Jump to content

Widar_Thule

Members
  • Content Сount

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

Community Reputation

40 Neutral

About Widar_Thule

  • Rank
    Seaman
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

144 profile views
  1. Initial response 1. Naval Training Center The Good I approve of the concept of improving your "favourite ship". I approve of a 3-layer system that improves your "favourite" ship. I approve of a concept where you can improve your favourite ship by playing that ship. The Bad I understand that some people "grind". But I do not. My time on this planet is too valuable to "grind". I just want to play the ships that I like and not waste time on ships that I do not like. If that means buying a premium ship then I will buy the premium ship. This "Naval Training Center" system seems to want to force me to "grind" ships that I am no interested in. If I do not "grind" then I seem to get weaker ships than those that do grind. That concept I do not approve of. It looks as if premium ships are downgraded compared to upgraded ships if they are not upgraded via this "ginding" system. For me as a paying customer it is not acceptable to see my premium ships weakened for no acceptable reason whatsoever. I did not pay money for premium ships to see them downgraded due to an upgraded environment that can only be matched by "grinding" ships that I am not interested in. That concept I do not approve of. I am not interested in playing fantasy ships (meaning ships with no completed design or that were never built) that never existed and not interested in ships that were only brought to a level of readiness after late 1945 (like the Carrier MIDWAY for example). That means that I am not in the least interested in Tier 9 and 10 ships in general and in some national ship lines in particular that have mostly fantasy ships. This "Naval Training Center" system forces me to play Tier 9 and 10 ships several times over to have upgrades to keep my favourite ships competitive. That means this system is trying to force me to do something that I do not like, and thus will not do, to stay competitive. That is unacceptable, if forced to do so then I will play a game where this principle is not at work. That concept of playing a ship line to Tier 9 and 10 ships several times over to stay competitive is a concept I do not approve of. Suggestions for improvement of this system: Allow players the option to get the upgrades for their favourite ship by playing that ship X amount of times. That way it will not feel like a "grind" but just like playing the game as always, just with the added incentive that you will get upgrades simply for playing your favourite ship X amount of times. This "ginding" of ONLY your favourite ship could be allowed IN ADDITION to the "grind" through the lines system that was presented by WOWS today. I would prefer however to allow a player to improve any ship by playing THAT ship X amount of times. Time is precious, do not force players to play ships against their will to stay competitive. Introduce the "Flagship of the Fleet" concept that I have proposed on this forum IN COMBINATION with the "Naval Training Center" system. So use this 3-layer bonus system from the "Naval Training Center": Battleships Level 1 2 3 Name Survivability Main and Auxiliary Armaments Consumable Bonus +15% to hit points -10% to size of the dispersion ellipse +10% to secondary armament firing range +10% to secondary armament accuracy -10% to reload time of all consumables +40% to action time of Damage Control Party +1 charge of all consumables Cruisers Level 1 2 3 Name Survivability Main and Auxiliary Armaments Consumable Bonus +10% to hit points -20% to rudder shift time -15% to size of the dispersion ellipse +10% to torpedo range +10% to maximum damage of torpedo -15% to reload time of consumables +1 charge of all consumables Destroyers Level 1 2 3 Name Survivability Main and Auxiliary Armaments Main Armaments Bonus +10% to hit points -10% to reload time of consumables -20% to rudder shift time -50% to the steering gears repair time -50% to engine repair time -10% to reload time torpedo tubes -10% to reload time main battery +10% to maximum damage of torpedo +2% to chance of causing a fire For the proposal that I made called "Flagship of the Fleet". I am sure that if you allow players to upgrade ONE SHIP like this for FREE, meaning their favourite ship as described in this topic, that they will be much more positive about the system than if you take EVERYTHING away from them by forcing them to "grind" for EVERY SINGLE ship. At least give the players ONE fully upgraded ship, called the "Flagship of the Fleet". The "Flagship of the Fleet" could be implemented as part of the "Naval Training Center" system, so the first upgraded ship the player would then get for "free". The player would get ONLY ONE ship upgraded for free in this manner. 2.Rework of Consumables I approve of this. In fact I do not see any disadvantage with this. 3.Matchmaker improvements I approve of this. On the surface it looks fine.
  2. EDIT: I accidentally posted in the wrong topic. I have removed the text from this topic and re-posted it in the topic for which it was written:
  3. Well now that I have seen the "Naval Training Center" system that will be introduced, I am not so sure. I would not be surprised if a Commander rework is already being worked on.
  4. Widar_Thule

