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

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[TheRealJostapo]

59 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

To be fair, the bulk of the game is the campaign, most issues have been put aside because of it, like only 2 hotfixes from the last update before Dev's moved on. Once the campaign is in place there should be alot more polishing. 

This is _exactly_ the transitive point I am trying to make.   If they continue on they're current route, with a broken ai ship designer and unsinkable light ships, who's going to want to play the campaign?  Regardless of how good it is.   If your foundation is 'dumpster fire' you'll never achieve anything better ... regardless of how good the primary feature is.

I'm a software architect by day.   Part of this job requires reviewing the work of fellow developers for architectural compliance, best practises (security/style), etc.    Most of the times, it involves me complimenting a developer on good work.   However, some of the time it requires presenting un-varnished criticism.  

This was the purpose of my post.  

I feel taking an 'it's in beta' apologist stance only mis-serves Game Labs.

We _know_ they can do better (from their prior products and even before that, their modding efforts).    For their success, and our self interested desire for a decent game, we can't mince words.

I personally:

• strongly dislike the current build.
   
• am strongly worried about the trajectory of quality.   The number of regressions is alarming, and more importantly, the willingness to release such a poorly tested build is doubly alarming. 

If that message is not heard by Game Labs, then any discussion about fine-tuning specific features quality/design is pointless.

-joel

 

[killjoy1941]

It's like watching people equate game design to scratch cards... 🙄

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[Elrerune The Honorbound]

I found a bug. The German ships still have the secondary guns placement bug.

[Stormnet]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Dev's are impervious to anything that's not aligned with their expectations, I don't think you understand that either. 

A dev that thinks he his impervious to anything that he does not expect, either doesnt care about making profit or is delusional at best.
Take a look at the steam community discussions:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/?fp=3
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/?fp=2
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/

Scrool down throught that, what you see? You see a few questions here and there and suggestions, but a lot of this is talking shit about the game and the development. And not talking shit just for talking shit.

You see, "Why are the formations broken in a game where they are vital?", "Why keep using slider shit instead of type in values?" (this one is now deprecated, but still, they tried fixing it without actually adressing the issue), and there are A LOT of "Why is this game so out of squedule?", "Why do updates take forever to come and deliver actual content?", "Why is this so buggy?".

Mind you, the people on Steam are supposed to be the next big wave of new players. And nearly everyone there is shitting on the (big) flaws of this game and the development. Unless GL is ready to lose profit (not many people will buy into something that is said by plenty of others to be a bad purchase), they really need to align their expectations with those of the playerbase.

Failing to do so is a recipe to losing money. Corporations that try to sell stuff that their clients genuinely dont want lose money. Developers that are on the way to doing so, they too risk losing money.

There is a big diference between trying to get the playerbase not to expect a masterpiece, and trying to make them accept a lackluster product.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Stormnet

[SiWi]

On 10/19/2021 at 6:33 PM, Microscop said:

He is against designs that could exist on paper but were physicly impossible in reality you genius.

But thats not even his main point, he is against focusing on paper super battleships when core mechanics clearly don't represent reality properly which is especially visible on more historical designs that don't work as intended. 

Well mr "genius" the US did think they could build 80K tons displacement (mind you, in 1917) and considering that they have the panama canal to consider when designing, the claim of "physicly impossible" seems to be outside of reality.

 

Now "logistical impossible" maybe. But that would be adjusted by campaign mechanics, which are hopefully good enough to do that or at least put serious risk on a "super battleship" doctrine.

 

Also "mr Genius" I have not argued against the focus on core mechanics vs more battleship hulls, I argued against the limitation in the name of "realism", especially since it is still in the realm of thinkable. And bigger ships were and are "thinkable".

In fact I wasn't even directly talking to him, until he talked to me directly.

Not that you would have notice that because reflecting what you think I'm talking about is more fun then actually read what I wrote.

 

besides it is still funny to me that a certain group here plays outrage, that a game about designing your own ship, allows for unhistorical designs. Don't you guys are better served with a game without a builder that simple provides the historical models of the ships? Why even bother with a ship designer if you only want the historical designs?

