Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'damage'.



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
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • 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
  • Support

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 99 results

  1. Damage in Co-Op Battles

    Hello All, Ever since this recent patch of 0.7.7 I have noticed while playing cruisers that damage taken is considerable worse. With out fail over 50% of my hit points are taken by a single round from another ship, like I am in paper armor. Has anyone else noticed this?
  2. Would someone care to try to explain this? How the [edited] did I get close to 1k base xp with only 15k damage?
  3. We are going back to a Ranked Cleveland replay where I remember to bring the correct consumables. In this game I show how positioning, not damage, helps bring the team to victory. Hope you guys like the video. I have something coming through the pipe-line that is quite a bit different than these replay videos. I think it will just as fun to watch as I am having making it. Also, next week I will be going on vacation so I am working to have 3 videos on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday pre-recorded and uploaded for your viewing pleasure.
  4. Flood Compartments

    In my LYON I had one lame game in which one enemy was destroyed out of 12 in random. Out team sustain over 50% loss in the meanwhile. Well anyways the interesting point i want to discuss is that my Lyon took one torpedo hit in the rear but yet the flood caused over 60% damage as I was out of repair and heal at that moment. Which brings up the question of Doesn't BB's have flood compartments to minimize the max a torpedo can do? The most a torpedo could do is to damage the bisection of the wall so it floods two compartments..unless the torp causes an explosion which causes damage to others..but is that how it works? Another buggy thing was that it was indicated that a DD sunk me with one shell as I was very LOW on HP but it was not shown on the damage report ?? I dunno..seems like a buggy game but never experienced this level of buggy! till now.
  5. When I think I have somewhat of an idea about causing damage something happens in game to make me question whats going on. Are citadels included in your hit total or are they counted separate? As I understand it the maximum amount of damage you can do is limit by the HP's remaining on your target. A ship with 1000 HP left will only score a maximum of 1000 damage points regardless of the maximum damage a shell/torpedo/bomb can do. Is this correct? I watched the videos & read several posts about scoring citadels. They talked about where to aim to increase your chances. I fire at a cruiser that turned at the same time I shot. I watched the shells. One bounced off the end of the stern but I receive a citadel . All the others were behind the ship. I fire a broadside & hit the broadside of the targeted ship. It shows several hits, 3 pins but I score zero damage. My friends & I Skype when we are playing. To their knowledge they have never had a pin without scoring damage.
  6. Most damage I've ever done, still lost...

    Hi there guys... Beorn here. Wallet warrior par excellence. As has been mentioned in threads elsewhere, some folks believe that people like me don't deserve to have high tier ships. Well, I guess, sometimes we don't demonstrate effective usage. I mean, I only have 2 tier 10 boats (in order of acquisition): Großer Kurfürst, and the Minotaur. I only have two 19 point captains: the American "John Doe" (I usually bounce around my American Battleships [principally the Texas, Arizona, Alabama and Missouri]) and my Großer Kurfürst captain. I also have an under 50% win rate, and, although NONE of the signature programs have updated in the past ONE THOUSAND [edited] battles, I have made a slow, steady, improvement in accuracy with both main guns, torpedoes, and damage per match, win or lose. And yet, here it is, the most damage I have EVER done, in a losing effort. I was penned in between two cruisers on one side of an island I was floating back and forth behind, and a battleship and a destroyer on the OTHER side. I simply could NOT get back to our cap to defend and save the game. I know that my teammates had their own problems, yet as the diamond lost more and more green, I saw only one of the team even try to make it back to our cap; and he was sunk. By the time I could wrest myself from the awkward position I was in, it was too late and we got capped out. So, in this first match I EVER did more than 145k damage (and the previous records were all Battleships), Mr. Squishy, my belovéd Minotaur (my two tier 10s are favorites of mine) just couldn't make it happen... I am gutted. But I am NOT giving up, and I am NOT turning in my dizzying array of premium vessels to make some dude who plays better than I do at a digital game feel "happy." In the real world, I spent the vast majority of my life (well over 30 years) competing in combat sports. As a matter of fact, that is why I am getting a hip replacement this year; brutalizing my body for fun and to pit myself against folks in meat-space. Here in the realms ethereal, I am not as good; but I am NOT giving up dammit. And I will take this HARD loss, and, hopefully, learn from it. Y'all have a good time out there, and I wish better luck for you than I've had. ~Beorn (crippled curmudgeon)
  7. New Damage record

