Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'balance'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 63 results

  1. To preface: - Subs are here to stay. Regardless of my opinion, that's a fact and this post is trying to be constructive. - Creative liberties are taken to make submarine gameplay fun so players keep playing them. Understandable, we were never gonna get silent hunter redux. - Subs are still being tweaked and this is not their final iteration - the live server is PTS 2.0. With how long CV rework took to reach a relatively stable iteration, we can expect sub tweaking into next year. With that said, I don't understand how we arrived at the sonar wave mechanic (or whatever its actual name is) wherein a visual indicator is displayed when a submarine pings. This feature has little value to surface ships other than the direction the submarine is in. What bothers me the most is that this wave can be wildly off target - several km off in any direction (clarified to be a 1km radius). Trying to use it as a means to hone in depth charges or plane strikes is somewhat laughable and, more often than not, wastes a charge. Before the sonar wave, surface ships were able to see the sonar ping approaching their ship within a set distance. I would argue this was more informative as players could get the exact angle the ping originated from and even guestimate the distance between the surface ship and the sub based on the time delay between pings. We could even assume the heading of the submarine based on the change in the ping's angle relative to the ship. Hell, if the sub was within this ping visualization range, a surface ship could deduce that when the ping came from within the 6 or 8 km range (I don't remember what it was originally). I know the intended reason for the sonar effect not being directly on target is to give submarines room to avoid any reactionary ASW (according to dev blog 322), but with inability to tell the submarine's heading and the wave being somewhat randomized to a general radius around the submarine makes any counter more of a hail marry - even with the range reduction back in late April. This frustration is compounded by recent buffs to submarines: the HP buff makes submarines as bulky as destroyers and the removal of the increased capacity drain when spotted + capacity recharge in captain skills makes submarines a nightmare to play against. To my knowledge, even with its recent buff, ASW still isn't at the potency it was before its major nerf that reduced splash and dmg. With all this said, I don't believe submarines need another crutch to avoid damage. If that's the case: I'm under the assumption we won't revert to the previous real-time ping that preceded what we have now; so I would propose that the radius of how far the wave effect spawns from the submarine be further reduced to a degree where a depth charge launched directly on the location would, guaranteed, put the submarine within the further end of depth charge's area of effect - increasing the chance to reliable hit the submarine if no action is taken. I think asking for the effect to spawn directly on top of the submarine would be met with an outright no so I won't even bother. While we're at it, how about a system where the submarine's detect range increased in increments the more frequent he pings - allowing him to be picked up by hydro or spotted at the surface at longer ranges. For example, now pings increased detect range by 1km so 4 successive pings would mean a base detect increase of 4km. This would be the submarine's equivalent to the detection bloom of surface ships when they fire. This increase dissipates entirely after a set amount of time - whether it be the same 20 sec window as seen on surface ships or longer/shorter depends on balance. I mean, it would, in an arcade way, adapt the historical risk of running loud for a submarine This idea could completely replace what we have now or be additive. At this point, I just want subs to be consistent to play and consistent to play against.
  2. magnus392

    Submarines Survey

    Starting a little poll, I don't know if it will stay up but hey, here's to trying. I get that they are here to stay, but playing against them is about as fun as having a frontal lobotomy. The "GIT GUD!" elitist can go away. WG likes to talk about their numbers and spreadsheets etc, well lets show them how we feel. Furthermore since I know the dumpsterfire known as Subs are here to stay, I strongly advocate for them to get their own game mode/scenarios. Their ability to "shotgun" inside of your ASB range and their spotting range is disgusting. Their ability to open water hunt you with near impunity is infuriating, and bluntly, they are not generally fun to play against. The proposed changes are not enough as shown by some pretty embarrassing YouTube footage, coupled with the extremely exploitable immunity zones that Subs can exploit is very disturbing. Yes, I use some inflammatory phraseology, but seriously... WarGaming has made all of these grand proclamations of being more transparent, vowing to listen to it's player base and YES they have made some strides in transparency. What I have seen and perceived ZERO movement on is listening to their player base. Locked threads about AA, the CC Disaster, the NDA's on test ships and closed testing of ships in development come to mind. Now we have T11 (Superships), still broken AA with no real CV counterplay and now Subs with the near exact problem of laughable counterplay, removal of achievement rewards, economy rework, commander reeeeee-work, and perceived tone deafness. That is before we talk about Super CVs!?!?! I don't intend for this to digress into a slogfest and am genuinely interested in legitimate feedback from the player base.
