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


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • 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
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 146 results

  1. From WoT to Wows MM has always been a hot topic that that quickly deteriorates into "git gud" or the always popular, "MM is fine, look at my stats". The latter usually coming from people who Division or Platoon up all of the time. Rigged or not, it is simply not balanced and it really is easy to improve. I hate blow out games for either side so this isn't about a crap streak I'm having. As a matter of fact, the past 40 games or so, my winrate is near 75%. The games that are the most fun are the close games, win or lose. I looked at a game I just had 10 minutes ago. Checked the stats of all players on both teams. Team 1 averaged a winrate of 42% and team 2 averaged 50%. Guess which team won? Think it was a blow out? Yup. A simple solution that wouldn't impact time waiting for a game. "After" the 24 players are selected balance the teams based on skill. It would be simple for WG to assign a skill number to each player based on what they see as valuable contributions. Damage, destroyed, spotting etc. If a skill rating was 1-100 per class that a player plays then having 2 BB players with a 10 rating on one team and 2 with a 90 rating on the other team is unbalanced, put a 10 and a 90 on each team. Since your skill rating would be kept as part of your WG stats, for each class you play, no calculation would need to be done during MM. Sure, a division would hurt the MM balancing but it would still be a marked improvement. Any step in the direction of balance, I believe, should be debated, not slammed. Also, just for fun. Have the BB players from both teams spawn in the center of the map 1km from each other. Pretty much the only way to get most of them into the fight.
  2. Random Battle Tier Differences

    Please don't take this as a complaint but rather an issue of game balance in regards to carriers. Last night I went into a RB with a Tier V Zuiho only to be paired against a Tier 6 Independence, who promptly strafed me out of the sky. Normally, I don't have an issue with a few tiers difference, but with the strafing mechanic removed for me but enabled for the other makes no sense at all. Even with a carrier team of a T5 paired with a T6, again makes no sense. To use the term "Seal Clubbing" is an understatement. Also please note, this has happened more times than once in the past 2 weeks. Perhaps it's just my luck of the draw, but it's an awful way to encourage carrier drivers out there.
  3. So, what if a ships tier and price point could actually be changed based on ship performance? So if the Lyon outperformed the Richelieu consistently they might swap tiers. Yes, I understand there are module issues. There are also likely numerous issues such as if the Kutuzov or Belfast performing well enough, if they do excel to actually turn a tier 9 cruiser and tier 8 cruiser respectively. You could argue that some people might be upset about their purchased ships gaining a tier, but I think it could actually work out in an interesting fashion. It might get a bit crazy and I think any shifts would need to be okayed by devs obviously and I am a little concerned about modules and etc. I'm not actually saying this is a great idea neccisarily, but rather it is one that I think is maybe worth exploring because it would allow for prmiums to be released, and then if over powered they could be "fixed" by allowing the tier to fluctuate based on performance and expected performance. So if the Huang He is tanking in stats, or the Krasny Krym isn't pulling her weight, it allows for some shiftabouts is all I am saying. Some ships may grow in valu after purchased, some may lose. Odd things might happen if say Kaga or Saipan ended up being tier 8, but you know maybe she is a little too strong? :P Hard to say, would be interesting to see.
  4. Radar and Destroyer concept

