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

Battle time?

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,275
Alpha Tester
5,710 posts
2,411 battles

I do believe the Devs have said 20 mins for a standard battle in the Q&A

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,312
Alpha Tester
3,710 posts
1,392 battles

20 sounds about right, if we extrapolate some from that we can say the gameplay will feel 34% slower than wot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,809 posts
1,670 battles

30 mins sounds about right since I assume the maps will be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
4,720 posts
12 battles

View Postgoff, on 09 March 2013 - 09:45 AM, said:

30 mins sounds about right since I assume the maps will be huge.

Its true the maps will be big but its important to remember that a battleships gun range will be able to cover about 1/3rd of the entire map not to mention carrier aircraft and the lesser ranges of the smaller ships. Twenty minutes should be enough time for battle but then again, it just onemore thing to test come beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
598 posts
533 battles

I think this will be one thing we will find out for sure when Alpha testing starts. I curious to see how the map sizes and terrain will factor in to engagement times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,187 posts
58 battles

View Postgoff, on 09 March 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Wonder if they add in weather effect.

goff, buddy, please read the Wiki.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,209
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,679 posts
4,075 battles

20 minutes will be the standard, I have a feeling they might add in something later on like an invasion scenario that might last longer than 20 minutes as a special battle. You never know on that one.

 

Although in Q&A something did come up that makes me wonder, they said the average distance between teams is 35-40km. Someone made the comment that might be hard for the lower tiers to find combat in that 2-4 minute beginning range. So I figure they mean the average is the higher tiers, where as the lower tiers will have different maps like how we have province for low tiers only in WoT, meaning we might have a 15-20km starting range in tier 1-3 and the like, so 20 minutes would still work for those slower, and shorter ranged ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
71
[SIMP]
Alpha Tester
89 posts
12,122 battles

I think if you make it too long you might see too many people trying to avoid combat to draw a match if they are hurt. Camping probably wont be as easy as in WoT but it will almost surely happen that some will try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,022 posts

Camping doesn't work the same in naval combat. It isn't some mass of both teams together in the center, you'll have some smaller vessels (non-BBs) moving about in the center for sure, but the big guns will sit back and snipe, which is their most effective purpose. Camping is just sitting there and doing nothing, where in naval combat it's the most effective role in some cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,347 posts
2 battles

20 minutes seems like it does injustice to the scale of what we're doing, and continues to frighten me that this is going to be a goofy, point-blank game. I don't by any means think scenarios should take hours, but the scope of the battles should not be undermined by a ridiculously fast clock. Looking at another genre, some of the best RTS games I've ever played were about 45-55 minutes... which is to say, they featured a bit of back-and-forth before one side or another prevailed. A 20 minute game would mean very little time for formations, tactics, strategy... just charge and shoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,022 posts

People wouldn't play games that take 30 minutes, and the advancement scale would have to be boosted to account for the lower number of battles possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,187 posts
58 battles

Again Princess, I think you're waiting for the wrong game.  This isn't RTS, and it isn't a simulation.  It's supposed to be a battle royale between large warships, nothing more.  There is certainly strategy, etc. involved, but it's not going to be the chess game for which you seem to be setting your expectations.

 

Take one look at WoT and you'll see what this will be - a fast paced slugfest between two groups of ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,347 posts
2 battles

View Posttriptyx, on 12 March 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

Again Princess, I think you're waiting for the wrong game.  This isn't RTS, and it isn't a simulation.  It's supposed to be a battle royale between large warships, nothing more.  There is certainly strategy, etc. involved, but it's not going to be the chess game for which you seem to be setting your expectations.

Take one look at WoT and you'll see what this will be - a fast paced slugfest between two groups of ships.

Yawn. Why play a game with the greatest toys in the world and then misuse them? It's like shaving with a lightsaber, or using a chainsaw to mow a lawn. You have vessels that can strike out at each other across miles, and you support a project that will have them jousting like knights? Hell, you might as well armor up Yamato and use her to ram people under those circumstances.

What a brainless concept. It would be lovely to see a game that didn't pander to the absolute lowest common demoninator for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,312
Alpha Tester
3,710 posts
1,392 battles

View PostPrincessRoyal, on 12 March 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

armor up Yamato and use her to ram people under those circumstances.

Those were her orders...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,187 posts
58 battles

View PostPrincessRoyal, on 12 March 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Yawn. Why play a game with the greatest toys in the world and then misuse them? It's like shaving with a lightsaber, or using a chainsaw to mow a lawn. You have vessels that can strike out at each other across miles, and you support a project that will have them jousting like knights? Hell, you might as well armor up Yamato and use her to ram people under those circumstances.

What a brainless concept. It would be lovely to see a game that didn't pander to the absolute lowest common demoninator for a change.

For the same reason I play World of Tanks.  I enjoy the ability, in a spare moment or two, to get in a few fun, fast, action packed games.  If I want deep thinking, highly intelligent gameplay, I can turn on Flight Simulator, enable VATSIM, and spend hours monitoring gauges and carefully managing resources in a task-intensive environment. (Ever single-handed a PMDG 737 on an instrument approach during bad weather, all while managing ATC instructions and ensuring you're on slope and on the numbers?  There's a reason most aircraft that large and complex require two pilots.)

Look, Wargaming went out on a ledge, and sunk a bunch of money into World of Tanks a few years ago.  They were banking on filling a gap in gaming, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  They're now trying to accomplish the same gameplay style with WoWp and WoWs.  They're not going to suddenly reverse course and create something that looks nothing like the other two - they know what works, and they're going to exploit that knowledge to the best of their abilities to maximize profits.  The least common denominator is what pays the bills.  There are plenty of ship sims out there already, their intent isn't to compete with those sims, their intent is to create World of Tanks on water.  Fast paced, fun, and easy for folks to pop in a few games in a spare moment (or a lot of games on a lazy afternoon/evening).  That, unfortunately for your expectations, is what has been proven to put Vodka in their glass.

Edit - And please don't think I'm saying you're wrong for thinking the way you do.  I think your idea is a good one, it just doesn't fit WG's business model and intent.  I work in an environment where I manage expectations for a living, and I can sense that you're going to be disappointed.
Edited by triptyx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,312
Alpha Tester
3,710 posts
1,392 battles

View Posttriptyx, on 12 March 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

There are plenty of ship sims out there already

This is news to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×