Jump to content


Photo

Wows Issues


70 replies to this topic

#21 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 14 April 2015 - 0840 AM

That mod would kill the game.


  • 0

#22 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 14 April 2015 - 0909 AM

it won't.  It didn't in alpha, people didn't magically get first round hits because they had the lead supplied.  If solving for lead really helped, my torpedo shots would never miss.  You get a solution for a target maintaining a constant bearing and speed, if the ship you are shooting at doesn't then you'll probably miss.


  • 0

#23 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 14 April 2015 - 0917 AM

The mod will improve, look at the recent WoT mods. Auto aim on weakspots.


  • 0

#24 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 14 April 2015 - 0934 AM

it won't.  It didn't in alpha, people didn't magically get first round hits because they had the lead supplied.  If solving for lead really helped, my torpedo shots would never miss.  You get a solution for a target maintaining a constant bearing and speed, if the ship you are shooting at doesn't then you'll probably miss.

 

Agree. I did express my concerns some time ago, but I was fearing a full fire control computer that updates continuously the firing solution, and takes in account accelerations and turn rates. Current implementation, using a function already provided in the client for aiding the aiming of torpedoes, is very coarse.

 

But it's accurate enough to make camping in a BB more difficult. And sealclubbing newbies by no-life BB "snipers" also.

 

The mod will improve, look at the recent WoT mods. Auto aim on weakspots.

 

Good luck hitting a 10m diameter turret with a gun with 100m dispersion. And for improving the mod, the modder (or hacker) would have to code (or reuse) a bit of signal processing code, and some not so trivial maths. Even then, WG could degrade the quality of the position data the server sends to the client for it to display ships' positions, making the solutions bad enough to be almost useless.

 

And even then, a target should be able to throw out the solution using sudden manoeuvers.


Edited by sunday, 14 April 2015 - 0936 AM.

  • 0

#25 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 14 April 2015 - 1002 AM

Speaking of mods in general, are they allowed in the pro-player matches?  I don't follow them and haven't watched any videos from the events so I have no idea.  I'd assume no.


  • 0

#26 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 14 April 2015 - 1153 AM

 

it won't.  It didn't in alpha, people didn't magically get first round hits because they had the lead supplied.  If solving for lead really helped, my torpedo shots would never miss.  You get a solution for a target maintaining a constant bearing and speed, if the ship you are shooting at doesn't then you'll probably miss.

 

Agree. I did express my concerns some time ago, but I was fearing a full fire control computer that updates continuously the firing solution, and takes in account accelerations and turn rates. Current implementation, using a function already provided in the client for aiding the aiming of torpedoes, is very coarse.

 

But it's accurate enough to make camping in a BB more difficult. And sealclubbing newbies by no-life BB "snipers" also.

 

The mod will improve, look at the recent WoT mods. Auto aim on weakspots.

 

Good luck hitting a 10m diameter turret with a gun with 100m dispersion. And for improving the mod, the modder (or hacker) would have to code (or reuse) a bit of signal processing code, and some not so trivial maths. Even then, WG could degrade the quality of the position data the server sends to the client for it to display ships' positions, making the solutions bad enough to be almost useless.

 

And even then, a target should be able to throw out the solution using sudden manoeuvers.

 

I still think it'd be better for the game if all assisted aiming was removed for all aspects (torps from ships, torps from planes, and direct fire now with this mod).  It'd be better for the game which right now, per the reply quoted from Tuccy, lets you show your skill with... maneuvering the ship.  Wow...  (Let's not forget, you can preprogram a course for your ship and if you're in a BB that's probably a better route than trying to 'dodge' incoming fire.)

 

Also, it's one thing to dodge incoming shots in a DD or CA which has some maneuverability.  It's another thing to try and do it in a BB which doesn't.  As I mentioned above with extremely slow turret traverse BBs can either choose to dodge and slow down their already average to below average dpm in hopes of avoiding fire or stay on target, eat the damage, and hope to kill the enemy.

 

WG will likely try to push WoWs on the esport scene like they're doing with WoT.  A game where everything was up to the player would be more attractive and help show off player skill more.  This is important because a healthy esport scene for a game usually leads to more player interest. 


