Jump to content
Forum Shutdown 28/7/2023  Read more... ×
Forum Shutdown 28/7/2023  Read more... ×

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'feedback'.

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 12 results

  1. Kanatan_Pettan

    Submarine Feedback

    Based on the actual battle, I will write about my impressions, complaints, and areas for improvement. (The more people's opinions are gathered, the more likely they are to be noticed by the management. We encourage you to write about your various opinions.) Opinion in Destroyer Opinion in Cruiser Opinion in Battleship conclusion Submarines are hardly a good fit for the current WoWS. There are various problems with the discovery system, the attack system, and many others. It is far from being officially implemented.  WG is planning to officially implement British submarines, but I am against implementing them when they are not well balanced. WG said that submarines are balanced in the data, but they only look average because some are extremely weak (they sink quickly) and some are extremely strong (they have mastered the means to attack one way or the other). In the first place, I think that submarines in historical reality are mainly engaged in trade destruction, etc., and are not vessels that participate in gunfire and lightning battles. We believe that this should be better implemented in an event mode like Wolfpack and should not be implemented in a random battle. It is understandable that the WG management wants to include the new element of submarines. However, they must know that people are slowly leaving because they have been adding new elements (Submarine's, Superships) without any input from the players. We should prevent people from leaving the game any further when so many people are playing and many are paying for the game because they enjoy it. From a balancing standpoint and from player opinion, the implementation of submarines should be stopped.
  2. Good evening everyone, Firstly, I just wanted to introduce myself, my name is DobbyM8, I am a CC for World of Warships and a twitch stream - I have been playing the game for around 4 years or so and have been a CC for around 3 months or so. I love this game, I love the community and I enjoy the game. Taking on the role as CC I promised to provide feedback to the development and management team and to inform the community of ongoing changes. It has been raised to me that there are concerns and issues breaking peoples enjoyment of the game and also causing people to turn away and walk away from the game altogether, I personally don't want to see that and want to create a community that enjoys games and has fun - as that is what games are all about right. As such I have put it out to my community to provide feedback on what the current issues are and to assimilate some ideas on how to address these. I ask if anyone else has any issues to please flag them here to help improve the game and as such your enjoyment - the only thing I ask is clearly highlight the issue and please think of any ideas on how to address these, so we can crack on - have some fun - enjoy the games and everyone have a balanced and well structured game. Please add don't things like - "Delete CV's" but rather use some of the hightlights below to build upon and help me and help the management team guide the Dev team to fixing and addressing any issues or concerns and remember if we don't clearly highlight any issues then they won't get fixed. This isn't about being negative but rather being positive and professional and providing advice and centrally highlighting issues. Lastly I apologise for anyones name on the below from the exert of discord, I have removed your names and again this is not about being negative nor toxic but rather about making the game better for everyone and finally legends I can't wait to see you all on the high seas soon! 1. ISSUE Matchmaking issues – T6 / T8 / T10 – Match making when up or down tiered by 2 levels is game breaking the game play ability i. FIX b. Wait longer and conduct a trail and seek feedback via a server feedback form 2. ISSUE CV issues with AP bombs and CV Spotting i. FIX b. CV damage balance vs AA balance c. Increase rewards for Friendly CV’s dropping fighters as well as spotting in general d. Implement Spotting cool down or spotting ability request – not passive but rather on action – an idea is to have 2 x options within range and then a silhouette for those outside the range that updates via a ping system similar to a real life sonar or radar 3. ISSUE RADAR ISLAND ISSUE i. Contention POINT and many ways to tackle this b. The implementation of ("I'm using Surveillance Radar"Radar Activated") and "(I am using Hydroacoustic search)/Sonar Activated" in the Game Chat as well the Player "Ping" have been a useful addition to the game, I would love to see this extended to Ships that Launch Torpedoes, a "Torpedo Launched" pop up in chat could help players a void friendly incoming Torpedoes, the Audio indication is good, every little bit helps in a melee and it is not easy to type long messages to warn nearby players. c. f3 key has a 40 second timer, like an expendable. When a Player f3s an enemy ship, timer activates, no other f3s till timer runs down, during that time if at least 2 or more players hit that