Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

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


  • World of Warships Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 45 results

  1. I've been playing WoWs for about 4 years. I'm not a great player, I consider myself just an occasional player, however with the pandemic I've been playing a lot more lately and I've noticed that A LOT of times I play against invisible destroyers! Destroyers, as you know, are the ships with the highest final speed, the greatest acceleration and deceleration, are small and difficult to hit at greater distances and still use the most devastating weapons in the game (torpedoes). Additionally they can release smoke screens to hide and assist other players on your team. Everything I said in the previous paragraph is true and acceptable, but I think having invisible ships in the game is INSANE. Yesterday, in a match, there was a destroyer less than 10km away, with no apparent smokescreen and even so he managed to go around and torpedo me without being seen!! I honestly don't know the justification for having a ship 100% hidden in broad daylight and with perfect weather conditions at close range. This greatly detracts from the game experience. When I see that there are many destroyers in the match, I am already discouraged, because there will certainly be some "USS Eldrige". I think this is the only problem in the game, this attempt to turn all destroyers into "Sansons", which can easily destroy all "Goliaths". My suggestion is that this be removed from the game in order to balance things out. I would also like to know what is the justification for the existence of a ship that cannot be seen at close range in clear weather
  2. When my ship sinks, I often find myself checking out the map detail, always hoping to find a person in one of the villages. Why not create a random 3d character and place them somewhere for people to search and find, for rewards. Maybe something like, if you find the character post your screenshot for a drawing to win Dubloons or something. For example, maybe the Captain of a ship made it to shore in his life raft and can now be seen standing at some dock somewhere, looking for his rescue ship. If no villages on the map then maybe his life raft could be spotted on an island shore and somewhere on the island he is seen on a high point looking for his rescue. If in the Ocean map, maybe he could be seen floating in a small life raft. Be cool if it was a 3D character, unlike my image example, and he was moving a little bit.
  3. New Port Suggestion: Norfolk/Hampton Roads Virginia It has been a few updates now since we were last given a new real historical port location and I think it's time for a new location of Historical value. My suggestion for a new port in-game would be the port of Norfolk/Hampton Roads which is located here in the United States in the State of Virginia at the mouth Chesapeake bay. Norfolk holds a historic value to many Americans and Retired Navy personal because for more than two centuries from the days of the early English settlers who sailed up the James river to found the colony of JamesTown from the terrible event that was the American Civil War and saw the first battle of Iron ships in it's bay and from World War 2 which saw the Port's major industrial overhaul building America's Carriers and today serving as both a ship building yard and a major dockyard for the United States Navy. It is safe to assume that Norfolk is worthy of being a Port location that I think should be added into the game for all Players and specially the ones from the United States that may have had to once stay in Norfolk because of their Jobs or Service. In-game appearance The Port of Norfolk should obviously appear as it was in the highlight of World War 2 servicing ships in the distances and Ships coming in and out of the harbor either to resupplies or repair along with troop ships heading out probably sailing to Europe to fight the German and help the Allies. I would also like to see Newport news off in the distance building a new Carrier for the war effort and sounds from the port to be present showing it's a functioning and breathing shipyard in War-time. As for your Ship selection spot and the Cargo ship I believe it should be out in the harbor of Hampton Roads with the Cargo ship anchored in the Harbor with barges beside it resupplying the ship. I would very much love to see the Port of Norfolk added into the game because I feel like it's a location worthy of a port in-game however I would love to see your Feedback in the post below and you tell me how this could be improved upon and if it all it should be added or not? -JakePostonJake1
  4. I know I'm crazy but can we get Pre-dreadnoughts in the game? Title taken from Drachinifel's episode on French Pre-Dreadnoughts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ygXLnRAm-A
  5. IkenHower

    On the topic of Fires

    So, let me preface by saying I spend most of my time on Battleships, particularly the Kurfurst. And I'm incredibly frustrated. Needless I'm going to try to provide facts. HE and Fires are not fun, and too strong. I said it. And I won't take it back. People are always providing excuses as to why it has not been nerfed further then whatever IFHE did. Especially for most of the Battleships. That said, I do have statistics other then just ranting. Let's look at Worchester vs a Kurfurst, shall we? Worchester has 6 Dual mounted 152mm guns which have a base Fire Chance at 12%, a Maximum range of 16.7 km and 148m dispersion at maximum, not including mods. She has a speed of 33.0 knots, and a base detectability of 12km. Her 12 guns have a base reload of 4.6 seconds. She is not very heavily armored, with her main armor belt being 127mm thickness, 30mm deck and most of the rest being around 27mm. Grosser Kurfurst has 4 triple mounted 406/420mm guns that have a base Fire Chance at 41%(on 420), a Max range of 20.6km and max dispersion of 226m, again not including mods. A base speed of 30.0 knots and base detectability of 18.2 km. Her 12 guns have a base reload of 32.0 seconds (again with 420's). She is incredibly armored, her main armor belt is 380mm thick and her deck is 50mm. Based on that info, you would have to assume Kurfurst would win that every time, assuming both captains had the exact same skill. However, in actual practice the Kurfurst will lose most of the time, depending on map and dispersion. And that is simply because of Fire. Here's the reason why. A Worchester will almost certainly be running IFHE and Demo Expert. Demo Expert makes base fire chance 14%, and IFHE halves that to make it 7%. Adding both Fire Flags makes it 8%. At a rate of 12 shells per 4.6 seconds. Meaning Every salvo has a very high chance of lighting a fire. "BuT wHaT aBoUt FiRe PrEvEnTiOn?" You say. That removes 10% odds at igniting, and you can only have 3 fires on your deck at once. That's it. 3 fires will still shred your health faster then most