Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Upcoming Alpha-10


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Bilderberger said:

I agree that information is important, crucial even. Which is why I do not understand the way the devs were handling the issue over the last couple of months.

Ill have to admit was confused somewhat by the initial message, but yeah the lack of comms is annoying really as we dont know what they plan to do what they are currently doing, what they have managed to do etc.

And if they think any of the feedback we have offered is suitable, i like to think we are more sensible community to some degree (if such a thing exists on the internet). And if they tell us why certain things wont work and why then maybe we could help them further with it really.

I know we got a while to go, but from where we are now it isn't that great although i could end up eating my words from a few years from now (i hope so, in that we get a really good game out of it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from Admin 😎, developers haven’t/don’t really engage that much.

What’s missing is the moderators. In the forum past moderators carried the forum a fair bit but then there were thousands online, today I think there just not enough people to warrant investing alot of time here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

We would like to share an update regarding the upcoming patch. We wanted to release it this week but we found two major issues from the old implementation, so we had to refactor all movement code.

The most major issue was that the previous version could not support any negative speed at all. The old method of implementation was interfering with our planned progress on ship movement, so more changes were needed.

The new movement system will be provided some time next week or in a week with additional improvements, better code, less bugs, and will be more enjoyable as a result.

Thank you for reading,

The Game-Labs Team

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello all,

We would like to share an update regarding the upcoming patch. We wanted to release it this week but we found two major issues from the old implementation, so we had to refactor all movement code.

The most major issue was that the previous version could not support any negative speed at all. The old method of implementation was interfering with our planned progress on ship movement, so more changes were needed.

The new movement system will be provided some time next week or in a week with additional improvements, better code, less bugs, and will be more enjoyable as a result.

Thank you for reading,

The Game-Labs Team

Thanks for the update, this is what we guys would like too see more as it gives us a better understanding overall. Now we know why its being delayed rather than speculating and getting very angy.

If it means making the patch better, i have no problems with it and i guess it makes it easier for you guys if your code is easier to edit/follow etc (i know little about code).

But thanks anyways. ID rather we get to know what you guys are doing (not everyday once a week is fine or twice whatever fits you) and what problems you run into if any than be left in the dark.

Regardless take your time nick. 'w'/

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

While I am not sure why we need reverse to begin with any sorts of updates are highly welcome!

 

Thx

imo it may be a sign of landmasses in the future, if your predread or destroyer runs aground, its easier to go back the way you came than to force through who knows how much shallow seafloor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

imo it may be a sign of landmasses in the future, if your predread or destroyer runs aground, its easier to go back the way you came than to force through who knows how much shallow seafloor.

Landmasses are actually promised. But not the way you think. Devs said that terrain in-battles will be present as ,,distant terrain''.

Source: 

3:18

This is photo from the Steam. It can be seen in the background. So this is how it might look like:ss_cb73ecc7a2819680493809e306caa437c6080

Edited by Aceituna
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

While I am not sure why we need reverse to begin with any sorts of updates are highly welcome!

 

Thx

So i can bow tank and reverse in my moskva ship, like in weegees world of lootboxes.

And maybe so that the AI can actually reverse backwards before it decides to have a fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

imo it may be a sign of landmasses in the future, if your predread or destroyer runs aground, its easier to go back the way you came than to force through who knows how much shallow seafloor.

As far as I know no landmass planned for now.

Hope they won’t copy Tonks on Water / Warsheeps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

As far as I know no landmass planned for now.

Hope they won’t copy Tonks on Water / Warsheeps

@DerRichtigeArzt maybe onto something.

Reversing seems to be important enough to be prioritized, even overruling any deacceleration modifying (simplest way out), it's alot of work for something that hasn't been a major issue previously. "Torpedo dodging", well lets just say that everybody was alittle surprise by that.

You see RTW2 doesn't have ship reverse because there's no inertia values, ships simply turn away from land, UAD has, especially for larger hull inertia mechanics. 
  
With terra-firma there's no way around 'grounding' but reversing. They could be setting things up for a later implementation too. It adds up to a reasonable conclusion.
 

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

@DerRichtigeArzt maybe onto something.

Reversing seems to be important enough to be prioritized, even overruling any deacceleration modifying (simplest way out), it's alot of work for something that hasn't been a major issue previously. "Torpedo dodging", well lets just say that everybody was alittle surprise by that.

