143 replies to this topic

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

World of Warships is basically a 10 year old game called Navyfield with a fresh coat of paint. The gameplay and weapons implementations are almost identical down to each ballistics weapon having either armor piercing or high explosive rounds optional. If you want to see what World of Warships future looks like, you need look no further than what Navyfield has in the present. The only difference is the graphics and WoW being more of a first person shooter than a simulator.

Navyfield is basically the same game, except its more developed having been around longer. It has more ships. Each ship class and type mounts a different variety of weapons. Guns with a different number of barrels or bore. Torpedoes with differing number of tubes. Different engines for ships with different weight to speed ratios. The ship customization in Navyfield is basically the same as battletech. Its probably what the future of WoW represents, once they get balance issues sorted.

[IraqiWalker]

I Zeratul I, on 10 June 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

World of Warships is basically a 10 year old game called Navyfield with a fresh coat of paint. The gameplay and weapons implementations are almost identical down to each ballistics weapon having either armor piercing or high explosive rounds optional. If you want to see what World of Warships future looks like, you need look no further than what Navyfield has in the present. The only difference is the graphics and WoW being more of a first person shooter than a simulator.

Navyfield is basically the same game, except its more developed having been around longer. It has more ships. Each ship class and type mounts a different variety of weapons. Guns with a different number of barrels or bore. Torpedoes with differing number of tubes. Different engines for ships with different weight to speed ratios. The ship customization in Navyfield is basically the same as battletech. Its probably what the future of WoW represents, once they get balance issues sorted.

I'm not really concerned that much about WoW, since WarThunder is just gonna look at it, and make a better version, much like they did with WoT.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

IraqiWalker, on 10 June 2015 - 04:21 PM, said:

I'm not really concerned that much about WoW, since WarThunder is just gonna look at it, and make a better version, much like they did with WoT.

I think the upcoming title "Dreadnought" has the potential to be better than World of Warships.



It'kk be interesting to see what happens when it hits beta.

[Anjian]

I Zeratul I, on 10 June 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

World of Warships is basically a 10 year old game called Navyfield with a fresh coat of paint. The gameplay and weapons implementations are almost identical down to each ballistics weapon having either armor piercing or high explosive rounds optional. If you want to see what World of Warships future looks like, you need look no further than what Navyfield has in the present. The only difference is the graphics and WoW being more of a first person shooter than a simulator.

That's because the content is historical. Warship rounds are pretty much divided the same way, and similar to the way tank arounds are AP, APHE, APHEBC, APCR, HE and HEAT. Everything in WoWS is based on an actual ship, plus a few based on what could have been (Amagi battlecruisers, Ibuki and Zao heavy cruisers). So any game based on historical ships are going to have the same historical ships.

Quote

Navyfield is basically the same game, except its more developed having been around longer. It has more ships. Each ship class and type mounts a different variety of weapons. Guns with a different number of barrels or bore. Torpedoes with differing number of tubes. Different engines for ships with different weight to speed ratios. The ship customization in Navyfield is basically the same as battletech. Its probably what the future of WoW represents, once they get balance issues sorted.

Navyfield is NOT the same game. Navyfield works closer to an RTS or MOBA. You have this overhead views and such, and a player literally controlling the fleet, telling each ship where to go and what to shoot at. You are looking from a plane's view and your ship is something looking tiny at the water and the islands look like you are in a Google Earth map or something. You are telling where the ship to go by clicking on it, then clicking the point it has to travel, and to shoot on another ship, you click on that ship.

World of Warships is fundamentally, a third person shooter. The viewpoint is just outside of the ship, much like MWO's third person point of view. You control the ship much like you control a mech in MWO --- ASDW directional keys. Your mouse is used to aim, and you press the mouse to shoot. There is no assist in shooting, you literally have to your eye and hand coordination, your mental calculation to where the projectiles will fall, anticipating where your target will be in the next second --- its pure gunnery skill. This game requires you to AIM like you have never did before. Whereas Navyfield is more like EVE Online in 2D space, click, click and click.

WoWS also has the same basic structure as any World of Warstuff games, the tiering systems for example. Objective goals are also similar to a shooter's, like Domination modes, which you maybe familiar in CoD and War Thunder.

[Anjian]

Watch these clips and you tell me how same or different Navyfield is to World of Warships. Other than involving warships, they are literally two separate genres. What I am seeing is basically a massive multiplayer RTS.



Now see this.



Jesus, that's a third person or isometric shooter, not an overhead strategy game. Its genre mechanics are closer to MWO, while Navyfield is closer to Warcraft.

