Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'opinion'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • 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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 12 results

  1. Alright this has to be getting just a little old by now but I've learned just a little more on these ships that would make them quite a bit interesting to see in game, yes they are yet another class of slow 21kt American Super Dreadnoughts but there are a couple things that would make them interesting in my opinion. I know that not everybody wants more slow dreadnoughts and that I'm not exactly new to supporting the idea of adding more dreadnoughts but if you're interested I've learned a couple more things about these two rather interesting dreadnoughts that make them stand out. First of all the obvious, during the post Pearl Harbor refits both ships received extensive AA refits and only got more and more as time went on and by 1944 both ships were veritable fortresses basically made from guns. The ships also received thicker deck plating hoping to avoid the fate of a certain famous US super dreadnought. During the attack the deck ranged from 2-4in deck thickness but post attack the older battleships were upgraded to have 4-6in armored decks. Both ships were made to steam along at 21kts but while Nevada was struggling to push 21 Pennsylvania was almost pushing 22 (amazing I know, truly inspiring speed) and surprisingly the additional armor didn't seem to affect this all too much. Not that it would've mattered anyway, the ships were never speed demons to begin with. Their secondary batteries were also replaced with the DP rapid fire dual 5in gun mounts with four twin turrets per side. Though I can guess none of this has really surprised anybody, this is fairly standard and probably already well known to most battleship enthusiasts well there were a couple more things I learned about these ships. Now the lesser known benefits. Turret elevation was increased from 15 to 30 degrees significantly increasing range of fire of the main guns from a former range of roughly 21 kilometers to about 31 kilometers! That's not all though, the guns were armed with longer and heavier shells capable of far more penetration and carrying a far more powerful bursting charge. These shells weighed roughly 1500lbs which is a bit impressive for a 14in shell not to mention these were coming at the enemy at 2600fps these shells were comparable in weight and velocity to the KGV class but slightly smaller and slower but in reality performed better due to the inherent advantages of American shells at that time which were far more rigid enabling them to defeat far heavier armor than their contemporaries meaning in game you'd get a lot less "shatters" or Non-penetrating hits. This represented in game would give Nevada and Pennsylvania impressive penetration and damage for just being armed with 14in guns a (comparatively) modest caliber for a battleship. All these factors together present two battleships unlike any other American battleship we have. Better armor than Arizona, main guns comparable to New Mexico's, and aa on par with the likes of North Carolina. Yeah they're slow but supported by a decent team they'd be incredible tanks and damage dealers and they'd be able to engage from long range as well (I'm not saying to give them their historical 31km range, that'd be ridiculous but something in the 20km ballpark would be nice at least unlike Arizona's painful 16km non-upgraded and only 18km upgraded which is quite confusing honestly). And again another typical idea dump from me, don't expect anything to actually come from it nor do I expect anyone to actually care much about this considering how the majority of people view these ships.
  2. So to start with, let me first clear up. Yes, I have a bias. I have played World of Warships since the first wave of Closed Beta Test, and have played competitive World of Warships since the final season of Supremacy Leauge. Therefore, I am somewhat motivated towards general game balance, and especially competitive balance. I feel everybody should enter a fight in a fair environment, with skill being the deciding outcome. Not biases in map design, one person's Montana being stronger than another person's Montana, etc. So based on the information published in today's development blog, Wargaming announced their plans for the Naval Training Center: https://medium.com/@devblogwows/naval-training-center-6ae94ee5b34a?fbclid=IwAR2-MHSPS4V4xaZzy5QCtrEnFQFH3YO1u5ZN7x3sA5RKhcp_ie-NIVDaV_M This is something which would encourage users to play the lower tier ships, to increase the strength of ships they enjoy playing. This alone is a flawed and worrying choice. Giving players the option to make their ship stronger, just by regrinding the line is worrying - But it gets worse. Players can opt to just spend free-exp skipping the grind. This means, for a while after the release, this mechanic will be somewhat "pay to win". Players will perform better and have stronger ships, just by spending currency, redeemable for real money, to make their ships stronger. Let's take a look at the implication on the changes to Battleships (as noted below) by examining the impact these changes will have on the current Tier 10, Tech Tree Soviet battleship, Kremlin. Please remember, these buffs would apply to all ships, but I'm using Kremlin to show the contrast of how much stronger she would become. Kremlin is an already strong ship, and players are doing well in her. But just what happens when you upgrade her to level 3? Well, a Level 3 upgraded Kremlin has: 16,245 more health increasing her total health to 124,545. (Able to be increased to 128,545 with Ovechkin and SE if you are so inclined.). This increase in total hitpoints increases the effectiveness of the heal which heals 0.5% health per tick (second), for a total of 28 ticks. On a standard Kreml, a heal will recharge you 541 health per tick for a total of 15,162 health per heal. Using an Ovechkin SE Captain on a Level 3 Captain (I'm not saying this is a good idea, there are much better skills for 3 points a Battleship captain should take. However, I'm using it to further demonstrate the point.), the ship will heal back 642 health per tick for a total of 17,996 health per heal. This is an increase of almost 3k per heal on top of the increase in raw hit points, providing an exceptional increase in survivability. However, this only covers the level 1 upgrade. Moving onto level 2, Kreml's already excellent main battery accuracy would be increased by 10%! This is a sizeable buff, which exceeds the buff of the Yamato legendary mod, (a 7% buff.) and falls only just behind the USN Slot 6 Dispersion mod which grants an 11% accuracy buff. This is an exceptional buff to Kreml, and all other tier 10 battleships. Here's a good example of current tier 10 Battleships expected accuracy. Note the performance difference between Yamato and Yamato with the legendary mod. The following graph comes from u/ 3d_space_pinball on reddit, you can find his post here: So, we've covered how the accuracy and health increase alone is actually a massive buff for the ship, what about tier 3 upgrades? Well now, you get better consumables, and these changes reflect well with Kremlin, because unlike other ships, she has a limited use DCP. Firstly, your consumable reload time is reduced by 10%, this obviously will also stack with the captain skill and flags. With all of these stacked, you can get the DCP reload time down to only 27.6 seconds. The DCP is also up for 10 seconds. However, the level 3 upgrade increases that by 40% upto 14 seconds. An extra 4 seconds you cannot be flooded, set on fire etc. On top of all this, you gain