Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'meta'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News and Announcements
    • Patch notes
    • Contests And In-Game Competitions
    • Support
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Surveys
  • General Gameplay Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Off-Topic
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 24 results

  1. Before I start my ignore list is up to two pages. I take constructive criticism but do not listen to or tolerate harassment or ad hominem attacks they will be reported and will result in the poster being added to my rather lengthy ignore list. Ok down to business Destroyers are escorts! Forcing them to do a cruiser role like scouting or capping is causing players to give up. It's putting a square peg in a round hole. There intended role is escort and torpedoe delivery. It is clear to me at least the game designers intended it to work this way. This is causing frustration for new players as elite players have deemed the intended role not in keeping with the current meta. Cruisers are supposed be doing the scout and cap role and appear to be designed to do this but are rarely expected to do this by elite players due to meta. Current Cruiser meta tends split into two with Light Cruisers played as large destroyers which is close to how the should be played and Heavy Cruisers played like underpowered Battleships, not how they should be played. Again leading to frustration by new players expecting to play them to meta. Battleship meta is pretty split as well too. Brawlers largely working largely as expected by players new and old but are getting to overpowered. Then we have the potatoes or snipers they tend to be in what are historically battlecruiser or fast Battleship designs but sometimes they are in traditionally brawler designs which leads to player frustration. Carriers in the current meta are at this point a slave class expected to carry the team at their own expense. They should be the most escorted class in the game but rarely receive it due to destroyers which should be doing it being forced to scout and cap. Cruisers which could do it are being played wrong not scouting and capping free up destroyers. Battleships are to busy hiding or tanking to be bothered with it. They should be protecting and scouting flanks engaging lone wolfs. But are expected to scout for other ships in current meta. Needless to say leading to player frustration.
  2. How to fix passive meta

    Here's how we should fix the passive meta in tiers 8 through 10: Buff the CVs (specifically USN ones) to make BBs scared of them again. Give Midway her jets back
  3. Moving up tiers is hard!

    So when I first started, I rushed up to the Hipper, and got hammered. Based on my experiences in WoT, I quickly reversed my rush to top tiers, and hung out at tiers 3-4 for quite some time. My stats improved, I pushed into tier 5, for the longest time my WR/WTR stayed light teal, all was good. My average battle tier hovered around 4.5, life was good. But, It started to get boring, so I started regrinding the Hipper, unlocked the Roon (gawd what a beautiful boat!), and started to raise my average tier, and man has it been savage. My WR tanked, my WTR tanked etc. But this little post is for those captains looking to move up. Hang in there, as like me you will discover the Meta is different, and of course MM will not shelter you anymore. You are fighting more experienced players, better trained captains, and suddenly anyone can hit your from anywhere, you have to keep your head on a swivel. I am starting to see light at the end of the tunnel, the punishing learning curve, and the higher tier ships are worth it, as many different play styles become available to you. Anyway, forging ahead, taking a beating, but I am starting to learn. Just an FYI and one players opinion about the transition.
  4. British BBs bad for the game.

    In their current state, I don't think British BBs are good for the game. Was just in a battle where a Lion was he spamming from 20+ km the whole game. If they want to encourage more aggressive play, this wasn't the way to do it. I understand the mentality of "low concealment means people will push", but it's not going to work. The low concealment and excellent range only means that people will spam he from 20+ km, then drop off detection and do it again when no one is watching them. It's bad for the meta in my opinion. Those are just my thoughts.
  5. ranked and "strait"

    I have seen a trend for the battle to develop like this, North takes A and south takes C and a slug fest develops on B that relies on lucky torps and a general battle of attrition. I feel the south side is the more favorably side cause of that large island in the center that allows Cleveland's to disproportionately affect the DD's capabilities. So heres my question, why dose ever team seem to follow the meta. Why is there no innovation, why no flanking pushes thru A or C? I can understand if its a heavy BB mm, but it usually isn't. Is there anyone that has any theories into this?
  6. Well, I been in tooooo many high tier games where there are 3-4 full health BBs 15 minute into game. I think we can all agree that campy-passive-long-range-bow-on-BB are the main problem of high tier meta. My suggestion is to reduce BB range down to cruiser level. This fix two things: -BB no longer camp all the way at the edge of the map. This is mainly to force potatoes to push forward in their BBs since they cannot shoot anything if they sit in the back. Good players push in with BBs, and that is what wins games. This would in fact raise the stat of many BB players. -Cruiser can now actually serve the support role as designed. Now cruiser is mostly tanking damage for BBs, since their shorter range forces them to stay in front of BBs. If BB and Cruiser have the same range, BB will be forced to stay with the cruisers. BBs will help tanking some of the incoming damage while cruiser will provide fire support/hydro/AA cover. Encouraging combine arm team play, less BBabies complaining about torpedo and CV deletion. Personally, I don't think there is any other way in fixing this bow on BB, passive play meta. Given the IQ/selfishness of your average player, if they are given a BB with 25km range, they WILL stay 25km away. I think we all know by now that people camp because they like to camp, regardless of repair cost/exp earning. Heck, I bet people are still gonna stay 25km away if they tell them that if you are the first to die on your team, your full repair cost is waived +50K credit +500 exp reward.
  7. CV gameplay and meta?

    So I'm coming back from quite a long hiatus from WoWS and I'm thinking of getting back into CV gameplay. I'm at the Essex and the Hiryu and I left shortly after the Essex and Midway lost their 2/2/0 configuration and Russian DD intro. So my questions for you all are is CV gameplay good enough to come back to and if so what is the new meta for CV's?
