The PC Collector
-
Posts
422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by The PC Collector
-
-
1 hour ago, Rucki said:
So Im in 1899 with Japan and cant find a way to get in a war with anyone around me as everyone has good relations with me and I dont have the money to increase my tonnage further to increase tension (there really should be other options than increase tonnage for tension and rng..).
Somehow the rng events decided that Austria wants war with me, I once send there some fleets but of course they dont get fuel so far away, even with British and Italian ports around, which both are allied with me. So Im at war with Austria for 8 years or so, without any interaction.
So I cant really do anything beside clicking next turn and research from time to time.
I've been saying since 1.06 came out that until diplomacy gets full fleshed, an "I hate you" button which instantly puts you in negative relations with the country in questions is needed, both for fun and for testing purposes. How are the players supposed to test combat mechanics if they can't get any combat at all?
-
6
-
-
2 hours ago, Dave P. said:
Is there a reason some of my ships seem to be limited in battles to ~1/3rd their actual speed? (Engine efficiency is >100% for all designs.) A 5kn battle line is... less useful.
Or is this one of those design defect things?
It's because the faulty (and completely unnecesary) tactical fuel consumption system. Even if your ship has 100% fuel, and no matter the range, they will run out of fuel in at most an hour combat.
Why I say unnecessary: Even if we take into account a ship with 3000 km range, the max battle duration is 3 hours. That would mean around a 3% of the global range. Which clearly shows that, with the current battle time cap, tactical fuel consumption is negligible, which makes the system unnecessary, so best solution for that would be simply deactivating it.-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
The AI probably does not even fire at you, correct? Maybe he cannot even spot you at this distance. You can spend 1x life time doing circles at 50 knots and going away from the slower enemy. He will not spend his shells at you. Arguably, the game should make the AI try to fire at you not save ammo, but alas, we cannot think why a player would like to spend his time doing this.
EDIT: Joking aside, I would have an aneurism if I spent my time doing circles like this and not try to enjoy a game.7 hours ago, ZorinW said:Again, what's with the attitude towards people who payed YOU to have a job in the first place and who are spending their time testing the product you deliver?
By this point there are still many bugs presents in the game and the campaign is basically stale so people will try to make the most of what is there and if that leads to finding more bugs or possible exploits YOU should be GRATEFUL and not ridicule them!
Exactly this. With the devs' attitude of being openly disrespectful and mocking towards people who have paid them to do a job we should be getting paid for, they have demonstrated not deserving the time we are investing in doing good feedback reports and testing the limits of the game to find possible things which might need to be adressed. That without taking into account that most of the things we report aren't even adressed, or instead of recognising them as issues they blame them as our fault.
So, unless I can see a change in that attitude they're showing, as if we owed them something when it is exactly the other way around, this will likely be my last post here.
Be safe, everyone. And to Nick, congratulations. You have succeeded with your attitude on making me not want to spend another dime on anything related with you studio.-
4
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Vinrellren said:
Is that even can be considered a roadmap?
As someone who had to do a dev project for his grade, and who has worked as a dev, I can answer: No, it can't.
-
13 minutes ago, Skeksis said:
Helps if you READ MORE
Helps if you know what a roadmap is. That is rough and vague upcoming feature list, which is not the same as a roadmap.
A proper development roadmap has to include a detailed list of detailed features, with estimated ETAs, or at the very least have them sorted or categorised by priority and/or development status.-
2
-
-
13 hours ago, LeoA said:
Focus Research is still absurdly overpowered. As Italy, I was able to reach Dreadnought tech in 1894. The following clowncar was a design of mine in December 1894:
The problem is that focus research has to be overpowered, otherwise the penalties you get won't be worth. Other thing is that both the bonus and the penalties should be lowered.
And another problem is that certain techs require to be focused from day 1 only to not fall stupidly behind. In a "natural" research (this is, without using any priority at all) by 1910 cruiser design is already a decade behind, an you won't get BCs until 1917, that assuming permanent 100% funding since day 1, which not not always can be afforded.
A solution for the overpowering of the current tech focus, could be adding an "ahead of time" penalty which reduces the research speed when using focuses on ahead of time techs, and it escalates to the point to, where if the tech is 5 years ahead of time, it simply negates the effect of the focus. Other strategy games use systems like that to prevent the use of breakthrough techs too ahead of time with great success.
Alternatively, this could be coupled with a "behind of time bonus" to avoid techs to fall too back in time, regardless of it is being focused or not. This wouldn't be exploitable by using the focuses, as the "ahead of time" penalty prevents exploitation as it simply gets negated if the tech is too ahead of time.
