Finnwolf88
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Finnwolf88
-
-
28 minutes 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...
Thank you for your in-depth response. Can't really argue with your points. I don't see AI designs being removed, but like you said, machine learning from player designs might be just the way to go. Or maybe use designs made by alpha players as to not over saturate the system. That way the devs could determine what kind of designs we should make. I'd be glad to design several ships for campaign/AI learning.
Been playing ever since the first playable alpha (though on and off) and I think the AI is the way to go, but the dumb designs need to be addressed. 117000t superbattleship with 3x3 14" is just useless. The system isn't as bad as some seem to think as I've had some 10 or so custom battles in a row with good or really good designs. Though I generally play in the 1900-1925 area.
-
4
-
-
I really don't understand all these comments how the game is dead because of the AI designs. If they are too easy for you, how about not building super battleships with very limited range that cost your countries GDP and instead build something that is actually viable in the campaign.
I do admit the AI still builds some very questionable designs, but sometimes the designs are really good. The system isn't bad, it just needs some more work.
I just wish we had the system which lead me to buy this game, which is the modular system they advertised.
-
2
-
-
Can't wait to get my hands on the initial campaign. Going to playtest the living shells off of it.
But do we have any kind of rough estimate as to when it should be out?
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Skeksis said:
You can't deny that there's a sizeable market that would find mechanical failures gameplay frustrating. Many here don't speak up for those and IMO keeps the debate alittle one sided, but that doesn't mean that that market, those players, don't exists.
I think GameLabs would be very wary of NA results, in that the game could have gone too hardcore and cut out a sizeable chunk of the market. Along with that, the general series is very different from this because of the ship assembly tool, this is going to appeal to a very large portion of market.
Making the game better or not? it's all very opinionated, even dogmatic, except for one thing, balancing the game for the targeted audience/market. Just a few tweaks here or there could make a difference to the wider audience.
Mechanical failures wouldn't be missed.
Oh and you know rage-quitting is real and it's always ever about it being too hard but always about being frustrated.
I agree on both arguments. Mechanical failures would be furiating, but at the same time, in my opinion, needed for the realism.
This game is very much about realism. Having some 10-15 14" barrels firing at 10km range and landing a hit every 20 minutes is also frustrating, but people are not complaining about that too much. IMO having failure mechanics for engines, guns and torpedoes would be needed, but in order to appeal to a larger audience, add the option to disable them.
I would like to see failures to be quite rare and much less frequent the more you research the technologies.
-
Ok so these scenarios are more of a challenge than a realistic scenario. I played all three and all of them give a different kind of challenge.
On all scenarios you will be playing against the british or the japanese (your choice). Starting range on all scenarios is 12km.
Scenario 1 "The glass cannon"
You are to build two battlecruisers. They can have no more than 6" of armour and max Krupp 1. Tech level 1935. Must use biggest guns available and atleast 12 barrels of main calibre. If using torpedoes, they must be long range. Operational range of medium or higher. Nation french or japanese
You will fight two battleships, one light cruiser, one heavy cruiser and five destroyers. Enemy tech level 1925.
You win if the enemy force is annihilated. Two points for victory, one point for very long range, one point for each enemy killed with a torpedo, one point for death by flash fire or ammo detonation (max one point per ship), two extra points for victory if only HE shells used, two extra points for victory if no secondary guns, negative 3 points for ship lost.
Scenario 2 "The sea turtle"
You are to build two battleships. Must use turtleback armour scheme, atleast 15" belt armour and 10" extended belt, Krupp 4, tech level 1935. Can have as many guns as you like but gun size is limited to 12". Torpedoes are free game. Operational range short or higher. Nation british, german or russian.
You will fight two battleships, one battlecruiser and two heavy cruisers. Enemy tech level 1925.
Two points for victory, two points for no critical damage (on either ship), two points for atleast 18 main calibre barrels, two points for atleast 8 22" torpedoes, one point for each ship killed by extensive fire, one point for each ship killed by torpedo, two points for over 20" armour on belt AND over 15" belt extended. 1 point for a max speed of 28 knots or more. Negative two points for ship lost.
Scenario 3 "The testing platform"
You are to build two battleships, battlecruisers or heavy cruisers. Only requirements are atleast five main calibre guns of different calibres and atleast 3 different calibre secondary guns. Any tech level you want and any nation you want.
You will fight two heavy cruisers, three light cruisers and five destroyers. Enemy tech level 1930.
Two points for victory, one point for enemy ship sunk, two points for over 80 barrels total per ship, three points if battle over in less than one ingame hour, one point for no torpedoes, one point for no torpedo hits on your ships, negative three points for ship lost.
-
Tried a quick search but didn't see this topic discussed.
Are there any plans to add duds and launch failures etc to torpedoes since aforementioned weapons system was far from reliable for quite some time?
Failure rates could be mitigated by research and by spending more money for better quality torpedoes. New tech advancements could also have a small negative impact for the first few years in service since generally new tech isn't that reliable until some changes can be made and problems solved that arise from testing and actual use of the system.
I would also like to see different detonation mechanisms like contact or magnetic pistol, which would also add the possibility for (contact) pistol torpedoes to ricochet off a ships side if they hit it with too much of an angle.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Kloothommel said:
How does one enable this... menu?
