Jump to content

The_Invisible_Swordsman

Beta Testers
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    3405
  • Clan

    [SMP]

Community Reputation

12 Neutral

About The_Invisible_Swordsman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

48 profile views
  1. Has This Radar Change Been Previously Suggested?

    That's a good point. I think I'd prefer that though because it puts more emphasis on decisions made and actions taken by several different players, rather than just one person pushing a button. It could actually encourage some good synergistic team play, with a radar cruiser working closely with a gun DD to fight for a cap. Cruiser mini-map spots the enemy DD on the mini-map but has to send the ally DD in close to ferret it out. Let me know if my experience is atypical, but what I usually see now, by contrast, is a DD radar being spotted by a cruiser standing-off 8-10 km away, a bunch of other cruisers and BBs about that far off just swiveling their guns to blast the DD for 50-100% of its hp, then (if it lives) the DD that was hit running away and playing very passive the rest of the game (and that's if you can find a DD that's willing to be non-passive at all until radar ships are thinned-out). Personally, I think the Cruiser/DD hunter killer combo would be a lot more interesting and dynamic than what usually happens right now when a DD is radar-spotted on a cap, which basically just makes the DDs damage pinatas for whoever happens to be nearby. -TIS
  2. I apologize in advance for continuing to beat to death (and beyond) the horse that is radar...and for missing any prior posting of my suggested revision. I've read a lot of posts on radar but there are too many to read them all, so I might have missed someone else making this suggestion. SUGGESTED REVISION: Splitting Radar Detection into 2 Detection Ranges: (a) Mini-Map Detection and (b) map draw detection Right now, when radar detects a ship, it simultaneously detects it for mini-map purposes AND makes the ship appear on the regular map. The suggested change would split radar detection in two. Devs would look at radar ships and ADD 1-2km of detection range to existing radars for purposes of putting an in-range ship on the mini map...so the radar ship and its team would know there was a DD there and could start making taking actions based on that (start evasive dodging, decide to send ships to actively hunt the DD, etc.). They could even take some pot shots based on the mini-map location. On the other hand, all existing radars would have 1-2km in REDUCTION to the range that they completely draw a detected ship onto the map. EXAMPLE: A 9.45 km range radar now could be revised to draw ships up to 10.95 km away on the mini-map, but only puts them on the regular map at 7.95 or closer. WHY I THINK THIS WOULD BE BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE: Even as someone who plays DDs more than cruisers, I concede that radar should exist in some form at higher tiers, as both a nod to historical accuracy and to mitigate against a catastrophic level of ninja torp walls. That said, radar as it exists right now doesn't seem focused on rewarding skill and judgment in a game that generally appeals more to older players who like to focus on us of skill and judgement in their games. Additionally, even though I'm still focused more on tier 8 than 9-10, even at that lower tier it seems that heavy radar tends to make the game more passive (and dull IMHO). Conversely, the concerns that Cruiser and BB players have about not being able to use skill to counterplay ninja torp walls aren't without merit. Finally, the situation of cruisers radaring entire caps from behind a solid island where they can't be hit is both frustrating and silly. I remember hearing a dev giving an interview on The Warships Podcast to say it was too difficult and time consuming to fix easily, and I concede that they would know more than me on that, but it's still frustrating and silly. In any case, I think split radar would make the above issues at least less bad, and would be easier to implement than some other suggested solutions. Most importantly, I think the change would result in more skill and judgment being exercised on all sides. If a DD is detected on a mini map, they have to think and make a decision about whether they want to press-in still, hoping to either stay out of map draw range or that the radar duration will run by then, or to play it safe and sail away. BBs and CA/CLs will know that a DD exists and generally where it is pretty far out, so they'll be able to start taking evasive action. If they choose not to, they have