Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'fix'.



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 20 results

  1. First of all I must say thanks for some of the changes, I whined/cried/complained about no attack vs subs on my Des Moines, well it worked out, it is fixed so thanks. I also like the birthday gifts I received today and am glad that I see changes being made that people actually wanted, I will admit I was skeptical when reading the long post about the company going to change back to listening to the community. Anyhow I will be looking forward to being a paying customer again, peace out all.
  2. This is flawed. It is not fun for anybody. Nobody likes Neighbors, nobody likes Epicenter, and nobody likes the same map in all of their games. There is a tier 6 clan battle season with a whole pool of maps to use, yet it is the same 3 maps for bronze league ranked, with the worst one of the lot on repeat. This isn't a one-off screenshot either. At least 75% of my matches have been Neighbors this season.
  3. Commanders! This morning we released an update to the portal that has fixed the ability to display stats for individual warships in the player profile. Please let us know if you encounter further issues!
  4. According to this post from the sister forum the torpedo bug will be fixed in 10.7 https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/152308-torpedo-aiming-issue/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-3944116
  5. Lose_dudes

    Fix IFHE

    The current IFHE favors gunboats that already have good HE. Change this. How about -25% the gap between the HE pen on the ship you have and the highest HE pen ship of the tier -25% the gap between the HE damage on the ship you have and the highest HE damage ship of the tier
  6. Let's use California at 60s turret traverse time as an example. This is currently how it works under Grease The Gears: 180 deg / 60s = 3 deg/s 3 deg/s + 20% of that value = 3.6 deg/s 180 deg/ 3.6 deg/s = 50s turret traverse time This is VS. the original 48.6 turret traverse time using the old Expert Marksman. So it's SLOWER. As many have deduced, the way Grease The Gears CURRENTLY works, is that it gives bigger buffs to faster turret traverse ships and lesser buffs to slower turret traverse ships. In other words, this skill is working IN REVERSE. Seriously, Grease the Gears either needs reverting back to the +0.7 deg/s OR a direct reduction to turret traverse time, thereby eliminating the whole "faster traverse gets bigger buff, slower traverse get smaller buff" nonsense. As someone on here suggested, a direct turret traverse time reduction seems to be the best solution, and the simplest! Using direct reduction method on California: 60s -20% of that value = 48s turret traverse time. (compared to 50s now under GtG) What, wanna go slower? Let's check Musashi with her abysmally slow turrets: 72s -20% of that value = 57.6s turret traverse time (compared to 60s now under GtG) Faster? For Massachusetts: 36s-20% of that value = 28.8s turret traverse time (compared to 30s now under GtG) In the middle? For Colorado: 45s -20% of that value = 36s turret traverse time (compared to 37.5s now) Speedy as heck? Let's try Kremlin. 30s -20% of that value = 24s (compared to 25s now, yes, even KREMLIN gets a slight boost, lols.) TL;DR Turret traverse time reduction is better across the board, for virtually ALL turret traverse speeds over 30s. And if WG wants to keep it complex, just go back to Expert Marksman's +0.7 deg/s method. It's STILL better than the way Grease The Gears works currently.
