Isn't the TMA a little too perfect?

[Shadriss]

Originally Posted by Destex

1. TMA on Active Sonar intercept contacts.
2. Immediate classification for ESM and Active Intercept contacts for military targets.
3. No TMA for ESM only contacts.
4. Much slower decay for TMA contacts that have lost contact, let them keep the last solution when contact had been lost.
5. Have TMA much more responsive to own-ship maneuvering. Currently, there's not enough own ship contribution of own-ship maneuvering for solution build-up.

I completely agree, however, I'm afraid that this is so overreaching given the current capabilities of the game that I don't dare wish for it... I hope I'm wrong

WRT #2, that's not really good either. As was pointed out by another poster, MF sonars are usually carried on more than one platform. It may narrow the classification, but it won't be a be-all-end-all solution to your class problem.

WRT #5, I agree, but that's not likely to change because of the game type. That's one of thse 'shrug and move on' things.

Originally Posted by difool2

Those two goals are not necessarily mutually exclusive. At all.

Absolute truth.

Originally Posted by The Bandit

Dunno, if done wrong this could put the devs down a dangerous road of "feature creep" and reinventing the wheel.

That's partially why I'm sort of against automated navigation. Other games (primarily DW/SC and Silent Hunter) you had all sorts of screens and stations to go through if / when you let the AI "fly" the ship for you. CW obviously doesn't have that, and if anything, auto navigation is going to bring that up more and more (and leave people with less to do)...

...What I do find most encouraging though is that in almost all instances, these desired improvements are just thoughts out loud on the part of users who are still probably going to play and enjoy the game regardless. "I really wish it had this feature." instead of "This game sucks and I'll never buy it because its ARCADE!!!!"

I see your point on the auto-navigation side of the house, but I would counter that if the goal is to place you on this ship as the CO, that you are supposed to have crew to handle these for you - the extent of the CO's involvement is, "Helm, left 15 degrees rudder, steady course XXX," or, "Dive, make your depth XXX feet."

And thanks for noting the second part of your post - I'm not demanding a complete rewrite of the game, though I was hoping it was more sim than arcade. Decent game, regardless, just not what I was expecting or hoping for. That said, if we can, by sharing knowledge, find a happy middle ground that would make what is there better (relative as that term may be...) than even better.

Originally Posted by Wiz33

Yes and no, To someone who is familiar with modern military sims. It's pretty obvious that I should be able to get/narrow down the classification from ESM or Active sonar. But a casual player would wonder how one sec he have a low percentage contact and suddenly it jumped to being classified.

On the bolded, there are professionals who wonder this at times as well.

"Contact classified Victor III CIS Submarine!"
"How the h*** did you get that? The data is all wrong..."
*argument ensues*

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

Yes and no, To someone who is familiar with modern military sims. It's pretty obvious that I should be able to get/narrow down the classification from ESM or Active sonar. But a casual player would wonder how one sec he have a low percentage contact and suddenly it jumped to being classified. To make them understand, the in game unit reference guide need to be updated with accurate sensor info (now pretty much all surface warship is listed with Don Kay radar) message log will also need to be modified to show that ESM have picked up a Don Kay radar bearing xxx classification possibility the following classes.......... (as some sensor are used in more than 1 platform).

I don't think so. A casual CW player still has to learn the basics of thermal layers, surface ducts, differences between active/passive sonars, effective use of countermeasures etc. Now, people who aren't willing to do that won't be interested in the game anyway. Those who do will probably welcome this as adding more depth to the game.
Anyway, let's break down Destex's points fom strictly gameplay perspective:

1. TMA on Active Sonar intercept contacts.
You hear a ping -> you get a new contact. Without adding any complexity you increase player's situational awareness.

2. Immediate classification for ESM and Active Intercept contacts for military targets.
Adds a very good reason to use ECM instead of current vague "increase TMA rate".

3. No TMA for ESM only contacts.
The effect of ESM on TMA is currently so small, that I wouldn't be surprised that some players don't even know it's there. Also it reduces the urge to stay at PD for too long.

