Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'feedback'.



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 15 results

  1. Have an idea to improve the game? Got a favorite ship you would love to see in the game? Upcoming event you think we might benefit giving attention to? No such thing as bad ideas, just keep 'em classy!
  2. Let me start the preface of this thread: I do not believe GK is a bad ship, or even a unfun ship. HOWEVER, I do believe the GK is no longer even optimal at what it does best with now its strengths only becoming edge-case useful in today's balance. While I progressively got worse myself in it statistically it was ultimately an uncomfortable ship that I slowly found myself disliking more and more in order to make her strengths work: Pathetic Mobility, Poor TDS, EXTREMELY bad Firing angles for its main battery, the legendary lackluster accuracy... it all adds up to an experience I just wanted to say "To hell with that!" when I got my hands on Kremlin as a comparison. So, the question I have for not only WG and any who sees this, but for the community and skilled players of these forums: What is GK's purpose with the advent of Kremlin? In my opinion, the ship can be broken down into 3 specific use cases that you'd want to take it for: - Meme secondaries - Pushing into smoked up DDs with Hydro to trade HP for running them over, along with first reason - Broadside Jousting for superior trades with turtleback Is there anything else I'm missing here? I sorta feel like GK is the victim of powercreep, in a more direct way than most ships get to see. In my opinion, GK should receive the following buffs: - 60mm main deck - Better Firing angles of its Main battery - Improved Secondary HE penetration - More TDS, OR better Turning circle/rudder After the horrors that is ranked, also noticing GK is also citadelled at odd angles at random too which is something I have been scratching my head about. So what does everyone think? And for those who do feel GK is fine, please answer why I would want to take GK over Kremlin? I'm very curious to see what people have to say to that who do believe the ship isn't completely powercreeped.
  3. I think many people can agree that players should be penalized somehow for riding along the edge of the map since it lets you slow down and turn without using your full turning radius and throws off the opponents aim. I believe some sort of inmatch penalty should be institutionalized such as receiving damage as you would when you get rammed by a teammate, a slow drain on your hit points that is heal-able but the longer you're in the map edge the more damage is does quicker. Another could be those that are in the map edge gets hit will receive double damage they would normal get, gets hit by a 10k torpedo hit they get 20k damage for example. I think something just needs to be done to stop it from being a viable use of the limited play space.
  4. 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.
  5. Let me preface by saying that Alaska isn't a bad ship, but also not a great ship. She follows the exact same formula of the USN Heavy Cruiser line, and that's exactly why she's disappointing. If you look at Alaska as if she's the Tier 9 Baltimore, she's the XL version, and meets the mold of what you'd expect her to be. Big, with nothing extra, except the improved shell angles to help her to stand out. The problem is, that's all she is. All of her consumables are vanilla. She still has the same problems with ranged engagements due to shell velocity, and her consumables are wound tightly in a way that presents the Captain without choice. Being forced to take DF over Hydro, and Radar over over Spotter and Fighter. Regardless of your feelings on the Spotter Aircraft, having the option to take the Fighter would at least make Hydro an option over DF. And why would a ship designed to be in mid to close range combat with other ships not have Hydro? This has always been an area where the role of the USN Heavy Cruisers have felt at odds with the role they've been placed in, and the return of CVs has boldened this problem. The Alaska is already behind the 8-ball in terms of accuracy compared to upcoming and current Cruisers of her size at Tier 9, and that is before her velocity is taken into account. And her penetration isn't the best either. She also doesn't compete with them in terms of healing when you add up potential HP. Her armor is good against Cruisers but fails to protect her from BB caliber shells, just like the rest of the USN Heavy Cruisers, leaving her far softer than first glance indicates. In the end she remains a playable ship, but not a particularly good and definitely not a memorable one. She is a bologna sandwhich from pre-packaged meat and bread from the corner store. Other ships like her have cheese, pickles, mustard, and some are even made from fresher ingredients right from the deli. It's hard to get a taste of variety and quality and want to go back. At some point, being told to "be thankful" your not starving wears thin as an excuse when you have those other options. I just look at this ship and wonder, just like the rest of the USN Heavy Cruiser line, where is the reward for the draw backs? Where is the cherry on top of all the exceedingly average vanilla? I'm don't want a ship that is so powerful it makes me feel guilty playing it. I just want a ship that is has a little bit of flare to define it's roll. If I'm going to be in danger from torpedoes for being close to other Cruisers that out duel me at range, then give me Hydro so my advantage means something, and that my good play isn't punished by a last second get out of jail free card. If I'm going to hunt DDs don't make me blindly hunt an opponent that can spot me from double his range and dump tons of torpedoes at me while kiting away. Unlike the prey he hunts, I cannot take those hits, so give me a chance to avoid them while I risk my ship to protect my fleet. You don't have to improve my guns, make me a harder target, or increase my armor or HP. Just give me something to hang my hat on instead of just another ship that just falls short of having a clear purpose.
