Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'analysis'.

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
    • Contests and Competitions
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Contributor Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 10 results

  1. Wargaming has invested a lot into building the future of World of Warships. All of the new ideas, creative innovations, and balance modifications designed in every patch are their doing, for good or bad. They have dedicated and recruited a large number of players to assist them with this; clan testers, super testers, wiki editors, and community contributors. Throw in active streamers and WoWS staff and almost everything seems to focused on what is going on in the next month, vice looking into the pond and considering what is already going on from a decision that occurred six months prior. While nerfs and changes do happen, it is often slow and met with resistance from the players in the field. My recommendation is for WG to sponsor a group of players in the game to build a think tank to help provide relevant peer reviewed arguments based on more than just data available internal to the game. This information can then be consumed by the playerbase and the WG staff. The think tank could also address a lot of in game questions that come from players and or address interesting statements they may not have evidence to support a claim. A Deep Dives into what battleship has the most potential at a certain tier...could be interesting to players....and why that is. Also, then providing reasons why that ship may not be at the top of the charts could also be of interest. A great example question; Has tier 6 BBs become over saturated with Glass Cannons that can overmatch anything below tier 8? Would our findijgs then recommend putting a ship with stronger armor and worse guns at a lower tier for fun/balance? The think tank in itself could also provide guidance to pacing game changes based on general sentiments of the active player base. A holistic introspective look at ingame functions and balance may also lead to new ideas for making the game more interesting and or retaining players. I guess the best way to test this initial concept though is to throw it to the forums and see if it sticks as a good idea with the community. So here it is. Community thoughts and comments welcome. If the General sentiment is no or disinterest I am off the hook.
  2. Fair warning ahead of time, The following is the views and opinion of one long time player who loves the game. Its ok to disagree with my view points expressed. Its ok to agree partially with the post or you understand exactly what this post is meant to be. An open perspective on where WOWS can do better. For the mods who read the post IF you agree with any view point content on this thread, send it up to the correct dept. for review. For everyone else I am open to add to this point if I missed anything that is important to you. Mind you, it has to be something relevant, not just "DDs are over powered" for example. Economy, In my view, I see two game killers in this area Inflation of the in game currency Hard to get/grind feel currency in where you can't by anything good with the amount of work you put in. In my gaming experience, Inflation is a killer. I don;t see a real effort to combat in game currency inflation, a balance has to be made to where value is not diminished over time in favor of the grindy feel. My view, when a game is chore. Then its no longer fun. I recommend to have this reviewed to come up with solutions to bring it back to fun. On point number two, *Copper*. Copper is a "why is this commodity in the game" moment. You grind-ed so hard and now you have some copper YET, nothing good to spend i on. Bummer! The player is no different then say me who can't grind like him, all that work for a commodity that has no value suck. CV Rework, In my view, the work is in its infancy. While we're in a transition period. Veteran players left the class in 2018. Can the rework bring in new players to enjoy the CV class ? Not if their balance dept. haven't given any guidance/boundaries/rules as to how the relationship with the other class ships will happen. When this occurs, its a vicious circle, its not healthy. IF the above point is not met, then CV rework 3.0 the return of RTS will take shape for the end of 2020! *see the balance portion for more in-dept view. Balance between Ship Classes. four things will kill the game out right in the section. You can't have a ship class with limited or no treats in a particular tier. You can;t have a ship class with one battery salvo kill abilities, You can;t show favoritism with any class ship. Which means, all play styles/conditions you faced from tier 1 to 6 should remain from tier 7 and up. MM can not compensate when having to many/to little over-capable or support ships (cruiser and BBs) in queue to having them on equally on each teams. Compared to last year, in my view, upper tiers need to be rework/balanced. Its not a fun experience compared to say tier 6 and below. Its so bad this year, even tier 8 players are complaining. They have a valid point. The Kutuzov is no longer over-capable ship anymore, her nerf in shots in smoke state is worse hen say US cruiser ship with the same caliber guns. At tier 8 and above, the amount of DMG a BB can do with one salvo is way to much. Cruisers in these tiers is why DD play has changed so much, its the main reason BB drivers complain of HE spam (they're only treat other then other BB guns, then lastly torps). Its the main reason DDs are reduced