    So I'm on a Hornfischer binge right now, and im trying to figure out a way to suggest reworking radar to make it kinder to destroyers and more realistic. 1940's era search radar was pretty crude, it didn't just magically illuminate a target (gun director radar is a different manner) Instead of a 1 key stealth destroying feature, maybe the key gives range and bearing to a target? (Displayed similar to the torpedo auto target) This would better reflect the tech at the time, allow the player to blind fire into the right neighborhood and give destroyers better odds. What do you suggest?
  5. This ship is unbelievably broken. Deep-deep water torpedoes that can only damage battleships and carriers, but are obscenely powerful 20km bringers of the apocalypse against targets they can actually hit. This thing deletes BBs from 15km away, hell even beyond its render range, but its the worst ship in the game against everything else. A ship that is only useful against 1 class is not useful at all, and it encourages even more passive play from BBs and "flanking" DDs, to the detriment of fun, balanced gameplay that emphasizes teamwork. As Notser says in his first impressions video, think of if WG designed a tank destroyer in WoT that could only damage heavies, but would instantly delete them from max range without any counterplay. Its absurd. This idea is just horrible, putrid, disgusting. Who in their right mind would think this ship is a good idea? Oh, I know, LWM does. Well sorry Mouse, but your just dead wrong on this one. This proposed ship will break the game even more than it already is. And you know the real reason for this? It's that WG is too shameless to ever admit they overnerfed IJN torpedo detection, and to try to compensate they release this broken turdpile, that takes the whole rock-paper-scissors balance idea to the ultimate, horrid extreme. Instead of admitting that they were wrong and fixing IJN DDs, they double-down and release more broken premiums like this one. This is low, even for WG. Do the devs even play their own game at this point? Please WG, please don't do this. This goes against basic common sense, and is another blatant attempt to sell a broken ship based on game ruining "gimmicks", just like the Belfast. And still don't believe me? You can listen to Flamu and Notser, whose videos are down below, and hear from 2 credible sources that this ship is absolute cancer. I await the sea of down votes with not a sliver of regret.
  6. 1.) From realistic point of view, even when this old design would be as heavily refitted as wg imagined, i simply cant believe she would ever able to reach 30 knots. We can compare her to Giulio Cesare which has the exact same dimensions and went through the most extended refit possible for that old hull - still italians were able to squeeze only 27 knots from it 28 at best. And those 115 000 horsepower wg gave to the Normandie, how can you fit it in her? Again italians were able to fit only 75 000 into Cesare and they even removed the middle turret for more space 2.) Dunkerque. What i really cant stand is that Normandie will be as fast as Dunkerque. This is simply wrong not just from realistic point of view but from balance point as well. Now Dunkerque is straight up worse. So, i think Normadie's speed should be reduced at least by 2 knots. That still would be enough for the competition and she still will be the second fastest BB on the tier with Dunkerque being the fastest - as it should be. EDIT: i had no idea what WG did with the Normandie (read below). she is literally screwed beyond repair. throw her away
  7. (***) Midway Nerf to T9

