Improved and user-friendly naval fire control system and HUD

[kkang2828 1,446]

Within this suggestion, live server and new means the live server game as of patch 2.9.0.38. Dev server means the public dev server game for major update "Direct Hit", opened on September 1st to 2nd. Old means the live server game as of patch 2.7.0.235.

 

If you want to see how the old and dev server FCS and HUD looked like, just search it up on YouTube.

 

The current naval FCS and HUD, introduced with the major update "Direct Hit", is not very good to say the least. Compared to the old FCS and HUD, it has some pros but a lot of cons. And the old one was already problematic to begin with. On the other hand, the public dev-server for major update "Direct Hit", opened on September 1st to 2nd, had a much better version of the naval FCS and HUD, but it was bugged and didn't work properly. So I would like to suggest a much improved and user-friendly naval FCS and HUD based on the one from the dev-server.

 

I will start with the pros and cons of the live server version of the naval FCS and HUD, and then list my suggestions for improvements.

 

Pros:

• Having target bearing calculation, or "lead indicator", makes aiming more realistic and easier.
• Interesting possibility of differences in fire control equipment affecting gameplay for different ships and nations(it's all equal right now, but I assume that is just a placeholder).
• More visible direction/bearing indicator at the top of the screen, making it easier to communicate with other players.
• New turret indicators that display lots of useful information, such as the reload timer in seconds.

 

Cons:

• Constantly scrolling for correction is still a requirement.  The guns  do not  automatically align with the updated range. Instead, the actual gun elevation is still tied to the vertical movement of the mouse and the 'Distance correction' keybind. This was a problem in the old FCS as well and it is very repetitive and feels like a chore. Range/bearing calculation is also  still basically instantaneous  and the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator  does not  affect range calculation at all.  On the dev server version  of the FCS, it was clearly intended to have the guns automatically align with the most recently calculated range, with correction being a controllable value that was displayed and applied  relative  to the most recently calculated range. And range/bearing calculation actually took some time  that was displayed by the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator. It was bugged and didn't work as intended, but I liked the way it was intended to work. It's also annoying that the 'correction speed' is tied to the gun elevation speed because  you can't see  how much correction you are applying until the guns have finished moving. The fact that mouse vertical movement affects gun elevation is also annoying at times when you accidentally move the mouse vertically while moving it horizontally, and  you have to set the range again .
• The new turret indicators are not enough to fully replace the old indicators. You can't see where exactly  each of the guns/turrets are pointed at and where the dead-zones are . This makes aiming and shooting at aerial targets and fast small boats very hard. Also it's hard to tell exactly  which turret indicator  is displaying information for  which turret , especially for ships with lots of turrets.
• The UI elements are  scattered everywhere  with turret indicators at the bottom, range being attached to the target bracket/marker, and the actual firing range and the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator in the binoculars. It is hard to see everything at once. Also the UI elements can  overlap , making them unreadable.
• The projectile drop indicator(this includes the close range/anti-air circle-and-dot indicator) is nice for visualizing the corrections you're making, but  makes aiming too easy and too unrealistic IMO . It also floats about too much and is more of a distraction than anything.
• Range somehow displaying  immediately  after target lock before the initial range measurements are finished is unrealistic and makes the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator even more useless .
• The color of UI elements are not ideal  with bright green everywhere.

 

Suggestions:

• We absolutely need a proper detailed in-game tutorial(not the completely useless ones in the game right now) for naval fire control in AB and RB, similar to the advanced tutorials for aviation. This will help so many new players who become frustrated because they cannot hit anything and leave naval.

• Distance correction with mouse movement should be an  option  that can be turned on and off with a keybind . This would allow players to use it or not use it depending on the situation and their preferences.
• The  actual range the guns are aimed at  should be displayed  separately  from the  measured  range and the correction value, as all three values have their own usefulness. I propose the name "Firing range" for this value and it would show the actual range the guns are aimed at, at the speed of the gun elevation, like the range displayed below the central chevron in the live server version(but in meters instead of kilometers).  Measured range should be named "Range" and periodically updated , like on the dev server(and obviously the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator should be tied to range updates as well as "lead indicator" updates). Correction should be a  relative value that  does not change unless you control it with a keybind and/or mouse movement. This would display all the information needed for the player to accurately aim the guns(measured range to the target, amount of correction applied, actual range the guns are aimed at, and whether the guns have finished aiming) in an user-friendly way and make the changes below possible.
• Range should only display after  the initial range/bearing calculations are completed. Before that, it should be displayed as "- m" or something similar. It is more logical and realistic this way.
• Check this comment and related discussion. This is now considered as part of the suggestion. Many thanks to the person who suggested the idea.
• The correction value should change by a constant that is controlled by the multiplier . Ideally, one input should change the value by (500m) x (multiplier). Meaning that each press of the keybind(each step for the mouse wheel) should change the correction value by 50m if the multiplier is 10%, 100m at 20%, 150m at 30%, and so on. In the old system, the correction value changed at a fraction of the measured range, making it very hard to set the exact amount of correction you wanted.
• The  vertical axis of aiming should work in 3 different modes as follows:
  • When you are not locked onto a target , the guns should try to follow  where you aim the cursor/central chevron  with your mouse. "Range" and "Firing range" should be displayed as above and correction should be disabled. This would allow players to aim and shoot whenever and wherever they want, at the cost of accuracy. This system should also be used when you are locked on to an  aerial target .
  • After you lock on to a surface target and before the initial range/bearing calculations are finished , the guns should  stop  following the mouse in the vertical axis and the "Firing range" should be set to the value it was at  right before  the lock-on. From there you would have to adjust the firing range  only through corrections , either with the mouse and/or the keybind. This would allow players to shoot while the range/bearing is being calculated, but it would be very inconvenient, and accuracy would depend totally on the players' skill.
  • After you have finished the initial range/bearing calculations on a surface target , the guns should automatically align  with the most recently calculated range,  even without  any input from the player. So it should be (actual range the guns are aimed at)=(firing range)=(measured range)+(correction) with measured range being periodically updated, and correction being a relative value that does not change unless you control it with a keybind and/or mouse movement. This would  remove  the need for constant scrolling.
  • For example, let's say your firing solution calculation time is 22 seconds, the firing solution update time is 12 seconds, and the enemy ship is at 7000m and closing(but players wouldn't know the range at this time). You're in a hurry and aim the central chevron slightly further than the target at 7300m and lock on. The firing range is set to 7300m and the camera starts following the target. You press the keybind to enable "Distance correction with mouse movement" and move the central chevron slightly closer than the target. This sets a correction value of -500m so that the firing range becomes 7300m - 500m = 6800m. 22 seconds after lock-on, the initial range/bearing calculations are completed with a measured range of 5000m. The firing range is automatically set to 5000m - 500m = 4500m. You disable "Distance correction with mouse movement" and adjust the correction value to -300m using the keybind. The firing range is set to 5000m - 300m = 4700m. After 12 seconds, the measured range is updated to 4500m. The guns are automatically set to fire at 4500m - 300m = 4200m. If you change the correction value to -400m, the guns would be set to fire at 4500m - 400m = 4100m.
• Correction value should be displayed as +000m when correcting further and -000m when correcting closer. It's more intuitive that way.
• Guns that have a caliber of  76mm and below (plus some larger caliber weapons on small boats such as the short-barrel 114mm gun on the Dark Adventurer and the 81mm mortar on several US PT boats) should not use the aiming system described above. Neither should they use the old or new in-game FCSs. Instead they should  simply aim where you aim the cursor/central chevron  with your mouse and should not have any sort of range/bearing calculation and display (unless they used fire directors/rangefinders/fire control radar in real life). During WW2 in real life, such small caliber guns  lacked sophisticated FCSs  such as fire directors and rangefinders and were  individually aimed by their operators using simple direct-fire sights in most cases. With rapid-firing and automatic weapons, both the old and new in-game FCSs were/are more of a hindrance and annoyance and doesn't help you in any way, especially in RB. It is much simpler and semi-realistic to have those guns just follow where you aim. Only minor visual adjustments to the binocular reticle to match the appearance of the large caliber gun FCS HUD would be needed.
• The old turret indicators should be reintroduced and  used alongside  the new indicators. Both types of turret indicators have unique advantages. The old indicators allow players to  actually see  where each turret is aiming and where exactly the dead-zones are. They are also much easier to see in a glance, being near the center of the screen. On the other hand, the new indicators display information  separately for each turret , showing us  more detail . Showing players the reload timer in numbers for each turret is also very useful, especially for slow-firing turrets. The two indicator systems should be  combined  to give players a more complete indication of their turrets' status.
• Turrets should be given a  numerical identification  and the new turret indicators should use these numbers  to indicate which indicator is for which turret. The US Navy numerical system should be used for all ships, because it is more  generally recognizable  compared to the Royal Navy ABXY system. So the turrets would be numbered fore to aft, with turrets not on the centerline being assigned odd numbers on the port side and even numbers on the starboard side. The turret numbering count should be split between primary, secondary, and AA armament. Turret numbers should be shown in the X-ray view in hangar, and players would have to memorize it and/or apply the numbering system rules to figure out which turret is assigned which number. Unfortunately, putting a turret number diagram in the HUD, like in WoWS, would clog up the screen too much.
• The UI elements should be  reworked and repositioned . Range and correction should be displayed  only in the binocular reticle  and not attached to the target. The projectile drop indicator should be  optional . The turret indicators and the firing range should be enough to tell you where the guns are aimed at, without clogging up the screen and distracting you. For the players have the projectile drop indicator enabled, it should be a  larger circle that is  within the game space  and not on the HUD. That way, it can  overlap  vehicles and terrain, allowing players to see clearly whether it is on target or not.
• The color of the various naval UI elements, such as text and indicators, should be  customizable , like how cursor color and the air crosshair color can be customized.
• "Shell splashes in:" should be replaced with "Fall of shot in:" which is a much more historically accurate term.
• Combining all suggestions, the first-person view UI should look something like this:
  Spoiler

