Speed CAP

[CaptVonGunn]

3 hours ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

I disagree with you here, you risk much less in a fast ship because you can disengage when things look bad, a tanky ship is at the mercy of a fast ship ultimately because the fast ship can still chain down and rake a slower ship without risking hull damage.

Like I said earlier, you may not always win in a fast ship, but you'll never lose IF you know when to disengage. Take the communist approach, make ship reach a 10% cap, that way no one can be higher in speed from more mods, everyone is equal on the speed foot which leaves best tank and maneuver builds and brawling skills to win out.

 

not anymore they cant:) a single volley can knock off a bunch of hull and structure on a fir fir gank boat... If they also have to repair sails they are now SOL with teh damage reducing speed(if it works )

 

[Malachy]

This was my night in a fir teak Connie. Everything I fought were heavier than me. Mostly wasa. First one was a Connie I decided to keep that one. And yes tonight I boarded everything. I suck at boarding and am trying to get better at it. I think I am improving 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Malachy

[Quineloe]

11 hours ago, maturin said:

Do you know what you are talking about?

And would you say that automobiles are suited for driving on tarmac?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

 

Prince de Neufchatel has low freeboard, a lot of guns and a huge rig, all sitting on top of a rather skimpy displacement. You'd be much better off sailing the cutter through a storm. And of course, Prince was taken by a lumbering ship of the line because she couldn't sail fast in those conditions.

Are you saying large ships are suited to sail in storms? Because large ships were completely lost in storms as well, there are many examples. He specifically stated small ships are unsuited to sail in storms. That implies large ships are. Which is not true. Storms were dangerous for ships of all sizes back then.

Your tarmac example is nonsense, because that's the standard condition a car is supposed to be driven at. Storms are not.

I'd like a source on Prince being captured in an actual storm, not just strong winds. Beaufort scale 10 or higher, please.
When you look for that source, maybe you'll also find that your statement" lumbering ship of the line" to be incorrect, Leander and Newcastle were 50 gun frigates, built in response to the Constitution

No, as usual, it's just Matrollin.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Quineloe

[Cmdr RideZ]

17 hours ago, Fargo said:

Balancing is about decisionmaking. Thats why its bad to completely nerv fir.

Sorry, this turned out to be long and also off topic from some parts.

 

I have a bad memory and I often forget things and I am too lazy to read everything again, but...

If I remember correctly, you said something that nerfing Fir wont fix anything.  I said that if a wood type is used a lot you nerf it and it wont be used a lot soon.  I made you extreme example, I think at some point I even mentioned that it is an extreme example made to be an example to make a point.  I mentioned that enough negative traits will make people go away from specific wood type, does not have to be hull hp.

Can we agree that yes nerfing a wood type can change balance.  I even said that I did not probably understand everything what you meant, because this is too simple concept to not understand.

My personal opinion how to decrease ganking would be something like...  Remove multiple repair kits.  Give signaling perk for everyone.  Also test how it would work with signaling perk if combat marker would follow the ships in the instance.  Make it so that if you come with signaling, you spawn relatively close so that you can participate still.

Most OW PvP games are suffering from gank issues, there are plenty who don't play these games because PvP is like that.  NA maybe could try to fix this, but they don't seem to like the idea.  There is a specific player group that likes ganking games, which I believe is way smaller than the one that does not.  No idea why not to even test "anti-gank" features.

When a realism fan tells me that he wants to have all protecting hull sides and realistic stern and mast damage.  This is cherry picking, something that this specific person likes to have, his/her way to play.  To make it stay some how realistic with all protecting hull sides, they have to scale stern, sail and masts damage at the ~same rate.  Community here wanted all protecting hull sides and critical hit locations.

 

Fix me if I am wrong.

First of all I would like to see some real naval tactics in this game, just to get a realistic feel in it.  Big part of our playerbase wants to just stern rake and snipe masts   I have been crying and laughing.  Then the same guys come here to ask more realistic stern rake damage when it is not high enough

Cherry picking realistic features, using those as an argument to support your own playstyle.  What you want me to say about "tries to be realistic"?

Now was it so that war winning tactic was to reload fast and sail broadside to broadside and rapid fire?  I have understood this was something that GB trained hard for?  I understood GB won the war.  Now people asking hull sides to be all protective, which pretty much makes GB to look fools in NA.  Instead French who actually lost the war had the winning tactic, to shoot rigging.

People are using term realistic to support their own point of view.  That is all.

 

Fir ship tactic like it was told there was Rigging, stern rake, boarding or sinking.  This has been often the tactic in NA.

They did add crew damage from hull side hits as well, at some point.  It was a massacre.  It did not matter if you were stern raking or just blasted hull sides.  All mutilated crew pretty damn well.  This damage model was probably the most realistic so far.  It was not just fun that all your crew died immediately.  So they decided to remove hull side crew damage, but leave the rest?  They even left us with worst case scenario stern rake damage.  We have a twisted damage model, asked by our "pr0 gamers".  Then we can add accurate cannons and very maneuvarable ships in this equation.

