Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
kingts

MANY NEW SUGGESTIONS

46 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

This is a suggestion forum that became a school project for history from my daughter (Bee) who is 12 and her friends. Keep that in mind in your comments. We will monitor the forum as parents and maintain their privacy. Please keep your comments to the suggestions and we thank WoW for the kind mention on their stream, and the streamers who assisted BEE in answering questions regarding these suggestions. Remember they are suggestions. King Family. 

 

World of Warships Future Suggestions of improving the game play experience.

A: Active Captain’s Log- As is a useless function in game. This should be more of an active log, your able to assign commanders and premiums from here to do away with the customer service requests to activate premiums or commanders and must wait six months. Have this an active mechanic catalog in game. Your able to purchase directly from this log. Even past commanders or premiums have direct access to mission criteria to get them.

Pros: you can now activate and deactivate captains, and premiums ships from here. This way you accidently delete something, no issue. You can reactivate it from your log. Thus it stops the need for sending premium reactivation requests.

Cons: none that I can think of, should have been done when log was launched. 

B: Skins/Camos Store- Since the beginning of the game. There have been licensed ventures, events, specials, and 1000’s of camos created that not everyone has access to anymore. I would create the CAMO store in the armory where camos are kept now. Many are options to buy in the specific ships, but too many are not that players may have missed out on. Place every camo in the game ever made here for purchase. You can limit the timeframe of camos that appear in special containers, for example Halloween, but why cut off that daily revenue from your company.

Example: The recent German camos should be available for every German line ship for you to purchase on every tier. Cost can be determined by them. 

Pro: Allows customers a variety of choices who cannot afford giant bundles. This can work within the budget of the player.

Con: Yes, but I worked hard in the event to earn mine.

Answer: Yes its free you forever, no cost. To others that were not available or could not complete it. They have the choice to get them for the line at a cost. 

Con: Yes but it would diminish those from doing the Events?

Answer: No, you would still do the events to gain such special event camos free, or pay later. It would also not diminish container sales since WoW controls the time period they would appear in the camo store, so they could add the containers to the Camo section or just offer the camo for permanent use. 

C: Combining all three games w Scenario and Mission play- Though newcomers can enjoy the fun scenarios for the first time, after a while, it becomes avoided instead of used. I would implement over the next year six new scenarios at different tiers. Several for even T10 for expert play. The thought here is to do short pve or story mode scenarios, using maps already in the game that all three games would implement that CLANS from all three games would play that would have a ranked or goal oriented end result for prizes they determine. 

For Example: In World of Tanks in the Mission Mode: Clans would do a short scenario that would allocate points and resources for the full completion of those missions. Then World of Planes would have a similar or different mission where clans in that game would be allocated points that would combine with your World of Tanks counter parts. Finally, World of Warships would do a mission (short Guadalcanal night battle for example( that would allocate points with the other two games. 

PROS: It would give Clans the option of forming the same clan the other games. Thus increasing game play and participation. Which then leads to more sales. 

PROS: Missions could be short instead of long scenarios that would not prolong the game play and you can implement current scenarios already created in each game that would eliminate long development. 

PROS: You could begin to develop very specific CLAN oriented ships, planes, and tanks that can only be attained thru this new game mode. The skies the limit for its potential sales and growth. 

CON: How would a CLAN in warships, benefit from starting the same clan in the other two games?

Answer: It would allow you to access more resources, unique prizes and maybe specific CLAN only oriented ships. 

CON: Well what if I don't want to do Planes or Tanks

Answer: You don't ever have to, but its a nice option to have. Since you can still maintain a F2P status and enjoy each of the games at your leisure with the option of gaining prizes and resources you would not normally be able to achiever. 

D: Different types of battle Ailments- two come to mind, one using two different layouts that could be a welcomed addition. One being Waves, instead of a flat constant surface, rough seas lead to many great sea battles and again up to the developer to determine the size and difference of the wave I do think intermediate and expert players would welcome the challenge, The second being Night Mode, Battle of Java Sea, Guadalcanal, and Kriegsmarine just to name a few. Again, another type of fun nerve racking type of battle that I think would enhance game play. Other elements ICE on ships and sea, Ice that forms on your guns or patches of ice in the ocean that your break thru and slow down. Lightning storms that effect instrumentation. 

PROS: would expand the gaming experience

CON: The game is hard enough without long ailments hurting you even more

Answer: First these ailments would be short in duration. Waves maybe 1 minute or 2...Night Mode for a period duration or lightning store. They are not meant for long durations. 

CON: Won't it prolong match play

Answer: Not if the duration is limited and like everything else tested properly

E: EARLY GAME support-Without changing the dynamic of the game. I can see T1 being a new stage for pre-WW1 naval battles adding Galleons, Balloon Carriers and a game format that was pre WWII. Since Clan battles and Ranked don't usually appear in the lower lines. There are steps you can do to increase the game play by having am early game format. Some of those suggestion 

SHORT MELEE SQUIRMISHES: 3 v3 short battles 

SHORT scenario modes- Quick team scenarios of early game mode warfare

F: Multiple Division Clan Battles- Instead of 2 teams, why not 4 or 6 teams placed on the map, similar to the Events where you have multiple Division play. If 22 ships is the maximum on a map or if they can go 24. Then 4 teams of 6 player divisions might be a really fun new aspect to the game with standings 1st to 4rth

PRO: Would entice more participation. Enhance the PVP experience

PRO: Like a bowling league could lead to bracket team leagues

PRO: Could lead to great Clan Ranked and Ranked combined events.

CON: Would it not complicate the clan battles more.

Answer: Not really since each team size is up to them to determine. With proper color icons. Teams could identify enemy clans easily. 

CON: Could it lead to "immunity" gameplay or lopsided results 

Answer: You could illegalize immunity. Chat can be option not allowed, so such tactics could be monitored. Would it stop from two opposing team single players from combining on another. NO, but that is the fun of all the possibilities in this format. This format of course would be tested. 

G: Renting T10 for T10 RANKED game modeWith strict guidelines and similar to how CLAN battles allow rentals for participation. With certain goals met. A player could have the option of renting a T10 and EARN entry into ranked. Earned being the key word. These are suggested must requirements to have such a possible 

To earn the possibility 

  • 1. MUST have two (TBD) tiers at a minimum of T6. This could be expanded to three tiers or a high tier minimum like 7. Up to the developer.
  • 2. Those who earn the free rental it would be RANDOM, gain on one of the two lines player has met req.1 or random-developer's determination. 
  • 3. T10 would have no upgrades-Player's responsibility and be given a 6 pt Captain to keep. Costs for upgrades are the players responsibility, but they keep the upgrades for later use. 
  • 4. Developer limited CAMO for doubloon purchase is optional, but limited in its statistics compared to permanent 
  • 5. Rental must enter the Preliminary Stage Ladder before earning ranked placement: For example if the Ranked season starts at R20. The player must win 6 preliminary stages F-to-A (or whatever they designate) to qualify for R20.

PROS: Players would see the end result of the line their working on. This gives the player choice as to continue or start a new line. 

PROS: Would give 3,000-5,000 player who would not normally qualify for R10 the opportunity to participate for resources. Why leave that amount out every R10 or ranked season you do. This hurts sales and participation. Not a wise business model

PROS- It would not deter grinding since they have qualified by reaching the certain tier minimums required to do it. 

CONS: There are enough potatoes and bad players in ranked. Why add more.

Answer: You are assuming all players who get rentals are bad players. Since R10 ships are available to all in the Play Test Server. Remember, such players have to earn ranked placement, so they will have matches under their belt prior to entry. By the time they have grinded several lines to that minimum requirement, most should be experienced enough to play. Also, expert players or intermediate players already at T10 will not be hindered by such matches. They will finish where they intended to whether 12th, top 10, or no. 1. Such players that you describe that are 'awful' would be awful at T10 anyway. You cannot leave a large base out of ranked for selfish reasons. As I said they must earn entry, have a limited window for the T10 use and be responsible for the ship's development. 

CONS: Aren't you rewarding them and stop them from grinding to T10?

Answer: No, since they would have gotten there eventually, the rental is limited (TBD timeframe-3 days to whatever). The pinnacle of that line could inspire not deter grinding. It could also lead to ship sales, and supply sales. More revenue. More Participation. 

In GAME perks changes

1.       In zoom-show the sonar or detection highlight of the ship. One the issues with in and out ships disappearing, and reappearing is it is damaging to the eye impaired and reflects more a computer glitch than an actual function. If Sonar sends an active pulse. Then highlight the ship, especially in zoom to be silhouetted or revealed without showing specific parts to the ship. Both Sonar and Hydro show the effect of revealing a ship or torpedo, but the constant re-appearing and disappearing function puts strain on the player unnecessary.

2.       T4-Carrier: One of the more dominant ships in the game at its tier especially in multiple players per team. 3 on each side. I feel sorry for the rest of the ships. I would limit this to 2 per side only and have each Carrier have 1 fighter drop per plane type, per match. At the very least it would offer T4 ships of other types some measure of protection for even a short period which were used at those time periods and be more consistent with the other tier carriers. To have it set up the way it is now leads to toxic behavior, frustration and unbalanced matches. Either increase the T4 ship AA’s which would not be consistent with history or give each T4 carrier a minimal fighter drops.

NEW GAME MECHANIC

MINES- Over a million mines alone were dropped in WW1=WW2 and as a new game mechanic again consistent to the times as floating death tracks on reckless ships. Though in game I would minimize their damage potential depending on their tiers. This could make for a fun in game addition provided you limit ship types in tiers. I would also give longer reloads and only 1 drop of a mine and not multiple drops in a rotation. There could be two types of mines. Though throughout naval history mines were used to block harbors, and control shipping lanes, here they could be a fun.