    I read USN CV Midway fighters will be nerf to T9 next patch. So new Midway will have the following loadouts. T9 Fighters, T8 Torpedo bombers and T10 Dive Bombers So why are we still calling Midway a T10 CV when most of her planes are T8 and T9??? Why not remove CV tech trees completely if dev are struggling this much to balance the class? Just keep the premiums for both nations and introduce submarines???
  8. I haven’t played my Blys in a long time, and after trying it out again, I know why. This ship just isn’t competitive anymore. It relied so much on its stealth fire, and when they took it away they never bothered to buff her to counteract a pretty major nerf that the removal of OWSF brought. Now this ship just isn’t good at all. It’s huge and gets spotted from miles away (6.8km max stealth, it’s pretty abysmal), it’s sluggish and doesn’t turn well, and it isn’t super fast like a Kiev or Leningrad, so it can’t dodge shells well at all. It’s guns were built on being able to stealth fire even without AFT, and now that that’s gone all they have going for them is a decent fire chance and fast-ish shells, but still with sluggish DPM. It’s torps are still very meh (slow, 57kts, only 8km range, only 14.4k dmg, and crucially, it only has 6 of them in 2x3 launchers with a slow reload time). Lets compare it with the Maass, a similar ship that’s actually really good. The Maass has hydro, great high dpm guns with amazing AP that can melt broadsides, fantastic torps that are very fast and stealthy, and are 2x4 rather than 2x3, has a lot more hp (17.5k vs 15.5k), has better AA, and for all of this still has the same 6.8km concealment. What does the Blys have going for it compared to the Maass? All I can think of is better range and more guns, but with 6.5sec reload for 7 guns compared to 4sec reload for 5. The Blys just gets owned by everything now. It can’t spam from range like the Leningrad since it doesn’t have the speed or maneuverability for it, it can’t stealthily torp enemies like the akatsuki or shiratsuyu, it can’t brawl like the Mahan, it can’t wreck battleships and chase down DDs like the Gadjah Mada, and it doesn’t have the hydro, health, flexibility, or cap pushing potential of the Maass. It’s just a bad ship now, and it needs some major buffs. I would suggest buffing it’s rate of fire, health, concealment, and it’s torps, as it’s just not effective with any of them anymore. It relied so much on its stealth fire to make up for its weaknesses, and now it doesn’t have that going for it either. I know it’s been a long time since the great OWSF removal, but this topic is still relevant. The Blys has suffered so much from it, it needs some real love to even be close to be considering competitive. I know the devs probably won’t listen, as there too busy adding another lame B.B. line, but I want people to at least hear my peace. Think about it. The Blys needs buffs, it just does.
  9. Two suggestions. The second one should be easy and low impact. You may think it is too late for the first but I think it could still be done- just leave existing premiums as they are but don't create any new unique premium ships. Idea 1- For premium ships, rather than buy a ship that is premium I'd rather be able to pay to make any ship in my fleet premium. Let's say that I'm a low tier player and I love the US Cruiser St Louis and want to make that a premium. I could pay whatever WG decides is a good price for a premium Tier III cruiser and then that ship gets all the premium benefits (no captain retraining, lower repair cost, increased captain XP, premament cammo, etc). Why do this? Many reasons: Game balance easier- fewer ships to balance No player perception of "pay to win". The only thing that changed about the ship is it's economic bonuses The ships a player really love and want to keep can become their trainers/income earners etc. Premiums can exist at whatever tier and class a player needs at that moment Players cannot instantly buy their way to a high tier ship and suffer crushing defeats, drag their team down, etc. Fewer ships to code- free up development time for other things. Less complexity trying to figure out how to make a one-off premium ship different Less community flaming/debate over differences among ships. There will never be another premium ship that new players cannot get a hold of because it was removed from the store. Idea 2- Ship name choices. I'd like to be able to choose any of the historical names for the class of ship I have. For instance, I live near Oakland CA, perhaps I want to rename my Atlanta class Cruiser the USS Oakland. Just add a menu that displays the historical ship names for that class to choose from. In game maybe you do something like USS Oakland | Atlanta rather than just "Atlanta". If you want to take this a step farther you could change the ship skin to include it's name and ship number.
  10. Lets face it Cruisers are the lost middle child of world of warships. Battleships force them to flee on sight, yet they need to be close in and in front to protect against DDs. These two roles are simply NOT compatible. Therefore in order to fix cruisers, I recommend that WG make it so that being in close proximity to Battleships (say 4 km) gives some sort of protective mechanical advantage to cruisers. Here are some simple solutions to protect cruisers while in close proximity to BBs Cruisers can't take citadels the targeting ridicule cant lock on to a cruiser Dispersion increases rapidly Battleship heals benefit all the cruisers around it Another option would be to allow BBs to trail short term smoke behind them as the move. Friendly cruisers could hide in this smoke. It would even be marginally historical were one of these options implemented, it would force cruisers to stay close to friendly BBs when enemy BBs were around, this would make it easier for them to fulfill their main role of protecting again DDs as well..
  11. So is there? I don't really have a problem when its tier 7 vs tier 7 but if you happen to be in a tier 6 it seems kinda ridiculous. Only things I can think of are: 1.Making it so the Saipan can't see tier 6 carriers at all. 2.Making double carrier matches only one tier (no tier with one tier lower.) 3.Buffing every Carrier but the Saipan. 4.Finding a new tier 7 USN Carrier to play the part of storefront CV. Thoughts? I personally think the easiest... Though it wouldn't really fix it a HUGE amount... Would be to find a new candidate. Preferably a fleet carrier this time.
  12. Loss of Balance Between CVs

    I decided to take a look at the CVs again today. They used to be a good chess match against the other carrier to see who could control the other better. Well after a match (where things didn't go the way I expected) I decided to look at the tech trees. Why is it that the Japanese CVs get to choose different loadout options from the start pretty much and the US line is always stuck with the same loadout for each ship. This makes a huge difference in how players can play against each other. I like to counter out the other CV, neutralize its fighters and then harass its remaining planes while mine do their work between fighter engages. Well I used to be able to get a fighter focused group, can't anymore. Or if I wanted to focus on torping BBs, I used to be able to CHOOSE to focus on that too and take more torp squad loadouts, can't do that anymore either. WG, why make the change to one line where they can't change anything about their loadout besides what planes they take and not how many they take of each type like we used to?
  13. Carrier AP bombs too powerful

    Can we get some balance from carrier AP bombs. Too powerful period.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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 ).
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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.