Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Balance'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News and Announcements
    • Patch notes
    • Contests And In-Game Competitions
    • Support
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Surveys
  • General Gameplay Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Off-Topic
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 130 results

  1. Preface: Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm not here to advocate the removal of an entire class or nerf them into oblivion. CVs aren't fun but they aren't beyond salvage. I don't want to start a "remove CVs from the game" flamewar. Air Supremacy skill has never sat well with me, but due to recent changes I think it is now overdue to be scrapped. It's overpowered and benefits ships that are already powerful without them. +1 fighter, +1 dive bomber per squad: sounds great for IJN to close the gap with USN fighters, but every USN captain that can will also take it, so the difference stays the same. Before T4/5 were defanged (which I will get to later), this +1 advantage basically let sealclubbers in dedicated Langleys and Bogues run rampant and shut down any chance of a learning player to counter them. This is less of a problem with auto drops now, but it amazes me this was never addressed early on in any way. Then the Saipan came along. Now the game had its first premium CV. And because WG loves gimmicks, they decided to give it small squads of high tier planes. Sounds okay at first, until you realize that now T5 ships get to face T9 aircraft, a 4 tier difference where the targets don't even get Defensive Fire, save the occasional B hull Nicholas. And since a Saipan can take any captain, you can have a Midway guy fighting Ryujos and Independences that haven't gotten a full skill loadout yet. Run AS on a Saipan and now you have 8-12 T9 fighters and up to 9 DBs in the air. A skilled captain can bully any CV or DD with these numbers. Kaga came next, and it went the opposite route of lots of weak planes. And the situation isn't much better as a Kaga can simply use the principle of overwhelming numbers, especially with an extra 3 DB in a strike package. And then the Enterprise was introduced, and brought a whole new weapon to the seas, AP bombs. Now bombs went from weapons of harassment/opportunity to orbital nukes that can pretty much kill anything with a good roll. So, how can carriers be improved? I won't pretend to preach the gospel (I have limited experience playing lower tiers only), but I have seen what they can do at all tiers. So some ideas I have to make life better for everyone: 1. Fix T4/5. Removing manual drops was a bad idea. This game is terrible at teaching mechanics in an intuitive manner, and completely removing a method of attack at the tiers where cruisers can't instantly delete entire squadrons doesn't help anyone. Now we have players going into T6 that may not even know about manual drop, and half the ships they can practice on will shred everything they have. I get sealclubbing was a problem at low tiers, but the lack of damage scaling with torpedoes was the real problem. A good manual drop could kill almost anyone, even if they (try to) evade. Lowering alpha strike could easily make it to where you can still hurt a ship but you can't just pick any noob and remove them from play with one click. Oh, and you can currently have T5 CVs get attacked by T6 CVs. One party gets strafing, the other doesn't. That was a great idea. Hope your teammate can help you out, I guess. Sucks if he's a potato. 2. Remove Air Supremacy from the skill tree. Saipan is the poster child of why this isn't a fun mechanic, but now we have bombers that are arguably scarier than some torpedoes, and T8-10 now gets 2-3 extra rounds of armor piercing fun and engagement per strike. This will also tone down the premiums without completely nerfing them and pissing everyone off. 3. Loiter time of airplanes. Ask any DD what his/her biggest frustration is in a game and it's invariably going to be the ability to be permanently spotted. This is especially bad for IJN ships, where their torpedoes and stealth are their only strength, because the guns are slow. And they get the weakest AA, so once planes show up, you can't even scare them off. Planes can show up and jut hang around all they want, (especially if the DD is trying a deep territory run or the other CV has been dealt with), spotting fish and ruining any chance of surprise. Maybe planes should have a fuel stat, so you can still spot and attack anyone on the map but you do have to pull back and service planes at some point, and give some ships a chance to breathe. Also, who thought 2 TB Midway was a good idea? Wasn't that removed in Beta because it was way too powerful? And now it's back? Seriously? Cross dropping 12 torpedoes and up to 14 tactical nukes AP bombs? Cool. At least they aren't jets, I guess.
  2. Fixing CV's - give and take

    Well, it's been a popular theme the last few days, and I've been wanting to throw this up the last few days and now is as good a time as any to just throw it in a thread of it's own where I can tweak as I need to as I recall anything I missed. But all these ideas, some good, some bad, some down right insane, they've been mostly one sided. "Buff this thing I use", "Nerf this thing I don't use" "Nerf this for them and buff this for me". And that is all it has really been the last 2-3 years with CV's. At any given time, only one side is being listened to by Wargaming, if at all. AA buff after AA buff from non-CV players complaint's, Changes to USN fighters when IJN really was dominating the game for a time, etc. But aside from Wargaming usually fixing the wrong thing (USN needed strike power, so they buff fighters, AS OP o they just remove it and leave us with one set up that has issues that give other CV's the same advantage they complained about, Manual drop they just keep buffing AA), it's seemingly only looked at from one side, and it hasn't worked. The problem is that we need sweeping changes in both directions, to both CV lines, to the other ships because of AA, to fix this issue. And this is not something you can really just "phase in", this needs to be handled like Arty was in tanks, one patch, change it all, tweaks thereafter. The current list I have, copied from a different post I posted it in - Strafing needs to be reworked so it's not all about micromanaging and close the gap between the super skilled/experienced players and the not so much and newer ones. A debuff to DPS that gives you some control over the aerial fight with fighters and a temporary debuff to bomber accuracy but without being as brutally punishing as it is now for players. Manual drop needs to be removed from TB's or reworked that it's arming range is more similar to autodrops because we should not be dropping torps 1km or less from a ship. USN needs HP buffs to fighters and bombers while taking a DPS nerf, while IJN maybe gains a little DPS but loses some ammo to try and equal out fighters while keeping them different. USN needs, after fixing it's fighters, the return of it's AS set ups, IJN needs in most cases (where it would have more fighters) it's AS setup's removed and replaced with it's own "strike" set ups that match USN's in fighters and maintains it's group numbers just in additional strike groups. USN HE DB's need an accuracy buff plain and simple. CV's may need to have their damaged nerfed slightly on torps and HE DB's, and definitely on the AP. AA on all ships (with manual drop TB's removed from the equation or fixed that they have to drop at range) save maybe DD's other than for weapon consistency, needs a pretty hefty nerf. Re-integrate AA mod 2 and Secondary mod 2 into 1 mod again that buffs both AA and secondary range. Especially with fighters no longer stomping and deleting one another or groups of attack planes, consideration of giving all BB's their own DF AA that has a 1.x or 1.1x multiplier that really just causes the bombers to be less accurate and easier to try and dodge some of the incoming attack. Cruisers or ships like DoY will still have the one that not only debuffs but is far more threatening to CV's planes. Make "Emergency Takeoff" a built in mechanic, not a skill, and change the skill to maybe lessen the penalty we get from it. As it currently stands the skill is effectively useless and do just as well, arguably better, just investing in DCP II, maybe the flags/skills that cost less to hasten it's cooldown. Overall fighter DPS rework to lessen the power gap between tiers One of the big issues is in simpler terms "good vs bad" CV players, and a big factor in that is strafing. And I get there should be some skill and player influence in it, but the current auto delete, no matter how you dice it, is a problem and "git gud", the usual answer, is not the solution. It needs a rework and if for fighters caught in it it becomes a DPS debuff that's reasonable, it can give the player using strafe an edge, and makes it worth using, while still leaving the other player, should luck be on their side, a chance, while also meaning if it isn't, they can still maybe hold up the fighters for a time. And make it debuff bombers like DF AA does but maybe sticks for a few seconds after and/or slowly recovers as the groups "get back in formation". Manual drops by TB's are a big reason AA has been buffed so much, and why at one or two points ship agility was buffed (though agility was also partially torps in general). And look, I get for as things work now, drops on targets in smoke and taking longer range shots, rare as that last one seems, are a thing it's used for. But as it currently stands, the ability to drop torps under 1km where they can't really dodge is a problem. And let's be honest for a second, those o us that have played long enough and/or are good at it already know how to compensate for the only way to counter it - turn into them before they arm, so that even though they turn in, they still arm. The mechanic does more harm than good and despite what some people say about "auto drop being useless", it's not and if for some reason CV's are that hampered without it, I doubt they will be unless they fully remove it so we can't torp ships in smoke, they can make changes to auto like they did at tier 4 and 5 to compensate. USN vs IJN needs a ton of work as does tier vs tier. USN fighters need to be brought down to a level that IJN is actually competitive in a one on one fight. Which also means we can also balance other nations fighters better. And IJN fighters need some slight tweaks as well. The backbone of USN striking power has been DB's since day one, and the HE DB's need to be a bit more accurate to actually be truly effective. And where as IJN has numbers, USN needs a bit more raw survivablity than IJN's attack planes. With fighters balanced we need the fighter group count of set ups to match, so, as an example, Lex get's 2,0, 2 back for AS and keeps the 1,1,2 for strike while Shokaku AS is the 2,2,2 and it's strike is 2,3,2. All lines should have an AS option and strike option, not one way to play. And a lower tier CV needs to be able to stand a chance against a higher tier one unless the plan is CV's only see CV's of the same tier. It's needs to be a flavour where IJN fighter planes hit a little harder, but