  8. Some thoughts on the meta and grind of Season 6 in comparison to other seasons. I might humblebrag or outright brag at a couple junctures, apologies for this, I am a solid player, I am not an amazing player, but the things I do that are good stick well in my memory. With that said here are my thoughts on ranked season 6, the grind, and the meta, with some background on prior seasons. Season 6 of Ranked was my fourth full ranked season. That is, the fourth time I actually dove in and got rank 1. I go into every season with the goal to finish under 200, and 150 if possible. My rule that I came up with before my first quest for Rank 1 in season 3 is the following: at 300 games I would evaluate if I want to continue, at 400, I would stop if I was not within striking distance, at 500 I would hard stop, even if I were a win from rank 1. I have never hit 300 battles. Previous season notes: Now finally we get to Season 6. Season 6 had the most blowouts of any season I remember, the quality of play was good enough that 9/10 it felt like the first ship to have a significant advantage won, often in dominant fashion, there were dozens of battles where the winning team lost fewer than two ships. Very few battles came down to the wire, and I only once saw a team come back from 3 ships down. And that was after an enemy BB scored a couple lucky citadels and I witnessed an allied Scharnhorst hide behind an island for 5 minutes doing nothing. This season featured more idiocy than I recalled in the previous seasons, not sure why. For a great microcosm of that idiocy here is one of the dumbest battles of the season. I intended to primarily play the Blysk and back it up with my Belfast, I ended up doing the reverse after a bad start with the Blysk. The problem with my Belfast was that it was not set up for ranked. My Belfast uses my Minotaur captain, which meant no DE or IFHE. BFT and AFT were nearly useless in ranked, although I did win most of the battles which included CVs, once shooting down 26 Hiryu planes, and in another battle 21 Saipan planes. I made the initial switch from Blysk to Belfast after starting out 6-8 (with four first place losses) in the Blysk, my first day with the Belfast I went 5-3, with all 3 losses being first place. I felt that the Blysk would be outclassed by the Shiratsuyu this season, an absurd ship with excellent concealment and the ability to drop 16 fish in 6 seconds. Even after I switched the season just couldn’t get off the ground, through 51 games I was 23-28 with 11 first place losses. It was borderline absurd. I soon it my groove over my next 51 I would get the Belfast working a bit better. Despite finishing in a reasonable 207 battles I didn’t have the best time. There were a lot of frustrating losses where I played well, but I just couldn’t get my teams to work together well enough. The Belfast is a great, and maybe even overpowered, ship. But it can’t consistently carry. It is just too damned soft. I should have gotten out of it sooner and switched back to the Blysk, but the power of Radar in the season meant that I didn’t want to risk being on a team without Radar. That mean I had to play the Belfast. During that good stretch in the Belfast I went 33-18 with 8 first place losses, this brought me to the Premier League. Then the Belfast stuttered, after getting to rank 3 I immediately fell back to rank 4 and had a day where I tried to powergrind ranked and ended up exactly where I started after 34 battles. It was perhaps my worst extended day of ships ever. After that day I switched back to primarily using my beloved Blyskawica. My most-played ship which hit 1.6M elite XP on the battle that took me to rank 1. In the Blysk I stayed at the edge of radar range shimmied like crazy, I gunned at DDs and turned out to avoid torps. I burned cruisers and BBs till they cursed at me in chat. As long as I didn’t get torped or pinned by a British cruiser I would perform well. And so after being 11-14 through my first 25 Blysk games I went 16-8 and finished first place in 4 of those 8 losses to go +12 and finally get to rank 1. On the final day I went 8-3 in the Blysk (I also had 1 loss in the Belfast) +5 overall and easily got from rank 2 to rank 1 after the almost 100 game slog from rank 4 to rank 2. Honestly it felt like a lot more than 207 battles, partially because of my low win percentage. I finished with a 53.6% win rate, 111-96. That means that I was just +15 on wins, meaning I got 31 first place losses, one short of a third of my losses. I don’t know what that says about me, a lot of those battles I wasn’t the guy spamming until the end to amass XP, I killed a couple DDs early and got killed and my teams would just not take advantage and open the door, and this season, when the door was open, the battle would usually end. I did put up a ranked Kraken, and somehow ended the season with NINE ram kills, most of them BBs, including a Gneisenau who had 40k when I had 40 hp (I ran die-hard flags which allowed me to get the kills). I guess that says something about my aggressive style of play. I like the Belfast but it’s not my best ship. I should have realized that earlier. I got a lot more kills and damage in the Belfast, but again I don’t need to get kills to make the Blysk work. I just win in that thing. This season relied so heavily on radar and smoke that there were times battles were basically over when they started. Certain ships performed drastically better in ranked. For the second consecutive season I made a post on this. I played the Belfast because it is a great ship in ranked. Its strengths lie not in its armor or overwhelming fire power, but in its consumables. And as we know that using your consumables well is