Skeksis
-
Posts
1,150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Skeksis
-
-
6 hours ago, Marshall99 said:
what will I do with those extremely large hulls? Use it against a "final boss"?
Well as super battleship hulls are in-game, then the enemy AI is going to build one... or two, yeah there's going to be a "final boss" or bosses! This game is taking shape. It's going to be quite hard to finish the campaign without building there counters though.
While the end game is the goal, the journey to get there is the content. Not only the super's but it's the whole package that's selling to the warship enthusiast. The team have really thought out exactly where to place this game, along time ago too, and quite frankly, it's 'brilliant'.
5 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:I dare to ask certain persons to keep their ill MMOmaniac mindset away, those killed the only good-ish shippy MMO, i don't want them to kill this not-even-an-MMO.
Too late, super's are already here.
-
DELETED
-
Every single gamer goal is to win, it's the very fundamental of all gaming itself, it's an emotion of success.
And one way to do this is to advance/upgrade via 'gear', to win at every step of the way, and in UAD case, it's the next best ship.
Early game is only the start, the base, the end game is the goal, it's where everybody is going, it's where the aspirations are and where the best gear has to be.
That's not hard to understand. And understanding the targeted audience too.
If the game was to be pre-dreadnought or true dreadnought as you guys claim it should be, then the cut off date would have been 1919. But by setting it at 1940, the Dev's have set the game's nature, set the best ship, set the best gear, set the aspirations, set where the success will lie.
Now can you see why "super battleships" have been developed foremost. Just IMO of cause.
-
3
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Draco said:
As far as I'm aware the modular design was dropped because the AI couldn't handle it, which Leads us back to the same problem.
And no they are not too easy for us, they are just consistently illogical.
Don't get us wrong, it's not that we don't believe the AI can never ever be taught to produce decent designs, but with the current rate of progress it's going to take at least another two years before they start to design functional immunity zones or stop giving their ships completely ridiculously unstable vessels with horrible fire control systems that only pose a threat because they have 16+ main gun barrels to make up for it.
If you look at the stats during any custom battle, you'll notice AI ships are already receiving artificial accuracy bonuses that don't correspond with their tech, towers, rangefinders ect. To make up for their inneficiencies, and this is symptomatic of the whole game RN.
All the last 3-4 updates have had all their balancing tweaks focused on forcing the AI to make better designs, to the point of appeasing a faulty programme to the detriment of the players and the realism.
As has been mentioned, realistic designs consequently come in thousands of tonnes overwheight when compared to real life counterparts, which is a direct result of pandering to the faulty AI over the players.
Gun vs. Armor pen values are also sliding away from realism as the devs attempt to balance these calculations to work with the AI's faulty tactics rather than fixing said tactics.
From my point of view, when I open the game to try a new design, I'll usually have to restart the fight at least 7 or 8 times before the AI builds something half-decent, which means I'll spend 15-30 minutes staring at a loading screen before I actually get to test my idea, and if this is and indication of how the AI will be designing ships in the upcoming campaign, then honestly what's the point?
Will I have to restart the campaign just as often whenever the AI builds a meme ship just to not kill the immersion?
In my opinion, all work on further hulls should be dropped and replaced by machine learning efforts to try and teach the AI to begin making logical designs out of the hulls we already have, and all balance tweaks should be returned to their non-AI pandering values so the devs aren't teaching the AI to build "logical" ships on illogical physics values.
That might save the "AI designs are here to stay" standpoint.
Of course all that work could be avoided if the devs allowed us to build said designs ourselves.
We'd be happy to.
We've already literally paid them to give us the opportunity to complete this task for them.
So yeah, we're just really frustrated. Bear in mind some of us have been doing this for years now...
At some point the patience just begins to run out...
Again, a working draft of the campaign took up all their attention. It make's sense to do so, to have the campaign and to see all the systems working through this core and to flush out any issues thereafter.
What we had so far was a stable version for Academy Missions, all to test controlled AI and also general mechanics, with very few issues. Custom Battles is somewhat uncontrollable (for now).
With a limited campaign and like Academy Missions, we can put through the volume of gaming hours that in-house testers could never do, this is where we'll find out the true nature of AI designs. I suspect this is the period where we'll see the AI auto-design improve the most, even dramatically. Cause it's going to effect the core/campaign, i.e. campaign stability.
IMO these re-irritations of feedback is premature, we haven't even got the improvements for the campaign yet, let alone identifying any issues that have pasted into this version. We kinda have to unlearn what was and move the game forwards to what it will be (from our perspective that is).