Battleships can even dream of. And you can't angle against it. The Worchester can angle against the Kurfurst to prevent citidel hits and even get ricochets, because the Kurfurst will most likely be using AP. The Kurfurst will Extinguish the fires, of course, but the Worchester is still lobbing shells. For Every salvo the Kurfurst fires, the Worchester is firing about 7 salvos (Exactly 6.956... salvos so I rounded up) each with a good chance at lighting a fire. Not only this, but Kurfursts main guns have worse dispersion, though I do not know the exact calculation for it I'd say that Kurfurst has about 170m dispersion at the range Worchester has 148. Next, look at concealment and maneuverability. Both have pretty similar max speeds. However, the biggest problem for the Kurfurst is it's turning radius. A turning radius of 1km is huge. Worchester has a pretty big turn radius as well at 740m. Not only that, but the Kurfurst has a rudder shift of 19.4s, which is roughly double that of Worchesters. Of Course, Cruisers are supposed to be more maneuverable, but that isn't my issue. The Kurfurst has no means of Disengaging against a Worchester that will constantly keep its deck on fire. We haven't even taken Islands or teams into consideration. A Worchester behind an island is a death sentance for any battleship inside its range. Because both teams are focused on one thing: Lighting battleships on fire for easy money and xp. Kurfurst itself isn't really effective until 12 Km from its target because of secondaries, and with the Commander Skills coming out, say goodbye to that. I don't have any of the other T10 Battleships because it's litteral suffering to grind. My arguement stands for most of the entire set of Battleships, with the only exceptions I can think of being Yamato, Shikashima, Vermont and Kremlin. The first three have no point in going up so they just chill back and snipe, which then you get people yelling at you. Thunderer is part of the problem with HE shells but at least it's semi tolerable with Longer reloads. The biggest offenders I find are ships like Worchester, Des Moines, Zao, and Smolensk. But in reality most cruiser players don't even know they have AP shells, and rarely if ever load AP. (Sarcasm in the first part) So how would we fix this? Yes I understand that these would all be direct buffs to battleships, and direct nerfs to Fire cruisers. That's kind of the point. I can think of a few things, and a combination of a few things: Lower the stacking on damage from fires Cut the amount of Credits and XP earned from damage done by fire.' Nerf IFHE to a higher degree of Fire chance loss in exchange for a higher penetration. Gut the damage from fires and buff cruiser AP. Nerf fire chance on heavy armor. Combinations of this would be like: Lower stacking damage and cut credits and xp from fire damage. I am not professional balencer, but even I understand that the current state of this mechanic is too strong and discourages Battleships from doing what they were supposed to do, and encourages play that actively is a detriment to your team in staying back and just sniping, especially for ships that can't. Giving Battleships better reason to be an active part of their team and promote better teamplay. If 10 children whos bodies are mainly comprised of Salt can understand their roles in League of Legends then the same can be done in World of Warships. I am sorry for the absolute wall of text, but this needed to be addressed in a professional and constructive way. I am sure people will disagree but this entire text is meant to show that "Hey maybe something IS off about this balence." I'm pretty confident that changes to the system will provide a better game for all of us.
  6. Allow to just slap this in for a second....For a little while now, I've been working on a spreadsheet of information for if HMS Renown, was added to the game. Now, here is what I've got, wanted to keep this section short and sweet...now enjoy the reading :D ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Basics: Tier-6 (Or 7, the AA Suite does in some ways feel more like a 7...idk...that's why I'm posting this here and on reddit also :\) Statues-premium _____________________________ Weaponry: 3x2 381mm / 42 mark I Range - 16.8Km Reload time - 28.00 Seconds Rate of Fire - 2.00 rpm 180 Turn Time - 45 Seconds Traverse Speed - 2.50 Degree/second Accuracy Sigma - 1.9 Maximum Dispersion - 234m ___________________________________________________ Shells: 381mm HE Mk VIIIb HE Shell Raw DPM - 63600 Maximum Damage - 5,300 Initial Shell Velocity - 749 m/s Shell weight - 879 Kg Ricochet - 89.0 Degree He penetration - 63mm Burn Probability - 38% -Per Salvo - 94.6% -Fire Per Minute - 1.85 _______________________________ 381mm AP Mark XXII b Raw DPM - 154,000 Maximum Damage - 12,000 Initial Shell Velocity - 749 m/s Shell Weight - 879 Kg Ricochet - 60-67 Degrees Overmatch - 26mm Threshold - 18mm Fuse Time - 0.025 s ______________________________ Secondary Armament 10x2 114mm QF Mark III Range - 5.7Km Maximum Damage - 1,700 Initial Shell Velocity - 746 m/s Reload Speed - 5 Seconds Rate of Fire - 12 Rpm Accuracy -Sigma - 1.0 -Maximum Dispersion - 237m HE Penetration - 20mm Burn Probability - 9% _____________________________ Fire 60 Seconds No. of fires - 4 Probability reduction - 27% DPS per fire - 158 Total Damage per fire - 9480 _____________________________ Flooding 40 Seconds No. of flooding - 2 Probability - 22.5% Damage Reduction - 28% DPS from flooding - 258 Total Damage per flooding - 10,320 _______________________________ Concealment Sea - 14Km After firing in Smoke - 11.8Km When on Fire - 17.2Km Air - 9.8Km After Firing in Smoke - 7.5Km When on Fire - 11.3Km ____________________________ Maximum Speed - 31 Knots Full power Forward - 60 Seconds Full power Reverse - 30 Seconds Power Ratio - 2.34 per Ton Turning Circle radius - 870m Rudder shift Time - 12.8 Seconds __________________________________ Anti-Aircraft Defense Far: [ 0.1-5.8Km ] Inner+Outer Explosions - 3+1 Damage - 1,200 RoF - 5 Seconds Spawn Time - 1.51 Seconds Distance - 3.5-5.8Km Aura - 132 DPS Damage - 34 Rate of Fire - 0.29 Seconds Hit Probability - 75% ______________________________ Medium: [ 0.1-2.5km ] Aura - 170.2 dps Damage - 42 Rate of Fire - 0.29 Seconds Hit Probability - 75% ______________________________ Near: [ 0.1-2Km ] Aura - 193 dps Damage - 58 Rate of Fire - 0.29 Seconds Hit Probability - 70% _________________________________ Other Useful Information: Length: 242.0m Beam: 27.4m Draft: 9.7m Displacement: 36,660 Tons Speed: 31 Knots (As stated above) Armament: Main-6x381mm Secondary-20x114mm AA 16x12.7mm 24x40mm 20x114mm (Sadly the AA from what I can find is all over the place, so if you know the FULL LIST of Renown's AA Suite in 1944, I will add it to this post to be correct.) Armour design is the same as the AA Suite, all over the place, So If you could Direct me to a book or provide the information on it, I will take it and add it over this piece of text.
