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
    • 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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar



Filter by number of...

Found 172 results

  1. We all know by now that fires in this game subtract HP from the ships entire hull no matter where on the ship they are burning, this to me at least doesn't make sense; We also know that the in game ship models use different areas with smaller HP pools than the ship's total HP right? And damage saturation exists for these areas which are not the citadel, now because I don't know the full complexity of the ship models I'm going to make you imagine that you are looking at a ship model split into 5 different boxes. 1. Bow 2. Stern 3. Midships 4. Superstructure 5. Citadel Now each box has a separate HP pool from the next, the citadel holds 100% of the ships HP we know this, and for this example boxes 1 to 4 hold 25% of the ship's total HP each, and so when a fire is burning in box 1 (The bow) why are boxes 2, 3, and 4 also affected? Shouldn't it be that the fire damages box 1 and box 1 only? Now in this example boxes 1 to 4 hold enough HP to match the ships total HP pool, so if all of these areas are damaged by fire to the point of saturation the ship will be lost, but that would require more than a single fire to deal damage to more than one area of the ship so if boxes 1 and 2 are burning by 2 separate fires and they burn to the point of saturation that is 50% of the ship's total HP lost however now these areas are saturated and so they can no longer be damaged but boxes 3 and 4 still have the remaining 50% of the ship's HP so 2 more fires 1 on the super structure and 1 on the midships deck if left to burn until those areas also become saturated should theoretically deal enough damage to destroy the ship. However what we have in the game right now is setting 1 fire on the bow damages the whole ship, not just the bow and well with the rate of fire for smaller ships seemingly getting faster and faster every patch it can make BB's in this game scared to move up because they know once their repair party consumables are all gone that fire damage is going to stick... And that's what sucks. So why not encourage BB's to tank for us by giving them the assurance that it will take more than 1 fire to kill them? Because as it is right now if a BB gets caught under the rainbow from say a Worcester or Harugumo there's quite literally nothing it can do, it can't fire back at them because there's an island in the way, it can't move fast enough to stay out of range of these ships, and HE shells don't care about angling they just deal damage regardless and if they shatter well they can still always set a fire on the stern which will just burn the whole ship anyway... So after all of that dribble I am proposing that we take a look at fires and how they work and look to make it more challenging for religious HE spammers (Conqueror I am looking at you!) to kill us of course if this idea actually gains some traction the devs will have to adjust it for balance reasons but that's my example and well personally I think this change could be a good one. (Some examples in this topic were exaggerated but I am hoping it gets my point across)
  2. Acasta

    So, unlike the last several times, I actually got a mission for Acasta, got the XP, and gave it a go. I wanted to come up with something funny or witty for the title but... I can't even do that with this ship. It's just so.... I have no words beyond "in need of something". Maybe "Just Enough the ship" - Just enough shell size to be useful, with IFHE mainly, Just enough stealth/torp range, just... somehow at the same time "Just enough" not being enough. Everything combined the way it is just does not work well, at all. Sure, it has a bit more turret rotation than Pod and better RoF - but Pod has flatter arcs, bigger guns, more of them, and is a hell of a lot faster. Nicholas has even worse arcs and lower fire chance, but has that slightly bigger guns that fire faster, again, on a faster ship. The guns are so right between the other stats of ships that it basically has nothing that makes up for any of the drawbacks. When it comes to torp/concealment it has one of, if not the worst, concealment's at the tier, and the torp range matches the stealth, but something about these torps, or bad luck, has seen them seem fairly ineffective. I get using angles to stealth torp regardless, I've been called a hacker for doing that in Nicholas, but it's like something is just off with these. And then you have the simple fact of speed. Regardless of EB it's one of the slowest ships in tier. Not to mention not even any real AA and HP like an IJN DD. Combined with a super short smoke screen just...... the ship's not good. And not even in the way where, it can be kinda bad, but is a blast to play cause of something about it, it's just bad. I only have a couple games in the thing (why this is an unusually short post for me on something like this), but just, this thing needs something. A few tenths off the reload to accommodate the smaller shell, slightly faster traverse to keep guns on target while maneuvering, better shell arcs. Maybe even just building in the 1/4 HE to the line (seeing as it has some small caliber guns and would go along with the BB's). Lower her spotted range or increase her torp range a little. Say .5 km max on increasing torp range and .2 km on lowering spotting distance max. Either one of those would help some. Even just making the ship faster, by itself or with a speed boost, would help. Any one or a combination of thesechanges would actually make the ship more comfortable. Maybe I don't understand the concepts of this line - I seem to recall "defensive" being used but - I really don't see how these are. Smoke in no way allows for any real cover for you or friendly ships, the torps with the stealth and their own range aren't the greatest at driving anything from a cap or scaring a BB off, the guns shells so are as people say "Floaty" and not great at taking out other DD's, nor it's RoF to make something reconsider, and no speed with which to escape or get to another cap/area to defend. After another look, it's like you strip the speed and speed boost from Gallant, give it worse HP and 2 km less torp range and that's Acasta, which is basically stripping everything that makes Gallant playable away. Maybe the ships after are better and this is that one ship in the line that just makes you bang your head on the wall, but especially reading back of 7.9's patch notes where it seems like 5 and 6 are supposed to be more about their torps, and 7 and 8 about guns - this really does not give a great first impression of the line.
