[VICE] Boostaca Players 22 posts 9,993 battles Report post #1 Posted January 24, 2022 Wouldnt it be more realistic if every ship has an fading area for concealment. example shima: concealment 5,6 km. fading area 1km. meaning: barely visible at 6,6km, then the visability increase when u get closer and closer to the concealmeant of the ship. at 5,6 km u see shima all clear. No more unrealistic popups :) 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[THESO] SV_Kompresor Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters 5,868 posts Report post #2 Posted January 24, 2022 Yes it'd be more realistic. It'd also be worse precisely because it's more realistic. How about no. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[I-J-N] Karasu_Browarszky [I-J-N] Players 13,025 posts Report post #3 Posted January 24, 2022 2 minutes ago, Boostaca said: Wouldnt it be more realistic if every ship has an fading area for concealment. example shima: concealment 5,6 km. fading area 1km. meaning: barely visible at 6,6km, then the visability increase when u get closer and closer to the concealmeant of the ship. at 5,6 km u see shima all clear. No more unrealistic popups :) Yes, that would be preferable. I just don't know how the game engine could cope with that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[-SBG-] ColonelPete Players 38,559 posts 19,178 battles Report post #4 Posted January 24, 2022 you need a distance where a target lock works if you make ships more visible than now, you have to rework the ship balance Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[I-J-N] Karasu_Browarszky [I-J-N] Players 13,025 posts Report post #5 Posted January 24, 2022 6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said: you need a distance where a target lock works if you make ships more visible than now, you have to rework the ship balance I don't think the OP wants to make them more visible than they are now, though. It's the blinking effect that's the issue here. At the very least, the game should maintain lock on target that gradually becomes more imprecise unless they get a new visual sighting on the target within a certain time. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[VICE] Boostaca Players 22 posts 9,993 battles Report post #6 Posted January 24, 2022 Maybe if the "lock on" only works at the actuall concealment. The game engine can work it out.. ships are faded in snowstorms for example. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BLING] Cammo1962 [BLING] Players 2,468 posts 25,257 battles Report post #7 Posted January 24, 2022 15 minutes ago, Boostaca said: Wouldnt it be more realistic if every ship has an fading area for concealment. example shima: concealment 5,6 km. fading area 1km. meaning: barely visible at 6,6km, then the visability increase when u get closer and closer to the concealmeant of the ship. at 5,6 km u see shima all clear. No more unrealistic popups :) I like the idea but pls dont give WeeGee any ideas because they will f... it up at some point in the process @Boostaca 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BLING] Cammo1962 [BLING] Players 2,468 posts 25,257 battles Report post #8 Posted January 24, 2022 And WeeGee has a solid reputation for turning things into a huge problem because most their Devs except from the art department are incompetent @Boostaca 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CAG] General_Alexus Players 1,046 posts 13,178 battles Report post #9 Posted January 24, 2022 20 minutes ago, Boostaca said: meaning: barely visible at 6,6km, then the visability increase when u get closer and closer to the concealmeant of the ship. at 5,6 km u see shima all clear. There is no such thing as "barely visible" in this game, its not ARMA or WT where you actually need to see the target with your Mk1 eyeball. A blind person can play this game (somewhat) because if targets are within detection they get targeted by the Autoaim assist in game, Aiming is overrated by many players who dont know core mechanics of the gameengine. I mean ok lets adjust your suggestion what you could do, I would still be against it: You can see a shima at 6.6km already, but you can only target it with the auto-aim assist if somebody is within 5.6km of the shima. As I said I dont see how this would make the game any better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Camperdown Players 2,501 posts 17,258 battles Report post #10 Posted January 24, 2022 24 minutes ago, Boostaca said: Wouldnt it be more realistic if every ship has an fading area for concealment. example shima: concealment 5,6 km. fading area 1km. meaning: barely visible at 6,6km, then the visability increase when u get closer and closer to the concealmeant of the ship. at 5,6 km u see shima all clear. No more unrealistic popups :) Even more realistic would be infinitely variable visibility depending on weather and light conditions. What happened at Jutland was strongly influenced by variable visibility conditions. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[-TAP-] Pandafaust Players 755 posts 10,484 battles Report post #11 Posted January 24, 2022 2 minutes ago, General_Alexus said: A blind person can play this game (somewhat) because if targets are within detection they get targeted by the Autoaim assist in game, Aiming is overrated by many players who dont know core mechanics of the gameengine. I'm sure we'd all be delighted to see a video of you playing a round with the monitor turned off... 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CAG] General_Alexus Players 1,046 posts 13,178 battles Report post #12 Posted January 24, 2022 Just now, Camperdown said: Even more realistic would be infinitely variable visibility depending on weather and light conditions. What happened at Jutland was strongly influenced by variable visibility conditions. How about we scrap the spotting mechanics all together, kick out the flatearthers at WG HQ, introcude earth curvature to the game and you need to spot ships yourself when the smokefunnels are sticking over the horrizon. Great idea, but sounds like a different game to me. 1 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BLING] Cammo1962 [BLING] Players 2,468 posts 25,257 battles Report post #13 Posted January 24, 2022 19 minutes ago, ColonelPete said: you need a distance where a target lock works if you make ships more visible than now, you have to rework the ship balance I would suggest that you read the post again and as @Boostaca already wrote it kind of already excist in the game @ColonelPete 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[O-V] johncl Players 390 posts 16,105 battles Report post #14 Posted January 24, 2022 Yes it would be nice ..But like most thing if WEEGEE change something they only make it worse 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CAG] General_Alexus Players 1,046 posts 13,178 battles Report post #15 Posted January 24, 2022 1 minute ago, Pandafaust said: I'm sure we'd all be delighted to see a video of you playing a round with the monitor turned off... You know what, That would