Killing the game - Page 4

LuftWolf · 10-09-05, 10:34 PM

Asking people to play FFG without aTMA, until the 1.02 patch comes out which will address it, is, as Molon said before, sadistic.

The only FFG player I've seen make it work for him is OKO, and I'm not sure how he does it, but all the credit to him.

OKO · 10-09-05, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darksythe

we can have 2 seperate rooms 1 for us hardcore simmers and one for the learners. If the term Noob offends ne 1 my appologies :P

the fact is there is lot of very skilled people didn't came to manual TMA.
You really couldn't call them noob as some have a HUGE tactical knowledge, but just didn't take the time to master the TMA
Finally, TMA is easier than sonar station, you just have to wait the right time to make it and to refine with dot stack.
Compared to the sonar, where you need to ID and choose the right contact to track, you spend much more time, energy and work than on TMA.

TMA is just 1 or 2 minutes sometimes in game (just before torpedoes launch for example), but lots of people think it's a station where you need to spend most of the time.
That's why they tough AC TMA could manage that for them, because of to much workload.
But that is not true. You have to come to this station only when you have enough data to work. And never before (except to count the LOBS in 5 seconds to know when you can start working here).

And definitively, manual TMA make the game deeper in the experience and in the immersion.
On MS, there is no AC TMA at all and noboby, even total noobs, ever complained about it ... just because they never tried (we say it's baaaaaaaad

).
If you just say : ok, now I handle this thing, the step is easy to go, with good learning curve and this change really lots of thing in the game experience.
On solo and MP missions.

OKO · 10-09-05, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuftWolf

Asking people to play FFG without aTMA, until the 1.02 patch comes out which will address it, is, as Molon said before, sadistic.

The only FFG player I've seen make it work for him is OKO, and I'm not sure how he does it, but all the credit to him.

On FFG TMA, I use only (99.9% of the time) the merge button.
you couldn't use the TMA on TA as it's only 10kyrds LOB there (I don't remember who were mentionned this before).
So, if you do a TMA on a sub at 5 miles or less with the TA, this mean you need to learn the use of the OMNI active because you are supposed to catch the contact here before this range.
Merging manually ensure I merge good contact also, because i had real strange things with AC TMA on OHP on this subject.
So, it takes some times, at mission start, slowly but surely merging contacts on the OHP TMA.
I could use also the TMA on active to have a solution on a sub, and not only a position.
But I don't use it a lot, because this suppose to make some pings after picking up the contact, and the less I ping, once ennemy sub is tracked, the more I have chance of surviving doing quick and "silent" attack (fast speed on target and no ping until the last one for confirmation then assign/launch torps).
But as LOB will certainly have correct value soon (...did you say patch ?) OHP TA could find a new utility on TMA process.

One thing I dislike a lot with AC TMA on OHP is the ability of the AC to make a TMA on ESM, not only VERY accurate with 2 or 3 ESM LOB (when its impossible ...with so few) but also to make these TMA FAR out of the paper, when that couldn't be possible.

So, here again, AC TMA is close to show truth and could work at 3 or 4 times the real capacities of the hardware.
not fair, and very irrealistic.

So on TMA, at this time, I use "merge" as near the only fonction.

Mau · 10-10-05, 10:06 AM

But OKO when you say using ``Merge`` function in the TMA, you mean that the TMA is still manual or Auto. I don't think you can use the Merge function if you are in auto, is it not?

As well, it is not because we are not good at it sometimes that we choose not to stay in manual
Again let say that I want to be a TAO, th eTAO is not jumping from one station to another. He's got competent operator who will help him to clear the picture so that the TAO can fight the ship effectively. I think it is right to use that in DW as well. Of course we need to fix then the Auto TMA if it is true that it is cheating (which I don`t realy think it's true since the amount of LOB you have with OHP and to manage to think which ones are realy useful and true, nothwithstanding that the wrong ones, even though you delete them, are coming back all the time.

Mau

Molon Labe · 10-10-05, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mau

But OKO when you say using ``Merge`` function in the TMA, you mean that the TMA is still manual or Auto. I don't think you can use the Merge function if you are in auto, is it not?

