Jump to content


What Would You Change About This Game Right Now?

Bacon

  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

Rolkatsuki #41 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:55 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Members

  • 16,683
  • Member since:
    09-03-2014

- Fix CVs

- add Replays

- add Training rooms

- make a Collab with KanColle(will never happen />.\\)

- buff Montana's accuracy of main guns by around 3-8%

- make a mid tier IJN premium ship (Kako please WG)

- the option to sell all modules at once from depot

- put in an easter egg in a port relating to how PT boats and maybe subs won't be making it to the game as playable vessels 


The Great South Land's most truculent Dunkerque captain~

wEHvz4x.png

 


Canadatron #42 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:56 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,799
  • Member since:
    12-31-2015

View Postslak__, on 20 March 2017 - 05:37 PM, said:

Ahhh a needed dash of salt, thank you.

 

remove smoke wasn't salty enough for you? Oh wait...
-={FOG}=- Community Member

slak__ #43 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:57 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Members

  • 15,110
  • Member since:
    11-19-2013

View PostCanadatron, on 20 March 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

 

remove smoke wasn't salty enough for you? Oh wait...

 

:honoring:

 

 


Skpstr #44 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:59 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 8,414
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postslak__, on 20 March 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

Name three things.

 

I'll go first.

 

1: I would remove smoke completely, all the way, gone. Kaput. Mechanic is silly and has gotten out of hand, give RN Cruisers better concealment and HE and never look back. USN DDs would change drastically and players would have to adjust.

 

I don't disagree, except instead of removing it, alter things so it's really only useful defensively. Nothing wrong with giving the enemy a faceful of smoke so you can GTFO when you need to.


 


slak__ #45 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:05 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Members

  • 15,110
  • Member since:
    11-19-2013

View PostSkpstr, on 20 March 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

so it's really only useful defensively

I tend to go to the extreme when I voice my opinions.

I would be completely ok with this, it would be reverting to what smoke essentially was when the game was "released".


 

 


Canadatron #46 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:06 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,799
  • Member since:
    12-31-2015
I would like nerfs to every ship I don't play. And while we are at it please nerf the game down to my level. I don't actually want to play the game I'd just like to have cool stats that I can dangle in front of everyone while I promote my biased opinion as fact. 

Edited by Canadatron, 20 March 2017 - 11:07 PM.

-={FOG}=- Community Member

slak__ #47 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:09 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Members

  • 15,110
  • Member since:
    11-19-2013

View PostCanadatron, on 20 March 2017 - 07:06 PM, said:

I would like nerfs to every ship I don't play. And while we are at it please nerf the game down to my level. I don't actually want to play the game I'd just like to have cool stats that I can dangle in front of everyone while I promote my biased opinion as fact. 

You should start a Twitch Stream.


 

 


crzyhawk #48 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:11 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Beta Testers

  • 9,329
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

1.  Carrier overhaul.  IMO this is the single most important thing to fix.  Carriers need to be a working part of the game.  They need to have a lower skill floor and also lower skill ceiling.  There are a /lot/ of changes that need to happen here.

 

2.  Cruiser rebalance.  More survivability, less fire.  Once again, lots of changes need to be made, but trying to keep my list to three things.  We need more cruisers in game and fewer battleships, but we also need to dump gimmicks like RN CL smoke, which IMO is bad for the game (regardless of how much I use it)

 

3. Game variety.  It's lacking, it should not be.  There's no reason why randoms HAVE to be 12 v 12, domination or CTF.  There are other things that could be done to improve variety of play.  These should be done.

 

Honorable mention:  IJN DD work.  They need a lot of help but frankly are not important enough to break into my top three.  DD's as a whole are in a decent place imo.  Lots of individual lines are lacking and need help.


m373x #49 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:22 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 484
  • Member since:
    04-20-2016

View Postslak__, on 20 March 2017 - 10:37 PM, said:

Ahhh a needed dash of salt, thank you.

Not realizing an obvious bait



WanderingGhost #50 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:29 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,275
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014

View PostCruxdei, on 20 March 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

1-remove "national flavor" and balance every nation with minor "exclusive traits"

germans-a little more accurate

usn-better AA(i heard the FCS of usn in ww2 was the best but we can't go 2 traits)

ijn-long lance torpedoes

soviet-flat shell perhaps

USN-HE with low alpha but better fire chance perhaps.

nothing WOW THIS IS GAMEBREAKER

 

So.... you'd remove "National Flavour" for...... National Flavour. Because that's still basically what it is, just saying.

