Jump to content


Feedback and Thoughts Directly to Pigeon_of_War

feedback ideas wows

  • Please log in to reply
1750 replies to this topic

RevTKS #1701 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:47 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 307
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Hate to be 'that guy' but I'm seeing Clan Tags that are similar to the official WG tags.

 

I've seen [WGA] [W-G] among others. 



Pigeon_of_War #1702 Posted 16 February 2017 - 09:37 PM

    Assistant Producer

  • Developers

  • 509
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013

View PostRevTKS, on 16 February 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

Hate to be 'that guy' but I'm seeing Clan Tags that are similar to the official WG tags.

 

I've seen [WGA] [W-G] among others. 

Employees from the San Francisco office is in the [WGA] office.

Seattle Office is [WGS]

Texas office is [WGTX]

I think Chicago office is working on one as well, but haven't made one yet.

 

[W-G] is Wired Gaming and the clan commander personally talked with me to make sure this name is approved, so it's all well.


(Main Avatar created by xtcmax)

(Signature avatar created by Kombat_W0MBAT)

Follow me on Twitter
Find us on Facebook!

 

Goose21891 #1703 Posted 16 February 2017 - 11:45 PM

    Fleet Admiral

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 12,532
  • Member since:
    03-16-2015
Noticing a distinct lack of East Coast offices

 


Lord_Zath #1704 Posted 16 February 2017 - 11:55 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • WoWS Wiki Editor
  • Beta Testers
    Supertester

  • 2,700
  • Member since:
    12-02-2013
Don't forget [WG-CC] - WarGaming Community Contributors :)


Fog_Cruiser_Maine #1705 Posted 17 February 2017 - 03:27 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,051
  • Member since:
    08-12-2014
Pidgeon, how would one apply to be an employee of WG? 
---Commodore Meli

Remember the Maine, Remember the Arizona! #neverforget | I support the USS Maine as a US premium! #GiveMeMaine


Formerly Luke_Skywalker01

 

Pizza_plz #1706 Posted 17 February 2017 - 05:01 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 109
  • Member since:
    06-02-2015

View PostFog_Cruiser_Maine, on 16 February 2017 - 10:27 PM, said:

Pidgeon, how would one apply to be an employee of WG? 

 

By visiting here!



SyndicatedINC #1707 Posted 17 February 2017 - 02:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 584
  • Member since:
    01-18-2016

View PostPigeon_of_War, on 16 February 2017 - 04:37 PM, said:

Employees from the San Francisco office is in the [WGA] office.

Seattle Office is [WGS]

Texas office is [WGTX]

I think Chicago office is working on one as well, but haven't made one yet.

 

[W-G] is Wired Gaming and the clan commander personally talked with me to make sure this name is approved, so it's all well.

 

What about the [ADMIN] tag?  I have witnessed at least 2 players fooled by it in randoms.  

 

 

"If you won a chess game because the other player had a heart attack during the match, how proud would you be of your victory?

Did you really "win"? That's what it's like, imho." -wadavid (regarding victory by detonating an opponent)


Pigeon_of_War #1708 Posted 17 February 2017 - 06:23 PM

    Assistant Producer

  • Developers

  • 509
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013

View PostPizza_plz, on 16 February 2017 - 09:01 PM, said:

 

By visiting here!

We have offices across the world! I wish you luck in applying and hopefully interviewing!

 

View PostSyndicatedINC, on 17 February 2017 - 06:01 AM, said:

 

What about the [ADMIN] tag?  I have witnessed at least 2 players fooled by it in randoms.  

Who? I have not encountered or noted any clan with this tag. Though if you do notice a suspicious Clan, send in a ticket or PM me directly and we can look into it.


(Main Avatar created by xtcmax)

(Signature avatar created by Kombat_W0MBAT)

Follow me on Twitter
Find us on Facebook!

 

Capt_Chaos2112 #1709 Posted 17 February 2017 - 06:42 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 37
  • Member since:
    04-09-2016
Any date/time set on when Clans will be expanded to more then 30 people?  

