Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'feedback'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


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


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 41 results

  1. Randathamane

    So, The carrier rework then...

    Here is a simple poll for the community regarding the aircraft carrier rework. Simple question, is it better now or has it been broken?
  2. Hallo Wargamin und Community ... Folgendes Feedback... Zwei Eigenschaften die mich schon etwas stören was die Sichtung im Spiel angeht. 1. Das man man Schiffe durch Inseln / Berge markieren und sehen kann die eigentlich nur durch andere Mitspieler ihrem Sichtwinkel gesehen werden können, da man ja selbst nicht über den Berg sehen kann. Außer die Inseln / Berge sind niedriger wo man darüber sehen und Schießen kann und man befindet sich in dessen Bereich "Erkennbarkeit zu Wasser / Luft". > Hier sieht man es mal als Beispiel. Auf 23,7 km Sicht auf Schiff. Bei Regen/Sturm wird die Sicht auch minimiert, wie man es auch im Sichtkegel auf der Mini Map sehen kann. So könnte es auch bei Inseln / Bergen gemacht werden. 2. Das wenn man Schiffe erkennt und entdeckt oder wurde, das dann andere Schiffe auch aufschalten und beschießen können obwohl diese gar nicht in dessen dem Bereich "Erkennbarkeit zu Wasser / Luft" sind sondern nur durch Flugzeuge oder andere Schiffe die im Bereich "Erkennbarkeit zu Wasser / Luft" sich aufhalten. zu 1. und 2. So wie es zur Zeit ist, ist es als Zerstörer oder Kreuzer schwer sich etwas bedeckt zu halten und nicht gleich von 3-4 Schiffen gleichzeitig beschossen und zerstört zu werden. Was ich Sagen möchte ist das es für solche Ziele nur Koordinaten sind und genau so dargestellt werden sollte wie es unter Markierung "letzter bekannte Position" gehandhabt wird und nicht in der Gameplay Sicht zusehen sollte sondern nur über die Map und Mini Map. * Das die Schiffe und vor allem Flugzeuge und Zerstören Schiffe aufklären, ist so alles in Ordnung und so soll es auch sein. Aber dann auch nur für diejenigen die sich in dessen Bereich "Erkennbarkeit zu Wasser / Luft" aufhalten. So wie es zur zeit ist, ist es als Zerstörer oder Kreuzer schwer sich etwas bedeckt zu halten und nicht gleich von 3-4 Schiffen gleichzeitig beschossen und zerstört zu werden. Mein Änderungsvorschlag: Wenn ein Schiff aufgeklärt wurde so sollte es für diejenigen die sich in dessen im Bereich "Erkennbarkeit zu Wasser / Luft" aufhalten können diesen auch im Gameplay Sichtbereich Sehen, Markieren und Beschießen wie bisher, außer es sind Berge usw. dazwischen, alle anderen außerhalb des Bereichs sehen das aufgeklärte Schiff nur in der Mini Map bzw. Map und können es nur darüber bekämpfen. Wenn also solche Aufklärung und Sichtungen nur durch Mini Map zu sehen sind kann man auch darauf schießen in dem man auf der Mini Map zielt oder eventuell auf der Map. Auf der Mini Map hat man ja jetzt schon eine Zielrichtung und ein kleinen Kreis wo man ca. hin Zielt, dass kann man so nutzen um auf letzte aktuelle Koordinate zu schießen! Sozusagen wäre es ein art mini Game für Zielen außerhalb vom Erkennbarkeit Bereich. Die Einstellung: Markierung "letzte bekannte Position" muss schon aktiviert sein bzw. fest voreingestellt sein. > So sollte es aussehen... In der Gameplay Sicht sieht man den Zerstörer auf ca.12 km nicht und auf der Mini Map sieht man seine Markierung "letzte bekannte Position" Momentan ist es ja so, kurz vorher hatte ich den Zerstören noch Sehen, Markieren und Beschießen können weil eine eigene Bomberstaffel ihn gesichtet hatte. > Man beacht die Mini Map... Die Sicht und der Sichtkegel schaut man in die Richtung des Zerstörers, mit dem Kreis Zielt man auf die "letzte bekannte Position", da keine eigenen Schiffe oder Flugzeuge ihn Sichten können bleibt er weiß und man zielt ungenauer. Wenn sich jetzt aber ein eigene Schiffe oder Flugzeuge in dessen erkennbaren Bereich aufhalten und ihn sichten so sollte er dann nur auf der Map rot und beweglich zu sehen sein und man dann in der Mini Map das Ziel verfolgen und beschießen. Also eine Art zielen durch Koordinaten, wie es nun mal auch in Wirklichkeit abläuft! Und ja ich weiß es ist nur ein Spiel und da ist es nicht wie in Wirklichkeit, aber warum sind die Schiffe usw. alles so Original gehalten und man fährt da ja nicht mit einer Gießkanne rum!? Ich hoffe ich konnte mein anliegen etwas rüberbringen. Persönlich geht sowas natürlich besser...
  3. "Much Better Than Any Anime Mod Out There, Satisfaction Guaranteed Or Your Internets Back" By WhiskeyWolf WHAT'S THIS MOD ABOUT? Basically, this modification for World of Warships aims to convert as much as possible the UI and text descriptions of the game, in order to make WoWs photorealistic (I've used real photos in high resolution of the WW2 conflict) and historically correct. Without forget to mention the documentary like flavour I've given to the art style of WoWs. FOR WHAT KIND OF PLAYER IS THIS MOD FOR? This mod aims to compel whoever loves the naval history behind World of Warships. Poeple that would love to see realistic pictures of their favorite warships implemented in the game client. People with much knowledge regarding the naval battles exploded inside the atlantic, mediterranean and pacific theatres. "If this was any more realistic you would have Japanese Kamikaze flying out of your monitor." By WhiskeyWolf WHO IS WORKING ON THIS PROJECT? Sys7ema (Ex. Founder of Team 20.3cm and Rising Sun), one of the very first modders during the Alpha of the game, also known in the global WoWs community for his great Kantai Collection modifications. Examples of his past works: WHO IS ADVISING THIS PROJECT? Chamorro, probably one of the most knowledgeable persons and contributors that Tsukotaku ever met, especially in this community. Wihtout his help and information, this project wouldn't be able to take off. WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THIS MOD? I've covered only 5% of the total GUI and 3% of the text descriptions as per 27/11/17, with much more to come during the following weeks! The results are incredible already: WHERE IS THE DOWNLOAD? Since the mod is in very early stage of delevopement the download is NOT AVAILABLE yet. I need first to rebalance the contrast of certain in-battles elements to make it actually playable by everyone in grayscale tones. Once this is done, I'll submit everything to WG in order to publish a working version with the lastest build of the game. This topic is just a showcase of the work that me and Chamorro are doing, to let know the community that such project is happening. HOW CAN YOU HELP US? Simple! By providing us with feedbacks and comments! What's better than having you, the users (The final target of this mod), express your thoughts about this "Photorealistic WW2 Total UI Conversion"? "MAN UP!" By WhiskeyWolf
  4. Elias_D

    Is there a backup plan ?

