Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'balance'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • 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 104 results

  1. The game has expanded a lot since 2015. New ship lines, mechanics, consumables, etc has been implemented. Now cv-rework is getting near and possibly submarines. Some major changes are needed to have these lines implemented into the game. New consumables will be added, old will be changed, some captain skills will be changed, ships will have new roles added to the old ones. At the same time there are mechanics that aren't working as intended atm, bb AP on dds for example, another pet peeve of mine is the heavy cruiser on light cruiser match up that in theory should favour the heavy, but that's very situational. Even if I understand that a complete overhaul of the game is out of the question, I'm wondering if it's not the time to take a step back and look over the game and its concepts now that 2 'new' lines potentially can be released in the game? Should the old lines have their old roles? I think the game is good at the moment. I also think that introducing new aspects/ships/concepts to the game has increased the complexity and that the balance and roles of ships could be looked over and maybe improved upon, maybe now when there's a need for some rebalance regardless. Not just looking at stats how various ships perform but more from a conceptual perspective. For example - At close range a bb or a heavy cruiser should, imo, annihilate a broadsiding cruiser. Often you get plenty of overpens through the citadel. It's a mechanic in the game, but is it intuitive and good? (I know some of you think it is, because it's in the game). Or radars - should it penetrate islands? Maybe it should because the game is more fun that way, but maybe, with the possible introduction of subs, the game would improve from less radar spotting? DDs role could gravitate more toward counter subs and could perhaps be able to move in island areas more safely than now. The game is getting more complicated, it's getting more inaccessible for newcomers due to this. The majority of the players will never learn from tips or tutorials but play the game from what seems reasonable in their minds. The game shouldn't be dumbed down but the game and the mechanics needs to be intuitive. What's your take?
  2. The proposed carrier rework looks like this: This gameplay is very different from the current carrier gameplay. This is not what I expected when I bought the product of premium carriers from the WG premium shop. Will WG offer refunds for customers who are unhappy because of these changes?
  3. Hi, i kinda felt the need to at least write up some sort of short view on current topics of discussion so I sat down for a bit and came up with a few things on the following 5 topics. 1.) Stalingrad 2.) Harugumo 3.) Worcester 4.) Role of the DD 5.) CBs/ranked/competitive. Its about 3 pages so for those who are interested feel free to take a look and share your opinion too. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W74nNODMFxw0R-BwObUshyPKOnpXgn96d4bUgL2iipo/edit?usp=sharing Mr_Dced P.s: By the way i dont have a clue what if im doing stuff on here correctly so if im not... sorry in advance i probably didnt know better.
  4. VeryHonarbrah

    Legendary Mods

    So I am pretty close to my leg Moskva and from the looks of it, its a simple buff to the range Moskva (which I dont really rate, but understand why people play it). I personally, and I would say the majority of people who play Moskva in randoms and in CW use reload mod, and from this leg, which I have some have grinded for, I find disappointment. By using this mod we are being forced into a type of game style that cuts out many other builds. I will try it out, but I dont see a reason why I should pick it in randoms at all, with maybe a small case being made for comp. As a fix, I would maybe suggest a rework of the leg to maybe improve dispersion a little, reload and range. Instead of range and dispersion, or release a second leg that acts as a improved reload leg.
  5. Reaper_JackGBR

    CB Season Three; some points.

