Jump to content
PSA: Ranked battles HP restoration for aircrafts issue Read more... ×

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

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 16 results

  1. Dear WG, I honestly think you should make a special commander available for the Puerto Rico! fr4gm3ntation Simply for his attempt to grind the Puerto Rico at no money spent
  2. Maty83_Cz

    Gascogne buff: Case and point

    First of all, I will mention that I am a BB main. I absolutely love playing the steel behemoths and I find them really satisfying. As such I have played through all the BB lines at T8 except for one: Soviets. I don't have the entire premium BB collection, but from playing against them, I can guess as to how good they are. Thus through my experience with T8 battleships I believe I am able to evaluate her. So, why do I think Gascogne needs a buff? First, let me use WoWs numbers to demonstrate why. Gascogne as she is sits is one of the worst T8 premiums in terms of winrate (Tirpitz B is a more accurate representation as to where Tirpitz stands now, and even that ship has better stats than Gascogne). As I own her, I will endeavour to explain why. From the get-go, we can see advantages and disadvantages to her. She is very maneuverable, boasting the same speed and engine boost consumable as her tech tree counterpart, the Richelieu. The similarities don't end there. The armour is practically the same as well, both ships have 32mm plating practically everywhere, even including the black hole of a torpedo bulge near the waterline. this doesn't help against cruiser shells unless you are at close range where they may fall on the bulge, but can be beneficial against BBs. Unlike Richelieu though, she boasts a unique feature to help her. The repair party has a very quick cooldown, helping against HE spam. This can potentially make the ship live longer than her counterparts and helps in tight brawls. So far so good. So, from just those numbers you may think "She seems quite good. What is not to like?" Well, here is the category the ship loses on all fronts. Firepower. Yes, she is by far the worts battleship in terms of effective firepower you can bring on target, being surpassed by even some T6 ships in those terms (Warspite, W. V. '41) First, let us look at the secondaries. Her secondaries seem decent on the surface level. Both 3.9" and 6" in plentiful numbers, right? Not really. the 6" guns have a horrible reload of 12s and the 3.9" don't fare well when compared to other secondaries of the same caliber. At the same time, none of these guns get improved HE penetration. So they are not going to be dealing almost any direct damage. Additionally, their spread looks more like that of a shotgun firing than accurate naval rifles, even with flags and skills to boost their effect...... Plus the second and third 3.9" gun do no superfire over the first and fourth respectively, which reduced the angle of use for them. But the main point of the ship, the primary armament is even worse... Not ONLY does she lack the numbers of guns, but she has THE worst accuracy for her tier when grouping of turrets is taken into account. Worse than EVEN Bismarck and Tirpitz. Ships with 3s FASTER reload and the same number of guns. And add to that the absolutely terrible back turret arc. 35 degrees to each side. To put it in better perspective, this means you have to expose your entire side with every salvo to bring them on target, opening you up to devastating salvos frm enemy battleships. And even if you do decide to do so, the guns are inaccurate enough to miss all but the closest-range shots. Richelieu has 1.8 sigma as compared to Gascogne's 1.9, but since she can minimize her target profile and use the close proximity of her turrets, she has a better time hitting the enemy than Gascogne. This is without mentioning the worst aspect of the main guns: Low survival. Practically every other game, one of your turrets gets damaged, or destroyed. This is an issue plagueging every French BB with quads, but it is particularlybad here. One shot can rid your entire ship of the entirety of your forward firepower. 50% of your guns. Gone. Worst part? In real life the French navy designed these turrets to AVOID this happening. Only half of the turret would be knocked out by a single hit. But in WOWs you can lose your entire forward firepower in a single hit. Even damage is severe as for the next 30s you only have half of your turrets available. So, in conclusion, Gascogne is ripe for a buff. As the stat-wise weakest of all the T8 battleships, she deserves, if not out-right needs one. What would I suggest? >Accuracy buff (Priority): Reduce maximum dispersion of the guns by 10-13% (Down to 260-270m). This would give her disadvantageous turret setup the benefit of accuracy on par with other same-tier BBs and help her accomplish the role of a flanking battleship by being able to effectively strike at the enemy from an unexpected angle >Reduce reload times by 1-2s. This means Gascogne's DPM is brought on par with at least the far more survivable German BBs. The slightly faster reload would benefit the ship as she could potentially fight on equal terms with same-tier battleships without relying on their mistakes. >Faster rudder shift :Faster rudder shift would allow Gascogne to quickly expose the back turret for firing before