Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Balance'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - Asia Language Based Communities
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
    • 한국어 커뮤니티
  • Mod Section
    • Player Modifications
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL






Drag Interests

Found 19 results

  1. So I've been playing around with Asymmetrical battles over the weekend on PTS... Mods, before you look to move this thread, it's about balance as well and belongs in a lively section of the forums, not some dark harry potter closet. [Pretty please don't move it] Even when it was announced I'll be honest, I had serious doubts. Having played it now, I still have doubts but I don't think it's an impossible task; just one that needs work. Can Wargaming pull it off? Maybe but very unlikely. @dejiko_nyo will no doubt chime in at some point with 'I told you so' but some of it has to do with player skills and some of it has to do with the balance between ships. World of Warships as a game has a wide variety of ships that range from strong in all situations to only in niche situations. In random battles, most games are 12 v 12. In this, the ship differences and player skill levels have more of a chance to be levelled out by the other 23 players/ships. In a game mode like ranked that has a more limited ship selected and number of players, those with stronger ships or who are better players can influence the battle more. Asymmetric battles IMO has both of these issues in the current format. If you have a stack of really good players in the right good ships on the high-tier side, it'll be a nightmare for the swarm side. If you have even one muppet on the high tier team, that can also spell disaster. And what ships are on the high tier team has a huge impact. Whoever has the DD/CV advantage gets a massive advantage and what ships the high-tier side has can change everything. A good radar cruiser or gunboat bully can change everything. Asymmetrical battles point out the massive differences in ships within classes at tier in power and in role... When talking about the high tier side. At the same time as this is happening, the swarm side is far more forgiving if a player is a muppet or pro, in a good ship or bad. The way the game is balanced is around equal number sides and many people on both teams. However... ... .. . If the ruleset is changed, everything changes. What I mean by ruleset is the conditions for winning. If WG can find a good ruleset that suits the numbers, classes and tiers disparity then the mode could work. I think WG tried that with some different cap setups and this is the right avenue of thinking. They haven't found the right type yet though. I actually think an attack/defence mode would work in this type of numbers setup far better. High tier ships have to defend against the hordes, sounds fun right? Probably the main challenge with this will be when impossible odds happen - having said that we see those in randoms a lot anyways. Bottom Line - Ships vary in power and role within classes, this variety becomes more noticable when there are few vs many. Asymmetrical battles are plausible but require a rethink of the ruleset over a Standard/Domination/Epicentre style of game. Thoughts?
  2. 1. Change carrier spotting so that when a ship is spotted by a plane it's surface detectability range is increased by 10%, or 20% or whatever. This value can be altered depending on what class of ship the plane is spotting. The ship is then only seen by other ships within the surface detectability range. This change is intended to buff DDs primarily because carrier spotting can really limit their gameplay options. 2. Add a radar jamming consumable. This would add some counter play against the current radar cruisers. In terms of design, this could either cut an active radar when used or perhaps run for a period of time and prevent a radar from being used during that time. 3. Add more interactivity between ships on the same team to further encourage team play. For example, the previously suggested radar jamming consumable could be mounted on certain cruisers, say the French line, but activated by DDs on the same team within a certain proximity (perhaps even of the same nationality to add further complexity). I like this arrangement because it gives the DD ultimate control of the radar jamming, given that he's the one that really needs it, but he still needs his teammate there within range of the radar ship. In this way you would need two ships to use the consumable. 4. Add more options to the 'chat wheel' (not sure what it's called). I think something like 'push left flank', 'push mid', 'push right flank' could be useful. Also more specific commands for allied ships could be useful. For example, 'fire from cover' and 'tank enemy fire' and 'push forward'. These could all be useful because 'requesting assistance' isn't very specific. Hopefully these ideas can spark some discussion. They are not meant to be final.
  3. WarGaming is still balancing aircraft carriers (CV) and anti-aircraft (AA) in this game so that players who play CV and those who counter them would be satisfied without ruining each other’s gameplays and enjoyment. Therefore, I would humbly contribute a few of my own suggestions with some comprehensive explanations for CV and AA to be considered by the developers. 1. Reversion to 0.8.4 continuous AA with some tweaks Update 0.8.5 is a massive change to how continuous AA behaves. Starting from this update, continuous AA damage focuses only on a single plane instead of spreading out the damage on several random planes. This causes one plane to take continuous AA damage until it is taken down. Consequently, it is much easier to take down planes as long as the hostile plane squadrons are in AA range. This is good for those who are playing against CV but bad for the CV players especially those who unfortunately get dumped as bottom tier such as Shokaku in a tier 10 match. This also causes CV with little initial plane capacity such as Saipan and RN CVs to get deplaned before the match ends. Hence, it would be wise to revert back to 0.8.4 AA system of which continuous AA damage is spread out on three or more planes. Of course this should come with some improvements. First of all, medium and long AA ranges should be overlapped. This is to ensure higher chance to shoot planes down. Since the AA ranges are overlapped, flaks could be removed from long range AA because overlapped AA should be enough to deal damage on planes thus taking them down. Last but not least, continuous AA damage on a single plane should only be possible by the usage of AA priority sector reinforcement. The AA guns on a ship will focus damage on multiple planes instead if the player does not reinforce AA priority sector. 2. Limitation to plane capacity and removal of plane regeneration ability Yes, you are reading this right. Each CV should have limited plane capacity just like in the RTS era based on this table. For that reason, CV hull should no longer be able to regenerate planes. This change is so that CV players would be more careful in delivering their attack instead of deliberately wasting their planes on grouped ships with combined AA. This change should reward CV players who plan their attacks excellently and punish those who play badly by wasting their planes. Players should consider pre-dropping their payloads on water or land masses to prevent from being deplaned (run out of planes) early. With this change, the old AA Defense Expert achievement should be reintroduced when any type of ship manages to shoot down at least 80% of total hostile aircrafts in a single battle. It is undeniably disastrous if a CV is deplaned. If such case happened, the CV hull should get extra +10% surface and air concealment so that the player can hide until the end of the battle. To prevent from being deplaned early, the Air Supremacy captain skill should give 2 extra planes for each plane type. For example, Hosho with initial 24 planes capacity can have up to 30 planes with this skill. This skill should be the first one to be chosen by players. 3. Repair party consumable for all types of planes regardless of tiers All types of planes should be given Repair party consumable regardless of their tiers. Currently, only torpedo bombers of tier 8 and 10 CVs have this consumable. This consumable is useful to restore planes HP and to prevent excessive plane lost which may cause a CV to be deplaned easily. 