Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

DougToss

Members2
  • Posts

    458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

DougToss last won the day on December 13 2021

DougToss had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

DougToss's Achievements

Junior Lieutenant

Junior Lieutenant (6/13)

799

Reputation

  1. I just wanted to say again that the tempo of work and communication is appreciated. I know I’ve been hard on @Nick Thomadis asking for gunnery and ballistics improvements for years now. To actually see them begin to come to fruition is really reassuring.
  2. I agree that spotting, gunnery, ballistics and particularly ship systems need very serious work. There's been a lot of progress, and I think development has trended in an overwhelmingly positive direction, especially since the Devs are far more engaged with the community. Still, now that the bare bones of the campaign are there, these unglamorous underlying systems could probably use a dedicated update or two IMO. I know it's a lot of work, so maybe that's a project to work on over the quarter or year, but I think it would go a long way.
  3. Is there a changelog? Maybe in the Steam News page?
  4. First and foremost, Spotting, as others have said. Height-based spotting to the horizon, that is then reduced by time of day and weather. Gunnery - as others have said, more closely match historical data, separate precision from accuracy. Fire Control - More errors of the type we would expect to see: Miscalculating range, error in range rate etc. rather than target speed influencing gunnery. Even the best fire control in 1890 was very, very poor beyond 1000m. Ballistics - Ideally more realistic dispersion due to spin drift, atmospheric conditions etc. This would be nice, but it's not as essential as above. Damage - I'm going to limit this to floatation for the moment: Flooding and capsize as major factors, as well as stability changes from taking on water and so on. Warships sank from cumulative damage, so it would be good to see how each shell further reduces the fighting ability of a ship - in more ways than a simple health bar.
  5. Honestly this would likely make the biggest difference both here and on Steam.
  6. Sorry for tripple-posting, but you say this about every single game system, endlessly. We’re here, prior to release giving feedback, because we paid money with the understanding our input would change things. Otherwise why have early access? Listen, I don’t really understand what your deal is or why you so vehemently oppose other players on this for seemingly no reason, maybe you think if we clam up the game will be “finished” sooner, but “Oh well fellas, it is how it is.” is worse than counterproductive. If you’re happy with how things are - great! You don’t have to provide feedback then, and I’m glad for you, but running interference when other people try is not doing the Devs a favour, it’s just bad form.
  7. This seems to be the main issue for nearly all of this - gunnery, fire control, floatation, survivability, propulsion. On the scale of the ocean, 20km is a tactical distance, like 400m is to the rifleman.
  8. I think this sums it up. People are used to games where you can hit whatever you see. It’s why they complain that accuracy is too low (it’s not, and should be lower but I digress) and that visibility is too far. They, naturally, want there to be distances where ships can’t be hit - @Skeksis argument - by virtue of not being seen. That makes sense in gameplay terms as they understand it. They want units to be survivable, or else it would be a battle of annihilation - but that’s only true if gunnery and fire control were exponentially better than in reality! What I’m saying is, Detection ≠ Engagement! Seeing a distant ship and hitting it are not the same thing! This is what @Littorio means! The better optics let you better engage (hit) them, because otherwise they may as well be invisible - you can’t hit them anyway. In reality, we are talking about single digit hit rates on warships that can only be sunk by cumulative damage (another thing they complain about)! Seeing the enemy ≠ shooting the enemy ≠ sinking the enemy.
  9. Do you see what @akd @Steeltrap @ColonelHenry and @Littorio mean yet? Listen, if you just say “I like WOWS mechanics”, it’s fine. I disagree, of course, but then I won’t have to try to convince you of something you are dead set against being convinced of. Right now it seems as if you keep missing what everybody else is saying, despite them putting quite a bit of work into their arguments.
  10. Nick had a run of being active for about a week, a week or two ago, but… ugh. It’s frustrating for sure, especially as we’re trying to help them address the flaws by pointing them out. I’m still bothered by the community being called “toxic” by the devs, that was a slap in the face.
  11. Jackie Fisher? Is that you!? 🤔 It would be suicidal for a country to throw away their fleet-in-being for no gain. Their goal is to avoid a decisive battle unless they have the advantage of bringing a smaller part of the enemy to battle.
  12. It was fairly common for that to be used, I believe by the Royal Navy, possibly the High Seas Fleet as well.
  13. You can’t manoeuvre your fleet to cross the T of the invisible fleet that is firing on you from 3000m away on a clear day. Real tactics require real conditions. Consider the speed and turning radius of a warship - those manoeuvres exist on a battlefield that can be seen to the horizon, and planned accordingly.
  14. I know better than to argue with you by now, but this is the opposite of reality. I cannot stress that enough. For most of the dreadnought era, the larger fleet would be unable to use a numeral advantage because they could NOT concentrate fires. They had no way to coordinate, and no way to tell their own splashes apart from those of friendly warships and make adjustments. It made their gunnery effectiveness and accuracy much MUCH worse. Later, range clocks, bearings painted on turrets, dye bags and better signals remedies this somewhat, but good lord you could not be more wrong if you tried.
×
×
  • Create New...