Pigeon_of_War

Feedback and Thoughts Directly to Pigeon_of_War

  • You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

2,211 posts in this topic

"They'll get better"? - sorry, if they haven't figured it out by tier 6 and 7, they aren't going to.

 

Oh they still TK even at tier 10.

 

But the one good reason you're looking for? ...Risk vs Reward. (And yes I've been TKed with torps and it sucks but... I do think risk vs reward is a good thing myself)


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a ship is able to still open-sea invisibly fire at them.

 

I don't understand why you think that sugestion would re-enable open water invisifiring. I don't necessarily like the suggestion, but that response gives me the impression of a significant misunderstanding. Does your definition of invisifire include ships being visible for 8+ seconds if they only fired once? Any sustained fire would still lead to persistent visial contact under that scheme.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh yes, i thought I answered this, or rather I meant to on Friday and go sidetracked. No more excuses....

 

So I looked it over and this is not necessarily a bad idea, it's just complex. It would be difficult to explain to a new player that different caliber guns have different visibility detection times and that's why a ship is able to still open-sea invisibly fire at them.  This ultimately also still promotes invisible firing to some extent, which is what is not desired. 

 

 

Pigeon I think you misunderstood my post, I was saying that the Invisibility would still be like it is now, just that the time it is in effect duration is reduced for smaller guns, I guess I was a little vague on that part. The reason I made the suggestion is because I felt that yes, stealth-fire was an issue but the way Wargaming got rid of it punished the destroyers and (indirectly) buffed the battleships my system would not allow stealth-fire to occur again unless in smoke or behind cover (just like now and even if it could happen it would be for just 1 salvo). I just feel that this system would help with that, also someone could easily understand that if you have a bigger gun you would be spotted longer after firing, it's -ahem- 'common' sense. Besides this is the best solution to a problem you guys made why you guys thought you could make such a MAJOR change with only 8 DAYS (March 21st to March 27th https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/pt063/ ) of testing by players was arrogant and idiotic if you had given more time maybe you would of realized a template solution like this was not the best idea but who am I to say?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-Snip-

 

Without getting into major details, just because a new system was available on a Public Test for 8 days doesn't mean only 8 days of testing went into this. Please also bear in mind, as Sub-Octavian has said in multiple locations, stealth firing was an accidental mechanic that the game was never balanced for. It's complete removal means destroyers can now be played as intended. 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Without getting into major details, just because a new system was available on a Public Test for 8 days doesn't mean only 8 days of testing went into this. Please also bear in mind, as Sub-Octavian has said in multiple locations, stealth firing was an accidental mechanic that the game was never balanced for. It's complete removal means destroyers can now be played as intended. 

 

Can you share the internal statistics tracked of all other nation destroyers vs VMF destroyers after the stealth fire change?  I'm legitimately interested in seeing some colorful graphical representation of the performance gap widening, especially the USN DD's.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Without getting into major details, just because a new system was available on a Public Test for 8 days doesn't mean only 8 days of testing went into this. Please also bear in mind, as Sub-Octavian has said in multiple locations, stealth firing was an accidental mechanic that the game was never balanced for. It's complete removal means destroyers can now be played as intended. 

 

I understand this I am saying that in the future that if a major change like this happens again it should be tested by the players at large (ie. public test) for longer then 8 days, and I understand why stealth-fire was removed and agree with it's removal I just feel that the WAY it was done was not the best and other options should of been explored and the current option tested more. I apologize if I came out as snippy, accusational or insulting, that was not my intent and as such I apologize I just felt that such a major change should of had a longer testing period by the player-base at large like with the scrapped BB Bow nerf earlier this year. 

 

Again i apologize for the tone of the previous post and if it sounded like I was saying you guys had not tested this that was not my intent.

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another alternative on Fog_Repair_Ship_Ayakashi's stealth idea is change the detection bloom reset time.

Make BB detection 25 sec

CA/CL detection 20 sec

DD detection 15 sec

 

Finally make the concealment mod change to -10% detectability, -5 sec detection reset duration.

