Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Suggestions'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 17 results

  1. Hello Guys, i would to suggest an Option for the Transparency or Visibility of the Chatbox for some Maps especially this one here. Where the Sun Glare or the Reflection of the Sea makes it nearly impossible to read whats going on (in that Case it was Ranked and i have to switch to Ship Mode in my Carrier, to read whats going on) in this Case it the North Map. But what so ever, it would be nice... if you can add such an Option to the Chatbox as it is on the Minimap. I mean your Watercolor is almost the same then the Sea and on serval Maps its a bit hard to read... (if you rly need whats going on in the Chatbox)
  2. The Ocean Map is very intriguing. But don't fear, all you have to do is be aware of the icebergs and the wind cause they change position accordingly. If you pay attention to environment, you'll be just fine. #sarcasm Sarcasm, shouldn't explain itself. That's it's purpose...nvm. In seriousness, can i make an argument as to why PvE/Co-Op content can enrich a game and expand it's life expectancy? I think not if we bring examples like Counterstrike, arena games in general and MOBA's ofc. Further more, when i see great ideas, like BF3's Co-Op missions being thrown to trash can in the next "chapter", it is just disappointing. Similar to the great idea Brink had for Co-Op campaign. The idea was great, it's not the reason failed, but nmv again. This is not an article, so i won't go into dept. This is a plea, i would say, to Developers of all kinds to add PvE and Co-Op content. A game has 2 options. Then these options are choices. One is for PvP, the other for PvE/Co-Op. Ideally, in my mind as a gamer (not a fanboy of anything), is a game that chooses both. Why would such a choice be profitable? It is all about fame in the end. When you read an article, the reviewers or journalists go back to previous titles that left a mark on something. One a single aspect of a game, or a game as a whole. Similar to what i did while mentioning BF3 and Brink. People who read know this. What makes a game exceptional? Originality? Sure, but not only, we all share ideas but we also expand them. We take something to the next level. We play chess or backgammon even if it's the same game, again and again, because the opponent may change, hence the tactics. Is this a key word? Tactics. Some may dwell on it..not an article, right. We play them because we have fun, ofc. Pass time easy, sure. Simplicity is the key. Minimalism is overwhelmingly accepted in games. Weird it is not in our RL. My argument, i guess, in my Steam profile is that i prefer playing with others, not against them. It has a sense of solidarity, cooperation. Through cooperation we have evolved, believe it or not. Someone said the Earth was round, but we needed more ppl in the passing of time to confirm it, to work on that direction and change our false, till then, mindset. Alright, Arena games as much repetitive are, we just feel content with them. Similar as we feel for the repetitiveness of chess. But it is also the style of the game. In chess you don't need others. Ok, so it is the style of the game. So for this style of game, wouldn't more PvE/Co-Op content work? Seeing WoWS's low XP given for PvE, all i am thinking is this grind attitude they choose can be forgotten so easily of they just add content for it to balance out the boredom of grinding. I understand the factor of profits. Premium,=more XP etc. Yes, ppl buy games and support Developers who create games out of pure love and passion. the examples are out there. People know the difference between quality and quantity. Well, some of them at least. I often listen Mighty Jingles, complaining about WoT (i am not criticizing/judging here). And it does feel weird to me, that ppl in general play games that have major flaws in their design. Because i do believe thats what makes someone complain all the time. The Developer, which is the "God" of the game, being a stubborn "God". Of course he enjoyed the game experience, but it is always bumpy. The matches that give smooth happy experience can be counted on one hand during the course of a whole day. That is bad design in my book. Yet, seeing games like WoWS's is great. The coding and design of ships and the effort, you know we really don't think too much about these things these days. We take everything for granted. It is not. I understand the effort, i even understand the programming and coding aspect, since i am a gamer 30 years now and have done some. So, this is not a case, not an argument. A game Developer has an idea and puts it into theory/paper/design/action. Imagination is important as our friend Einstein said. Keep it simple, but add content. There is a serious lack of tutorials i have noticed too. People spam Torpedoes out of their range and the most common effect on WoWS's is friendly fire. This is bad design, the God of the game did not implemented any rules whatsoever. Why? Would you want a society with no rules really? Have you thought about it? You, the Developer, create the community of your game. Quality, or quantity...? Also, the lack of UI customization options. We don't all have the same sense of efficiency, considering everything really. The more customization options a UI can have, the more versatile it is for ppl to feel more comfortable with it. Anyway, i am going to stop here as i am bored too from myself writing all these and i could go on for long. I just regret i didn't became a game designer/developer, seeing so many companies failing on simple tasks and things. Perhaps because i don't understand the market and we know it's all about that in the end of the day. "Goodnight and goodluck". (PS: I know during WWI & WWII many battles took place in open ocean. You know there was a story behind it, orders given, ppl talking behind radio, the enigma machine even? There is a difference between a game...and reality). ;)
  3. ainawing

    Readability Improvements

    I erroneously posted this in the ticket system and was asked to post it in the "suggestion forum". Since I didn't find that, I'll just post it here... Some UI Elements are really hard to read. This concerns: Game: - The rudder position display when placed over the ship. Especially Battleships, because they tend to be wider. Harbor: - Temporary pop-ins (like the info-list and the contact/channel pop-in) can have lower transparency. - The temporary ship-stats (drop-downs on the left) should definitely have a lower transparency. - In the captain skill-tree even the position of high-level skills is pretty much guesswork Modules: - The popup when hovering over modules in the module Research window. Especially, when the ship in question hasn't been bought/researched or when hovering text over text. Again, I would recommend a lower transparency. External/Visual (Sorry, I'm using the german version, not sure what the exact translation is): - Signals and Camo have the same problem as the modules. I also would recommend rethinking the Menu items. Visual has it's own item, while the captain doesn't, although the skill-tree is what I would consider a full screen and the external stuff is 'garnish' (Small side-menu with two tabs, that would have easily fitted in the bottom left of the module screen, that should rightfully be called the "modifications" screen). Research: - Can't read a thing about any of the ships... Move the research tree a bit to the left and plopp in a permanent space for the stats and fluff on the right of the screen. Pretty much, like... you know... in the three previous screens? Only with extra space for the fluff text. And finally, Profile: - Ranks are good. Already looking forward to more... - Summary is borderline. The upper left part is not easy to read. Maybe a slight adjustment would help - Achievments. Again with the overlay (text over text and medal over medal)... You can, again, make a special space on the right and fix it that way, or tone down on the transparancy. I understand the wish to display the stunning graphics, even in the harbor. However, it is important to have the information not only available, but also readable. I really enjoy the game so far! Keep it up. P.S.: If anyone has other suggestions to solve the problems mentioned above, or has other suggestions or problems concerning the UI readability, feel free to leave a post! EDIT: I forgot to mention that, when hovering over the ship details on the right, the popup that appears with the module details is also unreadable.