I am Nobody

Nobody is Perfect

Therefor, I am Perfect
 


Pigeon_of_War #1710 Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:17 PM

    Assistant Producer

  • Developers

  • 509
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013

View PostCapt_Chaos2112, on 17 February 2017 - 10:42 AM, said:

Any date/time set on when Clans will be expanded to more then 30 people?  

 

Unfortunately not. It's a plan to be incorporated, but it's not a guarantee if it will come at all. We will be expanding to features and functions of Clans in the coming months, but I can't make any promises on overall size. Apologies. 

(Main Avatar created by xtcmax)

(Signature avatar created by Kombat_W0MBAT)

Follow me on Twitter
Find us on Facebook!

 

Schroughphie #1711 Posted 18 February 2017 - 12:58 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 20
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016
It drives me nuts not to know where those last hidden ships are when the game ends.  Is there any way to include a screen shot of the surviving ships of both teams in an end screen?
Schroughphie (it's pronounced Scruffy)

_Nyarlathotep_ #1712 Posted 18 February 2017 - 07:47 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 58
  • Member since:
    09-27-2015

I miss bastion and zone, which I thought were fun and interesting game modes. Yet, I still have to suffer through playing standard map mode. Can we get that removed since bastion and zone went away?

 

Perhaps more seriously, I might suggest an option to select game modes. If people really want short queues, they can select all modes, and if someone really hates a particular game mode, they'll wait longer to avoid it, and I think it would provide some valuable data if you see one mode overwhelmingly popular or unpopular. 



ThereBeDragons #1713 Posted 19 February 2017 - 06:00 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 1
  • Member since:
    05-10-2014

My suggestion to improve the game is get rid of the [edited]"fighter strafing" strikes. I have a fighter squadron engaged in air to air combat with an enemy squadron. Additional enemy squadron appears, makes a straight line strafe run at planes that are in the middle of ACM (air combat manuevering) scores 100% hits and wipes out a fighter squadron in a dogfight. What genius thought that this was an improvement to begin with. This is [edited]. Remove it from the game. 

Secondary suggestion, OP Saipan fighters are ruining any sort of tactics in air group battles. Saipan gets smaller squadrons of higher HP fighters with higher speed and damage, and then gets strafe runs on top of that? You guys need to fix this. Its not even close to balanced. I have a 7 plane squadron get wiped out by 4 plane squadron because of a hack tactic of strafe run ? You need to fix this immediately. 

A 4 plane squadron should be vulnerable to air combat, not invulnerable. He should be forced to choose to use his superior speed and firepower to selectively engage, but having been engaged superior numbers should overcome that. Balance.



WanderingGhost #1714 Posted 19 February 2017 - 08:15 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,204
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014

View PostThereBeDragons, on 19 February 2017 - 01:00 AM, said:

My suggestion to improve the game is get rid of the [edited]"fighter strafing" strikes. I have a fighter squadron engaged in air to air combat with an enemy squadron. Additional enemy squadron appears, makes a straight line strafe run at planes that are in the middle of ACM (air combat manuevering) scores 100% hits and wipes out a fighter squadron in a dogfight. What genius thought that this was an improvement to begin with. This is [edited]. Remove it from the game. 

Secondary suggestion, OP Saipan fighters are ruining any sort of tactics in air group battles. Saipan gets smaller squadrons of higher HP fighters with higher speed and damage, and then gets strafe runs on top of that? You guys need to fix this. Its not even close to balanced. I have a 7 plane squadron get wiped out by 4 plane squadron because of a hack tactic of strafe run ? You need to fix this immediately. 

A 4 plane squadron should be vulnerable to air combat, not invulnerable. He should be forced to choose to use his superior speed and firepower to selectively engage, but having been engaged superior numbers should overcome that. Balance.

 

It's well documented that I more than agree on Strafing. That said "vulnerable to combat" is not at all accurate as to some degree, the number of planes are irrelevant. History is full of cases where fewer, even outdated, planes have beaten back larger numbers. Case in point a pilot I believe in a dauntless (early war USN DB) shot down 3 zero's out numbered 3/4-1 - and this was the Zeke at it's pinnacle when the Wildcat was vastly inferior in most regards. Saipan's planes should have an edge, yes, but yeah, not nearly as much as they should, but then again tier for tier USN should not be beating IJN the way it is because the fighters they have lined up except for the A6M vs the Wildcat are equal tier for tier (except the questionable A8M as I'v still not found any info of it existing) and in that particular case of the A6M vs the Wildcat, as said above, the A6M runs circles around it... pretty much literally. If anything at tier 5/6 USN should be having a bit of a struggle and above that point a slight edge and not the rofl stomps it currently is.

 

But, on the subject and what I was actually going to post - couple carrier suggestions with ADLA's I wrote up for them.

 

USS Hornet (April, 18,1942 "Doolittle Raid") - tier 6 premium USN CV with the modified B-25B's used in the raid and the fighters the ship had below decks.

 

http://forum.worldof...doolittle-raid/

 

USS Shangri La - a "What If" based on USN tests of Navy PBJ-1H and P-51D Mustang conducted on this carrier (given it's name for the fact FDR said the Doolittle Raiders had launched from "Shangri La") had they opted to continue with both projects. Tier 8 "Stock Hull" Essex using P-51's and PBJ's - possibly TBF/M Avengers.

 

http://forum.worldof...uss-shangri-la/



Skyfaller #1715 Posted 19 February 2017 - 11:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 632
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostAduial, on 19 January 2017 - 02:16 AM, said:

 

The thing was that they nerfed the Mogami because the range was too long, it fired too fast, and it set too many fires, and it could stealth-fire. But honestly, Kutuzov is pretty much everything that the pre-nerf Mogami was, yet it's considered to be fine. Like GFischer said, I don't expect the Mogami to be buffed back to what it was. But the turret rotation is just ridiculously bad, without there being clear reason for it to be so.

 

If the Mogami is not going to be fixed, I would at least appreciate a clear response on WHY.

 

This has been my point since it happened. YES the Mogami needed its range (invisi-fire) reduced... and yes, overall back then fires were ridiculous (this was fixed universally not just Mogami issue).


 

But making the rotation rate be so completely F'ing useless is incomprehensible. The response they gave on the latest dev question is as retarded as the nerf itself: 'we nerfed it because we wanted to make the 203's better'... well wththey ARE better..damage wise, penetration wise, fire chance wise. Changing the turret rotation on the 155s was simply a lazy and incompetent way of avoiding removing the 155s as an option..just make them pointless to use so people spend more xp and credits getting the 203s.


 

This whole 'we hate the IJN line let's slowly make it useless and give all their advantages to the soviet lines' garbage is out of control. They gave the soviet cruisers the same exact g-damn ability they nerfed the Mogami 155's for..and then they BUFF them with the new HE penetration capt skill (an obviously for-soviet ship-benefit skill if there ever was one..only soviet DD and CA's gain the penetration rate to match other nation's HE damage on BB upper superstructure). THEN they give them freaking radar.


 

Then they nerf IJN DD torpedos with massive torpedo detection ranges (2.5km for 20km shima torps and 1.9 for the others while Gearing's torps have 1.3km vis, 16km range? you F'ing kidding me? What intern is in charge of these changes and why hasn't he been tar, feathered and fired?)


 



oz_boater #1716 Posted 20 February 2017 - 12:51 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 122
  • Member since:
    08-27-2013

Request: Can we have the ability to buy the Texas 'US flag' camo for gold back please?  

