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


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Contributor 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


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 7 results

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The title pretty much says it all. It feels nimble enough to allow me to dodge torps if I'm paying the least bit of attention to my surroundings. The guns seem erratic past 15k but seem to hit pretty regularly within 10k. Armor seems vaguely reliable. I've had a few decent games in it even if I'm in T7 matches. This is, however, my only T6 let alone my only T6 BB. Am I just not aware of how bad it is compared to other ships?
  5. “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/
  6. 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?
  7. 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.