Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Forthcoming Patch Announcement


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

I uninstalled this game 2 month ago. I played this game since the beginning, and I loved it, but the current meta is a no for me.

But submarines dho, but submarines! Ha! On man those subs, wew lad. I am just amazed that WG thinks any of that is okay. I was in both closed and open beta for WoWS and have hardly played since, I was considering going back for subs but just nah, I can't even watch submarine game play. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello again Admirals, Since our last post regarding the upcoming big update we have made significant progress not only on finalizing the first campaign version but also on adding new and very imp

Hello all, We were ready to release, as we fixed and optimized all majors aspects, but we found a potential crash problem that could be caused if you clicked mouse button while waiting for AI fle

The patch is in closed testing procedure. If all is good, we will release on Monday. Everyone, have a great weekend!

Posted Images

15 hours ago, Tousansons said:

1975640863_Sanstitre.jpg.8a6938e7aa375d507e454064247fb9e0.jpg

Back to drinking I guess.

One thing I hate about WoWS is that the game doesn't play like ships shooting each other.

The best description would be something like "Cardboard cutouts of ships mounted on ice skates shooting technobabble incendiary nukes and overpenetrations at each other"

I swear I hit some random American cruiser with 8 or so waterline central hits with Japanese 14 inch AP and it did absolutely nothing to it...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

I uninstalled this game 2 month ago. I played this game since the beginning, and I loved it, but the current meta is a no for me.

Fair enough. I still like it for the theme it has and play it. Not as much as in the past though.

However with German BCs on the horizon this may change once more 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

I uninstalled this game 2 month ago. I played this game since the beginning, and I loved it, but the current meta is a no for me.

That and all the scummys thing peegee has been doing for the past 2 years (even more so in the recent CC exodus and how they have been treating both colleague and community alike in the past month).

Game has potential, but its going now where sad as its quite fun but horribly frustrating.

Edited by Cptbarney
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Never played that game before. Not really a fan of the type of progression that is necessary. 
I'd rather be free to do whatever I want, not have to work for ships. 

But that's just me. That's why I like Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

But submarines dho, but submarines! Ha! On man those subs, wew lad. I am just amazed that WG thinks any of that is okay. I was in both closed and open beta for WoWS and have hardly played since, I was considering going back for subs but just nah, I can't even watch submarine game play. 

The subs arnt bad problem what you have is most player on that game don't understand ship roles neither do the devs of that game either that is probably well over half the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, o Barão said:

Yeah same. In the current system it seems we are using a belt armor layout designed for a CL in a BB with the main turrets exposed. If the player can't design because the game mechanics atleast would be nice to cover the 5 columns in the middle for the BBs, BCs, CAs and use the current belt layout in game only for CLs. Would make much more sense imo.

 

It would also be cool if you could define the barbettes' thickness, I think they are an essential component of warships which had them.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

YES! Determining how thick the barbettes are would be an amazing addition to the ship designer. All the little details count!

(Well, you can already, but it's really not that specific)

Edited by Commander-Alexander-Reed
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious as to how the new rudder mechanic will work, I'm assuming depending on which option you choose, it'll just give your ship a large debuff if you decide to cut expenses for the rudder? 

Or will it be a little more complex than this? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Commander-Alexander-Reed said:

I am curious as to how the new rudder mechanic will work, I'm assuming depending on which option you choose, it'll just give your ship a large debuff if you decide to cut expenses for the rudder? 

Or will it be a little more complex than this? 

Presumably. There also may be some sort of health point factor to accommodate for historical situations where ships lost rudder control (Jutland, Ark Royal's attack on Bismarck, and IIRC Guadalcanal). I know that's already sort of a mechanic in game, but it will probably be affected by the new rudder module.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Commander-Alexander-Reed said:

I am curious as to how the new rudder mechanic will work, I'm assuming depending on which option you choose, it'll just give your ship a large debuff if you decide to cut expenses for the rudder? 

Or will it be a little more complex than this? 

Same. 

Both Shaft and Aux Eng already effect (buff) Turning Rate and Circle, is this going to be another buff? (player side). 

Maneuverability is a pretty key anit-torp, how is this going effect torpedo balancing? Will this weaken torps in general? Will this give even more maneuverability to the AI?

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2021 at 8:39 AM, Cptbarney said:

oi lads, an update!

@Stormnet @HusariuS @Marshall99 @Bluishdoor76 @IronKaputt @TotalRampage @Koogus @1MajorKoenig @ThatZenoGuy @Skeksis @CapnAvont1015 @Zuikaku @Airzerg @SonicB @Speglord @Commander-Alexander-Reed @Steeltrap @Hangar18 @Jatzi @Danvanthevacuumman @Gangut 

And god knows who else i missed oh hold on.

