Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'gameplay'.



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

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 47 results

  1. x_Quinn_x

    Suggestions for Submarines

    The submarines, as they are currently on the TST server, are still a very below average experience on all sides of the interaction. The battery length is good, the no limit to the ping is good, the ability for ships to target and fire at submarines with main guns is reasonable. But there are several things that could be done to help the situation. The battery length is good, but it should recharge while on the surface very slowly. So, say if you were surfaced for the entire game, the amount it recharged would be enough to fill the battery anywhere from a 1/2 to 2/3 of the full amount. This gives it a bit of flexibility to be managed without making it so hard line that it can ruin the experience. The Alpha damage of depth charges is far too high, resulting in easy skill less free kills for ships that have them and with areal strikes also being able to be used at long range both need their alpha damaged reduced significantly. Lastly Ping. This system of ping does not reflect what ping was actually for, and the homing torpedoes are far too much for this type of game. The ping mechanic needs to be changed from using it for homing torpedoes to using it for target acquisition. The submarine at periscope depth should be unable to see ships further away than 8 to 10 km (or maybe 5 to 6 km at lower tiers). To spot and render those targets in, the submarine should have to use its ping in the direction of a possible targets location which shows up as a directional marker similar to Radio Position Finding except this would be a hydrophone located contact which gives only a general direction. The submarine has 2 options, wide and narrow directed pings, the wide one will be wide enough to cover the area the marker shows and will show the target, but this is a short range ping that will only show the target if it is in the range, and it will only do so for a very short time. The narrow ping shows the target for much longer and also has a longer range due to its focus, but it does not cover the entire width of the location marker. If a surface friendly ship is also spotting the same target then either the direction marker narrows to the same width as the narrow ping, so you still need to use the ping, or if you are at periscope depth the target renders without the ping, but at greater depths you would still need to ping. This spotting system would also change depending on depth with maximum depth reducing the ability to see to only 500 m away, so you are not left completely blind to make decisions and making things still look awesome. Homing torpedoes should be reduced to only a small change in direction to the target since torpedoes are the only weapon a submarine has (they should still be able to be dodged by nimble targets), but they should not manoeuvre as far as they do atm and taking away battleship torpedo defences is just silly as tanking damage and hitting back hard is what battleships were built for. Changing ping might be more involved, but it needs to be done. ATM the system is far too broken.
  2. Hey all, Recently started up a YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKRhs69P1wojb-JKVz7jLPg) which features weekly videos with my opinion on the ships I'm playing and some commentary (both the good and bad) of my gameplay. I'll add a post with each new video, so please scroll to the end for the latest iteration. This week's video features a game in the Tier V Hawkins. So come on over to watch me make some boneheaded plays and talk out of my aft porthole! Thanks and happy sailing! Caffeinicus
