Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.



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 101 results

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. Hello ! First of all, i would like to say that I understand why would WG want to rework the CV section. So, i will introduce my self first. You my notice that i is one of my first topic launch. Because as a player, i dedicate more of my time playing than going on forums. (not that it is useless, but because i like play. But i like to check it sometimes for guides etc.) You also might ask why would i introduce myself a bit, and that would be not useful ? It is to show what profile is talking about that big warzone topic that is CV. I am a player that came when playing wot around 2015. I heard about WoWs during this period (not exact). and WoWs was the only game that make me interested about ships in WW2, because before that, i was more in star wars stuff but never mind. I play WoWs when most of the ships where IJN and USN. So as a newbie a "make" a dream list of boat. Bceuase a a newcomer of WG game we dont know how much exp it will requiert to reach TX and even get skills to even carry or can play at lower tier. So chose somes. ad begin the play. PLUS as i am not a big ultra fan at the beginning, i play and farm mostly "for fun and learn purposes" first. But as a casual player i also switch games to games. I play WoWs more like seasonly or intensly but not continously. As some player already said in other post while searching for guides was that: the first 500 game whill show you how hard it is to learn. The 1000 game will give u a little bit of XP and show you how deep the strat can be. I am now at my 1000 game. I know few thing but not a lot as a dedicated WoWs player. So i had a lot of feelings in the game because i might not be well describe their but i might not play the game has a loyal man. But when i play a game, and this game. I like to learn, lose, win and understand the mechanics. Remember the FEELINGS. When it comes to feelings, you chose your ships and then became the first impressions. BB are slow tanky and not that manoeuvrable. CA/CL are kind of a medium ship DD are fast manoeuvrable and sneaky ships. AND THEN CV: when i first tried out (in RTS version) i was a bit lost because of the RTS view. Not because it was a strange design. But because i wasnt able to see the more straigt. The view was to much zoomed and was in a feeling of dive. Much like watching the ground. (FIRST SUGGESTION IN RTS MODE that disapear was and would be: having a scaling RTS view between the actual view and the map one.) I feel CV a different and interesting gameplay. EVEN if i lost most of my first CV game. I felt like if i was a bit better, i would shredd ships. So i learnt about manual drop and straffs (SECOND SUGGESTION IN RTS MODE taht disapear was and would be: why does manual straffs and drop removed for T4/T5 ?) Beside overall interfaces view of CV game play. I would like to compare both the RTS version of the CV gameplay and the 0.8.0 now 0.8.3 gameplay. But after that you might also say that feelings or not important compared to the balance. Maybe but WG isnt trash as a dev team. (maybe only edit team might be the one) So game designer can pretty sur mix both things. Game play design and feelings shared by it. Back to the comparison: RTS first feelings: The CV seems to be a strategic boat which need to be greatly placed to get to the point where both defending team mates and attacking is efficient. because of the multi suqad control thing. 0.8.0 firstr feelings: The CV seems to be a hangar for squad aircraft spawn to play a shoot game I know i might exaggerate. But it is that. The RTS view show and make the CV playuer more immersed as a CV captain. Feelings like how CV works in real life during WW2. (I know they dont do exactly same ! but will be more fidele to it) The best image for CV feels during RTS mode was that the captain/player was like a captain faced to a map whith icon that represent the suad that he control, more like an essential role. Where now the 0.8 make it feel an other way. For sur it keep his same role but loses that feeling. But more of a hangar where u are a pilot squad captain that just takeoff a ship. SO ! i am almost in the RTS team for sur, BUT i also understand what make the new system more appealing for some reasons and for some player bases. Thats why it is the same with each boat. DD feels weak but manoeuvrable, and can make some supprise attack CA/CL feels like a support ground force. That have the role of giving opportunity for mate to could do their role (their might be exeption but corect me if so) As HE on BB to avoid them aving great angle on mates. Radaring DD to avoid traps. Hydroing avoinding and preventing Torps for BB. Etc... BB feels tanky and powerful in exchange of their manoeuvrability. and CV are same, they have the role of controling the air space, provinding air supp and air attack to give opportunity to other to accomplish their own role. For me it is almost like a RPG/MOBA game where each ship have their own spec and gameplay role. it is the same thing and must be fiedel as much as possible in synergy with the game design. (I almost talk about the feels more that the game adjstement. but wait a bit...) For the good sake of CV from RTS to 0.8. Why not just merge both design to be accurate ? Why not keeping the RTS par because of the feelings ? Because most of the time from what i saw, 0.8 is better because alpha stike is less painfull. But more for DD. It cant deplane harder an oppennent. It is more joyful for newcomer. (not me sadly, but why not make them enoying the ancien ver ? (thats mostly because of the inefficency of T4/T5)) And about the feeling of being closer to the fight that on RTS view. It is false acording to the CV feels design. It isnt meant to be Close combat feeling. (ofc according to the feels again) So why not mix feels of CV and adjustment to make it pleasant for all ? Now maybe my aumentation and essay was woobly, but for sur, all player who are passionnate about ships whill understand what are those feelings. It is not about simplifying gameplay. It is about TWEAKING to get the perfect mesure for low tier and top tier as the Mighty shredder midway. SO What are what i suggest ? remember that this is