World of Worsips of world of magic anyway?

[Anthoniusii]

Fact one : Its a  game =true

Fact two : It has to do with ships = true

Fact three : It has many features that DO NOT fit with ships, battle physics or any sence of an arcade game based on somehow historical vehicles like ships.

I explain:

Question 1: How is it possible a captain to be able to determine how many chanches a HE shell has to ignite unless his is some kind of wizzard!

Question 2: How is its possible someone to be able tp see through smoke and an other can not?

Explain:

Smoke was a refuge for light and fast ships to save them selves from bigger and stronger ships.

Smoke was NEVER an ambush tool simply because even the crew in the ship used the smoke could not see through it either!!!!!!!

Unless again someone on the crew is a wizzard!

Question 3: How is it possible a torpedo loading time being smaller than a medium calliber gun shell?

Question 4: How is it possible a ship with 500-1000 men crew with atleast 100 men watching the water arround the ship with binoculars  not be able to see 60-100m long ships like Destroyers?

Were they blind? Or destroyers had a wizzard like the one above that made them blind?

Question 5: How is it possible longer burrel and biger caliber guns to have smaller range than smaller guns anyway? You found new physics laws or you simply transfered the artilery to 80's were Austria created the 1st 155mm gun with bigger range than a 203mm one ? Does WoWs relies on 1980's discoveries?

Conclusion:

1: Do not become World of Tanks that made tanks disapear not by their size but by their class (that 90% are wrong placed).

2: Fix the spottng system in more "physical ways".

3: Unless you can not make torpedo numbers on board limmited make their loading times more "realistic".

4: If you do not want to remove the over penetration feature from big calliber guns to destroyers then add a damage to that according to the overpenetration section.

A shell that makes a hole low causes floating, a shell thet penetrates the engine makes it stop.

5: Make smoke a refuge. Unless the ship does NOT have radar comsumable it MUST be blind and not able to see ships and fire on them.

HE shells must have ignition values by their own not by the captain's magic skills! Also metal surfaces suffair less damage by fire than wooden ones!

Also...Remove atleast 30% of the rocks and islands in your maps.

They make the game "heavy" to old PCs and also makes the game like WoT. 99% of the banavl battles made to far away from shores!!!

 

 

 

[Tanaka_15]

And give BBs max 1-2% hit ratio. And a like 50% chance of not geting an exposion when the shell hits a target and we are fine :) 

[bushwacker001]

Read very slowly OP........It's      a       game.

 

I think I once saw the OP on the Monopoly forums arguing that a car would easily beat a top hat in a real life race. 

[Anthoniusii]

True....about the explosion 50% chance. About the hit ration though that depends on the distance and the crew training.

See my avatar.

In 1912 that ship (armored cruiser) had 90% accuracy against 4 battleships (that damaged them all), 2 armored cruisers etc!

It sufaired three hits of small caliber that caused a spotters death!!! Historical fact and proven!

[mikelight1805]

The answer to most of these questions is balance. The game requires this peculiarities to make the game the competitive for all classes.

[Anthoniusii]

1 minute ago, bushwacker001 said:

Read very slowly OP........It's      a       game.

True....then add STYX missiles to soviet destroyers and laser guns to US battleships.

It will still be a game!

[ColonelPete]

How is possible that you still cannot answer these questions after getting answers multiple times to your topics?

[Spellfire40]

Its not a game its a ARCADE game not a simulator......its based on balace and playability not on realsim since most of us rather not spend 12 hours plus to sink a single BB.that after 3 h plus wouldnt be able to efectively do anything to defend itself ......

[Anthoniusii]

1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

How is possible that you still cannot answer these questions after getting answers multiple times to your topics?

Maybe i ma too dummy to understand the answers that are NOT answers at all. It seams i ma not as smart as you are.

Just now, Spellfire40 said:

Its not a game its a ARCADE game not a simulator......its based on balace and playability not on realsim since most of us rather not spend 12 hours plus to sunk a single BB.that after 3 h plus wouldnt be able to efectively do anything to defend itself ......