returning to her original angle. As the turret arc cannot be improved without remodelling the ship, this would be a good alternative. >Improvement to 6" secondary guns: Reducing their reload to 10s and slightly buffing accuracy should allow Gascogne to stand her ground in CQC matches better than currently. As they have only 24mm base HE penetration, the change would not affect DPM significantly unless specced into IFHE. >Turret HP buff. Due the the turret and superstructure positions, both of Gascogne's main gun turrets stand a high chance of being damaged in battle. Either buffing the HP, or developing a mechanic for French quad BB guns where only a half of the turret gets damaged/destroyed upon the first critical hit would alleviate this issue In my opinion, if at least the accuracy buff and two of the other ones mentioned here get implemented, Gascogne will become far more effective at her role, finally taking her rightful place as a T8 premium worth purchasing.
  3. Hallo World of Warships Team, ich finde leider das korrekte Forum nicht, ich dachte es gab mal so eine Art Vorschlagsforum oder etwas in der Art. Über die Such-Funktion habe ich erstaunlicherweise keinen Eintrag bzw. Wunsch dieser Art gefunden. Nun gibt es ja den Launch-Kalender, der ist ganz witzig. Wichtiger wäre in meinen Augen aber ein ingame Kalender in welchem sich die Mitspieler in Clans zu den Clanwarzeiten an- und abmelden können. Clanwars werden mit steigender Teilnehmerzahl planungsintensiver und wir erreichen langsam einen Punkt an welchem wir immer erst am Abend des CWs sicher wissen ob wir mit einer, zwei oder keiner Division fahren können. Externe Tools wie Google Calendar, Guilded oder andere sind umständlich und jeder muss einzeln eingeladen werden. Dann werden Mitspieler vergessen oder andere sind schlicht und einfach zu faul noch eine weitere App oder Plattform zu benutzen. Daher wäre es super wenn wir nach dem Vorbild von World of Warcraft einen ingame Kalender hätten in welchem man als Clan interne Events eintragen kann wie zum Beispiel Trainings oder Turniere, zu welchen sich die Clanmitglieder an- und abmelden können. Ausserdem sollen die offiziellen Clanwar-Zeiten als einzelne Events voreingetragen sein mit An- und Abmeldefunktion. Noch genialer wäre wenn man evtl. sogar die Aufstellung anhand der angemeldeteten Spieler und deren verfügbaren Schiffen planen könnte, aber das wäre nur die Kirsche auf der Sahne. Ich habe im offiziellen Stream gehört dass im Jahr 2020 einige Port Verbesserungen kommen sollen. Bitte habt so etwas auch auf dem Schirm, ich denke das wäre ein wichtiges Feature welches von allen Clan-Spielern dankend angenommen wird. Falls jemand die Idee weiterspinnen möchte kann er das gerne hier tun oder einfach nur seinen Servus druntersetzen falls ihr euch so etwas auch wünscht. Mit bestem Gruß Noray
  4. Dear WG, here's my suggestion what you really should do with the dockyard: When people are grinding up through the lines in the tech-tree the next ship in the line is being built in the dockyard, by earning xp. Not any ticking per minute, just when you win a game you can go to the dockyard and see some extra parts of the next ship being built. Sincerely DenmarkRadar. !! See !! I can wear a positive hat !!
  5. Well a window popped up about my experience so far, ofc there was no text to elaborate my thoughts and rating etc., so I thought i'd pop here and share my take on it. Since you already have it implemented, how about you insert a poll like system, where people can vote, e.g. do you like ijn 20km torps, yes/no type of thing. That would make things much more transparent for you and for the player base, without any kind of ensuing dispute. If you want to know what displeases the players etc. no need to destroy your eyes at reddit and forums to get an idea of what's what. Plus you can correlate and balance the votes depending on what kind of answers you get from new players/older ones, depending on winratio activity and so on, so that you can make more educated moves in the future. It seems to me as a very reliable system to receive definitive and unconvoluted feedback while still following your own dev path.
  6. Hello there folks! One thing that just rubs me the wrong way is the notion that Carriers have "Unlimited Planes", which just isn't true. Using the regen times of a Stock Hakuryu without any commander skills or modules the maximum theoretical regen of aircraft in a match (20 minutes) would be 16 Attack Aircraft (14 on deck), 15 Torpedo Bombers (20 on deck) and 17 Dive Bombers (18 on deck). In total this would give the Stock Hakuryu a maximum of 100 Aircraft in a game. If I recall correctly Hakuryu had a Hangar Capacity of 100 planes pre rework, which makes the maximum amount of Aircraft basically unchanged. My suggestion would be to show the maximum amount of planes available to the Carrier somewhere in the game (on the Tech Tree or in the Menus) so that the playerbase can put the notion to rest that CVs have "unlimited planes" to harass them. Edit: Counting all 9 Fighter consumables of the squadrons as well the 4 on the Carrier the Stock Hakuryu ends up having 179 Aircraft, which is quite the increase compared to before the rework. So reducing the "total" amount of Aircraft on a Carrier might be a reasonable nerf. (Also making the Fighters a bit more user-friendly would also help!)
  7. Duecut

