OT : World of Warships

[Treetop64]

Never cared much for the wash, rinse, repeat formula of these kinds of MMO shooters. Spawn, shoot stuff, die, repeat ad nauseum...

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Never cared much for the wash, rinse, repeat formula of these kinds of MMO shooters. Spawn, shoot stuff, die, repeat ad nauseum...

That what this game is all about, not much to do is wait in line and do the same ol' things over and over. Like I said it a short trip and you guys will get bored playing it.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Treetop64

Never cared much for the wash, rinse, repeat formula of these kinds of MMO shooters. Spawn, shoot stuff, die, repeat ad nauseum...

One can argue that whole "War in the Pacific" was one big "rinse and repeat"... [8D] or that the game of chess is the same thing... or... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"

[Numdydar]

True but in WitP we can watch the rinse cycles at our own pace. Plus we have different machines (mods) we can use to see how much better our clothes (results) come out [:)]

The one thing that WitP also has is that if our clothes get ruined (CVs sunk, major landings gone bad), we can, in the words of ServPro, 'Like it never happened' [:D] by reloading. Given the number of screw-ups I have done as Japan, this has been a lifesaver. Like 'Wow! I had no idea Allied CVs could react so far.' [X(] Whoops. Reload time [8|]

[Rising-Sun]

WitP:AE is good game, if you got the time to play it, but only few things in that game I wasn't happy with. One is the random pilot transfer, it didn't feel right and two sometimes when you assign fighter groups to protect the bomber groups, the fighter groups doesn't do nothing. I doubt if I ever get back into that game, unless they fix it, esp the fighter escort situations.

But there are other things I would rather do than play WoW.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

WitP:AE is good game, if you got the time to play it, but only few things in that game I wasn't happy with. One is the random pilot transfer,

There is no "random pilot transfer" if you know what you are doing

it didn't feel right and two sometimes when you assign fighter groups to protect the bomber groups, the fighter groups doesn't do nothing. I doubt if I ever get back into that game, unless they fix it, esp the fighter escort situations.

That is not a bug so there is nothing to "fix".

But there are other things I would rather do than play WoW.

More inaccuracies which can mislead newbies.

Alfred

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

WitP:AE is good game, if you got the time to play it, but only few things in that game I wasn't happy with. One is the random pilot transfer,

There is no "random pilot transfer" if you know what you are doing

it didn't feel right and two sometimes when you assign fighter groups to protect the bomber groups, the fighter groups doesn't do nothing. I doubt if I ever get back into that game, unless they fix it, esp the fighter escort situations.

That is not a bug so there is nothing to "fix".

But there are other things I would rather do than play WoW.

More inaccuracies which can mislead newbies.

Alfred

Alfred, you got your information wrong, there is delay for pilot transfer to different group, no question about it. When they are assign to different group there is delay between 1 to 7 days. Let say I transfer a pilot from group A to group B in the same location, does it take seven days to assign to that group?

Now the escort situations is not really like in real life, if the bomber groups take off and heading for the target areas, if they don't see their escort they should be aborted. It is suicide! I have assign my fighters for escort duties in the same airfield along with same HQs. For two days straight, some reasons they wont take off for escort. Anyway I checked everything, just doesn't make any sense. They had good morale and hardly worn out, infact they wasn't using drop tanks. I put many, many hours into it and was hoping it can be corrected somehow on both counts.

Also had good leadership in all groups as well HQs. Newbies or not, would wondering what went wrong too. I hardly see this happen, time to time and also noticed AIs does the same thing without escorts, but there no telling if AIs had any fighters are in range to escort the bombers.

Who is this Alfred? I never seen him/her around on this board before.

[Numdydar]

[oldman45]

Here is a short list of what is a stomach turner for me. The 5"38 is disliked by the russian designers so as an AA gun its treated very poorly. THey pick and choose what they want historical for balance and flavor. What flavor means is the range of the main guns is based off the height of the rangefinder. In short the IJN ships fire further than any other ship in the game so far. This only applies to the BB's. So Cruisers and Destroyers in some cases can fire further than the US BB's. Did I mention the warspite can only fire 16km. Ships like the North Carolina and Iowa can fire further but the dispersion and the way the trajectory is figured you might hit in the same zip code. The AA on the US ships is abysmal when it used to be overwhelming. The 25mm on the IJN ships is equivalent to the 40mm. They have carriers in there which is not that big a deal except the way the tiering is you can have ships in fights that have no AAA and there are carriers on the other team....

