Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Lert

A possible 'fix' for the game, if you're the kind of person who believes a fix is needed.

130 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
1,375 posts
12,616 battles

This is something I'd had an issue with for a while now, the only way I've ever gotten "proper" plunging fire was with my Yamato on a Tirptiz at 30+ km (scout plane) and obviously hits at that range on the right part of a ship are few and far between in game, so I fully agree with what the "proper compressed" version suggests

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,148
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,904 posts
8,692 battles

Compressing ranges would kill small caliber guns like the USN 127 and 152 mm guns that already are floaty. The effective ranges would get even smaller...

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,566
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,686 posts
19,814 battles

Compressing ranges would kill small caliber guns like the USN 127 and 152 mm guns that already are floaty. The effective ranges would get even smaller...

 

That can easily be adjusted for. It's not like it's 'the same compression for every gun in the game or none at all'. Besides, I specifically mentioned an increase to shell velocity, so the time-to-target would remain the same.
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,148
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,904 posts
8,692 battles

 

That can easily be adjusted for. It's not like it's 'the same compression for every gun in the game or none at all'.

 

That is a poor argument, "lets just fudge things and then fix the broken things by fudging more". 
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,501
[WOLF7]
Members
12,599 posts

Lert, there are fixes needed. But you're bringing up something that 99% of this player base will never notice. :unsure:

Shell mechanics only exist in this game to drag in a certain type of player, most never even know there is such a thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,566
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,686 posts
19,814 battles

That is a poor argument, "lets just fudge things and then fix the broken things by fudging more". 

 

Did you miss where I specifically said that shell velocities would get adjusted so time-to-target remains the same?

 

Also, adjusted stats on a per-gun basis already happens, is already in the game. So adjusting on a per-gun basis would not introduce anything that WoWS doesn't already do.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,735 posts
7,019 battles

so that would make NC better or more irrelevant because i'm thinking of free exping the colorado to get her,obviously that's a community advice,not something official for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,566
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,686 posts
19,814 battles

so that would make NC better or more irrelevant

 

........ Watch the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
894 posts
3,937 battles

I agree mostly with this but believe while the nerf to German BBs at range would hurt them it would still keep with the logic behind them wanting to close and get closer in which is where their guns can do what they need to do and the armor would be working as intended in real life.

 

Also side note, while not 100% the same I get the feeling like there is a connection to be made between this and how the 5 inch guns for the USN DD's + Atlanta had with the change in their shell trajectories. While normally they shoot HE it did change how at range it made for a more plunging effect while to get a more flat angle they had to close.

 

Edit: I can see while typing this it was already brought up but I would argue then that for those ships its almost a non issue since this essentially already was done to those ships in a manner.

Edited by Dr_Richtofen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,296 posts
6,905 battles
Fixing bow camping and German turtlebacks would be as simple as adjusting the armor ricochet angles. And you'd fix deck penetrations at the same time when doing it. Compressing ranges in some funky way is an overcomplicated solution to the problem. It also introduces a bunch of problems, in that it means that battleships are more able to close range without facing armor penetration threat. That sounds like a good thing... until you realize that cruisers​ have so little protection that they gain almost nothing against battleships. Now, we just have battleships able to move up more, rendering cruisers even more useless and forced to stay away(with shittier AP making them useless against each other as well), leading to destroyers operating more freely leading to BB complaints leading to more destroyer nerfs. It's all the same problems the game has only even worse. BB's will close to ranges where they still render their armor irrelevant. German BB's will still be armored bricks once they get past ranges where they're vulnerable to deck pens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,901
[SYN]
Members
15,874 posts
12,803 battles

what about silly USN 127mm/38?

 

That gun already shoots to 100% of its maximum range and we can see the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,566
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,686 posts
19,814 battles

what about silly USN 127mm/38?

 

That gun already shoots to 100% of its maximum range and we can see the results.

 

That can easily be adjusted for. It's not like it's 'the same compression for every gun in the game or none at all'. Besides, I specifically mentioned an increase to shell velocity, so the time-to-target would remain the same.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,296 posts
6,905 battles

what about silly USN 127mm/38?

 

That gun already shoots to 100% of its maximum range and we can see the results.

Oh yeah, that's actually pretty relevant. 5"/38 has only 16km of maximum ballistic range, so cutting into all range/arcs will almost certainly reduce the maximum possible range of USN DD, even if flight times are leveled.

That can easily be adjusted for. It's not like it's 'the same compression for every gun in the game or none at all'. Besides, I specifically mentioned an increase to shell velocity, so the time-to-target would remain the same.

There's no way to level flight times perfectly, because they're complex curves which are not self-similar.

Edited by Aetreus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,148
[O7]
Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester
11,904 posts
8,692 battles

 

Did you miss where I specifically said that shell velocities would get adjusted so time-to-target remains the same?

