Jump to content


(Mostly) My Detailed List of Suggestions [Updated 05/17/2016]

Multiple Suggestions Long OP Detailed Suggestions List No TL;DR Continuously Updating

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

YamatoA150 #1 Posted 05 August 2015 - 04:45 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 4,116
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

I've decided to compile a number of my suggestions into one thread so as to avoid spamming multiple ideas across different threads, and will update this post as I recall other suggestions or come up with new ones.  I have decided to add in a few suggested by others in this thread as well, sometimes with a bit of my take on them.  Without further ado:

 


Encouraging Teamwork

 

EXP and Credit Incentives for Teamwork and Group-related Efforts

- Add a modest but reasonable EXP and Credit bonus for group takedown of an unmarked or marked target (calculating the players who participated by keeping track of their shots that hit the designated target).  Bonus EXP and credit gain is fixed and split evenly, so too many players focusing on one target grants less EXP than 2 or 3 working together (to inhibit griefing against any one player while still offering a little extra for even supporting).

 

- Add a small EXP and credit bonus for ships providing AA support to nearby ships based on proximity to nearby ally ships (say 5km radius) and the number of fighters shot down.  Cruisers gain a bit more than other ships, as an alternative means for those that choose to fully escort as an AA vessel.

 

- Add a small but continuous EXP bonus for simply traveling in a group of 3 or more ships within a 5km radius of each other.  The small EXP bonus is steadily rewarded each second.  This is nothing more than a loose attempt at formations and team-ups, and is meant to work alongside other team-related incentives.  It's not enough to warrant a total lemming train just by itself, but with proper teamwork, can add a lot more to total gains from working as a team.

 

- A random player is made the Flagship on some battle types, and for every minute the Flagship remains alive, a flat EXP bonus for the whole team is given.  The title can be lost or passed to another player after 1 minute of inactivity (inactivity = not even landing a single hit on any enemy ship and just trying to hide a corner) or if the Flagship is sunk (penalty of 5 minutes before a new Flagship is crowned).  Any ship can be a Flagship, even DDs, since they can hide in smokescreen and at range and still land a few shots.  Cruisers are currently the worst possible candidate for Flagship, unless they get some advantage as suggested further below.  If it seems too problematic, then BBs and CVs would get priority on being randomly selected for Flagship status.  Flagship will not be based on Tiers.  Working alongside a Flagship grants additional minor EXP and Credit bonuses in addition to other team-related rewards.

 

- Add a small Credit and EXP bonus for scouting when using scout planes, DDs, and/or CV planes.  Scouting requires having spotted at least 3 or more enemies and hold them in sight for 5 seconds.  Destroyers can't scout while under smokescreen.  The bonus is regularly re-awarded every 10 seconds as long as 3 or more enemy ships remain "lit up" for the rest of the team by scout planes, DDs, or CV planes.

 

- Improve the amount of Credit and EXP gained per plane kill; enough to at least provide a valid reason to sometimes escort other ships from aircraft rather than charge solo or in packs.

 


More Battle Elements

Specifically, add more gameplay elements to existing and future maps, and independent of the main objectives, to vary things up.

 

Neutral Installations

Add a number of neutral installations on islands that can be taken over; independent of the primary objectives, such as:

-  An airfield that will service any aircraft of the holding team as well as deploy its own AI-controlled fighters (no dive bombers and no torpedo bombers; just defensive fighters to protect itself and allied ships within its patrol range from enemy fighters).  This would allow Carrier players to work from an advance base or work from the base even if their ship was sunk, and allow teams who lost their carrier to still receive limited AA support while within the range of the airfield.

 

-  A radar installation that pings the map every 15 or 30 seconds and temporarily reveals most all ships (obstructions still hide ships from the ping; centered around the installation's site) to the holding team for 1 second of visibility, with the mini-map having the lingering marks of where enemy ships were.  If cowering was common, this installation will definitely bring about a more aggressive fight as both teams fight for control over it, or destroy it to prevent being captured by either side.

 

Defensive emplacements that will open fire on any ship and aircraft of the opposing team if they enter its range.  They will mostly be weak and more of an irritant, but will be fairly accurate as AI ships and could still pen or citadel careless ships.  Small emplacements default to HE and have short-range but better AA, while larger emplacements default to AP and have longer-ranged but weaker AA.

 

- A Dock or Shipyard that provides limited repair and restoration to any allied ships are within its zone.  It will not patch more than 50% hull, and at a much lower rate than BB repair, but does repair module damage, disabled turrets (destroyed turrets are still destroyed), fire, and flooding, every 5 seconds.  Basically, it's more of a place to retreat to for repairs while providing limited immunity to fires, flooding, and module damage, rather than a place you can really sit in and tank from as damage will still pile on faster than it's repaired.

 

Note: All neutral installations could be counter-captured (just like the capturable A/B/C/D zones), or can be destroyed to prevent further capture (by attacking the installation directly; Refueling Facilities/Oil Rigs excluded due to gameplay objectives).  This will result in more intense battles at certain locations.  BBs and CVs will capture faster (on the idea they have larger crews that can be sent to capture), but must remain within range of the facility to capture it.  Capture time is shorter than capturing an objective base/zone, and not as easily interrupted, but the smaller capture zone means little maneuvering room (stuck between a coastline and whatever is on the oceanside).

 

- A Sea-Based Refueling Facility (or just an Oil Rig) to all A, B, C, D, and E Capture Zones in Domination Battles.  The idea behind them is to give a tangible reason to try and capture the points.  Win or lose, the number of points gained from capping the zones reduces your ship's maintenance and refueling fees (the fee incurred even if you didn't fire a single shot or take a single bit of damage) by a certain percent (maxes out at 50% around 999 points if the game ended in a draw).  Winners get a 90% refueling and maintenance discount, and only have to pay the full ammo and armor damage amount, in addition to any consumable restocks.

 

Visibility-based advantages/disadvantages

Add elements such as an accelerated day-night cycle, or a random storm, or a foggy morning, or night/evening combat.  Have some static weather (they're there at the start and will remain at the end) and some dynamic weather (they may be there at the start, but go away so many minutes in, or vice versa; coming in at some point in the game) that influences the game.  Fog, Rain, and Night cut visibility ranges except when a ship is firing for example, or a heavy sea storm affects speed and turn rate in certain directions (in addition to slightly affecting torpedoes from a straight-line run).

 

Note: While bad weather historically prevented WWII aircraft from taking off, for gameplay purposes, aircraft can still launch, but spotting range is severely reduced and bomb/torpedo drops are worse; bombs are more likely to miss and scatter, and torpedo spreads will either have a wider spread or might not even fire in the intended direction due to pilot disorientation.  There would also be a low chance of losing some aircraft from heavy winds, severe disorientation, or a token lightning strike.  Additionally, ship accuracy will be adversely affected in rough seas, resulting in larger dispersion.

 


More Game Modes and Battle Types

Specifically, add variation to existing and future maps to vary things up.

Also, a Battle Port Chat Channel is strongly suggested to be available so that it helps facilitate setting up divisions or matches.

 

Asymmetric Battle Types: PvP

Battle Types that aren't evenly balanced, mainly due to the map layout and starting elements. They would remain under the Random Game Mode.

 

Base Defenders vs Aggressors

- Defenders starts with a base with an airfield, defensive emplacements, and radar installation, but the aggressors start with a larger team.  The Defender's Radar doesn't begin to start pinging until an aggressor opens the assault (firing on and hitting a Defender's base or ships); forcing teamwork among any aggressor DDs.  Might even have a dynamic foggy morning visibility penalty to further heighten the element of surprise from the aggressors and disappears after 5 minutes in.

 

Alternate Historic Battles

- MM only picks ships of the class to fill in a fixed limit and restriction of ships on each side, but ignores faction IDs in order to more quickly set up a battle.  Tiers are observed as much as possible, ignoring the tiers of the historical equivalents.  So for example, a Pearl Harbor recreation would only sub in any faction battleships to all Pearl Harbor battleship locations, and only any carriers to the locations of the CVs that attacked Pearl Harbor, with any remaining ships set between the two.  To avoid some political drama, the map setup would be upside-down or inverted, and the battle type itself would just be called Alternate History Battle: Harbor Raid (or AHB: Harbor Raid), for example.

