I'm back but...

[robihr]

i think crew would be great idea for wows.. imagine switching couple of thousands crew for every ship

 

[KarmaQU_EU]

8 hours ago, Fiold said:

Hi,

As old WOT player, WOP beta tester and former WOW player I returned to play WOW after long pause. Game is better, but still not good. Don't take my post as an offence. I just want to make this game better and I decided to write few thoughts:

1. Guns and armor - I can see some potential damage from guns, but nothing more. I don't know what armor can I pierce, I don't know anything about accuracy. That is big problem. in WOT you know everything - penetration, aiming time, accuracy, damage, armor of the enemy. You could chose if you want to have sniper gun or brawler gun. You can chose  slow but hard hitting, or fast firing low damage gun. Here - nothing. So I'm sailing a destroyer against battleship and I have no idea if I should shot my guns or not. And if - should I use HE or AP? Should I aim high or low? Also - should my ship stay in long or short distance? What is more durable - side armor or deck armor? That is a very weak part of the game.

2. I want to customize my ship. Maybe someone wants to have more, but lighter guns? Or guns with faster reload time but lower damage per shot? Maybe someone wants to exchange torpedo tube for gun or AA gun? Or maybe more but weaker torpedoes? Something like this was possible in Navy Field - one could customize his/her ship. Here? Nothnig.

3. Airplanes - again, like in point 2. I can't select my version of air wing. Maybe I want just bombers, or more fighters? Or maybe I want to arm my bombers with 2 light bombs each, not one single heavy bomb? Or maybe AP bombs not HE ones?

4. Captain's system? I preffer WOT version of crew and skills.

IMHO - game is worth to play for free, but I will not pay for it for a moment.

ANy comments guys?

1. DDs are mostly not supposed to use guns on BBs indiscriminately. DD shells have low armour penetration, and firing exposes your position and puts you in danger.

2. WoWs is rigidly balanced, so there is little per-ship customization. However, if you desire variety in playstyles there are other ships which fill the gap between different loadouts' minuscule differences so rest assured there is probably a ship dedicated to the playstyle you have in mind, you just have to find it and grind it.

3. CVs are in a rough place atm, WG says they are reworking it.

4. The captain's system is mostly superficial. Think of it as less customization options and more mandatory powerups for high-tier balancing, as some (most) ships are not very functional much less competitive if they lack a few crucial skills compared to their opponents.

 

Generally the game has little customization, and more in stressing good play-in-the-moment depending on your ships' strengths and weaknesses. It is less a traditional naval game and more like WoWp/WoT on water.

[KarmaQU_EU]

7 hours ago, Nechrom said:

Navy Field had the ability to create "Franken-ships". While hilarious it's not very immersive and would just add yet another hurdle for inexperienced players.

WoWs uses historical configurations for their historical ships and "best guess" configurations for their blueprint/fantasy ships.

Some ships still offer a bit of customization like different torpedoes, but for the most part your customization comes from upgrades and captain skills.

Navy Field style is still more in line with the image of a "naval game" than WoWs does, despite its cobbled features. WoWs can be equally unimmersive if you get serious.

For ship customization to be allowed to happen in WoWs, there has to be the need for it. E.g. unique, complex scenarios and game mechanics which require dedication and specialization in both player and ship.

However we can pretty much stop at the unique, complex game mechanics part as they do not exist in WoWs, much less unique, complex scenarios and gameplay.

[wilkatis_LV]

1 hour ago, robihr said:

i think crew would be great idea for wows.. imagine switching couple of thousands crew for every ship

Why is my NCs repair skill at 99.957% ?!?!?! Oh, right - I accidentally skipped it on sailor number 2216 - Joe who works in the engine room!

[Zemeritt]

9 hours ago, Fiold said:

2. I want to customize my ship. Maybe someone wants to have more, but lighter guns? Or guns with faster reload time but lower damage per shot?

 

How many 100mm Akizuki guns can be traded in for the 460mm guns on the Yamato? 20-40? A ship with so many small guns would be fun

[Culiacan_Mexico]

10 hours ago, Fiold said:

...So I'm sailing a destroyer against battleship and I have no idea if I should shot my guns or not. And if - should I use HE or AP? Should I aim high or low? Also - should my ship stay in long or short distance? What is more durable - side armor or deck armor? That is a very weak part of the game...

It is the weak part of your game.  

[Spunyarn]

2 hours ago, Zemeritt said:

How many 100mm Akizuki guns can be traded in for the 460mm guns on the Yamato? 20-40? A ship with so many small guns would be fun

 

Back when Wargaming decided to add the option of 4x3 419mm guns to the original configuration of 4x2 457mm on the Conqueror someone posted a picture of that taken to the extreme; a Conqueror with main and secondary turrets replaced by a mass of Minotaur turrets. I think it had something like 30 turrets and a broadside of about 20 of them. So that would be 40 6" shells every 3.2 seconds to either broadside and 6 times the Minotaurs long-range AA aura with all of those being able to be boosted with Manual AA. So horribly underpowered AA by Worchester standards, would need some 3" AA, and as a RN Battleship would have also needed HE with high damage, penetration, and fire chance for those guns. 

[eliastion]

13 hours ago, Fiold said:

Can I go into blow by blow fight with enemy, or not? This part of game should be reworked to make ships and artillery combat more strategic - use your armor wise. Keep distance or close to enemy. Use strong points of your ship and weak points of enemy. For example - you see Hood? Keep distance, cos it's deck's  armour is weak. Now it is just "click, click, click".

 

2. Customization should give more flexibility to game. Players should be able to choose - for example shells for main battery -  heavier with shorter range, or lighter with longer range. Secondary guns - light with AA capabilities or medium without AA capabilities. Also torpedos - fast, but visible steam ones or slow but hidden electrical? It will not affect historical accuracy, because many ships of same class were modified during their duty - for example Warspite and Queen Elizabeth were identical in 1913, but far different in 1944 (ships had different secondary batteries, FCS, different armour, propulsion etc). Also British 15 inch guns Mark I had 12 different types of shells - 8 AP, 3 HE and shrapnell. Not to mention, that various torpedoes and equipment were used on same ships.

Two things:

1. The fact that you have no idea how to play doesn't change the fact that using your armor to protect your vulnerable underbelly is absolutely crucial in this game. The moment you fail to do so, you can be taken out by a single salvo from a ship that otherwise needs minutes to inflict problematic amount of damage on you. This is less pronounced for DDs that have neither armor to speak of nor the citadel vulnerability, but even they have their moments when faced by British cruisers due to the special nature of ammunition used by the latter.

2. You're contradicting yourself. A big part of "strategic use of armor" (and, in fact, strategic use of anything really) comes from being able to predict capabilities of enemy armaments. If ships, as a rule, could be customized to have very different armament configurations, it would make positioning against particular enemies much more of a coin toss. Oh, and as for AA - currently one of the main complaints by experienced players when it comes to AA is that it's much too customizable, leading to a situation where a supposedly strong AA ship can be easy prey to carriers (depending on the choice of captain skills, modules and consumables) while a ship with otherwise average AA capabilities can be turned into a complete no-fly zone capable of repelling single-handedly a full strike by comparable tier CV.

[Redcap375]

On 06/05/2018 at 12:51 PM, Fiold said:

Hi,

As old WOT player, WOP beta tester and former WOW player I returned to play WOW after long pause. Game is better, but still not good. Don't take my post as an offence. I just want to make this game better and I decided to write few thoughts:

1. Guns and armor - I can see some potential damage from guns, but nothing more. I don't know what armor can I pierce, I don't know anything about accuracy. That is big problem. in WOT you know everything - penetration, aiming time, accuracy, damage, armor of the enemy. You could chose if you want to have sniper gun or brawler gun. You can chose  slow but hard hitting, or fast firing low damage gun. Here - nothing. So I'm sailing a destroyer against battleship and I have no idea if I should shot my guns or not. And if - should I use HE or AP? Should I aim high or low? Also - should my ship stay in long or short distance? What is more durable - side armor or deck armor? That is a very weak part of the game.

2. I want to customize my ship. Maybe someone wants to have more, but lighter guns? Or guns with faster reload time but lower damage per shot? Maybe someone wants to exchange torpedo tube for gun or AA gun? Or maybe more but weaker torpedoes? Something like this was possible in Navy Field - one could customize his/her ship. Here? Nothnig.

3. Airplanes - again, like in point 2. I can't select my version of air wing. Maybe I want just bombers, or more fighters? Or maybe I want to arm my bombers with 2 light bombs each, not one single heavy bomb? Or maybe AP bombs not HE ones?

4. Captain's system? I preffer WOT version of crew and skills.

IMHO - game is worth to play for free, but I will not pay for it for a moment.

ANy comments guys?

 

1.  Well put it this way, in WOWS anything can damage anything.  In WOT some tanks just simply can not hurt the others even in it's same tier or 1+, god forbid 2+, unless you pay for APCR rounds. But even then some cant pen. WOWS doesn't have this sickening money making system thank god and long may it reign.  A tier 5 DD can sink a tier 10 BB if he wants to.  A tier 5 tank, even a TD has no hope in hell even penning a tier 10 tank. So if the two are left at the end of the game, you lose.  Those will never meet MM wise but it's a problem in the game MM (my SU 122 44 cant pen alot of the tier 9 tanks).  My tier 8 Alabama can kick the tier 10's Montana's head in if given the chance.  I can damage him regardless of which way he is facing or what he is doing.

