1.04 reluctance?

[fatty]

The past few days in GameSpy, the wide majority of players I have encountered have refused to upgrade to 1.04. They cite the reduced ADCAP range as giving an unfair advantage to Akulas, which was referenced in another thread here (by Molon Labe?)

Anyway, I have missed out on a dozen games because I refuse to DOWNGRADE my game back to 1.03. Has anyone else encountered players adamantly sticking to 1.03?

IMHO the nice new models and the bug fixes outweigh giving an edge to the Akula. Is it even that much of an advantage, anyway? The Seawolf still has superior sensors and stealth, and as the aforementioned poster pointed out the range difference in running space is not that much (2nm IIRC). Some of these guys are just so frustrated that their beloved Seawolf is not invincible anymore :down:

[LuftWolf]

People who play DW on GameSpy are hopeless.

On the other hand, its good people are playing DW anywhere.

My advice is to keep up DW 1.04, use LWAMI 3.05+QuickFixII, and find much better games with SubSim community members.

Cheers,
David

[LoBlo]

Sounds like people are just spoiled to the imaginary Mk48 performance that used to be there. All the sources say maximum range is 27nm at *less than* top speed. But the old version of the torpedo had it as 27nm at top speed. The currently modeled Mk48 is slated to be a more accurate simulation.

Those folks should get over it.

[Ramius]

Cant say ive read about this yet, but i get the impression that people think a torpedo will go its max range at its max speed all the time ???

If thats the case then = :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[LoBlo]

Cant say ive read about this yet, but i get the impression that people think a torpedo will go its max range at its max speed all the time ???

If thats the case then = :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Yeah, I think that instead of having the T-Boat Spearfish with 27nm @ 45knots and 12nm @ 70knots... instead we should have it 27nm @ 70knots!:o :doh: :arrgh!:

[Molon Labe]

Just to set the record straight as per my position, I've mentioned in another thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=403462&postcount=229) that the change in how torpedo ranges are calculated in 1.04 does cut in favor of the Akula, but that the change is not as big a deal as it's being made out to be.

The precise change, in game terms, is that the no-escape range (for a 35-knot target--like the Akula II) of the ADCAP has gone from 9.82 miles to about 7.74 miles. (Yes, I actually sat down and did the math!) That's not a huge deal. But, I suspect that many 1.03 players didn't realize that the no-escape range was only 9.82nm, so they did not take advantage of that fact. With the change in 1.04, more people are aware of this, and more people are taking advantage of it.

As others have mentioned, this change is realistic.
If people have a problem with the SUBROC weapons being too powerful, the solution is to use LW/Ami, which gives the SUBROC torpedoes less-capable seekers than the ADCAP or "65cm torpedo" in the stock game, decreases overall detection range (making it easier to get within no-escape range), increases the detection range advantage that US subs have over the Russian subs, and provides a substantial launch transient noise (giving US subs a chance to clear datum before the weapon splashes down). Disabling auto-TMA will also reduce the effectiveness of SUBROCs.

1.04 is an unqualified improvement from 1.03.

[LuftWolf]

Don't forget, LWAMI also introduces a bearing and range error for all SUBROCs, so they won't always fall precisely where you think they will (but pretty close)! :)

(shameless plug)

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Don't forget, LWAMI also introduces a bearing and range error for all SUBROCs, so they won't always fall precisely where you think they will (but pretty close)! :)

(shameless plug)

Cheers,
David

I knew I missed something....:nope:

[Madman_GNSF]

First the Tb-29 is taken away from the Seawolf.

Second 2knots are taken away from the Seawolf's Maximum speed.

Now - the MK48 has reduced range.

I can accept the Mk48 having reduced range but stripping the Seawolf of the TB-29 and 2knots off its speed is not very good.

The Future of the Seawolf?

-The modders weld shut 4 torpedo tubes giving the Seawolf only 4 torpedo tubes?
-Reduce the max speed of the Seawolf to 35knots?

It seems that some people just can't accept that the Seawolf is that much better than all the other subs. My guess is the Akula and Kilo and 688i drivers are trying their hardest to make the Seawolf into something they can kill easier. Instead of maybe improving their tactics they decide its easier to make the Seawolf an easier target.

I thought the whole points of simulations is to simulate real life? if the Seawolf can go 40knots in real life - then it should go 40knots in any simulation. If the Seawolf has a TB-29 towed array sensor in real life - why on earth would you take it away?

Please modders - try to simulate real life and not take away advantages or disadvantages for any boat. Please.

Thanks

LT Madman TF74
GNSF

[goldorak]

And it seems people can't accept to play with autocrew (and particularly auto-tma) off.
Play the simulation as a skilled player will play and you'll see that the seawolf hasn't lost any real advantage to the 688i or akula.
It is easy to criticise the so-called advantage of the akula or 688i when auto-tma does all the dirty work isn't it ? :down:

[fatty]

But what is "real life?" Ranges and speed and equipment performance are all classified. We can come close but nobody here really knows (or is allowed to disclose) exact figures. So we have to tweak until we find something that we think is a fair representation.

And in the spirit of game balance, I'm pleased with the changes. I'm getting pretty bored of taking on three Seawolves in my 688i. I'm glad players will start mixing it up and branching into other platforms.

Thanks for the replies everyone. Where is the SubSim crew meeting for MP games these days?

[Molon Labe]

First the Tb-29 is taken away from the Seawolf.

Second 2knots are taken away from the Seawolf's Maximum speed.

Now - the MK48 has reduced range.

I can accept the Mk48 having reduced range but stripping the Seawolf of the TB-29 and 2knots off its speed is not very good.

The Future of the Seawolf?

-The modders weld shut 4 torpedo tubes giving the Seawolf only 4 torpedo tubes?
-Reduce the max speed of the Seawolf to 35knots?

It seems that some people just can't accept that the Seawolf is that much better than all the other subs. My guess is the Akula and Kilo and 688i drivers are trying their hardest to make the Seawolf into something they can kill easier. Instead of maybe improving their tactics they decide its easier to make the Seawolf an easier target.

I thought the whole points of simulations is to simulate real life? if the Seawolf can go 40knots in real life - then it should go 40knots in any simulation. If the Seawolf has a TB-29 towed array sensor in real life - why on earth would you take it away?

Please modders - try to simulate real life and not take away advantages or disadvantages for any boat. Please.

Thanks

LT Madman TF74
GNSF
This "plea" to the modders is probably best put in a LW/Ami thread rather than in a 1.04 thread. But since you put it here...

Get your facts straight. Variable torpedo ranges are a product of 1.04, not LW/Ami. (EDIT: And it's getting really irritating that people are griping about the "ADCAP's" reduced range when the change effects ALL TORPEDOES!) The TB-29 is present in both 1.04 and in all versions of LW/Ami.

The argument "if the Seawolf can go 40knots in real life - then it should go 40knots in any simulation" fails on its own terms because you have not established that it does make 40 knots in real life. Even if you did bother to complete your argument, it is still rebuttable by the fact that torpedo speeds are essentially hardcapped by a glitch in the DW code. Having "realistic" sub speeds while having unrealisticly slow torpedo speeds would fcuk the game in the ass a lot more than having slightly slow speeds for both.

[GrayOwl]

I thought the whole points of simulations is to simulate real life? if the Seawolf can go 40knots in real life - then it should go 40knots in any simulation. If the Seawolf has a TB-29 towed array sensor in real life - why on earth would you take it away?


