Skeksis

...

Nice to see new people saying the same things as we did in 2019. WOWS has hitboxes and that's what you see when using armor viewer, typical of fps. But (and we don't know for sure) UAD doesn't, its damage system is most likely an RNG engine, e.g. a hit is spawned from hit rates/accuracies/dice-rolls and then damage done computed via a criss-cross of shell, armor and a dice-roll, typical of rts. Sorry but without underlying hitboxes up front there's going to be absolutely no chance of an armor or machinery layout viewer/editor. Would be nice though.

Good modern games allow you to set the campaign criteria, all allowances, reloads, limitations and realism level, etc. This enables replayability too, to play the game at multiple levels and in turn giving the game longevity. It’s been posted many times like easy/difficult modes etc. And that ‘accommodation’ nearly always satisfies steam reviews too. Lets see if Dev’s have listen (or already have included such things) when they drop the campaign.

The fact is computers know exactly where everything is and can shoot 100% accuracy and do 100% destruction, it’s up to the programmer to make the computer miss and tone down damage and they do it via RNG, this simulates RL. All games use this method. The thing with ‘prove your might’ is that it’s made to be a ‘very hard’ mission but this has turned it into a random win criteria, a gamble if you like. No matter how good the player application is, with available tech, it’s never going to be enough to outmatch the mission, thus begins the gamble. And IMO it’s missed simulating RL and turn the mission into a slot-machine win mission, that’s why some players say it’s sweet but others quit and never play academy missions again, the two extremes echoing RNG perfectly. UAAoS and the general series do a great job of masking RNG with their carefully crafted missions and campaigns, you never notice the RNG factors, so maybe the issue is in the crafting of these missions like ‘prove your might’. But there maybe another factor in play. GameLabs does like to add a “gambling factor” into their games, while UAAoS toned down its initial release loot system and the general series not so much and these games do a great job of masking RNG, NA is way different, it doesn’t mask nothing, its loot system is total RNG, a total gamble, even some battle mechanics (from my observations). So just maybe UAD is inheriting some NA/GameLabs RNG aspects and then this too would explain ‘prove your might’ existent. In the end ‘prove your might’ is only highlighting the issue, hide it better, craft better missions or add more layers of battle mechanics is up to Dev’s but I agree with everybody, do nothing is not an option.

RTW2/WotS both have destroyer sub/AA support roles, neither unbalanced or marginalized.

“Prove your Might” mission is a classic example of RNG going wrong. It's a success criteria purely based on RNG and not your ability to build ships based on game knowledge or your command ability. Potentially you can have an unfair random event or an series of unfair random events and that series of events is the problem, it can be better descripted as ‘the flaw’ in the RNG system. NA RNG loot drop has this flaw too. It seems that every time an RNG concern is posted it’s dismissed later, don't know why, the game just carries on, it’s never addressed. There’s no cap or bottom line limit for RNG unfairness.

Torpedo history lessons are irrelevant, here's a real fact... Torpedo's are in the current meta and to change it would mean restructuring the whole meta from top to bottom and that's not going happen if the team is to stay on this year schedule.

Sure lazy is a poor word choice but was trying to describe a way of how not to play the game (in my opinion), in the shortest term possible, I think you got that anyway. Yes that's better put, thanks. What's needed now is Nick to put up the facts on reloads, put to bed any re-hashing of any pipedreams.

And yet it has both, strategy and battle tactics, both “grand”, lets keep it that way.

Good players will command every single ship, ensuring every ship is going to be in the best position, lazy players will switch on auto-captain. That is the feedback from RTW2, to which this game is inspire by, essentially in the height of battle you do not use time compression and auto-captain, otherwise you’re going to take losses. This game is not an HOI4 campaign only style game either, the battle instance is a major part of the game, dumbing down the battle instance and leaving players idle for the duration of battles we currently have is destined to fail, it would create a boredom factor beyond belief. Use the pause button. Which then brings the game back to torpedo’s and there role. With them… Creates torpedo attack runs. Create the need to design fast attack ships i.e. DDs. Create a avenue for cheaper ships that can actually do something. Create a role for DDs/CLs since there’s no sub role. Creates torpedo defence. Create the design need for secondaries on battleships/cruiser etc. Creates the need for cruiser to support capital ships against fast and hidden attackers. Creates battle tactics. Capital ships can’t blindly charge in and must keep on station, else face losses. Create support ships roles such as screening. I’m sure I could run up a very long list but to suffice to say without torpedo’s it would be detrimental to the game's overall battle interaction. Dev’s would have tested historical reloads i.e. just one load and must of found it doesn’t work for the overall concept, “torpedo soup” is here to stay.

