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
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs 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

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 32 results

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. I've seen a lot of talk about how SAP is overhyped, it's not very good, etc. In my own experience, it feels monstrously powerful - at least on the ships with 8" guns. I have Montecuccoli, Genova and Trento. The latter two being heavy cruisers with 203mm guns of course. Montecuccoli, with only eight 152mm guns, feels very weak. The SAP isn't that powerful against BB superstructure, she can't set fires and she has a very low rate of fire. Even genuine heavy cruisers can outmatch her RoF, and Leander - with the same calibre guns in the same 4x2 layout - has double her fire rate. The only place she feels useful is against destroyers, who melt under the ludicrous damage potential of her SAP shells. Genova and Trento, however - within or without their own tier - feel very strong. I won Trento today, and had two particularly eyebrow-raising games in her. One bottom-tiered, against Tier 8 battleships and destroyers, and one top-tier against a slew of Tier 5 or 6 cruisers and a carrier. Mechanics-wise, SAP is just high-damage AP that can ricochet. The 203mm guns have 54mm of penetration, which is even more than the German 210mm HE shell (52mm). The first game, tier 8 on Trap. Early in the game, I ran into Asashiao. Utterly defenceless against Trento at close range, even without Hydro. Not enough time to save Bismarck, but it lets me take B. It hit her nine times for 9300 damage, killing her - Bismarck, who was closer, did the rest with main and secondary battery. I used the island in B to hide from Richelieu and pop at her 32mm all-over plate. I remember a match I played once as Nurnburg where I burned down a Richelieu from afar. Over 20,000 damage in 26 SAP shells. Then for the end game, the entire team was hunting down the Amagi, and I want to share a particular image from the postgame screen. I had SAP loaded, and Amagi was moving to broadside me at close range. I fired my SAP to reload as AP, and dealt nearly 7k from that one salvo. On a nearly-broadside Amagi, aiming above her belt armour (badly, obviously) I dealt a mere 5k AP damage from a further seventeen hits. This is because 203mm SAP has nearly twice the alpha of the similarly-penetrating German 210mm HE shell. It felt very easy. In the tier 6 battle, I was chasing the enemy Ryujo at close range. She was running away from me, at a steep angle. I was able to just pump SAP into her upper deck and flight deck, penetrate where AP would surely have bounced, and dealt 6-7k per salvo. I picked her apart with over 38k damage in 30 hits. What even is this score, I'm trash: Like, this just feels like such an easy mode. I understadn that you should switch regularly between SAP and AP as you should HE and AP, and in Genova this has led to incredible games, but a lot of the time, it looks totally unnecessary. I feel I couldn't do these kind of damage games in other ships, even other ship classes at times. Am I getting something about of these Italian cruisers that others aren't?
  4. Mad_Mandolorian

    Are Gun DDs better than CLs?

    I've been playing wows for a while now, (I admit to taking a long break last summer) and have focused mostly on light cruisers. I've noticed that I'm having issues combating Gun focused destroyers, they'll kite to maximum range, dodge my fire and hail down return fire and while I do still land hits they can out dps me meaning they often win the engagement. After one too many deaths it got me thinking, What can a CL do that a DD cant? AA for one, but if a CV wants you dead you're dead regardless of ship, CLs also heave more health but DDs lack citadels, are faster more mobile and smaller targets, CLs tend to have more guns with a slightly larger caliber (although now that some DDs are getting 130+mm that debatable) but DDs have much better rate of fire meaning the shots/sec tend to be in the destroyer's favor. CLs might have longer range but DDs are stealthier and hold a distinct advantage at long range. The CL may win close range gun duals but all DDs have torpedoes and more importantly the speed and stealth to dictate the engagement. so ultimately am I missing some critical flaw in DDs or are CLs relegated to being consumable batteries for BBs, not daring to shoot lest they be spotted and citideled, or burned alive in open water by DDs doing the CL's job better than the CL ever could?
  5. I won't write all of pros and cons of Montana and Grober Kurfurst. Montana, despite of her lack of caliber, has very weird citadel protection. She has 260mm citadel belt located right under her 400mm(main upper belt) part. Iowa has thicker armor (270mm+38mm AT bulge) This thin part makes her very unreliable of protecting her citadels. Even moskva in 10km can penetrate her citadel in impact angle of 40' and Jean Bart's 15inch in 20km 20~30' (my experience when shooting montana) Every other T10 battleship(except yamasashi's cheek) can easily stop heavy AP shells when angled slightly(15~20' in long range, 30~40'in medium to close range) Does this unreliability work as concept of USN battleship line, or Montana? If not, I can strongly advise this part of armor is fixed in order to balance T10s. So how much? I hope 400mm(same as upper main belt) especially her armor is not inclined to 15'(like Iowa) GK is meant to take role of close range fighter. However,German battleship get their very bad gun arc in T9, T10. You can see turret stop rotating without any obstacles. This factor greatly limits performance of GK (which is meant to be charging.) The range and accuracy, are limiting factor due to her concept.(frankly, she needs least 21.6km range, same as Bismarck) But gun arc is different story. It is just irritating feature that does not accord to German Battleship concept. Thus, I greatly suggest her gun arc to be buffed to level of Bismarck.