  6. Just had a game where a friendly bot nearly torpedoed me because there was an enemy to the side. I'm not saying I moved in front of their torpedo launch. I'm saying I was to the bot's right by 3k. The enemy was to my right by 5k. And the bot launched torpedoes even though I was in the direct line of fire. I've been sunk by friendly bot torps before. Might be something the devs and programmers want to look into.
  7. retroduck

    Starting formations

    I'm not going to call for the removal of CVs or anything like that, but something must be done at least on the front regarding the distribution of ships and match start formations. I was just in a match where two of us, a battleship and a cruiser (both bottom-tier) found ourselves starting isolated in the open on the edge from the rest of our team in a match with two top-tier carriers. You can imagine the result. We spent the first two minutes dodging plane attacks while their spotting, combined with our evasive maneuvers, gave their entire team easy shots on us. We had no chance. We were doomed to an early grave because of the starting formation and where we were placed within it.
  8. Here is a technical paper I wrote on my feedback for the CARRIER REWORK CAPTAIN SKILLS 8.0.1. I decided to put it in this format to give the best feedback I can. I have not looked at other lists or posts, so there may be redundant items. I don’t expect everyone to find the same bugs as I, have the same experience, or agree with my following suggestions. CV REWORK CAPTAIN SKILLS 8.0.1 FEEDBACK BY Bigs The following is feedback on the CV Captain Skills items found in 8.0.1: As Currently, all aircraft carrier captain skills are working as intended by their description. However, I would like to add that there are some Captain skills that either feel very underwhelming for their cost, or so powerful that they are must haves for their cost (in some cases, they are too cheap for what they do.) Below is a list of the Captain Skills that I would like to highlight for this feedback. I didn't list ALL of the Captain Skills available to be taken as a Carrier Player, only the ones that I feel need to be addressed, or changed. 1. Air Supremacy – “Accelerates aircraft Servicing” - Aircraft Restoration -5% a. This skill is valuable to all carriers and for 1 captain skill point, its balanced for what it does. Grants you a small boost to “generating” new aircraft from the hanger. i. I wouldn’t change this skill. 2. Direction Center for Fighters – “when fighter consumable is activated, an additional aircraft is launched” – Number of Aircraft +1 a. I don’t really find this skill to be useful on most carriers…or if at all. It does create a slightly better defense fighter for your carrier, but it doesn’t affect anything else. Coupled with strong Anti-Aircraft capabilities by all carriers, it’s an underwhelming skill for what it does. While it is nice to have the fighters shoot down 1 extra bomber when being attacked, its no more a “filler” skill than anything else...and a poor one at that. b. Now regarding surface ships, this is a valuable skill as-is, and one I would recommend if you are wanting some extra anti-aircraft capabilities since there are a lot of planes flying around. For its value, you get a lot of good defense out of it when you really need that extra protection. c. Please see my suggestions at the end of this feedback. 3. Improved Engine Boost – “Increases the engine boost time for the aircraft carrier’s squadrons” – Engine boost time +10% a. This skill, while useful for speeding up your squadrons, also can help give you more time to slow down your squadrons. It’s a pretty useful skill overall for what it does, but it isn’t so powerful that it’s a “must have”. It’s in a nice place of being a “convenient” skill for some players and a hard pass for others. i. I wouldn’t change this skill. 4. Last Gasp – “Completely restores the engine boost for the last attack flight of the aircraft carrier’s planes” – Engine Boost restored to full a. The Last Gasp is a must have ability for carrier’s…its extremely powerful for its points cost given that on your last attack wave, you get instantly refilled on your engine boost allowing you to do a very aggressive attack run at full speed, or you can use the boost to get away out of AA range to safely call these planes home. i. Please see my suggestions at the end of this feedback. 5. Torpedo Acceleration – “Increases the speed of torpedoes launched from both ships and aircraft by reducing torpedo range” – Ship Torpedo Speed +5kt, Aerial Torpedo Speed +5kt, Ship torpedo range -20%, Aerial torpedo range -20% a. This skill has always been useful for carriers in the past, but its also never been a “must have” skill either. It, like Improved Engine Boost, is a convenience skill. Some take it, some don’t. i. I wouldn’t change this skill. 6. Improved Engines – “Increases the speed of the carrier’s squadrons” – Squadron speed +2.5% a. This skill is useful, but it isn’t a “must have” skill. There aren’t many other “better” choices at this tier, so while its “balanced” amongst the other tier skills, I feel it doesn’t go enough for the cost. i. Please see my suggestions at the end of this feedback. 7. Adrenaline Rush – “Increases the reload speed of all armaments as the ship’s HP decreases. Increases the speed of the aircraft carrier’s squadrons as the aircrafts HP decreases” – Reload time reduction for all types of armament for each 1% of HP lost -0.2% , Squadron speed increase for each 1% of HP lost +0.2% a. Adrenaline Rush is a very nice skill to have on any aircraft carrier. The reload speed of ship armaments is welcome, along with the speed increase for your aircraft as you lose plane HP. However, it isn’t a “must have” skill, some captains might not like having their aircraft suddenly speed up as they lose HP. I also am not sure if it reduces service time of planes as the carrier gets damaged. This would need to be clarified by Wargaming. If it does, this could be a very powerful skill for its tier. i. I wouldn’t change this skill. 8. Survivability Expert – “Increases HP of ship and aircraft, including fighters” – HP for each tier +350 , Aircraft HP for each tier +15 a. Currently given the Anti-Aircraft meta that is going on since this patch. This skill is an absolute must have, and I can see it remaining so for the foreseeable future. That said, for the skill cost, I think its pretty balanced for what you pay. i. I wouldn’t change this skill. 9. Aircraft Armor – “Decreases the continuous damage that aircraft take from short-, medium-, and long-range AA defenses” – Continuous damage from short-, medium-, and long-range AA defenses -10% a. Like Survivability Expert, this skill is a “must have” for the foreseeable future. It’s a very handy skill to take on any aircraft carrier, and its points for what you get is handy. Coupled with Survivability Expert, its pretty costly to get both, but you really do need both to have any chance of surviving the current AA meta. i. I wouldn’t change this skill. 10. Super Intendent – Increases the capacity of your ship’s consumables. Does not to the consumables of an aircraft carrier’s squadron” – Number of consumables +1 a. This skill is rather pointless to have on an aircraft carrier, but if you really want that extra fighter wave, this skill is for you. i. I do not have suggestions currently, but I don’t believe this skill to be very useful for carriers. It may just have to be a non-carrier only skill. 11. Demolition Expert – “increases the chances of setting fire to the target for the armament carried by ships and aircraft” – Chance of HE shells causing fire on target +2% , Chance of Rockets causing fire on target +1% , Chance of HE bombs causing fire on target +5% a. This skill is rather based on what nation you are taking for carriers. As Japanese, this skill isn’t very useful, unless you have the VIII Kaga premium carrier. However the American’s should always be taking this skill since it buffs up your rockets and your HE bombs, the exception being the VIII Enterprise premium carrier since it has AP bombs. i. I wouldn’t change this skill. 12. Sight Stabilization – “improved the aiming time of the aircraft carrier’s planes” – Attack aircraft aiming speed +5% , Torpedo bomber aiming speed +5% , Dive Bomber aiming speed +10% a. This skill is a “must have” since it helps reduce the time it takes to get a “accurate” attack run for all types of squadrons. I would tweak it though so that all types of aircraft get the same speed. i. Please see my suggestions at the end of this feedback. 13. Concealment Expert – “reduces the detectability range of the ship and the aircraft carrier’s squadrons” – Detectability of destroyers -10%, Detectability of cruisers -10%, Detectability of battleships -10%, Detectability of aircraft carriers -10%, Detectability of squadrons -10% a. While this may be a “must have” skill for Destroyers and Cruisers, its questionable on Battleships and Carriers. It is a useful skill since it reduces the detectability of the squadrons, which means that anti-aircraft guns won’t fire on them until they are “spotted”, so by increasing your detectability, you are shortening the amount of time a squadron starts to take incoming fire. I would value sit stabilization over this though. i. I wouldn’t change this skill. BIGS’ SUGGESTIONS: These are my suggestions for the previously discussed Captain Skills. I do not expect people to agree with my suggestions for the below Captain Skills, but hopefully they will start a discussion with Wargaming. 1. Direction Center for Fighters – “when fighter consumable is activated, an additional aircraft is launched” – Number of Aircraft +1 a. Change to: “Direction Command for Fighters – “When fighter consumable is activated, an additional aircraft is launched. Increases the Patrol Fighter consumable radius” – Number of Aircraft for Fighter Consumable +1 , Patrol Fighter consumable radius is increased by 20% i. This recommended change adds a bit more utility to the skill to make it more enticing to aircraft carriers. While it will increase +1 fighter to ship and aircraft carrier fighter consumables (as it currently does), it will also increase the squadron Patrol Fighter consumable radius, bumping it from an average of 3km to 3.6km in radius allowing a higher degree of chance that the Patrol Fighters will engage enemy squadrons. 14. Last Gasp – “Completely restores the engine boost for the last attack flight of the aircraft carrier’s planes” – Engine Boost restored to full a. Change to: “Evasive Maneuvers – “Reduces anti-aircraft damage for attack aircraft that have dropped payload.” Aircraft that have completed their attacks gain a 30% resistance to all anti-aircraft damage while returning to the Carrier. i. As-is, Last Gasp is just too powerful for what it does. It either needs to be moved to Tier 2 and swap out with Improved Engines, or as I suggest, needs to be changed to an AA damage reduction for returning aircraft that have completed their attacks. This is NOT including aircraft recalled by the player using the return key “F” or “F Spam”. Only aircraft that have completed their attack and spent their payload. This would also entice players to attack as much as possible per squadron rather than simply attacking once and returning aka, "F Spam". 