Oh well, and here I thought you actually understood. But whatever, this is going nowhere.
I am all for expanding player choice, but automated killing systems suffocate that. That’s how I’ll always feel about games like this.
But those automatic systems have to be there; you can’t command a ship alone, open fire, and keep track of aircraft and other ships all at the same time. you cant aim even good when you choice the aa batteries you cant get an a kill so no sense only with dd with track where you dont have alot of gun you can do this work withouth help of ai
1 Like
No they don’t have to be there. You can open fire at an opponent who is sufficiently far away, and briefly scan your surroundings for torps/boats/planes while waiting for the rounds to land every now and then. You just don’t want to have to do that.
It’s no different in concept to be considering opening fire at someone in a tank and pausing to scan your surroundings for movement or approaching planes first.
People already know how to adapt and have the means to adapt. Any ship with radar will alert you automatically of the approaching planes via the radar screen and the green icons near the top of your screen.
All I am proposing is that the game no longer aims your secondaries nor opens fire with them for you. And in exchange ships without radars would gain a short-range lead indicator on planes at up to 1.6km distance with an Aced crew.
Thus your capability to shoot planes remains unchanged, the game just stops doing it for you mid-gunfight with another ship.
you won :3 wanna see what think other so i will wait abt this.
I recognize you’re trolling me here. I simply steadfastly disagree with you that AI-controlled gunners are necessary on any vehicle class. That damn simple.
i can tell you won i too bad to this game i will wait the other for some react.
Don’t heap fake praise on me, man, I know you’re only doing so because this conversation is going in circles and you just want me to shut up. All you need to say is “we can agree to disagree” clearly if that’s what you want. Fake praise is…really creepy.
👍👍 if i wanna tell you to shut up i will tell i am “now” dont really interested in your opinion becouse you cant use your brain now you are more paceful i modified that “creepy” message.🤣🤣
2 Likes
Why you don’t consider to create a proposal tread and see what players actually think about it.
4 Likes
As an aside, why on earth would you wait for your shells to land before firing again? At common engagement ranges this would seriously gimp your RoF and curb your offensive capabilities to an extreme extent.
3 Likes
So we found the crux of the problem: you don’t want to play a pvp game.
Edit
It isn’t secondary, it’s tertiary. Very few ships have secondaries that are controlled by AI gunners. The only one I know of personally is HMS Dido as both its secondaries and tertiary are an anti air armament.
4 Likes
I’ll say it again: once the devs backtrack on these bad decisions especially the second one they can actually start developing a multiplayer mode with real players that offers a genuine challenge for everyone. That way, we won’t have to hear these kinds of complaints anymore, because right now it’s just a standard singleplayer experience inside a multiplayer game that breaks the entire game’s economy. You can open “scam” crates, and if you’re lucky, earn enough Gaijin Coins to buy other units from the marketplace so this doesn’t just affect the naval aspect, but the game as a whole.
3 Likes
To be fair, all ships with auxiliary (secondary) guns do engage air targets automatically.
1 Like
They can also engage smaller targets if you set gunners to engage surface/mixed.
Dido in particular has a fairly large deadzone at certain angles though and this is shifts heavily based on how heavy she lists in a turn.
1 Like
Because I don’t yet know if I have the correct range to be sure if I even hit before possibly wasting any more ammo?
In a sense you’re correct - PvP hasn’t “thrilled” me in years. I do just want to progress through my trees in peace without harming anyone else’s experience, and especially I don’t want the stuff I am enjoying to be nerfed into the ground by folk who would rather scream “it’s OP!” than adapt when actual counters to the thing they’re screaming about exist.
Okay, fair enough - but you understand what I mean at the very least.
Fair enough, I very well could.
I don’t see how anyone would dare argue a PT boat wouldn’t be obliterated by any size of destroyer shell or larger simply hitting it.
But I am not sure how precisely the second point is actively harmful - yes the deaths are pretty arbitrary, but so is the entire “crew number is HP” system as a whole.
What I don’t understand about ship damage models in general is why the sam hell is flooding so laughably easy to fight when that is what killed most ships in reality?
And so the snap finally happens. If you’re so “incensed” by me attempting to be part of the discussion, then why do you keep responding?
Furthermore, I only asked a simple question on a topic totally different from our circular argument from earlier today. But again if you think anything I say is “automatically useless drivel,” then why respond at all? Nobody’s making you respond but you, man.