As well, it is not because we are not good at it sometimes that we choose not to stay in manual
Again let say that I want to be a TAO, th eTAO is not jumping from one station to another. He's got competent operator who will help him to clear the picture so that the TAO can fight the ship effectively. I think it is right to use that in DW as well. Of course we need to fix then the Auto TMA if it is true that it is cheating (which I don`t realy think it's true since the amount of LOB you have with OHP and to manage to think which ones are realy useful and true, nothwithstanding that the wrong ones, even though you delete them, are coming back all the time.

Mau

The aTMA is cheating, there really is no question about it. The set of possible solutions that it chooses from is being limited to a very narrow range of error around the true data. Renzie has all but directly admitted to this, and the fact that it is happening is obvious to any manual TMA player that turns aTMA on. I played 688I and SC on manual all the time, I'm quite good at TMA, and I know when a solution should be tight and when it should be loose. aTMA is creating solutions too good to be obtained (except by good luck, but aTMA does it consistently) with the data collected.

A solution of reasonable certainty (ballpark range, good enough to shoot on) can be obtained only after one leg is completed and a second leg is being made (assuming you have DEMON data too). That takes at least 8 minutes...aTMA is getting a solution that good in 2-4 minutes. Tracking is no longer part of the game, you just detect, wait a couple minutes, and fire. In SC, it took a very good solution to get an ASROC in acquistion range, and you had to work to get it...just yesterday, I killed a Seawolf that I had lost contact with for 20 minutes after a single bearing line was obtained and sent to TMA...that one line gave me a solution good enough to shoot and kill on. The kill was less than satisfying.

OKO · 10-10-05, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mau

But OKO when you say using ``Merge`` function in the TMA, you mean that the TMA is still manual or Auto. I don't think you can use the Merge function if you are in auto, is it not?

The only AC I use on OHP are : EW and CM
EW because you don't have the right to miss any new EW track, wherever you are (at any other station)
And CM to start the first CM launch in case of vampire.
So AC TMA are manual of course, to let me merge what I want

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mau

As well, it is not because we are not good at it sometimes that we choose not to stay in manual.

I didn't said that Mau, I said you didn't took time to see it's really not that difficult

The best prove is ... I can make it ... and i'm not a scientist or military specialist, i didn't even made science studies and i'm quite poor at mental calculation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mau

Again let say that I want to be a TAO, th eTAO is not jumping from one station to another. He's got competent operator who will help him to clear the picture so that the TAO can fight the ship effectively. I think it is right to use that in DW as well.

If you say that I could say : why not using ALL auto crew so ?
and just using the ship control.
DW could be employed as a simulation or as a wargame (what you discribed).
I didn't tell you to do this or that, just explained you miss the most interesting part using the AC TMA.
because under water, things are not as clear as the AC TMA picture always give you so soon.
So you miss the simulation aspect, the need to make choices when the solution is difficult to make, finally you lost the main interesting part of the simulation -to my eyes-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mau

Of course we need to fix then the Auto TMA if it is true that it is cheating (which I don`t realy think it's true since the amount of LOB you have with OHP and to manage to think which ones are realy useful and true, nothwithstanding that the wrong ones, even though you delete them, are coming back all the time.
Mau

fixing ? how ? make it less accurate ? how much ? less than a good player ? more ? in how long time a TMA should be made by the AC ?
So much questions to answer ... and so easy solution to find : manual TMA, for the good of games.

Listen to all peoples using it : didn't you saw manual TMA give much better games ? A 6 minutes game (when you've got the 1st LOB with Akula, the missile is 1 minute to be launch ... i call that not only a cheat but also a game killer) could become a 1 hour of very interesting game, really playing cats and mouses.

Now, I never said do this or that, I just said you better really try before giving an opinion about it. Because all people I saw tried this didn't came back to the AC : they just have good and fair game now.

Mau · 10-10-05, 11:36 AM

Ok,, got your point. It is really valid.
Now then you can say that Manual TMA with OHP is possible/feasible. I thought by listening to some people on this forum that it is almost imposible.
On sub (DW and SC) I like using Manual TMA becuse you don`t have that many LOBs.

