An update from CA about ramming

[T.C.]

Not sure if this has been posted here, but GronklyWonk (Dave Nolan, Ship Artist) made this post on the official forums a few days ago:

Hey guys, I just wanted to drop in and clear something up regarding ramming.

I've seen some concerns about the lack of impact in some scenarios seen in the naval warfare video; collisions between ships are divided into either being a ramming action or a boarding action. Boarding actions do not result in any large visual impact, whereas ramming will produce wood splinters, hull damage and rocking and tilting of the impacted ship. What was shown in the video was a boarding action, and that's why you didn't see those elements. It's a gameplay distinction that's been made to provide quick information to the player as to what action has been performed, between two scenarios which might otherwise initially look similar.

I hope this clears things up a little.

Dave

[Dan113112]

Good news.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

Still looked stupid. The ships literally stopped immediately. Not even any sign of bouncing off the other ships hulls or anything.

That needs addressed.

[smoke]

Still looked stupid. The ships literally stopped immediately. Not even any sign of bouncing off the other ships hulls or anything.

That needs addressed.

O my terrible indeed.

[Anna_Gein]

Despite being absolutely right, i can't help feeling sorry for you. If I had known ramming animations are that important to you, i'd have never made that remark.

I should be more considerate towards people who don't see this as a game but as their own private history generator.

Anyway, animation looks fine to me.

WTF has a remark about animation anything to do with opinions on historical accuracy ? It would be a nice idea to reply to the users from the thread and not your imaginary CA haters.

I think you don't know what you're talking about. Ships do move and they do not always explode when rammed. CA explained this some time ago. You need to have the right conditions to have a ship break in half. Some CA staff are really good at setting up those conditions, though. All animations I've seen for ramming show the ship moving from the impact just as CA says.

That's right. The trailer was merely a quick preview. We don't know how often it will happen. Ship explosions happened on rare case in ETW.

[smoke]

Yet I see nobody rising to chastise the troll in this case.

No thanks, I'm tired of turning the other cheek to ignorant people on this forum. I'll say what I want, and you can think whatever you like - I won't lose sleep over it.

Despite being absolutely right, i can't help feeling sorry for you. If I had known ramming animations are that important to you, i'd have never made that remark.

I should be more considerate towards people who don't see this as a game but as their own private history generator.

Anyway, animation looks fine to me.

[Huberto]

I should be more considerate towards people who don't see this as a game but as their own private history generator.

Anyway, animation looks fine to me.

Can't speak about you...

But about what you said, these animations don't really have anything to do with history...physics maybe... but they sure do look awful.

[Zipzopdippidybopbop]

Despite being absolutely right, i can't help feeling sorry for you. If I had known ramming animations are that important to you, i'd have never made that remark.

I should be more considerate towards people who don't see this as a game but as their own private history generator.

Anyway, animation looks fine to me.

The animations look terrible. Accuracy here isnt historic, its about physics!

[nameless]

Still looked stupid. The ships literally stopped immediately. Not even any sign of bouncing off the other ships hulls or anything.

That needs addressed.

I would wait and see.

We've seen ships bouncing when they board upon closer look since ETW.

[=Vastator=]

Still looked stupid. The ships literally stopped immediately. Not even any sign of bouncing off the other ships hulls or anything.

That needs addressed.

Stupid is a bit too much... but surely it didn't looked marvelous. A bit of shaking/bouncing could be really welcome.
Hoping also for better and different ship destruction animations.

[Ursus]

Still looked stupid. The ships literally stopped immediately. Not even any sign of bouncing off the other ships hulls or anything.

That needs addressed.

I'm not too worried, the naval action looks great and will decide if it is a bit simple after sinking my enemies fleet.

[SteamPunk]

nice that he took time out to clarify for us.

[Dominian]

I have to agree wiht Miles. It is good to hear that they might have some other ramming actions that they didn't show us yet. But the "physics" of the boarding still seemed quite weird. Also we have seen the ramming animation and there were also many concerns about the way the ships look like they were exploding instantly.

This has been discussed in full elsewhere though and I in the end we will have to see for ourselves what's what in naval ramming...

[killua]

Btw. this isn't an official CA post but a post by a fan on the .com forums that was present at the Soho event.

[T.C.]

Btw. this isn't an official CA post but a post by a fan on the .com forums that was present at the Soho event.

[posted by] GronklyWonk (Dave Nolan, Ship Artist)

[SughdianWarrior]

I'm not so sure about this "gameplay distinction" that they are making. Whether a ship in a "ramming action" or not, if it makes a contact with another ship while sailing at speed, it is bound to cause some impact and commotion.

[jsilva89]

I'm not so sure about this "gameplay distinction" that they are making. Whether a ship in a "ramming action" or not, if it makes a contact with another ship while sailing at speed, it is bound to cause some impact and commotion.

Dave says, "I've seen some concerns about the lack of impact in some scenarios seen in the naval warfare video; collisions between ships are divided into either being a ramming action or a boarding action. Boarding actions do not result in any large visual impact, whereas ramming will produce wood splinters, hull damage and rocking and tilting of the impacted ship"

Well, if it's really "for the sake of gameplay", why not just simply remove the debris field and damage done, but leave the physical impact. Makes zero sense.

[T.C.]

Well, if it's really "for the sake of gameplay", why not just simply remove the debris field and damage done, but leave the physical impact. Makes zero sense.

TBH it sounds like an excuse for a feature that they didn't have time to program in properly. The other rocking and splintering effect could be badly programmed and tied into ship damage/ramming too much to pull apart.

[Woodrow Skillson]

I'm not so sure about this "gameplay distinction" that they are making. Whether a ship in a "ramming action" or not, if it makes a contact with another ship while sailing at speed, it is bound to cause some impact and commotion.

It's so at a glance, you know what enemy ships are doing to your fleet. If two boats are near each other with no animation, look out, they are boarding you. If the boats are smashing together, you know it was a ram, and keep scanning the battlefield.

[Yayattasa]

It's so at a glance, you know what enemy ships are doing to your fleet. If two boats are near each other with no animation, look out, they are boarding you. If the boats are smashing together, you know it was a ram, and keep scanning the battlefield.

I think I know two words to describe it: dumbing down.