Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'nerf'.

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
    • 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


  • World of Warships Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 27 results

  1. Please stop subtracting the benefits of the legendary modules and ships after players earn them. It is pure deception to change the value of items after the transaction is complete without compensation. It is understandable if an occasional mistake is made and fair value is addressed, however, this has gotten out of hand. There have been dozens of instances where ships and other items are changed to less value in the name of balance without so much as an acknowledgement of the inherent loss to the players. There are no consequences for WG when this occurs and as a result it has reached abusive levels. If you must make these changes offer fair value in compensation and stop ignoring your mistakes hurt the player base.
  2. I just ran Aegis twice this morning and instead of finishing at the top of the team with my usual 4-6 kills 200K damage with assistant, I was ranked 5th under the CV! This is about a 30% reduction in base exp from what the same performance was worth during that last Aegis mission week (after the previous nerf). Did i miss the text in the patch notes that said they were nerfing operations again and changing how base exp was being awarded? The same performance would have gotten me at least 1400 BXP a few weeks ago and the silver nerf was massive, least a 50% reduction. FYI this is with full base/perm economy flags. At this point, a loss in random would have netted me more rewards that a 5 star, top damage, and no deaths Op.
  3. Announcement! Italian Battleships! Yes, they are finally here! A whole new line of ships representing the Nation of Pasta Primavera! Italian battleships fire a unique kind of shell: Semi-armor piercing (SAP). This type of shell has a much greater chance of penetrating armor than a normal HE shell, but not quite as good as a true AP shell. However, the new SAP shells come with a 75% chance of starting a fire! Also, while Italian battleships are not as heavily armored as their contemporaries, they have a top speed of 38 knots, making them quite hard to hit while moving and allowing them to outrun most other battleships. We are proud to introduce Tier V Spaghetti, Tier VI Spaghetti and Meatballs, Tier VII Alfredo, and Tier VIII Alfredo con Pollo. Stay Tuned for More! GAME BALANCE CHANGES BATTLESHIPS AP shells are more skill-demanding for successful use than HE shells, but their efficiency is higher, if used correctly. The updated battleships constitute a relatively novel class in the game since they were almost exclusively used for shore bombardment and sea escort, and most players have been using them to delete other ships such as cruisers in a single salvo. Consequently, the overall damage dealt by this type of armament has become too high. We, therefore, decided to systematically lower the maximum damage of AP shells, but without lowering their penetration. All battleship AP shell damage will be lowered by 30%. We will watch independent performance of the ships and take additional action if needed.
  4. I think and believe that yes, because to tell the truth, the minotaur is becoming increasingly difficult to keep alive throughout a battle, because even if it has smoke, there are already too many ships with Radar of 10 and 12 km, and as well We know the minotaur can be devastated by almost any cruise ship or battleship, and some destroyers can also destroy you extremely quickly with Ap, an example of this would be the rag, so these are my reasons why the mino needs an urgent buff !!. In addition to saying that the Minotaur is almost impossible to use with its radar, you would have to be very lucky or not shoot
  5. I have heard rumors that WG is planning a nerf on the smoke's duration, where the timer will be accelerated each time you fire a shot from inside the smoke. Is this true? If true, when do you think WG is going to implement it? I just spend a lot on a smoke cruiser and I for one certainly hope it is not true.
  6. HeavenlyWind_


