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
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 58 results

  1. MaxMcKay

    10.3 patch

    A group of CV skippers from different clans, sat down to review the current state of CV's. We've discussed how overlapping flack has become to overwhelming and plane stripping. There is no way to even nip at the flanks of such a group as we can not turn out the rest of the squadron from the strike and just use the strike planes to do damage. You lose a entire group to do 6k damage now, AAA was supposed to be a deterrent NOT out right punishment for daring to attack a ship. Also it seems American and UK plane armor has become wet tissue paper for some of the most heavily armored and well built planes in the war. We understand the need for "balance", and thought we'd have struck a good chord just before this patch, where we did lose planes, and would lose entire wings of a type if we made serious mistakes and got punished for it. Now, we do everything right and we still are being punished harshly for it. This is forcing CV players into tactics that are causing friction with teams because of these issues. We are getting reported to lose karma as punishment because teams want us to do certain things, that because of these changes we just can't do anymore, if we want to have ANY planes left to effect the out come of the game. If we do, do these things that are being asked (IE:such as trying to finish off a ship near a group, try to get a spot on a destroyer for our team. among others , etc) we turn into floating flak barges again ala the RTS days. Or we get yelled at to keep trying to do things with 1 or two planes that we've managed to save up to try to spot with because we couldn't survive these patches flak to attack. I remember the RTS days, I remember how those days ended, how manual dropping was removed, how auto dropping only was allowed, how fighter strafing ran off so many CV players.(edited) Take the MVR for example, it started off as a CV that rewarded a high level of skill for it's dive bombers, but now RNG has reduced needing any skill due to it's effect on bomb release and where the bombs impact. The entire ship could be in the reticle and the bombs will figure a way to miss or hit something that will do no damage to the target. This is one example of the many drastic changes that've been made. That the regular player base don't see but the CV players know very well. It's easy to keep hating on CV's when that's what's making someone popular. CV's have started to become useless again, it seems like wg is intentionally drawing down the player base for the CV's. This is on top of the repeated lowering of damage, and other nerfs. They stack up after awhile. People notice this! Take the FDR of all CV's, it struggles now to get 2 strikes in for a launched strikes, you will lose 10 planes while trying this. That's 20min of waiting to get those planes back....for 1 min of work. No other ship has been treated to this extent. We get punished for attacking by an automated system that attacks our ability to do damage. Our ability to influence the game keeps getting it's ability to survive and operate changed, how it's targeting is changed and played with (with no notes or warning mind you). It's players harassed by people who don't like the CV's, with WG doing NOTHING about it. Now you've still got a dedicated group from those days spreading the same hate and the same message from those days doing the same things over and over. They're easy to see, they're using the same chants, the same msg's, the same drama. Us? All we are asking is please just balance this so that we can have fun as well. We aren't asking for everything, we are just asking to have fun.
  2. Just bought a T10 Austin today with a lot of hard earned Steel, and I'm sad to say this ship is incredibly under powered compared to other ships of its genre. I'll compare it first with the Minotaur - 1. Mino has 13k more hit points 2. Mino has larger guns(152mm v. 127mm on Austin, although Mino has 2 less guns) 3. Mino has a 3.5 second reload v. Austin's 8 second reload (supposedly counter balanced by the Austin's 15 second reload booster that drops reload to 2 seconds briefly and can't be used again for 1:40+) 4. Mino is made of paper and easily damaged v. Austin is made of rice paper and is damaged by a stiff breeze for massive damage. Maybe they're both paper, but with 13k more hit points, Mino has the decided edge in survivability 5. Mino has smoke to hide in v. Austin has a prayer it can get behind. 6. Both have 10km torps with a small advantage in damage going to the Austin 7. Both have similar hydro 8. Both have excellent AA 9. Mino is ~1km more detectable range There is NOTHING about the Austin that makes it worth spending 29,000 hard earned Steel on. It's pathetic in comparison to other light cruisers in the game. The Austin is equivalent to a T8 Edinburgh in most respects (leaving ONLY the reload booster as an advantage while giving up smoke as the only real difference. This needs to be fixed so the people unfortunate enough to buy this wimp of a ship don't feel like they've wasted potentially YEARS worth of grinding to get 29,000 Steel. Sorry this is all bunched up and not formatted. My forum does not load properly and I'm viewing it in basic text.
  3. Hi everyone, I've played a lot of games in Saipan in the last year or so and before the commander skill change this month the 1 point ability (now retitled Air Supremacy) used to give +2 aircraft on deck in addition to the -5% faster plane regeneration time. On many CVs the +2 aircraft isn't too noticeable, but on the Saipan and its clone Sanzang, those extra two aircraft are sorely missed. I think if the plane regeneration time is going to stay the same, both boats ought to have those two aircraft per air wing permanent. Playing in randoms is hard enough if you're up-tiered (but almost too easy against tier VI boats) and those extra two aircraft are extremely important to being viable in the later stages of a game. Thank for listening, GB
  4. Commanders! We have listened to your feedback and decided to rework particle accelerators. Instead of having a fixed reload time, you can now fire any time during the reload cycle. However, the longer you wait, the larger the splash damage and chances of collision. We have also added the skill 'pristine protons' for a 5% increase on proton reload. More information can be found here The following bugs have been fixed: The Yamato and Hadron have the same weapons, but the splash values are inconsistent The bearing indicator shifts by 2 degrees when you are in a fhsmcxi call The following ships have been removed from the armory: tier 15 USA battleship Arizona will be removed due to balance changes tier 12 submarine Albacore has been removed for... reasons We are happy to announce a collaboration with Disney motors to bring tier 16 battleship Warspite and unique commander Hfesckjhn Udskzcncm to the dockyard in patch 1.38.2!
  5. JTM78