By fixing AC TMA I meant more that if you delete some reciprocal LOB for exempe they are not coming back. I guess in Manual TMA when you drop something (and I hope) those ones you are deleting are not back)? Can you confirm that.

And finally, those that mean that if I want to play as TAO and evaluate the tactical situation to fight the ship then in that game it is considering cheating.

I will be honest with you, I am going on my TAO course very shortly, so that is why I was lookoing more into this position/situation for DW. If that do not me serve any good, then may be Hrpoon 3 is better for me?

I played Harpoon 2 and 3 since the last 10 years. I just thought that DW has a lot of potential

A friend
Mau

OKO · 10-10-05, 11:59 AM

yes mau : the TMA ON TA for OHP is not possible =>
on the paper, you will have LOB of only 5 miles (10kyds) instead of 10 miles LOB (20kyds)
I don't know why, certainly a mistake (who said a bug WHO ??

)
The fact is : if you do a TMA on sub with the TA, you can make it at only less than 10kyds
And if you let a sub coming as close as 5 miles from you well ... you must be in a very bad situation, and you are supposed to catch him sooner on active.

So : no possible use of TMA on the OHP TA at this time.
but this sheet of paper is quite effective to make TMA on active sonar, or even to make a TMA on EW.
Of course, on EW, you couldn't make TMA at range the AC is able to do. But I still don't understand how the AC TMA on OHP can find a very good solution with 2 EW LOB at 25 miles, when you need more than 8 LOBs to make a solution at 12 miles maximum on the paper ... cheating ....

Quote:

By fixing AC TMA I meant more that if you delete some reciprocal LOB for exempe they are not coming back. I guess in Manual TMA when you drop something (and I hope) those ones you are deleting are not back)? Can you confirm that.

on very dense theatre, there is often some contact glitch, even with manual TMA.
If the mission have few platform, there is no problem at all, but if you try heavy missions, you will have some strange things on contact : some contact switch position with another one, manual mark are very strange sometimes, ID of contact can even change !
If you already built your situationnal awarness before, it's not a real problem : you will know what contact to drop and which one is a good one. But it's not very nice to extricate this sometimes.
The problem occurs mainly with radar contacts and not with EW or TA contacts.

But, to answer your question, on manual, if you drop a contact, he disapear from the contact list but NOT from the paper.
remember its a sheet of paper, and you couldn't erase LOB previously marked here !
It's a thing that make the paper quite confusing, but it looks real as it is a sheet of paper and not a computer screen !

Mau · 10-10-05, 02:36 PM

So then how is it possible to go without AC TMA if the TMA of TA is not possible with OHP.

By keeping the sonar manual so youn can decide the line of bearing you want to put in the TMA?

I am not sure to follow here?

Thanks

Amizaur · 10-10-05, 02:36 PM

My few cents...

I would love to play with manual TMA, and I will if I find some time to train it some more. It's much more realistic. But anyway in some scenarios there is so much contacts from many different sensors, that I would have to spend almost all the time on TMA station, what with everything else ?
OK when there is dedicated player that cares for TMA in multistation, but when one player have to do all the work it's rather frustrating.
Also for begginers auto TMA is needed, if we are going to ban auto-TMA in MP matches, they could not play. On the other hand, if we allow auto-TMA in MP, then even completly green player can get a too-good solution from autocrew and easily kill someone more experienced with SUBROC.

So I think that auto-TMA is needed and should be fixed. How ? Making it more realistic, but limiting it to data available for human player (no "cheating") or making solution accuracy dependant on such things like geometry and number of legs would require complete redesign of how it works or at least some programming work. We are probably not to see such thing in 1.02.

So maybe simply after solution is calculated, random error should be applied to it and then displayed. Would 10% error be enaugh ? I believe human player seldom have solution better than +/-10% ? Or maybe random from 5 to 20% ? How this random error should be applied is of course to be determined, it can't be randomised every time solution is updated, because contacts would jump all over the place, error should be randomised once and kept the same, maybe only slowly decreasing with time ? When player reset the autocrew solution, error could be randomised again and player would get different, "alternate" version. Something feeling like that I remember from SC.

