Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Wyngs_2015

6.10 Q & A Answers

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,022 posts
3,545 battles

I had very politely and as constructively as I could asked a question about why Radar works the way it does and what WG thinking or reasoning is behind it. Im not the only one either. WG skipped them. This question is important to me as the answer to it is the sole determining factor as to whether I will ever return to this game or simply uninstall permanently, as I am close to doing now. Ive seen people comment second hand on how WG has said that it is a game engine limitation, but Ive never seen ANYTHING from WG direct about it. Ive gone through all the Q and A's I can find, and saw nothing on this issue.

 

This is NOT intended to start another stupid debate from the Cruiser Trolls. I am trying to find out once and for all why Radar is the way it is because the answer determines where I go from here. Any help or links to info from a WG representative DIRECTLY on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

If you want to debate it, do it on another thread. This is for my information to help me determine what Im going to do. Thanks.....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
175
[TF16]
Members
825 posts
4,785 battles

Because its in the coding.  A Radar can be drawn with X as it's radius regardless of terrain, in the same way that AA works with its bubble...hydro works with its bubble.  It's just X distance from the ship this happens.

 

If it were to include islands and other obstructions...it would require a lot more coding.

Edited by Sock5
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,058
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,219 posts
8,804 battles

Radar and Hydro both simply increase the auto spot distance which works through terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,364 posts
3,564 battles
11 minutes ago, Wyngs_2015 said:

I had very politely and as constructively as I could asked a question about why Radar works the way it does and what WG thinking or reasoning is behind it. Im not the only one either. WG skipped them. This question is important to me as the answer to it is the sole determining factor as to whether I will ever return to this game or simply uninstall permanently, as I am close to doing now. Ive seen people comment second hand on how WG has said that it is a game engine limitation, but Ive never seen ANYTHING from WG direct about it. Ive gone through all the Q and A's I can find, and saw nothing on this issue.

 

This is NOT intended to start another stupid debate from the Cruiser Trolls. I am trying to find out once and for all why Radar is the way it is because the answer determines where I go from here. Any help or links to info from a WG representative DIRECTLY on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

If you want to debate it, do it on another thread. This is for my information to help me determine what Im going to do. Thanks.....................

The fact they worked the new spotting mechanics in the smoke changes the way they did leaves me to believe that the way radar works was done intentionally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,226
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,215 posts
3,871 battles
35 minutes ago, Cobraclutch said:

The fact they worked the new spotting mechanics in the smoke changes the way they did leaves me to believe that the way radar works was done intentionally. 

Nevermind it's a simple fact of creating a a SMOKE flag, flagging the LOS obstructions accordingly, and then a simple IF:THAN statement to whether radar ignores the LOS or not.

 

LOS OBSTRUCTION

IF:SMOKE=YES

THAN:HASLOS=NO

 

LOS OBSTRUCTION

IF:SMOKE=YES

THAN:HASLOS=YES

 

I'm not even a coder and this is still easy for me to figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,297
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,754 posts
9,484 battles

I've continued to ask what they are planning to do to fix 5"/38 armed DDs since 6.3 broke fire control upgrade and have yet to get a reply.

 

As for your question; "lazy programing" is the answer. It would be excusable if they were simply testing the concept, but LoS for terrain should have been implemented before it ever went live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
749
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,583 posts
5,883 battles

All LOS blocks are equal in this game's code.  Unfortunately, radar (and hydro) work in a different way regardless - they work off of proxy-spotting.  Yes, their implementation is that simple.  Proxy-spot ignores all LOS blocks, so radar and hydro must do that, too - because smoke and land masses aren't differentiated anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
428
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,580 posts
3,918 battles
2 hours ago, Sock5 said:

Because its in the coding.  A Radar can be drawn with X as it's radius regardless of terrain, in the same way that AA works with its bubble...hydro works with its bubble.  It's just X distance from the ship this happens.

 

If it were to include islands and other obstructions...it would require a lot more coding.

The line of sight mechanism is already coded.  It is coded for line of sight

1 hour ago, _V12 said:

All LOS blocks are equal in this game's code.  Unfortunately, radar (and hydro) work in a different way regardless - they work off of proxy-spotting.  Yes, their implementation is that simple.  Proxy-spot ignores all LOS blocks, so radar and hydro must do that, too - because smoke and land masses aren't differentiated anyways.