    Can you please inform us if there is a backup plan if all the negative feedback keeps growing. You will admit the mistake and bring us back the game we loved or you are going to ignore everyone and try to find new users ? Can you handle the stop on cash flow from old dedicated players ? So far less than a 10 % likes the changes and this anyone can see in poll here in comments here and in YouTube in twich lives also etc so I am very curious to know if there is a backup plan at all (the more time it takes you to respond the worst will become be sure about this).
  5. Poll up above: What are your reactions to the update? (Quick disclaimer: I am not happy with the update and this is my reaction to it. I hope the community shares their point of view on it) To start off: I decided to write down everything I think is wrong with the CV rework.... Again. WG devs turned a blind eye on the PTS feedback to an extent and even though the update was delayed, it clearly was not enough. As such, the game suffered. Here are my thoughts on what is driving the WoWs community into a more upset state than before: 1) IJN 25mm AA short range?!? Wargaming, why did you nerf a nation with already bad AA to begin with? The 25mm mid-range was a saving grace for many IJN ships, including almost all DDs and the Yamato (Compare it to any other BB of the same tier and you had only 75% or less of their AA. At the same time there was no introduction of the dual-purpose nature of their 155mm and 203mm guns (Dubious nature, but it would have helped). Overall, this means that IJN vessels are unable to stand up to the increased amounts of aircraft carriers effectively. All this while the Chicago Piano stays as mid-range 2) Skill changes Okay, this is a complex topic and I hate to break it: The older skills were far more useful than the new ones. AFT and BFT have their necessity increased, however, they are worse than before A 10% increase to the entire AA potency for 3 points was a skill worth taking even without secondary guns and AFT with the 20% range increase made team AA play a viable tactic. While this denied CVs access to a ship up until a point, now with infinite planes (even with those being limited by spawning times) will win as the game progresses and AA mounts are destroyed. All in all, less potent AA skills at a time where you will find far more aircraft in the air Concealment expert change made the game campier and along with the CV spotting remaining practically what it was. Now you are far less likely to engage in sneaking into capture points as cruisers and are absolutely unable to retreat and stealth up if you have pushed as a BB and are forced to retreat. Along with the change to the firing penalty (discussed later) being agressive is harder and in certain situations almost impossible. I get that it was weird when an Iowa out-spotted your Donskoi, but this should have been given more thought than it did. Possibly increasing concealment of the ships affected when the update dropped, or to bake the skill in, play around with the values and heavily discussing the change. It definitely should not have been baked into an already huge update for the game. Definitely an... unfortunately handled change. As for the CV skills and the additions to skills to help CVs, I can not speak on those due to their obviosly new nature. 3) AA vs CVs: Not ballanced As it stands with the current patch the AA is not ballanced. While WG said this would happen it is definitely important enough to warrant its own part of the discussion. With the changes to how different AA calibers are percieved and skill changes it may not come as a surprise that at points AA feels lackluster in certain situations. The sectors are a good idea, however there needs to be much refining and ballancing to get it right, particularly with the sectors themselves. A CV will still sink you no matter the ship, it is just a matter of time and how many squadrons he is willing to send at you. 4) Concealment penalty after firing change As was the consent of the majority of the community on a post made by Spithas on the EU server and by Ducky_Shot on the NA server , the old mechanic was far more popular with the playerbase. The new mechanic makes no sense since if you break LoS how can the enemy spotter know your exact position and direction after you clear the island? Here I am offering an option for WG to consider: Bake in the Concealment expert and do something with the lenght of being spotted (-5 sec on the bloom?) But listen to the community and give us the pre-8.0 mechanic! Anyways, Warships has always been a game I liked, but now I am seriously considering a long break before WG puts out all of the wildfires raging because of 8.0 The biggest question is: What do you think about 8.0 in general? Tell me down below and please participate in the poll posted with this thread. My hope is that wargaming will listen and do something in the very near future to help the game get back up.
  6. …..Erm no. After my earlier issues with the rework and specifically the AA-CV interaction (or lack of it) I wanted to see if things were any better. I mainly went out in the Montana, Worcester and Midway to see what had changed from Round 1 to Round 2. I didn't go in any other ships - just the ones I'd previously used a fair bit in the different test phases. As a rule, I generally aimed to play as aggressively and gung-ho as possible in the CV - gunning for enemy AA cruisers and AA-strong BBs like the Republique at every opportunity. On the other hand, I would play very cautiously and passively in the surface ships - sticking close to friendly AA where possible, throwing the ship around as much as I could to throw off a CV attack's aim, etc. Here's what I've found. SURFACE SHIP EXPERIENCE... oh dear 1) Long-mid AA is stronger....IF it hits. I definitely knocked down around a dozen planes per match in the Worc and Montana - which is about four/five times more than the first PTS. However the basic issue remains. We run into a core problem with the rework AA - you can just drive around it. It really is as simple as it sounds. Anyone stupid enough to fly headfirst into flak clouds deserves to lose planes. Everyone else, just fly around it and immediately you negate 90% of the damage output of an enemy ship's AA defence suite. I noticed this both as a surface ship and as a CV player trying to attack said surface ship. 2) DFAA STILL doesn't seem to do anything? Not sure if it's a bug or just a simple lack of feedback - but my Worcester's AA seemed no different with DFAA engaged as it was without. I mean it was useless before and it's much the same now - so I suppose at least it hasn't gotten worse... The CV player gets no inkling that his/her planes are being hit any harder than usual by DFAA - it doesn't seem too different whichever side you're playing on. 3) Sector mechanic is pointless due to the speed planes move and the fact that most attacking flights will strike you and fly OVER your ship to the other (less defended) side. I suggest replacing the sector command with something more useful - like the option to play mournful music (Titanic theme for example) as your AA cruiser gets wrecked by planes. Other alternatives are available. On a serious note - it's a gimmick that doesn't really offer any noticeable benefit to you as the defending player - on a larger ship it just makes sense to ignore the thing entirely and keep all AA equally useless on both sides of the ship. 4) 2 v 2 CV games are pure hell. I don't really need to elaborate - suffice to say that your entire game feels like it is spent running away from planes. 3 v 3 CVs were not a pleasure I experienced - but I can't imagine it would be any more fun. CV EXPERIENCE...aka Farming Simulator 1) Carrier play remains the most mind-numbingly repetitive rinse-and-repeat process going. Do you get nice big damage numbers for little effort? Yes. Is it hard to do so? No. The purpose of a rework CV is to farm damage in ludicrous quantities - that's it. There really isn't much more to it than that - since countering a CV is now close to impossible and the option of supporting actions to help your team are non-existent. 2) Planes recycle quick enough to always have striking power ready. Losing planes still has no downsides - besides perhaps having to occasionally press a different button when it came to lobbing out another strike squadron. Bearing in mind I was sometimes being a berk on purpose and losing planes by yolo-ing AA cruisers - I NEVER found my Midway unable to form a full attack flight. I always seemed to have a plentiful supply of rocket planes (see below). So the stronger, effective AA (which it isn't if you drive around it) still has no real bite to your strike ability as the game plays out. 3) USN rockets really are a whole new level of idiocy. They seem even stronger now? With a flight of Bearcats and the ability to aim - you can pretty much tackle anything. DDs? Sprinkle HVARs on the poor sods and knock out modules aplenty. 3000 damage per attack run is perfectly achievable on an actively dodging DD-sized target. Hammer the superstructures of Cruisers and BBs - you get the added bonus of more damage, a few fires here and there combined with AA modules being decimated on top of that. I did 100K+ using just HVARs in most games. 4) Fighters are really, really, really, pointless. No change from PTS Round 1 - however this time I tried using them defensively over friendly ships to try and 'catch' incoming enemy air. In reality they are just too slow and dim-witted to attack enemy squadrons BEFORE they've dropped all of their ordnance on their target. Most enemy CV players kind of just flew around them anyway and I avoided most enemy fighter groups myself. We've got to the point where the opposing CV players can just flat-out ignore each other and go for surface ships all game. 5) AA is still no deterrence. As a CV player - you now have no targets that you cannot take down. AA Cruisers are no more capable than other cruisers - their reliance on long-range flak (of the 'drive around it' variety) is ironically their weakness. DDs can't do anything. USN BBs make lots of flak but fly beyond that and you don't really find yourself losing much HP. You really do have no incentive to plan your attack and select your targets in the way that an RTS CV has to now. -TLDR- So my conclusions are as follows - the CV rework is possibly the worst change to this game since it left Beta. It appears that every change up to this point from the various test phases to the most recent patch on PTS is just window dressing. The problems are everything to with the CORE of the rework - not just a few damage numbers tweaking up or down. I appreciate WG want to make the CV class more accessible, more fun and likely get more people playing it. However I think they've got it wrong. The rework will be unique in that it will antagonise everybody, whatever you currently enjoy sailing around in. CV players who currently know their craft will be treated to this new point-and-click adventure game without depth, strategy or finesse. Just fly around and bomb everything - nothing is going to fight back... not even the opposing CV can do anything to you. New players are likely to lose the will to live after a few hundred games grinding the new CVs - it will probably be more enthralling to visit the Dentist and have a few teeth extracted with some mole-grips. Surface ship players will basically enjoy being targets all game, every game. The CV will be the most powerful unit on anyone's team - everything else just serves to be rocketed/bombed/torped/immolated/flooded by the opposing CV(s). Because that sounds incredibly fun and entertaining doesn't it? If that's the 'vision' that WG have for WOWS - I'm out of here.* *I don't often post on this forum but the rework was enough of an issue to make me want to. This will be my last post on the subject, since I feel that this is all going to hit the live server whatever the player feedback tells them to the contrary. Now if you don't mind, I'm going to enjoy my last week or two of WOWS before 0.8.0 - I think I need to find another game to scratch that 'drive big stuff and make pretty explosions' itch in the meantime...
  7. W związku z kolejną "aferą" na forum przedstawmy @WG_Lumberjack feedback odnośnie naszej reakcji na przeniesienie tematu o przeciekach do działu off-topic. Ankieta zakończy się 1.01.19 o godzinie 00.01. Liczę na odzew społeczności w sprawie jednego z najpopularniejszych i w mojej opinii jednego z najwartościowszych tematów tego forum. Pozdrawiam
  8. TheVingard