everything in ranked. Smoke and Radar are incredibly important, hydro is useful too. The Belfast can use these to neutralize enemy DDs as well as (and I cannot emphasize this enough) other Belfasts and Fijis. The ship that is most effective at dealing with a Belfast is a Belfast. One on one it can burn down BBs, gun down cruisers from inside and outside smoke, and hunt DDs. But a Belfast opens up an enemy Belfast to the very weaknesses it exploits on other ships. Even if I was rarely sunk by another Belfast they often had a hand in my demise and vice versa. But my build prevented me from maximizing the power of the Belfast and the ship is not compatible with my aggressive style of play (my low survival rate combined with my high win rate demonstrate my aggressiveness, and my effectiveness with this playstyle). I got caught out a few too many times, ate a couple too many torps as I was trying to get last licks in before jetting off, ran out of hydro at inconvenient times way too often. I did fine, but not the exceptional performance I had hoped I would get out of a ship I usually enjoy. What I should have realized earlier was that I was making the same mistake I made in season four. I let a couple bad games in the Blysk convince me that success lay elsewhere. This seasons rewards for Ranked sucked. Seriously WG, they were immensely disappointing. In previous seasons there have been 5-11M credits, 3500 doubloons, and hundreds of flags. This season there was 1M credits, 2750 doubloons and no more than 40 of any flag. Instead we got the crap upgrades that are honestly useless. I haven’t found a sensible location for any of them. What’s even worse is that I’ve now gotten these useless rewards from “supercontainers” that were not so super. IF it weren’t for the fact that I’m one season from the Black, I, a player who loves competitive play and ranked more than anything else in this game, might have passed. Rewards breed competition. The lack of rewards made ranked feel less competitive this season. A little bit of useful ranked math, not for the faint of heart. A couple side notes about the number of battle it takes to get to rank 1 from where a previous rank 1 starts, 46 stars short. Ignoring the irrevocable ranks you therefore need to go +46 to get to rank 1. A 100% average player (which won’t exist because what is average at rank 10 is not average at rank 2) will advance 1 star every 14 battles (7 wins, 7 losses with 1 loss in first place) and get to rank 1 in 14*46 battles, or 644 battles. If it were up to me no player would be allowed more than 14*(required stars) to reach Rank 1 to cull players failing to rank 1. To figure out your approximate time to rank 1 figure out how many battles it takes to progress a star by calculating your win percentage and first place in a loss percentage. If the total is higher than you are willing to play, you might want to think about a stopgap or end date. Thus a player who wins 48% of battles but finishes first in 25% of his losses will make 2 stars every 25 battles and make it to rank 1 in 575 battles, faster than our average player. The hard 500 rule I have is born out of a goal that I should be making at least 1 star every ten battles and finish in under 500. I made one star every 4.5 battles this season, a solid rate. But compared to last season it was disappointing. A 60% win rate with 30% of your losses being first on the team takes only 3.2 battles to progress a rank, this works out to 143 battles, or approximately what I did in season 5. Season four took me so long partially because of the more stars required, but also because of my lower rate of keeping a star, a sign that I wasn’t playing as well, even if I did win a little more often. Meanwhile if I had my 23% keep star rate in losses from that season I might still be playing now. With the same win rate I would be expected to take 5.6 to advance a star roughly instead of my actual 4.5 due to just a 7 point decrease in my keep star rate. 5.6 means another roughly 50 battles and all of a sudden I’m taking over 250 battles instead of the just over 200 I took. Don’t be afraid to call it quits on ranked if it’s not working. Don’t be ashamed to not be good enough to get to rank 1 in a reasonable amount of time, learn from the experience, improve and give it a shot the next season. I never call out bad play at low tiers, I do call it out in ranked, players are there to win. Anyway I just wanted to get my thoughts out on this season’s play. Next season will presumably be T8s, which honestly is more balanced. There are four very viable cruisers, only one of which carries radar. All of the BBs are viable too. Although by then this game might just be Russian ships because, as we all know the stronk Soviet navy won WW2. I hope you enjoyed the read and good hunting.
  9. With the most recent changes to matchmaking, tier 7 has been an absolute powerhouse, with tier 5 being left largely forlorn. But that begs the question, did it effect tier 4? I believe it did. According to Warships.today, Tier 4 seems to be showing a startling climb in win rate across the board. I decided to take the win rates of the lowest performing eight ships at tier 4 and compare their 2 week rates with their stats overall. The following ships were added to the average (mean): Myogi, Langley, Phoenix, Karlsruhe, Wyoming, Izylaslav, Clemson, Kuma, (I did not include Danae because she is relatively new.) Average (mean) in win rate overall: 48.885% Average (mean) win rate for the past 2 weeks (1/27/2017) : 51.793% (Remember, these numbers come from the 8 lowest performing ships) That is a 2.908% increase in win rate overall. It's safe to assume that tier 4 is very strong in the current meta game.
