My Thoughts as a New Player.

[5_InchFl0ppy]

Hi there guys,

 

I'm a former WOT player (top 1%) who decided to check this game out and see whether it was any good. So far I have found it to be a mixed bag if I'm honest. On the one hand its graphically very pretty, but the game itself seems to lack depth. I was wondering what keeps you guys playing ?

 

Here is what I like:

 

• Ship diversity. Although it seems some of the ships are not very well balanced, I like that the classes each have viable role in the game.
• The graphics. As I said earlier, its a nice looking game.
• The game itself is something different and variety is something the modern gaming scene desperately needs more of.
• The UI is simple and easy to understand.

 

Here is what I don't like:

 

• The game is quite repetitive and it really does seem to lack the intricacy that WOT had.
• There seems to be a huge amount of RNG in this game. This is especially noticeable when you play a Battleship.
• There seems to be a lot of balancing issues right now.
• I really don't like how WG have managed to create arty 2.0 in the form of Carriers.
• Premium content prices/bundles. Its the same in WOT, but I don't feel encouraged to spend anything on this game (and I did spend a lot on WOT).

 

Anyway, I hope WG add new mechanics and things to increase the longevity of the game. At the moment I do not feel motivated to play the game, or to improve as a player. I'm at tier 6 now and I really see no reason to progress, which is kind of sad.

 

[OldGrandad]

Hi tacticalpr0lap5e,

 

Admittedly content has been slow in arriving, but I guess with more complex models to create, those will take considerably longer to make and to be readied for use. We are on the eve of the largest update we have had so maybe best to reconsider making critique until after it is released. Like you, I can find a lot still that I would like to see addressed but I know what is coming and that takes away some of my concerns.

 

[Juanx]

Hi there guys,

 

I'm a former WOT player (top 1%) who decided to check this game out and see whether it was any good. So far I have found it to be a mixed bag if I'm honest. On the one hand its graphically very pretty, but the game itself seems to lack depth. I was wondering what keeps you guys playing ?

 

Here is what I like:

 

• Ship diversity. Although it seems some of the ships are not very well balanced, I like that the classes each have viable role in the game.
• The graphics. As I said earlier, its a nice looking game.
• The game itself is something different and variety is something the modern gaming scene desperately needs more of.
• The UI is simple and easy to understand.

 

Here is what I don't like:

 

• The game is quite repetitive and it really does seem to lack the intricacy that WOT had.
• There seems to be a huge amount of RNG in this game. This is especially noticeable when you play a Battleship.
• There seems to be a lot of balancing issues right now.
• I really don't like how WG have managed to create arty 2.0 in the form of Carriers.
• Premium content prices/bundles. Its the same in WOT, but I don't feel encouraged to spend anything on this game (and I did spend a lot on WOT).

 

Anyway, I hope WG add new mechanics and things to increase the longevity of the game. At the moment I do not feel motivated to play the game, or to improve as a player. I'm at tier 6 now and I really see no reason to progress, which is kind of sad.

 

 

You display things you dont like as if they were new to this game...then you also say that you are a "1% WOT player" which sounds elitist but I dont think it will give you anything good.

If you had played WOT since beta, you would have noticed how WG does things, and that last sentence points to me you are either 18 years of age or still very naive...

[LooneyBin]

First of, lets start with the obvious.

WowS has just gotten into OBT, whereas WoT has been released for 5 years or so now.

So there's still some balance issues to resolve(looking at you Midway), but again, the game have just gotten into OBT.

 

Regarding BB RNG, it's a needed  factor to balance things, otherwise everyone and their mother would sail BB's, cause they'd be able to one shot everything.

 

There's still hope for the game imo, but it require time and effort to get there, so time will tell if the Devs etc can manage to make a game worth the time.

 

[Xmen]

 

Here is what I don't like:

 

• The game is quite repetitive and it really does seem to lack the intricacy that WOT had.

 

Yea the game has less depth and become repetitive and boring way faster than WOT there is no doubt about that.

 

The ranked battle kind of addressed that issue by making you change the way you have to play to win and making you learn new tricks and tactic.

Also it was very addictive.

 

Waiting for it to come back

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ShockPirat]

I do not think the game lacks intricacy, it just isn't as obvious as in WoT with all the weakspots, bushes and other things.

