Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
twitch133

A compromise for the history crowd.

203 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles

I have been quite... Vocal with my disdain for detonations of late. I have also been getting quite a bit of push back from a small, but adamant crowd, that they fit perfectly into the game do to no other reason than "muh historiez".

 

Where as I am a life long gamer, and quality of gameplay always comes before history. (The same reason why there are guns that never existed outside of prototype in Battlefield 1. If you has 64 players shooting at each other with nothing other than Mauser's, Nagant's and Springfield's... the game would be boring A F) From this viewpoint, detonations have no place in game. I could get into supporting arguments, but I will not for the sake of brevity.

 

My compromise? Something that will shut me up? To where you will never hear another peep pout of me about detonations?

 

I am quite fond of my Des Moines. I also like history, but not to the point of breaking gameplay. I am willing to allow your history to continue to break gameplay though, if you grant me this one aspect of history, that will likely break gameplay. Allow Des Moines (and any other ship equipped) to have the full capabilities of the Mk13 gun director.

 

For those of you unfamiliar with it, this is the mark 13: (50,000 watt, 3cm band)

Fire_Control__Mk38ext_full.jpg

 

Does it look familiar? It should, this director sits on (at least the radar emitter, the optical  range finder may be different) all of the high tier USN cruisers and battleships.

 

If you allow this radar to have its full, real world capabilities. I will never say another word about detonations again. I will even let you remove the flag, increase the chance, and make them more visually spectacular.

 

These are the requirements though:

- 37km range.

- Always on. (Not a consumable)

- Illuminates any target within a ~5 degrees cone of its bearing, out to maximum range.

- Allows other ships on the same team to target anyone illuminated by it.

- It will have a line of sight restriction for land masses, but not the horizon.

 

There you have it. My line in the sand. Give me this game breaking piece of history? And you can have your's free and clear, without any more argument from me.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78
[HIT]
Members
144 posts
7,494 battles

Lack of citadels for DDs is more of a reason to have detonations than even history or realism. Having to make sacrifices in outfitting your ship is another. 

 

Either use the flags or sacrifice your precious MAM1 for MM1 if detonations bother you so much.

Edited by HQ_21
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles
8 minutes ago, HQ_21 said:

Lack of citadels for DDs is more of a reason to have detonations than even history or realism. Having to make sacrifices in outfitting your ship is another. 

 

Either use the flags or sacrifice your precious MAM1 for MM1 if detonations bother you so much.

 

I do... I use nothing other than Mag Mod 1 on any of my DD's. I never use any flags that increase risk of detonation.

 

Yet, for some reason. The last 5 detonations I have suffered. (In a row for a total of 25% of my detonations.) Have been full health detonations that were caused by the very first shell that hit me.

 

The lack of citadels is made up for, and some, by the ability for a BB to get a full regular pen with AP. Doing up to what? ~4500 damage? (One shell doing what? 30%+ of the health of most DD's?)

Edited by twitch133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,856
Supertester, Members, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
11,276 posts
1,963 battles

I play my trap card:

Its been done before. 

 

Essentially, in the original form of the game, all those years ago, the gun ranges were historical. Firing at 42km was done. Indeed, my fondest in-game memory is still detonating a Colorado at 40km in Amagi

However, the Devs, in their "wisdom" decided that that wasn't where they wanted the game to be. 

So they compressed the ranges, so where we have it today. 

As time has gone on, they've made more dubious choices. 

But they still haven't moved the ****ing Cleveland. 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,764 posts

You can scream and shout as much as you want my friend. You don't like dets....fine.

I have no issues with them and the fact they happened in history allows me to understand there use. Sorry that doesn't sit well with you, but stating 'if dets stay then this has to happen, or if you like one thing that was in real life then you have to like all'. :Smile_smile:

The det is one of many factors in game - the ship you choose, the enemy you face, the map you spawn on, the upgrades you choose, the signal flags you run, the choices you make, the choices the enemy makes, your teams skill, the enemies skill, the list goes on. IMO the fact a det killed someone is rarely the reason a team loses the game - it can be a game changer, or contribute to the game going in a certain direction (especially the fewer ships there are left in game), but it is rarely the thing that 'loses the game'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,185
[DAM-U]
Members
11,026 posts
35 minutes ago, HQ_21 said:

Lack of citadels for DDs is more of a reason to have detonations than even history or realism. Having to make sacrifices in outfitting your ship is another. 

