Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'discussion'.



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 17 results

  1. Well hello there fellow forumites. Another CV GC thread. To be more precise though an inquiry on what could be a reasonable way to a) rebalance premiumships while b) making sure that at the same time the player base doesn't get alienated. Primarily this thread was inspired by @Verblonde and @Tyrendian89. Also tagging @MrConway in the hope he find something that will help his colleagues resolve the upcoming issues at hand. And while this thread revolves primarily about the Giulio Cesare, it's aimed at being repeatable with other OP premiums. So. Where to start? With a few assumptions! Assuming that the mentioned TESTING (!) of putting a premium back into the game one tier higher ends with a balanced premium. Basically finding a version of the GC at T6 that is... Keep in mind though: This is all still in discussion and - according to Mr Conway, testing GC at T6 won't start before 0.8.1 Assuming that AFTER GC at T6 is balanced and fun WG wants to actually pull through with bringing a premium ships from one tier to a tier higher. Becaus remember: For those that missed it: The "if it happens" part is the relevant one! Further assumptions might follow down the post. Ok, the dreaded idea takes place somewhere down the road! What now? Talking about the two options that are available: Accepting the 'new' GC (then at T6) OR Getting a refund for her T5 dubloon value. And I see (in dozen posts) that - even acknowledging that OP ships must be rebalanced nerfed - neither of these options looks appealing to players. A lot of forumites, redditors or discord discussions revolved around: Getting cash as refund, not wanting to lose a T5 ship (rather nerfing at T5 than rebalancing her at T6), enjoying fighting T7 enemies more than T8 enemies, and so on. You know the common problems players uttered with the two mentioned options. Yeah, yeah, it's all a clown fiesta. We're stuck with something we don't want. Well, this post got me thinkging: Now, I'm not going to reiterate all that has been said (or thought) following this quite, so let me summarize it: It was WGs error that these OP ships found their way into the game in the first place, yet we all want a balanced game (Huh ... maybe that's another assumption I should add). But since it was WG's error it's not the players that should be held responsible for it Most players I've seen so far don't like the dubloon option because dubloons have been devalued rebalanced. WG is aware of that WG has been generous in the past regarding compensation for silver ships, so I see at least a chance that the same is possible for premium ships This one is specifically geared towards the GC: Nerfing her at T5 would gimp her too much Ok, with this in mind, let's think about two possible actions a player has on day X: 1. Accpeting the rebalanced GC at T6: Since most players complained about not having a T5 when they accept the T6 GC, my proposal on this one is rather simple. Give the player TWO ships. The rebalanced GC at T6 (with all the balance and fun WG deems acceptable) AND a (heavily) nerfed GC remaining at T5, that still fulfills her role as a roamer that rewards angling. My take on a nerfed T5 GC would be a +2km concealment nerf, a fire chance nerf from 35% (iirc) to 27%, an AP DMG nerf by 15%, a 3s reload nerf, a turret traverse nerf. Slap a special camo on - to immediately identify her as the T5 version - and rename her to "nerfed Mortadella" (or something more ... fitting like ... I don't know ... Giulio Cesare pre-WWII). Slap some goodies on top and I don't see an issue with that. 2. Declining the rebalanced GC at T6: This one is a bit more tricky since a pure dubloon refund will not cut the crepes. The very least I'd offer would be the nerfed T5 GC + her dubloon value as refund + some goodies on top. Or one of the options given here: Apologies verblonde for altering your quote a bit to match my option 2 (italic font). NOTE: While afterwards the 'new' T6 GC would be available in the shop, the 'old' T5 GC would ONLY be available for those that had her prior to her rebalancing. Creating - yet another - oportunity for ship collectors to distinguish themselves from the masses. As mentioned here: Conclusion: Does this look 'greedy'. I don't know? I tried to be somewhat reasonable, based on what I read from other forumites. I didn't ask for a night with Alena and Dasha coupled with a metric ton of finest Colombian blow, 20kg's of Vodka and Caviar (each) and a chance to whip Putin. For every GC owner. So, you tell me! Tell me what you think? What would you see fit. Especially given the fact that - no matter if a GC at T6 might or might not become reality - WG/Lesta is pushing towards rebalancing OP premiums. Which ... as much as it annoys me to see some favourite ships go, IS BETTER for the long term health of the game. So there might be a few more ships (My guess would be: Belfast, Gremy, Kamikaze sisters, Imperator) that will be rebalanced one way or another. And since cold hard cash is OUT as a possible refund option: We might as well aim for a more achievable solution. To bring a bit of reason in: WG gave away dozens of GCs as a welcome back gift. Sure this in and of itself was botched till kingdom come, but do you really think WG will send players money that never bought this ship in the first place? I highly, highly doubt that. Why should WG do this? Pretty simple. As said above. They botched up. If they manage however to keep players at bay and even bring players to accept to nerf OP ships with a reasonable token of appreciation, then I can see players living with the nerf of a few selected ships and the outlook of having a future where premium ships are frequently nerfed and buffed. Maybe on a more sensilbe basis than silver ships. But overall closer to a balanced approach than the heavy handed OP's we have now. Bascially adhering to a system outlined here: Also a route like the above mentioned is the only that I see fit to avoid setting nasty precedents. Anyways. I've talked ofr long enough, and it's getting late. Let me know what you think. And try to keep it civil!
  2. Vinyl_ScratchPlays

