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

[ThatZenoGuy]

3 hours ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

The flash fire chance is now shown in the right panel. (Though oddly, not the detonation chance.)

Barbettes don't do anything except apply the modifiers shown in the tooltip; in particular, they are not connected to armor thicknesses in any way (other than turret armor weight being based on the turret weight, which Barbette components increase). AFAICT you are vulnerable to a flash fire if all of the following are true:

• The hit is a full penetration, an overpenetration, or a torpedo hit. Ricochets, shatters, and partial penetrations never cause flash fires.
• The hit section contains at least one main gun that has not been destroyed or already flash fired.
• The penetration of the hit is at least the effective Turret armor thickness. This is the raw/perpendicular thickness, not the effective/sloped thickness.
• The flash fire roll triggers. Smaller guns are less likely to flash fire.

Damage is proportional to the base damage for the shell size. It can be reduced by up to 40% by the Bulkheads slider.

Detonation is the same except:

• The hit has to make 1.35x the effective armor thickness to potentially trigger a detonation, rather than 1x.
• Secondaries can also detonate.
• Detonation does ~30% more damage.

So with enough Turret (and Secondaries, if applicable) armor compared to the penetration of the incoming hits you can prevent all flash fires and detonations, even if you have 0" armor everywhere else, minimum Bulkheads slider, no Barbettes, Electric traverse, Increased Ammo, Lyddite Super Heavy Shells, and max size Oxygen Torpedoes (AFAICT torpedoes only increase gun detonation chance, they don't detonate themselves). Not that I recommend this!

Meanwhile, it's impossible to get -100% flash fire modifier, so if your turret armor gets penetrated there's always a chance of getting flash fired.

This would be very nice information to have in a manual somewhere, or the game!

But ultimately this is probably why ships explode so damned much.

The game by default does not armor the exterior parts of the ship as much as the engine rooms, so they almost always take heavier hits, including full penetrations from peer weapons.

So also what does that mean, turret thickness somehow prevents flash fires/ammo detonations to the belt?...How does that even work?

[TAKTCOM]

5 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

I mean it's already in the game!

The damage model is far from ideal. This applies to many aspects - armor schemes, bulkheads and etc. In my opinion, it is worth waiting for the test company, everything else is still too similar to the World of Tanks patch note:

- tank X, turret traverse speed increased by 1%;
- tank Y, passability on soft soils decreased by 1%.

5 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

you yourself are some kind of communist bolshevik (the people who made the term "Nazi" up).

Nope. In the Soviet Union was used term "fascist" (singular) and fascisti (plural). For the first time i saw the word  "Nazi"  was King's cycle "The Tower" in 1998, I suppose.  The plot came to the crashed Fw.190 and the local asked the heroes:

- Are you NotSee?

Gradually, it became clear, what "NotSee" is distorted "Nazi". There was a note from the translator that "Nazi" is the word that the americans called the germans in WWII. The modern left in Russia can call the Nazis - Nazis, but probably in half of the cases they still use the words "fascism", "fascist" and "fascisti".

From Russia, with love. 😉

Edited June 25, 2021 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT

[ThatZenoGuy]

14 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

Nope. In the Soviet Union was used term "fascist" (singular) and fascisti (plural). For the first time i saw the word  "Nazi"  was King's cycle "The Tower" in 1998, I suppose.  The plot came to the crashed Fw.190 and the local asked the heroes:

- Are you NotSee?

Gradually, it became clear, what "NotSee" is distorted "Nazi". There was a note from the translator that "Nazi" is the word that the americans called the germans in WWII. The modern left in Russia can call the Nazis - Nazis, but probably in half of the cases they still use the words "fascism", "fascist" and "fascisti".

From Russia, with love. 😉

I didn't say Soviets, Germany was home to many sorts of socialists/communists. During the leadup to WW2 they tried to conflate the growing-in-popularity National Socialist party to the other socialists which were at the time being hated due to their impact in the Weimar Republic. Socialists of course having the nickname 'Sozi'. 

Any actual "Nazi" back then would be incredibly annoyed at the term.

[TAKTCOM]

19 minutes ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

I didn't say Soviets

Huh, but you said

6 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

 bolshevik

And this word refers specifically to the Soviet communists.

 

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

1 hour ago, TAKTCOM said:

Huh, but you said

And this word refers specifically to the Soviet communists.

Well, specifically a faction of marxists founded by good old Lenin and co.

A looooooooooooooooooooooooooooot of marxists found their way into Germany.

1918 German revolution was led by them after all, hence why it was popular to dislike them so much during the 20's and 30's.

Edited June 25, 2021 by ThatZenoGuy

[Evil4Zerggin]

14 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

This would be very nice information to have in a manual somewhere, or the game!

The trouble with manuals/description text is that the game is still being tuned, so there's a good thing anything written now will become stale in short order. The decompiled source isn't too bad as far as these things go.

14 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

So also what does that mean, turret thickness somehow prevents flash fires/ammo detonations to the belt?...How does that even work?

I guess the idea is that Turret/Secondaries armor is considered to cover the magazines as well. This seems to be an okay abstraction to me, cf. RtW's magazine box. Though it may be better to rename the Barbette "thickness" component to something like safe ammo handling equipment.

[ThatZenoGuy]

45 minutes ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

The trouble with manuals/description text is that the game is still being tuned, so there's a good thing anything written now will become stale in short order. The decompiled source isn't too bad as far as these things go.

I guess the idea is that Turret/Secondaries armor is considered to cover the magazines as well. This seems to be an okay abstraction to me, cf. RtW's magazine box. Though it may be better to rename the Barbette "thickness" component to something like safe ammo handling equipment.

That would make a lot more sense, good idea. Could be renamed to that or something like flashtight doors or somesuch.

There's still the issue of players not knowing what actually happens ingame. How can players assist in helping the game reach its full potential if some mechanics are rather literally mysteries?

[Masonator]

Any news?  Been a hot minute since the last update and there's a lot of unaddressed game-breaking bugs in the current build (looking at you, formation system).

Devblogs pls?

[SonicB]

Would accept anything other than pedants fighting over the definition of 'nazi' which is a sign any forum is slowly dying. But update news would be preferable.

[Steeltrap]

On 6/26/2021 at 12:01 PM, ThatZenoGuy said:

How can players assist in helping the game reach its full potential if some mechanics are rather literally mysteries?

I may have mentioned this a few times, LOL.

The "flash-fire" is a trash mechanic, implemented WAAAY too early, and makes a big fuss over what was NOT a big issue. The danger was well understood and navies had addressed it all but finally. Meanwhile last I played I still watched 4" guns popping off Transports with flash-fires galore, which, other than amusing, was somewhat helpful as no amount of medium calibre HE rounds seem to be able to KO those flimsy gun mounts. Somehow they get flash-fires, however, despite not having any sort of connection directly to any magazine etc etc. Does make me wonder, LOL.

Game design that results in things happening that aren't clear and may not even be 'controllable' by players is, IMO, a poor choice IF they are things the player reasonably OUGHT to be able to 'control' or at least understand.

The more relevant point is, and this IS what I've said several times until it became obvious such feedback is pointless, how do we test something if we don't know how it's MEANT to work to the level necessary to recognise a bug vs a misunderstood 'feature'?

 

Cheers

[AdmER]

On 7/5/2021 at 1:02 PM, Masonator said:

Any news?  Been a hot minute since the last update and there's a lot of unaddressed game-breaking bugs in the current build (looking at you, formation system).

Devblogs pls?

We are at mid-years and no news from the devs, no campaign in the horizon .... sad   very sad

[SonicB]

On 7/9/2021 at 1:33 PM, Steeltrap said:

The more relevant point is, and this IS what I've said several times until it became obvious such feedback is pointless, how do we test something if we don't know how it's MEANT to work to the level necessary to recognise a bug vs a misunderstood 'feature'?

There's one principle I follow professionally (editing various business/technical texts) that applies here - a misunderstanding is still a bug.

In other words, if a feature is working as intended but your audience is asking that question, either your feature or your context & presentation of that feature should be changed. Either way, something still needs to be done, which is why all honest feedback is valuable to a good author.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Draco]

Weird bug I've caught, when you put a sec on this mount on the queen Anne's mansion/KGV superstructures, they have no fields of fire and all the other guns turn yellow as if to indicate that they also have poor fields of fire for some reason.

[Cpt.Hissy]

..excuse my curiosity, but mr. Skeksis, are you paid for doing what you do perhaps?

[SonicB]

16 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Unless in the context of 'discovery'.

Recently, I discovered more things about this game I didn't know 2 years ago.

This game has a large technical side to it but you don't have to be a scientist to understand it, in fact you can just slap things together without being aware of the problems but simultaneously it has the depth for the player to learn/experience if they so choose. That's the mark of excellence/longevity.

You're always going to get players that think they have hit a brick wall but it's more to do with them dealing with the enigma of the game. 

I get your point and it's a valid one, but think I'm going to have to disagree here. Plenty of strategy and RPG games are guilty of this; a game should create replay value because its mechanics are complex, not because they are poorly explained.

It's a fine distinction, but if you will, it's between 'I didn't know that was possible' and 'I didn't know that possibility had tactical value in this context.'

Out of interest, what did you discover recently?

[coalminer]

17 hours ago, Skeksis said:

This game has a large technical side to it but you don't have to be a scientist to understand it, in fact you can just slap things together without being aware of the problems but simultaneously it has the depth for the player to learn/experience if they so choose. That's the mark of excellence/longevity.

This game has some technical portions to it but most of it is not realistic or outright fantasy. a completely flat sided square steel box with 0" armour plating installed is not anywhere less resistant to a ship shaped hull form with also 0" armour plating installed. Stating in patch notes that "special hull resistance characteristics making it especially durable even against battleships." makes 0 sense because arguably, a destroyer hull with 20" armour mounted would be more resistant to gun fire than a 500K displacement BB with 0 armour.

Modifiers and barely comprehensive damage models are not the way to go if a "realistic" game is to be made. It simply ends up as bigger = better as its just slapping on more and more big guns with enough armour to resist it. Nothing else is important, not interior layout, not GA for crew comfort and damage control or even TDS/bulges because its just install Y get 0.5 damage modifiers against Z damage type, need I mention the need for go-fast (30knots+ 1910s BBs)?

Sure there is min/maxing for roll/pitch motions (which again is arguable as realistic, a ship with lower roll periods may make a stable gunnery platform, but such a ship is likely to be very wet along with the sciences that goes behind naval architecture), but what is likely is ending up with the same ABX 3 mounts design because the fixed components and towers, the lack of internal structures, barbette mechanics, ammo placement, the main 3 sections counting as "citadel", etc. makes this the only viable way to play.

edit: throwing on the campaign at this point is likely going to draw in another fresh wave of players who may end up with the same conclusion and further alienating those who are already here due to:

i. The mechanics are not fleshed out and are place holders; and

ii. The mechanics are not fleshed out and are here to stay.

If the mechanics are not finalised, the campaign wouldnt work as the ships would not be the final products representing themselves in the campaign, but with an overly simplified battle mechanic then its likely going to end with auto resolving every battle as every AI will churn out the same ship all the time.

Edited July 11, 2021 by coalminer

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[ColonelHenry]

Are there any plans to give large main guns its own superfiring barbettes instead of the current medium, tall, very tall, etc.. like we have now? Any plans to open up ship hulls customization in terms of shapes? Or anything regarding bulkheads thickness and barbettes thickness? I feel like the ship building is still very barebone. It's all the same hull, same layout any deviation is not possible due to ship hull being limited or very detrimental to the ship performance that is just terrible against anything else. I felt it before that I was just building the same ship like people have said but now after so long without any major improvements it is really getting to me. I like the concept but it's not there yet... sadly.

[SonicB]

11 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

Are there any plans to give large main guns its own superfiring barbettes instead of the current medium, tall, very tall, etc.. like we have now?

People have been suggesting this for rather a long time now (over two years since I joined the forums.) What we have is not a great system, but since it functions (mostly) I don't think it's going to change any time soon.

[Cptbarney]

*slowly waits for CAP-1 update.*

[Masonator]

@Nick Thomadis

 What's going on, mate?

 Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail Patch v1.1.1 released earlier today, so clearly the Game-Labs office is still staffed. Were Dreadnoughts development resources and/or developers focused on this update, and does this mean Game-Labs resources are freed up for work on Dreadnoughts?

 We're halfway through 2021, and quite literally nothing from the 2021 roadmap has been added.  Game-breaking issues with basic functions, such as the horribly-broken formation system, remain unaddressed since January '21 or even earlier in most cases.

 It's been complete radio silence from the developers for several months now - the Valve strategy of "don't communicate so you can't accidentally break promises" does not work for Valve, let alone a tiny indie studio.  I think I speak for most everyone on this forum when I say that it's to the point that many players are wondering if this project is already dead-before-arrival.  Nothing heard, over?

 Early Access IS your release - you don't get a second first impression.

 Devblogs, pretty please??

Edited July 14, 2021 by Masonator

[Yossariio]

Very sad that I cant make the first French "Battleship I" tiny anymore. That was my favorite build in the whole game

 

[MrStan53]

1 hour ago, Masonator said:

@Nick Thomadis

 What's going on, mate?

 Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail Patch v1.1.1 released earlier today, so clearly the Game-Labs office is still staffed. Were Dreadnoughts development resources and/or developers focused on this update, and does this mean Game-Labs resources are freed up for work on Dreadnoughts?

 We're halfway through 2021, and quite literally nothing from the 2021 roadmap has been added.  Game-breaking issues with basic functions, such as the horribly-broken formation system, remain unaddressed since January '21 or even earlier in most cases.

 It's been complete radio silence from the developers for several months now - the Valve strategy of "don't communicate so you can't accidentally break promises" does not work for Valve, let alone a tiny indie studio.  I think I speak for most everyone on this forum when I say that it's to the point that many players are wondering if this project is already dead-before-arrival.  Nothing heard, over?

 Early Access IS your release - you don't get a second first impression.

 Devblogs, pretty please??

Amen brother. 
If the devs simply communicated better and were more transparent about setbacks and what not I swear 65% of our issues would be fixed, perhaps not on the game side itself but instead this wouldn't be starting to feel downright fishy. I bought this game on the presumption I'd get more than a sandbox of prefabs, but it's been almost a year since I bought it and the only thing that's seemingly progressed is the number of prefabs and introduction of new bugs. My childlike wonder for this game has basically diminished because of that. Perhaps the devs should just be blunt and say they're behind schedule (or if this project will be ever finished) or perhaps they ought to open this up to the modding community so at least we can chart a course ourselves towards getting our moneys worth out of it.

Edited July 14, 2021 by MrStan53

[Sturmalex]

Yeah to me it looks like this game is dead. Sad really because it does indeed look good and its mechanics are promising. However a campaign is direly needed. I wanted to support this game when its EA was announced so I bought it to get access. I now regret doing that. sad really.