Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, disc said:

The AI designer is not perfect, but I don't mind it. I do like seeing the bizarre ships it cooks up. Maybe that will change.

Personally, I do find those ships funny from time to time. Some made me laught so hard. The problem seems to be that those ships are often the standard doctrine for the AI.

The AI apears to simply like extremes. It either fights at boarding range, or it travels to the otherside of the world to launch shells from. The ships either pack so much firepower that they have no speed nor protection, or are so fast they have no armor, or other scenarios.

Also, there are problems that re-emerge some time after being patched. 

 

On a custom battle, that makes the odds of winning random. If the campaign does come, having the AI building these ships could mean a easy victory for the player as long as he has as many resources.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Admirals, We hope you had splendid Easter Holidays and you still enjoy Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. The work on the campaign is in progress but it needs more time to become public in our

Guys, we would like to clarify, once again, that our game "Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts" is still under heavy development, the team is growing further and delivers patches constantly. The game is st

The mission generator uses a new pathfinding system which allows to move ships across the globe manually in much more detail, than it was working in our previous internal beta. New hulls, of earl

Posted Images

Excellent news with the new hulls! This will make the game even more interesting! Although I'd like to ask for one thing we're desperately missing: A potential mousewheel stepping of tonnage, since 1t steps on 90kt-120kt will be extremely tedious otherwise

Link to post
Share on other sites

This a good patch. Lots of fixes and new content is what I like to see. But what really caught my eye was this.

19 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

New Japanese “Experimental Battleship” variant available after 1929 with displacement between 47,000 and 72,000 tons. This hull can produce designs resembling early unofficial Japanese battleship designs that had all the main guns forward.

All guns forward huh? Hmmmmm.

Izumo - Warships detailed statistics - WoWS Stats & Numbers - ASIA

HmMmMmM!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

Its gonne be here before the end of summer I can bet on it. The problem with features like campaign is that you can't just make all the devs work on it. Visual artists have no idea about coding, coders probably only focus on this thing working and the ui is probably placeholder,there are facts you have to include in a historically accurate campaign that if done wrong may offend many people. Since campaign is a very important feature that will probably bring the game to steam, it has to work on the 1st try, because there are no second chances on steam reviews. If they hello kitty up the steam ea release, the game will probably die. 

Before the end of summer? 

Long time ago on this forum when we still had some trust to the promises of Devs we were all ,,absolutely sure'' that campaing will come out during summer.

That was a year ago. Then during summer Devs said that the campaing will take another 5 or 6 months to be ready. We were all sad. It looked like we will have to wait until Christmas for it. And then Christmas passed and still nothing. Then we were informed about the planned core updates. ,,They will be all released during this year.'' they said. Third of this year is behind us and still...NOTHING. Not a sign of transparency, not a sign of campaing, just the same song over and over again - new hulls and fixes. So although I would love to see the campaing released until the end of summer, after all of this I have problems with believing it. 

I realise that you can't make the whole team work on the campaing but come on. There was a closed version of campaing back in October 2019 (perhaps even earlier). Doesn't this tempo of development seem at least a bit ridiculous?

And by the way: No, the campaing doesn't have to ,,work on first try'' that's what we have opened Alpha for. All I am asking is early version of the campaing (core 1) which also doesn't make the game go on Steam.

Edited by Aceituna
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

RTW 2 is developing a dlc that brings the game back to 1890 like this one as well as changes subs a bit, missiles, add night fighters, AI wars, and other stuff. I'm looking forward to that not this anymore. I actually forgot this game existed until someone pinged a discord I'm in. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

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

Before the end of summer? 

Long time ago on this forum when we still had some trust to the promises of Devs we were all ,,absolutely sure'' that campaing will come out during summer.

That was a year ago. Then during summer Devs said that the campaing will take another 5 or 6 months to be ready. We were all sad. It looked like we will have to wait until Christmas for it. And then Christmas passed and still nothing. Then we were informed about the planned core updates. ,,They will be all released during this year.'' they said. Third of this year is behind us and still...NOTHING. Not a sign of transparency, not a sign of campaing, just the same song over and over again - new hulls and fixes. So although I would love to see the campaing released until the end of summer, after all of this I have problems with believing it. 

I realise that you can't make the whole team work on the campaing but come on. There was a closed version of campaing back in October 2019 (perhaps even earlier). Doesn't this tempo of development seem at least a bit ridiculous?

And by the way: No, the campaing doesn't have to ,,work on first try'' that's what we have opened Alpha for. All I am asking is early version of the campaing (core 1) which also doesn't make the game go on Steam.

I do not completely agree with you but see where you come from:

This game has a history of delaying the campaign and communicating that by the last hour if not later. Even this delay was only communicated between the lines in a otherwise welcome post asking the status of the game. After all, the next patch (the 2nd time "the next patch") was suppose to be the campaign.

