Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestions'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Events
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Programs Corner
    • Support
  • Off Topic
    • Off-Topic
  • Historical Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
  • Player's Section
    • Team Play
    • Player Modifications
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests

Calendars

  • World of Warships Events

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 8 results

  1. Big’s Suggestions to Wargaming Developers Subject: Submarines and surface ship reactions to submarines. I’ve been a play tester on multiple parts of the game and want to continue seeing World of Warships thrive over the course of the years. I offered various suggestions to the RTS version of the carrier gameplay, as well as the rework 8.0+ carrier gameplay, and want to add to the list of suggestions to the submarine gameplay in the future. These are suggestions, not decrees or slated in stone comments. Please take them for what they are, and please be constructive in commenting on the subject and in response to these suggestions. 1. Submarine detection gameplay a. Currently, as per the work in progress gameplay, submarines are detected at various intervals by a series of “rings”. These rings indicate the approximate location of a submarine in the nearby area. As a surface ship enters the ring, the ring shrinks in size, and shifts to a new location, continuing this process until it centers above the submerged sub location. b. Outside of this, submarines are incredibly hard to detect when submerged, but relatively easy to spot when surfaced, both features I believe should stay in the game. However, this “ring” is a rather simple concept for what could be boiled down to a more, “skill based” concept. c. I would change the ring to become a “ping” system. Essentially a passive ability that all ships are equipped with, including submarines. This passive ability would work like the Radio Location skill, however it would only point towards a submarine when a submarine enters a certain distance to the ship. d. In a submarine, When “located” or “pinged” a submarine would receive a “pinged!” icon similar to that of the “located” warning. e. If in a surface ship, when you have “pinged” a enemy submarine, you should be warned that you have detected a submarine in the nearby area via a visual “Sub Detected!” warning sign, and a audio commentary, “Submarine on scope!” f. As a surface ship, a simple bar will appear on the screen, much like the visual representation of “Radio Location”. Where it indicates a slightly opaque bar with the word “Sub detected” in the center. This bar will track the center location of the enemy submarine model. As the surface ship gets closer to the enemy submarine, the bar will change colors from (white) “meaning far away” to (yellow) “close to you” to (red) “right below us!”. 2. In regard to depth charges. This should become a consumable that is usable by any surface ship equipped with it. a. Depth charging would act similar to how torpedoes are deployed in the game, by selection the X button, you switch to a depth charge view facing rearward of the ship. By taping the X button again, you can switch from a “narrow” deploy zone or a “wide” deploy zone. Mouse 1 to throw the depth charges. b. It should be noted that the number of depthcharges thrown is the same regardless if you choose a tight or wide spread. A wide spread allows a higher chance to hit the submarine, where as a tight spread has a higher chance to sink one if the player is confident they are able to strike the sub with a tight spread. c. Once the depth charges are thrown, the depth charges will begin launching for X seconds until the area is saturated. After that a cooldown timer of X seconds begins which will leave a surface ship unable to deploy more depth charges until the timer is completed. d. When depth charging is activated, the surface ship and submarine player will both visually see depth charges jettied from the sides and rear of the ship. e. Depending on the distance to the depth charge, a sub marine will take X amount of damage when they explode. f. Depth charges do not damage against surface ship, only submarines. If a surface ship is struck by depth charges, hits will count as “shattered” hits and have 0% fire chance, similar to how torpedoes striking objects while unarmed do no damage and break. g. If a submarine is hit, an auditory “thump” will be heard by the submarine and surface ship. h. A Surface ship should get an additional auditory notice of a successful hit by a voice line stating, “Depth charges hit the target!” i. A submarine that is hit by a depth charge will have a high chance of flooding. In the case of a submarine flooding, the submarine will visually have air bubbles erupting out of it from all sides, flashing red flood lights will pulse to visually indicate to close and far ships that the submarine is flooding. The submarine player will receive the same flooding screen animation as they do on a surface ship. In addition, if the submarine is submerged, a bubble trail will fizzle on the water surface to indicate the submarine’s location and that it is flooding underwater. 3. Ships that have Hydroacoustic will work as they currently do in game against submarines both submerged and surfaced. A Ship that activates its Hydroacoustic ability will visually see a submarine that is surfaced, but will see only a outline of the submarine when it is submerged which requires the player to have to determine orientation of the submarine to its current location in order to ascertain if it is moving towards it, away from it, or side to side of the hydroacoustic user. a. When a hydroacoustic system is over, the ship will have the normal passive “ping!” ability like any other ship. 4. Battleships and carriers will differentiate from any other ship in the game regarding submarine gameplay. Battleships unfortunately didn’t get much in the way of anti-submarine warfare during WW2. However that isn’t to say they didn’t have anything at all. My suggestion is that a battleship gets a alternative catapult plane called, “sub hunter”. When launched, the submarine hunter will automatically take off, and start flying low circles around the approximate area of the submarine. It will then drop anti-submarine bombs in the area for x amount of seconds before returning to the battleship. 5. Carriers had a lot of abilities to attack submarines, but to make things balanced, carriers should be given another type of squadron. It would be called the “sub hunter” squadron. This could compose of a wing size of X and they are armed with anti-submarine bombs. These bombs are dropped much like that of the Royal Navy Level Bombers. They saturate a small, precise area when dropped. The bombs however shatter against any surfaced ship, and produce 0% fire chance. However, against a submarine, they do a marginal amount of damage per bomb with a high flood/fire chance. This way, the bombs are kept to anti-submarine only and cannot be used for other purposes. This also forces the carrier player to either actively hunt the submarine, or not. A choice that they will have to make during the game. 6. There is a lot of commotion about the speed at which submarines travel in game, specifically underwater. I believe this is something that will be tweaked overtime to create balance between surface ship and submarine gameplay, but my initial suggestions are as follows. a. Submarines should travel slowly whenever at periscope depth. b. A submarine can lose the "Ping!" of a enemy ship if it is traveling at 1/2 speed or less. c. A submarine should get a special consumable called, "silent running", which allows a submarine to temporarily move at full speed without being detected by a "ping!" from a surface ship. This would last for 10-15s tops. d. A submarine could be given access to a engine boost ability, but only when it is on the surface. 