World of Warships

User avatar
Admiral Piett
Colonel
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 22:04
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Admiral Piett » Sat 18 Feb 2017 19:17

Vulcan 607 wrote:So should I get this game? Is there any historical mode?


There is nothing like War Thunder SB or RB as Object mentions. However speaking as both a naval historian and somebody who loathes WoT, WoWS is really engaging. Like WoT, WoWS is first and foremost an arcade game, realistic naval warfare of the period would be excruciatingly boring to play, but it is historically authentic: ships are largely historical, the gameplay is an arcade-esk version of real naval combat, certain stats are historical while less important ones are bent in the name of balance on occasion. The gameplay is far slower and more methodical than WoT.

Here is a good channel to just have a look through to see what the gameplay really looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6jZ3u ... kkJxPLA88g

I'm willing to help out with any questions you have if you decide to try and get into the game.

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3911
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Vulcan 607 » Sat 18 Feb 2017 21:06

Admiral Piett wrote:
Vulcan 607 wrote:So should I get this game? Is there any historical mode?


There is nothing like War Thunder SB or RB as Object mentions. However speaking as both a naval historian and somebody who loathes WoT, WoWS is really engaging. Like WoT, WoWS is first and foremost an arcade game, realistic naval warfare of the period would be excruciatingly boring to play, but it is historically authentic: ships are largely historical, the gameplay is an arcade-esk version of real naval combat, certain stats are historical while less important ones are bent in the name of balance on occasion. The gameplay is far slower and more methodical than WoT.

Here is a good channel to just have a look through to see what the gameplay really looks like:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6jZ3u ... kkJxPLA88g

I'm willing to help out with any questions you have if you decide to try and get into the game.


Thanks I will give it a think. I played WOT for a while and stopped when I had a pre ww2 light tank with a 37mm and my opponents had updated pz4s wasn't fun.

User avatar
Admiral Piett
Colonel
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 22:04
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Admiral Piett » Sat 18 Feb 2017 21:15

Vulcan 607 wrote:Thanks I will give it a think. I played WOT for a while and stopped when I had a pre ww2 light tank with a 37mm and my opponents had updated pz4s wasn't fun.


Oh yeah. With the nature of warships, and WoWS game design, the vast majority of ships punch up quite effectively. I certainly find the experience far less frustrating than my exceedingly brief tenure in WoT.

User avatar
fatfluffycat
Major
Posts: 1763
Joined: Wed 1 Jan 2014 02:40
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby fatfluffycat » Sun 19 Feb 2017 04:17

Has anyone played the Russian cruiser line? And what are your opinions on the T9 and T10? I'm on the Chapayev right now, can't wait to try out the Donskoi (looks cool af).

I'll probably give up after her like the Baltimore because the T9 to T10 is awful. (also the fact that your losing credits doesn't help)
How is possible? / Thread of the Year 2015
Image

User avatar
Admiral Piett
Colonel
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 22:04
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Admiral Piett » Sun 19 Feb 2017 04:46

I haven't used them myself, but they are both considered quite good. Baltimore got the crap buffed out of it, so it is quite strong now.

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Killertomato » Sun 19 Feb 2017 05:10

Admiral Piett wrote: However speaking as both a naval historian and somebody who loathes WoT, WoWS is really engaging. Like WoT, WoWS is first and foremost an arcade game, realistic naval warfare of the period would be excruciatingly boring to play, but it is historically authentic:



I wonder if a historically accurate warship game would even be possible.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Admiral Piett
Colonel
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 22:04
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Admiral Piett » Sun 19 Feb 2017 06:05

Killertomato wrote:I wonder if a historically accurate warship game would even be possible.


I'm sure you could do it, but it would be extremely niche. Not something you could base a F2P model or anything like that on because the pacing would be far too slow. For example, in WoWS everything is roughly double real life values. Ships are twice the size they should be (so you can actually see what you are shooting at), ranges are compressed, ships move twice as fast, everyone is far more accurate than reality (a good WoWS player has around 25-30% hit rate in BBs, real life was around 3%), torpedoes move at twice normal speeds, etc. All of it is to speed up the game pacing to make it exciting. WoWS really does an impressive job of making things arcade-y without shattering the historical authenticity through the clever use of time and distance scaling detailed above. Apparently WoWS started out at near full sim-level, particularly armour and shell interactions, but it was gradually simplified because the simulation elements frustrated the player base. People whined about "RNG" constantly because the nature of real naval gunnery of the period was to straddle the target and then keep shooting at it until your rounds eventually hit. So ultimately once your FCS got you onto a target, it was just probability. Nothing like aiming a tank gun.

User avatar
Admiral Piett
Colonel
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 22:04
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Admiral Piett » Sun 19 Feb 2017 09:30

I'm really enjoying Mutsu actually.

http://i.imgur.com/Mx5OXw3.jpg

Still a defeat... My team evaporated and I almost won the game when it was five against one. I killed four of them, two DDs and two BBs, and the only survivor was a Cleveland that ran away and hid until the timer expired. :lol:

Object199
Warrant Officer
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu 7 Aug 2014 21:12
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Object199 » Wed 22 Feb 2017 18:13

Admiral Piett wrote: Apparently WoWS started out at near full sim-level, particularly armour and shell interactions, but it was gradually simplified because the simulation elements frustrated the player base.

???
I am only a beta player, but from the alpha vids I´ve seen and stuff alpha testers told me, very early on WoWs gunnery was a 100% clone from WoT´s artillery.

Penetration calculation is still very sophisticated in for an arcade shooter.

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.p ... on-curves/
https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarship ... h=2f0160e3
http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.p ... on-curves/


fatfluffycat wrote:Has anyone played the Russian cruiser line? And what are your opinions on the T9 and T10? I'm on the Chapayev right now, can't wait to try out the Donskoi (looks cool af).

I'll probably give up after her like the Baltimore because the T9 to T10 is awful. (also the fact that your losing credits doesn't help)


Moskva is very fun and a pretty strong cruiser, AP penetration is on par with the Scharnhorst´s 28cm guns. Donskoi is also pretty good, although some ppl complain about her being boring due to the long range HE spamming playstyle.
Image

User avatar
Admiral Piett
Colonel
Posts: 2910
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 22:04
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: World of Warships

Postby Admiral Piett » Wed 22 Feb 2017 19:13

Object199 wrote:Snip.


One of the developers that regularly posted on the NA WoWS forum explained that armour profiles used to be almost simulation, in alpha I believe, but it produced wildly varying results that led to a lot of "RNG so bad" complaints. Therefore they simplified it to make things feel more consistent. Of course "simplify" is relative, the game still does a pretty impressive job with armour and shell interactions. The auto-bounce mechanic can get a bit annoying at times, but I understand the necessity for it in a hit point-based game where ships can be sunk without hitting their vitals.

Moskva is very fun and a pretty strong cruiser, AP penetration is on par with the Scharnhorst´s 28cm guns. Donskoi is also pretty good, although some ppl complain about her being boring due to the long range HE spamming playstyle.


Huh. My brother will be happy to hear that. He is on Donskoi at the moment and doesn't seem to completely hate it, but he is aiming for Moskva.

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests