>>>Alpha-9 Feedback<<<

[SonicB]

20 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

A good fix would be to remove barbettes completly annd instead just allow us to raise a gun with a custom made barbette apearing under it with a press of a button. this would streamline the procces for the future.

This. This would be perfect.

Would need a little tweaking so as to not allow the AI to build barbettes in weird places, but yes. Each turret with its own barbette option would be so much better graphically than we have at the moment, too (I actually came here to post this problem with the base of the new British turrets.)

[Marshall99]

I don t know you guys noticed it or not, but today gun firing bug happened with me. So I constructed the Super Shikishima with 5*4 turrets. And when it fired one salvo, only the front two turrets did shoot. The rest don't. Second salvo: Every gun fired. Third salvo: only the front two turrets.

I was perfect broadside so nothing blocked my guns. This bug needs to be fixed.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Marshall99

[Cptbarney]

1 minute ago, Marshall99 said:

I don t know you guys noticed it or not, but today gun firing bug happened with me. So I constructed the Super Shikishima with 5*4 turrets. And when it fired one salvo, only the frobt two turrets did shoot. The rest don't. Second salvo: Every gun fired. Third salvo: only the front two turrets.

I was perfect broadside so nothing blocked my guns. This bug needs to be fixed.

Ye had that a few times already, we need to have a set firing types so the game doesnt confuse itself so much.

So ranging from full salvo, half salvo, quarter salvo (depending on the number of guns depends on how many options you get), single shot, double shot, one-by-one (each turret fires each barrel one-by-one) stagger fire etc.

Same goes for ranges as well.

[SonicB]

31 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

I don t know you guys noticed it or not, but today gun firing bug happened with me. So I constructed the Super Shikishima with 5*4 turrets. And when it fired one salvo, only the frobt two turrets did shoot. The rest don't. Second salvo: Every gun fired. Third salvo: only the front two turrets.

I was perfect broadside so nothing blocked my guns. This bug needs to be fixed.

 

28 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Ye had that a few times already, we need to have a set firing types so the game doesnt confuse itself so much.

So ranging from full salvo, half salvo, quarter salvo (depending on the number of guns depends on how many options you get), single shot, double shot, one-by-one (each turret fires each barrel one-by-one) stagger fire etc.

Same goes for ranges as well.

Yep, reported this in the bug thread yesterday. I was hoping it would be fixed in alpha-9 but apparently not.

Main battery salvos under central direction just need to fire all at once. This was accepted practice since Jacky Fisher rigged up electrically controlled broadsides on HMS Bellerophon back in 1877. It's the only way to avoid roll and recoil screwing up the aim.

The only exception to unified salvos should be an option to fire under local control, if for instance the main tower or conning tower is destroyed, or if you just need to target multiple close-in enemies at the cost of long-range accuracy.

[brucesim2003]

It seems to me that as soon as a ship takes even the slightest damage, they won't keep up to the formation speed, no matter what it is set at.

I had a division of 4 Battleships, max speed 28.5 knots. Max division speed was 23 knots. As soon as they took ANY damage (including a ricochet), the ship speed headed south of 20 knots. Nothing I could do to make them speed up.

Formation keeping has taken a dive with this patch, in my opinion.

[madham82]

14 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

I would not like to see WoWS style "hey look torpedoes" constant torpedo alerts or notifications of inbound torpedoes.

I actually find a lot of enjoyment and get a lil rush from having to identify targets with torpedo tubes and having to prioritize them depending on their range. Once a target ship has been 100% IDed you get to see it's individual weapon reload timers anyways, so if you watch the torpedo reload timers you'll know when fish are in the water and know when you have to maneuver accordingly. If you check and see that the tubes are on reload, well, better adjust your course! Besides, a good captain should be maneuvering anyways. 

That said, I think it's pretty exciting having to wonder where enemy fish are and having to juke and swish accordingly, you can find them if you look as most leave a subtle wake, and a surprise torpedo hit punishes a lax commander and punishes harder a cheapskate shipwright. And some times surprise punishment is great, one time [censored] [censored] [censored] and man, my fins hurt for days after but I digress. I finally have some quality time to dive into the new patch and pick it apart so I'm going to go.. do that now. 

Wouldn't you get even more a rush if you couldn't see and zoom to any enemy ship on the map by clicking an icon? How about being forced to make your own classification of what type of ship you are firing at by your view being locked to your own ship's perspective? How about the rush of not knowing how many enemy ships are out there or their direction? 

