admin

Test server branch opens today

97 posts in this topic

The other thread is a bit too well structured for generic feedback, just going to write then here...

About the structure damage, and if you really want it in the game.  What is the main goal you are trying to achieve?

Really fast improvement could be.  If side armor have 1000hp and stern has 100hp, stern hits could do 10% damage to the structure.  Also you could consider increasing HP.

I do not like that it does not matter how you hit the stern, it seemed to cause maximum damage to structure always.

Consider also if hits with high angle to your stern, would actually destroy side armor.  Would you need structure after that?

Structure could be hitboxes as well, and not just hit the stern in any way you like.

Stern raking seems to be way way way too efficient.  I honestly do not understand why you want to weak sterns and so strong sides.  Crew got killed from sides as well, and broadsides were devastating to sides as well.  Why to make stern to be a head shot?  Stronger you make sides, probably stronger sterns should be as well.

I like more the idea that you cause leaks if you want to sink a ship before it loses its armor.  This is actually the best way to do it.  Leaks also were nerfed too much.  You get a good hit, it causes a leak OR you have HP bars to tear down.  I think HP bars are way more arcade way to do this.  Not against all HP bars, but not sure if all are good either.

I also like that side armor gets wrecked and not some central piece, that just is there, and then it just sinks.  Maybe cause side damage instead of central from stern hits as well?

Also another crew hitbox to stern, if the stern is hammered hard, closest men are dead -> Splinter damage should not cause additional casualties.  Balls that do not go straight in, should not cause crew damage at all, especially if all the cannons from stern are destroyed.

When hitting masts, you have very big ball hitboxes hitting mast hitboxes.  Consider making balls to be smaller.  This will cause way less hits to everything, and could make it in general better.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Really fast improvement could be.  If side armor have 1000hp and stern has 100hp, stern hits could do 10% damage to the structure.  Also you could consider increasing HP.

 

 

Here is the fundamental problem (beyond the fact that most players only see a need for tweaks to previous system): we have been told before (rightfully) that hull side HP bars are not armor, they are hull integrity.  Hull thickness is "armor" and "armor" cannot be "removed" (although it can be indirectly weakened through loss of hull integrity).  This makes sense because ships do not have separate armor and structure. The structure of the ship is the "armor."  This is a logical system with only one weakness: structural integrity can be completely reduced putting the ship in a sinking state while only shooting at the hull high above the water, when in reality a ship would have to be holed repeatedly at or below the waterline to sink.  You can shoot a ships bulwarks until it sinks, which is a bit strange.  But all in all, the system make sense.

 

This new system takes the one conceptual weakness of the old system and doubles down on it: now you can sink a ship without even destroying the structural integrity of the sides or bow at any height, and you can do so with the lightest guns in game.  You can most easily sink a ship by shooting its "unarmored" (and thus not part of structural integrity) stern galleries, which should have the least effect on flooding other than indirectly (by killing and disordering crew).  I agree that a tweak to the old system would be better: allow quartering fire (e.g. firing at 45 degrees through "unarmored" stern galleries to damage the opposite side hull side integrity post penetration, and decrease the all or nothing integrity damage effect of shots that hit at relatively low angles but fail to fully penetrate (logically a shot that goes 54 cm into a 55cm hull side still has some effect on the hull "integrity" even if it does not damage crew or guns behind the hull).

 

Also, previously mast thickness was increased artificially to the point that light guns are completely worthless to target the masts at any point above the deck (if you a close enough to penetrate even top masts or topgallant masts with lighter guns, you are too close to elevate enough to hit them, making the only valid demasting strategy to use the heaviest guns at point blank range against the lower masts, so that you get all (entire mast above deck) or nothing demasting.  We polled our clan internally recently and not one of us has seen a top mast or topgallant mast come down on its own in the last 4-5 months.  It simply never happens, which suggests a flaw since this was the most common form of demasting in reality.  Now this new system exaggerates the all or nothing problem and adds a new and contradictory twist: the lightest guns can now bring down the lower masts (or make doing so much easier) without even needing to aim at the masts at all.  It would be much better to properly extend mast hit boxes down into the hull so that damage to masts from hull hits properly accounts for penetration and aim.  Perhaps you could also add "chains" hitboxes to hull sides that indirectly weakens masts.

TL;DR: the new system is not something that would be good with tweaking or adjustment.  The old system was tried, tested, generally liked and makes more sense than this concept of structure independent of "armor."  The only tweak to the old system of hull damage I would like to see would be for flooding to be more dependent on shots to the waterline, not just taking down the integrity of one side (e.g. final 1/3 of side integrity can only be removed by shooting hull along the waterline, not shooting at gundeck or above).

Edited by akd
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, akd said:

This new system takes the one conceptual weakness of the old system and doubles down on it: now you can sink a ship without even destroying the structural integrity of the sides or bow at any height, and you can do so with the lightest guns in game.