  7. So, I unlocked the ship, looked the stats over, played it a little, and ended up doing a bunch of research. Because it seems like Oklahoma is what some of us, including myself, asked for - a USN BB with a focus on secondary guns. Unfortunately - it seems like for those of us that did suggest a full line - with Oklahoma's sister Nevada as the tech tree tier 5, they stopped reading at 'USN battleship with secondary focus'. And well... Oklahoma as she is is what we get, though I will give credit where it is due - they did infact update her to have the 3"/50 AA guns she was supposed to have post refit and had on December 7th. Now, is she the worst ship I've ever played - no. But to just be a good ship ( and 'good' in this case means 'acceptably average'), she needs some work. And freebie or not - I think it's worth to do it (especially because after the fact people may end up buying it). Now bare in mind - my suggestions lean more in to keeping it more with a secondary focus then, well, just another USN standard - so I expect those who want more significant changes to the main battery will disagree with me quite heavily. Survivability - So, I can't tell you how many hours I spent trying to find out how much steel is below the 3 1/2" teak decking because yes, I am mister 'as historically accurate as we can make it', and for whatever reason, can't find the damn answer - so purely game balance it is. If the ship is going to be a shorter range brawler - the thing needs armour protection, and not just side to side vs BB's - it can't have literally everything with 5 inch guns auto-penning it on rapid fire with HE without even need of IFHE. Now, if I had my way, I'd increase all of the 19 mm armour that covers the ship, but I see that getting a lot of push back so, given it is the first 'all or nothing' BB and that generally speaking the bow/stern didn't really get protection - lets roll with that. Either increase all the central side/deck plating to 25 mm (immune to standard 127 mm HE, better resistance vs same caliber guns) or 26 mm (Immunity to non-IFHE 127 mm and 152 mm round, better resistance to 381 mm rounds). The Bow and stern would still have the overly squishy 19 mm armour protection - but it would at least add a bot more to the central part of the ship that was actually protected. Even if it only reduces a handful of 127 mm rounds not penning, it's something. Firepower Main Battery - The jump from 34 to 40 I think was overkill, going down to 37 seconds and splitting the difference should be fine - especially given the various other nerfs she has over the other 2 USN tier 5 BB's in shell performance. Secondary Battery - Is fine other than one suggestion that if it can apply just to these guns, great, if not, well it won't make the main battery that much better - give them 1/4 pen. This would at least put it on par with the German secondary ships, a middle ground between their 10.5 and 15 cm mix. Though slightly more uniform in caliber, even though not RoF. AA Defense Once again, thanks for adding the 3 inch guns back. Also once again, 3 inch guns should be part of the long range battery - not mid. In fact - these 3 inch guns had better range than the 5/25 you have as the long range guns, even if only slightly. Adding the 3 inch guns into the long range band will allow them on average to add another 4 seconds of DPS to panes, currently 84 more damage, though I would add 5 damage to the 5 inch guns (100 total) and 3 to the 3 inch (24 total) which would add a base total over the entire time in an attack run (AA start at 4.8 km to 0 km) of 205 damage, compared to it's current baseline average of 1444 DPS a 14% increase. I would also alter the flak bursts - reducing the damage from an explosion to 900-1000 damage, but increasing the number of burst per salvo to 5 (matching the number of guns firing flak rounds per side). Still less than the Russian bias BB and Texas (albeit more effective than Texas because of range, which would be fixed if it and New York also had their 3 inch mounts shifted back to long range AA though Texas would need some changes to DPS numbers to not make it insanely OP AA) by a fair amount, though more than New York which I'm 90% sure it already actually beats anyway. Mobility The speed and turning while not great, can be easy enough to ignore. But it seriously needs better energy retention given that even NY/TX/AZ/Etc are all actually faster than it. The speed loss, while on occasion useful in torpedo dodging, is just incredibly bad for the ship overall. Consumable Reduce the Cooldown on DCP and Repair to at least 60 seconds, if not 40. Let's be real here - at under 20 knots, the only way it isn't out run by a ship is you either add Bogue back in, or it horror movie chases the opponent in to a corner where simply geometry allows it to close range if the ship won't engage and opts to flee. And it can pelt the thing indefinitely while it does and it waits forever for the main battery to reload. Battleships still take 18% fire damage baseline, and being tier 5 at most you get that down to 12.2% per fire IF you use the flag and have a captain built a bit more to survivability. Otherwise if you only have one or the other, it deals 14.4% or 15.3% damage per fire - and each repair party heals only 14% of HP, 16.8% if you have the flag - and depending on the ships armour - as is every 127 mm round will pen, and my proposals only cover the center section so hitting the bow is still pen damage for anything and if only 25 mm in the center still auto-pen by 152 mm shells, that A: only 50% of the damage can be healed back and B: adds up when you have the fires and takes away how much you can heal off the fire damage (which is why IFHE is still an issue - it's the pen/fire combo - even with the 50% nerf that still keeps the fire chance of 152 mm cruisers too high, mainly tier 8 and higher). But this will help cancel out the fact that it's slow and can be easily pelted from long range by these targets that unless they are unlucky or fools, aren't getting deleted by the big guns cause they dodge or make it the citadel is harder to hit if not impossible. Also better allows the ship to be more an outright heavy tank to say break through in to a cap and contest it if more than one ship focuses on it, especially if it's more than one high rate of fire ship spamming HE only. Overall this should keep it more of a secondary using BB, the increased armour and changes to DCP and Repair