  7. Gods_Eyes

    The only issue with CVs:

    This is World of Warships. Not World of Airplanes. Am I playing as a pilot, or a boat captain? Specifically all spotting ability needs to be removed from airplanes, including attack planes and torpedo bombers. Everything. Zero spotting ability. Allow me to explain: I just played a tier 6 match with two carriers working together. The first located and perma spotted the destroyers sitting BEHIND friendly AA cruisers(no issue here right). The second came in with rockets and killed the destroyers. If two carriers are banned from divisions, they should currently be banned from having 2 in a match together. Their ability to spot and work together with focus fire is unparalleled. However, this highlights the most important balance issue with CV. They can spot with planes. The ship itself is a tall ship, and should have super buffed spotting ability. Give the CV itself the ability to see concealed destroyers 8km away, but the planes need to have ZERO ability to spot at all. This would balance the game play to put it on par with a battleship. To draw a parallel: A Montana can shoot anywhere on the map. I devastating strike derpy players in the first 2 minutes of matches, easy. Despite having similar ability to strike anywhere on the map, The Montana Cannot Spot 25km Away. So let's take a step back. Saying the planes shouldn't be able to spot anything would be MUCH more balanced than the current iteration of carriers, but it's not perfect. So what would be? Here's some ideas: 1) Create "no spotting" zones within (about) 2km of all islands, where destroyers cannot be spotted by carriers whatsoever. 2) Penalize missed drops. If the Hakurya wants to drop some of his torpedos on an island to save planes, those planes should instantly explode when neither of their torpedos hit an enemy target. I hate that I have to game the system and drop bombers to stay relevant as a CV driver. It works around AA in a cheating way. ~ I love playing carrier. Recently regrinding the IJN destroyer line for research bureau, and it has become extremely apparent how big of a balance issue carriers have right now. Destroyers (ESPECIALLY AT THE LOWER TIERS) are irrelevant against Good carrier players. Yes, I can still use my destroyer in a relevant way occasionally, but that is ONLY against carrier players that have no idea how to play. As it stands, the carrier is a radar boat with 40km radar. 12km radar itself should be removed from the game, so tell me, how balanced do you think 40km radar is??
  8. Kengen

    Some love to Zeppelin

    there is a lot of comments about the graff zeppelin, how about some love for this carrier? more damage with the bombs please :C that carrier cost a fortune and in my opinion, is not worth the money..
  9. So I know all about the ongoing CV hate. Especially after Jingles gave his input about it and listing the problems. Obviously, WG isn't going to remove it. So what about a debuff mechanic? My idea is that every single time you launch a new squadron, your Aircraft restoration time increases by "x" percentage. Basically, you can't keep chucking out aircraft all the time at the same rate throughout the battle. After 1st Squadron Launch: "5% increase in Aircraft Restoration Time" After 2nd: "10% increase" After 3rd: "15%" After 4th: "20%" After 5th: "25%" Now, ongoing from here, we keep the 25% penalty but now After 6th launch: "25% more Aircraft Restoration and lose 100 HP per second" After 7th: "25% more Aircraft Restoration and lose 150 HP per second" Of course the number would be modified but this basically makes CVs more tricky to play because you need to really make your targets count instead of throwing aircraft away. This basically combines the old CV mechanics that instead of having 0 planes, you have significantly less. Just give it a thought. This should help dds much more. This is coming from a Japanese CV player, which I honestly think it is broken. I went on the test server and tried out the Hakar with a full airplane build and dealt 50k damage to a Yamato in like 2 minutes (the dive bombers). Maybe RNG was on my side or something helping me with those triple citadels but I have to say, it was incredibly broken and something needs to be done. I am trying to help out both sides here. Edit: Might want to increase the health of planes so things like Worchester and Defensive AA don't completely delete Cvs and make them useless with these proposed changes
  10. Con la actualizacion 0.9.1.1 algunos jugadores estan con problemas en el texto del juego. turbo07 publicó una corrección en el foro sobre esto: Tradución (perdón si hay errores): Comandantes! Algunos de ustedes podrían haberse encontrado con cierto problema después de la Actualización 0.9.1.1: una visualización incorrecta del texto en el juego (se muestran las etiquetas "IDS" en lugar del texto deseado). Ya hemos preparado una solución general para este problema y la incluiremos en la próxima actualización de la versión. Si desea aplicar esta solución ahora, debe seguir esta guía paso a paso: 1. Cierra el juego 2. Descargue el archivo Install_patсh_fix_for_0.9.1.1.zip (enlace en el post del foro) 3. Descomprima el archivo (la carpeta "Install_patсh_fix_for_0.9.1.1") en la carpeta raíz del juego WoWs (la que contiene / bin32 / bin64 / screenshot y otras subcarpetas) 4. Vaya a la carpeta descomprimida "Install_patсh_fix_for_0.9.1.1" 5. Inicie el archivo "apply-patch.bat" 6. Aplique los cambios escribiendo el número "1" en la ventana que aparece y presione Entrar 7. Inicie el juego como de costumbre. Si esta solución no ayuda, publique en el foro el tema correspondiente o comuníquese con Atención al cliente. Si encuentra algún problema nuevo que aparece después de aplicar esta corrección, puede revertir los cambios iniciando "apply-patсh.bat" nuevamente, eligiendo la opción "2", presionando Enter y luego reiniciando el cliente del juego. Nota: la única forma recomendada y correcta de iniciar el juego es a través del Lanzador oficial o WGC. Si utiliza estos métodos particulares para iniciar el juego, la información en este anuncio no es relevante para usted. Disculpe las molestias.
