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


Forums

  • 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
  • Public Test Forums
    • English Speaking Community
    • 繁體中文討論區
    • 日本語コミュニティ
  • Locked Threads
    • Locked Threads

Calendars

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Drag Interests

Found 13 results

  1. _TAMAL_

    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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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:
  12. GodOfBattle

    Balance in game

    In 0.3.1.1 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)
  13. 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.
×