15. Improved Engines – “Increases the speed of the carrier’s squadrons” – Squadron speed +2.5% a. Change to: “Improved Engines – “Completely restores the engine boost for the last attack flight of the aircraft carrier’s planes” – Engine Boost restored to full i. I strongly believe that the ability to get “full engine boost” on the last attack wave is just too powerful for its tier, and +2.5% for all squadrons at Tier 2 is just too weak of a skill. I would recommend changing Last Gasp to the “Evasive Maneuvers” skill that I suggested for Tier 1, and change the tier 2 skill, Improved Engines, to perform the same actions that “Last Gasp” does at Tier 1. This would make the skill costlier, which I think would balance it out better points wise. Any higher and it would be too costly for what it does. 16. Sight Stabilization – “improved the aiming time of the aircraft carrier’s planes” – Attack aircraft aiming speed +5% , Torpedo bomber aiming speed +5% , Dive Bomber aiming speed +10% a. Change to: “Sight Stabilization – “improved the aiming time of the aircraft carrier’s planes” – Attack aircraft aiming speed +10% , Torpedo bomber aiming speed +10% , Dive Bomber aiming speed +10% i. This skill, while nice to have as-is, doesn’t feel as useful as it could be for a Tier 10 skill. I would suggest increasing the values to all be 10%.
  9. Here is a technical paper I wrote on my feedback for the CARRIER REWORK HOT FIX 8.0.1. I decided to put it in this format to give the best feedback I can. I have not looked at other lists or posts, so there may be redundant items. I don’t expect everyone to find the same bugs as I, have the same experience, or agree with my following suggestions. CV REWORK HOT FIX 8.0.1 FEEDBACK BY Bigs BUGS: 1) SOUND CUTS OUT RANDOMLY DURING TAKE OFF: This issue appears to have been resolved. I have not had it since the Hot Fix went live. 2) PLANES LOCKED INTO TURNING LEFT OR RIGHT AFTER TAKE OFF: This issue still occurs randomly…The planes will take off either steering hard left or hard right and won’t respond to controls unless you push the corresponding turning key to the direction they are turning automatically. (if they are turning hard left, you must press the "turn left" key in order to regain control, otherwise they will permanently turn left.) 3) DISAPPEARING FLAK CLOUDS STILL CAUSING DAMAGE: There are still instances where flak clouds that have “dispersed” or “ended” still cause maximum damage when flown in the area they were spawned. In other words, you are damaged by invisible flak. 4) HE/AP BOMBS LANDING OUTSIDE RETICLE: In rare occasions when you turn the plane during a dive, the bombs will land outside of the entire bomb reticle. Its as if the sigma or dispersion is set to be higher than what the visual reticle shows. 5) PAYLOADS DISAPPEARING FROM AIRCRAFT IN FLIGHT: Occasionally, aircraft with rockets or bombs will take off but visually will not be carrying any payload. This occurs randomly so it cannot be replicated by the player. I do notice it more when playing ships such as the Saipan, Lexington, and Midway. 6) PLANES RICHOCETING OFF MAP BOARDERS: This is a BIG gameplay issue…I have found that if you fly a squadron into the map boarder, they can almost instantaneously turn around, or as I call it, “Boarder bouncing” This allows a player to attack a ship close to the maps boarder, run into the boarder, turn around almost instantly, and be lined up for another attack rapidly on the same target. Planes should not be able to do this as it can be exploited to the players benefit to set up rapid attacks on a ship. The following is feedback to the Changelog items found in 8.0.1: 1) To reduce the attacking and spotting potential of Attack Aircraft against destroyers in high-tier battles, the number of aircraft in the squadron was changed to 9, and in the attack group to 3. The changes affected the aircraft carriers VIII Lexington, VIII Shokaku, X Midway, X Hakuryu. a. I have found that it is harder to spot destroyers with the reduced squadron size. b. I have found it just as easy to score hits on a destroyer, despite the reduced attack squadron size, but I deal less damage. i. I don’t feel that the damage is mitigated enough to feel “balanced” against attack fighters with the “Tiny Tim” rockets. These rockets take off a substantial amount of destroyer health per attack…I believe that making them perform “over-pen damage only" may help balance them. As-is, they can cripple a destroyer as badly as a penetrating hit from a Battleship AP shell prior to the AP over penetration fix for destroyers. 2) Increased the height which returning aircraft need to reach in order to become invulnerable to AA fire. This will allow ships to fire longer on returning aircraft and will help to counter the tactic in which the player gives the order to the squadron to return immediately after the first attack group’s run (“F” key by default). a. This change has indeed increased the overall effectiveness of AA fire against “recalled” squadrons. i. This does resolve the issue of “spam recall”. b. When a squadron is recalled within a ships AA aura, the recalled squadron can be completely eradicated in most scenarios. i. I feel that while this does resolve the issue of “spam recall” it is a pretty hefty blow to a aircraft carrier player trying to keep their planes from being completely destroyed. In many cases, unless the squadron is flown outside of enemy AA, they will be completely lost when recalled. I think that AA is too powerful in this case since a carrier can rapidly lose all of one type of bomber squadron and unable to field another squadron for a significant amount of time during a game. ii. To be clear, I am not stating this change isn’t necessary, but carriers shouldn’t be harshly punished to the point that it isn’t fun. I believe a more appropriate solution is to have planes return slower if they are recalled when inside enemy flak, or if they pass over enemy flak at high altitude increasing the time it takes to get planes that survived an attack back to the carrier for servicing. 