Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Nick Thomadis
 Share

Recommended Posts

The more i stalk the forums the more i see signs that i've seen of games like War Thunder, From The Depths or other unique games with no competitor. Slow development, constant disappointment or unfair practices, community pushback and lack of communication. Following this game since 2019 has been a rollercoaster, and i know not everyone in the dev team is to blame, but this is honestly getting both ridiculous and embarassing

Let's be honest, if there was any actual alternative to Dreadnought a lot of us would not be following this game, trying to get whatever bit and pieces of communication we can from a dev team that never shares enough and has a laughable concept of what community engagement is. 

With 2022 soon to come and only half a core patch delivered, and steam release getting ever farther while forums get filled to the brim with people asking for answers, i don't see it being a success if it ever actually comes out.

But hey, like i said, most of us would not be here trying to get answers if there was any alternative to Dreadnought

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tried to take a few of my designs into a battle today, to see how well they'd do together in a fight.
Both of the ships thrown up errors such as "Main Tower Needed" or that something was out of place, ect. When they all fit the requirements and had worked before. 

I was so pissed off and annoyed I just closed the game. Lol
PS: Designer needs a lot of work.

Edited by Commander Reed
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is little to appreciate when we have to beg for news, and "plan changes" around five times over two years, sometimes at the last day or last minute.

What i do appreciate are the devs that get stuck in and still try to get the game out on track, what i do not appreciate are the community managers and head devs achieving close to none of the goals they have set and providing close to nothing to people paying triple A price.

There is a difference between a few weeks or months of delay out of understandable circumstances and years of delay with no info, roadmaps being thrown out almost as fast as they're cancelled, and again and again estimation as well as dates being wrong

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

While under development plans change, especially for a game that's being constructed from new, coupled with bugs, development stages and things that don’t even work and have to be re-worked/re-built/re-coded etc.

You should know this, especially from your own RL i.e. We all know plans change.

It’s wrong to conclude delays as broken promises. Here on UAD forum development is on display for all to see, I hope you can appreciate Dev’s honesty by doing that.  

Major developers like Paradox and the IL2:BOS team put out weekly updates, announce when there will be a pause in updates during vacation or the early stages of a new feature, discuss changes they have made, decisions reversed, feedback received, and when there will be major rework and delays.

Rule The Waves 2 - the game UA:D explicitly emulates - has been working on an update for the past while. Let’s compare How they kept their community in the loop.

 

From their forums:

Player: “And Beta #25 which makes me curious about planned release date. I can understand it too early to give one, but would you care to elaborate in a loose and compeltely non-binding manner whether we should expect a time period of several months, half a year, a year?”

Dev: “Less than a year for certain, "several months" would be a fair unofficial estimate :)

Here’s how Devs handle player feedback on Gunnery: “You've made a solid point, and have sparked a dialogue. All I can say is that it will be up to Fredrik to evaluate whether the expansion of existing rules mechanics adequately covers the gunnery issue or whether the addition of new mechanics and the time involved there-in is warranted.”

“I will say that in my testing my first response to the "non-upgradeable Q -2" rule was the same as yours, to build an entire class of 8" armed battleships. While they were cheaper and I could build more, and did not stop me from winning wars, ultimately they are in most cases probably a poor investment. Plus, being a Brandenburg fan, the new rule (2x3 -2 turrets possible, A/Q/Y or A/R/Y) for -2 guns makes such ships appealing, even if in a meta sense I know the ship only has an effective lifespan of 10-15 years. Take note though that it is only that 'meta' awareness that creates the shadow of disappointment.”

“Regardless, we shall see how things look when Fredrik is content with his work.”

Most Importantly:

“Right now the internal work on the Expansion is mainly bug fixes and adjustments/tweaking of stuff that has already been added. In general I post stuff that I think players would find interesting, i.e. new features or major changes, so I don't post mundane stuff like mere bug fixes or adjustments/tweaks to the added stuff (especially when such tweaks are likely not final). “
 

“A bit of a teaser, however, to tide folks over:”

 

“I am currently working on a mini-project that I call "The Expansion Catalog", which is a 'catalog-like' document showing what the RTW2 Expansion will contain/include.
This will be the most complete document we have published so far concerning Expansion details, so it should answer most questions about the Expansion as well as give a much better indication of exactly what it will be like. I have no exact ETA for it, but of course when it is ready for release it will be posted here!”


Bolding theirs.