  3. I'm trying to understand the weird behavior of my dispersion in one game, see attached. I was consistently shooting at the scharn. The dispersion was normal at the beginning when the scharn was at 16 km. However, once the scharn gets within 13km of me, the dispersion started going nuts and noticed that immediately when the shells left the guns: Initially I thought ok it's probably rng. Then this happened: and this: then this: this again: and finally this: These are 7 consecutive salvos fired at this scharn and the shell's dispersion was behaving as if I was shooting at something at 20 km or as if the target was not locked on. But it was neither of those cases. I was puzzled at why disperison sometimes behaves like this (this happened to me several times before). And yes, I can tell if rng is at its worst after firing and 7 times in a row this happened can't be seriously due to rng. The funny thing is, after I killed the scharn, the dispersion went back to normal on other ships. Can someone explain what's going on here? Edit: I was in my Alsace and all the screenshots were captured when the shells landed near the scharn, not when they just left the guns. Per people's request, I'm putting the WG replay file for that game here in the attachment. 20210605_220046_PFSB109-Alsace_52_Britain.wowsreplay Edit2: As I mentioned above, this was not the first time I encountered this dispersion issue and definitely is not something introduced by recent updates. When this happened, all consective shots at the same target would have very wonky dispersion. But if switched to another target, it went back to normal. And trust me, I'm not a potato, I know where to lead and where to aim, and I would manually press 'X' to lock on to my target if the game doesn't do that for me automatically before firing.
  4. I noticed an increasing number of newer players in the game (or so it appears). That's great to see! I also found a lot of players that are not too familiar with the higher level gameplay or standard tactics in random battles...so I decided to start making and sharing videos with commentary of decent games, my thought process and positioning, etc. I'll preface it all by saying I'm only a semi-competitive player (typically Storm league in CBs), and the target audience for these is newer players. The games themselves are good and entertaining, but nothing insane. Each one will feature the game, comments, and a quick review of the ship and captain used. Hope it helps! And let me know if you have suggestions or requests for future videos/games. Here's the first one, U.S. BBs (Montana game) Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAQY22u3qqY&t=2s
  5. I know many others have expressed their dissatisfaction with the way gameplay has developed in Random, especially in the higher tiers. One words can describe random Battles nowadays: BORING. Not much fun being forced to play the whole game from 20km out because any attempt to push in and play bold and aggressive only results in getting HE spammed to death from behind rocks or smoke, being targeted by multiple ships focused on just you (because your teammates just play safe and don't come in and support), being pummeled by ships with insane concealment to where you cant see them the whole game, long range stealth torpedoes swarms that come from out of nowhere, and overpowered CV aircraft you can't defend against or outmaneuver. T9 and T10 ships should just play themselves. There is too much difference in capabilities when T7 and T8 ships are forced to play against T9/T10 ships far more powerful in firepower, stealth, and health. How does a Colorado do against a Pommern or a Richelieu stack up against a Thunderer? And no T7 or T8 battleship or anything else has a chance in hell against a Shimakaze or T9/T10 super HE spammers hiding behind rocks. Thanks to this matchmaking for T7 and above ships I find it is actually more fun and interesting to play against Bots in Coop than it is against other players who have steered the gameplay to shite, and WG who created the monstrosities ruining the game. I'm fine with just playing Coop, but the only problem I have is how Coop battles grant less credits and XP than random. How about making both formats co-equal to allow players to choose the type of play they want - those who like boring predictable battles and are only looking to rake in DP, by hiding their Smolensk or Des Moines behind the same rock all game, by all means play Random, it's all yours. But those of us who want to play interesting unpredictable and fun matches against Bots (who actually play more realistically than many human players), shouldn't have to get penalized for it by getting less rewards.
  6. SweetBabyRuth