    Aircraft Carrier Suggestion

    Before we start, I will admit that I don’t play Aircraft Carriers and this is no doubt going to rub someone up the wrong way. My issue with Aircraft Carriers is during the setup phase of the match (the first 1.5 minutes of the match where everyone is getting into position), this is usually when an Aircraft Carrier sends out its attack planes to do a bit of spotting before rocket spamming their chosen DD. Which 4 times out of 5 results in the DD losing 50-70% of its health before anyone in the game has fires a single shot (especially when the DD is bottom Tier). Now when this situation happens during the fighting part of the match, then its fair game the DD got themselves into that position it’s their fault for not considering the Aircraft Carrier when fighting with other ships, however when it happens in the setup it’s really bit infuriating and could almost be considered spawn killing. I didn’t start this thread to bash Aircraft Carriers (there's enough of that), I’ve Identified a problem as I see it so it’s only right that I suggest a possible solution. Which is to make it so that no aircraft can be launched until the first ship is spotted in the match (not the first ship spotted on the enemy team, just the first ship spotted), to make it fair across the board this should also include spotter planes. I think implementing this would: - Enable ships to get into position before the fight, promoting more tactical thinking - Force Aircraft Carrier players to consider their positioning of the carrier at the beginning of the match, rather than set up camp in the spawn until the brown trouser moment later when a BB launches a salvo at them - Give better data with regard how Aircraft Carrier’s perform in a match, leading to more accurate balancing of Aircraft Carrier vs ship AA rather than the pendulum swing that's been implied in so many other posts - I believe for a good Aircraft Carrier player this would not interfere with the gameplay or results and ideally there would be less complaining about Aircraft Carriers in game. But this is m perspective, What do you think?
  8. Jethro_Grey

