Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'idea'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community 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
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Master Archive
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Closed Beta Test Archive
    • Alpha Test Archive
    • For Development and Publisher Only
    • QA AUTO
    • Contests and Community Events
    • Super Test
    • Newcomer's Forum
    • Contest Entries
    • Questions and Answers
    • Contest Entries
    • New Captains
    • Guías y Estrategias
    • Task Force 58
    • Livestream Ideas and Feedback
    • Árboles Tecnológicos
    • Fan Art and Community Creations
    • Community Created Events and Contests
    • Community Staging Ground
    • Forum Reorg 2.0 Archive
    • Noticias y Anuncios

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 12 results

  1. Introduction: Ever notice how the only real cover we have in game is mountains? Anyone else feel like that's starting to get old? I do. I was thinking that it might be fun to have a map like Venice, where there's this big city with canals by the sea. Smaller ships can go into the canals, sneak around, and ambush each other, and there's open water for the big ships too. The core idea here is: A map that pays homage to Venice with canals and a dense city instead of the usual islands with huge mountains without mountain ranges. Map Example: Now I'm not saying "use this exact map", no. I'm saying, here's a map that describes what I meant. Essentially, I think it'd be cool to have a map that doesn't rely solely on mountains to provide cover. I think some diversity could be fun.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. I was curious- would the current manual secondaries be good, or would a hybrid method be better (with a reinforced sector for secondaries for accuracy, but not necessarily the amount of the guns in 1 side, where the current ctrl and clicking method would do that) here's my proposal- the dispersion would be 100% by default, and the sectors would works like manual AA, it can be reinforced by sacrificing the other side of a ship, and as for ship type, it would be 40% and 6 secs of reinforcement time for , 20% and 3 secs for (yea, there are DDs that has it, but not recommended) at 30% and 7 secs and at 50% accuracy increase to 1 side, and -50% on the other side, with 8 secs of reinforcement time ( if 1 were to use a stock build)....the capt build i was hoping for WG to implement would be manual secondaries, and the accuracy is based on tier and the decrease on the time to reinforce the side goes for all tiers +5% or so improved accuracy per tier (depending on what would be considered balanced) -10%~20% decrease of prep time for the secondaries (again, based on balance) for example on battleships, a 10+ pt t10 German BB Großer Kurfürst would have 1 side reinforced 1 side at 150% accuracy on 1 side, and a weaker side of 50% on the other, and in a time of 8 seconds (my prototype idea) with stock and with the capt skill, it would be 175% , 25% and 7.2-6.4 secs, in that order... while the t2 Japanese BB Mikasa would have 160% 1 side and 40% on the other on 7.2-6.4 secs, using the example, and same build.... as for the proposed sectors, it would be identical, or similar to the AA sectors in appearance, only that there's 1 range for the secondaries(cuz it makes it simple to give all secondaries 1 range,) and the key bind would be hopefully this one ( ` or ~, depending if it was used with a shift before typing, it is the button left of 1) it would help with the 1 side from not firing, and making em at least usable, while not making it not too accurate... til next time, Good Luck, and Fair Seas <0
  5. BotherRed

    Camo Reminder?

    So I have an idea that I think would be really helpful for the game. Camo Reminders I came to this conclusion when I woke up, got on and started to play when I realized my ship wasn't camoed when only one battle ago it was. I knew that I had run out of camo, but it was too late. I think something like a reminder for when the camo gets down to 3-2 charges left would be fantastic for the game. Just a little something that pops up at the results screen to tell you how many charges you have left on that camo, the same system could be carried over to signals as well. Helping players to be reminded whenever they start to run low on any one thing. I'm only bringing this up as I love the fact that you can play a battle, win or lose, then jump right into the next one. You don't have to drop out to port after every battle to get back into battles. I'm just offering this idea as in the same battle I went without camo, I offered it to the players on both teams and got pretty good feedback saying it would be a nice helpful update for those who may not have perm camos, or stacks on stacks of camos.
