Skeksis
-
Posts
1,150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Skeksis
-
-
3 hours ago, The PC Collector said:
given the high pricetag for what the game currently offers
I think they could charge more, it’s too cheap given the volume of content we're going to get and comparing it to WOWS earnings. Already we’re into the hundreds of hours of gameplay mark, soon with the campaign expansion (and following later a full campaign), we’ll be in the thousands of hours of gameplay mark, quality gameplay and no rival too.
IMO that’s worth a better return, especially with no DLCs.
3 hours ago, The PC Collector said:if they don't deliver a playable campaign soon, which might de facto kill the proyect, basically I pretty much suspect that non game breaking bugs are pretty much being ignored
Ah but their history is that Dev's have delivered. Including fixing bugs when captured, especially game breaking one's. Those hotfixes run out within days, if not hours.
-
4
-
-
On 1/3/2022 at 3:10 AM, Nick Thomadis said:
Task forces/Campaign movement (Planned for v1.05)
Officers, was planned but it seems they’re on the backburner for now. But they can have a role…
Change them to 'Admirals' and make it so "taskforces" can only be commanded by one (or one per region).
Then there’ll be no need for them to have stats/buffs/nerfs etc. but they will have a purpose, command, admiral command. I think there’s room to introduce characters into the game. Characters or ‘Admirals’ would give an identity level to fleets, including battles and those taskforce movements around the map. Include enemy AI admirals, lists would be long for each nation but players would be very happy killing them off one by one (when capital/flagship sinks), until there's none left, destroying/weakening a nation. Admiral 'rank' could determine fleet size.
Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts game full of 'Admiral Characters' would add to the game.
-
6
-
-
A small QOL improvement:
IV) Selection quantity.
E.g.
-
1
-
-
I) Improve night-time aesthetics, for battles. Maybe large sun, moon phase icons or night shadow casing across the skybox.
II) General bad weather aesthetics. Rain, dark clouds, sea spray of white caps (at close camera views). Howling wind sounds etc (at close ship viewing too). Lighting off in the distance, including sounds (at least at the start of battle, to give the player an 'heads up' of weather conditions).
III) Port finance/cargo information. I'm assuming capturing ports or controlling sea areas will increase finance/cargo capacity in some way, for nations to expand economically. So then we might need a breakdown of such information, more information than just tonnage. To have some way of knowing which ports to claim, to know which nations to aggravate or even to defend against. I.e. build up the economic/cargo gameplay abit.
Actually it's not that easy to come up with new improvements (not already listed previously) because the game, as is, is very polished.
I guess the next stages coming up this year, along with map expansion's, and what's not in game yet, is:
- Submarine & Anti Submarine Warfare.
- Mine & Anti Mine Warfare.
- Alliances and Treaties.
- Spying & Intelligence gathering - and the risk of.
Again it's also not easy to give good feedback on these since we really don't know the exact framework. Just saying I'm looking forwards to this year's development and the build up to a fully completed campaign.
-
7
-
95 transports lost, nation starving.
Note 'sea area' where transports lost, move ships into that area, if still losing then set to "Sea Control" to increase protection range. Build ships with greater range to increase protection range. Fight all convoy battles, win and save transports.
-
3 hours ago, Littorio said:
Because...devs can only make so many hulls?
It's not simply building a 3D model, it takes alot to compile all the extra coding e.g. placement nodes, components borders, fitting associated towers, funnels and parts (per nation), tonnage and all the parameters such as hull form, stability, floatability, resistances & surface visibility and everything else I missed, this all has to done by the programmer, hard coded.
All that has to done so ordinary joe blog can assemble their ship and doesn't have to be a professional.
This is probably why modular hull system wasn't suited.
All this is not because they are slow or that they don't have many staff but because it's complex.