  4. Every Time i get Polls and Surveys, how to Improve the Gameplay, or the Game or Battles. Its about the Chat in total. Just saying the Community is very "friendly" but sometimes there are Trolls and Racist (Bastards) in the Chat and there is only one Moderator "BigBadVuk" maybe some Guys know him? At least he do his Job, if he is available - but as all Moderators, he got a Real Life as well. In every Survey I suggest to pay attention on this Problem. At least Wargaming should employ more Moderators in the Game, at least in World of Warships, i dont mean the Forum - here are enough. And also this Moderator should be English and German speaking... you Guys know why? Because sadly MOST of the Trolls and Insults are German... Sadly i send enough Reports to the Customer Service to make them aware of the Problem, at least they quiet agree to Punish them harder and Chatban them or Permanent Ban them. I dont mean the Guys, saying "Look your Stats Noob!" I mean the Guys saying f*** Nazi and much more... I take one of the Words BigBadVuk uses to write - "We are Sailors no Dirty Tankers, if you dont follow the Rules - you walk the Plank" and this Plank is sometimes very Slippery. On the End, the Hope dies last... that Wargaming chances that - because i left World of Tanks because of the Toxic Chat and started playing Ships and its complete calm. AND ALSO - They should be able to fix the ChatBugs, Chatbugs which causes you empty Chat Windows, empty Private Chats and that is a know Issue since the Closed Alpha. You can reply on this Topic - you can leave it, but at least i wrote my Words down... whats in my Mind. Regards Skycat79
  5. Hello Guys, im taking that Quote for the Q/A to the Community Topic: "Are there any improvements planned for the in-game report system?We are working on improvements to this system, even though currently we have bigger fish to fry (as you will see in few upcoming updates). And, of course, we are following the results of the report system all the time". Thats one Thing i want to ask as well, i mean about Christmas Convoy you make a nice Move after some Community Posts. About other Ships, you are trying to do that as well. Sadly you saying "you have bigger Fish to fry" but how it comes... that its possible to get Reported 8 Times from a Division (sometimes its the same Division) who just see you in the Enemy Team and bam there it goes. You get Reported if you play well - if you play NOT well, you get reported if you are shooting the wrong Guys, if you dont spot in a Carrier. "If you cant Play Carrier in your Allied Forces Eyes" and for some other Things as well. So really - when do you have fryd the Fish? And thats not one of the other Whiny Topics that i create like - i get ****** in a Game even if there are some Players outside who cant follow the Rules and still have more accuracy to hit the Report Button instead of hit the Firebutton and hit some Ships?! Seems like its happening the same as it happens in WoT, because some Players dont like SPG Players and Report them. Oh and just about my Updated Case "i get a 24hr Chat Ban by Complaints which means "Reported for missbehaviour in Chat" and why? Because this: You have been Reported 8 Times for a Battle that i endet in as a Defeat / Top Place of XP / Money and serval Badges (its a Prem Account btw) but look what Score Is that a Reason for Reporting a Player 8 Times - or 6 Times - or 4 / 2 Times? No... its not... But "that Causes me a 24 Hour Chatban" Thank you "Players" (i dont post the Names of the Division who reported me because its against the Rules, just saying, meet them again - Battle is over "You have been Reported 6 Times"
  6. Turion1979

    Feedback an Suggestions to Ranked

    I dont know if thats Correct in here, but i suggest Wargaming to review the Ranked Battles a bit. Because it should be controlled like the ammount of Ships, you can use in TeamBattles - maybe a "bit" improved. At least there are seven Slots free - which can be filled by Ships. So i would suggest to limit the ammount of Destroyers in the Game and as well they should improve the Matchmaking in Ranked Battles as well - which means if there are 2 Tier 7 Battleships in one Team, same ammount should be in Enemy Team, same goes for Carriers , Cruisers, Destroyers... what i mean is this sometimes you just play 2 Battleships vs 2 Battleships but 5 vs 5 Destroyers ruins your BB Life very fast... Im not sure, if Wargaming allows to Play Tier 8 or 9 in Ranked, but how about to split? at least that might gave other Players a Chance to play Ranked. And also i would suggest, that you might give the "Lower Tiers a Chance to play Ranked and at least give them some Camo or Flags so my suggestion would be maybe call it Junior Leage or such? Rank 25 - 20 Tier III and IV Rank 20 - 15 Tier V and VI, Rank 15 -10 Tier VI - VII Rank 10 - 5 Tier VIII - IX Rank 5 -1 Tier IX - X The same Issue goes for PremCarriers like the Saipan, which is just to Overpowered in Ranked Battles. Because it carry Tier 9 Planes and every Player - doesnt matter if its a Ranker or a Hiryu, will loose the Mood to play their Carriers in Ranked because a Saipan gets "ClearSky" almost every Game which means they are pretty wasted. And on the other Hand, its Tier 9 Divebombers are sometimes (not always) able to ONEShot a Destroyer or even deal huge Ammount of Damage to a Cruiser And just about Prem "Cruisers" the Indianapolis is able to carry Radar Consumable, in Ranked where you try to hide yourself in a DD - you are Toast. Maybe the Yorck or German Cruisers can use their Hydro but... Radar... well done... The same goes for the Maps in the Ranked Battles, Wargaming should really think about remove the Ocean Map from the Ranked Battles, if i remember correct - that Map is used to collect Data (while there was no Cap Points included in the Closed Beta Test) infact that Map is just "TO" Big for playing 7 vs 7 Ships. And almost its seems, that Players if they got no Rocks or some Obstacles as an Orientation, get lost in that Map. I can only say, thats my first Session i really try to Focus a bit on Ranks - on the Start it was fun on the End its more Frustration. Good Gameplay to the Guys who reached higher Ranks then the most... for myself thats it. I hope there are no Trolls in this Topic, we have enough of tham ALL Day in the Chat or inGame Chats. Oh and... Sorry if i miss some Words - im not a English Speaking Guy