4. Much slower decay for TMA contacts that have lost contact, let them keep the last solution when contact had been lost.
Another feature that increases situational awareness without adding complexity.

5. Have TMA much more responsive to own-ship maneuvering. Currently, there's not enough own ship contribution of own-ship maneuvering for solution build-up.
AFAIK this feature is already in the game. Destex only wants it to be more effective (and I agree). This also adds to the gameplay because then instead of sitting around and waiting for the % to go up you can manoeuvre to get it faster.

As you can see, realism is not always the opposite of gameplay. Sometimes it can enhance it and this is such case.

PS. As for your previous post that "It's hardcore players why this genre is dead", I think you're wrong. The reason it's almost dead (CW and upcoming Uboot proves it doesn't) is because it's such a niche subject that even if you were to create a perfect subsim you will not get the attention of a typical casual gamer.

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

I don't think so. A casual CW player still has to learn the basics of thermal layers, surface ducts, differences between active/passive sonars, effective use of countermeasures etc. Now, people who aren't willing to do that won't be interested in the game anyway. Those who do will probably welcome this as adding more depth to the game.
Anyway, let's break down Destex's points fom strictly gameplay perspective:

1. TMA on Active Sonar intercept contacts.
You hear a ping -> you get a new contact. Without adding any complexity you increase player's situational awareness.

2. Immediate classification for ESM and Active Intercept contacts for military targets.
Adds a very good reason to use ECM instead of current vague "increase TMA rate".

3. No TMA for ESM only contacts.
The effect of ESM on TMA is currently so small, that I wouldn't be surprised that some players don't even know it's there. Also it reduces the urge to stay at PD for too long.

4. Much slower decay for TMA contacts that have lost contact, let them keep the last solution when contact had been lost.
Another feature that increases situational awareness without adding complexity.

5. Have TMA much more responsive to own-ship maneuvering. Currently, there's not enough own ship contribution of own-ship maneuvering for solution build-up.
AFAIK this feature is already in the game. Destex only wants it to be more effective (and I agree). This also adds to the gameplay because then instead of sitting around and waiting for the % to go up you can manoeuvre to get it faster.

As you can see, realism is not always the opposite of gameplay. Sometimes it can enhance it and this is such case.

PS. As for your previous post that "It's hardcore players why this genre is dead", I think you're wrong. The reason it's almost dead (CW and upcoming Uboot proves it doesn't) is because it's such a niche subject that even if you were to create a perfect subsim you will not get the attention of a typical casual gamer.

1. At what range will you place the contact? How do you differ it from a passive contact that you at least have a estimate range on?

2. Some sensors were used on more than 1 platform. And the Dev have to be willing to overhaul the unit reference guide to putin accurate sensor data. I would rather they spend their effort elsewhere.

3 Stay at PD for too long and you'll learn your lesson but getting a visit from a Helo or have a SS-N-14 drop on your head. Think that will teach them fast enough. You can actually get TMA from ESM if you move a distance and then collect another set of data.

4. Why as that solution % gets to be meaningless after a little while. isn't the faded out contact symbol enough?

5 less effect is more like it. Just wait till they fully modeled the towed array, it take minutes for it to straighten out and start functioning after every turn. Look at Jive's video, he call out 3 minutes at least for each leg of the TMA and there's a reason for it.

Wow, you must consider yourself one of the elite. The genre is dead because even someone with more than a passing interest won't get in without reading a 100 page manual and there's not enough bridge sim (sim lite) to get causal player interested. How many games like CMANO have you seen in the last decade? How many time have you seen so call hardcore player calling CW arcade? Did you see how bad Naval War AC got slammed by hardcore gamers on the forum?

[Destex]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

1. At what range will you place the contact? How do you differ it from a passive contact that you at least have a estimate range on?