  6. Firstly, I would like to thank SGTBeltfed and AdmiralPiett for helping get information on this. Also I'm sorry if this post seems all over the place I've never done something like this before. (Not saying WG should add this i just thought it was a fun idea) Summary: a tenryuu class cruiser that has been refitted into a AA cruiser with 127mm guns and would be around tier 5 or 6. Main armament: the 140mm guns would be replaced by unshieled type 89 127mm guns and could be placed in a similar layout. For shell characteristics I could see it either being similar to gunboat shells where they dont really hit to hard and have a rainbow arc or the shells could be similar to IJN torp boats where the the shells would do a bit more damage when they do hit and have more flatter arcs the guns would have a bit of a slower reload like ijn dd guns. Anti air: for anti air there will be 4 triple 25mm and the 127mm guns could be used for AA too. Consumables: the ship would get defensive AA fire (maybe unlimited) and maybe smoke. Concealment: the ships concealment will either be the same as the tenryuu or slightly better. Speed and maneuverability: speed would be a bit better than the tenryuu (boiler would have been converted to oil ones) and maneuverability would be slightly less than the tenryuu. Health and armour: ships armour would still stay the same as the tenryuu (so fragile) and for health I would bring it but a bit to balance it being brought up 2 or 3 tiers. Gameplay: the ship would play more of a support role and would likely be close to other friendly ships due to improved AA and lack of armour. I can also see this ship having a pretty good destroyer hunter roll due to better concealment, fire rate and being able to keep up with them.
  7. 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.
  8. Koogus

    Seaplane tenders

    i am not asking if wg should or should not add them into the game. My question is what would their gameplay be like and how would they work if they were added
  9. Hello all Captains, I wonder if this idea have been visited previously by someone else or discussed in passing. However, I've had an eureka moment few days ago and though I'd share with the community. Just maybe the WG staff will take notice or implement them in the future, should they like the idea of course. (let's please not discuss the pros vs cons, usage of Radar itself in-game, this is not the thread for it) We have from secondary modules, AAA guns that get destroyed by shells damage; but not any other ship parts (Radar, Hydro, etc) However, the main usage of the "Damage Control Party I/II" consumable is limited to fire & flood damage as it is currently used. Why not allow these consumables to effectively repair the Radar (or hydro) on the ships once they are hit by the shells? in another words, introduce an area on a ship (which has Radar) to be 'hit' then to be repaired by using the "Damage Control Party I/II" (DCP). i.e. A shell hits Des Moines conning tower (again, as an example), thereby disabling its Radar consumable temporarily. The Radar consumable will be down until the cool down counter is complete, or the player activates the Damage Control Party I/II. Much like we do now with fire & flooding damage. This would make the abundance of Radar in higher tiers to be somewhat mitigated without driving a hard wedge into what is already designed into the game. It would give the players the chance to intentionally temporarily disable the ship that has radar. Allowing more tactical play/option for players. Conversely, the ship with radar would be more careful in implementation of it's radar asset or be suggested to play more wisely, tactically, or just go ham with it in fear of having it down temporarily. For the WG team, I would imagine it would take some work to add this into the game (should they take the idea on-board). But I think having the already used DCP to include the radar damage system would be a somewhat a feasible option? As a sidenote, the conning tower on ships. Besides taking damage, I believe it has no other uses in-game. Why not double the usage of that section to include the above mentioned idea. I hope what I wrote makes sense, if not I can attempt to explain further. What are your thoughts gents?
  10. So, if it's not obvious by now that have seen my posts - I do not like this rework Wargaming is thinking of trying, it has some truly bad ideas, while rehashing already tried bad ideas in a new package, and half the changes they will have to make to what they showed off work even a little, are the same changes needed to what we have right now to fix that - otherwise the Wargaming rework is pretty much doomed to fail in most, if not all, of it's goals. So, at this point I'm working on two versions of a rework, both of which should alleviate most, if not all the problems while accomplishing the same goals Wargaming's rework wants to accomplish. This version keeps the system pretty much 100% RTS, as it is now. The other version (that I'll post up after I refine some things more in my head) is a bit more of a hybrid of what they want to do, and the current RTS system (with the changes below). That out of the way, let's jump to it. Also, fore warning - this is a massive text wall; if you've no desire to read through the thing, leave now. Addressing the "fighter focus" and balance - One thing I have to agree with Wargaming on is that the gameplay has become heavily focused around fighters. It's become about who can take out the enemy fighters first, so they can just delete the remaining planes at will, with time overly spent on strafe, dodge, counter strafe, etc. Which, all of this has led to the lion's share of the "skill gap" between average, good, and top tier CV players. It's who deletes planes first. Simply put - strafing is and always has been the issue, at least in it's current form. The ability to press a button and delete 1/3 of a CV's entire hanger is just not healthy, poor design, etc. It'd be like a BB pressing alt to permanently knock out another BB's turret(s). However, unlike some, I'm not advocating for it's full removal - instead I say we take it back to basics and drastically reduce the DPS increase. Instead of what is likely close to or even more than a cruisers DF AA - we take it down to MAYBE 10-20% increase in DPS. It may still aid in taking an extra plane out a little sooner, but overall, this would change it back to what it was once about, hampering the accuracy of attack aircraft by braking up the formation essentially. In fighter vs fighter, it might be able to give you a slight edge if it knocks out an enemy plane, but at the cost of a chunk of ammo. But your planes being strafed will be far less worrisome, you might lose the same couple and 1 extra you would were they to click your planes and engage from a group of 30 planes, not most/all of the planes. Other than possibly scouting, this shifts fighters far more to a defensive role as opposed to what is best described as "Offensive Defense", where players will more likely send them to an area/ship to defend, really only worrying about active use if the enemy sends the bombers in a larger group (as if they are sent individually, the auto engage from having it defend a ship is far more practical). However for this to work, we have to address a key issue that anyone who has played tier 4 and 5 CV's all too well - the Balance of fighters. Simply put - the DPS of USN fighters, combined with the number of them, is too high. There are points where the difference between stock shoot down chances between USN and IJN are 10% or more, by far too high, especially when USN gets more ammo, at times better or as good speed, and slightly better AA protection with a lower damage drop off from aircraft losses. USN vs USN may be pure RNG - but USN vs IJN is almost always in the USN's planes favour, heavily. An example, Lexington's fighters have 63 DPS, 6 planes, 378 DPS, against the N1K's 1660 hp, is 22% chance to down a plane. The reverse, 70 DPS, 4 planes, 280 DPS, against 1700 HP - 16% chance. And this is one of the more even ones. Keeping this simple at the moment, the F4U's DPS should drop to about 42/43 DPS if we change nothing else. This would give it a 15.1/15.5% chance to down an enemy N1K, and even if it lost a plane, it'd still be over 12%, still less than the 6%+ gap we currently have. Which, keep in mind, the N1K will burn out it's ammo sooner. Realistically, I would tweak things a bit more, especially depending on a couple things, but actually buff USN HP slightly, maybe, if needed, a slight ammo increase, and of course, the DPS nerf, while increasing IJN DPS slightly, and maybe nerfing it's ammo a little, if needed. At which point, I'd also change the gaps between tiers. So, say, Kaga's A6M2's vs Hiryu's M5's. 44 DPS, 4 planes, 176 DPS vs 1410 HP - 12.4% chance. The reverse, 57, 4 planes, 228 DPS vs 1210 - 18.8%. Especially crazy when you imagine the difference is a pair of slightly bigger MG's on a plane slightly less agile. So, again, more simplistic version of change, buff it to 53 DPS for the A6M2, which, when combined with DFE, would up it to 16.5%, as opposed to the stock 15% it would be at that number - higher tier still retains an edge, but less of one. Meaning perhaps less issues of inter-tier matches of fighters being lopsided, if desired, especially given nations choices in weapons, mobility of planes, etc, the numbers could be even closer, as many after a point did not deviate far from consistent weapons, particularly the US. Which, brings me to my next point, as well as one of those things changes I'd make would depend on, is "National Flavour" - what makes these fighters different from one another. To which, at least with the 4 nations I can build ship and plane tree's for (USN, IJN, UK, Ger) see two models. The first which I will call "pure flavour" is just that - they have a super specific flavour, they stick to 100% throughout. In which USN is the "Tank" - best overall endurance (HP, ammo, likely DPS loss) but lowest DPS, IJN highest DPS, but more fragile and lacking ammo, with UK and Germany falling in the middle, UK closer to IJN and Germany closer to USN in what they lean on (DPS vs endurance). USN having 6 planes, as now, UK and Germany having 5, and IJN, 4, as now. Though there is a variation that Germany has more planes (7), with DPS similar to USN, if not a tad higher, but lower ammo. With this, generally, USN could play a little more aggressive, not worried as much with AA, than the other 3 if it scouts or wants to be a little more proactive finding enemy aircraft. Though it may take a little longer to knock them out of the sky.Where as IJN can also be more aggressive