Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Igiby100

Desired changes for WoWs.

64 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
103 posts
1,170 battles

This is a general-purpose survey. Just in terms of simple requests, what changes would we like to see to the game? 

  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,371
[BEA5T]
Members
5,419 posts
25,302 battles

All scenarios put back into use  -  to include scenarios using higher tier ships.

Special Modes of play based on actual themes.  I.e.....the North Atlantic convoy mode.  The Caribbean Hunt for Oil - transports that had to take refined oil to the Atlantic ports (a Submarine event...)

Clan Battle modes at lower tiers.....

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[_BDA_]
Members
618 posts
9,786 battles

Ooh, ooh... I'll go first.

Pre-dreadnaught era.  Some of the most interesting "iron clads" were spawned between 1900 and 1912 from a variety of nations.  To do this I would move the introductory ships (Tier 1) to an introductory tier and out of the tech tree.  After reaching a certain amount of experience the player decides whether to pursue one of three lines at Tier 1... torpedo boats to destroyers, protected/armored cruisers to cruisers and a pre-dreadnaught line to battleships.  At Tier 2 they can cross over to either of the other lines after grinding trough the first vessel of their selected line.

Using the USN as an example, after grinding their way out of Tier 0 the player can choose either a Tier 1 destroyer line (USS Bainbridge, DD-1), Cruiser line ( USS Maine, ACR-1) or a battleship line (USS Indiana, BB-1).  After grinding through their chosen ship, they can start a second line.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,899
[SALVO]
Members
26,582 posts
31,379 battles
11 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

Clan Battle modes at lower tiers....

Honestly, Asym, while the idea of CBs at tiers other than 10 has its appeal, the overwhelming issue for me is that all my best captains are in my tier 10 ships.  And no way in heII am I spending doubloons or my elite commander's XP to move them to another tier's ship just to reverse the change after the CB season is over.  This, therefore, limits me to using premium ships, which me not be such a big deal ... until WG decides to ban a favorite ship from CBs!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,600 posts
2,011 battles
31 minutes ago, Igiby100 said:

what changes would we like to see to the game? 

Key Battles returning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,899
[SALVO]
Members
26,582 posts
31,379 battles
3 minutes ago, michael_zahnle said:

Ooh, ooh... I'll go first.

Pre-dreadnaught era.  Some of the most interesting "iron clads" were spawned between 1900 and 1912 from a variety of nations.  To do this I would move the introductory ships (Tier 1) to an introductory tier and out of the tech tree.  After reaching a certain amount of experience the player decides whether to pursue one of three lines at Tier 1... torpedo boats to destroyers, protected/armored cruisers to cruisers and a pre-dreadnaught line to battleships.  At Tier 2 they can cross over to either of the other lines after grinding trough the first vessel of their selected line.

Using the USN as an example, after grinding their way out of Tier 0 the player can choose either a Tier 1 destroyer line (USS Bainbridge, DD-1), Cruiser line ( USS Maine, ACR-1) or a battleship line (USS Indiana, BB-1).  After grinding through their chosen ship, they can start a second line.

Sounds interesting at first glance, but it seems that player experience has shown that there's not all that much interest in low tier ships.  It seems that the primary interest of most players is in WW2 era ships, not WW1 or pre WW1 era ships.  Also, there's not much money to be made on selling premium ships in the low tiers, which also seems like a hindrance to doing low tier (sub tier 5) ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,899
[SALVO]
Members
26,582 posts
31,379 battles
3 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Maps.

Maps, maps, and more maps!  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,019
[SAINT]
[SAINT]
Members
1,703 posts
19,421 battles

The return of our missing scenarios, low tier ranked battles (T4 and T5), the introduction of the USS New Jersey as another brawling battleship and to be different give it SAP secondaries, and maybe an iron clad event.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
669 posts
17,994 battles

Simple?

  • Improved RNG for GZ rockets and bombs.
  • Buff for most secondaries - accuracy, penetration… something.
  • Stop work on submarines.
  • Change aircraft spotting to be minimap only (or function like radar, where there is a delay before solid spotting)
  • Introduce a game mode that restricts one team to one nation’s ships, or perhaps simply axis vs allies.
  • Test various (occasionally crazy) settings in alternative game modes (think Overwatch’s experimental modes - stuff like random % of visibility, citadels have 50% chance of detonations, module life modified, RoF tweaks, fire chance 2x, repair crews take 10s but have no cooldown, +-4 tier limit, -dispersion with +damage, —RoF with ++damage, etc.)
  • Cut back on the gamification stuff (login rewards, Grindy quests)
  • Fix Hidden Menace, and otherwise replace all of the worthless captain skills.
  • Add muzzle flashes to ships firing from smoke.
  • Maybe less simple, but make hull options not straight upgrades and otherwise make equipment choices more meaningful.
  • Remove priority sector and replace associated skills.
  • Allow radar to be disabled by damage like other modules.
  • Buff Flint’s range to at least match Atlanta.
  • Buff “try your luck” chance at supercontainers.
  • Allow separate keybindings for AP vs HE and rockets vs torps vs bombs.
  • Allow (force?) deployed fighters to guard a ship rather than just an area.

