Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'wg'.



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 Event Calendar

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 28 results

  1. This post serves as a response/update to my previous post (Link can be found in the links section below). Dispite the overwhelming evidence WG has sided with Dillonto. However, it is not the issue between me and him that I have the biggest issue with. It is the public response WG issued. (Link also down below.) In this response WG directly disregards the End User License Agreement, states polices that directly conflict with the EULA, and even state that they cannot enforce major sections of the EULA, and I will also point out how this statement dramatically affects the player base at large. It is a lot to comb through so lets get started. First issue with the statement regards this statement, “Account integrity is one of our biggest priorities while providing support to our customers. If a player has a problem and approaches us in a reasonable time, we do our best to make sure his account is not compromised. In these instances, it does not matter why it was compromised originally.” Account integrity should be important, however, according to the EULA it does matter how an account was compromised. Willing compromising your own account falls under the Account Sharing portion of the EULA Clause 5.2, and unwilling compromising of an account (otherwise known as Hacking) is covered under Clause 5.3. Wargaming in their own EULA differentiates how an account is compromised and thus has different procedures for dealing with each instance. Stating that it doesn’t matter how an account is compromised directly conflicts with the EULA. Now I understand that the Customer Service agent at the time understood that according to section 5.2.2 that WG “shall have no liability to you for any loss or damage arising from disclosure of your Account data to anyone, any unauthorized use of your Account, or any unauthorized access, use, alteration, modification and/or disclosure of your personal information.” that WG d,idn’t have any reason to transfer ownership of the Clan to Dillonto. When this agent did, they made the best decision they could based on the information they had at the time. However, by doing so WG unknowingly violated Clause 7.0.1 where WG states they do not get involved in Clan politics. With this statement WG is disregarding portions of their own EULA, going completely against it, as well as exposing a flaw in their system that once a decision is made with limited information that they will not consider changing their decision once more evidence is presented even if the EULA dictates that the decision should be changed. However, this is not the most egregious stance Wargaming took in issuing this statement. The biggest issue is this statement, “Unfortunately we cannot accurately judge personal relations between the players, and no disclosure of direct messages can help that.” If this is true, how can WG enforce the Player Behavior sections of the EULA? They are saying they lack the ABILITY to make judgement calls based on messages between players. This is especially disconcerting when you consider Clauses 12.1.3, 12.1.6, and 12.1.9 regarding harassment, bullying, hate speech, and generally just crapping on another player. In the exchanges between me and Dillonto he broke all three of these rules. Going as far to coach he friend’s on what to say to make him look good and me look bad. While personal attacks don’t affect me, that isn't true of the player base at large. In fact, since I went public about my issue with WG multiple people have sent me messages where Wargaming did not enforce their end of the EULA. The most heartbreaking story is where a player who joined the game to play CV was harrassed for almost 3 months by another player. This player chaned his name, left is clan, and had to eventually create a new account to get this guy to leave him alone. He had to do this because WG refused to intervene and enforce the EULA. Every time we log in as players we accept the terms of the EULA and agree to follow it. If Wargaming refuses to enforce the rules (and follow the rules themselves) then they might as well not exist. WG has clearly established that they don’t take the EULA seriously. I think this is the biggest issue facing us players right now. It effects everyone, not just my situation, but every player who plays this game is at risk. If you agree that Wargaming should enforce and adhere to the rules they expect us to follow let them know. Let your friends and Clanmates know. We have been desensitized to WG making poor decisions with the NTC, CV rework, etc. But this cannot stand. We as a community have to stand up to WG and let them know they cannot pick and choose when the EULA applies. It is not a tool for WG to sweep issues under the rug. They are rules that we live by, rules that keep us players safe, and rules that WG is obligated to follow and enforce. Links: Original Posts http://legal.na.wargaming.net/en/end-user-licence-agreement/
  2. So any guesses? Obviously a super cruiser right (TIX/TX). Maybe the O-Class? If it is an O, IDK how I feel about a Super Cruiser able to overmatch MOST cruisers at tier, even with just 6 guns. Could be a D or P class, but those would be too undergunned for high tiers and odd at mid tiers. Update: It's a T9 O-Class: German cruiser Siegfried, tier IX Siegfried has a very large caliber even within the range of other large cruisers — 380 mm. Despite the fact that the ship has only 6 guns, it is more than enough considering their accuracy, which is an unusual trait for large cruisers. In addition to that, this German Vessel is equipped with a special Hydroacoustic search, increased penetration HE shells and good armor capable of “tanking” enemy shells. Hit points — 62850. Plating — 27 mm. Main battery — 3x2 380 mm. Firing range — 20.6 km. Maximum HE shell damage — 4400. Chance to cause fire — 34%. Maximum AP shell damage — 11600. Reload time — 26.0 s. 180 degree turn time — 36.0 s. Maximum dispersion — 175 м. HE initial velocity — 820 m/s. AP initial velocity — 820 m/s. Sigma — 2.05. Torpedo tubes — 2x4 533 mm. Maximum damage — 13700. Range — 8.0 km. Speed — 65 kt. Reload time — 90 s. Launcher 180 degree turn time — 7.2 s. Torpedo detectability — 1.3 km. Secondary Armament: 7x2 128 mm. AA defense: 7x2 128.0 mm. 12x4 20.0 mm. 8x2 55.0 mm. AA defense short-range: continuous damage per second — 343, hit probability — 83 %, action zone 0.1–1.5 km; AA defense mid-range: number of explosions in a salvo — 9, damage within an explosion — 1190, continuous damage per second — 569, hit probability — 88 %, action zone 1.5–4.0 km; AA defense long-range: number of explosions in a salvo — 5, damage within an explosion — 1540, continuous damage per second — 150, hit probability — 88 %, action zone 4.0–6.0 km; AA sector reinforcement — 25%, sector reinforcement time — 10 s, sector reinforcement shift time — 10 s. Maximum speed — 33.5 kt. Turning circle radius — 880 m. Rudder shift time — 14.0 s. Surface detectability — 15.1 km. Air detectability — 10.7 km. Detectability after firing main guns in smoke — 13.8 km. Available consumables: 1 slot — Damage Control Party. 2 slot — Hydroacoustic Search (action time: 120 s, detection of ships: 6 км, detection of torpedoes: 4 km) / Defensive AA fire. 3 slot — Fighter / Spotting Aircraft. 4 slot — Repair Party. All stats are listed without crew and upgrade modifiers. The stats are subject to change during testing.
  3. KAAOS_Frosty