in that in can knock planes down faster, but has less ammo and HP so will have to rearm more frequently and has to watch enemy AA more. With UK and Germany being able to kinda juggle both a bit better. Really comes down to what the player thinks is best as while it can do offense and defense, they are still different ways of doing it. The other way, is what I'll call "Realistic Flavour" - At lower tiers, it's going to start at more the same as above and what we have now, sort of, in that USN has higher HP, lower DPS, IJN is reversed, etc. However, as the tiers go up, and the planes start to become more and more similar, especially around tier 8 (where USN would really be the last truly holding to it's flavour till the next tier) while they still have hints of their flavours, the aircraft are more similar as designs, thinking, and needs started to overlap. So, when you get to tier 8, you have the F4U, still using 6 .50 cal MG's (as per the current ingame model), so it maintains it's lower DPS and higher ammo count, where as the UK, German, and IJN lines have switched to a later Spitfire, Fw-190, and the N1K respectively - all armed with 4x 20 mm cannons (and additional MG's for the 190) giving them more similar DPS with lower ammo counts, however IJN still has a bit more than the other two (planes were still very agile), and Germany still more ammo than the other two (as the synced weapons would slow usage down), with USN in the next tier going to the F4U with 4x 20 mm's (necessitating an ingame model change, the tier 9 planes on Midway still use a 6 mg configuration on the model). With the possibility that there's a slight shift at the higher tiers of IJN having slightly more HP than UK (more durable planes than earlier, combined with radial engines, something most if not all UK fighters would lack, using more easily disabled liquid cooled engines) and USN edging out Germany in DPS but having slightly less ammo than it (as the German higher tier aircraft still use prop synced weapons, lowering RoF). They would still maintain a flavour but, as in reality to a degree, becomes less pronounced over time. The alpha strikes, a DoT base, and further reducing the skill gap - So, when Wargaming last decided to add more "action" to the CV gameplay, they gave us Manual Drops, arguably the lesser part of the skill gap issue compared to strafe, also added the last time they wanted to add more action. Now? Now we have players dropping near 60k alpha strikes on BB's with a single group of TB's from Midway, Hak's unleashing a wall of 8500 damage torps at ships. All because they press alt and drop on the ships doorstep. Again, an unhealthy, untenable, situation. However, with ships in smoke no longer spotted even with AA going, some of the tighter map designs, and the occasional need to drop further out, we can't simply remove this. Even at lower tiers this has caused issues, especially in the learning process. To which, the solution is an inevitability that has always been for the RTS system, that is inevitable even with what Wargaming proposes, and in both scenario's, leads to CV's becoming more about DoT and less about straight up alpha strikes, which is something I agree with. And that inevitability is - CV alpha damage has to be nerfed. And I'm not talking 5%, 10%, 20% either. TB's I'm talking around 80% give or take, 75% or there about on AP bombs, HE bombs, given few, if any, can hit the citadel of a ship, are the least affected by this at around say 40%, least on USN bombs. And I'm going to get into the flavour stuff as well here with the same 4 lines I mention above. When it came to attack aircraft development, can a bunch of UK planes carry a bomb? Yes, but few, if any, were really dedicated dive bombers. UK's thing really was torps, even more so than IJN, so with this line, they'd deal the most damage at 2000 per torp max, with 5 planes per group in an arrow/chevron formation with some fairly decent sized gaps - useful against a BB, or a bigger/slower cruiser, but not so much the more agile ones and DD's, though they can still score hits because like IJN, they'd be coming from more than one side. And they are completely reliant on these for the actual damage. IJN would be a bit more mixed, still more a capital ship predator, but has those DB's as well. There torps in terms of spread would be unchanged, but only top out around 1500 damage. Meanwhile barring a "mix and match" ability (aka, with USN right now being able to use 1 group AP and one group HE DB's instead of 2 of one), would lower IJN damage for DB's some, but give them S-AP bombs, or from what I'm told, similar to what GZ has for HE where it's like an "IFHE" bomb. Unless they can in fact make it that even if it's default you have 1 of each (as Japan did use in it's attacks a mix of Semi AP and HE bombs). Or have a separate branch using mostly DB's with a mix of SAP and HE and maybe a TB group and leave the mainline otherwise unchanged beyond torp damage and other listed changes. USN should really become the cruiser hunter that can maybe go after BB's. When it has torps, damage caps out at 1000 on that tight spread it gets, where as the AP bombs are brought down to maybe 1.5-2k Per hit, with HE dropped to about 5-6k damage (meaning were it to score a pen, it'd deal 1980 damage or less), maybe even lower as USN HE DB's need an accuracy