Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Alpha-3 News! [26/11/2019]


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

If all Game Development teams were as client oriented, forthcoming, involved with, and considerate of their targeted clientele, the gaming industry would be infinitely superior to what it is and has been.

I have already noted that many of the early posters that loudly and aggressively tried to push this project towards a Mass Multi Player, World of Warshits clone have pretty much gone silent and disappeared. Now maybe we can get on with helping the devs in building the legitimate 1890-1945 Surface Combat sim that they clearly intended and has been so painfully lacking in the PC wargaming genre.

Edited by Rick W
SP / Changed 1 word
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having a hard time waiting for this patch but I would rather the devs take their time and give us a quality game.

The thing I want to try out the most will be seeing what I can do for replicating the various Treaty Cruisers since that should be more doable next patch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Rick W said:

If all Game Development teams were as client oriented, forthcoming, involved with and considerate of their targeted clientele, the gaming industry would be infinitey superior to what is is and has been.

I have already noted that many of the early posters that loudly and aggressively tried to turn this project towards a Mass Multi Player, World of Warshits clone have pretty much gone silent and disappeared. Now maybe we can get on with helping the devs in building the legitimate 1890-1945 Surface Combat sim that they clearly intended and has been so painfully lacking in the PC wargaming genre.

Ironically I've seen too many games practically die from trying to ass-shove multiplayer into them.

Programming a game for multiplayer isn't easy, and typically unless the game has been partially made for it from the start, nigh impossible.

I've seen games stagnate for years to add multiplayer, when all that effort and time could have made a great singleplayer experience.


 

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feedback for the modern battleship mission: If using the maximum hull length, the superstructure placement may become an issue due to how it allows you to place the turrets. Plus the huge superimposed barbette has some interesting interactions with the main tower. So far I absolutely love the game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

Ironically I've seen too many games practically die from trying to ass-shove multiplayer into them.

Programming a game for multiplayer isn't easy, and typically unless the game has been partially made for it from the start, nigh impossible.

I've seen games stagnate for years to add multiplayer, when all that effort and time could have made a great singleplayer experience.


 

Yeah didn't battlefleet gothic armada 2 basically die because of this? I was hoping for a bigger campaign with a ship designer and also colour scheme maker plus other things too.

In BFG 1 the only multiplayer they had was limited to 1v1 2v2 which was fine as it was clearly an afterthough, hell even co-op campaign would of been enough.

Shame about Cossacks 3 as well another game that if they had focused more into singleplayer and mod support would of probably been more successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah didn't battlefleet gothic armada 2 basically die because of this? I was hoping for a bigger campaign with a ship designer and also colour scheme maker plus other things too.

In BFG 1 the only multiplayer they had was limited to 1v1 2v2 which was fine as it was clearly an afterthough, hell even co-op campaign would of been enough.

Shame about Cossacks 3 as well another game that if they had focused more into singleplayer and mod support would of probably been more successful.

The most annoying thing is that people forget the ups and downs of multiplayer.

Multiplayer can be a great experience, and so many old games are still played by many using multiplayer...But most multiplayer games die. Easily 90% or more.

Once a multiplayer game dies, it doesn't come back. Singleplayer games are forever.

I can play Doom, Halo, Stalker, Red Faction, so many old games, anytime I want and its the same great experience.

I cannot say that for countless dead or dying multiplayer games.

Multiplayer has its place, and when it finds its place, its stellar.

Buuuuuuuut I ain't seeing it for this game, just can't.

Its like From The Depths, why the flying hell would ANYONE want multiplayer in a game where there's absolutely no balance and no real point to it. Yet people demanded it, and the time spent on multiplayer all but killed its updates.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ThatZenoGuy said:

The most annoying thing is that people forget the ups and downs of multiplayer.

Multiplayer can be a great experience, and so many old games are still played by many using multiplayer...But most multiplayer games die. Easily 90% or more.

Once a multiplayer game dies, it doesn't come back. Singleplayer games are forever.

I can play Doom, Halo, Stalker, Red Faction, so many old games, anytime I want and its the same great experience.

I cannot say that for countless dead or dying multiplayer games.

Multiplayer has its place, and when it finds its place, its stellar.

Buuuuuuuut I ain't seeing it for this game, just can't.

Its like From The Depths, why the flying hell would ANYONE want multiplayer in a game where there's absolutely no balance and no real point to it. Yet people demanded it, and the time spent on multiplayer all but killed its updates.

Yeah, i like multiplayer but that should be secondary rather than primary unless the game is just going for multiplayer only (csgo, rainbow six siege, fortnite, paladins, etc).

Its why age of empires 2 continued for 13+ years because of the great formula it had, plus thanks to all the new expansions plus the HD edition and definitve one as well the games life is going to last for another 30+ years which is pretty considerable and thats just for multiplayer alone nevermind singleplayer.

I didn't realise from the depths had multiplayer, it seemed far more like a singleplayer game. It's like making the kerbal space programme multiplayer only (oh god lol) would be a bloody disaster in itself.

Just look at warthunder in how a multiplayer game looks when balance is mostly skwered for realism. (KA-50 russian heli being able to kill everything from beyond render range and not even radar assisted and guided missle SPAA's have the range to fire at it).

I rarely see updates from the depths now which is sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah, i like multiplayer but that should be secondary rather than primary unless the game is just going for multiplayer only (csgo, rainbow six siege, fortnite, paladins, etc).

Spot on! That is how gaming should be...But sadly what gaming is heading away from. Games which used to be great campaigns like CoD, are now just multiplayer shootfests, sometimes lacking a campaign entirely.

15 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I didn't realise from the depths had multiplayer, it seemed far more like a singleplayer game. It's like making the kerbal space programme multiplayer only (oh god lol) would be a bloody disaster in itself.

Yeah, it has one...Which sucks up stupid amounts of the developer's time and should have been cut from the game entirely.

Nothing says 'fun' like a laggy mess of bricks where there's no damned limits (or, metas like flying shoeboxes with shields).

17 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Just look at warthunder in how a multiplayer game looks when balance is mostly skwered for realism. (KA-50 russian heli being able to kill everything from beyond render range and not even radar assisted and guided missle SPAA's have the range to fire at it).

Curiously the Ka-50 wasn't all as people expected. Its hilariously overpowered compared to other helicopters...But also is so easily shot down by the ADATS. ADATS basically has saved War Thunder high tier by being overpowered in and of itself.

20 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

I rarely see updates from the depths now which is sad.

Tell me about it! The damned game has so much potential, but is critically ruined by its awful fanbase and developer.

I cannot comprehend how a NAVAL game's meta is flying UFO's which can be immune to all gunfire.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each time I hear about Crap Thunder I swear I get a rash. How they have disgraced that poor thing since the very promising thing it was back in 2013, when the goal was to set up a World War server very much like Aces High's....and with a complete and total cutoff cap at the Korean war. I remember (not sure if fondly or not) that back in 2014 when the developers truly showed their colors the ongoing joke was that someday there'd be T-64s and helicopters in the game...

Yes...it used to be a joke. Now it's also a joke...just a different kind.

Oh well, time for my Crap Thunder oblivion pills... may I forget about that stinkhole and their asshat publishers for good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RAMJB said:

Each time I hear about Crap Thunder I swear I get a rash. How they have disgraced that poor thing since the very promising thing it was back in 2013, when the goal was to set up a World War server very much like Aces High's....and with a complete and total cutoff cap at the Korean war. I remember (not sure if fondly or not) that back in 2014 when the developers truly showed their colors the ongoing joke was that someday there'd be T-64s and helicopters in the game...

Yes...it used to be a joke. Now it's also a joke...just a different kind.

Oh well, time for my Crap Thunder oblivion pills... may I forget about that stinkhole and their asshat publishers for good.

War Thunder shouldn't stayed WW2, but I suppose even then, Sekrit Dokumentz ruined WW2.

Nothing like watching a non-turret-basket T-34 firing faster than Panzer 4's and Tigers!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

War Thunder shouldn't stayed WW2, but I suppose even then, Sekrit Dokumentz ruined WW2.

Nothing like watching a non-turret-basket T-34 firing faster than Panzer 4's and Tigers!


Well the game was beyond hope since the international developer team left Gaijin in mid-2013. They were the ones who envisioned a much larger, encompassing game rather than some stupid deathmatch modes involving different kind of vehicles and when they understood what Gaijin's intention was (to turn the game into a Wargaming's product clone) they kinda "Noped" out.

Of course with that batch went the only ones who were trying to keep some sanity in the game and trying to turn it into something other than a horribly designed cash-cow, leaving it in hands of those who...well, who have turned it into the sad thing it is now. And well, the rest is history.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2019 at 12:46 PM, RAMJB said:

I'd love to be able to design our own structures. And I'd also love to be given the chance to design my own guns according to my own preferences (adjusting muzzle velocities, rifling, shell size, etc, not just following a "one pattern fit's em all nations" where every triple 14'' mount mark 2 is the same in every nation and only changes from ship to ship through things as shell size selection for that particular ship.