    So now that the season is over I wanted to put my thoughts about it here, as well as the thoughts of what seems to be most of my clan, just some pointers on good and bad sides to it all. - First of all, the points system, it seems to make very little sense, almost feeling like there's some RNG involved with it at times, for example, winning against a clan one group below you and getting say...18 points. Then you win against a clan in the same group as you....and get the exact same number of points. The only reason I'm aware of for this is.... - Bravo teams. A great idea in theory, but I'm sorry to say, implemented absolutely horribly. All this has actually achieved this season is Hurricane/Typhoon clans taking out Bravo squad with their alpha players and absolutely curb stomping those in the leagues below them in order to prevent advancement; there are however solutions to this. + Give Bravo teams their own set of leagues, separate from the alphas, the Clan's overall rank only uses the alpha team's rank. + Have clans designate Bravo and Alpha players at the start of the season, every two weeks a clan can move up to say...ten members from one team to another. + Abolish it completely if there is no way to stop people taking advantage of it. Not preferable, but I would rather not have a feature than have a crooked and unbalanced feature. - The matchmaker, as far as I am aware, a clan's ranking in the MM is counted as being a group or two higher than they actually are this season, what this has led to is a large number of clans continuously fighting clans that are reasonably better than them, and has made life even easier for the top clans who can't be matched against higher clans...because they don't exist, instead not even fighting each other much, and mostly clubbing less skilled clans. (Correct me if I''m wrong here, I don't really understand about the whole ELO stuff, this is just what I've been led to believe.) - Ship types. Releasing the Worcester within a week before CB's was game breaking for balance, as it's use in such an environment, or even the regular environment, was relatively unknown and as such very difficult to counter, especially as the ship in a competitive meta is very, very powerful. Honestly it felt like a cash grab to make people buy doubloons specifically so they could free xp to it to use it in CB's. Not cool. On a similar note, imposing a limit on multiple ships of the same class might be something to look into, a team running 6 Moskvas, Worcesters or anything similar seems to have caused quite a few balancing problems this season, and if the Stalingrad is available next season, that will only lead to more problems. - Maps, a little more variety would be nice, and I would especially love to see Ocean in the lineup, it would be interesting to see how people adapt to a map with zero islands, when the current lineup is incredibly island heavy. On the island note as well, some maps give blatant advantages to the team that spawns on one side as well, for example the North spawn on Hotspot makes getting the C cap a much easier job, as the islands they have are closer to their spawn and provide much better cover. I think that's about everything I have to say, though of course as ever feel free to add points if there's anything else anyone feels I haven't covered or have forgotten about. These are just my thoughts and those of my clans, I don't even expect everyone to agree with this.
  6. This was originally a Reddit post to take stock of the current situation with carriers. Uniquely to this class, many high-skilled players are dissatisfied with the very existence of carriers. Personally, I first agreed with CVs mixing up the game and there being plenty enough counter play opportunities. But as I got better I realised that those "counterplays" generally weaken one's gameplay a lot by denying many of the normal effective choices. CVs hardcounter concealment based playstyles and force players to stick together, which does not work out well in random battles. On the other hand I also unlocked every tech-tree carrier with a super unicum rating and therefore have some insights into the complaints that CV players have, especially regarding divisioning and the state of anti-air. CVs are balanced on a much higher power level than any other ship class This is a simple fact that many CV players don't want to acknowledge since it is seemingly contrarian to their own perception of AA being too powerful, but in reality both points are valid at the same time. As it stands, CVs are the number one class in spotting (by a laughable margin), dealing damage (even though a few individual ships like Conqueror are ahead... for averagely skilled players at least), and dealing killing blows. They dominate every statistic - they even lead in average XP by about 15%, despite having extremely diminished multipliers compared to all other ship classes. Without those multipliers, the difference in XP would be astronomical and show much better how superior CVs truly are. Ultimately, CVs have a much higher impact on the win rate of their team than any other individual could have. CVs' biggest strengths don't even show up in the stats. While players generally fawn over damage numbers, win rates, and experience as measurements, spotting and zoning are concepts that are extremely difficult to quantify in World of Warships. DDs for example always were at the low end of all the usual stats, and yet were the most impactful class at the very least until radar became as powerful as it is now. That is largely because they give their team the spotting advantage, and because their torpedoes are an immense threat that force the enemy into suboptimal plays even if they never score a hit. You will frequently find superior forces turn around because noone is willing to push into the enemy destroyer who could both permaspot and torpedo them. But CVs, which already are at the top of damage, kills, and experience, also are the masters of spotting and zoning. This is why they are played even in competitive, which is filled to the brim with AA. They have the ability to threaten enemies with spotting and instant kills across the entire map. It doesn't matter which flank you're at, the single enemy CV can still threaten you. CVs enhance the radar problem While currently all community talk seems to be focussed on radars alone, the presence of a CV makes radars more potent. The frequent spotting of both torpedoes and DDs by planes makes it much easier for cruiser players to track the enemy DD's location. Carriers often force CVs to use their smoke to drop vision, which then makes them easy targets for radars. While in a CV-less game it is often possible to use the fact that enemy radar cruisers do not know when you are within their range for a while, this becomes exponentially more dangerous when there are planes on the map. And the same positions that you may use to evade enemy radars will often isolate you from your AA allies and therefore make you easy prey to a cross drop. The balancing of other ships is done without CVs in mind. CVs break the balance. This especially affects two factors: Concealment and AA. Many concealment-based ships like Shimakaze have virtually no counterplay to CVs besides falling back to their team, even though the entire gameplan of a concealment-based ship is designed around the polar opposite, of finding those far-up positions. This also affects many cruisers, as for example IJN or French cruiser players may gamble for non-CV games to use hydro for aggressive moves. The fact that CVs are exceptionally good at spotting enemy torpedoes adds insult to injury. These ships are perfectly fine in non-CV games (sometimes even on the weaker side still), but the presence of a CV just flat-out destroys their impact on the game. As for AA specialist ships, WG knows that these ships also have to be viable in non-CV games. And with ships like Montana, Des Moines, Worcester, and Minotaur they certainly accomplished this design goal. The problem is that this makes them ridiculously powerful in CV games (even though the fact that they're often stealth reliant counteracts it to some degree). Theses ships are often designed to be less powerful in straight-up confrontations as a payoff, but still have their tools and tricks to stay relevant when there is no CV to counter. And in a tragic twist for DDs, AA ships also often carry radar with them - partially because both radar and AA are commonly found on more modern ship designs, and partially because radar is also frequently balanced by the exact same payoffs that ships trade in for their AA. This falls back to the "CVs enhance the radar problem" point - DDs are truly fucked in those games. Active counterplay to CVs is awful. Since CVs already counter concealment based playstyles, your only option is to stick to other allies - which often leads to terrible lemming train games. The level of play it takes to spread across the map and be safe against CVs is far beyond random teams, especially since random and ranked battles have far fewer AA specialist ships than competitive. As far as evading an immediate drop goes, it's an incredibly shitty situation. Skill alone doesn't let you dodge a cross drop or dive bombers. Often even doging a CV will still get you killed as you are forced to broadside the enemy team while being spotted. This is quite unlike doging for example BB shells or torpedoes, as good players can prepare their positions in a way that angling against the incoming threat will also give them a save position against the rest of the fleet. As mentioned in the balance section, the CV presence affects some ships worse than others and forces them into severely diminished, powerless roles. There is no real way to counteract CVs with skill, only being close to AA helps. Your only alternative is to gamble on the enemy CV not being good enough to notice you at all, which is often a statistically viable approach but awful in terms of gameplay. It's pretty much like detonations: if you win your dice roll you are fine and get to play as normal, but if you lose it you simply die. AP bombs are some of the worst mechanics in the game. I mentioned some about counterplay, and dive bombers are even worse at this. While torpedo bombers allow for some degree of doging and minimising damage, dive bombers are pure clicking and there is no evading a capable drop. Now for the old USN monster HE bombs this already could get pretty ugly, but most players simply prepared for the inevitable 10k blast plus multiple fires. With AP bombs the ugly was turned up to 11. The fact that you can simply leftclick a ship and delete it on the spot is just ridiculous. Players get punished purely for bringing the wrong ship. Their total power balance is completely irrelevant, the design itself is awful and needs to go. CV divisions are absolutely broken. The main problem here is that only the players who division with the CV know for sure whether there will be a CV in their game or not. So they get to bust out the most insane AA they can find and get a guaranteed major advantage. No other type of division can reliably replicate the winrates that a good CV division can. But there are some even worse divsions by abusing tier differences. Some divisions "anchor" their surface ships by queueing with a lower-tier CV. A T5 CV with two T6 BBs for example is practically immune to getting T8 matches, so the BBs will never be bottom tier. Other divisions do the opposite: Queueing a T9 CV with T10 AA guarantees the AA advantage even harder, and will easily defeat even other CV divs. The only real counter to a good CV is another good CV. This is quite unlike any other ship class. No matter if you are in a destroyer, cruiser, or battleship, you have the means to impact any other enemy ship class, and therefore directly outcarry a good player on the enemy team. Unless that player is a CV that is. The most you can do to that is to deny a small area, if you even are AA specced to begin with. If you truly want to check an enemy CV's ability to spot and assassinate people at will, you need to be a CV yourself. The result of this can be seen in player winrates. CVs have the most hilariously lopsided winrates of all classes. There are almost no "average" CVs. The vast majority is deep in the red (an incredible part of it below 40%), and a significant part of the rest at super unicum winrates. Also WG already acknowledged the problem with the removal of manual drops on low tiers (however shitty of a "solution" that is) and by making CVs the first class that was perfectly mirrored in tier and number. And hands down, many games between two good CVs start by both devstriking a DD on the other team. Whether those DDs missplayed or not, this is still a level of influence far beyond that of any other ship class. So how can all of this be fixed? The answer most certainly would not be to simply increase AA or nerf plane health. CV players are right in their criticism that there is a huge amount of total death zones in the game already. CV gameplay is already unbearably binary between easy kills and no-gos. If WG were to maintain the fundamental CV mechanics, they would probably have to dramatically change CV loadouts. A few CVs are much less bad on the mentioned issues than others. Essex for example is unable to cross drop and relies on its dive bombers for damage, meaning its much worse at spotting. It's also more balanced towards an AA role than towards dealing damage, meaning that both CVs are less effective than usual. For a CV it is almost hilariously bad. But the solution here shouldn't be to bring Essex up, but to bring all the other CVs down to this level. To diminish their ability of spotting by making them rely on every single squad to deal damage. AP bombs should just be removed entirely. There is no reason to have them in the game. They make it strictly worse. They are not very enjoyable for most CV players either with how situational they are. CV queueing also definitely needs to be fixed. I am not sure why WG still allows for tier differences in divisions at all, but they should be removed for CV divisions at a minimum since these abuses are fairly common already. Another CV queue issue is the double CV matchmaking on low tiers. Having a T6 CV vs Saipan is one of the dumbest experiences in the game, especially since Saipan is already a hardcore sealclubber as T7 CVs are pretty much either premium CVs or total noobs. But of course WG announced a full-on rework. Speculations go towards a more "action oriented" playstyle that could revolve around closer micromanagement of fewer squads. First of all this would reduce the oppressive spotting power that CVs currently have. It could even go as far as CVs not sharing their spotting with other ships anymore, akin to spotting in a cyclone. But there could be other goodies in there that make patterns of counterplay clearer. For example the gameplay could revolve around having to strafe the enemy AA with fighters to make it easier to bomb them, which would give the target a clear warning and some time to improve their position. Or AA could be restricted in its firing arcs while being stronger when they do have a good angle, giving targets more options in positioning against incoming air attacks.
  7. Mangrey

    So how do WG balance ships ?

