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 162 results

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Balanced.

  14. 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..
  15. 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.
  16. So this just happened to me. A 15" shell from a TIrpitz, at 13km landed a shell dead on the front turret face of my Richelieu and destroyed it, killing the Richelieu already low DPM. I had taken every precaution to prevent losing a turret, "Main Battery Mod 1" and "Preventive Maintenance", while also taking care to have the turret's thickest armor face the incoming fire, and all still was not enough. What's strange is that these same precautions are what I use on the Dunkerque, and in 196 Battles I've had with her, I've NEVER lost a turret. Tipritz at 13km Skills and Mods if anyone doubts me Now, I've seen Armada, I know the Tirpitz has incredible penetration, but I've fought tier 8 ships plenty of times in my Dunkerque, and have never lost a turret, so why does my Richelieu turret, with it's extra armor seem weaker? I've played the Bismarck agressively just about a 100 times, and even against Yamatos, I've never lost a turret, and those guns have far weaker armor, and my German Captain didn't even have Preventative Maintenance. Something is not right here. Has anyone encountered this issue, where they take every precaution on the Richelieu to avoid losing a turret, and it still happens? The Richelieu historically had special functionality that made them extra durable, because they were really two turrets sharing the same barrette. But in game, they seem extra vulnerable? Is this a bug? Poor balance? Thoughts anyone? 20180323_203532_PFSB108-Richelieu_16_OC_bees_to_honey.wowsreplay
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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?
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. (***) 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???
  24. 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.
  25. 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.