run out of ammo faster and don't do as well in AA with faster DPS drop off as they lose planes, where as USN fighters don't hit quite as hard, but DPS doesn't drop off as fast, they better withstand AA and have ammo to spare. Not terribly different from now, but evened up a bit. On the attack side, IJN has sheer numbers to overwhelm defense and get planes through AA, but is a little more likely to be taking losses where USN has those fewer groups, but higher HP means they aren't losing as much with less to be shot at. IJN basically having that good feeling alpha punch people like, where as USN is really more for DoT and smaller ships, or people that just want to watch the world burn. With manual drop properly tweaked or gone, AA needs to change. It needs to be lowered so that ships that run off on there own, even if they build AA, are not completely immune to air attack. CV's should lose some planes attacking lone ships, but not necessarily entire groups, and definitely not whole strike forces. Unless of course they attack a huge group that is a couple BB's and cruisers popping DF AA, then heavy/total losses should almost be expected. But they should be able to attach 1-2 ships without catastrophic loss of aircraft on the way in. Go back to needing some actual teamwork when a CV is present in case it's bombers get past your CV's fighters. But, while the actual damage is nerfed, Secondary and AA mod 2 should be recombined into a single mod that buffs the range of both once again so those that take it aren't just upping AA or secondary range. Also, perhaps consideration that as said above, BB's get a DF AA consumable, other than ships like DoY and Hood that would have unique versions, that offers little or no buff to AA damage, but scatters the incoming planes to lower their accuracy to try and make it some more of the damage can be dodged. Especially if for IJN strike, as the IJN line has always had torps as it's thing, expands on TB groups at lower tiers than it used to. To hell with realism, as that was some's argument for it to be this way in the first place, but CV's, that have the longest time between strikes (30 second rearm for IJN, 40 for USN, 10 seconds for 1 group to take off, travel time, variable time to land planes based on ship speed, angle to planes, etc, wash, rinse, repeat), need to not be totally shut down by fires. Yes, in an ideal scenario they should never be on fire, but happens. What we currently pay 3 points for, "Emergency Takeoff", should just be a built in mechanic and the skill takes time off the penalty. Because as it stands it is better time wise to actually have DCP II, and if you want to make it even better, equip flags and skills to lower it's cooldown, that cost less than Emergency Takeoff. And if, after we've lowered AA to a reasonable level, maybe given BB's a way to debuff attack plane accuracy if they have no cover once or twice, maybe upped some ships AA ranges with the modification change, and moving torp attacks far enough back there is in fact time to maneuver, CV's have somehow come out over-performing and doing too much like the days of old, well, maybe at that point we need to eat a bit of a damage nerf to ordnance to even things out a bit. Maybe there are other changes in general CV's are going to need that, as of this moment, I haven't recalled or thought of. But we need tweaks that lower the gap between "pro and Joe" CV players, we need to fix the performance gaps between IJN and USN, we need to balance out AA while not allowing CV's to come in with point blank alpha strikes that can deal 40k+ damage. Maybe I have the right ideas, maybe my ideas are off, but there is one thing that isn't going to change - CV balance can not be dictated by just 1 group or community of players, or by any 1 group/community at any given time. The Pro's at 60%, the Joe's around 50%, the IJN players, the USN players, The CV, BB, CA/L and DD players, we all need to hash it out and be willing to compromise on changes that may not fully satisfy all parties because it's not exactly the thing they want, but at the same time is acceptable to all parties as a decent enough middle ground of what everyone want's. It can't just be the BB/CA/CL/DD players shouting "Nerf CV's", the CV players saying "Nerf AA" or "Buff CV's", the Pro player's saying "Git Gud" and the Joe players going "remove X that the Pro's abuse on us", The IJN CV players saying "Nerf USN or "Buff our CV's" and USN CV players the same thing about IJN CV's and theirs. This hasn't worked for basically 3 years now, 1 of Alpha/Beta and 2 of release, we all need to compromise if we want this issue finally fixed, and fixed right. Or at least right enough for everyone to be content.
  3. This is a thread designed to explain why CVs are performing so well, why they have powerful "point and click torps," and why they should stay that way. I will draw on what I say in other threads, so don't be surprised if you see something that looks like I've said it before. Starting this off, I first want to state a point, CVs do not counter any ship, ship type, or build, instead, they specifically counter bad team play. Therefore, a CV's success should be dictated by how well the enemy team performs, not how the team is composed. Currently, the NA meta is very sloppy, with no consistent team play, ships do not cover each other and often spread all over the map. This is the kind of meta CVs are designed to counter, and they do so well. The reason that matches currently come down to the better CV so often is that each team does not try to actively group up and counter the enemy CV, meaning CVs often have the optimal situation for a game. There are often complaints about CVs that refuse to cover for their team, and that is justified, however, CVs cannot, and do not, provide cover to everyone. Often a ship is isolated from friendly warships and quickly meets its demise, what is to be done about this? Nothing, this is what CVs are designed for, CVs punish warships that do not play as a fleet, and reward good play. How about permanently spotting DDs? Often DDs should stay with their fleets even if there is not an enemy CV, so the friendly ships can provide help against other DDs and radar ships. However, none of these actions are often done as of the current meta, and CVs strike with near impunity. Now, as to the ability for a CV to win games, there are three limiting factors that, when working together, can reduce the enemy (or friendly) CV to a non-factor: Team cohesiveness and teamwork. Skill of CVs Tier. I'll explain on each of these and how they relate to each other. As you can see, Cvs heavily rely on teamwork in order to win and do badly when their team does not work well as a team. By now, some of you are probably thinking, a ship that is designed to impact the gameplay of the entire enemy team! That sounds OP!!! And you're about half right. You see, the CV is a tool to encourage good team play, and as such, it must be able to severely punish bad team play. This is why CVs can one shot basically any ship in the game, however, as previously stated, the really suffer against a cohesive team. Now, a lot of times this is brought up, people say, "Well, we can't stay in groups, it reduces flexibility." No. No it doesn't, when DDs are close to the fleet, screening torpedoes, CA,s are helping defend the DDs and BBs, and BBs are staying with the team and taking damage, all the while impenetrable to AA attack. Then you have an incredibly powerful fighting force, not what we have now. (individual ships scattered around the map, incoherently firing at random targets, and ditching teammates for fear of damage) Now, often this is also looked down on, but I'm not talking about a single lemming train, instead, large groups of ships, possibly up to three, that stay together and provide each other with defense. Now, obviously, CVs aren't working. Teams are still flopping, and they're still OP. How can we stop this? First of all, most teams don't try to co-ordinate AA defense at the beginning, a big help would be placing the next to the CVs name a tag telling players that this is a threat, and to stay near other ships to avoid air attack. Next, put a tip in the little tips tab of the loading menu advising players on how to avoid air attack. Nerf AA, now this is fairly controversial, and it is, however, currently an AA build can make you a no-fly zone for planes, something that should be accomplished by two or three ships working in concert. However, to balance this, increase arm times of TBs. Edited to remove the sensationalist title, bad suggestions added an argument defending a point and added suggestions done by another player.
  4. CV Balance, my proposal.

    Here are my thoughts. Coming from a part time high tier CV player. I think CVs need to be more skill based but also AA needs a total rework with its current config. Something like how secondaries work if they can't train on the squadron they shouldn't contribute AA against a squadron. Otherwise this will benift dive bombers more than torp bombers but with this change AA dps needs to change as well to balance AA. Also squadron size I think is a good national flavor but I feel it's part of the issue. The USN rework with AP bombers was a good start but I always felt that u should launch planes individually like in a strategy game like RUSE with your cv as the "factory" national flavor comes from how many total planes your allowed in the air at one time and you pick your preset hanger loadout before hand. This also would require a better UI more like most strategy games rather than a weird combo. With this I remove fighter strafe which is buggy and abused way too much. But keep manual DB and torp drop with a slight increase in torp arming distance. The UI should work like RUSE the more u zoom the more individual unit you will see father out they get into easy to select unit groups. Units should be spawned by clicking there icon on the bottom a few times to queue up multiple planes.
  5. So, wanted to make a topic that hopefully won't get (too?) toxic, but, here's the gist of it: How does taking away options from USN CVs, "increase their versatility"? I just, I don't get the logic. The 1/1/2 setup may have worked as a vanilla concept pre-T7, and may have been viable as a stock grind for Ranger, but for Lexington and on up? It seems like it's only a massive nerf. From T6 on, IJN CVs could already swarm and overwhelm their USN counterparts. Yes, they're smaller squadrons and a bit more vulnerable to AA. That doesn't matter if they can completely neutralize the single fighter squadron that USN players can have now, and completely dominate the skies. Like, to be fair, I'm more upset because I was a relatively rare AS player. And that entire kind of gameplay is now impossible as a USN CV, because how the hell can I cover anything on the map with a single fighter? And even compared to the strike loadout, it's still weaker, because I've lost a bomber. All an IJN player needs to do is avoid a strafe, get my fighters in a dogfight, and even if they ultimately win (and since it's RNG, that's not guaranteed), their strike craft can continue completely unmolested to attack my team. I'm honestly just looking for the rationale to this, other than preventing people from complaining about the loadout when it doesn't work for them.
