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

Ramming mechanic is broken

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

174
[LODGE]
Beta Testers
240 posts
11,534 battles

WG needs to put a little effort into fixing the ramming mechanic. When a BB with under 1000 health can barely touch a  healthy (same tier BB) at a very low speed i might add and both die it is broken. A  very low speed bump would NOT sink a healthy BB. 

It needs to be fixed someway to account for damage based on speed, where contact is made etc. Right now its not in line with any other tactic or mechanic of the game.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,884
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,117 posts
5,035 battles

Working as intended, and the mechanic works both ways. If I'm on low health, then I want ramming a high health/high value ship and taking him with me, regardless of where I poke,  to be a viable option.

The fault here is that you allowed a BB to get close enough to ram you. You got outplayed by somebody who did the right thing by sacrificing his low health ship to take your healthy ship out.

  • Cool 10
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,410
[WOLF7]
Members
11,055 posts
4 minutes ago, JdeMolay said:

WG needs to put a little effort into fixing the ramming mechanic. When a BB with under 1000 health can barely touch a  healthy (same tier BB) at a very low speed i might add and both die it is broken. A  very low speed bump would NOT sink a healthy BB. 

It needs to be fixed someway to account for damage based on speed, where contact is made etc. Right now its not in line with any other tactic or mechanic of the game.

Reality meet Arcade......

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,514
[SALVO]
Members
19,043 posts
19,225 battles
20 minutes ago, JdeMolay said:

WG needs to put a little effort into fixing the ramming mechanic. When a BB with under 1000 health can barely touch a  healthy (same tier BB) at a very low speed i might add and both die it is broken. A  very low speed bump would NOT sink a healthy BB. 

It needs to be fixed someway to account for damage based on speed, where contact is made etc. Right now its not in line with any other tactic or mechanic of the game.

Two points.

1. It shouldn't matter how healthy a ship is when it rams another ship.  It's not the health of the ship that's going to cause damage.  It's the ship's mass.  And that mass will be the same regardless of whether the ship is healthy or barely afloat when it strikes the enemy ship.

2. I agree with you that speed, angle of impact, and so on needs to be accounted for in the ramming mechanic.  For all the people who will claim "arcade game", it's NOT difficult to come up with a moderately realistic ramming model that would be much better than the current one.

a. Calculate the combined speed at impact of the two ships. 

If one ship is chasing the second one and hits it from behind in a stern chase, the collision speed will be very low, essentially the greater speed minus the lower speed.  OTOH, if the two ships strike each other bow on, the combined speed is going to the sum of the two speeds.  And if one ship rams the second one roughly perpendicularly, the collision speed will basically be the speed of the ship that's T-boning the second one.

b.  Then have a table for damage done (as a percentage) based on the collision speed.  Low speed collisions should have a low damage percentage, whereas high speed collisions should have very high damage percentages.

c. Apply this percentage to ship A's max HP to determine the damage done to ship B, and visa versa.

 

It's NOT that difficult, guys.  I've played table top games that are able to manage this very simple algorithm.  There's no reason at all that a PC game can't handle something like this super easily.   The only reason I can see for WG supporting this stupid ramming model is a desire to shorten battles.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[SAVAG]
[SAVAG]
Members
331 posts

I side swiped an Iowa in my Mo. she got a tad bent up but kept sailing while sinking the Iowa. Hitting the repair option as I scraped the side of the ship. Then pointed my Mo.at another ship and proceeded to sink it by plowing bow in into her side. . Quite satisfying.  Lol.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,034
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
18,056 posts
10,495 battles
20 minutes ago, awiggin said:

Reality meet Arcade......

What the Op wants is even more arcade than the current system which actually gets reasonably historical results, pretty much any ship involved in a collision is hors de combat.  A 35,000 ton ship with 90% of its HP gone still displaces 35,000 tons and maybe a bit more from flooding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
423
[WDS]
Members
1,233 posts
7,895 battles
3 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Two points.

1. It shouldn't matter how healthy a ship is when it rams another ship.  It's not the health of the ship that's going to cause damage.  It's the ship's mass.  And that mass will be the same regardless of whether the ship is healthy or barely afloat when it strikes the enemy ship.

