HotFix next week

[Nick Thomadis]

Admirals, 

After our information about Steam Release and Campaign (Please Read) we would like to share with you what comes next as a hotfix update:

*Hotfix v75* (25/6/2020)
=========
BALANCES

• Improved Auto-Design and balanced ship weights/costs further for even better designs. Note: This change might make some of your old designs overweight, but you should be able to repair them by lowering speed, armor or other settings.
• Ship design tonnage step reduced from 100 to 50 tons (provides more design flexibility, especially for smaller ships plus makes Auto-Design to be more effective).
• Improved AI auto-targeting, so that it switches target to nearest threats more actively.
• When shells hit strong armor at an angle they have bigger chance to cause at least partial penetration instead of zero-damage ricochets.
• Reduced dispersion of shells. Problem of too low accuracy at short ranges should be resolved. Destroyers need to operate at safer ranges but will still be dangerous and useful.
• Increased slightly the potential damage of detonations/flash fires. Their impact will become even more critical.
• Reduced maximum torpedo ammo to be from 2 to 4 rounds per tube, according to design setting.
• Torpedo reload time increased +25%.
• Engine repairs became somewhat faster according to type of engine (Fully flooded or damaged engine sections are not repairable).
• Improved the Hull form statistics of the modern Russian destroyers to aid them achieving higher speeds. The Destroyer leader hull shape has improved.
• Increased detection bonus of Sonar, so that it can trace electric torpedoes or other stealthy types, more effectively. Cost of Sonar has been increased.
• Fine tunings in base ship maneuvering characteristics (addressing issues that could cause slow ships to stall and become very unwieldy).

MISSIONS

• Increased time and reduced AI techs for mission: "Battleship vs Torpedo Boats".
• Added two Destroyer escorts and increased distance of AI reinforcements in mission: "The US Super Battleship". Tech level of AI opponent reduced. Now you need to destroy only 3 Battleships (instead of 4).
• Expanded time limit for mission: "Destroyers vs Torpedo Boats".
• Changed objectives of "Contest in the Black Sea" so now you need to sink 60% of enemies (instead of sinking the Battleship and Battlecruiser which was very difficult).
• Changed objective of mission: "The Modern Battleship" so that to win you need to sink 70% of enemies, instead of 100%.
• In mission "Destroy a Full Fleet" the enemy AI fleet has now less advanced tech level. Objective has changed so that now you need to sink half of enemy fleet but also protect half of your own fleet (instead of sinking 70% of enemy ships).
• Increased time and funds for mission: "Undefended Convoy".
• Other minor fund changes to some missions.

MINOR FIXES

• Fixed secondary cage mast not having adequate placeholder to fit in a USA battleship of 1899.
• Fixed issue of French “Semi-Armored Cruiser” of the 1890s that did not allow 2-inches guns to fit in casemates while no larger guns fitted. 

• 
   

The hotfix will be available next week. We wish you a great weekend!

The Game-Labs Team

Edited June 27, 2020 by Nick Thomadis
Edited hotfix content with the final text

[Danvanthevacuumman]

cool thanks for update

[shieldy44]

lol as long as i can finally hit these stupid torpedo boats that just taunt me by doing circles around my BB I'll be happy

[Hangar18]

13 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Engine repairs became somewhat faster according to type of engine (Fully flooded or damaged engine sections are not repairable).

super low priority, but some kind of indicator as to the status of the repairs of modules would be nice QOL.

still worried about the speed penalty tbh, but we'll see how the dispersion change affects things.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Hangar18

[Steeltrap]

Hi Nick,

Thanks for the notes. Am seeking clarification of some points, plus providing some feedback as part of same.

Look forward to hearing from you when you have the time.

Cheers

On 6/20/2020 at 1:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Improved AI auto-targeting, so that it switches target to nearest threats more actively.

I for one HATE how the AI does this even now. I see it make significantly less than ideal choices and it annoys me substantially. Making it do it even MORE often is, in my experience, a RETROGRADE step, not a plus.

Am I, for example, constantly going to struggle with the AI wanting to override MY fleet/division fire control orders? Just because something is closer doesn't make it the GREATER threat, and fire control decisions ought to be decided on the basis of THREAT, NOT PROXIMITY.

Leaving aside the issue of proximity does not automatically mean greatest threat, how is the AI overriding my orders consistent with ME being the Senior Officer of whatever forces are in battle?

That's a significant premise of the game, isn't it?

On 6/20/2020 at 1:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

When shells hit strong armor at an angle they have bigger chance to cause at least partial penetration instead of zero-damage ricochets

I fail to understand the logic behind this. If a shell is going to ricochet, surely it's going to do so when the armour is thickest and at an angle?