Edited by Anjian, 10 June 2015 - 07:28 PM.

[Anjian]

WoWS looks like it will be heading to Open Beta soon. CBT accounts will have ship and crew progress reset unfortunately. But they will get a premium battleship for free, the USS Arkansas. Rocking now in my IJN Myoko, for the time moment at least.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Anjian, on 10 June 2015 - 07:02 PM, said:

Watch these clips and you tell me how same or different Navyfield is to World of Warships. Other than involving warships, they are literally two separate genres. What I am seeing is basically a massive multiplayer RTS.

The clip you posted shows the gameplay from a carrier's perspective. Its launching aircraft and directing them in bombing/torpedo runs.

This is moreso the clip you're looking for which shows ship vs ship combat.



Navyfield is virtually identical to World of Warships. One is an overhead 2D game. The other is more of a 3D shooter. Its the same game. The perspective, player camera orientation and graphics are the only things that are different.

[IraqiWalker]

I Zeratul I, on 10 June 2015 - 05:50 PM, said:

I think the upcoming title "Dreadnought" has the potential to be better than World of Warships.



It'kk be interesting to see what happens when it hits beta.

I'm looking forward to it, but It already has a very solid competitor:

Fractured Space



Might not work the exact same way, but it's a good time to be alive if you're a fan of giant space ships.

[Anjian]

I Zeratul I, on 10 June 2015 - 08:22 PM, said:

The clip you posted shows the gameplay from a carrier's perspective. Its launching aircraft and directing them in bombing/torpedo runs.

This is moreso the clip you're looking for which shows ship vs ship combat.



Navyfield is virtually identical to World of Warships. One is an overhead 2D game. The other is more of a 3D shooter. Its the same game. The perspective, player camera orientation and graphics are the only things that are different.

That is still massively different. Its literally a difference in game genre. The 2D perspective is not a shooter. Its marking targets which the avatars are autonomously shooting. That is what things do in Starcraft or in Warcraft or in Command and Conquer Generals. It has no skill aiming element, and it doesn't have physics, like the way the ships would tilt when they turn hard, or the way they slowly accelerate, or the way the projectiles fly in the sky. These are things so fundamental that they require a game engine for this.

World of Warships isn't more of a 3D shooter --- it is absolutely a 3D shooter, 100%, and it becomes a first person shooter when you switch to the zoom perspective. It is in the same genre as Mechwarrior Online, World of Tanks and War Thunder. It is much closer to Call of Duty than it is with Command and Conquer Generals. You are talking about a game whose game engine is akin to the Unreal Engine or Crytek engine.

Its quite obvious you never looked or played World of Warships before. Have you ever played an RTS game like Star Craft or Total Annihilation, then play a shooter like HALO?

Edited by Anjian, 10 June 2015 - 09:37 PM.

[Rushin Roulette]

Anjian, on 10 June 2015 - 09:36 PM, said:

Its quite obvious you never looked or played World of Warships before. Have you ever played an RTS game like Star Craft or Total Annihilation, then play a shooter like HALO?

More like a 3rd person shooter such as Dead Space or Mass Effect actually if you want to get an even better comparison between the 2 genres.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Anjian, on 10 June 2015 - 09:36 PM, said:

That is still massively different. Its literally a difference in game genre. The 2D perspective is not a shooter. Its marking targets which the avatars are autonomously shooting. That is what things do in Starcraft or in Warcraft or in Command and Conquer Generals. It has no skill aiming element, and it doesn't have physics, like the way the ships would tilt when they turn hard, or the way they slowly accelerate, or the way the projectiles fly in the sky. These are things so fundamental that they require a game engine for this.

World of Warships isn't more of a 3D shooter --- it is absolutely a 3D shooter, 100%, and it becomes a first person shooter when you switch to the zoom perspective. It is in the same genre as Mechwarrior Online, World of Tanks and War Thunder. It is much closer to Call of Duty than it is with Command and Conquer Generals. You are talking about a game whose game engine is akin to the Unreal Engine or Crytek engine.

Its quite obvious you never looked or played World of Warships before. Have you ever played an RTS game like Star Craft or Total Annihilation, then play a shooter like HALO?

2D chess and 3D chess are in different genres. Does it mean they're two completely different games? What is relevent here isn't whether a game falls under a 2D or 3D heading. Its not about genre. Its more a question of how similar or dissimilar game mechanics are.

