>>>"Alpha-4 v67+" General Feedback<<<

[Steeltrap]

23 hours ago, RAMJB said:

The only problem with that list is that it doesn't differentiate between air-dropped torpedoes vs submarine/destroyer dropped ones. And there was quite a big difference, as air-dropped ones weren't anywhere close as hard-hitting as the bigger torpedoes dropped by submarines and destroyers :).

Other than that, it's a great summary ;). 

 

19 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Oh, there's nothing wrong with it, just that it's a presentation that kind of "equalizes" the hits. Or at least induces the reader to analize them as equal. Which they weren't.

You see the number on the tables, but the ones on the air dropped list can't be judged on the same value than the ones of the sub/surface tabs. Which can lead to somewhat of a confusion because while "1" means something in two of the lists, it means a different thing on the third. All in all something I'm not particularily fond of.

It's just a matter of me being a bit anal about how information is presented, nothing else :). Other than that, as I mentioned, it's a splendid gathering of data.

So the problem you have with it is that it doesn't differentiate BY WARHEAD.

Unfortunately the way you presented it in the first instance was ambiguous. You said didn't DIFFERENTIATE by 3 categories, air and sub/DD ones, yet it clearly did. It had sub, surface and aerial.

What you meant was it is not a list that is categorised by destructive power of the torpedo(es) that struck the ships on the list.

At least it's somewhat clear now.

😎😁

Edited February 10, 2020 by Steeltrap

[admin]

20 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Oh, there's nothing wrong with it, just that it's a presentation that kind of "equalizes" the hits. Or at least induces the reader to analize them as equal. Which they weren't.

You see the number on the tables, but the ones on the air dropped list can't be judged on the same value than the ones of the sub/surface tabs. Which can lead to somewhat of a confusion because while "1" means something in two of the lists, it means a different thing on the third. All in all something I'm not particularily fond of.

It's just a matter of me being a bit anal about how information is presented, nothing else :). Other than that, as I mentioned, it's a splendid gathering of data.

Please try to avoid discussion of tables, their values and confusion from number '1' in patch notes.
Move with such discussions to a Historical and Maritime or separate topics in general forum. 
Patch feedback topics are very important, when they become cluttered they become unreadable and irrelevant.

We understand it could be important to discuss tables and number on the tables, but fpr mereading your post its impossible to decipher how it relates to patch,  your discussion with someone was probably related in the beginning but it is no longer clear. Now you just discussing some tables and numbers without clear reference to the patch. Remember that this topic is for conveying feedback to developers, NOT for arguing with TAKTCOM

 

[Steeltrap]

6 minutes ago, admin said:

Please try to avoid discussion of tables, their values and confusion from number '1' in patch notes.
Move with such discussions to a Historical and Maritime or separate topics in general forum. 
Patch feedback topics are very important, when they become cluttered they become unreadable and irrelevant.

We understand it is very important to discuss tables and number on the tables, but reading your post its impossible to decipher how it relates to patch,  your discussion with someone was probably related in the beginning but it is no longer clear. Now you just discussing some tables and numbers without clear reference to the patch. This topic is to conveying information to developers, NOT arguing with TAKTCOM

Well I'm as guilty as anyone, as indeed is the table itself with respect to strict update feedback, so I'll take that as applying to all of us.

Cheers

[Entropy Avatar]

I played the H-class mission, and took the extra money. However, as far as I can tell, I still had all the techs? Maybe the guns were one mark down from what they would have been?

Anyway, I built a ship with 4x3 18-inch guns, 30 knots, 20 belt and turret armor and I think 12 inches deck? It didn't seem to be much bothered by anything the other fleet threw at it, but actually sinking anything bigger than a DD was a problem. The first BB I targeted suffered 3(!) ammo explosions and scores of penetrating hits from long range, but was only down to 35% structure with no sign of internal flooding and still maintaining a good speed.

The BC had something like a -90% chance to hit due to speed, which I think was rather crazy, especially since it was mostly moving in the straight line. I guess my targeting computer has an overflow error for anything moving more than 30 knots.

[I Scouting Group]

There's been some great discussion earlier in this thread about the seeming invulnerability of capital ships to shellfire, and after playing a little bit (I just purchased the early access version a few days ago), I'd agree that something being awry with the penetration and damage mechanics is my chief complaint.

I'm very excited about the format and concepts of the game and think that there's a tremendous amount of potential here, and I don't mean to sound negative, critical, or unappreciative of all the hard work that has brought things to this point. I've gathered that in the previous build, ships were too easy to sink, which is clearly a problem. The solution, in my mind, is not to "re-balance" things but rather to try to accurately depict reality.