suggestion. First i will use the battle of midway as an example. When Lexington and other USN CV iirc where attempting to attack yamamoto's main fleet. It was at first a recon war where they both "reconing" to could be the first to give the strike. And then being the big waves of planes. from wikipedia, not sur exactly. USS lexington had a space for aircraft of 22 fighters, 36 bombers and 12 torps bombers. I know that the desing of making only one big armada of planes going threw the map isnt great... or IS IT ? So why not for the new hypothetical rerework have a limited hangar of planes ? As accurate as possible but with possibility to tweak and changes the ammount of each kind of Aircrafts for diversity and design purpose. Because of the enoughly big amount of planes, like multi squad control as the RTS mode. The view will be mainly RTS but wil more scale view to get the perfect angling. Iwould add like a new type of planes while erasing the inacurate missile attack planes (tell me if i am wrong). Their will be 4 type : Recon planes Fighters Bombers Torp Bombers CAUTION. i know that CV were not meant to recon on both game build. But why not as in midway battle ? We have to tweak Fighters Bombers Torp Bombers to have a shorter range of view. And a rannge of view for recon planes to be limited at 6km (even fewer than the current stage) OFC, they wont be a lot. Only one can be flying around per CV, and only on other one is in the hangar. With as the RTS have given to fighters=AMMO. Here for recoin will be fuel or time limited flying path. like 3 min for 2 min CD. Enough fragile to get shredded when on risky moves because of the 6km. And more over to be less paintless ofr DD ! = they wont ping the type of boat at a certain rage like 6 km for a point ping in minimap only, and a ship type ping on minimap only when at 4-3 km. (depending on the type of boat. Which gives a deeper mecanics for concealment in relation with planes). More over ! Even if info is shared for all team. It will be retarded and delay of around 10 or 15 sec depending on CV to consider the "logistic" of how does recon transmit the message to the CV and when the CV will give info (as a radio wave) AGAIN more over, only recon will send infos to CV for Point ping and ship type ping on minimap ONLY. (CV will share that for all mates. BUT Fighters Bombers Torp Bombers wont recon for others, only info for CV) From the begining of a game their would be like maybe a timer for all planes. before take of. But only recon one is working on CD. Other wil be like generating planes in CD from hangar to completly make a squad. maybe like 60 sec before recon take off. And 90 sec before Squand ready with only one plane and others ore preparing for CV dock and squad ? Like that CV early snipe and early recon woudnt be effective. Wouldint that be interresting. (Remeber that this is suggestion about my argumentation of how would rework be interesting and how could it be to please every body) So we please DD and all for "reconning" thing no ? The system of attack would for me be same as RTS for Fighters Bombers Torp Bombers BUT with already fully aimed system. with only AA degrading the aim. Maybe as for BB normalisation variable, penetration variable etc. Planes as Fighters Bombers Torp Bombers can have their own variable as morale or "determination" Where the more AA they took, the more they began inacurate and have less window time to launch attack. OFC it will be tweaked for each nation. (ex: IJN will withstand more AA damage to degrade the accuration of the drop fewer, but increase the chance of taking AA damage. That will give as more "secret deth" as penetration variable, healing party, fires, flooding. etc. Overall, from stats the planes would have a greater chance to hit targer or at least drop payload. even with the AA debuff aiming. But will take more damage. So less plane form same squad can drop. It will drop but not as a full squad. For AA work now. It woulbe be interesting to keep this new AA system. But also with his own accuracy variable. lIke the more time planes are in the AA range, the more damage it will took from it. of course the variable will depend on remaing aa on boat and in how many AA zone they are in (from how many ships zones) And maybe put more over the sector renforcement system, a target priority thing as before which act like 5 or 10% faster atteining a Max AA damage from the variable. Like it will take more and faster damage from stying in zone. which by this way will decrease the variable of other ssquand in the same zone. Doesnt adding new variable for CV planes AA system better that rework all the system and loosing all the feels ? I know that it might need tweak in my suggestion buyt also as the actual rework to see how it could shine. But being able to kept the accurate feelings for the same role is IMO better that changing the feels for only the good sake of balance. MOREOVER and maybe out of topic. But why not having radars and hydro modules being destroyable on CA/CL ? or as engine, they can at least being disable ? Liek that i will again increase interaction betaween team mate where DD would need others to disable radars that can or cannot get repared by repair system. It will IRCC decrease the DD oppression if it still have one. Like that DD attacks will be more confortable because of the ability to disable radar or even hydro. (hydro will be a compartment inside the citadel or casemate as engine, ammo rack stuffs...) And also be less oppresive because of AA variable which make them take more damage and see less further. unless it is recon that only ping on minimal and with a delay. Finaly, main question would be like does each sugestion will be interesting enough for Wg to take a look at that ? or it is a hopeless topic that wont be even read by anyone and that WG will ignore ? THANKS A LOT FOR READING this BIG BLOC. I cant thank you a lot. Any critizise is welcome because this was a big though for me. I love the game because of the game but also of how WG devs mainly succes a making you feel each boat to ! AS i repeat my self, all that suggestion might took off my credibility, or contradict each argument each other. I am not sur about that. But be sur to correct me !. PS sry for a not gramaticaly accurate english, i am not a native english writer :/
  5. HentaiSquirrel

