>>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<

[Cpt.Hissy]

He's just being paid for praising this mess of a project, probably to convince the honest backers to forget their expectations. No other explanation.

[Armchair_Admiral]

I would love it if the game did not redesign and rebuild all ships when "Restart the batte" is selected - to reduce the loading time in this case. In all other cases the game should do just this to keep up generating variety.

[TAKTCOM]

5 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Many games support progression, so for UAD it's one hull 1890 progressing up to many hulls for 1936. This is typical and expected. And I would say the guts of the game is mid-timeframe moving into late era, this is where the bulk of the campaign will be played. 1890 hulls/ships are just the stepping stone into the bulk of the game.

I guess, this is a standard MMORPG model - at the beginning the player has a choice between a fighter or a mage. Then, the fighter can become a warrior, or a rogue.  When,, a warrior can be a knight, or a mercenary. While rogue can become a scout, or a marauder. Etc&etc.  It's all good, but

4 hours ago, DougToss said:

That’s disingenuous. The variety of forms of warships was - if anything - more varied early on before experience and the maturation of new technologies led to common standards of ship design. Once the scientific principles of naval architecture, testing tanks, and wartime experience of them in action hull forms become more standardized.

DougToss absolutely right in this case. Dreadnoughts of the first generation had more differences than differences between  Iowa, Yamato, Bismarck, Vanguard and Littorio. 

2 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

Cheers

[DougToss]

4 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

I would suggest the history of changes to the secondary batteries in their accuracy and effectiveness as a wonderful example of this, where it moved more and more away from realism seemingly because large numbers of people didn't want to accept that such guns weren't effective against much (note the issue of accuracy of the main batteries, plus the often ridiculous durability of anything with 'max bulkheads', didn't exactly help, precisely why the point about GUNNERY DIRECTION ought to be waaaaaay more important than the calibre of the weapon, and one might reasonably ask why bother to put a secondary battery on at all, although 'not very effective' is not the same as 'useless'). As an illustration of why understanding that is kind of important, we may well ask why the AI still festoons its designs with truly hilarious levels of secondary guns, to the point some ships look as though they've some awful skin condition or an infestation of mites, LOL. Indeed we have asked that. Many times.

Good to have you back, if only to check in.

 

I can relate. I read tens of books to figure out how secondary batteries worked, which as you said led to reading about gunnery and fire control, as well as effect on targets. Gunnery trials, all sorts of tables, tests, wartime records. Even the difference between Quick-Firing guns that could be worked by hand and larger guns that needed a hoist and bagged charges. 
 

Since there’s no persuading people who aren’t interested in being persuaded, they kept banging their drum unabated, changes were made in the name of “balance” and as you said the knock on effects drag us closer and closer to “World of Warships but with a ship builder that kinda sorta works”.

 

What kills me, as you alluded to is that making a ship designer that works would be so much easier if the Devs committed to grounding it in the realities of ship design! It seems so much harder to invent “balanced” hull forms if they don’t obey the laws of physics for their displacements, and similarly, if everything from powerplant to guns and armour is also “balanced” fantasy values. It means you have no frame of reference to turn to, whereas, lo and behold, the information on real ships is easily available.
 

I don’t understand being fought tooth and nail on this by the very people it would help!! It would be easier for the AI to design fun ships for you to test your arcade monstrosities against if the AI designs, and ergo the underlying representation of design factors was rooted in reality! If the devs are “allowed” to use “unbalanced” reality to set the ship designer it makes it so much easier to make sure that it’s working as intended! For both players and AI.

I genuinely don’t understand their position at this point. Real weights, forces, etc. would continue to be invisible to them, they could still make overloaded ships with poor stability, but the simulation and therefore gameplay would work better because it could be tested and evaluated better - we know how reality works!!
 

You don’t make a flight simulator without thrust, drag, lift and gravity, even if you want to build wacky planes. Look what people have done in Kerbal Space Program, X Plane, Simple Planes and Stormworks. The sandbox is more fun to play in if the sand works. The sand works best when the Devs can test and refine it by comparing it to real sand. You don’t need to know or care how sand works to have fun with it! Just keep having fun, and see what works within the sandbox, without making the sand itself janky for no real reason that I can see.

Edited October 15, 2021 by DougToss

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[DougToss]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

No, clearly my context was that of a videogame. 

Alright, well there are 700 cars in Forza 7, so let’s start with 700 hull types in 1890.

[DerRichtigeArzt]

On 10/13/2021 at 9:02 PM, Commander Reed said:

What? Literally everybody here wants the campaign. Think you're in the minority mate, if you don't like the game or the way the developments going, I wouldn't bother anymore. 

