Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>v1.1+ Feedback<<<(Latest Update: v1.2.9R)


Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, TiagoStein said:

True, but it got really bad more recently.  A few months ago it was mostly believable, but not accurate and sometimes  a few WTF moments. Now it is looney toons level of physics.

Ok not so long ago but whatever/wherever this bug is, it hard for Dev's to track down else it would be fixed by now. Something that’s always overlooked. Any ideas might help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Skeksis said:

Ok not so long ago but whatever/wherever this bug is, it hard for Dev's to track down else it would be fixed by now. Something that’s always overlooked. Any ideas might help.

I really think  in the beta branch the log should be more detailed.  At every  impact log the weapon, angle, armor effective thickness. We could  be way more productive in pinpointing bugs that way.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MDHansen said:

a quick 4.point list from me having speedrun 3 1890 campaigns.

 

1. Major nations (and in particular Britain and France) were disolved within 10 years in all 3 campaigns. They always reappear, and from there it's usually fine, they gain territory and go on a rampage, but not suicidal. wich leads me to point 2.

2. Once one war starts, all hell is loose. Friends, enemies, frenemies etc, all spiraling in to a big blobwar. Realistic, probably, but a bit over-the-top for a game one wants to enjoy.

3.1 Relations are a bit off. Way too many points are given (positive/negative) when other nations you have relations to goes to war, see point 2.

3.2 could we be given even more options here; Allies or not, we should be given the option to throw friendship overboard once a suicidal nation goes to war with everyone.

4. wars seems to start again right after a confirmed peacetalk. Heck, I've even gained ports and ships and cash from the nation, and 1-3 turns later its on again, no warning. This might have to do with point 2 and 3.

I am not going in to ballistics, armour and such, others in this thread has that ball rolling :)

 

Keep up the good work

Good points here Hansen, I have encountered all of these as well and would love to see it fixed. I don't think this game is close to release yet with the amount of bugs still present. I'd also like to see the option to withdraw from an alliance with a nation when it decides to declare war. @MDHansen I haven't seen you since the HLF days in Naval action either, it was cool to see your name pop up on this forum :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Ok not so long ago but whatever/wherever this bug is, it hard for Dev's to track down else it would be fixed by now. Something that’s always overlooked. Any ideas might help.

From playing around it seems to happen most often if you have a lot of penetration compared to the target’s armour. I’m guessing the game’s penetration formula outputs a numerical value where 1-2 is a pen, anything less than 1 is a partial or blocked or something and values over 2 are over penetrations. If however the formula outputs something very odd, like a negative number, or possibly a number that’s beyond the upper limit of an overpen the game gets confused.

Very much conjecture though!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brothermunro said:

From playing around it seems to happen most often if you have a lot of penetration compared to the target’s armour. I’m guessing the game’s penetration formula outputs a numerical value where 1-2 is a pen, anything less than 1 is a partial or blocked or something and values over 2 are over penetrations. If however the formula outputs something very odd, like a negative number, or possibly a number that’s beyond the upper limit of an overpen the game gets confused.

Very much conjecture though!

And let’s not forget, it’s not just partial pens perse but also the lack of partial pen damage. Quite possible pen/partial/block* is actually working just fine (and that’s why Dev’s can’t find anything) and it’s the damage calc that can’t ramp up the damage.

* Inner belts changing full pen to partial, is most likely ok.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if…

The inner belt damage reduction is using the outer belt damage reduction values. You would see similar results.

e.g.

What we're seeing:

  • full damage 628           1st 12" belt -312.422            2nd 3.5" belt -312.422        partial damage 3.156.

What should happen:

  • full damage 628           1st 12" belt -312.422            2nd 3.5" belt -10.716          partial damage 304.8.

 

No, it can't be that simple.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

What if…

The inner belt damage reduction is using the outer belt damage reduction values. You would see similar results.

e.g.

What we're seeing:

  • full damage 628              1st belt -312.422                2nd belt -312.422           partial damage 3.156.

What should happen:

  • full damage 628              1st belt -312.422                2nd belt -35.846            partial damage 279.732.

 

No, it can't be that simple.

A single, misplaced hyphen crashed the Mariner I rocket in 1962, it absolutely can be that simple.  The question is, is it?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

What if…

The inner belt damage reduction is using the outer belt damage reduction values. You would see similar results.

e.g.

What we're seeing:

  • full damage 628           1st 12" belt -312.422            2nd 3.5" belt -312.422        partial damage 3.156.

What should happen:

  • full damage 628           1st 12" belt -312.422            2nd 3.5" belt -10.716          partial damage 304.8.

