Cptbarney

As in with the VP's, its just a title that appears depending on what kind of victory or defeat you got. Makes it less bland as well than just saying one or the other. The titles themselves shouldn't add anything they should be the result of whatever you achieved in that fight along with the points accumulated depending on what happened. So if the player wins, and they get 800 VP compared to the persons 500 VP that would be a Minor victory, Another example if a player got 4432VP and the enemy got 1023VP then that would be a major or great victory (depends on whatever factors are used to calculate VP's in the first place really.)

I think the victory and defeat parts it should be divided into Flawless victory, Near flawless victory, Great victory, Major victory, Minor victory, Stalemate, Minor defeat, Major defeat, Devastating loss, Near total defeat, Total defeat. With different VP points, objectives and whatever else needed to get one of these. Should make it more accurate than the current system at least.

@admiralsnackbar yeah you can just use internal meshes to do all of that to represent the innards of a mesh or at least the most important parts of it. so they can start off as basic primitive then increase in complexity and looks, then add whatever code is necessary for it to perform. Basically think warthunder, but with more of a lean towards simulation.

Yeah we need, the current meshes to be able to deform and buckle when struck by powerful rounds and also armour degeneration as i doubt the same section of armour can keep its composure after being hit by multiple 14inch+ rounds. Plus we need an internal damage model of each model and also compartments as well (engines, magazines, crew quarters, etc.)

Actually i would say this quite high up the list, as immersion in terms of naval games is far more important than most other games and also because you experience more passive play in this game, it would help with the atmosphere. Also would be nice if we got a game that had decent sounds or far more varied sounds for once.

Oh and refits, they need to be a thing as well.

Too be fair an HE 11 inch shell should just outright delete a torpedo boat, not sure why they can take multiple hits from large and very large calibre weaponry. Thats more of an issue with either the hitboxes, damage models and whatever formulas the devs use to calculate damage and hits. Also we have no torp degeneration from aiming, nor does the sea physically interact with the ship models (as in if there is a hole thats around sea level height and the ship goes up and down, some water should flood into the hull and whatever compartment is there. Plus with the campaign being done and dusted pretty quickly at higher years and also some tech being useless or less than useful to use, the devs a stupid amount of work to do and i dont envy them really.

Yeah i guess, but i think they should of focused on certain era first. Atm they are trying to plug all the gaps at once, which will mess with any development really. They did get acquired by stillfront this year, plus my land is my land and age of sail both got put on to steam as released games. Atm they are working on this, naval action to some degree, sea legends and the next ultimate generals game. So from the looks of it, they have too many projects going on and some of them have very big scopes as well (this one included).

True, although us lot will have to attempt it anyways if we want something to stick really. Also we don't know how the rest of the core patches will come along as well (I'm assuming more, because we got half a core patch, which threw previous info out of the window really.) I think they released this game too early for public testing really, should of been kept in closed testing for a lot longer and slowly built up the number of testers along with starting from 1875-1906 to 1907-1927 and so on, as that means they can do each period in chunks rather than do what i do and try to tackle a stupid amount of projects at once.

Pretty much, what we've been asking for ages now. Either a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly (rather the first two), updates about what they are doing a few screenshots and then where they plan to go next. Also what's on their list of the most important features to get done, and what's on the bucket list. Although Nick has been, pretty active recently. We haven't gotten anything concrete about certain things and the last Q&A needs an update with a new one next year (I seriously doubt we will get another before Christmas). So we need more communication, but it needs to be precise and accurate (Doug's diagram reminds me of one i saw on the world of warships forums quite sometime ago). Plus us lot need to be more unified on certain things as well.

Well i just updated it so, its back up. Kept the old title so that people can still request weird ships for april fools if they want too or just added into the game regardless. As for me, i just need the motivation lol. Plus IRL has been busy for me as well.

Yeah i know the title is for April fools. But ill change it and edit the opening post so it can be used outside the event as well.

