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

Suggestions thread

2,151 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[BNP]
Players
147 posts
2,396 battles

Current bonus system is crap.

 

Give the bonus out for people to manually apply after a battle.

 

Due to a broken round, I got only 997 XP after the multiplier was applied, just because our team won.

 

What should I do now, just play again 7 times and stay AFK to get the rest of the free bonus I deserve?

 

Edit: Or better: Give the people the choice to abort a broken round, so they can immediately start a new proper round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
234 posts
2,994 battles

Can  we have the initial victory XP bonus selectable to Random Battles only ? This would allow people to have a few warm-up  practice battles in a selected ship in Co-Op, before going for the big XP in a Random battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WASP_]
Players
345 posts
On 9/9/2019 at 8:41 PM, Just_Testing_That said:

That function makes sense. Really. But allow a minor change - a team can ask to start a mutiny on any players ship. If this mutiny succeeds (half of the team should agree within lets say 20 seconds from the request), the player with that mutiny on board is logged off, brought to prison for that day and replaced by a bot for the remaining battle.

 

Thats better than having a player half afk while doing other stuff. And that system should replace "reports". Because bad playstyle and absolutely no skill at all does not have any consequences. The worse your karma, the more likely is such a mutiny.

 

 

How do you propose to counter the Inevitable  abuse of such a system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,047 posts
12,349 battles
Vor 30 Minuten, Merlin851526 sagte:

How do you propose to counter the Inevitable  abuse of such a system?

I assume you dont speak "sarcasm"?

 

But to be less sarcastic - if half the team wants you to be replaced by a bot, why do you think there should be any option for a "counter"? Especially if there is a bit of RNG and your karma may be part of that. And to be more precise - such a mutiny request won't be considered by server with a single user only and "your CURRENT battle stats" being near the top of the board. Would be quite the opposite.

 

Bad aggressive players simply die. Bad passive players do "what" exactly? Especially if you look at the post before mine with "I don't like sommething in this match, so I do other stuff rather than playing my ship".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
435 posts
5,825 battles

Simple suggestion.

Make a game mode where only historical ships that actually existed can play, no "paper" or "fantasy" ships allowed.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WASP_]
Players
345 posts
2 minutes ago, Just_Testing_That said:

I assume you dont speak "sarcasm"?

 

But to be less sarcastic - if half the team wants you to be replaced by a bot, why do you think there should be any option for a "counter"? Especially if there is a bit of RNG and your karma may be part of that. And to be more precise - such a mutiny request won't be considered by server with a single user only and "your CURRENT battle stats" being near the top of the board. Would be quite the opposite.

 

Bad aggressive players simply die. Bad passive players do "what" exactly? Especially if you look at the post before mine with "I don't like sommething in this match, so I do other stuff rather than playing my ship".

 

 

I'm sorry but you haven't answered my question. What do you mean by the half the team? is it the team at the start or at any time during the game, where's the cut off? Furthermore are divisions counted as 1 vote like in the reporting system or individually. How are Divisions to cope with a bot if one of them are replaced?  What if have the team didn't like the ship your in,  there are so many imponderables. Not to mention the language barrier. You make a assumption that everyone will speak the same language. What in essence you are proposing is a vote kick system and they are never ever a good idea.

 

I asked the question in all seriousness if I wasn't I would have inserted a emoticon to indicate so. Not to mention the fact that their may be premium ships involved and that they(owners) now run the risk of being denied the use of them. That won't sit well both owner and seller I can tell. I have no wish to be rude, but this is possibly one of the worst Ideas I have seen floated here (forgive the pun) and I hope and pray it never gets near any form of serious consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,047 posts
12,349 battles

Thats suggestions thread, not discussion thread.

 

My problem is, that there are way too many incompetent players, especially at T10. The team getting more of those "players with a very high improvement potential" has practically lost.