4. More buff for Survivability Expert commander skill on planes As of update, Survivability Expert commander skill gives extra +25 HP on planes for each CV tier. This is not enough with the renewed single-plane-focus AA system. Therefore, it is suggested for this skill to give extra +50 HP on plane per CV tier to ensure the longer endurance of aircrafts especially if 0.8.5 AA mechanic is permanent. For example, one torpedo bomber of Graf Zeppelin has 1470 HP. With this proposed SE skill, it would have 1870 HP. This is a major improvement that should be considered to minimize aircraft losses. 5. Panic effect of fighter planes & DFAA while taking down planes Currently, fighter planes (ship-borne catapult fighters and patrol fighters) shoot down hostile planes with the 1:1 trade-off. For example, a ship that launches 3 fighter planes is able to shoot down 3 hostile planes. Meanwhile, Defensive Fire Anti-Aircraft (DFAA) increases the continuous AA damage for limited period of time. Since the CV rework, fighter planes and DFAA do not cause panic effect on plane attack despite being able to shoot down or at least damage the planes. When a ship uses DFAA, the flaks that it produces are dark orange-reddish compared to bright orange-yellowish flaks without DFAA. Therefore, I would suggest the reintroduction of panic effect on attack just like during the pre-rework era. If a squadron is doing attack run within an AA range of a ship currently using DFAA or while being engaged by fighter planes, the drop reticle should be widened. For instance, rocket and bomb reticle should be enlarged to 3 or 4 times of its minimum size. Meanwhile, torpedo drop path could be widened to an extreme 70-80° angle so that the enemy ship could try to dodge the torpedoes thus increasing its survivability chance. 6. Ability of planes to spot torpedoes Before the rework, planes were able to spot hostile torpedoes thus saving the life of ships by giving them enough time to react and torpedobeat. However, this splendid feature was removed once 0.8.0 update hit the live server. Currently, the only way to be aware of incoming torpedoes early is by taking Vigilance commander skill or having a teammate to spot them for you. Therefore, this feature of all types of planes being able to spot torpedoes should be re-implemented. This is to diversify the usefulness of planes. For example, catapult spotter is only able to extend the firing range for a few percentages. With the reintroduction of this ability, it can spot torpedoes once it flies right on top of them. CV-borne aircrafts also should be able to spot torpedoes coming from hostile ship hiding in smoke. 7. Planes take off delay During the RTS era, all CV-based planes had preparation time at the start of the game. The duration of preparation time varied with CV tiers and number of planes in a squadron. In the current reworked CV gameplay, there is literally no preparation time for aircrafts. An aircraft carrier is able to instantly launch aircraft squadron right at the moment when a match starts. Planes are able to spot enemy ships and the direction of their movements in less than 1 minute. This somehow disrupts the ships from moving stealthily to capture points or strategic areas especially for destroyers (DD). WG actually experimented with plane preparation time in the Public Test Server. However, this feature was cancelled when it was supposed to be implemented in 0.8.4 patch. Therefore, the developers should re-implement this feature with some balancing. The aircrafts preparation time for CV is suggested as in Table 2. With this feature, ships of both teams can go to their strategic areas without being spotted too early. A new Upgrade to reduce the plane preparation time by 5 seconds should be provided for CVs of tier 8 and above. Table 2: Suggestion for plane preparation time CV tier Plane preparation time in seconds 4 10 5 15 6 20 7 25 8 30 9 35 10 40 8. Ability to turn off automated consumable usage on CV hull in settings Currently, consumables usage for CV hull is automated. When CV hull is detected by enemy aircraft or ship, escort fighters will be automatically launched and fly around the hull for six minute. Other than that, the Damage Control Party (DCP) will be automatically used when the CV hull is on fire/flooding or when any module on CV hull is incapacitated. This automation is so that CV players can keep controlling their plane squadron without going back to their hull control mode in order to use consumable. Moreover, the developers stated that this is for not spreading the player’s attention too thin in battle and reducing the overload of micromanagement. This automation has its own detriments and can be easily exploited by enemy CV. There is a slight cooldown time of fighters consumable for about 40 seconds once the six-minute patrol has ended. An enemy CV who intends to CV snipe can wait for the patrolling catapult fighters to land and attack the CV during the cooldown period, provided that the enemy CV can avoid the flaks. It is quite bad when the DCP activates only because the rudder/engine is incapacitated or the hull is on fire which will automatically extinguish in just 5 seconds. It is absolutely head tilting when the CV hull is flooding during the DCP cooldown period because it has been wasted just to repair incapacitated module or 5-second fire. Hence, there should be an option to turn off automated consumable usage in Settings just like how the collision avoidance system can be turned on and off. When this option is turned off, a CV player can decide whether to use the consumable or not by cancelling their plane control and going back to the CV hull control mode. Another alternative and much better option is to allow CV hull consumable to be used manually while being in planes control mode. The developers just simply need to adjust the UI of planes control mode by allocating a space for the consumable buttons. An example is shown in the figure below. When a CV player is controlling their planes, they can decide to use the hull consumable by pressing the button assigned to the desired consumable. 9. Zoomable tactical map for precise waypoints setting Currently, CV players rely on waypoints to set their course while piloting their planes. Sometimes, the waypoints fail to navigate the CV hull in the correct direction, causing the hull to be stranded on island or ram friendly ship. This failure often puts CV in dangerous and awkward positions thus making them vulnerable to enemy attacks once detected. This is always caused by complex waypoints being set through islands with small gaps between them even with the collision avoidance system enabled. Therefore, I suggest a tactical map that can be zoomed exactly to 4 horizontal grids so that CV player can set more precise waypoints through islands thus slightly reducing the chance to run aground. A CV player can use the default M button to go to tactical map view and use the mouse wheel to control the zoom level. They can go back to normal view by pressing M again or Esc. This feature should be limited for CV only because it is the only type of ship that uses waypoints for navigation. 10. Reintroduction of odd tier CVs with special planes Odd tier CVs such as Bogue, Hiryu and Essex existed during the glorious RTS CV era. Once update 0.8.0 is released, odd tier CVs are completely removed from the research trees whereas tier 7 Saipan and Kaga are uptiered to 8. There was once a plan to re-implement those old odd tier CVs in alternate CV line but until today, there has been no news about it. Therefore, I would like to suggest the odd tier CVs reintroduction with planes of special functions which emphasis on team support that vary for each nation. The special planes should replace or be optional with the rocket planes. For example, odd tier IJN CVs should have planes that can lay off smokes. The squadron should be set in 2×1 configuration. Once a player starts smoking run, the plane will fly as low as torpedo bombers in attacking phase while generating smokes that can last for about 1 minute. The smoke should be able to cover the whole flank thus blocking enemy’s line of sight. Secondly, odd tier RN CVs should have planes that can extinguish fire on friendly ships. The squadron should be set in 3×1 configuration. The cruising speed of the planes should be 95 knots. The fire extinguishing mechanism should be the same as the RN carpet bombs dropping mechanism. When doing fire extinguishing run, the plane will sprinkle water on friendly ship. This is really helpful for ships especially BB with long fire duration. When a ship is on fire and their DCP is in cooldown period or when all the DCPs have been used up for RU BB, the player should ask the CV with the water sprinklers to help them extinguish the fire. Next, odd tier USN CVs should be provided with seaplane that can land on capture points thus capturing them. Only one seaplane can be launched at a time. During the capturing process, the CV player cannot launch another plane or the capture will stop. Of course the capture seaplane is susceptible to hostile AA and fighters. Therefore, it is only sensible to capture the points together with the presence of allied ships when there is no hostile ship in the vicinity. This is also a novel way for CV to get Capture or Assisted in Capture ribbons without using their own hull to cap. Odd tier IJN and USN CVs should be given different type of bomb from their even tier nation counterparts. HE bombs should be provided to odd tier IJN CVs meanwhile AP bombs are for their USN counterpart. The tables above show the suggested plane capacity of the odd tier CVs and their plane preparation time respectively. Since I am not familiar with Royal Navy ships, I will leave that to WG to decide which odd tier RN CVs to be added. 