Please, show me even one place where is precisely said that SSN21 has speed 40 kts.... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

For You on a :|\\ I can say - put in the database speed for SSN21 -250 Kts to and you will be happy - - he dreams about fast boat be releaced.

[Madman_GNSF]

Whatever is the most realistic is good enough for me :-)

[LuftWolf]

Then in that case, you should be using LWAMI, that's pretty much not debatable.

I really don't care at all who does and does not use LWAMI at this point, but you should know that SCS through the USNI intentionally put "bad" information into the database to avoid any suspicion that they are using their classified data, to which they have plenty of access, and it neccessitates that they build a firewall between their own data and the data they allow in the game.

This is why they contracted the USNI, and this is why much of the data is simply wrong.

But it goes well beyond what is simply known data and unknown data. LWAMI adds 1000's of hours of work on a game whose publisher simply doesn't have the time to do finishing.

You can either believe that a modder can improve a game or not, but if realism is your goal, you are limiting yourself greatly by playing stock DW.

Have fun, it's your game. :)

Cheers,
David

[kapitanfred]

First the Tb-29 is taken away from the Seawolf.

Second 2knots are taken away from the Seawolf's Maximum speed.

Now - the MK48 has reduced range.

I can accept the Mk48 having reduced range but stripping the Seawolf of the TB-29 and 2knots off its speed is not very good.

The Future of the Seawolf?

-The modders weld shut 4 torpedo tubes giving the Seawolf only 4 torpedo tubes?
-Reduce the max speed of the Seawolf to 35knots?

It seems that some people just can't accept that the Seawolf is that much better than all the other subs. My guess is the Akula and Kilo and 688i drivers are trying their hardest to make the Seawolf into something they can kill easier. Instead of maybe improving their tactics they decide its easier to make the Seawolf an easier target.

I thought the whole points of simulations is to simulate real life? if the Seawolf can go 40knots in real life - then it should go 40knots in any simulation. If the Seawolf has a TB-29 towed array sensor in real life - why on earth would you take it away?

Please modders - try to simulate real life and not take away advantages or disadvantages for any boat. Please.

Thanks

LT Madman TF74
GNSF
This "plea" to the modders is probably best put in a LW/Ami thread rather than in a 1.04 thread. But since you put it here...

Get your facts straight. Variable torpedo ranges are a product of 1.04, not LW/Ami. (EDIT: And it's getting really irritating that people are griping about the "ADCAP's" reduced range when the change effects ALL TORPEDOES!) The TB-29 is present in both 1.04 and in all versions of LW/Ami.

The argument "if the Seawolf can go 40knots in real life - then it should go 40knots in any simulation" fails on its own terms because you have not established that it does make 40 knots in real life. Even if you did bother to complete your argument, it is still rebuttable by the fact that torpedo speeds are essentially hardcapped by a glitch in the DW code. Having "realistic" sub speeds while having unrealisticly slow torpedo speeds would fcuk the game in the ass a lot more than having slightly slow speeds for both.

Molon Labe, Madman didn't mention anything about LWAMI. The topic is about v1.04 .

And it seems people can't accept to play with autocrew (and particularly auto-tma) off.
Play the simulation as a skilled player will play and you'll see that the seawolf hasn't lost any real advantage to the 688i or akula.
It is easy to criticise the so-called advantage of the akula or 688i when auto-tma does all the dirty work isn't it ? :down:

You've lost the plot there goldorak. Since when is there only one crew member onboard a submarine in real life?? I would've thought that the autocrew simulated additional personnel for that purpose.


As for players that play DW via Gamespy and are considered hopeless, I consider that as an insult. Something I would'nt have expected to read that from LuftWolf.
You are a respected member of the modding community and I take my hat off for the skills that you have but that's just about all in my opinion.

[LuftWolf]

As for players that play DW via Gamespy and are considered hopeless, I consider that as an insult. Something I would'nt have expected to read that from LuftWolf.
You are a respected member of the modding community and I take my hat off for the skills that you have but that's just about all in my opinion.

My personal experience informs my opinion.

It's a shame that what was on once on HyperLobby got completely destroyed, but ultimately I blame that on SCS for not providing greater support to those of us already in the community using HyperLobby before they moved DW to Steam and GameSpy for some misguided reasons.

And I never intended for this to be a popularity contest, the people I care to play with agree with me on this point. :up:

Cheers,
David

PS And anyone who knows me here, knows I can be A LOT more insulting than that. :cool: :lol:

[kapitanfred]

As for players that play DW via Gamespy and are considered hopeless, I consider that as an insult. Something I would'nt have expected to read that from LuftWolf.
You are a respected member of the modding community and I take my hat off for the skills that you have but that's just about all in my opinion.

My personal experience informs my opinion.

It's a shame that what was on once on HyperLobby got completely destroyed, but ultimately I blame that on SCS for not providing greater support to those of us already in the community using HyperLobby before they moved DW to Steam and GameSpy for some misguided reasons.

And I never intended for this to be a popularity contest, the people I care to play with agree with me on this point. :up:

Cheers,
David

What, your personal experience of people being hopeless!!! Then I apologise and shall retract my statement about "respected"

[LuftWolf]

PS And anyone who knows me here, knows I can be A LOT more insulting than that. :cool: :lol:

End Scene.

Cheers,
David

[kapitanfred]

PS And anyone who knows me here, knows I can be A LOT more insulting than that. :cool: :lol:

End Scene.

Cheers,
David

Then that must be the only skill that you have :up:

End of discussion

[LuftWolf]

But what is "real life?" Ranges and speed and equipment performance are all classified. We can come close but nobody here really knows (or is allowed to disclose) exact figures. So we have to tweak until we find something that we think is a fair representation.

And in the spirit of game balance, I'm pleased with the changes. I'm getting pretty bored of taking on three Seawolves in my 688i. I'm glad players will start mixing it up and branching into other platforms.

Thanks for the replies everyone. Where is the SubSim crew meeting for MP games these days?

Oh I missed this back then.

Well, that's an interesting question. The long and the short of it is that 1.03 hit us pretty hard. Most of us had gone over to play games at the CADC, but then we all kind of went our separate ways and some haven't come back (like OKO and Furia... :cry: ).

As of 1.04 and the new LWAMI's, we are basically starting over. Once I get the mod to a place that I can feel comfortable playing it without thinking of something I need to change, my primary focus is going to be to get a group of players together to play modded games, perhaps making weekly scheduled games using the CADC the way we used to and perhaps some more elaborate things.

Cheers,
David

@ KF I didn't mean to get into a pissing contest. To be honest, I haven't been on GS for months, but I wasn't impressed when I was there. Also, I'm HIGHLY biased towards modded games, which I suppose would be hard to find on GS, but I understand why people play the way they do. :)

[Molon Labe]

Molon Labe, Madman didn't mention anything about LWAMI. The topic is about v1.04
Ahem. Exhibit A.

Originally Posted by Madman_GNSF
Second 2knots are taken away from the Seawolf's Maximum speed.
Exhibit B.
Originally Posted by Madman_GNSF
The Future of the Seawolf?

-The modders weld shut 4 torpedo tubes giving the Seawolf only 4 torpedo tubes?
Exhibit C.
Originally Posted by Madman_GNSF
Please modders - try to simulate real life and not take away advantages or disadvantages for any boat. Please.