  10. I know air supremacy is the no-brainer for carriers, but I'm not digging the extra rearm time the extra dive bomber/fighter per squad gives me, especially since landing and taking off planes is sequential. Does anyone run any commander builds optimized for increasing rearm time and damage in strike midway? I find the extra fighter not at all useful because all I use my fighter for is strafing enemy strikes, and my manual drops don't feel like they really need an additional 3 bombs - most of my damage is probably damage over time, not high alpha anyways. Right now I'm averaging less damage in my midway than in my essex, and I suspect a lot of it has to do with the 18km+ detection range (I splurged on modules and bribed my captain with doubloons, and have upgraded DB and fighters). I'm considering either getting concealment expert and trying to abuse islands for a shorter flight time, or manual secondaries. Alternatively, I was considering getting manual secondaries (again to support my cheeky abuse islands playstyle, which invites DD party crashers); or survivability expert and some throwaway point in expert rear gunner or something. Any thoughts on alternative skills to take besides air supremacy? Is it heresy and madness *not* to take it? P.S. modules are as follows: air groups mod 1 flight groups mod 1 air groups mod 3 damage control mod 1 damage control mod 2 concealment system mod 1
  11. To be incredibly humble, I've made a number of accurate predictions regarding changes and their impact on gameplay in warships since I first started to play it more competitively 8 months or so back. Disclaimer: Aside from the usual flaming, this topic will inevitably be replied to with the typical dismissive "it's only been a day, give it time" input, which is neither of value nor consequence to my point. On the plus side, hopefully we won't have too many "all the good players are doing X because I said so." Taking a look at the RN cruisers and their impact on high tier matches and the meta, I've started to notice a pattern that is not entirely attractive. I've been making a point to play more upper tier and spectate on scrims as much as possible today. The massive jump in the number of smoke consumables, and the general performance of the RN cruisers T6 and above, seems to contradict the devs' intentions on promoting aggressive gameplay. Combined with the versatility of individual torpedoes, which are already excellent for cruisers, the meta is heading towards a few key areas: The prevalence of smoke and the drastic increase in quantity of smoke consumables present on a given team will lead to an increase in passive play. Remember, WG couldn't give the RN cruisers HE, because they would simply be absurdly good combined with smoke and repair. It is now practical for an organized team to effectively rotate smoke consumables and turtle for quite nearly the full duration of a match. Regardless of competitive play having developed tactics such as torpedo spam and increased hydro usage, this is a major shift. Even BBs at this point would be foolish to not abuse smoke as often as possible in order to maintain standoff. The increase in invis-fire puts Radar-equipped vessels as a valuable commodity. Hydro is always advantageous, if it performs as well or near enough to German hydro, however closing into the sub 7km range is incredibly dangerous with the aforementioned single fire torpedoes that can and will pattern out almost unavoidable spreads if performed correctly. As a consolation, this is actually a stealth buff to USN cruisers (which needed it in most cases), as radar and the sharper 60 degree angle for autobounce counterplays this somewhat. Cruisers that do not have radar or smoke, or both (yay Belfast), have significantly less value. Ultimately at higher tiers, the durability of RN cruisers will be at the very least equal to normal CAs or DDs. I've always favored concealment, maneuverability, and the versatility of consumables as a vastly better defense than armor and angling (not that angling isn't very important). We can see this in a parse of ranked battles prior to the RN release, as the highest performing CAs either have the best concealment & repair heal, or smoke and significant range. I liken the RN cruisers to Atago more than MK, as their concealment, speed, and smoke allow them to disengage rapidly, repair, and re-engage at their discretion. CVs have also gained some value here. Spotting, always important, has become even more so. The higher skill disparity between good CV players and great CV players will make or break competitive matches at times. Again as a side buff, AA may become more desirable. The most effective comps I imagine in larger scale team battles will require radar rotation and/or extreme use of smoke for both standoff and delay. That's all I've got for now. Again, yes it's been a day, no it does not matter. Yes, there are methods to counterplay this, as with DDs (torpedo brackets etc.). I do not see these counters being equal to the smoke/radar combo for maximum team concealment at the highest level of play. Overpowered? Imbalanced? I guess we have to wait for stats on any of that to begin judging. All i know is that the meta is definitely not being driven towards aggressive play. At the moment, we have suicidal RN cruiser rushes from a playerbase that mostly considers them terrible. Sooner or later they will realize that the mid-high tier ships have handed us a shipload of new defensive tools to discourage all but the most specialized of group compositions. I'm just not so sure that we really needed any more of those.
  12. State of the meta?

    How's the meta changed over the past month or so? I took a good 6 week break from WoWs but I'll be back pretty soon. All I'm aware of is Leningrad dropping, how OP is it?
  13. _____ will/won't fix NA meta!

    I have seen these arguments about the existence of the NA "camping/sniping" meta - It exists at higher tiers because economy/repair costs - fix the economy and you'll fix the meta - It exists because "they" want the most amount of reward for least amount of risk - you can't fix people and you can't fix the meta - It exists because of the lack of carriers in high tiers - bring back carriers and you'll fix the meta - It exists because "torpedo soup/high numbers of dds at high tiers" - nerf dd's into the ground/buff cruisers in "x, y, or z" and you'll fix the meta - CAs/CLs need to do a better job of screening - better cruiser screening will change the meta - It exists because "BBabies" need to grow a backbone and push - force bbs to push and you'll fix the meta - obligatory extra space because I've left something out, guaranteed, but these are the ones that jumped into my head Here's something you might not hear everyday: These are all right. Yep, all of them. To certain degrees at least, but I can not with any degree of accuracy determine to what extent each affects the current meta. Nothing is ever as simple as it should be, but yet I see people grab hold of maybe one or two of these reasons and defend them like their lives depend on it. If you don't share their view, you're wrong. Not saying everyone does this, but it does at least seem to be the most vocal groups or individuals that do this. Sniping can be fun, not necessarily efficient , but fun. Brawling can be fun. Sometimes BB's don't push. Sometimes they get caught in torpedoes. Sometimes CAs/CLs don't do a good job screening. I could go down the list, but I'll stop there. WG tried to fix the meta with the bow armor nerf. They were going after what I believe most closely resembles forcing the BBs to push, or trying to change the risk/reward for not pushing. They are currently targeting the economy and,(if I can trust people who play those destroyers I don't) by nerfing torpedoes. Particularly IJN dd's. Whether you disagree with what they're doing/how they're doing it, they're trying something. "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." Theodore Roosevelt I don't believe WG can't "fix" certain aspects of the reason our particular meta exists, but they can "fix" others, and they will at least try. You can say that they dug themselves into this hole with some of their changes (introducing a full line of brawling BBs that no other sane BB line wants to get too close to, DD changes, BB changes, CA/CL changes, AA changes, CV UI, whatever else you want to say), but they're not just sitting in that hole wondering what the heck happened. They are actively trying to climb out. They may make some mistakes in doing so, but so long as both the players and developers care about this game, they will never stop trying, and they at least deserve credit for that. So, I want to finally thank War Gaming, developers, historians, and everyone else involved for this incredible game that has provided me with countless hours of fun. Entertainment. Jokes, sportsmanship, and yes a-holes to laugh at. You're not perfect, you've made mistakes, but I've yet to meet either a person or hear of a corporation who was. You'll make some decisions I won't like. You'll make some I will, and a day may come when the courage of gamers fail, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of torpedoes and shattered armor, when the age of ships comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we SAIL!