-
8 hours ago, Danelin Aruna said:
although i think some break up for historically available yard space should be made maybe. I know in the '20's and 30's when naval rearmament started the only ones who made absurdly huge ships was the Japanese, Yamamoto class. Even the American fast BB's in the interwar did not go above 35000 tons. I can understand the want to build huge ships, but very few people did it as it stuck all your horses in one basket.
Post isn't so much as an idea but something to be mindful of for the full campaign.
And I think as "absurdly huge ships" are in-game so as their inclusion is warranted or at least the campaign needs the ability to include them.
-
Shipyard Increments, as running a campaign.
British
Starting Shipyard sizes:- 1890 10500 tons, 2000t increments over 24 months.
- 1900 18200 tons, 3000t increments over 24 months.
- 1910 29700 tons, 4000t increments over 24 months.
- 1920 39600 tons, 5000t increments over 24 months.
- 1930 53300 tons, 6000t increments over 24 months.
a) Lets say plus 3 increments (of 2 years) from 1930 to 1936 gives us 18000 tons, so 53300 + 18000 = 71300t max,
British biggest hull is 'Super Battleship' 92000t, available at 1936.
Currently it's impossible to build 'Super Battleship' hull in 1936, there's a short fall of 20700 tons or you can only start construction in 1942 at 6000t increments (plus 4 years to build).b) On average increments should be 3,543t per decade. (92000-10500)/(1936-1890)*2=3543.4. They are only 2317t on average.
Germany is much worst.
1890 starting Shipyard size is 9000 tons.
Biggest hull is 'Super Battleship II' 130000 tons, available at 1929 (but we'll use 1936).b) On average increments should be 5261t per decade. (130000-9000)/(1936-1890)*2=5260.8. They are only 1756.5t on average.
Ok current campaign is just a WIP but these increments will have to be adjusted to ensure that the Shipyard Size is big enough at 1936 to accommodate the largest hull sizes for each nation. This will change decade starting Shipyard sizes, maybe messing things alittle.
Also to note, if the player misses a single month in Shipyard expansion they will fall behind in shipyard sizes to meet 1936 full hull capacity,
so maybe some redundancy needs to be built in or add in some way of catching up.- actually scratch that, in stead leave it up to the player on how they want to manage their shipyard and campaign, like skip continuous shipyard increases and fall short of max tonnage or pay the price to meet max yard size. -
16 hours ago, Littorio said:
I suggest we suspend our discussions on spotting until said time
Well @Littorio, sorry but you know I think you couldn’t be more wrong.
I think the “Player Suggestions – December” thread is about Dev’s planning next year’s road map, setting out what new/current features to be worked on.
If you don’t post your feedback now it won’t be included in their decision making process.
I urge everybody to post their feedback now, don’t wait 6 months since that will be too late.
-
39 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:
And all you said back is how you specifically feel about the topic.
Correct, that is my feedback, I own it.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, akd said:
spotting system totally disconnected from reality
Sure I agree, it’s arcady but besides that, and all the likes and dislikes, all my battles are full on engaging. Objectively to the point of providing adversity gameplay, it’s working.
16 minutes ago, ColonelHenry said:frustration
Not saying git gud, but don't you think when there is frustration, i.e. losing, the player then tries to do better? e.g. redesign ships, study specs, etc. forces the player to expand game knowledge.
-
IMO visibility mechanics are just fine. Currently battle gameplay is very good.
Battles require alot of attention to locate the enemy while invisible. Players have to ‘think’ and make far more command choices before even seeing the enemy and then afterwards as they pop in and out of visibility. This immersers the player with emotions of apprehension, mystery and the hunt, including relief of escape (when visibility is actually working in their favour). Battles are far more interesting.
I understand players ‘hate’ being torp at point blank range but the upside of this is for the player to overcome that adversity, ditto for blind-firing.
Any nerfing of visibility ranges would reduce the current complexity/adversity, dumb down the game. Knowing where, when and what the enemy is doing would be a mistake! IMO.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
We could have offered this already, but the problem is the auto-resolve which needs to auto-calculate ship performance in a consistent way. Maybe we do this later.