2. I agree with you that speed, angle of impact, and so on needs to be accounted for in the ramming mechanic.  For all the people who will claim "arcade game", it's NOT difficult to come up with a moderately realistic ramming model that would be much better than the current one.

a. Calculate the combined speed at impact of the two ships. 

If one ship is chasing the second one and hits it from behind in a stern chase, the collision speed will be very low, essentially the greater speed minus the lower speed.  OTOH, if the two ships strike each other bow on, the combined speed is going to the sum of the two speeds.  And if one ship rams the second one roughly perpendicularly, the collision speed will basically be the speed of the ship that's T-boning the second one.

b.  Then have a table for damage done (as a percentage) based on the collision speed.  Low speed collisions should have a low damage percentage, whereas high speed collisions should have very high damage percentages.

c. Apply this percentage to ship A's max HP to determine the damage done to ship B, and visa versa.

 

It's NOT that difficult, guys.  I've played table top games that are able to manage this very simple algorithm.  There's no reason at all that a PC game can't handle something like this super easily.   The only reason I can see for WG supporting this stupid ramming model is a desire to shorten battles.

I have to agree with you . Although  in the grand scheme of things I don't thing it's that big a deal . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
565
[PVE]
[PVE]
Beta Testers
2,058 posts
4,948 battles

Speed and angle does matter it's just that the threshold for it is very very small where it's just a snail pace in order to avoid an instant max health ram damage collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
617
[LUCK]
Members
1,627 posts
22,132 battles

Would rather have flooding from ramming be instituted, at a much faster rate than torpedo flooding with damage control only slowing it not stopping the flooding. Instead we have the silly instantaneous destruction. I know it's an arcade game but it could be more well designed. And get rid of those signals too. Ramming damage is ramming damage unless of course its a friendly then it's OK. That makes complete sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[-K_P-]
Members
136 posts
2,148 battles

The Rams that really bug me are the gunwale slides.  I have had a couple times where 2 BB's were coming at each other, one was able to change the alignment from a t-bone to a slide, yet both got sunk by ramming damage.  Those should not count as Ramming Damage, maybe the mechanics should consider anything under 7 degree impact as scraped paint, or if one has a torpedo bulge and the other doesn't then do flooding damage, that would be closer to IRL.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[LODGE]
Beta Testers
240 posts
11,534 battles
55 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Two points.

1. It shouldn't matter how healthy a ship is when it rams another ship.  It's not the health of the ship that's going to cause damage.  It's the ship's mass.  And that mass will be the same regardless of whether the ship is healthy or barely afloat when it strikes the enemy ship.

2. I agree with you that speed, angle of impact, and so on needs to be accounted for in the ramming mechanic.  For all the people who will claim "arcade game", it's NOT difficult to come up with a moderately realistic ramming model that would be much better than the current one.

a. Calculate the combined speed at impact of the two ships. 

If one ship is chasing the second one and hits it from behind in a stern chase, the collision speed will be very low, essentially the greater speed minus the lower speed.  OTOH, if the two ships strike each other bow on, the combined speed is going to the sum of the two speeds.  And if one ship rams the second one roughly perpendicularly, the collision speed will basically be the speed of the ship that's T-boning the second one.

b.  Then have a table for damage done (as a percentage) based on the collision speed.  Low speed collisions should have a low damage percentage, whereas high speed collisions should have very high damage percentages.

c. Apply this percentage to ship A's max HP to determine the damage done to ship B, and visa versa.

 

It's NOT that difficult, guys.  I've played table top games that are able to manage this very simple algorithm.  There's no reason at all that a PC game can't handle something like this super easily.   The only reason I can see for WG supporting this stupid ramming model is a desire to shorten battles.

Finally, an intelligent response!

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,064
Members
2,667 posts
3,637 battles
1 hour ago, JdeMolay said:

 A  very low speed bump would NOT sink a healthy BB. 

In what context? Real life? You know... you know BBs in real life don't have "health" right? Right?

1 minute ago, JdeMolay said:

Finally, an intelligent response!

