Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Skeksis

Members
  • Content Count

    460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Skeksis last won the day on December 9 2020

Skeksis had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

416 Excellent

About Skeksis

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Then you should have not used the word "bobbing" to describe "friggin hurricane" conditions for the battle instance. As for ships bobbing like ducks at faster game speed, to what I through you were referring to (incorrectly), my suggestion stills stands as visual bobbing suppressor and it is not complicating visual bobbing effects in the context of that said.
  2. This could be fixed by tying the bobbing in with the game speed e.g. normal speed full effect, x10 plus no effect (or very minimal effect), speeds in-between scaled to suit effect. This should solve the over bobbing visual effect at faster game speeds and a simple scaling calc when the user adjusts the game speed wouldn't effect any performance.
  3. Yay 😄 Nice informative roadmap, we appreciate it very much. I wonder what kind of improvements this actually refers too, could be many things, very interesting (not going to speculate though!).
  4. I hope captain/commander names or portraits can be display in the battle instance, to provide a connection from the crew/captain/commander interface to the battle. Playing a game recently with companions, it has that correspondence. UAD can do it with captains or division commanders, names/portraits (maybe voiceovers) would create the same atmosphere. To expand on this, when the division lead changes a message could be displayed e.g. “Commander Beatty has taken command of division 1”. There could be quite a few battle related commander messages, maybe campaign messaging too.
  5. I think it’s more to do with unavailable hulls rather than not including them, the team just has alot of work ahead of them. Even though we didn’t see any new hulls in the last couple of updates (produced turrets instead etc.), generally the team does produce them at a steady rate e.g. alpha 5 30+, alpha 6 33x destroyers.
  6. Yes. If you want to support the project then I recommend it since there is enough content (gameplay) to cover your initial outlay, i.e. 50+ 'Academy Missions' and a 'Custom Battle' editor.
  7. You are either for all hull/components access for every nation or you’re for nation specialized traits, you can’t be both! I’m for each nation to have there own unique hulls/components, this way each nation should be different to battle against, different to command and especially it’ll be different in the way we build/design ships of those particular nation. The scope of the game increases with each and every variance and we can play those variances by selecting its retrospecting nation. Wouldn’t this way make for a better and re-playable game? Including custom battles, like if all the
  8. Up to alpha 8 was mostly fine from our point of view but for some reason there must have been a rewrite and as a WIP rewrite I say its not time to roll back the auto build yet. And I like to think that they still want to create/develop new software, it must be a programmers prerogative, and with the new software comes a new fresh game and not a clone, it'll work.
  9. If they're using a 'probability engine' to auto build then Dev's should stick with it, in the long run such a system would handle any situation and forever build variance. That variance equates to replayability, every game would produce different ships, every campaign different, every client should have different ships to show off to everybody. IMO that's worth more than playing against the same old models over and over again. I think with every iteration (updates to us) the auto designer will get better and better, in the end we will have an unique and a amazing game that pla
  10. On this I think you have a problem here, that is the Dev’s have excluded land and islands for the time being, so without land meshes it means that there’ll be no chance of seabed meshes. Only at the first hint of terra firma (which leads to seabed’s) is when there could ever be any sub command inclusion. There’s so many games with aircraft now that all the “physics” are pretty much perfected, so not really a problem there. As for carriers. It’s the scope/timeframe that is the potential that everyone else sees here. People recognize that designing carriers would be a majo
  11. And that’s how the game should do it, by manually adjusting both the rudder and speed, then the auto helm and collision avoidance's are both is disable. Some sort of flag should pop up to show so, maybe clicking on that flag to reengage.
  12. One thing is for sure is that the aircraft carrier debate isn’t going to go away, in-fact once release on steam a whole new round of steam posts/debates will fill up discussions again, and it will recycle over and over again as it has done here. It’s the ‘designer tool’, it’s so damn good at assembling your own vision, players are going to want to build their enthusiasms, and one of those is carriers, that much is clear. And assembling aircraft carriers will be just as rewarding as anything else. Concluding: the interest is there. IMO it doesn’t matter how carriers will effect
  13. Yeah, to truly celebrate the battleship you must include its demise! 😎
  14. Dev's, I see that the steam store page release date has been updated to "TBA 2021", not even a quarterly goal, so how about pushing some time into Custom Battles to carry the game through the next few quarterlies. I'm sure a few weeks here in development would have huge results in game satisfaction and popularity. All designable and all savable is all the inspiration Custom Battles and the game needs. Especially for those CCs, they just keep posting out those videos and they're consistent too, I do wonder what they would 'produce' with a fully operational Custom Battles editor!
×
×
  • Create New...