buff, and maybe a slight nerf on AP accuracy. Sure you can take AP or DB to gear more against a BB, but the heavier, now more accurate HE bombs are geared more at cruisers and general purpose attack. Meanwhile, Germany, having really 0 real TB development, would lack TB's in the line, but have more, very accurate DB's (much like now) that deal maybe around 1000 per hit average so around maybe 3k damage on HE bombs. These would be really geared at hunting DD's, and simply burning down the other ships with fires and the sheer volume of hits, almost like the very thing they hunt, a DD. With the lowered damage, without a detonation, only the most unlucky/bad DD players should have any real fear of being taken out in a single shot, not counting resulting fire or floods that stick. These are also rough numbers for the higher tier stuff, lower tier or even these could be higher or lower depending on what exactly is needed to keep things in check. But the overall factors on damage being partially role, line "flavour", and most importantly the more accurate, the lower the damage, the less accurate the higher the damage - same as BB's, cruisers, and DD's. As to the aircraft themselves, Either IJN's planes would take an HP nerf, or USN get a significant buff. These would go back to the old ways of having numbers (in terms of groups) and speed to try and get through AA ad hit a target. Enough HP to not be useless paper tigers in the rain, but the lowest of all attack planes. I'm thinking, insane as it may sound, Germany have the next most, at 7 groups at the top tier, with break out depending on the exact loadouts we have and all. They as well will be a little more speed based, likely not quite as fast as IJN, but would still be a bit more about overwhelming a target. But the goal would also be to make sure they are just accurate enough to score some hits consistently on a DD, like at least 1 hit per group, but not just wipe it out in a nightmarish blitzkrieg strike. Still, admittedly, working on Germany's because of the likely change from Ju-87 to Fw-190 variants in the bombing role, unless we went really insane near top tier to Ju-88's. UK, the next line likely to release, least of another nation, is significantly easier, a good mix of speed and HP, get in, hit the ships, get out, likely maybe 6 groups like USN at the top. Solid enough to get through to hit a BB, but may want to think twice if a cruiser is nearby. USN however would have the highest HP. The planes may not be the fastest, quite possibly the slowest, but have the durability to go into the heaviest AA, and just kinda ram through it. If say, IJN is the rapier, - USN is the battering ram. Designed to knock out those AA guns and just wear ships down with fires and hits. With as stated above, the idea being that like otherlines in the trees and game, they have something they focus more on as a target - UK/capital ships, USN/Cruisers, Germany/DD's, IJN/more mixed - but is still effective against the other types, just not ideal. Lower Alpha damage takes out those one hot strikes unless you get a det or sufficient DoT going, while also allowing manual drop to stay and further close the skill gap because a noob hitting 2/6 as opposed to the pro's 6/6 will only be a difference of 2000 damage vs 6000 instead of 20k vs 60k. We keep our groups so we can actually attack multiple targets, stagger strikes, etc, and develop flavours based around aircraft type and group numbers. And the damage shift is more toward the DoT doing most of the damage, not necessarily the bombs and torps. Which if need be, DoT's can be adjusted (honestly, they kinda need a slight adjustment) and maybe we see DCP/repair CD's reduced closer to the levels of Gascogne/Mass. Loadouts - The shortest thing likely on this wall of a post - every ship gets 2 options, AS and Strike, other than maybe the beginning tiers. Tiers 4 and 5, maybe 6, generally stick with 1,x,x setups. Tiers 7 and 8, maybe 9 have AS ad strike setups of 2,x,x and 1,x,x respectively, and tier 10 (if 9 isn't similar) has AS and Strike as 3,x,x and 2,x,x. So, at tier 8, Lex would have 2,0,2 and 1,1,2 as it's setups, and Shokaku having 2,2,2 and 1,3,2 as it's setups. And before anyone loses their minds with that Shokaku bit it's an example, and even if done were talking with torp planes doing at best 1/4 the damage they do now. We,the players, should have an option, do we want a little extra ability to scout and cover the team, or a little more damage. And, should we encounter the opposite setup, knowing we are down a fighter or up a fighter but down on attack planes, adjust accordingly. Spotting, fires, and AA with a bit of survivability - Wargaming feels CV's offer too much vision, hilarious really when you have ships that get to the fight just as fast because no arming time at match start, with double the spotting range, aren't auto spotted 8 km out, have no automated defense against them unless spotted at the roughly 5-6 km they can sneak into and the ship has secondaries that reach that far and that's not even counting radar that can light up 4x4 sections of a map through an island with zero counter at all. Okay, fine, well, there's an easier solution then this rework making us use 1 group at a time - lower the aerial spotting ranges, particularly or better yet exclusively, those of DD's. Go look up map sizes