idea that a ship should be able to shoot down planes without getting detected by those is possibly one of the worst game mechanics that wasn't addressed yet. Same as invisi firing this should be removed from the game and air spotting distance should at least the equal to aa range. This would make aft a double edged sword, but prevent severe frustration for high tier cv players. 3. I'm expecting a lot of you to have a gripe with this, since it would change competitive cv play. Torpedoes should only be air spotted if a plane is in spotting range. Once the plane moves out of spotting range torpedoes should become unspotted again (I would include torp spotting by ships into this as well). This would make the game more demanding and dynamic, while improving the value of destroyers in competitive play. As it stands, a great cv can pretty much deny any sort of torpedo hits on his team mates by simply patrolling the corridors they are likely to pass through. This would be fine, as long as a once spotted torp wouldn't remain spotted forever. It would put a bigger strain on ships in the direction the torps are headed and increase the overall skill level. What are your thoughts on this :)?
  24. Hi all, I don't recall seeing this on forum (and it is very interesting to know and great read)! From April "LittleWhiteMouse" @LittleWhiteMouse - "Spotting, Scouting and Experience Gains" http://shipcomrade.com/news/365/spotting-scouting-and-experience-gains.html Leo "Apollo11"
  25. johy2

    DDs 20sec

    Hi guys, i would like to hear your opinion on 20 secs of extended spotting range after fire when you play DDs. I dont have anything against this mechanic but i think 20 secs for DDs is too much. For other clases it is not so important, but for DDs, oh boy. You fire that one shot to finish enemy, and get 20 secs of pounding with low HP. Disgusting.
×