Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'meta'.



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. 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.
  2. My clan happened to be lucky enough to have enough players during the early stages of clan battles to climb into Typhoon 1 quickly. I lead our shotcalling for most of that time and could observe the development of the meta game from start to now. Since there the season is slowly coming to an end but many teams are still looking to fight there way up, I decided to give it my take on how the clan battle metagame has developed, which ships and lineups are used, and some general experiences we made. Let us start with an overview of the ships. Some writers have tried to rank ships in a tier list, but we found that almost all ships are played successfully (although some ship classes allow for more versatility than others) since they offer different strengths and weaknesses. Only a few happen to be "strictly" inferior to other choices. I am sure many of you will have differing opinions, but the viability of ships turned out to be fairly conclusive in the higher leagues. Let's have a look: Battleships Common picks: Montana, Conqueror Inferior picks: Yamato, Kurfürst BBs tend to be rather similar, so the gradient from top to bottom is not that great. But because they all compete for a very similar role, small differences have a great impact in how optimal of a choice they are. You can certainly make all work for you to some degree, but you probably won't reach peak performance with the lower two. Montana: Montana is the currently most played BB simply due to her firepower. You want to be able to deliver 10-20k salvos through cruiser bows and punish any broadside. Against DDs you may get 8-10k dmg volleys as they turn away. These are the things Montana does the most reliably. Being able to punish enemy BBs for reckless turns is plenty enough, since they will rarely be your primary targets: Conqueror: Conqueror holds the edge in moving up to more aggressive positions due to her concealment and heal, giving her more opportunities to exert pressure on enemy positions without having to fully commit. In return she suffers from much less reliable firepower than Montana. Her HE is useful for when there is an opportunity to focus down the enemy battleship, but that is rather situational. Yamato: When compared to Montana, Yamato's better accuracy and shell parameters do not make up for the loss of three guns. The ability to overmatch battleship bows is hardly relevant since bowcamping between BBs is a rarity - you will only get caught up in a hail of torpedoes and cruiser HE. Yamato especially suffers from a weakness in turning, since her turret rotation is slow and her citadel the most exposed of all T10 BBs. Yamato players tend to have to play very carefully and lose quite some power for it. Kurfürst: The fast shell arcs and hydro are a benefit, but overall her weaknesses (concealment, maneuverability, size, dispersion) are just a little too much to consider her as a valid contender. Aganist the potent HE spam you tend to encounter, it can be difficult to get a Kurfürst into effective range as her armour scheme does not offer much of an advantage in the clan battle environment. The poor maneuverability around islands can also be a surprisingly relevant issue. Destroyers Common picks: Gearing, Z-52 Rare tech choices: Shimakaze, Khabarovsk Pointless: Grozovoi While there are clear cookiecutter favourites amongst DDs, there still is some variety in tech choices. Gearing: Simply good at everything. Good at knifefighting, has solid torps with long range, and the best smoke. This makes her good in flanking positions or central open waters (for example in Mountain Range), where she can hold off enemy DDs and her smoke lets her establish team strongpoints outside enemy radar range. Z-52: Z-52 trades the smoking capability for a long-range hydro, which can be very useful for shutting down caps. This ability is especially used on Hotspot and Islands of Ice. If an enemy DD enters the cap, the hydro will lock them down behind an island, enabling allies to get flanking positions. In open waters, the limited 10.5 km torpedo range is a noteworthy disadvantage since you rarely get that close. Shimakaze: Other than in random battles, Shima in clan battles commonly relies on 20 km torpedoes. Her ability in knifefights tends to be underestimated quite a bit, but in the end she still doesn't compare favourably in this role. Shimakaze lineups often attempt to take control of the open waters to then focus down the enemy battleship by combining the torpedo threat with long-range HE spam (good role for the