you'll find most are between 36 km-45km I think it is. or, 3.6-4.5km squares. Meaning you drop DD's to around 1 km spotted by air range not only are we in even some of the shortest AA ranges, so they can open up if they want, but that leaves, if were dead center of a square, about a km in any direction, in that same square, they can hide in. Just as hard, if not harder, then finding the damn things in a storm, not that spotting a smart DD especially late game is particularly easy as it is. You want to lower it on other ships too fine, but given most of the bent out of shape on this one is over DD's, make it that much harder for us to spot them. problem solved. Not the first time they changed detection ranges. You want to make scouting harder, by all means, make it harder so maybe I won't have to hear about "go scout there" as much as well as the follow up whining that while my planes scouted an area, like they asked, they got hit by attack planes or couldn't bomb the ship they wanted me to. Fires, this has always been an all or nothing deal for CV's and I think that needs to change. For starters, undoing the nerf that made CV's easier to set on fire. The second would be to get rid of the "Emergency Takeoff" skill, and just make that a built in skill or a basic mechanic of the class. No other type has to stop firing because they are on fire, neither should we. We should have the reload penalty yes, but not out right shutdown. Third is that while I get the fact we have aviation fuel on our ships - the 24% hp per fire needs to go. I don't mind it being higher than a BB and the rest, but this is just way too high. Especially when you consider that we only get 4 flag slots, not the 8 of others, and unlike a BB, we do not get a repair, at any tier. If they would like to give us 8 flag slots and a repair, fine, 24% can stay. And even then I'd still say at least knock it down to 21%. And on the AA front, this needs the most change of this section. For starters no matter what direction we go, lower tier ships need later AA upgrades they received, or ones created for them, that match the planes they are going against these days, not the AA they had when we had Biplanes into tier 7. While on the reverse, top tiers can use some dialing back of their DPS from the days when we had jets blowing through AA. Carriers basically use early war-post war planes, and the AA generally should match. If we give those ships lower down the heavier AA, and adjust plane HP right, you get a more consistent line of AA increasing and plane HP as well, allowing for smoother transitions and CV's that are +2 not waltzing through AA barely scathed and -2 CV's not having there planes completely slaughtered. There'd still be a noticeable difference facing planes your own tier, higher tier, and lower tier, but not as drastic and frustrating. I also think that perhaps, we need to make a bit of a tweak on build and skills for AA, to which I think the best answer, though, not an ideal one, is to effectively make a secondary build and an AA build the same thing. That is, AFT is unchanged, BFT well, that goes back to 10% to AA and maybe drop it back to a 2 point skill, or buff it's reload to 20% as well and keep it at 3 points, the slot 3 upgrades to AA and secondaries range are combined to a single upgrade and manual AA and Manual Secondaries become one skill, call it what you want. At the very least, BB's and most cruisers going for such a build even with no CV present would still have some enhanced ability against ships, even if not the most ideal. With the only other thing being to just remove AA builds altogether, with the max AA/secondary range and MB range on DD's/Atlanta gaining that 20% to base, debatable on BFT staying or going, remove manual AA and make the module as I said upgrade both ranges, unless that's removed as well and simply just max the range of secondaries and AA with that and AFT removed, maybe have whatever reload/DPS for weapons either with or without BFT be the stock number and drop that skill. Just have the max AA range and whatever AA you got, and then just ability to focus. Another thing to consider is when it comes to air power, if even some of the nerfs I've put forth to it leaves it still too much, yet buffing elsewhere just breaks and sets us back where we are now, adding a single charge Df AA - with no multiplier just one meant to scatter the planes, to ships other than cruisers may not be a terrible idea. In a pinch, give a BB or DD the ability to better dodge/mitigate an attack if caught alone with no cover, call it a "mulligan button". But after that one, you best find a cruiser, with their more effective version, or other AA help of some form. The ideal defense in the future, same as it is now, should be stick near your team - safety in numbers. However I will also say this is one area where I would like to see their concept from the rework - planes having HP and AA actually doing damage, as well as the "sector control", actually built in to what we have. Make the AA like secondary guns popping off into the air (which would work even better if you combine those skills as one since now they'd be even more similar, maybe enhances all AA gun accuracy x% instead of double DP gun damage), and have the ability to intensify the AA to one side or the other (or maybe have this replace selecting a