Navyfield does have a skill aiming element similar to WoW's. It has spreads of torpedoes. It has deck bouncing of high explosive rounds with armor piercing being necessary under conditions where one is facing heavily armored foes. It has the same turning and evasive actions even if the player base isn't yet developed enough to utilize them effectively as navyfield does. The game mechanics are essentially identical even if the specific aiming mechanisms and perspectives are slightly different. Being in different genre's doesn't change that. Neither does what platform or engine the game is implemented on change whether game mechanics are the same.

BTW, you're asking someone with a username I Zeratul I if they've played starcraft? You think I come up with these mesopotamian deity names on my own.

Let's say that monopoly has a board game edition and a multiplayer online edition. Does that mean each implementation is completely different from the other due to them being on different platforms?

[Gayang3]

I Zeratul I, on 11 June 2015 - 06:06 AM, said:

2D chess and 3D chess are in different genres. Does it mean they're two completely different games? What is relevent here isn't whether a game falls under a 2D or 3D heading. Its not about genre. Its more a question of how similar or dissimilar game mechanics are.

Navyfield does have a skill aiming element similar to WoW's. It has spreads of torpedoes. It has deck bouncing of high explosive rounds with armor piercing being necessary under conditions where one is facing heavily armored foes. It has the same turning and evasive actions even if the player base isn't yet developed enough to utilize them effectively as navyfield does. The game mechanics are essentially identical even if the specific aiming mechanisms and perspectives are slightly different. Being in different genre's doesn't change that. Neither does what platform or engine the game is implemented on change whether game mechanics are the same.

BTW, you're asking someone with a username I Zeratul I if they've played starcraft? You think I come up with these mesopotamian deity names on my own.

Let's say that monopoly has a board game edition and a multiplayer online edition. Does that mean each implementation is completely different from the other due to them being on different platforms?

I looked at the Navyfield game play video and the only thing it has common with World Or Warships is that they are both played on a computer and they both have ships.

Everything else is different.

It's like saying Lord of the Rings and Sideways are both the same, because they are both films and have actors in it.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Gayang3, on 11 June 2015 - 07:47 AM, said:

I looked at the Navyfield game play video and the only thing it has common with World Or Warships is that they are both played on a computer and they both have ships.

Everything else is different.

It's like saying Lord of the Rings and Sideways are both the same, because they are both films and have actors in it.

In World of Warships you aim with crosshairs and lead your targets. In navyfield you aim with guidelines and lead your targets. In WoW you lead your targets and can launch spreads of torpedoes. Navyfield is the same. The gameplay and mechanics are virtually identical. The only difference is WoW has a first person perspective with 3d graphics and navyfield utilizes an overhead 2d perspective.

So no they aren't completely different things no matter how much people might want to pretend they are.

Saying that navyfield and WoW are completely different is like saying mechwarrior online and mechwarrior 4 are completely different. They both retain many similar characteristics and gameplay traits, even if they do tend to evolve over time.

[Anjian]

I Zeratul I, on 11 June 2015 - 10:11 AM, said:

In World of Warships you aim with crosshairs and lead your targets. In navyfield you aim with guidelines and lead your targets. In WoW you lead your targets and can launch spreads of torpedoes. Navyfield is the same. The gameplay and mechanics are virtually identical. The only difference is WoW has a first person perspective with 3d graphics and navyfield utilizes an overhead 2d perspective.

So no they aren't completely different things no matter how much people might want to pretend they are.

Saying that navyfield and WoW are completely different is like saying mechwarrior online and mechwarrior 4 are completely different. They both retain many similar characteristics and gameplay traits, even if they do tend to evolve over time.

What you describe with Navyfield and the way it shoots is basically a 2D ARCADE game. That puts Navyfield closer in its architectural roots to games like Defender and Space Invaders. WoWS on the other hand would have a game engine evolution whose operating principles belong and ultimately derived from, 3D shooters. The only thing that are common with those games are the content and lore, but the entire concept, entire execution, the entire architecutre and focus of the two games are different. And yes, just because you still have to manually aim on Navyfield, does not mean its that different from a game like Starcraft or Warcraft. The only difference is that the avatars have automatic aiming and firing. As a third person shooter, WoWS architecturally is much more closer to third person shooters, RPGs and adventure games like Tomb Raider and Max Payne. In fact, its game engine are used in 3D RPGs.

Of course, ships when they shoot has to lead. Of course when they shoot torpedos, its the same way. But that is how they did it in real life. The real life lore shapes the way they look, act and behave. Your attempt to imply that WoWS is a copy of Navyfield because of this is lame. You are only referring to the content layer, not its underlying fundamentals. WoWS didn't copy that from Navyfield, they took it from history.

