Naval Academy Upcoming Balances

[Bilderberger]

9 minutes ago, roachbeef said:

This exactly. Currently, nobody gives a shit about ship range, reliability, crew requirements, crew comfort, ship seaworthiness in bad weather, floatplane capacity, or command space.

Not having the campaign gives players bad habits, and then they clutter the forum with unrealistic complaints.

Indeed. I truly wonder if and when we will receive new information concerning the current state of the campaign.

[Bilderberger]

Which, judging from so many conflicts in this forum raging on, should be rather sooner than later as I suspect that many current issues are directly tied to the lack thereof. I think we should keep calm and wait for the developers to do their... thing.

[DougToss]

A lively and engaged community can be a good thing. I agree with your assessment of the cause of the conflict though. 

[Ignominius]

I feel pretty silly about beating all of the missions before the re-balance I guess, oh well.

[Cptbarney]

12 hours ago, roachbeef said:

This exactly. Currently, nobody gives a shit about ship range, reliability, crew requirements, crew comfort, ship seaworthiness in bad weather, floatplane capacity, or command space.

Not having the campaign gives players bad habits, and then they clutter the forum with unrealistic complaints.

It also means we get to bug test it, and add a good amount of features to it before steam release, id rather this game not get mostly negative as most peeps just look at the recent review section to see ofts blue or red.

Also it allows us flesh out the mechanics because they will be very bare bones when they come out. Although with a 3-man team this will take time so we will have to just be patient really.

Edited June 6, 2020 by Cptbarney

[Bilderberger]

4 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

It also means we get to bug test it, and add a good amount of features to it before steam release, id rather this game not get mostly negative as most peeps just look at the recent review section to see ofts blue or red.

Also it allows us flesh out the mechanics because they will be very bare bones when they come out. Although with a 3-man team this will take time so we will have to just be patient really.

Honestly, I don't understand why we shouldn't see a first campaign candidate before release. Is it really necessary to forcibly tie a first campaign release to the steam release? As of right now, I think the campaign is where the game will either shine or fail and I fear many current issues regarding balance and expectations are directly or indirectly tied to said campaign and its mechanics. 

[Cptbarney]

2 hours ago, Bilderberger said:

Honestly, I don't understand why we shouldn't see a first campaign candidate before release. Is it really necessary to forcibly tie a first campaign release to the steam release? As of right now, I think the campaign is where the game will either shine or fail and I fear many current issues regarding balance and expectations are directly or indirectly tied to said campaign and its mechanics. 

Depends on what the publisher/higher-ups want, if they want the campaign to go hand-in-hand with the steam release then it will happen. Theres also the problem that they mentioned they would release both around the same time and if they don't might ruin their credibility, although judging from the amount of active users so far i doubt it would do much too be honest.

Its obvious that the campaign is the main part of the game outside ship design, hense why i think they should take their time in-regards too making the campaign rather than rushing it.

All balance issues will most likely be tied directly to the campaign, since every mechanic we have used so far will be in there as well and it being the main mode of the game.

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

I believe Mitch Gitelman (BATTLETECH) said it, probably quoting someone else: A delayed game will come out at some point, but a bug-ridden release will always stay a bug-ridden release.

[Cptbarney]

24 minutes ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

I believe Mitch Gitelman (BATTLETECH) said it, probably quoting someone else: A delayed game will come out at some point, but a bug-ridden release will always stay a bug-ridden release.

This guy said it:

"A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad."

Shigeru Miyamoto.

[Shaftoe]

Finally! Fixes for Naval Academy! Could it be that dumb luck is no longer the most important deciding factor?!

[Shaftoe]

@Nick Thomadis

Quote

First Casemates: CSS Virginia: +15 minutes time, you now face only one monitor ship (instead of two).

Still facing two enemy Monitors in Virginia mission.

I am also not sure if the time has actually anged (those +15 minutes).

Recommendations:

1. Remove the secound enemy minotor (fix);

2. Add +30 minutes (as an extra contingency - to prevent frustrating fails from happening too often in the future).

Edited June 9, 2020 by Shaftoe

[Shaftoe]

@Nick Thomadis

Quote

Defeat the Semi-Dreadnought: Increased initial distance, Increased funds for player, Decreased technology gap between AI and player ships, AI will never retreat, Win Conditions are less strict

AI still retreats (both BB and remaining cruiser are fleeing). It happened after loss of just 1 enemy cruiser.

I can confirm that it is indeed a persistent behavior pattern for the AI. This is not just a battle maneuver - all enemies are retreating, contrary to description of changes in the opening post. Because of this, I STILL didn't have enough time to kill enemy BB.

Recommendations:

1. Add +15 minutes to mission time (as an extra contingency);

2. Ensure that AI will actually NEVER retreat (as a fix)

3. Give player's cruisers some forward-mounted torpedoes (as an alternative way to finish enemy BB, if player's own BB's shells ran out).

Edited June 9, 2020 by Shaftoe

[Shaftoe]

@Nick Thomadis

Quote

The US Super Battleship: Increased funds for player, AI will never retreat.

Again, AI still retreats - after losing only 1 battleship!

Strangely, funds allocated to player in that mission (if technoloy boost is selected) no longer allow to build such ships as Montana-class BB, or similar battleships - although it was possible before. Now it needs ~6.000-15.000$ more than before. 

This mission is supposed to give players ultimate freedom in building an American super battleship, so I suppose extra funds are necessary to realize even most bold designs. Plus, the task of wiping out an entire battleship division, supported by a destroyer squadron, is a really hard one - at least for an average player, who's supposed to learn from Naval Academy - not quit it in frustration. Thus, if player chooses to build 1 super battleship, then they go for technology bonus. If several weaker battleships - for more funds bonus.

