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

Countering Radar and Hydro: A common-sense buff for DD Mains; the Detection Indicator

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

47
[STW]
Members
96 posts
9,367 battles

When playing the role of the Destroyer, proficiency in the vision-game is king.

 

And mastery over the vision-game is all about information, long before the first shots are fired.  In many cases, a DD need not fire, let alone land, a single shot to turn the game in his favor.  Knowing, probing the edges of the enemy's collective concealment range, the way it expands and contracts, using RPF against its own user, tantalizing ships to open up with their guns to unmask them, provoking a cruiser into expending its radar as you instantly escape the fringes of its range or into cover, perma-spotting an enemy DD by maneuvering within the 200m "sweet-spot" between your own concealment and his, ascertaining when an island is a safe-haven or a death trap, etc.  Knowing who and what is detecting you is critical information, informing you of options and counterplays, determining the difference between a win and a loss depending on application.

 

If memory serves, the old detection indicator used to display different icons for radar and hydro, and (just as importantly) prioritized these detection indicators over the "normal" surface detection indicator (a simple exclamation point without the radar or hydro modifiers).   Unfortunately, WG did away with this versatility at some point, and are now using a single icon to display both hydro and radar detection, leaving DD players to guess who and what is "lighting them up".  And just as bad, if not worse, the game prioritizes the ambiguous "normal" surface detection (exclamation point) icon over the already-ambiguous radar/hydro icon.

 

In summary, they dumbed down the game and added more RNG by denying DD players critical information :Smile_child:.

 

What I propose is a return to the original indicator, perhaps even improve it so that all methods of detection can be displayed in a concise manner.  Heck, I'm sure the modders would be happy to do the work for WG if they were guaranteed their projects were endorsed.  If I'm not mistaken, the original code for the old indicator with separate icons is still embedded in WoWs, so this isn't asking for something costly or unreasonable, right?

 

How is this a buff to DDs?

 

Let's explain it this way: Just as with RPF, you can determine the position and even likely orientation of an enemy fleet with RPF even though you're not the one who's using RPF :Smile_great:The power of RPF - and more relevantly, the counter-RPF "detection icon" which is displayed to the enemy player it's used against -  is a double-edged sword because the counter-indicator shown to the enemy can be used in context with other information: a cap zone being occupied, the detection icon, last known enemy locations and orientations, map knowledge, the second ring of epicenter turning green while the middle remains empty, etc. 

 

RPF is a brilliant game mechanic (Well done WG! :Smile_medal:). The power of RPF is perfectly balanced against - not the skill of the user - but the skill gap between the user and the players it's used against.  This would be a bit of a different story if the skill could be toggled on and off.  But it can't be toggled; it's "always on" until the player who has it is dead.  And so, a potato using RPF is not simply wasting captain points; he is, in fact, often giving critical information to a clever opponent :Smile_facepalm:, one that knows how to use the counter-RPF detection icon against its user.

 

A better, more versatile, more informative detection indicator works the same way.  Heck, that describes the old detection indicator perfectly, so I'd settle for a simple "regressive" fix. 

 

How do you know if you can smoke to escape detection when the indicator doesn't tell you you're radar'd (at the same time you're surface detected)?  How do you know if the ship lighting you up is around the island 4 km away (and has an angle covered by your teammate) or around the island 9 km away (which is not)?  How do you know if an island, which is vulnerable to indirect fire from a cruiser 10 km away, can break vision if you can't tell if you're being "lit up" by surface detection (which is broken by line of sight) or radar detection (which is not)?  etc, etc, etc.

 

DD players, especially IJN DD players, are always complaining about radar and hydro to no end :Smile_popcorn:.

 

Well, this is a common-sense - and IMO eminently reasonable buff to every DD, especially those concerned with spotting and concealment mechanics - assuming they're willing to apply some effort in learning the game, rather than divorcing themselves from team play in order to pursue torp spamming and gun kiting :Smile_sceptic:. 

 

It is not a direct counter

 

It is more subtle. 

 

It is a tool for counter-play

 

And besides, there are a bunch of DD players in every line who could use some incentive to play their ships with a little more intelligence (in the bilateral sense of the word :Smile_smile:).

Edited by Jerych
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
96
[HDR]
[HDR]
Members
1,174 posts
2,197 battles

It was a nice explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,610
[SALVO]
Members
16,698 posts
17,308 battles

I didn't read the OP's entire message, but got the gist of it.  Some thoughts.

1.  IMO, you shouldn't get a "Located" message when you're located by the Radio Location skill.  Why?  Because it's not radar.  It's not sending out a signal you can detect.  It's essentially a passive thing where the enemy's ships are triangulating radio traffic from the ships on your team and telling the ship with the RL skill which ship is closest.