Infact, your comment history just proves my point.

it was a joke...

[DerRichtigeArzt]

9 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

He's just being paid for praising this mess of a project, probably to convince the honest backers to forget their expectations. No other explanation.

who?

[Commander Reed]

28 minutes ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

it was a joke...

It was hilarious, so funny I started flying. 

[SonicB]

16 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Nick has said the game will not support over the top designs (you can search out that post yourself). Dev's won't remove all restrictions because this is how they want the game/Shipyard to be.

I don't understand how my post can be lies ("disingenuous"), everyone can have different opinions, everyone can contest but no one here is outright lying. Doesn't seem to be very 'respectful of others', to be called a liar.

Kindly don't put words into my mouth. I'm not asking for 'over the top designs,' in fact quite the opposite. For example, it's impossible to build a Queen Elizabeth type dreadnought on a British hull of the period with optimal proportions, balanced weight distribution and all turrets within the centre belt, because the forward barbette won't go back far enough.

"Devs won't remove all restrictions" well I believe it was said that they wouldn't remove any restrictions, until they did. The game is still in development and I see no reason not to voice my hope that future changes can be made.

By the way, disingenuous does not imply outright lying; it simply indicates speaking part of the truth for the purpose of arguing a point that would not be supported by more complete information. I think Doug and I are accurate to use it in this sense.

[Lucas1708]

16 hours ago, Commander Reed said:

It was hilarious, so funny I started flying. 

I guess the Enterprise left already

[SonicB]

Has anyone else noticed that since the patch, the speed of ships in formation are auto capped to the leader's speed even when they are trying to catch up? I think this is a bug but I can't be sure.

For instance, I have a formation of three 30kt destroyers badly separated. In previous versions I would drop the formation speed to 15kt and the two following DDs would maintain 30kt until hack in formation. Now they are all restricted to 15kt no matter how far apart they are. I have to set the speeds for each destroyer back to 30kts individually in order to make them rejoin the formation.

Edited October 16, 2021 by SonicB
clarity

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Commander Reed]

6 hours ago, Lucas1708 said:

I guess the Enterprise left already

Yeah don't mind me, just gotta get back to my ship before it leaves me behind 🤣

 

[Microscop]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

disingenuous

/ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnjʊəs/

adjective

1. not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

   "he was being somewhat disingenuous as well as cynical"

    

   Similar: dishonest, deceitful, underhand, underhanded, duplicitous, double-dealing, two-faced, dissembling, insincere, false, lying...

    

   Usually I ignore them, ignore the drama, but you guy's just don't stop, there's just to many of them. All with underlying connotation i.e. to be insulting indirectly e.g. to be called a lair via the word disingenuous, to be demeaning, to 'smear', to make fun off.

   No I interpreted the word correctly.

   All just because I have a different view. 

   Another connotation, you're saying that I'm falsifying your statement, being deceitful in some way, but the fact is it's just interpretation, nothing more, to which you or anyone could correct if needed, but you and others, chose to use those words as a smear. I am interpreting, reading, not falsifying.

You are just a shill cunt m8

[Commander Reed]

2 hours ago, Microscop said:

You are just a shill cunt m8

That's very rude, and unacceptable. 

I'll admit, I'm not the biggest fan of skeksis but that is no excuse for such unkind words. 

[Microscop]

1 minute ago, Commander Reed said:

That's very rude, and unacceptable. 

I'll admit, I'm not the biggest fan of skeksis but that is no excuse for such unkind words. 

Thats racist, i am 1/2 aussie

[Commander Reed]

Just now, Microscop said:

Thats racist, i am 1/2 aussie

I think you misunderstood me. Please go back and read the last two words before "M8"

[Microscop]

25 minutes ago, Commander Reed said:

I think you misunderstood me. Please go back and read the last two words before "M8"

Oi cmon now, don't be a cunt

[DougToss]

On 10/15/2021 at 12:53 AM, Skeksis said:

Many games support progression, so for UAD it's one hull 1890 progressing up to many hulls for 1936. This is typical and expected. And I would say the guts of the game is mid-timeframe moving into late era, this is where the bulk of the campaign will be played. 1890 hulls/ships are just the stepping stone into the bulk of the game.

So IMO, earlier hulls (or full complement or as what many have whined about) aren't as nearly as important as mid-game or late game.

This was in response to someone pointing out the lack of early hulls-   a slightly dishonest, way to answer the question, or not speak the complete truth, because it does not address the point of perfectly valid criticism, both in historical and gameplay terms. 