to an Asashio role of Spotting/capping/praying to hit something with torps with an 8% torp hit ratio. IMO this is an unsustainable product. I do recommend for the fun factor, implement the same factors/conditions you face from tier 1-6. Also see the *CC Narration* section Lack of game modes or modes we dont like. This is a valid point from he community who post on Youtube videos. Epicenter is not fun, its the most dislike game mode in the game Game modes should no be a permanent. One of the things WOWS have tried to do is introduce new modes to the game. Great move. Just don make it permanent, any game mode regardless of how good it is becomes stale over time. I also recommend to use of AUX/liberty ships to convey the concept better. Biased Narration of ships by CCs. This one I just noticed, Some CCs/WOWS players or influence-rs, when doing their commentary of WIP ships, will do so in a biased way. Their opinions on these ships do affect the end product balance on the live server. I recommend, balance Dept have rules/guidelines instead of selling over capable ships just to make a quick buck. I am not saying opinions should not matter, however. Some opinions are affecting the balance of certain class of ships out of favoritism. Then without rules/guidelines, we will end up with ships classes that just dont work. *refer back to the balance part of the post EDIT I'll add more as I come across any issue deemed serious
  3. Purpose: To elicit community input to help retain the gaming player-base based on two planned game changes, which will have longlasting effects at levels never before realized in World of Warships. To illuminate player-base concerns from a "forest" perspective regarding the CV rework and proposed Submarine implementation. To find an escape from the Rock and a Hard Place. The CV Rework: So, this coming month of January 2019, the long anticipated CV rework will be implemented into the current game and forever alter the meta and way this game is played. So much so that the very way mechanics are worked with ships will be greatly affected. In fact, I would argue that this change is going to be the biggest change ever to World of Warships as almost every single ship in the game (save those without AA...who are now even more screwed) will be impacted by this change. This is not a change to aesthetics or a single nerf or buff to a ship, ship class or even tech tree line, but a complete overhaul of both ships and mechanics. Wargaming marketing is still likely reeling from the fallout of the poorly designed and then hastily delivered Graf Zeppelin (Year of the Carrier), which caused the player base to uproar in one voice as the ship was released...far too soon, in hopes of making waves at some gaming convention. For those wanting more information on this topic, feel free to google and research, I just wanted to highlight the topic to bring relevance to what is a catalyst for our current project in the pipeline and the ramifications of a hasty release. My concern here is that we are headed for another Graf Zeppelin, please learn from the historical record...DO NOT REPEAT IT. The Introduction of Submarines: In October 2018, we were given the Halloween event, which as promised brought a version, a live petri dish test-bed so to speak, to World of Warships. Wargaming had clearly invested money, time, and effort into this project and to me, this was the tell tale sign that World of Warships was looking to expand their business to not only vessels on the water and planes above it, but also to the ships that sailed under it. Previously, in April, there was a April Fool's joke with the image of a Submarine, clearly, the first inclination that wargaming had crossed the Rubicon, rolled the dice, and were in the process of developing submarines for World of Warships, despite previous marketing statements to the contrary or at least marketing conversations that stayed a very true neutral on the topic, which provided the wargaming team a chance to exploit this in-game opportunity if enough interest was sparked. Indeed, the forums are a go-to spot for collecting relevant data on classes of ships, premium ships, and well just about anything you want from the community. It is also a sounding board for the squeakiest wheel to get oil. In this case, there was and is an archive/trove of threads dedicated to submarines and their proposed introduction into the game. A caution would be that just because something squeaks, doesn't mean that it is a broken mechanic or even needs the most attention right now, even if the ground work is being laid for a fertile and quite possible lucrative investment. Patience...please go Read Sun Tzu's, The Art of War...it has business application as well. Historical Argument (Not a valid one): If we look at history "real life" and other arguments, it is easy to dismiss this as a terrible idea, because most submarines were designed for scouting, hunting merchant ships or ...even better are referred to as boats not ships. Not to mention, CVs would have dominated all 12 ships on one side from 250 miles away and well off the map. Well, outside of design and actual clauses of calling this game, "World of Warships, Aerial Attack Planes, and Warboats"...there are a lot of aspects about this game that don't fit the credible history and so...the argument doesn't hold water. Facts: What does hold water is if I dig back into all of those wonderful forum threads, with their polls, their comments, and input from numerous players of all skills levels, it can be certain that there is a resounding disagreement within the community of whether