Not to mention that taken as a whole, the post was a plea to "modders." It's not hard to figure out which modder in particular, considering exhibit A.

Wake up.:stare:

[kapitanfred]

Molon Labe, Madman didn't mention anything about LWAMI. The topic is about v1.04
Ahem. Exhibit A.

Originally Posted by Madman_GNSF
Second 2knots are taken away from the Seawolf's Maximum speed.
Exhibit B.
Originally Posted by Madman_GNSF
The Future of the Seawolf?

-The modders weld shut 4 torpedo tubes giving the Seawolf only 4 torpedo tubes?
Exhibit C.
Originally Posted by Madman_GNSF
Please modders - try to simulate real life and not take away advantages or disadvantages for any boat. Please.

Not to mention that taken as a whole, the post was a plea to "modders." It's not hard to figure out which modder in particular, considering exhibit A.

Wake up.:stare:

WAKE UP!!! don't make an exhibit of yourself. Where the F does it say anywhere that it relates to LWAMI. There are other people around that mod. :doh:

[sonar732]

Per the LWAMI 3.03 section of the LWAMI 3.04 read-me...

Seawolf—The Max speed of the Seawolf is now 38kts. The Seawolf is still easily the quietest, fastest, and most heavily armed submarine in the world. ;-)
:arrgh!::arrgh!:

EDIT: Please reference my edit of the patch request post. :arrgh!::arrgh!:

EDIT: Yet, to keep the DoD off their backs for revealing classified information.

I'm tired of seeing people wine about their views on what is suppose to be true and real when most of them haven't "been there, done that" and wouldn't pull that information out of us anyway!

[Molon Labe]

WAKE UP!!! don't make an exhibit of yourself. Where the F does it say anywhere that it relates to LWAMI. There are other people around that mod. :doh:
Even if it referred to other modders (and I defy you to cite to another circulated mod that reduces the speed of the SW to 38 knots, to prove that it could possibly be about anything but LW/Ami), you would still wrong about the topic his post being 1.04 and I would still be right about a thread about "1.04 reluctance" being the wrong place to plead with the modders about the changes they made. So, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

[Madman_GNSF]

Gosh some people have to relax around here.

I WAS TOTALLY WRONG in a few of my points. Completely wrong. I can admitt that AND I can say THANK you for clearing it up.

Are people allowed to make a point - get proved wrong - and move on??

I hope so.

[LuftWolf]

Gosh some people have to relax around here.

I WAS TOTALLY WRONG in a few of my points. Completely wrong. I can admitt that AND I can say THANK you for clearing it up.

Are people allowed to make a point - get proved wrong - and move on??

I hope so.

Yes, you are a gentleman. :up:

Let me know if you have any other questions, etc.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Gosh some people have to relax around here.

I WAS TOTALLY WRONG in a few of my points. Completely wrong. I can admitt that AND I can say THANK you for clearing it up.

Are people allowed to make a point - get proved wrong - and move on??

I hope so.
Of course you're allowed to. :yep: And it's a good thing that you do. It is a little strange though, that you'd ask this question in the same post that you concede, rather than ask sometime after the concession.:hmm:

If the lamentation is directed at me, I should also hope that I can disprove other incorrect assertions that have not yet been conceded (despite overwhelming evidence, sadly), especially those assertions addressed directly to me. :p

[Captain Sub]

People who play DW on GameSpy are hopeless.

On the other hand, its good people are playing DW anywhere.

My advice is to keep up DW 1.04, use LWAMI 3.05+QuickFixII, and find much better games with SubSim community members.

Cheers,
David

hilarious

[Captain Sub]

First the Tb-29 is taken away from the Seawolf.

Second 2knots are taken away from the Seawolf's Maximum speed.

Now - the MK48 has reduced range.

I can accept the Mk48 having reduced range but stripping the Seawolf of the TB-29 and 2knots off its speed is not very good.

The Future of the Seawolf?

-The modders weld shut 4 torpedo tubes giving the Seawolf only 4 torpedo tubes?
-Reduce the max speed of the Seawolf to 35knots?

It seems that some people just can't accept that the Seawolf is that much better than all the other subs. My guess is the Akula and Kilo and 688i drivers are trying their hardest to make the Seawolf into something they can kill easier. Instead of maybe improving their tactics they decide its easier to make the Seawolf an easier target.

I thought the whole points of simulations is to simulate real life? if the Seawolf can go 40knots in real life - then it should go 40knots in any simulation. If the Seawolf has a TB-29 towed array sensor in real life - why on earth would you take it away?

Please modders - try to simulate real life and not take away advantages or disadvantages for any boat. Please.

Thanks

LT Madman TF74
GNSF
they are Akula players who basically want to get the seawolf as easy kills.

If you are talking about LWAMI mod i will laugh my ass off.

Also, i smell this stench of those who think they have a better game by making it the way they want they lure the people playing their dumbdata by improved models for example.

[XabbaRus]

OK Sub don't know where you are coming from but play nice.

[goldorak]

they are Akula players who basically want to get the seawolf as easy kills.

If you are talking about LWAMI mod i will laugh my ass off.

Also, i smell this stench of those who think they have a better game by making it the way they want they lure the people playing their dumbdata by improved models for example.

This is simply not true.:nope:
Man, I'm happy not to play with you.

[LuftWolf]

LOL @ hatrz :)

Self-pwnshp approved. :cool:

/immature

Cheers,
David

[Captain Sub]

they are Akula players who basically want to get the seawolf as easy kills.

If you are talking about LWAMI mod i will laugh my ass off.

Also, i smell this stench of those who think they have a better game by making it the way they want they lure the people playing their dumbdata by improved models for example.
This is simply not true.:nope:
Man, I'm happy not to play with you.

so am i

[fatty]

Actually now that I think, 90% of the people I've been playing with who refuse to upgrade also bear the Silent Sharks tag... :hmm:

Anyway, cheers LuftWolf. If any of you guys are interested I would be happy to host weekly LWAMI games for us.

[LuftWolf]

Actually now that I think, 90% of the people I've been playing with who refuse to upgrade also bear the Silent Sharks tag... :hmm:

Anyway, cheers LuftWolf. If any of you guys are interested I would be happy to host weekly LWAMI games for us.

Sounds good, I'll be sure to PM you if a group of us are getting together! :)

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

A lot of people have adopted the lwami mod because they recognize that the mod improves dramatically the game.
To say a few, the french comunity on mille-sabords, the italian comunity on betasom and surely several virtual fleets.
So you're not out of players. :D

[Molon Labe]

If you are talking about LWAMI mod i will laugh my ass off.

Also, i smell this stench of those who think they have a better game by making it the way they want they lure the people playing their dumbdata by improved models for example.

Hey, if you've got better data, show LW your source and he'll listen. There's no need to take cheap shots like that.

And as for the balance issues, suffice to say that there are plenty of people on both sides of the SW v. Akula issue that want things to go their way and can't see the other side of things. Neither side has the moral high ground.

[Nexus7]

A lot of people have adopted the lwami mod because they recognize that the mod improves dramatically the game.
To say a few, the french comunity on mille-sabords, the italian comunity on betasom and surely several virtual fleets.
So you're not out of players. :D

I think some respect for those who actually B.U.I.L.T the simulator is due!!!

