Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Allanagtig

Ramming mechanics

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[HAWKS]
Players
60 posts
3,946 battles

Ok ok, the game has been out for so long now, that I think its time to take a look at some of the very first "flaws" that were implemented. First off, the ramming mechanic is utter garbage as it gives no sense, that you get no dmg for hitting a teammate with your hull, but you do die instantly when trading against an enemy. I just had a game in my new orleans, where at full hp, I came around a corner to ambush an indianapolis which had 3k health. I hit his ship on my belt against his nose and we both die. I was almost idling when I hit the ship (less than 5kn), but still the mechanic allows him to get 35k dmg off in the ramming process!

 

If the system allows teammates to bump into you with a full speed battleship against a DD, without a penalty, but you do die instantly when trading against an enemy, then I think this system should be reworked. I am aware of that you can mount a flag to decrease ramming, but it still doesnt make up for the math in the process.

 

What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,596 posts
3,448 battles

Its pretty obvious why ramming an ally makes no damage...

 

...my problem with current ramming is that it doesnt take into consideration ships' speed, angle, mass and bow structure (mikasa...cough...cough) and results in situations where two bbs scraping their 300+ mm belts go blow up

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
769 posts
3,524 battles

So you're saying you want to die every time you and a teammate collide? An odd request, wanting to sink more often!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
258 posts
12,328 battles
10 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

If you think that sinking instantly when hitting teammates is better....

Camperdown was commissioned at Portsmouth on 18 July 1889, and initially went into reserve. In December 1889 she was posted to the Mediterranean Fleet as flagship, where she remained until being posted as flagship of the Channel Fleet in May 1890. She was paid off in May 1892 into Fleet reserve, recommissioning in July 1892 into the Mediterranean Fleet. On 22 June 1893, she collided with and sank the battleship HMS Victoria with 358 deaths, including Vice-Admiral Sir George Tryon.

 

Lets get some realism in the game, surely it would be fun to have 90% of ships pink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TXG-]
Players
2,368 posts
26 minutes ago, Allanagtig said:

Ok ok, the game has been out for so long now, that I think its time to take a look at some of the very first "flaws" that were implemented. First off, the ramming mechanic is utter garbage as it gives no sense, that you get no dmg for hitting a teammate with your hull, but you do die instantly when trading against an enemy. I just had a game in my new orleans, where at full hp, I came around a corner to ambush an indianapolis which had 3k health. I hit his ship on my belt against his nose and we both die. I was almost idling when I hit the ship (less than 5kn), but still the mechanic allows him to get 35k dmg off in the ramming process!

 

If the system allows teammates to bump into you with a full speed battleship against a DD, without a penalty, but you do die instantly when trading against an enemy, then I think this system should be reworked. I am aware of that you can mount a flag to decrease ramming, but it still doesnt make up for the math in the process.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Pardon me for asking the obvious but why didn't you just shoot him? It was an Indianapolis on 3k health....a couple of well aimed spuds would have killed it :Smile_amazed:

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-NFG-]
[-NFG-]
Players
97 posts
4,931 battles

I'm trying to imagine the hilarity that would ensue when every single Raptor Rescue Op ends because someone who wanted a heal ended up bumping into the CV

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAWKS]
Players
60 posts
3,946 battles

What im trying to say here with my post, is there have to be a balance in this ramming mechanic and not just instant plob when scratching an enemy hull

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
132 posts
5,916 battles

ramming is simple, two fast ships will trade each other for max hp (thats why i can ramm a des moines in my missouri and live)......if the ships have different speed the fast one will deal more dmg than the slow one.....again in theorie both will inflict dmg as high as their max hp but since one ship is slower it will inflict less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TXG-]
Players
2,368 posts
9 minutes ago, Allanagtig said:

What im trying to say here with my post, is there have to be a balance in this ramming mechanic and not just instant plob when scratching an enemy hull

There is.....a ramming flag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
7,550 battles
32 minutes ago, Allanagtig said:

What im trying to say here with my post, is there have to be a balance in this ramming mechanic and not just instant plob when scratching an enemy hull

you seem to underestimate the forces that are in play to move a huge mass like a battleship at a speed of several knots.