  7. I recommend WG add a function to reply to individual posts. This will save space and add functionality to forums. As of current, if we wanted to reply to individual posts, we would have to quote it, using up a lot of space, then post it amongst a myriad of other posts. With the new design, it is possible for each post to have a "sub-thread" under it, in smaller text and textboxes semi-contained in the main box of the individual post. This way, all replies to a specific post will be listed with it, full listing able to be expanded upon request, while posts relating directly to the original thread topic will be posted normally in the main thread. An example of the superiority of this design is that it is possible to ban a sub-thread instead of the main thread if it is just a (personal) toxic argument polluting a main-thread. Allowing to select a "reply to [user]" function in form of "@[user]" will also help with the quoting and toxicity issues. Sub-thread replies will not allow editing unlike main-thread replies, for accountability issues. Then, building upon the first suggestion, to allow upvotes or downvotes be able to influence listing of posts. I am suggesting that we be allowed to filter post organization via "democratic" popularity as well as time. This way certain good posts will be able to be seen more easily. Listing via vote number is selectable for both main-thread posts and single post "sub-thread" replies. All voter names will be retrievable upon request for accountability issues.Also, to add a democratic tagging function to main threads. This is to make the tags actually mean something. A single person posting a thread can miss a lot of useable tags, or not be sure of tagging etiquette, or just can't be bothered. If we allow users to input tags, then also vote on what tags they think are a good fit for the current thread, then organize the tags to appear via coloring and sequential order at the tag spaces, with tags having more votes appearing first and deeper in color, then people will be able to see easily what is being relevantly discussed in that thread. Tag searching will then also be meaningful. This will make forums much more informative, constructive and interesting and possibly entice more people to engage in positive forum activity. It may also be possible to enable internal linking (such as to a local WoWs wiki, for key words and concepts, even user-created words such as tactic descriptions) for key words by building upon democratic voting and tagging of important words to their source, or just descriptions. Over-word hovering then seeing relevant comments/poster-links via cursorside box (like an automatic right-click) can also be an option. In time, it may be possible to allow democratic linking and tagging of content, both official or not, between main-threads, forums, or even regions (with translation options).As well, democratic reporting functions within the forums may allow for functions such as democratic vote-based anti-spam/toxicity disciplinary actions (autonomous to users, but info requestable by wg staff for accountability issues), as a potential massive influx of players may overwhelm the number of moderators so they cannot personally address every issue upon first report. In the future, functions such as integrated multimedia-support features, tools and interface organization for forums, so that the forums are not just a text-based user space. Expansions include optimized display modes and post content organizing structures for replays, custom-games, mod listing, tournaments, clans, documents and data organizing, offline wg/clan events, official merchandising, supportive links to other real-world organisations and related content, streaming, social media, stats, ratings and reviews, and much more. Futuristic functions such as algorithmic organizing of forums based on data analytics on the whole of information submitted, such as by all-time popular, discussions on recent changes (such as by patch), active topics and ideas, all presented via intuitional interface, such as snapshots/key quotes in mosaic/shutter interface, and maybe even organized by user-preference or personally interested topics. Automated categorizing of forum content may eventually be possible.Thus personalization of forum experience via structural changes also include possibility of a personal centre or homepage, where one views their content subscriptions, forum activity, messaging and alerts, personal content {such as replays}, merchandising, rankings, blogs and social-media linking, etc. and much more to support, as needed, additions of stuff in the future. Personalization also include signature/avatar support, forum wallpapers and themes, etc. Rare prizes, achievements, links to in-game etc. may also be represented by "limited edition" avatar frames, etc. Eventually this is to foster a user-based forum maintenance structure. Organized user activity and algorithms will be able to take a load off WG staff by helping to maintain forums. Users will help monitor discipline, organize content, foster communication between regions, etc. and make the forums much more organic. For example, main-thread posters will help maintain quality and do slight moderations of their own threads. In the end, I would like to say that improvements can be sought from many places. Go to news and social-media websites and see how they handle information analytics and organising. Go to e-commerce websites to see how they handle merchandising. Go to entertainment websites and see how they handle features. Go to other forums and see the best of their forums. Best regards and good luck. You should probably hire a professional to be doing all this. Eventually working on larger redesign/overhaul ideas which I will present to WG myself in the future. From KarmaQU-EU and OMNI-WS, with regards.