  11. Like them or not, the community is really torn about CVs. I'm on the hate side, but I think i have a legitimate solution on how to keep them in the game, but make them 1) more rewarding 2) Increased danger 3) strategic in way that benefits all classes. This is my gamification of what I learned from watching a youtube video on the Battle of Midway and the struggles the CVs actually faced at the time. 1) Range Currently there is no range restriction. You can get in a squadron and just fly forever until you fire a few times or get shot down. There is no urgency to using the squad and no detriment to going to the wrong location or just flying forever to find that last DD when the rest of your team is dead. Where you fly should matter, and unplanned random discovery flights are unfair to classes that rely on stealth. The ideal distance would be between 14km - 18km depending on the type of plane used / country. This would become a stat that differentiates the carriers. They have stats now, but they all feel about the same. Range +1 km would also be a good captains skill as long as it's a choice between another valuable stat like faster flying or additional plane in a squad in the 4th tier. 2) Invincibility for average intelligence As long as you aren't a complete idiot, staying alive in a CV is really easy for the first 5 minutes minimum, and many matches it's easy to never even feel threatened in an even match. Decisions should have consequences. The range forces the CVs to move forward to deploy a squad (stay with me CV players). The idea that a CV isn't under threat during a battle is not based on anything but a lack of a realistic mechanic that works. 3) Plans instead of Spam CVs don't have 3 fully geared squads ready to go at any given time. Choices are made in advance. It should be at least as time consuming to attach a torpedo to a plane as it is swap between HE and AP. This also increases the value of pre-selecting the right type of plane to suit your current objective. Now, the CVs benefit from DD spotting more than they prevent DDs from being able to spot. Class balance is returning, and DDs are being given a chance to be DDs. Launching ships requires nothing right now and it shouldn't be so boring. When CVs are maneuvering, you aren't launching planes. Ideally, a squad should be taking off into the wind, but I would accept that it has to be moving at a minimum between 12kps and 18kps to give make launching a squad more meaningful. You can't just sit behind the island and spam from your magical deck of 3 ready to launch squads. There should also be time added when an unused ship needs to be stripped down from one use and converted. 4) In real life, explosions aren't an issue you solve with a signal When prepping for a strike, the CV is most vulnerable due to high-explosives being more exposed to shells, fire and shrapnel. This real life danger isn't represented. Shooting a CV feels like shooting a cinder block that operates separate from it's bombardment. CVs should be more susceptible to damage when struck on the deck with a squad being prepped. Maybe you thought having 40 torpedos on the deck that you might use later is save until one gets hit and a chain reaction kills you for littering your deck with explosives. This only works if there is flight setup time, but just adding arbitrary boring time onto the game feels like it would be arbitrary and boring... Call it redundant. Now, you start with a set amount of planes, and you can queue up their equipment set. Best of all, you can make choices. 5) Strategy and consequences Send all 50 at once for a massive attack, but now you have no planes equipped to be a fighter, so you are extra weak if the other CV comes after you. Might want to have 5 dressed out fighters on standby to defend your ship. Might not want to risk everything as you can the attack would be bigger, but not necessarily more ships sunk. That will be the most challenging gameplay balance. What is the incentive to risking more planes? Maybe you need 10 dive bombers and a 10 fighter escort. This is going to really ramp up CV strategy and create a higher skill gap then someone crosstorping using 1 move over and over again to set damage records, without ever being in danger of running out of ships or someone shooting their boat. If you lose a plane, it's gone and there will not be a magic plane building factory in the CV anymore. This might also help with that nightmare scenario when after a tough battle there is a team that has a DD and say a Cruiser both low on health, and the other has a CV that had 100 planes shot down and can now make a few more to kill the Cruiser with a DB and the DD with rockets... make from magic. If the CV stashed a couple away for an emergency, that's great, but he would have to sacrifice more defense or offense throughout if he doesn't utilize all of his planes earlier when they could have tilted the scales. 