    TheVingard's Feedback 05/07/2015

    Hello there, I have a few things to talk about after playing the Open Beta for 4 days. So far the Open Beta is really fun! But here's some suggestions to make it better! Upgrade the Weather, the Storm currently in the game doesn't work, add more lighting! Darker clouds, rain thunder! Maybe even waves! (IMAGES AT THE BOTTOM) Add a gamemode like "Escort", a gamemode for High Levels were a Carrrier/Ships would act as a "VIP" you would escort it, if it get's to the point you're team wins and the other team has to intercept your VIP. Add some "More" crew. Now I know we have the Commander, but why don't we have the Engineer's or Gun Operators, now clearly we could not have every engineer, and crew member from the ship to customise, but why not have a "Head" of each department, his stats are equal to his counterparts. Therefor giving us "Specialised commanders" for each section and creating a more realistic atmosphere. Add some Commander mode, or the Highest Level in the lobby is a Commander or something, he could put waypoints, and more. Make it a LITTLE less Grindy, each tier you go up for get like more XP per round. THE STORM I'D LIKE TO SEE IN-GAME(ish): THE STORM IN-GAME NOW:
  9. I noticed today when I moved up from the Tier 4 Japanese battleship to a Tier 5 Battleship that the "Battleship Repair" function is not standard across all Tiers. The Tier 4 Battleship Repair that was designated as the "T" key as seen on the first screenshot below changed to the 'Y" key once you move to the Tier 5 battleship. Changing the key designation from Tier to Tier IMO doesn't make much sense for the average player. Of course a player can change the key bindings as they wish to accommodate their individual game-play nevertheless the basic settings should be standard across all vehicles. I was so accustomed to using the (T) key as Battleship Repair key that when I moved up to Tier 5 in stead of repairing I kept launching my scout plane instead of fixing my ship, which wouldn't have happened if the key layout was the same for all Tiers. Hope this feedback helps........ Happy Gaming!
  10. arcyaxiom

    ship and module comparison

    (It could juat be that I have not found a way to do this yet so help is welcome) In world of tanks garage you can quite easily compare the stats of vehicles and modules by click them and it brings up a window which remains persistent, allowing you to view the stats in that window while you continue to browse your garage/tech tree comparing the information against other vehicle/module stats. In world of warships it seems you can only see information by hovering your cursor over and the information box is not persistent so you cannot make comparisons between various upgrades or ships, for example checking range, damage and r.o.f between two ships with 14 inch guns to see where they differ. With the limited ships and modules currently in game this isn't a huge issue but later on certainly it would be a great feature to have. p.s. it seems strange to have designed the whole interface including stats/profile and especially the end battle results from scratch considering how much of an improvement world of tanks has made over the years. Why has WoWS not simply taken that interface and adapted it? I gather they are separate development teams but doubling their efforts seems like wasted time and resources to me and leaves the players with a less enjoyable, less intuitive (coming from WoT to another Wargaming product to find it is quite different to navigate) and less functional interface in my opinion.
  11. Knerd

    Some interface feedback.

