Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Flaws


Wowzery

Recommended Posts

Maybe its just me, but flaws are sucking the fun out of the game.  Refits don't appear to be doing anything to help.  Building a ship design that's 5 years old shouldn't have two pages of flaws, its not new technology.

Just seems like the chance for flaws is too high while reducing said flaws is too low.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I think I found a good place to post my update of the anti flaws tricks. 

The 1st simple trick found was to build more ships than you want, around 3 times more. 
But in my current campaign, I discovered this is not enough: I built 6 new BB to have 1 or 2 without flaws and all of them had flaws. So I did some tests and please find below my new trick to reduce the number of ships built with flaws.

1) Design the ship of your dreams, with all the state of the art (SOTA) features you want. 
2) Copy this design and downgrade the most of the refitable features you can to their lowest/oldest option. (don't care about the performances of this design, you never use it as is)
3) Build this design. According to my test, twice more ships than you want could be ok, but if you're unlucky like me, I recommand to stay at 3 times more for now. 
4) At the end of the construction time, clean all the ships with flaws
5) At the end of the commissionning, you can refit all the ships to upgrade them with all the features you removed before, and the new ones you discovered during the construction time. 
6) Enjoy your nice ships without flaws

To reduce the probability these ships go to mission between the end of the build and the start of the refit, I recommand, before the end of construction time, to select all of them in the list plus one ship ready to battle, set this ship to "Defend" to force is state to all the selected ships, and select this alone to set it back to its previous state. 

I did my test on a campaign started with Japan in 1910. I designed a BC around 1922. I built 12 of the SOTA designs and 12 of the downgraded design. At the end of construction time, I had:
- 1 SOTA design ship without flaws. 
- 6 downgraded design ships without flaws. 
Based on this result, I think my method is efficient. 

And now the speculation conclusion. 
If the developpers introduced the flaws mechanic to force the players not to build SOTA ships, and increase the balance between AI designs choices and players designs choices, I think this is not a good way, because now we are in front of a rebound effect: the players still have SOTA designs but without flaws, and the AI still has its designs, but with flaws.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think flaws should be class based not ship based.

That's closer to history, and it would be better for gameplay. Right now you can just build more ships than you need and simply scrap the flawed ones. There's really not a lot of pressure to avoid flaws because you can always roll more dice. That's ahistorical and kinda boring. 

If flaws were class wide, players would be rewarded for being more careful. It'd be a good strategy to build a single prototype ship to discover the flaws of the class before queuing up 12 of them. That would add a level of gameplay were you'd be building ships more for R&D rather than just cranking out fleets for battle.

And just as a general idea, anything in game that has the player making and trying out more ship designs is good because the ship designer is pretty fantastic and is the core of the game.

 

Edited by Sphere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lastreaumont

I don’t even bother with refits, simply scrap every single ship with flaws, build as many as my budget will allow, rinse and repeat.

Starting as USA 1910, it’s usually 3-4 years before any wars and if there are, no nation sends its fleets against me anyway, AI cannot build ocean going ships, well not in this patch. So more than enough time to build a flawless fleet!

But there’s a downside, my flawless fleet is rather superior to the AI corrupted, so battles are just alittle too easy (given than AI designs is not up to par, as a standard – hoping Dev’s will work this area over soon, e.g. not using max bulkheads/technologies etc.).

Of the 12 BC below, 4 were accepted into my fleet, the rest scraped.

GF586wz.png

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another feature that's essentially a copy paste of RTW2 implemented without the slightest thought as to actually making the game better. Just "RTW2 has it, so we have to have it too" even if they don't have the time / understanding to ensure that the feature adds to the game instead of detracting from it.

If unproven technology is what causes flaws then as that technology ages the likelihood of flaws should go down. For example in 1905 when Dreadnought was ordered steam turbines were the absolute cutting edge, and so you would expect flaws to exist before the technology matures and kinks are worked out. By 1940 the technology is so well understood that you wouldn't expect any flaws in a direct drive turbine setup. However the current implementation in UAD is that turbines have zero extra chance of flaws from the moment the technology is invented, but "Geared Turbines II" has an additional risk even beyond the late 1940s when they were already starting to make advances in diesel and gas turbine technology. This makes absolutely zero sense. Even if you try to excuse it by sacrificing realism for gameplay it makes no sense because it doesn't add any strategy to the game at all, it just makes the cool stuff less appealing and less useful.

I want you to consider how much more engaging the feature would be if chance of flaws was proportional to your R&D progress in that respective area. So if a tech is important for your designs you can prioritise it to quickly remove flaws from that specific technology, ie you want to use turbo-electric propulsion so you specialise engine research. This way you can decide which technologies your nation specialises in, you can gain an advantage over other nations but you have to pick and choose wisely to not be left behind in other research areas. It adds an extra layer of strategy as well as a great deal of replayability as the same nation can be played many different ways and you'll get a noticeably different experience each time.

Such a simple change could make the game so much more intricate, it really feels like the feature was added just so the devs can say they added the feature. I don't understand how you could look at the current implementation and say "yeah that'll do". It has no basis in reality or in good game design. It feels like an afterthought, something that was added to check off a checklist rather than add depth to the game

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

I don’t even bother with refits, simply scrap every single ship with flaws, build as many as my budget will allow, rinse and repeat.

This is ok with a ratio around 1 flawless ship for 3 built. But when it goes near 1 flawless ship for 10 built, my budget will show its limits too soon. This is why I looked for a solution to go back to the 1 for 3 ratio. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2022 at 6:48 AM, o Barão said:

because you are not 100% in control on how ships are build?

LOL, do you think that this is an irrational and/or inept reason?

But the fact is, at the highest levels, emotional response from playing the game is important to game makers.

I would say for me, that this is the exact issue. RNG after you have designed, it's a ‘let down’oh no, not more crappy ships, not a challenge to overcome – it fails to incite its targeted response. And simply there’s just zero skills needed to fight with flawed ships, does absolutely nothing to enhance battle gameplay, in fact lessens the experience. Especially when the AI is weakened by such.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest issue is that instead of flaws being inherent to the design they're separate for each ship in the class, so instead of "Yeah okay, this class of ships isn't quite as good as I wanted" which is something a player can work around its a roll of the dice with every single ship.

 

And of course its applied irrationally, with gas turbines having a +10% chance of flaw when realistically they're about as mechanically simple as you can get and you don't even have separate boiler systems to worry about as a result of switching to gas turbines, especially because if the low cruising speed (worse than plain steam turbines) is any indication they're not even reduction geared.  That's not getting into the fact that you somehow have fewer vibrations in your ship when you add heavy and complex gearing systems to your drivetrain instead of just hooking the propeller driveshafts right to the steam turbines...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

The biggest issue is that instead of flaws being inherent to the design they're separate for each ship in the class, so instead of "Yeah okay, this class of ships isn't quite as good as I wanted" which is something a player can work around its a roll of the dice with every single ship.

If the flaws were added per class, I think I'll create some classes with identical design, enough to be sure to have at least one without flaws, build one ship of each to see which one is without flaws, use this one and scrap/delete the others.  

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to have ships without flaws, so I will look for a way to have them, no matter how the flaws are added. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, something has to be done about it. In the current iteration, it's just frustrating RNG. I never build more ships than I need and use all the ships. But I'm already tired of the huge signature at the bottom saying "This ship is terrible". Refits do not affect in any way. I have ships that have already undergone six refits and they are still as bad.