Oh goodness yes. Imagine sticking to small gun calibers and hyperspecializing in them, so you can get that authentic Alaska-class godmode 12" experience early.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2019 at 1:57 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

BATTLE MECHANICS

  • Barbette damage now causes damage to its attached gun and vice versa. You will no longer see barbettes becoming individually damaged without any effect to the attached gun.

This worries me.  As while it makes sense and is the way it should work I can't armor barbettes as much as I can armor turrets or other parts of the ship.  As even with the Barbette IV selection Barbettes still die all the time to heavy BB shells even if I can armor my turrets so much to be near immune to BB shells.  Which is fine in the current version where the Barbettes just die all the time.  But if they still die as often as they do now and I can't up armor them having them take out my main gun that's near immune to shell fire with the barbette I'm unable to protect well enough will be highly annoying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, captinjoehenry said:

This worries me.  As while it makes sense and is the way it should work I can't armor barbettes as much as I can armor turrets or other parts of the ship.  As even with the Barbette IV selection Barbettes still die all the time to heavy BB shells even if I can armor my turrets so much to be near immune to BB shells.  Which is fine in the current version where the Barbettes just die all the time.  But if they still die as often as they do now and I can't up armor them having them take out my main gun that's near immune to shell fire with the barbette I'm unable to protect well enough will be highly annoying.

I've had a battleship with the heaviest barbette armour, 15" belt, and 18" turret face lose a barbette to a 5" shell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brucesim2003 said:

I've had a battleship with the heaviest barbette armour, 15" belt, and 18" turret face lose a barbette to a 5" shell.

Same.  It's a massive pain.  It's not terrible as it is right now as it just means you take a decent sized hit.  But if it takes out your main gun that's immune to the enemy shell fire then it's a massive pain in the butt.

 

7 minutes ago, akd said:

Barbette armor / protection was supposed to be addressed also, I think.  Either it needs an adjustable value, or should inherit from turret face value or something.

I do hope so.  As I REALLY don't want to lose main BB battery cannons to light AP shells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm 100% fine if it doesn't have it, but the only "multiplayer" I would think would be feasible is just 1v1 straight up, or taking sides in a scenario. Other stuff is more important though, really like this game so far and these patch notes look great. I'm super impatiently refreshing the game every now and then to see if it was released, but as another person said I'd rather them take their time than release garbage, so it's OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, captinjoehenry said:

This worries me.  As while it makes sense and is the way it should work I can't armor barbettes as much as I can armor turrets or other parts of the ship.  As even with the Barbette IV selection Barbettes still die all the time to heavy BB shells even if I can armor my turrets so much to be near immune to BB shells.  Which is fine in the current version where the Barbettes just die all the time.  But if they still die as often as they do now and I can't up armor them having them take out my main gun that's near immune to shell fire with the barbette I'm unable to protect well enough will be highly annoying.

This might not be so far from the truth because training mechanisms are relatively delicate mechanisms. I'm not sure if they should be flipping out at 5" shells, but if they mostly control whether the turret can continue to train, a suitable amount of delicacy might be appropriate and realistic no matter how much armor you tack on them. Maybe the yellow was just an obscure part inside that did not take the 5" inch shells' impact well. Let's see what the final product feels like first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

This might not be so far from the truth because training mechanisms are relatively delicate mechanisms. I'm not sure if they should be flipping out at 5" shells, but if they mostly control whether the turret can continue to train, a suitable amount of delicacy might be appropriate and realistic no matter how much armor you tack on them. Maybe the yellow was just an obscure part inside that did not take the 5" inch shells' impact well. Let's see what the final product feels like first.

Well as far as damage goes the training equipment has to be designed to work with the recoil of the guns that sit ontop of them so for a twin 13 inch turret it would make sense for them to get jammed for say an 11 inch shell but somthing as small as 5 inches would for all purposes do nothing to to the barbette. And even then most problems of jammed turrets can be resolved with in an hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, khang36 said:

Well as far as damage goes the training equipment has to be designed to work with the recoil of the guns that sit ontop of them so for a twin 13 inch turret it would make sense for them to get jammed for say an 11 inch shell but somthing as small as 5 inches would for all purposes do nothing to to the barbette. And even then most problems of jammed turrets can be resolved with in an hour.

Eh...  I can't speak to that.  But my tripple 18 inch turret got it's Barbette knocked out by 15 inch shell fire that couldn't even harm my turrets past green and yet they easily knocked out both of my barbettes from decently long range.  Right now it's annoying but not a big issue.  But if knocking out the barbette also knocks out the unharmed main gun from a shell that can't at all hurt the main gun then that's a massive pain in the butt and annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, captinjoehenry said:

Eh...  I can't speak to that.  But my tripple 18 inch turret got it's Barbette knocked out by 15 inch shell fire that couldn't even harm my turrets past green and yet they easily knocked out both of my barbettes from decently long range.  Right now it's annoying but not a big issue.  But if knocking out the barbette also knocks out the unharmed main gun from a shell that can't at all hurt the main gun then that's a massive pain in the butt and annoying.


well the barbette is what houses the bearings that let your turrets turn. It also has inside the mechanisms that link the magazines to the turrets. Destroy the barbette, or damage it enough to render the equipment inside inoperable, your turret might be fine (it also might NOT be fine at all, more of that later) , but might not be able to turn, or might not be able to receive shells from below. Or both.

It's not unprecedented that hits that couldn't perforate the barbette to still cause enough damage to leave the turret inoperable. Even glancing blows have been known to do that, just by deforming the plate itself and lodging it stuck into the turret above it was possible to jam a turret frozen in place. Repairs to restore the mobility of the turrret could be done "on the field" (cutting the plate wit blowtorches, for instance, to free the turret) but could take hours, not to mention that doing that under enemy fire wasn't the best idea ever.

A penetrating hit detonating inside the barbette would kill the turret allright. Best case scenario all the reloading mechanism will be gone. A worse scenario is a flash fire that goes up into the turret and makes a flambee out of the crew. Worst case scenario a flash fire going down the barbette right into the magazine. You can guess the results. Thankfully that was quite uncommon for post-WW1 designs (which incorporated flashtight doors that were opened and closed when needed to bring shells and powder up to the turret), but still wasn't something that could be discarded outright.

At any right annoying as it might be, barbettes were key for the operation of the associated turrets. Get a barbette KO, the turret is KO aswell.

(And yes, I'd also like very much to give the barbettes the armoring I choose, instead of choosing it in the equipment menus. Then again I understand the rationale of doing it that way)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

They need to rework their armor mechanics for everything, babette belt and else. ATM you can't do a all or nothing layout.

Yes you can. All or nothing ,contrary to common belief, doesn't mean that absolutely nothing out of citadel wouldn't receive a single dime of armor. There were different degrees of plating used out of the citadel in AoN designs. Special attention was usually given to the waterline, as some degree of armor plating was almost always provided there to keep shrapnel from near misses from piercing the hull extremes causing flooding. While the AoN concept brought the idea of the "buoying citadel" (meaning, the ship would float even with all the spaces outside of the citadel flooded), it didn't mean designers didn't give a damn about inconvenient flooding caused by a small piece of shrapnel coming from a missed shell, nor that they didn't add some limited ammount of armor at some key areas to reduce the risk of water going in. 


HMS Vanguard for instance (last BB ever built, and obviously designed with an AoN scheme) had a beltline plating that tapered down from the main belt (14 inches thick) down to 2 inches fore and aft of the main belt. Her predecessor, KGV class (also an AoN design) had the main belt tapering down from full thickness at the end of the citadel to the end of the ships where it had 5.5 inches of thickness.
Same deal with deck armor. Obviously areas out of the "key" compartments considered part of the citadel wouldn't receive anywhere near the same thickness the decks would have over magazines or machinery spaces, but usually some degree of plating was brought in just to add some armored deck splinter protection where possible and manageable within the design.

So you can perfectly go into the designer, choose an "all or nothing citadel", then put some armor on the Belt extension and Deck extension and be perfectly fine with it. You haven't broken any design law by doing so - because historical AoN designs also did so.

Said that, the citadel layout selection we currently have doesn't satisfize me but for different reasons. If I choose a turtleback design, for instance, I want to tailor the thicknesses of the different layers of armor to my taste, something we can't do at all. Things like that. But it works for most things, and as long as you don't really mind going into micro-design decisions like those, it does it's job. Not in a particularily detailed fashion, mind you, but still...

 

Edited by RAMJB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...