 

No, it can't be that simple.

this definately is a plausible explanation! imagine it being that "simple" 😬

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anyone elses hit percentages also insanely low now? Even my late 30s CL with Coinc V and Gen III radar has an extremely low hit of roughly 0.2% on enemy DDs at 5km. I could totally understand if they were moving a lot, but even if the enemy formation sails in a straight line my hit rate barely changes, coupled with the borked penetration it makes killing enemy DDs a bit of a pain now. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Plazma said:

I guess we have not one, but three or more issue with pen function and this start overlapping on the point that we are not able to found the main issue without looking on the code. But... I think I found the gremlin! 

1. Maybe the main issue is with fuze time and AP shells not have chance to explode = blocked. 

yice8SD.png

When I used heavy armor and 1.1" gun with APBC II I have most of the time block result. (vs heavy armored BB).

When I used 0.1 armor as the test target and APBC II, I have around 25%-30% of block!

When I used HE APBC I I have 10-15% if block.

The 0.1" can block any of these shells (or very much unlikely)

The chance of block are similar to 20.9" gun! So no matter of pen value the chance of block increase with the fuze time!

 

:ph34r:

 

Other theory, unlikely they are the root cause, but I left them here:

2. Maybe ricochet chance are not related to the armor value and even 0.1" of armor can ricochet the shell even from 20.9" gun at 2km. Like the angel is 60 degree than means 75% of shots will be ricochet via RNG. But some reasons the game mark the shell as no penetrating = delete this shell and start using the penetration function instead of ricochet and the non exist shell have 0 pen value 0 dmg and the result is marked as blocked instead of ricochet. 

The ricochet when the shell can't penetration because of angel is good.
The ricochet when the shell can penetration is marked as blocked instead??? Also wrong calculation the ricochet chance (unrealistic as only depends on the angle and shell type???) 

3. Maybe belt and deck armor is swapped and instead of that sometimes we have a values for penetrating deck armor instead of belt? 

4. Or the shell start penetrating the armor from other side of the ship and because of that is blocked or even penetrating this second layout of armor and the bool value swiped from true to false?

Example:

Shell penetrating the main belt from port side and the bool change the value to the true: shell_penetrating=true but this same shell penetrating the armor from starboard and the value is changed one time more to false? shell_penetrating=false

^^ this is so stupid, that I don't believe in the last theory, but man... If the devs don't simply put the RNG chance for pen for all the time I don't know what happens... 

 

But... If I use the HE shells and I have much often the better results, more realistic

I don't think it is actually ricochet, or at least not only ricochet, because I tested by reducing the ricochet chances and it did not help the issue. It would make sense for it to be some sort of forgotten half implemented fuse timer code. bools should not be able to overflow unless the value is incremented a minimum of 255 times, so that is unlikely to be the problem.

Fuses being related seems to make sense, I might test that if the bug isn't fixed by the weekend.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Warspite96 said:

Is anyone elses hit percentages also insanely low now? Even my late 30s CL with Coinc V and Gen III radar has an extremely low hit of roughly 0.2% on enemy DDs at 5km. I could totally understand if they were moving a lot, but even if the enemy formation sails in a straight line my hit rate barely changes, coupled with the borked penetration it makes killing enemy DDs a bit of a pain now. 

You need a veteran crew and you can hit 100% odds with decent (radar+) tech. The "range found" modifier is ridiculously OP, and it is not obvious what impacts it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so they havent changed the ai love of using dunnite and cordite and it make my armor on my british bb useless and now i cant aim even with trained crew and best rangefinger there is in 1910 and mk3 13inch duel guns playing as the british

Edited by kineuhansen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, brothermunro said:

From playing around it seems to happen most often if you have a lot of penetration compared to the target’s armour. I’m guessing the game’s penetration formula outputs a numerical value where 1-2 is a pen, anything less than 1 is a partial or blocked or something and values over 2 are over penetrations. If however the formula outputs something very odd, like a negative number, or possibly a number that’s beyond the upper limit of an overpen the game gets confused.

Very much conjecture though!

overpen is calculated by comparing penetration to the effective armor multiplied by a constant. if penetration > constant * armor, then it is an overpen. There are similar thresholds for things like armor damage and ricochet negation. (If your pen value is more than 50% greater than effective armor, ricochets should be impossible.)

 

It is hard to say for sure because decompiling il2cpp code is annoying, but the penetration code has too many branches to be a simple mathematical formula. It also has a bunch of mutable state which could easily lead to unexpected results if someone forgot to add a conditional check somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anonusername said:

overpen is calculated by comparing penetration to the effective armor multiplied by a constant. if penetration > constant * armor, then it is an overpen. There are similar thresholds for things like armor damage and ricochet negation. (If your pen value is more than 50% greater than effective armor, ricochets should be impossible.)

