Rework spotting

[Figment]

Map sizes are 24kmx24km, 36kmx36km, 42kmx42km and 48kmx48km. For many ships, the view range is 12 to over 20km. Thus being in the middle of a map means you can see pretty much everything.

 

As is now, this is how spotting works:

 

Quote

https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Detection

Example

In the diagram to the right, assuming that all ships are enemies to one another, the destroyer (pink) can detect the cruiser (orange) as the cruiser is within the destroyer's view range (pink dashed line) and the distance between the two ships is smaller than than the cruiser's detectability range (orange line). However, the destroyer can not detect the battleship (blue) even though the distance between them is smaller than the battleship's detectability range (blue line) because the battleship is outside of the destroyer's view range (pink dashed line).

The cruiser on the other hand can detect the battleship, as it is within the cruiser's view range and the distance between them is smaller than the battleship's detectability range, however the cruiser can not detect the destroyer even though it is within the cruiser's view range because the distance between them is larger than the DD's detectability range.

The battleship can not detect either the destroyer or the cruiser even though the battleship's view range encompasses both of them because their distance to the battleship is larger than their respective detectability range.

If the destroyer and the battleship are on the same team while the cruiser is on the opposing team, the destroyer will spot the cruiser for the battleship and it will appear as a solid icon on the battleship's minimap and be rendered in its main view. If the destroyer and the cruiser are on the same team while the battleship is on the opposing team, the cruiser will spot the battleship for the destroyer but it will only appear as an outline in the destroyer's minimap and not rendered in its main view.

 

 

In current implementation, it doesn't matter where you are in relation to one another, you can inform the entire team of these locations and the above circles for detection and view range will sort out who can and cannot see people on map or on screen. Likely though, it's both.

 

This sort of linked radio, provides everyone on the side with the same information and the only difference is whether the enemy ships are within your view range. Given the long view ranges and the map sizes, this is pretty often always the case. The amount of ways to get detected is enormous. Aircraft, subs, DDs, radar and hydro all provide the intel and shared usually (near) instantly with everyone. This often results in a complete pile on of people on ships that are out in the open, even from across the map. Worse, those across the map have a better angle to citadel with. It means making a move brings a huge risk and as such many players are hesitant to move forward.

 

I would propose we get too much situational awareness right now. Too much information available cripples initiative and reduces the need to make an educated guess, to take a gamble. It reduces ambush and stealth play and it punishes any attempt to make a bold move as it removes the element of surprise you so desperately need, or at the very least reduces the piling on from enemies. It makes BB players think they're well positioned at max viewing and firing range. What we need is more situations in which you only get a map position, rather than a render on your screen for targeting.

 

Having full knowledge of the entire map provides IMO too much information that puts too much pressure on ships trying to advance, as they'll show a broadside to ships on the other end of the map (which may or may not be visible, of course).

 

 

What do I propose?

Creating more local pockets of information sharing should create a greater interdependency and a greater opportunity to make an aggressive forward move without being punished for it from the other end of the map. It would lead to more small groups vs small groups.

 

 

LEGENDA:

Dotted lines: radio range

Full lines: viewing range / spotting range

 

RED full lines: detectability range of enemy DD

Orange lines: submarine ranges (triangular section of center circle is periscope viewing range - note that this is directional, not omnidirectional!)

Purple lines: friendly DD ranges

White lines: friendly BB ranges

Blue lines: friendly CL ranges

 

In the current setup, the sub, submerged or on the surface, would spot enemy DDs A, B and C. All ships would be aware of the DDs on the map, all ships would get a shot on A, all but ship D on B, and ship C could be targeted by BB H.

 

 

 

So, let's look at information sharing. Let's assume this is done by radio. I would propose that any ship that wants to share their information for direct on screen targeting with another ship, like in WoT, it will have to be in contact range of that other ship by radio (dotted lines in the above image). This range should IMO in most cases not be more than a quarter to a third of the map (allowing a single ship in mid to share with 2/3s of the map any information they have). So even if a ship would be in view range, only if it's spotted by a ship within radio range would you actually see it appear.

 

What happens now?

 

Sub is on the surface, DDs not firing:

1. DD A: spotted by sub. This information is shared with ships D and G, but not the further away BBs.
2. DD B: spotted by sub. This information is shared with ships D and G, but not the further away BBs.
3. DD C: not spotted.

 

Sub is at periscope depth and looking in DD B's direction, DDs not firing:

1. DD A: not spotted by sub.
2. DD B: spotted by sub. This information is shared with ships D and G, but not the further away BBs.
3. DD C: not spotted.