target. They get a Friendly Fire Token, and 5 or 8 in a match the players get a reward, XP, Flags etc 4. ISSUES Lack Missions and Training Scenarios to improve gameplay and gameplay style – and in return reward for conducting these skills COMMENTS from Discord for Issues: NOTE: All names have been removed and each time stamp is a new comment - over 20 people have commented in this thread topic in my discord with Ideas and concerns, [8:41 PM] Spotting delay for surface ships when cv planes spot enemy ships Yesterday at 8:41 PM fire chance then buff all HE to 1/5 pen [8:43 PM] Change 12km radar to 11km radar Yesterday at 8:43 PM Bring back mid range AA flak, instead of confining flak to just the long range Yesterday at 8:44 PM make brawling ships fun Yesterday at 8:44 PM New AA system, flak can be fired where the player clicks and aims at(edited) Yesterday at 8:49 PM The more you fire at the same ship the better the RNG gets (bracketing)(edited) [8:50 PM] remove the ridiculous torpedo protection Yesterday at 8:50 PM oooo yes Yesterday at 8:51 PM NERF! german cvs [8:51 PM] fix matchmaking Yesterday at 8:51 PM same tier games should be 80% of the time Yesterday at 8:51 PM remove two tier system and make it only same tier games every game Yesterday at 8:51 PM waiting a few mins for a game is fine Yesterday at 8:52 PM move the ship flags from behind smoke stacks to back of ship Yesterday at 8:52 PM stop punishing good aim (chalk outlining)(edited) [8:53 PM] MAKE A PROPER TRAINING SYSTEM TO TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO PLAY THE GAME [8:53 PM] like a single player mode [8:53 PM] make them do the training [8:56 PM] go back to old system for legendary modules(edited) [8:59 PM] Increase division sizes(edited) DobbyM8Yesterday at 9:02 PM Issue- Uptier or Bottom Tier games Fix- Increase wait time to allow consistent same level matchmaking Yesterday at 9:08 PM i also agree with the fixing uptier should be same or max 1 tier Yesterday at 9:36 PM Bring back the old operations Yesterday at 9:38 PM Make the rewards in operations every 6 months Yesterday at 10:40 PM Getting up tiered is not fair to all of us that use our signals to help our ship and get blasted early in the game or score little hit points due to playing up tiered Yesterday at 10:42 PM To be honest, I don't mind being up tiered, it just changes how I play a bit. What I don't like is steam rolls where you can't make any difference whatever you do. November 2, 2020 Today at 2:25 AM Uptiers and frustration caused by them made me leave the game. That s all I have to say, and that s all a dev should hear to fix this game Today at 6:58 AM there should always be ONLY one tier difference Today at 8:38 AM It's not about German CVs needing to be nerfed - ALONE. There are a few issues that can assist in making CV gameplay positive, but also less tiresome for non-CV players. 1 - Reduction in accuracy of things like AP bombers and rockets. Simply increasing dispersion will assist in reducing the terrible amount of OP damage they do. 2 - DDs need a VIABLE AA system. DDs are risking being cancelled from the game (unless Halland) by CVs. They have very little defense against CVs on spot/damage. 3 - why the thing does radar and particularly hydro work through land masses? Unrelated to CVs but this is a major accuracy flaw. Today at 8:48 AM As a poor-average player the only cv I have issue with (as a non-cv player) is tier 8, particularly if it’s top tier. Waaay op. Any other tier of cv and I pretty much ignore them, doesn’t matter what I’m playing. A good cv player will always be annoying, but I don’t come across too many of them. Today at 8:53 AM As may have said MM needs to be looked at. Also CVs need a way to meaningfully engage each other. Certainly not a return to the old rts strafe days, but fighters need to be a damn sight more useful than their current iteration. Today at 9:54 AM I’m okay with odd tier cvs if the T4 cvs move up to T5 and a few balance changes to cvs [9:55 AM] The main thing is that there needs to be viable counterplay DobbyM8Today at 9:56 AM I think CVs are great in the game and I honestly think they open up gameplay more then they close it. The issue from a gameplay and teamplay point of view is that for me it is about inconsistency of player skill for CV. Unsure how we can fix it but it does need addressing. Today at 10:05 AM I have a few things: 1. Your base XP in a win or lose should be more based on the team winning or losing than individual performance so be more like Clan Battles. 2. Training in general but particularly for cv's before they can be used in randoms 3. fix op of German cv's and the aa on other ships. Planes shouldn't be able to get near a group of ships with aa, there aa bubble should stop any chance of getting shots off. 4. Increase div sizes to minimum of 5 and max of 6 Today at 10:11 AM Other than the MM (which is a joke more than its not), the biggest concern I have that drives me crazy is how radar works. Radar should NOT work through Islands. It also seems that the majority of Cruisers T7 and above now have radar....its bloody everywhere. You can't tell I'm a DD player eh? lol Today at 10:24 AM I also agree on match making, should either be at level or 1 level up or down. Should not be a 2 tier difference in any games Today at 11:00 AM How can a Halland Have 6x1 40mm , 1x2 57mm & 2x2 120mm & have more chance of survival than a Iowa class BB which has 49 x 1 20mm, 18 x 4 40mm and 10 x 2 127mm(edited) Today at 11:07 AM Smaller target? Today at 11:13 AM as strong as the Halland AA is, you can still get smacked by CV too [11:14 AM] cant take them all down if you get charged unless they fly through flak Today at 11:17 AM What i mean is you go out in a Halland and you will more offen then not shoot down every aircraft that comes for you anything else may as well get up go make a coffee and play a youtube video because you will be lucky if you can shoot stuff down. US AA used to be good now it couldn't hit a barn from inside as can be said for most of the ships. sorry to say but there is only a few options to counter this 1. start playing as a team and stick together SEA server like that stuff is going to happen 2. stop playing 3. make more noise then the CV players that got there way to start with 4. don't recommend it until you have explained every thing about the game to new players Today at 11:21 AM 5. Play cvs Today at 11:26 AM yeh like the French DDs, i could have a squadron of planes do circles around me for 10 minutes Today at 5:12 PM I Think CV's Destroy Game Play for DD's and AP Rockets (German CV) for CA.. What's this Bouncing Bomb stuff coming to game? I want WG to - Nerf Rocket Damage and -Drop that Bouncing bomb crap none of those were use as roll out main armaments against Ships. this is why I Don't play much anyone.(edited) Today at 5:17 PM Top three on the Losing team should still get winning team benefits. [5:19 PM] If Div's could be bigger to counter language Barrier and just plain botting. [5:22 PM] Are they still going to Nerf burst AA from instant to a "Ramp Up" when you have had AA off to avoid plane spotting? because Halland's AA will mean nothing if they do that. [5:22 PM] Oh MM is Broken Today at 5:23 PM they’ve said that the air concealment changes and ramp up AA won’t make it into the live server Today at 5:29 PM Right now there is only ‘O’ to reinforce AA sector, ‘P’ to turn off AA, n Fighters that shoot down n Planes and DFAA. There is nothing else to counter planes apart from ‘just dodge’ Today at 5:31 PM yeh fighters are useless Today at 5:31 PM Carriers have excellent capabilities to detect enemy ships and can be overly effective in this regard, especially in competitive modes. We are actively engaged in this issue. However, recent tests of changes in the spotting mechanics have not yielded the desired results: the mechanics in the game should be simple and clear to everyone, and testing has shown that our latest ideas did not cope with this task and made the gameplay unnecessarily complicated. Therefore, we are in search of new possible solutions. Today at 5:34 P Ok I just have a General Disappointment in the Game while the issues may or may not get resolved. [5:35 PM] which is a shame I have spent A LOT of real money but it drives me bat stuff right now. Today at 5:36 PM I think they’re pushing to get as many new people playing the game as possible before they introduce subs with the recruiting station offering more rewards [5:37 PM] If they have an extra few thousand of players playing the game when the subs come out and they lose a bunch of players who will leave because of the new class it'll just go back to what it was before the push, so they don't lose any groun at 5:43 PM I've offered this a feedback before: return the ability to swap control between cv and plane. Won't really make cv more broken. Make the fighters a separate squad that cv can 'autopilot' to an area. Because i have experienced a lot of times where cv Won't go to your location Because they're busy farming the opposite side of the map. This way, they lose an excuse not to send fighters to assist when u ask. Today at 5:44 PM I enjoyed playing with you guys at Wook6,and ANZAC most of the SEA Server Aus/NZ clans except JACOB_548 or whatever it is "clan hopper" I Think CV's Destroy Game Play for DD's and AP Rockets (German CV) for CA.. What's this Bouncing Bomb stuff coming to game? I want WG to - Nerf Rocket Damage and -Drop that Bouncing bomb crap none of those were use as roll out main armaments against Ships. this is why I Don't play much anyone. no, but they were developed in the time period and planned to be used against ships like the tirpitz. Unfortunately with WG running out of existing material they are having to turn to concepts to keep new ideas flowing into the game eg. the new US BB line [6:14 PM] I believe cv's have a place in the game, the time period they ships are from cv's were coming into there own and the top dogs in the seas. In saying that, in the game the balance just isn't right at the moment (twitch) Finding a way to give people credit for something other than dmg would be great. If you hold your flank but don’t do a lot of dmg you’re at the bottom of the team score Today at 6:35 PM Thanks, I also think possibly adding the odd tier CVs could help out. Rather than trying to balance a CV for -2 tiers all the way to +2 tiers is hard. From (twitch) f3 key has a 40 second timer, like an expendable. When a Player f3s an enemy ship, timer activates, no other f3s till timer runs down, during that time if at least 2 or more players hit that target. They get a Friendly Fire Token, and 5 or 8 in a match the players get a reward, XP, Flags etc Today at 6:39 PM Top three on the Losing team should still get winning team benefits. I disagree and for the same reason as I disagree with the top person in the losing side of ranked keeping there star in that it only encourages people to do enough not to lose a star rather than working in the team for the win Today at 6:41 PM I seriously liked the 3 v 3 battles Today at 7:35 PM everything you need to know here, 1 team pushing together, the other running and working as individuals... plus Herby called UTG and I died -DobbyM8