 

There is some RNG in this game, and your objective is to make it to work as best as possible for you by angling and shooting unangled enemies. Lower tier battleships are kind of inaccurate and miss often, but on tiers 8+ you can almost guarantee citadel hits on enemies showing broadside, at almost all ranges.

And there are no gold shells to overpower skillfull use of RNG, which I really like.

 

Imo balance is better than in WoT - almost every ship can kill almost every ship. In WoT damaging tanks 2 tiers over you is much harder.

 

Carriers aren't arty. You can't do much vs arty except hide behind a rock, and you don't know when they will shoot. All carrier attacks will be telegraphed at least 30 seconds before they happen and you can take countermeasures to reduce damage or even completely avoid it. If you didn't notice the planes on time, that's only your own fault.

 

As for premium content... That's fully subjective. I didn't spend a dime on WoT during 2 years I played it and I've already spent quite a lot of money on warships in only a few months. I simply like ships more than tanks

 

Advancing up tiers is exactly the same as in WoT... You don't actually become better compared to your enemies, you just scale up while your enemies scale up too. The same thing happens in WoT. So again, your motivation to advance up tiers is competely subjective - I never got to tier 10 in Tanks, while in Warships I already have a tier 10 and am at tier 8 on most of the other lines.

[Bulrim]

I went back to WOT for a bit last night and after 4 games I was bored. The play was so static and the maps seemed so small.

 

Each to his own I guess

[Shaka_D]

@ OP: Nice read. I've basically decided that I don't plan to purposefully progress past tier 7 as from tiers 5 to 7 I am happiest and the game is affordable in terms of the terrible ingame economy. WG's deals are always bundled nowadays and it's easy to see they're trying to steer people toward a reliance on premium accounts and ships.

 

I love the game, it looks great and it's all about warships of course, but there are a few things I would like to see improvement on and they're pretty much the same as you mentioned.

 

Even though I've been roasted and torped to death by carriers we at least have a fightback in some strong AA vessels which can make even the most potent carrier player cry, whereas in WoT there is nothing of the sort to counter arty. W0Ws is a slower game, granted, and a loss less frantic than WoT, but the nice thing is we can play both now and then, depending on the pace of gameplay we feel like.

 

It might just be me but one of the reasons I'm really enjoying the game right now too is because I'm not chasing stats and not being judged because of them (for now), so I hope this doesn't change. We still rely on winning because it makes the grind quicker.

 

Hopefully fine-tuning and lots more content will follow, and perhaps a little more fair treatment in terms of premium shop bundlling when compared to other server groups, but ultimately my money is my own, and if I don't like something WG does I'll be more reluctant to part with it.

[conductiv]

I've been a beta player in both tanks and ships, and I can tell you that WoT SPG's and "arty 2.0" carriers have been treated roughly the same way. the carriers are currently treated on these forums was how SPG's where treated during beta/early release. 

 

the games are radically different, while WoT slowly moved away from its initial concept towards a straight up shoot-him-up, I hope this game will fare slightly better.

[MarcusFuriusCamillus]

First of, lets start with the obvious.

WowS has just gotten into OBT, whereas WoT has been released for 5 years or so now.

So there's still some balance issues to resolve(looking at you Midway), but again, the game have just gotten into OBT.

 

Regarding BB RNG, it's a needed  factor to balance things, otherwise everyone and their mother would sail BB's, cause they'd be able to one shot everything.

 

There's still hope for the game imo, but it require time and effort to get there, so time will tell if the Devs etc can manage to make a game worth the time.

 

It's not in OBT, You guys can stop making that excuse for WG now, They've officially released it did you forget?

[5_InchFl0ppy]

Hi tacticalpr0lap5e,

 

Admittedly content has been slow in arriving, but I guess with more complex models to create, those will take considerably longer to make and to be readied for use. We are on the eve of the largest update we have had so maybe best to reconsider making critique until after it is released. Like you, I can find a lot still that I would like to see addressed but I know what is coming and that takes away some of my concerns.

 

 

Well, if the content adds more replay value I would definitely welcome it.

 

 

You display things you dont like as if they were new to this game...then you also say that you are a "1% WOT player" which sounds elitist but I dont think it will give you anything good.

If you had played WOT since beta, you would have noticed how WG does things, and that last sentence points to me you are either 18 years of age or still very naive...