7. Submarine versus submarine warfare is going to be a tricky element to tackle, which i believe Wargaming will solve. Initial thoughts on this are as follows. a. Submarines can engage eachother with torpedoes or with their main battery guns when surfaced. b. When on the surface, submarines can be struck by normal torpedoes and torpedoes fired from submarines on the surface. c. Submarines that are submerged can be struck by deep water torpedoes, or by torpedoes fired from submarines at submerged levels. Torpedoes fired by subs at this submerged depth cannot hit surface ships of any kind in order to maintain balance. d. A additional depth called, "deep dive" should be added, which allows a submarine to evade deep water and normal torpedoes, along with depth charges or sub hunter bombs, but consumes oxygen supplies at double the rate while remaining at this depth. E. When submerged, a sub has a limited oxygen supply timer. This gradually counts down to zero, where upon reaching zero, a submarine is forced to surface to regenerate oxygen and reset its timer. It would remain on the surface the same length of time it can stay underwater. I.e. if it has a 2min oxygen tank, to refill, it must remain on the surface for 2 mins.
  2. For how far this game has grown, there are still things in the UI that are rather irksome to deal with each time one gets a new ship. I'd like to point out some of these issues. Signals, Flags, and Camo I don't want to be asked every single time whether I want to put on a signal, flag, or camo. There's absolutely no need for this menu - just let me click the camo and have it automatically be put on. And if I want to remove a certain signal to put another one on, just let it be click and remove, not click, confirm, and remove. Premium Consumables Same thing goes for premium consumables. Sure some players might not have as much credits as I do / are bankrupt, but I don't want to be asked every single time I want to mount a certain consumable on. Make that an optional pop up menu. Naval Battles Again, I don't want to have to go to the Naval Battles menu and opt in every single time. Just automatically opt me in and give me a notification somewhere that I already am in and if I want out, I'll go and opt out myself. Furthermore, there is almost no noticeable notification of the beginning of a Naval Battle for me to bother with, such that I practically have ignored for God knows how many Naval Battles that have already passed. So in summary: Remove the confirmation menus for signals, camo, and flags and make it a single click-to-mount For signals, I'd really like to have "Pre-set" sets of signals that I normally use and can swap into for each of my ships, instead of having to slap each signal on at a time. Make the confirmation menu for premium consumables optional - many of us who have an abundance of credits don't care about whether we should mount the consumable or not as it's a trifling loss of credits. Give a noticeable notification for Naval Battle engagements and automatically opt in the player.
  3. Hey all. Been playing WoWs for a while but I'm new to the forum, so sorry if this idea has already been suggested and I've missed it. But would anybody be interested in a hardcore/simulation-type mode? Some of the features I've thought about that would go into such a mode would be: Lessened Graphical representation of shells - shells fired are less visible and no color difference in shell types. Players would have to adjust fire based on shell contrails and splashes. Remove torpedo markers - torps can still be spotted in the water by their wake and roster tail that's already in-game, just removed the red/white triangular indicators. Remove Ships HP bar??? -To balance this, the ships would probably have to be more durable. Or remove hp all together and base ship destruction off of damage to specific parts of the ship or overall damage. Not sure how feasible that would be. I've gone back and forth with this one. Would be kind of exciting to not know exactly how close your ship is to being destroyed. Reduced or removed signal flag effects- this one is self explanatory. Reduced map size - with all of the changes above, players may have a tendency to avoid engagements. Decreasing the map size would compensate for that and force players to engage and not hide. What are some other suggestions that you all have if any and you think this is a good idea.
  4. In my personal opinion, the friend who is on line should be on the top of the list. Now is just list by when you add them as friend and every time you open the friend list is laggy. My computer is NITRO 5 i7-7700HQ 16G RAM GTX 1050Ti. It is smooth 60fps in game, but there is still a significant lag in opening the friend list. Some of my friend have better computers, still struggle with this problem. This issue is been there for many versions, I can't believe WG didn't fix it. Some pages is loading too long and looks like freezing for a few seconds every time I open them.e.g.Clan page, tech tree etc.
  5. I know there's so many of these subjects but there's something that concerns me and it hasn't been posted so far. I never posted on this forum for this time the CV rework brings me in. There's something that I would like to be considered: I bought some premium CV and honestly so far I'm considering maybe for a refund maybe to stop. Before going into any directions I will of course try the rework and maybe my mind will change. But what I like in CV is the fact that you can control multiple things at the time. It's to have numbers of squads under your control that to me, makes this fun. Now that that it will be a single squad at the time, I don't think I'll still be interested into that. So here's the point: I played only CV since I started this game. I grinded up to t10 all the way and it tooks soooo long (cv is the longest grind because you have to shift to same tier 2 times). So now that I have the Midway I'm just disappointed to see that my only t10 will become unfun to play. I would just think that it would makes it more fair to have a way to get another t10. Take back all my CV if you want I just don't want to grind back from t1 to t10 again without any t10 to enjoy. By this I mean, I would be satisfied to be able to trade CV line for a BB or DD or Cruiser line. Anyway it's not like we (CV main) would win on the trade because, like I said, CV is the longest grind of all. To me it would just be a compensation so that not all the effort of grinding that I put on CV are now none. Thanks for constructive contributions here
  6. Jef_Roberts