  Arcade Battles(with projectile drop indicator enabled):

   

  

   

  I originally wanted to use the RB "lead indicator" for AB as well, which is why the image looks like this. But I have changed my opinion, and changing the image is too much work, so ignore that part. The AB "lead indicator" should remain as is on the live server.

   

  Realistic Battles(with projectile drop indicator disabled):

   

  

   

  The old turret indicators would not display reload. When the old turret indicators reach the center of the reticle and turn white, they would quickly  fade away  to prevent overlapping with the "lead indicator" and central chevron.

  Only the  "lead indicator"  should change color from red to green(or whatever color you have customized them to) when you aim near it. The  central chevron's color  should be used to indicate  reload  so that you can quickly check if you are ready to fire. The central chevron should be red if none of the guns aligned with it are ready to fire. It should be green if at least one gun aligned with it is ready to fire. Any more detailed information about reload is not needed here since you can check the new turret indicators for that.

   

  Small caliber guns(with projectile drop indicator disabled):

   

  

   

  Here, the old turret indicators would display  reload and/or overheat and  not fade away  when they reach the center.

 

 

• The third-person view should display both the old and new turret indicators and the projectile drop indicator(if enabled) and the target bracket, but  nothing else  related to fire control(apart from the actual real-time distance to the enemy displayed in the AB markers).

• The fall of shot bell should be  much louder . Currently, it is too quiet and easily drowned out by the sounds of battle.

• Maybe some sort of aircraft lead indicator for ships that had high-angle anti-aircraft fire directors with such capabilities IRL such as the USN Mark 37?

 

Unlike what some players think, the "lead indicator" is not an aimbot. It is only a reference point that becomes inaccurate when you or the target make course changes between firing solution update intervals. It reflects the historical capability of 20th century naval FCS to calculate firing solutions. That is why I’ve chosen to leave it as is for large caliber guns in RB. Any proper naval player should know to zigzag and change speed when under fire. If you sail in a straight line, you will be targeted and sunk very fast, no matter the type of FCS being used.

 

This suggestion isn't perfect and there could be some unforeseen issues. So it needs to be properly tested before being introduced, like with the overpressure damage mechanics but better. "Better" meaning it should be tested, feedback gathered and implemented, and tested again, and this should be repeated until the feedback is overwhelmingly positive.

Edited November 7, 2022 by kkang2828

[ItssLuBu 1,803]

Approved and open for discussion. 

[Christian70 1,643]

I agree.

 

I see in the new FCS and aiming screen only one advantage, tha are the turret indicators for reload and timer.

 

The new FCS gives me not more important info as before. But my screen is total overloaded.

It´s also unusual that ships from pre WW I (Dreadnoughts) have the same FCS as Vessels from the late Cold war (Albatros, Projekt 12412, Peacock and other). WW I they need Range shots (if they was fast 2-3) before the fire for effect. The modern vessels you press a button fpr aligment and have immediatly fire for effect, it needs seconds.

 

For the new Battle Pass task (15k Damage with coastel vessels about Blue water) i played 2 matches before I do a break. It was no fun. In this condition, RIP Navy.

 

Gaijin makes with their new "fixed 232" a big joke. Read the topic "free the screen" below. Its a slap in the face for all Naval fans.

 

 

[kkang2828 1,446]

So I've given this more thought and have realized that my suggestion is quite complex and will take more than a year to be implemented. We can't use the current FCS and HUD any longer and if this continues, "Direct Hit" could become the update that kills naval battles for good. But the devs won't just roll back completely to the old system and cancel their work. That's why a stop-gap solution is absolutely necessary to save naval.

 

The main gripe with the current FCS and HUD is that the vertical aiming system is very inconsistent and very annoying to use. This is due to reasons mentioned in the suggestion and because the shooting range keeps changing even when you stop "correcting" it. The old FCS's vertical aiming system for RB was much better and experienced players used the RB system even in AB due to it's accuracy and ease of use. So I propose an 'emergency' version of the naval FCS and HUD that can be implemented quickly.

 

The current turret indicator, "lead indicator", and projectile drop indicator systems would remain as is. But the vertical aiming system(in both AB and RB) should be reverted to the old RB system , with "Distance measured" and "Shooting distance with correction" displayed in the HUD. "Distance measured" should be updated automatically every few seconds and manually when you press the target lock key again, taking about one second to calculate. "Shooting distance with correction" should be set to the "Distance measured" when you initially measure the range and when you manually update the range. It should be controllable with the "Distance correction" keybind and change by a set fraction of the measured range for every input you make(i.e. every step of the scroll wheel). Mouse movement should not affect "Shooting distance with correction". The placement of the text should be different from the old version, so that it will not overlap with the target. The HUD should look something like this:

 

Spoiler

 

This should be possible to implement quickly and easily. Nothing new has to be created. The devs created the current live server FCS from the dev server FCS in a few days, so this stop-gap solution should also take only a few days to implement. 

 

Hopefully this will work well enough to keep people from abandoning naval until my suggestion can be implemented.

Edited September 30, 2021 by kkang2828

[Bruce_R1 2,118]

So I'm guessing from the way that these changes tend to move in tandem that the AB and RB aiming systems can't be easily decoupled. It's really the same data and mechanics, just presented differently as a user interface. I suspect you couldn't revert RB to what it was without also reverting AB, and that's why they haven't done it, despite the obvious problems with RB aiming.

