Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Hull thickness feedback

Recommended Posts

Captains

in the last patch thickness was lowered for 5th rates and above. For example first rates lost approximately 10cm in thickness of hull. Smaller changes were applied for 4th rates and 5th rates too.

Based on sailing this weekend - can you please share your experiences and thoughts on new thickness?

Did it make game play better and more fun - or did it make it worse to your opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definatly better. Frigates have a chance again. However 1 poods are too OP so meta atm is 4th rates with double poods.

BR needs to be adjusted now aswell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that first rate are scary now because of their possible damage output and not because they are unkillable supertanks.

 

Need more time and fights to give more specific feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Divided.

That "first broadside" can be very effective, was it was, technically crippling the enemy ship.

On the other hand some of the defects presented can be overcome with equipping the ships, providing more penetration over distance, which invariably will turn a 4th rate into a sip of the line killer by battering its sides.

Overall, and imagining that gunnery will be reviewed as well, I think it was a tad too much on the SOLs, but the frigates feel good, same as the brigs and schooners.

Share this post


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

Definatly better. Frigates have a chance again. However 1 poods are too OP so meta atm is 4th rates with double poods.

BR needs to be adjusted now aswell

TBH since poods are not craftable, I see no meta issue here.

For the rest now is much better then before PVP wise (but maybe you should nerf a bit the precision/damage of NPC in PVE environments)

Edited by victor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it surely is more realistic, now 1 rates can't solo big BR fleets on their own, I do think there should be a bit of rebalance between rates.

Example, I've been told the difference between , say , a Victory and an Indefatigable, as base thickness, is just 6 centimeters.

(Not to mention the speed/ turn rate/ sailing profile situation but that's off topic here). 

Personal experience: been doing couple of 3 vs 25, at BR 2400, and 2 Rear admiral missions. While small ships can be disintegrated very fast, bellonas, but st. pavels especially, do damage a lot more, if I take broadside to broadside 2 of them, I'd need to repair a couple of times. Won't even imagine what taking a santi is now.

This brings to the cannon situation, those edinorogs, but in general cannon damage and penetration is surely way more relevant now, which at the end of the day might really be close to what it was in real life, but I'm no expert nor historian so can't really say.

Edited by JoeForKyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

much much better. for the first time since steam release the meta is actually shooting hull to sink ships. not boarding and not dismasting. I think the frigates could stand a little thickness buff to bring them to a little bit better standing position. thickness patch was good. I do agree that the unicorn guns are a bit OP. 

Share this post


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

TBH since poods are not craftable, I see no meta issue here.

For the rest now is much better then before PVP wise (but maybe you should nerf a bit the precision/damage of NPC in PVE environments).

LOL except that our 4 man clan has 900 off them with alts. Just imagine how many more people have loads of alts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HachiRoku said:

LOL except that our 4 man clan has 900 off them with alts. Just imagine how many more people have loads of alts. 

Your clan mates will sink their 4th rates sooner or later.

900 cannons means  more or less a complete fit for 17 agas.

17/4 is roughly 4 agas each.

Add the fact that every player has 100 at least.

So I confirm ... I see no meta issue here.

Share this post


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

Your clan mates will sink their 4th rates sooner or later.

900 cannons means  more or less a complete fit for 17 agas.

17/4 is roughly 4 agas each.

Add the fact that every player has 100 at least.

So I confirm ... I see no meta issue here.

Everyone who was fast enough to see how OP they are bought as many as he was able to.

We actually have several thousands of them. Can't see that we get out of these cannons in months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 aggys? It would take us 4 a year to loose them. The. I Loose more trincs a week than the rest of server combined. I bet I could still get guns after sinking 100 trincs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

17 aggys? It would take us 4 a year to loose them. The. I Loose more trincs a week than the rest of server combined. I bet I could still get guns after sinking 100 trincs. 

Start equipping pood on trinco then

 

Share this post


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

Everyone who was fast enough to see how OP they are bought as many as he was able to.

We actually have several thousands of them. Can't see that we get out of these cannons in months

yet there are for sure others that have done the same, so - again - what's the point?