    Dear WarGaming, STOP NERFING THE GERMAN SHIPS!! Thank you.
  7. HeavenlyWind_

    Nerf the Kremlin

    Just had a game in my Yoshino where I unloaded roughly 50x HE shells on a Kremlin and not once did I set it on fire. For at least 35x of those shots, the Kremlin was borderline broadside. I've also had past issues when trying to damage it. You fire at it broadside and for some screwed up reason, you still ricochet with 0 dmg. In that same game, I also fired HE on a bow-tanking Kurfürst and set it ablaze maybe 5 shells in. Yeah.
  8. Am I the only one scratching my head about the Henri IV acceleration NERF? Like, who was complaining about this? Why was this necessary? The ship isn't exactly outperforming other classes and its speed is the only thing keeping it attractive to the niche' playerbase that mains in it. In a meta where fires and fire damage and HE spamming paper boats are out of control, why did the Henri get nerf'd? If anything needs to be Nerf'd its the Smolensk, Kremlin, and the fire mechanic in general. Hosho is a little stupid still as well because there is no AA at tier 3/4 to defend against it yet...let's Nerf Henri....because reasons....?
  9. All I got to say is, if a torp ship or a Hakuyru did what the this BB final battle results did... The forums would be asking for Torp/CV torp nerfs tonight... Instead, its a BB with OP brainless secondaries... So its ok...
  10. I'm honestly getting genuinely sick of playing World of Warships because of just how insanity fire is at tier ten. If I put forth the time to get to tier ten my reward shouldn't be getting buried in HE. Fix your game, Wargaming.
  11. DooshCanoe_

    Is the Boise good?