 

Escort Raid / Escort Defense (Originally suggested by luxey012)

- While not as asymmetric as Base Defenders vs Base Attackers, this mode still grants a number of AI ships; some which might have limited combat capability, to the defending side.  There are no Draws in this battle type.  This battle type is pretty much what it says; defenders must escort their AI ships from the starting point to another point on the map (either the map wall or maybe an island base with defenses already allied to the defenders).  Some AI ships might snake their way to the goal, taking longer but reducing the chances of easy target leading.  Raiders are to try and sink the AI ships.  Bonus EXP and Credits are granted per AI ship saved/destroyed, as well as regular rewards for sinking enemy ships, AI or not.  Depending on implementation, it could go one of two ways as far as the AI and win/loss conditions go:

 

Option 1:  Continuous AI ships appear at one point and make their way to another.  With 20 minutes on the clock, it's a matter of who saves or destroys more.  Once time is up or a goal reached, the victory goes to the side that either saved more ships or sank more ships.  As the battle progresses, they might appear with an occasional AI cruiser escort or fighter escort, if only to blunt the offensive from CVs.

 

Option 2:  Limited number of AI ships appear through the match and at least 1 has to make it to the goal.  If none make it, it's an instant victory for the attackers.  Depending on how much of an advantage CVs might have on attacking AI ships, AI fighters and AI cruisers might also be escorting them.

 

Asymmetric Battle Types: PvE

Just like the Asymmetric Battle Types for PvP, except more team-oriented as opponents are mostly AI.  Also includes a number of Event Battles.

 

Hold the Line

- A set of up to 20-24 players (maximum of 3-4 CVs) vs an increasing level of enemy AI ships.  The mission; hold the line for 20 minutes.  No enemy ships may pass the border line, or else the game ends.

  • Victory Condition:  Survive for 20 minutes and successfully prevent any enemy ship from crossing the line.
  • Loss Condition:  All Player ships destroyed or the line breached.
  • Enemies continuously spawn; starting with 10 T1s and steadily increasing by Tiers every 2 waves of 10.
  • A new wave of enemies occur once the current wave is down to 2 ships.
  • Ship variety per wave is random as the tiers increase; you may see 10 Yamatos in one wave, or 1 Montana and 9 Shimakazes the next (both extreme case scenarios, but possible).
  • At least 1 CV appears every second wave after the Tier is raised.  At least 2 CVs may appear every other wave once T10 waves are reached and the second T10 wave CV destroyed.
  • Individual Credits and EXP gains are 1/2 to 2/3rds the amount gained from regular Random Battles, to offset the sheer number of targets available.  Even a loss will grant a fair bit as long as one has landed sufficient shots and took down enough waves.
  • Victory Bonus is the same as Random Victories

 

April Fools Battle Event:  Sink the Modern Fleet

- A team of 20-24 players vs 12-18 modern military warships (Cold War onwards).  So WWII Iowas might face off against Tomahawk-equipped Iowas while up to 4 T9 or T10 CVs team up and endure to take down 1 US CV or CVN with jet fighters.  Expect hell from homing missiles and rapid-fire guns from modern Arleigh Burkes, or a seemingly never-ending rain of hellfire from nuclear-powered Russian missile cruisers.

 

  • Victory Condition:  Sink all enemy ships  /  Loss Condition:  All Player ships sunk
  • Enemy CV difficulty level scales according to the tiers and number of CVs on the Player side; with no modern CV appearing if the majority of player CVs are only T6 and below.
  • Due to the difficulty, rewards are double to triple the standard earned in Random battles, before including the Victory Bonus multiplier.
  • For gameplay balance purposes, AA does have a low chance of shooting down larger missiles, while enemy CIWS and AA are also slightly weakened.
  • Most missiles deal standard HE damage with a low chance of fire but roughly the same chance of causing module damage as HE from battleships, while a few larger missiles deal AP damage with citadel possibility.

 

Historic Naval Battle Game Mode

Unlike the Alternate Historic Battles battle type, which is a loose setup of the scenarios based on any historic naval engagement and available in Random game mode and as an Asymmetric battle type, this battle type exists in its own Game Mode category alongside Co-Op and Random.  In this, it would observe Faction ID and only fill in ships of a specific faction onto each side.  While it may be asymmetric due to historical records, it would require its own dedicated MM and take a longer time to set up compared to the looser Random Mode MM.  Use of a general Port Chat Channel would be beneficial in helping to gather enough players for the game modes here.

 

NOTE:  Currently a loose idea; it doesn't seem very viable as-is.  Might just delete it entirely.

 

- Tiers will only be observed unless there is a shortage of available ships within the tier bracket.  It will also attempt to match ships as close to their historic equivalents as much as possible, +/- a Tier (so for example; if there's no Hood (Admiral-class) players available to match into a "Sink the Bismarck: 1st Engagement" battle, it would first attempt to sub in another battlecruiser (either Renown or J3), or if failing that, a battleship, such as a second Prince of Wales (KGV class)).

 

- Maximum wait time is 5 Minutes; at the 2.30 minute mark, the MM increasingly relaxes the tier restriction until it can fill all available slots with the nearest tier ship of the same class or close class equivalent.

 

- Depending on how it goes, some historic battles may be padded with extra ships either to try and make a battle less lopsided (RN vs Bismarck), or might get filled with specific AI ships to fill in for unavailable ship classes.

 

- MM will start biased towards small engagements and work up from there, seeing how many available ships there are to recreate and set up a battle, and then pick an engagement that fits.  If there's plenty of USN and IJN players for example, it might start a large naval battle such as Midway, or whereas if there's only a few RN and KM players, throw them into smaller engagements such as Hood/PoW vs Bismarck.

 

- There will few Russian naval battles available.

 

Historical Naval Battle Variation

This is an alternate battle mode and type to the regular Historic Battle Game Mode, and is intended to play a bit more loosely with faction requirements.  Basically, it follows the Historic Naval Battle rules and restrictions, but further lightens up the requirements some that would allow allies to join in on the battle; such as the Royal Navy or France joining into otherwise British-only or French-only engagements (basically, rather than stick strictly to specific involved factions, loosen it up so that it's basically Axis vs Allies, which would allow the Russian Navy to also join in on more engagements).

 

Manual Battle Game Mode

A Game Mode that separately exists alongside Co-Op, Random, and Historic.  All Battle Types here require manual setup or manual Opt-In due to how specific it is.  Use of a general Port Chat Channel would be beneficial in helping to gather enough players for the game modes here.

 

"Player Boss Battles"

- An extremely asymmetric battle type that basically sets unbalanced teams; such as 1 T10 battleship vs  or so T1-5 ships.  Entirely manual; players can set up a Player Boss Battle, with others queuing into the "room" if they meet the Battle Type requirements, then start it.  A minimum of a 5 Tier difference is observed; so T6s can only vs T1s, whereas T10s can vs T1s up to T5s.  Number of low tiers for a proper boss match will be adjusted based on feedback and ship type.  Numbers below are for general idea.

 

  • Any Low Tier player shortages is offset by the addition of 2 extra AI ships to match the lowest player tier.
  • T6s would only ever vs 2x T1s.
  • T7s would only ever vs 3x T1s or 2x T2s.
  • T8s would only ever vs 4x T1s, 3x T2s, or 2x T3s.
  • T9s would only ever vs 5x T1s, 4x T2s, 3x T3s, or 2x T4s.
  • T10s would only ever vs 6x T1s, 5x T2s, 4x T3s, 3x T4s, or 2x T5s.

 


Immersion Suggestions

Suggestions relating to personalizing each faction on the player's end.

 

More Crew Announcements with Customizable Level

Add more general announcements, such as reporting the speed when setting it "All ahead, full!  Aye!", or suggestions such as "Torpedoes to Port/Starboard!  Hard to Starboard/Port!", or Enemy [Destroyer/Cruiser/Battleship/Carrier] detected to our Port/Starboard!".  The level of announcements can be customized to reduce the number of announcements (if some players find their "comms" filled with too much crew chatter).  They should also be in the language of the ship's Faction, so as to coincide with the previous suggestion.

 

Optional Language Immersion + Subtitles

Basically, take a page from NavyField 2 and let there be an option to set the language of all the ship-related announcements be in the language of the Faction (with equally optional subtitles).  For example, play in an IJN ship and strike a critical, you get a Japanese telling you "the enemy has suffered a critical hit" in Japanese.  Of course, entirely optional, but for those wanting a bit more immersion.  The Announcer voice will remain the same, although there could be some adjustments so that the announcements such as "Enemy ship sunk!" would also be in the language of the Faction.

 


Ship and Ship-Related Suggestions

 

Add more Unique Abilities to Ships Classes

These mainly are to just add more options to each class type.  Some might be training wheels, others might just be to improve their gameplay.