 

Sub is at periscope depth and looking in DD B's direction, all DDs firing:

1. DD A: spotted by D, G and F if in line of sight. Sub gets full information from D, F and G. H gets information from F and G, but only map info from D.
2. DD B: spotted by sub and G. Sub shares information with ships D and G, but not the further away BBs due to being submerged. Ship G however does share the info with the BBs, provided it has line of sight.
3. DD C: not spotted.

 

NOTE: Something similar to subs would go for aircraft. In fact, I would add natural cloud cover so aircraft may lose sight of ships due to there simply being clouds in between.

 

 

As you can see from the above cases, where all three ships could be targeted and spotted today in all circumstances, this would provide both anti-submarine approach options as sub situational awareness and thus reaction time would be reduced. It would also allow for more sneak attacks where a local engagement is not interrupted by fire from further afield. Especially in the case of line of sight being broken by islands, the spotting and sharing of information would be severely reduced, leading to more dynamic combat options.

[SkipperCH]

People are already having problems with understanding the spotting mechanics. Making them any more complicated would be counterproductive. 

[CV_SUB_Report_Blacklist]

i just saw the white picture , this is perfect . 

[Figment]

5 minutes ago, SkipperCH said:

People are already having problems with understanding the spotting mechanics. Making them any more complicated would be counterproductive. 

That might be your opinion, it's also completely unsubstantiated. Can you explain why they have to understand the mechanics in the first place? They need to know detection range and line of sight in both situations. Just that in the current situation they're less aware of who'll be able to see them as the information is shared not just locally, but mapwide. So this system is in fact simpler to play in as you need less situational awareness of the entire map than in the current system in order to decide whether you can attempt a move. Their limited map knowledge will be a closer approximation of the realistic threats.

 

The question of whether people understand the mechanics has nothing to do with whether or not they can play a game anyway. People don't understand RNG, doesn't stop them from pointing and clicking either.

[JohnMac79]

2 minutes ago, SkipperCH said:

People are already having problems with understanding the spotting mechanics.

 

Really? What does this say about the state of the current playerbase, and WG lack of explanation of game mechanics?

 

4 minutes ago, SkipperCH said:

Making them any more complicated would be counterproductive. 

 

Simple minimap only spotting is hardly complex, and is the thing i would trial on the live server... like they are doing with subs.

[ColonelPete]

Just now, Figment said:

That might be your opinion, it's also completely unsubstantiated. Can you explain why they have to understand the mechanics in the first place?

They do not have, when you do not mind that the differences between player skill become even bigger.

[Figment]

8 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

They do not have, when you do not mind that the differences between player skill become even bigger.

In the current system the difference is bigger... Because you need to be more aware in the current system of what happens on the other side of the map in order to avoid getting hit.

 

Which leads to most people either being afraid to make a move, or not making a move because they know they'll die upon getting spotted due to being piled on and those that do make a move while not being aware getting shot from nowhere.

 

EDIT: In my system, you have fewer threats you need to be weary off and know about, thus you're more likely to have sufficient information to be able to make a move, since fewer enemies will be targeting you (you may still know their map locations), leading to a more friendly environment for initiative and the less aware. More aggressive play and more focus on the local area, which means it is also more noobfriendly in that sense. There will be more closer range duels as well as more ambushes. Experienced players will be able to use the additional options better, but noobs will be able to at least make a move without immediately being punished from across the map. For subs and CVs it will be a harder environment. CQC (secondary) BBs, Cruisers and DDs will benefit the most.

 

So thanks for agreeing that my system is better as player skill gap related to situational awareness and understanding of mechanics would decrease. ;)


EDIT 2: Besides, it's basically an adaptation from the scouting system in WoT. So please don't pretend there's no precedent or it's such a wild idea. The only thing new is periscope depth spotting funneling really.

[ColonelPete]

3 minutes ago, Figment said:

In the current system the difference is bigger... Because you need to be more aware in the current system of what happens on the other side of the map in order to avoid getting hit.

 

Which leads to most people either being afraid to make a move, or not making a move because they know they'll die upon getting spotted due to being piled on.

 

 

 

So thanks for agreeing that my system is better as player skill gap related to situational awareness and understanding of mechanics would decrease. ;)

I answered your question why players should understand the mechanics. Nothing else. Please do not rush to conclusions based on speculation.

Mechanics need to be easy to understand. Adding conditions does not make the mechanics easier to understand.

[Figment]

26 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Mechanics need to be easy to understand. Adding conditions does not make the mechanics easier to understand.

See my edit of the post you quoted as well.

 

 

There's no reason to assume the current system is the gold standard. As stated in the edit above, WoT uses a similar system. Unless you think nobody understands scouting in WoT, the suggestion that it's too complicated is simply utter and verifiable nonsense.

 

EDIT: I understand you were speaking in general terms, but conditions can also simplify things or keep it equally complicated. In this case it complicates things a little for snipers relying on indirect information, but significantly simplifies the need for full understanding for those who are engaged in local battles as they don't need to divide their attention as much.

[KratosTheUnforgiving]

You actually expect a WG dev to understand your plan and if they even like it, have the capabilities to implement without making it a clusterf..?

[Figment]

6 minutes ago, Paranoid_Potato said:

You actually expect a WG dev to understand your plan and if they even like it, have the capabilities to implement without making it a clusterf..?

Yes.

 

Because WG already has implemented such a system before... World of Tanks. And what we currently have here is the same system, just with infinite radio range. So all they need to do is add a radio range variable to the ships...

 

https://ag.hyperxgaming.com/article/5710/world-of-tanks-view-spotting-and-signal-range-guide

 

[lup3s]

1 hour ago, Figment said:

See my edit of the post you quoted as well.

 

 

There's no reason to assume the current system is the gold standard. As stated in the edit above, WoT uses a similar system. Unless you think nobody understands scouting in WoT, the suggestion that it's too complicated is simply utter and verifiable nonsense.

 

I think it's not about it being "too" complicated, but being "more" complicated. I have to agree with @SkipperCH that it seems many players are already having trouble understanding the current detection system, and making it more complicated is not an ideal solution.

 

I also think that having map-wide information can be (very) useful for decision-making in a specific battle, so I wouldn't like to see that go.

[Figment]

14 hours ago, lup3s said:

I think it's not about it being "too" complicated, but being "more" complicated. I have to agree with @SkipperCH that it seems many players are already having trouble understanding the current detection system, and making it more complicated is not an ideal solution.

I don't see the understanding as a major problem as is, don't even see where you get this from as people are informed of being spotted by the game and I never see questions about this. I do see people whine about being targeted by skilled people inside smoke (blaming hacks and underestimating their own skill to be predictable), but that's about it.

 

Coping with the extensive "constantly being spotted" situation by the entire map is much harder to deal with for both good and bad players. So since you have no hard data to back this up, I really can't give any credence to such an arbitrary claim. :/

 

Quote

I also think that having map-wide information can be (very) useful for decision-making in a specific battle, so I wouldn't like to see that go.

Too useful. Of course with more information comes a more informed decision. It also removes a lot of unpredictability from a match, which is actually a bad thing. But it can also create a sense of defeatism, which leads to decisions that are counterproductive for a team effort to reestablish control or have a fighting chance. Too much information is bad.

 

There should be a significant fog of war.

 

Logistically time needs to be given for different fronts to resolve themselves without too much interference from other sides of the map (this complicates things, particularly for the outnumbered side, especially if the opposite flank collapsed).

 

Time should be granted to rectify the situation. Mistakes must be possible to be made to be exploited by others. Particularly in a situation where steamrolls occur in large part because of a majority of players being able to freely target the fewer in number without any returned fire. With less indirect spotting, this creates a little bit of time for an outnumbered enemy to win the local fight before having to take on the remainder.

 

 

Your scope and desires are IMO limited, shortsighted and a bit selfish. Why should you be entitled to this targeting information beyond map information? You havn't given any good reason, just that you find it convenient (and you probably can land some extra free shots for free exp for yourself during a steamroll, before your allies mob up). Sure, there are situations where you, offensively, can use this information. But when you're outnumbered and outflanked, it just heaps on the problems you're already in and it doesn't improve the experience of the game. A good player will be able to use this more limited situation to their advantage by segregating enemies better from their peers and keeping up a bit of a fight to turn the tables for longer, while bad players simply get more time to learn due to facing a little less fire. All that helps in improving their user experience, their level of acceptance, which reduce stress, which reduces toxic responses and ultimately even improves retention rate.

[ColonelPete]

You suggestion will increase cases where:

• one does not see ships and do not know why, since nobody can visualize the different radio ranges
• one gets surprised by enemy attacks, since the enemy can see you, but you not see the enemy, since the teammate(s) who could see the enemy are/is 1m outside radio range

[lup3s]

10 hours ago, Figment said:

I don't see the understanding as a major problem as is, don't even see where you get this from as people are informed of being spotted by the game and I never see questions about this. I do see people whine about being targeted by skilled people inside smoke (blaming hacks and underestimating their own skill to be predictable), but that's about it.