    Post game stats. I can't find a way to see them if i die in a battle and leave game. If i miss the little note in the lower right cornor of the port screen, i just can't find a way to look at how i played the game. Make it more WoT like, where you can call back them notes, and examin the post game stats in detail from the port screen. ​Player panels. ​They should be on by default. Make them more WoT like, in the maner so that you can switch between seeing player names or ship names, tier and class or both or none. ​​ Great game by the way.
  12. VelocityTracer

    World of money grinding

    One thing i have noticed about World of Warships is the increased income of credits and the extra rewards for doing well, even on a defeat, which has been a nice change of pace from the other game where income is decided based on how the team performs as a whole. But there is still that dark cloud looming over the economy, if you want to upgrade your ship, progress to the next, or generally want to re-buy an old ship because you ran out of Port-slots. Selling price is also severely reduced from the price you bought the ship for Upgrades for ships in the higher tiers have a tendency of costing more than a ship as a whole, take the last hull upgrade on the Izumo for example, it almost costs as much as the tier 7 Colorado So in hindsight we're back to square one, World of Tanks pricetags for upgrades and at quadruple the price for a new ship. And then there is that decade long XP grind which should be covered in a stand-alone topic of itself
  13. procrastinatingStudent

    how would you prefer the monthly calendar

    I had a quick look at the Na forums and saw a poll about how people would like to see the monthly calendar and it maybe a good idea to find out what people like, plus it give WG some nice feedback for them do do what they wish. I personally would like it on both, i like the NA version on their portal.
  14. 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.
  15. majogl

    Normandie sucks

    I hate this ship. The accuracy sucks. I get it, it has to if the ship has 12 guns. But when I hit a colorado, broadside, point blank with 9 shells, I expect to do at least 20 k damage and at least one citadel. But NO. I get 6 overpens and 3 shatters. Did noone test these ships WG?! Fix this ASAP!
  16. Hello everyone. Now the bulk of King of the Sea V is done, it is time to start gathering feedback. We have this questionnaire for you to fill out (if you want) we are trying to get both the viewer and player opinions, so we can optimize in the future. So if you tuned in to a few matches, please do leave your opinion! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SBAAL7icjI6zoZUCmtLvQemVy-OQpFpLgZdUCUFw1b4/edit?usp=drive_web Just take 5 minutes to fill it out, it helps a great deal. Thanks in advance The KotS Admin Team
  17. Mr_Bjornel

    How does 0.3.1. sounds?