    AA vs Planes

    Why is it that CV can make two to five against enemy ships while losing little to nothing? I am finding that the AA of equal tier ships vs planes still allow 3 or more runs and god forbid if the ship is two tiers lower. There is something seriously wrong with the balance of AA vs planes. Maybe CV should lose health for every plane that gets shoot down?!
  6. So, I unlocked the ship, looked the stats over, played it a little, and ended up doing a bunch of research. Because it seems like Oklahoma is what some of us, including myself, asked for - a USN BB with a focus on secondary guns. Unfortunately - it seems like for those of us that did suggest a full line - with Oklahoma's sister Nevada as the tech tree tier 5, they stopped reading at 'USN battleship with secondary focus'. And well... Oklahoma as she is is what we get, though I will give credit where it is due - they did infact update her to have the 3"/50 AA guns she was supposed to have post refit and had on December 7th. Now, is she the worst ship I've ever played - no. But to just be a good ship ( and 'good' in this case means 'acceptably average'), she needs some work. And freebie or not - I think it's worth to do it (especially because after the fact people may end up buying it). Now bare in mind - my suggestions lean more in to keeping it more with a secondary focus then, well, just another USN standard - so I expect those who want more significant changes to the main battery will disagree with me quite heavily. Survivability - So, I can't tell you how many hours I spent trying to find out how much steel is below the 3 1/2" teak decking because yes, I am mister 'as historically accurate as we can make it', and for whatever reason, can't find the damn answer - so purely game balance it is. If the ship is going to be a shorter range brawler - the thing needs armour protection, and not just side to side vs BB's - it can't have literally everything with 5 inch guns auto-penning it on rapid fire with HE without even need of IFHE. Now, if I had my way, I'd increase all of the 19 mm armour that covers the ship, but I see that getting a lot of push back so, given it is the first 'all or nothing' BB and that generally speaking the bow/stern didn't really get protection - lets roll with that. Either increase all the central side/deck plating to 25 mm (immune to standard 127 mm HE, better resistance vs same caliber guns) or 26 mm (Immunity to non-IFHE 127 mm and 152 mm round, better resistance to 381 mm rounds). The Bow and stern would still have the overly squishy 19 mm armour protection - but it would at least add a bot more to the central part of the ship that was actually protected. Even if it only reduces a handful of 127 mm rounds not penning, it's something. Firepower Main Battery - The jump from 34 to 40 I think was overkill, going down to 37 seconds and splitting the difference should be fine - especially given the various other nerfs she has over the other 2 USN tier 5 BB's in shell performance. Secondary Battery - Is fine other than one suggestion that if it can apply just to these guns, great, if not, well it won't make the main battery that much better - give them 1/4 pen. This would at least put it on par with the German secondary ships, a middle ground between their 10.5 and 15 cm mix. Though slightly more uniform in caliber, even though not RoF. AA Defense Once again, thanks for adding the 3 inch guns back. Also once again, 3 inch guns should be part of the long range battery - not mid. In fact - these 3 inch guns had better range than the 5/25 you have as the long range guns, even if only slightly. Adding the 3 inch guns into the long range band will allow them on average to add another 4 seconds of DPS to panes, currently 84 more damage, though I would add 5 damage to the 5 inch guns (100 total) and 3 to the 3 inch (24 total) which would add a base total over the entire time in an attack run (AA start at 4.8 km to 0 km) of 205 damage, compared to it's current baseline average of 1444 DPS a 14% increase. I would also alter the flak bursts - reducing the damage from an explosion to 900-1000 damage, but increasing the number of burst per salvo to 5 (matching the number of guns firing flak rounds per side). Still less than the Russian bias BB and Texas (albeit more effective than Texas because of range, which would be fixed if it and New York also had their 3 inch mounts shifted back to long range AA though Texas would need some changes to DPS numbers to not make it insanely OP AA) by a fair amount, though more than New York which I'm 90% sure it already actually beats anyway. Mobility The speed and turning while not great, can be easy enough to ignore. But it seriously needs better energy retention given that even NY/TX/AZ/Etc are all actually faster than it. The speed loss, while on occasion useful in torpedo dodging, is just incredibly bad for the ship overall. Consumable Reduce the Cooldown on DCP and Repair to at least 60 seconds, if not 40. Let's be real here - at under 20 knots, the only way it isn't out run by a ship is you either add Bogue back in, or it horror movie chases the opponent in to a corner where simply geometry allows it to close range if the ship won't engage and opts to flee. And it can pelt the thing indefinitely while it does and it waits forever for the main battery to reload. Battleships still take 18% fire damage baseline, and being tier 5 at most you get that down to 12.2% per fire IF you use the flag and have a captain built a bit more to survivability. Otherwise if you only have one or the other, it deals 14.4% or 15.3% damage per fire - and each repair party heals only 14% of HP, 16.8% if you have the flag - and depending on the ships armour - as is every 127 mm round will pen, and my proposals only cover the center section so hitting the bow is still pen damage for anything and if only 25 mm in the center still auto-pen by 152 mm shells, that A: only 50% of the damage can be healed back and B: adds up when you have the fires and takes away how much you can heal off the fire damage (which is why IFHE is still an issue - it's the pen/fire combo - even with the 50% nerf that still keeps the fire chance of 152 mm cruisers too high, mainly tier 8 and higher). But this will help cancel out the fact that it's slow and can be easily pelted from long range by these targets that unless they are unlucky or fools, aren't getting deleted by the big guns cause they dodge or make it the citadel is harder to hit if not impossible. Also better allows the ship to be more an outright heavy tank to say break through in to a cap and contest it if more than one ship focuses on it, especially if it's more than one high rate of fire ship spamming HE only. Overall this should keep it more of a secondary using BB, the increased armour and changes to DCP and Repair will help it actually last in a match, and free up some ability to actually opt for a secondary build a bit more than survivability seeing as they'll eat less HE pens, and be able to put out fires/repair them a bit faster. The change to 1/4 pen on at least secondary guns means they are useful against most ships it sees, and make up for the lack luster performance of the gun. The 3 seconds off the MB reload, the reduced speed loss in turns, and AA changes are really a bit more player comfort and geared toward more mid-range players and well, the fact that low tier AA around this tier is kinda screwed anyway - even with that extra 205 DPS in a pure state 1649 DPS unless you get some flak hits won't even take out 1 TB or DB in most cases against tier 6 CV's - and that's before your pelted by HE everything. But honestly - I'd be fine if only the armour, secondary pen, and consumable adjustments are made, or absolute minimum armour and consumable ones made. The French ships rely on speed, the German's, speed and armour combined, USN BB as a simple slab of metal that has HE poured on it as it slowly roles in to secondary range towards a cap, it'd be different than those two lines, the only thing close really is Warspite, and even then that trades a bit of armour for a tad more speed. If you make these changes, I think Oklahoma would be it's own ship that people might enjoy as much as something like Warspite.
  7. Grand_Admiral_Murrel

