Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
rediii

Thickness

Thickness  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Thickness too big still? (not changed but tested more)

    • yes
      49
    • no
      16


Recommended Posts

It is completely unrealistic since you can stack both carta and pvp upgrade (+7% plus +5% on armor).
This leads to very tedious portbattles, where you when driving hull on hull still do not penetrate with most guns.

Also, smaller ships become so far senseless, that most PB's with 2'400 BR fleets rather take a very low number of 1st rates instead of a mix of smaller ships.
Smaller ships with lesser calibre should be able to damage big ships, when they get near, right now that is futile.

This thickness madness is contradicting the aim of the devs to have more variety amongst the PB fleets - armor pimped 1st rates have become the meta for all PBs except shallow PBs.

Please change that, allow us have more fluent and varied portbattles where you can apply more tactics than to grouphug ships.
 

Edited by sveno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think resistence instead of thickness would have been the way to go maybe. So you take less damage if you angle or have big thickness but dont get no damage. Penetration of guns ignores more thickness/resistence

Its still gamey but morr realistic since admin wrote some time ago that even 12 pounders or even less would pen a 1st I think.

It would also make big battles a bit more to linebattles and 3rd rates worth it I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Otto Kohl said:

Thickness mods should reduce speed of the ship or give other penalties. Stacking thickness is just dumb.

I would reduce % given by thickness + give negative speed

If cannons cant penetrate on 50m it gets just stupid so I agree with hachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carthagena Tar should be removed. It's just too OP :ph34r:

:D

 

But totally agree that stacking thickness refits shouldn't be possible same as it isn't for rig refits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jœrnson said:

Carthagena Tar should be removed. It's just too OP :ph34r:

:D

 

But totally agree that stacking thickness refits shouldn't be possible same as it isn't for rig refits.

Best suggestion so far.

Share this post


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

Thickness mods should reduce speed of the ship or give other penalties. 

This. Upgrades balance - in order to work and give variety to gameplay - should be inspired always to the paper-rock-scissors principle.

If you want to build a brick of a ship, you should be able to do it, but then it should really also sail as a brick.

Edited by victor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they changed Cartagena to giving a 0.07 repair malus and Navy Hull refit to give a 0.05 malus it would balance these mods. Logically, the thicker your hull is the harder it is to repair it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a second rate like the Bucentaure have 74 base thickness, a first rate like the victory shouldnt have 80cm.

Ships of the line, from third to first rate should have a small difference in thickness, 6 cm is madness.

No ship should go, counting with all the thickness upgrades, far from 78-80 cm thickness.

 

I think no ship of the time could have 1m of thickness like we can have in NA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

If a second rate like the Bucentaure have 74 base thickness, a first rate like the victory shouldnt have 80cm.

Ships of the line, from third to first rate should have a small difference in thickness, 6 cm is madness.

No ship should go, counting with all the thickness upgrades, far from 78-80 cm thickness.

 

I think no ship of the time could have 1m of thickness like we can have in NA.

this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe thickness would be not an invulnerability to penetration. It would be a reduction of damage to hull and crew only. With a thresshold of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Havelock said:

If they changed Cartagena to giving a 0.07 repair malus and Navy Hull refit to give a 0.05 malus it would balance these mods. Logically, the thicker your hull is the harder it is to repair it.

nah. The thickness is an issue overall. 24s and even 18s should be penning a 1sts hull at a 20 degree angle at 250 m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HachiRoku said:

nah. The thickness is an issue overall. 24s and even 18s should be penning a 1sts hull at a 20 degree angle at 250 m

a lower thickness would make frigates actually a bit more usefull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, rediii said:

a lower thickness would make frigates actually a bit more usefull.

Even more usefull? A decent frigate can 1on1 a SoL. Keep thickness as it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cornelis Tromp said:

After you lose an advantage. So gitgud.

Having that port gives you no advantage and doesn't mean you can buy cartagena tar. Everybody has an alt that can outbid you.

Stacking thickness upgrades is not new issue and it has to be dealt with, just like speed mods few months ago.

Edited by Otto Kohl

Share this post


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

Having that port gives you no advantage and doesn't mean you can buy cartagena tar. Everybody has an alt that can outbid you.

Stacking thickness upgrades is not new issue and it has to be dealt with, just like speed mods few months ago.

Every one pays tax's even if they cancel a bid, with that tax you can actually out bid folks an never loose a dime.  Cause any tax off the bids you get in your clan bank.   So yes owning it does make a big advantage.

Just saw this screen posted last night by VCO and I would like to add those saying frigates are useless seem to be doing it wrong.    Maybe not if you fight broad side to broad side, but they look very useful for taking a 1st rate out.  Maybe if you actually got close and engaged each other you would pen ships.   Though looks like he blew himself up, so wonder why?  @Christendom I'm sure can give the full story as to what happen.  I would trade a l'Hermione for a Santi death any day either way.

Screenshot_2018-01-05_01.16.11.png

With that though I do think they should not be stacked, the mods that is.  That way you have two means to get the thickness mod.  In game through PvE or through PvP.  So the simple solution would be just to make them where they can't be stacked.  Though I do agree it should effect something else, but in the real world the thickness or weight of a ship did not slow it down.  It was all about the shape of the hull and the water resistance against it.  Connie was a very fast ship even though made out of Live Oak, that didn't slow her down, it made her every resistance to most cannons of her class and below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cornelis Tromp said:

Even more usefull? A decent frigate can 1on1 a SoL. Keep thickness as it is. 

The problem is not with 1on1.

These types of combats are decided by stern raking (frigate vs SoL) or by demasting (frigate vs frigate).

The problem is fleet engagements, especially port battles, where thickness >>> all.

Penetration of all guns, but epecially of low caliber guns should be much higher in close distances. I would say at least 18 pounders should penetrate SoL huls on 50 meter or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sveno said:

It is completely unrealistic since you can stack both carta and pvp upgrade (+7% plus +5% on armor).
This leads to very tedious portbattles, where you when driving hull on hull still do not penetrate with most guns.

Also, smaller ships become so far senseless, that most PB's with 2'400 BR fleets rather take a very low number of 1st rates instead of a mix of smaller ships.
Smaller ships with lesser calibre should be able to damage big ships, when they get near, right now that is futile.

This thickness madness is contradicting the aim of the devs to have more variety amongst the PB fleets - armor pimped 1st rates have become the meta for all PBs except shallow PBs.

Please change that, allow us have more fluent and varied portbattles where you can apply more tactics than to grouphug ships.
 

Going with a small number of heavy ships in 2.400 BR portbattles has a healthy impact on game. It enables nations with a small playerbase to be successful in PB as well. Not the highest numbers of rvr captains counts in those small battles but the highest skills. Thickness is a good and necessary tool to guarantee that smaller nations can beat bigger nations and built up their countries to compete on the long run.

Weak ships only help the three biggest nations to defend their access to Victory marks. Finally everybody looses. The small nations have no chance even in PBs with low BR, so they refuse to fight the big nations. Their playerbase gets bored and leaves the game. If you wanna have PBs with high numbers of ships, you can focus on high BR ports. High Variety in PBs doesn't mean only high numbers of players but PBs with low numbers as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Graf Bernadotte said:

Going with a small number of heavy ships in 2.400 BR portbattles has a healthy impact on game. It enables nations with a small playerbase to be successful in PB as well. Not the highest numbers of rvr captains counts in those small battles but the highest skills. Thickness is a good and necessary tool to guarantee that smaller nations can beat bigger nations and built up their countries to compete on the long run.

Weak ships only help the three biggest nations to defend their access to Victory marks. Finally everybody looses. The small nations have no chance even in PBs with low BR, so they refuse to fight the big nations. Their playerbase gets bored and leaves the game. If you wanna have PBs with high numbers of ships, you can focus on high BR ports. High Variety in PBs doesn't mean only high numbers of players but PBs with low numbers as well.

Agreed but they have to make 1st rates more killable, right now its a joke.

Otherwise small nations without Victory marks have no chance.

 

Its also very boring to only penetrate enemy ship within 50 meters

Edited by Jon Snow lets go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jon Snow lets go said:

Agreed but they have to make 1st rates more killable, right now its a joke.

Otherwise small nations without Victory marks have no chance.

 

Its also very boring to only penetrate enemy ship within 50 meters

I'm not in general against changes. I only wanted to point out that changing a mechanic has always an impact on the game balance and needs changes on other mechanics as well, to neutralize bad impacts. I don't see the point why frigates should be able to sink 1. Rates. If we argue with historical accuracy we would have to change this as well. Maybe thickness is not the best tool to make it more difficult to attack 1. Rates by frigates, maybe we should discuss turnrate and speed of the small attackers as well to get a more balanced game play. We should also discuss if the relation between thickness of 1. Rates and frigates is realistic. Reduce thickness for all ship types would set smaller ships under risk to sink immediately if they make the mistake to sail into a broadside of a stronger one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one believes in German wikipedia damage of line ships sailing parallel to the enemy line was limited. That's why such battles usually ended undecided. Victorys were fought by concentrate fire on short distances. The fight was decided by boarding of damaged ships.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linienschiff

If we call for historical accuracy we don't have to change game mechanic but PB tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
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

×