 

I say I'm a  top 1% WOT player (closer to 0.2% actually) because it shows that I can understand and play a WG game to a higher level than most. It does not make me "elitist" just because I happen to be half decent at something. While that doesn't necessarily mean I will be as good at this game, it does at least show that I am capable of learning and improving.

I've been a beta player in both tanks and ships, and I can tell you that WoT SPG's and "arty 2.0" carriers have been treated roughly the same way. the carriers are currently treated on these forums was how SPG's where treated during beta/early release. 

 

the games are radically different, while WoT slowly moved away from its initial concept towards a straight up shoot-him-up, I hope this game will fare slightly better.

 

Also, I'm not 18 nor naive. I'm very well aware of what WG has done in the past and I was quite vocal about it on the WOT forum. As far as I know there is a totally different development team working on this game and I would hope that these guys have a different outlook on how to make their game a success.

 

 

Yea the game has less depth and become repetitive and boring way faster than WOT there is no doubt about that.

 

The ranked battle kind of addressed that issue by making you change the way you have to play to win and making you learn new tricks and tactic.

Also it was very addictive.

 

Waiting for it to come back

 

Ranked battles seems like a good idea. The only problem is finding a decent metric to actually rank people by.

 

1.I do not think the game lacks intricacy, it just isn't as obvious as in WoT with all the weakspots, bushes and other things.

 

2.There is some RNG in this game, and your objective is to make it to work as best as possible for you by angling and shooting unangled enemies. Lower tier battleships are kind of inaccurate and miss often, but on tiers 8+ you can almost guarantee citadel hits on enemies showing broadside, at almost all ranges.

And there are no gold shells to overpower skillfull use of RNG, which I really like.

 

3.Imo balance is better than in WoT - almost every ship can kill almost every ship. In WoT damaging tanks 2 tiers over you is much harder.

 

4. Carriers aren't arty. You can't do much vs arty except hide behind a rock, and you don't know when they will shoot. All carrier attacks will be telegraphed at least 30 seconds before they happen and you can take countermeasures to reduce damage or even completely avoid it. If you didn't notice the planes on time, that's only your own fault.

 

5. As for premium content... That's fully subjective. I didn't spend a dime on WoT during 2 years I played it and I've already spent quite a lot of money on warships in only a few months. I simply like ships more than tanks

 

Advancing up tiers is exactly the same as in WoT... You don't actually become better compared to your enemies, you just scale up while your enemies scale up too. The same thing happens in WoT. So again, your motivation to advance up tiers is competely subjective - I never got to tier 10 in Tanks, while in Warships I already have a tier 10 and am at tier 8 on most of the other lines.

 

1. Well I'm not far into the game enough to really comment about the higher tiers, but so far the game really doesn't feel as diverse as it could be.

 

2. Well some RNG is fine, having all your shots not hit (despite being well aimed) or just not do any meaningful damage is frustrating.

 

3. It really isn't that hard to pen higher tier tanks, especially since the introduction of premium ammo. I do agree with you that the balance has kind of gone out of the window in WOT.

 

4. Granted Carriers are less annoying, but there are times when you just get focused by several waves of bombers and there is literally nothing you can do. It doesn't help that teammates with decent AA just run off somewhere and you can't keep up with them.

 

5. My argument is that WG cannot afford to charge so much at this point in the games development. This game has far fewer players and they should be doing more to encourage people to spend money, not driving them off. I stopped spending meaningful amounts on WOT because WG just got too greedy and I won't spend money here while the prices are so high.

snip

 

Yeah I pretty much agree with that. I'm just not as big into ships as I was tanks.

 

First of, lets start with the obvious.

WowS has just gotten into OBT, whereas WoT has been released for 5 years or so now.

So there's still some balance issues to resolve(looking at you Midway), but again, the game have just gotten into OBT.

 

Regarding BB RNG, it's a needed  factor to balance things, otherwise everyone and their mother would sail BB's, cause they'd be able to one shot everything.

 

There's still hope for the game imo, but it require time and effort to get there, so time will tell if the Devs etc can manage to make a game worth the time.

 

 

Oh yeah, its early days yet and I understand the game will still have flaws.