Later is good, would become more apparent with full campaign anyway.
-
1
-
-
Oh forgot the most important, ugly and annoying bug...
7) 'BAD PARTS ERROR', one single whole 'hotfix' patch for this one.
-
1
-
-
6) Battle History.
Sometimes I want to see what has sunk after reloading etc, recap - could be more than a week between gaming. Like what class of ship has sunk to figure out its replacement, that’s the main reason. Now that we have a post-battle screen, all that has to happen is to save those results and then list them for us to select and view later. Could make it optional for player to save result. Could be keep and managed in separate file and cleaned every time when ‘new campaign’ has started. On campaign end an analytics could be compile from it and displayed.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Gregg said:
Surprised there has been no response from anyone.
Thus I must be correct, there is no save feature on the campaign.
If so, that needs to be corrected ASAP with a patch.
Expecting people to invest many, many hours in a compain, that can be lost with a power failure shutting down your computer, is asking a lot of us players by the game developers.
There was an update on the 4th, it did wiped clean some player's campaigns but if you had unlock any decades then they would still be available. Save feature still works on new campaigns.
-
1
-
-
5) Ironclads 1860-1889 Mini Campaign. Could use and keep current northern hemisphere map as a short/mini campaign or create new American coastal map. April fools day schedule? Just that you have ironclads but no place for them, so a mini map could make use of them. Could be alot of fun. Could have some very extended hulls as short-term options.
-
5
-
-
4) Refits.
-
12
-
-
20 minutes ago, DougToss said:
Sorry for tripple-posting, but you say this about every single game system, endlessly. We’re here, prior to release giving feedback, because we paid money with the understanding our input would change things. Otherwise why have early access?
Listen, I don’t really understand what your deal is or why you so vehemently oppose other players on this for seemingly no reason, maybe you think if we clam up the game will be “finished” sooner, but “Oh well fellas, it is how it is.” is worse than counterproductive. If you’re happy with how things are - great! You don’t have to provide feedback then, and I’m glad for you, but running interference when other people try is not doing the Devs a favour, it’s just bad form.
Oh discussions is good, it is a forum! but at some stage the past is the past, no offence.
Dev’s just posted a feature/ new suggestion request, IMO this is where we can do the most good to help Dev’s improve the game, are you onboard?
-
1
-
-
1) Night shadow across the world map.
To show which areas are in night and day, this then relates to any battle that’s in the shadow or not. Player then has night time information to decide cause of action prior to battle. At least somewhere on the global map there should be night and its night shadow.
2) Improve stern facing AI.
Example, 1v1, while not completely immobilized, the retreating AI just keeps turning away from you, you can never encircle that unit. Seemingly outside its ability too. I think it’s an area of the AI that needs improving to remove the simplicity of this action (AI). Don’t know what to suggest though, just that it needs some creativity!
Sometimes it seems impossible to completely destroy the ship through saturated stern damage.
3) Nominate transport design.
If we could design transports and then nominate one of those designs as the default design for battle build. This way the 'Transport Capacity' figure could remain the same for finance mechanics and also the auto battle implementation would remain the same. Just our design would be incorporated.
Eventually commanding those transports. Leave the financial risk of using transports in combat up to the player! Also the onus of financial cost of transport replacement. Maybe the transport tonnage (cargo) capacity of those designs could be implemented in some way (i.e. cost vs capacity dilemma).
-
9
-
-
35 minutes ago, Littorio said:
@SkeksisYou are of the belief that the current spotting mechanics are necessary to keep the game fun and entertaining for lack of a better word, because you think otherwise the AI would be at too severe a disadvantage. For the sake of argument, even assuming that that is true (which I don't believe it is), there at least has to be an improvement from where we are. My bottom line is invisible ships firing on you.
The second thing is, players have tried since day one, actually many years now, and nothing, the visibility mechanic has not changed, not once, Dev’s are firm on this one, the concrete is set in this part of the game.
