Area Control to all ships if....

[z4ys]

Suggestion:

If no bow chasers are equiped any ship will be able to have area control.

 

For example:

A prince without bow chasers gets area control

Edited August 26, 2018 by z4ys

[Hethwill]

That's how i thought the mechanic would work when was implemented. If I equipped no bow guns ( even if i have th gun ports ) I would be considered with no bow guns, hence Control would work.

Good suggestion.

[vazco]

Area control is what makes some ships unique and worth sailing. Idea you suggest would make them worthless when compared to those with chasers. 

It would be also very hard to distinguish which ship has control, making game more confusing. It would be better to give all ships area control, at least it's less confusing - even if it removes ship variety. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by vazco

[Lovec1990]

How is area control even usefull?

you sill need to catch enemy

[Percival Merewether]

1 hour ago, Lovec1990 said:

How is area control even usefull?

you sill need to catch enemy

Often the best angle of approach makes you unable to shoot at your opponent.

Eg.: Your enemy is fore-and-aft rigged and is sailing close hauled. You're in a faster square-rigged ship but can't go as close to the wind. In this case it may be beneficial to sail at a wider angle to the wind in order to get along side your enemy for demasting/chaining. The way the system works atm you have to turn at your opponent once every 1-2 minutes to keep your enemy tagged causing you to lose a significant amount of speed and distance to target. This enables a ship that otherwise wouldn't be able to get away to run because of the timer.

Control needs to be added to all ships.

1 hour ago, vazco said:

Area control is what makes some ships unique and worth sailing. Idea you suggest would make them worthless when compared to those with chasers. 

It would be also very hard to distinguish which ship has control, making game more confusing. It would be better to give all ships area control, at least it's less confusing - even if it removes ship variety. 

This is also a very good point, however.. I believe that every ship in-game should have bow and stern chasers - it would be fairly easy for a carpenter to mount chasers on the vast majority of ships in-game such as the Buc, Trinc and Ren.

EDIT: Would actually be really cool to have chasers as a knowledge or perk.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Percival Merewether

[admin]

11 minutes ago, Percival Merewether said:

EDIT: Would actually be really cool to have chasers as a knowledge or perk.

The problem with chasers is that some ships are modelled without the bow ports according to the blueprints. And it will require quite an effort to rework the systems to provide bow/stern chaser opportunities on all ships. Once we clear priorities out we can come back to this. 

[Hethwill]

1 hour ago, Lovec1990 said:

How is area control even usefull?

you sill need to catch enemy

Closure rate.

That's all Area control is about.

[Percival Merewether]

2 minutes ago, admin said:

The problem with chasers is that some ships are modelled without the bow ports according to the blueprints. And it will require quite an effort to rework the systems to provide bow/stern chaser opportunities on all ships. Once we clear priorities out we can come back to this. 

Understandable; it's not an easy task or a high priority (Will require a considerable amount of modeling). I'm Just throwing some ideas out there.

[HachiRoku]

I think control should be added to all ships. There are so many times I have been forced to get into a position I did not want to be in just to tag. I have also "abused" this behind trincs and Stern camped them until I could leave. I can't imagine how the guy felt when an almost dead surprise magicly disappeared. 

[Hethwill]

2 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

I think control should be added to all ships.

Area control + equipped bow guns > Area control + no bow guns

Area control + no bow guns is equivalent to bow guns equipped.

[Fargo]

On 8/27/2018 at 3:38 PM, Wraith said:

Why not just make area control work all the time, chasers or no? If the intent is grief, then players will be running ships that have control anyway. Having control allows for much better tactical decisions when chasing and it doesn't make any sense as a "magic" feature that changes the engagement.

This would make most sense... but probably suggested 10 times already. Maybe this time were atleast going to get some reasoning. It makes zero sense to balance something with different rule sets, so this would be interesting to hear. 