I wouldn't give too much about whatever the closed version was or was not as indication how far they were. Also I would advise "caution and respect" when judging other people work if you aren't familiar with the work yourself. 

I do agree here. I fully expect the campaign to be pretty terrible at start. I mean only a "UK vs Germany" is already not ideal, but even in many aspects I expect to be very annoyed by the campaign at first. And then I hope I can write suggestions and they improve it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SiWi said:

Also I would advise "caution and respect" when judging other people work if you aren't familiar with the work yourself. 

I would say that this community was exceptionally cautious and respectable until certain point when Devs stopped being entitled to caution. As I stated quite a few times before we are paying customers. Devs have commitment to us as we bought this game under certain promises and these promises weren't fulfilled. This is not a one-side deal. Even when they first started to brake their promises (beginning of last year) community was still just incredibly cautious and respectable but this just reached a crossing line at certain point. If they would make this game free to play or as some sort of ,,free-time voluntary work'' I wouldn't say a thing but as I said we gave them our money under certain promises.

 Also I don't have to be a developer or game critique to see that the development of this game and communication with community is just terrible.

Edited by Aceituna
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aceituna said:

I would say that this community was exceptionally cautious and respectable until certain point when Devs stopped being entitled to caution. As I stated quite a few times before we are paying customers. Devs have commitment to us as we bought this game under certain promises and these promises weren't fulfilled. This is not an one-side deal. Even when they first started to brake their promises (beginning of last year) community was still just incredibly cautious and respectable but this just reached a crossing line at certain point. If they would make this game as free to play or as some sort of ,,free-time voluntary work'' I wouldn't say a thing but as I said we gave them our money under certain promises.

 Also I don't have to be a developer or game critique to see that the development of this game and communication with community is just terrible.

Well there was "something" wrong, which they claimed to have corrected last year, but given the state of the world, there are things thinkable, which would maybe not "excuse" but explain the progress or lack of.

 

Well of course you can do that. The same you could shout at a Space Engineer for making a mistakes in his/her designs. The point is, that without to walk in someone shoes and with no comparisons how difficulty a campaign in a game like this is to do, we simply can't quite judge how far they should be. Thou to be fair to you, neither seem they able to do that. 

The point about communication is of course excepted from this. They should communicate sooner, if there are problems with the campaign, because quite frankly, that is what "I'm" here for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, SiWi said:

Well there was "something" wrong, which they claimed to have corrected last year, but given the state of the world, there are things thinkable, which would maybe not "excuse" but explain the progress or lack of.

 

Well of course you can do that. The same you could shout at a Space Engineer for making a mistakes in his/her designs. The point is, that without to walk in someone shoes and with no comparisons how difficulty a campaign in a game like this is to do, we simply can't quite judge how far they should be. Thou to be fair to you, neither seem they able to do that. 

Oh, yes the big ,,cause Programmer'' it's of course pity that they had problems and these things happen but (this might sound a bit inhumanly) problems of Dev team are concern of company not custormers. Also it would have much bigger relevance if they would say it at least a bit concretaly but all they said was ,,had some troubles it will slow us down''. But ok, I would accept it and I indeed did. But that was last summer. So it would somewhat ,,understandable'' explanation for delays from last summer. Not for delays almost a year after that.

To the model example you proposed: If a space shuttle designed by this fictitious would blow up on launch and it would turn out that this was caused by bad design than the designer is deserved to be shouted at, doesn't he? Again, I don't have to be space engineer to know that space shuttles are usually not supposed to blow up on launch. The same thing can be applied here: I don't need to be perfectly informed about game making to know that making one of the base parts of the game for more than year and a half is just way too long.

Edited by Aceituna
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aceituna said:

Oh, yes the big ,,cause Programmer'' it's of course pity that they had problems and these things happen but (this might sound a bit inhumanly) problems of Dev team are concern of company not custormers. Also it would have much bigger relevance if they would say it at least a bit concretaly but all they said was ,,had some troubles it will slow us down''. But ok, I would accept it and I indeed did. But that was last summer. So it would somewhat ,,understandable'' explanation for delays. But for delays during last summer. Not for delays almost a year after that.

To the model example you proposed: If a space shuttle desgned by this fictitious would blow up on launch and it would turn out that this was caused by bad design than the designer is deserved to be shouted at, doesn't he? Again, I don't have to be space engineer to know that space shuttles are usually not supposed to blow up on launch. The same thing can be applied here: I don't need to be perfectly informed about game making to know that making one of the base parts of the game for more than year and a half is just way too long.

Well I do agree that they seem to really struggle to estimate they own workload and hence make terrible predictions that they seem too prideful (or fearful) to correct early.

