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


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • 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
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 43 results

  1. I listened to the entire 2 hour 30 minute long Q&A. There are a number of questions from Flambass, Farazelleth, and Flamu in the middle. Some are obvious (like Fara asking the question he gets asked to ask most on his video comments, "When is the Graf Zepplin going to be for sale again?" to which the obvious answer is "When carriers are done being reworked." which is what WG confirmed). I would say over half of the questions were about radar and how broken it is and WG employees were getting audibly irritated. Here's the video (really just audio). What they did say which I've never heard before were: At around 1 hour 30 minutes, WG says there is no significant statistical difference between a team with 1 radar vs a team with 3 after Flambass asks if MM will ever take the numbers radar of ships on each side in to consideration. At around 2 hours 16 minutes WG gets asked again about anti-radar consumables and WG says they are talking about a radar "counter measure" internally. There are a lot of questions/answers many are ones I've heard before and frankly I was playing Hands of Fate and half listening so I'm sure I missed some. It's worth a listen. WARNING: The Russian guy singing the Russian national anthem with his "best American accent" at the end was so painful I had to shut it off before the rest of my skin peeled off.
  2. Gold to Doubloons

    Beating a dead horse here, but seriously can we ever get a conversion of gold to doubloons?
  3. Here is a game I had in Roon, no, I don't think it should be nerfed, I just found this battle rather funny (ex: Z-23 on enemy team forgets I am German). I just found the battle funny and intense as we won the battle by coming back in the last 7ish minutes. Enjoy! 20180510_172525_PGSC109-Roon_50_Gold_harbor.wowsreplay
  4. Do we need faster games?

    Hello Everyone, This is a quick poll in regards to a topic on /r/worldofwarships. The TLDR version is that in the recent episode of the warships podcast. (https://thewarshipspodcast.simplecast.fm/665a7b62) a discussion evoled into what would be perceived as the "perfect length" for a match. "Being asked what they'd perceive as the "perfect length" u/KamiSamurai answered "12-15 mins" (which would've been my exact answer, too). Trevzor argued, "every double-digit"-length would be "really pushing it" and referenced CS:GO's ~2mins. That's where my nervous system Beat to Quarters. He went on about prep-times being too long" How would you feel about this? Do you feel the current game time is appropriate could it be longer or could it be shorter? Or is it just right. I am curious to know how the community feels about this. I personally would not like to see the games shortened by any degree. I find the 20 minutes we are given in a match to be sufficient and it provides great close matches and opportunities for epic comebacks and defeats. Please answer the poll on how you feel about this specific topic. Thanks! *Edit - Reddit disclaimer for reasons. ***Just keep in mind***: most of this is based on observation and speculation Trevzor just voiced his own opinion and perspective (not WG's official policy) so pls don't tilt there may be ~20 cases of a missing /s in this wall of text
  5. So I was looking for music for an upcoming idea I had planed (because like 80+ people asked me to do an encore of the 12 days of Euro-beat) and then I got an alert saying my WG beta game center was updating, and I then noticed it had a total war game on it. I loved the total war series growing up and it got me thinking, since WG recently jumped on the Total war wagon, would they consider maybe developing other name brands as well? and how cool would it be if WG were to make a gundam game or a robot/mecha fighting game in general? if they did it right we could have epic battles such as this What are your thoughts? Would you play a game that WG made if it had robots/mecha and or spaceships that you could play with in space? or what other brands do you think WG could maybe invest in to expand their player/customers' library? Personally, I'd love to have a Mecha game for the PC, especially if it's centered around space combat!. feel free to leave comment's suggestions below! until next time, I'll C'ya on the Seas!
  6. Montana Over-buffed?

    I feel since the cit lowering the Montana has gone from average to massively overpowered. The higher cit at least would punish you from going broadside, (not that Montana needs to with her accuracy and turret angles), but now its almost impossible to take one on in most ships. The accuracy lets them do massive damage to any cruiser in range even without a cit hit, and allows the same to DDs. Other BBs, struggle to damage even broadside montys not to mention ones that are bow on or at that "sweet spot angle". I feel one of her following attributes need a nerf to bring her more in line with other BBs and to make it more conformable for cruisers and DDs. 1. Nerf her base accuracy, the Iowa's/Missouri is already borderline OP but is balanced by less armor and 3 less guns, i feel Montana's base accuracy should be nerfed. 2. Raise her cit again, maybe not at much as before but it needs to be higher, otherwise shell pen through water needs to be un-nerfed (though this is a whole other story) 3. Reduce her turret angles for her rear turrets to the front, I'm not talking GK bad, but it should make her show some broadside to make use of her lol-accuracy guns I feel one of these 3 nerfs will improve gameplay at high tier all around and make other tier 10 BBs competitive with the Monty. Preemptive argument: Yes i know Yamato can over-match her bow, but even with this landing a cit is not easy at all and Yamato still has a broken cit model. Also-also I know Conq is generally considered OP, but her armor is not as good, but I would also like to see her cit raised or again shell pen mechanics tweeked.
