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
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Programs Corner
  • Feedback and Support
    • Support
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan and Divisions Hub
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

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 22 results

  1. Wargaming - PLEASE STOP I can't even begin to describe how annoying it is to be the little fish in a big pond, mid tier, with two t6 enemy carriers. I can't dodge, I can't stick with group, I get focused and even though I'm downing 4-6 planes on my own, I just get focused and obliterated. Please figure this out and figure it out sooner than later. I've been a big supporter of yours since CBT and was a CBT for WoWP as well. I have never said "fix this or I quit playing." I am saying it now. Fix it or I'm gonna quit playing (if it matters). /rant
  2. This link in the in-game news announcement does nothing but minimize the game. "Take a look through the ' Developer Bulletin ', and welcome to the test!" In reality, it comes back to the article itself and provides no additional content.
  3. For the life of me I can't understand why this isn't a thing. I get why reports are hidden, don't want revenge stalkers/reporters etc. (even though we all know reporting is kind of useless most of the time), but I had a Co Op match in my Gneis just now-I did decently, not superbly; couple kills and was the main force behind getting most of the damage on the enemy BB's, think I topped out around 70-80k damage. No one talked in the entire match, but I get out and see the notification I've been complimented. No idea who decided to give me kudos, and didn't really think I deserved it-like I said, I didn't play an overly outstanding match, just your run of the mill game. Would like to at least know who thought I deserved recognition, if not hit them up in private chat after and toss them a thank you, or at least give them kudos in return. I feel like it'd promote more camaraderie and friendship-making in the game, and be a balance to the sometimes overwhelming amount of negativity present a lot of the time.
  4. CaliburxZero

    My feedback on PR

    So for those who were posting in my thread, I want it to be known that WG is in full damage control now, and outright deleted my thread without even locking it. Looks like my feedback was too harsh. Let the YT video do all the talking, exposing the lies. Close your wallets ladies and gentlemen: They can't even stand criticism anymore. A little birdie I had watching my thread informed me of this so i had to go on and make this one last thread. Welcome Wargaming to DEMOCRACY. You can silence plenty, but if you want to do that here we'll go to reddit, social media, in-game, youtube, wherever else. You can't shoot down the overwhelming opinion about your greed. For those just now seeing this, look up my thread called "The Trust is gone. WG, your message is clear". You only get an error trying to view it. gg. At least I can rest now validated that my voice matters enough for you to try and silence it.
  5. I think most of us can agree that "border humping" is an annoying and unfair aspect of the game. It's very difficult to hit a ship that is doing it because they path is not easy to predict and I've seen lots of ships that are taking a lot of fire just turn into the border to survive while they flee. I think there's a pretty easy way to solve the problem: deal damage when you hit the border. There should be X number of damage points applied every second that the player is touching the border of the map. That would be a fixed number. Making it a fixed number means that slower BBs that take longer to turn away from the border would take a similar amount of damage relative to their health pool as a DD, which is quicker. But it should be a severe penalty. I'd say enough to drain the average cruiser health pool in 45 seconds. Although I don't think it would be necessary, Wargaming could even have a delayed start for the damage, so that it waits X seconds before dealing damage. That could protect against people who accidentally run into the border, although I'm not sure I've ever witnessed a player that has unintentionally ran into the border.
  6. Recently I've been debating over a few of the ships in the armoury. Because it's such a big amount of coal to spend, I've been debating for a while now. That got me thinking. Why doesn't Wargaming allow players to test any ship in the training room? It would be good for testing ships that you want to purchase (even premium ones) and it could be good for learning the weaknesses of your enemy. There's no benefit to playing a battle in training mode, so there shouldn't really be any reason that Wargaming would be against it. If they wanted to stop players from battling in training mode, they could make it so that you can only play a ship that you don't own with bots.
