Would moving Icebergs add an interesting variable?

[Sir_Sinksalot]

Hey guys+devs.

 

What do you think about that idea?

 

On some of the winter/snowy type maps, remove a few islands and replace them with moving icebergs which would effectively become moving islands, moving hard cover.

 

Would that add some interesting variables to battles by having an almost constantly evolving map that might offer cover where there wasn't earlier and force a player to have to adjust their speed and direction to match the course of the iceberg and sometimes a player might accidentally drift out from behind that moving hard cover iceberg as they're too focused on shooting enemy ships etc... and the iceberg could be set to not offer as much detection reduction as land does, other possible attributes.

 

Maybe even the iceberg can be a destructible object that only offers temporary cover from several salvos of a ship, but perhaps this temporary cover might be enough to create a scenario where a player can use it for long enough cover as to deal with one ship at a time instead of getting shot by several ships and make some interesting plays and carries etc. 

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 5 Minuten, Sir_Sinksalot sagte:

On some of the winter/snowy type maps, remove a few islands and replace them with moving icebergs which would effectively become moving islands, moving hard cover.

Imagine islands running away from their huggers... lovely!

[Sir_Sinksalot]

33 minutes ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

Imagine islands running away from their huggers... lovely!

 

 

Lol, exactly. 

 

That sort of thing would happen if they weren't paying enough attention, or even if the iceberg was destroyed(if offered as a destructible object) and they didn't notice their iceberg cover was gone. Might be useful for a last gasp duck behind cover from an incoming salvo or drop CV/ship torpedoes. A cheeky DD player might try and hide behind an iceberg undetected as the iceberg innocently drifts towards an enemy ship that's completely unaware there's a DD lurking behind it getting closer and closer.

 

Icebergs also come in all shapes and sizes so what might offer cover for one ship might not entirely cover a larger ship.

[DDG_121]

I liked the iade. Dynamic environment in general. Great.

 

 

[lovelacebeer]

I remember WG toyed with the idea of destructive environments where there would ice boxes you could destroy but they seem to have given up on the idea. 
 

Moving icebergs would add for a more interesting environment, sadly I wouldn’t get my hopes up it would probably be a nightmare for WG especially when considering submarines.

[Sir_Sinksalot]

13 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

I remember WG toyed with the idea of destructive environments where there would ice boxes you could destroy but they seem to have given up on the idea. 
 

Moving icebergs would add for a more interesting environment, sadly I wouldn’t get my hopes up it would probably be a nightmare for WG especially when considering submarines.

 

Ya submarines was the only real snag I could think of.

 

I gave thought to torpedoes being able to pass under the icebergs as a variable too but that would only happen with some sort of ice sheet which itself offers no surface cover. Icebergs have about 90% of their mass under the water so certainly no torpedoes as offered in this game, even deep water types, would pass under an iceberg and would simply hit them and explode same as how it hits land, BUT, with the exception of actually destroying the iceberg if offered as a destructible object.

 

So the only real catch is how icebergs would interact with subs. So long as the devs set the variable paths taken by the icebergs to never get too close to land and never go into shallow waters then there's really no problem with subs either. In fact, it would also be an interesting variable for subs if they could pass under these icebergs when diving to their deepest setting. 

[Duecut]

moving islands will just make the hiding worst, the campers will just chose an island to stay with and stick to it, also depending on the islands course it could give one team the advantage or stifle the movement of both teams. Players sniping from the back lines are more of an issue that the island campers.
 

But I do agree that the maps need a bit more variation and all the effort they put into the “sub terrain” I don’t see why the couldn’t just apply a tide to the game. 
 

it doesn’t even need to be dynamic in the match just have a different sea level at the beginning. Could you imagine 2 brothers where the tide is so low that only a DD can go down the middle, or the tide is so high that some of the smaller islands disappear? 

[Aethervoxx]

Sure, why not . What could possibly go wrong ?

[General_Alexus]

Somebody remembers the old Ilands of Ice map, with the C cap (or A?) couvered in thouse many little ilands creating a maze like structure? I loved it, its a shame with the map rework it was changed to a generic map for some reason. Especially the ice maps could play and feel so much different to the other biotope types.