    Just got done this match. Not a huge amount of damage, but I'll take it. It's a record for me at least.
  8. Bit confused about this particular mechanic. I was angled extremely and the torp hit me just ahead of the rear turrets in the center. Didn't detonate, had flag. I was at full health with SE (18650) and had not previously been damaged. Got hit by an Akat torp which at best does 17.2 damage. Yet I died instantly. What am I missing?
  9. hello this I the first time I am posting on the forums. I was wondering if this was the highest damage or kills done in an Ohama. This game was play on the NA server during Christmas eve. Unfortunately I didn't turn on my recording.
  10. Lion Missouri FDG Izumo Iowa 1 49.59% 90.79% 60.00% 54.81% 64.08% 2 53.85% 83.03% 63.78% 59.26% 70.41% 3 55.56% 91.23% 70.00% 44.23% 63.30% 4 50.00% 79.17% 67.86% 56.48% 74.04% 5 58.33% 63.37% 64.57% 61.39% 70.86% 6 63.64% 71.04% 57.84% 68.47% 78.43% 7 53.77% 70.83% 62.50% 53.40% 68.13% 8 48.00% 67.05% 52.00% 60.68% 64.97% 9 63.64% 66.41% 72.46% 58.41% 73.64% 10 48.48% 76.47% 64.08% 51.35% 78.23% 1 47.24% 70.11% 48.15% 54.79% 70.91% 2 54.76% 78.81% 58.42% 64.80% 61.86% 3 55.40% 57.77% 56.03% 57.41% 65.65% 4 58.00% 64.95% 60.66% 59.42% 63.41% 5 54.62% 67.94% 67.86% 64.36% 64.42% 6 53.01% 63.09% 70.29% 55.56% 71.43% 7 58.82% 72.17% 77.68% 71.43% 69.73% 8 44.95% 79.34% 54.37% 62.50% 59.20% 9 40.68% 69.57% 57.36% 61.86% 64.44% 20 60.53% 73.15% 53.57% 52.88% 67.44% 1 48.89% 77.24% 54.97% 63.16% 80.92% 2 41.67% 64.52% 78.57% 60.36% 65.49% 3 64.41% 71.05% 63.55% 45.10% 56.45% 4 50.49% 89.52% 60.17% 52.48% 53.08% 5 55.56% 58.49% 62.88% 64.00% 61.16% 6 51.85% 72.25% 74.11% 62.50% 61.44% 7 49.11% 77.42% 55.38% 67.69% 64.84% 8 47.57% 64.91% 53.85% 59.65% 56.36% 9 49.00% 69.84% 62.14% 53.00% 63.31% 30 59.80% 75.15% 57.00% 56.74% 57.94% 1 54.70% 64.74% 63.09% 50.82% 51.35% 2 48.41% 74.42% 43.52% 61.36% 66.12% 3 49.62% 62.74% 62.09% 61.79% 72.59% 4 58.88% 73.04% 56.03% 60.17% 65.60% 5 46.49% 77.78% 61.66% 57.48% 58.86% 6 39.52% 65.42% 64.08% 47.89% 52.25% 7 48.33% 65.83% 59.63% 56.00% 53.25% 8 46.90% 56.36% 58.93% 54.84% 70.73% 9 51.49% 60.44% 60.58% 51.82% 65.22% 40 58.42% 75.20% 67.00% 50.41% 58.42% 1 43.36% 65.61% 67.83% 54.17% 53.70% 2 53.23% 68.16% 68.57% 54.30% 75.25% 3 54.76% 70.00% 61.19% 52.03% 60.73% 4 48.04% 68.67% 60.75% 55.00% 61.82% 5 43.42% 67.57% 70.87% 64.84% 63.08% 6 50.00% 80.70% 57.52% 52.63% 72.48% 7 51.97% 57.52% 53.70% 55.56% 61.59% 8 45.16% 66.12% 59.54% 67.00% 67.41% 9 54.36% 71.21% 47.93% 47.27% 58.77% 50 48.72% 59.09% 58.93% 62.16% 63.11% Avg 51.74% 70.55% 61.31% 57.51% 64.76% Yes, they need a nerf. They need to nerf the HE chance to make players fire more AP and affect game outcomes more. Data says.... So I had a minute this afternoon, and decided to examine the performance of the UK BBs from another angle. The numbers above are from WarshipsToday, NA server, downloaded today. They show the win rates for the top 50 average damage players for those ships (100 games min). Thus, the ranking is by damage; the first number there is the win rate of the top average damage player for that ship. For the T9 BBs note a couple of things. Lion is not a carrybote -- you can be a server leader in Lion and yet have win rates below 50%, as a number of players do. Izumo is not very good at carrying but if you do well in Izumo, you will generally carry. Freddie is slightly better. But if you are boss in Missouri and Iowa, you are going to win -- nobody in the top 50 has a win rate below 50%. The US BBs are carrybotes, at least in this tier. Finally, look at the average win rate. The Lion is being played by experienced players, largely, who know how to win. Yet she has by far the lowest average win rate for top 50 damage players. Same data for T10 below.... Conq Yam GK Montana 1 60.91% 65.79% 59.83% 72.22% 2 67.95% 77.35% 66.04% 70.63% 3 75.34% 71.71% 75.63% 78.50% 4 62.21% 72.02% 86.67% 64.41% 5 70.86% 67.46% 67.11% 79.21% 6 58.18% 76.24% 58.77% 89.35% 7 63.16% 66.35% 64.09% 64.29% 8 59.86% 60.57% 69.18% 69.67% 9 68.07% 66.67% 69.16% 65.55% 10 56.96% 60.00% 59.20% 79.90% 1 45.73% 63.19% 68.70% 68.13% 2 55.45% 58.11% 69.91% 52.17% 3 73.33% 62.10% 81.44% 66.32% 4 71.96% 59.52% 72.55% 62.50% 5 57.00% 68.72% 62.16% 63.01% 6 64.29% 69.79% 62.26% 63.53% 7 67.42% 53.39% 74.67% 68.45% 8 70.90% 57.28% 70.09% 64.53% 9 55.84% 75.84% 68.67% 76.38% 20 62.20% 52.24% 64.14% 72.11% 1 62.54% 66.37% 82.46% 69.96% 2 68.14% 64.46% 67.19% 85.40% 3 66.67% 63.35% 65.04% 70.63% 4 61.71% 61.29% 64.62% 62.18% 5 44.29% 58.79% 61.01% 69.67% 6 55.96% 61.21% 70.06% 56.74% 7 68.14% 67.33% 61.84% 76.62% 8 62.05% 59.11% 55.33% 69.10% 9 46.92% 64.38% 65.35% 58.82% 30 57.39% 59.48% 75.00% 54.05% 1 55.80% 58.87% 65.04% 72.22% 2 71.05% 62.68% 54.30% 70.08% 3 58.40% 67.49% 70.83% 61.60% 4 51.89% 74.88% 65.38% 65.80% 5 55.93% 65.34% 75.41% 57.64% 6 57.66% 65.14% 60.74% 59.07% 7 56.03% 73.32% 64.60% 72.00% 8 65.38% 57.19% 64.02% 60.00% 9 52.69% 62.32% 67.02% 61.90% 40 57.94% 58.33% 69.09% 74.14% 1 57.98% 51.67% 57.25% 74.05% 2 52.34% 61.02% 52.94% 71.47% 3 64.49% 64.30% 68.14% 71.29% 4 59.71% 53.44% 64.60% 74.90% 5 45.75% 50.96% 64.11% 67.42% 6 52.08% 62.20% 60.71% 65.95% 7 56.48% 52.07% 60.32% 62.04% 8 67.68% 57.89% 59.09% 53.89% 9 60.34% 51.03% 55.88% 73.95% 50 54.10% 58.59% 66.67% 56.70% Avg 60.30% 62.78% 66.09% 67.80% Same situation with Conk. Its average win rate for top 50 damage players is the lowest, and unlike the other BBs, it has several players in the top 50 with sub 50% win rates. Strikingly, none of the other T10 BBs offers a sub 50% win rate player in the top 50 damage players. You do big damage in a Monty, Yammy, or GK, you gonna carry. Conk? Not so much. Finally here are the numbers for the T7 BBs... the KGV is sometimes thought OP.... KGV Nelson Scharn Hood Gneis Nagato Colorado 1 59.00% 59.20% 83.57% 69.89% 61.78% 72.92% 70.43% 2 60.50% 69.59% 76.32% 64.47% 69.60% 64.15% 67.70% 3 68.32% 70.37% 72.00% 60.80% 75.86% 69.19% 84.30% 4 64.08% 66.29% 62.96% 67.97% 73.66% 64.42% 62.71% 5 57.89% 60.00% 70.39% 71.60% 66.67% 82.99% 64.16% 6 62.04% 64.71% 76.96% 64.41% 63.28% 67.66% 78.26% 7 62.42% 62.09% 65.65% 56.13% 63.31% 59.00% 60.75% 8 59.87% 68.07% 61.64% 62.00% 70.42% 85.44% 76.11% 9 58.82% 65.87% 76.36% 74.04% 62.59% 64.53% 67.29% 10 51.43% 66.98% 60.78% 49.57% 62.76% 58.42% 60.33% 1 61.27% 62.93% 69.28% 51.63% 65.49% 71.76% 63.89% 2 68.18% 48.99% 67.00% 53.54% 79.04% 66.46% 70.09% 3 59.20% 59.66% 87.29% 61.83% 70.00% 63.00% 64.14% 4 56.94% 59.52% 66.76% 67.00% 69.90% 56.73% 58.40% 5 64.71% 53.18% 72.28% 62.30% 72.52% 73.33% 70.05% 6 51.35% 54.92% 69.16% 65.28% 77.37% 68.86% 60.68% 7 59.46% 58.01% 64.34% 57.14% 61.39% 64.71% 58.13% 8 61.26% 58.14% 72.78% 62.73% 62.04% 60.77% 84.01% 9 58.33% 62.83% 80.47% 64.54% 72.80% 57.43% 62.16% 20 57.06% 60.00% 75.00% 52.88% 70.06% 63.35% 69.23% 1 55.33% 64.71% 78.43% 61.47% 66.67% 76.06% 59.46% 2 60.00% 57.78% 66.08% 57.25% 63.72% 60.87% 67.25% 3 53.77% 60.56% 73.49% 61.54% 66.01% 69.61% 65.52% 4 57.89% 66.96% 76.60% 71.71% 55.37% 62.55% 59.69% 5 51.64% 59.80% 72.66% 58.42% 74.29% 57.26% 56.82% 6 58.16% 63.35% 76.00% 57.43% 53.28% 67.88% 53.77% 7 52.40% 63.48% 66.67% 69.11% 67.57% 67.94% 50.47% 8 58.33% 55.81% 67.86% 52.78% 65.69% 62.22% 68.06% 9 52.44% 52.14% 58.70% 55.98% 60.80% 55.93% 62.32% 30 60.00% 55.48% 68.90% 51.46% 76.26% 57.89% 61.16% 1 53.78% 53.47% 76.47% 51.67% 68.93% 70.00% 54.72% 2 54.09% 57.04% 67.80% 57.07% 70.00% 71.33% 65.79% 3 50.27% 54.05% 67.78% 58.76% 59.82% 61.90% 63.25% 4 46.77% 44.55% 67.65% 52.48% 68.84% 64.67% 73.11% 5 52.31% 53.87% 73.23% 57.81% 67.63% 68.36% 60.10% 6 50.69% 52.50% 70.78% 53.13% 56.48% 68.22% 54.24% 7 52.68% 62.64% 70.75% 62.32% 61.95% 61.60% 59.14% 8 51.55% 53.49% 62.93% 54.42% 53.64% 64.66% 62.00% 9 55.88% 58.89% 68.79% 55.71% 65.73% 67.41% 61.58% 40 55.36% 56.21% 77.34% 53.57% 62.96% 71.21% 51.64% 1 49.02% 64.17% 77.16% 60.17% 67.20% 61.02% 62.00% 2 65.38% 61.47% 62.04% 58.56% 60.16% 60.00% 64.25% 3 58.69% 63.31% 86.50% 64.43% 60.77% 55.05% 58.33% 4 51.49% 56.83% 68.11% 55.22% 58.70% 72.53% 55.45% 5 47.62% 43.40% 62.43% 65.89% 66.82% 70.98% 50.86% 6 52.10% 58.89% 72.02% 56.00% 57.33% 80.00% 54.22% 7 53.71% 52.92% 63.33% 62.04% 76.09% 77.69% 64.86% 8 47.52% 47.06% 64.40% 54.55% 68.42% 63.89% 55.45% 9 56.86% 50.89% 66.96% 58.85% 63.89% 55.00% 58.14% 50 55.15% 48.08% 54.37% 55.24% 54.24% 56.35% 64.35% avg 56.46% 58.50% 70.34% 59.70% 65.80% 65.90% 63.02% Three UK BBs here and all three show the same pattern. The more the fire spammer you are, the less the carry bote you are. The KGV and Nelson have the most players with sub 50% win rates and the lowest average win rates. The Hood is third from the bottom but with only 1 sub 50% damage boat, and that one is just barely under -- Hood players fire AP and their damage counts (I suspect also you don't play that ship unless you know how to play it and like it). The other 4 BBs are all ahead, with Scharn scary-good in carrying, yet even Colorado has nobody in the top average damage with a sub 50% win rate. UK BBs. Buff 'em, please.
  11. French BB psych up thread

