Enemies visible damage Yes or No (Health Bars)?

[Baggywrinkle]

I'm honestly struggling to see how or why the UI makes any difference to the lengths of battles (something we all seem to agree on). "I guarantee it" hasn't convinced me, though I don't disagree necessarily. Can anyone provide any more info?

My main objection to healthbars is purely aesthetic, nothing to do with realism or historical accuracy or making the game hardcore. Again, it's not that I don't want the information, I just would rather have it presented in a way that is a little more involved and immersive than having stats and ppercentages shown so blatantly all the time. I agree with AKP that new players may not understand the significance of some damage visuals - though is that any different to any new player of any game? - but I don't see how they'd fail to learn.

I work at sea, gaming a couple weeks a year in a very casual manner. All my suggestions come not from wanting a hard-core realism sim of a game, but from trying to convey some of what makes the sailing of these amazing vessels so special in the real world. Part of that is employing all available senses, experience and intuition for information, rather than relying on data sheets and figures. Can't understand why the more vocal, though not more numerous going by the poll, members of the community aren't more interested in exploring options other than conventional health bars.

As it happens, despite or because of c.20hrs flying time logged (not a lot I know, and mostly as a cadet a few years back now) I've flown icons off on pc games. For me a good measure of immersion and 'realism' comes from learning how things are presented in game and learning how to respond accordingly. The ShackTac approach to realism

Baggy

Ps. Claims that the workload of a gamer is higher than a captain of a fighting vessel in action are properly hilarious

[Edward Vernon]

I am with Baggy to a degree. I am also NOT completely against the idea of a finite length of a battle, I completely get the whole "life pressures" thing, I have them too, but by the same token anyone who wants a battle timer that caps out at 30 minutes needs to play another game IMO, this is NOT (I hope!) going to be WoT at Sea. I can well imagine many battles taking 20 - 40 minutes max and reaching a natural conclusion in that time, but I REALLY DO NOT want a timer at anything less than say 90 minutes. Part of the glory of this game to me is going to be in the "cat and mouse" of the battle, trying to outmanouever the enemy and particularly in a smaller v larger ship situation achieve my unlikely victory, but it WILL take time. This is not meant to be an arcade style game. What I also do not get is that some of you arguing for short finite battle time limits are the very people elsewhere wanting no "warp" across the vast emptiness of the great oceans and will happily spend 7 days or more in Real Time crossing the Atlantic. Talk about confused?!?!?!?!?

 

The idea of the Stop Battle button if agreed by all I can fully support. Or the "Flee" option. Or any other form of "I quit" mechanism, which should allow those whose time is short to decline getting drawn into the longer battles, but PLEASE don't turn this into an arcade game for all of us...

[Edward Vernon]

Sorry... one more thought....if we could have a Quit Now button, how about another one that would allow both parties to extend the battle timer, say available within the last 10 minutes of the pre-set time, gving an option to extend for another 15 minutes? This could be repeated up to 6 (or any other number you choose, I'll not argue other than it should be repeatable more than once) times?

[Chilly Willy]

Like the idea of mutual time extending

or leave now option

We also need ship protection from disconnection would be a bummer to loose a boat in that way

[RAMJB]

I am with Baggy to a degree. I am also NOT completely against the idea of a finite length of a battle, I completely get the whole "life pressures" thing, I have them too, but by the same token anyone who wants a battle timer that caps out at 30 minutes needs to play another game IMO, this is NOT (I hope!) going to be WoT at Sea. I can well imagine many battles taking 20 - 40 minutes max and reaching a natural conclusion in that time, but I REALLY DO NOT want a timer at anything less than say 90 minutes. Part of the glory of this game to me is going to be in the "cat and mouse" of the battle, trying to outmanouever the enemy and particularly in a smaller v larger ship situation achieve my unlikely victory, but it WILL take time. This is not meant to be an arcade style game. What I also do not get is that some of you arguing for short finite battle time limits are the very people elsewhere wanting no "warp" across the vast emptiness of the great oceans and will happily spend 7 days or more in Real Time crossing the Atlantic. Talk about confused?!?!?!?!?

 

As in everything the middle point is the adequate one. I'd also like a no time limit battle, but the reasons for asking for one I can understand perfectly, they're realistic concerns. The time limit is needed.

