|
Tristanjohn -> RE: TF maximum speed (4/16/2005 9:49:19 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
quote:
There ought to be critical breakdowns all over the place, but there are not.
As the propulsion system is not modelled as a separate entity, we can't pop off boilers or throw screws to kill the speed.
You could have easily modeled that!
quote:
The solution was to just crank up SYS damage rates as soon as the ship exceeded it's cruise speed.
Give me a freaking break! That was your solution, not necessarily the only solution, much less a wise one.
You could have just as easily thrown in a 1/x chance for drive-train problems when ships were run at flank speed, with the chance for drive-train damage increasing, say, for each phase flank speed was maintained--you might even make that an exponential increase in chance for failure for more than two consecutive phases at flank speed, but I'd check with an engineer before doing so.
Now I'm not mathematician and don't pretend to be, but I'm confident that if I had the knowledge of how to write that equation expressd in code I could do so in no time at all. I'd guess Gary, if he wanted to, could do it in half an hour. Probably the same for Mike.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "it's not possible." It has everything to do with preconceptions of how this project was going to come down before it ever started, and with Gary's own bad habits when it comes to his Pacific games. This same issue existed with UV and the same solutions were pointed out then for the developers to consider. I know that because I'm the one who pointed them out. Result? Absolutely no change of substance has taken place. I'm told that incidental damage has been toned down, but from my game play so far I have not been able to tell if this is true. It appears that incidental damage accrues at roughly the same rate as it did with UV.
Thank you.
quote:
It's not perfect, but folks learn quick enough that driving them hard means time spent sitting in port. It's the old scope creep, where does a feature actually become a drawback simply because it just makes things take more and more time.
That's one of the problems with this game. Players aren't "learning" anything of value from it, the way they might learn from a more accurate simulation. This game serves to unlearn people, or perhaps I should say dislearn them.
quote:
One day, many years from now when we are doing WitP II ourselves, we'll put in a full ship model with all sorts of damage criticals to make ships far more painful to keep running.
You still don't get it. If the model worked better our ships would be less painful to operate. When big guns fired there'd be a chance that concussive shock waves could take down the radar and maybe fire control for awhile, stuff like that would happen occasionally. But ships should not be required to go in for "refit" every month just from sailing from point A to B. That's insane, ahistorical, whacky, far out, dumb, crazy, unrealistic in the extreme, and so forth.
quote:
One of the other things I wanted had time permitted was storm damage. No tin can's in the Pacific went running around in those waters without getting their butts kicked. We couldn't do it as there is no weather system model running so storms are random instead of flowing across the map. (which would allow you to see whats coming).
I'm not convinced a simple storm frontage system might not have been successfully installed, per my suggestion two years ago or more. That would get us closer to the truth. Now that model could have been presented simplistically without serious complaints and would have added to both a sense of realism and play enjoyment.
As it stands, what precious little weather you do have is broken. How many times have I posted, and been ignored, that planes fly offensive missions in and out of cloud/storm hexes regularly? Five times now, six times, what?
Yes, ship damage from typhoons would be welcomed. That was a real problem. Go ask Halsey. Twice! [8D]
quote:
( Don't take my WitP II statement to mean 2by3 has signed on to do it - yet! [:D] )
Statement duly not taken.
|
|
|
|
