Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'broken'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

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

Calendars

  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 23 results

  1. Hallo zusammen, in den Patchnotes hat sich folgende Meldung 'versteckt': Kurzum, folgende Aktion ist mit Patch 0.8.0 NICHT MEHR MÖGLICH: ALTES Verhalten in 0.7.12 - Schiff A ist von Feind B weiter entfernt als die eigene Erkennbarkeitsreichweite - Schiff A schießt auf Feind B (Erkennbarkeitsreichweite weitet sich aus bis zur maximalen Reichweite der Hauptbatterie) - Feind B entdeckt Schiff A - Schiff A fährt hinter eine Insel und bricht dadurch den Sichtkontakt (Erkennbarkeitsreichweite nach abfeuern der Hautpgeschütze schrumpft auf normale Erkennbarkeitsreichweite zurück) - Schiff A fährt hinter der Insel vor und ist von Feind B NICHT ENTDECKT Stattdessen kommt folgender Mechanismus zum tragen: NEUES Verhalten auf PTS 0.8.0 - Schiff A ist von Feind B weiter entfernt als die eigene Erkennbarkeitsreichweite - Schiff A schießt auf Feind B (Erkennbarkeitsreichweite weitet sich aus bis zur maximalen Reichweite der Hauptbatterie) - Feind B entdeckt Schiff A - Schiff A fährt hinter eine Insel und bricht dadurch den Sichtkontakt (Erkennbarkeitsreichweite nach abfeuern der Hautpgeschütze schrumpft NICHT auf normale Erkennbarkeitsreichweite zurück. 20s Regel) - Schiff A fährt hinter der Insel vor und ist von Feind B immer noch entdeckt (bis die 20s abgelaufen sind) Für WG war die erste Funktionsweise wohl ein Bug. Dieser soll nun gemäß der beschriebenen NEUEN Funktionsweise gefixt werden. Für uns Spieler aber eine intuitive Mechanik die das Spiel besser und angenehmer gestaltet hat. Im Englischen Forum haben bereits zahlreiche Spieler abgestimmt darüber welche Funktionsweise implementiert werden soll. Meine Frage an euch: - Soll die ALTE Funktionsweise erhalten bleiben? - Soll die NEUE Funktionsweise mit dem Patch eingeführt werden? Anscheinend ist dieser Fix im Zuge des CV Rework völlig untergegagen. Link zum englischen Forum: (Stand 22:00 29.01.2019: 1100 abgestimmt, 93.5% für die aktuell implementierte Mechanik)
  2. hi guys, so I just finished updating wows to 0.7.1.0.316936 and my game has been freezing ever since. so every time I get to a position, the game would always say "not responding". my ping and fps are fine btw. suggestions?
  3. Slurky