6) Fighters as spotters Sure, but they run out of gas and have to fly back, which means if you want them up for more than a few seconds, they have to start close to the CV. no more dropping a fighter on A 10 because a ship has terrible detectability by air and can't shoot the fighter down 12km away. This also would ideally remove the dpm types from crapping out a fighter on their way to flying on magic fuel. if you want a fighter, go for it, It will leave from your deck if you have one queued up, and it will probably die, then it's gone forever. Now they matter and aren't just another way to dump on the DDs trying to play. 7) DPM These changes obviously reduce the frequency of attacks, but they allow for bigger and more complex attacks. Fighters on a BB can get their butts kicked by the 10 that came along, but those 10 will probably get shot down. Bigger attack, bigger risk. 8) The dumbest thing The dumbest thing that is effective on this game is loading a plane, taking off, then immediately firing a third of the arms you loaded into the ocean so those planes will be ready faster... I get it. It's a game. But please remove this. This had to be on the list of nonsense you wanted to get out of the game, but ran out of runway to fix. You just sold a bunch of 'ships' for 25k dubloons... for Christmas. Make some runway, we deserve it and the guys that bought the PR paid for it. Best part is it's not a total overhaul. Rather than boost, you have range, you might consider burning range faster in exchange for boost, but the logic is minimal, the CVs gain more character, the DDs get to play the game again and if you suck... (the best part)... we can kill you without having to take ourselves out of the game to do it. 9) The spotter plane Rarely did a fighter plane circle over AA and take it until they died. CVs would send out spotters. They had a big area to cover, usually flew out like bicycle spokes then cut a few degrees and came back. Less likely to be shot down, but less likely to radio back while in fight. Last knows update when the spotters return to the ship.
  12. Edit: I am posting this here to make sure the majority of mac players see this as it is difficult to locate wrapper support on these forums and this has the most traffic. It took a long time to get this working as this New Years Update really screwed over us mac people, but finally, after weeks of suffering, I worked out the confirmed fix. I know you PC players are about to comment saying for us to get a "real" computer or some pathetic insult but idc lol ---------------- Alrighty guys! I have fantastic news. After chatting with CodeWeavers and WarGaming for a week, I got the fix for all the crashes, fps drops, and basically everything. Here is everything you need to do. Some of this is a combination of CodeWeavers, Wargaming, and my brain. Please thank all 3 if you get a chance. After I did all of this, my games runs at a constant 71 FPS with Low Graphic settings with no drop, and all the crashing (especially after matches) is finally gone. STEP 1: Click on this link. For the access code, type in "oem". Unzip it and click on the application. You should get an immediate notification on the top left of your screen saying all Wargaming files have been moved to the trash. Step 2: Go to your trash and empty it. Step 3: Click on your desktop make sure on the top of the screen, it says "Finder". On the top of your screen, select "Go". Then, "Go to Folder". In the blank space, type in "~/Library". Then hit enter. Click on the Application Support Folder. Then find the World of Warships Folder and drag that into the trash. On the same screen, find the Wargaming.net Game Center folder and drag that into the trash. (To Note: These are "hidden" files that cannot be located without specific command. This is why deleting the game does nothing for Macs because these two specific files need to be deleted) Step 4: Go to the Applications folder and if you see the WarGaming Application, drag that to the trash. MAKE SURE YOU DON'T OPEN IT, OTHERWISE, YOU NEED TO RESTART THIS WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN Step 5: Empty the trash Step 6: Restart computer Step 7: Make sure you are running MAC OS CATALINA. Yes, the game does run on it fine. If it isn't on Catalina, I am sure this fix still works but better be safe than sorry. Step 8: Go to Wargaming Website and install client and install Wows. When download and in game, change the graphic settings to "Very Low" Step 9: Destroy them ships Captain!.