A.      The drifting CONTACT Mine-very simple mechanic, the one mine drop floats a top and drifts, after a set time period it activates and after a ship of any type enters a specific short range circle it would go towards that ship slowly, Dmg can be set per the developers discretion. Only submarines and destroyers should have this capability.

B.      The Moore Mine- Again very simple and a mainstay of modern naval warfare as well could only used in higher tiers. When the mine is launched (1), the mine with the anchor floats first and the lead plummet sinks from it (2). In doing so, the plummet unwinds a wire, the deep line, which is used to set the depth of the mine below the water surface before it is launched. Again, damage and execution up to the developer

WHY mines- Two reasons, it brings a new dynamic to the game, but I would caution testing and proper implementation. Does the developer allow friendly damage or limit the amount dropped per divisions and random compliments? Second reason is as an action game offering players choice enhancing more to stay within the game.

Counter- Cruisers-Subs can add a module that would allow them if Hydro or Sonar is active to detonate the mine from a distance, and DD’s can drop depth charges to detonate Moore mines. Again, before players go nuts. Mines must be implemented wisely and tested. This can be pretested in future Events or in a new scenario.

PROS: Would bring another fun dynamic to the game

PROS: Would deter parking

PROS: Could create a new line of ship or be used as a consumable option so you gain Mines, but lose something else. 

PROS: Can be limited in timeframe in the water, similar to how torpedoes have a limited range and timeframe of use. 

CON: You would have matches with unlimited amounts of mines everywhere.

Answer: Actually no, they would have a duration time like everything else and recycle time for usage. 

CON: All I need is to get wrecked by another mechanic in the game

Answer: DMG to be determined and tested, and how it worked in the real WWs, but the mine mechanics damage output would have to be determined based on history and illusionary game mode land. 

CON: It would stop players from pushing. 

Answer: Not true since the time frame of activation can be limited. It would be more timing than eternal use. 

CON: How would it stop parking

Answer: Again developer's discretion, but in theory the mine could be placed near an island were such an occurrence of parking could occur, It would drift, and even if parked, the mine could be launched on the opposite side thru drifting to the other side. Even detected by radar or hydro would eventually force the parker to move or plan ahead of taking the dmg. 

CON: Players would plant them in caps to stop capping

Answer: Though true that they could lay it in a cap. There would be a limited timeframe, so the stall maybe minimal. 

 

Again All suggestions and all open to discussion. Please refrain from name calling if you don't like an idea. Its a thought and up to them to decide. Their vision, we are just the drivers. Thank you. I look forward to your responses. 

Edited by kingts
To note that it was a family suggestion tread.
  • Cool 9
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[KIA-T]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles
1 hour ago, kingts said:

MINES -PROS: Would bring another fun dynamic to the game

I'm interested to know how a static area denial weapon is fun or dynamic, let alone the both put together.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

@Akeno- First hello, second I tend not to reply to comments on a suggestion, because it tends to lead to a back and forth. However, to answer your comment since I am not sure your asking a question or just commenting on the subject of mines.

Answer: First, egg layers or mines have been implanted very successfully in other naval action games. If you don't view WoW as a simulator. It's a game that needs to grow. Second, I explained two different types of mines based on real history. Its a game mechanic, and how they would want to finalize its usage is really up to them. My description of fun or dynamic is really up to the player, some may not find it fun, and some may.

It is a subjective and I do think its a discussion they maybe having. What they do with that suggestion is up to them and you know like anything else will be tested by players. They may look at as an opportunity to create "Mine" ships, like the USS Avenger or other famous mine layers, or simple add it as an upgrade, taking away something else you may normally use. It gives the player choice. IF and that is a big IF they do my suggestion then we will see how it works and how its implemented and then judge. What they decide the mines damage output would be, duration, implementation, and usage is up to them. I myself would welcome it, but will judge whether its fun or dynamic when and IF it ever comes. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

NEW SUGGESTIONS I WILL KEEP LISTING IN THIS TREAD AS I GET THEM

LIGHT SUPPORT CARRIER-

An idea for a new line of carriers in all the tree lines as a separate line. Would be the light air craft carrier. Though there are some in game as 'attack' carriers like the USS Saipan. Here the thought was to create a new line of carriers that had more of a support theme to them and not basically an attack in plane waves theme to it. 

This would be the only carrier type to have four different plane types instead of three. A more defensive carrier. It would have 3 defensive type plane modes and 1 offensive type game more. MOst were converted cruisers and would have three features.

1. Great Speed- This class of CVs are the only type equipped with a speed boost. 

2. Re-enforced super water tight subdivision compartments with no real citadel to take advantage of.

3. Strong defensive ship to ship guns. 

PLANE TYPES with 4 support type planes for more defensive game play.

A: Scout Trainer Bowie Plane: This 2 plane scout drops a one time healing bowie within a radius pre determined by development. This would have a short duration and would begin to repair ships by a ailment order set by development. Fire, Flood, Engine or steering, decrease repair reloads. Optional could repair hulls to a set number. These would be based on real scout planes with larger detection radius and larger hit pool.

B: Hydro/Sonar Scout Plane- (Observation Scout) This 3 plane scout drops a bowie similar to the healing bowie but instead drops a one time sonar bowie that pings to a sonar pulse detecting enemy vessels within the radius of its drop. TBD,  This works similar to SONAR in game, and the bowie will emit a pulse for a duration set by the developer. 

Hydro Pulse: The CV commander has the option to switch it to a hydro pulse bowie, which would work in game similar to the Sonar bowie with a larger radius and duration. This Scout Plane can be used to detect ANY enemy vessel, including subs. 

NOTE: Both bowie types can be destroyed by enemy fire since it floats above the surface. 

C: Scout Trainer Plane- This squadron of scout or fighter planes have limited offensive capabilities, but like a field cropper has a specific function to assist stealth ships.

Fog Trailer: This would allow the Scout Trainer to lay down a fog trail assisting screening vessels with a duration of smoke, shielding them from fire and detection. The smoke mechanic would still apply. 

D: Scout Bomber Plane- Depending on the type like the US SBN or  SBF bomber scouts that had great speed and dual purpose to scout and attack surface or underwater targets with two types of bomber drips. Again TBD by the developer. 

Single Dive Bomb- When selected the Scout turns into a one time bomber delivering a devastating pay load again to be determined by the developer. 

Single Depth Charge Squid again when selected would dive to drop one single depth charge that would explode over a large area at the depth determined by the developer

NOTE: Only the scout bomber and observation scout are equipped with a limited anti air defensive capability which would auto engage a fighter drop.

Question: Why bring in these type of small carriers into the game when CV's are already covered. 

Answer: Three reasons. 1. Sales 2. To give a more balanced experience and break up OP CVs of multiple insertions into one match.  Like 3 T4 CVs in a random on each side, or 4 cvs in a match. Remember that the light air craft carrier is for support not offense. Its well timed use can be the difference in close matches. You can pair them up so each side has an offensive carrier and light support carrier bring more balance to the matches. 3. Offers teams more support to different areas of the map. That DD who has no smoke, a well timed detection or critical one time strike without adding over powered CVs. 

Question: If I cannot use fighters, torpedo and bomber squadron. How capable would that support carrier be in a battle

Answer: Clearly the light aircraft carrier is limited offensively, but it not without its capabilities. Its great speed can grab critical caps. Its defensive secondaries can make encounters costly. It has fighter drops, scout bombers, and its speed boost could prolong a match just enough to be decided by points. Again all this would be tested. Light CVs are meant for full team support, not to be over powered cruisers or battleships. 

Question: Is this creative idea based on any history. 

Answer: Long list of small carriers I have described have been around since before WW2. They are meant to be fun little support ships. From the USS Cowpen, to the tiny HMS Triumph, Spain's Dedalo, Indias Vikrant, IJN Shoho, French little Lafayette, and many other examples. Fun, Fast, Support with a little kick. A great pair for the regular CVs in game now. 

Question: Could multiple Light CVS be in a random match and do all have to be support oriented.

Answer: If you mean similar to the USS Saipan in game, that is up to the developer to decide its support parameter and yes multiple support cvs could be in a match. This is an initial suggestion they can expand or reduce it implementation. Up to the developer to decide.

 

Little Dynamos and full initial ideas they can expand from. Thanks

300px-USS_Cowpens_(CVL-25)_at_sea_on_31_August_1944.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21
[ICO]
Members
59 posts
1,684 battles
18 hours ago, kingts said:

 

 

On 10/26/2020 at 2:17 PM, kingts said:

 

Cool suggestions! I'm not expecting anything described here to be implemented soon or at all, but I often find it fun to discuss these kinds of hypotheticals.

re: Active Captain's Log
I don't have so many premium ships or captains that I activate/deactivate them and I'm not entirely sure what that even means, but sounds fine I guess. 

re: Skins/Camo Store
I like this idea, there are quite a few camos that I just refuse to use the 'last copy of' because I like how it looks, and occasionally I slap it on some ship to look at, or take a screenshot of in port. 

I would even take this one slight step further and say that there should be a double or +50% cost custom 'permanent camo' option for all ships. So say I have some T7 tech tree ship I like to play a lot. for 2k dubloons I can get some pretty conventional/historical 'type 17' perma camo for it. Now say for 3k or 4k doubloons I could choose a 'custom perm camo' option. It'll still do the standard -3/+4/-10/+50 as the normal perm camo (or perhaps it'd be reasonable for this to have slightly more economic benefits, say -15% and +60% instead of -10/+50 etc... but I digress) however the catch is that you can choose the appearence; based on some other camo you have in inventory (maybe this will consume the camo, idk) so if you want your KGV to have permanent union jack, or your Helena in Stars n Stripes, or your Gneisenau in Tropical etc etc... you can do that.

re: WoT/WoP integration

Sounds like it could be fun, I don't play WoT or WoP or know much about them, I think this might be more viable if it wasn't as heavily tied to clans. Sure there could be benefits and stuff for folks in clans, but I'm not sure if there is a large enough playerbase (people who are active in 2-3 World of (insert vehicle name) games simultaneously) to justify that as the core basis.