    Idea for tournament "King of the Seals"

    Hello Captains, hello Staff, when today i was having a peak into the King Of The Seas streams an idea came up: The King Of The Seals Tournament. (working title) KoTS and Shipstorm are addressed to higher tier players. Since there are probably a lot of people out there who like a competitive approach on occasion but haven't yet made their way into the higher echelons of competitive gaming... Why not have a tournament basically like Shipstorm or/and KoTS but limited to players who haven't been playing WoWs for more than, say, a year. Ships allowed from tier IV-VI. The Name is a working title derived from the 'seal clubbing' meme but evolved from the perspective of a seal that clubs back hard );-> The spread from TIV to VI sponaneously seemed viable imo... while a Minekaze /w a reasonably well trained captain (10-12 pt) can certainly wreak havoc in that environment - or go down hilariously if handled poorly - even an IFHE equipped Duguay-Trouin or a 13 pt. captain Shenyang could probably contribute more than a fair share against, say, a halfheartedly equipped/played TVI BB or CL, etc. Players /w no more than a year (?) of experience so there's no actual 'seal clubbing'. What are your thoughts on this? A mere brain fart due to an exhausting weekend or would this actually be something worthwhile pulling off? Since i'm not sure where to post this and don't want to spam one of the tournament related sections i'm putting it into 'off-topic' for now. If anyone likes the idea and has the experience and motivation to make something out of it, please feel free to pick it up. I even might be willing to contribute some of my time organising - if the chemistry is right - and taking part in the actual tournament, of course. (Having organised and contributed to organising smaller and larger 'rl events' in the past professionally... hey WG, i work freelance now XD ). Oh, and if something like this already exists, nevermind, i've only been playing the game for a couple of months now myself, grinding my way up to TVIII (and passable in random up to TVI... TVII on good days ;-> ). So if i'm late withe the idea, just point me to where i can apply, please ;-) Have a splendid time and good hunting everyone!
  6. Currently at the onset of a Random battle, you know exactly the enemy ships you are facing. This is highly unrealistic and sometimes depressing... I suggest a "discovery" variation on the known conditions at the start of battle: 1. Your team's ships are known to you and all players on your team. 2. The general composition of the enemy team is known (for instance: 1 CV + 3 BBs + 4 Cruisers + 4 Destroyers) 3. However the exact ships you are facing is unknown - so the 3 BBs might 3 Yamato or 3 Conqueror... 4. Enemy ships must be spotted and "Discovered" (A new ribbon different from Spotting). 5. Discovery of the enemy ship is done by one your ships spotting the enemy ship continuously for 10 secs - 1 minute, depending on class and range. I imagine the destroyers are discovered fast, since they tend to hide. The Battleships take longer to discover. For the CV it is by spotting the planes for a set period of time. The range aspect makes it so being 50% closer speeds up the discovery by 100%. The default time being measured from the ordinary spotting range outside smoke for the ships given configuration and commander skills. 6 .The period of time from point 5. might be cumulative through the battle or suffer a reset if the enemy manages to hide. 7. Being sunk automatically discovers the sinking ship to the one who contributed the most damage - unless already discovered. The enemy team obviously face the same uncertainty.
  7. Dear fellow warship captains and game responsibles, as we are currently encountering a lot of problems due to the changes in CV gameplay and their respective balancing issues I gave those problems some major thought and this is what I was comming up with: The concept and necessary steps: 1) Set standard values for CV planes according to the respective nation, duty and tier 2) Use those standard planes in conjuction with quasi-restriced matchmaking for CV's 3) Balance AA around the standard planes Ad 1) First of all I would start assigning standard values for CV planes according to the nominal tier they are going to be used at. This includes but is not limited to plane specific values like hit points, plane speed, damage resistance, ordonance damage values etc. Once CV plane parameters for each tier, nation and plane type have been set we can move on to 2). Ad 2) Currently top tier CV's are often devastating versus lower tier ships and low tier CV's can be entirely powerless versus high tier ships, which is mainly due to the power increase (or drop) that the ±2 matchmaking is creating. This has been the reason for many complaints from both the CV captains ("useless carrier") as well as the ships on the receiving end ("useless AA"). But how can we ease this issue a little? My solution would be to use the standard value plane idea as per 1) and introduce quasi-restricted matchmaking for CV's, making them weaker while being top tier and increasing their power while being low tier. How could this work in game? Once teams have been assigned the server checks the CV's tier position for the given battle and assigns the appropriate plane tier and values. Example: a) Shokaku in a game where T6 ships are present as the lowest tier => T7 plane values are used (CV planes are downtiered to lessen impact) b) Shokaku in a game where T7 ships are present as the lowest tier => T8 plane values are used c) Shokaku in an entirely T8 game or scenario => T8 plane values are used d) Shokaku in an T9 battle => T8 plane values are used e) Shokaku in a T10 battle => T9 plane values are used (CV planes are uptiered to highten impact) Note that the actual planes models do not necessarily need to change, however the CV's will always use the respective plane tier and plane stats as explaned above. For example if a full researched T6 Ryujo were to meet a full researched T8 Shokaku in any single battle, both CVs would be using T7 plane values, i.e. the Ryujo would be using B5N2 Kate torpedo bombers with T7 stats and the Shokaku would be using B7A Ryusei torpedo bombers with T7 stats. So you might ask yourself, if both CV's are using the same planes, what is their difference and why should I level up? One answer to this is to have the CV's balanced against each other not by the planes they use but by other no less important factors like the number of planes within each squadron (e.g. T7 Ryujo 8 vs T7 Shokaku 12), the number of ordonance used per attack (e.g. T7 Ryujo 2 vs T7 Shokaku 3) or the flight deck plane respawn rate (e.g. T7 Ryujo 50 secs vs T7 Shokaku 30 secs). Ad 3) As a result of our conceptual changes to CV's and their planes the spread of planes that can meet any individual ship (or vice versa) will be reduced from a maximum of 5 tiers to a maximum of 3 tiers. Sticking to our example a Mogami will no longer face the T6 planes of a Ryujo and the T10 planes of a Hakuryu, most probably easily swatting the T6's and struggling hard with the T10's, but will just face T7 to T9 planes (±1 spread) which in theory should allow for much easier plane versus AA balancing than we can do now. I know that this concept is not entirely foolproof and has its own drawbacks, especially if there is just a minority of low or high tier ships within any single battle (a lone Amagi in an otherwise T6 and T7 battle will up the planes of a Ryujo and a lone Aoba in an otherwise T7 and T8 battle will lower the planes of a Shokaku), however I do consider these drawbacks minor in comparison to the balancing problems we are facing now (and have been facing in the past) and that the benefits of using quasi-restricted matchmaking for CV's are worth giving the idea at least some consideration. What do you think? @MrConway@Sub_Octavian