Conqueror). I found that teams have learned to contest the spaces between caps more heavily instead of focussing on the caps only, which puts a damper on this strategy. Famously OMNI Strangers used the 20 km/gunboat Shima in this role in the early days of CBs. Khabarovsk: Khaba's main role is taking caps quickly. On Mountain Range for example it's nice not to have to set a ship aside for too long to take your A/B cap. Afterwards her speed lets her gather information, or she can linger around an enemy cap to threaten to take it while the rest of the team pushes another flank. On EU I have only seen LOBUZ run it frequently, but to a respectable success. Grozovoi: Grozovoi's strengths just don't fit very well into a clan battle environment, whereas her weaknesses (especially the large size and poor turning, which leave her an easy target) are devastating. In random battles she can farm great amounts of gun damage by firing from outside enemy gun angles or from a smoke, but in CB you won't get these opportunities very often. She doesn't have a good smoke, she runs an immense risk of getting absolutely wrecked in open water fights since you always have to count on supporting ships, and her torpedoes are nigh useless. Cruisers Backbone: Hindenburg, Des Moines Supplementary: Moskva, Zao Stylistic choice: Henri IV Tech pick: Minotaur Cruisers are where variety truly strikes. There may be cruisers commonly forming the backbones of all common lineups, but no cruiser is without a useful role. Hindenburg: Hindenburg is the main fighting choice of virtually every lineup. She deals absurd damage and has great tankiness, which allow her to control large zones by raw power. On EU, especially WGP2W went very heavy on Hindenburgs, running 3-4. Des Moines: Des Moines is a prime choice to lock down caps and is often met on the "neutral" C-caps on Mountain Range and Hotspot. She tends to hug her island waifu especially tight, since she's a close/mid range DPS monster but very vulnerable to long range fire. So you usually want to have some spotting and deterrence in her area to make sure enemies can't get flanking shots on her. Moskva: Long range radar, nice shell arcs, decently tanky. But her damage output is low, she is extremely vulnerable when her broadsides are ever exposed to fire, and can't turn unless she is perfectly covered. She generally plays a similar role to Des Moines but usually has to look out for positions further to the back. Zao: Zao's infamous ability to decide fights between destroyers with her mix of great concealment, awesome arcs, and big HE alpha can be very relevant to some playstyles that look to cripple enemy DDs early. Others use her concealment and speed to put her in flanking positions, either in combination with or as a replacement for a destroyer. Her low HP pool leave her vulnerable in frontal engagements though. Henri IV: She fulfills a similar flanking role to Zao, offering more speed and brute force in exchange for the concealment. Minotaur: The rarest of CB cruisers. The only role I have ever seen her played in was as a stealth radar ship that ambushes destroyers foolish enough to get into her detection range, and zones out all the smarter ones. However this is the style used TWA, who secured #1 EU for a very long time with a no DD/Radar Minotaur lineup On the eternal question of "range vs reload module", I found that Moskva and Hindenburg have a valid choice to make here just like in random battles. In some lineups Moskvas may be forced in positions where they may struggle with range. For Hindenburg it's a question between range for higher damage uptime, and reload for higher damage potential. Our Hindenburg specialist was able to use reload mod to its fullest, while I preferred range when filling in for him to increase pressure on the enemy battleship. For the others it's much more simple: Range for Des Moines and Zao, reload for Henri and Minotaur. Lineups Finally, some commonly used lineups. It turns out that successful lineups generally used either two, one, or zero destroyers. Back when clan battles started some players thought about 3 destroyer/3 cruiser lineups, but those did not stand the test of time. In any case, I think going by destroyer numbers allows for a good broad categorisation. Double DD Lineups Common base: 1 Gearing, 1 Z-52, 1 Hindenburg, 1 Zao, 1 Des Moines, 1 Moskva, 1 Montana. This lineup tries to combine all the different strengths of plain strong ships. You will often find Zao and Gearing form a tag team on one flank, Montana in a central position, and Z-52 with some cruiser support lock down a neutral cap. Our clan used to run this exact lineup a lot for the first month or so, since it is very adaptable and good at reactive play. That makes it tough to win against better teams since it's not very good at forcing the enemy's hand, but very save when playing teams who you expect to beat through individual skill or shotcalling. You can modify this lineup to your preferences by exchanging individual ships. WGP2W for example tweaked their lineup towards firepower and went with 3 Hindenburgs/1 Des Moines for cruisers, which is a smart choice as Z-52 can somewhat replace a radar on many maps. This way you almost have an in-between of a double and single DD lineup . Two DDs give good spotting utility, but you pay with low firepower. You have to set up vision advantages to make up for it. Sometimes this lineup allows you to counter enemy pushes by taking the enemy home cap with a sneaky destroyer. Double DD used to be the the defacto standard in EU for the first few weeks and is still played by good teams occasionally. Single DD Lineups I preferr Gearing with these lineups since you will generally use a double radar setup to lock down one cap. This leaves your DD to set up advanced strongpoints which can crossfire or isolate enemies. Against double DD lineups you can play rather aggressively due to your firepower advantage and you can often win even after losing a cruiser first, but losing your DD may cripple you. Against no DD lineups you have a distinct utility advantage while not falling too far behind in raw force. Overall, single DD lineups are currently the most popular in high ranks. DD-less Lineups Lineups without DDs are quite tricky. Naively played they will get shot at from enemies they cannot effectively retaliate against, and get whittled down. Well played they can zone out enemy spotting at first, then come back from a score deficit with decisive pushes that plain outgun the enemy. I have only ever seen them succeed with a stealthy radar Minotaur to zone or kill destroyers - which turns out to be not so radically different from a destroyer's role, since Minotaur's firepower contribution usually isn't all that important. TWA played this lineup with up to 5 radars (such as 2-3 Des Moines, 1-2 Hindenburg, 1 Moskva, 1 Minotaur) to make up for the loss in utility, but also ran firepower heavy versions with 4 Hindenburgs (which, in my experience, where less successful). Matchups I generally found that having one more destroyer than the enemy is a benefit, but playing 2 vs 0 DDs puts you into too much of a gunfight disadvantage. Overall I preferr the single DD lineups as a compromise between active/aggressive and reactive/passive gameplay. Videos For a glimpse into high level play, I can recommend WGP2W Athothek's youtube channel (he usually plays cruiser, often Hindenburg or Des Moines) and OMNI Flambass' Twitch VODs and Livestreams. Both of them are capable players on persistent top ranking clans. Notes/Edits As WGP2W noted, some of the information is rather old as fewer teams play double DD now (which was the de facto baseline for the first 2-3 weeks in EU, but now is one choice amongst many) and they no longer run the 2 DD/3 Hindenburg style. The question of what setup to choose depends a lot on individual players. One reason we ran the "double DD/one of all" setup for so long was that our Hindenburg player could hardcarry the damage portion. In times when he was less active, we ran into trouble on that front and switched to more damage heavy lineups. Single DD relieves some of the pressure on your cruisers to deal damage, but might require safer DD player. You also might run into pressure in other points as some of your cruisers now have to make due without dedicated destroyer supports. You have to replace information with pressure, and know how to account for plays that you might not be able to spot. On individual play: Keep in mind how many ships on each team are (effectively) engaging the enemy at a given time. When the enemy outnumbers your active ships, your team might be in trouble and you might need to look for a way to get active yourself. If that's not the case, don't freak out about not being in action. You can use the time to hold a key area or to prepare some other maneuver. To get into higher tiers, the first step is not making hasty decisions that get you killed. On individual play II: Learn to hold your fire when you can't win a damage exchange. Too many players engage enemy ships in losing fights for no reason. When two Hindenburgs push your Zao around, the Zao doesn't *have* to shoot back if she can get undected. This is basic stuff both for random and team battles, yet a common error. On range module on Hindenburg: Our Hindenburg player just broke up with me. This overview was originally posted to Reddit.
  3. KapteinSabeltann