  7. Here is a technical paper I wrote on my feedback for the SUBMARINE TESTING BETA PHASE. 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. SUBMARINE TESTING BETA PHASE FEEDBACK BY BIGS GENERAL BUGS ENCOUNTERED: 1) SUBMARINE “PING” STOPPED BY INVISIBLE BARRIERS: The PING width appears to be wider than visually represented to the player. This results in many cases where the submarine Ping mechanic is “stopped” by an invisible barrier (I.E. sinking ships or islands) when it visually appears to be able to pass over them or by them. This results in the Ping mechanic appearing to hit “invisible” barriers. 2) SUBMARINE PING WIDTH WIDER THAN VISUALLY REPRESENTED: The PING width needs to either be reduced or visually widened to match the actual PING area when “fired”. 3) SUBMARINES HITTING INVISIBLE BARRIERS WHEN CLOSE TO ISLANDS: Parts of the islands aren’t matching up with their “visual barriers” resulting in submarines getting stuck on invisible barriers when submerged. 4) DEPTH CHARGE EXPLOSION LARGER THAN VISUALLY REPRESENTED: When a submarine is being attacked by Depth Charges, the explosion appears to be MASSIVE compared to the visual represented explosion. In some cases, I was “hit” for 2-3k damage even when 1km away. 5) SUBMARINE WINDOWS FLOATING ABOVE SURFACE WHEN IN PERISCOPE MODE: The windows of a submarine are still being drawn in place as if the submarine never submerged resulting in “ghost windows” floating above the surface. 6) HORN BUG WHEN SUNK: Sometimes the submarine horn would sound when sinking and doesn’t stop resulting in an annoying constant horn bug. 7) TORPEDOES PASSING THROUGH SINKING SHIPS: Sometimes a torpedo would pass through a sinking ship when it is fully submerged. 8) GHOST BUBBLES: Sometimes when you submerge, the bubble trail won’t match up with Submarines resulting in a funny “ghost bubble trail” that doesn’t line up with the propulsion screws of the Submarine. 9) SUBMARINE PERISCOPE DETACHES VISUALLY WHEN SPAMMING “PERISCOPE DEPTH AND DIVE” RAPIDLY: If you spam the periscope depth “G” button by default, and “C” by default, the periscope would detach itself visually and look as if its floating above the submarine. 10) SOMETIMES GAME WON’T LOAD ENTIRELY LEAVING YOU WITH A MAP SCREEN ONLY: Weird bug where the game is technically “loaded” but you can’t get past the team roster/map so you can control your ship. Instead you can only watch the map icons start moving as other people begin playing. Fix seems to be to exit the game and re-enter the game. 11) AUDIO OF FIRED TORPEDOES OCCASIONALLY DOESN’T OCCUR: When you launch your torpedoes from a Submarine, sometimes you get no audio clue when in periscope mode that they have fired. 12) RARE OCCURRENCE OF DEPTH CHARGE BEING SHOT INTO ORBIT: Weird visual glitch that rarely occurred (only did it 2x for me out of 30x games) where a depth charge would be flung into the sky box from the ship. Looks as if its being fired into Earth’s orbit. Explosion occurs as normal and damage deals as normal, just a funny visual glitch. 13) VISUAL GLITCH IF SUBMARINE SURFACES INTO A SURFACE SHIP: This results in a “ram” as expected, but the submarine visually merges with the surface ship clipping through it. This just looks weird but doesn’t affect game play. CAPTAIN SKILLS: 1) RADIO LOCATION: You can take this skill on submarines allowing a submarine to radio locate enemies through islands when submerged giving them a very accurate location of where the enemy is. I personally feel this is “cheating”. By taking the skill, it allows you to gain a high amount of intelligence data when you should otherwise be “blind” and have to rely on your passive sonar when in “submerge” mode. In short, this skill trumps the reason to have passive sonar. GAME PLAY: SUBMARINE 1) THOUGHTS ON GAME PLAY EXPERIENCE: a. I really enjoyed my time as a submarine captain. It feels like a mini game of cat and mouse, something I hoped WG would achieve. If you are cautious and take your time to be as stealthy as possible and try to get 2x pings on every target, you can rack up a large amount of damage to stay competitive. However, if you play recklessly, get spotted constantly, and attack at dangerously close ranges, you get sent back to port quickly. I did feel that submarine is very fragile, which at first alarmed me, but after learning how to become stealthy and avoid detection, the submarine really starts to shine. This class is really going to separate out those that love a more methodical and tactical approach rather than guns a blazing. b. I did not feel Submarines are overpowered or under powered during any time of play. Either you stayed stealthy, allowed yourself to get two pings on a target to maximize damage dealing lethal blows to an enemy, or you get detected and destroyed. As a submarine and a surface ship, I feel the relationship is really good so far. 2) SUGGESTIONS: a. SUBMARINE VS SUBMARINE ISN’T FUN: Submarines really need a better way to combat other submarines when in “submerge” mode. Currently there is little you can do to an enemy submarine since it turns into a game of “submerge” chicken where