    Hey I have bin playing since CBT, and there have bin alot of changes doing that time. So not im arsking my self how do you balance a new ship and how do you(WG) keep the old onces in the "game" Im arsking curs i have a hard time to see the balance (if any) in you +-2 mm between the 4 tirs of ships mang Sorry for my bad english
  8. Ich will ja jetzt nicht eine neue "aufkommende" Diskussion anstoßen, da das Matchmaking schon oft genug kritisiert worden ist. Aber hier aus dem Spiel "Total War Arena" habt Ihr mal das beste Beispiel, wie man es machen könnte und wie es aussehen kann. Den Rest kann man selbst dazu schreiben und ausdenken. Immerhin ist es genau dass wonach sich die Spieler in WoWs seit Jahren sehnen. Von daher die einfache Frage, warum schafft es TWA das zu testen und vielleicht (sicher) auch umzusetzen, aber WOWs schafft es nicht. Selbst wenn eine gute Divison aus T8 Spielern es schafft, sich gegenüber T10ern zu behaupten, wird man die meiste Zeit von denen eh nur noch zusammen geschossen... Von daher finde ich diesen Ansatz mal ganz interessant, wie Sies machen wollen oder testen. https://www.reddit.com/r/TotalWarArena/comments/90ety3/matchmaking_tests_2007/ Zuerst haben wir T8 aus dem High-Tier-Matchmaking-Band entfernt, sie existieren jetzt ausschließlich im T7-8-Tier-Band, ohne T8-9-Band, um T9s nicht aus dem T10-Band zu nehmen. First up, we’ve removed T8 from the high tier matchmaking band, they exist now solely in the T7-8 tier band, with no T8-9 band so as not to take T9s out of the T10 band. Also based on your feedback, we’ve increased the weighting of parties.
  9. VeryHonarbrah

    CW mm - second teams

    So we are running 2 teams, 1 is drifting in and out of the struggle upwards into the storm league with our second in the 3rd group of the gale. I understand our alpha team facing teams in the league above us, however our second team faces storm league teams almost every match. Our second team isn't on massive win streaks or has a very high wr, so I dont see why its facing teams that our in the leagues above us, with them not even being in the struggle downwards ect ect. So I was wondering if both teams have the same mm, and wondered why should we have separate ratings if we face the same opponents.
  10. dCK_Ad_Hominem

    Yueyang is breaking the TX DD balance

    Hello all, I know I will likely cause quite the lively discussion and there will be people who disagree with what I'm about to say. I shall try to remain as objective as possible and would like to ask you to do the same. It has been a while since the introduction of the pan Asian dd line. I didn't want to jump to conclusions prematurely so I gave it some time, observed, talked to clan mates and started playing the ships myself (currently at chung mu). As it stands now, however, I feel confident to put forth the statement that I consider the Yueyang to be unbalanced in its current form. Let us compare it to the Gearing for sake of ease, as both are very similar: Concealment: 5.8km best in tier by 100 to 200m respectively. Speed and maneuverability: 36.5kn. Half a knot faster than its American counterpart, bonuses further escalate this in the Yueyang's favour. It also turns better Guns: identical. Hp: Yueyang has 700 fewer hp than gearing. Torps: 68kn. 2kn faster than gearings. 13.5km range, 3km fewer range. Damage is identical, concealment a bit better. Utility: both get speed boost and smoke. Gearing can trade its speed boost for def aa, Yueyang can trade smoke for radar. Now let's put these numbers into context. Random battles: The Yueyang will only be outspotted by Yugumos and Kageros, allowing it to contest caps. It cannot torp dds, but almost always has a guaranteed first shot on its side. This, combined with great dpm and a max damage per salvo of almost 3k make her health disadvantage irrelevant. It can engage cruisers successfully due to its stealthy torps, as it can bbs. When using smoke it has the same damage potential as a Gearing. It is only threatened By carriers and z-52s. When running radar it can dominate a cap even against multiple dds, provided it gets fire support. The fact that its average damage on the server exceeds any other dd, including the Khaba, is Testament to this. Competitive/CW: In competitive it has become the dd of choice since it allows for the mobile deployment of radar. I won't go into the way typhoon and Hurricane clans use her, but she simply dominates the game there. This is not solely due to great play, which in itself would be fine, but due to her versatility making the other dds irrelevant. I would suggest slight nerfs to her, beginning with bringing its concealment and maneuverability in line. The fact that this hybrid outspots a dedicated torpedo boat is laughable. Additionally its guns or hp could be nerfed ever so slightly if the aim is to keep its torpedo armament and consumables untouched. I hope this doesn't come off as too much of a rant, but I truly believe the ship is too good in its current form.
  11. DataDemon

    'playerbase *Edited & balancing?

