Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Mhtsos

Members2
  • Posts

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Mhtsos's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

41

Reputation

  1. I agree. The core gameplay mechanics are literally the building blocks of a game (at least like this one). Personally, I am not interested in a wows clone with a campaign and a basic ship designer. Some definetely will like it, but I am not one of them (and I believe a significant part of the community here).
  2. Well, that is a surprice alright. I did hope that the team would fix/improve the glaring problems the game still has (armour/damage/ballistics and ship design) before they moved out of alpha. The same that we reported since November. But I guess some will like it nevertheless. Same here, since I read about this, I hoped for a recreation of that amazing series with the addition of player designed ships (based on realistic restrictions). Unfortunately, apparently this is not the case. At least with the state of the game at the moment.
  3. After one battle (1894 1B vs 1B + 2 torpedo boats) I saw that pretty much nothing important changed: A) Bulkheads are still the king of protection/tanking: The 200t torpedo boats took each 2x8" HE hits and around a dozen of 2 & 3". One went down the other chugged along with half hit points. Full bulkheads. The enemy B took two torps in different places and just slowed down with half health. Medium bulkheads + torp protection. B )Ships are armoured boxes. Angling the ship and bow to enemy still is the cheese the AI factor no.1. C) The gun laying/accuracy still uses some arcane formula that is just weird. Shells are not moddelled. Eg. A two-gun volley from a single turret can have the "shells" (or lights) go in trajectories that have more than 30 degrees difference in less than 5km. Like cross-eyed lazers or something. | As I mentioned in most of my previous feedback, the core aspects of a naval game (at least one that aspires to be realistic) are the accurate damage, armour and gun modelling. Unfortunately, 9 months have passed since I got this game and the core issues/pains are still the same.
  4. Never said anything else, but let's be honest, most people here payed/joined for playing the game early. Feedback is good and all, but if it was another type of SW, alot less will be willing to do it without a salary (not to mention giving them 40+€ for the honour of bug hunting and testing a piece of software). We are generally trying to help them as customers and alpha testers, I agree, but it's not a job. | The ballistics/damage/armour modelling is not a matter of bugs or even balance, but a matter of overhaul. At least if we want to claim that this is a realistic oriented game. As I mentioned before, those models in theory are supposed to be finished during alpha, as they are core/basis of the gameplay experience, not something that should be delegated for beta/steam launch. At least that's my opinion.
  5. I don't know, it seems that doing that is the opposite of what I think logical. It's like puting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't they fix the core issues before venturing to create a campaign? And the issues I mention aren't just balance, it's a rework/overhaul of the damage model that is more fitting to a (semi-arcade) tank game to a ship game at the moment. Not to mention the ballistics and the lack of a real physics for the projectiles. I mean, OK I get it. People need more than a handful of missions and skirmish, but I personally cannot enjoy the game in this state and I am quite worried that we'll stuck with this model even after release.
  6. Some thoughts on this update. The flash fires are well... flashy but in most cases just a bit more damaging than good hits. Had DDs suffered from 2-3 of those and kept going. A BB suffered a bit more damage, akin to a torpedo hit. Also they seem way too frequent in some matches. I though that flash fires did far more damage and appeared far less frequently IRL. Anyhow, I guess that could be easily fixed with some rebalancing. | The point that I didn't like is that the damage, penetration and armour models are still pretty much the same. The ships are still floating armoured boxes that soak damage. Is there a plan to fix/create a more realistic model that or this is it? | Overall nice update, some nice DDs/CLs, but I started to get a bit afraid that we'll stuck with a sub-par model for penetration/damage/armour.
  7. First battle seems was a tie as pretty much expected. The best part is that the most damage done and the almost one-hit-sink was when one of the two deployed Monitors hit and full penetrated the belt armour (most likely under the waterline because it started sinking) the other. It would be an absolute awesome moment, if that wasn't my fleet... Well, at least I now know that friendly fire works. 😛
  8. One of the most annoying problems until this point. The +118% (Krupp IV) buff leads to absurd armour values and tankiness in modern/superBBs that rivals shore the Antlantic Wall... The armour model is improved, but I do really hope they can make more realistic. It still is a box, with some variation, but a box nevertheless. | Speed is also still not really affected by hull shape. Stubby/chonky BBs can easily make 30kns+.
  9. After some testing I liked the changes, but some issues remain. The speed-daemons persist. Some crazy 30+knots BBs from early-to-mid 1900s hulls and other equally improbable designs appear from time-to-time. Also, I've seen again designs with 13" main and 10" secondary. | The damage/penetration model, although improved it again seems...monolithic? Huge areas are covered by armour and the APs are again under-performing when hitting areas that in theory could penetrate. I hope that is fixable (aka the damage model can be made realistic) and not just "re-balanceable". | Anyhow, I like that you try to improve things and see the feedback. Regards
  10. Tested again after the hotfix. The issues reported earlier still persist, although it was nice to see that now the BBs with minimal bulkheads didn't sink when the flooding contained in the first 1/3 of the ship. Although it was discouraging to see that the flooding did go on for the duration of the fight and went away just before the end of the battle. The fires are utterly harmless now, even with the anaemic damage control of the above ships. | As people mentioned before, the issues seem to be more systemic than something that needs hot-fixes. The damage model and targeting model really need addressing and overhauling. | Otherwise we are stuck in a very unrealistic see-saw of patches that over/under stress a value/effect. I personally prefer for the team to dedicate on these core issues, before venturing in the "new features" area.
  11. After the latest match, I can attest that secondaries now (in many cases) are far more accurate than the main battery. Eg. in a 1916 BB (undamaged) with single 6" @ 7-8km that had more accuracy than the main 13" vs a CL . Something that shouldn't happen, as in theory the single secondaries are under local aim and the main battery has a beefy tower/main controller. | I think that is a symptom of overcompensating "adjustments" to feedback from here, as is the return of the HE spam.
  12. Thanks for the update. Had a few of random battles. Nice additions to loading animations, hulls, barbettes and turret design. The ships also seem less agile (very positive in my book, no more wows stuff happening). Excellent that now you can assign secondary turrets to other targets. | Biggest negative/setback is that HE is again the ultimate winner when the enemy has armour (or you don't get an ammo explosion). The AP, even if achieves full penetration, does abysmal damage per calibre. The floods from common, became very rare even if the hit is on waterline (or below) and the fires are over before they began. Unfortunately, it is still possible to have capital ships with unrealistic speeds. My last battle the enemy BC was maxing to 45knots with 1930 tech hull, 8x15" guns and 9+in of belt armour... | Summarizing, some good stuff, some setbacks, but generally good update in my book.
  13. My priorities are: An armour model that makes sense. Now the ships are just armoured boxes. I would like to see real ships, not tanks in water. Damage model. The bulkhead number is the single most significant factor that will determine if the ship is going to be a damage sponge or a tin. DDs soak hundreds of 5-6" if they have maxed bulkheads. Also, I almost never seen a ship lost to extensive fire -even if it burns from end-to-end, all due to the aforementioned OP bulkhead modelling. Accuracy and the factors that determine it. Now is too abstract and in many cases it doesn't make sense. Shells that are actually modelled. Now they are only decorative and just pass-through ships that are not the target. More flexibility on ship design. Even if it is only for player. | I believe the above are the most important issues with the game that have to be solved before we go on the campaign.
  14. Another testing, custom battles 1902 USN BB vs austrian-hungary and french BBs (three battles in total). I must say that the secondaries are far more effective in early BBvsBB, but the ships themselves are very-very prone to sink via flooding. I mean I one-shot one BB with a single 12" hit. It went down via flooding in a few seconds (X3 speed)... My ship almost got down to 70% flooding after a 6" hit in the rudder area. In a BB with normal bulkheads, reinf. I bulkheads, double bottom and anti-flood... Maybe tone it down a bit? I mean it is very positive that now flooding is a real threat to BBs, but this is too much.
  15. Thanks for the fast update/hotfix. | Played a few custom battles with the new patch. A 1935 BC vs 1933/34 CA and CLs with a couple DDs. Second battle as French BB vs Italians 1922 CLs + DDs, after that another with same time/navies but CA vs CL + DDs. The ships indeed sink easier now, without the prolonged 5% sponge. Torpedoes are more lethal, especially when they hit smaller ships. My big 1930s BC took 6 toprs no problem. The small ships have much-much improved accuracy vs the big ships. Big ships' (BBs and BC) secondaries still have single digit accuracy vs the smaller ships in the same ranges. Eg. in a enemy DD push/attach at around 4-5km, they had almost 80+% accuracy for their 5". My 6" secondaries had 1.4%. The smaller 3" tertiaries had 1.9%. That was the case when I had only one 1920s CA vs their 1920s CL and DDs. I think that the border is the CL? Because my CA was quite minimal/small and comparable in size with a CL in all but better armour.
×
×
  • Create New...