[DREAD] 1MajorKoenig Players 13,110 posts 7,885 battles Report post #76 Posted July 20, 2016 The concept "balance before history" was clear even from close beta test. I ok with that but it doesn't answer the question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KPtja Players 273 posts 2,478 battles Report post #77 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) Hey guys, I think you are intentionally missing the point here. I in other hand believe that you guys are missing the whole concept of this game. - it is a game for navy enthusiasts so please don't tell me "forget everything historical". It is what sets the scene and sparks the interest for many of us. If not it could very well be a game about star ships. It would be different. It is still a game but the historical component IS important. What does this even mean "game for navy enthuasists" and who has made this kind of claim? I think your "facts" seem very subjective. By all means this is not game for navy enthusiasts. This is game which has selected time frame around big wars (WW1 and WW2). Which per might be popular. I for example would not care less about navies during that time. My interest has been more much much more army than navy, but I find this more enjoyable as a game than the other. - WG used how the USN BBs developed as a scale to calibrate the (WOT copy&paste) tiering system. Not considering that the USN was pretty insignificant in the early days of the 20s century. The shells were inadequate by design and they wouldn't have played any significant role in battles of these days. So?. - it was not clear for me ever that a fantasy ship would take priority over a real one. If that was clear to you you need to show me the source please. However in the German BB tree there was absolutely no need to design a fantasy / napkin boat on T4 (and to a lesser degree on T5). There are real ships for these tiers. The T4 ship - even carrying a real name - is pure fantasy like Roon. With the slight difference that there was no real design to fill the Roon spot. If it was not clear to you, it is your own fault. Any case we look at this, it was your own assumption. Nothing else is stated anywhere. This point may be a fact (nobody can deny if it something was clear to you or not), but as a fact that is totally insignificant. I ok with that but it doesn't answer the question. You had zero questions in your post. Edited July 20, 2016 by KPtja Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KONI] Getzamatic Players 442 posts 5,866 battles Report post #78 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) What does this even mean "game for navy enthuasists" and who has made this kind of claim? I think your "facts" seem very subjective. By all means this is not game for navy enthusiasts. This is game which has selected time frame around big wars (WW1 and WW2). Which per might be popular. I for example would not care less about navies during that time. My interest has been more much much more army than navy, but I find this more enjoyable as a game than the other. You may not see it that way, but Naval combat is a rather niche area of interest in the grand scheme of things so there is precious little reason to play WoWS over any other online war game beyond an interest in that niche. Also, contrary to a widely repeated assertion, this game is a simulation - just not a particularly accurate one. I also feel I should point out that the problem of the game being geared around WW2 is not limited to battleships - cruisers have it even worse. The diverse and interesting area of WWI cruisers have been compressed into two tiers (assuming we consider the Tenryus WWI ships, which is a stretch) except for the German line, where it's been stretched over three - but they've done a proper botched job of the German line where we get a copy paste between tiers two and three and then a mid WWI cruiser competing with post war ships at tier four. There were something like four classes of cruiser between the Kolbergs and what WG calls the Karlsruhe class, each becoming incrementally bigger and better, so there was absolutely no reason they couldn't have done something more interesting that just repeat the Dresden with tier three matchmaking. This is probably because neither the Japanese nor US navy built a lot of cruisers before the treaty era and the similarly limited Imperial Russian cruiser fleet isn't too badly served, but when the RN cruisers come around they are going to have to ignore a hell of a lot of ships... Edited July 20, 2016 by Getzamatic 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KPtja Players 273 posts 2,478 battles Report post #79 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) You may not see it that way, but Naval combat is a rather niche area of interest in the grand scheme of things so there is precious little reason to play WoWS over any other online war game beyond an interest in that niche. Also, contrary to a widely repeated assertion, this game is a simulation - just not a particularly accurate one. No it is not. Look up meaning of simulation from dictionary. Nor the makers claim it to be. Nor they of course should not since this do not conform the dictionary meaning of simulation. Edited July 20, 2016 by KPtja 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KONI] Getzamatic Players 442 posts 5,866 battles Report post #80 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) No it is not. Look up meaning of simulation from dictionary. Nor the makers claim it to be. Nor they of course should not since this do not conform the dictionary meaning of simulation. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/simulation I think the most apt definition here is; Representation of the operation or features of one process or system through the use of another If it's not a simulator, why are WG so keen to model armour mechanics so accurately? Why do they base gun performance of historical data rather than what would work best for balance? Why don't they just use abstract mechanics for protection and firepower? It probably wouldn't make the game play very differently from a users perspective and would be a lot easier to balance. There is not a zero sum divide between "acade games" and "simulation games." Simulators can have differing degrees of accuracy and there is nothing wrong with favouring "playability" over absolute authenticity but that doesn't make the game any less a simulation. All historical war games are simulators to some extent or another, because they all simulate the capabilities of real historical weapons in hypothetical scenarios. Edited July 20, 2016 by Getzamatic 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[DREAD] 1MajorKoenig Players 13,110 posts 7,885 battles Report post #81 Posted July 20, 2016 You may not see it that way, but Naval combat is a rather niche area of interest in the grand scheme of things so there is precious little reason to play WoWS over any other online war game beyond an interest in that niche. Also, contrary to a widely repeated assertion, this game is a simulation - just not a particularly accurate one. I also feel I should point out that the problem of the game being geared around WW2 is not limited to battleships - cruisers have it even worse. The diverse and interesting area of WWI cruisers have been compressed into two tiers (assuming we consider the Tenryus WWI ships, which is a stretch) except for the German line, where it's been stretched over three - but they've done a proper botched job of the German line where we get a copy paste between tiers two and three and then a mid WWI cruiser competing with post war ships at tier four. There were something like four classes of cruiser between the Kolbergs and what WG calls the Karlsruhe class, each becoming incrementally bigger and better, so there was absolutely no reason they couldn't have done something more interesting that just repeat the Dresden with tier three matchmaking. This is probably because neither the Japanese nor US navy built a lot of cruisers before the treaty era and the similarly limited Imperial Russian cruiser fleet isn't too badly served, but when the RN cruisers come around they are going to have to ignore a hell of a lot of ships... You are right here. I personally like Karlsuhe / Coln at T4 and she is more or less competing with immediate after WW1 or interwar designs. I don't see an issue with that. The fact that IJN and USN use slightly newer designs is simply due to the fact that neither navy had many designs at that time but that is not a problem I would say. The navies which had the ships during that era can easily use them rather than making some up to match the USN ship progression. And if refits are upgrades - ok so be it but some of us would like to have at least as stock the real ships. So yes, agree with your assessment:-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mtm78 Alpha Tester 19,378 posts 6,105 battles Report post #82 Posted July 20, 2016 So, now 16.x km for Warspite ( for instance ) is 'historically' accurate? Developers have said this is not a simulation, as GAME BALANCE if more important then 'history'. Sorry but 'simulation' is laughable. This isn't a simulation it's not even close. It's ARCADE. In a simulation settings, the hit ratio of BB's is in the low single digits. Tell me again how much this game is a 'simulation' please edit: For those who want this game to be an simulation -> This is then an Artillery simulation game, you have to take into account win, ammo choices, elevation and the amount of gunpowder used, how this isn't a simulation I got no clue 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KONI] Getzamatic Players 442 posts 5,866 battles Report post #83 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) So, now 16.x km for Warspite ( for instance ) is 'historically' accurate? It isn't, and nor is Destroyers carrying more than one reload for their torpedo tubes or US cruisers being capable of anything but absolutely horrible gun accuracy - but it's still a simulation in the same way that me breaking out my toy soldiers and playing Flames of War is a simulation. Simply stamping your foot and shouting at the top of your voice that it isn't so because you're insisting on an overly restrictive definition of what a simulation game is - chosen specifically after the fact to exclude WoWS, I don't doubt - doesn't change anything. WG are right to emphasise that WoWS is an "arcade" game and not a "simulator" because it clearly sets the tone of what they are trying to achieve and stops people complaining about the blatant breaks from reality necessary for game balance (like, for example how super effective torpedoes are) but that doesn't actually mean the game isn't a simulator because - as I have already pointed out - by very definition all historical war games must be simulators to some degree. Edited July 20, 2016 by Getzamatic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mtm78 Alpha Tester 19,378 posts 6,105 battles Report post #84 Posted July 20, 2016 It isn't, and nor is Destroyers carrying more than one reload for their torpedo tubes or US cruisers being capable of anything but absolutely horrible gun accuracy - but it's still a simulation in the same way that me breaking out my toy soldiers and playing Flames of War is a simulation. Simply stamping your foot and shouting at the top of your voice that it isn't so because you're insisting on an overly restrictive definition of what a simulation game is - chosen specifically after the fact to exclude WoWS, I don't doubt - doesn't change anything. So is 'stamping your foot' and claiming it is a simulator when it clearly isn't WG are right to emphasise that WoWS is an "arcade" game and not a "simulator" because it clearly sets the tone of what they are trying to achieve and stops people complaining about the blatant breaks from reality necessary for game balance (like, for example how super effective torpedoes are) but that doesn't actually mean the game isn't a simulator because - as I have already pointed out - by very definition all historical war games must be simulators to some degree. That is just a fallacy, not all 'historical war games' are simulators, it all depends on the ruleset used in the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fnord_disc Beta Tester 2,119 posts 5,245 battles Report post #85 Posted July 20, 2016 It isn't, and nor is Destroyers carrying more than one reload for their torpedo tubes or US cruisers being capable of anything but absolutely horrible gun accuracy - but it's still a simulation in the same way that me breaking out my toy soldiers and playing Flames of War is a simulation. Simply stamping your foot and shouting at the top of your voice that it isn't so because you're insisting on an overly restrictive definition of what a simulation game is - chosen specifically after the fact to exclude WoWS, I don't doubt - doesn't change anything. WG are right to emphasise that WoWS is an "arcade" game and not a "simulator" because it clearly sets the tone of what they are trying to achieve and stops people complaining about the blatant breaks from reality necessary for game balance (like, for example how super effective torpedoes are) but that doesn't actually mean the game isn't a simulator because - as I have already pointed out - by very definition all historical war games must be simulators to some degree. No, this is all wrong. You don't know what a simulation is. Simulators are a clearly defined branch of software and your personal terminology doesn't matter one iota. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KONI] Getzamatic Players 442 posts 5,866 battles Report post #86 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) No, this is all wrong. You don't know what a simulation is. Simulators are a clearly defined branch of software and your personal terminology doesn't matter one iota. Did you not like the dictionary definition I linked? It talks about software too and rather implies that WoWS is actually a simulation; simulation - (computer science) the technique of representing the real world by a computer program; "a simulation should imitate the internal processes and not merely the results of the thing being simulated" Ironically, by modelling armour disposition and shell performance - however crudely - WoWS is imitating the internal processes of projectile-armour interaction and is therefore considerably more a "simulation" than a lot of ostensibly more detailed naval war games of earlier generations which were explicitly sold as "Simulators." So I'm afraid it's you, not me, who is insisting on narrowly defined personal terminology. I'm just using the broad English language definition where a simulator is something that attempts to model something else, in this case using a computer program - as opposed to what I can only assume is some sort of obscure "Gamerspeak" where a game can only be a simulation if it is 100% accurate. Edited July 20, 2016 by Getzamatic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fnord_disc Beta Tester 2,119 posts 5,245 battles Report post #87 Posted July 20, 2016 Did you not like the dictionary definition I linked? It talks about software too, but doesn't say crapabout whether WoWS is a simulation or not. I'm afraid it's you, not me, who is insisting on narrowly defined personal terminology. I'm just using the broad English language definition where a simulator is something that attempts to model something else - as opposed to what I can only assume is some sort of obscure "Gamerspeak" where a game can only be a simulation if it is 100% accurate. Sorry, but models and simulations are what I do for a living... It has nothing to do with """gamerspeak""". The dictionary refers to a different kind of simulation when it talks about computers. A simulator is not a simulation. Google military & flight simulators and you'll see what I mean. This game is not a simulator. It isn't a simulation either because a simulation does not allow unrealistic behavior. You can make your simulation ignore certain aspects of the real system for speed or convenience, but academics would never allow a simulation that deliberately represents reality in a wrong way such as how ships handle on the water in WoWs. WoWs models (not simulates) certain parts of naval combat to give the game an air of authenticity, but ultimately it's just some basic modelling and not a true simulation. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KONI] Getzamatic Players 442 posts 5,866 battles Report post #88 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) Potato-potata, Tomato-tomata. Let's call the whole thing off. We're now entering the matter of synonyms. Suffice it to say that the stereotypical cry of "it's an arcade game, not a simulator!" is usually made to justify ahistorical elements in a game that is explicitly grounded in historical events and equipment - usually by the party that gains the most benefit from said ahistorical element - but if the game doesn't at least try to model reality fairly closely then where's the interest in playing it over, say, a space combat game? Edited July 20, 2016 by Getzamatic 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fnord_disc Beta Tester 2,119 posts 5,245 battles Report post #89 Posted July 20, 2016 Potato-potata, Tomato-tomata. Let's call the whole thing off. We're now entering the matter of synonyms. Suffice it to say that the stereotypical cry of "it's an arcade game, not a simulator!" is usually made to justify ahistorical elements in a game that is explicitly grounded in historical events and equipment - usually by the party that gains the most benefit from said ahistorical element - but if the game doesn't at least try to model reality fairly closely then where's the interest in playing it over, say, a space combat game? They're not synonms if you work with them every day. But whatever. They're just elements ripped from history with little regard for history and accuracy. Most players don't give a [edited] whether it's accurate or not as long as it feels historical. Feels. Not is. The game is designed to feel historical without being historical so that players can think to themselves "that's some cool [edited] WW2 ship I'm looking at" without having to deal with the difficult aspects. Pressing a button to stop flooding and fire? No list? No counterflooding? No damage to fire control? And you expect historicity? Don't make me laugh. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KONI] Getzamatic Players 442 posts 5,866 battles Report post #90 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) They're not synonms if you work with them every day. But whatever. Look. I used to work in science and I don't get bent all out of shape when people use the generally received version of "theory" over the scientific definition. You would do well to remember that the use of the word "simulation" is considerably more wide spread than just computer science so your definition is the niche one, not mine. Just because the game is greatly simplified, it does not mean it isn't a simulation* even if it isn't a Simulation** * A representation of the characteristics of one system using another system ** Whatever your definition is... Edited July 20, 2016 by Getzamatic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fnord_disc Beta Tester 2,119 posts 5,245 battles Report post #91 Posted July 20, 2016 * A representation of the characteristics of one system using another system So how does WoWs even fulfill this very broad criterium which you set it? The characteristics of naval combat are hardly present in this game. Just because ships look the way they were 100 years ago doesn't mean they behave like them. Are you maybe a bit deceived by the graphical models? Ballistic arcs are accelerated and seem to use homogenous air density No fire control modelling whatsoever Damage control modelling reduced to button push with cooldown Ships have drastically increased acceleration and deceleration Speeds scaled up by several factors In what way does WoWs represent naval combat? Because I can't see how it does. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CAIN] G01ngToxicCommand0 Beta Tester 2,177 posts 23,318 battles Report post #92 Posted July 20, 2016 also many objected that this game is not "Age of Dreadnoughts"... i thought that this is obvious for every navy fan, but evidently i have to prove it to you: dreadnought-era BBs and BCs classes of the royal navy: dreadnought bellerophon st. vincent neptune colossus invincible indefatigable iron duke orion lion king george v 1911 agincourt queen mary tiger queen elisabeth renown revenge courageous post ww1 era BBs and BCs, including refits (iron duke - ref...ok this class will maybe make a good transition) queen elisabeth - ref renown - ref revenge - ref hood nelson king george v vanguard when there is no proper place for dreadnoughts in this game, im really curious what wg will do with royal navy Why do you think the game's setting is World War 2 with a few WW1 ships thrown in? The answer is the anti british bias from WG, with a WW2 setting WG have an excuse to ignore the Royal Navy and only make token ships like the WW2 upgraded Warspite while Stalinium paper ships from MuthaRussia floods the game. It would have made more sense to make the game a World War 2 IJN VS USN pacific naval war game only as there certainly was enough classes of ships on the IJN and USN to fill several tech trees instead of this craptastic game - but hey we are talking about Wargaming and not one of most competent developers on the game market. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KONI] Getzamatic Players 442 posts 5,866 battles Report post #93 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) Why do you think the game's setting is World War 2 with a few WW1 ships thrown in? The answer is the anti british bias from WG, with a WW2 setting WG have an excuse to ignore the Royal Navy and only make token ships like the WW2 upgraded Warspite while Stalinium paper ships from MuthaRussia floods the game. It would have made more sense to make the game a World War 2 IJN VS USN pacific naval war game only as there certainly was enough classes of ships on the IJN and USN to fill several tech trees instead of this craptastic game - but hey we are talking about Wargaming and not one of most competent developers on the game market. I'd prefer to go off on one over "bias" after the Royal Navy line is released... Edited July 20, 2016 by Getzamatic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[CAIN] G01ngToxicCommand0 Beta Tester 2,177 posts 23,318 battles Report post #94 Posted July 20, 2016 So, now 16.x km for Warspite ( for instance ) is 'historically' accurate? Developers have said this is not a simulation, as GAME BALANCE if more important then 'history'. Sorry but 'simulation' is laughable. This isn't a simulation it's not even close. It's ARCADE. In a simulation settings, the hit ratio of BB's is in the low single digits. Tell me again how much this game is a 'simulation' please edit: For those who want this game to be an simulation -> This is then an Artillery simulation game, you have to take into account win, ammo choices, elevation and the amount of gunpowder used, how this isn't a simulation I got no clue You utterly fail to grasp what 'simulation' entail. Every single videogame made is a simulation of some kind of real, sci fi or fantasy reality world. You think 'simulation' per definition is something like a flight simulator used by airlines and air forces using an extremely high degree of realistic features - it isn't, that notion is incorrect and you keep claiming that false notion because you either wont or can't as that will mean you have to agree with someone you don't want to agree with. WoWS is a simulation whether you like it or not however its level of realism is very low to the point one could call it an extremely inaccurate and unrealistic representation of WW1/WW2 naval combat or in short: A dumbed down game of fantasy naval war that teaches young people history from a biased and false perspective. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fnord_disc Beta Tester 2,119 posts 5,245 battles Report post #95 Posted July 20, 2016 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mtm78 Alpha Tester 19,378 posts 6,105 battles Report post #96 Posted July 20, 2016 You utterly fail to grasp what 'simulation' entail. Every single videogame made is a simulation of some kind of real, sci fi or fantasy reality world. You think 'simulation' per definition is something like a flight simulator used by airlines and air forces using an extremely high degree of realistic features - it isn't, that notion is incorrect and you keep claiming that false notion because you either wont or can't as that will mean you have to agree with someone you don't want to agree with. WoWS is a simulation whether you like it or not however its level of realism is very low to the point one could call it an extremely inaccurate and unrealistic representation of WW1/WW2 naval combat or in short: A dumbed down game of fantasy naval war that teaches young people history from a biased and false perspective. Blahblahblah..... Ridge racer a simulation... don't make me laugh any harder I might cause an earthquake. And can you make ONE single post where you're not whining about bias, or bashing WG in any shape or form? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[DREAD] 1MajorKoenig Players 13,110 posts 7,885 battles Report post #97 Posted July 20, 2016 Guys, this thread is for stock hulls - not so much to find out what the correct definition of a simulator game is :-) Personally I like that Bayern and Nassau have a realistic stock hull and wonder about T4/5 which don't have these 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KONI] Getzamatic Players 442 posts 5,866 battles Report post #98 Posted July 20, 2016 Guys, this thread is for stock hulls - not so much to find out what the correct definition of a simulator game is :-) Personally I like that Bayern and Nassau have a realistic stock hull and wonder about T4/5 which don't have these That we know about yet. If it turns out you're right then I'll be as pissed as anyone, but I don't intend to get bent out of shape by supposition. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[DREAD] 1MajorKoenig Players 13,110 posts 7,885 battles Report post #99 Posted July 21, 2016 That we know about yet. If it turns out you're right then I'll be as pissed as anyone, but I don't intend to get bent out of shape by supposition. Fair enough. I raised the point early as I had the hope that WG picks it somehow up and does something about it. I am an optimist.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[T-N-T] Sigimundus Weekend Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters 6,566 posts 15,994 battles Report post #100 Posted July 21, 2016 Guys, this thread is for stock hulls - not so much to find out what the correct definition of a simulator game is :-) Personally I like that Bayern and Nassau have a realistic stock hull and wonder about T4/5 which don't have these I check the test server and t3 and t4 have stock and also other hull to unlock. Unfortunately I can check them visually because there are not fully integrated Techtree of German BB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