    Business as usual - s€$t-post "my team"

    Useless post. But I am getting tired of the meta now. We are stuck in such a rot with aful teams/players that a mediocre player like me looks mlg. Trying to play light cruiser at t8 when the entire team refuses to play - again and again. Being on top of teamboard in t10 matches in a t8 light cruiser. Getting 35% winrate while consistently playing on unicum level is getting old. Just blowing off steam. And I just LOVE having to solocap at t10 in a light cruiser because dds shun the caps like they have a kraken in them... Bonus. Fletcher no joy...
  4. Appadang

    Battleships are now obsolete

    Thanks to the countless streamers and community contributors (you know which) - Battleships are now obsolete and should be removed from the game. We know from history that after the Battle of Midway - Battleships were obsolete and the "Age of Carriers" came about. This is now (due to the before mentioned people) "mirrored" ingame with the fact that Cruisers are now "Forced" to take over the role of "main line ship" / Damage sponge / Damage dealer / etc. Quickly followed by Destroyers and Carriers. Players using Battleships (INCLUDING GERMAN) are now too afraid of doing any sort of combat activity and as a result have looked to towards the Russian Trawlers for inspiration and are now "fishing" at the back of the map. Players using Cruisers (As mentioned above) are now beeing forced to deal the damage, be the AA support, (THE RARE FEW who have the IQ for it) to hunt DD's, be damage sponges, roleplay proper battleships, scout, cap, etc, etc. You mention it - Cruisers are "Forced" to do it. Players using Destroyers are (amazingly) still destroyers....sneeking around dropping torps freely without hindrance because no (Or VERY FEW) cruisers has the intelligence to use Hydro (only radar because.....magic) and ofcourse - capping. Carrier players take 3rd place because its not fully balanced yet (US vs Jap) but they can still perform very well - yet be very unforgiving if you happen to be 1 of those who play with the map turned off. So..... Here is what Wargaming can / should do in order to make this game fit the current play style (Or Meta for you embryos out there) of what we see ingame: Since Battleships are now obsolete - they should be removed from the game. (Just like real life - Closest we come now is the Russian Kirov Class Cruisers) Cruisers should be renamed Destroyers and have their aft guns removed (All aft guns) and replaced with Anti-Surface Missiles and a Helicopter armed Torpedos (instead of Fighter plane) Destroyers Should be renamed Frigates and have their aft guns removed (All aft guns) and replaced with Anti-Surface Missiles and a Helicopter equiped with Radar (to help scouting and also to replace hydro for some ships) Carriers should be as they are but re-add Jets and upgrade the hulls to add Phalanx CIWS for Anti-Missile defence (Tho they would loose their old AA for this upgrade). Not much would actually change if this were to happen - Most Cruisers would still sit behind islands and shoot (and some would still use smoke) Most Destroyers would still smoke as soon as you breath in their direction. Carriers would still be carriers. No, this post is not a joke - this is genuinely how I feel the game has "devolved" since Alpha test and seeing the game as it is - I feel this would make the game feel more......accurate.....for the current play style (meta for you embryos out there)
  5. Bonjour à tous, Me voici tout nouveau venu sur Wows et il me semble que je n'arrive pas au bon moment. En effet, mon premier coup de coeur a été le gameplay des DD IJN car l'aspect furtif + gros dégâts avec les torpilles m'a naturellement attiré, ayant toujours préféré les gameplay glasscanon aux bourrins. En lisant de nombreux posts je me suis rendu compte que le Minekaze que je visais n'était plus réellement viable. Je me retrouve donc avec de gros doutes concernant ma progression dans le déblocage de mes navires, hésitant de plus en plus à poursuivre dans la branche des DD IJN. J'aimerais donc avoir des avis objectifs sur l'état actuel des destroyers. J'ai parcouru le forum et peu d'avis sur l'état actuel des DD ont été donnés. J'aimerais donc l'avis de ceux qui jouent au jeu depuis longtemps, suivent son évolution et savent à peu près quels sont les navires qui restent efficaces. Est-ce toujours possible de jouer torpedoboat ou sommes nous condamnés à nous reconvertir dans le gunboat ? Quels sont les destoyers les plus intéressants pour les deux types de gameplay (je ne peux me permettre de tester tous les destroyers du jeu donc si je pouvais avoir quelques pistes pour orienter ma progression ce serait pas mal) ? Si je devais choisir entre le Mutsuki et le Minekaze, lequel me conseilleriez vous ? Je tiens à préciser que je ne cherche pas à jouer les DD les plus op du moment, un navire considéré comme potable me conviendrait, mais je n'ai pas non plus envie de devoir tryhard à en avoir des sueurs froides à chaque partie pour simplement être aussi efficace que d'autres navires qui n'ont pas à fournir autant d'efforts. En vous remerciant d'avance.
  6. dasCKD