Share this post


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

Start equipping pood on trinco then

 

I'm not a meta gamer. I never sailed wasa, never stacked repair mods and will not use op pood guns. Metas ruin games and its good if certain people don't use it. My clan mate Otto uses them but he needs them cause he is trash and I would smash him in 1v1 if he used longs. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HachiRoku said:

I'm not a meta gamer. I never sailed wasa, never stacked repair mods and will not use op pood guns. Metas ruin games and its good if certain people don't use it. My clan mate Otto uses them but he needs them cause he is trash and I would smash him in 1v1 if he used longs. 

 

if you do not use meta cannons, that's not per se a valid reason to nerf them.

If you are so superior, why do you even bother about poods?

 

Edited by victor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, victor said:

yet there are for sure others that have done the same, so - again - what's the point?

Thats a point you can bring for everything

 

They use exploits but so do we - why fix them?

They use imba cannons and so do we - why change them?

They use only the wasa but so do we - why change the wasa?

They have 25 oceans because its meta but so do we - Why change the ocean?

They doublestack thickness to become steelships but so do we

...

you got the point I guess. Its bad for gameplay.

Edited by rediii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hull thickness was a proxy for 'difficult to sink' and the first rates should not sink easily and now they sink pretty fast again much like before strong hulls etc - so either the nerf is a bit too much or we need a different way to reflect the robustness of particular ship classes. Maybe more structure hp would work. First rate ships become crippled as now and very vulnerable to grape, leaks and demasting without side armour but don't sink as quickly. 

Demasting is an issue - single shots into masts is clearly a skill but not a realistic representation of how it should be. Masts need a buff - more hits required is probably better than invulnerable due to excessive thickness.

The Edinorogs are now OP - very nice but a meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rediii said:

Thats a point you can bring for everything

 

They use exploits but so do we - why fix them?

They use imba cannons and so do we - why change them?

They use only the wasa but so do we - why change the wasa?

They have 25 oceans because its meta but so do we - Why change the Wasa?

They doublestack thickness to become steelships but so do we

...

you got the point I guess. Its bad for gameplay.

In fact I am growing tired of writing on this forum.

Everybody (and some players in particular) have always something to change (of course bad for the gameplay, but also - I guess - bad for their gameplay). And of course everyone has a point for everything. And the result is .... this game WILL NEVER BE LAUNCHED.

Vocal players always win the match on this forums since a point it's always easy to be found and Devs go back and forth about too many things.

Actually - and be sincere, please - are Pood a problem for this game?

Edited by victor

Share this post


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

Hull thickness was a proxy for 'difficult to sink' and the first rates should not sink easily and now they sink pretty fast again much like before strong hulls etc - so either the nerf is a bit too much or we need a different way to reflect the robustness of particular ship classes. Maybe more structure hp would work. First rate ships become crippled as now and very vulnerable to grape, leaks and demasting without side armour but don't sink as quickly. 

Demasting is an issue - single shots into masts is clearly a skill but not a realistic representation of how it should be. Masts need a buff - more hits required is probably better than invulnerable due to excessive thickness.

The Edinorogs are now OP - very nice but a meta.

1sts have the firepower but a 3rd can fight againdt it on broadside. Thats uow it should be in my oppinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now thickness is right balanced. The penetration has a good balance acording to thickness, wood type, canon caliber, distance and ammunition.

1 rates with hull refits are difficult to penetrate, but aren't "unkillable" any more. The different possibilties to equip a ship with guns depends much more on the players manner how he attacs, than to enemies shipconstruction.

I think - well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, victor said:

In fact I am growing tired of writing on this forum.

Everybody (and some players in particular) have always something to change (of course bad for the gameplay, but also - I guess - bad for their gameplay). And of course everyone has a point for everything. And the result is .... this game WILL NEVER BE LAUNCHED.

Vocal players always win the match on this forums since a point it's always easy to be found and Devs go back and forth about too many things.

Actually - and be sincere, please - are Pood a problem for this game?

Yes they are because No other ships than agas and wapens will be used in smaller portbattles. We have a new wasa again.

Do the math they are just OP. and I just told my we bought several thousands of them in every capital possible so they are not bad for my gameplay, I just adapt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rediii said:

Yes they are because No other ships than agas and wapens will be used in smaller portbattles. We have a new wasa again.

Do the math they are just OP. and I just told my we bought several thousands of them in every capital possible so they are not bad for my gameplay, I just adapt.

No they arent .... because they are a limited resource (wasa were a meta because you could craft as many as you wanted, poods were a one shot gift).

So, see ... argument/counter argument.

I stop here.

Edited by victor

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

×