 

If you don't or can't do a full reversion for RB only, the problem becomes that before you had two separate inputs that could be differentiated (mouse and scroll wheel), plus you couldn't fire the guns until they were fully on lay. Now you can fire while your guns are still coming onto their vertical elevation and mouse, scroll wheel and the range effects of those guns still coming into lay all duel for that one green thumbtack ("shooting distance with correction") distance number). I suspect that's very difficult to untangle without significant code revisions and another U/I change. We may have no way out of this but forward at this point. Sorry to be a downer.

[angelomorte 1,369]

On 18/09/2021 at 12:16, kkang2828 said:

Within this suggestion, live server and new means the live server game as of patch 2.9.0.38. Dev server means the public dev server game for major update "Direct Hit", opened on September 1st to 2nd. Old means the live server game as of patch 2.7.0.235.

 

If you want to see how the old and dev server FCS and HUD looked like, just search it up on YouTube.

 

The current naval FCS and HUD, introduced with the major update "Direct Hit", is not very good to say the least. Compared to the old FCS and HUD, it has some pros but a lot of cons. And the old one was already problematic to begin with. On the other hand, the public dev-server for major update "Direct Hit", opened on September 1st to 2nd, had a much better version of the naval FCS and HUD, but it was bugged and didn't work properly. So I would like to suggest a much improved and user-friendly naval FCS and HUD based on the one from the dev-server.

 

I will start with the pros and cons of the live server version of the naval FCS and HUD, and then list my suggestions for improvements.

 

Pros:

• Having target bearing calculation, or "lead indicator", makes aiming more realistic and easier.
• Interesting possibility of differences in fire control equipment affecting gameplay for different ships and nations(it's all equal right now, but I assume that is just a placeholder).
• More visible direction/bearing indicator at the top of the screen, making it easier to communicate with other players.
• New turret indicators that display lots of useful information, such as the reload timer in seconds.

 

Cons:

• Constantly scrolling for correction is still a requirement.  The guns  do not  automatically align with the updated range. Instead, the actual gun elevation is still tied to the vertical movement of the mouse and the 'Distance correction' keybind. This is very repetitive and feels like a chore. Range/bearing calculation is also  still basically instantaneous  and the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator  does not  affect range calculation at all.  On the dev server version  of the FCS, it was clearly intended to have the guns automatically align with the most recently calculated range, with correction being a controllable value that was displayed and applied  relative  to the most recently calculated range. And range/bearing calculation actually took some time  that was displayed by the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator. It was bugged and didn't work as intended, but I liked the way it was intended to work. It's also annoying that the 'correction speed' is tied to the gun elevation speed because  you can't see  how much correction you are applying until the guns have finished moving. The fact that mouse vertical movement affects gun elevation is also annoying at times when you accidentally move the mouse vertically while moving it horizontally, and  you have to set the range again .
• The new turret indicators are not enough to fully replace the old indicators. You can't see where exactly  each of the guns/turrets are pointed at and where the dead-zones are . This makes aiming and shooting at aerial targets and fast small boats very hard. Also it's hard to tell exactly  which turret indicator  is displaying information for  which turret , especially for ships with lots of turrets.
• The UI elements are  scattered everywhere  with turret indicators at the bottom, range being attached to the target bracket/marker, and the actual firing range and the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator in the binoculars. It is hard to see everything at once. Also the UI elements can  overlap , making them unreadable.
• The projectile drop indicator(this includes the close range/anti-air circle-and-dot indicator) is nice for visualizing the corrections you're making, but  makes aiming too easy and too unrealistic in RB . In AB, it needs some improvements.
• Range somehow displaying  immediately  after target lock before the initial range measurements are finished is unrealistic and makes the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator even more useless .
• The color of UI elements are not ideal  with bright green everywhere.

 

Suggestions:

• Distance correction with mouse movement should be an  option  that can be turned on and off with a keybind . This would allow players to use it or not use it depending on the situation and their preferences.
• The  actual range the guns are aimed at  should be displayed  separately  from the  measured  range and the correction value, as all three values have their own usefulness. I propose the name "Firing range" for this value and it would show the actual range the guns are aimed at, at the speed of the gun elevation, like the range displayed below the central chevron in the live server version(but in meters instead of kilometers).  Measured range should be named "Range" and periodically updated , like on the dev server. Correction should be a  relative value that  does not change unless you control it with a keybind and/or mouse movement. This would display all the information needed for the player to accurately aim the guns(measured range to the target, amount of correction applied, actual range the guns are aimed at, and whether the guns have finished aiming) in an user-friendly way and make the changes below possible.
• Range should only display after  the initial range/bearing calculations are completed. Before that, it should be displayed as "- m" or something similar. It is more logical and realistic this way.
• The  vertical axis of aiming should work in 3 different modes as follows:
  • When you are not locked onto a target , the guns should try to follow  where you aim the cursor/central chevron  with your mouse. "Range" and "Firing range" should be displayed as above and correction should be disabled. This would allow players to aim and shoot whenever and wherever they want, at the cost of accuracy. This system should also be used when you are locked on to an  aerial target .
  • After you lock on to a surface target and before the initial range/bearing calculations are finished , the guns should  stop  following the mouse in the vertical axis and the "Firing range" should be set to the value it was at  right before  the lock-on. From there you would have to adjust the firing range  only through corrections , either with the mouse and/or the keybind. This would allow players to shoot while the range/bearing is being calculated, but it would be very inconvenient, and accuracy would depend totally on the players' skill.
  • After you have finished the initial range/bearing calculations on a surface target , the guns should automatically align  with the most recently calculated range,  even without  any input from the player. So it should be (actual range the guns are aimed at)=(firing range)=(measured range)+(correction) with measured range being periodically updated, and correction being a relative value that does not change unless you control it with a keybind and/or mouse movement. This would  remove  the need for constant scrolling.
  • For example, let's say your firing solution calculation time is 22 seconds, the firing solution update time is 12 seconds, and the enemy ship is at 7000m and closing(but players wouldn't know the range at this time). You're in a hurry and aim the central chevron slightly further than the target at 7300m and lock on. The firing range is set to 7300m and the camera starts following the target. You press the keybind to enable "Distance correction with mouse movement" and move the central chevron slightly closer than the target. This sets a correction value of -500m so that the firing range becomes 7300m - 500m = 6800m. 22 seconds after lock-on, the initial range/bearing calculations are completed with a measured range of 5000m. The firing range is automatically set to 5000m - 500m = 4500m. You disable "Distance correction with mouse movement" and adjust the correction value to -300m using the keybind. The firing range is set to 5000m - 300m = 4700m. After 12 seconds, the measured range is updated to 4500m. The guns are automatically set to fire at 4500m - 300m = 4200m. If you change the correction value to -400m, the guns would be set to fire at 4500m - 400m = 4100m.
• Correction value should be displayed as +000m when correcting further and -000m when correcting closer. It's more intuitive that way.
• Guns that have a caliber of  76mm and below (plus some larger caliber weapons on small boats such as the short-barrel 114mm gun on the Dark Adventurer and the 81mm mortar on several US PT boats) should  simply aim where you aim the cursor/central chevron  with your mouse and should not have any sort of range/bearing calculation and display (unless they used fire directors/rangefinders/fire control radar in real life). During WW2 in real life, such small caliber guns  lacked sophisticated FCSs  such as fire directors and rangefinders and were  individually aimed by their operators using simple direct-fire sights in most cases. With rapid-firing and automatic weapons, both the old and new in-game FCSs were/are more of a hindrance and annoyance and doesn't help you in any way, especially in RB. It is much simpler and semi-realistic to have those guns just follow where you aim. Only minor visual adjustments to the binocular reticle to match the appearance of the large caliber gun FCS HUD would be needed.
• The old turret indicators should be reintroduced and  used alongside  the new indicators. Both types of turret indicators have unique advantages. The old indicators allow players to  actually see  where each turret is aiming and where exactly the dead-zones are. They are also much easier to see in a glance, being near the center of the screen. On the other hand, the new indicators display information  separately for each turret , showing us  more detail . Showing players the reload timer in numbers for each turret is also very useful, especially for slow-firing turrets. The two indicator systems should be  combined  to give players a more complete indication of their turrets' status.
• Turrets should be given a  numerical identification  and the new turret indicators should use these numbers  to indicate which indicator is for which turret. The US Navy numerical system should be used for all ships, because it is more  generally recognizable  compared to the Royal Navy ABXY system. So the turrets would be numbered fore to aft, with turrets not on the centerline being assigned odd numbers on the port side and even numbers on the starboard side. The turret numbering count should be split between primary, secondary, and AA armament. Turret numbers should be shown in the X-ray view in hangar, and players would have to memorize it and/or apply the numbering system rules to figure out which turret is assigned which number. Unfortunately, putting a turret number diagram in the HUD, like in WoWS, would clog up the screen too much.
• The UI elements should be  reworked and repositioned . Range and correction should be displayed  only in the binocular reticle  and not attached to the target. The projectile drop indicator should be  removed from RB . It should be retained in AB, but it should be a  larger circle that is  within the game space  and not on the HUD. That way, the projectile drop indicator can  overlap  vehicles and terrain, allowing players to see clearly whether it is on target or not.
• The color of the various naval UI elements, such as text and indicators, should be  customizable , like how cursor color and the air crosshair color can be customized.
• "Shell splashes in:" should be replaced with "Fall of shot in:" which is a much more historically accurate term.
• Combining all suggestions, the first-person view UI should look something like this:
  Reveal hidden contents

  Arcade Battles:

   

  

   

  I originally wanted to use the RB "lead indicator" for AB as well, which is why the image looks like this. But I have changed my opinion, and changing the image is too much work, so ignore that part. The AB "lead indicator" should remain as is on the live server.

   

  Realistic Battles:

   

  

   

  The old turret indicators would not display reload. When the old turret indicators reach the center of the reticle and turn white, they would quickly  fade away  to prevent overlapping with the "lead indicator" and central chevron.

  Only the  "lead indicator"  should change color from red to green(or whatever color you have customized them to) when you aim near it. The  central chevron's color  should be used to indicate  reload  so that you can quickly check if you are ready to fire. The central chevron should be red if none of the guns aligned with it are ready to fire. It should be green if at least one gun aligned with it is ready to fire. Any more detailed information about reload is not needed here since you can check the new turret indicators for that.

   

  Small caliber guns in RB(AB only needs enemy markers and the projectile drop indicator on top of this):

   

  

   

  Here, the old turret indicators would display  reload and/or overheat and  not fade away  when they reach the center.

 

 

• The third-person view should display both the old and new turret indicators and the projectile drop indicator(only in AB) and the target bracket, but  nothing else  related to fire control(apart from the actual real-time distance to the enemy displayed in the AB markers).

• We absolutely need a proper detailed in-game tutorial(not the completely useless ones in the game right now) for naval fire control in AB and RB, similar to the advanced tutorials for aviation. This will help so many new players who leave naval because they are frustrated with the aiming system.

• The fall of shot bell should be  much louder . Currently, it is too quiet and easily drowned out by the sounds of battle.

• Maybe some sort of aircraft lead indicator for ships that had high-angle anti-aircraft fire directors with such capabilities IRL such as the USN Mark 37?

 

Unlike what some players think, the "lead indicator" is not an aimbot. It is only a reference point that becomes inaccurate when you or the target make course changes between firing solution update intervals. It reflects the historical capability of 20th century naval FCS to calculate firing solutions. That is why I’ve chosen to leave it as is for large caliber guns in RB. Any proper naval player should know to zigzag and change speed when under fire. If you sail in a straight line, you will be targeted and sunk very fast, no matter the type of FCS being used.

 

This suggestion isn't perfect and there could be some unforeseen issues. So it needs to be properly tested before being introduced, like with the overpressure damage mechanics but better. "Better" meaning it should be tested, feedback gathered and implemented, and tested again, and this should be repeated until the feedback is overwhelmingly positive.

I think the automatic range from the dev server needs to come back the rest is pretty good. small calibers DID have fcs systems they were follow the pointer systems usually. As seen below for italy. To those whining about "aimbot" Naval ships fcs system were literally the FIRST aimbot. The placeholder SHOULD be the ab system which is identical to the rb except the rangefinders that are bugged in rb work and the ui is green. 

[Razielkaine 4,876]

On 19/09/2021 at 01:46, kkang2828 said:

Within this suggestion, live server and new means the live server game as of patch 2.9.0.38. Dev server means the public dev server game for major update "Direct Hit", opened on September 1st to 2nd. Old means the live server game as of patch 2.7.0.235.

 

If you want to see how the old and dev server FCS and HUD looked like, just search it up on YouTube.

 

The current naval FCS and HUD, introduced with the major update "Direct Hit", is not very good to say the least. Compared to the old FCS and HUD, it has some pros but a lot of cons. And the old one was already problematic to begin with. On the other hand, the public dev-server for major update "Direct Hit", opened on September 1st to 2nd, had a much better version of the naval FCS and HUD, but it was bugged and didn't work properly. So I would like to suggest a much improved and user-friendly naval FCS and HUD based on the one from the dev-server.

 

I will start with the pros and cons of the live server version of the naval FCS and HUD, and then list my suggestions for improvements.

 

Pros:

• Having target bearing calculation, or "lead indicator", makes aiming more realistic and easier.
• Interesting possibility of differences in fire control equipment affecting gameplay for different ships and nations(it's all equal right now, but I assume that is just a placeholder).
• More visible direction/bearing indicator at the top of the screen, making it easier to communicate with other players.
• New turret indicators that display lots of useful information, such as the reload timer in seconds.

 

Cons:

• Constantly scrolling for correction is still a requirement.  The guns  do not  automatically align with the updated range. Instead, the actual gun elevation is still tied to the vertical movement of the mouse and the 'Distance correction' keybind. This is very repetitive and feels like a chore. Range/bearing calculation is also  still basically instantaneous  and the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator  does not  affect range calculation at all.  On the dev server version  of the FCS, it was clearly intended to have the guns automatically align with the most recently calculated range, with correction being a controllable value that was displayed and applied  relative  to the most recently calculated range. And range/bearing calculation actually took some time  that was displayed by the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator. It was bugged and didn't work as intended, but I liked the way it was intended to work. It's also annoying that the 'correction speed' is tied to the gun elevation speed because  you can't see  how much correction you are applying until the guns have finished moving. The fact that mouse vertical movement affects gun elevation is also annoying at times when you accidentally move the mouse vertically while moving it horizontally, and  you have to set the range again .
• The new turret indicators are not enough to fully replace the old indicators. You can't see where exactly  each of the guns/turrets are pointed at and where the dead-zones are . This makes aiming and shooting at aerial targets and fast small boats very hard. Also it's hard to tell exactly  which turret indicator  is displaying information for  which turret , especially for ships with lots of turrets.
• The UI elements are  scattered everywhere  with turret indicators at the bottom, range being attached to the target bracket/marker, and the actual firing range and the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator in the binoculars. It is hard to see everything at once. Also the UI elements can  overlap , making them unreadable.
• The projectile drop indicator(this includes the close range/anti-air circle-and-dot indicator) is nice for visualizing the corrections you're making, but  makes aiming too easy and too unrealistic in RB . In AB, it needs some improvements.
• Range somehow displaying  immediately  after target lock before the initial range measurements are finished is unrealistic and makes the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator even more useless .
• The color of UI elements are not ideal  with bright green everywhere.