  8. Kinzo

    Gameplay Suggestions

    Hi there, Ever since I first watched footage of the game in alpha and first took part in the closed beta, I've had alot of various ideas for interesting features and gameplay balance improvements that I'm sure every gamer getting into a new game has at some point, though until the latest patch I hadn't felt compelled to post about it - not least because this is my first post here and it seemed rather awkward to make it such a broad ranging one, but here we are. In particular I am referring to the balance between Japanese and US carriers which I'm aware has already had a great deal of discussion, indeed I see it as somewhat inevitable that in covering this I may be retreading old ground for the regulars here, so feel free to overlook anything you've already exhausted your interest in or otherwise post links to those discussions if you feel so inclined. Though I considered making separate topics on the various issues below, I feel there may be some value in considering these issues together, as gameplay balance is by its very nature all-encompassing, and frequently any suggestion for one particular buff, nerf or mechanic will be met with: "But what will this mean for X?". So, with the reasoning for this post aside, let's get right into it, arranging my suggestions by ship class, with a special field for aircraft in general: Aircraft Carriers (CVs) I gather there is a general sense that this ship is essentially the poor relation in terms of development of its own gameplay, in that it required a host of mechanics entirely of its own, while the other classes share much of their basic gameplay elements, resulting in more attention being paid to getting the 'essentials' right for the majority, leaving aircraft carriers with a more barebones feel to it. While there could certainly be improvements within the current model, it seems to me it will not get markedly more interesting without some genuinely new features, though not necessarily particularly intricate or complex ones such as customizable aircraft loadouts that have often been suggested. Unsurprisingly, I don't have much to say regarding the ships themselves, an aircraft carrier is all about its aircraft after all, though some of my later suggestions for other ships apply here to (such as secondary batteries). So here's the special section regarding aircraft: Aircraft (And AAA) A note on Japanese to USA carrier balance: Ever since I heard about this early implementation of these specific national flight configurations, I always felt they were the wrong way round, and feel that has only been confirmed for me since I first tried them out in the closed beta. In fact, the recent patch has thrown this in sharp relief, as other IJN CV players have attested to. In my opinion, it is the Japanese who would suit large squadrens with longer reload times and less flexible flight arrangements, where as the US would suit the smaller more flexible loadouts. This is most obvious when it comes to lopsided fighter arrangements - the US have 2 squadrens of 6, the Japanese 1 of 4, meaning it is not a 2 to 1 engagement, but 3 to 1. It seems self evident to me that 2 of 4 and 1 of 6 for USN/IJN respectively would provide for more interesting gameplay - the Japanese fighter wins in a 1 to 1 fight, but loses if the US Carrier concentrates its forces. In terms of historicity, the penchant for large, grandiose air strikes on the part of the IJN seems fairly clear from Pearl Harbour onwards, and regarding slow reload times, Vice Admiral Chuuichi Nagumo is infamous to military historians for his vacilating decision over weapon loadouts on whether to prepare torpedoes to strike the US Carrier fleet or ready bombers to hit the US airfield on Midway island. I'm sure there is a great deal of nuance to delve into regarding loadouts that has already been thoroughly discussed here, but as a general rule I feel the 'national features' of the 2 nations would fit better in reverse. A note on aerial torpedoes: As many others have already stated, the nerf to the speed of Japanese aerial torpedoes is an ahistorical one, and as such in my opinion should have been avoided. The above changes to aircraft would hopefully go someway to addressing this, but if the problem of close range torpedo drops persists it is probably best addressed by simply increasing torpedo arming range to a more acceptable level while making this obvious on the torpedo drop UI. Battleships (BBs) The strengths of the battleship is obvious, and it's weaknesses are just as clear when they are singled out. This situation would appear to be ideal in balance terms, but it doesn't always work like that in practise, particularly for new players struggling to get to grips with these ships and often end up disengaged and ineffective, or otherwise mobbed and quickly reduced to a burning hulk. The slow turret rotation and inability to independently target individual batteries strongly discourages BBs from venturing down the middle of the map, let alone the ensuing crossfire - though such an addition would needlessly complicate gameplay, and for little gain (few people would likely make use of this), its consequences still need to be recognized in how BB behaviour is influenced, as it has a significant impact on the outcome of any given match. Therefore to atleast mitigate these problems of the lack of versatility that forces BBs into this predictable flanking behaviour and the trouble they have in disengaging from a losing fight, I would reccommend a range