Kinda simplifies everything.  I did not personally test small and big cannons but I believe when you say so.  This makes it more arcade.

You fire a tank with a cannon.  Which you could not and cannot penetrate, you simply cannot destroy it.  You open a hatch and empty a shotgun in the hatch 1000 times.  Tanks structure gets weaker and it falls in pieces.

 

edit.

You have masts, those have hitboxes, you hit those, those get damaged.

Structure is a hp pool, kinda like jelly inside ships.

...

Devs, if you have good ideas you are planning to implement.  It is better to say those before you spend development time.

Edited by Cmdr RideZ
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please dont make all these restrictions on battles. It's like you don't want it to be a sandbox wargame as intended.

Make battles open infinite and limitless. But work on distance to targets, area of reinforcements and exit rules instead.

Or drop OW altogether and make a lobby based wargame where we can fight Trafalgar with 49 other players.

6 vs 6 is totally disappointing in 2017.

Work on mechanisms where players can get together without ts and clans.

Like ALL other wargames.

Should be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Map zoom increased 2x in commander tablet

Is this the main map or am I missing something? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main post updated with a known issue of instance crash (disconnect) because of masts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, fox2run said:

End of big battles in OW?

Im done with this crap.

And again, it is just for the PVP event zone. But you don't know this because you don't play anymore. Also it is only on the testbed so there is no need for you to come here and comment in this way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for my question (which is probably very stupid) but what is the center bar? Structure?
What structure? The ships of that period were practically empty inside, without even bulkheads.

latvuegeneralebatterie20607__014163400_1

This is the main deck of Hermione

Maybe the structure refers to the deck (i mean to the floor)?. A fairly difficult part could damage seen the kind of bullets (round balls with little speed).

 

Leaving aside the sense or otherwise of this central bar; now the game favors the stern rake, always just stern rake; when in fact the most common tactic was side VS side.
The more maneuverable ships have even more advantages now, a frigate could easily sink a SoL thing for the historical-simulation practically impossible.

As regards the possibility to demast reducing the central bar, is a total nonsense. Nonsense.
The balls that come from the stern can maybe even hit a mast (the last-one) from inside the hull, but with a force and insignificant quantities of motion, not able to cause no damage to the mast.

As said by akd, the old system was simplified but credible and enjoyable.

It would be better to focus on some of the game mechanics that do not convince, rather than waste time to change things that already work.
Of course, in my opinion.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what this mechanic adds exactly? I was hoping that the health bars were gone and that you added proper location damage.

Just tested it and all it seems to mean is that you can rake a ship to death.

Have not tried from the side yet. But am assuming you would take a side off and sink the ship before destroying the internal structure.

 

Is this mechanic to ensure if pirates rake traders too much their quarry will sink?

EDIT: OK Starting to get it now as I have tested sides also and you don't sink with sides off. So you take off your chosen side off. Then unless you have too many leaks the enemy ship will not automatically sink until the centre structure has also been taken out. I like this as it means that taking off a side is not instant death. I like that a LOT! But it does mean that you can take the end of a ship off then take the structure off to sink.

I would however suggest that "structural" damage is a misleading term and that their should be two kinds of damage.

i) Planking damage - the sides as per normal. Technically the term armour is a little misleading as it makes me think of purpose built to stop cannon. I don't believe that shipwrights ever tried to armour the sides of ships against cannon they were expected to face on purpose in most cases. They just made them sturdier for combat with thicker planks of wood. I could be wrong here, Maturin?

ii) Internal Damage - enough of which renders the ship disabled causing it to be killed by disablement (I don't think it should be sunk unless it is leaking through leak damage). Leaving it with colours struck and drifting. This would be both more realistic and add more fun to having to go around struck ships.

p.s. I keep getting connection lost half way through a battle in the open world and so does my mate.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

The other thread is a bit too well structured for generic feedback, just going to write then here...

About the structure damage, and if you really want it in the game.  What is the main goal you are trying to achieve?

Really fast improvement could be.  If side armor have 1000hp and stern has 100hp, stern hits could do 10% damage to the structure.  Also you could consider increasing HP.

I do not like that it does not matter how you hit the stern, it seemed to cause maximum damage to structure always.

Consider also if hits with high angle to your stern, would actually destroy side armor.  Would you need structure after that?

Structure could be hitboxes as well, and not just hit the stern in any way you like.

Stern raking seems to be way way way too efficient.  I honestly do not understand why you want to weak sterns and so strong sides.  Crew got killed from sides as well, and broadsides were devastating to sides as well.  Why to make stern to be a head shot?  Stronger you make sides, probably stronger sterns should be as well.

I like more the idea that you cause leaks if you want to sink a ship before it loses its armor.  This is actually the best way to do it.  Leaks also were nerfed too much.  You get a good hit, it causes a leak OR you have HP bars to tear down.  I think HP bars are way more arcade way to do this.  Not against all HP bars, but not sure if all are good either.

