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
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 18 results

  1. Commissar_Carl

    Unofficial subs poll

    WG put out a poll for the 10.9 update, and that poll did not reference submarines in random battles. In lieu of this, I thought that I would put up my own. note that this poll is mostly about in game perception of subs from the perspective of surface ships. This poll won't have the obvious questions as to what people think of the subs and mechanics, i'll post a poll on that later. You can answer this if you have driven subs, or if you have not. I'm going to do my best to keep my personal biases out of this.
  2. Commissar_Carl

    Unofficial Subs Poll for Submariners

    This is a poll for submariners. if you have not played submarines, please do not take this poll, and instead take the poll here. This is a quick poll to get a feel from submarine players as to how effective submarines seem to be. once I have data from this, i'll summarize it in a separate post. then there will be a final unofficial poll concerning peoples opinions on how the submarine mechanics are. that one... will be a shitshow.
  3. Hello World of Warships community, I am making this post today to suggest possible changes to submarine play. Perhaps the developers at Wargaming will adopt some of my ideas, and perhaps not. Regardless of either outcome, I feel it is important to share my 2 cents after having tried the submarines during the trial period in co-op battles. First, let me preface by saying that this is not a submarine hate thread. Quite the opposite - I am thrilled that submarines have been introduced to the game, as I've been fascinated with submarines since I was a small child, and submarines are something that I've wanted since the launch of WoWs. That being said however, many players I've met are concerned (to put it mildly) about how submarines will impact the game. It is of course important to keep the game balanced, or else people will quit playing the game. With that in mind, I have several suggestions to help balance submarines, based on how submarines historically performed during the era covered in World of Warships: 1: First of all, I would recommend removing the ping/homing torpedoes mechanic. Make submarines only able to fire torpedoes while at periscope depth, and then have those torpedoes behave in the same way that torpedoes already behave in-game. Historically, homing torpedoes, while technically used during World War 2, only existed very late in the war, and thus comprised a tiny percentage of torpedoes fired during the war. The German Zaunkonig and Allied FIDO torpedoes were not introduced until 1944 and 1943 respectively. Most torpedoes during the war were straight running only, with a few German torpedoes using a ladder-search pattern. Regarding only being able to launch torpedoes at periscope depth, submarines during WW2 used compressed air to launch torpedoes from their torpedo tubes. Since water pressure increases the further down you go, it became progressively more and more difficult to launch torpedoes at deeper depths. In reality, submarines during this period were unable to fire torpedoes from depths much deeper than 25 meters or so, as the compressed air was not sufficiently powerful to prevent water from rushing into the submarine's hull through the open torpedo tubes any deeper than that. In game-play terms, it is unfair that submarines are the only vessels in the game with homing torpedoes, and there is no reason why they should be. Either make all torpedoes homing torpedoes, or making none of them homing torpedoes. Also, making submarines have to be at periscope depth to fire increases their vulnerability to planes and ships, as is historical. The disadvantage of being unable to launch torpedoes below periscope depth is of course that submarines lack any means to engage other submarines unless one of them is on the surface, but this is historical - there are many instances of a submarine submerged at periscope depth torpedoing a surfaced submarine, but there was only 1 instance of one submarine sinking another while both were submerged, which occurred on the 9th of February 1945, in a duel between U-864 and HMS Venturer, which ended in the U-boat being sunk after 3 hours of cat and mouse games. 2: Make submarines realistically slow. At the moment, the balao, the tier 10 US submarine, can manage 28 knots both underwater and submerged, and going full speed ahead does not deplete dive time any faster than going 1/4th speed when underwater. During the war, US submarines were known as "Fleet boats" due to their ability to manage 21 knots on the surface at flank speed, thus allowing them to operate with the battle-fleet back in the days when the USN's standard for battleship speed was also 21 knots. However, their speed underwater was much slower, being able to only make 8 knots (at best) flat out at flank speed. The ability to maintain the same speed both surfaced and submerged was not a feature of submarines until nuclear boats during the cold-war era. It is important to remember that submarines of this era were not primarily underwater dwelling craft, but rather primarily surface craft that were able to submerge when threatened or when mounting an attack. At the moment in-game, submarines are almost as fast as destroyers both above and underwater, enabling them to act as super-stealthy team scouts - in essence, they are simply better versions of destroyers at the moment. This should not be the case, as destroyers should have a useful role to play as well. Finally, the fast underwater speed of submarines enables them to dodge depth-charge attacks relatively easily. My suggestion? reduce submarine surfaced speed to historical values. Then either reduce underwater speed to historic values also, or make it so that going ahead full underwater depletes dive time much faster than going slower speeds. Doing this will make it harder for submarines to dodge depth charge attacks, and prevent them from acting as scouts, since they would be too slow, allowing destroyers to continue to fulfill this role. I realize that World of Warships is not meant to be a simulator - it is meant to be primarily an arcade game with realistic elements. However, there is no reason why realistic elements should not be used to help balance the game.
  4. You know Wargameroo, I don't mind spending money on things I like, and while this game and company have been really rubbing the wrong way the last year, I was down to throw some money at the Warhammer 40k crossover because while I'm not over the moon with you guys right now, I'm a huge 40k Fan and I could rationalize tossing some dollars to this game in the event things somehow turn around with the state of WOWS so I'd have some sweet Warhammer 40k swag... That said....I am NOT about to pay big boy dollars for a gimped IJN ship, I could care less, I don't care if you'd actually gone all out with the WH40k skin and had dead bodies hanging off every rampart, Chaos Daemons walking up and down the ship and it's wake was blood.........what I WOULD have spent a ton of money on was buying premium perma camos for Chaos......the frequency you guys screw up by not offering camos as permanents blows my mind. Black Friday ships? Those are obviously some extra work and special with their black on chrome, but I would have GLADLY paid real dollarinos or doubloons for a permanent shadow lurker to cover the ships you haven't made Black versions of yet. Really wish you all would stop with these absurd garbage packs and start making stuff that was more cosmetic focused and less "spend $100+ for flags and some other crap!"
  5. Estimated_Prophet

