Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'changes'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • 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
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Master Archive
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Closed Beta Test Archive
    • Alpha Test Archive
    • For Development and Publisher Only
    • QA AUTO
    • Contests and Community Events
    • Super Test
    • Newcomer's Forum
    • Contest Entries
    • Questions and Answers
    • Contest Entries
    • New Captains
    • Guías y Estrategias
    • Task Force 58
    • Livestream Ideas and Feedback
    • Árboles Tecnológicos
    • Fan Art and Community Creations
    • Community Created Events and Contests
    • Community Staging Ground
    • Forum Reorg 2.0 Archive
    • Noticias y Anuncios

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 14 results

  1. I'm going to keep this one short and sweet: Over the time since the CV rework, and during all of the tweaks that have been made since, I've seen a lot of people say why they don't like CVs: Their high spotting potential, their ability to kill DDs quick in a game where Radar already does that, AA not being able to do much to deter their planes, and the large reserves for squadrons are some of the most common I've found, all of which I understand and see, even if it isn't to as great an extent as everyone else. What I rarely see, however, is people saying what precisely they think should be done to fix CVs aside from angry demands for them to be removed from the game or for them to be nerfed into absolute uselessness, even though both of those will almost certainly never happen because some people still play them, some people still enjoy playing them, and some people are still willing to give WG money to play them. As such, the question I pose is this: What do you want to see done to CVs to make them less frustrating to play against while still making sure those who do play them are able to compete, do damage, and help their team win? In all honesty I don't expect to get any sort of answers like what I'm hoping I will, but I don't care. I wanted to pose the question, now I have, and I stand by it. Who knows? Maybe someone with a bit of clout at WG will see this and get a few ideas. I look forward to seeing if anyone decides to share any ideas, but if you don't then it's like I said. I know I just kicked the hornet's nest, but still. I'll take all your downvotes and vitriol because I've done what I came here to do. Sincerely, 1Sherman.
  2. lordholland4293

    submarine deck guns

    Does anyone feel the subs should be able to use there deck gun like historically.
  3. Hello, I am a COD/CSGO player who plays this game on the side but recently has been playing it more out of necessity. coming from a competitive background I have seen a ton of problems with this game that makes it really non-competitive, for example: premium/special ships being allowed to play in ranked or clan battles. (why do some people get to play with premium ships in a comp setting and others playing tech tree ships?. THAT IS INHERENTLY UNCOMPETITVE) this one is only due to the polarizing nature of CVs. ( before the start of EVERY ranked season,CBs there should be voting by the player base of each region wherever they want CVs in that season) another one that really upsets me, when you remove a ship from the game i.e(benham,Missouri,) and now other ones like the Smolensk. NO player should have access to that ship if it gets removed. IF you're going to remove the smol, players should get a refund in the currency they used and should not have access to it anymore. OTHERWISE WHATS THE POINT OF REMOVING A SHIP????? STOP making ships in the game that polarize the community! things like the Smolensk should never exist when you see what the player base has to say about it. PLZ WG LISTEN TO THE PLAYERS, you people have jobs and get paid because of the player base.(and at least listen to the damn CCs)
  4. With 0.9.2 we had one of the bigger mechanic changes, a rebalance of IFHE, as well as changes on the plating of cruisers to make them more resistant to incoming fire. The logic behind this change, and something with which I agree, was for IFHE to not be anymore the "must pick" skill for CLs that gave raw damage without a big tradeoff in fire chance. So you either have to pick fire starting or capability of raw damage. Or at least that's how it must have sounded like. This made sense, especially when it comes to ships like Smolensk or Worcester with terrifying HE DPM. In addition, the change of HE rules when it comes to penetration means that some ships like Daring that had to have IFHE to even penetrate with HE now could do so without, further freeing up 4 skill points. Yet I think the implementation of the changes was rushed, confusing and in certain cases downright frustrating for a number of reasons. Will get over them shortly and without too much detail. 