    I would like to give just my personal feedback about the sound changes in last patch. In most cases the new sounds are really great. I love the cannon firing explosions a lot. But the sound of getting the ribbon changed to the worse. Which is a shame because that is quite prominent sound during the game. Also when I am turning off my anti air, the voice is borderline annoying. The last thing I noticed may be a bug .. sometimes I get this long sound similar to the sound of incoming shell. Even though nobody is firing at me. It can happen from the very start. Sometimes this noise can be heard only on one side of the ship .. and when I move my camera to the other side it disappears. So pretty please bring back the old ribbon sound
  18. I am not a fan, i am a gamer. I look at a monitor screen almost 24/7 and it's not even my job or workplace. I am a gamer. After many years in the imaginary worlds of video-gaming, i find myself compelled to live in virtual worlds that are artistically beautiful, so i can be drawn further in the rabbit hole so i can transform myself to something else. It is important so, that the game has some aspects made out of efficiency, comfort-ability, replay-ability (since it's all about Multiplayer right now (and that means PvE as PvP also)) and that the game manages to express a level of liveliness. Not an easy task, i grant you that. But even the almost empty old world of Riven equalized that by the mysterious and the anticipation and puzzles. There's always a way to do it by remaining authentic in your motives to do so. But how can a more action type game do it? Well, i think we can draw examples by other AAA titles. The serious case of Battlefieling...Probably the most bumpy launches ever. Yet, now, they managed to give the polished it should have when launched. I am impressed by the level of optimization they acieved eventually. Considering everything the game and every map offers. Have you played Paracel Storm? These weather effects on my headphones make me look outside and scream, "Mom close the windows!". Uhm," honey close the windows?". Afterwards they added more and more UI enchantments and the level of customization you can do is now, for me, an example for others to follow. If there is a milestone on UI customization that should be mentioned as perfect, it is BF4's. So, Paracel Storm. 64 players. Weathers effects, helicopters, Jets, Boats, explosions everywhere and the game runs smoothly. The sea is almost merciless, you can see it, hear, feel it. The sea is real! No, but close enough i would say. Yet, they are Dice right? They have the tools, the budget etc. I should not compare maybe. I can't help it though. Why not strive for great? Why mediocre is the aim? I love the ships detail and work, how they move, turn, shoot. Excellent work. Yet, so many things this game is lacking and so obvious. Why is noone talking about them? Isn't feedback the main way to improve? I often hear the words "positive" and "negative" and i think it limits our understanding. It constrains our ability to, well, evolve in a way. There is feedback. That's it. When Elon Musk was asked how did he accomplished all the things he did, his answer was, "I listen to negative feedback. I think most people don't do it". We think, "this is rage, don't think of it" and we miss the opportunity to learn. Yes, learn. Brain=learning. Achieving=learning. Feedback=learning and improving. Even the negative feedback can provide some knowledge. I watched the stillness of the sea from up close. It's actually more like jelly (a sweet, clear, semisolid, somewhat elastic spread or preserve made from fruit juice and sugar boiled to a thick consistency). It doesn't feel like sea really. I was disappointed by that. I remember from CBT even people asked/suggested transparent Mini-Map. Nothing yet. In general the UI is probably one of the worst i have ever seen. With 0 level of customization. Many times i try to read info on my screen and it's too small or too large or blending in with the environment. Ship info on my bottom left is lacking as well. Info about my armament in the bottom middle is lacking in many aspects too. The CD's are important for any and every torpedo tube individually. More detailed analysis of the ships in the port, would add a a level of quality. Similar as when i hover over a ship and i read it;s history facts. You'll be impressed as to how much these small touches add to the quality of something. Every part of the ship i should be able to remove it, rotate it and read about it. Tool-tips about everything. Balancing issues. Of course, no "Premium Ammo" can give a game quality. On the contrary, i do believe this, and most games using in-game shops that offer that level of inequality will always have such low base community to support them. Yes, WoT achieved something a bit bigger but many people like firecrackers too. It's not Unreal Tournament, is it? In this case though i have to say that, "everything is OP". Great work on balancing the ships, i have to admit. But, Signals? Juliet Charlie offers -100% to the risk of magazine detonation. Well there, that's a secret the enemy won't even think, don't you think? It;s not a secret though, it's on sell in the Shop! What? I hope not. I haven't been watching the offers in the Shop. I hope they stop the signals, soon. Let the players play on equal terms. They'll enjoy it more without them knowing it. In general, i think in-game Shops and micro-transactions are a carcinoma in gaming. A way to exploit people's imaginary need for greed. Pre-orders too. Like a carrot in-front of the donkey and someone has a purpose. I wonder why and who's holding it.. Commander Skills. There is a PG rating that must be applied to every game. Thus, limiting the audience and consumer base. Or, if low enough the rating, larger the consumer base that can buy/play it. So, Commander i would expect them to have more humane skills. Can you find a distinction to say, Modules from Upgrades and Modifications and Commander skills? They all look the same to me. But for a Commander at least i would expect something like, "Survival Instinct: At 10% HP left on your ship you gain the Survival Instinct Perk, all CD's -50% for 25 seconds!". Also add the risk/reward aspect. Another skill next to it that is similarly compelling but you must choose the type your Commander will have. That adds character to him. He is important. Then i can actually maybe learn his name, he is important damn it. "High Alert" and "Jack of All Trades". I mean, really? Identical to the core. There must be more imagination that this, somewhere. Anyway, .. -No Colorblind option. Any game that doesn't has t from it;s Beta phase even is a major negative thing for me. -Games that have the "Co-Op" option there just for the name. Smite does that too. If these modes you have are Co-Op, then you are not Developers. This is not Co-Op. Even BF3 had Co-Op missions. It's not that complicated or sophisticated for that matter. Come on people. -Camouflage, "the disguising of military personnel, equipment, and installations by painting or covering them to make them blend in with their surroundings." That's s the real purpose of Camouflage. Yep, sorry. -Something i ask myself is, "Does a Developer play the game as free player?". He created a f2P game means he wants people to play it without money. And, he should make his Shop, if he has to, in a way that it offers the same things to both kinds of player, isn't it? cause when we say "kind of players", we discriminate, is it not? As a Developer, did you started with a Tier I ship and how did you reached to Tier X? Did you enjoyed it? then play in God mode (we love those aren't we?). Is it the same? And these are just a few because i play since CBT as i mentioned. I just created this account since it offers so much more to start again with the Curse offer they had it's laughable really. This discrimination, unbelievable. I won't even mention what gifts the Alpha testers got. This is not a negative review by any means. I consider it feedback. I'm too old and rational to think otherwise now. The time i spend to think, compare, write, re-write, change, make corrections and play the game, i mean, really. My worry is how much of these the Developers read and take into account. There's always the case i may be wrong in a lot of things. Thing is, i am not afraid to be wrong. We learn from personal mistakes, not from other peoples mistakes. I'm not a tech savvy. So to end this, i am not asking anyone to read and think before posting a reply. Freedom od speech means, be yourself really. Ye, be yourself. Good luck and fair seas. [by the way, i'll keep playing the game on and off. It's a nice game, i wish it would be what it could be and it could be something much more definitely and also, the title is a Cinema Sins reference, yes. Cheers]
  19. DarwinAwards1859

