What's coming next (v1.06) *UPDATE 28/5/2022*

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Dreaming_Nagato said:

I don't like idea of multiplayer in this game at all. I mean multiplayer campaign seems interesting idea but it will be hell on forum when complains start hitting. Especially if both players mass ships and have massive battles, person with weaker pc will suffer from lag.  Nope its better to remain single player game. Who says that every game in existance these days must be multiplayer. I remember good old days when single player games were more in then multiplayer stuff.

And there are other considerations. What would be the battle speed? x1 all the time if both players are in battle? Or maybe the campaign could be played in turns, with the AI controlling one player ships in battle? But then the players would complain they lost that battle because of the AI. Difficult to see how this could work.

[Nagato]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

And there are other considerations. What would be the battle speed? x1 all the time if both players are in battle? Or maybe the campaign could be played in turns, with the AI controlling one player ships in battle? But then the players would complain they lost that battle because of the AI. Difficult to see how this could work.

If they put x1 speed, it would be to slow. Even at x3 is slow. I was always on x5 speed when meeting enemy except when ships get to close it automatically put speed on x3. But if in middle of multiplayer campaign, one side lose connection or exit, naturally AI would take over. There is so many things that need to be added to this game that are far more important then multiplayer. After all those who like warships and want to play in multiplayer, there is always World of Warships or Warthunder.

[Grizli60rus]

About the multiplayer. I have a small YouTube channel for this game and we are holding a "Battle of Projects" there. I give a task (for example, to build a battleship using the technologies of 1925, without restrictions), the participants make a ship in custom battles, send the necessary files to me, and I play each ship in turn against the enemy bot. It turns out interesting. I would like at least a multiplayer arena where players can also choose a year, budget, number of ships, build them and fight each other. There will probably be problems with the balance in such an "arena", but here the players themselves will be able to come up with entertainment for themselves.

The speed can be adjusted to the lowest: one player will put X5, the other X3, so it will be X3. The Total War series is a good example.

I also already wrote, I apologize for bothering you, but I ask you to think about and make the arrangement of ships in divisions and their position in battle before the start of the battle. Is it possible?

Edited May 18, 2022 by Grizli60rus

[Traslo]

12 hours ago, Vanhal said:

I would prefer not having a multiplayer. Those games tend to go to hell really quickly when multi players form circlejerks and are swarming the forum and the multi balance suddenly start to be major problem and everything else suffers.

Looking at Paradox games ಠ_ಠ

MP campaign would probably be awkward as you have to all agree to auto-resolve or manually fight every last battle, but MP skirmish sounds good imo. It doesn't need to be an early-access thing but could always be something post-launch. I think being able to pit each other's designs against one another especially with a player commanding the fleet on both sides would be fun.

[Skeksis]

12 hours ago, Dreaming_Nagato said:

person with weaker pc will suffer from lag

Owners rig is their responsibility. Ditto for their world location.

10 hours ago, o Barão said:

What would be the battle speed? x1 all the time if both players are in battle?

All that needs to show is the higher speed intention of the other player, such as a yellow highlight around the intended speed, player then just clicks if they agree. Whenever player selects lower speed it is set directly. Many different development options here.

10 hours ago, o Barão said:

with the AI controlling one player ships in battle? But then the players would complain they lost that battle because of the AI.

If you go into PvP, switch on autopilot and lose, that’s your fault.

8 hours ago, Dreaming_Nagato said:

There is so many things that need to be added to this game that are far more important then multiplayer.

But after full release, anything is possible. Would only depend on GameLabs case studies.

6 hours ago, Grizli60rus said:

There will probably be problems with the balance in such an "arena",

Absolutely ZERO balancing issues. As you say, the arena will be govern by selected tech year and an agreed funds. Selected tech year is the same for everybody, impossible for someone to have an advantage. It’ll be down to best designs summited and tactical prowess. 

In the end, if you don’t like multiplayer/arena battles, don’t play, very simple. But for everyone else who wants to complete against humans, it'll be a nice little feature to have.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Skeksis

[o Barão]

1 minute ago, Skeksis said:

 

If you go into PvP, switch on autopilot and lose, that’s your fault.

I probably should had explained in details to avoid any issues.

One thing is to go to a pvp match. Both players are online fighting each other. Normal conditions, all fine. What I was saying it wasn't about a pvp match but instead how it could work in the campaign. We have a campaign that can take days or weeks to play trough. We also have a turn base mechanic in game. 1 turn= 1 month.

So because we have this long duration campaign and also a turn base system, the most reasonable approach for a multiplayer campaign experience would be each player plays one turn. When all players have played their turn, the game would advance one turn (1 month) or the AI would take control of the player nation in that turn if the player failed to play that specific turn in the time limit. (24 hours as an example)

So let's say as an example there is 2 human players in the campaign, and there is the situation one player get an encounter against other player nation. The other player is probably not online at that moment. So it would be the AI controlling his ships in battle. This is the issue about campaign multiplayer experience imo.