I can think of multiple ways, let's not derail the discussion to it. In any case, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of logic in how passive targets ranges are initially determined in CW now, I don't see why it should be any different with active intercept contacts. The thing is, if the game provides you a target for an ESM contact, why not for an active intercept? Given that ESM only targets exist in the game the burden of answer to that question is on you, that is, if you think active intercept targets are a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Wiz33

2. Some sensors were used on more than 1 platform.

As I said so myself. That's indeed a concern, but I believe gameplay wise it would be a good compromise.

Originally Posted by Wiz33

You can actually get TMA from ESM if you move a distance and then collect another set of data.

No, that won't work. In the 80's there's no TMA for ESM contacts due to low bearing accuracy of the ESM modules. But your statement is false even regarding TMA for targets tracked by sonar that produce accurate bearings. That's not how TMA works, see the discussion on this thread for extensive explanations from Shadriss, Shipkiller and myself.

Originally Posted by Wiz33

4. Why as that solution % gets to be meaningless after a little while. isn't the faded out contact symbol enough?

You can't even click a faded out target, faded out targets remain on their position when contact was lost. That means you can't even pursue even the trivial tactic of monitoring a target from above the layer, reach a solution, and dive below the layer to a firing position because the target stops moving on your plot. The fact that you lost contact to it, doesn't mean it stopped moving.

Originally Posted by Wiz33

5 less effect is more like it. Just wait till they fully modeled the towed array, it take minutes for it to straighten out and start functioning after every turn. Look at Jive's video, he call out 3 minutes at least for each leg of the TMA and there's a reason for it.

A. TAS is already in the game, you just don't see the towed array model.
B. TAS is besides the point anyway, since TMA doesn't react differently for TAS contacts. We can fully appreciate the TMA now using fixed sonar array contacts.
C. When watching Jive Turkey's videos, one should remember that he role plays, he sometimes do things or explain how things are done in real life even if they don't have real impact on the game. In numerous times I maneuvered
to perform 5 legs for a strong contact and didn't get a solution that eventually wasn't very far and wasn't very weak, because how TMA is currently modeled. That should not happen in real life and badly effects gameplay.

Originally Posted by Wiz33

Wow, you must consider yourself one of the elite. The genre is dead because even someone with more than a passing interest won't get in without reading a 100 page manual and there's not enough bridge sim (sim lite) to get causal player interested. How many games like CMANO have you seen in the last decade? How many time have you seen so call hardcore player calling CW arcade? Did you see how bad Naval War AC got slammed by hardcore gamers on the forum?

For someone who has problems with realism in sub games, you argued against several gameplay improvements using (false) realism statements. Your lack of inconsistency is... interesting

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

Wow, you must consider yourself one of the elite. The genre is dead because even someone with more than a passing interest won't get in without reading a 100 page manual and there's not enough bridge sim (sim lite) to get causal player interested. How many games like CMANO have you seen in the last decade? How many time have you seen so call hardcore player calling CW arcade? Did you see how bad Naval War AC got slammed by hardcore gamers on the forum?

I don't consider myself to be part of the elite in anything. But that's not the point. The point is, you can play any Silent Hunter game with the right settings without reading the manual at all. And still they didn't sell well enough to justify a successor (at least in Ubisoft's eyes).

The cost of developing a game (especially by a big studio) has risen substantially. At the same time, the target audience hasn't while the number of casual (I do not mean that as a negative) gamers increased. Making a sim more accessible does not guarantee more sales but simplifying it can guarantee alienating some of the existing audience. There is a room for them though and it is on an indie market and that where games like CW and Uboot come in. The only problem is, those lite-sims are still harder to develop that typical games.
Let's look at the Naval War: AC. If you look at it's Steam reviews (http://store.steampowered.com/app/20...p_reviews_hash) most negative ones are not about realism, but poor performance/bugs/crashes/bad interface etc. Poor realism seem to be only one of the reasons it failed.
Let's also take a look at another lite-sim on Steam: Combat Air Patrol 2 (http://store.steampowered.com/app/34...p_reviews_hash)
Again, most of it's negative reviews aren't about poor realism, but poor gameplay/lack of progress.
If you compare them to CW (which is also a lite-sim) you can see the difference.

My point is, complains about "not being realistic enough" might turn off some players, but on the whole have very little effect on sales.

