Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

5 Neutral


About Curvette

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Birthday March 4
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Gardening, Mech Warrior Online, Child of Light, Ori and the Blind Forest

Recent Profile Visitors

559 profile views
  1. Curvette

    Error Contacting Server

    Looks like it's widespread then. :(
  2. Curvette

    Error Contacting Server

    Yeah, the chat server is down for me.
  3. Curvette

    How's Your Puerto Rico Progressing?

    Grind, baby, grind!
  4. First and foremost, battleships are sniper-tanks. Historically thats exactly how they operated and it's realistic and reasonable to have the this fact hold true in game, as well. They were bunker cannons all throughout history, thats by definition what a battleship is, in fact. A good example of a glass cannon on the other hand, is a cruiser. As for the opinion offered regarding playability and skill floors and risk, thats debatable, and at the very least I'll say I disagree with you. HE spamming in my opinion IS the lowest skill floor in the game, in terms of gameplay, and HE spamming is largely the purview of cruisers and gunship destroyers, not battleships. Not an argument. Nowhere in my post did I argue that the game was a sim. On that note I will however say that real-world realism does play an important role in World of Warships already, if you take a look at the painstaking detail the developers go through when modeling armor thickness and angle, you'll understand that. They model out everything to try and keep the RNG system as realistic as possible in regards to historical precedent, especially in regards to shell penetration/bounce and how your angle of fire relates to that. I personally think more realism will be better for the game overall, since the arcade'y nature of the game is whats causing so much discontent in the player base. Well no, smoke screen is a destroyer's first line of defense, and the fact that it's limited to just a few charges per match is in my opinion not only not realistic, but also detrimental to how the game is played. Destroyer's should in my opinion have unlimited charges. It should have been this way from the very start, IMO. Because of the fact that the smoke screen is a destroyer's first line of defense, increasing the amount of times it can be used is most definitely a buff. I would be fine with that for radar since radar doesn't penetrate islands very well. Hydro on the other hand I wouldn't agree with, since hydro is based on hydrophone capabilities. Sound propagates around obstacles just fine, anybody who has a noisy neighbor will understand this simple fact very well. I disagree completely. Support based actions already awards points in a match for: Shooting down aircraft Capturing control points spotting ships and aircraft So this isn't even remotely like a complete rework of the entire game. All it would be doing, is making it so that supporting actions would count for more overall. I also think Wargaming needs to move away from Win-Lose based rankings overall. Again, that's not an argument. lol. I agree with that. Well first and foremost, saying that BB's are currently without a counter is just plain silly. Torpedoes counter them pretty darn well, and so do...yes...other BB's. lol. In regards to everything else you said...no, it's simply not true. As I said in the previous post, capturing control points and spotting already award points under the current meta. What I've discussed is just...buffing the rewards you get from it. As for the comment about making CV aircraft weaker against destroyers, I agree. I think destroyers should have a little extra resistance to aircraft attacks since they are intended to be front-line scouts. Battleships and CV's usually are at the top of the damage rankings. AKA...they are the top-dogs in combat effectiveness. No, as I had explained it, they would be roughly equal to each other. Not reversed. I'm not sure what you're even trying to say there, but let me explain it like this. If support was roughly equal to damage in terms of rankings, then DD's would have a better time overall, since they would not have to try and do as much damage as a battleship or a CV. After all, you've said multiple times that you think BB's are OP already, and while I disagree with that, I think the claim itself would support the point I'm trying to make here. If battleships and CV's are dealing all the top damage in a match, why force DD players to try and match them? My whole argument about game balance was that we should make supporting actions count for more, so that DD's can keep up without having to be buffed or nerfed statistically. We can't buff or nerf our way out of the current problems with the meta. The developer's have been trying to do exactly that for a long time now. It just won't work. We need another solution, which is exactly what I was offering in my original post.
  5. BB's are already suffering from playability issues. Nerfing or buffing ships of any class won't fix the balance issues in the game, especially once submarines are implemented. The only way to restore balance is to change the way the ships themselves are played, and what the expectations for those classes are in a match. Too many people want and expect DD's to be some kind of fog cloud assassin (warship league of legends, anyone? lol), and while I don't have a problem with this notion, I think it's problematic. I don't think a DD should be equal to a battleship in a one on one match. It's not realistic. Instead, as they were in reality, they should be support platforms, that are highly effective at scouting, spotting aircraft and...destroying submarines. In addition they provide torpedo defense to the battle line, that forces enemy ships to maintain their distance, or close in as a group and use their torpedoes to break enemy battle lines (i.e make them scatter or sink). That's how they should be played. I think DD's are nerfed a bit too much presently. However, the best way to counteract this would simply be to: Give them unlimited smoke screens Give them a counter-measure to radar and hydro/sonar. Some type of jamming or acoustic decoys would be historically realistic. This would make their concealment more realistic. Change the way ships are ranked, so that providing support = damage in relevance. Give DD's more slots to make them more versatile. The Jack of all trades of the sea. Historically, DDs were never meant to be invisible ninjas. That was the role of submarines. The role of the DD was to prevent those ninja's from murdering all your friends at sea. :) Note: Another way to balance gameplay would be to reduce the speed at which capture points are acquired/loss, that would allow teams more time to defend or attack capture points. It would also still function to prevent games from going on too long.