Silence isn’t honesty.

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

While under development plans change, especially for a game that's being constructed from new, coupled with bugs, development stages and things that don’t even work and have to be re-worked/re-built/re-coded etc.

You should know this, especially from your own RL i.e. We all know plans change.

It’s wrong to conclude delays as broken promises. Here on UAD forum development is on display for all to see, I hope you can appreciate Dev’s honesty by doing that.  

Communication is the core of all this, We could appreciate the work of the Devs if they were at least let us know what is happening.

Delays and change to a road map are more then normal, but tell us! If this game take longer then plan, if they encounter problems, if they are progress, keep us in the loop. Yes the game change since 2019, but the lack of communication is a constant.  We only need a post once a week or two to understand what is happening and appreciate the work the Devs put on this project.

So to the Dev: Help me see your progress and appreciate your work.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AdmER said:

 

Communication is the core of all this, We could appreciate the work of the Devs if they were at least let us know what is happening.

Delays and change to a road map are more then normal, but tell us! If this game take longer then plan, if they encounter problems, if they are progress, keep us in the loop. Yes the game change since 2019, but the lack of communication is a constant.  We only need a post once a week or two to understand what is happening and appreciate the work the Devs put on this project.

So to the Dev: Help me see your progress and appreciate your work.

If it makes you feel better I managed to get one of the devs to respond on the Steam forum. instead of criticizing them, I thanked them for their hard work on the game and requested that they communicate more often with their customers. Hopefully they will be more open going forward.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/0/3153076876616284787/

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, davidt_man said:

If it makes you feel better I managed to get one of the devs to respond on the Steam forum. instead of criticizing them, I thanked them for their hard work on the game and requested that they communicate more often with their customers. Hopefully they will be more open going forward.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/0/3153076876616284787/

"It is understandable that all the players are very interested to know more about our progress, but we need to give you detailed information as we usually do, prior to large game updates" - that response plainly states they will continue to not communicate. I don't see how you can be hopeful from that.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that they say "We will bring you the first version of the playable campaign, this year of course, as we have promised" conveniently skimming over the many other broken promises, like the other 3 core patches. And yes it's basically just an admission they will not communicate with us. How embarassing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've posted it once, I'll bloody post it again.
fTBbptB.jpg

Just because the silent treatment worked for No Man's Sky doesn't mean it'll work here. I'm hoping it'll work, But Holy **** Just Say Something. Even if it's just a quick quip once a week about what you guys are working on for the next patch, literally any information at all, I Mean Anything, is better than us sitting here without knowing what's going on. For all we know, you could have abandoned the game entirely, you probably didn't, but we don't know that for certain, because you haven't bloody told us what it is you're doing. The thread for this patch is Over 30 Pages Long. I haven't been here since the beginning, but I'm pretty sure this is a record for longest thread for a single patch, or very close to that record.
Again, Please Just Say SOMETHING.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m on mobile so I can’t use block quotes. Everything below comes from the linked post, bolding is mine. I picked it out for several reasons that will become clear:

- Communication, even/especially of bad news

- Explanation and accountability for delays

- Explanation of work flow, progress and setbacks

- Apology to community

- Effort to restore relationship with community in words and action

Here’s Another Example, this time of a team facing significant delays

It’s high time for a general update on the status of several (ongoing) Steel Division 2 DLCs and expansions. Unfortunately, in recent months, we have run into various unexpected roadblocks along the way, which set the team back. 

Today’s post is a mea culpa from our side. We promise we make it up to you… keep reading to find out. 

We announced both a new expansion - Tribute to the Liberation of Italy - and a new DLC - Nemesis: Raid on Drvar - several months ago. We expected we would have been able to deliver both to you by now. However, in reality, we encountered some detours on our path, which pushed back our projects. 
 

For instance, we tried to do too many things at the same time for Steel Division 2, which included launching Nemesis: Storming Toulon, our Army General Coop Mode, developing Nemesis: Raid on Drvar AND the Tribute to the Liberation of Italy expansion. 
 

As you can read, we have been hard at work. But, in order to iron out any wrinkles our unforeseen delays might have created, we want to offer you - the community - something. 
 

Two new free Reinforcement Packs for Steel Division 2 will be made available soon, one of them being the Kostritza map. The other new Reinforcement Pack will contain two new divisions, hand-picked from the Nemesis DLC options that never made it. These will feature new units (but no new models). We will reveal soon which divisions they will be. 

Both of these Reinforcement Packs will be delivered before the release of Tribute to the Liberation of Italy.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:

If the community had any influence over how the developpers think or act, we wouldn't be talking about it in the first place. So sadly its not like Frostpunk

Yeah, but it just made me think of it considering how poor communication is. If we did have any influence, though, heads would roll XD

Plus, it's a good laugh, I think.

Edited by Commander Reed
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any logic in what happened this year, or the previous one. If there was legal or personal issue, a simple "We are currently in the middle of issues unrelated to the game's development, we wish to apologize and ask for your patience as they are dealt with" would have sufficed

But again and again we are assured everything is on track, or nothing is said at all

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2021 at 8:11 AM, Skeksis said:

Look at it this way, your whole fleet is in formation, a contact is made, but you have to manoeuvre each individual ship into their visible contact distance. Doesn’t seem like real actions to me, but if contact made, then the fleet begins turning its big guns, that's more real. 

The fact "a contact is made" does sod all to help any ONE ship fire at it unless that ship has true radar directed gunnery.

If it doesn't, or has radar assisted but not of a level it can't train AND range the guns using radar alone, then the fact another ship can see it or DOES have radar is largely irrelevant.

One reason the USN fared so poorly in the night combat around Guadalcanal was the Admirals seemed to know jack about radar tech. Sounds incredible, but there it is. Point is, the fact some ships could see and engage the enemy not only didn't mean every ship could, but in fact in some instances the fleet/formation commander was sufficiently concerned about friendly fire they prevented ships firing that could see very clearly they were enemy.

The one really obvious stand out was Adm Lee who had made himself arguably the most knowledgeable and skilled 'radar gunnery' expert in the world at the time. In that respect he was the worst possible opponent for the IJN to encounter at night (where believe it or not he 'hid' in USS North Carolina lol) as he had trained his personnel to a very high degree in radar directed gunnery. The results were pretty clear.

It was even worse for the IJN as they were virtually entirely optical direction only. Which makes them being able to fire at anything ANY ship can see really absurd, although that's true of 99% of big gun navies through 99% of the history of direct fire naval gunnery.

That your ships "start turning their guns" might seem more real is nice enough if it floats your boat I suppose, but anything beyond "point them over there somewhere" is 99.95 proof bullshite.

Personally I don't have much time for "oh it seems cool even if it's utter fiction" for a game that continues to bang on about "realism", and I'm even less interested in excuses for it, but perhaps that makes me peculiar.

Cheers

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

The fact "a contact is made" does sod all to help any ONE ship fire at it unless that ship has true radar directed gunnery.

If it doesn't, or has radar assisted but not of a level it can't train AND range the guns using radar alone, then the fact another ship can see it or DOES have radar is largely irrelevant.

One reason the USN fared so poorly in the night combat around Guadalcanal was the Admirals seemed to know jack about radar tech. Sounds incredible, but there it is. Point is, the fact some ships could see and engage the enemy not only didn't mean every ship could, but in fact in some instances the fleet/formation commander was sufficiently concerned about friendly fire they prevented ships firing that could see very clearly they were enemy.

The one really obvious stand out was Adm Lee who had made himself arguably the most knowledgeable and skilled 'radar gunnery' expert in the world at the time. In that respect he was the worst possible opponent for the IJN to encounter at night (where believe it or not he 'hid' in USS North Carolina lol) as he had trained his personnel to a very high degree in radar directed gunnery. The results were pretty clear.

It was even worse for the IJN as they were virtually entirely optical direction only. Which makes them being able to fire at anything ANY ship can see really absurd, although that's true of 99% of big gun navies through 99% of the history of direct fire naval gunnery.

That your ships "start turning their guns" might seem more real is nice enough if it floats your boat I suppose, but anything beyond "point them over there somewhere" is 99.95 proof bullshite.

Personally I don't have much time for "oh it seems cool even if it's utter fiction" for a game that continues to bang on about "realism", and I'm even less interested in excuses for it, but perhaps that makes me peculiar.

Cheers

So what's actually your suggestion for the game? you didn't seem to include one!

Repeating the point: on how the game looks at it, the target is "lit up" for all to see.

Remember that your suggestion needs to be plausible to within the state of a computer, programmable and most importantly, virtual (I guess anything that's virtual is the stuff to what active players can mostly response to). 

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Nick Thomadis locked, unlocked, locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...