  6. nastydamnanimal

    Balanced MM "tree" SPOTTED!!

    MM mechanic tree algorithm working like this.. Use 2 mechanics.... TREE MAIN BRANCH SEARCH : players average experience earned per battle "E/B" is equal or almost equal +/- something DATA COMPILING..... "E/B" player pool created successfully.... 1st search criteria met.... 2nd branch ready. 2nd BRANCH SEARCH : player pool tier/ship type sorting please wait...... 24 clients ready now ......50 clients sent to express queue.. ANCHOR......players play and players are happy.... WG wins game of the year for many years to come. The above is a type of programming logic but for those that are ACTUALLY confused here it is in layman's terms: E/B has to be the main search criteria , this creates a pool of players that have very similar E/B then and only then do you sort the tier and ship types from that pool. Anchor! This would also solve complaints of WG catering to passives vrs players that like to fight. It would free them up to cater away any way they please, cause with this algorithm, passives will play against passives and vise-versa. This would eliminate "Fake" unicorns diving up against noobs and vise-versa Break the shackles WG you can do it.
  7. Hi I just want everyone's opinion about the current state of HE spamming and fire. IMO, HE right now is way too powerful, especially those with the capability to penetrate 32mm of armor. Not only they can do super high alpha salvo (Cleveland, Worcester and many more can consistently do 5k dmg per salvo), they can also cause fires. Personally, I would like to see a change to IFHE: Keep the penetration buff but reduce the chance of setting fire by 80% (just putting a number on it). Also, instead of the fires doing direct dmg to the HP pool, they should have dmg saturation like all other types of dmg. A ship would be separated into 4 pieces for fire dmg, and after a certain amount of fire dmg, you won't take dmg anymore to that part of the ship from fire. These are only my opinions and I would like to know what you guys think about this "problem" .
  8. Goal of the proposed change: Create a manageable balance between the Tier 8 and 10 Carrier Aircraft and the AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10. Make it easier to balance the Aircraft and AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10 by limiting the variations. Reason for the proposed change: Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft to a degree seem to be still able to inflict crippling damage to Tier 8, Tier 9 and 10 ships, even those that have some of the best AA/Flak in the game. At the same time Tier 8 Carriers mostly play between 55 to 70% of their matches at Tier 10. The AA/Flak concentrations of Tier 9 and 10 ships can be so severe that playing at Tier 9 and 10 is too player unfriendly for Tier 8 Carriers. This proposal is meant to address both issues, in other words to equally help Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships and Carriers at Tier 8, 9 and 10. Proposed change: Decrease the effectiveness of all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft by lowering the BASE Hit Points of all Tier 10 Aircraft to a maximum of 1200 for Rocket Bombers and 1400 for Torpedo and Dive Bombers. That lowering would include Tier 10 Aircraft on Tier 8 Carriers (including Premium Carriers). These maximum numbers can be raised by Commander Skills and Upgrades like is now also the case but they would still remain CONSIDERABLY below the current Tier 10 Aircraft base Hit Point levels. Introduce a NOMINAL and EFFECTIVE AA/Flak Damage Per Second and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships. The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates the theoretical maximum values the ship has. The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CAN BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates what effective maximum values the ship can use in combat. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CANNOT BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING for Tier 9 and 10 ships would be equal to the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING of the highest base AA/Flak rated Tier 8 ship (for example the Tier 8 Battleship MASSACHUSETTS). The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling would be used by all Tier 9 and 10 ships till the point is reached where so many AA/Flak mounts of a Tier 9 or 10 ship are destroyed that the NOMINAL CEILING is lower than the EFFECTIVE CEILING. In that case the EFFECTIVE CEILING is no longer used, but the damage reduced NOMINAL CEILING is used instead. It all sounds a lot more difficult than it actually is. Here are two examples of how this works out: For the Tier 10 Carrier MIDWAY: the F8F Bearcat Rocket Fighter (Tiny Tims) HP would be lowered from 1660 HP to 1200 HP, the BTD Destroyer Torpedo Bomber HP would be lowered from 2050 HP to 1400 HP, the BTD Destroyer Dive Bomber HP would be from 2160 HP to 1400 HP. A Tier 10 MINOTAUR with Commander Skills and Upgrades has a NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of 100. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of that MINOTAUR would be only 77 (equal to base of MASSACHUSETTS). So the AA/Flak DPS and Damage would be EFFECTIVELY only at 77 and not at 100. The MINOTAUR would keep that 77 EFFECTIVE ceiling until her AA/Flak mounts would be destroyed to a point where the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS would be below 77. When the NOMINAL CEILING due to damage drops below the EFFECTIVE CEILING the NOMINAL CEILING is used instead. So if the MINOTAUR loses so many AA/Flak mounts that her NOMINAL CEILING drops from 100 to 56, then the EFFECTIVE CEILING would also drop to 56. It is advisable to combine this "AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft proposal for Tier 8-10" with the "Fighter Patrol Squadron Consumable proposal" that is described in another topic.