  3. Sigh, I just wish that...

    ...when I'm doing good or in a good/strong ship, something wouldn't always go wrong to throw the match or my performance in it. I mean, it seems that every time I'm doing well and having fun, or plan to at least, the meta changes slightly in a flash and all the sudden there is a flood of my counters, AND constant bottom-tiering. When both decide to be nice, but something in WoWS is still against me, I'll get perfect set-ups(even the rest of the team are in perfect ships for defeating the enemy team's line-up) TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, AND UTTERLY RUINED BY TOMATO TEAMS SO BAD, THEY CAN'T KILL spotted 100 HP DDs, and THEY SHOW BROADSIDE IN EVERYTHING, meanwhile COMPLETELY MISSING THE OPEN BROADSIDE OF EQUALLY TOMATO ENEMIES AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, UNTIL THE TOMATO ENEMIES STOP MISSING OR FINALLY ANGLE. OH, DO I SOUND LIKE I'M ANGRY? THAT'S BECAUSE I AM! Oh, and that's not all, actually. Sometimes there will be clusters of enemy ships stopped or going very slow at one place or another, but instead of feasting and farming torpedo hits on said clusters of enemy ships(no radar in them, by the way), my allied DDs will be deleted because they were so inept that that they were brought down to EXTREMELY LOW health by(OF ALL THINGS) A MUTSUKI FOR GOODNESS SAKE. Sigh. I am so glad when these battles are over, but then when I jump into another ship for another battle, back I am into a match with floods of my counters and I am bottom tier. Oh, and there are MUCH better(read: higher-tier) ships on both my team and the enemy team, but my team's top-tier ships of my class are gone within minutes of the opening of the match, while the only thing gone from the enemy team's top tier ships of my class is any trace of doubt or fear as they farm damage, medals, and Devastating Strikes off my team. I do my best, but it's just not enough. The enemy team's ships are too powerful,their captains are just as undefeatable, and what damage they don't manage to deal to me my counters do. Inevitably, I go down too, and it's a loss by steamroll for my team. If this kind of crap were uncommon, I'd be fine with it, and just dismiss it as a fluke, but it is quite common for me. Also, when I am doing reasonably well against one or two enemy ships that would only be much of a threat if I was on low hp, in come allied torps, aimed miles away from where the enemy ships are, to deliver me as a boxed, gift-wrapped, and set under the tree easy kill for the enemy ships. Does anyone else see this kind of thing happen a lot?(or at all?) If so, please tell me in the poll. Honestly, I try to ignore it and have fun anyway, but constant defeats are anything but fun for me. - Regards, Legoboy0401
  4. Disclaimers: First of all, this is not a rant or whine in any form, merely some observations on my part Yes I am aware of Lert’s Tier 8 experiment, in fact it proves some of the points I am trying to make. (https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/163474-lerts-t8-experiment-conclusions/) Because of my very limited experience at tiers IX-X I will not be talking stats or performance, basing some of my claims on tier VIII instead. Everybody has seen these topics pop up, about Tier VIII MM constantly seeing Tier X etc etc. To a certain extent I can relate, I play Tier VIII far more often than I used to. As a result there are times where RNJesus rolls a 1 for me on the D20 and puts me in streaks of Tier X battles. As a DD and cruiser main, I don’t really care for MM, especially in a DD. However that is not always the case with the rest of the playerbase. There is some outcry about it. Many people believe that Tier VIII at the moment is the least fun tier and instead stick to Tier VII. I don’t think most can deny this. The question persists however, why does this happen, and is there any way to “fix” any existing issue to streamline the average player experience? What I believe is the issue with high tier matchmaking, is the way Wargaming has relegated roles to specific tiers. Tier VIII is your moneymaking tier, with most of the premiums that can turn up high profits existing there. This is where people spend quite a bit of time earning credits (if they don’t have any Tier IX premium) or grinding. In addition all Campaigns require at least Tier VIII ships. Then, Tier X is regarded as the end game content and the focus of Clan Battles. Tier Xs represent the ultimate a line can offer. It is therefore logical to assume people would play that tier Last, both tiers are part of Ranked Battles. It is safe to consider these tiers are pretty popular. Then, we come to the factor creating the uptiering many people complain about. @Lertdid a random solo Tier VIII experiment to see the matchmaking he would get in 100 battles. While as he said this is not a big sample size, it is definitely an indicator. I believe that “18% tier 9 battles” to be the core of the problem. Tier IX is often seen as just a stepping stone. Of course, some of the Tier IX ships are pretty strong and keepers, no question about it. When it comes to certain ships however, it is often considered a gatekeeper tier for the glory of Tier X. The way Wargaming structures the game, with a moneymaking Tier (Tier VIII), then a stepping stone tier, and finally the end game/Clan Battles Tier (Tier X) shafts Tier IX basically. Granted, there are Tier IX premiums, but they are few in number and variety to really shift the situation. In order to “fix” Tier VIII MM we don’t need to look at strengthening Tier VIIIs to be more competitive or nerfing Tier Xs, but rather increasing the Tier IX population and providing incentives to play this specific tier. I believe in an ideal environment MM could be 30%/40%/30%, but I feel this is almost impossible to accomplish. A good first step would be to make some improvements to ships that are considered gatekeepers. Izumo recently got a buff, maybe other ships should follow suit like, F. De Grosse. Another way would be give more incentives for people to play Tier IX in the form of events. I don’t know how Tier IX Ranked would turn out, but it could be some food for thought. A different route would be for WG to print out as many Tier IX premiums as possible. I believe this would do more harm than good on the long run. Finally, permanent camouflage could be more beneficial to Tier IX ships, in order to promote more games in these ships. As it is now, Tier IX permacamo offers for 4000 gold: -3% to surface detectability range. +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship. -20% to the cost of ship's post-battle service. +100% to experience earned in the battle. Tier X permacamo offers for 5000, so just 1000 gold more -3% to surface detectability range. +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship. -50% to the cost of ship's post-battle service. +20% credits earned in the battle. +100% to experience earned in the battle. I believe a 10% to credits earned in battle for Tier IX permacamo would be useful. Bottom line, I fear the lack of attention in certain aspects of Tier IX will affect high tiers negatively. The feeling of Tier VIII constant uptiering is but a symptom of it. Hope we can get some good discussion out of this, disagreements/opinions/additions welcome! Thanks for reading.