you can only ram each other or see whoever doesn’t submerge fast enough to avoid the other’s torpedoes. This is the biggest downside I found in my entire time testing submarines. b. PINGING STOPS ON INVISIBLE BARRIERS: As stated previously, submarine pings appear to get stopped on invisible parts of sinking ships and islands. This is incredibly annoying as “visually” they should go over or by these barriers. This needs to be fixed asap. c. PASSIVE SONAR: I really like the passive sonar that occurs when submerged allowing you to see any surface ships direction from your position without knowing what it is. You are blind, but not entirely. My only suggestion is that Sonar should be able to ascertain a friendly or an enemy for you. Currently it doesn’t so you can get confused as to what ship it picks up. However, if it stays in its current state, its still very useful, but if someone takes Radio location, this makes this interesting ability completely obsolete (I don’t think Radio location should work on Submarines). d. DECK GUNS NEED TO EITHER BE MANUALLY USED OR AUTOMATED SECONDARIES: I was very disappointed that deck guns were not able to be used, even in a secondary capacity. I understand that this would yield minimal damage to enemy targets though. I would like to see deck guns get a higher chance to incapacity ships or some utilitarian purpose if they are activated in either case. GAME PLAY: DESTROYER 1) THOUGHTS ON GAME PLAY EXPERIENCE: a. I really enjoyed the relationship between a Destroyer and a Submarine. As a Destroyer, you feel very powerful against them allowing you to either gun them down relatively quickly, or depth charge them if they are submerged. However, in many cases, I felt too powerful, a thought echoed by other testers when I prompted the question. If you detect a submarine and run it down, it’s almost a guaranteed kill for a DD without much effort involved since its automatically done. 2) SUGGESTIONS: a. DEPTH CHARGES NEED TO BE CHANGED: I liked the automated process of the depth charges (at first, I was skeptical but came to like it since I could focus on other tasks). That said, they feel WAY too powerful against Submarines in their current state. Either the explosion radius needs to be reduced, or the damage needs to be reduced. As a submarine, I could be chunked for a scary amount of damage even when 1km away from a depth charge. I get that Depth Charges are strong counters to submarines, but in current state, its just unfair. GAME PLAY: CRUISER 1) THOUGHTS ON GAME PLAY EXPERIENCE: a. As a Cruiser, submarines were not a great concern for me if I was aware of their location, but when undetected, they posed as much threat as a concealed destroyer does. I could dodge torpedoes relatively well, but if not paying attention, I could eat serious damage. If I spotted a Submarine, my HE shells could quickly remove it from play at a rate I feel is balanced so far. The balance between the two is really on the submarine player. If he’s able to remain undetected, I must chase him and hope to find him before I get torpedoed, but if he’s spotted, I could wreck him quickly. 2) SUGGESTIONS: a. ADD DEPTH CHARGES IN LIMITED CAPACITY TO CRUISERS: The only annoying situations occurred when a submarine submerged near me which kept me from using my guns against him (as it should be). However, then I must wait for the submarine to surface again…I do feel that Cruisers should get Depth Charges, but they shouldn’t drop as frequently giving you SOME ability to counter them when submerged, but not be as good as a Destroyer. GAME PLAY: BATTLESHIP 1) THOUGHTS ON GAME PLAY EXPERIENCE: a. When I first played a Battleship, I was very skeptical about how it would handle submarines. In the end, I was pleasantly surprised. This scenario is very similar to combating a concealed destroyer. If you let the submarine take time to get two pings on you, you are in trouble. However, if you close the gap between you and a submarine, the submarine essentially becomes weaker. This is especially so if you can keep the submarine from getting that 2x ping on you by pointing your bow or stern to it minimizing its torpedo damage by blocking that second ping location. If you do spot a submarine in periscope depth or on the surface, your HE shells make VERY quick work of it, faster than against a Destroyer. Something I think should stay as is if a submarine is able to yield such massive damage to you with the double ping system. My only wanting as a Battleship is a way to alert myself or others to a submarine’s approximate location. 2) SUGGESTIONS: a. PASSIVE SONAR ON BATTLESHIPS(?): I really want a way for a Battleship to be warned about a submarine whether by giving you a general direction, or a “circle” approximate location. Maybe a battleship should get a general direction from where a PING originated? b. SCOUT PLANES TO SPOT SUBMARINES(?): Maybe Scout Planes should be able to detect a submarine’s location when airborne? GAME PLAY: CARRIER 1) THOUGHTS ON GAME PLAY EXPERIENCE: a. Carriers were still fun to play in the submarine beta. You still maintained the role of “spotter” or “seek and destroy” with submarines, like how you can hunt down Destroyers roaming the ocean. Your rocket planes from all nations work well at incapacitating submarines that are at periscope depth or surfaced. HE bombs on Langley and Furious were especially effective, however AP bombs from Ryujo weren’t, leaving IJN to be handicapped against submarines. If a submarine spots you, you get warned just like you would against any ship. It then turns into a race, who can destroy who first. 