Jump to content


Feedback and Thoughts Directly to Pigeon_of_War

feedback ideas wows

  • Please log in to reply
1980 replies to this topic

CaptCanuck276 #1841 Posted 03 April 2017 - 02:01 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 5
  • Member since:
    09-29-2016

Just wondering if any consideration has been given to adding points or damage assists for spotting as is in WoT. This would be a bonus means of rewarding DDs for going ahead and spotting for the team and maybe even aid in team play.

-  Also how about having a way to turn off your spotting so that RDF cannot find you i.e. if I am not spotting for the rest of the team yet in front of them I cannot be seen by anyone with RDF as a skill.

- And this one is just thrown out for anyone to answer - a way to encourage more team play vs just out for me; possibly making kill assists a ribbon similar to capture ribbons?

 

 



CaptCanuck276 #1842 Posted 03 April 2017 - 02:12 AM

    Seaman Recruit

  • Members

  • 5
  • Member since:
    09-29-2016

View PostAdm_Nate_Ellis937, on 25 March 2017 - 08:53 PM, said:

Hey Pigeon,

 

Any word on HMCS Haida being the next Commonwealth ship?

 

​YES Please

Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi #1843 Posted 04 April 2017 - 01:00 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Alpha Tester

  • 142
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

Pigeon do you think that you could give this idea to Wargaming to maybe mitigate a bit of the hate the patch caused in terms of invisi-firing, while this will probably not satisfy everyone I think that it makes logical sense.

When you are in a DD you should not remain spotted for 20 seconds after firing, DD's have much smaller guns, Therefore the muzzle flash is smaller, this should be reflected in game by reducing the amount of time you have your detection range maxed out, Wargaming can keep their new mechanics just adjusted slightly so that DD's can shoot and not then have to panic for 20 seconds and not want to fire to avoid the hassle of having to doge everywhere for 20 seconds.

My thoughts (subject to appropriate testing time of course and subject to change):

Calibers below 5.9" - 8-10 seconds

Calibers between 6" and 12" - 11-14 seconds

Calibers between 12.1" and 16" - 14-18 seconds

Calibers above 16" 20 seconds

 

(I know I am repeating this but I really think this is the best solution to get people to stop being so angry about the removal of stealth-fire, not completely of course but less then currently.)



Lert #1844 Posted 05 April 2017 - 12:26 AM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,507
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Pigeon, what about this?

 

Block Quote

Release Notes 0.6.3.1

  • Submarine removed, Commander sent to reserves trained for Orlan, Skill points saved
  • The sub's Port slot stays as a gift for you!

 

How does that work with:

 

View PostPigeon_of_War, on 31 March 2017 - 07:07 PM, said:

 

Not going to happen, but the idea was there at some point. 

More interesting captains may be coming in the future:read_fish:

 

?

 

This captain that's going to drop in reserve and be retrained to Orlan, will that be the same one? IE, same name and icon as the sub captain? Or just be a random captain with the same points but an existing portait / name?

 

<Edit> It seems we have our answer, Russianbias was dismissed and we got a 'normal' Orlan captain.


(Above stats not guaranteed accurate. I'm a supertester and test ships don't always register correctly)

 

Ship hipster: I liked Alabama before it was cool


Umikami #1845 Posted 05 April 2017 - 02:26 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,577
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013

View PostLert, on 05 April 2017 - 12:26 AM, said:

Pigeon, what about this?

 

 

How does that work with:

 

 

?

 

This captain that's going to drop in reserve and be retrained to Orlan, will that be the same one? IE, same name and icon as the sub captain? Or just be a random captain with the same points but an existing portait / name?

 

 

it's going to be a Russian version clone of Steven Seagull, called Stephan Segulski.

he comes with absolutely no skills at all and specializes in emptying vodka bottles and running into friendly ships.

he then passes out, but when he wakes up he cooks Borsht for the entire crew.

 

(try to contain your enthusiasm)


Edited by Umikami, 05 April 2017 - 02:27 PM.


YamatoA150 #1846 Posted 05 April 2017 - 10:04 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 4,486
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

View PostAduial, on 01 April 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

If that happens, her RoF would have to be reduced to the standard 4 RPM instead of the 4.2 (?) she has now. Otherwise her guns would be just straight-up better than the Mogami and Ibuki's.

That's a reasonable change, though I don't feel it really necessary, considering that she has worse firing angles than Mogami or Ibuki.