no more excuse for their own death by torps than a DD who sits still in smoke. Once a DD is detected, under the new radar model, the "destroyer hunter" role of cruisers would be more heavily emphasized, as they'd be the ones who would have to decide if, based on the mini-map detection, if they are going to actively try to chase down and kill the detected destroyer or not. Finally, a radar ship has to decide whether it wants to focus on detecting ships further-out on the mini map so their team can react to them (at the cost of warning-away DDs outside killing range or the duration expiring before a close-in kill is achieved) OR hording the radar for close-in killing of DDs at knife-fighting range. While radar would still go through solid land, pending a future fix by WG, the shorter range of radar capable of drawing a ship on the regular map would make radar ships less able to sit behind an island and dominate a cap with radar. Yes, they'd be even more likely to be able to generally detect an enemy ship on a cap, but it should be harder to just push a button to completely reveal a DD and instantly have other ships around the cap destroy any capping DDs while the radar ship faces no risk. Finally, I think this is a more "cinematic" feel for radar than currently exists, as it echos how radar and sonar acts like in popular military fiction. At longer ranges, with an initial contact, an operator will usually only have general information for their captain...that something have been detected, generally where it is, generally how big it is, etc. Only as ranges close and the contact persists does the operator fill-in more details about what they are facing. The current in-game radar...where you go instantly from no knowledge at all to knowing every possible piece of info, seems less realistic/cinematic to me. In any case, seems like radar is something that draws a lot of heated comments and would benefit from some sort of revision. Wanted to offer a constructive idea with the hope that, even if not viewed as a good route for revision, may spur other useful ideas. NOTE: Feel free to delete this post if it deemed duplicative, or more if it would be better suited to a different sub-forum. -TIS
  3. It is unfortunate how CVs seem to be in ongoing state of confusion in the game. When I first started playing WoWs, I thought CVs were going to be my favorite class, as I liked playing artillery about 25-33% of the time in WoT. As an older player, liked how arty emphasized judgment (where to focus attention for max effect) and patience (when to shoot for max effect) over more twitch-based skills. Thought that CVs would be similar. For some reason, though, they didn't really appeal to me as much and didn't find myself as good at them. Most of all, didn't seem as fun. Micro-managing all the different squadrons with the current interface often felt more like work than fun and it seemed like a large percentage of time I was just waiting for my planes to fly back and reload. Anyway, stopped at about Tier 6. That said, even as a non carrier player I feel like the game loses something by not having themin the game much. Playing mostly at tier 8, I see a CV only in about 1/3rd of games, 2 CVs per team maybe one out of ten. It seemed like CVs were originally intended to counter certain aspects of passive play (i.e. sitting stationary behind islands, slowly backing-up while shooting, etc...as CVs can hit these immobile or slow-backing targets easily) and the game suffers for the lack of that counter. Also, for certain ship lines, great AA is a built-in advantage that is intended to make-up for other weaknesses. If there are few to no CVs, the value of having great AA is really lessened and perhaps they should get buffs to compensate. I rarely spec a ship for AA any longer, since CVs are so rare and, when they do show-up in a game, I'm not always their target. In the rare case that I'm in a 2 CV per side game and I get targeted, I just write it off as an acceptable risk. For BBs especially, I'm much more likely to consider a secondary build over an AA build. Much more likely to be of use in any given game. I don't have any suggestions on how to rework CVs. It's a tough task where I don't envy WG. More than anything else, though, I think they should be fun for at least a significant subset of WoWs players. What got me away from CVs wasn't my credit earnings or xp, but more just the sense it wasn't as fun to play CVs as other ship types. I do think we need CVs in the game though. Even at an arcade-leaning level of play, I think the game loses something without CVs.
  4. Book Series Destroyermen by Taylor Anderson