 

thus making ships like Cruisers or DDs have a greater ability to escape engagements with larger meaner ships. Sneaky BBs get to keep their decent ability to slink off and the rest of the bbs are no worse for wear.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Without getting into major details, just because a new system was available on a Public Test for 8 days doesn't mean only 8 days of testing went into this. Please also bear in mind, as Sub-Octavian has said in multiple locations, stealth firing was an accidental mechanic that the game was never balanced for. It's complete removal means destroyers can now be played as intended. 

 

Stealth firing may have been an accidental mechanic, but with it being in the game for so long it became a core mechanic for IJN and USN DD's especially after IJN torp nerfs. The changes were wholly unnecessary without significant buffs to both DD lines.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh yes, i thought I answered this, or rather I meant to on Friday and go sidetracked. No more excuses....

 

So I looked it over and this is not necessarily a bad idea, it's just complex. It would be difficult to explain to a new player that different caliber guns have different visibility detection times and that's why a ship is able to still open-sea invisibly fire at them.  This ultimately also still promotes invisible firing to some extent, which is what is not desired. 

 

 

Sorry, don't follow that

 

1st

Pre 6.3 the explanation was "when a ship fires its guns its detect-ability increases by an amount that varies with its gun caliber and, if now spotted, this effect lasts for X seconds"

 

the suggestion was this change to "when a ship fires its guns its detect-ability becomes the same as its max fire range and, if now spotted, this effect lasts for a duration that varies with its gun caliber"

 

If people can understand the 1st sentence, I expect they can understand the 2nd

 

2nd

Quite explicitly they can't invisi-fire at them any more (the firer can be seen and targeted). The question is simply for how long.

 

It is wargaming's prerogative and responsibility to make design decisions about the game, and if you want to do it this way that is up to you of course. But I do suggest you have another think about this 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Can you share the internal statistics tracked of all other nation destroyers vs VMF destroyers after the stealth fire change?  I'm legitimately interested in seeing some colorful graphical representation of the performance gap widening, especially the USN DD's.

 

​A lovely idea. Post the performance statistics of all DDs pre- and post-0.6.3 in a graphic display. The average daily DD population in queue might also might be interesting.

 

<Carefully nuanced demurral inbound>

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh yes, i thought I answered this, or rather I meant to on Friday and go sidetracked. No more excuses....

 

So I looked it over and this is not necessarily a bad idea, it's just complex. It would be difficult to explain to a new player that different caliber guns have different visibility detection times and that's why a ship is able to still open-sea invisibly fire at them.  This ultimately also still promotes invisible firing to some extent, which is what is not desired. 

 

 

I respectfully disagree, especially with the times he talking about. I'd say make it based on ship - BB longest, cruiser mid, DD shortest, but even taking his numbers 10 seconds is plenty of time to spot him and line a shot up after they finish firing. Short of slow rating turrets faced the wrong way 5 seconds is enough. But I'm not even a DD player and I think what we have right now is a bit too extreme. DD's need a better means of strike and retreat that isn't fully reliant on smoke because A: it makes them stingy with smoke for their own use, not say, helping a teammate, B: once smoke is done your otherwise screwed for a while. And with ships primarily reliant on their guns being spotted for 20 seconds vs IJN, some German, and the higher tier USN are using torps, which are way more devastating, completely undetected. Sure, invisi firing was an issue, especially with fires as out of control as they are, but this is far from a perfect fix. 

 

Keep BB's with the nightmarishly long one, they usually stay spotted anyway.

Give cruisers a slightly lower gun bloom spot time than the BB's, give them a slightly better ability to run from BB's.

And give DD's the shortest so they are still spotted a bit after they stop firing to get an idea/take a shot, or cut their fire time if they fire and wait to a time almost as slow as some cruisers or BB's.