[vyprestrike]

24 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Absolutely ZERO balancing issues. As you say, the arena will be govern by selected tech year and an agreed funds. Selected tech year is the same for everybody, impossible for someone to have an advantage. It’ll be down to best designs summited and tactical prowess. 

Save editing and cheatengine. Both allow you to create horrendously broken designs. Either the designs would have to be stored and verified server side or literally every single battle would be unkillable 1 million ton monsters.

[Skeksis]

2 minutes ago, o Barão said:

I probably should had explained

I’m only advocating for 'battle arena' format.

[kineuhansen]

i hope there is some news on 1.06 beta and would love to see some nerf to the ai love of building torpedo armed ships other then duds and still hopeping on british cl and ca cruiser hulls and battlecruisers special with new super structures and not reused also would love to see a better way to see what side torpedo is releoaded same with secondary guns and wing turrets and and would love to see how many shells a turrets have compared to b turrets should be on the weapon info picture

[LoSboccacc]

ok ok but what this multiplayer speculation has to do with 1.0.6

Edited May 18, 2022 by LoSboccacc

[Nagato]

56 minutes ago, kineuhansen said:

i hope there is some news on 1.06 beta and would love to see some nerf to the ai love of building torpedo armed ships other then duds and still hopeping on british cl and ca cruiser hulls and battlecruisers special with new super structures and not reused also would love to see a better way to see what side torpedo is releoaded same with secondary guns and wing turrets and and would love to see how many shells a turrets have compared to b turrets should be on the weapon info picture

Indeed, 1920-1930 and especially 1940 campaigns, AI send shit-ton of torps every time. Oh how i love when my tight formation get swarmed by torps, half ships sunk, most of survivors heavily damaged, only few straglers survived unscratched:)

.....

I hope that once this game is fully released with all nations and all stuff, Game-Labs created modern version of the game, with late 20th early 21th century ships, oh that would be blast.

[Grizli60rus]

12 hours ago, vyprestrike said:

Save editing and cheatengine. Both allow you to create horrendously broken designs. Either the designs would have to be stored and verified server side or literally every single battle would be unkillable 1 million ton monsters.

It would be on the conscience of the players. I don't think there will be many dishonest players in this game. Too specific game.

12 hours ago, LoSboccacc said:

ok ok but what this multiplayer speculation has to do with 1.0.6

Nothing, sorry, just dreaming...

[Darth Khyron]

Multiplayer is a not-go in my opinion. Especially if things like formations are still a problem. Can you imagine the frustration of one player, whose ship X is loitering around 20kms from the battle and ship Z is pushed into a torpedo salvo by a friendly destroyer? Player two is having a field day because of this, until his devastating torpedo salvo sinks his own precious battleship because of friendly fire?
While multiplayer may have it's charm and a longer campaign is really desireable, I still think the basics have to be viable before the game moves on, as much as I want it to do. An AI whose sole objective (and sole tactic) is to charge with as many torpedo-armed ships as possible, loose a wall of gazillion torpedoes and damage as many of your ships as possible, turn tail and flee once a certain number of losses is inflicted and formations where ships in the rear zigzag because they are faster then the lead ships are still problems that have to be solved in my opinion.

[baltic1284]

I have to agree with the no Multiplayer department mainly due to every Multiplayer game that uses the internet overtime no matter what a company does has to have 2 things and both lead to the issue I have.

A you will have to have moderation of some kind in a Multiplayer game of some sort and this leads to favoritism of players IE Warthunder Moderation problem where if ya have or are friends with mods and agree with everything they say and think that Warthunder is the best thing that has ever been on this planet you can break any rule and nothing happens to you, or you can be Russian and the same thing happens and or of their nationhood and the same things again unfortunately. In sort if you are not Russian you are screwed if ya not from their country you are screwed and if you don't think they are gods well you are screwed. This happens a lot in any if not all multiplayer games in some degree they become mods and are then held to no account for their actions at all or laws of other countries they violate in anyway.

B Toxicity of the community i could list many games but the moment you go Multiplayer of any kind unfortunately the worse of that community comes out IE again Warthunder, ESO, WoWS, Warcraft just to name a few that has this issue to one degree or another. And no, it isn't always on the Forums where it happens mainly happens in game all the time and no matter what a company does, they can either ignore the problem when it is easily handled then becomes a major issue, they can't get rid of or they get it under control when it is a small issue but have to near gut the community to do it, or the third option ignore it entirely and hope it just magically goes away.

Generally, those two reasons are why i say no to multiplayer of any kind for this game i can already see those two issues being major and huge problems if it is done unless the company will guarantee those things will never happen and player to include all MODS that would be used are held accountable to all choices made, I can't see it working very well and driving potential customers and players away from the game.

[TomTango]

Could I make a simple request, that the discussion about multiplayer is taken to another topic?

I don't think I am the only one who is checking back here for news on the latest update.

