slightlytreasonous
-
Posts
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by slightlytreasonous
-
-
I may have said I would be gone, but that doesn't mean my overwhelming urge to push for a batle overhaul in general ever will be.
-
With the work week (I assume)over,
I'm probably gonna go the same path of Littorio. This game could be the holy grail of the genre for who knows how long, if a few systems were overhauled. But as Littorio said, instead of necessary reworks it's more like duct tape. He was right when he said it would do more good for the game if development basically halted to overhaul core systems. I agree its a bit unreasonable but still an ideal. Littorio was right about basically everything, frankly. It's a shame that the devs don't seem to be listening. Maybe not agreeing, but at least listening.
Maybe it's temporary? Maybe we will see these mythical things? God knows because it's total radio silence, I've pleaded and pleaded for so much as a vague non committal, but just that is mythical at best.
The devs saying the campaign will be a sandbox almost seems like a lie, or a joke at best. Guns, obsoleteness, don't even get me started. But I probably should get started.
We are still constantly forced not to use "obsolete" things. We can't even build obsolete ships. As I've said so many times before, it might not be obsolete to me. Or maybe I just wanna mess around with a horde of pre dreadnoughts.
Maybe for some reason it would just be too much for the immediate future, to give us more freedom? But they have gotten even stricter with 1.06. Is there a good reason for this? Is it for the AI? Can't obsoleteness be AI only?
Well, I dunno. Sadly I'm not a psychic, and there haven't been any favors done there.
Gun stats are country, (visual model!) specific, not at the very least a few randomized presets chosen beforehand, or being able to design them ourselves, as has been requested by me and others. (Armory system, as it's been dubbed)
It is always the same. Just like it is with hulls and towers. Replayability has been thrown out the window in favor of unchangeable presets.
Next on the list is the battle generator. Which is just that. A generator. Generates a battle out of thin air whether you like it or not.
Always available withdraw is great. I am very happy to see that. But I'd think it be much better as the outright "deny battle" of that which won't be spoken because of the rules.
But either way the battle generator does not have a shred of player input. Some of us might prefer Jeune Ecole line of gameplay. Still others perhaps prefer japanese Kantai Kessen. Tough luck, because the generator says otherwise.
And then we have battles themselves. Formations, spotting, and no strategic level. I'll be light on this because I need to end this rant some time, but it is very much a wreck. It worked for custom battles and the academy. But without a overhaul, it can not, and will not, work in the campaign.
The reason name which shall not be spoken is so great, granted I admit it's a unfair comparison and that game suffers from many of the pitfalls I've outlined here, is because the devs know what it is. And they have a guy watching the forums like a hawk, ready to rapidly engage with the community at a moments notice with not a shred of mercy.
They know the issues and tell the community, "I get it, this will be worked on." And the game knows what it is, because it knows what it is not...
This game does not have that same privilege. Will it be a historical railroad or sandbox? Will it be a "instant action" arcade, or a realistic strategy?
I don't know, but if the devs do, they need to tell us.
I know this may sound like a unhinged rant, but my final piece of advice for the devs: take what so many have said and stare it in the eye. For suggestions, listen to them. For issues, spend one of the big updates or so giving the long standing ones the bandaid treatment to keep the game playable, and spend the next few completely reworking core features. Grand scale or not.
The devs probably aren't the boss so I don't mean to blame them, but that's also why I doubt they will listen. Can they? I really hope so, because then that would mean this isn't an exercise in futility.
-
3
-
1
-
-
I kind of freaked out at first with 1.06 and the fact is I'll always be the one screeching that only one step was taken forward when there clearly could have been a hundred more! And I wasn't the only one.
1.06 is still a good update, but I think it would go a REALLY long way, Nick, to just see the occasional vague foreshadowing or to drop back on old threads and say something along the lines of "thank you for your ideas", "we are considering further X of Y", etc. You've already done better then the vast majority of developers out there, but if it's radio silence on old issues until they are addressed,(rather a IF for us) it will get worse.
I don't care how vague, probably better the more vague in fact, fuels ideas and suggestions But please Nick, for the sake of the community, just tell us anything for those certain things that are constantly bought up.
-
2
-
-
Excellent, another topic to infect with the obvious...
Apart from all the choices in the build screen, the game gives you ample opportunity to win handedly.