buff to Secondary Batteries to discourage enemy warships from closely the gap in pursuit - this at least makes sense historically, these weapons should have much greater reach, and present an obstacle for a prospective attacker even if the BB has its main guns turned elsewhere. This of course applies to all ships with secondaries, though BBs would (and should) benefit the most from this. Should this prove imbalancing in anyway, accuracy or chance of fire may be adjusted downwards, as the effect is psychological as much as anything else in dissuading enemy ships from giving chase. Cruisers (CAs/CLs) In all honesty, I don't have a great deal to say about cruisers in particular, as they would be affected by my aforementioned references to AA, floatplanes and secondaries anyway. They are a popular class and rightfully so, they are great all-rounders and often make up the bulk of the team. The loss of the Defensive Fire consumable however probably warrants a replacement of somekind, and so in its stead I would reccommend a 'Radar Ping' ability, to represent the use of early warning radar picket ships in the war (though as I understand these were just as often smaller ships like DDs), allowing the cruiser to increase its spotting range at the cost of increasing its own detectability, allowing them to better hunt hidden enemies or secure an early intelligence advantage at risk to themselves. In addition, Hydroacoustic search is a rather underwhelming ability, and while I wouldn't suggest increasing its range for spotting surface ships (smoke dischargers are after all, the saving grace of the DD), it should perhaps be more useful in spotting incoming long range torpedoes to better protect the formation. Destroyers (DDs) Now, I suspect Destroyer captains are not liking the sound of any of this so far, fearing very much that they will become marked men in a way that exceeds the problems they are already having in the later game, and perhaps denying them the halcyon experience of early DD gameplay in sinking helpless BB players struggling to get to grips with the game. These concerns are valid, and entirely natural, after all it was a difficult deal to strike to begin with in balancing these small warships ton for ton with their much larger and better armed cousins they are expected to face off against. I do however have some idea of how to mitigate the balancing impact these changes would have on DDs. These changes in general will mean there may well be alot more planes in the air even well into the lategame thanks to the newfound ability to retreat using altitudes (should the opposing carrier player not be vigilant enough to pursue), which could be a serious problem for DD players trying to stay hidden. Perhaps a special accommodation could be made for DDs, in that they are entirely invisible to high flying planes to reflect their relatively small size? Regarding the secondary batteries, the increased range should make a relatively small difference in the attacking envelope to all but the shortest ranged torpedoes between spotting range and torpedo range, this gap could be made up for by further adjusting the length of smoke discharge - but ultimately, DDs should probably be approaching from the bow or stern rather than braving the gauntlet of the broadside the entire time. Lastly, as a counter to Radar Ping for cruisers and to allow Destroyers to better single out and destroy their opponents, I would propose a 'Radio Jamming' ability which would prevent DDs being reported to ships outside the DD's immediate detectability radius for a limited period of time, preventing destroyers from taking unwelcome supporting fire and allowing them to truly hone in on their target of choice. The ship may still show up on the minimap in the same way ships beyond vision range still do, but they cannot be actively viewed and targeted until the attacker is in immediate visual range. So that about does it for suggestions, as I have indicated I am under no illusion these will be entirely new and revelatory, but feel that grouping these changes together could better stimulate a broader discussion of game balance in what seems to be less developed parts of the game, as any abstraction and use of randomness tends to easily overlooked, but all the same has far reaching consequences. Particularly, the enjoyability of game mechanics subjectively, and how they fit in to the overall game balance - that is, a ship class may ultimately even out in the end, but is the skill gap fun to overcome or just tiring? Does it encourage creativity or efficient repetition? While I understand that once a metagame has been established it is difficult and risky to disrupt, it is an inevitable part of the patching process particularly in adding new features, which if World of Tanks is anything to go by (improved physics, building destructability), WoWS will likely see its share of game changing features in its development cycle. Rewarding spotting in WoT for example, changed the way I played certain tanks, breaking up the routine, something which would of course suit WoWS - particularly in encouraging teamwork for carriers, as many have already suggested. Anyway, thanks for humouring the long read, I hope World of Warships avoids settling into a stagnant metagame or otherwise end up neglecting aspects of it which may have otherwise had a profound effect on the overall experience, and that it can build up towards meeting the expectations of the many gamers out there who have been waiting for just such a game as this.