I could go on and on.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

Alfred, you got your information wrong, there is delay for pilot transfer to different group, no question about it. When they are assign to different group there is delay between 1 to 7 days. Let say I transfer a pilot from group A to group B in the same location, does it take seven days to assign to that group?

I think he misunderstood you. I believe you were referring to the random delays when transferring pilots. I think he interpreted what you said as pilots just move from group to group at random.

The delays for pilot transfer is realistic, even if it is annoying.

Now the escort situations is not really like in real life, if the bomber groups take off and heading for the target areas, if they don't see their escort they should be aborted. It is suicide! I have assign my fighters for escort duties in the same airfield along with same HQs. For two days straight, some reasons they wont take off for escort. Anyway I checked everything, just doesn't make any sense. They had good morale and hardly worn out, infact they wasn't using drop tanks. I put many, many hours into it and was hoping it can be corrected somehow on both counts.

Also had good leadership in all groups as well HQs. Newbies or not, would wondering what went wrong too. I hardly see this happen, time to time and also noticed AIs does the same thing without escorts, but there no telling if AIs had any fighters are in range to escort the bombers.

Bombers flying on when the escort fails to show was very common. Turning back under those conditions would have gotten the bomber commander a court martial.

Who is this Alfred? I never seen him/her around on this board before.

He's (I assume "he" from the name) been around the last year or so.

Bill

[CaptBeefheart]

As I said before, I look at this kind of arcade-ish game as being complementary to WITP-AE. One good thing about WOWS and WOT is they allow me to get together with Stateside buddies on Skype and form platoons (WOT) or divisions (WOWS). Ganging up on deserving victims and laughing at our own noob mistakes is a great way to pass a couple of hours with good mates.

Cheers,
CC

[Rising-Sun]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: RisingSun

Alfred, you got your information wrong, there is delay for pilot transfer to different group, no question about it. When they are assign to different group there is delay between 1 to 7 days. Let say I transfer a pilot from group A to group B in the same location, does it take seven days to assign to that group?

I think he misunderstood you. I believe you were referring to the random delays when transferring pilots. I think he interpreted what you said as pilots just move from group to group at random.

The delays for pilot transfer is realistic, even if it is annoying.

Now the escort situations is not really like in real life, if the bomber groups take off and heading for the target areas, if they don't see their escort they should be aborted. It is suicide! I have assign my fighters for escort duties in the same airfield along with same HQs. For two days straight, some reasons they wont take off for escort. Anyway I checked everything, just doesn't make any sense. They had good morale and hardly worn out, infact they wasn't using drop tanks. I put many, many hours into it and was hoping it can be corrected somehow on both counts.

Also had good leadership in all groups as well HQs. Newbies or not, would wondering what went wrong too. I hardly see this happen, time to time and also noticed AIs does the same thing without escorts, but there no telling if AIs had any fighters are in range to escort the bombers.

Bombers flying on when the escort fails to show was very common. Turning back under those conditions would have gotten the bomber commander a court martial.

Who is this Alfred? I never seen him/her around on this board before.

He's (I assume "he" from the name) been around the last year or so.

Bill

Okay, sound good to me. I think I am going to post a topic about escort situations, sometimes we wonder what went wrong and like to know from mistakes.

[desicat]

Who is this Alfred? I never seen him/her around on this board before.


He's (I assume "he" from the name) been around the last year or so.

Bill

He has been around a lot longer than that (joined 2006) and is one of the experts on the game, hense the "popcorn" symbol from Numdydar who knows who Alfred is.

[geofflambert]

Almost everyone on this forum are males. We used to have Gräfin Zeppelin, but she disappeared. I want to know about Kull. Is that icon a likeness of Kull or is it his wife?

[wdolson]

Yes, I guess he didn't start responding frequently to questions about how the game works until about a year ago (maybe a bit before that). In the Avgas thread that popped back up today, I see he posted in that back in 2011 or something like that. He has been around a while and has probably been playing AE since it's initial release or soon after.