 

Suggestions:

• Distance correction with mouse movement should be an  option  that can be turned on and off with a keybind . This would allow players to use it or not use it depending on the situation and their preferences.
• The  actual range the guns are aimed at  should be displayed  separately  from the  measured  range and the correction value, as all three values have their own usefulness. I propose the name "Firing range" for this value and it would show the actual range the guns are aimed at, at the speed of the gun elevation, like the range displayed below the central chevron in the live server version(but in meters instead of kilometers).  Measured range should be named "Range" and periodically updated , like on the dev server. Correction should be a  relative value that  does not change unless you control it with a keybind and/or mouse movement. This would display all the information needed for the player to accurately aim the guns(measured range to the target, amount of correction applied, actual range the guns are aimed at, and whether the guns have finished aiming) in an user-friendly way and make the changes below possible.
• Range should only display after  the initial range/bearing calculations are completed. Before that, it should be displayed as "- m" or something similar. It is more logical and realistic this way.
• The  vertical axis of aiming should work in 3 different modes as follows:
  • When you are not locked onto a target , the guns should try to follow  where you aim the cursor/central chevron  with your mouse. "Range" and "Firing range" should be displayed as above and correction should be disabled. This would allow players to aim and shoot whenever and wherever they want, at the cost of accuracy. This system should also be used when you are locked on to an  aerial target .
  • After you lock on to a surface target and before the initial range/bearing calculations are finished , the guns should  stop  following the mouse in the vertical axis and the "Firing range" should be set to the value it was at  right before  the lock-on. From there you would have to adjust the firing range  only through corrections , either with the mouse and/or the keybind. This would allow players to shoot while the range/bearing is being calculated, but it would be very inconvenient, and accuracy would depend totally on the players' skill.
  • After you have finished the initial range/bearing calculations on a surface target , the guns should automatically align  with the most recently calculated range,  even without  any input from the player. So it should be (actual range the guns are aimed at)=(firing range)=(measured range)+(correction) with measured range being periodically updated, and correction being a relative value that does not change unless you control it with a keybind and/or mouse movement. This would  remove  the need for constant scrolling.
  • For example, let's say your firing solution calculation time is 22 seconds, the firing solution update time is 12 seconds, and the enemy ship is at 7000m and closing(but players wouldn't know the range at this time). You're in a hurry and aim the central chevron slightly further than the target at 7300m and lock on. The firing range is set to 7300m and the camera starts following the target. You press the keybind to enable "Distance correction with mouse movement" and move the central chevron slightly closer than the target. This sets a correction value of -500m so that the firing range becomes 7300m - 500m = 6800m. 22 seconds after lock-on, the initial range/bearing calculations are completed with a measured range of 5000m. The firing range is automatically set to 5000m - 500m = 4500m. You disable "Distance correction with mouse movement" and adjust the correction value to -300m using the keybind. The firing range is set to 5000m - 300m = 4700m. After 12 seconds, the measured range is updated to 4500m. The guns are automatically set to fire at 4500m - 300m = 4200m. If you change the correction value to -400m, the guns would be set to fire at 4500m - 400m = 4100m.
• Correction value should be displayed as +000m when correcting further and -000m when correcting closer. It's more intuitive that way.
• Guns that have a caliber of  76mm and below (plus some larger caliber weapons on small boats such as the short-barrel 114mm gun on the Dark Adventurer and the 81mm mortar on several US PT boats) should  simply aim where you aim the cursor/central chevron  with your mouse and should not have any sort of range/bearing calculation and display (unless they used fire directors/rangefinders/fire control radar in real life). During WW2 in real life, such small caliber guns  lacked sophisticated FCSs  such as fire directors and rangefinders and were  individually aimed by their operators using simple direct-fire sights in most cases. With rapid-firing and automatic weapons, both the old and new in-game FCSs were/are more of a hindrance and annoyance and doesn't help you in any way, especially in RB. It is much simpler and semi-realistic to have those guns just follow where you aim. Only minor visual adjustments to the binocular reticle to match the appearance of the large caliber gun FCS HUD would be needed.
• The old turret indicators should be reintroduced and  used alongside  the new indicators. Both types of turret indicators have unique advantages. The old indicators allow players to  actually see  where each turret is aiming and where exactly the dead-zones are. They are also much easier to see in a glance, being near the center of the screen. On the other hand, the new indicators display information  separately for each turret , showing us  more detail . Showing players the reload timer in numbers for each turret is also very useful, especially for slow-firing turrets. The two indicator systems should be  combined  to give players a more complete indication of their turrets' status.
• Turrets should be given a  numerical identification  and the new turret indicators should use these numbers  to indicate which indicator is for which turret. The US Navy numerical system should be used for all ships, because it is more  generally recognizable  compared to the Royal Navy ABXY system. So the turrets would be numbered fore to aft, with turrets not on the centerline being assigned odd numbers on the port side and even numbers on the starboard side. The turret numbering count should be split between primary, secondary, and AA armament. Turret numbers should be shown in the X-ray view in hangar, and players would have to memorize it and/or apply the numbering system rules to figure out which turret is assigned which number. Unfortunately, putting a turret number diagram in the HUD, like in WoWS, would clog up the screen too much.
• The UI elements should be  reworked and repositioned . Range and correction should be displayed  only in the binocular reticle  and not attached to the target. The projectile drop indicator should be  removed from RB . It should be retained in AB, but it should be a  larger circle that is  within the game space  and not on the HUD. That way, the projectile drop indicator can  overlap  vehicles and terrain, allowing players to see clearly whether it is on target or not.
• The color of the various naval UI elements, such as text and indicators, should be  customizable , like how cursor color and the air crosshair color can be customized.
• "Shell splashes in:" should be replaced with "Fall of shot in:" which is a much more historically accurate term.
• Combining all suggestions, the first-person view UI should look something like this:
  Reveal hidden contents

  Arcade Battles:

   

  

   

  I originally wanted to use the RB "lead indicator" for AB as well, which is why the image looks like this. But I have changed my opinion, and changing the image is too much work, so ignore that part. The AB "lead indicator" should remain as is on the live server.

   

  Realistic Battles:

   

  

   

  The old turret indicators would not display reload. When the old turret indicators reach the center of the reticle and turn white, they would quickly  fade away  to prevent overlapping with the "lead indicator" and central chevron.

  Only the  "lead indicator"  should change color from red to green(or whatever color you have customized them to) when you aim near it. The  central chevron's color  should be used to indicate  reload  so that you can quickly check if you are ready to fire. The central chevron should be red if none of the guns aligned with it are ready to fire. It should be green if at least one gun aligned with it is ready to fire. Any more detailed information about reload is not needed here since you can check the new turret indicators for that.

   

  Small caliber guns in RB(AB only needs enemy markers and the projectile drop indicator on top of this):

   

  

   

  Here, the old turret indicators would display  reload and/or overheat and  not fade away  when they reach the center.

 

 

• The third-person view should display both the old and new turret indicators and the projectile drop indicator(only in AB) and the target bracket, but  nothing else  related to fire control(apart from the actual real-time distance to the enemy displayed in the AB markers).

• We absolutely need a proper detailed in-game tutorial(not the completely useless ones in the game right now) for naval fire control in AB and RB, similar to the advanced tutorials for aviation. This will help so many new players who leave naval because they are frustrated with the aiming system.

• The fall of shot bell should be  much louder . Currently, it is too quiet and easily drowned out by the sounds of battle.

• Maybe some sort of aircraft lead indicator for ships that had high-angle anti-aircraft fire directors with such capabilities IRL such as the USN Mark 37?

 

Unlike what some players think, the "lead indicator" is not an aimbot. It is only a reference point that becomes inaccurate when you or the target make course changes between firing solution update intervals. It reflects the historical capability of 20th century naval FCS to calculate firing solutions. That is why I’ve chosen to leave it as is for large caliber guns in RB. Any proper naval player should know to zigzag and change speed when under fire. If you sail in a straight line, you will be targeted and sunk very fast, no matter the type of FCS being used.

