Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Shaftoe

Members
  • Content Count

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Shaftoe

  1. Check out the upcoming Sea Power on Steam. It's the only modern naval RTS in making that I know of.
  2. I want paintjobs for our ships. Can be expect this feature at a later date?
  3. That's better. I believe we can do without smiting you... this time. Lol.
  4. Yeah, and I am telling you why you're not investors. Lol. It's just that.
  5. In legal sense, returns =/= product, and while sometimes a product may be part of "the returns", it's usually not the only outcome of an investment deal - but it is usually the one and only outcome of purchasing. In some cases they may be similar, yes. But relations between parties, despite all similarities, are still very different. Both have their official interpretations. By legal definition, which is the prevalent one - since it is the one governing the real side of all deals (while economical is merely used for theoretical purposes), buyers are not investors, as relations between parties to different contracts are governed by different rules & customs. So, while you may not have been talking about contracts, you cannot change the fact that whenever you become party to a deal, any sort of deal, it begets a contractual relationship between you and the other party, regardless of whether or not it's written on paper. That's just the way it is - you may not like it, you may even actively disagree with it, but you are simply not the one to change it, because it has already been decided by our society - specifically, our lawmakers. Therefore, claims that "we are, in a sense, investors" are simply baseless. This is what your logic looks like to someone who knows the law: Because actually being an investor (with proper status as such) is just not the same as being "something of an investor" (a glorified, but nonetheless ordinary buyer).
  6. Actually, you both are incorrect... Investor is a party that enters in agreement with a project owner (investee), providing a considerable amount of funding, in exchange for substantial monetary or other material returns at a later date, specified in a written contract. Additionally, investors may require other forms of compensation, like demonstration of their images/mentions (i.e. advertisement) on an end product, or ownership rights to a certain technology that's being developed. We are most definitely NOT investors. We are purchasers. And even if we pre-order the game, or buy a game that is still in early development, it DOES NOT change our legal status, or the nature of this contract. As per this (generally) unwritten contract of offer and acceptance, developers take upon themselves the obligation to provide us with access to the product - either when it's ready (purchasing after release and pre-purchasing), or before the release (alpha access). While there may be some perks for those who sign up earlier, in reality we - the buyers - are not at freedom to determine the exact contents of the contract, we are not entitled to receive any monetary returns or to demand inclusion of our images/mentions in it, etc. See the difference?
  7. To hell with forced "dev diaries" and "increased communication". Let the small team do their work. I don't give a flying floating f@#ck about what my pal @Nick Thomadis has to say about some technical gibberish that goes into developing the game. I, like many other people here, only care for results. And I know that the man I mentioned before can deliver. Which is the only thing I am seriously expecting of him, and the team. That's it. Let people work - don't make them tell you fairy tales instead.
  8. Hey, easy, fella! No need to be so rude.
  9. Well... it's a funny situation. Warning: scary words behind the spoiler!
  10. I'd love to have different paints (tied to their respective nations) for the ships in the game.
  11. Naval Academy contains official scenarios with hard-set restrictions and objectives. Custom Battles allow you to create your own scenarios, with restrictions as you please - but the ultimate objective is obliteration of the enemy.
  12. Devs are aware of that. And many of us, faithful backers, hope that in the near future it will be addressed.
  13. Yep. My thoughts exactly. Although just making all those ships ourselves would be a good start.
  14. The most important suggestion is allowing players to manually design all ship classes they take into combat.
  15. Exactly. Something has to be done about DDs. CLs and secondary turrets of BB/BC/CA should be much better at keeping DDs away. Even 6" guns don't do well against DDs. Yes, current state of things may be kinda more realistic, but it enables and encourages suicide attacks - a behavior that wasn't common IRL. Hence why DDs have higher combat effectiveness that they're supposed to. Personally, I love to have strong DDs. They're my favorite class of ship. But this... as seen in "US Super Battleship" mission... is just too much.
  16. In this case, "less sharp" practically means no evasion at all. So if you do improve it, make sure to improve it considerably. And even better - allow players to quickly give directions to individual ships within a division in order to properly manage their evasion.
  17. They keep running straight into detected torpedoes.
  18. @Nick Thomadis My BB is very similar to yours, all critical requirements match. I even acted very similarly to what you described. But I had the problem that enemy destroyers completely ignore 6" secondaries and rush me with their torpedoes, thus forcing to evade them or sinking me Despite doing almost exactly the same thing you did several times - my ship quickly lost sight of enemy BBs, but they just kept lobbing shells (and torpedoes) at me with impunity. That's the biggest problem here. The enemy can track and kill you with a variety of ways, when your only hope is your big guns limited by one ship's line of sight. Hence why I suggested adding a 4-ship DD (gun-heavy auto design) division to the player's side, and degrading Japanese' technology a bit.
  19. I completely agree. Ships attached to divisions should prioritize evasion over following the lead ship. It is only sensible.
  20. We should assume that naval intelligence exists, so some tactical information should be available, such as top speed, max gun size/number of guns of different types, and some key armor values. Basically, the stuff that could be learned from open sources/observation at the time. Other weaknesses should be known, too - like poor turn rate/acceleration, etc.
  21. This is why I suggested that the player must be able to manually set target type to every detected enemy ship, thus increasing the speed of their identification. Example: If I see a "CA" that is actually a BB, then I am changing "CA" to "BB", and if I am correct - identification skyrockets from, say 20% to 60%.
  22. The worst thing is... It's trial and error up until the point when you get lucky. Which means it's poorly balanced and extremely inconsistent. While that is to be expected from an alpha build, in my opinion developers should move towards more tangible mechanics, predictable tendencies and realism. What we have now... is just a sad RNG fest - and while it may somehow work in more-or-less plausible scenarios, missions like US Super Battleship show how many problems are still unsolved.
  23. I disagree. In fact, it does make sense. From a long range, a large destroyer/destroyer leader may appear to be the same size and shape as a light cruiser, so "small" and "medium" categories simly don't work. In fact, such misidentifications happened historically. Remember the case of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen - a "large" battleship being confused with a "medium" cruiser, just because they had similar silhouettes. So, obviously, your idea don't meet the fidelity requirements set for this intended-to-be-realistic game.
  24. I want players to be able to set hull classification for enemy ships manually. I am quite tired of seeing "CA" and "BC" marks on battleships. In fact, if player correctly identifies ship type, then the game should identify them faster than it would otherwise take. This is how it works in Cold Waters, and it worked well there.
×
×
  • Create New...