1. Inconcistency and at certain points confusion; WG has made many changes under the logic of simplifying mechanics in order for the average player to be able to grasp them without much trouble. Hydro and Radar range changes are such two examples. Yet now we get different penetrations with IFHE for tier V-VII and different ones for VIII-X, for guns of the same caliber. Yes you can make sense of them, but can you say the same for the average player or a newbie? 2. Diminishing returns the higher up you go; Consider this. Let's pick a Seattle, without DE or flags, but with IFHE. Seattle with IFHE under the new rules gets 12/2=6% fire chance. But then you start pilling up fire resistance coefficient, commander skills to combat fire, even upgrades reducing it. But for this example, let's consider a tier X BB without any special skills or upgrades. Just by itself it gets a fire coefficient of 0.5, meaning that 6% fire chance just became 3%. And when you add RNG into the mix it doesn't look good. In high tiers where HE and fires, broken as they may appear at times, are often the only means to counter bowtanking this is a big impediment. 3. Too little time for respecs; First of all, I appreciate them even being offered. Yet I believe that one week was too short a time period to make up your mind skills wise, or even have the time to enter the game and respec. I couldn't be on during that time period, so I happened to miss the respec. I have loads of Commander XP so it didn't hurt much, but I am sure it hit others. Keeping in mind the slew of issues arising with the spread of coronavirus I believe two weeks for free respecs would have been better and give the playerbase an easier time adjusting to the changes. To conclude, please keep in mind this is a personal opinion from playing for a few days after the patch. It's still early to have a completely concrete opinion and I will continue testing. Nevertheless I have to confess that some of these issues could have been handled better, maybe even addressed in the testing phase. In my opinion the 50% reduction is a bit too brutal and somewhat extreme. Not saying we should go back to before the changes, but another look wouldn't hurt. Hoping to hear more opinions on the subject in a polite discussion and not have this develop into a dumpster fire thread.
  5. Results may vary, I openly invite anyone to try it out and share there results of the changes... For both ships... I ditched the AA spec... Its not worth it for none of them for 0.9.2 Now, if you hate to be annoyed/harassed by planes, you can keep it but for this test I ditched it completely . The ATL has IFHE... The Flint Has Halsey and DE build... Both test results have at least 300 shell hit at a target that is tier 8 or above Depending on your play style (that is why I invite your results as well), Fleet make up, and map... Both offer a different experience... First off the Flint, DE non IFHE Next up, The Atlanta with IFHE... SUMMERY As much as I dont like the changes, it is what it is... In the FLINT game it felt like a real grind to achieve those 2 kills against the tier 9 BBs. If you manage to reach 400 hits, expect a %50 pen rate with IFHE, without IFHE %50 less. *again depends on your aiming skills, mine are questionable* Test it out yourself, see if you can duplicate what I tested... Remember it was only one match.. The consistency, is questionable... GL boys and girls
  6. Since there are about XXXXXXXXX number of CV threads, I didn't see any that had reasonable changes in it, its like the pendulum has to be either all the way left or all the way right, there is no middle ground. That said, after some consulting and thought. I think the following changes might be more "reasonable" than most to the carrier class. 1. CV Patrol Fighters consumable no longer detect surface ships. (These guys are here frantically looking for enemy aircraft....and using it as a spotter is not the purpose of this consumable, nor was it upon its inception during the rework) 2. CV Patrol Fighters consumable area of influence increased from 3km to 6km. (Increases the patrol area of the fighters to increase their area of locking on to enemy squadrons) 3. CV Patrol Fighters/ Catapult Fighters consumable set up time reduced from 6s to 3s. (Upon activating these two consumables, they will be ready to lock onto a target in 3s instead of 6s from the time of activation) 4. CV Patrol Fighters/Catapult Fighters consumable lock on time reduced from 3s to 1s. (If the fighters are already ready, a enemy squadron will be locked on after remaining 1s within the area of influence) 5. CV Patrol Fighters/Catapult Fighters consumable speed increased to target +20%. (Once locked on, the Patrol/Catapult fighters will speed boost to the enemy target at +20% their normal cruising speed rather than their normal cruising speed, this means that they will intercept the enemy squadrons faster.) 