BTW the above is sarcasm. I just don't see how you can justify not having markers for spotted torpedoes in one sentence and then talk about having access to torpedo reload status in another. Now if you were just saying you don't want that annoying proximity warning from WoWS, I'm with you. I think the game already has modeled what is needed, the warning triangle just needs to stick at higher levels of zoom. 

12 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

I would be okay with more information restrictions akin to RTW, though I would also like the ability to access the current level of information that we have. Maybe the campaign needs something like the custom difficulty settings you see in silent hunter? I don't know if you're familiar with those but essentially you choose a lot of the information you want restricted or available when you start the campaign, and a bunch of other difficulty settings too. 

Custom difficulty is the only way to go. Then people can choose between QoL/accessibility and realism to their liking.

[Adm.Hawklyn]

I have noticed that behavior happening, and I'm not too concerned.

It IS far better than it was before after all.

There are multiple reasons why turrets could fire at different rates.

Gun crew experience.

Shell handling and transport

possible damage that could either affect or cause one of the above.

Aiming.

 

As for formations, I think for whatever reason, its been weirdly coded that the ship with the least damage takes formation lead, not sure why its done this way, but I do agree that it is annoying.

[Arrigo74]

I do not find marking spotted torpedoes gamey. After all there will be specific crewmen detailed to this task and to keep a track of them. Of course torpedo spotting distances must be realistic. What I find arcadey is the need to scour the map to spot torpedoes right now. Considering this is a simulation of command rather than skippering focusing on tactics and management rather than 'driving' is appropriate. 

Certainly the way to appease everyone (for once it appears possible) is to provide selectable elements of realism and difficulty. 

Still concerned about the lack of simultaneous and sequential turns. Even in line ahead ships do not really follow a line ahead approach, but they act more like they recreate a line ahead formation after every turn. 

Flag selection after a ship falling out of formation should be either second in line, or selected by the player. 

 

 

 

[Fishyfish]

18 minutes ago, madham82 said:

Wouldn't you get even more a rush if you couldn't see and zoom to any enemy ship on the map by clicking an icon? How about being forced to make your own classification of what type of ship you are firing at by your view being locked to your own ship's perspective? How about the rush of not knowing how many enemy ships are out there or their direction? 

BTW the above is sarcasm. I just don't see how you can justify not having markers for spotted torpedoes in one sentence and then talk about having access to torpedo reload status in another. Now if you were just saying you don't want that annoying proximity warning from WoWS, I'm with you. I think the game already has modeled what is needed, the warning triangle just needs to stick at higher levels of zoom. 

Custom difficulty is the only way to go. Then people can choose between QoL/accessibility and realism to their liking.

Allow me to clarify, my statement can be refined down to "I'm fine knowing that the enemy has launched torpedos. It's up to me to figure out where they are and how much time I have to deal with them" But I'd also be fine not knowing that they launched torpedos and having to figure out if they have, where they are, and how much time I have to deal with them.

And to be honest I'd actually be fine having to roughly ID enemy ships to determine if they were BBs, CAs, DDs, etc before being able to get 100% accurate information on their armorment, speed capabilities,  armor and etc. I'd also be fine not knowing how many enemy ships were out there and having to figure out where they were, but as the game is currently we would need more visual aid in battle. Ie, actual smoke on the horizion instead of just a message. And I'll go one step further to say yes, actually I'd love to play this game from a first person perspective locked to bridge crew on my flagship (It's how I play silent hunter) but there would need to be some map and chart functions or screen akin to silent hunter to make that workable and the graphics and visuals would need major up tooling.

But to be clear, no I don't want the WoWS proximity alerts and I also don't want the warning triangle or the torpedo beats. I lean hardcore more towards the simulator aspect and am not interested in an arcade experience. I understand that's just me which is why I'd like a customizable difficultly setting. 

[CapnAvont1015]

45 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

Allow me to clarify, my statement can be refined down to "I'm fine knowing that the enemy has launched torpedos. It's up to me to figure out where they are and how much time I have to deal with them" But I'd also be fine not knowing that they launched torpedos and having to figure out if they have, where they are, and how much time I have to deal with them.

And to be honest I'd actually be fine having to roughly ID enemy ships to determine if they were BBs, CAs, DDs, etc before being able to get 100% accurate information on their armorment, speed capabilities,  armor and etc. I'd also be fine not knowing how many enemy ships were out there and having to figure out where they were, but as the game is currently we would need more visual aid in battle. Ie, actual smoke on the horizion instead of just a message. And I'll go one step further to say yes, actually I'd love to play this game from a first person perspective locked to bridge crew on my flagship (It's how I play silent hunter) but there would need to be some map and chart functions or screen akin to silent hunter to make that workable and the graphics and visuals would need major up tooling.