    No sound during battle

    Hey guys, i haven't played world of warships in a year and i installed again although this time on a different pc. Game working great and all but when the game loads and the battle starts the music/soundtrack stops there, like there are 0 themes running. Yes i'm pretty sure all sounds are enabled excluding the player. Is it a Directx thing or a general bug?
  4. There was a time where other classes pervaded the games in numbers that were simply too large to manage. Carriers and destroyers both have had their day of dominance. There are things that pervade the class, the developers, and the community at large that makes it so that battleships are such a problem where carriers and destroyers never were. The Battleship Class The problem with battleships has escalated to the point where event the most virulent defendants of the status quo can't even pretend that there isn't a problem anymore. Admittedly this was like waiting until we have to start rowing to work before we start cutting down on coal power plants, but progress is progress. Wargaming's slow and iterative changes to the class could most charitably be seen as a way to not cause the class collapse formerly seen in the carrier class and uncharitably seen as the development team having some perverse sexual attraction to battleships (glass houses, I know) but the change is welcome regardless. Carriers and battleships both can be played without employing different tactical considerations depending on targets and both essentially exist outside of the hard counter system that means that most cruisers are incredibly weak towards battleships and that destroyers are incredibly weak towards cruisers but that battleships aren't particularly weak towards destroyers. Even in the context of 'anti-battleship' cruiser lines like the French or Russians, the damage that the cruiser does to the battleship could be returned with interest with just a few lucky shots should the circumstances conspire towards it and the same could be said about carriers if the matchmaker was particularly vindictive that day. Many similar issues exists as, depending on the game circumstance, explicitly AA based cruisers could be ripped to pieces by carriers. There is a battleship plague problem however and not a carrier plague. Whilst this could simply be traced back to the fact that battleships are easy to play whilst carriers aren't, the problem is often more difficult than that and solving the issue by introducing artificial difficulty to the battleship class as an equivalent to the lags and UI errors of the CV class will fail to address the core of the issue. By making the interclass interaction more similar to that between carriers, destroyers and the other classes, battleships would be able to be brought in line. Whether or not this is desirable however is another matter. Currently, Wargaming's approach to re-balancing battleships is very much focused on how battleships interact with the other classes. The spotter plane nerf meant that they did not have the 5 minute resistance to torpedoes that the twin catapult fighters once offered. The changes to smoke mechanics meant that they would not be able to ambush cruisers and destroyers as easily. Among the changes closest to the top of the priority list was the ability of battleships to cause catastrophic damage to destroyers and their ability to use just one ammunition type for close to any circumstance. War Gaming has also stated that they objected to the excessive survivability of battleships. The issue has been raised multiple times and the changes that are being made are slow but there. This might be controversial but I do not see the ability for battleships to one-shot destroyers, never have to switch ammunition type, or even survive better than the other classes as the primary cause of the problem we see. I think the remaining issue with battleships can't be solved by changing the ways that battleships interact with other classes as much as it would likely need to come down to the options that other ships have in dealing with battleships. Whilst this may sound pedantic, it very much is and I don't know why you thought it was possible to read something written by me that doesn't collapse into pedantic arguments over terms that ultimately just ends with me declaring victory over whoever I was arguing with despite the fact that everyone who gets stuck in an internet argument has already lost. Anyways, on to the main topic. Carriers, destroyers & the Problem of Choice Wargaming largely depends on the classes to balance each other and this has led to endless grief for everyone involved. Apart from battleships. Obviously. Destroyers, battleships, and carriers all depart from the general template and have benefits that are essentially technically exclusive to them. At their worst, the game degraded into cheese tactics beyond comparison. The Shimakaze's wall of death is remembered to this day, the wall that dooms even the most agile of destroyers and covered the maps from border to border. Then of course there was the Hakuryuu with her quintuple Kamikaze attack, the name not coming from the fact that you could use her planes to commit suicide against enemy ships as much as from the fact that her torpedo bombers carried the payload of five Kamikaze class destroyers. There were various eventual nerfs to those ships, but even whilst it lasted they were not nearly as ubiquitous as battleships are as a class in the present day and that is largely due to the fact that conditional population control mechanics are built into the game to manage the numbers of carriers and destroyers in such a way that battleships simply aren't. The Lesson No One Learned Battleship players, more so than players of any other ship class, are fundamentally selfish and are encouraged to be selfish thanks to the game mechanics. This might not be a revelation to most, but the selfishness of the battleship and the way that game