    AA is Ridiculously Over Powered

    I would love to see a hardcore WW2 naval simulator. and buy it.. but unfortunately no one is making one. Maybe the people making Il-2 (Russia) will do something along those line one day, hopefully, maybe. It is a pity, all those billionaires in the USA and not one of them wants to spend 3 millions buckazoids to make a decent WW2 naval sim, you know just for the hell of it... In the meantime we have WOWS... I have to say though.... what you write... do you still believe that after the great "WOWS Carrier Rework" experiment that has been running now since version 8.0 was rolled out in January 2019?
  5. I agree with you on that: people will complain. Because there are always people that find an angle to complain about something. Bless their heart. All fun aside. For those skills where WOWS Development would find it too strong or not useful, they could simply ignore those and not give any bonus when you select that skill. And instead simply only apply the skill to the first three skills that you choose for which a bonus is allowed. Of course that would have to be explained somewhere to the player base. As to possible complainers, yes that could happen. I could even understand that some players would not like it to have to re-skill their Unique Commanders. But they will get a better customized Unique Commander back for it in return, so I am sure they will come around when they see it is to their advantage.
  6. Because I see too many of them that are so scared of Carrier Aircraft that they not even dare to advance to a capture point... A few matches back I had several matches where I got a close "escort" in my Tier 8 Carrier GRAF ZEPPELIN, by that I mean someone sailing right next to my ship for the whole match. Just some anecdotal example. Once for example a Tier 9 MUSASHI took up position right next to me in the bottom row of the map and sailed alongside my Carrier for the whole match without firing a shot, I had a collision every time I changed course. Another one was a Tier 10 MONTANA doing the same. Then there was a Tier 10 CHABAROWSK that sailed along my Carrier the whole match and that wrote in chat that he refused to capture with Carriers in the match because Destroyers were "unplayable". In another match a Tier 10 SHIMAKAZE took up position between my Carrier and the fleet and stayed there the whole match without doing anything. All of them were experienced players...
  7. Widar_Thule