    My Thoughts playing with the hotfix

    So after playing a few games in my Haku it has become a lot harder to get the big dmg number before the hotfix (200K+) Now even if I do my best I could get 150K+ So before I start talking about Haku and it's torp nerfs I'm going to go into detail with the AA changes. AA Changes: They are good, they are not so OP that you lose everything in every strike, but not too little to lose nothing, I would say every single strike I would lose 1-3 planes so At the start of the game this is very manageble but at the end? Well you will end up with 4-6 planes per squad at best and is an effective way to nerf how powerful cvs get at the end of matches. Now this is with all squads if you don't do a lesser version of the "Flying Shima playstyle" Bomb planes are much more useable with their 30% dmg reduction in moving to their attack wave but I think they should have the plane heal as I see myself losing more of them then the torp planes due to how you have to play them with the Haku now. Now lets move on to each Squad of planes with the Haku and how it's changed how you play: Attack/Missle type pleanes: No change really, you just get less off them so your less effective but the cv-dd issue is still present (Should make it if the plane spots the ship, only you can see it not the rest of the team) HE/AP bomb planes: These on the Haku Have become your easiest way of getting DMG with 25K dmg drop with 3 citidels getting this mutiple time is the way to go... but you will need good RNG. I still have concerns with how much HP they still lose as they have to fly in, drop and then fly away slowly all within the AA aura and it's... really hard to keep your squad, ya almsot forced to F spam but of course if you do that you are going to lose at least half of your squad so again I would suggest giving them the heal skill. Torp planes: Oh boy here we go, the much needed nerf but it has gone way to far. So lets paint the picture, it takes 5 seconds for you to be able to drop your trops from the start of you starting the attack run and let me tell you, if you want to stealth torp? ya better be starting this 12-14KM away from your target mate because to get a good spread you need to wait at least another 4-7 Seconds, so in total it becomes around 12-14 seconds per torp drop. and after you have dropped you now have to wait 5 Seconds again to be able to go for your next one. As you can see, how you drop and attack with Haku Torp planes have been nerfed into the ground with a house on top, it's hard, so hard in fact you now have 1 effective way to drop, and one not very effective way and counts on the player being stupid. The First way is to do a lesser version of the Flying shima, where you start 15-16 km away from your target and drop at around 10KM away so they sail at the end of your torp distance, and drop again when they are 2-3km away from your torps activating. The Second way is to stealth torp, but this need the person in the ship to not use his WASD hacks and sail in a easy line.. In the end, trying to get nice dmg numbers with the nerfed haku torp planes is very hard, to the point it's not worth trying so whats you next best thing? the AP boms, but you have to remember you are going to lose quite a few off them per run.. So in the hotfix, did they fix the cv issue of haku being way to OP? Yes Did they do it to the point where people will stop playing them becuase you have to pray to RNG and play stupidity? Yes I will still play my Haku, but I know im going to be pulling my hair out for how frustrating it is going to play it, not because it has a high skill level, because it just can't be that effective, I'm I asking for the Haku to be able to do more dmg? No all of hakus dmg values are fine if you can pull it off, it's just with the new flood changes among the AA changes and the torp changes it's hard to break the 100K mark, and if i was to really go for it, it would be extreamly hard to break the 200K mark (Prop do it if ya have a dumb team that all goes to one cap and you do the flying shima, and get floods over and over again, but this shouldnt be the way to get high numbers, it should be skill) So Enough about my rant, I just wanted to put out their my experince so far, Ill keep playing, and keep at it, I love cvs, they have their issues, one of the is still with the dds but I hope in time, and with effective communication and not "Cvs are bad, they to op pls get rid of them" we can all learn to have fun with the game. @MrConway I would like to hear your what you have to say on my feedback with the hotfix if possible.
  3. VeryHonarbrah

    Stalin, Stalin Stalin (CB discussion)

    WARNING!! : Biased rant incoming, easily triggered people be warned. Is it OP? Maybe, Can it be countered? To an extent, Is it a HUGE advantage for clans and players who have played 2enough seasons of CB to a higher enough level to get it compared to those who have not? 100% Yes. In every single top 24 EU clans only 1 runs ONLY 1 Stalin, with all others running more! It is a massive advantage to have this ship with a broken bow, USN AP angles and BB pen on a cruiser, in a game mode that limits bb amount to only the select few who got to high enough CB levels early on. It is a joke that this ship has completely replaced the Moskva, with not a single of the previously mentioned top 24 clans using a single bloody Moskva! The Moskva is by no means weak, its a very well balanced and strong ship, but is completely outclassed in its playing field by the Stalin. I plea that WG put stains within the bb bracket for CB mm or just ban them straight up from comp. I hardly think that anyone will argue that the Stalin has improved the gameplay for CB. Also here is the image that shows the stalins in the top 24 EU clans.
  4. There has been quite a few ranked threads recently. The last couple Ranked seasons we had a sticky thread for ranked discussion. @MrConway make one of them sticky? I'll start out with my experience, which was the best so far out of all ranked seasons. The level of communication chat usage and teamplay was the highest I have seen so far. Most games saw chat full of communication Started out late, which may explain the easy road to Rank1 - 107 games, 66 of them in Grozevoi with 74% wr and the rest in Worchester plus a few in YY. All in all it was a very pleasant experience, which made me wonder what made this season different from previous seasons. Starting out from my expectations, they were pretty bad due to controversionally OP ships like Stalingrad and Harugumo, Worchester having been added to the game since last season. What I immediately noticed was teams generally split up in sensible groups, tried to think about creating crossfires, and radar cruisers going to their designated spots without urging. It was certainly very different from the very campy ranked meta in S9, where DDs were few and far between and often refused to go anywhere near the "contested" caps, resulting in many frustrating lemmingtrains. Of course there were the occasional selfish star-farmers were present (or plain "special players"), but they were a much more rare breed - at most one per team and rarely every game. Maybe it is due to me playing destroyers for stability, because I know there will always be at least one competent dd on the team. What are your impressions? Did you see selfish play due to star preservation frustrating teamplay?
  5. Excavatus

    New Season of Clan Battles!