 

I don't want to drag this analogy too much out, but in the case of the shuttle blowing up:

there can be a million things which are ultimately out of the designers hands, that could case the explosion. Maybe there were unknow forces in play (I remember that carbon  prove to be less sturdy then expected causing one of the Space shuttle to explode), maybe the materials/parts used in production were below the standards he assumed/demanded them, maybe they demands on the design were unrealistic and so on.

Point is: without deep knowledge, don't just blame the space shuttle designer.

 

On a more related point: in this case it is not quite "proven" that is was bad design.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

About this update. Well...I am happy because we get more hulls, but mostly modern hulls. And I am also sad. So the problem is that from 1890-1910 there are no variety. I hope that in the future you will give us more obsolete hulls, because at the moment I find this 1890-1910 era boring. I think in the ship building history the 1850-1910 era is the most exciting because of the irl ship experiments. 

And about the campaign. I am still waiting for it, and of course everybody is waiting for it, but we need more information about the developement. We don't know anything about the campaign. The interface, the map, the controlls, the time, etc... 

Please give us more information. Because we are Alpha testers. And we are here to test this game.

Edited by Marshall99
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I want some moar old boags from 1875 (HMS devastation, HMS dreadnought (original)) to about 1915 or 1916. Although i also want too see the modern cruiser fleshed out as well, or do both at the same time if you can. But mostly moar old boags when possible. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

i Have been waiting to see what they will do with the German guns very nice and the new hulls too various fixes seemed minor to me yeah may make the AI more aggressive but then again can be easily countered also with a half smart captain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the angry mob gathers... 

But seriously, can't really blame devs for anything but lack of communication. Regardless of the workload, how on Earth can you expect to covince anybody that you do not have a few minutes of time weekly to share some info with your customers. Lack of info and transparency is what is driving people crazy. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Zuikaku said:

So, the angry mob gathers... 

But seriously, can't really blame devs for anything but lack of communication. Regardless of the workload, how on Earth can you expect to covince anybody that you do not have a few minutes of time weekly to share some info with your customers. Lack of info and transparency is what is driving people crazy. 

That isn't the only and main reason don't get me wrong i don't blame theme for not doing it from my experience even when a company does have that all the players do it complain WoW as an example no matter what Blizzard does to make game better it always always turns into a shit storm.

So I don't really blame companies for not doing why bother when all the community will is sling it each each other us the brand and anywhere else they put it. So I don't blame theme for not having open communication when the community as a large not just this one but all of theme stop that then companies and people that work for theme will be more likely to be open.

As for me i am looking forward to these changes especially the hulls and guns and such the changes to the AI will increase the difficulty don't get me wrong but can be overcome with a captain that pay attention to what he is doing and the enemy is doing and thinks ahead. SO bring it on let me test it and see what i find and report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nick Thomadis Actually I don't think anybody ever asked about this but why hulls are called "Modernized Dreadnought II, Modern Battleship III" etc. ?

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?

Why can't you just name them "Fuso-1930 hull" or something like that?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

@Nick Thomadis Actually I don't think anybody ever asked about this but why hulls are called "Modernized Dreadnought II, Modern Battleship III" etc. ?

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?

Why can't you just name them "Fuso-1930 hull" or something like that?

I see your point, but then remember the game is supposed to be ahistorical at the same time. So naming it Fuso "means" something to us because we know what the real ship is, but in the actual game where you can change history...maybe you call it Fuji/Nagato/etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, madham82 said:

I see your point, but then remember the game is supposed to be ahistorical at the same time. So naming it Fuso "means" something to us because we know what the real ship is, but in the actual game where you can change history...maybe you call it Fuji/Nagato/etc...

Nah thats what the name bar is for. Husarius is pointing out that the name conventions can be hard, tricky, annoying or too long to memorise properly and also naming the more unique parts after the ships they take after will allow player to pick out those parts quicker and faster. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that the first battleship of Imperial Japan is and will always be Kiyoshimo ;) 

I don't mind the neutral designation. While a bit gamey, they're here just to give a hint about what the hull/part is, even for that guy who doesn't know what the hell is a Fuso or Borodino.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm more talking here about finding the hull you want to use.

Sooner or later we will have as many hulls for one nation as we have now in total for all nations, and let's say you want to create new Heavy Cruiser based on Baltimore-class CA, I think it would be much easier or rather more "pleasant" to find it by the name of which ship the hull is based on rather than trying to remember that Baltimore hull is called "Modern Heavy Cruiser III" especially if you don't play certain nations too often for one reason or another.

Basically just as @Cptbarney said above.

Besides you can always add a option to show "historical" names.

Edited by HusariuS
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Tousansons said:

Enthusiasm is nice and all

That's not it, I think it's a privilege to be part of a development project, that's all.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Nah thats what the name bar is for. Husarius is pointing out that the name conventions can be hard, tricky, annoying or too long to memorise properly and also naming the more unique parts after the ships they take after will allow player to pick out those parts quicker and faster. 

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!

Edited by madham82
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...