[FPSchazly]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

PS. As for your previous post that "It's hardcore players why this genre is dead", I think you're wrong. The reason it's almost dead (CW and upcoming Uboot proves it doesn't) is because it's such a niche subject that even if you were to create a perfect subsim you will not get the attention of a typical casual gamer.

I agree with Wiz33 on this one (I enjoyed your write-up on Steam). Dangerous Waters has a pretty lowly presence on YouTube. I'm the most "popular" uploader of it that I know, and that's not saying too much (I'm saying this for effect only)! That game even got reviewed by X-Play back in the day. Granted, the game did come out at the beginning of YouTube before playthroughs were really a thing, but the response for Cold Waters has been huge. So many channels have done videos for it, including ones with over 100k subscribers, accumulating hundreds of thousands of views in a few days, and this is because of its accessibility. I am confident that if Dangerous Waters 2 were released tomorrow, it would not do as well as Cold Waters has done.

The genre is coming back because it isn't catering to purely hardcore players. Cold Waters is one of those games that you can learn in a day but it takes a while to master. Dangerous Waters just takes a long time to learn it!

Concerning the niche market, it's easier to make/sell an airplane simulator because usually it is just one or two people doing everything. With a submarine, many more compromises have to be made because dozens of people are involved in making a submarine function.

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

I don't think so. A casual CW player still has to learn the basics of thermal layers, surface ducts, differences between active/passive sonars, effective use of countermeasures etc. Now, people who aren't willing to do that won't be interested in the game anyway. Those who do will probably welcome this as adding more depth to the game.
Anyway, let's break down Destex's points fom strictly gameplay perspective:

1. TMA on Active Sonar intercept contacts.
You hear a ping -> you get a new contact. Without adding any complexity you increase player's situational awareness.

2. Immediate classification for ESM and Active Intercept contacts for military targets.
Adds a very good reason to use ECM instead of current vague "increase TMA rate".

3. No TMA for ESM only contacts.
The effect of ESM on TMA is currently so small, that I wouldn't be surprised that some players don't even know it's there. Also it reduces the urge to stay at PD for too long.

4. Much slower decay for TMA contacts that have lost contact, let them keep the last solution when contact had been lost.
Another feature that increases situational awareness without adding complexity.

5. Have TMA much more responsive to own-ship maneuvering. Currently, there's not enough own ship contribution of own-ship maneuvering for solution build-up.
AFAIK this feature is already in the game. Destex only wants it to be more effective (and I agree). This also adds to the gameplay because then instead of sitting around and waiting for the % to go up you can manoeuvre to get it faster.

As you can see, realism is not always the opposite of gameplay. Sometimes it can enhance it and this is such case.

PS. As for your previous post that "It's hardcore players why this genre is dead", I think you're wrong. The reason it's almost dead (CW and upcoming Uboot proves it doesn't) is because it's such a niche subject that even if you were to create a perfect subsim you will not get the attention of a typical casual gamer.

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

I don't consider myself to be part of the elite in anything. But that's not the point. The point is, you can play any Silent Hunter game with the right settings without reading the manual at all. And still they didn't sell well enough to justify a successor (at least in Ubisoft's eyes).

The cost of developing a game (especially by a big studio) has risen substantially. At the same time, the target audience hasn't while the number of casual (I do not mean that as a negative) gamers increased. Making a sim more accessible does not guarantee more sales but simplifying it can guarantee alienating some of the existing audience. There is a room for them though and it is on an indie market and that where games like CW and Uboot come in. The only problem is, those lite-sims are still harder to develop that typical games.
Let's look at the Naval War: AC. If you look at it's Steam reviews (http://store.steampowered.com/app/20...p_reviews_hash) most negative ones are not about realism, but poor performance/bugs/crashes/bad interface etc. Poor realism seem to be only one of the reasons it failed.
Let's also take a look at another lite-sim on Steam: Combat Air Patrol 2 (http://store.steampowered.com/app/34...p_reviews_hash)
Again, most of it's negative reviews aren't about poor realism, but poor gameplay/lack of progress.
If you compare them to CW (which is also a lite-sim) you can see the difference.