    The Ingenious Ramblings of a Madman

    When i actually care about a game i take notes on it. Really, pen and paper. That is called "Feedback" in my head. And, the Producer of the product should want that, he should be excited honestly to evolve his product. I would assume. So, my point is i'll be speaking in general terms and that is not good really. But as i said, i stopped caring about these Devs, their games and their marketing abilities. Well, they have some designing abilities but they are Advertisers more than anything, not gamers by any means. -There are maps too small for the Tier they are selected for. Around Tier V-VI some maps are just too small for the range these ships have. No one have given you these feedback? You don't play the game and haven't encounter that? -Matchmaking should recognize/distinguish the Platoons/Groups with big Tier difference and Match-make accordingly. Just keystrokes...on keyboard...algorithms you have been taught...if that, then that etc. or something like that. The gameplay experience of people depends on that. Stop blaming the people creating the platoons, and go to the root of the problem. The Developer. He designs the freaking Matchmaking and how it arranges ships and their Tiers. You find the solution, not that it's hard, but you are being payed, you have salary, find the solution. -Now. I see Minekaze has 7km torp range. I remember it at 10km last time i played with it. What happened? Tier V Furutaka has 10km. The CA more than the DD of the same Tier in the same Nation Tech Tree?!?! Reason? Reasoning? I don't follow updates so i don't know, it just came as a surprise. Was it too good to be a non-Premium ship? Cleve feels ok, dunno if they made any nerf there. -So, i was reading the Q&A, before they locked it down to find a "better way" to answer consumer/player questions and there was a good question. Something like, "Do you afraid World of Warships" may fail as World of Warplanes did?". The Developer answer was something like, "as much as you afraid if something will happen to you on a daily basis". First off, it's nice the acknowledgement they have, about their failed product. Yet, ofc, he didn't asked as to why this attempt of "World of..." failed. Don't you need feedback to learn were you failed? To, erhm, correct the previous mistakes? I can actually tell you as to why "World of Tanks" succeed. Well, it's the genre. If it was, say a MOBA, i bet you in that crowded genre it would not had the same success. Then, it was the appeal it gave because ppl with money to throw away knew they could have things others and F2P accounts could not. We all want to feel unique and precious snowflakes. From Premium ammo, to Premium ships, to flags you can purchase and have infinite etc. etc. Failure though is something you haven't encountered and the sign, the feedback was there. Cause it's not that you make bad games (well i personally hate the Graphics Engine you use and that your games lack depth and content and that's your standard unfortunately), you make nice games with very beautiful menus. Is it enough? I guess having one milking cow is indeed enough. Here we could actually say "Roll Credits" like i am watching Cinema Sins but, you should look into it. -Since this is my last post, or feedback whatever, i'll say that watching the Development from CBT till now, i would of hoped more resources spend on content rather than marketing. When you create something good, something with quality, consumers will recognize it. Fallout needs no marketing, no marketing tricks either. You can Clooney or Brad Pitt and say nothing. Surprise them! Cause you know you have created something people appreciate. Anyway, i am watching Bethesda too and i know they listen to feedback at least. Same as some other big Developers start doing eventually. Again, you can (yes you can indeed) have a Cash Shop with just cosmetics. Mindblowing isn't it? Create something good, balanced, providing nice gameplay experience and add only cosmetics to the shop. Costumization items etc. PC gaming is all about that. Again, i have mention it before, let them figure it out i guess. It's so simple, but i guess the lack of creativity hinders everything else. -I am intrigued to know though, how the Ocean map came to be. They had a team meeting for the maps. I am imagining now...and someone said, "Hey, let's throw in just sea." They looked at each other and someone said, "You think? Hmmm, it feels kinda lazy man" or "Well, Ocean is not calm always you know". Well, they prolly said something like, "Brilliant!", but i want to believe reason and logic perhaps sneaked in.... I get that weather effects can be put only in Battlefield, i mean they are hard to the CPU,GPU and the likes. I was thinking though, i would like to ask the WoT veterans and intellectuals, do they have a plain dust map there? You know, from the one end to the other just dirt. Because the main argument is, many battles took place in Ocean. Yes, in Ocean, not in big lakes. Further more, this is an arcade game. Historical accuracy is actually minimal. Only to the model of the ship. No historical missions. If there are historical maps, you have to find ways to make the game feel their impact. Add the real lore in-game. Again, you are being paid to do that. -Again. EU servers are dying and it's only in infancy....EU Forums have no Feedback subforum. All the things that have been mentioned really, from the pricing to anything. Personally i think 50 and 60 Euro for a single ship is a ripoff. Adding some premium and doubloons is just keystrokes on a keyboard for me. 50-60Euro is a AAA title. You have to be blind, ignorant, or filthy rich to buy it. And if you are filthy rich i don't know why you are playing this... -My advise is, start listening to "Devil's Advocate". That's the best feedback. What you think as "negative" is the best thing you can have. I have already mentioned it, so i won't elaborate here. It's an industry, you can research, find evidence, patterns etc. Anyway, don't even worry about AW though, they follow your footsteps in most cases. Again though, i am impressed by the gamer following on games like these. Blizzard put out Overwatch, a game that offers absolutely nothing new and ppl went crazy. What, you haven't seen anything similar, really? Well designed yes but, cmon. I don't know, i think all feedback helps. People that are thinking, taking notes, research etc. are not trolls. You have to unblock your mindset from the norm. Stop jumping onto trend wagons, think for yourself. Less than a week left that i'll be around, playing this game i mean. The reason i play it, btw, is that i love the ship handling. It's quite different from anything else. -Oh, which reminds me. You could actually make the ships a bit more customization. Think MMO. Gamers love to tailor their character. same for vehicles, tanks or ships. You, and everyone really in this genre, Gaijin, Obsidian and whatnot, you all put locks on everything. That, tells me you are not gamers and you are unimaginative too. Sorry, i need to be honest if there is anything to come out positive. All modules could be so much more, branch in so many different ways. Anyway, doesn't matter since it's not going to happen. You know, you shouldn't take things for granted. In any area of life, from our social conformities to relationships, to gaming etc. Yes, things change in gaming too. Things will change in gaming too. Things will affect gaming too...There is only one constant, one universal law...things change. That's evolution, change. As David Bowie btw wrote about... I currently live in Greece and as Merkel and the whole Banking complex said, they'll move Greece closer to Africa so all the third world countries will be in one place. I love the idea personally, it feels closer to home. ;) So long, and thanks for all the fish. (I mean, is it so hard to listen to feedback? Interact with the consumer base? Make quality games with depth and content? Or you just say, "Hey, you have money, i'll listen to you my russian amigo". What is your target audience? Oh man, and Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and Mr. Freeman are your creations... Who would of known, right?)
  20. Worker42

    Match Maker

    I've played 538 battles, so far, during the open beta test. During that time I've inflicted 14,345,940 damage (26,665 per match average) and sunk 415 enemy ships (while shooting down over 500 aircraft). I've been sunk 406 times, which gives a ratio of 1.02/1 in my favour. I own every premium ship available, apart from Warspite and the two pre-order destroyers, some of which have favourable match making. Despite this I only have a winning ratio of 42.5%. What do Wargaming think is wrong with the match maker, that it produces such an aberration? Surely even inactive bots should hover around 50% win rate after such a large sample of games? I welcome the plans to match aircraft carriers strictly to their equals, and the introduction of ranked battles also seems a good idea, but I think there is something fundamentally wrong with the match maker at a deeper level. Surely after more than 500 battles, and generally above average performances, my win ratio should at least be on the positive side of 50%; 500+ battles must be more than enough for any anomalies in the MM system to have off-set each other. So what's actually wrong? I think this is a great game, but I fear that it may ultimately be ruined unless Wargaming address this fundamental issue ASAP. Thanks and enjoy!
  21. Sonic_157

