Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'balance'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • 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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 23 results

  1. Here’s how you balance carriers. Carrier squads are supposed to get multiple attacks in. If AA on ships would prevent you from doing so and only allowed two or even one attack otherwise you will start taking serious losses, then AA is already doing its job and reducing carriers down to only a third of how effective they could be. And those carriers who challenge the AA and go for more attacks than the AA would allow will now suffer serious consequences and lose too many planes which will slow down future attacks. This is how the game can give balance with AA and carriers. Carriers can still be useful at least getting one attack when the strongest AA is present and AA can prove useful denying them multiple attacks or start suffering losses that will make it not worth it To instead make it so that you cannot even attack once without losing many planes and forcing you to not attack at all as you know you’ll just lose most of your planes is now taking it too far and gives AA too much power and starts to make carriers useless since now often they wouldn’t be able to attack at all. For a game that’s of course unacceptable Against the better AA, 0.8.0 allowed carriers to attack once and you were forced to not even consider attacking 2 or 3 times. That’s a win for the defenders. But, the AA was so strong that even if you tried to manually fly away you’d still suffer too many losses so you were forced to use recall. To change recall to force you to lose your planes on the retreat makes it so AA can stop you from doing any attacks, which is where it breaks the game. So the balance is: at best AA can only wipe 1 or 2 planes if you attack once and recall. It keeps CVs playable while rewarding those with the strongest AA levels by them forcing carriers to only attack once, recall, not stick around to scout Implement this however you wish, but the recall allowing planes to now fly evasively and now take very little if any damage was one way you pulled it off. If attacking only once (it’s critical carriers are allowed to attack once and recall without serious repercussions) is deemed an issue of “cvs are doing too much damage” then you can tweak damage numbers instead of turning AA into a “you can’t even attack us once without becoming useless this battle” solution Please consider this I don’t mind being bottom 3rd of a team if I feel I’m not denied attacking once even though I’m supposed to be able to attack multiple times Personally it doesn’t seem unreasonable that carriers are on par with BBs on damage output, but maybe that only shows up when AA is not strong enough to reduce you to one attack per flight with immediate recall “or else” One last concern: when multiple ships sail very close together because of a carrier, their combined AA should at best only be able to reduce the carrier to “attack once and recall immediately or you will lose too many planes” (which again they’re being rewarded for combining AA to deny carriers the multiple attacks they’re supposed to get) instead of again making it so you can’t even attack at all. if this means you have to implement an artificial damage cap one squad of planes will be able to receive per second: the maximum damage over time you will allow them to receive so that if they attack once and recall immediately or else, then they’ll lose at most 2 planes, again it’s a win-win for both gamers And finally a possible oversight: when my carrier was on other side of a tiny island, BB on other side, when I launched my planes every one of them would individually die before the next one took off All planes were dead before I was even given control of the squad! I was unable to launch planes at all which felt like an oversight. it should still instead do damage to the whole squad where I’d only lose a couple of planes when the whole squad takes off, not wipe each one individually before the next one even takes off and I never even get to control the squad Thank you for considering this. For the record controlling the planes from the same visual perspective of how you control ships the immersive factor is a blast!
  2. Have you tried old CV? Have you tried new CV? Well, I have a question for you all specifically: how would you balance this new breed of CV? You have experience on the side touted to be omnipotent gods by doomsayers, so you know what all is too good. I've played the heck out of new CVs, personally, and find that radio location is a bit OP. That said, trying to work without it was also a bit hard. I, however, feel that simply removing it from the plane but keeping it on the CV itself could work. However, keep the indicator visible on the plane, allowing you to use it defensively, as you'd know when someone is hunting you. Another alteration I've noticed could help is to make the fighter squads not stack, instead being a bunch of individual planes, allowing for perhaps easier counter play against using them to spot a DD, and thus making it a more limited defensive tool, rather than a misusable tool, as doing so leaves your allies without protection.