Now I would figure... If I was used to develop simulators for the US navy, I think what I do it's not gathering some info here and there and paste it into a game somehow! But maybe you never did work.

Then some people think they know it better... they come and start playing with my database settings.

Not enought, you gather credit for that... more than the developer itself ROFL...

Congratulations folks, IMO you got the game totally unbalanced!

[goldorak]

Nexus7 : do you remember the state DW was in when it was shipped by Battlefront, afterwards by Strategy First and then Steam ?
It was not a finished game in any sense of the word.
We were basically betatesting a software.
From the limited resources SCS invested in Dangerous Waters and the low sales numbers came the realization that to bring the game to "realistic" simulation levels would require 3-rd party modding.
This in no way diminishes what SCS has done, and believe me when I say that they did a terrific job (multistation, integrated battlespace, etc...). :rock:

[LuftWolf]

A lot of people have adopted the lwami mod because they recognize that the mod improves dramatically the game.
To say a few, the french comunity on mille-sabords, the italian comunity on betasom and surely several virtual fleets.
So you're not out of players. :D

I think some respect for those who actually B.U.I.L.T the simulator is due!!!

Now I would figure... If I was used to develop simulators for the US navy, I think what I do it's not gathering some info here and there and paste it into a game somehow! But maybe you never did work.

Then some people think they know it better... they come and start playing with my database settings.

Not enought, you gather credit for that... more than the developer itself ROFL...

Congratulations folks, IMO you got the game totally unbalanced!

Given the fact that Jamie (DW producer) told me that our database and doctrine set is a substantial improvement over stock DW in terms of bringing the civilian version more in line with the contract (military) version, such comments as those listed above are simply amusing for people familiar with the software.

Also, the fact that SCS has taken numerous pieces of our work and applied them to DW (sonobuoy depths, MH60 dipping sonar, non-exploding on CM torpedoes, etc) is confirmation that I am heading the in right direction.

Say what you want, LWAMI is a proven commodity and well beyond the reach of people who don't get it, and don't want to.

Play the game the way you want, and have fun, but don't mislead yourself into thinking you are doing one thing when you are really doing another.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

A lot of people have adopted the lwami mod because they recognize that the mod improves dramatically the game.
To say a few, the french comunity on mille-sabords, the italian comunity on betasom and surely several virtual fleets.
So you're not out of players. :D
I think some respect for those who actually B.U.I.L.T the simulator is due!!!

Now I would figure... If I was used to develop simulators for the US navy, I think what I do it's not gathering some info here and there and paste it into a game somehow! But maybe you never did work.

Then some people think they know it better... they come and start playing with my database settings.

Not enought, you gather credit for that... more than the developer itself ROFL...

Congratulations folks, IMO you got the game totally unbalanced!
So you really think that the "65 cm" acoustic homing wireguided torpedo is real, and the 65-76 wakehomer is made up?

You really think that a DB that hasn't been updated since Fleet Command is up-to-date?

You really think that having helo's that don't dip, and aircraft that don't prosecute and engage is more balanced?

You really think that ASROCs and SUBROCs overshooting their targets by several miles is more realistic? And that having surface ships that can never hit their targets because if that is more balanced?

You really think that the AEGIS system won't engage even high-altitude missiles until they're within 10 miles?

You really think that the STIR and CAS radars have the capability to illuminate targets through the horizon?

You really think that SLMM's and mobile mines are supposed to dissapear after deploying instead of staying in place until a ship passes over and then exploding?

You really think that launching a missile from a submarine doesn't produce an assload of noise?

You really think that the RAM SAM is incapable of hitting ASMs?

You really think that the antiquated rear-aspect SA-7 is 100% effective against low flying aircraft?

You really think that a Kilo at flank is quieter than a Seawolf at rest?

You reallly think that the TB-23 is not deployed on board the 688I?

I can go on forever...
So, once again, if you think you have better information, by all means share it. But considering all the stuff in the stock DB I've poked at above, SCS's stock database is entitled to NO DEFERENCE AT ALL. Assuming that the stock database is right and that all other sources are wrong, without any critical thought about what is more plausible is, well...thoughtless.

[Molon Labe]

Also, the fact that SCS has taken numerous pieces of our work and applied them to DW (sonobuoy depths, MH60 dipping sonar, non-exploding on CM torpedoes, etc) is confirmation that I am heading the in right direction.


Don't forget about the active sonar fixes you made back around 1.01 that SCS followed up on in 1.03.

[ADM Sfduke NCO-SSN]

<S>


With the new 1.4 patch for DW there are some problems with the new setting with the patch.
All thou there have been some good fix’s with the patch. The fact is that some changes have made it very unfair.
The new (DW.INI) setting for one, and the ranges of torps for the SW another.
1st There is no way to know what the host has set the decoys to work at.
This does not allow all games to be played the same as others are.
So in some games a player may get kills easier than another player in another game.
Like some decoys in one game being set to 50%, and another 100%. Or 0% to 50%.
This would be unfair to all players trying to get kills and points.
We have a standard set of options to make it the same for all and fair for all.
This new (DW.INI) setting does not allow this to be done.
Next is the fact that now SW torps only go out to 20nmi.
This allows an akula player to stay at 21nmi away and kill the SW player at will.
The SW player would not be able to hit the akula at that range.
This along with the new decoy setting gives the akula player a great advantage vs. the SW player.
They could also out run the SW torp if they were like 12.5nmi away.
This means all subs would need to be set to inside 12.5nmi from each other.
With all of this now All SSN maps would be out of date, and new maps would have to be made.
Along with not being able to, put to many platforms in a map to keep all platforms together.
I can not believe sonalysts would put out a patch that could be used by the host to cheat others.
The new decoy ini setting allow the host to do this.
Along with the new SW torp ranges would give the akula a great advantage over SW players.
One thing I am sick of is these it’s more real players or more realistic.
The same players calling the moon was too big and too many star’s is not realistic from there basement in the city LOL.
Never having seen the Moon as big as it can be seen and as many star’s that you be able to see in the open sea.
The same players that say to make it more fair, is to download the lwami mod to make it fair! LOL!
The fact’s are the more real you try to make a game the less fair it becomes!
The fact an akula would need to be less than 12.5 nmi away from a SW before the SW could kill the akula!
Or the Akula could just run away is a fact in this new 1.4 and with that so unfair to even play.
Why were only the SW torps ranges changed and not the fact you should be able to hear a rocket being fired from an Akula?
This new patch was put out to give the akula host and player an advantage over any SW player and even a cheat to do it with!
With the new decoy setting! LOL!
The point is the 1.4 is unfair and know longer fun or fair for SW players.
The point is the game was fun before and fair. If they would of, just did the fixes and not add the decoys ini setting and the new SW torp ranges.
The patch would have been great! The player here are the same player that posted before about the subs not moving real and made them look like toy subs in a bath tube with the 1.3 and made the akula cut its array.
I have sent two E-mail to sonalysts about this with out any reply now for a week and a masg to Jamie with know reply yet!
Only to find out he’s no longer with them! LOL!
Players will play what they like as they did with the mods!
I don't think you will find many SW players using this patch!
Why you may not find some player in game spy is because they like to play coop games vs. (AI’s).
You will only find players that enjoy a game that is fair and fun to be played vs. another player here in game spy.
The plm posting in the forums is you have a few that post the truth and for everyone you have another 10 that say that is not true.
Players you see that post the most are the one’s that need everyone to think they know more than all other’s.
This could be so fair from the truth it’s not even funny! These players think they know everything and know very little!
The only things they know, is what is best for them to be able to win more easy
If you don't think this is true do the test. Have another player get in the Akula and SW with show truth on get 12.5nmi away and fire.
Have the akula just run away. I am also sick of player saying the SW array is so much better than the akula’s. I have played many very good players in both. In most all case’s both pick each other up at the same time. Some times it depends on the sea state or layer type. On who picks who up 1st?
If the SW has a better array than the akula it is so small it is point less to even talk about!
The point that this game allows players to make and pick maps that makes it very hard to pick up players from more than 12.5nmi away or even less.
With the sea state, bottom type, weather and more. There was know big call to change the decoys or the SW trop ranges.
1st players that are good player know this to be an unfair advantage to the akula’s and the ini setting nothing more than away for a host to be able to cheat! With all players having to take his word on what he has them set too, and No way to check!
Why would anyone need to download a mod to make it fairer unless the patch made it unfair to start?
I don't post here because what is said here most of the time is just bull! And for ever good post you have another 10 players posting more bull!
So for all you player that was to jump all over this post have to it! I will not be replying to it!
This is only a post to let others read and do the test for them self’s.
Some will stay with the 1.3 some will still play the 1.4 and some will play both!
We here at the Silent Sharks Navy will only use the 1.3 to keep a standard game play and to be fair for all players.