  9. WanderingGhost

    I promised you a text wall

    As the title says - a text wall follows so the crowd that leaves snooze emotes because TL;DR - leave now unless your WG staff. I downloaded and played 8.5 today, and as I said in the other thread with my preliminary thoughts on what I was seeing from patch notes, WG Staff, and player feedback if it wasn't good or at least not terrible I'd be writing a wall. Well, here comes the wall. As it was, the entire AA system was bad, and in need of work - you have made it even worse. A common statement, by your staffers, is that it is more punishing "for those that loiter in AA, and who aren't dodging". Your team has actively hindered the ability of planes to dodge in attack runs even if we don't care about dialing our aim in. The moment you release ordnance your group gets stuck flying straight to be shot at and the other group you have no control as AA shreds them trying to return to the carrier because of the escape altitude changes. And per again, a staffers statement "it wasn't fair to see a CV have all it's planes return as a surface ship" - It was equally unfair when as a CV we see no planes return even after dropping all our ordnance - because after we lost control of our planes they were obliterated. And it's even worse now with this new system. And what is actually worst about this system - it's not like it gave everything OP AA. No - the DD's are still easy as hell to pick on and other typically weak AA ships, same with under tier - but clearly Worcester decloaking as it's AA guns open fire wasn't OP enough, you had to make it even more lethal. It was mentioned it was like AA "was focusing on a target" - yeah, it feels like the same nonsense that manual AA was under RTS - pathetic on anything not already sporting good long range AA, but OP on anything with good or OP long range AA - OP or straight up brokenly OP. And I'm sorry if this seems to veer at times to "less or not constructive" - but I'm seeing the same mistakes and processes that made RTS a problem being repeated. I'm seeing the same mistakes and blunders. I'm seeing things, that we were told this rework was being shoved down our throats for if we wanted it or not was going to remove or lessen, added back in. That this would be easier to balance for your team - and yet here we are, 5 months in, going in to month 6, of the live release, let alone the other 3-4 from the Beta period, no closer to anything resembling FAIR balance and CV play on the decline AGAIN. Instead of seeing a bunch of planes drop and going "well I must have been hit by flak" - no I'm now seeing that it really was auto cannons ripping my planes apart as I watch the health bars vanish. It's not fair that surface vessels are either launching nerf darts or using freaking PHALANX point defense systems. At this point, the entire rework feels like nothing but half baked, half tested, half implemented ideas. I feel like there is no actual plan in regards to CV's other than churn more out as premiums that shouldn't be (Ark Royal) when the system is still incomplete and in need of massive work and balance but adding yet another x factor (again, Ark Royal) when there should be ZERO new carriers testing till the damned ones we have are balanced. There are a ton of factors to balancing CV's that need to be addressed so for any reading - I am specifically going to focus at the moment on AA and plane losses/replenishment much as damage and a ton of other crap needs work too that I've gone over in other places. The one thing that is not fully related, is that odd tiers need to return for CV's - because there needs to be a smoother progression and adaption for both CV and Non CV players through tiers. 1. AA and planes need a flat rate "average" - What this means, is that regardless of if it's an 'imaginary number' or actually applies to a plane (likely UK or Germany if not one of the other 3 potential national lines) there is a middle road of DPS and Plane HP, lets say 2000 and 10000 respectively, that is considered the 'average' and for "flavour", prefereably based on history, DPS and Plane HP are +/- to that by a maximum of lets say 10%. So IJN and USN being the two extremes the difference in DPS is 1800 vs 2200 and plane HP 9000 vs 11000. That said though, IJN planes would have better agility to dodge Flak, USN have the extra added HP because not as agile, and kinda need it. But this means your average ship, barring ones that actually have next to nothing on AA and are usually premiums, while having weaker or stronger AA, is not as wild and all over the place. 2. Scaling of HP and DPS - tying in to point one - these two things need to scale through tiers and why I have been saying for years now that tiers 4-7 at minimum need their late war outfits of AA, or have some created where none existed. At least to make the numbers make more sense on why it's AA is so close to the next tier up. Which with that said - The worst AA and plane HP of a tier should be no lower than the average of the previous tier, and the best of each should be no higher than the average of the next tier up. So as an example, Lexington vs lets say Amagi is worst AA. Lexintons planes, at most, have HP on par with a typical tier 9 carrier while at worst, Amagi has AA comparable to an average tier 7. Again, this is best and worst case. And even then the gap between tiers on both AA and plane HP should not be that great. Again, the example of tier 8 being 2000 and 10000, 9 and 10 should be lets say 2100/11000 and 2200/12000 while 7-4 is 1900/9000, 1800/8000, 1700/7000, 1600/6000. Those are