 

Lol you do realize that WG does actually simulate the shell physics although it is somewhat simplified. Which means that arcs and velocities are related. You increase the velocity and the arc drops so you are back to where you started. 
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
894 posts
3,937 battles

Fixing bow camping and German turtlebacks would be as simple as adjusting the armor ricochet angles. And you'd fix deck penetrations at the same time when doing it. Compressing ranges in some funky way is an overcomplicated solution to the problem. It also introduces a bunch of problems, in that it means that battleships are more able to close range without facing armor penetration threat. That sounds like a good thing... until you realize that cruisers​ have so little protection that they gain almost nothing against battleships. Now, we just have battleships able to move up more, rendering cruisers even more useless and forced to stay away(with shittier AP making them useless against each other as well), leading to destroyers operating more freely leading to BB complaints leading to more destroyer nerfs. It's all the same problems the game has only even worse. BB's will close to ranges where they still render their armor irrelevant. German BB's will still be armored bricks once they get past ranges where they're vulnerable to deck pens.

 

The battleships that are not German wont be getting any tanker at close range, in fact this would likely make them not want to get as close which if you would argue anything it should be "great more of BBs staying in the back". The effective pen AP from cruisers will not change when shooting into the sides of the BBs because that wont be effected much. Also IFHE is a thing now so if your HE had gone through that armor before it still will now because HE ignores the angling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,566
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,686 posts
19,814 battles

Lol you do realize that WG does actually simulate the shell physics although it is somewhat simplified. Which means that arcs and velocities are related. You increase the velocity and the arc drops so you are back to where you started. 

 

6zoby9l.jpg

 

Yes, because it's physically impossible for computer programmers to just have a shell go through a set arc faster than it does now.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,784
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,277 posts
10,382 battles

I cannot give enough +1s to this.

 

j4Jed6j.gif

 

Deck armour is presently irrelevant beyond providing overmatch immunity to relevant AP/HE shells.  So long as Wargaming properly adjusts shell velocities to keep the relevant flight time to current ranges similar, I don't see this being a particular balance issue for destroyers / cruisers either (in fact, I foresee the latter enjoying some more dynamic play as a result).

  • Cool 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
515 posts
306 battles

First, watch iChase's most recent video:

 

 

In short, it addresses the fact that ranges are truncated in WoWS, compared to real life ranges. However, WG neglected to adjust for angle of fall / shell arc when doing that. Now, I understand why they cut ranges. During alpha we had 'real' ranges for a period of time, and it led to very un-dynamic gameplay. Trust me, you're not landing many shells on target from 40km away. Capping the ranges helps make the games more dynamic, and the matches shorter.

 

However, the way they did it leads to problems, that iChase very eloquently explains and illustrates in his video. To add my own voice to the argument, behold the following illustration:

 

AJkM7Rn.jpg

 

 

WG did not actually 'compress' shooting / engagement ranges, but cap them. Truncated them. How they did this is very simple: just limit the amount of elevation ship's guns can achieve. However, this affects shell trajectory and angle of impact.

 

Note in the first illustration, the historical one, that long range fire plunges down near vertically. This leads to 'plunging fire', where deck armor can be penetrated without requiring overmatch.

 

Note in the second illustration, the 'capped' one, that shells land at the target at a far shallower angle. This is what we have now. We don't have 'proper' plunging fire - shells only go through deck armor because of overmatch, rather than penetration. Even at maximum range in the game, the barrels - thus shell trajectory - is far lower than they both were historically. This leads to things like 'immunity zones' not being a thing in this game. It leads to the USN armoring scheme being less effective, since incoming fire doesn't hit it at the angles it was designed to defeat. It leads to German turtleback armor being more effective than it 'should' be realistically, because incoming fire hits it at the angles it was meant to defeat, even at 'long' range. iChase's video explains it far better than I could with a few lines of text.

 

So, what can we do to solve this?

 

Observe the third illustration, the 'properly compressed' one. You'll see that the engagement range is the same as in the 'capped' illustration, but the shell impact angle is the same as the 'historical' one. WG would have to increase shell velocity to keep time-to-target the same, but a change like this would have a few effects:

 

- Introduce 'immunity zones', a historical concept that WoWS does not have, where both belt armor and deck armor are thick enough under angle-of-impact to keep a shell from penetrating the citadel. This would encourage battleship players to seek out their 'ideal range', the range where their citadel is immune to incoming battleship AP and they'll only suffer superficial damage. This would be a buff to USN battleships.

 

- Introduce proper 'plunging fire'. The way the game works now, even at the longest ranges in the game, shells impac the deck at an autobounce angle, and only shells that overmatch the deck armor penetrate. With this change shells from long range would hit deck armor at angles where they would penetrate without requiring overmatch. This would encourage players to move closer, towards their 'immunity zone' range, instead of loitering at long range: you're more vulnerable at long range than mid range.