  8. Zdravím, Tahle věc mi už nějakou chvíli kvasí v hlavě. V poslední době se ve hře objevuje čím dál tím více bitevních křižníků. Popravdě, podle mě je už teď ve hře dostatek lodí s charakteristikami někde mezi křižníky a bitevními loděmi, že je na čase separovat je jako samostatnou classu + vytvořit pro ně extra vývojové větve tam kde je to možné - což minimálně v případě DKM a RN možné určitě je. Osobně bych si do třídy "bitevních křižníků" dovolil zahrnout i panzerschiffe (třída Deutchland a její plánovaný nástupce Kreuzer P) a americký "velký křižník" Alaska - prostě cokoliv co stojí někde mezi křižníky a bitevními loďmi a zároveň není tak úplně ani jedno z toho. A jelikož DKM byla ve hře dříve než RN, dovolil bych si začít návrhem větve bitevních křižníků Deutches Kriegsmarine (resp. Kaiserliche Marine v případě nižších tierů). Pusťme se tedy do toho: Tier IV: S.M.S. Blücher První loď v linii vlastně není tak úplně bitevní křižník, ale v kontextu nižších tierů tuto definici dostatečně naplňuje. Navržený jako reakce na britské bitevní křižníky třídy Invincible se jednalo o poměrně dobře pancéřovaný chráněný křižník se silnou hlavní baterií tvořenou dvanácti 210mm děly v šesti věžích (jedna na přídi, jedna na zádi, dvě po každém boku, podobně jako na S.M.S. Nassau). Pancéřový pás dosahoval maximální síly 180mm, sekundární baterie byla tvořena početnými děly ráže 150 a 88 mm. Konstrukční rychlost byla 25,4 uzlů. Obecně tedy charakteristiky pěkně uprostřed mezi bitevními loďmi a křižníky na tieru IV. Tier V: S.M.S. Von Der Tann První skutečný bitevní křižník německého námořnictva byl vyzbrojen baterií osmi 28cm děl v podobné "cikcak" konfiguraci jako věže bitevní lodi Kaiser, oproti tehdejším britským bitevním křižníkům obětujícím pancíř za účelem maximalizace palebné síly a rychlosti se jednalo o spíše slaběji vyzbrojenou ale relativně dobře pancéřovanou loď (pancéřový pás až 250mm) s nijak extrémně vynikající, ale relativně rozumnou úrovní mobility (max. rychlost cca 27,5 uzlů). Sekundární výzbroj byla stále tvořena 150mm děly v kasematách a 88mm dvouúčelovými děly na palubě. Tier VI: DKM Deutchland Starší sestra lodi Graf Spee, která je všem hráčům WoWS dobře známá už dva roky. Jednalo se o naplnění omezení daných Versailleskou dohodou, kdy byl výtlak lodí omezen na 10000 tun a ráže děl na 280mm. V kontextu herní linie jde o bod, kdy se filozofie vývojové větve přesouvá od těžce pancéřovaných lodí 1. sv. války k lehkým, vysoce mobilním bitevním křižníkům určeným k napadání nepřátelských konvojů a lehčích lodí taktikou "udeř a uteč". Po stránce pancéřování, výzbroje a mobility prakticky totožná s Graf Spee, lišila se jen jinou konstrukcí nástavby a po modernizaci tzv. "atlantickou přídí" (v kontextu hry možno jako design "B" trupu) + postupně modernizovanou lehkou protiletadlovou baterií. Tier VII: Kreuzer P Tady už začínají papírové designy. Já vím, já vím, málokdo je má rád, ale bez nich se leckterá linka prostě nedá postavit, navíc v případě DKM se jednalo o celou řadu různých designů lodí všemožných typů v rámci "plánu Z" a většina z nich byla dost detailně zpracovaná. Kreuzer P byl navržený jako třída dvanácti jednotek a jednalo se o nástupce třídy Deutchland. Hlavní baterie byla ve stejné konfiguraci 2x3 jako u Deutchlandů, ale namísto starých SK C/28 se jednalo o modernější SK C/34 známé z třídy Scharnhorst (první tři lodi měly dokonce dostat přímo zbraně z lodí Scharnhorst a Gneisenau po jejich plánovaném přezbrojení na 380mm baterii). Sekundární baterie měla být oproti Deutchlandům soustředěna do dvou věží v superpozici nad věžemi hlavní baterie a torpédomety byly redukovány na 2x3 a přesunuty doprostřed lodi. Tier VIII: Schlachtkreuzer O (1) Návrh bitevního křižníku určeného k samostatným operacím, jednalo se o poměrně velkkou loď vyzbrojenou hlavní baterií ve třech věžích. Co se výzbroje týče objevilo se postupně několik návrhů s ráží děl od 280 do 380mm a předpokládanou maximální rychlostí až 35 uzlů. Několik z těchto návrhů jsem vybral jako zástupce posledních tří tierů s postupně sílící výzbrojí. Na tieru VIII by byl adekvátní návrh lodi s lehkým pancéřováním (pás max. 190mm) a výzbrojí tří věží po třech dělech ráže 280mm doplněnou sekundární baterií ráže 150mm, dvouúčelovými děly ráže 105mm a dvěmi třírannými torpédomety Tier IX: Schlachtkreuzer O (2) Jako přirozená protiváha lodí Kronstadt a Alaska by se nabízela verze návrhu třídy O vyzbrojená hlavní baterií děl SK C/39 ráže 305mm. Jednalo se o plánovanou výzbroj budoucích bitevních křižníků, jejíž vývoj byl ukončen po tom, co bylo rozhodnuto vyzbrojit je děly ráže 38cm použitými na třídě Bismarck. V kontextu hry by asi nejlepší volbou byla volitelná konfigurace, buď 3x3 305mm děla nebo 3x2 380mm děla se stejnou penetrací, poškozením, úsťovou rychlostí a dalšími parametry vázanými na střelu samoznou jako u lodí Gneisenau a Bismarck, ale s předvídatelnějším rozptylným obrazcem za cenu kratšího dostřelu +rychlostí nabíjení optimalizovanou pro IX. tier. Tier X: Schlachtkreuzer O+ Tady se musím přiznat, úplně vymyšlený design na bázi Schlachtkreuzer O. Na druhou stranu totéž se dá říct o Grosser Kurfürst, République, Conqueror, a vůbec spousta tier X lodí s jen hrstkou čestných vyjímek, takže bych v tom pro účel hry neviděl problém. Jednalo by se o design s pancířem srovnatelným s Schlachtkreuzer O vyzbrojený baterií devíti 380mm děl ve třech věžích Herní styl: Společnou vlastností většiny německých bitevních křižníků byla poměrně silná sekundární baterie děl ráže 150mm, což mě přivedlo na myšlenku možnosti konfigurovat lodi tak, aby bylo možno tuto vlastnost s výhodou využít. Nemluvím teď o dostřelu na úrovni francouzských a německých bitevních lodí, ale o dostatečně dlouhém dostřelu tak, aby se vyplatilo investovat do jejího posílení pro boj zblízka. Zároveň pro ty, kdo preferují možnost obrany před nepřátelskými letadly by u vyšších tierů mohl být k dispozici alternativní "C" trup, který by obětoval dostřel sekundární baterie (a někdy i přímo měnil "hladinové" zbraně za dvouúčelové) pro posílení protiletadlové výzbroje. Nakonec, můj osobní návrh ikony pro označení bitevních křižníků:
  9. So, first of all: Hello and please excuse my english, as well as any inevitable typos below. It's not my 1st language, but i believe it's enough to get the message around, so let's get to the point: This topic is basically translation of my previous, similar one in czech forums. I may or may not add or change some bit here and there, but the general message is basically the same for both of those topics. This is just to spread the message a bit further. I have been thinking about this thing for some time now: In recent time there seems to be increasing number of ships in WoWs which one might call "battlecruisers". Truth be told, i believe even now there is enough ships with characteristics somewhere between cruisers and battleships to classify them under separate category and add their own tech branches where possible - which i believe might be for the DKM and RN trees. Personally i would classify as "battlecruisers" every ship, which combines characteristics from both classes, be it german "Pocket battleships" or american "Large Cruisers" of the Alaska-class. Also, ships which were technically battlecruisers but in effect were not really much different drom fast battleships (like Kongo, Eitel Friedrich, Hood or Amagi) would not be included in the battlecruiser class for ballance and tech tree continuity purposes. And since DKM tech tree is older than the Royal Navy one, i would like to present my suggestion for the battlecruiser line of the Deutches Kriegsmarine (or Kaiserliche Marine for the lower tiers), so let's get to it: Tier IV: S.M.S. Blücher First ship of the branch is not actually battlecruiser per se, but among the low tier ships it fits the definition well enough: Designed as counterpart to british Invincible-class battlecruisers, the Blücher was the last protected cruiser of german navy armed with twelve 210mm guns in six turrets (one fore, one aft, 2+2 wing turrets, much like the Nassau), secondary battery of numerous 150mm and 88mm guns and quite reasonable armor, with belt thickness up to 180mm. Its max speed was 25,4 knots. Those characteristics all fit pretty well between cruisers and battleships of tier IV. Tier V: S.M.S. Von Der Tann First proper battlecruiser of the german navy. It was armed by 8 280mm guns arranged in "zigzag" configuration, much like the german battleship Kaiser. In comparison to british idea of battlecruiser, which sacrificed armour to max out speed and firepower, german battlecruisers had a bit lighter armament, but considerable amount of armor (belt thickness up to 250mm) with not exactly stellar, but quite reasonable max speed of 27,5 knots. Secondary armament was still composed of 150mm and 88mm guns mounted in casemates and dual purpose mounts respectively. Tier VI: DKM Deutchland The older sister of Graf Spee, which is well known to WoWs community for at least two years now. It was built to fulfill the versailles treaty limits, which limited new german ships to 10000 tons of displacement and their main battery armament to 11". In WoWs, Deutchland would mark the point where the design philosophy would shift from heavily armored ships of the 1st world war to highly mobile commerce raiders and cruiser hunters of World War 2, best suited for the "hit and run" tactics. Armor and armament-wise, Deutchland was basically identical to Graf Spee and differed mostly visually by different superstructure design and later after its modernisation, bu the "atlantic bow" (in-game this might reflect on B-hull) + throughout the war steadily upgraded light AA armament. Tier VII: Kreuzer P Here we actually start with the "paper designs", althrough many of those designs were actually approved for construction and some ships even laid down as part of the "plan Z" fleet, which was supposed to challenge Royal Navy on equal terms. Some people might not like the paper ships, but sometimes you can't actually build whole tree without them and as i said some of those were in really advanced stage of development, so moving on: Kreuzer P was supposed to be twelve unit class of pocket battleships designed as successors to the Deutchlands, sharing the same main battery configuration of two 280mm triplets, but instead of the older SK C/28 guns these ships were supposed to carry the more modern SK C/34 of the Scharnhorst-class, quite literally for the first three ships planned, which were supposed to be armed by guns salvaged from the two light battleships during their scheduled refit with twin 380mm turrets. Secondary battery was to be concentrated to two turrets located in superposition to the main battery. Torpedo armament was to be reduced to two three-barreled launchers about in the middle of the hull's length. Tier VIII: Schlachtkreuzer O (1) Proposed battlecruiser designed for independent commerce-raiding operations was to be large ship with main battery composed of three gun turrets, relatively light armour and design speed of up to 35 knots. Several designs were suggested, with main armament consisting of guns ranging from 280 to 380mm. Several of those designs could fit as the last three tiers of this tech branch, with increasingly more powerful armament: For tier VIII, the most adequate would be one of the first designs armed by 9 280mm guns in three-gun turrets, 150mm secondary battery, 105mm DP guns and two three-barreled torpedo launchers. Tier IX: Schlachtkreuzer O (2) As natural counterballance to Kronstadt and Alaska, tier IX would be occupied by O-class design armed by main battery of 9 305mm SK C/39 guns. This was supposed to be the main armament of german Z-plan battlecruisers, before its development was suspended in favor of using 380mm guns already in production for the Scharnhorst-class and Bismarck-class battleships. In WoWs, best choice could be optional gun loadout of either 3x3 305mm guns or 3x2 380mm guns, which would be in shell performance to Bismarck, but with more predictable dispersion pattern, but shorter main battery range and reload speed optimized for tier IX. Tier X: Schlachtkreuzer O+ Here i must admit, this one would be fabricated design along the lines of O-class, but considering many (not just) tier X ships already in-game are complete fabrications, including Grosser Kurfürst, République or Conqueror, i don't see that big of a problem in this aspect. This would be slightly enlarged O-class design with the same almost cruiser-lever armor, armed by 9 380mm guns in three turrets. Expected play style: Společnou vlastností většiny německých bitevních křižníků byla poměrně silná sekundární baterie děl ráže 150mm, což mě přivedlo na myšlenku možnosti konfigurovat lodi tak, aby bylo možno tuto vlastnost s výhodou využít. Nemluvím teď o dostřelu na úrovni francouzských a německých bitevních lodí, ale o dostatečně dlouhém dostřelu tak, aby se vyplatilo investovat do jejího posílení pro boj zblízka. Zároveň pro ty, kdo preferují možnost obrany před nepřátelskými letadly by u vyšších tierů mohl být k dispozici alternativní "C" trup, který by obětoval dostřel sekundární baterie (a někdy i přímo měnil "hladinové" zbraně za dvouúčelové) pro posílení protiletadlové výzbroje. The common reccuring theme of most german battlecruiser designs was powerful secondary battery consisting of 150mm guns, which lead me to idea for these ships to be configured in a way where the player could build on this feature and in close-range brawls use those guns to his advantage. Now, i'm not talking about the secondary range on par with German or French battleships, but slightly greater range, which, if the player would invest the required captain skills, could enable him to effectively use those guns. At the same time, player who would chose not to emphasise on his ship's secondary surface armament and would actually prefer to have more reliable means to defend himself agains enemy carrier groups could use the optional "C Hull" available on mid-to-high tier ships, which would sacrifice the secondary gun range (and in some cases even exchange "surface" gun mounts for dual purpose or dedicated AA) to improve the performance of the AA battery. The last suggestion for now, my idea of "battlecruiser" class icon: 
  10. DenmarkRadar