  14. Never thought I'd do this....

    Yep... Thanks to WG's dragon flags for tomorrow's anniversary, I just bought four Tier X ships. I'm now the proud owner of Yamato, Zao, Montana, and Des Moines. I've been to the Yamato Museum in Kure, so it's a welcome sight to see in my port. Zao I'm excited to find out how OP it is. Montana... rust. Des Moines... might be fun. Before: After: I could've spent 3,300 doubloons to convert enough free xp for the Gearing, but... it's not worth the 50 dragon flags. I gotta say I'm really starting to warm up to Tier IX gameplay. I hated it when I first started my Tier IX's in the past, but I've enjoyed the ships for what they were. Fletcher was my best, so I didn't free XP the Gearing (134k free xp needed). Izumo was my next best ship, followed by Iowa, Ibuki, and Baltimore. Though I had some AMAZING games in the Baltimore lately. Honestly, I think what changed it for me was dedicating my entire weekend go grinding ONLY Tier IX ships. Saturday was the Izumo, and Sunday was the Iowa (BB mission ftw). Iowa needs to be fixed badly, though - she gets cit'd far too easily. Anyways, thanks, WG, on getting me to finally play Tier IX again and buy four Tier X ships. GG. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to grind some credits to properly upgrade Hotel.
  15. Disclaimer: I'm pretty new to the game at apprx 800 battles, and my highest tier ship is tier 8. This could contribute to flaws in my ideas, but I would appreciate it if you give it a read anyway. How economy affects gameplay, and how WG needs to sell their product Obviously it is not in the best interests of the game to let any player make enough credits at tier 10 to keep playing, regardless of how badly they play. It leads to players spewing vitrol at the players doing poorly, and a general loss of fun value in high tier gameplay (world of tanks suffers from this to an extent). World of warships took a different approach, and has made it very difficult for the average player to break even at tier 10 when they are running premium consumables and camouflage. This has led to many complaints about high tier economy and it has spoiled high tier meta by inducing heavy camping (on the NA server, in any case). When faced with high repair costs, many players opt to not play tier 10s, or if they do they opt to avoid damage to a degree that goes past smart play and becomes camping. While these problems are not present in every match, they are present in enough matches for WG to recognize the problem, and make attempts to fix it. However, there is a catch. The expense of running tier 10's creates a financial opportunity for WG, by hopefully increasing the sales of premium time and ships. Unfortunately, this is a necessity for us to continue to enjoy this free-to-play game. Camping - Do We Treat the Symptom or Cause? People don't like it when BBs camp at 20km and snipe. It is an ineffective use of the ship, and leads to a poor gameplay experience for all involved. We can also say for sure that camping is a cause of much argument here on the forums. Suggestions have ranged from various nerfs to (insert class here) to buffs to (insert class here), to economy changes such as buffs to credit income or reductions in repair costs. The community is quite obviously divided, and not just based on what their favorite class is. However, I do not believe that class specific changes are going to be effective at changing the mindset of the NA public player. What we are seeing is a result of punishment/reward based behavioral learning. New players haven't figured out the intricacies of playing the brawl, and are punished when they advance in a poor manner. Instead of trying new ways to advance, many players are simply falling further to the back and sniping. This is a separate and less prevalent problem in lower tier gameplay compared to high tier gameplay, where the player has hopefully learned more about the game. In higher tier gameplay, players are punished with high repair bills when they lose their ship early in the match. This is a good thing, nobody wants to be on the team full of yolo players who die without doing anything substantial. That said, players have reverted to the opposite extreme and started shooting from extreme distances, going "bow on" to avoid damage and get enough damage out to actually avoid a substantial financial loss for the match. As WG employees have noted, this leads to BBs ignoring each other and sniping at cruisers. Their current idea in testing is to nerf BB bow armor so that it can be overmatched by other BBs, to prevent them from ignoring each other. To me, though, this is treatment of a symptom rather than a cause by removing a potential skill-based tactic from the game. The ramifications of this change are not something that I can foresee, given my lack of high tier gameplay experience. That said, I don't think that it will have the full desired effect. Large Scale Economy Changes WG has stated that they want to implement economy changes to help with reducing this camping meta and to encourage more dynamic gameplay. They know that most people have more fun when the action is hot and heavy. This is where I believe the real solution to the current problems lies. In order to encourage more pushing of objectives and more brawls, they are considering implementing credit earnings based on damage received and other factors. I have a small list of suggestions that fit into that category, that I hope will help promote more aggressive gameplay: Currently, capturing an objective nets a large XP bonus. Credit bonuses should also be implemented (or if they exist, made larger) for doing so, scaled by class and on a ship-to-ship basis (e.g. larger bonuses for cruisers and especially battleships compared to destroyers, since DDs have an easier time capping objectives) Damage received should count towards your earnings in battleships, since they are intended to tank damage for the team. Bonuses for damage received beyond a battleship's normal hitpoints would also encourage front-line play. Damaged avoided (eg missed shells) should be counted towards the earnings of cruisers and destroyers, with the larger bonus going to cruisers who have a harder time avoiding damage. This could help encourage more cruiser play, since WG has stated that the population of battleships is higher than they would like. Earnings for damage dealt could have coefficients based on the distance from the target the damage was dealt to. Long range shots from battleships would be worth less income than close up damage dealt, which would help encourage attacking and could lead to a reduction in the BB population as the snipers move off to other classes. To encourage battleships to fight other battleships first, earnings for battleship damage to other battleships could be increased, and could also have distance coefficients included to encourage closer fights. Cruisers could get a multiplier for hitting destroyers, and a large multiplier for damage dealt to destroyers that are spotted by their hydro/radar. Destroyers could get bonuses for surviving the match, but only if they participated in objective capture and dealt damage to the enemy team. This could help encourage non-suicidal tactics. The sum total of economic changes still needs to punish poor gameplay economically, so that WG will still have players buying premium time and ships. This means that the mentioned coefficients could also have a negative side, reducing earnings for undesirable gameplay. I am not experienced enough in CV's to propose economic changes for them, but obviously CVs need some love given their population dropoff. Since they are one of the hard counters to camping battleships, it would be wise to bring their population back to a degree. I will not suggest balance changes to the classes themselves, as I do not believe I am good or experienced enough at the game yet to actually know what I'm talking about, but I feel I know enough to suggest these econ changes. Thanks for your consideration, and apologies for spelling/grammatical errors!
