Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
aph_73

Does realism matter?

Does historical accurracy matter?  

106 members have voted

  1. 1. Does historical accurracy matter?

    • No, WoWs is a game. I don't care if the ships portayed, and the tactics used, have any historical basis. It's all about the gameplay, and this is (and should be) a fast paced arcade game.
      16
    • No, I am interested in the history of the ships, and that brought me here(maybe)..But..it's just a game...attempts at realism will only undermine the gameplay. Other naval games are available.
      36
    • Mmmm...I like the gameplay but removing some of the more extreme game mechanics (e.g. radar through island) can only be a good thing.
      26
    • Yes, gameplay is important but it bothers me ships don't play the way I expect, or believe they ought to play.
      17
    • Yes, I am losing hair beacuse I want to see my team "cross the enemy T", but instead they are "bow tanking whilst reversing", "island camping" and "stealth torping".
      11

52 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[RTRUK]
Players
28 posts
4,894 battles

It seems to me that we see quite a lot of threads in which people complain they have been sunk in counter intuitive circumstances, or are moaning about unrealistic gameplay e.g. ships sitting behind islands.  We've also seen ships actually physically altered from their historical form for balance reasons e.g. lowering of citadels, extra AA guns, alternative main guns.  My question is, does it matter?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,709 posts
6,668 battles

Hummm, good question and i think that will depend on a few factors, age is one of them and the type of players they are trying to get cash from.

 

I understand that WOWS is an arcade game, but they choose to do so where they could have gone in the another direction.  I would have preferred the other direction but hey ho.

 

It should have a bit of both as it's not a simulator after all.  The ships should function as they should, each having a role.  The individual ships should also retain their special attributes which should be represented within the game (like the rockets on the Hood for example). 

 

However, WG have blurred these lines to the point it's becoming to feel like a comicbook. 

 

So to me it matters, but not enough to not play the game at the moment.  However, that day is becoming closer and closer.  If it wasn't for the clan i am in? I wouldn't be playing WOWS right now. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DIKI]
Players
1,157 posts
295 battles
15 minutes ago, aph_73 said:

It seems to me that we see quite a lot of threads in which people complain they have been sunk in counter intuitive circumstances, or are moaning about unrealistic gameplay e.g. ships sitting behind islands.  We've also seen ships actually physically altered from their historical form for balance reasons e.g. lowering of citadels, extra AA guns, alternative main guns.  My question is, does it matter?  

no it does not matter because game play would be boring..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
64 posts

It does matter. At least in the grand sheme of things.

 

I mean ist not needed to be hyper realistic like a Simulator in an arcade game. However there are certain "realistic" componets that define the setting, an excample being WG ballancing certain ships around the Island camp meta. While ingame it kinda works it hurts the feeling of the game. When done enough it may reach the point where you play the game, have naval grapgics but just dont feel the ships anymore. At least for me it is a defining concept of naval battles that everything should be constantly moving. Ducking behind cover and just sticking your gun out for short moments is infantry stuff, there are many games out there who do that fine.

 

So in total, no absolute realism is not needed, but there are certain realistic aspects that define the Setting. Those should be kept in the game as it loses ist apeal without them.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,709 posts
6,668 battles
4 minutes ago, veslingr said:

no it does not matter because game play would be boring..

 

I don't think that comment could be more subjective if it tried. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,577 posts
9,791 battles

Realism, no. The game isn't a simulator.

 

Authenticism, yes to the point where it doesn't actively conflict with balanced gameplay.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,709 posts
6,668 battles

I also think that it's a target group kinda question. 

 

Ask a bunch of 10- 20 year old kids/young adults and they will say one thing, ask the more seasoned and they will say another.

 

Different times, different expectations out of a game and different attention spans. 

 

If you did the poll by age group then you would have vastly different stats. :cap_tea:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DIKI]
Players
1,157 posts
295 battles
9 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

 

I don't think that comment could be more subjective if it tried. 

engine could not be reparied in 30 seconds

fire can not be repaired in 20 seconda

guns can not shoot 200 rounds in 20 minutes (cooling problem)

there were no "lock" targets and torpedo indicators

ships could not engage and disengage in 2 minutes (stealth)

dds did not have "cloacking device - you no see me in 5.8 km

ships could not survive more than couple of direct hits from large caliber guns

there were no magical "repair party" or deff AAAA

 

and so on and on and on

 

now imagine how boring game would be if this imaginary effects were real..engine out = end of game = crew repairing engine 30 days

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,709 posts
6,668 battles
5 minutes ago, veslingr said:

engine could not be reparied in 30 seconds

fire can not be repaired in 20 seconda

guns can not shoot 200 rounds in 20 minutes (cooling problem)

there were no "lock" targets and torpedo indicators

ships could not engage and disengage in 2 minutes (stealth)

dds did not have "cloacking device - you no see me in 5.8 km

ships could not survive more than couple of direct hits from large caliber guns

there were no magical "repair party" or deff AAAA

 

and so on and on and on

 

now imagine how goring game would be if this imaginary effects were real..engine out = end of game = crew repairing engine 30 days

 

Now your being plain silly chap.