  6. When playing the role of the Destroyer, proficiency in the vision-game is king. And mastery over the vision-game is all about information, long before the first shots are fired. In many cases, a DD need not fire, let alone land, a single shot to turn the game in his favor. Knowing, probing the edges of the enemy's collective concealment range, the way it expands and contracts, using RPF against its own user, tantalizing ships to open up with their guns to unmask them, provoking a cruiser into expending its radar as you instantly escape the fringes of its range or into cover, perma-spotting an enemy DD by maneuvering within the 200m "sweet-spot" between your own concealment and his, ascertaining when an island is a safe-haven or a death trap, etc. Knowing who and what is detecting you is critical information, informing you of options and counterplays, determining the difference between a win and a loss depending on application. If memory serves, the old detection indicator used to display different icons for radar and hydro, and (just as importantly) prioritized these detection indicators over the "normal" surface detection indicator (a simple exclamation point without the radar or hydro modifiers). Unfortunately, WG did away with this versatility at some point, and are now using a single icon to display both hydro and radar detection, leaving DD players to guess who and what is "lighting them up". And just as bad, if not worse, the game prioritizes the ambiguous "normal" surface detection (exclamation point) icon over the already-ambiguous radar/hydro icon. In summary, they dumbed down the game and added more RNG by denying DD players critical information . What I propose is a return to the original indicator, perhaps even improve it so that all methods of detection can be displayed in a concise manner. Heck, I'm sure the modders would be happy to do the work for WG if they were guaranteed their projects were endorsed. If I'm not mistaken, the original code for the old indicator with separate icons is still embedded in WoWs, so this isn't asking for something costly or unreasonable, right? How is this a buff to DDs? Let's explain it this way: Just as with RPF, you can determine the position and even likely orientation of an enemy fleet with RPF even though you're not the one who's using RPF . The power of RPF - and more relevantly, the counter-RPF "detection icon" which is displayed to the enemy player it's used against - is a double-edged sword because the counter-indicator shown to the enemy can be used in context with other information: a cap zone being occupied, the detection icon, last known enemy locations and orientations, map knowledge, the second ring of epicenter turning green while the middle remains empty, etc. RPF is a brilliant game mechanic (Well done WG! ). The power of RPF is perfectly balanced against - not the skill of the user - but the skill gap between the user and the players it's used against. This would be a bit of a different story if the skill could be toggled on and off. But it can't be toggled; it's "always on" until the player who has it is dead. And so, a potato using RPF is not simply wasting captain points; he is, in fact, often giving critical information to a clever opponent , one that knows how to use the counter-RPF detection icon against its user. A better, more versatile, more informative detection indicator works the same way. Heck, that describes the old detection indicator perfectly, so I'd settle for a simple "regressive" fix. How do you know if you can smoke to escape detection when the indicator doesn't tell you you're radar'd (at the same time you're surface detected)? How do you know if the ship lighting you up is around the island 4 km away (and has an angle covered by your teammate) or around the island 9 km away (which is not)? How do you know if an island, which is vulnerable to indirect fire from a cruiser 10 km away, can break vision if you can't tell if you're being "lit up" by surface detection (which is broken by line of sight) or radar detection (which is not)? etc, etc, etc. DD players, especially IJN DD players, are always complaining about radar and hydro to no end . Well, this is a common-sense - and IMO eminently reasonable buff to every DD, especially those concerned with spotting and concealment mechanics - assuming they're willing to apply some effort in learning the game, rather than divorcing themselves from team play in order to pursue torp spamming and gun kiting . It is not a direct counter. It is more subtle. It is a tool for counter-play. And besides, there are a bunch of DD players in every line who could use some incentive to play their ships with a little more intelligence (in the bilateral sense of the word ).
  7. Fighter-Bombers

    In order the make US CVs competitive in terms of strike, while maintaining their leniency towards AS, I think US DBs should second as fighters. They shouldn't be as good as dedicated fighters, nor should they have strafe. Simply, they should be capable of defending themselves, and in 2v1 situations capable of winning with costs. If this happened, then I do not believe loadout changes would be necessary. Consider strike loadouts for early tier US carriers. Now, instead of being completely incapable of defending themselves, their 2 DBs can be used as fighters should the need arise. There are many things this idea could be expanded into. Perhaps the ability to switch between 2 DB models, one with lighter bombs, and better fighter ability, and vice versa. Simple thoughts from a not to pro US CV player.
  8. Sad state of dd rewards

    I just had 2 games back to back in Shimakaze, and I though they are nice examples of two games, where one was played towards objectives and dd's role, while the other was just an attempt at having fun and doing some damage. The first one playing the objective and supporting team: The second one, just launching torps at targets of opportunity: Both games are bad by my standard, but the sad part is that the first game is a win with 3 caps (1 solo) and 53k silver lost, while the second is a loss with no kills/caps, just more damage done and only 32k silver lost. It is more profitable and fun to disregard objectives and your team as a dd. Especially with the abundance of planes and radars that stand between you and objectives.
  9. How to fix the Conquerer

    I share the opinion of many that the tier 10 British battleship, the Conquerer, is blatantly overpowered, and that the small nerf to the heal recharge time they recently implemented wasn't enough. The conquerer deserves a fair and balanced nerf, and I think I have a solution. My main gripe with it honestly isn't the guns or the HE spam, it can definitely be countered by good repair use and fire prevention. To me what is overpowered is how tough it is due to the heal and the impossible to hit citadel. It is essentially a German BB with a much stronger heal, better concealment, guns, and maneuverability, but bad secondaries and low base hp. My solution to the Conquerer balance problem is to raise the citadel above the waterline so it can be easily hit and targeted, similar to the Yamato's or halfway between the waterline and the pre-buff Iowa's citadel. Why should WG do this? The conquerer is op because it is a cheap/easy ship to play with no real weaknesses. You can go full broadside and spam HE all day and still heal back half your health when you overextend. Raising the citadel solves all of these issues. It gives the ship a clear weakness (weak broadside), and indirectly nerfs its OP heal (since citadels can only heal 10% of HP). It encourages good play by using angling and positioning to maximize its tankiness, but if you play like an idiot you will be punished severely. IMO that is what battleship design in this game should be, and one of the best cases of this is the North Carolina. The NC has great guns and is very tanky, but if you misplay it your weakness (weak broadside/easy to hit citadel) can be exploited by smart players to wreck the ship. Raising the Conq's citadel does the same thing without sacrificing what makes the ship unique. It encourages smart play and makes sure that the ship has a clear weakness, which balances out its firepower and heal. With a raised citadel, the Conquerer could be a great case of game balance, by becoming a ship with great strengths and unique attributes but that has clear disadvantages that will send you back to port for playing like an idiot. Now the citadel shouldn't be too weak like the pre-buff Iowa's, but raising it to the level of the Yamato's in my humble opinion will do more than enough to balance the ship, and can leave it in a good place, in that of a ship with huge damage and tank potential, but only if played correctly. This should be the goal of battleship balance, and doing this will be a good step forward. I think this should seriously be considered. Now some will say that its historically inaccurate to raise the citadel, but come on, this is an arcade game, historical accuracy isn't a very strong argument. It is considered, but balance and player experience trumps everything else. This is my suggestion for fixing the Conquerer, what are your thoughts?
  10. USN CA viability after Smoke nerf?

    As the proud owner of a Des Moines and fan of the USN Cruiser line as a whole, I've always found the ability to creep up alongside my Destroyers and forcefully remove all opposition from a Cap circle to be one of the most fun and rewarding things to do in my USN ships. However, as of late, Wargaming has decided to nerf Smoke- any ship firing behind a wall of smoke is now detected as it would if the smoke wasn't there to begin with, and firing your guns inside smoke now reveals your position from varying range depending on the ship in question. What I'm asking is: Is there a real reason to continue using American CAs instead of German DDs? With smoke being butchered as it is, a DD just has to sneak relatively close to a smoke screen and then the ship will get seen just for firing. If it's a DD, the Hydro goes up and the target is lit up much longer than it would be by Radar. The German DDs are also much much safer and effective in terms of scouting and capping, and we always still have access to the USSR Cruisers if we need DPM and Radar from a somewhat safer ship.
  11. At least with ranked, normal people had a chance of getting carried, you could play any class, and you could play any time. Once again you're rewarding the best players with the most OP crapin the game - only this time it will be by the Clan load of unicums and not just a few at a time. There is so much wrong with this it's hard to spell it all out so I'll just say that for me, I'm basically done spending money, and if this craptrajectory keeps up, I will actively be looking for something else to play soon. As the leader of a 30 man Clan which was only created to give solo players the benefits afforded the people in this stupid system in the first place, that should concern you at least a little since at least hypothetically your crapsystem is aimed squarely at me. Love, An average player
  12. So, from what I've seen in multiple youtube videos. Pan Asian DDs are Americans with better concealment, 7KM radar, and deep water torpedoes. I do not know what the exact concealment numbers are but for them to be better than American they basically have to be IJN concealment with better guns and the ridiculous I WIN button which is radar. On paper they seem better than everything except Russia since those are cruisers not DDs anyway. That means they can out spot, and radar any IJN/American/KM DD in smoke. Considering cap bullying and sitting in smoke with hydro is the German national flavor. Should I bother finishing the line just to have something greatly superior come out in the near future? I'm at T8 right now.