 

Right now you can buy it with the ship, but those of us who already have the ship can't get the camo without buying the ship again

 

Thanks

 

Oz


Richard Simpson,
Skipper: USS Alabama, Sydney Battle Squadron, Australian Battle Group (videos)

(1/144th scale warships (4 to 6 feet long), armed with CO2 powered cannon firing 1/4" steel ball bearings at 150km/h, sinking each other on ponds across Australia) 

My photos of the scuttling of a FFG-7 frigate, the ex "HMAS Adelade" (click on any of the thumbs to enlarge)

Rather hopeless at "World of Warships" but slowly getting better


Jakajan #1717 Posted 20 February 2017 - 12:41 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 747
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015

I had an idea tonight about how carriers could be made more fun and perhaps better balanced across tiers. This is long so I apologize in advance.


 

I play carriers tiers 4 through 9 across tiers. Yes I am one of those players who cause "problems" by seal clubbing in my Hosho. I have a 15 point captain on my Hosho and have a lot of fun with her. Yet I can see how it could be perceived as bad for the game much like how Isokaze and Minekaze were bad for the game.


 

First of all, why do I play Hosho a lot when I have a Shokaku and Taiho with good captains to play with? It's because high tier carriers are a bit of a headache to play often, juggling 6 and 7 fighter squadrons in addition to managing a carrier. I enjoy Hosho because she only has three squadrons, each squadron is very potent and does a lot of damage. Her air group if managed correctly is effective and overall I feel that she is a good carrier. I also like the history behind Hosho. I could gush about Hosho actually but i'll save it for somewhere else.


 

It's tricky because tier 4 is the introduction to carriers for carrier captains. This tier has little AA and allows CV captains an easier environment to learn how to use their planes. Because the environment is easier it allows for easier seal clubbing. Plus honestly, carriers effectively get their big guns right out the gates and actually lose relative firepower as tiers go up. Cruisers take more torpedoes to sink, they have better AA, battleships get much much stronger, where torpedoes may grow in number at tiers 9 and 10 for IJN carriers, for the most part carriers become more scouts and are less relevant strike platforms due to a low rate of increase in damage tier per tier and a higher range of AA batteries. At least carriers do get more replacement planes to keep them in the action longer and this is very relevant.


 

Back to tier 4 though, from a game designers perspective I can see issues where low skill captains face off against pros and really do not enjoy their time playing their low tier carriers. Low tier carriers are really punished if they make any mistakes, for example, If a Langley's fighter wing gets strafed by a Hosho wing and loses all 6 of their fighters they only get 2 or 3 replacements, effectively making them ineffective for the rest of the match. Replacements for fighters are few and far between, thankfully anti air is lacking at these tiers though so it is manageable, but not always fun. I personally find some enjoyment knowing that I have few planes and using them wisely is good, but not all cv captains especially newbies will feel this way if they lose all of their strike capability from one strafing run.


 

I've used my Hosho wing before for example and shot down 15 planes from a Langley in a single pass, taking out half a carriers air wing from a single command is pretty impressive. I guess it is about as good as a Belfast firing on another Belfast and completely destroying two turrets in one salvo. Yes it can happen and it would be frustrating for the other player to have this amount of firepower reduced. Heh, not to brag too much but once my Hosho straffed her way to 52 fighter kills in one mission while only losing 3 fighters, I took out a Bogue air superiority wing and a Langely wing because of strafing. I'm not even super good in my Hosho by the way, I run into captains way better than me all the time, but the point is that straffing is sort of OP and it can be frustrating for some captains because there are not many replacements for air wings at lower tiers.


 

So let me illustrate a few bullet points.


 

* Carriers start with intensive firepower at low tiers, but then have little rate of increase

* Carriers have fewer replacement planes at low tiers, but do not face as many issues with AA

* Low tier easy learning environment invites seal clubbers, easier to learn usually means easier to carry

* Strafing which is a higher level skill is more effective to use to devastating effect against low tier carriers, almost like sudden death KO!


 

I have a suggestion which may seem foreign to some of you, but I would like to see more variance in wing size per tier to allow firepower of carriers to scale up, while also decreasing seal clubbers want to play lower tier carriers, allow me to give you a few examples of how to do this. I'll use IJN as a primary example as I have less experience with US carriers.