    Clan Battles - Mercenaries

    I want to play clan battles for a while now, even before I had to leave the game for almost one year. Now even more so, but like many others who started late to the whole clan party, I struggle to find members. Recently, two players joined which make me very happy, but to play CBs, you need a big(ger) rooster as not everyone can play everyday due to real life and whatnot. When checking someone‘s stats last night, I accidentally clicked on his team battle tab instead of ranked. Which reminded me, back in the day, when team battles was the closest thing we had to clan battles, you could hire mercs to fill up your ranks. I‘d like to see this feature implemented for clans as well. The way it could work is, a member of a clan or a player without clan registers as merc and can get hired. For each victory, he not only gets the rewards from the battles itself, but also some oil and coal and possibly other goodies that clan members are willing to donate from the treasury of the clan that hired him. Would require some additions to the clan treasury. Exceptions are ships, doubloons, steel, credits or basically anything that could hurt WGs profits. It also would prevent clans and players with a thick wallet snatching all good/ available mercs and leaving smaller clans in the dust. To avoid clan hoping, a merc can only sign with two clans per Season, all other restrictions in regards to switching clans apply. To prevent clans from scamming mercs, they get all bonuses automatically after a set period. Same applies in the other direction tho, if a merc leaves the clan without fulfilling his contract, he only receives the rewards for the time he was active. For instance, both parties agree to have the contract run 4 weeks with a playtime of 20 hours. After playing 4hours total, the merc wants to leave. In this case, he’d only receive the rewards for the time played and not the 4 weeks. It might be a piece of work, but it could work and it would help smaller clans getting their feet wet in CBs while giving players of other clans a chance to play for additional rewards. Thoughts?
  9. In this post I want to discuss the use of Secondary Battery Mod 2, the upgrade that gives -20% reload speed in slot 6. Currently, there are a lot of useful upgrades in slot 6: +15% AA gun performance (AAGM2) -12% reload for main guns, -13% turning speed (MBM3) -20% secondary reload speed (SBM2) +16% firing range (GFCSM2) -11% dispersion for main battery (APRM2 - USA only) Now, of those four, SBM2 is considered too weak by many, many players. It's fun to use, but there are nearly no ships that can effectively benefit from this -20% reload speed, and for ships that can benefit from it (Alsace, Großer Kurfürst), MBM3, or even GFCSM2, is usually a better choice. Therefore I would like to start a discussion about the following: Shouldn't SBM2 move to slot 5? In my opinion, this would have some very interesting consequences: Tier 8 ships will get acces to this upgrade, meaning it's usable on a lot of popular secondary build ships: Tirpitz, Bismarck, Massachusetts, Graf Zeppelin, Richelieu. Battleships have to compromise their concealment/torpedo detection in order to use it, allowing for more variation in upgrades. What do you think about moving SBM2 to slot 5?
  10. Uninstalatus

    Submarine suggestion

    Greetings everyone, as submarines are coming to game, I wanted to make a suggestion for rarely known, particular type of submarine, if there is an interest for them. It is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronis-class_submarine RONIS (seal) class submarines from latvian/soviet navy. That could be interesting addition, but there is not alot of information about them. Not sure what tier it should be, its up to devs to decide that, but question for everyone else, would you like to see those submarines in game? Just want to see my country represented in the game, sorry if I sound too pushy. AS this type of submarine is not widley known, then this might be interesting addition from forgotten pages of history. But it is up to game devs to decide if this is worthvile addition to their game.
  11. Niikichi


    Liebes Wargaming Team, keine Ahnung ob es schon an anderer stelle vorgeschlagen wurde oder es vielleicht schon in Arbeit u./o. ob es das richtige Forum ist,wenn dem so sein sollte entschuldige ich mich dafür es nochmals angerissen zu haben. Ich würde mir gerne ein besseres whisper-system wünschen, sprich: Das man mit Freunden die gerade in einer Runde sind auch schreiben kann wenn man selbst zur gleichen Zeit im Port ist und vice versa. Damit verbunden vielleicht auch ein neues oder verbessertes System für die Freundesliste. Das wars auch schon,vielen Dank. Mit freundlichem gruß
  12. Butterfield8