1 hour ago, admiralsnackbar said:The issue here is that certain techs are game changing and others not so much
This is certainly the main reason of why tech focus is so overpowered. Is not that the function on itself is so overpowered, as it gives you hefty penalties in exchange. But the truth is that there are only 5 or 6 techs which are really gamebreaking to have ahead of time. namely hull design until Dreadnought hull, armour intil Krupp I, guns until 12" MK III, engines until turbines, cruiser until you get BC hull and a decent CA hull (can be done after unlocking dreadnoguht), and rangefinders until radar I. The rest of techs can be safely ignored and neglected for the entire campaign.
Then what in my opinion what makes research focus so overpowered is that you have three to choose between these 5-6 techs, which means that you have to make no real sacrifices to get ahead of time. If the "ahead of time/behind of time" penalty/bonus system, which in my opinion will be the ideal solution, I think that simply reducing the tech focus from 3 to 1, so you have to actually make some sacrifices to get techs very ahead of time, will greatly reduce the imbalance problems created with tech focus.
Sure, getting the dreadnought hull on 1895 would still be an advantage, but if you have to make it not much faster than a pre-dred because you don't have good engines, use lousy Mk I guns and questionable gun dispositions the advantage doesn't look so great now.
Alternatively, an easy fix for Dreadnought Hull rush would be making that the shipyard development work like it should, with the amount you can increase the shipyard wouls start low (like 1000 T) and slowly increasing over time, instead of being a set insanely huge amount depending on the era you start the campaign. Then, unlocking the dreadnought hull in 1895 won't be of any use if you can only build 13500 T big ships.-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Vinrellren said:
Hey, that's why I am often building only capital ships like BBs and BCs. It does make no sense for me to build anything other because of the difference in cost, especially after the change in maintenance cost in addition to HE spam and the advantages the BBs and BCs have in general against cruisers.
On the pre-dreadnought era cruisers are good. Even I could say that very early CAs are a bit overpowered cost/power wise, as 8.7"/9.4" are more than enough to kill early BBs, while a CA armed that way is way cheaper than a BB. But once you hit the late dreadnought era, and specially the modern era, costs start to skyrocket. Which is ocaky for BBs and BCs, since these kind of ships get a direct increase with size, either by being allowed to mount insanely big guns or by mount insane amounts of barrels of not so big but still huge guns.
But for CLs and CAs, that doesn't happen. Due to the fact that, no matter how big you make them, they're limited in which guns they can use, they don't get a power increase according to the cost increase. Personally I have found that the second I can make a CL big enough to house 4 triple 200 mm main guns and a number of 105 mm turrets (and a couple of torpedo tubes just in case, once deck lanuchers are available) on the sides as secondary weapons, which can be achieved with the minimum displacement of the modern light cruiser hull, around 6200 T, going any bigger is a waste of resources as it doesn't give me a return in combat power according to the increased price: Going from 12 to 18 main guns and adding 4 more "secondary" turrets with the maximum displacement of around 10500 T get me a around a 50% more of price. While that might sound correct, by that moment said CL is nearly as expensive as a 13500 T CA armed with 4 triple 240 mm guns, more armour, anti torpedo protection and a far more powerful secondary battery composed by actual secondaries which won't give my ship accuracy penalties.
For CAs, meanwhile, I have found that the CA I described in the previous paragraph is essentially the most powerful one you can build while still remaining somehow cost effective. Yes, you can build bigger CAs, and even arm them with 280-300 mm guns, but at that point your cruiser will likely be as expensive as a 25-30k T BC, or even more, so you'll be better outright building an actual BC instead, as I proved a few hours ago.-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, SodaBit said:
So, there you have it. You can pretty much forget about the feature where you can choose how much of each shell type you bring with you into battle, all you really need is HE. Shame you can't bring 100% HE though.
And better not talk about gunboat CLs being able to best BBs in 1vs1 gunfighst by burning them down within minutes with HE spam and "sink due to extensive fire". Essentially, if the BB doesn't manage to disable the CL with the first 2 or 3 salvos, is done for.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, o Barão said:
So one ship is vastly superior to the other, have almost the double in tonnage displacement and only cost 10% more?
Wait, I can give you an even better one:
This is the cheapest 280 mm/11" "pocked battlecruiser" CA I have managed to design
Meanwhile, this is my budget, main fleet actual battlecruiser.
They use the same techs, yet the BC is only a 10% more expensive than the pocket battlecruiser CA. Why would anybody bother building a 280 mm armed pocket battlecruiser when you can have an actual battlecruiser for a 10% more?
So, I'm formally changing my "CLs are too expensive" feedback to "Cruisers are too expensive"-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, kjg000 said:
Given the number of fantasy elements on the list I am disappointed that the Dev’s seem to be accusing any player that doesn't design ships or play to their liking as cheats. Of course players will adapt to the environment provided. I don’t see the Dev’s complaining about people exploiting the 8” and 12” fantasy guns, but react to people mothballing ships by making mothballing as expensive as building.
As I have mentioned before, the Dev’s have taken on a herculean task in this game and kudos to them for doing so, but perhaps they should be less inclined to shoot the messenger and more willing to take on well intended, meaningful feedback.
Exactly this. Considering we are paying for something we should be paid for, the least the devs could do is not going all defensive and start blaming us for everything the second we give a feedback which doesn't align with what/how they think it should be.
Also, I don't think that they can blame anybody for not noticing something like the speed soft cap in an interfacy which is, at the very best, unintuitive and barely functional at all.-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
We will add an extra UI indication for the hull to show what is this limit, although it can be "felt" in the speed slider.
About time. I said this was needed the same moment the speed limit for hulls was announced. Currently detecting it requires going by 0.1 Kn speed jumps to detect it. If you make an adjustement of more than a couple Kn, it is too easy to simply not notice it.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:
The Devs really seam to hate the masculine urge many player have to super battleship rofl stomp, the only good and usable main guns right now are 11in-15in, 16in and up fire blanks ever few minutes that never hit anything, those guns being out damaged by literally any caliber of secondary gun they carry.
12in is of course a standout, but can only really HE a battleships to death, but of course annihilates anything else. 14in and 15in can and will deal penetration damage to as heavily armored ships as you will ever see, and 8-9 barrel 11in gun 'Panzerschiffe' heavy cruisers are, in my opinion, the most cost effective/dangerous/effective to all type of ship you can field.
Ive done well enough in 1930/1940 campaigns with 15 in guns on my capital ships, but i just tried out 14s on the new 1940 campaign i just started, and its a dramatic improvement over even 15s. You can mount a lot of 14 in guns, and the time it takes to kill an enemy ship is usually half that of my 15 in gun designs in my last few campaigns. You used to want 8 or 9 barrels of the largest gun you can fit on your battleship, per historical accuracy, now with how they have things stated you actually want to make turret farms with 12 to 18 barrel broadsides using 12in-14in guns.
This. This is exactly why I say that the modrn BB hulls are a downgrade from the late dreadnought hulls. True, the modern hulls allow to build bigger BBs, but since my 55k T super dreadnought can already house 15x380 mm, what's the point on going bigger? The point of going bigger would be using bigger guns, but the reality is that those guns lose too much accuracy anf RoF to be a real improvement, and are routinely outdamaged by lower callibers. Even my 380 mm armed BBs are routinely outdamaged by my much smaller 350 mm armed BCs.
For CAs, I've found that the magic calliber is 240 mm. You lose around 20% of damage and pen, and around 10% of base accuracy compared to 280 mm. But that is more than compensated because of the fact that they fire twice as faster. I discovered that, due to having to fall back to them due to the Mk IV 280 mm no loger fitting, and I was astonished to see how their performance not only didn't turned out to be worse, but in fact improved, and some of the older ones which were ineffective with 280 mm guns, became effective using 240 mm ones.
And now even more, with the maintenance costs skyricketing, it is not worth going bigger once you have BBs big enough to mount 12-15 350 mm guns, BCs capable of mounting 12 or more 305 guns, and CAs capable to house 8-12 240 mm. -
6 hours ago, AdmiralKirk said:
12" Mark V guns are insane.
12" are insane, regardless of the era. The base accuracy is so high compared to any other large gun, that they always outperform any other gun because they can land much more shots than any other gun. It has been reported dozens of times by now. But also part of the problem is that the current HE mechanics which essentially ignore armour means that high RoF guns are favoured, as not being able to pen the armour is not a real problem, because HE can reliably deal damage no matter how much armour a ship has.
-
Well, unsurprisingly, the constant maintenance cost raising has had an awful side effect: Now that the AI can't have 200+ ships anymore, but they still pull their ships in large fleets, the duration of the average war is 1 turn, 2 tops. Because their fleets last 2 battles, three tops.
If before the taskforce limitation was only a suggestion, now it is a must to keep the campaing playable. Sorry, O Barao and the few others who enjoy decisive battles, but in this condition the campaign is not worth beeing played.
Sorry to say it, devs. But with the latest changes you have managed to turn the campaing from enjoyable to unenjoyable again. -
4 hours ago, jw62 said:
Yes, the aggravation comes from those of us juggling the whole campaign with each patch. Over the last three patch and fixes I've had to jettison huge chunks of my fleet as maintenance costs rose. Obviously we need to restart the campaigns, but hey, that's a lot of time invested to throw away.