<S>
ADM Sfduke NCO SSN

[LuftWolf]

Thanks for the diplomatic reply.

Everyone here needs to understand that when I talk about DW, I talk solely about MODDED DW, which is, of course, my (totally biased) preference.

In the context of Modded DW, the DW 1.04 patch is *everything* we could have hoped for, mostly because the issues that it raises for stock players are simply non-issues in modded DW.

For those playing non-modded DW in particular settings such as fleets, I understand why 1.04 would cause such consternation because of the way it shifts the balance of the game, perhaps quite unexpectedly for some players.

In this light, I think it's best for us to be clear when we discuss these things, and to stay positive.

Although, to be fair, don't be surprised when you come to SubSim and jump ugly with SubSim members about SubSim projects! One of the features of the DW community has been malevolent fractionalization, and everyone has their own way to play and of course everyone's way is the best and the right way.

You all can read in the first few lines of my readme why I'm doing this, to make DW more the way I want it to be. I've never hid that fact, so don't be surprised when it reflects OUR biases and opinions.

That's the great thing about DWedit... don't like something? Change it in the database and tell the fleet this is what to use now. :)

So my advice to you in the SSN, is to do some research into a few things that can help balance the game for your players, and then make a Database for you fleet, and then update to 1.04 and use those. Just some advice, let me know if you want some specific suggestions about what you can do to address the issue as I've got some ideas.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

I ususally don't like to repeat myself, but this is worth saying a second time.

The Akula-II could run away from an ADCAP from "12.5nm" in DW 1.03. In fact, it can run away from an ADCAP fired as close as 9.82 nm. And I can prove it:

The ADCAP runs 27nm at 55kts. That gives you a runtime of 29.45 minutes.
In 29.45 minutes, an Akula-II can run 17.18nm at its top speed of 35kts. So, to prevent the Akula from being able to run away, you need him to be at least 17.18nm from the maximum range of the ADCAP: 27nm-17.18nm= 9.82nm.

So no-escape range in 1.03 is 9.82nm.
In 1.04, it's 7.74nm. (same method, different runtime)

The sky isn't exactly falling.

And it applies to ALL torpedoes, not just the ADCAP. I've already gotten away from some air-dropped torps that would have killed me for sure in 1.03...but in 1.04 they didn't have the legs to catch up.

[Fearless]

I'm really flabbergasted at what I'm reading here. I'm still trying to figure out why things are changed except for the obvious one being the surfaced moving sub stability being erratic in v1.03. V1.04 should have really fixed that problem alone.

The logic that ADM Sfduke NCO-SSN presented is quite plausable. The Modders have their own opinion but hey, modding stuff is really for personal preference isn't it? Surely the changes made aren't based on real life accurate data retrieved from source documents that no doubt wouldn't be available anyway? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here!!:hmm:

[LuftWolf]

The Modders have their own opinion but hey, modding stuff is really for personal preference isn't it?

Absolutely. No one would do something for free that they didn't like. ;)


Surely the changes made aren't based on real life accurate data retrieved from source documents that no doubt wouldn't be available anyway?


I can guarantee you that LWAMI is significantly more 1) bug free, and 2) accurate to real-world data than the stock database.

There are many many examples of this, some of which Molon Labe listed above.

Another one I can add: do you really believe that all torpedoes have the exact same seeker parameters? or do you think the ADCAP has greater seeker capability than say a torpedoes manufactured in the 1970's or lightweight torpedoes?

Well, in the stock game, all torpedoes use the exact same seeker parameters... which was reason alone back in 2005 for many old school SCX players to refuse to play DW until some kind of mod fixed the issue, not to mention the fantasy 65cm and 53cm torpedoes and the absence of the TB-23.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

I'm really flabbergasted at what I'm reading here. I'm still trying to figure out why things are changed except for the obvious one being the surfaced moving sub stability being erratic in v1.03. V1.04 should have really fixed that problem alone. 1.04 made torpedo ranges variable with torpedo speed because that's the way torpedoes work in real life. When DW first came out, the fact that they had constant range was among the first major gripes. They actually tried to fix it in a previous patch but ended up screwing it up worse than it had been! 1.04 is the first version of DW that models the relationship between torpedo speed and range in a plausible fashion.

1.04 also allows the player to determine whether or not (or how often) torpedoes explode on decoys and whether or not (or how often) weapons home on dead platforms. Prior to 1.04, CMs always exploded on decoys and never home on dead platforms. In chosing for it to work this way, SCS was trading realism for playability--they wanted to make the game easier for new players so that they could reach a larger audience (you know, all that griping about how "steep" the learning curve is and such). Of course, the hardcore crowd was not pleased. The community was pretty much evenly divided on whether or not this should be changed back to how it was in Sub Command (not exploding, and homing), so SCS compromised with both camps and gave us the power to decide how we'd prefer to play.

I hope that answers the "why" part.

The logic that ADM Sfduke NCO-SSN presented is quite plausable. The Modders have their own opinion but hey, modding stuff is really for personal preference isn't it? Surely the changes made aren't based on real life accurate data retrieved from source documents that no doubt wouldn't be available anyway? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here!!:hmm:
Duke is talking about 1.04 (specifically, that torpedo range varies with speed and that the host has the option of setting torps to explode on decoys and/or home on dead platforms). He briefly mentions mods, but said nothing substantial about them.

The role of modders in all this is that the changes in balance caused by the fact that torpedo ranges are now variable, can be and are addressed by LW/Ami.

[Molon Labe]

Another one I can add: do you really believe that all torpedoes have the exact same seeker parameters? or do you think the ADCAP has greater seeker capability than say a torpedoes manufacted in the 1970's or lightweight torpedoes?

Well, in the stock game, all torpedoes use the exact same seeker parameters... which was reason alone back in 2005 for many old school SCX players to refuse to play DW until some kind of mod fixed the issue, not to mention the fantasy 65cm and 53cm torpedoes and the absence of the TB-23.