  3. Obviously there’s lots of complaining about CV’s and now submarines. How there’s really no way to defend against them. And yes this is something of a response to LWM's posts on this sub forum. First, we have to accept that anyone who advocates changing CVs and AA to make it feel less like inevitable doom is advocating making CVs weaker. You’re talking about undermining a business model that involves adding new ships to the game. So 99.9% of calls for changes are nonstarters. Any call for gameplay where surface ships can defend as effectively against air strikes as used to be the case when carrier play was more RTS, with limited and vulnerable air groups, will lower the number of carrier players. This is a nonstarter. Insofar as carrier or sub play is ‘boring’ compared to surface ships, it can only be compensated by having these vessels be more powerful. In other words, the defenselessness of surface ships is inevitable if subs and cvs aren’t seen as intrinsically interesting by themselves. But I’m not here to complain about the game or the business model. I’m going to propose a solution that won’t gradually attrit players from the game whilst also allowing WG to keep CVs, subs, and possibly new gimmicks to the game and players having good reasons to use them other than mercilessly bulling those who don’t: My proposal is to make *all* Carrier strike groups and Submarines operate as consumables for surface ships, but unlike regular consumables, these consumables have their own tiers & tech trees with credit and experience requirements to unlock as if they you were going down a tech tree. Carriers and Subs cease to exist as a separate class of warship. In such a system It's possible that some surface ships might go without either sub or air strikes, maybe in exchange for more powerful surface consumables. But I envision in the long run a majority of players in matches will be using 1 or several different type of aircraft. I also envision a degree of variety in consumable selection both between and within ships to allow for customization and differential but overlapping point of focus. This already exists to some extent for the air dropped depth charges and the Dutch cruisers. But I would put back in the ability to manually aim the squads. I’m going to first list the pros (and cons) then describe how I imagine each ‘class’ of consumable working and also how surface ships might counter say consumables. Pros: Because carriers and subs are no longer a dedicated class, there’s no business need to ‘balance’ the whole consumable against surface ships, let alone make the consumables stronger than the ships themselves. You only need to: 1. Make the consumable strong enough to be useful in certain situations 2. Make the consumables balanced against each other. This means that *actually* strong AA ships are no longer an issue. From WG’s perspective this solves the problem of getting people to play carriers and subs, everyone will essentially be playing these to some degree (most likely) much more than they are currently. Sub and Carrier consumables can theoretically be used after the main surface ship has been destroyed, giving players another way to continue participating after the match has ended. Surface ships that are currently lackluster can be buffed with better sub/strike consumables, again, in a way that doesn’t compromise WG’s business model. Corollary to the above; If you’re a low tier in a high tier game, it’s possible to have the imbalance compensated with by the consumables scaling to the tier of the match rather than the tier of the ship. This gives WG a way to incorporate naval aviation for countries that did not have any carriers, since the ’carrier’ aspect is less relevant. (I’ll describe how WG can still use carriers as gameplay elements) Cons: Players who don’t like aircraft or subs in general may dislike feeling obliged to use them to be competitive. One solution is to think about how to balance the existing consumables to allow for a ‘pure surface ship’ that is stronger. (like shorter CD consumables or more charges in exchange for no air wings and such) Potential for excessive micromanagement and multitasking, especially at the very competitive level. Catapult aircraft will need to be rebalanced around this, since my suggested system makes it possible for a surface ship to defend itself with fighters that are pulled from outside the map. Aircraft spotting will likely need to be removed or changed so that destroyer-as-scout is not 100% undermined. Insofar as manual dropping is concerned this system may inadvertently favor battleships and slow ROF ships in general that can multitask by microing their consumables in between salvos. This may lead to a need to