11. Restriction of one CV per team for tier 8+ CVs Before the CV rework, CVs of tier 8 and above were not accompanied by another CV of same or different tier in a team. Therefore, there was only one CV per team given that the CV tier is 8 and above. This restriction should be implemented once again because tier 8+ CVs are quite impactful in high tier matches despite having lower alpha damage output. This is also to ensure that two queuing CVs get into a match faster without having to wait for the 3rd CV in the queue. 12. ±1 tier matchmaking limitation for CV The matchmaking for CV should be limited to ±1 tier which means that CV should always be midtiered. Currently, CV has ±2 tier matchmaking except for tier 4 CVs of which they are restricted to ±1 unless if they are in failed division. If a CV is the top tier ship in a ±2 tier match, surely the bottom tier ships will be the easy targets for the CV especially if the bottom tier ship is alone or having bad AA. For example, Normandie in a double tier 8 CV match against Lexington and Saipan. In addition, CV being the bottom tier ship in a ±2 tier match is detrimental for the CV player too. As an instance, Shokaku being placed in a tier 10 match against Minotaur and Worcester with overpowered AA. Despite having regenerable planes, bottom-tiered CVs can always be deplaned by ships with AA two tiers higher. Therefore, a matchmaking limitation of ±1 tier for CV must be implemented. 13. Repair Party consumable for destroyers regardless of tier DD is the type of ship with the least amount of HP. Even with the reduction of attack time for rocket aircrafts and the change of HE bomb reticle, DD is always being an easy target for CV especially those with weak AA. Smoke is used by DDs to temporary hide themselves from CV attack but once it has ended, they are vulnerable to CV attack again during the smoke cooldown period. The usage of radar also renders smoke useless for DD, giving chance for CV and other ship types to attack them. Therefore, all DDs should be provided with catapult fighters Repair Party consumable regardless of their tier and nation. Currently, tier 9+ Russian destroyers and Kidd are the only DDs with this consumable. With the provision of Repair Party for DD, their survivability is improved and they can live a bit longer despite being attacked by CV or any other ship types. Even in a match without CV, Repair Party could be useful for them to restore their HP after being hit by shells or torpedoes. If the developers can provide Repair Party for all ships in WoWs Blitz, then they should do the same for at least all DDs in WoWs PC. 14. Improvements to Graf Zeppelin’s bombs and torpedoes Currently, the damage of AP bombs and torpedoes carried by the planes of Graf Zeppelin (GZ) are pretty anemic. The AP bombs often ricochet, do not penetrate or overpenetrate even with the normalization improvement by 5° in the 0.8.5 update. Usually, the bombs do not even hit their targets at all due to the large scatter of bomb drops. The torpedoes still deal little damage even after its alpha damage has been increased to 5333 in the 0.8.5 update. The existence of torpedo bulge on ships makes GZ’s torpedoes less impactful. Therefore, I would suggest a few balancing parameters for bombs and torpedoes of GZ. 14.1 AP bomb improvements The AP bombs could be improved by the following means. The first alternative is to add two more bombers in an attack run. A good loadout would be 3×4 bombers which means that there are 3 attack flights with 4 planes per flight. This should be able to increase the probability of bomb hits on ships especially BB. The second alternative is that a plane should carry 2 AP bombs just like how Midway and Lexington can bring 2 HE bombs per plane. The loadout should be kept as 4×2 bombers with two AP bombs per plane to increase the chance of bomb hitting target ship. With 4 successful hits to citadel, the bomb could deal up to 28k damage. The bomb normalization angle should be improved by 5° more to reduce ricochet and overpen. 14.2 Torpedo improvements There should be two modules of torpedo bombers that can be chosen by players. The first module is the default 3×3 loadout with tier 8 Ta-152C-1/R14 planes. One torpedo deals up to 5333 damage with 6.7 km range. The torpedo damage for this default module is pretty weak thus I suggest for another alternative. The second alternative module has 4×2 loadout with tier 7 planes that should have 200 less HP and 30 knots slower than the default tier 8 torpedo bombers. However, one torpedo should be able to deal up to 9500 damage given that the planes survive in AA auras. The torpedo range should be shortened to 5.3 km too for balancing. In conclusion, the alternative module has torpedoes that can deal more damage which is balanced by weaker and slower planes. Careful and planned attack will reward players with more impactful damage. This concludes my suggestions for CV and AA tweaks for this game. Thank you for taking your time reading this lengthy post. Lastly, I hope that WG takes at least one of the ideas for their consideration.
  4. Fellow Gamers, I am not a Unicum, we're part of a small community that doesn't have much of a voice compared to EU and NA, and I am pretty much preaching in the void, but anyway. Thanks in advance for reading, at any rate. Sorry I didn't post that under the "buff CV" topic currently on top - I am not posting about buffing them, I am posting about, yet again, re-working them into something that doesn't frustrate anyone, be them CV players or preys. Sorry if some if not all these ideas have been pitched before (it must probably be the #748th topic about this anyway...) for I might not have come across them, but more generally it is more of a way for me to vent off steam than anything. I write this with my own background in mind, being first and foremost a DD player. I like the adrenaline, the knife fighting, the ninja strikes... But I am also very attached personally (if not romantically ^^) to carriers IRL - so much that I am literally making a game about them right now. But that ain't the topic. The point is, I fancy myself believing that I am not too biased, and that I did my best in order to keep balance and fun alive in this humble commentary. CV carriers in WoWs have always kinda surprised me. Whether it's pre or post-rework, there's something that immediately feels wrong about them - their target hierarchy and their means to deal with it. I know WoWs doesn't aim at historicity beyond the global feel, but we all know that there are a few logical assumptions that still work well: 6 inchers CL are nimble, fire fast and sweep away DDs ; 8 inchers CA prey on 6 inchers but feel naked against a BB, BBs penetrate everybody but are pretty bad at avoiding anything, DDs are sneaky and will ruin your day with a good torpedo spread. Immediately, there's something that doesn't feel right about that: the CVs in their current state are not somewhere in this close loop, what I will call our meta food cycle. They prey on everybody and fear technically no-one, being only vulnerable when their own team collapses or the CV player suicides. They are not actually part of the food cycle: much like us humans in our own environment, they are above it. Gameplay-wise it is wrong, we all know that, but first and foremost, it has no historical and logical basis. We know why, because we also know who should be its natural predator and is awkwardly nowhere to be seen in game: the enemy CV. See, IRL the target hierarchy of a CV would be something like CV first > then major combatants > DD Because obviously the highest level of threat comes first, then the major and easier targets come next in order. Somehow, it is perfectly inverted in-game: the first natural target of a CV has become the DD, then major combatants, then the CV when