  5. After witnessing operators proficiently using the Ranger in recent operations, I bought it back from the scrap-heap. Had a spare open 8 point captain from the Baltimore (cruiser thing), and trained over. Since I'm starting it out in Co-Op, I won't need the Dogfighting Expert - since I'll be facing another Ranger. Skills are Aircraft Servicing Expert, Expert Rear Gunner, and Torpedo Arm Expert and leave 2 points open to train up with Elite XP for Air Supremacy later on (don't need it now). First surprise: Top hull has 73 planes in the hanger !!! Lexington only has 72. Hiryu also has 73, Saipan has 48 T9 planes, and the Kaga has a whopping 85 T6 planes. ... Here is what the Ranger will be facing: Planes in the air (assume Air Supremacy) FF-TT-BB: Ranger: 7-6-14 == 27 planes Hiryu: 10-8-10 == 28 planes (the torp bombers are T6) -- Strike 2-2-2 Hiryu: 15-4-10 == 29 planes -- AS 3-1-2 Saipan: 8-6-0 == 14 planes -- strike Saipan: 12-0-9 == 21 planes -- AS Kaga: 10-12-7 == 29 planes The other load-outs are garbage in my opinion. Torpedoes rule the damage farm, so the Kaga has the greatest potential for that. AS Hiryu and Saipan can wipe the sky if need be. But... But... But... What about Co-Op? In Co-op, you will only be facing a Ranger. And there is only one load-out - so no surprise AS to shut down your strike load. From what I remember, the strike Ranger used to be 0-1-2, so it's a strike with fighters, or an expanded 1-1-1 load. I'm happy about that. How about Operations? The US planes are stronger, and with the new load, are more versatile in Narai and Ultimate Frontier. ---- I think we have a whole new toy here. After a couple battles, I must admit, I actually had fun... never happened on the old one.
  6. Hello everyone, recently I produced a YouTube video featuring replays of the USS Montana at tier 10. If you are bored and can use a distraction today, feel free to check it out. But rather than a typical ship review video, I've kind of noticed that the footage in the video showcases various issues and things that can be improved with game play at tier 10. Among the things I noticed (and suggestions for improvement): #1 Most maps features a Littoral environment with close by shorelines, islands, shallow water, and straits. I think although ships did fight in environments that fall into this category in history, it did not happen nearly as frequently as it has in game. Arguably it's probably not a good idea to sail capital ships in such confined waters in real life due to various asymmetrical threats that they cannot sufficiently defend against. Mines, attacks from much smaller units like torpedo boats that thrive in the environment, shore batteries, air attacks, arguably even sabotage largely renders heavy ships vulnerable in a littoral environment. For example, in the Battle of Surigao strait, the IJN Fuso and Yamashiro fought a futile suicidal action in such confined and unsuitable environment. Meanwhile, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the British raid on Taranto, and the Italian raid of Alexandria were extreme examples of what happened to capital ships when they can't maneuver while attacked. Obviously the game cannot be completely realistic or faithful to history, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to look into this and come up with maps that features different types of environment. #2 The roles caps play in game aren't always good nor are they always conducive of good game play action. I think winning a fight in terms of damages, kills, and spots while losing because the enemy has more points is not an ideal situation. When there are more than two caps (i.e. WOT style set up) in game, the presence of the caps alone often promotes passive game play. It takes away the focus of the fight from engaging and annihilating the enemy. Rather camo, capping, spotting, and area denial become important. I think it is rare to have a situation in the history of modern naval warfare where it was key to control or contain a small patch of the ocean like a cap on WOWS. Sure if there's an amphibious or combined arms operation at play, it could happen. But then that's not a factor in WOWS. When a team's stealthier ships are not up to par or incidentally get taken out early, the team will watch victory slipping away due to having a major disadvantage to contest the caps. At this point, the team with the points lead often farm damage and/or hide and milk the caps, while the losing team becomes either passive or reckless: either way it often ends badly. What if we try to set up games that has no caps at all? Not even 2? This will bring the focus of the fight back onto engaging the enemy. The points count could be determined by the number and types of surviving ships, like the way historians look at the tonnage sunk and human casualty after the Battle of Jutland? What if as an alternative to having caps, the game offer an option for damaged ships to withdraw by offering them a chance to limp away to a designated part of the map's edge? I think this is also a game play mechanic faithful to history as the withdrawing of damaged ships often have strategic implications. For example, the USS Enterprise was seriously damaged in the Pacific multiple times but its survival proven crucial. Meanwhile the survival and withdraw of the German High Sea's fleet's capital ships after the Battle of Jutland was key to the strategic situation then. I think it would be good to make people fight eagerly and then withdraw. It's a better situation than the passiveness or recklessness found in game now. #3 Some maps by design forces a team to split up into multiple sub fleets to contest different areas of the map. This seems like a forced gamble, and it often was in history. Sometimes a smaller or weaker subfleet's demise in the hands of a stronger opponent often snowballs quickly and makes the team's success elsewhere irrelevant. Some maps also kind of isolate the subfleets by the design of their geography so that once the team has been split, it's hard to once again combined forces for cooperative play: distance is too far for effective engagement or timely relocation and line of sight is blocked... This often means doing your part isn't enough for a win just cause the team kind of went the wrong way or ran into the wrong enemies. #4 Ships, battleships in particular tend to not move much but rather try to function as bow tanking artillery barges. I would say that usually the Yamatos are probably the worse offenders of this. In a sense I don't blame them cause they have the guns that can go through bow plating, their citadels are exposed on the side, they aren't particularly fast, nor do their turrets turn quickly enough for shooting while turning. But ultimately this situation is kind of odd and not fun. It penalizes ships that don't have most of its firepower concentrated in the front and devolves games into a strange naval version of trench warfare where ships try to hide while bow on behind islands and mountains and take pot shots at each other like soldiers in neighboring trenches tossing grenades over the top. Although nobody likes to eat citadels, I still think this situation is not good for the game. #5 Destroyers' playerbase seems to have the highest skill floor and ceiling in game at tier 10. As a BB player, it seems that sometimes the cap situation is already a done deal due to the DDs even before I get to engage anyone. A good DD player can take out a not so good DD player extremely quickly. How good your DD is often puts a hard limit on how the rest of your team will fare. If the friendly DDs die early or are less skilled, the BBs often suffer tremendously due to not being able to anticipate enemy intention or have sufficient situational awareness. #6 I in particular dislike having torpedo boat style Japanese DDs (Shimakaze line) on either teams. As enemies they often come in divisions and can torp spam and/or snipe in ways that's almost impossible to counter in a BB. Ever been targeted by 45 torps at once? I have. It was not pretty. As allies, the Japanese DDs often do not counter enemy DDs. They might spot and cap. But when they run into the enemy DDs they will often run away while dumping their torps which aren't always good for attacking DDs. I've noticed that many of them almost never fire their guns. An enemy's on 500hp at 6km? They fire torps but their guns stay silent. They are also often so obsessed and tunnel-visioned that they will try to saturate an area where friendly BBs are engaged in a brawl with the enemy with torps. I've lost count how many times I've been torpedoed by friendly DDs while brawling. (my video shows this happening 3 times...) #7 Ironically, at tier 10 cruisers seem to play very differently versus at mid tiers, especially from a BB player's perspective. Maybe due to their vulnerabilities to big guns, they'll often play 2nd line at most. This often means they aren't close enough to the action to counter DDs or close enough to the BBs to provide AA. So much so that DDs and BBs often fight their own fight without help. The cruiser at tier 10 seem to focus on farming damage and opportunistic moves, on a good day they usually chime in and engage enemies that are already being engaged, distracted, or has overextended. But them as a defensive screen and support against enemies BBs can't see or maneuver against, often don't exist... Just some of my observations thus far. I'm obviously a fan of the game and I want it to improve and fulfill its potential. Feel free to discuss share your thoughts on the points I brought up and how things could be improved.