pure example numbers, I have not mathed them out or the like. 3. Simplicity and Flak - I'm combining these two because they go a bit hand in hand. What do I mean by "Simplicity" - I mean that the system should be frakkin' easy to understand with no 'mystery' numbers. Case in point, the need of someone like LWM or others to explain 'Hit Probability' is actually some random modifier that adjust the tick rate of damage and having things like aircraft armor and all. Your new 'ring' system, while annoying in it's limiting nature, can at least be worked around. Let's take the 'average' USN ship armed with 40 mm bofors, 20 mm Oerlikons, and 5"/38's. The ring of 5/38's should likely have the lowest DPS as the typical RoF was about a shell every 4-5 seconds - and the AA should match this. When they hit the next ring, the 40 mm guns open up, on top of flak, so, whatever DPS is assigned to the 40 mm guns takes over, while flak remains the same (as 40 MM guns DON'T USE FLAK ROUNDS) so in essence 'both' sets are firing. In theory as long as you can seperate when flak bursts occur from constant damage, you could even add the constant DPS of the Flak guns in if they are even given any. The 40 mm bofors has a RoF of 120 RPM for the majority of guns in game - 2 rounds every second. So, every 1 second, damage should be inflicted - unless you want to add a legit chance that the plane 'resists' (avoids) the damage. IE the 'hit probability' if it stayed saying say 90% means there's a 10% chance the DPS doesn't happen, or that in theory if the DPS is 200 per second in that AA, and a plane is there for 10 seconds he only takes 1800 damage not 2000 most likely. Think of it as 'fire chance for planes' but I digress. 20 mm L70's average 4-5 RPS, so damage per gun at the shortest range there should be the equivalent of (4[5]x 20 mm rounds + 2x 40 mm rounds)*number of barrels = DPS per one second tick. or a fixed number subtracting average from Flak's constant. To which getting in to Flak as I say above it should be based around the actual fire rate of the only guns that use them - which is guns of 3" or greater. And there are 2 models that can be used 1 or the other, or both used and depend on the ship - Either Flak bursts all fire at the same time every x seconds, or, Flak bursts are staggered for a more constant bursting. With no random modifires to it - if a ships has a broadside of 8x 5 inch barrels - 8 flak bursts. Operating on a 5 second reload that means 8 every 5 seconds, 4 every 2.5 seconds, or 2 every 1.25 seconds. Something like Atlanta is a bit insane at 14 every 4-5 seconds, a good case of "should be halved" that while it may not make technical sense (unless Wargaming can pair as a rotation of 6 and 8 guns) to 7 every 2-2.5 seconds. And whatever flak bursts the ships have for long range guns - they have the same number at mid range. And Flak should be relatively low damage that is in addition to whatever the base line of the constant DPS is - it should be there to cause players to dodge, obscure view, and punish those that let 13 bursts hit them. But they should not be these insane walls that were seeing that can obliterate planes as they do. To summarize 'simplicity' on the player end - Flak does damage when it hits, either DPS is constant, and you know that you will deal x damage every z seconds the plane is in that AA bubble, or that 'hit probability' if it remains' is not some modifier that isn't what it says, but is in fact just that, a 90% chance the planes are hit by 40 mm rounds, or 40 and 20 mm rounds, or whatever. And that if a ship has G number of guns it fires F number of Flak rounds, at any range. 4. Consistency of modules - Look, with a staggered system, if we assign base numbers and divvy out the damage, a bit harder to keep 20 mm damage consistent, not impossible, but harder. But even if the DPS isn't 100% the same - the damned ranges need to be. It doesn't matter what ship it's a secondary on/AA gun on - if the range of a 5"/38 is 5 km then every BB, cruiser, and CV 5"/38 should have a range of 5 km - and likely a RoF of 12-15 RPM. Ones that are improved closer to 20 RPM likely are a different mod or designation, they all have that near 20 RPM RoF and whatever range those guns get. Were we to lower DPS of AA enough, and not possibly have DD's throwing a fit, I'd argue that the 5"38 guns AA and secondary attack range should be equal to that of any DD with the same gun and further extend the AA ranges (longer in AA range, but less damage per hit). No magic range increases from tier alone or just because. 5. AFT and BFT - BFT needs to be changed that it reduces the time between the flak bursts the same way it reduces secondary firing times. While having no effect on the smaller non DP AA guns. AFT on the other hand, needs to return to a range boost to secondaries and AA both, even the small ones - even if that means the minimum range increases too (tradeoffs). Not adding random flak bursts and what not. 6. 'Secondary', 'AA', and 'Auxiliary' Armament mods - These should not be 3 separate things, never should have been divided up in Beta. I'd personally change it to something along the lines of "Point Defense" or the like as this is more or less what it's improving, but Mod 1 should be as is beyond maybe name change, Mod 2 should return to a single item that buffs Secondary gun range, AA range, and Secodary accuracy, and Mod 3 should be a decrease in reload time of secondary batteries and another reduction to time between flak bursts from these same guns. Destroyers should have a special new module unique to the type, or at least any that has DP main batteries, that while it may not increase accuracy and all increases main battery and AA range (as opposed to Mod 2 as few have secondaries) and the mod 3 slot being RoF and Flak bursts just for primaries, not secondaries. 