there's nothing left. To me, it defies any sort of common logic and makes it all the less intuitive to any new player having a vague idea of what a carrier battle is or was. But, again, we're not playing a historical simulation so whatever. Problem is, this has repercussions in gameplay too. It's tough enough for surface combatants to be left unable to get rid of the CV by themselves (which is understandable and follows historical logic) but what makes it worst is that they do not have any active way to get rid of what is thrown at them. The only actual defense (AAA) isn't even skill-based, which is in a way a big joke both to CV players and their targets. And don't tell me about maneuvering better: in order for the experience not to be too frustrating for the CV players, we ended up making surface combatants too easy to hit. Before Mikuma and Mogami got struck, anyone knows how many american bombs were dropped fruitlessly at surface IJN ships at Midway? Hell, Tanikaze got attacked by a grand total 61 SBDs that only managed a couple near misses. Directly attacking DDs should be the last thing a CV player who wants to conserve striking power would do. Doesn't mean DDs should be immune to the CV, but they should be dispatched by other means, that might include, erm, teamwork? I am not asking anybody to actually nerf the CVs. It's not about buffing them either. I am asking to have them live a new sort of life that will be respectful of the time CV player invest in their skills, while not being totally unbalanced for other categories, especially DD players who pretty much live in the permanent fear of being rocketed to death - or worse, not protected by their own carrier when that happens. I don't claim to have the solution to all problems, but obviously I think that carriers should have their own meta and XP system that encourages them to: - go after the enemy carrier(s), including with some XP incentive if needed - actively and passively support allied surface units through a number of new properties that would reflect IRL experience (scouting, directing CAP, hell even laying smoke!) - only feel the need to actively attack lesser, smaller, faster surface units (CA, CL, DDs) when there's no CV or BB around to strike, and be rightfully hampered by a low chance of hitting them when trying so. Harassing them with shadowing planes should be encouraged, on the other hand. A few examples : - We all see the abuse of the fighter cover system right now: CV players found that it is more interesting to drop CAP over an enemy target to keep it spotted instead of dropping it over a friendly unit... Well, just give carriers what they needed from the start: a scout consumable. Let them drop a long-term, high altitude scout consumable attached to an enemy target that would end up not being reachable by in-game AAA. The scout would follow the target and keep her spotted. You wouldn't abuse the system too much by simply : 1 - limiting the total number of consumable uses 2 - limiting the number of active scouts instances at the same time (2 for instance) 3 - make it countered by dropping some fighter cover over your tagged friendlies in order to get rid of it. BBs and CAs with the proper consumable in particular would find a new and useful use to their seaplane fighters, and wouldn't be left defenseless. This would encourage the CV player to drop shadowing scouts over smaller fries. As a DD player, I am perfectly fine with the idea of being shadowed by an enemy plane and needing extra help or extra time to get rid of it. In game logic, this amounts to the same as radar (which is limited by a well-known range, which makes it somewhat predictable to a careful DD player): if you get rekt after that, that's your fault and you had your chance. And even then, if you end up far behind enemy lines and get shadowed with no hope of extra help, you still have a chance as long as you can escape the enemy gunboats - to the very least, you're not gonna get immediately rekt around the clock by rocket planes you can't do anything against. If he comes for you with DBs and TBs, well twist your butt like you used to in pre-rework era - planes should be able to slow a DD to a snail pace and make it vulnerable to other surface units, and such a crisis should require skill from both the CV player and DD player in order to be solved. 4 - make scouting/naval search sexy. Give it an extra XP reward for CV players only, make them understand that it's in their interest to keep the enemy fleet spotted with their new tools. Hell, give them a good reason to keep you from hammering F7, it's in the interest of everybody, including their own. - Pre-war fleet exercises actually made provisions for the use of air-laid smokescreens. Put it in the game! It is no less historical than all these planes everywhere flying with rockets. Make it a consumable for the CV, that might lay down a screen for a long distance in a straight line. Such a screen can be easily defeated by a scout plane that wouldn't be taken care of, but then again that's your CV player's job to make sure that he just does that. Even better: encourage CV players to do just that by rewarding them with XP not just everytime they spot somebody, but also when using that sort of consumables they hide somebody. - There are many ways to encourage carrier players to go against other carriers. This include XP modifiers, but also new ways to make carrier hunting satisfying. Carrier should be much more nimble than they are. Let the players drive them like a normal ship already! And if you want to put a limitation to compensate for this, let's just add a "wind indicator" that will force them to go into the wind with a minimum speed to be able to launch planes at all. These are little touch that make driving CVs still skill-based, while they have something to care about on the long-term (that is, staying operational AND alive). - Future inclusion of submarines could very well give the CV's missions a new meaning, and give it yet another way to shine (or to worry about itself), the same way it would deeply influence the DD meta. TL;DR: If unable to fit in the main food cycle, CVs should have their own parallel meta-game happening at the same time as surface ships have their own. They shouldn't be part of the basic brawl but should be actively support it, and be rewarded creatively for that. Their main target should be the enemy CVs, and without being game-changing they should be able to influence it noticeably. Sorry for the long post. It's good sometimes to put things on paper. Helps with the burden. Don't get me wrong. I love the game. But I believe it could be a bit better for all of us, and entice more people to actually play carriers without generating some sort of full-scale [content removed] ... Good steamin', everyone! Inappropriate use of medical term. Post edited. ~Beaufighter
  5. First post, simply because i have finally reached that point where I am so fed up with carriers that I am actually making a post. This post will be primarily referring to the capabilities of T6-10 warships and carriers. The primary point which i will be attempting to address is the durability of Aircraft Power Creep (specifically referring to the AA power of cruisers and how carriers have far surpassed them) Cruisers, before the CV balance, were renowned for their AA capabilities, specifically with the AA defence consumable being able to decimate entire squadrons of like-tier aircraft and disperse incoming attacks from higher-tier aircraft. That is practically non-existent at this point. simply put, the AA defense of all ships has been surpassed by the power-creep of carriers and their aircraft: The new way in which aircraft take damage by spreading it out equally amongst each plane makes it to that, in order to shoot down a single plane, you must deal damage near-equal-to/surpassing the total HP of all aircraft in a squadron or detachment because of how it is spread which almost never happens because a detachment of aircraft or even the entire squadron usually dis-appear and become invincible before you can deal enough damage for the spreading of damage to knock out one of the planes. those planes may be damaged to the point of falling apart at the seams but that all means nothing if it survives and gets recycled into another squadron. Cruisers are only able to reliably knock out aircraft with the DAAF consumable and sector reinforcement combined, otherwise even the reinforcement isn't even near enough to make any meaningful impact on AA defence. This basically requires for DAAF in order to make any impact on a CV temporarily (because remember, they can regen aircraft now). Any ship without DAAF has practically no AA