World of Warships- Guided Missiles

[Chysagon]

World of Warships- Guided Missiles-again,--no idea what to think of this one off event ?-part of me says no and part why not...mixed feelings or just another LMB shill post ?

[Wolfswetpaws]

6 minutes ago, Chysagon said:

or just another LMB shill post ?

Heh.  Could be.  ^^^^^  🙂 

That said, World of Warships expanding into the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's and later, to include ships equipped with missiles and add more tiers of play, is possible.
But, that segment of the market is already crowded with other game titles. 
And the potential profits for WG/WOWs might not be enough to justify the expenditure of research and programming labor?  
  
 

[Itwastuesday]

Doubtful. Ships with rocket artillery maybe. My guess is that guided torpedoes are only in the game because they figured submarine gameplay is too boring if you have no buttons to press in between torpedo launches. A surface ship has plenty to do so what would guided missiles add to that gameplay? Like WG still has reasons they do gameplay things, stupid and horrible as they may be. 

[Ensign Cthulhu]

I'm not giving Mountbatten the clicks, as I consider his work to be unreliable, substandard and hyper-partisan. Do you have another source, or can you summarize?

I think they tried missiles many years ago and gave it up, then recycled one of the test assets without them, giving us what we now know as Neustrashimy. 

If he's ranting about what Lesta is doing, that's a whole different ball-game already anyway. 

Speaking of Lesta, though... I was watching the NA stream last night, and someone complained about detonations in chat. Boggzy said something might be happening about that, and this brings to mind a post someone made about a Lesta devblog some time back in which they announced massive changes to signals, one consequence of which would be the complete removal of the detonation mechanic. So that makes me wonder if we will also now be getting those changes. I wish I'd bookmarked that discussion now. If anyone else has a link to it, it's probably worth posting here and keeping an eye out for news. 

[Admiral_Karasu]

3 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I'm not giving Mountbatten the clicks, as I consider his work to be unreliable, substandard and hyper-partisan. Do you have another source, or can you summarize?

I think they tried missiles many years ago and gave it up, then recycled one of the test assets without them, giving us what we now know as Neustrashimy. 

If he's ranting about what Lesta is doing, that's a whole different ball-game already anyway. 

Speaking of Lesta, though... I was watching the NA stream last night, and someone complained about detonations in chat. Boggzy said something might be happening about that, and this brings to mind a post someone made about a Lesta devblog some time back in which they announced massive changes to signals, one consequence of which would be the complete removal of the detonation mechanic. So that makes me wonder if we will also now be getting those changes. I wish I'd bookmarked that discussion now. If anyone else has a link to it, it's probably worth posting here and keeping an eye out for news. 

Tried to have a look, but looks like he's got a monopoly on this subject.

[Frostbow]

19 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I'm not giving Mountbatten the clicks, as I consider his work to be unreliable, substandard and hyper-partisan. Do you have another source, or can you summarize?

Don't ask for a summary if you have already closed your mind to Mountbatten's content. 😂

And remember, a true mark of intellectual honesty is the ability to read/listen/consume material not only with which you agree, but with which you disagree. 💪

[Ensign Cthulhu]

So I watched three seconds of it and he's commenting on the Star Trek special mode.

18 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

And remember, a true mark of intellectual honesty is the ability to read/listen/consume material not only with which you agree, but with which you disagree.

I'm not obliged to watch sensationalist clickbait, which by its very nature is misleading and which in my opinion is what Mountbatten produces.

His thumbnail features a line of WW2 warships and the title "Missiles are in the works", conveniently omitting any hint of the fact that he's discussing a temporary special collaboration mode. This is misleading at best and IMHO outright dishonest, and it goes beyond "the ability to consume material with which I disagree". 

Had he titled it something like "Missiles in Star Trek collab mode: a sign of things to come?" and given us an appropriate thumbnail, I would have been far more charitable about it. 

He may well be right in the long run, as the Halloween/space modes have been used to test quite a few things that made their way into the main game, but by virtue of his thumbnail making this assertion as a statement of established fact and presenting a misleading context, he is engaging in tabloid journalism, not responsible journalism. And if you want to talk about intellectual honesty, tabloid journalism is not that. 

Edited October 11 by Ensign Cthulhu

[Frostbow]

1 minute ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

I'm not obliged to watch sensationalist clickbait, which in my opinion is what Mountbatten produces.

Then don't ask for a summary of his content. 😂

[Wolfswetpaws]

21 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

Don't ask for a summary if you have already closed your mind to Mountbatten's content. 😂

And remember, a true mark of intellectual honesty is the ability to read/listen/consume material not only with which you agree, but with which you disagree. 💪

Heh. 
There's a bit of merit in your asserted concept. 
At least, it would be within the job description of a Censor or an Signal-Intel gatherer/listener who was expected to be aware of even the most dubious broadcasts.
That being said.
Those of us who have previously viewed "controversial" content creators aren't obligated to continue to "drink their kool-aid", though.
https://wordhistories.net/2022/04/26/drink-kool-aid/  

This forum also expects some "truth in labeling" regarding the sources used when forum topics are created, does it not? 
According to recently revealed editorial policies?