3) Maneuvering among the AA explosions allows you to reduce the damage received from air defense, even while in the AA range of ships with powerful air defense. We redistributed the efficiency of air defense between the constant damage taken and the puffs of damage from explosions - the efficiency was increased for the former and decreased for the latter. This will keep the tactics of dodging explosions still effective, but it will not allow planes to stay too long in the range of air defense without taking significant losses, especially when attacking a formation of ships. a. I feel this change feels a lot better for surface ships defending themselves against aircraft, however, when a carrier with aircraft that are several tiers lower than the surface ship they are attacking (such as a Ryujo attacking a Cleveland), there is almost no hope that the Ryujo planes will even make it to the Cleveland. This is the case for many undertiered aircraft. i. If this change is to remain in effect, carriers should not be matched up against surface ships 2 tiers higher or lower than their carrier’s tier. They should only be matched +1 or -1 of their tier. (i.e. A Tier 8 aircraft will only face T7 or T9 ships.) 4) Changed several features of the Japanese torpedo bombers. Now, if during the preparation for the attack, the attack group maneuvers, your aim will not stabilize (aiming cone stops narrowing). And when maneuvering during an attack run - begins to widen. In order to carry out an effective attack, you need to preemptively choose the line of attack and try not to make last-minute maneuvers. a. I believe this change is a bit too much because it takes the specialty of the Japanese aircraft tree and makes it very difficult to utilize. b. I do agree that it does require players to make a more planned attack instead of last second drops. 5) Reduced the chance of flooding by approximately a third for the Japanese aerial torpedoes in tiers IV-VIII, and by half for German (tier VIII) and Japanese (tier X) aerial torpedoes. a. I feel that this change was completely necessary. 6) Significant changes have affected the alternative plane torpedo module for X Hakuryu.The attack run preparation is now longer, and more difficult - the parameters of the aiming were changed and the angles of the torpedo spread were increased even when aiming is at its most accurate. In addition, the speed of aircraft when returning to the aircraft carrier is reduced and the delay before the start of a new attack is increased. We have significantly changed the characteristics of torpedoes: reduced speed, increased detection radius and arming time. a. While this style of attack was very powerful, I feel that too much of it has changed and the Hakuryu no longer feels like a “torpedo specialist”. I feel that out of all the changes, the reduction of the torpedo speed was unnecessary. If the torpedoes maintained the same speed as before (50kts) and the detection radius was returned back to the prior setting (stealthier version) I would find the other changes actually balance this style of play. i. In short, too much of a nerf was applied to the hakuryu, especially with it now having to face a substantially tougher AA system, and that its aircraft can now be completely wiped out when recalled early. 7) To increase the effectiveness of attacks, we added resistance to AA damage for bombers at the time of readiness to attack (when the aiming indicator turns green). In this phase of the attack, all bombers will receive 30% less damage. a. I find this a welcome change since AA has become extremely powerful in this Hot Fix. b. I would also like this value applied to attacking aircraft that have completed their attack run (dropped their payload) and have broken off to return to the aircraft carrier. c. This damage reduction should not apply to aircraft that still have their payload and have been recalled to the carrier. 8) Bug fixes: the aiming for the stock attack aircraft on the carrier VI Ranger is now similar to the aiming for all American attack aircraft. The characteristics of the basic 'Fighter' consumable for V Emerald are brought to the same value as 'Fighter II' and the minimum speed of the stock Japanese bombers of all tiers does not exceed the minimum speed on the researchable bombers. a. I find that both of these changes are welcome and much needed. 9) If the ship has no 25 mm AA guns, medium-range AA defenses start at 1 km. These ships' AA configuration will now be emphasized if you can't shoot planes inside of a 1km range. a. Ships with this type of layout did need a buff to their protection, but in some cases, such as the X Salem, it creates a rather monstrous AA platform. i. I think that AA guns firing inside of their normal range should have a decrease in efficiency of some type. 10) Short-range AA defenses now include guns up to 30 mm. This change will combine weak medium-range AA defenses with short-range AA defenses, strengthening the latter and removing the zone where the effectiveness of anti-aircraft guns was low. This will affect ships such as, for example, the cruisers Atlanta, Pensacola, Dallas and battleships Colorado and Arizona. a. This is a welcomed change to ships in general and I feel it balances them a bit better against Aircraft. BIGS’ SUGGESTIONS: 1) At Tier 4…there is currently no team play tools available for the carrier player to use to assist an allied surface ship. I would STRONGLY recommend that each T4 bomber squadron gain access to the escort fighter consumable but when they are called into action (activated) they only call in a wave size of 2x fighters. Again, this will allow carriers at T4 a way to protect their allies (which is currently not possible at all) and to get new players a chance to learn the mechanic without A) being absolutely punished by it, and B) not knowing what it does until higher tiers. 2) When a plane squadron is recalled early, all planes that have not dropped their payloads should take normal anti-aircraft damage when climbing to "safe" altitude on their way to proceed back to the carrier. If a plane has attacked (dropped their payload) and breaks off to return back to the carrier, these planes should receive the 30% AA resistance that aircraft get while attacking surface ships (when their attack run reticle turns green). I feel this would reward players for using their planes to attack as much as possible, while punishing those that are attempting to spam the recall action, aka "F Spam".