  7. Did WG Just ASSUME...

    My Port preference? Marseilles? No thanks. WG, Get OUT OF MY LIFE. Take heed WARGAMING! I moved out of my parents house last week for the same reason. I am 36, I don't need them telling me what to do anymore. #grownup
  8. I've been playing the AIDS bote Henri IV lately and i can't seem to get the AP shells to perform against broadside BBs. At first I thought it was because I was too far away so i spent a few games full on cyka blyat rush BB. At the range of about 6-2km, against iowa/montana class BBs, flat broadside. I aim for waterline: "2 shatter + shell dip hard into the water"; I aim for upper belt: "1 pen 1 shatter 2 overpen", I aim for main belt: "5 shatters". So uhm, if ya'll know what's going on, I'd love to hear it.
  9. Musashi Y118 camo is supposed to give 50% bonus exp for commander xp but it's currently not working. Basically I spent 5000 doubloons for worthless ugly camo. Please fix this WG. I attached screenshot. Bonus rate is exactly same as the type 10 regular prem camo.
  10. They have the same guns. Musashi needs Yamato gun sound!
  11. In a recent Dev QnA, WG stated that the IJN DDs are not in line for any love. While I can understand where they're coming from, I do disagree heavily with WG's decision. This post is written for the purpose/aim of being presented directly to and considered by the WG developers. In the QnA, the question was "With the introduction of the PA DD's super-stealthy DWT, can the IJN DDs have their torpedoes un-nerfed?" WG's answer was a simple "No plans currently......" followed by their argument. According to WG, the IJN DD torpedoes out-damage those of other nations, which is true, and thus is a fair trade-off for the high torpedo detect. What is the flaw in this argument? Simple. Torpedo Reaction Time. Coming straight from the WoWs wiki, the TRT formula goes: (TorpDetection[Kilometers]) / (TorpedoSpeed[Knots] * 2.6) * 1000 = Reaction time. Using this formula, the reaction time of the fully upgraded type F3 torpedoes aboard Yūgumo is found to be ~9.6 seconds. Next, using the same formula for Fletcher, the American tier IX destroyer, the reaction time is found to be ~6.4 seconds. Also worth noting is that Yūgumo type 93's are 10 knots faster than those found on Fletcher(76 knots vs 66, respectively), yet Fletcher torpedoes still have near a 3 full second advantage in reaction time. In short, the final question from all this: Is the increased damage done by IJN torpedoes worth the difference in reaction time? My answer is no. It is not. With the difference in reaction times, Fletcher torpedoes are far more likely to land multiple hits due to the much short reaction time. In terms of torpedo damage, Fletcher's top torpedoes, the ones used in this example, do 17,100 damage top. Yūgumo F3 torpedo damage caps at 21,366. Is a 4k damage advantage worth the disadvantage? Not really. That difference may not sound like a whole lot, but believe it when you're told that the amount of difference that those 3 seconds make will blow your mind. How? The rate of turn and rudder shift. While it varies between ship types and each ship themselves, it goes without saying that the easier they would be to dodge. For every second the torpedo is spotted, most players will turn either towards or away from them. Regardless of which route the player chooses, every second the torpedo is spotted before it hits is time the rudder is turning, and time that the target is turning. Think of the tier X american battleship Montana, for instance. In her straight-out-of-the-box configuration, Montana will take ~11 seconds to turn her rudder from straight forward to hard port/starboard. If Montana were to be the intended target, and also the one to spot the torpedoes in the water, by the time the torpedoes strike home, Montana's rudder will have shifted almost entirely to hard flank and will be turning at maximum rate to minimize hits, usually resulting in only 1-3 hits. In the same scenario, Fletcher torpedoes have a significant advantage. With their reaction time of 6.4 seconds, the battleship's rudder would have only shifted about halfway and the ship itself will still take more time to fully react to the turn orders desperately being spammed by her captain. But in the end, with their shorted reaction time, Fletcher would land 4-6 hits on a target that, in an identical situation, her IJN counterpart Yūgumo would only have landed 1-3 hits. Conclusion: Fletcher torpedoes do more damage, because more of them hit. On top of that, Fletcher would also have an easier time striking more maneuverable targets such as cruisers if the destroyer manages to catch them off guard. A Yūgumo stands a chance to miss a torpedo salvo completely, "What's all this leading to, anyways?" is probably the thought running through most of the heads of the readers right about now. Bear