  13. Probable fix for those whose launcher is stuck at receiving updates. In my case this was due to my university's network's blockage of torrents. Fix is as follows: edit WOWsLauncher.cfg and make the change from <launcher_transport>3</launcher_transport> to <launcher_transport>2</launcher_transport> Very respectfully, Cadet 4th Class Lotofcash original fix courtesy of SurgeryAddict
  14. As it stands, as most people can agree, the Grozovoi, from what I can gather from a large variety of players, the Grozovoi is a bit... boring. Anything she can do other ships can do better, and as such, could use some mixing up to her statistics, and I personally have one that could give a superbly unique feature to her. This change would update her to the new meta's since her introduction to the game. She did recently get a repair party, but that isn't unique, as that is what the RN DDs have too, and I would argue that despite this change, Daring has better survivability. I would like to see optional main armament, with a particular turret design in mind. As it stands, the Grozovoi has been equipped by WG the 130 mm/58 SM-2-1 turret, an appropriate turret choice to fit the schematic design Project 40n, which calls for a twin , dual purpose, tri-axle 130mm gun. Now, I am sure we can agree, World of Warships is a bit of an alternate universe, one where all these designed/proposed ship designs were actually built. The turret I have in mind, if it had been built, and considered a successful design, I could image the russian navy replacing the 130 mm/58 SM-2-1 of the Grozovoi, and other similarly weighted dual purpose weapons on other ships. The Turret which I have in mind is the BL-127, a quad barreled 100mm/70 gunned tri-axle turret; The BL-127 was a turret designed to replace/upgrade installations of the SM-5 turret, which was present as the secondary armament on five Chapaev class and twenty Sverdlov class (Pr.68bis) cruisers. (In-game, we see the turret present on the Mikhail Kutuzov, the upgraded Chapeyev, and the upgraded Dmitri Donskoi) The BL-127 used the same identical gun barrels, fired the same ammunition, without adding a significant amount of weight to the ship. Why use this turret as an optional armament? Well, it would give a significant difference in just how she plays, something unique, to distinguish her from her counterparts. No other ship would be like it, in a destroyer having optional gameplay formats like this. . It would also give her other unique characteristics, in having the most number of guns on any DD, featuring gameplay similar to the Harugumo, but with 2 more guns, slower reload, and a heal. This is not to say the Grozovoi is in her current state underpowered, she is a very competitive all-purpose ship. Despite being ranked as the 2nd least popular T10 destroyer, she has the best Plane kill ratio at T10 for DDs, beaten only by the Kidd and Neustrashimy for overall DDs. Firstly, you downgrade your gun caliber to upgrade the quantity of fire power per volley. The BL-127 turret, on paper at least, supposedly retained the same 4 seconds reload that the SM-5 turrets had, now, WG can make changes on this front for balance reasons, perhaps 4.0 to keep it inline with the SM-2-1 turrets the Grozovoi already has. Which brings me to the point in that because this turret was never built or tested, WG can modify its stats to their hearts content to make it balanced. The gameplay would more resemble that of the Harugumo, the only DD in the game currently armed with 100mm guns. From playing her notable qualities/quirks of a 100mm guns is, for example, HE is not too effective against other DDs, unless you have IFHE. Just like any other DD, these 100mm guns would be quite the fire starter, I personally suggest a 4% chance for fire, as that would give the 12 gun broadside fire chance to set fire of 48%, which is average amongst the other T10 DD broadsides. Would such a turret swap physically work? In my personal opinion, yes, for the short answer at least. The long answer? Well, The SM-5-1, the turret the BL-127 was designed to replace, weighs 45.8 metric tons, the BL-127 turret however weighs 66 metric tons. This was, according to the engineers, not a problem and would not require any severe changes to the cruisers to