6. Direction Center for Fighters Captain Skill changes from, +1 to number of fighters in your catapult fighter squadron to "-5% cooldown time of catapult fighter consumable, +25% activation time for catapult fighter consumable, and +5% kts when chasing a enemy squadron" (This means your fighter consumable will cooldown faster if taken, and fighters will travel +5%kts faster when locking onto a enemy squadron) 7. Mass AA Fire Captain Skill REMOVED. 8. Advanced Firing Training Captain Skill REMOVED. 9. Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armamanet REMOVED. 10. Auxiliary Armaments Advanced Fire Training Captain Skill ADDED: +20% Range to secondary armaments, +30% continuous damage to Prioritized Sector AA when activated, +2 Flak Bursts to Prioritized Sector AA when activated. (This combines secondaries and AA systems together making them more of a hybrid skill than a one or the other. This skill will help a broad range of ships by increasing their secondary range, continuous damage of AA and give extra flak bursts when activated. 11. Manual Fire Control of Auxiliary Armaments Captain Skill ADDED: -15% to secondary armament dispersion, 100% instantaneous damage to enemy aircraft upon sector prioritization in to tiers I-IV, -60% to secondary armament dispersion and -200% instantaneous damage to enemy aircraft upon sector prioritization to tiers V-X. (This skill works just like the original manual fire control for secondary armaments, except that it now also influences your priority sectors by allowing them to do burst damage to a sector when instructed by the player. The amount of instantaneous damage depends on the tier of ship.) 12. Destroyer's get a aerial concealment reduced, depending on ship, to between 2km and 3km. (This improves the chances of not being detected by a carrier's squadron)
  7. Alright with CV being out for almost a year now and people still complaining that there OP and crap. having played all Class here are some changes i would like to see to CV/AA 1) give CV there capacity back. when CV were given the regen of planes it was to prevent CV from being deplane and being useless like they were in RTS days, but after almost a year of people saying that unlimited planes is to op (not that having unlimited shells/torps is different but i digress) give CV a limit on planes giving them all of the planes at once rather then over the course of the game as it now. 2) Prep time. an idea WG thought of way back at patch 0.8.2 (somewhere in there) give CV a 15s prep time of there planes when the game starts similar to how all ships load there guns at the game start. follow with idea 1 have the CV have a full squad on deck and when that squad is destroyed or returned to the CV it rearms for 15s or 30s if the squad was destroyed. this will limit the spam of just one squad and if the CV wants to he'll have to wait for the planes to return/reprep or use something different. 3) Hull control. something WG took away from CV to make it "easier but with auto pilot being as drunk as it usually is having the option to have hull control would be nice. 4) Massive AA Fire. need i say more.... this skill is hella useless and just needs to be reverted or chance to give a higher boost to sector and slight boost to burst damage of the sector system. as it stands now no one uses this skill since AA heavy ships lose AA from taking it since they lose out on the sector boost and ships with bad AA just have better options to take with the 4 points this skill cost. 5) CV Consumables. Another Thing WG did to "make it easier for CV" the auto Consumables on one hand make since as your never really on your CV but this is something that also angers people and tbf is just not needed. let CV use there DCP and CB while in control of the planes (give DCP something like 30s active and 120s/90s CD without/with prem consumable respectively), with the added hull control [there a whole lot keys not map to anything when using CV it wouldn't be hard to map hull/speed and 2 consumable to unused keys], and change the CV fire duration back to 60s 18% hp for full fire, and flood to 40s 20% Hp for full... ie same as BB fire/flood duration. CV don't need the longes DCP and also the shortest DOT duration in the game its just not needed. this would add some skill to DPC use and CV should be punish for misusing there DPC just like everyone else. there should be some learning cure for the class just like the other classes have. 6) DAAF.. alright lets cut to it many thing this consumable is pointless now even tho it still boost AA DPS it doesn't give the panic effect it use to. so idea remove the 300% flack damage boost. keep the 50% passive damage boost and add a 15% increase to the time it take the planes to fully aim while in the ships AA aura. this will make it harder for CV to get that perfect aim up while in the effect of the consumable and gives the consumable back it panic effect. I think just these 6 changes to CV would make the interaction between the CV and other classes better then how its currently seen and would give much more skill need to play CV to there fullest. [with the whole deplane crap being a real threat to bad CV players]. I hope WG sees this and maybe one day do these things but i know that like most of use who give suggestions like such it will simple fall on deft ears at WG. But hey its just a thought. im sure there will be enough salt below to keep jingles salt mines running for the next year or so. XD
  8. O7 captains and WG Staff Personal opinion and point of view , Destroyers are one of the ships that have most impact in the game and thinking about the future with submarines coming too , the pressure and the things they have to do on each battle becomes too heavy , they have to spot for the team , capture key areas and future the job of hunt submarines and drop depth charges, and they have so little reward or recognition for their effort at the end of the match My opinion or suggestions with so many ships containing Radar and Hydroacoustics now days , destroyers shouldn't be detected if they are completely full stopped in smoke by Hydroacoustics and yes detected by radars regardless smoke or full stopped Also a total rework or change mechanics getting some more retribution at the end of the battle on team score , from xp by shooting down planes any ship, spotting and capturing areas regardless the damage , they can have low damage but they were spotting the enemy for the entire team and there's so little recognition from that from the games and teammates , same with battleships and potential damage they receive , instead playing as a team it makes the game more like a solo player game , ",Why risk my ship for capture or whatever if I won't get support from my team or I won't get recognized for that or "x" action" battleships sniping from max range when they are the ones should be front lines getting the heat for cruisers on the team deal damage to the enemy ships Just per say an example at the end of the battle , the battle report/team score 1 battleship got top scored because he dealt 30k damage and received 500k potential damage Other battleship got deal 2k damage was at the bottom of the list but he got potential damage received of 3.5million Destroyers the same they can capture key areas and spot for the team but it's so little recognized at the end of the battle under team score and again is the ship with one of most impact in the game by capturing,spotting,torpedo or set on fire, best ship for flank because concealment they will have even more job in future for hunting submarines
  9. The fire mechanic in World of Warships has creeped in power steadily over the course of the game’s lifespan. In particular, it has made playing battleships, one of the primary draws of the game for some people, incredibly unhealthy. Fire, as it stands, deals percentage damage based upon health. Battleships, naturally, will have the most health in the game. This makes it so that when a battleship is lit on fire, with even one stack of fire, that stack of fire will deal approximately ten thousand damage before extinguishing. This is roughly equivalent to a full AP salvo from another battleship of the same tier. This much "free" damage is quite unhealthy for the game as it's lead HE being the primary shell fired by ships, even though those ships should be reasonably shooting AP. I will also note that fire ignition chances for some ships are, frankly, crazy high while other ships have pathetically low chances to start fires. On some ships, like Atlanta, the chance for fires to be ignited is so low that you can hammer someone for a solid 30 seconds and hit them with 100+ HE shells and set no fires. On other ships, like Conqueror, the fire chances are so high that they can miss 90% of their salvo but one shell will hit and cause a fire for a no-effort ten thousand damage unless the affected ship happens to have repair party on hand. Unfortunately, repair party is not an effective counter to fire. It will certainly save your bacon from 3 surprise fires, but the moment that repair party’s active period is over you can immediately be lit on fire again. Given that repair party’s active period is shorter than most ships reloads, it is entirely possible to take a hit and be lit on fire, extinguish the fire, and then be immediately set on fire by the same ship mere moments later. Additionally, fire mechanics have been heavily biased against carriers and battleships while cruisers and destroyers have had fire nerfed specifically for them. Carriers take 1.5x damage from fire and battleships take standard damage. Destoryers and cruisers, however, take only 0.5x damage from fire. This is in addition to destroyers having no citadel and taking virtually no damage from AP shells due to every AP shell constantly over-penetrating, while cruisers have multiple spots where ships can reliably overpen then for minimal damage if they’re shooting AP. Thus, I would like to propose several nerfs and a change to fire in order to standardize fire damage and make it not as cancerous to deal with. Firstly, I would like the %HP damage removed and all damage dealt to be dealt as flat damage instead. This would cause battleships to not take ten thousand plus damage from one stack of fire. From there, I would like fire duration to be cut in half for battleships. As it stands, Fire lasts for sixty seconds. Cutting this down to thirty (without also cramming down the ticks of damage and whatever else) would make fire much more manageable since it wouldn’t feel like you can spend most of the game on fire like you can now. Additionally, a nerf by 15 seconds for large cruisers would keep them in line with the rest of the fire changes. In addition, I would like for fire chances to be capped at about 40-50%. Maybe lower. Extra fire chance would simply be wasted. I really don't like that you can miss most of a salvo of HE and yet one lucky hit will start a fire immediately. I would also like to introduce a “scaling” fire system. As it stands, there are 3-4 fire slots on a ship, these would be shrunk down to one so that you are either on fire or not on fire. When a fire is lit with this system, it would start out as a “small” fire and burn for about ten seconds. Additional hits from HE shells on the same ship would cause the fire to increase in intensity from small, to medium, and finally large, represented with an additional fire icon like the current system has and additional flames on the ship. Each would add ten seconds to the flame duration and increase the total amount of damage the fire would cause. Fires would still be no longer than thirty seconds total, but a lucky hit would no longer ensure full fire damage. Finally, I would like it so that fire damage is standardized across ship types. No more 1.5x for carriers and no more 0.5x for destroyers and cruisers. With these changes, fire should be remarkably less powerful. However, this would probably also result in HE shells quickly being called “useless” by many players, and thus I have an additional proposal to change fire mechanics and HE shells that may make them more useful to the ships that should be shooting HE. The proposal to buff them is a “rattled” system where if a ship takes a large number of hits from large caliber HE shells (relative to the size of the ship) the ship has the potential for the “rattled” effect to occur. The “rattled” effect would be total control loss for approximately one or one and a half seconds. No steering, no speed changes, no firing, no aiming. Picture it like the crew got thrown to the ground and has to quickly get back up. This would push HE back towards being a more status-effect oriented shell rather than the insane damage it can currently cause and it would additionally help prevent from a ship with a tiny little pop gun that should reasonably do little to no damage to a ship being able to deal ten thousand plus damage by getting lucky with RNG and setting a fire. I will happily welcome all feedback or corrections should I be mistaken about something.
  10. Been thinking about this for a while after I saw the the changes to Cruiser plating and IFHE. Namely I am curious about the following, consider it a bit of theorycrafting that I found interesting. Now, Mogami as most know is viable both with the stock 155mm and the 203mm main battery. So I'm wondering what will happen. Will Mogami retain 25mm extremities since it's "top" upgrade is over 200mm caliber? Will she get 16mm extremities since 155mm is pretty popular? Will her armor scheme change depending on which caliber guns you outfit her with? Will she maybe split as a CL and CA version, with each ship having a main battery of only one caliber? Am quite interested in seeing how this turns out, especially since Mogami is the only case of a cruiser where this unique situation occurs. In a sense Mogami is a Schrodingers cat, being a Light and Heavy cruiser at the same time.
  11. Hello everyone I m an active player and I currently own most of the high tier battleships and cruisers in the game and I m a big fan of secondary armament. However, as everyone knows already, the secondaries are terribly underpowered, even if you invest a huge amount of resources, time and experiences ( module, flag, and 14-18points captain ), they still feel underwhelming to use. Personally, I would like to see a global, across the board secondary buff to all ships in the game, such as giving the effect of secondary mod 1 to all ship, and a change to the dispersion formula for secondary armaments. Of course, we need the buff their range. These are just my personal opinions and I would like to know what you guys all think of the current state of secondaries in World of Warships. . Edit: I think that there is one easy way to improve secondaries and make them feel a lot better to use: Simple make the secondaries shoot other targets when using Manual secondary, but the target not selected manual won't have the accuracy buff from the captain skill.