  3. On the russian forum, thus you can look it up, either Sub is being sarcastic, or look for more balancing of OP premiums. Please remove if this is already a thread. Thank you. https://forum.worldofwarships.ru/topic/123372-закрытое-тестирование-премиум-корабли-и-советские-линкоры/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-5355954
  4. I'm going to skip ahead and get these out of the way: 1) The unlimited planes thing is fine, and mathematically justified (more on that later) 2) I can 100% see both that and why this rework will piss of some players but in the same breath can 100% see this is needed 3) It's way better than a great many players are making it out to be 4) It is not flawless So I've played quite a [edited] of the rework, both iterations of the the PTS and think I've found a coherent response to it: it's pretty good. I'd go so far as to say, this is PROBABLY the way CV's should have been handled from the start, which brings in how point 2) above works: the perception problems around this are IDENTICAL to IJN DD's worked (or rather didn't) and were altered post 'end' of Beta: something was released in a horridly overpowered, too influential, and frankly boring to both play and play against state, and is now/was reigned in and that pisses off the people that were entrenched in it. I'm gona spoil the future of the game for many people: Complains and desires to return to the old CV system will never go away, much the same way people still pine for the Torp Soup of yester-year. The fact is that the CV's in their current iteration are just too damn influential. I have a Midway, I have a Hak; they are just too influential. They can project a degree of power, especially the Hak, that no single ship can rightfully claim in a balanced game and can too readily delete random ships at will. And people who like that power, are going to be loath to give it up. Because let's be clear: it is NOT about gameplay. The RTT/RTS style gameplay of the current CV's is, without question, the *worst* example of RTT/RTS style gameplay ever made. I'm an RTS/RTT fanatic, and if World in Conflict and Age of Empires set the gold standards for those two genres, these are the WEAKEST possible examples of both. There is too limited of control over units, no variety of units, no real management of units (setting of formations, facings, ect), and the UI was abysmally boring to look at for extended time. Anyone who claims to hate the shift from the RTS/RTT gameplay to this... I suppose 'action' style? is lying through their teeth: if you 'liked' this 'RTS' style, you are wrong. Your opinion, tastes, and attitude are wrong. And more importantly, you are lying: the gameplay of the RTS/RTT style is so poor, somehow being WORSE than Tom Clancey's Endwar (by far the WORST competently (read: no bugs) made RTS ever) that you cannot like it in favor of something else. No, I reject the notion from anyone that this is based on a gameplay preference, this is based SOLELY on power projection and the fact this does in a LARGE ways reign it in. Oh you can still do massive damage in this rework, but much less readily so. It will take work, a lot of work, something the old system did not (setting up cross drops is not some mystical science: if you've played even 1 RTT with tactical assets it is no different from setting up converging strafing runs against heavy tanks, maybe easier since things like land geometry/enfilade/defilade do not factor in at sea). I foresee the slog from Tier 4 to be both worse and better under the rework, as essentially landing single torp hits or relying on paltry rocket hits to be taxing on some people's patience who expect to put up big, 12k, 20k strikes. And that's the reason many players will hate it: it's going to take away A LOT of potential heavy damage. And that's why it's similar to the IJN DD's: CV's were broken on release, and now fixed, in a manner of speaking at least, and as such, people will pine for the days when they could reliably delete cruisers and DD's with a 3 way cross drop that simply isn't possible anymore. So taking my points 1 by 1: 1) The unlimited planes thing is fine, and mathematically justified This is what actually motivated me to download the PTS this time as I wanted to see if this was really a problem or not. It is not. In fact, I find that they might actually be short changing some CV's potential loadouts. Let me explain: So I made a point for several matches to try to exhaust my planes as efficiently as possible. So with the Lexington, I would fly up my bombers first, go directly to the enemy (no boost) and ensure they all got shot down as fast as possible (driving towards flack bursts as much as I could). I found, consistently across several maps, it took ~1:30 to go from my CV to the last plane shot down. With upgrades, it takes 68 seconds for TB's to reload a plane, and 60 seconds for DB's. You get 9 planes per squad and 18 (with upgrade) on the deck ready to go to start. So that means that first 1:30, you reload 1.5 planes, and have lost 9. You immediately launch the second wave, you go 1:30 minutes, reload another 1.5 planes for a total of 3 now on the deck and have lost 18. It will now take 6:40 to reload the next 6 aircraft to fill out a squad of 9 again, then 9:00 for the next 8 to reload after those are destroyed, and the cycle repeats. That means over the course of a single match, you can launch a total of ~36 planes, but in reality, it's less, as the last 9 cannot be used in time to be meaningful (launching at the 19:35 mark in game and thus don't have the 1:30 to reach the enemy). So that means, in total, the TB possible to EVER launch from a Lexington is 27. The DB's have a similar situation, with the key difference being it takes 6:00 to refill the 9 squadron the first time, and then 8:00 after that, with JUST enough time to get the final sortie in for a total of 36 possible DB to ever be launched. Now the Lexington could carry, with permanent deck park, 90 aircraft max, with most sources using 70 for most operations. Total possible, for the ENTIRE 20 minute match, is 63 DB and TB. Leaving between 7 fighter (which is what the Rocket planes are after all) and 27, depending on how you view deck parks. This is a TOTALLY relealistic setup and thus the 'unlimited' planes thing is meaningless: You cannot launch ENOUGH planes in a 20 minute match greater than what was possible for one of these CV's to carry in reality (For tiers >6). The Midway is even more laughable, coming in about 80% of total possible launches per 20 minute match to what they actually had the carrying capacity for. And all this is true for the IJN Carriers at T8+ as well. So can we put this issue to bed? Because the reality does not out the actual problem with the unlimited planes given HOW WGing' has chosen to handle multiple squadrons. The reality is, a person even making the SEMBLENCE to keep some planes alive per run (or you know, actually do damage and thus have SOME planes to send back) could never exhaust a CV's plane supply, and trying to harp on THIS as a problem with the CV rework (when there are ACTUAL problems I'll go into later) is disingenuous at best, bold faced lying at worst. 