 

I’d love more maps and balancing, but those are less simple.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
292 posts
43 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Maps.

Some additional maps, very much agree it seems so long since we had a new one, was it the Greek one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,319
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
3,906 posts

We had more ops than we do now years ago. That went away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
155 posts
7,503 battles

1. Remove the "in battle" requirement to go back into battle. Makes grinding faster.

2. Remove post battle service costs from the game. Taxation has no place here. 

3. Increase accuracy across the board such that dispersion is more consistent. Good aim should be rewarded. 

4. Redesign the ranked star system so that the players who play well earn stars. Not only the "winners".

5. Raise the citadel on the Petropavlovsk. 

6. Redesign the Russian CVs. They're heal makes them nearly invulnerable to AA.

7. AA rework??

8. I've always wanted to see a game mode that incorporates respawn of some kind. Brawling 24/7 kind of thing.

 

Edited by CAPTAIN_JACK_HOLDEN
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,960 posts

- T4 premium carriers

- Low tier ranked and clan battles. T3 rocks FYI. Campbeltown FTW

-Tweeks for captains skills, some are broken/pointless/useless/too punitive/expensive

- More variety in builds. After all the re-works, you're still forced into the same old builds.

- Everybody loves more maps. Additional music is cool too.

- Multiple monitor support ?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,064
[TIMT]
Members
1,780 posts
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Sounds interesting at first glance, but it seems that player experience has shown that there's not all that much interest in low tier ships.  It seems that the primary interest of most players is in WW2 era ships, not WW1 or pre WW1 era ships.  Also, there's not much money to be made on selling premium ships in the low tiers, which also seems like a hindrance to doing low tier (sub tier 5) ships.

Thing is, I would not equate low interest in low-tier ships with low interest in the time period.

Personally, low tiers are not appealing to me due to

  • less earnings potentials, no reward for missions etc. below T5
  • mostly bots in MM anyway
  • balancing issues
  • very RNG-heavy mechanics, dispersion is really bad on most ships
  • T4 CVs

List could go on. So if lower tier gameplay would be closer to high tier, with less RNG, and with better or equal earning potential it might be worth it. Also, not being bottom tier is a huge driver towards T9 and T10.

If we had a game set in 1890 to 1918/1921 (or whenever the first naval treaty went into effect), but T10 being what is now basically T4/5 or even 6, adjusted for more consistent gameplay and earnings potential it might be really fun. Also nicely skirts the whole CV issue.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
262
[_BDA_]
Members
618 posts
9,786 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Sounds interesting at first glance, but it seems that player experience has shown that there's not all that much interest in low tier ships.  It seems that the primary interest of most players is in WW2 era ships, not WW1 or pre WW1 era ships.  Also, there's not much money to be made on selling premium ships in the low tiers, which also seems like a hindrance to doing low tier (sub tier 5) ships.

 

8 minutes ago, shinytrashcan said:

Thing is, I would not equate low interest in low-tier ships with low interest in the time period.

Personally, low tiers are not appealing to me due to

  • less earnings potentials, no reward for missions etc. below T5
  • mostly bots in MM anyway
  • balancing issues
  • very RNG-heavy mechanics, dispersion is really bad on most ships
  • T4 CVs

List could go on. So if lower tier gameplay would be closer to high tier, with less RNG, and with better or equal earning potential it might be worth it. Also, not being bottom tier is a huge driver towards T9 and T10.

If we had a game set in 1890 to 1918/1921 (or whenever the first naval treaty went into effect), but T10 being what is now basically T4/5 or even 6, adjusted for more consistent gameplay and earnings potential it might be really fun. Also nicely skirts the whole CV issue.

Player interest is what it is because that's the meta they've given us.  Along with the addition of pre-dreadnaught era vessels there should be a reworking of the experience system to go along with it, tying the rewards to the comparative level of the engaged fleets.  Tier 3 vs Tier 3 giving similar rewards to Tier 10 vs Tier 10.  Add premium vessels and I feel it would draw players.

If it doesn't, they could always return to what we have now.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,371
[BEA5T]
Members
5,419 posts
25,302 battles
4 hours ago, Crucis said:

Honestly, Asym, while the idea of CBs at tiers other than 10 has its appeal, the overwhelming issue for me is that all my best captains are in my tier 10 ships.  And no way in heII am I spending doubloons or my elite commander's XP to move them to another tier's ship just to reverse the change after the CB season is over.  This, therefore, limits me to using premium ships, which me not be such a big deal ... until WG decides to ban a favorite ship from CBs!

It does have appeal.  I have 21 point CPT's for each nation so I have the CPT's and the premium ships at any tier....  And, have 19 pointers in a larger number of TT ships as well....  (One 21 pointer in the Harugumo as the only TT 21 pointer....)