    Studying the "Balance" of WoWs

    There has been a disturbance in the Force. A previously unknown, self-proclaimed Grand Admiral is diving into the statistics of World of Warships to learn exactly how ships are balanced. Would you believe me if I told you that a ship’s artillery was three times more important than her survivability, and that 25% of a ship’s performance is based off of her guns? What if I told you a ship’s anti-aircraft suite was valued twice as much as her survivability? Where did these numbers come from? Read on! The following is an analysis of in-game ship rating parameters. When I was new to the game, I assumed that the numerical values for individual ships directly translated to their performance in battle. Any seasoned captain worth his salt can tell you that these numbers are, for the lack of any other description, misguiding. I asked around several months ago to find out how World of Warships define these parameters and was unsurprised when I couldn’t get a response from World of Warships. So, I vowed then that I would figure them out myself. So, what is the purpose of playing with useless numbers, you ask? Crunching numbers won’t have any direct effect, but I hope to prove a couple things from this little venture. First, I want to determine what the weights are on each ship parameter. Once I’ve determined the “template” for each ship class at each tier, I can then go into the details of determining exactly how each parameter is calculated. Second, I hope to prove (or disprove) myths about certain ships being overpowered with hard data as proof. An interesting example is of the pre-release and current version of the tier 9 German supercruiser (call it what you will), the Agir. It’s first test iteration was similar to what we have in-game now, but a second iteration made the main battery guns beyond terrible, and gave her quite possibly the most powerful secondary battery in-game. When it became obvious that these secondaries simply farmed damage and didn’t require any skill to operate, Agir was converted to the version we see today. So, the big question: how is it that Wargaming thought these two iterations were equivalent? To make this analysis work, I will conduct this in three steps: 1) data collection; 2) in-game ship basic parameter weighting analysis; and 3) formulate equations for each individual ship parameter. As a proof of concept, I have included a sample for four random tier 7 battleships: the Gneisenau, Nagato, King George V, and the Lyon. All of them have unique playstyles, reflected (rather vaguely) in their in-game parameter ratings, shown below: Survivability Artillery Torpedoes AA Maneuverability Concealment Gneisenau 72 84 14 82 52 34 Nagato 79 88 0 49 33 25 King George V 74 85 0 57 39 38 Lyon 66 78 0 77 38 34 *Please forgive any mis-labeled values; I am trying to use fully-upgraded, no-modules-installed values. To keep it simple, here’s what I’m doing. First, I collect the data. These numbers, however, are far from useable as they are because they are vastly disproportionate. I then uniformly scale each individual ship’s parameters to allow for easier solving. I then create a system of equations with shared variables; every ship in the game (theoretically) follows the same basic formula with different input values, so what I’m trying to do is reverse-engineer that formula. Doing some fancy math tricks will allow me to solve for the formula values. I then check that my work is correct by doing some simple math to see if, after all I’ve done, the formula I’ve created yields identical ratings for all ships. I will humbly call this the Murrel Rating. In this particular instance (don’t ask why), all four of these battleships had a Murrel Rating of approximately 137.6. “But Grand, that’s easy,” they said. “You just kept trying values until something worked!” If you think it’s really that easy, try it. Best of luck getting a maximum error of 1.34% on the first couple dozen attempts. Trial-and-error is possible, but not a recommended method for solving this problem. There are simply too many variables. For those who are interested, the percent errors were as follows: Percent error (%) Gneisenau 1.318 Nagato 1.280 King George V 1.254 Lyon 1.343 I am anticipating error values to increase slightly as I add more and more ships to my sample, but for now, I’m satisfied with this. Now, for what you’ve all been waiting for: the preliminary results. If you’re still reading this, I applaud your patience. For the test sample of the above-listed battleships, I have deduced the following about their performance: Survivability 8.08% Artillery 25.6% Torpedoes 23.3% Anti-Aircraft Suite 16.4% Maneuverability 8.08% Concealment 18.6% Right away, we can see that a ships main armament is the most vital part of the ship – this isn’t World of Cruise Ships, after all. Guns and torpedoes are nearly equal, so interpret that as you will. I’ll be honest, I’m shocked at how low maneuverability is, but I suppose that’s not a priority for most battleships. I’m interested to see what comes of a destroyer analysis. Concealment is the second-most important thing after main armament (including guns and torpedoes), which is why you should always make your first 4-point skill concealment expert. So where can you help? Well, I’m relatively new around here, and as a casual, free-to-play (but very passionate) player, I need information on ships I can’t access in-game. This includes premium ships (of all types), coal ships, steel ships, and research bureau ships. If you have even one of these vessels, I would greatly appreciate any information that could be provided. It would be particularly useful if the values were for ships without modules mounted, but if there are modules mounted please specify which ones – this is also valuable information. At the bare minimum, for this stage of my work, a simple screenshot like the one below would be fantastic. Modules mounted: Main armaments mod 1, damage control mod 1, main battery mod 2, damage control mod 2, concealment systems mod 1, artillery plotting room mod 2 (yes, really) Well, that’s all for now folks. If you find this even remotely interesting, please let me know! Additionally, if you have questions regarding how I’m conducting my analysis, I will do my best to explain, but at this point I want to keep things pretty tight until I’m close to wrapping up. For the scientifically-inclined of you reading this, I challenge you to do better and prove me wrong! Sources: https://na.wows-numbers.com/
  8. Gods_Eyes

