Jump to content


Iowa's Citadel is Actually Correct, but shows Warships real problem

Iowa Missouri Montana Alabama Citadel

  • Please log in to reply
334 replies to this topic

issm #321 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:14 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,299
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostiChase, on 21 March 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

and when was the last time you engaged anything at ranges greater than 25km? For all intents and purposes the engagement distances of the game are sub-20km

 

tl;dr, the problem you described (unrealistically short ballistics range) doesn't exist in the game (plunging fire and immunity zones DO exist in the game, it's just that no one uses them), therefore, we should PUT that problem into the game (by actually artificially clipping the range by 40-50%), so we can fix it with this solution.

 

All the while, we completely ignore all the real source of the game's problems (hint, real life BBs couldn't acheive 30% hit rate).

 

Sounds good.


Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


CybrSlydr #322 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:17 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,967
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013
"utterly insane"?  Hardly.

CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


Aetreus #323 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,852
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostCybrSlydr, on 21 March 2017 - 04:17 PM, said:

"utterly insane"?  Hardly.

Yes, utterly insane. This will turn penetration by certain guns totally on their head. Take USN CA, which has bad range. Now in addition to having bad range and arcs, they'll lose their good penetration, because other longer ranged lines will have less penetration compression.

 

Basically, I think that range compression would not be a good thing. But if you want it, it should be consistent based off of a single value for all ships, with it maybe as an edge case being for each class. Making it dependant on a ship's maximum range turns everything into a crazy land of curve-fitting, magic numbers(actually, I'm pretty certain that the computational complexity of doing this is infeasible), and making a ship's overall effectiveness even more complex and interrelated than it already is.


Edited by Aetreus, 21 March 2017 - 09:36 PM.


Grizley #324 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:46 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,908
  • Member since:
    12-08-2013

View PostAetreus, on 21 March 2017 - 01:32 PM, said:

Yes, utterly insane. This will turn penetration by certain guns totally on their head. Take USN CA, which has bad range. Now in addition to having bad range and arcs, they'll lose their good penetration, because other longer ranged lines will have less penetration compression.

 

Not really.  At longer ranges shell weight is more important, since you're not penning belts at all you're penning decks.  Now, the USN CA and BB having unusually thin decks in this game would be an issue.

 

But if you're talking the penetration of say, a Des Moines shell vs a Zao at 25km, the Des Moines will do much better.  Higher angle of fall, so less effective armor to penetrate, plus higher weight to better maintain velocity over distance.  If they bothered to model the effects of drag on a shell a longer shell also has better velocity at a distance than a shell of higher caliber but the same weight.

 

At long range 25km+ the USN SHS vs the IJN 8" shells the USN shells will pen ~4inches of both belt and deck, the IJN guns will pen a little less than 3inches of each.  Now, when you're talking fantasy guns you can apply whatever shell weights and working pressures you want, but looking the best the IJN ever came up with and the USN guns of that generation, advantage USN.  I realize how laughable the math on the Zao guns is, but even then the AP weight is closer to the DM HC shell than the AP shell.



KnightFandragon #325 Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:03 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,285
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 09:14 PM, said:

 

tl;dr, the problem you described (unrealistically short ballistics range) doesn't exist in the game (plunging fire and immunity zones DO exist in the game, it's just that no one uses them), therefore, we should PUT that problem into the game (by actually artificially clipping the range by 40-50%), so we can fix it with this solution.

 

All the while, we completely ignore all the real source of the game's problems (hint, real life BBs couldn't acheive 30% hit rate).

 

Sounds good.

 

Nor did ships delete by a shot to the citadel.  Only a shot to the ammo magazine.  Soo, if your gunna apply THAT, then lets see raw durabilty on ships sky rocket as well, where it takes heaping MOUNDS of shells to sink a single ship, not just lol1citadel.

 

Besides, what are YOU doing claiming anything with RL, your the "balance screw reality" person...



CybrSlydr #326 Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,967
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostAetreus, on 21 March 2017 - 04:32 PM, said:

Yes, utterly insane. This will turn penetration by certain guns totally on their head. Take USN CA, which has bad range. Now in addition to having bad range and arcs, they'll lose their good penetration, because other longer ranged lines will have less penetration compression.