I want this feature to be part of the gameplay, not RNG. For example, the first dreadnought built is likely to be full of defects. And the more innovative the ship is, the more problems there should be. But when the seventieth destroyer of the series is under construction, she should not have any problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, I don't care for the way flaws work currently.  I have not been able to find any way of being able to effect either the severity or the number of flaws in a new ship.  To me this seems to be moving the game in the direction of a simulation rather than a game.  A game is supposed to fun, while a simulation is supposed to simulate something regardless of whether that is fun.  If this is supposed to be a game then I would at least like some ability to control the number and severity of the flaws a new ship receives.

In the current state I simply ignore the flaws since the AI has them just the same as I do, so our ships are effected roughly equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2022 at 12:48 PM, o Barão said:

Ok why? Is because the flaw have a BIG impact to the combat performance, or is because you are not 100% in control on how ships are build?

I don't mind a few flaws, its the amount of flaws that is tiresome. 

Take a look at what people are doing to get around them.  They wouldn't be doing that if the amount of flaws was lower.  And a lot of these work arounds, if you are trying to play like a normal nation would, you wouldn't be building a dozen ships to get a couple of good ones. 

The triggering for flaws needs to be reworked a bit.  I'm for keeping flaws, adds a new, realistic dynamic, its just gone overboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Wowzery said:

Take a look at what people are doing to get around them.

 If you guys are checking all the ships in the fleet to see what is needed to be scrapped (in your opinion) or not, and lose more time and money to build new ones, well then you guys are crazy. I just accept them the way they are, like a normal navy. With time, it is possible to invest in this...

n3nNpOF.jpg

 

Ofc, there is a trade-off by wasting time and money on this. This is the 1890 standard, by the way. In 1940 with many technology and construction methods improvements you will get this or better...

NmcUXmA.jpg

 

Now I run a simple quick test in this 1940 campaign and I build 100 DDs.

rhDYAfq.jpg

Almost all of my DDs don't have any flaw, and those that have, well are for the most part irrelevant.

This example is one of the worst I can find. Do you think I care about any of these flaws? Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2022 at 5:14 AM, o Barão said:

well then you guys are crazy

And if human player uses the method of scrapping every single flawed ship, what do you think the result might be? Maybe AI inferiority?

Because it's happing now, countless times my flawless ships have laid waste to AI flawed fleets. I can’t see any way around this, the flaws system is flawed from its very conception – in how to prop up the AI, to provide the contest. And if Dev’s allow different rules for the AI, e.g. less flaws or funds indifferences, that's cheating, can’t do that

So how does Dev's overcome human craziness? Best solution is dropping the flaws system altogether, i.e. level the playing field.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Because it's happing now, countless times my flawless ships have laid waste to AI flawed fleets.

And before the implementation of the flaw mechanic you, me and I think most veterans players here in the forum would also have no issues in winning the battles. So there are no changes. Well, there is one now for you. The time and money wasted in scrapping and building new ships just because you can't tolerate some flaws as a consequence of the naval industry construction method and quality of the time period.

 

So by not having the fleet at full strength, and losing money and time by scrapping so many ships, you are in fact helping the AI to gain naval superiority? Maybe to blockade your ports? Maybe? Well, I have no idea. I am not crazy enough to scrap ships just because they have some flaws, so I don't know for sure.

 

NOTE ADDED

Going to add this, because IMO explains your attitude towards the flaw mechanic. There is a realism limitation in game that allows you to what you do because of the flaw mechanic. Shipyards. There is no limitation. If you have the money to build 30 BB Bismarck class ships in one go, you can do it. In reality, the navies don't have that luxury. The shipyards are limited, and often there are ships in queue line to be built. If we had a similar thing in game, you will probably accept them the way they are. But we don't have, so you continue to waste time in scrolling the fleet list to choose what is the next brand new ship to be scrapped. 🤪

Edited by o Barão
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

would also have no issues in winning the battles

If you go way back to Academy Missions only, the AI was (is still?) very competitive. That’s unflawed full tech challenging the player. Where success was not achieved on the first attempt. This is the level Dev’s need to build AI campaign designs towards.

Flaws can’t be part of that future, you can’t handicap the AI, in any way. AI needs full tech. Flawed AI is not a threat, this is not a good thing, it’s not good for the future of the game. IMO.

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

attitude

LOL, yes, I’m trying to talk Dev’s around, what of it?

Also, I acknowledge “we” are the minority. But maybe not so much, I would guess 80/20% like flaws/don’t, maybe higher likes. But of likes, majority want reductions, which has occurred in last update. So, while few of us, still some of us, and changes have happened.

If flaws were drop (nerf to nothing), how many would miss it, not so much I would say. 

Edited by Skeksis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Also, I acknowledge “we” are the minority. But maybe not so much, I would guess 80/20% like flaws/don’t, maybe higher likes. But of likes, majority want reductions, which has occurred in last update. So, while few of us, still some of us, and changes have happened.

There were changes yes, and I am not against that, however....

"- Flaws become further reduced when researching Construction technologies. So in late tech years it should be expected to notice much fewer flaws."

The change is to reward the players who invest in construction technologies, and you are only going to notice the changes much later. For the players that like to scrap any ship with a flaw, there is no change.

 

I almost sure I took a print but I can't find. I had a ship in a campaign with a 13% underweight, but at the same with an engine 2.3% overweight. (+/- those values) Strange for me, but ok. Nothing serious. So yes, IMO some improvements and tweaks can be made, but I am not against the mechanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember @Nick Thomadis asked to check if flaws frequency decreased through time and with construction technologies. I don't know if the decrease rate is the one expected, but it works. In my current campaign, the number of ships with flaws is less around 1933 than at the beginning, near 1910, for SOTA ships and for low tech ships. I tested it for both types of ships designs because if I continue to hunt the flaws on my BB, BC, and CA, I don't care on my DD and CL, because their 1st mission is to provide ASW score and recon score to my fleets, not to be the most efficient war machines. 

Edited by Lastreaumont
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2022 at 2:15 PM, Spitfire_97 said:

Yet another feature that's essentially a copy paste of RTW2 implemented without the slightest thought as to actually making the game better. Just "RTW2 has it, so we have to have it too" even if they don't have the time / understanding to ensure that the feature adds to the game instead of detracting from it.

If unproven technology is what causes flaws then as that technology ages the likelihood of flaws should go down. For example in 1905 when Dreadnought was ordered steam turbines were the absolute cutting edge, and so you would expect flaws to exist before the technology matures and kinks are worked out. By 1940 the technology is so well understood that you wouldn't expect any flaws in a direct drive turbine setup. However the current implementation in UAD is that turbines have zero extra chance of flaws from the moment the technology is invented, but "Geared Turbines II" has an additional risk even beyond the late 1940s when they were already starting to make advances in diesel and gas turbine technology. This makes absolutely zero sense. Even if you try to excuse it by sacrificing realism for gameplay it makes no sense because it doesn't add any strategy to the game at all, it just makes the cool stuff less appealing and less useful.

I want you to consider how much more engaging the feature would be if chance of flaws was proportional to your R&D progress in that respective area. So if a tech is important for your designs you can prioritise it to quickly remove flaws from that specific technology, ie you want to use turbo-electric propulsion so you specialise engine research. This way you can decide which technologies your nation specialises in, you can gain an advantage over other nations but you have to pick and choose wisely to not be left behind in other research areas. It adds an extra layer of strategy as well as a great deal of replayability as the same nation can be played many different ways and you'll get a noticeably different experience each time.

Such a simple change could make the game so much more intricate, it really feels like the feature was added just so the devs can say they added the feature. I don't understand how you could look at the current implementation and say "yeah that'll do". It has no basis in reality or in good game design. It feels like an afterthought, something that was added to check off a checklist rather than add depth to the game

I think the idea is for the improvements in construction tech to offset the increasing penalties from "SOTA" ship modules. I agree that having flaw reduction be per tech category would be better overall though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...