[lovelacebeer]

33 minutes ago, Sir_Sinksalot said:

 

Ya submarines was the only real snag I could think of.

 

I gave thought to torpedoes being able to pass under the icebergs as a variable too but that would only happen with some sort of ice sheet which itself offers no surface cover. Icebergs have about 90% of their mass under the water so certainly no torpedoes as offered in this game, even deep water types, would pass under an iceberg and would simply hit them and explode same as how it hits land, BUT, with the exception of actually destroying the iceberg if offered as a destructible object.

 

So the only real catch is how icebergs would interact with subs. So long as the devs set the variable paths taken by the icebergs to never get too close to land and never go into shallow waters then there's really no problem with subs either. In fact, it would also be an interesting variable for subs if they could pass under these icebergs when diving to their deepest setting. 

I agree it would be an interesting variable especially for subs who could use the iceberg to go around  or under, this adding a much needed tactical aspect to an otherwise rather boring gameplay. 
 

Sadly though I don’t hold any hope of this because WG seem to be keeping it deliberately basic and I get the impression that was also why they shelved destructive environments. 
 

Pity though seeing these would be fun  

[Karasu_Browarszky]

40 minutes ago, Sir_Sinksalot said:

 

Ya submarines was the only real snag I could think of.

 

I don't see a problem..

 

40 minutes ago, Sir_Sinksalot said:

 

So the only real catch is how icebergs would interact with subs.

 

Catastrophically, perhaps?

[CptBarney]

1 hour ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

Imagine islands running away from their huggers... lovely!

Premium icebergs, to stop them from moving away and come with 3 heavy pillboxes too shoot enemies with. Get special camos and skins, that unlock new abilities as well.

 

I can actually see them do that as well. Maybe we will get Black icebergs if we are lucky.

 

Would like too see it, but the average player would scream when they find out the Iceberg different 3.0km away from them lol.

[Sir_Sinksalot]

15 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

 

I don't see a problem..

 

 

Catastrophically, perhaps?

 

O my... GOD they're evolving!

 

[Sir_Sinksalot]

22 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

I agree it would be an interesting variable especially for subs who could use the iceberg to go around  or under, this adding a much needed tactical aspect to an otherwise rather boring gameplay. 
 

Sadly though I don’t hold any hope of this because WG seem to be keeping it deliberately basic and I get the impression that was also why they shelved destructive environments. 
 

Pity though seeing these would be fun  

 

It could work both ways

 

"Now try and torpedo my boat you stupid submarine! Mwaaah!"

 

 

 

 

 

[SV_Kompresor]

 

[Gvozdika]

Just so long as WG actually managed to fix the 'magically stick your ship to the invisible outcrop of undersea terrain' issues - sure why not. 

 

Who am I kidding.....

[Hugh_Ruka]

I think moving the cap circles after they supplied points for a certain amount of time would accomplish the same just better in every way ... similar to arms race just without the buffs ...

[Axilian_1]

we could have a new achievement 'Titanic' for beaching into an iceberg (co-op Bots would get it a lot though)

[illy]

yes something else to get stuck on when you are now where near it

[lovelacebeer]

Gentlemen we are forgetting WG promised us a moving iceberg already one ideal for operations; 

[Wulf_Ace]

Moving icebergs,hmmm

Sounds and plays even better then some players

[Molly_Delaney]

16 minutes ago, lovelacebeer said:

Gentlemen we are forgetting WG promised us a moving iceberg already one ideal for operations; 

Would be historically accurate as well...

The RAF/RN actually planned to do this during WW2. Imagine a RN CV with Lancasters dropping grand slam bombs.

I see your smoke screen and raise you an area effect weapon which would one shot most ships....

[Fodder1978]

Love the idea of destructible or movable terrain - but still reckon Night Fighting ought to be reconsidered as well. It’d be mean to fight at night WITH moving icebergs. It happened in reality, sometimes... even heavy fog conditions would be a start.

[Faceoff]

No but re instate collision DAMAGE, both island and the border should WIPE you out. - Border huggers are almost impossible to hit from far.

[ThePoisonDwarf]

4 hours ago, MementoMori_6030 said:

Imagine islands running away from their huggers... lovely!

Imagine huggers matching their speed with island and spamming all time.

Bad idea.