Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'increase'.



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 1 result

  1. A Plea to Wargaming: consider having carriers score more XP for their successful aerial attacks I'm finding carriers a pretty severe grind, especially seeing that the game has you skip a level to get to the next Tier-up carrier in many/most cases (so, instead of needing around 65,000 XP to go from T4 to T5, you need around 161,000 XP to go from T4 to T6 as there is no T5 carrier, for example). It's difficult/time-consuming to get that XP -- both for the ship and for the captain -- due to numerous reasons. Right off the bat: 1.) You have to have the right "load out" when your plane leaves the carrier. Want to hit that destroyer? Probably need to have missiles ready. The CA or BB? Either torps or bombs will work. CV? I'd try torps or missiles -- you don't have to brave the AA for as long as with bombs, since you can drop the torps/missiles at a distance. BUT.... What if the ship gets sunk before you reach it? Or it dodges into smoke? Or it ends up inside a group of ships with terrific AA? Then you're stuck with using the sub-optimal ordinance for another ship, OR you can simply return to the ship and try again. Meanwhile, the game may END before you get back into the "optimal" ordinance attack. 2.) You have to (safely) "approach" the target. This may mean you have to brave the AA fire of one or more other ships along your flight path. Or, you have to endure or dodge the fighter patrol the enemy carrier has laid down. Or your target may get sunk before you reach it, end up in smoke, end up inside a group of ships with good AA, or the game may end first. 3.) There's an optimal "attack run" you are trying to achieve with each ordinance you are carrying, and you want to try to get it to maximize damage. It's best -- scoring most number of hits and getting most damage -- to attack with torps and missiles from the perpendicular (side). But with bombs, it's best to attack along the longitudinal axis (length) of the ship to score the most hits. While you fly about trying to get into that attack run, again your target may get sunk before you reach it, end up in smoke, end up inside a group of ships with good AA, or you may run into other ships' AA, or the game may end first. 4.) Once in your optimal attack run, you have to survive your intended victim's AA fire. True for all attacks (surface vessels and planes), but planes have miniscule health, and die like flies. Not so much surface ships. 5.) After having survived the defensive AA, you need to have an accurate attack. Admittedly I've only worked with carriers up to T6, but missiles, torps and bombs all seem to have a bit of a "spread" or "dispersion" no matter how accurately I feel (or it appears) I've dropped them. PLUS you only have a VERY LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME to drop off your ordinance once you are in your attack run, something VERY different from standard surface vessel attacks (where you can hold fire to watch a foe come out of its turn and present a broadside or "bow on" profile to you). 6.) Finally, your air attacks get weaker/worse as the game progresses and more of your aircraft get shot down (VERY different from surface vessels!). This is a real heartbreaker, as once you get 1-2 planes in your attack groups, AA usually shreds them before you can complete ANY attack. Plus, there's no way to "repair" the planes/air groups to bring them back to "full strength" -- something you CAN do to guns and torps when they get disabled/destroyed on a surface vessel. So your air attacks end up becoming weaker and weaker as the game wears on -- something that really doesn't happen to surface vessels. With a surface vessels you simply fire your ordinance (artillery or torps), wait for the reload, and repeat this action, again and again. For aircraft, to make ONE attack you must: a. select the correct ordinance for a future attack; b. fly to the target without getting shot down; c. get into your optimal attack run without getting shot down; d. survive the defender's AA fire; e. have an accurate attack (may RNGesus be with you); f. still have a decent number of attacking aircraft to get a decent amount of damage. Since all these things work (in combination!) to limit carriers' planes offensive abilities, I think WoWs should consider _doubling_ the amount of XP given to aircraft attacks (not carriers firing their secondaries, or ramming). This would reduce the grind of playing carriers, and might encourage more people use them (out of curiosity, just what percentage people in WoWs DO play carriers versus other ship types?). Plus, this would not make carriers "overpowered" in that I'm not saying increase the damage they do in any way, nor am I calling for improved flight/attack mechanics. Nope, leave it all the same, just increase the amount of XP awarded for plane-on-ship attacks/damage. Yes, I am a noob, and I am probably a fairly unskilled CV commander, Be that as it may, I've never EVER seen -- in 7 months of WoWs gameplay now -- a Carrier be top scorer in ANY game. Nor second highest scorer. (I have seen them appear as third-highest scorer, however. Maybe twice, or three times?) Just a suggestion for consideration.
×