But to be clear, no I don't want the WoWS proximity alerts and I also don't want the warning triangle or the torpedo beats. I lean hardcore more towards the simulator aspect and am not interested in an arcade experience. I understand that's just me which is why I'd like a customizable difficultly setting. 

Listen....even in this game torpedo beats still happen in this game a lot know when the enemy will launch torpedo's. YOU CANT STOP THE BEATS.

[CapnAvont1015]

Speaking of WOWS I somehow got a Double on two BBS in this game. So either those ships had crap armor or I'm the luckiest person ever.

[Shiki]

What I would like to see from any hotfix patch in the coming days is to also include the French experimental battlecruiser hull - suitably downscaled - to the heavy cruiser category, from 10,500 to 14,000 tons. It's a clear candidate for re-creating classes like the C5 A3 and C5 SA1 proposals, as well as being a better hull for France's cruisers as opposed to something like, say, the downscaled Bismarck and Yamato hulls we have in that category right now.

[Reaper Jack]

I've noticed that accuracy seems to be having some issues after the patch; especially with quad guns. While the aiming itself seems to be fine, sometimes the guns seem to aim at a position that is not where the enemy ship will be. I had volleys that were quite obviously aimed two ship lengths behind the target at ranges as low as 2km (With 50-90% hit chances.)

Edited November 18, 2020 by Reaper Jack

[Tankaxe]

I would like to have the spotting system reworked I find it ridiculous that having an extra turret can magically make your ship easier to spot allowing enemy ships to open fire on your ships with no returning fire because of this artificial mechanic. 

 

Doesn't help that light forces arn't spotted until they basically become spotted all at once in torpedo range.

[Skeksis]

3 hours ago, Adm.Hawklyn said:

As for formations, I think for whatever reason, its been weirdly coded that the ship with the least damage takes formation lead, not sure why its done this way, but I do agree that it is annoying.

If this is the case then what should happen is that the lead should only change if the engines are damaged or if the speed has been greatly affected.

And I repeat... ‘Better still if we could slide the ship cards within the division row ourselves then we could set the lead ship, even organize the whole row’.

And have the ability to toggle between auto-organizing and manual organizing ship division order (per division). Manual organizing would mean that if the lead slows, the whole division would slow too and it’s then up to the player sort, i.e. micromanagement.   

Edited November 18, 2020 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

4 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

But to be clear, no I don't want the WoWS proximity alerts

I do, voiced (or bells and whistles) alerts would lift the game’s atmosphere, something every game tries to do with sound.

Having the sound of silence between the player and game would impair immersion.        

[Fishyfish]

37 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

I do, voiced (or bells and whistles) alerts would lift the game’s atmosphere, something every game tries to do with sound.

Having the sound of silence between the player and game would impair immersion.        

Having unnecessary hand holding and leading the player around by the nose would also impair immersion. If you play an FPS do you need a prompt every single time you come up to a ledge to mantle over it? If the answer is yes, I'm very sorry to hear that. 

[Skeksis]

55 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

hand holding

Depends on how large the battles might get, 40-50+ ships in 3+ hour sessions, then “hand holding” sound notifications would be welcome by most players.   

 

PS: IMO, RTW2 style campaign might not suit all of the current audience that we have onboard today, I suspect Custom Battles will be a bigger hit for most players anyway (once develop some more), and so bells and whistles would most likely to be more popular for such a audience.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Skeksis

[Arrigo74]

54 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

Having unnecessary hand holding and leading the player around by the nose would also impair immersion. If you play an FPS do you need a prompt every single time you come up to a ledge to mantle over it? If the answer is yes, I'm very sorry to hear that. 

Have you ever been in a CiC during an action? I was in a Type 23's one for a simulated action, and basically the whole job of the CiC crew is to hold the CO's hand to allow him to make informed decision.  I have friends who had done this for real in 1982... 

 

Now in a simulation like Admirals I do not expect having voice reports continually flowing to me (also because I can jump between ships and divisions), but their net effect provided to me, that means tracking spotted torpedo, having a map overlay providing heading and bearing of enemy spotted contacts and so on. For a lot of thing I found the game quite arcadey and some of the suggestions of 'realism' more based on arcade games, than any simulation of naval combat. There is also difference between a warship simulator and a simulation of naval combat. 