mechanics works makes it so that it promotes battleships. For those unfamiliar with game theory, it could be best simplified as a way to predict the actions of selfish and perfectly rational agents. Humans aren't perfectly rational, but over a large amount of time and with the smallest level of self awareness the actions of even an online game like World of Warships could be approximated as rational. Players can observe their own results and apply what they've learn, and so players will slowly move towards the state of maximum profit for minimum effort. Players without the imagination to do this could always just copy the tactic of players that do. When discussing the balance between battleships and other classes, the topic does often steer towards the things that other classes outdo battleship in. Destroyers are far stealthier than battleships, could go the entire game without being spotted, and could carry games on literally 1 point of HP. Cruisers have significantly better DPM, tools like radar, defensive fire, hydroacoustics, smoke screens, and a plethora of other things that could be employed for the team's benefit. Carriers have unparalleled reconnaissance abilities and the ability to herd the entire enemy fleet. Next to all of that, it may superficially seem like better armor and more health would be a small thing. This however is just an obfuscation of the issue. I would like to make one last note. When I look at battleships, I can't help but see the very worst parts of carrier gameplay back when full strike carriers were still a thing. Facing another full strike carrier is rare, but when it happens it was quite memorable. I grinded through the Lexington in full strike configuration back when she still had that. I faced another strike Lexington on Northern Lights one battle. We all but ignored each other, flying our bombers past each other to bomb the enemy into oblivion. It was a constant damage race and that game I won by a sliver. If I had lost that match, I would likely have blamed the team for their failings and posted a screenshot online so I could have a laugh about it. I managed 170k that match in a tier X game but I did essentially nothing to protect the team from the enemy. I didn't scout in order to maximize my cycle time and I didn't communicate with the allied team whatsoever. When writing this, I couldn't help but think back to what I did back then and how much it reminded me of the things I wrote here. Battleships reaped the benefits of cruisers, destroyers, and carriers. I reaped the benefit of my team staying in between the enemy and myself and used them as an expendable shield to farm damage. The game is ultimately selfish and comes down to how much players can personally get from the game and changing a few values on a few ships will not change that.
  5. I have been monitoring all the bug reports for months and have searched around but no one has a problem exactly like mine. The game used to be very stable for me until 0.6.5. Although I choose to limit my fps to 60 (as I don't feel the game needs more) I used to hit the high 120s if I set it to unlimited. With the release of 0.6.5 I along with many other suffered with massive microstutter an sudden framerate drops which seemed to be caused by pressing ctrl to manually select ships or planes could make my fps drop from 120 down into the 20s If many planes flew into range Seemingly no reason at all, random times, random situations etc. Another consequence of this patch was client crashes. These could happen at any time but was most frequent when interacting with the port: loading into games, exiting games to port, clicking port tabs or changing camos. Over time and with the new patches the framerate issues have subsided to a point where they don't interfere with my gameplay however one issue has persisted.....the crashes. I still get frequent crashes whenever I do anything related to the port (loading into games, leaving games, pressing the tabs too fast etc) but only when playing in a division. I want to make it very clear that when in solo play the game is very stable; I played a hundred games of ranked and didn't suffer a single sudden crash but when in a division with friends I can crash on average every three games. It is always when loading into matches, exiting matches at the end or interacting with the port. Sorry for the repetition but I want to make it very clear. On crashing it returns the error: The BigWorld Client has encountered an unhandled exception and must close (EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION : 0xC0000005 @ 0x0182952B) (Read @ 0x00000052). As I understand this is pretty generic and useless. I had a look in the python log and found this: DockProxy.receiveShipLock 4183734096 4 [Scaleform] Error: TypeError: Error #1009: Cannot access a property or method of a null object reference. at lesta.unbound.layout.measure::NewLayout/repaint() at lesta.unbound.layout.measure::NewLayout/resolve() at DepNode/resolve() at DepNode/removeSource() It then repeats the last two lines until it crashes. So far this issue has persisted through: Multiple game patches and Windows updates and nvidia drivers Multiple attempts to check the game file integrity. Full game re-installation on to a different drive Full Windows 10 re-installation and moving to a new administrator account (which solved a lot of other issues). Full removal of all drivers and updating to the latest versions. A bios update I like to think I am fairly tech savy but I am out of ideas at this point and would be very grateful if anyone else has some or has managed to fix this issue. My PC is more than capable of running the game and has no issues doing anything else. I have an i7 5820k, gtx 970, more than enough RAM and windows 10 pro version 1703 (15063.540) but this issue has survived many windows versions. Many thanks in advance
  6. WG nerf this broken ship FLINT! Its stupid and you *Edited know it! Just nerf it already!
  7. Mangrey

