Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

DetCord

Members2
  • Posts

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by DetCord

  1. I honestly don't know how this started, but the proj-lead and or dev's have utterly shot themselves in the foot here. UA:D is a pretty lambasted title via reviews, and for good reason. It's a mess in nearly every facet. The project lead should be fired and replaced with someone that knows what they're doing. Whomever is leading this abortion should be dumped as soon as possible and the studio should find a single lead to propel and direct this project to the next stage, someone with the resume to do so. 

    It's obvious this has been an epically mismanaged project from it's inception as every patch and or content update results in a broken mess.

    The negative reviews are growing, but this one caught my eye as completely accurate.

     

    Untitled-1 copy.png

    • Like 3
  2. On 5/31/2021 at 1:31 PM, Tousansons said:

    Stillfront is not making games. They're just investing money into video game developpers and in a sense influence their release strategy to probably (most likely) match the global strategy of the group.

    I never said they were making games. They're an IG that seeks to monetize as much of any given platform as possible, typically to it's detriment and irregardless of the impact upon the end-product. They're not interested in games or making them. They're not interested in the process or the art form. Their sole concern is profit, period.

    On 5/31/2021 at 1:31 PM, Tousansons said:

    You then can't say that "they don't give two damn about the user" because players are not their target. They target developpers and investor. Users are the responsability of the game developpers and if they fail at it, I don't think their new boss will be very pleased.

    They don't care. You're commenting on an investment group and process you are obviously completely and utterly ignorant of, yet continue to comment anyway, moronically so. Take a look at their acquisitions of indie studios and titles over the past five years, the developers of those titles, and what they demanded of them following said acquisition. There are slews of videos on YT and in the premiere pub for our industry (GIbiz) concerning this horror show that is Stillfront.

    As an example, Stillfront has bought up a lot of studios over the years up to and including BG. Initially, BG was producing a title to rival that of PzG/PzC with a strategic decision making process akin to the Total War series but with battles fought in the realm of the Close Combat titles. BG missed a single deadline by 4 hours and they fired most of the original staff/developers, shuttered the studio, acquired the code and engine, and injected it into a new mobile MMO title helmed by one of their flags. And this isn't the first time they've done such a thing...

    In fact, most the the studios under their umbrella exist in name only now.

    On 5/31/2021 at 1:31 PM, Tousansons said:

    In a sense, there is no shame to show to people caring about money that the group is indeed caring about money with an efficient strategy. It's simple marketing.

    There is nothing wrong with making money. That's what we're here for. Produce and develop a product people will want to engage in/with, make it so it excels, make it so it engages, make it so we/I can deliver something truly enjoyable and entertaining that keeps that person coming back.

    The issue remains that Stillfront will sacrifice all of these above aforementioned elements for the sole sake of monetization.   

     

    EDIT: Case in point.

     

  3. As someone that works in this industry (game dev) I can attest that it's often a mixed bag with regards to who or what (IG) has acquired your current employer. At the end of the day Stillfront will be calling the shots, adjusting operational structures, and developing new strategies as they see fit.
     

    The Stillfront business model is typical of these IG's though. And by that I mean its grotesque. From their (QuEC) website.

    triangle.thumb.jpg.7c47fe897b840d862bdad415ba030b5c.jpg

    Can't get over them spelling hobby wrong...

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  4. 26 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

    Have you a specific statement from the Devs that this is true?

    While some have suggested having limited snap points etc is to make things easier for the AI (I was one who did, and I suspect it's true), that DOESN'T mean:

    - a more relaxed system can't be implemented for players.

    - the AI itself might not be improved at some point, either.

    It just means they've not done any of those things SO FAR, 4 versions into Alpha.

    Saying the original premise "was ABANDONED" is very different from "has been shelved for now".

    I may well have missed that statement, so would appreciate seeing it. That means what it means, which DOESN'T mean I think you're being dishonest. Just that I've missed or forgotten it. As an aside, it's always a good idea to include specific quotes or links when making claims about what the devs have or haven't said.

    Cheers

    It's in the f&#kin' dev diaries, guy. From the initial posts way, way back.

    The entire concept of the game was designing ships how you want, from stem to stern, towers to masts, beams to berms, all of it. The fact that you're completely ignorant of the initial concept of the games design makes your entire diatribe utterly moot. Though feel free to go back and do a tad, remote, and or minuscule amount of research on what the game was initially envisioned to be. 

    EDIT - My previous point stands regardless of your uninformed post.

  5. On 2/22/2020 at 2:39 AM, HusariuS said:

    1. Game is in Alpha stage ( 4 stage ) and you expect from a less than 5 men dev team to make things they promised, while the game is in early Alpha... sure, they could focus on "design anything", but why if they have more important things to do like campaign?

    2. Why they should focus on making "non-historic"/generic ships parts? You can find on the internet bunch of informations and screenshoots about historic ships parts that were used (like South Dakota-class) or were planned (like H-class or A-150-class) and because of that, they are easier to make and implement to the game.