  7. All turrets have 360 degrees rotation, the animation will fit, just lift up the barrels.
  8. Damage in Co-Op Battles

    Hello All, Ever since this recent patch of 0.7.7 I have noticed while playing cruisers that damage taken is considerable worse. With out fail over 50% of my hit points are taken by a single round from another ship, like I am in paper armor. Has anyone else noticed this?
  9. Tier IX-X BB Curve and over all balance

    So, firstly I play majority BBs, I enjoy the play but a few things that stand out to me now after playing several games in the Montana, and that is the Balance is skewed WAY off in favor of every ship class except the Battleship and (Yamato is the exception AND the rule to this issue) I say the Yamato is the Exception because it feels as though the balance at tier X is set so every ship can destroy Battleships specifically the Yamato, with exception of other battleships....based on Montana's performance. Im not saying that I have trouble killing other ships, I am saying that other ships have an easier time killing BBs and are provided the tools to do so. As a Montana, If not in a division, I will have no way of reliably avoiding torps, and with Shimakaze able to throw torps at 20k, I will NEVER find that ship...unless I am EXTREMELY lucky and catch it with Catapult Fighter...(aka will never happen) and that's if its not on cool down. The New American Cruisers...sigh...yes while squishy on the sides they are also almost always hidden behind an Island able to see me with all the fancy gadgets and if I get a shot off (not a broadside shot) its almost 100% guaranteed to Over pen...now I do not have an issue with Over pen, but it should have a negative status effect, (my suggestion would be a 3-5 second flood if shell exited on the water side...(I understand for DDs...but come on...4 x 16" shells go in one side and out the other and nothing? dd just laughs and throws all his torps and strolls out FU BB....I might be salty...) Tier IX - X change curve Most ships (Not BBs) have SIGNIFICANT improvements when transitioning from Tier IX to Tier X for example the Des Moines (Base) goes from 4.6 shots per minute with the Buffalo, to 10.9 Shots per Minute, as well, increased range, health, turning radius, but there are negatives...like +2 meters dispersion... Now, lets upgrade to the Montana! I get +2.42km to my Range, and 17,300 HP, but now my Dispersion is worse, speed is worse, turning radius is worse, and Im not firing any faster or doing more damage...over all its a fat slower Iowa...No extra widgets to help offset 20km torps or deal with the American & Soviet invisible fire throwers...just a fighter. American BBs are not great at Max range and need to be in that mid-short range to get in and brawl, yet somewhere along the road WG forgot that and we got a generic big Iowa. and the Yamato is the same way, with exception that the Yamato can obliterate almost everything regardless of angle.... I kind of feel like we had balance at Tier IX and then it was lost at Tier X which makes a lot of the Tier X games feel very frustrating, especially so if youre not Tier X in a Tier X game then the unbalance is even more apparent (Tier X almost needs to be its own queue) . The BBs could use a rework at Tier X a few ideas: 1. -3 - 7 second reload, If not then increase the Accuracy 2. Increased Rate of fire and accuracy against destroyers ONLY within 10K (to put a stop to the suicide torp charge) or Make this a BB only Defensive Fire ability for secondaries. 3. OLD style BBs (i.e. American and Japanese) need toys (Hydro etc...) added to match their counterparts (actually hydro all around would be great...with as much torp spam as there is at Tier X this really needs to be there...) 4. This may be related to #2 but, Secondaries unless German are almost useless...since they are such short range, increase accuracy to 85-90% (all BBs except German or Secondary Build BBs) as a deterrent to getting to close to BBs and a encouragement to BBs to get close... These are just a few thoughts, like I said I enjoy them right now but just seems like (Montana in particular) BBs got left behind on the jump to Tier X.
  10. So the Hood is on sale..

    I want the Hood, for reasons unknown to me, maybe I have a problem. It is in need of a buff but it's a premium so that's very unlikely. If it had better dispersion I would grab it, shell pen doesn't matter to me since the point of a BB is to kill cruisers, pressure other BBs, and get shot at. The getting shot at thing it has down, the effective main battery for targeting smaller cruisers and applying any significant pressure to BBs..... Meh. The gimmick is actually kind of useful with all the premium CVs around in T-VII. Is it worth getting if you already have the Nelson? I really can't justify this, I think the only reason I want this is to put those skins I unlocked to use. To really take advantage of her gimmick I would need to make a dedicated captain.. Can you convince me to buy a Hood even if it's half off? Have I underestimated her? Tanky as she may be, the new light cruisers will eat this ship alive especially if bottom tier with little fear of repercussions.