 

I don't agree about Battleship RNG though. Its already very easy for people to avoid the shots at long range (I avoid them all the time myself). The reward for aiming well should be decent damage, not trololol 1k damage and a bunch of shots landing either side.

[Kenliero]

Well. There are two things that I want to point out.

 

There is not"Carriers bomb me and there is nothing I can do"... yes you can. Play better. Keep your eyes open for planes, predict, take countermeasures, don't sail alone in the middle of nowhere... many ways to counter.

Carriers are not Arty. There is no luck and rng in carrier play, it is just you against them, only skill involved. if they torp you, you did something wrong. He was better.

Even if you have 90% winrate in wot, it means nothing here. You have to learn how things work, and you seem intelligent enough to understand what I mean with this.

The best advice is to play all classes, to really understand them. You are not going to learn to counter/defend against carriers well, if you never tried them.

 

Also, about battleship RNG.

This is basicly how Battleships work. You get as close as possible to enemy, which minimizes your RNG, but also every km towards enemy is more risky for you, mostly because of the destroyers. So, skillful player gets close and personal and outmaneuvers them with his SLOW ship. So, with skill, you can do this and I have no doubt you will understand how it will work, if you have been that good in Wot. It just takes time and practice.

 

Tricks like these will come to play when you played enough to understand the mechanics. Once you have evolved.

[LooneyBin]

 

Well, if the content adds more replay value I would definitely welcome it.

 

 

I say I'm a  top 1% WOT player (closer to 0.2% actually) because it shows that I can understand and play a WG game to a higher level than most. It does not make me "elitist" just because I happen to be half decent at something. While that doesn't necessarily mean I will be as good at this game, it does at least show that I am capable of learning and improving.

 

Also, I'm not 18 nor naive. I'm very well aware of what WG has done in the past and I was quite vocal about it on the WOT forum. As far as I know there is a totally different development team working on this game and I would hope that these guys have a different outlook on how to make their game a success.

 

 

Ranked battles seems like a good idea. The only problem is finding a decent metric to actually rank people by.

 

 

1. Well I'm not far into the game enough to really comment about the higher tiers, but so far the game really doesn't feel as diverse as it could be.

 

2. Well some RNG is fine, having all your shots not hit (despite being well aimed) or just not do any meaningful damage is frustrating.

 

3. It really isn't that hard to pen higher tier tanks, especially since the introduction of premium ammo. I do agree with you that the balance has kind of gone out of the window in WOT.

 

4. Granted Carriers are less annoying, but there are times when you just get focused by several waves of bombers and there is literally nothing you can do. It doesn't help that teammates with decent AA just run off somewhere and you can't keep up with them.

 

5. My argument is that WG cannot afford to charge so much at this point in the games development. This game has far fewer players and they should be doing more to encourage people to spend money, not driving them off. I stopped spending meaningful amounts on WOT because WG just got too greedy and I won't spend money here while the prices are so high.

 

Yeah I pretty much agree with that. I'm just not as big into ships as I was tanks.

 

 

Oh yeah, its early days yet and I understand the game will still have flaws.

 

I don't agree about Battleship RNG though. Its already very easy for people to avoid the shots at long range (I avoid them all the time myself). The reward for aiming well should be decent damage, not trololol 1k damage and a bunch of shots landing either side.

 

But what happens when you hit a citadel on a CA? better yet, 2 citadel hits in 1 salvo?

 

Using your thought process, then a 20km range salvo (lets say 8 shells) should land 4-5 hits, and each hit should do more then 1k dmg.

We're just gonna say a 8 shell salvo, with 5 hits, and each hit does 2k dmg (not counting in any possible citadels), that's 10k dmg.

No cruiser would be able to retaliate, so you're basicly asking for BB's to behave like arty does in WoT (and with the speed of the later BB's, then it'll take a CA quite a while to catch up with a BB running away while firing its aft guns).

 

Having used that exampel, then i understand the need to the dispertion BB's have at long range.

And if you want further reason, then look at the representation of CA vs BB in T9-10, and their average performance.

[IamTroublemaker]

You were a top 1% of WoT and you claim carriers are arty? NO.

 

Maybe they are sitting comfortably in behind the team, but they aren't arty and NONE of the WoWs classes can be compared to WoT classes!

 

If there is a slight, but only SLIGHT resemblance of a WoWs class with arty in WoT then its IJN destroyers. But I repeat, only SLIGHT resemblance.

