Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Devs - Stop Limiting Player Choice


Recommended Posts

I know that the original premise of the game of design whatever you want however you want was abandoned due to AI issues, being that it (AI) couldn't design ships properly. I understand why you've opted for the current system in use.

That said, this shift in focusing only on historical hulls, towers, secondary towers, funnels, etc etc, removes player choice in the design of their vessels and limits them to prescribed ship designs that were available at the time by nation by year. For a game that's eventually supposed to be a grand campaign sandbox of naval warfare, a game where the player helms every facet of a nations naval apparatus, it seems like you've gone from one extreme (design anything) to another extreme (use what we've given you).

The current system removes any and all choice, opting to hide behind a series of mechanics that attempt to beguile the player into a sense of freedom of design, but that fallacy quickly falls away once you plot that first tower down. I'm not saying we shouldn't have historical hulls or towers or funnels. What I'm saying is that we need some sort of system of generics. Generic hulls, generic towers, generic funnels.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know that they dropped the hull part switching for that reason. If the snap point for funnel, barbette and tower is there for the same reason then I don't see why players could not use shift to move them around like turrets.

completely agree about the generic stuff. We also need barbette and platform that can blend with tower. If the bottom part of barbette had no collision with tower it would work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Game is in Alpha stage ( 4 stage ) and you expect from a less than 5 men dev team to make things they promised, while the game is in early Alpha... sure, they could focus on "design anything", but why if they have more important things to do like campaign?

2. Why they should focus on making "non-historic"/generic ships parts? You can find on the internet bunch of informations and screenshoots about historic ships parts that were used (like South Dakota-class) or were planned (like H-class or A-150-class) and because of that, they are easier to make and implement to the game.

If you so much want to have "non-historic/generic" ships parts, go to the blender.exe, learn to make ship models and send those models created by you to the devs and maybe they gonna implement them to the game.

 

I'm not hating you or anything, i just said why are you wrong :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh rather than seeing this small Dev Team wasting precious time on something like OP's proposal, I would prefer them to simply eliminate glaring issues with AI's ship design (make them more historical, less stupid, etc.) and then handle top priorities on already existing to-do list. Hopefully, implementing ability to design several classes of ships before combat, adding more DD and CL hulls, and finalizing the campaign.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

Tbh rather than seeing this small Dev Team wasting precious time on something like OP's proposal, I would prefer them to simply eliminate glaring issues with AI's ship design (make them more historical, less stupid, etc.) and then handle top priorities on already existing to-do list. Hopefully, implementing ability to design several classes of ships before combat, adding more DD and CL hulls, and finalizing the campaign.

We will need to test the campaign out at somepoint so they can get it right for release, and while i agree with the OP making ship design far more customizable. Armour, AI and AP/HE rounds need the most addressing and possibly reworking due to how they work atm (in other words not adequate enough or does not perform correctly see armour).

Also it's far easier to add existing hulls before making their own (wonder if weegee would allow them to copy or at least take inspiration from their own ship designs.), i hope the ship designer thats in the trailer gets added in at somepoint. i dont mind the wonky creations since the AI doesn't have a nation set to go by but i would like too see more AI historical designs made and attempted at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why i proposed to give AI ability to use some of the player designed ships, this way dev team could focus on making campaign, adding new stuff, deleting bugs, repairing game etc.

Sure, this is not the best way to "repair" AI, but this is not only about players, it is also about devs.

And they need time to make this game look like in trailer, and even better.

EDIT: 69 posts ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Edited by HusariuS
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

That's why i proposed to give AI ability to use some of the player designed ships, this way dev team could focus on making campaign, adding new stuff, deleting bugs, repairing game etc.

Sure, this is not the best way to "repair" AI, but this is not only about players, it is also about devs.

And they need time to make this game look like in trailer, and even better.

EDIT: 69 posts ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

True that could work, at least allows the AI to not have a fit when making a ship every 2 secs lol.

also i feel the AI could be flashed out alot more, but that will probs be demonstrated in the campaign at some point.

true its still very early and this is the 4th major update, so its kinda obvious they are testing out extremes and the mechanics in general. Or i think they are doing that anyways.

no lewding teh smoll boutes pls.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Op on this one. Ship design does feel very limiting and ships tend to pop out looking the same from one to the next. All I feel like I'm doing is changing the accessories rather than actually designing a ship. The current system is limited by what they build out. If they stuck with the sectional building shown in the steam trailer we, arguably, could of had many, many more options with fewer parts overall. That's assuming that hull and super structure used the same system. With the current system the devs would have to build out more parts just to have the same amount of choices and even then it's arguably less as we are limited by the hull and super structure design itself.

Either way I'm just here for the ride for the most part. So what ever way they want to go they'll go and I'll just try to enjoy what they make or move on to the next game.

