Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
TheCinC

Suggestions thread

2,085 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
2,923 posts
12,099 battles
Vor 33 Minuten, MacArthur92 sagte:

Why do you assume that they won't listen. You sound too pessimistic comrade. 

A pessimist is an optimist with experience ;)

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BULL]
Players
642 posts
6,304 battles

I have been considering things that have had an impact on the game over the last couple of years.

 

Radar is one but I have brought that one up in the Matchmaking thread, it is not so much that it exists.
The most serious problem is a lack of balance between the two teams (addressed elsewhere).

 

Fire Starters.(The HE arsonist)
HE spamming has always been there but it got worse with the introduction of RN Battleships, this started a whole new trend of Battleships spamming HE because of the high chance of fire, 48% on a few Battleships (Conqueror can go up to 63%). We saw a role reversal (in game) with Battleships burning everyone to death and very effectively and although it quietened down a bit it is still happening to much. Cruisers I can understand because their AP won't do enough if any thing to a Battleship.

 

There are a few ways this could be improved to return some sanity to the game and maybe encourage more use of AP.

 

The first is not ideal as it does not address the high chance of fire.
1) Reduce the damage per second that a fire causes to the ship, but this is very much damage limitation in every sense of the meaning.

 

The second is more work but a better overall result.
2) Nerf every ships fire chance proportionally.

 

Take the 48% and reduce it to 30% (which I think should be the Maximum) effectively reducing it by 37.49% now apply that same reduction to all ships so fire chance is reduced across the whole game. This manages the HE effect and maintains the differences between class, calibre sizes, number of barrels and rate of fire so it would more or less maintain the ratios that currently exist. It would however reduce the number of times you get set on fire.

 

Battleships 73 Checked  
Current Chance # Ships New # Ships
> 10% 73 73
> 15% 73 64
> 20% 70 45
>25% 61 13
>30% 45 2
>35% 29 0
>40% 10 0
Max 48% 30.00%
Min 19% 11.88%
     
Cruisers 119 Checked (RN = 9 @ 0)
Current Chance # Ships New # Ships
> 2% 110 110
>4% 107 101
>6% 101 72
>8% 79 39
>10% 65 22
>14% 25 6
>18% 9 2
Max 34% 21.25%
Min 4% 2.50%

 

Reduce the chance of catching fire (counter measure)
3) Once a ship has had two fires (or X amount of fire damage) in each fire zone everything combustible would surely have been burnt so it become very hard to set another fire on that ship. This could be done zone by zone two fires in superstructure can't burn that easily anymore, have to aim somewhere else.

 

It is no wonder that I see Battleships in some games that just spam HE all the time, what else is a player to do when it is the most effective way to farm damage on more than one ship at a time. Not that I think it is an excuse, but it is not surprising that Battleships cover behind Islands. 
"Right Lads lets push round and down the 4 Line!" 
1 Nano meter past the island and all three are an inferno
1 repair later.
"Come on lads .."
2nd Salvo incoming
"FFS more fires!"

Few minutes later all burned to a crisp.

 

As it stands now you might as well spawn and set fires on your own ship, then sit there and watch it burn it would be just as interesting.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,923 posts
12,099 battles

Agree to decrease Firechance. But there is another option if you consider that f'up fires should be less likely - buff the cruisers AP by reducing fuse times.

 

Currently the 8'' AP is tricky. You have long reload and you score too often overpens (even on BBs) with 1/10 damage. An 8'' Overpen has typically less damage than a 6'' HE Fullpen. With a shortened fuse you get AP fullpens instead. Look at RN Light cruisers with their very short fuse time and compare their fullpen to overpen ratios with e.g. AP of the USN.

 

Would also allow cruiser skippers to punish broadsiding targets of any type much more efficiently. Problem: The very stupid "I play 4 phun!!1" player showing broadside will be punished harder. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BULL]
Players
642 posts
6,304 battles
3 minutes ago, Just_Testing_That said:

Would also allow cruiser skippers to punish broadsiding targets of any type much more efficiently. Problem: The very stupid "I play 4 phun!!1" player showing broadside will be punished harder. 

I do play for fun, but I do like to win (And try to), by that I mean specifically for recreation, but that doesn't mean you should not try to be as good as you can (sadly I am not a natural game player and have to work hard to get anywhere).

My problem is some of the mechanics are off point and they try to fix them addressing other aspects and not deal with what they caused by a bad choice, then then whole thing goes round and round and just gets worse.

 

I didn't do the destroyers it took ages to create the tables for battleships and cruisers, but there are some OP fire starters there, I know I have some.

Someone also said that some ships have an increased chance on the 1st salvo, don't know if that is true, but if it is that needs to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BULL]
Players
642 posts
6,304 battles

Interesting sheet, thanks man, wish I had known about that before I started looking up and tabulating data would have saved a lot of time.

I exported the sheet with all skills etc turned off and T1 to 10 selected to XLSX unfortunately it has problems on some sheets and all the filter function die. my version of excel obviously doesn't like something.