 

Since years there is a lot discussion about matchmaking. Either the others have stronger ships, more Radars, more hydro DDs ... you will always find an excuse. But the gap in player performance between the top third and the bottom third is way higher than the difference between any ships of their tiers.

 

I found the "mutiny" option for passive and bad players at the beginning a nice joke, but hat could be a "funny" option to replace very bad or even AFK / disconnected players by a bot. So that the team does not suffer that much if one decides to be at the edge of a map AFK because there are "too many cheaters" in the red team.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WASP_]
Players
345 posts
2 hours ago, Just_Testing_That said:

Thats suggestions thread, not discussion thread.

 

My problem is, that there are way too many incompetent players, especially at T10. The team getting more of those "players with a very high improvement potential" has practically lost.

 

Since years there is a lot discussion about matchmaking. Either the others have stronger ships, more Radars, more hydro DDs ... you will always find an excuse. But the gap in player performance between the top third and the bottom third is way higher than the difference between any ships of their tiers.

 

I found the "mutiny" option for passive and bad players at the beginning a nice joke, but hat could be a "funny" option to replace very bad or even AFK / disconnected players by a bot. So that the team does not suffer that much if one decides to be at the edge of a map AFK because there are "too many cheaters" in the red team.

 

 

iOPW18r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
13 posts
3,836 battles
  1. Revert Chung Mu gun reload to 3.3s
  2. Buff Scharnhorst 105mm secondaries pen like Bismarck and Tirpitz
  3. Please bring INS Delhi and INS Mysore to the EU server as well
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,885 posts
6,981 battles

Please introduce Shigure as a Japanese premium DD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-NO-]
[-NO-]
Players
115 posts
16,890 battles
On ‎9‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 5:52 PM, Pametrada said:

Can  we have the initial victory XP bonus selectable to Random Battles only ? This would allow people to have a few warm-up  practice battles in a selected ship in Co-Op, before going for the big XP in a Random battle.

No thanks - I only play co ops because of a handicap - hard enough to grind as it is without taking away my bonus !!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-SOG-]
Players
373 posts
6,536 battles

Have become more and more of a DD main since the carrier rework seems to have calmed down and the amount of carriers reached a stable number. 

 

But the Defensive AA consumable is totally broken for destroyers, what is the point of having 300% flak cloud damage when the maximum amount of clouds are 3-4 in most destroyers with AA modifications, together with the 50% aura damage it is a useless consumable on most ships with a very poorly adjusted cooldown to the current meta and the strange flak spawn range of 3,5  - 6,0km.

 

My suggestion is to adjust the cooldown as well as the active time, remove the damage buff from FLAK clouds and make it so the Defensive AA consumable doubles the aura damage and number of flak clouds making it harder for the CV to avoid them. If needed we  an double the flak damage as well making it +100% on all three parameters. 

 

Current 0.8.8 version:

+50% Aura damage

+300% Flak damage

20 s active time

120 s cooldown (80 s premium one) 

 

My suggestion:

+100% Aura damage 

+100% Amount of flak explosions

+100% Flak damage (optional for tweak) 

15 s active time

45 s cooldown (30 s premium one) 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Players
66 posts
11,111 battles

Need something to use clans oil. armory could have signals or camos for oil that could buy for all in clan

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DEGC]
[DEGC]
Players
2 posts
15,713 battles

Topic: audio

I would like to see an option of an audio devices list to select which device you would like to use for your audio output, instead of just the option speakers or headphones which the game now has.

This way you can route the audio to another device and split the game audio form the general system sounds.

 

Could be handy for people who stream with software like OBS for example. Because you have to manually start AudioRouter and setup WOWS to a specific device each time you want to stream.

And with this more advance audio device selection build into WOWS you won't. Which eliminates the AudioRouter software.