  11. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/281773707 I have the full video on my stream, if you want to watch it. Enjoy the stream highlight, and the balance. Twitch Link - https://www.twitch.tv/mr_balance
  12. Possible Solution to Radar

    Given the number of ships that now have radar, and the relative short cool downs, is it even worth playing destroyers anymore past T6 or so? Just got out of as match where in the first couple of minutes while playing in a SIMS I was lit up with radar 3 different times. Needless to say it didn't go well, but it got me thinking about the relative imbalance, or what it appears to me anyway, as well about the necessary change in tactics with DD going in to cap.
  13. One of the reasons many people hate HE spam/RN battleships, etc. is due to how it ruins their AA and there is no way to counter it at all. If you get hit by just 1 conquerer salvo at the start of a match your entire AA bubble can be crippled for the rest of the game, making you way too vulnerable to carriers. To me it makes no sense that massive battleship turrets can easily be repaired in less that a minute, but small AA mounts are lost permanently. It doesn’t make sense, gameplay wise or historically speaking. Therefore I suggest that AA and secondary mounts should be repairable. The timer should be long, such as several minutes, to prevent immunity to HE spam, but it should also be there so that one unlucky salvo doesn’t cripple your full AA spec ship for the rest of the game.
  14. I listened to the entire 2 hour 30 minute long Q&A. There are a number of questions from Flambass, Farazelleth, and Flamu in the middle. Some are obvious (like Fara asking the question he gets asked to ask most on his video comments, "When is the Graf Zepplin going to be for sale again?" to which the obvious answer is "When carriers are done being reworked." which is what WG confirmed). I would say over half of the questions were about radar and how broken it is and WG employees were getting audibly irritated. Here's the video (really just audio). What they did say which I've never heard before were: At around 1 hour 30 minutes, WG says there is no significant statistical difference between a team with 1 radar vs a team with 3 after Flambass asks if MM will ever take the numbers radar of ships on each side in to consideration. At around 2 hours 16 minutes WG gets asked again about anti-radar consumables and WG says they are talking about a radar "counter measure" internally. There are a lot of questions/answers many are ones I've heard before and frankly I was playing Hands of Fate and half listening so I'm sure I missed some. It's worth a listen. WARNING: The Russian guy singing the Russian national anthem with his "best American accent" at the end was so painful I had to shut it off before the rest of my skin peeled off.
  15. Although CVs get a lot of hate, the carrier mechanics are actually perfectly fine. The real problem is that players too lazy to actually change their play style when a carrier is around. This is combined with the fact that Wargaming does not give carrier captains any real instructions and permits overpowered CVs to bully around low tier CV captains. Not only that, but the significance of captain skills significantly turns off new CV captains. This is compounded by the ridiculous power of AA builds, and the high power that AA can achieve at high tiers. The only thing stops Carriers from being being ridiculously underpowered is that the average player base is completely retarded and cannot manage to play in a co-ordinated manner at all. Which means that CVs essentially are un-opposed. The only reasons why CVs are "OP" at all is that the average player makes themselves an exceedingly easy target for CVs. Most of the issues in CV play could be solved with these measures; A: Increase rewards for CV play, CV play has ridiculously low rewards, with extremely good play rewarding low gains. B: Add a full tutorial for new CV players. C: Give manual drops to low tier CVs, but nerf them heavily, I.E 3.5k damage torps, and a nerf on the strafe multiplier. D: Remove AA spec, but increase stock AA values to be an average between fully spec'ed and stock. I hope you enjoy, and hope that this provokes discussion.
  16. Hi all, I would suggest WG to consider following balancing adjustments to tier X cruisers to make them more even in power within the class: (Warning: suggestion is made from a cruiser main, but including both buffs and nerfs) 1. Hindenburg: Sad to say this ship is a bit too much, lower the HE pen to 1/5 or 1/6 might be needed. However that is the only counter of the oncoming Stalingrad... 2. Zao: Zao has been power creeped so much since open beta: Increasing HP by 5000 to restore it HP to roughly 45000 OR Improve rear turrets firing angle by maybe 10-20 degrees OR minor buff in reload by 1 sec. OR buff AA DPM 3. Des Moines Buff mid ship side armor to 30mm OR Buff mid ship deck armor to 30mm (Atago is more tanky than this thing facing 16 inch guns) 4. Moskva: Lowering the above waterline citadel BY 1/4 or 1/3 of current height would be appreciated. 5. Henri IV More WD 40 on the turret would be appreciated. suggesting increase traverse speed by 1 degree/sec. 6. Minotaur The mid range AA DPM should be tuned down a bit, maybe by 1/6. Thoughts?
