Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Aristotle83

Historical accuracy(environments)

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

124
[PRMUS]
Members
823 posts
2,077 battles

Okay this is a historical accuracy thread, though unlike most this one's about how WG can make the environments more realistic. I understand why this is low priority, and I agree with that, the ships are most important but these changes should happen at some point. I know WG is slowly moving to make the environment more realistic because if I'd made this thread a few months ago they'd be a couple of extra things that have since been changed(I'm talking about torpedos when they hit land, they used to just vanish, now they explode whatever they touch). Anyway here's my ideas.

 

1)Depth. If a ship is right next to land, it shouldn't be going underwater once it sinks, it should be only partially submerged. Beaching ships should also be a thing. This issue is made more glaring by WG adding partially submerged destroyed ships in the background that do follow this logic while the player ships don't. That to me is proof WG is aware of this and will get there at some point. 

2)Make the environment more interactive. If I shoot a building with HE, maybe have it catch on fire and burn down, with AP maybe have it collapse into rubble. Interactive coastal bombardments could also be fun in missions, I know WG does this with individual targets but having it for your run of the mill houses and buildings would be awesome.

3)Make ship sinkings more unique based on situations. Once a ship is sunk I noticed at least a while back that ships at the same tier take the same amount of time to sink(to the second) even if the sequences are different. Now maybe this has changed because it takes longer but I think this is because of higher tiers rather them having changed this. 

4)I find it hard to believe a ship explodes on impact immediately upon hitting another enemy ship  but not a friendly or a mountain/iceberg. Applying this to friendly's is not only realistic but it gives reckless drivers an incentive to learn how to drive or else their game is over if they ruin it for someone else. This also removes the current damage threshold system that puts players in the pink for getting hit by these reckless drivers. In terms of mountains and icebergs, this also would encourage better driving as if I'm about to crash into a mountain there's really no consequences if no one shoots me while I'm stuck(irl everyone on the ship would die). I'm not saying it should be an insta kill but hitting an iceberg should at least cause flooding.

5)People complaining about the UK HE advantage, I have the perfect historically accurate counterbalance. Since UK capital ships were so liable to blow up why don't they just get a higher probability of being detonated than other ships if they get hit with HE? That's a historically accurate UK niche(and I'm a UK BB player mainly) and will really help Jutland and Denmark Strait reenactments come alive.  

6)I know this is risky, but I think it could work to slowly bring in little sailors for the ships. I can already see officer sillouthes if I look closely at the bridge, it'd be fun to see sailors scrambling on the decks to follow one's order's, and even more fun to see them jumping into the water upon the ship sinking. I'm halfheartedly recomending this because I can totally see this being done wrong and making the game less fun but if WG proceeds carefully this could, emphasis on could, work. I think it'd be easier to add civilians than to add sailors tbh. 

7)After you sink, wreck snapshots would be pretty cool? 

8)Cooler island environments with more buildings. Forts, air bases, shipyards, these would all be very interesting to see in game. I get why this is low priority but too many maps are just mountains and uninhabited islands. 

Edited by Aristotle83
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
360 posts
5 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

 

6)I know this is risky, but I think it could work to slowly bring in little sailors for the ships. I can already see officer sillouthes if I look closely at the bridge, it'd be fun to see sailors scrambling on the decks to follow one's order's, and even more fun to see them jumping into the water upon the ship sinking. I'm halfheartedly recomending this because I can totally see this being done wrong and making the game less fun but if WG proceeds carefully this could, emphasis on could, work. 

 

Can we name them too?  Seaman stains reporting for duty sir. :Smile-_tongue:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,438 posts
8,824 battles

I don't think "randomly shelling civilian structures on shore just to watch them burn down" is the kind of historical accuracy WG would like to see in their game.  All the more so since a lot of the buildings on the maps are cultural easter eggs for the countries the maps are based on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[THREE]
Members
2,084 posts
10,525 battles
6 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

"Snip"

1.) I don't think beaching should be allowed, but Ships sinking near an island could be nice eye candy.

2.) They had forts in games and I would rather not incentivize people to randomly fire.

3.) Again, more eye candy is good.

4.) NO. While I would like to a see a more interesting dynamic with ramming enemy ships, allowing friendly ships to insta-delete their teammates by ramming WOULD be use heavily for trolling.

5.) They just need to have higher citadels and either their fire chance reduced or their damage with HE reduced

6.) Its a rating issue, if you depict sailors on a ship while doing combat, WOWS would lose the its "E" (?) rating and would have to go to "Mature" (Someone correct me if this statement is wrong.)