  6. Yeah, but that would be a matchmaker/que problem more than anything else. An idea I floated years ago was making it so that players were able to vote during the matchmaking process, in the que, for what the overall team setup should be. For instance, voting for a balanced team, or perhaps voting for additional DD's. Right now the process is random, and ultimately based upon whatever's available at a given time, thus sometime team compositions are bad.
  7. I wasn't aware of that! However, I would have to disagree with that idea (based on the limited information contained in your post). I'll explain. Let's say submarines never surface, and thus are always submerged. This makes them more difficult to track and attack, logically; but it also means that damage cannot force them to the surface. I believe that would be a mistake on the developers part. As I said in my original post, I believe the most balanced approach to this, would be to allow them to submerge or surface at will, but also have it so that damage forces them to surface. In addition, I offered ideas concerning a timer-based flood mechanic, which would (as flooding already does) cause damage over time. These things would all help make submarines fun to play, but keep them in check in regards to game balance. Naturally, submarines would be easily attacked and destroyed while on the surface.
  8. So we've had more than a few anniversary's for World of Warships now, and we've seen many changes (mostly nerfs) over the years, as well as plenty of cool features and ships that have been well liked (and also plenty of the opposite). I'm not one to gripe constantly, and I dislike flaming developers who've poured their life blood into this game, so this is not intended to be anything like that. I enjoy the game a great deal, however I got bored with it and haven't played it now in over a year. I'm creating this thread just to invigorate a little friendly debate, and also give my two cents on the meta. Recently it has been announced that submarines, which the developers said they would NEVER add are being implemented into the game, and this time it's NOT an April Fool's joke. Alright, fair enough. I've always wanted submarines in the game and have always disagreed with the developers decision to exclude them over the years. So naturally with great excitement I read over all the news releases about the submarines, and...was absolutely horrified at the way they are planning to implement them. I.e, Automatic ASW gameplay, weird detection mechanics ect. The changes listed below will obviously require more consumable slots than we are now afforded. That's a change that would be necessary going forward. There's no way around it. I believe these changes could be implemented if we gave low tier ships just one additional slot for consumables, and higher tier ships two additional slots. If these bonus slots changed the balance of the game unreasonably, we could make it so that they can only be used for sub & anti-sub consumables, i.e used onboard submarines, or likewise, by surface ships against submarines. So here's my suggestions: First, lets make sure that ASW (anti-sub warfare) is NOT automatic at the push of a button. Let's implement mechanics that are realistic and make sense given the arcade style of the game. Sonar and Radar should all be given unlimited uses, but maintain current cool-down cycles, but with one change. Passive sonar, as described below, will operate at the current established sonar cool-down times. Active however, will be x1.5 or x2 the standard cool-down. Active sonar is significantly more effective, so it's important we limit its use. The reason for the unlimited use idea is because submarines will logically require a lot of sonar use to combat. It would be unreasonable to give sonar unlimited uses, but not radar, so we allow both to be unlimited. Radar however has a double cool-down period after 3 uses. This keeps radar fair. Sonar Technologies should be changed in game to represent the primary modes of use for the times represented in game, based on tier and technology-tree upgrades. Passive and active modes of operation should be represented realistically. Passive is representative of short ranged hydrophones while active represents the more advanced ping based systems which were more accurate and much longer ranged in terms of detection. Hydrophones might reasonably be around 2 km for low tier ships, and up to 6 km for higher tier ships. Passive systems should not reveal the exact locations of ships beyond 2 km, but instead give directional based information. Ping based active systems will give the exact location of submerged submarines out to whatever distance they are effective, which if we're being realistic could be as much as 12 to 15km. ASW weaponry should be kept to the variants typically found on ships. I.e, Depth-charges, hedge-hogs and Y-guns, as well as more advanced weaponry such as acoustic homing torpedoes; which would be available at higher tiers and suffer from the problems associated with them in real world-conditions (i.e no reliable friend-foe mechanism, and poor acquisition capabilities). These weapons would work like their real-world counterparts and have similar ranges, meaning in some cases you need to be nearly directly above the submarine to attack them. While submerged, submarines should have suitably low HP in order to keep things realistic. A direct hit from a depth-charge should be more than enough to destroy a submarine. These weapons should have unlimited numbers, but with cool-down periods that keep them from being unreasonable. The reason depth-charges should be unlimited (as a for instance) is because surface ships are allowed to have unlimited torpedoes. Likewise, submarines will also be allowed to have unlimited torpedoes. This means that we need to allow surface ships to carry unlimited quantities of anti-submarine weaponry. Depth-charges, IMO, should have longer cool-down times than the current times for torpedoes, however hedgehogs and Y-guns could have much lower cool-downs. This is an idea which