2) I can 100% see both that and why this rework will piss of some players but in the same breath can 100% see this is needed As I said above, I can see why people who were farming HUGE damage counts will hate this new style, and likewise that they will NEVER accept this downgrade. I can also say it was 100% needed; CV's were neither fun to play against (important) nor that fun to play extended. And I choose those words carefully: fun to play. Oh you may enjoy the knowledge of doing HUGE damage or deleting enemy ships, but the ACTUAL interaction was very boring; and that's a reasonably objective appraisal. Game's are an interactive media, and the basicmost measure of interactivity is player control input: i.e. clicks/keystrokes. And the RTS/RTT CV Gameplay is VERY low impact in number of clicks/keystrokes at any given time. That's not true with the rework at all: it's VERY interactive heavy. Again, I'm talking purely mechanics, not if it's FUN to watch or do, just that you are DOING a lot at any given point of time. Even BB's, which spend the majority of their time waiting for guns to reload, are always doing something; be it looking for new targets, maneuvering, map awareness, paying attention to angles, ect. CV's had long stretches of nothing and this rework largely eliminates that downtime. That's important and needed. Also, this is probably the way they SHOULD have been from the start. And that's where the friction will come. But it is probably the only way you could make CV play viable in what amounts to a gunnery duel game. Really the only place RTT/RTS style gameplay would have worked would have been in a segregated CV only mode (which I still think should be, overall, what they do, as it would be both more interesting and easier to balance and WAY more indicative of what CV's role in naval battles were). But failing that, this is a good way to emphasis the 'zerg rush' attitude that CV warfare held and I am looking forward to both ends of it's combat. 3) It's way better than a great many players are making it out to be I am increasingly of the mind that many players who frequent these forums actually hate WoWs, and I get it; it's not the version of this game I wanted either. I wanted basically Battlestations Pacific but a little bit more fluid and realistic, but while also Single Player and that is NOT this game. I get it, but I wouldn't say I HATE this interpretation of the concept. But at some point, it starts to sink in a great many of you do, DO hate this game because it seems if ANY change happens to your class of choice, either directly or indirectly, you scream bloody murder. Baltimore was my favorite ship in the game when it was at T9 and complimented my playstyle perfectly. But it is a SHELL of what it once was and I refuse to play it anymore. I didn't scream murder over it, nor quit in a huff. I moved on to another ship that fits my style. Why on earth many of you cannot comprehend and own this idea is beyond me. If CV's new playstyle isn't your thing? Okay, I get that. I don't agree with it, but no one says you have to LIKE a change. But to decide the entire game is not worth it on that basis is just plain wrong as, as mentioned, that gameplay was the WORST example of it's type *ever* made. So if you really are only in it for the RTT/RTS gameplay, games like Age of Empires or Sins of the Solar Empire or World in Conflict will blow your [edited]mind in just how much better they are, but, again, I suspect those voicing objections along those lines are outright LYING. 4) It is not flawless So overall I think it's really good. It's way more interesting than the old CV gameplay was, and I suspect will be MUCH easier to balance (although how they will balance premiums in a way that doesn't make them WORTHLESS or overpowered or skin jobs, is beyond me). But there are a few key things I do not like at all and would like Wargaming to address. 1) Which planes are used. This is the big one. So the stats for these planes are BASICALLY 100% made up insofar as balance is concerned. Realistically, the F4U wasn't better than the F6F, just different. It definitely wasn't more SURVIVABLE that's for sure. So in picking which planes go on which ship you guys have 100% leway to make it up as you go... so why have you relegate important/interesting planes to worthless positions? The TBF Avenger, F6F, and most glaringly SBD Dauntless are all relegated to second class status by being the intro, T7 planes on the Lexington, meaning no one will ever play them once they unlock the upgrades. And for some reason, you left them off the Ranger and instead went with the Pre-war models. Now forgetting the historical dissonance that the Lexington never carried Helldivers or F4U's (since the problems associated with Carrier landings were not solved before the Lexington was sunk), you are basically ignoring and removing the most interesting planes from the airwar. You chose to make them T7, and as mentioned, the stats are largely made up (WHICH IS FINE), so why not let them be the T8 and put the endwar planes on the T10? Again, since the stats are made up, it's about the appearance, and not being able to fly these planes is a big loss. And I cannot help but expect that the T8 Premiums WILL have these planes, but with some gimmick that makes a T7 plane usable on a T8 hull. And to me, that is JUST not a good way to use the assets. If I were you, I'd take a good look at what planes people would WANT to fly, and make sure those are the top models at appropriate tiers. 2) New Captain Skills suck Too many of them are centered on increasing/increasing efficiency of the boost. Personally, I don't care much for the boost. It's much like the 33 knots on the Iowa, it's just fast enough to get you into more trouble than it gets you out of. I'd much rather have skills that effect survivability, maneuverability, and redicle size/angle. But iirc, 4? or 5 of the Captain skills all involve the speed of the plane and that's just not what's important here. Also, give AFT the range increase to AA again. Oh AA is much more effective than I think a great many people thing it is from the first PTS, but it's reasonably predictable now and tbh I cannot see a reason for any non-DD to take AFT at this point. 3) I get why you don't want players to control the CV, but you gotta give them a break So I get the REAL reason you don't want players to have to switch between the CV and planes: it's not multitasking (you could just have the planes orbit in place when you switch back to control), but that you DO want it to be helpless TO a degree when someone manages to get close. And I agree, to a degree, that it should be. CV's were not surface combatants after all, not really. But that said, they should at least have SOME recourse when ambushed and I think the fairest thing would be to give them baked in MSA levels of dispersion on their secondaries and a 1.5 buff to range over the default for individual gun pieces (so if the range by default is 5.0 km on the secondary when mount on say a CA or BB, it's default is 7.5 on the CV). This way you're secondaries can keep an approaching enemy busy for a bit while you reorient your planes for the appropriate counter to defend yourself. 4) The AA 'zone' is a bad way of implementing that As it stands, I see no reason to ever focus AA on one side of my ship or another. Given that attack runs always draw the squad to the OTHER side of the ship, that means by definition that half my AA every run is taking a debuff. It makes no sense to not just keep it at overall 100%. As such, and I see what you're going for with it and appreciate it, I think you should alter how that works. Make it only take 5 seconds to switch sides, but AA guns are silent while this is going on. This way there's motivation to try to follow the run of attacks but a penalty for doing so if timed poorly (especially for putting up flack curtains). Other than that, I love the new AA and especially how it looks although I think it's time to animate secondary DP guns firing AA. Take the month to do it, as while a minor detail, it's very immersion breaking at the moment.