  17. Game is no longer fun.

    Hello WG, I have been playing this game for a five months now. I have just over 1,500 matches played. I have a pretty good split between BB, Cruisers and DD. I generally find myself just logging off when I am frustrated with this game but increasingly, i find myself no longer enjoying this game. There are some fundamental problems with the game as you advance in ship tiers that grow to the point that they are bordering on insurmountable without effective team play and or begging the devs for balance changes. A bit of background, My highest tier ship is a tier 9 FDG German BB. I was enjoying the German BB line but its gotten to the point where I feel like its impossible to progress. I am a semi casual player in that I don't have time to find a hardcore clan, and I do mostly random battles because I can play for 20 minutes, and then walk away if I need to. I am not here to pretend like I am pro, I am not. I have hovered around a 50% win rate. I get the game concepts, and do my job. Increasingly I am finding myself not wanting to play anymore. At Top Tiers (8,9,10) there is no room for error and your team all must execute properly for things to work. As a German BB commander my job is to be close to the action as a brawler and not sitting in the back sniping. Basically I am fodder in hopes of playing smart enough and drawing enough attention to myself to hope that my team can burn down the enemy while they focus on me. This does not mean I am charging in guns blazing right through the middle of the map. I play it strategically and use cover etc. It does not matter though. At lower tiers there was a very real sense of rock paper scissors with the ships. BB > C C > DD DD > BB. As the game progressed its gotten to the point where the only way to win is to lemming around the map with your entire team trying to snipe from distance. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way this game forces players to group up into a swarm and that's the only way to reliably have a shot at winning. This is not fun and frankly its forcing people to start playing certain ships if they want to keep having an effective performance that warrants playing. I am sure WG gets grievances like these all the time, but as a paying customer who pays for premiums, buys flags, doubloons and ships, I (We the paying customers) are the people they should be paying attention to in a free to play game. We keep the lights on. I am not saying I am 100% correct, but I am guessing there are more people like me (average players who pay) than there are pros here who will most likely show up in this thread and tell me to get better or "git gud." My specific grievances: 1) Scoring System is broken - There is virtually no incentive to do anything but damage enemy ships. Credits are so hard to come by in this game that if you do not farm damage on enemy ships you do not get enough XP or credits to make it worth your time. I know recently they said they were going to be fixing this, but more needs to be done. Capturing objectives needs to be worth far more. Defensive ribbons should be worth far more. Damage from Scouting should be a significant payout. Give people who are true team players and not out for themselves only have an effective way to get considerable XP and credits from a match. 2) Cruisers - I started out as one of the worst cruiser players ever. As I have advanced through the cruiser lines from all the countries I have seen just how OP cruisers have become. Cruisers at high tiers have a range that is far too large. historically accurate or not, the fact that cruisers effective range rivals that of BB's is frustrating. Let me point out the C vs BB scenario. At higher tiers most of the cruisers have between 7-12 second reload times (roughly 3-4x faster than a BB). Many of the cruiser are spamming you with shells from ranges of 14-17k. You are gonna end up on fire, you are going to be burning and with repair party having a 2 minute cooldown you are not going to be able to stop the fire more than once without taking significant damage. I use all the tricks like waiting until I have 2-3 fires before using it, etc.. Smart cruisers at top tier are generally spamming you from smoke or from behind a landmass so you are entirely reliant upon your team to scout and or CV to provide vision (if you can even shoot back). CV's would have been a good counter to cruiser camping (sitting stationary and just lobbing shells from safety all game) but frankly I only find CV's in about 1 in every 15 matches or so. Right now cruisers are king and there is no rock paper scissors with them. They are faster than BBs, more mobile and can dodge incoming shells with ease (at range) and can continue to rain down shots at a 3-4 to 1 ratio that are going to burn you to dust. I try not to gripe without presenting a solution. Perhaps WG should consider a diminishing return on fire damage. After all, there is only so much combustible material on a ship. Maybe code in something that prevents ships from taking more than 1/3 of total HP as fire damage? Consider lowering the range of cruisers main guns and or considering adjusting firing arcs so they cannot spam with impunity. I will get to Radar when I discuss DD's. 3) DD's - Right now I have no real gripes about them as a ship type. I think WG has done a good job overall of not making these OP. The only gripe I have in general about destroyer game play is that cruisers with radar have completely hard countered destroyers. As I said early, the lemming train is generally in full effect in random games. So generally once a radar fires off, you have 5-6 ships shooting at you at once and you are going to die, virtually instantly. Personally i believe the range is too large on radar and the duration is too long. If WG was to fix either the range or the duration it would at least balance it out a bit. DD's are essential to the game flow for spotting and capping things. With not every Cruiser having radar if you get in a matchup where one team has radar and the other team does not, you are at an incredible disadvantage. 4) BB's - I understand this class used to be king and the meta has shifted. I don't want any one class to be able to do what cruisers can do right now which is kill everyone else. BB's have issues, Fire damage is literally making these impossible to play anymore. Destroyers spamming you from 11k providing vision to the other cruisers who are nestled cozy behind landmasses and lobbing shells is just a broken concept. I can accept the overpens from BB guns on DD and Cruisers, I can accept being slower and less mobile, but what is the redeeming factor? The armor does not matter when you are getting burned.Once you are on fire the other players can retreat to cover while the damage keeps ticking, Rinse and repeat. I routinely score far more with cruisers than I do with BB's. Its not a coincidence. I honestly do not see what the redeeming factor is right now for BB's or what they bring to the game. They have terrible dispersion, long reloads, ships at top tiers are so fast that shots beyond 15k have little chance of effectively striking a DD or Cruiser. Secondaries - These should be far more effective. As a German BB my job is to brawl and get in close. My secondaries are complete garbage. They are the same size as destroyer main guns in many instances yet lack the accuracy and IMHO (cant prove it) they start fires far less often. if i am expected to get close in and expose my sluggish ship to knife fighting range shouldn't my secondaries at least help balance the engagement vs the torpedoes being fired at me from 5k range. Mind you most Cruisers and all DD's have torps. 5) Cost to Run Ships / Flags - This is a sore subject for me. we all have those games where we go in there and its just a potatofest right from the start. You can lose 60-100k at tier 9 running a battleship plus flags that you purchased. The cost of ammo too. I have gotten to the point that I only take shots I Feel I can reliably hit. It is incredibly hard to get credits in this game. I recently purchased the Atago to try and help with this. Its a good ship and I can get over 200k easy most matches, but is it truly the intent that I have to buy a $40 dollar ship in order to keep my tier 9 running? Lets not forget the camo's.and how those can instantly be wasted if you get in a potatofest. Ultimately where I am at as a player is close to done. There is absolutely nothing fun about playing top tier games right now. I honestly have tried playing more cautiously and being acutely aware of positioning and it doesnt really matter. The rate of fire and the success of fire has marginalized the game for me to the point of saying why bother. I dont play my Tier 9 anymore except to get the daily experience bonus. I can accept getting torped if I am sailing in a straight line like a noob, I EXCEPT to get torps if i chase a DD around a corner or charge a smoke screen. Its risk vs reward. There should always be a risk vs reward. Right now there is all reward for spamming cruisers and no risk. Even if CV's are fixed and more people play them Cruisers are still incredibly strong with the AA suites and frankly, i question whether planes will even slow them down.