 

(notice how I don't argue against working on the core mechanics? probably not...)

[DougToss]

1 hour ago, SiWi said:

(notice how I don't argue against working on the core mechanics? probably not...)

Attaching this postscript at the end of a disjointed missive railing against the people most actively working to provide feedback on core mechanics is a strange choice. 
 

You don’t seem to grasp that improvements to core mechanics would impose - to borrow from you - “realism”, that naturally creates limitations. 
 

Mostly though, you seem to be misrepresenting the argument - Higher fidelity allows for a ship builder that allows for the recreation of what was historical, and, rooted in that reality, what was possible. Right now, it does neither. 

[madham82]

5 hours ago, SiWi said:

Well mr "genius" the US did think they could build 80K tons displacement (mind you, in 1917) and considering that they have the panama canal to consider when designing, the claim of "physicly impossible" seems to be outside of reality.

I'd suggest watching Drach's video on the Tillman designs. The US did not "think" they could build them, especially in 1917. Ultimately it was an exercise in futility because putting designs on paper exposed how far from reality they were in cost, infrastructure, and technical ability to build any of the designs. 

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[CapnAvont1015]

17 hours ago, Commander Reed said:

Minor, but how about this: When editing armour, whatever section you are editing glows or lights up indicating exactly what area this will effect, just quality of life really. Think it'd be cool.

Quality of life? More like an requirement! Have tired finding the armor belt on the British BBs? It's bloody hard.

[CapnAvont1015]

17 hours ago, Commander Reed said:

Minor, but how about this: When editing armour, whatever section you are editing glows or lights up indicating exactly what area this will effect, just quality of life really. Think it'd be cool.

Quality of life? More like an requirement! Have tired finding the armor belt on the British BBs? It's bloody hard.

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[madham82]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

It's becoming laughable, to be nice. But to think the worst of, they're purposely disrupting UAD, if not GameLabs itself.

I find it laughable how many late game hulls have been added vs. early/mid game hulls for a game that is launching a campaign next. Who disrupted GameLabs in prioritizing those? 

I don't mind the stuff that has been added. I mind that it was put in before the early stuff which people will spend most of the campaign not having all the hulls that have been added over the past year. 

How many dreadnaught and pre-dreadnaught era hulls do we have again?

[DougToss]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

And generally weird how historical enthusiast have latched onto this game anyway. It's almost like they have nowhere else to go for their 'batchesting' (thanks henry) of how much knowledge they possess.

It's becoming laughable, to be nice. But to think the worst of, they're purposely disrupting UAD, if not GameLabs itself.

Naval enthusiasts follow (enthusiastic about) naval game that uses word “Realistic” 13 times in blog entry describing intended battle system, news at 11.

😢🎻

 

You just finished throwing a fit, so we don’t need to rehash this, but how you handle the feedback is more disruptive than the feedback itself. As you alluded to, you haven’t tried to dispute any of the arguments on merit, but instead complain that knowledge is being demonstrated at all. 
 

While I understand that it must be frustrating to feel left out of a conversation, or like you are being talked over, people have very helpfully listed their sources. They have given you the tools you need to participate in the discussion time and time again, and instead of using them so you can engage with the material, you complain that the conversation is being had in the first place.

 

You can see how this is not conducive to getting on the same page.

 

So - feel free to ignore naval discussion if it’s not your cup of tea, but it’s absurd to pretend it’s not relevant - I’d say more relevant, but I’m biased - feedback to a naval game.

Edited October 21, 2021 by DougToss

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[DougToss]

5 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

It's even stranger that you don't even play this game.

Lol what? 

[Skeksis]

...

Edited November 9, 2021 by Skeksis

[killjoy1941]

Just a note to all the people coming here to whine - this topic is 26 pages long and incredibly light on posts which are actually helpful.

From the dev blog linked in the OP:

Quote

The new crew mechanics are the next major feature we introduce to the game which will greatly affect the ships’ performance in battle while in campaign they will be a crucial resource for maintaining your fleet in a functional state (Crew is a very important factor for the campaign and will need your extensive testing in the current patch, so that we optimize it).

Bolding is mine.

Maybe provide some feedback on that? Or at least take screenshots of the actual issues you whine about so your whining becomes something useful instead of wasting everyone's time?

[DougToss]

21 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Now you can reference the game. Welcome.

I bought it as soon as it was available you petulant child.

[arkhangelsk]

2 hours ago, killjoy1941 said:

Maybe provide some feedback on that? Or at least take screenshots of the actual issues you whine about so your whining becomes something useful instead of wasting everyone's time?

I've been refraining because I don't play this game as much as some others, but for what it's worth, so far crew quality is enticing me as much to use it as secondary guns (not at all). Sure, I've maxed out the ship's displacement I'll spend the spare change on it b/c it can't hurt, but if it's between say 5 crappily trained battleship, 4 moderately well trained battleships or 3 well trained ones, so far Naval Academy isn't exactly punishing me for choosing the 5 crappily trained battleships.

But then, maybe it won't be an issue in the campaign. Maybe in the campaign there won't even be a slider - crews would just start at zero and slowly work up.

As for Custom Battles ... unless you want to deliberately handicap yourself, there are no cost caps anyway so why not just pick 100.

Edited October 22, 2021 by arkhangelsk
Shortening.

[Evil4Zerggin]

Crew Quality goes from -15% to +30% accuracy (net x1.53) and +15% to -20% reload time (net x1.44 RoF), for a net of x2.2 effective firepower. That's a lot, but the cost of crew is quite huge as well; if you use Lanchester's Square Law as a back-of-the envelope estimate, this justifies up to about a 48% increase in cost, or equivalently a 32% decrease in quantity, which the cost of the crew often exceeds.

Still, I often find myself going for highly-trained crews since I'm not a patient admiral, and highly-trained crew means faster battles with fewer ships to micromanage.

[CapnAvont1015]

You know I've been thinking and this is very far fetched but what if they're saving new pre and dreadnought hulls for the campaign? I mean the Devs have to realize that most of the time playing were going to be spending most of our time during the dreadnought era. If this is the case this will be a welcomed surprise but I won't keep my hopes up for that.

Edited October 22, 2021 by CapnAvont1015

[killjoy1941]

1 hour ago, Evil4Zerggin said:

Crew Quality goes from -15% to +30% accuracy (net x1.53) and +15% to -20% reload time (net x1.44 RoF), for a net of x2.2 effective firepower. That's a lot, but the cost of crew is quite huge as well; if you use Lanchester's Square Law as a back-of-the envelope estimate, this justifies up to about a 48% increase in cost, or equivalently a 32% decrease in quantity, which the cost of the crew often exceeds.

Still, I often find myself going for highly-trained crews since I'm not a patient admiral, and highly-trained crew means faster battles with fewer ships to micromanage.

I imagine the process to gain crew experience will be naval exercises up to a point, then combat will allow for the final chunk. Right now it seems the idea is to allow players to field untrained ships as a desperation measure, decently trained crews as a normal thing, and highly trained crews as an elite force.

At least that's how I see it. It might work differently, but that kind of system would allow older ships to stay relevant for a longer period of time.

[Cptbarney]

5 hours ago, killjoy1941 said:

I imagine the process to gain crew experience will be naval exercises up to a point, then combat will allow for the final chunk. Right now it seems the idea is to allow players to field untrained ships as a desperation measure, decently trained crews as a normal thing, and highly trained crews as an elite force.

At least that's how I see it. It might work differently, but that kind of system would allow older ships to stay relevant for a longer period of time.

Also we will need different ways of crew getting experience as well. Maybe doctrines, morale, battle experience etc. can all factor into besides naval experience and also the rate they get experience, plus deaths and injuries can also hinder this. Morale can also effect the performance of crew members and may lead to a mutiny on-board or whatever.

Maybe later on we can have traits? and also older ships being far slower to train on or experienced crews taking longer to train on new vessels due already existing knowledge and muscle memory?

They could filter these in as they go in so we can test each section more thoroughly.