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


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • 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


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 32 results

  1. Poll for wargaming to rollback commander skill rework
  2. A quick and cheerful survey, in keeping with the festive season, "Which class of warship do you HATE the most?" Which class of warship makes you sweat and worry, which makes you bite your fingernails, which class of warship is most likely to make you use a four letter word? Which class of warship do you consider to be toxic? Do you rejoice when a particular class of warship is absent from WOWS? edit : I see multiple requests for the ability to vote for individual ships, such as Smolensk. Unfortunately this just isn't practical, given the thousands of warships that are playable in WOWS/ However, please do name and shame the exceptionally, uniquely, hateful warships. As for Bacon, there is no option, because the poll is not about what we like, but what we hate, and well, everyone loves bacon. Does everyone hate chilled spinach with a vinegar and banana dressing? Maybe I could try that another time.
  3. The 123rd annual Army-Navy game (American football) is on this afternoon at 2pm Central. It's the one football game of the year that I won't miss (as in, fail to view). Steal the mule! Defend the goat!
  4. High tier here meaning t8-t10 I made some polls long ago about the which destroyers, cruisers, and battleships looked the best, but new ships have been added since then and my polls are probably forgotten so I decided to make another one now, with a large group of polls covering most of the high tier ships in the game so far in this very thread. If more ships like Italian DDs are introduced after, then too bad cause I won’t come back for those. Cause once Italian BBs release and I get them, I’m leaving the game soon after (it was a fun four-or-five years and I don’t regret it) ships too visually identical to the original are excluded (twin vs triple turret is a distinct enough difference imo tho) ps damn the list is huge, f to phone users
  5. I want your opinions, is it worth it and why? Attached a poll to see where the community stands.
  6. SuperUnicumInBed

    Stalingrad vs. Smolensk

    I made this post to see which ship is better, I understand that you have to factor in different variables but in YOUR opinion which one is better.
  7. SuperUnicumInBed

    Do you like Epicenter or Not?

    I came across many players who disliked Epicenter so I want to do a poll to see what the community thinks of it.
  8. I've been a co-op main for a long time, and a forum regular (EU) for even longer. While I am just playing for some fun pew-pew action I have noticed that there are some aspects of co-op Matchmaking (or map choices) that can spoil that and make a match an unenjoyable slog. But everyone is different, and what is a good roster for me might not be a good roster for you. So is there a community consensus? Honest answers only, don't overthink the questions; if you have no consistent class preference but a ship-by-ship preference please vote for the status quo. I'll leave this open so everyone can compare notes, until such a time in the future when the poll is obsolete. Off-topic, what happened to the forum poll section?
  9. gbgentry

    Damage or Team Win

    Curious if people value their damage score or win % total more.
  10. With all the new collaborations WG has been announcing, I was wondering if they might entertain player suggestions for themed Commanders in a contest or something? I've been tossing this one in the hat on live streams, but I think it would be flat out amazing if WG did a Simpsons themed set of Commanders with relevant camos. Think of Homer Simpson running your ship. All the anger and frustration of a potato match erased in seconds with a single DOH! Or how about Kang and Kodos, or the Sea Captain ..? Why this hasn't happened yet is fully baffling to me, silly licensing costs! Thoughts?
  11. Did I say it or did I say it? The recent UI changes are using "phone" design memes. Well, now we know the reason. https://blog.worldofwarships.com/blog/55 Okay, the Armory. Some people will find that useful as they do the extra-client browser version. But also the Combat Missions and now the Equipment sections. So what about the future? Can you imagine the Port with a similar redesign? Phone hardware is powerful and could probably run the client with ease. But WoWs also uses up to 60GB for a mature client installation, and a phone has limited input and output devices. So the question: Where is WG going with this, and do you like it?
  12. XXRed_DawnXX

    New Premium Ships Ideas

    Ever since I joined WOWS some time ago, I've been grateful that WarGaming keeps rolling out new additions in the form of Tech-tree ships, and Premiums. However, despite adding so many amazing ships to the game; there are so many more that should have been added sooner if not, be considering adding to the game if not part of an extension to a tech-tree, at least a premium. Assuming that Wargaming will add British CV/DD tech trees, a Russian BB tech tree, French BB/DD tech trees, Italian BB/CR/DD tech trees, a German planned carrier tree, and a Japanese carrier tree extension that will all hopefully be added to the game soon. What ship(s) do you think they should add into the game. If it's not in the poll, feel free to respond in the comments. Here is some info on some of the ships in the polls: 1. USS Laffey (DD-724) - An Allen M. Sumner-class destroyer that was commissioned in 1944. She gained the nickname "The Ship That Would Not Die" for her exploits during the D-Day invasion and the battle of Okinawa where she successfully withstood the most unrelenting kamikaze air attacks in history. She survived WWII and remained in service until 1975 and is currently a museum ship in Patriots Point, South Carolina. 2. USS Samuel B. Roberts (DE-413) - A John C. Butler-class destroyer escort. Commissioned in 1944, she famously participated in the Battle off Samar as part of a small task unit known as Taffy 3, fighting against a large Japanese battle force outnumbered by more than 2 to 1. She severely damaged several cruisers before she was sunk with 90 sailors lost. For her courageous actions against heavily armed adversaries more than twice her size, she became known in navel lore as "the destroyer escort that fought like a battleship." 6. IJN Yahagi - One of the four Agano class light cruisers, she participated in the Battle of the Philippine Sea and the Battle of Leyte Gulf (she escaped both battles undamaged). In April, 1945, the Yahagi and eight destroyers screened the Japanese flagship Yamato as part of the failed kamakaze mission Operation Ten-Go and along with the Yamato, was one of the six ships sunk by carrier Task Force 58.
  13. Out of these gamemodes, which would you choose? NOTE: Some of these game types are potentially already being added, or are never going to be added! These are simply suggestions for what I’d like to see be added, and I am wanting to see what gamemodes people agree should be added! If you don’t agree with any of these options or notice one that is currently being implemented or is already implemented, then don’t call me out on it as I am aware that some of these are being added already!!! Randoms Deathmatch - Is a mode where two teams fight to the death. There is no secondary objectives like capturing a certain point on the map or capturing the enemy base, you simply sink the enemy ships. Potential benefits: Could result in additional options for clan battle gamemodes, could be an additional game mode for more diverse game play. Historical Deathmatch- Is basically the same thing as the previous suggestion, but the ships you play as will determine what team you’re on. (For example, One team will consist of ONLY German, Japanese, Italian and SOMETIMES Russian ships [including premiums of those nations), and the other team will consist of ONLY US, British, French, and SOMETIMES Russian ships [including premiums]. Ships of other nations [such as pan Asian and Pan American/European ships] will go on the teams that the ships were historically allied with.) Potential benefits: could draw in more players who are interested more in historically accurate battles, could be another variant of gamemode for clan battles. Capital ship Deathmatch- Can have a historical AND random version. Similar to Deathmatch, but there is a main objective AND secondary objective. Primary objective is to sink the capital ship. (This ship is a randomly selected player who becomes the primary target for the enemy team, and the objective that needs to be defended at all costs.) The capital ships on each team could receive a form of slight buff in order to allow them to both stand out as the primary objective (like a unique color) and to allow them to last a slight bit longer as so the ship doesn’t blow up as fast. The capital ships would ONLY consist of battleships or carriers. The buffs the capital ships would gain would vary depending on what ship is made the capital ship. (For example, carriers could have planes with additional health or battleships could have a super heal that both heals the player ship, but also the any allied ships within 4 km or so of the ship.) The buffs could also vary based on the nation of ship. (For example, the German battleships could have super secondaries, or improved dispersion by say 40%, whereas Japanese battleships have a form of shield that is limited in use, or super armor piercing shells, or the British battleships could have super HE shells that can set five fires that burn for a slightly shorter amount of time.) Potential benefits: could be a new and fun game mode people are willing to play (if done right and balanced properly). Historical Convoy- Plays similarly to the Halloween Hotel Transylvania gamemode, but in this case it is several ships that one team (Consisting of British, US, French, and sometimes Russian ships) have to defend until either the entire convoy gets to the objective point on the map, or as many as possible get to the objective point, while the other team (Consisting of German, Japanese, Italian, and sometimes Russian ships) have to sink as many of all ships in the convoy. Potential benefits: The gamemode could be fun for random and coop battles, but not for clan battles, and would bring in history fanatics who want to see a realistic game mode. Free For All (FFA)- This is heavily inspired by the savage battles of 2019. The game starts where each and every player’s objective from the start of the battle is to be the last one standing or the one with the most points when the timer runs out. Potential benefits: Would be fun for random battles, and could bring in more players due to more gameplay features. With all that said, which of these would YOU like to see in WOWS? Feel free to explain your choices, and also feel free to give constructive criticism as to why you think these gamemodes would or would not work and potential ideas as to fix the issues with them!
  14. Even if submarines end up in a separate mode they will still very likely be added to the tech tree. Any thoughts or preferences on which class to research them from? Here is a strawpoll: https://www.strawpoll.me/20152699 Feel free to share the link on other WOWS platforms.
  15. Back when the carrier rework happened, Wargaming stated that the odd carriers would be taken out of the tech trees, but could return. The motivation behind this post is to start a conversation about what ways we could add these carriers back in a supporting role. Warning: This is a hybrid request/conversation/rant/essay by me about bringing carriers Back and improved that not everybody will hate on but still being somewhat powerful. So my idea would be bringing back the odd carriers and arming them with support aircraft and support consumables. Basically instead of Attack, Torpedo, and bomber aircraft, we get Smoke “bomber”, Depth charge bombers, and consumable dropping “bombers”. Now smoke bomber aircraft are self explanatory, but they drop smoke canisters that act like destroyer smokes, and smoke a area for a period of time. Depth charge Bombers would drop depth charges to help destroy submarines, like destroyers and light cruisers can do in the submarine test servers. Now what do consumable bombers do ? You might ask. They drop consumable parcels instead of bombs. This is probably the main aircraft of these Support carriers. The consumable has to be dropped on a allied ship, like a bomb or rocket, and give that ally a randomly selected consumable their ship has equipped. The reason this is powerful and can turn the tide of a battle is it can sustain a battleship or heavy cruiser with repair party consumables to the point of allowing a small task force with a support carrier to win a game against a 4 man squad of Mushashis if they work together well enough. Now what about patrol fighters ? Well we give these support carriers a buffed fighter consumable that escorts an allied ship that it is dropped on, similarly to the ship borne fighter consumable. Now what about national differences ? Well we tackle this like fleet carriers. American aircraft are just versatile, Japanese support aircraft carriers drop recon aircraft instead of patrol fighters for their consumable. And Britain, if they ever would get this, would get their merchant aircraft carriers, in the form of consumable bombers that drop 1 of each type of consumable equipped on an allied ship. Germany doesn't get anything until they get a proper fleet carrier tree. And balance between teams? I propose support carriers be added as separate from fleet carriers as their own class. They are considered less powerful than a fleet carrier and are matched with a fleet carrier on their own team so there is a 1:1 ratio of carrier borne power on the teams. So either green team gets 1 fleet carrier and 1 support carrier vs 1 fleet carrier and 1 support carrier or 2 support carriers vs 2 support carriers. Research: I propose that these aircraft carriers are placed horizontally next to the fleet carriers at rank 6/VI and so they are behind a basic Carrier skill wall to prevent widespread groups of noobs dropping smoke on their allies at spawn. Reason for these to exist ?: I believe these carriers could not only give meaning to the odd carriers that were dropped but these support carriers could also help the lives of other ship classes, destroyers could actually get damage instead of having to drop smoke for allies or deal with the soon to drop submarines, designated team players like me (I like being useful by defending battleships from carriers with my Dallas) could get a new and gimmicky class of support ship, carrier players that don’t want to be hated for playing a cool class could get a new and less hated version of it, and players who want to help turn the tide of a battle without direct combat could finally support their allies. For those who think “WHERE IN THE WORLD IS THE BALANCE” I say, you still depend on your allies to win, and you don’t have direct power over the battle, but if your team communicates you could have a sweeping amount of influence over the game. Premiums: (Yes, I had to add this to it to make it remotely possible) Shinano, the Yamato hull aircraft carrier. The proposition that has repeatedly been put up in suggestions as a T10 Premium but fails because of the fact it was a transport carrier instead of a fleet carrier. We could solve this by having her as a specialty support carrier that has the depth charge bombers and smoke bombers, but instead of consumable bombers, she can land a squadron of her planes on other allied carriers to refill their hanger of combat aircraft. (The aircraft would be split between the respective aircraft carrier’s aircraft classes.) The reason for this is because she carried aircraft in a transport hanger, not a combat hanger. This could be good reason for shinano being able to land her aircraft on other carriers. Or she could have the normal IJN carrier aircraft and have support capabilities to make her more versatile I end my essay here, please talk out this idea in the (comments? I think) and keep it civilized. And if anyone would kindly do some more research on the real world classes of support carriers and suggest them please do, but please credit me for the basic format/system I have put forward and the national specialties. (The actual idea of an alternate line was stated when they removed the odd tiers, and they mentioned firefighting and smoke planes.)(I spent 3 Hours working on this.) If you would like to learn about where I got the idea, Wikipedia merchant aircraft carriers (where I got the idea for the consumable aircraft and British specialty), the PB4Y/ B24 ( American long range bomber and maritime patrol aircraft, the PB4Y actually used depth charges and gave me the idea for the depth charge bombers.) and google the M-10 Smoke tank (a smoke tank used by the USAAF to drop a smokescreen in combat.) Just a excerpt from wikipedia on MAC's or merchant aircraft carriers. A merchant aircraft carrier (also known as a MAC) was a limited-purpose aircraft carrier operated under British and Dutch civilian registry during World War II. MACs were adapted by adding a flight deck to a bulk grain ship or oil tanker enabling it to operate anti-submarine aircraft in support of Allied convoys during the Battle of the Atlantic. Despite their quasi-military function, MACs retained their mercantile status, continued to carry cargo and operated under civilian command. MACs began entering service in May 1943 and although originally intended as an interim measure pending the introduction of escort carriers, they remained operational until the end of the war in Europe.
  16. Yesterday, in honor of the Iowa Caucuses going on here where I live, I thought I would conduct a poll on a question I have been pondering lately. Please check it out: Thanks for voting and sharing your thoughts!
  17. 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.
  18. 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?
  19. 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:
  20. 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
  21. a poll to see how many want or dont want CVs in clan battles
  22. 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.
  23. _8V92_Detroit_

    Battle mode poll

    Simple questions like @LoveBote asked yesterday. Some asked for a game mode poll, so here it is.
  24. anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT

    Spending intentions poll

    Simple question, simple answer. You may express the detailed reasons for your vote below. sister poll here : https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/183706-playing-intentions-poll/? comrade in arms poll here : https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/183807-battle-mode-poll/
  25. 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 .