Getting a clean hull side hit should be rewarding.  If it does not kill crew, maybe decrease hull hp so that it hurts when hit.  They could also decrease stern, rigging and masts damage so low that it makes realistic damage model with all protecting hull sides.

That would also mean that we nerf speed meta ships, including Fir ships.

So Fargo, I understand, it is way more complicated than just nerfing Fir.

[Slim McSauce]

Is everyone rolling for fast glass ships fun PVP? If not then it should be changed, I for one hate 15.5knt wasas.

[Jack Jones]

Now that ships slow down with hull damage this is all becoming a mute point.

The new patch is overall excellent IMO.

Except the nerf to OW speeds which are slower on the whole and should be made quicker (overall) to stop timesink deepening on long voyages.

[Malachy]

1 hour ago, Slim Jimmerson said:

Is everyone rolling for fast glass ships fun PVP? If not then it should be changed, I for one hate 15.5knt wasas.

First, there are no 15.5 knot wasa. Not with guns and repairs mounted. You are looking at mid 14s with sail force, which destroys its upwind capability. My fastest Connie is 14.5 without sail force, with full gun loadout and a small number of repairs. This ship has all the best speed mods and knowledge in game. The only way to get one over 15 is with sail force which like I said ruins its upwind capability. The Connie has a bigger hold, so suffers less than the wasa in speed department.

And no, people are sailing everything. At least on the eu server. I see all sorts of ships on the OS. The Light built 4th rates are popular with solo players due to their ability to take on several lighter ships while alone or still handle themselves vs a heavy tanky ship. Personally, i use these ships a lot, but very rarely run into someone built as light as I am. People get run down because they sail slugs, not because everyone is in super fast ships. I was ganked by 7 very good pvpers the other day, their average speed was 13.5 knots. They had probably a dozen kills that night. I was solo, so running a very fast ship but even I had to be careful, if I had let them get a good tag on me it would have been game over.  7 on 1 is not the kind of odds I will stick around for so I withdrew from the field of battle. Had they had A couple ships built like mine, I have no doubt I would have lost my 12 million gold Connie. 

The OP and a couple other guys are whining because they can't catch fir ships, but they want to sail around in 11 knot slugs. So basically they are asking that fir ships are 1 hit so they can't kill their slugs or get away from them. It's an infantile suggestion based upon lack of ability and lack of knowledge.

good pvpers stack the odds in their favor. You are never going to nerf a good pvper. In this game, the best pvpers are going to be fast and going to control the wind and the battle. Nerf fir ships even further than they are, we will be in something a little heavier but still worlds faster than your slug. You will still die but do even less damage to us. 

When I sail a heavier ship, I still kit it out for speed (and usually get it into the 13 to 14 knot range) and the battles vs tanky ships are even more lopsided. Instead of the random broadside that gets through taking down 1/2 or more of my armor, it takes down less than a 1/6th. 

all the fir haters will accomplish, even if the developers are willing to go back to that sort of flawed model, is to change the ships used in pvp to a couple very fast ships, reducing variety on the OS, or put the best pvpers in ships almost as fast as we have now that have even better survival capabilities, pretty much making us even more invulnerable, but still faster than you. 

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Malachy

[maturin]

6 hours ago, Quineloe said:

Are you saying large ships are suited to sail in storms? Because large ships were completely lost in storms as well, there are many examples. He specifically stated small ships are unsuited to sail in storms. That implies large ships are. Which is not true. Storms were dangerous for ships of all sizes back then.

Large ships have better survivability in large seas and high winds. Period. Smaller vessels are forced to halt their progress and lie to far sooner than larger ships are. Some three deckers compromised stability for more firepower, but over the course of the 19th Century, ships got larger and safer.

Every oceangoing ship needed to be ready to face hurricane-force winds at any time, on any passage.

I'm not going to waste my time bickering about basic facts with someone who didn't even dip their toes in a duck pond until they bought a sailing game. This dynamic is part of Sailing 101 and is observable even to high schoolers racing their dinghys.

[Quineloe]

3 minutes ago, maturin said:

I have no source, so I'm gonna insult you instead.

Very well then.

[maturin]

Let me get this straight.

You start with a strawman interpretation of someone else's post.

Then you offer up a pathetic non-sequitur link to Wikipedia, imagining that it makes some sort of point.

Then you call me a troll, having prepared to shift the goalposts of the argument.

Then you whine about me insulting you.

Newsflash: When you're a complete ignoramus on a subject, you do not ask for "a source" on one of the central axioms of that subject. There is not "a source".

What you are asking for is more commonly known as "an education". I'm not going to educate you.

Go read something by C. A. Marchaj or something on the Fastnet disaster and bugger off.