    You want to start from the first with this series, because it establishes the context for all the following books.
  5. Who have you seen in game

    Most recently, Little White Mouse and Pigeon of War...together in a division...each with a Scharnhorst. Of course, things went badly for my team very quickly. The only thing that particularly surprised me was, when I suggested we focus fire them first, the others on my team didn't seem to understand who they were or why they were particularly dangerous. ...It was at that moment I knew the match was over.
  6. Book Series Destroyermen by Taylor Anderson

    It is a good series. Like to read it as a straightforward escapist pleasure when work gets particularly stressful. It may be a challenge for some of the ships, they might need to be downtiered because of the downgrades they get in the plot. That said, you could make some unique missions out of the book plots. Captaining WWII ships being attacked by biplanes, zeppelins, and ironclads. Could be fun. WG could probably get a good deal from Anderson on using the IP, as the cross-promotion would likely benefit him (as far as new customers) more than WoWs. I think a lot of WoWs players would enjoy the Destroyermen series and get hooked if they were exposed. Not sure the reverse is true.
  7. Utility/Support Ships - 13th Ship Mode

    I must have missed that dev post when it was put up originally. :-)
  8. Ships you suck at but shouldn’t

    The Missouri for me. I think mainly because I heard so much from others about what an amazing premium ship it was that , when I finally got it, I subconsciously expected it would win every game and print me a million credits each time without me having to play particularly well.
  9. Sub_Octavian is one of the developers. Perhaps you should pitch your idea directly to him

    1. The_Invisible_Swordsman

      The_Invisible_Swordsman

      Good suggestion. I would not have thought of that. 

      Thanks!

  10. Utility/Support Ships - 13th Ship Mode

    An excellent point I hadn’t considered. Some of those ship types would need alternative ways of getting xp. Even with something like a minelayer, you’re more about discouraging an enemy from going a certain way than inflicting damage. I will think more on it. Also, I’ll try to clean-up the formatting on the original post later tonight.
  11. Utility/Support Ships - 13th Ship Mode

    Sorry...I have no idea why the list formatting is screwed-up and was unable to fix the spacing when I tried to edit the post.
  12. Utility/Support Ships - 13th Ship Mode

    I want to pitch the idea of bringing a slot for support ships in WoWs...with limits to stop things from getting crazy. Support ships would be a separate class from BBs, CA/CLs, DDs, and CVs and they would only be allowed in missions and for players who enable the “13th Ship” games mode [1 per side]. Anyone who didn’t want to play a game with them in it would not ever have to. In missions, having support ships would open-up a whole new list of cool ideas the devs could make missions out of, such as something akin to the Battle of Semar where support ships have to hold-out against a much stronger attacking force. In random games, a single support ship on each side could introduce more dynamic game play by (a) opening-up new options for teams, (b) giving enemies new targets to hunt, and (c) bringing-in a ship option focused on gamers who enjoy support roles. By limiting the number of support ships (in random matches) to 1 per side, however, it would stop them from too drastically altering the fundamental game play and turning it into “World of Support Ships” or something ridiculous. A lot of the ships would be built upon mechanics that are already written into the game, in one form or another, but would just be adapted to work on player ships. Obviously, adapting the special abilities into playable ships in the game will involve some playtesting and balancing, but I think it could be made to work and having only 1 per team should limit any impact of an initial roll-out being OP or under-powered. Finally, I think the ships would appeal to WG from a business perspective. For a certain kind of player (those who like playing support) I think they’d have a great appeal that doesn’t exist as much for any ship currently in the game (CVs come closest, but they are more a main role in an RTS than a support role in a sim game). I think a good number of players would spend resources to power-level up support lines and/or buy some quirky but fun premiums that could be released as support ships. If anything,I think a big issue with support ships would be that the initial demand might result in long waits for games for those who want to play them (because of the limited number permitted per game)...so might a good idea to have a mission that is support ship heavy in the beginning so some can get it out of their system. In the long run, those who are looking for intense naval action will gravitate back towards their normal ship classes and support ships will be a niche for a certain kind of player...or a regular players who want to try something different now and again. Anyway, I listed below some ideas I had for types of support ships with a parenthetical notation of what their general ability would be. Some, like mine sweepers, may be a challenge to integrate without causing stagnation in games while others, like net ships, may be more a challenge to make interesting...but I decided to go big for the sake of completeness. For each of the types I list as a “Major Type” there seem to be at least enough ship classes to form a tech tree for at least one nation. I know this suggestion may sound unusual but, if nothing else, I thought it might serve a catalyst for other ideas by the community or devs. Ships types and general design principles below: Major Types (enough to have a tech tree) - Minelayers/sweepers (lays/removes spottable low damage mines with timed duration) -Replenishment/Repair Ships (boosts/restocks consumables, repairs HP dmg) -Cargo Ships (bonus capping points per tick) -Amphibious Assault Ships (Ability to install AI gun/AA positions on nearby land using Slot ability, +1 cap point per tick) -Seaplane Tenders (carries large # of slow+controllable spotting planes...who may also be able to be poor quality attack planes in a pinch) -Commerce Raiders & Q-ships (cannot cap, shoot, or be shot until “activated”. +1 cap Point per tick). -Net Ships (lays/removes anti-torpedo zones with timed duration...hard to make fun, but there were A LOT of these ships) -Training ship (bonus xp to friendly team [if survives battle] or enemy team [if sunk]) -Command Ship (gains special interface abilities to coordinate team, such as ability to write on mini-map, etc.)* * Command ship usable only in team matches or within division mates Minor Types (Premium Ships) -PT Boat Tender (Carries PT boat pairs that are controlled like air squadrons) - i.e. USS Hilo -Airship Tender (low level - like seaplane tender; more vulnerable aircraft with larger spotting radius) - i.e. USS Wright -Weather Ship (reduces vision effect of storms) Support Ship Design Principles: -Utility/Support Ships limited to “13th Ship Mode” or Operations -In combat, support ships should generally lose to enemy DDs...unless there is a massive skill difference or enemy DD is at low HP. Almost always lose to Cruisers and BBs. (support ships are generally slower with slightly sub-DD guns) -At higher levels support ships lose relative combat ability at their tier in exchange for more effective special abilities -Maximizing the utility of support ships usually requires either (a) putting them at greater risk and/or (b) being close to friendlies they are aiding I’ve thought in greater detail about how each ship could be balanced to be effective, fun, not OP, and not making game play less interesting...but I’ll post o more for now so I don’t end-up turning this into a book-length post. (more than it already is)
  13. Massachusetts makes losing fun

