Jump to content


Suggested change to accuracy and aiming mechanics.

rng accuracy aiming

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

sir_wizington #1 Posted 15 August 2017 - 09:12 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26758 battles
  • 144
  • [11RHS] 11RHS
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

I really hate how in the current game aiming takes little skill apart from being able to lead shots correctly and aim for weakpoints, but lately WG has thrown the concept of weakpoints out the window, the rest is just down the magic RNG.

 

I know so many players hate how they have little control over accuracy and people ridicule how WOT is suppost to be an E-sports game but the arguably the most important aspect, aiming the gun depends more on the BS 25% rng rather than the players skills.

 

I do like how RNG makes aiming simple for newer players and makes the game easier to play, I also like how rng simulates the imperfections in accuracy, due to the gunner and the weapon itself.

 

My suggestion

 

Players would have to aim by leading targets but also controlling the hold over or aiming higher to compensate for gravity pulling the shots down over longer distances and take into account the angle at which their vehicle is at, just like a real tank gunner. I would keep RNG but revise the concept into two parts,

 

Gunner RNG and Weapon RNG

 

Gunner RNG: would simulate inaccuracies caused by the gunner, the RNG would by +5-5 %, the rng goes up when the gunner is injured to say +15-15, The more the gunner shoots and hits at a certain range and the vehicle does not change position the lower the RNG gets because he will already know the elevation and lead necessary to hit, moving position will reset the rng to +5-5

 

Weapon RNG: would simulate the inaccuracies caused by imperfections in the weapon system, no gun is perfectly accurate an RNG of +2-2 % ,damaged gun obviously increases the RNG.

 

Gun aiming time would be the same but would be less noticeable as the player would be working out the elevation, camber and lead necessary to hit, not just blankly staring at a green circle getting smaller.

 

 

Benefits of my idea over the current system

 

Player would actually have to learn a skill and use it to be successful in battle, you should be rewarded because you have learnt a game mechanic and can use it to your advantage, not get rewarded because you aimed roughly in the right area and rolled a lucky computer number.

 

Less BS snapshots, aiming would take a bit of time and skill. This means that dirty stetpedders in OBJ140s firing full gold suddenly uprearing round a corner 400m away reliably putting shots into you and pulling back in less then a second would be a thing of the past as they would actually have to aim and think rather than just point and click.

 

Less frustration, missed shots would be much more down to the player than uncontrollable rng.

 

RNG gg small.jpg

what do people think?



Baldrickk #2 Posted 15 August 2017 - 09:20 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29023 battles
  • 12,812
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013
I think it would make it a different game.
It would likely have a negative impact on the playerbase, so I have to vote no, Despite it being something I would like to see.
If only so I could hit enemies on ridgelines that have just disappeared.

Jigabachi #3 Posted 15 August 2017 - 09:31 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17746 battles
  • 17,615
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
There is no 25% RNG on aiming. There is accuracy and dispersion.

I'd love if they'd simply remove the automated height adjustment. That would add a lot of skill already.
I'm not entirely sure if I understand your ideas, but they sound way too complicated for a game like this.

Geno1isme #4 Posted 15 August 2017 - 09:38 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 40053 battles
  • 6,559
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

You realize that quite a few more people would then turn to aimbots to get ballistic compensation back? How would auto-aim work with your concept, or does that no longer exist in your world?

 

And as mentioned, accuracy isn't subject to +-25% RNG but linear(?) random distribution within the aiming circle (plus latency-induced issues).



Browarszky #5 Posted 15 August 2017 - 09:43 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 14901 battles
  • 2,742
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

While I like simulations, I see at least two problems with this.

 

1. Adding realism to one aspect of the game detracts from playability. 

2. Unlike with single player games, there will always be a degree of latency to consider.



Sir_Bad #6 Posted 15 August 2017 - 09:51 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 44035 battles
  • 472
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    10-08-2011
So.... you want to make one of the key aspects of the game more difficult, while a good 50% of the players can't even hit their shots reliably right now. Seems like an awesome idea.

N1T3M4R3 #7 Posted 15 August 2017 - 09:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39275 battles
  • 630
  • [CCREW] CCREW
  • Member since:
    05-26-2013

View PostSir_Bad, on 15 August 2017 - 08:51 AM, said:

So.... you want to make one of the key aspects of the game more difficult, while a good 50% of the players can't even hit their shots reliably right now. Seems like an awesome idea.

