Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<


Recommended Posts

It'd be nice if us, as players, knew just how long something would take to be repaired, or repaired at all.

How come I've had ships go to 30% flotation with all engines destroyed, repair in 10 minutes, and othertimes a single penetration PERMANENTLY floods half my ship, destroying the engines too.

How come sometimes I disable someone's rudder but they turn just fine a minute later, and othertimes they're left crippled forever? 

Information like this is information we NEED as players of this game. Imagine playing DOOM and sometimes an Imp takes a BFG shot, and there's just zero way of telling which ones can and cannot do such a thing!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Guys, we are sorry for the silence. The campaign is in works, and it is the primary thing we do now. The game is certainly not dead. The version you play is stable so what remains as top priority for

Admirals, The anticipated patch has been finalized and is ready for you to play! Explore the many new hulls, the Ship Design improvements and lots of interesting mechanics. The AI is also signifi

Please keep this thread relevant to the topic. Some of the latest irrelevant posts were deleted and Elrerune The Honorbound has been warned. It is very understandable to discuss about histor

Posted Images

Also I just noticed ROF's are completely out of whack.

My 13 inch Mark 5 triple guns are firing at 1.31 RPM without any sort of ROF booster. That's okay.

But my 6 inch triples are firing at 'only' 3.4 RPM, when realistically they should be doing at least 6 by this period of time, ideally more like 8, with boosters exceeding 12rpm (weapons like the 6 inch autos could reach 20rpm).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally (again) I just have to say some things about 2-3 inch guns (mostly 2 inch).

I understand these are in the game because in earlier years they have 'some' use against TB's and such, but do the AI 'really' need about 40 2 inch guns on their newest Yamato class battleship? Maybe from a roleplay standpoint you can LARP them as AA guns but they are utterly useless, in fact utterly useless is an understatement for they reduce the ship's fighting ability!

At some point the AI should stop using such tiny guns.

This is not helped by the fact that late-war superstructures like the 'super pagoda mast' and such have slots allowing for 2-3 inch gun mounts. These should frankly be removed or disabled for AI use, as any weapon there regardless of how advanced of buffed with modules they may be, are useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate multi-posting, bad etiquette and such but jesus christ I keep realizing things within minutes of each other.

Just had a battle against a Japanese battleship, it has 6 percent structure left. Despite this it has had zero additional flooding since the starting flooding hits, and this is with superheavy 17 inch guns firing at a range of...3 kilometers. So this thing is either filled with cork or the Japanese have more flextape than the flextape guy himself.

Another thing to note, I swapped to HE and despite countless 17 inch HE shells impacting all on top of, behind ,and to the side of this ship I have only taken out a funnel...The back superstructure that has seemingly 'eaten' tens of 17 inch HE shells (TNT) is completely okay, not even a single point of damage.

This just takes me out of the game, when 'somehow' my ships all have yellow superstructures from 15 inch weapons and they're in almost pristine condition. I'm either calling flawed RNG mixed with bad game design, or flat out AI cheats. Take your pick devs... @Nick Thomadis

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, brucesim2003 said:

My feedback? Don't bother buying the game. The devs don't respond to simple questions and the advertising for the game is misleading.

My god just stop spamming the forums I get it you are mad that the Devs are not catering to just you give it a rest it is beyond stale at this point... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joryl said:

My god just stop spamming the forums I get it you are mad that the Devs are not catering to just you give it a rest it is beyond stale at this point... 

Nitpick but making a whole post which has nothing to do with the game is in itself, spamming, report his post and move on, or add something else to the post relevant to the game. ;v 

Is anyone having any issues with the Russian Fleet mission? Because somehow its way the hello kitty harder than the others. At least for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@SkeksisSo no chance of seeing that system come to light i assume?

If so thats fine, not a fan of dumbing down mechanics just to make it easier (Too be fair im, not aware of how sliding in different cut sections would be harder than the current system). 

But if thats what the designer will be then thats fine i guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Not gonna happen. I'll stfu when the devs can be bothered to respond to a customer that is obviously (or at least should be) annoyed, not before. If I've got to make a nuisance of myself, so be it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Joryl said:

My god just stop spamming the forums I get it you are mad that the Devs are not catering to just you give it a rest it is beyond stale at this point... 

Nope. Not gonna happen. I'll stfu when the devs can be bothered to respond to a customer that is obviously (or at least should be) annoyed, not before. If I've got to make a nuisance of myself, so be it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brucesim2003 said:

Nope. Not gonna happen. I'll stfu when the devs can be bothered to respond to a customer that is obviously (or at least should be) annoyed, not before. If I've got to make a nuisance of myself, so be it.

At least try to make a dedicated thread for everyone to complain in, that's a better idea than doing off-topic stuff in a patch feedback thread. ;v

As for said patch, I...Am still really confused by how 4 battlecruisers with...Like 18 8 inch guns per side each, can miss a DD at 10km for a rather long time.

And for that matter, how 20 thousand ton cruisers are basically immune to 8 inch gunfire, which...Makes ZERO bloody sense.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

At least try to make a dedicated thread for everyone to complain in, that's a better idea than doing off-topic stuff in a patch feedback thread. ;v

Tried that. Devs can't be bothered to even acknowledge it. So if I've got to annoy people to get them to realise there is a problem, then that is what I'll do.

When playing by the rules gets you ignored, things have to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, brucesim2003 said:

Tried that. Devs can't be bothered to even acknowledge it. So if I've got to annoy people to get them to realise there is a problem, then that is what I'll do.

When playing by the rules gets you ignored, things have to change.

Oh man aren't you just right?...I know that feel all too much, countless bans from...Well almost everything kinda proves it lol. Amusingly this forum is a lot more tolerant (actual tolerance, not 'accept the gays or die' tolerance) it may seem. 

But I fear you won't be getting much reaction other than random Dreadnoughts players being annoyed which...Doesn't really get anywhere. Hence I suggest making a thread not just for yourself, but for everyone to express their grievances. Hell I'll post there, I got plenty to complain about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had some feedback or something to say. I'd post fish but I got beaten by the mods last time and had a gag on my posting abilities for a few days. 

 

I've played less than 10 minutes. Um, okay. I know. 

What is up with the new pre-dreadnought hull for the Russians? I just don't get it. Why? Why the long rear deck? For what purpose? It's not even based on anything historical. 

Furthermore I'd still like to see the ability to put predreadnought era turrets on predreadnoughts. I know it won't happen. 

 

I give up. I'm done. Peace! Fish out. I'll poke back in once in a blue moon but I have no other reason to post. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brucesim2003 said:

Tried that. Devs can't be bothered to even acknowledge it. So if I've got to annoy people to get them to realise there is a problem, then that is what I'll do.

When playing by the rules gets you ignored, things have to change.

you know that hey easily can ban you for breaching forum rules right?

 

And given how your "question" was answered August last year...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

We would like to inform you that we prepare a hotfix that is largely based on your reports:

v86 Hotfix

  • AI targeting improved further (It could not always switch to targets of higher priority).
  • AI aggressiveness balance (AI should adapt more rapidly to situations).
  • Targeting sensitivity adjusted better. This should fix issues of guns that could not acquire a target for a large period of time.
  • Fixed metric system indications which could not become rounded.
  • Fire damage slightly increased (it could still be rather low in very big ships).
  • Flooding protection slightly rebalanced (Small ships could sink too fast, due to latest weight balances, even with max. bulkheads).
  • Armor weights adjustment (In some cases the armor weight could be too low).
  • Fixes of various reported bugs related to hulls and guns.
  • Collision avoidance between friendly ships is further improved.
  • Optimized further the AI Auto-Design.
  • Fixed Armored Cruisers not being available for Germany and Austro-Hungary between years 1909-1911.

It is planned for tomorrow.

 

PS. Posts unrelated to the feedback thread, will be removed from this post and below. Please do not insist on unrelated topics as we will have to moderate more harshly the thread.

 


 

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SiWi said:

you know that hey easily can ban you for breaching forum rules right?

 

And given how your "question" was answered August last year...

That's not an argument, the next second the government could make a law making your exact post illegal and lock you up/execute you for treason. Rules are important but so is liberty. 
 

 

2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello all,

We would like to inform you that we prepare a hotfix that is largely based on your reports:

v86 Hotfix

  • AI targeting improved further (It could not always switch to targets of higher priority).
  • AI aggressiveness balance (AI should adapt more rapidly to situations).
  • Targeting sensitivity adjusted better. This should fix issues of guns that could not acquire a target for a large period of time.
  • Fixed metric system indications which could not become rounded.
  • Fire damage slightly increased (it could still be rather low in very big ships).
  • Flooding protection slightly rebalanced (Small ships could sink too fast, due to latest weight balances, even with max. bulkheads).
  • Armor weights adjustment (In some cases the armor weight could be too low).
  • Fixes of various reported bugs related to hulls and guns.
  • Collision avoidance between friendly ships is further improved.
  • Optimized further the AI Auto-Design.
  • Fixed Armored Cruisers not being available for Germany and Austro-Hungary between years 1909-1911.

It is planned for tomorrow.

 

PS. Posts unrelated to the feedback thread, will be removed from this post and below. Please do not insist on unrelated topics as we will have to moderate more harshly the thread.

 


 

How is armor weight calculated? Logically it would be the height of the belt times the length times the thickness, using the material density of iron/steel (they weigh the same in real life).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

How is armor weight calculated? Logically it would be the height of the belt times the length times the thickness, using the material density of iron/steel (they weigh the same in real life).

Seconded, this is a good question. Deck armor can be calculated about the same way, length times average width times thickness times density of steel (which is about 8g/mL, or 0.29lb/in^2). Transverse bulkheads would work the same as belts.

Barbettes and turrets can be a bit complex, but an easy approach is to assign a diameter to each and treat them as cylinders and rectangular prisms. Then calculate armor weight based on surface area. This technique can be extended to conning towers and steering gear boxes.

 

There would be some snarls with this approach. First, belt length and height right now is too simple and is essentially identical on all ships. No thinner upper belts, tapers, etc. Second, armor weights can have knock-on effects. More weight may require more structure to hold it up, especially with turrets. And third, different armor fasteners and wood/cellulose/cement/steel backing layers add variation in weight (an interesting example is Japanese heavy cruiser belt armor, where the armor plates are part of the hull girder). 

So this calculation may be too simple, but I think the gist of it is good.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm...as for additional feedback...can you please implement a routine that keeps your own destroyers from torpedoing your own vessels? In a recent game I had two battlecruisers and one light cruiser sunk by my own destroyers. Quite embarassing :(

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Darth Khyron said:

hmm...as for additional feedback...can you please implement a routine that keeps your own destroyers from torpedoing your own vessels? In a recent game I had two battlecruisers and one light cruiser sunk by my own destroyers. Quite embarassing :(

I mean, introducing better failsafes would make sense, to be sure, but let's not forget that friendly fire in that sense has plenty of examples throughout history. The obvious one coming to mind being the sinking of 3 Japanese ships by the cruiser Mogami at Sunda Strait

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

That's not an argument, the next second the government could make a law making your exact post illegal and lock you up/execute you for treason. Rules are important but so is liberty. 
 

 

How is armor weight calculated? Logically it would be the height of the belt times the length times the thickness, using the material density of iron/steel (they weigh the same in real life).

Armor weight is calculated with different ways according to type. For example, Belt and Deck armor use as main factor the weight of the hull. Turret armor use as base the weight of the turret, dividing the turret proportionally in top and side sections. We cannot share the exact formulas, but hopefully you get the idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Intrepid_Arty said:

I mean, introducing better failsafes would make sense, to be sure, but let's not forget that friendly fire in that sense has plenty of examples throughout history. The obvious one coming to mind being the sinking of 3 Japanese ships by the cruiser Mogami at Sunda Strait

I know that and that's war. Mogami sailed in a different group than the transport ships, however, a good distance away. My destroyers were in ecorting formation, not a mile away from their charges. Yet, they still fired. And it was not even nighttime :).
Bad maneuvering or forgetting about your very long range oxygen torpedoes is one thing, my fault. But that now happened twice, once with light cruiser, second time with the above mentioned BCs and CL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Darth Khyron said:

I know that and that's war. Mogami sailed in a different group than the transport ships, however, a good distance away. My destroyers were in ecorting formation, not a mile away from their charges. Yet, they still fired. And it was not even nighttime :).
Bad maneuvering or forgetting about your very long range oxygen torpedoes is one thing, my fault. But that now happened twice, once with light cruiser, second time with the above mentioned BCs and CL.

Torpedoes are already checked for friendly fire on a wide range. If though your friendly ships are too far away from the torpedo armed ships, the friendly fire will not be calculated. Do you remember the distance between friendly ships and the fired torpedoes?

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...