Well, we will all have to do it. I don't get special favours at all and it took ages for them to announce that they would focus on something other than modern bb hulls (also we need more actual hulls rather than copy and paste). I want miss texas, and even though i wanted California in this game, i only got the hull, but not superstructure for her (i think the modern one is missing). Surprised you dont remember that thread i opened up a while ago, maybe i should bump it up so that more peeps can add more old ships in. Also im focusing on other things, so play testing the game isn't my highest priority atm. Plus lack of motivation to do so.

Well, guess we just got to make sure it does. We managed to get the devs to prioritise now (i assume) the old ships from 1890-1920 as the campaign has shown the severe lack of ship variety and also how imbalanced it is down there with torp boats reigning supreme (also the fact, that you can cheese the campaign with those dd's and auto-resolve which is a huge issue). So whatever else needs doing will need to be repeated here, by a good sum of us. Otherwise i doubt we will see it implemented, either in a good time frame or at all. It's why tech debt needs to avoided otherwise you end up with massive issues down the line (just look at the AI currently for example and how its also tied in with the players ship building mechanic.) It seems to fail at managing multiple groups of ships and while much better at building ships, builds some freaky things, which im sure will get more noticed as the campaign years open up.

And the arguments resume.

Hmm, i reckon country stability, morale and willpower should be a thing so that these things go down or up depending on events as the campaign progresses. Maybe losing almost 10k sailors and 12 ships was enough to just make people want give the ruling government the finger and insight revolution. We need more info about how people are feeling, but my jest is that morale plummeted from the defeat and also the massive amount of victory points allowed Britain to brag nonstop about the victory. Little things like that can help the game in a long way.

Yeah we defo need improved visuals and sounds, so that they are more distinct and make the game look and feel more interesting. Hell even small variations between marks, propellant, type of fuel, engine type, gun size etc should produce different sounds and frequencies. Like the sea, when it's very rough you barely notice the difference between rough or calm as it uses the same model bed for both.

Hmm, must be a bug then since they would be inaccurate, but not that inaccurate. As when i played the previous patches it was the less range the more accuracy, so somethings wrong there. Reminds me of the turret armour bug where no matter what armour it had if your turret got hit it would detonate killing your ship or severely crippling it. Yeah that will have to be looked at if your both around 1km and the accuracy isnt at least 10% or higher especially at point blank when it should just be 100% really.

Well the closer you get the more accurate the guns should be, unless its a really small and nippy ship. Although at ranges of 1km-2km and below it should be around 4-5% i imagine, and anything below 1km should start to climb pretty rapidly. But ships in the 1890's and 1900's were pretty inaccurate even at close ranges never mind precise and only got better past the battle of jutland, where they could extend the ranges out further, while still having somekind of ok accuracy and precision at those ranges. Atm the gunnery system is mostly rng, rather than co-ordinates, prediction and aim adjust, so instead of accuracy building up slowly as you keep firing it's more of a predetermined list of numbers for both ships and their shells. Obviously depending on range and if the ships are damaged or not will also effect all of that as well. But as you close in especially on less choppy waters, it should get more accurate regardless. I think the lack of visuals for the sea changing in frequency doesnt help either.

Nah, ships were just that inaccurate in real life. Since you had to account for the enemy ships speed, position, potential position and speed, then also wind and how choppy the waves are, quality of barrels and powder for your own vessel. And then the same things for your own ship. On stationary targets dreadnoughts got i think around 3-4%. Yes its that bad. Annoying, but realistic nonetheless. I have to agree its frustrating as hell, but sadly just how boags were really. especially with their more primitive methods of gunnery.

The germans nicked her for a joy ride.

I remember when it took loads of long lances to sink a single ship, too be fair a hit from a torp should mean severe damage or death, torps are more likely to hit during those eras, because the ships are far more sluggish and also because the close ranges. However i would like too see mechanical failures and also duds or improper detonations regardless.

Yeah, i know. Im wondering if they will still go with a few more core patches to allow for more mechanics like better gunnery, re-designs, mechanical overhauls, mod support etc.

Very noice lads, now begins the slow crawl to making this game as good as possible. I wonder whats next? Will we get 3 core alpha patches anyways? I guess it would be a good way to sort out still pending, but very important mechanics and details that didn't arrive in the previous two core patches.

i blame the heating