Jump to content


Feedback and Thoughts Directly to Pigeon_of_War

feedback ideas wows

  • Please log in to reply
1982 replies to this topic

oz_boater #1861 Posted 10 April 2017 - 11:21 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 147
  • Member since:
    08-27-2013

View PostPigeon_of_War, on 11 April 2017 - 02:19 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. 

 

 

Sorry, don't follow that

 

1st

Pre 6.3 the explanation was "when a ship fires its guns its detect-ability increases by an amount that varies with its gun caliber and, if now spotted, this effect lasts for X seconds"

 

the suggestion was this change to "when a ship fires its guns its detect-ability becomes the same as its max fire range and, if now spotted, this effect lasts for a duration that varies with its gun caliber"

 

If people can understand the 1st sentence, I expect they can understand the 2nd

 

2nd

Quite explicitly they can't invisi-fire at them any more (the firer can be seen and targeted). The question is simply for how long.

 

It is wargaming's prerogative and responsibility to make design decisions about the game, and if you want to do it this way that is up to you of course. But I do suggest you have another think about this 


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


Pugilistic #1862 Posted 10 April 2017 - 11:23 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 964
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostZampy, on 10 April 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

 

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.

 

​A lovely idea. Post the performance statistics of all DDs pre- and post-0.6.3 in a graphic display. The average daily DD population in queue might also might be interesting.

 

<Carefully nuanced demurral inbound>

 


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.

WanderingGhost #1863 Posted 12 April 2017 - 06:01 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,536
  • Member since:
    01-27-2014

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. 

 

 

I respectfully disagree, especially with the times he talking about. I'd say make it based on ship - BB longest, cruiser mid, DD shortest, but even taking his numbers 10 seconds is plenty of time to spot him and line a shot up after they finish firing. Short of slow rating turrets faced the wrong way 5 seconds is enough. But I'm not even a DD player and I think what we have right now is a bit too extreme. DD's need a better means of strike and retreat that isn't fully reliant on smoke because A: it makes them stingy with smoke for their own use, not say, helping a teammate, B: once smoke is done your otherwise screwed for a while. And with ships primarily reliant on their guns being spotted for 20 seconds vs IJN, some German, and the higher tier USN are using torps, which are way more devastating, completely undetected. Sure, invisi firing was an issue, especially with fires as out of control as they are, but this is far from a perfect fix. 

 

Keep BB's with the nightmarishly long one, they usually stay spotted anyway.

Give cruisers a slightly lower gun bloom spot time than the BB's, give them a slightly better ability to run from BB's.

And give DD's the shortest so they are still spotted a bit after they stop firing to get an idea/take a shot, or cut their fire time if they fire and wait to a time almost as slow as some cruisers or BB's.

 

And if a new player can't comprehend "big boat, big gun, big visible boom" "medium boat, medium guns, medium boom" and "small boat, small guns, small boom" then I'm sorry but they are likely too young to play this game or the education system has truly failed them and I pity them. Because it's the same logic as the gun damage when simplified - big gun big damage, etc, across the classes.



33nfidel #1864 Posted 12 April 2017 - 09:34 AM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 981
  • Member since:
    06-17-2015

Idea from someone who plays plenty of DDs:

BALANCE THE NUMBER OF DDs PER TEAM!

Please balance the number of Destroyers per team, imbalance happens far too often and is nearly a given that the team with more DDs wins.

 

Spoiler

 


 

IF you really want to look na.warshipstoday.com/signature/1014514347/dark.png or http://static.wows-n.../1014514347.png


QJW #1865 Posted 12 April 2017 - 10:34 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,361
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

       Hey Pigeon, I got a suggestion on manual drop. What if manual drop was still in the game at teir 4-5, but it had the same spread as an automatic drop? Manual drop would only be the way it is now in game once the player reaches teir 6. I think this provides the best of both worlds. It takes away the big advantage of manual drop of being so accurate and so damaging at low teir, but it still has the bonus of both exposing the player to manual drop early on and having some level of skill at teir 4-5 CV play.