I also like that side armor gets wrecked and not some central piece, that just is there, and then it just sinks.  Maybe cause side damage instead of central from stern hits as well?

Also another crew hitbox to stern, if the stern is hammered hard, closest men are dead -> Splinter damage should not cause additional casualties.  Balls that do not go straight in, should not cause crew damage at all, especially if all the cannons from stern are destroyed.

When hitting masts, you have very big ball hitboxes hitting mast hitboxes.  Consider making balls to be smaller.  This will cause way less hits to everything, and could make it in general better.

Yeah this guy has it imo. I really dont like the testbed's new armor system, and seems if anything, redundant. I would like to see more hp bars, but not with a central hull integrity bar, but rather multiple ship armor bars, as well as mast bars, and module bars.

The way I envision the quoted system, is the larger the ship, the more hull sections for armor there would be per broadside. So something like a first rate would have 5-6(depending on length of the ships) when a 5th rate would have no more than 2 or 3 armor panels per broadside. When the armor panels are low, and hit again, they would cause leaks which would lead to sinking. 

imo, this would call for a new repair system functionality as well where the repair ship would have an equal amount of repairs for the armor panels on one broadside and be specific to that area on use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only damage model better than current hull HP would be actual Local Damage, if I shot certain place, my balls break the hull, penetrate, make holes in it. That would be extremely hard to implement and require lots of work. Current simplified system works and there is no need to change it at the moment.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you notice in the tests there are no more empty bars tanking. Impossible to pull that out now.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is impossible in older system also, except "tanking" with no HP stern, which results in severe punishment to crew and guns leading to defeat by other means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angle it and you will tank, especially given the absurd WoW-syndrome modules and perks ( offtopic but everything in NA is interwoven). Also crew damage with empty broadside from ball is...not catastrophic.

One of the "skill gaps" noticeable is the use of things that are broken, on pair with extremely efficient wind/crew pair with stabilized gunnery.

So improving the feeling is a good thing.

Also, not a single proper mil sim shows enemy info, from air combat to foot slogging, from any era.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27.1.2017 at 5:20 PM, admin said:

 

  • Port battle entry is only allowed 30 mins after login at sea. This penalty can be dropped if you enter any port. If you log off at sea and login within 5 mins (disconnects etc) you don’t get that penalty

 

+1.000

Without trying it out by now, this looks to be the FINAL solution to solve the log-out issue for PBs once and for all

Applause for thinking it through :D :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have had some time and loaded up the test bed server today, my initial reaction is that could we please have a redeemable for level 50 crafting and also every blueprint available, including the event obtainable ones, I feel like being able to easily craft and use the ships would be a very useful tool for obtaining the data that you need, It seems very odd to give us 1m in gold and 5 redeemable ships if we can't work out and play with the ships we want to at our own will to come to the data that you guys in the dev team want us to look into.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17th century Swedish Vasa main gundeck with main mast visible, just for reference.

 

Vasa-mainmast_upper_gun_deck-2.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/01/2017 at 11:57 PM, JeanJacques de Montpellier said:

As said by akd, the old system was simplified but credible and enjoyable.

It would be better to focus on some of the game mechanics that do not convince, rather than waste time to change things that already work.
Of course, in my opinion.

I agree with this post. Always testing some thing that is not necessary.

Also, I read somewhere that the developers will make skilled players able to sink opponents even faster. Why? If they are skilled they already have an advantage, why add an artificial advantage? How are less skilled players like myself supposed to become more skilled if we get sunk even faster by the naval action aces? ILLOGICAL.

It seems like the perfect shooting AI ships that we had to fight against a few months ago!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First PB of this server: The "friendly" fort almost  destroys its own ship. This issue has to be fixedgA4bJip.jpg

Edited by Pablo Frias
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sir Max Magic said:

+1.000

Without trying it out by now, this looks to be the FINAL solution to solve the log-out issue for PBs once and for all

Applause for thinking it through :D :)

You forget about tagging near PB port and staying in battle just sailing. They can do it for 1:30 mins + 30 mins after Battle Over. This gives 2 hours before PB trick to "logout" or more likely stay hidden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 mins before a PB the screen fleets are already active. At the bare minimum there will Signaling screeners on the lookout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial reactions to combat in the new build are that the structure damage needs some tweaking, it would be nice to see slightly more structural damage when the armour is soaking up the damage and less of a sudden or dramatic drop caused by shots after the armour has gone. On the whole the model and idea works quite nicely, although the ships I sunk never looked very sunk after being declared dead. I am a particular fan of the way ships crumble a bit when they have poor structure, the new system puts a really nice feel to the game and it feels more realistic than how it used to, I just feel like ships structures shouldn't disintegrate like tissue paper once the armour goes, this isn't black sails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fluffy, what on a ship is "armor" and what is "structure"?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.