 

 

First of all, this game is MUCH more balanced than WoT.

Yes battleships are RNG influenced a lot, but its a lot better if you know how to aim!

 

I agree with the premium content, but again, it cannot be compared to WoT so much as it takes months to make just 1 ship, so the content is coming slower, but it is coming!

[5_InchFl0ppy]

You were a top 1% of WoT and you claim carriers are arty? NO.

 

Maybe they are sitting comfortably in behind the team, but they aren't arty and NONE of the WoWs classes can be compared to WoT classes!

 

 

That's exactly what I meant. Its another mechanic that WG have made which rewards passive play. I don't think they are as broken as arty in WOT, I still find them as annoying though. The other similarity that Carriers share with arty is that for most of the game the Carrier is safe from me attacking him back.

 

 

But what happens when you hit a citadel on a CA? better yet, 2 citadel hits in 1 salvo?

 

Using your thought process, then a 20km range salvo (lets say 8 shells) should land 4-5 hits, and each hit should do more then 1k dmg.

We're just gonna say a 8 shell salvo, with 5 hits, and each hit does 2k dmg (not counting in any possible citadels), that's 10k dmg.

No cruiser would be able to retaliate, so you're basicly asking for BB's to behave like arty does in WoT (and with the speed of the later BB's, then it'll take a CA quite a while to catch up with a BB running away while firing its aft guns).

 

Having used that exampel, then i understand the need to the dispertion BB's have at long range.

And if you want further reason, then look at the representation of CA vs BB in T9-10, and their average performance.

 

 I don't want them to have Deathstar capabilities, but I would like the guns to perform a bit more consistently, considering the long reload they have. Maybe its the nature of the lower tier Battleships v0v.

 

Well. There are two things that I want to point out.

 

There is not"Carriers bomb me and there is nothing I can do"... yes you can. Play better. Keep your eyes open for planes, predict, take countermeasures, don't sail alone in the middle of nowhere... many ways to counter.

Carriers are not Arty. There is no luck and rng in carrier play, it is just you against them, only skill involved. if they torp you, you did something wrong. He was better.

Even if you have 90% winrate in wot, it means nothing here. You have to learn how things work, and you seem intelligent enough to understand what I mean with this.

The best advice is to play all classes, to really understand them. You are not going to learn to counter/defend against carriers well, if you never tried them.

 

Also, about battleship RNG.

This is basicly how Battleships work. You get as close as possible to enemy, which minimizes your RNG, but also every km towards enemy is more risky for you, mostly because of the destroyers. So, skillful player gets close and personal and outmaneuvers them with his SLOW ship. So, with skill, you can do this and I have no doubt you will understand how it will work, if you have been that good in Wot. It just takes time and practice.

 

Tricks like these will come to play when you played enough to understand the mechanics. Once you have evolved.

 

Well I try not to sail out alone for that reason. However, when my alleged team mates in cruisers decide to do a bunk and I'm playing something like the New York, or Wyoming, I don't have much say in the matter.

 

I do keep my eyes open and try to gtfo where possible, but it just isn't possible all the time. I'm willing to admit when I get outplayed (which is fairly often) and this could all just be a l2p issue. My original post was just me merely stating my impressions of the game overall, not that I hate Carriers and that they should be removed, which is how I feel about arty in WOT.

 

[IamTroublemaker]

 

That's exactly what I meant. Its another mechanic that WG have made which rewards passive play. I don't think they are as broken as arty in WOT, I still find them as annoying though. The other similarity that Carriers share with arty is that for most of the game the Carrier is safe from me attacking him back.

 

You should try playing them and see how how (at some tiers) it can be. Planes are your "ammunition" and you can lose them quite easily to both AA and opponent fighters.

It can also be quite hard to manage when you have quite a few squadrons in the air.

 

And that's nothing like arty

 

 

 

 

[Thejagdpanther]

yep dear OP, there are no medium tanks to use here...

yep there are ships that carry planes...

[Kenliero]

 

That's exactly what I meant. Its another mechanic that WG have made which rewards passive play. I don't think they are as broken as arty in WOT, I still find them as annoying though. The other similarity that Carriers share with arty is that for most of the game the Carrier is safe from me attacking him back.