 

View PostAduial, on 01 April 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

I think nerfing her RoF would make the guns pretty bad. I think WG should allow the 155s to be an option, instead of a stock module. If you nerfed the RoF to historical levels (5RPM), her DPM would be slightly worse than the Chapayev's, while her fire starting capabilities would be significantly worse. 

Something has to give though for some reasonable traverse.  While I would like for WG to consider just straight up reversing the traverse nerf and nothing else on Mogami's 155s, considering that BFT/AFT/EM were already adjusted to exclude 155 primaries, I don't think that it will fly.  Maybe a slight RoF reduction somewhere around 5.75~5.5RPM, if not brought down to 5RPM.  It just needs to be made competitive again without being a completely superior choice to 203 Mogami.

 

View PostAduial, on 01 April 2017 - 04:49 AM, said:

I don't think Mogami and Atago need better AP, but Ibuki certainly does. 

Mogami and Atago both need it as well as Ibuki.

 

Mogami needs it to make the 203 AP performance better than Myoko and also more enticing to upgrade to; moreso, if the 155s simply had their traverse unnerfed, or had a slight RoF nerf along with the unnerfing of the traverse.

 

Atago needs it as she has the lowest RoF between Myoko, Mogami, and Ibuki, and worse firing arcs than Mogami and Ibuki.  This just keeps her in-line with Mogami in the gunnery aspect while still being better than Myoko.

 

And Ibuki does need it to slightly bring her general performance up a bit vs same-tier cruisers as well as against the most heavily armored BBs within the spread instead of constantly relying on HE for damage. Alternatively, just give her the Zao's 203s with a 16s reload time.  That buffs both her AP and HE performance, and makes her a much more enticing upgrade in general from Mogami (unnerfed and buffed or not).

 

The main thing is giving the IJN cruisers more direct combat capability, now that they don't have to hug the edges of their range spamming HE from T5 to T9, and at T8 and T9 especially, have a bit more AP kick without really affecting their overall stat performance.


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


Skyfaller #1847 Posted 08 April 2017 - 08:46 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 806
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I disagree with Mogami 155 ROF nerf. The ship has to give up NOTHING in exchange for having the turret rotation un-nerfed.

What made the Mogami OP before was the AFT plus the fire mechanics back then. AFT no longer increases 155 range and fire proc chance is nothing like it used to be back then. Heck back then I used to set dual fires consistently with Mogami 155 PER SALVO ... now only soviet cruisers do that.


 

Remember too that the turret rotation is still slow even with the un-nerfing compared to other cruisers..and thus Mogami needs to take the -ROF+Rotation upgrade to get it to match other cruiser's turret rotation. You have the nerf right there... or the Mogami has slower turrets than the 203s or other cruisers. Remember too that soviet bias is king..and thus the Chappy, having 152mm guns, not only has much higher fire chance, rotation rate and almost as high damage per HE shell than Mogami's 155... but it also gets a brutal damage increase with IFHE...which puts its damage output above mogami 155 with IFHE.


 

I don't see why Mogami needs more AP punch. Its quite nasty as it is even vs tier 9 and 10 cruisers.


 


 


-=Team Water=-


Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi #1848 Posted 09 April 2017 - 01:15 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Alpha Tester

  • 142
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

https://worldofwarsh...-2-b-kawaii-ld/

 

Pigeon I hope you can tell us that there are missions going to happen to get these ships otherwise I will be very disappointed that WoWs took the Blitz route and made their unique vehicles Premium shop only. I hope that you guys just forgot to say there would be missions but a little confirmation would be nice. (Also tell URL Guy to keep up the great work!)

 

Also can I get an answer on this?

Pigeon do you think that you could give this idea to Wargaming to maybe mitigate a bit of the hate the patch caused in terms of invisi-firing, while this will probably not satisfy everyone I think that it makes logical sense.

When you are in a DD you should not remain spotted for 20 seconds after firing, DD's have much smaller guns, Therefore the muzzle flash is smaller, this should be reflected in game by reducing the amount of time you have your detection range maxed out, Wargaming can keep their new mechanics just adjusted slightly so that DD's can shoot and not then have to panic for 20 seconds and not want to fire to avoid the hassle of having to doge everywhere for 20 seconds.

My thoughts (subject to appropriate testing time of course and subject to change):

Calibers below 5.9" - 8-10 seconds

Calibers between 6" and 12" - 11-14 seconds

Calibers between 12.1" and 16" - 14-18 seconds

Calibers above 16" 20 seconds

 

(I know I am repeating this but I really think this is the best solution to get people to stop being so angry about the removal of stealth-fire, not completely of course but less then currently.


