Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/09/2021 in all areas

  1. Seriously, please. It is so needed right now to maintain momentum and a healthy community around the game. Any info would do, just do a weekly thing where you say you're still working on it, hell, do a monthly cleanup/announcement of what you're working on with some pics. Take ten or fifteen minute every month to keep everyone updated. Don't fall further into bad community behavior. Everyone's getting tired of it, hell even Stealth17 is getting tired of it. You can't have your community and your biggest source of advertisement publically keep saying that kind of thing. So just take ten minu
    7 points
  2. Event 36 Another round of fighting has broken out among several forum members. What is your view? It is deplorable that it seems impossible to stop the fighting in this region. (+1 tension to random forum members) I wonder what they are serving for dinner at the flag officer's mess? (+1 tension to random forum members) This is no doubt due to the meddling of XX. (+2 tension to a forum member of your choice)
    6 points
  3. Rise above mate. If you feel you've been slighted by Skeksis or the baron, then either respond with superior arguments or don't, as long as you don't drag it down to a perceived lower level. There's enough frustration on here with the radio silence and all, the least thing we can do is keep ourselves civil. Other posters failing to speak to each other like adults does not provide the rest of us with a carte blanche to do the same and make the entire forum a kindergarden shouting match. It just makes you just as bad as them. Rise above. You don't put out a fire by pouring gas on it. Yo
    5 points
  4. And now we have a disagreement between ColonelHenry, Draco, & o Barao. It's just a never-ending loop, one argument clears up, another one begins straight after. -25% Hope Loss.
    2 points
  5. One of the reasons why military life in garrison is filled with busywork is that nothing is more dangerous than bored soldiers, or ones who are not receiving direction from their leadership. Even if it means sweeping the gun sheds and oiling recuperators all day, it gives Joe something to do. What I see here is a solid community of naval enthusiasts chaffing for lack of things to do, and without leadership from the devs to productively steer feedback. Apologies to @arkhangelsk for biting his head off. I think I speak for many people here that I’m hoping for an update, and to have n
    2 points
  6. As much as I understand what you mean, I do not, and will not watch as people hide behind the veneer of "nice" words to insult others. To me, it is worse than using less than savory words. Anyway, let's move on and hope that the devs actually make this game as realistic as the 13 times it was plastered on their advertisement page.
    2 points
  7. If he is irrelevant, then you are irrelevant, i am irrelevant, we all are irrelevant. Or maybe you can consider that all opinions can have their merit and different players can have different opinions.
    2 points
  8. How about we all take a breath and calm down alright? There's been a lot of information and feedback brought up here, and it's clear that we all have different thoughts and opinions. And ya know what....that's just fine. @jimh has brought up a lot of good points/observation/feedback from his time and experience playing this game and how his observations and suggestions were obviously influenced by his time in the service. I may not have understood a lot of the "technical jargan" he was using, but I'm not a Navy Man...I'm an engineering student in college who is also a history buff. Just b
    2 points
  9. Came back to see any glimpse of hope for this game, maybe a single stream of photon at the end of the tunnel. Turns out people are still arguing with this "irrelevant" Skeksis. Every argument with this guy boils down to "The game satisfies my WoWS monke brain so anything else is irrelevant because my arbitrary video game mechanics that I pull outta my ass said so". Topkek. Also, still silence from the devs. Welp maybe "irrelevant" Skeksis can tell us how that's irrelevant for a naval sim game set during the first half of the 20th century.
    2 points
  10. @Commander Reed, @Draco Nobilis - I’ll own this, I should have done this a while ago on this, and a few other issues. Good on @madham82 for leading by example, I’ll follow suit. I’m happy to discuss whatever, but I’m not going to get sucked into bad faith, disingenuous gish galloping.