    I briefly read some of the posts and found a reoccuring issue that ALL! threads about the gameplay have. Essentially there were some issues where we all tried to find solutions, but at the same time you could also fill in another argument aswell. It is debatable, 'That the majority of the playerbase is *Edited doesn't pose a balancing problem.' (cited from another forum as a sarcastic statement) What he meant was, e.g. Stalingrad OP. Well migth be true, but you cannot test its strength based on players, *Edited ones, don't know how to play against it. And we all can agree that to some degree we can mitigate an enemy Stalingrad, but you cannot balance a ship around the guys who cannot play against it. [Well I take it back- BBs with underwater citadels...]. And just the argument that he can punish you at max distances does not mean that it is unfair/unbalanced since it certainly is not skill dependent that you sailed broadside to him, even at 20km range... Aswell as we have BBs that can be sniped off by any CV if they play solo and complain about balance. Or as another example CVs. We all can agree that in randoms the more skilled CV player makes a huge deal. And you all may wonder, how do you 'fix' CVs? Another way of seeing this is, the only reason this is a deal, is because >75% of CV players have no clue how to play them. I see CVs in T10 that are doomed to lose all their planes to a single strafe. If, on the other hand, they would know what to do; let's say I as a unicum player complaining about CVs, who does not how to strike well, would be paried against a good CV player, well then he would have more impact on the game by dealing more damage than me, but other than this, because I know which targets to focus, to spot dds etc. it would be not game decisive. And we all would accept the better CV player just the same as 'they got OMNI BB' but that is it and nothing more, which is exactly how it is intended to be. And as for CVs, I won't blame WG for not rewarding 'correct' play, you play correct because that is how you win the game, not because that gives you fake money. So basicly the question is, when you (let's stay honest, WG, but we might have some influence on it if we all can agree on a note here) balance mechanics, do you go for the objective gameplay (like if 2 good players play against each other, it should be an equal fight), or do you prefer to go for the majority (CVs are OP because I cannot camp at the 10 line alone any more, Stalingrad is OP because I have to be more careful than I am right now). We know WGs reason to tend to the 2nd option, but for us, as a playerbase, and the playerbase that WG gets some money from aswell; how do WE deal with this issue? So the thread of the topic is- all of you know encountered retarded players, like BBs going 9-10 line on Northern lights, when they don't get that they are out of fight for 5+ mins, while the rest of the team has to play without 2 Top Tier BBs. DDs that go off not spotting, because it is 'too dangerous'. Or my favourite is 'B is a trap' and exactly therefore noone of our team going there, meaning they can cap this so called trap with no risk at all. Or the map Trap and all the guys lemming towards A... What I was trying to do, and pls leave the HAMI jokes aside, I was telling my teammates in randoms, always when playing solo, what to do. At least a suggestion, at the start of the game, same as I do in clanwars. If there are questions, I am fast enough in the first 2 minutes to explain why. My experience was quite often they do listen. Also, e.g. if you say 'ALL BC' on Ice of Islands (which is admittedly not the very best, but the best would depend on setups, ship composition, fine tuning, ... then just the easy ALL BC would do the deal most of the times), people having success with it often repeat the statement next time on the map. So giving them general instructions are benefitial. But then there are [edited]. Like guys who sail 9-10 line on Northern lights. Even if there is no D cap. And when I try to explain anything (in Hope we will never do that again, I get reported). I got chatbanned doing non-raging explanation *Edited, after which my solo game (which relied on communicating with teammates) sucked. Not just strategy, but just asking a dd if he can smoke ahead is a huge deal... This is what gets me most- correct a fool and he will hate you. So back to the topic, I think the biggest problem with WOWs is the playerbase. If you could correct it somehow many of the issues we discuss would be solved. And it is less the question of skill. I honestly, do not mind a player to be bad, as long as he is doing his best and thinks reasonably, reacts on arguments and suggestions, I am completely fine. What I am not fine is an ashashio as only dd not going to spot, because 'asashio is bad fighting dds, that is why he goes wide' against a kiev that capped! and radar cruisers using spotter planes (ty yuro) and staying on their opinion even after I explain them calmly the benefits for the team of having a radar. Anyone might have a point of doing something, and it is fine until you are proved otherwise. All I am asking the playerbase in randoms is just to use the brain a bit, listen to me if I have a point and admit it's mistakes to perform better next game. But so far, sadly, the majority of the playerbase is braindead after all. Regarding this, if you agree with me, do you just accept the fact or should we try to change that a bit. I mean if we can change 10% it would be enough already, like making some tutorial videos on youtube about why you don't go a on ice if islands, and (advanced) when it is a good option, but never for a lemmingtrain. If you just accept that statement and do nothing about it, then there is no reason to talk about stalingrad balance, or CVs etc, since the main point are the '[edited]' that cannot play against it and suffer, and we suffer having them on our side. You will never be able to balance a 'braindead' player on your side from the perspective of developers. And if you disagree with mine (or rather the author of the line), why do you think so? Why is the attitude *Edited, team ignorant actions not harmful to randoms? Since all you want to have is a game when you can show your skills. Which most of the times do not happen because your friendly team already threw it away in the first minutes, not by individual mistakes, but by collective force.
  12. Aragamash

    Balancovaný MM

    Ahoj, předpokládám, že se tato zpětná vazba s odezvou moc nesetká, ať už kvůli malému vzorku dat, nebo prostě proto, že nejsem dostatečně platící zákazník (alepsoň tak mi to bylo naznačeno na WoT fóru). Hlavně bych se totiž chtěl zeptat, kdy dojde k tvorbě bitev s vyváženým MM. Ve World of Tanks se jim to už povedlo a ačkoliv 3-5-7 systém není možná utopisticky ideální, nestává se, že by na jedné straně byly tanky vyšší úrovně než na druhé. Tento problém ovšem na lodích máme a to docela často. Tak například hned první screenshot v příloze. Vážně vám přijde fér, že jeden tým má tři osmičky a ten druhý má pouze devítky a desítky? Ten den se mi to stalo dokonce dvakrát (druhý screenshot jsem nedělal, měli jsme 2 osmičky, oni žádnou - tentokrát jsme to ale vyhráli i přes to, že nám MM hodil fůru klacků pod nohy). Upřímně, ale toto není ten největší problém, který mě trápí. Samozřejmě, že je lepší mít vyšší úrovně, ale když tam hodíte pár zásahů do citadel, tak je vám úplně jedno zda jste trefili Yorcka, Hippera nebo Roona... Jak jsem řekl hned na začátku, přítelkyně si dělala statistiku a skončila u čísla 36 protože toho prostě a jednoduše měla dost. Počítala bitvy, ve kterých nepřátelský tým měl více torpédoborců než náš... U čísla 36 přestala počítat s pár docela sprostými slovy... Ono ani nejde o to, že je to snad v každé druhé bitvě. Jde o to, že tým, který měl více torpédoborců ve 36 případech prohrál jen 5x... Stručně řečeno, pokud to ten tým nepodělal hned ze začátku nějakou torpédo-kamikazí a torpédoborce jim přežily první 3 minuty, tak jsme to měli spočítané. Mít o torpédoborce víc je mnohdy až neuvěřitelná výhoda. Poslední dobou jsou populární bitevní lodě a tým s více torpédoborci si je vklidu posílá pod vodu. Potřebujete obsadit oblast? Nevadí, tým s více torpédoborci je prostě flexibilnější a rychlejší. Samozřejmě to funguje i opačně. Má-li můj tým více torpéďáků, je celá bitva mnohem snazší (pokud nepadnou během prvních 3 minut). Z posledních 7 tkových, kdy jsme měli více těchto borců, jsem prohráli jen jednou... Já fakt nevím, kde je problém. Ve špičce je online až 27 000 hráčů. To je tak těžké zařídit stejné počty torpédoborců na obou stranách? Už jsem to zkoušeli i oblafnout tím, že jsme vzali do čety 3 šestkové torpé'ďáky a nepřátelé měli 2 šestky a 2 sedmičky... Nevadí mi mít celkově tým nižší úrovně, nevadí mi když mezi sedmičky někdo dotáhne čtverku (ve WoT to vyřešili), ale prostě tahle nevyváženost torpédoborců je stupidní a hru to vážně kazí. Máte-li více torpédoborců, je hra z poloviny vaše. Jen to totálně nepokazit... Vážně to chce už změnu. Nebo rovnou zaveďte 2 letadlovky proti jedné, vyjde to nastejno... (Jinak, než někdo začne nadávat, jaká jsme rajčata - jsme standartní normální průměrný vzorek s poměrem vítězství 50%. respektive 52% u ní...)
  13. Strefs

    WG DevQnA Transcription [RAW]