    Smoking Up

    This article will be unstructured. What do you want? I'm trying hard to procrastinate at my internship right now! Honestly, sometimes I feel like none of you appreciate the work I put into not actually doing any work. War gaming continues its inability to maintain company secrets with the smoke screen changes that appears to be created for the sole purpose of driving the entire teamplay meta alongside the entire fleet back to the back lines where most of the battleships have already set up tents and are already breaking out the acetone torches. The smoke nerf, according to WG's propaganda ministers, aims to address the issue of certain ships (mostly battleships) sitting in smoke screens and shooting at ships with impunity. Due to this, they have decided that every gun fired in a smoke screen, depending on their caliber, would deplete the smoke screen. It's not strictly necessary for me to explain this, but I feel compelled to. There's no reason really. When it comes to smoke however, ultimately I do not think I could leave behind my biases. I never had a very high opinion of ships that utilized a combination of smoke and gunfire to do their role within the game. My opinion on this matter is unlikely to make me popular, but it hardly matters. I have almost all of the smoke screen cruisers, and I have different opinions of all of them. Even with that however, I can't help but feel that this is another justification for nerfing things that hurts battleships. When it comes to smoke, they are both responsible for alleviating and exacerbating the camping meta. Each ship can be thought to exert a sphere of influence, a sphere of power that holds most strategically aware players away. The power of the sphere becomes more pronounced closer to the ship of origin, as guns, secondaries, and torpedoes all increase in lethality up close to the enemy ship. As ships closest to the enemy get shot at first, being able to close to range whilst invisible offers massive opportunities for teams to push forwards together. Even once the smoke fades, the team can exploit the far more strategically strong positions that they would not normally have access to due to the fact that they would have far too little health left to burn once they get there. In a way, it temporarily nullifies the sphere of influence of a lot of ships, unless the enemy team has access to a radar suite in the optimum position. A smoke also, in many ways, exerts a nearly unlimited sphere of influence. Anything on the enemy team could theoretically be hiding in a smoke screen, and that anything could have access to radar suites, nearly unlimited AA, and potentially hundreds of guns ready to fire at the first thing that gets spotted. There is a reason most ships steer clear of smoke screens. It's not like there aren't any counters to smoke. There are plenty of counters, and most of them are at least moderately effective. The problem arises however because War Gaming insists on balancing around meta instead of games. Putting it simply, they balance World of Warships like it's Starcraft and not League of Legends. That may be a little confusing, but let's say you're playing as the allies in RA3, and I'm playing as the Japanese. If you sent a scout over and discovered that I was fielding three or four dozen attack helicopters, you would probably begin to stock up on missile buggies and interceptors to stop me. This is a viable tactic: giving incredibly strong units an inherent and insurmountable weakness that makes it possible to counter them and to stop cheesing tactics. This raises the skill of players and mandates variety in army compositions. War Gaming probably wants to see a similar thing in their games. Each ship lines probably takes approximately the same amount of effort to complete, modeling and initial programming accounting for but a tiny fraction of the development period. The problem is the matchmaker. If you see a Minotaur division on the enemy team, you can't decide to field an extra radar ship or two. If you see a tier X carrier on the roster, you can't decide to switch out your hydroacoustic search. War Gaming expects that eventually players will simply switch to the tools that are better suited to dealing with persistent problems, but that is a terrible way to balance. Theoretically, players will gravitate towards a line that can deal with the problems they face. In reality, most of the players who play the game, even those who have played the game since launch, don't even have access to their first tier X yet. I very much doubt that most even have tier 8 ships on most of their lines. Even assuming that players will gravitate towards the correct counter, that theoretically prevents issues that will happen eventually in the future. It won't solve the issues that are happening in the match right then and there. This isn't an RTS player refusing to field AA units against a player who has been cheesing bombers and attack choppers. This is MM screwing a team over. I remember last night in an epicenter match in my Z-52. The results of that match was decided the microsecond the enemy team didn't have access to a Z-52 or a radar cruiser through no fault of any of the players on the enemy team. I'm not certain if WG understands this issue, or if they are under the delusion that this is the issue that will sort it out eventually. There are mechanics in this game that are nearly insurmountable except against a mechanic that instantly annihilates any pull that said mechanic might have on the outcome of the match. In the case of smoke screens, even one laid by a destroyer, an extra ship with the hydroacoustics removes all but the tiniest sting from torpedo destroyers. Their primary weaknesses are carriers and radar searches which is great when those items are available, but their availability is far from guaranteed. The dominance of ships like the Fiji and the Belfast are in fact artifacts of how rare the tools to deal with heavy firepower hidden inside of a smoke screen are in the middle tiers. One thing this does address is the issue of the dominance of divisions. A pair or triplet of Minotaurs could sit inside of a smoke screen that will last the entire game as they chain the entire smoke screen and is more difficult to remove than a terrible idea from Lesta's head without the use of radar and focus fire, something that is only occasionally provided by the matchmaker. This new change would certainly create an organic method of stopping the dominance of multiple Minotaur divisions who can just sit in a ring behind good torpedo cover and entirely shut down a whole flank or a double Minotaur and Des Moines division that could keep any plane, destroyer, cruiser, or battleship from approaching them save for some very accurate into-smoke firing or a radar cruiser. The Des Moines could also be replaced with the Conqueror with a radar suite, which this change could be a preemptive nerf to. If the smoke screen of a long Minotaur is balanced in such a way that their combat effectiveness doesn't change very much if there is only one of them inside of the smoke screen, then I don't see many players complaining too much. It would probably diminish the effectiveness of smoke based divisions, but I think we can all agree that smoke divisions can be rather unfair especially against extremely inexperienced players. Ultimately, my feelings on this change is mixed. On one hand, it does massively discourage team play and extremely aggressive ship action all the while making it harder to slow down enemy pushes using good application of combined arms and tactical manuvers. On the other hand, it might help diminish the dominance of divisions. Smoke screens help a large number of cruisers survive in this meta, but ultimately it is a bandage that is covering the nature of the problem that lurks beneath. Smoke only really helps the cruisers that have them, and very few destroyers are centered around firing from smoke. Whichever way this swings the meta, for once I am not sure.
  7. Krogort