Personally, I think people can be forgiven for not wanting to give "clicks" (that result in advertising revenue for content creators and increased viewership numbers that foster their success without improving their content).
Might be an "agree to disagree" phenomena, though.  🙂   
 

[Admiral_Karasu]

I've watched some of Mountbatten's videos and I haven't had major issues watching them. IIRC, you can easily find the relevant section of his videos if you are only interested in like one thing on the video. He's also easy enough to listen to, but it's just weird how his voice 'looks' nothing like what he actually looks like.

[Taylor3006]

Mountbatten is probably one of the least offensive Youtubers for WoWS material IMHO. You want "clickbait" just look at Wargaming's site.... Plenty of YouTubers use clickbaity titles. It isn't rare at all and just demonstrably silly to think it is. 

They didn't call them missiles the first time out, nor did they call them rockets. They called them "flying torpedoes".... No joke, that is literally what they said and the comments section on that video were glorious. It was a Halloween event IIRC. 

Personally I don't care what they do with the game any more. As I have said before, WoWS is more a bad habit than something I truly enjoy. I am thankful to Wargaming though. When they stopped support for Mac, I bought a PC and that opened up a huge vista of wonderful games to play. I discovered Witcher, Fallout 3, Fallout NV, Fallout 4, Assassins' Creed,  Skyrim, Divinity, Outer Worlds, Starfield, Mass Effect, etc. Had Ships not stopped Mac support, it would be the main game I spent my time and money on. 

Edited October 11 by Taylor3006

[ArIskandir]

I don't know why so much surprise about missiles, homing torps are guided missiles... it is not a matter of if but when they are gonna be implemented. I'm curious about the final form they'll take.

I have serious doubts the form showed for the event (autofire on succesful ping) is gonna be the 'final' form, it comes paired with a 'shield' mechanic you have to deplete first which seems complicated (as in a stretch of imagination) to implement for the base game. I still believe it should be some form of multiple ping requirement to get a firing solution. The as-shown fire-and-forget mechanic offers little counterplay so it shouldn't stand... but these days you never know (looking at Hildebrands DBs).

[pepe_trueno]

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

I don't know why so much surprise about missiles, homing torps are guided missiles... it is not a matter of if but when they are gonna be implemented. I'm curious about the final form they'll take.

I have serious doubts the form showed for the event (autofire on succesful ping) is gonna be the 'final' form, it comes paired with a 'shield' mechanic you have to deplete first which seems complicated (as in a stretch of imagination) to implement for the base game. I still believe it should be some form of multiple ping requirement to get a firing solution. The as-shown fire-and-forget mechanic offers little counterplay so it shouldn't stand... but these days you never know (looking at Hildebrands DBs).

we all know its coming

anything with homing capability is a bad idea for a game like world of warships.  If they are going to  introduce them they should work like dutch airstrike, Select an area --->missiles are fired and bombard the area some time later. Give them health and treat them as planes so AA can attempt to take them down.

[ArIskandir]

2 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

anything with homing capability is a bad idea for a game like world of warships. 

I don't think homing per se is unworkable, but it can't be fire-and-forget like most people asume homing Will work. You can insert skill checks/actions within the process of homing. For example: a requirement to keep pinging the target every few seconds else the homing is Lost. 

2 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

If they are going to  introduce them they should work like dutch airstrike, Select an area --->missiles are fired and bombard the area some time later

That's just the same as Airstrikes and that would be rockets. Missiles should be different, else there's no point. 

2 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

Give them health and treat them as planes so AA can attempt to take them down.

Indeed. It would be a way to provide added value to AA builds.

[Wulf_Ace]

6 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

So I watched three seconds of it and he's commenting on the Star Trek special mode.

I'm not obliged to watch sensationalist clickbait, which by its very nature is misleading and which in my opinion is what Mountbatten produces.

His thumbnail features a line of WW2 warships and the title "Missiles are in the works", conveniently omitting any hint of the fact that he's discussing a temporary special collaboration mode. This is misleading at best and IMHO outright dishonest, and it goes beyond "the ability to consume material with which I disagree". 

Had he titled it something like "Missiles in Star Trek collab mode: a sign of things to come?" and given us an appropriate thumbnail, I would have been far more charitable about it. 

He may well be right in the long run, as the Halloween/space modes have been used to test quite a few things that made their way into the main game, but by virtue of his thumbnail making this assertion as a statement of established fact and presenting a misleading context, he is engaging in tabloid journalism, not responsible journalism. And if you want to talk about intellectual honesty, tabloid journalism is not that. 

If there is only some cheap solution not to detonate, if only..

[Sumseaman]

7 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

So I watched three seconds of it and he's commenting on the Star Trek special mode.