    The only issue with CVs:

    This is World of Warships. Not World of Airplanes. Am I playing as a pilot, or a boat captain? Specifically all spotting ability needs to be removed from airplanes, including attack planes and torpedo bombers. Everything. Zero spotting ability. Allow me to explain: I just played a tier 6 match with two carriers working together. The first located and perma spotted the destroyers sitting BEHIND friendly AA cruisers(no issue here right). The second came in with rockets and killed the destroyers. If two carriers are banned from divisions, they should currently be banned from having 2 in a match together. Their ability to spot and work together with focus fire is unparalleled. However, this highlights the most important balance issue with CV. They can spot with planes. The ship itself is a tall ship, and should have super buffed spotting ability. Give the CV itself the ability to see concealed destroyers 8km away, but the planes need to have ZERO ability to spot at all. This would balance the game play to put it on par with a battleship. To draw a parallel: A Montana can shoot anywhere on the map. I devastating strike derpy players in the first 2 minutes of matches, easy. Despite having similar ability to strike anywhere on the map, The Montana Cannot Spot 25km Away. So let's take a step back. Saying the planes shouldn't be able to spot anything would be MUCH more balanced than the current iteration of carriers, but it's not perfect. So what would be? Here's some ideas: 1) Create "no spotting" zones within (about) 2km of all islands, where destroyers cannot be spotted by carriers whatsoever. 2) Penalize missed drops. If the Hakurya wants to drop some of his torpedos on an island to save planes, those planes should instantly explode when neither of their torpedos hit an enemy target. I hate that I have to game the system and drop bombers to stay relevant as a CV driver. It works around AA in a cheating way. ~ I love playing carrier. Recently regrinding the IJN destroyer line for research bureau, and it has become extremely apparent how big of a balance issue carriers have right now. Destroyers (ESPECIALLY AT THE LOWER TIERS) are irrelevant against Good carrier players. Yes, I can still use my destroyer in a relevant way occasionally, but that is ONLY against carrier players that have no idea how to play. As it stands, the carrier is a radar boat with 40km radar. 12km radar itself should be removed from the game, so tell me, how balanced do you think 40km radar is??
  9. I am not going to suggest a solution (that is up for the DEVs), I am going to complain about the zombie planes attacking ships, after the said ship out smarted/sunk the CV driver... Not only CVs are so disproportionate in DMG dealing (against small/medium ships), even when they're sunk by smart plays.. They still find a way with zombie planes to retaliate against the person who sunk them (by hovering over them for what seems like forever, or dropping a consumable to pinpoint the location of the said ship)... IMO, IF a CV is sunk by any ship class.. He shouldn't be able to retaliate against said player... Its over at that point... Replay instructions... Fast forward to the red CV's sinking. Press play and enjoy 20201018_225113_PJSD025-True-Kamikaze_41_Conquest.wowsreplay
  10. We have griped for years about this. When are you actually gonna do something to make games more competitive? There is nothing more demoralizing than logging in, getting blown out 3 matches in a row. Not a single good game. Losing is not fun, but at least the matches can be fun when competitive. What you guys are serving up daily is hot garbage with more garbage on top. When you get pubstomped 3 games in a row its time to log off. I also find its harder to get myself to log in. There are so many things I could choose to do with my time and dealing with the aggravation that you all serve up is dropping lower and lower on the list of things I want to do. People spend RL money on camos, flags, ships, etc... and want to have fun and engaging matches. Not blowouts that are boring for the winners and the losers. This last game was the final straw for me. 7 Minute match.... 7 minutes.
  11. hammer_1

    Tier X German CVs

    Wargaming has created many tier X ships from plans, and some are real ships created well after WW2. Meanwhile back in Germany real jet fighters were used DURING WW2. It seems only fair to me to give the Germans their due and include ME262 jet fighters and possible bombers on the Richthofen or Voss CVs. What say you?
  12. So, @6Xero9 had called out and claimed, they feel CVs are balanced (and feel having this many CVs would be fine). Okay. So, I'd like Wargaming to do a 2-3 week experiment on live. And what is this experiment? Let's have 2-5 CVs per game. To people and those in WG who feel CVs are fine and support their existence, it seems the concerns and points raised to CVs fall onto deaf ears. And time and again, it is touted that people who dislike CVs are in the minority. Let's once and for all prove what's what to the question: Is CV balanced, or not? Now, i'm sure people will backpedal. But I want you to realize... by admission, if a ship type is balanced in relation to power over the rest, then there should be zero reason to treat the class special over the others. Right? Everyone should be able to play their pixel boats without a care in the world, whether he/she sees 4-5 BBs, CA/CLs, DDs, or even CVs. The rest of the classes can have that many, why can't CVs? In the end, let's put your money where your mouth is both WG and supporters of CVs: Gather the numbers and playerbase feedback after this experiment, and let's see what population numbers look like. And it will be very curious for those who not only oppose this simple and straight logic, for those who don't... Please outline why is it that CVs must keep a limit of 1-2, but also are balanced in power as opposed to any other ship type in the game. And please explain why this limit exists if its not for balance reasons. No matter which side you stand on, and if you even fall into that last category... I'm sure what people have to say in defense of both why CVs are balanced or OP will be interesting should this idea get attention. Additional thoughts: How about we let just two CVs in all games? Or the divisioning of two CVs? The reality is, the feedback of the players I doubt would change much.
  13. You know how in real life radar would both detect distant threats as well as make you detected to them? If you institute a global change that makes radar reveal you to every target it spots for you, suddenly Belfast isn't nearly as powerful. The extreme synergy of its consumables goes out the window. Not only that, but longer radar range would be a double edged sword, making it a risk you are willing to take to use it rather than a no brainer to activate it when you need it. Okay, now I can sleep. This idea was keeping me awake...
  14. Have you ever captained a BB and a DD pulls up within 6km of you or it jumps from behind an island point blank? You used to be able to punish them for that mistake but now you can unload a full broadside at them and theyll just shake it off and dump salvo of torps at you and kill you. WG needs to address this. As a BB player since the beta days this is one of the biggest frustrating changes theyve made. DDs need to be punished for travelling too close and revealing their broadside. Even if its not a full citadel, at least half damage or flooding or allow BB secondaries to do the same damage as DD main guns since theyre the same weapon essentially. Its impossible even on arcade physics to honestly allow DDs to shrug off a full broadside by a BB and have 2/3 health remaining. Lets give us BB players an incentive to play again instead of just flooding the server with fake ships and broken pro DD physics
  15. Herr_Reitz