    AA is Ridiculously Over Powered

    Be careful indeed... you might get that thrown right back at you with: limited ammunition for Main, Secondary, Tertiary and Anti-Aircraft Guns, not to mention a single torpedo load... Heaven forbid crew fatigue being introduced that lowers rate of fire and accuracy... Not to mention that small ships cannot hold their speed against heavy seas, making Destroyers slower against the wind in heavy seas than Cruisers and Battleships. Imagine a Battleship being faster than a Cruiser and Destroyer in a storm... Oh the horror...
  8. I would not call the difference small. For the Tier 10 Carrier MIDWAY: the F8F Bearcat Rocket Fighter (Tiny Tims) HP would be lowered from 1660 HP to 1200 HP, the BTD Destroyer Torpedo Bomber HP would be lowered from 2050 HP to 1400 HP, the BTD Destroyer Dive Bomber HP would be from 2160 HP to 1400 HP. A decrease from 1660 to 1200 HP is a reduction of 28%, from 2050 HP to 1400 HP is a reduction of 32% and from 2160 HP to 1400 HP is a reduction of 36%. That is not small. The new Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft HP values would be just above Tier 8 GRAF ZEPPELIN HP level and the AA/Flak they would face would be Tier 8 MASSACHUSETTS level, and that ship has the best AA/Flak at Tier 8. As to the MINOTAUR example you give. With this proposal her NOMINAL AA/Flak CEILING would remain intact, only her EFFECTIVE AA/Flak CEILING would be at 77, until her NOMINAL CEILING falls below that 77 in which case the damage lowered NOMINAL CEILING would be used. Since the enemy Carrier Aircraft would be at Tier 8 HP levels she would have an EFFECTIVE CEILING that would be as powerful as the MASSACHUSETTS which is quite a powerful ship against Tier 8 Aircraft. She would however STOP to be a NO FLY ZONE. And that would be good for the game, because having COMPUTER CONTROLLED AA/Flak that completely cancels out a human being/player in a Carrier is bad for game play for obvious reasons. AA/Flak damage with this proposal would not be crippled. With 1200/1400/1400 Tier 8 Carrier Aircraft HP levels the Carrier Aircraft would not be "strong" and able to attack three ships that have 77 level AA/Flak. They would have trouble attacking even one ship with 77 level AA/Flak let alone three. All this proposal does is lower the Tier 10 levels to Tier 8 levels, and in so doing makes balancing easier and eliminates the problem of NO FLY ZONE ships while at the same time eliminate Tier 10 Carrier damage potential by bringing all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft (including those on Tier 8 Premium Carriers) to about Tier 8 level. The proposal does not change anything on any surface ship EXCEPT for Tier 9 and 10. Only the AA/Flak of Tier 9 and 10 ships would be effected. Under normal conditions a Tier 6 will never face a Tier 9 or 10 ship so that is no issue. The proposal does involve lowering the HP of Carrier Aircraft on Tier 8 Premium Carriers to 1200/1400/1400. That means that these Carriers will lose more Aircraft when they attack a Tier 6 Aircraft Carrier, so that actually improves things from a Tier 6 Carrier point of view. About the "Fighter Patrols Squadrons" Consumable we will have to agree to disagree. I think they need it to help them at least capture a point at match start, since I see too many of them not doing that anymore since the Carrier rework started in version 8.0. As to Tier 6, I feel your plight. Attacking the MASSACHUSETTS with for example the Tier 8 GRAF ZEPPELIN is also costly in terms of Aircraft for little return in actual damage inflicted. I however think in terms of baby steps instead of the sledgehammer. WOWS Development in my opinion cannot tackle the Tier 8-10 Carrier balancing versus Tier 9-10 AA/Flak with the sledgehammer approach that they have been using. If they would use this proposal they could take the first baby step to straighten the important Tier 8-10 out, and work down from there. So Tier 6 and 4 Carrier balancing versus AA/Flak would be baby step number two and three respectively. As to your proposal to make all Aircraft and all AA/Flak the same would not make sense. I see where you are coming from but I would have to disagree on that proposal. That would mean that ships that have twice as many AA/Flak guns as others all have the same AA/Flak values. Moreover Aircraft also constantly received more and armour and better protection so that too would not make sense.
  9. All valid remarks. But they are also anecdotal. The main problem that needs to be addressed is to give Destroyers ONE chance to go about their business for a limited amount of time, allowing them to capture a zone at match start. In my opinion that is what the game needs. Here is an anecdote. I was in a match yesterday, in a Carrier, and two enemy destroyers move into a capture point despite me initially spotting them for the fleet at match start. They worked as a team and alternated smoke use so that they would always be in smoke. They used an island and smoke protection to fire guns and torpedoes at two friendly cruisers and one friendly Destroyer that moved in the capture point they were in. No friendly ship anywhere near them had radar. They would have sunk two friendly Cruisers and they did damaged one of our two friendly Destroyers and the Cruisers. Our Destroyer pulled back and our Cruisers were pulling back too. I focused for the better part of the match on those two enemy Destroyers because they were smart and good players. I attacked them with Torpedo Bombers and their FEAR of the aerial torpedoes let them move