target as how AA is increased beyond just normal), still a bit more RNG vs skill, though, in the case of the non-CV player, a bit more control over their AA and all, and leaves the ability for a CV to choose to hit from two sides so potentially not all AA is hammering everything as it goes side to side attacking like in the rework. For as much as I bash Wargaming's rework idea, this is one of the few good ideas they had in it. Again, a good idea, not sure how their version works - carriers being rearmed after losses. I think CV's should start with their normal load, say, 72 planes. However, when either a type, or actual plane count, reaches 0 - a countdown timer starts on getting replacements. However, were talking minutes. So, if you manage to lose all your lanes in say, the first 5 minutes - you better hope the match isn't over in the next 2-5 minutes. I can't hammer down a time on this one, but it needs to be long enough that something like Kaga, stuck with tier 6 planes against tier 9 AA, can afford to attack those higher tier ships, and not be absolutely boned by losses in a 15 minute match, but some dunce that flys his squads in a Hak right at 3 AA build Des's in a 6 minute match regrets it, heavily. Captain skills - No matter what version of rework it is - this is going to need some overhauling. I'm going to start with the most mandatory skill of all CV's AS - wherein there are two options here. The first is, with reworking fighters and attack plane damage, rework the skill that it adds a TB to the group and a DB, but no fighter. The change in DPS makes the skill as is absolutely mandatory. And no matter what balance changes you make to fighters, the additional one will always make it mandatory, so, it needs to go. And with attack planes dealing far less damage, an extra TB won't be over kill anymore so it can have that addition back. Now it's a choice of, do you take the skill, adding more to your attack per group, but risking running out of planes a bit faster, or trade the attack power to reduce losses, know you have x reloads, and invest the points elsewhere. The other is we straight up remove the skill. Given it needs to become a mechanic, and is currently worthless as it's better to invest in premium DCP, Emergency Takeoff needs to go, maybe replaced with a skill that lowers the penalty from being on fire to reloads. AA build skills I think need to either go and just be more or less directly integrated to the ships, or they need to all be combined that AA and Secondary builds are the same thing. EvM - skill needs to lose the speed penalty, or at minimum drastically reduce it, and reduce the HP increase but instead of one way make it going in and out they have the hp boost. Keep the detectability thing if you want, switch it with ERG skill, making it a 2 point skill, and ERG 1 point again. And buff ERG to 20% DPS buff. ASE is the one CV related skill I have 0 issues with. That or replace ERG with something a bit more useful, what, I'm not sure. Side note - planes with rockets This is something I've been for, and would like to see implemented. However, at this time, I'm not sure HOW they would be implemented in this form, beyond low damage, even against a DD, but knocks out modules, AA, etc well and starts fires. is there a third setup option in certain lines where it replaces a type in the setup, like maybe strike Lex becoming 1,1,1,1, does it replace TB's or DB's, is it somehow tied to fighters? Something I want to see, the how I'm not sure of, especially if Wargaming apparently can't give us one group of AP bombs and one of HE. That said, there are exactly 3 nations I know of that carried rockets to fire at ground/sea targets in any real volume only two of which may show up in game really - USN planes could carry the 5 inch FFAR and HVAR, and I do believe some Royal Navy planes had the ability to carry RP-3's, ones that would see use in a UK CV line. Only other ones I know of are Russian aircraft, use of actual air to ground/sea rockets seems at best limited for Germany, I know of none for Japan, and no clue about France and Italy. So, barring a Russian CV line - I'd prefer it stay as USN and UK only with an option to use rockets. Anyway, that is my long winded post on how I at least would address the issues Wargaming wants to with the rework, without moving away from the RTS format. And I know it's liable to get hate from players on all sides but, is what it is. I may have forgotten a couple things given I took breaks and all so this took hours to write and may have forgotten something. The way it's written out makes it look like a ton, but in reality, it's a lot of more simple changes as opposed to full out re-imagining. And as far as the "Cinematic" look - seriously, just hit shift/Z with a squadron selected and that is EXACTLY the same view as what they show in the rework demo just no damage stages, which they could add, and reduced flak, an even easier add. What we have now is more than fixable, people just have to be willing to do it. At some point I'll post up my Hybrid idea, though, that may end up way, way shorter than this monster as I may just go over basics and point to sections from this thread. And if Wargaming staff is going to say "keep rework talk in the rework thread" - well I have no problems posting this wall in there if it means they'll bloody look at it.