We all know it’s not RL but it is what it is, that’s real enough!
Best we can do is offer changes to spotting parameters. E.g. increase 1890 TB initial target signature or 1890 CA tower spotting range. But you have to prove to Dev’s that changing parameter X would improve gameplay, that's the catch!
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Littorio said:
1. Really? Because no one is talking about it except the people trying to someone defend the current system as God's gift to naval combat.
2. I do read the weather situation, and in fact put out a whole post on it. My issues are how jarring it is when basic night/day, stormy/clear backdrops are a quick fix that goes a long way, and yet aren't ever even mentioned by the devs.
3. I have seen the AI concentrate fire numerous times, often more than myself. It isn't always some game-winning tactic that you seem to think it is. In a certain tactical situation perhaps, but not if there are say...flankers, closing torpedo boats, etc. I would hardly classify for most time periods and technology levels as 20km+ distant enemies as "ducks in a row." I think you vastly overestimate the game's measures of accuracy and precision as @DougToss frequently mentions.
4. Really? I don't always. Often times I have smaller guns than comparable AI vessels but better armor schemes. It's all a balance and tradeoff. This idea that having realistic sighting ranges will mean that the "AI is no competition and humans always win" because of "bigger guns" is ridiculous. The AI is free to build what it wants. Will it ever be as smart as a person? No, but that's any game and any AI, not just this one. I don't see how AI limitations means that the game needs to be intentionally stunted.
It's all situational, as you know, examples are not absolute and are generalized. Without fog-of-war the AI would be massively disadvantaged, and so IMO, detrimental to the game. I'm not defending the game, I just don't think to the horizon visibility would work.
-
1 hour ago, akd said:
This game does not have fog of war in any shape.
We're using fog-of-war as a description of engagements from beyond visible range.
As described in this passage from the official site:
"Realistic Visibility
Depending on battle conditions, fleets may start an engagement from beyond visible range. Spotting the enemy in Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts will be a realistic procedure that succeeds in accordance with ship technology and tactical maneuvering. Screening with light ships ahead of battleships will ensure the enemy does not surprise you with a torpedo attack."
I.e. it is directly and purposely built into the game.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Littorio said:
I don't want to hear anything about "tactical gameplay"
You haven't got a choice.
25 minutes ago, Littorio said:A ) We actually have visible weather and backdrops in which to fight
Read the weather situation, then imagine backdrop, tabular info just fine while WIP.
27 minutes ago, Littorio said:Just because you can see someone 20+ km away doesn't mean some "dogged fight to the end" will result, simply because most often your ships won't hit anything at that range.
Have you not heard of 'concentrate your fire', human very good at it, human can sink first ship, then the next, and and and...... even easier for human if human can see AI has ducks in row for 20km out.
33 minutes ago, Littorio said:I would say it IS bad when enemy warships can literally open fire on me at some given range and all I see is a shell coming at me. I can literally see where this shell was shot from, but somehow I can't see the vessel responsible!? How can my men see a single artillery shell coming at us, but not the vessel firing it? If there is some kind of "fog" in the way that obstructs my vision, how then can the enemy even see me, let alone get a quasi-accurate firing solution? It's nuts
As I said before you can match AI stealth but human always builds big guns ship first, AI smarter.
-
1
-
>>>Patch 1.03-1.04 Feedback<<
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Skeksis
Yeah, we differ on this. Agree with Academy Missions in that it isn't the goal for some but it's still content, many play them, 50+ missions too. Then there’s Custom Battles those content is as large as one’s imagination, covering 5 decades of warships. I wouldn't believe you if you said you didn't extract maximin value out of this feature.
In the end we should be able to make every single ship that WOWS have in their entire catalogue (minus carriers!). Plus tenfold of ships that never existed, and some. On that bases, apples for apples, UAD is selling themselves short.
Now, after all that, we can add in (or on top) the value of the campaign/s.