an extra charge of DCP and Heal. So, that alone may make some people think twice. Do you really want to fight against people suddenly having ships which are quite drastically better, because they either re-grinded the line or even more likely put their hand into their pockets and pulled out their wallets? For most random players, that'll be frustrating and make them simply not wish to play. Nobody likes fighting against people who suddenly have a random advantage. Especially when it's so drastic as this. However, that's not my only issue. I also worry about the impact on Competitive Game Modes. So, while WG do claim the following: This still implies that a degree of bonus will be available. And that is still going to be hugely important. It means, to join a strong team who aim to be one of the best, having these upgrades will be a requirement for the ship you wish to play, while weaker teams, less well versed in the competitive scene who equally enjoy playing will be at an even larger disadvantage. But that's not all. Player ran and managed competitive game modes, such as Kings of the Sea, Shipstorm would suffer greatly from this. It would remove the elements of skill, and start to reward people just for having a better ship unless a rule was implemented banning these upgrades in which then comes another concern - Are we even able to demount these "upgrades" or, if we say upgraded our Montana, are no longer able to use it in a player managed event because we upgraded the ship for playing in randoms? It creates a large degree of stress on the organizers part for such tournaments, to enforce rules banning these upgrades while risking the balance of the tournament and the enjoyment of the players if allowed to be used. Alternative solutions: The idea of encouraging people to go back and play lower tier ships however, is a relatively smart and interesting idea. Something I actually support. Players will be able to learn much more at lower tiers, the improvement this would bring to Match Maker would also be measurable with fewer people spamming games at top tier to sort through. So, WarGaming, how about. Instead of ship buffs, provide cosmetic and economic incentives to players for doing this. Based on your current system: I have produced my own 3 tier reward scheme which would equally reward and encourage players to experiment with the system, without risking the damage to game balance and introducing the huge Pay to Win element that this system allows. Tech Tree Mastery Level 1 2 3 Name Expert Elite Master Bonus A tier 6 - 8 Tech Tree Premium ship A tier 8 - 10 Special Premium Ship A special edition camouflage for the tier 10s of this nation Plus a relevant emblem for each tier. So, what do these rewards bring? Upon completing your first reset, you would receive a tier 6 - 8 tech tree premium. For the Japanese, this could be a ship such as Atago. Once a captain has complete the second's stage, they could redeem a special premium. An example could be: Temeraire, a tier VIII Lion class Battleship, with only the 406mm guns, less health, and AA. These special premiums could have a more unique camo to resemble how they are acquired without being too different from other line ships to simplify development and balancing. And with the final reward, players would earn a special edition camouflage on all of the tier 10s of the nation. This camo would provide EXP and Captain Training benefits over the standard premium camouflage (although likely no increase in credits, so as to encourage people to continue to play other ships too and not further inflate the economy.) This camouflage again could be special and reflect the hard work the player dedicated themselves too, to go through the tech tree again. This system would no longer impact on game balance, while still being appealing, especially to collectors and people who like shiny things! Thank you for reading my.. Very long post, please keep all discussions relevant to the topic at hand and keep insults out of here. :)
  3. So... After watching Flamu's commentary and have been closely following Azuma's development history I am largely unimpressed. Poor turning combined with a citadel that makes Yamato blush are of course the primary concerns. The reality is simple: Her strengths in my opinion do not offset her weaknesses anywhere near enough. Sure, the Torp angles are nice (think Atago for those who don't know) but in reality, I have yet another issue with this setup: The 20km torps with its 2.5km concealment pretty much means they won't catch any good players, and BECAUSE they are 20km we're gonna see these ships sit at 19km the whole game, spamming HE and torping from rear lines... see the problem yet? Well if not, this is what they are: 1. Being so far back means she'll have little influence and people are scared enough at risking themselves at high tier, this will breed some awful gameplay to say the least 2. Gotta get in close more times than not to make plays, and this ship is definitely not good for that 3. The most important of them all: This ship is gonna torp its own team like its going out of style or at the very least, screw teammate positioning As a design, sure she works. But I gotta say... let's be real here: She's nowhere *close* to Stalingrad. To those typing after reading that part she's a steel ship and therefore gets to be stronger: Oh, so having an elite 1% ship better than its peers is just okay because it was hard to get? Its not healthy for the game, and they definitely fall into the same family. Unless I see Stalingrad being designated T11, this argument does not hold up in my eyes.They're both T10 and that's that. To those who own the Stalingrad who say it isn't OP: Well then another supercruiser type at T10 as well you'll have no problems it being about as powerful, no? That aside, her AP looks horrendous, and while her penetration is technically better than Alaska, those improved angles Alaska gets to enjoy just simply flat out make it better in practice. She gets the following over Azuma: 30mm plating over 25mm on upper plating on the midsection and main deck, better AA, and the torps. Not enough to me. I would go as far as to say that Yoshino should have been Azuma, and Yoshino should be a step above that with current Yoshino iteration maybe should only get worse torps if it were the Azuma. I'd like to see that buffed, the option for Zao's 12 km torps, 27mm bow/stern, possibly QoL improvements to its turret traverse, rudder, or turning circle, some form of utility, better AP characteristics, the accuracy from Azuma's testing, something. Not necessarily all of those things, just simply throwing some ideas out there. Of course, she's WIP. And that's why I'm making this thread now, to discuss her and perhaps convince someone upstairs to add a bit more to what is going to be a huge coal investment, one that I WANT to be excited for. Naturally, these are merely just my opinions and to some, I'm sure she's fine. So, let's all discuss it. Go! Oh and one last thing: Why would I want Yoshino in her current form when Zao can do pretty much everything she can, but better, and much less risky? The only thing she offers is the HE pen for 50mm decks... and that i'm sorry, is all she really has over Zao. To put in clarification as to what I want to see for Yoshino (which I know will never happen): For her to be competitive with Stalingrad in balance... OR, A ship that is better than Zao in a number of ways but makes a tradeoff, while also letting this ship's existence be a light onto why Stalingrad is OP and needs to be toned down. What I expect us to get? For it to be released in its current test form and be middling overall, just like her T9 counterpart while the imbalance of Stalingrad be ignored some more.
