Jump to content


Photo

Wows Testing


50 replies to this topic

#21 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,301 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 08 June 2015 - 1850 PM

I use the advanced search paste in  ArdRaeiss for the author and then limit the search to closed beta forum.  Still have a bunch of posts to wade through but at least you don't have to wade through the normal forum dreck.  


  • 0

#22 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 08 June 2015 - 1905 PM

Take some time to read ArdRaeiss's posts on the official cbt forum especially the stuff in the earlier pages, he took the time to explain why they switched from 2 bars to one and some of the thinking behind damage in general.  He engages in a lot of threads, some of which are the equivalent of FFZ stuff but he does drop a fair amount of info.

I think the below is what I remember reading previously:

 

 

Okay, let me explain the whole "BP was great!" situation and why it was not so great in practice.

 

Long ago in the seas far-far away there were ships with two bars to represent structural integrity, stability and combat value - the "HP" for crew/machines/hull/etc and "BP" for buyoancy. You could have sunk the enemy by reducing eiter to zero - BP by hitting with torpedoes/floods/underwater hits, HP by hitting parts over the water(especially citadel space) and causing fires.

And then you would find yourself in the situation when ship with 1% BP could not be sunked as you just can't hit his underwater parts. You have to remove all his HP bar to sunk this 1% BP pile of rust.

On the other hand, some destroyer player could've find himself in situation when he could not penetrate citadel of 1% HP battleship and could not hit him in the unarmored parts - they were already destroyed. No way to sink except by hitting her underwater(if you got some torpedoes left or loaded)... all under fire from such battleship as it keep fighting no matter what.

Frustrating expirience in both cases, happened too often. Bad for game experience.

 

Here the best example of 1% BP with some HP left battlecruiser - HMS Zeydlits(1, 2). Watch these fotos. As you can see, her bow is underwater. This is due to floods that filled her bow... thru the overwater shell holes. She got so much water from nose wave and firefighting that her bow flood get out of control due to catching more and more water thru the shell holes she got in the battle. All over the waterline. The SMS Lutzow haven't made it to the base as her flood was event worse - but situation and reasons were the same. Any hit to something like water pipes, secondary generator, additional hole to the upper belt near the bow - and SMS Zeydlitz could've been lost too.

1% HP with lot of BP left example would be the KM Bismarck in her last battle - citadel space intact(despite several holes in armor belt - armor slopes were strong enough to hold, as designed) and enemies just could not penetrate underwater part as her belt protectected her from torpedoes due to heavy floods. Any underwater hit - and she would go down.

 

So, we went back to drawing board. The idea behind HP bar was to represent the ship's ability to fight via number of alive/uninjured crew members, machines state, structural integrity of the hull, etc. The idea behind BP bar was to represent ship's ability to stay afloat; flood lists for various reasons were left behind by setting "your crew is professional enough able to automaticly counterflood your ship"(pretty much realistic - it was crew's task to counterlist while captaing thinks on whole picture).

As you can see, early idea to have them separated was, realistically, wrong - they are inteconnected. And this connection is not simple to simulate, especially when you have limited server power(yes, it is limited, we got enough issues with shell physics; unfortunately we doesn't have unlimited resources even on the horizon). Then we try the single bar idea as combined complex "ability to fight" status. Everything in one at the same time. Easier to show, easier to understand, much easier to finish "almost done!" target. Much easier to store, calculate and to send to clients.

And this is what in the game right now.

 

I would like to see the full simulation of ship myself(I've played "Destroyer Command" long ago an enjoyed it)... but I know how bad it is for the server and for connection.

The problem with the above is the gameplay issues don't make sense given what we have in the game right now.  DDs have infinite reloads so would have no issue getting the last 1% of a ship that's stationary due to flooding.  Ships without torps and with low calibre guns could eventually burn down a high hp/low buoyancy ship even with the fires we had under 3.0.  Reading this again the gameplay reasonings just feel tacked on to help support a decision which likely was driven strictly by programming limitations on their part (since he closes with this one).  I'm a little less sympathetic in this regard since WG is hardly cutting edge in this department.

 

Going back to gameplay related reasons you could also use the ones he gives to simplify WoT's sytem even further down.  It's bizarre to read about a game like WoWs, which is simpler than their flagship title WoT, and how it's good for them to take it further in the direction of a glorified browser game?  I don't get it...


Edited by Skywalkre, 08 June 2015 - 1907 PM.

