Realism vs. Fun

[ShamelessAdvocate]

Well as many have stated, it seems as World of Tanks is so much more an arcade game, balanced, roughly (very roughly) historical, so the question then becomes, with other games (that shall not be named) that are also in production are going for more realism in game rather than arcade-y game mechanics. So which would you prefer? More realism or more arcade like, "balanced" game play?  

 

As for me, I would like more realism, more true to history but not so much realism that you take all the fun out of the game.

[madogthefirst]

It has got to have some balancing. Other wise with complete realism we could be stuck in the same first battle all day. It has been proven most people's attention span is equal to that of a rock.

[ShamelessAdvocate]

Depends on the rock doesn't it? lol

 

Yah some balancing is probably best but not overboard IMHO.

[MaximilianvonSpee]

My vote is as realistic as possible. Why? Because I know that total realism isn't possible, so no matter what happens, there are going to be 'arcade-y' concessions. Thus, I would hope the developers would set out to design the mechanics with as much realism as is possible, and then inject whatever 'game-like' qualities are necessary to keep things smooth. I can imagine these 'unrealistic' elements would be:

 

1) Give battleships and BCs a fighting chance against carriers, which they generally had none.

 

2) Minimize the ability of carriers to swarm warships with simultaneous (and normally unavoidable) dive bomb and torpedo attacks from multiple directions (or, conversely, make the AA of destroyers, cruisers and capital ships [particularly those belonging to Japan, Germany and Italy] far better than it actually was).

 

3) Give destroyers the opportunity to close on BBs/BCs to a range to utilize torpedoes without these attacks becoming suicide missions.

 

4) Allow carriers not to be an auto-KO once they are hit. As we know, carriers in WWII were pretty much as glass cannon as they come. Once a carrier's air wing was knocked from the sky, the ship itself suffered either terrible or fatal damage in a matter of minutes. And we all know what happened on the rare occasions that BBs/BCs 'got the jump' on carriers. Clearly, the balancing with the carrier needs to reduce their utter dominance, but simultaneously make them more resilient than they were.

 

5) Balance radar capability between the sides in some way. Pitting an American BB again, say, an Italian is probably an automatic US victory in any conditions other than 'sparklingly clear' simply because the Americans can fire in almost all weather, and the Italians cannot. This disparity cannot exist in WoW to the degree it did in real life, or nobody will play anything but American, French and British ships.

 

My biggest concern is that battles will become far more close-in affairs than they were in real life, with battleships and battlecruisers and cruisers closing to absurd ranges simply because most people have this vision in their heads of point-blank fighting. While that might be applicable to a few scenarios (like Guadalcanal), the vast majority of gun vs. gun battles (and air vs. air, for that matter) occurred at portentious ranges following the advent of the dreadnought battleship. We should not be steering around the tip of, say, an island, and suddely fighting with 2-3 other ships at 500 yards. Far too many warship games over the years have fallen prey to this ridiculous concept.

 

Another thing I'd like to see is very realistic steering, speed and collision mechanics. Warships should not be able to 'bump' because someone in your fleet is an idiot and just keep on fighting -- collisions, depending on the angle, should cause varying (and potentially terminal) damage. Similarly, I don't want battleships cruising around at 45 knots doing donuts. I would not mind, however, if the guns on all warships operated on a fast clock. I'd prefer to fire more than 2 salvoes a minute.

[Jager_Panther1]

MaximilianvonSpee, on 22 January 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

While that might be applicable to a few scenarios (like Guadalcanal), the vast majority of gun vs. gun battles (and air vs. air, for that matter) occurred at portentious ranges following the advent of the dreadnought battleship. We should not be steering around the tip of, say, an island, and suddely fighting with 2-3 other ships at 500 yards. Far too many warship games over the years have fallen prey to this ridiculous concept.

ughh... Battlestations games..

[RMS_Gigantic]

I like the Wargaming.net philosophy, which is expressed by a golden rule:

 

1) Be as realistic as server computing will allow, except where it wouldn't be fun

 

When does something not become fun? That's defined in Wargaming's second golden rule:

 

2) Players should fight one another, NOT their own vehicles.

 

These guidelines, which I personally agree with, are why destroyers won't use depth charges to battle submarines, players won't micromanage damage control, etc.

[Snakehead1234]

Jager_Panther1, on 22 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

ughh... Battlestations games..