 

And if a new player can't comprehend "big boat, big gun, big visible boom" "medium boat, medium guns, medium boom" and "small boat, small guns, small boom" then I'm sorry but they are likely too young to play this game or the education system has truly failed them and I pity them. Because it's the same logic as the gun damage when simplified - big gun big damage, etc, across the classes.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idea from someone who plays plenty of DDs:

BALANCE THE NUMBER OF DDs PER TEAM!

Please balance the number of Destroyers per team, imbalance happens far too often and is nearly a given that the team with more DDs wins.

 

 tCkGwBN.jpg

 

WOTnp1a.jpg

 

jrq4Hm0.jpg

 

Tql9ebo.jpg

 

4AQkS1e.jpg

 

LkqG2Wv.jpg

 

oO8dPz1.jpg

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

       Hey Pigeon, I got a suggestion on manual drop. What if manual drop was still in the game at teir 4-5, but it had the same spread as an automatic drop? Manual drop would only be the way it is now in game once the player reaches teir 6. I think this provides the best of both worlds. It takes away the big advantage of manual drop of being so accurate and so damaging at low teir, but it still has the bonus of both exposing the player to manual drop early on and having some level of skill at teir 4-5 CV play.

     

Just a thought and I would like you opinion on this idea.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Pigeon, I got a small suggestion (More like a small fix): on the IJN ships that require it e.g. Myoko, Kongo, Fuso etc. Can they get their stressed vowels? I know some of the newer IJN DDs have them and it would be nice to get the uniformity for all the ships. 

 

While you're at it, could we get the stressed Japanese vowels for the forums too? In the "Insert Special Character" box?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to send a quick shout out thank you for some of the things that war gaming has been addressing in patches lately.

 

US cruisers are in a better shape than they were. IJN Destroyers are not there yet, but looking better. The upcoming tweaks to German cruisers are appropriate and necessary. Might need a tiny gun damage buff but have to be careful to not make them better than Russian AP right?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Pigeon,

 

Just wondering when there is going to be a 'No CV' battle option, so I can start playing again?

 

Thanks


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the option to display ship names in their native languages might be nice too for people who are multi lingual.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of carriers can you comment any about upcoming changes to cv? If nothing specific mechanically what are the design goals of changing CV? Making them more accessible and easier to play? Changing the skill cap? Just curious if you can say anything general about them.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pigeon, I'd like your response to this suggestion. The Akizuki can be easily fixed by adjusting its base HE armor penetration to 20mm. This is based on 100mm divided by 5 instead of 6. Aki really needs this added flexibility to revive it.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to send a quick shout out thank you for some of the things that war gaming has been addressing in patches lately.

 

US cruisers are in a better shape than they were. IJN Destroyers are not there yet, but looking better. The upcoming tweaks to German cruisers are appropriate and necessary. Might need a tiny gun damage buff but have to be careful to not make them better than Russian AP right?

 

You're welcome! It's the continued feedback from you players that make my Monday reports for content filled. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Why is there no fire assit for team mates by using your damage control party for putting out your team mates ship fire? You cannot help your team mate when they are on fire. Ships did do that action in WW2.
  • How about saying "Check fire! "Check fire! Friendly in danger" and the guns don't fire at all to prevent team damage? How about some pro-active programming that can be done with that thought?

 

 

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pigeon_of_War I believe Yuzal makes a excellent point of the possibility of most players being able to earn the big prize in the current Clash of the Elements if you could watch and comment on this video


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Pigeon, just wanted to say I'm super psyched about this next patch (Cruiser armor/detection buff mostly). I did want to speak out about the Tirpitz secondary buff though, 7k is way too much. While she did need a buff, this now makes her far and away better than her tech tree counterpart which IMO is not the purpose of premiums. 5k would have been much better as it would place her on equal range terms as Scharn+Gnies in addition to her extra secondaries and torps it would have been a better progression and balance. Before you bite my head off and say that Bismarck has hydro, remember that it was nerfed a couple patches ago so while still handy it is nowhere near as competitive or useful. Owning a Bismark seems redundant now when compared to Tirpitz, the nice balance between tech tree and premium that Sharn/Gneis or Chapayev/Kutuzov have was skipped entirely.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.