  • 0

#23 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 08 June 2015 - 1906 PM

BTW have you figured out what constitutes a hit?  I know that regular hits are counted and that crits are counted separately but what about fires and citadels.  I assume they get included in the general hit number but can't be sure.  Also it looks like crits deal 0 damage other than what system they knock out.  Which makes me wonder if the shot that starts a fire cause damage or just start the fire?

Citadels are listed as hits on the detailed page of the after battle screen.  The first one would show something like "50 hits, 4 citadels" while the final page would list just 54 hits.  No idea about fires and criticals.


  • 0

#24 Edmund

Edmund

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westminster, Colorado (Not by choice)
  • Interests:Tanks, Trains, Planes, and boats(Big boats)

Posted 08 June 2015 - 2141 PM

I have a question.  Could a 6" shell/round from Cleveland really hurt a New Mexico? 


  • 0

#25 Fritz

Fritz

    Master of Panzer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,598 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW2, armoured combat history, 3D CGI, motorsports

Posted 08 June 2015 - 2222 PM

 

 

It sounds unfair of me, but neither damage model makes sense. I shouldn't be able to shoot a cupola and it deal the same damage as hitting a tank's engine, just like a ship shouldn't effectively get an armour boost when someone hits a depleted hp box. Frankly you should have catastrophic flooding or an automatic citadel when the section's hp reaches zero. I mean, if the bow of a ship is shot off, they don't get to sail around and continue to fight as though nothing happened...

 

That reminds me of what I've heard of the earlier version of the game where they had hps and buoyancy.  Supposedly they ran into situations where a ship was immobile due to too much flooding but weaker ships couldn't kill it.  Guessing they didn't have fires in that version of the game.  "Let's discard this cool idea because we've implement 1% of the game and so far it doesn't work!"  :glare:

 

There is still the concern that this game is too simple.  Maybe they should revisit some of the old ideas they tossed already.

 

 

Agree, buoyancy would be great, esp. if it was separated by front/mid/rear and sides so you can sink a ship if too much of one side is flooded.

 

Right now does flooding really do anything besides draining your hp?... Basically not in any way different than fire?


  • 0

#26 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 08 June 2015 - 2224 PM

Right now does flooding really do anything besides draining your hp?... Basically not in any way different than fire?

 

I'm pretty sure you're slowed down quite a bit while actively flooding.


  • 0

#27 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,442 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 09 June 2015 - 0057 AM

I have a question.  Could a 6" shell/round from Cleveland really hurt a New Mexico? 


IRL yes if it hit the swichboard, as they used electric engines if memory serves
  • 0

#28 Edmund

Edmund

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westminster, Colorado (Not by choice)
  • Interests:Tanks, Trains, Planes, and boats(Big boats)

Posted 09 June 2015 - 0617 AM

 

I have a question.  Could a 6" shell/round from Cleveland really hurt a New Mexico? 


IRL yes if it hit the swichboard, as they used electric engines if memory serves

 

 

How likely is that? 

 

I would think that most hits would be an annoyance.


  • 0

#29 zaarin7

zaarin7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2015 - 1957 PM

Given that the NM was built to all or nothing principles and the switch board was below the armor deck, behind the side armor and the torpedo protection system if the Cleavland was sitting 50 yards from the NM it might to that but IMHO the game is built to be fun and ballanced so cruisers are more powerfull than they were in real life against BB scale protection.

 

I enjoy the game but to do that as I sign in I have to turn 40+ years of self education on naval subjects off.


  • 0

#30 Edmund

Edmund

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westminster, Colorado (Not by choice)
  • Interests:Tanks, Trains, Planes, and boats(Big boats)

Posted 12 June 2015 - 0645 AM

Given that the NM was built to all or nothing principles and the switch board was below the armor deck, behind the side armor and the torpedo protection system if the Cleavland was sitting 50 yards from the NM it might to that but IMHO the game is built to be fun and ballanced so cruisers are more powerfull than they were in real life against BB scale protection.

 

I enjoy the game but to do that as I sign in I have to turn 40+ years of self education on naval subjects off.

 

I guess I can understand that to a point.  But it would be nice if my New Mexico armor was a little more effective against 6" guns.  IMO all armor is less effective then it should be. 

 

Thanks for the replies all. 


  • 0

#31 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 12 June 2015 - 1226 PM

The armor is working fine on the NM, actually.  The problem is you're being hit with HE which given current mechanics completely ignores armor, as do fires, which are the big killer.


  • 0

#32 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 05 July 2015 - 1714 PM

Turns out there's more to fire than we originally thought.