The problem as I see it is when shells ricochet from things they ought not, not when they ricochet from "strong armour".

Again, either the description is unintentionally imprecise, or I fail to grasp the logic driving this.

Don't you simply have a formula for determining if a shell is/is not effective against armour?

Might a more accurate description of the change be:

Partial penetration occurs when shell penetration is within x-value of effective armour. This value is being increased, so you ought to expect to see more partial penetrations, even potentially on thick armour IF the shell striking it is within that x-value.

In the absence of important specifics in the announcement of this change, it sounds like there will be more partial penetrations "for reasons". What they are, we don't know. What difference they'll make, we also don't know. WHY the change is being made at all, we don't know. How any of it relates to realism we certainly have no clue at all.

It might seem that I'm being overly picky, but the fact is the ways in which these things are introduced/explained matter.

On 6/20/2020 at 1:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Reduced dispersion of shells. Problem of too low accuracy at short ranges should be resolved.

Are you addressing root causes here, or chasing results without any particular reference to any specific factors that currently are frankly rather poorly implemented?

Take two of the most repeatedly complained of issues, namely the HUGE penalties for "target speed" and "target manoeuvres". Are these being addressed?

Are there PLANS to address the gunnery comprehensively at SOME point, or will we continue to see band-aids over band-aids because the genuine root causes, such as speed and manoeuvres adding potentially huge penalties when REALISM ought to demand a system that reflects DEVIATION from the expected position of the target ship according to the gunnery solution at the time the shells were fired, are NOT being addressed?

Do you consider the current model to be good enough, and that's not going to change until after the Steam launch, for example? I for one would LOVE to know the answer to THAT.

On 6/20/2020 at 1:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Increased slightly the potential damage of detonations/flash fires. Their impact will become even more critical.

If their impact is to be more critical, what exactly are the means by which we (and the AI) can prevent them?

Is it more or less "shove in MAX bulkheads, armoured bulkheads, and otherwise armour the hell out of your turrets and you're sweet"?

If that's the case, is anything being done to encourage the AI to do this? Feels like we're cheating if WE know this answer and the AI doesn't, because it doesn't matter to me if the AI piles more/larger guns etc on their ships yet they continue to burn and pop all over the place due to a failure to grasp those essential truths of the damage/damage control models.

On 6/20/2020 at 1:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

• Reduced maximum torpedo ammo to be from 2 to 4 rounds per tube, according to design setting.
• Torpedo reload time increased +25%.

Aren't these historically known factors? Why not simply USE THOSE as the base instead of making up numbers and then trying different sets of numbers now and again?

If using historically valid numbers creates problems, the next step in my opinion ought to be to move to the next element along the total processes that relate to torpedo use in the game and address it. And the next, and the next, until you've done them all.

My own professional experience has taught me changing bits and pieces here and there is a recipe for an increasingly unstable system, and that's a FAR GREATER nightmare to deal with that getting the fundamentals correct.

On 6/20/2020 at 1:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Engine repairs became somewhat faster according to type of engine (Fully flooded or damaged engine sections are not repairable)

Might this be viewed as "Engine sections that are fully flooded/damaged are not repairable"?

While it's clear a fully flooded section cannot be repaired, and thus a section that is partly flooded can be, it's NOT clear if a partly damaged section can be repaired but a fully damaged cannot.
 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Steeltrap

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

8 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Hi Nick,

  On 6/19/2020 at 5:53 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

Reduced dispersion of shells. Problem of too low accuracy at short ranges should be resolved.

Are you addressing root causes here, or chasing results without any particular reference to any specific factors that currently are frankly rather poorly implemented?

Take two of the most repeatedly complained of issues, namely the HUGE penalties for "target speed" and "target manoeuvres". Are these being addressed?

Are there PLANS to address the gunnery comprehensively at SOME point, or will we continue to see band-aids over band-aids because the genuine root causes, such as speed and manoeuvres adding potentially huge penalties when REALISM ought to demand a system that reflects DEVIATION from the expected position of the target ship according to the gunnery solution at the time the shells were fired?

Do you consider the current model to be good enough, and that's not going to change until after the Steam launch, for example? I for one would LOVE to know the answer to THAT.

 

Very much seconded!

[DougToss]

I'm with @Steeltrap here. Fix the underlying systems, don't paper over the cracks. It's maddening to see each "fix" to ballistics create another wonky execution with a host of problems rather than just taking the time to start from scratch and get it right. 