2. Hydro should also give no indication that you're detected.  Why?  Because hydrophones are essentially passive sonar.  It's listening for sounds, rather than sending out a sound to bounce off of things, which is what active sonar does.  There's no way you can know that passive sonar, aka hydrophones, are detecting you.

3. Radar is an active system, and you can certainly know when you're detected by it. I'm not entirely sure whether you'd be able to tell from what direction the signal came from though.  That said, I think that one could argue reasonably (particularly given that "this is a game") that with a skill (perhaps even Radio Location), you ought to be able to tell the direction that a radar signal came from.  For that matter, one might even argue that any ship that possesses Radar itself could be able to tell what direction an active enemy radar is coming from.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,237
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,226 posts
3,871 battles

I don't see WG doing anything that could be considered a class-wide buff to destroyers.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,298
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,755 posts
9,484 battles

Don't forget countering "CV parking planes above your DD."

 

/Had that happen for two games straight just now.

//Been punching babies for the last 10 minutes.

Edited by HazardDrake
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts

The entire spotting mechanics side of the game is pretty much completely broken.

  1. Radar still sees through islands. Hydro, I can buy, but there's no way Radar should ever be doing this, especially given the huge range for radar.
  2. The Hydro vs Radar icon certainly needs to be fixed
  3. RDF should never produce a "Located" notification on opponents, for the reasons @Jerych said
  4. Rewards for spotting are extremely minimalistic
  5. What constitutes "spotting" for reward determination is broken - how is it that I, in a DD which often spends 75% of my game spotting, get maybe 2 "ships spotted" and under 30k in "damage caused by spotting"?  Huh?
  6. Planes should NEVER spot torpedoes
  7. The whole spotting distance of torpedoes should be re-thought.  
  8. The time difference between detecting an opponent and drawing them on the main screen is generally in the 5-10 second range, which is FAR too long. It's even 3+ seconds on the minimap.  Both of which are of near-fatal consequence to DDs, because you can't know where your opponents are, and they can often close the distance to spot you in that lag time.
  9. Bloom times are massively broken.  What, my 5" gun has the same bloom time as 18" guns?  Huh?
  10. Detection radius expansion due to bloom is extra broken, as it's common to fire your guns, duck into cover, then duck out again, and then get re-detected, as the gun bloom is still in effect.  That's moronic, and particular harsh for DDs. 
  11. Float plane detection over mountains is broken, as there's constantly the "invisible float plane detected me" problem.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,614 posts
3,569 battles
On 11/24/2017 at 9:36 PM, Crucis said:

I didn't read the OP's entire message, but got the gist of it.  Some thoughts.

1.  IMO, you shouldn't get a "Located" message when you're located by the Radio Location skill.  Why?  Because it's not radar.  It's not sending out a signal you can detect.  It's essentially a passive thing where the enemy's ships are triangulating radio traffic from the ships on your team and telling the ship with the RL skill which ship is closest.

2. Hydro should also give no indication that you're detected.  Why?  Because hydrophones are essentially passive sonar.  It's listening for sounds, rather than sending out a sound to bounce off of things, which is what active sonar does.  There's no way you can know that passive sonar, aka hydrophones, are detecting you.

3. Radar is an active system, and you can certainly know when you're detected by it. I'm not entirely sure whether you'd be able to tell from what direction the signal came from though.  That said, I think that one could argue reasonably (particularly given that "this is a game") that with a skill (perhaps even Radio Location), you ought to be able to tell the direction that a radar signal came from.  For that matter, one might even argue that any ship that possesses Radar itself could be able to tell what direction an active enemy radar is coming from.

 

 

Eyeballs and optics are passive systems.

 

Does that also mean, that you should not get a detected indication when you are within your concealment range, and line of sight of an enemy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[-TAB-]
Members
1,317 posts
6,885 battles
23 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

The entire spotting mechanics side of the game is pretty much completely broken.

  1. Radar still sees through islands. Hydro, I can buy, but there's no way Radar should ever be doing this, especially given the huge range for radar.
  2. The Hydro vs Radar icon certainly needs to be fixed
  3. RDF should never produce a "Located" notification on opponents, for the reasons @Jerych said
  4. Rewards for spotting are extremely minimalistic
  5. What constitutes "spotting" for reward determination is broken - how is it that I, in a DD which often spends 75% of my game spotting, get maybe 2 "ships spotted" and under 30k in "damage caused by spotting"?  Huh?
  6. Planes should NEVER spot torpedoes
  7. The whole spotting distance of torpedoes should be re-thought.  
  8. The time difference between detecting an opponent and drawing them on the main screen is generally in the 5-10 second range, which is FAR too long. It's even 3+ seconds on the minimap.  Both of which are of near-fatal consequence to DDs, because you can't know where your opponents are, and they can often close the distance to spot you in that lag time.
  9. Bloom times are massively broken.  What, my 5" gun has the same bloom time as 18" guns?  Huh?
  10. Detection radius expansion due to bloom is extra broken, as it's common to fire your guns, duck into cover, then duck out again, and then get re-detected, as the gun bloom is still in effect.  That's moronic, and particular harsh for DDs. 
  11. Float plane detection over mountains is broken, as there's constantly the "invisible float plane detected me" problem.