will help it actually last in a match, and free up some ability to actually opt for a secondary build a bit more than survivability seeing as they'll eat less HE pens, and be able to put out fires/repair them a bit faster. The change to 1/4 pen on at least secondary guns means they are useful against most ships it sees, and make up for the lack luster performance of the gun. The 3 seconds off the MB reload, the reduced speed loss in turns, and AA changes are really a bit more player comfort and geared toward more mid-range players and well, the fact that low tier AA around this tier is kinda screwed anyway - even with that extra 205 DPS in a pure state 1649 DPS unless you get some flak hits won't even take out 1 TB or DB in most cases against tier 6 CV's - and that's before your pelted by HE everything. But honestly - I'd be fine if only the armour, secondary pen, and consumable adjustments are made, or absolute minimum armour and consumable ones made. The French ships rely on speed, the German's, speed and armour combined, USN BB as a simple slab of metal that has HE poured on it as it slowly roles in to secondary range towards a cap, it'd be different than those two lines, the only thing close really is Warspite, and even then that trades a bit of armour for a tad more speed. If you make these changes, I think Oklahoma would be it's own ship that people might enjoy as much as something like Warspite.
  8. Pretty much the title. I was wondering today (after some especially rough matches) why this isn't already an option. Something we could toggle, to opt-in or out of. Simple as it sounds, turn it on, and it would allow quicker matchmaking via the current method of (up to) +2/-2 tier matches. Again, having the option ON would be for the current matchmaker. Turning the option OFF would allow for even/same tier matches ONLY, but at the cost of a longer wait time. Nothing else would change. This doesn't even have to be a "Oh let's enable this now" type of thing. I think WG could put it in as a test feature, run it for a month or two, and see what the data shows. If it the data shows that players are interested in the feature, then it stays permanently, if not, then it goes away. I see no direct downside to this feature, as it would basically stop the downtier 'seal clubbing' and put players on an even ground.
  9. I am sure it has been brought up before, but I will throw my $0.02 in. I use Voice Atttack for issuing some orders.. (ok, all, but what the heck) It would be a lot easier for some sequences.. if I could have a keypress for some standard commands. - Rudder Amidships - Engines all stop - engines All ahead full -Emergency crash back (all engines full astern until stopped) - Giver her more/less rudder (increment or decrement rudder in the current direction) Thank you for your consideration -G-
  10. Kansas City; a tier IX USN premium cruiser suggestion Normally I’m not up to this kind of stuff since I prefer leaving it to the people that are far more knowledgeable on naval history than me. That said, I happened to get my hands on “US Heavy Cruisers 1943–75; Wartime and Post-war Classes” by Osprey Publishing, as part of a free bundle of e-books during the Covid 19 quarantine. What attracted my attention was the following part regarding the history of Des Moines class and more specifically it’s 8in guns: Baltimore class, side view. Oregon City itself, note the single smokestack compared to Baltimore. I think you see where I am getting with this and what my suggestion will be about. An Oregon City heavy cruiser, an offshoot of the Baltimore class, but in a “what if” configuration, packing 3x2 8"/55 (20.3 cm) RF Mark 16s, the guns used by Des Moines class. Naming: I decided on USS Bridgeport or USS Kansas City, since both were part of the Oregon City class but ended up being scrapped. It would make sense if the abovementioned 3x2 format to be used to be on the newer ships. Moreover, with the exception of Kansas City as a contemporary littoral ship the names haven’t been used after WWII on warships. Let’s take a quick look at potential stats for such a ship and how they would translate into the game. These bad boys, as part of Salem's armament. Armament: Firing Range: 14.5-7km 3x2 8"/55 (20.3 cm) RF Mark 16 Rate of Fire10.91 shots/min. Reload Time 5.5 sec.(base) Rotation Speed 6 deg./sec. 180 Degree Turn Time 30 sec. Firing Range 15.83 km. Maximum Dispersion 142 m. HE Shell203 mm HE/HC Mk25 Maximum HE Shell Damage2,800 Chance of Fire on Target Caused by HE Shell14 % Initial HE Shell Velocity823 m./s. HE Shell Weight118 kg. AP Shell203 mm AP Mk21 Maximum AP Shell Damage5,000 Initial AP Shell Velocity762 m./s. AP Shell Weight152 kg. As we said, Des Moines main battery with all the superheavy glory that comes with it. Des Moines DPM reaches with the Reload Upgrade 312,397 DPM, with AP managing an impressive 555,851 DPM. Buffalo hits 190,909 HE DPM, and 340,909 AP DPM. Bridgeport with the Reload Upgrade is at 208,320 HE DPM and 372,000 AP DPM. To make the ship not an outright upgrade over Buffalo, Bridgeport has reduced firing range, at 14.3-7km. With the Range Upgrade you can reach about 17km. It will therefore be a decision between maximizing DPM but being almost always near medium range versus a safer playstyle at longer range. Secondaries should be similar to Baltimore, but with a bit better firing angles maybe, so as to correspond to the different layout of Oregon City. Armor: Pretty much the same as Baltimore, not many changes really. Obviously the 27mm extremities should help with bowtanking, though Bridgeport would still be relatively vulnerable when presenting broadside. Mobility: Maximum Speed32.5 knot Turning Circle Radius730 m. Rudder Shift Time7.8 sec These are the upgraded Baltimore stats, without taking into account the Rudder Upgrades. Obviously these can be reworked in a potential balancing process. AA: Now, that point is a bit moot, since AA is a pretty uncertain subject. That said, since Oregon City class was designed as an improvement over Baltimore in terms of AA gun firing arcs. Bridgeport could have the same AA guns as Baltimore, but in order to reflect the historical reasoning behind the class, I would like to see a much improved sector reinforcement timer. Sector reinforcement could last for the same 10 seconds as it does, but a 5 second reset on the timer could help make your AA more efficient, rewarding good timing. Gimmicks-Consumables: Pretty standard stuff here, normal layout of consumables, with Damage control, a standard cruiser Repair Party, the choice between Def AA and Hydroacoustic Search (5km ship detection, 3,5km torpedo detection), and a choice between Radar (10km range, 35s duraction) and Fighter consumable. Concealment: Base concealment: 13.62-13.80km (without camouflage) Max concealment: 10.70km-11km (with camouflage and Concealment Expert) Repeat after me, Stealth Radar is a bad thing. With that out of the way, Bridgeport’s concealment reflects that. Stealthy enough to creep near caps, but not too stealthy to just pop radar the moment she is detected as Baltimore can do. So with some preliminary stats in mind, let’s sum up some pros and cons. Pros First tier IX premium cruiser that is not of the “super cruiser” variety. It’s based on an existing class, using an existing weapon that was actually considered, even if at early design stages. Strong, but not game breaking DPM. Glorious superheavy AP. Decent AA that could be interesting with a reduced reset on the AA sector reinforcement timer. A-B-X layout means you won’t have to be as exposed to use most of your firepower Baby Georgia anyone? Cons: Anemic number of guns; destruction of a turret could be catastrophic Pretty decent frontally armor wise, but can otherwise get citadelled easily from the sides. Not the most agile or speedy cruiser. Relatively low base range will have to lead to a decision between range or DPM. Oregon City herself, it's my hope that we can see her sometime at least as part of a hull upgrade. Anyway, hope you found this interesting, and hey, maybe some senpai will notice. I think such a design would have some merit and could be if not noticed, at least a source of dscussion. Obviously comments, opinions and such are welcome! Sources: https://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_cr_baltimore.htm http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk16.php https://ospreypublishing.com/us-heavy-cruisers-1943-75-wartime-and-post-war-classes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_City-class_cruiser
  11. My clan mates and I were discussing the changes happening of late with CV rework, IFHE, equipment changes, etc. We came up with an idea to reward active WoWS players. Have WG do a total reset for free of ship and commander for one week. When I say active, play WoWS for a month to qualify as requirement. Maybe adjust the time period for the sake of discussion. Have the free week reset happen either every month or every three months. Again the time period is open for discussion. Give the WoWS players a chance to readjust their setups for ships and commanders for the WoWS update changes. I think the mindset for the current setup of adjust cost is based on an archaic WoT setup. WoWS is too dynamic with game mechanics to remain stoic. Changes happens quickly in WoWS development. As a result, WoWS players are the ones to lose in the enjoyment of the game much less their wallets. Now most of my commanders in for adjusting the commander skill set on average is about 500 doubloons ($2). With the demounting the equipment, it is 25 doubloons ($.10). These costs are based on premium shop pricing. The question I have, does WG really make a lot of money this way with the ship maintenance transactions? I don't think they do. To me this looks like WG is punishing WoWS players for making bad choices in ship setup. I realize that WG has to make money because it is a business, however with the micro maintenance transaction of ten cents is annoying for a ship change. I would rather spend my money on premium ships, premium time, signal flags, etc. I ask every WoWS player to examine this idea for discussion if this helps or hinder player development. IMO I think this idea is a good thing for both the WoWS players and WG. It helps players to enjoy the game more with less maintenance hassle and helps WG retain their player base with a small loyalty perk.
  12. I'm thinking that giving the capability for DD to spawn once or twice per game can bring more balance to their current state. In most games, DDs sink at the beginning due to the abundance of radar at high tiers. Combined with permaspotting from CVs and upcoming submarines, their survivability will only decrease while their duties increase in being the main class to counter submarines. Usually, the team that loses all its DDs first ends up being the losing team. As a result, it's a matter of killing DDs as fast as possible to secure victory. It also makes sense to bring more fairness to DD players to have limited respawns, because historically, DDs have always been cheaper and faster to build compared to CAs, BBs, and CVs. Since you get what you pay for, DDs are inherently weaker than the other ship types and rely on quantity as well as the element of surprise to win battles. By allowing a respawn or two, DDs can become more effective and durable to counter submarines as well as CVs.
  13. I really don’t understand why Wargaming won’t list vital detailed statistics such as shell penetration, sigma values, Krupp figures, and other values that are very important to understanding your ships capabilities. World of tanks list shell penetration and dispersion values for all tanks, why can’t wows do the same? I hate how we have all these hidden stats that can only be found out through testing or devblogs, as WG doesn’t list them in the game where they could be easily accessible. Why can’t we list he pen and AP overmatch angles for all guns in the game without having to enter it into a formula? Why can’t I know the AP pen of my battleships and cruisers at different ranges so I know what broadsides I can pen and where? And don’t give me the excuse of “it’s too confusing for new players”. Yeah well devs get off your fat asses and actually make good detailed tutorials that can teach new players how to actually play and understand the game. This is not very hard. You have all the stats, why don’t you list them in the game UI? WoT is listing more and more stats every patch, what is so hard about doing the same for WoWs? These quality of life improvements would really improve the game much more than another round of forgettable premiums. To me there is no excuse for not listing stats as essential as shell penetration in the game. All we have is a rough idea and the rare armada video that actually tells us pen values. This is ridiculous. Wargaming please add these stats and stop hiding them for no logical reason.
