a world of warships without RNG, can it exist?

[pepe_trueno]

i know this is some wishful thinking but anyone else think this can be done? if so how?

 

guns accuracy: buff all guns dispersion but in exchange reduce their shell speed, BBs being the most inaccurate will receive the biggest dispersion buff as well as the biggest shell speed reduction.

reasoning: make hitting a target less about spray and pray and more about target prediction / leading and dodging of incoming shells. 

 

fires: replace chance to fire with each section having some sort of heat bar that fills when taking HE hits and empties when not taking HE hits (value differ from gun to gun like fire chance), when the bar is full a fire is started and when the bar reaches half the fire is put off. skills that reduce fire chance instead increase the bar threshold and skills that reduce fire duration instead increase the rate at which the bar is emptied.

reasoning: reward proper aiming rather than dumb luck. whats more this change means shooting the same section will keep the fire on making it a solid counter to bow tanking.  

 

modules health: why is this even a thing. just get rid of it.

 

 

[Project45_Opytny]

Do you think randomness caused by a player's personal decision making (like, dodging a long range torpedo salvo unintentionally with a rudder shift) is perferrable to randomness brought by RNG mechanics?

With the current HE mechanics and CV/airstrike/submarines, you name it, how is bow-tanking/stationary anchoring playstyle still viable to the point that some novel mechanics should be introducrd to supposely counter it?

[Wolfswetpaws]

33 minutes ago, pepe_trueno said:

a world of warships without RNG, can it exist?

i know this is some wishful thinking but anyone else think this can be done? if so how?

 

guns accuracy: buff all guns dispersion but in exchange reduce their shell speed, BBs being the most inaccurate will receive the biggest dispersion buff as well as the biggest shell speed reduction.

reasoning: make hitting a target less about spray and pray and more about target prediction / leading and dodging of incoming shells. 

 

fires: replace chance to fire with each section having some sort of heat bar that fills when taking HE hits and empties when not taking HE hits (value differ from gun to gun like fire chance), when the bar is full a fire is started and when the bar reaches half the fire is put off. skills that reduce fire chance instead increase the bar threshold and skills that reduce fire duration instead increase the rate at which the bar is emptied.

reasoning: reward proper aiming rather than dumb luck. whats more this change means shooting the same section will keep the fire on making it a solid counter to bow tanking.  

 

modules health: why is this even a thing. just get rid of it.

Well, "in real life" main-gun projectile dispersion is a real phenomena.
Long story short, there are a lot of factors that affect the travel of a projectile.

So my answer to your "a world of warships without RNG, can it exist?" question is "Nope".

The game could model hulls and performance parameters of ordnance differently.
They could model radar properly.
They could eliminate the "consumables" which allow one to repair and restore equipment hit by physical objects and explosive forces.
They could do a lot of things to make this game more like a "simulation" instead of an "arcade game".
Some of those things would require battles lasting longer than 20 minutes while an early hit scored on one's rudder or engine has rendered one's ship vulnerable or ineffective.
In short, the game might become like real-life combat, a lot of time spent being bored until it is punctuated by moments of struggle.

[Frostbow]

 

Theoretically, it can. But I think it would lead to predictability, which could result to the game getting stale because it is so predictable.

 

[Type_93]

No RNG. Interesting concept. For that to work you’d have to get rid of the zoom in feature and make players shoot from a first person perspective from the bridge of what ever ship you are playing. You’d also have rework the maps to take into consideration the curvature of the earth. Get rid of the mini map. I could be done but would have to be a major rework of the entire game. 

[LittleWhiteMouse]

There is a A LOT of RNG in this game; more than most people realize.

• Weapon dispersion (including main battery, secondary battery, torpedoes of all types, rockets, bombs, etc)
• AP and SAP Ricochet chance (including shells, bombs, rockets)
• Critical hit chances (weapons and modules being temporarily disabled, detonations)
• Module damage health (weapons, specifically)
• Module damage mechanics (amount of damage done)
• Fire chance
• Flooding chance
• Flak
• Matchmaking
• Loot boxes
• Etc...

I'm definitely forgetting some.  RNG is heavily tied to how gunnery works.  RNG could be plucked out of some areas (module health and damage, I'm looking at you).  I dunno how you would do it for gunnery, though.

[majmac]

How does RNG work in War Thunder?

 

[LittleWhiteMouse]

23 minutes ago, majmac said:

How does RNG work in War Thunder?

 

It's not my wheelhouse, but a cursory google search reveals it relies upon it too.  They appear similar to the World of series of games, though I'm willing to bet all of the ranges and applications are applied differently.

• Weapon dispersion
• Ricochet chance
• Damage values
• Module damage
• Etc.

[pepe_trueno]

10 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Well, "in real life" main-gun projectile dispersion is a real phenomena.
Long story short, there are a lot of factors that affect the travel of a projectile.

