Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Tousansons

Members2
  • Posts

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Tousansons

  1. Hopefully not because as you say, it will drag. There's not enough diversity in gameplay with the whole technology>shipdesign/build>battle to keep it engaging for more than 40 years. Unless we have some real surprises with the unknown factors like politics or some quircks in how technologies are unlocked. And why build a Bismarck when you can build better alternatives in a game about alt history? Don't repeat mistakes because they look somewhat "cool". And seriously it's not, Bismarck is just an oversized and undergunned ugly duck è_é
  2. The best strategy with them in RTW2: You just take some prestige loss here and there when the minister is mad at you for not having any cruisers.
  3. I want one thing in a naval game of these periods. Uncertainty. You know something is out there. You dont know what, how and when. Let s see how well the campaign handle that. But if I just move a big blob of ships against another one i will be disappointed, regardless of deployment restrictions.
  4. No. I'm not confident in the engine/dev to pull off a decent carrier game. Also, we are still waiting for a first pass on the decent dreadnoughts game.
  5. There was several attempt at driving the developpment towards this road (including me) Of course there was concern about the percieved added replayability of random designs and the more grounded issue of designing these fixed ships and incorporating them properly in the campaign. With costs in terms of money, time and technology that the AI need to be able to handle which will ultimately lead to "a lots" of designs. Of course there's still the middle ground used by Rule the waves with template of decent to good designs that the AI fill with whatever tech and money available. The first iteration of the campaign will definitively be interesting. Will the AI be able to "look" like a real fleet, with design having decent synergies in term of speed and roles? Or will it just look like a bunch of misfits acting like fleets like the IJN post 1944? Wait and see is the best option "for now" but I sure will voice myself again if I feel that none of my points are covered.
  6. Fratelli d'Italia is blasting in the background. While the usual lack of image is still disappointing, I'm glad the dev team is still alive and working.
  7. What? You just can't read, but that's all right I'm used to it and it honestly could very well be my frenglish. I write about "they care about money, not games/players" and you're all on "oh but look, they care about money, not games/players, you obviously don't know what you are talking about." Why thank you. I'm humbled. I didn't knew.
  8. By being in the age of "free" information. Even if this information is debatable.
  9. Ah yes, the thrill of watching AA guns fire at spotter planes. The heart pounding decisions of watching DD's run towards the location of submarine fired torpedoes with sonar on. The critical thinking needed when your battle line pound the enemy one with 90+ solution for 5 minutes. "plenty" to consider, in these moments I agree Like I said, gameplay is fine but it drags on for way too long, especially with the subpar AI that never surprise you and the fact that you fairly quickly run into the same battles during the campaign. I think Wots is one of the better naval game out there, but I'm not blind to it's obvious flaws and I don't have grognard goggles that shrug it of as just "casual" complaints. *X speed, pause button and why not forcing pause on a critical event, decent AI with player preparation and small adjustement during the battle and voila. I'm pretty sure you can represent hours long slog in a few minutes without losing that much.
  10. Clunky UI, decent/good visuals, lackluster audio and repetitive campaign. Gameplay is fine, but it's still a naval game that fail to understand that staring at ships firing for 20 minutes with little interactions is not okay.
  11. That I can agree. I firmly believe that in France we must say pain au chocolat and not chocolatine.
  12. I'm not so far into the future. What we see of UA:D is way too early in development. There's not much to do "right now" but to wait for something to happen.
  13. UA:D naval academy is like a strangely designed puzzle. Game balance as changed numerous time but the mission did not (or very little), resulting in some mission being easier/harder to complete as patches goes. It's not really relevant and shouldn't be minded too much. Let the dev hopefully finish the game and then we'll talk about "difficulty sliders". In the meantime, play some custom battle, fool around in some of the better naval academy and like most of us. Wait for something.
  14. Welcome to the wonderful world of unoptimized games and lack of knowledge/hardware sample, etc. Unity is a main culprit because while it is a powerful frame that allow to "easily" make games, you can be certain that the code will often be a mess because the guy behind it is not a seasonned dev. It is also sufficiently bloated to make it easy to forget about removing all the unneeded stuff, leading to unoptimized mess. In some circles, we meet the 'made with unity' tag with concerns. Not only for all the assets flip. There's enough exemples of 2D games made with that engine with recommended specs way out of their leagues. Because the devs don't know how to optimize, but also because the dev don't know what his game really need. Another prime exemple (not related to unity) is console ports: There recommended specs use most of the time the base lspec of the console hardware and call it a day. And to no one surprise, it's usually way higher than what is really needed. Who said that most console ports are lazy cash grabs? UA:D is probably a bit of both. They did not bother with an extensive hardware check, mostly because the game is in such a barebone state that it's not really needed/useful. Now will it improve? I don't know.
  15. Stillfront is not making games. They're just investing money into video game developpers and in a sense influence their release strategy to probably (most likely) match the global strategy of the group. You then can't say that "they don't give two damn about the user" because players are not their target. They target developpers and investor. Users are the responsability of the game developpers and if they fail at it, I don't think their new boss will be very pleased. In a sense, there is no shame to show to people caring about money that the group is indeed caring about money with an efficient strategy. It's simple marketing.
  16. I'll keep my thoughts for the real patch announcement this time. Nice to see some progress, even if it feel glacially slow these past months.
  17. You're right. We're all wrong, we get it. You are definitively not here to discuss anything. Any comment that is different from your point of view is seen as aggression, not only on your opinion but also on your person. This is internet, people don't care about your opinion most of the time, but they care even less about your person. If you want to talk about the many grief I caused you, do it in private. I'm done arguing with you in public.
  18. Exactly. They keep players interested with limited events, one time only offers.. etc. It is indeed working, as the rest of the f2p industry use the same strategy. Everything is used to gain money in short order and keep repeating the same pattern until the servers are empty, closed and we can't play it anymore. Is it good for us players and games in general? I think not.
  19. Yes. Short term profit, like I said. You try it, you shelve it. The ones who stay are increasingly motivated to spend money because servers are not free and population ultimately dwindle. Being in a niche market or not is probably irrelevant. A dev need to adapt his game to his audience and game longevity is another factor. A f2p multiplayer game with AI companions. Never heard of that before. So fresh and new.
  20. Hmm Hmm ? You sure seem really open about different opinions. I'm glad I have chosen the picture approach and if you don't like it that's perfectly fine, I'll do it again. f2p model is dragging creativity down the drain since it's first introduction. Everything is now tied to short term profit and "easy to get into". It's bad for us players.
  21. They could also very well be enjoying their week end/day off. While the news is concerning, we can at least wait a bit more before making the forums blow up. After all we already know they're not that fast with communication.
×
×
  • Create New...