 

This suggestion isn't perfect and there could be some unforeseen issues. So it needs to be properly tested before being introduced, like with the overpressure damage mechanics but better. "Better" meaning it should be tested, feedback gathered and implemented, and tested again, and this should be repeated until the feedback is overwhelmingly positive.

100% This sounds like how i envisioned it was going to be on the dev server. 

 

For me id like the correction as it was on the dev server to be a constant. if i set it to -200m it should stay that way so when i range a target the guns are always that defined correction for shooting and compensating for closing ranges.   

 

I also think that shots splashing in the water should reduce the range finder by a percentage (maybe defined by the gunners skill) as this is how real gunnery worked combining the range finders and the fall of shot. 

 

And lastly and maybe pushing my luck when you first lock on to a ship you get a VERY rough range to target to start of your shots and speed up the range finding but then the longer you stay locked to that target and continue to fire volleys the accuracy increases from a starting accuracy of terrible to very accurate after 3 or 4 volleys.  if you lock to a different ship it resets the accuracy.  This is again more accurate and will make it harder to insta pop small boats in big ship battles and increase their chances of being productive and getting closer to the big fights.

[angelomorte 1,369]

1 hour ago, Razielkaine said:

100% This sounds like how i envisioned it was going to be on the dev server. 

 

For me id like the correction as it was on the dev server to be a constant. if i set it to -200m it should stay that way so when i range a target the guns are always that defined correction for shooting and compensating for closing ranges.   

 

I also think that shots splashing in the water should reduce the range finder by a percentage (maybe defined by the gunners skill) as this is how real gunnery worked combining the range finders and the fall of shot. 

 

And lastly and maybe pushing my luck when you first lock on to a ship you get a VERY rough range to target to start of your shots and speed up the range finding but then the longer you stay locked to that target and continue to fire volleys the accuracy increases from a starting accuracy of terrible to very accurate after 3 or 4 volleys.  if you lock to a different ship it resets the accuracy.  This is again more accurate and will make it harder to insta pop small boats in big ship battles and increase their chances of being productive and getting closer to the big fights.

I'm fine with that..... if they model for the Italians bergamini's developed way of measuring the splashes with a dedicated rangefinder and the computer automatically comparing with the previous estimated range for corrections. Only Italy had that irl and it allowed them to get strattles at extreme range within 2 salvos. It scared the British how quick they could get the range during a daytime engagement. With one sailor being quoted as "I didn't know the Italians could shoot like that".

[kkang2828 1,446]

23 hours ago, Bruce_R1 said:

So I'm guessing from the way that these changes tend to move in tandem that the AB and RB aiming systems can't be easily decoupled. It's really the same data and mechanics, just presented differently as a user interface. I suspect you couldn't revert RB to what it was without also reverting AB, and that's why they haven't done it, despite the obvious problems with RB aiming.

 

If you don't or can't do a full reversion for RB only, the problem becomes that before you had two separate inputs that could be differentiated (mouse and scroll wheel), plus you couldn't fire the guns until they were fully on lay. Now you can fire while your guns are still coming onto their vertical elevation and mouse, scroll wheel and the range effects of those guns still coming into lay all duel for that one green thumbtack ("shooting distance with correction") distance number). I suspect that's very difficult to untangle without significant code revisions and another U/I change. We may have no way out of this but forward at this point. Sorry to be a downer.

 

Do you think my 'emergency' stop-gap solution would also require significant code revisions?

 

21 hours ago, angelomorte said:

I think the automatic range from the dev server needs to come back the rest is pretty good. small calibers DID have fcs systems they were follow the pointer systems usually. As seen below for italy. To those whining about "aimbot" Naval ships fcs system were literally the FIRST aimbot. The placeholder SHOULD be the ab system which is identical to the rb except the rangefinders that are bugged in rb work and the ui is green. 

 

The automatic range and 'fixed' correction system from the dev server is one of the essential points of my suggestion. I suggest you read through my suggestion again. Or are you disagreeing with my specific method of implementation?

 

Also I know small caliber guns did have FCS on larger ships. But we have to consider coastals here. WW2-era MTBs and MGBs did not have FCS and their guns were individually aimed by the gun crews. Small caliber guns on bluewater vessels would have no problem using a simplified FCS, but small caliber guns on MTBs and gunboats would have a major problem with using the same FCS as large caliber guns. And separating the aiming systems for bluewater and coastal would be an unnecessary complication in an already complex suggestion. So the least problematic solution is to use the same simplified FCS and HUD for small caliber guns on all vessels.

 

That's why I suggested differentiating the FCS and HUD based on gun caliber only, since guns of different calibers already have different mechanics in the form of AI firing range limitations, meaning that the code for such differentiation already exists.

 

12 hours ago, Razielkaine said:

100% This sounds like how i envisioned it was going to be on the dev server. 

 

For me id like the correction as it was on the dev server to be a constant. if i set it to -200m it should stay that way so when i range a target the guns are always that defined correction for shooting and compensating for closing ranges.   

 

I also think that shots splashing in the water should reduce the range finder by a percentage (maybe defined by the gunners skill) as this is how real gunnery worked combining the range finders and the fall of shot. 

 

And lastly and maybe pushing my luck when you first lock on to a ship you get a VERY rough range to target to start of your shots and speed up the range finding but then the longer you stay locked to that target and continue to fire volleys the accuracy increases from a starting accuracy of terrible to very accurate after 3 or 4 volleys.  if you lock to a different ship it resets the accuracy.  This is again more accurate and will make it harder to insta pop small boats in big ship battles and increase their chances of being productive and getting closer to the big fights.

 

The correction value is a constant in my suggestion. Although I think it should be reset to zero when you lock on to another target, since you never know if you'll need to correct closer or further.

 

I think your other two ideas are nice, but would potentially remove too much skill from naval gameplay and add more of what some players call "RNG".

Edited September 24, 2021 by kkang2828

[kkang2828 1,446]

On 19/09/2021 at 01:16, kkang2828 said:

The correction value should change by a constant that is controlled by the multiplier. Ideally, one input should change the value by (500m) x (multiplier). Meaning that each press of the keybind(each step for the mouse wheel) should change the correction value by 50m if the multiplier is 10%, 100m at 20%, 150m at 30%, and so on. In the old system, the correction value changed at a fraction of the measured range, making it very hard to set the exact amount of correction you wanted.

 

Suggestion has been edited to include the above sentence. I'm not satisfied with this description so if anyone can suggest a better way to describe this it'll be very appreciated.

[Bruce_R1 2,118]

1 hour ago, kkang2828 said:

 

Do you think my 'emergency' stop-gap solution would also require significant code revisions?

The thing I've learned from doing a little of this IRL is an external advisor has no way of knowing how much or how little effort it will take to fix something in software. Often those people internal to the process have no idea until it's done. So out here we're all just guessing.

 

What I'd like to see right now towards the same end you want (which is a good one) is words from Gaijin saying they recognize RB naval aiming is still a problem and it's still unfinished, but they think they're going in a good direction. What would bother me is if they do a full revert and then give up because "players liked it better the old way so I guess there's no pleasing them."

 

We saw this with the damage model, which took successive changes, but is actually pretty good now (still problems, sure). But the trouble is whenever we get into that kind of progressive, slow development with any WT game mechanic you see the Content Creators and their minions whining about "they changed the data model again, wah, stop changing it." That is decidedly not how software works in the real world.

 

I suspect where they want to go is basically what you've outlined. They just may not know how to get there, yet. So we need to keep prodding them to admit it needs work, but also be a little patient too. I'd keep politely pushing.

[angelomorte 1,369]

9 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

 

Do you think my 'emergency' stop-gap solution would also require significant code revisions?