  4. So, recently on the Dev Blog it was announced (WiP of course: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/188903-st-12th-ranked-season/) that the upcoming Ranked season would be tier X, would be the first to feature CVs after the rework (hard capped to 1 per team), follow similar rules to the previous Ranked Season ( possibly a shorter duration, irrevocable ranks stop at Rank 12) The number of ranks and steel doesn't change compared to the 11th season. In addition, to give the ability to people without a tier X to play Ranked, rental ships will be provided for those who play battles in tier VIII ships Disclaimer Before we get started, all this is in Development and could very well change; the purpose of the post is to show why if there’s no change this Ranked Season is a pretty bad idea. Obviously this is a subjective opinion. The Less Bad: CVs. Many will disagree on whether CVs are the worst thing or not that could happen for Ranked right now. Personally I don’t think it’s the worst, though still issues remain. Nothing is certain right now on AA balance or the future of CV rework in general. Some DDs in addition are pretty poorly equipped to deal with CVs at that tier (especially Midway) in a mode where objective control is very important. That said the 45 second launch delay that CVs should have by then might improve things. Still, I forsee a pretty “AA-centric” meta, with Grozovoi, Harugumo and Gearing being pretty popular and “safe” choices DD wise for example. That said, WG is with it’s back against the wall on the matter. It’s 3 months after the rework, CVs need to slowly take their spot in competitive modes and stop being the “leper” class. On the other hand, if WG doesn’t include CVs, it’s practically admitting failure with the CV-rework, something which would hurt the company in many ways, not just economically. In addition, due to constant player requests the tier VIII premium CVs became available recently, with quite likely many sales. This in turn leads to the issue of someone without half a clue being able to buy a CV, playing Ranked and potentially dooming his team due to inexperience. Regarding that danger, I don’t know how many such cases exist or how many will try Ranked, though I get the feeling they wouldn’t be that many. The Bad: Ranks If the upcoming Season follows the rules of the previous one, then the last irrevocable rank will be Rank 12. While it was a nuisance last Season, the Arms Race mode and the use for the first time of Tier IXs made it somewhat bearable. But now we also have to deal with CVs and most importantly Rentals as I will touch upon later. There are so many random factors to take into account that this is simply a sink of signals, camos, and credits. Of course this is one of the reasons behind doing a Tier X Ranked Season, yet that doesn’t mean it isn’t unhealthy. The Real Ugly: Rentals Rentals, while good in theory are pretty bad in practice in my opinion. Personally I consider that the worst addition in Ranked. Not only do you get somewhat inferior ships (can’t equip camo), but also if they rotate similarly to how the Clan rentals work, that means you will be having to play ships very ill suited for the current meta. This in turn can lead to a pretty bad experience. In addition this completely trumps the whole “it’s tier X so no player can buy his way in” since you can still buy a premium, play a battle, unlock a tier X rental then play. The way I read this is as an attempt to give new players a dose of tier X and get them hooked onto rushing to get to that tier. If this is combined with a “grind boost” package like the recent one for IJN BBs, even more inexperienced players will try getting at tier X. This will not only further ruin high tiers, but will make tier X more populous on the long run, creating possibly an even worse environment for Tier VIII. The Combo of absolute Bad: The worst to come out of all this however is that this is a combination of “features” for Ranked. You get 3 individually lesser issues and combine into a much bigger one to create a pretty toxic environment for anyone wanting to try his hand at competitive. And because of the Steel prizes, many will try and play Ranked and only end up getting frustrated. P.S As an addendum to the whole section of “Bad”, let’s not forget to mention the danger of players active in CB burning out due to the new Season requiring also tier Xs. Any Good? This is my take on what we know about Ranked, how some issues will arise and why it ain’t such a good idea to go forth as is. In that vein thought of a couple of solutions, nothing groundbreaking really, that could help make 12th Season that bit more bearable. . Do a split Season, with Ranks until 12 using tier VIIIs, then until Rank 1 tier Xs. This has been already done with not much negativity as far as I remember. Ditch the Rentals while at it too. Add one more irrevocable Rank, at 5 or 6. This will make lower ranks feel less stressful by eliminating the danger of finding yourself again at Rank 12 due to silly RNG and Rentals. Try and focus a lot on tuning AA before Ranked begins; Good CV players can avoid most flak damage whereas bad ones have their planes absolutely slaughtered. Anyway, I know this is pretty early to go all about sky falling and apocalyptic posts, yet too many bad foundations can lead to the upcoming Ranked season simply crumbling and earning another round of the playerbase’s ire, deservedly so. Hope we can have a good discussion and thanks for the read .
