Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Cpt.Hissy

Members2
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    381

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Cpt.Hissy

    >>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    ^^^
    Umm no.
    These 900 meters were actual maximum range for self propelled mines of the period, after that they ran out of whatever "fuel" and sank.
    Any torpedo can potentially be aimed at it's maximum range, even if it makes almost no sense for latest ones.
    More so, more advanced torpedoes have a safety mechanism, that scuttles them soon after in case of miss, specifically to avoid above mentioned scenarios.

    Miss a close target and hit whatever behind is one thing. Defy the laws of physics and engineering just because is another.

    • Like 3

    Really not so great, actually really bad

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, o Barão said:

    - Doesn't matter how big or small your ship is , your hull modules in the middle , they always have the same beam.

    - You don't have the ship hull curve lines, instead what we have there is the bow and stern modules that dictate the ship beam and all of them follow the same dimensions. Those hull resemble a lot like huge oil tankers or mega cargo ships from late XX century to the current days. Or like bathtub toys for children :D

     

    In the new system, that problem is solved with a simple solution. The ship tonnage will tell you how long or small your ship will be and the ship hull will have that progression hull curve for all the ship lenght making much more realistic hulls.

    A big improvement.

    Hmm except current system literally uses these exact models, with all their drawbacks, and only combines them automatically in dev's pre-configured order instead of allowing you to do it, diminishing already barely existing customisation?

    Have you even played the game?

    • Like 5

    Core Patch 1.0 News *The upcoming changelog*

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    Umm... well.
    Am looking at it optimistically, and what i see is the team works at it in the order they've chosen, slowly but steadily. While completely ignoring any important feedback.
    They don't care what we players want this game to be. They decided at what it will be and only want us to bug test the concrete implementations.
    And this "patch" is desperate attempt to apply duck tape to a ship that's burning and sinking after being nuked. aka shut those toxic idiots up.


    Some more superbattleships and modern hulls, that clearly were part of already planned batch. Piece of the campaign mechanics that happens to be ready by this moment. Some traditional number shuffling. Some improvements here and there.
    Nothing on making ship designer worth having. Nothing about just outright broken formationkeeping logic. Still supporting the arcadey mechanic of all-knowing strategic AI. Nothing even to address that stupid issue with floating UI elements going offscreen in all places.
    I perfectly understand that most of these things are not easy to do, but the moment you sell something, you take responsibility of delivering it regardless of how hard it is. At least supposed to in normal world.

    Optimistic part in this, they are working and we will get a completed game eventually, and it perhaps will be decent one.
    Won't be what we paid for though. What we have done in game currently, is what will stay, it may only be tweaked but not rebuilt. Sad.
    And there still will be zero communication going forward.

    Let's wait and see where it goes. They can do good games it seems (haven't played them though)
    Thanks for ping Barney.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 3

    >>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<

    in General Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Cpt.Hissy

    well it is clear that mr. Skeksis either is being paid by devs to try and agitate in their favour, or is actual skeksis. Just leave it there, people.

    On topic. Funny to say, but the Bathtub of Toyboats (aka WoWS) actually does the visibility thing better than here.

    For those unfamiliar: every boat does have it's own visibility range. And while you can see all enemies spotted by your team on the map, in actual gameworld you only can see the ones within your visual range. You can blindshoot at the map markers if your guns range allows, and can even hit sometimes, but eyeballing the target on the small minimap + added artificial inaccurasy of shooting without locked target, makes it unlikely.
    That's how this could easily be done here.
    Same with torpedo evasion etc, of course. Every ship should control itself individually, not being driven by all-seeing AI from heavens.
    And no, player being in the heavens is not a valid argument.

     

    also sneak peek from steam: people are loosing hope, this project is already being called abandonware. We can go home?

     

    • Like 2

    >>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    Here's a suggestion:
    implement "targeting accuracy" range-curve based solely on spotting and tracking stats on a given ship.
    It replicates current targeting accuracy up to some effective targeting range, then goes completely wild.
    This is supplemented by a new "Blind fire" option in-battle, that goes after "Aggressive". Now, on Aggressive ships will fire at distances up to their effective targeting range. On Blind fire, they try to fire at anything within gunnery range, if they can recieve that information from whoever is actually spotting it. (aka have radios and radios aren't disabled, or within visual range for signal flags or signal lights)

    As technology progresses, in the endgame effective range may become higher that gunnery range, making this irrelevant.


    ***
    of course all of this makes sense if we ever going to get the game.. heh heh.

    >>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<

    in General Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Cpt.Hissy

    13 was in combat system section alone.
    Most of us bought essentially that text. Maybe our mistake, but not us to be blamed for selling that text.
    Anyway, not implemented individual target tracking is not "great and genius game mechanic that's here to stay", it is nothing more than lazy placeholder for hopefully WIP content. Same goes for most of the currently existing questionable mechanics.

    In my opinion (that barely matters but still), only acceptably implemented parts of this game as it currently stands are: visuals, basic game logic (UI handling etc), whole system that handles representing various effects as percentage multipliers, ship generation algorithm (perhaps, editor still doesn't allow it to shine), gunnery target prioritisation logic, mostly sailing logic (ship helmsman simulation, not the physics of moving ships), some certain parts of ship controlling AI.

    Everything else is split between placeholder, shit and non existent.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 3

    Clown Car Thread

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    This one's funny, perfectly adequate armament.

    But once again, this is not AI problem, this is stupidly limited editor problem. No matter how good is AI, if this crap is the only thing possible to assemble due to all the limitations, this will be the one AI builds. And the one player builds under the same limits, likely.

    0kPPljK.png

    >>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<

    in General Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Cpt.Hissy

    " older ships being far slower to train on" - why exactly? that was common practice in history, and it worked.
    also, from gamey perspective (and a little bit of realism) - how about the "school ship" refit for old boats? Somewhat decreasing their actual combat worthiness, but seriously increasing training speed.

     

      

    3 minutes ago, DougToss said:

     

    please refrain from interacting with that account, it's poisonous.

    • Like 4
×
×
  • Create New...