@Aceituna Forgive me as it's 27oC where i am. @Tousansons soz lol. @Dracohere it is lol.

Very noice too see this btw.

eyyyyyyy i got a mention!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2021 at 9:55 AM, Werwaz said:

the only thing I particularly object to is the belt weight increase since a thick belt is needed to counter the AI's regular use of 19 and 20-inch guns,

I think this is something that should be discussed. I'm not really sure how to explain this... but 20" guns should punch armor unless its a metal box. theyre giving up a lot to get that ability. A reversion here could make them entirely useless. the question should not be phrased around if 20" guns should be able to punch any armor, it should be phrased around, does it give up enough to warrent being able to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

One thing I hate about WoWS is that the game doesn't play like ships shooting each other.

The best description would be something like "Cardboard cutouts of ships mounted on ice skates shooting technobabble incendiary nukes and overpenetrations at each other"

I swear I hit some random American cruiser with 8 or so waterline central hits with Japanese 14 inch AP and it did absolutely nothing to it...

what you see happening on your screen is not what the server always sees. once a shell hits, theres no rng outside chance to bounce, but if youre within a certain angle, that also becomes a non factor. if a shell hits broadside, there is no RNG, its raw math. your shell properties vs their damage model. For the most part the DM are true to form, some have simplifications however. WOWS is extremely mechanical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

what you see happening on your screen is not what the server always sees

But that's not my problem, nor should it ever be. Client based games>Server based for actual PVP any day of the week.

3 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

 once a shell hits, theres no rng outside chance to bounce, but if youre within a certain angle, that also becomes a non factor. if a shell hits broadside, there is no RNG, its raw math. your shell properties vs their damage model. For the most part the DM are true to form, some have simplifications however. WOWS is extremely mechanical.

I mean the shells impacted what would appear to be right under the funnels, that ship's engines should've been kaput yet 'muh overpenetration'

Silly game for silly children.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

I think this is something that should be discussed. I'm not really sure how to explain this... but 20" guns should punch armor unless its a metal box. theyre giving up a lot to get that ability. A reversion here could make them entirely useless. the question should not be phrased around if 20" guns should be able to punch any armor, it should be phrased around, does it give up enough to warrent being able to.

One of the biggest issues is AIs making mega-OP ships with 15x 508mm guns all the time.

 

Imagine making a state of the art Battleship, carefully crafted to balance all of its aspects perfectly in a well protected and potent ship... only to get obliterated an AI clowncar ship with 9% accuracy while you have a 74% accuracy because it made a Battleship with impossibly heavy main battery that one-hit kills you...

Edited by SPANISH_AVENGER
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

I think this is something that should be discussed. I'm not really sure how to explain this... but 20" guns should punch armor unless its a metal box. theyre giving up a lot to get that ability. A reversion here could make them entirely useless. the question should not be phrased around if 20" guns should be able to punch any armor, it should be phrased around, does it give up enough to warrent being able to.

 

The thing is, there's something about ships that is way heavier than it should already.

Just try to make any replica build. Bismarck, Iowa... it will always weight 10,000-15,000 more tons than it should... and now it will weight even more because of the armor weight increases...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

 

The thing is, there's something about ships that is way heavier than it should already.

Just try to make any replica build. Bismarck, Iowa... it will always weight 10,000-15,000 more tons than it should... and now it will weight even more because of the armor weight increases...

Not to mention you 'need' to armor the front and rear ends of the ship to a high extent, historically these areas had 30mm or so of plating tops for an all-or-nothing ship.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, baltic1284 said:

The subs arnt bad problem what you have is most player on that game don't understand ship roles neither do the devs of that game either that is probably well over half the issue.

They completely are a problem. 

Ultra fast surface speeds, ultra fast under water speeds, absurdly fast homing torpedos with a really BS sonar ping system?

Slow plodding craft with slow unguided torpedos up untill late war when a rudimentary acoustic homing torpedo was invented that had just as much chance to target the launching submarine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

They completely are a problem. 

Ultra fast surface speeds, ultra fast under water speeds, absurdly fast homing torpedos with a really BS sonar ping system?

Slow plodding craft with slow unguided torpedos up untill late war when a rudimentary acoustic homing torpedo was invented that had just as much chance to target the launching submarine.

WG and balance are two different things sadly. They almost never listen to the community, and this is a very big issue. I was a ship collector but I closed my wallet ine year ago. They don't deserv my money at all. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...