  13. IJN vs US Carriers

    I've played the US carriers through the Lexington. In all this time, I've found myself struggling to hold my own. Usually I only did reasonably well when faced with the same US carrier. I thought that, perhaps, I was just really bad with carriers. However, I finally unlocked the introductory IJN carrier and found it to be much better than the US carriers at damaging ships. The first time I took the stock Hosho, with its untrained ex-ARP captain out for a spin, I got a Confederate and a High Caliber, though I actually only sunk one ship. The ability to cross-drop torpedoes really gives one an advantage. I'd heard about torp cross-drops but this was impossible in any US carrier I've played (though I think the Saipan may have a load-out with two torp bombers). Does anyone else think that the US carriers in WOWS are at a disadvantage? I was just in a game where a tier VIII US carrier, with 4 squadrons was easily taken out by a tier VII IJN carrier with 6 squadrons. Why do you think this is so? Are they basing their model from Pearl Harbor to Midway, when IJN carriers sort of ruled the Pacific?
  14. 1) I want my Zao to remain as the only fire breather. It's what I have and I don't want competition. 2) I want my Kutozov to be able to sit in smoke and be the only invisible fire breather. 3) I want my Kab to be the fire king as a dd. 4) I want to sit in my Yamoto/Iowa and camp bow on and be impervious to your AP. 5) I don't want to re-spec my ship upgrades to minimize fire damage 6) I don't want to re-spec my captains skills to minimize fire damage 7) I don't want to have to focus fire with my team/div on a Conqueror. 8) I want to be able to use my Damage Control with the very first fire set on me. 9) The game meta should remain static, don't give me something new to deal with. 10) Since the conq is played differently, I feel that it is "bad play" in my opinion. Different is bad.
  15. Salt Upon a Tier 7 Ranger

    The USS Ranger Experience is well chronicled in this replay and my end-of-battle screenshots. I get accused of "doing nothing" and some players agree to report me about a minute before I get a "Clear Sky" medal. 20170923_100823_PASA010-Ranger-1944_41_Conquest.wowsreplay
  16. I keep hearing from people, whenever I ask how to effeticly utilize secondary guns on any ship, that secondaries only become useful in tiers 8 and above. So on ships that aren't tier 8 and above, what is the point of secondary guns? Thier range is piss poor, meaning that the only time they ever fire is if someone is ramming you, or if a DD/CL has already been given the chance to nuke you with a Torp salvo, so in any instance they are going to fire, you're alreday screwed. And even when they do start firing, their accuracy is such that you'll be lucky to hit anything before that inevidible Torpedo nuke. Please let me know what the point of having secondaries exist on low tier ships is. I'm legit curious.
  17. Hello Everyone, Some news from the 5th In light of Flamu's recent video about BB AP vs Destroyers. I present you a topic on EU. https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/85361-so-wg-lets-discuss-the-changes-in-the-game-and-your-plan/?page=14#comment-2031804 It seem's that WG'ing has reversed its stance on BB AP pens being "Fine" vs Destroyers. And that they are currently working on a Ballistic Update that may remove the ability for BB's to pen DD's in almost all situation. b. "Ballistics update prototype - that should, by the concept, remove regular BB AP pens to DDs almost completely, due to underwater ballistics and fuse settings tweaking. We want to force BBs in shell choice, because right now AP does its job too good on all targets, while it would be much better balance-wise if BBs had to load HE for soft targets for maximum efficiency." How does the community feel about this potential change? If you feel strongly for or againts it. Please take the poll. If you have any idea's or topics on how to address this issue, or how not to address it. Add it to the thread. If you have any idea's for other poll questions , please share! *Edit: cleaned up the poll options a bit. Added a question for "how would you change HE - Modules eating HE shells" (Thanks Ted) Added I voted Yes for HE and AP questions. *Edit.2 Seems as though this change would also have a negative effect against Cruisers :( I feel that this takes the change from Yes to no for me. I would like to see this "Reduce AP damage vs DD's" without hurting my cruiser friends. What we're doing now is testing different fuse arming settings. Unfortunately, the solution is not straightforward - we are able to reduce regular pens to DDs to, well, zero, but an issue with cruisers immediately occurs. Because of this exact mechanics, angled cruisers now often arm BB shells at overmatched plating, and these shells do regular pen damage to bow/aft. If the shells stop arming here, they will go deeper, which means more citadel hits (ouch!).
  18. Why suddenly is there 6 or eight (or more!!) CVs waiting for a game when I am trying to load a Tier IV or V game? I'll not do so when running a BB, I will abort and go something else. This has been happening for about two days...
  19. What if anything is being done to control bots from ruining PVP? I have witnessed some extremely questionable play lately. Gearing - NO camo NO flags of any kind. Spawns right in the middle of fleet and goes in a strait line up the channel in two brothers and gets killed. Tirpitz - collides into another teammate. Then the tirpitz and my ship collide. Then tirpitz gets beached on an island all in the first 4 mins of the battle. Gneisenau - sits at spawn without moving. Several minutes into the battle is discovered and is fired upon. Begins to shot back but never moves and is quickly killed. And why can I no longer report players as being suspected bots in-game? Maybe it is time to take a hard look again at repair bills and in-game credits earned. If a player is averaging, over many games, 25% or less of the baseline performance of their ship WG should make it too costly for them to keep playing in mid and high tier battles. Or maybe a minimum performance threshold must be reached before any XP is awarded at tiers 4/5 and above.
  20. As the title says. Why to pick german or french CAs for example, when you have these tiny wonders of engineering at t9 and t10 called soviet destroyers? -Higher tiers Ru DDs tank a lot better than some of the CAs in the game due to the fantastic speed. -Soviet dds Dont have citadels so they are less afraid of getting deleted by a BB. -They have more DPS than some cruisers. -They have way better detection ranges in order to scout or gettin safe. -They have smoke. -They can hunt other nation DDs because for some reason, theiy have a good protection (50mm on khab) and the best HP pools. -They can cap in a more easy way than cruisers. -Khab can heal. -Grozvoi can equip def fire. -They can outgun any other DDs of other nations. I ask this because as a cruiser and dd player. I am very tempted to use these little cruisers.
  21. Obviously, Warships is a team game, but I think it's interesting to look at how ships fare in hypothetical 1v1 battles. Very often, close matches will come down to situations that end up being 1v1 or a series of 1v1s (like a 1v3, but that 1 has the opportunity to fight and win three consecutive 1v1 battles to win the match) Since lots of mechanics are situational, I think a good starting place for the discussion of 1v1s is with some "all else being equal" assumptions: - Ocean Map - All ships permaspotted - Fights start at 15k? 12k? 10k? Since we'll never get people to agree on how strong or weak concealment is, or cruiser shell arcs, etc, it's easier to just look at ships straight up without their other advantages. Arizona Perth Admiral Graf Spee Fuso Shinonome Anshan Leander Warspite Budyonny Molotov Cleveland Bayern Dunkerque Aoba Hatsuharu New Mexico Fubuki Farragut Ernst Gaede De Grasse Mutsu Nürnberg Duca d'Aosta Gnevny La Galissonnière Edit: Special exclusion so no one dehydrates themselves shedding too many tears over this thread. Feel free to add in an exclusion if you want to discuss how things would play out with concealment, islands, smoke, or whatever other conditions in play. I'm mostly just interested in the small scale final battles that come down to a ship or two on each side and things like concealment are much more effective on paper and in theory, than they are in reality.