    Armory Ships

    When and if ever are the lower coal cost Ships in the Armory ever going to change????? The top ships change every so often but the Lower tier ships haven't changed in well never. Can we get them replaced as I own them all except the ones that are 250+ coal. Frosty
  4. Before getting on with it, an admission: Regardless of what we say or express on the forums, in the grand scheme of things reddit and forums across all servers account for a small percentage of the whole playerbase. That said, and in light of recent events I think many, myself included, have drawn their line in the sand so to speak. But why really? Are we just crybabies that can't admit the game is changing while we remain the same? The game was always changing, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. Most adapted, some left, others came. Even during the CV Rework player numbers have remained relatively stable, albeit statistics can never paint the whole picture. So what is the real problem behind all this outrage, especially after the unveiling of NTC? GREED That's the real issue in my opinion, and this time it has gone too far. Before I continue, let me say that a free to play game of course has to aim for monetization of certain elements, that's obvious. Similarly, companies aren't non profit, so having a steady flow of income is always important. You can play the game for free, yet "premium" content may help with your experience. In a free to play game a loyal and stable nucleus of the playerbase is paramount for the health of the game. Often these players tend to spend a bit more, and also participate in the community. This is what is endangered now. WG in the past couple of years has gone down a spiral of tactics and practices that were not only unsavoury, but also (in my opinion) paved the way for the NTC becoming the straw that broke the camel's back. But let's take a quick look first at the line of symptoms: Inflation of economy: Free XP has become unbelievably easy to farm the past years. WG has provided us with so many Free XP signals/camos that are stackable; you can farm disgusting amounts of Free XP. This in turn had a real world impact on WG. Doubloons lost to some extent the value they had as the means to convert Free XP. Why spend IRL money when you can farm provided you got a bit of time? Lootboxes: I can understand the reasoning behind it; lots of gaming giants engage in lootbox practices in their flagship titles and in addition promote an addictive behavior that can spiral out of control. To a certain extent and in a free to play game, you could cut some slack on such practices. But in recent years Premium container prices have skyrocketed. I can't comment on dropchances of ships since these aren't included, though at least based on Christmas Container Spreadsheets the chances seem to have decreased. Early Unlocks of Tech Tree Ships (via lootboxes): This practice in combination with lootboxes simply makes the grinding process irrelevant. People wonder why low tiers are in a weird state. When you can get your early Tier V+ unlock a whole month before a line hits it's no real wonder. Moreover it fuels a thirst for spending even more on lootboxes, without realizing that you could possibly unlock whichever ship you wanted on launch with Free XP that costs far less or could be even free. Tier IX+ Premium Ships: I would be willing to let that go if Tier IX Premium Ships weren't offered for cash or didn't have earning economic bonuses, yet they do. If Tier IX+ Premiums were similar to a Tier IX+ ship with a permanent camouflage in terms of earnings and repairs that would be some extent ok. Yet nowadays there are packages on the Premium Shop of over 100$. Selling Premium CVs without truly finalizing them: This is our own fault as well, since there was quite a bit of outcry in getting access again to the previously unavailable Premium CVs. New Flavor; Tech Tree Boosters: This is a new one; It started with Yamato a few months back, and not much fuss was made. But today we had this to welcome us: Grinding is further diminished, and not only that, but there is even bigger ease in reaching Tier X, what was once considered a high skill environment. Will have to wait some more for this to see how it turns out, definitely not a good step. 7.NTC: Now this is quite recent, not even 24 hours since we found out. Since it is WiP there is still time to see how this will turn out, though it looks unbelievably bad, grindy, giving pretty unfair advantages and making it a must have for anything competitive. There are already numerous threads on the specific subject, though the purpose of this post is more to highlight the process of arriving here and how greed has led to this. To draw a parallel, WoW's direct competitor, Conflict Lightning: Maritime Forces (used similar words since for some reason it's a banned title on forums), has become so overly grindy and p2w that matchmaker takes quite a long time to join a battle; teams are filled with bots because of this and there are quite a few ships that are so broken (look up PG02) that make it a title to avoid for now. Paying players and especially whales can spend quite a bit of money in a game that offers them fun and can function as a nice hobby after a long workday. Yes, WoWs always had its flaws and issues, but they weren't based that much on greed. To conclude, WoWs is at a crossroads. They can give in to their greed of quick and fat profits now and leave a bleeding playerbase that will slowly stop paying; this is a business decision and I am pretty certain there should be internal reports on similar subjects. Alternatively, WG can take a step back, evaluate the situation and start fixing things in order to consolidate their playerbase. In 3-4 years, when the game will be inevitably at decline and a new title by WG arrives, they will have people trusting their products, willing to emigrate and spend money on their new games. Until this is cleared up I am very afraid for a game I truly love and sincerely want to see succeeding . Thanks for reading.
  5. nastydamnanimal