    Burn it all

    So after watching this: how can Wg still think that fire aint OP as f**k, it makes the intire game stall. (It motivates camping) Mang
  8. GulvkluderGuld

    Straits map

    Impressions? Do anyone enjoy this map? Just had it twice so far, so I'm not prepared to judge yet. However both games were over in ~5 mins and crushing defeats to my team. My impression is that one team wins by rushing the cap, and thereafter nobody can get in range to shoot without getting overwhelmed (due to lack of cover and flanking options). Seems very boring.
  9. Dear War Gaming (and fans of ENOUGH ALREADY MARK ONE) ENOUGH ALREADY MARK 2 Standard Battles should be the only game type available in random battles. Whilst I enjoy both Domination and Epicentre Modes, they should only be optional by player selection. Let's face it most players just want to sink ships, if a player has chosen to play something different to that of a standard battle, then they would be more inclined to understand that something more is required from them by selecting a different game mode. Something akin to selecting Capture the Flag in a FPS. Surely, if you are reading this, then I guess you've invested enough time to witness the inability of some players to grasp the inportance of capturing A, B or C and understanding what the points displayed at the top of the screen represent ? Wouldn't it be better if the players on your team understood what the objective of the game was, aside from sinking ships ? Wouldn't that be more fun ? I have a major issue with statistics and random games and this ties in with my previous point, I can and have easily inflicted 100000 damage in many domination games and still lost. Players don't understand or just ignore the objectives of the game to achieve as much damage as possible. This results in a situation where teams comprise of players , each with their own individual objectives, which may conflict with that of game mode they are playing! For instance : 'Stat Boosting' Earning in game achievements. Shoot the nearest 'Red Thing' 'Seal Clubbing' (Guilty!) God forbid ! ............... Play the actual game mode. Don't you think two CV's, 5 dd's and a multitude of torpedo laden cruisers per random game is enough ? In my humble opinion, there are way too many many torpedo laden ships. I've seen to many players trying to torpedo a ship with only 10 hp remaining for 5 minutes straight, when a single HE shell would do the job in an instance. I understand perfectly that firing guns could give your position away, by increasing the range of your visibility, but there are instances when guns are a better choice. Besides, while it's nice to get a torpedo hit, nothing beats deleting a ship with big guns and multiple 'citadels' and for me as Battleship player. At low tiers where most ships are of World War 1 vintage, with little or no anti aircraft capability, what chance do you stand against one or two good CV players? Of course there are strong exceptions, the Texas at Tier 5 for instance, but even so, I still feel that something is wrong and needs fixing. I will be honest, I feel carrier play is broken, especially in random games and it is jeopardising the 'team play' that War Gaming seems to be so keen on promoting. As far as I can tell, most carrier players will concentrate their efforts on destroying one anothers fighters in order to protect their own planes, so they can rack up as much damage as they can later in the game. Whilst this is taking place, any ship unfortunate to be attacked by enemy bombers has no air support other than his and his team mates guns and at tier 4 or 5 this is not a fun experience. To counter both these points, I would suggest that there should only be one Carrier per side in games below tier 6, I think it would make for smoother gameplay and a less frustrating experience for all. Make 'Dynamic Aiming' standard by default , this ties into my point regarding there being too many torpedoes. The majority of new players wont know this exists, but it is available in the options menu and allows a player to see the time it takes for your a shell to reach its target dependant as to where you aim, with a targetting scale based around a target travelling at 30 knots. Whilst standard sights maybe be adequate in a Destroyer or Cruiser, you will certainly see a great improvement when firing battleship guns using this mode. I find some Divisions annoying, they become a law unto themselves. Come on! How many times have you witnessed that 'minor miracle of consensus' at the start of a random game!!! A plan of action has been established, everyone is in agreement .... and then behold and witness that suicidal division doing the exact opposite, without even having the decency to share their aims with the rest of the team. A minor gripe, but there we are. The reporting system needs fixing. The number of times I have been told to 'STFU' and banned for desperately 'pinging' the map to notify my team that our base is being 'capped' is beyond a joke. The fact that a single destroyer, that after sinking both CV's has gotten bored, has nothing better to do than cap, after going unoticed by said team just reinforces my first point in this post. Call me what you like, but I am not trying or looking to 'Troll' and I believe that these points are both relevant and valid, Enough Already ..... :)))))))) Dirty Dunc ... See you soon ................
  10. dasCKD