  5. In Reference to Clan Battles and Match Making, While in the Struggle from Gale to Storm league, my clan faced off against Typhoon League clans. I know this is because of the Alpha/Bravo rating system, where Typhoon clans had Bravo(presumption of Bravo)ratings in Gale league. This prevented us from advancement. There is nothing in the system that prevents the same players who made a clan Typhoon league rating possible in Alpha from playing in the Bravo rating or vice versa, thus preventing the advancement of lower league clans(because random chance loves us all). There also seems to be excessive numbers of Storm league teams in Gale league matches, probably for the same reasons. There needs to be a match making change to prioritize "like rated" teams, who do not have a rating TWO or even near two leagues higher than the rating of the team played against. At the very least, something clearly needs to be done to prevent such imbalanced and lop sided match making.
  6. Hi all, With the announcement of the radar change I’d have to say this is a great start to making the DD class playable again. But let’s not end there! BBs are still a huge problem and stealth radar cruiser Minotaur is a big game breaking thing for DDs still. In all honesty why is that a BB from 15+ km away still able to smack a DD around. In true reality DDs shouldn’t be able to get hit accurately by a BB until at least sub 6.5km. Like come on just think about it a little bit, your telling me that a 35+knot DD that can move on a dime can actually be hit by a slow maneuverability, horrible accuracy, and with very slow turret traverse can hit a DD from 15+km, I doubt it. Also, why hasn’t Minotaurs radar been nerfed like the Woosters has yet, hello… Did you think that Wooster radar was broken but have you even ran into a mino with radar? Talk about needing to be fixed… Anyways, I’d like to see your comments below. Tell me do you think that the radar change was good or bad? Do you think that there is more needed into making the DD an actual playable class in the game again?
  7. This chart compares the results of 102 NA players who own Stalingrad and their other t10 cruisers : taken from this reddit post : I understand this is a sensitive issue, that makes butts itch and triggers the downvote left mouse click, which is why I (re)posted this. (I am an imperfectly kinda neutral observer critic in this debate, neither owning Stalingrad, nor playing tier 10 ships very often.) edit : alternative study and thread created by @Spartias here :
  8. survivingscout

    Roma Balance Discussion

    Does anyone else feel that the Roma is lacking? I have most of (if not all) the available t8 battleships at the moment. (Massachusetts, Roma, Kii, Alabama, Tirpitz, and Gascogne) The Roma in particular feels extremely inaccurate. The shotgun feeling is even worse than the germans, with no hydro or worthwhile secondaries to account for. The Roma has a great 227m maximum dispersion with the aiming systems mod 1 installed, and yet, every shot is like rolling the dice. On top of this, Roma's shells have a very high chance to overpen, even on broadside battleships like Amagis. Either one of these issues would keep Roma from being overpowered as a gun platform, but together, they make the ship unpleasant to play due to the high inconsistency of the guns. Every other t8 battleship feels more accurate, even the Tirpitz with its German dispersion. Can we please try to improve the Roma's main battery accuracy to make it competitive with other t8 premium battleships? Leaving the high chance to overpen as a national flavor would be a fair compromise in my opinion. Link to a few of many posts on Reddit on this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/90lxws/roma_needs_a_rework https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/7ryag6/roma_is_a_frustrating_experience https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/8wxvm2/massachusetts_vs_roma_main_battery_guns
  9. A Question about "Balance": Everyone knows WG works very hard to "Balance" all ships, we hear it all the time. But my question is, what is "Balance" per se? Is it each ship being equal in some way to other ships? Each one has plus and minus that add up to 0 in the final equation? Given equal skill the odds should be a tie in battle? Or is "Balance" what Vegas does on bets. Two teams may have equal chance to win but if everyone bets on Dallas then the odds makers increase the odds on Detroit so the betting is "Balanced". So back to my question, is "Balance" even play for all ships or is "Balance" giving low played ships a buff (destroyers) and highly played ships (battleships) a nerf so equal amounts of ship types show up in battle? If EVERYONE wants to play CV and Submarines, do they get nerfed and if NO ONE want to play Cruisers or Destroyers do they get buffed in order to attract players? Just an honest question, love to hear your comments.