    Russian Bias

    If wargaming wants to keep its Russian bias, the tech tree Russian ships need buffed ASAP! With the changes to the commander skill tree, and the game meta now being shifted to torp boats, A/J line BB sniping and FDRs, short range specialized ships that are can tank a lot of damage a straight up bad. The only viable ship from the Russian navy is well.... Slava, and maybe Slava, oh and Slava. Even Smolensk doesn't really make sense when everything is already outside of 19 kilometers. So WG, if you care so much about your Russian ships, then you probably should buff them, or else there will be no reason to play them... even on the RU servers.
  7. Soylent_Red_Isnt_People

    Constructive'ish Criticism

    Hello WG, I downloaded this (quite big; really, 60 gigs?) game to play over the late WInter after being gone for about three plus years. Most all of what I have to say can best be summed up as; expecting folks to somehow enjoy NPE (negative play experience) being the norm for matches rather than the exception is completely unrealistic on your collective part. Yes, it's still possible to have a good match win or lose, with the latter being more typical & far too frequent. It should never be a possibility in the first place to experience a map empty of visible ships (and that further shrouded in multiple clouds of smoke) minutes at a time for one, if not both, teams in a match between real players. However, camping & farming to the exclusion of other productive gameplay was bad before except now it seems little more than try to compete with gimmick ships, Russian BBs, double CVs, or just not play. Your matchmaking is abysmal, to the point of making me only play BBs in random battle after just two nights of play and trying to get what I can out of Coop for the CAs & DDs, simply for the survivability of a battleship or battlecruiser. Making it the common experience for your merely average skill playerbase to be ineffective beyond queuing one type of ship cannot possibly be a good thing, nor hopefully what you intended to be how the game is best played. There are still ten tiers in this game, with multiple lines of ships of various types - yet you folks at corporate clearly still expect everyone to want tier X all day every day. Plus, carriers killed off the very ships this title allows playing, in case any of you didn't know - I understand you're trying anything and everything to attract folks willing to do at least one micro-transaction or else splurge into a high tier Premium or Free XP ship but it would be nice if they wanted to stick around as well, preferably long enough to maybe learn more effective ways to play so everyone else isn't at the mercy of your business approach. And, speaking of micro-transactions, when neither Amazon Pay (keeps trying to log me into Amazon UK) or Paypal will work as the go to you've hindered micro-transactions on my part to the point of 'Why bother'. Farewell Hizen, we never knew ye; our paths shall never cross again. You had an interesting game with little real competition, but once you finish milking ever more churn players will it take this game being as dead as Warplanes before you bother to take notice of anything at all with your approach being wrong?
  8. World of Warships 2020-12-04 20-30-01.mp4
  9. Ok so my idea is fairly simple but I think would improve combat. Lockable turrets So this is a fairly simple idea. Each turret is assigned a key, that when pressed, locks the turret at the current rotation angle (but not vertical pitch). The locked turrets can easily be indicated by changing the colour of the turret icon on the ship indicator. This would allow more maneuverability without losing your firing angle while avoiding attacks, and allow you to better prepare attacks for when positioned correctly. Right now the rear guns on most Battleships below Tier 8 don't get much use because a Battleship needs to maintain a sharp angle to avoid being broadsided. With the turret locked in to place, it can avoid incoming fire, turn to fire back, and relock the turret before facing the next volley. I propose using the keys 6 thru 0 or even 6 thru = for ships like the Atlanta with a high number of turrets. I feel this would greatly improve the gameplay dynamic and allow for a wider range of strategy than the current meta.
  10. Rub_My_Cit_Harder_BB