    Feedback Friday Q&A

    Hello all. One week ago WG started a thread in Reddit where players could ask things about the game and a selection of them would be answered the next week. The link for the thread is this: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/3v77yf/feedback_fridays_are_here/ Yesterday the first wave of answers appeared. I collected all of them and posted them here, so we can have a reference and a more easy read. The answers are in bold. -When is Murmansk, Atlanta, and Ishizuchi getting their camos that the premium shop accidentally leaked awhile back? 0.5.2 -What is WG's opinion on high tier (T8-10) balancing, especially on CV? Do you feel the situation now is completely fine, completely unbalanced or what? Short answer is no, balance is not perfect. Long answer is a little more complicated  According to our stats CVs are now performing at a balanced level compared to other classes (excluding outliers that we need to address individually) BUT we don’t like how it feels to play. CVs are not comfortable to play at the moment. Ok so our current feelings on the other classes at the higher tiers right now, BBs are kings and performing exceptionally well. Cruisers right now are under performing. Destroyer performance have improved significantly over the last few patches but are still not quite where we want them to be. We are working to address these balance issues in 0.5.2 but this will be an ongoing process as the game continues to evolve so please keep sending us feedback! In 0.5.2 we are adding the ability for Cruiser’s Heal ability to include 33% of citadel damage to increase their survivability after heavy damage. For Destroyers, we are decreasing torpedo detectability and reducing the maneuverability of BBs and CVs BUT the high tier acquisition modernization is being reworked and will increase torpedo detectability and the maximum auto spot range. Again, balance is something that we look very closely at and we need your feedback, so keep it coming captains! -Regarding CV, the attack command queue (ability to queue up attack targets of fighters) was removed quite some times ago. Will that be added back in the future or will it be discarded? It was very buggy and we needed to remove it. It may return in the future once it’s issues are fixed. -Regarding premium ships, will there exist any way to educate new players on how to play before allowing join high tier battle? (AKA. fresh new player buying Atago) It’s a great question and we are continuing to think about how to do this. -Regarding events. Here in Reddit we noticed that WG regional offices handle them very differently. Do you expected to continue this model of operation?” Yes, each region is unique and we want to provide each community something they will enjoy. -Will we ever see interesting new game modes like night battles (meaning DARK, not maps illuminated by a supermoon), or harsh weather conditions including waves, fog etc.? We are working on new modes and in effects but we aren’t ready to announce anything until we get further in development of these types of features. I don’t want to get your hopes up too soon -More maps are really needed. The way it is right now, it's the same maps over and over again, often many times in a row. More maps will becoming each update! The last 2 patches have added 2 maps each and 0.5.2 will have 2 new maps as well. We have been focusing on high tier maps as players spend more battles at those tiers to get to the next ship. -Have you looked into the HE complains we've had here recently? Since a few patches ago small calibre HE has been doing far less damage and on USDDs been setting far less fires than expected. We reduced the chance of fire in 0.4.2 and it looks statistically ok from our perspective. There is some extra skills involved in lighting fires now as you need to hit lightly armored parts of a ship. Try aiming for the super structure, bow and aft of a ship to have a better chance to light them on fire. There was also an issue with citadels in a previous patch that was addressed but it might have affected your play. -IJN DDs also need some love on their guns. Now they are outmatched in every aspect: worse torps, worse guns, worse survivability.And please remove that frustrating perma spot of torps by planes. There are some torpedo changes coming in 0.5.2 as previously mentioned. As for the IJN torpedo progression, this is due to balancing. What does improve significantly is speed over the tiers and this is a very important part of how strong a torpedo is. No plans for that ship at the moment Also seems like we should Nerf Umikaze? /Troll -Are you thinking about improving the economy on higher Tiers (VIII+)? Because, if I'm playing really well, I can make up to 180k Credits in Tier V-VII. But at IX or X, even if I would play superb(my highest is only a Tier VII) , if I get sunk, I will pay so much... Do the devs at WG have plans to improve this situation? 0.5.2 is re-balancing this. -Do you still plan of changing the max. caliber below 155mm for the Advanced Firing training captain perk in an upcoming patch? We feel this perk is not working as intended and we have some hunches BUT we need to examine are data to confirm if this an issue and how we should address it. -Do you plan a rebalancing the penetration and dispersion values for high tier USN BBs compared to their IJN counterparts at any point in the future? Right now we are ok with the balance between the BB pairs at high tiers except for Yamato and Montana. Yamato is performing nicely but Montana is not quite as competitive.
  22. Ahoj Sailors, I would like to provide feedback on the in-game interface that displays you're performance by displaying all kinds of lovely icons. Problem is when you are doing all kind of things its clutters the screen so much it gets in the way of gameplay as well as gets visible over the team panel screen. So you are getting icons for hits, citadells, fire, torp hit, flooding, capture, not capture, number of dolphins rammed, and pretty much everything... So what would be great is either make the the icons smaller like round ones or something or allow in setting to have less displayed during in-game screens please.
  23. Advertising: huge text wall incoming! Guys I'm so sad...why would you ask? Because wg keep earing to that idiot blob of noobs ( in his real term, newbies) that after 10 battles think they know everything of the game and can start shouting sentences everywhere. ...they are making this game too retard proof. But is better than i present myself: I'm an alpha tester since January ( played both the beta weekends ) I had almost 800 battles in alpha, where i reached the yamato and the tier 9 of every other available class and an overall 53% of win rate. During the cbt i played 1600 games, and i reached all the tier 10 but but cvs of both lines ( tier 9, where i had 10% more avg damage than sharana) and the ijn dds to tier 6, I ended up with 58% of win rate. Now in obt i have all the lines to at least tier 5 and overall wr of 61% ( it was 63 until 2 days ago..sigh) Then, going back on topic: when i started playing in alpha the game was a real challenge, and after good volleys and torpedo runs you where happy and it was a really satisfactorily. Right now, even if i still love this game and on some degree wg is pointing in a good direction ( should i say sail?) it is not as much fun to play as before, why? Because i don't feel that I'm sailing in huge battleship or cruisers that weight thousands of tons and because the game is becaming more a point and click shooter. ~End of the rant~ Now i would start my suggestion for wg: go back to the old days, with a bit of tweaking. I have better to explain what I'm saying, lets analyse what changes i would like to see: CV ( with 4.0-4.1 lodout in mind) -Nerf the planes survivability of 15-20%, i think that should be enough ( maybe 20 is too much) because in my opinion planes should go down a bit faster. I'm sorry for the low tier, but we can't buff low tier aa, we tried it ( someting like +40% aa power buff ) in early cbt, and it ended that low tier cvs hadn't planes left after just 8-9 minutes and lost half of their planes before the drop, that is just too punishing for a ship with 30 planes -buff planes speed of every plane of 15-20%, to balance the hp nerf, so good player with blitz action will have less losses tha slower and less skilled ones -Scale torps damage, I'm sorry guys, but i can't admit that tbs from tier 4 to 10 have the same torps damage, and they improve just in speed and keep up with aa in hp, i would like to see something like Tier 4 4000-4500 damage/torp Tier 5 same damage as tier 4, but with big improvement in speed and hp Tier 6 6000 damage/torp small improvement from tier 5 planes in terms of speed Tier 7 like tier 5 same damage as tier 6, but with big improvement in speed and hp Tier 8 8000 dmg/t like tier 6 small improvement from tier 7 planes in terms of speed Tier 9 ( i think you get it) same damage as tier 8, but with big improvement in speed and hp Tier 10 10.000 d/t small improvement in everything from tier 9 -lower the flooding % from the current 50-60% to a more reasonable 20-25% - having done that above, give us back the old ijn spread, so that skilled player can have a big edge over not so good player, but thanks to the scale damage a oneshot should be not possible anymore even for unicums - buff Db damage, scaling it like Tbs, from 4k to 10k, and give U.S. planes the ap bombs - buff Db accuracy, especially with manual drop, like in alpha ( when i did manage to hit with 18 bombs with 21 dbs in one run to a non moving Yamato), it's ridiculus that with manual drop i can't hit a non moving and non armed Midway ( tried in training room) with more than half of dbs. - give planes a proper turning radius, like you did with dbs ( just with them..I don't know why) in alpha. Get rid of those ufo like manouvers. -give reward for shooting down planes, so that fighters lodout are a viable option Thats should be all of cvs, in my opinion this would cut the damage output of cvs by about 20%, should give them more skill ceiling and more balance between them and other classes. Next class BATTLESHIP - give them 15-20% more accuracy - go back to alpha's rudder shift time: nerf them giving at least 50% slower rudder: the bbs should have between 24 and 36 secs shift time (so 12 and 18 secs from neutral to full port-starboard), not 14-22 like now, you should plan everything ahead, you should feel the fact that you are driving a 50-60k thousands tonnes monster, in alpha ships like yamato and amagi had respectively 32 and 33.5 shift time, we would get rid of those speedboat-like turning. You shouldn't be able to avoid torps if you have spotted them by yourself, that would be a huge buff for dds and a more realistic fact ( even if is an arcade game) and an advantage to aware players. Cvs should not be a big problem, if we take into account the changes to cvs i posted above. ( you should also work as a fleet) - give us back old shells fly time, where fuso's shells at max range (21 kms) nedded 22.5 secs to land, not 16 as now, this, coupled with the rudder nerf and accuracy buff, would give the real skill both for who fire long range, in leading targhets, and also for who dodge the incoming fire, because you have to watch out and start manouvering asap when you see the shells incoming. - get back to old cbt 2ndaries accuracy ( the alpha ratio was too op imho), going close to a bb should be something scaring for everyone Thats it, with that changes you should feel the power of this mighty monsters, but you should be very aware of your sorrounding and that would help a lot the poor dds, remeber that as wg stated, bbs are now for everyone. Next: CRUISER - change the aa barrage ability: it should last, like in cbt, 60 seconds and not 40 as now, 1 minute wait time is a long enough time span that usually a cv player will give up targheting you, but on the other hand should be an ability that need 5-10 seconds to activate, so that if you are tunnel visioning and don't see enemy planes incoming, you can't ruin their drop with pressing a single button, also there you should be able to plan a bit ahead. - we need to see a proper difference in power between 150 and 203 mms guns, both in penetration, power and flight time, so that levelling up has got a real sense, like we have with bbs guns - nerf he fire chance of 30-40% -give the sonar a proper usefulness, it should be a real choise between aa ability and sonar, the proximity spot should go from 3.5 to 5 kms, and the torps spotting distance to 2.5 to 3 kms. - nerf rudder shift time a bit ( 2 for CL-3 secs CA) Last, but not the least, those little buggers that need a lot of love: DDS - nerf the rudder shift time of 1 secs ( from 3 to 4 secs avg) to all the dds, like now it seems to play with motorboat - buff torpedo reload time of hight tier (8+) of 10-15% - nerf reload time of low tier (2-5)torps reload time of 10-20% - the smoke screen should work for 30/40 secs for ijn-us respectively and last for other 60-100 secs depending on the tier - buff smoke screen reload time form 160-240 secs ( premium/normal) to 120/180 - torpedo spotting range should be caliber based, not speed based, that is right now BS. It should be something like 1 kms for 450mm torps, 1.5 for 533 and 1.8 for 610, so that having faster torps give you a real advantage other than less lead over the targhet. This will also help low tier player to avoid torps ( right now 450 mms torps are spotted at 0.7 kms) - buff dds spottability from the air of 20% This should give a bigger chance to dds to survive, and more damage done thanks to the rudder nerf of bbs. For all the classes : -nerf full stop time required, see a bbs that can go from 30 knots to 10 in just 3-4 secs is ridiculous - nerf turning radius of 5% for dds an cvs 10% for bbs 15-20% for cl-ca respectively So thats are my thoughts ...what do you think guys? Sorry again for this wall, but i would talk about everything
  24. SFCGunny313