implement this change. Now that is out of the way, the SM-2-1, which the Grozovoi is currently equipped with, weighs 57.3 metric tons. This means to have all 3 of these turrets replaced with the BL-127 would increase the weight of the Grozovoi by 26.1 metric tons. In-game, the Grozovoi currently weighs in grand total 3,849 tons. (I do not know if that is metric or standard tons) thus the increase on weight would be less then 0.7% weight increase to the ship. So for tonnage concern, the weight increase is negligible. As for the width of the barbette, the BL-127 was designed to have one that is 3.95 meters wide, as the SM-2-1, I cannot find the data on that front. But I would assume it is similar, and if such a circumstance had occurred in the alternate reality that WoWS exists in, a minor difference on turret ring size would be an easily retrofitted change. Both the SM-2-1 and BL-127 are tri-axled turrets, so the mounting should be compatible with minor modifications. The ammunition elevators I would not imagine taking up more room, probably even less room, assuming the Left pair and Right pair of 100mm guns each shared their elevator, assuming all 4 guns don't share the same munitions elevator in the first place. In-game statistics of BL-127 as a Primary Armament (These stats are just my own interpretation/estimations, based off of the closest approximations in the game, Harugumo's 100mm/65 Type 98 and the SM-5-1s turrets found on Kutuzov/Chapayev/Dm.Donskoi, plus corrections for balance) [square bracket indicates the stats of the SM-2-1 turret of the Grozovoi as of 0.7.6.0] Range: 12.3km [12.3km] Reload: 5.0s [4.2s] Fire %: 6% [8%] 180 Traverse: 16s [10s] Dispersion: 95m [107m] HE Dmg: 1400 [1800] AP Dmg: 1900 [2600] HE Vel. 1000/s [950m/s] AP Vel. 1000m/s [950m/s] In-Game Statistics of the BL-127 as an AA Armament (These stats are just my own interpretation/estimations, based off of the Akizuki's 100mm/65 Type 98 and the SM-5-1s turrets found on Kutuzov/Chapeyev/Dm.Donskoi, plus corrections for balance) [square bracket indicates the stats of the SM-2-1 turret of the Grozovoi as of 0.8.6.0] Number of explosions per Salvo: 6 [4] DPS within a shell's blast radius: 1600 [1680] Continuous DPS within the action zone: 185 [97] Range: 3.5km-5.8km [3.5km-6km] Hit probability: 85% [100] Final Comments: The biggest thing this ship lacks any characteristic to it that she is the best at. There is nothing this ship is better at then any other DD. Her survivability was increased recently by adding a repair party, but the Daring I feel is better with her repair party and the fact she takes less damage overall from having a thinner hull and better concealment meaning it gets shot less. Her offensive strength is pretty average, both for her mains and torpedoes. Her AA is really good, but without DefAA its arguable if she is the best or not. This re-armament choice would give the ship the biggest broadside, of 12x100mm, compared to the closest and most similar competitor, the Harugumo, which can fire faster to compensate, but only the grozovoi would be able to boast having 8 bow on guns. Or you know, you could divide the Grozovoi into a 2nd ship with these guns for a T10 premium.
  15. okay i like many remember the awesome days of cbt where you could load into a match before 20 seconds on the match timer pretty reliably. as the test went on and more people joined we saw that load times kept creeping further...well some of us that is. that some of us happened to be people who werent using SSDs. after thinking on this and noticing that i cant handle a 4 minute + load time that increasingly gets worse with each patch. i remembered something many of us dont want to remember. i probably needed to defrag my harddrive. so i went to my harddrive properties and tools and analyzed my game hard drive and you know what i found. thats right people i found it was 35% fragmented. so i started defrag and 9 passes later i found that while load times werent as fast as cbt they were tolerable with me loading in about the time i see everyone connecting to the match. so with that said it may not be a complete fix but 10 second wait time is better then 4 minutes and your unexplained load times on a computer that isnt a potato could be explained by fragmented data.
