Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
ZeroCoolant

Moar realism please

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

30
[VAE]
Members
44 posts
3,910 battles

Hello dear every-person,

I'd like to suggest a 2021 focus:  "playable realism".  What is playable realism you ask?  It is applying real-world mechanics (e.g. physics, electronics, etc.) to make the game more complex while retaining playability.  Certain shortcuts present in the game today are difficult to take seriously.  Allow me to provide an example:  radar.  Today it is a magic "reveal all" button that is bound by two factors: radius and duration.  Feels good...in part because everyone knows what to do:  park by an island near a cap and wait to pounce on a DD.  What would playable realism look like?

1.  Radar is line of sight:  radio waves travel and bounce back in a straight line.  So you can, if you are clever still do the same thing and pounce on a DD, but at a risk to yourself -- you have to at least see the cap.

2.  Radar improves range measurements.  This can be modelled by lowering gun dispersion when firing on a targeted ship.

3.  Radar leaves evidence.  When radar is in use every other player gets an RPF-like direction finder pointing at the radar-employing ship assuming they are being irradiated due to being in line of sight and within range.  Although I'm not sure that the range aspect should apply here since a signal too weak to bounce back may still be strong enough to receive and evaluate.

 

WDYT dear internet randos?

Edited by ZeroCoolant
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[VAE]
Members
44 posts
3,910 battles

I think that's covered by "playable" in playable realism.  Time distance scaling is somewhat required to make any of this work at all.  That cannot be said for certain other game mechanics (e.g. radar).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
465
[FOXY]
Members
1,198 posts
5,458 battles

Can we also have realistic accuracy ratios? Theres so many things this *Arcade* game does thats not realistic when it comes to warships you could type up a huge page worthy. But ill go with my favorite. Ships firing their guns at full speed. You know what happens when ships fire their guns at 25+ knots? Things break. Ever had your steering break because your gun fired? i have. Bloody hilarious to see it actually do that.

 

Im glad Radar only lasts for 20 seconds at least the ones ive used have, and dont function *always* like they do IRL, otherwise they would be overpowered. As it is its not to bad.

 

If Hyrdo and Radar stopped allowing you to be seen through islands i think that would be enough of a change, but i can understand it staying the way it is.

Edited by Princess_Daystar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,519
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,437 posts
4,198 battles

OK, but if we want to go down the realistic route then radar also has 30km range, is on all the time, and all BBs, CAs, CLs, CBs, and CVs have it after about T6, and a lot of DDs as well.

Realistic works both ways.

 

Also, there's a big difference between surface search radar and fire control radar. The first is rather easy and most ships had it by the end of WWII. Radar guided fire control is a lot harder and only major capital ships of the USN, RN, and kind of the Germans had it and then really only by mid war at the earliest. And it was a completely different system than the surface search radar (or air search and targeting radars for that matter). So the dispersion thing isn't that realistic.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,967
[HINON]
Members
13,736 posts

You would possibly need a whole new engine to do some of this which means it's unlikely to happen any time soon if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,616
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
24,714 posts
19,904 battles
17 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

OK, but if we want to go down the realistic route then radar also has 30km range, is on all the time, and all BBs, CAs, CLs, CBs, and CVs have it after about T6, and a lot of DDs as well.

Realistic works both ways.

That doesn't fit the narrative he's trying to push though.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,425 posts
40,904 battles
6 minutes ago, ZeroCoolant said:

Hello dear every-person,

I'd like to suggest a 2021 focus:  "playable realism".  What is playable realism you ask?  It is applying real-world mechanics (e.g. physics, electronics, etc.) to make the game more complex while retaining playability.  Certain shortcuts present in the game today are difficult to take seriously.  Allow me to provide an example:  radar.  Today it is a magic "reveal all" button that is bound by two factors: radius and duration.  Feels good...in part because everyone knows what to do:  park by an island near a cap and wait to pounce on a DD.  What would playable realism look like?

1.  Radar is line of sight:  radio waves travel and bounce back in a straight line.  So you can, if you are clever still do the same thing and pounce on a DD, but at a risk to yourself -- you have to at least see the cap.

2.  Radar improves range measurements.  This can be modelled by lowering gun dispersion when firing on a targeted ship.

3.  Radar leaves evidence.  When radar is in use every other player gets an RPF-like direction finder pointing at the radar-employing ship assuming they are being irradiated due to being in line of sight and within range.

 

WDYT dear internet randos?

I am consistently co-op.

Equip all ships with radar. Line of site as you suggest. But not as a consumable, as a permanent feature baked in. It should be part of the upgraded hull parameters. Early hull has either no radar or next upgrade has radar. 

Accuracy with dispersion is key. Use a new added upgrade to improve range and accuracy.

There were several radars on ships. Air search, Gun directors main battery, gun directors secondary battery, surface detection general, and finally AA. 

As you go up tiers, these radars are more sophisticated and powerful.

This feature would be also useful if sonar or hydroacoustic systems are included.  Again terrain and naturally occurred phenomenon would limit their use.

Radio fuses equipped AA at a certain tech tree level would also be adequate in buffing AA, if a player swapped a module.