  10. Before I start, yes, I am aware there are a billion threads on this already. However, its mostly just just discussion on how weak or powerful something is. The goal of this thread is to (hopefully) inspire discussion on the proposed idea I have to balance the most likely forever on-going discussion of CV versus surface ships. And as always, this is merely my opinion. I do not believe this the hard truth of things necessarily. The problem: Let me start by saying that WG, I believe you will never achieve "balance" in the eyes of both the CV captain nor the captains that must face off against their attack planes. The fundamental issue is that you are trying to balance a heavily RNG-based system (AA of surface ships) versus the skill of a human-controlled attack (CV players). As its no secret, players come from all skill levels. How does one balance the fight between an automated system where it has a set degree of effectiveness that will vary solely based on RNG, versus the skill of a human being? The answer is: You cannot. Another "no duh" in this moment should also be "What is very hard for some, is easy for others". I speak to the idea of a hypothetical situation here: The idea that WG will eventually find an AA setup that will reasonably fight off the average CV player/the majority of them. However, the skill difference will always make it so that in this "ideal" situation, the top players will always horribly dominate by comparison when the difficulty is set that high. So in short... The problem is that counterplay will forever be too powerful, or too weak. There cannot truly be a system where it has a SET effectiveness that can properly fairly fight off an average player, but also fairly fight off a highly-skilled player. The inverse is also very much so true here. If you have it fairly fight off a very skilled player, it also means the difficulty will also likely decimate the average joe. Now, what is the solution you ask? The idea is simple, and one that I've stated a few times but ultimately what made me decide to try and provide this idea/feedback is due to others in threads lately have echoed the same idea. This idea is to merely have a Player-controlled AA system. In my eyes, this is the only surefire way to make both sides (eventually) happy. However, I am aware warships is especially dependent on the situation for how feasible this is. WG obviously wants the skill floor to remain somewhat low, to attract as many customers as possible and this could be alot for someone to handle their AA on top of everything else. However, I feel this is how you truly will fix this eternal tug-of-war in balance. I forget who said it on the forum, but they said it best. Paraphrasing this notion, it went something like "In a PVP game, the deciding factor should be the skill being used versus each player". I believe that in the current system, almost all of the AA system completely rips out the surface ship player skill, and this is the problem. Not only does the surface player will feel its unfair since they don't have any real control over their own defense, but the CV player will ALSO feel its unfair if its just set too crazily high. The variable absolutely NEEDS to be the player, not a number on a spreadsheet. Ultimately, if a CV just blasts a player out of the water due to their skill and the surface player's inability to fire their AA off enough, you won't see anywhere near the degree of complaints. That's just how a PVP game works, right? Of course there will be some who will whine, you see it all the time regarding DDs. But if skill can eventually be cultivated to thwart off the CV completely as well, then in my eyes this is where you can say the point of balance has been achieved. I would define balance as "An engagement between two ships that is decided on the skill of both or lack thereof, all other factors remaining equal". (The equal part referring to Tier of the two ships, quality of AA on the surface ship, etc) I am no game designer, nor will I pretend to have the answer on designing a player-controlled AA system(s) in place needed to achieve this. However, I believe this criteria needs to be ideally met. - AA could be auto with some limited effectiveness, but the true power of AA should be drawn out with player input. AA will be default on auto until a player assumes control. - AA mount types need to have various strengths and weaknesses in application for how strong the types are. For example, short/medium/long range can have variable fire rates, damage and range (of course), area-of-effect amounts (or none at all), and even ammo amounts for reload. I know some ships had their ammo belts fed from the interior of the ship, while others where magazine-fed. This could also be a factor in creating flavor, balance, and Pros/cons. - If easy enough to implement, the combination of altitude, range, and type of AA hitting the aircraft should also play a factor in AA effectiveness. (Perhaps type of aircraft as well should factor in.) - And last but not least and what I believe the most important part: The AA system must not be so over-bearing in its need to be used that it overwhelms the player. This is in my eyes the largest obstacle to creating a player-controlled AA system, and the complexity, involvement, and implementation would have to be carefully evaluated, tested, and balanced in the variable metrics of AA. So what do you, the player think? How can a player-controlled AA system be brought to reality feasibly?