7. Plane counts or 'on deck' planes - There is no damned reason Lexington should have only 48 planes available. Same with the pathetic numbers on most every other tech tree CV, save maybe the lowest tiers that actually had so few planes. Every carrier should be following the 'Kaga' model - their plane count/reserves match historical numbers. I also believe the planes per flight/squadron should change too, but that's a separate story. "But that takes away Kaga's thing" - shouldn't have been it's 'thing' in the first place. I can think of half a dozen other things to make it different. What it should have, to compensate for weaker planes, is that they replenish faster then it's counterparts that have maybe similar numbers, but better planes. On the reverse end, while it may have 'better' planes, using that term very loosely, Saipan with it's limited maxium plane count, affording far fewer full squadrons should catastrophic losses be incurred, should have a regen timer so that it replenishes planes faster than now, and possibly than normal, so while it can't spam say 3 waves of TB's, it's not waiting as long on any losses to replenish. Which, if we finally get AA balanced right, yes, they aren't taking as many losses to -2 ships, but are still taking losses, and while not slaughtered like now by high tier ships, still heavier losses vs +2 ships, but not enough to become overly problematic unless you really, REALLY screw up and need to learn to play CV better, then these changes to plane counts and regen should be a non-issue. Still leaves CV alpha damage, CV accuracy especially after all the nerfs, return of odd tiers, aircraft speed, skills, control of CV's, historical accuracy in way too many areas, flavour and differentiating ships and lines, plane mobility, spotting, and likely a couple other things I'm forgetting to fix just when it comes to CV's but hey, it'd be a start.
  10. So I was thinking..... What is so balanced about a ship that can attack with impunity from the complete safety of the edge of the map because it has infinite range in the form of planes? I've been in games with 2 cv's where I was killed in the first 4 minutes of the game because both cv's decided to focus me before any other ship on the enemy team even had me in range and I could not retaliate because both ships were sitting so far back that no one could touch them. And lets be honest, AA is a joke. I was in a pack of other ships and the planes were still getting through. So, how to combat this? Give the planes fuel. What I mean by that is simple. The planes have a range that they are able to fly out, make attack runs and then be able to safely return to the carrier. If they go past the point of no return then the planes end up in the ocean having run out of "fuel". This will reward cv players that stay with their team and have a higher risk of their cv taking damage while punishing those cv's that like to stay back on the edge of the map because their planes won't be making it back hence a longer ready time for the next squadron. Every other ship has a range that they can attack at, why shouldn't cv's? And wasn't that historically accurate? Plane ran out of fuel, it ended up in the ocean. Just a thought.
  11. WanderingGhost

    No witty title this time

    I decided to take a bit of a break, from playing the game, from researching stuff to continue working on my CV thread, all of it. I figured I'd start trying to at least get a couple games in, and see 2 news things in the launcher that I knew I should have just ignored, but couldn't. 8.4 testing, and plans for CV's. But no, I had to give in to temptation and look, and then slam my head against a wall a few times. For all the tune changing you did as to why you did this rework one of the more consistent things was this would be "Easier for you to balance". So 4 months in now - why am I seeing the same stupid mistakes and changes as RTS? Nerfing or buffing the wrongs things, screwing things up worse than they are, changes that in no way accomplish what they are supposed to or make gameplay worse, more frustrating or just plain dumb? You wanted CV players to be jumping right in to action and all - so now you add in a delay, like when we had reloads in RTS, so now it's going to be closer to at least 60 seconds before we can do anything fun and engaging. Gee, thanks, and why is this? Oh, because we spot the teams early, something you were made aware of oh 8 MONTHS OR MORE AGO. Well before it bloody went live. And let's really be honest here - what exactly is it REALLY going to change here? Low ball estimate about 80% of the time we all already know where the enemy team ships are going the CV just confirms it. Two brothers most of the time the team in North Spawn goes to C, the team in South goes to A, a couple ships try and delay the lemming train, and some fool rushes the middle way too early. Pick a map and it typically breaks out that one team mostly goes left, the other mostly right, everyone knows where the DD's are between RPF and them trying to cap unless Radar gets used, gunship cruisers are behind the low islands, DD's are behind islands or lurking in waters depending on which DD it is and the BB's are mostly staying in open water because of how far back they are playing and avoiding any place a DD or maybe a torp armed cruiser is hiding. And quite frankly