Recommendations:

1. Add extra 15.000$ to funds, if player has chosen technology boost (strongly recommended). 

2. Add extra 30.000$ to funds, if player has chosen more money boost (desirable).

Edited June 9, 2020 by Shaftoe

[Shaftoe]

@Nick Thomadis

I don't have much time on my hands to test the rest of all supposedly "fixed" missions now, but I believe what I saw allows me to make the following conclusions, which could help you to properly balance Naval Academy scenarios to make them actually enjoyable learning experience for starting players:

1. Fix the AI. Despite your claims to the contrary, it keeps retreating - and it's doing so very quickly. Lost a single light cruisers? RUN! Lost a single battleship (out of entire squadron)? RUN! - that's the AI's logic which we observe. This kind of decision making on AI's part simply won't do, if players are expected to actually destroy the enemy, and not just rout them out. So, make the AI less prone to giving up and fleeing, and ensure that it won't run away, if scenario doesn't allow it. This is such a crucial point that I hope it will be fixed by the next update to Naval Academy.

2. Increase mission time across the board. Right now, scenarios tend to end too quickly - even despite changes you've already made. Naval warfare is quite slow. Give people time to think and execute their maneuvers, to finish protracted battles. You know, losing an hour long game due to an unrealistic technicality, when enemies are almost dead is not fun at all. It's not an encouragement to keep trying - it's a disappointment, a signal that the goddamn thing is simply not fair and doesn't deserve any more time. This is not the kind of reactions you want your training scenarios to yield, is it? 

3. Increase amount of funds given to players by default (even without bonus) in missions where they're supposed to prevail against overwhelming odds. Missions like "US Super Battleship" or "Defeat the Full Fleet". Maybe veteran players can do it without spending the whole amount of cash, but this is Naval ACADEMY - it's supposed to be a fun learning experience first, and a challenging singleplayer scenario second (that's what we need custom battles and campaign for). So, when it comes to crazy scenarios, make sure up-and-coming admirals have enough funds to try some really expensive toys. 

P. S. I hope you will consider implementing these 3 advices. While my approach may appear to be rather... blunt, I think it'll help you to solve the problem sooner, thus freeing more time to finalize the much-awaited campaign without further distractions.

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by Shaftoe

[DougToss]

I think in all fairness, naval battles were, are and will be determined not by hulls sunk but by control of the sea. It would be worthwhile to change the victory conditions accordingly. Many naval games have already done this. 

The enemy retreating is a win, and far, far more common than a battle of annihilation. An enemy confined to port, undergoing repair or interned in a neutral nation is as good as sunk as often as not. The Russo-Japanese war is full of instances of that happening, as are the two world wars.

e: Likewise timing. Battles last until one side disengages. If the goal is to turn the enemy back to port, why would the time matter at all? They can disengage upon sighting you, or several hours later when they are battered, or when dusk falls. You win when they return to port, you don't win by returning them to port at a certain time.

A timer is arbitrary and causes the player to take unnecessary risks for no real reason. The battle of Manilla Bay lasted for the better part of a day. The American commander was not ordered to sink the Spanish squadron within 20 minutes, and if he had tried to do so, he would have probably charged headlong into a far costlier battle than the one that was waged. 

ee: Finally, this is another foundation problem that is going to send ripples throughout every aspect of the game. If you think about the cornerstones of firepower-mobility-protection, a ship designed to sink the enemy outright almost immediately and that only requires protection and endurance for about 20 minutes will not be designed like any ship that has ever set sail. Naturally there will be a gravitation towards outsized guns and speed if you win by closing with the enemy at 45kn and sinking them with 20in guns, or lose by designing and fighting reasonably. 

Edited June 9, 2020 by DougToss

[madham82]

Just now, DougToss said:

I think in all fairness, naval battles were, are and will be determined not by hulls sunk but by control of the sea. It would be worthwhile to change the victory conditions accordingly. Many naval games have already done this. 

The enemy retreating is a win, and far, far more common than a battle of annihilation. An enemy confined to port, undergoing repair or interned in a neutral nation is as good as sunk as often as not. The Russo-Japanese war is full of instances of that happening, as are the two world wars.

Yep I've argued for this for some time. Currently the AI will do some absurd (but effective with the damage model) tactics of turning in circles to keep the stern pointed to your ship. 

[Doomed]

I may be misunderstanding but is it the case that the Academy missions haven't been fixed yet?

[Shaftoe]

1 hour ago, Doomed said:

I may be misunderstanding but is it the case that the Academy missions haven't been fixed yet?

It looks so.

[SiWi]

well this announced the changes, it isn't live yet...

[HusariuS]

@Shaftoe @Doomed

They haven't updated the game yet.
It's still Alpha 6, just look at the title: "UPCOMING" Balances.

Edited June 10, 2020 by HusariuS

[Shaftoe]

3 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

@Shaftoe @Doomed

They haven't updated the game yet.
It's still Alpha 6, just look at the title: "UPCOMING" Balances.

It was posted on May 29. I assumed those changes have been committed already.

[johnson smith]

3 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

It was posted on May 29. I assumed those changes have been committed already.

those changes are for alpha 7, the game is still alpha 6

[SiWi]

6 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

It was posted on May 29. I assumed those changes have been committed already.

and the fact that the game didn't update before starting didn't make you suspicious?

[Cptbarney]

Makes me wonder if we will get more than whats already posted, since we havent got an actual alpha 7 update section yet.

[HusariuS]

1 hour ago, Shaftoe said:

It was posted on May 29. I assumed those changes have been committed already.

No, but I hope they gonna introduce the patch ASAP.