  10. Before anyone throws a hissy fit, consider the following list. Benson, Fletcher, Des Moines, Cleveland, Midway. What do all these ships have in common? Above tier 4, these are the only non-premium American ships to have a positive or even win rate. That means out of 30 American non-premium ships, only 4 are more or as likely to win in a given match as opposed to losing. Or, to put it another way, 26 out of the 30 American non-premium ships are more likely to lose in a given match, then they are to win. 16 of those 30 ships are either in last place, or tied for last with another American PREMIUM ship. So, if you picked a random tier 5 or higher American ship, odds are better than even it's worst in class at that tier in terms of win rate. On the other hand, you've only got a 2 out of 15 chance (4/30) of getting a ship with a positive win rate. I'm not a big fan of coincidence to begin with, but this just seems ridiculous... Note: all stats were gathered from https://na.warships.today/vehicles
  11. WanderingGhost

    Acasta

    So, unlike the last several times, I actually got a mission for Acasta, got the XP, and gave it a go. I wanted to come up with something funny or witty for the title but... I can't even do that with this ship. It's just so.... I have no words beyond "in need of something". Maybe "Just Enough the ship" - Just enough shell size to be useful, with IFHE mainly, Just enough stealth/torp range, just... somehow at the same time "Just enough" not being enough. Everything combined the way it is just does not work well, at all. Sure, it has a bit more turret rotation than Pod and better RoF - but Pod has flatter arcs, bigger guns, more of them, and is a hell of a lot faster. Nicholas has even worse arcs and lower fire chance, but has that slightly bigger guns that fire faster, again, on a faster ship. The guns are so right between the other stats of ships that it basically has nothing that makes up for any of the drawbacks. When it comes to torp/concealment it has one of, if not the worst, concealment's at the tier, and the torp range matches the stealth, but something about these torps, or bad luck, has seen them seem fairly ineffective. I get using angles to stealth torp regardless, I've been called a hacker for doing that in Nicholas, but it's like something is just off with these. And then you have the simple fact of speed. Regardless of EB it's one of the slowest ships in tier. Not to mention not even any real AA and HP like an IJN DD. Combined with a super short smoke screen just...... the ship's not good. And not even in the way where, it can be kinda bad, but is a blast to play cause of something about it, it's just bad. I only have a couple games in the thing (why this is an unusually short post for me on something like this), but just, this thing needs something. A few tenths off the reload to accommodate the smaller shell, slightly faster traverse to keep guns on target while maneuvering, better shell arcs. Maybe even just building in the 1/4 HE to the line (seeing as it has some small caliber guns and would go along with the BB's). Lower her spotted range or increase her torp range a little. Say .5 km max on increasing torp range and .2 km on lowering spotting distance max. Either one of those would help some. Even just making the ship faster, by itself or with a speed boost, would help. Any one or a combination of thesechanges would actually make the ship more comfortable. Maybe I don't understand the concepts of this line - I seem to recall "defensive" being used but - I really don't see how these are. Smoke in no way allows for any real cover for you or friendly ships, the torps with the stealth and their own range aren't the greatest at driving anything from a cap or scaring a BB off, the guns shells so are as people say "Floaty" and not great at taking out other DD's, nor it's RoF to make something reconsider, and no speed with which to escape or get to another cap/area to defend. After another look, it's like you strip the speed and speed boost from Gallant, give it worse HP and 2 km less torp range and that's Acasta, which is basically stripping everything that makes Gallant playable away. Maybe the ships after are better and this is that one ship in the line that just makes you bang your head on the wall, but especially reading back of 7.9's patch notes where it seems like 5 and 6 are supposed to be more about their torps, and 7 and 8 about guns - this really does not give a great first impression of the line.
  12. We all know by now that fires in this game subtract HP from the ships entire hull no matter where on the ship they are burning, this to me at least doesn't make sense; We also know that the in game ship models use different areas with smaller HP pools than the ship's total HP right? And damage saturation exists for these areas which are not the citadel, now because I don't know the full complexity of the ship models I'm going to make you imagine that you are looking at a ship model split into 5 different boxes. 1. Bow 2. Stern 3. Midships 4. Superstructure 5. Citadel Now each box has a separate HP pool from the next, the citadel holds 100% of the ships HP we know this, and for this example boxes 1 to 4 hold 25% of the ship's total HP each, and so when a fire is burning in box 1 (The bow) why are boxes 2, 3, and 4 also affected? Shouldn't it be that the fire damages box 1 and box 1 only? Now in this example boxes 1 to 4 hold enough HP to match the ships total HP pool, so if all of these areas are damaged by fire to the point of saturation the ship will be lost, but that would require more than a single fire to deal damage to more than one area of the ship so if boxes 1 and 2 are burning by 2 separate fires and they burn to the point of saturation that is 50% of the ship's total HP lost however now these areas are saturated and so they can no longer be damaged but boxes 3 and 4 still have the remaining 50% of the ship's HP so 2 more fires 1 on the super structure and 1 on the midships deck if left to burn until those areas also become saturated should theoretically deal enough damage to destroy the ship. However what we have in the game right now is setting 1 fire on the bow damages the whole ship, not just the bow and well with the rate of fire for smaller ships seemingly getting faster and faster every patch it can make BB's in this game scared to move up because they know once their repair party consumables are all gone that fire damage is