    Agree completely. The Mass doesn't have all the benefits of a Bismark with even better secondaries. I think it does best with a slightly different play style. Its secondaries are stronger offensively, but it's weaker defensively in that its armor and layout makes you more vulnerable to taking damage than German ships and you also feel the effects of HE more harshly. With a German BB, I'd be much more eager to push-in to point blank range for a 1km exchange, where my secondaries can blaze away and I can rely on my German armor to minimize how much I get punished in return. With the MA, this can go wrong a lot more easily, as a skilled enemy put enough damage on you quickly to overwhelm your heal. My best games in the Mass are when I can be angled at medium ranges (7km-11km) for a while, preferably with some low obstacles between me and my target, where my secondaries can pound away but I'm not getting damaged faster than my heals can deal with...ideally, I'm kiting away while maintaining my range band, but that's not always possible. I try to avoid going point blank with the Mass unless I have to. She doesn't last there as well as German BBs.
  14. Massachusetts makes losing fun

    Yeah, I liked playing the Bismark for the secondaries also, but the MA has started to edge it out lately for me. The Mass secondaries have been better at lobbing shells over islands for me and I've been able to out-trade German BBs when I can get things between us. That said, glad more players aren't like you. ;-) Also glad that there seem to still be a lot of players who don't seem to know what the Mass is good at. Just last night I had 3 different DDs who started chasing me when I was already at 6km and moving away towards a BB v. BB fight...needless to say, they didn't last long.
  15. why not predreadnought battleships

    Agree with the comments others have made, but also: I think having a lot more pre-dreads might have a limited value to WoWs players on average because of how they'd tier. I tend to avoid tier 1-3 game play because (1) it seems to take a lot longer to find games. I assume because there are less people playing at those levels. (2) If you are and experienced player playing at those levels, you are doing it mostly just for fun, because it takes very little time to earn xp needed to get through them and the credit rewards are smaller. (3) I tend to feel like I'm just seal-clubbing so I don't want to play more than a few games down at those tiers in a given month (mostly just to take a fun premium out for a spin). Pre-dreads would presumptively be tier 2 ships. WG would be putting-in a lot of work (the same as with other ship development), to come-out with ships that wouldn't get as much play as higher tier ships. I feel like the only way it could be more attractive would be a change in the tiering structure...like if what is currently Tier 1 was changed into a "Tier 0" and pre-dreads were the 3rd step up the tree instead of the 2nd...that's probably a crazy thought.
×