  5. Yes, another one of these threads about CVs Its no secret that DD life has been very difficult with the prevalence of CVs flooding the queue. On average at least 3 of every 5 games will have a CV in it. Shouldn't be too big an issue right? For a CA or a BB, mostly not. For a DD however, CV presence makes life absolutely miserable against any CV that's even slightly competent. The trouble with playing a DD in a CV game at Tier X is not so much the damage output that a CV can do to a destroyer, but more lies with the fact that the presence of a carrier forces you, as a destroyer, to play a certain way, because playing any other way will be punished very very heavily if you catch the attention of a carrier. The damage that they can do, its not fun, sure, but with the possible exception of Midway, and to a lesser extent Lexington HE Dive Bombers, the damage is not the issue here. Think of the current DD vs CV situation as playing a BB back in the days when OWSF was still a thing. The problem with stealth firing is that it is a very frustrating mechanic to play against, because the only real counter-play option as that BB is just to hope that the DD's aim sucks. The same holds true for CVs in the current state of the game when it comes to destroyers. Outside of shooting the planes down, which lets face it, most DDs don't have the greatest AA in the world, and even the ones that do like Gearing or Grozovoi need a full AA spec to defend themselves reliably. Because of this, DDs are easy prey for a CV, and with that fact, a DD is forced to stay very close to their team for the first half of the game, which severely hinders the role of a destroyer at all, and that is the biggest problem with the current state of DD vs CV. CVs effectively act as an "on/off" switch for the entire point of a destroyer. A DD's primary job is capture point and maintaining vision control for their team. Because of this, DD operations are generally very independent and is often why the impact of bad DD players vs good ones on the outcome of a game is so prevalent, but that's a topic for another day. Back to the matter at hand; DD operations are generally very independent themselves but have a vital impact on the outcome of a game. But this is the biggest problem, any good CV player can completely shut any of that down and cost a DD at least half their HP for even trying. Yes, I can hear you already clacking away at your keyboards "Turn your AA off until you're about to get spotted and you'll be harder for the CV to find". Yes, that is true, but also consider the number of other things that can spot a destroyer. Radar and other DDs are the two most significant and common spotting threats to a DD. Once a DD has been spotted in an area, whether they fall undetected or not, a determined CV will hunt you down without too much issue. The ultimate result is forcing DD players to hang back towards the rest of their team, because they really just don't have the AA power to reliably defend themselves unless they're an AA spec Gearing or Groz, but even then if the enemy CV is good they will still get at least 1 strike off on you, with damage ranging from only 1 or 2k HP to potentially half your HP pool depending on the nation and type of planes involved. This remains true even with friendly AA support. Its a no-win situation, your only hope as a DD when being focused by a CV is praying that the enemy CV's aim sucks. Other than that you're pretty much SOL unless you can chew through the squadron via AA which is never the most reliable tactic. As a DD, your role and ability to perform your duties as a DD is effectively turned off by the presence of a CV. All you can do is really just hope to be ignored, which by any good CV the chances of that are slim to none the second you get spotted. Now, I am aware that the CV round start delay is in the works, but while it will definitely give a bit of breathing room at the start of the game, it will ultimately fail to solve the problem. While there is a significant difference between being spotted at 18:00 against being spotted at 19:15, the ultimate result is still the same. As a DD, you're still being forced to play that same certain way, hanging back huddling near friendly AA if you wish to survive. And as the match progresses, however, even this becomes increasingly unreliable as the attrition of battle sets in; AA mounts are destroyed on friendly battleships and cruisers, and usually the DD as well. This leaves an even bigger gap in AA defenses for CV players to exploit and increases both your own and your team's overall vulnerability to air attack. The fact herein is really that even huddling with your team won't always save you, which defeats the purpose of huddling with your team to begin with. Just like a DD in the RTS CV version, a CV's impact on the match grows as the match progresses, just like a destroyer's would. Really, the ultimate problem is the fact that CVs, as a DD player, will effectively force you to play a certain way, because playing any other way will cost you a significant chunk of HP with nonexistent counter-play options outside of smoke, which will not always be available. With how easily a CV can adjust their attack runs on the fly, it would take more skill to miss the target than it would to hit. CVs will severely punish, to great effect, what would otherwise be good play and positioning from a DD. A CV literally turns the role of a DD on a team into the start of a bad joke, and punishes DDs for playing DDs, basically. DDs have 0 freedom unless you're a full AA Groz or Gearing, but even both of those are a coin toss whether or not it will really help to any significant effect, especially later in the game (again, attrition of battle; AA mounts being knocked out from enemy fire and past air attacks). While DDs are by no stretch of the imagination unplayable, life can be a whole lot more challenging than it needs to be. Life as a DD was already hard enough, but now some games can be that much more incredibly frustrating to play in if the CV decides to focus on you, which a lot of CV players will target DDs first. A fair amount dont, but a fair amount do. Which is just terribly unfun to play against. Of course, there is an old saying that does "Complaining about a problem without proposing a solution is called whining." That's not what I'm here to do. I have 3 suggestions for possible solutions to help give DD players a little more breathing room in CV matches. These are all, as far as I am aware or have seen, never been suggested before, but if they have been suggested elsewhere and refuted then well, refute them again I guess. (Also if you wouldn't mind, also link the thread where the idea was proposed first, thanks) 1.) Rework the way plane attacks operate. This is a very extreme option, and will be, if even possible at all, very very difficult to pull off. This effects mostly rocket planes and dive bombers (especially USN). The current iteration of CVs, it is very easy for CVs at adjust their attack runs on the fly, which makes dodging and any form of counterplay extremely difficult. With the old RTS system of carries, bombers had a line called the Line of No Return, which means that the second that line is crossed, the bombers are committed to the drop and cannot be readjusted. I propose some sort of similar system, keeping the elements of manually controlling a large, single squadron but still retaining some element of "commitment" from the old RTS system. Torpedo bombers are fine as is attack-wise, but I propose a system of dive and rocket attacks to have an element of commitment to a direction, being unable, or very slot to, turn in either direction once the attack run initiates, increasing the value of good plane placement to maximize hits across the bow and stern of a ship. Again, this is a very, very extreme option and probably will never happen. 