 

Was pointed to this post on the forums:

 

http://forum.worldof...-damage-on-bbs/

 

and elsewhere apparently the formula for fire is this:

 

(Ammo fire chance + pyro) * (ship fire multiplier * (1 - (mod + perk)))

 

So... we can finally start to figure out if perks and mods are worth it.

 

Let's take a Des Moines firing on a Yamato.  Des Moines has 14% chance of fire from its 203s.  Yamato apparently has a 0.5 for ship multiplier.  So, without perks and mods the Des Moines actually has only a 7% chance per shell hit to light the Yamato on fire.  If you give the Des Moines Demolition Expert (+3% fire chance) and give the Yamato Fire Prevention (-7%) and Damage Control System Mod 1 (-5%) the Des Moines now has a 7.48% chance.  [Isn't there another high tier mod that reduces fire chance?]  If you ignore the fire reduction perks and mods on the Yamato but leave the Des Moines with Demolition Expert the Des Moines has an 8.5% chance per shell hit.

 

In short the best thing to do to lower fire chance?  Move to higher tiers.

 

Edit: Some figures were off.


Edited by Skywalkre, 05 July 2015 - 1808 PM.

  • 0

#33 zaarin7

zaarin7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 July 2015 - 2350 PM

I still follow if I'm in a cruizer I'll load AP v. my size and lower and HE bigger than me.


  • 0

#34 Edmund

Edmund

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westminster, Colorado (Not by choice)
  • Interests:Tanks, Trains, Planes, and boats(Big boats)

Posted 09 July 2015 - 0756 AM

I still follow if I'm in a cruizer I'll load AP v. my size and lower and HE bigger than me.

 

In my crusiers and DD's I have become an HE spammer.  HE seems to do enough damage for Destroyers and Crusiers.  Of course for the big boys (That is where BB comes from right :P  ) HE is the way to go. 

 

Now I disagree* that HE would be as effective in real life as it is in game, but it is game.

 

I spam AP in my BB's.  I never bother with HE. 

 

There is another reason I spam HE, but it is a little embrassing.  In the heat of battle I forget about switching ammo.  I have the same problem in WOT.  I sit there in my little tank trying to kill something with my gun that I can't hurt unless my tank can fall on it.  At least in WoWS my HE will eventually hurt what it hits.

 

 

* - I disagree based on opinion not any facts or knowledge of explosive things. 


  • 0

#35 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 06 August 2015 - 2326 PM

Secondaries are still worthless.

 

Jumped in a training room in my fully upgraded Myogi (the Langley grind was so bad it pushed me to go back to the Myogi).  I have the rank 1 captain skill that increases reload speed for secondaries.  The Myogi is far better than the Wyoming at tier 4 when it comes to secondaries.  It has 3x120 and 8x152 per side compared to just 3x127 on the Wyoming.  So... you would THINK it would obliterate a same tier DD at point blank range...

 

Parked the Myogi from 1.7-1.9km away from a stock Isokaze (9k hps).  Turned on secondaries.  The times to kill all 3 were 0:54, 1:26, and 2:37!  :blink:

 

They might as well not be on your ship for as little good that they do...


Edited by Skywalkre, 06 August 2015 - 2329 PM.

  • 0

#36 Corinthian

Corinthian

    Stone Age Bitter Delusional Retard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,084 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peek-a-boo, I'm behind you.
  • Interests:Wholesome stuff.

Posted 07 August 2015 - 0015 AM

Yeah. The secondaries seem to be worthless. I hope there's a function where you can use them in sync with the main battery to blast targets that are within range of the secondaries.


  • 0

#37 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,301 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 07 August 2015 - 1024 AM

You can control click to focus secondary fire on a given target, not sure if it actually helps though.


  • 0

#38 Edmund

Edmund

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,550 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westminster, Colorado (Not by choice)
  • Interests:Tanks, Trains, Planes, and boats(Big boats)

Posted 07 August 2015 - 1315 PM

I agree they seem useless.  But just in case how do you focus their fire?


  • 0

#39 zaarin7

zaarin7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 August 2015 - 1807 PM

So does that mean hold down CTRL and click? Can you do that for both sides?


  • 0

#40 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 07 August 2015 - 1814 PM

It's muscle memory to me so I forget the button but I know it's the same command you use when you want to focus an air group.

 

You can only have on target prioritized regardless of side.  All it does is tell your guns to always fire on that target if it's in range, even if something else is closer (remember that targeting an air group actually kills it faster... the reasons why I'm not sure of).  Keep in mind that accuracy of these secondaries, while bad across the board, gets progressively worse at range.


  • 0



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users