 

Either use the flags or sacrifice your precious MAM1 for MM1 if detonations bother you so much.

 

Pro-detonation logic:

 

Gearing with 31% survival rate, lowest in tier - needs detonations to make sure it doesn't survive too much.

 

Midway with 75% survival. It's cool man, you can be 100% immune to detonations

 

~~~~~~~

 

Izyaslav with 19% survival, second lowest in tier - needs detonations to make sure it doesn't survive too much.

 

Langley with 52% survival rate - currently higher than ANY non-CV in the game, including unicums only Black, zombie Conquerer, and totally-not-OP Nikolai - It's cool man, you can also be 100% immune to detonations.

Edited by issm
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles
11 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

You can scream and shout as much as you want my friend. You don't like dets....fine.

I have no issues with them and the fact they happened in history allows me to understand there use. Sorry that doesn't sit well with you, but stating 'if dets stay then this has to happen, or if you like one thing that was in real life then you have to like all'. :Smile_smile:

The det is one of many factors in game - the ship you choose, the enemy you face, the map you spawn on, the upgrades you choose, the signal flags you run, the choices you make, the choices the enemy makes, your teams skill, the enemies skill, the list goes on. IMO the fact a det killed someone is rarely the reason a team loses the game - it can be a game changer, or contribute to the game going in a certain direction (especially the fewer ships there are left in game), but it is rarely the thing that 'loses the game'.

 

 

Logic does not work like that.

 

Would you support leaving a bug in a first person shooter? Just because it rarely happens to you? Would you support making the same game boring, using nothing other than bolt action rifles, because it would be true to history? 

 

You cannot pick and choose like that. Either you support making this plan a reality, or you support removing detonations. There is no middle ground on arguments like this. Not when it comes to properly balancing gameplay.

 

Please.... do me a favor, and find me one, successful game (ruling out WG properties) where there is an RNG element that arbitrarily decides to remove a player from the match, before they have even been able to play.

 

And... Another line in the sand. If you support detonations due to history. You must support issm's idea of getting Mutsu'ed. "You load into battle, with a message that states you have detonated in port, and will not be allowed to play this battle, but still charged a full repair bill".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,083
[SALVO]
Members
20,049 posts
19,944 battles
13 minutes ago, issm said:

 

Pro-detonation logic:

 

Gearing with 31% survival rate, lowest in tier - needs detonations to make sure it doesn't survive too much.

 

Midway with 75% survival. It's cool man, you can be 100% immune to detonations

 

~~~~~~~

 

Izyaslav with 19% survival, second lowest in tier - needs detonations to make sure it doesn't survive too much.

 

Langley with 52% survival rate - currently higher than ANY non-CV in the game, including unicums only Black, zombie Conquerer, and totally-not-OP Nikolai - It's cool man, you can also be 100% immune to detonations.

I don't understand the reason the devs made CV's immune from detonations.  However, your complaints and comparisons regarding carriers are just plain silly.  It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see why CV's have such high survival rates.  CV's hide way in back of any map, as they should.  And barring getting sniped by the other team's CV, they'll most likely survive if they're on the winning team, and often survive even on the losing team, particularly in domination mode battles.  Their high survival rates are simply a trait of the ship type and how they're played.  And it wouldn't really change much at all if they weren't detonation proof, because the only possibility of a CV getting detonated is if it gets hit.  And many CV's are never even seen, let alone fired upon or hit.  Again, the nature of CV play.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,083
[SALVO]
Members
20,049 posts
19,944 battles
13 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

Logic does not work like that.

 

Would you support leaving a bug in a first person shooter? Just because it rarely happens to you? Would you support making the same game boring, using nothing other than bolt action rifles, because it would be true to history? 

 

You cannot pick and choose like that. Either you support making this plan a reality, or you support removing detonations. There is no middle ground on arguments like this. Not when it comes to properly balancing gameplay.

 

Please.... do me a favor, and find me one, successful game (ruling out WG properties) where there is an RNG element that arbitrarily decides to remove a player from the match, before they have even been able to play.

 

And... Another line in the sand. If you support detonations due to history. You must support issm's idea of getting Mutsu'ed. "You load into battle, with a message that states you have detonated in port, and will not be allowed to play this battle, but still charged a full repair bill".