 

I also think said time limit should be at the bare minimum 60minutes (unless both sides agree to get out of the battle before), however. As I said somewhere else, someone who doesn't like long battles and slow pacing it's looking at the wrong game here. There's nothing wrong with people enjoying fast paced battles - but they have more than enough games that accomodate for that style to play, to come here and demand this to suit their needs.

 

But said that, a timer should be in place. Probably one which lasts for a good while (60 minutes for me would be OK-ish), but still that puts a timer to the end of a battle. I also think that disengage mechanics should be there, aswell as the "end battle if everyone agrees". Oh and the "get more time before battle ends" if everyone agrees is also a very good idea.

 

So again,  as in most things in life going to the extremes would probably cause more problems than solutions. But if we find a nice middle point of compromise of maybe one hour timers, or even 90 minute ones, probably most issues related with battles "taking too long" will be mostly gone. And again, I have to agree: if someone looks at a game that offers battles that can last one hour or longer and thinks is "slow paced", "boring" or anything of the like, then there's nothing wrong with that. I hear World of WArships is in closed beta and releasing soon, and in that one you'll get 15 minute battles with ludicrous pacing. But that kind of game is what it is, and this kind of game is what it is. I don't go to Wargaming forums demanding for high realism and no time limits on the games - because I know that's not the kind of game that suits me. In the same way, I expect people whose game preferences are on the fast paced/arcadeish games not to come here demanding for short timers and fast action.

 

Each game has an audience. And there's nothing wrong with some people coming here, taking a look and saying "wow, this seems boring". That's perfectly fine. Doesn't mean this game should have to suit itself for that kind of player. I sincerely hope NA devs  never fall in the trap or are lured into trying to fetch that kind of player, for their game is targetted at a very different audience. And as many times in the past has been proven, if you start with the idea of targetting one kind of audience and then you start modifying things to make it attractive to a very, widely, different audience, the result is a disaster where they alienate the customers they actually were aiming for with the game, while they really never make themselves attractive to the other audience anyway.

Happened to Red Orchestra 2, is happening with War Thunder, and the list goes on and on and on. I just PRAY for this not to happen here aswell.

 

 

 

 

We also need ship protection from disconnection would be a bummer to loose a boat in that way

 

 

Well, yes, but here a problem comes up. Because while it's a bummer to have a disco and losing your ship, something should prevent people from "pulling the plug" and intentionally disconnecting to avoid losing a ship themselves. Some sort of solution has to be found that somehow prevents the former without allowing for the exploits of the latter...

[Edward Vernon]

Neatly put RAM. I would vote for that.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

No to the disconnection idea. It is impossible the detect a true disconnect from someone pulling the Ethernet cable.

[Mirones]

and i disagreed there have been some times durring testing where we just had to jump out of the match because alot of both sides disco for no real reason and cant log back in. where not talking about the ship disapearing and reapearing even potbs did this thing right.

[AKPyrate]

I just have somewhat a spotty internet connection at times.  There's nothing better available in town.  Additionally, power outages are not rare in the winter and can take an hour or more to have that power restored.  Those are just some of the things I have trouble with regularly, but any number of other problems can occur as well.  I've had disconnect issues with World of Warplanes/Tanks while logging in to a battle before, especially when playing with people from overseas.  Quitting the game, restarting it, logging back on, and hopefully still being able to connect to that battle is sometimes time consuming enough to make a huge difference (logging on dead sucks).  Obviously this game is supposed to be a much slower pace, but if you can see that an enemy is making absolutely no moves, it would be easy to press on and get a raking shot or two in before they're back.  I understand the idea of people pulling the plug just before a defeat, but I also really don't like the idea of possibly loosing a ship due to technical difficulties far beyond my control (that power outage thing really blows sometimes).

[Edward Vernon]

I feel your pain AK......but triptyx also had a good point above about the "pulling the Ethernet cable" type of disco that some unscrupulous types (no one here as yet, I am sure ) would do to avoid a bad loss of any other type of penalty such as there may be for quitting mid battle.  It's a tough one. Maybe the devs have something up their collective sleeves for this one?

[Chilly Willy]

No to the disconnection idea. It is impossible the detect a true disconnect from someone pulling the Ethernet cable.