I do like the idea of combined arms warfare though, shelling ground targets etc... 

re: battle ailments

I like these ideas, and think the game could do with more of these. I'd even say have more

Solar Flare/Magnetic Storm: really messes up torpedo accuracy (after every .5 km traveled, every single torp can deviate left/right by 5degrees by rng)

Heatwave: increased fire chance and duration and decreased reload times

Storm: (navigation interference same as waves) + increased flooding chance and duration, decreased fire chance and duration.

etc...

re: Early Game Support

I think this could be done with T2-4s more than T1s. T1s aren't bad but they're all like... the same ship more or less. the 'pre ww2' T2-4s have a lot of character and history and I like them a lot but the whole '99.9% of directives/missions have a T5 minimum req' kind of discourages revisting them after you tech past the first time. I'd like more 'colonial era' WW1-ish stuff. Watch a lot of Drachinifel, Think it'd be great if there were some low tier gametypes focusing on that. 

Say have a selectable mode called "Colonial Clash" just like randoms/ranked/co-op/ops etc... When you enter it, it's like ops where there's a game of the week. Say this week it's Russo-Japanese war. so you can only have t2-4 Russian and Japanese ships. Then next week it's Italo-Turkish war, so you can only have T2-4 Italian and German (since the turkish navy in that was basically ships they bought from Germany) ships, etc etc... And some neat little operations components on these maps that you don't see in vanilla randoms, just like bastions, repair ships, etc...

re: Rental for Ranked

Mostly ambivalent on this one, 

I kind wish the free clanbattle rentals were usable in any mode. My view is that hey, here's a T10 from some techline that I've never touched or am only like T5-6 in, and I'd love to try it out maybe just in a co-op battle or two in it and I'll enjoy it enough that it'll motivate me to invest some time in grinding/learning the line proper. But I can kinda understand why they don't want that. (newbies flooding T10 randoms in ships with lv 1 captains with no upgrades)

re: perk changes

ambivalent about the radar and I think the whole T4 carrier thing is overblown. Yeah they have a major advantage there etc... But I'm consistently confused about how the T4 carrier problem is so frequently cited, because of how quickly T4 can be progressed through (xp reqs).

I don't understand why this is such a point of contention unless people just spend massive amounts of time in T4 beyond progression purposes because they just really like that one ship... or are PR/WR farming, and the enemy CV is interfering with the clubbing. 

Also I thought it was already capped at 2?

 

re: Mines

too big for me to wrap my head around how this could interact with existing stuff, no comment. Sounds like a cool concept, but this is from my perspective an addition on the scale of 'submarines' in general. Which is not something I'm strongly for or against, just very first encounter, aliens stepping out of their flying saucer equal parts trepidation/excitement knowing there's going to be a LOT of changes with this, but not sure about the particulars and what to expect.

 

re: light support carrier

Sounds cool on paper, I'd love if there was a friendly CVL like this on my team in ops or randoms etc... But I think I would really really hate it if they were on the other team. the whole spotting specialization sounds like this will balloon CV match influence even further, leading to much faster and catastrophic blowouts at even lower CV skill disparity threshold than currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

NEW SUGGESTION TO THE LIST

DOCK CUSTOMIZATION UNIT

Since the dock is part of the game to introduce premium releases for grind and doubloons. I thought WoW was missing a golden opportunity for revenue and make the Dock more fun and less a show piece. The question is how to introduce a rewarding experience with the dock feature and not take away from their model of how they do content.

A: The DOCK camo creator-Here you would gather important resources to create camos within their creations to then upon reaching the targeted resources needed. You could apply the base color camo they have designed as  one reward. Then depending the resources selected and acquired missions and goals they set. Have choices of three combination color schemes. This feature would only be available for now for Tiers 1-5 in your lines since they don't offer permanent camo options for all there ships. It would work as follows:

1. Select the T1-T5 ship- This ship would enter the dock in a port manner.. Note it would then be unavailable to use until completion. The set time would be determined by them depending on the tier and ship type.

2. Camo Design Que- Whatever they desire either based on history or creative means. They would give you a neutral (Gray) permanent camo option. The stats of that camo would be up to them depending on the tier, ship, and schematics they wish. Note: that the camos would not excess their mission or standard camos. The COST would be their discretion depending again on the tier. An example: Tier 2 IKM DD could be doubloon cost or steel cost and each design could be the same cost or different. Their choice.

3. Missions rewards for Dyes: Dyes could be introduced into the game as part of rewards for completion of missions, be in crates, available for sale in the camo store per my suggestion above, or their armory or premium store.  They can be clan supplied or whatever they wish. These dyes would have basic color schemes based on historical or the developer's strict adherence. For example: US DD line could have dye options of navy blue, red, white, black, and off gray as their only choices. Upon completion of these missions. Once the exact qts needed are acquired. Then the ship is ready for final coloring and cost.

4. Cust. Painted Camo: Now they could limit your design options to 1, or up to 3. That is up to the developer. However once you meet all the requirements. Then the player would pay one final cost for completion within reason and again to be determined. It could a different resource used or task. The doubloon costs in total should be much less than the normal 1K permanent camo cost. However again its up to the developer.

Once complete the player now has a new permanent camo for their selected T1-T5 ship and a sense of individuality without exceeding the developers historic preferences. The ship would then launch back into the line completed and ready to go.

PROS: Cuts down of development since the Dock and pre determined camos would have little development time

PROS: Gives players options for their T1-T5 ships as far as camo selections and still would have choice with the large amount of camos they have earned. So it would take away from the grind, continued sales of special camos or other mans since T1-T5 have no such permanent options.

CON: I have been dying to get camos on my lower ships. Why should I work for more camos when they can just sell lower tier camos in the future.

Answer: They could, but doubtful since they have never done so probably for balance and cost reasons. Here your utilizing both the developed DOCK and adding a nice customization feature which exists in most games. That the player feels they have a say in its own ship's end design. They could expand on this base idea to other Tiers above T5, but for now as a test trial. I thought why waste the dock feature. Give the players choice. That leads to more participation and more sales. 

CON: What do you mean by pre existing design. Why can't I design my own?

Answer: I am not sure coding wise this would be practical. Since having 1000s of complex designs could be problematic and not based on history which they could want maintain. The 1 to 3 design idea is their call and would give them control and implementation of those specific designs. For example, They could do in the US BB line a simple two color design like the USS Olympia giving you choice of Red and White or Blue and White. Its is really up to them. You could just keep the base two color template design of gray and off gray. 

Question: So it would work like a costume coloring station? What would determine the camo's strength and stats?

Answer: Since your massive collection of camos can be placed on lower tiers. Those stats would have to be determined by them for a permanent camo, and would probably not exceed certain higher tier permanent statistics. However, its their call. 

Question: Love this idea, but how long would your ship be unavailable and won't that slow my grind?

Answer: That is to be determined by them, two factors would depend on this. 1. Let us say the total time was 5 days just for fun.  3 days to do step 1 and 2 days to do the final coloring. The first part is easy, you pay the cost and then choose the design. The ship is then in the dock for those 3 days unavailable (They could add an additional cost to hurry this process). Step 2 would have missions to offer you the dyes needed to do that step. You could opt out keeping only your base camo. OR you could continue and then they would give the missions to attain the dyes needed with a time period. You could miss the deadline. In this case no harm and your base camo and ship simply leave the dock. You can then re-attain such dye missions in the future pay the cost again to place the ship into the dock, and then complete part 2. It would not slow your grind everywhere else, but in that particular line, you would not have the ship for the time period, simply play another line. Now keep in mind this idea is experimental and then can alter it or set the parameters as they wish. 

DOCK CUSTOMIZATION UPGRADE

B: taking the same premise of using the dock for something else besides camo creation or premium ship creation. WHAT if you could customize a single change on any T1-T5 ship. Now keep in mind two factors to this idea. It would be one permanent change to ships they would designate and would be a addition from subtraction upgrade premise. The idea here is to again give players choice as to the final build, BUT based on history and the developers controlled application to maintain balance. Keep in mind this idea is experimental. Note: The customization of the upgrade could coincide with the above colorization option to avoid multiple costs. 

How it would work.

For now T1-T5

1. You would select your desired ship to upgrade paying an initial cost (TBD). The ship would have a upgrade timeframe and would unavailable to play entering the dock. You would see costs and upgrade choices prior to final payment to give the player the option to not do so.

2. Once you select the cost and option. The ship begins its upgrade (As an option the developer could show basic animation of the DD, CA, BB, SU, or CV having parts removed and new parts being readied. Now the catch, depending on what your options are for that ship. To upgrade one part of the ship, you would have to sacrifice another part of the ship. Addition by subtraction and since the developer controls those options they know what is reasonable to maintain balance. For example: The St Louis-You could remove one of its guns to add an additional AA based to increase that AA historic application to give you more AA defense, or remove an AA mount to add some additional armor protection numbers. You want to add 2 more torpedo's to that T3 DD, lose an AA mount. Addition by subtraction and within the developers discretion .OR give you multiple changes on an existing ship if you pay the customization cost. I will explain in the answer to developer inquiry.