    Hello Ladies and Gents, Since the ranked battles ended and new CB season started, I thought, It would be good to open a discussion thread about this. And May be It would be better to pin this at the start after removing RB season 9 topic. @MrConway care to help? Anyway, It's been 3 days since the CB started (active playing days) Going good. My only concern is the maps. Rotation is not looking good! Last night, We played 9 battles in CB, and 5 of them was in the sleeping giant! On the other hand, I want to share another oobservation, In one battle, there were 2 moskvas, side by side, bow on, little angled, 1/4 speed pushing into cap, constantly radaring. that was one hell of a problem to deal with... Good luck to all! Hope to see you in the sea!
  6. Munition

    how to rework CV's

    Please Moderators, move this to Development Section -> Discussion Hello everyone,I thought about aircraft carriers and how they are represented in the game and came up with some ideas. I want to say I'm not a strict CV hater but sometimes they annoy me. Mainly I'm writing this because I'm a little bit disappointed how carriers play as I expected something different. For those who now check my profile: Yes, I haven't played a single game in a carrier yet, but I played them in the closed Beta.Please feel free to comment on every single idea as I'm curious about your opinions. Also I'm sorry if I open the 500th thread about this but I want to show you my ideas. A) Removal of the "Flight Control" as a module of the carrier. Replace it with "Deck Crew"Players can mix their general aircraft-setup the CV carries into battle in the harbor like granates in WoT. Number of fighters carried should forced to be 1/3 of plane-load.The new module "Deck Crew" determines how many aircraft can be prepared by the crew simultaneously and thereby reduces the whole preparation time. B) Removal of pre-set squadrons. Replace it with custom squadronsNow you can create bigger formations. IJN CV's can increase/decrease the strength of one squadron by 4 planes per step and USN according to this by 6 planes per step. This way you can avoid too many small squadrons per CV at one time. C) Add control over the squadron's altitudeMax. altitude should be limited to 5km but if your planes fly this high they can avoid much of the light/medium AA. On the other side dive-bombers are diving longer (but are more accurate) towards their target and torpedo-bombers need to circle down before they can attack and thereby they are longer a target.A good player could use this for example to overfly some of the cruisers AA, than lower the altitude and attack the battleships. D) Massive increase of preparation time before squadrons can be launchedThis is the payoff for your new freedom but it also preserves you from spamming and losing all your aircraft early in the game. E) Add the danger of being attacked while you prepare you squadrons and end in a massive fireballThis makes the gameplay more depth as you have to think strategically. F) Add the option of armor-piercing bombs with massive damage for dive-bomber G) Higher the point of bomb release for dive-bombers and thereby lower their accuracy H) Increase the closest point of torpedo release to circa 1km G) and H): Diving to long and/or get to near to the AA is suicidal I) Increase the time torpedoes need to be armed a little bit J) Removal of the "Blue Angels"-like squadron-attack for torpedo-bombersThis is even to unrealistic for an arcade game - also it's unfair for BB's.They shouldn't drop their torpedo simultaneously and also not perfectly parallel.If you think twice about this it even could increase the chance for a hit as the torpedos don't run as predictable. K) Add the possibility to deflect torpedoes if they hit you with something like 15°or less To complete my statement I want to say I don't think this reduces overall effectivity but makes playing a carrier more strategically and more balanced. I'm really looking forward to your opinion!
  7. TheBigLanowski

    Discussion about ship speeds

    Hey everyone, I want something to discuss with you. It's about the in game ship speeds compared to their real counterparts and also what do you think about the chosen speed of paper ships and compared with each other. I start with some ships, so feel free to add one you want to bring attention to. So lets get started: Iowa: She got her real 33 kts with one of the last patches (together with some other buffs) but why? Because it's her real speed? Because balancing wise she was fine I think and performing better than Izumo. So if she get the buff because she could reach this kind of speed in rl what about these ships? A.Hipper: She got 32 kts but could manage to reach 32.6 kts if I'm not mistaken. Scharnhorst: She got 30 kts but could manage to reach 31.5 kts (with the speed flag she can reach it but Iowa will be much faster with it) Can someone explain the logic to me? Also I'm a bit disappointed with Hindenburgs speed. You really feel the 1 kts she is slower than the Roon and both ships need some speed because they rely so much on AP and therefore positioning. What do you think about this? Are 1-2 kts really a difference? I think yes. But maybe you can come up with some different views on this, can't wait to hear your opinions .
  8. iChase