But at least I have a list of all ships and the Base fire data looks intact, I can set up my own filters for the various columns.

 

I do however want to keep this simple as possible, the easiest way I could see to do that is Nerf them all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BULL]
Players
642 posts
6,304 battles

Ramming

Ramming in the game is currently so plastic (False, Artificial).

When two ships collide a number of things will occur depending on the relative size of the ship, the point of impact, the angle of impact, the speed of impact, the hull design just to name a few. The least likely thing to occur is both ships exploding violently.

 

So let simplify that into something the game could use.

 

Relative ship Size.
Battleships generally have thinker plate and large torpedo belts so a small ship would have more trouble penetrating it and will not likely change the course of the bigger ship by much. At the other end a Destroyer is small and lightly armored a large ship is likely to penetrate the hull more extensively and push the ship violently off course.

 

Impact speed.
Two ships lightly nudging each other will cause only minor damage, where two ship head on at full speed will cause major damage.

 

Relative HP
A ship having sustained a lot of damage is by default in a much more fragile condition, hull integrity is likely to be virtually none existent and yet a Destroyer with 300HP can sink a Battleship with 20000HP. 

 

Angle of impact
A ship hit at a sharp angle may cause heavy damage, where a ship hitting at a shallow angle is likely to slide along the hull and cause much less damage.

 

Point of Impact
Because of the plating on warships this is important. If a small ship hits a Battleship at a 90 Degree angle on the torpedo belt it is unlikely to cause much damage, but it will crumples it own bow badly. If the same small ship hit the bow or stern it will cause much heavier damage. So you could split the ship into Bow, Midship and stern to assign different damage and damage levels.

 

Damage (3) Levels
Lets take some of these thing into account and determine some levels that could be applied.
Light Damage, from hulls grinding as ships pass each other, maybe loss of secondary's and AA along that side of the ship with light flooding.
Moderate damage, shallow angle or slow impact Medium damage and flooding, ships speed reduced permanently.
Heavy damage, Ship modules even main gun damaged (Depending on impact point), heavy flooding and severe speed reduction.

 

Ramming.jpg.f0055749a6a7c1358b15cbab7504e0ba.jpg

 

This would also introduce an element of skill to ramming, player 1 is trying to maximize damage while player 2 is trying to take the hit to minimize damage.

During the rest of its game a surviving ship would be crippled and its effectiveness severely reduced.

 

Much better than the tap = bang we have now. 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BNP]
Players
93 posts
1,860 battles
On 8/10/2019 at 6:37 AM, MacArthur92 said:

There's smoke firing penalty. Each ship has its own penalty range. It's in port, the concealment section "firing from smoke" . 

But doesn't that mean that if one is firing inside smoke and the next ship is well OUTSIDE the "firing from smoke" range, it still can't be spotted without radar/hydro?

 

Maybe I have misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[P-W-C]
Players
4,723 posts
26,523 battles
1 minute ago, SvR1983 said:

But doesn't that mean that if one is firing inside smoke and the next ship is well OUTSIDE the "firing from smoke" range, it still can't be spotted without radar/hydro?

 

Maybe I have misunderstood.

He can be spotted outside ofc. I’ll give an example. Kutuzov has 7.7km smoke fire penalty. If he’s shooting being in smoke and some DD is closer than 7.7km outside that smoke, the Kutuzov will get spotted by that DD. BBs have 14-16km smoke spot. That was all to stop the smoke BB kampa. But Kutuzov took a big nerf because of it , people couldn’t play it aggressive so a lot of them sold it (Belfast, Perth and Kutuzov were refunded by dubloons, same as premium cvs after rework)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BNP]
Players
93 posts
1,860 battles
On 8/10/2019 at 10:32 AM, TheComedian1983 said:

You can learn some basics on wiki or on HelpMe discord. Few mins make you a far more better player and be a better player means having a more fun from this game. Stop wasting time typing some pointless posts, make a cup of coffee and read something.
Both is avalaible in CZ version. Enjoy :Smile_great:

Ah, I was merely suggesting to fix some bugs.

 

If you think you waste your time by reading through player suggestions, I suggest you don't read other comments :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BNP]
Players
93 posts
1,860 battles
13 minutes ago, MacArthur92 said:

He can be spotted outside ofc. I’ll give an example. Kutuzov has 7.7km smoke fire penalty. If he’s shooting being in smoke and some DD is closer than 7.7km outside that smoke, the Kutuzov will get spotted by that DD. BBs have 14-16km smoke spot. That was all to stop the smoke BB kampa. But Kutuzov took a big nerf because of it , people couldn’t play it aggressive so a lot of them sold it (Belfast, Perth and Kutuzov were refunded by dubloons, same as premium cvs after rework)

But then the DD has to be inside the smoke detection range. And then he would have been spotted, because there were other ships outside the smoke screen.
But there was nobody, not even recently. Especially since the game was just starting and it would have been very unlikely someone made it so close anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[P-W-C]
Players
4,723 posts
26,523 battles
30 minutes ago, SvR1983 said:

But then the DD has to be inside the smoke detection range. And then he would have been spotted, because there were other ships outside the smoke screen.
But there was nobody, not even recently. Especially since the game was just starting and it would have been very unlikely someone made it so close anyway.