    Promoting Agression

    Something i've seen mentioned a few time on diverse forums is rewarding early game actions more than late game actions. Has something like that ever been tried ? If yes did it change anything ? For example the first minute of a game has 50% exp increase compared to the last minute of a game with linear decrease between those two points (number pulled from my hat).
  8. Schmidt_zxc

    Ranked Season 6 meta

    Confirmed.
  9. red_eye1980

    The Meta

    Is it me or has WG managed to create a game exactly like World Of Tanks but with ships? Vehicles that are slower and less agile but have more guns? I used to play WOT blitz on a tablet. And there, it was hide - camp - cover - dodge - flank etc. But most of the times it was an urban environment so I thought fair enough. And then there was WoWs. Since the release, everyone got the spotted indicator, then smoke circles were added and detection circles on the minimap, now there are even mods that show how long the smoke circles are going to last, then maps with more and more islands and ships that can lob shots. I used to only have the spotted indicator on my Ijn dds and assumed that I am spotted by everyone on everything else. I used to sail in the open, with my (non IJN) DDs, BBs and CAs and hope that my angling, aiming and dodging was better than the opponents. That I had enough teammates and fire power to sink the opponent before he sank me. That we had more guns, within their effective range, pointing the other way than they had, and picked the ''right'' targets. People used to frown on campers, island/borderline huggers who were ''rightly'' punished by CV strikes and DDs. Now if you sail in the open you are called a YOLO/NOOB/POTATO etc. Before, there was even a video by WG that explained that it was ''wrong'' to sail forward and reverse behind an island which was a standard practice in tanks. Now most do it, and it is effective. Just time your smoke. Then hop to another island and do it again. And then there is now, which is even more obvious in the ranked season. I realized that I have ''trained'' myself to rely on the spotted indicator. To be far enough so that radar will not spot me. To find an island where I can shoot undetected or the enemy cannot return fire. To be relying on the smoke duration mod and the premium smoke consumable. To stay hidden for as long as possible otherwise I get focused on and die before I can count to ten. And the sad part, is that it works. Then come out all brave at the very end to finish off the few fleeing ships. Now I understand that this is an arcade game. But it should not be like WOT. This is a ship game. Most battles happened in the open sea. What happened to the quote that said: ''No captain can do very wrong when he places his ship alongside that of the enemy'' Your views?
  10. I'm Baaaaack~ Same notes applies as always. Not a guide. Not about the current patch. DO NOT MOVE. "Realistic" matchmaking It really has been a while hasn't it? This is a thread I've been threatening for a while, but I haven't quite gone through with it. The concept is relatively simple, this thread is here to say that cruiser mechanics and engagement rules should be overhauled before being handed over to the destroyer class because it'll probably do more good there. I, for one, found it very odd that the first ship I had access to when I first joined the game was a cruiser. Generally speaking, games start you off with the smallest ship and you have to work your way up the tree. it makes more sense for a game like World of Warships to have a player of equal tier across different ship types to have about an equal role in representing their team, but the idea of destroyers being the most logical option as the universal class is something that always clung to my mind. The Game Cruisers and Battleships The game began as something of a rock-paper-scissors rotation system. Battleships had slow firing but powerful guns, ideal for dealing with cruisers. Cruisers had fast firing guns that are weak against heavily armored targets, whilst powerful against the badly armored but agile destroyers. Destroyers (back then) had anemic guns with poor arcs but can be used to great effect against the slower battleships before the introduction of the 1:4 or 1:6 high explosive rule and torpedoes that only really worked against the large turning circles and slow rudder shift of battleships. It was easy to do 100k damage with nothing but HE damage using a Farragut's guns against battleships in those days. The collapse of the RPS system wasn't dramatic, but the issues caused by the remains of the system persists even today. Fundamentally however, battleships are poorly suited to hunt cruisers. Cruisers are poorly suited to hunt destroyers. Destroyers are poorly suited to hunt battleships. I don't have enough time to elaborate, this thread is about destroyers. Destroyers In many ways, destroyers are a good universal class. They're very forgiving at the lower tiers due to their lack of citadels and the fact that cruiser guns at that tier are relatively ineffective with only a few notable exceptions. Their maneuverability (German destroyer aside) is very impressive, and many of them have the tools already available to a cruiser. It's relatively rare for any ship of the destroyer class to be able to one-shot unless they're being hunted by a carrier or are spamming shells from a smoke screen next to another destroyer with a full salvo of torpedoes. Very few nations at the era of the game had battleships, even fewer had carriers. Basically every nation with a shoreline had destroyers however, and it allows for a far larger variety of ships to pick from before WG needs to begin inventing their own ships out of the blue. Even with cruisers, they are already struggling with maybe 3 other nations able to truely represent a cruiser line in game. As they are currently however, they generally have to maintain full silence in order to operate. If destroyers are to take up the cruiser's role as the universal class, some tweaks will have to be made to the class itself in order to make it more like a cruiser and able to fulfill their new role. Analogues I'm a cruiser player, so it's probably inevitable that I was going to go the path of basically conversing destroyers into smaller and more annoying cruisers. The current cruisers already provides a very good template to base the destroyer redesign off of however. As the Khabarovsk demonstrates, the miniature cruiser model makes for a very strong ship line and small but fast ships will naturally lurk closer to the caps than cruisers currently can and therefore can more quickly respond to changing game scenarios. I don't know where this article is going anymore. It's been a few weeks, and I've been writing nothing but project diary entries and programming code. Don't give me that look, this is an idea that War Gaming would totally implement!
  11. Butterdoll

