Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'solution'.

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 6 results

  1. I've seen the question "What is the Greatest Stat?" asked quite a lot recently. I have my own opinions about that, and I've even voiced those opinions. (Hint: it's overall win rate with reasonable asterisks attached to the theory.) But my opinions on the greatest stat isn't really what this is about. This is about giving players a way to discover and manipulate data themselves. I spend a lot of time delving into the API that Wargaming so kindly provides to us, and I like to think that gives me a certain perspective on things. This spreadsheet is designed to give that ability to you as well. With the upcoming third season of Clan Battles on our doorstep, I was hoping that this could help players understand a little better where they need to prepare themselves. The first thing one does is turn the sheet on, which is done in cell B1 by entering any clan tag. It doesn't matter if you're in that clan, as entering a clan tag simply turns the sheet on. You'll then be able to either type a name into cell C5 (make sure you spell it right) or select one of the members of that clan from the drop down menu there. You don't have to search for a player in that clan, but it does make it easier. From there the sheet will begin loading data. What you're able to manipulate is in the middle of the screen labeled "Stat Goals." The sheet comes preset with the above stat goals. I've so far spent two seasons in clan wars at the Typhoon/Hurricane level. When I saw a player make an influential play, or just in general really helped their team, I took notice. I have based these stat goals on those players. Basically, if you want to play at the Typhoon or higher level, these are what you'll need to shoot for. My own clan uses an adapted version of this, and they disagree with me on the numbers. Disagreement is fine! We have a few players that successfully got their flags that theoretically wouldn't make it based on these numbers. The preset values are simply based upon my own observations. And I definitely observed that there is a wholesome correlation between a player's random battles statistics and their ability to perform in Clan Battles. Once you have your own copy of the sheet however, you can change these to whatever you like. These stat goals are quite important. For each one that you meet on a ship, you gain one "Qualifying Rank." Once you have met at least 4, you earn the basic descriptor "Qualified" for that ship. Exceeding the goals results in earning better descriptors on a ship. Working to earn better descriptors on a ship is kindof the entire point of the sheet. As you improve on a ship, you earn better descriptors! The sheet will not give you 4 qualifying ranks until you have at least 25 battles on a ship. These for example, are my descriptors for tier 10. I know... I sucketh quite greatly with the Gearing... But what about outlier ships? Ships that don't really fit the traditional dd, ca, bb, cv mold? By scrolling down below everything else, you'll see the section labeled "Individualized Stat Goals." If you set a ships' stat goals here, they'll override the more generalized versions above. The sheet comes preset with the Khaba already having individualized stat goals. WEIGHTED STAT GOALS Here's the kicker though. By looking below all of the individual ship results, you'll see a couple of nondescript areas (cells D80 and D82) labeled "Weighted Stat Goals" and "Weighted Player Averages." What if a player only has 2 battles on a ship, but they have 100% win rate etc? Should that be weighted as much as a ship that they have 100's of battles in? In this section the sheet takes all of the different ships, their goals, and weights them with their number of battles as the control. Those are my weighted stat goals. As you can see, I need to play more at t10, as my weighted stat goal for battles is in the red. I on average have too many t10's for how much I actually play at t10. However when I do play at t10, my other stats are all in the green. This section is best used to a quick glance to see if the player is overall actually performing at the level they should be or not. I can't take credit for this section though, the guys in OPG took the time to critique the sheet and they suggested it. They even took the time to explain the math to me! The sheet will also take the time to look up a series of achievements for a given player so that at a glance the user may see if they have any experience in Clan Battles. All it's really saying here is that they played in those leagues, but if I recall correctly you only have to play a few battles in a league to earn the achievement from Wargaming. You don't have to earn a Stalingrad flag to earn the Typhoon league Achievement. But it does serve as a quick reference on a new player to your group. Remember, this is simply a tool. However it is a tool designed for the user to set their own goals and rewards. I hope this is useful to players! Click Here For Copy Of Sheet I have spent a lot of time