 

Basically, I think that range compression would not be a good thing. But if you want it, it should be consistent based off of a single value for all ships, with it maybe as an edge case being for each class. Making it dependant on a ship's maximum range turns everything into a crazy land of curve-fitting, magic numbers(actually, I'm pretty certain that the computational complexity of doing this is infeasible), and making a ship's overall effectiveness even more complex and interrelated than it already is.

 

No, they won't lose their good penetration.  Simply because, using the 8" as an example, their max range would be a little over 30k yards. 

 

http://www.navweaps....S_8-55_mk16.php

 

So you've got nearly the range of a BB with all that range over which the shell will get better and better penetration.  Sure, you'd have to get closer to BBs to pen the side armor (such is life) since even at 30k yds you're only going to get 4" of deck armor pen, etc.


CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


issm #327 Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:17 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,299
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostKnightFandragon, on 21 March 2017 - 05:03 PM, said:

Nor did ships delete by a shot to the citadel.  Only a shot to the ammo magazine.  Soo, if your gunna apply THAT, then lets see raw durabilty on ships sky rocket as well, where it takes heaping MOUNDS of shells to sink a single ship, not just lol1citadel.

 

Besides, what are YOU doing claiming anything with RL, your the "balance screw reality" person...

 

I hear boiler steam explosions were pretty lethal? Who knows.

 

Things like "increased damage" and "increased accuracy" are necessary evils, to ensure games in in a reasonable amount of time.

 

The number of people willing to put up with plinking at a DD for 30 mins while 90% of your shots miss is minuscule.

 

Why am I bringing up real life here? Because, unfortunately, WG is sticking to real life values for armour and penetration.

 

Real life protection was designed based on real life gunnery. That protection is completely insufficient to defend against the fictional in game gunnery.

 

Since I'm entirely in favour of balance over reality, I fully support ignoring reality to fix the problems realism caused.

 

i.e., lowering Iowa's citadel, to improve protection. 

 

Hell, I'd be fine with an ACTUAL penetration nerf across the board.


Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Aetreus #328 Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:26 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,852
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostGrizley, on 21 March 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

Not really.  At longer ranges shell weight is more important, since you're not penning belts at all you're penning decks.  Now, the USN CA and BB having unusually thin decks in this game would be an issue.

 

But if you're talking the penetration of say, a Des Moines shell vs a Zao at 25km, the Des Moines will do much better.  Higher angle of fall, so less effective armor to penetrate, plus higher weight to better maintain velocity over distance.  If they bothered to model the effects of drag on a shell a longer shell also has better velocity at a distance than a shell of higher caliber but the same weight.

 

At long range 25km+ the USN SHS vs the IJN 8" shells the USN shells will pen ~4inches of both belt and deck, the IJN guns will pen a little less than 3inches of each.  Now, when you're talking fantasy guns you can apply whatever shell weights and working pressures you want, but looking the best the IJN ever came up with and the USN guns of that generation, advantage USN.  I realize how laughable the math on the Zao guns is, but even then the AP weight is closer to the DM HC shell than the AP shell.

Uh, you're totally wrong about Zao guns here. Shell weight is 155kg, which makes it the heaviest 8" shell of any type in the game, and it has a slightly better but still pretty bad drag value, meaning it retains velocity better as well(the ballistic model does model drag, lol). DM does have a deck armor penetration advantage, but this is actually bigger at close ranges(15km, 32mm vs 60mm, compare 20km, 70mm vs 100mm), than further ones(at long range absolute penetration is more important, Zao has more). It beats DM in belt penetration at all ranges, no questions asked.

 

I have no idea what you're smoking with "USN CA and BB having unusually thin decks." USN CA especially has very thick decks at all tiers, Moskva has more than DM but that's about it. USN BB is beaten out by IJN BB at high tier, who have exceptionally thick decks, but they beat out KM BB, especially due to KM inclined turtlebacks, and most future BB lines will have less deck armor. Also USN mid-tier way outmatches everyone else in deck armor. We can always add on the effective thickness with the STS laminate, which shouldn't get the full thickness but should add a few mm more(laminate plates are not as effective as a single uniform plate).

