Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

"Long list of issues". OK, I'm confused.

Recommended Posts

Decided to pop in and see what might be happening.

Saw the "issues" thread.

Last message from Nick reads:

Please keep posting your issues here. A new reply will be offered by us, as soon as possible.
We monitor all your latest feedback, to prioritize our work.

Thread is locked.



Will it be unlocked, or should I start posting them here instead?

I'd far rather put them in that "official" thread as there's at least some chance they may be acknowledged which is not my experience with posting my own threads.

Edited by Steeltrap
added question about whether issues thread will be unlocked
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

They might keep it locked for a while then open it up once certian issues have been solved to probs help them read the current issues that need solving.

And then re-open for the next round of issue reports. At least thats what im going by anyways. Seems like they are doing something with armour and gunnery say the least anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone found it super weird. I'm expecting an update in about a week, which I will assume will mean the thread will be brought back up then. We certainly gave them an ear full, they weren't lacking for things to focus on. At some point more isn't needed until the next patch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, admin said:

no need to guess Admirals

The team is getting reshuffled and new senior programmer (and additional one later) is joining mid august. There might be a hotfix before but it wont count as patch at all. All serious work and return to normal will be expected only after the team is stabilized. This is all i am allowed to say on the subject.  

The topic is locked because there is enough requests for review for now. Such topics will come again in the future.

With all due respects, asking us to continue to post in a topic then locking it DOES cause people to scratch their heads.


A bit disappointed to find I missed the boat. Devs might not know it, but I've been pretty active in posting plenty of CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. I put that in caps for emphasis, as I very much sympathise with the devs if all they get are complaints without any sort of suggestions as to what might lead to improvements; having said that, I don't want to suggest that most of the community is guilty of that as there are plenty of active members who make excellent, thoughtful and constructive posts.

Having read through that issues thread, there are certain aspects that I think are pretty vital that have been mentioned MANY times yet are not clearly articulated in that thread. I had planned to produce a list of what I see as the important aspects either not covered, or produce more detailed comments on some that are, and try to refer to earlier threads/posts as well.

The insistence that faster ships are inherently more difficult to hit is baffling, for example. There are some excellent posts that explore that in detail, and I hope the dev team entirely revisits this issue.

@Cptbarney committed the sin of mentioning WoWS, lol, but I think the point he was making was misunderstood and it was a good one in that you guess where the enemy ship will be, fire at that point, and then your shells have baked in dispersion values around your chosen target point AND the target ship in some cases might be able to change course and speed sufficiently to avoid much or all of your shells (obviously the greater the flight time and the smaller, more manoeuvrable the ship the more effective that is).

IMO what the gunnery system really ought to be doing is having a ship produce a "gunnery solution" which in essence places a target point at the best estimate of where the centre of the target ship will be when the shells arrive. The ship then fires its guns. Three factors then come into play:

1. how good was the solution? In other words, how well has the firing ship estimated where the target ship will be? How well have they estimated its range, course and speed, and how well have they plotted that relative to their OWN position as they fire?

2. how "accurate" are the fire control and guns? In other words, how well does the FCS fire the guns so as to hit the target solution point, and how well do the guns deliver the shells to that point? I realise the FCS really combines those things (shell characteristics, wind, humidity, temperature, pitch/roll etc), but it's more or less the same.

3. what does the target ship do from the time the shells are fired to the time they arrive? That, more than anything, is what makes a ship a difficult target, namely the extent to which it CHANGES its positioning compared with the observations on which the solution is based.

While the system is probably doing that by other means, those means clearly have issues compared with a more faithful "place aim here, throw shells down range, see how well shells land around that point AND how close the point was to where the target is when the shells get there; make adjustments to gunnery factors, rinse and repeat" system would produce.

When it comes to the much mentioned target speed,  here's my criticism with the current system that applies a specific +/- value based on speed. I had started gathering those numbers from observations (before it occurred to me YOU already know all this, and apparently our criticisms of it didn't interest/concern you). At 14.0 knots it's -15.7%. At 28.0 it's -67.8%. An increase in speed of 100% increases the penalty by more than 400%. In other words, not only is it harder to hit a target moving more quickly, it's disproportionately so. And it does so without ANY consideration of rates of change of range, so a ship steaming on an absolutely same course and speed as the firing ship, in other words with a relative change of 0, is just as difficult to hit as one travelling at a 180 degree course i,e, directly opposite, which has a net speed of double. It simply is THOROUGHLY UNREALISTIC.

(I also made mention of the equally unrealistic "target manoeuvre" adjustment that throws your aim off by a % and that % is just as high if the ship is doing 0.1 knots as 30 knots, which again is patently nonsense. Yet another problem of the "abstracted gunnery" v "simulated aim and shoot").

There are known mathematical formulae for these things. I'm not sure why the team is seeking to reinvent the wheel rather than starting from the position of attempting to implement those. But then I suppose we could say the same when it comes to reload numbers and rates of torpedoes, too, and a bunch of other things besides. I'd love to see ANY source that suggests a ship can effectively repair an engine to normal performance in a matter of a minute or two if it's been "damaged" either by shellfire, flooding or a torpedo explosion, for example. Sure, repairs sometimes were implemented in battle, but not within a minute or two, and often not at all; it would, of course, depend on the sort of damage (leaking steam line is one thing, flooded boiler room something entirely different).

Indeed the whole issue of damage control (the wonder bulkheads about which I have been writing for more than 6 months) is a huge topic, especially given the current system reeks of WoWS and its "magic spanner" button, but I guess I'll have to wait to see what sort of response comes from that thread then add all this to the new one.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...