If WG went comprehensive in the radars Alone, there is room there for balancing. The other items are worked in based on year ship was built and refit year or B, C hull.

Other fuses to consider for AA as an example are contact and time delayed fuses. Some fuses could be adjusted based on incoming aircraft. But for purposes of the game, DPM. 

There are various ways to work in these features, but it would simply make a player work on their builds to be able to handle any ship threat.

The limitations imposed would furher give ships flexibility and better use of terrain to evade detection.

For DDs, just simply popping a smoke that lasts minutes to mitigate air craft spotting would help them. Then a cruiser or another ship has to move in to look for it. 

Having said that, WG would have their hands full as this would essentially change the game in so many ways.

 

They are going to need a bigger staff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,519
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,437 posts
4,198 battles
6 minutes ago, Lert said:

That doesn't fit the narrative he's trying to push though.

I know. It's just amusing that about once a month we get a DD player who wants radar nerfed, uses realism as support for the argument, but never mentions the other half of a realistic implementation.

I think most of the "game should be more realistic" group don't realize that realistic WOWS is just World of CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,501
[WOLF7]
Members
12,601 posts
40 minutes ago, ZeroCoolant said:

Hello dear every-person,

I'd like to suggest a 2021 focus:  "playable realism".  What is playable realism you ask?  It is applying real-world mechanics (e.g. physics, electronics, etc.) to make the game more complex while retaining playability.  Certain shortcuts present in the game today are difficult to take seriously.  Allow me to provide an example:  radar.  Today it is a magic "reveal all" button that is bound by two factors: radius and duration.  Feels good...in part because everyone knows what to do:  park by an island near a cap and wait to pounce on a DD.  What would playable realism look like?

1.  Radar is line of sight:  radio waves travel and bounce back in a straight line.  So you can, if you are clever still do the same thing and pounce on a DD, but at a risk to yourself -- you have to at least see the cap.

2.  Radar improves range measurements.  This can be modelled by lowering gun dispersion when firing on a targeted ship.

3.  Radar leaves evidence.  When radar is in use every other player gets an RPF-like direction finder pointing at the radar-employing ship assuming they are being irradiated due to being in line of sight and within range.  Although I'm not sure that the range aspect should apply here since a signal too weak to bounce back may still be strong enough to receive and evaluate.

 

WDYT dear internet randos?

You really don't understand why it's become a complete arcade game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[VAE]
Members
44 posts
3,910 battles
19 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

OK, but if we want to go down the realistic route then radar also has 30km range, is on all the time, and all BBs, CAs, CLs, CBs, and CVs have it after about T6, and a lot of DDs as well.

Realistic works both ways.

 

Also, there's a big difference between surface search radar and fire control radar. The first is rather easy and most ships had it by the end of WWII. Radar guided fire control is a lot harder and only major capital ships of the USN, RN, and kind of the Germans had it and then really only by mid war at the earliest. And it was a completely different system than the surface search radar (or air search and targeting radars for that matter). So the dispersion thing isn't that realistic.

This would be going "full realism" which is not what I suggested.  If you can see a playable way to make 30km radar work, I'd be interested in how it might work.

In regard to search vs target:  I'm not an expert but have enough knowledge to know the two are somewhat in opposition.  In the case of WoWs that could be a "good thing"© as it allows the player to make intelligent trade-offs like situational awareness vs accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[VAE]
Members
44 posts
3,910 battles
32 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

I know. It's just amusing that about once a month we get a DD player who wants radar nerfed, uses realism as support for the argument, but never mentions the other half of a realistic implementation.

I think most of the "game should be more realistic" group don't realize that realistic WOWS is just World of CVs.

This misses the point by a large margin.  I proposed an concept of "playable realism" and gave what an application of the concept might look like for the purpose of illustrating how it might be applied.  As far as "the other half" goes -- I did explicitly say playable which should rule out a single class of ships dominating the game.  It is easier to paint a person a selfish by and then fight off a ridiculous strawman proposal then to engage in a "what if" discussion.

The idea was to start a conversation about how to improve WoWs, how to make it more immersive, how to give it adequate depth, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[VAE]
Members
44 posts
3,910 battles
44 minutes ago, awiggin said:

You really don't understand why it's become a complete arcade game?

It doesn't prevent me from thinking about how things might be better.  Mistakes can be fixed.  I'm not one for accepting them as irreversible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,425 posts
40,904 battles
26 minutes ago, ZeroCoolant said:

This would be going "full realism" which is not what I suggested.  If you can see a playable way to make 30km radar work, I'd be interested in how it might work.

In regard to search vs target:  I'm not an expert but have enough knowledge to know the two are somewhat in opposition.  In the case of WoWs that could be a "good thing"© as it allows the player to make intelligent trade-offs like situational awareness vs accuracy.