 

You can close this thread, all is said in this note ^



sir_wizington #8 Posted 15 August 2017 - 09:59 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26758 battles
  • 144
  • [11RHS] 11RHS
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

View PostGeno1isme, on 15 August 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

You realize that quite a few more people would then turn to aimbots to get ballistic compensation back? How would auto-aim work with your concept, or does that no longer exist in your world?

 

And as mentioned, accuracy isn't subject to +-25% RNG but linear(?) random distribution within the aiming circle (plus latency-induced issues).

 

No auto aim, simply because of the amount of people who still use it in high tiers and bounce all their shots of the upper plate of an is7.

Kozzy #9 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:02 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 38497 battles
  • 2,288
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011
I'm all for adding elements that reward skill but this kind of thing would cause so many crying babies to whine even more.  You are thinking of adding complexity to a game played by a mix of people including those that don't understand basic maths/physics as it is.

sir_wizington #10 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:05 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26758 battles
  • 144
  • [11RHS] 11RHS
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

View PostSir_Bad, on 15 August 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

So.... you want to make one of the key aspects of the game more difficult, while a good 50% of the players can't even hit their shots reliably right now. Seems like an awesome idea.

 

Yes, i do want to make the key aspect of the game more difficult, id like the place that my shots go to actually be controlled by me the player, like in pretty much every other shooter game ever, im fed up with only being able to put a magic circle over a tank and rng to randomly put it somewhere somewhere inside it for me. RNG detracts from skill in a game, games are about having skills to beat the game.

laulaur #11 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46450 battles
  • 986
  • [FOXX] FOXX
  • Member since:
    08-11-2011
Your ''new'' idea about accuracy and aiming is already called ''War Thunder''.

sir_wizington #12 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:08 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26758 battles
  • 144
  • [11RHS] 11RHS
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

View PostKozzy, on 15 August 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

I'm all for adding elements that reward skill but this kind of thing would cause so many crying babies to whine even more.  You are thinking of adding complexity to a game played by a mix of people including those that don't understand basic maths/physics as it is.

 

Well if they are too thick to understand that gravity pulls things down and that shells have a velocity and it takes time for them to go from A to B then it sucks to be them.

Edited by sir_wizington, 15 August 2017 - 10:10 AM.


sir_wizington #13 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:08 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26758 battles
  • 144
  • [11RHS] 11RHS
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

View Postlaulaur, on 15 August 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Your ''new'' idea about accuracy and aiming is already called ''War Thunder''.

 

While i like the aiming and accuracy in WT the rest of the game is about as fun as having the Chinese mafia torture you.

Sergeant_Antaro_Chronus #14 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:11 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13247 battles
  • 605
  • [EL-G] EL-G
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013
The one thing that really bugs me more than having a shot miss (because 4.2% chance the shot will land out side the aim reticle) is that you over shoot your target if they disappear or go behind a fence. You know what I mean, you're leading your target on a hill top  but then it vanishes and your aim then focuses at the end of the map and you over shoot. I really want them to make it so your shot is linear so it won't over shoot and miss a well aimed shot.

Sir_Bad #15 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:13 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 44035 battles
  • 472
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    10-08-2011

View Postsir_wizington, on 15 August 2017 - 09:05 AM, said:

RNG detracts from skill in a game, games are about having skills to beat the game.

 

Oh boy. That rock you have been living under sure must be comfortable.

 

Newsflash. WG wants exactly the opposite from your proposal. Make the game easier and numb it down for even the last casual to have their 5 minutes of success while putting in exactly ZERO skill. They need the RNG to stop the plebs from getting farmed completely by better players. Thats why they also need stupidly overbuffed heavy tanks and corridor maps. They want to please their cash cows.



sir_wizington #16 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:19 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 26758 battles
  • 144
  • [11RHS] 11RHS
  • Member since:
    07-14-2013

View PostSir_Bad, on 15 August 2017 - 10:13 AM, said:

 

Oh boy. That rock you have been living under sure must be comfortable.