Do you understand that programming and developing a 3D game with realistic physics is far far more complex than a 2D arcade game with vorlex animations?

And far more from a new paint job, the models in WoWS are incredibly detailed and almost photographic. You can see the weld seams in the turrets, the rust curtains on the hulls, the radars turning, and the flags fluttering in the wind. You see your battleship, the sun reflecting on the water, the water being cleaved by its bow, and the US flag fluttering proudly in the wind at the stern of the ship. Wow that gives you the feels.

And Jesus Christ, if you ever played WoWS, it isn't just a crosshair, but every turret in the ship has an individual crosshair (targeting circle) that also indicates their individual status when they are ready to shoot or not, since all the turrets have individual transverses. Some turrets are ready and some may still be getting into position, and some have different firing arcs. Converging the target circles provides the optimum damage. Every shot that comes out of those turrets have a slightly different aim and RNG factor. The only other game I have seen multiple crosshairs are in War Thunder with the multiturret tanks, but the way its implemented in WoWs takes the mechanic to a whole new level.

There are guidelines in WoWS which is used for the torpedoes, but they are not really just guidelines but joined with transverse cones that shows you how the torpedoes are going to spread out. Those cones are in turn, governed by the geometric position of the torpedo tubes and their individual allowable transverse.

Edited by Anjian, 11 June 2015 - 07:33 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

Anjian, on 11 June 2015 - 06:54 PM, said:

What you describe with Navyfield and the way it shoots is basically a 2D ARCADE game. That puts Navyfield closer in its architectural roots to games like Defender and Space Invaders. WoWS on the other hand would have a game engine evolution whose operating principles belong and ultimately derived from, 3D shooters. The only thing that are common with those games are the content and lore, but the entire concept, entire execution, the entire architecutre and focus of the two games are different. And yes, just because you still have to manually aim on Navyfield, does not mean its that different from a game like Starcraft or Warcraft. The only difference is that the avatars have automatic aiming and firing. As a third person shooter, WoWS architecturally is much more closer to third person shooters, RPGs and adventure games like Tomb Raider and Max Payne. In fact, its game engine are used in 3D RPGs.

Of course, ships when they shoot has to lead. Of course when they shoot torpedos, its the same way. But that is how they did it in real life. The real life lore shapes the way they look, act and behave. Your attempt to imply that WoWS is a copy of Navyfield because of this is lame. You are only referring to the content layer, not its underlying fundamentals.

Do you understand that programming and developing a 3D game with realistic physics is far far more complex than a 2D arcade game with vorlex animations?

And Jesus Christ, if you ever played WoWS, it isn't just a crosshair, but every turret in the ship has an individual crosshair (targeting circle) that also indicates their individual status when they are ready to shoot or not, since all the turrets have individual transverses. Some turrets are ready and some may still be getting into position, and some have different firing arcs. Converging the target circles provides the optimum damage. Every shot that comes out of those turrets have a slightly different aim and RNG factor. The only other game I have seen multiple crosshairs are in War Thunder with the multiturret tanks, but the way its implemented in WoWs takes the mechanic to a whole new level.

There are guidelines in WoWS which is used for the torpedoes, but they are not really just guidelines but joined with transverse cones that shows you how the torpedoes are going to spread out. Those cones are in turn, governed by the geometric position of the torpedo tubes and their individual allowable transverse.

Sorry Anjian, but I think you're over-exaggerating some things here. The fact that manual aim is required in Navy field means it's extremely closer to WoWs than you make it seem, and equally distant from games like SC. Just because they share a top down view, doesn't mean they're similar. Simplest part of it is that one is an RTS, with no manual aim, while the other one is a top down shooter.

Also, it seems like Navyfield uses a LOT of variables in there that make it closer to WoWs. Yes one is 3D, and the other isn't, but that seems to be the main difference between the two, while the actual active mechanisms are the same. Yes, you can't jump into the turret on your ship, like you can in WoWs, and aim that way, but you still have to judge speed, turns, and eye ball things when aiming in Navyfield.

FOR THE RECORD:

I am on neither side of the argument. Just trying to clarify that the differences aren't that big between NF, and WoWs. I am a neutral party.

[Anjian]

I am sorry but I don't think you even understand how the sheer complexities of a 3D shooter. A 2D aim and shoot like in Navyfield has no flight physics --- acceleration, apogee, deceleration, drag, gravity, random cone of error --- like a 3D game. What essentially you have on a 2D shooter is an animation, and the results already determined by a spreadsheet the moment you press the button, on a collision between an X and Y grid.