the "better" the players involved in a match the more bloody predictable it all is. Also as a side note when I took a break to actually play it took nearly 90 seconds on Land of Fire to spot any ships flying in a straight line knowing their general direction with Implacable DB's - they really need more time? And then you have the boost changes - did any of your staff actually think through that this was going to impact ability to dodge AA and ability to attack via change in skills and timing and all that will once more add to the skill gap you sought to close? I'm guessing the answer is no. Decreasing the top speed and raising minimum speed lowers the speed range which means less needed compensation for AA meaning your not dodging it like you used to. Now add in ALL the other things you have added to make it more frustrating to use Rockets and and some TB's and makes that even better because we can no longer try to better stabilize things by using just speed and very small movements to dodge as well. Which, that and the changes in closing rates will throw off all the times we have adapted to and have to relearn, again, all that as well as likely have some adapt faster or better than others and once again just add to the skill gap that seems to be ever growing, again, because of these changes. You again accomplish nothing bloody meaningful other than to make CV's more frustrating, one of your claimed points being you wanted CV's to be more east to access and interesting to more players - this does not help. And then you have the HE bomb changes - more RNG added, increased height of drop for increased fall time meaning more skill required and removing one of the last effective ways to deal with the DD your team lets through cause we can't attack it while trying to dodge it's weapons. I'll be first to admit CV vs DD is screwed up but wanna know why my Lexington is curb stomping Fubuki's? BECAUSE IT'S DROPPING 6 1000 LB BOMBS AT A TIME 3 TIMES AT 9200 DAMAGE WHICH TRANSLATES TO OVER 3K ON PENS PER BOMB AND IT'S NOT ONE OF THE MAYBE 7 DD'S THAT ACTUALLY HAS WORTHWHILE AA. It's the same issue with rockets, with torps, with CV ordnance since inception even in freaking RTS it's ing simple damn math. I hit 1/6 of those bombs that's 1/3-1/7 of the DD's HP depending on tier. So yeah, no matter what 3 attacks it's gonna freaking feel it. It's the same issue on Hak TB's, was the same on Midway's, still the same in general in places the alpha damage is too damn high.For just ing once would you stop trying to screw with accuracy and RNG and let us have accurate attack planes that can hit so we feel like we can actually accomplish something, and just nerf the alpha damage, seriously. And won't have much impact on hitting other ships? Your changing the reticle, RNG dispersion and height they drop at - I've had near max aim attacks on cruisers and BB's lined up perfectly, a couple times target was even parked, and had bombs somehow miss. Any change is going to screw that especially against smaller and more agile cruisers. I'd also like to again point out that also the reason they are getting picked on is they tend to be alone and isolated with weak AA while more and more BB's and CA/L are near untouchable especially when out tiered. Then we have priority AA - you want it to be more effective? Because as is many BB's and cruisers especially tier 8+ aren't butchering squadrons hard enough? Having 0/6 planes from Saipan attacking a lone tier 8 French BB because it's AA shoots them down before they reach escape height isn't enough? Or that I can't see some of the heaviest AA ships till I'm basically in their flak clouds - not even counting the ones that have their own smoke generator. Or the DF AA. Or the catapult fighters that can eviscerate a squadron just like the old broken strafe mechanic because you can't deploy fighters to defend AA shreds them before they even basically spawn in. Not to mention this system is still in such disarray, premium CV's still in need of individual work - and you pushed them back out on sale. Right before hitting them with global nerf hammers. I've already seen people call you out on what that looks like. You people shouldn't have released them in the first place, but no apparently greed got the better of you. And no one considered the optics of "hey, were about to release 50 dollar ships then nerf the hell out of them, does this maybe look bad cause were selling them seemingly strong then making them weaker?" New system - same bad decisions, problems ignored, and trying to fix the problem by working around it instead of direct fixes to it. So why is it again we changed from RTS?
  12. One of the often-overlooked changes in the recent-ish patches was the addition of a 6s a relay delay to radar, where anything spotted on radar takes 6s to be lit up to allies to shoot it. Meanwhile, one of the big common complaints with CVs is their ability to spot things easily and effectively, particularly DDs, which rely on stealth instead of health (CV complaint threads are easily more common than the next several most common threads, combined). The extension of this spotting delay to anything planes spot seems to be a logical step. As far as gameplay is concerned, this would give ships more time to react to being spotted, perhaps hiding a citadel a bit better, getting a chance to smoke up, or finding cover before fire starts pouring in. It would also mean the window for firing on targets during the opening spotting run will be less usable, since the CV would actually have to stay for a bit to get spotting damage. Any thoughts?