    Mega Feedback Thread with iChase

    Copied over from my NA thread Mega feedback thread with iChase Hello devs and fellow testers (really hoping the devs read thread since I think we'll have a lot of good ideas and feedback here). So after a while of testing, I think I've finally got enough ideas to construct a proper feedback thread on everything that's been going on in the game so far. So without much further ado, here I go. Lets divide this thread into various sections 1.Destroyers 1.1. IJN Destroyers 1.2. USN Destroyers 2.Cruisers 2.1. IJN Cruisers 2.2. USN Cruisers 3.USN Carriers 4.IJN Battleships 5.Gameplay Concerns 6.Technical Issues 1. Destroyers Let's start with destroyers, namely because right now I think they are the class that really needs a bit of help. Problem: More fragile than glass A common problem that I see with destroyers right now is just how unbelievably fragile they are. While I'm not asking destroyers to tank shots from battleships, they shouldn't just be blowing up as frequently as they are right now. Not fun being in a destroyer. Potential solution: Make destroyers just a tiny bit more durable so the chances of being instantly blown up is less likely. Problem: Smoke seems inconsistent? This is something that seems to be based more on feel than anything, but for some odd reason I feel like even though I'm completely covered with smoke, there's still random times where I'm spotted. There doesn't appear to be any kind of clear visual indication while in smoke as to when you're being covered in smoke and invisible and when you're not. While the smoke effect looks nice, it feels too much like rolling a dice when it comes to concealment. Potential solution: Needs to be made more consistent and easier to understand when you're in and covered by smoke and when you're out and not covered by smoke. 1.1. IJN Destroyers Starting with IJN destroyers. As of the moment the IJN destroyers are blessed with high stealth and long range torpedoes. They are painfully slow traverse times for their guns and their rate of fire is pathetic. But that's fine assuming that the first two things are working as intended. Problem: Destroyer torpedoes can be spotted at stupidly high ranges Forget torping anybody at the theoretical maximum range of the Japanese torpedoes. The torps will be dodged long before they make contact due to the extreme range at which torpedoes can be spotted. When combined with the captain perk This in essence has taken away the one and only offensive weapon system for the Japanese destroyer. Potential solution: Consider giving IJN destroyers low visibility torpedoes that can only be spotted at roughly pre-patch 2.4 (a tad bit more than pre-2.4 but less than it is set to now) distances while keeping the USN destroyers torpedoes the same as right now. This will promote the IJN DD play of being stealthy hunter-killers while the USN DDs are more suited to the counter-DD, ambush killer role. 1.2. USN Destroyers As of the moment I feel that USN destroyers occupy a decent place in the game as a DD counter and ambush predator. While the higher tier USN DDs have long range torps that are equally affected by the torpedo spotting range, I don't think it warrants the USN DDs to have less observable torpedoes because the USN DDs already have superior guns that can counter IJN DDs and also the fact that the playstyle for USN DDs should stay rather consistent through the tiers with added capabilities providing additional plays to the USN DD playbook. So far so good with the USN DDs! 2. Cruisers I think cruisers right now occupy a role that's uniquely theirs. However, I do feel like they have some issues, namely in the durability front as well as the excessively overpowered AA ability that they currently have that can nullify carriers without any real effort involved. Problem: While cruisers historically did have rather thin armour, getting blown up in 2-3 salvoes really isn't much fun for any cruiser driver. In this case gameplay needs to take precedence over historical accuracy. The way cruisers feel right now is that their armour doesn't seem to exist. They get penned easily, get citadelled easily and die easily. While I'm not saying make the cruisers as difficult to sink as battleships, I do think they need a durability upgrade that makes them survivable for longer than they are now. Potential solution: Increase cruiser durability/armour so they can absorb some punishment. Problem: AA barrage ability is stupidly OP The AA barrage ability that is available to cruisers from tier 6 and higher is ridiculously OP. Mind you I am completely okay with the fact that cruisers are meant to defend larger ships against aircraft, but what I'm not okay is a single cruiser being able to nullify a carrier by a single press of a button, zero skill required. The skill not only has the wonderful ability of making the AA guns that much more lethal against aircraft but also has the wonderful ability of completely ruining whatever planned run you made as a carrier, so not only do you lose planes like mad, your chances of actually hitting anything drops to miniscule amounts. The even worse part about the cruisers AA ability is that it's able to disrupt attacks at more than 5km, so even though the cruiser is on the edge of your screen and you're making an attack from the other side, the planes are still panicking. Doesn't make sense at all. Potential solution: Change cruiser AA barrage ability so that it has the following effect. No longer affects the spread of the torpedo bomber/dive bomber attacks or it causes a small fan spread to appear (nothing like the current massive fan spread that appears). Instead, the AA barrage ability scales up in power depending on how many ships are around you up to a maximum increase of say 75% effectiveness. So let's say when cruiser is only with 1 other ship inside a 3km radius then AA power of the cruiser increases by 15%, with 2 ships inside the radius AA power increases by 30% and with 4 ships its 50% increase and with 5 ships its 75% increase. This should still make the ability hurt planes by shooting them down, but doesn't make the carriers completely impotent. Problem: Gameplay > realism in terms of turning radius for cruisers I know the turn radius right now is realistic, but I feel that for the sake of gameplay and allowing cruiser drivers to feel like they have a mobile ship it should occupy the middle ground in terms of turning radius between that of destroyers and battleships. Potential solution: Make cruisers a bit more agile, light cruisers capable of turning radiuses in the upper 600m-lower 700m range and heavy cruisers in the mid-upper 700m range. Problem: AA is not rewarding Cruisers are so darn important to the team because they are the only defence against carriers, but right now in most battles you see cruisers running off to do whatever they feel like. That's being caused by the fact that AA provides minimal rewards. Potential solution: Provide incentive in the form of rewards (credits/exp/both) for shooting down planes. This should motivate cruiser players to stick together with their larger capital ships. This combined with the earlier suggestion of making the AA barrage ability an ability that's dependent upon ships within a certain range should help make cruisers the dominate anti-aircraft vessel in the game. 2.1. IJN Cruisers I think IJN cruisers are not too bad right now, although I do have to admit that they still feel really fragile when I fight against them. But that's happening to all the cruisers right now. The IJN cruiser that I think has been hit the hardest is the Senjo and I think that poor ship needs to be looked at again. Problem: What's the point of getting the Senjo? I know the Senjo's guns still have great pen but I feel like the Senjo's nerfs came with no buffs to make up for its weaknesses. With the recent torpedo nerfs, I'm not sure why anybody would even go for the Senjo. The Ibuki feels like it's the pinnacle of IJN cruisers with its speed and torpedo range. Potential solution: Increase the Senjo's speed to 33 knots and give it an HP buff to around 43-44k HP. Increase the torpedo range (with a nerf to torpedo speed to Ibuki levels) so that it's torpedoes are slightly superior to the Ibuki's torpedoes in terms of damage but are otherwise similar. 