  9. ♥ Introduction (The boring staff) I started playing this game since CBT with an NA account, since that was the key i was able to find. That being said i know of how much feedback ppl have given into it, and i hope many that read these Forums do to. The main purpose of Forums is to discuss, improve, evolve things in general, is it not? I yet was stupid enough as a new player to sell and buy ships. Because knew nothing about the game, the game offers still nothing to new players as far as smoothing the experience, is it? So by selling/buying ships i eventually got broke, could not move past Tier 6 then. the grind was too painful on a F2P account. Tried various things, accounts, nothing. Now, many offers (meaning promo codes for free) i gathered from Alienware, Razer Comms, Curse and it seemed it's easier to start over actually. Combining all of them, a week of Premium, free. I'll take it. ♣ The Feedback & Suggestions PART I: New Players So by starting over i noticed the introductory mission. I thought the purpose was to teach new players, isn't it? "New Player" ,means he knows nothing about the games mechanics. We should assume he knows nothing at least. So then, were are the Ship Roles? The Torpedo training. One of the constant things i see since CBT is teammate torpedo hits. People spam torps even out of range. Yet, Introductory mission notifies nothing about it. Ship roles. How you play a ship is vital. Not every ship can be played at the same way, isn't it? Yet Introductory mission teaches nothing. Loading Screen you say yes, but how many new players read the loading screen tips and is it the same, the theory vs practically seeing something? While being in chat many new players asked how the leveling process works. I am eager to explain to them in detail. Why the game isn't? Say you get a new job, weird looking machines etc. and no one tells you how to operate them. How do you get better at it? Add tooltips for first timers explaining everything. It's that easy. Add a channel in Chat called "New Players". Old ppl like me prefer hanging around there and help others, instead of discussing battles. PART II: PvE / Co-Op PvE & Co-OP is a vital part of PC Gaming historically. Same with modding. Ask Counterstrike, World of Warcraft etc. as to the benefits of this. Bethesda at a Developer Seminar had a whole speech about Mods and the benefits of it. PvE needs more depth. I would argue that more games, even simple Arena style shooting games should pursuit this. As there is a large community of PvP'ers out there, there's at the same amout a large community of PvE'ers out there too. Why exclude each one? No need imo. You can add achievements, missions and more to PvE. Even things you can't have on PvP. Missions that escalate, through "Radio transmitions" new orders for side objectives etc. and so on and so on. The only limit here is the lack of imagination imo. Add a "Hard Mode" for Co-Op. Quick Messages. The first time i started playing the game all i wanted, was to inform my teammates were i had decided to go to, so i typed that in chat....Remove the "$%*#@!" (F11) wich has no purpose whatsoever considering tactics and strategy, and add a function that will work as F3 does, only saying "I am going there Smurfs!". PART III: Supporting Actions Don't you like Supporting classes in games? Is it in MMO's or any type really. I think most ppl do. Skills that help others or compliment with other skills. A ship is on fire after he used his repair kit. Another teammate is near and sees this, goes close to him, say around 0,5 km and uses his repair kit to put out the fire. Cruisers can decide to send their fighter plane to escort someone. I'm sure you can find high risk, high reward things as easily as i did. ♠ In General and Personal Views You Won't like (Even More) I don't think we need a professional model to tell us the patch notes. A Developer is more appropriate here, doing the thing he is supposed to in the first place. Premium Ships since release = Around 30. A Nations Full Tech Tree = Around 30 . We have enough of them, yet ppl keep asking for more Nations Trees from the very start. You can make profit by adding camos, backgrounds for Port and so on. Aesthetics are important for us naive consumers as anything i guess. Add a "Suggestions" Subforum. A more intuitive, efficient and user friendly UI. It's ok atm, ofc. I like it. Yet that does not mean it can not be improved. Colorblind modes and yes, the Transparent mini-map does make a difference (to me at least :
  10. Hi there Folks, I have an Idea for the Map called " The Trap " because that little Island Group in the Middle looks like a Volcano from above and normal as well. So there is my Suggestion for that, why you dont create a Weather Effect based on a Volcano Explosion for the this Map? With a Message like the Cylon "Volcano Erruption detected" and then if the Volcano breaches out, the View will be reduced like the Northern Map... its realistic as well, because you might remember the Vulcanos causing Trouble to the Air Traffic in Iceland becauseof the big Smoke Cloud. Or if thats not possible, you might add some Smoke coming of the Middle. Im not talking of Lava Stuff... but if WG is capable of doing that... Let the Lava go into the Ocean and let it smoke a bit?! Sorry for my bad English if thats the Point, usually i speak German because i am German... but i use English all over the Games in here so would be nice about some Feedback from the Community. Regards Skycat79
  11. Right now we all know that agressive gameplay is punished hard but even if you win after 20 minutes of sneaking, angling, making your shots - missing some of them and then probably dying you will be rewarded with a rather poor amount of credits (and maybe xp?). The Big thing is that the weekend doubles changed the game for these 48 ~ 72 hours in playstyle, teamplay, rewards and most importantly fun! But why was that so? I think that the bigger rewards gave a massive motivation to the players. But let's look at some things first, shall we? [...] In general there's not really a reason for the players to win the game right now, unless they made a big impact. It's even more cost efficent to survive in the higher Tiers frequently. As I'm playing Tier X for the first 2 days now and noticing that I get 270.000 Credits and 2700 XP for Sinking 2 Ships and doing some solid damage with the premium account brings up the question what do I need to win for now? This amount of credits doesn't even last to pay the bill for service next time my Zao will be sunk'cause the camo, and the consumables take 67.500 C to replenish. So I'm left with around 200.000 credits in the end and the Zao needs 250.000 ~ 270.00 credits to do a full service after beeing sunk and between 22.500 and 90.000 for consumables. I acctually need to play some games with my premium ship(s) - well the Yubari doesn't generate that much money in the end - to be able to play the Tier IX or X. Why do I mention that my ship takes that much money when it's sunk? Well with the current meta for destroyers and the remaining refuse to play aircraft carriers combined with the average skill levels that are fighting even at Tier X it happens more that