 

Agreed. but Wargaming said themselves recently they have no intentions of changing Radar seeing through the terrain.

I suggest there are 3 ways they should fix Radar, as hydro really is the only version that is balanced.

Solution 1: Radar gets a major duration nerf across the board. At the same time it gets a small cooldown buff and +1 to base charges
Example: Des Moines with Premium Radar and SI would have like 20-25s duration 50s cooldown and 5 charges.
Notes: Radar for balance sake, being more relatable  to Satellite scan (which did not exist in WWI-WWII), *should* have a low duration and instead of being some fire-and-forget easy mode hard counter IWIN button... it should require this thing called teamwork to utilize it. "Im popping Radar" "If it pops a DD we focus fire to kill him before Radar ends"  or "Im popping Radar to give our gunboat DDs an area to hunt"



Solution 2: Radar ONLY shows the targets on the minimap. On the same hand it gets a large cooldown buff.
 

 

Solution 3: Radar now functions exactly as current except a few alterations. The locations of all targets revealed by Radar are now only shared to teammates within that same Radar range of the Radar source ship

 

Edited by zarth12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,610
[SALVO]
Members
16,698 posts
17,308 battles
9 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

Eyeballs and optics are passive systems.

 

Does that also mean, that you should not get a detected indication when you are within your concealment range, and line of sight of an enemy?

Ears are passive as well.  And "Ears" are exactly what hydrophones are.  Just mechanical "ears".

As for the second sentence, personally, I'd say yes.  I don't like this freebie 6th sense nonsense.  Develop your own personal 6th sense for when you think that you're in danger from something you can't yet detect.

Edited by Crucis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,610
[SALVO]
Members
16,698 posts
17,308 battles
8 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

Agreed. but Wargaming said themselves recently they have no intentions of changing Radar seeing through the terrain.

I suggest there are 3 ways they should fix Radar, as hydro really is the only version that is balanced.

Solution 1: Radar gets a major duration nerf across the board. At the same time it gets a small cooldown buff and +1 to base charges
Example: Des Moines with Premium Radar and SI would have like 20-25s duration 50s cooldown and 5 charges.
Notes: Radar for balance sake, being more relatable  to Satellite scan (which did not exist in WWI-WWII), *should* have a low duration and instead of being some fire-and-forget easy mode hard counter IWIN button... it should require this thing called teamwork to utilize it. "Im popping Radar" "If it pops a DD we focus fire to kill him before Radar ends"  or "Im popping Radar to give our gunboat DDs an area to hunt"



Solution 2: Radar ONLY shows the targets on the minimap. On the same hand it gets a large cooldown buff.
 

 

Solution 3: Radar now functions exactly as current except a few alterations. The locations of all targets revealed by Radar are now only shared to teammates within that same Radar range of the Radar source ship

 

Regarding solution 2, IMO, the ship actually MOUNTING the radar should be able to target the ships his radar detects.  Everyone else ends up with those detected ships on the minimap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
8 minutes ago, zarth12 said:

Agreed. but Wargaming said themselves recently they have no intentions of changing Radar seeing through the terrain.
 

 

Really? When?

 

That's UTTERLY ASININE. 

 

The code framework to make Radar behave appropriately is already there, in the form of the normal Line of Sight code. It's a minimal software fix. Certainly FAR less effort than needed to implement Deep Water Torpedoes.

 

If in fact they aren't going to fix this, I'm pretty much done with WG then.  I don't cotton to companies which intentionally [edited] over their customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,039
[OPG]
Members
3,912 posts
5,503 battles
7 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

 

Really? When?

 

That's UTTERLY ASININE. 

 

The code framework to make Radar behave appropriately is already there, in the form of the normal Line of Sight code. It's a minimal software fix. Certainly FAR less effort than needed to implement Deep Water Torpedoes.

 

If in fact they aren't going to fix this, I'm pretty much done with WG then.  I don't cotton to companies which intentionally [edited] over their customers.

And why dear tell me is this "utterly asinine"?

The list of things that don't behave realistically in this game is far longer than just radar seeing through islands, and the vast majority of them will never be changed.  At this point it's just best to assume radar seeing through islands is working as intended and a purposeful balancing decision by WG.  

Edited by yashma
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[BIAS]
Alpha Tester
314 posts
9,354 battles
23 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

 

Really? When?