Cheers,
David

You know, I thought of that one right after I left to read a case, and I thought about editing the post... but I didn't. You got me again! :x

[Fearless]

1.04 made torpedo ranges variable with torpedo speed because that's the way torpedoes work in real life. When DW first came out, the fact that they had constant range was among the first major gripes. They actually tried to fix it in a previous patch but ended up screwing it up worse than it had been! 1.04 is the first version of DW that models the relationship between torpedo speed and range in a plausible fashion.

1.04 also allows the player to determine whether or not (or how often) torpedoes explode on decoys and whether or not (or how often) weapons home on dead platforms. Prior to 1.04, CMs always exploded on decoys and never home on dead platforms. In chosing for it to work this way, SCS was trading realism for playability--they wanted to make the game easier for new players so that they could reach a larger audience (you know, all that griping about how "steep" the learning curve is and such). Of course, the hardcore crowd was not pleased. The community was pretty much evenly divided on whether or not this should be changed back to how it was in Sub Command (not exploding, and homing), so SCS compromised with both camps and gave us the power to decide how we'd prefer to play.

I hope that answers the "why" part.

Duke is talking about 1.04 (specifically, that torpedo range varies with speed and that the host has the option of setting torps to explode on decoys and/or home on dead platforms). He briefly mentions mods, but said nothing substantial about them.

The role of modders in all this is that the changes in balance caused by the fact that torpedo ranges are now variable, can be and are addressed by LW/Ami.

Thanks for the great responses. Can you clarify this for me:

1. Who determines what the correct speed/range settings should be considering that environmental factors (even though not accurately modelled) play a great deal in the efficiency of I suppose any weapon for that matter.

2. Since when should a player have control of whether a torpedo explodes on CMs or dead platforms? To me that's not realism at all :hmm: Now if that was a variable that was randomly controlled when a game was lauched, that would make it perhaps more realistic because of the uncertainty could occur.

Sorry about the rand but if realism is the issue here then what ever is modded, changed, added or varied for that matter is just for the benefit of that person who does the changes as what he or she perceives to be realistic. That doesn't mean that everyone is of that same opinion.

Can anyone tell me what realism is within a simulated environment?

[LuftWolf]

At the core of Dangerous Waters is a military grade simulation tool that responds (for the most part) intelligently to a wide variety of inputs and manipulation.

The whole point of DW is that it is DESIGNED to be manipulated in all manner of ways.

The "game" you purchased is merely one set of files that barely breaks the surface of unlocking the capability of the core engine.

People become focused on particular numbers and data, but when values are put into the simulation, they become meaningless in any absolute sense. What's much more important is how the simulation acts as a whole when all the values are considered together, from the perspective of their performance in the simulation.

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

Thanks for the great responses. Can you clarify this for me:

1. Who determines what the correct speed/range settings should be considering that environmental factors (even though not accurately modelled) play a great deal in the efficiency of I suppose any weapon for that matter. Well, for the time being, SCS does. If you're asking for a critique of what they've done, then it depends just how deep you want to go. The relationship now accounts for both the efficiency of the propellant and the efficiency of the propeller. That's more accurate than we were even asking for, since I don't think the community as a whole even had prop efficiency in mind. As for knowing the actual coefficients...we pretty much have to rely on what SCS gives us up until the point that publicly available information contradicts it. So it might be Jane's, FAS, or GlobalSecurity, etc. that ultimately provide the data from which the correct relationship is determined.

As for environmental factors, the LW/Ami 4 project involved ranges that are variable for depth for chemical-fueled torpedoes, as the thrust they generate depends on the pressure differential between the fuel and the outside. Smart money says this added layer of complexity will work its way into a mod for 1.04 at some point in the future.


2. Since when should a player have control of whether a torpedo explodes on CMs or dead platforms? To me that's not realism at all :hmm: Now if that was a variable that was randomly controlled when a game was lauched, that would make it perhaps more realistic because of the uncertainty could occur. I think you might have misunderstood me. The player doesn't get to choose as he's being shot at. It's a game setting controlled by the host. All players in that game session are playing by the same "rules."

Part of the CM debate was actually about whether or not people thought it was realistic...but so little is known about the technology that there is no authoritative answer available to the public. It makes sense to leave it up to the players since no one is going to win the argument unless something gets declassified. Instead of picking someone to win and someone to lose, SCS let everyone win. That's commendable.

[Fearless]

I think you might have misunderstood me. The player doesn't get to choose as he's being shot at. It's a game setting controlled by the host. All players in that game session are playing by the same "rules."

Thanks for the clarification. I don't believe I misunderstood though, unless the host wasn't a player and didn't reveal the settings. That's why the game should be randomly generating variables itself. This would solve many misconceptions to what's fair or not.

Instead of picking someone to win and someone to lose, SCS let everyone win. That's commendable.

Ah!! but not everyone is a winner by any means. Irrespective of what's been provided whether it being stock or a modded version, it's still human intuition and skill through learning that decides the outcome at the end of the day :yep:

[Molon Labe]

Ah!! but not everyone is a winner by any means. Irrespective of what's been provided whether it being stock or a modded version, it's still human intuition and skill through learning that decides the outcome at the end of the day :yep:

I meant the fight about whether the CM's explode or not, etc., not the outcome of a battle.;)

[Fearless]

I meant the fight about whether the CM's explode or not, etc., not the outcome of a battle.;)

Ah!! must have mis-read that sentence :hmm:

[XabbaRus]

Do I detect a certain amount of paranoia from Silent Sharks Navy people?

For the love of god, if you are so worried about the cm exploding or not, have an agreement with the host to set it to 50% or whatever before you start.

I would have thought that as a subsim group you'd have enough trust in your fellow members to have faith they will stick to the agreement.

Oh and about modding stuff to make it realistic isn't fair, well life isn't fair, war whether virtual or real isn't fair. If you want fair go any play some console shooter or something. Half the fun of MP in DW with the mod is that you have to work to make your kill. In many ways I'd say the Seawolf is still the sub to beat and is no easier for an Akula driver now or before.

So be a man and start playing the sim as it should be or find your dummy you spat out and go back to the sand pit.

[Bill Nichols]

Here, Here, Xabba! :up:

[DivingWind]

We must understand if some people want to play DW like arcade,we must respect their belief... :lol:

[suBB]

Do I detect a certain amount of paranoia from Silent Sharks Navy people?

For the love of god, if you are so worried about the cm exploding or not, have an agreement with the host to set it to 50% or whatever before you start.

I would have thought that as a subsim group you'd have enough trust in your fellow members to have faith they will stick to the agreement.

Oh and about modding stuff to make it realistic isn't fair, well life isn't fair, war whether virtual or real isn't fair. If you want fair go any play some console shooter or something. Half the fun of MP in DW with the mod is that you have to work to make your kill. In many ways I'd say the Seawolf is still the sub to beat and is no easier for an Akula driver now or before.

So be a man and start playing the sim as it should be or find your dummy you spat out and go back to the sand pit.

'sand pit' :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

and….

We must understand if some people want to play DW like arcade, we must respect their belief... :lol:
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

This is just more of the same stuff they (non SSN) have been saying at G.S. for the longest time.