View PostCybrSlydr, on 21 March 2017 - 05:16 PM, said:

No, they won't lose their good penetration.  Simply because, using the 8" as an example, their max range would be a little over 30k yards. 

 

http://www.navweaps....S_8-55_mk16.php

 

So you've got nearly the range of a BB with all that range over which the shell will get better and better penetration.  Sure, you'd have to get closer to BBs to pen the side armor (such is life) since even at 30k yds you're only going to get 4" of deck armor pen, etc.

How is this supposed to be a response to my post(actually this should go for the above)? IChase ​isn't proposing changing ship's ranges​. He's proposing to scale penetration(terminal ballistics really, because the game does not have "penetration" values as such) to a ship's existing maximum range. So a DM would get it's penetration at max ballistic range at it's current ingame max range, 15.8km. While a Hindenburg would get it's penetration at max ballistic range at its maximum range... which is 17.8km. Hence Hindenburg gets a significant relative buff to its penetration, because its gun doesn't have much more range than that of DM. So a Hindenburg would get the same to a bit more belt penetration at all ranges, where now it has significantly less at all ranges. It's deck penetration would be further away and it has less in general, which is a little bit of a silver lining.

 


Edited by Aetreus, 21 March 2017 - 10:34 PM.


CybrSlydr #329 Posted 21 March 2017 - 10:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,967
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostAetreus, on 21 March 2017 - 05:26 PM, said:

Uh, you're totally wrong about Zao guns here. Shell weight is 155kg, which makes it the heaviest 8" shell of any type in the game, and it has a slightly better but still pretty bad drag value, meaning it retains velocity better as well(the ballistic model does model drag, lol). DM does have a deck armor penetration advantage, but this is actually bigger at close ranges(15km, 32mm vs 60mm, compare 20km, 70mm vs 100mm), than further ones(at long range absolute penetration is more important, Zao has more). It beats DM in belt penetration at all ranges, no questions asked.

 

I have no idea what you're smoking with "USN CA and BB having unusually thin decks." USN CA especially has very thick decks at all tiers, Moskva has more than DM but that's about it. USN BB is beaten out by IJN BB at high tier, who have exceptionally thick decks, but they beat out KM BB, especially due to KM inclined turtlebacks, and most future BB lines will have less deck armor. Also USN mid-tier way outmatches everyone else in deck armor. We can always add on the effective thickness with the STS laminate, which shouldn't get the full thickness but should add a few mm more(laminate plates are not as effective as a single uniform plate).

How is this supposed to be a response to my post(actually this should go for the above)? IChase ​isn't proposing changing ship's ranges​. He's proposing to scale penetration(terminal ballistics really, because the game does not have "penetration" values as such) to a ship's existing maximum range. So a DM would get it's penetration at max ballistic range at it's current ingame max range, 15.8km. While a Hindenburg would get it's penetration at max ballistic range at its maximum range... which is 17.8km. Hence Hindenburg gets a significant relative buff to its penetration, because its gun doesn't have much more range than that of DM. So a Hindenburg would get the same to a bit more belt penetration at all ranges, where now it has significantly less at all ranges. It's deck penetration would be further away and it has less in general, which is a little bit of a silver lining.

 

 

Ignore this post

Edited by CybrSlydr, 21 March 2017 - 10:50 PM.

CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


KnightFandragon #330 Posted 21 March 2017 - 11:32 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,285
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:

 

I hear boiler steam explosions were pretty lethal? Who knows.

 

Things like "increased damage" and "increased accuracy" are necessary evils, to ensure games in in a reasonable amount of time.

 

The number of people willing to put up with plinking at a DD for 30 mins while 90% of your shots miss is minuscule.

 

Why am I bringing up real life here? Because, unfortunately, WG is sticking to real life values for armour and penetration.

 

Real life protection was designed based on real life gunnery. That protection is completely insufficient to defend against the fictional in game gunnery.

 

Since I'm entirely in favour of balance over reality, I fully support ignoring reality to fix the problems realism caused.

 

i.e., lowering Iowa's citadel, to improve protection. 

 

Hell, I'd be fine with an ACTUAL penetration nerf across the board.