2.2. USN Cruisers USN Cruisers occupy the anti-cruiser/AA defence role and I think that it's in a good place. Once again fragility is a concern but slightly less so than the IJN cruisers. Otherwise, no specific complaints about the USN Cruisers. So far so good on this front too! 3. USN Carriers Where do I even start with carriers, there's so many problems that currently exist with carriers, here's just some of the problems I've seen, and while some I have solutions for, others I do not...anyways, let's try and cover them anyways. Problem: The durability of planes and the problem with DoT AA guns. As of the moment, AA works very simply, damage over time vs. squadron HP pool. This means that once your planes fly into the range of two ships, at the current movement speed of the planes), you're squadron gets maybe a few good seconds to execute an attack before your squadrons get shredded up so badly that the attacks lose all their teeth. Also good luck getting your squadrons back as 2 tier 8 ships can chew through a tier 10 essex's planes without that much trouble in a matter of seconds. Did I mention that the cruisers OP AA ability just makes playing upper tier carriers pointless? Potential solution (I doubt this will happen since the amount of resource it would take would be massive, need suggestions from readers): Make AA realistic, individual amount of HP per plane, x amount of damage per shell, high RNG for AA, plane gets hit by AA shell would lose HP, take a few and get shot down and on occasion take critical damage from a shell and die right away. Then if this is combined with the changes to cruiser AA ability I mentioned earlier, it could provide a bonus to AA accuracy or rate of fire for AA guns, meaning more shells and greater chance of hitting planes. Problem: Torpedo bomber damage at higher tiers aren't enough for the amount of losses they suffer Assuming that we don't change AA too much from where it is now, what else can we do? Well I suggest that with the amount of plane losses occurring at the higher tiers, make it so that the torpedo damage is higher per torpedo at the upper tiers. Considering that the difference between the torpedoes dropped by the Saipan at tier 6 (with tier 6 AA) and the Essex at tier 10 dealing with top tier AA is roughly 1,300 damage per torpedo makes the top tier carriers feel completely impotent. Potential solution: Assuming that AA is kept at the same level of lethality that they are at right now, then the top tier carriers torpedo bomber damage needs to increase drastically. As of the moment they do ~9,800 damage a torpedo while the tier 6 does 8,500 per torp. Considering the amount of planes that are lost at the top tiers, the higher tier TBs need to do somewhere in the range of around ~12,500-14,000 damage per torp in order to give carriers back their teeth. Problem: One tier lower in carriers and feeling completely useless (especially Saipan vs Indy). A cruiser 1 tier lower can deal with another cruiser as long as it's played well, same for DDs and BBs. Only in carriers is this a major problem. Being 1 tier down already feels like a massive hill to climb, never mind two tiers down. Saipan vs Lexi anybody? Potential solution: Balance out the carriers so that a lower tier carrier isn't completely helpless against a carrier just 1 tier higher. If this is not possible then at least balance out the Saipan and the Independence and then give carriers preferential matchmaking of +1/-1 tiers. Problem: 2 v 1 in carriers 2 Essex vs. 1 Essex, 2 Lexington vs 1 Lexington, these are not fun scenarios with the current state of how aircraft work. If carriers continue to have this kind of balancing problem then what needs to happen is a very strict MM criteria for carriers needs to be implemented. Potential solution: At the current state of carrier play, MM should absolutely balance carriers in terms of numbers. Problem: Tier 10 fighter speed?! Oh dear god, why are the tier 10 fighters so ridiculously slow??? The Bearcat struggles to catch torpedo bombers! The tier 7 wildcats and hell even the tier 6 fighters can outrun the Bearcat! Potential solution: Higher tier planes should be made, faster, stronger, more durable than their lower tier counterparts, but as long as there's preferential matchmaking of +1/-1, then carriers can still overcome the difference via skill. Problem: Dive bombers and the inability to use manual dive bombing Dive bombers are pathetically weak right now, yes I've found the ideal way to use them, but they hold no punch whatsoever. When used against ships you'd be lucky to score hits. Also manual DB should be usable, because right now when manual dive bombing is selected the planes do a bit of a weird climbing motion before diving. Potential solutions: Make dive bombing more lethal (include AP bombs?) and also make manual dive bombing a viable way for skilled players to overcome the current poor accuracy of the dive bombers by giving them the same type of approach as manual torpedo bombers, fly in at a straight line, designate the point of drop with the manual drop indicator, when planes cross a threshold they execute the dive bombing attack without the weird climb to higher altitude thing that they are doing now. 4. IJN Battleships Battleships are actually done quite well right now. They are capable of heavily punishing cruisers and other battleships. Armour seems to be working as intended right now, although I've heard that the Yamato's armour seems to be messed up, so that probably needs to be looked into. My only major concern right about now still has to do with the amount of shell dispersion at close range. Problem: Too much shell dispersion at close range I am okay with shell dispersion at long range, especially since real battleships had atrociously low hit percentages at range. But what I have a problem with right now is the amount of shell dispersion that occurs at closer ranges. Firing a battleship at close range grants me two things, either surprisingly tight groupings of shells that I can magically kill a DD with at 7-8km, or the complete inability to hit a battleship at 3km as I watch my shells sail just over the ship or hit the water just short of the ship, or most amazingly watching 1 shell sail over the ship and the other hitting the water. Potential solution: Suggest creating a sliding scale for BB dispersion, accurate at very close ranges --> less accurate at extremely long ranges. 