Search the Community

We all know that the accuracy system is in desperate need of an overhaul. Here's my idea of a system to replace it, which should be feasible from a programming point of view and accurate to history. I think the best way to describe my proposed system is by example: Ship X fires at Ship Y. Upon firing, the game calculates the flight time of X's shells and predicts where Y will be that many seconds in the future based on Y's current speed and heading. At that point (a literal point on the XY grid representing the predicted center of Y) the game will generate two dispersion circles. The first circle, called the Fire Control dispersion circle (FC Circle) represents the accuracy of X's FC systems and is centered on Y's predicted location and generates a point using a random dispersion algorithm (this generated point is where X thinks Y will be). The second dispersion circle is generated on the point created by the FC Circle, this is the Gun dispersion circle and all shells from X will land there. As the shells are physical objects in the game the game can track which compartment the shell hits, if it hits, and do the pen/damage calculations there. Modifiers for the FC Circle: Base accuracy determined by Tower(s) First ranging shot (200% debuff) Second ranging shot (100% debuff) Shots on target (25% buff) [% probably needs adjustment] Under fire (40% debuff) [% probably needs adjustment] Weather (debuff ranging from mild to severe, reduced by radar) Technology modifier (Highly variable buff) Primary FC destroyed (technology buff reduced by 1/3) [located in hull behind main belt] Secondary FC destroyed (technology buff reduced by 2/3) [located in hull behind main belt] {some ships, like CLand DD, don't have a sec FC; in that case if the FC is hit both are considered destroyed} Rangefinders damaged (50% debuff) [Primary OR secondary tower destroyed] Rangefinders destroyed (100% debuff) [Primary AND secondary towers destroyed] {If ship has only one tower the rangefinders are destroyed with the tower} Conning Tower destroyed (20% debuff) Turning beyond 5 degrees resets ranging shot count (need to fire first and second ranging shots again) Ship obstructing view of target (50% debuff) Smoke obstructs target (200% debuff, negated by radar) Radar (150% buff) [Has a chance of being destroyed by battleship caliber guns (12" and higher) firing, the larger the gun the higher the chance. Gen 2 radar has reduced risk of being knockedd out by own guns firing] Radar destroyed (radar bonuses removed) [caused by own guns firing, critical hit to main tower(?), or main tower destroyed] Modifiers for Gun circle: Base accuracy determined by gun Ship instability (variable debuff derived from fore/aft and starboard/port offsets combined with hull base value) [battleships are naturally very stable, CLs and DDs are naturally quite unstable] Damage instability (variable debuff derived from amount of flooding damage) Sea state (debuff ranging from milld to severe) Turret(s) damaged (# of turrets damaged/100% debuff) [Turret indicator at least yellow, I.e if a ship has 2 turrets and one gets damaged it takes a 50% debuff. If both are damaged its a 100% debuff] Swamped (25% debuff) [turrets taking water due to low freeboard, possibly caused by flooding damage or very rough seas] Notes: Each gun caliber has its own dispersion circle. Primary batteries and Secondary batteries have separate FC systems in order to allow for independent targeting. Close readers will notice that its possible for ships to dodge incoming shells by altering course and/or speed after being fired on. That is both intentional and historically accurate, and it means that small, fast, and nimble ships, like CL and DD can dodge main gun batteries of capital ships at long range. However the shorter flight time and higher RoFs of smaller caliber guns, like 4", 5", and 6", are much harder to dodge. For those wondering why you'd need to make ranging shots again after turning, that's exactly what captains needed to do IRL after turning.

As the title implies I believe it would be advantageous to only have a single PVP server. Higher population which leads to more accurate testing Night flips will happen, but to both sides of the world equally, so who can really complain? (oh, they nightflipped us, *as they think back to the 20 times we nightflipped them*) Saves on some confusion in the forums between pvpEU & NA Smaller nations will be able to field 25 in a port battle Will support the recent economic and crafting changes more since it brings in a larger teamwork based system Can have two servers directing towards the same map for everyone, much like how Call of Duty runs. Server Ping actually isnt as bad as everyone makes it, I am in Colorado with a copper connection and get 199-300 ping on eu, which is actually very playable in this slower pace game... can of course optimize the servers more, especially if it turns out you are saving money... Perhaps higher retention rate of players since there will be more players, causing game to rise in the steam market = more players = more money Of course the last one is a bit of a theory, but i believe it will be the case if more players stick around since there will be more help readily available to play the game at a more enjoyable rate. The PVE players can of course keep their server, although, it would be cool to have them in the same server as the PVP players as well, and their safe zone could be. idk.... THAT BEAUTIFUL AREA WEST OF MEXICO IN THE PACIFIC. <--- wanted this to get seen. Which of course all players could access and leave accordingly. Perhaps trade wouldnt be as good over there, but still good enough to enjoy the trade, and enough ai on the open waters to enjoy just pve. How to balance the pve marks and pvp marks then? a zone could be made so that it excludes certain ships, somewhat like port battles do. A ship made with the lowered PVE amount of marks would only be able to combat in the west Pacific side of Mexico. For example... "Santissima" is the normal name. "Santissima" notice the italics, could be the name for a ship that can only combat in the pve region. I am sure this could be coded in, since other exclusions have been in this game. I hope these ideas are seriously considered, because I believe the main problem to be (and I have been playing for over a year and a few months now) too low of a population. On the basis that when pvpNA had 1k+ players this was the most fun game to play ever, period. When there is now 50-120 on, it sucks. A LOT. With the idea of 3 servers, this is what makes this problem, with a SINGLE unified server, it would have at the very least a few hundred players at most times, which would be fantastic! Also, the nightly maintenance thing. Id say make it noon in the middle of an ocean where nowhere plays for 1 hour, OR even Make a daily downloadable hot fix, like Gaijin does when it changes its servers' settings. Godspeed all, OneEyedSnake