Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'poll'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Programs Corner
  • Feedback and Support
    • Support
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan and Divisions Hub
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 14 results

  1. So for a moment picture your a executive working at WG. You are looking over the budget, seeing how much was spent on the art etc and you want to design a event that will make money for the event. How would you build the event? Lets keep this constructive. For me, the art involved in building PR is a good idea. The points per minute was a bad idea because a lot of players do not have the foresight to plan ahead. I know they wanted to keep the distribution limited to a select few who could get the ship, but in that case why put so much money into the art and leave 99% of the player base frustrated that they could not finish said ship? This does not seem like a good idea. Lets build the current plan up in bullet points. These are the positives. * Build your own ship. * Great art and animation for the process These are the negatives * Nearly impossible grind. New players have no hope of finishing this thing. When there is a big event, players should feel like they should win. This is a game, not a job. * Pressure to accomplish on top of snowflake event. double dipping for most. Here is how I think it should have been handled. First of all. I would give all players 2 months of premium time going into this event. This would be seen as a short term loss but all players would get to experience having a premium account and I think this would give them a long term gain by people wanting to keep their premium going after trying it out. Plan A: Reduce the grind to 2/5ths of the current grind. Extend the timeline so that players have 8 weeks to accomplish the Puerto Rico. Have two premium boosters, one costing 4k doubloons, the second costing 6k doubloons. Make it so that if one is bought the grind is reasonable to play through 5 of 8 weeks and get the PR. With two boosters you will complete the PR but it will take 8 weeks. I suppose asking 8-10k doubloons for a instant completion would be "Okay" Plan B: Adjust the PR build to take all of 2020 with no boosting. Have no directives or grindy tasks to speed this up though. Do allow ship building tokens from completing daily missions so that buildings can be bought to speed the process up. Have premium boosters be purchasable. The plan should allow for a 6 month completion time without premium boosters, a 3 month completion time or less with premium boosters, or sure a outright purchase for again a 20k doubloon total price if you wanted to buy it outright. I am okay with this as a player. Plan C: Do not go with a build system, instead show animation to players as they accomplish objectives, either set it up as a weekly task format they are familiar with. Everyone gets to play the missions and unlock the ships at the same time. Plan D: Just give everyone who is playing the game a Puerto Rico for Christmas as a apology for a badly managed event and refund any and all doubloons spent. Plan E: Something else. How would you all like to see it go? Please post your own ideas as well or tweaks to ideas.
  2. Why? oh why? do you insist on placing the PT Survey on Saturday morning, half way through the test and before most players have had a chance to play the features that the survey is about ?? This makes no sense. Don't you want answers from players who have actually used the features?
  3. Do you think that WarGaming should allow you to have the option to sell unwanted permanent camo/flags in your inventory? I do... don't you?
  4. Its probably best if you just glance over the Underlined and bold parts. Its quite long. Plz reply and share your experiences. Hi everybody! I have been looking around at other forums and have thought that It would be a good idea to have one, big, main forum where everybody can voice their opinions (i.e. rage and complain) about the recent carrier rework. I have been getting several different opinions about what the carrier rework and hotfix has done to our warships. I have been looking around to see what kind of different opinions we have been getting about the carrier rework. From what I have currently seen, the most trouble has come from destroyers. The complaint is that aircraft spotting is too good, and that they are permaspotted and shelled by everything in the vicinity. The same can be said about scout cruisers, which lack the AA defense to repel concentrated air attack, and who cannot output enough damage to repel the hail of fire that the rest of the battle fleet will throw at it. This also does not allow it to spot other targets, voiding its purpose. Light and Heavy cruisers can output a substantial amount of AA firepower, but only the most powerful light cruisers and the most AA oriented heavy cruisers to repel a concentrated air attack. Under constant attack from my fully maxed Lexington, only the enemy Atlanta, AA spec Cleveland, a new Orleans with defensive AA fire, and a trio of battleships pooling their AA could prevent themselves from being decimated by my aircraft (even the AA ships still took minor damage from the remains of my squadrons). Light cruisers that shoot from behind islands are immobile, and vulnerable to attack from bombers and torpedo planes. Heavy cruisers, especially those with an AA focus, are the only ships capable of repelling constant attack by same tier carriers without major damage. Most battleships, with the exception of high tier American ones, generally have crap or mediocre AA, and need an escort or a division to pool their AA. However, concealment isn't really that important, and all BBs can take a hit, so other than being unable to dodge torpedoes, they did OK. The main consensus is that CV's are not that fun to play against. On top of that, It is hard to repel air attack, and being permanently spotted is deadly for most light cruisers and destroyers. I have also heard complaints from the aircraft carrier community. The US Cv community, complains that dive bombers require too much RNG and that the torpedoes don't do enough alpha. The IJN community is having trouble with AP bombs and the bomb sights, which are accurate but hard to use. The british CV line is still going through buffs and nerf at an alarming rate. Right now (2 patches from now this could have changed entirely) the british CV community complains that the short arming distance torpedoes are carried by aircraft that lack the health and speed to reach their target, and the bombing runs are rather flat and sort of have a forward rather than a mostly down trajectory. On top of that, all Cv's are having trouble doing reliable damage to ships. For example, American CV's struggle to inflict damage with bombs to well armored battleships, whose deck they fail to penetrate, and maneuvering cruisers, which they lack the accuracy to hit. Many Cv's complain that other ships do damage and earn credits farming damage off of cruisers and destroyers that they spot, while the CV hemorrhages aircraft trying to get damage done and the cruisers and destroyers rage over being spotted and focused down by the rest of the enemy ships. In conclusion, I believe that carrier spotting mechanics are a death sentence for any ships that rely on concealment. I also believe that Carriers fail to do much damage due to the fact that their planes, while fast, have too little health or maneuverability. Also, Carriers don't like being up-tiered. I look forward to your opinions and ideas about how to fix the carrier. Please PLZ! comment below. Photo gallery:
  5. nastydamnanimal