By simple (I thing from programmer's point of view simple enaugh to get into 1.02 patch) add of 10% or 20% error, we would get few things:

- the solution generated by auto-crew, even still "cheating" i.e. using data non available for human player, would be no more deadly accurate. The 10 or 20% error should be enaugh to reduce efectiveness of SUBROCs and to make player more cautios because he can't 100% believe autocrew solution no more, it can be different from reality and he has to take this into account, just like player making his own manual TMA knows that his solution may be a bit off.

- the solution generated by auto-TMA would be actually worse than solution made manually, so green players would have motivation to learn making this by themselves !
Just like sonar auto-crew - it's worse than when you make it yourself, and for many player THIS is the reason to learn it - because they see that they can do better than computer and with some more work they get better results. Currently disabling auto-TMA means only penalties - you had easy and exact solutions, and now you have to learn make it by yourself and still get results worse than from auto-crew.
If auto-TMA crew calculated solutions had random error applied they would be in most cases worse than made manually. So after you disable autocrew you still have to learn it and make it manually, but as a reward you get results better (in most cases) than those from autocrew ! One penalty and one reward

.

I think such change (applying random 10-20% error to auto-TMA), though far from perfect, is simple enaugh to be included into a patch, and though simple, still would improve things a lot, because it would reduce effectivenes of SUBROCs and attract players to learn manual TMA because it would privide more accurate results then.

What do you think ?

Molon Labe · 10-10-05, 03:13 PM

I think you're exactly right Ami. While I think playing without aTMA is the way to go, the reality is that players need it, either because they're new or because they need to spend the time doing other things. Those players deserve to have aTMA, and the rest of us deserve a game in with aTMA can be used without it cheating.

As for 10-20% error...this concept is OK with me, I think that's about how aTMA worked in Sub Command... I would prefer an aTMA that started out sloppy but became refinded based on the data provided, that is it gets better with time, gets better with DEMON data, gets better with more legs, gets better on lag LOS, gets worse on lead LOS...etc. Maybe that's asking for too much, but I think they already have that now, or at least they've claimed that they have implemented such a program...its just that the way that program is confined to the real data prevents us from ever seeing it in all its splendor.... Kinda like the hard limits on sensors keeping the rather nice acoustic model from being noticed until those limits are removed...

SeaQueen · 10-10-05, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amizaur

So maybe simply after solution is calculated, random error should be applied to it and then displayed. Would 10% error be enaugh ? I believe human player seldom have solution better than +/-10% ? Or maybe random from 5 to 20% ? How this random error should be applied is of course to be determined, it can't be randomised every time solution is updated, because contacts would jump all over the place, error should be randomised once and kept the same, maybe only slowly decreasing with time ? When player reset the autocrew solution, error could be randomised again and player would get different, "alternate" version. Something feeling like that I remember from SC.

I think adding some kind of simple +/- sigma to the TMA would defeat the purpose of simulating TMA. Within the sim, one is forced to make trade-offs between spending the time to develop a more accurate solution and risking the other player taking a shot at you, or else taking a shot sooner with a less accurate TMA, but one which might be wrong. It forces one to ask the question, "How accurate does my solution really need to be in order to make this attack?" Sometimes, not very, sometimes, it needs to be very good.

If there was just an arbitrary uncertainty added into the auto-TMA then there'd be no way of improving one's solution with time so regardless of the time one spent hunting a target down and developing a solution, even if that's handled by the auto-crew, one would always find themselves facing the built-in uncertainty of the TMA.

That would change the tactics one would use, and it won't necessarily change people's behavior. So, I'm not excited by this idea.

Quote:

- the solution generated by auto-crew, even still "cheating" i.e. using data non available for human player, would be no more deadly accurate. The 10 or 20% error should be enaugh to reduce efectiveness of SUBROCs and to make player more cautios because he can't 100% believe autocrew solution no more, it can be different from reality and he has to take this into account, just like player making his own manual TMA knows that his solution may be a bit off.