2.) Rework DD air detection. A simple fix, simply decrease the air detection of DDs further, thus increasing their potential to both hide from, and defend While the first buff did significantly help, unless the DD is spotted by other means, I believe that this change, by decreasing the air detection range, will help throw off accurate attacks against a DD without making attacking them impossible unless the DD is spotted by other means. If this makes any sense, think of it this way: A DD is spotted by a CV at a distance that the attack run will pretty much have to be launched almost the second the squadron spots the destroyer for the most accurate attack, rewarding good plane placement to catch the DD nose or stern to attack for maximum hits as well as good reflexes. If the attack is not launched almost immediately, the resulting attack will be far less accurate due to there being a much narrower gap between the attack location and DD position. Again, this is probably an extreme option. 3.) My last, very simple solution is to simply beef up destroyer AA capabilities to improve their defense against carriers, especially those that will drop fighters over a destroyer to keep them spotted, and getting them focus fired heavily. While proposal 2 would help to alleviate this, the simplest solution I can think of that would help improve the amount of freedom and defense a DD has in a CV game would simply just beef up their AA defense not quite to cruiser or even Groz/Gearing levels, but enough to actually being able to reliably shoot down planes more consistently, although the weakness with this, again, is the attrition of battle. This is a very simple suggestion that ultimately will probably fail to fully fix the problem, but will at least help. Another possible variation of this would also just be decrease damage on CVs overall, which would help lower their effectiveness against DDs so the DD isnt a quarter at least of their HP in the first 2-4 minutes with almost nothing that can be done about it, sure, but will also cripple their damage on other classes, which I don't think is a good idea. This is my take on the current situation of CV vs DD interactions. Again, all of this is just my opinion, and my suggested solutions are definitely far from perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I would like to know everyone else's opinions on the matter, and other possible solutions that you all may think would work better. Discuss~
  6. Buenas señores: El rework de los portas traen sentimientos encontrados entre los jugadores, es cierto que es mucho mas atractivo poder ver el combate y dirigir tus aviones, pero, no es lo mejor. la finalidad del rework era atraer a los jugadores a la unidad menos popular de wows, y sinceramente, no lo han logrado, aviones débiles, fuego AA imposible de atravesar, el horrible tiempo de reposición de los aviones una vez que los pierdes, la delicada estabilidad de la mira, el horrible balance de partidas (ejemplo CV tier 8 vs barcos tier 10) y la aun enorme brecha entre portas estadounidenses y japoneses no hacen nada amigable y cercana la experiencia de los cv´s. Con la integración de los portaaviones ingleses dudo que cambie la cosa, serán los mismos aviones, los mismos sistemas de ataque pero con otra bandera, y para ser sinceros, y todos sabemos esto, es solo una estrategia de marketing la incorporación de los portas ingleses, pues saben que muchos los compraran. No se que opinan ustedes señores, yo no soy un jugador experimentado de portas, pero esperaba que esta actualización lograra encantarme, y no fue así, y siendo sinceros antes de seguir agregando barcos deber hacer algo con el sistema que ya cuentan, pues sinceramente deja mucho que desear. bueno para terminar 3 cosas: 1.- Espero ver la opinión de otros jugadores. 2.- Así es mi balance cada vez que uso el portaaviones. 3.- ¿No creen que los aviones japoneses deberían tener la opción de kamikaze como ataque? (seria útil y divertido a la vez,) Gracias por su tiempo.
  7. This has bothered me for a while, but it took a long time for me to be comfortable sharing my views. In my opinion, giving higher tiered ships access to more Upgrade Slots breaks balance in the current -/+2 matchmaking. High-tier ships already have a massive advantage compared to lower tiers, and this is only exacerbated by having access to more upgrade slots. For example, let's look at IJN Mogami vs. Zao and Upgrade Slot 6. Mogami has 10 guns that fire at a maximum range of 15.7km; Zao has a maximum range of 16.2km stock with 12 guns... plus access to Gun Fire Control System Mod 2, which makes 18.792km. That's a full 3km difference on a ship with more guns, health, and a heal, yet Mogami gets thrown into T10 games more often than not thanks to T8's notoriously poor matchmaking. This makes my Mogami and Atago significantly less fun than they have any right to be and is the main reason I hate playing Tier 8 more than any other tier. Note: I am aware that Ibuki has access to Mod Slot 6, but a single tier of stats isn't enough to break balance even with access to the extra mod. Not nearly as much as being uptiered twice and then suffering from a mod disadvantage, at least. For the most part, I've adopted the cynical view of "Eh, that's just how it is," but since everyone seems to be complaining about something or another, I figure I'd throw another drop into the sea of balance whining.
  8. the dispersion of the 2 ships main gun firing has been annoying me lately since the real thing was way better and should be buffed to reflect as such. This is after having played both Yamamoto and Montana/Iowa to compare myself, Yamamoto seems to have better dispersion. Although Dispersion is based on the fire control capabilities and Iowa and by extension Montana (had it been built) would have far outclassed Yamamoto, yet this is not reflected in-game and it bugs me. My sources to give ample reason: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-ultimate-battleship-battle-japans-yamato-vs-americas-13737?page=0%2C1 http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm info provided is based off of a author who put way more time into researching this than me, and i found it to be a decent read.