    DEV QnA WG 15/06/2018 Here's my transcription of the latest Dev QnA with WG's balancing department. I left out some questions (some intentionally, some unintentionally) but I did get most of them. Bold is the question normal font is the answer, and finally any little additions from me are in italic. Note that this isn't 1:1 what the devs said, as it is my personal transcription (apologies in advance for any dents I didn't manage to buff out). Is the tendency of powercreep intentional, or is it a side effect? A hard question - during the years we develop new ideas and mechanics. We don't want to powercreep the game with new ideas, but sometimes it happens. Why is it harder in BBs to punish other BBs broadsiding? From a historical standpoint BBs were supposed to withstand damage from other BBs. Will Zao receive HP buffs? from the survivability point of view, Zao is okay. She has good agility, stealth and range. She will, however get the 12km torpedoes Will CVs get rebuffed again? We're currently working on a new version of carriers, so of course they will be rebalanced. Therefore everything in regards to carriers and planes will be revisited, that includes AA, captain skills as well as the CVs themselves. Do you have any plans to buff Gearing? She was kind of buffed with the Fletcher torpedoes. She's kind of in a nice spot, since she is needed in competitive games. She is also in a good spot for Randoms. Will upgrades and modules receive buffs/nerfs? We don't have such plans. Will BBs overpenetrate with no damage, and if that is the case, what about AP German DD and others CAs and CL? CA AP will no longer bounce on DDs, due to the rework of the destroyer armour layout. We will investigate how BB AP will deal damage to destroyers i.e. Japanese AP. Comeback mechanics for ships of tier 7-8? The reason why not all ships have a heal, is that most nations already have it at t9, and the new module slot. We're looking into making t7-8 cruisers receiving something to allow them to come back. But it will likely not be a heal. T9-10 seems to promote sitting at range and sniping, will this be addressed? It's difficult, you see. The game is more interesting to play if you push. In theory, it sounds like a good idea to cut down the ranges, but that leads to a difficult situations. For the majority of players, playing as safely as possible seems to be the obvious choice, pushing requires quite a bit of understanding of the game, and carries risks. It might be considered for the future. Combined arms (WoT+WoWs/WoWp)? Not possible at the time. What could a tank do to a ship? ;) Rework to Radar for Line of sight instead of going through islands? It has been discussed. Radar is pretty straight forward, if the DD is undetected, you pop the radar and you spot him, providing he's inside the radar's range. (we don't want to overly complicate it). There are considerations for radar countering consumables. Clan Wars with rewards like in WoT (gold, etc.)? We want to develop clan activities further. We've been discussing Global Map, many times. It might not necessarily be the greatest for world of warships. It is possible to have something like this in the future, but not for now. Battlecruisers as a custom class? They're in the game right now, and they function as such, therefore creating a separate icon is a bit of a redundancy. Will we get destroyers with a choice of DWT/Normal torpedoes? With Asashio, we wanted to minimize confusion. Therefore a single choice of torpedoes can be picked, or rather, is available. More accuracy for secondaries? The secondaries are viable as they are right now. It's quite powerful but not overpowered. So, no. Pan-Asia Hsienyang same setup as Benson? DWT torps are quite effective, therefore she isn't in a bad spot, not over or underperforming. We'll look into this if anything changes. Conqueror top guns, reload buff? We don't want to buff straight away. That would mean that instead of using the smaller guns, players would just switch to the other guns and spam HE anyway. We do want to do something different Short range AA gets destroyed really quickly, deliberate? Yes, Mid and short range AA was very lightly armoured, therefore it makes sense that HE splash knocks them out quickly. Have any ships had their matchmaking weight adjusted? No, nothing affects the matchmaking of ships, nor do player stats. What criteria do you use to determine what bracket a premium will be placed in? First, it's a guess, then it gets set up, and it goes into the balancing/testing process. Do stats and abilities come first? The stats go first of course, since it's directly from the ship's history, then we can do adjustments according to the tier it fits best. How much time does it take to see whether a ship doesn't perform as desired? Depends - Normal ships 1-2 months. We of course check the stats from the first week, but generally better players get the ship first. How long does it take to determine whether changes to a ship are successful? Sometimes too long! Difficult, sometimes. For instance, conqueror, stat-wise, it's not the greatest ship. From a community perspective, it is infamous. Radar performance effect on Destroyer population? the DD population is currently affected by the American-arc. A lot of cruisers, less DDs. That goes for any new branch though (i.e. BBs and DD influx, etc) How are hitpoints determined? Formula for every class (displacement, different factors) from that an approximate health pool is determined, and is later tweaked. There are rules how we calculate parameters of a ship, generally we leave it at that, but sometimes we need to tweak it (buffs, nerfs) Izumo getting some love? Regards of the Izumo - We will look into her, she's not that bad off, even though people like to complain. It is however somewhat underperforming. It is a bit hard for people to ajust to the new playstyle from the good old Amagi. Keep in mind that this was the first BB line. similarly with Nelson, which was considered with the RNBBs, but was not chosen due to different playstyles. Is the Giulio Cesare the Nikolai of T5? No, at the moment it doesn't look like it, but we will look into it. Ships that are highly reliant of IFHE, do you make specific changes according to ships that rely on this skill or not? We look into the stats of our supertesters/production testers, and then we decide what to do with the ships. Com Perks are part of balance of a ship, of course we want it to be well balanced on average. Of course we're not just looking at average numbers. When we release a ship to production test, we benchmark the performance. We look at how players do in similar ships, and how these compare. When balancing a ship, do you factor in divisioning? The divisioning factor is not a primary part of the balancing. Although we do consider this. Do you think, the future CV rework will have an impact of every t4+ ship? Yes. Absolutely. The AA will be reworked, we'll see what else we need to change, hopefully not too many drastic changes. Why is it that post global changes, certain ships were not adjusted? i.e. Blyska and Kutuzov? Kutuzov was balanced initially with skill rework in mind. Blyskawica's performance is okay, she isn't the best on her tier, but it works. Will Roma get buffed? No, that is not planned. She has trade-offs. Shima 20km, WHY? Players like the 20km, and many players still use them, they are easy to play with, and they don't overperform. It's a perfect example of ship that is super popular, but not powerful. The opposite would be a carrier, who has a lot of power, but isn't particularly popular. Plan to nerf the HE penetration of german CAs? It's kind of a national trait to have improved HE penetration. We do not plan to nerf it. Montana has got the worst guns for a T10 BB. plans to improve? No, Montana is in a good spot. Will there be compensation after the CV rework is implemented? Absolutely, we try to compensate players accordingly (note generous compensation). HE drag value nerf? It would be an option. But for the time being RNBBs are not overperforming. Long range HE spam would be less effective, but it will most likely not change the playstyle of the majority of players that like to practice this kind of play. It would also punish players that don't practice this playstyle, as they'd have to readjust. With the amount of radar, will DDs receive stealth fire again? There are no DIRECT changes to radars planned. We have considered adding consumables to counter it. Tweaking AP bombs to deal more damage to t8+ BBs as opposed to no damage? Not for the time being, we're currently focusing on the CV rework. Upcoming special modes: Is there a timeframe for their arrival? We have a seperate team that dedicate themselves to test new game modes. It is quite difficult and requires a lot of experimentation. As you know the most successful tests come with events. (no ETA) What tiers will they be at? There are currently multiple tests on different tiers, but that has not been decided yet. Manual secondary control? The biggest issue is the change of context. Even with the 30 reload, there is still a lot going on. WoWs Blitz has this feature. Stats show that not a lot of people actually use this feature. Changes torpedo dispersion? It's worth taking a look into. Tier 9 ranked? Very few people keep their T9s. Therefore we have to take this into consideration. We're asking people to spend a lot of credits for them to rebuy ships just to participate. How are premium ships decided on? That opens up several questions. Does the community influence the choice of premium ships? Yes. Perfect example would be Haida. Another example: Roma. Of course we do listen to players and we try to accommodate to this. As for the roadmaps on premiums. There are many different factors. Community, distribution of existent Premiums, which classes and nations have premiums already. Among other factors. How successful did you find for this ranked season? The best season was s.4, the current season, s.9 was the second most successful ranked season. The general reception was good. some players loved t10 others hated it. There is an experiment to make a more casual season this year. Are there any other changes for the Supercontainers? Something that we want to look at, but not just