What ballance is this whan a Destroyer can launch 100 torpedos in 20 minutes time.

What ballance is this when a Battleship with over 150 gun on it can not sink a 60m destroyer in close combat?

Where IS THAT BALLANCE AND i CAN NOT SEE IT?

[Allied_Winter]

1 minute ago, Anthoniusii said:

What ballance is this whan a Destroyer can launch 100 torpedos in 20 minutes time.

What ballance is this when a Battleship with over 150 gun on it can not sink a 60m destroyer in close combat?

Where IS THAT BALLANCE AND i CAN NOT SEE IT?

 

What ballance is this when a Battleship can repair itself on sea and continue fighting?

What ballance is this when a Battleship can have a hitting ration of >30% when in reality it was below 15% (testing Nagato) and <5% (in combat)?

 

Where IS THAT BALLANCE AND YES YOU DON'T SEE IT!

 

 

Jokes aside: Either get used to the fact that the devs don't listen to your balance proposal (and I'm pretty sure most of the community is glad that they don't listen to you) or, if you really want to contribute to the BALLANCE of this game, check and understand the current game mechanics and derive a proposal from that. 5/7 Trollpost.

 

 

Greetings

[mikelight1805]

6 minutes ago, Anthoniusii said:

Maybe i ma too dummy to understand the answers that are NOT answers at all. It seams i ma not as smart as you are.

What ballance is this whan a Destroyer can launch 100 torpedos in 20 minutes time.

What ballance is this when a Battleship with over 150 gun on it can not sink a 60m destroyer in close combat?

Where IS THAT BALLANCE AND i CAN NOT SEE IT?

 

Balance it to try and give each class an equal chance of being competitive with each other

 

If a DD could only fire 8 to 10 torpedos per match, once it has expended its torpedos, what is the player supposed to do for the remaining 15 mins of the match? would players then want to play DDs?

If a BB could one shot every target, why would any one want to play anything other than BB?

 

Would you prefer the game to be 12 BBs at 20km from each other with no one to spot or harass the enemy team? 20 mins of border humping and sniping?

 

Not for me thanks.

[Spellfire40]

22 minutes ago, Anthoniusii said:

Maybe i ma too dummy to understand the answers that are NOT answers at all. It seams i ma not as smart as you are.

What ballance is this whan a Destroyer can launch 100 torpedos in 20 minutes time.

What ballance is this when a Battleship with over 150 gun on it can not sink a 60m destroyer in close combat?

Where IS THAT BALLANCE AND i CAN NOT SEE IT?

And what do theyt 100 Torps? near nothing because they allmost never hit while large caliber AP shells do the equivalent of a citadel hit were they in real live created a cople of holes mesuring their caliber that had no indication on com bat performance in real live? (at samar tehy exploded in the water after passing throgh the holes of CVEs failing to arm) or do you want to buly a DD that has shot his one realistic reload into a corner without him being able to do anything about it?

 

You want the historical AA too? Of all the aircrafts that atacked Yamato only 10 out of 386 Planes were lost....

How many DD die without doing anything just trying to do their main job caping compared to BB thats have just herpa derping geting a single luckyhit firing from the blue line? Honestly im playing all classes but im sick of BB skipers that after geting buff after buff for them and nerf after nerf agist anything that could hurt them still are complaing when all they need to do is working on their positionin in relation to their own team to basically be 70%+ safe from most things.......

[ColonelPete]

21 minutes ago, Anthoniusii said:

Maybe i ma too dummy to understand the answers that are NOT answers at all. It seams i ma not as smart as you are.

What ballance is this whan a Destroyer can launch 100 torpedos in 20 minutes time.

What ballance is this when a Battleship with over 150 gun on it can not sink a 60m destroyer in close combat?

Where IS THAT BALLANCE AND i CAN NOT SEE IT?

If that the case, you are not willing or not able to understand us,  no matter what we write.

Therefore this thread is pointless.

[Exocet6951]

I think the better question is "How can someone be so ****ing dense?" 