  16. Hi, As many of you have seen or read about how Khabarovsk is so overpowered, I am here to give you an insight why this is the case. First off, the Khabarovsk is very powerful with its great firing arc, alpha as well as RoF. The first reason why it excels Gearing and the obvious Shimakaze is due to the lack of skilled Gearing players. Gearing simply has a higher skill floor and ceiling which causes almost all Gearings to lose to the Khabarovsk. A Gearing needs to enter the 0-7km distance in order to reliably hit the Khabarovsk while the Khabarovsk is able to hit the Gearing from any range. Second and most importantly; the lack of CAs. CAs in high tier are absolutely useless. They are probably the worst class to play as they accomplish nearly nothing. They can’t tank torpedoes due to no saturation of modules which results in them dying to 3 torps. They get instantly deleted by BBs due to BBs able to citadel them at ANY angle but the most important part is that CAs have the HIGHEST SKILL CEILING and a high skill ceiling is required to hit the speed demon Khabarovsk which a lot of players lack. There simply aren’t enough good CA players coupled with the fact that CAs are the most fragile class. This brings me to the next point: the meta. The meta right now are BBs and DDs. CVs are killed off (the only time I’ll mention CVs in this thread) and CAs are useless as stated above. There are seriously almost no CAs at high tier and this doesn’t apply just because German BBs came out recently, this was the case before they were released. This allows Khabarovsk, which is the strongest DD to run rampant as there are no counters to it. So there you have it. Fix CAs and you will hopefully fix the Khabarovsk issue. Also WG, giving CAs sonar does not stop them from getting deleted. The main reason why they’re so useless is that BBs instantly delete them at all angles. TLDR: BBs delete CAs meaning Kebab gets no speeding ticket.
  17. What is the new META?

    So first the meta was BBs, then it was the fire breathing Cruisers, then there was Age of Torpedus and most recently it was World of CVs..... but now, I am having a hard time figuring out what the meta is? Is there a meta? or have we achieved that magical place of "complete game balance"?
  18. Shchnores Zzzzz...

    Free xp'd to Kirov and have ground up to Shchors. It's a competitive ship and if played correctly the lack of armor isn't that much of a problem. Sadly the terrible terrible high tier meta on world of warships has now completely crept into level 7. For what ever reason most ships refuse to move vertically on the board often not straying far from their original spawn point. I see a lot of players let their ship sit afk for 5-10 minutes at the start of a game, and I don't blame them. During those initial minutes a bulk of players seem to want to chase their tail while things hopefully get softened up. Save your money, tier 7 is a let down and it's only getting worse. Zao > all
  19. I know that I am new to this and am only at the Wyoming, but I have to ask, "What is the BB's meta in WoWs?" Before starting the USN Battleship line, I did my research. Most of it was about USN BB's being brawlers (at least at the lower tiers). So, I go out to brawl with the OPFOR. I try to ensure that I have company when I do. I also keep an eye on the mini map. I almost always see BB's hanging back. They can't be shooting at anything, because there's no OPFOR near them. So why are they hanging back? I know the BB's can make long range shots, but RNG plays havoc with BB's sniping ability. Anyone have an answer to my question about the BB's meta?