Stop throwing such a childish temper tantrum.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,764 posts
30 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

Logic does not work like that.

 

Would you support leaving a bug in a first person shooter? Just because it rarely happens to you? Would you support making the same game boring, using nothing other than bolt action rifles, because it would be true to history? 

 

You cannot pick and choose like that. Either you support making this plan a reality, or you support removing detonations. There is no middle ground on arguments like this. Not when it comes to properly balancing gameplay.

 

Please.... do me a favor, and find me one, successful game (ruling out WG properties) where there is an RNG element that arbitrarily decides to remove a player from the match, before they have even been able to play.

 

And... Another line in the sand. If you support detonations due to history. You must support issm's idea of getting Mutsu'ed. "You load into battle, with a message that states you have detonated in port, and will not be allowed to play this battle, but still charged a full repair bill".

It's not a bug - so what are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles
Just now, _WaveRider_ said:

It's not a bug - so what are you talking about?

 

It may as well be. It randomly breaks all of the rules of armor penetration, shell damage, and module damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles
17 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Stop throwing such a childish temper tantrum.

 

Do you have a better argument in favor of them? I would love to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,717
[PVE]
Members
14,934 posts
9,477 battles
1 hour ago, twitch133 said:

I have been quite... Vocal with my disdain for detonations of late. I have also been getting quite a bit of push back from a small, but adamant crowd, that they fit perfectly into the game do to no other reason than "muh historiez".

 

Where as I am a life long gamer, and quality of gameplay always comes before history. (The same reason why there are guns that never existed outside of prototype in Battlefield 1. If you has 64 players shooting at each other with nothing other than Mauser's, Nagant's and Springfield's... the game would be boring A F) From this viewpoint, detonations have no place in game. I could get into supporting arguments, but I will not for the sake of brevity.

 

My compromise? Something that will shut me up? To where you will never hear another peep pout of me about detonations?

 

I am quite fond of my Des Moines. I also like history, but not to the point of breaking gameplay. I am willing to allow your history to continue to break gameplay though, if you grant me this one aspect of history, that will likely break gameplay. Allow Des Moines (and any other ship equipped) to have the full capabilities of the Mk13 gun director.

 

For those of you unfamiliar with it, this is the mark 13: (50,000 watt, 3cm band)

Fire_Control__Mk38ext_full.jpg

 

Does it look familiar? It should, this director sits on (at least the radar emitter, the optical  range finder may be different) all of the high tier USN cruisers and battleships.

 

If you allow this radar to have its full, real world capabilities. I will never say another word about detonations again. I will even let you remove the flag, increase the chance, and make them more visually spectacular.

 

These are the requirements though:

- 37km range.

- Always on. (Not a consumable)

- Illuminates any target within a ~5 degrees cone of its bearing, out to maximum range.

- Allows other ships on the same team to target anyone illuminated by it.

- It will have a line of sight restriction for land masses, but not the horizon.

 

There you have it. My line in the sand. Give me this game breaking piece of history? And you can have your's free and clear, without any more argument from me.

 

So does this mean that the Japanese ships should mostly have Long Lance torpedoes? 20km torps at low tier would be bad IMO.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,764 posts
Just now, twitch133 said:

 

It may as well be. It randomly breaks all of the rules of armor penetration, shell damage, and module damage.

No it doesn't, it literally simulates '5hit happens in battle' - this is a war game. Simple really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles
1 minute ago, _WaveRider_ said:

No it doesn't, it literally simulates '5hit happens in battle' - this is a war game. Simple really.

 

So... does that mean that, lets say in Battlefield, where health generally regenerates after you exit combat.

 

EA should make a mechanic where, randomly, instead of regenerating, your health depletes slowly? Because, hey shite happens in battle, and sometimes those bullet wounds result in infection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles
8 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

 

So does this mean that the Japanese ships should mostly have Long Lance torpedoes? 20km torps at low tier would be bad IMO.

 

Sure... if we want detonations due to history, give them all long lance.

 

Just remember, those long lance torpedoes need to have a very high chance to detonate the ship when the module is damaged. You know? Pure oxygen is kind of reactive when mixed with fire?

 

Just remember though, at those ranges, they were very slow. <50kn to make it out to 22,000 meters.