  22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeeIJPHfcsY&t=2782s A couple of days ago a salvo from my Bismarck rolled for over 50k damage on the mostly flat and above water portion of a Yamato's citadel at relative close range with 4 citadels and 2 normal penetrations. It was a surprise as I would assume the Yamato's citadel is essentially immune to penetration by a 15 incher. How much luck and RNG were in my favor when this happened? It also made me wonder why the Yamato has a above water citadel in game and if it's historically accurate. I recall that the Iowa and Montana also had chunks of their citadel above water until fairly recently and used to get freakish citadels regularly... Is this something that's based on historical blueprints and diagrams or more of a flexible parameter that can be adjusted depending on in game performance? Recently I also found out the hard way that when my Ranger is discovered, it essentially have a very short shelf life and would take extreme damage from everything. it's too slow to really run away, and its hull and superstructure is apparently so thin skinned that HE will pen; and since for some reason it has a raised citadel, HE can also citadel it. Is there even any legitimate reason to designate that part of the ship's hull citadel? As I look more into this, I found out that the Midway also has a above water citadel armor belt, which for some reason is designated as just a regular armor belt of the same thickness when it's below water. Is this even something that corresponds to the design of the actual ship or just a thing to balance a ship in game? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
  23. This game is just bad. If you can't handle that thought, or are one of those people that validate their own existence to the perceived popularity of a piece of media, or think that a multi-million dollar, international conglomerate needs your defending from me, then please, don't reply, I don't want to read your bile and you can stop reading mine now because this will go right over your head. But it doesn't *have* to be bad. Seemingly, bizarrely, Wargaming Ltd. is deliberately *trying* to make this game bad; either due to gross incompetence, or breaking that basic engineering precept: don't try to reinvent the wheel. I took the last six weeks off from playing World of Warships, due largely to Wargaming's poor business choice and transparent fleecing of its community, but also because I was growing tired of what has amounted to a boring experience; every game in both Random and CoOp basically plays out in one of 3 possible ways. As a result I reacquainted myself with other games I had neglected, skipped, or, for the purposes that will follow, see how the concept of this game could be done elsewhere. I came back to play a few games in the intern; one a few weeks ago, and one or two last night. This has put me in the unique position of both 'detoxing' from this game, its playerbase, its 'meta,' really how it works, while at the same time, with upwards of 6000 matches played, very much still retaining an extensive experience on how it works. And I gotta say, now that I've put World of Warships in perspective to other games, both dramatically similar and dramatically different, is, frankly, a very poorly implemented one. But again, it doesn't have to be this way. And I think Wargaming would do well, especially in light of their... let's call it less than admirable behavior over the past month or two's 'incidences,' to very strongly consider a retooling of their outlook and take the following measures: 1. Increase transparency to the *intended* direction of their game(s). This is a big one. Most arguments, issues, perceptions of favoritism and pretty much 3/4's of the 'problems' seem to stem from not being at all clear what *WARGAMING* wants out of this game. Let's start from the place this game is very much an 'early access' title. It was released with less than 10% of the current content, with great swaths of content promised at release, and is constantly evolving over time. This is a Beta. And that's fine. But an important part is telling the community what your ultimate goal is. As it stands, we have a community with disparate interests: BB players want BB's to be indicative of their Ship-to-Ship gunnery supremacy, DD players want DD's to be not only useful, but interesting and feasible (lets put it under the blanket term, 'more forgiving'), CA's want a more balanced position between fast and shooty sneaky DD gameplay and Gunplay of BB's, and CV's want a coherent role in the game that allows them to both throw their weight as history suggests while at the same time be beyond a point and click adventure game. These goals are *mostly* (but not exclusively) antithetical to one another; you can't please *all* of them with one game. It would help, greatly, if we could know what Wargaming *wants* of each class. Clear cut with no illusions, no obfuscation, no fear (which is palpable in *many,* especially Sub_Octavian's responses), just honest and blunt: "This is what we want World of Warships to look like in a 'finished' state." Even if that goal isn't actually feasible, it would help in a great deal to know that. Putting this in perspective: We all know what Call of Duty seeks to be; racing, fast past, twitch arcade twitch shooting, with little emphasis on teamwork but rather personal glory. And it works stellar for them. They make gangbusters, and their community loves them. As a result demanding of Activision they say, integrate organizational efforts akin to SWAT 4, or weapons handling/ballistics of ARMA, or maps/scales the size of Just Cause really don't make sense. They are inherently incomparable with the clear, concise, and importantly, known goal of the development team. As a result no one expects that stuff and similarly doesn't feel betrayed when it doesn't show up or the game moves in the opposite direction. Similarly, you look at Starcraft. Blizzard had a pretty clear cut goal in what they were hoping to achieve, and were very open about what they were seeking to achieve. Everyone will argue about little balancing issues, but the overall goal is very clear cut. In contrast you look at the most recent Mass Effect game, Andromeda. The recent leaks of the development cycle was illuminating to say the least. But one thing that stuck out was that not only did they not express to their community, to their customers, what *they,* the developer wanted to achieve, it appears the developer itself didn't really hash out what they wanted to achieve either until it was far too late to realize the vision. World of Warships is, I see from overwhelming evidence, suffering the same problems. Debates over realism vs. 'fun,' population issues with classes, power creep, premiums, and many, MANY other issues stem, not really from the issue themselves, but the secretive and unclear goals of the Developer itself. People are smarter than I think Wargaming thinks they are, insofar as given a *context* people will more readily accept, acknowledge, and if need be, argue from a more appropriate stance. It would behoove Wargaming to, clearly, not concisely, explain what they want this game to be. Make it as hyperbolic as they want, that's okay in this case. Pretend you have an unlimited budget, unlimited time, and unlimited player count; what is Wargaming's dream of what this game is supposed to be and how are they working to achieve said dream. That, much more than anything, will quell some debate, restore some civility to discussion, and allow the community to better understand and thus accept decisions MADE by Wargaming in the direction the game goes. Because it would have context and context is key. 2. Learn that monetization, profit, money making does not have to come at the expense of product quality nor is needs to ever compromise a Free to Play's (FTP) game's efforts. Because it really doesn't. I believe and accept when they say, they want this game to very much be FTP and a fair FTP experience, while at the same time offering paid content. Moreover, I see no reason they can't make more money in the future as time goes on by retooling their methodology, and do so in a way that not only avoids pissing off the community, but actually is, not just appears, but is serving their interests. Win-win right? Here's how, and this if free advice from someone with an MBA who works on products of greater value than this (our last commission sold for (at launch) $335,000,000, that's what LNG's actually cost, and we've got another two keels being laid and I'm taking hullform design lead on the next major commission so they are trusting my judgement with, very literally, hundreds of millions of dollars); recognize people will pay for convenience. Notice that word, convenience. That is not a synonym for quality. Or quantity. It's for ease. That's the entire model on which iTunes, Netflix, Prime Video, Amazon Prime, Steam, XBLA, and many more distribution services work on. Because I can, with little effort or technical know how, get *most* of those products, for free, illegal or not, in similar quality, and, most importantly, quantity. I can go onto many streaming websites and get every movie on my computer for free. I can drive to a store and buy all the stuff on Amazon for similar if not cheaper price. I can find mirrors of nearly every major release on Steam within a fortnight of release. But I don't. Why? Because I, like a HUGE segment of the customer base, will pay for the convenience. World of Warships is not only comparable with this type of goods/content delivery, it's better suited for it than most other types of video games. Because it is very much an early access title, with new content added approximately once a month if not more often, there is a steady flow of goods. So you've got supply down. There is clearly a great many people that want to throw money at you, begging for you to create/release specific premium content, so demand is also a big check. But you also piss off a lot of your potential customers. I'm one of them. You won't get a dime for me ever again baring a real, concerted retooling of your model. That's thousands of dollars you're not getting from one person. And I'm not the only person that feels this way. Moreover, it's very unfriendly to a new customer. But it doesn't have to be. As it stands, you sell DLC, because that's what it is in essence, released periodically for, what really is in most cases, the cost of a brand new game. In the past six weeks I bought a few new games to play to get my head away from Tiered Wargames, and some of them were $30, some were $50, and one was $60. I bought Ghost Recon Wildlands, $60. I spent ~100 hours in it, or about $0.60 per hour. Now you sell premiums for a comparable price, especially at say Tier 7 and 8. I have one. The Sims. I've played 153 battles in it. Let's say, charitably, those battles lasted about on average ~17 minutes each. When I bought it, it sold for $30 in a package, but for simplicity sake we'll round it down to $25 which is the baseline cost for ship + port. That translates into about $0.58 per hour of gameplay. So comparable right? No. It's not. And I think this is the source of much issue with your monetization policy and the community's, let's called it 'spirited' debate thereof. Let me explain. Although the cost per hour is similar, the actual content is not, Let's keep with Ghost Recon; I can do *a lot* of stuff in that game. By that I mean, gameplay. I can be a sniper, a stealthy CQB, a balls out rambo. I can drive tanks, attack helicopters. I can drive or warp to my destination. I can fight in jungle, snowy mountains, and deserts. I can play for 100 hours by myself or 100 hours CoOperatively with friends. I can spend hours customizing my guns with attachments or uniforms for my operator. Two people can have *vastly* different experiences, almost unrecognizable so, over that $0.60 per hour gameplay. Let me stress I'm not saying this is a *good* game, I am not commented on quality, but rather content and gameplay. That's not true here. I buy the Sims, and play it for $0.58 per hour, but it's always the Sims. I can't decide to be a battleship in the Sims one match. Or a Carrier the next. The gameplay will always be routed in being the Sims. What that does is reduce the *value* potentially to a customer in a premium ship. And the Sims is a GREAT example of this, because it is notoriously a unique playing ship. So unless that *particular* gameplay appeals to me, I won't enjoy it, and I won't buy it. But as I espoused, that's not true in Ghost Recon. Or many, many other games. For the same price per hour, I can have wildly different experience. I can make the game play my way. But for the same costs, I can't do that here. This is why everyone doesn't buy EVERY ship. Which makes no sense. This is a niche game. And it's audience appeal is niche. And I'll come back to this but suffice to say, if the gameplay is all a player is after, and that gameplay is slow, methodical capital ship-esq combat, then World of Warships is one of the worst examples of this. Again, I will come back to this, but suffice to say, of the limited pool of comparable games, this one, purely from a gameplay sense, is objectively lacking in variety of content, not quality, because that's subjective, but on a checklist of what a player can do, this one checks far FEWER boxes, than others. So it's not the gameplay getting people here. Ostensibly it's not even the theme specifics of Warships, as, with Steel Oceans, recently released Cold Waters, Atlantic Fleet, the old Silent Hunters, even Assassin's Creed Black Flag, all can scratch the Navy part of a Naval Combat game. But they don't make the money this one does. So what's the real draw. Why success here and not elsewhere? I'd argue it's the volume (but not variety and there is a difference) of content and dedication to the setting. Now that's both Wargaming's greatest asset and greatest weakness; people come and spend money to play as their favorite, well remembered, and often moderately researched ship from WWi-WWII, *but* if you lack one or more of those, this game has little to no appeal. Which means you have both a captive, but limited, audience. So they love these ships, are willing to one degree or another learn about all these ships. Why don't they all buy all of them as released? Price is the low hanging fruit, $25-$55 is a lot for what amounts to piece of DLC but that's not the main factor I think. No, I think it's that, because of the game design decisions you've made, people question a purchase, of any value, because they are unsure if they will get a fair, balanced use of it. Put another way; let's say they sold individual guns, as in not skins but access to the gun itself, in CSGO. If I'm not a Sniper, and balance is not an issue, I won't, ever, buy a sniper rifle, because it doesn't fit the way I want to play and thus is not of value to me. If I don't ever play Battleships, releasing a $60 monstrosity, baring blatant, PTW features, I am totally not interested and not going to send you a dime. But. I do play Battleships. I do play DD's. I do play CV's, and tons of CA's. But I won't buy outside the ones that fit my playstyle. That's a lost sale. But it doesn't HAVE to be. See you have a VERY good system that can be monetized properly, and you don't even know it. Again, free advice; you have four distinct playstyles minimum; BB's don't play like any of the others, CV's ditto, CA's Ditto, and DD's Ditto. I will play all, but only buy from one or two. So, lets pretend you release content dispersed among these 4 types evenly (for simplicity sake). You do lets say, again, for simplicity sake, 24 a year, or ~2 a month. That's 6, maybe 12 ships a year I buy, and 18 or 12 I don't buy. . On average the cost is ~$35 per ship in the basic-most configuration. So if I buy all 6 ships a year that appeal to my class, and thus, gameplay choice, I will have spent $240 a year. But I also would not have spent $640 that year. How do you get that other $640 out of me. Now of course the reality is most players aren't going to pay any of those costs per year but lets play with this to make a point. Well, at the moment, it seems you are trying to make that other $640 irresistible by, frankly making them game changing. Overpowered is a strong word, but certainty ships that, to counter, require specific and unique behavior. I know how to counter every RN CL, but a Belfast requires slightly DIFFERENT play style and if I or my opponent (if I'm in a Belfast) don't apply that style, I/they will lose. Again, this isn't a question of Over Powered or not, but simply different. Another word is gimmick. That's not sustainable. You can't keep releasing ships with new, ever more inventive gimmicks to keep the public buying. There aren't an unlimited ways to skin a cat. So yeah you can get that extra $640 a year from me, for now, but when you run out of ideas it dries up fast, and in the meantime, you maybe damaging the overall picture. So how do you get that $640 from me if not gimmicks. Well, as we established: People pay for convenience, they expect a reciprocal value for their purchase, are engaged enough in this setting the appreciate quantity over quality, and that varied gameplay is not as in demand as much as more gameplay. So how do you turn that into an extra $640 a year? Subscription. Now hold your horses and let me explain. People like choices. They like being able to set their own path. I would never, and am not here, suggest removing any current monetization model in place (although staggered bundles need to go but I think you know that already so let's leave it at that). So keep selling ships individually, and in bundles, keep selling port slots, and premium currency, and a premium time (probably would need a retooling of price but it would be easily offset) all as separate purchasable items/service. BUT ADD, a subscription service. Now let's say that service costs $20 per month. Now if I do that for a full year, I'm already at the same $240 I was at buying the same ships that I would have purchased normally. How would this subscription work? Simply put: Premium time during that period, full access to every premium ship sold in the game, yes even the 'outlawed' ones, which we'll come back to how this becomes okay, and that's kinda all it has to be. Now if I let that lapse, unless I separately purchase a ship, I lose access to it. So I buy a Warspite, and then Subscribe, I can keep playing the Warspite but I can also now play the Atago. I unsubscribe, I can still keep playing Warspite, because I directly purchased her, but if I want to play Atago I either have to re-subscribe or buy it separately. So what you've created now is a reliable income, $20 per person every month, which is getting you to the SAME place you are in now $240 a year (which, breaking the wall established, is probably more than you get per player normally), without really losing anything in the process but will greatly be appreciated by players. Likewise, it has the added benefit of taking some 'heft' out of premiums. For one, you could nerf them now. For the same reason SWTOR can nerf premium content because it's a subscription based game, or World of Warcraft can do the same. For two, they no longer require to be as 'gimmicky.' Something I'm sure your development and balance team would appreciate. Now you're already getting that $240 a year with our without the gimmicks because yeah, I'll pay $20 a month to play the two new ships a month. But I won't spend $35 each unless they have one helluva gimmick. A third and most important benefit, is you NOW can open new avenues for monetization as the efforts previously dedicated to sell-sell-sell more and more gimmicky premiums is mostly taken out of the conversation. What are these new avenues? Well there's a lot but a short list: non-gameplay effected cosmetics (flags, camos w/o benefits and camos with benefits, skins), Special commanders, with increase player leveling rates, retraining costs would become a more regular source of income, port slots become a bigger commodity, and the big one; events. See a few games have realized, people will pay for events. That's Mann Up Mode in TF2, or tournament modes in other games, CoOp/Single player content in War Thunder. People will pay extra for special, separate gameplay. I mean I'll give you a simple version: you did the rubber ducky April Fools event two years ago, everyone got to play it for free, maybe, after the event is over for free, offer access to a CoOp version for $5-$10. It costs you very little to nothing, since you already went and built the damn thing, but now you might make some residuals on it after the fact. And it doesn't close you off from using it again in the future for free. Another example: sorta stolen from Mann Up Mode, but sell a ticket that lets you roll after doing a Hard Version of the new Scenarios for not a chance of a super container, but a guaranteed super container containing loot. Kinda like an Operation/Raid in other games. I can still play the Hard mode for free, and if I subscribe, I can still play the premium ships that may be present in that super container, but if I pay for the ticket, say like $5-$7 like Mann Up Tickets, now I can get it forever, even if I unsubscribe. That's a constructive way to monetize a game. It doesn't hurt the player base, It reduces any and all accusations of Pay 2 win because you genuinely don't HAVE to even skirt that realm anymore, and allows players to pay for that all important convenience; I don't have to study and research the gameplay of a new preimum ship, I just pay my $20 a month and get to access it form my own opinion. And of course, if I don't want to do that, I can still buy thing's outright, and you still get to make the money, but with a huge burden off both your shoulders, and your player base. 3. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel and acknowledge that the reason similar games work, is because the mechanics at play work. This is the part that's likely going to piss off most people as it's going to start leveling fingers at direct problems and making comparisons to other games which inevitably causes confusion between what one person proposes and the other interprets that's proposal. I am the first one to say EA Games has been a *[edited]* trying to chase the Call of Duty bubble, and in the process has killed 3 Battlefield games by instead of finding their own way, trying to make an 'EA' version of Call of Duty. Battlefield should be about Vehicle combat, because that's what they're good at, and Call of Duty should be about twitch, arcade shooting, because that's what they're good. But that's not the same thing as saying that, for where one overlaps the other, use the same, if not similar, mechanics. For example, Call of Duty should not put vehicles in their Multiplayer, it is incomparable with the quick-respawn-die gameplay, *but* using Battlefields more unobtrusive HUD is not a bad idea. Conversely, respawn times, game types, and map sizes found in Battlefield should not seek to ape Call of Duty's more claustrophobic design, the shooting mechanics, where applicable, should be one and the same as they work very well. I use this example to emphasis that copying another game, using things they do well is not the same as copying it wholesale. So when I say, and go into great detail later, the damage, buff/debuff/ utility characteristics of Fractured Space are vastly superior to World of Warships, I am not saying turn World of Warships into Fractured Space. Obviously, they are not comparable at all levels 1:1. But that doesn't mean a good idea there, can't translate into a good idea here. This is mostly directed at Wargaming (and will be sending copies to them in PM's because why not), but we're all engineer's and/or businessmen here. We all understand that if one guy does something that really works, it's not a bad idea to tool it to your purpose. Again, copying 1:1 is dubious and dangerous, but taking a concept, or a methodology is stupid to ignore. So why don't do you do it in World of Warships? I totally get forging your own way forward, but Lewis and Clark didn't manufacture their shoes. It's okay to use someone else's idea, otherwise we'd never get anywhere as you'd have to reinvent all of calculus, physics, electronics every time you want to make a new computing device. So with that in mind, what do other games do better than World of Warships that Wargaming would do well to heed and implement, in some form here? Well before I can answer that I also need to forewarn, that since the answer to #1, what is Wargaming's goal, is unanswered, I have to fill in the blanks of what they would want, and thus what to suggest, based on bits and pieces of info gleaned from Q/A's, patch notes, and any information they've released officially. So I have to answer #1 on my own. For the purposes I propose, I think that you want an arcade warship game, with average game times taking approximately 12 minutes, where players of all experience levels play all tiers available to them, with all ships usable by any player of any skill type to varying levels of success. I also think, in more specifics, you want more brawling? I base this assumption, and acknowledge it's an assumption, off of 1) Increasing incidence of close-to-medium range weaponry/utilities (smoke vs. Radar for example, more and more emphasis on on secondary batteries), 2) a DEMPHASIS on more 'sniper' based tactics (torp walls at long/max range, dislike of bow on camping from BB's (hence the AP bombs forthcoming), giving CA's higher utility and turning abilities to better evade close in fire, and 3) dynamic means something happens, and you have said the word 'dynamic' more often than I've ever heard before. Sniper vs. Sniper is not dynamic, it's a patience game. It's anticipatory. Dynamics literally means change, motion, development. Brawling, changing of lines is far more in alignment with this idea than two teams sitting at 16+ km lobbing shells at each other, dodging the occasional 8-11 km Torpedo strike. I also think you want ever class to feel useful. Which of course is the biggest part of #1, as we need a clear, definitive answer on WHAT these classes, even if it's by nation-to-nation, are supposed to be. We've guessed, and used what clues you give out on release of new lines, but a decisive, clear cut answer would go in a far ways to answer this. That said, all are forms of DPS, with secondary duties. BB's are DPS, plus tanking ability in both health, armor, and heals. CA's are DPS, along with utility be it AA, Radar, Sonar, long range torpedoes, or DoTs (which is still DPS), DD's are DPS, with some utility in form of Smoke, sonar in a few cases, and the ability to shift the lines of battle using their speed and stealth along with aiding in spotting, CV's are DPS along with spotting and support in the form (ideally) of air cover. Which brings me to the next point: everything revolves around DPS. That's fine, that's most games, but then you have to ask yourself, is the methodology of DPS in this game done properly or even well? I would say, no. And here's some examples as to why and who does it better, and how it can be done better here: 1) Fractured Space: Yeah I bang the FS drum hard. I really like that game and it really nailed the feel of being in a large, powerful, Capital Starship, with just the right amount of micromanaging systems (CWIS, Armor facing (read: not angling) location in a 3D space, and utility output (only a few ships are 100% Damage only ships)), and with a balance that really should be lauded for how no ship feels either remotely overpowered or throw away. Everything good, everything's useful, and everything can be beaten by pretty much everything else, just depends on a playstyle. But what does Fractured Space do that I think Warships should adopt and/or what does it do better? Well, frankly, World of Warships is far too spikey. Taking six weeks off coming back I was blown away at how spikey the damage is. Annoyingly so. It's not a adaptation thing, and I'll get to why later, but it is too spikey. Everything does too much damage. And I *think* the reason why is Wargaming's desire to ensure swifter games. But, as we have seen, this is not the case. Games take a long time, way over (the assumed) 12 minute sweet spot. Why? *BECAUSE* the game is so spikey. People know, rapidly, how unforgiving the damage rates are in this game act accordingly. So using guns on a DD isn't so much bad because it's ineffective, but because it can be suicidal to do so. Changing position rapidly in a BB, especially Fast BB's like Iowa's, Izumo's the like, is suicidal because at *some* point you will be showing a sweet, sweet side armor begging for 25k damaging strikes. CA's? Nuff said right? Which leads into this, another thing I think you want is that all tiers to 'feel' the same. That is to say, ostensibly, there isn't a difference between say, an all tier 5 match, and an all tier 9 match. How do I mean that? For one, rate of damage is 'scaled' the same. Yes the health is higher at a higher tier, but so is the Alpha strikes. Torpedo do more damage, but are fired further away causing fewer hits. Put in simplest terms, it still is the case that a Texas nukes an Omaha in a single strike just as often as an Iowa nukes a Baltimore. Or a DD caught in sight of a Furutaka up close is going to lose at least half their health per HE strike is no different than a Ibuki coming into view 6 km away while sitting in a Fletcher. But they play, the tiers, massively different. I think this is symptomatic of the community and the perception (and learning) of the unforgiving nature of the damage rate, i.e. spikeyness and thus getting cagey at Tier 9 where they weren't at Tier 5. So with that in mind the comparison to Fractured Space comes back. While yes there ARE some spikey ships, the vast, vast majority of both weapons and ships, are not spikey at all. I can only think of a few situations where 1 ship can take ANY other ship from full health to death in a single strike. A Leviathan on a Healer that lands both the Lance and the Beam on the same armor section MAYBE can pull that off, and not once both sides get much above level 5-6. Obviously any ship jumping away is fair game but then that's the point. So overall, I would call spikeness very RARE, very situational. Most kills come from 'semi' bug bites. That is to say, I have 14,000 HP, and the attacks hitting me hit for, per shot, 15-20 per landed shot (read, not salvo). So why don't individual brawls take 20 minutes each? Because of two main things: teamwork (focus fire) becomes required otherwise yes, a ship will get away when damaged, AND that despite the individual shots being weak, all ships are, essentially, perfectly accurate. Aim, is the only reason a shot will ever miss. And with ships moving rapidly in 3 dimensions, that can be harder than you'd think in a brawl, but the idea is worth looking at here. Additionally, things like Debuffs/Buffs are present and, as I will explain in the overall recommendations, are vital to facilitating teamwork. I makes a ship that ostensibly doesn't 'work' in a situation at least be capable of playing a role. I may not be able to kill a Colossus in a Displacer, but I can keep him at range so my teammates can. One last thought is credit. Now the two economies are not comparable for a lot of reasons, but one thing I adore in FS is that kills are tallied to all who hit the dead target within like, 30-45 seconds with more than 1000 damage (which is like, no damage). This is great as it completely negates 'kill' stealing. Thus focusing fire actually benefits EVERYONE equally, and no one cares who gets the actual final blow. Also respawns. Not for nothing but Sudden Death is the poor mans way of raising tension. Also MMR. In both a CoOp mode AND a PvP one. And they're seperate MMR's. And Fractured Space has like 10% of the population we do on a SLOW day. Just food for thought. 2) TF2: You can argue with a lot of things, but success is measured in dollars and among MP focused competitive games, it's hard to find a more successful, more continuously profitable game. Sure as an IP COD makes more, but as an individual game each COD ceases turning a profit much more than a year after release. TF2 came out ten years ago, It still turns a huge profit. Enough profit that Valve has no interest in making a Team Fortress 2. It's unneeded (and, frankly, unwelcomed). There are plenty of complaints about TF2, but they do a lot of things right. And what I feel is applicable here, other than their aforementioned monetization practices, For one they recognize balance comes from a focus point. I mean the name itself, balance, requires a foci. This game, World of Warships. has no foci. It doesn't have a baseline to build off of. New weapon X trades off of baseline weapon A by adding this stat but reducing this other stat. It means that it cannot definitively allow (in nearly all cases) for a weapon to be a total improvement over another. I can use the Force of Nature over the Scattergun, it has more pellets per shell, knockback, and and it's great, but I lose the 4 of the six rounds the scattergun carries, does less damage. It's a tradeoff. But it's balanced on the basis of two things: 1) It's not a direct upgrade of the standard, and, most importantly, the default, the standard, is balanced against everything else. World of Warships *needs* a baseline. I call it a hypothetical Navy. But there needs to be a baseline. So that, for example, DD X has better ranged/powered/speed torps, but less of them. Or Cruiser Y has faster firing guns with better fire chance, but lower damage. You can be even less specific and say BB Z has more powerful secondaries but 1 less charge of repair. Just simple examples but having a baseline means that it's much more difficult to create a an overpowered ship. Internally, Wargaming should discuss the creation of a 'baseline' to which all other ships are held to. A common thread stops something from breaking the trend in a dramatic way. Also worth mention yet again is teamwork. Team Fortress 2 is forces teamwork by making classes complement each other. Something sorely missing from this game. Sure a DD can spot for his team, but crap rewards and no immediate feedback for doing so, vs. the reward and immediate feedback for torp spam, is much more enticing. Sure a BB can tank hits, but with the aforementioned spike levels, and the likewise desire to deal spike damage, and range not being a huge hinderance in doing so, what's the motivation to use all that health/armor? A Heavy in TF2 not getting shot is not a heavy doing his job. But more than that, that Heavy will never contribute, nor for himself (too far away, his gun does next to 0 damage even if it hits), or his team. 3) Last one, World of Warcraft (and SWTOR, and any other MMORPG Clone of World of Warcraft as they have all, mostly, passed this trait down). I've heard on more than one occasion that Wargaming staff find Blizzard to be the 'masters' of balance. I can more or less agree. But it doesn't, at least in practice, seem to be that you guys appreciate and apply the lessons they've learned. For one, the word "spikey" in the World of Warships sense is no where near what you would see in WoW or SWTOR or any MMO. But we already covered that from FS. No what I find WoW, and SWTOR bring to the table insofar as balance is concerned is roles. Dedicated roles. Beyond just DPS+. The best player in the World can't solo some situations because they are frankly not designed to be. It makes teamwork not optional. They facilitate this through balance. Tanks can't pass DPS checks. Heals can survive spikes/pass DPS checks. DPS can't survive either sustained DPS or spike DPS in most situations. How does this translate to World of Warships? Well at the moment I can't quite fit any ship into