  11. So it's been three days, and I think we can all agree that 0.8.0 has been wildly contentious. I've been holding back my judgement till now so I could play a variety of classes, and I'll try to keep my feedback to objective comments. For full disclosure I'll throw out that I was also a fan of the reasoning behind the rework in the first place, and saw the necessity of the design decisions they took. I also played RTS CVs, though I was not a main by any means. What went wrong The AA. Not the numbers, I think we all knew they would be wildly off on release. The consistency is the problem. The "AA is OP!" thread right next to the "AA is worthless" threads right next to each other are a testament to the range of effectiveness AA can have. I think most of this because of the randomness behind the flak mechanic. Rewarding skilled dodging is important, but perhaps the rewards are a little too good against solo ships. How to fix: Move AA damage away from flak alpha, and increase it's consistency. How this happens doesn't matter so much. Right now too much relies on at least one solid hit if you want to down planes before they drop. The F-key. Press F to pay respects... or I guess not, because not many planes die unless you're slow on this button. The recall button is necessary, but the implementation of it goes against one of the best changes in the rework. The goal was to have CVs strike multiple times, so surface AA isn't useless if it can't stop the initial strike. But the current F key is so good the CV is only really forced to suffer losses on the initial approach. Any losses past that can be prevented by the CV, or are caused by the CV being greedy. It also means a CV can strike the blobbiest of AA blobs, and as long as they dodge flak in the 4-6 seconds it takes to line up a run they can avoid most plane losses. Having an ability this OP makes CVs extremely hard to balance later, and also connects to point 1. AA is horribly inconsistent when the CV never has to sit in the aura designed for consistent damage. How to fix: Put a long(er) delay on the time before planes become invulnerable. Plane HP may need to be buffed to compensate, but I believe that's a worthwhile trade off for being able to punish "suicidal" attack runs. The Vision Meta. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but the meta really feels like CBT and OBT where vision control wasn't a thing because CVs saw everything. Unfortunately since then, CVs sorta disappeared and DD became the kings of vision control. And that drove a TON of the game's balance decisions since then. IJN torp nerf? Without CVs to keep them track of them, low detection + insane alpha was too much. RADAR? Without CVs, larger ships couldn't proactively hunt DDs if the DD played smart. The list goes on. Now CVs are back, but all the tools WG gave cruisers to beat up DDs are still there. Now, the meta is back to the early days of the game. But even if it could be balanced, that's not the meta or the gameplay most DD drivers signed up for or enjoy. I believe that last point has been communicated quite well by a large number of DD mains. How to fix: Remove CV spotting for team. It's quite a simple fix actually. It doesn't remove the CVs power in any way, and also preserves the meta that most DD players know and love. Personally I'd go a step further and slash air detection of DDs by half. That way DDs could choose to be REALLY hard to strike if they're not already lit while not reducing the CV's power against a lit DD. I think these three points cover the three major complaints people have with the rework, or at least the ones I've seen. I left the UI issues off here, because I think everyone agrees with them, but if I'm not mistaken it's not the Dev team that can fix that. What went right The visuals. It almost feels like a cop-out saying it, but things do sure look pretty. The reduced alpha. As a CV I no longer feel really dirty when I strike a surface ship. Now some may put this as a negative, and say that even the best runs aren't rewarding. I feel there is a middle ground to be found, especially with AP bombs, but overall this feels like a much better direction for the game than "high reload + high alpha". The intensity. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, especially not many of the old guard CV players, but the new game play definitely is much more fast paced and hectic. Design wise, I think WG put together a class that will appeal to a type of player. In that aspect I think it was a success. It's not easy putting together (effectively) a new class! The WG response. No, seriously. I would really hate to be a WG employee having to browse through the forums and reddit right now. But here they are, acknowledging our complaints and sometimes offering their views. Like or hate the rework, you gotta give them props for that. They may not be able to say much but it is reassuring that they're taking this much more seriously than I've ever seen them before. So, what do you guys think of the suggested fixes? Step in the right direction? Completely wrong? Not enough?
  12. After the first few 0.8.0 games left a horrible impression on me, I decided to bring out an old favorite of mine - Aoba - and see how her anti-aircraft fire fares against the new carriers. In this game, I spent much of the battle pushing alongside a Gneisenau, and for a time, I broke off to hunt a CV that got too close to our battle line. The imminent threat of a CA ganking a CV turned both carriers' squadrons on me, and I found that when used correctly, sector AA when paired with DefAA II and Fighter II really tears through strike aircraft, even for a nation with notoriously poor AA capabilities. It was also during this battle that my biggest sector AA gripe came up: I was forced to use the cumbersome sector UI to enhance and change sectors. Even though I survived to help capture the enemy base, I found the UI clunky and borderline unusable in the heat of battle. My suggestion is this: allow for a keybind to toggle sector AA from port to starboard (and vice versa) like 'P' turns AA on and off. That way, sector switching becomes a lot more fluid and doesn't cover the whole screen, allowing for more dynamic surface ship play. It's difficult to fire guns, drop torpedoes, and manage AA sectors all at the same time, and I think this QoL change would really benefit aggressive play like the match in question. Side note: For those wondering, my build for this game was as follows: Captain (14 points): Direction Center for Fighters, Last Stand, Basic Firing Training, Advanced Firing Training, Manual Fire Control for AA Armament Upgrades: Main Armaments Mod 1, Propulsion Mod 1, Aiming Systems Mod 1, Steering Gears Mod 2 Consumables: Damage Control Party II, Defensive AA Fire II, Fighter II Signal Flags: None
  13. the dispersion of the 2 ships main gun firing has been annoying me lately since the real thing was way better and should be buffed to reflect as such. This is after having played both Yamamoto and Montana/Iowa to compare myself, Yamamoto seems to have better dispersion. Although Dispersion is based on the fire control capabilities and Iowa and by extension Montana (had it been built) would have far outclassed Yamamoto, yet this is not reflected in-game and it bugs me. My sources to give ample reason: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-ultimate-battleship-battle-japans-yamato-vs-americas-13737?page=0%2C1 http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm info provided is based off of a author who put way more time into researching this than me, and i found it to be a decent read.
  14. The last update of the upcoming cv rework says they will be removing all the "odd tier" cvs; 5, 7, and 9 of both the USN and IJN. They offer "credit and freexp" as "refunds." Anybody else agree that this does not seem to have ever happened before? The removal of entire vehicles from the game. The compensation offers nothing to consider not only the time and effort expended in the past, but also the inability to use these ships in the future. And what about all the hours spent grinding on these lines? We don't get that back. Something more needs to be offered if this is really going to happen. Nothing will really make it ok, but how about at least some doubloon compensation. If tier 5, 7, 9 ships are assigned average premium values of say 5k, 7k, 9k, it woukd at least take some of the sting out of losing our babies. Maybe give us cv players a little sign that you actually care about us. And how about compensating all the hours that we played on thise ships, much of it premium time, now lost in the proverbial toilet... I have over 1200 battles in cv, and win or lose I enjoyed every one of them. Now thinking about it just makes me salty af. So much time wasted carefully considering tactics and honing skills just to have one of the most enjoyable experiences of my life stripped away to be replaced with worthless creds and xp. We don't want creds and xp. We want our ships. We play the game to get ships. We buy doubloons get portslot, to get ships. Wg seems like they listen to the whiney crowd, I get it, bexause they have to. Now I am the whiner. Listen to me now. Chime in if you agree/disagree. Not gonna just sit here and take it because some squeaky wheels are too fing lazy to figure out how to play a ship with planes in the air. I play all classes and have never had an issue with cvs, whether dealing damage as one, or being dealt damage by one. It's not right to take away ships.
  15. Hello Captains! As a follow up to the last Weekly Thought, what games did you see at E3 2018 that struck your interest, and why? For me personally, it was DaemonXMachnia, Smash Brothers Ultimate (You are not ready for my Ganondorf or Captain Falcon), and plenty of others. I want to hear your thoughts, and Please keep this constructive and no advertisement of said games (As in, "you should all go play this for X reason!" That will get deleted.)
×