 

Hosho tier 4, could have

2 wings of 3 torpedo bombers, 1 wing of 3 fighters

This would allow Hosho to still have after launch 10 torpedo bombers in reserve and 5 fighters, so if fighters or bombers were lost to a poor move or even two poor moves they would still have some teeth left for a third strike.


 

Langely could have reduced squadron sizes as well

1 wing of 4 torpedo bombers, 1 wing of 4 dive bomber, 1 wing of 4 fighters, but I would say her hangar capacity would be buffed to 31 planes while Hosho would retain her 24 planes. This would allow the same principle of having fighters for 2 and 2/3rds wings of fighters. Langely would have 11 fighters, 10 dive bombers and 10 torpedo bombers.


 

I would like to see this same principle scaled up the tree, for example

Hiryu's balanced squadron of 2 fighters, 2 dive bombers, 2 torpedo bomber wings could be simplified to be 1 fighter wing, 1 dive bomber and 2 torpedo bomber wings, however the wing sizes would be much larger than we see these days. The fighter wing would have about 6 fighters, 6 dive bombers in the dive bomber wing and each of the two torpedo wings would have 4 torpedo bombers.


 

Is it strong? Yes, yes it is, but Hiryu should be considerably stronger than Hosho, where today there is very little difference in the offensive capabilities of these two carriers. Ranger at the same tier would also have scaled up to match Hiryu in certain areas. Hiryu would have one more wing to manage than Ranger, but it would bring the complexity down while introducing a greater rate of increase in damage of carriers versus the original Hosho.


 

Here is a basic draft while not considering alternate flight groups. This is more of something of the general flow of the idea of squadron count scaling up as fighter capacity does. Also I am attempting to make the US carriers more competitive in this group, maybe the two carrier styles are too similar in this but again, competitive.


 

Hosho

24 planes

1x 3 fighter wing, 2x 3 torpedo wings

8 fighters, 16 torpedo bombers


 

Zuiho

36 planes

1x 4 fighter wing, 1x 4 dive bomber wing, 2x 3 torpedo wings

10 fighters, 16 torpedo bombers, 10 dive bombers


 

Ryujo

48 planes

1x 4 fighter wing, 1x 4 dive bomber wing, 2x 4 torpedo wings

12 fighters,  26 torpedo bombers, 10 dive bombers


 

Hiryu

72 planes

1x6 fighter wing, 1x6 dive bomber wing, 2x 4 torpedo wings

18 fighters, 36 torpedo bombers, 18 dive bombers


 

Shokaku

72 planes

1x6 fighter wing, 1x6 dive bomber wing, 2x 4 torpedo wings

18 fighters, 36 torpedo bombers, 18 dive bombers

 

I suggest giving Shokaku torpedo bombers a new torpedo at this tier that would up the damage by about 1500 per torpedo hit at this tier and up.


 

Taiho

83 planes

1x7 fighter wing, 1x7 dive bomber wing, 2x 5 torpedo wings

22 fighters, 40 torpedo bombers, 21 dive bombers


 

Hakuryu

100 planes

1x8 fighter wing, 1x8 dive bomber wing, 2x 5 torpedo wings

25 fighters, 50 torpedo bombers, 25 dive bombers


 

American carrier draft, similar idea. Will focus on strike groups because they are more popular. I still think even a strike US wing needs a tiny air scout and defense wing so I will add those.


 

Langely

33 planes

1x4 fighter wing, 1x4 dive bomber wing, 1x 4 torpedo wing

11 fighters, 11 dive bombers, 11 torpedo bombers


 

Bogue

36 planes

1x3 fighter wing, 1x5 dive bomber wing, 1x 5 torpedo wing

8 fighters, 12 dive bombers, 16 torpedo bombers


 

Independence

42 planes

1x3 fighter wing, 1x6 dive bomber wing, 1x6 torpedo wing

8 fighters, 16 dive bombers, 18 torpedo bombers


 

Ranger

72 planes

1x6 fighter wing, 1x8 dive bomber wing, 1x8 torpedo wing

16 fighters, 28 dive bombers, 28 torpedo bombers


 