ability since IF (A BIT IF) you shoot down an aircraft, by the time a carrier cycles though their squadron that aircraft is regenerated and ready to roll again. AA gun placement durability, when considered with how powerful carriers have become even at the beginning of the game, just makes CVs all the more powerful. the points above were in the context of having full durability on your AA placements, the power of CVs is increased exponentially with AA placement degradation overtime, making any hope of shooting down any aircraft after taking a match-worth of incoming fire from other warships and aircraft attack misplaced. Just the fact that AA defence dies off over time is enough to make carriers overpowered with the balancing since a carrier can regenerate any shot down aircraft and can only get stronger as the match goes on and ships lose their AA placements which can't regenerate. The captain perk for reducing incoming damage from AA defences is THE ONLY perk/consumable/equipment/flag/anything-in-the-game which directly reduces incoming damage (with the exception of the ramming flag). That fact alone is scary and ridiculous for obvious reasons...if it isn't obvious then just think to yourself if and other warship were able to equip something or have a captain skill which directly reduces the damage from incoming fire by 10% and see how much of a necessity it would become. This also begs the question of why isn't there a way to directly decrease the damage done by aircraft or torpedoes or why not even shell damage whilst we're at it? one might argue "well it isn't reducing the damage which a CV directly takes" but those aircraft ARE the cv, the means by which it deals damage. Catapult fighters and aircraft-dropped fighters are a gamble. The AI of both is simply broken, it takes a while just for the damned things to start following an aircraft and attack it and the speed at which AA aircraft move is just ridiculous. I find that my catapult fighters work 33% of the time, usually I'll launch them, they'll fly for a few seconds then they're start to follow the aircraft which just striked and are about to dissapear, then follow the next one and be near-useless. AA aircraft, on the rare occasion that a carrier does drop them to defend you will follow the same pattern and be a gamble half the time. oh and not to mention that AA aircraft can be shot down by the strike aircraft's rear gunner, for some reason, AA aircraft have severely lower HP than the strike aircraft themselves and just die after a few seconds of persuit if you're unlucky which, for battleships, renders your only form of substantial AA defense useless. I didn't feel the need to mention Battleships or destroyers often in the above points because of how useless they are at AA defence, just think of the above points but worse because of lower overall AA damage. poor, poor destroyers I also feel the need to say that I know that some of the points above were present before the balancing (such as AA gun degradation) but i think you will agree that the gameplay effects of such things are "from a past age" so to speak, they were fine prior to the rework but now due to the nature of carriers (specifically referring to aircraft regen) and their aircraft, they have been grotesquely exaggerated in how they benefit carriers and make life a living hell for other ships. The fact that carriers can only be countered by particular cruisers since not all cruisers can carry DAAF is just idiocy, they should be counter-able by ALL CRUISERS and by certain battleships as a carrier can infinitely attack and be invulnerable to direct return fire (if they're not stupid) and don't deserve (by virtue of not taking direct damage in return) to be countered by more ships or EVERY ship for that matter due to that single virtue of being able to attack ANY SHIP ON THE MAP without taking return fire In conjunction with the above point, as it stands now a carrier can deal equal or superior damage than an equal-tiered battleship or cruiser which is just ridiculous since they cannot be damaged in return and can infinitely attack an enemy ship if that ship has weak AA and are unable to shoot down any aircraft. it's just really stupid and makes me feel frustrated and defeated when i think about it. Recommendations (note: these recommendations are not intended to be be suggested as if they should be implemented all at once, they are each possible implementations that i think would balance the power of carriers) AA Gun placement regeneration (idea stolen from another forum post) Having AA guns regenerate over time, like how carriers can regenerate their aircraft, would make it a necessity for carriers to attack ships which are already under fire and have their AA guns knocked out as well as increase the usefulness of sending rocket attack planes to pepper a target before using other attack aircraft. This would not be a significant change alone but is rather a supplementary change and just fits well with everything. Having it be a necessity to send in rocket attack planes initially would give a heads-up to any ship as to who is being currently targeted by a carrier, giving time for the ship to group up with a cruiser before more attack aircraft come it's way or give cruisers time to find a buddy and support them against the on-coming aircraft assault. Increased effectiveness of AA aircraft Whether it be a more proficient AI which targets the main squadron of aircraft, a larger effective range, increased fighter speed, increased HP or all of them combined, Fighter aircraft need to be improved. as they are, fighters are only effective on a rare few occasions Making carrier dropped aircraft able to be dropped or called to follow a specific allied ship EXCLUSIVELY and not called on an aircraft's location. making this VITAL CHANGE would make fighters less selfish, as it stands, carriers simply use fighters to spot enemy ships which is broken (if you place the fighters out of AA fire, then can spot ships for their entire duration uninhibited) and selfish, this NEEDS TO CHANGE because the entire reason for this mechanic existing (i.e. to suppress enemy aircraft attacks against your allied ships) is the last thing that a carrier thinks about when launching an attack. Decreased HP of attack aircraft This recommendation is another universal change which would balance aircraft since (in my opinion) they are currently just far too durable. by making aircraft more likely to be lost in an attack would mean that carriers would have to be more careful when attacking ships and avoiding AA cruisers (or, if tied with my first suggestion, mean that is would be even more necessary for CVs to attack recently-battered ships with TEMPORARILY reduced AA capabilities) and if not, actually have the risk of not being able to use any squadrons for a while due to being far too risky. As it stands, a carrier will rarely run out of aircraft in a single aircraft type let alone their entire lineup, this needs to change and make game play more risky for carriers Reverting the means by which aircraft take damage back to the way it was previously The current system is just idiocy, sure it means that an attack squadron gets weaker as it loses aircraft but the quick withdrawal of aircraft doesn't grant enough time for sufficient damage (to outweigh the total HP of all aircraft in a division) to be inflicted upon aircraft and be able to shoot even one of them down. Reverting this would mean 2 things: 1. That a well-defended ship will be able to knock out aircraft FAR more consistently 2. That carriers will not have situations where all of their aircraft are lost in the span of 2 seconds due to their HP total being met by their prey. implementing such a change would also warrant an increase in the HP of squadrons to balance things out Get rid of that stupid change which reduced the AA effectiveness of grouped ships Enough said, it's just stupid. why was it even added in the first place? Now feel free to discuss in comments so we can get the attention of WG and raise disease awareness of "Carriers", it affects the lives of thousands of WoWS players in every region every day. Also please being up any valuable points which i missed, i will try to add the good ones in an "edit" section ^-^
  6. Hey, guys, I make a short video, I do get a lot of this even i use defensive AA or Catapult plane carrier still can attacking you easily very easy in fact... this one of my examples, so yeah WG, please balance at least don't ever make a game where there 2 CV in one game Destroyer have a really important role, when this CV's out it really cripple DD, radar already make destroyer hard please don't do this to Us ( DD player )
  7. _Blink_Blackwolf