 

As to mine, I'll say right now I'm going past 3, and most are CV based.

 

1. Completely remove manual drop from the game - this is a broken mechanic and despite what some claim requires very little real skill but causes too many issues, especially in the hands of well practiced players. Removing this ONE feature, leads to a chain of rebalances. Because with that gone, BB's now have the ability to better mitigate or avoid damage, meaning they can no longer cry about it as AA is nerfed to a reasonable level for the first time in over a year, meaning fighters actually, truly have a purpose again, meaning we need to set it up that people WANT to use fighters which means reworking USN's groups, and on down the line of whats needed. Smoke clouds wil also become clickable targets so they can still be routed by TB's. They will also gain 1-2 spread options, not just straight attacks.

2. Completely overhaul strafing - the broken auto delete [edited]that is strafing becomes a simple debuff with MAYBE a SLIGHT increase in damage. Not some nonsense that auto deletes 1-8 squadrons in one pass. It'll maybe take out 1-2 planes, but be a strategic use thing as it'll still cost ammo and have it's true purpose back, just trying to panic grouped enemy bombers to kill their accuracy. The planes will not speed up, so that it lasts that bit longer, and will no longer favour USN the same way it does now.

3. Nerf aerial torpedo damage- if were being honest, it should for the sake of balance be a bit lower, especially on IJN which can cross drop.

4. Fighters - Remove the lock so running is an option, rebalance USN to high ammo, high HP, low damage and IJN to higher damage and lower HP and ammo, better reflecting weapons and plane strengths (tier 8 and 9 corsairs are modeled as variants that use 6 .50 MG's yet have 4x 20mm damage) and decrease the power gap in fighters, hand in hand with the rework on set ups so that fighters are 1-1 when unaided. IJN would favour hit and run while sticking closer to it's fleet, USN would take hits and just keep on coming making them that much better at escorting bombers into AA and still dealing with fighters least of the IJN variety. For other countries, Germany - Faster speeds, high damage, very low ammo, moderate hp, UK - Jack of all trades really, RU - moderate damage/ammo, higher speed, lower Hp. France and Italy - not enough to fully base it, likely closer to UK/USN and Germany respectively (Nations these might borrow aircraft from to fill gaps) or just make fighters somewhat more generic because

5. National Flavour - I would tie this more to the ships themselves and their strike planes. USN - Best AA, highest durability bombers, carries a mix. IJN - most numerous in groups, best stealth. Germany - Best secondaries for self defense, highest DB damage and DB only - which follows history as all of the numerous designs that I can confirm were built around fairly large secondary/DP batteries to deal with destroyers/cruisers and raiding and lack of TB development. UK - most armour/damage mitigation, at least from plunging fire and DB's, focuses more on TB's similar to IJN with fewer overall groups, possibly the opposite of Germany having no DB's as there was a general lack of UK DB development and most DB's would be fighters basically or US supplied. Also possibly the only CV's launching twin engine planes in game. RU, France, Italy - I know they have the designs, I haven't looked indepth enough at them, but sure something can be found. Point being, we give them all things that make them overall unique or different without extremes breaking balances.

6. Make "Emergency Takeoff" an inherent skill - Same as what they did with the old skill that let you know you were spotted. As it is it's near worthless and honestly? should just be how CV's work, not a special captain skill. Because as is, it takes a BB about 30 seconds to fire another salvo at a DD that's close in, it takes at minimum about a minute to hit a DD a second time as a CV. And that's assuming it's a DD, not a battleship spotting and firing from 12 km away that has way more HP and takes even longer to hit. Strike turn around time can range from a minute to five minutes or more. Yet all one has to do is set a fire and now you can't do anything. Realistic, generally, but if were giving a skill that negates it, we should drop it entirely and this is a case of Balance > Realism. Make it so being set on fire completely shut down all the other ships abilities to use main batteries when on fire I'm sure this forum would be FLOODED with posts demanding it changed back. 

7. Fires - nerfed to being a nuisance that should not be underestimated, but not the insanity we have now where honestly AP might as well be extinct for the ability to set a ship on fire so easily and set so many that just burn out of control for about 60 seconds. This needs balancing in the worst way.

 

 

I had other things on my list, I forgot them while typing.

 



KTcraft #51 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:33 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,921
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postslak__, on 20 March 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

.....