    Yeah, not seeing that 'fun' so much... (subs)

    Yeah, not really seeing that fun. Five games tonight. Can't take any more of this. Pretty much all like this. One game a low health DD rammed me and it died. https://replayswows.com/replay/94291#stats Other than that, nothing of any real note happened. Next to impossible to control depth; next to impossible to keep oriented when trying to ping, versus which way your topedoes are pointing; no 'excitement;' plenty of frustration. @Pulicat, @Antean, not really seeing why that frustration is worth dealing with.
  6. Hello, I am a COD/CSGO player who plays this game on the side but recently has been playing it more out of necessity. coming from a competitive background I have seen a ton of problems with this game that makes it really non-competitive, for example: premium/special ships being allowed to play in ranked or clan battles. (why do some people get to play with premium ships in a comp setting and others playing tech tree ships?. THAT IS INHERENTLY UNCOMPETITVE) this one is only due to the polarizing nature of CVs. ( before the start of EVERY ranked season,CBs there should be voting by the player base of each region wherever they want CVs in that season) another one that really upsets me, when you remove a ship from the game i.e(benham,Missouri,) and now other ones like the Smolensk. NO player should have access to that ship if it gets removed. IF you're going to remove the smol, players should get a refund in the currency they used and should not have access to it anymore. OTHERWISE WHATS THE POINT OF REMOVING A SHIP????? STOP making ships in the game that polarize the community! things like the Smolensk should never exist when you see what the player base has to say about it. PLZ WG LISTEN TO THE PLAYERS, you people have jobs and get paid because of the player base.(and at least listen to the damn CCs)
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  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. 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?
  16. 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?
  17. 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
  18. anonym_0s4EclhW0yHR

    Your Feedbacks About Ishizuki

    What's up everyone. I bought Ishizuki today (and AC 1 Sentinel for World of Tanks) to support Wargaming. I haven't played it yet, so I'm going to ask the players who have an experience using Ishizuki for their feedback about Ishizuki. Just do a give a little feedback which tells your experience with Ishizuki (do a commentary, I won't give a crap, I'd be even thankful). That's all.
×