SUBROCS should be very effective in certain situations. I liked the idea of limiting their sensor ranges best, if we're worried they're overpowered. The whole thing about SUBROCS is that one really doesn't need to believe their autocrew 100% to use the effectively. Actually, I think that ALL of the torpedos in the game are overpowered, not just the SUBROCS and dumbing them all down wouldn't be a bad thing.

Quote:

- the solution generated by auto-TMA would be actually worse than solution made manually, so green players would have motivation to learn making this by themselves !

I think there's something to be said for this. I just don't think adding an arbitrary uncertainty into the game is the way to go about doing it. Maybe if the autocrew TMA was just made slower? If it took a hour to develop the same solution that a manual player could do in 30 minutes, the autocrew TMA would be at a disadvantage but there wouldn't necessarily be some magic +/- sigma inserted in an arbitrary place.

LuftWolf · 10-10-05, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Actually, I think that ALL of the torpedos in the game are overpowered, not just the SUBROCS and dumbing them all down wouldn't be a bad thing.

Precisely. Have you looked at the changes made in the LWAMI Mod?

We reduced, through doctrine, the search pattern of the Snake and scaled all seekers down in the database from the ADCAP seeker, which is set at 3000m, UGST 2750m, etc.

Previously, as mentioned before, all Active torpedo seekers had a range of 4500m.

The changes have worked very well.

OKO · 10-10-05, 03:44 PM

The main problem, to my eyes, is even if you change the parameters as you mentionned, people using AC TMA will still rely on it.

but to come to your arguments :
I'd like also that people using AC must also REALLY need to do a real commander job => positionning their ship in the correct attitude and doesn't change vector of the ship during data collection.

This is a VERY important thing, because not only you have the gap of the AC "eye of god", but also, with it, you can do whatever you want with your ship, turning, changing depth, speed, collecting data at 1 knts ....
This is the second gap, and this one also have to be solved.

If you compare a commander, compelled to manage with "listening" pattern, with the obligation to find time to do this and to plan this during the mission, depending on what happen, with a commander able to do absolutly what he want with the sub without any consequences on the data corruption, you will find the first one learn the real job when the second one learn to abuse of irrealistic patterns.

I'm sorry but if I know my opponent will do a manual TMA when I can have the AC, i know the best thing to do is just to change course and speed every 2 minutes to kill his solution without alterating mines.
One poor guy have all the difficult stuff when the second one can do what he want.
really not fair isn't it ?

So, to conclude my argue, I will also ask a modification on AC TMA

=> to not include in the TMA process supposed corrupted LOBs, this mean :

- LOBs from TA recorded when a speed change occured from the last one

- LOBs from TA recorded when the TA snake on the sonar screen after a depth change

- LOBs from TA recorded when the TA snake on the sonar screen after a course change

- LOBs from TA recorded when the speed was under 7 knts

supposing, of course, the AC is always able to determine corrupted LOBs (even if you need brain work here on manual TMA ...).

On this conditions, AC user will have the same restriction as the non user.
Not only it's more fair, but it also compel the commander to do real patterns, and not exotic ones.
I'm not talking about veteran using AC, they know about patterns and tactics.
But a noob starting with an "always forgiven" AC TMA will not learn anything about the real job.

Now, about the error effect you mentionned, I think it's a very difficult point.
why accurate, why inaccurate ... that is the question
You know, as me, even trained people could make huge range error in difficult conditions.
what is difficult conditions ? so many ... it's impossible to quote them all.
depending on layers, SNR, relief, stress ...
So why 10 % of error when on manual you could do only 2% and why 15% when you could have done 100% manually ... ?

But 10% seems to be a good average
If you have this 10%, coupled with above mentionned constraints, THEN this will be quite balanced (some times, manual will be better, sometimes worst).

I think manual TMA is to be prefered because of all things depending on it.
It's not only a station, but all about the situationnal awarness you built with that, the real conduct of the ship ... and the most realistic point of view from the commander, with real uncertainties and not only certitudes.
And here you always learn.
Learn a job quite close to the real thing, not only to displace pawn on the field, but also to take decision with partial informations, and that's the most sexy part, with an infinite learning curve ...