    Balance changes

    Yes, this is from the https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/51 entry posted a bit back. I fully admit having to read this a number of times. You see, this is the justification for changing the aiming reticle to horizontal. If this isn't the most backward way of thinking and explaining something, I don't know what would be a better example. They are changing a carrier's aiming reticle so destroyers can use their same tactics to dodge attack aircraft? Ponder on this in amazement. I have. I'm bedazzled. Poor DDs, need to have aiming reticles changed so they can use the same tactics for all attack aircraft. Now of course, this won't be enough of a further handicap to carriers. Of course I've been insisting for a few weeks the cruisers really should be killing DDs, carriers doing it only as a last resort. Here's a thought - LIMIT DDS TO THREE MAX per team at any tier. Gives them a bit more room to fan out .Tied to your reduction (future) of DD by carrier aircraft by another, what, fifty percent, why those nasty old CV's won't hardly pester DDs again. Cruisers. Cruisers will become the new DD killers. Which of course, is what they should have been all along. Thing is, carriers have been so effective (other than me) at swatting DDs since the rewrite, cruisers moved to battleships and carriers. If you snip the carrier's abilities far enough, they'll abandon the target and find the next best targets - cruisers, then bbs and finally carriers. Cruisers will of course, move DDs back on the menu as their prime meals. So in a round-about way, you're doing me a favor, because you are promoting what I've been preaching the past few weeks. DDs are cruiser targets, not carrier targets. tia cya
  16. Opinions are like Aholes. Some are just bigger than others.
  17. What is up with all the unbalanced ship distribution lately? So many games with 4 BB on one team and 3 on the other. It is always a blowout. Is this a new feature of Matchmaker. It sucks whether you are on the winning or losing team. All these missions are screwing up game play too. People are more focused on getting defended ribbons, citadels, fires, or any other number of tasks specified by missions instead of helping the team to win.
  18. Announcement! Italian Battleships! Yes, they are finally here! A whole new line of ships representing the Nation of Pasta Primavera! Italian battleships fire a unique kind of shell: Semi-armor piercing (SAP). This type of shell has a much greater chance of penetrating armor than a normal HE shell, but not quite as good as a true AP shell. However, the new SAP shells come with a 75% chance of starting a fire! Also, while Italian battleships are not as heavily armored as their contemporaries, they have a top speed of 38 knots, making them quite hard to hit while moving and allowing them to outrun most other battleships. We are proud to introduce Tier V Spaghetti, Tier VI Spaghetti and Meatballs, Tier VII Alfredo, and Tier VIII Alfredo con Pollo. Stay Tuned for More! GAME BALANCE CHANGES BATTLESHIPS AP shells are more skill-demanding for successful use than HE shells, but their efficiency is higher, if used correctly. The updated battleships constitute a relatively novel class in the game since they were almost exclusively used for shore bombardment and sea escort, and most players have been using them to delete other ships such as cruisers in a single salvo. Consequently, the overall damage dealt by this type of armament has become too high. We, therefore, decided to systematically lower the maximum damage of AP shells, but without lowering their penetration. All battleship AP shell damage will be lowered by 30%. We will watch independent performance of the ships and take additional action if needed.
  19. I've had the Khaba for a long time, and have always loved it, even though I have only been able to play the current version, and never got to experience the original OP monster that it was. However in the current meta the Khaba is woefully underpowered. I just recently got the Kleber, and it is pretty much just a much better version of the Khaba in every way. You are much faster, much stealthier (even with the concealment nerf), have better range even without AFT, have amazing super AP that can delete cruisers from 10km away, have hilariously fun French F3 torpedoes that can demolish ships caught off guard, have French DD damage saturation, have great handling, and the absurdly strong main battery reload as well, along with great fire chance and shell velocity. What does the Khaba have in comparison? Well you do have better sustained DPM, although the reload booster more than makes up for this. You have the sekrit documents 50mm plating, although you take full BB AP pens to compensate, and can easily be blapped for 15k a salvo if you aren't careful. You do have a heal and more health, which is a significant advantage, although French damage saturation and speed really diminishes this advantage. You have much better turret traverse, but worse firing angles. And if you get in a point blank knife-fight the torpedoes hit very hard and are very stealthy, but are also incredibly slow and have terrible range, so they are still pretty much useless. You have better AA, but it is still trash, and even more so with the CV rework. The Khaba has also been crippled by the nerfs, especially the rudder shift nerf, forcing you to use the rudder mod, so your concealment is horrid at 9.7km, in comparison to the Kleber's bad but still very useable 7.8. You are also much slower and easier to hit, and have worse range even with AFT. The Kbaba has just frankly been power creeped into irrelevancy, which is why you almost never see it used anymore. I can still do very well in it, and still find it fun to play, but now that I have the Kleber it is easy to see how sorry a state the ship is in. The Khaba needs significant buffs to really be competitive again. The first thing I would do is undo the ridiculous rudder shift nerf, so that you can actually run concealment and be actually maneuverable. I would also give it back its 10km torpedoes, so it can actually use them once in a while. These alone would go a long way to making the Khaba competitive again. I would also make it not eat full BB AP pens anymore, and think a slight range increase would also work. It should not go back to its original broken state, but the Khaba really needs some work, as it has been both powercreeped by the Kleber and nerfed too much by WG as well. The Khaba is not an example of Russian bias (looking at you, Kremlin), and it needs some love.
