Long Range versus Close Range encounters

[Barubary]

Hello everyone!

 

I want to make it blunt, and please share your opinions on this. I think currently the cannons are way to accurate on long range engagements. You can broadside enemies multiple kilometers away. To counter this, maybe we could have two aiming modes, one long range one that is much more imprecise to what we have now, and a close one, let's say about 500m in. I think the current aiming model is way to precise on long distances. There might be historical references or something but it just doesn't feel right at the moment. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

[Galileus]

There is a damage and penetrative power falloff over distances. It's much better idea than two aiming modes, which sound like a terrible clutch fix from QoL standpoint.

 

Then again, I have no problem with long range engagements in the first place.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

A number of us agree that there should be increased dispersion at longer range, especially vertical dispersion.  This simulates a smooth bore cannon's firing characteristics, as well as the inability of a gun crew to sight as effectively at longer distances - this can be equated to firing a modern rifle with iron sights.  At closer ranges, it is easier to use the fat front blade, at longer ranges the blade might obscure the target completely as you raise the muzzle higher to account for bullet drop.  As the blade obscures the target, figuring out exactly where you're aiming becomes far more difficult.  I think the same thing happens with the cannon.  As you elevate to deal with additional drop, the front of the cannon obscures the distant ship, making aiming more difficult.

 

After a certain distance, I'd like to see an exponential increase in dispersion, both vertical and horizontal.  This should bring engagements far closer together.

[Hethwill]

Long guns in game shoot at around 1600 yards, by naked eye estimation ( game scale is quite okay for estimation ). For range is okay. For accuracy this should be a complete mess with ball everywhere, falling short and wide. 

 

While the broadside concentration of shot has a high accuracy in game, where you can effectively pin point a full length all at over the 800 yards what is really upsetting is that the "shot by shot" sequence seems to overrule the dispersion calculations and every ball goes in a copycat curve very precisely into the target. At 800 yards, IRL, the vertical dispersion should result in a 100 yards spacing in depth and similar in wide angle.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Good estimate sir.  I believe the range for regular guns is 1200 yards, and long guns, 1400 yard according to the XML files.  

[Barubary]

There should be some middle ground to what we have versus realistic shooting, i believe. I understand that in order to have fun gameplay you have to make changes to how cannons work, but a little more "spray" certainly would help the guessing game. As it is now, once your pot shot hits close to home, everything else that follows does hit if the enemy if aligned properly. It certainly would prolong battles, but as i take it this would make engagements a little bit more interesting, until you reach that point of no return (pass to really really broadside), make it a little bit more personal.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Barubary

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

I'm not sure it would have a greatly measured effect prolonging battles really.  If you know you're not going to hit much at 1200 yards, you're going to close the distance to attack at a distance at which you know you can score good hits.  If anything, because of lack of penetration at extreme distance, using this mechanic to encourage players to close the range might shorten battles slightly, as players will not see as many no-penetration hits, so that when they close to a distance with less dispersion, they'd have a higher likelihood of doing actual damage when they're seeing balls hitting the enemy, allowing more damage to be done sooner in the match.

[B24LIBERATOR]

I'm not an expert, but I've been thinking about this as well, and it does seem the cannons are extremely accurate for what they are. I doubt these cannonballs are very precisely made and the shots would probably behave more like a musket than a modern howitzer. On top of that you have a crew of men (not one man) aiming each and every gun... how are they able to all fire on the exact same point every time?

[Clinch]

I do believe in damage model 4.0 long range broadsides will be less effective (ie-no penetration)

[Hethwill]

A review on the spread and single shot ball attitude is enough to achieve the result posted

Also a review on the ship+aim effect on the guns might be needed - I say this because I keep my aim on the spot and even if my ship rolls a bit ( effectively putting guns out of range training and aim point ) the shots still fly true. Spikers are very fast in training the guns

 

And yes, very eager to see 4.0 coming into test production.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Hethwill_Khan

[Barubary]

Yes, as this is still alpha i am sure the devs will do their best to ensure fair engagements. What i do not want to see is small (or any ships really) ships staying just outside firing range and kiting the enemy into submission. It can be done, but as it is now i fear that - especially with ship loss mechanics in mind - everyone and his grandmother _will_ abuse his sniping range to the maximum. By lowering far distance accuracy a lot i think this game can benefit, is all. People should think twice before going all in.

