What’s next? Any idea what we will see in Alpha 10?

[1MajorKoenig]

Hi Captains,

 

What are we going to see in Alpha 10?
 

• a more flexible ship designer (suggestions are on the table)?
• Campaign?
• Improved mechanics (armor, shooting, fleet control, etc.)?
   

 

[Cpt.Hissy]

Really hope for reworked designer and core mechanics. At least, some hint at this being actually considered.
Campaign has no right to exist until the core is working. If next release will be about campaign, it'll be a bad sign, telling that what they have right now is considered good enough.

[Skeksis]

We will only really know when they want to start marketing alpha 10, no roadmaps you see.

Guessing, I think it’ll be more about building more vessels for the campaign, a repeat of alpha 9, maybe the same for the next few alpha’s.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Skeksis

[Cptbarney]

Hopefully 1 and 3 so that the game is more fleshed out, i reckon we need another 2-3 alphas before we can properly do the campaign really.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Hopefully 1 and 3 so that the game is more fleshed out, i reckon we need another 2-3 alphas before we can properly do the campaign really.

 

Sounds reasonable 

 

It would be interesting though how the team sees the next topics to tackle 

[IronKaputt]

21 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

What are we going to see in Alpha 10?

I'm waiting for crew and, hopefully, accomodations with more options then just "meh" and "ok" like in RTW 2 demo.

I'd love to build some hotels and palaces for my fairies.

[Bry7x7x7]

I'm hoping at the start of the campaign being implemented, even just a few elements to see where they want to go with it.

[Gangut]

One feature I'd love to see is the ability to save a design and use it in sandbox mode, or globally. You could even save the design for the ai to use in say the sandbox to help limit the weird designs, but also roleplay purposes as who doesn't want to see a rematch of their favourite naval battles, or even what if battles?

[Fishyfish]

Which nations don't have super battleship hulls yet? Bet you my fins that's what we'll get. A few more mildy interested academy missions, the run of the mill bug fixes and ui tweaks. I don't mean to be toooo sardonic but... 

[1MajorKoenig]

15 hours ago, Gangut said:

One feature I'd love to see is the ability to save a design and use it in sandbox mode, or globally. You could even save the design for the ai to use in say the sandbox to help limit the weird designs, but also roleplay purposes as who doesn't want to see a rematch of their favourite naval battles, or even what if battles?

Yes!

 

4 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

Which nations don't have super battleship hulls yet? Bet you my fins that's what we'll get. A few more mildy interested academy missions, the run of the mill bug fixes and ui tweaks. I don't mean to be toooo sardonic but... 

which one? I mean rather than making these look-alike hulls they should be better improving the configurability of the Ship Designer.

 

Imagine:

- set displacement 

- set length to beam ratio

- set flush deck or not

- set freeboard

- select from a couple of bow and stern forms with individual pros and cons

- set speed (and resulting sHP)

- set machinery space based on sHP and selected propulsion technology 

- set funnels based on machinery space 

- set barbettes freely based on remaining space outside machinery space and not in areas they would not fit (directly on the bow and stern) - you can keep hardpoints in the background for the AI to design ships

- place broken down superstructure elements such as decks, bridge, etc.

- place mast with range finder as a separate module onto the bridge module and make it dependent on the range finder selected 

- set directors for any gun type 

 

Now this would give a whole lot of freedom - it is a simple write up nothing sophisticated but as an idea where I would like to see the ship designer go.

 

And as the AI design argument was brought up multiple times: yes you can leave the more strict stuff in the background for the AI to design, such as combined modules, hard points and such. Just give players more freedom please 

[Fishyfish]

4 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Yes!

 

which one? I mean rather than making these look-alike hulls they should be better improving the configurability of the Ship Designer.

 

Imagine:

- set displacement 

- set length to beam ratio

- set flush deck or not

- set freeboard

- select from a couple of bow and stern forms with individual pros and cons

- set speed (and resulting sHP)

- set machinery space based on sHP and selected propulsion technology 

- set funnels based on machinery space 

- set barbettes freely based on remaining space outside machinery space and not in areas they would not fit (directly on the bow and stern) - you can keep hardpoints in the background for the AI to design ships

- place broken down superstructure elements such as decks, bridge, etc.

- place mast with range finder as a separate module onto the bridge module and make it dependent on the range finder selected 

- set directors for any gun type 

 

Now this would give a whole lot of freedom - it is a simple write up nothing sophisticated but as an idea where I would like to see the ship designer go.

 

And as the AI design argument was brought up multiple times: yes you can leave the more strict stuff in the background for the AI to design, such as combined modules, hard points and such. Just give players more freedom please 

I would love to see that, I really would, but I'm convinced that we never will. I have no reason to believe that the ship construction elements of the game will get any serious change or overhaul, that is to say I'm pretty sure we're stuck with what we've got. 

[1MajorKoenig]

1 hour ago, Fishyfish said:

I would love to see that, I really would, but I'm convinced that we never will. I have no reason to believe that the ship construction elements of the game will get any serious change or overhaul, that is to say I'm pretty sure we're stuck with what we've got. 

Which in turn would mean the devs need to either put in hundreds of modules or we are stuck with creating always the same design. And that would be defeating the purpose somehow 

[Bilderberger]

8 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Yes!

 

which one? I mean rather than making these look-alike hulls they should be better improving the configurability of the Ship Designer.

 

Imagine:

- set displacement 

- set length to beam ratio

- set flush deck or not

- set freeboard

- select from a couple of bow and stern forms with individual pros and cons

- set speed (and resulting sHP)

- set machinery space based on sHP and selected propulsion technology 

- set funnels based on machinery space 

- set barbettes freely based on remaining space outside machinery space and not in areas they would not fit (directly on the bow and stern) - you can keep hardpoints in the background for the AI to design ships

- place broken down superstructure elements such as decks, bridge, etc.

- place mast with range finder as a separate module onto the bridge module and make it dependent on the range finder selected 

- set directors for any gun type 

 

Now this would give a whole lot of freedom - it is a simple write up nothing sophisticated but as an idea where I would like to see the ship designer go.

 

And as the AI design argument was brought up multiple times: yes you can leave the more strict stuff in the background for the AI to design, such as combined modules, hard points and such. Just give players more freedom please 

I wholeheartedly agree. If this is what we're stuck with, as suggested above (A sentiment I unfortunately share), the game would lose a significant part of its USP.