  20. I think that most people agree that carriers are imbalanced in one way or another (and this is coming from someone who plays CVs a little bit). I also think that, for the most part, one of the bigger issues with them is CV-DD interaction, specifically the fact that DDs have no counterplay against CVs. Rocket planes (Attack Aircraft) are probably one the biggest offenders, mostly because of their mid-high damage and ease of use. While things like USN HE bombs and IJN torpedoes are still threats to DDs, Rocket Planes are definetely one of the worst to deal with. Being chunked for half of your HP is not "fun" or "engaging" I propose one main change: Replace rocket planes with a watered-down version of fighters (from pre-CV rework) They will have a few abilities: They cannot directly attack surface ships in any way. Their "mode of attack" is heavily based off strafing from pre-8.0 fighters. Simillar to torpedo bombers, they will have a wide "rectangle" indicating their area of attack (But is will be in the air, more like a box). Over time, this "rectangle/box" will get smaller, decreasing the area covered by an attack run, but also increasing damage. The damage from this strafing (if a plane squadron is caught in the middle of it) would be roughly on par with damage done by fighters The squadrons will not have the fighter consumable (to decrease spotting in conjunction with speed), but a different consumable, maybe an enhnaced engine boost consumable (i.e. for 10 seconds instead of 4) could replace it Damage done to plane squadrons would count as damage done to ships (this is to appease CV players who would get angry at a loss in damage totals) Benefits: This removes one of the bigger threats to DDs (I'm aware that spotting is also a big issue, but IDK what to do about that) This heavily encourages CV vs. CV gameplay, since a good CV player could directly attack enemy squadrons. This also makes the CV more heavily focus on avoding and defending against the enemy CVs fighter attacks Hopefully wouldn't change power balance between CVs too much (but the RN CV "fighters" might need to be better than others, since attack aircraft are one of the main strengths of RN CVs) Downsides (?); Probably would decrease CV teamplay further (though maybe not) A good CV player could completely negate an enemy CV (since they could aggresively use the fighters to completly counter their attacks), maybe counter this by making the aiming "rectangle" smaller/unable to be moved after an attack has started Suggestions Appreciated!
  21. Just throwing this out there but what if CV Planes didn't spot ships to the point that they show up for surface ships to fire at directly... Sure planes can spot ships but that shouldn't give surface ships a direct firing solution. Spot them and have them show up on the mini-map but it's up to the optics and detection systems of the surface ships in order to fire directly at them.
  22. Alright... We all know WG does not have any appreciation for either KMS or IJN fleets but can we all agree that German DDs out of all silver Axis lines need help the most? If you don't agree or consider KMS DDs to be balanced as they are let me show you why they need love: 1. Ammunition choice is pathetic: Their AP hurts but it has insanely low pen for the caliber, weight and muzzle velocity (pretty sure they took the Krupp value of a potato launcher) and against broadside DDs it will just overmatch while bouncing if they start to angle even the slightest. KMS DDs are supposed to be AP DDs yet Daring and Kebler are way way better in both AP and HE. Talking about HE... We all know how German HE works, it has insanely poor damage but gets 1/4 pen to compensate. Except it doesn't on DDs for some odd reason... They literally have the insanely poor alpha (it feels like the sailors are shooting at the enemy ships with their pistols...) but no 1/4 pen whatsoever... Is even more dumb when you consider that they have the same caliber as the same guns on BBs that get the 1/4 pen (128mm) 2. Torpedos are a joke: "They reload fast" is what many people claim but is not true. Sure, compared to IJN torps is fast reload but compared to the Mk 16 that are better in every single way just to get 10 seconds slower reload... Is a joke... Also how on Earth French DDs with their very high alpha get faster reloads that German DDs that their entire torpedo gimmick is fast reload...? Just as a little comparison: Yeah... they don't look even close to a Tier 5 vs Tier 10 comparison, it looks way more like two torpedo options for the same ship kind of like Sims or Loyang as T-22 have almost a 50% faster reload but Z-52 gets improved range and a extremely minor increase in damage (only 700 in 5 Tiers) and that pretty much tells you everything about how poorly this torps scale with the tiers... 3. Smoke is utter garbage: Why do they have the worst smokes in game? Just why? The smoke only lasts 70 seconds and it has the slowest cooldown of all smokes... Is there any historical reason that I was completely unable to find or is WG and their arbitrary "let's fck with axis ships"? Please I really need to know why theirs smokes are so bad... 4. Mobility: If you play Minotaur, Smolensk or any other agile CL and then jump into a Z-52 you feel like the Zerstörer is the cruiser... Is not a Harugumo or Khaba but specially the acceleration and turning circle are insanely poor. If you ever get your engine damaged and you were not moving or going slowly... You basically are dead as even a Kremlin accelerates faster than you, is an absolute joke how poor their engine perform even though they have a decent amount of horse power behind them. And no, the acceleration module does not help much because even if you run all the engine related upgrades (Engine Room Protection + Propulsion Mod 1 + Last Stand) getting hit in the engines is a death sentence and with how big and clumsy you are... You are going to get hit a lot 5. HP Progression: Yes, the good old formula for HP based on tonnage I know... But how can a Tier 10 have ONLY have 800 more base HP than the Tier 8...? How...? For example Akizuki has around 5.000 base HP gap between her and her bigger sister. Sure, most examples are less noticeable but for example Daring (that completely destroyed KMS DDs small niche) has a 4.900 base HP gap between the lightning and herself. Another example: between Udaloi and Grozovoi there is a 4.800 base HP gap. See a common trend here? Most DD lines get very healthy with the Tiers and the Tier 10 has always superior bulk compared to the lower Tiers. Except for KMS DD... 800 extra HP (yes yes Survivability Expert gives more HP to T10 I know) for a Tier 10 compared to what there is two tiers prior is a bad joke... And yes, tonnage is very similar as Z-23 and Z-46 were HUUUUGE DDs for the era while Z-52 barely increased their weight but come on, don't give the same fcking excuse as Odin, balance should always be priority and your HP formula was never followed strictly so make Z-46 and Z-52 have the bulk they deserve. 6. AA: Aw yes the ultimate topic but I will try to keep this only to this DDs and don't touch the CV side of things. All German ships relied on their mid ranges (ships like Salem and Minotaur also did) and Z-52 used to have a very impressive 9 flaks in the mid range that was not on par with Grozo but still was quite impressive and could do some wonderful work against Tier 8 carriers (has several games with over 50 planes shot down with one reaching 72) while being decent against T10s. Never an AA monster but could do some decent work. Then the mid range flak got Thanos snapped and Z-52 lost almost half it's AA as it could only put a mediocre 5 flaks in the air with the long range AA. It was a big hit as now even self defense was barely imposible but you could do some work as an AA scort ship and helping BBs when they were getting dropped. Now the 2 extra flak is gone and the original AA got smashed to only 33% of the original flak (with no change to the crappy DPS)... 