    Boomers vs Try Hard

    Boomers in game: Dont initiate, reinforce or spot with ships they use that are designed just for this. Generally lackadaisical gameplay only aggressive when the tryhards, despite their passive teammates, have managed to turn the odds but not just by a little, oh no, the boomers will stay passive until the tryhards have assured them favorable odds of victory. Boomers on the forum: They own the salt mines in Canada If Anyone presents an idea that will change anything in game in the slightest they are instantly flamed. They think they are smarter than the rest of the gamer community. Yet they are past grown men that still play video games. So that in and of itself makes them equally as dumbazz as the rest of us. My message is this. Boomers tryharder.
  6. This week Wargaming has proven that it will in fact meddle in Clan Politics and go as far to set a dangerous precedent that all Clans should be aware of. I will keep it as brief as I can: I am the leader of KnightWolf Armada [KWA] and a few months ago we began having members of 78th Main Fleet migrating to our Clan. They informed me that 78th struggled to get enough people on for clan battles and wanted to join a clan that consistently fielded two teams. The leader of 78th at the time decided to leave the game entirely and handed over command of all 78th clans to his second-in-command at the time. This new leader of 78th decided that he didn’t want to rebuild a dying clan and instead approached me with an offer: I would have control of 78th Main Fleet to be remade into KWB, a second clan for our casual members, and he would join KWA. He didn’t want to abandon and screw over the remaining casual members of 78th so I offered to help them restructure and once they were back into the swing of things we would be allies. Fast forward to this week, the week where we were going to begin the process of restructuring and moving members where they would have the best Clan to call home. Well, hit the brakes! The old leader of 78th returns, and instead of contacting me like his second-in-command told him to he goes to Wargaming and tells them a lie about his account being hacked. They remove my alternate account from the clan entirely and impose him as leader. When I was informed of this, I brought together all the documentation I had to show that WG had made a mistake. This includes: screenshots of the conversation where he openly said he was leaving the game for good and giving his second-in-command full authority to do what he thinks is best, and citing Wargaming’s rules that state if you leave a clan you started, you are forfeiting ownership of the Clan, as well as when you share account information you are putting yourself at risk, and additionally WG’s policy of not interfering with Clan Politics. With this evidence is should be clear that I should regain control of 78th Main Fleet as he knew what he was doing when he did it and then lied to strip control away from me and have it given to him. Wargaming apparently didn’t think so. Even going so far to cite the rules that they themselves are breaking with this decision as why they can’t do anything. This is absolutely ridiculous! We did nothing wrong and WG is punishing me and my clanmates by siding with a person who did break the rules! Going even further, this decision sets a dangerous precedent for all Clans. If a clan leader leaves a clan that he started, he then at any time can create a ticket and easily take control of that clan without the consent of the existing leader or the members of the clan. How many clans out there could this dramatically screw over? All because by doing this WG is directly getting involved in Clan Politics! As a Clan Leader I observe that it is my responsibility to maintain a community that encourages fun, competitive spirit, and an environment that makes their experience as enjoyable as it can be. My members do not serve me, I serve them. I would be remiss in my duties if I didn’t do all I can to correct this injustice and make sure WG fixes this issue and doesn’t make this mistake again. Below is my correspondence with WG in an attempt to resolve the issue. For privacy reasons I have decided not to include the evidence of the guy willingly relinquishing control of 78th, however, it was sent to WG.
  7. Pictures speak a thousand words take a close look.....
  8. nastydamnanimal