Bill

[geofflambert]

But we need to have a poll. Every female reading this needs to give us one ping, but one ping only.

[Treetop64]

There are thingsh here that don't react well to bulletsh.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Here is a short list of what is a stomach turner for me. The 5"38 is disliked by the russian designers so as an AA gun its treated very poorly. THey pick and choose what they want historical for balance and flavor. What flavor means is the range of the main guns is based off the height of the rangefinder. In short the IJN ships fire further than any other ship in the game so far. This only applies to the BB's. So Cruisers and Destroyers in some cases can fire further than the US BB's. Did I mention the warspite can only fire 16km. Ships like the North Carolina and Iowa can fire further but the dispersion and the way the trajectory is figured you might hit in the same zip code. The AA on the US ships is abysmal when it used to be overwhelming. The 25mm on the IJN ships is equivalent to the 40mm. They have carriers in there which is not that big a deal except the way the tiering is you can have ships in fights that have no AAA and there are carriers on the other team....

I could go on and on.

It's a game. It's important to remember that.

My understanding with the dispersion on the battleships main armament is that it is to prevent them from sitting at the back edge of the map and lobbing laser accurate shells into anything they can see. Historical? Yes. Good gameplay? No.

As for ranges, they needed to roll them down to an abstracted number anyways, lest the battles become too long and drawn out.

The rest of your complaints come down to a sacrifice of realism in favor of game-play. Where's the fun in being a carrier when your planes get shredded by AA long before they're useful? Or trying to play a Japanese destroyer when the battleships have you in range long before you can ever get a torpedo off?

Yes, it has it's balancing issues, but I've really enjoyed it so far. I worked up the Japanese destroyer/cruiser trees, both of which were very fun and very different. It's good fun tearing up the side of the map at 35kts to launch torpedoes at battleships and carriers.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

But we need to have a poll. Every female reading this needs to give us one ping, but one ping only.

warspite1

[laughs coquettishly] Ping!

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It's a game. It's important to remember that.

My understanding with the dispersion on the battleships main armament is that it is to prevent them from sitting at the back edge of the map and lobbing laser accurate shells into anything they can see. Historical? Yes. Good gameplay? No.

Long range gunnery didn't become any good until radar control came on the scene in 1944. The old WW I vintage BBs did quite well as Surigao Strait with radar controlled guns, but that is more the exception than the rule. Long range gunnery before radar control scored the occasional hit, but it wasn't that good.

{quote]
As for ranges, they needed to roll them down to an abstracted number anyways, lest the battles become too long and drawn out.

The rest of your complaints come down to a sacrifice of realism in favor of game-play. Where's the fun in being a carrier when your planes get shredded by AA long before they're useful? Or trying to play a Japanese destroyer when the battleships have you in range long before you can ever get a torpedo off?

Yes, it has it's balancing issues, but I've really enjoyed it so far. I worked up the Japanese destroyer/cruiser trees, both of which were very fun and very different. It's good fun tearing up the side of the map at 35kts to launch torpedoes at battleships and carriers.
[/quote]

Destroyers at full steam in open water were difficult to hit.

There are some inaccuracies in the game, not everything could be modeled perfectly and a lot of compromises had to be made. Only having two types of supply (fuel and supply) and two types of raw resources (oil and resources) is one of the most obvious limits. Dual purpose guns had to be described in the database in a way that works for most DP guns, but not perfectly for all. It's a trade off within the game engine. The overarching goal was to get the end results as close to reality as possible at the cost of some intermediate results being a bit off.

Some inaccuracies favor the player (like lower than historical ops losses for aircraft) and some are not real inaccuracies at all. When we were playtesting, there was a constant stream of complaints about the Pearl Harbor attack results being off. So someone sandboxed it. He ran the first turn something like 50 times, shutting all the way down to the desktop in between. Over all his runs, he got an average of something like 2.1 US BBs sunk, though he had a few outlier runs with 0 sunk and one with 6 sunk.

If someone has a complaint about something being inaccurate in the game, it's possible they are right. It's also possible that on a micro level it's inaccurate, but the macro results are OK, or it's possible it is more accurate than they think and they just don't like the results.

I guess it's like morale in the military. If the troops are complaining, morale is probably pretty decent. If they stop complaining, that's when to get worried.

Bill