return of ‘premium consumables’ Matchmaker will need to account for difference in potential punching power between two ships of the same tier one of which has not upgraded their consumables yet. In my mind only the micromanagement requirement is an unavoidable con to my proposal. How would it work? In theory it could work a number of ways but I’m going to describe how I imagine it. The most important thing is that the consumables approach makes this (or any) balancing feasible. Re-read the first two paragraphs if you have to. Aircraft: > Your surface ship might have 1 or several classes of aircraft, with numerical indicators (A/B) where A is number of aircraft [or squadrons] available to be launched as a squadron and B is the number [of aircraft or squadrons] you have in total reserve. Since these craft can theoretically be launched if your surface ship is destroyed, they need to be finite in number. > Tap the hotkey corresponding to the strike group you want to send out, it will take a few seconds for that group to enter the battle group either launched via carrier or flying into the map if it is a naval aircraft not carrier launched (like a condor). Carrier aircraft might have a perk that makes the deployment period shorter. > Once the air group is in the map it can be moved RTS style on the map or via the minimap, but it can also be moved manually as is done currently. > Aircraft have a certain loiter period, i.e. how long they can remain in the zone before needing to refuel. > Super Optional: Have carriers as entities a few kilometers behind the main battle line from which your team’s carrier aircraft are launched, these don’t move can be targeted and destroyed by surface ships or even enemy strike craft (though the latter is difficult). You’d have to get well past the middle point of the map to even detect the CVs. I wouldn’t countenance CV sniping in this new system except as a way to punish an exceptionally passive enemy, but that does provides a massive incentive in any game mode to push if doing so deprives the enemy of his air consumables. Aircraft, Air Strikes, and AA: Since we’ve changed the incentives around for players and for WG, there’s no cause to either make aircraft trivially useless for the sake of surface ships or to make aircraft unstoppable death dealers. We can finally just focus on creating a dynamic between surface ships and aircraft that is tactical, hopefully fun, and modestly historically realistic. We want the consumables to work well when used well and visa versa. > Surface ship AA health (at least light and med) % is visible to all players by default this is important information because… > Medium and light AA will deal damage to any planes in its radius with no invulnerability periods granted, though damage will scale up and down depending on the type and speed of the aircraft and whether it is maneuvering. As a rule, medium and light AA will be most effective (i.e. higher damage) against torpedo bombers since they fly low and slow, but those also happen to *usually* be the aircraft that can do the most damage to ships, if they survive and lead the enemy ship properly. High health AA is much more of a lifeline for large ships and low health AA much more of a curse. > Heavy AA will be most effective against slower larger aircraft that operate at high altitudes, though heavy AA can also be used to provide cover to allied ships that would normally not be covered by medium AA. > Surface ships damaging enemy vessels superstructures are not simply about farming damage but about trying to get that ship’s passive AA low enough that torpedo bombers and the heavy damage dealers have a reasonable chance to drop before getting shot down. Though some aircraft classes may be specialized for being hard to hit for enemy AA and doing supression of enemy air defenses. > Defensive Fire consumable is replaced with the ability of certain surface ships to manually aim heavy AA flak bursts, rotating the camera around will give the direction of the flak and instead of zooming the aim in and out you raise or lower the fuse time (i.e. the distance from the ship that the flak explodes). It is easier to visualize in 2D, think of a clock with 1 hand that can shrink and grow, the center of the clock is the ship, the time of the clock is the direction the flak is aiming, and the length of the hand is the fuse time. The trick is to get the flak cloud to explode in the same spot and time that the enemy’s planes will be there. This manual flak should be far more effective than passive flak, and the goal is to encourage AA ships to actively try to shoot down squadrons aimed at teammates. I am thinking, depending on the ship, 1-3 shot chances before the ability goes on cooldown. Technically elevation and fuse time would be different things but the aiming will adjust based on what is being targeted so that players do not have to aim in 3 dimensions. > Surface defense against aircraft consists in: Strong passive AA Defensive Fire Evasion for smaller vessels Note “Just dodge” needn’t be a sarcastic jab anymore, since dodging strikes was viable during the pre-CV rework and manually aimed strikes can have their whippy turn times nerfed since, again, aircraft is no longer a class that needs to match or exceed surface ship strength. The ability to call in air wings capable of intercepting strike groups. (See aircraft classes for more details). Certain of these defenses will be more effective against certain airstrikes. > Given how many ways air strikes can be defended against, getting hit multiple times with a dive or torp bombing should be roughly as punishing as getting citadel multiple times. The existing damage levels of CVs have to somewhat account for the fact that strikes are Mostly inevitable Mostly undodgable Mostly infinite None of this will be true anymore, so it’s important to make aircraft deadlier when used correctly. Aircraft Classes: Some mentioned before Torp Bombers: Slower and more vulnerable when doing a drop but drops deal far more damage (on a per torp basis more than what they do now, but less than destroyer torpedoes). A battleship or cruiser with good AA should be capable of shooting down a wing of these guys unless the AA has been sufficiently weakened, so these planes are more meant for finishing off ships that have already had their superstructure farmed. Rocket(armed) Planes: Meant as a way of dealing with strong medium AA, since they are faster than dive/torp bombers and don’t have to come in at a low altitude they take less damage on the approach and can soften up targets. They also can survive more effectively against other fighters in dogfights. Dive Bombers: Dive bombing planes will take less damage from medium/light AA than torpedo bombers but the strikes themselves will not deal as much damage. They are effectively intermediate between the rocket planes and torp bombers Fighters: Fighters not armed with anti-ship weapons will not just spontaneously spawn from other air wings as they do now, instead operating as separate units which can be used to cover airspace. They can operate in one of several niches: Heavy Fighter: Takes a while to arrive but can loiter in an area for a longer period of time, armament is good against slower bulkier craft but might be outmaneuvered by rocket planes, and will generally lose to other fighters in dogfights. Air superiority fighters: Intermediate between interceptors and heavy fighters with respect to dogfighting and loitering. Deals less damage to bombers but takes less damage from other fighters. Interceptors: Meant to fly quickly to an area, loitering only for a brief time, then leave. They can be used to clear away heavy fighters and air superiority fighters, or even bombers if they are well timed. Level Bombers: Lots of options here laying and destroying mines, dropping smokescreens, level bombing – high altitude level bombers are very inaccurate but immune to most short-range AA, but also fewer in number, slower, and more vulnerable to fighters. sub hunting (Replace airdrop depth charges) Submarines: > Subs as consumables is a bit harder than aircraft, but I still think it’s possible. I imagine basic commands like direction and depth settings can be done from the minimap as a surface ship, with the ability to switch to the sub to launch torpedoes. > In terms of a role for submarines, the one thing that WoWs doesn’t really have is a class that can punish camping. So having a consumable that is spawned in from the flanks of a fight, surfaces, launches torpedoes and dives to reload can fill that niche.
  4. Just a small poll on general opiñon for subs right now, on both the live server and test server. Feel free to write your opiñon as well.
  5. Chad_Slava_Enjoyer

    Small Poll On The State Of Subs

    I wanted to know public opinion on subs at the moment.
  6. On the 2nd of September, WG issued a formal apology surrounding the complete breakdown of its already taxed relationship with the community. I am NOT trying to restart that mess. What I am doing is asking a genuine question surrounding a very specific part of that apology: Where is this? What's its status? Why have 18 new ships been announced (excluding clones of existing ones) and balance changes for 19 that are not one of those three (excluding sub related)? 0.10.10 is already in testing, and unless FDR being incapable of taking off planes after returning them to your ship are the balance changes, where are they?
  7. Buenas! les dejo a continuación una propuesta pensada para los submarinos relacionada al balance de estos y unas novedades que me gustaría ver dentro del juego ahora que a partir de la actualizacion 0.10.9 los tendremos en batallas aleatorias a modo de testeo. espero sus comentarios y me gustaria saber que piensan! Propuesta para un counter mas apropiado a los submarinos en barcos de superficie e incluso otros submarinos. La siguiente propuesta de counter tiene dos fines: uno es balancear la interacción entre submarinos y otros submarinos y/o barcos de superficie Lo otro seria agregar una función que brinde no solo balance, sino añadir una dinámica mas interesante y correcta a nivel histórico. por supuesto estoy hablando de los señuelos o "decoys". Además, como añadido, esto dejaría intacta la función del equipo de reparaciones el que seguiría funcionando para apagar incendios e inundaciones o reparación de módulos dañados, haciendo que uno no tenga que limitarse a usar el equipo de reparaciones cuando recibe un ping para luego recibir otro 10 segundos después. los señuelos eran muy populares hacia mediados de la segunda guerra mundial en enfrentamientos SUB vs DD. un buen ejemplo y bastante grafico para todos se muestra en una escena de la película "Greyhound", donde un U-Boat libera un objeto metálico que emite un ruido confundiendo asi al sonar del destructor que lo perseguía, haciendo que este gaste sus cargas de profundidad persiguiendo a un objeto que le hacia creer que era el submarino alemán. Este objeto es el famoso señuelo o "decoy". Entonces volviendo al tema, como se aplicaría esto en el juego? Sencillo, en el caso de los submarinos estos lo usarían como un consumible a parte del equipo de reparaciones, una vez que este sea alcanzado por el ping de un submarino, desviando así la trayectoria de los torpedos magnéticos. El señuelo podría durar desde 5 a 10 segundos y tener la posibilidad de lanzar hasta 3 cada cierto tiempo, tal y como las cargas de profundidad que poseen los destructores o algunos cruceros. La cantidad de señuelos y su duración podrían variar según la nacion y tipo de barco En cuanto a los enfrentamientos sub vs sub funcionaria igual solo que en una reducida cantidad de cargas y duración (supongamos una sola carga de 5 segundos cada 40 segundos).
  8. Hello good people! I'll leave here an idea that got after watching Greyhound (again xD) first of all, excuse my poor english. I'm Argentinean so my native language is spanish, but i will make an effort to make clear what I want o say. This is a balance proposal for subs and surface ships taking the magnetic torps in count. This proposal has two objectives: One is to balance the interaction between subs with subs and other surface ships. The second is to add a new mechanic which makes the game more interesting on an historical and fun level. I'm talking of course about the Decoys. Plus this has as a good thing which is preserving the damage control consumable. normally, when a ship is pinned by a submarine it can press the key R to mitigate the pin effect (it least over 5 to 15 secs depending on the ship) but right after the damage control effect is over, the ship gets pinned again and the damage control is on cooldown for a relatively long time. Damage control party is a very important tool for the survival of a ship, since it extinguish fires and flooding and even repairs damaged modules, its very panful to get pinned, mitigate it, and then get pinned AND fired or flooded at the same time. and you cant do nothing to stop it because of you used it to mitigate the pin effect, and now there is a cooldown of several seconds and even more than a minute with this said now I'll explain how to use this tool and and the possibilities it has. the idea is simple, the decoys would be a consumable just like depth charges (but slightly different) by dropping an item on the water which acts as the pinned part of the ship (then the pinned ship wont be so any more until the decoy get hit or the time of the decoy is over) getting the attention of the magnetic torpedo. It may have a number of charges (like airstrike or depth charges) and a time of action like a surveillance radar (from 10 to 15 secs) which my change depending on the tier, nation and if it is premium or not. On a fight sub vs sub the mechanic would be the same except for the number of charges which would be lower. I'll drop some pics of the idea (made on paint xD) so pls tell me what you think about it and let me now if you have a better idea or what changes you would you make for this.
  9. Like many solo-players who are tired of the salt and statistically-improbable consistency of utterly lop-sided teams in Randoms, I've taken to Co-Op for the peace and to grind missions in a happier (albeit slower) way. That said, I was just wondering if any other dedicated BB players (in Co-Op) are sick of no-Cap, no-Kill, Low-Damage, Low-Credit/XP matches because they are at best 1 of 3 ships on the board (often the only) with no torps and a speed at or under 30kts. Lately I've had countless matches where literally everything is Capped/Torped/DPM'd by teams 80%+ comprised of CL's/DD's/Subs and a CV or 2... it's not fun. Perhaps WG could balance the Co-Op MM ship-type distribution to ensure at least 3 BB's were on the map (even bots) so a decent earning match is possible for a BB player. Also, this would ensure at least a minimal enemy HP pool to make the match worth it for everyone. Thus far, Randoms continues to have some modicum of ship-type (if not Skill-Level) balance.
  10. The addition of subs is an interesting dynamic. However, as currently designed, subs have too much power against most DDs, at least in the mid-tier where I play, and this needs to be rebalanced before wide introduction. I'm sure this has been debated internally by your dev teams and throughout development in your test base. Let me throw my hat in the ring on the side of reducing the power of homing torpedoes. Subs are given homing torpedoes by default with effectively limitless ability to home. This is not only historically inaccurate, it is too powerful and is becoming worse as sub captains gain skill. One torpedo salvo of 2 is sufficient to take out even high HP DDs. There are few techniques that mitigate homing from a middle distance, even among the most agile DDs. No known ship-born counter exists. By analogy, DDs can smoke to counter visual detection and maneuver (accel/decel/turn) to counter ballistic weapons or "dumb" torpedoes and can prioritize sectors to improve AA effectiveness. Subs have very small detection radii when surfaced or submerged but can ping and home from quite a distance. Mid-tier DDs have no stock ability to spot subs when submerged until well within the homing kill radius. This adds to the imbalance. I suggest the following: Make homing torpedoes an option similar to AP and HE shells with the appropriate time penalty for switching torpedo types. Reduce the HP power of homing torpedoes by 25-40% from that of standard "dumb" torpedoes, similar to the way AP and HE act differently. Perhaps they cannot cause a detonation or they do less HP damage but have a high probability to cause flooding. Homing torpedoes should have some penalty to counter their accuracy Alternatively, make homing a consumable like radar or hydro search Give DDs some level of hydro search or ping triangulation by default. This is, of course, far more historically accurate than homing torpedoes. I suggest that the ping marking be much brighter and include a momentary "tail" pointing in the general direction of origin. I think this has been attempted by marking one side of the ship vs the other, but it misses the mark in terms of communicating useful information Alternatively, give DDs some skill or equipment option to mitigate homing torpedo effectiveness
  11. Seeing as this discussion has broken out in the news and announcement section in the thread where the ongoing dialogue with WG is supposed to be happening, I thought someone had to setup a proper place for us to hash out our differing ideas and opinions. Might as well be me. As to my thoughts on the matter, I am definitely in favor of both ships getting a reload buff at minimum. Oklahoma probably needs upgraded shells while California needs better turret traverse and maybe DFAA or slightly enhanced secondaries.
  12. Hi everyone, I've played a lot of games in Saipan in the last year or so and before the commander skill change this month the 1 point ability (now retitled Air Supremacy) used to give +2 aircraft on deck in addition to the -5% faster plane regeneration time. On many CVs the +2 aircraft isn't too noticeable, but on the Saipan and its clone Sanzang, those extra two aircraft are sorely missed. I think if the plane regeneration time is going to stay the same, both boats ought to have those two aircraft per air wing permanent. Playing in randoms is hard enough if you're up-tiered (but almost too easy against tier VI boats) and those extra two aircraft are extremely important to being viable in the later stages of a game. Thank for listening, GB
  13. JTM78

    AA vs Planes

    Why is it that CV can make two to five against enemy ships while losing little to nothing? I am finding that the AA of equal tier ships vs planes still allow 3 or more runs and god forbid if the ship is two tiers lower. There is something seriously wrong with the balance of AA vs planes. Maybe CV should lose health for every plane that gets shoot down?!
  14. Gods_Eyes

    The only issue with CVs:

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

    Tier X German CVs

    Wargaming has created many tier X ships from plans, and some are real ships created well after WW2. Meanwhile back in Germany real jet fighters were used DURING WW2. It seems only fair to me to give the Germans their due and include ME262 jet fighters and possible bombers on the Richthofen or Voss CVs. What say you?
  18. So, @6Xero9 had called out and claimed, they feel CVs are balanced (and feel having this many CVs would be fine). Okay. So, I'd like Wargaming to do a 2-3 week experiment on live. And what is this experiment? Let's have 2-5 CVs per game. To people and those in WG who feel CVs are fine and support their existence, it seems the concerns and points raised to CVs fall onto deaf ears. And time and again, it is touted that people who dislike CVs are in the minority. Let's once and for all prove what's what to the question: Is CV balanced, or not? Now, i'm sure people will backpedal. But I want you to realize... by admission, if a ship type is balanced in relation to power over the rest, then there should be zero reason to treat the class special over the others. Right? Everyone should be able to play their pixel boats without a care in the world, whether he/she sees 4-5 BBs, CA/CLs, DDs, or even CVs. The rest of the classes can have that many, why can't CVs? In the end, let's put your money where your mouth is both WG and supporters of CVs: Gather the numbers and playerbase feedback after this experiment, and let's see what population numbers look like. And it will be very curious for those who not only oppose this simple and straight logic, for those who don't... Please outline why is it that CVs must keep a limit of 1-2, but also are balanced in power as opposed to any other ship type in the game. And please explain why this limit exists if its not for balance reasons. No matter which side you stand on, and if you even fall into that last category... I'm sure what people have to say in defense of both why CVs are balanced or OP will be interesting should this idea get attention. Additional thoughts: How about we let just two CVs in all games? Or the divisioning of two CVs? The reality is, the feedback of the players I doubt would change much.
  19. You know how in real life radar would both detect distant threats as well as make you detected to them? If you institute a global change that makes radar reveal you to every target it spots for you, suddenly Belfast isn't nearly as powerful. The extreme synergy of its consumables goes out the window. Not only that, but longer radar range would be a double edged sword, making it a risk you are willing to take to use it rather than a no brainer to activate it when you need it. Okay, now I can sleep. This idea was keeping me awake...
  20. Have you ever captained a BB and a DD pulls up within 6km of you or it jumps from behind an island point blank? You used to be able to punish them for that mistake but now you can unload a full broadside at them and theyll just shake it off and dump salvo of torps at you and kill you. WG needs to address this. As a BB player since the beta days this is one of the biggest frustrating changes theyve made. DDs need to be punished for travelling too close and revealing their broadside. Even if its not a full citadel, at least half damage or flooding or allow BB secondaries to do the same damage as DD main guns since theyre the same weapon essentially. Its impossible even on arcade physics to honestly allow DDs to shrug off a full broadside by a BB and have 2/3 health remaining. Lets give us BB players an incentive to play again instead of just flooding the server with fake ships and broken pro DD physics
  21. Opinions are like Aholes. Some are just bigger than others.
  22. What is up with all the unbalanced ship distribution lately? So many games with 4 BB on one team and 3 on the other. It is always a blowout. Is this a new feature of Matchmaker. It sucks whether you are on the winning or losing team. All these missions are screwing up game play too. People are more focused on getting defended ribbons, citadels, fires, or any other number of tasks specified by missions instead of helping the team to win.
  23. Announcement! Italian Battleships! Yes, they are finally here! A whole new line of ships representing the Nation of Pasta Primavera! Italian battleships fire a unique kind of shell: Semi-armor piercing (SAP). This type of shell has a much greater chance of penetrating armor than a normal HE shell, but not quite as good as a true AP shell. However, the new SAP shells come with a 75% chance of starting a fire! Also, while Italian battleships are not as heavily armored as their contemporaries, they have a top speed of 38 knots, making them quite hard to hit while moving and allowing them to outrun most other battleships. We are proud to introduce Tier V Spaghetti, Tier VI Spaghetti and Meatballs, Tier VII Alfredo, and Tier VIII Alfredo con Pollo. Stay Tuned for More! GAME BALANCE CHANGES BATTLESHIPS AP shells are more skill-demanding for successful use than HE shells, but their efficiency is higher, if used correctly. The updated battleships constitute a relatively novel class in the game since they were almost exclusively used for shore bombardment and sea escort, and most players have been using them to delete other ships such as cruisers in a single salvo. Consequently, the overall damage dealt by this type of armament has become too high. We, therefore, decided to systematically lower the maximum damage of AP shells, but without lowering their penetration. All battleship AP shell damage will be lowered by 30%. We will watch independent performance of the ships and take additional action if needed.
  24. I've had the Khaba for a long time, and have always loved it, even though I have only been able to play the current version, and never got to experience the original OP monster that it was. However in the current meta the Khaba is woefully underpowered. I just recently got the Kleber, and it is pretty much just a much better version of the Khaba in every way. You are much faster, much stealthier (even with the concealment nerf), have better range even without AFT, have amazing super AP that can delete cruisers from 10km away, have hilariously fun French F3 torpedoes that can demolish ships caught off guard, have French DD damage saturation, have great handling, and the absurdly strong main battery reload as well, along with great fire chance and shell velocity. What does the Khaba have in comparison? Well you do have better sustained DPM, although the reload booster more than makes up for this. You have the sekrit documents 50mm plating, although you take full BB AP pens to compensate, and can easily be blapped for 15k a salvo if you aren't careful. You do have a heal and more health, which is a significant advantage, although French damage saturation and speed really diminishes this advantage. You have much better turret traverse, but worse firing angles. And if you get in a point blank knife-fight the torpedoes hit very hard and are very stealthy, but are also incredibly slow and have terrible range, so they are still pretty much useless. You have better AA, but it is still trash, and even more so with the CV rework. The Khaba has also been crippled by the nerfs, especially the rudder shift nerf, forcing you to use the rudder mod, so your concealment is horrid at 9.7km, in comparison to the Kleber's bad but still very useable 7.8. You are also much slower and easier to hit, and have worse range even with AFT. The Kbaba has just frankly been power creeped into irrelevancy, which is why you almost never see it used anymore. I can still do very well in it, and still find it fun to play, but now that I have the Kleber it is easy to see how sorry a state the ship is in. The Khaba needs significant buffs to really be competitive again. The first thing I would do is undo the ridiculous rudder shift nerf, so that you can actually run concealment and be actually maneuverable. I would also give it back its 10km torpedoes, so it can actually use them once in a while. These alone would go a long way to making the Khaba competitive again. I would also make it not eat full BB AP pens anymore, and think a slight range increase would also work. It should not go back to its original broken state, but the Khaba really needs some work, as it has been both powercreeped by the Kleber and nerfed too much by WG as well. The Khaba is not an example of Russian bias (looking at you, Kremlin), and it needs some love.
  25. I think that most people agree that carriers are imbalanced in one way or another (and this is coming from someone who plays CVs a little bit). I also think that, for the most part, one of the bigger issues with them is CV-DD interaction, specifically the fact that DDs have no counterplay against CVs. Rocket planes (Attack Aircraft) are probably one the biggest offenders, mostly because of their mid-high damage and ease of use. While things like USN HE bombs and IJN torpedoes are still threats to DDs, Rocket Planes are definetely one of the worst to deal with. Being chunked for half of your HP is not "fun" or "engaging" I propose one main change: Replace rocket planes with a watered-down version of fighters (from pre-CV rework) They will have a few abilities: They cannot directly attack surface ships in any way. Their "mode of attack" is heavily based off strafing from pre-8.0 fighters. Simillar to torpedo bombers, they will have a wide "rectangle" indicating their area of attack (But is will be in the air, more like a box). Over time, this "rectangle/box" will get smaller, decreasing the area covered by an attack run, but also increasing damage. The damage from this strafing (if a plane squadron is caught in the middle of it) would be roughly on par with damage done by fighters The squadrons will not have the fighter consumable (to decrease spotting in conjunction with speed), but a different consumable, maybe an enhnaced engine boost consumable (i.e. for 10 seconds instead of 4) could replace it Damage done to plane squadrons would count as damage done to ships (this is to appease CV players who would get angry at a loss in damage totals) Benefits: This removes one of the bigger threats to DDs (I'm aware that spotting is also a big issue, but IDK what to do about that) This heavily encourages CV vs. CV gameplay, since a good CV player could directly attack enemy squadrons. This also makes the CV more heavily focus on avoding and defending against the enemy CVs fighter attacks Hopefully wouldn't change power balance between CVs too much (but the RN CV "fighters" might need to be better than others, since attack aircraft are one of the main strengths of RN CVs) Downsides (?); Probably would decrease CV teamplay further (though maybe not) A good CV player could completely negate an enemy CV (since they could aggresively use the fighters to completly counter their attacks), maybe counter this by making the aiming "rectangle" smaller/unable to be moved after an attack has started Suggestions Appreciated!
×