5. Gameplay concerns So after all this time has passed, I am still concerned with certain aspects of World of Warships gameplay. So let's get to them. Problem: Domination and base capture seriously do not belong in a naval game. This is something that has seriously bothered me for the entire duration of time that I've played World of Warships. I just feel that the whole base capture idea doesn't fit within the context of naval games. Ships keep running off to do their own thing because there's this constant need to go and quickly cap a point before the other team does. In so many battles, the US DDs and cruisers are running off trying to grab caps before the other team completely captures all the points and win via points. This then leads to the BBs complaining that they have no cover against aircraft from the teams cruisers. Potential solution: Remove domination from World of Warships. (Encounter is fine as both teams do need to contest a single cap zone.) Standard gameplay should be changed to destroy all ships in the enemy fleet. In the event of ships still surviving after 20 minutes, then victory should be granted to the team that killed the most number of ships, in the event that the ship kills are identical then victory is granted to the team that did the most damage. Hopefully a change like this will focus the teams on killing and sinking ships and also trying to play together as a team instead of everybody just yoloing off to try and capture flags. Problem: Games feel a bit stale due to a lack of random changing variables. One of the big problems that I feel is affecting World of Warships right now is that after a while, the maps feel rather stale. This is due a lack of random changing variables that require flexibility and adjustment from the players controlling the ships. If we think about World of Tanks, there's bushes that provide cover and concealment, trees that can be pushed over, buildings that can be destroyed. This contributes to more dynamic gameplay. I feel that World of Warships is missing this kind of element. Potential solution: Implement things like randomly generated rain squalls that provide concealment to ships. Implement zones of heavy weather that would allow heavier ships to pass through without difficulty but lighter ships like DDs would get damaged going through it (interesting risk vs. reward scenario here, as BBs might be tempted to cross the area since they aren't affected but a DD will, but if a DD gets in there at the right times, they would be able to ambush battleships that are going through the area and sink them). Bring back shallow water areas (although please mark it more clearly) that can only be used by destroyers. Implement night versions of the same maps that we have right now and figure out how spotting distances and stuff would work at night. Anything really to add extra levels of complexity to the game. A game can be arcade-ish and not sim like but it shouldn't be without complexity and depth. Problem: Limit tier spread in divisions. Seeing a tier 3 ship, divisioned up with a tier 8 and then being taken into a tier 8 battle is frustrating! Since that tier 3 is absolutely useless and has taken up a valuable slot that another higher tier ship could have been occupying. Potential solution: Limit the tier spread in teams to 2 tier above and below. So a tier 8 would only be able to division up with tier 6-10. A Cleveland even in a tier 8 battle can still be useful as AA and anti-cruiser/destroyer. 6. Technical issues This last section are technical issues that I think really needs to be looked at and fixed, although I can't offer any kind of solution to it. Problem: Sync issues - frustrating trying to hit ships at long range when they aren't where their ship shows up to be. Makes long range engagements (the domain of battleships) almost impossible when coupled with their current dispersion. Needs to be looked at and solved. Problem: Rubber banding effect - Ships just rubber banding from one place to another, again makes shooting difficult as ships rapidly change from one place to another. Problem: Semi-frequent lag spikes - Not sure if this is just currently the server capacity and the load, but I'm on occasion getting lag spikes jumping from 68-72ms up to 110-130ms and then fluctuating. While other times it's just perfectly stable at 68-72ms. Problem: Occasional flashing of smoke - Sometimes at the start when my ship is moving the smoke coming out of the smokestacks flash but only for a little bit. Is this a game bug or is it just my graphics card? Thank you for reading Just want to thank everybody for reading this thread. It's not perfect and I'm sure many of you have ideas, so please feel free to post in this thread and let's continue to do our best to improve this game to the best of our abilities.
  9. TL;DR There are probably things to be learned here which may help to improve WoWs and there are already quite a few points I have in mind but I can't be bothered to write them out so still making a superficial thread in case other ppl with more enthusiasm and insight would like to contribute. As we know Kancolle would not prefer to have a collab with WoWs despite (allegedly) having been approached by WG in the past. I was reminded of this topic recently due to news on the Azur Lane collab. By having discussion and thinking on why, perhaps we may be able to generate insight that may help to better WoWs or allow us to see it from much needed new perspectives. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I initially envision 3 main sections: 1. Why Kancolle does not want collab with WoWs. 2. Why Azur Lane does. 3. What would WoWs have to change to make Kancolle to want to collab, and would those changes be beneficial to WoWs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sections themselves are quite superficial, for instance there may be structural barriers preventing a collab happening such as the parent company of Kancolle firmly opposing this on non-creative and content-based grounds. Conclusions generated on this are factual only and do little to provide insight to improve WoWs. Reasons why Azur Lane does may also be mundane and trivial, and not "insight" per se. Conclusions will merely serve to perhaps improve experience on future collabs, but little meaningful context providing insight on game design and operation. And finally, things that WoWs will have to change for KC to want to collab may be beneficial to KC only, and due to scope of change and resources/talent required, not realistically applicable. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, insights and perspectives on those sections, such as those having to do with analyzing the way entertainment industry works in Japan, how creative content is evaluated, their production standards, philosophies, and process, may serve to provide WoWs producers with technical knowledge of how to do better in the industry. Qualitative insight such as how to align with the market, how to align and stay ahead of different types of markets (e.g. bubbles), and highly contextual insight, may serve to provide WoWs developers with how to make the most of their game's uniqueness and context. And finally, general operational knowledge experience within the specific act of collaborations. (Lack of experience/standardized procedure may also be a reason why KC side shies away from collabs.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also as a joke, engaging in critical thinking may do the WoWs team some good by preparing them for engaging in other relevant issues, such as how to address toxicity, how to not make p2w, and how to make their game fun (requires creativity). Everything I would ever be interested in saying about WoWs I've already said in some form or another. But most actual serious stuff like how to hire ppl and how to measure saturation in the industry is either too long to be said simply or outright now my place to say. If my morale for this game was a bit higher I'd at least attempt a writeup which was messy but still goes into details, and if it was very high I'd be slightly concerned with the quality too but now, just meh. I'm not expecting long writeups so just throw your notes out here.
  10. horvath6th