I don't think any AC, so sophisticated you could made, could replace the interest to make it manually, for all these reasons.

The best way to see that is on multiplayer matches.

Amizaur · 10-10-05, 04:18 PM

OKO, I understand now that disabling auto-TMA is important in MP matches, even if it was with 10% error. There are other factors against using auto-TMA in MP like forcing realisting sub movement.

Seaqueen - why don't you like idea of autocrew TMA solutions penalised by 10 or 20% error ? And error could decrease with time or number of legs so after half an hour could be more precise. I'm not sure if you noticed that I mean adding error to AUTOCREW TMA only, the manual made TMA would be UNAFFECTED by this. You could still make manual TMA with no error added, it would be as good as you make it. ONLY the auto-TMA solutions would be worse.

So overall the question I wanted to ask was not about "if auto-TMA should be changed or improved" because we all know that it should, only this could be difficult, time consuming and requiring reprogramming some of the code. Also not "if we should use auto-TMA in MP matches" because thanks to OKO now I understand that it shouldn't anyway.

I'm asking about one thing - what would be better:

- auto-TMA unchanged as it is now

- autocrew (and ONLY autocrew) TMA solutions penalised by 10-20%, the penalty could decrease with time so after half an hour error would be less.

I'm not asking if it would be realistic or not (I know it wouln't) - but if it would be better that what is now.
Because I feel that such change is simple enaugh to implement that we could have it. More radical changes are much less probable to get into simple patch... (I want to be wrong here

)

P.S. Similar question could be - should auto-TMA be made to work like in Sub Command ? I'm under impression that there it was less accurate than now in DW.

10-09-05, 10:34 PM	#46
LuftWolf Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2005 Location: Free New York Posts: 3,167 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Asking people to play FFG without aTMA, until the 1.02 patch comes out which will address it, is, as Molon said before, sadistic. The only FFG player I've seen make it work for him is OKO, and I'm not sure how he does it, but all the credit to him. __________________ LW

10-10-05, 10:06 AM	#49
Mau Sonar Guy Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 382 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	But OKO when you say using ``Merge`` function in the TMA, you mean that the TMA is still manual or Auto. I don't think you can use the Merge function if you are in auto, is it not? As well, it is not because we are not good at it sometimes that we choose not to stay in manual Again let say that I want to be a TAO, th eTAO is not jumping from one station to another. He's got competent operator who will help him to clear the picture so that the TAO can fight the ship effectively. I think it is right to use that in DW as well. Of course we need to fix then the Auto TMA if it is true that it is cheating (which I don`t realy think it's true since the amount of LOB you have with OHP and to manage to think which ones are realy useful and true, nothwithstanding that the wrong ones, even though you delete them, are coming back all the time. Mau

10-10-05, 11:36 AM	#52
Mau Sonar Guy Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 382 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Ok,, got your point. It is really valid. Now then you can say that Manual TMA with OHP is possible/feasible. I thought by listening to some people on this forum that it is almost imposible. On sub (DW and SC) I like using Manual TMA becuse you don`t have that many LOBs. By fixing AC TMA I meant more that if you delete some reciprocal LOB for exempe they are not coming back. I guess in Manual TMA when you drop something (and I hope) those ones you are deleting are not back)? Can you confirm that. And finally, those that mean that if I want to play as TAO and evaluate the tactical situation to fight the ship then in that game it is considering cheating. I will be honest with you, I am going on my TAO course very shortly, so that is why I was lookoing more into this position/situation for DW. If that do not me serve any good, then may be Hrpoon 3 is better for me? I played Harpoon 2 and 3 since the last 10 years. I just thought that DW has a lot of potential A friend Mau

10-10-05, 02:36 PM	#54
Mau Sonar Guy Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 382 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	So then how is it possible to go without AC TMA if the TMA of TA is not possible with OHP. By keeping the sonar manual so youn can decide the line of bearing you want to put in the TMA? I am not sure to follow here? Thanks