Carriers:

There is a LOT that needs to be done with these guys, so I'll just say a complete overhaul from the ground up.  Carrier mechanics in general are just terrible.

 

Premium dominance:

In World of tanks, the old moniker was "better than stock, worse than elite".  Premium vehicles were not as strong as their same tier counterparts when fully upgraded, but weren't helpless.  However, to compensate for this disparity, they had other benefits such as extra credit earnings, the ability to train other tank crews, greater exp generation and even premium matchmaking.  Players could buy their way up to tier 8, but could never buy a vehicle that was any better than anything anyone else had.  This was a good balance model.  Now you have powerful ships like the Scharnhorst, the Belfast, the Kutuzov and the Saipan which perform largely flat out better than their same tier counterparts.  I'd say focus on gimmicks, think Atlanta.  Absolute blast to play, not as good compared to ships of tier but unique playstyle still makes it a desirable ship.  In summary-fun gimmicky premiums instead of pay to win.  (and yes, I have many of those pay to win premiums myself)

 

Lack of Content:

Warships lacks meaningful content.  The content we are getting is new ship lines and new premiums.  What we need is what I would call the three "M"s of content.  Maps, Modes, Mechanics.  We need more modes to play in, convoy defense, coastal bombardment, team battles, clan wars, capture the flag for PvP?  That kind of stuff.  We need new Maps to play on.  Get sick of seeing shatter 3 times in a row?  Me too, I get sick of seeing it once in a row.  New maps, and map diversity would greatly help the replay-ability.  Mechanics -additional customization options for vessels, more choices when it comes to equipment, a more diverse set of skills for commanders, a complete rework of carriers, new abilities-anything to allow players to further customize their ability to play the game.  With a combination of these three types of content instead of new ships, wargaming can greatly increase the longevity of their game and more easily retain the interest of their playerbase.


Edited by KTcraft, 20 March 2017 - 11:35 PM.


slak__ #52 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:34 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Members

  • 15,110
  • Member since:
    11-19-2013

View PostWanderingGhost, on 20 March 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

I had other things on my list, I forgot them while typing.

 

lol

 

Note to self, this a good way to end a wall'o text


Edited by slak__, 20 March 2017 - 11:38 PM.

 

 


slak__ #53 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:35 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Members

  • 15,110
  • Member since:
    11-19-2013

View PostKTcraft, on 20 March 2017 - 07:33 PM, said:

Carriers:

There is a LOT that needs to be done with these guys, so I'll just say a complete overhaul from the ground up.  Carrier mechanics in general are just terrible.

 

Premium dominance:

In World of tanks, the old moniker was "better than stock, worse than elite".  Premium vehicles were not as strong as their same tier counterparts when fully upgraded, but weren't helpless.  However, to compensate for this disparity, they had other benefits such as extra credit earnings, the ability to train other tank crews, greater exp generation and even premium matchmaking.  Players could buy their way up to tier 8, but could never buy a vehicle that was any better than anything anyone else had.  This was a good balance model.  Now you have powerful ships like the Scharnhorst, the Belfast, the Kutuzov and the Saipan which perform largely flat out better than their same tier counterparts.  I'd say focus on gimmicks, think Atlanta.  Absolute blast to play, not as good compared to ships of tier but unique playstyle still makes it a desirable ship.  In summary-fun gimmicky premiums instead of pay to win.  (and yes, I have many of those pay to win premiums myself)

 

Lack of Content:

Warships lacks meaningful content.  The content we are getting is new ship lines and new premiums.  What we need is what I would call the three "M"s of content.  Maps, Modes, Mechanics.  We need more modes to play in, convoy defense, coastal bombardment, team battles, clan wars, capture the flag for PvP?  That kind of stuff.  We need new Maps to play on.  Get sick of seeing shatter 3 times in a row?  Me too, I get sick of seeing it once in a row.  New maps, and map diversity would greatly help the replay-ability.  Mechanics -additional customization options for vessels, more choices when it comes to equipment, a more diverse set of skills for commanders, a complete rework of carriers, new abilities-anything to allow players to further customize their ability to play the game.

 

woa!

 

I thought u was ded


 

 


KTcraft #54 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:36 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,921
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postslak__, on 20 March 2017 - 11:35 PM, said:

 

woa!

 

I thought u was ded

Still around, just sorta... getting burnt out of ships.  See my third point.



Mesrith #55 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:39 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 2,819
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Clan battles

 

Weekly tournaments like the old WoT skirmishes

 

Carrier and AA rework



SkaerKrow #56 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:45 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 280
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I'll add a few things that no one will agree with.

