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

Allowing tracking of multiple targets.

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,405
[OPGS]
Beta Testers
3,168 posts
5,647 battles

I think it would be interesting if you could designate specific turrets to track specific targets so you could engage multiple targets at once. Think about all those times you are pushing a cap, you are engaging a target in front of you with your bow guns. How many times were there other targets off your port quarter that could have been engaged by your rear turrets. It is not something that absolutely has to happen immediately, I love this game. It is just a suggestion that could lead to more interesting and flexible gameplay. What do you think World Of Warships community?

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,256
[HINON]
Members
8,767 posts

A bit too complicated for this game and is akin to the suggestion about having separate turrets armed with different ammo types. With how the gun sights and aiming system works it would likely require a lot of labor to have guns calculating multiple locked targets.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
575
[HYDRO]
Members
1,274 posts
3,653 battles

While it could be interesting, I think the current system is more of a challenge since you have to assign priorities to which target you will try to take out first and which one is the least threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,379 posts
5,416 battles
14 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I think it would be interesting if you could designate specific turrets to track specific targets so you could engage multiple targets at once. Think about all those times you are pushing a cap, you are engaging a target in front of you with your bow guns. How many times were there other targets off your port quarter that could have been engaged by your rear turrets. It is not something that absolutely has to happen immediately, I love this game. It is just a suggestion that could lead to more interesting and flexible gameplay. What do you think World Of Warships community?

I had put up a survey long ago on just that. Mutli-turret controls so that you can aim your guns MORE than one direction. It went from the Front Zone/Rear Zone to all the way to EACH individual turret. The most popular was the Front - Rear zone method. AND also default which is one zone aim. But the idea was to aim in different directions simultaneously to you cover yourself from ambush.  To me better would be four zone - you could aim in four directions so you only have yourself covered 360 degrees. BUT..the survey was canned as you can see. But the last result was about 100 players FOR and 50 against.  I asked the Admin what they thought...they said OVER POWERED....yeah..right.  As for implementation...If a DD can have two controls - one for guns and other for torps...why can't they? Come one.!   The plus to this idea is that a BB can brawl right down the center READY for what comes up instead of cower in the map ends doing sniper duty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,249 battles
29 minutes ago, Belthorian said:

I think it would be interesting if you could designate specific turrets to track specific targets so you could engage multiple targets at once. Think about all those times you are pushing a cap, you are engaging a target in front of you with your bow guns. How many times were there other targets off your port quarter that could have been engaged by your rear turrets. It is not something that absolutely has to happen immediately, I love this game. It is just a suggestion that could lead to more interesting and flexible gameplay. What do you think World Of Warships community?

I won't thumbs-down you for this post, though I don't think it's a good idea and agree with RipNuN2 on this. 

What I would like to see is for it to be possible to have some different turret directional lock options.  For example, it'd be nice to kick the forward turrets in a forward looking direction (say in the general direction of target A) while locking the rear turrets separately in a different direction (say in the general direction of target B).  This idea gest trickier when you start talking about having low tier wing turrets and mid ships Q turrets.  Which group are they in?  The forward group or the rear group.  On a ship like the Fuso, I suppose that they could have their own mid ships group.  But non Kaiser style wing turrets, like, say, the Kawachi would be a pain, though probably should be with the forward group since their neutral aim is directly forward.

 

It would also be nice to allow ships to lock their turrets in the neutral position (i.e. the position they're in before you load in)  Sometimes, you don't know which side of your ship you're going to engage with, and locking the turrets in a neutral position limits the amount of rotation required when you do decide where to aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,249 battles
15 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

I had put up a survey long ago on just that. Mutli-turret controls so that you can aim your guns MORE than one direction. It went from the Front Zone/Rear Zone to all the way to EACH individual turret. The most popular was the Front - Rear zone method. AND also default which is one zone aim. But the idea was to aim in different directions simultaneously to you cover yourself from ambush.  To me better would be four zone - you could aim in four directions so you only have yourself covered 360 degrees. BUT..the survey was canned as you can see. But the last result was about 100 players FOR and 50 against.  I asked the Admin what they thought...they said OVER POWERED....yeah..right.  As for implementation...If a DD can have two controls - one for guns and other for torps...why can't they? Come one.!   The plus to this idea is that a BB can brawl right down the center READY for what comes up instead of cower in the map ends doing sniper duty. 

Actually, Dion, you unintentionally bring up a gripe that I have regarding ships with torps vs ships without torps.  Ships with torps have a significant advantage over ships without torps in that they can switch to torps for no other reason than to use it to determine whether the ship in question is moving forward or backwards, as well as a rough indicator of how fast.

I would like to see non-torp mounting ships have this same capability (though obviously without any torps).  This is a very potent ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,379 posts
5,416 battles

Nice point you have made - If I had my way...After a certain tier I would remove the Torp Aim Guide.  THAT would probably bring a hale storm of complaints huh?   Just like aiming guns the player would have to rely on experience  fer sure. and in all probability many of the torps would miss big time!   I have always felt that if a ship only had guns they should be more accurate than another ship of the same type with torps. Sounds fair? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
592
[ARGSY]
Members
1,267 posts
8,671 battles

Put the turret traverse mod on a Fletcher with expert marksman, and you can shoot at everything simultaneously.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,777 posts
5,635 battles

Warships never divided main guns firing at ships,  you focus fire on one ship to up the odds of hitting the ship. More guns on target. Its a fundamental mechanic that war game is not going to change. Like fire and Flooding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,582
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,249 battles
48 minutes ago, dionkraft said:

Nice point you have made - If I had my way...After a certain tier I would remove the Torp Aim Guide.  THAT would probably bring a hale storm of complaints huh?   Just like aiming guns the player would have to rely on experience  fer sure. and in all probability many of the torps would miss big time!   

I have always felt that if a ship only had guns they should be more accurate than another ship of the same type with torps. Sounds fair? 

Uhhhh, yeah.  And I'd be one of them.  Why should they remove it?  Ships get an aiming guide after all, whether people realize it or not.  It's called the aiming reticle. Use it properly and it's every bit as much of an aiming guide as the torp version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,561 posts
3,887 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Actually, Dion, you unintentionally bring up a gripe that I have regarding ships with torps vs ships without torps.  Ships with torps have a significant advantage over ships without torps in that they can switch to torps for no other reason than to use it to determine whether the ship in question is moving forward or backwards, as well as a rough indicator of how fast.

I would like to see non-torp mounting ships have this same capability (though obviously without any torps).  This is a very potent ability.

Not only that, but if you switch to torps on a target that has the captain skill Priority Target - you no longer show up as targeting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
433
[BOTES]
Members
1,889 posts
6,605 battles

Seconded. I've been in situations where I want to place the rear turret in a different position for maneuvers, but I have to rotate it with the rest. That would be a simple place to start. I'm not sure I want people shooting at multiple targets at the same time, but I think it would be best if WG allowed us to plan in advance to avoid unnecessary downtime rotating a turret we won't use. I know they want turret rotation speed to be part of game balance and to encourage use of EM, but some ships simply cannot track during a high speed pass and it would be great to have more control.

Edited by awildseaking

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.

×