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
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
    • Comunità Italiana
  • 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 128 results

  1. 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:
  2. 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: 
  3. Reports are becoming a topic of controversy. They are intended to punish bad players, bots and flamers, but since they can use reports as well, good players will get their share of revenge reports. At the moment only chat reports do their job, other two are debatable. Do we know if bots are being banned? No, since there is no feedback. What happens when you report someone for "bad play"? Nothing. This is probably implemented so that you can feel better Luckily, there is a simple way to improve reports and prevent their abuse: Conditions must be met before report options are available OR Reports must be automatically checked before system approves them After enough reports are accumulated, there must be some sort of consequence Karma Conditions must be met before report options are available to players This is something that we, web developers, do all the time. We check for some sort of conditions before we allow changes in user interface. For instance, we check if user has entered correct e-mail before we allow him to register or log-in. Same thing can be applied here before report option even appear on right click. For inappropriate chat: Has this player wrote anything? If he hasn't wrote anything - chat report should be unavailable. Has player wrote some words that are in a "bad words list"? If no bad words have been entered - chat report should be unavailable Is this player spamming chat? If player has wrote less than [certain amount] of messages in a [certain time period] - chat report should be unavailable For bot / afk report: Has the game loaded for this player? If the game hasn't loaded, then it may not be the players fault. Report for AFK should be unavailable. Some sort of UI marker should show to players as well who is in game and who isn't. Has this player moved since the game has started? If he has moved, he is probably not a bot and report should be unavailable for this option. Has the game crashed for this player? If the game has crashed under any condition, then reports should be unavailable. It's not the players fault. For bad play: What is bad play? Judging by how 90% of the players are playing lately, especially during weekends, most of them should be reported. I would rename this to Griefing. Has this player damaged a team mate? This is easily checkable - if he hasn't used his weapons on a team mate, option should be unavailable. Is this player blocking a team mate? Also easily checkable. Allow this report option after certain amount of team damage Has this player killed a player from own team? Allow this option if team kill has happened. Has this player left match prematurely? If he has left, but he was alive - allow this report. Reports must be automatically checked before system approves them If there is no checking in user interface, because of possible game client performance, reports should be checked on server. System should remove karma points only if above conditions were met. Also, there shouldn't be any limitations on number of reports if report checking and their conditions are properly thought of and implemented. Consequences At the moment, we see consequences for team killers and those who were reported though chat reports. Wouldn't it be great if we receive a system message like: "Your report from [date] that player [nickname] was a bot proved to be correct. We have blocked his account. Thank you for improving community" What happens to team killers or griefers? Shouldn't they be punished more creatively in a way that would allow them to reflect or calm down? They should be limited to COOP for the duration of their punishment. That will allow them to chill out in a relaxing game mode. This way they won't rage or deliberately ruin matches as most of them do now. It is absolutely the worst possible option when those pink players enter ranked matches. That is instant loss almost always. What about bots? Simply - block their accounts for at least a week. Repeated offenders should face increased duration of account block. Karma Karma doesn't provide any benefits at the present time, but wouldn't it be nice if it did? Introduce Karma levels with benefits that could be reached on each level. For instance - small increase in income, small decrease in repairs, higher chance of getting a super container and so on. Small benefits as a result of being a normal human being This is an area that could improve community so much and would inspire players to play nice and help each others. Of course, as we have conditions for reports, developers could make similar conditions for compliments so that this system wouldn't be abused. What do you all think? Constructive feedback would be most welcome. Who knows, maybe some of this get through to WG.
  4. Hello everyone : Yesterday, I accidentally sold my premium ship。So I hope the sale of the premium ship can be counted down to five minutes like the dismissal of the captain, so that change of mind can be cancelled
  5. Tuccy

    Public Test 0.7.10

    until
    Captains, The Public Test of our next update starts on October 27. Below you can find some useful links. What can you find there? How can you get there? What rewards await you? Where to leave your feedback? Action Stations!
  6. Here is a thread we could suggest some ideas for bonuses in naval bases for the future..plz be reasonable and realistic! here is some ideas, -they could put a bonus for discount in premium consumables like 10% 15% or a bonus that gives players the opportunity to stock some consumables or camos (warehouse with a limit stock number for every clan mate separately.* I dont mean clan stock just to be clear ) - a building that could give a small number of special flags per month or a number of '''be in a clan'' camo
  7. 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
  8. A large number of players play more hours a day, and earn more than 37,000 (which is necessary to earn to open third container), so in my opinion the WG should allow a greater number of containers that can be earned daily. As the number of containers increases, the value of XP which must be earned bz playing, should also be increased. For example, for 4 containers, you need to earn 50,000 XP, for 5 containers you need to earn 75,000 XP and so on... By introducing this innovation, WG will reward players who play more and at the same time, stimulate players to gain more experience and become better. What do you think?
  9. Flavio1997

    Actuation time for consumables

    Guys i have to admit that i have enough of all those radars in dds and especially all those AA monsters that right now there are in the game. Especially i have enough to see 40% wr player in a cruiser, that i engage when they are already engaged with 3 of my allies, so they have something "more important to look at", have an "i win button" that throws off all my tb/db drops because those consumables activate immediately at the press of a button. So my idea, in order of importance where i would put this change: for def aa, radar and hydro would be to put an actuation time (delay) between when you press the button and when the consumable becomes active ( i think about an 8-10 sec delay) so that: 1) if a cruiser is sleeping, is engaged with something else, i can nuke him ( it's focus fire, so teamplay and the game should reward and promote that). The same works for a bb escorted by a cruiser 2) if a dd sees an american cruiser ( which concealment is on par with his radar range), it can have enough time to at least start the turn the get the crap out of there/get in cover 3) if you fire torps, the enemy hasn't got an "i can see everything" button ( or also when fighting the germans dds, that goes into the cap, pop hydro and smoke and you haven't go time to react. Of course to counterbalance that i would reduce the cooldown of the consumable so that the downtime remains the same what are your thought?
  10. Quick disclaimer: The suggestions I will bring up does not include the Akizuki/100mm HSF Harekaze as they seem to be doing rather well with the current setup, however, it could always be extended to them. Okay, now onto the topic... As many of you now know, the T9 and T10 alternative Japanese DDs have been officially announced. While I think this is great news, I have been wondering about the usability of their 100mm guns at tier 9 and 10 respectively. To demonstrate what I am talking about, let's talk about the ammunition most DDs use: Their High-Explosives (HE), because of the incredibly low caliber and the low penetrating power that it brings. I will do the math for you (Click the spoiler to look at it). However, that still leaves two more classes of ships that are almost immune to the HE, except for their superstructures: Cruisers and Battleships (Excluding the British cruisers). This is not ideal as it will severely limit the potential of the upcoming DDs to deal damage to these classes, especially the cruisers as the fires that will be set on them last only 30 seconds. The cruisers are also far more maneuverable, enabling them to dodge torpedoes easily. As a bonus, cruisers can often have the hydro-acoustic search consumable mounted, further reducing the risk the torpedoes pose to them. Thinking about the possibilities of enabling the DD to be able to effectively deal with cruisers, the possibility of buffing the penetration potential came to my mind. If the penetration was buffed to a higher percentage of the caliber on these, the following would happen: Even Mighty Jingles mentions this in his new World Of Warships video. To conclude this topic, I would like to say that this is only a suggestion, yet I feel a necessary one. While the Akizuki is excellent, the low penetration of the HE can bring the ship down sometimes. And for that reason I suggest this. I'd also like to say that the ships can, of course, be balanced in another way, but this feels like the most natural solution. The penetratoin of the HE should be brought up slightly, maybe even to 1/4,5 caliber, but not higher to prevent these ships from becoming dominant over any other DDs. And of course, a big thank you for reading this topic and thinking about the arguments I presented here.
  11. TheBrut3

    End game real credit value

    At the end of the game you get a Personal Score overview showing your performance, mission progress and gains. The credits in that screen are all the credits you get after multipliers. But it's a gross value, you still have to subtract the costs for the net value. So my suggestion: Show the net income value on the Personal Score screen instead of the gross value. It's more fair for players to see the real gain (or loss).
  12. DenmarkRadar

    Suggestion: Preferred Container

    Dear WG. I have a type of container that I want to recieve - pretty much every time I get a container... and it's not the default selected one, so I have to select my type and the press OK. How about an option to choose a specific type of container as your preferred (default) type and then the client automatically selects it, so I'd only have to press OK, and not make sure that I have the correct type selected.
  13. 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.
  14. 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. :)
  15. Lyno_Lemon

    Detonations *sigh*

    Wargaming, Please remove the detonations from the game. It's not enjoyable for anyone and is entirely luck based. When you get detonated it feels unfair and random, and when you detonate someone you just feel sorry for them and like you did not earn the kill. They are way too random. If anyone disagrees with what I have said please let me know. Thanks for your time.
  16. _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.
  17. Hey there. So i've been playing the french BB Alsace on the test server, and also watched a lot of footage of the ships. This topic concerns only the ships from T8+ So I think everyone will agree that speedboost is probably the most useless consumable a BB could have (unless they gave the Yamato a torpedo reload booster). What i'm thinking, give us some alternatives to the speed boost, such as Defensive AA or possibly Hydro. I think making the french BB line focused a bit more on AA would be a step in the right direction, since their secondaries are already pretty powerful. (or possibly a new mechanic instead of the speed boost, that would accelerate the cooldowns on damage control and repair) Anyway this is just off the top of my head. What do you guys think?
  18. The_Great_SCH

    Suggestion for future campaigns

    Heres a suggestion. Not like it haven't been said before, but could anyone from WG make some missions/campaigns which actually involves every type of ships? So far there is a DD fest in every type of game there is. WG people, Ranked battles are on, 5v5 DD + 2 BB in a team is not fun!
  19. Griva

    Clan battles summary

    I decided to create general summary of clan battles and create discussion about some changes and suggestions we need to improve gameplay of this gamemode. It would be nice if you comment or up-vote if you agree with following post but please be constructive as much as you can. I hope that devs take it into account and make it better. We got already around 1 month to try clan games and I think everyone have already some opinion and conclusion about this gamemode. My goal is to describe most of pros and especially cons and I think we should start with some pros. Pros First of all existance of clan battles itself is very big pros simply because this is the only "regular" game mode with possibility to create own team and play versus other players. This is something that many players have been waiting for and thank you that it exists whatever the form is. Credit reward for the game - finally after few years, wargaming decided to reward all players equally in team. For me this is something great becuase you are rewarded for WIN not for damage, spot etc. Thanks to this, players can focus on winning only and it does not matter how much damage you did. Lack of aircraft carriers - this is something for separated thread and we can argue night and day why this is good or bad but CV's with current balance would be very strong in clan wars game and destroyers would be in my opinion completely unplayable. I completely agree with argument that this is excluding CV players etc. but everyone knows how good CV players changes the gameplay so this is for me good thing. Cons Map rotation - simply speaking, playing whole month or more on only 4 maps is real joke. Especially when you get good RNG and I remember days we did around 12 games and all games we got on literally two maps only. Personally I don't understand why we didn't get in last update or next update even 1 map. Having 5 or 6 maps would be completely different experience and for me this is big fail. Is it really hard to follow this "triple-base pattern" and create something like this? Ammo rack explosion - I can understand when ship explodes in random game, it is still stupid mechanics yet I understand it but explosion fo ammo in clan wars? People don't have unlimited number of detonation flags and everyone can get only up to 6 flags per day from clan wars task. Detonation should be off or we should get detonation flag for every game. WG you wanted to create "professional" game mode or random circus? This is very bad especially combined with next point. Team size - this is not actually real con but I think we can count it becasue some reasons. 7v7 has got one big failure, if one of the ships get non lucky and get killed by detonation, magic balanced Montana salvo or any other random event, enemy team gets very big advantage especially if you kill dd with destination to cap. At this moment you can only yolo push or camp and lose in most cases. The idea of number of players was already tested zilion times in world of tanks on global map - 15v15 is tactical game and battles 7v7 are very random and even potato team can win vs very strong enemy because RNG. Of course i understand that there are many factors like clan size, number of players etc.. and creating bigger team can lower amount of clans playing this game mode but I think it would be nice and it should be possible to see teams in 9v9 format size simply because we get smaller impact of RNG and big tactical facilities. Battleships constraint - we know bb's are very strong and can delete any ship in one salvo sometimes but I belive we see it just wrong. It would be possible to make limit 2 per game but current map setups can't allow it. Ofc the easiest way is to balance BB class but otherwise we can put more caps (like 5) for example on the map and it just increase role of dd's and cruisers and taking 2 bb's would be even mistake. Anyway we should be allowed to take any setup we want and this should make sense. The problem now is that every map works exactly in the same way so there is only "one right setup". If we add more caps or make it more complicated we can get way more variations and one setup is good for one map, other setup beats other map - current meta is "rush B and def C" or vice versa. Maps balance - in general maps are rather balanced but as I said in previous point, all maps got the same meta and this results in the same setups on both sides aka: Montana, Des Moines, Des Moines, Moskva, Hindenburg, Gearing, Z-52. We can see probably other setups in "potato league" but this is only result of lack of ships. Also I should add that some places arenot balanced equally like Ice islands cap C or also C cap on mountain range. Clan evaluation system - One of the worst things in clan wars now. Many people expected clan battles to be something bigger, more organised thing, giving the possiblity to evaluate strengh of the team but we got something more like normal teamplay mode. League system give us very poor information about clan strengh. It is not possible to create any rating system, WoWs API don't give us any important info about clans, we don't have any elo system, hall of fame, clan recrutation station - just nothing. Win rate of clans means completely nothing because it is related to enemy you get and as you probably know if you create clan now, and start play clan wars atm you going to get very high WR because all strong enemies are in the highest league now. In general people wants to get any rating system giving real informations. It is not like league system is bad and must be removed - its rather some additional rating or some kind of factor proving that clan A is stronger than B. Clan battles prime time - too short. It is simply too short. Many people says about "if you want to play in team then play clan wars" but we can't because we can do it only at exact time and day. It is understandable WG want big attendence and it is way easier for MM to find teams but current time is simple short. Some people are in different timezones and for them clan wars starts at 18:00 and ends at 21:00 when the largest number of players is in game. I would vote to add at least 1 extra hour to current prime time to make it for eg. 19:00 - 23:00. I hope I did not forget any important thing. TLTR: Nice that we got any clan wars game mode and the current one is actually enjoyable but boring because we got only 4 maps, with the same meta and this results in mirror teams with mirror strats. Also we don't have any clan evaluation tools because league system says almost nothing about real clan strengh.
  20. DeathAdane

    Might save time and frustration

    So yesterday I saw WoW on steam and thought it would be great to get back to the game. But then after I downloaded, my account 'disappeared' and cannot even log into the website! Because no player was associated with this acc. So this was a very frustrating thing to know that my account is 'gone'. I went to check my email inbox for records and began filling up a support ticket until the form told me that I cannot submit the ticket if an account disappeared. A design flaw? Tried logging on a few more times at no success. So instead I clicked on the link to the battle of elements and log in from there to wargaming... What a delight as well as confusion at how this is possible(Not activation link since I played before ! But challenge accepted link for the event hmmm.) So now I am downloading the game launcher through game centre after taking me almost an entire day for steam to download and uninstalling it, but I hope my account still works? Because i still have no clue if it will let me log into the client? I stopped playing in mid-2016 so something happened? So there are quite a few flaws in how the accounting system is designed I imagine. But fingers crossed, I will be able to play this game.
  21. hjsteg

    Suggestion port filter

    Hi, I have a lot of ships, so it is hard to navigate and find the ship I want to take out. Would it be possible to put ships in the reserve like in World of Tanks? Ships you do not want to sell, but are kind of finished with? It should be easy to implement, and vastly reduce the clutter in the garage - for me at least.
  22. Admiral_noodle

    Detection debuff change suggestion

    So I'm looking for genuine feedback on an idea that's been bugging me a while. The 20s detection penalty when firing guns. For every class except battleships firing at your maximum dpm means you stay spotted. But battleships - with massive guns that make a big muzzle flash - can "cloak" between salvoes and not lose any dpm. Under the right circumstances. Now i make use of this in montana. But I feel it's a bit wrong. Now I don't want to discuss BBs detection ranges (conqueror for example has far too good concealment) butjust the following idea. What if: - dds recloaked after 15s - cruisers 20s - BBs *their reload* ive heard the argument before that WG don't like ships appearing and disappearing. Well, firstly it already happens. Secondly by making BBs "bloom" longer after firing it would make BBs vs BBs engagements simpler and BBs would have to engage brain and think about recloaking. Not just have it happen by default. It also doesbt feel right that a bb can "recloak" just as fast as a dd. Don't like it by class? Then how about gun caliber. I'd be fine with that too. Thoughts?
  23. SmartassNoob

    [Suggestion] Epic map idea

    Imagine a map that has an active volcano at one end! The volcano would constantly be spraying lava over the nearest capture area next to it (like a HE rain) and there would be a very thick black smoke flowing out of it. The smoke would make it impossible to see to the enemy side of the map (at least down wind of the volcano) and act as a permanent massive smoke screen on one side of the map. Imagine the gameplay options! Push through with radar and hydro-acoustic search, only to run into the whole enemy team? Wait and do nothing only to have all areas captured by the enemy? Make use of an english BB and capture the lava rain area? Avoid smoke in the clear area, only to find that by the time you get there the battle is over?
  24. Hello, Just wondering if we could in the future have a "Unmount all button" in the "Exterior tab". I find myself very often switching between co-op and random battles depending on the time, ship and current missions. I'm one of those people who will always go into co-op battles without any flags or premium camo but will put every flag I can in random and I would find it a lot easier if we could with the click of a button de-mount all our signals at once on a ship. I know some people will say "Don't be lazy, it doesn't take much time to take off 8 flags." But to be honest, once you're at nearly 100 ships in port and keep having to remove signal flags each time before you play, it does get kind of annoying. Just a small patch to add a feature like this would be very much appreciated. Thank you :)
  25. Heyho, the WG-Support told me to post the suggestion on the forum, hope I'm right in this section. Recently I wrote a Bug-Ticket because on my Kurfürst my Air detection goes 2km over my max range when firing and planes in my normal air-detection range don't detect me until they are at 10km or less. The WG-Support just said they can't find a bug in this, but didn't state, that planes just have a viewrange of 10km. Only found this out after I asked the guys on Flamus discord (thanks guys). So as planes can't detect anything outside of 10km around them, why do we have air detection ratings of over 10km? This doesn't make sense and just makes people wonder if the game is buggy. The plane detection should max out at 10km for every ship to make it clear for every user and not just the people that know this hidden "mechanic".
×