the addition of submarines/CV rework is a good idea or not. Looking at the CV rework, it too has polarized the player-base in such a way as to show the crack in the armor of the game, the growing rift between the community and the gaming company and even worse, no one point or way to fix it all. I have seen the downvotes, the absolutely NO!, the memes, and the numerous comments for and against the changes that are about to occur. The reality is that even within the top competitive clans there is talk of how this will impact the game and whether come February 2019, who will still be playing amongst us. (I know that the competitive players aren't the only ones concerned, but that is my social circle and am obliged to share from that which I learn in personal experience). Throw in the submarines shortly there after and its going to be a public affairs fiasco for the ages. And we know the track record on those as well...so my hope is to help avoid that from happening...again. The real Argument (Progressive Player versus Conservative Player): No this is not politics, but it is a way in which players metabolize and cope with changes in a game. If I give you a spoonful of arsenic every day, it will take months to kill you, but you will eventually die. If I gave you the whole bottle with a label on it called "Rat Poison" dangerous to humans, you will likely throw it out or after one sip, spit it out because of how vulgar it is to one's taste buds. Some players here are more conservative and wish to see changes made to the game, but in increments that they can stomach. Others want to see revolutionary and game sweeping concepts added at Blitzkrieg speed! Is either of these schools of thought wrong? No. Each player type wants to see the game progress at a speed they feel comfortable with. Unfortunately though, they are headed for a collision course as the player-base will see this January 2019. The problem is that some will see either of these two additions as good or bad for the game. Those that see it as good, will likely be more invested than ever before...until burnout, while those who see it as bad, may be driven from the game, and once one group of players or even a clan routs from the game, it could turn into a complete and utter fallout of brain-trust to include competitive players and evaluators who feel their voices are never heard by wargaming, despite consistently warning against massive and over used action to achieve an objective. (See Yue Yang comments below). I hope there is a happy middle ground to be found in all of this, who out there has a silver bullet to address this issue? Realities: The BB change to AP has had mixed reviews...I would sit on this for three months, gather the player-base metrics...and then chose a course of action for implementing whatever major decision needs be done with CVs and or Submarines. Much like the stealth firing nerf, there will be pros and cons...but I have this inner worry that many players will jump on the cons. My Hope: Unfortunately, I am writing an article here and for the first time, I do not have a positive solution, and more importantly, I think the marketing and strategy team at Wargaming do not either. The storm is right over the horizon, and the impact of this could make or absolutely break this game to a point where all my tags come true. I can only caution the marketing team at wargaming that they may be trying to go a bridge too far, bite off more than they can chew, or hurry a project into a community that is not yet fully aware of the implications and changes across the board they have asked for. Therefore, this thread is not a thread about whether a change needs to happen or not. It is a thread about how to provide community feedback to the developers and marketing team on how to properly gauge the climate and introduce game sweeping mechanics in such a way as to make them palatable to as many as possible without breaking the game nor one's individual will to play it. My Bias: I will be frank in saying I am very skeptical of the CV rework and the introduction of submarines into the game. I did not enjoy the new submarine play (at all), but again, its just a teaser and I am fearful of what I am seeing with the inefficiency of AA versus the new CV meta. (For those wondering what that might look like, see CC videos on YouTube that are starting to cover the process). I am also not a fan of infinite planes, but I guess some players are not a fan of infinite torpedoes and shells on ships either. I am a conservative player, but I do enjoy change...just not rapid change. A great example...Yue Yang is performing better than peers, ok lets nerf it. Nerf the guns or the torps...not both at once...that just seems way to much way to fast...and sure enough its a crap boat now because too much too fast completely reduced efficiency...shock face. An adjustment incremented over time is more palatable than a soup sandwich without the bread burning hot shoved down my throat. My Goal: For players, community contributors, clan testers, super testers, and wargaming marketing and development staff to address in a constructive way, plans to not cause system shock to the community with these game altering changes planned in the future. You never know, the words you write could have the desired impact and meaning I am hoping to see. I would like to avoid another public affairs fiasco, head it off before it becomes a non-negotiable way too late into the process. Final Thoughts: I am aware I rambled in this one a bit, and probably strayed from the main points, please forgive. I have sounded my alarm, Kongo Out!