10-10-05, 02:36 PM	#55
Amizaur Sonar Guy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poland Posts: 398 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	My few cents... I would love to play with manual TMA, and I will if I find some time to train it some more. It's much more realistic. But anyway in some scenarios there is so much contacts from many different sensors, that I would have to spend almost all the time on TMA station, what with everything else ? OK when there is dedicated player that cares for TMA in multistation, but when one player have to do all the work it's rather frustrating. Also for begginers auto TMA is needed, if we are going to ban auto-TMA in MP matches, they could not play. On the other hand, if we allow auto-TMA in MP, then even completly green player can get a too-good solution from autocrew and easily kill someone more experienced with SUBROC. So I think that auto-TMA is needed and should be fixed. How ? Making it more realistic, but limiting it to data available for human player (no "cheating") or making solution accuracy dependant on such things like geometry and number of legs would require complete redesign of how it works or at least some programming work. We are probably not to see such thing in 1.02. So maybe simply after solution is calculated, random error should be applied to it and then displayed. Would 10% error be enaugh ? I believe human player seldom have solution better than +/-10% ? Or maybe random from 5 to 20% ? How this random error should be applied is of course to be determined, it can't be randomised every time solution is updated, because contacts would jump all over the place, error should be randomised once and kept the same, maybe only slowly decreasing with time ? When player reset the autocrew solution, error could be randomised again and player would get different, "alternate" version. Something feeling like that I remember from SC. By simple (I thing from programmer's point of view simple enaugh to get into 1.02 patch) add of 10% or 20% error, we would get few things: - the solution generated by auto-crew, even still "cheating" i.e. using data non available for human player, would be no more deadly accurate. The 10 or 20% error should be enaugh to reduce efectiveness of SUBROCs and to make player more cautios because he can't 100% believe autocrew solution no more, it can be different from reality and he has to take this into account, just like player making his own manual TMA knows that his solution may be a bit off. - the solution generated by auto-TMA would be actually worse than solution made manually, so green players would have motivation to learn making this by themselves ! Just like sonar auto-crew - it's worse than when you make it yourself, and for many player THIS is the reason to learn it - because they see that they can do better than computer and with some more work they get better results. Currently disabling auto-TMA means only penalties - you had easy and exact solutions, and now you have to learn make it by yourself and still get results worse than from auto-crew. If auto-TMA crew calculated solutions had random error applied they would be in most cases worse than made manually. So after you disable autocrew you still have to learn it and make it manually, but as a reward you get results better (in most cases) than those from autocrew ! One penalty and one reward . I think such change (applying random 10-20% error to auto-TMA), though far from perfect, is simple enaugh to be included into a patch, and though simple, still would improve things a lot, because it would reduce effectivenes of SUBROCs and attract players to learn manual TMA because it would privide more accurate results then. What do you think ?

10-10-05, 03:13 PM	#56
Molon Labe Silent Hunter Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Along the Watchtower Posts: 3,810 Downloads: 27 Uploads: 5	I think you're exactly right Ami. While I think playing without aTMA is the way to go, the reality is that players need it, either because they're new or because they need to spend the time doing other things. Those players deserve to have aTMA, and the rest of us deserve a game in with aTMA can be used without it cheating. As for 10-20% error...this concept is OK with me, I think that's about how aTMA worked in Sub Command... I would prefer an aTMA that started out sloppy but became refinded based on the data provided, that is it gets better with time, gets better with DEMON data, gets better with more legs, gets better on lag LOS, gets worse on lead LOS...etc. Maybe that's asking for too much, but I think they already have that now, or at least they've claimed that they have implemented such a program...its just that the way that program is confined to the real data prevents us from ever seeing it in all its splendor.... Kinda like the hard limits on sensors keeping the rather nice acoustic model from being noticed until those limits are removed...