looking for critiques on this latest piece of work. However it cannot ever truly be perfect. If you notice something is wrong, or something that could be improved, please let me know. Updates: 8-14-2018 Auto-Import Stat Goals --- If this feature is turned on, the sheet will import the server averages for ships in order to dynamically adapt the stat goals to their appropriate levels. The user may increase or decrease the an added percentage above the server average by adjusting a variable directly beneath this option. It is located in the middle of the sheet below the original stat goals. The imported/dynamically adjusted stat goals may be viewed by scrolling down. If the user sets the multiplier variable to zero, one may use this to see the non-adjusted server averages/expected variables from wows-numbers. Player Rating --- The sheet now imports a brief overview of a player's "Player Rating" from the site wows-numbers.com. It also provides a link to the source page for ease of access. Individual ship player ratings are also calculated in the background using wows-numbers server averages/expected values. Spotting Damage --- Spotting damage has now been included as a imported statistic. It is not included as one of the stats required as a qualifying rank, however the data is now available for users to use as they see fit. Potential Damage --- Potential damage has now been included as a imported statistic. It is not included as one of the stats required as a qualifying rank, however the data is now available for users to use as they see fit. Ship Name/ID Import --- This feature is an unseen feature. The previous iteration of it no longer worked as a standalone. There have been too many additions of ships to the game. This has been updated to have double the available space. This means the load times of ship names and id's has gone up slightly, however it should mean that the sheet has been future proofed considerably. Updated 3-7-2019 Minor niceties. Doubled and streamlined the ship name and ID import function. So many new ships have been added that there were ships no longer appearing in the list. New space was needed. Logic code has been cleaned up as well.
  2. Well hello there fellow forumites. Another CV GC thread. To be more precise though an inquiry on what could be a reasonable way to a) rebalance premiumships while b) making sure that at the same time the player base doesn't get alienated. Primarily this thread was inspired by @Verblonde and @Tyrendian89. Also tagging @MrConway in the hope he find something that will help his colleagues resolve the upcoming issues at hand. And while this thread revolves primarily about the Giulio Cesare, it's aimed at being repeatable with other OP premiums. So. Where to start? With a few assumptions! Assuming that the mentioned TESTING (!) of putting a premium back into the game one tier higher ends with a balanced premium. Basically finding a version of the GC at T6 that is... Keep in mind though: This is all still in discussion and - according to Mr Conway, testing GC at T6 won't start before 0.8.1 Assuming that AFTER GC at T6 is balanced and fun WG wants to actually pull through with bringing a premium ships from one tier to a tier higher. Becaus remember: For those that missed it: The "if it happens" part is the relevant one! Further assumptions might follow down the post. Ok, the dreaded idea takes place somewhere down the road! What now? Talking about the two options that are available: Accepting the 'new' GC (then at T6) OR Getting a refund for her T5 dubloon value. And I see (in dozen posts) that - even acknowledging that OP ships must be rebalanced nerfed - neither of these options looks appealing to players. A lot of forumites, redditors or discord discussions revolved around: Getting cash as refund, not wanting to lose a T5 ship (rather nerfing at T5 than rebalancing her at T6), enjoying fighting T7 enemies more than T8 enemies, and so on. You know the common problems players uttered with the two mentioned options. Yeah, yeah, it's all a clown fiesta. We're stuck with something we don't want. Well, this post got me thinkging: Now, I'm not going to reiterate all that has been said (or thought) following this quite, so let me summarize it: It was WGs error that these OP ships found their way into the game in the first place, yet we all want a balanced game (Huh ... maybe that's another assumption I should add). But since it was WG's error it's not the players that should be held responsible for it Most players I've seen so far don't like the dubloon option because dubloons have been devalued rebalanced. WG is aware of that WG has been generous in the past regarding compensation for silver ships, so I see at least a chance that the same is possible for premium ships This one is specifically geared towards the GC: Nerfing her at T5 would gimp her too much Ok, with this in mind, let's think about two possible actions a player has on day X: 1. Accpeting the rebalanced GC at T6: Since most players complained about not having a T5 when they accept the T6 GC, my proposal on this one is rather simple. Give the