Edited by Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi, 09 April 2017 - 01:15 PM.


Skyfaller #1849 Posted 09 April 2017 - 07:32 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 806
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Pigeon:

 

If Mogami turret rotation is indeed being lowered in the next patch then wonderful! That makes me very happy.


 

Shimakaze needs help. Its torps are trashed by the nerf and its guns are mostly harmless.


 

Torpedoes: Let's do the math.


 

Gearing:

16km range, 1.3km detect, 68 knots and 10 torps @ 18k damage each. Total torp damage: 180k.


 

Shimakaze:

20km torp has 2.5km detect, 62kn, 15 torps @ 21k damage. Total torp damage: 315k.

12km torp has 1.9km detect, 67kn, 15 torps @ 23.8k damage. Total torp damage: 357k.

8km torp has 1.9km detect, 71kn, 15 torps @ 21.4k damage. Total torp damage: 321k.


 

On paper the Shimakaze has practically twice the torpedo damage output but in reality the higher detection range makes that torp damage virtually vanish.


 

Pre-nerf the Shima was very OP because it had high damage torps with low detection range and it had 5 more torps than anyone else... the nerf it was given was not the way to balance it.


 

How to balance it:


 

The lower the detection range of the torps the slower the torpedoes.

The slower the torpedo the longer its range.

The longer its range, the lower its damage.


 

Applying this we end up with:

20km torp has 1.2km detect, 55kn, 15 torps @ 15k damage. Total torp damage: 225k.

12km torp has 1.5km detect, 60kn, 15 torps @ 20k damage. Total torp damage: 300k.

8km torp has 2km detect, 70kn, 15 torps @ 23k damage. Total torp damage: 345k.


 

Why this works:

The 20km torps have lower damage because the shima is not putting itself in danger firing from that far. The 1.2km detect and slow speed give it roughly the same reaction as Gearing torps and also its slower speed means the Shima has to 'lead' the torp shots a lot more than a Gearing.

The other two torpedoes gain more damage given the Shima has to get inside radar range and aircraft detection range and risk running into gunboat DDs that literally dominate and exterminate Shimakazes. The 8km torps are brutal but the Shima is at extreme risk using them.


 

Guns:

Shima guns cannot be used to defend itself because of the horrid turret rotation and the 2x slower ROF. It's even silly to use them offensively unless you're behind some solid cover and you've no other means of helping the team.


 

How about making the guns synergize with the torpedo armament?


 

Lower gun range to 8km. This counteracts the ship having the longest range torps.

Keep ROF and Turret rotation as is. Reason for it follows.

Increase fire chance to 14%.


 

The increased fire chance enables the Shima to counteract its lack of damage output due to rotation and ROF with fire damage..yet the lower ROF and the short range requires the shima to assume a ton of risk to do so.


 

Remember, Shima has the lowest hitpoints of any DD... as such risk=quick death.


 

Frankly I cannot see a reason why WG would refuse this. Soviet ships have insane fire chance and have twice the ROF... shima having 14% fire chance and short range with half the ROF would not be anything to cry about.

 


-=Team Water=-


WanderingGhost #1850 Posted 10 April 2017 - 05:41 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,525
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014

Pigeon, you guys really - really - need to take a long hard look at what value it is to keep team torp damage in the game and seriously consider just removing it altogether. What downside is there to removing?

 

"Removing it will increase torp spam"? - the whole reason this is even an issue is the number of people that are spamming it disregarding the safety of teammates anyway. Whatever change there will be will at worst minimal.

 

"Realism"? - this ain't a sim and if we want to talk about realism, then we have a WHOLE host of things to discuss that hey, involve balancing things out that are currently unbalanced.

 

"We have penalties"? - they do nothing.

 

"They'll get better"? - sorry, if they haven't figured it out by tier 6 and 7, they aren't going to.

 

I can not find ONE good reason for torpedo related team damage to stay, not.one.