My point is, complains about "not being realistic enough" might turn off some players, but on the whole have very little effect on sales.

Read this again:

"I posted this on the steam forum awhile back but before anyone ask for more realism (unless it's optional). read this thread:"

Did you miss the "(unless it's optional)". I have no problem with adding realism options and giving player a more accurate sim. But I want to keep the core sim simple enough for causal player.

I actually did not target this set of message. I was just posting the link as a cautionary tale of what might happen if we continue to add complex elements to some lite sims.

[Skyhigh]

Which casual player is ever going to do a subsim...

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by Skyhigh

Which casual player is ever going to do a subsim...

Just look at all the Youtube videos. In addition to Jive (who's seen a explosive growth in subscriptions) There are a lot of other channels that normally does not cover serious military sims (some do have a military theme). They're getting hundred thousands of views (Jingles latest CW vid have gotten 50K view in 12 hours). Cold Waters is getting playthroughs from channels that covers a wide range of games from racing sims, RPG, Sci Fi and even trucking sims and while we would laugh at some of the gameplay decision, they seems to be having a lot of fun and the word is spreading.

Youtube and games like Cold Waters may actually bring in a lot of new players with just a casual interest in military sims but was afraid of the complexity of some of the more in depth ones (or the I don't want to read a manual crowd). A couple of tutorial video on youtube and anyone without any modern naval knowledge can jump into this game and actually start having some fun in the single missions.

In a way, the 84 missions are easier to get started than any of the SH game series as with a MK48, you have a good chance that just a point and shoot will give you a decent chance of a hit (well it has a good chance to come back at you too but let's not worry about that for now). That make it fun enough for some of them to dig deeper (watch more video).

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

Read this again:

"I posted this on the steam forum awhile back but before anyone ask for more realism (unless it's optional). read this thread:"

Did you miss the "(unless it's optional)". I have no problem with adding realism options and giving player a more accurate sim. But I want to keep the core sim simple enough for causal player.

I actually did not target this set of message. I was just posting the link as a cautionary tale of what might happen if we continue to add complex elements to some lite sims.

I get your point. It's just this sentence that I don't agree with:

Originally Posted by Wiz33

It's hardcore players why this genre is dead

My arguments were to point out that there were many different reasons why we have so little sims these days and complaints from so called "hardcore gamers" are one of the least important factors (if they mean anything at all). Just look at flight sims players. They want as much realism in their games as well and it didn't cause the downfall of companies like Eagle Dynamics or Laminar Research. Quite the opposite, those companies stood up to those demands and created a nice niche where they have stable income.
The thing is, flight sim crowd is much bigger that sub sim crowd and that is the main reason there is very little good quality subsims.
It's just bad business to invest large budgets for a small target audience and even if you consider successful games like CW you have to remember that sales that are a success for a company like KillerFish Games would still be a failure for big studios like Ubisoft.

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

I don't consider myself to be part of the elite in anything. But that's not the point. The point is, you can play any Silent Hunter game with the right settings without reading the manual at all. And still they didn't sell well enough to justify a successor (at least in Ubisoft's eyes).

The cost of developing a game (especially by a big studio) has risen substantially. At the same time, the target audience hasn't while the number of casual (I do not mean that as a negative) gamers increased. Making a sim more accessible does not guarantee more sales but simplifying it can guarantee alienating some of the existing audience. There is a room for them though and it is on an indie market and that where games like CW and Uboot come in. The only problem is, those lite-sims are still harder to develop that typical games.
Let's look at the Naval War: AC. If you look at it's Steam reviews (http://store.steampowered.com/app/20...p_reviews_hash) most negative ones are not about realism, but poor performance/bugs/crashes/bad interface etc. Poor realism seem to be only one of the reasons it failed.
Let's also take a look at another lite-sim on Steam: Combat Air Patrol 2 (http://store.steampowered.com/app/34...p_reviews_hash)
Again, most of it's negative reviews aren't about poor realism, but poor gameplay/lack of progress.
If you compare them to CW (which is also a lite-sim) you can see the difference.