    Captain's skills ?

    Hy. I want your advice about the captain's skills, because I have no idea what to choose and I'm struggling with this some time now. and yes, I see the videos that you see with the captain's build and everything. But the problem it's meta. I'll give you an example, when the RNBB appeared they set everything on fire, permanent fires were the death of many cruisers, to worsen even more, everybody started spamming HE, then WG decided to reduced by half? the time of the fires. In that time the fire extinguisher thingy was a must have, but now with all of those dds coming soon perhaps the torpedoes alert thingy it's a must have. What's the best captain's setup for all situations? I kind know what I want, the problem is having to choose because 19 points is short. I did not mess up yet with this captain, and don't want to in the future. So I appreciate some help. thank you.
  12. I'm hoping to have a civilized discussion about current high-tier CV gameplay. I'm not suggesting anything that would be yet-another-rework - I'm sick of those. I'd just like to see some consistency other than consistent losses and salt mine MM. I'm on a ~20 battle Essex lose-streak right now. CV mechanics seems to have become very heavily RNG-based. I don't want to have ships that are there as a nice fantasy only to make you lose interest and incentivize grinding other branches. I don't claim to be a good CV player, (going by overall stats, I guess I'm average - save me the "git gud kid" lecture, skills an practice will only get you so far on a less-than stellar PC with the current net-code and UI fluidity). However, I get thrown into matches where (1) my strafes are extremely ineffective, from every angle, while the enemy decimates me even on head-on strafes with few planes in their squadron; (2) my planes get chewed up by outer AA auras while the enemy seems to be able to loiter above multiple targets to line up good runs. I can't go spot because even destroyer AA wrecks my planes in a matter of seconds; I can't do much damage because even average T7 battleship AA widens my drops. If this was a flash in the pan, offset by meh games or ones where it's the other way around, I'd say "screw it, grind through, wait it out" - but loss after loss after loss it's the exact same symptoms from different people. I know that (1) people play strangely when they're focusing on weird achievements and that (2) the still new Steam users are making their way up to top tiers and they're offsetting baseline competence and may be throwing the meta off, but come one! Most of the time it feels like a combination of insane RNG disparity and a good deal of de-sync: I get pings of 30-37 ms, but enemy planes often dodge my strafes at the last second and I lose 3 planes as soon as their strafe appears to start (and I try to be tricky, but it's like they have a sixth sense or they see things a fraction of a second sooner). Visuals are jerky, even on reduced graphics (medium / DX9 / small object animations OFF). FPS drops when side-scrolling or setting up manual attack runs. (For the record, I'm running an AMD FX 8350 with 8GB DDR3 and an AMD Radeon HD 7850 - I keep my software up to date, clean and light - no bloatware utilities, no snake-oil optimizations, etc). I seem to be doing OK with mid-tier CVs like Hiryu or Saipan, it's higher tiers that seem to be a constant pain. On my Essex, I dropped from decent matches and a ~50% win-rate to constant utter sh*tshows and a 42% win-rate. I sold my Lexington, even though I bought her permanent camo, because of pretty much the same experience, constant up-tiered MM to T10, and not wanting to have my stats and memories with her tarnished (plus I needed the captain on the Essex). I know there are probably plenty of things I'm doing wrong, but for the last few dozen high tier games I'm getting punished ridiculously, while the enemy teams seem to get a pass. I suspect WG gathering much richer player-performance-related data than stat-tracking sites do, to then use for match-making. It would make sense. I figure it's well within the realm of possibility that seemingly equal teams are pitted against each other in fact in a way that one team has a clear situational advantage: (1) more competent players who are likely to lane with decent AA cover everywhere (2) better spotting, better charging, better surviving DDs (3) more accurate, more aware, quick-to-click-planes, competent hydro- and radar-using cruisers (4) non-campy/non-potato/non-lemming BBs. I started using Matchmaking Monitor to figure out what the hell is going on, but I don't mean to sound like a stat-whore. In fact if anything, MM seems to have tilted scales based on much more than the superficial stats gauged by tracking sites: below-average players charging better, benefiting from reduced damage, have better AA RNG while even our average or above average players do nothing but camp and disperse from the spawn and then are force to play defensive. Just to be clear, this would be par for the course if I'd see this randomly, every now and then, on any ship, but I get this almost constantly in CV, to the point where running in a division doesn't seem to balance anything either. It doesn't matter where I spot, it doesn't matter who I protect, it doesn't matter who I bomb, it's most often like an uphill battle while our team's just there for target practice. Could we PLEASE have lesser RNG variance for CVs??? At least for those that have lost their different loadouts. It used to be the case that you were at the mercy of MM due to the choice of loadout you made before hitting "BATTLE", but now you're at the mercy of MM setting you up for an "R"NG roast.
  13. Schmidt_zxc