 

 

The automatic range and 'fixed' correction system from the dev server is one of the essential points of my suggestion. I suggest you read through my suggestion again. Or are you disagreeing with my specific method of implementation?

 

Also I know small caliber guns did have FCS on larger ships. But we have to consider coastals here. WW2-era MTBs and MGBs did not have FCS and their guns were individually aimed by the gun crews. Small caliber guns on bluewater vessels would have no problem using a simplified FCS, but small caliber guns on MTBs and gunboats would have a major problem with using the same FCS as large caliber guns. And separating the aiming systems for bluewater and coastal would be an unnecessary complication in an already complex suggestion. So the least problematic solution is to use the same simplified FCS and HUD for small caliber guns on all vessels.

 

That's why I suggested differentiating the FCS and HUD based on gun caliber only, since guns of different calibers already have different mechanics in the form of AI firing range limitations, meaning that the code for such differentiation already exists.

 

 

The correction value is a constant in my suggestion. Although I think it should be reset to zero when you lock on to another target, since you never know if you'll need to correct closer or further.

 

I think your other two ideas are nice, but would potentially remove too much skill from naval gameplay and add more of what some players call "RNG".

I mostly agreed with ur suggestion but I think low calibers in larger ships should have lead indicators from their fcs and shouldn't lack them because of the puddle pirates. 

[Razielkaine 4,876]

10 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

I think your other two ideas are nice, but would potentially remove too much skill from naval gameplay and add more of what some players call "RNG".

I see what you mean but i also think done right it will add skill to the game (lower accuracy and effectively knowing when to shoot will require skill and patience for which the current system lacks) as well as some realistic rng because real life big guns have RNG some guns and firing systems more then others but ultimately it will create an opening for the smaller ships to engage the larger ships in a far more realistic way.  In real life even with the fire control system big gun ships even at the end of ww2 were wiring multiple broadsides at  battleships and missing which is whi destroyers and cruisers had their place screening the battleships.

[kkang2828 1,446]

15 hours ago, Bruce_R1 said:

The thing I've learned from doing a little of this IRL is an external advisor has no way of knowing how much or how little effort it will take to fix something in software. Often those people internal to the process have no idea until it's done. So out here we're all just guessing.

 

What I'd like to see right now towards the same end you want (which is a good one) is words from Gaijin saying they recognize RB naval aiming is still a problem and it's still unfinished, but they think they're going in a good direction. What would bother me is if they do a full revert and then give up because "players liked it better the old way so I guess there's no pleasing them."

 

We saw this with the damage model, which took successive changes, but is actually pretty good now (still problems, sure). But the trouble is whenever we get into that kind of progressive, slow development with any WT game mechanic you see the Content Creators and their minions whining about "they changed the data model again, wah, stop changing it." That is decidedly not how software works in the real world.

 

I suspect where they want to go is basically what you've outlined. They just may not know how to get there, yet. So we need to keep prodding them to admit it needs work, but also be a little patient too. I'd keep politely pushing.

 

Yeah. The current DMs are acceptable and I honestly don’t think it can be enough reason for someone to quit naval completely. The current FCS and HUD, though, can totally make people quit and some have done so already and Gaijin has probably noticed it from their data.

 

I just hope you’re right and the naval FCS is still work in progress. The fact that it still says “Updating range” when it only affects the “lead indicator” really makes me question if this is the final version they want.

Edited September 25, 2021 by kkang2828

[kkang2828 1,446]

6 hours ago, Razielkaine said:

I see what you mean but i also think done right it will add skill to the game (lower accuracy and effectively knowing when to shoot will require skill and patience for which the current system lacks) as well as some realistic rng because real life big guns have RNG some guns and firing systems more then others but ultimately it will create an opening for the smaller ships to engage the larger ships in a far more realistic way.  In real life even with the fire control system big gun ships even at the end of ww2 were wiring multiple broadsides at  battleships and missing which is whi destroyers and cruisers had their place screening the battleships.

I personally wouldn’t mind your idea but unfortunately I don’t think it will be something a major portion of the naval community can agree on.

 

Even on the dev server some people were complaining “waaaahhh I can’t wait 22s to calculate range I wanna insta pop everything in my uber battleship/heavy cruiser!”.

 

Also correcting horizontally and vertically via observation of the fall of shot is already done by the player and that is really where player skill comes in for naval aiming IMHO. And the reason so many salvos missed IRL was the constant zigzagging by both sides, which messed up the firing solution. Smaller ships could zigzag tighter and faster, making them harder to hit. WW2-era FCSs could allow battleships to hit destroyers even at long range, provided that both ships were sailing in a straight line at a constant speed. This is partially reflected in-game with the “lead indicator” taking time to calculate and fully reflected in my suggestion with range taking time to calculate as well.

Edited September 25, 2021 by kkang2828

[angelomorte 1,369]

14 hours ago, kkang2828 said:

I personally wouldn’t mind your idea but unfortunately I don’t think it will be something a major portion of the naval community can agree on.

 

Even on the dev server some people were complaining “waaaahhh I can’t wait 22s to calculate range I wanna insta pop everything in my uber battleship/heavy cruiser!”.

 

Also correcting horizontally and vertically via observation of the fall of shot is already done by the player and that is really where player skill comes in for naval aiming IMHO. And the reason so many salvos missed IRL was the constant zigzagging by both sides, which messed up the firing solution. Smaller ships could zigzag tighter and faster, making them harder to hit. WW2-era FCSs could allow battleships to hit destroyers even at long range, provided that both ships were sailing in a straight line at a constant speed. This is partially reflected in-game with the “lead indicator” taking time to calculate and fully reflected in my suggestion with range taking time to calculate as well.

Yeah littorio taught the British that lesson when at sirte by hitting a couple of destroyers at range. The main defense of a destroyer irl and as it should be in game is the fact that the big boys have bigger fish to fry. In war thunders arena style combat often it's a rush to club who you can. When I play Zara I ignore destroyers and let them torp unless they get annoying like a fly as I focus on light and heavy cruisers to defend my destroyers. The problem is the battleship players would rather stomp destroyers than actually kill the enemy battleships. Naval ec mostly solves ALL of the issues. Destroyers being so much faster are able to employ the skirmisher roll they (except the American jack of all trades destroyers) were intended for. The convoy spawns on EC need to be frigate spawns (destroyer escorts like the first Clemson should be reclassed as escorts) for both teams tbh. This let's them preform their intended role (maybe ai subs with a sub chasing mini game with sonar working like radar!)  The new fcs in rb should honestly be replaced with the ab system for now. The system works identically if the enemy have no markers except it actually works. The new ab naval fcs makes it easier for beginners while allowing the experienced players to take shots the old fashioned way. 

[Imbesicles 1]

I think that Gaijin needs to fix the Direct Hit Naval Fire control system. The main issue that I have with it is that it's basically not possible to adjust for closing rate. In the old system, you could set the shooting range to the ship's range and position the crosshair so that the shot fell at a different point, but the displayed range would stay the same. This allowed you to easily adjust for the closing rate by just moving the crosshair like you would for horizontal adjustment and making sure that you kept the range equal to the ship's range as it changed. But you could keep the same offset.  Now, moving the crosshairs changes the range you're choosing, so you can't keep the vertical offset as you change the range.  You just have to try to figure out exactly how many meters you have to be off by and remember the number. I don't care how they do it, but they need to make it possible to get an offset for closing rate in the new aiming. It's practically unusable and I would prefer the old one to the new one, because I was actually more accurate with the old one. The little circle thing is also redundant because we have the arrows, and useless because when the shells land, the ship will be in a different place because it's moving. 