    New Game Modes

    7 vs 7 Randoms, 3 vs 3 Randoms, 1 vs 1 Same Ship battles. Realistic battles without any caps (in ocean format) would also be nice. The effect of good players in this game on randoms in this current state is minimized by players who suicide/afk. Add more game modes but smaller sized battles. There is too much emphasis on adding more ships for more $$$ rather than focusing on the actual game, itself.
  11. So far everything I've seen feedback wise has been universally negative with respect to the captain skill changes. Personally I think it will be great. Currently we have one set of skills to apply to all ship classes and as such the effective meta is almost identical across all ship classes for skill choices with almost zero variation. It looks to me that the new structure will allow players to further tune the skills to their play styles and get more out of min/max configurations than is currently possible, which is something I really like and I think should be encouraged. The 21 skill point thing? Good. We need the skill point total to be increased so our configurations can be more granular and specific to the builds that we want. I'm sure there will be quite a bit of change before everything goes live but the huge amount of negativity I've seen thus far is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. So anyway, who else thinks this will be a good change for once?
  12. Hi Wargaming, (First of all, sorry about my poor english, is not my native idiom). I have been playing since 2015, and I come here to demonstrate my total dissatisfaction with the current state of the game. When I started playing, one of the things that caught my attention was the team activity that this game requires, and I learned a lot to how communicate with other players, whether obeying or calling other players, regardless of winning or losing, the strategy was made. There are several topics to be covered, one of which is that the best feature of the game (described above) has been lost. It is each one by itself, as if it were an FPS game, players are only interested in "shooting ships" regardless of victory or defeat, then follow a call or even think! [edited] everyone, and don't interfere with my way of playing. Worst of all is hearing typical phrases from players with negative Winrate "I'm here to have fun" or "I don't care for statistics". I even understand these players, but from the moment you put both types in the same game, this is terrible because it destroys the game of those who are developing a strategy, trying to win the battle. I have friends who plays in a division with me and even then it is impossible to keep 50% of Winrate. Is that really what you want Wargaming? Train players who "shoot at ships" regardless of victory or defeat? Do we play in life to lose or not care about defeat? Is it okay if you lose on the stock exchange, or if your heart team loses too, is that it? Is it just a game? I know that WarGaming is a company that aims to profit, wants to make players consume in the premium store, but unfortunately you have been making changes that make it easier for new inexperienced players every day, to obtain high tier ships without the minimum experience to play. I do my part, I buy ships when I think they are good, I use premium account, etc. This is the game I spent the most in my life. Why don't you follow the ones that "Community Contributors and Youtubers talk about? Guys like Notser, NoZoup4you and others know all of this, they've talked about this subject in countless videos, but the tips are simply ignored, you do the opposite of what the community I often see new players asking on Facebook groups if there are no other ways to play with Tier X ships less than 1 month old ... I don't really remember, but my first Tier VIII (Benson) took me months to conquer ... MONTHS, and even getting tier IX and X ships, I continued (and continue) to play low tiers. Another thing: What is the reason for so many events at the same time ??? It's Azur Lane, it's the German CV, it's the shipyard, ranked, the collections all at the same time, do you want me to spend 24 hours playing ??? I like to get the game itens to do the missions, win the prizes, but a lot is happening at the same time! I need to work, I need to crap, eat, etc. It is impossible to play in tier VI, as you have been stimulating the growth of CV players and practically every battle has 2 CVs on each side when not 2 tier VIII CVs. Have you guys at Wargaming ever tried to play DD in such a battle? Being sunk is just a matter of time, or the CVs will chase you and sink you with 2 drops or their spot will cause the other ships to sink you. It can be in the first or last minute. Congratulations Wargaming! You destroyed the battles in tier VI! Throwing DD from tier VIII upwards is another suffering, the number of ships with radar is very high, apart from the hydroacoustics that make torpedo attacks useless. When we don't add tier X CVs to that. Play a DD 12Km from cruisers doesn't worth. For these and other reasons, World of Warships has become a secondary game for me. I've been playing another game for a few days now, and I probably shouldn't invest any more here, lately I just do the daily missions, redeem my containers and stop playing. This game has been making me angry and nervous, I've never been toxic in the chat and I've been cursing other players, being rude, it's interfering with my family's well-being, it's already showing signs that it's time to stop.
  13. As title goes, Slava is out of NDA and here's a video with her release version. Should give an idea on what to expect as a potential buyer, and as someone opposing one. Seems to be along the lines of Champagne, conforming to passive playstyle. There's a section by the end showing the armor as well, 25mm extremities.
  14. Maybe it is just my bad luck, but there are an awful amount of cyclones lately (perhaps the tornado season in the US struck a cord with developers). Like the open ocean map, it may keep things interesting if a cyclone show up now and then (at most once a day), but really not every 3rd game. In the last game, i suddenly found myself being surrounded by 5 ships after being spotted by enemy planes, with 2 destroyers, one on each side. The outcome for a battleship is predictable. If this is an occasional event, the losses can be accepted, but when trying to accumulate enough credits to upgrade to a higher tier, this is totally annoying. There is no skill involved when a "blinded" battleship without hygroscopic search is stalked and attacked from all sides during a cyclone, and no skill whatsoever will save the commander under such circumstances. So please tune down on the frequency of cyclones during games. BTW, with my luck, I am mostly on the side where half the team is swimming with the fishes within the first 5 minutes anyway, so the balance of power is already unfavourable when cyclones move in to sour the deal.