Sure you might have an ammo detonation that realistically should send half the ship to the stratosphere, but its not a guaranteed kill. Sure you might have engine damage, but you never lose all power and become a assured dead sitting duck. And sure, you might have a slower reload for your quad, but you never face random breakdowns in the midst of battle.
And as mentioned, you're all seeing. Really, AI improvements can only go so far when we have this level of plot armor. Granted, AI does too, but you get my point.
-
gonna clarify I effectively mean, basically just a library of parts and a move tool. Maybe not as easy to use as a modular system, but I think sheer variability would more then make up for that.
-
18 minutes ago, Littorio said:
OK so I have to revise what I was thinking earlier: this update is still broken.
I had a nice little war going as Italy against France. Suddenly I go back to play today, design a few new ships, hit next turn.......and our war is over! There was no peace deal, no treaty, no new screen, no UI popup, nothing. Just that the UI on the right lacked a war indicator with my VP vs. their VP. And the funny part was an event popped up with them threatening war with me!
Even more odd, on the left, I was now grouped with France apparently in a war against Germany...who I was neutral with and had high relations.
(No mention of A-H who I had been actually allied with and who was also at war with France, not that the blasted UI ever had shown that!)
But the best is for next turn - where my Unrest suddenly jumped to 100 and my naval prestige went to over 1,200+! The government was overthrown...whatever effect that is supposed to have because apparently I was popular enough so I could stay...
Clearly something is still badly broken in this campaign. This is exactly, precisely the reason I have LONG argued that these campaign-expanding updates are BAD for development and should NOT be the current focus of limited programmer resources. They introduce far more unforeseen and cascading bugs than good features and enjoyment that they bring!
They should instead be starting from the ground up, refining basic game-play systems that already exist and are the CORE of the game: shipbuilding, spotting, weather, etc. If something must be added to keep plebs happy, then don't muck around with complex international actions for now. Add reconnaissance or intelligence . Give the map some meaning besides as a place to move a horrible UI of little task forces around! Hell, an entire update simply devoted to a UI facelift would be infinitely preferred to campaign enlargement for its own sake! Flesh out a basic logistics or shipbuilding system tied to ports!
All would be easier with static, 2v3, or 1v1 locked "campaigns" for now. Instead, what we have is a bugfest of "free and open" campaigns and nothing else.
Honestly I am disappointed with this game and where development resources are most being focused. We are not getting a better naval design and combat game, but a buggy, naval real-time-tactics title that lacks the necessary depth to make it interesting beyond a few turns.
Gotta say I completely agree.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Plazma said:
15 patch for 1.06 looks GREAT! Finally we have some playable campaign, where we have a bunch of issue, but now is working! Diplomacy ok, crew ok, GDP ok, AI not stupid like on the beginning, no major bugs. This need a lot work yet, but we are on good way.
For me now the issue are:
-Building ships have a lot of components and because of that human are much more superior than AI. Even if we add more money, crew to the AI, this don't change a lot. I will prefer that offset, roll and pitch will be decreased for AI by 50%, 10%, 10%. Usually AI have big problems to balance the ship and here we help them to be more competitive. Also maybe the weight of ship will be decreased for AI by 0%/1%/2% (deepens of difficulty).
-2" are OP, because of the "range found" and adjustment these guns to 2.9" long barrel and HE shells. On the 1890-1905 for sure.
-Adjustment guns are silly, long barrel is "must have" for each gun. (if you don't have it you losing like hell, when you have that you winning everything no matter what.)
-DD are too strong, small fast target make them stronger that heavy armored BB.
-Torps are too weak, damage from them should be much bigger, the dud chance and range are okay.
-The battles are often the same 4 DD vs 4 DD or 50 ships vs 50 ships. It will be more funny to have a small scale battles like 5-8 ships vs 5-8 ships
-Tech tree are messed up. Some parts could be from 1908 unlocked in 1901 and some part from 1898 not unlocked yet. What worst that CA hull size are first to unlocked and after that the CL hull size could be unlocked. DD any size could be unlocked and after that we research the 900t hull for DD, so basically we can make 1200t DD until we are too advance and we can do only up to 900t DD. Researching fuel and boilers are too slow in my opinion.
I'd like to see fog of war and more catastrophes at higher difficulties. Losing all power, turret malfunctions, etc.
And yeah, torpedo hits need to be way more severe.
-
Can we expect shipbuilding behaviors with 1.06, or later?
