World of Warships Dev Tracker

Únete a nosotros en la celebración de los museos marítimos de todo el mundo que mantienen vivo nuestro patrimonio naval. Leer en el portal

Junte-se a nós para celebrar os museus marítimos ao redor do mundo que mantêm viva nossa herança naval. Leia no portal

Join us in celebrating the maritime museums around the world that keep our naval heritage alive. Read it on the portal

I'm still not seeing what is unique here. You are being focused by the enemy. The "enemy" includes a sub, which is also focusing you. It is ok to be focused by the enemy.

Leia para saber sobre as regras do novo evento do jogo na Atualização 0.11.4! Leia no portal

Read on to learn about the rules of our new game event in Update 0.11.4! Read it on the portal

¡Sigan leyendo para conocer las reglas de nuestro nuevo evento del juego en la Actualización 0.11.4! Leer en el portal

I don't work with the Devs in that manner. My creation of ASW Tactics is purely me trying to be helpful. I'm aware of what counterplay options we are trying to use, so the ASW videos highlight what options are available through using those tools.

The last part is just something I'm not quite understanding. When you're saying "Balanced for Randoms", I'm guessing you're talking about like... the back-and-forth of the interactions? The dance of dealing with a sub, if you will?

When I read "balanced for Randoms" my head moves to a few points:

Health/Tankiness

This would be under an expectation of being attacked by [X] amount of players in a 12v12 situation over [Y] minutes of expected match duration

Damage Output

This would be under an expectation of amount [Z] amount of times against a player density of ~5-7 depending on flank split during a ...

I'm reading your post and think we're likely talking past each other in terms of "Practical" and "Ideally".

In a practical perspective, Co-Op is mostly a shooting gallery at the moment where the bots are fodder to be exploded quickly.


In an ideal perspective, Co-Op has been requested to have danger as well as the ability to brawl consistently.

You're describing that you like the shooting gallery aspect of Co-Op, but there are a lot of players that miss the Danger from bots with accurate guns. A Des Moines getting one shotted through the bow by Yamato AP, for instance. A Submarine shooting homing torpedoes is probably the only fairly accurate thing in Co-Op at the time (though bots do get kills via "Accuracy through Volume of Fire")

This would be a natural and constant choice if Bot Accuracy finds its way back to pre-10.6. Ships were forced to play in a non-rush fashion because of accurate gun...

Is the core issue of your post that you feel a Submarine is too much of a threat? Because of the pinging/homing torps?

Co-Op gunners used to be dead-on accurate. Every enemy ship was a threat in terms of gunnery, though the basic pathing/behavior made their play predictable and out-playable. The fact that the Submarine is accurate harkens back to the way every ship was accurate... so I'm not quite seeing the issue. Is it more that the Submarine feels "too accurate" compared to the inaccuracy of the other bots?

-

As for how to deal with AI Subs, you just kill them. The AI stays on the surface and the pings give the Sub's location away. Shoot where the ping came from and damage the Sub. They use the same form of AI as the other bots, so they mostly go forward to fight/die like other things.

If you are playing a Sub, it may be hard to land much damage in a higher level environment but they aren't Tech Tree ships tha...

I've always enjoyed it, personally, but I'm known to hold opinions that aren't always shared by others. As for the mode, Epicenter has been a sore spot for a fair number of people for a significant amount of time.

Epicenter is going to stay in Training Battles, so if you'd like to play around with the format you could do so with a group of friends.

The 6.7% difference is only in reference to the inherent Service Cost reduction for playing Co-Op.

Currently it is a 25% reduction.

The additional 6.7% off of that makes the new reduction into 30%.

.75 x .933 = ~.7

Oh, I see. Apologies then, I thought the implication was outside sites as I know how important they are to a lot of folks.

I'm afraid I can't agree that the stats are going to become "false". Multiple types of game setups have existed for a long time now and stats include those. Modes like Epicenter, Standard Battle, and Domination all influence the length of a battle and your stats along with them. Your random battle stats have always included the stats from those modes and Arms Race will too so I don't believe stats will experience a major difference with the inclusion of Arms Race.

Somente os comandos são traduzidos. O chat de outros jogadores não tem como. Minha recomendação seria ter uma frase em ingles ja pronta tipo "por favor use os comandos dentro do jogo para ajudar a comunicação do time" Assim o time pode comunicar nas línguas escolhidas.

Testing shows an expectation of around 3% damage increase in Arms Race. The buffs were continually reduced from prior iterations to find numbers which mattered for the mode but did not lead to massive distortions.

The Health Regen was reduced significantly to avoid massive changes in damage/battle outcomes. If the Shimikaze lives for 10 minutes after taking an engagement, 8.5 HP/sec x 600 = 5,100 HP Regen'd.

@IfYouSeeKhaos
We've actually discussed this. One of the things to remember is that independent data-tracking sites like wows numbers are not affiliated with WG or World of Warships. They are purely fan-sites, so we don't based our decisions around how it will affect them, generally.

Squadrons of 9 is the most common, though there are some squadrons of 12.

Hakuryu Torpedo


Midway/United States HE Bombers


Immelmann Squadrons (Torps and Skips)

CV Hulls do not get buffed. No Regen or Total Health increase.

Neste momento eh apenas um teste, mas não seria impossível se ficar bom.