    2 points
  11. Your response is irrelevant, because the in game visibility system works as expected in 1v1, but not when multiple ships are involved. That is the definition of a defect or bug. The very fact you mention height of the observer in your next sentence indicates you have no idea what is being discussed. Let me put it again simply, no one is arguing about when a ship is visible. The issue is what justification is there for ignoring said visibility system and allowing unimpeded, accurate fire on a ship that is out of visual range of the ship firing. The game is already tracking visibility
    2 points
  12. You seem to be preceding from a false assumption that visual range doesn't dictate engagement range when it does. The burden of proof is on you to provide otherwise, as you have dismissed any facts and historical examples when presented before. Also from your previous analysis on spotting, you proved that theoretical visual range does not correspond to actual visual range. So I fail to see what you are out to prove here. That a BB in majority of cases will not be able to engage a target at maximum gun range? Isn't that realistic? You seem to be suggesting a whimsical fancy that you
    2 points
  13. Keep our expectations in check? This is quite literally a pre-alpha. We're not even at alpha stage yet. If they already can't change, no, tweak some of the core mechanics we're in for a world of hurt
    2 points
  14. It would just mean formations sail into effective range… which is exactly what happened. At Jutland, often shooting opportunities were fleeting and the whole battleline was not engaged at once. It’s no different than a turret not being able to come to bear on a target, it happens. Yes. Precisely! That’s what we want! Knowing that the enemy is out there ≠ shooting them. Bingo. Visibility is one of tens of features that had better not be what’s planned for release! In what universe is the current state of the game acceptable?
    2 points
  15. This is what @jimh and @Steeltrap have said too. I am tired of being gish galloped and putting work and sources together to compose thoughtful - sometimes article length -posts only to be ignored by @Skeksis, who promptly starts up the same argument, from square one. It’s straining my credulity, and it does feel like many of these arguments are disingenuous. What would it take for anyone here to convince you of anything? If the answer is “I won’t be persuaded by anything” - fine, I can put you on ignore. It’s been years at this point, and I know from DMs people have been dri
    2 points
  16. Tbh its just a last ditch attempt on my part. If nothing comes of it i'll just drop this game entirely and stop coming to the forums
    1 point
  17. Ah I see, you are one of those. Unfortunately, you are one of those who would rather take a snake than an elephant because the snake is smaller. His words are nothing but dismissive toward others. As if that isn't insulting other people. Oh waittt, you can't argue with me with that point, so you attacked my character, just like I did with him. OHHH META DUDEE. Also, I do not randomly attack other people unless you implied that I am a crook but going out of your way to insult other people without bases is not in your nature. Or what is it? Implying insults isn't insult? And of course, you
    1 point
  18. OR maybe, before saying anything, use a little bit of the thing called brain, and think about how the word "irrelevant" is used in this context. I thought a realistic game would garner the crowd that has a bit... less dense? I used "irrelevant" to mock his frequent use of the word to QUICKLY and INSULTINGLY wave off people valuable (some are less, some are more than his) contributions to the discussion. And frankly, if he likes to call everyone irrelevant, maybe perhaps he should be called out for it? Oh but I don't know maybe you just like his arguments more than I do and took it a little
    1 point
  19. Apologies, I should have clarified a little more, I think. I agree with your views and think you're a reasonable person, I like ya in short. Dunno what stuff skeksis is on, but he should probably quit. That's all I can say there. 🤣
    1 point
  20. The reason is simple: I don’t think everybody is making arguments in good faith, and when they go on to derail any discussion that does happen, it wears away at civility. It abrades goodwill. I agree with your sentiment, but I hope you can see both that I’m trying, and where I’m coming from - in wordcount alone.
    1 point
  21. that being said though, no it won't take them a year to change it. It will take them an afternoon at most to change it, and a patch at most to balance it's effect on gameplay. Man I really hope they follow through on adding mod tools after release. That way we can all get the UAD we want. The realists can get their simulator, and the arcadists can get their gun fights at cold war era missile range. Everybody wins.
    1 point
  22. Agreed. In lack of anything better to do, we could at least devote the down-time of waiting for campaign to learning to speak like sensible adults again.
    1 point
  23. Man, this thread has a lot of arguments and conflicts. I've gone through most of the pages, plenty of em. Why cant we all just have a civilised, friendly discussion?
    1 point
  24. Complete lack of care, not from the dev team as a whole but from whoever is in charge of communication and in charge overall. They clearly don't give a shit. We'd be satisfied with the slightest bit of info every now and then but even that's not happening. All the stuff i've experienced, seen and played for Age of Sail, Gettysburg, Civil War, its all gone. I dunno where it went but honestly this studio is just the typical example of indies getting big and adopting triple A behavior instantly out of sheer hubris There's no other explanation that makes sense
    1 point
  25. To be fair, it is a copy paste (with slight adjustments) from a real post of nick. They can communicate, sometimes. Joke aside... What happened? Why don t we have the same treatment as age of sail? Where is the so called dev team right now? I m not too upset, I think. I had my share of fun, some interaction in the forum, etc. But really, what happened ?
    1 point
  26. Total mess is the current ingame state of everything visibility related, and that should be reworked first. Isn't it obvious? Remember, it is alpha still, even core elements still can and must be changed as much as needed to work properly.
    1 point
  27. When offering criticism you should ensure that your goals are aligned with the goals of the one you are critiquing. In this case you're missing the mark. The missions are there to give interesting scenarios that make you think about how you design your ship leveraging different mechanics of the game to achieve an objective. If the objective was "design an effective ship / battlefleet" there would be maybe 3 missions per nation and they would all play out the same. That's not the objective of Naval Academy. What you want out of the game is coming in the campaign where your whole job i
    1 point
  28. Its a joke post sadly. Don't get your hopes up. We'd never get info like that from the devs
    1 point
  29. well it is clear that mr. Skeksis either is being paid by devs to try and agitate in their favour, or is actual skeksis. Just leave it there, people. On topic. Funny to say, but the Bathtub of Toyboats (aka WoWS) actually does the visibility thing better than here. For those unfamiliar: every boat does have it's own visibility range. And while you can see all enemies spotted by your team on the map, in actual gameworld you only can see the ones within your visual range. You can blindshoot at the map markers if your guns range allows, and can even hit sometimes, but eyeballing the targe
    1 point
  30. Well @Tousansons - first of all, much appreciated. If only… Second - it could not have come at a better time for the forum. I think we’re close to a breaking point here.
    1 point
  31. Hello admirals, Despite the difficulties of 2021, which have affected everyone’s life as well as the game’s development, we continued to provide several updates and significantly improved the game. We deeply hope that Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has already become a game that you enjoy and thank you for your ongoing and precious feedback that we so much appreciate. We want to assure you that we acknowledge all your concerns and suggestions and today we would like to inform you about what are our definite plans for the next patches that are going to be delivered within 2022. W
    1 point
  32. You couldn’t fire a 76mm OTO Melara on a data link from another ship on most ships at sea today. I don’t like how the burden of proof is always on the tens of people - and their sources - trying to persuade @Skeksis. Why should this be considered a “feature” and remain, and not a bug and be corrected?
    1 point
  33. 100% agreed. I am getting decent value for having paid for the game, honestly have probably sunk in a couple hundreds by this point, and certainly I don't expect a daily update or anything for a game not yet released. And I would prefer a better developed game rather than one released with a need for 18 patches just to get it to function when it comes right down to it. And without any knowledge of the specifics of any delays/issues, I'll say this last couple of years is probably one of the worst in history for predictability of.. well, anything... so I give a bit more grace due to that as well
    1 point
  34. I felt it was so self-evident that stating it would be insulting people's intelligence, but apparently not. Ships can only fire at what they, directly, are able to spot. That's exactly what the game does now if you have only ONE ship; obviously it relies on its own sensors. The only thing that need happen is REMOVE the link between A ship spotting something counting as ALL ships spotting it. That you or anyone else thinks this needs to be laid out to this extent like breadcrumbs for particularly stupid children to follow is a tad worrisome.
    1 point
  35. YES! Please update us! This wait is absolutely killing me. I WANT CAMPAIGN INFORMATION! **PLLLEAAAAAASEEEE**
    1 point
  36. By the way Tomorrow, Monday quite a nice day to update us! \ Please!
    1 point
  37. HI think the large majority of us understand delays, bump and set-back. We know it is a alpha-game and our expectation are accordingly. All we ask is a post time to time to let us know were they are, how the game progress not more. We are not pushing for quick release, just for a better communication. Like tomorrow morning... a good Monday to drop a post just saying "Hi we have some major bug and we will up-date you next week" Nothing more. Communication is always good marketing.
    1 point
  38. KSP 2 was delayed, and to keep the community in the loop they have a board called Show and Tell where they quickly post whatever they’re working on that week. A lot of it is very barebones, they have much more detailed Dev Diaries, but this is their way to say “Hey guys, we know you’re waiting, here’s what we’re up to.” lol pardon the pun, but this isn’t rocket science.
    1 point
  39. Side note: it would be really great if we could have a 'point your turrets to port/starboard' function in anticipation of a turn, because it's really stupid waiting a completely pointless minute after turning before you can fire again.
    1 point
  40. This game is supposed to be an alpha, treat it like one ffs. Start pushing the dev builds to live with the understanding that there will be bugs - it's an alpha, that's what we paid for. Leaving huge delays between updates does nothing but build hype and set expectations higher, which makes it all the bigger a disappointment when the patch drops and it's just some minor balance changes and bug fixes. That kind of change is significantly better left to tiny random patches that come out frequently.
    1 point
  41. Like Speglord said, none of us mind waiting if we actually got any information about why we wait. Anytime a delay is announced its at the last possible minute, like a grad student asking for another half day the minute before a paper is due. Its embarassing and does nothing but make people more and more skeptical. Communicating delays and progress properly would basically remove 95% of the criticism, including mine, but the devs won't listen anyway
    1 point
  42. nope it's fixed. sometimes the values still show up wrong in the armour viewer for some reason but ya ship no longer goes boom and that's the important part ;)
    1 point
  43. While there are certainly some who would (understandably) be upset about repeated delays, I think the vast majority of us wouldn't really complain too much on the condition that the devs were more open and communicative with us. All of us, myself included, want badly for this game to succeed. Because not only would that mean the game is good, but that it will be financially successful, and thus prove to other devs -- now and in the future -- that a game like this is not only possible, but can be lucrative, too (if done right). All we can really do now is just wait. Complaining, at t
    1 point
  44. Also, while were on the topic, I really have to insist that "fire control damaged" needs to have a much higher penalty than 25%. Bismarck lost her fire control at the very start of her final battle and she didn't land a single hit for the rest of the engagement in spite of it being basically point blank for battleships. It really is quite hard to understate just how bad this is for accuracy, you're quite literally back to spanish-american war conditions with anything much above a single kilometer being a case of "are you sure you want to be wasting ammo like that mate?"
    1 point
  45. Well, technically HMS Belfast managed to do this for HMS Norfolk during the battle of the north cape, albeit this was one ship to another with highly experienced crews, and almost certainly wouldn't have worked if either there had been more ships or they hadn't had 4 previous years of world war to get their act together, and finally there really isn't a record of whether Norfolk ever actually hit Scharnhorst since most historians tend to focus on the damage that Duke of York achieved. But yeah at any rate, they weren't relaying the entire plot data, just the "and now she's over here" positi
    1 point
  46. We can also "see" enemy ships that we haven't identified either. And if seeing a ship grants every friendly ship the ability to fire on it, then why do we have ranging shots, target lock, and all other in game mechanics that make up accuracy? All those mechanics assume the key factor of being able to "see" your own shots fall and adjust the firing solution. Your idea isn't far off mine, which basically to assign a heft penalty that could reduce with techs to all blind fire situations. The game is already calculating what ships can see each other, just would have to use that to calcula
    1 point
  47. Please, we're all paying customers and legally, we deserve and also expect what the developers say they're trying to achieve. (Especially for 40 POUNDS!) For example, you buy a fully fledged game, yet it doesn't have what it advertised, that is lying, and if never achieved, possibly fraud. This isn't the case, but the developers are being too ambitious here, and we have EVERY right to complain of that. We payed them our money, and legally we have every right to criticise. Go see a lawyer and they'll tell you everything you need to know.
    1 point
  48. Miracle? They just had to make RTW 2 3D. This was not uncharted territory. There have been generations of successful naval sims - Jutland Pro comes to mind - so it’s not like they were pioneers who had to figure out how to model naval gunnery and terminal ballistics. You’ve overstated the innovation. Lots of work? Of course, but nothing particularly on the cutting edge. What the hello kitty is up with the little soapbox display of Ayn Rand? ”hello kitty you, pay me” Is not going to cut it in this, or any industry, and going to bat for them out of some weird ideo
    1 point
  49. I never said those were malicious, but if you want sources for those delays, broken promises and roadmaps you can just look at the news of the game, such as the steam release being delayed 2-3 times, 2 roadmaps being put out with the current one on track to be scrapped, and everytime devs gave us a release date for something that ended up being false We govern our expectations depending on the little communication we get from the team. The team said the steam release would be 2019, so we expect it to be so. Then 2020, we expect it to be so, then 2021, we expect it to be so. The devs promise
    1 point
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...