Well, they're more difficult without an intelligent OP.

Edited by Harathan
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[LODGE]
Beta Testers
240 posts
11,534 battles
Just now, Harathan said:

In what context? Real life? You know... you know BBs in real life don't have "health" right? Right?

Read the post above yours for a little enlightenment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,064
Members
2,667 posts
3,637 battles
17 minutes ago, JdeMolay said:

Read the post above yours for a little enlightenment.

Based on your OP, you have no high ground for pointing out enlightenment, chief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[LODGE]
Beta Testers
240 posts
11,534 battles
Just now, Harathan said:

Based on your OP, you have no high ground for pointing out enlightenment, chief.

Reading comprehension wasn't your best subject was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,064
Members
2,667 posts
3,637 battles
2 minutes ago, JdeMolay said:

Reading comprehension wasn't your best subject was it?

If only that was in any way related to understanding game mechanics, which is the point of this topic and which you demonstrably fail at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,462
[PNG]
Supertester, Beta Testers
5,777 posts
6,830 battles

Conversely, two BBs hitting each other at 30 knots, both should die... yet...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[LODGE]
Beta Testers
240 posts
11,534 battles
21 minutes ago, Harathan said:

If only that was in any way related to understanding game mechanics, which is the point of this topic and which you demonstrably fail at.

Since you seem to be "challenged" trying to understand, let me try this. The ramming mechanic is black and white. Two BB's  of similar tonnage for example, touch and they are both dead. Shell damage by contrast takes into account angle, velocity, distance from target, where on the ship did they strike, and the ships armor at that point,  among others. Ramming does not it is black and white...just not done well. Sleep on this , I am sure you can get it.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
305
[RUST]
Beta Testers
992 posts
11,089 battles

On the list of things WOWS needs fixing and improving, this is way down on the bottom of the list. It’s not ideal, but not game breaking either.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,477 posts
9,097 battles
1 hour ago, Crij said:

The Rams that really bug me are the gunwale slides.  I have had a couple times where 2 BB's were coming at each other, one was able to change the alignment from a t-bone to a slide, yet both got sunk by ramming damage.  Those should not count as Ramming Damage, maybe the mechanics should consider anything under 7 degree impact as scraped paint, or if one has a torpedo bulge and the other doesn't then do flooding damage, that would be closer to IRL.

Talk to the Titanic about scrapes....

2 hours ago, Crucis said:

I've played table top games that are able to manage this very simple algorithm.

So have I, or close enough - one reason I stopped tabletop gaming was too many rules systems slow the actual play down too much, too.  Harpoon was horrible for being accurate, and sloooooooooooooooooow to play.

Sure, it would add to the game, but it's not a huge issue as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,064
Members
2,667 posts
3,637 battles
50 minutes ago, JdeMolay said:

Since you seem to be "challenged" trying to understand, let me try this. The ramming mechanic is black and white. Two BB's  of similar tonnage for example, touch and they are both dead. Shell damage by contrast takes into account angle, velocity, distance from target, where on the ship did they strike, and the ships armor at that point,  among others. Ramming does not it is black and white...just not done well. Sleep on this , I am sure you can get it.

Shells don't weight tens of thousands of tons. Sleep on this, I am sure you can... nevermind, you're clearly not that bright.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,514
[SALVO]
Members
19,043 posts
19,225 battles
1 minute ago, Nukelavee45 said:

 

So have I, or close enough - one reason I stopped tabletop gaming was too many rules systems slow the actual play down too much, too.  Harpoon was horrible for being accurate, and sloooooooooooooooooow to play.

Sure, it would add to the game, but it's not a huge issue as it is.

And the table top game I'm thinking of used a system that was dirt simple.  Pretty similar to the one I outlined above.  It's NOT that difficult and for a PC, not that time consuming to do. And while it may not be a huge issue, I think that it would be a nice addition to the game to have a ramming mechanic that at least made a passing nod to realism.  Personally, I'm sick and tired of all these people who seem to think that realism requires extreme levels of complexity.  That's pure nonsense.  It's entirely possible to do moderate realism with simplicity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×