    [Suggestion] Enemy Detection & Ammo

    Just a quick note from the author, me. This is a long-ish thread and I hope people don't just post tl;dr. I also hope that this can be discussed in a civil manner. Cheers Part One: Enemy Detection & Camouflage I’m not entirely sure how these particular mechanics works at the moment but here is my suggestion(s) as to how I think it could work in an alternate gameplay environment. My comments / suggestions do not necessarily need to be considered as being implemented to the current game modes but rather could be added to a different, ‘Realism’ game mode which is slower but more in-depth. To start I believe the detection ranges need to be adjusted with more parameters being added to the specific ships to further increase realism. To start, maximum detection range should be calculated using four (or five!) factors… Note Ship 1 is your ship, Ship 2 is the enemy ship you’re detecting.. Height of Ship 1 Distance from Ship 1 to Ship 2 Size of Ship 2 Camouflage used Technology? To expand on the five points, first we have the height of your ship, Ship 1. This determines how far you can see across to the horizon. As you probably know, the horizon is based on the curvature of the Earth and changes depending on how high you are. If you’re standing on the coast and you are of average height, your horizon is only 2.9 miles (4.7km). But if you’re atop the observation mast (or whatever you call it) of a huge battleship, this will increase dramatically. If you know the height of your observation area then you can calculate the distance you can see using this equation (d in km, [1000m], h in m) or in the second image (d in miles, h in feet) Or For more information on the horizon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon Next we have the distance (point 2) and size (point 3) of the enemy ship, Ship 2. These two factors should be considered together for all intents and purposes. The smaller and further away the ship, the more difficult it will be to detect and thus the closer is has to be to be detected. This however must also factor in the size of your own ship and if applicable (point 5) the technology historically employed on your vessel to aid in detecting enemy ships such as more advanced optics, scout planes or RADAR. This would become more valuable as you go through the tiers but could also be used as possible upgrades as a separate modification or as part of the Hull Type. All of these factors must be used to calculate the base distance in which a specific ship can be detected by your own ship. It should not be simply a base detection range for any ship to be detected by any other, but a more realistic system based on multiple factors. Lastly we have camouflage, which would basically modify the detectability of the enemy ship (Ship 2) by your ship, Ship 1, lowering it by a percentage. The more complex and or effective the camouflage, the greater that percentage. With this new system, I believe aircraft in particular, as well as larger ships, prove more useful in detecting the enemy fleet’s position(s). As a result I believe the ship responsible for detecting another ship (and thus informing the team of this) should receive points for sightings as it greatly increases the team’s ability to effectively manoeuvre and engage the enemy. I hope this first part has made sense to those who could be bothered to read it. I believe in the current set up these suggestions would not be feasible for WoWs, but in a more realistic mode on larger maps, they would be a significant boost to game play. Part Two: Ammo The next part should go a lot quicker. I believe it would be great to see historical ammunition used to label the ammunition used by our ships. AP and HE is so very arcade and I feel is a bit lazy on the part of the developer. At least put (for instance) 356mm HE and perhaps have some information on that shell. This would also open the door for advanced forms of the shell(s) employed based on historical data. If say, the US Navy started using more advanced 152mm AP shells in 1943, this should be seen as a possible upgrade in the game for US Naval ships that operated at that time with those guns. Once again, this asks more from the developer, but I believe this would open the door for some great historical and realistic additions to the game. That’s all for now folks, sorry for typing too much.
  11. AdmiralAjax

    Matchmaking at high tiers, struggle?