going to stick... And that's what sucks. So why not encourage BB's to tank for us by giving them the assurance that it will take more than 1 fire to kill them? Because as it is right now if a BB gets caught under the rainbow from say a Worcester or Harugumo there's quite literally nothing it can do, it can't fire back at them because there's an island in the way, it can't move fast enough to stay out of range of these ships, and HE shells don't care about angling they just deal damage regardless and if they shatter well they can still always set a fire on the stern which will just burn the whole ship anyway... So after all of that dribble I am proposing that we take a look at fires and how they work and look to make it more challenging for religious HE spammers (Conqueror I am looking at you!) to kill us of course if this idea actually gains some traction the devs will have to adjust it for balance reasons but that's my example and well personally I think this change could be a good one. (Some examples in this topic were exaggerated but I am hoping it gets my point across)
  13. After witnessing operators proficiently using the Ranger in recent operations, I bought it back from the scrap-heap. Had a spare open 8 point captain from the Baltimore (cruiser thing), and trained over. Since I'm starting it out in Co-Op, I won't need the Dogfighting Expert - since I'll be facing another Ranger. Skills are Aircraft Servicing Expert, Expert Rear Gunner, and Torpedo Arm Expert and leave 2 points open to train up with Elite XP for Air Supremacy later on (don't need it now). First surprise: Top hull has 73 planes in the hanger !!! Lexington only has 72. Hiryu also has 73, Saipan has 48 T9 planes, and the Kaga has a whopping 85 T6 planes. ... Here is what the Ranger will be facing: Planes in the air (assume Air Supremacy) FF-TT-BB: Ranger: 7-6-14 == 27 planes Hiryu: 10-8-10 == 28 planes (the torp bombers are T6) -- Strike 2-2-2 Hiryu: 15-4-10 == 29 planes -- AS 3-1-2 Saipan: 8-6-0 == 14 planes -- strike Saipan: 12-0-9 == 21 planes -- AS Kaga: 10-12-7 == 29 planes The other load-outs are garbage in my opinion. Torpedoes rule the damage farm, so the Kaga has the greatest potential for that. AS Hiryu and Saipan can wipe the sky if need be. But... But... But... What about Co-Op? In Co-op, you will only be facing a Ranger. And there is only one load-out - so no surprise AS to shut down your strike load. From what I remember, the strike Ranger used to be 0-1-2, so it's a strike with fighters, or an expanded 1-1-1 load. I'm happy about that. How about Operations? The US planes are stronger, and with the new load, are more versatile in Narai and Ultimate Frontier. ---- I think we have a whole new toy here. After a couple battles, I must admit, I actually had fun... never happened on the old one.
  14. ...when I'm doing good or in a good/strong ship, something wouldn't always go wrong to throw the match or my performance in it. I mean, it seems that every time I'm doing well and having fun, or plan to at least, the meta changes slightly in a flash and all the sudden there is a flood of my counters, AND constant bottom-tiering. When both decide to be nice, but something in WoWS is still against me, I'll get perfect set-ups(even the rest of the team are in perfect ships for defeating the enemy team's line-up) TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, AND UTTERLY RUINED BY TOMATO TEAMS SO BAD, THEY CAN'T KILL spotted 100 HP DDs, and THEY SHOW BROADSIDE IN EVERYTHING, meanwhile COMPLETELY MISSING THE OPEN BROADSIDE OF EQUALLY TOMATO ENEMIES AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN, UNTIL THE TOMATO ENEMIES STOP MISSING OR FINALLY ANGLE. OH, DO I SOUND LIKE I'M ANGRY? THAT'S BECAUSE I AM! Oh, and that's not all, actually. Sometimes there will be clusters of enemy ships stopped or going very slow at one place or another, but instead of feasting and farming torpedo hits on said clusters of enemy ships(no radar in them, by the way), my allied DDs will be deleted because they were so inept that that they were brought down to EXTREMELY LOW health by(OF ALL THINGS) A MUTSUKI FOR GOODNESS SAKE. Sigh. I am so glad when these battles are over, but then when I jump into another ship for another battle, back I am into a match with floods of my counters and I am bottom tier. Oh, and there are MUCH better(read: higher-tier) ships on both my team and the enemy team, but my team's top-tier ships of my class are gone within minutes of the opening of the match, while the only thing gone from the enemy team's top tier ships of my class is any trace of doubt or fear as they farm damage, medals, and Devastating Strikes off my team. I do my best, but it's just not enough. The enemy team's ships are too powerful,their captains are just as undefeatable, and what damage they don't manage to deal to me my counters do. Inevitably, I go down too, and it's a loss by steamroll for my team. If this kind of crap were uncommon, I'd be fine with it, and just dismiss it as a fluke, but it is quite common for me. Also, when I am doing reasonably well against one or two enemy ships that would only be much of a threat if I was on low hp, in come allied torps, aimed miles away from where the enemy ships are, to deliver me as a boxed, gift-wrapped, and set under the tree easy kill for the enemy ships. Does anyone else see this kind of thing happen a lot?(or at all?) If so, please tell me in the poll. Honestly, I try to ignore it and have fun anyway, but constant defeats are anything but fun for me. - Regards, Legoboy0401
  15. 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