10-10-05, 03:44 PM	#59
OKO Commander Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Solar system, mainly on earth Posts: 476 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	The main problem, to my eyes, is even if you change the parameters as you mentionned, people using AC TMA will still rely on it. but to come to your arguments : I'd like also that people using AC must also REALLY need to do a real commander job => positionning their ship in the correct attitude and doesn't change vector of the ship during data collection. This is a VERY important thing, because not only you have the gap of the AC "eye of god", but also, with it, you can do whatever you want with your ship, turning, changing depth, speed, collecting data at 1 knts .... This is the second gap, and this one also have to be solved. If you compare a commander, compelled to manage with "listening" pattern, with the obligation to find time to do this and to plan this during the mission, depending on what happen, with a commander able to do absolutly what he want with the sub without any consequences on the data corruption, you will find the first one learn the real job when the second one learn to abuse of irrealistic patterns. I'm sorry but if I know my opponent will do a manual TMA when I can have the AC, i know the best thing to do is just to change course and speed every 2 minutes to kill his solution without alterating mines. One poor guy have all the difficult stuff when the second one can do what he want. really not fair isn't it ? So, to conclude my argue, I will also ask a modification on AC TMA => to not include in the TMA process supposed corrupted LOBs, this mean : - LOBs from TA recorded when a speed change occured from the last one - LOBs from TA recorded when the TA snake on the sonar screen after a depth change - LOBs from TA recorded when the TA snake on the sonar screen after a course change - LOBs from TA recorded when the speed was under 7 knts supposing, of course, the AC is always able to determine corrupted LOBs (even if you need brain work here on manual TMA ...). On this conditions, AC user will have the same restriction as the non user. Not only it's more fair, but it also compel the commander to do real patterns, and not exotic ones. I'm not talking about veteran using AC, they know about patterns and tactics. But a noob starting with an "always forgiven" AC TMA will not learn anything about the real job. Now, about the error effect you mentionned, I think it's a very difficult point. why accurate, why inaccurate ... that is the question You know, as me, even trained people could make huge range error in difficult conditions. what is difficult conditions ? so many ... it's impossible to quote them all. depending on layers, SNR, relief, stress ... So why 10 % of error when on manual you could do only 2% and why 15% when you could have done 100% manually ... ? But 10% seems to be a good average If you have this 10%, coupled with above mentionned constraints, THEN this will be quite balanced (some times, manual will be better, sometimes worst). I think manual TMA is to be prefered because of all things depending on it. It's not only a station, but all about the situationnal awarness you built with that, the real conduct of the ship ... and the most realistic point of view from the commander, with real uncertainties and not only certitudes. And here you always learn. Learn a job quite close to the real thing, not only to displace pawn on the field, but also to take decision with partial informations, and that's the most sexy part, with an infinite learning curve ... I don't think any AC, so sophisticated you could made, could replace the interest to make it manually, for all these reasons. The best way to see that is on multiplayer matches.

10-10-05, 04:18 PM	#60
Amizaur Sonar Guy Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poland Posts: 398 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	OKO, I understand now that disabling auto-TMA is important in MP matches, even if it was with 10% error. There are other factors against using auto-TMA in MP like forcing realisting sub movement. Seaqueen - why don't you like idea of autocrew TMA solutions penalised by 10 or 20% error ? And error could decrease with time or number of legs so after half an hour could be more precise. I'm not sure if you noticed that I mean adding error to AUTOCREW TMA only, the manual made TMA would be UNAFFECTED by this. You could still make manual TMA with no error added, it would be as good as you make it. ONLY the auto-TMA solutions would be worse. So overall the question I wanted to ask was not about "if auto-TMA should be changed or improved" because we all know that it should, only this could be difficult, time consuming and requiring reprogramming some of the code. Also not "if we should use auto-TMA in MP matches" because thanks to OKO now I understand that it shouldn't anyway. I'm asking about one thing - what would be better: - auto-TMA unchanged as it is now - autocrew (and ONLY autocrew) TMA solutions penalised by 10-20%, the penalty could decrease with time so after half an hour error would be less. I'm not asking if it would be realistic or not (I know it wouln't) - but if it would be better that what is now. Because I feel that such change is simple enaugh to implement that we could have it. More radical changes are much less probable to get into simple patch... (I want to be wrong here ) P.S. Similar question could be - should auto-TMA be made to work like in Sub Command ? I'm under impression that there it was less accurate than now in DW.