actually be a great Idea, I might even try that and see what place I can make on the team. Had some issues with my replay-files though, need to check that first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BLING] Cammo1962 [BLING] Players 2,468 posts 25,257 battles Report post #16 Posted January 24, 2022 1 minute ago, johncl said: Yes it would be nice ..But like most thing if WEEGEE change something they only make it worse Well WeeGee has a solid reputation for turning things into a huge problem because most their Devs except from the art department are incompetent @johncl 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[VICE] Boostaca Players 22 posts 9,993 battles Report post #17 Posted January 24, 2022 I know, the game isnt a simulation or realistic. But I dont see why u cant get a realistic feel to it. Its only suggestions.. Maybe the fading area should start at the actual consealment for the best result, without breaking the gameplay I like my idea:D 3 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[R-M] Isoruku_Yamamoto Players 1,437 posts 16,247 battles Report post #18 Posted January 24, 2022 38 minutes ago, Boostaca said: Wouldnt it be more realistic if every ship has an fading area for concealment. example shima: concealment 5,6 km. fading area 1km. meaning: barely visible at 6,6km, then the visability increase when u get closer and closer to the concealmeant of the ship. at 5,6 km u see shima all clear. No more unrealistic popups :) Havent read the whole thread, so someone may have mentioned it: There is a clear technical problem with fades, which is that its merely a visual effect. "Barely spotted" is still spotted, meaning a mod will be able to display a "barely spotted" ship just as clearly as a fully detected ship..... Even introducing transparency etc doesnt solve that. If i want to, i can display the sea as a plain blue surface, and any enemy ship as a red hitbox without all the fancy camos- a fade wouldnt help that 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CAG] General_Alexus Players 1,046 posts 13,178 battles Report post #19 Posted January 24, 2022 1 minute ago, Boostaca said: I know, the game isnt a simulation or realistic. But I dont see why u cant get a realistic feel to it. Its only suggestions.. Maybe the fading area should start at the actual consealment for the best result, without breaking the gameplay I like my idea:D You surely have played turing a Taifoon did you? (Have not checkt your stats yet, is Taifoon a high tier thing?) There are situations where the visibility is low even though ships are detected in case a storm is over you. And yes it looks great (and I admit to potatoing my shoots in such situations sometimes) Do I want that in every game? I dont know, also it would be very irritaing in practise when ships move towards and away from each other in combined speed of 40-80 knots permanently changing visibility/transperency of the shipmodel. Also think about the people running the game on toasters, to much visual effects effect theire permormamce alot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[R-M] Isoruku_Yamamoto Players 1,437 posts 16,247 battles Report post #20 Posted January 24, 2022 5 minutes ago, Boostaca said: I know, the game isnt a simulation or realistic. But I dont see why u cant get a realistic feel to it. Its only suggestions.. Maybe the fading area should start at the actual consealment for the best result, without breaking the gameplay I like my idea:D I do like the idea, i wanna say that, its just that i dont see it working from the technical side 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[I-J-N] Karasu_Browarszky [I-J-N] Players 13,025 posts Report post #21 Posted January 24, 2022 18 minutes ago, General_Alexus said: As I said I dont see how this would make the game any better. Well, currently I don't like how gimmicky the aiming/tracking/detection process is. IMO, either you got a visual sighting or you don't, in which case you either give up or rely on reported sighting coordinates for your lock on. The game should be able to handle this easily. 16 minutes ago, Camperdown said: Even more realistic would be infinitely variable visibility depending on weather and light conditions. What happened at Jutland was strongly influenced by variable visibility conditions. And all this would be welcome, would spice up things real nicely. 13 minutes ago, General_Alexus said: How about we scrap the spotting mechanics all together, kick out the flatearthers at WG HQ, introcude earth curvature to the game and you need to spot ships yourself when the smokefunnels are sticking over the horrizon. Great idea, but sounds like a different game to me. Yes! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[RONIN] DDG_121 Players 791 posts 10,936 battles Report post #22 Posted January 24, 2022 48 minutes ago, Boostaca said: I like my idea:D I like your idea too. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[-SBG-] ColonelPete Players 38,559 posts 19,178 battles Report post #23 Posted January 24, 2022 1 hour ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said: I don't think the OP wants to make them more visible than they are now, though. It's the blinking effect that's the issue here. At the very least, the game should maintain lock on target that gradually becomes more imprecise unless they get a new visual sighting on the target within a certain time. 1 hour ago, Cammo1962 said: I would suggest that you read the post again and as @Boostaca already wrote it kind of already excist in the game @ColonelPete When a ship with 5.6km concealment becomes barely visible at 6.6km, you make a ship more visible... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[VICE] Boostaca Players 22 posts 9,993 battles Report post #24 Posted January 24, 2022 12 minutes ago, ColonelPete said: When a ship with 5.6km concealment becomes barely visible at 6.6km, you make a ship more visible... Ok, that was just a suggestion. You can start the fading at the concealment. It can be a fast fade.. maybe only 500m. In that case its up for testing. I think the idea is good, it Will bring a more realistic feel to spotting. but I dont have all the answers how to impement it. I have played this game since beta and have always felt the spotting pop ups wrong. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[THESO] SV_Kompresor Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters 5,868 posts Report post #25 Posted January 24, 2022 5 minutes ago, Boostaca said: Ok, that was just a suggestion. You can start the fading at the concealment. It can be a fast fade.. maybe only 500m. In that case its up for testing. I think the idea is good, it Will bring a more realistic feel to spotting. but I dont have all the answers how to impement it. I have played this game since beta and I have always felt the spotting pop ups wrong. Something being realistic or not is completely irrelevant if it causes problems. Or hell, even if it doesn't. Why fix (and potentially ruin) things that aren't broken? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