On those saying that the campaign is more important. I'd say it's not. We'll be spending a lot of time designing ships. It's easily half the game right there, even more so when we see how abstracted the combat side is. If the designing side of it is not enjoyable or doesn't work well then the game will fall short for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 2:39 AM, HusariuS said:

1. Game is in Alpha stage ( 4 stage ) and you expect from a less than 5 men dev team to make things they promised, while the game is in early Alpha... sure, they could focus on "design anything", but why if they have more important things to do like campaign?

2. Why they should focus on making "non-historic"/generic ships parts? You can find on the internet bunch of informations and screenshoots about historic ships parts that were used (like South Dakota-class) or were planned (like H-class or A-150-class) and because of that, they are easier to make and implement to the game.

If you so much want to have "non-historic/generic" ships parts, go to the blender.exe, learn to make ship models and send those models created by you to the devs and maybe they gonna implement them to the game.

 

I'm not hating you or anything, i just said why are you wrong :)

1. Apparently your reading comprehension is horrendous.

2. Because the original premise of the game was to design anything you want however you want. Given that this system was abandoned due to the AI's inability to use it properly, it only makes sense to provide hulls, towers, etc that aren't completely historical. Hell, that was the initial vision of the game to begin with.

Quote

If you so much want to have "non-historic/generic" ships parts, go to the blender.exe, learn to make ship models and send those models created by you to the devs and maybe they gonna implement them to the game.

Typical pedantic response.

Quote

I'm not hating you or anything, i just said why are you wrong

Sure, you got right on that. And you disproved nothing in my initial post. 

On 2/22/2020 at 3:28 AM, Shaftoe said:

Tbh rather than seeing this small Dev Team wasting precious time on something like OP's proposal, I would prefer them to simply eliminate glaring issues with AI's ship design (make them more historical, less stupid, etc.) and then handle top priorities on already existing to-do list. Hopefully, implementing ability to design several classes of ships before combat, adding more DD and CL hulls, and finalizing the campaign.

Precious time isn't needed. These hulls are already there, many of which could be considered interchangeable.

On 2/22/2020 at 12:34 PM, Ruan said:

I agree with Op on this one. Ship design does feel very limiting and ships tend to pop out looking the same from one to the next. All I feel like I'm doing is changing the accessories rather than actually designing a ship. The current system is limited by what they build out. If they stuck with the sectional building shown in the steam trailer we, arguably, could of had many, many more options with fewer parts overall. That's assuming that hull and super structure used the same system. With the current system the devs would have to build out more parts just to have the same amount of choices and even then it's arguably less as we are limited by the hull and super structure design itself.

Either way I'm just here for the ride for the most part. So what ever way they want to go they'll go and I'll just try to enjoy what they make or move on to the next game.

On those saying that the campaign is more important. I'd say it's not. We'll be spending a lot of time designing ships. It's easily half the game right there, even more so when we see how abstracted the combat side is. If the designing side of it is not enjoyable or doesn't work well then the game will fall short for sure.

Agreed. However, I disagree that the campaign is not important.

The primary issue revolves around being stuck with historical designs. The entire original concept of the game was design what you want, how you want, and in the manner in which you want it. That's gone, I get it. We can't do that anymore. Now we're relegated to the constricted designs, hulls, towers, in which these nations utilized at the time of their construction. That's the epitome of removal of choice. That's a linear line right down the tight-rope. 

Generics add to the player ability to design what they want, how they want, and in the manner they want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 3:35 PM, DetCord said:

I know that the original premise of the game of design whatever you want however you want was abandoned due to AI issues, being that it (AI) couldn't design ships properly. I understand why you've opted for the current system in use.

Have you a specific statement from the Devs that this is true?

While some have suggested having limited snap points etc is to make things easier for the AI (I was one who did, and I suspect it's true), that DOESN'T mean:

- a more relaxed system can't be implemented for players.

- the AI itself might not be improved at some point, either.

It just means they've not done any of those things SO FAR, 4 versions into Alpha.

Saying the original premise "was ABANDONED" is very different from "has been shelved for now".

I may well have missed that statement, so would appreciate seeing it. That means what it means, which DOESN'T mean I think you're being dishonest. Just that I've missed or forgotten it. As an aside, it's always a good idea to include specific quotes or links when making claims about what the devs have or haven't said.

Cheers

Edited by Steeltrap
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

Have you a specific statement from the Devs that this is true?

While some have suggested having limited snap points etc is to make things easier for the AI (I was one who did, and I suspect it's true), that DOESN'T mean:

- a more relaxed system can't be implemented for players.

- the AI itself might not be improved at some point, either.

It just means they've not done any of those things SO FAR, 4 versions into Alpha.