 

Newsflash. WG wants exactly the opposite from your proposal. Make the game easier and numb it down for even the last casual to have their 5 minutes of success while putting in exactly ZERO skill. They need the RNG to stop the plebs from getting farmed completely by better players. Thats why they also need stupidly overbuffed heavy tanks and corridor maps. They want to please their cash cows.

 

Keep in mind that my post is from the perspective of a player, IDGAF about WG and what they want, im just interested too see weather people agree with me. 

laulaur #17 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:32 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 46450 battles
  • 986
  • [FOXX] FOXX
  • Member since:
    08-11-2011

View Postsir_wizington, on 15 August 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

 

Keep in mind that my post is from the perspective of a player, IDGAF about WG and what they want, im just interested too see weather people agree with me. 

 

Well what goes around comes around, WG also DGAF about you :trollface:

 

Edit: On the topic - you r idea is suitable for a simulator, not for WoT which is a arcade game.

 And as Sir_Bad said, they are actually trying to numb the game more and make it easy to play even for a [edited] 5 years old kid.

Look at the new content added in last year: all new maps are city maps, overarmored OP premium tanks, superheavys with battleship cannon who does not need to aim, etc.

 Because it is more easy for the ''average'' WoT player to fight in a heavy tank on a city map - than to learn to play on bigger maps that would allow flanking and spotting and whould require better situational awareness.


Edited by laulaur, 15 August 2017 - 10:41 AM.


jabster #18 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:33 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12516 battles
  • 21,644
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostKozzy, on 15 August 2017 - 09:02 AM, said:

I'm all for adding elements that reward skill but this kind of thing would cause so many crying babies to whine even more.  You are thinking of adding complexity to a game played by a mix of people including those that don't understand basic maths/physics as it is.

 

Well I'd probably be one of those crying babies who'd whine about it as that's really not the type of game I want WoT to be. If players like the idea of more realistic targeting then go play a version of Silent Hunter and switch of the targeting computer meaning all calculations for where to fire the torpedo have to be done manually.

Kozzy #19 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:38 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 38497 battles
  • 2,288
  • [EAB2] EAB2
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View Postjabster, on 15 August 2017 - 09:33 AM, said:

 

Well I'd probably be one of those crying babies who'd whine about it as that's really not the type of game I want WoT to be. If players like the idea of more realistic targeting then go play a version of Silent Hunter and switch of the targeting computer meaning all calculations for where to fire the torpedo have to be done manually.

 

Fair comment. and +1 for Silent Hunter, loved that game.

 

I feel that WoT is forever getting closer to an out-and-out arcade game where immersion in the basic idea of post war era tank battles is getting eroded (by crazy RNG, fantasy tank, unrealistic climbing abilities etc). Sure, I play this for fun and don't want it to be a hardcore, ultra realistic sim but at the same time I don't want it to be what Mario kart is to driving games.  

 

Also, you seem to be all about the self deprecation, you're better than you think (or at least let on) and so you would be fine with logic-based aiming ;)


Edited by Kozzy, 15 August 2017 - 10:39 AM.


jabster #20 Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:57 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12516 battles
  • 21,644
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostKozzy, on 15 August 2017 - 09:38 AM, said:

 

Fair comment. and +1 for Silent Hunter, loved that game.

 

I feel that WoT is forever getting closer to an out-and-out arcade game where immersion in the basic idea of post war era tank battles is getting eroded (by crazy RNG, fantasy tank, unrealistic climbing abilities etc). Sure, I play this for fun and don't want it to be a hardcore, ultra realistic sim but at the same time I don't want it to be what Mario kart is to driving games.  

 

Also, you seem to be all about the self deprecation, you're better than you think (or at least let on) and so you would be fine with logic-based aiming ;)

 

Whether I can 'handle' manual aiming isn't really my point. The two games that are taking my time at the moment are Pike and Shot and Shadow Tactics both of which require rather a bit of thinking. WoT to me is rather different, login, pew-pew around with tanks for half an hour or so and then do something else. Saying that I do agree with the overall sentiment that WG are dumbing down the game ( gawd I hate that phrase) in making the game less tactical and more about shooting boom sticks at each other.

 

Edit: Manual aiming in SH was a lot of fun once you understood how to use it.


Edited by jabster, 15 August 2017 - 11:10 AM.






Also tagged with rng, accuracy, aiming

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users