Checkout this video… The Loss of HMS Hood - But why did it blow up?? - YouTube Looks plausible to me, to be “Hood’ed” maybe not such a thing (deck armor-wise).

Naval Action had the best ship building system ever where you would assemble a list of components and then build a ship from those, up until patch 27, when they destroyed it. It was a ship building system that gave the game depth, even created and catered for a whole class of players who just built ships. This suggestion is definitely along those lines, where it would give the designer/game great depth. As was in NA showcasing the player architecture of the subject. Although I think it could be implemented as a tech tree. Tech tree form would still have the same depth but much easier to implement and just maybe be aligned with the campaign they already have i.e. you unlock gun bore X, breech type X... and then that unlocks gun X.

...

...

'Dreadnought Hull 1 17000-27000 600 crew' with 1 side turret space each side, is missing from the Custom Battle 1906-1914 database, you can only make it available by using the unlock but this hull should be the available default. 'Dreadnought Hull 1 19000-28000 580 crew' with 2 side turret space each side is available but it's still not HMS Dreadnought actual hull, it's the next generation hull. This highlights a point, there are alot of hulls with the same name, even without using the unlock hulls should maybe still have there own unique name, it would help with descriptions when players are communicating such things, even just selecting. It'll be alot of work re-naming but it will probably be better in the long run. If both hulls mention was made available for locked mode then one would have to be re-named anyway.

11 British arriving, I guess alpha 12 would be Imperial Germans hulls arriving, then after, 13th the campaign???, Americans though probably last core patch "Core patch 4 - New nations and map expansion".

They’ll probably change that steam video just before v1.0 release, when things are close to finalizing and they have time.

But we can bend them – through modding. Such things as weights should be all moddable, Dev’s should consider modding very seriously, modders would create an historical accurate weights mod, weights is definitely something that should be moddable.

But splitting propellants and explosives is on the UI side, once a user has selected, the values merge to form the same singular struct the game mechanics use in the battle (probably?). Mixing and matching would just fill that same game struct with different values. And as on the UI side (designer tool) there’s very little to do to make those sorts of changes but on the player side it’s quite a leap in the perception of reality - which defines this genre. While I’m one who understands simplification, in this case I think splitting propellants and explosives is very doable and something that should have been done awhile ago, it’s been a common request from day one and now there's a dedicated new guy for the UI so why not! But I'll also go one step further and split 6-7 inch shells (and lower) out and into its own element, to create a secondary category (with propellants and explosives combined - a shell). This would need a new struct in the battle instance for those calibers to draw from but definitely no performance issues and all doable.

The real question here is how many players are there who never quit verses how many players who rage quit, even rage quit the game. Plus a few players who decide academy missions are a farce and then diminish the rest of those missions altogether. That is what Dev's should be weighing up. It's a pity easy mode couldn't work, I wonder if Dev's have missed judged how important easy mode was.

As far as Academy Missions goes for easy mode for the AI: reduced funds, reduced or restricted armament, reduced armor, reduced ships with fleet engagements and lesser win conditions. For the player: increased funds, increased armament options, increased armor options, increased allies with fleets etc. But of cause they said they couldn’t get that to work but if they could, in a “traditional sense” it would be basically a weaker foe.

At very least Nick has put the record straight, it’s far better knowing the facts, to know what is and what is not, good on Dev's.

Without even dropping the campaign, in a single stroke the team has restored UAD glory with placement freedom, including all "mounts". Nicely done by Dev's and they still have their ACE!

There wasn’t a future reference so take it at face value, it’s gone.

This is not good. Is this for academy only and/or is it going to be revisited. Will the campaign still have such setting. What is actually going wrong, could we brainstorm idea’s to solve easy/hard mode issues, like where/how/what could be done to achieve different playing levels from a players point of view. Many questions, I just can’t think of any game that I’ve played where there isn’t different playing levels. 😟