    CV Rework Ideas

    As we all know that WG intend to rework CVs in future, here are some proposals from me.[ I don't play CVs(only 158 matches) not because I didn't like them but because the economy felt too punishing relative to my time investment.] Most of these ideas are inspired from several posts from different forums and may or may not satisfy everyone, and thus I expect constructive criticism. Also, I am totally against the removal of CVs or removal of Alt Attacks(manual drop/strafing) although I think strafing needs to be toned down a bit. So here are the steps that I think are needed to balance CVs : STEP 1 Fix CV Spotting Make CV spotting identical to Cyclone spotting. Only the CV will physically be able to "see" the ship it spotted, other ships in his team will just see an "icon" in the minimap. This will give other ships a general idea of where to go to spot the ship. However, spotting by Ship-Launched Fighter/Spotter remains same as before. Completely eliminate torpedo spotting by planes or at least make torpedoes waaay harder to spot by planes. Additionally, eliminate both spotting and AA through islands. STEP 2 Set Maximum Operational Range This is basically a more refined and easy version of the idea "giving planes limited fuel". Instead of adding fuel/timer function and making things more complex, all CVs can be given a fixed operational range in which they can operate/send their squadrons. it is identical to the "firing rnage" of other ships and will scale up with tier(but will never cover more than 50% of the map), which means squadrons will only be able to go to a max distance( say 12km) from the CV unless the CV itself desides to get close into more strategic positions(A lot of CV players in high tier actually play this way to maximize dmg by reducing cycle times). This will allow for more dynamic gameplay from the CV players side as staying in the far end of the map will no longer be viable. This can also be a viable option for balancing CVs around concealment rating. Additionally, CV secondaries should be buffed to increase survivability. Concealment should be buffed too if necessary(In case of US CVs). STEP 3 Lower CV Alpha/Increase AA survivability CV Alpha for both DB & TB should be lowered by a significant margin(like 50%). It is really odd to see even fully AA specced ships like Des Moines or Motana get dev striked by Midway Bombers... let alone other ships that don't have AA build at all. Alternatively, AA survivability of ships can be increased to offset the effectiveness of attacking squadrons. Single HE salvo from Conqueror simply wipping out entire AA suite of a Moskva doesn't sound logical at all... STEP 4 Stacking Squadrons Currently there is no penalty for stacking multiple squadrons and thus it is easy for CVs to ensure hit on vertually any target without braking much sweat. This is a source of a lot of frustration specially in higher tiers as it becomes really hard for even ships with good AA to avoid drops. This can be easily mitigated without braking the game by simply giving an HP penalty to stacked squads. Make it like "-25% to squadron HP when stacked", this will work the moment 2 or more squadrons are stacked, regarless of the method and will work even when you are just moving them around. STEP 5 Alt Function For T4-5 In Co-Op/Training Room As the title says, I think manual drop and strafing for t4-5 should at least be allowed in Co-Op and Training room so that new players are able to learn them before getting thrown into T6 with minimal experience. A message for new players notifying them of this feature will also be needed. STEP 6 Fix CV Economy Current CV economy is uninspiring at best. The raw xp and credit income has led to players like me stop playing the type.
  8. Recently, there are alot more radar ships around, too many of them in fact. Forget about the T8 mm, it's still broken but I know you guys will never fix it. Look at the screenshot, the enemy has 6 radar ships! Yes the minotaur is also running radar. I always see THREE Missouri in a team. This did not just happen in one game, pretty much these few days this has been a real problem. We don't mind having to wait a little longer for the mm to balance the shit out. Please address this issue ASAP, especially since you want to remove the Missouri, lots of players are rushing to get that [content removed]. Inappropriate/derogatory. Post edited, user sanctioned. ~amade
  9. In the current match making system, the match maker would try to balance the teams according to ship tier and ship nation. I recognize the effort in trying to make more balanced matches. However it does have problems. It is no secret that different ships of the same tier and nation perform differently. Specifically for ranked, almost everyone would agree that Sims > Mahan, Atlanta > Indianapolis / Pensacola, Leningrad > Minsk (/ Kiev), Belfast > Fiji. Yet all those are examples of ships that have the same tier and nation. So sometimes you end up with match making like this: Scharnhorst Gneisenau Nagato Scharnhorst Belfast Fiji Belfast Fiji Belfast Myoko Sims Akatsuki Sims Mahan I think it is pretty obvious which team has more favorable match making, yet this distribution does not violate any principles of the current match maker. More importantly, this actually happens from time to time in this season of ranked. I recognize that it is probably not practical to assign each ship a performance score and try to balance teams based on that. But I think differentiating ships by what actual ship it is is a good start. For example, if the match maker has three Belfasts, two Fijis, and a Myoko in a pool, it would understand that putting all three Belfasts on one side is not a good idea (because they are the same ship), and thus attempt to make two teams like this: Belfast Belfast Belfast Fiji Fiji Myoko Not only does this allow more play styles for each time, it also makes the teams more balanced and thus more enjoyable. This is particularly the case for ranked, because in random battles player skills tend to outweigh the ships they play. But I will definitely be happy to see an updated match making being used outside of ranked as well.
  10. InversoSk3lo

