Will Dreadnought ever go Online PVP?

[angriff]

I played Naval Action for years.  I have bought almost all the DLCs for that game.   

I am enjoying the strategy of armored naval combat in Dreadnaught and look forward to complete scenarios like Jutland, Pungdo, Coronel or Tsushima of engaged fleets.   I would like to see a nation vs nation type online game maybe regional maps for conflict between players in manned fleets.  Is there any thought of bringing this game that far?

[roachbeef]

I for one hope not. Resources need to focus on campaign and even that feels like it'll end up a flawed compromise with budget and development time.

Maybe an update or DLC once the game is complete but certainly not before.

[Shaftoe]

Tbh I don't think there will be MP specifically optimized and balanced for PvP.

 

P.S.

2 hours ago, angriff said:

I played Naval Action for years.  I have bought almost all the DLCs for that game.   

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Shaftoe

[angriff]

So this game is a stand alone naval gunnery model?  What a shame.  It will be pigeonholed into the dusty shelves of Paul Hague's book.  It could make so much more money.

Edited February 23, 2020 by angriff

[angriff]

2 hours ago, roachbeef said:

I for one hope not. Resources need to focus on campaign and even that feels like it'll end up a flawed compromise with budget and development time.

Maybe an update or DLC once the game is complete but certainly not before.

There were several DLC's for Naval Action before it left Early Access.

[AeRoTR]

Can be a different part like WOT clan wars? 

[RedParadize]

38 minutes ago, AeRoTR said:

Can be a different part like WOT clan wars? 

You mean the part were its like having a second job?

[angriff]

I am sure there are thousands of naval combat enthusiasts that would a love a chance to re-enact Jutland.

[fsp]

Biggest problems with MMOG is indeed the huge time sink they are.

That's fine for people who prefer to focus on just one game.

I for instance want to try many different games.

I played Naval Action and quite liked it, but at a certain point it became apparent that you need to devote just too much time to it to make reasonable progress.

 

[Wowzery]

20 hours ago, angriff said:

So this game is a stand alone naval gunnery model?  What a shame.  It will be pigeonholed into the dusty shelves of Paul Hague's book.  It could make so much more money.

The biggest problem is we are in a time where online games need to be quick.  Taking an hour or more just for one battle many players will not do.  I see this in WoWS, even though many games are less than 20 minutes there is a group which wants the games to be quicker (another group wants them longer). 

I see this game as very difficult to mass market as an online game which people will enjoy.

Honestly this idea that only an online game can make money shows how shallow some gamers have become.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Wowzery

[Bluishdoor76]

then you will also have the people that will whine that their little destroyers and cruisers cant sink a Battleship

[Steeltrap]

On 2/24/2020 at 7:19 AM, angriff said:

I am sure there are thousands of naval combat enthusiasts that would a love a chance to re-enact Jutland.

With all due respect, you were saying you regretted spending the money and were going to quit because you were finding it difficult and didn't seem to want to spend the time to learn how things work. Yet you didn't quit, which is great, as I'd not want anyone to feel they wasted their money. I only raise this to highlight the next point.

Imagine the average online twitch/yippee-shooting gamer naval history and technology ignoramuses from WoWS and indeed the internet at large.

What chance they'll apply themselves vs bitching about how terrible the game is and how ridiculously unrealistic it is? "I only hit with 10% of shots....at 10km...what BS is this??" I've seen those sorts of comments on YT videos of the game already.

Yeah, the answer is "bugger all".

The money's nice, sure. But the more 'realistic' any sort of combat game is, regardless of area of focus, the LESS popular it becomes.

First of all, the average person has a Hollywood expectation of how things ought to be rather than one based on some genuine knowledge.

Then they say they want things "balanced" whereas the skill of a game like this is building ships to suit your strategic needs and also to make sure tactical combat is as UNEVEN in your favour as possible. Balance has NO place in a genuine military game, but that's a huge problem in the online world.

As an aside, statistics suggest a hell of a lot of online players are blatant liars when it comes to balance. What they REALLY want is a situation where "nobody can be stronger than I am", which is not at all the same as "everyone has equal access to appropriately if differently (based on role) balanced stuff". WoWS is a perfect case of that. CVs started as the very definition of "OP", as clearly proven by their statistics across EU, NA and RU. CVs topped every tier in which they appeared in every measure of performance that matters; some of them outperformed the next best non-CV ship of a tier or more higher. As I said, OP as (is it hello kitty this system uses? LOL). Do you think the CV fanboys would accept that, even when presented with evidence of how practically EVERY player who tried CVs very quickly performed statistically significantly better in every measure (win rate, dam and exp per battle) compared with their performance in other ships of the same tiers? Of course they didn't.

As others said, games need to be "fast" WITHOUT time compression. That is the absolute antithesis of naval warfare. Just about any engagement, even 1 v 1, takes a long time. You typically spot things before you can engage them effectively. You have to close the range, and ships don't move around like hydrofoils as WoWS would have you believe (I watched a replay of an amusing battle from Flamu and the statistics claimed he'd covered ~94km. In under 15 minutes. THAT'S 400km/h FFS. Yet some people STILL think WoWS is at all relevant to naval combat, LOL). Then you have to hit your target in a way that may sink it. I say 'may' because warships typically don't sink very quickly unless they suffer a catastrophe such as befell HMS Hood or receive damage of a sort that will cause the ship to flood beyond its capacity to survive. Even the latter can take some time unless the flooding causes rapid loss of stability and thus a capsize (HMS Barham being a very famous example due to being captured on film). All things considered, not exactly "fast".

[Ships in this game currently are a peculiar mix of "sink too easily and quickly" or "act like zombies as are seemingly impossible to kill off". The excellent post showing the data mined details of the damage model explains a fair bit of that]

The final problem is one of "skill". Where's the opportunity to acquire and demonstrate skill in this game? It's before the battle starts. It's understanding the game mechanics to produce a ship that does its role to the greatest extent possible based on competing priorities, changing tech and finite resources. Something that requires a willingness to study how things work.

It's not as though one player can aim better than another, or indeed to anything much beyond target selection and manoeuvring. While those matter, they're almost irrelevant compared with all the choices that were made when designing the ship. I sometimes let the AI control my ship to see how it performs in a mission in which I've just used the same ship (it usually will still win, but take longer to do so and sustain a LOT more damage than I ever do, which has a lot of implications for the campaign).

Believe it or not, WoT many years ago was a MUCH more interesting game than the idiot, BS premium tanks and massed premium ammo splerge it is today. To be good at it you needed to understand how the game worked in several ways, including the infamously unintuitive vision system. You needed to understand the maps and where mattered and where didn't and thus where you ought to go regardless of your headless lemming train team members. You needed to know what was worth trying to fight and what wasn't based on your vehicle and understanding mechanics. What did WG do? Dumb it down to a near childish level compared with how it once was. Why? Because people would spend money to use ammunition that was straight up better in just about every respect because THAT made it EASY. Point and click. Blow shit up, no thought required.

WoWS had a flotation model separated from the health bar back in Alpha. They got rid of it. Why? "Players would find it too confusing". In other words, they worried they'd restrict the pool of players (and potential income) if they made it any more confusing than "shoot the red thing until its health pool is gone". While I understand how it's useful at present, I don't like seeing those blue and red bars above ships in this game.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the nature of any vaguely accurate tactical and strategic warfare game, regardless of its specific focus, means the better it is as such a game the WORSE it is for massed online appeal.

While I don't mind if the devs want to try something like that, I would be absolutely opposed to it having ANY effect on the game WE paid to access in Alpha, given how clear the claims from the Devs were. And I don't think they're about to forget that, nor are they really very interested in online stuff and the many, many issues it brings.

These are my views. Others are of course free to feel differently, as I'm sure quite a few do.

Having said all that, I'd be interested to see how you imagined it working. Are people going to get to design ships, or be given certain ships per a scenario, or something else?

Cheers

[fsp]

Kudos on a brilliant post @Steeltrap

[roachbeef]

It's a shame OP never heard of Medieval II Total War or Skyrim. They have had quite the success and are played often today. Not because of a multiplayer that depends on a network effect that has dwindled down to almost zero, but because mod support allowed the player community to keep things interrsting. Skyrim doesn't even have multiplayer. Multiplayer isn't what makes a game sell well or have longevity. Good gameplay and mod support are orders of magnitude more important.

Edited February 28, 2020 by roachbeef

[ThomasDocMiller]

i hope that the will be a PVP game mode at least 1vs1 (maybe 2vs2 and 4vs4)

the host decide: starting year, maximum money, max. number of ship class ( max. 2 Battleships...)

then you have 5 minutes to design the ships... then the game begin

[Cptbarney]

co-op would be the only thing i support or maybe 1v1's but otherwise no thanks.

been playing wows recently and it's painfully obvious why multiplayer is just terrible general its not the horde of mouthbreathers who fail to even comprehend basic game mechanics or arses who refuse to play the game properly (you know being a team-based game), but the horde of scummy business tactics that usually arise when said company makes one of their games multiplayer (mind you that doesn't mean they don't exist in current singleplayers but they are less prevalent unless your talking about fallout for example).

sorry just bitter at losing 8/9 today 4/8 yesterday and 3/9 on thursday in wows. drives me up the sodding wall.

[Wowzery]

I will add one thing.  I bought this game not on the premise of PvP, or MMO, but that I'd be able to design ships for my nation of choice leading it though the decades of the dreadnought era and how those designs I do effect the future of said nation.  Should I concentrate on cheap DDs, or build a fleet of expensive BBs?