Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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


Nick Thomadis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's a suggestion:
implement "targeting accuracy" range-curve based solely on spotting and tracking stats on a given ship.
It replicates current targeting accuracy up to some effective targeting range, then goes completely wild.
This is supplemented by a new "Blind fire" option in-battle, that goes after "Aggressive". Now, on Aggressive ships will fire at distances up to their effective targeting range. On Blind fire, they try to fire at anything within gunnery range, if they can recieve that information from whoever is actually spotting it. (aka have radios and radios aren't disabled, or within visual range for signal flags or signal lights)

As technology progresses, in the endgame effective range may become higher that gunnery range, making this irrelevant.


***
of course all of this makes sense if we ever going to get the game.. heh heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

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). 

We can also "see" enemy ships that we haven't identified either. And if seeing a ship grants every friendly ship the ability to fire on it, then why do we have ranging shots, target lock, and all other in game mechanics that make up accuracy? All those mechanics assume the key factor of being able to "see" your own shots fall and adjust the firing solution. 

57 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Here's a suggestion:
implement "targeting accuracy" range-curve based solely on spotting and tracking stats on a given ship.
It replicates current targeting accuracy up to some effective targeting range, then goes completely wild.
This is supplemented by a new "Blind fire" option in-battle, that goes after "Aggressive". Now, on Aggressive ships will fire at distances up to their effective targeting range. On Blind fire, they try to fire at anything within gunnery range, if they can recieve that information from whoever is actually spotting it. (aka have radios and radios aren't disabled, or within visual range for signal flags or signal lights)

As technology progresses, in the endgame effective range may become higher that gunnery range, making this irrelevant.
 

Your idea isn't far off mine, which basically to assign a heft penalty that could reduce with techs to all blind fire situations. The game is already calculating what ships can see each other, just would have to use that to calculate if a blind fire scenario. Though this is still a departure from reality, I think it is a good balance between game and realism. What we have right now is completely at odds with how gunnery works in 1v1 engagements. 

 

IRL, it was impossible for a single ship to act like Forward Observer for multiple ships firing. You have to know exactly who fires when, shell travel time, their exact positioning from the spotting ship, and the spotting ship's positioning from the enemy. Calculate all that and pass it along the radio to the firing ship. All at a time when admirals had trouble keeping their own ships in formation with signals and radio, much less passing complex shot fall observations to multiple ships. Everyone remember the main reason for the all big gun dreadnaught? That was just one ship trying to track all its own guns. How about tracking 10 ships? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, madham82 said:

IRL, it was impossible for a single ship to act like Forward Observer for multiple ships firing. You have to know exactly who fires when, shell travel time, their exact positioning from the spotting ship, and the spotting ship's positioning from the enemy. Calculate all that and pass it along the radio to the firing ship. All at a time when admirals had trouble keeping their own ships in formation with signals and radio, much less passing complex shot fall observations to multiple ships. Everyone remember the main reason for the all big gun dreadnaught? That was just one ship trying to track all its own guns. How about tracking 10 ships? 

Well, technically HMS Belfast managed to do this for HMS Norfolk during the battle of the north cape, albeit this was one ship to another with highly experienced crews, and almost certainly wouldn't have worked if either there had been more ships or they hadn't had 4 previous years of world war to get their act together, and finally there really isn't a record of whether Norfolk ever actually hit Scharnhorst since most historians tend to focus on the damage that Duke of York achieved.

But yeah at any rate, they weren't relaying the entire plot data, just the "and now she's over here" positions with regular updates, and letting Norfolk do what she would with that info, so at any rate it's more like shooting at gun flashes than actively tracking a ship, so it should incur a penalty regardless.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, while were on the topic, I really have to insist that "fire control damaged" needs to have a much higher penalty than 25%.
Bismarck lost her fire control at the very start of her final battle and she didn't land a single hit for the rest of the engagement in spite of it being basically point blank for battleships.
It really is quite hard to understate just how bad this is for accuracy, you're quite literally back to spanish-american war conditions with anything much above a single kilometer being a case of "are you sure you want to be wasting ammo like that mate?"

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, thewolfpack said:

I for one do not mind waiting, in fact I rather wait and let them take thier time instead of rushing an unfinished and buggy mess.

While there are certainly some who would (understandably) be upset about repeated delays, I think the vast majority of us wouldn't really complain too much on the condition that the devs were more open and communicative with us.

All of us, myself included, want badly for this game to succeed. Because not only would that mean the game is good, but that it will be financially successful, and thus prove to other devs -- now and in the future -- that a game like this is not only possible, but can be lucrative, too (if done right). 

All we can really do now is just wait. Complaining, at this point, clearly won't do anything. Just hope and pray that the campaign patch is relatively problem-free and everything that we've been promised so far.

Edited by Speglord
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, thewolfpack said:

Is that turret armor bug still around?

nope it's fixed. sometimes the values still show up wrong in the armour viewer for some reason but ya ship no longer goes boom and that's the important part ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Speglord said, none of us mind waiting if we actually got any information about why we wait. Anytime a delay is announced its at the last possible minute, like a grad student asking for another half day the minute before a paper is due. Its embarassing and does nothing but make people more and more skeptical.

Communicating delays and progress properly would basically remove 95% of the criticism, including mine, but the devs won't listen anyway

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 This game is supposed to be an alpha, treat it like one ffs.  Start pushing the dev builds to live with the understanding that there will be bugs - it's an alpha, that's what we paid for.

 Leaving huge delays between updates does nothing but build hype and set expectations higher, which makes it all the bigger a disappointment when the patch drops and it's just some minor balance changes and bug fixes.  That kind of change is significantly better left to tiny random patches that come out frequently.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2021 at 2:18 PM, Steeltrap said:

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.

Side note: it would be really great if we could have a 'point your turrets to port/starboard' function in anticipation of a turn, because it's really stupid waiting a completely pointless minute after turning before you can fire again.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KSP 2 was delayed, and to keep the community in the loop they have a board called Show and Tell where they quickly post whatever they’re working on that week. A lot of it is very barebones, they have much more detailed Dev Diaries, but this is their way to say “Hey guys, we know you’re waiting, here’s what we’re up to.”

lol pardon the pun, but this isn’t rocket science. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Masonator said:

 This game is supposed to be an alpha, treat it like one ffs.  Start pushing the dev builds to live with the understanding that there will be bugs - it's an alpha, that's what we paid for.

 Leaving huge delays between updates does nothing but build hype and set expectations higher, which makes it all the bigger a disappointment when the patch drops and it's just some minor balance changes and bug fixes.  That kind of change is significantly better left to tiny random patches that come out frequently.

HI think the large majority of us understand delays, bump and set-back. We know it is a alpha-game and our expectation are accordingly. All we ask is a post time to time to let us know were they are, how the game progress not more. We are not pushing for quick release, just for a better communication.

Like tomorrow morning... a good Monday to drop a post just saying "Hi we have some major bug and we will up-date you next week" Nothing more.

Communication is always good marketing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2021 at 3:29 AM, Skeksis said:

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). 

I felt it was so self-evident that stating it would be insulting people's intelligence, but apparently not.

Ships can only fire at what they, directly, are able to spot.

That's exactly what the game does now if you have only ONE ship; obviously it relies on its own sensors.

The only thing that need happen is REMOVE the link between A ship spotting something counting as ALL ships spotting it.

That you or anyone else thinks this needs to be laid out to this extent like breadcrumbs for particularly stupid children to follow is a tad worrisome.

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

 

That you or anyone else thinks this needs to be laid out to this extent like breadcrumbs for particularly stupid children to follow is a tad worrisome

I feel like this is what makes every discussion here so exhausting. 
 

Combat Mission figured this out as soon as it was technically feasible for them -CM  Shock Force got rid of Borg Spotting in 2007 .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

I felt it was so self-evident that stating it would be insulting people's intelligence, but apparently not.

Ships can only fire at what they, directly, are able to spot.

That's exactly what the game does now if you have only ONE ship; obviously it relies on its own sensors.

The only thing that need happen is REMOVE the link between A ship spotting something counting as ALL ships spotting it.

That you or anyone else thinks this needs to be laid out to this extent like breadcrumbs for particularly stupid children to follow is a tad worrisome.

There are probably two scenario's that describe each end of the surface visibility system.

1) Capital ships with there superior surface visibility range, spots surface units first, before escorts. Mostly pre-radar. 

2) Chasing/scouting escorts keeps targets lit for capital ships in the rear to encage. Mostly post-radar.  

Other points...
All units are already govern by their weapons range, i.e. what they can spot/see.
Lit ships is the virtual map for players to see all known targets, a 3D map, beneficial while without a map. Also representing communication between your units.  

How would your historical application effect these? i.e. removing your "link". How would it improve gameplay? What would be different from the current range system? I don't know the gameplay effect you're seeking by changing the current surface visibility system, from the height of the first observer, could you elaborate. 

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AdmER said:

HI think the large majority of us understand delays, bump and set-back. We know it is a alpha-game and our expectation are accordingly. All we ask is a post time to time to let us know were they are, how the game progress not more. We are not pushing for quick release, just for a better communication.

Like tomorrow morning... a good Monday to drop a post just saying "Hi we have some major bug and we will up-date you next week" Nothing more.

Communication is always good marketing.

100% agreed. I am getting decent value for having paid for the game, honestly have probably sunk in a couple hundreds by this point, and certainly I don't expect a daily update or anything for a game not yet released. And I would prefer a better developed game rather than one released with a need for 18 patches just to get it to function when it comes right down to it. And without any knowledge of the specifics of any delays/issues, I'll say this last couple of years is probably one of the worst in history for predictability of.. well, anything... so I give a bit more grace due to that as well. But a regular update even with something as minimal as "working on firing control this week" or something would go a long way towards establishing a positive relationship with customers, something that is beneficial to any game and game dev. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

How would your historical application effect these? i.e. removing your "link". How would it improve gameplay? What would be different from the current range system? I don't know the gameplay effect you're seeking by changing the current surface visibility system, from the height of the first observer, could you elaborate. 

so battleship A & B are on patrol.

They encounter an enemy force, consisting of battlecruisers A & B.

Under the current system, you get the notification "battleship A spotted battlecruiser A" and everyone opens fire for free with no debuffs.

Under a realistic system, you'd get "battleship A spotted battlecruiser A" at which point battleship A and only battleship A can both see and fire at battlecruiser A without penalty, shortly followed by "battleship A spotted battlecruiser B", shortly followed by "battleship B spotted battlecruiser A", allowing it to open fire without a severe penalty, and finally "battleship B spotted battlecruiser B".

Until this has occurred, anyone firing at anyone they haven't spotted gets 70% or thereabouts accuracy debuff.

Keeping targets "lit" as you say IRL isn't strictly speaking impossible, but it is practically impossible to hit anyone like this more than once pr. your entire ammo load fired, so the best way to simulate that is to incur such a heavy accuracy debuff that even the AI knows to save it's ammo until it gets closer and would actually have a chance to hit something.

It would improve gameplay by forcing the players to use more varied tactics than "sail your BBs away at an angle with some destroyers behind and wait for them to snipe everything into oblivion so you can close and finish off what remains afloat."

I feel like I explained this pretty recently, but apparently not in enough detail...

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

You couldn’t fire a 76mm OTO Melara on a data link from another ship on most ships at sea today.

I don’t like how the burden of proof is always on the tens of people - and their sources - trying to persuade @Skeksis. Why should this be considered a “feature” and remain, and not a bug and be corrected?

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

1 hour ago, Draco said:

I feel like I explained this pretty recently, but apparently not in enough detail...

This is what @jimh and @Steeltrap have said too. I am tired of being gish galloped and putting work and sources together to compose thoughtful - sometimes article length -posts only to be ignored by @Skeksis, who promptly starts up the same argument, from square one. It’s straining my credulity, and it does feel like many of these arguments are disingenuous. 
 

What would it take for anyone here to convince you of anything? If the answer is “I won’t be persuaded by anything” - fine, I can put you on ignore.
 

It’s been years at this point, and I know from DMs people have been driven off the boards from the frustration of arguing with you over and over again as you ignore every argument, source, well-written post. 
 

So I ask you again, point blank - What will it take to convince you of anything?

 

I’m certainly done with the burden of proof arrangement. From now on, I want you to back up what you’re saying, if you expect people to take it seriously.

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

Hello admirals,

Despite the difficulties of 2021, which have affected everyone’s life as well as the game’s development, we continued to provide several updates and significantly improved the game. We deeply hope that Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has already become a game that you enjoy and thank you for your ongoing and precious feedback that we so much appreciate.

We want to assure you that we acknowledge all your concerns and suggestions and today we would like to inform you about what are our definite plans for the next patches that are going to be delivered within 2022.

We will continue to monitor your feedback and hotfix anything necessary that you report. The next major updates are organized as follows:

  • Core patch 1 - Core of campaign
  • Core patch 3 - R&D and Tech Progression 
  • Core patch 4 - New nations and map expansion

The first short campaign version of the game will be playable for two nations (British Empire, German Empire) and will expand with content in every next core patch.

Patches 1-3 will be made based on a campaign map covering the North Sea and will feature the conflict between Great Britain and Germany. New ships, new game features will be offered as the game shapes up around this first playable campaign. 

The Steam Early Access version of the game will become available upon the finalization and polish of Core Patch 3.

In Core Patch 4 and onwards we shall progressively add new playable nations and expand the map until we fully cover the campaign with everything needed.

We cannot promise a specific date of arrival for those next major updates but we confirm as above their flow of delivery within 2022. Furthermore, we confirm the allocation of another dedicated programmer who will focus solely on needed improvements for the ship design system.

Thank you all for reading. We will get back to you with specific information about the next big update of Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts!

Tousansons

(I'm sorry)

 

  • Thanks 3
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...