Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'nerf'.



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

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 14 results

  1. Wargaming, As you nerfed the RN tier 10 tech line BB Conqueror in update 0.8.8 and stole her 457mm main gun option to give that to Thunderer, your "new", Coal only purchasable, clone of Conqueror, I believe it is only fair that anyone who had unlocked Conqueror, or had commenced working on the RN BB tech line prior to update 0.8.8 should be given a voucher to purchase Thunderer at half the normal Coal price (once they have unlocked Conqueror). Players invest considerable time and effort, and sometimes also money, into researching a ship line with the final goal to unlock the pinnacle tier 10 ship of that line. People generally know the options and characteristics of the ship they are working towards and when they finally unlock that reward to then discover you have taken, without compensation, a major component from that ship, and then are trying to sell that component back to them as part of a "new" version of effectively the same ship is totally wrong on any ethical or moral grounds. For me I've finally unlocked Conqueror today and what should have been something exciting quickly turned to disappointment and anger as I realised I had been jipped when I discovered my new Conqueror didn't have the option to change to the 457mm main guns, an options I've known about since I first looked into the Conqueror and started working on the RN BB line. I imagine that in your Terms and Conditions for using WoWS you probably have clauses in there giving you the right to change aspects of ships for balancing purposes. I argue that there is balancing and then there is outright stealing a module from a ship to give it to a repackaged version of the same ship, the two are not the same. Wargaming please do the right thing and compensate Conqueror owners by, for example, giving them a substantial discount on Thunderer. For those who owned Conqueror and have since purchased Thunderer please consider giving them a partial Coal refund. PS. The current in-game description for Conqueror: "This ship was designed as a battleship with increased firepower on the basis of the British experience in ship construction gained during World War II. The project was notable for the 457 mm main guns, which were developed in the early 1920s and were the most powerful British naval artillery systems." So WG where are these 457mm guns mentioned here, you know the ones we grinded our a$$es of to get? That's right you stole them. To everyone with Conqueror, or working towards it; the 457mm guns may not have been everyone's favourite choice, you may not even miss them but the fact is you earned them, but they stole them from you without compensating you for it or even instead adding something else to Conqueror to replace them. For WG celebration of WoWS' 4th birthday they stole this module from you so they could resell them back to you as "Thundered". So what will WG steal off us for their next celebration? PPS. To any troll that might attack me for making this suggestion; just imagine that one day your favourite ship in WoWS, whatever that is, suddenly had a major module removed from it and then WG tried to sell you a clone of that ship with that module in it. I think you would be fairly and rightfully pissed off, so think of that before you add any snide comments here.
  2. It's like Henri (Speed, Maneuverability) that can juke your shots very easily, also it has that black hole mechanic on Henri + Worcester (Firing speed/DPM) raining he shells on your ship constantly with that much turrets. I shot a Colbert in 6-7 km range hoping to get a citadel and only got overpen, with a musashi. The Colbert and Henri is just overpowered, If I compare these ship to normal tech tree ship (excluding Henri), even Azuma/Yoshino they are all nothing compared to Colbert and Henri IV. Please Wargaming nerf these ships.
  3. Rina_Pon

    Au Revoir, Emile!

    I agree with both the need for the nerf and the way WG chose to implement the nerf, but I will still be sorry to see her go. The French cruiser Emile Bertin: Increased the reload time of the Main Battery from 12 to 13 s. Torpedoes 550-mm DT replaced by 550-mm 19D with the following characteristics: Reload time: 84 s; Damage from the torpedo: 12 233; Torpedo speed: 57 knots; Range: 6 km. Possessing a specific armor scheme, guns with good ballistics and torpedoes with a long range, the ship showed excessive efficiency. Changes are necessary in order to bring the ship to balance at her tier.
  4. mr_glitchy_R