  • 0

#27 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 14 April 2015 - 1154 AM

Speaking of mods in general, are they allowed in the pro-player matches?  I don't follow them and haven't watched any videos from the events so I have no idea.  I'd assume no.

They're not.  WG apparently doesn't have a way to check that you're using them, though.  I've heard from folks in the lower leagues who are trying to break into the top one that they often come across teams that use mods (it's so blatant that there's no other explanation). 


  • 0

#28 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,340 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 14 April 2015 - 1203 PM

And people like that are trusted with dangerous things, like for instance shoes.

 

Seems so. What world we live in...  :ph34r:


  • 0

#29 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 14 April 2015 - 1219 PM

Here's the mod.  My first look at it and... yeah, doesn't change my views on it.

 

The reviewer brings up some good points.  How much does it increase hit rate?  If it's significant than this needs to be in the game for everyone otherwise it's clearly not fair.  Also, as I mentioned above, it's not an easy thing to dodge fire in a BB.

 

Also, how does their position to let something like this be allowed in the game jive with their view of mods in WoT that show internal structures of enemy tanks?  That's something you can eventually learn, such mods just make it slightly easier.


Edited by Skywalkre, 14 April 2015 - 1220 PM.

  • 0

#30 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 15 April 2015 - 1349 PM

This was supposedly posted by someone named Ev1n over on the EU forums (I have no idea what position he holds).  Saw it on wotlabs.

 

 

Ladies, Gentlemen, Pirates,

In response to all the heated discussions around modifications I would like to reiterate what members of our Community Team have been imparting on you already: We have taken note of the issue and are working towards a solution.

We like mods and know that moddability makes it simply more fun and more personal. It also allows us to see solutions that we have not thought of ourselves or did not have the resources to implement. Of course there are mods which introduce a variable into our design that we don't want or are not sure about. These we will keep an eye on and take action.

At this time we are still in a closed pre-release phase which we are using to full effect. Part of that is seeing what kind of mods appear, how they work and how they affect the game. Because of this we are not immediately condemning any general group of mods, but we are also not going to indefinitely ignore anything that breaks the game for our players.

On a side note, our definition of "breaks the game" is entrenched in statistics and design experience, not only direct community feedback. But you already knew that.

As part of the steps taken to combat the appearance of mods like these, we are considering encoding our script files and making our file architecture different from World of Tanks. This should slow down the appearance of modifications directly ported from WoT, which is very easy at the moment. Building on that we would then change certain game logics that modders could exploit and encode even further. All of this together means that over time we would be increasing the hacking difficulty of our scripts, making them more and more difficult to break, and most importantly – to support.
Unfortunately, this would also impact harmless mods, at least initially, but that's a bridge we will cross when we get there.

Another thing we are considering is revisiting our own target prediction system, which we had tried in Alpha. We have a few ideas on how to rework it to make it work better than it did before and make it fulfill the role we originally intended it to. However, we are not quite sure we want to go down that road yet.

For the meantime you will have to endure in the face of potential mod users, but rest assured that we are taking steps to work it out.

Ultimately you can read into that what you want.  Personally hoping it means the backlash over this mod has gotten through and changes are forthcoming. 


  • 0

#31 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 16 April 2015 - 1025 AM

When I was reading through ArdRaeiss's posts that I linked to in the other thread I found an explanation for why HE is over performing when it comes to knocking out turrets.  

 

 

There is a known bug with turrets at the moment - turret barbettes were accidently(they were planned for next patch 0.3.1) added to 0.3.0.3 as a part of the turrets with armor set as 0. Hence the full damage to the turrets. Nothing is wrong with HE from in this case.

 

ETA actual quote


Edited by Harold Jones, 16 April 2015 - 1028 AM.

  • 0

#32 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,968 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Iberia, LA USA
  • Interests:Geomatics // Naval History // Soccer // Teaching

Posted 22 April 2015 - 2023 PM

I totally enjoy playing my Essex against 2 Lexingtons. Nothing like getting your entire airgroup shot down for the simple reason that the enemy team just has double the number of planes as compared to you. <_<


  • 0

#33 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 15 July 2015 - 1009 AM

There's been a lot of posts on the WoWs subreddit about the issues with carriers over the last few days but this was probably the best quote I've seen.  It was a response to someone saying carrier play caters to RTS vets (bolding is mine):

 

 

That's insulting to RTS players. There are a total of 3 units plus your carrier, no strategy beyond a couple approaches for torpedo bombers, and no complex gameplay. Bejeweled has deeper and more complex strategy than carriers in WoWs.