 

On another note I have to say I really enjoy the direction this game is taking. Can't wait for open world testing. There is nothing like this currently on the market and I'm looking forward to playing with you all.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Barubary

[Galileus]

I do believe in damage model 4.0 long range broadsides will be less effective (ie-no penetration)

 

That, I can get behind. I would rather see snipers be less effective (until they pummel the armor at least), instead of them being completely removed.

[Outsurgent]

Agree that the cannons are far to accurate at then moment, not very realistic as someone already pointed out these shots were crudely cast and not a perfect fit in the barrel. But hopefully the 4.0 damage model will address this with penetration values, ricochets and angling coming into play.

[GreatScott]

It already seems like just about every battle I've been in turns into a close range slug fest.  If we make long range inaccurate does it give people even more reason to go in close range?  Will there ever be a point in shooting from a long distance?

 

Accurate long range guns -  Historical? probably not so much.  Good for the game?  To be determined...

Edited February 20, 2015 by GreatScott

[Magnum]

We are not "recreating" historical battles we are creating new ones - as long as everyone has the same opportunity to win, it need not be 1000% historical.

 

As an example IRL it takes (took) 15 min to make sail and get a SOL under way - in our game it only takes 15 seconds (a 60/1 compression as per the Dev team).

 

If our guns reloaded at 60/1 compression (in 1 to 3 seconds) imagine how arcade THAT would be since IRL British and American gun crews could reload in 1 to 3 minutes - - that's at IRL full speed.

 

So if you want me to have less accurate long range shooting - I want you to take forever to make sail and turn --- meh.

Edited February 20, 2015 by ampaholic

[Barubary]

We are not "recreating" historical battles we are creating new ones - as long as everyone has the same opportunity to win, it need not be 1000% historical.

 

As an example IRL it takes (took) 15 min to make sail and get a SOL under way - in our game it only takes 15 seconds (a 60/1 compression as per the Dev team).

 

If our guns reloaded at 60/1 compression (in 1 to 3 seconds) imagine how arcade THAT would be since IRL British and American gun crews could reload in 1 to 3 minutes - - that's at IRL full speed.

 

So if you want me to have less accurate long range shooting - I want you to take forever to make sail and turn --- meh.

I think you are being a little bit too extreme here. No one suggested to implement such possible mechanics into the game. I do not even want everyone to have an equal change to win. That doesn't make sense at all if you think about it. Certain ships have advantages over other ships. If you bring the wrong ship, you lose, or you flee if possible. All that is suggested is a little more long distance spread, and i really don't think this change is overly dramatic or going into full real mode. No offence taken.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

We are not "recreating" historical battles we are creating new ones - as long as everyone has the same opportunity to win, it need not be 1000% historical.

 

As an example IRL it takes (took) 15 min to make sail and get a SOL under way - in our game it only takes 15 seconds (a 60/1 compression as per the Dev team).

 

If our guns reloaded at 60/1 compression (in 1 to 3 seconds) imagine how arcade THAT would be since IRL British and American gun crews could reload in 1 to 3 minutes - - that's at IRL full speed.

 

So if you want me to have less accurate long range shooting - I want you to take forever to make sail and turn --- meh.

 

That's a non-sequitur sir, it does not follow that one requires the other.  If you'd like to make the argument that making sail or turning should be slower will improve gameplay, please do so.  That argument can't be made by demanding those items be implemented simply because another unrelated item is being implemented.  

