Jump to content

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
  • 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


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL






Drag Interests

Found 7 results

  1. 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
  2. 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)
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.