player TWO ships. The rebalanced GC at T6 (with all the balance and fun WG deems acceptable) AND a (heavily) nerfed GC remaining at T5, that still fulfills her role as a roamer that rewards angling. My take on a nerfed T5 GC would be a +2km concealment nerf, a fire chance nerf from 35% (iirc) to 27%, an AP DMG nerf by 15%, a 3s reload nerf, a turret traverse nerf. Slap a special camo on - to immediately identify her as the T5 version - and rename her to "nerfed Mortadella" (or something more ... fitting like ... I don't know ... Giulio Cesare pre-WWII). Slap some goodies on top and I don't see an issue with that. 2. Declining the rebalanced GC at T6: This one is a bit more tricky since a pure dubloon refund will not cut the crepes. The very least I'd offer would be the nerfed T5 GC + her dubloon value as refund + some goodies on top. Or one of the options given here: Apologies verblonde for altering your quote a bit to match my option 2 (italic font). NOTE: While afterwards the 'new' T6 GC would be available in the shop, the 'old' T5 GC would ONLY be available for those that had her prior to her rebalancing. Creating - yet another - oportunity for ship collectors to distinguish themselves from the masses. As mentioned here: Conclusion: Does this look 'greedy'. I don't know? I tried to be somewhat reasonable, based on what I read from other forumites. I didn't ask for a night with Alena and Dasha coupled with a metric ton of finest Colombian blow, 20kg's of Vodka and Caviar (each) and a chance to whip Putin. For every GC owner. So, you tell me! Tell me what you think? What would you see fit. Especially given the fact that - no matter if a GC at T6 might or might not become reality - WG/Lesta is pushing towards rebalancing OP premiums. Which ... as much as it annoys me to see some favourite ships go, IS BETTER for the long term health of the game. So there might be a few more ships (My guess would be: Belfast, Gremy, Kamikaze sisters, Imperator) that will be rebalanced one way or another. And since cold hard cash is OUT as a possible refund option: We might as well aim for a more achievable solution. To bring a bit of reason in: WG gave away dozens of GCs as a welcome back gift. Sure this in and of itself was botched till kingdom come, but do you really think WG will send players money that never bought this ship in the first place? I highly, highly doubt that. Why should WG do this? Pretty simple. As said above. They botched up. If they manage however to keep players at bay and even bring players to accept to nerf OP ships with a reasonable token of appreciation, then I can see players living with the nerf of a few selected ships and the outlook of having a future where premium ships are frequently nerfed and buffed. Maybe on a more sensilbe basis than silver ships. But overall closer to a balanced approach than the heavy handed OP's we have now. Bascially adhering to a system outlined here: Also a route like the above mentioned is the only that I see fit to avoid setting nasty precedents. Anyways. I've talked ofr long enough, and it's getting late. Let me know what you think. And try to keep it civil!
  3. Dear wargaming I think many people would like you to comment on the radar situation. After my opinion there is far too many radarships in hight tier. Keeping in mind that the american CL's havent arrived yet, it will be impossible to play DD and having fun. Its very boring, when U only can do torpedospam. For that only the Shima and Gearing is good with their "long" torpedoes. As I see it, we will loose a lot of DD players. Some permanent and others will find different ships to play. Probably BB, cause they will thrive in the abcence of the DDs. That will hurt the CA's and CL's a lot. I my self is playing alot more BB in high tier now, DD is not fun anymore. If you insist on so many radarships, i suggest that radar requires LOS. In that way its not only hiding behind a mountain and push a button. We are many who would like an answer from you. Attached a pic where U see a game with 2x5 radarships. Fionia_DK
  4. If you want to deal with bad players/noobs efficiency there is easy way without any punishment!!! (which is unfair for me). So most noobs plays random battles not co-op due low amount of XP which it get in co-op. Because everyone want to have high level ships which is icons of naval history and this is reason why ALL players play random battles. Without icons it game game will be much less popular! I suggest this make TWO research trees for ships ONE for co-op mode vs PC boots and few difficult levels in it and SECOND tree for random battles mode. In every mode payers will get same amount of XP so you eliminate reason way bad players play random battles. On this way bad players will be happy with co-op because it also can get Iowas/Bismarcks/Yamatos but in co-op and good players will be happy with cleaner random battles. Everyone will be happy on this way! Expect will be premium ships which will become unlocked on both trees and Missouri. Also game devs should made better in game tutorials how to do better aims! Cheers PS I am bad player too!
  5. Yes, I am aware how very often "secondaries need a buff" topic gets brought up, and so I am going to take a full view on secondaries as a whole.The Problem (Gameplay):Important Issues with secondary armaments that all need to be considered:-Range -Accuracy -Shell type When ever an adjustment is made to them, considerations in all 3 categories need to be made. Shell Type is probably the most ignored stat that has a significant impact.Range: As it stands, the range on secondary armaments is lack luster, and useless to 80% of the vessels in the game at the current moment. As it stands, even with buffing with skills and hardware, the only a few ships in particular that can do secondary gun builds "well" is Warspite Nagato, Izumo and Yamato. Accuracy:Accuracy is the 2nd most complained issue on secondaries, the "drunk gunner" problem. In Game the Manual Fire control of Secondary Armament skill does solve it, but the cost of it being a 5 skill points makes it so it is usually only attainable when you have grinded a line with a captain until tier 8-9 at minimum. (unless you play ALOT of games with premiums)Shell Type:This is a very important factor as it defines whether or not your secondaries will set fires for passive damage. In game as it is, the size of the secondary gun more-or-less defines what shell type it will fire, but it is a somewhat blurry line as guns between 1mm-150mm fire HE, however guns between 140mm-155mm fire AP. that small overlap is more or less picked by balancing. This shell type issue is why USN BBs, of which ALL secondary guns on them are 127mm, all fire HE shells. As opposed to all the casement guns lining IJN bbs till tier 8 which are 140mm-152mm all fire AP shells. This is the probable reason as to why USN BBs get shorter ranges on their secondary armament. This theme is quirked by the fact that Izumo and Yamato switch over to primarily 127mm guns, and in addition receive even farther range on them. Overall conclusion on problems:As it stands, if a player wishes to do a secondary gun build, they really have to choose IJN, and only really to start to be effective at tier 9/10. Aswell, even with the maximized ranges, the range is still so short that in order to use them you must close in within a range at which your risk of receiving damage from your opponents is greater then that of the damage output that your secondary guns can output. Possible Solutions: 1) An all across the board buff to secondary gun range, with accuracy and chance of fire setting nerf to balance. IMHO, the loss in accuracy and fire chance to get better base ranges on all ships of all classes is preferable then sticking with the current base ranges. 2) Significantly buff the "Manual Control of Secondary Armament" captain skill. As it stands, the accuracy buff that it gives still leaves the weapons relatively balanced for longer range combat. What should be buffed is the skill should be moved to level 4 skill level, and give an additional range boost to them, even if the accuracy buff is reduced as a cost for the range boost would be acceptable.3) Seconadry Gun Accuracy could be affected by range. Primary Armament of BB guns allready have an accuracy buff to targets less then 5km away, so to make a similar effect to secondaries is theoretically doable in regards to how RNG gets calculated. (targets within 50% of their range are 50% more accurate, as an example, testing would need to verify what numbers works) If it were up to me, I'd implement number 2 and 3 solutions. They together would open up viability for secondary gun builds for battleships, and even cruisers, of both the IJN, USN, and even the KM and IRN. The Destroyer issue: With all the buffs that I suggested, clearly, DDs would be completely and mercilessly murdered, other classes would do rather fine I think. So, here are 2 solutions: 1) A class bonus, in which DDs just will have a bonus to their class as a whole in that the firing accuracy on them from secondaries is reduced (perhaps an upwards of 15-20% accuracy nerf for secondary gunners when they are firing at a DD)2) An active skill bonus. As it stands, the speed boost active skill doesn't give a real big effect. Sure, you are slightly faster while its active, but thats it aside from your camouflage nerf that temporarily occurs whilst it is used. I would suggest that when a DD uses this consumable, in addition to the speed boost, it also adds an accuracy nerf to secondary guns that fire at a target using that consumable. A DD could use the consumable more tactically for an offensive strategy rather then using it for just getting across the map faster or running away a tad bit faster. A similar effect could be applied to when a DD is in or behind a smoke screen. If both consumables had this additional effect, it would balance out the accuracy gain in my proposed solutions.In my honest opinion, either one of both of the solutions to help DDs survive would be viable. The Problem (GUI): For the most part, the GUI for secondary gun usage is simple but