    Balance is Wack

    Just a few observations, I'll try and contain my fury and keep it civilized. 1 - Every ship may as well have smoke, it is becoming so ridiculously overused the battlefield is constantly littered with smoke bursts. No to mention if you have carriers to spot targets and your playing a BB. You can be certain your not having a good game. 2 - Why are American BB's still so inaccurate!? They have the worst caliber, range (to an extent) and dispersion especially or more specifically at the higher tiers. Someone wanna explain how they are supposed to be balanced. Especially considering their powerful AA is now redundant with the new Soviet DD's and no doubt the French Cruisers are going to play a part in making them even more useless. With that said though it almost seems BB's in general are obsolete and I'm struggling to understand where they fit in, that isn't just an Xp and Credit farming method. *Edit - American BB's also have the worst armor, they're not equipped with the turtle back or massive slabs of belt armor like the German or Japanese BB's which just seems to increase the detriment to American BB game play. Especially considering the German and Japanese BB's get these higher caliber guns which just overmatch American armor anyway. I'm sure I will find of more in time, but if anyone else has any observations of their own I'd be interested to read about it. Cheers.
  11. If developer really think us dive bomber is maindeal? Why they make us dive bomber radius bigger than ijn? I think at least thier radius same as ijn dive bomber And 6 7 8 tier us new upgrade module 2 1 1 need and 9 10 tier stock 312 and Upgrade module 411 and 114 seriosly need
  12. proaliahmadrz

    USS Carrier damage too low?

    Hello! I look for what community think about USS Carrier. To me, its relatively weak, why? 1. Only stock flight control is useful (most situation) which mean USS will always have less plane in air. 2. Unfair service time (example : 38 seconds for USS, 16 seconds IJN for reloading) & for replacing wiped squadron (IJN somewhere 30, and USS above 70 seconds!) even though the squad size difference only 2 planes! 3. Huge average damage difference, IJN always win. Here what i think to match number of aircraft in air againts IJN Bogue : AS (2FT 1DB) S (1FT 1TB 1DB) Independece: AS (2FT 1TB 1DB) S (1FT 1TB 2DB) Ranger : AS (2FT 1TB 1DB) S (1FT 1TB 2DB) *Can't tell anymore from here, not played above Ranger yet :/ If you want know more what i think for higher tier: Lexington: AS (2FT 1TB 1DB) S (1FT 1TB 2DB) Essex: AS (3FT 1TB 1DB) S (1FT 2TB 2DB) Midway: AS (3FT 1TB 1DB) S (1FT 2TB 2DB) So the main idea the USS always atleast 1 squadron of each type, without losing a single type, make upgrading flight control useful. And make the service time only 50% higher than IJN, since it's 6 vs 4 Making 2 TB in S loadout for tier V-VIII is broken (except for Essex and Midway to match Taiho & Hakuryu S loadout), so putting 1DB is more balanced, thus in reality the US always prefer DB. (correct me if i am wrong) Don't tell me to "git gud in USS!" , i know it but take a look at my stats, i am not pro but good enough as cv player . So what do you guys think, do USS need to be balance? (especially about flight control) Thank you
  13. Aniket_Sengupta

    Admiral Hipper Stats

    The Admiral Hipper is undoubtedly among the best Tier VIII cruisers out there. Historically its the most advanced cruiser built by the Kriegsmarine. Yet the in-game variant falls short in two important areas - 1) Deck armor 2) Firing range Deck armor: Historically the deck armor of the actual ship was supposed to vary from 20-50mm. In game, the value is 25-30mm, one reason it gets easily penned from long range salvos and hard to pen up close. Now although designated as a heavy cruiser, even with its historic armor figures it falls short to that of light cruisers Chapayev and Kutuzov(same class). So what kind of balancing logic made the Hipper come with a weaker deck ? Firing range: The Admiral Hipper's main battery firing range was only 3km short(33.5km) to that of the Bismarck(36.5km). Now owing to the size of the maps and game mechanics these figures have been shrunk considerably. By the ratio most ship's range has been shrunk(Bismarck/Tirpitz to 21.4km, New Orleans to 16.2km from 27.4km), Hipper's range would round up to 19.5km which would be insanely OP for any tier 8 or even tier 9 cruiser but then again you find the Kutuzov with 19.1km firing range which suggests the 17.7km range on the Hipper as another considerable set back. Honestly I don't think 5% buff to its firing range(makes it 18.5) can hurt much considering you already get a Kongo with over 21km range and that too in tier 5.
  14. CRH380AL

    Suggestion about US carrier

    The update 5.5patch came and the game is becoming more interesting. The weather, improved ballistic and sinking ship visual effect is really good. Somehow the balance problem between US and IJN cv still not fixed , the winrate of UScv got hammered in the last few patches(in most servers) and AA consumable wont change the trend. The core problem of US cv is the flight control. US got six planes in one squardon while IJN got four and so IJN simply get more squardons. WG thought its the feature of different CV line and the fact is that such feature ruin the balance.IJN cv have better flight control and choose the rule of engagement.With more squardons IJN cv benfit alot from the Airsurpercy captain skill. IJN cv player can use cross drop tropedo to hunt DD effectively ,their divebombers can do recon job well without affecting the attack ability too much,the fighters can be sacrificed to protect the attack planes when it is needed and can use BZ to interrupt US attack waves. One experienced IJN cv player can always take the initiative even if the opposite US cv player is also experienced. The best soultion is to divide US fighter squardon and torp bomber suqrdon into two, which means each US fighter squard and torp squard will have 3 planes instead of 6 while no change to the divebomber. The prieum ship Saipan shows small squard can be funny and workable. WG can give an option to let players to decide whether to divide the squardon so in this way fresh players can still handle the carrier ship while experienced players can show their skills of micro control. If such change is made, the flight control of low tier US cv need rework to ensure the balance(such as langely).OR such change can only be applied to medium and high tier US cv such as Ranger,LEX,ESSEX and Midway. There are many ways to do balance work between IJN and US cv but I think giving US cv more squardons is the best soultion and will be accepted by most CV players (maybe not those players who only play IJN cv).Players pay same time to research one techline(US cv players may pay more), the way that US cv suitable for fresh players and IJN cv suitable for high level players cant be accepted. Sorry for my poor eng.
  15. Sorry for my last thread. I did not know that rules about naming, and no intention to shame anyone. Last week, I experienced a 10 consecutive defeats for 10 random battles in high tier room, which made me very angry because I performed at least OK, but the opposite team always seems to have much more skilled players than our team. My win rate is 53%, and I've played for about 1000 battles, 10 consecutive defeats is very rare to me. So I began to check the history performance of my team players and the opposite team players. To my surprise, the opposite team is much more experienced than us, we lost due to the imbalance. (I hide the ID of players, this is OK, right?) You can see from the table, the average win rate of our team is 47.9%, while the opposite team is 52.2%. The number of battles fought also imply that their team players are much more experienced than ours. In this situation, it is unfair and almost impossible for us to win! I heard from the 5.3 public test news, that when an experienced players play a low rank ship, the match algorithm will not allocate them with new players, in order to protect new players. Therefore, I want to make a suggestion for the match algorithm, that in high tier rooms, after the 24 players (or 14 players) are set for one game, can you sort the players of the same ship type according to their win rate, and allocate them equally to both teams? For example, there are 6 dds in that room, after sorting with the their win rate, put the highest win rate in team A, than No.2 and No.3 in team B, than No 4 and No.5 in team A, No.6 in team B. Same thing can be done for CA players. It is not a complex mechanism, time complexity is just n with low space complexity. Team balance is very important for high tier rooms, because defeat means losses of money in the game. And consecutive defeats due to team imbalance make us extremely unhappy with the game. One more question: There is a rumor spread widely in my local game community, most of them are experienced WoT and WoWs players, that match algorithm will intentionally match high win rate players with an average less experienced team. Then it would be harder for them to win, and the win rate of high win rate players will be "balanced". I don't believe this rumor, but with my experience in high tier rooms, I am not sure about this rumor now. You know, it is really frustrated that after hard work, you get a high rank ship, and always in an imbalanced random battle. Can I at least get a reply from the developers? Or what I can do is to be very disappointed, not play WoWs as much as before, and recommend my friends not play WoWs, because there will be a bad end waiting for us.
  16. ShcoobyDoo