    CV is so broken

    How did you fight against CV really? did WG just buff their dive bomber? i found that the dive bombers were really broken. their damage and fire efficiency are quite good this time. I don't know if this is a buff or not but i'm certain that this is a buff. No, this is not a high tier battle or in random battle. I just tried to fight against bouge in co-op with my myogi. When the dive bombers were attacked me, the damage and fire is ridiculous. Three fire and a couple of hp lost. I never thought that before. The last time i was playing CV it was terrible. Only two or three bomb hit and one fire.
  5. These days, i concerned. Why my credits are slowly draining? after days of searching, i finally know that post battle service just did that all the time. So, why WG won't remove it? no i'm not talking about random, ranked, or scenario. Clearly, co-op battle have smaller income. Which means that WG should remove it from co-op. I don't want to sell my Chapayev just like my Bismarck. Right now i'm sitting in tier 6 and playing good old co-op and scenario. And no, don't encourage me to play random battle it's just hard.
  6. [Really salty rant incoming] Saipan is seriously ruining CV gameplay at tier7, just about every match I get in my Ranger, it's a 90% chance that I'll be against a Saipan. It's a miracle if I even get pitted against Hiryu or another Ranger. With the CV playerbase already so small, Saipan pretty much dominated the tier7 CV spot, and with it's broken OP planes, it's practically impossible for Non-premium CVs to even have fun. First of all, it's those darn tier9 planes that somehow has no downsides aside from it's small squadron size. It's fast, and hard to kill, and can get out of a fighter lock without losing a plane. Ranger players are the ones that are getting kicked around most of the time since they're stuck with 1 squadron and even though it has superior numbers, it's pointless as Saipan has 2 squadrons of fighter which when combined, makes it basically Ranger's 1 fighter squadron made even more powerful by being split into 2 and being 2 tiers higher than normal Ranger. Second of all, Non-premium CVs are forced to play a defensive role when Saipan is on the other team. Whenever you even take your fighter squadron to escort your bombers, Saipan will just send his TBs to strike your open flank, and you can't even send your own bombers to an attack escorted without having to lose 1-2 squadrons because your own fighters are busy fighting 1 Fighter squadron while the other enemy squadron is gunning down your bombers returning to your ship. I really have to say that playing tier7 CVs against Saipan is no fun at all. At least when you're against Kaga, you actually have a fighting chance since it has a reasonable weakness, being that it has more fragile planes compared to it's non-premium counterparts. Against Saipan, it's practically going to be 20mins of hell for the CV player on the receiving end. Why can't WG just nerf the fighter squadrons. At least give my bombers a chance to escape by having the Saipan's fighter speed reduced.
  7. Niterate

    Questionable at Best ...

    My Perth, was nice for the brief amount of time i had to play in it, as was my Belfast. After a 6 month absence for {Reasons not of my doing}, I came back to find .. A) WoW$ has had [content removed] with two of my purchases, the Perth and Belfast, all in the name of Bank Game Balance issues .. to do with [content removed] and ; B) Dropping [content removed], time limited, emailed reward attempts in my email box, to get me to "Rejoin" the community. Well blow me down with a feather .... if WoW$ were truly serious, they know and have email addresses for accounts that "own" purchased and affected ships, they probably should have emailed directly regards that, and should not have hidden it away in a patch note, and then promptly gone and taken a money bath in the forecast earnings of the next new "Drawing Board" thing... Stuck with it now, I can only hope the Perth is compensated in some way, I'll likely have to eat what comes with owning the Belfast. It was an ethical fail to time limit the return of these craft for doubloons to one solitary patch cycle, typical Thursday to second Thursday if participating on the Asian server is anything to go by ... if you're lucky. One notes however, the "Rejoin" time periods offered in the "come back" email were probably longer in duration ... but only just by the tiniest of margins. You do have to question the ethics at play when organisation does not want you to leave, and watches your currency (pun intended) to lure you back, but can not be arsed to provide a paying customer up front communications regards changes that affect purchased products. I seem to recall there is a name for that shallow sort of behaviour .. fishy smelling.. um.. "bait", and something I cant quite remember .. something electrical it was... If you're serious, do not time limit compensatory actions, it's shill like and impacts your credibility, one notes I didn't time limit my payment for these craft .... care to offer a refund? Respect paying customers by engaging in direct, open honest communication. Certainly if you wish to build rapport that grows confidence, and long term patronage. Seriously I'm now quite disgruntled and will likely on BALANCE not be Buying anything more, be it credits or boats or account time, or anything else from WoW$, whilst the practices outlined above are to be an ongoing example how WoW$ means to offer effective, honest "customer communication" and supposed purchase satisfaction. On reflection, kinda glad I didn't earn a Moskva.. dare say their would be ample room for expletives given the time factor it represents, if I had. Inappropriate content. Post edited, user warned. ~amade
  8. brano_2

    world of carriers?