We don’t need to drag this out. I stand by it, you are still running around talking about how offended you are rather than any responding to any substantive criticism of the game made by others. There’s a word to describe that rhetorical technique, but I have a feeling you know it already.

Edited October 16, 2021 by DougToss

[AdmER]

On 10/15/2021 at 12:53 AM, Skeksis said:

PS, actually it seems like alot of your information is out of date.

Sorry to strongly disagree with you. I am not out to date, I play this game from 1890 -1910. And in this area you have no freedom, there is only one choice of hull and superstructure are always at the same point. For a ship building game it is absolutely not as advertise currently. Try the 1st basics missions just for the freedom of it.

Yes for many game you have to begin with almost the same stuffs. But this is a ship building game not WOW. We should have at the beginning plenty or choosing, direction to go with.

I follow this game and forum since alpha 5, my critics are valid and in the sens to have this game progress in a better one, with I hope a good campaign not focusing only on super-think but it's complete period.

Edited October 17, 2021 by AdmER

[Steeltrap]

13 hours ago, SonicB said:

Has anyone else noticed that since the patch, the speed of ships in formation are auto capped to the leader's speed even when they are trying to catch up? I think this is a bug but I can't be sure.

For instance, I have a formation of three 30kt destroyers badly separated. In previous versions I would drop the formation speed to 15kt and the two following DDs would maintain 30kt until hack in formation. Now they are all restricted to 15kt no matter how far apart they are. I have to set the speeds for each destroyer back to 30kts individually in order to make them rejoin the formation.

Am yet to find a recent game where formation sea keeping is in any respect competent.

It's a total mess in War on the Sea.

Bizarre thing I don't understand is that it ought to be VERY EASY to work backwards from what is necessary to produce something that delivers it. The AI, after all, has all the necessary parameters.

I think of it this way:

- start with how navies DID their formations; WE ought to be able to set templates however we want, or use standard provided ones.

- look at standard processes for changing formation, or changing course.

- take those processes and build an invisible, moving template of "required position" for each and every ship every 2,3 or perhaps 5 seconds. I think of each ship following a trail of breadcrumbs which, if each does so perfectly, will result in a seamless alteration of course, formation, speed and combinations thereof.

- the AI ought to have the necessary performance numbers to have the ships get VERY close to those required positions effectively in real time.

There would be no bizarre veering out of line because of some less than ideal 'collision avoidance' system that presumably is placeholder because the AI would have been told where each ship is going to be in 2,3, 5 or 10 seconds from now and thus recognise there is no danger.

Again, thinking off top of head. No idea how feasible it is. Indeed it's entirely possible what I'm describing ISN'T achievable, although I find that hard to accept.

Regardless, from what I've seen NO naval game seems to have tried this OR they can't manage it. They all seem to use some pared back, basic thing that is patently unfit for purpose thus ought not be released. I just don't see how they've not cracked the issue of "start with what the results must be, design the steps to get there (template, waypoints tied to time, whatever) then build the AI to execute".

Perhaps it's just seen as too much work for not enough return, but it certainly grates in 'proper' naval wargames.

In this, WotS, and anything else I've played, the first thing I do upon entering a battle is UNDO every formation. It's a pain in the butt, yet it's the only way to get ships to do what I know they OUGHT to do.

Suppose, for example, a formation is changing course to port (and can we get the ability to input courses? I don't think any navy in the world at this time sort of pointed in some direction and said "let's go that way") ships to port of the centreline need to slow while ships to starboard need to accelerate.

Yet for some reason the AI remains seemingly entirely bamboozled by such concepts, which is why I wonder if it is because it doesn't have an effective, near real time template of positions that, if followed, will achieve the required result. Or something that achieves the same effect.

NOT saying it's unacceptable in an Alpha, of course. Anything is fine in an Alpha provided there's evidence it's changing. Or at least evidence it's intended to change.

Am simply thinking aloud as I'm writing (something I do quite often if it's not obvious).

Would love to know what the underlying design is in terms of process/logic, or at least the final intended version, but such curiosity is an occupational hazard of mine, lol.

Edited October 17, 2021 by Steeltrap

[DougToss]

17 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

Am yet to find a recent game where formation sea keeping is in any respect competent.

I guess it depends on how recent, because Jutland Pro and Distant Guns both do so. I’ve hotlinked their respective manuals, which detail formations in each.

 

To be honest both manuals should be looked to for a variety of features and systems. They show how well naval combat can be modelled, and still fun to play. UA:D has a way more modern UI, thank God, but otherwise they might be the gold standard.

[Steeltrap]

Thanks.

You've been busy; I feel no need to post anything these days.

😁