 

Yeah, you would blow up the steam boiler, you would kill everyone around the boiler, start a fire in teh engine room, but meh, watch Mythbusters on the exploding water heater episode.  Thats about what would happen.  It wouldnt utterly delete the entire ship like in this game.  It would be dangerous, sure, your engines would be damaged, your ship would be slower, you would be down a part of your crew, with a fire burning deep inside your ship.....yeah, its serious for sure....but your still floating.  DCP can still recover from it. 

 

By the logic of this game, the USS Johnston or any ship that takes a hit to it's engine room should instantly be destroyed.  As it was, the Johnston went on to [edited]up a row of cruisers, some DDs, got hammered by heavy cruisers, destroyers, battleship rounds...yeah, it took an absolute pounding that in this game, even a BB cant sustain. 

 

As for plinking a DD for 30 minutes?  Why does everyone want the game to end in 3 minutes?  Where is the fun in that?  Whats even fun about going into matches that amount to little more then really good Demos?  I would expect the match to atleast last the full 20 minutes.  Not with 90% miss rate, but through the sheer damage a ship can sustain, unless you hit the ammo mags and/or group fire with teamwork to quickly bring down a ship.  It should be based on teamwork, not 1 lucky shot deleted the enemy team's BB 30s into the game, followed by a shot deleted a cruiser, and another shot deleted a lower tier BB, then the enemy deletes your BB, then a DD gets basically 1 shot cuz dispersion says 9 penetrating hits and -12000 dmg instantly. 

 

Were in a NAVAL game, ships take an absolute MAULING before going down.  THis whole gotta end the game fast is actually pretty damn boring as well.  As for issues realism caused?  If this game followed realism closer, we would actually have alot of the issues fixed.  Its the urge to end games in 2 minutes, and people's unwillingness to want to spend more then 2 shots killing things that led to the stupid [edited]game mechanics.  FANTASY is to blame for the state of this game. 

 

Id be good with a pen nerf across the board as well.  Ofc, im sure it would be a favor the Russians and bork the USN cuz lol good gun handling type of deal, but it'd be interesting to see. 


Edited by KnightFandragon, 21 March 2017 - 11:37 PM.


issm #331 Posted 21 March 2017 - 11:41 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,299
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostKnightFandragon, on 21 March 2017 - 06:32 PM, said:

Yeah, you would blow up the steam boiler, you would kill everyone around the boiler, start a fire in teh engine room, but meh, watch Mythbusters on the exploding water heater episode.  Thats about what would happen.  It wouldnt utterly delete the entire ship like in this game.  It would be dangerous, sure, your engines would be damaged, your ship would be slower, you would be down a part of your crew, with a fire burning deep inside your ship.....yeah, its serious for sure....but your still floating.  DCP can still recover from it. 

 

By the logic of this game, the USS Johnston or any ship that takes a hit to it's engine room should instantly be destroyed.  As it was, the Johnston went on to [edited]up a row of cruisers, some DDs, got hammered by heavy cruisers, destroyers, battleship rounds...yeah, it took an absolute pounding that in this game, even a BB cant sustain. 

 

As for plinking a DD for 30 minutes?  Why does everyone want the game to end in 3 minutes?  Where is the fun in that?  Whats even fun about going into matches that amount to little more then really good Demos?  I would expect the match to atleast last the full 20 minutes.  Not with 90% miss rate, but through the sheer damage a ship can sustain, unless you hit the ammo mags and/or group fire with teamwork to quickly bring down a ship.  It should be based on teamwork, not 1 lucky shot deleted the enemy team's BB 30s into the game, followed by a shot deleted a cruiser, and another shot deleted a lower tier BB, then the enemy deletes your BB, then a DD gets basically 1 shot cuz dispersion says 9 penetrating hits and -12000 dmg instantly. 

 

Were in a NAVAL game, ships take an absolute MAULING before going down.  THis whole gotta end the game fast is actually pretty damn boring as well. 

 

Id be good with a pen nerf across the board as well.  Ofc, im sure it would be a favor the Russians and bork the USN cuz lol good gun handling type of deal, but it'd be interesting to see. 

 

Put it this way: Long games are aimed at "hardcore" gamers, who can sit down for long play sessions.