Ctrl + Alt + Shift + A
-
5 hours ago, Bry7x7x7 said:
Maybe go a step further and take the Warthunder tank armor viewer where you can see the penetration values from different types of shot and angles
I think that would take away from the immersion of the game. Every nations didnt know what every other nations guns / shells could do. Hell they didnt even have all the info for their own creations. The game takes place long before computer simulations were a thing and IMHO there needs to be a certain level of trial and error.
-
Well weight will always be an issue. There is only so much weight a hull can take.
-
Excellent challenge idea. Definately gonna give it a go. Just finished the pesky DD vs TB mission and got to 23/23 so now is a good time to try the hard mode
-
I made an UNOFFICIAL discord server for us who want to discuss about the game and naval history. If this is not allowed and the dev team wants me to remove the sercer I will do so.
Anywho here's the link https://discord.gg/EFDF3FR
-
19 minutes ago, Mooncatt said:
as the title suggests, im a bit non plussed about the torp issue. as it stands they a little "wayward" on terms of accuracy. im not too fussed about this, as when they do hit they cause a lot of dmg (15" not so much, but the larger ones, deffo!!) however im currently playing a with underwater torps located on the bow and stern. 5km range and the enemy is 3.6km out, ive set torps to aggressive and they are still not firing. I may answer my own question here, but are bow and stern torps not able to fire broadside?
Bow and stern underwater torps can only fire bow and stern with a little bit of firing arc. Either add broadside torpedo tubes or deck torpedoes to fire broadside. Also easiest way currently to choose when to fire torpedoes is to set them to off (you have to do this separately for every ship you control) and then set them to aggressive when you want to launch.
-
1
-
-
I played that mission twice, winning both times. Second time I beat it while only getting hit once and I used 16" guns with AP plunging fire. People tend to make their ships huge with tons of turrets which both increases your target signature (enemy gets bonus accuracy towards you) and causes you to have bad roll/pitch which negatively affects your accuracy. Also use cruising speed and try not to sail downwind as your funnel smoke will interfere with your targeting.
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, Hellstrike said:
Is it normal that 6 inch batteries on larger ships will not get an aiming lock after firing for 45 minutes at the same target? I noticed that sometimes, secondaries refused to lock on at longer ranges, but never the main guns.
I built a turret farm in the "defend your convoy" mission on the Armoured Cruiser V hull, but despite blazing away for 45 minutes and sailing within 200 meters of the enemy BC, I didn't get a target lock on either of my cruisers. The aiming progress hovered between 85 and 98% for most of the time. Neither getting close nor sailing in a straight line for 15 minutes helped.
Its a bug that can be fixed by switching targets for a while.
-
I'd like the game to be balanced around ww1. I wouldnt mind having ww2 tech in the endgame, but that should not be the balancing point. And people please remember that the game starts from 1890.
-
6
-
-
I actually tested the idea of smaller ships by taking some CA hulls andsetting the displacement to lowest, putting two of the largest turrest i cojld get on it and armouring it as much as possible. And hot damn are they good. Enemy takes forever to spot them while, them being cheap, I managed to bombard the enemies for a long time without retaliation. Bigger isnt always better.
-
1
-
-
Do we even have information wether we "pick techs" or just assign a portion of our budget towards researchs and just get randomized techs.
-
1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:
I've noticed little icons in the top right hand corner that displays i think what kind of damage you have done to ships. But i havent been able to get it for each individual ship nor for hits recieved as well.
Either it isn't in the game yet or im doing something wrong.
On the left where it shows text on who hit whom and for how much, there is a setting for high, medium and low. Tick the low box aswell and it will show basically everything.
-
1 hour ago, Barbancourt said:
This evening I was stuck in "too dangerous to go that fast" x1 speed mode when I couldn't even find the enemy for more than 45 minutes, and all my own ships were also far apart searching the horizons. Thankfully I found that dang TB just before the battle timer expired.
You can kinda cheat with finding the enemy by clicking open the enemy icon on the top of the screen and double clicking an enemy. Camera will go straight to that enemy.
Used this method to find the enemies in the chase mission.
-
1 hour ago, Barbancourt said:
I'd also like to have a permanent log of all my battle results, which would include my ship design and that of all the other ships in the battles. This would help when evaluating what is or isn't working during several attempts at a difficult mission/challenge.
This. So much this.
-
In the pursuit mission I had two battlecruisers that targeted one enemy battleship. It got stuck to ladder aiming and didnt get the cruising speed accuracy modifier at all for some reason when i had tight formation selected. In normal formation it locked on after two salvos, but when i tried tight again with the other BB it got stuck to ladder aiming again until i set it to normal. Tight is supposed to give you a 5% accuracy buff ( which it did) but losing the speed and locked buffs render it kinda useless.
-
Devs already responded to this many times. Time is slowed closer to enemies to avoid crashes caused by time acceleration AND to find crashes that are happen in battles but are not caused by it.
EDIT: forgot to add that they also said time acceleration will go back to what it was last patch once they are happy with bug squishing.
-
I dont think restricting time compression is a bad idea but you should always be allowed to accelerate to atleast double speed.
22 minutes ago, Asthaven said:Also if enemy is trying to retreat there should be proper mechanic for it so it counts as defeated enemy.
Retreating enemies should be counted as defeated or escaped and count towards destroyed enemy ships in academy.
-
5
-
-
Crew is coming and it should affect ship death conditions aswell.
-
1
-
Core Patch 1: "Arriving"
in General Discussions
Posted
Refits should be fairly simple to do. Just lock the displacement, hull and armor scheme. You can change pretty much everything else as was done historically. Even armor was added on.