    Self-Policing the Forums

    I am appealing to the forum community. Recently, there seems to be an increase in abusive, abrasive, elitist, pretentious, and generally unhelpful comments. As addressed in some other threads, the game is suffering with overall numbers for the player base. If we want this game to thrive as a community, we need to be better representatives for the game, particularly when new players decide to post a question or seek assistance. Referring to players as "baddies" or "tomatoes" or other similar derogatory terms will not attract new players or help retain them. Posting snarky, sarcastic and generally unhelpful replies will not attract or retain players. If you feel compelled to do so, please, go visit reddit.com and you'll fit right in there. As a community, we need to do better. We cannot and should not rely on the community managers to undertake this task.
  25. QuickAndDirtyOne

    Eure alternativen Ideen zum RNG

    Hallo... Vorweg: Das hier ist mein Erster Beitrag. Bitte tötet mich nicht wenn ich irgendwelche Regeln verletzte die ich mir nicht durchgelesen habe. Ich gehe von der Prämisse aus, dass eine Abhängigkeit vom Zufall in Player vs Player Situationen die Unterschiede in der Geschicklichkeit verschwimmen lässt. Diese Unschärfe sorgt dafür das der Ausgang des Spiels oft als Glück oder Pech empfunden wird und nicht als Ergebnis eines Kräftemessens. Der Wettbewerbs-Charakter des Spiels wird meiner Meinung nach durch RNG gemindert. Das ist schlecht. -Der Schaden/Detonationen/Ausfälle/Brände/Lecks Es kann sein das ich das falsch wahrnehme, aber die Projektile/Torpedos würfeln die Schadensumme aus. Bei so einem komplexen Panzerungsmodell sollte es auch möglich sein ein Schadensmodell mitzuliefern. Zitadellen gibt es ja auch schon. -Die Streuung der Projektile Die Streuung sollte nicht zufällig sein, sondern jedes Schiff könnte 3 oder 4 feste rotierende Streumuster haben, auf die man sich einstellen kann. Was sagt ihr dazu? Was würdet ihr in der Sache RNG ändern?