It’s not your normal outfit ladies and gentlemen.. everyone knows that…

[Dr.Sid]

If you want to play fair, play Akula vs. Akula or SW vs. SW. :|\\

[Bera]

If you want to play fair, play Akula vs. Akula or SW vs. SW. :|\\

That´s just it: the real world isn´t fair; all nations have their naval assets, and, of course, some war machines are better than others. The main concearn of SCS, in my opinion, is to provide us all of the "realism" we can get. And if realism must come throughout mods, then I´ll install them, as MY CHOICE.

Very much fuzz in this topic for nothing. And I´m playing with LAWMI (still no patch 1.04 on STEAM), and that´s great for me, since I don´t shoot my torpedoes over the line of horizon, because much of the fun in this game is to get near your "prey" with a good and steady firing solution.

[Molon Labe]

You know, when you just post the same message 3 times, including twice in the same thread, it's pretty obvious that you're not participating in the discourse but that you're just trolling.:down:

[Captain Sub]

LWAMI adds 1000's of hours of work on a game whose publisher simply doesn't have the time to do finishing.
ridiculous, simply ridiculous.

Are you saying that you are basically finishing or improving or doing add-ons to DW?

[LuftWolf]

LWAMI adds 1000's of hours of work on a game whose publisher simply doesn't have the time to do finishing.

ridiculous, simply ridiculous.

Honestly, your opinion carries no weight here.

You have demonstrated that yourself.

Understand that you aren't going to get much sympathy or agreement coming to SubSim and claiming you have no belief in a project that most people who post here have been using since September 2005.

That's like saying you don't believe in evolution. :cool:

It's your right, but then don't go around claiming to be a scientist.

Cheers,
David

[Bera]

You know, when you just post the same message 3 times, including twice in the same thread, it's pretty obvious that you're not participating in the discourse but that you're just trolling.:down:

Wow! Not many friendly simmers around this topic (or in this forum, after all)...

[LuftWolf]

You know, when you just post the same message 3 times, including twice in the same thread, it's pretty obvious that you're not participating in the discourse but that you're just trolling.:down:

Wow! Not many friendly simmers around this topic (or in this forum, after all)...

I think it's worth noting that this thread reflects a forum invasion by members of certain fleet with a bone to pick. You'll notice that most people on one side of the conversation have less than 30 posts here, and most are about this topic.

I wouldn't let it reflect on Subsim at large.

Cheers,
David

[LuftWolf]

Are you saying that you are basically finishing or improving or doing add-ons to DW?

All of the above.

For example, did you know that 35% of the military aircraft and helos do not have proper radar and ESM gear in the database (Read: NONE)? This means they will not react to a radar guided missiles and fly head-on into the teeth of enemy air defenses.

Do you really believe the SH60F has no ESM for radar beam detection?

Well, I just fixed that issue today, and a few others.

I also added TIW messages for underwater missile launches, and added the MK60 CAPTOR Torpedo Mine to the P-3, and that was just today.

The list of examples is truly endless.

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

ridiculous, simply ridiculous.

Are you saying that you are basically finishing or improving or doing add-ons to DW?

My dear german friend, take a look at the changes between DW 1.0 and DW 1.04.
We have gone from an arcade game to something resembling a simulation.

You don't like 1.04 ?
Fair enough, but don't blame Luftwolf.
Take that up to SCS.

1.03 was a patch that broke more things than it fixed.
1.02 was a good patch (the sonar model was improved dramatically)
1.01 were only little bugfixes
1.0 was a beta.

You want to go back playing something pre 1.04 ?
Fine, play a bug-ridden, broken physics model version.
No one will blame you for that. ;)

And last but not least, there are tools freely available that enable you and your friends to mod the game to your level.
So you see, you have lot of options to regain the ufo-like advantage of the seawolf over the other subs in the game.
You know what, maybe in the next patch we will make the SW not detectable by sonar, so you'll keep getting easy kills against akulas and 688i. :rotfl:

[Captain Sub]

Are you saying that you are basically finishing or improving or doing add-ons to DW?
All of the above.

For example, did you know that 35% of the military aircraft and helos do not have proper radar and ESM gear in the database (Read: NONE)? This means they will not react to a radar guided missiles and fly head-on into the teeth of enemy air defenses.

Do you really believe the SH60F has no ESM for radar beam detection?

Well, I just fixed that issue today, and a few others.

I also added TIW messages for underwater missile launches, and added the MK60 CAPTOR Torpedo Mine to the P-3, and that was just today.

The list of examples is truly endless.

Cheers,
David

Now great man, do you believe the US navy reveals their top secret datas about how fast their torpedos can go for example?
Do you really believe their best seawolf torpedo may it be ADCAP48 goes 55kts max like it's told to us on wikipedia?
Do you really believe russia are the only ones out there with super cavitative torpedos aboard do you?
How unsmart do you have to be to not realize that.

If the USA invented an actual antigravity device and built a new aircraft fleet of planes with the device aboard you will never know and the next game-improver,3rd party add-oner etc. ( just like you anyways ) will still edit the F-14 rofl.

[goldorak]

Now great man, do you believe the US navy reveals their top secret datas about how fast their torpedos can go for example?
Do you really believe their best seawolf torpedo may it be ADCAP48 goes 55kts max like it's told to us on wikipedia?
How unsmart do you have to be to not realize that.

Nobody has exact figures. Not you, not Luftwulf etc...
But, and this is a point you continue to ignore we can have estimates on the characteristics of certain weapons, platforms, etc...
Estimates based on Jane's, the USNI and other public available sources.

So I ask you, do you have any sources that estimate the performance of the adcap48 to the figures we had in the original 1.0 database ?
Do you have sources that say that the seawolf can go at 40 knots ?

Lets talk data my friend.
All else is meaningless.

[LuftWolf]

Are you saying that you are basically finishing or improving or doing add-ons to DW?
All of the above.

For example, did you know that 35% of the military aircraft and helos do not have proper radar and ESM gear in the database (Read: NONE)? This means they will not react to a radar guided missiles and fly head-on into the teeth of enemy air defenses.

Do you really believe the SH60F has no ESM for radar beam detection?

Well, I just fixed that issue today, and a few others.

I also added TIW messages for underwater missile launches, and added the MK60 CAPTOR Torpedo Mine to the P-3, and that was just today.

The list of examples is truly endless.

Cheers,
David

Now great man, do you believe the US navy reveals their top secret datas about how fast their torpedos can go for example?
Do you really believe their best seawolf torpedo may it be ADCAP48 goes 55kts max like it's told to us on wikipedia?
Do you really believe russia are the only ones out there with super cavitative torpedos aboard do you?
How unsmart do you have to be to not realize that.

If the USA invented an actual antigravity device and built a new aircraft fleet of them you will never know and the next game-improver,3rd party add-oner etc. will still edit the F-14 rofl.

All critiques that have exactly nothing to do with my project.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm doing... so what is there to say?

I hope you are enjoying your purchase of DW. As a member of the DW Beta team, I've worked hard to ensure you have a quality product. Thank you for your feedback, you are a valued SCS customer, and we look forward to brinding you new and exciting naval simulation products in the future.

Cheers,
David

[sonar732]

As it's been stated multiple times...if you have other, credible data...then utilize it!