Give people one general rule set that makes sense and reflects realism and doesnt change. Spawn distance is a very similar thing. While after years we slowly understood that escaping 10 meters infront of someone is bad even if we ignore the realism aspects, why allow spawns so close?! Or so far that defensive tagging is an option. Whats bad about a fixed spawn distance, that could depend on calliber/effective cannon range? We should atleast test stuff like this... Most restrictions are only needed because such basic mechanics arent working properly.

Its stupid to change fundamental mechanics. Besides the argument of realism what nobody wants to hear anymore, it makes the game more complicated, in a bad way. In the end youre going to need a manual explaining what youre not allowed to do with what ship under what circumstances, etc., explaining all the restrictions, different zones, different timers, different mechanics... for a sandbox style game.

[Hethwill]

General ruleset would be - no bow guns ( not by gun ports ) equals Control.

That way the choice is the player's.

[Old Crusty]

What makes it possible for one ship to escape another? What makes it possible for one to to “control” another?

i personally think that “control” is completely bogus. The ability of a ship to hit the enemy gives control. The ability of a ship to catch and overtake a ship gives it control. If people think that we need more time to be able to hit the enemy before they are allowed to escape, then that can be talked about.

For example, I have a ship that is faster than the one I am chasing. My ship does not have bow chasers. To “tag” the enemy ship I have to turn to give it my broadside and in so doing I lose ground. Reality says that I can do this all day long. The game says if I cannot do that every 1:45 minutes then the enemy escapes.

For game purposes I don’t know ehat works best but I do believe that “control” is bogus.

[Hethwill]

18 minutes ago, Old Crusty said:

What makes it possible for one ship to escape another? What makes it possible for one to to “control” another?

Closure and separation rate. Control definitely simulates this.

Imagine the 2 ships start at 1000m. If after a while one has the other in control, means they are 750m apart. Closure rate means there's enough time ( battles are designed for 90 minutes ) to catch up.

If separation rate is high, control will never happen.

[speijk]

Sorry to say.

but area control is complete utherless unrealistic and unnnecesary.

and should be removed earlier then be improved.

u force someone to stay in battle whit a hit ( realistic fear or hit )  i would say give it 3 minuts instead of 1.50 now.

but this is wat erea control by real example example does.

i am sailing at same speed as my opponent. he not close up. he not get further. but he can keep me in battle.
he obvious mistagged and  could not engage me. this only wil have worked for  collecting people outside of the battle.

how come i should be punisht for his failure to enforce a battle. because that is the sole purpose of a bow chaser. chase the battle.

 

this request is nothing else then force people to fight. running from a battle is a realistic answer if someone dont think he can win. its the attackers  choice to engage. let him enforce it whit player skill.

 

in short when u pick a ship for chasing. let it have a chaser guns for tagging. its in the ship picking choice. if it doesnt u have to sail more creative. u pickt a ship that has no chasers. not the others fault.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by speijk

[Percival Merewether]

18 minutes ago, speijk said:

but area control is complete utherless unrealistic

You are 100% correct on this one.... there are numerous historical examples of ships disappearing into thin air right under the enemy's nose after not being hit by a cannonball for two minutes.... 😛

If you are faster than your opponent, then you will be able to leave the control zone.. nobody says that it has to be a 15km radius control zone.

Hachi's example is the best in this post as to why control should be added, though I feel I make a pretty good point as well.

On 8/27/2018 at 10:53 AM, HachiRoku said:

I think control should be added to all ships. There are so many times I have been forced to get into a position I did not want to be in just to tag. I have also "abused" this behind trincs and Stern camped them until I could leave. I can't imagine how the guy felt when an almost dead surprise magicly disappeared. 

On 8/27/2018 at 10:31 AM, Percival Merewether said:

Often the best angle of approach makes you unable to shoot at your opponent.

Eg.: Your enemy is fore-and-aft rigged and is sailing close hauled. You're in a faster square-rigged ship but can't go as close to the wind. In this case it may be beneficial to sail at a wider angle to the wind in order to get along side your enemy for demasting/chaining. The way the system works atm you have to turn at your opponent once every 1-2 minutes to keep your enemy tagged causing you to lose a significant amount of speed and distance to target. This enables a ship that otherwise wouldn't be able to get away to run because of the timer.

Hethwill does mention the point of in-game balance - Admin has also mentioned in the newest post regarding patch 26 that they will prioritise balance over accuacy.. so neither of us can really use the historical accuacy argument anymore.

On 8/27/2018 at 10:58 AM, Hethwill the Harmless said:

Area control + equipped bow guns > Area control + no bow guns

Area control + no bow guns is equivalent to bow guns equipped.

For the sake of playability though, I do not see why you shouldn't have a small control zone preventing the enemy from escaping when right next to you (e.g. 300 meters).

Edited August 29, 2018 by Percival Merewether

[Hethwill]

Battles are 90minutes

300m at 0.1kn closure rate will take a bit of time, but will catch up

battles are not 15 minutes, so we have time to let the wind work and get closer, inch by inch.

750m as is now is perfect.

If you have separation speed and it increases you will get away in no time.

 

[speijk]

37 minutes ago, Percival Merewether said:

You are 100% correct on this one.... there are numerous historical examples of ships disappearing into thin air right under the enemy's nose after not being hit by a cannonball for two minutes.... 😛

If you are faster than your opponent, then you will be able to leave the control zone.. nobody says that it has to be a 15km radius control zone.

Hachi's example is the best in this post as to why control should be added, though I feel I make a pretty good point as well.

Hethwill does mention the point of in-game balance - Admin has also mentioned in the newest post regarding patch 26 that they will prioritise balance over accuacy.. so neither of us can really use the historical accuacy argument anymore.

For the sake of playability though, I do not see why you shouldn't have a small control zone preventing the enemy from escaping when right next to you (e.g. 300 meters).

like i said increase the time by 1.5 minuts. but also lets keep realistic. what u guys asking now.

is give the agressor a chance...  to  pick the ships whatever he want for any role.

is give the agressor a chance... to  engage at any wheather gage at any distance.
area control is something u enforce. by youre speed /  gunfire.
if u cant shoot in 2 minuts 1 hit.  the question is are u close enough to fight.?? aperently not.
so u have no area control

what u could have asked for instead is make the initial run time lets pick a random numer so 10 minuts from the beginning of the battle before u can escape. that would make more sense.

 

the example i gave in previous post. was too the point where i could have shot my rear guns. and get hits if i wanted too...
if the attacker not have front guns... who's fault is it at this point the defender or the agressor?
 

 

i mean if pick my  ship for what i do. i go open sea hunting
- do i need to tagging? yes ok i need front guns or no i dont need front guns.
so u check which of ure ships have front guns. ... 
do i like losing a target cause i miss? no ! but its part of them game if it happend the otherside defended wel.

this hole topic is meant to " claim fights on 1 sides term"

solutions for  this are.

give a escape free minuts from start or increase the tag time by 1 minute.
dont tell me u can reload ure chasers in 3 minuts??

think about ow too. in this principle u can be kept in battle for 30 minuts whitout a shot fired. lets say at same speed. result is  ow have free time to collect.


 

Edited August 29, 2018 by speijk

[Percival Merewether]

@speijk I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. This is not about whether or not you can hit your target - the problem is that you have to sacrifice a beneficial position because you're forced to keep your opponent tagged. I have escaped in a Bellona vs Bellona fight in the past - I did this well within gun-range and he failed to tag me because he had grape loaded. That gave me an unfair advantage. I was 100 meters away..

When two ships are next to each other it should be impossible to leave regardless of tagging. The most frustrating thing in battle is having your opponent escape right under your nose.. it should simply not be possible.

[speijk]

1. his fault. too load grape simple. so make it posseble to make it whitin 3 minuts.  if u cant prep a gun to bear  and fire in 3 minuts it shoudl be his fault.
current suggestions u gave also punishing those who are infront etc. :)
if its side to side only make it 300m 6 minuts.  but doubt its posseble from programming views