[Nagato]

This was never inteded to be multiplayer game. I think there is more then enough fun in its single player mode. Adding multiplayer would be waste of time and resources. There would be a lot of toxicity as usually is in multiplayer and nobody wants additional frustration. What Khyron said is true, its enough to maintain your formations and watch on AI but to have real player who can tackle you even further and ironically if you made wrong move your own ships get hit by your own torpedoes (which does happen a lot in campaigns)

 

Rather perfect this game in what already is then add a multiplayer. I would want to see rather smaller things added like possibility of chaning names and adding registries adding more stuff like new ship types, new parts... and improving the mechanics then multiplayer. If you want multiplayer, you have World of Warships and Warthunder.

 

Also one thing that i would like to see is also AI to have more ships. In 1920-1930-1940 enemy have less ships. Especially if campaign will now be much much longer, enemy needed to have larger ships, for example in one 1920 campaign, i played with Germany, Uk had total of around 63-65 ships, only 5 battleships and 2 battlecruisers, in few battles in destroyed half of that fleet, when after around 11 months enemy had only 18 ships left and campaign ended. Since AI trows destroyers and light cruisers on you due large number of torps they carry, those ships often get butchered. I think that decent number for UK start lineaup should be at least 12 bbs, 6-8 bcs, 30 heavy cruisers, 40-60 light cruisers and 100 destroyers now that would make things more challenging and also allowing enemy (AI) to faster built new ships not a few on each few turns. In most of my games i do have heavy losses in destroyers and light cruisers (and even heavy cruisers) but my big ships (battleships and battlecruisers) survived. Options to make enemy much stronger and challenging needed to be included since right now its to easy,

 

Also one thing i would like to see is allowing x5 speed to remain even if enemy get closer then 2km, it is EXTREMELLY slow and annoying when you have big massive fights in x3 (in 1900-1890) campaigns) its never end.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Dreaming_Nagato

[o Barão]

1 hour ago, Dreaming_Nagato said:

Adding multiplayer would be waste of time and resources.

100% correct.

[Plazma]

Multiplayer is will be big WOW, but...

on that moment, no matter how I like this idea, this will simply not work. Exporting the ships it will be nice feature, but dev have much more things to do. 

 

Btw. I wonder why the beta is updated that rarely, but the amount of new stuff is huge. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Plazma

[Skeksis]

One word “Taskmasters”, it’s a YouTube completion that been going strong for a couple of years now, and partisans don't look like they're going to stop anytime soon. 

If Dev’s gave it some backing, a dedicated server (to which GameLabs are experts at), then it could attract a reasonable amount of players and be serviceable. Also steam workshop requests is another source of support.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Skeksis

[Littorio]

On 5/16/2022 at 12:59 AM, Hyperion said:

exactly everyone wants some epic campaign, but don't want to iron out the kinks?

perhaps you misunderstood, but this was is literally what I was saying in my points, and your response was just "no it's fine." It's not fine to expand at the expense of fixing/adding mechanics that address current issues, so it seems we are in agreement?

On 5/17/2022 at 4:52 PM, Traslo said:

Do they? I've had ships move to Malta first and then I deploy them and they still end up back in the UK

All I have ever seen is port-shuffling every game. If anyone has ships that return to where they departed from each time on a regular basis, I would be very interested to learn who and where.

[LoSboccacc]

on the topic of torpedo changes, are torpedo going to run out of proplusion at some point? currently their engine endurance seem to far exceed their targeting range

[Mike L]

1 hour ago, Littorio said:

perhaps you misunderstood, but this was is literally what I was saying in my points, and your response was just "no it's fine." It's not fine to expand at the expense of fixing/adding mechanics that address current issues, so it seems we are in agreement?

All I have ever seen is port-shuffling every game. If anyone has ships that return to where they departed from each time on a regular basis, I would be very interested to learn who and where.

Wwen I play GB, I move several task forces for Portsmouth and Plymouth to the the med.  I stop them in Gibralter first then moe them to bases in Malta and Cyprus.  Quite oftern then get intercepted by Austria before they make it to Malta.  I find them back in Gibralter whether they need repairs or not.  Never back in southern England.  I also get the same thing when playing the French where I move them to Corsica and North Africa.  Thats where they go back to when damaged.  I don't move stuff from the Atlantic ports to the Med ports 

[Traslo]

2 hours ago, LoSboccacc said:

on the topic of torpedo changes, are torpedo going to run out of proplusion at some point? currently their engine endurance seem to far exceed their targeting range

range atm is more like their targeting range. They aren't infinite but they can go quite a bit further than their given range stat. 

[jtjohn1]

4 hours ago, Littorio said:

 

All I have ever seen is port-shuffling every game. If anyone has ships that return to where they departed from each time on a regular basis, I would be very interested to learn who and where.

I have noticed that if you assign a ship to a port at the start of the game it goes back to the port every time.  Though just the first set of ships you assign to a port (Not all of them) so choose carefully what you want to return and they will return.  The rest (Built at the same time, built later) just seem to go wherever they want to go...

[Dave P.]

Any chance we could get ships that surrender added to our fleet? Or is that just a workaround for the "this ship I sunk last turn is in this combat now with zero crew" bug?