Alpha-12 en route!

[1MajorKoenig]

3 hours ago, Cdodders said:

I would also say that being able to access the much older hulls would be nice also, so we can essentially RP refits. I would like to see what I can do to a Pre-Dread in the 1940s for instance!

I Second this!

 

On the criticism/frustration here: I guess everyone was expecting a quicker progress. Although I for one am not angry or anything. I can’t say I play much as there is simply not much to be played at this stage but I am not frustrated about the pace. I think the game still needs a lot of work and I would love to get to know about what is being done at the moment. Also I appreciate the new hulls and improvements. I still think the limitations around the ship designer are a pretty important backlog item - along with the campaign of course as that piece is the second half of the core of the game.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if we would see a first alpha version of the campaign relatively soon

Edited May 6, 2021 by 1MajorKoenig

[Tousansons]

3 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Hopefully GameLabs doesn't make this the last open doors project but maybe try invitation only next, it's should cut back forum deterioration and keep the focus on discussions, not insistences.

There was discussions and there is still some from time to time now. But you can't really discuss when you have nothing on the plate. These past months, we have really nothing to write about because Game labs have not really shown any progress in the real meat of the game (it's campaign).

Forum deterioration is not only due to players, like you seem to point (correct me if I'm wrong) It's usually a lack of communication between devs -> players, a lack of moderation and of course, internet people being internet people.

Invitation only is not a good solution mid to long term. At best it will create an echo chamber where only one set of ideas are the norm.

 

[SiWi]

1 hour ago, Tousansons said:

There was discussions and there is still some from time to time now. But you can't really discuss when you have nothing on the plate. These past months, we have really nothing to write about because Game labs have not really shown any progress in the real meat of the game (it's campaign).

Forum deterioration is not only due to players, like you seem to point (correct me if I'm wrong) It's usually a lack of communication between devs -> players, a lack of moderation and of course, internet people being internet people.

Invitation only is not a good solution mid to long term. At best it will create an echo chamber where only one set of ideas are the norm.

 

when it comes to discussions it really breaks down on the question:

is there something to discuss.

 

I personally would love to discuss possible campaign mechanics or strategy and such.

But given how little we know you drift into so many assumption or speculations that it becomes pointless.

 

This could be soften, if we for example would get the campaign map or show how  turn works or how peace and war works.

But we know next to nothing so we have nothing to say. 

[Stormnet]

33 minutes ago, SiWi said:

when it comes to discussions it really breaks down on the question:

is there something to discuss.

 

I personally would love to discuss possible campaign mechanics or strategy and such.

But given how little we know you drift into so many assumption or speculations that it becomes pointless.

 

This could be soften, if we for example would get the campaign map or show how  turn works or how peace and war works.

But we know next to nothing so we have nothing to say. 

Like, the bar for that is so low that people would shii... shiP their pants if the devs showed a buttom.

[MrStan53]

1 hour ago, Stormnet said:

Like, the bar for that is so low that people would shii... shiP their pants if the devs showed a buttom.

Pretty much, I mean I was really excited when I saw oxygen options. I think the biggest issue is with the increase in players and for a variety of reasons just slower development. This raises expectations, and not only that but it also means there needs to be either bigger megaphones with more frequent updates on progress, or more updates on the game itself that follow the community.

Also partly unrelated but I really hope this next update has a USS North Carolina superstructure and a USS Alabama rear superstructure for the US BC, CB, and Modern Battleship 1 
pls pls pls🥺
 

Edited May 6, 2021 by MrStan53

[HusariuS]

2 hours ago, madham82 said:

That's besides the point since not everyone wants to recreate historical ships. Are the guns named after the name of the ship or their diameter and mark number? So you wouldn't say I want Iowa guns, you would say 16" Mk5, etc... What are you going to do about hulls for the Chinese and Spanish that never existed for example?

Going back to Fuso as the example, she was built as a dreadnaught, then modernized. So yes the hull is a modernized dreadnaught. Changing the "II" to the year might make sense, except in the campaign when you might research way before 1930. So again you can't focus on the idea of recreating historical ships but consider that these hulls will be research items as well. 

Honestly this is where the community can fill the need by cataloging the hulls and the real ships they can be used on to recreate.  Sounds like a good one for you buddy!

You completely don't understand my point.

My whole idea was to make finding certain >>Historical<< hulls much easier.

First: Why should I remember that hull for example "Modern Battleship III" is Bismarck hull when I can simply have a option to change names to"historical" ones where "Modern Battleship III" would be named "Bismarck-hull".

Second: About the names for the hulls that didn't even exist I'm simply gonna copy-paste my sentence:

3 hours ago, HusariuS said:

While I understand if it's about hulls that are more or less fictional, but why the one's that are actually recreating historical ships are also called like that?

So basically. if the hull is fictional or modified from historical one then yes, such naming as "Modern Battleship III" is understandable.

Third: If you so much would prefer seing names like "Modern Battleship III" for both historical and non-historical, what's the problem with adding option to change the names to your own preference?

Since we can already set the preference which units you want to use then I doubt there is any problem with that.

Same applies to the turrets.

Edited May 6, 2021 by HusariuS
Broken English lmao

[madham82]

29 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

You completely don't understand my point.

My whole idea was to make finding certain >>Historical<< hulls much easier.

First: Why should I remember that hull for example "Modern Battleship III" is Bismarck hull when I can simply have a option to change names to"historical" ones where "Modern Battleship III" would be named "Bismarck-hull".

Second: About the names for the hulls that didn't even exist I'm simply gonna copy-paste my sentence:

So basically. if the hull is fictional or modified from historical one then yes, such naming as "Modern Battleship III" is understandable.

Third: If you so much would prefer seing names like "Modern Battleship III" for both historical and non-historical, what's the problem with adding option to change the names to your own preference?

Since we can already set the preference which units you want to use then I doubt there is any problem with that.

Same applies to the turrets.

I didn't miss your point. I said I understood it in my first reply, but I don't agree it is a real problem. At the same time, wouldn't it be just as easier to create a thread listing these associations out? Much easier than trying to convince the Devs to create a toggle, or even go back and rename historical ones. What about the towers and funnels? You need them renamed too if your are going to recreate. Personally those two seem to be a bigger issue finding the correct one than finding the right hull. If someone can't easily identify the hull shape that is correct for X ship at the correct year, then would they even care to begin with?

I mean with the host of issues everyone is already complaining about in this thread, there are much bigger issues to bring up. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by madham82

[lordcmdr]

Someday we will be able to save our designs and customize our enemy ships... it’s all I ever wanted. I would have thought it would be here two years later.

[Skeksis]

4 hours ago, Tousansons said:

nothing on the plate.

but the update offering.

It seems no one can appreciate the situation.

Core patch 1 is a massive release, it's going to be the making of the game. I don’t know why people can’t see the ramifications of such a release and why the team is not going to rush it and proof as much as possible, delay accordingly. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Skeksis

[Fishyfish]

56 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

but the update offering.

It seems no one can appreciate the situation.

Core patch 1 is a massive release, it's going to be the making of the game. I don’t know why people can’t see the ramifications of such a release and why the team is not going to rush it and proof as much as possible, delay accordingly. 

What is: a deadline for 1000 pts? 

17 months and counting and nothing significant has evolved. And 60$ for that privilege too. 

[baltic1284]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

but the update offering.

It seems no one can appreciate the situation.

Core patch 1 is a massive release, it's going to be the making of the game. I don’t know why people can’t see the ramifications of such a release and why the team is not going to rush it and proof as much as possible, delay accordingly. 

I say take there time make sure the structure of the game itself the ships building theme and such and so forth needs be spot on and problem free before they even think of releasing the game. So I can wait and test it a little here and there to ensure quality is done instead of rush job.

[MrStan53]

8 minutes ago, baltic1284 said:

I say take there time make sure the structure of the game itself the ships building theme and such and so forth needs be spot on and problem free before they even think of releasing the game. So I can wait and test it a little here and there to ensure quality is done instead of rush job.

I think this definitely is true to a point, after all hodgepodging a game would yield pretty bad results, but I think at the same time it's hard to not look at other games, especially other unity ones (especially as someone who has worked in unity), and compare the development of those games to this one. Granted I realize they're juggling a half dozen or so projects as an indie developer but it's still hard to not think this game has been in a playable alpha state for a year and a half and only moderate progress (at least to us, the end users) has been made. I mean I bought this game way back in August and the biggest changes to me as the end user are some new assets and rebalances. Granted I only joined the forum recently but the fact of the matter is that we just don't know what's going on behind the scenes and it leaves us to our own conclusions on the direction of the game. It's even why everyone throws around ideas like "lets be able to customize bores of our guns!" and "perhaps we should have ironclads and missile frigates!"

I don't think it's the developer's fault by any means, I know they're a small-ish team, but rather it seems there's just not enough people representing them. There needs to be enough representatives to interact with the fans and critics to explain what the game is actually going to be and what is happening behind the scenes.

[HailCOBRALA]

As some have said already, I'd like to see "real names" for the hulls. You can at the very least add them in a tooltip that you can hide if you don't want that capability. It would make things SO much clearer. 

[Tousansons]

5 hours ago, Skeksis said:

It seems no one can appreciate the situation.

On the contrary, I think most of the people still here have a genuine interest in the game and at some point want it to succeed. They see a post about a new upcoming patch and take some of their time to write what they think about it. The fact that it is not necessarly positive doesn't mean that they don't care. 

5 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Core patch 1 is a massive release, it's going to be the making of the game. I don’t know why people can’t see the ramifications of such a release and why the team is not going to rush it and proof as much as possible, delay accordingly. 

The issue is not the delays or complexity. 5 months into 2021, the first core patch stated for release is still a mistery for the players. Like I wrote a few post earlier, why not let us see what the progress in this area look like? We could talk about it, see that something is indeed worked on, ect.

[Bilderberger]

8 hours ago, Skeksis said:

but the update offering.

It seems no one can appreciate the situation.

Core patch 1 is a massive release, it's going to be the making of the game. I don’t know why people can’t see the ramifications of such a release and why the team is not going to rush it and proof as much as possible, delay accordingly. 

No one here wants to play a rushed game and no one here realistically coerces the developers to release their game. I think what most people *really* want is just being spoken to. I mean, does anyone here actually think this kind of communication is beneficial? If you make the point that the devs should remain mute because the fan base might not like their ideas (Which is.... a bolt assumption) then why make this game accessible in the first place? Naturally unrest is growing, and rightfully so. Development IS slow, promises WERE broken, and if all of this was not enough, communication remains absolutely terrible. Frankly, I get it, yeah, things don't always go according to plan, you don't say. I am able to stomach and condone a lot IF it is communicated properly. IF you can't achieve your goals multiple times, you might want to tell the people you work for as to *why* things didn't work out and tell them as to *why* they should remain faithful to you regardless of your previous failures. You'd be surprised how understanding people can be. Alternatively, you can say nothing and let people guess so we can enjoy discussions about whether the project failed for political reasons, maybe it was Aliens, maybe the CIA was involved, who knows. 

[Stormnet]

36 minutes ago, Bilderberger said:

No one here wants to play a rushed game and no one here realistically coerces the developers to release their game. I think what most people *really* want is just being spoken to. I mean, does anyone here actually think this kind of communication is beneficial? If you make the point that the devs should remain mute because the fan base might not like their ideas (Which is.... a bolt assumption) then why make this game accessible in the first place? Naturally unrest is growing, and rightfully so. Development IS slow, promises WERE broken, and if all of this was not enough, communication remains absolutely terrible. Frankly, I get it, yeah, things don't always go according to plan, you don't say. I am able to stomach and condone a lot IF it is communicated properly. IF you can't achieve your goals multiple times, you might want to tell the people you work for as to *why* things didn't work out and tell them as to *why* they should remain faithful to you regardless of your previous failures. You'd be surprised how understanding people can be. Alternatively, you can say nothing and let people guess so we can enjoy discussions about whether the project failed for political reasons, maybe it was Aliens, maybe the CIA was involved, who knows. 

I have to agree with you.

Of all the issues, comunication is both one of the biggest and one of the easiest to solve. Even just a tiny weekly post about what is going on with 2-3 lines and half the community would just shut up about this.

[Stormnet]

9 hours ago, Skeksis said:

but the update offering.

It seems no one can appreciate the situation.

Core patch 1 is a massive release, it's going to be the making of the game. I don’t know why people can’t see the ramifications of such a release and why the team is not going to rush it and proof as much as possible, delay accordingly. 

Well, since we waited this long, core better be THE PATCH. 

 

If it is just campaign, with the bare essential features to it, a bunch of hulls, and a tiny feature or two, besides some bug fixes, them at least some people will be pissed.

[HusariuS]

11 hours ago, madham82 said:

I didn't miss your point. I said I understood it in my first reply, but I don't agree it is a real problem. At the same time, wouldn't it be just as easier to create a thread listing these associations out? Much easier than trying to convince the Devs to create a toggle, or even go back and rename historical ones. What about the towers and funnels? You need them renamed too if your are going to recreate. Personally those two seem to be a bigger issue finding the correct one than finding the right hull. If someone can't easily identify the hull shape that is correct for X ship at the correct year, then would they even care to begin with?

I mean with the host of issues everyone is already complaining about in this thread, there are much bigger issues to bring up. 

Hold up.

I never said it's a problem and as well I never said it's a issue.

I simply asked dev why isn't it a thing...

In terms of funnels and towers, most of them are already assigned to certain hulls unless there was a update at some point which allows Hood tower to be placed on idk Yamato hull but as far as I know right now we don't have such possibility.

In fact, we don't even know if we could do that in Campaign and most likely we won't unless we gonna "buy" it from other nation which also brings a question if it would be even possible.

But right now as I said most towers and funnels are assigned to certain hulls so there is no need to give them "historical" names like "Hood Tower I" etc.

Maybe in the future we would be able to use for example Bismarck guns on Yamato hull but right now we can't.

And on the other side what's the problem with it?

As I said before you could choose between "historic" names for historic hulls, turrets etc or "generic" ones like Modernized Dreadnought IV and so on.