Edited by twitch133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
375
[KOZ]
Beta Testers
1,485 posts
1,192 battles
48 minutes ago, issm said:

 

Pro-detonation logic:

 

Gearing with 31% survival rate, lowest in tier - needs detonations to make sure it doesn't survive too much.

 

Midway with 75% survival. It's cool man, you can be 100% immune to detonations

 

~~~~~~~

 

Izyaslav with 19% survival, second lowest in tier - needs detonations to make sure it doesn't survive too much.

 

Langley with 52% survival rate - currently higher than ANY non-CV in the game, including unicums only Black, zombie Conquerer, and totally-not-OP Nikolai - It's cool man, you can also be 100% immune to detonations.

All this is saying is that CVs need to have their Bomb and ammo storage spaces set to being proper magazines. Which should've been a thing to begin with.

Also CV survival is high because it's not in the fight ever basically.

Edited by AirshipCanon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,151
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,609 posts
15,896 battles
1 hour ago, twitch133 said:

There you have it. My line in the sand. Give me this game breaking piece of history? And you can have your's free and clear, without any more argument from me.

Well, since we're going full history, let's do!

First, your radar screen will be represented by the mini-map, which will give you any detected ship's exact location ... on the mini-map. All this nonsense of ships just "appearing in view" crap is out the door. Your mini-map display will stay on for the entire match (unless it gets knocked out like any other mechanic on the ship) and continue to give you status reports on everything within the reach of your radar. But radar will NO LONGER SIMPLY ALLOW YOU TO SEE SHIPS ON THE MAIN SCREEN, ONLY THE MINI-MAP.

How you likin' history now, Pookie?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles
Just now, Umikami said:

Well, since we're going full history, let's do!

First, your radar screen will be represented by the mini-map, which will give you any detected ship's exact location ... on the mini-map. All this nonsense of ships just "appearing in view" crap is out the door. Your mini-map display will stay on for the entire match (unless it gets knocked out like any other mechanic on the ship) and continue to give you status reports on everything within the reach of your radar. But radar will NO LONGER SIMPLY ALLOW YOU TO SEE SHIPS ON THE MAIN SCREEN, ONLY THE MINI-MAP.

How you likin' history now, Pookie?

 

Lets do it.... Yolo!!!!

 

Full on sim. I am getting tired of people selectively supporting history for a crap mechanic that breaks the game. All or nothing. I ain't scurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,151
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
10,609 posts
15,896 battles
5 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

Just remember though, at those ranges, they were very slow. <50kn to make it out to 22,000 meters.

50 knots isn't an issue as long as you can't spot them from the moon, detection is the issue; fix that and 50 knot speed is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,717
[PVE]
Members
14,934 posts
9,477 battles
7 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

Sure... if we want detonations due to history, give them all long lance.

 

Just remember, those long lance torpedoes need to have a very high chance to detonate the ship when the module is damaged. You know? Pure oxygen is kind of reactive when mixed with fire?

 

Just remember though, at those ranges, they were very slow. <50kn to make it out to 22,000 meters.

 

Well, you might as well as restrict torpedoes to one shot only as well, with certain Japanese ships having a 10 min reload for one more shot. I don't mind detonations, even when I'm detonated. Sometimes I get to detonate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles
Just now, Umikami said:

50 knots isn't an issue as long as you can't spot them from the moon, detection is the issue; fix that and 50 knot speed is fine.

 

If we are supporting detonations due to history.

 

I am fine with letting them go 44km at 33kn.

 

Like I said though, Oxygen is very reactive when kept in a pure, liquid state. The DD's carrying Long Lance torpedoes will need to have a very, very high detonation chance if the torpedo launchers take any kind of damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,725
[PSP]
Members
8,130 posts
34 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I don't understand the reason the devs made CV's immune from detonations.  

 

Maybe because you can citadel a CV with a salvo of HE from a destroyer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,860
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers, WoWS Wiki Editor
6,775 posts
4,413 battles

:cap_popcorn:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,083
[SALVO]
Members
20,049 posts
19,944 battles
20 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

Do you have a better argument in favor of them? I would love to hear it.

I feel no reason at all to defend them.  IMO, the argument is long over, in favor of having detonations in game.  So, grow up and move on, or continue to look like a pouty, whiney little child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×