  9. So before I go onto my rant here, I'm going to set a preface here: What I do not like here is purely my opinion, its not stated as fact or even that my perceived points of contention are going to be universally accepted or at all. This is merely to provide my feedback, and nothing more. If you, the reader, agree... then fantastic. If you don't, well that's too bad. But my mind is made up and this post was actually going to not be posted originally, but as the months have gone on I've revisited this for the last few weeks and decided I should after all. With that out of the way, let's get into it. Ultimately, the year of 2018 is the year of the almighty $$$ for you guys it would seem. I've been here for a long time, and have slowly seen warships creep into what I deem a predatory consumer product. The reasons have long-standing, lasting consequences upon every level of the game I feel as a whole. The elephant in the room here is lootboxes, and the frequency in which you guys employ them. Its obvious your lootboxes have been progressively less generous, and more rampant in how often they are put out there. The largest headache to me is when the ships are handed out early as missions to earn before the line. This is clearly a monetization scheme and well... its not nice. Notser really does do a good rant upon this when the UK DDs were the subject of the moolah here just a little bit ago. The next part of this is premiums, and how they have been handled lately. The addition of the Bourgogne lining up with the Alsace nerf, regardless if the nerf was justified or not, seemed very greedy to me. It really does seem like no matter how much I think about it that it was nerfed *at least partly* because you guys saw a way to get people to grind, drop cash, and spend even more time on frustrating game mode(s) with currencies that are a drip feed at best to get people to want to grab up a premium that offered the same experience that has now been in my honest opinion, neutered for Alsace by a decent bit. Premiums like Le Terrible also seem like half-baked, flawed designs that were rushed out the door for a quick buck. I know, nobody is forcing me to buy them. However, I can't help but feel its dirty when if i were an unsuspecting buyer and did get that ship, then look at WG's really, really bad return policy on premiums... when you look at the two together, it really does make me think they're in to sucker you out of money. I suppose this could be also listed as a general policy criticism but I feel the two are sometimes closely related. Even if they didn't want to wipe stats or give you your money back, they could at least offer you store credit then take away the ship before owning it for a week or so. This next regarding monetization here is a big one, and I would say is the most complicated point. I feel the existence of T10s and the way they are indirectly being used as a catalyst of sorts to squeeze even more cash out of the playerbase has gone too far. Here are the 3 key areas in which I feel T10s are questionable: 1. T9s come off to me as largely not very good to outright bad. This is subjective, but when I think back to Izumo and its asinine turret placement and how long that has been a serious point of frustration... It comes off as WG trying to sell me doubloons to escape it. (I want to add in here, I know some T9s are amazing such as Kitakaze or Chung Mu. But I feel this is the case on the overall.) 2. Powercreep is real, and in order for clans to stay competitive they would want the best ships, no? Well... This comes off as WG trying to move the goal posts so the dedicated can be pressured into either grinding this game like nuts or dropping $$$ to stay competitive in their tools of their trade on here. 3. Balancing of the older T10s seem sluggish at best. This leads me to believe that their balance is of secondary concern, simply because the ones more likely to spend money are WG's dedicated playerbase, therefore most likely are vets and won't be grinding those lines up anywhere near as much, thus lower income potential. Next, I want to just list off general move(s) WG has made in the name of more cash. These are worth simply listing here. 1. Jean Bart, a T9 being sold outright 2. Lower-tier premiums being paywalled off in a less-than-appealing manner, Katori and now Dreadnought come to mind. 3. Sub-Octavian's allusion in a recent interview that prices for things across the board economically will go up, like free-exp Point 3 here is what worries me the most, because it kind of sounded like in that interview WG is looking to simply rake in more across all fronts outside of most likely real cash pricing. Last point, and this is me *kind of* putting my tin foil hat on. In my eyes, the slowly increasing sets of very questionable reward premiums in terms of their power scope and abilities worry me. To me, they simply aren't there as trophies for the dedicated, they're really a carrot to try and force more people to dump cash indirectly (FXP, signals for an edge, chasing of new powercreeped lines, etc) and to me this creates a less-than-pleasant feeling on me as both a player and customer. I admit, I don't have the patience to put up with ranked... and clan wars I'm not sure if I want to try to get involved in. The clan i'm in as of now is simply because I was asked by a friend, and its not capable of participating as of now. I have my career to think about these days, as well as decreasingly less time as other interesting games to come out so my time is divided. I know there are others who are in the same boat (all puns intended) and probably share similar sentiments. That being said, to talk about myself I have given this game a decent amount of cash and definitely am not afraid to drop dough on worthwhile value prospects or simply to support a game I feel is doing a good job. In my eyes, while naturally WG needs to make money and wants to expand its business like any other company would... this level of milking I feel is getting excessive, short-sighted, and alienating as a player and customer. The moves being made I am not happy with, and my perspective grows more negative by the day in this aspect of the game. I just wanted to get this out there and see what people had to say, and hopefully WG will take note. Thanks for reading this long post for whoever does.
  10. “Me hundió un portaaviones porque me fui solo al culo del mapa lejos de cualquier forma de vida aliada”, “El portaaviones enemigo se comió a todos mis aviones porque en lugar de prestar atención traté de rushearlo“, “Los portaaviones me hacen daño y eso no esta bien, nadie debería tocar a mi barquito mientras soy imprudente y me alejo del equipo” Esta es la clase de retroalimentación a la que le presta atención Wargaming, las quejas y sugerencias de jugadores que recién comienzan una línea de portaaviones y que poca o ninguna idea tienen de lo que significa un RTS. Jugadores que nunca han disfrutado una buena partida de videojuegos como StarCraft, Age of Empires o incluso Warhammer. Jugadores que esperan que las compañías hagan caso a su limitada capacidad mental mientras comen una bolsa de Cheetos, ven un gameplay de Call of Duty y esperan partida con su barco favorito, el Conqueror. Aquí en Reporte de Batalla, como nos importa nuestro leal público, hemos preparado una apreciación respecto al cercano rework a la línea que es pesadilla de todos los mancos: Los portaaviones. Además del hecho que Adam me amenaza constantemente para que escriba artículos mientras incluyo comentarios forzados. – ¡¿Que dijiste?! ¡Nada! Nada señor, por favor no me quite el