frequently that players are annihilated because they still get torped by destroyers, they don't know about things like angling or one team splits up for two sides and one goes full on one side - these things are some kind of bad luck or a lack of skill, but this isn't a problem at all. Everybody is as good as he is and/or will improve as time goes on. People just need to accept that they have to learn. But learning still doesn't fully prevent you from getting destroyed and the big issue with that is the massive repair costs. Ships in Tier V are the most viable ones by raw numbers when it comes to earning credits (not considering premium ships of course) - and that is due to the low service price after the battle - but still you need to have a flawless battle to really get your hands on money. And Tier by Tier above V the costs start to increase again until they are so high - we're around VIII/IX - that people really refuse to fight because they won't be able to compensate the costs of beeing sunk or they just don't want to. And this really get's to a top of around 480.000 credits for a Yamato for example and let's be honest: Getting around 250.000 credits out of an average battle isn't very nice. And before some people start to tell about their high income in every battle they play: First of all: I don't think you're telling the truth and second you need the whole team to win right? So think about Players who lack motivation to do their tasks or playing a game without having a lot of fun at all? The Game really should offer a proper reward that gives the people a nice experience. [...] Well when it came to that Event I really entered a different world in this game. First I noticed after 25 battles how excited and amazed I was by the Rewards I got for fulfilling my role and giving my best. And that was also caused by the teams which tried to make a difference by playing for the Objective, Flanking the enemy, using any chance go push just to get the win. And trough that I really want to make up the theory that: They really noticed that they won! They made the difference between beeing good and just caring for not getting destroyed. And after the game the People got the feedback that they were good by rewards (I don't want you to read words written like: Ship | Ship as shout but as things that I think are important). Also this ment, that the people really seemed to enjoy the game almost twiche as much and I really had a few friends suddenly getting into a motivation to give all they got and losing from time to time wasn't frustating at all especially because the teams really started to work together and tried to win by combined force not even trying to get the best result for themselves*. And in general this is what the game should offer right? A nice enjoyable time for you and other people. *I don't want to say that people to this in general but I often experiance weird playstyle of ships by not shooting at all at enemies in range while they engage on you - so mostlikely they won't share the position to the enemy and avoid beeing shot at all even if they have the biggest armor and firepower among the fleet and would be able to withstand some solid damage. I also think that I really noticed an slight increase of players that weekend (considering other weekends of course). The queue for battles was around 10 to 15 seconds and the variety of tiers was given as well. To be honest that 2X challenge gave the game a massive boost and really motivated the players to get into the battles and do as best as they can. They knew they would be rewarded for winning and they would really notice it. I really can think about a lot of players that caught some new intrest in the game during that weekend. The only thing I don't know about that is, if they will keep that intrest up. So my message in general to Wargaming is: That double time xp and credits got the game into a kind of hype mode and it suddenly became a much more enjoyable game. And that was apparently only caused by the good feedback for a win. If you can consider an increase of credits and xp in general - even just for the win - I think that people would intend to play the game much more due to the (finally) really positive feedback. Or maybe you can cause this kind of Events to happen more frequently. Also a little note I want to add: Is there a chance of giving the premium ships a 10% convert rate from normal to free XP for each battle? I mean they are already quite expensive and if we had a little advantage on top. 10% seems to be a solid amount that should still give a reason to convert xp from premium ships by doubloons. Thank you so much for reading this guys and I'm looking forward to see you in my next post.
  12. WhiteCliffs

    Personal Suggests from (CBT)

    In the absence of experiencing any bugs, I would like to put forward my suggestions based on CBT playtime thus far. Suggestions Information relating to the armour penetration characteristics of various guns and their shells would be useful. Also, while I have seen very high damage broadsides, in the event of magazine penetration, a catastrophic explosion destroying the ship instantaneously would make for a spectacular feature. Of course against some heavily armoured battleships this would be a very difficult shot to achieve. Would it be possible to add sailors on deck, operating open turrets & anti-aircraft weaponry - making an already impressive game even more so? In my own opinion, there seems to be a conflict between the realism of battleships, cruisers and destroyers, which all play with relatively faithful speeds, fire rates and turret rotation times and the aircraft launched by aircraft carriers. These aircraft counter all of the excellent, realistic features mentioned with their arcade like flight characteristics. Perhaps carriers could be restricted to larger maps once the U.S. Navy also has access to battleships, allowing aircraft to have viable but more realistic flight models? Just a thought. I would also like to suggest the addition of a new map, simply a large open expanse of ocean without landmass or objectives. Such a map would require both teamwork and tactics, adding a new dimension to the game. When facing multiple opponents in a vessel other than a carrier (particularly a battleship), one should be able to look around without the turrets following, perhaps by holding a key, say 'n', for the sake of example. If this feature already exists I have thus far been unable to find it, if it does not then I would strongly recommend it be added. Other than a reduction in health, flooding appears to carry no adverse effect upon a vessel. The introduction of a listing effect would make for a most interesting game dynamic. Finally, a number of different animations for the destruction of a ship would be beneficial to the game. Some, such as a magazine explosion, could feature a lingering smoke plume of great height, visible in many WWII photographs. This is already a genuinely brilliant game, it simply requires a greater diversity of maps and scenarios which I have no doubt will come in time. Now please add the Royal Navy - and bring on the post-WWI G3 class battleships that never were, or HMS Incomparable...