  15. Hello. To those who don't know me, I spent a lot of time trying to get WGs attention about CV problems, during their release, to get them to improve the balance of the game. Some of those things were successful, and others were not. With Subs on the horizon, and my opinion of their inclusion in their current state being questionable at best, I will do the same with them. If you're looking for a guide with no opinions, this isn't for you. Most of this is not numbers, but an opinion on the workings of the class. As we deep dive into how this class interacts with others, you will learn how to become better at them. It is my hope that with this knowledge you will improve, and shed further light on their issues, in the hopes that a better product is given. I will provide highlights of matches when discussing each sub type below (2 for each). These were taken from a 2-hour stream. I do not think this is indicative of what each battle would look like, as there are bots in the midst and players are still adjusting. Despite that, I don't think the evidence of sub strength is any less meaningful as it is displayed. I pulled the best game I had, and an average game I had for each nations sub. If any Wargaming people read this, I want to say I disagree with whatever decisions led to not allowing subs to be brought into training room. I think this makes it harder for people to test the limits and interactions with other ships, which would have best been done in a closed environment. The Battle mode already has bots in them anyway, and you allowed carriers to be used in the training room during their PTS session last year. I am happy about your reserved pace in introducing subs to us, but it would be nice to try these in other modes as well. A podcast I was in talking about submarines. https://anchor.fm/the-new-guys/episodes/Episode-024-Making-Sense-of-Submarines-with-07s-Pulicat-ef1vrc I have spoiler'd everything below so you can find quickly and read only what you are interested in, or tackle the read in chunks. This is about 4000 words. Submarine Gameplay Submarine Consumables Nation Submarine Strength & Weaknesses Subs Interacting With Subs Destroyers Interacting With Subs Cruisers With Charges Interacting With Subs Cruisers, Battleships and Carriers Interacting With Subs Mechanics that should be added for this class to function better. General thoughts
  16. In order to further improve the game I would like to suggest some adjustments and/or improvements. User interface in port. Issue 1: Camera panning in port when selecting the exterior setup on a ship. I don't know about other players but the camera panning in port when configuring a ship with camouflage, signals and flags getting it ready for battle is enough to put me off playing a battle, as I get sick of the camera moving around all the time. I also believe that for people who are sensitive to this, it can be a trigger for epileptic issues. Is there a way to disable this? Issue 2: The Exterior Camouflage page. Although the camouflage page has been optimized to make it more convenient to use. I have issues with various elements on the page. For example, the resupply option is only available for "Expendable" camo. Not for "Permanent" camo. I found it very convenient to be able to see the effects of permanent camo on various ships and being able to use when needed. Or sometimes just being able to use it once in a determined battle. However the continuously on function negates various scenarios and makes the game less intuitive. The intended improvement perceived actually creates the opposite effect. Issue 3: Ships consumables. As I have been playing WoWs for quite some time I adapted to the use of consumables and has gathered quite a few over the years playing on various accounts on various servers globally. I found premium consumables were a convenient replacement for the standard consumables giving you that extra charge in battle when needed. Even when combined with Superintendent skill a low amount of consumables could be improved to make a ship more resilient and playable in game or enabling a more daring or aggressive play style. 2) Submarine addition. I am fully aware that various elements need to be further optimized or improved. Issue1: Launching torpedoes from submarines. When submerged there is some discrepancy with the distances from launched torpedoes and the distance relative to the targeted ship. In effect once your torpedoes are launched it is very difficult to estimate if the torpedoes have passed the targeted ship or are still moving towards the targeted ship. Even with pinging this is not clear if a torpedo has already passed it's target or is still able to be directed towards the target. Maybe it would be possible to make an addition to the user interface that displays the distance to the target from the torpedo in relation to the distance to the target from the submarine. So you know if it is pointless to ping the target because the torpedo has missed the target already. Strangely I was able to hit submarines more easily than surface ships. Should that not be the other way around?? Issue 2: Periscope depth. Diving to the ideal "Periscope Depth" can be rather tedious as the decent seems very random. I would appreciate a fixed setting to avoid bobbing up and down to reach the correct or ideal Periscope Depth. Currently this is ideal at 5,9 M depth, diving to 6 M will cause your view to change to underwater even while your periscopes are sill up. Have fun and stay safe.
  17. Hola gente! Soy Augustm del clan -BN- les paso a invitar a que se sumen a nuestro canal de Youtube donde vamos a estar publicando mas activamente videos de todo tipo, manuales de ayuda para diferentes barcos, gameplays de partidas, CWs Ranked y un poco de todo. Link del canal: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC30IxUwCN3QFbfCllR5ZfoA Les dejo un par de videos para que se vayan entreteniendo mientras y viendo el contenido! Saludosss!!!
  18. saintsfanx05