3. Once the timeframe is done and costs met. Your permanently customized ship is ready to go. If sold you would lose all your customization and would have to redo the process. 

EXAMPLE: I decide that the T5 Omaha needs to be upgraded. I want to add 2 more  AA 76.2 mm/50 Mk22 mod. 2 to her arsenal. The option would mean I would lose one of my 533  torpedo launchers. or whatever the loss or cost would be.  OR I want and increase in armor strength front and back, but I lose armor strength somewhere else. They could give me both options as one change. Keep in mind its a crude example

Addition by subtraction. I strengthen the ship in one area, weaken it elsewhere. They could offer multiple changes on any one ship they wish. 

PRO Gives players more control to the ship type they would prefer without unbalancing the ship tier or parameters. 

PRO: Could offer more balance in lopsided 

Question: For the developer to maintain balance, aren't they just offering you a different version of the same ship?

Answer: Yes and no since the changes would be listed. To the developer they are simply realigning the same ship. Which in history they did multiple times. To maintain balance they would have to test these changes, but from development very minimal since all the work is done already.  It would cut down the complaints of balance. In game we all drive the same cars, and for balance that must be maintain, but customizing that car does not mean un-balanced. It means different car types. Remember you may want better wheels, but you may lose more control on those turns follow. Addition by subtraction. 

Question: why not do it for every tier

Answer: They could and the costs for doing so would be higher. However, T1-T5 is more a reasonable goal and the option may not be available for every ship. They determine the criteria and cost. So you want better velocity on the US DDs, lose something else, you want more AA mounts, lose something, you want more guns, armor, lose something. Based on history and their options. More speed...etc. 

Question: They give you different torp, hull, and upgrades now. Why customize your ship at T1-T5

Answer: They do to a point not all. You cannot alter the AA builds, armor builds, engines on most T1 and above ships. If I want more AA mounts to stop T4 carriers from torpedoing me to death I can't or If I want the front hull increased to protect me charge I can't. What I am proposing is more player control to define the ships they grind. Within reason.

Question: How long would the ship be unavailable and you said a different version of the same ship, What other options could I do?

Answer: The timeframe, cost, and specific changes would be up to them. They could include a fire prevention wax that reduces fires for a duration increase, moving armor layout numbers to the players specifications, Taking a gun off for something else, adding an AA mount. The skies the limit to the customization allowed, but its their call. The question you should ask if in my example, YOU could make the Omaha, what you change, but had to maintain the same options. This is not about increasing gun sizes or adding stronger advanced torpedoes, but giving the player a small change or two to alter the build of the ship to fit his fighting style. 

 

NOTE Both ideas like all the other are suggestions and would have to be tested and approved before implementation and ofc room for improved suggestions on those ideas. I will keep posting here as they come. 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

NEW SUGGESTION TO THE LIST

MAP FACTION WARS: New game mode

This could be for clans or single play. The idea would not be difficult to implement using existing maps and using historic World War infamous battles and scenarios without them actually creating an in depth scenario. This WW simulator would work like 'area' possessive goals. They could have a wide variety of fun War combat scenarios that would basically be a capture the locations format using all existing ship lines with exceptions to the specific battles fought.

How it works:

Faction wars would be a game mode that would be conflict between multiple countries for specific countries or areas of an overall map. Unlike full World War simulators where players would play a specific country and try to defeat an opposing major power. Faction Wars are small single player or full clan oriented goal oriented capture or defeat modes that is more about territory take overs than pvp win/loss modes. Each territory would have key benefits to both the single and clan oriented supplies towards and ending winning goal. They would be simplistic in its goals, and could coordinate with the mission ques for other missions. The format can be several country oriented goals or a single location.

Rules

1. Each Map Task would have five sections. Not only would the faction have to win that section but hold it to counter attack.

2. Time Limit could be set for days or hours.

3. Counter Attack defense can only be done by existing surviving players, or newly assigned Clan members that did not participate in initial attack. Single players would assign a 'bot mode' that the opposing player would have to defeat to retain that area.

4. Developer determine the size of each clan representation to a max of 4 or 5 ships per side. (See example below) However the clan would have to select one country representation. Single players would represent one nation type with other single players in nation vs nation modes for that section.

5. Each encounter would gain resources for the clan as well as individual resources. There has to be an incentive for players to do faction territorial warfare. Where the prize is worth participation to be determined by the developer but it cannot be flags or something that is not worth player's time.

6. Map tasks can be based on realistic famous battle scenarios or fictitious ones. See examples of both.

EXAMPLE

BATTLE OF TSUSHIMA

MAP: Sea of Japan

Participants: IJN, RUSSIA, (ASIA and ENGLAND could be involved in scenario)

Tier I-3

Clans would pick their country representation and only play ships from those nations. Map up to the developer. Confrontation of 4 v 4, 5 ships per side in a fog of war 5 sectioned. Each faction would battle for key areas of the map. Once obtained that section would have 3 bot defenders as well as that clan's additional assignment of 2 additional clan members in that countries represented nations ship criteria for defense only. Time period is again up to the developer. 

Each section could have bots, anti ship mortars or other obstacles as well as the enemy factions in that section. Developer's choice

Destroyed you are eliminated from the rest of that encounter. The same ship can be played again for another section only, but only by another clan member. If a single player is defeated. The game mode ends.

Damaged ships under 1/3 would have a delay repair period. Resources used to repair is up to developer.

Multiple Factions can all go towards one goal. A faction that enters an empty section would face 5 ship bots. Once battle is engaged no one can enter that section until battle is resolved. 

Sections can also have weather and other ailment obstacles from heavy rain, snow, storms, night or whatever the developer deems necessary.

Winning faction gains an ultimate prize that is worth the endeavor from a large steel, oil, or coal payment. They have the option to clan defend of that section by 3 other clan challengers for more prizes in defense mode. 

Single player mode: Each player would represent one of all ship types. So in the above example- If he selects IJN, he would be able to select DD, CA, BB from tier 1-3 to attack each section, but note the opposing ships could counter that players choice. He could go into Section A with an IJN DD, Section B in an IKN BB, the damage scenario would still be the same. Remember you are also facing real players of other nations combined with area bot and defensive measures. It is possible that all four single players select the same section of different ship selections to face one another for control of that section. 

EXAMPLE 2

A pretend scenario Battle for African Coast or whatever made up scenario they would wish. 

Tier 4-6 or Tier 8-10

Participants -Germany, Japan, US, Russia, same criteria above. They can alter the participants as they wish and include both famous battle scenarios or made up ones. 

The battle mode is not as complex as it sounds. They could expand or simplify this suggestion as they wish. The goal is to reward players with prizes not normally attainable. Encourage clan and single play and give CLANs something more tangible to do instead of just having Clan Battles or owning a clan. Faction Wars can have multiple scenarios and grow from its initial implementation and of course be tested. What we don't want is a boring format. This is a simulation scenario format of capturing flags and sections for dominance. Also very important that your really not adding anything more from a creation stand point unless you merely create a map of a specific location, like Battle of Midway or Japan. Merely using existing maps and creating a fun pvp multiple player format.

PROS: Big prizes and great use of Clans

PROS: No additional development really necessary since you are using an existing ship base, maps that are done, and resources.

PROS: Gives a game format that works similar to a "Naval full war simulator"

Question: I like the idea, but does this not cater to elite players and participants?

Answer: Though their is no rule against elite or pro players participating. You would all be on the same tier level and it would be no different than a random battle mode, only a more goal oriented format. 

Question: I am no fan of clan battles, why would I do this format

Answer: A solo mode option, large prizes than normal for incentive, and great pvp fun. You can choose to do a clan format, but don't have to. It appeals to both Clan pvp play and solo play. 

Question: If my "team" or solo play goes into a specific one of the five locations and there is no "real' player what would happen?

Answer: You would face the developer's defense of that section, whether bots or bots and defensive land guns. They could face subs, carriers, or other opposition. They could choose to retreat or defeat those forces so ship selection could be vital to success. Once that section is captured and depending on what the developer deemed fair. Your defense could be set to auto, where a stronger defensive combination of bots can be created incase an opposing player attacks your section. They could also request resources to build up those defenses or allow you to enhance it for resources. Remember the idea is to win the entire scenario not just win one and defend. Clan defense would be two additional clan members in charge of defending that area from either an opposing PVP team force or what is left of that force. Once all the single players ships are eliminated or clan is too weak to continue, the scenario ends. Placement and prizes are determined after.

Question: What happens if my ships is crippled but not sunk as that section is resolved. 

Answer: You pay a restoration cost which would delay you. Giving the opposing players time to capture other sections. However once healed, you would continue as normal either in defense or offense. 

Question: I already have enough to do in my grind. How does this help me. Can I play a premiums ship?

Answer: You gain experience in the line for participation. Can gain even more prizes to assist you in other areas of your grind. If your going to restart a line and play a format. You can do co-op, random, or Faction wars, so all would help with that grind. Since this is a pvp format. Experience would be just as defined. Yes, you could play earned premium ships. 