This is not a problem of adjusting values 5% in either direction, this is a problem with how the system was designed.

[DuxNW]

8 hours ago, DougToss said:

I'm with @Steeltrap here. Fix the underlying systems, don't paper over the cracks. It's maddening to see each "fix" to ballistics create another wonky execution with a host of problems rather than just taking the time to start from scratch and get it right. 

This is not a problem of adjusting values 5% in either direction, this is a problem with how the system was designed.

Agreed, we want to see the core game play mechanics fleshed out in a way that makes sense given the goals defined by you guys in the first place. These are major issues that need to be sorted before worrying about campaigns or the steam launch. 

 

I think I can speak for every one in saying we are passionate about this, because this game gets a lot right or is very close to getting a lot right. It's a awesome premise and fills a void that no other game currently does! So please keep plugging away, but we are all very interested in your response to the issues Steeltrap has spent a considerable amount of time documenting for the greater good of the community.

[Joryl]

On 6/19/2020 at 8:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Admirals, 

After our information about Steam Release and Campaign (Please Read) we would like to share with you what comes next as a hotfix update:

HotFix v75
=========
BALANCES

• Improved Auto-Design and balanced ship weights/costs further for even better designs.
• Ship design tonnage step reduced from 100 to 50 tons (provides more design flexibility, especially for smaller ships plus makes Auto-Design to be more effective).
• Improved AI auto-targeting, so that it switches target to nearest threats more actively.
• When shells hit strong armor at an angle they have bigger chance to cause at least partial penetration instead of zero-damage ricochets.
• Reduced dispersion of shells. Problem of too low accuracy at short ranges should be resolved. Destroyers need to operate at safer ranges but will still be dangerous and useful.
• Increased slightly the potential damage of detonations/flash fires. Their impact will become even more critical.
• Reduced maximum torpedo ammo to be from 2 to 4 rounds per tube, according to design setting.
• Torpedo reload time increased +25%.
• Engine repairs became somewhat faster according to type of engine (Fully flooded or damaged engine sections are not repairable).
• Improved the Hull form statistics of the modern Russian destroyers to aid them achieving higher speeds. The Destroyer leader hull shape has improved.
• Increased detection bonus of Sonar, so that it can trace electric torpedoes or other stealthy types, more effectively. Cost of Sonar has been increased.

MISSIONS

• Increased time and reduced AI techs for mission: "Battleship vs Torpedo Boats".
• Added two Destroyer escorts and increased distance of AI reinforcements in mission: "The US Super Battleship". Tech level of AI opponent reduced.
• Expanded time limit for mission: "Destroyers vs Torpedo Boats".
• Changed objectives of "Contest in the Black Sea" so now you need to sink 60% of enemies (instead of sinking the Battleship and Battlecruiser which was very difficult).
• Changed objective of mission: "The Modern Battleship" so that to win you need to sink 70% of enemies, instead of 100%.
• In mission "Destroy a Full Fleet" the enemy AI fleet has now less advanced tech level. Objective has changed so that now you need to sink half of enemy fleet but also protect half of your own fleet (instead of sinking 70% of enemy ships).
• Other minor fund changes to some missions.

MINOR FIXES

• Fixed secondary cage mast not having adequate placeholder to fit in a USA battleship of 1899.
• Fixed issue of French “Semi-Armored Cruiser” of the 1890s that did not allow 2-inches guns to fit in casemates while no larger guns fitted. 
   

The hotfix will be available next week. We wish you a great weekend!

The Game-Labs Team

Hey Darth do we know when about this week I am trying to hold off until the patch?  

 

Thanks  

[Teraflame]

After the hotfix, it seems that the weight of some things has increased so that some previous designs will be seriously overweight. But the updated content does not mention these. Which parts of the weight have been modified?

[Nick Thomadis]

7 hours ago, Teraflame said:

After the hotfix, it seems that the weight of some things has increased so that some previous designs will be seriously overweight. But the updated content does not mention these. Which parts of the weight have been modified?

• Quote

  Improved Auto-Design and balanced ship weights/costs further for even better designs. Note: This change might make some of your old designs overweight, but you should be able to repair them by lowering speed, armor or other settings.

  
  Hello, I quote part of the changelog mentioning the change of weights. I added Note explaining to users that some designs will need re-adjustments. It was a necessary improvement for more balanced and realistic designs.

[Teraflame]

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

• 
  您好，我引用了變更日誌中提到權重變化的部分。我添加了註釋，  向用戶解釋一些設計將需要重新調整。對於更平衡，更逼真的設計，這是必要的改進。

Sorry for not looking carefully. Keep up the good work!