Saying the original premise "was ABANDONED" is very different from "has been shelved for now".

I may well have missed that statement, so would appreciate seeing it. That means what it means, which DOESN'T mean I think you're being dishonest. Just that I've missed or forgotten it. As an aside, it's always a good idea to include specific quotes or links when making claims about what the devs have or haven't said.

Cheers

It's in the f&#kin' dev diaries, guy. From the initial posts way, way back.

The entire concept of the game was designing ships how you want, from stem to stern, towers to masts, beams to berms, all of it. The fact that you're completely ignorant of the initial concept of the games design makes your entire diatribe utterly moot. Though feel free to go back and do a tad, remote, and or minuscule amount of research on what the game was initially envisioned to be. 

EDIT - My previous point stands regardless of your uninformed post.

Edited by DetCord
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DetCord said:

1. Apparently your reading comprehension is horrendous.

2. Because the original premise of the game was to design anything you want however you want. Given that this system was abandoned due to the AI's inability to use it properly, it only makes sense to provide hulls, towers, etc that aren't completely historical. Hell, that was the initial vision of the game to begin with.

Typical pedantic response.

Sure, you got right on that. And you disproved nothing in my initial post. 

Precious time isn't needed. These hulls are already there, many of which could be considered interchangeable.

Agreed. However, I disagree that the campaign is not important.

The primary issue revolves around being stuck with historical designs. The entire original concept of the game was design what you want, how you want, and in the manner in which you want it. That's gone, I get it. We can't do that anymore. Now we're relegated to the constricted designs, hulls, towers, in which these nations utilized at the time of their construction. That's the epitome of removal of choice. That's a linear line right down the tight-rope. 

Generics add to the player ability to design what they want, how they want, and in the manner they want. 

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

My question was directed to your assertion:

On 2/22/2020 at 3:35 PM, DetCord said:

I know that the original premise of the game......... was abandoned

Nowhere did I question the issue of being allowed to design everything, simply the claim the devs have said they're abandoning it.

I'd have thought that was obvious given I highlighted it. Clearly I was mistaken.

So, let's try again.

PLEASE SHOW PROOF OF THE FOLLOWING:  was abandoned

Unless there's proof it's been ABANDONED, NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN, the following still applies:

2 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

While some have suggested having limited snap points etc is to make things easier for the AI (I was one who did, and I suspect it's true), that DOESN'T mean:

- a more relaxed system can't be implemented for players.

- the AI itself might not be improved at some point, either.

It just means they've not done any of those things SO FAR, 4 versions into Alpha.

Saying the original premise "was ABANDONED" is very different from "has been shelved for now".

Is that sufficiently clear, or does it still present you with difficulties?

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it makes sense to me that they'd want to make sure all of the systems in ship design were working with pre-designed ships before they removed all constraints. There are still issues with hull form horsepower requirements and floatation, I can't imagine what it would be like right now with the system showcased in the video.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

My question was directed to your assertion:

Nowhere did I question the issue of being allowed to design everything, simply the claim the devs have said they're abandoning it.

I'd have thought that was obvious given I highlighted it. Clearly I was mistaken.

So, let's try again.

PLEASE SHOW PROOF OF THE FOLLOWING:  was abandoned

Unless there's proof it's been ABANDONED, NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN, the following still applies:

Is that sufficiently clear, or does it still present you with difficulties?

Players ‘perception’ is just as important as fact, it’s what the crowd believes!

Without facts (from the Dev's)  players are left with interpretation, e.g. limited barbette placement could be interpreted as restrictions or a lack of auto-design ability.

If @DetCord believes 'freedom of design' was “abandoned” then that is his feedback, he doesn't need proof.

On 2/23/2020 at 7:34 AM, Ruan said:

On those saying that the campaign is more important. I'd say it's not

I agree, of late quite a few bugs have creeped in compared with the polished alpha 1 start, my ‘perception’ is that Dev’s are rushing things to get the campaign out on time and leaving behind some bugs, e.g. all the towers of one of the new academy missions have casemate slots but all casemate guns are grayed-out.

I prefer Dev's to take there time. 

Edited by BuckleUpBones
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BuckleUpBones said:

I agree, of late quite a few bugs have creeped in compared with the polish alpha 1 start, my ‘perception’ is that Dev’s are rushing things to get the campaign out on time and leaving behind some bugs, e.g. all the towers of one of the new academy missions have casemate slots but all casemate guns are grayed-out.

I prefer Dev's to take there time. 

I agree with this greatly, i would rather have a polished game that takes awhile than a bloody mess that forever is known as bad even if it gets better later on. Im fine with them pushing the campaign back as long as some other features are implemented and tested and also any game breaking and immersion breaking bugs are delt with.

Otherwise it could have an impact on future features and game performance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...