  18. Suggestion

    Everybody agrees BBs keep bluelining and not pushing. Now I don't think it's torpedoes that are the reason, because while a plot of players will legitimately straight-line and eat torpedo soup and then complain, many others understand the magical ways of WASD. The real problem in my book is fires. Because BBs are large, lack agility, and have poor concealment they become instant focus targets for fire. That's okay, fire's a mechanic like any other. BBs have 120 second cooldowns on their damage control. Cruisers have 90. Destroyers have 60. BBs have the longest cooldown. That's cool too. But the fire lasts 60 seconds for BBs, which is double the others. So you get more fires, they last longer, and you can't address them all. It's become a routine for me to go into battle, play the objective, get HE spammed into four fires or to pop a damage control for flooding, and then whaddyaknow, 4 more fires I can't do anything about. The only way to offset the severe vulnerability of fire damage is to blueline. Setting fires is easy. Super easy when specc'd. I'm not saying we need to set less, but that we need to more easily deal with fires.
  19. This was in response I had in another thread where many players were discussing their issue with how there is a noticeable imbalance between expectations, and the reward to go with the risk of playing a DD as it is "expected". (like spotting AND capping). I received a few PMs suggesting I make it into a thread itself. It was noted by many that focusing on objectives, and winning took exponentially more effort to net them anywhere near equal rewards as other players of different ships, main perpetrator being BBs, who are just sitting back and sniping focusing on damage. The obvious issue here is already just that, obvious. The highest hit point, highest armor class is profiting from sitting back and sniping... ::::: Well the problem stems from Wargaming having double standards when it comes to their own balance path. They claim the game is supposed to be Rock-Paper-Scissors (their own words) and then contradict that very statement by adding in MM limits for only 1 ship type and not the other 2 that are a part of that RPS circle. They also contradict that design by having only one hard counter in the game (radar). Lets take realism out of the argument entirely for a moment because no-one honest with themselves wants that, I don't care what ship you prefer. How about we discuss it as gaming in general. Which archetype (class/type/etc) is expected and supposed to be, in every other game to be at the forefront of pushes? Which archetype (class/type/etc) is expected and supposed to be the primary "capper" in a game that has capture points? Well that would be any class that embodies the "tank". A tank in gaming is actually defined by an archetype that has the highest coded, binary attributes designed for survivability, ergo Effective Hit points.... armor....self heals... even a combination of above. Which archetype in WoWs, embodies that? Battleships. The problem right now is that archetype embodies the combination of more than just a "tank" in gaming but other attributes never been attempted because even a partial combination is certainly overpowered on paper already. We are seeing attributes akin to ..... Burst damage....Sniper...etc The problem this game faces, is that it is NOT being balanced in a direction based on objective fact (Statistics/metrics), nor has it been for a long time. Balance changes, unfortunately for years, have been purely on emotion constructed from vocal minorities combined with developer bias. There is no dev to playerbase honesty. Unfortunately, accurate statistics, or rather the ability to filter out bias and skew, is not simple for everyone nor is it an obvious requirement... when it is most certainly a requirement. To simplify... If say a new USN CL was released... and it showed to be over performing in the first month according to the obvious server statistics, but still suffered from a small sample size. Is this justification for a nerf? What about if there are lots of forum threads complaining about it being overpowered? Nope. It is not. You see there are far more complexities to statistics and how they relate to something overperforming/underperforming objectively. How about we take a look at one statistic alone that is actually reflected of something objectively overperforming? Battleship accuracy. If you take a look at any T10 BB server statistic for MBH which is "Main battery hit rate", and compare it to the MBH to T10 cruisers... see the difference? Only a mere 5-7%. Don't see a problem there? That is okay. I will explain it, because this is the root of all balance issues in game right now. This is the cause for the "cascade" and perpetrated by the developers own favoritism for their "cash cow" ship type. H How about the average achievable max range for your T10 BBs compared to T10 cruisers? It is around a 6-10 KM difference. Would you also agree that not only in personal experience but a large sample size of evidence available that the majority of BBs, and the high tier BB meta involves "sniping" or "back camping" for the most part? Yes. Clearly. So why is the accuracy gap for cruisers and Battleships so small? Because Battleship accuracy is overpowered. This overperformance is reinforced by the Burst damage difference as well, which is king in PVP btw. It doesn't matter that Cruisers have a higher RoF, the short distance to target combined with having far more access to heightened velocities (Hindy, Moskva, Zao)... the average accuracy statistics should be night and day between BBs and cruisers. This is also reinforced that the targets are generally going to be in motion. Thus this should increase the difficulty in hitting a target in relation to distance to target and as that distance increases. So.... how do we make the game more balanced and give DDs at the very least, a feeling of more reward for their risk? Well its not a question of taking away risk, I certainly wouldn't want that. It is a question of expected duty. If there was less reliance on "caps" and more of an expected duty for "Spotting" and "Flanking" to defeat the very archetype they are ***MEANT** to counter (See Rock-Paper-Scissors).... well...the reward is already there. If you nerf Battleship accuracy by a large amount, even if you buff them against fires at the same time, you will inherently shift the meta and the path of least resistance for your average BB player. No longer will it be efficient, no longer will it be profitable to back camp, nor snipe from long ranges. No longer will they see the damage and kills pile up from simply sitting at ranges where only opposing players of the same archetype have any chance of real retaliation. They will now be forced to play more aggressive. Which also means cruiser players have less fear of being sniped for 50%+ Hp just for being anywhere not behind an island, from extreme ranges. Whilst this also gives DDs more of a meta shift of being able to hunt BBs at the same time performing the "spotter" role, it also gives cruisers a little more "room to play with" when it comes to the hunting of those very DDs. Such a meta shift would also give BBs a more natural protection from things like CVs... because being more aggressive..also equates to being closer to allies...which also equates to more congested AA
  20. Just so frustrating playing a T10 game with the CV on your side having an IQ of two digits while the enemy CV manual drops all your DDs to death 6 min into the game. If anything, "skill based" MM is really needed for CV, till WG fix them completely.