    Hello all, it's me again. I've went and bought the Boise, to have an American cruiser to train my Cleveland captain in. I feel like the $40ish dollars I spent was kinda hefty, but I didn't really grumble, because I was told the Boise was a good ship. So, I bought it, and played a few games, and oh boy, was I disappointed. I thought I'd give the ship the benefit of the doubt, because I probably didn't know how to play it correctly. So I played more games, this time trying different play-styles, including the big DD play-style, the "HE spammer behind the island" style, the DD hunter style, the BB support style, and more, and I was still finding that the ship felt weak, and that I was losing quite a few more games in it than any other ship I had in my port. Everyone always says "it's not the ship, it's the driver/captain", but I don't believe that is the case here. Granted, I am by no means a good player, but I don't feel like I suck either. I could be best described as an average player. When I was playing the Boise in these games I noticed so many different things about the ship that just felt like they were causing me to lose fights that a cruiser shouldn't be losing. I'll list below what I feel like the ship struggles with. - The amount of damage that the guns do. The HE feels underwhelming, especially when I am firing at other cruisers and battleships. It does fine against DD's. The AP on american 152's is naturally not that great, and I accept that; however, in my experience, they just feel worse than the standard 152's. I would get into close range knife-fights with other cruisers at about 5km and less, and even with a full-broadside, I get shatters, overpens, and the occasional pen, usually causing about 1-2k damage with a salvo. Against another cruiser, broadside on, at less than 5km. And yes, I do know where to aim on cruisers to score max damage. I don't know if RNG is screwing me over, or if I'm doing it wrong, or what, but at 5km or less, I'd think that 15 guns would be doing more than that. - The gun range. Granted, it does have 15 guns, but 13.6km for a max range, it just isn't good, and it causes you to have to play a bit too aggressively. I'll touch on this in a second with the ships' overall survivability. - The maneuverability of the ship. Granted, it isn't a destroyer and it isn't meant to have a destroyer's maneuverability, but it feels a bit sluggish to turn, and it feels like it takes a huge distance for the ship to turn 360 degrees. This isn't as much of a gripe as the others, as this one may just be me not turning and changing speed like I should be doing regularly. - The survivability. Oh lord, this is the part of the ship that feels ridiculous to me. Because of the limited range on the ship, you have to get dangerous;y close to the enemy ships in order to do damage, and when you do that, you have to expose some part of your ship, unless you're behind an island. This ship, simply cannot take any hits, whatsoever. HE? it hurts, and this thing burns like dried driftwood. AP? it hurts even worse, no matter the angle it strikes at. Even DD's can shoot this ship with HE, and this thing simply melts when it eats those incoming shells. With 33k health, this thing vaporizes quicker than other cruisers at tier 7, and last time I checked, cruisers aren't meant to sit behind islands and spam HE the entire game. They're supposed to get involved, at some point. This ship, when it gets involved, in my experience, it just melts, bow-on or broadside to the enemy. Now that all that is out of the way, I need some help from the rest of y'all in the community. I need y'all to tell me if I'm just being stupid, not playing it right, and I need to git gud n00b, or if my gripes about the ship are at least, somewhat understandable? Because I don't want to say this ship is a waste of money, but I just can't seem to have a single fun game in it, much less have a good game in it, and every time I see that losing screen or my ship sinking, I can't help but to think about the $40ish dollars I spent on it. PLEASE HELP! Tell me if I am crazy, or if I'm not crazy and I have good points!! -ThePwnageMachine
  12. The fire mechanic in World of Warships has creeped in power steadily over the course of the game’s lifespan. In particular, it has made playing battleships, one of the primary draws of the game for some people, incredibly unhealthy. Fire, as it stands, deals percentage damage based upon health. Battleships, naturally, will have the most health in the game. This makes it so that when a battleship is lit on fire, with even one stack of fire, that stack of fire will deal approximately ten thousand damage before extinguishing. This is roughly equivalent to a full AP salvo from another battleship of the same tier. This much "free" damage is quite unhealthy for the game as it's lead HE being the primary shell fired by ships, even though those ships should be reasonably shooting AP. I will also note that fire ignition chances for some ships are, frankly, crazy high while other ships have pathetically low chances to start fires. On some ships, like Atlanta, the chance for fires to be ignited is so low that you can hammer someone for a solid 30 seconds and hit them with 100+ HE shells and set no fires. On other ships, like Conqueror, the fire chances are so high that they can miss 90% of their salvo but one shell will hit and cause a fire for a no-effort ten thousand damage unless the affected ship happens to have repair party on hand. Unfortunately, repair party is not an effective counter to fire. It will certainly save your bacon from 3 surprise fires, but the moment that repair party’s active period is over you can immediately be lit on fire again. Given that repair party’s active period is shorter than most ships reloads, it is entirely possible to take a hit and be lit on fire, extinguish the fire, and then be immediately set on fire by the same ship mere moments later. Additionally, fire mechanics have been heavily biased against carriers and battleships while cruisers and destroyers have had fire nerfed specifically for them. Carriers take 1.5x damage from fire and battleships take standard damage. Destoryers and cruisers, however, take only 0.5x damage from fire. This is in addition to destroyers having no citadel and taking virtually no damage from AP shells due to every AP shell constantly over-penetrating, while cruisers have multiple spots where ships can reliably overpen then for minimal damage if they’re shooting AP. Thus, I would like to propose several nerfs and a change to fire in order to standardize fire damage and make it not as cancerous to deal with. Firstly, I would like the %HP damage removed and all damage dealt to be dealt as flat damage instead. This would cause battleships to not take ten thousand plus damage from one stack of fire. From there, I would like fire duration to be cut in half for battleships. As it stands, Fire lasts for sixty seconds. Cutting this down to thirty (without also cramming down the ticks of damage and whatever else) would make fire much more manageable since it wouldn’t feel like you can spend most of the game on fire like you can now. Additionally, a nerf by 15 seconds for large cruisers would keep them in line with the rest of the fire changes. In addition, I would like for fire chances to be capped at about 40-50%. Maybe lower. Extra fire chance would simply be wasted. I really don't like that you can miss most of a salvo of HE and yet one lucky hit will start a fire immediately. I would also like to introduce a “scaling” fire system. As it stands, there are 3-4 fire slots on a ship, these would be shrunk down to one so that you are either on fire or not on fire. When a fire is lit with this system, it would start out as a “small” fire and burn for about ten seconds. Additional hits from HE shells on the same ship would cause the fire to increase in intensity from small, to medium, and finally large, represented with an additional fire icon like the current system has and additional flames on the ship. Each would add ten seconds to the flame duration and increase the total amount of damage the fire would cause. Fires would still be no longer than thirty seconds total, but a lucky hit would no longer ensure full fire damage. Finally, I would like it so that fire damage is standardized across ship types. No more 1.5x for carriers and no more 0.5x for destroyers and cruisers. With these changes, fire should be remarkably less powerful. However, this would probably also result in HE shells quickly being called “useless” by many players, and thus I have an additional proposal to change fire mechanics and HE shells that may make them more useful to the ships that should be shooting HE. The proposal to buff them is a “rattled” system where if a ship takes a large number of hits from large caliber HE shells (relative to the size of the ship) the ship has the potential for the “rattled” effect to occur. The “rattled” effect would be total control loss for approximately one or one and a half seconds. No steering, no speed changes, no firing, no aiming. Picture it like the crew got thrown to the ground and has to quickly get back up. This would push HE back towards being a more status-effect oriented shell rather than the insane damage it can currently cause and it would additionally help prevent from a ship with a tiny little pop gun that should reasonably do little to no damage to a ship being able to deal ten thousand plus damage by getting lucky with RNG and setting a fire. I will happily welcome all feedback or corrections should I be mistaken about something.
  13. anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT

    NERF Battleships!

    Dear fellow forumeers, it has come to my attention that battleships are far too easy to play. Even a potatoe like me, can get good results with minimum effort and minimal risk. The CV Rework had two tragic consequences, as regards Battleships CVs are no longer a serious threat to capital ships due to the vastly reduced alpha dmg of CV torpedos. CVs remain, via spotting, a Battleships best defence against DDs (whose torps retain their massive alpha strike capacity) BB afk/snooze mode secondaries offer battleship players instant gratification for minimal effort, there are even battleships such as Massmychaussettes which are 100% specialized in helping insomniacs sleep better knowing they will have sunk stuff once they wake up after the battle has ended. Battleship powercreep premiums, Mass, Georgia, and soon Ohio (Always the Americans! Why???) The matter is so very grave, that there is no point in my playing anything but battleships, henceforth. As always, I look forward to reading the considered and helpful replies to my OP.
  14. Captain_Fenrir

    Inadvertent Yamato Nerf

    Did they accidentally Nerf Yamato? I have been playing IJN Yamato for almost 2 years, and since I have used it with the reworked armor scheme and redesigned hull, it feels weaker. They claimed in the forums that it would have little to no effect of the game, however, I have noticed that I am getting hit hard from areas that used to bounce shells, and torpedoes have consistently caused more major damage regardless of saturation. Also, my engine is constantly getting knocked out or the rudder broken from torps hitting almost the center of the ship, where the torpedo bulge used to cover. I know that it allows you to heal 50% of lost health rather than 10%, but there is now a missing 6% where the bulge used to keep damage away. It makes the alpha damage from torpedoes far more deadly against it without the coverage. What are your guys thoughts on it, I have noticed many Yamato users either throwing away the beauty, or sitting so far back that regardless of accuracy, they struggle to contribute. Is it a good change, or is it an unnecessary Nerf to an already shafted nation in certain areas? I am recording more and more, when I find a good example of the armor change affecting games I will upload it here.
  15. LowSpeed_US

    Nerf to Sims? why?