  20. New High Tier CV Meta

    I'll preface this by saying that in WW2, most kills by carriers were done through dive bombing rather than torpedo bombing. I personally have felt that the game overemphasized torpedo bombers over dive bombers. Before this patch, the meta was to get as many torpedoes in as fast as possible, and then try to start a fire or two with dive bombers after the target has repaired. This is because fighter loadouts are quite bad, especially at high tiers, and because dive bombers did pitiful damage. After the patch, the torpedo bomber has taken a back seat for the USN at high tiers. Generally the buffed AA wipes out the majority of the torpedoes, and you are relying on the remaining torpedo bombers to cause flooding and force damage control. Dive bombers have been buffed, and cause damage more reliably. A bomber attack that normally did 3k damage against a battleship can now do 8-10k damage, in addition to starting 1-3 fires; if you start with a full HP ship and land 1-2 torpedoes, cause flooding, and force damage control, then you will still face on average around 40k HP (for cruisers) or 70k HP (for battleships) to go through before the enemy ship will sink. A good manual drop with dive bombers can reliably result in 10-15k damage done, and then around 2 fires. Normally, 2 fires burning to completion from around 80% HP will heavily wound a ship, but won't bring it close to death. However, because the bombers can now reliably do around 10-15k damage with 12 dive bombers, you now bring the enemy ship that much closer to death with 2 good manual drops. The damage profile for my Midway has changed considerably from 80% torpedo damage, 5% flooding damage,and 15% fire damage (everyone repairs flooding, and dive bombers didn't do good direct damage) to around 40% fires, 5% flooding (everyone still repairs flooding), 25% torpedo damage, and 30% dive bomber damage. What this means is that avoiding damage from CVs is no longer all about dodging those goddamn torpedo walls, but rather spread out between damage control, repair party, and dodging. Let's break down how you combat the new damage profile: Fire damage: ​You can reduce fire damage by having all of the damage control commander skills, damage control ship upgrades, and higher tier ships compared to the bombers themselves. Additionally, you can avoid being caught off guard without damage control by avoiding HE fire for 1 minute between fires. ​Flooding damage: ​Same as with fire damage, with the caveat that DD torpedoes represent a much greater threat in this regard. I often feint a torp run with my bombers to make an enemy battleship show it's broadside to a friendly Shimakaze torpedo wall, as DD torpedoes have a much greater chance of causing flooding than air-dropped torpedoes. ​Air-dropped torpedo damage ​Shoot down torpedo bombers, use fighters and escort ship Defensive Fire to widen the spread, turn early and erratically to throw off the aim, and make sure the torpedoes hit your torpedo bulge at a perpendicular angle where at all possible (A flat on torpedo to the Yamato torpedo bulge has it's damage reduced around 60-70%). ​Bombs ​Shoot down bombers with AA and use fighters or escort ship Defensive fire to widen the spread. Dive bombing does much less damage overall, but note that the list of countermeasures is much shorter. After all, that is why ships had so much trouble beating dive bombers in WW2; dive bombers are more reliable at hitting even if they have a smaller chance of sinking a ship. Compare this with the previous meta: Air-dropped torpedo damage: Pray the torpedo bombers don't attack you. Here's an example of damage done in a recent Midway game using the balanced loadout (2 fighters, 1 torpedo bomber, and 2 dive bombers): The damage profile is spread more evenly, and the great thing is that while one ship cannot do all of those things, a team with a good fleet composition can do all of those things at once. Scout fighters, CV fighters, and Defensive fire make the bombers miss Escort AA shoot down bombers so less can be launched at you Destroyers and scout planes can screen torpedoes for you so you don't flood Destroyers that use smoke ability within 1km of a friendly ship to buy them time to recharge damage control reduce chances of getting fires or flooding started again (I do this for battleships in ranked battles) Battleships with all of the damage control and survivability skills and upgrades can tank the bombs for the rest of the team. Even with the massive AA buffs, an isolated battleship will still be burned down to the waterline almost as fast as 10 airdropped torpedoes striking it at the same time. However, a well-composed and organized fleet will be almost invulnerable to the damage over time meta. Carriers are particularly vulnerable to dive bomber attacks (as they should be). TL;DR: You get torped less but burn a hell of a lot more if you are not supported. New high tier carrier meta is about burning lone wolf players down to a floating wreckage, while most of the damage can be mitigated with mutually supporting skills and teamwork.
  21. Hello everyone! So I've been playing WoWS for about three months now with roughly 350 random battles. I feel like I've proceeded somewhat up the learning curve and for the moment I certainly enjoy the game. I am grinding the Nagato now and have tried my hand at the US battleship line, too, up to the New Mexico. I decided to abandon that line, though, after noticing that, statistically, US battleships are weaker than their Japanese counterparts. I feel like I have a decent handle on how to play battleships now. Although I'm by no means an expert, I feel relatively confident in my aiming/leading ability, and angling armor is quite easy. I find that, in playing battleships, aiming and angling are the key skills (and to be fair, it's not all that difficult to learn). Where I struggle is deciding when and where to be aggressive. I've experimented taking a more aggressive stance in leading pushes and closing ranges. I know this is the proper way to exploit the high HP pool and armor, as well as guarantee better hit results from the main guns. But more often than not, I have been burned (literally and figuratively) in this approach. Whenever I take the lead in a random battle, a few bad things generally happen. First, my teammates don't follow me and they don't take advantage of the risk. Second, I get ruthlessly focused out by everything in range, whether it's spotted or not. Generally, this means getting incinerated by cruiser HE, big AP hits from other BBs, and--probably worst--obliterated by a DD that doesn't appear until 5 km. Third, when taken under fire while on point, maneuvering often makes things worse, since presenting a good angle to one shot often opens up my citadel to another. In light of these bad experiences, I have tempered my aggressiveness. I do not lead pushes by default in randoms anymore; instead, I head toward one of the main battle zones and get as many opportunistic shots on targets as I can, then turn out before I can be focused. I let the DDs and CAs find things so I don't blunder into invisiships. I do not get aggressive until the flank has been sufficiently softened up. If the flank collapses, I simply engage in a fighting retreat (which is not fun at all, I might add). I really love it when the battle gets up close and personal. But the distaste of getting focused or torpedoed by invisible DDs makes the close quarters fights rarer than I would like. I feel that conservatism is the order of the day in the upper tier battles (to the extent I've played them) with the forces standing off at close to max range for fear of being focused. In fairness, this is prudent, especially in light of the catastrophic repair costs if your ship is destroyed. This just seems to be the meta to me now that I've reached a somewhat higher tier. And it has magnified other issues, since fighting at range necessarily increases the influence of RNG on the outcome. You can perfectly line up and lead your target and nonetheless straddle it with every shot (cue 30s reload). This is the opposite of fun. My long experience with RNG in WoT ultimately turned me off to that game, and I fear that might happen again here, too. I welcome any observations or recommendations about how to balance aggression vs. conservatism in upper tier play. I really, really want to be more aggressive. But thus far, I've found the risks outweigh the benefits to do so in randoms.