 

Many players' in-battle behaviour seems to indicate they don't understand the detection mechanics.

 

10 hours ago, Figment said:

Too useful. Of course with more information comes a more informed decision. It also removes a lot of unpredictability from a match, which is actually a bad thing. But it can also create a sense of defeatism, which leads to decisions that are counterproductive for a team effort to reestablish control or have a fighting chance. Too much information is bad.

 

I'm struggling to understand how map-wide information can be both "too useful" and "bad" at the same time. If it leads to defeatist behaviour, I think the problem lies with the person showing that behaviour.

 

10 hours ago, Figment said:

Logistically time needs to be given for different fronts to resolve themselves without too much interference from other sides of the map (this complicates things, particularly for the outnumbered side, especially if the opposite flank collapsed).

 

Time should be granted to rectify the situation. Mistakes must be possible to be made to be exploited by others. Particularly in a situation where steamrolls occur in large part because of a majority of players being able to freely target the fewer in number without any returned fire. With less indirect spotting, this creates a little bit of time for an outnumbered enemy to win the local fight before having to take on the remainder.

 

How can a team rectify a situation if they have no information about what's happening on the other side of the map ?

 

10 hours ago, Figment said:

Your scope and desires are IMO limited, shortsighted and a bit selfish.

 

I think you put too much faith in the average Wows-player; in my opinion, your suggestion will increase the skill gap even more.

 

10 hours ago, Figment said:

Why should you be entitled to this targeting information beyond map information? You havn't given any good reason, just that you find it convenient (and you probably can land some extra free shots for free exp for yourself during a steamroll, before your allies mob up). Sure, there are situations where you, offensively, can use this information. But when you're outnumbered and outflanked, it just heaps on the problems you're already in and it doesn't improve the experience of the game.

 

That's all you could come up with ?

What about :

- knowing where enemy CV's planes are

- knowing on which flank the enemy sub is

- knowing on which flank enemy overmatch-BBs are

- knowing on which flank radar ships are

- knowing on which flank torpedo DDs are

....

 

10 hours ago, Figment said:

A good player will be able to use this more limited situation to their advantage by segregating enemies better from their peers and keeping up a bit of a fight to turn the tables for longer, while bad players simply get more time to learn due to facing a little less fire.

 

What I take from this is that you want to increase the player skill gap with that suggestion.

And you call me a bit selfish ?

 

10 hours ago, Figment said:

All that helps in improving their user experience, their level of acceptance, which reduce stress, which reduces toxic responses and ultimately even improves retention rate.

 

Tbh this one sentence made me think you were trolling. How can you be this delusional ? You really think making the detection mechanics more complicated would reduce stress / toxicity and improve experience / level of acceptance / player retention rate ?

 

[Figment]

12 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

You suggestion will increase cases where:

• one does not see ships and do not know why, since nobody can visualize the different radio ranges

Aaaaactually, that’s just a circle on the map in WoT, which you can switch on and off.

 

Explaining this can be done pre-match in the “tips” section.

 

It’s not an argument to say “it’s not explained now”, sure, if something isn’t implemented there’s no reason to explain it.

12 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

• one gets surprised by enemy attacks, since the enemy can see you, but you not see the enemy, since the teammate(s) who could see the enemy are/is 1m outside radio range

Fewer enemies will see you, hence the amount of attacks targeting you similtaneously from unexpected angles will decrease.

 

More of the attacks will be due to having line of sight on you, which is no different from today’s situation.

 

The only cases this would be true for is when someone on your team spots an enemy but is outside of your radio range, while they are within radio range of an ally that spots you and targeting range of you. You would still get their map position, but you would receive that fire today as well. Since you know their map position, it shouldn’t be ‘unexpected’ that they might target you. Only difference is you wouldn’t return fire, but you likely wouldn’t anyway in either situation due to being otherwise engaged with closer targets.

 

However, this will not be as frequent as the situations in which you would not receive additional attacks on you, therefore it’s a better situation for you.

[ColonelPete]

34 minutes ago, Figment said:

Fewer enemies will see you, hence the amount of attacks targeting you similtaneously from unexpected angles will decrease.

And you will see fewer enemies, increasing the chance for suprises, when an enemy suddenly gets a radio connection...

