Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'discussion'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 11 results

  1. Battlecruiser_Yavuz

    Battle of the Treaty Carriers: Wasp vs Ryujo

    Hello! I thought this would be an interesting discussion. As you guys know, there were interwar treaties that influenced the formation of naval units prior to World War II. From looking online, I see that there were two big carriers whose designs were heavily influenced by treaty standards and tonnage: Ryūjō (Japanese: 龍驤 "Prancing Dragon") was a light aircraft carrier built for the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during the early 1930s. Small and lightly built in an attempt to exploit a loophole in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, she proved to be top-heavy and only marginally stable and was back in the shipyard for modifications to address those issues within a year of completion. USS Wasp (CV-7) was a United States Navy aircraft carrier commissioned in 1940 and lost in action in 1942. She was the eighth ship named USS Wasp, and the sole ship of a class built to use up the remaining tonnage allowed to the U.S. for aircraft carriers under the treaties of the time. XX If you guys can find any more carriers that were heavily influenced by the treaties, feel free to put it in the discussion below. XX These are some starting questions. Feel free to debate and add more meat to the answers: -Who do you guys think made the better "budget" carrier: The United States or Japan? -If the two were to meet on the field of battle (in the ocean, among islands, etc), who do you think would win? -If you had to decide to construct carriers within treaty limits (or exploiting loopholes), would you have constructed either of these two carriers? If so, why? If not, what would you have done instead? Thanks!
  2. I played a battle and with teir 9 and 10 ships it didn't end well
  3. So... After watching Flamu's commentary and have been closely following Azuma's development history I am largely unimpressed. Poor turning combined with a citadel that makes Yamato blush are of course the primary concerns. The reality is simple: Her strengths in my opinion do not offset her weaknesses anywhere near enough. Sure, the Torp angles are nice (think Atago for those who don't know) but in reality, I have yet another issue with this setup: The 20km torps with its 2.5km concealment pretty much means they won't catch any good players, and BECAUSE they are 20km we're gonna see these ships sit at 19km the whole game, spamming HE and torping from rear lines... see the problem yet? Well if not, this is what they are: 1. Being so far back means she'll have little influence and people are scared enough at risking themselves at high tier, this will breed some awful gameplay to say the least 2. Gotta get in close more times than not to make plays, and this ship is definitely not good for that 3. The most important of them all: This ship is gonna torp its own team like its going out of style or at the very least, screw teammate positioning As a design, sure she works. But I gotta say... let's be real here: She's nowhere *close* to Stalingrad. To those typing after reading that part she's a steel ship and therefore gets to be stronger: Oh, so having an elite 1% ship better than its peers is just okay because it was hard to get? Its not healthy for the game, and they definitely fall into the same family. Unless I see Stalingrad being designated T11, this argument does not hold up in my eyes.They're both T10 and that's that. To those who own the Stalingrad who say it isn't OP: Well then another supercruiser type at T10 as well you'll have no problems it being about as powerful, no? That aside, her AP looks horrendous, and while her penetration is technically better than Alaska, those improved angles Alaska gets to enjoy just simply flat out make it better in practice. She gets the following over Azuma: 30mm plating over 25mm on upper plating on the midsection and main deck, better AA, and the torps. Not enough to me. I would go as far as to say that Yoshino should have been Azuma, and Yoshino should be a step above that with current Yoshino iteration maybe should only get worse torps if it were the Azuma. I'd like to see that buffed, the option for Zao's 12 km torps, 27mm bow/stern, possibly QoL improvements to its turret traverse, rudder, or turning circle, some form of utility, better AP characteristics, the accuracy from Azuma's testing, something. Not necessarily all of those things, just simply throwing some ideas out there. Of course, she's WIP. And that's why I'm making this thread now, to discuss her and perhaps convince someone upstairs to add a bit more to what is going to be a huge coal investment, one that I WANT to be excited for. Naturally, these are merely just my opinions and to some, I'm sure she's fine. So, let's all discuss it. Go! Oh and one last thing: Why would I want Yoshino in her current form when Zao can do pretty much everything she can, but better, and much less risky? The only thing she offers is the HE pen for 50mm decks... and that i'm sorry, is all she really has over Zao. To put in clarification as to what I want to see for Yoshino (which I know will never happen): For her to be competitive with Stalingrad in balance... OR, A ship that is better than Zao in a number of ways but makes a tradeoff, while also letting this ship's existence be a light onto why Stalingrad is OP and needs to be toned down. What I expect us to get? For it to be released in its current test form and be middling overall, just like her T9 counterpart while the imbalance of Stalingrad be ignored some more.
  4. So I'm curious to know which alignments people typically play over others and to try and get a good idea of this I'm going to go to various forums around the internet and post this straw poll in the hope that I'll get a decent amount of results. Mostly because I'm just curious and I'd like to get some sort of answer about which ones are the most popular. Poll Link: http://www.strawpoll.me/14736660 Please use the link to vote and feel free to post what you voted here! :)