As always, you make a bad thread that actually makes me wonder if you're able to tell the difference because fiction and reality.

[Ferry_25]

I totally disagree with you OP. This game is the most realistic game ever. It's very accurate historically. Who doesn't know the legendary battles in the Pacific: Pearl Harbor, Sinking of Yamato? Every kid around the world knows the red ships got into the imaginary circle first and capped the other ones out!

[Boris_MNE]

48 minutes ago, Anthoniusii said:

Maybe i ma too dummy to understand the answers that are NOT answers at all. It seams i ma not as smart as you are.

What ballance is this whan a Destroyer can launch 100 torpedos in 20 minutes time.

What ballance is this when a Battleship with over 150 gun on it can not sink a 60m destroyer in close combat?

Where IS THAT BALLANCE AND i CAN NOT SEE IT?

 

 

 

Haha.

 

Nothing to see here peple, move along... Just one more BBaby xD

[T0byJug]

19 minutes ago, Anthoniusii said:

True....about the explosion 50% chance. About the hit ration though that depends on the distance and the crew training.

See my avatar.

In 1912 that ship (armored cruiser) had 90% accuracy against 4 battleships (that damaged them all), 2 armored cruisers etc!

It sufaired three hits of small caliber that caused a spotters death!!! Historical fact and proven!

Maybe you could quote you source of this 90% hit ratio. I assume you are talking about Battle of Elli. For a 30-40 min engagement any report i can find gives no indication  at all to this amazing 90% hit ratio. 

 

You want balance 

 

43 minutes ago, Anthoniusii said:

Maybe i ma too dummy to understand the answers that are NOT answers at all. It seams i ma not as smart as you are.

What ballance is this whan a Destroyer can launch 100 torpedos in 20 minutes time. Very True.. Lets put the ratio of BB to DD in a a battle somewhere between 10 and 20 DD to each BB and then we can not allow DDs torp reload.

What ballance is this when a Battleship with over 150 gun on it can not sink a 60m destroyer in close combat? Balance Why do you think BBs had smaller Calibre guns from 10cm-15cm.. There main armament was to slow to track DDs. Destroyers were Designed to attack and sink battleships.   You want an example of how hard it was for a BB to kill a DD. Look no further than Battle of Samar Yes 4 of the 7 DD were sunk. In a battle against 4BB and 8 Heavy and light Cruisers. The reason Fleet shad DD and CA/CL in them is a BB would struggle to hit a DD.

Where IS THAT BALLANCE AND i CAN NOT SEE IT? 

 

 

 

[RAHJAILARI]

I do not agree with everything mentioned here, BUT it might indeed be worthwhile thingking about them anyways. many players would actually appreciate it if WoWs were to work a bit more like a naval simulation, rather than pure arcade fantasy (of course, there are some who are fine with that too). This is because many, if not most people, who play naval war games are actually sk. "Naval Enthusiasts" and as such prefer even somewhat realistic (small deviations from the actual can be forgiven for game design purposes, of course) gameplay.

 

With this in mind, I would like to add a side note to the original list of most baffling magic.. Namely:

 

How is it possible that 381mm shells manage to "bounce" off flimsy 30mm deck armor and yet penetrate the magazine right though 300mm (or more) of heavy belt armor?

 

If WoT worked in similar fashion than warships currently does, then every tank would immediately get ammo-racked when someone shoots directly at their frontal armor plate (the strongest part), while gleefully bouncing off the flimsy armor on the sides (but we can't have that, now can we?).

 

Just imagine the howling we would get if such ridiculous mechanics were introduced in WoT, yet strangely in Wows, that is already happening.

 

Of course this also means that the rear gun turrets in most ships have the combat value equal to a flower-vase since this mechanic and the fear of citadels prevents players from engaging with all guns, as ships were actually designed to do.

[Exocet6951]

1 hour ago, Anthoniusii said:

 

Question 5: How is it possible longer burrel and biger caliber guns to have smaller range than smaller guns anyway?

 

 

 

 

Challenge accepted!