    Night/Dawn/Dusk Battles

    While I realize that developing and adding submarines into the WOW game is inevitable, I would prefer to see nighttime engagements, as well as dusk and dawn battles as well.
  13. Reasons why Graf Zeppelin dive bombers need to be changed. Ta-152 a high altitude interceptor fighter is non-sensical for the dive bomber role for naval engagement since this fighter isn't designed for low altitude engagements. The Ta-152 loadout with 1x PD 500 AP bomb and size of attacking flight being only 2 planes, dealing in maximum 14,000 potential damage if you manage to hit both bombs in the citadel is the lowest potential damage in-game for dive bombers even Langley's HE bombs have higher potential damage with their two bombs being 14,600 potential damage at Tier IV. Ta-152 with 1x PD 500 AP bomb suffers the worst accuracy to hit in-game with their size of attacking flight being only 2 planes being tied with other Tier IV Carriers with similar size of attacking flight of being two planes per drop and having payload being only one bomb, while Graf Zeppelin is supposed to be a T8 carrier and should be balanced by its piers at same tier, Enterprise, Kaga, Saipan etc. Enterprise respectably having the size of attacking flight being 3 planes with having 2 bombs each respectably increasing its accuracy to hit and potential to do 35,400 maximum potential damage. More than twice Graf Zeppelin could possibly do with a single drop. Ta-152 suffers the worst dive-bombing run I seen in the game. It requires a player with a high skill ceiling to able to take advantage of the angle of the bomb drop effectively. The bombs only drop directly down if you drop them early as possible when the bombing reticle appears this is when piercing battleships with strong deck armor is possible which is highly unreliable due to the bombs dropping very early and the accuracy suffers but it's the only way to get the optimal angle for the bombs to pierce.. Ta-152 was designed by Wargaming to be a divebomber but it performs best as a horizontal bomber like the RN Horizontal bombers. Best result using these dive bombers is to side bomb cruisers with big side citadels but you sacrifice velocity to able to pierce in the last second of the run and have a chance to hit the torpedo belt which is highly armored, still being highly unreliable despise using it optimally. False advertisement, this cannot be pointed enough that Wargaming used Ju-87 Stukas in promoting the Graf Zeppelin but they never managed to be added due to the poor excuse of the Stukas being too slow to be viable for the dive bomber role in Tier 8, while a carrier like the Enterprise that use dive bombers that fly at similar speeds like the SB2C helldive but still are highly successful despite being slow. Graf Zeppelin currently sits at 48% winrate average being the least effective CV in the game at Tier 8. Suggestion 1. Bringing back the Ju-87 Stuka and use regular AP bombs. Majority of Graf Zeppelin owners want it back, the plane was highly iconic during the second world war and Wargaming put already lot of resources on making it, it wouldn't require more of wargaming money to use already made assets. Speed is useless if the weapon that is used isn't reliable, the Ju-87 in the second world war was a very reliable close air support plane that could dive and pull up in very steep vertical dives, perfect for naval bombing. It was already planned to be used for the real Graf Zeppelin for historical reasons it should be with the carrier. The SB2C helldiver that the T8 Enterprise uses flies at 160 knots which would practically be the same speed that the Ju-87 would fly in-game. Yet the SB2C helldiver on the Enterprise is the most successful dive bomber in T8 despite being slow. The argument of Stukas being too slow to be used in-game is completely false. Suggestion 2. Change the existing dive bombers into horizontal bombers. Option 1. PC RS 1000-500 series, Rocket-Assisted Anti-Shipment Bomb. Rocket Assisted Anti-Shipment Bombs was a short term project used during 1941 in the Mediterranean sea funded by Rhein Metal to sink allied ships, the project lasted till 1942 April and saw continuous anti-shipping action until the project was canceled due to the favor of other projects. All these bombs were meant to be dropped like conventional bombs at minimum 50´ angle. Meaning they were meant for the horizontal bombing. Most of these bombs were dropped by Focke Wulf 190 fighters, a logical replaced for the Ta-152. Since FW-190 saw anti-shipping action and had low altitude configurations. One notable record of the bombs hitting allied vessels was with the PC 1000 RS "Paul", were achieved in the Mediterranean on a cruiser "Dido class" the bomb hit at a speed of 1152 km / h and the igniter detonated on 0.065 sec after the impact, but as the bomb had already leaked out of the ship's bottom and detonated 5 m below the water. Switching from dive bomber to horizontal bomber would be logical for the high-speed planes the Graf Zeppelin already has and would not be too big of a change. Could penetrate 180 mm armor steel so a hit would be pretty deadly to big capital ships such as battleships, bombs were specifically designed to destroy the Nelson. Option 2. SB 800 RS SB 800 RS also known as the bouncing bomb was a later project after the Rocket Assisted Anti-Shipment Bomb project. The whole idea of the bomb is to hit the side of the ship and detonate as it sinks under the ship after reaching the right depth for the fuse to activate, while the plane needs to reach maximum speed to drop it so it would get enough velocity to bounce depending if the bomb is with the rocket-assisted motor or not. The whole concept is new and would be an interesting unique mechanic in-game, currently, Graf Zeppelin dive bombers perform most effectively by side bombing so the technique would be quite similar on how to use this bomb. Would require a lot of testing to get it to work and personally is my least favorite option but it exists if the developers need some new creative mechanic, would still be hundred times more reliable than the current state of the dive bombers right now. Footage of both Options in a rare restored tape.
  14. 159Hunter