  4. So, Republique has a belt armor hole. Actually it's worse than that, because it's not just one hole somewhere on the ship, it's some sort of weakness that extends the full length of the ship. It's some sort of vulnerability that comes into play across the full length of the ship's belt protection. I can say this because in testing, hits were able to generate citadels at 11-17km from Zao(not exclusive, this was what I tested), which absolutely cannot be due to AP pen of the main belt. I did some more testing in North Carolina, it looks like against higher plunge BB guns the inside edge of vulnerability is approx 12-13km. NC has a higher descent angle, so it's likely not purely AoF related, or driven by pen as NC of course has more of that as well. Normalization and velocity may play a role here. What I suspect is the cause is that Republique lacks any form of lower belt protection except the 50mm torpedo bulkhead. This combines with the heavy sloping of an internal main belt to allow shells that fall short or impact very low on the ship to pass under the main belt and easily punch past the torpedo bulkhead. Richelieu and Alsace probably suffer from the same issue to a lesser extent, their belts are deeper and less inclined. If anyone has testing results they'd like to post, it'd be welcome. I'd be particularly interested in USN SHS cruisers and Yamato(overmatch). Yamato would have to be with spotting support at >20km in order to avoid directly penetrating the belt armor. I observed around 1/10 of shells would bypass the belt armor and cause a citadel hit, if this is driven by range it'd be very informative on the cause. Fire lots of shells at one range, that way the sample size is usefully large. As for what this means to you, the wild probably-FXP Republique player, well basically your armor isn't worth anything past 10-15km depending on ship. Don't rely on it. Hope that this is due to some armor modeling error where a plate doesn't have the right figures or there's an issue with the citadel extending outside its boxes, but I kind of doubt that this is the case with a vulnerability that is so easy to trigger. Or maybe WG set the lower belt armor to 25mm instead of 250mm by mistake. Either way the ship can't stand up to sustained fire on her sides. Angling to autobounce should fix it, but otherwise angling may be questionable. If it is what I think it is, angling will only make the problem worse before then, as it provides more space for the shell to slip below the belt. If you're shooting her, aim very low on the belt, possibly short entirely. This issue occurs on the main belt, not in relation to the turrets. Also she's really prone to eating AP 1/3 pen in general, so shoot her with AP anyways even if you're closer in and this doesn't trigger. TLDR; Republique armor is totally unreliable and it may be innate to the ship rather than an armor model error. Alsace is probably better anyways for her tier, right?
  5. I have been running into this problem quite a bit since update 0.7.9 So I did some research and found these items on the web. https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/73297-fixed-game-crashes-on-startup-big-world-client-has-encountered-an-unhandled-exception/ Suggested Fixes: https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/73297-fixed-game-crashes-on-startup-big-world-client-has-encountered-an-unhandled-exception/#comment-1626422 http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/566792-how-to-fix-application-error-0xc0000005/ This is what I did in isolating the problem: Method 1: Windows Restore - My problem is not related to Windows OS Method 2: Fixing Registries - Using CCleaner is always a good thing, however I did not resolve the issue. Method 3: System File Checker - Again good, however I did not resolve the issue. Method 4: Check your BCD (Boot Configuration Data) ***Caution*** this could lock up your system, so I avoided this process. Method 5: Turn off DEP - My hardware does this automatically. To manually turn this off is more for really old computers (Windows 7) Method 6: Bad RAM Memory - No other games or applications are affected so I skipped this step. Method 7: Try Rkill - Last ditch effort. Step Skip. Method 8: Disable antivirus - Nope not doing that. however... Step 8 did bring to mind on the number changes my computer has gone through in regards to updates and software changes. In addition I found out that exception 0xC0000005 is an access exception. So I reviewed my anti-virus exception list. I found some really old listings that were not valid anymore. So I deleted what was in my exclusion list and added all new entries as shown in my attachment. So far I have not had the listed exception error again. I thought I would let all WoWS players know so you can clear any permission or delays cause by your anti-virus program.
  6. Here is another good video by the Extra Credits people. The only thing I dislike about the effects of losing is that teammates using other teammates as meat shields, Lemming runs, or AFK/Player laagers that don't help the team. The rest is whatever happens in the fog of war. Although I do find RNGJesus annoying in the fate department. I use the losing aspect as an evaluation tool on: 1) did I mess the team up with my actions, or 2) I should have done this instead of that. Losing just shows you can't bat a 1,000 all the time.
  7. It has been a little while due to production issues but I am back revamping my In-Depth Analysis videos into Replay Breakdowns. What better ship to rebrand the series than the one that started it all: the Kronshtadt. In this episode I go over asserting your dominance to control the game.
  8. For this IDA we are going back to Tier III in the South Carolina. Many people has issues with this ship due to its slow speed, however if you play your role and utilize efficient positioning you can have an impact through out the entire battle.
  9. For those of you new to the game and want to figure out battleships and how they should be played I have two videos showing the basics of positioning and how the BB role is played. I hope you enjoy them and that you find them useful.
  10. A few production delays means this video is coming out a little late. However, it is something a little different! Today we are looking at the Tier III French Battleship and focusing on how you can have consistently good games by playing your role and supporting your team. Let me know what you think and thank you for watching.