 

All this does is breed animosity, cause issues, and hurt teams with trolls or fools. An all too familiar scenario for me, why my bad advice contest entry was on this subject, headed toward an enemy BB, firing away, becomes clear he's willing to ram. I go right well before that, I give him my broadside in a Dun, I go right when we get to this point, I round a ground and become a sitting duck, with just under half health (partially to a Farragut that despite no visible smoke and being in the open ocean was shooting at me unspotted) so my only option, go left and try to duck around him. Start the turn, and then that infamous sound of approaching torps crops up, and as I look to the hud, torps, from one of my teams DD's, headed right at me. Even had I not started this turn, I was still in the path, but now starting to go broadside to them. So I'm forced to come back right and hope I can hit the gap between that ship and the island. But I get hit by the two torpedoes which do damage, start a couple floods, and jam my rudder so my stern hits that ship and so we both die to a ram. And I was screwed anyway because my repair was down from having to put out fires. What scenario is this fair or fun pigeon? I'm out because someone else isn't paying attention and lets loose torps. He gets a penalty, albeit deserved that unless it turns him pink is a slap on the wrist. And sure, this time it ends in me taking a ship with me but now our team is down a ship. It makes sense in tanks, it has to be a perfect storm or arty splash to cause damage outside of intentional targeting. Even in that awful game somehow still allowed to be part of the "World of" games Warplanes it makes some sense, granted there was a point where module damage was in a state it was an issue just like here because Russian (go figure) planes were tearing wings off but accidents were still few and far between. Even here in regards to ship artillery, it makes sense because you have to be really not paying attention or foolish and often does little damage the handful of times I've seen it. But torps are just too much a damn issue to stay like this because they rack up way too many direct and indirect team kills and most players earn pink status because of the bloody things.

 

It is seriously better for everyone involved to just turn it off.



Pigeon_of_War #1851 Posted 10 April 2017 - 04:19 PM

    Assistant Producer

  • Developers

  • 594
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013

View PostFog_Repair_Ship_Akashi, on 09 April 2017 - 05:15 AM, said:

....Also can I get an answer on this?.....

(snip)

 

Oh yes, i thought I answered this, or rather I meant to on Friday and go sidetracked. No more excuses....

 

So I looked it over and this is not necessarily a bad idea, it's just complex. It would be difficult to explain to a new player that different caliber guns have different visibility detection times and that's why a ship is able to still open-sea invisibly fire at them.  This ultimately also still promotes invisible firing to some extent, which is what is not desired. 

 


(Main Avatar created by xtcmax)

(Signature avatar created by Kombat_W0MBAT)

Follow me on Twitter
Find us on Facebook!

 

Carrier_Ikoma #1852 Posted 10 April 2017 - 05:25 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,099
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostWanderingGhost, on 09 April 2017 - 10:41 PM, said:

"They'll get better"? - sorry, if they haven't figured it out by tier 6 and 7, they aren't going to.

 

Oh they still TK even at tier 10.

 

But the one good reason you're looking for? ...Risk vs Reward. (And yes I've been TKed with torps and it sucks but... I do think risk vs reward is a good thing myself)


The Balance devs are seeking

Special_Kay #1853 Posted 10 April 2017 - 06:00 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,660
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014

View PostPigeon_of_War, on 10 April 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

a ship is able to still open-sea invisibly fire at them.

 

I don't understand why you think that sugestion would re-enable open water invisifiring. I don't necessarily like the suggestion, but that response gives me the impression of a significant misunderstanding. Does your definition of invisifire include ships being visible for 8+ seconds if they only fired once? Any sustained fire would still lead to persistent visial contact under that scheme.

I am on vacation through June and into July 2017. There will be stretches where I am around infrequently, interspersed with stretches of complete absence.
Learn how to quantify the effect of fire chance modifications!

Enable replays! You never know when you will discover a bug or witness someone exploiting or being abusive, and demonstrating it to WG staff is much more difficult without a replay.


Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi #1854 Posted 10 April 2017 - 07:02 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Alpha Tester

  • 142
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostPigeon_of_War, on 10 April 2017 - 11:19 AM, said:

 

Oh yes, i thought I answered this, or rather I meant to on Friday and go sidetracked. No more excuses....

 

So I looked it over and this is not necessarily a bad idea, it's just complex. It would be difficult to explain to a new player that different caliber guns have different visibility detection times and that's why a ship is able to still open-sea invisibly fire at them.  This ultimately also still promotes invisible firing to some extent, which is what is not desired. 

 

 

Pigeon I think you misunderstood my post, I was saying that the Invisibility would still be like it is now, just that the time it is in effect duration is reduced for smaller guns, I guess I was a little vague on that part. The reason I made the suggestion is because I felt that yes, stealth-fire was an issue but the way Wargaming got rid of it punished the destroyers and (indirectly) buffed the battleships my system would not allow stealth-fire to occur again unless in smoke or behind cover (just like now and even if it could happen it would be for just 1 salvo). I just feel that this system would help with that, also someone could easily understand that if you have a bigger gun you would be spotted longer after firing, it's -ahem- 'common' sense. Besides this is the best solution to a problem you guys made why you guys thought you could make such a MAJOR change with only 8 DAYS (March 21st to March 27th https://worldofwarsh.../common/pt063/ ) of testing by players was arrogant and idiotic if you had given more time maybe you would of realized a template solution like this was not the best idea but who am I to say?