Yep gotta agree with you there

[Destraex]

Option to save in battle? Sport off. Lliiikkee swwwoorrdd. Off tthhee ssttarss

[Johny Reb]

I'm honestly struggling to see how or why the UI makes any difference to the lengths of battles (something we all seem to agree on). "I guarantee it" hasn't convinced me, though I don't disagree necessarily. Can anyone provide any more info?

It makes a difference to the average length of battle in this way and primarily with group fights. In all likely hood your group will focus on a single ship until it strikes, sinks or runs but a ship in most cases will have met their demise before any of those reactions happen. It will be unable to overcome the leaks and will sink no matter what therefore it will fight till it sinks or it will fight until the water forces him to surrender to save the ship. If he runs he has probably reached a point that the only thing keeping him afloat is in survival mode which is no condition to fight and he will be unable to salvage the ship if he takes another broadside or two.

Now, 5 minutes before he makes these decisions to run, strike, or sink he already knows its gonna happen but you wouldn't so your group will continue to focus on him for the next 5 minutes until something happens with him. Maybe another couple of broadsides. You will do this when you should really be focusing in on another ship but since you arnt you are adding 5 minutes to the fight to attack a ship thats already doomed.

Now believe me this scenario actually sounds fun to me. The admiral of your fleet is forced to make good decisions on how long to focus on one before switching to another and that judgement could effect the outcome of the fight. So it brings in an aspect of skill and experience in the admirals orders but in lieu of great decisions I'm afraid that groups will generally still be firing on a ship that already is doomed and then they will do it again with the next ship and the next. Each time extending the length of the battle.

 

I know I've done it. I've been firing on a ship that unexpectedly raises its sails and sinks and I sit there thinking "I didn't see that coming."

 

I'm open to being wrong here. Maybe we will be able to gather enough info to make good judgments and not waste our time firing at doomed ships. If so then remove them but I'm afraid it wont be so. I play games for hours at a time when I play. The length of the average battle is not really an issue to me but I'm afraid it will be for many others and I want this game to succeed.

[akd]

It makes a difference to the average length of battle in this way and primarily with group fights. In all likely hood your group will focus on a single ship until it strikes, sinks or runs but a ship in most cases will have met their demise before any of those reactions happen. It will be unable to overcome the leaks and will sink no matter what therefore it will fight till it sinks or it will fight until the water forces him to surrender to save the ship. If he runs he has probably reached a point that the only thing keeping him afloat is in survival mode which is no condition to fight and he will be unable to salvage the ship if he takes another broadside or two.

Now, 5 minutes before he makes these decisions to run, strike, or sink he already knows its gonna happen but you wouldn't so your group will continue to focus on him for the next 5 minutes until something happens with him. Maybe another couple of broadsides. You will do this when you should really be focusing in on another ship but since you arnt you are adding 5 minutes to the fight to attack a ship thats already doomed.

Now believe me this scenario actually sounds fun to me. The admiral of your fleet is forced to make good decisions on how long to focus on one before switching to another and that judgement could effect the outcome of the fight. So it brings in an aspect of skill and experience in the admirals orders but in lieu of great decisions I'm afraid that groups will generally still be firing on a ship that already is doomed and then they will do it again with the next ship and the next. Each time extending the length of the battle.

 

I know I've done it. I've been firing on a ship that unexpectedly raises its sails and sinks and I sit there thinking "I didn't see that coming."

 

I'm open to being wrong here. Maybe we will be able to gather enough info to make good judgments and not waste our time firing at doomed ships. If so then remove them but I'm afraid it wont be so. I play games for hours at a time when I play. The length of the average battle is not really an issue to me but I'm afraid it will be for many others and I want this game to succeed.

I haven't and don't see this happening. You are acting like the only trade-off is time, but the time your team spends hammering a defeated ship is time the other team is using to hammer you, which means you lose faster.

Now mind you, in the absence of incentives to surrender, fights will extend past the point where one side has already lost, but I don't see enemy health bars driving that. Incentives to offer surrenders and accept surrenders are far more important.

[Sir. Cunningham]

IF and only IF the damage model on the ships is improved to the point where we will be able to visibly observe and determine the amount of damage a ship has sustained with reasonable (realistic) accuracy, would I want the healthbars to disappear completely.

 

Otherwise a compromise might be needed, such as only being able to see the healthbar at a certain distance without telescope, to simulate the distance your eyes can spot such details, whilst forcing you to use the telescope to see the healthbar at longer distances.