would make ASW weaponry realistically differentiated. Detection of submarines when they are deep UNDERWATER should be based around the unlimited use of sonar, which will keep this aspect of the game realistic. Radar is useless against submerged submarines as you would suspect, however, sonar reveals them at whatever range the sonar is effective out to, range wise. I believe this should be based around nation, ship and tier characteristics. Some nations will have more advanced sonar at a similar tier than other nations. Let's make sure we keep anti-submarine weaponry consistent with historical ship load outs. I.e, Depth charges are most common on destroyers, therefore destroyers will be the ship most often tasked with hunting and destroying submarines. Aircraft should play an equal role in the game as they did in the real world. I.e, fighters and bombers should both be able to detect and attack submarines on the surface by strafing or bombing. Battleships obviously don't have ASW weaponry, but catapult aircraft could still conceivably attack subs on the surface, and perhaps a new consumable for calling in larger anti-sub aircraft for a limited duration of time could be implemented; these larger aircraft could then, as they often did in reality, attack submerged submarines and drop sonar devices. This gives battleships a highly effective but also highly limited ASW capability. Submarines themselves should be under similar constraints to surface ships. I.e, similar torpedo cooldowns, similar cool-downs on consumables. It's been suggested that the factor that constrains submarines most will be time spent underwater. I.e, they have a certain amount of air and that dictates how long they can stay submerged. I am against this idea. Submarines should be able to stay submerged as long as they want, and travel as far as they want. If they want to stay submerged the entire match, I think thats reasonable. Remember, unlimited sonar use will keep this in check in a realistic fashion. Even if submarines never surface (unless they take damage and are forced to), players will be able to use unlimited sonar to detect them. This maintains the game balance. This is why I said we need to switch to unlimited sonar earlier in the thread. Likewise, sonar cooldown times will give submarine players time to evade and escape if they are in danger. Submarines as I have said, should be allowed to stay submerged as much as they like; however, damage will force them (as one would expect) to surface. This will keep submarines balanced. Likewise, as I previously said, direct hits on a submerged submarine can easily destroy them. In-direct hits can cause light damage that will force them to surface. I believe submarines should have special repair party consumables, that will allow them to fix minor damage while staying submerged, without needing to surface. As one would expect, these cool-downs would be limited in use and thus submarine players would have to use them wisely. This will help maintain the game balance. In addition to the above point, when submarines take direct or in-direct damage, they will be given a visible timer, which dictates how many seconds they have to surface (before flooding). Failure to surface before the timer is up, would mean that the submarine floods and is subsequently destroyed. How long the timer is, depends on how much damage has been received. I.e, more damage means less time to surface, while less damage means the player would have more time to surface. I believe submarines should take continuous damage-over-time while the timer is in effect, to represent sustained flooding. The timer would simply represent how long they have before they hit 0 HP. This mechanic will force submarine players to act wisely. For instance, if the timer gave them 1 minute and 30 seconds to surface, then they have that long to possibly get away from their attackers, so that they could surface at a safer distance/location. However, they take damage during that entire duration. So if they wait until 1 minute and 20 seconds to surface, they may have little hp left. That may still be better than surfacing directly adjacent to a destroyer though! Submarines were historically slower (except for end-war/post-war period subs) while submerged. This will be represented in game. It will help keep submarines balanced. Submarines may, for instance, be capable of 12 kts while submerged, and 20 kts while surfaced. Thus submarine players may need to keep that in mind when planning underwater attacks and ambushes. It also ensures that destroyers would have the speed advantage, which is historically realistic. I believe some new additions will also be necessary given the nature of submarine warfare. Sonar for instance is good enough in most cases, but I believe M.A.D detectors should also be implemented as a consumable. I think MAD would operate as a kind of constantly active sonar. It would have less range than sonar (no more than 1 to 2 km), but it would effectively be active at all times. It would thus function like a very-short ranged version of active sonar. I.e, give the exact location of a deeply submerged submarine. In addition, this is unrelated to submarine gameplay, however, I would like to suggest a change to the way secondary-batteries are implemented. Currently, secondaries fire at ships within their given range with what we might consider to be random accuracy. I think this is fine as is, however, players should be able to take direct control of the secondaries and fire them accordingly, as they would the main batteries. This would give battleship players a reasonable accommodation in defending themselves from HE spammers. For the longest time a debate has raged on this forum, in relation to how the game deals with HE spamming. Currently theres no real limits on it. Spam away is the current logic. I'm okay with this. However, I believe a simple way to balance it, is to allow players to take direct control of their secondaries, and use them like they would the main battery. Spamming would be met with counter-spamming. This is historically accurate. When the player is not controlling the secondary batteries, they would fire in the current manner automatically. I believe they should have a more realistic accuracy when being directly controlled, however when firing automatically, they could have currently implemented accuracies. Thus players could strategically choose whether to control the main battery or secondary battery in a given situation.