     

Just a thought and I would like you opinion on this idea.


 
-Never give in, Never give up, Never surrender.
-Always give in 110% Dam it!
-Don't believe in yourself, believe in the QJW that believes in you. ^^

Doomlock #1866 Posted 13 April 2017 - 12:37 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 1,746
  • Member since:
    07-09-2013

Hey Pigeon, I got a small suggestion (More like a small fix): on the IJN ships that require it e.g. Myoko, Kongo, Fuso etc. Can they get their stressed vowels? I know some of the newer IJN DDs have them and it would be nice to get the uniformity for all the ships. 

 

While you're at it, could we get the stressed Japanese vowels for the forums too? In the "Insert Special Character" box?


Fair winds and following seas! -Doomlock

Doom lord of HiNon: Purveyor of ship knowledge.

 

My Complete list of Warship Pics and AHLA's


Jakajan #1867 Posted 14 April 2017 - 08:29 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 887
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015

I just want to send a quick shout out thank you for some of the things that war gaming has been addressing in patches lately.

 

US cruisers are in a better shape than they were. IJN Destroyers are not there yet, but looking better. The upcoming tweaks to German cruisers are appropriate and necessary. Might need a tiny gun damage buff but have to be careful to not make them better than Russian AP right?



SalvoSanta #1868 Posted 15 April 2017 - 03:03 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 731
  • Member since:
    08-01-2016

Hey Pigeon,

 

Just wondering when there is going to be a 'No CV' battle option, so I can start playing again?

 

Thanks



Jakajan #1869 Posted 15 April 2017 - 08:40 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 887
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015

Having the option to display ship names in their native languages might be nice too for people who are multi lingual.



Jakajan #1870 Posted 16 April 2017 - 08:45 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 887
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015
Speaking of carriers can you comment any about upcoming changes to cv? If nothing specific mechanically what are the design goals of changing CV? Making them more accessible and easier to play? Changing the skill cap? Just curious if you can say anything general about them.

Hiro_Yoshi #1871 Posted 17 April 2017 - 12:51 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 46
  • Member since:
    12-11-2015
Pigeon, I'd like your response to this suggestion. The Akizuki can be easily fixed by adjusting its base HE armor penetration to 20mm. This is based on 100mm divided by 5 instead of 6. Aki really needs this added flexibility to revive it.

Pigeon_of_War #1872 Posted 17 April 2017 - 05:07 PM

    Assistant Producer

  • Developers

  • 595
  • Member since:
    10-21-2013

View PostJakajan, on 14 April 2017 - 12:29 AM, said:

I just want to send a quick shout out thank you for some of the things that war gaming has been addressing in patches lately.

 

US cruisers are in a better shape than they were. IJN Destroyers are not there yet, but looking better. The upcoming tweaks to German cruisers are appropriate and necessary. Might need a tiny gun damage buff but have to be careful to not make them better than Russian AP right?

 

You're welcome! It's the continued feedback from you players that make my Monday reports for content filled. 

(Main Avatar created by xtcmax)

(Signature avatar created by Kombat_W0MBAT)

Follow me on Twitter
Find us on Facebook!

 

Tpaktop2_1 #1873 Posted 18 April 2017 - 04:54 AM

    Ensign

  • Alpha Tester

  • 875
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
  • Why is there no fire assit for team mates by using your damage control party for putting out your team mates ship fire? You cannot help your team mate when they are on fire. Ships did do that action in WW2.
  • How about saying "Check fire! "Check fire! Friendly in danger" and the guns don't fire at all to prevent team damage? How about some pro-active programming that can be done with that thought?

 

 

 

 



"I have not yet begun to fight!" - Capt. J.P. Jones

 

In the sky, on the ground and in the sea. Remember the Murmansk! For Gunlion's sake

Flush your DNS: Press the Windows key + R to open the run dialog, and enter this command: ipconfig /flushdns     Now restart your computer.