I'm still playing Battlestations Pacific just because my copy of silent hunter 3 hasn't arrived yet and silent hunter 4 and 5 got boring. And yeah the ranges on the guns are annoying. To make matters worse the developers left the in game bug of weak kaitens in the game and never patched it so kaitens suck. To add even more insult to injury they make you play xbox live to get to the rank of fleet admiral if you want to unlock the jet planes. Which is ridicules considering they thought that everybody who would buy that game would have xbox live and have the time and patience to reach the top rank. If the planes are on the game disk you shouldn't have to unlock them through multiplayer. The command points on Island capture are also annoying, any noob who is losing can capture a crap load of supply bases and gain a victory out of no where even know my mighty fleet was approaching their final base. So sadly I'm still playing this hell hole of a game waiting for the day World of Warships come out. I hope silent hunter 3 will fill in my need for naval warfare until then.

[MaximilianvonSpee]

Jager_Panther1, on 22 January 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

ughh... Battlestations games..

Yes, I was thinking of precisely those games, as well as a few others :P.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

I've seen a fair share of realistic simulations, and in every one of them, the game chugs along, buggy, and often breaks when you're just about there in your game style.  America's Army tried this, and succeeded.  But then they introduced version 8.3, and the game didn't even launch, and since, the fan base has dwindled.  There is a lot to say about this genre--it's a niche market and very very small compared to the arcade-style genre.

 

No, I can see WG doing it just like WoT, with realistic eye-candy and such, even reload mechanics with associated ranges.  But that's it, and WG has shown this to be true in WoT--and it works!  Why would WG fix something that isn't broke?

[Windhover118]

t42592, on 22 January 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

  Why would WG fix something that isn't broke?

I am not saying that WG does this but there seems to be a common attitude among most game designers that a winning formula needs to be changed. I can understand that its important to keep a player base interested and the game itself expanding but often times the company making the game end up trying to "fix" something that isnt broken.

[Sampsonite]

Now I understand WG is a business and they want people to play. If the game was too realistic, we'd all play the op stuff and get bored fast. If there was no balance then the good would get better and the bad would be cannon fodder and give up eventually and we'd be left with the die hards who would have no fodder would get bored and stop playing, game over! So I see the need for some balance vs realism.  But the first time I see a destroyer win a gun duel with a battleship I'm walking away. I feel that the one sided battles are the most fun sometimes. I've played BB games and attacked with a destroyer and set the whole deck on fire but one 18.1" shell ruined my day but I was proud of the fact that I had lasted so long and set the thing on fire. I think in WOT some tanks make people fight like they are impenetrable and act like arrogant little *****  so a little balance is a good thing but bad players are bad players and I don't want the game to compensate for it.  I don't want the MM to handicap me because I have a more powerful ship. Then what's the point!

[Krieg]

MaximilianvonSpee, on 22 January 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

My vote is as realistic as possible. Why? Because I know that total realism isn't possible, so no matter what happens, there are going to be 'arcade-y' concessions. Thus, I would hope the developers would set out to design the mechanics with as much realism as is possible, and then inject whatever 'game-like' qualities are necessary to keep things smooth. I can imagine these 'unrealistic' elements would be:

1) Give battleships and BCs a fighting chance against carriers, which they generally had none.

2) Minimize the ability of carriers to swarm warships with simultaneous (and normally unavoidable) dive bomb and torpedo attacks from multiple directions (or, conversely, make the AA of destroyers, cruisers and capital ships [particularly those belonging to Japan, Germany and Italy] far better than it actually was).

3) Give destroyers the opportunity to close on BBs/BCs to a range to utilize torpedoes without these attacks becoming suicide missions.

4) Allow carriers not to be an auto-KO once they are hit. As we know, carriers in WWII were pretty much as glass cannon as they come. Once a carrier's air wing was knocked from the sky, the ship itself suffered either terrible or fatal damage in a matter of minutes. And we all know what happened on the rare occasions that BBs/BCs 'got the jump' on carriers. Clearly, the balancing with the carrier needs to reduce their utter dominance, but simultaneously make them more resilient than they were.

5) Balance radar capability between the sides in some way. Pitting an American BB again, say, an Italian is probably an automatic US victory in any conditions other than 'sparklingly clear' simply because the Americans can fire in almost all weather, and the Italians cannot. This disparity cannot exist in WoW to the degree it did in real life, or nobody will play anything but American, French and British ships.

My biggest concern is that battles will become far more close-in affairs than they were in real life, with battleships and battlecruisers and cruisers closing to absurd ranges simply because most people have this vision in their heads of point-blank fighting. While that might be applicable to a few scenarios (like Guadalcanal), the vast majority of gun vs. gun battles (and air vs. air, for that matter) occurred at portentious ranges following the advent of the dreadnought battleship. We should not be steering around the tip of, say, an island, and suddely fighting with 2-3 other ships at 500 yards. Far too many warship games over the years have fallen prey to this ridiculous concept.