AGAIN remember this is a suggestion. Simulator Naval Faction battle format has been done before, but here you have an incentive to be in a clan besides just doing your thing. Not everyone likes Clan battles, Random play, but why not give you a more fun different scenario to pvp and co op play. Remember this is just a suggestion. The developer can take this idea and tweak it as they wish. Players gain great resources, maybe a new ship, or more resources for participation like coal, oil, steal and research points combined. All up to them. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
41 posts

I think the mines would be better as a deterrent to going for the map boundary. I remember back in Call of Duty 1&2 if you ran beyond the map border, you stepped on a land mine and died. Rather than having us get stuck on a border, or giving some players a mechanic to exploit, implement the same sort of mine fields that were put into the Dunkirk PvE op. If your charge out beyond the map, you run into a mine field. Breaching the current border results in a warning, like in Battlefield. Ignoring, and not reducing speed at the initial warning means you begin detonating the mines. At first the mines actually hurt but when the ship reaches a certain hp level, the mines just disable systems and make you easier to kill. This last feature is to prevent players abusing the system, and suiciding like SPG players do in WoT when the match is over. By only disabling the player after a certain point, it still gives the enemy a chance to get the kill rather than this system denying them. Something like this would be less awkward to get off of, and wouldn't give other players the opportunity to ride the border like we see now. I'd rather have to make a u-turn than deal with the clumsy half power stuff that with the current border.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

NEW SUGGESTION TO THE LIST

Very quick suggestion

For 2021 Christmas Holiday

I would recommend 5 or 10 of your top streamers on Twitch be represented as Christmas Santa Claus Captains. I thought it was a missed opportunity to honor the great streamers that have built your game up and though those streamers are well supported. It would be a kind gesture to allow them to be honorary captains in game. It does not have to be Christmas only, but other holidays

Mr. Gibbons as Captain Santa Gibbons: With a great voice and fun look. The captain of St. Nick

Jamdearest as Captain Jam the Grateful: Thanksgiving Captain

Statsbloke as Captain Stats Bloke: The Easter Captain of blessing

Flambass as Captain Flambass Victor: The Captain of Victory Day

Calibury as Captain Brave Cali: The Captain of The Big Lap

Notser as Captain Notser: The Captain of Memorial

CarbineCarlito as Captain C. Carlito: The Captain of St. Patricks'

and many others. 

or whatever other great streamers you wish to honor and designate. Obviously these are suggestions and can be altered. However a small gesture to honor the great streamers that have dedicated their time and effort into making World of Warships as world to wonder. 

Terms and conditions are up to the developer. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,998
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,036 posts
14,443 battles

Aloha,

WOW, I am so sorry I missed this post!  I am going to be looking through this for sure!

Mahalo,

-Hapa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,023
[SOUP]
Modder
8,814 posts
On 10/26/2020 at 2:17 PM, kingts said:

NEW GAME MECHANIC

MINES

These also were already implemented and fully functional as part of the Operation Dynamo event, so it's not like they aren't without precedent

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,909
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,106 posts

Personally I'll keep asking for simulated damage. If your ship takes a hit of say, 30% health pool, then dependent upon the type of hit taken (AP or HE) and even perhaps the ship type that delivered the hit upon your ship, then a functional, actual reduction in one of say three different systems is levied against your ship. 

None of this running around with main batteries at 100% functionality when 99% of your ship has been blasted away. Irks me every time it happens, whether its for or against me. About every arcade game let alone semi-simulator games I've played reduces the performance of your "ship". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,930
[PVE]
Members
6,946 posts
22,709 battles

@kingts...I do believe that T4 CVs don't have any fighter consumables already so reducing them to 1 would actually be an increase.

Lots of cool ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
374
[BTLST]
Members
666 posts
10,455 battles

Regarding Light Carriers.   Yes, they were faster, though only by a few knots.   They had NO speed boost ability so I don't believe they should in this game either.  Most had the ability to seal compartments but their hanger decks were more fragile and dangerous and they certainly had NO increased strength as suggested.    Also in the light carriers were the Escort class of the USN that was not the least bit fast.   In fact, they plodded along and were very fragile and normally more of a support ship that delivered replacement planes to the big carriers along with pilots and crews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

Please keep in mind that all these suggestions. Came from my 12 year old daughter. Her friends also play. I have been assisting her with wording and the questions and answers are actually her friends asking her questions. Kids do play the game and are very astute. I only ask that you be kind and remember that they are suggestions only.

We are careful with the kids privacy and when they play the game the one rule we have is 'chat is off" I actually play 1 hour a night to assist them. I do think a family account should be established or noted by WoW without breaking any of their one account rules. Stay well all. Thank you for your responses. We will keep adding them for all to review to a game that is well developed and have many great people. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

NEW SUGGESTION to the List

Again keep in mind its a suggestion. 

THE ASIAN AIR CRAFT CARRIER PREMIUM OR LINES

For fun my daughter and her friends did a little research for her school's History class and thought it would be fun with her friends to discuss. IF World of Warships wanted to create an Asian line of Air Craft Carriers or even a one time premium carrier. How would it work. The Asian line is comprised of five different Asian nations probably due the lack of ship naval bodies of each one. The second issue is though many had 'plans' to have carriers become part of their Naval forces due to the early Balloon Carriers and results of WWI implementation of rival pre WWII air craft carriers. Many of the Asian countries (Japan withstanding) did not prioritize carriers as a force to invest massive resources into those entities. balloon tenders, during World War I, by the navies of Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Sweden. Japan's early development of the Wakamiya and later the Hosho encouraged the Chinese Royal Monarchy that Carriers were worth investing until Japan's great betrayal ensured China would not be capable of creating their own Carrier Force. The dilemma is two fold for the game. Which of these five countries would have a carrier representation and what designs would they use. 

The Royal Thai Navy was formed early in 1875. You could use them as a platform to early WWI or WWII designs, but their subjugation by Japan nullifies such ideas. So to do this you would have to take some hypothetical creative license and some inventive creations as they did with the GERMAN line to do this. 

The it becomes what type and what would these carriers potentially do IN game. What would be their mechanisms, tools and statistics in game. Keep in mind such ideas would have to be tested. 

MY suggestion is take existing ASIAN carriers and do EARLY design carriers with 3 new mechanics.

TIER 4-TIER 6 FLEET CARRIER CLASS CV

ASIAN (ROYAL THAI) -SIMA YI I (IV) and early (CHINA) LIAONING I (VI) Based on the 1990 name. Using the Wakayima / Hosho schematic stolen by China: This Carrier would have 2 new mechanics

Though the ships schematics and its layout is up to the developer. The CV would be equipped with the standard three plane lines, but with two unique functions. For the sake of the suggestion I will not get specific of the plane TYPES from history. That they will have to research and implement. I will use basic designations.

FIGHTER PLANE: Standard atk, fighter drop 

DEEP WATER TORPEDO PLANES: Only able to drop 1-2 deep water torps (unable to atk DD) with the most torpedo damage in this line compared to other CVS in game.

BOUNCING BOMBERS: Using the new bouncing bomber mechanic. 

The Carriers have their own unique feature. It can SMOKE- Yep the Asian line is the only line where the Carrier has a smoke select mechanic option. It can be a Trailing smoke or work similar to the current DDs in game were it sets a smoke to protect it from detection and targeted dmg. 

IF THEY IMPLEMENT THE new SUGGESTION LIGHT CARRIER (scroll up above) CVL

ASIAN (Thailand) CHAKRI NARUEBET I CVL- 

A: Scout Trainer Bowie Plane: This 2 plane scout drops a one time healing bowie within a radius pre determined by development. This would have a short duration and would begin to repair ships by a ailment order set by development. Fire, Flood, Engine or steering, decrease repair reloads. Optional could repair hulls to a set number. These would be based on real scout planes with larger detection radius and larger hit pool.

B: Hydro/Sonar Scout Plane- (Observation Scout) This 3 plane scout drops a bowie similar to the healing bowie but instead drops a one time sonar bowie that pings to a sonar pulse detecting enemy vessels within the radius of its drop. TBD,  This works similar to SONAR in game, and the bowie will emit a pulse for a duration set by the developer. 

Hydro Pulse: The CV commander has the option to switch it to a hydro pulse bowie, which would work in game similar to the Sonar bowie with a larger radius and duration. This Scout Plane can be used to detect ANY enemy vessel, including subs. 

NOTE: Both bowie types can be destroyed by enemy fire since it floats above the surface. 

C: Scout Trainer Plane- This squadron of scout or fighter planes have limited offensive capabilities, but like a field cropper has a specific function to assist stealth ships.

Fog Trailer: This would allow the Scout Trainer to lay down a fog trail assisting screening vessels with a duration of smoke, shielding them from fire and detection. The smoke mechanic would still apply. 

D: Scout Deep Water Torpedo Plane- Depending on the type like the torpedo scouts that had great speed and dual purpose to scout and attack surface or underwater targets with a powerful homing deep water torpedo. Again TBD by the developer. 

The single homing torpedo would have to set to the target upon its drop it would home auto target the chosen target with a Deep Water torpedo. This torpedo would also target a detected submarine. Again developers discretion and parameters.

All CVS mentioned would have to be properly tested. 

PROS: 1. Future sales for more revenue. 2. A CV representation in the Asian combined line that fit its base mechanics.

PROS: Though possibly not enough to start full lines. As a Special or Premium ship. The Asian CV would bring a intriguing new gameplay to the line. 

Question: How would the CVs with a SMOKE device be beneficial to that line.

Answer: Thinking outside the box and knowing smoke is a nice mechanic in game. The Carrier would have three benefits to smoke. 1. It can delay and hinder air attacks. 2. Can be used for deception fooling opposing screening vessels a lack of targeting or position. 3. Can be used to protect other nearby ships.

PROS: China did not fully implement CVs until the 1970's and not in full force until the 1980's. How can they appear in the set game format?

Answer: Similar to the German CV line. You are using a hypothetical format. A what if using old schematics and new ideas to add to a fun action "simulated) formatted game. You need to grow and be creative at times and a balance to the reason to why. Why? More fun ships to try and play. That is why and another avenue to a revenue stream for that imaginative effort.

PROS: I don't like the Asian line or deep water torpedos. Do I have to get these?

Answer: no you don't have to get them. Like many premiums or special ideas. There is always the option to pass on anything, but why deny a new gaming experience. Always has to be choice.

PROS: There are already a lot of CVS in game. Why add more and two different types.

Answer: The game has to grow and eventually ALL the lines may have some CV representation. If they are going to do it anyway. Then I would rather have a variety to choose from than be forced into one type of CVs. Again all this is suggestive and must go through testing and implementation first than to ne negative to its possibilities now. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
142 posts
3,635 battles

Any idea is a good idea... it gets the ball rolling, for sure. If I was to add to your list, these would be my ideas: 

First, allow anti-aircraft guns on surface ships to be healed over time, at a ratio proportional to aircraft HP regeneration (i.e. the rate at which planes are added to a CV's deck).

Second, remove the nerf on overlapping anti-aircraft bubbles. If the enemy is smart enough to group together to mitigate damage, then they should be rewarded. 

To balance this, maybe (and I have no justification for this) increase the damage dealt by plane-dropped weapons, to reward successful players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[TF-64]
Members
20 posts
970 battles

Suggestion Idea:
Make a new ship USS Hornet(CV-12) or USS Yorktown(CV-10) as a Tier X premium cv that uses F4U,TBM,SB2C aircraft that has large squadrons. USS Hornet and USS Yorktown did a lot of things when they were in the US navy such as sinking the Yamato. They are now museums.

Edited by AdmiralFlame76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

NEW SUGGESTION to the List

Again keep in mind its a suggestion. 

THE RUSSIAN AIR CRAFT CARRIER PREMIUM OR LINES

For fun my daughter and her friends did a little research for her school's History class and thought it would be fun with her friends to discuss. IF World of Warships wanted to create an Russian line of Air Craft Carriers or even a one time premium carrier. How would it work?

The Russians had long plans for an Air Craft Carrier fleet prior to WWI.  They were also inventors of many innovative military inventions in aircraft design, guns, ship designs, metals from the winged tank, Maksutov telescope, Sikorski helicopter, self propelled rocket launcher, the Ant-20, rocket repellent, airborne firefighting, flame tank, IIyushin 2, kirlin photography, drag shoot, and many more. These can be used to create something unique in the game that is all Russian and yet give the player a new take on CV and CVL game play.  So to do this you would have to take some hypothetical creative license and some inventive creations as they did with the GERMAN line to do this. Why? Since Russian  CVs did not make their true appearances until 1967 and only limited in several different implementations in the 1970's and 1980's. Most of the line would either be represented in Premium format or if done in the lines IV, VI, VIII, and X. Would have to be designed and done based on old WWI and WWII schematics gained from other countries. My daughter and her friends as part of a class history project decided to have some fun with a new game play format for the Russian line.

Then it becomes what type and what would these carriers potentially do IN game. What would be their mechanisms, tools and statistics in game. Keep in mind such ideas would have to be tested. 

FLEET CARRIER CLASS CV in tier lines (IF they do this) 

The Soviet Union made several efforts at developing aircraft carriers early in its history, but a lack of resources, combined with a geography that emphasized the importance of land power, made serious investment impossible. During the Cold War, the first naval aviation success were Moskva and Leningrad, a pair of helicopter carriers designed primarily for antisubmarine warfare. These ships, ungainly in appearance, displaced 17,000 tons, could make about thirty knots, and each carried eighteen helicopters. Moskva entered service in 1967, Leningrad in 1969. The Moskvas were succeeded by the Kiev class, much closer to true aircraft carriers. Displacing 45,000 tons, the four Kievs (each built to a slightly different design) could make thirty-two knots and carry a combination of about thirty helicopters and Yak-38 VSTOL fighters. However, they had long planned designs from the early Balloon Carriers of pre WWI, and monitored carefully the early designs of United States, England, France, Japan and the Netherlands. In 1927, the Soviet leadership approved plans to build a carrier by converting the unfinished Imperial Russian Navy battlecruiser Izmail, under construction since 1913, to a full-length aircraft carrier. Completed as a battlecruiser, Izmail was to displace thirty-five thousand tons, making it similar in displacement to (and of the same decade as) the U.S. Navy’s Lexington that carried up to seventy-eight aircraft. It is this base design that the developers can go by for early CV creations. in 1938, as part of the third five-year plan, laid the groundwork for a pair of aircraft carriers. The so-called “Project 71” class would be based on the Chapaev displacing thirteen thousand tons and with a 630-foot flight deck. The carriers would each carry fifteen fighters and thirty torpedo bombers, with one allocated to the Baltic Fleet and one allocated to the Pacific Fleet. The carriers were approved in 1939 but never completed, their construction interrupted by World War II. The carriers would be similar in design as the rest of the in game carriers with several different distinctions based on some inventions and some creative hypothetical game mechanics. The developer has the option to alter any part of this suggestion.

Since the Moskva is already a name used in the game. I would suggest the KIEV line.

IV,VI, VIII, X (Names to be determined) Suggested names, The Minsk, The Stalin, The Kiev, The Chapaev

CV main would have 5 specific mechanics. 

FIGHTERS- For tier IV the bi plane would feature the Winged Tank design, capable of sharp banking and accelerated dives. The fighters would feature the Cascading multiple rocket launcher that triggers twice per attack or a double rocket attack in one salvo. This would have multiple damage implications attacking more than one ship module to devastating results. Capable wrecking havoc on multiple systems they do one other thing unlike all other rocket attacks. They weaken armor thickness numbers making the ship slightly more vulnerable to enemy shell damage. Though minimal the reduction could make a difference in ship to ship encounters. Though a temporary effect. The cascading damage could be devastating to each of the lines. Damage, effect and mechanic would be determined by developer and to be tested for balance purposes. This is the feature of all Russian line carriers. 

TORPEDO LINE/BOMBERS HYRBIDS

Tupolov Ant 41 (CV IV) 1930 developed torpedo plane A long (6.5 m (21 ft 4 in)) weapons bay under the fuselage could hold two 880 kilograms (1,940 lb) torpedoes, or a single 1,700 kilograms (3,700 lb) torpedo or an equivalent weight in bombs. Launches two torpedoes. 

IIYUSHIN DB-3 (CV VI) 1936 developed torpedo plane. Had great speed with twin engines and dropped two short ranged double torpedoes. More devastating frag damage than the tier IV torpedo. This caused more flooding possibilities than actual fire potential in its explosions. 

Ilyushin Il-4 (DB-3F)- CV-VIII- (Torpedo/Bomber Hybrid)1939 developed torpedo plane was a mainstay of WWII and have more versatility and speed than the DB-3. It also featured three distinctions. It traveled long distances w great speed, had duralumin hulls that withstood great AA and antifire, and dropped a pair of short range frag devastator torpedoes that tracked the nearest metallic source. Though a crude early stage of homing torpedoes. They proved to be inconsistent and in game if not carefully placed can track the wrong ship. They could also switch into a Bomber attack dropping a wave of cascading 3 stick fire bombs. Similar to a napalm mechanic. The Three bombs would drop similar to the English CV line bombers but stick to flat metallic surfaces causing fires without penetration. The player could in mid air switch payload with a minor delay time changing his attack pattern in air. 

Ilyushin Il-6-CV X-  (Torpedo/Bomber Hybrid) developed in 1940 the II-6 was capable of both bomb runs and torpedo attacks, submarine bowie and deep water torpedo tracking. It had the same characteristics of the II04 but with stronger diesel engines able to go long distances and launch x4 short ranged high speed tracking torpedoes. However here is where the new in game mechanic takes place. The IIyushin II-6 is the only plane that can alter its payload in air. The player has the option of either the torpedoes, or dropping a wave of cascading 5 stick fire bombs. Similar to a napalm mechanic. The Five bombs would drop similar to the English CV line bombers but stick to flat metallic surfaces causing fires without penetration. The player could in mid air switch payload with a minor delay time changing his attack pattern in air. 

HELICOPTERS- 

  • TsAGI (Kamov) A-7/7bis (Liaison and Observation Autogyro)- Using this a potential model. This three naval helicopter would use two functions. Though slower than most  of the rotational plane funstions. It has three benefits. 1. Invulnerable to fighter drop atk (only ship AA can damage them) 2. Can launch a dual rocket attack 3. Longer range of spotting.  

The Kamov's main mechanic will feature: A hydroacoustic bowie. This will give a short ranged hydro radar ping bowie that floats atop the surface. This bowie can detect intermittinglyntly pulses, instead of  a steady pulse and detect ships and subs in that specific radius. The Kamov can not only attack, and have a wider range of spotting distance, it also can hydro enemy ships. The drawback is its speed and lack of AA defense. Obvious the type can be altered and renamed by the developer's discretion. 

Note the developer can use the II-6 idea for a hybrid torpedo/bomber hybrid since the torpedo planes were dual oriented capable of doing torpedo attacks and bomber attacks. 

IF THEY IMPLEMENT THE new SUGGESTION LIGHT CARRIER (scroll up above) CVL

THE - Severomorsk class light carriers. Chose a famous naval base as a type name, but of course, can be altered to developer's discretion

A: Scout Trainer Bowie Plane: This 2 plane scout drops a one time healing bowie within a radius pre determined by development. This would have a short duration and would begin to repair ships by a ailment order set by development. Fire, Flood, Engine or steering, decrease repair reloads. Optional could repair hulls to a set number. These would be based on real scout planes with larger detection radius and larger hit pool.

B: Scout Trainer Plane- This squadron of scout or fighter planes have limited offensive capabilities, but like a field cropper has a specific function to assist stealth ships.

Fog Trailer: This would allow the Scout Trainer to lay down a fog trail assisting screening vessels with a duration of smoke, shielding them from fire and detection. The smoke mechanic would still apply. 

C: Scout Quad Rocket/Torpedo hybrid. _Similar to the CV lines hybrids. This Scout would not only have wide detection ranges, but quad rocket launchers and dual torpedo launchers. Again TBD by the developer. 

The single homing torpedo would have to set to the target upon its drop it would home auto target the chosen target with a Deep Water torpedo. This torpedo would also target a detected submarine. Again developers discretion and parameters.

All CVS mentioned would have to be properly tested. 

PROS: 1. Future sales for more revenue. 2. A CV representation in the Asian combined line that fit its base mechanics.

PROS: Though possibly not enough to start full lines. As a Special or Premium ship. The Russian CV would bring a intriguing new gameplay to the line. 

Question: How would the CVs with no real fun individual mechanic be fun to play if its based on old WWII schematics of other nations. 

Answer: Thinking outside the box. What most of the Russian line feature is accurate powerful AP guns, and thin glass middle hulls. Though they could continue to feature this with Carriers for example: A CV with strong AP secondaries and thing middle armor layouts. I doubt they would or should do that. Though the AP secondary only idea would be worth a look. One neat feature the Carriers could have that no other CVS had is short range rocket defense similar to the way fighter work in game. An automatic rocket defense of maybe 2-4 rockets that would automatically strike the nearest enemy vessel within a range. It would have a reload ofc. However that is one possible suggestion. Again, what parameters they use and specs is up to them. They would probably be tested prior to implementation. 

PROS: Russia like China  did not fully implement CVs until the 1960's and not in full force until the 1980's. How can they appear in the set game format?

Answer: Similar to the German CV line. You are using a hypothetical format. A what if using old schematics and new ideas to add to a fun action "simulated) formatted game. You need to grow and be creative at times and a balance to the reason to why. Why? More fun ships to try and play. That is why and another avenue to a revenue stream for that imaginative effort.

PROS: I don't like the CVs in game. Do I have to get these?

Answer: no you don't have to get them. Like many premiums or special ideas. There is always the option to pass on anything, but why deny a new gaming experience. Always has to be choice.

PROS: There are already a lot of CVS in game. Why add more and two different types.

Answer: The game has to grow and eventually ALL the lines may have some CV representation. If they are going to do it anyway. Then I would rather have a variety to choose from than be forced into one type of CVs. Again all this is suggestive and must go through testing and implementation first than to ne negative to its possibilities now. 

Again thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,309
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,127 posts
17,189 battles
On 11/26/2020 at 10:02 AM, kingts said:

Please keep in mind that all these suggestions. Came from my 12 year old daughter. Her friends also play. I have been assisting her with wording and the questions and answers are actually her friends asking her questions. Kids do play the game and are very astute. I only ask that you be kind and remember that they are suggestions only.

We are careful with the kids privacy and when they play the game the one rule we have is 'chat is off" I actually play 1 hour a night to assist them. I do think a family account should be established or noted by WoW without breaking any of their one account rules. Stay well all. Thank you for your responses. We will keep adding them for all to review to a game that is well developed and have many great people. Thank you

That is really cool. There is a lot of potential here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

A NEW SUGGESTION TO THE LIST

keep in mind it is only a suggestion

My friends and I were playing an we notice a lot of players go outside the border purposely to avoid damage and we thought what positive suggestion we could make to maybe stop this practice. If it has been made before we are sorry. 

THE BORDER HUGGER OR WALL RIDER

THE HP BORDER BURN

Suggestion: A 10 or 15 second timer would appear as an out of bounds warning. They would have this time to alter course. Though they would not be immune to incoming fire. After the time limit ends a degrading HP burn would begin to occur. Though minimal it would deter this practice from occurring. The HP total damager per second is up to the developer. They could apply this to all modes. This would stop this practice and those who use it will pay the price for going deliberately out of bounds, angled to avoid damage or even by accident would warn the player to take action against this practice. 

PROS: Stops out of bounds gameplay

PROS: Would stop wins by teams who do this as a last resort to avoid losses.

Question: I like this idea, but what if I am in a Carrier and during my auto course. It takes me out of bounds. 

Answer: Then the timer warning would force you to hit M, to get the ship out of that danger zone and in the right course. If done in a proper time the any damage burn would be minimal.

Question: If I am a BB I could still do this to avoid damage and survive the HP burn as well. 

Answer: Again the HP burn is all up to the developer. They could make the HP burns different per the ship type. Battleships move more slowly and the time limit may not be enough for them to escape the accidental out of bounds, but that is assuming its accidental. It is clearly up to the developer to determine the HP damage per ship type. They can adjust in testing. 

Question: I do think it will keep players in game more. Could the damage be recoverable like fire or flood.

Answer: Again up to the developer. If it were me, I would say no because its a negative tactic you are applying. A form of cheating when done deliberately. However, it is up to them. They could allow it to be recoverable considering the waste of a repair a justified cost for such a deliberate act. Again its up to them to decide. This was a question my friend asked that led to a little debate about. That is an honest reply on that question. Up to them to decide. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

A NEW SUGGESTION TO THE LIST

keep in mind it is only a suggestion

My friends and I thought what a nice idea based on history if Destroyers had multiple torpedo load options as a mechanic in the match. Similar to the HE and AP shell switch option. We thought it would be a neat new dynamic to the game if all destroyers had multiple torpedo options depending on the enemy you faced. This would do two things. 1. Make rigid destroyer lines more fun to play with more 'player choices" with unbalancing the game and 2. Allow the player more choices and options to have versus a specific ship type.

There was precedence and real technology based on history. Why did destroyers do this in real life. The main reason was weight and hazardous options certain destroyers had to have. We call this 

THE TORPEDO CONTROL SWITCH OPTION :DD:

As you know each destroyer has a specific torpedo type, load, range and damage output to each destroyer based on real life schematics. This was clearly done for balance and specific line "style of play' whether the IJN stealth destroyers, US gunboats, or whichever fun dynamic was chosen to that line. Clearly certain lines had specific advantages but we would argue that the style of play within the game format is stale and rigid even if meant for balance. There are some lines that take liberty in the those choices. 

NOTE: To be clear, each line would continue to have UPGRADE choices in the modules but what we propose is a NEW mechanic based on history for each DD to have. 

FIRST 5 NEW TORPEDO TYPES FOR THE DEVELOPER TO CHOOSE AND ASSIGN TO WHICHEVER LINE THEY WISH. Each DD would now have a torpedo switching option. The new Torpedo types will be clearly defined and the OUR suggestion to what the designation should be. Also note that as Captain Skills are being redesigned that this option be considered in their approach to torpedo switching. 

HOW THE MECHANIC WORKS :cap_book:

Each Destroyer would have 2 torpedo icons per ship instead of one. The first is the original designation, reload time, type, and location to that icon. The new designation would have the the second torpedo type to that ship to be able to switch to with a reload timer. There would be a slight penalty for such a switch. 

NOTE: Unlike your regular torpedo type of unlimited quantities. The second torpedo type would have only a certain amount of torpedoes. This would have a designation number on the corner of how many times it can used, not the quantity per attack load. 

THE 5 new torpedo Types

THE SHORT RANGE FRAG TORPEDO- :fish_boom: This new torp type would fire how many designated by the developer and would have a short range compared to the normal designated torpedo to that destroyer. It would have a much faster speed, and deadly damage output. This would not only cause flooding but would cause engine mechanical issues if detonated near the engine room. This torpedo could only be an option for enemy destroyers, certain depth submarines, and carrier options only. 

THE BUBBLE JET TORPEDO-:fish_happy: The bubble jet effect occurs when a mine or torpedo detonates in the water a short distance away from the targeted ship. The explosion creates a bubble in the water, and due to the difference in pressure, the bubble will collapse from the bottom. The bubble is buoyant, and so it rises towards the surface. If the bubble reaches the surface as it collapses, it can create a pillar of water that can go over a hundred meters into the air (a "columnar plume"). If conditions are right and the bubble collapses onto the ship's hull, the damage to the ship can be extremely serious; the collapsing bubble forms a high-energy jet that can break a metre-wide hole straight through the ship, flooding one or more compartments, and is capable of breaking smaller ships apart. The crew in the areas hit by the pillar are usually killed instantly. Other damage is usually limited. This would be a mid range torpedo that would cause more flooding damage than normal. This torpedo is more about disabling than damage. 

THE SHOCK TOPPEDO- :fish_viking: torpedo detonates at a distance from the ship, and especially under the keel, the change in water pressure causes the ship to resonate. This is frequently the most deadly type of explosion, if it is strong enough. The whole ship is dangerously shaken and everything on board is tossed around. Engines rip from their beds, cables from their holders, etc. A badly shaken ship usually sinks quickly, with hundreds, or even thousands of small leaks all over the ship and no way to power the pumps. The crew fare no better, as the violent shaking tosses them around. This shaking is powerful enough to cause disabling injury to knees and other joints in the body, particularly if the affected person stands on surfaces connected directly to the hull (such as steel decks). This torpedo is more meant for module and structural damage knocking out multiple parts of the ship than detonation damage. It is more an incapacitating torpedo as players would waste repair parties. The difference being that it would not repair multiple parts of the ship as once. For example, the shock torpedo would strike the ship, causing fire, hp loss, and let us say two turret malfunctions. The instant repair party would not fix everything, but only a random few. 