2) SUGGESTIONS: a. IJN REALLY NEEDS ANOTHER WAY TO ATTACK SUBMARINES: Ryujo felt very handicapped against Submarines since you could only rely on rocket planes to deal with them where USN and RN gets both rocket and bombers. CLOSING THOUGHTS 1) DO I FEEL SUBMARINES ARE A GOOD FIT? a. Based upon my time during the Submarine Beta Testing, I feel that the concept for Submarines is there. They add a whole new element to the game, unique perspective and play style while at the same time, not detracting from any other ship classes role or game play. While there needs to be some balances between certain classes, I do feel that War Gaming has set an excellent foundation to build off from in this Beta test. Will submarines be for everyone? Probably not, I believe that you will have a core group of players that love submarines and will exclusively play them, others that will just occasionally pick up the class, and a group that won’t touch them at all. The one big difference between submarines and carriers though is that I get the sense from other testers that players combating submarines feel as if they can do something against submarines where they feel handicapped against carriers. In short, it feels good to sink a sub and as any class you feel you got tools to eradicate them. Ultimately, I think submarines can fit very well within the World of Warships game play. ------------------------------------------------------COMPILING ALL OF MY ADDITIONAL FINDINGS INTO THE ORIGINAL POST FOR EASE OF READING------------------------------------------------ In regards to captain skills, I only had a 10pt captain, so I could not load up on skills. That said, I did reset my captain multiple times and tried several builds out with the 10 points, mainly to test skills that could be applied to a submarine captain. Here is what I settled on after several builds: https://worldofwarships.com/en/content/captains-skills/?skills=4,5,18,20,23&ship=Destroyer Preventative Maintenance: When you DO get hit, and you will at some point, its gonna hurt. You mainly get a lot of incapacitations, such as knocked out engine, rudder, etc. This skill helped a lot whenever I was hit. Last Stand: This was a life saver in many cases as any hits you take have a high chance to incapacitate your engine/rudder. Torpedo Armament Expertise: Torpedoes reload very slowly in submarines, with this skill I was reloading at a blazing 1min 30secs, approximately in the American Cachalot. Without it, much longer. Since Torpedoes are your bread and butter weapon system, you want these to churn out fast. Adrenaline Rush: As you take damage, this will help with reloading torpedoes faster. It can help in a pinch, but you REALLY don't want to be caught in the first place. Most ships can devastating strike you, so this is a "incase you happen to survive" skill. High Alert: You reload at 40s with this skill already, making it faster helped me out, especially when I got hit by HE shells or depth charges. Its mainly to help you escape by quickly getting rid of any engine/rudder shift incapacitations. Skills I initially took but later swapped out: Survivability Expert: I did not take Survivability Expert, the reason is that when I ran it, I found it to be very underwhelming for what you get. Sure, you can survive a tiny bit longer from Depth Charges, or take 1 or 2x extra shell hits, but in general I found that if you get caught by any surface ship, you die so quickly that it never really mattered if I had this skill or not. I passed on it, but someone else might like it. Jack of All Trades: JOAT might be useful to couple with High Alert, but that's a lot of points for 5% extra Damage Control Reload speed... Torpedo Acceleration: This was another skill that I initially took, but quickly swapped it out. It makes your torpedoes faster, sure, but the distance reduction is kind of scary for a submarine. Example, I went from 8km to 6.4km in the Cachalot American Submarine. It did help hit targets more often than I had without the skill...but it puts you in a uncomfortably close position to any target you come across considering your concealment range is 5.0km in it. In short, that range made me uncomfy and I wound up being unable to plan a successful escape route should my torpedoes miss. Radio Location: This is the bees knees, super good to have skill just from the point of being able to know where the closest enemy is. That said, I felt this skill is so good on a submarine its mandatory. I took it off my last build though since I think this skill needs to not work on Submarines. It trumps any reason at all to have passive sonar on a submerged submarine. It also doesn't make a ton of sense since Submarines were required to surface to send and receive radio signals. I personally feel its "cheating" the system to run it, but that's up to WG to decide. Concealment: Concealment isn't recommended really...you have 5km detection in the Cachalot for example..that's insane. It only really helps when you surface yourself to replenish oxygen. I guess you could take it to try and ambush other submarines, but whenever most players were detected and they couldn't see me, they just dove out of precaution I was sending torpedoes (and I would send torpedoes each time). In short, its kind of a waste of 4pts when other, more useful skills are available. Priority Target: I didn't take it, if you surface in a sub and get detected, prepare to get bombarded by anything that can reach you. Incoming Fire Alert: This could be useful, but again, if you are detected, you're gonna be shot at by anything that can reach you. Basics of Survivability: This skill did come in handy when escaping depth charges since they have a crazy high chance to cause you to flood. That said, this is more of a "if you survive" skill. 90% of the time I was being actively depth charged, I died. Seldom do you live through that to make this skill worth the points. Vigilance: Could be handy later on if torpedoes change to be used while submerged, but this skill didn't really help in any way that I felt I must have it, or even considered it to be of use. Fire Prevention: Again, not really recommended. If you are being shot at, you're gonna die too quickly to be set on fire. (seems to be a pattern here ;) ) ------------------------------------------------------COMPILING ALL OF MY ADDITIONAL FINDINGS INTO THE ORIGINAL POST FOR EASE OF READING----------------------------------------------- SURFACING NEXT TO TARGET TEST: I've also attempted to surface right up next to a target and fire in a attempt to "blap" destroyers or cruisers point blank. In theory you can do this, but its insanely risky, but with radio location, it makes this cheeky maneuver possible. Hence why I suggest to WG that it not work on subs for fear of stunts like this, and because it trumps the reason to have passive sonar. CURVE BALL TORPEDOES TEST: You CAN "curve ball" torpedoes as I call it. Throw one set far right of a bow on target, then ping to have it home in, then fire another set far left and ping to have it home in. The result is the two sets of torpedoes will curve towards the target resulting in semi-broadside hits. I don't really find this unfair though since it does take some skill and good prediction on the sub player's part to pull it off. From the perspective of the surface ship, it looks like torpedoes are coming from two different directions which does two things. 1) makes it semi difficult to ascertain the location of origin (aka where is the sub launching from) and 2) you gotta wiggle hard to avoid it, but not impossible to dodge. SURFACING INTO A TARGET TEST: Other things I found was surfacing under a target. This results in a ram, which you always die, but does decent damage and flooding to a target. SURFACING TO AVOID DEPTH CHARGE DAMAGE TEST: Surfacing while being depth charged DOES help you evade damage from them, however you then have to worry about being shot. So you need to dive quickly. Currently this results in death for the sub still, but can save you in very rare instances. SPOTTING SHIPS IN SMOKE WHILE SUBMERGED EXPLOIT(?): You can spot ships in smoke if you dive under them. Granted you as the sub can't attack them, but you can spot them with with abusing the "target aquisition" passive mechanic. Aka, you are within 2km of the target; so close you can spot them no matter what. This only really works on cruisers, battleships, and carriers in smoke. Destroyers immediately start dropping depth charges. SUBMERGED RAMMING EXPLOIT(?): Lastly, "submerged chicken" is a issue, which is just ramming a sub while both are submerged. This isn't really a exploit though, but it is annoying that its the only real tactic to deal with submerged enemy subs at the moment. CURVING TORPEDOES AROUND AN ISLAND TEST: With homing torpedoes, one big concern I had was curving them from behind an island. You can "kind of " do this, but with the ping mechanic stopping on islands and ship wrecks, and the curve rate of torpedoes being poor, its not really a reliable tactic or exploit. CURVING TORPEDOES AROUND TEAM MATES TO A TARGET TEST: Accidentally hit "post" before I finished. You CAN curve torpedoes around a friendly teammate to a target using the "curve ball" method. This can result in some hilarious ambush torps on the charging target who is gunning for your teammate. This is super risky though since you can hit your teammate if done poorly, or if your teammate is not aware of your torpedoes. Communication is key here to pull it off. I achieved this last one by being left or right of my friendly teammate to ensure my ping had a clear line of sight to the target. I did not check if teammates block pings. (UPDATE: YES, TEAMMATES BLOCK PINGS) AS A SURFACE SHIP, SUBMARINE DEPTH IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND (PLAYERS REPORT HAVING TROUBLE KNOWING WHEN A SUBMARINE IS AT PERISCOPE DEPTH) Many players I encounter are having difficulty understanding when a submarine is at periscope depth, or to deep to hit with main guns. Currently this information is displayed with two different sets of numbers underneath the submarines name, and player name. The first number is the distance from you to the enemy submarine. The second number below it is the depth at which the sub is currently sitting. It took me a hot minute to understand that I cannot hit submarines below 8m underwater (8m is periscope depth) with my main guns, even though the target is clearly able to be locked onto. This is just a convenience of play issue. If you target a submarine with your main guns, that is "submerged" the player should get a "Target impossible to hit" notification similar to how asashio gets a "Target Impossible to Hit" notification when targeting a Destroyer or Cruiser with its special Deep Water torpedoes. Unless this is made clear, I think there will be a lot of confusion among the player base as to why they can target the enemy submarine but cannot hit it. HE BOMBS FROM USN CARRIERS ARE INCREDIBLE POWERFUL; UP TO WG TO DECIDE IF THIS SHOULD CHANGE HE bombers launched from the USN carriers specifically, are incredibly powerful against Submarines. I'd even go so far as to say that the USN carrier tree line is THE sub hunting line. It takes about two passes from the Ranger's HE Bombers to nuke a surfaced or periscope depth submarine if the submarine is at full health; only one pass if the submarine has taken moderate damage (I.E. 1/4 of its health is gone). While this is a powerful counter, the submarine that is aware of bombers, can quickly submerge before bombers get a chance to complete their dive run; The only exception is if a submarine just happens to surface right as a squadron of HE bombers flies over them and just happen to be within dive bombing distance (I.E. the sub surfaces right in front of or in the center of the bombing reticle). I can see some players frustrated by this, but given that the submarines are difficult to detect from the air, and can quickly dive to avoid all damage. Given this experience first hand, I think the relationship between aircraft and submarines is on a good path to being balanced. This is especially so if a submarine is able to sneak through your front lines and get within torpedo range of a Carrier as this almost always leads to death for a parked carrier. HE LEVEL BOMBERS FROM RN CARRIERS DO A DECENT JOB OF ERADICATING SUBMARINES I was asked specifically how the HE Level Bombers of the Royal Navy line fair at destroying submarines. They aren't as good as american dive bombers, but they are definitely better than IJN's. So I would say they do a good job, just not the best in the BETA. IJN AP BOMBS DO NEXT TO NOTHING TO SUBMARINES Again, I was asked specifically about how IJN carriers fair against enemy submarines. They currently only have rocket planes and torpedo bombers to deal with submarines. Torpedoes are easily avoided, and difficult to land on such a tiny target, so I don't really consider this a "GOOD" option at all for anti-torpedo warfare. Their AP bombs don't do much at all unless they hit the target, which is very hard to do. When they do, it does poor damage at best. Again, not really a option I would consider when dealing with a submarine. This puts us back to Rocket Planes, which do fair against enemy submarines quite well. I would say that IJN carriers are the worst at hunting down and destroying enemy submarines. DOES THIS PROMOTE BATTLESHIPS TO SOLO CAMP IN THE BACKFIELD BY THEMSELVES, "ISLAND CAMPING", OR PROMOTE ANTI-OBJECTIVE PUSHING PLAY? One big issue raised by many Community Contributors and the community at large is that by adding in submarines, it will "keep battleships from wanting to push objectives, or push fronts and promote a more stand-off game play." The short answer to this from my first hand experience in the BETA testing is, No. At any rate, it PROMOTES MOVING with teammates more than ever, something people have been trying to get other players to do for years. This is because of a couple reasons, 1) Submarines can sneak past surface ships AND aircraft, 2) Since you are by yourself and no teammates to threaten a submarine, they can take their time getting two pings on you leading to MASSIVE damaging torpedo strikes. What sets submarines apart from Destroyers trying to hunt down solo battleships way in the backfield or hiding carriers is that while yes, they can get to locations to do surprise strikes, submarines just fill the role of "Backfield ambusher" or "Carrier hunter" better because of their extreme stealth capabilities. The difference lying in that submarines can hide from aircraft very easily. This creates a very interesting counter play to carriers who like to hide behind islands by themselves, and battleships that like to solo roam by themselves deep behind your own lines and never push. They now have to worry about