    Suggestion: Show Elite Commander XP

    I would like to suggest a small improvement to the port: Please show Elite Commander XP next to the values for Dubloons, Credits and Free XP.
  11. TankCommanderZane

    Suggestion for WoW

    I have a suggestion which could make the game a bit more fun. A kind of Free-Roam mode for players of all tiers who can just hop on and sail. Teams would be based on their nationality, and it would take about half an hour for a destroyer to get from one end of the map to the other. The basis of this is basically just to sail around completing occasional objectives, trying to capture parts of the map for your country, etc. There would be no time limit, and players can respawn as any ship of any country - Although they will switch sides if switching country. For example. If your piloting an Japanese warship, you will be allies with all other Japanese Warships, but enemy with German, American, Italian, etc. If your piloting a Japanese Warship, are sunk, and become an American Warship, all american warships become allies, and japanese become enemy including the other nationalities. Missions in this could include defending or sinking an nation's convoy, map-wide-territories, Defend/Attack Port missions, and more. This would definitely be an amazing addition in my opinion! I hope my idea comes into consideration. :)
  12. _Raskeria_

    Friendly fire defensive AA

    I was wondering what kind of affect a friendly fire defensive AA would have, I mean the biggest problem CV's have right now is powerful AA and def AA, but if there were consequences to using def AA for both sides then people might be hesitant to use def AA. For example: Torp bombers going in for attack from enemy cv, a bb is its target and a cruiser is sat near it in def AA range, but on their side their CV's bombers and fighters are using the cruisers AA, the fighters intercept the bombers and the cruiser activates def AA. With the current system, def AA is activated and the bombers are panicked and the fighters help destroy them. With the system I am suggesting, the cruiser activates def AA, they begin to shoot down the enemy bombers, but also begin to destroy and panic the ally fighters and bombers. So it would really add quite an interesting system because there are pros and cons with activating def AA with this type of system, for one the friendly CV cant use the cruiser for AA, the ally fighters would have to be hesitant to intercept and the enemy CV's bombers get a nice clean drop off if neither the friendly CV or cruiser make a decision. It encourages more communication, the cruiser will have to tell their CV that they are activating their def AA, and the CV will have to talk to its allies during certain times to ensure that they dont overlap. There are pros to this, no more op def AA that just affects enemy aircraft, gives CV's more breathing room (which they definitely need right now (since AA is op on every ship type except DD's)), also adds a bit more micro management needed, because CV's cant just leave their fighters/bombers over a cruiser and think they are safe It would make CV's less hesitant to attacking, because these days as soon as a CV sees a cruiser that can slot def AA they almost always move their aircraft out of the area and that area instantly becomes a no fly zone, but with the system I am suggesting the no fly zone goes both ways, if the cruiser doesnt know what they are doing both sides suffer. Anyway tell me what you guys think, I am interested to see what people think to my suggestion. I am also a frequent player of every ship type, but I am predominately a BB main, but I am all for making CV's easier and more powerful.
  13. sisito0o