So my answer to your "a world of warships without RNG, can it exist?" question is "Nope".

The game could model hulls and performance parameters of ordnance differently.
They could model radar properly.
They could eliminate the "consumables" which allow one to repair and restore equipment hit by physical objects and explosive forces.
They could do a lot of things to make this game more like a "simulation" instead of an "arcade game".
Some of those things would require battles lasting longer than 20 minutes while an early hit scored on one's rudder or engine has rendered one's ship vulnerable or ineffective.
In short, the game might become like real-life combat, a lot of time spent being bored until it is punctuated by moments of struggle.

 

7 hours ago, Type_93 said:

No RNG. Interesting concept. For that to work you’d have to get rid of the zoom in feature and make players shoot from a first person perspective from the bridge of what ever ship you are playing. You’d also have rework the maps to take into consideration the curvature of the earth. Get rid of the mini map. I could be done but would have to be a major rework of the entire game. 

this is not about realism but about cutting the randomness.

that being said would be interesting if there was an  option to  turn world of warships into old battlefield 1942 (removal of automatic elevation and first person view)   😆

 

[NMA101]

2 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

There is a A LOT of RNG in this game; more than most people realize.

• Weapon dispersion (including main battery, secondary battery, torpedoes of all types, rockets, bombs, etc)
• AP and SAP Ricochet chance (including shells, bombs, rockets)
• Critical hit chances (weapons and modules being temporarily disabled, detonations)
• Module damage health (weapons, specifically)
• Module damage mechanics (amount of damage done)
• Fire chance
• Flooding chance
• Flak
• Matchmaking
• Loot boxes
• Etc...

I'm definitely forgetting some.  RNG is heavily tied to how gunnery works.  RNG could be plucked out of some areas (module health and damage, I'm looking at you).  I dunno how you would do it for gunnery, though.

Thank you, @LittleWhiteMouse for agreeing with me, that applying RNG to module HP serves absolutely no purpose other than to frustrate players!

I think RNG for relating to gunnery (accuracy, ricochet, fire/flooding) is fine, adds a sense of realism.

A few days ago I posted a comment wondering what your opinion on this subject was:

 

[LittleWhiteMouse]

7 minutes ago, NMA101 said:

Thank you, @LittleWhiteMouse for agreeing with me, that applying RNG to module HP serves absolutely no purpose other than to frustrate players!

See, I asked about this back in 2017 or so.  The reason cited to me by Sub_Octavian was to prevent players from "gaming the system" and specifically targeting modules like guns, torpedoes, etc with predictable outcomes.

Yeah, it didn't make sense to me either.

[Wolfswetpaws]

54 minutes ago, pepe_trueno said:

 

this is not about realism but about cutting the randomness.

that being said would be interesting if there was an  option to  turn world of warships into old battlefield 1942 (removal of automatic elevation and first person view)   😆

https://maritime.org/doc/firecontrol/index.php

[NMA101]

23 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

See, I asked about this back in 2017 or so.  The reason cited to me by Sub_Octavian was to prevent players from "gaming the system" and specifically targeting modules like guns, torpedoes, etc with predictable outcomes.

Yeah, it didn't make sense to me either.

Everything that man has ever said is complete and utter [fill in the blank]. Absolutely worthless, we would all be better off never listening to anything he said. 

I am struggling to apply some logic here:

Let's say you are in a Zao, most accurate cruiser in the game. You know your AP does, say 5000 damage while an enemy Jinan (the cruiser with the weakest armor) has turrets each worth 15000 HP. So you aim at the turrets to ruin the opponent's game?

First of all, there is dispersion so that would not be guaranteed. Secondly, the ranges that most people play at these days (max range sniping) means that trying to pinpoint aim would be impossible. Additionally, if you were at close enough range where you could try that tactic, both cruisers have torpedoes so both players would try to use those instead. Or at that point, aim for the citadel and kill the enemy. I just cannot think of a situation where "gaming the system" would be the optimal choice.

Or alternatively, thinking in terms of risk-reward ratio, you would need at least 3 of your shells to destroy one of the Jinan's turrets. Practically, you may need to fire an entire salvo anyway to accomplish that. Guess what, he has 5 more turrets left, and his rate of fire is higher than yours. Wasting shots while he farms you for free. Once again, the trade off simply does not make any sense. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by NMA101
more details

[LittleWhiteMouse]

34 minutes ago, NMA101 said:

I just cannot think of a situation where "gaming the system" would be the optimal choice.

It depends what you're in and what you're facing.  Let's go over different shell types.