152mm/53 model 1926 as seen on Condottieri class ships: 28.4km max range at 45 degrees, 8.5m barrel
203/50 model 1924 as seen on the Trento class ships: 28km max range with its WWII AP shells at 45 degrees,, 10.5m barrel

152mm/55 modèle 1930 as found on multiple French ships: 27km max range at 45 degrees,, 8.8m barrel
194mm/50 modèle 1902 as found on French pre-Dreadnoughts: 26km max range at 45 degrees, 9.7m barrel

It's almost as if the amount of propellant used and ballistics property of the shell had an impact on ballistics!
Nevermind the fact that some guns can elevate more than some!

[ColonelPete]

11 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

I do not agree with everything mentioned here, BUT it might indeed be worthwhile thingking about them anyways. many players would actually appreciate it if WoWs were to work a bit more like a naval simulation, rather than pure arcade fantasy (of course, there are some who are fine with that too). This is because many, if not most people, who play naval war games are actually sk. "Naval Enthusiasts" and as such prefer even somewhat realistic (small deviations from the actual can be forgiven for game design purposes, of course) gameplay.

 

With this in mind, I would like to add a side note to the original list of most baffling magic.. Namely:

 

How is it possible that 381mm shells manage to "bounce" off flimsy 30mm deck armor and yet penetrate the magazine right though 300mm (or more) of belt armor?

 

If WoT worked the same way than warships currently does, then every tank would immediately get ammo-racked when someone shoots directly at their frontal armor plate and while gleefully bouncing off from the sides.

 

Just imagine the howling we would get if such ridiculous mechanics were introduced in WoT, yet strangely in Wows, this is already happening.

 

of course this also means that the rear gun turrets in most ships have the combat value equal to a flower-vase and prevents players from engaging with all gusn, as ships were actually designed to do.

Autobounce mechanics, since caliber is not big enough for overmatch.

[RAHJAILARI]

Ahh, but that is precisely the point isn't it? The sk- auto.-bounce mechanic itself is deeply flawed and hare-brained in the extreme thus creating irrational gameplay mechanic, which has no reasonable justification anywhere near the real world of ballistics or armored warfare.

 

Shells simply do not just bounce off from so much thinner armor only to penetrate the 10 times thicker one. This kind of machanic is the root cause of most of the problems experienced in this game at the moment: head on camping and passive gameplay - Check, not being able to use all your guns - Check, cruisers being easily citadelled and deleted at any range (thus rendering them problematic) - Check.

 

Point being, that if the combination of actual ship armor and gun Dispersion Ellipse, as in real ballistics, had been considered and implemented, the way this game play would be tremendously more satisfying while rectifying many of the "problems" currently experienced with the basic gameplay without resorting to purely unbelievable and artificial gimmickry.

[Exocet6951]

2 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

 

Shells simply do not just bounce off from so much thinner armor only to penetrate the 10 times thicker one. This kind of machanic is the root cause of most of the problems experienced in this game at the moment: head on camping and passive gameplay - Check, not being able to use all your guns - Check, cruisers being easily citadelled and deleted at any range (thus rendering them problematic) - Check.

 

 

 

... 
Are you implying that autobounce wasn't a thing, cruisers would actually survive more?

[Allied_Winter]

6 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

 

... 
Are you implying that autobounce wasn't a thing, cruisers would actually survive more?

 

There was a reason why the sailors of the US Navy called the cruisers '10 Minute ships'. Cause that was about the average time the ships survived in combat.

 

 

Greetings

[Exocet6951]

1 minute ago, Allied_Winter said:

 

There was a reason why the sailors of the US Navy called the cruisers '10 Minute ships'. Cause that was about the average time the ships survived in combat.

 

 

Greetings

 

That's still more than cruisers ingame 

[Phantombeast]

53 minutes ago, Ferry_25 said:

I totally disagree with you OP. This game is the most realistic game ever. It's very accurate historically. Who doesn't know the legendary battles in the Pacific: Pearl Harbor, Sinking of Yamato? Every kid around the world knows the red ships got into the imaginary circle first and capped the other ones out!

This, just this !