Pendragon1951 #1874 Posted 18 April 2017 - 05:26 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 373
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

@Pigeon_of_War I believe Yuzal makes a excellent point of the possibility of most players being able to earn the big prize in the current Clash of the Elements if you could watch and comment on this video

https://www.youtube....h?v=jTuKBjAe8s4



Scytheon #1875 Posted 18 April 2017 - 04:38 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 77
  • Member since:
    07-10-2015
Hey Pigeon, just wanted to say I'm super psyched about this next patch (Cruiser armor/detection buff mostly). I did want to speak out about the Tirpitz secondary buff though, 7k is way too much. While she did need a buff, this now makes her far and away better than her tech tree counterpart which IMO is not the purpose of premiums. 5k would have been much better as it would place her on equal range terms as Scharn+Gnies in addition to her extra secondaries and torps it would have been a better progression and balance. Before you bite my head off and say that Bismarck has hydro, remember that it was nerfed a couple patches ago so while still handy it is nowhere near as competitive or useful. Owning a Bismark seems redundant now when compared to Tirpitz, the nice balance between tech tree and premium that Sharn/Gneis or Chapayev/Kutuzov have was skipped entirely.

Gandariel #1876 Posted 18 April 2017 - 04:50 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 466
  • Member since:
    01-21-2014
deleted.

Edited by Gandariel, 18 April 2017 - 04:51 PM.


Schroughphie #1877 Posted 18 April 2017 - 05:57 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 29
  • Member since:
    08-18-2016

Hey Pigeon.  I know it has been brought up before but restricting the Tier III / IV / V battles to 1 CV per side would go a long way to reducing frustration of new players. At those Tiers the low speed, poor maneuverability, and almost non-existent AA is a horrible situation.

 

Just thinking. 


Schroughphie (it's pronounced Scruffy)

SyndicatedINC #1878 Posted 18 April 2017 - 07:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 708
  • Member since:
    01-18-2016

View PostScytheon, on 18 April 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

Hey Pigeon, just wanted to say I'm super psyched about this next patch (Cruiser armor/detection buff mostly). I did want to speak out about the Tirpitz secondary buff though, 7k is way too much. While she did need a buff, this now makes her far and away better than her tech tree counterpart which IMO is not the purpose of premiums. 5k would have been much better as it would place her on equal range terms as Scharn+Gnies in addition to her extra secondaries and torps it would have been a better progression and balance. Before you bite my head off and say that Bismarck has hydro, remember that it was nerfed a couple patches ago so while still handy it is nowhere near as competitive or useful. Owning a Bismark seems redundant now when compared to Tirpitz, the nice balance between tech tree and premium that Sharn/Gneis or Chapayev/Kutuzov have was skipped entirely.

 

 :great: Very much this, even as a happy Tirp owner, it is a bit too much.

 

 

"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)


Hiro_Yoshi #1879 Posted 18 April 2017 - 07:46 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 46
  • Member since:
    12-11-2015

View PostTpaktop2_1, on 17 April 2017 - 11:54 PM, said:

  • Why is there no fire assit for team mates by using your damage control party for putting out your team mates ship fire? You cannot help your team mate when they are on fire. Ships did do that action in WW2.
  • How about saying "Check fire! "Check fire! Friendly in danger" and the guns don't fire at all to prevent team damage? How about some pro-active programming that can be done with that thought?

 If such a thing were to be implemented, there would need to be a penalty to the ship(s) engaged in assisting others with damage control. The ship conducting the assist would have to match the course and speed of the damaged friendly, exposing itself to attacks. This did happen on numerous occasions, which is why many damaged ships had to fend for themselves until the battle was over.


Edited by Hiro_Yoshi, 18 April 2017 - 07:49 PM.


Lert #1880 Posted 18 April 2017 - 08:37 PM

    Admiral

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 11,527
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Hey Pigeon, can you throw this idea at the higher-ups?

(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






Also tagged with feedback, ideas, wows

7 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 7 guests, 0 anonymous users