Isn't the TMA a little too perfect?

[Wiz33]

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

It's hardcore players why this genre is dead

http://steamcommunity.com/app/541210...0934291143643/

[Destex]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

It's hardcore players why this genre is dead

Is that in response to what? The post above? The OP? What's the context?

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by Destex

Is that in response to what? The post above? The OP? What's the context?

In general on anyone saying things are too simplified and needs to be more detailed. Too much realism unless optional makes games too complicated for casual gamer, which is needed to add new blood to the genre.

[difool2]

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

[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).

"I wish the TMA was better.." "I wish that I had broadband/narrowband simulation and a sonar station like DW." "I wish that the weapons had programmable waypoints..."

If the Devs start doing this, and replacing features/systems that are already in the game with better and "more sim-like" ones, its not going to make things like a Soviet campaign come out any faster. This is especially true if they try to maintain an "easy mode" alongside advanced sonar and TMA.

They have done a great job making this game, so far a great job supporting it too. I hope they continue to deal with identified issues (AI, a few of the bugs here and there) and hopefully press on towards wherever they want to take this game in the future.

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!!!!"

[Destex]

Originally Posted by Wiz33

In general on anyone saying things are too simplified and needs to be more detailed. Too much realism unless optional makes games too complicated for casual gamer, which is needed to add new blood to the genre.

Actually, all of my suggestions would make the gameplay more friendly, easier AND more realistic at the same time, so your argument is wrong in the context it was given.

[Wiz33]

Originally Posted by Destex

Actually, all of my suggestions would make the gameplay more friendly, easier AND more realistic at the same time, so your argument is wrong in the context it was given.

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).

[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?

[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.