Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Things I'd Like to See In-Game and Potential DLC


Recommended Posts

Note: Before you reply, this is a "My Perfect Game" kind of thread, modified of course by knowledge of what we already have. I'll probably add to it over time, so feel free to drop your own version below. Maybe we get some of it, or maybe Nick and the crew go a different way? I don't know, but this way I know they've probably, at least eventually, seen it and know what I like. Maybe that helps them out. Who knows?

 

On release:

  1. Fewer torpedo reloads - I would actually like them to be potent first-strike weapons at their pinnacle. Use 'em up, then disengage or go in guns blazing as you wish. I'd love one shot on reduced torpedo complement, half reload on normal, and one full reload on increased.
  2. Torpedo characteristics shouldn't change from what they are by propellant.
  3. Exception to #2 - Oxygen torpedoes should have a higher chance to explode, equivalent to a magazine detonation.
  4. Relevant to #1, Seriously nerfed impact of hydro and sonar stations equipped - Let them be a strategic asset best left to designs oriented to convoy and ASW. Right now they're too powerful in countering torpedoes, and combined with reduced reloads, they'd work just fine I think.
  5. Darker nights - At least some of the time. There's a beauty to the increased confusion and muzzle flashes in dark environments. I think the aesthetics would be fantastic.
  6. Related to 3, add functional searchlights - It doesn't need to be tech-related as ship-based lights weren't spectacularly different over the covered period, but it was quite important.
  7. Drastically reduced emissions from stacks for semi-oil ships and once again for oil ships - What we see in-game for oil-powered ships is what we might see for semi-oil ships. Oil-fired ships emit precious little smoke. And for you doubters, don't even bother to drop photos of oil-fired ships with streaming smoke to counter this. Those are usually shake-down photos where they're testing the boilers to their limits. Oh, and the same for late-war IJN ships; they're often running on unrefined Balikpapan crude at that point, one of the few oil deposits capable of being used in that way.
  8. There should be a mechanism to cause minor damage to ships for using max speed everywhere - That was usually a combat or transit-to-combat thing.
  9. Regarding #8, France should get an exception. France was the only nation to have a doctrine where their ships were to be capable of maximum speed without damage to a combat location and be expected to fight. Call it their national flavor.

 

DLC:

  1. Signal lights - If your lead ship turns, I'd love signals to be passed down the formation by lamp. Same with targeting orders and targeting changes.
  2. Historical camouflages - If these came in packs, I'd buy them even if there were dozens, or lap tem up from modders if you make ship skins somehow moddable. Either way, though I really don't mind paying for pretty post-dev.
  3. Catapult aircraft - Deployed in a great number of WWII engagements, I'd love to see them added eventually. Should give a detection bonus to ships and a bonus to gunnery, with a tiny chance to advance torpedo detection. Need aircraft storage and catapults.
  4. CVs - Yes, I'd love them. Do it DLC-style so you have time to make it work. I don't even need to have control of the attack squadrons, but they're such an integral part of 1940s combat that I really want them eventually. Do it right and this will be an enduring classic.

 

That's it for now. If I think of other things, I'll post them below with a date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dream game it is. I'll try to be short and not too far from what could be done in a reasonable time/budget:

- Game scope reduced to 1890+ -> 1920-*. Less models to add, easier to "balance", no radars and overall simpler technology (that still evolve rather quickly), no need for extensive planes usage, no carriers (or the justification of their absence), more dreadnoughts and plenty of time for wars against a naval power. This will also have the advantage of reducing the engagement range while keeping the game entirely focused on gunnery and torpedoes without risking (too much) devolving into nonsense alt-history. Stopping before the period of historical naval treaties and most importantly before the dawn of naval aviation let the player create his dream dreadnoughts while keeping the ensemble plausible enough and much more grounded. Yes, even if it mean there will be no Kagero (I guess this is not my dream game then)

- Ship designer reworked with at least stats more tied to the ship, not to the hull/superstructure elements. Let the player choose his visual flavor before the "best" stats pick. This also aims against some hulls who allows more main turrets placement than others. Finally, AI designs are chosen from a pool of decent/floatable lump of steel that could be expanded by the player. UA:D ship designer is really hard to figure out right now. On one hand there is plenty of good ideas to change it for the better, on the other hand I'm not sure on how deep it is imprinted into the game to change it without having to redo almost everything. I'll stick with my (I hope) basic changes for now.

- Crew/officer: there should be a nation pool of crew/officer tied to a recruiting policy/naval prestige. Crew/officers experience is tied tied to a ship, changing how responsive and combat efficient she is. Replacing losses reduce the overall ship experience and drain the nation pool. This could give the player the opportunity to balance the need of competent naval personnel vs the more immediate need of greens to replace losses. Not too far from what we have in UG:CW.

- Technologies are not in a basic tree, but rather linked to situation/tradition/doctrine/ship built. If a player build X number of Y ship type with Z main armament, he will unlock more technologies linked to the ship he built. If the player focus on a "decisive battle" doctrine, the game will be more inclined to unlock bigger gun, thicker armour.. If the nation as difficulty securing ressources or is losing a war pretty badly, fuel, engines or steel quality could suffer, but smaller, cheaper and no less efficient design could also be offered. I think in a relatively limited time period and with my following lines on campaign duration, this could lead to added variety.

- Hard limit on battles in a war for the sake of gameplay. If UA:D is about designing and putting your ships to the test, focus on making each engagement worthwile should be a priority. Start a war with a small battle, then escalate until the fabled decisive one. Add doctrines (chosen by the player) that change certain type of battles or their order? Like a surprise attack, night fights or convoy raid/protection. When two nations with different doctrines clashes, the one with some sort of advantage (ship number/victories..) could "force" the other one into it's terms of engagement. One thing for sure, don't fall into the trap of a zilion samey battles. Focus more into something like: early -> mid -> late war with X different battles type each, their outcomes ranging from "game" war score to new technologies/ressources/doctrines. Defeats should cripple, but also allow the player to bounce back. If this mean a semi-linear campaign, so be it.

- More stuff to do in battles. Tied to the fact that I want fewer battles in a war. Letting players click on stuff that do things. It's surely one of the hardest part to design and I am honestly not sure on how to do it well. In my opinion, the "win" should reward as much good thinking and good clicking on stuff than a good ship design. Note that a "win" could very well be "getting the hell out of here". Exemple of (I think) interesting micro-gestion, some of them are already in game: manual DCP, torpedo evasion, ordnance usage, smoke screening, ship speed, ship formation (Even if I think changing it in the middle of a battle is not a sound idea)..

There, I hope it was at least as good to read as I liked writing it. It wasn't that short after all.

*I know it is a tough one and I don't care. It's not on Steam and it's still in early Alpha. Things can and must be changed. I'm more than convinced UA:D will be better that way.

Edited by Tousansons
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the DLC part, 1 and 2 should be in the base game regardless. And if they are going to do catapult aircraft they might as well just add that into the game as well.

CV's are probs the only thing i agree with, but i would rather they pair that up with new missions, extra ship hulls, and a campaign expansion as well turning it into an expansion.

Ideally i would rather see that as part of the base game, but since its dreadnoughts i guess its fine as an expansional DLC. Big no to any minor DLC's that should just be in the game from the get go.

But yeah i agree with most of the suggestions non-dlc wise, although should be careful with nerfs to hydro and sonar, i think for smaller vessels they should get a better bonus due to less noisey engines or certain engines providing less of a nerf (since both are effected by noise).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get it when people ask for DLC's. "I want half of my game to be behind another paywall". Really? What next, microtransactions?

On that point, carriers and aviation as DLC sounds actually good, it's a thing that some part of playerbase may not want in their game, so shipping it separately allows to choose.
Another DCL-worthy thing is other world regions and navies. South American DLC? Pacific? What-if-India-had-a-navy?
other timeframes, Ironclad Era total conversion?
Aaaand why not, alt history!

* * *
totally do not agree on turning battles into korean starcraft competition. What they need is better, smoother control, more informative UI, and (dare i to say) some stuff on the maps.
Ideally the battle map being actual world map with all the coastlines, shallows, ports, coastal forts etc, and the battle generator having some soft incline to trigger battles in vicinity of something other than empty sea, so we could try and drag the battle towards *objects* and use them somehow if we want to. Or try to prevent the enemy from doing so.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Don't get it when people ask for DLC's.

It’s a way for people to get their forum ideas paid for and into game, offering a money making solution and hoping it's going to convince developers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Don't get it when people ask for DLC's. "I want half of my game to be behind another paywall". Really? What next, microtransactions?

 

12 hours ago, BuckleUpBones said:

It’s a way for people to get their forum ideas paid for and into game, offering a money making solution and hoping it's going to convince developers.

No, it's not. It's letting the devs know what I, as one person, am willing to pay for. If they do it, great. If not, then that's fine too.

I don't know what world you live in, but in the real one where devs need to make money to recoup time spent making a product so they can live and hopefully make more, development needs to end and a product needs to be released. Alpha sales are a pittance which usually allow small dev teams to continue working. Having worked with other dev teams in the past, I know what tends to make the cut and what doesn't. Realistically, this game will probably ship with the campaign, more hulls, components, and superstructures to add national flavor, as well as the features mentioned by Nick in the roadmap post he put up a few weeks ago. Camouflages, spotting aircraft, and CVs? Highly unlikely, unless their art staff and coders have the spare time.

Being critical of the DLC model is also bizarre. While I can understand and support disliking EA and other large publishers for their tactics, DLC are a simple way for smaller publishers to finance further features that otherwise wouldn't make the cut given their limited resources. Gamers are absurdly and illogically stingy, thinking the $30-$60 they spend for a product is somehow a bad deal for something they play on average for a few hours more or less than 10, but it's fine to drop the same amount for dinner and a movie for two that takes four hours of their time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, killjoy1941 said:

Gamers are absurdly and illogically stingy, thinking the $30-$60 they spend for a product is somehow a bad deal for something they play on average for a few hours more or less than 10, but it's fine to drop the same amount for dinner and a movie for two that takes four hours of their time?

Do you have any source baking that claim? What are these gamers you are talking about, some kind of new social class taken out of some corporate asses?

The DLC and microtransactions model is successful and show video game players are clearly not that stingy about them, despite what you claim or what the ever few vocal minority like to rage about on social medias. Hell, they aren't that stingy when new generation games costs even more. They don't bat an eye when some known editors announce new subscription models for their catalogue. What about mobile games, do we need to talk about mobile games? Today video game industry as never been so healthy.

I'm sorry but I really don't see about which stingy people you are talking about.  Even Hissy's post is not stingy about DLC's. He even agree with you on the carriers part and wouldn't mind some "what-if" navies. Still you act as if he is refusing them?

I don't think raising concerns about price, quality and quantity of content -especially here- is being stingy. It show that there is still people who care enough to talk about money, be it to pay more or less for a product. If they want more, this mean the dev hit their target right and offered just enough content, allowing for expansion. If they want less, it just mean the dev missed it's audience, overestimated it's product and overall had too much ambition for what they could deliver.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a bit of an oof really. Imagine calling gamers stingy, because they won't frisbee their wallet at their monitors ok.

I get they need monies, but it makes much more sense if they released expansion like DLC's rather than releasing tiny things that should of been in the game in the first place.

Like the first two points you made for example. Either way if they don't provide a good enough product (which judging from progress and communication recently i seriously doubt this will be the case) i will move on to the next thing, if they do ill drop extra monies not exactly hard. 

And im pretty sure the devs themselves as people understand this as well. I intend to support the game since i like it and has huge potential.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

This thread is a bit of an oof really. Imagine calling gamers stingy, because they won't frisbee their wallet at their monitors ok.

I get they need monies, but it makes much more sense if they released expansion like DLC's rather than releasing tiny things that should of been in the game in the first place.

Like the first two points you made for example. Either way if they don't provide a good enough product (which judging from progress and communication recently i seriously doubt this will be the case) i will move on to the next thing, if they do ill drop extra monies not exactly hard. 

And im pretty sure the devs themselves as people understand this as well. I intend to support the game since i like it and has huge potential.

Yeah, I mean, signal lights are something which would potentially be a bit complex, but definitely not worth a full-blown DLC. And Camo even less worth it, really. In terms of what *would* be worth an expansion, airplanes in general definitely fits alright, beyond that, potentially either expansions going further back in time, or expansions which allow for even more absurd ships than are currently possible. (something which allows you to create sextuple 16" turrets, for example). I would say expansions in those veins can't go further forward than the early 1950s at the latest, because otherwise you end up having to deal with missiles, which unbalance things quite a bit. 

Edited by Intrepid_Arty
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Intrepid_Arty said:

I would say expansions in those veins can't go further forward than the early 1950s at the latest, because otherwise you end up having to deal with missiles, which unbalance things quite a bit. 

If we have carriers or fantasy land warships. I'm confident missiles will not break balance more than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me personally I think that a DLC should bring contend not features.

1 is defiantly a feature for me, 3 as well.

4 would be kinda borderline, since it would be a big enough chuck that it could be satisfied. But then again I'm in the unpopular camp of people who view CV as necessary for the time period as it it (Sorry, CV's didn't spawn out of nowhere in 1941). Of course we can't have the case where the AI would have them and the player don't.

2. In principle it would be a classic skin DLC and if reasonable price, it could be nice (mind you that I would like some "standard pattern" before that).

 

Overall I find it too early to really think about DLC's... the campaign isn't even here (mind you that the first version will be UK vs Germany "only").

 

Having said that, if we really "have" to discussion what DLC we would like, then here would be my thoughs:

"Faction" DLC's would be an obvious choice for DLC. South america was already named as possible candidate for such thing.

Then "time expansions", aka bigger addons for the game would also be plausible.

Skin DLC's were already named and could come in many varriants.

New hulls would also be an option thou one would need to step carefully here, because if the best most able hull is behind a DLC, it will feel like pay to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that DLC's, like CptBarney said, should be (real) expansions that add a lot of new mecanics. Little things dont really deserve a DLC, and surely I don't want stuff that should be in the base game to be cut off. Anything in the roadmap right now is to be part of the base game.

Also, the devs should pursue this only if this stuff takes quite some work, enought for it to not be a simple update to the base game. DLC should be made to noticebly improve a game, not to just and solely make more money (we all know what happens when devs make DLCs only for the money).

 

As said above, carriers and airplanes could potentially serve as an expansion, as they would introduce a lot of new mechanics that the base game can't provide.

Completely new time periods (like the Ironclad "era") that make use of much diferent ships that (althought the engine supports them) employ diferent technologies and designs, that would need to change a little the way the game works, so I wouldn't mind

I disagree thought with new hulls for current time periods. They wouldn't employ diferent mechanics than those that are already present In-game to make them worth it, so I don't think they are worth a DLC, just add them in updates.

To the South America Arms Race I have mixed feelings. While there was a real arms race in the region, with diferent nations trying to gain the upper hand, aparently the vast majority of vessels was bought to and made in european shipyards, so they are essentially very similar in design philosophy as current european ships. So, besides a new map and more flags, there isnt much to add.

 

This is my opinion ofc. Feel free to disagree or agree with me and tell me why.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stormnet said:

To the South America Arms Race I have mixed feelings. While there was a real arms race in the region, with diferent nations trying to gain the upper hand, aparently the vast majority of vessels was bought to and made in european shipyards, so they are essentially very similar in design philosophy as current european ships. So, besides a new map and more flags, there isnt much to add.

For me this would be more about different starting positions and different challenges for the campaign.

And if the devs chose so, they could add different mechanics to the single countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2021 at 2:42 AM, Tousansons said:

Do you have any source baking that claim? What are these gamers you are talking about, some kind of new social class taken out of some corporate asses?

The DLC and microtransactions model is successful and show video game players are clearly not that stingy about them, despite what you claim or what the ever few vocal minority like to rage about on social medias. Hell, they aren't that stingy when new generation games costs even more. They don't bat an eye when some known editors announce new subscription models for their catalogue. What about mobile games, do we need to talk about mobile games? Today video game industry as never been so healthy.

I'm sorry but I really don't see about which stingy people you are talking about.  Even Hissy's post is not stingy about DLC's. He even agree with you on the carriers part and wouldn't mind some "what-if" navies. Still you act as if he is refusing them?

I don't think raising concerns about price, quality and quantity of content -especially here- is being stingy. It show that there is still people who care enough to talk about money, be it to pay more or less for a product. If they want more, this mean the dev hit their target right and offered just enough content, allowing for expansion. If they want less, it just mean the dev missed it's audience, overestimated it's product and overall had too much ambition for what they could deliver.

 

I probably overreacted a bit there.

I've helped out several community management teams for devs over the years. The demands for additional features can range from simple ignorance of how games are made - asking for things that require 100s to 1,000s of work-hours for free - to outright mob torch-and-pitchfork digital behavior over simple misunderstood statements. Once you've seen it in action, it's astonishing the entitlement a significant number of players will happily display. In my experience, if a team has a product popular enough to warrant a paid community management team, they also have a significant population of malcontents waiting to cause trouble. It's kind of a thankless, shit job even if you do it very well.

I dislike the microtransaction model - I think it's psychologically manipulative. I do like the DLC model, particularly for the benefits it can bring smaller studios and even better, artists. Art assets are often the first things that get cut if development drops behind schedule, which it often does. It's a good way to compensate artists and get what was often planned content into a game without forcing it into an old-school, expansion-type addition which players might not want. It's also often a good thing to let teams know what their player base is interested in content-wise, e.g.: An excellent soundtrack might prompt a separate release which might not ever have happened if the community didn't express interest.

Generally, small teams in niche markets avoid most, if not all of the ugliness, but it's absolutely there and I've dealt with it personally. A lot. I guess it's also made me snappish when it seems the conversation might be going down the "I'll never pay money for that" , or "Why would you ever acknowledge you would pay for that" lines of discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...