    Skills should be upgrades

    The department head is leaving me alone and idle for now, so I thought I might as well get a little writing done. No images on this one either, I'm making it a habit now. Inertia fuse high explosives, torpedo acceleration, advanced firing training, and survivability expert should be ship upgrades. Basic firing training, expert marksman, smoke screen expert, demolition expert, and aircraft servicing expert should probably receive the same treatment. Air supremacy should be removed (honestly, why hasn't that skill been removed yet?). One of the things that have always bothered me was WG's tendency to base so much of their balancing around the captain tree. In many ways, a ship isn't even fully upgraded until they have a 14 or 15 point captain. I think that the most obvious are ships like the Khabarovsk or the Akizuki. Without AFT, the Khabarovsk is well within the secondary ranges of some of the most common battleships in the entire game. Without IFHE, the Akizuki's HE can't even hope to hurt the softest part of the battleships she routinely has to face. Carriers need torpedo acceleration and air supremacy, light cruisers need IFHE, destroyers (the real destroyers) need concealment expert, and just about everyone needs superintendent. With some consideration, I think I always will be against skills that modify the combat effectiveness of a ship. Seal clubbing is a thing. A very big thing. Lower tiered premium ships allows players from the higher tiers to enter the lower tiers and, with night impunity, exploit ships that are inherently superior to the ships of the competition. Destroyers that might as well have an extra hull and gun upgrades. Cruisers that can ambush ships identical to them using far superior concealment. Battleships have far better effective health and can recover from fires and floods far faster. Seal clubbing is fun, but I'm certain that those of us who are here are more than capable of seal clubbing without needing inherent advantages over the already inexperienced new players. There are issues with both sides of this. On one hand, a fully upgraded ship (with a high point captain) is nearly untouchable by a fair few things, the obvious example is aircraft. On the other hand, a ship without an optimum captain setup will be utterly at the mercy of the enemy team. I personally have been humiliated by being a Neptune captain who struggled to shoot down the planes of a Ranger. A RANGER. Arguably, premium consumables and flags also causes this issue. I am fine with those however, as they are accessible to just about any player by the time they reach tier 4 or 5. For a ship to even reach optimum performance, players probably need to get to tier 7. This is a far smaller problem for me, as with a fleet of tier X ships and 19 point captain I know I could personally have a 14 point captain virtually on command, but the same can't be said about a new player with 3 tier 5 ships and a tier 7. The game should be set up to help these new players where they can, not burden them with ridiculous disadvantages that they have through no fault of their own. I think, as soon as reasonable, War Gaming should start phasing out performance enhancing captain skills. I think that the only captain skills that should be in the game are the skills that a captain would have. Skills that would provide extra information, acquisition range, evasive abilities, or otherwise improve the quality of life. It shouldn't give tangible advantages, especially not to the experienced and well positioned players who need it the least. Even the detestable RDF skill doesn't actually alter the performance of the ship. Manual AA is a bit different, but a crew with better aim would indeed perform better with their AA and so I'm somewhat OK with said skill. No matter how good you are as a captain however, you can't force a shell to explode harder, set more fires, or cut through more armor. Skills like that should be reserved for ship upgrades, not captain skills. There are various reasons that this upgrade system for the mentioned skills are better than the current system. Less need for captain grinding. For the Akizuki, IFHE is nearly mandatory to deal any meaningful damage to any battleship captain who is not literally brain dead. Before IFHE however, you probably need concealment expert. You are a destroyer after all. Superintendent is basically mandatory, and BFT is probably needed as well considering that you are basically a light cruiser without defensive AA and every carrier within an ocean's radius will be coming over to have a piece of that. This allows for a ship to reach maximum combat efficiency the moment that the ship is fully upgraded. This arrangement is far better than the current arrangement where the captain basically has to have 15 points before the ship could even be called fully upgraded. More value for premium ships. There are light cruisers like the Belfast or the MK which are placed inside of a tree that either simply does not need or will eventually grow out of al la Moskva. There are also ships that grows into certain skills like the Gearing and arguably the Shima with torpedo acceleration. This means that the captains higher tiered ships have far less application in lower tiered premium ships which usually mandates a specialized captain for said premiums, something that causes its own issues. If ships that specifically need those skills i.e torpedo acceleration and IFHE then those traits could be simply attached to the ships where those modifications are relevant. It also makes it possible for a player to maintain fewer captains. Less advantages for seal clubbers. Whilst seal clubbing is fun, I think that we all feel at least a little bit guilty after partaking. It would be far better if skills were limited towards simply getting more information which is already a big advantage. By having a more even playing ground, lower skilled and less experienced players will stand a better fighting chance instead of perpetuating a cycle of newbie bullying that is currently a part of the game right now. More potential for balance. Currently, every single skill has to be balanced around the potential that it could potentially be taken by any ship in the game. If each upgrade is specific to the ships they are on, then it is much easier to balance ships around the performance that they need. An Akizuki could for example get a -2% penalty for her shells, whilst a Chappayev could get a -5% to correspond to the larger shell caliber. A Gearing could get -20% range reduction, whilst a Shimakaze could get -10% instead to correspond to the shorter torpedo ranges. It also makes it possible to tune the range of ships like the Khabarovsk to the optimum level without requiring unneeded global buffs or nerfs to the skill tree or extensive class or shell caliber specific skills. This also makes it possible to limit the power of ships like the Belfast or Kutuzov by increasing the fire chance penalty on IFHE, or balancing ships like the Khabarovsk by giving the health granted by the survivability expert upgrade a smaller increase compared to the other destroyers. The ideas suggested here are quite vague and nascent, but ultimately I think it could improve the health and longevity of the game whilst at the same time making it possible to keep the game competitive for all players, and not just those with game numbers approaching the tens of thousands.
  11. So i have been playing alot with my Missouri and i have been loving her. My favourite ship in th game. But after update 0.7.3 it just feels off. I cant really put my finger on whats the problem but it is definetively underperfoming. At first i thought it was just me, but after several games it just isnt. Not getting the citadel from a broadside cruiser 6km away while aiming at the waterline is something new in the Mo. I found this thread on the NA site but i can confirm that it is the same for me. https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/153929-missouri-gun-misses-on-the-rise/?page=0
  12. Dirty_Dunc

    ENOUGH ALREADY ... GAME BROKEN

    Dear war gaming, 1. Standard and domination game modes must be selective before enetering a random game!!! At least then whoever your team mates are will know and have chosen a game type to play and lose in !!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2. 2 cv's, 5 dd's and torpedo laden cruisers per random game .. Enough .. Too many torpedo laden ships .. Players dont even bother firing guns and just spam torpedoes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (2.5 one cv and 3 dd's per side is enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) (2.6 make dynamic aiming standard ..................... Enough of the guess work for new players .... Get them used to aiming guns rather than spamming torps) 4. Divisions must share there plans with the rest of the team 5. Stats over gamemode !!!!!!!!! Stop rewarding damage only and bad play ... What is the point of capping or defence ? If the only thing in a players profile that counts is damage done that prevents you from being called a edited or edited? (5.5 is it any wonder that cv's and dd's are favoured by new players and bb's are been shot to pieces ?) 6. Players know how to report before they know how to play the game .... Enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7.2 around the corner ffs .. Enough already !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fix what is broken !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  13. I had the best game in my 4k battles yesterday (3335 base xp). Went to watch the replay today. Can't, because the game updated and won't let you watch previous versions. Considering this game is patched every 5 minutes because they can't help tinkering with it, its a ridiculous system. Why even bother with replays at all. WG, please fix this. I also can't download previous versions, but even if I could that's 40+ gb every version. Enable us to record replays, properly via the client, not modding the xml file, and let us watch older replays from previous versions. These are the things long term players want and can't be that hard to implement.
  14. CaptJack_Sparrow