  13. Things that i believe a gamer would of thought to implement to improve the game play experience, but also the team play experience as well and would have as a priority: ■Suggestions: -The option to play matches with no Flags, no camo. The option to play matches with no CV's. -Some kind of Overtime, do you think it could make matches more exciting? Stats i would like to see on people's Profile: -Premium Consumable use -Matches played without cammo -Matches played with stock ships -Flags bought with real money -Flags use per match ■Improvements: -Blacklisting/Whitelisting of Mods (Aim Assist Mod is ridiculous if you are not LoL or DOTA, but that;s just me perhaps.) -Implementation of Supporting actions (Some may probably ask for suggestions. Easy, we are in the 21st century, from MOBA's to FPS's most games try to improve the teamplay experience by implementing supporting actions. Copy/Paste will suffice.) -Sell flags you don't use in exchange for credits. -Insufficiency in credits gain in top tier ships. Personally i feel the game gives me no reason to play tier 9-10 ships if things are as said. There is a consistency at the start as you level up were the ship modules cost just a few credits, gradually as you go up in tier they are raised. Reasonable, since the earnings/rewards do to. Yet i have been told this changes dramatically at the endgame (tiers 9-10), were the modules are at the highest cost but yet the earnings in credits are minimal to the point you mostly lose credits. I can't understand it. My personal assessment is that this is an error in the system, the forgot to change it or something. They are mad, insane or i am living in Alice's Wonderland... No incentive. Literally it makes no logical meaning to me and i do not care to play these tiers as i haven't yet. The other issue i have heard is that in these top tier battles all that is happening is sniping and in the middle DD's. I mean, i am having fun mid-tier. As i understand it, the endgame is actually around tiers 6-7. That the sweet spot of fun in every aspect imo. ■Questions: -Mogami and Chapayev have the description of "Light Cruiser" and Admiral Hipper has the description of "Heavy Cruiser". Yet, the armor feels backwards to me. Why is that?
  14. Ubertron_X

    General UI / gameplay improvements

    As the title already stated here some minor but important suggestions for UI modifications for all ship classes to improve tactical and strategic gameplay. BB (and T9+ CA): Show a differently coloured 'repair bar' on the health bar, so players don't have to guess how much health will be healed (or don't have to remember what kind of and how many hits of each kind they received). CA: Show anti-air and hydroaccustic search radius on minimap (toggle option) to help decide if / when to use your special abilities. CV: Show ship names on overhead map as player names does not yield any usable information (apart from you doing some brain training while trying to remember the most dangerous opponents). Also please show plane nation on the overhead map. It's quite annying to have to zoom in every time to be able to determine if it is a 4 or 6 plane flight you are facing (or what else is to come). DD: Show smoke borderline and/or show smoke area on minimap. Show the distance to any non-CV planes (very very important). Thanks for your time.
  15. Turion1979

    Animation of the Rudderblade

    I have a Question for the Devs and Programmers of WoWs in total, if you managed to animate Weather (Rain, Fog, Smoke, Rain) even on the Ship Deck. And your also manage to animate Guns, MainBatteries, Secondaries, AA Guns and even more Stuff like the Catapults for Recon Planes... even the Engine Blades in the Water are Rotating even changing Directions if you are reversing - why you cant animate the Rudder?! Even the Smoke from the Chimneys on the Land are smoking... is that Hard work to create that Small animation? Even if Wargaming says... you cant see the Rudder all the Time because of Big BattleShips... but well, isnt that a nice Feature to make the "Look" of the Game a bit more Realistic? I guess not much Players take care of that because they only pressing A and D Keys and the Ship turns... but you already try to make the Details on the Ships very nice so... its maybe like the Physiks of the Tracks Movement in World of Tanks - Would be nice so far if u manage to do that -
  16. Hi there, i would like to ask if you can add something on the Minimap, about Radar Range. I mean its already show about your Detection Range, AA Range and so on - but there is no Indicator about the Range of your Radar (or Hydro) i mean, the Range of Radar is almost similar but it would be nice, if you can add an Option for that. For Example if you playing a German Battleship, or Russian Cruiser, US Cruiser - you may enable that Option to see where you "may" spot an Enemy Ship
  17. Hey Guys, I want to make another suggestion. It's about the captains skills.. Problem is this: As you see, I have 3 Skillpoints which I basically cannot use since I am grinding towards the next set of skills (which all need 4 Points). This is taking a very long time and let's be honest, it's not really fun to grind that long for an improvement. On top: Sometimes getting that next skillpoint (for which you have grinded hours) is meaningless to us since we have to get to a certain threshold of points to make use of them. This creates a motivational issue: So why not changing the skill system to smaller increases of abilties instead of such a hard increase. For instance: Advanced Firing Training +20% to secondary armament attack distance +20% to AA engangement area radius +10% to attack distance of Destroyer main armament Yeah, this is a cool skill and once you obtain it you get a huge bonus. But it takes 4 skill points and that takes a lot of time and most people are frustrated or at least annoyed with this kind of delayed gratification. Why not improve it to something like this: Advanced Firing Training (0/4) +5/10/15/20% to secondary armament attack distance +5/10/15/20% to AA engangement area radius +2.5/5/7.5/10% to attack distance of Destroyer main armament So each time you get a new Skillpoint you can immediatelly spend it and get at least a small reward instead of sitting on 3 totally useless points and having grind for ages to get some use out of them. This would work with almost all of the skills because instead of having a hard increase you could have a soft increase which keeps players motivated to grind more XP to get the full effect. It also creates more diverse options of skilling your captain because you wouldnt have to worry about spending that many points in one ability and having to miss out on the other option for a long time because you have to grind that many points again.. if you know what I mean. What do you think guys? Cheers