 

No one is expecting that are they.

 

What people do expect is something simple like I don't know....A battleship having less concealment than a cruiser?.....Hey, wait there a second!:fish_panic:

 

See. :cap_tea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DIKI]
Players
1,157 posts
295 battles
1 minute ago, Redcap375 said:

 

Now your being plain silly chap.

 

No one is expecting that are they.

 

What people do expect is something simple like I don't know....A battleship having less concealment than a cruiser?.....Hey, wait there a second!:fish_panic:

 

see. :cap_tea:

why i am silly....there were no concealment in real life :)

 

also:

limited ammo

a fact that all map except ocean are 100% unrealistic

overheating of engines

killed crew

ramming

1 km battle of BBS

 

mate this is 100% imaginary elemnt game and as such it would be unplayable if it had 30% realism in it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PN]
Players
153 posts
2,623 battles
19 minutes ago, Doversole said:

So in total, no absolute realism is not needed, but there are certain realistic aspects that define the Setting. Those should be kept in the game as it loses ist apeal without them.

 

9 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

Authenticism, yes to the point where it doesn't actively conflict with balanced gameplay.

 

8 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

I also think that it's a target group kinda question. 

These Gents have provided the answer.

 

Moreover, coming from a naval background, I would say that some aspects of the game are counter intuitive (to me at least). This is a bit discouraging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
1,090 posts
14,212 battles

It matter to a certain degree but 2 much of it is detriment to fun...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SNI]
Players
526 posts
8,346 battles
40 minutes ago, aph_73 said:

It seems to me that we see quite a lot of threads in which people complain they have been sunk in counter intuitive circumstances, or are moaning about unrealistic gameplay e.g. ships sitting behind islands.  We've also seen ships actually physically altered from their historical form for balance reasons e.g. lowering of citadels, extra AA guns, alternative main guns.  My question is, does it matter?  

 

My opinion on this matter is that yes, autenticity, being aesthetic, tactics, and performance, matters.

 

Why ? Because the game is advertised as using ships that existed. 

If wargaming does not want autenticity, they simply could avoid using real ships in their game.

 

Having said that, of course there must be some kind of freedom in altering ship performance, for the sake of balance,

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,825 posts
7,574 battles

What should I vote for? Dont know.

 

Game has a theme. WW2 naval warfare and is doing excellent in that regard ... ALL the artwork (ports, emblems, events, girls, scene is very nice.

Even if you forget all the paper ships, the theme feels strong even with all the POI and other (mostly promo events).

 

So I have nothing against historical aspect of the game.

 

When you mention game play and historical aspect together ... then you HAVE to consider, that there are some limits to what makes a good, enjoyable and playable game.

Also consider limitations .... because there are ... you can say LOS is problematic, but sometimes things just dont work - or even worse ... break the game.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,709 posts
6,668 battles
5 minutes ago, veslingr said:

limited ammo

a fact that all map except ocean are 100% unrealistic

overheating of engines

killed crew

ramming

 

 

Hummm.  You see, some of them could be viewed as interesting features of a Warship game.

 

killing of crew would reduce the effectiveness of the ship?

Overheating of engines could be interesting if a engine system is implemented?

Ramming did happen in RL?

 

But you automatically discounted it as tripe and mock it because that is the side of the fence you are sat on.

 

Again, it's subjective and horses for courses. 

 

But I understand how WG operates and don't expect anything more. They do a great job of visualising them though (the Hood, Belfast and Roma are lovely).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-MM]
Weekend Tester
80 posts
2,382 battles

Well, the game is reasonably realistic in abstract terms if you compare it with the very few full scale big gun engagements in history (Jutland, and the one in the Pacific).They featured DDs charging about, cruiser screens, and battleships slugging it out. 

 

For the most part, naval combat has been small scale, lopsided, and not very interesting in terms of translation into a game. 

 

Essentially, WoWs is a computer version of a traditional tabletop wargame. We've got RNG instead of a bag of D6s, and we don't have to paint up little lead models, but it's the same thing.