• AP shells do the most damage to modules but their reliability is sus.  AP shells must fuse and detonate inside the module in order to damage it.  Overpenetrations do zero damage to modules.  British Light Cruiser AP shells with their lower fuse arming threshold and fuse timers make them IDEAL for wrecking destroyer and cruiser turrets.  However, let's not forget you have to penetrate armour in the first place.  So a heavy cruiser's AP is only going to tickle most battleship faceplates and barbette armour.
• HE shells are the easiest to use, but they have an upper limit of what they're capable of doing . HE damages modules through a blast effect.  The penetration value used to damage ships isn't the be-all end all, and it's possible to damage modules even when the HE explosion can't penetrate the ship itself.  This said, modules have their own (hidden) blast protection, so not all turrets are vulnerable to HE.  This makes them better suited to popping lightly (or open) turrets, though you're going to need a lot of hits to strip the health from them entirely.
• SAP are the worst shells to use against turrets.  Like AP, they have to penetrate the module in order to do damage.  They don't have a blast effect like HE.  And given their lower penetration thresholds, they quickly hit a wall in terms of what they can and cannot damage.

My preferred method for sniping modules comes in two scenarios:

1. Stripping torpedo tubes off with HE.
2. Knocking out battleship guns in the leadup to a brawl.

The first one is pretty obvious and easy enough to do.  Load HE.  Aim for the general area of torpedo tubes.  Let the splash effect do its thing.  I'm particularly fond of doing this to German battleships.  They have a lot of hit points.  They're a big target.  I'm going to be setting them on fire anyway, so I may as well grief them by denying them their tubes.  With Royal Navy battleship HE in particular with their enormous damage values (for HE) and large blast radii, this is pretty reliable.

The second one is more situational given the nature of brawling anyway.  But in scenarios where I can't overmatch the snoots of whatever I'm trying to brawl, I'm going to aim for the turrets and try and knock them out . This makes jousts much safer and it only takes a few salvos to fairly reliably complicate the fight for them -- if not with outright destruction than simply by temporarily disabling them and reducing their return fire volume. 

Against other ship types?  Well, I might try and blow off a cruiser's torpedo tubes, but it's never worth trying to farm their turrets over just nuking the ship itself.  This comes down to the hit point disparity.  Baltimore's turrets have 7,500 health (5,000 base + 50% from Main Armaments Modification 1 which they're almost guaranteed to have).  Battleship AP will overmatch it.  HE isn't going to do appreciable damage to the turret.  If I'm in a cruiser, I've probably got HE loaded and I'd rather strip hit points than fumble with trying to smack a turret.  And if we're getting so close that we'll brawl, I'll be aiming for the citadel with AP or prepping my torpedo tubes if I have them.  And for a destroyer?  Forget it.  I'm using torps against most opponents.  I might go for a larf and spam HE towards their guns (particularly if they only have two turrets) just to troll them, but in knife fights, my goal is to sink them quickly.

So yeah, not a whole lot of situations where busting weapons is prioritized over simply stripping HP.

[Verytis]

But if I lost my gambling mechanics how do I cope with the fact I suck? /s

 

But yeah, there are literally ships balanced around having trash dispersion like shotgun BBs.

If anything, the game has been shifting towards increasingly high velocity shells and worse maneuverability. Where dispersion is what matters, less your ability to maintain high awareness and dodging.

[SunkCostFallacy]

I have always figured that the RNG in the game is a necessary component to permit the devs to ignore a lot of stuff. I can't speak to naval gunnery, but I can speak to shooting in general. When I was in the Army I did small arms shooting as a sport. We generally shot on the 300m range ... where you needed to take wind into consideration. Especially if you were shooting competitively and you begrudged even a single point lost. I've had shots go bad¹ based on a gust of wind just after firing.

I know that wind is a much bigger factor in ground based artillery than it is in small arms except for snipers firing at extreme ranges, I suppose. And naval gunnery has to allow for an unstable platform ... you know, waves, the variable speed you're traveling and of course the direction and all that stuff.

There's no way that WG are going to want to take into account wind gusts and an unstable platform, so they throw in a bit of RNG to cover that. And perhaps a bit more for those ships that fire floaty rather than flat trajectories.

RNG lets the devs simplify a lot of aspects of naval battle, which makes it possible to play in 'real time' rather than very slowly if you were trying to simulate everything that applies.

Simplifying applies to other aspects of the game. Consider the Iowa class battleships. The New Jersey in specific 'specialised' in Damage Control (to the extent that she shows the DC next to her ribbon board) and so a fire on New Jersey would, in theory, not burn as long as on one of the other Iowa class battleships. But trying to take that sort of thing into account would be ludicrous ... so they just don't worry about that stuff.

 

1. Not bad as in I missed the target, but bad as in I missed the center and scored fewer points.

[Yedwy]

16 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

i know this is some wishful thinking but anyone else think this can be done? if so how?

No, there are so many levels of RNG piled one upon another that ripping it out and replacing it with some new system would basically mean a completely different game