Q&A Answers: A few things to say. . .

[Railman1225]

Hello there! New member (at least of the forum) here! I recently came from Stealth17's video about the recent Q&A that was released, and found a lot that excited me, as well as explained some things I was wondering about when it came to gameplay and mechanics for Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. However, there were two things that bugged me a good bit, as they did Stealth himself.

I will say beforehand that I love the game, and what I've seen. Countlessly I've found myself wanting to get the game for myself, and now I probably will soon. I'm also impressed with what the team has done so far. You all have done amazing jobs improving the game, both features and bug fixing wise, and I feel that it definitely is a better game(/simulator?) due to your efforts. I also realize that, as a Ukranian development team, you've been dealing with the still-raging Invasion of Ukraine, so the game is most likely a secondary priority, which is completely fine, and I hope you all are staying safe. Thank you so much for the development of UA:D, and it's creation in the first place. It's amazing, and I absolutely love what I've seen of it. 

With that said, I'd now like to direct your attention to two main items I think should be readdressed:

The Surrendering Mechanic:

"I think there is no need to make something more complex than what already works." No offense, but in both my words, and Stealth's: "I disagree, I don't think it already works, (and) I think it can be vastly improved." As neat as it is to have it in the first place, as it works right now, once a ship takes 45% losses the crew surrenders, aaaaaaaaaand that's it. No matter what the condition, the ship is basically considered a total loss. In my eyes, that doesn't make any sense!

1. To the opposite party, this is a sudden prime oppertunity for them to capture the ship and either use it themselves, or salvage it's technology to boost their research(technically, both could be done, but implementing this revamp could have the function of the latter option consuming the ship while boosting research, therefore adding balance). And if they decide not to, that'd be an opprtunity to retrieve the vessel yourself, keeping it from enemy hands. Or, before the battle ends, you could make the executive decision to scuttle the ship so the enemy never has the chance to. 
2. As for the crew, they could be taken captive, which could be a HUGE bargaining chip! Say the party holding the prisoners offers a trade, the captured crew for reparations, like cash or technology(the tech would have to be something they don't have yet). Declining would allow you to keep the tech/cash away from the enemy, but greatly increase unrest and/or decrease popularity as both family members are outraged by this seeming betrayal, and the public becomes concerned thinking the admiral doesn't care about their sailors. On the other hand, accepting would get the crew back, both allowing them to be reinstated on a ship, and decrease unrest while increasing popularity, but with the con that the enemy would either recieve money to help their economy and build/repair/refit ships, or recieve tech that would improve their ships.

Basically, these are examples of how it could, in my opinion, be improved. And sure, it's more complex, but at the same time I think it'd make the campaigns more engaging, especially with the "captured ships boosting research" function I mentioned. If you've focused on research a lot, unlocking many pieces of technology, and the enemy suddenly has access to some of it, it would(as the saying goes) "give them a leg up on the competion", allowing them to close the tech gap significantly.

 

The AI Autodesign: 

"The average AI ship design usually contains all the nescessary historical aspects for offense and defence, and it is designed fast with the press of a button. We will make further changes according to player feedback." That last part is good, as it shows you're willing to accept criticism(albiet polite criticism, as any that's negative/hateful should NOT be tolerated). Also, I admit that the autodesign has greatly improved recently with it's quality. However, when it comes to that first section, both Stealth and I once again disagree.

Although the AI does provide a decent handful of good designs, in the words of Stealth, "(describing an example ship)Yes, it's fairly well protected, but I've seen the AI come up with so many weirdass designs." He's right, I've seen them myself. Battleships that, yes, carry big guns, but will still sacrifice protection(armor thickness or quality) to do it, cruisers with so many funnels(most likely due to poor engine efficiency) that they leave little room for weapons, or just ships in general that have the superstructure shifted SO far offset that, even with turrets and whatnot placed on the other end to try and balance it, end up with a MASSIVE longitudinal imbalance, sometimes greater than 60%!

Basically, when ship designs are in question, yes, the AI has come far, but it still has room for improvement(although I realize that it most likely never will be perfect, and will admit that some of the strange designs are also hilarious).

Well, that's all I have to say. I had said all this before(albiet in a more condensed form) in a comment on Stealth's recent UA:D Q&A video, but in my own words, ". . .I realize this isn't the forum, and I'd probably be better off saying it there. . .", so here I am. Once again, I believe you all have done a fantastic job, and I am excited for the games future, especially with what you mentioned in the Q&A, but these two items bothered me, and I felt I had to bring attention to them(mainly the first one I mentioned). I hope you make great progress and enjoy lots of success with the game, whether or not you take my advice into account. 

Sincerely,

Robert/Railman1225

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by Railman1225

[Vinrellren]

Agree, but I would prefer to fix the basics first before adding features like captives and tech salvage. I am afraid that adding soo many new features to this shaky basic will lead to a lot of problems in the future that are not easy to fix later down the line, and yes there are a lot of comments and bug reports to the devs about the current built it's starting to get to the point that it is ridiculous

[Railman1225]

On 9/4/2022 at 2:45 AM, Vinrellren said:

Agree, but I would prefer to fix the basics first before adding features like captives and tech salvage. I am afraid that adding soo many new features to this shaky basic will lead to a lot of problems in the future that are not easy to fix later down the line, and yes there are a lot of comments and bug reports to the devs about the current built it's starting to get to the point that it is ridiculous

Very fair point. Making sure the game is playable should always take precedence over items such as new features.

[Commander Corgi]

Q: "Will you add a color-blind mode?"  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4fO5tDRag&t=2007s)

A:  "I'm really not sure what can be done about it.  We need to check what is possible.  We will add it eventually."

There is a lot that can be done about it.  Designing games with disabilities in mind does take work, but the good news is that color-blindness is among the easiest to deal with.   I would like to offer some material for Game-Labs (and everyone) that will help understand the issue and what game designers can do about it.

1. Making Games Better for Gamers with Colourblindness & Low Vision | Designing for Disability

2. https://jfly.uni-koeln.de/color/

3. Colorblind Gaming 101

4. Designing for Color Blindness in Games - A talk by Creative Assembly's Douglas Pennant