the SCs, the whole logic behind the regular containers. We're not satisfied with how the work at the moment. Stalingrad staying in the arsenal forever? Stalingrad will stay there, if we *do* plan to remove it, we'll notify everyone in a timely fashion. Are you willing to reveal what the next big line for WoWs is going to be? We can't reveal the exact ship lines here. It will be revealed quite soon, though. (Gamescom??) Rewarding players for playing the objective? We have already added quite a few features which incentivizes players to play closer to the objective, and we plan on adding missions to reward this. Individual specific keybinds for consumables? Difficult with 8~ consumables and only 5 maps. We did consider allowing to swap the slots in which consumables can be placed. No decision have been made yet. Dedicated spectator mode? It's in works, there are changes already on the server-side. The biggest issue to add this to the production environment, is there needs to be a fundamental rework of the in-game HUD. The basis is 6 years old, so changing it is very work intensive and takes a lot of time. I wish I could say that we can deliver this year, but I doubt it. Teaching players to improve? the problem with education is that it is entirely up to the person themselves to improve, people who want to get better will always find ways to improve, people that don't, won't. We do want to create a place where people can learn, with tutorials, and hints, more of that in the future. What about the render changes, how's the progress? It is progressing. It is much less of a render problem, than a client filter problem. We want to introduce it in 0.7.7, but there are issues with it. We're are trying our best to fix it, and we're working on it. If not 0.7.7, then it will be a must for 0.7.8? CV Rework open the ability to field BBV and CVE? Yes. Radar to be taken into account for matchmaking? Difficult. Matchmaker is very sensitive. It might work at some peak hours, but not at all times, therefore not planned. Multiple Spotting Icon info? We need to look into it. Carrier sales on hold until Carrier Rework? Yes. Game really slow in port, as well stuttery, is this going to be fixed? It's a challenging thing, but we are working on it. Carrier input limited by UI? Yes, we're working on improving it. No ETA. Do we want to increase the role of support activities in terms of credits and experience points? We don’t want to go too far into this. You will still get a decent amount of credits and XP for spotting and tanking, but at the end of the day we still want to reward the actions that lead your team to victory, which is, capturing points, sinking ships and dealing damage. Any chance of allow this to be displayed in game or at the end of the game? With the current system it is impossible to say in real time what amount of what is calculated in which way in real time, therefore displaying this is impossible. The problem is, it had been tested in World of tanks, displaying what actions reward the player the most, he will try to exploit the system. Adding premium ships as bots in training room? More customization for the training room can definitely be considered. We need to bounce back with the team. How about giving XP by giving a smoke screen to your allies? Unfortunately these hardcore economy questions I cannot answer. Perhaps these can directly be asked in a QnA for economy. Consumables like an AOE heal? Yes, we’re considering looking into consumables like this. Special captain on carriers with plane trails? Absolutely possible (Fara: Doit). Is the introduction of Steel and Coal the new way of receiving reward ships for CB and Ranked seasons? Yes, the rewards were getting somewhat out of hand. Steel and coal should streamline it.
  14. I didn't come in with any expectations, and I was surprised to some point. Honesty with WG has always been a massive issue, but I am pleasantly surprised, but disappointed with certain issues. - Finally wargaming have understood that the UI they built 6-7 years ago and the game engin they built over a decade ago has put the game in a massive ditch. Major progress to the game cannot be achieved until a massive rework is achieved, from what has been told, this is being avoided and put off, or is still in the work. - Avoiding questions, bending questions : We all understand that people are under NDA and cannot answer questions, but simple things like saying we cant answer that would be nice. The main example being the complete dismissal of twannies question on random torp spread, all we got was a huff, and move on to the next question. - 'I got it' seems to be the safe word, when they said it, questions were ignored ect, ect. - All in all only a few things have been revealed, radar will not be reworked, wg are fine with easier to play ships and have no real plans to majorly balance ships that have been effected by global changes, an AA rework will come in with the CV rework, but most importantly, new lines and classes of BBCV, CACV will come into the game. P.B Everything above has been written during the break, before the questions have opened up to the floor.
  15. So today I watched Flamuu's latest video about these new WiP upgrades. I already know that they are being tested but nevertheless I was baffled at how such an obvious thing would fly over the heads of WG devs I know that no one of them play main CVs but whatever. Some of you may argue that I'm jumping into the wagon too early and that they'll sort this out but remember, this is WG we are talking about. Their inability to balance the game sometime astonishes me and probably most of you have been too with some of the decisions that have been done throughout the history of the game. First, for those who don't know, these legendary upgrades are exclusive and unique to each tier X ship. Here are the CV upgrades. - Hakuryuu. Enhanced Flight Control. 15% Extra health for your fighters 5% Extra speed to all of your aircraft This upgrade is placed on the last one, which is the one in which you can alternatively get the +15% attack aircraft health. - Midway. Reinforced Armor Protection for Attack Air Groups. 30% Extra health for your attack aircraft (torpedo bombers and dive bombers) -5% Speed to all your aircraft This upgrade is placed on the last one, which is the one in which you can alternatively get the +15% attack aircraft health. Now the problem should be pretty obvious for anyone who mains CVs. Hakuryuu is getting an straight improvement while Midway is having to exchange a pretty significant stat, the speed of its planes, for a bit more extra health. But let's try crunching the numbers a bit so it becomes more graphical. Aircraft Speed now Hakuryuu Midway Fighters 180 knots 178 knots Torpedo Bombers 164 knots 136 knots Dive Bombers 161 knots 156 knots Now let's apply the difference if both CVs took their respective legendary upgrade Aircraft Speed with both upgrades Hakuryuu Midway Fighters 189 knots 169 knots Torpedo Bombers 172 knots 129 knots Dive Bombers 169 knots 148 knots As you can see it becomes pointless to use this upgrade on the Midway when the Hakuryuu slots the upgrade. Not only do Midway Fighters become much more vulnerable to strafing and losing air control by Hakuryuu's 3*5 fighter squadron in the air but also they become unable to catch fully loaded Hakuryuu strike planes. A Hakuryuu can decide any kind of engagement as it wants. Things stay a bit less one sided when Midway decides to not slot the upgrade but it's still heavily on favor of Hakuryuu's side Aircraft speed with only Hakuryuu upgrade Hakuryuu Midway Fighters 189 knots 178 knots Torpedo Bombers 172 knots 136 knots Dive Bombers 169 knots 156 knots Now let's take a look at the health values of the planes. These values have been modified with the mandatory upgrades that a carrier player almost allways take (yay for variety). They are: Air Groups Modification 2 (+20% to fighter HP, +50% to fighter ammunition) and Air Groups Modification 3 ( +15% to attack aircraft survivability). They also have been modified with the captain skill Aircraft Servicing Expert ( +5% to HP of carrier-based aircraft. -10% to servicing time of carrier-based aircraft) Aircraft health now Hakuryuu Midway Fighters 2537 hp 2387 hp Torpedo Bombers 2532 hp 2052 hp Dive Bombers 2436 hp 2484 hp Now let's compare how they'd look with the new upgrades applied to both carriers. Take into account that in both cases the respective upgrade replaces Air Groups Modification 3 ( +15% to attack aircraft survivability). Aircraft Health with both upgrades Hakuryuu Midway Fighters 2842 hp 2387 hp Torpedo Bombers 2215 hp 2308 hp Dive Bombers 2131 hp 2794 hp Now, some of you may argue that it is a fair trade to lose 300 hp on both torpedo and dive bombers in exchange for the increased speed but at carrier gameplay the health of the bombers doesn't really matter outside their exposure to AA barrage. You can see it right now when a Midway can drop their fragile tier VIII torpedo bombers on BBs and other enemy ships if you know when to. This is further compounded by the loss of AA mounts all ships suffer from HE shells. And even so, in this field Hakuryuu's planes will come on top thanks to their superior speed which will enable them to capitalize enemies out of position much more quickly and eficiently than Midway. There are other factors to consider like aircraft travel time and aircraft servicing time. Which brings me back to my original question: Is there any point on sloting this upgrade on Midway? Is there any point on playing Midway once Hakuryuu receives this upgrade? Is there any point in playing Midway over Hakuryuu right now?
  16. This week, played more than 100 high tier DD games, and all of those games had atleast 1 radar. In some games, I had 4 radars against me and in my team too sometimes. It felt so difficult to cap and deal damage to BBs because they camp. It's no fun not only to me, but to other DDs too, even of enemy. So how about a DD can get radared a total of only 5 times or for a total of 3 minutes a game irrespective of number of them. Just a suggestion. I always cared for objective and victory, never for damage. So it doesn't affect me as only issue I have is I can't cap with so many radars.
  17. Amarandh

    Noch eine CV Idee

    Hallo, um das andere Thema sauber zu halten poste ich das mal hier. Wir haben ja aktuell keinen aktiven CV Diskussionsthread. Viele bemängeln ja das sogenannte Dauerspotten durch Flugzeuge, da diese sich bei jedem Schiff so gut wie außerhalb der Flakreichweite halten können um das Schiff zu spotten. Mich persönlich stört es auch, dass man als CV kein Spezialmodul nutzen kann und nur 2 aktive Fähigkeiten hat, nämlich DefAA und Reparatur. Mein Vorschlag wäre daher: Wir reduzieren massiv die Spottingrange durch Flugzeuge und zwar runter auf 1km. Das würde bedeuten, dass jedes Flugzeug ein Schiff auf Maximal 1km Entfernung spotten würde. Damit wäre die Staffel gezwungen, bis in die Shortrangeflak zu gehen um das Schiff offen zu halten, was auch die schnellere Abschussmöglichkeit beinhaltet. Allerdings müsste dann hier auch die Flak dahingehend geändert werden, dass StealthFlak nicht geht. Heißt also, dass ein Schiff aufgeht sobald es die Flak benutzt. Ein Schiff, das im Nebel steht und Flak nutzt bleibt weiterhin verdeckt. Um den CV als Spotter aber nicht komplett rauszunehmen spaltet sich hier meine Idee in zwei Wege. Erstens: Man gibt den Jägern Hydro (5km Reichweite, 75s Dauer, CD 90s, Aufladungen 3) oder Radar (11km Reichweite, 30s Dauer, CD 120s, Aufladungen 3). Damit schafft man Platz für eine dritte aktiv nutzbare Fähigkeit. Dazu kann man dann auch die Module für Hydro oder Radar nutzen. Spotten wäre nur über die Jäger effektiv möglich, was den Kampf Jäger gegen Jäger wieder etwas in den Vordergrund rückt und wenn die Jäger leer geschossen sind ist ein Spotting gar nicht möglich solang sie auf dem Weg zum Träger sind um nachzuladen. Zweitens: Man führt eine neue Art Flugzeug ein. Ein Aufklärer (2 gleichzeitig in der Luft, 4 als Ersatz bei T8) dem man dann Hydro (siehe oben) oder Radar (siehe oben) gibt. Damit würden die Jäger vom Spotten größtenteils entlastet, was dann nur noch effektiv über den Aufklärer möglich wäre. Egal welche Variante man nimmt, damit könnte man die Spottingmöglichkeiten einfach ballancen, in dem man das Hydro / Radar anpasst wie man es benötigt. Das dauerhafte Spotten fällt damit komplett weg. Außerdem wäre der CV dann auch mehr auf das Team angewiesen, was Schaden verursachen angeht. Denn er könnte dann nur Ziele sehen die aktuell gespottet sind.
  18. Hello, I know its a hard topic but at some point it needs to be adressed. Since the introduction of the german BB line at the GamesCom 2016 we have a constant overflow of BBs. Its OK if a new line is in the game people want to play it and therefor the new ships are a dominating thing for some days maybe weeks. But GC2016 was more than a year ago and nothing changed. Well, thats not true, DDs got nerfed, BBs got nerfbuffed and CL/CA did not recive anything what could help them against their natural enemy the BB. As a follow up of the constant 5BB per side the cruisers start to lose intrest in the game. Beeing under fire from 5BBs is most likely a death sentence to a cruiser. With 12 players on the field from wich are 5BBs, one or 2 are CVs, 2-3 DDs there is not much space for cruisers, so u see 2-3 cruisers. CL/CA is the natural prey of the BB... now imagine the fun u have as a cruiser. I mean ur good against DDs... but BB AP is working pretty well too. Your good at AA(sometimes and if u have skilled your captain and equipped the ship accordingly) but BBs can do this too. BBs are pushing DDs in smoke cause they know they want get nuked, they can take it and heal most of the times and will kill the tiny annoying xp piniata anyway. Thanks to BBAP full pens and secondarie fire that luckiely got nerfed a bit. So what can we do about the constant 5BB each side thread? I dont want to nerf BBs, they should be the BigBoys on the block, a thread that noone can ignore. All i want is that we match at least for any BB ingame 2 cruisers against it. Just to balance the power a bit, and give cruisers a chance to not get focused instantly if he is not hiding behind a rock and just sitting there waiting for a tiny window to actally do something. so what about a MM like: 5BBs will not be possible anymore as we dont have 15ppl on the field 4BBs-8CL/CA-no DD/CV 3BBs-6+CL/CA 3 free spots for DD/CV/CL/CA 2BBs-4+CL/CA 6 free spots for DD/CV/CL/CA and a very special match for a shorter waiting time in queue all out BB super clash MM with any ship in the match will be a BB i guess that will be fun, im sure! belive me well, thats all folks, if u have any ideas how to work with it in other ways, please share it with us. have a nice weekend commanders, cu on the beach
  19. Hi, Im not CV player, have just few games under my belt, but when I see how big difference in skill can be between two players Im sometimes thinking how to balance it. What came to my mind is obvious from topic title: What if CVs havent any fighter squads? - basic skill difference between players is strafe ability, there all begins and ends, if CV on one side dont know how to strafe his game is ruined (and usualy his team also) - they will not need them to protect own planes agains enemy CV (since he hasnt fighters also) - skill difference will be about timing and choosing right targets to strike with bombers/torpedos Is there any downside except less things to do for CV player? I know you enjoying strafing noobs like me, but what happend if you cant? Will be CVs still enjoyable for you without fighters/strafe or its essential? Something to compensate lose of fighters (like scout planes without guns just for spotting)?
  20. Marauder9