1 Like
I have been playing this game for eleven years, and have spaded my way down the majority of air and tank trees, with naval being lower-priority.
But nevertheless, I have played a fair amount of naval in mostly lower-end DDs and occasional cruiser-BR games. I may not eat, sleep, and breathe it like some of you do, but I’ve played the entire game long enough to recognize a terrible system rather quickly. I don’t hate you nor anyone who has been a “rare naval main spotted in the wild,” but the fact that you resort to insults when running out of logic suggests I struck the root of the matter - you hate being bombed by CAS or torpedoed by PT boats and like the AI screening both out for you.
But oh well, man. Have a nice day - I will respond if you keep responding to me, so if you’re so “done” with me, then don’t respond.
Pr23 being a borderline unstoppable force:
1 Like
Apart maybe from your first shot/salvo at a new target (and even for this a firing solution should already be present), this isn’t really necessary. It’s entirely viable to instead observe your impacts while continuing to fire, and adjust your aim on the fly. Not to mention that given the potential course and speed alterations of your target, the info you get from waiting for shell impacts may already be outdated anyway by the time you’re resuming fire.
All you end up doing is waste opportunities to score more hits by needlessly limiting your RoF. Restricting your DPS that way may carry no immediate risk against bots or unaware players outside of losing a kill to a team mate and getting fewer kills overall, but in a 1v1 against players you’re putting yourself in danger for no real gain, all to save some ammo.
4 Likes
Fundamentally the firepower / protection / mobility triangle is completely borked for naval.
Why?
A fast BB would take the best part of ten minutes to accelerate to flank speed in real life. And in a 90 degree turn would bleed about a third of it’s energy, then take several minutes to get it back. Hull drag is V cubed. Speed is V squared. The last few knots take a long time to attain.
That isn’t to say they couldn’t turn, famously an Iowa could turn inside a Fletcher. But it would lose a significant percentage of it’s energy in doing so. The DD could make it up again relatively quickly.
Though that doesn’t work in a 20 minute FPS bash em up game. So their mobility has been exaggerated by a large factor, probably 20-40x.
Unfortunately this means they cheat the triangle and become a panacea in any situation. Frankly an Iowa probably accelerates almost as fast as a Fairmile in real life. And hence it does not need torpedo boat destroyers to escort it.
Quite rightly BBs should not lose to CAs or CLs, which should not lose to DDs. However the borked triangle means they don’t need the DDs. Hence there’s no rock, paper, scissors excepting a few Japanese DDs.
Quite how a game mode manages this borking is the question. Spawning an a DD with 6 base camping Iowas competing for how fast they could kill you was not the answer.
I’ve tried EC lots of times previously. I tend to have a fit of enthusiasm for the game about once every two years and log in to see whether it is still borked. So took HMS Rodney out for a match or two and almost uninstalled the game immediately. But then saw that EC had changed.
So I gave it a go. Still didn’t quite understand what I was doing and there’s still no instructions. Seems the map is the briefing, but nothing even tells you how to cap a point. However it was rather compelling.
To be fair to the snail their naval game is improving, whereas wows has become a dog egg. They tried to enforce roles despite being even more borked, but then powercrept the DDs out of the game.
The snail has to powercreep them back in though luckily they have another aspect so horrendously wrong that it provides an opportunity. WT Naval operates on a flat world, there’s no curvature of the earth and no sea state. Never mind and haze or weather. A few rain squalls would make things much more interesting than islands…All ships also have full link16 perfect battle picture.
In reality DDs might spot each other sooner but would be unlikely to be able to positively identify each other beyond 7-8 nm in average sea state and weather. ID is an aspect of the game completely missing. You see to get a firing solution you need to know their speed and bearing. But the contact is, at first, just a bit of smoke on the visual horizon. It’s only when you are close enough to ID the contact that you then know it’s hull length. By measuring the angular hull you then get it’s bearing. And therefore a firing solution.
But the game is billiard table flat and with no troughs in the waves, spay or sea state and no need to spot or ID. Which also increases the BB’s dominance.
The ships are remarkably well modelled, but they were designed to fight in real world conditions.
Doubt it’s difficult to produce a curved map, it’s just modelling a big hill with a very slight gradient fundamentally. Given the borked triangle a slightly exaggerated curvature would probably be good. But they haven’t so the classes and balance will always be borked.
It’s merely a question then of how this borking is managed via game mode.
5 Likes