    Scenarios are a little broken for the stars

    Well I have read the patch notes and I knew it was coming, however I believe scenarios have been broken to high heaven. The T7 scenario this week for instance is near-impossible, even with communication and clan members filling in the rest. The so called AI fix seems to have turned them in to Skynet, i'm a little concerned that WG would release a 'patch' to fix something and completely near-break it (no surprise there though). Something tells me they haven't been doing their tests or at least listening to the community... What a surprise If they have done testing on the new 'buffed' AI then I sure want to see some replays of them completing the whole 5 stars. P.S. I've got 5 stars in this and the other scenarios plenty of times before the patch, this is feedback to tell them it's broken.
  15. For the past 6 months the game has been very unstable for me when playing in a division and would frequently crash when interacting with the port or when joining or leaving a battle. It would throw up a critical error (something I think many have experience with) but the log files would show no fault. I could deal with this but with the release of 0.6.14 not only did the game start crashing when playing solo but more crucially, during the matches themselves. These crashes have survived 5+ months of updates, driver installs (including removing old graphics drivers with DDU), refreshes, disk checks, repairs, and game patches not to mention migration to a new user account, refreshing windows and doing an "in-place upgrade" to repair any damaged files. As it stands the game is completely unplayable for me in it's current state and I am out of ideas on what to do. I have contacted WG support and they have all been very pleasant and some of the responses seemed like they were really trying to help. I have run every conceivable check I can think of as well as the WGCheck tool and all the suggestions on the forums. The WGCheck tool seemed to suggest everything was okay on the first pass but 5 minutes later said it needed to download 2.5GB of files to repair the game. It did the same thing after a complete fresh install of the game on another drive as well. The first response from WG support checked my error codes and suggested the following: I had tried all of the suggestions at some point in the past but I ensured the game files were in the exceptions list of my AV (and later disabled entirely for troubleshooting), checked the state of "read only" on the files and tried running as an admin. Surprise, the game seemed to run fine for the 4 coop games I played but later on it crashed 3 times in one random battle and four times in another battle in a division. The following are some of the other responses I received: So far the responses seemed like they were trying and I hoped with continued checking of the crashes and error codes the solution could be found but after this high point the solution seems unattainable now. My PC is a fairly high end setup with a GTX 970 which is one of the most common cards, and it is running the latest 16.299 build of Windows 10 pro with all the latest up to date drivers and more than enough RAM. It runs every other game flawlessly and never encounters stability issues. Despite the first few responses being helpful the following was then suggested by another support employee: This suggestion is not helpful as on my X99 chip set the processors do not have any on board graphics at all and require and discrete GPU. To me this seems like a canned response and analysis of my submitted WGCheck file could've told them this. I am also unable to roll back to a previous build as during the troubleshooting steps I have refresh my install multiple times and therefore lost access the the previous build. After a small conversation where I emphasised the issues and the fact that my premium time is going to waste, I cannot participate in ranked battle or the Duke or York campaign I was told this: So they know about the issue (assuming that reply wasn't to fob me off) and they say they are working on it. For me the game has been unstable for 6 months or more and so I do not hold much confidence that it will be fixed any time soon. Meanwhile the premium time I paid for is going to waste. After so much troubleshooting I do not accept that the issue is down to my PC as I have seen numerous people with this problem and my PC runs all other things without a hitch. I understand that Windows 10 is a bit of a pain but I do not believe that their only suggestion should be rolling back to an old build that is now months old. Had they continued to check through my error codes and eliminate the issues I feel we may have gotten somewhere but as it stands nothing has been accomplished. TL;DR Game now crashes mid match making it unplayable. Have tried every troubleshooting and repair step possible but it still persists and support cannot help. I am interested to hear if anyone else is suffering with instability.
  16. TheBigLanowski

    Broken damage model?!