agua. ¡Primero! Para aclarar un poco el asunto, el artículo esta basado en la información brindada por Wargaming en uno de sus últimos videos. Les dejaré el enlace aquí. ¡Empecemos! Rework Quiero aclarar que no me opongo al cambio, soy una persona muy abierta a eso y prueba de eso son mis muchas mudas de ropa. Lo que personalmente me desagrada es la dirección que está tomando Wargaming. Como bien se dijo en el video: “We’re not, just leaving aside all the issues and all the problems that carries have gameplay-wise, it’s just the sole idea and the sole conception of playing an RTS game is not appealing to the vast majority of our player base” Ahora, dividamos la frase en 2 partes. “We’re not, just leaving aside all the issues and all the problems that carries have gameplay-wise” Primero tratan de dejar en claro que no están dejando de lado el hecho de que los portaaviones necesitan un estilo de juego más inteligente. Ahora bien, ¿qué es lo que hace atractivos a los portaaviones? No se que es lo que piensen ustedes, pero para mí lo que los hace atractivos es justamente eso. Su estilo de juego apela mucho al pensamiento y la estrategia. Esquivar todo ese cáncer llamado AA, luchar contra los cazas enemigos para al final tus aviones de ataque lleguen a tu objetivo e infligirle daño masivo o muy poco dependiendo del RNG y tu habilidad. ¡Eso! Eso es lo que adoro de los portaaviones. Recompensan tus buenas decisiones así como tu habilidad al momento de usarlos compensando que tu vida no tenga sentido alguno y tus decisiones te lleven a la esclavitud. – ¡Sigue trabajando! S-Si señor… It’s just the sole idea and the sole conception of playing an RTS game is not appealing to the vast majority of our player base. Los jugadores no consideran atractivo el estilo de juego RTS por lo que deciden no tocar a los portaaviones. ¿Enserio? Porque a una parte de la comunidad no les guste algo no significa que sea lo correcto. Tomemos por ejemplo a los acorazados estadounidenses. Debido a la poca capacidad de pensamiento de la base de jugadores angloparlantes del servidor NA se decidió darles lo que tal vez sea uno de los buffos más grandes del juego: reducirles la ciudadela. El objetivo era hacer el juego “mas sencillo” así como hacerlos mas competitivos. ¿Que se logró? Un montón de jugadores oligofrénicos que nunca aprenden de sus errores porque desde ese punto ya no se puede castigar las malas decisiones como antes. Ahora cualquier barco que les haga ciudadela es OP por lo tanto merece ser nerfeado. Y sin irnos muy lejos, está el típico caso del usuario que jamás en su vida tocará a los destructores porque “son para cobardes” y “solo se esconden y torpedean”. Porque en la lógica del jugador promedio un destructor debe enfrentarse a cañonazos con un acorazado sin importar que le tires papas mientras el te lanza camiones. ¡Más frases! I might be wrong with the numbers, but i believe about 90% of our player base never played a single carrier game. It’s not because they don’t like the gameplay, it’s just they don’t like the concept and they see no value in playing an RTS game. ¿Enserio? Lo que yo entiendo aquí es que no les gusta el estilo de juego porque es un RTS. Veo una contradicción aquí. El RTS se caracteriza por determinado estilo de juego, entonces, ¿si no te gusta el juego por ser un RTS significa que no te gusta el estilo de juego? Ahora bien, si el 90% de la base de jugadores JAMÁS ha tocado un portaaviones ni ha tenido partidas con estos, ¿no se han puesto a pensar que es simplemente porque no quieren hacerlo? “No les llama la atención el estilo de juego”. ¿Cuantos de ustedes no tocan toda una línea porque no les llama la atención el estilo de juego? Me desesperan los cruceros ligeros estadounidenses por sus característica y forma de usarse. ¿Esto significa que son malos? ¿que deberían ser ajustados a mis gustos particulares y a los de muchos otros que sienten como les crece la barba mientras caen los proyectiles? Volviendo al punto de arriba. ¿90%? ¿Quieren decir que las quejas vienen de ese 90% que jamás ha tocado un portaaviones? Así dijera “Tal vez me equivoque con los números”, decir 90% es demasiado atrevido como para no estar lejos de la realidad. Por lo tanto, Wargaming está prestándole atención a la retroalimentación de jugadores que jamás han usado a un portaaviones. But if a carrier player makes mistakes and if he plays poorly, it will ruin the experience of all his teammates. ¿Solo esto ocurre con los portaaviones? Significa que yo siendo el único destructor de mi equipo puedo cometer una estupidez, ser hundido en los primeros 3 minutos de batalla, y no afectar el desempeño de mi equipo ¿Cierto? Yo como uno de los tres acorazados de mi equipo puedo suicidarme y no afectará el resultado de batalla, yo como el único crucero con radar puedo ser hundido al principio del combate y mi equipo seguirá desempeñándose bien. ¡Claro que no Wargaming! Si aplicamos esa lógica, todos los barcos presentes en el juego merecen un rework porque perder uno o que juegue mal arruina la experiencia de los demás. Y esto es EXTREMADAMENTE notorio durante la temporada de rangos. Second to second gameplay, make it also a little bit easier. Well, maybe not easier, but a little more interesting, step away from the strategy level and make it more action oriented, maybe. Me asusta. En verdad, eso de querer alejarlos de un estilo más estratégico y orientarlo a la acción me da mala espina. ¡Parece un juego de tablet por Dios! ¿Puedes pensar en otra cosa Wargaming? No estoy diciendo que sea malo o no sea atractivo, admito que me llama la atención. Pero el querer simplificar las cosas… No me parece una buena idea. Yes, Carrier year – 2019! Aveces me sorprende que hubiera un año del portaaviones. Lo único que hicieron fue agregar más y más AA al juego. Al final… Al final todo es decisión de la empresa. Debo admitir que me agrada, me gusta como se ven los portaaviones y su estilo de juego pero no creo que sea saludable. Al simplificar tanto el asunto se pierde la esencia del portaaviones. Ya no habrán esas luchas encarnizadas por el control del mapa, similar a cuando peleas por la última galleta del frasco. Se está siguiendo un sistema similar al de las artillerías en World of Tanks el cual, pese a considerarlo entretenido, soy consciente de que no es lo ideal y le hace daño al juego. Tampoco afirmo que la simplicidad sea similar, de todos modos los controles son distintos, pero la forma de jugarlas si lo es. Pide muy poca habilidad, casi nada en verdad, todo esto a favor del marketing y un estilo más amigable a la mayoría de usuarios. Existen muchas cosas a considerar y dar una conclusión a todo esto se encuentra fuera de lugar. Tengo mi opinión, otros tienen su opinión, pero Wargaming tiene la última palabra. ¡Si leíste todo te agradezco! Al final es solo lo que pienso. Puedo estar equivocado. Nah… nunca me equivoco. Tal vez. Aveces… Bueno. Opina (un poco ofuscado) – YamiKai También pueden leer mis notas en Reporte de Batalla: https://reportedebatalla.wordpress.com/
  11. Hey all. With 2 more tier 9 free xp ships coming out. (Alaska, Jean Bart.) What do you guys feel would be good tier 7 free xp ship? Currently the Nelson is the only ship in the market but theres a ton of other historical ships they could put in there. For me I would really love to see some of the last of the unique British cruisers. Maybe the British County Heavy class cruisers, the dido light cruiser (though this one I feel might be a over tiered for what it was.) Or the USS California! (We dont have any tier 7 us premium battleships.) Theres plenty more of ships that would fit, what do you all think?