out of the smoke. I did hit both of them with torpedoes in the smoke but that was not my aim. These two key players needed to be taken out of the equation to win the match. When they moved out the smoke the friendly Cruisers rallied, turned back and reengaged. Just before I dropped the last torpedo I called in Fighters to prevent them from moving out of their smoke to a better position. Then I again attacked with torpedo bombers and again they had to move out of their smoke screen. When they finally were both out of smoke I attacked them with Rocket Bombers. I did little damage that match, but saved three friendly ships and helped to neutralize two of the best players in the enemy fleet. The friendly Cruisers then secured the zone that the two (now sunk) enemy Destroyers had captured. Our two friendly Destroyers in the meantime could engage the enemy without fear of any intervention by the enemy Destroyers. As to the damage race between me and the other Carrier, he won the damage race but our fleet won the match. Had I chosen to attack some juicy targets, like exposed enemy Battleships, I would have had maybe triple the amount of damage inflicted BUT we most likely would have lost the match to those smart enemy Destroyer commanders. Smart good game play is fine and all. But it is no substitute for a large number of Destroyer Commanders that are now not even trying to capture a zone at match start out of fear of enemy Carrier Aircraft. These two Destroyer Commanders in the example above were brave, smart and skilled. They are the exception to the rule in my experience. I wonder... was it the "Good Idea Fairy" that came up with the "Carrier Rework" version 8+ by any chance? I have thought possible issue when putting the proposal together. In fact it was the main thing that I kept me from posting this proposal earlier. To prevent the possible problem that you speak of I thought of TIMERS. The single use "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable has a timer and is only active for X minutes. As an example say X minutes = 3 minutes. After that they are gone forever. When the low altitude "on map" Fighter Patrol Squadron is destroyed it takes X seconds for an "off map" Fighter Patrol Squadron to dive down from very high altitude to low altitude. As an example say X seconds = 30 seconds. That means that the FARTHER away the Destroyer is from the enemy Carrier the SAFER he is due to the 30 seconds timer (since a Carrier cannot get to an enemy Destroyer in 30 seconds of flying unless he is close to it). The CLOSER the Destroyer is to the enemy Carrier the more vulnerable he becomes due to the 30 seconds timer. Because if his low altitude "on map" Fighter Patrol Squadron is Destroyed (or out of ammo) then it takes 30 seconds for the next one to appear, during those 30 seconds a nearby Carrier can get a strike in. The 30 seconds timer could be increased to any number (for example 45 seconds) to balance it so that a Destroyer that is within say 2x Quadrant (10 km) of a Carrier will have less advantage of it. Of course the X minutes and X seconds could be different for ships at different Tiers. I have always thought that it would have been a good idea to not have Carrier Aircraft spot for the fleet. I proposed it a long time ago even for the RTS Carriers in this topic: Looking at what I proposed for the RTS Carriers in 2018 the SPOTTING SOLUTION A proposal would still be useful today: SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) Carrier Aircraft can only spot enemy ships for their own Carrier and they can not spot enemy ships for the entire friendly fleet. In other words whatever the Carrier Aircraft spot is only visible to the Carrier Commander that owns the Carrier Aircraft. This is not unlike for example the current "Radio Location" Commander skill which also only indicates the direction of the nearest enemy ship to the player that has a ship Commander with "Radio Location". This solution will solve the problem that Destroyers that rush to a Capture Point at the start of a match are constantly spotted by Carrier Aircraft and consequently then targeted by the entire enemy fleet. The CARRIER SHIP itself of course will still be able to spot ships just like all other ships only the spotting by CARRIER AIRCRAFT is proposed to be changed. On another note, this solution would also still be useful: INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION When an enemy ship uses its AA Fire it should be spotted by the Carrier Aircraft it fires on, even when it is in smoke BUT it should then only be visible to the Carrier and not to the entire fleet that the Carrier is part of. Just like the "Radio Location" Commander skill that only indicates the position of the closest enemy ship only to the player that has a ship Commander that has the "Radio Location" skill. For new and novice Carrier Commanders, and even for experienced ones, it is often times impossible to notice than a hidden enemy ship is using its AA against Carrier Aircraft. As a result ships with strong AA setups like MINOTAUR, DES MOINES, WORCESTER can totally destroy a full Squadron before the Carrier Commander has had the time to get it out of range of that hidden ship. That means that especially new and novice Carrier Commanders, but even experienced ones too, have no player friendly visual indication that warns them that their Aircraft are going to be destroyed in about 2 seconds unless they withdraw them out of range of the hidden enemy ships. Currently all ships in WOWS get a clear visual indication that they are