    Damage system is broken?! To prove this, I got some screenshots for you guys as well as a video. If the devs don't admit that there is something wrong they have to explain the following to me! Lets start with some pictures first: Video: (Don't get distracted by the common replay bugs) Replay file: http://www.file-upload.net/download-11787155/EvidenceforbrokendmgmodelColorado-1945_46_Estuary.wowsreplay.html The encounter happens early on at around 18:00 of the battletimer. Exact times can be found in the screenshots. (Note: You have to open it with the pts client since it is from 0.5.9) Now explain this to me. It was a battleship vs cruiser engagement and clear evidence is given by the UI and visually that both shells hit and penetrate. They don't hit any external stuff or turrets. They went straight into the hull of the ship. So why isn't the Königsberg taking any dmg? Do you have encountered the same? Its not only the 0 dmg penetrations. I got overpens counted as penetrations as well or some other wired stuff. The whole dmg model feels so broken sometimes, its killing a lot of fun for me. So tell me, what are your thoughts about it? Maybe you have an explanation? Lets discuss! (all footage is from the testserver and from update 0.5.9. I have this problem in the current live version 0.5.8.1 as well. I used this one due to the clear result)
  17. Siema! I am NextToYou and I can confidentially say that I am one of the best arty players on EU server in WoT. Im not bad at other tanks either - if you are not familiar with me, you can check my WoT account here: http://worldoftanks.eu/community/accounts/500302347-NextToYou/ In this game I have now encountered carriers up to T9, so I can confidentially tell you how they perform in "WoT terms" in their current state of balance for all you new and old players familiar with WoT too. Imagine that in WoT you have an artillery piece that has: 1) Speed, manouverability and camo of a batchat arty and you play regularly against an enemy team that contains 6 mauses (all BBs), few regular speed heavies like IS7 or similar (CAs) and just a couple of russian mediums (DDs). 2) You can magically shoot enemies from very short distances, even thou you are very far physically yourself - skill of taking very long leads in combination of knowing how players tend to move in WoT with current arty shell flight times do not exist at all in this game with CV´s. 3) You get to play a map each and every time that is A) completely flat (no terrain elevation cover like in WoT against arties) B) without any bushes where tanks (=ships) could hide to C) without any building or other hard cover (if ship is near an island, you can always attack with planes from other direction). Also you have infinite range unlike in WoT arties. 4) Your damage output is huge. How do you think I would do in WoT in these circumstances with an arty? Yes, you probably guessed it right, I would totally dominate you all with my arty skills reaching 80%+ winrates like current average+ CV players do in this game. Yes, this is the sad state of carriers in this game currently, mostly because of the game mechanics listed in point 3). The biggest difference is that In WoT arties only have a few maps where they can change the outcome of the game regularly (open maps like Malinovka, Prokhorovka). Most maps offer some very good arty cover which good heavy and TD players can use to their protection and still engage in fighting normally and there are also several maps where arties are pretty much useless and do not affect battle outcome usually at all (Stalingrad, Himmelsdorf). In this game however every single map for a CV player is a like a flat field with no bushes and no houses in WoT and you have infinite range all the time. Every map is a dream map for a CV player. How to fix this? Fixing means that a great player in every class reaches similar winrate no matter what class they are in. Some simple steps that come to my mind (there could be better/alternative ones too!): 1) Nerf the speed, manouverability, camo and self-spotting ranges of carriers significantly. They should be the worst in game like they are in arties in WoT. There could be a few expectations - carriers that have speed and manouverability etc. pros, but in exchance those carriers have much lower damage outputs than slow and bulky arties (like T10 batchat arty has in WoT compared to for example T10 T92 USA arty). 2) Make torpedo bombers´ torpedo arm time several kilometers long - this way good carrier players could still own noobs sailing (almost) straight line, but good BB and CA players could actually dodge torpedoes with evasive manouvers (like good medium/heavy players can avoid arty shots in WoT with current long shell flight times in WoT). Also this way you could atleast protect one side of yours with hard cover (islands). 3) Make planes´ cooldown times longer -> lower overall dpm 4) Reduce hitpoints of carriers and/or make their repair cooldown times much longer/repair ability out. In WoT the most durable arties can take a few hits at most from light tanks, in this game currently carriers can survive as much hits as most CA´s. In WoT terms; imagine you would have as much hipoints in your arty as you have in your medium tanks. Currently in this game a single battle´s outcome is decided mostly by which team has higher tier/more carriers. This doesn´t happen EVERY single time, but it´s a very good rule of a thumb. This means carriers in their current state are brokenly OP and if you don´t see this, you must live in complete denial. In WoT a platoon of 3 unicums in heavies/TD´s/lights/mediums always win against a solo unicum arty player - in this game one unicum CV can carry whole team of potatoes against a team of unicums playing other classes. P.S I personally won´t play any carrier battles before their OPness is fixed even thou you would maybe think so looking at my history in WoT playing mostly arties. I have watched enough of that (several hours from Youtube and Twitch) to know how it exactly is in current "balance" of the carriers. In real life I don´t wander on streets beating 12 year old defenceless girls either and this is pretty much what playing carriers currently is. You carrier sealclubbers should be ashamed of yourselves. I don´t have a problem getting killed/one shotted by arties in WoT at all when I play other vehicles, since I know they are overall balanced (T10 arties are actually a bit UP in WoT currently - you can see this by checking my winrates in WoT with different classes even thou I am mostly known as a super unicum arty player). So I am not at all one of those dedicated "one vehicle class haters" like there are some in WoT community (like Garbad, SirFoch etc.) Thanks for reading.
  18. T3ddyBear