    Jumped into the Dunk for the first game of the night...my wife texted me, and said she was 10 min out with a van load of groceries...time for Le Banzai!!! Personal best as far as damage, and a near Kraken. Can I have the Richelieu yet? Please?
  12. Reload for damage control

    So it says in the update that reload for DDs drops from 60 seconds to 30. Really? All my dds are still at 54 seconds where they were before update. Am I missing something or have a wrong setting?
  13. Good day to all reading, I have a lil scenario to present to you. Being an American CV, I am sending a torpedo squadron to broadside an Iron Duke with over 3/4 health that's being shot at from at least 11km away by a CV. I think I'm cool so I use manual drop as close as possible (I know that there is a short portion of the green engagement zone that the torpedoes don't drop in, so I aim to engage the Iron Duke in a way that the torpedo icons appear on the map as it hits him). After dropping the torpedoes I watch his health go down thrice in a row and 1/4 torpedoes drift by that had missed but don't receive any ribbons. Keep in mind that those 4 torpedo bombers made it home and that their were no citadel hits. At the end of the match I only had caused 15k damage (torps do 9k each). Unfortunately I wasn't recording and have had this happen a couple times. Anyone else have this issue?
  14. Selecting a cruiser line

    Greeting captains, i recently became more interested on cruisers and wanted to find out which cruiser would be best for me. I began the Japanese line and i found it a bit boring, i hit tier 6 on the German line and lost interest. So i began doing some homework on this site (https://wows-numbers.com). I compared cruisers' AP and HE damage of all nations and of all tiers because that's a factor that would heavily affect my choice of ships. I'm not just looking for the most powerful tier 10 cruiser, i also want to enjoy whilst grinding. So i came up with these images based on data from https://wows-numbers.com. * T10 British cruiser doesn't have HE shells. After spending my time doing all this, i figured i should go with British cruisers because they become increasingly powerful as you progress up the tiers and apparently have smoke, which can be very useful as a cruiser. Any recommendations about which line i should choose?
  15. Screenie says it all! I love this ship!
  16. No luck with tiers VIII & IX on damage.

    I cannot begin to fathom why there is such a performance difference when I queue Kiev or Tashkent versus Udaloi. - Signals, no signals; captain's perks, no perks; low tier, high tier; it just doesn't seem to matter. I don't have a good game every time I queue Udaloi or one of the lower tier DDs (except typically of course Gremyashchy, but it's Gremy, so...) but I usually end up with 20 to 30K or so, often a daily 50-70K match. But, when I queue Kiev or Tash, I'm lucky to hit 20K and at times even getting 10K is all but impossible; I do not understand how so many shots can shatter or ricochet, along with starting none or almost no fires. I shouldn't be this hard to get an average result in either, only 33K for Kiev & 36K for Tash; I can go for a month or more of not playing Blys or Anshan yet still manage an average game in them quite often when I do. Surviving past initial contact in either, whether scouting or in a group, is also getting to be a ''wth just happened there'' chore; made even more head-shaking by often not being on the bottom despite a sub-10K score. Beyond frustrating - I cannot possibly be this unlucky so much of the time with these ships, or at least I hadn't thought so, but.... who the hell knows; I sure don't anymore.
  17. noob question