  3. Co-op matches can be a joke sometime in how easy they are because the WG bots act so stupid but for one their targeting is ridiculous. If a player uses a mod to give them aim assist then get banned yet your own bots, by their nature, have computer aiming and fire with basically laser precision. If you are in a CA or a DD its not uncommon to be one-shotted, or close to that, by one of your BB bots on the other side of the map in its first salvo fired at you. Most top WoWS unicums probably can't shot as well as WG's bots, in tier 10 matches it could be understandable for them to be that good a shot, but they shot like that at even lower tiers. Why don't you have some system, that like real players, you bots improve their accuracy after a few shots. Other issues that I feel should be addressed is your bots lack of situational awareness in that they fire torps at a target even if they are on your side and you are between them and the target they are shooting at. There is nothing more ridiculous than the game issuing a warning to its own bots for friendly fire and then turning them pink etc. Yes friendly fire is not uncommon in co-op matches between real players; many DD players are like teenage boys with their systems overflowing with hormones uncontrollably wanting to blow their loads at the first target they see but your bots shouldn't also behave like that. The AI in general needs work as you see things like bot CAs and DDs laying smoke while they steam through it at full speed, bot CVs sitting still while a bot BB from the other side steams up to it and sits there and unloads into it, and every bot with a plane launching them as soon as the game starts even though that clearly does nothing at that point. No wonder newbies coming up through Co-op matches into Random matches etc. have so much trouble as co-op matches play nothing like pvp matches, so they find themselves out of their depth and help drag down a side while chat goes mad at them for their stupidity, which is really lack of experience. Summary: WG's bots are bad, ok. Now watch as the forum trolls attack me over this.
  4. Good morning/afternoon, Since WG had the generosity to allow me into the submarine beta test, I've decided to make the most and provide some feedback. Firstly, I'd like to say I am extremely impressed with how WG has been implementing submarines and making great balance changes. I feel that the entire submarine experience - for all ship classes - is a massive value add to the game. Secondly, onto feedback about specifics of submarine gameplay at the moment: 1. Sub torpedoes: In the second iteration, the base damage of torpedoes was increased and the double ping damage was decreased. This to me was a good move. It allows submarines to use torpedoes as anyone else would without having to expose themselves and ping their location in order to do worthwhile damage. On the other hand it also is not too powerful against ships where you can just pop up and fire before submerging with little exposure time. If set up right however, and the torpedoes and double pinged, it still doesn't do OP damage, but a healthy punishing amount for anyone not paying attention to the mini-map for pings and whether they are isolated and in danger or not. I feel like the amount of homing the torpedoes get at the moment is good enough to punish cruisers and battleships, but not enough to always ensure a hit no matter how the target is maneuvering. Against DDs, homing torpedoes and especially difficult to hit against a clever player that is looking for them. I'm happy with this state of affairs. I think good counter gameplay by other classes should be rewarded, and not that a double ping means assured high damage against the ship you pinged. DDs SHOULD in my opinion be hard to hit if they're playing smart as they need the ability to get close and depth charge submarines. If subs are able to land a hit every time they activate homing then DDs won't be able to counter them very well no matter the level of play. In regards to against submarines, I really like that they will now chase a submarine once double pinged. Again, torpedoing another submarine should not be easy, but it is doable, and it makes for fantastic gameplay trying to do so - especially when you have rear torpedo tubes for the sub chasing you XD. 2. Depth charges: The change to manual use in the second iteration has been a godsend to gameplay IMO. The satisfaction for a depth charge kill is now in the players hands, and the fact that you need to use them carefully to get the kill before you run out and have to reload means that a destroyer hunting a submarine isn't an assured kill, and the submarine has a chance of survival compared to the first iteration. I feel like the radius of damage could be reduced, but the damage could be increased a tad. I have depth charged right on top of a submarine starting to dive from periscope depth only to not get a kill because he was able to get to the consumable depth after my first wave of depth charges and before my second wave of depth charges hit. I feel that at that sort of close range situation depth charges should net a kill from such careless play by a submarine - especially after I had to stick my neck out in front of enemies and dodge al the subs torps to get that close. I don't believe this is unreasonable, I see it being equivalent to a BB dev strike against a close broadside cruiser, or a dev strike from a DD against a BB from close kamikaze range torpedoing. At the same time though, if you decrease the range the depth charges damage it also means the DD has to be accurate and can't just sail, "that'll be close enough" distance away to net damage, floods and fires. 3. Maximum depth consumable: I absolutely love this consumable. Firstly, it gives players who time it right the ability to escape a destroyer and survive a depth charge attack (as long as you're at depth already when activating it so that the depth charges don't get you while you're still submerging), and secondly, I love that it gives the ability to go undetected by other submarines and ships for the time you are at that depth. It allows for a greater depth and skill to the gameplay and gives the submarine a little bit more ability to enable clever plays inherent to the sub class just like every other ship class has it's own particular style. The consumable doesn't feel too easy though - it has to be timed just right or else it'll run out before you evade the enemy sub and get re-detected, or evade the depth charges. 4. Destroyer sonar location when close to enemy submarines: I feel like this mechanic is a little too easy at the moment in so far as the range you start getting highlighted sonar areas is too large. The accuracy and update speed of the sonar is in a good spot I feel; it doesn't update fast enough to allow a destroyer to easily understand where the enemy submarine is or is going. However, I feel that you should need to be closer before you get these sonar areas. As a destroyer player you already get pings on the mini-map to tell you where submarines are and you are generally much faster than them. It also allows submarines a chance to play smarter around DDs without getting instantly detected at range by the DD sonar. 5. Deck gun on submarines: Something I would love to see is a consumable for when surfaced that allows you to use your deck gun. I feel like that would be a good way to balance no deck gun vs constant deck gun, and could represent the effort that gun crews had to make to get out of the submarine and man the gun. It would allow you to finish off that 56HP enemy that you just torpedoed half to death, and give you some way to say screw you to enemy DDs bearing down on your out-of-air submarine just before you die XD. This could be balanced by giving a time penalty for diving when the deck gun is activated (need to get the men back in the submarine!) so that submarines can't just pop up and fire before submerging with no consequence. I would really like to see some purpose given to the nicely modeled deck guns though. 6. Radio location and subs: Since they removed radio location for the second patch the gameplay has greatly improved IMO. Submarines key values lie in stealth and torpedoes, and radio location negates that a great deal. I don't think radio location should ever be able to work against a submerged or periscope depth submarine, however I would be open to trialing the idea that it would work against a surfaced submarine. It would make sense if the skill was: locates the nearest surface vessel. This could still be too punishing against submarine play though and I believe that with DDs sonar they don't need any more help from radio location of any form against subs. 7. Hydro vs submarines: I think that ships with hydro acoustic should be able to use this in some way against submarines, more so than currently only detected them when they are completely surfaced. What I would be interested in seeing is giving ships using hydro the same sonar highlighted area of where a submarine is/was as the destroyers currently get. I feel like this would make it harder to be careless around good cruiser players in a submarine and allow the cruiser a means to predict where the submarine might next surface, so that they can attack it with HE. 8. HE vs surfaced and periscope depth subs: I am very comfortable with how it currently is. I feel the damage done is perfectly reasonable and makes surface ships that aren't DDs a means to effectively combat submarines so that they can't attack with impunity. Overall, I think that covers most of what I wanted to say. I am absolutely loving the gameplay though and I think it will be the best addition to the game for a while. Well done WG! Cheers, Sebdspy
  5. the most broken update wows 0.8.3 beside the amount off a bad optimization like fps drop almost 35fps and stuttering sound when the squadron CV incoming (that's my case) even discord can't detect world of warships when this game is running, what they have done on this patch now?