 

If you want realism, there's plenty of games out there. But even they need to add an arcade element to make something like River Plate or Denmark Strait battles even remotely interesting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AS13]
Players
2,242 posts
2,256 battles

Heh. I like realism but this is a game. Sacrifices must be made for having a nice, balanced GAME. 

On the other hand - what if we had submarines, but then you press a button and suddenly, it can fly. 

I don't think that will happen - even though we already have X-ray radar... 

 

Another thing is 'smoke on the horizon'. Which was usually how ships got first detected.

I'm fine with the current mechanism, for the sake of gameplay. 

They have shown they can make it interesting, even with subs.

 

I do wish they'd implement more 'realistic' scenario type battles.

Dump the 'cap circles'. Have two sides in what is currently 'operations', could be done.

Most of them would be suitable already. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DIKI]
Players
1,157 posts
295 battles
9 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

 

Hummm.  You see, some of them could be viewed as interesting features of a Warship game.

 

killing of crew would reduce the effectiveness of the ship?

Overheating of engines could be interesting if a engine system is implemented?

Ramming did happen in RL?

 

But you automatically discounted it as tripe and mock it because that is the side of the fence you are sat on.

 

Again, it's subjective and horses for courses. 

 

But I understand how WG operates and don't expect anything more. They do a great job of visualising them though (the Hood, Belfast and Roma are lovely).

i am not mocking it, i am just stating that realism would kill game play.

 

most peoples when talking about realism here are talking about things that have nothing in common with realism but game play, same peoples accept that dd in invisible!!!!!! but object lobing iceland style of play because it is NOT REAL, but have no problem with droping tops from 5,4 km unseen.....wtf??

 

every aspect of imaginary gameplay that peoples dont like is NOT REALISTIC, but will accept 99% other stuff that have nothing in common with realism because they do not object that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DIKI]
Players
1,157 posts
295 battles
2 minutes ago, Winged_Cat_Dormant said:

Bow tanking while reversing is not historically accurate?

 

tanking is not historically accurate.....ships went down or were severely crippled after 2 torps..here...10 are not problem for "tanks"

also pls point me to "heal" in real battles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
1,090 posts
14,212 battles

Well tbh tho ship that was sinking often could still shoot for some time and take several enemys with it into watery grave...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,649 posts
3,502 battles

Compromises against realism have to be made in order to to squeeze naval battles, which IRL took hours, into 15 min mutliplayer game. However i believe that when there is a way to be realistic, the game should be. And I'm certainly against nonsensical gimmicks just for the sake of them (ships that dont loose speed in turns, 20 000 ton cruisers racing above 40 knots, now stupid heal for the planes...)

First and foremost the game should be logical and embrace character of naval warfare and not go against these whenever it suits to the dev team or when they just want to introduce some stupid gimmick because they cant come up with anything better.

 

Realism and gameplay should be in balance. I dont want boring simulator but I also dont want just exciting game with mechanics so far from reality that it doesn't matter if there are ships or anything else. I'm here because of warships.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RTRUK]
Players
28 posts
4,894 battles
1 hour ago, Redcap375 said:

I also think that it's a target group kinda question. 

 

Ask a bunch of 10- 20 year old kids/young adults and they will say one thing, ask the more seasoned and they will say another.

 

Different times, different expectations out of a game and different attention spans. 

 

If you did the poll by age group then you would have vastly different stats. :cap_tea:

 

 

Interesting point.  I must admit I'm inclined to assume WoWs players are older than average gamers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
54 posts
2,356 battles

I have just only one big and hard question for WG and Devs....

In the future... I mean some weeks or a couples of months... If the gameplay looks too changed in bad way... Are you able to say:" sorry guys! We tried to change something but it's better to return back to previous.."?

Yes or no? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
87 posts
2,985 battles

It really depends what aspects of realism are we looking at.

Ships look realistic. They move, shoot and sink in semi-realistic manner too. 

 

Armor values? Internal layout? Tiers? Reload speeds? Damage? Accuracy? 

Armor layout is semi-realistic but in the end these are all balancing factors. Balanced gameplay should come above realism in this case.

 

The realism of the battle itself?

  • Most of the fleet naval battles had very little action. Long distance shots with abysmal hit ratio, days of stalling and avoiding of direct confrontation.

  • Comparable size fleets meeting in the "field" was very rare occurence.

  • Vast majority of naval battles took part at open sea. Ocean, here we come!

This is definitely not what the game needs.

 

In the end the gaming experience is supposed to be fun.

Gameplay >> Realism

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×