Smoke and land masses have to be differentiated at some level.  Smoke goes away, after all.  Land doesn't.

1 hour ago, HazardDrake said:

As for your question; "lazy programing" is the answer. It would be excusable if they were simply testing the concept, but LoS for terrain should have been implemented before it ever went live.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!  We have a winner!  Radar has been out for at least most of a year now.  The only reason it doesn't work like we all know it should is that they simply haven't taken the time to fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,022 posts
3,545 battles

I understand how it works. The crux of the question is, is Radar seeing through islands intentional or simply a by-product? Is it indeed a game engine limitation? Or is this what the Dev's wanted to happen? This is what I was looking for when I asked this question in the Q&A. In my mind, only a Dev or other WG representative truly can answer that....anything else is speculation. To the folks who in the past have stated that the current way Radar works is a game limitation that aren't Dev's or WG staff, can you provide links to the comments made by WG staff that this is the case? Because I honestly cant find any and I would rather make a more informed decision................

 

Or maybe a member of WG staff can answer it here...........................

Edited by Wyngs_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
746
[NG-NL]
Members
4,964 posts
8,109 battles
2 hours ago, AraAragami said:

Nevermind it's a simple fact of creating a a SMOKE flag, flagging the LOS obstructions accordingly, and then a simple IF:THAN statement to whether radar ignores the LOS or not.

 

LOS OBSTRUCTION

IF:SMOKE=YES

THAN:HASLOS=NO

 

LOS OBSTRUCTION

IF:SMOKE=YES

THAN:HASLOS=YES

 

I'm not even a coder and this is still easy for me to figure out.

Indeed?

 

How about the rest of the code to implement this method, ensure it's called on every time and works smoothly? Did programming practice, and nothing works the first time. Just debugging a program with barely 90 lines of code can take an hour. A game like WOWS easily has many hundreds and thousands of lines of code. Every new change means a lot of testing and debugging and hair-pulling trying to find out why precisely the desired result hasn't appeared yet.

 

Server-side as well. There'll be dedicated server programs for calculating (in real time) ship detection ranges, RNG on the fly for all MB volleys, fires, and whatnot. One little change has to be implemented smoothly into numerous other programs.

 

Good to see enthusiasm about fixing a perceived problem. However, I doubt anyone without video game production exp knows just how much work goes into tracking one little bug in a product this massive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
272
[WOLF5]
Members
607 posts
12,012 battles
41 minutes ago, Wyngs_2015 said:

I understand how it works. The crux of the question is, is Radar seeing through islands intentional or simply a by-product? Is it indeed a game engine limitation? Or is this what the Dev's wanted to happen? This is what I was looking for when I asked this question in the Q&A. In my mind, only a Dev or other WG representative truly can answer that....anything else is speculation. To the folks who in the past have stated that the current way Radar works is a game limitation that aren't Dev's or WG staff, can you provide links to the comments made by WG staff that this is the case? Because I honestly cant find any and I would rather make a more informed decision................

 

Or maybe a member of WG staff can answer it here...........................

 

It's been in the game a long time. They haven't changed it. They haven't even hinted that they are going to change it. The fact that they ignored your question...answers your question.

 

It's not going to change.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,022 posts
3,545 battles
1 hour ago, RevTKS said:

 

It's been in the game a long time. They haven't changed it. They haven't even hinted that they are going to change it. The fact that they ignored your question...answers your question.

 

It's not going to change.

I didn't ask if it was going to change D-bag. I asked if this is something that was intended or simply a by-product. See, this is what happens when you ask a question here. I work in a very service oriented industry. People have questions.....a LOT...........they expect them to be answered. If you cant have the basic common courtesy of answering a sincere question about your product, there's a problem. If you have a Q&A with softball questions while answering none of the tougher ones....theres a problem.