    Dream MINO BEWARE

    If I could design my mino it would be something like this.... muhahahaha.....muh...muhahahahahah kill youzzz!!!
  9. Just curious since quite a few streamers (from EU) I watch will be attending a CC summit organized by WG in Moscow. Does anybody know if there will be any NA CCs attending as well? Might be a good opportunity to at least communicate some of the issues we see constantly on the forums (and I can imagine on Reddit too).
  10. nastydamnanimal

    Is WG KGB?

    Are we helping the ruskys get a better navy?
  11. 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
  12. WanderingGhost

    No witty title this time

    I decided to take a bit of a break, from playing the game, from researching stuff to continue working on my CV thread, all of it. I figured I'd start trying to at least get a couple games in, and see 2 news things in the launcher that I knew I should have just ignored, but couldn't. 8.4 testing, and plans for CV's. But no, I had to give in to temptation and look, and then slam my head against a wall a few times. For all the tune changing you did as to why you did this rework one of the more consistent things was this would be "Easier for you to balance". So 4 months in now - why am I seeing the same stupid mistakes and changes as RTS? Nerfing or buffing the wrongs things, screwing things up worse than they are, changes that in no way accomplish what they are supposed to or make gameplay worse, more frustrating or just plain dumb? You wanted CV players to be jumping right in to action and all - so now you add in a delay, like when we had reloads in RTS, so now it's going to be closer to at least 60 seconds before we can do anything fun and engaging. Gee, thanks, and why is this? Oh, because we spot the teams early, something you were made aware of oh 8 MONTHS OR MORE AGO. Well before it bloody went live. And let's really be honest here - what exactly is it REALLY going to change here? Low ball estimate about 80% of the time we all already know where the enemy team ships are going the CV just confirms it. Two brothers most of the time the team in North Spawn goes to C, the team in South goes to A, a couple ships try and delay the lemming train, and some fool rushes the middle way too early. Pick a map and it typically breaks out that one team mostly goes left, the other mostly right, everyone knows where the DD's are between RPF and them trying to cap unless Radar gets used, gunship cruisers are behind the low islands, DD's are behind islands or lurking in waters depending on which DD it is and the BB's are mostly staying in open water because of how far back they are playing and avoiding any place a DD or maybe a torp armed cruiser is hiding. And quite frankly the "better" the players involved in a match the more bloody predictable it all is. Also as a side note when I took a break to actually play it took nearly 90 seconds on Land of Fire to spot any ships flying in a straight line knowing their general direction with Implacable DB's - they really need more time? And then you have the boost changes - did any of your staff actually think through that this was going to impact ability to dodge AA and ability to attack via change in skills and timing and all that will once more add to the skill gap you sought to close? I'm guessing the answer is no. Decreasing the top speed and raising minimum speed lowers the speed range which means less needed compensation for AA meaning your not dodging it like you used to. Now add in ALL the other things you have added to make it more frustrating to use Rockets and and some TB's and makes that even better because we can no longer try to better stabilize things by using just speed and very small movements to dodge as well. Which, that and the changes in closing rates will throw off all the times we have adapted to and have to relearn, again, all that as well as likely have some adapt faster or better than others and once again just add to the skill gap that seems to be ever growing, again, because of these changes. You again accomplish nothing bloody meaningful other than to make CV's more frustrating, one of your claimed points being you wanted CV's to be more east to access and interesting to more players - this does not help. And then you have the HE bomb changes - more RNG added, increased height of drop for increased fall time meaning more skill required and removing one of the last effective ways to deal with the DD your team lets through cause we can't attack it while trying to dodge it's weapons. I'll be first to admit