 

 

 I don't want them to have Deathstar capabilities, but I would like the guns to perform a bit more consistently, considering the long reload they have. Maybe its the nature of the lower tier Battleships v0v.

 

 

Well I try not to sail out alone for that reason. However, when my alleged team mates in cruisers decide to do a bunk and I'm playing something like the New York, or Wyoming, I don't have much say in the matter.

 

I do keep my eyes open and try to gtfo where possible, but it just isn't possible all the time. I'm willing to admit when I get outplayed (which is fairly often) and this could all just be a l2p issue. My original post was just me merely stating my impressions of the game overall, not that I hate Carriers and that they should be removed, which is how I feel about arty in WOT.

 

 

New York and Wyoming doesn't have good AA yet, but it will get better. New Mexico is true brawling ship, you will like it, and Colorado, even being slow as hell, is tough nut to crack and has great AA. The meaning of AA comes to play after tier 6, so your impressions for now are not quite what they will be. New York, Myogi, Kawachi and Wyoming are the low tier ships that has most trouble with carriers, so you can expect much better in the future.

It is true that it is almost impossible to kill carriers with battleship, but that duty is reserved for other carriers and those sneaky destroyers...

 

I originally was not interested of carriers, because I feared they were like arty(hate arty in wot) complete random luck bs, but it turned out that with carrier it is all about what you do, rather than luck, so I like to play them every now and then. (I have played 10 different carriers).

 

With battleships.... it is pain in the "#&"%& when you don't get support when pushing the flank, but that is the part which requires skill, you need to find a way to push, so that you take repairable fire damage from enemies, but not against too many enemies at the same time, keeping angled when THEY shoot, keep an eye on destroyers etc.... find a way to get close. It's easier when you have played other classes, when you know their weaknesses and strengths. Getting to that 8-10km, aiming to waterline and one-shot the enemy with proper citadel hits is very rewarding. Aiming is not that hard, but finding a way to get in to that position to shoot their open side, while protecting your own broadside, is the thing. Repair skill can repair all fire damage, so use it. Sometimes you need to fall back a bit, if you take too much damage etc. Things you learn well, when you get more games under your belt. Soon you realise that sailing battleship is much more than just RNG. It's about outplaying enemies and conserving health.

 

[conductiv]

 

That's exactly what I meant. Its another mechanic that WG have made which rewards passive play. I don't think they are as broken as arty in WOT, I still find them as annoying though. The other similarity that Carriers share with arty is that for most of the game the Carrier is safe from me attacking him back.

 

 

 I don't want them to have Deathstar capabilities, but I would like the guns to perform a bit more consistently, considering the long reload they have. Maybe its the nature of the lower tier Battleships v0v.

 

 

Well I try not to sail out alone for that reason. However, when my alleged team mates in cruisers decide to do a bunk and I'm playing something like the New York, or Wyoming, I don't have much say in the matter.

 

I do keep my eyes open and try to gtfo where possible, but it just isn't possible all the time. I'm willing to admit when I get outplayed (which is fairly often) and this could all just be a l2p issue. My original post was just me merely stating my impressions of the game overall, not that I hate Carriers and that they should be removed, which is how I feel about arty in WOT.

 

 

carriers have a more skill based approach to SPG's, their shots have no RNG (the damage done by the shot has some RNG, but even that is fairly marginal), the skill factors are mainly based on anticipating the targets defensive maneuvers and hence they can..when they predict correctly..guarantee a full on hit. its like a SPG with pinpoint accuracy but a really slow shell, that can only fire after its shell has "returned" to the vehicle to reload (RoF = flight distance time*2 + service time...meaning they become more effective as they are closer to the target)  

 

on top of that, carriers are about as fast as a ship, and can generally run away effectively..and unlike WoT SPG's they can take a beating meaning that as a platform they are far more effective then a WoT SPG and this means they can take some risks. they are also less team dependent, being more then able to find their own targets as their "shells" have eyes.