    I want to understand a situation that is happening to me more often now, I hope you can give me some details that I am missing. Using AP shells with my cruiser, I have penned some battleships of my same tier (tier 8) in their broadside, at close distance, shooting at the level of the sea I have more chances to penetrate them (I don't remember where I did read that). But in the same situation, versus a destroyer, even one tier below, my full salvo only does...590 dmg. I don't understand. So I want to understand why I am not able to deal more damage to a destroyer in its broadside, also, is that hard to hit the citadel of a destroyer?. Is more effective HE shells versus a destroyer if you are using a cruiser?. Thanks in advance
  18. I see them on wows numbers website while checking my status. What does it mean?
  19. This game is just bad. If you can't handle that thought, or are one of those people that validate their own existence to the perceived popularity of a piece of media, or think that a multi-million dollar, international conglomerate needs your defending from me, then please, don't reply, I don't want to read your bile and you can stop reading mine now because this will go right over your head. But it doesn't *have* to be bad. Seemingly, bizarrely, Wargaming Ltd. is deliberately *trying* to make this game bad; either due to gross incompetence, or breaking that basic engineering precept: don't try to reinvent the wheel. I took the last six weeks off from playing World of Warships, due largely to Wargaming's poor business choice and transparent fleecing of its community, but also because I was growing tired of what has amounted to a boring experience; every game in both Random and CoOp basically plays out in one of 3 possible ways. As a result I reacquainted myself with other games I had neglected, skipped, or, for the purposes that will follow, see how the concept of this game could be done elsewhere. I came back to play a few games in the intern; one a few weeks ago, and one or two last night. This has put me in the unique position of both 'detoxing' from this game, its playerbase, its 'meta,' really how it works, while at the same time, with upwards of 6000 matches played, very much still retaining an extensive experience on how it works. And I gotta say, now that I've put World of Warships in perspective to other games, both dramatically similar and dramatically different, is, frankly, a very poorly implemented one. But again, it doesn't have to be this way. And I think Wargaming would do well, especially in light of their... let's call it less than admirable behavior over the past month or two's 'incidences,' to very strongly consider a retooling of their outlook and take the following measures: 1. Increase transparency to the *intended* direction of their game(s). This is a big one. Most arguments, issues, perceptions of favoritism and pretty much 3/4's of the 'problems' seem to stem from not being at all clear what *WARGAMING* wants out of this game. Let's start from the place this game is very much an 'early access' title. It was released with less than 10% of the current content, with great swaths of content promised at release, and is constantly evolving over time. This is a Beta. And that's fine. But an important part is telling the community what your ultimate goal is. As it stands, we have a community with disparate interests: BB players want BB's to be indicative of their Ship-to-Ship gunnery supremacy, DD players want DD's to be not only useful, but interesting and feasible (lets put it under the blanket term, 'more forgiving'), CA's want a more balanced position between fast and shooty sneaky DD gameplay and Gunplay of BB's, and CV's want a coherent role in the game that allows them to both throw their weight as history suggests while at the same time be beyond a point and click adventure game. These goals are *mostly* (but not exclusively) antithetical to one another; you can't please *all* of them with one game. It would help, greatly, if we could know what Wargaming *wants* of each class. Clear cut with no illusions, no obfuscation, no fear (which is palpable in *many,* especially Sub_Octavian's responses), just honest and blunt: "This is what we want World of Warships to look like in a 'finished' state." Even if that goal isn't actually feasible, it would help in a great deal to know that. Putting this in perspective: We all know what Call of Duty seeks to be; racing, fast past, twitch arcade twitch shooting, with little emphasis on teamwork but rather personal glory. And it works stellar for them. They make gangbusters, and their community loves them. As a result demanding of Activision they say, integrate organizational efforts akin to SWAT 4, or weapons handling/ballistics of ARMA, or maps/scales the size of Just Cause really don't make sense. They are inherently incomparable with the clear, concise, and importantly, known goal of the development team. As a result no one expects that stuff and similarly doesn't feel betrayed when it doesn't show up or the game moves in the opposite direction. Similarly, you look at Starcraft. Blizzard had a pretty clear cut goal in what they were hoping to achieve, and were very open about what they were seeking to achieve. Everyone will argue about little balancing issues, but the overall goal is very clear cut. In contrast you look at the most recent Mass Effect game, Andromeda. The recent leaks of the development cycle was illuminating to say the least. But one thing that stuck out was that not only did they not express to their community, to their customers, what *they,* the developer wanted to achieve, it appears the developer itself didn't really hash out what they wanted to achieve either until it was far too late to realize the vision. World of Warships is, I see from overwhelming evidence, suffering the same problems. Debates over realism vs. 'fun,' population issues with classes, power creep, premiums, and many, MANY other issues stem, not really from the issue themselves, but the secretive and unclear goals of the Developer itself. People are smarter than I think Wargaming thinks they are, insofar as given a *context* people will more readily accept, acknowledge, and if need be, argue from a more appropriate stance. It would behoove Wargaming to, clearly, not concisely, explain what they want this game to be. Make it as hyperbolic as they want, that's okay in this case. Pretend you have an unlimited budget, unlimited time, and unlimited player count; what is Wargaming's dream of what this game is supposed to be and how are they working to achieve said dream. That, much more than anything, will quell some debate, restore some civility to discussion, and allow the community to better understand and thus accept decisions MADE by Wargaming in the direction the game goes. Because it would have context and context is key. 2. Learn that monetization, profit, money making does not have to come at the expense of product quality nor is needs to ever compromise a Free to Play's (FTP) game's efforts. Because it really doesn't. I believe and accept when they say, they want this game to very much be FTP and a fair FTP experience, while at the same time offering paid content. Moreover, I see no reason they can't make more money in the future as time goes on by retooling their methodology, and do so in a way that not only avoids pissing off the community, but actually is, not just appears, but is serving their interests. Win-win right? Here's how, and this if free advice from someone with an MBA who works on products of greater value than this (our last commission sold for (at launch) $335,000,000, that's what LNG's actually cost, and we've got another two keels being laid and I'm taking hullform design lead on the next major commission so they are trusting my judgement with, very literally, hundreds of millions of dollars); recognize people will pay for convenience. Notice that word, convenience. That is not a synonym for quality. Or quantity. It's for ease. That's the entire model on which iTunes, Netflix, Prime Video, Amazon Prime, Steam, XBLA, and many more distribution services work on. Because I can, with little effort or technical know how, get *most* of those products, for free, illegal or not, in similar quality, and, most importantly, quantity. I can go onto many streaming websites and get every movie on my computer for free. I can drive to a store and buy all the stuff on Amazon for similar if not cheaper price. I can find mirrors of nearly every major release on Steam within a fortnight of release. But I don't. Why? Because I, like a HUGE segment of the customer base, will pay for the convenience. World of Warships is not only comparable with this type of goods/content delivery, it's better suited for it than most other types of video games. Because it is very much an early access title, with new content added approximately once a month if not more often, there is a steady flow of goods. So you've got supply down. There is clearly a great many people that want to throw money at you, begging for you to create/release specific premium content, so demand is also a big check. But you also piss off a lot of your potential customers. I'm one of them. You won't get a dime for me ever again baring a real, concerted retooling of your model. That's thousands of dollars you're not getting from one person. And I'm not the only person that feels this way. Moreover, it's very unfriendly to a new customer. But it doesn't have to be. As it stands, you sell DLC, because that's what it is in essence, released periodically for, what really is in most cases, the cost of a brand new game. In the past six weeks I bought a few new games to play to get my head away from Tiered Wargames, and some of them were $30, some were $50, and one was $60. I bought Ghost Recon Wildlands, $60. I spent ~100 hours in it, or about $0.60 per hour. Now you sell premiums for a comparable price, especially at say Tier 7 and 8. I have one. The Sims. I've played 153 battles in it. Let's say, charitably, those battles lasted about on average ~17 minutes each. When I bought it, it sold for $30 in a package, but for simplicity sake we'll round it down to $25 which is the baseline cost for ship + port. That translates into about $0.58 per hour of gameplay. So comparable right? No. It's not. And I think this is the source of much issue with your monetization policy and the community's, let's called it 'spirited' debate thereof. Let me explain. Although the cost per hour is similar, the actual content is not, Let's keep with Ghost Recon; I can do *a lot* of stuff in that game. By that I mean, gameplay. I can be a sniper, a stealthy CQB, a balls out rambo. I can drive tanks, attack helicopters. I can drive or warp to my destination. I can fight in jungle, snowy mountains, and deserts. I can play for 100 hours by myself or 100 hours CoOperatively with friends. I can spend hours customizing my guns with attachments or uniforms for my operator. Two people can have *vastly* different experiences, almost unrecognizable so, over that $0.60 per hour gameplay. Let me stress I'm not saying this is a *good* game, I am not commented on quality, but rather content and gameplay. That's not true here. I buy the Sims, and play it for $0.58 per hour, but it's always the Sims. I can't decide to be a battleship in the Sims one match. Or a Carrier the next. The gameplay will always be routed in being the Sims. What that does is reduce the *value* potentially to a customer in a premium ship. And the Sims is a GREAT example of this, because it is notoriously a unique playing ship. So unless that *particular* gameplay appeals to me, I won't enjoy it, and I won't buy it. But as I espoused, that's not true in Ghost Recon. Or many, many other games. For the same price per hour, I can have wildly different experience. I can make the game play my way. But for the same costs, I can't do that here. This is why everyone doesn't buy EVERY ship. Which makes no sense. This is a niche game. And it's audience appeal is niche. And I'll come back to this but suffice to say, if the gameplay is all a player is after, and that gameplay is slow, methodical capital ship-esq combat, then World of Warships is one of the worst examples of this. Again, I will come back to this, but suffice to say, of the limited pool of comparable games, this one, purely from a gameplay sense, is objectively lacking in variety of content, not quality, because that's subjective, but on a checklist of what a player can do, this one checks far FEWER boxes, than others. So it's not the gameplay getting people here. Ostensibly it's not even the theme specifics of Warships, as, with Steel Oceans, recently released Cold Waters, Atlantic Fleet, the old Silent Hunters, even Assassin's Creed Black Flag, all can scratch the Navy part of a Naval Combat game. But they don't make the money this one does. So what's the real draw. Why success here and not elsewhere? I'd argue it's the volume (but not variety and there is a difference) of content and dedication to the setting. Now that's both Wargaming's greatest asset and greatest weakness; people come and spend money to play as their favorite, well remembered, and often moderately researched ship from WWi-WWII, *but* if you lack one or more of those, this game has little to no appeal. Which means you have both a captive, but limited, audience. So they love these ships, are willing to one degree or another learn about all these ships. Why don't they all buy all of them as released? Price is the low hanging fruit, $25-$55 is a lot for what amounts to piece of DLC but that's not the main factor I think. No, I think it's that, because of the game design decisions you've made, people question a purchase, of any value, because they are unsure if they will get a fair, balanced use of it. Put another way; let's say they sold individual guns, as in not skins but access to the gun itself, in CSGO. If I'm not a Sniper, and balance is not an issue, I won't, ever, buy a sniper rifle, because it doesn't fit the way I want to play and thus is not of value to me. If I don't ever play Battleships, releasing a $60 monstrosity, baring blatant, PTW features, I am totally not interested and not going to send you a dime. But. I do play Battleships. I do play DD's. I do play CV's, and tons of CA's. But I won't buy outside the ones that fit my playstyle. That's a lost sale. But it doesn't HAVE to be. See you have a VERY good system that can be monetized properly, and you don't even know it. Again, free advice; you have four distinct playstyles minimum; BB's don't play like any of the others, CV's ditto, CA's Ditto, and DD's Ditto. I will play all, but only buy from one or two. So, lets pretend you release content dispersed among these 4 types evenly (for simplicity sake). You do lets say, again, for simplicity sake, 24 a year, or ~2 a month. That's 6, maybe 12 ships a year I buy, and 18 or 12 I don't buy. . On average