CV vs DD is screwed up but wanna know why my Lexington is curb stomping Fubuki's? BECAUSE IT'S DROPPING 6 1000 LB BOMBS AT A TIME 3 TIMES AT 9200 DAMAGE WHICH TRANSLATES TO OVER 3K ON PENS PER BOMB AND IT'S NOT ONE OF THE MAYBE 7 DD'S THAT ACTUALLY HAS WORTHWHILE AA. It's the same issue with rockets, with torps, with CV ordnance since inception even in freaking RTS it's ing simple damn math. I hit 1/6 of those bombs that's 1/3-1/7 of the DD's HP depending on tier. So yeah, no matter what 3 attacks it's gonna freaking feel it. It's the same issue on Hak TB's, was the same on Midway's, still the same in general in places the alpha damage is too damn high.For just ing once would you stop trying to screw with accuracy and RNG and let us have accurate attack planes that can hit so we feel like we can actually accomplish something, and just nerf the alpha damage, seriously. And won't have much impact on hitting other ships? Your changing the reticle, RNG dispersion and height they drop at - I've had near max aim attacks on cruisers and BB's lined up perfectly, a couple times target was even parked, and had bombs somehow miss. Any change is going to screw that especially against smaller and more agile cruisers. I'd also like to again point out that also the reason they are getting picked on is they tend to be alone and isolated with weak AA while more and more BB's and CA/L are near untouchable especially when out tiered. Then we have priority AA - you want it to be more effective? Because as is many BB's and cruisers especially tier 8+ aren't butchering squadrons hard enough? Having 0/6 planes from Saipan attacking a lone tier 8 French BB because it's AA shoots them down before they reach escape height isn't enough? Or that I can't see some of the heaviest AA ships till I'm basically in their flak clouds - not even counting the ones that have their own smoke generator. Or the DF AA. Or the catapult fighters that can eviscerate a squadron just like the old broken strafe mechanic because you can't deploy fighters to defend AA shreds them before they even basically spawn in. Not to mention this system is still in such disarray, premium CV's still in need of individual work - and you pushed them back out on sale. Right before hitting them with global nerf hammers. I've already seen people call you out on what that looks like. You people shouldn't have released them in the first place, but no apparently greed got the better of you. And no one considered the optics of "hey, were about to release 50 dollar ships then nerf the hell out of them, does this maybe look bad cause were selling them seemingly strong then making them weaker?" New system - same bad decisions, problems ignored, and trying to fix the problem by working around it instead of direct fixes to it. So why is it again we changed from RTS?
  13. My Real only honest problem with the cv is that when you fought old cv planes u might get killed but u whittled away some of their power just like you do with other ships. the difference being other ships keep their full actual fire power anyway. the new cv build gives cv the ability to keep hitting hard even though there planes have taken dmg. my fix give each squadron a hp bar of its own separate from the attacking squad like there would be 3 lesser bars below th cv hp pool. so the squad attacking will always have full hp until it's pool hp goes to zero then that squad is gone forever. this gives the other players a sense of well that carrier hurt me but i hurt him back in a meaningful way. this means that a cv will really have to think about what he is attacking does he want to leave his planes over that dd taking dmg to his main pool hp for that squad. more like olden times no he would not leave them over an enemy dd for long especially not a dd like the monaghan which used to murder planes left near it for to long with the AA hull. current state of things is making people hate playing ships with less AA protection that's DD/BB and a lot of cruisers to so mainly AA spec cruisers are showing up to battle . tell where is the balance if whole groups of ships are being mothballed because they don't pack enough aa to keep one cv at bay let alone 2. fix number 2 limit cvs to one per match this is only required if you don't implement fix number one. i for one will not be purchasing anything until something is done to bring balance to this game and as i have said in the fight for a "open all containers button" i spend a good deal of money on this game can you afford to lose like minded people such as me.
  14. D1xKnight

