>>>Alpha-6 Feedback<<<

[Zockerbox]

All great. But the sound of the howling grenades in flight is missing.

[IronKaputt]

12 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

Okey. This is beautiful! This is so well animated! Top notch!!

Alpha-6. Codename: Azula

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello everyone, 

We have just deployed a hotfix including the following:

Alpha-6 v73

• Fixed a rare bug which happened when you clicked on "secondary guns mode" on a ship with main guns, torpedoes, and no sec guns.
• Destroyers' top speed should not be so easily capped to max. theoretical level.
• Fixed too slow acceleration of transport ships which caused them to stall when turning.

We are currently investigating any potential issues that could cause game lag. If you anticipate fps drops, please report to us when it has happened during gameplay.

In our offical forums:
https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/35737-performance-drop-since-alpha-6-please-post-your-issue-here/

Steam forum:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/0/4594180031247665726/

[roachbeef]

18 hours ago, LostThatLovinFeeling said:

Would like to make a suggestion, when you are in the armor section can the dev's highlight the section you are taking away or adding to. Can be in yellow instead of red and green, as when you place a turrets, torps or a superstructure.  

I feel like that would be an OK interim solution, but the devs need to rework the armor system from the ground up. Not allowing us to manually choose which area the belt armor actually covers is a very bad decision. IRL there were compromises between a thick belt that only covered a small area versus a thinner belt that would cover more of an area. A key part of the ship design process has been removed by fixing belt coverage.

[Shaftoe]

41 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello everyone, 

We have just deployed a hotfix including the following:

Alpha-6 v73

• Fixed a rare bug which happened when you clicked on "secondary guns mode" on a ship with main guns, torpedoes, and no sec guns.
• Destroyers' top speed should not be so easily capped to max. theoretical level.
• Fixed too slow acceleration of transport ships which caused them to stall when turning.

We are currently investigating any potential issues that could cause game lag. If you anticipate fps drops, please report to us when it has happened during gameplay.

In our offical forums:
https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/35737-performance-drop-since-alpha-6-please-post-your-issue-here/

Steam forum:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/0/4594180031247665726/

There is still this annoying bug, obstructing placement of DD turrets.

[Alcar]

The 9' turrets seem a bit too big on this 1925 heavy cruiser. Shown with an 8' to the left and a 10' to the right.

[Nick Thomadis]

18 minutes ago, Alcar said:

The 9' turrets seem a bit too big on this 1925 heavy cruiser. Shown with an 8' to the left and a 10' to the right.

It must be a Mark5 compared to Mark4. Can you recheck that?

[Norbert Sattler]

7 hours ago, Aceituna said:

Ok, I get it now. I totally agree with your description of Leyte.

But aren't carriers capital ships? I thought so until now but after your comment i am not sure.

Yes they are, but to me at least gunships and carriers are seperate categories of ships. Just like a captial-ship sized submarine would still be it's own thing to me, rather than being counted among the capital ships.

But that aside, even if you count the carriers (21 in all, including the light carriers if I remember) you'd still not reach the number of Jutland's captial ships.

[Latur Husky]

It would be nice to have separate volume sliders for menu/dockyard and in game music.

Other than that, a really nice patch so far. Didn't managed to play for too long but I already like what I've seen.

[Alcar]

4 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

It must be a Mark5 compared to Mark4. Can you recheck that?

Yes, it is the Mark5 for the 9', Mark3 for the 8', and Mark4 for the 10'. Seems some might be out of place in the tech progression.

[Norbert Sattler]

With the new hotfix I got a massive performance boost in the designer. No more slowdowns when selecting or deselecting modules and such.

Kudos for that.

[DerRichtigeArzt]

1 hour ago, Norbert Sattler said:

With the new hotfix I got a massive performance boost in the designer. No more slowdowns when selecting or deselecting modules and such.

Kudos for that.

Yeah but now stats are not changed immediately upon using the sliders or placing components. 2 steps forward 1 step back I guess. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by DerRichtigeArzt

[Ham Sandy]

Will you guys add support to Nvidas GeForce Now program. Would love to be able to run the game with the top graphics. 

[BobRoss0902]

Secondaries can shoot through the upper part of Tall Secondary Barbette, not sure about the other secondary barbette type.

[Mhtsos]

Some thoughts on this update. 

The flash fires are well... flashy but in most cases just a bit more damaging than good hits. Had DDs suffered from 2-3 of those and kept going. A BB suffered a bit more damage, akin to a torpedo hit. Also they seem way too frequent in some matches. 

I though that flash fires did far more damage and appeared far less frequently IRL.

Anyhow, I guess that could be easily fixed with some rebalancing. 

|

The point that I didn't like is that the damage, penetration and armour models are still pretty much the same.

The ships are still floating armoured boxes that soak damage. 
Is there a plan to fix/create a more realistic model that or this is it?

|

Overall nice update, some nice DDs/CLs, but I started to get a bit afraid that we'll stuck with a sub-par model for penetration/damage/armour. 

[HusariuS]

1 hour ago, Mhtsos said:

Some thoughts on this update. 

The flash fires are well... flashy but in most cases just a bit more damaging than good hits. Had DDs suffered from 2-3 of those and kept going. A BB suffered a bit more damage, akin to a torpedo hit. Also they seem way too frequent in some matches. 

I though that flash fires did far more damage and appeared far less frequently IRL.

Anyhow, I guess that could be easily fixed with some rebalancing. 

|

The point that I didn't like is that the damage, penetration and armour models are still pretty much the same.

The ships are still floating armoured boxes that soak damage. 
Is there a plan to fix/create a more realistic model that or this is it?

|

Overall nice update, some nice DDs/CLs, but I started to get a bit afraid that we'll stuck with a sub-par model for penetration/damage/armour. 

Most likely the devs are trying to make as many hulls as possible to give us good enough numbers of hull variations for the upcoming campaign, and when they do that, we will see more updates focusing on improving things like armor scheme and adding new features.

[Mutsu]

^

That would make the most sense to me, and since supposedly Alpha 7 will introduce the campaign we will probably be seeing more balance changes

Edited May 16, 2020 by Mutsu

[Cptbarney]

30 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

Most likely the devs are trying to make as many hulls as possible to give us good enough numbers of hull variations for the upcoming campaign, and when they do that, we will see more updates focusing on improving things like armor scheme and adding new features.

Hopefully they introduce an armour rework, prior to suggestions on here. Just had a fat ijn bb by the name of youshun just take liek 14-17 24 inch long lances (from russian dd's lel) at ranges of less than 10km and still survive and somehow fix the flooding, which is just mental. Thats like yammy eating too much getting fat then being able to tank the entire USN carrier force by herself and sink some for giggles lol.

I don't mind tanky ships, but it is rediculous even if they are my own preciouses.

I completed near jutland doe.

[evildeathmonkey]

First of all, love the new flash-fire mechanics and graphics! They look so cool, and it's a treat to see one happening. They're just rare enough to feel special.

I did a quick scan of the comments and I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but the formation AI does not like staying in line much does it?

I've noticed that when I have say 5 or 6 BB's or BC's in line astern formation, the last 3 seem to randomly break formation. It seems to me they are trying to avoid some perceived collision? But there shouldn't be any.. I tried changing the spacing, but they do it regardless of whether I tell them to stay close or space out.
It struck me as odd and I thought I'd mention it here. I'm really not sure if this is a bug or expected behaviour. 

 

Edit: It only seems to happen when I have the ships in the same division. If I have them all individually and tell them to follow the ship infront of them it all works fine.
I can add some screens if needed.

Edited May 17, 2020 by evildeathmonkey

[Mhtsos]

12 hours ago, HusariuS said:

Most likely the devs are trying to make as many hulls as possible to give us good enough numbers of hull variations for the upcoming campaign, and when they do that, we will see more updates focusing on improving things like armor scheme and adding new features.

I don't know, it seems that doing that is the opposite of what I think logical. It's like puting the cart before the horse. 

Shouldn't they fix the core issues before venturing to create a campaign? And the issues I mention aren't just balance, it's a rework/overhaul of the damage model that is more fitting to a (semi-arcade) tank game to a ship game at the moment. Not to mention the ballistics and the lack of a real physics for the projectiles.

I mean, OK I get it.

People need more than a handful of missions and skirmish, but I personally cannot enjoy the game in this state and I am quite worried that we'll stuck with this model even after release.

 

[Hangar18]

5 minutes ago, Mhtsos said:

I don't know, it seems that doing that is the opposite of what I think logical. It's like puting the cart before the horse. 

Shouldn't they fix the core issues before venturing to create a campaign? And the issues I mention aren't just balance, it's a rework/overhaul of the damage model that is more fitting to a (semi-arcade) tank game to a ship game at the moment. Not to mention the ballistics and the lack of a real physics for the projectiles.

I mean, OK I get it.

People need more than a handful of missions and skirmish, but I personally cannot enjoy the game in this state and I am quite worried that we'll stuck with this model even after release.

 

we're in not even out of alpha yet. Theres another whole step even after we finish alpha test. The early access version is scheduled to go to steam in 2020, although its possible that it couldve been delayed to rona, or bugs. That's not released however, that is just going into beta. Final product could very well be 2021

Thats assuming they keep the original deadline.

A campaign is more important than immediate balance. We are not here to play a finished game, we are here to bug test.

[Mhtsos]

28 minutes ago, Hangar18 said:

we're in not even out of alpha yet. Theres another whole step even after we finish alpha test. The early access version is scheduled to go to steam in 2020, although its possible that it couldve been delayed to rona, or bugs. That's not released however, that is just going into beta. Final product could very well be 2021

Thats assuming they keep the original deadline.

A campaign is more important than immediate balance. We are not here to play a finished game, we are here to bug test.

Never said anything else, but let's be honest, most people here payed/joined for playing the game early. Feedback is good and all, but if it was another type of SW, alot less will be willing to do it without a salary (not to mention giving them 40+€ for the honour of bug hunting and testing a piece of software). We are generally trying to help them as customers and alpha testers, I agree, but it's not a job.

|

The ballistics/damage/armour modelling is not a matter of bugs or even balance, but a matter of overhaul. At least if we want to claim that this is a realistic oriented game. 

As I mentioned before, those models in theory are supposed to be finished during alpha, as they are core/basis of the gameplay experience, not something that should be delegated for beta/steam launch. 

At least that's my opinion.

[Aceituna]

5 hours ago, Mhtsos said:

I don't know, it seems that doing that is the opposite of what I think logical. It's like puting the cart before the horse. 

Shouldn't they fix the core issues before venturing to create a campaign? And the issues I mention aren't just balance, it's a rework/overhaul of the damage model that is more fitting to a (semi-arcade) tank game to a ship game at the moment. Not to mention the ballistics and the lack of a real physics for the projectiles.

I mean, OK I get it.

People need more than a handful of missions and skirmish, but I personally cannot enjoy the game in this state and I am quite worried that we'll stuck with this model even after release.

 

I would like to say that  I am glad that campaing comes soon not only because i want to play it but also because I think that it would be stupid to first try to make perfect game without campaing And make campaing as the final step. 

Campaing is the most crucial part of the game So the more time it's development get that better while those minor issues you mentioned can be solved simoutanuously with campaing development.

[IronKaputt]

18 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

I don't mind tanky ships, but it is rediculous even if they are my own preciouses.

Anti-torps need scheme + slider mechanics, the same armor and speed have.

Penetrations and torpedo hits should reduce protection level for damaged sector.

[Latur Husky]

I agree, no matter how much armor you put it should deteriorate when it get's hit to simulate that even thickest armour plates will eventually loosen up and fall off or crack if hit consecutively.