with me here. Now, as shown in the previous example, Yūgumo torpedoes are less deadly than Fletcher ones for the difference in reaction times. The difference between the two results in a massive advantage in terms of landing hits vs targets. And why play a feast or famine ship, like Yūgumo, when you can pick mainly feast aboard a ship like Fletcher? How many people feel that way? Well, a lot. Data from https://na.wows-numbers.com/ Note the difference in overall battles played. Fletcher beating out her competitors and even the second place contender by over double. Again: Why play a feast or famine ship when you can only play feast? If its average damage you want to go by, then: And if you wanna go by WR: Now, I'm not normally one to bring stats into an argument, but as shown by these numbers, it is safe to conclude that the IJN DDs are under-performing on average compared to other destroyers. And these are just the tier IX DDs in the game. The story with Shimakaze and Gearing at tier X is a similar story, but Shimakaze is managing herself quite well against her competitors as opposed to Yūgumo at tier IX. A very similar pattern appears when comparing other tiers, like VII and VIII, albeit better than Yūgumo. If you wish to view those, please refer back to https://na.wows-numbers.com/ as I will not be posting screenshots of those for the sake of time. "But it's not the ship, its the captains playing it!" Arguable, but think of it this way: The IJN DDs have the highest skill floor compared to other lines. This can result iin not only deterring players from the line to begin with, but the ones who do play the line are the MOST punished for mistakes. The line is definitely a "Skilled captains only" line to play, but given the state of the line in general, and with the amount of things that can so easily go wrong (Space between torps)or just happen (Radar) , even the best players can sometimes have a hard time making the line work, as, once again, the line is a very Feast or Famine line to play. Also once again: Why play a feast or famine line when you can play anything else and just FEAST? CONCLUSION and suggestions to help the line: The IJN DDs have the most going against them. They're the greatest ones to be effected should hydro, Radar, and catapult aircraft be present. RNGesus forbid a tier X CV. While this does not make them BAD, it DOES give them the absolute highest skill floor to play. As stated countless times before, the line is a very heavy feast or famine, and requires very specific circumstances to be met before they can really shine. Minimal Radar, Hydro, preferably no CV at all, but if there is, the bulk of the aircraft are somewhere else and fighters aren't trailing you like a bunch of pilot fish, permaspotting you and all your torpedoes the second you launch them. They are really more a one-trick pony when its all said and done, and they aren't even as good at their trick as other lines of other nations are, especially at higher tiers. They have the worst guns and arguably the worst torpedoes as well. They're the least flexible line, and the approach to fixing the line, IMO, would be to increase the flexibility that the line lacks currently. While currently, the IJN DDs are certainly not bad by any stretch of the imagination. But they require very specific scenarios to perform at their peak, and those cases are fairly rare. There are many things that can screw over an IJN DD more so than any other line, such as Radar and Hydro. Unspotted enemy DDs. Aircraft. What would be the best approach to "fixing" the line? In the end, that is up to WG. Although my suggestions to help the line would be: Lower their torpedo detection to give them a little bit more room to work with, especially vs maneuverable targets. Give them a little buff to their reload and turret turn times. Nothing major, but give the line a little more flexibility that the other destroyers offer with ease Maybe some sort of new national trait. Maybe hydro won't have as big an effect on their torpedoes as it would on others. Maybe give the IJN the option to slot two torp modules and switch between them in battle for changing circumstances (Doubtful, but one can hope and dream) The aim of these changes and suggestions is to overall increase the competitiveness of the "Possibly Worst Best torpedo line in the game." The ending of this post was a little bit rushed because of time, and will be updated sometime within the next 24-48 hours. As stated at the beginning, the goal of this post is to be presented to and considered by WG devs, and if anyone else would like to have a nice, constructive debate down in the replies I would love to be a part of that. Share your thoughts and opinions. What do you think of mine? Are these valid points, or are the the stupidest ideas you've heard of ever since shock collards for blue whales? Discuss!
  12. so this will be a bit of a rant, I know that. At the same time, I have some serious questions. why is WG bases their MM off of the Hinduism "Well of Life" its the idea that pertaining to warships... that you do good, if not best of your team and win. and then suddenly you start doing good if not best of your team but losing. everyone says "well thats just the game, its MM" is it? I earnestly believe that this is done on purpose by WG.. its not fair MM. why is it WG says MM is "fair and balanced" when they allow a single team to have FIVE radar ships but give the other team ONE radar ship? that is ridiculous. it instantly give whatever team that has that much radar a clear and distinct advantage in winning, so how can you say it's "fair and balanced" I only say this because everyone that I play with, is sick and tired of this concept, sick and tired of WG saying things are balanced and fair. its not. WG decides who wins, and who loses. how is it certain people loses 6-8 games in a row, but take minimally top 3 on the team? play high tiers and 6 games you get the team that sits in spawn within 10km of eachother and wonder just why.. why you get such bad teams. especially high tier.. where you SHOULD know better. frankly on a separate note, WG why is it you making a mission, such as the Pan Asian DD hype, why do you making 50k flooding a mission? it has nothing to do with skill, nothing to do with how well, or how bad you play. it depends entirely on luck, but at the same time you make the campaigns and every other mission skilled based in some way. even the ARP ships were skill based. you needed XP, if you suck at the game it would take you FOREVER and thats if you complete it within the time.. but if you was good and new how to play you could get those ships within a few hours of playing. now however, you make a mission needing 50,000 flood damage, that is entirely up to RNG to get the flood in the first, place, luck you dont just out right kill your target, luck in hope that your target does not have their damage control ready to use. 43 games is what it took to get that 50,000 flood damage.. 38 games if you take the games out that I didn't land a torpedo. the entire mission was based on luck and random chance, not skill, not even RNG. so why is it Wargaming do you decide who wins and loses based on who you feel should win or lose? to say you don't do this, is a lie straight through your teeth. why is it you want people interested in the Pan Asian DDs by doing these really cool mission rewards to help people when they finally release the ships but you make it based upon random LUCK to do some of the missions? ...and you wonder why people become toxic and quit your games when you rig the system against them..
  13. To Staff of Wargaming and this Forum @WolfofWarship, @Pigeon_of_War, @SuperNikoPower,and all rest of the other members of Wargaming Staff. I hope everyone of you and your Families have a Happy and Safe Thanksgiving. I know that some of us can be a royal pain in the stern (I think I am at times), but speaking for myself I do respect each of you for the all work you do for us. And thanks for putting up with all of us "kids". Even us old grumpy sailors Chaos_EN3 Commander of the Old Salty Dogs
  14. 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. Trying to reinstall WoWS and Gamecenter not only installs the client on the wrong hard drive but puts WoWS folder in the place I said to put it, Can I get a WoWS Launcher instead of this scam WG calls "Game Center" ? otherwise I cant play.
  16. CC's y Recuperación del Foro Latino.

    Como muchos sabrán, hace ya varios meses no hemos tenido respuesta sobre concursos, ayuda de ningún tipo en este medio. No tenemos CC's ni mucho menos a Wargaming velando por nosotros, solo algún Moderador que quedó por aquí y eso es triste para nuestra comunidad sabiendo que somos muchos jugadores que hablamos español, y muchas personas tienen talento y tiempo libre para ser Contribuidor de la comunidad, esto nos impulsa a creer que a la empresa no le importamos y debemos aprender a hablar inglés para que tengamos Voz y Voto, en mi caso puedo decirlo en ambos foros, el conocer el inglés y formar parte de un Clan que habla este idioma me ayuda a comprender lo que sucede en el otro foro y seguir adelante, pero los demás que no lo conocen o no saben inglés quedan a su suerte, que hicimos mal? Quisiéramos saber que fue lo que hicimos para que Wargaming nos olvide y nos deje a nuestra suerte, no hicieron más eventos para nosotros, ni tampoco se animaron a buscar Contribuidores que por mucho harían de esta comunidad mucho mejor, conozco muchos jugadores que podrían ser muy buenos CC's y conozco a muchas personas que están atentas a saber que hará la empresa por ayudar a la comunidad, que en estos meses a sido absolutamente NADA - 0,siguiendo con mantenernos en el olvido y ya pronto eliminar el Foro en español porque no hay ya casi comentarios ni uso para este. Es increíble como la comunidad trata de sobrevivir por el hecho de hacer eventos por su propio bolsillo (Cosa que a Wargaming le interesa), pero también ya toda la comunidad esta perdiendo el interés en el juego, y por ende también pierde la empresa, al olvidarse de nosotros no nos dieron explicación y todo siguió como si nada en el Foro en inglés, esto de verdad nos decepcionó a todos los lideres de Clanes latinos y a todos los representantes de Clanes de habla español, haciendo que tuviéramos que irnos a Clanes extranjeros para poder obtener pequeñas ayudas de Wargaming. Si es posible para Wargaming iniciar el programa de CC nuevamente para Latinoamerica, necesitamos saberlo y reiniciarlo de inmediato.. Con personas que nos ayuden de verdad y mantengan a la comunidad viva, espero tengamos una respuesta de verdad.. Y si necesita aceptación este Post, la conseguiré.. Pero necesitamos respuestas positivas de una empresa que olvida a sus jugadores. Saludos. Battleship_Repulse - Lider de la Flota del Caribe - Vanguard in CUTE.
  17. So, I'm sure many of us forum lurkers are aware that iChase recently got dismissed from the CC program because of his recent Graff Zeppelin video. Their justifications were that he 'attacked" WG employees when he said that those who released it should be fired, and that he suggested that they should provide refunds for the ship if they were asked via ticket. I personally consider both of these to be [edited]. His video had no personal attacks by name, and was quite tame in his suggestions of punishment, none of that exaggerated "get AIDS" or "get shot' nonsense". Just that they should be demoted and/or fired. Now it is well within WGs rights to do this, I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that I absolutely detest the move on WGs part. But when all is said and done, WG doesn't care what I write on their forums, so I'm making my frustration known in the only way they'll appreciate. I run out of premium time in 2 weeks. I was going to top it up to a full year. a nice juicy 100$ to their wallet. I was probably also going to buy 100$ worth of doubloons as part of my once a year splurge on this game. Not anymore. I'm not giving WG a single cent for the foreseeable future. So, from me anyways, WG is -200$ Anyone else? Maybe keep up a running total until this is thread locked?
  18. So, and I am open to the idea that I may be very dense on this and missing something very obvious, but it *sounds* to me, from re-reading both articles a few times to be sure: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/update-069/ https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/peek-at-unique-commanders/ That to actually begin work on the Yamamoto *collection* and unlock the special customization/aesthetic options, you need to either finish the *Campaign* and earn Yamamoto who comes with your first Yamamoto crate, OR you can purchase those crates directly. That's correct right? So... where's the crates? Cause while being very open about *not* spending money on this game, I am *eager* to spend money on this and genuinely would like to know where these crates are. Are they really going to make us wait till *2.5* months pass to have the entire campaign unlocked? Because if so I have the following to say: Wargaming, Devs, Community Managers, Lend me your ears: THIS IS A BAD IDEA. Don't put a barrier between people trying to hand you money. If the Santa crates proved anything, people are *very* willing to purchase these crates and since there is a direct, tangible reward for doing so in these, you can rest assure you will see a net profit on them. So why are they not being released like, NOW? Yours truly, someone trying to push his credit card through the net port.
  19. game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game after game.....
  20. wthare you guys waiting for?

    plz release hms hood now i'd like to BUY BUY BUY IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  21. Warplanes: Premium shop bundle and ability to earn a flag (more than Warships) Tanks: Sell rare tanks for 24 hours "Tog II and Mutant" (more than Warships) Warships: Have a non-playable submarine in port, free port slot also with a front page article that couldn't have taken more than an hour to type up. Alabama was released on the 31st but it's been ready for a quite a while, they just wanted Okhotnik to sell more. I can safely say I am quite pissed off, why? Because it's been tradition these past years to have a big and fun event but to me they don't care anymore. You think they spent time on that Sub specifically for this event? I got news for you, it's been in the files(at least when I first noticed it) since October 2016 as: D:\Games\WOWS_PublicTest\new_unpack\content\ports\ship\service\OSC014 Yes, they literally did that little effort. I'm already quite burnt out from supremacy, I was looking forward to an event to help me you know play for fun for once. I think it's safe to say WG is done with April fools and Halloween events, to me they just don't care to put in effort anymore. They thought that this "troll" would get laughs but instead it's pissed off quite a lot of people. You could argue they have a lot on their plate, what with the new French line and CV rework coming sometime this year (Dec 31st anyone?) but then again they made a fantastic Halloween event I believe was the time that RN CLs were introduced (and we all know how that went for them). I had high hopes, but those were shot dead. Damn this is getting salty.. I digress, WG you royally screwed your player base for a really crap joke. And if that "fishfeed" on April 2nd turns out to be "code" for an apparent April fools patch then COOL, I'll play it gladly! But I doubt it. P.s. I actually planned on a funny April Fools mod, the submarine would've been scaled bigger and replace the Khabs model and I would've made a post like "I can pilot it no problem". But I don't feel like it now, wonder why? P.p.s. Warthunder has done much better than WG this year in terms of event, I hear it's quite fun.
  22. I think I have figured out a way to fix carrier gameplay for all; that is for those who like to play carriers, and those that wish carriers would be erased from the game. This will be a bit of a read, so I decided to adapt a “patch” list style of bullet points at the end if you wish to skip to it. However if you do skip, I encourage you to read everything before commenting as some things may not be clear as to why I want to see the following changes. Currently carriers are rather all over the board in terms of balance, gameplay, usability, flexibility, loadout styles, player styles, and in general are very hard to tweak for the developers. This is partly due to the community, and partly due to how carriers were setup in the first place. The problem seems to multiply with every patch since as the developers try to rebalance the carriers to favor either destroyers, cruisers, battleships, or other carriers. This is because carriers have a few key revolving bits of feedback that the developers are trying to work on. Carrier vs Carrier Carrier vs Battleship Carrier vs Cruisers Carrier vs Destroyers. Right now, WG has a rock-paper-scissors scheme going for destroyers, cruisers, and battleships. Theoretically, destroyers beat battleships, battleships beat cruisers, cruisers beat destroyers. The skill comes into play when a player is able to overcome his “weakness” in the type of ship he is playing and defeat his hard counter. Carriers are the monkey wrench in this scheme. A Carrier ship itself vs any other type of ship, is toast. This is the risk that a Carrier player must realize whenever they step behind the wheel. Skill comes into keeping yourself out of the fight and hidden, but close enough to decrease flight times back and forth to the target. I personally don’t see any need to tweak Carrier ships themselves. This said, Carriers, Battleships, Cruisers, and Destroyers instead put all of their collective concern into the planes. So, let’s briefly mention the different types before we get further. Fighters are the anti-aircraft units. Fighters pose no direct threat to ships, but are there for the sole purpose of escorting or defending against Torpedo Bombers and Dive Bombers. Typically, some players have begun using them as makeshift “scouts”, similar to the role of a Destroyer. They become the eyes of the team which, bluntly, trumps one of the main roles of the Destroyer, scouting. Torpedo bombers are the AP shell equivalent for the Carrier. When aimed precisely, they hit hard and if lucky, get a “citadel”; I.E. Flooding. Torpedoes with their flooding ability can quickly dispatch any ship in the game. However, the skill of the torpedo bomber handler, plus the skill of the evading target ultimately decides their impact. Just like a ship firing AP shells, and a evading ship attempting to minimize their impact via deflection. Dive Bombers are the HE shell equivalent for the Carrier. They fly faster, do little immediate impact damage, but can disable ship modules and have a slight chance to cause fire to perform additional damage. Now Let’s talk about players reactions. Battleships typically cannot do much against Dive Bombers or Torpedo Bombers once the bombs are let loose. Once a Dive Bombers has reached its drop point, or a Torpedo Bomber has dropped its torpedo in the water, it is all about reaction. Battleships can either attempt to evade, or must prepare for damage mitigation via damage control and repair. Up to that point, Battleships can only rely on their AA guns. These come in a wide variety and perform anywhere from o-k defense to overwhelming from a Carrier’s Perspective. This is mainly ship choice as certain battleships have better AA than others. Unfortunately Battleships can’t do much against a Carrier. Which is why there is so much rage from the Battleship community. From the Carrier perspective, Battleships are generally “easy” targets since Battleships don’t have any “abilities” to impact the chance of a Plane reaching its target. However, it is very noticeable when battleship has a Manual AA defense perk as his planes are quickly dispatched upon approach. Which is why you get a lot of rage from the Carrier community. In short, its simply a “praying” battle…you pray the battleship doesn’t have certain perks, while the battleship prays his AA will stop the planes. Hardly very fun for either party… Cruisers generally have very little concern for airplanes. Almost all of them have a means of anti aircraft in the way of “air defense” ability to panic the incoming planes and throw off their aiming, but also, increase their AA damage output. However this comes at the price of skill. As a good cruiser can maximize the effect of the ability through timing (I.E. let planes get closer) but a carrier player MAY overcome this ability by simply baiting a cruiser player into using it too early, then waiting to strike after the ability turns off. Cruiser community doesn’t really seem to have much grip towards planes. Many actually openly mock carrier players in game in an attempt to get them to fly over them. Destroyers…Destroyers hate aircraft the most from what I can gather from the community. The reason is because Destroyers are the eyes of the fleet. Yet a plane can perform this job much better with lower risk. The second reason is that Destroyers rely on stealth. It is crucial to their gameplay either for positioning, ambushing, scouting, or, for sending out torpedoes to a target. When a plane is in the area, it can almost completely nullify any chance a Destroyer has. The exception to this rule is gunboat destroyers who, generally, don’t rely on torpedoes for their primary damage, but it still is problematic since they need their stealth for positioning and scouting purposes. Lastly, Carriers. Carriers have planes constantly on their mind. Either their own for the above reasons, or for the enemy Carriers planes. They are the life blood of a Carrier, and once depleted, a Carrier is “knocked out” of the game. So its crucial that a Carrier player understand the role of their planes and how to use them. This is where a big grip from all boards of the community comes in. WG has setup Carriers to play their own miniature version of “rock paper scissors” within a “rock paper scissors” game. This starts immediately in the port screen when a carrier must choose a Nation. Then again when they choose a loadout. Then, once in game, they pray a Carrier doesn’t have their hard counter to either. Then, a Carrier must expand as much as they can onto the field with their planes without losing them all. With so much RNG within RNG within RNG within RNG within and RNG game, it’s a bit absurd! So the “fix” is currently to tweak loadouts and the like for each nation…this just makes it lopsided which is why at the launch date, everyone and their dog piloted a USN Carrier and currently after several patches, everyone and their dog has jumped ship and swam all the way from California to Japan to pilot the much superior IJN Carriers. All because of unbalanced patches…. So welcome back to those that skipped from the beginning and to those that just finished the long winded intro. I believe that in order to “fix” Carriers we need to have them retooled from the ground up. There isn’t anything wrong with many of the formulas of Carriers or what WG is attempting to do with them, however I think that with the community in mind, experience of those playing the game, and WG, we can collectively make something better. The following is what I think would need to happen to “retool” Carriers to make them fit into the game better. Captain Skill Tree Preventative Maintenance; (Add to skill) +10% HP of Carrier-Based Aircraft Aircraft Servicing Expert; (Remove) +5% HP of Carrier-Based Aircraft Forces Choice between them of stronger planes, or faster service time. Dog Fighting Expert;(Remove) 10% Tier difference. (Add) +10% to damage during strafing run (Focuses more on strafing skill, a player based game mechanic rather than just auto clicking) Evasive Maneuvers;(Remove) -20% to detectability (Add) Fighters disengage combat at the cost of losing 1 fighter when instructed to return to Carrier. (Allows players to have more control over their fighters. Allows them to disengage fights at will at the cost of losing a fighter) Torpedo Acceleration; (Add) +10% to torpedo arming time to Carrier-Based Aircraft (Torpedos will go faster, but you will have to put them in the water farther away from ships. This gives ships a bit more time to maneuver but if not done quickly, the torpedoes will still have a big impact) Expert Rear Gunner;(Add) Strike Aircraft do not suffer from speed loss when engaged by Fighters. (Makes this a more tantalizing choice between Torpedo Acceleration and Adrenaline Rush) Adrenaline Rush; (Add) Reduces Strike Aircraft “Panic” accuracy by -50% (Idea is so planes still take the damage of defensive AA ability, but it can be reduced by 50% with this skill making it a potential choice between torpedo acceleration and expert rear gunner) Survivability Expert; (Add) -15% Chance to Cause Flooding by Carrier-Based Torpedoes. Demolition Expert;(Add) +50% to Dive Bomber Accuracy Inertia Fuse HE Shells; (Add) “…and carrier-based bombs” to both lines (Allows Dive Bombers a higher chance to penetrate turrets, decks, etc to do more initial damage) Loadouts There should only be two loadouts for every Carrier. These should be changed to be called, “Deferred Loadout” and “Non-deferred Loadout” During Battles, it was up to the Carrier captain to either create a Deferred or Non-Deferred flight deck. Deferred Loadouts or “groups” was when the Captain would launch large squadrons of planes together. The idea was that it created better defensive groups against enemy fighters and allowed for a stronger strike against a singular target. The downside of this group was the servicing times and take off times as all planes were serviced together. The second type of flight deck was called a “non-deferred” group. This was when planes needed to get up and out as fast as possible to strike multiple smaller targets, or simply to increase strike times. Its greatest weakness was its uncoordinated appearance and high potential for being susceptible to fighter attacks. The other thing is that ALL carriers in WW2, both Japanese and USN had at least 17% of its aircraft composition as fighters. The rest was either torpedo bombers or Dive Bombers. It was very uncommon to have more than 17% fighters in a carrier on either side. Fighters were mainly reduced to either escorting, or defending against enemy strike planes, never attacking. So in WG the loadouts should be around the following rules: Every Loadout should have at least 1 fighter squadron. Every Loadout should have at least 1 torpedo squadron Every Loadout should have at least 1 dive bomber squadron. I propose that the difference between loadouts on each ship should be up to the Captain. That is, if they want to run a “Deferred” Flight deck or a “Non-Deferred” Flight deck. However the number of planes in the air does not change. I.E. Loadout Mod. 1 contains 1 fighter unit, 1 torpedo unit, 1 dive bomber unit. In this loadout there would be 6 fighters, 6 torpedo bombers, and 6 dive bombers in the air. Loadout Mod. 2 contains 2 Fighter units, 2 Torpedo Units, 2 Dive bomber units. In this loadout there would be 3 Fighters per unit, 3 torpedoes per unit, and 3 dive bombers per unit. The idea is that both styles of loadouts have all the tools needed to perform any type of role the Carrier is needed for in the game. The Difference is that now it is completely up to the player if they want to roll out with everything together or if they want to roll everything in a more micromanagement way. In theory then, if a player lumped both his fighter squadrons together, he could take on the fighter group, but if he wanted to, he could have two smaller units, either to delay the fighters, or to harass the strike squadrons. This would not hurt the deferred player’s loadout though as the deferred player would beat a non-deferred players planes due to numbers, however it isn’t as effective to stop his planes. In short, you still get the “Rock-Paper-Scissors” style of play, but it isn’t as “Harsh” if one player isn’t as good as the other. Nation Play Style This is where things can get a bit nutty. Simply because you have the different types of fighters, bombers, dive bombers, etc based upon the historical differences each had. Let’s start with USN. USN should have a heavy focus on their Dive Bombers and Fighters. USN Fighters should be heavily armored and difficult to take out of the sky, but shouldn’t do a tremendous amount of damage. (Believe they are like this now, so I wouldn’t change them). The Dive Bombers I think are fine in terms of damage, and I think they should be the basis for accuracy as well. Through the perks of captain skills, if you choose to take them, you can make them even stronger and more reliable, especially with the IFHE shell perk and DE perk changes. However their weakness should be that USN Torpedos from Carrier-Based aircraft take longer to arm than their IJN counterparts but have a lower chance to flood. IJN Should have a heavy focus on their Fighters and Torpedo Bombers. One thing that should be different is that IJN Torpedo Bombers should be allowed to arm their torpedoes faster than American Torpedo Bombers. The should also have a higher chance to cause flooding than their American Counter Parts. Core Mechanics: Battleships: Battleships should gain access to a version of the Defensive AA Ability that does 0% damage increase, but causes panic for a very short amount of time. In otherwords a weaker version of the Cruiser variant. Destroyers: Battleships should gain access to a version of the Defensive AA Ability that does 100% damage increase, but causes panic for a very short amount of time. In otherwords a weaker version of the Cruiser variant. Carriers: Fighter Planes should no longer be allowed to spot torpedo wake in the water and have a reduce ship detection rate, but Dive Bombers and Torpedo Bombers stay as normal. Fighters are meant for fighting, they were never deployed as scouts by either USN or IJN historically because it was seen as inefficient and dangerous to waste these precious defenders of the skies. This would bring dive bombers back into a role of scout bombing, the true role they were designed to be in. It would also help reduce the impact planes, in general, have on destroyers as a Carrier would then have to linger a Dive Bomber or Torpedo Bomber over a Destroyer to spot his armament at the cost of a longer flight time (lengthen arming time by keeping them in the air) This could even been placed under the torpedo armament expertise skill. Meaning that the crew reduces the visible wake of a torpedo so fighters no longer can see them. Either way I think would give back some help to the destroyer while not hindering the scouting abilities of the Carrier. Conclusion At this point I think I’ve said enough, and want to pass this up to the community to tear apart, tweak, or destroy. However I hope that WG is listening and will at least entertain some of these thoughts.
  23. Lots of accusations flying around saying people worried about the loss of invisifiring are "hysterical". Stupid, and tiresome. Let's look at some of the recent major changes WG has made to the game. *T5-6 ruined by the MM changes. Many people only playing a few ships at those tiers, or avoiding them entirely. Not good for the game. *The Great IJN torp nerf and general constant nerfs of IJN torp boats. Not good for the game or IJN torp boats. *RDF: a potentially game breaking mechanic, but fortunately no one takes it because it benefits the team, not the individual, and its effects are passive in that they curb certain behavior (like stealth flanking moves) rather than actively kill ships. Nobody asked for this skill, and its not good for the game. Yet the forums have many posts with suggestions for useful captain's skills. *The revised captain's skills. Benefited cruisers, nerfed DDs extensively, especially with the added cost of BFT and the now worthless torp reload boost of just 10%. *Recent maps are formulaic variations on each other. Not good for gameplay. *Introduction of broken radar and sonar that work through islands. This is accompanied by "radar creep" in which it is appearing on an ever increasing number of ships, including BBs and DDs, as well as creeping down tiers. Ditto for sonar, which has crept onto BBs and DDs as well. I look forward to radar appearing in T6 at some point, and to future MMs in which whole teams load in and every ship has radar. Look how the smoke and radar meta made Ranked a trial -- and WG made radar available only on T7 premiums. Pure P2W. Not good for DDs or the game. It's not "hysteria" to object to massive changes in the meta because so many changes WG rolls out harm gameplay but especially for DDs and especially for IJN DDs. It's common sense to object when there is an established record of negative results. For dedicated DD players, each change that WG makes, makes the game more of a trial for DDs, especially high tier DDs. I have curbed Fletcher and Khab play, and wont be getting other high tier DDs again. Essentially I play only T4-8 DDs now, and I suspect that many other players are making the same decisions, consciously or unconsciously. Now stealth firing, a major damage source for DDs with serious implications for the meta, is going. Look back on the changes above. Yes, objections are common sense. Don't worry, I am sure everyone will "adapt" in the same way a man who loses a leg "adapts".
  24. Wg url guy clue hunt

    Clue 1: clue1-muzzleflash Clue 2 :https://worldofwarships.com/en/content/docs/a-message-from-me-to-you/ Clue3 https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/clue3-talkshipwithme/ Some one decode plz This is a thread for people to figure out what is going on and give ideas also tags are fun _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ what we have so far thanks guys