Collisions (even "mere scraping") between greater warships even in real live lead to fatal damage that mostly results in being unable to operate and having to repair in the nearest port, maybe even under another ships power because the ship won't make it to the harbour on it's own. (which in this game is represented as exploding and sinking = being unable to fight on/float)

 

Regarding "friendly" hugs: There was a time back in the day in CBT when friendly "bumbs" lead to the same damage as enemy ones. I think you can imagine why this wasn't popular and patched out rather fast?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAWKS]
Players
60 posts
3,946 battles

Miessa3, you get it wrong. You talk like its either this or that. Im talking about a balance, maybe something inbetween ? so its not as retarded as it is now

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
769 posts
3,524 battles
13 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

Regarding "friendly" hugs: There was a time back in the day in CBT when friendly "bumbs" lead to the same damage as enemy ones. I think you can imagine why this wasn't popular and patched out rather fast?

 

Wait, really? I don't remember that. :Smile_amazed:

 

2 minutes ago, Allanagtig said:

Miessa3, you get it wrong. You talk like its either this or that. Im talking about a balance, maybe something inbetween ? so its not as retarded as it is now

 

 

There's nothing wrong with it now though. Massive ships weighing tens of thousands of tonnes will do a lot of damage to each other when they collide and render themselves combat ineffective, represented by losing huge amounts of health and sinking. For obvious reasons the damage for ramming friendlies is massively reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,222 posts
6,782 battles
2 hours ago, Allanagtig said:

I just had a game in my new orleans, where at full hp, I came around a corner to ambush an indianapolis which had 3k health. I hit his ship on my belt against his nose and we both die. I was almost idling when I hit the ship (less than 5kn), but still the mechanic allows him to get 35k dmg off in the ramming process!

So you came around a corner to ambush some ship, and then stopped in front of them showing your flat broadside? You have far bigger problems than  just ramming m8 :fish_palm: You should count yourself lucky he decided to ram you instead of deleting you with his AP gifting you that extra 3k dmg

 

1 hour ago, puxflacet said:

it doesnt take into consideration ships' speed

It does, relative speed between both ships

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,296 posts
7,550 battles
12 minutes ago, rvfharrier said:

 

Wait, really? I don't remember that. :Smile_amazed:

 

Could have been CAT too though can't renember because it's long ago and I am crap and old. :cap_haloween:

Back in the day I got to play the CAT on an account of a friend that was more lucky to get in than me a friend that played the CAT and told me all about it (after the NDA was lifted ofc). :Smile_hiding: (damn that sucker still envyious of his CAT flag and Iwaki Alpha which I UNLOCKED by playing because he couldn't :Smile_sad:)

 

18 minutes ago, Allanagtig said:

Miessa3, you get it wrong. You talk like its either this or that. Im talking about a balance, maybe something inbetween ? so its not as retarded as it is now

 

No really ramming is fine as it is and represents how fatal these things are irl.

It is also a nice addition to the game as it gives a tactical last resort action. It proves some skill if you could manage to surprise someone and trade in your almost dead BB against an almost full hp enemy one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAWKS]
Players
60 posts
3,946 battles

Wilkatis instead of being a complete donk, why dont you reply to the actually post problem. Screw the scenario on how stuff happent and relate to the fact! If you want the scenario explained and comment on stuff there, then send a private msg or dont post at all. This ship that i rammed into had moved closer to me when I came around the mountain, and was not where it was spotted last. That means none of us could stop even when going very slow.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
3,879 posts
6,947 battles
2 hours ago, puxflacet said:

...my problem with current ramming is that it doesnt take into consideration ships' speed, angle, mass and bow structure

But it does indeed take into accout the relative velocities of both ships.

 

ramming damage is depended from:

  • relative velocity (speed and angle)
  • ship classes
  • maybe even some additional hidden parameter
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,103 posts

It's a game and the catastrophic damage incurred when enemy ships collide making them effectively useless or sunk is modelled as a destruction, there is a relative speed component built in too.

 

I've no problems with how the ramming mechanics work, I don't think it needs a change just because you got annoyed at being killed by a low HP enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,222 posts
6,782 battles
12 minutes ago, Allanagtig said:

Wilkatis instead of being a complete donk, why dont you reply to the actually post problem. Screw the scenario on how stuff happent and relate to the fact! If you want the scenario explained and comment on stuff there, then send a private msg or dont post at all. This ship that i rammed into had moved closer to me when I came around the mountain, and was not where it was spotted last. That means none of us could stop even when going very slow.   