Another thing I'd like to see is very realistic steering, speed and collision mechanics. Warships should not be able to 'bump' because someone in your fleet is an idiot and just keep on fighting -- collisions, depending on the angle, should cause varying (and potentially terminal) damage. Similarly, I don't want battleships cruising around at 45 knots doing donuts. I would not mind, however, if the guns on all warships operated on a fast clock. I'd prefer to fire more than 2 salvoes a minute.

Good post. + 1. This game will not be a simulation if anyone thinks it will be. It will be like WOT. Historical as possible but they won't (I I hope) let that get in the way of balanced gameplay.

[ThrawnBlaze]

My vote is for some realism and a good amount of arcade feEl I dont want to be realistic where Im worrying about steering my boat.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

That would be an artistic decision by Wargaming that would influence the entire fan base, too.  I don't think your position is unreasonable, not at all.  I, too, would be discouraged to play the higher tiers in the BB tree, if my OP DD could do this, and save me the time (and money) to grind into a category that has no hard-hitting derp capability against one DD, let alone a heard of them.  I'd like to know that one salvo on the MPI center would obliterate a single DD.  If not, I wouldn't even waste my time going down the BB tree, or the BC tree, for that matter.

 

ADD EDIT:  When you consider the volume of fire in a single salvo from a BB, the caliber of the round, and the resulting angle of attack on any other vessel below a BB rating, I would expect real-world values to play out their destructive power.  However, Wargaming will undoubtedly buff these vessels so as to withstand up to one salvo with say two direct hits.  The next salvo should be a no-brainer with the same volume, caliber, and a lower or higher hit rate.  If the MPI sustains three direct hits in the first salvo, I'd expect my rounds to cut through it like butter, sending it to the bottom.

 

Sampsonite, on 23 January 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

But the first time I see a destroyer win a gun duel with a battleship I'm walking away.

[El3m3nttt]

​I'd rather have a Realistic approach then an Arcade approach because if you're going to make a game about warships you better make it feel as Realistic as possible IMO.

[Wunderwaffen1945]

Agree with RMS...

[Crag_r]

El3m3nttt, on 23 January 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

​I'd rather have a Realistic approach then an Arcade approach because if you're going to make a game about warships you better make it feel as Realistic as possible IMO.

Do you think the same about tanks?  :Smile_trollface:

[El3m3nttt]

Crag_r, on 23 January 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Do you think the same about tanks?  :Smile_trollface:

that game(World of Tanks I mean)was made many years ago an honestly the ships must be more realistic because they are WARSHIPS.they were built with whatever they were built with for.

[Crag_r]

El3m3nttt, on 23 January 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

that game(World of Tanks I mean)was made many years ago an honestly the ships must be more realistic because they are WARSHIPS.they were built with whatever they were built with for.

3 years ago first off.

And i would argue that tanks must be more realistic because they are TANKS, they were built with whatever they were built for.

[El3m3nttt]

Crag_r, on 23 January 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

3 years ago first off.

And i would argue that tanks must be more realistic because they are TANKS, they were built with whatever they were built for.

Tanks, Planes, Ships all o them must be Realistic so I guess Wg inmy honest opinion didn't do it right or as realistic as possible, but it is a game after all so not everything can be perfect.

[nixxxie]

Crag_r, on 23 January 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Do you think the same about tanks?  :Smile_trollface:

You know, that's the reason i'm not a  core WoT player.  :Smile_glasses:
Surely, that would slow down the gameplay and add more stress to servers, but i'd like to to try it first, before saying that i was wrong and i don't like it.

[Windhover118]

If WoT was realistic then tanks would usually get killed the first time it is penned, we would see mass T-34 attacks, arty would be able to decimate an entire grid square and tanks like the Panther would break down within five minutes of the battle starting.

[El3m3nttt]

Windhover118, on 23 January 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

If WoT was realistic then tanks would usually get killed the first time it is penned, we would see mass T-34 attacks, arty would be able to decimate an entire grid square and tanks like the Panther would break down within five minutes of the battle starting.

[edited] well let's hope it can defend itself from attacks because immobile tanks are DEAD tanks.

[nixxxie]

And  :Smile_trollface: ?

 

There are games that can balance for this. And i'm mainly thinking about more antitank threats, just to force tactics towards reality.

[igorfc]

I think the game need to be realistic in some core aspects and characteristics of the ships, I think the blend of fun gameplay and realism presented in WoT should not be the same as the blend in WoWs, I think that because ships are much more complex machines than tanks, there are need to make much more realistic situations, but we all should remember that this is a game made for the market, so it should be fun and easy and not over complex.

 

PS: It's also important to balance the ships correctly, if not done right, everybody would just play BB's or CV's, on the other hand they can over balance some kinds of ships like DD in a way the can stand against a BB alone, both situations are bad, they should create a gameplay where each kind of ship complement each other in a way every ship is needed, for me this is the key-word in balance "complement"