 

- The introduction of both immunity zones and proper plunging fire would eliminate bow camping: Long range fire would go through the foredeck of bow-camping ships, so being 'bow on' just limits you in how many guns you can put on target without giving a benefit to damage mitigation, while the concept of immunity zones would render your citadel safe when showing broadside to other battleships.

 

- The introduction of proper plunging fire would be a nerf to German battleships, as their armor scheme weren't designed to defeat plunging fire; they were optimized to defeat shallow angle fire. This would make German battleships vulnerable at range.

 

- These changes would affect cruiser armor too, cruisers with actual armor belts would also gain an immunity zone to similarly armed cruisers, while the increase in angle-of-impact would also encourage more autobounces from battleship shells. I did not do actual math here, but I believe this change from capped to compressed ranges might be a buff to cruiser survivability.

 

I know the chances of WG introducing this change are slim as it would be an enormous meta as well as balance shift and they'd have to rebalance basically every battleship and cruiser line in the game, but I believe it would not only encourage more dynamic gameplay (by virtue of encouraging closer range fighting and eliminating bow camping) but also make play tactically more interesting, and more skill based.

 

Please discuss.

 

Gimme a bit to mull over this... I mean, it looks really good but...

 

 

EDIT: How would this affect things like DD and CA fire on BBs?

Edited by BrassFire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

This would work for me, however I feel the bigger issue is the way damage is handled, not how it's dealt. For example plunging fire would not help the current woes of CA/CL's. It also wouldn't detract from the current problem of BB's camping at Range. If anything plunging fire would increase this, with basically a large game of tag taking place of trying to stay at range of people targeting you, while trying to avoid being targeted at range yourself. Plunging fire SHOULD be a thing, but it still avoids the bigger problems of 15-20k damaging hits, from any source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,533
[PSA]
Members
5,111 posts
3,732 battles

I very much like these suggestions. I had the same thought when I watched iChase's videos. My only concern is making sure that this buff to Battleships (since an immunity zone is essentially a buff, especially if they can go broadside to get all their guns to bear) is followed by related buffs to cruisers and destroyers to ensure they are still competitive. In the real world, you'd only have a single battleship for every several dozen smaller ships, and so the only limiting factor on battleships was a nation's resource capital. In WoWs, that is not an issue and matches regularly have 4 or 5 battleships to a side of twelve ships. 

 

But I would absolutely welcome any change to the game that would get rid of the bow on passive meta at high tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,296 posts
6,905 battles

The battleships that are not German wont be getting any tanker at close range, in fact this would likely make them not want to get as close which if you would argue anything it should be "great more of BBs staying in the back". The effective pen AP from cruisers will not change when shooting into the sides of the BBs because that wont be effected much. Also IFHE is a thing now so if your HE had gone through that armor before it still will now because HE ignores the angling. 

Uh, yes they will. That's the whole point of reducing penetration. It's not that cruisers are losing out on AP penetration against a BB, it's that BB has more resistance to other BB(and therefore advance more) and cruiser doesn't(because no reasonable reduction of penetration gives cruisers any resistance). Also they can't engage with AP against other cruisers as much, which will really hurt certain lines.

I cannot give enough +1s to this.

 

Deck armour is presently irrelevant beyond providing overmatch immunity to relevant AP/HE shells.  So long as Wargaming properly adjusts shell velocities to keep the relevant flight time to current ranges similar, I don't see this being a particular balance issue for destroyers / cruisers either (in fact, I foresee the latter enjoying some more dynamic play as a result).

Changing ricochet angles is a way simpler way of doing the same thing, but never gets attention because they're not commonly known. Adjusting flight times to keep them similar is... kind of impossible. Shell flight times are not linear, and especially at long ranges they're very heavily so. That means that either we get guns having much better flight times at short range, much worse at long range, or a mixture of both around whatever "matching" value we pick. And it varies in a complicated manner for each gun. If we "best fit" everything it just becomes totally wild, each gun in the game would end up with a different compression value. I had this exact argument in Alpha IIRC, there's really no elegant way to deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
240 posts
8,840 battles

I am completely in support of compressing shell arcs (or decompressing range). Hopefully someone at WG recognizes that this is a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[DANKY]
Members
734 posts
2,066 battles

Your suggestion would involve an incredible amount of micromanaging in the physics engine.  Faster shells with a strongly plunging arc would only work if you doubled Earth's gravity.  If you made that change general then Atlanta would have to get in close enough to throw moldy fruit at it over the railing.  If you made the change specific to certain ships or gun calibers it would feel strange and you would head down a rabbit hole of balance problems. 

 

I still think it it is a good idea to have play styles where historical armor designs make sense.  Here is my counter proposal - add a module that increases the range but decreases the accuracy of large caliber guns.  Raining death from Mars like in the olde days should have the same spray-and-pray accuracy problems. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×