:lol:


  • 0

#34 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,992 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 July 2015 - 1052 AM

The carrier play kind of reminds me of ... :P

 

starcrft.jpg


  • 0

#35 FlyingCanOpener

FlyingCanOpener

    Kakistocrat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,968 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Iberia, LA USA
  • Interests:Geomatics // Naval History // Soccer // Teaching

Posted 15 July 2015 - 1345 PM

I kinda think about 1-2 times a week that I should reinstall Warships and give it a more relaxed and casual try.

 

Then I go and read this subforum, then put the idea to bed. :)


  • 0

#36 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 15 July 2015 - 2042 PM

In the same thread where I got the post above someone had the idea of giving fighters MOBA style abilities and having ammo and fuel be the 'mana' that they use to spend them (ammo for offensive, fuel for defensive).  At this point I'd be happy with it though it's probably wishing for too much of a change.  :(

 

There really is just nothing to fighter on fighter play.  Just point and click.  That's it...


  • 0

#37 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 16 July 2015 - 1341 PM

Check out this profile of a NA player.  He's one example that brings up a lot of issues with the game.

 

He's pulling greater than an 80% win rate over 400+ games.  To be fair he's apparently always in a full division when he does so... but that doesn't make it any better.

 

This is a bad sign for the game when a division has this much influence.  This was a huge issue in WoWp when it launched.  Given the terrible design of that game you had folks abusing all the flaws and pulling 90% win rates when it launched.  In short, if you were flying solo and ran into them you knew you lost.  The same is basically true for the above guy.  That's not good.

 

This doesn't even happen in WoT.  Purple players will win a lot, but nowhere near 80% of the time over 400+ games.

 

The other issue is the fact of how terrible carriers currently are.  The above guy runs with a setup to protect himself and his planes against enemy carriers (a good ship with AA in his division).  If you're playing solo the odds of getting a pubbie teammate to hug your ship with his cruiser to protect your lone carrier against two enemy ones that are bumrushing you at the start is low.  If you're playing solo and in an IJN carrier and you have to rely on flying over friendly cruisers who are awake enough to target enemy planes and pop their AA CD you're going to be disappointed an awful lot of the time.  Carriers right now are a simplistic game element that is either completely OP or incredibly frustrating to play.  That's not a good place to be in.


  • 0

#38 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 16 July 2015 - 1514 PM

 Carriers right now are a simplistic game element that is either completely OP or incredibly frustrating to play.  That's not a good place to be in.

 

 I still think adding them was a mistake.  They aren't right for the scale, and it will not be possible to make them balanced and fun to play.  As it stands the really good carrier players will clean up, the average ones will do ok as long as each side has an equal number of CVs and the bad ones might as well be afk for all the good they will do their teams.


  • 0

#39 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 16 July 2015 - 1625 PM

 

 Carriers right now are a simplistic game element that is either completely OP or incredibly frustrating to play.  That's not a good place to be in.

 

 I still think adding them was a mistake.  They aren't right for the scale, and it will not be possible to make them balanced and fun to play.  As it stands the really good carrier players will clean up, the average ones will do ok as long as each side has an equal number of CVs and the bad ones might as well be afk for all the good they will do their teams.

 

Like how some never move from their spawn location and get overrun by enemy ships 5m into the game.  Or the ones that move away from the fleet, into enemy ships, freak out, and beach themselves only to die shortly thereafter.

 

Yeah, they rushed this game into launch.  They needed to keep it in CB til they found a carrier system that had potential.  Mind-bottling that the big patch halfway through CB actually made carrier play worse yet they launched OB shortly afterwards.


  • 0

#40 zaarin7

zaarin7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 July 2015 - 1752 PM

In this version I've given up on DD's and CV"s totally. I just run CL/CA/BB ships.


  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users