All I want to know is, is it intended or is it a by product? Not complicated, not rhetorical, very very simple. If its a game limitation, I can live with that. They can make their game any way they want---that's their choice. I can choose to play or not----my choice. Just wanted some info about it.  It is just cant get anymore simple than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
561 posts
3,460 battles

Because I'm fairly sure that smoke works like islands with no collision box. So if it were blocked by an island, it would also be blocked by smoke. Also cruiser trolls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
587
[ARRGG]
Members
4,680 posts
7,503 battles

Ive got a Belfast with radar and it does come in Handy for DDs, I don't play DDs much but for my Cruiser view it's not effected my game play and there's only a few times in all the games Ive played that it made a difference for me once from a Belfast and once from a Bismarck my understanding is like others said it's not an easy fix 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,226
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,215 posts
3,871 battles
9 minutes ago, Stonehammers said:

Because I'm fairly sure that smoke works like islands with no collision box. So if it were blocked by an island, it would also be blocked by smoke. Also cruiser trolls?

Easy enough to separate them with a simple trait flag.

 

WG is simply too lazy to bother doing something to reduce the power of a consumable that actively punishes the ship type they hate the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,020
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,036 posts
11,539 battles

Lazy coding is the answer.  Rather than add a properly functional LOS check, they just increased the guaranteed detect range of the RADAR ship.  If I had my way (as a RADAR cruiser driver mind you), RADAR would be:

- LOS only.

- self only (non-radar ships would not see the DD lit up)

- longer duration

If i can't kill the DD, he deserves to get away.  The AOE denial is [edited] imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[RUST]
Beta Testers
932 posts
10,354 battles
6 hours ago, Wyngs_2015 said:

<snip>

 

I think you're looking for the Developer Q&A where game mechanics are discussed more in-depth and more game mechanics related questions get answered than the staff Q&A. The last Dev Q&A was posted about a month ago. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,022 posts
3,545 battles
1 minute ago, NCC81701 said:

 

I think you're looking for the Developer Q&A where game mechanics are discussed more in-depth and more game mechanics related questions get answered than the staff Q&A. The last Dev Q&A was posted about a month ago. 

 

 Ah, okay thanks Man. Guess I will hang out until the next one comes around then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
417 posts
12,490 battles

I still don't understand why radar going through the land is such a big deal. It's a detection boosting mod. Sonar goes through land too. So does AA.

There are so many things in this game that are done unrealistically because this is a video game. It's not meant to be realistic in every aspect. In all honesty, this line of complaint makes about as much sense as complaining that the game doesn't simulate a salty ocean breeze flowing through your hair or that your keyboard doesn't feel wet from the ocean spray. Heck even VIRTUAL REALITY games don't mimic actual reality because those are video games too.

I'd rather see radar detect planes before I'd like to see it stop detecting through land. Planes are what radar was originally developed to detect or at least the was primarily used in WWII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[FOXEH]
[FOXEH]
Members
1,194 posts
4,125 battles
8 hours ago, Sock5 said:

Because its in the coding.  A Radar can be drawn with X as it's radius regardless of terrain, in the same way that AA works with its bubble...hydro works with its bubble.  It's just X distance from the ship this happens.

 

If it were to include islands and other obstructions...it would require a lot more coding.

20 minutes, tops.  Other games, much older games, haven't had this problem.  This one can fix it if they want.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
582 posts
4,209 battles

Making radar and hydro effected by LOS would dramatically increase the campiness of the game. It would also reduce the ability of cruiser players to work as part of a team and thus influence the outcome of the match. The direct effect on cruisers is secondary to the fact that people could camp behind islands on close quarters maps like Loop, Sea of Fortune, and Shatter and you'd have very few options for rooting them out except for yoloing them.

 

Many people already complain about the high tier meta even with radar and hydro as-is, and that's just with people sitting in the open in smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
561 posts
3,460 battles

One thing's for sure, if they manage to code in LOS with islands and radar. I hope it's from the radar mast height and not the standard conning tower spotting height. There are plenty of islands that are shorter than the radar mast of my Des Moines that I should still see "through".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,521
[OO7]
Alpha Tester
6,703 posts
3,468 battles

Can we not nerf cruisers anymore? Radar doesn't kill me in my Benson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
561 posts
3,460 battles
6 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

Can we not nerf cruisers anymore? Radar doesn't kill me in my Benson.

 

I agree, we should be teamed up against those BBs :Smile_izmena:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×