The only similarities between the games are the lore. Navyfield won't even attempt on the simulated physics, which does matter greatly on a game like this, just like the speed of the ER PPCs matter greatly for their accuracy. There are these nuances that affect the game balance, like the way Japanese heavy cruisers have a flatter, lower trajectory, faster projectiles compared to US heavy cruisers, which on the other hand, got better firing arcs and faster turret transverses, not to mention having less than awkward turret positions. The 3D maps matter as it makes a difference between being able to fire OVER the island or not. The 3D firing arcs of the secondary armaments all matter in the AA as your ship defends against bombers. Another important nuance in WoWS is that when you turn the ship in an angle against who is shooting at you, the angle increases the deflection of the incoming shots, making some of them hit you harmlessly, decreasing your ship damage. All these nuances that revolve around physics enables you to create various tactics around them and those things are not replicable on 2D games.

Then there is the experience of driving a ship. This isn't something you click on an avatar, then point to where you want to go on the map with your mouse. You are moving a ship with your keys, left, right, forward, reverse, stop. There is that driving experience. Your destroyer nimbly cuts through the water and when it turns, you see the ship tilt, you hear the ship straining as it attempts the turn. Your battleship on the other hand, won't stop even if you put it on reverse, and it only happens sometime after it. It makes you feel that 40,000 ton weight. And because of this, there is a strong skill element in your success and survival, like in order to avoid this spread of torpedoes headed towards you, you have to turn towards the spread, then carefully drive between two of the torpedoes. Plus every ship has its own "driving signature", some handle better than others, some has higher speeds, others have tighter turning circles, some are top heavy and tilt a bit more when the ship bites into a hard turn. These things can affect what your preferred choice of the ship in the game.

So there is a strong skill element here, and the need to coordinate your driving skills with your shooting skills. That is much more like a game like MWO or War Thunder or Gears of War. A game like WoWS does not make you feel you are playing on top of a map with a god view, feeling that you are controlling pieces on a chessboard. Rather, the game experience makes you feel that your ship is like an extension of yourself.

Edited by Anjian, 11 June 2015 - 08:19 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

No I do understand the complexities. I'm just saying that it's not as big of a difference as you make it out to be. Notice that I'm not saying they are similar. Just not as different as you make them out to be.

[Leiska]

Anjian, on 09 June 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

Stomps don't often happen in World of Warships because of very large maps, and because each warship has ginormous amount of HP that it takes a very long time (in game time) to kill them.

Why wouldn't people just blob up and deathball you, as is popular in MWO?

[Anjian]

IraqiWalker, on 11 June 2015 - 09:11 PM, said:

No I do understand the complexities. I'm just saying that it's not as big of a difference as you make it out to be. Notice that I'm not saying they are similar. Just not as different as you make them out to be.

Seriously it is a big difference. 2D vs. 3D is like Galaga vs. Star Citizen. Not saying it won't be fun, but it would be more like LoL or DoTA 2 kind of fun.

Leiska, on 12 June 2015 - 03:07 AM, said:

Why wouldn't people just blob up and deathball you, as is popular in MWO?

That will be a nice way to get a whole bunch of people sunk with a single torpedo spread.

Edited by Anjian, 12 June 2015 - 09:10 AM.

[Gayang3]

Leiska, on 12 June 2015 - 03:07 AM, said:

Why wouldn't people just blob up and deathball you, as is popular in MWO?

Good question. It does happen, for example I've gone around a island in my fast torpedo destroyer and come in to the middle of a armada and yeah, those times I quickly got focus fired on. But it has happened like 5/100 times and that too mostly due to me being over zealous.

I think why it doesn't happen often is due to a couple of reasons

• most of the the maps are super large and you spawn spread across the map along a front. So it's hard to group up and go in a bunch focus firing on everyone and everything. For example you can go a whole game, 10 15mts going in a straight line at full speed and still not get to the end of the map, that's how large these maps are.
  
• gun ranges are vastly different. In MWO everyone can mount any weapon. So even the Raven can gauss you from 1000-1500m away. This encourages blobbing, since everyone in the blob can shoot at anything. In WOWs the destroyers have about 7-10mile firing range and the large battleships can shoot to 20miles away. So if a destroyer blobs up with a battleship he aint shooting no one.

Sure you do get armadas, but they are mostly 3, 4 ships and not all 12 of them rolling together like what we get with MWO most of the time. And often the armada is how ships were supposed to travel as well

Edited by Gayang3, 12 June 2015 - 10:01 AM.