The effect of shellfire on the superstructure or unarmored portions of a ship (typically bow and stern) during combat is an interesting and relevant topic but one I'd like to sidestep here as, generally speaking, topside damage is not going to cause a ship to sink unless fires burn out of control and cause a secondary explosion and bow/stern damage is also unlikely to lead to immediate (or relatively immediate) sinking in a well-compartmented warship.

In my opinion, "appropriately resistant to damage" would mean that ships should be able to sustain a relatively large number of hits which do not penetrate the armored deck or main belt (or, in cases of ships with an internal armored deck behind the belt -- the "turtleback" -- both the belt and the sloped armored deck). Hits that do penetrate either the deck ("plunging" fire at range) or the main belt should have a much more marked effect on things, even if they are not immediately catastrophic.

Last night, I attempted the "Defeat the Semi-Dreadnought" mission. My plan was to optimize main gun firepower and accuracy, design for enough speed to set the range of the engagement, and devote the remaining weight to armor. My plan was to basically find the "immunity zone" in which I was resistant to 229mm horizontal fire but could land hits with my 2x2 305mm guns. After seeing that the infrequent hits I was landing at 5000m or so were ineffective ( as was the return fire), I decided to close the range. This continued until both the enemy and I were approximately 100m from one another, each landing hits that, while penetrating, were causing small amounts of successive damage, but nothing all that remarkable. When the enemy got to around 50% structural integrity, they broke off the action and fled and a stern chase ensued until time expired.

I would of course expect pre-dreadnought engagements to begin at a relatively close range (6000m?) and end at a relatively close range (2000m?) given the poor range finding and fire control of the era. Under no circumstance, however, would I expect two pre-dreadnoughts to close to within 100m and pummel each other with main battery gunfire. If we conservatively assume that even an early 1900's era naval rifle would only penetrate 2x caliber at such a short range, a 305mm gun should easily defeat the main belt of an opponent. Based on the icons being displayed, it looked like it did. The problem, rather, was that such penetrating hits cause "damage" in the low doubt digits 20, 30, 40 etc.

I obviously don't know enough about the mechanics to know what exactly is causing this phenomenon, but even in a pre-dreadnought conflict, things shouldn't end with both sides more or less running out of ammunition at point blank range, unable to materially harm one another.

[DougToss]

At this point, I would say forget trying to "balance" gunnery. I would suggest trying as hard as you can to get the ballistics as close to the historical gunnery table. For example, reflecting the very obvious difference in range, accuracy and hitting power between large and small guns. 

This will, in all likelihood immediately break the game. That's a good thing, and here's why:

Of firepower-protection-mobility, the gunnery system seems to be the most developed so far. That means that you have the best shot at approximating real results in the game through it. When you've tweaked the system and a gunnery table in game is the same as a table in real life,  you have a reliable baseline to build balance around. Sure, initially the  will game feel horribly "unbalanced" at first, but it will also show you where you need to focus your attention to develop the armour and propulsion systems.

We know the armour system needs work. We know the same about displacement, floatation, and propulsion. It will be so much easier to design those systems if you don't have a moving target to compare them to. Working from existing reference materials, if you know a certain armour thickness should protect against a certain calibre of shell, it becomes much easier to get that right if the shell's performance is fixed. 

You'll never be able to design a satisfactory armour system if you are changing how well guns preform with every update. 

[Nick Thomadis]

Thank you all for the ongoing feedback.

We prepare a hotfix that will improve most if not all of those you report to us regarding damage, as well as other fixes.

Thank you for the support.

[Shaftoe]

I wonder if this fix will allow us to install 21 inch torpedoes and side mounted 5' guns on the Hood. Lol.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Shaftoe

[Thistle_Tea]

I feel like the way accuracy is calculated is way off. Salvos will be very tight when you fire at a distance and ridiculously wide at close range. There is no reason why at say 1-2 km, a salvo from a triple turret should have 1 shot hit while the other two go in wildly different directions. I would consider doing something like separating accuracy from precision.

Maybe have higher gun techs improve the precision of of shots, i.e how tight the salvo is and how close it is to the aim points and have fire control and radar affect accuracy i.e where the guns are aiming. Also keep salvo spread constant as a function of distance or something, like shells have +/- X degrees of deviation when leaving the barrel

[Cptbarney]

Yay, im gonna get muh launcher ready.

[RedParadize]

Its disheartening to see how many AI built ship have lowered ammo count. It 100% guarantee they will lose the fight given the new balance.

[Shaftoe]

12 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Its disheartening to see how many AI built ship have lowered ammo count. It 100% guarantee they will lose the fight given the new balance.

But hey, with speeds over 40 knots, they can always easily run away. Lol.

[Reaper Jack]

8 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Its disheartening to see how many AI built ship have lowered ammo count. It 100% guarantee they will lose the fight given the new balance.

Low ammo counts are actually good for early to mid game ships. Their range will generally be quite bad unless they are purpose built raiders/escorts and their natural risk of detonating is higher. This means getting back to port for more ammo quickly  or shorter patrols in general. And in any case, the ammo counts only feel poor right now because of the very high armor and resistance we see at the moment. 

[Steeltrap]

10 hours ago, Thistle_Tea said:

I feel like the way accuracy is calculated is way off. Salvos will be very tight when you fire at a distance and ridiculously wide at close range. There is no reason why at say 1-2 km, a salvo from a triple turret should have 1 shot hit while the other two go in wildly different directions. I would consider doing something like separating accuracy from precision.

Maybe have higher gun techs improve the precision of of shots, i.e how tight the salvo is and how close it is to the aim points and have fire control and radar affect accuracy i.e where the guns are aiming. Also keep salvo spread constant as a function of distance or something, like shells have +/- X degrees of deviation when leaving the barrel

This is a consequence of what you see NOT being how hits are calculated.

The hits are calculated BEFORE you see anything on screen. The visuals are showing you what the system has already determined to have happened. Thus it shows one shell hitting, but the other(s) from the same gun miss. Trouble is they tend to miss ahead and astern at times, which means you can have one shell hit a target midships while a shell from a gun in the same turret can miss 100m ahead. Looks crazy and makes no sense until you realise what we're seeing has nothing to do with whether we in fact hit or miss.

You might also notice the stern turrets often miss ahead, while the bow turrets miss astern, which means they cross each other from the points of firing to the points of impact. Another thing that doesn't look good.

I in fact raised in the bug forum the exact thing you've mentioned, and they replied saying they would look to improve it. I'm sure there's still further room, but it's probably not seen as a priority. I'm sure they'll look at it more closely in several months.

Cheers

[Steeltrap]

15 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Thank you all for the ongoing feedback.

We prepare a hotfix that will improve most if not all of those you report to us regarding damage, as well as other fixes.

Thank you for the support.

Hi Nick,

While it might be nice for us in terms of playing NOW, I'm more interested in understanding how we got here, namely what changes were made that so massively altered the damage effects? How DOES the damage model work? What are you intending it to be at time of release on Steam, and how were the changes made for Alpha 4-v67 seen as a step towards it?

Same goes for the gunnery changes.

I have no problem with reduced accuracy, but it highlights both the problems with changing main guns and NOT secondary guns (seemingly), plus it cascades to the damage model.

It's almost as though the changes made to damage calculations were based on the previous version's hotfix hit rates and penetration, so when they were ALSO changed we get a HUGE swing in the other direction.

Some level of commentary on where you see the development of those major processes (hit calculation, armour model, damage, damage control) being compared with intended release state would be great, too.

You may have reasons not to want to do that, which is fine, nor might you feel it's worth the time and all the extra forum activity it would generate.

Regardless, figured I'd at least suggest it.

As always, enjoying your team's work and the engagement with all of us here.

Cheers

 

[DNGRZ1]

This damage model is awful. While I agree the HE shells of the previous patch were over performing, Now everything is underperforming and killing even a single battleship with anything is a matter of luck, basically hoping for an ammo det that results in more than 60 damage. Penetrating hits should be devastating to ships, HE should be used in cases that you are consistently overpenetrating a ship. And can we please stop allowing the enemy ships in missions to retreat and become this impenetrable rear armor punching bag? Or modify the ricochet mechanic  so that it only favors the bow and sides. Perhaps allow HE shells to knock out props when fired directly from the rear? It seems no matter how I move my ship to attempt to catch the flat side of a retreating ship, they have this uncanny ability to keep the angle at near 89deg, no matter how fast my ship is or how much damage they've sustained to the rudder/engines.
I'm just tossing a few ideas out there and seeing what sticks. These missions had a little bit of challenge to them before, but now they're just tedious, having to retry over and over just to spend an hour chipping away at some BB's structure points until you're out of ammo.

[Hangar18]

On 2/11/2020 at 12:34 PM, Thistle_Tea said:

I feel like the way accuracy is calculated is way off. Salvos will be very tight when you fire at a distance and ridiculously wide at close range. There is no reason why at say 1-2 km, a salvo from a triple turret should have 1 shot hit while the other two go in wildly different directions. I would consider doing something like separating accuracy from precision.

Maybe have higher gun techs improve the precision of of shots, i.e how tight the salvo is and how close it is to the aim points and have fire control and radar affect accuracy i.e where the guns are aiming. Also keep salvo spread constant as a function of distance or something, like shells have +/- X degrees of deviation when leaving the barrel

I'm not exactly sure how it works. But It seems to be decided when the shells leave the barrel what will hit. in other words, the shell flight is for show.

[Cptbarney]

14 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

I'm not exactly sure how it works. But It seems to be decided when the shells leave the barrel what will hit. in other words, the shell flight is for show.

Yeah the shells should deviate from symmetry as they leave the barrel so around 1-3km should be near or perfect symmetry (depending on tech of course could be a bit worse) and further out say 20-26km should stay to deviate quite a bit from their base trajectory which would factor in wind, type of shell, how heavy the shell is, how new or worn the barrells are and what type of barrels and firing mechanisms.

That way you should see the shells start to widen and/or go up and down from when they first left the barrel. Should make it more realistic that way.

[Hangar18]

39 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah the shells should deviate from symmetry as they leave the barrel so around 1-3km should be near or perfect symmetry (depending on tech of course could be a bit worse) and further out say 20-26km should stay to deviate quite a bit from their base trajectory which would factor in wind, type of shell, how heavy the shell is, how new or worn the barrells are and what type of barrels and firing mechanisms.

That way you should see the shells start to widen and/or go up and down from when they first left the barrel. Should make it more realistic that way.

for now, i think its acceptable. its a visual thing. Mechanically things are fine.

[Nick Thomadis]

A new hotfix has been deployed Admirals!

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts Alpha 4 v68 HotFix (13/2/2020)

• Increased damage of main guns. The whole damage model should feel now much more realistic, as intended for the main update. 
• Reduced base accuracy for secondary guns. On average their accuracy is inferior compared to main guns but they will aim progress more effectively when targeting fast vessels.
• Flooding should happen more often when guns hit underwater sections. - Flooding will not be repaired so fast, so it will have a noticeable impact on large capital ships.
• Increased slightly the damage of torpedoes.
• Torpedo protection effect reduced slightly so that late battleships do not become immune to torpedoes.
• Increased base speed of torpedoes about +2 knots. They could become unhistorically too slow at their maximum range settings, creating targeting issues (Ships not firing torps at long range, firing at too wide arcs and hitting themselves etc.).
• Decrease speed penalty of electric torpedoes from -30% to -25%.
• Weight issues making ships, especially battlecruisers, too fast for their size have been resolved. A ship may still be designed to exceed the 40 knots but with much greater sacrifices in armament and protection. 
• Fixed an issue with German Battlecruisers (They were unavailable for a small time period between 1924-1929 in custom battles).
• Fixed issues that made Torpedo Boats (TB) either too slow or too vulnerable to gun fire.
• Fixed a problem with a British BB of the 1920s that made its hull too long. - Allocated more funds to mission "Hurry Up" to allow strong ships of higher speed.
• AI & Gun Targeting Improvement.
• Other minor fixes.

=====================================================

This hotfix aims to improve the gameplay and repair the most important issues that were reported.

[RedParadize]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Weight issues making ships, especially battlecruisers, too fast for their size have been resolved. A ship may still be designed to exceed the 40 knots but with much greater sacrifices in armament and protection. 

Awww. I was loving my fast battlecruiser. But it was indeed over the top. Lets see what I can do with this patch!

[Cptbarney]

1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

Awww. I was loving my fast battlecruiser. But it was indeed over the top. Lets see what I can do with this patch!

no more hotrod audacious :( vereh sad press Tea for respects.

well, at least i can test the game now!

[AML]

Wing turrets are still treated as secondary guns, not as part of the main battery.

[RedParadize]

8 minutes ago, AML said:

Wing turrets are still treated as secondary guns, not as part of the main battery.

If by that you mean that they have their own icon on the bottom right of battle screen, then it doesn't mean they are treated as secondary. They are just a separated entity, same goes for turrets that have different numbers of guns 

[Cptbarney]

Well ships are easier to kill once again, failed the bismarck mission twice but i was more interested in seeing how shells worked, tube powder seems pretty effective but i was using twinbarrel 406’s in that mission against 178mm’s of hoodbelt armour and got some hits above 200.

Will have to test more tommorrow after work.