  13. So I just got out of a game where myself and another player carried our team so hard, bringing a 2v5 down to just us two (and our CV) hunting down their CV. We played our butts off even making it to that point. So here is where the "balanced gameplay" starts. I was chasing down the CV (an Audacious) and I had almost two minutes to shoot at him, and I hardly did ANY damage because he just turned away from me and ran. EVERY fire I lit only lasted 5 seconds, and of course I couldn't penetrate his armor with AP, so we ended up losing the game on points because WG thinks it was a good idea to cater to glue suckers who are apparently incapable to pressing the "R" key once or twice a game, something that most of the rest of us (DD's CA/CL's and BB's) seem to have managed to figure out. How is this fair to anyone? We understand the game and its mechanics enough to be able to majorly contribute to the team and yet we still lose because the CV can simply run and be almost invincible? HOW is that balanced??? What other ship class can simply sit in spawn, not risk his ships health AT ALL, and then at the end of the game when his team has been defeated and completely outplayed by two skilled players, he can still win by simply turning around and running? In many ways this problem is significantly worse than the artillery problem in WoT because while the arty can be quite stealthy and hard to find sometimes, its very easy to kill them once you find them. The rare time and artillery player manages to win the game for his team he HAS to either A: predict where the enemy player is and fire a blind shot that gives away his position; or B: wait for the enemy player to get close enough to spot him and risk a "shotgun" shot in order to kill him. Both options leave the arty player very exposed after taking the shot and an easy kill, which in my opinion, makes up for his ability to damage players without risking his tank. Now imagine that that same artillery player had a tank that had the same speed as the average medium tank, say 40-50kph (around 30-35mph I believe), AND had armor that made doing damage to him impossible if he angled it right, AND still had the ability to attack you while running away at a similar speed to your tank. Could you imagine the sh*t storm that the player base would make if such a tank existed? Well ladies and gentlemen, that is EXACTLY what CV's are in WoWS. They CAN be killed, even when angled, however it takes a very long time for only one ship, time that the CV has to continue to strike the player regardless of his angling. I have had even worse examples of this when encountering the CV's that have armored decks, where HE does NOTHING because it shatters, and AP does NOTHING because they can simply angle, bounce the shells and become damn near invulnerable. I've been saying it for years and I'll continue to say it as long as WG proves that they cannot balance this ship class: "TAKE CV'S OUT OF THE GAME OR GIVE US A WAY TO OPT OUT OF CV GAMES!!" NOBODY (and I do mean NOBODY) I have talked to is EVER happy when they see a CV in their game. It detracts from the fun and the overall experience. Yet conversely people rejoice when game modes like Ranked and Clan Battles and Space Battles come out because CV's aren't allowed, and they provide a refuge from the "sky-cancer" as they are so affectionately named. If WG wont listen to the community, the CC's and the Super Testers who TELL THEM THESE THINGS, then what as a community are we supposed to expect from the company in the future? The whole point of the beta was to TEST AND IMPROVE the changes they were implementing. ALL the CC's and testers I know of were saying that some of the things that I have mentioned and that WG has implemented were bad ideas and they still went ahead and did it. MAKING CV'S EXTREMELY RESISTANT TO DAMAGE IS NOT THE WAY TO BALANCE THEM. If WG can't listen to the community and balance a ship class properly that has been in the game for as long as CV's have been (what 3, 4 years now?), how can we trust that they will be able to properly balance something like submarines, which they have been for years saying they will never put into the game BECUASE they will be so hard to balance? Are we going to see something like World of Tanks, where the game dies because of poor choices made by the dev team? I LOVE World of Warships. I've spent waaaay too much money on this game because I enjoy it so much, so I really, really do not want to see it and its player base wane away and die because of something like CV and SS (submarine) balance issues when they have THOUSANDS of community members to ask and take ideas from. Now I know I don't have all the answers, and I know some people genuinely enjoy playing CV's both the RTS style and the 3rd person style. But the number of people in that group are so small it seems quite ridiculous to me that WG would attempt to please them instead of the vast majority of players who would rather see CV's out of the game altogether. If balancing the CV's isn't possible and we know from the beta tests that CV only game are NOT fun even for those who enjoy playing CV's normally, then what can WG do? What can we as a community do, or suggest to WG? I would really like to avoid a "flame war" in the comments, but would like to encourage constructive criticism, and solutions to this problem that WG can hopefully take notice of and consider implementing in the future. I know everyone who reads this, and everyone at WG wants what is best for the future of this game, but I do not feel like CV's in their current form should be a part of that future.
