Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Alpha-3 General Feedback [HotFix v66]<<<

Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

The latest round of discussions brings us back to something I pointed out when I had some fun with splitting the components of the tactical battle into discrete processes.

The point of that was to highlight that the best approach IMO is to make each and every process the best it can be.

Put differently, model the gunnery component (from time of selecting target to hitting or missing) on its own to be as realistic/accurate as you deem acceptable.

Do the same with the "what did I hit?" and "damage" processes.

What we DON'T want is to make up for deficiencies in any one of them by pushing any or all of the others AWAY from ideal realism/accuracy as judged acceptable.

Thus we don't chase perceived problems with the "damage" process by altering the gunnery (hit/miss) component, the latter already being significantly buffed beyond real world performances although understandably so for 'game play' reasons.

As an aside, too many people have inflated opinions of what hit rates were realistic and that's a problem for the devs. If they stick to a model that delivers realism, those people would soon badmouth the game when in reality they'd unknowingly really be highlighting their own ignorance (I've seen such comments made under YT vids, and I always correct them, but that's not exactly a viable model lol). So bumping it up is fine for 'game play' reasons. A consequence we've seen, however, is many ships sink much more rapidly than realistic. At the same time, they get hit far too often. This means on the one hand they seem absurdly durable (I've pointed that out about transports with maximum bulkheads) yet also tend to sink too quickly compared with realistic performance.

Unintended consequences all round, lol.

For me it underscores the best idea being starting with the best level of realism you deem acceptable. Once you've got ALL of those done, THEN start looking at how they're interacting. Doing a bit here and a bit there without first having all of the major components in some sort of "getting close to where we intend to be" state is asking for trouble.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...