    If you so much want to have "non-historic/generic" ships parts, go to the blender.exe, learn to make ship models and send those models created by you to the devs and maybe they gonna implement them to the game.

     

    I'm not hating you or anything, i just said why are you wrong :)

    1. Apparently your reading comprehension is horrendous.

    2. Because the original premise of the game was to design anything you want however you want. Given that this system was abandoned due to the AI's inability to use it properly, it only makes sense to provide hulls, towers, etc that aren't completely historical. Hell, that was the initial vision of the game to begin with.

    Quote

    If you so much want to have "non-historic/generic" ships parts, go to the blender.exe, learn to make ship models and send those models created by you to the devs and maybe they gonna implement them to the game.

    Typical pedantic response.

    Quote

    I'm not hating you or anything, i just said why are you wrong

    Sure, you got right on that. And you disproved nothing in my initial post. 

    On 2/22/2020 at 3:28 AM, Shaftoe said:

    Tbh rather than seeing this small Dev Team wasting precious time on something like OP's proposal, I would prefer them to simply eliminate glaring issues with AI's ship design (make them more historical, less stupid, etc.) and then handle top priorities on already existing to-do list. Hopefully, implementing ability to design several classes of ships before combat, adding more DD and CL hulls, and finalizing the campaign.

    Precious time isn't needed. These hulls are already there, many of which could be considered interchangeable.

    On 2/22/2020 at 12:34 PM, Ruan said:

    I agree with Op on this one. Ship design does feel very limiting and ships tend to pop out looking the same from one to the next. All I feel like I'm doing is changing the accessories rather than actually designing a ship. The current system is limited by what they build out. If they stuck with the sectional building shown in the steam trailer we, arguably, could of had many, many more options with fewer parts overall. That's assuming that hull and super structure used the same system. With the current system the devs would have to build out more parts just to have the same amount of choices and even then it's arguably less as we are limited by the hull and super structure design itself.

    Either way I'm just here for the ride for the most part. So what ever way they want to go they'll go and I'll just try to enjoy what they make or move on to the next game.

    On those saying that the campaign is more important. I'd say it's not. We'll be spending a lot of time designing ships. It's easily half the game right there, even more so when we see how abstracted the combat side is. If the designing side of it is not enjoyable or doesn't work well then the game will fall short for sure.

    Agreed. However, I disagree that the campaign is not important.

    The primary issue revolves around being stuck with historical designs. The entire original concept of the game was design what you want, how you want, and in the manner in which you want it. That's gone, I get it. We can't do that anymore. Now we're relegated to the constricted designs, hulls, towers, in which these nations utilized at the time of their construction. That's the epitome of removal of choice. That's a linear line right down the tight-rope. 

    Generics add to the player ability to design what they want, how they want, and in the manner they want. 

  6. I know that the original premise of the game of design whatever you want however you want was abandoned due to AI issues, being that it (AI) couldn't design ships properly. I understand why you've opted for the current system in use.

    That said, this shift in focusing only on historical hulls, towers, secondary towers, funnels, etc etc, removes player choice in the design of their vessels and limits them to prescribed ship designs that were available at the time by nation by year. For a game that's eventually supposed to be a grand campaign sandbox of naval warfare, a game where the player helms every facet of a nations naval apparatus, it seems like you've gone from one extreme (design anything) to another extreme (use what we've given you).

    The current system removes any and all choice, opting to hide behind a series of mechanics that attempt to beguile the player into a sense of freedom of design, but that fallacy quickly falls away once you plot that first tower down. I'm not saying we shouldn't have historical hulls or towers or funnels. What I'm saying is that we need some sort of system of generics. Generic hulls, generic towers, generic funnels.  

    • Like 3
  7. My HMS Hermes design. Very practical, very below the keel 50K ton design.

    kR8sL10.png

     

    The aft weight offset has been compensated for via offsetting the stern armor sections. Shes a tad bit weak back there but still good to go.

    Mm2esTv.png

     

    Her 15in main guns are a foreboding sight.

    LtDSIc4.png

     

    5oLufb7.png

     

    20' belt armor deflects a round. Amazing armor pen and deflection sim.

    QuC4Sy4.png

    BREAK

    Welcome to the KMS Waffen Waffles. A beast amongst beasts!

    35binDD.png

     

    A tiny, shorty, squeaky, 35K ton BC with guns far too large (17in) to have ever been installed. She tends to capsize when turning, or firing, or just moving in any direction...

    ojEsGsR.png

     

    ox2lk6n.png

     

    Pain Train!

    a2RNmpU.png

     

    • Like 6
  8. Absolutely loving the Alpha, that said I'd like to suggest some minor and easily implemented features.

    • 1.) A zoom component for the camera. Something similar to the FoV feature available in Arma 3's splendid camera whereby you can adjust the camera lens to be zoomed in and out. Perhaps using the plus and minus keys on the numpad.
    • 2.) Manual quitting at the conclusion of a battle as opposed to being automatically exited. Maybe I wanna roam around and take some screenshots or watch that last ship slip beneath the sea.

    I have a few more however, I feel these are the ones I'd love to see implemented the most at present.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...