the cost is ~$35 per ship in the basic-most configuration. So if I buy all 6 ships a year that appeal to my class, and thus, gameplay choice, I will have spent $240 a year. But I also would not have spent $640 that year. How do you get that other $640 out of me. Now of course the reality is most players aren't going to pay any of those costs per year but lets play with this to make a point. Well, at the moment, it seems you are trying to make that other $640 irresistible by, frankly making them game changing. Overpowered is a strong word, but certainty ships that, to counter, require specific and unique behavior. I know how to counter every RN CL, but a Belfast requires slightly DIFFERENT play style and if I or my opponent (if I'm in a Belfast) don't apply that style, I/they will lose. Again, this isn't a question of Over Powered or not, but simply different. Another word is gimmick. That's not sustainable. You can't keep releasing ships with new, ever more inventive gimmicks to keep the public buying. There aren't an unlimited ways to skin a cat. So yeah you can get that extra $640 a year from me, for now, but when you run out of ideas it dries up fast, and in the meantime, you maybe damaging the overall picture. So how do you get that $640 from me if not gimmicks. Well, as we established: People pay for convenience, they expect a reciprocal value for their purchase, are engaged enough in this setting the appreciate quantity over quality, and that varied gameplay is not as in demand as much as more gameplay. So how do you turn that into an extra $640 a year? Subscription. Now hold your horses and let me explain. People like choices. They like being able to set their own path. I would never, and am not here, suggest removing any current monetization model in place (although staggered bundles need to go but I think you know that already so let's leave it at that). So keep selling ships individually, and in bundles, keep selling port slots, and premium currency, and a premium time (probably would need a retooling of price but it would be easily offset) all as separate purchasable items/service. BUT ADD, a subscription service. Now let's say that service costs $20 per month. Now if I do that for a full year, I'm already at the same $240 I was at buying the same ships that I would have purchased normally. How would this subscription work? Simply put: Premium time during that period, full access to every premium ship sold in the game, yes even the 'outlawed' ones, which we'll come back to how this becomes okay, and that's kinda all it has to be. Now if I let that lapse, unless I separately purchase a ship, I lose access to it. So I buy a Warspite, and then Subscribe, I can keep playing the Warspite but I can also now play the Atago. I unsubscribe, I can still keep playing Warspite, because I directly purchased her, but if I want to play Atago I either have to re-subscribe or buy it separately. So what you've created now is a reliable income, $20 per person every month, which is getting you to the SAME place you are in now $240 a year (which, breaking the wall established, is probably more than you get per player normally), without really losing anything in the process but will greatly be appreciated by players. Likewise, it has the added benefit of taking some 'heft' out of premiums. For one, you could nerf them now. For the same reason SWTOR can nerf premium content because it's a subscription based game, or World of Warcraft can do the same. For two, they no longer require to be as 'gimmicky.' Something I'm sure your development and balance team would appreciate. Now you're already getting that $240 a year with our without the gimmicks because yeah, I'll pay $20 a month to play the two new ships a month. But I won't spend $35 each unless they have one helluva gimmick. A third and most important benefit, is you NOW can open new avenues for monetization as the efforts previously dedicated to sell-sell-sell more and more gimmicky premiums is mostly taken out of the conversation. What are these new avenues? Well there's a lot but a short list: non-gameplay effected cosmetics (flags, camos w/o benefits and camos with benefits, skins), Special commanders, with increase player leveling rates, retraining costs would become a more regular source of income, port slots become a bigger commodity, and the big one; events. See a few games have realized, people will pay for events. That's Mann Up Mode in TF2, or tournament modes in other games, CoOp/Single player content in War Thunder. People will pay extra for special, separate gameplay. I mean I'll give you a simple version: you did the rubber ducky April Fools event two years ago, everyone got to play it for free, maybe, after the event is over for free, offer access to a CoOp version for $5-$10. It costs you very little to nothing, since you already went and built the damn thing, but now you might make some residuals on it after the fact. And it doesn't close you off from using it again in the future for free. Another example: sorta stolen from Mann Up Mode, but sell a ticket that lets you roll after doing a Hard Version of the new Scenarios for not a chance of a super container, but a guaranteed super container containing loot. Kinda like an Operation/Raid in other games. I can still play the Hard mode for free, and if I subscribe, I can still play the premium ships that may be present in that super container, but if I pay for the ticket, say like $5-$7 like Mann Up Tickets, now I can get it forever, even if I unsubscribe. That's a constructive way to monetize a game. It doesn't hurt the player base, It reduces any and all accusations of Pay 2 win because you genuinely don't HAVE to even skirt that realm anymore, and allows players to pay for that all important convenience; I don't have to study and research the gameplay of a new preimum ship, I just pay my $20 a month and get to access it form my own opinion. And of course, if I don't want to do that, I can still buy thing's outright, and you still get to make the money, but with a huge burden off both your shoulders, and your player base. 3. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel and acknowledge that the reason similar games work, is because the mechanics at play work. This is the part that's likely going to piss off most people as it's going to start leveling fingers at direct problems and making comparisons to other games which inevitably causes confusion between what one person proposes and the other interprets that's proposal. I am the first one to say EA Games has been a *[edited]* trying to chase the Call of Duty bubble, and in the process has killed 3 Battlefield games by instead of finding their own way, trying to make an 'EA' version of Call of Duty. Battlefield should be about Vehicle combat, because that's what they're good at, and Call of Duty should be about twitch, arcade shooting, because that's what they're good. But that's not the same thing as saying that, for where one overlaps the other, use the same, if not similar, mechanics. For example, Call of Duty should not put vehicles in their Multiplayer, it is incomparable with the quick-respawn-die gameplay, *but* using Battlefields more unobtrusive HUD is not a bad idea. Conversely, respawn times, game types, and map sizes found in Battlefield should not seek to ape Call of Duty's more claustrophobic design, the shooting mechanics, where applicable, should be one and the same as they work very well. I use this example to emphasis that copying another game, using things they do well is not the same as copying it wholesale. So when I say, and go into great detail later, the damage, buff/debuff/ utility characteristics of Fractured Space are vastly superior to World of Warships, I am not saying turn World of Warships into Fractured Space. Obviously, they are not comparable at all levels 1:1. But that doesn't mean a good idea there, can't translate into a good idea here. This is mostly directed at Wargaming (and will be sending copies to them in PM's because why not), but we're all engineer's and/or businessmen here. We all understand that if one guy does something that really works, it's not a bad idea to tool it to your purpose. Again, copying 1:1 is dubious and dangerous, but taking a concept, or a methodology is stupid to ignore. So why don't do you do it in World of Warships? I totally get forging your own way forward, but Lewis and Clark didn't manufacture their shoes. It's okay to use someone else's idea, otherwise we'd never get anywhere as you'd have to reinvent all of calculus, physics, electronics every time you want to make a new computing device. So with that in mind, what do other games do better than World of Warships that Wargaming would do well to heed and implement, in some form here? Well before I can answer that I also need to forewarn, that since the answer to #1, what is Wargaming's goal, is unanswered, I have to fill in the blanks of what they would want, and thus what to suggest, based on bits and pieces of info gleaned from Q/A's, patch notes, and any information they've released officially. So I have to answer #1 on my own. For the purposes I propose, I think that you want an arcade warship game, with average game times taking approximately 12 minutes, where players of all experience levels play all tiers available to them, with all ships usable by any player of any skill type to varying levels of success. I also think, in more specifics, you want more brawling? I base this assumption, and acknowledge it's an assumption, off of 1) Increasing incidence of close-to-medium range weaponry/utilities (smoke vs. Radar for example, more and more emphasis on on secondary batteries), 2) a DEMPHASIS on more 'sniper' based tactics (torp walls at long/max range, dislike of bow on camping from BB's (hence the AP bombs forthcoming), giving CA's higher utility and turning abilities to better evade close in fire, and 3) dynamic means something happens, and you have said the word 'dynamic' more often than I've ever heard before. Sniper vs. Sniper is not dynamic, it's a patience game. It's anticipatory. Dynamics literally means change, motion, development. Brawling, changing of lines is far more in alignment with this idea than two teams sitting at 16+ km lobbing shells at each other, dodging the occasional 8-11 km Torpedo strike. I also think you want ever class to feel useful. Which of course is the biggest part of #1, as we need a clear, definitive answer on WHAT these classes, even if it's by nation-to-nation, are supposed to be. We've guessed, and used what clues you give out on release of new lines, but a decisive, clear cut answer would go in a far ways to answer this. That said, all are forms of DPS, with secondary duties. BB's are DPS, plus tanking ability in both health, armor, and heals. CA's are DPS, along with utility be it AA, Radar, Sonar, long range torpedoes, or DoTs (which is still DPS), DD's are DPS, with some utility in form of Smoke, sonar in a few cases, and the ability to shift the lines of battle using their speed and stealth along with aiding in spotting, CV's are DPS along with spotting and support in the form (ideally) of air cover. Which brings me to the next point: everything revolves around DPS. That's fine, that's most games, but then you have to ask yourself, is the methodology of DPS in this game done properly or even well? I would say, no. And here's some examples as to why and who does it better, and how it can be done better here: 1) Fractured Space: Yeah I bang the FS drum hard. I really like that game and it really nailed the feel of being in a large, powerful, Capital Starship, with just the right amount of micromanaging systems (CWIS, Armor facing (read: not angling) location in a 3D space, and utility output (only a few ships are 100% Damage only ships)), and with a balance that really should be lauded for how no ship feels either remotely overpowered or throw away. Everything good, everything's useful, and everything can be beaten by pretty much everything else, just depends on a playstyle. But what does Fractured Space do that I think Warships should adopt and/or what does it do better? Well, frankly, World of Warships is far too spikey. Taking six weeks off coming back I was blown away at how spikey the damage is. Annoyingly so. It's not a adaptation thing, and I'll get to why later, but it is too spikey. Everything does too much damage. And I *think* the reason why is Wargaming's desire to ensure swifter games. But, as we have seen, this is not the case. Games take a long time, way over (the assumed) 12 minute sweet spot. Why? *BECAUSE* the game is so spikey. People know, rapidly, how unforgiving the damage rates are in this game act accordingly. So using guns on a DD isn't so much bad because it's ineffective, but because it can be suicidal to do so. Changing position rapidly in a BB, especially Fast BB's like Iowa's, Izumo's the like, is suicidal because at *some* point you will be showing a sweet, sweet side armor begging for 25k damaging strikes. CA's? Nuff said right? Which leads into this, another thing I think you want is that all tiers to 'feel' the same. That is to say, ostensibly, there isn't a difference between say, an all tier 5 match, and an all tier 9 match. How do I mean that? For one, rate of damage is 'scaled' the same. Yes the health is higher at a higher tier, but so is the Alpha strikes. Torpedo do more damage, but are fired further away causing fewer hits. Put in simplest terms, it still is the case that a Texas nukes an Omaha in a single strike just as often as an Iowa nukes a Baltimore. Or a DD caught in sight of a Furutaka up close is going to lose at least half their health per HE strike is no different than a Ibuki coming into view 6 km away while sitting in a Fletcher. But they play, the tiers, massively different. I think this is symptomatic of the community and the perception (and learning) of the unforgiving nature of the damage rate, i.e. spikeyness and thus getting cagey at Tier 9 where they weren't at Tier 5. So with that in mind the comparison to Fractured Space comes back. While yes there ARE some spikey ships, the vast, vast majority of both weapons and ships, are not spikey at all. I can only think of a few situations where 1 ship can take ANY other ship from full health to death in a single strike. A Leviathan on a Healer that lands both the Lance and the Beam on the same armor section MAYBE can pull that off, and not once both sides get much above level 5-6. Obviously any ship jumping away is fair game but then that's the point. So overall, I would call spikeness very RARE, very situational. Most kills come from 'semi' bug bites. That is to say, I have 14,000 HP, and the attacks hitting me hit for, per shot, 15-20 per landed shot (read, not salvo). So why don't individual brawls take 20 minutes each? Because of two main things: teamwork (focus fire) becomes required otherwise yes, a ship will get away when damaged, AND that despite the individual shots being weak, all ships are, essentially, perfectly accurate. Aim, is the only reason a shot will ever miss. And with ships moving rapidly in 3 dimensions, that can be harder than you'd think in a brawl, but the idea is worth looking at here. Additionally, things like Debuffs/Buffs are present and, as I will explain in the overall recommendations, are vital to facilitating teamwork. I makes a ship that ostensibly doesn't 'work' in a situation at least be capable of playing a role. I may not be able to kill a Colossus in a Displacer, but I can keep him at range so my teammates can. One last thought is credit. Now the two economies are not comparable for a lot of reasons, but one thing I adore in FS is that kills are tallied to all who hit the dead target within like, 30-45 seconds with more than 1000 damage (which is like, no damage). This is great as it completely negates 'kill' stealing. Thus focusing fire actually benefits EVERYONE equally, and no one cares who gets the actual final blow. Also respawns. Not for nothing but Sudden Death is the poor mans way of raising tension. Also MMR. In both a CoOp mode AND a PvP one. And they're seperate MMR's. And Fractured Space has like 10% of the population we do on a SLOW day. Just food for thought. 