 

It is hard to say for sure because decompiling il2cpp code is annoying, but the penetration code has too many branches to be a simple mathematical formula. It also has a bunch of mutable state which could easily lead to unexpected results if someone forgot to add a conditional check somewhere.


overpenetration occurs at 2x armor. I know this because in my mod I bump it up to 3.5 [reducing the likelihood of overpenetration]

my recommendation for you is to get the unity asset bundle extractor, that way you can  extract the portions of the game files that are readable as .txt or .csv files. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it finally happened. The Austro-"Hungarian" Empire is on its deathbed again, and this time it's Lost All of its Ports.
LCUpMCq.png
By retaining control of Austria, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Slovenia, the von Habsburgs technically still have enough land to keep the empire from dissolving, but now has nowhere to base its fleet.
Despite this, they are still able to build ships.
lf0Fcnl.png
Where are these things even being built? Is there a secret naval base somewhere along the Slovene coast that can handle building 40,000 ton battleships? I'm not sure this is working as intended or not, given that you need somewhere to resupply and repair a fleet before you can actually reasonably field one. Still, it is rather humorous to see the Austro-Hungarian Navy become the sea-born equivalent of the Czechoslovak Legion.

Bonus: It is now Neither Austrian, Nor Hungarian, Nor an Empire.
fI1m5QZ.png

The only people left in the von Habsburg empire are the Bosnians and the Slovenes. 2 provinces that aren't even connected to each-other doesn't really constitute and "Empire."
Probably not working as intended, but honestly, I'm not sure if I want this fixed. I kinda want the Balkans to be the nonstop geopolitical clusterf*** we all know and love.

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

While the overall stability of the campaign seems to be much much better in the released version, aside from a few issues that are inherent to the campaign mechanics as they have been implemented like constant wars, I have to say that after reading that "ships going to random ports" was fixed I expected it to be fixed.

It is not.

I still have my ships being pulled from ports in different sea regions go back to random ports, so that I have to rearrange my squadrons all the time to avoid accidentally leaving some sea region undefended and starting losing transports. 

I have to continuously rebuild my battleship squadrons because when they're not used as a task force they get divided all the time by the game pulling either 1 BB, 1-2 cruisers or smaller crafts into some battle and then sending them to a port that might be on the opposite side of my homeland.

Please, I am pretty sure that this was fixed in a previous patch (one of the 1.09 release candidates) and then it was "unfixed" again. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RNV said:

While the overall stability of the campaign seems to be much much better in the released version, aside from a few issues that are inherent to the campaign mechanics as they have been implemented like constant wars, I have to say that after reading that "ships going to random ports" was fixed I expected it to be fixed.

It is not.

I still have my ships being pulled from ports in different sea regions go back to random ports, so that I have to rearrange my squadrons all the time to avoid accidentally leaving some sea region undefended and starting losing transports. 

I have to continuously rebuild my battleship squadrons because when they're not used as a task force they get divided all the time by the game pulling either 1 BB, 1-2 cruisers or smaller crafts into some battle and then sending them to a port that might be on the opposite side of my homeland.

Please, I am pretty sure that this was fixed in a previous patch (one of the 1.09 release candidates) and then it was "unfixed" again. 

Indeed, this wasn't happening in the early versions of the 1.1, and then in the last iterations started happening again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I just tried the new update and I am liking the Shared Designs designer, but I have some feedback and bug reports.

Shared Designs works as expected when I want the AI to not design strange-looking ships, but as Stealth17 said, I am not able to use ships designed in Shared Designs in my own fleet in Custom Battles. The game always selects randomly generated designs for my own ships.

In addition, I am unable to delete shared ship designs from within the game itself and I cannot create a non-shared design for a certain year if I already created a shared design. A bug fix for these issues would be much appreciated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like a bug to me:

 

I can not seem to initiate a naval invasion.  This seemed to pop up in my last campaign in the betas, so after all the patches I started a new one.  Invasions still don't work.

 

I go initiate it, and then wait for next month for the mission thingy to be next to where I want to invade, but it isn't there.  I can re-initiate an invasion for the same province and on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, UncleAi said:

I want to know next patch will focus on bug fix & balancing or adding more features (more playable nations, historical campaign start etc.)?

Patch 1.1.1 ?  Yes, that should be balancing and fixes.  Typically, from what I have seen, features are added during the beta so the players can work out most of the "functional" kinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...