  16. Disclaimers: First of all, this is not a rant or whine in any form, merely some observations on my part Yes I am aware of Lert’s Tier 8 experiment, in fact it proves some of the points I am trying to make. (https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/163474-lerts-t8-experiment-conclusions/) Because of my very limited experience at tiers IX-X I will not be talking stats or performance, basing some of my claims on tier VIII instead. Everybody has seen these topics pop up, about Tier VIII MM constantly seeing Tier X etc etc. To a certain extent I can relate, I play Tier VIII far more often than I used to. As a result there are times where RNJesus rolls a 1 for me on the D20 and puts me in streaks of Tier X battles. As a DD and cruiser main, I don’t really care for MM, especially in a DD. However that is not always the case with the rest of the playerbase. There is some outcry about it. Many people believe that Tier VIII at the moment is the least fun tier and instead stick to Tier VII. I don’t think most can deny this. The question persists however, why does this happen, and is there any way to “fix” any existing issue to streamline the average player experience? What I believe is the issue with high tier matchmaking, is the way Wargaming has relegated roles to specific tiers. Tier VIII is your moneymaking tier, with most of the premiums that can turn up high profits existing there. This is where people spend quite a bit of time earning credits (if they don’t have any Tier IX premium) or grinding. In addition all Campaigns require at least Tier VIII ships. Then, Tier X is regarded as the end game content and the focus of Clan Battles. Tier Xs represent the ultimate a line can offer. It is therefore logical to assume people would play that tier Last, both tiers are part of Ranked Battles. It is safe to consider these tiers are pretty popular. Then, we come to the factor creating the uptiering many people complain about. @Lertdid a random solo Tier VIII experiment to see the matchmaking he would get in 100 battles. While as he said this is not a big sample size, it is definitely an indicator. I believe that “18% tier 9 battles” to be the core of the problem. Tier IX is often seen as just a stepping stone. Of course, some of the Tier IX ships are pretty strong and keepers, no question about it. When it comes to certain ships however, it is often considered a gatekeeper tier for the glory of Tier X. The way Wargaming structures the game, with a moneymaking Tier (Tier VIII), then a stepping stone tier, and finally the end game/Clan Battles Tier (Tier X) shafts Tier IX basically. Granted, there are Tier IX premiums, but they are few in number and variety to really shift the situation. In order to “fix” Tier VIII MM we don’t need to look at strengthening Tier VIIIs to be more competitive or nerfing Tier Xs, but rather increasing the Tier IX population and providing incentives to play this specific tier. I believe in an ideal environment MM could be 30%/40%/30%, but I feel this is almost impossible to accomplish. A good first step would be to make some improvements to ships that are considered gatekeepers. Izumo recently got a buff, maybe other ships should follow suit like, F. De Grosse. Another way would be give more incentives for people to play Tier IX in the form of events. I don’t know how Tier IX Ranked would turn out, but it could be some food for thought. A different route would be for WG to print out as many Tier IX premiums as possible. I believe this would do more harm than good on the long run. Finally, permanent camouflage could be more beneficial to Tier IX ships, in order to promote more games in these ships. As it is now, Tier IX permacamo offers for 4000 gold: -3% to surface detectability range. +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship. -20% to the cost of ship's post-battle service. +100% to experience earned in the battle. Tier X permacamo offers for 5000, so just 1000 gold more -3% to surface detectability range. +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship. -50% to the cost of ship's post-battle service. +20% credits earned in the battle. +100% to experience earned in the battle. I believe a 10% to credits earned in battle for Tier IX permacamo would be useful. Bottom line, I fear the lack of attention in certain aspects of Tier IX will affect high tiers negatively. The feeling of Tier VIII constant uptiering is but a symptom of it. Hope we can get some good discussion out of this, disagreements/opinions/additions welcome! Thanks for reading.
  17. Hello everyone, recently I produced a YouTube video featuring replays of the USS Montana at tier 10. If you are bored and can use a distraction today, feel free to check it out. But rather than a typical ship review video, I've kind of noticed that the footage in the video showcases various issues and things that can be improved with game play at tier 10. Among the things I noticed (and suggestions for improvement): #1 Most maps features a Littoral environment with close by shorelines, islands, shallow water, and straits. I think although ships did fight in environments that fall into this category in history, it did not happen nearly as frequently as it has in game. Arguably it's probably not a good idea to sail capital ships in such confined waters in real life due to various asymmetrical threats that they cannot sufficiently defend against. Mines, attacks from much smaller units like torpedo boats that thrive in the environment, shore batteries, air attacks, arguably even sabotage largely renders heavy ships vulnerable in a littoral environment. For example, in the Battle of Surigao strait, the IJN Fuso and Yamashiro fought a futile suicidal action in such confined and unsuitable environment. Meanwhile, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the British raid on Taranto, and the Italian raid of Alexandria were extreme examples of what happened to capital ships when they can't maneuver while attacked. Obviously the game cannot be completely realistic or faithful to history, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing to look into this and come up with maps that features different types of environment. #2 The roles caps play in game aren't always good nor are they always conducive of good game play action. I think winning a fight in terms of damages, kills, and spots while losing because the enemy has more points is not an ideal situation. When there are more than two caps (i.e. WOT style set up) in game, the presence of the caps alone often promotes passive game play. It takes away the focus of the fight from engaging and annihilating the enemy. Rather camo, capping, spotting, and area denial become important. I think it is rare to have a situation in the history of modern naval warfare where it was key to control or contain a small patch of the ocean like a cap on WOWS. Sure if there's an amphibious or combined arms operation at play, it could happen. But then that's not a factor in WOWS. When a team's stealthier ships are not up to par or incidentally get taken out early, the team will watch victory slipping away due to having a major disadvantage to contest the caps. At this point, the team with the points lead often farm damage and/or hide and milk the caps, while the losing team becomes either passive or reckless: either way it often ends badly. What if we try to set up games that has no caps at all? Not even 2? This will bring the focus of the fight back onto engaging the enemy. The points count could be determined by the number and types of surviving ships, like the way historians look at the tonnage sunk and human casualty after the Battle of Jutland? What if as an alternative to having caps, the game offer an option for damaged ships to withdraw by offering them a chance to limp away to a designated part of the map's edge? I think this is also a game play mechanic faithful to history as the withdrawing of damaged ships often have strategic implications. For example, the USS Enterprise was seriously damaged in the Pacific multiple times but its survival proven crucial. Meanwhile the survival and withdraw of the German High Sea's fleet's capital ships after the Battle of Jutland was key to the strategic situation then. I think it would be good to make people fight eagerly and then withdraw. It's a better situation than the passiveness or recklessness found in game now. #3 Some maps by design forces a team to split up into multiple sub fleets to contest different areas of the map. This seems like a forced gamble, and it often was in history. Sometimes a smaller or weaker subfleet's demise in the hands of a stronger opponent often snowballs quickly and makes the team's success elsewhere irrelevant. Some maps also kind of isolate the subfleets by the design of their geography so that once the team has been split, it's hard to once again combined forces for cooperative play: distance is too far for effective engagement or timely relocation and line of sight is blocked... This often means doing your part isn't enough for a win just cause the team kind of went the wrong way or ran into the wrong enemies. #4 Ships, battleships in particular tend to not move much but rather try to function as bow tanking artillery barges. I would say that usually the Yamatos are probably the worse offenders of this. In a sense I don't blame them cause they have the guns that can go through bow plating, their citadels are exposed on the side, they aren't particularly fast, nor do their turrets turn quickly enough for shooting while turning. But ultimately this situation is kind of odd and not fun. It penalizes ships that don't have most of its firepower concentrated in the front and devolves games into a strange naval version of trench warfare where ships try to hide while bow on behind islands and mountains and take pot shots at each other like soldiers in neighboring trenches tossing grenades over the top. Although nobody likes to eat citadels, I still think this situation is not good for the game. #5 Destroyers' playerbase seems to have the highest skill floor and ceiling in game at tier 10. As a BB player, it seems that sometimes the cap situation is already a done deal due to the DDs even before I get to engage anyone. A good DD player can take out a not so good DD player extremely quickly. How good your DD is often puts a hard limit on how the rest of your team will fare. If the friendly DDs die early or are less skilled, the BBs often suffer tremendously due to not being able to anticipate enemy intention or have sufficient situational awareness. #6 I in particular dislike having torpedo boat style Japanese DDs (Shimakaze line) on either teams. As enemies they often come in divisions and can torp spam and/or snipe in ways that's almost impossible to counter in a BB. Ever been targeted by 45 torps at once? I have. It was not pretty. As allies, the Japanese DDs often do not counter enemy DDs. They might spot and cap. But when they run into the enemy DDs they will often run away while dumping their torps which aren't always good for attacking DDs. I've noticed that many of them almost never fire their guns. An enemy's on 500hp at 6km? They fire torps but their guns stay silent. They are also often so obsessed and tunnel-visioned that they will try to saturate an area where friendly BBs are engaged in a brawl with the enemy with torps. I've lost count how many times I've been torpedoed by friendly DDs while brawling. (my video shows this happening 3 times...) #7 Ironically, at tier 10 cruisers seem to play very differently versus at mid tiers, especially from a BB player's perspective. Maybe due to their vulnerabilities to big guns, they'll often play 2nd line at most. This often means they aren't close enough to the action to counter DDs or close enough to the BBs to provide AA. So much so that DDs and BBs often fight their own fight without help. The cruiser at tier 10 seem to focus on farming damage and opportunistic moves, on a good day they usually chime in and engage enemies that are already being engaged, distracted, or has overextended. But them as a defensive screen and support against enemies BBs can't see or maneuver against, often don't exist... Just some of my observations thus far. I'm obviously a fan of the game and I want it to improve and fulfill its potential. Feel free to discuss share your thoughts on the points I brought up and how things could be improved.
  18. All turrets have 360 degrees rotation, the animation will fit, just lift up the barrels.
  19. FrumpyFurling

    Tier IX-X BB Curve and over all balance

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

    Damage in Co-Op Battles

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

    So the Hood is on sale..

    I want the Hood, for reasons unknown to me, maybe I have a problem. It is in need of a buff but it's a premium so that's very unlikely. If it had better dispersion I would grab it, shell pen doesn't matter to me since the point of a BB is to kill cruisers, pressure other BBs, and get shot at. The getting shot at thing it has down, the effective main battery for targeting smaller cruisers and applying any significant pressure to BBs..... Meh. The gimmick is actually kind of useful with all the premium CVs around in T-VII. Is it worth getting if you already have the Nelson? I really can't justify this, I think the only reason I want this is to put those skins I unlocked to use. To really take advantage of her gimmick I would need to make a dedicated captain.. Can you convince me to buy a Hood even if it's half off? Have I underestimated her? Tanky as she may be, the new light cruisers will eat this ship alive especially if bottom tier with little fear of repercussions.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
×