  6. CAPT_LooseLips

    Suggestions & Feedback

    I doubt this would help veterans but as a new player a couple of simple things that would help imo. - When ingame, pressing ctrl to check my torp range etc, should recenter the mouse cursor on each press and release. 'Losing' my cursor constantly when trying to check information while playing. If it recentered each time I held down ctrl, then i know it would just be a down and left movement to get to shells for example. It is centred the first time ctrl is pushed which is cool, but in 10sec when my goldfish brain has forgotten the information and i have to press ctrl then second or third time I could have left it anywhere. - When ingame, pressing ctrl should show more information of each item ie., shell cailber, shell velocity etc Increasing the amount of information available in game would help massively for getting past the deckhand stage of play. After figuring out how to NOT plow into islands and torp your team mates the game has alot of information that you need to take into account. Take shell caliber for example, after watching hours tutorials and youtubes the over pen mechanic becomes familiar and something you start thinking about. Ok you might only remember about it when you see 'overpen' popping, but its at that point you want to hold ctrl and check exactly how big my shells are. Sure, you will still have to get the enemy armour from the shipyard, but you would have learned (hopefully after the 78th time) what your caliber was. It would be nice to see all the information i can see back in port ingame aswell. Feedback One of the best fetures imo that wows has implemented is the positive feedback system. That I can compliment players is the balance that so many complaint systems dont have and one that i feel helps. That generally people will press F10 at start of map for example increases the enjoyable atmosphere of playing. The coop battle feature to give players some where to learn is excellent and the operation of the week is also a great idea and gives something lower tier players to aim for and benifit from. Arsonal has been a big mess since i started and has only become reasonably cohearent after spending alot of time in there but I get that it really is more for late game players. And finally, as requested by fellow newbie captain, more credits in base containers please. Happy to invest real money in a game i enjoy but creds feel a little disproporinate atm Fair seas and tight sheets o7 Captain Loose Lips
  7. Wargaming here is a money making idea that I imagine many players might actually want, as per the title; sell national flags so people can fly their country's flag on their ships. Some people might buy many flags to have the corresponding national flag to the ship it is flying on (more money for you WG). There can be no argument here over maintaining complete accuracy in the game as some of the stupid flags people fly on their ships now makes a mockery of that idea. You have made it possible to unlock flying 2 flags on many ships in the game, now give us the option to put a flag on our ships we would actually like to fly. Also, as per the title, you have already done the equivalent in WoT with players able to both paint and fly their choice of flags on and from their tanks, can we have the same choice in WoWS? I'm a proud Australian, I'd like to be able to fly the Aussie flag on my ships, and I'd be willing to spend a few doubloons to have it. I want this flying on my ships, please WG!!!! PS. Also can you please fix the issue with German ships all flying a version of the Kriegsmarine ensign? The pre-1935 German ships should not be flying the Nazi German ensign, even your understandably censored version of it. The WW1 era German ships should be flying the 'Kaiserliche Marine' (Imperial Navy) ensign. WG is a Russian based company and it is very noticeable that you took the care to have the Russia ships with the correct pre and post Revolution ensigns on them, it would be nice to see that same attention to detail applied also to non-Russian ships (not holding my breath waiting though). Kaiserliche Marine Ensign 1903-1918 Kriegsmarine Ensign 1938-1945 (Edited so real history will not upset the delicate sensibilities of WG)
  8. WG can you please tell me why the Personal Mission for the Massachusetts (to earn 2500 doubloons), gained from having purchased the Massachusetts-B, has been removed now with the roll out of 0.8.0? This mission had no expiry date and don't recall you advertising any expiry date of this mission. This mission was a con-job in the first place; done to trick people buying the Massachusetts-B that could complete this mission with that ship but instead, most people found out afterwards, they needed the original Massachusetts to do it. Looking back I can understand why this mission was created, I believe it was to compensate people who owned the standard Massachusetts, but this was never made clear in the Premium Shop listing for the Massachusetts-B etc. in a clearly exploitative way to trick people into buying that ship believing they would get more from that purchase than they actually did. Anyhow I digressed; To add salt into the wound you have now removed that mission, without any obvious notice which I feel is unfair and unwarranted and also further discourages people who got the Massachusetts-B to eventually get the standard Massachusetts. WG can you please reinstate this mission or give people who had it still the 2500 doubloons prize from this mission. PS to the Trolls: If this issue doesn't effect you, or you have nothing constructive to add, then don't add a comment.
  9. I don't know if this topic has been broached before, I imagine it most like has been multiple times, but I think it needs to be pushed again into WG attention. I notice that WG, as a Russian based company, has taken the care with ships of its own country to even have two separate ensigns for pre and post Revolution so that ships of both eras have their correct ensign while the background flag for ships in the Menu is the flag of the USSR. I think this is a good system as the ships under 2 different ensigns are correctly linked to the same country. In stark contrast the ships of Australia and Canada fly the 1976-2013 version of the Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations as their ensigns. No ships or Army have ever fought under that flag. I don't really object to these ships having the "Commonwealth" flag as the background for the ships menu but I highly object to these ship flying this flag as their ensign. The Royal Australian Navy fought under the Royal Navy Ensign from its creation in 1911 until 1967 when we created our own ensign to differentiate our ships from RN ones during the Vietnam War. Similarly the Royal Canadian Navy fought under the Royal Navy Ensign from its creation in 1910 until 1965. The correct ensigns for these "Commonwealth" vessel in WoWS is the Royal Navy Ensign. I imagine ships clumped as "Pan-Asia" and "Pan-America" have the same issues and no doubt players from China, South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and Argentina are just as annoyed/insulted as Australians and Canadians for not having the correct ensigns. WG loves making lots of silly flags for people to put on their ships so would it really be that difficult to put the correct ensigns on the "Commonwealth", "Pan-Asia" and "Pan-America" ships it makes?