Pigeon_of_War #1855 Posted 10 April 2017 - 07:37 PM

    Assistant Producer

  • Developers

  • 594
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013

View PostFog_Repair_Ship_Akashi, on 10 April 2017 - 11:02 AM, said:

 

-Snip-

 

Without getting into major details, just because a new system was available on a Public Test for 8 days doesn't mean only 8 days of testing went into this. Please also bear in mind, as Sub-Octavian has said in multiple locations, stealth firing was an accidental mechanic that the game was never balanced for. It's complete removal means destroyers can now be played as intended. 


(Main Avatar created by xtcmax)

(Signature avatar created by Kombat_W0MBAT)

Follow me on Twitter
Find us on Facebook!

 

Zampy #1856 Posted 10 April 2017 - 08:07 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,790
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPigeon_of_War, on 10 April 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

 

Without getting into major details, just because a new system was available on a Public Test for 8 days doesn't mean only 8 days of testing went into this. Please also bear in mind, as Sub-Octavian has said in multiple locations, stealth firing was an accidental mechanic that the game was never balanced for. It's complete removal means destroyers can now be played as intended. 

 

Can you share the internal statistics tracked of all other nation destroyers vs VMF destroyers after the stealth fire change?  I'm legitimately interested in seeing some colorful graphical representation of the performance gap widening, especially the USN DD's.

Fog_Repair_Ship_Akashi #1857 Posted 10 April 2017 - 08:43 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Alpha Tester

  • 142
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostPigeon_of_War, on 10 April 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

 

Without getting into major details, just because a new system was available on a Public Test for 8 days doesn't mean only 8 days of testing went into this. Please also bear in mind, as Sub-Octavian has said in multiple locations, stealth firing was an accidental mechanic that the game was never balanced for. It's complete removal means destroyers can now be played as intended. 

 

I understand this I am saying that in the future that if a major change like this happens again it should be tested by the players at large (ie. public test) for longer then 8 days, and I understand why stealth-fire was removed and agree with it's removal I just feel that the WAY it was done was not the best and other options should of been explored and the current option tested more. I apologize if I came out as snippy, accusational or insulting, that was not my intent and as such I apologize I just felt that such a major change should of had a longer testing period by the player-base at large like with the scrapped BB Bow nerf earlier this year. 

 

Again i apologize for the tone of the previous post and if it sounded like I was saying you guys had not tested this that was not my intent.
 



draknoid80 #1858 Posted 10 April 2017 - 09:56 PM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 12
  • Member since:
    12-16-2012

another alternative on Fog_Repair_Ship_Ayakashi's stealth idea is change the detection bloom reset time.

Make BB detection 25 sec

CA/CL detection 20 sec

DD detection 15 sec

 

Finally make the concealment mod change to -10% detectability, -5 sec detection reset duration.

 

thus making ships like Cruisers or DDs have a greater ability to escape engagements with larger meaner ships. Sneaky BBs get to keep their decent ability to slink off and the rest of the bbs are no worse for wear.



TinStarShark #1859 Posted 10 April 2017 - 11:03 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 77
  • Member since:
    01-07-2013

View PostPigeon_of_War, on 10 April 2017 - 01:37 PM, said:

 

Without getting into major details, just because a new system was available on a Public Test for 8 days doesn't mean only 8 days of testing went into this. Please also bear in mind, as Sub-Octavian has said in multiple locations, stealth firing was an accidental mechanic that the game was never balanced for. It's complete removal means destroyers can now be played as intended. 

 

Stealth firing may have been an accidental mechanic, but with it being in the game for so long it became a core mechanic for IJN and USN DD's especially after IJN torp nerfs. The changes were wholly unnecessary without significant buffs to both DD lines.

Pugilistic #1860 Posted 10 April 2017 - 11:17 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 962
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

 

edit: duplicate removed


Edited by Pugilistic, 10 April 2017 - 11:25 PM.

The Shack was a famous watering hole in Chapel Hill NC across the street from He's Not Here. It was torn down, despite all predictions it would fall down first, about 1990. Preppy Heaven at Blue Heaven.





Also tagged with feedback, ideas, wows

6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users