My point is, complains about "not being realistic enough" might turn off some players, but on the whole have very little effect on sales.

Some good point, especially about games that was rush to market with bug and stability problem. but I would also say that one of the reason why the genre is not growing is that there is a lack of entry level sims. Although there are options to automate a lot of things in SH5, It's still look more complex than SH1, just look at the game description on Amazon:

Put on the captain’s uniform - For the first time, walk through highly detailed submarines, access every part of your U-boat, and manage your crew in the new first-person view.
Become a real leader - Directly command your crew and experience the tension and fear inside the U-boat through the new advanced order system.
Test your war strategies - Choose your own strategy and select your targets with a new objective-driven, dynamic campaign.
Make the enemy react to you - Open new locations, upgrades and resupply possibilities, while the Allied ships adjust dynamically to your approach. Your actions will directly impact the evolution of the campaign.
Accessibility Enhanced - Prowl the waters with a brand-new user interface. Now, every beginner can successfully command a sub free of confusion. In expert mode, experienced players will be provided with all the necessary information and controls to command the sub completely on their own.

They were targeting previous owners. Nowhere did they talked about how new player can get into this. It doesn't help that there are no Youtube playthrough back then to show that you can take on the responsibility one step at a time.

It also didn't help that it was buggy as hell at launch, even the review here at subsim rate it 1 out of 10 for bugs and stability.

Just ask yourself, if you're a player without prior experience in the series, would you pick it up back then

[PL_Harpoon]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

Just ask yourself, if you're a player without prior experience in the series, would you pick it up back then

I'm not sure I'm the best example here. My first subsim was Silent Hunter 2 and even as a kid, the first thing I did was to go to options menu and set everything to the highest realism.
But to ask your question, without any previous subsim experience and based only on that description - sure, I'd buy it.

For comparison:
When I wanted to try out heli sims I did not start with the Take On Helicopters on easy settings. Instead I got X-Plane 10 and constantly crashed for the first week or so until I saw some RL training lessons on YouTube. But that's what I mean by " I'm the best example here"

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

I'm not sure I'm the best example here. My first subsim was Silent Hunter 2 and even as a kid, the first thing I did was to go to options menu and set everything to the highest realism.
But to ask your question, without any previous subsim experience and based only on that description - sure, I'd buy it.

For comparison:
When I wanted to try out heli sims I did not start with the Take On Helicopters on easy settings. Instead I got X-Plane 10 and constantly crashed for the first week or so until I saw some RL training lessons on YouTube. But that's what I mean by " I'm the best example here"

And you say you're not a hardcore gamer ;-P. I think Youtube is really helping to revive the genre. There are quite a few messages on the steam forum from new player or player with little or no experience with mil sims. Not tons but a lot more than you usually see and the usual answer (just like here) is to asking them to watch some of Jive's video.

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by PL_Harpoon

I get your point. It's just this sentence that I don't agree with:



My arguments were to point out that there were many different reasons why we have so little sims these days and complaints from so called "hardcore gamers" are one of the least important factors (if they mean anything at all). Just look at flight sims players. They want as much realism in their games as well and it didn't cause the downfall of companies like Eagle Dynamics or Laminar Research. Quite the opposite, those companies stood up to those demands and created a nice niche where they have stable income.
The thing is, flight sim crowd is much bigger that sub sim crowd and that is the main reason there is very little good quality subsims.
It's just bad business to invest large budgets for a small target audience and even if you consider successful games like CW you have to remember that sales that are a success for a company like KillerFish Games would still be a failure for big studios like Ubisoft.

Well, Aircraft sims have the advantage that they also attracts the non gaming civil aviation crowds (especially X-Plane). Eagle dynamic also have a interesting business model as in they sell a lot of add-ons for new platforms. which is probably what's sustaining them since the core product was 2011. DLCs is the current trend to sustain a product between development cycle of new products. Just look at CMANO and it's expansion packs.