lack luster. I only have 2 issues with it: Damage Numbers: As it is, there are no damage numbers displayed when a secondary gun deals damage. This is annoying as you have no real time conception as to how well they are doing, are they penning armor, etc. This could be easily remedied by the damage dealt popping up the same way as it does for primary guns, but perhaps with secondary gun damage being displayed in italics for easy comprehension. In the very least, this would allow damage counter mods to be able to read and add this damage actively. Target: A minor option would could be useful is the ability to right click a username in the enemy team list and click "Target Secondaries" which would be useful to getting a lock unto a DD popping in and out of detection. Banner: For some reason or another, their is no banner for secondary gun hits. I have actually made a banner on what I could imagine that the banner could look like: If this banner would show up under the conditions of a secondary shell hitting AND damaging the target, I'd be happy. The only rational argument against it is "but its an AI getting banners for you!" the counter to this being of course, plane kills are also AI kills that you yourself didn't do actively. An additional reason as to why this banner would be useful is for missions. There are missions that require to get certain amount of banners, as it stands, BBs are the least capable for acquiring large numbers of badges. This would level the playing field for them potentially. Visual:As it stands, secondary shells look a lot dimmer then regular shells. A 155mm shell from a yamato looks half as bright as a 155 from a mogami. If secondary guns are going to be nothing more then light shows for some ships, then they actually should be light shows. I like to see my secondary shots, but as is I have to actually distract myself and focus on looking at them to see where they are going, are they hitting, etc. This should be remedied IMHO.Ships I believe need secondary buffs.Montana; 7km, (currently 5km) -To help her compete against Yamato, since Montana does suffer compared to her. Aswell, Montana's secondaries are 127mm/54, her predecessors are 127mm/38 and yet montana's range is the same. This seems unrealistic upgrade-wise. (in regards to competition, Yamato's are 127mm/40) Amagi, 6km, (currently 4.5) -For progression and gameplay, the Amagi is a let down. All ships previous to her in the tech tree have increasingly good ranges on their secondary battery. Nagato is a highlight with her 5km range, with her 18x1-140mm(AP) guns and 4x2-127mm(HE) guns. The Amagi has 16x1-140mm(AP) guns and 8x2-127mm(HE) guns. Allthough it is true the Amagi is an upgrade for HE output, its completely nullified by the reduced range, and doesnt suit the progression system at all when you consider Izumo gets 7km. The Amagi's secondaries should actually be an upgrade, as is, due solely to the range loss, they are a downgrade despite the player moving up a tier from Nagato. 6km would flow the transition of Nagato to Amagi to Izumo. Zao and Hindenburg, 5km, (currently 4.5km)-Again, its the progression through the tech tree, the ships before her get 5km, and the when a player upgrades to Zao/Hindenburg, they lose range on secondaries. 4.5km is pretty useless at tier 10. North Carolina/Iowa, 6km (Currently 5km) -This would help flow the transition if Montana had 7km, plus, it would add the relevence of USN secondary gun builds. As is, it does feel unfair in that such builds are exclusive to the IJN. (Allthough the Tirpitz and Warspite suggests that there could be competition for secondary gun builds in those nations) If there are ships that in particular you believe need buffs to secondary range, comment them and why! If I could make only one single change, I would have the "Manual Control of Secondary Armament" skill also add a 30-50% range boost. Comments, questions, suggestions, concerns? I run a duplicate thread in NA
  6. KapteinSabeltann

    Borderglitching is as bad as ever.

    0.5.1 wasn't exactly the patch of patches. Tons of bugs and tons of changes not documented - love how all IJN and USN DD's with possibly the exception of the Fletcher was nerfed under the title - USN dds get better torps. Yeah. Anyways - one of the changes introduced was supposed to deal with players spending half the game with half their ship out of the map. Reducing their speed - wow - amazing. It's pretty much having NO effect at all... This issue isn't hard to deal with you know. A ship sailing out of the map should simply start taking some form of ramming damage. Not instantly - but after say 10-20 seconds (bb's can be hard to bring about) they should start taking damage. Ideally if the engine allows for it the damage could increase over time until it starts to really hurt. Problem solved: Sailing into the mapborder by accident is not getting you punished - staying there glitching like a pr0 on the other hand - well you will die if you stay. Max it out as flooding damage or similar.