  22. Returning to the Game!

    Hello everyone! I'm not sure how many are around that remember me from the CBT and first few weeks after the game opened, but I'm back! And I know this is probably gonna open a huuuuge can o' worms, but I have a few questions regarding the game: 1) How has the meta changed since the early days? Reading stuff like patch notes doesn't really give me insight into the players, so I'm gonna ask this here. When I left, people were raging about OP fires that (supposedly) rendered BBs useless, QQ'ing about the lack of counterplay against IJN CVs (right after the Iowa got her Bofors chopped in half), and proclaiming the CA HE spam master race. Oh, and torps. Oh god the torp threads. Half the people thought they were OP and the other half thought they were useless. Has the general sentiment changed? As a disclaimer I didn't think the balance was too bad in those days, although CVs had some fundamental issues. 2) Anybody know what ping I'm likely to get from Japan? I'd rather not abandon the NA server, as this game is pretty friendly to higher ping, but if it's bad enough I might consider it.
  23. Late Match CA/CL vs BBs

    It feels like BB's power increases as a match progresses. Especially near the later half of the match. Is there any solution to late game where you have to sink a BB in a cruiser with no torpedoes? In higher tiers, its very unlikely to dodge a BB's salvo at cruiser's gun range. The game's pretty much lost if one team has few cruisers left vs another team with mostly BBs left near the end of the match. Even 8inch guns in higher tier cruisers cannot penetrate BBs reliably to matter, and relying on fire is luck and it simply takes too long to burn a BB to death.
  24. Due to how the reward system works in the game. Self preservation, not team play is the message people are getting. Even though Wargaming plainly says that positioning and cohesive play is the most important in game. Toxic game play style such as race to be the slowest, as in no one dares to be the lead ship. Battleship hiding behind cruisers, using cruisers as fodder in hope of doing some damage. Destroyers hides behind battleships and not scouting. Everyones tries to be in the center of the ball and you end up with a team forming a ball and getting flanked on all sides. Battleships with full HP turns away from an engagement and left cruisers behind to fend off enemy battleships and the result is predictable. The flank in which BBs turn away usually shatters. This is the EXACT scenario happening in World of Tanks, with medium tanks trying to get behind heavies and heavies trying to get even more behind and the team ends up ceding the entire map to the enemy and occupies no advantageous points. Vision in WoWS is arguably more important. You cannot have map vision with DDs hug a giant rock and has no line of sight over anything. Too many DDs has zero idea their own Camo Value and chooses to hide behind BBs or CAs. This kind of behaviour is detrimental at the start of a match. Because everyone's trying to avoid the side of strong enemy force and usually no capital ship would move an inch before anything substantial has been spotted. So without an active early DD scout, you get a fleet of scattered BBs and CAs running towards the opposite direct of enemy spawn point, basically giving up half the map at no cost to the enemy. In World of Warships, we have half a dozen ship trying to go back and forth behind a tip of an island. Blocking each other and restricting each other's movements and the giant ball of ship ends up being easy target for CV and long distance barrages. No one, not even BBs with the intended role of being the spearhead and use their armor and massive HP to absorb damage, has incentive to actually do their role. Why would they risk their HP and therefore chance to stay in game longer and do more damage so other people can get the benefit of a successful push? This type of race to be the slowest behaviour is wide spread in WoT and often is the cause of many engagements where vast inferior number of enemy successfully not only hold a point but completely destroy the non-cohesive cowardly enemies. Similar scenario is non-existent in clan wars or tournaments, because when you have a local superiority in force, you maximize it by deliver it to the enemy. In Clan wars and tournaments, individual rewards gives ground to the primary objective, which is WINNING THE GAME, not maximizing individual performance. The type of meta intended by the developer and demonstrated by professional players are not adaptable in public matches. The major reason for such is the in game reward system rewarding not heavily weighted on win, but heavily weighted on individual damage at the expense of other members of the team. Since we are still holding the name beta, please support the initiative to code into the game more team play incentives. Or just simply hand out rewards based solely on win and loss. So people have no excuse nor advantage to not move as a cohesive fleet. What is also concerning is what little team play incentive WG implemented in World of Tanks make no appearance in WoWS. What we are looking for here is a STABLE STRATEGY, screws everyone else to maximize your own benefit works, but it is not a stable strategy. That's why when professional team plays and want to maximize their chance of winning they never play like pubs. However, due to human nature, playing with strangers based on current experience and reward system will almost never result in the "best" strategy being employed. Therefore, a revamped reward system focuses on team play should be made. Here's what's suppose to happen when a fleet engages the enemy: When the famous "Equal Speed Charlie London" flag signal is hoisted at Battle of Jutland this happened. Notice the cohesive movement, notice what's leading the columns. Similar thing happened at Trafalgar. There is little doubt if WoWS starts to have tournaments and clan wars, this kind of play style would be present. (Example is only meant to be used as an illustrative figure to demonstrate the opposite of a "inward vortex of cowards". It is not meant to imply nor wish to set the standard implying that BBs must lead a column, however, if given the situation, they should - due to their HP and Armor.) Here's WG's official explanation of a BB's role (just using the BB class as an example to further illustrate the point that the current meta is NOT INTENDED nor beneficial): WG's official video, click play and hear what WG says. "Choose a flank and lead your team forward, PROTECTING THEM WITH YOUR ARMOR" Fits the description of being a spearhead. And the reason is "armor and massive hp". This is just one example and there are many more official "definitions". WG's EU representative also classifies BBs are "brawler" which the name implies close range combat. Exact same term is used in WoT, in which it describes a combat style that is upfront and personal. : And now we can relax... Have a beautiful screenshot. Though ones that played on the map often can already tell what's going wrong in this picture.