 

1) Add Citadels to DDs, compensate by giving each DD one respawn per battle. The most evasive class in the game doesn't need to be protected against taking significant damage from enemy guns. Compensate by giving them two passes each battle, instead of making them more durable than CLs. Really, DDs have been over-buffed to such a degree to make them viable that they tend to edge out all but the most powerful CLs. 

 

2) Increase the reload time on ship-based torpedoes, but increase the duration of the flooding that they cause. People should never feel comfortable lul-spamming torpedoes; the decision to use them should be deliberate and decisive. As to not screw over DDs, a solid torpedo strike should have the chance to cause even more flooding damage over time.

 

3) Reduce the damage caused by fires, but cause them to apply a performance debuff to the target ship. Your reload, ship handling, and consumable cooldowns all get worse if your ship is on fire, but you take less damage to your HP.

 

The intent of all of this is to prioritize game elements that emphasize player skill, and to reduce the focus on spammy or degenerate aspects of play. 



TalonV #57 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:50 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 25,822
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSkaerKrow, on 20 March 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

I'll add a few things that no one will agree with.

 

1) Add Citadels to DDs, compensate by giving each DD one respawn per battle. The most evasive class in the game doesn't need to be protected against taking significant damage from enemy guns. Compensate by giving them two passes each battle, instead of making them more durable than CLs. Really, DDs have been over-buffed to such a degree to make them viable that they tend to edge out all but the most powerful CLs. 

 

2) Increase the reload time on ship-based torpedoes, but increase the duration of the flooding that they cause. People should never feel comfortable lul-spamming torpedoes; the decision to use them should be deliberate and decisive. As to not screw over DDs, a solid torpedo strike should have the chance to cause even more flooding damage over time.

 

3) Reduce the damage caused by fires, but cause them to apply a performance debuff to the target ship. Your reload, ship handling, and consumable cooldowns all get worse if your ship is on fire, but you take less damage to your HP.

 

The intent of all of this is to prioritize game elements that emphasize player skill, and to reduce the focus on spammy or degenerate aspects of play. 

 

1 was tried in alpha, it failed miserably.

 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


MrDeaf #58 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:52 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,790
  • Member since:
    07-16-2015

View PostSkaerKrow, on 20 March 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

I'll add a few things that no one will agree with.

 

1) Add Citadels to DDs, compensate by giving each DD one respawn per battle. The most evasive class in the game doesn't need to be protected against taking significant damage from enemy guns. Compensate by giving them two passes each battle, instead of making them more durable than CLs. Really, DDs have been over-buffed to such a degree to make them viable that they tend to edge out all but the most powerful CLs. 

 

2) Increase the reload time on ship-based torpedoes, but increase the duration of the flooding that they cause. People should never feel comfortable lul-spamming torpedoes; the decision to use them should be deliberate and decisive. As to not screw over DDs, a solid torpedo strike should have the chance to cause even more flooding damage over time.

 

3) Reduce the damage caused by fires, but cause them to apply a performance debuff to the target ship. Your reload, ship handling, and consumable cooldowns all get worse if your ship is on fire, but you take less damage to your HP.

 

The intent of all of this is to prioritize game elements that emphasize player skill, and to reduce the focus on spammy or degenerate aspects of play. 

 

except, you know, ships hardly ever take more than 2000 dmg from flooding.

It's primarily the torp itself that sinks a ship from a devastating strike.

 

The reason Liquidator achievement is hard to get, is not because flooding doesn't cause enough damage, it's because it's a lot more difficult to get someone to use their repair party from fires, then follow it up with torps that don't kill that ship outright.


What is the Torpedo Reload Booster and does it have a historical basis? http://forum.worldof...could-poses-it/

Sign me up for KTKM


JediMasterDraco #59 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:00 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 255
  • Member since:
    10-24-2015

1. Add differing game modes, such as a small skirmish mode for DDs and CAs/CLs only or full fleet engagements with 20 or so players focusing on CVs or a Jutland-like scenario.

2. Split CV lines into Fleet CVs and Escort/Light CVs. Fleet CVs would have more planes and focus on an attack role while Escort/Light CVs would have better (but fewer) planes with a focus on fighters for fleet defense. This would simulate actual carrier tactics where the fleet carriers focused on sinking the enemy while light CVs provided fighters for defense.

3. Enable a ship to have limited control of its catapult fighter to either begin an early interception or scout for a concealed DD.