    Auto Pilot

    ok, the new autopilot is horrendous, it's gotten me killed in CVs over and over again because it doesn't want to go where I want instead of going behind or between islands it wants to go in a circle round it or if I want to take a 90-degree angle turn it wants to go in a big [edited]circle revealing to the whole world where I am. this system is worse than the last. anyone else having this problem?
  19. Okay so love it or hate it, it seems that WG is bent on bringing submarines into the game. If that is the case then here are my thoughts on how they could handle the implementation possibly. Please don't burn me at the stake for this, I just want to help. Here's a summary of ideas that include (but are not limited to) the following: For Submarines: Artillery: Functional Deck Guns Mobility: Speeds: Slower underwater speeds (no more nuclear sub levels of submerged speeds) Faster surface speeds (to compensate for the slower underwater speeds) Depths: Surface: Most visible Fastest speed Can use deck guns Base/Zone capture speed = 100% Periscope Depth: Semi visible Moderate speed Incoming artillery accuracy and efficacy mitigated slightly Base/Zone capture speed = 50% Deep: Least visible Slowest speed Immune to artillery Base/Zone capture speed = 0% If you start to flood or catch on fire, you take extra damage when you're deeper and it takes even longer to fix. Minimap data only updates when your own sonar detects something Match score and kill statuses of ships remains the same as it was when you went deep. Updates when you go back to at least periscope depth Torpedoes Historically accurate torpedo tube count and placement Since the torpedo tubes are fixed to the hull, their aiming arc is limited substantially No more homing torpedoes or their pinging mechanic Firing a torpedo can reveal your sub's location (would need to be tweaked) Choice of torpedo ammunition Normal: Only work properly when surfaced or at periscope depth but load faster and go further than deep-water torpedoes. Deep-Water: Meant to work when deeper than periscope depth and deal more damage than normal torpedoes, but they move slower and have shorter range. Blitz: Smaller, faster torpedoes that are quicker to load, except they do less damage and only work properly when launched from the surface or at periscope depth while only going a short distance. Cruise: Torpedoes that go much farther than normal torpedoes but take a longer time to load. Only work properly at periscope depth or at the surface. Detection Sonar Passive sonar is always active around a submarine, similar to hydro-acoustic search. Good for supporting roles. Detects friendly and enemy ships within a certain radius Detects all torpedoes within a certain radius for all ships in that radius. Active sonar is a repeatable ability (with cooldown) that when used sends out a ping that reveals both your own location and the location of any and all ships in a certain radius. Ship Positions The ship positions on the minimap for submarines is only updated when They are surfaced or at periscope depth (as normal) They detect ships using passive or active sonar For Other Ships: Depth Charges (Duh) Standard for all destroyers. Equippable for all ships that carried them or were at least designed to carry them. AOE damage to all submarines. Affected areas show up on the minimap after they explode. Interferes with sonar by flooding the nearby water with noise. Can destroy incoming torpedoes if the torpedoes enter the threatened area. Can tweak variables like damage, quantity of charges, threat range, cooldown, etc. between countries Different fuse settings: Shallow Detonation: Affects subs and torpedoes closer to the surface Deep Detonation: Affects deeper subs and torpedoes Passive and/or active sonar for ships that historically had it or were designed to have it in order to compensate for the new abundance of underwater combat.
  20. Please note before reading: I understand that this idea may be a but controversial, and I understand that this mechanic will most likely not be implemented. It is just a proposal, so please do not go typing how “this will never be implemented, and cvs are cancer and should be removed.” If you agree to the notice then feel free to move on, if not then I can’t help you. Context: In world war 2, bombs of all kinds were made and used during the many battles both at sea and on land. In WOWS, bombs can ONLY cause damage if they directly hit the target ship. In real life however, in the case of such ships as Yamato and Musashi, bombs could cause damage to a ship even if they didn’t directly hit the vessel. (Even on the wrecks of both ships there is evidence of damage cause by “near misses” where bombs exploded in the water and still caused damage to the ship below the waterline.) What I want to propose is a mechanic where when a carrier’s planes bomb a ship or shoot missiles at a ship, then they have a 1 in 8 chance to cause damage to a ship through near misses. Also, the near miss has a 1 in 20 chance to cause flooding to a ship if the damage is enough. (These numbers are just a temporary value and can be changed if needed, which they most likely will.) As for missiles, they could have a lesser chance to cause damage from near misses. For example, a bomb would have a 1 in 8 chance with a 1 in 20 percent chance for a near miss to cause flooding, while a missile would have a 1 in 10 chance with no chance of the near miss to cause flooding. (Again these values can be changed if they aren’t random enough or could occur too often.) Another thing, each bomb that doesn’t hit the target has its own individual change to cause a near miss, and if needed, the chance of causing damage from a near miss can decrease the further from the target ship a bomb hits. What do you think of my proposal? Do you like it or hate it? Check Yay if you agree, Nay if you don’t, and Meh if you think that there are some changes that could make it better! I’d also love to see a comment explaining why you agree, disagree, or stating what changes you’d like to see! (ALSO please be kind! Remember, Fish are Friends, Not Food!!! 😉)