    Dynamic map suggestion

    I know Wargaming doesn't take suggestions and even if it did it will be a good 1-2 years before the results come, but I wanted to share this just to see what is your opinion or what problems will you find with it more likely. Also has anyone suggested it before ? Another arctic map but this time with movable objects in it, icebergs with size of small islands that move throughout the game, I won't make this post long by describing all the different situations and problems that movable objects may incur will keep it short and simple. But for all of them that I can think of solutions can be made easily or moderately, like pushing the ship outside the map or trapping one in-between
  14. There is so much wrong with this skill. I dislike in in every ship class I have. As a DD, if I use RDF it notifies enemies that they are located on spots where there usually don't expect it even if they don't have this skill. It alerts them to change direction ASAP which most of them do. As a CL - I have radar, sonar and fighters. Using RDF is a waste of skill As a BB - I don't need it since there are more useful and extremely more powerful skills to use So, how to make it better? Make it into a time limited consumable. Those who unlock it could be able to slot it and use it certain amount of times. Since it is not a radar, it should last longer. Perhaps 2 minutes with 2-3 charges. This of course should mean removal of "located" marker for the enemy. He is actively using radio, not you. Optional: If you turn it into a consumable, make some UI marker to show signal strength (stronger signal means that enemy is closer). This will justify it's existence as a time limited consumable and an expensive skill. Optional 2: Those who unlock this skill should have option to use "Radio silence" for the same time and with same number of charges. This way attacking DDs would go full stealth when they engage target. During radio silence you will be able to see map markers only for the ships in your visual range and you won't be able to report positions for enemy ships. If you are away from your team visual range, they wouldn't be able to see you as well. Imagine how fun this would be Another layer of skilled play. Limit skill range to max visual radius for that ship. Weather or obstacles shouldn't influence it. Right now this skill feels like a quick fix from developers. They tried to fix something and made game even more unbalanced. It needs urgent changes.
  15. GenePatton

    Suggetion for ports

    Hi, Since almost everybody has many ships, I would like to make a suggestion for the port : Each Nation has a port example (examples : Germany - -> Wilhelmshaven ; French - -> Toulon ; British - -> Scapa Flow) Per Default, you only see the nation's ships in the port (in the German port, you only see german ship) Of course, those ports should be actual naval base from Worl War II, in order to be historically true..
  16. Bonjour à tous, Ce serait bien qu'on puisse voir le détail des missions dans le calendrier des évènements. Pour l'instant on n'a que l'intitulé et les dates, ce serait bien d'avoir le descriptif des missions et les récompenses associées.
  17. Currently every ship has only one damage control party (DCP), once used fixes all the problems, but goes to cool-down for the next 60 seconds. Suggestion - give bigger ships more than one damage control parties! Each DCP has it's own cool-down timer. My idea is that destroyers and carriers get 1 DCP, Cruiser get 1 DCP in tiers 2 to 4; 2 DCPs in tiers 5 to 7 and 3 DCPs in tiers 8 to 10. Battleships get allways 3 DCPs. This would give more option to different ships of different class and nation. We could debate whether the X number of DCPs will still remain "instantly fix-all problems" or they could be more like fix x number of problems or player can assing for each DCP what they go out to fix. This way current HE shells fire damage wont be that much of a problem cause a BB player knows he can handle 3 fires in 1 minute. The idea is based on damage control units in a ships, where they are dispersed over the ship. Getting hit and burning in one end of big ship does not mean that once your damage control unit has taken care of the fire you have no resources to handle the engine damage recieved in next enemy salvo. The bigger the ships the more can it accommodate the DCPs. While one unit is sent fighting a fire others are on standby.
  18. thunder3oo

    Suggestions&obsevations

    All right, I had enough of this. Time to talk. I'll write them down in the order they come to my mind, so: 1. The game needs a chat open/close button (I know someone said that before). Transparency is a good thing, still, we have the minimap, the chat, consumables, the compass... I think there are enough items to fill the view field. 2. Engine's volume of the "voice" is including the captain's voice, but not that voice which announces the start of the battle/capturing a base, etc. Really now... it's not necessary for "my" neighborhood to know that "ENEMY TEAM HAS CAPTURED A BASE", for example. 3. I see no antialiasing settings in the video section beside that FXAA, thing that cannot be used unless you get your graphic settings higher. 4. Details of the ships are nerve breaking. Come on, now, what pleasure and feedback do you expect from your players, when you set ships like New Mexico and Fuso to have a stock fire range at 13,5 KM?? They are big ships, they suppose to have the best optics/radars/guns. Instead of giving ships bad mobility, small view range (let's say the first body of the ship has a smaller citadel) or smaller/fewer guns... you chose to get them a small fire range. Ineffective is the word for those stock ships. When you drive a slow battleship - everybody wants a piece of you and almost everyone manage to hit you, without having the chance to fire back properly. Practically that's a floating cookie jar. 12 guns are not really a big thing, if you're unable to hit the targets because they're too far. Also Fuso doesn't have the option of buying a module for bigger fire range of the main turrets, as New Mexico does. 5. Descriptions of the ships are incomplete. Why there's no visual range, actual speed, acceleration, turning in seconds, reverse speed? Thickness of the armor? That "mobility" detail is not giving us much info, for example. 6. The ability to put a fire under control seems ineffective, again. As I said before, It's a ship surrounded by WATER, and it has a big crew. 7. I really don't understand what captain's skills have to do with the AA operators. The biggest is the xp on the captain of the ship, the better and rapidly AA is firing. Maybe these two should be split. That's one thing that could make the game more complex. Maybe I want a dumb captain, but an excellent AA crew. Unless you have few hundreds battles in that ship, AA is firing like a half-blind trembling old lady armed with a rusty shotgun. Come on! In real life I don't think the captain has to do every little thing. He has subordinates who carry the jobs, he doesn't have to whisper to the AA crew ear every second "fire now". It's like the crew is half deaf and completely retarded. "Captain, what? Oh, look, a target. It's moving away. Your orders were about that target, captain? Well, sorry. Torpedoes! We're doomed!" The range of the AA is again ineffective. There are players who all they do is set their carriers in a corner and send planes. Planes after planes, torpedoes on the left and torpedoes on the right, bombs above, plus everybody is firing upon you. Combine this with a tier 6 slow, not upgraded&small rangeguns battleship, and you'll see the big picture. 8. Torpedoes, torpedoes... and more torpedoes. In my opinion they ruin the game, which is already unbalanced. Since people make abuse of the unlimited torpedoes, my suggestion is that ammo capacity to be introduced. What I drive? A battleship. That would be less rounds for me, but less torpedoes for them. 9. Smoke and visibility. Not only that destroyers are small and fast, they use smoke. All right. If they do that, why the battleships can't? Now comes the best part. A destroyer moves WITHOUT smoke at some 2-4 km distance from my ship (which is big, tall, and have a tall citadel/observation chamber, and I said before - should have the best optics). ... and it disappears in front of my eyes, to reappear again few seconds later. There's no such thing in real life on clear weather, not even on smaller visibility determined by some humidity or heat. It's the same problem I have encountered in WoT, and you can trust me on this, there I have more than 37 K battles. 10. Horns. That would be fun (with some restrictions on number of use). 11. Gameplay BEFORE graphics and special effects, people. That should be the rule of designing games, in my opinion. This game uses too much CPU (a part of lag comes from there). Is not the video card that is hard stressed here, is the CPU. A good friend of mine gave me his old motherboard and his old CPU. I had an Athlon 64X2 4800+ (2,5GHz) OC to 3GHZ, and the game was barely playable with tweaks and settings and drivers. Now I have a Core2Duo 3GHz/6MB cache, and I use the same video card as I did some days ago. Guess what, no more stuttering, no more sound problems (and the sound is set on high in the game), I even dare to test high video settings and it was still playable. That's all for now. Thank you.
  19. olmedreca