That's called "git gud and google what is a minimap". Sounds like extremely predictable situation

 

Ramming is perfectly fine as it is, don't blame your own shortcomings on some random game mechanic

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CRU_]
Players
144 posts
5,611 battles

Jesus this thread. The OP has an issue with the current balancing of the ramming mechanics, he doesn't like it, and proposes it change. The replies that he receives utilize a fallacy (means you're talking BS) wherein "Realism" (seriously realism) supports the notion of two big ships going pop upon contact, and then directly after special plead team ram damage out of realism for gameplay reasons (ie Fun). That's the cognitive dissonance part which makes your whole argument BS as the premise of the OP is that the current ramming mechanics are not FUN and should be changed for gameplay reasons.

 

I don't like current ram mechanics, and would prefer ships deal only their current remaining HP in damage to a ship they ram, and guess what i cite gameplay reasons for that position, the counter to my position is arguing the curent mechanics are better for gameplay, not some BS special plead (use it when it suits you) to realism.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
3,879 posts
6,947 battles

@zengaze

If you don't want to get your "proposal" called BS as well, you should add at least one proper arguement backing up your idea. Otherwise it is just BS (as you somehow like this strong word).

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,597 posts
7,320 battles
13 minutes ago, zengaze said:

I don't like current ram mechanics, and would prefer ships deal only their current remaining HP in damage to a ship they ram, and guess what i cite gameplay reasons for that position, the counter to my position is arguing the curent mechanics are better for gameplay, not some BS special plead (use it when it suits you) to realism.

 

Ramming only makes sense if it's a last gasp attempt to do maximum damage when you're about to die anyway, what you're suggesting would make it pointless.

 

Quite simply, if you're stupid enough to allow your enemy to ram you then you deserve to die regardless of HP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAWKS]
Players
60 posts
3,946 battles

Again Wilkatis, why are you even in this thread? All you do is comment on the situation and not the actual ramming mechanic post. If you dont have anything useful to say about the actual post, then leave! Argument about the actually ramming mechanic or be gone. Dont sit here and throw crap around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,770 posts
10,668 battles
3 hours ago, Allanagtig said:

(...)

If the system allows teammates to bump into you with a full speed battleship against a DD, without a penalty, but you do die instantly when trading against an enemy, then I think this system should be reworked. I am aware of that you can mount a flag to decrease ramming, but it still doesnt make up for the math in the process.

 

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that there is a VERY good reason why WG nerfed team damage from ramming straight to the ground. I don't see how the game would be improved by having , on average, 1-2 ships per battle explode before the teams even spot each other. And then some more ships exploding from bumping into friendlies during the battle...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CRU_]
Players
144 posts
5,611 battles
27 minutes ago, principat121 said:

@zengaze

If you don't want to get your "proposal" called BS as well, you should add at least one proper arguement backing up your idea. Otherwise it is just BS (as you somehow like this strong word).

 

My position which contained my proposition " I don't like current ram mechanics, and would prefer ships deal only their current remaining HP in damage to a ship they ram ". My premise is that it is not fun to lose your 50,000 HP ship to a ship that you have taken from it's full HP to 5% HP through the primary conventional mechanic in the game (artillery/torps), in other words it's a cheap [edited]way of dealing an insane alpha strike when you have lost the fight. I've utilized Ram too, because if it's in the game of course i'm going to abuse it, even though it feels dirty as manure trench. I do like the acronym "BS" as it applies to so much in life.

 

16 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

Ramming only makes sense if it's a last gasp attempt to do maximum damage when you're about to die anyway, what you're suggesting would make it pointless.

 

Quite simply, if you're stupid enough to allow your enemy to ram you then you deserve to die regardless of HP.

 

Saying my proposition would make ramming pointless is an example of a good counter, my reply is so what if it makes it pointless. As for the stupidity of being in a position where an enemy rams you, and therefore deserving of it, that's a good argument i have no counter for :)

 

Edit to ADD: it's another good excuse for BBs to not get into close engagement, as they are the easiest to ram and least able to avoid it. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×