    battleships

    hi captains has anyone noticed the over proliferation of battleships in the current meta . you go to play a game and wow 270 bb's 10cl's and 8 dd's waiting and this is not a one off... serious balance issues going on.
  21. Moin moin! Nach zig tausend Gefechten ist mir mehr und mehr klar geworden, dass fast alle US und UK Schiffe dringend einen massiven Buff benötigen. Ich nehme mir hier als Beispiel die das letzte Schlachtschiff im US-Baum, die Montana, raus. Trotz der letzten Buffs für dieses Schiff kann sie kaum mit der Konkurrenz mithalten. Yamato hat Kanonen denen Panzerung komplett egal ist, 26km Reichweite und viel zu starke Sekundärbewaffnung ""Großer"" Kurfürst (*edited*) hat mehr Trefferpunkte, bessere Hauptgeschütze, bessere Sekundärbewaffnung, Hydro, und eine bessere Panzerung. Conquerer war mal in Ordnung, ist aber seit dem Nerf unterirdisch und nicht mehr spielbar. Warum war das notwendig? Ich würde eine massive Steigerung der Feuerrate (historisch richtig, US Schiffe waren bekanntermaßen den Schiffen der Faschisten glücklicherweise deutlich überlegen) Das ist hier nur ein Beispiel, es gilt aber für fast alle Schiffe im US und UK Schlachtschiffbaum. Historisch gesehen waren diese Schiffe deutlich besser als ihre japanischen und deutschen Gegenstücke und das sollte auch im Spiel so abgebildet werden, nicht zuletzt um nicht den falschen Eindruck zu erwecken das die japanischen und besonders die deutschen Schiffe eine echte Option sind *edited* *Dieser Beitrag wurde von dem Moderatorenteam aufgrund des folgenden Verstoßes bearbeitet: Verstoß gegen Regel 7
  22. pontacringeoana

    Failed Ranked as a symptom of greed

    There are 2 big problem with this season in my opinion and this is repeating 1. Premium ships that dominate regular: Loyang, Kidd, Alabama this is not OK, so players are pushed to use real money for win 2. Unbalanced MM when one of the team has CA's with radar and DD's with hydro and the other team has nothing When this happen all the time the last team lose This is not OK, losing from start means a BIG FAIL
  23. PF_Boy_Solider

    Vorschläge -Kreuzer

    Hallo Community. Ich möchte hier einmal das lange und teils wehleidige Thema der Kreuzer ansprechen. Wie ihr wisst sind Kreuzer nicht die größte,schnellste best gepanzerte oder unauffälligste Klasse aber dafür die vielseitigste. Sie bestechen durch diese vielseitigkeit und sind in der Lage dadurch viele Rollen im Spiel zu erfühllen. Luftabwehrfeuer zu geben (Def-AA) , Zerstörer zu finden und zu jagen (Radar/Hydro) und durch die Hauptbewaffnung schaden zu verteilen. Sollte man zumindest meinen. Kreuzer trotz ihrer eigentlich wichtigen Rolle im Spiel , sind grade in höheren Tiers leider sperrlich gesäht. Oft ist es so das man Matches findet indenen 4-5 BBs 2-3CA/CLs und 4-5 DDs auf jeder Seite stehen , CVs mal ausenvorgenommen (Keine Kritik am MM) Und diese paar CA/CLs sollen dann im Optimalfall die BBs vor Flugzeugen schützen , die eigenen DDs beim Cap einnehmen schützen, feindliche DDs jagen und Schaden machen... Man muss kein Mathematiker sein um sich ausrechnen zu können dass dieß im besten Falle "nur" schwer möglich ist. da die dann eh schon sperrlich gesähten CA/CLs dann eines die Lieblingsziele der zahlreichen BBs sind , verstärkt diesen Umstand noch. Nun wie lößt man dieses Problem... Ich hab mir ein paar Gedanken dazu gemacht und würde mich freuen wenn man sich hier darüber austauschen könnte (Egfal ob Zustimmung oder Ablehnung) In erster Line denke ich mir das man das CA/CL fahren interessanter/attraktiver für neue spieler gestallten sollte. Wie man das bewerkstellingen soll ohne andere Forschungsbäume "schlechter" zu machen ist mir allerdings ein Rätzel. Man könnte zwar 7.B Kauf und/oder Forschungskosten weiter senken nur dieß würde wahrscheinlich sehr negativ bei anderen Klassen aufstoßen.... Ein anderer Vorschlag wäre den Kreuzern endlich alle ihre Spezialfertigkeiten zu geben. Ich spreche hier explizit von der Combo Hydro/Radar-Def-AA. Grade bei den Japanern/Briten/Franzosen und Deutschen Kreuzern muss man sich aussuchen ob man Hydro/Radar oder Def-AA ausrüstet und ich frage mich da nach dem warum. Das kann keine Balance-Gründe haben weil im Low-Tier bereich mit der Duca hat es funktioniert , Russen und Amis haben zugang zu sowohl Radar als auch Def-AA (Sogar das neue Premium Britten BB auf T7 soll diese möglichkeit bekommen) dann frage ich mich warum nicht alle Kreuzer regulär diese Möglichkeit bekommen , weil den Nationalen "Flavor" der Schiffe würde es nicht Stören aber es würde sie ihrer Rolle als unteranderem Supporter deutlich unterstützen. Ein weiterer Punkt um Kreutzer atrraktiver zu machen wäre evt eine Anpassung des Wirtschaftssystems und Reparaturkosten (grade im Mid und High Tier könnte das Leute ködern statt dem "teuren" BB den "billigen" Kreuzer ins MM zu werfen. Da es diese Mechanik aber schon gibt wei ich nicht in wie weit es möglich und vertretbar wäre daran rumzuschraben. Man will ja anderen Spielern nix versauen bzw. jemanden übervorteilen.... Und es gäbe die möglichkeit eines Hardcaps im MM (ich weiß sehr leidiges und unschönes Thema werde ich deswegen auch nicnht weiter drauf eingehen) Nun ich würde mich auf jeden Fall über austausch an Meinungen zu diesem Thema freuen und bin gespannt auf eure Meinungen. Ich muss an der Stelle noch sagen das ich alle Klassen außer CV fahre und am häufigsten in Kreuzern stecke, man kann kir also den Bias-Stempel aufdrücken wenn man den so möchte :P Zudem bitte ich alle hier sich lieb zuhaben... wer an diesem Thema nicht telhaben möchte muss es nicht und niemand muss hier unqualifizierte Kommentare u.ä abgeben oder gar beleidigend werden, das gibt es im Forum schon zu genüge. LG und Ruhige See.
  24. TheNamelessLegend

    Nerf Royal Navy High Explosive

    As the name of this thread implies. RN high explosive, especially on battleships, needs to be nerfed majorly.
×