 

Imagine chaps that when you fire those shells they don't do anything to him.....Nothing.....Zip.  That's what WOT feels like.  That never happens in this game because of IHFE (which is free, no APCR), fires  and silver fishes.  

 

2.  Its a different game than Navy Fields so it's got different ways of doing things.  For better or worse.  WG had made it like it is with some changing of hulls and the like but no independent things like swapping AA guns or torp for instance.  It's not skyrim.  It's just the way it is just like WOT?  Would be interesting tho 

 

3.  Please see comment 2.

 

4.  How you can prefer WOT crew skills so so beyond me, but it's your opinion at the end of the day.  It takes you 10 games (Max) in WOWS to get a 1 point skill (PT). That same skill would take you AGES (6th Sence) in WOT.  I'm talking a long long long time.  A driver in a premium tank, with premium time, shooting premium APCR rounds and has 2 x 100% skills for each crew member has such a broken advantage over a silver line peasant player is comical.  It's Like shooting crippled ducks in a tea cup with a shotgun like i put it in the WOT forum.

 

In WOWS you still have Premium Ships of course and skills but not nearly as much as in WOT (APCR and muti skills and % for the crews).  Crew Skills are less effective and much easier to obtain in WOWS. Take concealment for example. 

 

WOWS

You have 2 types of concealment extras so to speak.  One you earn with simply buy with Silver (MOD) and the other is a not so hard achievable captain skill 5.  SO against another ship the player might have an advantage but its more likely that the other player has the same.  It's simply easier to be equal IN WOWS (Skill of the player aside).  I can still use some skills if i'm not 100%.

 

WOT

I buy a new and tank and crew.  50% on all crew to start so before i even THINK about cammo or any skill i need to get them up to 100%, or 110% for the commander.  By that time I have already got 10 points to put on my WOWS captain and have max cammo.  Then there is the skills themselves, which raise very slightly.  With a silver account is takes an unbelievable amount of time to achieve full 100%.  In WOWS you can get a skill ten games in.

 

So during my poor 50% crew grind i am against players with 100% Max cammo on each of their crew, 100% crew in general (Which increases EVERTHING, from aim time, reload and accuracy.) and loading APCR rounds.  

 

Imagine if they gave departments on ships the ability to increase their accuracy, re-load time and concealment rating.  You stick that in a Belfast with a unicom player and what do you end up with?  More dead ducks.

 

People who prefer the WOT skills are the same people who have everything max which gives them such an advantage over their pray it's crazy talk.  Those that play this game can only dream of seal clubbing like they do. I would never want it be be like that, period. 

 

WOT is the finest WG example of PWT. I truly believe they learnt alot of things from WOT and implemented them into WOWS.  They havnt bothered with the state of WOT because it's the main money maker and a blind man can see why. But those that like tank games will play it, like i do, but i know what to expect. Some kids don't and spend lots and lots of money to be able to cope and try to be equal.

 

I'm glad you think the game is better.  But IMHO WOT has gota hell of alot worse which is such a shame.

 

I'm playing WOT at the moment because my clan mates do and it's alright if you take it for what it is. It's fun don't get me wrong and WOWS has it's own problems.  But not being able to even hurt other tanks in the game unless you ££££buy$$$ is simply wrong at a foundation level.

 

 

[_DeathWing_]

@Fiold

[Verblonde]

OP: as another WOT -> WOWS transfer, I would suggest avoiding trying to play WOWS as a soggy version of WOT - despite them both being from WG, and having some similarities in terms of the 'garage' screen, and general approach to tech trees, and advancement etc, they are (as I suspect you're already discovering) almost completely different.

I still play both, and don't think either is better than the other (sorry!); they both have strong points, and weak points, but understanding one is not the same as understanding the other; you'll probably find you'll suck at one if you start playing it immediately after a session with the other too, as the way they play isn't even similar.

 

Short version: you are basically back to square one (more or less), although you probably have a better handle on leading targets than the average WOWS newbie, assuming you've played one or other of the derps in WOT (KV-2, Shermans with 105 mm howitzer etc - anything with a slow shell, basically), plus you should already have the basic idea behind angling (side-scraping etc, but usually with less terrain to hide behind).