    Royal Netherlands Navy

    Okay so now we have an Argentine cruiser to go with our Polish destroyer and a mostly phantom line of Pan-Asian ships, including an Indonesian destroyer that they bought from the Netherlands Navy. Can we get some Dutch warships in World of Warships? A navy with a long and distinguished history, unique and indigenous warships designs, innovations (the Hazemeyer Bofors was a revolutionary anti aircraft weapon when the US was still equipping its ships with Chicago pianos (quad 1.1s) and Britain was mountain 2pdr pom pom mounts). There are virtually complete tech trees for both destroyers and cruisers that would require only minimum padding with paper ships - the same as was done for Germany and Russia - and a substantial tech tree for battleships as well (all paper ships) culminating in the Project 1047 battle cruiser, a gorgeous cruiser killing beast of a ship. Let's at the very least get some Premium ships to honor this fine navy.
  7. Hello fellow Warshippers, Few things to cover. Ever since I have started Warships. I have always struggled to get to maintain a comfortable amount of credits/coins. I'm fully aware, that some ships have a 'baked in' credit earning built in (which is great for WG to do for players, and should maintain it), such as; SIMS, Missouri. I generally play with higher tier of ships; meaning T7's and above, mostly at T9/T10's. A. What is your method of either maintaining a positive credit standing? B. The "Doubloon Blowout 3" (Link: Doubloon blowout 3) Is this the right time to maximise on the purchase? or is there better time/opportunity to maximise the money to better deal? (I'm thinking of buying the T10 permanent camo for the 50% repair cost reductions for my T10 ships in port. To help with question A) Your suggestions, and methods will be appreciate it. Best wishes, LowSpeed_US
  8. As we know, the TB manual drop indicator shows where torps will be DROPED into water, not where torps will SUFACE and BECOME EFFECTIVE. It would be nice if WG can make the change so that the drop indicator shows where the torps surface instead (or show both). We all know that a basic requirement for CV player in this game is to know how far a distance it takes for your torpedoes to surface and be effective, a distance that you leave in advance so that your torps do not go under the target ship. But nowadays when I am torping more and more maneuverable ships, I found that it would be nice to know precisely where my torps would surface, since that 0.1km error of my eyeball estimation is a one-shot life and death matter. In the current state of the game, I can only estimate when surface distance of the torps and that highly limit my control over my planes. If I could know the precise surface place of my torps visually when I am baiting a DD, I could have pushed my skills and control to another level. If you think about it, it's actually something parallel to the currently in-game torp indicator for DDs. When a CV player decide to manual drop TB and the TB is locked in (indicator turns yellow), there's nothing more he/she can do and everything that happens after is automatic. What matters from this point on is where the torps surface and become effective vs where the target ship is at that point. Therefore, nobody cares about where the torps are dropped into water!!! We only cares about where torps surface and we want that to be indicated by the alt drop indicator. Is this a buff for CV? No it is not a buff, it is a change that will allow better use of CV players' skill. It would increase CV performance by a small amount but that can be compensated elsewhere. The argument is, we would rather have a ship of less powerful spec with a smoother and more enjoyable game play, rather than a ship of better spec with imprecise, stupid, and sometime frustrating game play. All being said, WG does not give CVs the love.
×