  14. Greetings, developers of World of Warships! I am here to address the problem of some less skilled players or maybe bots that infest high tier matches and then probably an effective way to reduce them. In high tier matches, I often met players playing high tier tech tree and premium ships despite having less than 50 Random battles in their service record. Normally they contribute abysmally less than anyone else in the team by getting two-digit base exp or less than 200 base exp whether the match results in victory or defeat. For example, I have met a Georgia who never used AP shell at all throughout the battle despite being the highest tier in the match. When I checked their overall stats, the aforementioned player only had tier 3 tech tree ship as their highest tech tree ship and less than 20 overall Random battles! I bet that they didn’t even have captain and upgrades on board of Georgia because the ability to use them is unlocked after reaching certain levels in the service record. In another separate match roughly two months ago, I met an allied Akatsuki who rushed into cap and of course it was the first ship to die in the match after being spotted by the enemies while capping. The DD player also admitted that they have skipped from tier 2 Umikaze up to tier 6 Fubuki using free exp. To make matter worse, they only played Umikaze once and then only 13 battles in Fubuki. After checking their overall stats to know their main source of freexp income, it is shown that they have Prinz Eugen and Anshan as freexp printers. The ease to obtain premium ships either from premium shop by cash or Armory by doubloons/resources is what makes these new players able to get a lot of freexp to be misused to skip tiers. Typically, these players contribute nothing to the team but become liability to the others for not knowing the basics of the game and straightaway jumping to high tiers. Therefore, I suggest a new method of progression between tiers and new condition that must be met in order to buy premium ships. By default, players need to gather xp (after modifiers are applied) in order to research the next ships in the tech tree. This progression method should stay as it is. In addition, a new method of progression is by introducing the minimum number of wins in Random battles required to unlock the next researchable tech tree ship. To be able to research the next ship in the tech tree, a player must collect enough xp and win certain number of Random battles in the current ship. This new progression system is shown in the figure below by taking Pan-Asian tech tree as example. Based on the figure above, more wins are needed as a player progresses through the tech tree. If someone is currently at tier 9 ship for example, then they need to collect 280000 xp and at the same time win 248 Random battles in that ship. If they manage to collect enough xp but the win count has not reached the minimum number required, then they will not be able to research the next ship in the tech tree. The number of wins should vary among different types of ships. For example, more wins are needed to progress throughout a BB line compared to cruiser and DD of the same nation. The ability to buy premium ship whether by doubloons, coal, steel or real money is also restricted by the progression in the tech tree. In order to buy a premium ship of a certain tier, a player must also own at least one tech tree ship of the same type at that tier too. For example, a player who wants to buy Mutsu from the Armory using doubloons must have at least one tier 6 tech tree BB of any nation. If someone wants to buy Kaga from the premium shop using real money, then they must also own at least one tier 8 tech tree CV of any nation too. Those conclude my overall suggestions for the new system of tech tree progression. I really hope that the developers consider them and make any suitable adjustments to suit the game.
  15. HMS Repulse (1939) Tier V Battleship Premium Suggestion Characteristics Class and Type: Renown-Class Battlecruiser Tier: V Displacement: 34,600 long tons (35,200 t) Length: 794 ft 2.5 in (242.1 m) (o.a) Beam: 89 ft 11.5 in (27.5 m) Draught: 29 ft 8 in (9 m) Installed Power: 112,000 shp (84,000 kW) Propulsion: 4x shafts, 4x direct-drive steam turbines Speed: 30.5 knots (56.5 km/h; 35.1 mph) Range: 3,650 nmi (6,760 km; 4,200 mi) Complement: 1,181 Armament: 3x twin 15 in (381 mm) main battery guns (Range: 30.6 km) 3x triple 4 in (102 mm) secondary guns (Range: 12.6 km) 2x 0.5 in (12.7 mm) Vickers Mark III AA guns (Range: 4.1 km) 6x single 4 in (102 mm) AA and Secondary guns (Range: 14.5 km) 2x quadruple 1.6 in (40 mm) 2-pounder "pom-pom" AA guns (Range: 6.2 km) Amour: Belt: 2-9 in (51-229 mm) Decks: 1-4 in (25-102 mm) Barbets: 4-7 in (102-178 mm) Gun Turrets: 7-9 in (178-229 mm) Conning Tower: 10 in (254 mm) Bulkheads: 3-4 in (76-102 mm) Seaplanes: Fairy Swordfish catapult fighters Aviation Facilities: 1x double-ended aircraft catapult Pros: Large main battery caliber of 381 for tier V Main battery range of 30.6 km Secondary battery range of 12.6-14.5 km Good top speed of 30.5 knots for tier V Fairey Swordfish Floatplane (Boss Music Intensifies) Cons: Weak Armour Weak AA Large target for torpedoes Easy to citadel Summary: Extremely Broken Battlecruiser Gallery:
  16. So I know all about the ongoing CV hate. Especially after Jingles gave his input about it and listing the problems. Obviously, WG isn't going to remove it. So what about a debuff mechanic? My idea is that every single time you launch a new squadron, your Aircraft restoration time increases by "x" percentage. Basically, you can't keep chucking out aircraft all the time at the same rate throughout the battle. After 1st Squadron Launch: "5% increase in Aircraft Restoration Time" After 2nd: "10% increase" After 3rd: "15%" After 4th: "20%" After 5th: "25%" Now, ongoing from here, we keep the 25% penalty but now After 6th launch: "25% more Aircraft Restoration and lose 100 HP per second" After 7th: "25% more Aircraft Restoration and lose 150 HP per second" Of course the number would be modified but this basically makes CVs more tricky to play because you need to really make your targets count instead of throwing aircraft away. This basically combines the old CV mechanics that instead of having 0 planes, you have significantly less. Just give it a thought. This should help dds much more. This is coming from a Japanese CV player, which I honestly think it is broken. I went on the test server and tried out the Hakar with a full airplane build and dealt 50k damage to a Yamato in like 2 minutes (the dive bombers). Maybe RNG was on my side or something helping me with those triple citadels but I have to say, it was incredibly broken and something needs to be done. I am trying to help out both sides here. Edit: Might want to increase the health of planes so things like Worchester and Defensive AA don't completely delete Cvs and make them useless with these proposed changes