 

That's UTTERLY ASININE. 

 

The code framework to make Radar behave appropriately is already there, in the form of the normal Line of Sight code. It's a minimal software fix. Certainly FAR less effort than needed to implement Deep Water Torpedoes.

 

If in fact they aren't going to fix this, I'm pretty much done with WG then.  I don't cotton to companies which intentionally [edited] over their customers.

 

Fun fact: smoke blocks line of sight. Which means copying the existing vision code over to radar would render it essentially useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts

It's asinine for several reasons:

 

  1. It's completely counter-intuitive. Not just "unrealistic", but "behaves completely different than anyone would expect". That's a very bad thing for new players.
  2. It's a major game-breaking problem.  In the same way that mounting 18" guns on a DD and giving them 5 second reloads and no gun bloom would be.
  3. It enables VERY poor play - radar PENALIZES people going to the effort to be situationally aware, and REWARDS people who just "derp derp derp" around the map. 

 

"Working as Intended" is just a [edited] excuse for "I can't be bothered to fix this problem my half-assed code broke. Deal."   And that's abusive to your customer base.

 

 

Edited by EAnybody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
1 minute ago, Dianeces said:

 

Fun fact: smoke blocks line of sight. Which means copying the existing vision code over to radar would render it essentially useless.

 

Fun fact:  Radar and Hydro use the "minimum detection distance" code framework.  They had to adapt it a bit to make them fit.  The LOS framework would be equally easy to adapt - you literally just add a "is smoke" IF..THEN..ELSE statement when running Radar.

 

Implenting Radar properly using the LOS code is no more difficult than having it use the MDD code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
102
[BIAS]
Alpha Tester
314 posts
9,354 battles
11 minutes ago, EAnybody said:

 

Fun fact:  Radar and Hydro use the "minimum detection distance" code framework.  They had to adapt it a bit to make them fit.  The LOS framework would be equally easy to adapt - you literally just add a "is smoke" IF..THEN..ELSE statement when running Radar.

 

Implenting Radar properly using the LOS code is no more difficult than having it use the MDD code.

 

Obviously it's that simple, which is why they've already done it. /s

 

Alternatively, it is nowhere near that simple and the downsides to its current implementation aren't really that severe, making the effort required to change it more trouble than it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[-TAB-]
Members
1,317 posts
6,885 battles

Radar being what it is, an unrealistic HARD counter only shows that Wargaming has double standards.
As it seems Cruisers and much.. much more-so DDs, still suffer from what is norm in a Rock paper scissors environment, where as BBs are playing in a "top of the food chain" environment. It is quite simple to understand. DDs were already nerfed directly multiple times already because they were countering BBs "too much" (which they were supposed to) and of course WG claimed they were actually countering "cruisers" too much but the cruiser players weren't the vocal and whiney masses complaining, BB mains were.

Clearly it still wasn't dumbed down enough for BBs so they took it a step further by indirectly nerfing DDs by buffing their counter, Cruisers. Hence Radar. 

Satellite scan (how radar functions in this game) is far, far more advanced tech than WWI-WWII era... so why can't DDs get acoustic/active/passive homing torps which very much existed... and just have them only home in on battleships.

Edited by zarth12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
26 minutes ago, Dianeces said:

 

Obviously it's that simple, which is why they've already done it. /s

 

Alternatively, it is nowhere near that simple and the downsides to its current implementation aren't really that severe, making the effort required to change it more trouble than it's worth.

 

If it isn't, then the WG coders are completely incompetent.   That is, you'd have to completely screw up the LOS code for it NOT to be that simple.  It really doesn't jibe that the LOS code would be that bad, yet the MDD code is clean.

The current implementation of Radar/Hydro via MDD stinks of a weekend patch job by a junior coder who was just told to "do it and ship it". 

And if your LOS code is that bad that implementing Radar via it is terribly hard, it should have been fixed long ago, because it would already be a major performance drag even without Radar.

 

As to do the downsides:  they're MASSIVELY severe. As @zarth12 pointed out above.  If they're not considered severe, then that's telling on the level of "we don't give a crapabout our customers". 

 

Edited by EAnybody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
747
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,166 posts
1,654 battles

I see DD players are keen to nerf cruisers still.  The best counter to a DD is a gunboat DD followed by a CL.  The best counter to a BB is a torpedo DD followed by another BB.  The best counter to a CA/CL is a BB.

 

I don't think nerfing cruisers in the current game balance is a good idea.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles
2 hours ago, EAnybody said:

The entire spotting mechanics side of the game is pretty much completely broken.

  1. Radar still sees through islands. Hydro, I can buy, but there's no way Radar should ever be doing this, especially given the huge range for radar.
  2. The Hydro vs Radar icon certainly needs to be fixed
  3. RDF should never produce a "Located" notification on opponents, for the reasons @Jerych said
  4. Rewards for spotting are extremely minimalistic
  5. What constitutes "spotting" for reward determination is broken - how is it that I, in a DD which often spends 75% of my game spotting, get maybe 2 "ships spotted" and under 30k in "damage caused by spotting"?  Huh?
  6. Planes should NEVER spot torpedoes
  7. The whole spotting distance of torpedoes should be re-thought.  
  8. The time difference between detecting an opponent and drawing them on the main screen is generally in the 5-10 second range, which is FAR too long. It's even 3+ seconds on the minimap.  Both of which are of near-fatal consequence to DDs, because you can't know where your opponents are, and they can often close the distance to spot you in that lag time.
  9. Bloom times are massively broken.  What, my 5" gun has the same bloom time as 18" guns?  Huh?
  10. Detection radius expansion due to bloom is extra broken, as it's common to fire your guns, duck into cover, then duck out again, and then get re-detected, as the gun bloom is still in effect.  That's moronic, and particular harsh for DDs. 
  11. Float plane detection over mountains is broken, as there's constantly the "invisible float plane detected me" problem.

 

 

1. Radar sees through islands but that "huge" range is only about 20% of what it should be. Also radar could run more than a minute, it was always on.  Quit crying, you don't want accurate radar it would crush DDs.

 

2. Map awareness already solves this 95% of the time. It's a very rare situation a DD should be in range of both radar and hydro.  Those are both screaming "get out!".

 

3. Right. Let's make an already very strong skill even stronger.  

 

4. A spotting DD gets half the credit for damage done in their spotting. That's adequate. The problem is the bloom nerf means a ship taking fire will almost always return fire and then the ship shooting then can spot them. So there DD stops getting spotting credit.  It might be complex but they should reward a DD that spots an unspotted ship, even it that ship is later in the bloom detection but not native detection range of a friendly ship.

 

5. See 4 and learn the vision mechanics.

 

6. Possibly. It requires care or it could get out of hand. Drastically reduced spotting distance from the air probably works better.   That will force a CV to put effort into protecting a ship from torps rather than it just randomly spoiling attacks because some bombers happened to fly over.

 

7. Sorry, no.  The damage and hit rate for torps is already fine. If the hit rate went up there damage would have to go down.

 

8. That's an annoyance but it works for DDs as often as against them. You see the enemy pop on the mini map and can maneuver to evade before they can see you on the screen to shoot you.

 

9. Spot on here. Bloom time needs to be linked to ship to, gun calibur or reload speed.  

 

10. It hurts cruisers at least as badly as DDs. Just do like a good cruiser player and shoot over islands.

 

11. This is very true.  Aircraft spotting is wonky.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,196
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,671 battles
5 hours ago, EAnybody said:

 

If it isn't, then the WG coders are completely incompetent.   That is, you'd have to completely screw up the LOS code for it NOT to be that simple.  It really doesn't jibe that the LOS code would be that bad, yet the MDD code is clean.

The current implementation of Radar/Hydro via MDD stinks of a weekend patch job by a junior coder who was just told to "do it and ship it". 

And if your LOS code is that bad that implementing Radar via it is terribly hard, it should have been fixed long ago, because it would already be a major performance drag even without Radar.

 

As to do the downsides:  they're MASSIVELY severe. As @zarth12 pointed out above.  If they're not considered severe, then that's telling on the level of "we don't give a crapabout our customers". 

 

Actually, I'll explain to you the issue with Smoke and why they can't fix it without a major overhaul and redesign of the engine.

Smoke is actually an object, it shares the same module as islands. The Big World engine in it's current form cannot distinguish particle effects as a LoS rule. So, they use a texture generated particle effect on a transparent and passible object to create smoke. That's why smoke drops as a cylinder. It's literally seen by the engine as a cylinder with a no-collision detection. 

Now, the objects in question have a transparent model so that you can see right through it with the smoke particle system to obscure player's actual visual and to show that smoke is in that location. Due to this Object rule, and the fact it's in all accounts an actual object, any sort of code to stop radar or hydro from seeing through an island also stops it from seeing through smoke with how it detects them as all terrain/objects.

Big world wasn't the only engine to have this issue. Quite a few older game engines also have this same limitation. To be honest, the big world engine in it's original form didn't even allow for multi-core or thread support. That took WG years to code in and WoWS was the first game to have it placed in as it required it due to the much high demand on CPU usage as well as GPU/RAM.

Now, I have a degree in Computer Science and have done programming work in the past and I'll tell you right now that simple code like you specified and engine development programming are not even in the same realm. There is a reason why Dev Sys Ops Engineers make serious money. It's a very demanding field, requires a lot of knowledge and most programmers barely scratch the surface of what is required to write such code. The biggest issue is how old the original engine could be and what coding languages, and yes I said languages as many frameworks run multiple languages for networking interface, database, and object recall along side calculation and basic function. Due to the age it's most likely C# with SQL for database management. The other main issue is that depending on how well the original programmers left footnotes in the code it can make it extremely difficult if the original writer is no longer on staff and you need to change core code. We aren't talking about Python and Ruby here which allows much better global module management.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

Ears are passive as well.  And "Ears" are exactly what hydrophones are.  Just mechanical "ears".

As for the second sentence, personally, I'd say yes.  I don't like this freebie 6th sense nonsense.  Develop your own personal 6th sense for when you think that you're in danger from something you can't yet detect.

 

So, what you are suggesting, is a taking away the only thing that gives you any information, from one of the more confusing aspects of the game?

 

Like we didn't have enough problem retaining new players already.

 

Why do you think they gave everybody situational awareness by default anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
2 hours ago, Azumazi said:

Actually, I'll explain to you the issue with Smoke and why they can't fix it without a major overhaul and redesign of the engine.

Smoke is actually an object, it shares the same module as islands. The Big World engine in it's current form cannot distinguish particle effects as a LoS rule. So, they use a texture generated particle effect on a transparent and passible object to create smoke. That's why smoke drops as a cylinder. It's literally seen by the engine as a cylinder with a no-collision detection. 

Now, the objects in question have a transparent model so that you can see right through it with the smoke particle system to obscure player's actual visual and to show that smoke is in that location. Due to this Object rule, and the fact it's in all accounts an actual object, any sort of code to stop radar or hydro from seeing through an island also stops it from seeing through smoke with how it detects them as all terrain/objects.

Big world wasn't the only engine to have this issue. Quite a few older game engines also have this same limitation. To be honest, the big world engine in it's original form didn't even allow for multi-core or thread support. That took WG years to code in and WoWS was the first game to have it placed in as it required it due to the much high demand on CPU usage as well as GPU/RAM.

Now, I have a degree in Computer Science and have done programming work in the past and I'll tell you right now that simple code like you specified and engine development programming are not even in the same realm. There is a reason why Dev Sys Ops Engineers make serious money. It's a very demanding field, requires a lot of knowledge and most programmers barely scratch the surface of what is required to write such code. The biggest issue is how old the original engine could be and what coding languages, and yes I said languages as many frameworks run multiple languages for networking interface, database, and object recall along side calculation and basic function. Due to the age it's most likely C# with SQL for database management. The other main issue is that depending on how well the original programmers left footnotes in the code it can make it extremely difficult if the original writer is no longer on staff and you need to change core code. We aren't talking about Python and Ruby here which allows much better global module management.

 

I work on the Java VM, and I do this kind of thing (physics models) as a sideline consulting thing. I'm actually a DevOps person IRL.

 

It matter not one bit what the language was, because I can guaranty the engine was written in something fairly standard: C, C++, or C#, most likely. There are LOTS of people who can read and understand such a codebase, if not for massive redesigns (because, yes, they do tend to be spaghetti code). I seriously doubt there isn't anyone on staff who doesn't have at least reasonable knowledge of the game engine itself, because the new DWT absolutely would have to have modifications to the engine made to work. So there's no possibility that they don't have the source code for the engine to look at, nor the in-house expertise to do so.

 

The thing here is this:  if what you describe is true, then it's still a simple fix:  the LOS code very obviously checks for something like "line between ships A and B, are there any objects in that path?".  If yes, then LOS is blocked. If no, then a check is made for distance between the two, and compared to detection distance of the target ship.   

 

The sole modification needed there is this:  

IF (object blocking path = smoke && Radar = on)

THEN continue_with_LOS_check

ELSE LOS_blocked

 

You look up the LOS function that is called to see how it works, then make that modification. It really isn't rocket science. There is no way this isn't something that can't be implemented with a couple of day's (at the very most) of Developer time. Maybe a week including QA. 

 

Also, this kind of thing is NOT "DevSysOps".  It's straight up Applications Developer with a specialty in physics modeling.  DevOps or SysOps is not programming at all - they're support infrastructure folks. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
842 posts
7 hours ago, Grizley said:

 

1. Radar sees through islands but that "huge" range is only about 20% of what it should be. Also radar could run more than a minute, it was always on.  Quit crying, you don't want accurate radar it would crush DDs.

 

Period-accurate radar couldn't see a BB-sized object more than about 30km away. DD-sized objects would hardly have been visible more than 6km away.  Don't confuse what we can do now with what was done in 1940s.   The rest of the game is time and space compressed anyway, and we're not talking about Real Life Simulation, it's a game mechanic.  

 

I'm not crying, and people trying to use Real Life as a justification for how this game behaves are just dodging the problem.

 

 

7 hours ago, Grizley said:

2. Map awareness already solves this 95% of the time. It's a very rare situation a DD should be in range of both radar and hydro.  Those are both screaming "get out!".

 

Well, except that it VERY MUCH matters whether it's radar or hydro, and you know, (A) there are more than a few ships which mount BOTH, and (B) ships travel together, don't you hear?   It's very regular to have two ships within Radar and Hydro range, and it matters very much who is using what.   I desperately need to know which one it is, because my evasion tactics depend on knowing whether or not I have to run 2 km to be out of range, or 8km.  Situational Awareness simply doesn't help, especially since you can't often reasonably know where various ships are, due to them being undetected for long periods of time.  Git Gud isn't a feasible (or justifiable) counter.

 

 

7 hours ago, Grizley said:

3. Right. Let's make an already very strong skill even stronger.  

 

You missed the entire OP's point, that RDF is *NOT* strong, because it leaks information all over the place, and effectively allows enemies to directly use it against you.

 

7 hours ago, Grizley said:

4. A spotting DD gets half the credit for damage done in their spotting. That's adequate. The problem is the bloom nerf means a ship taking fire will almost always return fire and then the ship shooting then can spot them. So there DD stops getting spotting credit.  It might be complex but they should reward a DD that spots an unspotted ship, even it that ship is later in the bloom detection but not native detection range of a friendly ship.

 

It's non-transparent at all how much credit you get for spotting damage.  Certainly, it seems to be vastly less than any actual damage you cause yourself.  And, again I'm aware of how it works now, that's why it's broken. 

 

7 hours ago, Grizley said:

5. See 4 and learn the vision mechanics.

 

#5 was an illustration of why spotting rewards were broken.

 

7 hours ago, Grizley said:

6. Possibly. It requires care or it could get out of hand. Drastically reduced spotting distance from the air probably works better.   That will force a CV to put effort into protecting a ship from torps rather than it just randomly spoiling attacks because some bombers happened to fly over.

 

There's no reason to allow for planes to spot torpedoes, other than make life easier for the targets. That's it.  It's a crutch. We might as well have Radar detect torpedoes.

 

7 hours ago, Grizley said:

7. Sorry, no.  The damage and hit rate for torps is already fine. If the hit rate went up there damage would have to go down.

 

Single-digit torp hits are "OK"?  Remind me again how much fun a game is when you spend 20 minutes and manage to hit your opponent 3 times?   If we nerfed any other ship's hit rate down to that level, there would be howls of agony.  Yet, somehow, it's OK to have DDs throw torp spread after torp spread downrange, and miss the vast majority of the times.  The damage is also NOT OK, since DDs have by far the lowest damage rate of any ship, and about 20% lower kill rate than average.   I could certainly see a torp damage debuff if we drastically increased torp hit ratio just to avoid everything getting nuked all the time, but the entire scheme is NOT even remotely OK in it's current state.

 

 

7 hours ago, Grizley said:

8. That's an annoyance but it works for DDs as often as against them. You see the enemy pop on the mini map and can maneuver to evade before they can see you on the screen to shoot you.

 

Which works only for elite players, not the general population, because it's VERY hard to look at the minimap and play at the same time.  Yes, you can do it. I do. But it's not something that come easily or even with practice. It's something that it not mentioned anywhere in any material, and isn't clear at all that it works that way.  This is simply a broken issue, and the workaround of "Git Gud" isn't acceptable for fundamental flaws.

 

7 hours ago, Grizley said:

10. It hurts cruisers at least as badly as DDs. Just do like a good cruiser player and shoot over islands.

 

I'm not just concerned with DDs - the general comment was on the spotting/detection system as a whole, and all the ways it hurts everyone; though, obviously, as DDs depend on stealth far more than anything else, the brokenness hurts DDs the most.

I won't bother commenting about the "shoot over islands" nonsense.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles
11 hours ago, EAnybody said:

 

Period-accurate radar couldn't see a BB-sized object more than about 30km away. DD-sized objects would hardly have been visible more than 6km away.  Don't confuse what we can do now with what was done in 1940s.   The rest of the game is time and space compressed anyway, and we're not talking about Real Life Simulation, it's a game mechanic.  

 

I'm not crying, and people trying to use Real Life as a justification for how this game behaves are just dodging the problem.

 

 

 

Well, except that it VERY MUCH matters whether it's radar or hydro, and you know, (A) there are more than a few ships which mount BOTH, and (B) ships travel together, don't you hear?   It's very regular to have two ships within Radar and Hydro range, and it matters very much who is using what.   I desperately need to know which one it is, because my evasion tactics depend on knowing whether or not I have to run 2 km to be out of range, or 8km.  Situational Awareness simply doesn't help, especially since you can't often reasonably know where various ships are, due to them being undetected for long periods of time.  Git Gud isn't a feasible (or justifiable) counter.

 

 

 

You missed the entire OP's point, that RDF is *NOT* strong, because it leaks information all over the place, and effectively allows enemies to directly use it against you.

 

 

It's non-transparent at all how much credit you get for spotting damage.  Certainly, it seems to be vastly less than any actual damage you cause yourself.  And, again I'm aware of how it works now, that's why it's broken. 

 

 

#5 was an illustration of why spotting rewards were broken.

 

 

There's no reason to allow for planes to spot torpedoes, other than make life easier for the targets. That's it.  It's a crutch. We might as well have Radar detect torpedoes.

 

 

Single-digit torp hits are "OK"?  Remind me again how much fun a game is when you spend 20 minutes and manage to hit your opponent 3 times?   If we nerfed any other ship's hit rate down to that level, there would be howls of agony.  Yet, somehow, it's OK to have DDs throw torp spread after torp spread downrange, and miss the vast majority of the times.  The damage is also NOT OK, since DDs have by far the lowest damage rate of any ship, and about 20% lower kill rate than average.   I could certainly see a torp damage debuff if we drastically increased torp hit ratio just to avoid everything getting nuked all the time, but the entire scheme is NOT even remotely OK in it's current state.

 

 

 

Which works only for elite players, not the general population, because it's VERY hard to look at the minimap and play at the same time.  Yes, you can do it. I do. But it's not something that come easily or even with practice. It's something that it not mentioned anywhere in any material, and isn't clear at all that it works that way.  This is simply a broken issue, and the workaround of "Git Gud" isn't acceptable for fundamental flaws.

 

 

I'm not just concerned with DDs - the general comment was on the spotting/detection system as a whole, and all the ways it hurts everyone; though, obviously, as DDs depend on stealth far more than anything else, the brokenness hurts DDs the most.

I won't bother commenting about the "shoot over islands" nonsense.

 

You're badly delusional. The radar on the Des Moines in game has a 9.9 km range. It's actual capability was picking up a periscope sized contact at 8 nautical miles. Large aircraft were visible from over 140nm.  

 

Just in case you're confused, WW2 destroyers were larger than both periscopes and large aircraft.  Nor did they come equipped with Klingon cloaking devices.

 

By mid war submarines were in trouble because of the prevalence and quality of radar, destroyers weren't ninja assassins they were just small capable support ships.  Despite the wild success of Taffy-3 they were not intended to trade shots with cruisers, let alone battleships.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like how the game treats both radar and destroyers but this "ohmehgerd radar shouldn't go through islands" crap has to stop.  Yes, it's unreal. Just like the detection range of DDs. Just like the cool down on radar. Just like the laughable range of radar. It's a balanced and interesting mechanic.  I have no trouble playing against radar, nobody with a pair of neurons close enough to bridge a spark does.  

 

You realize I was speaking of situational awareness in a very real sense, not the captain skill.  If you don't know where the enemy ships are and you get close enough you get picked up on hydro... Well, I can see why this game would be frustrating to you. Stick to eating paste, that's mental challenge enough.

 

I'm not even going to argue with you about RPF, if you don't like it, don't take it.  Better captains will have it, but given your habit of blundering into hydro range unaware it's unlikely that they'll need it.

 

You do realize that aircraft actually spotted torpedos right? Or is this a "waaah I want radar nerfed cause much history but I don't want aircraft spotting muh torpedos cause they should share muh Klingon cloaking device."

 

I want you to put single digits torp hits into perspective. 9 is a single digit. If those are 24k hits (IJN) then that's well over 200k damage even if none of them flood. You're complaining about that mind you.  You're not that good.  Even a 3 hit game is 72k damage. That's not hard to pull off in a Shima, at all.  Live 10 minutes and have an average hit rate and you'll do that or better.

 

You don't have to be "elite" or even "good" to keep an eye on your mini map. You just can't be absolutely awful.  You don't have to keep your eyes glued to it, but you should be keeping an eye out for new contact, keeping track of last known positions and anticipating where they're headed and where they could be.  Just doing that is likely to pick you up an extra torp hit fired into a gap in islands or the corner of an island you think a ship will be coming around.

 

Shooting over islands is the only thing that keeps USN CA and too a lesser degree USN DDs relevant.  If you choose to "not address" it then the real source of frustration for you would be the USN lines. You'll get your [edited]handed to you over and over and wonder why everyone else can manage but you can't.  You strike me a slow learner that likes to blame other people and things for his failings. So long as that is the case everything in life will frustrate you.

 

Despite all the whinging and "frustration" Minekaze is your highest win rate for a ship you have 10+ games in. How do you square that with complaining? If everything else is just worse it's not the ship, it's you.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×