    WoWS dying?

    Recently i came across a few videos stating that WoWs is slowly dying due to complaints from the community demanding that the game has more improvements and such, so i'm investigating the reason behind this problem, since after 2015 videos for WoWS have slowly been declining in popularity and views, and that it has become irreverent now and a lost game in history, since then less and less people are coming to WOWS *Just a opinion* so is this downfall of wargaming's *ONLY* good game is caused by the people in the community? leave your comments below!
  15. @Radar_X, @iKami, @Femennenly Clearly I and others agree that WG made the right decision to shelve the proposed GC nerf and leave premiums that have been sold alone. But that doesn't mean that some of the issues that spawned the desire to balance OP premiums have gone away. I know WG believes that it has gotten better at balancing premium ships before release but clearly too that doesn't mean your perfect. So I'm hoping to open a discussion around how premium ships can be better balanced in the future and how those ships which are locked away right now might find their way back into the game. Yes many of us felt that living up to your prior commitments on premium ships was more important than achieving perfect balance. But that's not to say that balance isn't important. My first suggestion deals with bringing ships like Belfast back into the game. The answer is simple. Simply rebalance and rename the ship something like Belfast B or Belfast 47. We've got the black ships in the game so clearly this is perfectly feasible. And it would allow WG to begin selling those ships once again. You might even be able to sell them to owners of existing ships if you alter their playstyles or change their tiers. you've got nothing to lose and everything to gain. Second is the issue of how you ensure premium ships are balanced and where you want them before they go on sale. The issue, as I understand it, is that no matter how much testing you do there is nothing like having a ship out there on the live server to see how she really performs. So I'm going to suggest a new tech tree. The WIP tech tree. Ships here would be available essentially as limited time rentals. Captains can be assigned from the nation that ship will ultimately be assigned to and once assigned they get a free respec. The ship would remain in the WIP tree for a month or two until you had gathered the data you need to finalize the ship. At that point she would be removed from the WIP tech tree and once offered for sale subject to the no nerfs policy. I would suggest that any XP earned on WIP ships would be lost unless the player buys the premium ship. In that case all XP earned would automatically be converted to free XP as a reward for having participated in the development and then buying the ship. By putting the ship out there on the live server for free you get that real world experience you need to ensure she is truly balanced. You don't need to be as conservative as you might otherwise be with ship design since you will now have a period of live server play before the ship goes on sale. Also I suspect that with more people having a chance to try a ship out before it goes on sale your sales of that ship might increase. Looking forward (I hope) to a discussion around these issues.
  16. KAAOS_Frosty