  10. My current CV Rework Rework (WiP) Preface Numbers are obviously subject to balancing requirements, what I have detailed is an IDEA and as such should be very much subject to change. Premise The current iteration of the CV rework is boring and 1-dimensional. We need something that has a little more gusto and dynamism. So I'm proposing changes based on: The action-based system will not change significantly AA needs to be relevant CVs need strike potential Easy enough to learn, hard enough to master Conditions Reduce ‘dot’ damage done by CVs, significantly reduce chance of fire/flood to roughly once every 2 drops. Reduce damage of each attack run a bit, so that ‘maximum’ theoretical damage output of 2 wings doing their 2 attack runs is 75% of a ships HP. Which I would guess should be 2 AP DB wings v BB. Limit number of attack runs for planes to 2 or 3. For each aircraft in a wing shot down, reduce damage output but a %, eg 2% or 4% per plane or something (obviously change as needed). Add ability to have 2 flights in the air at the same time. Two Flights I am proposing a 2-flight or 2-squadron system. Basically the you have 2 flights of your choosing, any combination. The key to that combination is the balance against different targets of rockets/DB/TBs. Why have two flights? Basically I find one flight boring and the gameplay is exceptionally repetitive and stale. So the trick is to have two flights, giving the player far more choice and allowing combination attacks and CVs to actually have some mastery involved. The trick is balancing the damage. How would Two Flights work? Basically you would be able to switch between which flight is active, the active one you would control and possibly be able to set course. Either way you would definitely be able to have the second flight follow your main one around, my initial estimate would be 5 km (as always subject to change). Essentially my proposal functions around being able to do 2 attack runs per flight with a maximum potential (perfect) damage of %75 of BB HP at tier. Obviously 0 DOTs for that 'max' damage combination. DOT Damage DOT or Damage Over Time damage is the damage cause by fires and floods. The more DOT damage you add, the more painful the game becomes. IMO warships has pushed DOT damage a bit too far lately (RN BBs anyone?). DOT damage should be a risk-reward thing, not an ‘expected’. Chance of Fire/Flood should be reduced to the point that it happens ‘sometimes’ and that if you are choosing aircraft for that feature, it feels like it’s worth it but not mandatory. Potential DOT damage should scale with real damage, the better chance you have of DOT damage, the less the real damage the wing can inflict. Aircraft Damage So the biggest issue people have with CVs (currently) is the strike potential, being able to essentially ‘1-shot’ you. So I’ll use AP DB v BB as a damage metric. Perfect hit, perfect RNG (ignore detonations here), 2 wings should never be able to 1-shot a BB. So let’s just put a random limit and say no more than 75% damage and talk about this in terms of a T10 BB. 100k HP 2 wings (AP DB), a total of 4 runs, 5 bombs per drop. 75% - 75k HP max damage 4 runs, 18750 per run 3750 max damage per bomb at T10. You’d be looking at a ‘good’ 4 runs by 2 sqns being 30-40k damage on a T10 BB. (That would be max possible damage by any combo.) This is just me brain-storming, but I think you can see where this is going. Basically the amount of damage will need to be effectively scaled to AA. For using HE DBs, Rockets or TBs, you are shifting the damage metric from raw damage to a bit of DOT or what it’s effective against. TBs – I would expect 2 wings with a total of 4 runs to inflict 1 flooding. Rockets – good v DDs, do little damage to other ships but decent fire chance, I would expect 2 wings with 4 runs to inflict 2 fires on non-DDs reliably but do almost 0 damage on CA/BBs. HE DBs – less fire chance than Rockets but more penetrating power, perhaps has enough pen to cita CLs? Effective v DDs, harder to land, effective against CAs but less so than v CLs. AP DBs – Can cita BBs and some CAs, good against ‘heavily’ armoured targets. 0 DOT Damage reduction Now you would need to balance this properly with AA but the idea is that as you lose aircraft within your wing, your maximum damage output is reduced. Doing damage to the different aircraft wings therefore actually means something. I’ll touch on this a bit more in the AA section. You could even apply a ‘max’ damage reduction (say 30%). Number of attack runs You have to limit this, there has to be a reason outside of AA to go back to your CV. There again needs to be that risk-reward to committing to an attack run. Why the detail? Now your two Flight choices matter… You balance things like TBs and HE DBs fire/flood and actual damage to make it a worthwhile choice to go AP DBs OR the TB/HE option when targeting CAs. Due to BB torp reduction, AP DBs are you best bet against BBs, unless you are lucky enough