    Some suggestions regarding carriers

    Disclaimer: following suggestions are based on my experience playing IJN carriers up to Hiryu and also being „target“ up to Fuso. It is quite possible that some suggestions aren’t very suited for tiers 8+. Overall: 1. Reduce between tiers scaling of: fighter damage, plane health, AA damage Reason is simple, differences are just excessive. If carrier is higher tier then opposition, he can wipe out lower tier carrier planes in a moment, and his bombers can fly endless circles around their targets ignoring AA fire. On other hand, if carrier is lower tier, then his planes get wiped out by fighters and AA far too fast to be useful. 2. Double squadron set up time on carrier if it was completely wiped out. That would reduce incentives to suicide last plane (or to spare last enemy plane) for faster squadron reload. Torpedo bombers: Generally I think they are a bit too good, but I definitely wouldn’t change any fundamental basics as imo they „work right“, so some nerfs to stats: 10-20% increase of torpedo arming distance. 10-20% decrease of torpedo damage. On side note, they should be made work properly at map edges. Dive bombers: Currently dive bombers impact is simply too small, so they can be often safely ignored. Suggestions: 10-20% damage increase. Reduce size of manual drop circle then panicked. Currently it is more or less as big as panicked auto drop circle, meaning that there is absolutely no reason to bother with manual dive bombing then panicked. I would make panicked manual drop circle as big as non-panicked auto-drop circle, that way there is more reason to micro DBs to the end of their run. Fighters: Reduce differences between US and IJN fighters. I switched to strike loadouts because IJN fighters are little more then armed scouts. I can get far better results by simply throwing more bombers at enemy, then bothering to try to escort my bombers with fighters like should logically be a proper balanced playstyle.
  20. Unicorn_Poacher

    [Suggestions] Add Shared Tactical Map View

    Greetings developers, I wanted to propose adding a shared tac map view option within a division. The tac map would have the capability to show what course I have plotted for my division mates to see on their respective maps. This would be extremely helpful and convenient in coordinating strategy with friends as just using the coordinates is slow and clunky to call out to teammates. Thanks for your consideration!
  21. __Ashley__

    Suggestion that can work out

    Please forgive me if this question offends you: Can you like please consider putting German submarines in game instead of destroyers (you don't have to give them diving ability's) just to have them in game would be great even if they were only be available to sail on surface,I though since Destoryers have "smoke" ability you can give submarines ability to "dive" (they become invisible to enemy for 10 seconds) with cooldown at 1 minute or less.Please don't think I am trolling or something like that I find that you do really good job, I hope we can make even game better with feedbacksAnyway I am waiting for your reply
  22. small suggestion to give Clemson alternative armament or to make new Clemson with new guns. thx to strengthened gun foundations Clemson not only could mount double 4inch guns, but also 5inch/51 known from stock Nicholas 5 Clemson's in total were armed with 5inch/51: Hatfield (D-231), Brooks (D-232), Gilmer (D-233), Fox (D-234) and Kane (D-235) for compassion only 3 Clemson's carried current top setup dual 4inch/50. new setup trades part of DPS for higher HE penetration (17.5mm vs 21.16mm) making them more useful against thick skinned opponents (like Wyoming and his 19mm plating), higher AP penetration and better velocity. stat comparison
  23. so, my 30 days of premium account expired, and i initially planned to purchase another 30 days. but the standard account port music made me change my mind, at least for now. its not that i don't like the premium port music, i think its epic, but i miss the option to switch back to standard account music and sounds when i feel like it. this is why i have not extended my premium account yet, even though i initially wanted to. its like selecting a different station in the radio, without beeing able to go back for a month. on a side note: i love the sound design in world of warships (both premium and standard). if premium users get the option to choose between the two on the fly, I'll gladly purchase more premium time. ------------------------------ by music i mean, the background music in the port, upgrades/exterior, and profile screens. by sounds i mean the sounds that play on: selection of a nation on the tech tree screen research of a ship or module purchase of a ship or module
  24. CaptainNorse

    Expand division number

    World of Warships is even more a game of combined strategy than World of Tanks. Strength is in a fleet that moves coherently, and where battleline, escorts etc moves together. I would therefore like to see the limit of people in a division moved to 5. It would still allow for quite a bit of randomness in the team, while at the same time allowing a bit of extra strategy with friends.
  25. GenePatton

    Tirpitz flag

    Hi, I would like wargaming to issue to all Tirpitz owner, the Tirpitz flag. it would be awesome. In my opinion every ship should have his own flag.
×