one of the triangle, Support, Damage, Tank. I mean ostensibly the BB's are the Tanks, but as it stands they are by far the heaviest damage dealers. You can view DD's as the Damage dealers, but a strong case can be made they are actually tanks (some of my highest Damage 'received' as in shot at me have been in destroyers). Wargaming, you have to pick lane. Pick a role for each ship, make them complement each other in a *constructive,* not selfish, way. Give heals an auroa so ships nearby heal a little (say 33% of what the healer does), make it so radar only works for friendlies, not the ship itself, but if nearby friendlies see it, obviously the ship projecting see it. Make it so smoke lasts longer if a friendly was in the 'puff' within 5-10 seconds of it being placed. These are just ideas not intended to be taken literally but instill some forced teamwork because as it stands, we have in MOST cases, a 'team' of 12 individuals, playing against a 'team' of another 12 individuals, with teamwork VERY much taking a secondary role. Go try and play a raid or an operation as an individual. See how well that works. Recommendations Most problems, as far as I see it, can be tied to the damage system. I mean at the end of the day [edited] and counterbitching in regards to balance, premium ship content, or weapon complaints almost always boil down to something does or doesn't do as much damage as it 'should' or something receives damage too much/not enough than it 'should.' I would argue that it's rate of damage from whence most issues arise. Now I've thought, for a good long while, that removing citadels as damage centers was the way to go. To essentially make the '33%' normal pen the max damage, and instead have hits to the citadel be replaced with guaranteed, unmitigatable debuffs. That is to say, pending on the specific location of the hit, your engines go down, rudder goes out, reload time increased/turret shut down, no matter what. All you can do is maybe reduce the time it takes with certain upgrades/captain skills, but it *will* go down, but a press of the Damage Control Party will bring it right back. I felt this had the advantage of one, reducing spike damage which I've always recognized as a problem, and two, forcing, or at least encouraging, a degree of teamwork as, now a BB cits an enemy, not because it's a near 1 hit kill, but because it shuts his engines down. Those engines go down, now a teammate can swoop in and torp him, or focus him down. Or that enemy presses their DCM but risks a flood or fire coming right after. And it balances BB's damage output a tad as now they can go for the easy, high belt attack and land 100% of their salvo, or they can go for the citadel, risk missing most of their shells, but force the enemy into a sitting duck position. This helps everyone, and really hurts no one. BB's will still 'reign' supreme in damage output and likewise can be a bit more mobile while they do it and gives them some sorely needed utility beyond 'shoot the thing.' It helps Cruisers by giving them a boost in survivability. It helps DD's, who neither receive nor really dole out Citadel hits, by making EVERYONE less cagey and thus more likely to pop out and get in a position to be torped. And while I hold this is still a viable idea, it's too kinda sidestepping an issue and likewise not serving gameplay as well as it should. See why Alpha strikes are in game is twofold: people like seeing big numbers and Wargaming is fearful of long games. Well, I have another way that serves both of those. Reduce damage output by a factor of 5x, and increase accuracy by a factor of say... 7x maybe 7.5x. Let me explain why. As it stands, this game is woefully inconsistent. Damage is very RNG dependent. Both in what it can do to enemy ships (as we just found out about turret knock outs), and in hit location, due to the accuracy mechanics (also revealed in depth recently). So Wargaming seems to be aware players like feedback. So they give you big hits form time to time to balance out the majority of shells that don't land on target. Well as Fractured Space shows, quite frankly how TF2 shows, or Quake, or CS, or even Steel Oceans, or any number of games, players respond to constant feedback, even without large alpha strikes. So why 5x reduction in damage across the board? Because now everyone is scaled back equally, so no single hit is nearly as lethal as it was before, but with the accuracy boost, you can land more hits. Or maybe you can't. See as it stands you can get errant hits truly, by accident. You boost accuracy, those won't happen anymore. This has a bunch of pluses. For one, it rewards skillful play. As it stands you can very well aim *perfectly* and do no damage, not only because of bounce mechanics, but because your shells form a nice wreath around your target. With an accuracy boost, now if you *can* aim, you will get that big hit (9/9 hits or however many barrels you've got). Likewise at long range, you are better capable of dodging away from a full salvo should you be aware it's incoming. This overall reduces the ability to rack up damage at excessively long range. Now to make sure you're opponent can't dodge, you must be close, for less shell travel time. Lower the damage and people can stop being afraid to move forward. Take a full salvo to your cit? Not nearly as big of a deal as it is now. I would still add mandatory debuffs, but that's just my idea of some implemented teamwork (and it kinda make sense since that's WHAT a citadel is). It also should reduce steam rolls. As it stands a steamroll more or less seems to take place largely because a multiplying error on the team. One guy gets canned, everyone starts to turn away, and in the process more guys get canned, so on and so forth. This should make it neigh impossible to kill someone in the first 5 minutes of the game baring suicide charges. Sustains Now it's not all bad. There are things Wargaming does that I do indeed love, and they should be reminded that we are aware that they do this, where other companies don't, and they should continue to do so. 1) Mod support: As we just saw at E3, people do actually care about mods and don't appreciate it when Devs screw around with them. Wargaming mercifully allows mods, and supports them both directly and indirectly. 2) A genuine appreciation for the content and information at play. If your a gun nut, which I know I am, it is quite annoying playing many FPS's, especially those laboring under 'realism' when they can't even get the damn names right, much less a realistic appearance. Wargaming does not have this problem. They know their stuff. They know the history. They take the time and energy to get the blueprints and make a near 1:1 facsimile of the ships as they existed. Now look, I give these recommendations and suggestions because I don't want to see EA or Activision make a killing once they realize there is money to be had here. The WWII thing is swinging around again. Battlefield 1, now Call of Duty World War II. It's coming back. And it won't take a huge rocket scientist to figure out that one of the most profitable games in the world is non-American, has effectively 0 direct competition, and ripe for the taking. If you don't change your path soon, THAT'S what's going to happen. For myself, I've re-uninstalled the game. I cannot play it after playing some competently made games. It's just so bad. In 6 weeks I lost plenty of games in FS, and in TF2, and in others. But in 2 days playing this piece of trash, I got more angry than in total over the last 6 weeks. This is a POORLY made game. And it's getting by on the total and complete lack of competition. And if that's good enough for you Wargaming, okay. But I'd start writing my resume, because I give it maybe... three years, before the Western vultures figure this out and get their own versions out. And I cannot emphasis how done you'd be. You don't have the marketing to beat them. You just don't. They spend in marketing for one game what you spend in development for the entire company. And if you don't fix this pile, you're going to get very much that. And I cannot see how it won't periodically get worse with time. I'm not spending money on this game. I'm not playing it either. And I'm exactly who your supposed to appeal to: WWII History buff with both disposable time and money. And I'm completely done with this game. It is offensive on all the senses on at this point. I don't have fun, the game is overly unforgiving, and frankly, boring. It's chore-like to play it. Every match goes 1 of three ways. A blowout, a circle, or stagnant fart. I've had more varied gameplay in 1 match of FS than in ~30 in the past two days. I can't see myself playing this game for another slog of 6000 matches. Even things like RN battleships are not enough to drag me in. Sure I want to play the KGV. But I have to play it here? With this system? And with you people? Thanks, but no thanks. I waited 30 years for this game, I wait a little longer for someone competent a bit more flexible to make a better one. It's just so bad at this point. And to the community that sees this and comments on this: Wargaming isn't your friend. They aren't your buddy. They're you supplier. Remember that before you RUSH to their defense. And the ironic thing is, the ones most readily to defend Wargaming, the most emotional and likely, economically invested, stand the most to lose if Wargaming loses. That investment is all for not if the servers shut down because of lack of interest and/or a competent competitor. Make them CHANGE. It's not a sign of weakness. It doesn't make it less. It makes them SMART. Adaptation and change are the signs of a successful organism. Wallowing in filth is something nature purges from its system. Remember that.
  24. Interesting day for me... play my Tirpitz and boy a whole lot of uptiering going on... yet 10K players on the servers. Leads me to believe - perhaps falsely - the majority of the players aren't playing in the high tiers (9/10). Why I wonder? Well sure, coins and profit. Okay fine, I'll give you that... but then that's sort of WoWS/WG's issue isn't it? If they made the high-tiers something "desirable" by the average player, would more players play in those tiers? Maybe, maybe not. It's funny because the thing is a Tirpitz or a Bismarck meeting up with a pair of tier 9/10 cruisers is likely to have a really rough time of it... I know because I've played my Minotaur in such matches and you feel kinda dirty - if you have any conscience and can remember what it's like to be the target BB - cause you pound them to pudding. You're hitting them far faster than they can hit you - and you're doing it with more accuracy, less dispersion. Tirpitz (as mine is equipped) has 21.4 km range with 276 meter dispersion max. Reload is 26 seconds. Minotaur (as mine is equipped) has 15.8 km range with a 142 meter dispersion max. Reload is 2.8 seconds. So the Miontaur can fire almost ten salvos per every single salve by the Tirpitz - with ALMOST 50% less dispersion. If you keep the Minotaur at 11 to 16 km from the Tirpitz you're pretty much free to wreck it. Just got to aim well and move it move it move it. So I'm wondering then... at what point will the server population be large enough to where two and three tier matchmaking isn't a thing anymore? I say three because you have 8, then 9 and 10 - a three tier spread inclusive. I know too it's not always fun playing a T5 against T7 ships either. About the only one I enjoy doing that with is my Kami R... Do you suppose they actually have a population number in mind? tia fyc
  25. Wrote this in a reply to another thread, but it's probably worth it's own discussion. Despite balance disagreements, arguments, etc, everyone should keep in perspective that even the most harshest critic of WG, really loves the game, otherwise they wouldn't be here complaining about it. And when you step back and think about it, what they created is a pretty amazing accomplishment, in and of itself.
×