    Radar and MM

    Please WG, will you sort the MM as far as radar is concerned, as a DD player it is getting beyond a joke when one team gets 4 radar ships and the other NONE. I know you will never remove radar or at the very least stop it working through islands (alllowing ships to park up and spot so much of the map with ZERO counter), but that point aside, at the very, very least sort the radar allocation. It is getting beyond a joke, being perma radar'd when trying to do my job (capping, contesting etc), no counter to radar so EVEN the ships up please. TB.
  19. master_blaster_2001

    Severe Control Bug!

    i have been having this very strange controls bug it completely freezes my guns into fixed position without pressing X, Crtl + X, or shift + X commands and my steering completely locks up forcing me one direction without any kind of control no idea what sets this bug off but this bug has been happening for last 5 days since friday afternoon (7th august) and once every two to three games making the game right now very un-playable with many zero xp games. it is not my keyboard since i can type with it just fine right now all the buttons do work. it is not my mouse because i can look around just fine but again no control of my guns or steering. can anybody help with this or confirm if anybody else is having same problems?
  20. Nexuss9383

    Saipan is dumb

    This CV needs a rework or nerf, it gets midway fighters at tier 7 it gets USN strafe it gets no penalty when he disengage strafe out its literally pay to win and you cant even counter it vs an actual player with a brain goodluck baiting him over any allied ship for help id rather just afk or exit to port everytime i see one in my ranger because its literally just a loss anyway
  21. DexterMaximus

    New consumer rights for the UK

    As of today we in the UK, now have newer and better rules.... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rights-for-consumers-when-buying-digital-content http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/01/new-law-means-30-day-refund-for-broken-video-games-5415914/ http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-10-01-new-consumer-rights-act-puts-gamers-in-the-driving-seat http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34403005 To be honest, WG actually have a pretty good record here! Before you all start going mad at the suggestion that WG do anything right, I want you to consider other games and firms... I have played ED (by FD), WT (By Gajin) BSGO (Bigpoint) and many many others.... I found that WG may have some issues, when it comes to prem time, and prem tanks it really is not that bad. However, there are many other games that have caused all manor of sh1t on release or after an update (The new batman game) But for all you forum lawyers, have a look and see what you think. Given the "non to specific wording" this could be a massive gun for the consumer, that could in theory give each and every one of you HUGE power over games! One example, if WG released a new tank (premium) and it was not as described any UK punter could claim the money back not only if bought via the prem shop, but also in game via gold (if said gold was bought for cash) This was hazy before but now it seems "clearer" (well a bit). I can not really think of any prem's that would actually fit (Maybe the panther 88), WG tend to keep anything you paid cash for at least as good as the day you bought it (Pretty much). But if you bought a plane in WT that was later nerfed, that is now a different story... at least it should be... What do you guys think.... (first posted in the general for tanks)
  22. edit: -> excellent follow up thread with well written proposal which would improve upon this system a lot -> http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/71032-revised-report-system-suggestion-from-a-programmer/ Every game today there was some 'player' who behaved like a moron. And as that affects my own enjoyment I will try and coach them into being less of a baddie. Sadly, Dunning-Kruger effect makes them blind to their own stupidity so in return they just feel 'offended' how I can't see what kind of great players they in fact are. Now WG has lied in the past that chat bans are not automated, that reports are manually checked. But as I said that's a clear lie. If they were I wouldn't get a chat ban for telling a Gneisenau who spend the entire game around the blue line he was useless. Yes useless. That's not an insult, it's an accurate description of a blue line hugging German BB. And his buddy in the Nurnberg who was shooting torpedo's from 10km away, with me in my DD between him and his 'targets' was someone who I should be able to describe as an utter uninformed/clueless player without getting a ffin chat ban for it. Don't believe the lies, WG does NOT check reports manually. And trying to appeal something as utterly ffin broken as this 'system' to support has no chance as the bans only last one day which means support won't even get to look at it while it's active. Karma system removed from forums because +-1 was 'toxic' as community couldn't self moderate ( their own words, NOT MINE ). Next move -> introduce system where 'really bad players' who don't like learning the game / the game mechanics can crap all day in game and if someone says something they don't like -> -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Thanks for reading, I'll be playing some other game for now ffs... edit: I said this further down the thread but I think it should have been in my opening post as it would have been easier for people to get why I feel it's broken.
  23. dblkion

    Fubuki, Kagero, Shimakaze

    Hey, I recently got the Fubuki and I was wondering how are people doing with it because I find it absolutly worthless .. I though 15km torps were good but truth is any hit is pure luck or people not paying attention because the spotting range and agility of most ships enable them to easily dodge..
×