 

BB RNG (or rather, "large spread") is placed due to the battleships other major assets, having more HP, more armor, more range, more damage..they are in general also not much slower then other ships in the game (but they turn slower) higher tier BB's make up for their RNG somewhat by having a reasonably powerful shotgun spread, meaning that if the target is in the spread (aka the shots aren't dodged or badly aimed), a few shots are likely to hit the critical spot for massive damage. (if you get to T5+ cruisers, you will notice that you can and will get 1 shot (well more like 1 good salvo) every now and then)

 

at lower tiers (4 & 5 where you will meet the first carriers), cruisers lack the AA tools to help out a battleship, tier 6 and up they gain access to skills and modules to assist them in AA duties if they are willing to sacrifice some main battery aspects. (meaning that being good at AA, generally means sacrificing something else) anti-air seems to be the natural strength of the USN ships, meaning that US cruisers and battleships generally have the best base AA statistics.

 

 

[AmazingBeaver]

 

Here is what I don't like:

 

• The game is quite repetitive and it really does seem to lack the intricacy that WOT had.
• There seems to be a huge amount of RNG in this game. This is especially noticeable when you play a Battleship.
• There seems to be a lot of balancing issues right now.
• I really don't like how WG have managed to create arty 2.0 in the form of Carriers.

 

Anyway, I hope WG add new mechanics and things to increase the longevity of the game. At the moment I do not feel motivated to play the game, or to improve as a player. I'm at tier 6 now and I really see no reason to progress, which is kind of sad.

 

 

• For me, WoWs offers a more relaxed environment than WoT, which I started to hate so much I just quitted and never looked back. This game is awesome with Division friends and ables you and your friends to execute some bigger scale naval tactics.
• RNG is big part of BB gameplay, but once you learn it's way of acting, it's alright.
• Balancing issues. Yes, but unlike in WoT, if you are couple tiers lower you can still carry your weight and put some hurt on the big boys, big time.
• Carriers, unlike the arty in WoT, you can actually counter them. Just turn on the fun switch in Cruiser or gear up your USN BB with Anti-Aircraft modules. Teamplay and survivality is everything.

 

The Fun switch:

​

 

 

 

[chippy_lw]

 

• For me, WoWs offers a more relaxed environment than WoT

 

 

 

Same here. There's definitely less stress in WoWs, yet you still get the buzz from a good kill/win.

 

It takes time to see the ship differences, they all seem very "samey" to begin with, then, after some time the subtleties of the different countries and ships begin to appear, it's nice when you start to see the differences.

[Samurai__]

By definition, IMO, RNG is a fundamental part of naval engagement, given the medium and ranges that battles occur.

 

 

I also believe that WOWs is far more tactical than WOT.  The speed of ships is such that you have to plan 5-10 minutes in advance to be able to be in the 'right' place at the 'right' time, far more so than in WOT, with faster vehicles and smaller maps.

 

It looks like some of the changes coming in 5.1 in terms of game play and zone capture are going to make tactical play even more important.

 

To all those that have whined that a quick CAP win earns less credits/exp, well that is being addressed with tactical wins now earning on a 'par with kill' all wins, which is again IMO, a good thing.

 

Keep Calm, go in and sink......

 

[waxx25]

I have been playing since closed Beta, the game was fun then and it is only better now. I am already addicted. I am confident that WG will continue to make improvements.

[allufewig]

 

I don't agree about Battleship RNG though. Its already very easy for people to avoid the shots at long range (I avoid them all the time myself). The reward for aiming well should be decent damage, not trololol 1k damage and a bunch of shots landing either side.

 

I had the same thoughts when I came here from WoT (after 40k games, superunicum).

 

However, it is not as bad as it might seem at first. In fact, battleships dominate from midtiers onwards (if you exclude some retardedly balanced carriers and carriers not being everyones taste anyway). You have to stay in game long enough for your salvoes to even out damage-wise. And usually BBs are very capable of living long times, even under fire.

 

Generally speaking, the balancing WoWs is worse than that in WoT, even though WoWs doesnt have the gold-ammo issue. I do hope things will get better in this regard.

 

What I generally prefer ships over tanks for is the pace of combat though. Not meaning the game-speed per se, but rather the fact, that ships can sustain so much longer under fire, making you feel like youre commanding a big badass warmachine. In WoT on the other hand it feels like youre a one- to 4-shot every game. I returned to WoT for a couple of games and indeed, the moment you peek out somewhere for a second, something derps you for half your health. After ships, this didnt feel right at all.

[Technocrat_Prime]

I'm a former WOT player (top 1%) 

 

 

And that's your fault, right there. You are so fixated on WoT you don't understand that WoWS is a totally different beast.