  12. Fair warning/Disclaimer: This post is rather long, but it is so for a reason. This is a very important topic and nothing about the discussion about the problems around the proposed changes can be left out without properly portraying every failure and flaw in its current situation Although Giulio Cesare was arguably too strong at tier V, (Okt Rev, Texas, and the ARP Kongo clones were about the same level as her performance wise let's be honest, especially the ARP Clones since if we're to judge things based on other ships stats of the same tier the ARP ships global average stats are practically the same.) but that isn't exactly the fault of the GC directly, think about it: what's the main thing that makes the GC tend to perform better than her contemporaries? Her accuracy. GC by far has the best accuracy of all the other battleships at her tier, and for most of the tech tree BB's at her tier their accuracy is downright atrociously bad (looking at you Texas/New York, König, and Bretange). So of course If you're more likely to actually land more shells on target, even though they're smaller, you're going to be doing more damage as a result. Again this isn't at fault of the GC for most of the other TV BB's just being mediocre at best, if anything they should be getting some tweaks to bring them more in line with the rest. But that's just a fraction of what's wrong at Tier B currently, which I'm planning to make a post on later today covering that in-depth, this is on the TVI problems so I'll get back to that. There are currently a lucritave amount of issues with her being at tier VI. So let's start off with a simple one: None of her stats have been buffed, aside from a pointless armor buff (since every cruiser and destroyer you're going to be facing can pen your bow with IFHE anyway it doesn't matter. Plus the fact that even some of your new Tier VI counterparts like the Warspite, QE, and Bayern can just lol-pen your bow anyway it again means your armor doesn't matter, which is beyond infuriating for a ship that is supposed to rely on its armor.), and a slight HP increase nothing has been done to make her even be able to be mediocre at her tier at best. Tier VIII and VI carriers will be able to strike you with impunity, Notser has even shown off how over the course of being constantly hounded by a carrier he never shot own a single attack aircraft. That's a pretty damn big problem. Then there's the fact that although her armor's been "improved" it hasn't actually made it better, let alone be enough to withstand shots at tier VI like she used to at Tier V, since this is a whole new ballpark of ships to face. Since beforehand when you fought Tier VII BB's you actually had a chance of fighting back with your armor and guns if you played your cards right. But when facing Tier VIII BB's you have zero chance of even having so little as a hope of being capable of fighting back, since your gun caliber is so low for its tier (beating out the previous Champ Dunkerque with its 330mm guns with GC's 320mm guns), imcombination of its short range for its tier now (that even most cruisers at tier VI can outrage her now, let alone higher tier ones,) with the addition of the fact that your armor doesn't stand up like it used to against your highest tier possible opponents, as literally every single tier VIII BB will be able to just rip you apart no matter how you angle, as they all overmatch your bow, allowing them to do massive damage to you while you won't be able to do even moderate damage in return unless they're presenting practically a perfect broadside. Which isn't something that can be corrected to no longer make it the case without completely overhauling every other Tier VI BB, and at that point it'd make more sense to just leave her at tier V. Then there's the issue that the reload is now appalling given its new tier placement, given how ships like Dunkerque with its 2x4 330mm guns has a full 4 second faster reload, that's with 4 guns packed into two turrets and being 10mm larger yet still reloading faster than the GC. Then there's the Fuso: she has 6x2 356mm guns that reload in 28 seconds, while the GC has two less guns, again of a lower caliber, that still bafflingly manage to reload a full 2 seconds slower. Then there's the problem of her now having Tier VI MM, which not only is a far more aggressive MM tier than Tier V as you're far more likely to be bottom tier at tier VI than Tier V. Then there's the issue with that MM not being what those who bought the Giulio Cesare bought into: they bought a Tier V battleship because they wanted to play a battleship at tier V with that specific MM, if they wanted to play a BB at tier VI with tier VI MM they would have bought something else like the Warspite or Dunkerque. Which that same new MM placement also completely ruins the enjoyability of the ship due to you now running into so many tier VIII ships that are entirely designed around killing BB's: the Asashio (which I detest that monstrosity), the Akizuiki/HSF harakazae (with the Akizuiki gun turret hull) due to their ludicrous fire rates and being able to IFHE the entirety of the GC at tier VI, every single tier VI and VIII carrier (they can maul you but good luck shooting down a single plane), and again every