 

Battleships and Battlecruisers

- Add a Secondary Defensive Fire consumable into a new and separate Consumable slot.  This temporarily increases Secondary RoF by 25% and accuracy by 50% for all secondaries for the same amount of duration as AA Defensive Fire.

 

- Grant Elited battleships and battlecruisers access to a bonus passive that steadily allows their shots to increase in accuracy (basically, lower dispersion) vs the same target the longer they keep focused on the same target.  It resets after 10 seconds of not focusing on the target, so even if you accidentally lock on to a passing enemy ship, you can quickly refocus and not lose accuracy.  The passive also applies to secondaries, but they get accurate faster due to their rate of fire and the required closeness to the target.

 

Cruisers

- T8 and below Light Cruisers should get a weaker smokescreen, where CLs and DDs within are visible for longer periods of time after firing; CAs, BBs and CVs remain visible regardless.

 

- T8 and below heavy cruisers get a weaker variant of the BBs' hull repair ability (50% less effective).

 

- T9 and T10 Cruisers get an equivalent capability to BBs or DDs depending on their playstyle (T9+ CLs getting full strength smokescreen and T9+ CAs getting full strength hull repair/resistance).

 

- Elite USN cruisers get a bonus passive buff to AA (slight range and RoF boost), while Elite IJN cruisers get a bonus passive buff to their torpedoes (slight range and torpedo speed boost).  Other Elite faction cruisers will get a bonus passive to their main guns' range or turret traverse rate, among other things, once their unique elements are known.

 

Destroyers

- Should be able to spot for the team when they're not under smokescreen conditions, making them work well with BBs and CVs in pinpointing possible long-range targets of opportunity, and earn points for early target spotting.

 

- Elited Destroyers should gain a bonus passive that extends the duration of their Smokescreen by an extra 15-30 seconds or so and for T6+ Destroyers with torpedo reloads exceeding 1 minute, also grant them slightly faster torpedo reload rates.

 

Carriers

- For gameplay purposes, CVs of the same faction on the same team should be able to service each others' aircraft; allowing for a more strategic forward operations revolving around teams of 2 carriers.  For gameplay balance, maybe allow a 50% reduced service to aircraft of different faction CVs (such as not repairing the wing's strength; only re-arming them).  That way, even CV players who've lost their ship can still fight on rather than just let their aircraft mostly idle without weapons.

 

- Related to the previous suggestion, let CV players at least control their planes after death, in order to try and salvage a match.  Once all Carriers (and if there are Airfields implemented, if any Allied Airfields are also destroyed or fall to the enemy), only then would CV players lose control of their planes.

 

- Elite Carriers should gain one of 3 passives, depending on how they're rebalanced: a bonus passive to servicing turnaround times, OR a bonus +1 aircraft to all aircraft wings, OR if manual dropping is removed, allow them to manual drop at Elite status.

 

All Premiums

- In addition to having the Elite passive of their ship class, let all Premium ships have a separate passive boost to Captain EXP gains independent of what Premium ships already gain.  This would not only entice more sales, but also serve as an intermediate stage between proper WoT-style Crew Training and regular grinding.

 

All Ships

- Allow all ships to keep firing any secondaries or AA as they sink, but at a slower rate of fire (not stopping until each individual gun goes underwater), if they don't straight up explode or split into two, as well as allow them to finish reloading (if they had only 2 or so seconds before being loaded) and fire any loaded main guns one last time, mainly to benefit those who had their last shots lined up and ready to go seconds before they themselves were destroyed.  Turret rotation and elevation will be very minimal (simulating the loss of power to the turret motors and it's just being hand-cranked).

 

Add Crew Training to Premium Ships

- Ship EXP to Captain EXP Conversion - Taking a page from WoT, let Premiums also use gained EXP to train a Captain as an alternative to converting EXP to Free EXP.

  • If necessary, instead of 1:1 Ship EXP:Captain EXP, let it be 1:0.66 (2/3rds of the converted ship EXP is usable by the Captain) or 1:0.50 (Half of the converted ship EXP is usable by the Captain)

 

 

Allow Naming of Ships + Allow Selection of Ship ID Tags on Non-Historical Names

So as to avoid things like naming a Minekaze PantyChaser or a Bismarck WetDreams, give us a list of approved ship names we can choose from a drop-down menu; of course, the historical names first, then names that would have been possible if other ships of that class were built.

  • Historical names would also include the registration numbers or details as an overlay (similar to camouflage that overlay's the base skin).
  • Other names would let players select their own overlay details (ship numbers mainly; but may include non-division markings).

 

Allow Division/Clan Markings on Ships

Basically yet another overlay independent of camouflage, skins, and the previous suggestion.  This one specifically concerns divisions and clans.

 

For Divisions - Let the MM set Division colors/markings for each ship based on historic precedents, such as IJN cruiser funnel bands or USN battleship turret top colors.  While a minor thing, it would allow teammates to more quickly identify ships of the same division without having to TAB to check, especially if they're zoomed in.

 

For Clans - This one is more debatable; let Clan icons either appear next to a player's name both in the TAB list and while zoomed in or hovering your target sights on one (so that the ALT interface isn't too cluttered), or let it appear as an overlay on the sides of the ship's deckhouse (larger ships) or roof (smaller ships).

 

Adjust Ship Maintenance Costs Down or Let Premium Users Gain More Credits

While it's understandable that Wargaming needs to keep the mid-tiers populated, even the average Premium players are feeling the pinch at T7/8 or so, due to the spike in maintenance costs.  So a slight tweak to the T7-9 maintenance costs would be reasonable; even if it's only a minor 10% reduction.  Or if that isn't feasible for whatever reason (maybe not enough players to justify it, or still too early to look over costs and adjust down some, etc), make Premium more enticing by further increasing Credit gains.

 

EXP gains are fine; they serve as gateways to slow rapid progress from all but the most dedicated.

 

NOTE:  Will remain until WG permanently reduces T8+ maintenance costs.

 

Boost Premium Ship Credit Gains

While somewhat related to the previous suggestion, it deserves its own mention as it would not only benefit the players, but further benefit Wargaming's coffers.

 

Lower Access of the 3 Million Credit T9+ Mods Down to T8+

Just as it says.  Please lower the final mods down two tiers.  For example, in the current meta, T8+ USN ships would have access to the 3 Million credit Accuracy mod, while T8+ IJN ships would have access to the 3 Million credit Range Extending Mod.  With T9 and T10 primarily credit losers for the average player, letting them at least be able to fully outfit a T8 ship (that either barely makes credits or is zero-gain for the average player) would let them be able to compete some with T9 and T10 ships they'll be up against at times.

 

More Ships and Ship Variety

While it's expected and known that more ships are coming, Wargaming should also include more paper designs or in-between designs.  Since the only historical accuracy is the ship's general visual parameters and weapons rounded down to a general gameplay point, both actual and paper ships that don't neatly fit the tiers would add more variety.

 

In order to allow for some of the in-between or half-tier or quarter-tier upgrades to exist, allow us to purchase and outfit the same base ship that has different setups that model their real life counterparts, such as being able to eventually work our way up to Takao and buying two of her; one outfitted with 5 turrets, then one with the Maya variant that trades 1 fore turret for extra AA, then customizing them separately so that Takao would be more ship-oriented with a vs ship-centric captain and module set while Maya could be given a slight AA-centric captain and module set.

 

Unique Faction T10 Ships

In addition to including other ships between tiers and classes, Wargaming should give each Faction a unique ship that more or less represents the pinnacle or philosophy of that faction.  For the IJN, and KM, that would be the A-150 and H44.  For the USN, CV United States or a Tillman variant.  For the rest, well, Wargaming can come up with a reasonable Russian equivalent and dig through the other nations' ships for a close equivalent, whether it's a cruiser or a destroyer.  The idea behind this is to give a 1-time exception to the regular limits.  I suggest this on the grounds that Wargaming has bent vehicle policies some in previous games (such as no cold war tanks).  All these ships would have preferred MM, restricted to T9 and T10 battles, or only T10 battles.  They would also have a higher operational cost post-battle, even if one didn't fire a single short or took a single bit of damage.

 

USN CV United States

The USN would get something like the CV United States "super supercarrier" (another design currently prohibited by Wargaming's current policy), its own weakness being its inability to spot targets at range due to having no detection mechanisms; thus being fully reliant on having aircraft and other ships scouting for it, and being dive-bomber centric.  If that is still too potent,  some other unique one-off paper design that embodies the USN line can be considered.  Failing that, probably a powered up Montana or lower level Tillman Battleship equivalent to H42/43.

 

IJN Design A-150

Hull [A] 6-Cannon

Hull [B] 8-Cannon (Upgrade)

 

The IJN Design A-150 would serve as the pride of the IJN faction and their last and most expensive T10.  Bigger cannons, better armor, better AA/secondaries, but slower than or equal to Yamato, and as much of a psychological target as the Kitakami (meaning it will be one of the biggest floating targets in the entire game).  Given the game setup, it is perfectly balanced towards final T10 status due to only starting out with six cannons, and only reaching eight cannons after a hull upgrade, that are well within all other limits of Wargaming's current policy besides cannon size.  However, it would suffer from lower DPS over time, even compared to the Yamato, even if each shell could potentially 1HKO destroyers or a single volley able to take a light cruiser out barring RNG.  It would also be rather weak by gameplay standards where the number of guns are more important than the size of the guns, especially with it starting off at 6 guns.  Ideally, it should only be available as a T10 after researching Yamato (with its 1942 and 1944 hulls), and start off with only 6 Cannons then max out at 8 after a Hull [B] R&D upgrade.

 

KM H42*

*If H41 proves sufficient for the current and currently planned T10 meta

Simply set to be one of the largest warships, and the only ship bigger than Yamato and A-150 in any iteration.  While powerful in their own rights, they will also be the largest targets in-game despite having a massive HP pool.  They will retain faster turret turn rate seen in the stats of the Bismarck and Tirpitz, and probably a higher RoF compared to the A-150, making them and their 19" guns a sufficient threat.  They would also be faster than Yamato and A-150, if A-150 retains Yamato's 27 knot speed.

 

Other nations can also have unique T10 ships; such as France maybe having an even faster Destroyer than Le Fantasque class (no starting jokes about Frenchmen being able to run away even faster; this is about them being able to rush your CVs and BBs faster and causing pain to all but the most skilled shooters), or Russia with a variant of the K-1000 gag, except with something like 12x 16" mains and Katyushya rockets in place of the missile domes.

 

Sell Historic Ship Model+Skins Where Possible

We know full well that not all ships of the same class looked identical due to differences in construction and upgrades.  So why not sell individual ship models for the final Hull variants?  Such as the Kongou sisters; sell us the Kongou, Kirishima, and Haruna models with their slight differences, and with their own customizable skins.  Tie it with an earlier suggestion of letting us be able to purchase at least 2-3 ships of the same kind that we can upgrade and configure for different roles (like the aforementioned Takao/Maya setups).

 

There's 2 ways to handle this:

Purely Visual - Even if there's more or less AA/Secondaries on the other models, they don't affect the game values.  The weapon models may be animated though if secondaries and AA are animated.  Would only cost around 10 USD per model+skin, since 95% of the work is done and the only remaining work is adding or removing some of the other details to match their historical equivalent.

 

Visual + Functional - Think of this as more of a purchasable minute upgrade to the final hulls; not only are the visuals changed to match the official ship, but so are the weapon stats and ranges (among other stats, such as armor differences).  So if that one ship has a slightly taller pagoda, its main guns would have a slightly longer range.  If that one ship had more AA than another ship of the line, but less secondaries in return, then that specific model adds more AA at the loss of secondaries.  The cost would need to be made to around 20 USD per model+skin, to cover for the fact it also affects ship performance levels.

 

Despite the cost, it'd be a fixed cost, so T9 variants of the Iowa for example, don't cost more than T5 variants of the Kongou (which in-game is the Hiei model, IIRC).

 

Specific Regular and Premium Ship Requests

Regular and Premium ships I'd like to see in-game.

 

Battleships and Battlecruisers

 

Premium T5 Kongou, Haruna, and Kirishima

Notes:  More/less AA/secondaries and armor values here and there, but more than what Hiei (the current ship used for the Kongou-class) had.  Kongou would have the strongest self-defense AA.  Haruna would have the most secondaries and slightly stronger general AA than Kongou.  Kirishima would have the same number of 6" secondaries as Haruna but slightly less Dual-Purpose mounts, slotting between Kongou and and Haruna in terms of AA quality.  Each of them will come with a different camo and model differences.

 

Premium T6 Yamashiro

Notes:  More minor armor value differences than Fuso, but also slight turret changes.  Also has a more normal Pagoda mast than the Jenga mast.  Yamashiro would be one of the rare few WoT-style Premiums; better than stock but worse than upgraded.  Slightly less AA and a different turret setup has her favoring a retreating running battle.

 

Premium T6 BB Hyuuga

Notes:  With the assumption that Ise would be added as another T6 battleship in a future extend tree, having BB Hyuuga as a Premium to accompany her would fit.  Assuming BB Ise gets a pure fantasy Hull [C], BB Hyuuga would also be equivalent to fantasy Hull [C] Ise, but have the AA rockets that historically were only added to their BBCV forms.

 

Premium T6 BBCV Hyuuga

Notes:  Assuming BBCV Ise is placed into the game, BBCV Hyuuga would enter again with only a minor difference of having the AA rockets and maybe a slightly different catapult plane setup.  Otherwise, this would instead be BBCV Ise.  The main reason for their inclusion is to allow controllable scout planes and stopgap anti-air capabilities with their floatplane fighters.  Maybe a minor bit of bombing as well.  The real advantage is their stronger AA suite and their catapult craft to be used to help out with spotting and some harassment of enemy targets.  Their real value would lie in letting not only their own guns get extended ranges, but allowing allied battleships to also open fire on targets lit up by their scout planes.

 

Premium T7 Mutsu

Notes:  Minor armor (a bit more/less in different locations compared to Nagato) and visual differences and slightly less AA.

 

Premium T8 BB Kaga

Notes:  Basically a Premium Tosa-class battleship, which is basically a battleship variant of Amagi.  Probably would have access to the T9 Modules as its selling feature.

 

Cruisers

Premium T5 or T6 "Super Furutaka"

Notes:  12x 140mm across 6 double-cannon turrets based on early design concepts.  Originally existed in WG's Naval Legends video (where the image came from).  This would make an ideal fast gun heavy cruiser with a modest 13km or so range depend on rangefinder height.  While HE and AP damage would be individually lower and much less likely to pen with its AP, the relatively fast rate of fire would make up for it.  As it'd be roughly equivalent in hull setup to Hull [C] (which is Hull [B] post 5.6.0 ), it will still suffer the risk of being easily citadeled regardless of whether or not it's Tier 5 or Tier 6.

 

Premium T6 Kinugusa

Notes:  Aoba with 200mm instead of 203s.  Main reason to suggest this is mainly more for a Premium that's slightly weaker than the final upgrade but sits in the fairly even Tier 6 bracket.  For balance reasons, Kinugusa could make do with a slightly higher Rate of Fire to offset slightly lower HE and AP shell performance.

 

Premium Variants of Myoko

 

Premium T8 Maya

Notes:  Atago with -1 dual 203 turret and slightly more AA.  A relatively easy Premium to release.  Just make her a rare AA-capable cruiser of the IJN line, and as her main Premium advantage just let her have infinite AADF like Atlanta and no option for Hydro.  She would retain the Repair Party capability of Atago, and serve as a solid all-rounder of the IJN cruiser line, only slightly less-capable than Atago herself.

 

Premium T7 or T8 CAV Mogami

Notes:  Mogami with only her 3 fore dual-203 turrets and a reinforced AA suite and catapult plane deck on the aft.  Like BBCV Ise and Hyuuga, CAV Mogami would serve more as a mobile AA platform as well as a scout fighter platform, utilizing her planes mainly to scout out enemy movements, especially enemy destroyers.  What would make this especially advantageous is if her scout planes can be controlled, and if battleships can fire on whatever the CAV Mogami's scouts have lit up.

 

- Premium CAV Tone

Notes:  Like CAV Mogami, but with slightly more broadside firepower.  All that forward firepower is going to make her play like an Izumo, but with controllable scouting planes.

 

Destroyers

- Nothing yet

 

Carriers

- Nothing yet

 


Other Suggestions

Suggestions that don't quite fit into other categories or don't have enough details to warrant their own category.

 

Arpeggio Ship Camouflage

Give all Arpeggio ships a general non-visible camouflage boost with a static -5% to both enemy accuracy and detection by enemy ships.