  21. Preface: From tier 7 onward, non-premium American carriers are terrible. At least on the NA server, after filtering out T1-3 (tiers where carriers are not present at all), the tier 7-10 American carriers have the lowest win rates of any ships in the game (https://na.wows-numbers.com/ships/). While balancing USN carriers with Japanese carriers would certainly help, in my opinion, carrier design as a whole is responsible for the dramatic disparity. There are plenty of other ships that are weak in the meta, but weak carriers seem to have the largest impacts on loss rates. I think it's important to understand why when discussing carrier balance, so here are my theories: 1. Carrier Sniping. One of the best defenses against enemy carriers is the fighters of a friendly carrier. Even if they ultimately don't shoot down a lot of planes, the threat of fighters forces a carrier to use their aircraft with caution. A lone torpedo bomber squadron is easy prey for fighters, and as a result, carrier players have to mass their planes or carefully strike only when they're reasonably sure fighter won't show up. This obviously isn't the case if the enemy carrier dies within the first 5 minutes of the game. Carriers are uniquely unsuited to survive a dedicated Japanese torpedo attack. They have cruiser-like HP, pathetic torpedo protection and poor turn characteristics all wrapped in a battleship-sized hull. As a result, carrier sniping is extremely frequent. Historically-speaking, poor defense against carrier attacks is probably accurate, which is the reason carriers were constantly escorted by ships with strong AA. Also, historically speaking, battles started at hundreds of miles, not 25, so let's dispense with reality for a moment to address the balance issue. Simply improving turn characteristics or improving torpedo defense would go a long way toward helping American carriers survive long enough to have an impact on the battle, which should make picking them less of a terrible option for your team. 2. Constant Air Superiority. Another issue that American carriers face is that they are generally completely outclassed in the air. With unlimited endurance and very fast recharge times, Japanese fighters can constantly dominate entire maps, leaving American carriers with little opportunity to do anything at all. Giving planes limited endurance would make it impossible to protect everything at once. Fighter resources would have to be doled out more carefully, and an enemy carrier could see some success even with a fighter disadvantage. Naturally, this would impact how frequently aircraft could strike, since they couldn't loiter close to the enemy forever looking for an opening, and other things would have to be balanced to compensate, like perhaps adding scout aircraft, and/or increasing aircraft speed (and then increasing AA DPS to compensate for that). Conclusion: I think that addressing these two issues, which have nothing to do with nerfing Japanese carriers or buffing American carriers, could make American carriers a lot more viable, and make carrier superiority less of an absolute, game deciding factor.
  22. This ship is still utterly broken. The “nerfs” WG gave it do nothing. It still mercilessly slaughters battleships and is complete garbage against everything else. Isn’t that obviously not the best game balance strategy, of making a ship so ridiculously overpowered, but only against 1 class? I gotta ask the devs, were you high when designing this thing? This makes already passive battleships even more scared to push out, and I can’t blame them when this ship exists. Instead of creating proper, balanced Japanese torpedoes, WG instead doubles down on their nerfs and creates this gimmicky nightmare. While the recent air detection buffs are great for regular Japanese DDs, it just makes the asashio even more broken. It’s not fun to play against, doesn’t contribute much to the team, has no real counterplay, has no skill curve, and is only good for padding damage per game stats. How is that good ship balance? How? Its not, at all. This ship makes me sick, and it reeks of OP gimmick designs like the Belfast. It’s a shame that it will be released like this. While I don’t think it will break the game, I think it is still bad for the overall meta, and is just another example of proper balance and gameplay being sacrificed to help sell more hype. WG still has not learned their lesson. I love this game, and while I would call myself a dd main, I still play and do well in the other classes, except CVs. BB players are justified in being upset by this ship, and DD and cruiser mains should also be appalled by this turd sandwich of game design. It’s just not a well designed ship, it’s as simple as that. The asashio will just hurt the game, it won’t offer any benefit except to WG’s wallet. This ship, and the bad news coming out about the US cruiser split, really makes me worry about the health of this game. I know that posting a forum rant about this isn’t gonna change anything, but it’s at least a way to let me cope with this. I know that in the end it’s just a game, and this ship won’t impact it a huge amount, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t object to an absolutely broken ship being introduced. I just hope that someone at WG will hear what I have to say and at least consider this criticism that comes out of genuine concern for this game that I love.
  23. Balanced.

    Balanced.
  24. When someone recommended to me to start saving replays.... Well, that turned out to be a bad thing. I troubleshoot electronics for a living.... and I notice things -- I'll point them out to you. You are stopped in smoke and a spotted enemy Des Moines is plowing towards you. It's 11KM away so no worry.. But wait.. the distance is ticking down.. ticking at 0.1KM per second... Ummm.. That's faster than a football field a second.. How fast is that? That's 360 KPH or 223.7 MPH... Hokey smokes!! The real Des Moines couldn't go that fast if it was falling out of the sky! That's Mach 0.27, or 194.4 knots. The gun turrets would be sucked out of the wells at that speed. The signal flags would be little clouds of confetti. ........ Ooooooo Kaaaaayyyy... Settle down. We do some time/distance compression to keep the games from running several hours/days. It's a game... It's a game.. Go with it. Continuing on with the replay, I pointed my Gearing away from the Des Moines, went full throttle (have speed flags), and hit the boost. Soon, I'm doing about 40 knots. Des Moines is still closing the distance and pops radar at 9KM... Soon, it's 8.5KM... then 8KM... I have to dodge the shells at this point - so distance drops even faster. There is some form of ratio-metric bias here.. But even with flags, the Des Moines shouldn't be overtaking a Gearing. OK. There is no speed calibration on these maps. Seem to me, if there was, my top speed would be changing throughout the game. So basically, if two equally equipped cruisers raced from one side of the map to the other, there would be some times one would speed out ahead, and then it would flip, and the other would catch up and maybe pass. It's like a biorhythm type variation throughout the game. Most players are too busy camping to notice anyway... Hmmmm.. How did the enemy team get to our standard cap before WE did ??? Hello..
  25. I would like to propose a petition being drawn up so WG can see we as a community, want to see the cv get its re-work or at least see some drastic changes on test servers so we can at least start working on the problems. Lets get a lot of names on here and get it done, I love this game but cv needs work.
×