    Paragon system

    Dear moderators, I understand that there is a dedicated topic for this. However: most people come to this particular section of the forum to discus the game as it is, as it was and how we expect it to be when WG announces changes (we did this for CV rework, for the 0.8.5 AA changes, when clan battles were announced, when Stalingrad was announced, when steel was announced .... ). Point is, people are used to this. If you don't want us to discus the game here (ok, a decision you made based upon an interpretation of a forum rule I misread I guess) could you then please add a locked, sticky topic with the direct link to the correct topic? This will avoid you having to close a lot more topics AND it will also show that WG is not trying to hide the discussion in an obscure part of the forum that most of us don't use.
  15. ollonborre

    Marks of excellence/similar?

    In World of Tanks we have Marks of Excellences on tanks above tier 5, essentially a sort of bragging rights cosmetic feature. There are 3 steps that get progressively harder, and what is calculated into the Mark is average damage and spotting/assistance damage. So step one is to get above 50% of the population in that tank, step 2 75% and step 3 95% if I'm not mistaken. Now could this be applied to ships and why? Well for me atleast with the current clan battle rotation, ranked season and plenty of missions most ships below tier 8 are collecting rust in my port. Having Marks of Excellence or something similar to try and achieve would give myself some form of incentive to drop down and dust off plenty of ships in my port. Playing lower tiers for fun only get me so far, as while lower tiers are fun at the higher tiers is where my money and captain XP makers make their work. So a system along these lines would give most people something to work towards and hopefully have fun in the process. This has been brought up a while back now, and I don't see that many drawbacks to a system like this as it is purely a bragging rights tool and a sense of achievment. Limit it to tier 5 so you restrict sealclubbing and you should be golden. I should clarify that this is about individual ships, not the distinctive insignias that we already have (and are from tier 8 and up). So what is the general consensus on this? Is it a stupid idea, any pitfalls, improvements, a good idea or just whatever?
  16. Dunno if this is the correct place for suggestions, or if it has been brought up a million times before, but.. Talking about the "Earn X amount of money" or similar on missions for example. "Score 10000000 citadel hits" (yeah, that would be a fun one..) would be so much simpler if you could just separate the zeros into thousands, either comma, space, period or whatever you see fit. "Score 10 000 000 citadel hits" or "Score 10,000,000 citadel hits", is instantly readable, no annoyance required. Now this isnt really a big issue at all, could even be just me, but whenever I have to start counting zeros it does slightly annoy me.