In term of "identification"...

...well don't take this as a offense but this statement in current state of the game is kinda useless.

As you know right now the only thing we can do with the "hull shape" is either make it longer or shorter and that's it.

We literally have no real control over the hull shape.

This is why giving historic hulls could make things better since players won't need to search for that certain "hull shape", especially if in the future we will gain more control over the hull shape.

And there is no point in saying "if they don't care" since if they don't care you could as well name the hulls: "One, Two, Three, ... , ... Ten. Eleven" and so on and it wouldn't matter to them anyway since "they don't care".

But then again ask yourself how many of them wouldn't care?

How many people would want to recreate ships?

How many people would want to only use hull but use slightly different tower, funnel or turrets? (if possible in future)

How many people would want to only use tower or funnel or turrets from certain historic ships? (if possible in future)

 

Then again I will repeat myself:

I do not see the lack of it as a problem or issue.

I simply asked the devs why isn't it a thing.

[ThatZenoGuy]

This patch has demonstrated that the original alpha release was incredibly foolish to sell, and nowhere near actual alpha status.

Typically Alpha is for "A"dding mechanics, so all the assets should've been made, just not the acompanying aspects such as perhaps fires, campaign, modules etc.

The issue is they started the game in a half and half scenario, no content, and the most barebones of mechanics.

So the last year has been nothing but asset additions, and nothing of actual substance (or at least not much of it).

Yeah yeah, woo, way to go devs, more battleship hulls which...We didn't really need! Its great that stuff is being added, you cannot complain about it. But there's more important things we could've had.

Underwater shell hits?

A working demonstration of technology system?

Barebones campaign?

Hulls not having the entire port to starboard being a single module? (Cos a bunch of holes in one side of the ship should not damage the other side...)

Etc.

Beta is for "B"alancing, which is 90% of these patchlogs, and ultimately ends up being changed the very next patch.

Get the balance sorted out in a single concise patch once everything has been "A"dded!

[Cpt.Hissy]

le disappointment.

Can i join the fish posting group or whatever it is?

Ok, have a rock.

Edited May 7, 2021 by Cpt.Hissy

[Cptbarney]

Well, lets hope that the first CAP (Core alpha patch) is going to be good otherwise. I can see this forum being on fire lol. But yeah the game needs to pick up at some point otherwise, i fear for its future really.

Unless the devs ran into problems or want to fix things (Something i wish they would commune on so we would have a better understanding of what is actually going on, not talking about everyday, but weekly would be good fine to be fair).

Oh well, guess we are in this for the very long haul after all.

[Cptbarney]

Oh and the Japanese dreadnought (2, 3 modernised) hulls need looking at especially the ones that can make things like ise or fuso somewhat as you can't place the secondary tower at the back of the raised part of the superstructure.

As the hull isnt available in 1910, near the time when the actual ise/fuso was made, so you have to make do with obsolete stuff.

Also the other stuff above that other users pointed out too.

[Fishyfish]

1 hour ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

le disappointment.

Can i join the fish posting group or whatever it is?

Ok, have a rock.

[Marshall99]

My major dissapointment is that we have no information about the campaign. There are no pictures about it. We don't know anything about it. I am waiting for it since Alpha 2. 

New hulls..sure, why not. But lots of us said that we need obsolete hulls, because the lack of variety. What we get? More modern hulls...I mean okey, a new game update is coming, but come on, give us more older hulls. When we start the campaign we won't have variety. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Marshall99

[SiWi]

6 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

My major dissapointment is that we have no information about the campaign. There are no pictures about it. We don't know anything about it. I am waiting for it since Alpha 2. 

New hulls..sure, why not. But lots of us sad that we need obsolete hulls, because the lack of variety. What we get? More modern hulls...I mean okey, a new game update is coming, but come on, give us more older hulls. When we start the campaign we won't have variety. 

Well I do think that making a hull with a unique characteristic makes things more interesting.

But the fact that we know nothing if the campaign, what isn't written at the website, one which doesn't seem to get updated beyond the blog, is painful.

Especially that we don't really know how up to date the promises there are.

So while there is maybe the danger of showing things off which then either don't work or work differently, I do think that a basic "this is how the campaign will work" would be nice.

 

Like how does the budget work? Do I have to spend the money in the year or can I save it? Do I pay for a ship upfront or over the years it is constructed?

What about logistics? Does/will the game simulate that different ammo types are needed or will it simply treat all ammo the same? Can ships change ammo types? Would a ship build in 1890 still use gunpowder in 1920? Or could it then use the modern stuff (probably not to realistic given that the new pressures should be difficultly for the old guns...) ?

How will Gibraltar or the Dardanelles work? 

 

 

It shouldn't be impossible to answer some of questions like this in a blog or post...