    What is the reason for reduction of deck armour of SIMS? I don't mind the other two destroyers, since they are within the tech tree of their nation. But, SIMS? it being a Premium ship, I think this is rather distasteful.
  16. I get why the hotfix was needed. There were many issues, including the Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free -F Key and a few overpowered carriers. Now, things have gone in the opposite direction. There was obviously a change to the "F" key. Planes are no longer invulnerable. (Which is good!). However -- in most cases -- *all* planes are shot down before they can get out of range. Medium range and short-range flak *melts* planes. There is no way to dodge. Between this and #1 (above), most sorties are suicide missions. Torpedos are nerfed, also. I went from a semi-narrow spread to a wide spread. ...no matter what I did. Now, I'm lucky to get *one* torpedo hit per pass, whereas my Tier 6 carriers could at least get two torpedo hits pre-hotfix. Maybe the carriers were too powerful before, now they are too weak. I feel like I was *finally* getting the hang of everything...but now I can't really play CVs because the planes melt away. I get it...things needed to be balanced. But again...suicide missions do not = balance. My last game, I lost 65 aircraft and only had 23,000 damage to show for it. The games before that, I lost 59 planes and had 5k damage, and before that, lost 47 planes and got 20k damage. In all cases, most of the damage was done with rockets. Torpedo planes can't hit much with the ultra-wide spread. Dive bombers don't survive the AA flak long enough to drop. It's....frustrating. I'm going back to playing other ships for a while. I understand that CVs -- and other ships -- needed to be balanced. And maybe things will be better at the higher tiers. However, I'm not going to get there if I have to continually endure the games that I've just played. </end rant> <edit> Even the planes that complete an attack are shot down now. Nothing survives.
  17. I've only started tracking since 20 Feb but the Haku is falling way behind in games played as of 26 Feb. The nerf to it was pretty significant in the first hotfix. Current Haku games played: 36542 Current Miday games played: 50537 That is a difference of 13995 or 38% more games in favor of Midway. On 20 Feb games played were relatively close at 32520 for Haku and 37957 for Midway. It seems maybe the nerf was too much for Haku as CV drivers are playing the Midway at an accelerated rate. I think things will only get worse for the Haku when the Audacious goes live.
  18. On the russian forum, thus you can look it up, either Sub is being sarcastic, or look for more balancing of OP premiums. Please remove if this is already a thread. Thank you. https://forum.worldofwarships.ru/topic/123372-закрытое-тестирование-премиум-корабли-и-советские-линкоры/?page=3&amp;tab=comments#comment-5355954
  19. Obviously, air scouting is an integral part of naval warfare, but it's currently detrimental to ships that rely on being discreet. Radar is being changed so only the radar ship can directly see the detected ship, at least for the first few moments of detection, while the rest of the team is merely alerted to the detected ship's location on the map. I think that would work well for air detection as well. Planes can already put a pretty good beatdown on most ships, so I don't think a Yamato should also be able to dev strike a light cruiser or destroyer from across the map that is only spotted by a ww2 multirole fighter. Planes could still alert the team to enemy movement, spoiling the plans of any would be surprise bettsux backdoor torpedo boting. Perhaps it could be a combo of marking air detected ships on the map, as well as reducing their surface detectability by 2-5km while spotted by the plane. Just an idea.
  20. This is a follow up post to my previous one on the Yueyang nerf: This post is about the effect of the previous big change in the name of balancing, the nerfing of the Yueyang. As the number of battles played increases, the cumulative stats published by https://na.wows-numbers.com/ move less and less. They also aggregate results from the same ship before and after nerfs or buffs. I have calculated the T10 DD stats for the last 10 weeks, so this is how the T10 DDs performed from the release of (when the YY got nerfed) to the release of For the period from November 21, 2018 to January 30, 2019 Since the nerf the Yueyang has become the least played T10 DD, its WR slid from 53.3% to 49.41% and its Average Damage dealt decreased by 18%, from 56,854 to 46,577. I think it's fair to say she got kneecapped. I don't play mine anymore and really regret buying permanent camo for it.
  21. Can I get a battleship count please?
  22. So I got the Roon recently after the nerf and having a bit of trouble with it. All commentaries I found on youtube was before the nerf telling how it has great gun reload. Now with 10 sec reload I am very tempted to get the 6th equip for the buff in reload (to 9.7s ugh) but at a very heavy price in turret traverse. So I want to get the expert marksman instead of 10% reduction in damage control, but wasn't sure if it is worth it. I think the turret traverse is slow but haven't played other heavy cruisers to compare it to or if the ship needs it at all. Any suggestions?
  23. 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.
  24. why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? seriously he for black swan, cause that leads into the rest of the line how? so much for tier 1 ranked! Game Balance Changes For British Tier I cruiser Black Swan, the guns’ reload time has been increased from 3 to 4 seconds. AP shells have been replaced by HE shells: Initial shell velocity — 811 m/s; maximum damage — 750; chances of causing fire — 6%. Since the cruiser’s shells have typical British ricochet angles and a high firing rate, she has gained the reputation of being the best duel ship of her Tier. The changes are designed to reduce her effectiveness, making her less attractive for experienced players, but maintaining comfort for beginners.
  25. Seriously. If a battleship at nearly full health can't even survive a close range fight with a cruiser that has only two torpedoes, you are game designing wrong. Either make the BB armor worth having, or nerf the torpedo damage, or something. Unplayable.