Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

RedParadize

Members
  • Content Count

    269
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

105 Excellent

About RedParadize

  • Rank
    Midshipman

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. @Nick Thomadis (Sorry to tag you, but I want to make sure that this message is seen as directed to you and not a answer to other messages.) At the moment, most of the important decision are made during design phase. Battle can last quite a while and there is very little to do. Basically battle is just a testing ground for your ship. I fear them becoming repetitive during campaign. For that reason I think tactical side need to be worked on prior or side by side to campaign. Here is few thing that I think would make battle more tactically interesting: -Fleet Formation. -Fleet Maneuver. -Better enemy AI. -Crew and crew morale.
  2. Maybe we can give you some advise. Can you show us your design?
  3. @Steeltrap I just reread the post you made here and here. Let me reformulate, I think you made a fairly good description of the process. You made good points. As for why I "mostly" agree, well you deliberately left out the change on the damage model and I trough that was something important given the complain people had. My partial disagreement was a question of emphasis basically. Now, in your first post I trough that the later part were separated points. I did not see that all your argumentation was leading to you questioning their methodology. It only became evident when I read the two one after the other. I do not want to make a big fuzz about it. But if your core argument is that "making changes to ALL the primary processes was a error", then I take issue with that. First of, they certainly test variable independently on their sides, I will assume we agree on that. Secondly, on their sides they know where they are going with this, we do not. Thirdly, they added new damage mechanics too, they are obviously not balanced yet. For these reasons I do not see the change from alpha 2 to alpha 3 hotfix as a deliberate balance choice. Certainly not to the point of being representative of what will be the game at its release. I am more of the opinion that it might have been a error to show us these change too early. It left us a bit confused on their intent.
  4. Not so sure about that. I mean with the 1/12 of shots bypassing armor you can capitalize on only on them to do the damage, but with a 18" and the low armor AI usually have I am not too sure if it's more efficient.
  5. @Steeltrap I did end up reading your text. I "mostly" agree with it. The core of the argument was right, but only "mostly" because it doesn't cover some aspect that I think are important. No blame there, can't say it all in one go and that was a pretty long text already. About changing many things at once. It is true that it can make diagnostic and troubleshooting more difficult (which is basically my job btw). You can't proceed by elimination while doing this. However, what you can do is doing is half-splitting. Generally speaking half-splitting is a more efficient methodology, as long as you ask the right question. I am not gonna elaborate on this here as it it not much relevant I think. We only see the surface of it, they do internal testing on their side before release. I have no reason to question their methodology. They are most likely currently working on other than what we see in update, like campaign. Update are one month apart and very few content is added. Balancing must be pretty low priority atm as not all game mechanics are present. On the big picture it is not a very productive time investment as it will all have to be redone later on. I suspect that they are doing balance update just to keep us satisfied with the intermediate product. That's the burden of open beta.
  6. Asked myself the same question in here. I do not see much solution to this, not without upgrade applied to models.
  7. @arkhangelsk Well, you will have a bumpy ride over the next 6 month. This alpha, not the end product, balance will go in all direction until the very end. In the main time, if I may suggest, place more emphasis on peoples arguments, because what you highlighted left out all of them. I said this in many post, including the very post you highlighted. But let me try one last time. The reasons why I believe the short range accuracy buff was necessary are: 1- At the turn of the century, secondary battery need to be relatively effective at 5km against large ship. Not as much as big gun, but enough to justify their presence. Without this, pre-dreadnought will be built as "all big gun". 2- By ww1, destroyer was be the primary defense against torpedo run, because that's what they were design for. For that to be true, Destroyer guns need be a treat to other destroyer. As long as these two are true, I will be happy. If they are not, the game will differ from reality substantially. Now, I do not particularly care if its done trough accuracy or else, but you can't fix both of these without effectively buffing short range accuracy at least a bit compared to Alpha 2. If, for whatever reasons, you think its not the appropriate way. It is still possible to make all target "bigger" trough Target Signature. At the end, result will be the same. There is also the question of what to do with small secondary after WW1. AA and ground support may not be in the game, that leave little use for guns under 6" as secondary in late game. If nothing is done then Iowa tower will be better empty. Is it easier to read?
  8. So this is how you read my text. Well that explain allot.
  9. The end result is overkill, that's for sure. The question is why? To make it clear, I said that at the very beginning of alpha 3. This patch may have overshot. I am still uncertain of how much accuracy contribute to this. I suspect the moving target penalty, armor model, lack of citadel and the high armor bypass ratio to be the dominant factor at play here. Regardless of what accuracy end up becoming I think these factor need to be corrected. Then and only then will we be able to judge if a given target die to quick or not.
  10. I fail to see in what this contradict what I said. It seem to actually reinforce my point. Ps: we should move this discussion elsewhere than Combat feedback and Alpha 3. Preferably in the same topic!
  11. Pom pom refer to the Qf-1(37mm) and Qf-2(40mm) autocanon because of their sound. So yeah, the 50mm gun is not that. You can perceive it as me trying to dodge your "historical and simulation" results. Could I not say exactly the same? You discarded the +-1/12 bypass argument because:
  12. How did that got double posted? Anyways, I am not dodging your argument. I just don't agree with them.
  13. It isn't a recreation, the only "common" aspect was the ship selected. Flip it around, if the Germans DDs would have behaved as AI did, do you think its possible it would have ended faster?
  14. @arkhangelsk During Texel action, most of the time was spent catching up with target, but that's not the problem here. You can't expect AI to behave as human did in that battle. I mean, not just the AI, but all other factor as well. To reduce all that to accuracy would be a mistake.
×
×
  • Create New...