being fired upon in the form of shell tracers, but the Carrier Commander currently gets no clear unmistakable visual warning that his very limited amount of Carrier Aircraft are about to be destroyed in about 2 seconds by AA from a fully hidden ship. The proposed solution increases the "comfort level" of Carrier play (especially for new and novice players) and addresses the imbalance of passive not human controlled AA invisibly eliminating the active human controlled Aircraft of a Carrier Commander in about 2 seconds. And this one solution is also still possible while we are at it, although in the current state of the game I prefer the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable instead: DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION All Tier 6-10 Destroyers will receive the Destroyer type "Defensive AA Fire" Consumable. This solution will protect Tier 6-10 Destroyers from Bombers during the first 5 critical opening minutes of a match when they rush forward to capture a sector without the help of friendly Cruisers and Battleships. Highly skilled Carrier Commanders currently can too easily take out the all important Destroyers in the first 5 minutes of the match which in most cases already decides the outcome of the match. This solution increases the "comfort level" of Destroyer play (especially for new and novice players) in WOWS.
  10. Then there are these two tandem proposals: I prefer the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons Consumable" Proposal over the "Defensive Fire AA Consumable for Tier 6-10 Destroyers" Proposal in the current state of the game where there can be more than one Carrier in the enemy Fleet though.
  11. And this one while we are at it: DESTROYER PROTECTION SOLUTION All Tier 6-10 Destroyers will receive the Destroyer type "Defensive AA Fire" Consumable. This solution will protect Tier 6-10 Destroyers from Bombers during the first 5 critical opening minutes of a match when they rush forward to capture a sector without the help of friendly Cruisers and Battleships. Highly skilled Carrier Commanders currently can too easily take out the all important Destroyers in the first 5 minutes of the match which in most cases already decides the outcome of the match. This solution increases the "comfort level" of Destroyer play (especially for new and novice players) in WOWS. Again from here:
  12. Come to think of it. Again from this topic: This solution would also still be useful INVISIBLE SHIP AA FIRE SOLUTION When an enemy ship uses its AA Fire it should be spotted by the Carrier Aircraft it fires on, even when it is in smoke BUT it should then only be visible to the Carrier and not to the entire fleet that the Carrier is part of. Just like the "Radio Location" Commander skill that only indicates the position of the closest enemy ship only to the player that has a ship Commander that has the "Radio Location" skill. For new and novice Carrier Commanders, and even for experienced ones, it is often times impossible to notice than a hidden enemy ship is using its AA against Carrier Aircraft. As a result ships with strong AA setups like MINOTAUR, DES MOINES, WORCESTER can totally destroy a full Squadron before the Carrier Commander has had the time to get it out of range of that hidden ship. That means that especially new and novice Carrier Commanders, but even experienced ones too, have no player friendly visual indication that warns them that their Aircraft are going to be destroyed in about 2 seconds unless they withdraw them out of range of the hidden enemy ships. Currently all ships in WOWS get a clear visual indication that they are being fired upon in the form of shell tracers, but the Carrier Commander currently gets no clear unmistakable visual warning that his very limited amount of Carrier Aircraft are about to be destroyed in about 2 seconds by AA from a fully hidden ship. The proposed solution increases the "comfort level" of Carrier play (especially for new and novice players) and addresses the imbalance of passive not human controlled AA invisibly eliminating the active human controlled Aircraft of a Carrier Commander in about 2 seconds.
  13. This is so very true. I have NEVER understood why WOWS Development chose to have Carrier Aircraft spot for the entire fleet. The whole spotting problem would have been more or less eliminated if the Aircraft could only spot for the Carrier. I proposed solutions for this when we still had RTS Carriers: Looking at what I proposed for the RTS Carriers in 2018 the SPOTTING SOLUTION A proposal would still be useful today: SPOTTING SOLUTION (Alternative A) Carrier Aircraft can only spot enemy ships for their own Carrier and they can not spot enemy ships for the entire friendly fleet. In other words whatever the Carrier Aircraft spot is only visible to the Carrier Commander that owns the Carrier Aircraft. This is not unlike for example the current "Radio Location" Commander skill which also only indicates the direction of the nearest enemy ship to the player that has a ship Commander with "Radio Location". This solution will solve the problem that Destroyers that rush to a Capture Point at the start of a match are constantly spotted by Carrier Aircraft and consequently then targeted by the entire enemy fleet. The CARRIER SHIP itself of course will still be able to spot ships just like all other ships only the spotting by CARRIER AIRCRAFT is proposed to be changed.
  14. Widar_Thule

    Another visualization of the changes to AA in 8.5

    Thanks for taking the time to make and and post this.
×