-
24 minutes ago, Grandpa Canuck said:
I am enjoying the random events very much. I understand this is under development and is not yet totally complete. I also understand the spirit of these random events but not all events make sense in all situations. This one made to laugh hard. I shrugged it off as government officials not in touch with reality but really I hope you make some kind of filter so as some events never happen to some countries. Of course I had to answer the 3rd bottom choice.
The landships shall rise again!
-
8 hours ago, MyTeitoku said:
Of course I know that 193 isnt actual hits.
What I am questioning is the vast difference between the expected hit ratio versus the actual hit ratio. And again, the scenario you said, the possibility of having 10 hits out of 1000 total tries, despite of having a 10% supposed hit ratio, is extremely rare. That possibility would amount to (C(1000,10)*0.9^990*0.1^10)=1.32E-32, while the most likely outcome is 100 actual hits, being 4%. That's a 10^30 difference.
Therefore if what you have said happened, which actually happened in my 677 misses pic, then that's a very good indication that the hit ratio is rigged. Nothing to do with RNGesus.
Notice I also said "With the constantly changing maluses due to manuevering, it's more then likely your hit chance against the TB wasn't 10% forever."
Maybe that was the case and you were just monitoring the hit chance? I don't know, you just ignored it. Seems to me you want to believe AI cheats, so you cant be convinced.
-
11 hours ago, MyTeitoku said:
Well I could equally argue that the hit chance would be even higher than 43%, and I happened to screenshot a moment when the chance was lowest?
The thing is, it was already at 196 hits. There was already abundant time to gain the full aiming bonus.
Even with the worst case, when every moment before this 43% had a lower hit chance, then the average hit chance should be (0+43%)/2=21.5%, still far higher than the actual hit chance.
And in fact, my ship had been circling around the target for quite a long time. And it achieved the full aiming bonus long time ago.
And again, please try to explain how possible to miss 677 hits on target with 10% chance. Note that target is a TB and I have already done much damage to rest of the enemy fleet, meaning my ship wasn't shooting the TB until it got really close, therefore the hit chance would be near 10% for a long time.
It is not the average hit chance, it is the average amount of actual hits.
You didn't get 196 hits, the top right shows the total amount of hits and damage, for both you and the enemy team. You've only got 13.
The "X/Y" is the amount of hits VS the amount of shells fired at the target.
Like I said, 10% hit chance doesn't mean you'll hit 10% of the time. You can expect it to be in that ballpark, but there is simply nothing stopping RNGesus from having 1k of your shells miss with a 99% chance. And, as said by many, your hit chance always varies. With the constantly changing maluses due to manuevering, it's more then likely your hit chance against the TB wasn't 10% forever.
-
13 minutes ago, o Barão said:
Ok, I managed to get dual quads. It is interesting to see how far we can push the old hulls with modern tech. But at the same time there are many constraints which makes them inferior to other new hulls available. Interesting but balanced. Ok
Another option with better towers, but worse stability issues.
"The ship was built in france, and because of that it was incredibly... French."
"The ship was "experimental" and for that very reason it couldn't have been called a failure."
-
1
-
-
Another 1.06 post/essay.
Ships-Designing.
Citadels are good but should be optional, or disabled on certain ships. Bit odd a 200 ton TB has one, and they do tend to screw with light ships a bit. Of course it would only be optional in the literal sense for larger ships.
Guns. I said I think there's missed potential before, but without throwing the current system out I think that caliber should simply be a number you type in instead of a percentage thing.
And we still need choice in the model used.
Ships-Building
Individual slipways and building refit designs. Helps prevent the AI from obliterating global steel reserves, so yes, it's totally related to 1.06.
Ships-Homeport
Ships and taskforces need a homeport they can set. And ports need to be able to expanded manually as well, in big amounts at once, I'd love to have a non historical main base.
Ships-Politics.
As has been said, there's not much you can really do to change global politics. Would be nice if there were more ways, not necessarily a guarantee for things to go your way, but still generally more.
Ships-War
Not much I have to say specifically here, just would be a bit nice if the scale of large wars was conveyed more.
Our ship has sailed from the gun factories to Buckingham palace, and now it sails to battle.
Ships-Battles.
The least that should be done here is vague doctrines which affect certain probabilities, (Mahanian, Jeune ecole, etc). But I think that they should have a proper overhaul for more choice and replayability.