    Premuim DD

    This is for WG to answer. I have a question in reference to the Aigle tier 6 DD. In the arsenal in game it says 7km Torps in the premium shop it says 8km which is it??? This is the same ship. Thinking of getting it but with conflicting Stats it does concern me. Frosty
  17. Remove all ships and make it into a sea bird watching simulator
  18. Im sure there are a few threads like this but..here is another. Naturally these aren't all feasible but lets show that we can try and improve things rather than just complain. Problem: DDs have no counter to being spotted and pecked to death by attack planes. Possible solutions? 1. As others have said, make plane spotting local only. Being spotted by a plane only makes you visible in the immediate area, not across the map. Being focused by 6 ships doesn't work out if you have paper armor. 2. Give DDs better AA 3. Reduce accuracy of attack planes. 4. I've been flying near friendly dds when they are under attack and popping my fighters. Maybe WG could make the fighter consumable stronger but only when near a friendly? 5. Others? Problem: CVs being uptiered makes it nearly impossible to damage anything let alone survive. Many are saying that AA is now ineffective. Try playing a Tier 6 CV and go against any higher tier ship. Possible Solution: 1. Make damage scale based on tier? if a T4 CV is going up against a T6 ship, make one of them either upscale/downscale its damage or defense to match the other. Problem: F key gives a CV an instant advantage. Possible solutions: 1. Make it so that the F key option can only be used once per plane type. You use it to spam torp planes once and you cant do it again for any torp squadron again. Same for the rest. 2. Use of F key imposes a countdown timer of x seconds before you can launch again. Problem: Attack planes can cover ground so fast that they can camp any cap and wait to prey on any DD. Possible solutions: 1. Impose a delay on CV launch as soon as the game starts. Kind of like how torps have to countdown before they are even available. 2. Alter strategy. DDs don't try to cap immediately. Right now, with a CV in the game, a DD isn't really spotting much. The Planes are. The DDs can lurk and be more opportunists rather than leading the charge, which many shouldn't have been doing anyway.
  19. So the CV rework has be out for a few days now and there are arguably a lot of balance issues. With this post I hope to address what made CV's before the rework, as in what is liked and hated/ how they effected a game overall. I also will address how CV's currently do this and some possible re-balances and fixes for what I believe are issues. As well as issues with the new AA system. Pre-rework CV's: Pros: Multiple squadrons allowed for concentrated attacks on a target and for spotting in different locations. Fighter squadrons allowed for spotting and for covering teammates from enemy squadrons, air superiority. Control over the CV at will and over its consumables. On the receiving end a player would guarantee damage and shoot down planes in a squadron, this would also effect the combat performance of the squadron. Limited hanger size made it a risk vs reward game-play style, meaning it usually didn't benefit the CV player to attack AA ships, and having good AA would benefit the AA ship player, but did not make them unsinkable Slow squadrons and squadron timers allowed for breaks in CV coverage, giving bad AA ships a chance between strikes. Cons: Multiple squadrons allowed for very high alpha strikes on a single player, possibly ruining the game experience for said player. High skill floor. Fighter strafe was very abusable/glitchy and would normally result in a one CV's loosing all of their planes in an instant. If deplaned a CV was worthless. Management issues at high tier because of high number of squadrons. Different game-play removed the CV player from the game, as in it felt like your were playing a completely different game. Ships with bad AA when focused had zero chance. A CV's skill would determine the match in most cases. In conclusion, for the old CV's, a lot of people didn't like the black and white of a CV match. If your CV was a worse player, you would loose the game. A good CV player would shut down the enemy CV and stomp on ships at the same time leaving the other CV basically worthless. The old CV's were not without merit though as you knew that any planes you shot down would effect an enemy CV's ability to stay in the game and that CV's could fight other CV's. Post-rework CV's: Pros: Single direct control over a squadron allows for more interaction with the game and does not divide focus. (It feels like your part of WoWs not an RTS skin of WoWs). More engaging AA system, AA can be very deadly. (It looks very impressive now as well) Each type of squadrons has a set role that they are good at, each squadrons type is similar in damage type to that of the other ship classes. Aircraft consumables makes controlling a squadron more interactive. Lower skill floor. Cons: Speed of aircraft and zero launch time (Attack aircraft are the worst offenders) allows for very early game spotting and damage, ships get spotted seconds into the start of a match now. Invulnerability on return to your CV allows for no risk attacks on enemy ships, if you don't like the situation your in after an attack you get a "get-out-of-jail-free-card" by pressing F. Zero launch timers or penalty for losing aircraft make for constant spotting in the aircraft operating zone and no break in attacks on any one ship. Unlimited hanger makes any losses sustained by a CV trivial. AA can be very strong, but most damage is done by flak bursts which a decent CV player can cheese and take little to no damage from. Any damage taken by a squadron is spread out among all the planes, this means one plane isn't focused until its shot down. This makes for a lot of squadrons attacking high AA ships and only losing one or two planes and getting away with the rest at half HP. The new AA focus system doesn't allow for focusing on a specific squadron, if under attack by two CV's this can be a big issue. Though a CV can not necessarily one shot now, they can cause crippling damage in multiple strikes to DDs and most cruisers, because of the fast return time and launch of squadrons a CV can finish off a ship in a few minutes and lose only a few aircraft to do it Beyond the fighter consumable and CV sniping, a CV has zero interaction with the enemy CV. As a CV you can not prevent the enemy from attacking teammates Higher skill ceiling than before, CV's can cause even more damage now. In conclusion a CV's planes are more omnipresent in a match now making for detection range to be a non-issue (When all ships are spotted why does it matter?) This means most ships that rely on their detection range suffer the most, DD's are not safe anymore as at the beginning of a match they are spotting in their spawn by attack aircraft and can lose more than half their HP early game. Cruisers are always spotted so BBs have a field day and BBs are constantly under attack by a CV making them focus more on planes than the battle they are fighting (though this is true for all ship types). Battles start and end very fast now as no one can go undetected for more than a few seconds. What to do about it: Aircraft speed with or without boost should not exceed the speed of the old squadrons pre-rework. No invulnerability on return (Though maybe they take reduced damage). Fighter consumable should be able to be called in where it is needed and should have an extra Km of radius. AA damage should focus one plane out of a squad. Aircraft launch and return time should have a timer. Flak bursts should be all along the path the planes take rather than just in front of it (this will make flak much harder to cheese). Edit: Always between the plane and the ship. Hangers should either be limited in size, plane restoration should be slower, or you should only be able to launch a set number of squadrons of each type before a long reload. Return to carrier F key should have a cool-down. In conclusion (the last one I swear) the new CV's need a lot of balance changes, but I think that the greater interaction in game and to put it bluntly more fun of the new CV's is a step in the right direction and I hope that we as a community can help WG to properly balance the new CV's.
  20. ELOFan

    I am excited!

    I miss my Independence, Bogue and Zuiho but thank you for giving me the Ranger. :) I know I have to rebuy Hosho to get Ryujo and I played smart move by saving my commanders by placing in reserve. I am excited to relearn to play CV's I first going to go play against bots it will give me time to master by practicing how get better control of aircraft. But still I miss my other carriers so I will leave this song here. :(
  21. Normally I am not one to tell people how to do their jobs. However, I keep on seeing issues regarding the way WG communicates with it's playerbase, at least regarding the NA server. Please keep in mind this is not a rant, tantrum or anything of the sort; consider it more of a personal opinion on some things that if changed, could benefit both sides. Anyway, here goes: WoWs is a free to play game, and as such every player is a potential customer. This means that a player has to be attracted not only by the game to spend money, but also by factors such as community outreach, healthy developer-playerbase relationship etc. While WG tries to engage in them, I consider them lacking when it comes to communication. Namely, three quite important examples of communication issues spring to mind, which if in my opinion were solved could create a better environment and thus lead to happier players. A reasonable amount of these players could even become customers, turning the effort of proper communication into profits. EXHIBIT A: WoWs Dev Blog. First of all, let me begin by saying the Dev Blog is already one of the best things WG has done for the community, giving us some insight into upcoming ships, designs, mechanics. It gives us a feeling that we can witness the evolution of the game first hand, be it good or bad. That said, the method of delivery, namely exclusively posting on Facebook, isn't optimal. While it's the most common social platform, quite a few people simply don't use it anymore. Many people can't see the posts or social media are blocked on their workplace. People have to copy the post in plain text, then post on the forum for all to see. The value of social platforms in attracting an audience shouldn't be discounted, but it's not of much benefit in this case. What WG could instead do is reach a compromise. Post ONLY the teaser pictures on Facebook as a way to pique interest, then follow up on the same day with a locked post on the forums with the preliminary stats of the upcoming ship on a separate subforum. EXHIBIT B: Monthly Missions and Discounts: We are being drip fed Missions and Discounts, with us often having to look on other servers to see what we most likely will get. Why can't all the missions and discounts be instead listed at the start of each month, with a simple tab for each week providing additional detail on offers and missions? The playerbase is old by gaming standards and with jobs/university, why not let us plan ahead on what to buy and when to have our sessions? EXHIBIT C: Purpose and Pricing for upcoming Premium Ships. With the proliferation of Free XP and in general the spread of various resources such as Steel or Coal, the way in which one can obtain a new premium ship has become quite important. People often hoard their resources or Free XP because the pricing simply isn't disclosed. This further continues the circle of Free XP and resource hoarding, creating issues for the ingame economy. Alaska is an obvious and recent example of such a case. Now, I get that plans change and a ship that was planned to be obtainable in a certain way has to become available in another. However, if it's made absolutely clear that all info is subject to change I don't see why the preliminary method of getting a new premium shouldn't be mentioned. The planned amount doesn't have to be included, just a heads up for people to know when to spend. I am sure more issues can be found with the current way things function, but I feel these are quite important. Information in our time is very valuable especially when it comes to buying products. By providing us with this info in a timely manner not only does WG create a more enjoyable environment, but also helps up make informed decisions that may result in a purchase of their digital products. Thanks for reading and sorry for the ramble.
  22. I keep getting game after game that is DOMINATED by T10 ships, in contrast to how it used to be where there was some 10's some 9s and some 8s. This isnt fun, its frustrating as hell when my T8 ships are constantly having to run for their lives from all the T10s with uber modules that WG thought were great ideas. I don't know what they did, but most of my games look like these, I get maybe one out of 10 thats anything remotely resembling a decent game anymore. WG needs to take another look at this fix and take the time to get it right.
  23. First off I would like to say that i am very grateful of the fact that WG actually Tries to fix issues and make the player base happy (Unlike Gajin, EA, and many others) and granted its not perfect, its nice that they are trying. So with all the West Virginia Threads going around I figured i would give my impute on it as Colorado is one of my favorite ships with about 342 games in it as of this post and i want what is best for the class. I would recommend the following: Suggestion 1: Give the Colorado the Marylands 1945 Hull with the 5'38"s and buff the sigma back to 2.0 instead of 1.9/1.8. 2: Add WV-44 as ether a Free XP ship or a Premium ship and give it the Massachusetts Treatment, this would be the following: Give it a lower Sigma of ether 1.8 or 1.7 and also raise the reload to 32 seconds instead of Colorado's 30, Give it a Slightly weaker heal then Colorado only with a 60-50 second cooldown instead of 80 and the same Damage control party, Give it better performing secondaries with the +40% to Accuracy and a longer range, Give it an Improved Torpedo Belt as that was one of the main reasons it is so much wider, (I'd say around 45-50% instead of the 37% or so of Colorado) 3 Make the current WV-41 be Maryland 1941, I understand this means some Changes to the 3D Model but this would work best because then the whole class would be in the game instead of 2 of the same ship. I may have missed some things here but I feel this would make the Colorado and West virginia-1944 Balance Pretty well as they would have the Same secondaries and would have Comparable AA with these hulls. this would be the Colorado C hull: and this would be West Virginia-1944 (Obviously)
  24. So with all the West Virginia Threads going around I figured i would give my impute on it as Colorado is one of my favorite ships with about 342 games in it as of this post and i want what is best for the class. I would recommend the following: 1: Give the Colorado the Marylands 1945 Hull with the 5'38"s and buff the sigma back to 2.0 instead of 1.9/1.8. 2: Add WV-44 as ether a Free XP ship or a Premium ship and give it the Massachusetts Treatment, this would be the following: Give it a lower Sigma of ether 1.8 or 1.7 and also raise the reload to 32 seconds instead of Colorado's 30, Give it a Slightly weaker heal then Colorado only with a 60-50 second cooldown instead of 80 and the same Damage control party, Give it better performing secondaries with the +40% to Accuracy and a longer range, Give it an Improved Torpedo Belt as that was one of the main reasons it is so much wider, (I'd say around 45-50% instead of the 37% or so of Colorado) 3 Make the current WV-41 be Maryland 1941, I understand this means some Changes to the 3D Model but this would work best because then the whole class would be in the game instead of 2 of the same ship. I may have missed some things here but I feel this would make the Colorado and West virginia-1944 Balance Pretty well. this would be the Colorado C hull: and this would be West Virginia-1944 (Obviously)
  25. So, you screwed up every single skin by requiring that files be newly saved. I have 1740+ files in my skins folder that I'd have to resave in order to get them working again. I'd appreciate if WG let us know if you intend to undo this mindblowingly awful decision...
×