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:
The problem is the AI does not work. It's not that it's working with flaws. It isn't. And when it does, it works as well as coding FPS AI to "If (player_detected == 1 && time == 100ms) { HeadShotPlayer (1); }".
How many times does it has to be said that the AI fails to give the player any challenge that resemble reality OR fairness (because reality of combat isn't very fair). Every time I boot up the game, all of my interesting designs i.e designs that have flaws like IRL I would face the challenge of getting the AI to design something that isn't YAMATO or TILLMAN or something that would instantly turn my ship into Swiss cheese. Great, there goes my interesting designs. Other time, I wanted to build a good battleship or two, I run into the Navy of the poorest nation on Earth who could not hope to afford more than 10 inches of belt armor in 1920 and instantly combust upon the slight touch of a 14'' heavy shell. Well, there goes my 20 mins adventure of design, watch ship goes boom in 2 mins, and quit. I have said it time and time again, that this is one of the main reason why people would boot up the game, play for like half an hour, and quit.
Now, about the AI ships designs flaws. They still put 6 triple guns on to the battleships and explode spectacularly as expected. They still put guns in the "Extended" belt armor area and again, explode spectacularly. They still build extremely under armored battleships although not as bad as before. They still build CL without a single torpedo launcher. They still build CA like they build their battleships... so many guns that you would think it would flip the damn ship if they fire a broadside. They still build ships that looks so terrible even the restricted ship building mechanic couldn't save it (put guns in the wrong places like I said, disgusting placement of secondary guns, wrong barbette usage, weird superstructure choices like very large and modern Tower in the front but tiny secondary tower). They still build destroyers with triple guns turret that looks not only ridiculous but broken as shit because in this game, more guns = always better.These are the problems that has been in the game since the day I download the game. Sure, the AI sometimes gets it right and build a nice ship, oh wait it's undergunned. Yea. No. If you say the AI works, all I see is that it's working AGAINST having a good game.
So what's the solution? It has already been said before. Let us build the ships. Then the AI will modify those ships built by players for their own needs. That's when you can literally asks US, the PLAYERS to engage in helping YOU GUYS make this game FASTER and BETTER. That would also make throwing more hulls at the problem a good thing. We build, put things in place with an open, well designed ship builder. The AI takes those and remove or add according to their campaign modifiers.
All almighty give the team strength, please!
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:
has the AI ship designer got any better in the last year
Yes.
4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:or is it still pumping out ships that even its own mother couldn't even bring herself to look at?
WIP.
4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:throughout the entire development up to this point, EVERY SINGLE FEATURE requested about the PLAYER interaction with the game mechanics has been about AI designer UNABLE to do so and thus NOT to be given to the player.......We wanted to have a better ship builder: nope, ai can't handle i........We wanted to have fun in custom battle and test things out: no test the AI instead. Well, yea thanks, I'm glad I'm part of this testing phrase where I can barely test anything with repeatable and tangible results because it's a 20 dice roll every time I click "Play".
The campaign will be about fighting the AI and its designs, so this has to be one of the areas to get right, wouldn't you say.
WotS has fixed designed enemies, while this is good for a single campaign in a moment of time, it's impossible for developers to build multiple campaigns, for multiple time periods, encompassing six classes of ships resulting in thousands of ships. Meaning AI auto design for ships is the only option, it's here to stay and all the issues have to be resolved before release.
Keeping auto enemy design assigned, in task of getting it ready, and for us to encage in this task (if it's so), is the the right call, IMO. Calls for all designable have been around since birth, they know.
4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:We wanted to have better battle formations: well... yea the AI is hanging on for dear life trying to sort out every ship movements.
My workaround is to split every capital ship up into single ship divisions, it works.
But remember Dev's have always said, and wanted, to get a working draft of the campaign out before addressing any other issues, they have done just that.
-
3
-
-
AI designs still have to be tested, to flush out all the issues, the best way to continue this process is with enemy auto-designs. If so then I think once the team is happy with AI-Auto-Designer, I'm sure they'll release full player enemy builds.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
DELETED
-
-
-
Core Patch 1: "Arriving"
in General Discussions
Posted · Edited by Skeksis
I think it's in all of us, warship enthusiast that is, otherwise if you didn't have this interest why would you bother to play this game or post at all.
All of us must connect to history in some way or another, i.e. here, there are no exclusions.