 

Increasing long range dispersion also means that, when Open World or the ability to escape a battle comes, a smaller, slower ship has more of an opportunity to get away from the larger ship.  By making the extreme range of the guns less reliable to hit, you increase the survivability of the smaller ship, and increase the meta of "trying to knock away a spar or stay/shroud" with a chaser (on both sides) to allow the pursued and the pursuer to try and slow each other.  That's as opposed to simply getting inside max range, yawing, and giving them an extremely accurate broadside.

[Hethwill]

We are not "recreating" historical battles we are creating new ones - as long as everyone has the same opportunity to win, it need not be 1000% historical.

 

As an example IRL it takes (took) 15 min to make sail and get a SOL under way - in our game it only takes 15 seconds (a 60/1 compression as per the Dev team).

 

If our guns reloaded at 60/1 compression (in 1 to 3 seconds) imagine how arcade THAT would be since IRL British and American gun crews could reload in 1 to 3 minutes - - that's at IRL full speed.

 

So if you want me to have less accurate long range shooting - I want you to take forever to make sail and turn --- meh.

 

Distances and size modeled in game are the same as IRL. Scale is 1:1 ( a yard in game is a yard ) therefore we should keep it 1:1 for anything relating to distances and measures. Therefore shot dispersion should not be sacrificed. It doesn't make the game any more fun if you have precision shots versus historical spread.

 

Sail and reload, sure. No way I'm going to sit through Trafalgar historical duration. Time as a measure factor undergoing compression is a very accepted thing in gaming, whether tabletop or computer.

 

( historical freaccuracy has its place. a full Battle of Britain mission in some games in true real time is great fun or fighting Antietam through Scourge of War by the minute is also epic fun. No kidding. )

Edited February 20, 2015 by Hethwill_Khan

[Galileus]

It doesn't make the game any more fun if you have precision shots versus historical spread.

 

Yes, it does. RNG is a major fun sink in any kind of a skill-based game.

[SirWili]

Yes, it does. RNG is a major fun sink in any kind of a skill-based game.

Shaved off shotguns not fun?

Edited February 21, 2015 by SirWili

[PrezesOi]

Fighting on extreme distance attracts specific type of players - those who ignore the fact that they are playing a multiplayer game. In extreme cases, griefer-like behavior is almost always connected with kiting.

Increasing long range dispersion is an excellent idea, also in terms of the Open World, mentioned by Henry d'Esterre Darby.

Edited February 21, 2015 by PrezesOi

[Hethwill]

Yes, it does. RNG is a major fun sink in any kind of a skill-based game.

 

Maybe my english is not too good on phrase construction.

 

At the moment the precision is unrealistic for smoothbore shooting from a ever moving ship. Spread should be increased accordingly and there are enough documentation and mathematics calculating this. In no moment did I write anything about RNG and this is no WoT where they dumped all historical credibility given their distances are laughable. Here we can effectively use all calculations ruling distance, spread and power of shot.

 

RNG is no fun. Historical credibility is.

[NorthernWolves]

A number of us agree that there should be increased dispersion at longer range, especially vertical dispersion.

Yes, especially firing chain, there should be massive vertical dispersion with it. 

[Galileus]

RNG is no fun. Historical credibility is.

 

Yeah, I will have to go with "no" on this one too?

[Taki1980]

Hello everyone!

 

I want to make it blunt, and please share your opinions on this. I think currently the cannons are way to accurate on long range engagements. You can broadside enemies multiple kilometers away. To counter this, maybe we could have two aiming modes, one long range one that is much more imprecise to what we have now, and a close one, let's say about 500m in. I think the current aiming model is way to precise on long distances. There might be historical references or something but it just doesn't feel right at the moment. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

 

Aiming Precision on the Crew after a Ranging Shot is way to high in PVP right now. But after Crew Management kicks in i hope that this will change. On the other Hand even single Hits should matter more. A well placed, or lucky hit Salvo should have a greater impact on the outcome of a Battle.