  14. @Radar_X, @iKami, @Femennenly Clearly I and others agree that WG made the right decision to shelve the proposed GC nerf and leave premiums that have been sold alone. But that doesn't mean that some of the issues that spawned the desire to balance OP premiums have gone away. I know WG believes that it has gotten better at balancing premium ships before release but clearly too that doesn't mean your perfect. So I'm hoping to open a discussion around how premium ships can be better balanced in the future and how those ships which are locked away right now might find their way back into the game. Yes many of us felt that living up to your prior commitments on premium ships was more important than achieving perfect balance. But that's not to say that balance isn't important. My first suggestion deals with bringing ships like Belfast back into the game. The answer is simple. Simply rebalance and rename the ship something like Belfast B or Belfast 47. We've got the black ships in the game so clearly this is perfectly feasible. And it would allow WG to begin selling those ships once again. You might even be able to sell them to owners of existing ships if you alter their playstyles or change their tiers. you've got nothing to lose and everything to gain. Second is the issue of how you ensure premium ships are balanced and where you want them before they go on sale. The issue, as I understand it, is that no matter how much testing you do there is nothing like having a ship out there on the live server to see how she really performs. So I'm going to suggest a new tech tree. The WIP tech tree. Ships here would be available essentially as limited time rentals. Captains can be assigned from the nation that ship will ultimately be assigned to and once assigned they get a free respec. The ship would remain in the WIP tree for a month or two until you had gathered the data you need to finalize the ship. At that point she would be removed from the WIP tech tree and once offered for sale subject to the no nerfs policy. I would suggest that any XP earned on WIP ships would be lost unless the player buys the premium ship. In that case all XP earned would automatically be converted to free XP as a reward for having participated in the development and then buying the ship. By putting the ship out there on the live server for free you get that real world experience you need to ensure she is truly balanced. You don't need to be as conservative as you might otherwise be with ship design since you will now have a period of live server play before the ship goes on sale. Also I suspect that with more people having a chance to try a ship out before it goes on sale your sales of that ship might increase. Looking forward (I hope) to a discussion around these issues.
  15. Ares1967

    Random thoughts...

    Upfront. I don't like CVs. They could be removed tomorrow and it wouldn't bother me one bit. They are here, and I enjoy the game, so I don't throw a tantrum over them. I'm going to share some opinions though. AA. So your bottom tier CV cant attack most higher tier ships therefore AA must be nerfed. AA gets nerfed and the gripe immediately becomes I cant attack a cluster of ships, AA must be nerfed. I have zero sympathy. The only thing a CV ever has to worry about is AA. If a match gets to the point a CV is under direct fire from anything, his team suffered a epic collapse, or he failed to keep an eye on the developing battle. Top tier AA should be devastating to a bottom tier CV. A Top tier CV should be able to pretty much ignore bottom tier AA. Yes its gonna suck to play a T8 CV 70ish percent of the time. That's the price extracted to get to a T10. Someone brought up "scaling" AA damage in a private conversation. Just the fact it could be seriously suggested indicates a problem with expectations. Scaling a mechanic is a horrible idea on so many levels. So we scale AA so a Lex can get through the AA of a Mino. Do we also scale it so a Dallas can be a decen th threat to that same Lex? What about Asashio? Do we scale the Asashios AA so it can be a threat to at least a cat fighter? Or is this only for the benefit of the CV and screw anyone else. Where else do we apply this? IJN 127mm guns shoot faster and do more damage when shooting a BB? Sims torps do 20k base damage when hitting a Musashi? CO only takes half Cit damage from an FDG? I consider each of these on the same level as scaling AA. DD vs the rework CV. My opinion the rework upset DD balance to a very large extent. Before the rework it took a better than average CV player to be a threat to any DD. Now due to rocket planes, multiple attack abilities, squad launch speed, and multiple CVs, many DDs have been beat with a nerf bat. I'm going to give an extreme example. A week or so back I jumped in a cap knowing both CVs were hunting me. Being in a Groz, I didnt really care. 43 planes later my trusty Divmate arrived in his Wooster. Yeah I lost half my HP, but I stopped their points, eventually got the cap, and we won a very close match. What if I had been in a Shima? Pre rework I'd have taken my chances against any CV player in that si3tuation in any DD. Post rework, especially with 2 CVs? We're gonna lose if it comes down to me heading into that cap. As a possibly better than average DD player I have a couple of operating principles. One is, never throw away my ship unless its gonna cost the red team far more than my loss cost the green. I dont sit back spamming torps unless the situation forces me. I'll cap contest and start a gunfight with almost any ship while in any DD if I get the slightest advantage out of it. Since the rework I added another operating principle. I don't push double CVs in most of my DDs. That means when a BB or cruiser player is crying about no spotting... tough. My ship is as important to me as yours is to you. You want me to push into that cap while you sit behind an island or park beside a Mino... fat chance buddy. Push a flank? You first. See, DDs got told to adapt. It works both ways. You're just not gonna like how I adapt. I'm sure there are some unicums that can pull off anything, I wish you luck drawing them more than you draw me. I'm going to keep playing the game but I reserve the right to play it for my enjoyment and screw everyone else. I learned that last part from CV players.
  16. 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!
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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 :
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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)
  24. 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.
  25. ...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
×