I'm not obliged to watch sensationalist clickbait, which by its very nature is misleading and which in my opinion is what Mountbatten produces.

Indeed. Such behaviour warrants, no demands immediate closure of the channel. At the very least demonetisation and mass loss of subscriptions. It's akin to anime p0rn.

Seriously though indulging in blatant clickbait really brings about dubious credibility. Quality of content not quantity.

Missiles would bring more tears. You can never have enough.

Edited October 11 by Sumseaman

[Sidelock]

Why are people surprised by this?.

Aside from the obvious need to keep adding new content, it was just a matter of time this happend. With games like Gaijin Modern Warships or the upcoming Micropose Sea Power (MW and Sea Power on the same sentence? Heresy!!) it was natural for WG to follow suit. Then again, this is all based on an event mechanic based on Star Trek game mode. Still, halloween events are totally not test modes for future content (cough, submarines, cough)

Also, the missile mechanic has existed since forever, or people here suddenly forgets torpedo ping exists?, because that is essentialy the same to missile mid-course correction systems. In fact, ping is exactly the mechanic used to launch the missiles in the Star Trek mode. I've been saying for years on the old forum that the ping system was essentially a prototype for a potential missile introduction to the game.

The thing that worries me will be how it will be implemented, if the damage per missile equals real life, well good bye cruel world. If its the same to guided-unguided torps, then people will be kinda mad. Will ships have infinte or finite numbers of missiles?. What countermeasures will we have to defend against it?, because if we keep relying on DCP only (god forbid) it will be a joke.

Will the game be divided between WWII-Cold War eras, or will a Montana or Halland be pounded to death by a russian ship with Pyatyorka Missiles?.

Having said that, and while Mountbatten does have some good points, ultimately this is still an opinion based on a temporary game mode. Time will tell if it will be implemented or not on the base game and as such, because of that, disscusing something like this, while its fun and all, its meaningless at this time.

Edited October 11 by Sidelock

[ArIskandir]

25 minutes ago, Sidelock said:

Will the game be divided between WWII-Cold War eras, or will a Montana or Halland be pounded to death by a russian ship with Pyatyorka Missiles?.

This can lead to opening new tiers, but even if that's the case I think the 'solution' needs to be integrated to the core game, the same way homing torps were. So possibly you can have modern missile frigates/destroyers with very weak artillery armament using the missile gimmick to balance their power on level with existing artillery ships. Range, number and damage of missiles can be adjusted as required to achieve balance.

 

[Scorpion_Raider37]

The new Star Trek event actually has homing photon torpedoes! Lock on is same as sub sonar. So, who knows?

Missiles had been used to hit other ships before, in WW2. I believe, Warspite had been hit by a Fritz X. Not an actual missile in that sense, but still.

"from high altitude, by three Dornier Do 217 bombers from KG 100 armed with an early guided bomb, the Fritz X. She was hit directly once; a second near-miss ripped open the torpedo bulges while the third missed altogether. The bomb that did hit her struck near the funnel, cutting through her decks and making a 20-foot hole in the bottom of her hull, crippling her."

[Ensign Cthulhu]

16 minutes ago, Scorpion_Raider37 said:

The new Star Trek event actually has homing photon torpedoes! Lock on is same as sub sonar.

So in other words it's just an event remapping of the sonar function and SLM is talking completely out of his aft?

[Wolfswetpaws]

19 minutes ago, Scorpion_Raider37 said:

The new Star Trek event actually has homing photon torpedoes! Lock on is same as sub sonar. So, who knows?

Missiles had been used to hit other ships before, in WW2. I believe, Warspite had been hit by a Fritz X. Not an actual missile in that sense, but still.

"from high altitude, by three Dornier Do 217 bombers from KG 100 armed with an early guided bomb, the Fritz X. She was hit directly once; a second near-miss ripped open the torpedo bulges while the third missed altogether. The bomb that did hit her struck near the funnel, cutting through her decks and making a 20-foot hole in the bottom of her hull, crippling her."

Fritz-X was a guided bomb.
Incorporating a Fritz-X guidance system into a V-1 or V-2 rocket might qualify as an anti-ship missile?

[Ensign Cthulhu]

In addition, the American WW2 Bat guided glide bomb had an autonomous active radar seeker. So fire and forget was actually a thing back then. And some work was done with TV-guided bombs also. 

[Sumseaman]

1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

  
  
  
 

Yes I did.

I've always pondered the term 'fire and forget'. Seems to imply you are utilising lethal guided weapons in an irresponsible and unaccountable way.

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, Sumseaman said:

Yes I did.

I've always pondered the term 'fire and forget'. Seems to imply you are utilising lethal guided weapons in an irresponsible and unaccountable way.

Or it frees-up the launching vehicle or launch-site to attack another target?

[Sumseaman]

13 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Or it frees-up the launching vehicle or launch-site to attack another target?

I always preferred 'fire then acquire'. It rhymes and it means actively seeking another target quickly.