You know, French DDs are very fast mate. Idk I didn’t see the situation. Or maybe sneaky Japanese DD with 5.4km spot, the lowest in mid/high tiers. BTW what ship you were playing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[O-S-W]
Players
574 posts
16,429 battles

- give reward for best ideas

 

- give fantastic reward for implemented idea from here

 

- do regulary research and rewards here, to let us know that WG is not ignoring this section. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,608 posts
14,147 battles

Allow people to target friendly ships with torpedo marker - could be hollow red or something - to be able to see if there's a free path to torp enemy or not.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-NO-]
[-NO-]
Players
106 posts
15,877 battles

Ive been waiting to collect my thoughts on this and I think Im ready. Ill start by saying I only play co-ops due to arthritic hands (Im simply too slow to react for randoms). From my observations an awful lot of players play at the very least a healthy mix of co ops and randoms which leads to me my topic.

 

Why are co ops effectively ignored by WG ? We cannot earn achievements (make them different or harder by all means), we cannot complete most of the campaigns, we lost CVs and respecced ships to non AA and now they are back do we get a free retrain ? NO. 90% of cop ops end BEFORE we kill all the enemies AND before 1000 points are reached AND before the time is up - why? It feels like pure XP stealing to me - 1 of thousands of examples was 2 full health yammies left alive on enemy team, 4 minutes of game to go and we had 650 points versus 450 so why did the game end?? The French DD missions were a case in point of co op players being ignored just look at some of the directives to see how hard it is to earn 300,000 credits from co ops.

 

Come on WG show co ops (and your older, disabled or handicapped players) some love please.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
4,461 posts
7,971 battles

sort of randomly popped into my head again, but..

I still want to play the Schnellboote we saw and fought in Op Dynamo - probably just for an event at some point, but the Torpedobeat mode we had in space demonstrated that ridiculous-speed torpedo gameplay is quite fun, so why not give us the option (whether its in an asymmetric PvP mode or an Operation-style PvE event) to have a go at these things? :cap_horn:

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
46 posts

Spotting Aircraft

  • I suggest making the range buff A.O.E. so friendly ships close enough can benefit from it. (ship using the spotting aircraft relaying target information to allies within the A.O.E.)
  • Only the ship using the spotting aircraft consumable will get the aerial perspective

Firefighting

  • Allow friendly ships to aid in putting out fires
  • Seperate consumable in their own dedicated slot
  • Firefighting takes time (10 to 15 seconds)
  • Long cooldown on the consumable (4 or 5 min)
  • Ships have to be really close for it to work

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,109 posts
14,521 battles

Even today, aicraft carriers are "accidents waiting to happen". They carry lots of aviation fuel, ordinance, oxygen etc and carry out risky flight operations. In WW2, they were highly vulnerable to enemy gunfire etc. In contrast, in the game, they are currently more resilient than many BBs and exceedingly hard to kill, which is beyond ridiculous.

 

Just saying.

 

But keep up the good (re)work.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[P-W-C]
Players
4,723 posts
26,523 battles
On 8/18/2019 at 9:18 PM, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

Even today, aicraft carriers are "accidents waiting to happen". They carry lots of aviation fuel, ordinance, oxygen etc and carry out risky flight operations. In WW2, they were highly vulnerable to enemy gunfire etc. In contrast, in the game, they are currently more resilient than many BBs and exceedingly hard to kill, which is beyond ridiculous.

 

Just saying.

 

But keep up the good (re)work.

Well the Midway and Hakku had armor decks and were called in fact "battle carriers". Other CVs I don't see them any "resilient" . I was one shotted many times in Saipan or GZ. On Kaga few times 90% hp wiped by 1-2 BB salvo. 

Guess Ill die 21072019132442.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BULL]
Players
642 posts
6,304 battles

WG: What are you playing at? Player support my arse ..

 

Replay files are not working again, I use these to record games so that if I have a good one I can replay it and convert via my graphics card (Nvidia) into a useable format.

The replay files don't take up as much hard space, so they are handy and I don't get that many I would post on youtube.

The replay system is also useful as it save individual games as individual games with a title that make it easy to find the one you want.

 

But when I put a ticket in for anything I get a box standard answer .. "Refer to Customer Services" or "The forum Suggestions" etc.

Why can't player support redivert it to the dev's and then tell you that is what they have done?

 

I was told if it was recorded on an older client it won't play..

I call BS WG:

It was recorded on 8.6 and would not play on that, I reported that with a ticket .. surprise nothing happened.

I tried it on 8.7 no joy, I tried one from last night on 8.7 Oh what a surprise that doesn't work either and that is the CURRENT CLIENT!

Your full of crap, if you can't be bothered to resolve an issue (which is common) then al least be honest enough to say that!

 

Suggestion:

Build the bloody replay system into the game, allow people to go to a tab or game mode, whatever, to load a replay and play it so they can save it out into a more useful format.

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×