Tier VIII BB can just lol-pen your bow and Godspeed trying to do anything to them in return unless they're broadside and even then you'll barely do any substantial damage to them. So unless you can make it not face Tier VIII's it will never be a comfortable fit at that tier like it was at Tier VI. Since it can't stand a chance of holding its ground like it could bottom tier at tier V like it would have to now at tier VI. Not to mention there's no role or job the Cesare can currently fill that another battleship doesn't do it massively better than the GC, which leads to there being no point to ever own or play her, as there's just a better ship for every role that does that job but better than the GC in its current state. Warspite does the accuracy and devastating salvo job better thanks to its 2.1 Sigma and 15" guns, that hit more often and hit harder Arizona also fills that same Accurate BB sniper role better as it is Dunkerque fills the same fast flanker role, but with a much faster reload, it is actually faster, and has all its guns in the front P E F already claims the Secondary/Brawler spot  The West V 1941 has better damage potential by far with the same reload speed.  There's just nothing it can do that any other Tier VI already does but better And this is without bringing up the issues of invalidating prior business agreements by changing a product in this manner after it was sold under the assertion that it would never be changed, nerfed, or made worse farther down the line. (Which wouldn't that technically be an invalidation of their previous EULA/TOS promises during the time it was being sold? As wasn't it advertised that it would never be tampered with later down the line?). That's not even mentioning the legal repercussions an action like this could entail, and am legitimately and rather unfortunately finding myself considering if they don't handle this properly. And finally to the argument of "Premium ships ahould be able to have their stats nerfed or made worse after their sold" I have this to say: alright, I'll take that moving forward from here on out only, but you still can't change those that have been already sold, as they were sold with the promise and contract that they wouldn't be changed or modified later down the line. As that's where I draw the line. Which is another reason every fiber of my being is against this change. In conclusion: what exactly am I wanting to happen? WG to cancel the move to teir VI and instead roll-back the buffs given to the GC over the period of time that she's been on sale, that way she's able to be toned down a notch, without it no longer being what people purchased to begin with. The buffs to her were unnecessary and were done after she was for sale, and would be enough of a change to make her no longer OP to the degree she's at; making the ones for the change happy as she's no longer as strong, and those that own her happy as they keep her at tier V, and not have her trashed by having to fight as a tier VI.
  13. So I've been meaning to bring this up for awhile; given that Wargaming recently purchased Fractured Space's developer: https://www.pcgamer.com/fractured-space-developer-edge-case-games-joins-wargamings-new-mmo-team/ While WGing does not OWN Fractured Space, they do have access to the same ideas and talent brought in (and is why this is NOT promoting another product). And I really liked Fractured Space and many did also, and the reasons it ran into problems are TOTALLY different from what WoWs is. So, to those that played it, what features in Fractured Space/Modes/methods/concepts would you like to see here? As WoWs is much closer in similar gameplay than WoT's is to Fractured Space. Personally, I'd like the the armor facing system to be transposed. In Fractured Space, your armor degraded with damage, and the more damage it took, the more damage you took, until it was totally degraded and you received massive damage. To mitigate that, you could change facing, in the case of a space game, you had 6 faces, top, bottom, port and starboard, bow and stern. Within each you had zones (similar to how WoWs breaks up your ship into 3 zones now), so that if you break the forward port armor, the rear port armor is still sorta okay) you could change facing to shift fire from one armor section to another to reduce damage, and armor passively regenerated over time (when it was not taking damage). In this game you could have 5: deck, bow, stern, port and starboard. I think this would be superior to the current armor system that is largely based on angling, and instead make it more about movement; taking too much damage on your port, shift sides and let your port side repair while you starboard takes the damage. I think this would work better for 2 main reasons: 1) It encourages movement and punishes bowtanking/camping gameplay (as if you keep taking damage in that 1 spot damage increases, not decreases as damage saturation works now) and 2) It gives a meaningful way for ships like DD's or CL's to compete against BB guns by having weak, but fast regenerating armor facings that work in favor to their more dancy gameplay style. There are other features WGing can leverage from their new acquisition as well but I wonder if anyone else sees possibilities.