  12. As the Go Navy! event is winding down, it looks like Eagles are going down with a W/L of 0-25. What happened? Why was the event so lopsided? And more importantly, why should we care about these questions? This post is dedicated to providing my opinions on what happened. I would also like to summon @Pigeon_of_War to read this, as he deals a lot with community feedback (and does an amazing job with communication between fans and developers). Note 1: I do have a slight slant to Eagles, but I'll try to remain unbiased Note 2: Not trashing or insulting the developers or any WG Staff, they do an amazing job. I am merely suggesting stuff they could do better. Let's start with the rules of the event and then go to the other points. There are two teams: Sharks and Eagles, and you pick which one you want to join at the beginning of every day. Sharks were always in the lead due to the sheer amount of people joining sharks., but there are things the devs should have done to keep the event competitive. First: why is one team a sea dwelling animal and the other an air dwelling animal in a game about fighting on the sea? This was just asking for lopsided numbers. Also the classic "red v. blue" coloring that almost always gives the advantage to blue. (If anybody wants me to, I'll explain that below this post) Second: other Forumites complained about how multiple big clans planned to join Sharks to get them to win. This is fine in my view, as the event forced people to choose sides, and wouldn't you side with your clan? (Scheming between two separate clans is also bound to happen in any MMO). Third: Why do you have to pick your side every day? I think if you picked a team to join at the start and continued with that team until you got a recruiter message would have been just better game design. You get loyalty each day, and recruiter messages will pop up after good games and ask you to switch sides for a container. The loyalty each day mechanic was fine in my eyes, but the recruiter messages could have done a lot better. First: Why do the recruiters only appear after good games? They should appear after good games and games where you barely got any points for your team. Think, if I am close to a Shark container after a good game, why am I suddenly going to switch to Eagles? Second: Why was the Shark recruiter like "You've been an Eagle, and that's fine, but you can join Sharks and dominate the seas and win!" while the Eagle recruiter was like "It's okay if you still want to be a Shark, just if you want to you can join Eagles". This was a horrible mistake from a player and a game designer perspective. You're just asking for people to switch and stay on Sharks. Third: Why was the award for switching a container, while the award for staying was a measly 2 loyalty. The award for staying should have been at least 3 or 4 loyalty. The team that looses continually gets a bigger point multiplier each day. And yet Eagle got the bonuses every day (up to a 150% multiplier one day) but never won. Why? The multiplies should have kept increasing until the Eagles won, then reset instead of just fluctuating on the designers whim. Also, after many people switched to Eagles after maxing out their points on Sharks the multiplier actually went DOWN! Why, why, why Wargaming did that happen? It was like they said, "yeah, Eagles aren't going to win, even with a bunch of people switching". This, in my view, was the biggest mistake Wargaming actively made during the event. You get Tokens and Containers for doing well and staying loyal to your team. You can buy stuff from the Arsenal with the Tokens. The containers give flags, camo, and coal. I'm good with this system, not much to say. Containers were also available in the Premium Shop that just gave Tokens directly, but this is fine as it was WG's way of monetising the event. My only small complaint is that the containers should have had a very small chance to give you a big prize (Like an USA Premium ship or a boatload of camos) to just increase that feeling of "Am I going to get something super rare and cool" when you earn/buy one of the containers. Finally, the biggest question, why should any of us care about this event at all? Because it was something that we participated in, and a game should always attempt to make something the community participates in as fun and engaging as possible. Many people adopted the attitude of "this isn't a showdown of two teams that I have fun in, it's just a way for me to get free goodies". This attitude is a sign that the developers failed at engaging and entertaining players, which is what game development is all about. I'm sure from the financial or population standpoint the event was a full success, as it did increase the amount players played and paid (heh, I'm proud of myself for that alliteration), but from the standpoint of "How did this make me enjoy the game and community more", the event shows it's shortcomings. There SHOULD be (friendly) arguments on the forums over which team was better, it SHOULD be a fierce competition between teams, seesawing back and forth between the teams, it SHOULD foster a spirit of friendly competition. That's just signs that the event is engaging and entertaining the players and also bettering the community and the game. Why did you even write this post? Was it just to complain? Partly, yes, but mainly to inform Wargaming of some of the communities views on the Go Navy! event and how it could have been improved. I do hope that if they run another event like this, that they take some of these complaints and suggestions and use them to design a better event that better engages and entertains players, and gives us that feeling of "Man I like this game even more because of these events", instead of "That event was alright, it gave me free goodies". At the end of the day, I'll still be here, at my keyboard, playing WoWS for a long time to come. I made this post because I care about the game. I want it to be healthy and foster a love of the game in it's players. I want the developers to keep doing stuff like this to make the game funner and better, but the Go Navy! event just didn't achieve everything it set out to be.
×