Lexington

72 planes

1x6 fighter wing, 1x8 dive bomber wing, 1x8 torpedo wing

16 fighters, 28 dive bombers, 28 torpedo bombers

Lexington would also gain a new torpedo at this tier, one that increases the speed of torpedoes by about 4 knots

 

 


 

Essex

90 plane

1x7 fighter wing, 1x9 dive bomber wing, 1x10 torpedo wing

22 fighters, 34 dive bombers, 34 torpedo bombers


 

Midway

136 planes

1x8 fighter wing, 1x10 dive bomber wing, 1x12 torpedo wing

38 fighters, 46 dive bombers, 54 torpedo bombers


 

Yeah, Midway looks sorta nuts, but the point is to have a scaleable fighter system where carriers are easy to play all the way up the tiers so that people are less tempted to play lower tier carriers because.


 

#1 They can do more damage in their higher tier carriers with damage and strike capability scaling

#2 Lower tier AA will be slightly more effective against lower tier carriers groups of 3 fighters, reducing attack power by 33% instead of 25% or less.

#3 less squads to manage should result in less headaches and easier play matches.


 

I do think though that carriers should have an option of another flight group that has less direct strike capability, but sacrifices bombers for more fighters in more groups so that they can be a scouting and AA role carrier. So the two main roles would be either strike, or AA / Scout.


 

AA Scout would have more groups of smaller fighters, while still retaining a large bomber division, not completely unlike Saipan's current  3 groups of 3 fighters and 1 group of 8 dive bomber configuration.


 

Anyway these are just some crazy thoughts I've been tossing around in my head, not sure if they are a good idea, but anyway if not something like this, what would you guys like to see done to improve carrier balance?


 



SalvoSanta #1718 Posted 21 February 2017 - 02:17 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 336
  • Member since:
    08-01-2016

I have IFHE on my Perth and tonight I fired 14 salvos into a half-health DD that was 5km from me before he died.

 

Please, this ship needs a buff. It needs something I'm telling you. Please.



SyndicatedINC #1719 Posted 21 February 2017 - 03:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 584
  • Member since:
    01-18-2016

View PostSalvoSanta, on 21 February 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

I have IFHE on my Perth and tonight I fired 14 salvos into a half-health DD that was 5km from me before he died.

 

Please, this ship needs a buff. It needs something I'm telling you. Please.

 

Again no offense intended, however this is exactly why I commented earlier that your problems are likely user based.  IFHE has no bearing on Perth HE causing damage or not to any DD that it can be put up against by MM.  If this isn't clear we then also have to wonder if you grasped fully the concept of damage saturation .  If the DD bow was saturated and you kept hitting it, then it very well could take 14 salvos before stray shells hitting other portions of the ship or incidental fires started caused it to finally sink.  

 

I am no server stats topper in the ship but yet I still find the ship to be close to OP most everytime I run it.  I love the boat, but fear that any kind of buff, be it range or damage would make the ship ridiculously broken, and we don't want another gremy.   


 

 

"If you won a chess game because the other player had a heart attack during the match, how proud would you be of your victory?

Did you really "win"? That's what it's like, imho." -wadavid (regarding victory by detonating an opponent)


Pigeon_of_War #1720 Posted 21 February 2017 - 07:53 PM

    Assistant Producer

  • Developers

  • 509
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013

View PostSalvoSanta, on 14 February 2017 - 07:48 PM, said:

Hi there Pigeon, any chance of considering the Perth post I made up the page? 

 

In any case I'm keen to hear what the devs think about the state of the Perth. It needs some help even if statistically it's doing "ok".

 

Thanks for your write up. I looked up Perth's stats and it's in a good place. I would personally say there would be no needs for any buffs to it. 

(Main Avatar created by xtcmax)

(Signature avatar created by Kombat_W0MBAT)

Follow me on Twitter
Find us on Facebook!

 





Also tagged with feedback, ideas, wows

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users