  14. Seniorious

    Duke of York rebalancing

    So on the launch kick with premium time and grinding for my Fiji, I've been swapping between Emerald/Leander and DoY on the downtime, and did research on it too. It can definitely be said, the ship is kind of a hotmess, though not to the degree of other premium ships. Rather, it has a case of strange identity. During testing it was tried as a no-heal battleship with DF and Hydro, but was changed. Aswell, she pays for her AA-suite and Hydro with increased reload from 25s to 29.5s and a slower rudder shift, and even has one heal less. This might not sound that big a deal, but with a ship that can be overmatched relatively easily and can't use all her artillery without showing total broadside, it's an important aspect. Oddly enough, neither Texas or Kii pay such heavy prices, and both of them represent incredible AA for the tier. Duke of York for whatever reason also received improved bounce angles on her AP, so the reasoning behind how she was designed after the original concept failed is beyond me. However, I have an idea for rebalancing the Duke of York and making more significant in her uniqueness, while still retaining some identity in common with other Royal Navy premiums. I bring the Belfast and Perth to the floor. Both are premium versions of their tech tree leadships, but they pay prices for certain advantages over them. Namely, these ships have access to HE, at the cost of the special RN AP that the TT versions have; Belfast also paying with her torpedoes (though she gains a consumable in return, like DoY). While they lost a special aspect given to the RN, they gained a far more utilitarian tool that is worth having. I would suggest the reverse for DoY however.....strip the ship of her Royal Navy HE. No 1/4-Pen rule. Bring her fire chance back in line with the other 14" guns (which ranges from around 25%-30%). Let her retain the special AP bounce angles over her sister KGV. In return for this aspect removal, grant the DoY her 25s reload, the extra heal charge and switch out the Hydro Acoustic Search with Defensive Fire to lean on her AA-Suite gimmick. Nothing else would really need to be changed. With these changes, DoY loses out on HE performance and ruddershift to the KGV. What she gains is more effective AP artillery, Impressive AA suite, and gain the Defensive Fire consumable that makes Hood capable of protecting itself from carriers. Major downsides? DoY would no longer be capable of punching uptiers with her HE, and her AP would only serve highly on cruisers and broadside battleships. The Royal Navy HE is a major part of what permits the design to function. This would majorly impact her performance. Major upsides? DoY's effective, not theoretical AP DPM will be much higher as the bounce angle change appears to have significant effect in my experience. She'll gain superior self-defense capability, making her more survivable against carriers. This itself isn't an outright buff, as carriers are not that present of a threat. In itself, it functions as the gimmick for what it is. Sometimes worthwhile, sometimes not. Anticipated argument: Some people like having the Hydrosearch, which is indentical to Fiji's. I can understand this to a degree....but it doesn't particularly fit the ship either. Bismarck's is a self-defense tool that works into her brawling strengths that is a self-encompassing ball of secondaries, hydro, turtleback, and fast reloading 380mm guns. DoY has a glacial ruddershift on top of bad turret angles that makes her terrible at fighting anywhere near ships where it might be useful. People have mentioned using it to push smokes and while I have done this, it's frankly insane. it'll surprise some DDs, but many will simply dump on the DoY quickly and the ruddershift will stall you from dodging, even if the hydro spots it from launch. As a defense tool to push into swamped areas, it functions for 1:30 and then you're free to be torped. No option for extended hydro either as far as I understand, but I could be wrong. It's of questionable use in my opinion, functioning mainly in questionable scenarios by way of questionable decisions. In this case, it can be made that one can choose and swap between Hydro and Defensive Fire on the same slot. Frankly though, it just makes the most sense to have a consumable that buffs your gimmick. So this is what it leads to. What would you prefer? A: DoY w/o RN HE shells, w/KGV reload, KGV Heal, DefensiveFire/Hydro consumable slot + AA-Suite (Don't forget the bounce angles) B: The DoY we have right now. Posted in this specific forum section for discussion. It is not a suggestion, yet.