 

Arpeggio Ships w/ Premium Stats but No Premium Bonuses

If Premiums sharing the same ship name as an ARP ship exist, substitute in the stats and model of the Premium ship into their ARP variant, but remove any Premium benefits.  For example, if Premium Kongou, Haruna, and Kirishima are released, transfer over their stats and equipment into their ARP versions, but remove the camo bonuses and Premium bonuses.

 

Allow Rewarding of High-Tier Arpeggio Ships

Realistically, the best way to handle ARP Takao and a possible ARP Maya, and for that matter, any other ARP ships above T7, is to simply mandate that all players must own the ship in their port by the time an Arpeggio event rolls through, then they will be auto-credited the ARP versions of the ship.  Then all they'd have to do is add 2-3 quick missions just requiring use of said ships (ARP or regular) to earn the ARP Captain.  And they will always be rewarded again in future ARP events, so that new owners can try for them.  Other ARP ships at T7 and below would be one-time chances like Kongou, Myoko, Haruna, and Kirishima, and would feature longer missions.

 

So for Premiums like Takao, simply have WG sell Atago for a month or so in advance with advertising that the following Arpeggio event will reward a free ARP Takao for players who own an Atago in port.  Then when the event hits, using ARP Takao or the regular Atago for the special missions will reward Captain Takao.  Then if WG releases a Premium Maya, same thing.  Then if WG is permitted to go into Manga territory, owning Atago would unlock both ARP Takao and ARP Atago, with missions to unlock ARP Captain Takao and Atago.

 

For ships like ARP Yamato, Musashi, Fletcher, and so on (more if they delve into manga territory), the same thing as with Premiums can be applied.  Players will need to own said high tier ships in their port, not just have it researched, but actually have it purchased and in port.  WG can help this by holding another event to help speed progress a month in advance.  So for ARP Yamato and ARP Musashi, WG would host a "Fast Track to the Yamato" event and also advertise with it that all players owning a Yamato when the next ARP event rolls around will automatically be credited an ARP Yamato and ARP Musashi.  Then missions for their captains would just require use of ARP Yamato/Musashi or regular Yamato.  The same can be done for any other "Fast Track to the [T10]", with the mention that owning certain ships from that line will unlock an ARP version for free, and only have to do the optional ARP Captain grind.

 

This will also be the best method for getting out a full ARP section of ships so that if/when WG decides to have an ARP-Only mode, ARP ships separate from the regular lines could participate without issue, and could be set as TXXXs complete with beam cannons, graviton cannons, corrosive homing torpedo/missiles, and Klein Field shields for that mode, then return to their regular Tier equipment outside of the ARP Mode.

 

Additionally, the separate captain missions, being a regularly recurring set every Arpeggio event, not only serves to allow new owners of certain ARP ships to also get their Captains, but also serves to repeatedly reward Flags/Credits/XP to players, whether or not they want the ARP Captain.  Maybe even reward a modest 500 Doubloons for 2nd time and onwards completionists who already own the ARP Captains.  This also has the advantage of being usable by WG as event padding if they simply have nothing else to release, so assuming WG was permitted to delve into Manga Territory, that would already be at least 8 possible and easy mission chains that require use of the ship in question, and at the end reward either an ARP captain or some Doubloons; one each for, Yamato, Musashi, Bismarck, Iowa, Lexington, Kagero, and Fletcher.  Say 3-4 sets of straightforward missions for each ship, either "Sink X# of Ships" or "Deal X# of Damage".

 

Addendum:  Fletcher would either have no MM and just it's little Fog core (similar to Fishy from the April Fools Event), or a WoWs first-exclusive Mental Model by Ark Performance (similar to how Ark Performance created an Mental Model to promote the movie Phantom, and its fictional nuclear submarine B-67) that may later appear in the manga.

 

 

 

Battle Chat Toggle

(Originally suggested by Strike_Witch_Tomoko)

Basically, allow for being able to toggle the in-battle chat on or off if the convo is going south or if players don't want to text and drive, where texting can result in a fatal citadel or beaching.

 

Battle Chat Preferences

(Originally suggested by Strike_Witch_Tomoko)

Related to the above as well as the Player Ignore/Mute suggestion, let there be a means to control how much chatting you'll see.  So in settings, you might only check the boxes to see posts by friends, clanmates, or division mates while in combat.  That way, you don't have to hide the chatbox if you don't like the match conversation, but have others you still wish to communicate with.

 

MM Map Selection Adjustment

The MM needs more map variety and a properly cycling map system, which can be done in one of 3 ways:

 

Option 1:  Auto re-roll for a new map if 50% of the selected players already have played the same map previously.

Option 2:  After a player has played the same map up to two times in a row, the system locks them out of that map for one cycle, forcing MM to pick them for a different map.

Option 3:  Taking a page from Halo 3 and 4, allow a one-time vote by all players selected for a queue on whether to play on the current map or let the system reroll the choice once before actually loading the map.  If enough players veto the current map, it will reroll minus that map and players will have to deal with the second selected map regardless.

 

Permanently Sell XP, Captain XP, and Credit Flags In the Premium Shop

The idea behind this is to offer an indirect means of receiving Premium-like benefits, but only paying as-needed and only being used per battle.  Sell them in small stacks that would encourage casual players (the ones who only play 3-5 matches a day or so) to drop 5 USD or so for a set of flags that they can use.  Basically, it's aimed at those who cannot justify a Premium because their time does not warrant it, and also serves as a bonus topper for those who do spend on Premium but want to eke out a bit more EXP/Credits.

 

Select Your Captain's Name and Portrait

Let players paying Gold/Doubloons for a 3 point ready Captain be able to choose their Captain's first name, last name, and portrait.  And for those who don't pay for such or already have their ideal favorite Captain, charge them a bit more so that they can rename and re-portrait their existing Captains.

 

Player Ignore/Mute

The game could use a system to ignore/mute the players that rant and rage if a match goes south or if lucky hits sink them in one volley.  They'll only show up on the Chat as [Player Name]: [Muted], if you want to still laugh and make fun of them quietly.  Also for those players who don't like certain words or phrases, whether it's as benign as "Lama, lama, duck" or "POI!" or as offensive as the crasser form of "butt hat".  Two Ignore options needed:  Ignore for Match (/MatchMute) and Permanently Mute (/Mute).  The former only mutes them for the match, the latter keeps them ignored any time you encounter them.

 

Unique Chat Log File from Each Match

Mainly to help speed along reporting of players for more extreme verbal abuse, as an addition to replays or screencaps.  Does not open with a standard word program; it opens up in a manner similar to replays, but only shows the chat rather than an entire match replay.

 

More to come as I recall or come up with.  Constructive criticism and relaxed debates welcomed.  Will also post some other suggestions by others with my own take on them at times.


My massive list of suggestions (Updated 05/17/2016).  Feel free to constructively debate and discuss.

Remember remember the 17th of September, the Tirpitz; which cost a lot.  Some say it's a fortune, and that it's extortion; but the price will never be forgot.

 

"I call her the Sandman.  She tells other tier 3 ships, "Hush now.  Only dreams," as she murders them."LittleWhiteMouse on Konig Albert - 08/30/2016


YamatoA150 #2 Posted 05 August 2015 - 04:46 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 4,116
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

Currently a separate post, as I'll be editing this portion as often as WG makes changes.


Ship Balance Suggestions

By class, then if necessary, by individual ship.

All Ships

 

All Ships Need Their Historical Turn Rates

-  The turn radius of many ships needs to be restored to historical, with fantasy ships of similar size and displacement matching that of their historical peers.

  • For example, Yamato has a historical turn rate of 640 meters.  She currently has 900 turn rate.  Set Yamato's turn rate to 640 meters, then make Izumo, which is slightly larger in size, have a turn rate of 650-700.

 


 

Battleships/Battlecruisers

 

All Battleships/Battlecruisers

- Close Range Accuracy Boost - The 3km set for 4.1 is a complete joke.

  • T3-T6 require a major accuracy boost starting at 6km.
  • T7-T10 require a major accuracy boost starting at 8km.

 

- Passive Increasing Accuracy Boost to Secondaries - Give secondaries their own passively increasing accuracy boost the longer the target remains within secondary range.

  • Accuracy maxes out at 90% at the 15-20 second mark.
  • Accuracy remains at current value for 10 seconds if the nearby target leaves the range of the secondaries, to inhibit resets by the target trying to kite.
  • Extend this to CV secondaries and a weaker version of it to cruisers (maxes out at 75% accuracy after 15-20 seconds, they already have the RoF to mostly deal with any target on the surface).