[kkang2828 1,446]

On 26/09/2021 at 10:55, Imbesicles said:

I think that Gaijin needs to fix the Direct Hit Naval Fire control system. The main issue that I have with it is that it's basically not possible to adjust for closing rate. In the old system, you could set the shooting range to the ship's range and position the crosshair so that the shot fell at a different point, but the displayed range would stay the same. This allowed you to easily adjust for the closing rate by just moving the crosshair like you would for horizontal adjustment and making sure that you kept the range equal to the ship's range as it changed. But you could keep the same offset.  Now, moving the crosshairs changes the range you're choosing, so you can't keep the vertical offset as you change the range.  You just have to try to figure out exactly how many meters you have to be off by and remember the number. I don't care how they do it, but they need to make it possible to get an offset for closing rate in the new aiming. It's practically unusable and I would prefer the old one to the new one, because I was actually more accurate with the old one. The little circle thing is also redundant because we have the arrows, and useless because when the shells land, the ship will be in a different place because it's moving. 

 

I don't know if you've read it, but in my suggestion, the correction value is fixed unless you control it yourself. So you can keep the offset for closing rate.

[slmq 1]

THIS NEW AIMING IN NAVAL BATTLES IS WORST CHANGE THERE EVER WAS...PLEASE RETUTRN THE OLD ONE.

[kkang2828 1,446]

15 hours ago, slmq said:

THIS NEW AIMING IN NAVAL BATTLES IS WORST CHANGE THERE EVER WAS...PLEASE RETUTRN THE OLD ONE.

 

No ranting here please. If you don't have any ideas to suggest, just do the poll and be done with it.

 

The old system had it's own problems. You'll know that if you've actually read through my suggestion.

Edited September 29, 2021 by kkang2828

[Norris_Aznable 35]

You'll have to forgive me since most of the proposal seem to get over my head. But there are certain cons I can agree with:
 

On 18/09/2021 at 10:16, kkang2828 said:

The UI elements are  scattered everywhere  with turret indicators at the bottom, range being attached to the target bracket/marker, and the actual firing range and the "Measuring/Updating range" indicator in the binoculars. It is hard to see everything at once. Also the UI elements can  overlap , making them unreadable.

This is something entirely true, the overlap not only make the game look unrefined, it's also hard to use.

On 18/09/2021 at 10:16, kkang2828 said:

The projectile drop indicator(this includes the close range/anti-air circle-and-dot indicator) is nice for visualizing the corrections you're making, but  makes aiming too easy and too unrealistic in RB . In AB, it needs some improvements.

I too find the inclusion of an aim assist in Naval RB to be skill nullifier, since even if you don't directly aim at the aim assist but can use it to gauge where you want to hit (with the target assist marker often landing shots to the center mass). Yes, the you can do evasive maneuvers to avoid getting "aimbotted" but it is still a pain to be shelled at spawn from across the map. That said, I do understand that FCS does have its place in naval combat and with the possibility of surface radar to make certain nations absolute killers of the sea...at the cost of turning Naval into "target lock, press mouse button = win" condition that currently plagues top tier air RB (also known as Missile Thunder to some).

 

Now for the suggestions itself, most of it goes over my head unfortunately but I do agree on mouse movement shouldn't effect ranging, rework the UI elements, and most certainly there should be more tutorials to accommodate newer mechanics.

[kkang2828 1,446]

On 02/10/2021 at 11:42, Norris_Aznable said:

I too find the inclusion of an aim assist in Naval RB to be skill nullifier, since even if you don't directly aim at the aim assist but can use it to gauge where you want to hit (with the target assist marker often landing shots to the center mass). Yes, the you can do evasive maneuvers to avoid getting "aimbotted" but it is still a pain to be shelled at spawn from across the map. That said, I do understand that FCS does have its place in naval combat and with the possibility of surface radar to make certain nations absolute killers of the sea...at the cost of turning Naval into "target lock, press mouse button = win" condition that currently plagues top tier air RB (also known as Missile Thunder to some).

 

I wasn't talking about the "lead indicator" in that line. I was talking about the projectile drop indicator, aka the "floaty green circle". It's supposed to show you where your shots will land, but it's very buggy and only serves as a confusion. It is too much of an aim assist in RB since you can observe the fall of shot to see where your shots land. That's why I suggested removing it.

 

As for the "lead indicator", it is not an aimbot because it reflects the real life capability of naval FCSs being able to calculate firing solutions. Being shelled at spawn is not a FCS problem, it's a map and game mode design problem, and it existed long before the new FCS. As long as we don't get into the post-1960s anti-ship missile era, naval won't turn into Missile thunder or "target lock, press mouse button = win". 

[Thunder0010@psn 358]

I liked the old targeting system a lot better than what we have now but i do like the timer for the guns that show you how long you have before your guns reload but i hate the new aiming system please go back to the old one or change the current one with something else.

[bigredsnake 29]

Save RB Naval?  I don't think that's going to happen until they lower the cost of ships or people realize what AB or RB Naval makes.  But the high cost I assume is why we have the high earnings. However flushing out range memorizers and evening the field only got rid of one trick ponies who didn't have a real skillset hence why they are complaining. 

 

As for the aiming system it IS better than the old one and I was no slouch in the old system either.  I won't say it wasn't annoying to adjust to and I miss the crosshair over the chevron but Russians do love their chevrons over crosshairs.  However the new system does help BBs and CAs actually get on target in a reasonable time now as opposed to before. It's not too much of an assist it's bringing reality into RB which is something that RB sorely lacks in all modes.

 

In real life one man does not aim on a ship DD and up.  There's literally teams of people ranging finding, using the targeting computers (even WW2 ships had mechanical computers), watching for shell dyes/splashes, etc.  If anything, ironically, AB is closer to reality than RB which goes double for the 800 to 1000 men all not aiming their AA guns until they are told to do so in RB making air attacks, especially torpedoing, that much easier.   The only thing realistic about RB is not having to dodge torpedoes from Japanese ships constantly.  The name tag thing is secondary since RB has a love hate relationship with them. 

 

The complaints are by the range memorizers which is what we all knew people were doing hence why someone could instantly put shells on you in the first volley in RB. Someone defending that being a game design or map issue is the same as the the guys who abused sniper rifles back in early 00s FPSs so almost every game has a hold your breath mode OR why COD hardcore modes removed the ability to fire grenade launchers off bat.  The ride is over now and people are sick of being the WT Naval equivalent of being Ace tubed in the spawn. 

 

As for Flipped Stug, since he claims this is why he left,  he was so influential I'd never heard of him until the usual crowd of "War Thunder contributors who aren't PhlyDaily" were doing their 9 millionth "why War Thunder will fail today" video. I thought DollarPlays was the only naval guy and he's still mostly a tanker. Either way a Naval contributor leaving because the new system makes it "too easy" is spoken like a Naval guy who's never played any other Naval Mil Sim game.  

 

Either way going back is going to the old system is mostly due is make range memorizers relevant and high fire rate supreme for the rest.  We just left that system all you have to calculate now is elevation and slightly adjust windage for the part of the ship you want to hit. 

 

The only parts I could agree with is the guns being visible in the crosshair area not at the bottom and making PT bottoms aim where they are pointed or if nothing else but more variance from the wind and waves so that the guys who memorized the Jaguar stop making the PT game all about one ship. 

 

Removing the mouse wheel altogether and making it all AI aimed I can live with ONLY is Golded out crews are a substantial advantage over not.   Say it takes 10 seconds for a gold crew to get on target vs the 30 for the regular crew.  That makes it beneficial to Gaijin and to those who actually support the game more than merely playing and complaining.  

 

[Norris_Aznable 35]

On 03/10/2021 at 05:05, kkang2828 said:

I was talking about the projectile drop indicator, aka the "floaty green circle". It's supposed to show you where your shots will land, but it's very buggy and only serves as a confusion. It is too much of an aim assist in RB since you can observe the fall of shot to see where your shots land. That's why I suggested removing it.

Ahhh I see what you mean now. In this case, yes, I'd vouch for the removal of this feature too!