In terms of concrete steps you can take: rather than demanding the game be changed (it won't be), adapt to it, and you'll enjoy its nuances/differences; the learning curve is steep, even if you're already good at WOT. Read the wiki, end-to-end; play coop mode (although understand what works there won't necessarily work against real people), especially if you have stock ships; play as many classes/nations as possible (except CVs) - the potential variety is enormous. Rather than demanding changes, I also suggest asking questions on here: there are loads of very helpful folk here (and the odd person who could be described as, erm, less so), who are willing to answer all manner of questions...

 

[HaachamaShipping]

On 5/6/2018 at 4:43 PM, Fiold said:

OK guys, so my points are:

1. Armor - still I think that it is weak part of the game. I know, that I can check armor in port, but what can I do with it? Nothing. In real naval combat it was very important to maintain proper distance to enemy - if you had strong belt armor you wanted to get close, if you had strong deck - stay in distance. Just think about Hood and Bismarck. Now it is black magic for me. I have guns, but I don't know if there is any point of shoting at enemy or not. I also don't know how good is my armor. Can I go into blow by blow fight with enemy, or not? This part of game should be reworked to make ships and artillery combat more strategic - use your armor wise. Keep distance or close to enemy. Use strong points of your ship and weak points of enemy. For example - you see Hood? Keep distance, cos it's deck's  armour is weak. Now it is just "click, click, click".

What can the average newbie know about armour models and shell pen in WoT? Not exactly much either. What does it help me to know which tank has for example absolute garbage top armour that can be overmatched and which has not, except from in-depth research of game mechanics? Same would apply here. You just learn how the armour models work and you learn what that means ingame. For example, Hood does not have weak deck armour. Hood actually has pretty good deck armour, especially for T7. It's 51 mm over the entire central section, which is absolutely amazing. Hood will bounce AP shells all day off that plating and cruiser HE will shatter. Knowing that, if you are a battleship, you have three approaches to targetting a Hood:

• If Hood provides a flat side to shoot at, shoot there. Like with pretty much all BBs. Hood is a battlecruiser, it has pretty bad belt armour and is easy to citadel comparatively. Typically, if the Hood player is paying attention and knows what they are doing, they will try to avoid this though and Hood has good firing angles on all guns, making it easy to angle in and bounce shells off an angled belt.
• If your BB has 38 cm or larger guns, shoot the nose/stern. Like all T7 BBs, Hood only has 25 mm plating at the bow and stern and will get overmatched. Will get you simple penetrations for decent damage.
• If neither works, shells can be fired at the superstructure. It is pretty large for a BB and especially from the rear pretty exposed. almost no armour there.

If you are a cruiser, bow, stern and superstructure can be penetrated with AP from close range if not angled or HE if angled. Deck will just shatter the HE and the belt too, as the upper belt is too thick and the lower belt you shouldn't even try with HE.

 

Typically, combat distances in WoWS are not far enough to allow much plunging fire, so you won't see many AP shells pen a BB deck that isn't thin enough to be overmatched. But yeah, overall, you as this example showed, armour does matter and making the most of it and knowing how to best crack the enemy is key to success.

 

Also, before I looked it up, I didn't even realise Hood had this much deck armour. 51 mm is like... pretty amazing for T7. This thing actually could bounce Musashi AP off anywhere other than superstructure and the extremeties and shatters Roon HE if not IFHE'd. I know it's not too hard to get hit in superstructure or bow, but still, that's some impressive all-round armouring. Especially for T7.

[Excavatus]

Dear OP,

 

I am sorry to say but your biggest mistake is that you have opinions without having any knowledge.

You know nothing about the game.

 

All the things you asked are in the game, more than you wanted.

WOWs is much more noob friendly If the noob wants to learn.

 

On the other hand, Why you asked the WOT is more popular?

 

More tactical, more patience required, skill floor is higher.. or I can just quote the legend, "George Carlin"

 

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

[Malfuss]

On 06/05/2018 at 3:43 PM, Fiold said:

OK guys, so my points are:

1. Armor - still I think that it is weak part of the game. I know, that I can check armor in port, but what can I do with it? Nothing. In real naval combat it was very important to maintain proper distance to enemy - if you had strong belt armor you wanted to get close, if you had strong deck - stay in distance. Just think about Hood and Bismarck. Now it is black magic for me. I have guns, but I don't know if there is any point of shoting at enemy or not. I also don't know how good is my armor. Can I go into blow by blow fight with enemy, or not? This part of game should be reworked to make ships and artillery combat more strategic - use your armor wise. Keep distance or close to enemy. Use strong points of your ship and weak points of enemy. For example - you see Hood? Keep distance, cos it's deck's  armour is weak. Now it is just "click, click, click".

 

Have you played any games in WoWs at all yet? Everything you have just said there is exactly how it already is, there is no need to re-work it, you just need to learn it. That's what differentiates the good players from the bad. Look at the armor, work out your penetration and you will know the answer.