 

Short games are better for casuals, who want to get a few matches in between doing other things.

 

If you look at every indicator of the WoWS playerbase, it's overwhelmingly casual.

 

What you're basically advocating for is reworking Angry Birds to satisfy the play habits of Mass Effect players.


Yamato  Montana  Zao  Hindenburg  DesMoines  Moskva  Shimakaze  Gearing     

Taiho  Missouri  Bismarck  Akizuki  Fiji  Tashkent  Udaloi

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Aetreus #332 Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:02 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Alpha Tester

  • 1,852
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 21 March 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

Put it this way: Long games are aimed at "hardcore" gamers, who can sit down for long play sessions.

 

Short games are better for casuals, who want to get a few matches in between doing other things.

 

If you look at every indicator of the WoWS playerbase, it's overwhelmingly casual.

 

What you're basically advocating for is reworking Angry Birds to satisfy the play habits of Mass Effect players.

There's more to it than play session length. The broader issue is that there simply wouldn't be very much to do​ in the game if it were realistically long. It'd pretty much be find the range within 1-2 salvoes, then fire again and again until eventually your enemy dies. All the tactical decisions that occur in 20 minutes would occur over the course of an hour or more, which would be absolutely ruinous to player engagement.

 

Essentially, if you look at a game with a long play session, generally there's a lot more to do in that session than there is in a WoWS game. An RTS game has many times more decisions to occupy the player across a 30min-1hr play time. Now you could add lots of twiddly knobs to WoWS to try and compensate for that, but the issue there is it becomes "do nothing for 10 minutes, then be completely overwhelmed for 30 seconds," which isn't very fun either. The more systems to manage you add, the more players will end up having to deal with a bunch of them at once, which is unfun even occasionally, simply because events will tend to cluster in a tactical game.



Lampshade_M1A2 #333 Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:10 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,473
  • Member since:
    10-07-2014
Now I'm something of a masochist but I would actually enjoy taking a few minutes to dial in the range with optical rangefinders and shell splashes. I wouldn't lend itself well to the current gameplay however.

lemekillmister #334 Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:12 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 959
  • Member since:
    07-30-2016
Besides time/battle duration, map sizes/range of engagement, and map designs, it seems to me the other factor hemming in this game is how the scoring/points system works in determining the winning vs losing team. Games don't necessarily need to be longer if the scoring system placed a little less value or emphasis on number of ships sunk within the allotted game/battle time. When one side gets quickly steamrolled that doesn't necessarily make the game more fun for the winners.  

Edited by lemekillmister, 22 March 2017 - 12:18 AM.

I'm a spudman, I got eyes all around.

 

 

 


KnightFandragon #335 Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:42 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,285
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostAetreus, on 22 March 2017 - 12:02 AM, said:

There's more to it than play session length. The broader issue is that there simply wouldn't be very much to do​ in the game if it were realistically long. It'd pretty much be find the range within 1-2 salvoes, then fire again and again until eventually your enemy dies. All the tactical decisions that occur in 20 minutes would occur over the course of an hour or more, which would be absolutely ruinous to player engagement.

 

Essentially, if you look at a game with a long play session, generally there's a lot more to do in that session than there is in a WoWS game. An RTS game has many times more decisions to occupy the player across a 30min-1hr play time. Now you could add lots of twiddly knobs to WoWS to try and compensate for that, but the issue there is it becomes "do nothing for 10 minutes, then be completely overwhelmed for 30 seconds," which isn't very fun either. The more systems to manage you add, the more players will end up having to deal with a bunch of them at once, which is unfun even occasionally, simply because events will tend to cluster in a tactical game.

 

OOooorrrrr, you could actually add stuff into the missions to do.  Things like destroying enemy convoys, taking over ports, adding that WOWP objectives, like convoys, airfields, tank convoys and all matter of things to do besides shoot ships. 

 

Im also not talking about making the game last an hour, but the full 20 minutes, and making ships not 1 shot delete worthy like they are now. 

 

But basically everything im on about would actually make a great PVE scenarios.  PVP really never is more then 2 minute shoot the red ships mode, which is why I usually like PVE alot more in games....but WG has yet to actually expand that whole aspect of their game....







Also tagged with Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Alabama, Citadel

4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users