2) TF2: You can argue with a lot of things, but success is measured in dollars and among MP focused competitive games, it's hard to find a more successful, more continuously profitable game. Sure as an IP COD makes more, but as an individual game each COD ceases turning a profit much more than a year after release. TF2 came out ten years ago, It still turns a huge profit. Enough profit that Valve has no interest in making a Team Fortress 2. It's unneeded (and, frankly, unwelcomed). There are plenty of complaints about TF2, but they do a lot of things right. And what I feel is applicable here, other than their aforementioned monetization practices, For one they recognize balance comes from a focus point. I mean the name itself, balance, requires a foci. This game, World of Warships. has no foci. It doesn't have a baseline to build off of. New weapon X trades off of baseline weapon A by adding this stat but reducing this other stat. It means that it cannot definitively allow (in nearly all cases) for a weapon to be a total improvement over another. I can use the Force of Nature over the Scattergun, it has more pellets per shell, knockback, and and it's great, but I lose the 4 of the six rounds the scattergun carries, does less damage. It's a tradeoff. But it's balanced on the basis of two things: 1) It's not a direct upgrade of the standard, and, most importantly, the default, the standard, is balanced against everything else. World of Warships *needs* a baseline. I call it a hypothetical Navy. But there needs to be a baseline. So that, for example, DD X has better ranged/powered/speed torps, but less of them. Or Cruiser Y has faster firing guns with better fire chance, but lower damage. You can be even less specific and say BB Z has more powerful secondaries but 1 less charge of repair. Just simple examples but having a baseline means that it's much more difficult to create a an overpowered ship. Internally, Wargaming should discuss the creation of a 'baseline' to which all other ships are held to. A common thread stops something from breaking the trend in a dramatic way. Also worth mention yet again is teamwork. Team Fortress 2 is forces teamwork by making classes complement each other. Something sorely missing from this game. Sure a DD can spot for his team, but crap rewards and no immediate feedback for doing so, vs. the reward and immediate feedback for torp spam, is much more enticing. Sure a BB can tank hits, but with the aforementioned spike levels, and the likewise desire to deal spike damage, and range not being a huge hinderance in doing so, what's the motivation to use all that health/armor? A Heavy in TF2 not getting shot is not a heavy doing his job. But more than that, that Heavy will never contribute, nor for himself (too far away, his gun does next to 0 damage even if it hits), or his team. 3) Last one, World of Warcraft (and SWTOR, and any other MMORPG Clone of World of Warcraft as they have all, mostly, passed this trait down). I've heard on more than one occasion that Wargaming staff find Blizzard to be the 'masters' of balance. I can more or less agree. But it doesn't, at least in practice, seem to be that you guys appreciate and apply the lessons they've learned. For one, the word "spikey" in the World of Warships sense is no where near what you would see in WoW or SWTOR or any MMO. But we already covered that from FS. No what I find WoW, and SWTOR bring to the table insofar as balance is concerned is roles. Dedicated roles. Beyond just DPS+. The best player in the World can't solo some situations because they are frankly not designed to be. It makes teamwork not optional. They facilitate this through balance. Tanks can't pass DPS checks. Heals can survive spikes/pass DPS checks. DPS can't survive either sustained DPS or spike DPS in most situations. How does this translate to World of Warships? Well at the moment I can't quite fit any ship into one of the triangle, Support, Damage, Tank. I mean ostensibly the BB's are the Tanks, but as it stands they are by far the heaviest damage dealers. You can view DD's as the Damage dealers, but a strong case can be made they are actually tanks (some of my highest Damage 'received' as in shot at me have been in destroyers). Wargaming, you have to pick lane. Pick a role for each ship, make them complement each other in a *constructive,* not selfish, way. Give heals an auroa so ships nearby heal a little (say 33% of what the healer does), make it so radar only works for friendlies, not the ship itself, but if nearby friendlies see it, obviously the ship projecting see it. Make it so smoke lasts longer if a friendly was in the 'puff' within 5-10 seconds of it being placed. These are just ideas not intended to be taken literally but instill some forced teamwork because as it stands, we have in MOST cases, a 'team' of 12 individuals, playing against a 'team' of another 12 individuals, with teamwork VERY much taking a secondary role. Go try and play a raid or an operation as an individual. See how well that works. Recommendations Most problems, as far as I see it, can be tied to the damage system. I mean at the end of the day [edited] and counterbitching in regards to balance, premium ship content, or weapon complaints almost always boil down to something does or doesn't do as much damage as it 'should' or something receives damage too much/not enough than it 'should.' I would argue that it's rate of damage from whence most issues arise. Now I've thought, for a good long while, that removing citadels as damage centers was the way to go. To essentially make the '33%' normal pen the max damage, and instead have hits to the citadel be replaced with guaranteed, unmitigatable debuffs. That is to say, pending on the specific location of the hit, your engines go down, rudder goes out, reload time increased/turret shut down, no matter what. All you can do is maybe reduce the time it takes with certain upgrades/captain skills, but it *will* go down, but a press of the Damage Control Party will bring it right back. I felt this had the advantage of one, reducing spike damage which I've always recognized as a problem, and two, forcing, or at least encouraging, a degree of teamwork as, now a BB cits an enemy, not because it's a near 1 hit kill, but because it shuts his engines down. Those engines go down, now a teammate can swoop in and torp him, or focus him down. Or that enemy presses their DCM but risks a flood or fire coming right after. And it balances BB's damage output a tad as now they can go for the easy, high belt attack and land 100% of their salvo, or they can go for the citadel, risk missing most of their shells, but force the enemy into a sitting duck position. This helps everyone, and really hurts no one. BB's will still 'reign' supreme in damage output and likewise can be a bit more mobile while they do it and gives them some sorely needed utility beyond 'shoot the thing.' It helps Cruisers by giving them a boost in survivability. It helps DD's, who neither receive nor really dole out Citadel hits, by making EVERYONE less cagey and thus more likely to pop out and get in a position to be torped. And while I hold this is still a viable idea, it's too kinda sidestepping an issue and likewise not serving gameplay as well as it should. See why Alpha strikes are in game is twofold: people like seeing big numbers and Wargaming is fearful of long games. Well, I have another way that serves both of those. Reduce damage output by a factor of 5x, and increase accuracy by a factor of say... 7x maybe 7.5x. Let me explain why. As it stands, this game is woefully inconsistent. Damage is very RNG dependent. Both in what it can do to enemy ships (as we just found out about turret knock outs), and in hit location, due to the accuracy mechanics (also revealed in depth recently). So Wargaming seems to be aware players like feedback. So they give you big hits form time to time to balance out the majority of shells that don't land on target. Well as Fractured Space shows, quite frankly how TF2 shows, or Quake, or CS, or even Steel Oceans, or any number of games, players respond to constant feedback, even without large alpha strikes. So why 5x reduction in damage across the board? Because now everyone is scaled back equally, so no single hit is nearly as lethal as it was before, but with the accuracy boost, you can land more hits. Or maybe you can't. See as it stands you can get errant hits truly, by accident. You boost accuracy, those won't happen anymore. This has a bunch of pluses. For one, it rewards skillful play. As it stands you can very well aim *perfectly* and do no damage, not only because of bounce mechanics, but because your shells form a nice wreath around your target. With an accuracy boost, now if you *can* aim, you will get that big hit (9/9 hits or however many barrels you've got). Likewise at long range, you are better capable of dodging away from a full salvo should you be aware it's incoming. This overall reduces the ability to rack up damage at excessively long range. Now to make sure you're opponent can't dodge, you must be close, for less shell travel time. Lower the damage and people can stop being afraid to move forward. Take a full salvo to your cit? Not nearly as big of a deal as it is now. I would still add mandatory debuffs, but that's just my idea of some implemented teamwork (and it kinda make sense since that's WHAT a citadel is). It also should reduce steam rolls. As it stands a steamroll more or less seems to take place largely because a multiplying error on the team. One guy gets canned, everyone starts to turn away, and in the process more guys get canned, so on and so forth. This should make it neigh impossible to kill someone in the first 5 minutes of the game baring suicide charges. Sustains Now it's not all bad. There are things Wargaming does that I do indeed love, and they should be reminded that we are aware that they do this, where other companies don't, and they should continue to do so. 1) Mod support: As we just saw at E3, people do actually care about mods and don't appreciate it when Devs screw around with them. Wargaming mercifully allows mods, and supports them both directly and indirectly. 2) A genuine appreciation for the content and information at play. If your a gun nut, which I know I am, it is quite annoying playing many FPS's, especially those laboring under 'realism' when they can't even get the damn names right, much less a realistic appearance. Wargaming does not have this problem. They know their stuff. They know the history. They take the time and energy to get the blueprints and make a near 1:1 facsimile of the ships as they existed. Now look, I give these recommendations and suggestions because I don't want to see EA or Activision make a killing once they realize there is money to be had here. The WWII thing is swinging around again. Battlefield 1, now Call of Duty World War II. It's coming back. And it won't take a huge rocket scientist to figure out that one of the most profitable games in the world is non-American, has effectively 0 direct competition, and ripe for the taking. If you don't change your path soon, THAT'S what's going to happen. For myself, I've re-uninstalled the game. I cannot play it after playing some competently made games. It's just so bad. In 6 weeks I lost plenty of games in FS, and in TF2, and in others. But in 2 days playing this piece of trash, I got more angry than in total over the last 6 weeks. This is a POORLY made game. And it's getting by on the total and complete lack of competition. And if that's good enough for you Wargaming, okay. But I'd start writing my resume, because I give it maybe... three years, before the Western vultures figure this out and get their own versions out. And I cannot emphasis how done you'd be. You don't have the marketing to beat them. You just don't. They spend in marketing for one game what you spend in development for the entire company. And if you don't fix this pile, you're going to get very much that. And I cannot see how it won't periodically get worse with time. I'm not spending money on this game. I'm not playing it either. And I'm exactly who your supposed to appeal to: WWII History buff with both disposable time and money. And I'm completely done with this game. It is offensive on all the senses on at this point. I don't have fun, the game is overly unforgiving, and frankly, boring. It's chore-like to play it. Every match goes 1 of three ways. A blowout, a circle, or stagnant fart. I've had more varied gameplay in 1 match of FS than in ~30 in the past two days. I can't see myself playing this game for another slog of 6000 matches. Even things like RN battleships are not enough to drag me in. Sure I want to play the KGV. But I have to play it here? With this system? And with you people? Thanks, but no thanks. I waited 30 years for this game, I wait a little longer for someone competent a bit more flexible to make a better one. It's just so bad at this point. And to the community that sees this and comments on this: Wargaming isn't your friend. They aren't your buddy. They're you supplier. Remember that before you RUSH to their defense. And the ironic thing is, the ones most readily to defend Wargaming, the most emotional and likely, economically invested, stand the most to lose if Wargaming loses. That investment is all for not if the servers shut down because of lack of interest and/or a competent competitor. Make them CHANGE. It's not a sign of weakness. It doesn't make it less. It makes them SMART. Adaptation and change are the signs of a successful organism. Wallowing in filth is something nature purges from its system. Remember that.
  20. Friendly damage penalties