  16. So, radar is kind of broken at the moment. As we all know. And as a dd player its been frustrating me for quite some time. So I got thinking on how this problem could be fixed? Radar, typically works by sending out pulses and getting feedback from the return pulses - very simple overview of how it works. So if this were to be implemented into wows how would it look? By the picture I would say that the radar consumable should get pulse charges when activated. Say a tier 10 gets 9-12 pulse charges that pulse up to 4/5 km. then once a pulse hits a ship, instead of it being magically visible rather a red highlight of the ship appears for 1-3 secs depending on the tier of radar used and then the player can then shoot at the red silhouette for whilst its visible before disappearing. I think this is much more skilful and realistic implementation of radar than the one that currently exists. Refer to picture above for a VERY bad visual representation of my idea.
  17. My Real only honest problem with the cv is that when you fought old cv planes u might get killed but u whittled away some of their power just like you do with other ships. the difference being other ships keep their full actual fire power anyway. the new cv build gives cv the ability to keep hitting hard even though there planes have taken dmg. my fix give each squadron a hp bar of its own separate from the attacking squad like there would be 3 lesser bars below th cv hp pool. so the squad attacking will always have full hp until it's pool hp goes to zero then that squad is gone forever. this gives the other players a sense of well that carrier hurt me but i hurt him back in a meaningful way. this means that a cv will really have to think about what he is attacking does he want to leave his planes over that dd taking dmg to his main pool hp for that squad. more like olden times no he would not leave them over an enemy dd for long especially not a dd like the monaghan which used to murder planes left near it for to long with the AA hull. current state of things is making people hate playing ships with less AA protection that's DD/BB and a lot of cruisers to so mainly AA spec cruisers are showing up to battle . tell where is the balance if whole groups of ships are being mothballed because they don't pack enough aa to keep one cv at bay let alone 2. fix number 2 limit cvs to one per match this is only required if you don't implement fix number one. i for one will not be purchasing anything until something is done to bring balance to this game and as i have said in the fight for a "open all containers button" i spend a good deal of money on this game can you afford to lose like minded people such as me.
  18. DDG_53_John_Paul_Jones

    Saipan/Kaga Nerf NEEDED

    Nothing is more annoying than being placed in a match against a Saipan/Kaga. They are both broken when it comes to Air superiority/Attacks. Sure, the Saipan doesn't have great strike squad sizes but the Kaga is so OP. The strikes are monstrous, But that is semi-bearable. Now the Saipan is REALLY F****** BROKEN. So a person who played countless hours and isn't too [edited] when it comes to carriers gets run over by a strafe slinging Saipan. It can strafe out of dogfights without losing planes, It takes 6 planes to Kill 2 of the planes of ONE squadron, and if you are lucky the third plane of the squad. I personally own the Saipan, Great ship. However, I never play it because it is not fun- Even if the other team has a REALLY good carrier player and I still beat them. I can easily outmatch them by using the strafing technique or by throwing squads at them. Oh, I forgot to mention the Saipan can hold 22 fighters and 25 torpedo bombers. So I can essentially throw fighters away and only take 1 minute to get off the deck compared to the 1:30 of a ranger. Any comments Ideas? -
  19. rafael_azuaje

    Kronshtadt Fix

    Hello everyone, I have this Soviet cruiser, it's not that bad, but if you need some improvements. 1- HYDRO: all cruiser URSS has Hydro is very essential to hunt destroyers, or detect torpedoes in time.... 2- the AA are Garbagein T9 vs the CV T8,9,10 the Kron is easy prey! the kron has a useless frames of 12MM that are adornment, and if it can be replaced by other more decent .. actually AA 12,7mm 6x2 useless improvements for 37mm singles. OR ITS is maybe help a little to kron vs planes 6x1 of 37mm ( REMBEMBER IS CHANGE MOUNTS 6X2 12.7MM FOR THE 6X1 37MM OR 6X2 37MM. SECUNDARIES VERY WEAK: has module 100% suviver AA&secondaries BUT.... practically all my defenses destroyed, talk secondaies guns 100mm & 150mm should have better shielding.
  20. Yeah might as well delete ur freakin tier 7 ops, start from scratch COMPLETELY unenjoyable had an awesome 2 star run and a few BIllion credit loss for trying. NOT FUN WG,they use to be enjoyable.
×