THE HOMING TORPEDO:fish_panic: Homing torpedoes can use passive or active guidance, or a combination of both. Passive acoustic torp. home in on emissions from a target. Active acoustic torpedoes home in on the reflection of a signal, or "ping", from the torpedo or its parent vehicle; this has the disadvantage of giving away the presence of the torpedo. In semi-active mode, a torpedo can be fired to the last known position or calculated position of a target, which is then acoustically illuminated ("pinged") once the torpedo is within attack range. Similar to the submarine ping mechanic these torpedo's would within a certain range target the nearest ship. Unlike the other torpedo types this could in theory target even strike a friend ship upon missing it target or miss use. This would up to the developer to decide how exactly this torpedo would work let us say if it missed its target due to a badly aimed or blind fire. Damage output would be determined by the developer and could match the other torpedo type on the destroyer for balance purposes. 

THE PROXIMITY TORPEDO-This special torpedo A torpedo fitted with a proximity fuse can be detonated directly under the keel of a target ship. The explosion creates a gas bubble which may damage the keel or underside plating of the target. However, the most destructive part of the explosion is the up thrust of the gas bubble, which will bodily lift the hull in the water. The structure of the hull is designed to resist downward rather than upward pressure, causing severe strain in this phase of the explosion. When the gas bubble collapses, the hull will tend to fall into the void in the water, creating a sagging effect. Finally, the weakened hull will be hit by the uprush of water caused by the collapsing gas bubble, causing structural failure. Essentially the torpedo striking the ship would cause structural failure rather than just damage. This would reduce hull numbers on a ship thus making vulnerable to future damage and unrecoverable. For example if the armor layout number is a certain mm thickness this torpedo would significantly lower that number, but not necessarily reduce hp. 

COUNTRY DESIGNATIONS: :cap_book: Since each country in game have torpedo types and torpedo mechanics it would be up to the developer to designate what secondary type each destroyer would have.

For example: The Asian Line have deep water torpedoes. Its second choice could be the Short Range Frag Torpedo to give it an option versus opposing destroyers. The German line could adapt proximity torpedoes, or the IJN line have a bubble jet torpedo option. The first process would be to perfect the numbers, effects and the torpedo mechanics and then decide which countries would benefit from this secondary options. They can be as creative as they wish and a torpedo types can be designated to multiple countries. For example certain US destroyers could have the Homing Torpedo on some and shocking torpedo option on another. They could even introduce more torpedo types we did not mention. The Euro line have proximity and frag. skies the limit. 

PROS: Gives the player in game options to control the torpedo types and style of play they see fit.

PROS: Not a huge development change though effects and some development 

PROS; Easy new mechanic that works similar to HE/AP switching.

Question: I love the idea of finally having choice in the torpedo type I can use. In my Asian ship not being stuck to just one dimensional deep water torpedoes, but how long would the reload be to switching the torpedo types?

Answer: Up to the developer, but it would work similar to HE/AP switching.

Question: These sound like fantasy torpedoes. They don't seem to be real torpedoes

Answer: Actually all the torpedo types and how they worked were based on real historic types and schematics. So not true. 

Question: Could these be upgradable similar to the primary types on the destroyers? Could Cruisers have this option. Could Premiums have this as well?

Answer: Yes, yes, and yes,. All up the developer to apply. All would be tested prior to implementation. They could even give Battleships, Subs and Carriers this option, but for now it should be limited. Starting with certain destroyers first. Not every destroyer or ship should have this option. 

Question: There is already enough to do in a destroyer won't this make it harder since I may get caught in between torpedo loads?

Answer: Though possible. players would probably start in game with one or the other chosen similar to how you set your guns to AP or HE. However, like anything in game. There is risk and reward. 

Question: Brilliant suggestion, how did 12 year olds come up with this?

Answer: Simple research for a history class and asking what fun dynamic could be added to the game. I also asked the great streamers (Statsbloke, Killerbin, Notser,) of the game in chat  The discussions to how in real life destroyers had multiple types of torpedoes to handle multiple encounter types which lead to the idea. We still did the work ourselves, but players are always looking to help make the game better. They have also had fun creative exaggerated torpedo creations in game during events like Halloween, so why not give the player a real life choice. This would enhance and personalize the ships even more. This could even balance certain ship types that underperform do to the blandness or effect of such a powerful weapon. Keep in mind its all an idea and certain damage output, range would still have to be determined. 

KEEP in mind this is a suggestion and the possibilities are endless to how they apply it. I would suggest limiting it to certain destroyers. Thank you. :Smile_popcorn:

Edited by kingts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
34 posts
6,070 battles

An expansion of what the CAMO store may look like based on this suggestion

B: Skins/Camos Store- :cap_look:Since the beginning of the game. There have been licensed ventures, events, specials, and 1000’s of camos created that not everyone has access to anymore. I would create the CAMO store in the armory where camos are kept now. Many are options to buy in the specific ships, but too many are not that players may have missed out on. Place every camo in the game ever made here for purchase. You can limit the timeframe of camos that appear in special containers, for example Halloween, but why cut off that daily revenue from your company.

Armory listing would change to state the CAMO store. Some possible suggested features of the CAMO store would have filters to list it by nation and type. They could in theory include NEW created camos for the camo store only and the could coincide with the CAMO DOCK customization feature discussed above.

Example: The recent German camos should be available for every German line ship for you to purchase on every tier. Cost can be determined by them.

Taking this one possible example. The STORE would have this under the GERMAN line. The Iron Cross camo would appear with simply a cost and then an adjustment icon to the specific tier and ship designation. This would then adjust the cost of the camo in a Permanent and Temporary options. So in this example:

IRON CROSS CAMO       permanent cost ___________ and temporary cost x10 _______________  TIER 4 KONIGSBERG 

Permanent cost would be a doubloon cost and temporary cost could be both a credit/coal/ or doubloon cost reasonable to that tier. Developer's discretion as to the costs. 

DYE CUSTOMIZATION CAMOS   (IRON CROSS) permanent cost ___________ which would then appear as a grey silver template. 

This is for the suggestion above of 

A: The DOCK camo creator-Here you would gather important resources to create camos within their creations to then upon reaching the targeted resources needed. You could apply the base color camo they have designed as  one reward. Then depending the resources selected and acquired missions and goals they set. Have choices of three combination color schemes. This feature would only be available for now for Tiers 1-5 in your lines since they don't offer permanent camo options for all there ships. It would work as follows

Since WoW has a long history of camos from its inception the choices for Germany alone could be expanded and designated to this country even if the original intent was not meant for Germany, for example a former Halloween event camo or generic temporary camo. A Type 5 or Hunter for example. They could alter these temporary camos as a permanent camo depending on the cost.

Taking the above example the IRON CROSS CAMO would also show different stats depending on the TIER SHIP. For example if I wish to purchase the IRON CROSS permanent camo for the following ships and final costs (A suggested cost and effectiveness TBD by developer)

COUNTRY SELECTED GERMANY, CRUISER LINE< CAMO SELECTED 

IRON CROSS CAMO 

TIER 1   HERMELIN      PERMANENT COST 150 Doubloons  

  • -1% to detectability range.
  • +2% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship.
  • +5% to Credits earned in the battle.
  • +25% to experience earned in the battle

TIER 11 DRESEEN        PERMANENT COST 225 Doubloons   

 

  • -1% to detectability range.
  • +2% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship.
  • +10% to Credits earned in the battle.
  • +25% to experience earned in the battle

TIER III  KOLBERG        PERMANENT COST  325 Doubloons 

 

  • -1% to detectability range.
  • +2% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship.
  • +10% to Credits earned in the battle.
  • +30% to experience earned in the battle

TEMPORARY PERCENTAGES WOULD NOT ALTER FOR THE IRON CROSS, and the IRON CROSS DYE TEMPLATE -SILVER/GRAY to be colored in the dock would have the same permanent percentage outputs as the permanent camos on each tier. 

ALL CAMOS that have ever been created from promotional, special, event or even clan camos could be included as choices for every tier of the designated COUNTRY LINE. They could include these camos to multiple lines if so desired. 

FOR EXAMPLE

THE MARLIN CAMO only available clan tokens for the TIER IX Black. Could also appear for the US line and the Euro lines with reduced percentage designations depending on the ship and tier, but at a much higher doubloon cost. However it should only be available in the line of the ship type so in this case the Marlin Camo would only be in the DD lines. 

MARLIN CAMO          TIER VIII BENSON      DOUBLOON COST 8500  

  • -3% to surface detectability range.
  • +3% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship.
  • +100% XP earned in the battle.
  • +100% Free XP earned in the battle.
  • +100% Commander XP earned in the battle.
  • -10% to the cost of post-battle service.

Notice the percentages of the final permanent camo for the BENSON in this example is slightly less than the BLACKS to insure the Black Marlin Camo maintains a certain status. 

Whatever they decide the CAMO store to be. It would give players a vast choice as to what the final or temporary version of the ship can be. 

The store would be massive in quantity and can be expanded to not only give players a great variety of choices for their line ships. They could also do this for alternative premium ships as well. This would bring a massive continual revenue stream for them. 

DYES Could be added to the store if they adapt the Dock Camo Colorization mechanic. They could also include FLAGS in the store to make it easier to attain and those many FLAGS have no statistical benefits. It would bring a long history of FLAGS no longer attainable, a players option at a cost to add. What that cost maybe is up to the developer and would have to match the specialty of the task at hand. For example if I wish to add the Submarine Flag only attainable thru public testing to my flag collection. Then the cost should reflect that. 

Anyone who earned the camos, and flag for their ships permanently have not lost anything since they save on the costs that would now be a burden for them to do. Once the Permanent of Temporary Camos are purchased. They would appear in the port under the ship's camo section to activate or deactivate like before. 

KEEP in mind this is a suggestion and totally up to the developer to do. This would bring a more practical and player control as to what they wish to add or not add. The diversity of the store gives players a wide variety of choices and control. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by kingts
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×