4. Give fighters an ability to strafe ships which could inflict minor damage (at least to DDs) or suppress AA-fire.


USA: St Louis (CA III), Clemson (DD IV), Wyoming (BB IV), Langley, (CV IV), Texas (BB V Prem),  Bogue (CV V), Cleveland (CA VI), New Mexico (BB VI), Arizona (BB VI Prem), Mahan (DD VII), Pensacola, (CA VII), Atlanta (CA VII Prem), Colorado (BB VII), Saipan (CV VII Prem), North Carolina (BB VIII), Lexington (CV VIII), Fletcher (DD IX), Des Moines (CA X; 2nd), Midway (CV X; 1st)                                                                  British: Leander (CA VI), Belfast (CA VII Prem)

Japan: Mikasa (BB II Prem), Kamikaze (DD V Prem), Kongo (BB V), Hatsuharu (DD VI), Fuso (BB VI), Ryujo (CV VI), Shiratsuyu (Jap DD VII), Akatsuki (DD VII), Myoko (CA VII), Kagero (DD VIII), Mogami (CA VIII), Atago (CA VIII Prem), Amagi (BB VIII), Shokaku (CV VIII)

Germany: Dresden (CA II), V-170 (DD IV), Konigsberg (CA V), Konig (BB V), Nurnberg (CA VI), Yorck (CA VII), Gneisenau (BB VII),  Scharnhorst (BB VII Prem), Admiral Hipper (CA VIII). Tirpitz (BB VIII Prem), Hindenburg (Ger CA X; 3rd)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Soviet Union: Bogatyr (CA III), Svietlana (CA IV), Imperator Nikola I (BB IV Prem), Gremyashchy (DD V Prem), Murmansk (Rus CA V Prem), Budyonny (CA VI), Molotov (CA VI Prem), Shchors (CA VII), Kiev (DD VIII), Chapayev (CA VIII), Mikhail Kutuzov (CA VIII Prem), Udaloi (DD IX), Khabarovsk (Rus DD X)

Poland: Blyskawica (DD VII Prem)

Planned: Gearing (USA DD X), Montana (USA BB X), Akizuki (Jap DD VIII), Shimakaze (Jap DD X), Zao (Jap CA X), Yamato (Jap BB X), Hakuryu (Jap CV X), Dmitri Donskoi (Rus CA IX), Moskva (Rus CA X)


DedPan #60 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:03 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 352
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

1: Remover carriers.  Nothing against CVs or the people that play them, but trying to shoehorn them into a game that is otherwise about surface warfare just doesn't make sense.  The manner in which carriers go to battle is completely outside the realm of how the rest of the classes battle.  Yes they are undoubtedly historically important and changed the face of naval warfare, but from a gameplay perspective I don't think they fit.

 

2. Rework the module and damage control mechanics from the ground up.  Bring back the buoyancy mechanic from alpha, subdivide ships more so a single 50 pound shell doesn't set 250 feet of deck ablaze, add more module which can be knocked out and make it so modules and fires actually have an impact on the performance of the ship (range finders going out = worse dispersion, that kind of thing)  Change damage control part to speed up the time it takes to recover flooding and fire instead of a instant fix which in today's meta basically negates flood damage since everyone save it.  Ships are large complex machines, the damage control system should reflect the fact that it takes time and a coordinated effort to keep them afloat in the face of incoming damage. (and we can make bad damage control an IJN national flavor)

 

3. Bring back shell penetration below the waterline causing flooding.

 

4. Remove citadel damage and rework it to tie into the above damage control changes.  It's not very fun having your ship instantly deleted but to suggest that several 16inch shells plowing thru the guts of your ship isn't going to drastically impact its ability to fight is equally stupid.  Be it having the internals blown out or an explosion that rips the side out of the boat and floods it in seconds, at least have it make more sense than the current whack-a-mole style damage system.

 

5. Remove or rework HE.  Napalm loaded shells are just stupid.

 

6. Fix Type93 torpedo detection.

 

7. I still think a detection system like WoT where it's camo vs spotting instead of just fixed detection based on the ship being seen would be an improvement.  The idea that a 2 deck tall Minekaze and a 13 deck tall Fuso see a ship at the same distance is silly.

 

Mainly stuff to increase the depth of the game and reflect the fact that ships are large and complex, and try and shake off the fact that a lot of this old game's core mechanics are copy/pasted from WoT.







Also tagged with Bacon

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users