  21. A new map that has like the Halloween filfth , the map "starts shrinking" till a point they have to be no farther than 13 km away from the enemy and whoever it's out of the zone gets damaged slowly Kinda like fortnite fog whoever watched videos or played it Forcing team and enemy to engage and not be sitting at the back/max range or out of range relaxed while others carry the team out
  22. O7 captains and WG Staff Personal opinion and point of view , Destroyers are one of the ships that have most impact in the game and thinking about the future with submarines coming too , the pressure and the things they have to do on each battle becomes too heavy , they have to spot for the team , capture key areas and future the job of hunt submarines and drop depth charges, and they have so little reward or recognition for their effort at the end of the match My opinion or suggestions with so many ships containing Radar and Hydroacoustics now days , destroyers shouldn't be detected if they are completely full stopped in smoke by Hydroacoustics and yes detected by radars regardless smoke or full stopped Also a total rework or change mechanics getting some more retribution at the end of the battle on team score , from xp by shooting down planes any ship, spotting and capturing areas regardless the damage , they can have low damage but they were spotting the enemy for the entire team and there's so little recognition from that from the games and teammates , same with battleships and potential damage they receive , instead playing as a team it makes the game more like a solo player game , ",Why risk my ship for capture or whatever if I won't get support from my team or I won't get recognized for that or "x" action" battleships sniping from max range when they are the ones should be front lines getting the heat for cruisers on the team deal damage to the enemy ships Just per say an example at the end of the battle , the battle report/team score 1 battleship got top scored because he dealt 30k damage and received 500k potential damage Other battleship got deal 2k damage was at the bottom of the list but he got potential damage received of 3.5million Destroyers the same they can capture key areas and spot for the team but it's so little recognized at the end of the battle under team score and again is the ship with one of most impact in the game by capturing,spotting,torpedo or set on fire, best ship for flank because concealment they will have even more job in future for hunting submarines
  23. Why do all squadrons fly directly over a target as they drop ordnance? AA is already really effective, to the point where 8 aircraft will be reduced to 2 aircraft in the span of one bombing/torpedoing run, just because the entire squadron is exposed to AA fire the whole time. Carrier gameplay would be great if: Custom formations were allowed. Generating the ability to attack with all bombers at the same time. Or maybe attack from multiple directions simultaneously like in an Anvil formation. Complexity and the requisite skills goes up as a result creating more dynamic gameplay as opposed to what's available right now. Of course with the current MM these carrier players would dominate, so carriers would have to be limited to 1 or 2 per team depending on their resulting potency. Also the number of planes in a squadron could be reduced, AA could be rebalanced, etc... I can't be the first one to suggest this, nor the only one who thinks this way. But based on the fact that I don't really see CV's playing at tiers 8 and 10 makes me think that people get bored of the same un-intensive, low-skill gameplay that CV play currently gives.
  24. As between the 2 systems below, is one noticeably superior? Are both sufficient? 1) 2.8 GHz Pentium processor; 4 G ram. 2) 3.4 GHz i5 processor; 8 G memory; Obviously, 8G is more than 4. But as between the processors, is one noticeably better? Computer 1) has other features I like, but I don't want to be at a systematic disadvantage for WOWS (I bring my own deficiencies). Thanks geeks, lol. Update:. Last Question. I have another computer option. If I knew what these things meant, I wouldn't be asking: Intel Core i-7 2600 (4 cores, 8 threads). Gtx 1050ti 16 GB ram (DDR 3) 500 GB Western Caviar Blue HDD Stock Motherboard 80 PLUS GOLD Power supply.
  25. Well, I think everyone with a Mass and everyone who doesn't have a Mass will be queuing for this if she is released in that iteration. She seems to take this type of gameplay to the next level. I don't know if the Engine Boost is needed though; maybe toning it down a bit duration or extra speed wise, especially if you consider how many cruisers and DDs can get caught up by Georgia. As with all CC content, take it with a grain of salt, it's WiP content.
×