3 flaks will only hit planes once in a blue moon and most of the time Z-52 is just easy food for CVs although that is not a particular issue to this ship, just a general issue of all DDs that get slothered every CV match. 7. CONCEALMENT: 6.1km... Why? Both Daring and Grozo have a better flat 6km while Harugumo get's a quite decent 6.2... Having Z-52 stuck between all those monsters is a death sentence and your only defense is the smoke + hydro but if the enemy is half competent they will just turn away and disengage in no time as you can only spot them for around 10 seconds with the limited range. They will wait until the smoke vanish and completely destroy you with their far far superior DPM while you either pray for the AP to not bounce or shoot potatoes at them with your insanely poor HE. At least is not as awful as Hayate with the same insanely poor 6.1 but that doesn't make Z-52 good by any means. Possible solutions: 1. General HP buff to high tiers: Make Z-46 and Z-52 actually have HP progression so they can contest caps without dying in a single radar or small mistake. My suggestion would be to make Z-46 have 22.100 base HP and Z52 have 24.200 to match the progression of other lines. This may sound like much but remember that Daring has Heal, amazing smokes and wonderful DPM to keep her alive while Z-52 has... Nothing? As they stand right now, Daring has higher HP plus the heal, wonderful mobility and the glorious UK smokes 2. Fix the engines/buff smoke: It makes no sense that the damaged engine cripple them so hard, it should get fixed and just slow down the acceleration like any other ship as these are DDs, currently is similar to the no sense of Henri speeding up like a Colorado. Their smoke also needs some big buffs either to the cooldown to make it similar to UK smokes or heavily increase the action time because as is stands, they have the worst smokes in game with no reason whatsoever for it 3. Buff concealment and/or give heal: Z-52 should have the unique trait of being able to stealth hydro, not by much but at least give a small 0.1km window so Zed doesn't always have to be on the back foot and can actually make good use of her only decent aspect. 5.9 concealment would allow her to avoid the much much dangerous gunboats but not enough to match UU Gearing or the torpedoboats. This would work well with the HP boost but if WG doesn't want to buff the HP then give both high tier German DDs a small heal like Grozo so they can contest caps more easily and resist a bit longer 4. Buff AP pen but decrease arming distance: That way it will still bounce when ships angle against it but it won't overpen DDs and will be able to citadel CLs at medium/close ranges. Don't make it as strong as Kebler AP (even if the AP DD should have the best AP and Kebler just took the niche because reasons) but strong enough so you don't have to be under 3km to citadel a broadside Minotaur (no joking, look it up). 5. Either make HE actually do something or give it the 1/4 it should have: As mentioned before, KMS DDs give up the HE damage to gain absolutely nothing in return. Don't even say that the high AP damage is what they get because that is more than countered by their awful pen and overpening DDs constantly. Choice is yours WG, either give it mini Harugumo capabilities or buff the HE damage so it can actually sink a enemy DD in under 2 minutes with constant fire. Their reload is quite slow for Tier 10 standards, they need shells to match that slowish reload and the mediocre amount of 6 guns (many DDs also get 6 guns at Tier 10 but they offset that with either good reload or awesome alpha) 6. Make torpedos be more useful than a simple decoration: As they stand, they are just worse Mk 16 torpedos with no real advantage. You could implement a very nerfed version of what submarines get and make the turn very slightly for a short period of time (only around 10 degrees traverse either side and for only 5 seconds) on bigger ships (kind of regular DW torpedos) and work against DDs like any other torpedo. That would make them land slightly more hits but without being the tracking monsters that we saw last round of testing with Submarines, just a very minor automatic correction in course near the target, that's it. this would be historically accurate as Germans used magnetic torpedos. Alternatively you could also drastically buff the torpedo reload (to around 60 seconds base) so it actually becomes a good part of the KMS DDs but would still be balanced due to their very low damage, small amount of torps and not amazing speeds/detections. 7. 150mm line would not be a solution: Even though I would absolutely love to see a second branch with the cruiser guns... It would not solve anything for the 128mm gun branch, they would still have a lot of problems just eclipsed by a hopefully better line with actual strengths. Would be awesome and should happen in the future? Yeah of course. Does it solve the massive powercreep of KMS DDs? No, not at all. Conclusion: WG you obviously don't need to buff all the aspects above, just choose a few or the ones you consider more important please HP and guns but you need to do something to make this line decent again... The low tiers are decent and some ships are very very fun like G-101, V-170 or T-61 but both ships above Z-23 are a joke... They don't have anything to even hope to put a fight against the other DDs around T10 and that's a BIG issue. Do not make them OP but please, don't let one of the oldest lines get so powecreeped...
  23. I've been noticing more and more lately that 18 inch guns are just getting free reign to win games when they're on tier 9 boats like the Georgia and musashi, these guns ballistics are rediculously good because they have so much interia they can just about bowpen anything that isn't a perfectly angled Russian BB. I feel like this trend will eventually creep down to tier 8 and I dread the thought of those things getting further and further down the tiers as premiums, making grinding literally every BB line, CL/CA line and possibly CV line a nightmare. the guns are gun, fun to use sure, it used to be literally all the Yamato had going for it (and it still does so the thing is more or less obsolete now) and I miss when that was it, other 18in armed BB's are equally if not moreso ridiculously accurate for the amount of damage they can output on target and seeing them so consistently wears down that "Oh no I should be more evasive" mindset cruisers usually have, forcing them into holdout positions behind islands way, waaaay more frequently. And it just isnt fun. is it just me? am I just imagining this as a way to make up for my slowly lowering winrate? I felt I should put the question out there
  24. megahugenoob