  17. O7 captains and WG Staff Personal opinion and point of view , Destroyers are one of the ships that have most impact in the game and thinking about the future with submarines coming too , the pressure and the things they have to do on each battle becomes too heavy , they have to spot for the team , capture key areas and future the job of hunt submarines and drop depth charges, and they have so little reward or recognition for their effort at the end of the match My opinion or suggestions with so many ships containing Radar and Hydroacoustics now days , destroyers shouldn't be detected if they are completely full stopped in smoke by Hydroacoustics and yes detected by radars regardless smoke or full stopped Also a total rework or change mechanics getting some more retribution at the end of the battle on team score , from xp by shooting down planes any ship, spotting and capturing areas regardless the damage , they can have low damage but they were spotting the enemy for the entire team and there's so little recognition from that from the games and teammates , same with battleships and potential damage they receive , instead playing as a team it makes the game more like a solo player game , ",Why risk my ship for capture or whatever if I won't get support from my team or I won't get recognized for that or "x" action" battleships sniping from max range when they are the ones should be front lines getting the heat for cruisers on the team deal damage to the enemy ships Just per say an example at the end of the battle , the battle report/team score 1 battleship got top scored because he dealt 30k damage and received 500k potential damage Other battleship got deal 2k damage was at the bottom of the list but he got potential damage received of 3.5million Destroyers the same they can capture key areas and spot for the team but it's so little recognized at the end of the battle under team score and again is the ship with one of most impact in the game by capturing,spotting,torpedo or set on fire, best ship for flank because concealment they will have even more job in future for hunting submarines
  18. It's well known that when a hit sinks a ship, any further shells (or torpedoes, or bombs) will not register as hitting anything even when they do hit the sinking ship. As people are fond of pointing out, this skews any tracked statistics related to weapon accuracy. I propose an Overkill ribbon for all ordinance types. These would track as hits for things which hit a "killed" player, doing 0 damage but still counting as hits. This would return a more accurate hit ratio. In the current system: You fire all 8 guns. The first two shells to hit sink the target, the remaining 6 are "lost". This shows as a 25% hit ratio, as only 1/4th of the shots "connected". In the proposed system: You fire all 8 guns. The first two shells to hit sink the target, the remaining 6 count as hits under the "overkill" ribbon. This shows as a 100% hit ratio, as all shots actually connected. Could help players who are mindful of this stuff more accurately pick out where they can improve, among other things.
  19. I think most of us can agree that "border humping" is an annoying and unfair aspect of the game. It's very difficult to hit a ship that is doing it because they path is not easy to predict and I've seen lots of ships that are taking a lot of fire just turn into the border to survive while they flee. I think there's a pretty easy way to solve the problem: deal damage when you hit the border. There should be X number of damage points applied every second that the player is touching the border of the map. That would be a fixed number. Making it a fixed number means that slower BBs that take longer to turn away from the border would take a similar amount of damage relative to their health pool as a DD, which is quicker. But it should be a severe penalty. I'd say enough to drain the average cruiser health pool in 45 seconds. Although I don't think it would be necessary, Wargaming could even have a delayed start for the damage, so that it waits X seconds before dealing damage. That could protect against people who accidentally run into the border, although I'm not sure I've ever witnessed a player that has unintentionally ran into the border.
  20. I would like to suggest two items that I would to see in ModStation if anyone can create these items: I would like to clear WoWS clan chat on the client side. This is based on this article: The problem for me has been going on since August 2019. It is annoying in seeing two+ month old posts. I know other WoWS players that have been annoyed by this function too. I would like to have a feature option to show "Ship upgrades in battle" the same function as the "Show crew perks in battle". Make it the same for clicking on and off. I know it will help me with my video editing in saving posting time for YouTube. Just point and click with the information showing up at the player's options. I would not know how these items can be done, however I do appreciate those modders that have created past content.
  21. Recently I've been debating over a few of the ships in the armoury. Because it's such a big amount of coal to spend, I've been debating for a while now. That got me thinking. Why doesn't Wargaming allow players to test any ship in the training room? It would be good for testing ships that you want to purchase (even premium ones) and it could be good for learning the weaknesses of your enemy. There's no benefit to playing a battle in training mode, so there shouldn't really be any reason that Wargaming would be against it. If they wanted to stop players from battling in training mode, they could make it so that you can only play a ship that you don't own with bots.