As for the game itself... one of the biggest selling point was the campaign. Not just creating the 'perfect' theoretical ship, but one that actually accomplish missions and keep your political masters happy. So I hope to see not just technical developments, but also the chance for treaties to influence naval construction, and a changing global landscape, plus receiving information on other countries new ships and being forced to adapt. The battles themselves are important, just one of the many cogs in the game.

Said that...

this is a technical thread to report on the patch... and the campaign is still not in my greedy hands... so another UI issue is the inability to lock  target info. Basically it would be nice to be able to lock the information cursor on a specific target (friendly or enemy) rather than, as it is now, being always floating, sometimes you lose the information when you rotate the screen or, quite annoying, at long range when ships dots are close together it is a bit difficult to keep info an a specific target. 

Also at time information are hidden above or under the screen border because they are displayed at a fixed distance from the cursor itself. Like the target relative armor strength can be seen only when you keep the horizon relatively low... 

Ship design:

getting an immune zone calculator would be nice. Also a better indication of ship range would be nice when the campaign will be implemented. 

 

 

[madham82]

22 minutes ago, Arrigo74 said:

 

Said that...

this is a technical thread to report on the patch... and the campaign is still not in my greedy hands... so another UI issue is the inability to lock  target info. Basically it would be nice to be able to lock the information cursor on a specific target (friendly or enemy) rather than, as it is now, being always floating, sometimes you lose the information when you rotate the screen or, quite annoying, at long range when ships dots are close together it is a bit difficult to keep info an a specific target. 

Also at time information are hidden above or under the screen border because they are displayed at a fixed distance from the cursor itself. Like the target relative armor strength can be seen only when you keep the horizon relatively low...

Excellent point (I actually liked all your points) and something has bothered me, but I haven't said anything. Yea it is ridiculously annoying to have to hold your mouse on an enemy ship to get that data, especially at long range like you mentioned. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by madham82

[Bluishdoor76]

4 hours ago, madham82 said:

Excellent point (I actually liked all your points) and something has bothered me, but I haven't said anything. Yea it is ridiculously annoying to have to hold your mouse on an enemy ship to get that data, especially at long range like you mentioned. 

what data panel are you referring to, is it the top right one with their armor, weapons and other info, plus the image of the ship? Because if you are then, you do know you can click on the ship and the window will remain after you move your cursor away from said ship....

again, is it this info panel you are referring to?

 

do not mind the real awful scenario I just sent this 2 BBs lol

Edited November 19, 2020 by Bluishdoor76

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

what data panel are you referring to, is it the top right one with their armor, weapons and other info, plus the image of the ship? Because if you are then, you do know you can click on the ship and the window will remain after you move your cursor away from said ship....

again, is it this info panel you are referring to?

 

do not mind the real awful scenario I just sent this 2 BBs lol

And you can use the enemy icons/cards at the top, just scroll over them and the info tab will show.

Also Dev's with the new right click to expand division cards then shouldn't this be echo for the top enemy cards/icons? to keep the UI consistent. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by Skeksis

[DerRichtigeArzt]

15 hours ago, brucesim2003 said:

It seems to me that as soon as a ship takes even the slightest damage, they won't keep up to the formation speed, no matter what it is set at.

I had a division of 4 Battleships, max speed 28.5 knots. Max division speed was 23 knots. As soon as they took ANY damage (including a ricochet), the ship speed headed south of 20 knots. Nothing I could do to make them speed up.

Formation keeping has taken a dive with this patch, in my opinion.

I had a battleship (31 kn) take a 20 inch torpedo straight into the engine room, taking 2 engines and half flooding 3 compartments, it only lost 8 knots, and I was already going 24 for better aim so slowing down just 1 wasn't a problem. Dunno maybe the modules you selected are jutst not as good, i ussualy pimp my modules and armor before I add guns and superstructure. 

[prreich]

I'm not sure if this will be addressed later on, but I think that turrets of a common caliber should work together as a all big gun model rather than separately. For example I have quad 16 inch with superfiring triple 16 inch guns over them, but currently in game, rather than working together they work as separate groups. For example the quads would lock on to a target but the triples would not.

[Steeltrap]

15 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

I've noticed that accuracy seems to be having some issues after the patch; especially with quad guns. While the aiming itself seems to be fine, sometimes the guns seem to aim at a position that is not where the enemy ship will be. I had volleys that were quite obviously aimed two ship lengths behind the target at ranges as low as 2km (With 50-90% hit chances.)

It's not new to this patch, it's been doing this for quite some time, certainly in the previous version,

I know because I raised it however long ago and included screen snips to illustrate.