Oh, but many, many, players seldom do intelligent trade offs. Just funny ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles
1 hour ago, ZeroCoolant said:

Hello dear every-person,

I'd like to suggest a 2021 focus:  "playable realism".  What is playable realism you ask?  It is applying real-world mechanics (e.g. physics, electronics, etc.) to make the game more complex while retaining playability.  Certain shortcuts present in the game today are difficult to take seriously.  Allow me to provide an example:  radar.  Today it is a magic "reveal all" button that is bound by two factors: radius and duration.  Feels good...in part because everyone knows what to do:  park by an island near a cap and wait to pounce on a DD.  What would playable realism look like?

1.  Radar is line of sight:  radio waves travel and bounce back in a straight line.  So you can, if you are clever still do the same thing and pounce on a DD, but at a risk to yourself -- you have to at least see the cap.

2.  Radar improves range measurements.  This can be modelled by lowering gun dispersion when firing on a targeted ship.

3.  Radar leaves evidence.  When radar is in use every other player gets an RPF-like direction finder pointing at the radar-employing ship assuming they are being irradiated due to being in line of sight and within range.  Although I'm not sure that the range aspect should apply here since a signal too weak to bounce back may still be strong enough to receive and evaluate.

 

WDYT dear internet randos?

hi Zero,

I think the changes in radar you suggest might make DD play more fun, but there is a complexity issue involved that would probably not interest WG devs much. Just changing radar to line of sight would be much simpler, and provide some relief to the DD mains among us. Can already hear the squalling radar CA, BB and (and DD) players...

When reading the vast majority of the posts in which 'realism' in gameplay is mentioned, i cringe... CVs and Naval Intelligence were the major naval battle influencers in several theatres in WW2, and if there's more realism in game, we're going to be having more CVs, and together with submarines, is going to be having a major impact on game play. The worst of it in my imagination will be forcing players into playing like team members if there is any interest in winning battles regularly.

Am curious to see what effect Subs will have in game play, as in most theaters subs were in a role of anti supply line (which, with the short battle times, is not going to be a factor in WoWs), and intelligence gathering, which has been handed over to CVs, and some still rests with DDs. From what i've seen with Sub game play, with the stupid homing torps that were rarely used, and only vs warships and not tankers, and the detection and spotting issues, there will be precious little realism involved.

Appreciate the suggestion, as Radar as is can be a real PITA with no counter (other than the all too rare good team playing like a good team), and tried to keep it positive. Have fun!

spud

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,306
[WORX]
Members
11,456 posts
19,196 battles

At this point and time, the lines are clear as to which ship classes get the realism or the arcade treatment.

Lets not blur those lines... Then will have a problem with "selective realism" VS "selective arcade"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[VAE]
Members
44 posts
3,910 battles
1 hour ago, Navalpride33 said:

At this point and time, the lines are clear as to which ship classes get the realism or the arcade treatment.

Lets not blur those lines... Then will have a problem with "selective realism" VS "selective arcade"

Can you elaborate?  I'm not familiar with these lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,588
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,157 posts
5,666 battles
On 10/27/2020 at 2:15 PM, ZeroCoolant said:

Can you elaborate?  I'm not familiar with these lines.

He thinks DDs are more realistic and BBs are unrealistically buffed.  He doesn't cop to the fact that DDs are the most unrealistically buffed ships in the game.  Well, prior to submarines being added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[PYK]
Beta Testers
209 posts
2,419 battles
On 10/27/2020 at 11:53 AM, ZeroCoolant said:

Hello dear every-person,

I'd like to suggest a 2021 focus:  "playable realism".  What is playable realism you ask?  It is applying real-world mechanics (e.g. physics, electronics, etc.) to make the game more complex while retaining playability.  Certain shortcuts present in the game today are difficult to take seriously.  Allow me to provide an example:  radar.  Today it is a magic "reveal all" button that is bound by two factors: radius and duration.  Feels good...in part because everyone knows what to do:  park by an island near a cap and wait to pounce on a DD.  What would playable realism look like?

1.  Radar is line of sight:  radio waves travel and bounce back in a straight line.  So you can, if you are clever still do the same thing and pounce on a DD, but at a risk to yourself -- you have to at least see the cap.

2.  Radar improves range measurements.  This can be modelled by lowering gun dispersion when firing on a targeted ship.

3.  Radar leaves evidence.  When radar is in use every other player gets an RPF-like direction finder pointing at the radar-employing ship assuming they are being irradiated due to being in line of sight and within range.  Although I'm not sure that the range aspect should apply here since a signal too weak to bounce back may still be strong enough to receive and evaluate.

 

WDYT dear internet randos?

This would be a step in the right direction as long as it doesn't increase the current amount of micro-management. The game can only get realism to certain extent as a ship with thousands of crew members onboard must now be controlled by 1 person with only a keyboard and a mouse. If you want to experience how too much realism becomes detrimental to gameplay, try [edited] Naval Forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23
[FEB-M]
Members
38 posts
4,153 battles

Also, early radar were NOT PRECISE, so also simulate that, i.e, instead of a dot corresponding to a ship, make it a big oval, with inherent imprecision.

Any ship USING RADAR becomes visible to all other ships, at same distance it's radar reaches. That's simple RDF, and a reason to NOT use radar all the time, with all ships. Tradeoff, you see far, they see you back.

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.

×