7.) I don't understand what your saying on this one.

8.)Again, more eye candy is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[THREE]
Members
2,084 posts
10,525 battles
5 minutes ago, wildcat18 said:

Can we name them too?  Seaman stains reporting for duty sir. :Smile-_tongue:

And that's why we can't name them. lol

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[PRMUS]
Members
823 posts
2,077 battles
3 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

1.) I don't think beaching should be allowed, but Ships sinking near an island could be nice eye candy.

2.) They had forts in games and I would rather not incentivize people to randomly fire.

3.) Again, more eye candy is good.

4.) NO. While I would like to a see a more interesting dynamic with ramming enemy ships, allowing friendly ships to insta-delete their teammates by ramming WOULD be use heavily for trolling.

5.) They just need to have higher citadels and either their fire chance reduced or their damage with HE reduced

6.) Its a rating issue, if you depict sailors on a ship while doing combat, WOWS would lose the its "E" (?) rating and would have to go to "Mature" (Someone correct me if this statement is wrong.)

7.) I don't understand what your saying on this one.

8.)Again, more eye candy is good.

1)Fair. 

2 I understand, but just imagine a burning fort.

3 You really like eye candy.

4 I get this is controversial. My logic is it's better than the existing system and the point is if someone trolls they are out of the game also and that's a less arbitrary punishment than getting the pink label. People driving without a care in the world is also a more common issue IME than team killing. 

5 Disagree, love my HE. 

6 Yeah I get this.

7 Show your ship underwater. As I'm rewriting this I realize what a terrible idea this is. 

8 Again, you really like eye candy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[THREE]
Members
2,084 posts
10,525 battles
6 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

"Snip"

2.) If they ever bring back forts into random again, sure. Why not for operations?

3.) yes

4.) Its only a momentary inconvenience in most situations, unless the person is trolling you. I would rather not give the trolls more power to harm their OWN team by removing two ships at once.

5.) UK battleships don't have a weakness. That's why there's dozen of topics asking for nerfs on them. The get great camo, underwater citadels, and HE stronger then its AP.

7.) like watching it sink till it fades out under water?

8.) again, yes

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[PRMUS]
Members
823 posts
2,077 battles
17 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

2.) If they ever bring back forts into random again, sure. Why not for operations?

3.) yes

4.) Its only a momentary inconvenience in most situations, unless the person is trolling you. I would rather not give the trolls more power to harm their OWN team by removing two ships at once.

5.) UK battleships don't have a weakness. That's why there's dozen of topics asking for nerfs on them. The get great camo, underwater citadels, and HE stronger then its AP.

7.) like watching it sink till it fades out under water?

8.) again, yes

2)Yeah that works. Operations especially but still want the random games to be more than let's sail around different sets of empty islands and occasional icebergs. 

4)We disagree on this. I get that, to me this is the lesser of two evils(I've been rammed by bad drivers too many times) for others it probably isn't, especially if you get team killed a lot. It's happened to me once or twice but I don't see it as a common thing and I've only seen a handful of other incidents especially ones on purpose. Friendly crashes meanwhile probably happens on average more than once a game and you get a fine and if it keeps happening the fines start to pile up and you get pink. 

5)You're wrong here UK BB's do have disadvantages, I know because most of my games are in them. Until the KGV most UK BB's have really slow turrets that take 72 seconds to go 180 degrees. The HE might be OP but if you can get a UK BB to turn a lot, it balances out and then some as the UK BB player is going to have to wait forever to unload the HE volley on you. The KGV onwards doesn't have this disadvantage but it also has 14 inch guns and relatively weak AP. Ironically some of the most OP UK BB's do not have the 40%+ HE shells. Hood honestly against cruisers is a citadel machine and the Warspite's AP is a QE without the same maneuvering issues.  I do think UK BB line until T7 is very well balanced. 

7)It would just be cool to see the wreck. I get it's not worth the work though, at all. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,841
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

I asked for a Gilligan's Island complete with the SS Minnow beached.  But as far as placing people in game during war activities NO. The game rating as is right now is E "Everyone"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
592
[PLDN]
Supertester
2,151 posts
6,566 battles

Ships only half sinking when close enough to islands is a good idea.

There where forts once, nobody liked them.

Needless destruction is needless and is a massive workload for a feature most people will only use a couple times.

Better ramming animations would be fantastic, but think of the effort WG would need to put in for that. It's insane from a programming and modeling standpoint. 

I think sinking animations do relate mostly to the areas of a ship most heavily damaged, at least in terms of list direction. Dev strikes and detonations also appear to split ships in half unlike just burning. I used to have a screenshot of my Yamato's stern sticking directly up in the air (along with a solid 1/3 of the ship) but I haven't seen too many crazy animations for a while. It used to be that ships would slowly sink straight down with no tilt, sound, or visual effects whatsoever.

UK BBs should have higher citadels.

WG has tested sailors for your ships in port. Not sure where that went.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,791
[PVE]
Members
1,696 posts
13,972 battles

ramming damage for friendlies the same as enemies?

Half of every match would be pink. Not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[PRMUS]
Members
823 posts
2,077 battles
2 minutes ago, Rabbitt81 said:

ramming damage for friendlies the same as enemies?

Half of every match would be pink. Not a good idea.

No the point would be as a replacement for the pink system, which I despise. If someone wants to team kill they have to die too and then the troll can't hurt more than 1 player per game.  I like to think this would all but end team killing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
124
[PRMUS]
Members
823 posts
2,077 battles
13 minutes ago, X15 said:

Ships only half sinking when close enough to islands is a good idea.

There where forts once, nobody liked them.

Needless destruction is needless and is a massive workload for a feature most people will only use a couple times.

Better ramming animations would be fantastic, but think of the effort WG would need to put in for that. It's insane from a programming and modeling standpoint. 

I think sinking animations do relate mostly to the areas of a ship most heavily damaged, at least in terms of list direction. Dev strikes and detonations also appear to split ships in half unlike just burning. I used to have a screenshot of my Yamato's stern sticking directly up in the air (along with a solid 1/3 of the ship) but I haven't seen too many crazy animations for a while. It used to be that ships would slowly sink straight down with no tilt, sound, or visual effects whatsoever.

UK BBs should have higher citadels.

WG has tested sailors for your ships in port. Not sure where that went.

 

In my 1000+ games I have seen two ships split in half both via ram. Both were early on, wasn't even sure that was still possible. 

I can see testing sailors going wrong and being scrapped. That being said I did notice that there are sailors on the bridge(of at least one of my ships), they are really hard to see through the window unless you are looking for them though so maybe that's where that came from?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
592
[PLDN]
Supertester
2,151 posts
6,566 battles
2 minutes ago, Aristotle83 said:

In my 1000+ games I have seen two ships split in half both via ram. Both were early on, wasn't even sure that was still possible. 

I can see testing sailors going wrong and being scrapped. That being said I did notice that there are sailors on the bridge(of at least one of my ships), they are really hard to see through the window unless you are looking for them though so maybe that's where that came from?  

Sailors in port should be fine iirc, we did formerly have segal on the deck of Missouri.

You can look at the developer diaries, they point out a lot of the Easter eggs. I know one of the french ships has something in its bridge. But I don't think there are any crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
611
[THREE]
Members
2,084 posts
10,525 battles
1 hour ago, Aristotle83 said:

5)You're wrong here UK BB's do have disadvantages, I know because most of my games are in them. Until the KGV most UK BB's have really slow turrets that take 72 seconds to go 180 degrees. The HE might be OP but if you can get a UK BB to turn a lot, it balances out and then some as the UK BB player is going to have to wait forever to unload the HE volley on you. The KGV onwards doesn't have this disadvantage but it also has 14 inch guns and relatively weak AP. Ironically some of the most OP UK BB's do not have the 40%+ HE shells. Hood honestly against cruisers is a citadel machine and the Warspite's AP is a QE without the same maneuvering issues.  I do think UK BB line until T7 is very well balanced. 

"Really slow turrets" / "If you can get a UK BB to turn" / "...Until T7 is very well balanced."

T6 and below are the ok. Starting at T7, you get submerge citadel, promoting broadsiding, thus not rotating turrets, while landing multi-fires + 8k damage salvos... every 25 secs... while having the concealment to disengage every 20 secs in a 1v1 scenario with a same tier BB. The line also promotes bad habits that can be used with success in any other BB line.

On the Warspite and Hood, they play like traditional BBs, cause they were released before the UK bb line was and thus are not indicative of the UK BB line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
63 posts
299 battles

Here's another one - make the fire control directors rotate with the guns!

It's just weird to be firing at a target on your beam while the directors are aimed fore and aft and it would take almost nothing to fix it.

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.

×