Exactly this. Testing new mechanics is good, but the place for doing so is the beta branch. We are customers, not paid beta testers, @Nick Thomadis. If you deploy a hastily made and poorly implemented new mechanic into the live version which ruins a bunch of campaigns which have taken hours, you can be sure that you're going to have some angry customers complaining.
-
1
-
-
For the record, I don't mind having to do more contained budgets ships, I even welcome the challenge. But forcing an update like this into an stable build... just NO. This is for what the beta branch is.
-
6 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
The player should not try to have the same amount of ships with the AI, and each ship to cost 4x more.
In my current campaign I have 23 BB. Only 2 are of comparable cost of the ones the AI are making like if they were donuts (111 M the british one for 122 mine) The rest are older refited ships which have a cost which range from 30 to 60% of that cost. Half of them (10, to be more precise) are even AI captured 22K T dreadnoughts.
Same goes for all my other classes, where only a small chunk of them are the newest , expensive techs. Are you really telling us this is not reasonable as a Major power fleet, and that we are expected to fight on a global map on upcoming updates with 40-50? ships fleet?
Or this is a plan to force us to reduce tech funding to levels where the AI doesn't lag behind, once again limiting players instead of improving the AI? -
38 minutes ago, Urst said:
You must be bad at managing your economy, then.
Or you might be cheating, then. Right now is not possible, or at least very difficult, to keep a fleet of more than 20-30 ships active on peacetime income, as more people besides me have provided evidence. I really can't stand people like you whose only reply for game issues is "git gud". Sometimes there are REAL issues, despite what you might think.
-
I don't have words to express how frustrated and disappointed I am at the devs right now. Well, I have them, but they will get me banned, so I won't use them. I will just say that, when the game was finally starting to be enjoyable, they decided to, once more, instead of fixing or adding things that we have been asking for months, deploy a hastily and poorly implemented fix for something that nobody had requested and that was solving a "problem" which was created by them to start with.
My campaign is functionally ended, as I can't even keep my fleet on war income, as soon as the war ends I'll have to scrap everything only to not go bankrupt. I'll have more other feedback to give, but I don't feel like it is worth the effort at this point, as I don't feel like it matters. As it has happened with some veterans like Littorio, they have simply made me give up. I hope to be proven wrong, but I no longer have hopes that this game will ever become remotely close to the potential it has. Because, once more, instead of teaching the AI proper skills, their solution is limiting players more and more and more. -
32 minutes ago, Urst said:
Pay more attention to the politics page. When someone's within 15 points of declaring war on you start activating your fleet.
And your economy will sink because of the cost of the reactivation, which will be impossible to assume without war income.
-
30 minutes ago, Urst said:
It should scale to a maximum of 3 years
Ehrm... I'm at 1930 and my newest, state of the art BB takes 28 months to build. No navy in the world would keep a ship which they would take three years to reactivate, they would simply scrap it and build a new one. Reactivation time should be a 10% of the build time of the ship, tops.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Fangoriously said:
Its currently a year to 'repair' a mothballed battleship?
Currently, 3-4 months to reactivate a DD. A new one costs 8 months to build. 6 months for a CL, 14 months to build a new one. I might aswell simply scrap them once a war ends and build new ones once I get at war again.
And yes, 13 months for my BBs. Which means that the average war will be over before my ship is in action again, so what is the point on even keeping them? I might aswell scrap everything but my first fleet (20 ships) and maybe a small buffer of spare ships to be able to keep it at the sea at any time.-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
There was a decision to keep having a major bug or this and to fix in a short time.
There are things the players are more concerned than this which have gone unadressed for 8 months at this point, then you decide to simple ruin every single campaign implementing this? Without planning to be more offensive, I think you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
Friendly reminder than the whole mothball abuse is a problem that you created by continuously increasing upkeep costs in a failed attemp to keep the AI at bay from having tons of ships.-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Players have to wait for the next major update to improve this further. Until then, no abusing of mothballing to save costs. I am sorry, let's imagine that the "repair" indication is actually re-commissioning time. Players can still mothball their ships in a more sensible way, without exploitations.
So you're telling me that is an intended feature? A whole year to have my BBs back in action? Why not get rid of the mothball function althogether? Why did you even introduced it on the first place?
>>> Beta 1.09 Feedback (Released)<<<
in General Discussions
Posted
@Nick Thomadis AI aggresiveness IS NOT fixed. Unless they have absolute advantage, they don't even attempt to engage. If they have even the slightest disadvantage (Like my 4400 T CA against theit 4100 T CA in the last one) they turn 180º away as soon as the battle starts.