You see RTW2 doesn't have ship reverse because there's no inertia values, ships simply turn away from land, UAD has, especially for larger hull inertia mechanics. 
  
With terra-firma there's no way around 'grounding' but reversing. They could be setting things up for a later implementation too. It adds up to a reasonable conclusion.
 

We could also do with better UI elements for turning and speeding up or reversing, as what we have atm is ok, but isn't as intuitive and also isn't immersive enough like those ship board turn wheel things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making terrain just a "distant" thing is basicly making the game pointless. While I agree that "tonks on wasser tha game" is stupid, we cant forget actions like the channel dash. Also, atracking the enemy in port while there is no port would be kinda strange, and surprise attacks in port were a thing as well, just look at pearl harbor. Also, they already have the tech to make landmasses in the form of ultimate admiral age of sail. There are precisely 0 reasons why landmassea should not be a thing. 

Edited by DerRichtigeArzt
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Also ice fields as well would be cool for battles that take further up north or south. Plus Caribbean style waters as well, so we have a variety of maps so too speak.

Pretty sure they'll have to do that because it will be pretty weird if your fighting in Russian waters and don't see a single piece of ice floating around or snow falling. As for Caribbean waters, it would be cool if we can fight in the waters near the Bahamas but I'm not sure if the Devs would go that far since minor Nations won't be a thing. Speaking of Nations it makes me wonder who is gonna be in control of the continents because if the world is gonna be just like real life that would mean Britain will be in control of a lot of ports since minor Nation aren't gonna be in the game.

Edited by CapnAvont1015
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the modern Japanese battlecruiser hull is really stupid because you can only place the superstructure and the turret barrettes really far to the foreship. Besides looking really stupid, it also looks really unmodern, because modern ships would have longer bows that keep sea water away from the turrets. Below is how I think it should look like. The currently restricted place should be where the superstructure should be possible to place, and the three placement spots for the superstructure would be the placement spots for the front barbettes.

y9sNcXk.pngzXWfTsr.png

Edited by AdmiralGunzo
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AdmiralGunzo said:

I think the modern Japanese battlecruiser hull is really stupid because you can only place the superstructure and the turret barrettes really far to the foreship. Besides looking really stupid, it also looks really unmodern, because modern ships would have longer bows that keep sea water away from the turrets. 

y9sNcXk.png

we just have to keep winging about making all things be able to be shift placed like turrets are right now. and if ai has problems with it then just limit the ai. but let players build cool stuff.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

we just have to keep winging about making all things be able to be shift placed like turrets are right now. and if ai has problems with it then just limit the ai. but let players build cool stuff.

Considering that half of my posts on here these days are complaining about the stupidity of fixed barbette/tower points when we already have free turret shift-placement, and how it needlessly handicaps so many designs... I would really hope that it's been read at least once.

But the best we get is 'we'll add more points, on some hulls' and the excuse that certain placements would be historically unrealistic (which I've had to disprove multiple times) when literally 95% of the time all we're trying to do is make designs that look more realistic.

If the AI can't cope with a proper designer without arbitrary restrictions then the AI needs fixing.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anytime i try to make any design that looks historical I have the same problem mentioned above with the short bows and the supersructures being too forward.

It also gaves me another big problem and it is fore overweight. Its really difficult to control fore and stern weight with the current hardpoint design. I can see why the casemates need them but its a great limiter when you try something like the Atago class cruisers, with a tight positioning of the turrets and superstructure.

Something like a slider to modify engine positioning on the citadel and some way to visualize where and how big it is would help to greatly increase the design options and the ship weight positioning. It would follow a simple rule like not being able to place it under a turret, and only under the superstructure with the only limitacion being centerline. We could even make things like a balanced Nelson Class!

 

Edited by Capilla
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Capilla said:

Anytime i try to make any design that looks historical I have the same problem mentioned above with the short bows and the supersructures being too forward.

It also gaves me another big problem and it is fore overweight. Its really difficult to control fore and stern weight with the current hardpoint design. I can see why the casemates need them but its a great limiter when you try something like the Atago class cruisers, with a tight positioning of the turrets and superstructure.

Something like a slider to modify engine positioning on the citadel and some way to visualize where and how big it is would help to greatly increase the design options and the ship weight positioning. It would follow a simple rule like not being able to place it under a turret, and only under the superstructure with the only limitacion being centerline. We could even make things like a balanced Nelson Class!

 

Balanced Nelson is possible on the Chinese modernnised dreadnought. But it has casements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...