    Now then hardy sea capt'n! Just food for thought, but as I've climbed the tiers and currently at 8 with both Destroyers and Cruisers. Does anyone find the matchmaking troublesome at high tiers? It's not a complaint, more of a 'discussion' starter but I found if I was in the now Tier 8 Kagero and I got into a mainly Tier X game, I just get bitchslapped in around 8 seconds, but not through my own stupidity (Broadside on or just sailing in straight lines without changing it up). I found one game with a particular heavy amount of Tiers X's (T-X for short) I used an allied smoke screen as cover as i try and pick of a lonesome BB to which I got detected. Before I knew it I had every ship and their grandmother firing from the limits of their range and I just get deleted. Just to compare, I even found that with a game heavy in T-IX' and no T-X's it was fair game, I just always find that last tier makes all the difference! Anyone else find this?
  12. I have spent the last few weeks or so alternating between the Kurfurst and Montana, trying to make the Montana feel relevant. I have failed. My opinion is that sadly the Montana has simply been rendered obsolete by the Grosser Kurfurst. I see no reason to play the Montana over the GK, as the only advantages the Montana has are weak and generally irrelevant. You feel like a T9.5 BB taking on the GK or Yammy in the Monty.
  13. So I have started to browse the forums again looking for people from the Alpha tester times. But it seems they are no longer as active as it was back then(of course). Still I wanted to just start a (non hate war) discussion on what we can and can not talk about from those days as alpha testers. I also just wanted to get to know what you guys have been up to all this time Had any ridiculous encounters or just weird moments? And what is in your opinion the best thing that was changed to the game?(both surface as well as core changes) This is me just being curious Good luck and fair seas to you all lads! May the tides be ever in your favour.
  14. Cpt_Doliprane

    [Suggestion] Canal de discussion

    Je viens rapporté des suggestions d'amélioration des canaux de discussion privé, ainsi que des retours de mes impressions personnelles. Depuis le port Tous d'abord, l'option Mot de Passe est apprécié ! Malheureusement, à chaque reconnexion faut re-saisir le mot de passe... Une fois le mot de passe renseigné impossible de l'éditer, Alors que le nom du canal oui... Une indication du nombre de personnes présents dans l'onglet du canal serai appréciable. Les icônes "ajouté en ami" "invité en division" et "envoyé un message" sont très utile ! En bataille Le jeu mis en français le canal de discussion "Team" est renommé par un vide. le canal division à disparu ? Si d'autres joueurs ont des choses à dire, c'est à vous !
  15. Hello fellow captains, I want to discuss with you, your suggestions and thoughts about the new skill tree. Since we have some threads about our opinions about the new tree I want to open one for new ideas, lets do some brain storming! I'm really interested in your thoughts! To make it more clear, if you have a new suggestion you want to put in, mark it with Suggestion at the top of your post (makes it more easy to filter them out from comments). If you want to raise your concerns about that suggestion, quote it. Make suggestions in detail, so no "I want this and that to be gone or buffed DOT" I hope to get a nice and structured discussion with a lot of new thoughts. So lets get started!
  16. As per a suggestion by Fery_25, this is a discussion thread to accompany the Suggestions thread. Let's see how this goes. In any case, keep it civil, even if you vehemently disagree with someone.
  17. maxisrichrich

    The Reality of Tier 10

    Hello, Max here! After lots of 'gentle' consideration about the current status of tier 10 game play (I have a Des Moines, and an Izumo and regularly get placed in tier 10 matches) I have come to a range of conclusions about the state of the game at the higher tiers. Without discussing too much I would quickly like to say unless you're a Yamato, Shimakaze or an aircraft carrier you're going to way of HMS Hood. Cruisers You're effectively the prison [edited]of tier 10 game play. Think you can dodge torpedoes? 15 of them? Tier 10 cruisers are naturally very heavy and are not as manoeuvrable as their predecessors. They say you're the natural predator of DD's but that is not the case (feel like every game you're hunting for Red October), you never detect them and guess what happens when you do? Yes SMOKE. Destroyers stay at such a great range you N E V E R detect them and when you do it's because you're in the centre of the map and you're being focused more than the Yamato at the Leyte Gulf. Yes all the cruisers have insane AA, does it matter? No. The majority of the time they're consistently destroyed before you even see a squadron of 'Skill-planes™'. How often do you really have carrier games and when you do, do the 'skill-planes™' ever come closer? Nope Battleships If you're not a Yamato is there really any point? The Montana is great at killing cruisers but by the time you see them they'll all be detonated by e v e r y t h i n g else. If you're a Battleship, fair play to you being able to deal with the mental strain of torpedoes. I'm not surprised your ship isn't triggered every time it sees one. I'm tired of feeling like the USS Arizona every damn game. I can't take any moor. Destroyers You're an American destroyer and you're meant to be destroy other DD's right, you get shot once and lose all your guns. Even in a destroyer a 15 torpedo spread from a Shimakaze isn't that easy to dodge, you'll get decked. And seriously 6 Km detection range on the Japanese destroyers? And the matchmaking associated with tier 10 seems to be destroyer spam over and over and over again. Each game getting 5/6 destroyers on each team is seriously draining. Carriers 'Skill-planes™' Conclusion What are your thoughts on the current state of tier 10 game play? I'd love to hear your opinions and suggestions. I know this seems to be over the top but I seriously think there are some issues with tier 10. After all did you really grind ships like the Colorado, Karlsruhe and the Izumo for this? Feel like you need some anchor management? Drop a comment, if youve ever been involved with tier 10 game-play - I would love to hear you Edit: I hope in the future that the radar consumable is implemented into higher tier gameplay, however I feel that this would encourage long range 'camping dd's' even more, however I welcome change at higher tier and look forward to seeing how it affects gameplay. At higher ranges I believe everyone will be able to predict, dodge and compensate for torp spam. If carrier games are more frequent at tier 10 the Montana will begin to show its strengths over he Yamato, more carriers would focus the Yamato over the Montana due to its relatively weak AA, restoring some sense of satisfaction to Montana admirals. Without being to use your AA some significant strengths of certain ships are neglected. For example Japanese cruisers have torpedoes in some sort of attempt to create balance, IJN cruisers lack the AA firepower of American cruisers, which in my opinion creates unbalance due to the fact that IJN cruisers can utilise their strengths in certain sitatuions where American cruisers can use their strength due to the luck of matchmaking....
×