putting themselves in danger of a surprise torpedo attack from a submarine. While you can still backfield/island camp in a cruiser or battleships or carrier, with a enemy submarine in the area, especially one that hasn't been seen for a while, its best to be on your guard and stay near a friendly destroyer or cruiser in hopes they spot the torpedoes or submarine, or the enemy submarine taking aim at them instead of you. However, once the enemy submarine(s) are eradicated, solo roaming/island camping play generally resumes. This last part further proves from observation that no, the introduction of submarines does not promote stand-off game play. CARRIER SECONDARIES ERADICATE SUBMARINES AT A SURPRISINGLY GOOD RATE Here's a fun fact I found. I had three(3) instances where a submarine managed to ambush my carrier and got WAY too close. Taking control of my carrier personally, You can guide yourself around torpedoes pretty well. In all three of these cases where I was paying attention and had ample time to react, I survived as a carrier. (only times I didn't was when I either wasn't paying attention at all, or the enemy sub player was incredibly sneaky). What I found, to my surprise in these three cases, is that carrier secondaries deal with submarines at a VERY good rate. Due to their low health pools, submarines that wander too close to a carrier and into their range get destroyed quickly. To test this even further, I dropped my third upgrade slot which contained the upgrade for longer torpedo attack runs, to "secondary range upgrade". I then proceeded to actively CHASE submarines in my carrier in a couple games by taking control of the carrier directly, and I got to say, the secondaries work very well at anti-submarine warfare and are a plausible last ditch effort to get rid of them in a pinch. Not saying you should do what I did and CHARGE TORPEDO THROWING SUBMARINES WITH YOUR CARRIER :P But, if you DO get into a situation where a sub is in your face, you do have a weapon system on the carrier that can deal with them reliably. So, secondaries on Carriers now have a good purpose other than looking cool, and creating lots of smoke and fire while you wait to get blapped by a destroyer, cruiser, or battleship. DOES RADIO LOCATION WORK SUB TO SUB/ SHIP TO SUB? Yes. Radio Location Captain Skill does detect submerged submarines, and submarines that have the perfect can locate other submerged submarines. This of course is up to WG if this skill will continue to work in this manner. However my feedback on this is that, I feel its cheating since it negates any reason to have passive sonar, and submarines have next to no chance to "hide" or "escape" from a destroyer actively hunting them with this captain skill.
  8. ComputerWhiz

    What about mines?

    Would anyone else like to see mines added to the game? It would be an interesting new mechanic if some ships had the ability to dump mines into the water, especially with submarines coming supposedly. Perhaps it could be a consumable or something that certain ships carry. My primary reason for suggesting this is because I really don't see a counter against submarines. Admittedly, I haven't tried them yet, but if it's anything like that event a while back, once the sub is underwater it's invincible. EDIT: After reading some of the initial replies to this topic, I figured I'd clarify what my vision for mines looks like and how it would be implemented into the game to paint a better picture for you guys. Select ships would have the ability to lay mines. A variety of ships IRL were fitted with mines during the war. I think it would work best as a consumable, which could also give players the option to swap it out for something else if they wanted to. Kind of like how you can swap out smoke for hydro/radar on some ships currently. A few people suggested that this would potentially promote camping instead of moving about the map. However, you can't lay mines if you are camping. It might encourage some players to camp, but it would also get others into the map. Ships would be able to spot the mines and they would have the same marker as a torpedo, but without the beep notification. This means that ships with better maneuverability (like DDs) would be impacted less by the addition of mines. This would also limit the amount of friendly fire. There would likely still be some instances of friendly fire, but it's no different for torpedoes. Trolls will be trolls. The mines would have a set time before they are armed, like torpedoes currently do (but greater), to prevent ships from simply sailing in front of ships and dropping mines. This would also help to limit the friendly fire possibility. I'm not sure whether it would be best for mines to be permanently active for the entire duration of the battle or if they would at some point expire. That would involve some testing of the mechanic to see what works best. But to clarify, I'm not suggesting that you should be able to lay enough mines to completely cover the map with mines. I'm suggesting the ability to strategically place a few here and there throughout the battle.