  11. Alright so currently camouflage appearance and bonuses are directly linked. For example, Ocean soul is blue/white horizontal lines in appearance, and provides: -3% to surface detectability range. +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship. +100% to experience earned in the battle. +20% credits earned in the battle. Those bonuses are decent, but not everyone loves the look of Ocean Soul... right /u/Sub_Octavian ? Then I got to thinking I would like some appearance options and WoWs is missing out on capitalizing on the F2P cosmetics market a bit. I propose the following; split the camouflage system into two parts. The template - this is the actual physical appearance of the camouflage. You only need to get it once and it can be applied to any ship. It could be purchased via the shop, earned by achievements, reward for ranked/CB, or found in super containers. The stat pack - instead of getting full camouflage as we do now (with an appearance and stat bonuses attached) instead we just get a "pack" of stat bonuses that can be applied to any visual camouflage template. They would still be a limited use item and earned the same way that full camouflage is now - if I don't have any "stat packs" to apply to my template, I cannot use the template. So instead of oh let's say buying x25 Restless Fire Camo, I would buy a x25 -3% to surface detectability range. +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship. +250% Commander experience earned in the battle. stat pack and apply it to my camouflage template of choice. I like this idea because it provides me visual customization options, it opens up what I think could be a very lucrative cosmetics market for WG, and it doesn't require a drastic overhaul of the camo visuals that are already in the game because you aren't changing the looks, just the stat bonuses provided. There are some details to be worked out in there (esp w/ permacamo) but I think it's a good idea. I could see the camouflage templates being a very popular store item and a much more visible (and thus desirable) prestige item for high CB winners/high rank players.
  12. My idea for the first Axis only operation. Name: Operation Erwürgen (Operation Strangle) Transmission from Grand Admiral Erich Raeder: "The operation will take place off the northern coast of Norway, specifically close to the city of Hammerfest. Your objective, join a raiding force and destroy a large convoy inbound for the city of Arkhangelsk. The convoy, code named PQ19 is carrying vital supplies for the Russian war effort and must be stopped. The convoy is well defended but you have been allocated the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau which should give your strike force the edge needed to annihilate the convoy, Good luck." The general vicinity of where the operation will take place This operation will be for tier 7 cruisers only. Only German, Italian and Japanese ships will be usable. Unless a player has either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau no other battleships will be allowed to take part in the operation, However AI controlled versions of these ships will partake in this operation if no one during the player search period has been found with these ships. The battleships will have a set course that will flow from one objective to the next. From beginning to end, Sink screening force 1, Sink screening force 2, Destroy airfield, Sink lost escort fleet, sink main escort fleet, sink soviet interception force, sink convoys, operation end. Main Objective: Destroy all convoy ships before they reach their destination. Secondary Objective 1: Destroy both screening forces. Secondary Objective 2: Take out the enemy airfield before it can it evacuate. Secondary Objective 3: Destroy the off course escort fleet before it radios your position and calls for reinforcements. Secondary Objective 4: Destroy the main escort fleet and the Soviet Interception Force. Do not let any ships escape! Secondary Objective 5: Prevent the loss of either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau. The Operational Area The 2 screening forces will consist 7 ships each. 1 Emerald, 4 Clemson's and 2 Nicholas'. The airfield will be equipped with, Grumman F6F-3 Hellcats, Douglas TBF Avengers and Douglas SBD-5 Dauntless'. The lost escort fleet will consist of 1 Fiji light cruiser, 1 Leander light cruiser and 4 Farragut's. The main escort fleet will have 1 King George V battleship, 1 Belfast light cruiser, 1 Leander light cruiser, 1 Gallant destroyer, 4 Mahan destroyers. The Soviet force will have 1 Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya Battleship, 1 Kirov light cruiser, 4 Gnevny Destroyers. If you FAIL Secondary Objective 3, the main escort fleet will be reinforced by a new force consisting of 1 North Carolina battleship, 1 New Orleans cruiser and 4 Mahan Destroyers.
×