 

I am of course hoping for an extensive and detailed damage model so that we can get rid of the healthbar altogether, but I'm not sure how feasible that is.

[Ligatorswe]

Agree, Panthera!

[Hawke]

Perhaps an option to toggle enemy damage on and off in the menu? It's not really an advantage, unless you're doing something like switching shot types based on how damaged your enemy is, but if you're deciding to turn off the damage indicator then you should be well enough versed in the game to make those kinds of decisions anyway. 

[Johny Reb]

I haven't and don't see this happening. You are acting like the only trade-off is time, but the time your team spends hammering a defeated ship is time the other team is using to hammer you, which means you lose faster.

Now mind you, in the absence of incentives to surrender, fights will extend past the point where one side has already lost, but I don't see enemy health bars driving that. Incentives to offer surrenders and accept surrenders are far more important.

I do see this happening at times at least. The opposite team has the same problem as you and are doing the same thing. Focusing in on a ship already defeated. I'm not arguing that lack of health bars adds alot of time to a battle, just to much. I admit that to some degree I am making an assumption but I believe initially it is unavoidable. Maybe over time people will be able to develop a skill to know when enough is enough and switch targets. That remains to be seen but in the mean time I'm just simply saying I don't want to see even one more minute added to the average fight. I like it where its at. If you think battles are already to short than maybe it doesnt matter to you

[BrutishVulgarian]

I like the idea of wasting fire on doomed ships, it seems realistic. If your in a real life gun fight you're probably going to waste bullets on dead targets just to make sure they don't shoot you in the back.

[Ligatorswe]

Yes BritishVulgarian. There are many such stories from the battles of old. Ship already defeated but attacked still-

[Destraex]

I like the idea of wasting fire on doomed ships, it seems realistic. If your in a real life gun fight you're probably going to waste bullets on dead targets just to make sure they don't shoot you in the back.

If they do not strike its open slather

[akd]

I do see this happening at times at least. The opposite team has the same problem as you and are doing the same thing. Focusing in on a ship already defeated.

Until they wise up and learn to shift fire earlier based on judgement rather than direct quantitative feedback. Then that team wins faster. There is no mechanic that forces you to fire on a single ship for any given amount of time. It's either "I think we've hit him hard enough, judgement call: let's shift fire" or "based on health bars I can see we delivered exactly the right amount of damage, now let's shift fire and deliver exactly the same amount of damage to another ship before repeating the process."

But again, the real factor that will drive the average fight longer is lack of surrender, regardless of damage feedback. In fact, in a system where damage feedback is limited, but there are real incentives to give and take surrenders, fighting your ship far past the point of no return would be an interesting tactical decision only taken in extreme situations, rather than the current norm.

[Johny Reb]

Until they wise up and learn to shift fire earlier based on judgement rather than direct quantitative feedback. Then that team wins faster. There is no mechanic that forces you to fire on a single ship for any given amount of time. It's either "I think we've hit him hard enough, judgement call: let's shift fire" or "based on health bars I can see we delivered exactly the right amount of damage, now let's shift fire and deliver exactly the same amount of damage to another ship before repeating the process."

But again, the real factor that will drive the average fight longer is lack of surrender, regardless of damage feedback. In fact, in a system where damage feedback is limited, but there are real incentives to give and take surrenders, fighting your ship far past the point of no return would be an interesting tactical decision only taken in extreme situations, rather than the current norm.

Well, agreed. How the surrender mechanic is implemented could change my whole outlook. There would have to be a true incentive to surrender rather than fight till the ship is underwater. If done correctly, then a surrender mechanic, I believe, would actually reduce the length of battle balancing out my concerns with status bar removal.

[Edward Vernon]

Well we have all expressed opinions and given the devs plenty to think about. I guess once again, I am now inclined to say lets see what we are given, trust the devs to get it right and then if it isn't right we can advise them accordingly. For me I would RATHER NOT have the health bars, but I don't think it would drastically diminish my game experience if they were present.

[RAMJB]

IF and only IF the damage model on the ships is improved to the point where we will be able to visibly observe and determine the amount of damage a ship has sustained with reasonable (realistic) accuracy, would I want the healthbars to disappear completely.

 

And even then you should make sure that whoever has a lower end rig and runs the game with lower detail as a result isn't penalized by it at all. Which is a pretty tough thing to guarantee...