    I am getting really tired of getting penalized for someone else's stupidity. The latest came during a battle with a cruiser and two battleships. I was run into by a destroyer, and penalized for it. If they can't get the penalties straight, Don't do it at all! About a month ago, an idiot on my team decided to kill me, instead of the enemy. I guess because I was in front of him\her\it in the battle. I have no idea. I just know that the idiot decided to kill me, to get me out of the way. The person was supposedly reported for bad\un-sportman-like play. Just stop penalizing the innocent parties. If you can't, stop penalizing anyone. I'll learn to live with it. Besides, if you stop penalizing, then when someone shoots someone either accidentally or on purpose, then the wounded party can exact revenge without penalty. An eye for an eye. Just stop penalizing the innocent.
  21. Was averaging almost 92K damage tonight with a 110K damage game for a strong win... and then the next game, same map but 4 caps. Team ignored a flank and I had to try and fend off Bis, Atago, and at least one more BB - yea - dropped to 69K average (it was the 4th game of the night).
  22. Stats - An Interesting Exercise

    I play a lot of different ships. After reading a discussion about Arizona versus Tirpitz, I looked up my T6 BB stats. They're mediocre. Hmmm... T3 I'm a monster. T4 fine. T5 Konig stands out as I knew it would. T7 surprisingly Colorado is second behind Hood (low Hood win rate irrelevant with only 9 battles) and my Scharnhorst play is just "meh". Don't know what's up with that as I enjoy Scharnhorst a lot. Bismarck is no surprise at T8. Neither is FDG in T9, but those are two of my favorite ships. T10 surprised me. I got the Kurfurst first and have played almost 3x as many battles as Yamato; however, my Kurfurst stats stink. Yamato is better in every stat by a significant margin. So I went through my DDs Tier by Tier, then cruisers. T7 DDs were a surprise too. Blyskawica and Leningrad win rates are head and shoulders above Shiratsuyu despite much higher damage from Shiratsuyu. Unlike the BBs, every T6 DD is 58% win rate or better and the new Gnevny deserves her 19-point captain. I need to play Perth more. Fiji does better than Belfast for me. Huh. But Shchors is no slouch. Tier 8 and 9 I should stick with Russians, and I just plain stink at T10 cruiser play. My point is that you may be surprised by which ships work best for you. Maybe this is painfully obvious, but I find it very helpful to review each class of ship Tier by Tier. I'm not driven by stats. However, I do want to win and I want to consistently get better as a player. A final thought is that some of the best players I know only play a few ships. They know exactly how to play xxxxxx on a given map. Angles, reload rate, turning rate, everything about the ship is second nature to them. I've amassed a very sizable fleet, but I probably am missing out on performance by not having more focus. Benson produces lots of XP for me. Most competitive play is at T8. As much as I enjoy playing IJN torp boats, I should practice with Benson every day. ETA: I use stats to improve my performance and don't care how mine compare to yours much.
  23. "Phantom" Penetrations

    So I've been grinding away at the Hunt for the Bismarck campaign for the past week, and have noticed something odd. In battleships, mainly, I get a good number of penetrations, but the damage numbers don't quite line up. Just recently, in the Colorado, I got 3 full penetrations, 10k Damage. Next salvo: 3 full penetrations, 2.5k damage. The one after that: 4 full penetrations, 8k damage. (Full pen is the penetration ribbon with the red line, not the white over-pen.) This just doesn't seem right, and I've been getting them quite often. Anyone have a possible explanation for why these are occurring?
  24. Highest Experience Earned

    I've seen multiple forum posts about highest damage games....but I've never seen highest Experience earned. Post your highest please. Highest premium is 4,305 in the Atlanta. Highest non-premium is 4,716 in the Benson. (I have a couple of other 4k+ in the Dmitri Donskoi, Baltimore, and Iowa)
  25. 300k Yamato Game

    Felt the need to show this one for some reason, just so people know that us Uni's don't always club seals at low tiers. (We club them in high tiers as well, seals be everywhere) Anymawhoo's in my 3rd Yamato game ever, I managed 300,000 damage and 6 kills, with 10 cits landed, Hi Cal, Confed, Kraken, Dreadnought, and Fire Proof. (Curse you Henri IV !!!) Screenshots for proof. Managed to beat my previous high score for damage by more than 50,000. Poor Gearing lost his record at 246k. Edit: Replay is here on WoWs Replays https://wowreplays.com/Replay/36544-Kevik70-Yamato-Land_of_Fire
×