Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Faolind

Members2
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About Faolind

  • Rank
    Landsmen

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Alright! I've played a bit, time for personal feedback. UI actually looks good to me, despite the comments I saw, Perhaps simply needs some highlights and accents to make it pop better. UI was soothing, but... dull, I guess. Mission system- I don't know how to make a big big battle happen, but I'd like to. Convoy missions are the big gripe for me- Specifically, I should not "fail" when I kill all but one of the transports, then retreat so I don't take damage. The fact it counts as a fail also makes me fear that the transport losses are not recorded against enemy shipping. The game i
  2. My immediate impressions are as follows- 1- Yes, as I felt beforehand, I highly recommend the next 6 months are exclusively devoted to cleaning up and improving the Campaign. There's a lot of work to be done here, campaigners will be your core intended audience going forwards, and there's already some glaring issues that need to be addressed. generally what I'm seeing from the community comment reactions on Youtube is the following- -GUI needs work, some feel it is cartoon-y (This is near universal, no one has defended the UI, It definitely needs to be addressed) -Historical set
  3. You don't. You constitute the loudest. There's a large variety of comments here, in style and form, and the majority of negative ones are being spammed by a single person (not you). You are loud, yes. Your posts are numerous. But the number of people posting optimistic messages is greater. ------------------------------------- I for one am happy to see what this campaign looks and feels like, and I wish the developers the best. I concur with the randomization idea on torpedo-tracking mentioned earlier, it will add a guessing element both to gameplay and also visibly the the character of
  4. I agree with the points Skepsis made on this, patching this issue could require a whole host of other patches, such as AI, formations, balance, optimization, targeting, UI, and so on. I can't look at their code so I can't tell you how nested it is, but it could be, and for that reason what I would say is to not expect it to change. I would also say its a bad faith argument to call the game "unacceptable to release" for that, when from my view, if it just had a functioning campaign mode, and didn't make my machine run hot, its absolutely ready. Your views are not a monolith, as demons
  5. I want you to take a moment and look at the hundreds of variables already present in the designer, from torpedo propulsion to armor scheme and type, engine, efficiency of ventilation, weight of shell, load of shell, propulsion of shell, hull bottom, torpedo belt, bulkhead type and number, range, fuel type, gun number, placement, and turret design, armor of individual elements... And you go ahead and tell me whether an increase in complexity is going to make the game sell more. Because in the end, the game has to sell. Not just to you and your friends- it has to sell enough to pay these peop
  6. It really feels like everyone wants the moon. I like the designer as is, I think most people who aren't so invested as to use the forums do too. Those using the forums are a class of people heavily invested in naval history and so want to see each little thing, when in reality its not realistic to expect that, I think. The designer as is captures the broad spectrum of design in high detail while maintaining a degree of accessibility to a naval novice. My fear is that any changes driven by above comments will lead to further obfuscation of the design issues at hand in dreadnought warf
  7. I don't want the designer to change, and I am happy that the roadmap has no designer changes.
  8. This is not a realistic request if you ever want the campaign mode. and I want the campaign mode. The Campaign is what will make this game playable and fun, not a designer overhaul. Think on this- any change to the designer means a change to the AI design programming, UI design, Modeling, game stats and balance, and subsequently Combat AI. It isn't feasible. The Designer is what everything else is built of of. If you want to design realistic ships of your own absolute design, I might suggest a 3D modelling program and perhaps an engineering degree. Its unrealistic to expect an i
  9. That would be significantly less interesting, no thank you. I love fighting random designs and most of their designs are not "bad" and some are "good" They produce a nice spread of designs, just like humans tend to do. Further, I don't like the combative attitude expressed in OP.
  10. Uhh real quick, I just noticed I don't have mine on steam. I looked for an email and found none.
  11. Probably the advice it so wait so long after because many gamers' coffers are depleted after the sale. And you don't want to release during the sale at full price either. Not for a few weeks before the sale, as people will save their money in anticipation of the big summer sale event.
  12. I think youre missing the point. Our towers have torpedo spotting stats. That's useless unless they tell us they spotted them. If that's the range they appear on screen- that's dumb. Because if they've been spotted then the ships captain has been notified. Which means *I* have been notified.
  13. But the towers have torpedo spotting stats. Shouldn't we be notified when out towers spot torpedoes? Maybe not even show their location but at least *tell us* Nice review Absolute! I dont agree with everything but it was comprehensive and well thought out.
×
×
  • Create New...