    Game quality is dropping

    First off, I appreciate the changes you all made to matchmaking in terms of not making T8 as horribad as it used to be. The ship distribution in terms of tier appears to be much more "fair" on the surface. My issue right now with game quality is the quality of the matches I am seeing. Right now I am seeing complete ROFLSTOMPS one way or the other in about 2/3 of my matches. Even on the winning side you feel so unsatisfied with these wins. The wins are happening so fast that I feel like average damage per game is going down also. Can WG do anything to try and get the games more competitive? Its not even fun right now. One last thing. Can we please just restrict T10 CV's to T10 only battles. They are absolute cancer to T8 and T9 ships.
  25. facilegoose

    [PVP] for the Filth /s

    RFTF PVP ought to be engaged in mostly in late mid-to-endgame, with human filth drops modified slightly, together with more intense Bot spawns early game to build Filth Load for it. What would this look like: Frags of Human Ships less than half-Filth full reward dramatically less Filth (even Zero) than Filth from Bot Frags, but more base XP and/or Human Ship damage/frags (less than half-Filth full) come at a cost out of one's own filth (until the portal opens) Frags of Human Ships more than half-full drops slightly more Filth than same-class bots PVP Endgame Incentivization: Full Filth Human Ship Frags drop Full Filth Total for collection (after the Portal Opens)-- something to spice endgame up/tempt trucers/low filth haul carrying players to that point ~Individual Human Players' filth % retention upon being PVP-fragged > 20%, regardless of portal entry requirement [no griefers' glee/schadenfreude of depriving filth/sniping & camping at the portal ] ~Parallel PVE/Operations Meta: A minimum Filth Threshold for the Entire Lobby, influenced by #1-4 as a Hard Failure Condition & requirement mandatory for the 20% Filth Hedge -- something to be reached by midgame. No RFTF should consist entirely of PVP, interspersed with occasional Bot interruptions; Bots need to be the primary & constant threat in a horde mode in early to mid-game at least (early game is esp. too slow), dividing attention enough to make prioritizing PVP exclusively more hazardous in the lead up to endgame. This mode isn't strictly PVP, or PVP would be the most efficient & meta form of filth acquisition. Without the above, current RFTF PVP dynamics degrade core gameplay (Cooperative PVE Horde/Raid) in a manner that is quickly unpalatable to casual and new players, while incentivizing griefing-like gameplay styles for marginal personal gain of XP and Filth, at the cost of the Lobby/Raid Party as a whole-- calling these matches a "Successful Raid" is a farce. A PVE raid is characterized by efficient and skillful execution of the meta, guaranteeing completion at a high success rate -- no one is playing Raid for the Filth for upwards of 20 minutes to be robbed at the end for 80% (or all) of what one otherwise did right and accrued toward a smooth endgame egress for the lobby to that point. Especially not new or casual players. Imagine Left-For-Dead or Warhammer: Vermintide meets Dark Souls PVP Invasion mechanics; Team Fortress 2-as-Fortnight; Path of Exile/Warcraft Hardcore PVE raids, but you can be 'ganked' and perma'd by 2/3rds of the Raid Party at anytime; Dead by Daylight,-- but the Survivors are trying to axe-wound each other at the same time. This is what's at play here, and it's a not-great compromise of all three standard game modes that isn't helped by its Rogue Wave Battle Royal team format; if the game design intention was PVP, RFTF doesn't incentivize or reward it well enough while undercutting the better aspects of Sunray In the Darkness/old Submarine modes' pure PVE Horde Defense/Raid elements at the same time. Conclusions: Raid for the Filth has enough elements to be a 'raid', but it's also a Team Battle Royal if more than 1 person decides it is -- The game economy aspect for IX/X camoflauge rewards grind is casual/new player hostile enough as is -- with all of the aforementioned reducing player engagement/retention in those demographics (PVP-heavy RFTF matches are senseless 'Battle Royal' anarchy which alienates your significantly older user base), integration of points 1-4 is required to make an onerous grind less noticeable by improving the enjoyment of the core gameplay of the mode. Impulse/frustration purchases of Halloween Camouflaged aren't even being incentivized, with the very low-effort, very vanilla, and obviously asset-flipped generic Mad Max/Rogue Wave Event-style perma camos, instead of ones actually featured in the mode -- Suppose one receives a drop for the Skorpion skin, and doesn't have Yamato, but they quite like the skin -- does this player log in more to grind it, perhaps making more future purchases as a result? One proper Tier X camouflage out of a stable of half a dozen plus isn't tanking your game economy, -- you might even have offered just the cosmetic Tier X skins, sans economy-camo bonuses as rewards (in the 8k Filth bracket) while still generating actual hype/tolerance for the Filth Grind; this Trifecta of Mad Max/Rogue Wave event (re)skins are such an eyesore that they're going to be disproportionately allocated to non-meta ships and their grinds almost exclusively (not ideal, game-economically either, is it?) Discuss
×