    CV balance

    Who thought give IJN CV more squad is a good idea for balance? Let's see what we have now. Tier5 US 1F + 1TB + 1DB / 2F + 0TB + 1DB / 0F + 1TB + 2DB IJN 1F + 1TB + 2DB / 1F + 2TB + 1DB Tier6 US 1F + 1TB + 1DB / 2F + 0TB + 1DB / 0F + 1TB + 2DB IJN 1F + 1TB + 2DB / 3F + 1TB + 1DB / 1F + 2TB + 2DB Tier7 US 1F + 1TB + 1DB / 2F + 0TB + 2DB / 0F + 1TB + 3DB IJN 1F + 2TB + 2DB / 3F + 1TB + 2DB / 2F + 2TB + 2DB Skip tier8 and tier9 because you know the trend now. Tier10 US 2F + 1TB + 2DB / 1F + 2TB + 2DB / 3F + 0TB + 2DB IJN 2F + 2TB + 2DB / 3F + 2TB + 2DB / 2F + 3TB + 2DB Since you can have more tactical option when you have more squad, CV balance change on this patch just made USN CVs useless, you want air defence, you lose attack ability heavily, which is ok because it is a choice making part, but IJN CVs can have it all - 3 fighter sq with 2TB, 2DB sq? This is just OP, you can't let them have all.
  17. So in order to end all XXXX needs buff/nerf. You're using it wrong!! debates. Here are the stats from Asia server as of 8/26 in pretty graphs with analysis that nobody asked for. Source data comes from here. Note that there are very few battles for some high tier ships (especially destroyers) Individual Ship Performance VS Tier Benchmark for all Ships (see methodology below) Blue bars represent All players. Orange top 10% BBs are generally not friendly to newer players. "You're doing it wrong" definitely applies to many ships in this class - especially Kongo Aside from the tier Xs (data not reliable), Fuso, New Mexico and (surprising to me) Wyoming are stars of the line from tier 5~8 Average players do better in the US BBs, Top 10%ers in the JP BBs Miyogi is the worst BB in game followed by Colorado, skill helps ~ but not much Before tier X(again, not enough data), the 8" CAs are UP. The lower tier 6" CAs do better (More Dakka) but require some skill Cleveland really isn't that OP The prems, Atlanta and Atago are terrible (skill makes the Atago considerably less terrible- but still terrible) Everybody's complaints about the Furutaka (soon to be buffed) are justified CVs are almost all monster ~ especially with a skilled player driving Except for the Langley, Bogue (we knew that) and Lexington (What?? Why is this performing so bad?) Aside from the Isokaze and Minekaze which require a bit of skill to perform, all other DDs blow or are at best average and are not really saved by skill Gold bars represent % damage difference between to 10% players and All Players Murmansk seems to be the Unicum's seal clubbing weapon of choices Atago can suck a lot less if played by a ninja (but will still suck) Fuso VS Nagato, New Mexico VS Colorado ? Sorry your additional unicorn spunk will have more impact on the lower tier ship. (i.e. if you can do X amount better in a Nagato, you will do even better in a Fuso) Its about the kills dahling:
  18. GodOfBattle

    Balance in game

    In BB buffed a lot and CV nerfed a lot. This is not fair for CV players and DD players. BBs can turn fast like DDs. This is impossible. They can easily avoid hitting with torpedoes. Moreover, CVs are too weak. US CVs don't have enough torpedo bombers and dive bombers to attack other ships, while Japan CVs don't have strong planes to deal with US fighters and other AA guns. At this time, CVs can only destroy both each other and other ships are not able to destroy. CVs should attack other types of warships but not each other. This is not fun. This is my suggestions: -reduce BBs turning speed to same or slower than CVs -nerf BBs AA guns -buff CVs AA guns -buff Japan CVs' planes' survivability -buff US CV's planes' damage power -nerf US DDs AA guns -CV's special skills : within a short time, planes ignore all AA guns, no AA guns can damage planes, if CLs/CAs use their AA skills, then CLs/CAs can use AA guns to attack planes like without using skills. (both skills offseted)
  19. Yes,I understand a game should be fair,but before that it should be FUN. Currently WG nerf large ship like BB/CV by adding "obstacles" to the map and limit the size of the map(and banned CV divisions to cut their efficiency), which gives smaller ships like CA/CL/DD a chance(or more than that) to fight large ships. It might be balance, but it is NOT FUN. Current design force large ship players in a twisted way.It might be fair for players to get a similar chance of winning. But, it should not be present in a way that "large ship get a similar combat efficiency to small ship". 15 CA/CL/DD VS 15 CA/CL/DD in lakes is fine, but force a BB/CV into small lake is absurd. It might be fair to everyone but it is absurd. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plus the suggestion part, as a beta tester. 1,Fix the maps, current maps are for world of lakes/pools/yacht, not for warships 2,Fix the match making and CV, it not necessary to limit 2 CV per team. There could be some specific maps for specific matching makings.Like 3~6 CV + escorts VS 3~6 CV + escorts, or 6+BB(one or two with 2+ tire) with CAs + few escorts,or a map(like the island maps we have) for small ships only. 3,Fix the penetration/amour mechanism, from what I tried it is completely broken. If this is the way how WG use to make "balance", its really a bad idea.Can you imagine Yamato sink by 152mm gun? lol 4,Torpedoes that deployed too close a target don't just Disappear, they should go pass the target underwater and keep on travel until maximum range. 5,Dive bomber I think it should be fixed though I don't know how.