 

[Figment]

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

Many players' in-battle behaviour seems to indicate they don't understand the detection mechanics.

Define many? Evidence?

 

And how come I never come across them?

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

I’m struggling to understand how map-wide information can be both "too useful" and "bad" at the same time.

I noticed…

 

Imagine your side steamrolling a flank.

 

The other side is holding, middle was kind of a draw, but the losing side is pushing and can win. If they defeat them they can try to recuperate and take you on. The engagement remains a challenge. A tough one, but a challenge. Skilled players will have to decide who will win.

 

Yet because the Colorado, Yamato or Vermont or whatever on your flank can see everything on the map, they get free broadside shots while the other side can’t see it coming or fight back. Bunch of random citadels, while being barraged from the front as well, gone local advantage. Gone challenge. Easy win. Nobody is really enthused by the last engagement because the outcome was determined by the lost flank and outnumbered situation.

 

End of engagement, congratulations, it is a slaughter.

 

I’ve been there a lot, it’s not fun to slaughter people who cannot fight back. It’s not fun to see all your effort go to waste in fights you can’t win either. At least not when they all pile on you at once.

 

Worse if you’re a ship that has to chase a sub.

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

If it leads to defeatist behaviour, I think the problem lies with the person showing that behaviour.

No, defeatism is triggered. Overwhelming odds, a system that stimulates a higher leverage for the winning side and a dose of realism do that.

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

How can a team rectify a situation if they have no information about what's happening on the other side of the map ?

They have map information and chat. Some people have mods that give health bars (I don’t btw). I don’t need more than map info to draw up a plan.

 

Do you need a crutch?

 

Do realize that lowered situational awareness goes for both sides. This provides opportunities for ambushing, positioning and evasion. That is how you rectify a situation where you’re outnumbered or outgunned, you remove their advantages and take them on one at a time. Which is only possible if you have some level of stealth and importantly hp and time. If they can’t reduce your hp early from a distance, this creates time for you to heal up, to scout, to finish off a local target rather than face them all at once.

 

If you don’t see how to use this, you might be relying on other people’s info too much and not on your own skills.

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

I think you put too much faith in the average Wows-player; in my opinion, your suggestion will increase the skill gap even more.

Yoloing will be less of a problem, they’ll live longer, perhaps long enough to learn, to do at least something or to mitigate their mistake.

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

That's all you could come up with ?

What about :

- knowing where enemy CV's planes are

That is mostly map info. So wouldn’t change.

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

- knowing on which flank the enemy sub is

Map info. Wouldn’t change.

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

- knowing on which flank enemy overmatch-BBs are

Map info. Wouldn’t change.

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

- knowing on which flank radar ships are

Map info. Wouldn’t change.

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

- knowing on which flank torpedo DDs are

....

Map info. Again, you still get to see the ships and their names on the map (press alt for names). You don’t get that info from the screen only. If you do that’s just more evidence the game’s too dumbed down as is. There is a map for a reason.

 

But what is clear to me you havn’t actually read the proposal and didn’t take time to comprehend it, but just made a bunch of assumptions, right?

 

Got anything else?

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

What I take from this is that you want to increase the player skill gap with that suggestion.

And you call me a bit selfish ?

It works to the advantage of both, the good player will have to be able to predict moves, where a bad player still gets the chance to catch off guard.

 

I’ve played WoT long enough to know the value of scouting. Good players can go cocky and overconfident and drive straight into a trap, because they made a wrong assumption or played too conservative. Initiative will be rewarded so generally good players will keep an advantage. The enemy will just have a bit more time by not being broadsided by those good players on the other flank. They will be outmatched by the local good players, but not by the local AND those on the other end of the map. Their odds will increase a bit when piled on less to last a bit longer and have more fun, even if they still lose to superior play. They might even last long enough to learn something.

 

The more intel you have, the less mistakes you can make. So that by definition favours those who are better.

3 hours ago, lup3s said:

Tbh this one sentence made me think you were trolling. How can you be this delusional ? You really think making the detection mechanics more complicated would reduce stress / toxicity and improve experience / level of acceptance / player retention rate ?

 

Yes. I know quite a few good people who quit over the introduction of radar and CVs ruining their DD/cruiser play due to being too vulnerable in detection.

 

A lot of people quit over the years due to the game stimulating long range BBs sitting back. Secondary brawling BBs have been neutered till the recent German additions. Flanking cruisers with weak sides have had it very tough under those conditions. A lot of people enjoy brawling more than a stale sniping game.