to get a flooding (‘lucky’ enough), you now have a risk-reward system. Maybe you go 1 AP DB and 1 TB so that you are pretty good against CAs and ok v BBs? Or maybe one of the BBs has insane short range AA so you want the TBs so you don’t lose as much damage? AA – How to make it work? Easy, you don’t want to completely destroy each flight after their 2 runs (maybe 3) but you want AA to do something. As mentioned earlier, apply a damage reduction to each plane in the flight that’s destroyed. In balancing it, they need to have some basic conditions to balance it to. For example: No one ship should ever be able to wipe out an aircraft wing in… 3 drops or 5 passes. No two ships should ever be able to wipe out an aircraft wing in 2 drops, 4 passes. Etc. You basically want to make it so that 90%+, CV players will get 2 drops off with both flights and then need to return to base against a concerted AA effort, say 3 ships, 1-2 of which have good AA. AA beasts? Well obviously they’re going to need to actually balance AA for starters. But if there are issues with how quick planes are getting shredded against AA Monsters, instead of adding aircraft HP (making them imba for other ships) simply add a cool-down between plane destruction. For example, 5-10s. So at minimum it takes 50-100s to take down a 10-plane wing of aircraft but while this cooldown is in effect, the next tier of damage reduction is applied. (So while the cool-down for the first aircraft being downed is active, 4% reduction in damage as opposed to 2%). DFAA? Easy, simply make it apply a damage reduction, either max (30%?) or possibly even greater if that’s needed, 50%. Spotting Basically I see spotting as eliminated from CV play outside of the 'active' squadron. Basically either have it so that the AA attack range is the spotted range or do something interesting... ... Make is so that aircraft only spot in a similar fashion to Cyclones, quasi-visible on the minimap. Conclusion So the whole idea is to have a bit of variety and combination (2 Flights active) and at the same time keep the core action-based reworked system. In furtherance of this is a shift away from DOTs and from either aircraft or AA being OP. You also want the risk v reward system to be worth it. A concentrated AA effort? Well maybe you only get the 2 attack runs per flight, not 3? Or maybe the damage reduction is making it not worth dropping on those targets due to DFAA? Maybe the AA escort around BBs is too much, need to switch to HE DBs to take out the CLs? Maybe the concentration of camping ships is so high that 2xTBs will land just about every torp? Basically my changes would allow anyone to jump in and have fun with CVs, while a good player could use the choices available and skill in managing multiple flights to maximise their contribution. By using the damage reduction system and clearly defining which planes are effective against which ships, a balance can easily be found. Thoughts from the floor?
  11. Why does WG not rotate the ships for sale in the Premium Shop? Every week it seems its the same ships as the week before with just some in packages, to seemingly double or triple the price, but no rotation through the stock of other Premium ships. I keep hoping to see 'HMS/HMAS Vampire' (that became part of the famous WW2 'Scrap Iron Flotilla') up for sale. The British Destroyer line role out would seem like a good time to put it up for sale as it was a former RN V-Class Destroyer almost the same as the W-Class 'HMS Wakeful', just added to the game. I also keep looking for the Russian Battleship 'Imperator Nikolai I'. This week's Halloween operation uses a reskinned version the 'Imperator Nikolai I' as 'Rasputin', the final enemy boss ship. Again this seem like the perfect week to sell that ship and its special Halloween skin but no... why??? I know I haven't been on WoWS very long, as I only recently left my countries' Navy, and so missed lots of great ships like the 'Arpeggio of Blue Steel' (ARP) ships (which WG probably never make available again) for example. Even my joining WoWS was problematic in that I joined on a referral but never got the free 'USS Texas' and 'Diana' I was meant to get, to which customer service did absolutely nothing to fix when I raised a ticket about it. For a game that was only about 2 1/2 years old when I joined its not been a very welcoming experience; being deigned your free joining ships, and then to see all these other ships in the game you want but they are apparently locked away from you forever because, in my case, I was busy serving my country instead of playing this game before. I wonder how many other new players feel similarly.
  12. HuginnKR

    0.6.3 패치 의견 수렴

    금일 월드 오브 워쉽 0.6.3 패치가 완료되었습니다. [패치노트 보러가기] ※ 설정 버튼을 눌러 한국어 자막으로 보실 수 있습니다. 항고모함 조작법 변경과 인터페이스 변경, 군함 성능 조정등 다양한 변화가 이루어졌는데요. 0.6.3 패치에 대한 의견이 있으시다면 댓글을 통해 남겨주세요. 비록 직접 의견을 남기지 않으시더라도 좋은 의견이 있다면 추천 버튼을 사용하여 의견을 전달할 수도 있답니다. 여러분의 보내주신 의견은 정리하여 담당부서에 전달하겠습니다. ※ 게임 내 깜짝 선물도 잊지마세요.