    Ranked Season 8 Meta

    Attached are the usual MM humor images. But .. I might be delusional, but after a serious testing (and couple of bottles of rum) I made an observation: It's much harder to play save-a-star, since game mechanics and apparently scoring system has changed; you actually need to have an impact on the battle in order to score well. Kill stealing, border hugging and german sniper BB meta don't work too well anymore. If this is what WG has been working on, its a +1. If this balance happened by accident, good for us . If its just rum talking, need to get some more. I'm not even going to go into the subject yolongs, but seems very strong. gg.
  14. gekkehenkie50

    Tactical turning?

    So, suppose you're being the tank, leading the push, your team backing you up. You get that glorious charge feeling. Then an enemy battleship pops up. Your fleet scatters, all turning away instantly. What do you do as a BB? Turn broadside and get deleted, or push on, alone, abandoned into the torpedo soup he-rain filled path ahead? This is a problem I experience, have been experiencing ever since ~tier 7. I am now sailing around in Iowa, and I have not found any answer to this problem. I have made multiple posts asking for advice in battleships, but this is the main problem I face in all of them. We are asked to tank, not feed the sniping meta, yet when every ship uses you as a fail safe cover point so they can turn away, what is the point? My question: does anyone know a way to avoid being abandoned when leading the charge, or is this just what battleships have to deal with?
  15. NothingButTheRain

    What is the BB meta?

    I've been around for about half a year now and I keep reading about how BBs are supposedly too powerful or the players in them are supposedly camping at the edge of the map all the time. But I've also come across people who insist that during the time I've played WoWS, BBs hadn't received any nerfs, which is blatantly untrue. I'd like to know what the actual problem with BBs are supposed to be? I mean, if these players play DD instead of BB, it would probably be the same level of fail for the winning chance of that game. Even worse if my CV player is one of those BB edge camping persons and the CV player on the other side is a routinier. So when it comes to edge camping, I don't really understand why it's so bad to edge camp in a BB when fail carrieing is probably even worse and fail-DDing is also likely to be just as bad. People will play like crap no matter what ship you put them in, but I hear a lot of complaining about BBs as well. So what's the deal with this BB meta I keep hearing a lot about? Why should BBs need more nerfs? What's the problem with BBs and what's so special about this supposed problem? Could anyone explain this to me?
  16. Murro_the_One

    What's your most influential ship class?

    I recently realized that after some time in WoWs where i tried to play different ship classes I'm most likely to end with Cruisers(45%) or Destroyers(42%) as these 2 allows me to influence the outcome of the battles most effective way and the kit of Cruiser and Destroyer is so flexible that it makes it easy to react to what's happening on the map. Recently i started playing german Cruisers, Koenigs and Nurn bergs are just fantastic, York is not so much ;) Not that i don't like playing BBs, but since at the tier I'm currently(5-6) I'm not able to win games because i have slow ship and once committed to on side, it take infinity to get back to help and I'm always reacting to the situation, not creating the plays. It is just frustrating to try play and get played... Base on the fight with some of the forumites i tried langley as my only CV experience(based on argument that if i don't play them, i cant talk about them), after 17 battles i averaged~ 71% wr by playing around objectives, spoting enemy DDs and their torps or protecting allied ships. So based on the winrate, i would say CV is the way of most influence, which is not new to anyone, but i cant stay the cancerous game mechanic. Reason I'm bringing this topic up is the amount of clueless people and while i don't want to play CV's due to my conscience, i cant play BBs as i cant rely on the team in most of the battles even i would love to. What is your strongest class and why?
×