    MM rework POLL !!

    OK how many of you want the MM to be as follows.... Random MM mechanics = same tier and same average xp average xp can be found in your service record btw. Low xp Premium and Armory ship buyers will also have to climb the xp ladder. There is a bunch of them so they will just have to play against eachother and bot fillers until their average xp improves opening up more full pvp no bot filler random games. this is a poll so dont flame me just vote maybe WG will listen? thanks
  6. Hello Commanders! I need your opinion on something. Poll included
  7. a poll to see how many want or dont want CVs in clan battles
  8. In order for a CV to deal DOT you need both fires and floods as well as time. This match lacked all of those. on the bright side it means I lost less planes but WG may want to add CV alpha or fire/flooding chance to the list of things they should look into. The main problem here though is obviously the fact that my team got absolutely steam rolled. I really do wish WG could make more balanced teams but I just have to accept MM for what it is. At least I can't be uptiered at tier X (I pray to RNGesus for bottom tier ships every day) Another thing they should look at is the cost of running CV. My initial service cost for a Midway with 15% off is 204k. This is not to mention planes but they cost just a little more than torps do so I won't complain about ammo costs that much. The base service cost for Tier X ships is listed on the Wiki as 180k without special flags, Clan discounts, or camo. Why is the base cost of running a CV so much higher? I would at least like a official explanation for this as I have yet to find any.
  9. 7_3_PowerStroke

    Battle mode poll

    Simple questions like @LoveBote asked yesterday. Some asked for a game mode poll, so here it is.
  10. It's been barely a week, yet with the amount that the CV rework has been discussed, it feels much longer. A common theme in many threads is how the game is bleeding players and how many people abstain from it. Others suggest a more patient path of giving WG some time to see the outcome of the rework, based on the reasoning that game balance will normalize in time and stop being in a state of flux. A question however remains. Provided WG is able to complete and present a satisfactory product that conforms to the aims they themselves set when starting with the rework, how long would you be willing to wait? While there is no guarantee that the final product will be necessarily good, in the end the playerbase is the lifeblood of the game so it should at least be acceptable by the majority. In this case and for the sake of simplicity time will be measured in monthly patches since this is where most of the changes will be located. Personally one part of me is pretty impatient and pessimistic. Another however wants to give WG some more time to develop their product and see where it goes from there. Looking forward to your opinions and a civil discussion .
  11. ViirtualSenpai

    Stalingrad: Hot or Not?

    Keep it civil, I want to see what the public thinks of this new Balans Bote. Remember, we're all entitled to our opinions. But if you have one, back it up with proof. Thanks guys!
  12. legoboy0401

    New Control Suggestion

    I can't tell you how many times I'm in a Cruiser that has torpedoes in special covered areas, and I get them knocked out by a stray HE shell, only to find that the only reason that they were knocked out is because they were out (not in the stored position, even though I was firing my guns, NOT the torps, at the time, and I hadn't used them a single time the entire match), and thus were more vulnerable. Why can't we control this? It's frustrating. I want to be able to keep them in the stored(I.E, protected) position UNTIL when I actually want to use them! It's just such a waste. If you can't keep them in the stored position, and thus more safe from enemy fire, what's the point of having them covered in the first place? If you can't keep them in the stored position, of what good is it to you? You might as well have unprotected ones, which generally have better arcs anyway! Is this just a nit-picky personal preference of mine, or do you guys experience this problem as well? As always, comments are appreciated, and I look forward to your feedback! Also, there is a poll to answer this question as well. - Regards, Legoboy0401
  13. Commissar_Carl

    What Class do you Main?

    Just wanted to get a feel from the community as to what class of ship they like to play most and if most players "Main" a certain class. I have a bit of a theory that I want to get data on.
  14. Here you will find a poll regarding premium/permanent camouflages. Leave your thoughts below! I’d also like to add several open questions for the discussion: Would you change the perks of Tiers IV-IX camouflages to be in accordance with the benefits of Tier X camos and each tier’s economy? What are your thoughts regarding the benefits of Tier X camos? Are there any permanent camouflages you don’t like aesthetically? Which ones? Thank you for your time. ”Ad Astra Per Aspera” Phantom out.
×