Ships-Crew
As said before, training and recruitment should be separated.
Ships-End.
-
1
-
-
Dual casemates, they're pretty.
-
5
-
-
Because, 43% doesn't mean you're guaranteed to hit 43% of the time, and the hit chance always changes
Like in the 2nd most recent picture you can always see what modifiers are in play, and you can mouse over the gun reload thing to see their base accuracy, it's different for different countrys and quality.
-
1 hour ago, Dave P. said:
I thought I had read on here somewhere that the Random setting was for combat tactics in battle mode, not the campaign itself.
Yeah, pretty sure it says it when you mouse over it or something.
-
1
-
-
Why can't we delete messages?
Devs changed all the nations base gun stats to be different, so you end up with shenanigans like that, or having different guns because every nation under the sun uses British quads. Painful.
-
If the bulkheads aren't made of shells, and the funnels can't be rapidly repurposed into guns, then what's the point of even having a ship? I dont know why the hulls are built like that but it's just sucky.
14 minutes ago, Jyson said:Honestly, would be better if the lifeboats re-arranged themselves on the hull to give the guns room to turn. Having a min number of lifeboats needed may be interested in terms of shipbuilding, but would need to be able to move them around somehow.
I wouldn't force them but it would be nice as a little extra feature if I can stick them on say the tops of turrets so you don't take 100% losses every sinking.
I'll be a monster, and embroil the world in war, but don't artificially inflate my crimes. Even despite my best efforts, I'm sure some managed to survive.
-
1
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Traslo said:
Why would tech make a difference when you specify the exact ship you want if you can get to the peacedeal screen
Some techs just add modifiers, I'm not sure if they need refits to apply but if France has more weight cutting modifiers then that could be why.
-
2 minutes ago, Lima said:
I don't even know what to say...French gave me a ship after a while. Of course I asked for a CA, and they gave me CL, but that is details I think.
Possibly due to differences in technology?
-
I'm gonna rant a bit more on the topic of guns. Believe me, I rant out of good will. Set in stone or not, I may know the answer but I haven't been told it so I'll post anyways.
I made a suggestion awhile ago, and that in itself is basically all I want to say here, but the point is guns shouldn't be come up with on a whim, they should be a more long term choice and the player should have true input on designing them. Any bit of replayability helps.
-
Ill try not to let the salt shine through,(that was a lie) but 1.06 is frankly baffling.
Even more pointless blocks because things are "obsolete". Forced to upgrade my reload. Can I say no? Why not a warning? Nope, game decided it knows better then me so Im simply not allowed to use worse things. I love when I can't make a tradeoff or put myself at a disadvantage, I really do.
Basing gun caliber off of visuals? Really? If this is supposed to be a, as the devs called it, "full player freedom sandbox", one of us doesn't know the meaning of those words.
instead of giving the player real choice in the guns they use, it's just set by the devs, and there goes replayability. I love when one nation is always the meta because they have the best guns. Simple solution- guns are always the same but the player gets to enter the exact caliber and barrel length themselves. Yet here we are.
Pitch, roll, and engine efficiency always being awful because of tech is just awful. Trust me, there's better ways to emulate unstable ships instead of advertising to the player, "your ship is awful! We need to tell you this but you will never be able to do anything about it."
At the very, very least, change the colors of the text so it doesn't immediately seem to be such a massive issue to the player.
Sure, some things will have to be based in history, (hence why we badly need mod support, etc. I'll give the benefit of the doubt THAT removal is temporary)
But is it really supposed to be a sandbox now?
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, kineuhansen said:
asmall thing i would love to see is those red line that show where guns and torps are aiming i would love to see some different colors for main secondary and torps i some times forget whats what and please make them abit more clear to see on the ocean ps still would love to see what turrets has amount of ammo like a turrets has 256 ammo ap and 138 he and b turrets has 200 he and 135 ap and so on and what side of 2inch secondary is realoding same with torps if anyone can explain it better them me feel welcome to do
turret specific ammo isn't a thing.
The salvo system is a bit wonky which might introduce that illusion, but it isn't a thing. Ammo is shared by all guns of the type.
-
WoWs is horrific to play, but damn it looks good. Hopefully one day we can pull ships out of our afts as much as WG does.
-
2
-
Weight Offset needs a rework. (Image inside)
in Shipyard Discussions - Ship designer, Warships and their components
Posted
Why do I even try?