  5. Hello all, Let me preface the following thoughts with an assurance that I want CVs to be enjoyable for those playing them. I spent some time playing CVs, once upon a time. And would like to do so again, should they reach a point of relative balance within the game. I have seen a lot of complaint threads, and only a relative handful of thoughtful discussion threads where ideas are being discussed on their merits. Not wanting to add another to the long line of complaint threads, I thought I would make an effort at being constructive. In my admittedly myopic view, the current system leaves many players, CV captains and otherwise, feeling as though things are in need of further and perhaps significant tweaking. The ideas below are not all going to be gold, of course. But if they contain even a kernel of something that can help us all to reach a place where CV captains feel they can contribute without being called “cancer” and where surface ship captains feel they have some ways to better defend themselves versus air attack, I will consider any conversation worthwhile. I am not married to these ideas and will take no offense should anyone here poke holes in one or all of them, or point out a glaring lack of awareness on my part to even have considered them. I do not claim to have any special awareness or genius. My only claim is that I would like to see things improved for all of us. So without further ado, some things I would love to see tested: - AA damage versus one plane at a time (potentially allows some planes in an attack run to be shot down before ordinance is dropped). - 4 to 6 planes in an attack run (depending on nation), 10-12 planes in a wing (depending on nation). An attack still happens despite heavy AA but may be reduced by the number of planes destroyed in the attack run. - Ships detected by airplanes show on the mini-map of team mates, but are not targetable (Air detection ranges will likely need to be adjusted upward. CV players are still identifying enemy locations and able to contribute damage without negating detection and/or the need for spotting from surface ships.) - Increased air attack alpha damage. (If planes can be lost on approach more often, what gets through should still be significant.) - Fighter consumable twice as effective when supported by surface ship AA. - Small chance for aircraft damage when using speed boost, chance increasing the longer it is used (Captain perk and/or module to mitigate this.) - Direct control of CV, perhaps at the expense of whatever attack run was in progress, those planes returning to the CV at full speed. Player responsible for dam-con and maneuvers. Fires and floods work the same as BBs. - 5-10 second delay before the next attack wing can be launched after another is ended with “F” key. (Captain perk and/or module with ability to cut this time in half. Both together could reduce time to ¼ normal.) - 15 second delay before first attack wing can be launched from the CV - Return of range upgrades (modules/captain perks) to surface ship AA systems - Captain perk that adds planes to a strike wing and another that adds a plane or planes to an attack run. Thank you very much for taking the time to read through these ideas. Your constructive criticism is welcome and encouraged. Respects, Am
  6. Holy! I am stoked! I love to see this stuff come out. This is what the game needs. See someone camping behind an island? Blow up the Island. See an obstacle you can't quite shoot over? Blow off the top. Plan a sneak attack? Blow up the diving wall and broadside someone. I give you guys a lot of **** about your game design, but this is freaking AMAZING. KUDOS to the DEV TEAM!
  7. Alright so the flooding mechanic is now very similar to the fire mechanic. To apply fire you must shoot the enemy, each and every of your HE shell can start a fire. With some ships, you can toss literally hundreds of shell and start many, many fires, let them repair, and then start MORE fires. With a good fire starter ship (worcester, haru, zao, etc.) you can expect to start anywhere from 10 to 20 fires or more depending on how many different targets are available to you, with anywhere between 100 to 600 shells hit. To apply flood, you must successfully hit the enemy with a torp to have a chance to trigger the flooding effect. To make significant damage, you must first make sure your target used his repair, before you trigger that flooding effect, or it's all lost. With a good torp boat (shima), you can expect to start anywhere from 1 to 4 floods, depending on your abilities, predictability of enemy ships, lack of radar or radio location, high number of BBs and unawareness of the enemy's captains. You'll hit from 2 to 8 torps, so the floodings are going to be rare, very. These very low numbers (compared to the fire ones) were once balanced by the fact that floods lasted way longer and did way more damage than fires. It was still quite rare to get the sought-after "perma flood", the one flood that you successfully triggered right after someone used his repair. In which case can you actually apply multiple floods to someone? When you surprise attack under the cover of an island/mountain? But that's usually an insta kill. So, in which case then? So, have the DDs been buffed? Can they apply more floods than before so as to justify this change? Can they hit more torps than before? I'd argue that it's in fact the opposite now, with pretty much every ship in the game having some form of radar or radio location consumable. No, DDs are hitting just as much torps as they used to, but with weaker result now thanks to this change. So, this new mechanics sounds to me to be yet another nerf to the DD class of warships. ... Nerfing DDs is an indirect buff to BBs...again. *sigh* Am I the only one tired of all this?
  8. If we limited amount of shells per battle per ship, we could make this game a bit more skill based. Make you have to think about your shots, rather than just firing as soon as it timer is up. It would make for more tactical and decided shooting. It would move away from just holding down the fire button "Hur De Dur" game design. Instead we have these machine gun Cruisers and DDs which are just absolutely stupid. They can keep their finger on the trigger the whole match and never run out of ammo. While I am not opposed to that type of play style, because it adds something different, there is absolutely no down side to it. APM = DPS. Wonder why the Haru is out performing just about everything atm? It is because it has unlimited ammo and a 1 second firing rate. So my question to my other players. How do you feel about this HE fire spam meta? Do you think it is a good thing? If so, why? If you think it is trash can game design like I do, give me reasons why. I want to see both sides of the story. So tell me what YOU think! Optionally: Make every salvo increase repair costs. Make people have to do a cost/benefit analysis. This would also make people more cautious with their shots.
  9. 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.
×