Untitled-2.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LOLOP]
Players
9 posts
5,554 battles

Topic: Graphics

would look see a the wood camo  for ships  like the one in the port 

would look small life-rafts  when ship sinks

Would look to Whales that appear on the surface and underwater   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4 posts
838 battles

Important

 

Delete the option of having 2 cv's per side before tier 6 games because the aa is so useless before that in most of the ships or non existing. Too many players have quitted when consistanly matched in a game with 2 cv's in tier 3,4 and 5. One per side is enough! otherwise its going to be total cancer not just trying to avoid and fight them( if u have aa) but also in chat. Please throw these extra cv's out of the window no need to make your players break their keyboards and/or have a stroke caused by the poor mm. And this is serious issue.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BNP]
Players
147 posts
2,396 battles

and we're back to cheaters being one of the biggest issues.

When you are only briefly spotted, you take evasive action and suddenly you see shells that literally follow you around and take away half of your health even though the game model doesn't allow that, then you know that people are manipulating the system rather than playing fair.

 

and then it's either dying quick and playing another ship I don't want to or just letting the client run in the background and doing some more useful stuff until the round is over and I am allowed to continue playing.

 

Of course I'm adding these people to the blacklist and reporting them, but it isn't really getting better.

 

When will WOG finally address these issues?

 

Edit: Oh, I just found one guy that is immune to ramming (destroyer vs. destroyer) - only I received the ramming damage.
Edit2: I just saw a volley of shells take a 45 degree bend mid air. Funny it still missed.

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
234 posts
2,994 battles
On 9/21/2019 at 10:41 AM, hedgehog_s said:

No thanks - I only play co ops because of a handicap - hard enough to grind as it is without taking away my bonus !!

Well, I did say 'selectable' - so you would have the option of keeping things as they are, or selecting the first Random win for your extra points.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FSKP]
[FSKP]
Players
289 posts
5,579 battles

It would be great, if clan admins could see the last login day, despite hidden statistics. Otherwise it would be difficult (only the collected oil could be an indicator) to judge, if a member is inactive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TAW]
Players
175 posts
5,956 battles

Allow clans that have enough interested players to field Alpha, Bravo and Charlie teams in Clan Battles.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TAW]
Players
175 posts
5,956 battles

Bring some order to the Commander scene i.e.

(For clarity: A (+)Skill = An enhanced version of an existing T1-T4 commander skill; A Conditional Skill requires a certain condition to be met i.e. Kraken before activation occurs.

Tier 0 Commanders: Normal commanders with no (+)Skills and no Conditional Skills.

Tier 1 Commander: Has 1 (+)Skill.

Tier 2 Commander: Has 2 (+)Skills.

Tier 3 Commander: Has 3 (+)Skills.

Tier 4 Commander: May have (+)Skill(s) and Conditional Skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-NO-]
[-NO-]
Players
115 posts
16,890 battles

My Bismarck got sunk today for the first time since I got unsinkable sam cammo and sam on board - I checked everywhere for him as the ship went down - couldnt find him - I suggest a small lifeboat be rendered with sam on board wearing a  hawian shirt and sipping a cocktail.

 

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,047 posts
12,349 battles

Please do something about the 203 mm AP. Compared to a light cruiser with HE/IFHE, you have way less DPM and even if you score, you have to rely on RNG. The 8'' AP from cruisers against cuisers does way too many overpens. Please reduce the fuse time, that hits in the belly are at least pens and not overpens. Thats ridiculous.

 

I really appreciate, that you copied the 35 ms fuse time of e.g. US shells, see http://bulletpicker.com/pdf/USNBD - US Navy Projectiles.pdf ... But there were also fuses of the same caliber, which started the 33ms on FIRST contact and not a "sufficient thick layer". See MK23 vs MK28 Base Detonator Fuse. So the "sensitive" fuse would go off more early and cause more likely pens rather than overpens. Thus 8'' cruisers would be able to punish broadsiding 6'' cruisers with much less overpen risk per salvo. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,345 posts
9,154 battles

With moving of majority of premium ships from tech tree into Armory, option to preview ships in port could come in handy, either to see detailed stats or armor layout.

@Crysantos @MrConway

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×