  22. Admiral Scheer in 1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Admiral_Scheer Admiral Scheer was a Deutschland-class heavy cruiser (often termed a pocket battleship) which served with the Kriegsmarine of Nazi Germany during World War II. The vessel was named after Admiral Reinhard Scheer, German commander in the Battle of Jutland. She was laid down at the Reichsmarinewerft shipyard in Wilhelmshaven in June 1931 and completed by November 1934. Originally classified as an armored ship (Panzerschiff) by the Reichsmarine, in February 1940 the Germans reclassified the remaining two ships of this class as heavy cruisers. "Don't we already have Graf Spee, why another Pocket Battleship?" This is true that Graf Spee represents the Pocket Battleships in World of Warships currently, however I think having another with a more "battleship" style of play would be pretty fun and fitting since the German Line itself needs a bit of lovin'. "So how would you make them different? Why even get the Admiral Scheer?" Looking at the Graf Spee, I would differentiate the two by making the Admiral Scheer more in line with the German BB's rather than the cruisers. That said I would suggest making the alternative changes to it. 1. Main Battery Changes a. Main Battery Reload will be slightly slower than Graf Spee, Increased from 20s to 24s. b. Main Battery Range extended from 16km to 18km. c. Penetration Values Increased for AP/HE. 2. Secondary Battery Changes a. Range changed from 4km to 7.2km 3. Torpedo Changes a. Torpedoes changed to G7 Schildbutt; 90s reload, 14400dmg maximum, 66kts, 9.5km range 4. Consumables a. Damage Control b. Defensive Fire (no access to Hydroacoustics) c. Catapult Fighter Essentially the idea to differentiate the Admiral Scheer from the Admiral Graf Spee is to make the Scheer a longer ranged Pocket Battleship more in line with the "battleship" line while not stepping on the more close range and "heavy cruiser" oriented Graf Spee. Scheer would have the capability to engage heavier armored targets at slightly farther ranges with its extended main battery range, secondary range, and torpedoes. However this would be at the cost of slightly longer main battery reload times (a trait of german BBs). It would also have access to longer range secondary guns which could be used to harass enemy targets at range during loading times or to help sink enemy destroyers that wander too close. (another trait of the german BBs). However not all things are rosy for the Scheer since it would not have the ability to access Hydroacoustics...an advantage that the Graf Spee (heavy cruiser style) would have over the Scheer (german bb style) when it comes to combating Destroyer's or avoiding torpedoes. I think that this would be a fun, and slightly different take on the ship series while still maintaining the National German flavor found in the differentiating ships of Tirpitz/bismarck, Gneisenau/Scharnhorst, Prinz Eugen/Admiral Hipper. The Admiral Graf Spee being more in tune with the german heavy cruiser line, able to close the gap and tackle things up close, compared to the Admiral Scheer which would prefer to engage at longer ranges.
  23. ComputerWhiz

    What about mines?

    Would anyone else like to see mines added to the game? It would be an interesting new mechanic if some ships had the ability to dump mines into the water, especially with submarines coming supposedly. Perhaps it could be a consumable or something that certain ships carry. My primary reason for suggesting this is because I really don't see a counter against submarines. Admittedly, I haven't tried them yet, but if it's anything like that event a while back, once the sub is underwater it's invincible. EDIT: After reading some of the initial replies to this topic, I figured I'd clarify what my vision for mines looks like and how it would be implemented into the game to paint a better picture for you guys. Select ships would have the ability to lay mines. A variety of ships IRL were fitted with mines during the war. I think it would work best as a consumable, which could also give players the option to swap it out for something else if they wanted to. Kind of like how you can swap out smoke for hydro/radar on some ships currently. A few people suggested that this would potentially promote camping instead of moving about the map. However, you can't lay mines if you are camping. It might encourage some players to camp, but it would also get others into the map. Ships would be able to spot the mines and they would have the same marker as a torpedo, but without the beep notification. This means that ships with better maneuverability (like DDs) would be impacted less by the addition of mines. This would also limit the amount of friendly fire. There would likely still be some instances of friendly fire, but it's no different for torpedoes. Trolls will be trolls. The mines would have a set time before they are armed, like torpedoes currently do (but greater), to prevent ships from simply sailing in front of ships and dropping mines. This would also help to limit the friendly fire possibility. I'm not sure whether it would be best for mines to be permanently active for the entire duration of the battle or if they would at some point expire. That would involve some testing of the mechanic to see what works best. But to clarify, I'm not suggesting that you should be able to lay enough mines to completely cover the map with mines. I'm suggesting the ability to strategically place a few here and there throughout the battle.
  24. MuricanClassBattleship

    Suggestion: Team Deathmatch Game Mode

    I'm sure this has been brought up quite a lot, but I couldn't find much on it. Why hasn't WG tried adding a "Team Deathmatch" game mode? If you don't know what that is, it is basically whoever kills all the enemy ships first wins. They could make it so whoever has more players left on their team when the timer runs out, wins. I feel like it would be a nice change of pace from the objective modes we currently have. It could work decent with the current maps in the game as well, maybe even more so. It would encourage players to really be aggressive, leading to more exciting games. It's a simple game mode too, so it is fairly easy to implement. What do you guys think?
  25. I won't write all of pros and cons of Montana and Grober Kurfurst. Montana, despite of her lack of caliber, has very weird citadel protection. She has 260mm citadel belt located right under her 400mm(main upper belt) part. Iowa has thicker armor (270mm+38mm AT bulge) This thin part makes her very unreliable of protecting her citadels. Even moskva in 10km can penetrate her citadel in impact angle of 40' and Jean Bart's 15inch in 20km 20~30' (my experience when shooting montana) Every other T10 battleship(except yamasashi's cheek) can easily stop heavy AP shells when angled slightly(15~20' in long range, 30~40'in medium to close range) Does this unreliability work as concept of USN battleship line, or Montana? If not, I can strongly advise this part of armor is fixed in order to balance T10s. So how much? I hope 400mm(same as upper main belt) especially her armor is not inclined to 15'(like Iowa) GK is meant to take role of close range fighter. However,German battleship get their very bad gun arc in T9, T10. You can see turret stop rotating without any obstacles. This factor greatly limits performance of GK (which is meant to be charging.) The range and accuracy, are limiting factor due to her concept.(frankly, she needs least 21.6km range, same as Bismarck) But gun arc is different story. It is just irritating feature that does not accord to German Battleship concept. Thus, I greatly suggest her gun arc to be buffed to level of Bismarck.