  9. Hello. I wanted to take the time to talk about some of the things that have been in test servers, and some things that are currently in the game. I have had a lot going on so I am a bit late to get to this While I am glad that WoWs has done their best to keep things alive with new content, some of it hasn't been for the best. Most recent example being the match making thing, and just how the community is. This is a Team game so it is entirely possible for a person to match make low because they did everything they could in a situation, and the team did not follow through. I have noticed examples of this through multiple accounts --------------------------- I think the Research will have the most impact (and not in a good way). It is true that World of Warships has been out for years but, there are people who took breaks, don't have the time to devote to the game, or are new. Not everyone has 100K free exp just sitting around. All this is doing, is ensuring that a portion of the content, is locked to people who grind, or have the money (to buy premium and what not). It does not bother me however, I want to do my best to think of other people based on past experiences (with other games) --------------------------- Yet to be seen is the addition of the new ships and submarines. One of the things I know to be very wrong with this game is the Torpedoes, and HE Spam. That is what ruins the fun for a lot of people. I was told that they are discussing how to rework HE shells. No mention of the fire chances though. Based on what I was told, it sounded like to me that it was a rework on the Inertial fuse. IF this is true, then that is great. Right now HE spam is way too strong on some ships. It gets way too strong if combined with smoke To fix that issue, I was thinking you could remove the targeting from Ships in smoke. That would make their shots not as accurate. That seems to be an appropriate fix to resolve at least some of the HE Spam campers -------------------------- In the current state of the game, there is a reason people choose things like the Minotaur for ranked. It is because it is an AP spam ship that is hard to spot, and turns well. I know that if games were super realistic that people wouldn't play it but.. Hitting the Super Structure with HE is what brings down most ships. If this were like the Second World War we wouldnt be seeing that, on some ships. If you have ever watched a video on Taffy 3, you would see that Destroyers only had the intent to "rough them up". That quote comes from this video My point is that there should be a rework on Armor too and how shell types interact. I am not saying go super realistic but, at least find a middle ground. When you have figured that out, I would suggest figuring out Torpedoes. I will use the USS Johnston for this example The USS Johnston had 10 total torpedoes (5 on each side). As far as I know from reading history, it did not have any torpedoes after that. This seems to be a similar setup to other Destroyers around the world. With that in mind, here is my thought on this.. Make it so Torpedoes are a consumable rather than something for DD's to rely on. That is all they do.. Launch torpedoes, hide, rinse wash repeat. I hardly see DD's use their main guns. To help the player know about their Torpedo count, make it so there is some sort of indication on the bar below, and somewhere else on the screen.. A detailed overview so you know which tubes still have a torpedo loaded. Example: For Fletcher it would show up as Left 5, and Right 5 --------------------- The last thing on my list is the BB's. They have been WAY too accurate lately. I believe I know why and I wish for someone to confirm or investigate. I am aware of members in the community using mods, or something like it. I will admit to not fully understanding it but, supposedly it helps with aiming by make the reticle easier to understand (in terms of elevation and things like that). It would not surprise me if a small group of that community, is using some sort of aim assistance Before you ask.. I am not talking about the reticle change in the options I remember that there was another online game where people used "file loops". It would cause the game server to read as 100 health all the time making that player invincible. This is one of many examples of exploitations that does not involve hacking the game. I do not know if Warships has server file checks to find something like that If this new patch caused more "holes" for people to find a way to use something like this, it wouldn't surprise me ---------------------- This is the most I have to say. I hope you read this post and take it as a discussion rather than "you should be on your main account". I do not need to be on my main account to share some thoughts or ideas. A discussion is just that.. Talking about the possibilities, or what I could do differently. Any feedback or idea no matter how small, can be taken by someone else and improved upon. This is a community, not an elitist society
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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%.
  16. 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".
  17. 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?
  18. 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?
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.)
×