Why can't certain people understand that SCS gave us (civilians) a game that has basic information in which can be improved upon without them actually doing it and getting in trouble for revealing too much classified information?:damn::damn::nope::nope::stare::stare: :roll::roll::roll:

[Captain Sub]

Are you saying that you are basically finishing or improving or doing add-ons to DW?
All of the above.

For example, did you know that 35% of the military aircraft and helos do not have proper radar and ESM gear in the database (Read: NONE)? This means they will not react to a radar guided missiles and fly head-on into the teeth of enemy air defenses.

Do you really believe the SH60F has no ESM for radar beam detection?

Well, I just fixed that issue today, and a few others.

I also added TIW messages for underwater missile launches, and added the MK60 CAPTOR Torpedo Mine to the P-3, and that was just today.

The list of examples is truly endless.

Cheers,
David

Now great man, do you believe the US navy reveals their top secret datas about how fast their torpedos can go for example?
Do you really believe their best seawolf torpedo may it be ADCAP48 goes 55kts max like it's told to us on wikipedia?
Do you really believe russia are the only ones out there with super cavitative torpedos aboard do you?
How unsmart do you have to be to not realize that.

If the USA invented an actual antigravity device and built a new aircraft fleet of them you will never know and the next game-improver,3rd party add-oner etc. will still edit the F-14 rofl.
All critiques that have exactly nothing to do with my project.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm doing... so what is there to say?

I hope you are enjoying your purchase of DW. As a member of the DW Beta team, I've worked hard to ensure you have a quality product. Thank you for your feedback, you are a valued SCS customer, and we look forward to brinding you new and exciting naval simulation products in the future.

Cheers,
David
are you trying to scare me now by your shine-mightyness or what?

I know what you are doing + all your arguments have errors in it, one time you talk about realism another time you mention it to be fairplay in the same TOPIC, so realism=not balance
It just shows up there is something major wrong with this.

[LuftWolf]

Are you saying that you are basically finishing or improving or doing add-ons to DW?
All of the above.

For example, did you know that 35% of the military aircraft and helos do not have proper radar and ESM gear in the database (Read: NONE)? This means they will not react to a radar guided missiles and fly head-on into the teeth of enemy air defenses.

Do you really believe the SH60F has no ESM for radar beam detection?

Well, I just fixed that issue today, and a few others.

I also added TIW messages for underwater missile launches, and added the MK60 CAPTOR Torpedo Mine to the P-3, and that was just today.

The list of examples is truly endless.

Cheers,
David

Now great man, do you believe the US navy reveals their top secret datas about how fast their torpedos can go for example?
Do you really believe their best seawolf torpedo may it be ADCAP48 goes 55kts max like it's told to us on wikipedia?
Do you really believe russia are the only ones out there with super cavitative torpedos aboard do you?
How unsmart do you have to be to not realize that.

If the USA invented an actual antigravity device and built a new aircraft fleet of them you will never know and the next game-improver,3rd party add-oner etc. will still edit the F-14 rofl.
All critiques that have exactly nothing to do with my project.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm doing... so what is there to say?

I hope you are enjoying your purchase of DW. As a member of the DW Beta team, I've worked hard to ensure you have a quality product. Thank you for your feedback, you are a valued SCS customer, and we look forward to brinding you new and exciting naval simulation products in the future.

Cheers,
David
are you trying to scare me now by your shine-mightyness or what?

I know what you are doing + all your arguments have errors in it, one time you talk about realism another time you mention it to be fairplay in the same TOPIC, so realism=not balance
It just shows up there is something major wrong with this.

I agree with you.

In fact, my own bias is demonstrated in the readme for my mod, near the top of the first page: The purpose of this mod is, straightforwardly, to address the aspects of DW game-play that most bother its authors, while improving the simulation experience and fixing bugs, without introducing any new ones.

So, I guess you got me.

But nothing has gotten any better for you, your game is still the same, and you have not made any progress towards fixing those issues that most bother you.

Five minutes with DWedit and your game would be exactly as you desire.

Enjoy your game! :)

Cheers,
David

[goldorak]

I know what you are doing + all your arguments have errors in it, one time you talk about realism another time you mention it to be fairplay in the same TOPIC, so realism=not balance
It just shows up there is something major wrong with this.


You're not completely rational either.
First you don't accept 1.04 because of so-called gameplay balance problems.
Now you criticise Luftwolf for his mod, which has NOTHING TO DO WITH 1.04.
So precisely what is your recrimination ?

[Captain Sub]

I know what you are doing + all your arguments have errors in it, one time you talk about realism another time you mention it to be fairplay in the same TOPIC, so realism=not balance
It just shows up there is something major wrong with this.

You're not completely rational either.
First you don't accept 1.04 because of so-called gameplay balance problems.
Now you criticise Luftwolf for his mod, which has NOTHING TO DO WITH 1.04.
So precisely what is your recrimination ?

what is your point putting those two statements of mine together, they're mine opinions and they have to do less context.

So i guess your point is bringing me down with so-called arguments?

[XabbaRus]

You know I might do a Gizzmoe and close this thread as it is going no where.

[suBB]

You know, when you just post the same message 3 times, including twice in the same thread, it's pretty obvious that you're not participating in the discourse but that you're just trolling.:down:

Wow! Not many friendly simmers around this topic (or in this forum, after all)...

I think it's worth noting that this thread reflects a forum invasion by members of certain fleet with a bone to pick. You'll notice that most people on one side of the conversation have less than 30 posts here, and most are about this topic.

I wouldn't let it reflect on Subsim at large.

Cheers,
David


THAT is the very reason why g.s. was / is in such a desolate state.

no one really has time or the energy for the unecessary lip from SSN, or from anyone for that matter.

And don't mind rocky, they're all programmed to think and act that way, to be confrontational, hasty, and in some cases just plain @^%king rude. Well I should say the encounters I had with various SSN members at G.S. I chose to pay attention to.

Their outfit is really good for novice level introduction to DW, which is good for newcomers. Ya know they sit down and teach the basics, nothing sophisticated, nothing special, straightforward, nothing tedious, minimal to 0 thought process.

I think there would be more satisfaction to be had in SP lwami vs AI than a server full sharks, that obviously don't have much bite.

Guys, waste no more energies with SSN, find something better to do with your time.

[fatty]

Phew! I never intended this thread to go so downhill. We're all still friends, right?

[goldorak]

Phew! I never intended this thread to go so downhill. We're all still friends, right?

Sure :yep: , there is nothing more exciting than a healthy debate. :D

[LuftWolf]

And we got a chance to show Frying Tiger exactly what he signed up for. :)

Welcome to the forum!

Cheers,
David

[Molon Labe]

are you trying to scare me now by your shine-mightyness or what?

I know what you are doing + all your arguments have errors in it, one time you talk about realism another time you mention it to be fairplay in the same TOPIC, so realism=not balance
It just shows up there is something major wrong with this.
Rocky, there is no one single factor that determines if a sim is good or not (although some certainly deserve greater weight than others). Both the game designers and the modders have to take multiple factors into account, and reach a decsion based on maximizing all of them whenever possible, and striking an appropriately weighted balance between those factors when they are in conflict.

"The long and short of that" (to borrow LW's favorite phrase of late) is that there is nothing erroneous about discussing both realism and fairplay/balance in the same discussion. They both matter.

[Bill Nichols]

You know I might do a Gizzmoe and close this thread as it is going no where.

Beat you to it
:arrgh!: