Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Jatzi

Members2
  • Content Count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Jatzi last won the day on January 24

Jatzi had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

127 Excellent

About Jatzi

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So crew is finally here and it's cool. It's nice to see hits take out some crew members. But I have issues with it. I know it's the first version, I'm aware of that. And I know the focus isn't going to be in making it all that complex right now. I'm fully aware of all of that. But I want to take about where I think it should go from here after playing a bit. Just a bit, few hours so this stuff might change once I play more. The biggest thing to me is the attritional nature of the crew losses. You lose a guy here, another two over there. All throughout the battle. But it just doesn't make
  2. It's not even really a lose lose. If a patch is buggy we know we can expect a hotfix fairly soon, they do one basically every patch to address major bugs that pop up. We all know this by now and it's honestly a fairly standard thing. Ppl only seriously complain about bugs when they don't get fixed. And in that camp falls object placement on hulls. It's not horrible because they have been addressing specific instances of this turret or that tower not fitting. Those kinds of bugs keep happening though which is the issue but again not that big of a deal rn. So yeah the buggy release ar
  3. The reason the RTW comparisons exist is because if you go back and read the original blog posts about the intended game mechanics it's basically RTW with 3d graphics. Not a bad thing. But the fact is RTW is it's direct competitor. The original stuff about the game presented it not like Age of Sail but like RTW. Which makes them competitors. They've said nothing to change that assumption, I think the intention has changed, but they've said nothing to that affect. And so the RTW comparisons will continue until we have reason to think they no longer should be compared. Frankly, if they gave us Ag
  4. Lol that's the opposite of what Im thinking we're going towards.
  5. The sun will die before we get the campaign at this rate
  6. We've had different experiences with RTW 2 lol. I mean sure sometimes, very rarely stuff like that happens to me. But mostly I get CL v CL fights, or BC vs BC or CA vs CA. Sometimes CAs or BCs show up against my CLs or CLs show up against my CA but very rarely and usually I can run. Sometimes not but so what? I read on the forums about people complaining about battles not going their way and like yeah that's probably the point. The game would be pretty boring if you always won. And A BC running up against CA's and CL's isn't like a bad thing, that's who theyre supposed to fight. BB's show up s
  7. Aircraft should be in the game but they won't be added. The development of this game has been rocky lol. So they won't be added. From the very beginning I've said it should be like Rule the Waves and Rule the Waves 2. Rule the Waves 1 had no aircraft, 2 does. Complete this game then maybe add them or make a new one that has them or whatever. As of right now though aircraft don't even factor into the equation with all the issues the game has, how far it needs to come.
  8. They have arguable hurt themselves massively by trying to toe the line between arcade and sim. It's too arcadey for the hardcore people. It's too hardcore for the WoWs crowd. They need to pick a side and they're already leaning towards the sim side so they might as well shift that way. Also weapon reliability isnt that big of a shift in that direction. Also also they talk about realism in their blog posts and whatnot so in order for them to not be even more hypocritical they should include it. You're argument is like saying ammo detonations shouldnt being the game because it's so FRUSTRAT
  9. I dont want to be super negative when you finally decide to give us some info but I am concerned about the preponderance of super battleships that you guys keep pumping out. They're cool, big and flashy and fun to fight but I would hope in the campaign theyd be just as unrealistic to build as in real life. If you're rich and winning then sure but I'd imagine most countries, like Italy for example, wouldnt really want to build a few huge expensive super battleships. As someone else said we need more early cruisers. Cruisers in general. And predreadnoughts.
  10. Of course it'd be frustrating. That's the point? Oh no it makes the game harder we shouldn't include it! They were real issues and I'm sure real ships were sunk or damaged because their guns jammed. It would be a massive disservice not to include it. RTW includes it and it's fine. Just a fact of life in early battles really. You get used to it. I would heavily disagree any kind of compromise is needed. So what if its frustrating. It's what happened in real life, imagine how commanders felt during an actual battle. Imagine how sub captains felt when their MK 14's weren't working in
  11. That game is how old and it does ship design better than this. It's kinda sad. Designating where the internals are and having the length of the belt correspond to where we put the turrets is hugely important. And being able to switch between a normal belt and a narrow belt, and an inclined belt as well would be nice.
  12. I thought there were RoF differences with triples and quads compared to singles and twins. At least initially right? Or was it mainly reliability. Also turrets don't even jam right now
  13. It's an early access that falsely promoted a shipbuilding system that ultimately got scrapped for very inconsistent reasons btw. Was it because the AI couldn't handle it? Cuz there are easy fixes for that. Or was it because players would've thought it was too complex? Or was it too difficult to code? They've never given a straight answer for it. And they kept going with ads for it even after the release of the early access which is top level scum behavior. Early access means you listen to player feedback and respond and discuss the game. Sure they've listened to some feedback around combat: to
  14. So many things about the game are bad and lots of people have pulled real world information to show how things actually work and have given ideas about how to gamify those things. No responses. None. The shipbuilder is bad, the gunnery system is bad, the list is long of things that are bad. Lots of ideas about how to fix them. No response except everyone is working on campaign, after that's done we'll look at things. They've been saying that for a year now, longer really. Still no campaign just these stupid useless patches that add almost nothing. For gods sake they added a reverse button and
  15. I'd question their work. It's been 2 years since the game released in early access and Covid aside they had plenty of time to do campaign work and show us what it is exactly they were thinking with it. Instead they just keep pushing out these dumb academy missions. They abandoned the ship builder that was the major reason most of the original backers were interested in the game and didn't tell anyone until we'd already paid for the game. No information about campaign just that it's been the sole focus of the team for like a year now. Oh and when it releases it'll only be in an extremely limite
×
×
  • Create New...