So, if our host stays at Tier 10, well, we are stuck "playing to their tune....."  CB's in 9 and 10 would be nice.  And, this crap of banning something is just wrong IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,371
[BEA5T]
Members
5,419 posts
25,302 battles
4 hours ago, Crucis said:

Maps, maps, and more maps!  

In other games, new maps are released at the Semi-finals with those teams never having the opportunity to practice on them......!  Then, they are released to the general public after the Finals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
369 posts
11,651 battles

In CoOp battles, it is at least 1:15 elapsed before red bots spotted. No one on the green team moves left/right very much, so:

SPAWN BOTH SIDES CLOSER, at least by 30 seconds. AND all torpedos are HALF loaded at the start.

Multiply 30 seconds by all the Co-OP games you play, would add up to a Lot of time. Battles would be shorter, would help server load a bit too.

Edited by brewakeg
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[CAAT]
Members
2,245 posts
5,171 battles
5 hours ago, Igiby100 said:

This is a general-purpose survey. Just in terms of simple requests, what changes would we like to see to the game? 

Since you asked, these are some of the more important changes I'd definitely love to see made to the game:

- Buff secondaries accuracy by buffing ISBA to -45% dispersion or a similar method (adding a dispersion buff to Long Range Secondary Battery Shells is also an option), making secondaries builds at least remotely viable on battleships without built-in dispersion buffs.

- Change Grease The Gears from +20% Turret Traverse Speed to -20% Turret Traverse Time, solving the bass-ackwards logic issue of the skill itself.

- Remove Swift in Silence's condition, making it a flat +10% speed increase for 4 points.

-  Buff T7 California, give her 30s reload and if possible, DFAA, to make her slightly more competitive for her tier. 

- Buff Oklahoma, give her 34.3s reload (same as Texas), since she already has abysmal AP shell penetration. She literally does not need a 38s reload at Tier 5.

- Buff the USN BB splitline, give them 38s reload (aka the Hizen treatment). They really don't need 40s reload, given that the AP shell damage is less than most other 406mm competitors.

- Add AA range mods/skills back into the game, and back on secondaries skills. AA range mods may actually make AA builds semi-viable again.

- Restore the speed retention mechanic on all USN Standard Type battleships.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[CAAT]
Members
2,245 posts
5,171 battles
5 hours ago, Jolly_Rodgered said:

the introduction of the USS New Jersey as another brawling battleship and to be different give it SAP secondaries,

Rey The Last Jedi GIF - Rey TheLastJedi MillenniumFalcon - Discover & Share  GIFs

Edited by SaiIor_Moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
425
[PSV]
Supertester, Wiki Editor
890 posts
6,912 battles

We've had lower tier clan battles before, it was pretty much considered a skip season. I highly doubt it will happen again. 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,899
[SALVO]
Members
26,582 posts
31,379 battles
1 hour ago, Asym_KS said:

this crap of banning something is just wrong IMO.

I disagree.  But I think that a better solution would be to limit the number of ships of any individual class to 1.  Obviously, this would be irrelevant for CV's since there can be only 1 CV per team.  I'd love to see some variety in team comps enforced.  It's boring seeing the same ships night after night in CBs. Endless parades of the same ships every damn night.

Heck, for CVs, it wouldn't bother me to see 2-3 of them banned for a week and then the next week, return them to availability and ban a different 2-3 CVs for the next week, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,899
[SALVO]
Members
26,582 posts
31,379 battles
16 minutes ago, mrmariokartguy said:

We've had lower tier clan battles before, it was pretty much considered a skip season. I highly doubt it will happen again. 

I remember tier 8 CB which ended up with DD heavy team comps.  And another season at tier 6 where Graf Spees were the meta cruiser..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,899
[SALVO]
Members
26,582 posts
31,379 battles
1 hour ago, Asym_KS said:

In other games, new maps are released at the Semi-finals with those teams never having the opportunity to practice on them......!  Then, they are released to the general public after the Finals.

I like the Big Race map.  I tend to think that it'd be too small for tier 10 CBs, but it might be doable for tier 7 or 8 CBs.  It would probably be necessary to spawn the teams pretty deep in the NW and SW corners so that they can't see each other at the start of the battle.

Releasing the for CBs is a thought, but I suspect that many clans would hate not having new maps released beforehand so that they could become familiar with them and train on them.  Personally, I care more about new maps for regular usage rather than CBs usage.  The problem with new maps and clan battles is (to me) that WG gets too darned anal about making them perfectly balanced to the point that they suck all the life and originality out of them.  All of the newer maps just don't have the character that the game's original maps had. 

On top of that, they have so perfect good maps that they adamantly refuse to use in regular play.  Riposte being the prime example.  Interestingly, Riposte is a heavily mirrored map, but it seems like a decent map that has, IIRC, 3 different versions (i.e. standard, domination, and epicenter) already created.  Personally, I believe that there's so much they would do with existing though perhaps un or underused maps to increase the variety of maps in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×