 

IJN Izumo

- Add an Alternate Hull [B] and Hull [C] with the 140/A Design Plan -  These alternate hulls should have the 3rd turret take on an identical setup to Nelson/Rodney, with it facing forwards.  It slightly sacrifices the tight spread of the current A140/J2 design for tighter angling and bringing all 3 turrets to bear at the same time, rather than them shift at different times.  The current hulls [B] and [C] would be renamed Hull [B] A140/J2 and Hull [C] A140/J2, and the alternate hulls would be known as Hull [B] A140/A and Hull [C] A140/A.

 


Destroyers

 

IJN Destroyers

- Torpedo CD Reduction for Torpedoes Exceeding 1 Minute - Higher tier IJN DDs need a slight torpedo reload CD reduction.  If combined with the Elite Class bonus suggestion in the previous post, would be more than sufficient.

 


Cruisers

 

All Cruisers

- Hydroacoustic Search - The consumable needs a buff to their range.  The main intention here is to allow for cruisers using it to at least provide a temporarily boosted early warning for any allies either when traveling or capping as a group and enemy DDs are about, or when defending the cap, to let them have a better chance for themselves and any other defenders to spot the torps sooner and react sooner, regardless of whether or not the enemy DD is still kiting and hiding at 6km or greater.

  • Premium detection range upgraded to 6km while retaining the shorter CD.  No changes to cost.
  • Standard detection range upgraded to 5km.  No changes to CD.
  • Active duration is to remain at 90 seconds.

 

Yubari

- Citadel -  It should be smaller given the historical setup of it, which would have made it more or less as small as the St. Louis' citadel.  It's also a Premium, so this a fair and valid balance change.

- AA Defensive Fire - Needs at least 3 uses; not one.

 

Myoko

- Retain Pre 4.1 Rate of Fire - It'd be the line's near-equivalent of the Cleveland, except the larger citadel prevents reliable broadsiding which is required to get all guns on target.  As well, if WG does push through with eventually moving Cleveland up a tier as they said they would in time, Myoko could roughly match it.

 


CVs

 

All CVs

- Limit Manual Drop Range - The closest range at which CVs should be allowed to drop from a target is 3km.  Maybe more depending on meta changes.

  • All IJN Torpedo Bombers gain a slightly narrower spread to make up for the longer drop range.
  • All USN Torpedo Bombers retain the same spread.

 


Premiums

 

All Premiums

- Notable Permanent EXP/Credit Bonus - Slightly increase or add a fixed multiplier to all Premiums so that they can award more EXP and Credits over their Tiered Tree equivalents.  Tie it with the Premium Bonus suggestion in the previous post to grant an even bigger incentive to invest into Premium ships.


My massive list of suggestions (Updated 05/17/2016).  Feel free to constructively debate and discuss.

Remember remember the 17th of September, the Tirpitz; which cost a lot.  Some say it's a fortune, and that it's extortion; but the price will never be forgot.

 

"I call her the Sandman.  She tells other tier 3 ships, "Hush now.  Only dreams," as she murders them."LittleWhiteMouse on Konig Albert - 08/30/2016


Strike_Witch_Tomoko #3 Posted 05 August 2015 - 04:48 AM

    Captain

  • Banned

  • 4,300
  • Member since:
    05-03-2013

nice idea

can i add one?

basically a semi chat off mode.  where you can toggle chat off in game (when game turns toxic) and turn it on in game if you want (game is toxic, but your in a position to win, provided you see what team says)

 

plus a semi-off mode where you can still talk and get messages from friends, clanmates, and division.  but no one else


World of Warship's Resident PvE Strike Witch

PvE Income fix


Carrier_GrafZeppelin #4 Posted 05 August 2015 - 05:17 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 77
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Mate, you are a genius~

 

+1 for all your suggestions, except the H-series one, since the German ship list is limited, and the H-series basically has to be added so Germany get a T9 and T10 BB.

Also, for the new game modes, add one that is an "escort" type mission. Basically it's one team protecting a convoy of AI ships with another team attacking said convoy. Win/loss depends on whether the convoy is defended successfully or destroyed successfully.

 

Beside those two points, your list is perfect~ Keep up the great ideas!



GiN_nTonic #5 Posted 05 August 2015 - 05:26 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 593
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013
WoW - you have a passion in this game - which is cool.  

JRos83 #6 Posted 05 August 2015 - 05:50 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,018
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
facilities to take over?

NO.

Your = Your cat is stupid.

You're = You're stupid.

 

STOP SCREWING THIS UP IT IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT. WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE TO WRITE A RESUME...


YamatoA150 #7 Posted 05 August 2015 - 05:50 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 4,116
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

@ Strike_Witch_Tomoko:  Added, because why not?  It makes valid sense.

 

@ luxey012:  Added escort suggestion.  Might detail it more later on.  As to the H series, while the thread over what we know about ships is somewhat dated, it's the general guide I went by.  H41 is more or less the T10 of the German BB line, with H42 being included only if H41 can't handle the T10 meta.  H43 is pretty much an ideal Unique T10 of the KM faction, as it has both torpedo tubes and 19" guns and is even more of a damage sponge with a bit of a higher speed than H44.  And going by the Bismarck/Tirpitz stats that were posted in the general discussion forum a week or so earlier, German BBs are likely to have fast turret turn rates to match, making H43 with 19" mains sufficiently potent.


My massive list of suggestions (Updated 05/17/2016).  Feel free to constructively debate and discuss.

Remember remember the 17th of September, the Tirpitz; which cost a lot.  Some say it's a fortune, and that it's extortion; but the price will never be forgot.

 

"I call her the Sandman.  She tells other tier 3 ships, "Hush now.  Only dreams," as she murders them."LittleWhiteMouse on Konig Albert - 08/30/2016


Xscout577 #8 Posted 05 August 2015 - 05:51 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 61
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Excellent list!

 

 

Personally, I'd like to see the ability for a ship to fire on and detonate incoming torpedoes.


Paratus et fidelis,

          Xscout577 


JRos83 #9 Posted 05 August 2015 - 05:51 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,018
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Anyone saying ALL those suggestions are good is clearly not reading EVERY one.

 

No offense but honestly, a lot of that is excessive and is totally not in the spirit of what this game is about. Instead of trying to have WoWS changed to act like other games, play those other games instead.

 

 

I'm sorry, I know I'm a lowly peasant who doesn't  have an anime icon and was not a Beta or Alpha Tester so I know I have no right to disagree with those people and should only 
+1" everything they say... :child:


Edited by JRos83, 05 August 2015 - 05:53 AM.

Your = Your cat is stupid.

You're = You're stupid.

 

STOP SCREWING THIS UP IT IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT. WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE TO WRITE A RESUME...


Francois424 #10 Posted 05 August 2015 - 05:55 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 3,051
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012
I always thought the Idea of a "Boss fight"  (ie: X number of tier Y vs ONE player of tier Z) would be fun.  Say 6 tier 2 vs a warspite ?  or 6-8 vs 1 yamato. (Obviously the rewards have to be a fixed amount for the wining side.  Both side must WANT that battle afterall.


 


YamatoA150 #11 Posted 05 August 2015 - 06:10 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 4,116
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

@ Jros83:  Constructive criticism is fine, and so is a debate as long as it doesn't get heated.

 

Some of the suggestions are intended to further vary up the battles, based on both dev comments and player comments.

 

From the devs came mention of possible island structures to interact with, though how much interaction they didn't say, so I just pulled a reasonable idea from NavyField 2 adjusted for WoWs, which would also fit in with some player ideas and suggestions for historic battles.  I can see why some might not like the structures idea, but it is one way of encouraging more aggressive fights without trying to force it.  It grants a more tangible optional objective besides just trying to hunt down that last destroyer or something to do between capturing points on Domination.  It's not necessary to capture at all, and unlike NF2, neither side is going to get a sudden screen-clearing bomber run bonus or site-to-site teleport ability.

 

Aside from that, the only other one I pulled directly from was Halo 3/4, and that was just for their map veto system, which is also pretty reasonable given the endless same map rage threads.

 

@ Francois424:  Thanks for reminding me about another suggestion I had (it's more of a collaboration idea + suggestion).  While Boss Battles sound fun (the only real one I recall ATM being Bismarck vs Hood and PoW), it might need to be a separate game mode like Co-Op, Random, and Historic Battles, and might involve AI ships filling in for some other spots.


My massive list of suggestions (Updated 05/17/2016).  Feel free to constructively debate and discuss.

Remember remember the 17th of September, the Tirpitz; which cost a lot.  Some say it's a fortune, and that it's extortion; but the price will never be forgot.

 

"I call her the Sandman.  She tells other tier 3 ships, "Hush now.  Only dreams," as she murders them."LittleWhiteMouse on Konig Albert - 08/30/2016


JRos83 #12 Posted 05 August 2015 - 06:25 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,018
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostYamatoA150, on 05 August 2015 - 01:10 AM, said:

@ Jros83:  Constructive criticism is fine, and so is a debate as long as it doesn't get heated.

 

Some of the suggestions are intended to further vary up the battles, based on both dev comments and player comments.

 

From the devs came mention of possible island structures to interact with, though how much interaction they didn't say, so I just pulled a reasonable idea from NavyField 2 adjusted for WoWs, which would also fit in with some player ideas and suggestions for historic battles.  I can see why some might not like the structures idea, but it is one way of encouraging more aggressive fights without trying to force it.  It grants a more tangible optional objective besides just trying to hunt down that last destroyer or something to do between capturing points on Domination.  It's not necessary to capture at all, and unlike NF2, neither side is going to get a sudden screen-clearing bomber run bonus or site-to-site teleport ability.

 

Aside from that, the only other one I pulled directly from was Halo 3/4, and that was just for their map veto system, which is also pretty reasonable given the endless same map rage threads.

 

@ Francois424:  Thanks for reminding me about another suggestion I had (it's more of a collaboration idea + suggestion).  While Boss Battles sound fun (the only real one I recall ATM being Bismarck vs Hood and PoW), it might need to be a separate game mode like Co-Op, Random, and Historic Battles, and might involve AI ships filling in for some other spots.

Stop it.


Your = Your cat is stupid.

You're = You're stupid.

 

STOP SCREWING THIS UP IT IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT. WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE TO WRITE A RESUME...


Bl4ckBaron #13 Posted 05 August 2015 - 07:07 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Alpha Tester

  • 525
  • Member since:
    02-04-2015
Nice list....well done.

Carrier_GrafZeppelin #14 Posted 05 August 2015 - 07:37 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 77
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

@YamatoA150

Ok. Guess I misunderstood what the devs had said about them being a possibility for the T10 slot.

 

@JRos

Dude, I think you need to calm down and have a logical discussion. Using other games as inspiration for this one is a good thing. Also, the ideas YamatoA150 has are very good for this stage of WOWS development.

So, if you have nothing constructive to say, please don't pollute this thread with your insults. -1 to you....



Mike1Juliet #15 Posted 05 August 2015 - 08:35 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 21
  • Member since:
    08-01-2015

I think EXP needs to be calculated on how hard you tried not based on whether the team won or lost.  I'm getting more exp when I win despite doing less than when I try my [edited]off, getting more kills, caps and so on but because I died and the team lost I'm losing out on exp

 

I think there needs to be more outlets for exp, things like team play like hanging around battleships providing AA support or neutralizing DD's that are near BB's and stuff.  Getting people to participate in a role is very important.



rolex575 #16 Posted 05 August 2015 - 01:48 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 307
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postluxey012, on 05 August 2015 - 12:17 AM, said:

Mate, you are a genius~

 

+1 for all your suggestions, except the H-series one, since the German ship list is limited, and the H-series basically has to be added so Germany get a T9 and T10 BB.

Also, for the new game modes, add one that is an "escort" type mission. Basically it's one team protecting a convoy of AI ships with another team attacking said convoy. Win/loss depends on whether the convoy is defended successfully or destroyed successfully.

 

Beside those two points, your list is perfect~ Keep up the great ideas!

 

I agree with that. Maybe reduce the radius of teamwork bonus (maybe 3km instead of 5) Also, make it so that the bonus gets higher as the time spent together increases (i.e. spending 30 seconds with an ally gets you less than spending 10 minutes with that same ally)

BB Wyoming/CL Pheonix/CL Albany/CV Langley/BB Myogi/DD Minekaze/CL Tenryu

From Canada, where it's winter 13 months a year!

Tier 2 BBs thread: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/43989-tier-2-battleships/page__p__1097368#entry1097368

Spoiler

 


issm #17 Posted 05 August 2015 - 07:15 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,299
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

This list fails to address what is, in my opinion, the biggest issue this game has: It's a game where the focus of the game is NOT the grind, but the developers added an unbelievably large amount of grind to the game.

 

Ask yourself one question. If Wargaming removed every single aspect of grind from the game, and just gave you every single ship as soon as your account was created, would this game still be fun? I think the answer most people would give is yes.

 

The grind makes the game frustrating to play, and alienates the casual gamers microtransaction based games rely on. Peopel willing to drop $-$10 dollars for a skin won't be willing to pay $50 dollars for a premium ship, or what amounts to 4 years of a WoW subscription for a year of less grindy ship progression.

 

The biggest change Wargaming needs to make to make this game successful and more fun, is to reduce the grind, and instead of selling grind alleviation, sell cosmetic items to make money.


Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


YamatoA150 #18 Posted 06 August 2015 - 11:57 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 4,116
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

View PostMike1Juliet, on 05 August 2015 - 02:35 AM, said:

I think EXP needs to be calculated on how hard you tried not based on whether the team won or lost.  I'm getting more exp when I win despite doing less than when I try my [edited]off, getting more kills, caps and so on but because I died and the team lost I'm losing out on exp

 

I think there needs to be more outlets for exp, things like team play like hanging around battleships providing AA support or neutralizing DD's that are near BB's and stuff.  Getting people to participate in a role is very important.

That's sort of done already; you gain more Credits and EXP based on number of hits compared to just taking a kill or capping, however, there's a bonus that's given when your team wins, and none when you lose.  However, if you've been playing a cruiser and landed plenty of hits (not including setting fires and whatnot), you can still make quite a bit even if you're on a losing streak.  BBs and CVs have it tougher; the former needs to land as many hits as possible just to make some cash and get some EXP, while the latter needs to be a good enough player to land bombs/torps and gain points for hitting and causing fire/flooding.

 

In fact, someone posted a comparison of a victory/loss, and the only difference in EXP/Credit rates is how many hits you've landed on top of any other debuffs/effects you've caused; as their loss match where they did their best made almost as much as a victory match where they did almost nothing.

 

View Postrolex575, on 05 August 2015 - 07:48 AM, said:

I agree with that. Maybe reduce the radius of teamwork bonus (maybe 3km instead of 5) Also, make it so that the bonus gets higher as the time spent together increases (i.e. spending 30 seconds with an ally gets you less than spending 10 minutes with that same ally)

That's more or less my suggestion (a small but continuously repeating reward for just sticking together), though I kept it at 5km since some players still get tunnel vision and might end up colliding with their teammates.  As well, it gives just enough breathing room for some ships to fire over their teammates without hitting them.

 

View Postissm, on 05 August 2015 - 01:15 PM, said:

This list fails to address what is, in my opinion, the biggest issue this game has: It's a game where the focus of the game is NOT the grind, but the developers added an unbelievably large amount of grind to the game.

 

Ask yourself one question. If Wargaming removed every single aspect of grind from the game, and just gave you every single ship as soon as your account was created, would this game still be fun? I think the answer most people would give is yes.

 

The grind makes the game frustrating to play, and alienates the casual gamers microtransaction based games rely on. Peopel willing to drop $-$10 dollars for a skin won't be willing to pay $50 dollars for a premium ship, or what amounts to 4 years of a WoW subscription for a year of less grindy ship progression.

 

The biggest change Wargaming needs to make to make this game successful and more fun, is to reduce the grind, and instead of selling grind alleviation, sell cosmetic items to make money.

While I do dislike the grind, I don't have much of a problem with it (only the post-battle maintenance costs), as it keeps out players just wanting to go straight to the top rank ships and then do poorly in them.  As well, it makes balancing much easier; you're not likely to get a T1 vs a T10 unless a T8 or T9 teammate deliberately division'd with a T1, or have a tierless Montana or Yamato vs a tierless Kawachi (which is a big issue with NavyField 1 and 2; they have a larger tier spread per battle, so you can get badly curbstomped).

 

I would agree that some hull costs are unreasonable though, where T6 ships and above have their Hull [B] and/or Hull [C] almost cost the equivalent of a new ship as far as XP costs go.  I wouldn't mind if they lowered ship XP R&D upgrades but raised the XP requirement of the next ship in line by the same amount.

 

Model skins would be a nice bonus to fully upgraded ships though; offering a few alternative historical skins for the final upgraded variants (such as the slight differences between the Kongou sisters).  Of course, that would have to be sold as extras, due to the amount of modeler time it'll likely take up.


My massive list of suggestions (Updated 05/17/2016).  Feel free to constructively debate and discuss.

Remember remember the 17th of September, the Tirpitz; which cost a lot.  Some say it's a fortune, and that it's extortion; but the price will never be forgot.

 

"I call her the Sandman.  She tells other tier 3 ships, "Hush now.  Only dreams," as she murders them."LittleWhiteMouse on Konig Albert - 08/30/2016


issm #19 Posted 07 August 2015 - 03:35 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,299
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostYamatoA150, on 06 August 2015 - 11:57 PM, said:

While I do dislike the grind, I don't have much of a problem with it (only the post-battle maintenance costs), as it keeps out players just wanting to go straight to the top rank ships and then do poorly in them.  As well, it makes balancing much easier; you're not likely to get a T1 vs a T10 unless a T8 or T9 teammate deliberately division'd with a T1, or have a tierless Montana or Yamato vs a tierless Kawachi (which is a big issue with NavyField 1 and 2; they have a larger tier spread per battle, so you can get badly curbstomped).

 

I would agree that some hull costs are unreasonable though, where T6 ships and above have their Hull [B] and/or Hull [C] almost cost the equivalent of a new ship as far as XP costs go.  I wouldn't mind if they lowered ship XP R&D upgrades but raised the XP requirement of the next ship in line by the same amount.

 

The repair costs are what irritates me the most, especially since some stock hulls (every single godforsaken piece of garbage in the IJN BB line) are sub par for their tier. That basically works out to 'your gonna have to pay the full repair fee nearly every game until you're out of the stock hull'.

 

If losing enough credits to repair fees during the stock Izumo grind to buy a second bloody Izumo doesn't annoy me into quitting, then I'm probably good to stick with this game. But a huge portion of the player base won't be willing to put up with as much [edited]from the grind, and repair fees as I already have; a lot of casual players who don't need more frustration from their 'entertainment' will simply go play something else.

 

F2P doesn't become successful on the backs of 'whales'. Online games succeed based on small contributions from many players, be it a small subscription fee (WG premium is NOT cheap, even by online game sub standards), or microtransactions for things like skins (LoL, DoTA, aka. 1/4 the PC games market)

 

OP also addressed this, not sure if in his original post, or an edit, and I disagree with him on some of his points.

 

First, a 10% adjustment is nowhere NEAR enough. Doing some random match with numbers I pulled out of my donkey, assuming I make on average 1K exp per match on a stock Izumo, I would need ~100 matches before I unlock the C hull. Assuming I die every single match, by the time I have unlocked the C hull, I will have lost enough money JUST to repair fees to buy a second Izumo. I don't die every single match, say i only die in 60% of matches. Well, that sucks, I can only buy a new Amagi instead of an Izumo. When the punishment for playing the game is that high, 1 - a 10% reduction just isn't going to cut it, and 2 - it is frustrating as $#@!, and frustrating your players is going to cause some of them to quit.

 

Second, increasing credit gain for premium users won't solve the problem; by their own numbers, the vast majority of their players never pay them. By just increasing premium credits, you don't solve the problem for more than half the people playing your game. Even worse than that, you might worsen your image, making Wargaming seem greedier than it already does. This is a moot point, however. I'm sure you've noticed that WG actually offers direct credit conversions to players, something roughly like $10 > 2 mil credits. 

 

Unless Wargaming realizes mechanics this punishing to their players is going to negatively affect earnings, nothing here will change.

 

EXP gains are fine, they are more than enough to gate progression in a way to prevent a raw newbie from jumping into a Yamato. Credit income in this game is just pure unadulterated greed.

 

View PostYamatoA150, on 05 August 2015 - 04:45 AM, said:

Allow Naming of Ships + Allow Selection of Ship ID Tags on Non-Historical Names

So as to avoid things like naming a Minekaze PantyChaser or a Bismarck WetDreams, give us a list of approved ship names we can choose from a drop-down menu; of course, the historical names first, then names that would have been possible if other ships of that class were built.

- Historical names would also include the registration numbers or details as an overlay (similar to camouflage that overlay's the base skin).

- Other names would let players select their own overlay details (ship numbers mainly; but may include non-division markings).

 

Allow Division/Clan Markings on Ships

Basically yet another overlay independent of camouflage, skins, and the previous suggestion.  This one specifically concerns divisions and clans.

 

For Divisions - Let the MM set Division colors/markings for each ship based on historic precedents, such as IJN cruiser funnel bands or USN battleship turret top colors.  While a minor thing, it would allow teammates to more quickly identify ships of the same division without having to TAB to check, especially if they're zoomed in.

 

For Clans - This one is more debatable; let Clan icons either appear next to a player's name both in the TAB list and while zoomed in or hovering your target sights on one (so that the ALT interface isn't too cluttered), or let it appear as an overlay on the sides of the ship's deckhouse (larger ships) or roof (smaller ships).

 

Sell Historic Ship Model+Skins Where Possible

We know full well that not all ships of the same class looked identical due to differences in construction and upgrades.  So why not sell individual ship models for the final Hull variants?  Such as the Kongou sisters; sell us the Kongou, Kirishima, and Haruna models with their slight differences, and with their own customizable skins.  Tie it with an earlier suggestion of letting us be able to purchase at least 2-3 ships of the same kind that we can upgrade and configure for different roles (like the aformentioned Takao/Maya setups).

 

There's 2 ways to handle this:

Purely Visual - Even if there's more or less AA/Secondaries on the other models, they don't affect the game values.  The weapon models may be animated though if secondaries and AA are animated.  Would only cost around 10 USD per model+skin, since 95% of the work is done and the only remaining work is adding or removing some of the other details to match their historical equivalent.

 

Visual + Functional - Think of this as more of a purchasable minute upgrade to the final hulls; not only are the visuals changed to match the official ship, but so are the weapon stats and ranges (among other stats, such as armor differences).  So if that one ship has a slightly taller pagoda, its main guns would have a slightly longer range.  If that one ship had more AA than another ship of the line, but less secondaries in return, then that specific model adds more AA at the loss of secondaries.  The cost would need to be made to around 20 USD per model+skin, to cover for the fact it also affects ship performance levels.

 

Despite the cost, it'd be a fixed cost, so T9 variants of the Iowa for example, don't cost more than T5 variants of the Kongou (which in-game is the Hiei model, IIRC).

 

 

For player friendly monetization, THIS is where Wargaming should be looking. Selling skins for ships that put them into historical configurations and paintjobs, charging a small amount of money to *create* a set of clan markings that the 'owner' could allow people to apply for free, maybe even selling cosmetic ammunition or consumables, like coloured shells and destroyer smoke. Selling cosmetic items for your profit is something FAR more proven than 'frustrate your customers into paying for something that makes it better'.

 

My only disagreement with you here is that under NO circumstances should these skins sold have a functional effect. Even if there will be some minor details wrong, like a quad AA mount being a double mount, the minor inaccuracy is better than selling a 'minor' advantage.


Edited by issm, 07 August 2015 - 03:55 AM.

Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


YamatoA150 #20 Posted 12 August 2015 - 09:05 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 4,116
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

View Postissm, on 06 August 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

My only disagreement with you here is that under NO circumstances should these skins sold have a functional effect. Even if there will be some minor details wrong, like a quad AA mount being a double mount, the minor inaccuracy is better than selling a 'minor' advantage.

While you have a point, I will leave it up there and let WG choose, if they are interested.  The main reason I suggested it at all is to allow for closer historical accuracy, for those players who really love a certain ship of the line and wants to player it regardless of whether it has a slightly worse AA set or slight worse range.

 

As to the credit issue, I'm holding off a bit longer before adjusting or adding any suggestions regarding it.  So far, I'm leaving it mostly to boosting Credit gains across multiple sources (primarily via Premium ships and Premium time).

 

Also, updated and added a number of things, including a change to my reserved second post for use for my own suggested ship balance changes based on planned changes for patch 0.4.1.


My massive list of suggestions (Updated 05/17/2016).  Feel free to constructively debate and discuss.

Remember remember the 17th of September, the Tirpitz; which cost a lot.  Some say it's a fortune, and that it's extortion; but the price will never be forgot.

 

"I call her the Sandman.  She tells other tier 3 ships, "Hush now.  Only dreams," as she murders them."LittleWhiteMouse on Konig Albert - 08/30/2016





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users