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

Increased Dispersion for Indirectly Spotted Targets - Balance & Engagement Suggestion

3 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

22
[CAP]
Members
139 posts
9,511 battles

There have been several threads discussing the bow armor changes, and other changes to address the viability of high-tier gameplay. I don't know if it has been suggested before ... my rudimentary search kept getting errors instead of results ... but I'd like to suggest an increased dispersion for shots fired at ships which are not directly acquired. In other words, if I'm firing at a ship that I can only see because of someone else on my team spotting it, then my shots should be less accurate.


 

The basis for this mechanic is that indirectly spotted ship's position has only been radioed in by another ship or a plane. It isn't like a computer targeting system is relaying the information with great accuracy.


 

This mechanic would allow players to see the other ships, and perhaps they could be shaded or the targeting reticle (circle) could be colored or different to indicate that the target is only indirectly spotted.


 

This kind of mechanic keep the feel of the current game while encouraging players to move in so they can better acquire targets and fire more effectively. This would also directly discourage sniping at your team's expense.


 

In case this has been suggested before, or already exists and I've missed it, please let me know. Also, as always, please comment and provide your thoughts.

 

Edit: Another mechanic, but I am concerned with how hard it would be to implement, would be that indirectly spotted targets are only revealed in general terms and blink in and out, but that seems more challenging to implement.

Edited by Unsinge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[SYN]
Members
16,027 posts
12,803 battles

It has been suggested before, but I'm not sure if the devs have seen it either.

First time I've seen this being suggested was back in February

 

 

Yes, I think it's a great idea.

Edited by MrDeaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22
[CAP]
Members
139 posts
9,511 battles

Thanks MrDeaf, hopefully it will be something considered as part of the solution. After all, the skipper of a BB would have reservations about sending a salvo 25km over an island based on the radio reports of another ship that was engaged in close proximity with that enemy.  Or as my father, who is retired Navy would often say: "Sure, you could fire miles away, but you need to own the consequences."

Edited by Unsinge

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.

×