 

Reducing submarine awareness and scouting, giving them distinct sit awareness weaknesses to exploit will for sure make them more acceptable. And those subs will stay, so we’ll need a different way to make their scouting less decisive.

[Figment]

5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

And you will see fewer enemies, increasing the chance for suprises, when an enemy suddenly gets a radio connection...

By that time you’ve already lived much longer than you otherwise would have. So meh?

[ColonelPete]

8 minutes ago, Figment said:

By that time you’ve already lived much longer than you otherwise would have. So meh?

That is a bold assumption based on whishful thinking.

Surprises can happen any time and tend to cause huge amounts of damage.

[Figment]

5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That is a bold assumption based on whishful thinking.

Surprises can happen any time and tend to cause huge amounts of damage.

Not on wishful thinking, on the fact that the highest damage comes from being hit in the broadside, which is not done by enemies in front of you if you move up, but from interception fire from the other flank or middle. Any reduction in spotting sharing - especially from CVs if they would only share map information in the first minutes before players have moved into position - will decrease early damage and damage during flanking maneouvres.

 

This is particularly helpful to cruisers.

[ColonelPete]

27 minutes ago, Figment said:

Not on wishful thinking, on the fact that the highest damage comes from being hit in the broadside, which is not done by enemies in front of you if you move up, but from interception fire from the other flank or middle. Any reduction in spotting sharing - especially from CVs if they would only share map information in the first minutes before players have moved into position - will decrease early damage and damage during flanking maneouvres.

You are ignoring that you also get less information, which is deadly, when the enemy gets the necessary information for a few seconds. And as you explained yourself, that is not good.

Additionally you cannot prepare for that. It is hard to angle towards enemies you do not see. With this playerbase, this will end in more frustration as people do not understand why enemies, that they cannot see,  can suddenly shoot at them.

We already have these complaints with a system that gives more information.

[Figment]

15 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You are ignoring that you also get less information, which is deadly, when the enemy gets the necessary information for a few seconds. And as you explained yourself, that is not good.

Additionally you cannot prepare for that. It is hard to angle towards enemies you do not see. With this playerbase, this will end in more frustration as people do not understand why enemies, that they cannot see,  can suddenly shoot at them.

We already have these complaints with a system that gives more information.

You don’t seem to understand that you still get map information from that spotting.

 

What you are describing is a situation of no information at all, so that is identical to the current situation.

 

Your argument is therefore wrong, for you can angle towards a map location and people already do this. Meanwhile the difference between the two situations you describe is in fact minimal. And for all the “attacks while unaware” that didn’t happen up to the late game, you can easily take one later.

 

You are however advocating for early game attacks while unaware, which reduce far more play time

for players if it kills or cripples them. The goal also isn’t to remove all such situations, the goal is to reduce their occurrence frequency and to push them to later in the game, beyond simply having lost a flank. Or being spotted by a periscope depth sub. You do realize that this will become more and more common?

[The_Chiv]

On 6/16/2022 at 11:15 AM, SkipperCH said:

People are already having problems with understanding the spotting mechanics. Making them any more complicated would be counterproductive. 

Im sorry but it would be nice if the WG team would stop treating its player base as mentally challenged automated cash machines. There are and have been other games that have used similar mechanics and others that when brought up to WG have been dismissed as being too complicated for the player base. If we can play fortnite Im pretty sure we can handle a bit more complexity so this excuse of keeping it simple is a cop out.

[ColonelPete]

10 hours ago, Figment said:

You don’t seem to understand that you still get map information from that spotting.

 

What you are describing is a situation of no information at all, so that is identical to the current situation.

 

Your argument is therefore wrong, for you can angle towards a map location and people already do this. Meanwhile the difference between the two situations you describe is in fact minimal. And for all the “attacks while unaware” that didn’t happen up to the late game, you can easily take one later.

 

You are however advocating for early game attacks while unaware, which reduce far more play time

for players if it kills or cripples them. The goal also isn’t to remove all such situations, the goal is to reduce their occurrence frequency and to push them to later in the game, beyond simply having lost a flank. Or being spotted by a periscope depth sub. You do realize that this will become more and more common?

Map information does not tell me where the ship is aiming.

And one cannot angle towards the enemies in front and on the flank at the same time, that is why people flank.

Somehow I must have imagined all the ships that get send to port by a devastating strike in the first 3 minutes...

 

4 hours ago, The_Chiv said:

Im sorry but it would be nice if the WG team would stop treating its player base as mentally challenged

You sound like someone who does not play random battles.