    finally made it to tier 5, bit of a struggle considering im to tight to pay for gold, but honestly its just a bit to overpriced WOT's is fair and makes it seem a little more enticing and i have spent a pretty penny on that game. now that im tier 5 it seems 90% of battles have 2 carriers... this is a real turn off for me, 1 is a pain in the a$$ let alone 2 and i was wondering what everyone else thinks. below are my views from a new player perspective and some possible ideas to nerf/even the playing fields. matchups are overwhelmed by carriers numbers like 15 carriers, 6 battleships, 4 cruisers, 6 destroyers. makes me think carriers are easy money. 90% matches are carrier x2 ////////maybe lock this so its 1 carrier per match. my last match before this rant, 2 carriers wiping a whole team with torp strikes x3 each made for a mess of 3-5 torps each plane then x 6 planes. killing any ship they targeted and 2 times 2 at once. this even had the players on their side complaining because they didn't get to barely shoot anything. they are fast, hard to find, and the closer you get the more frequent they strike you. not only that they can spot almost everyone on the map within 2 mins of match start.///////// slow em down, make them as spottable as BB's. reduce spotting range unless they have a spotter plane out, add range to torp bombers depoyment (they are dropped point blank and even most DD's don't get a chance to avoid unless they know its coming. or even enlarge or have a cool down (pilot fatigue) after a few sorties, where they have to rest or they fly with a handicap making them easyier to kill with AA or 50% less acurate. almost every match ends with carriers on top 1200+ xp. AA does almost nothing to higher tier making any mods to counter a last option. ////////////// make AA more accurate or damage inflicting so strikes on heavier ships will cost. i dunno but honestly me and my friends are new but its quickly becoming painful playing a game to just sail round dodging torps until your overwhelmed in the end. 1 friend has given up so far and im close to force quitting if 2 carriers are in a match because its just to painful spending a match watching AA fail and trying to dodge the cris cross of torps point blank on your bow. id like to see what other players think, are carriers to O.P or 2x carrier to much? is it fine and its just a noob problem? if so solutions other than hide in the corner until hopefully someone kills 1 off.
  9. LordTyphoon

    Grozovoi

    Saw this video the day it came out, but I was banned at the time for (allegedly) using profanities on this forum at the time, so haven't posted until now: If this gets released the way it is I'll never be playing CV again. EVER. Look at that Taiho just ragequit. Insert your thoughts below.
  10. Lupusregina

    BISMARCK NERFED

    I heard they are nerfing bismarck's hydro to the normal one. Why would they do that? That was what made Bismarck safe to charge and lead the team with the secondaries but now it will be harder....... WHY WHY WHY
  11. Make ships that are shooting from invisibility while in open waters be detected after about 4-5 salvos and give about 5 secs of detecion time. If they start shooting while detected, the time would increase by 2 sec. This would let battleships be able to react since they dont have the speed to chase down dds. At least give them a chance to shooot. - Seems like i made a mistake on the title
  12. BIGCOREMKP0I

    Nerf Sims Pls

    Please Nerf this premium thing, i was worried that it hurts my Win8 and also i would recommend to reduce its range to 5.0km As well as reduce damage on Torpedoes Moved to off-topic. ~dead_man_walking
  13. TepidusLegend

    Please Nerf the Budyonny

    Hello Wargaming. I recently got my Budyonny and i think this ship is too unfair when compared to my other tier VI cruisers. Her armor can shrug off most AP cruiser shells in her effective engagement range. Not only that, the turret traverse, muzzle velocity and arcs are powerful too. The torpedo might only reach 4k, but the arc and speed is excellent. To top it all off, the ship has spotter planes and fast speed. Please nerf this ship. Yours Truly, TepidusLegend
  14. 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:
×