Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

William Death

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,412 Excellent

About William Death

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    At Sea

Recent Profile Visitors

2,768 profile views
  1. I agree with Liq. It’s nice to see some change away from bow and stern tanking, but structural and mast damage are both far too high at the moment. No ship should sink from rakes, neither should hull rakes dismast a ship. Weakening masts is fine. But not totally take the mast off, except in very very rare occasions. <insert historical example and complaints here blah blah> I don’t care. It’s bad for balance. It promotes unskilled gameplay. It takes away a bit more from what is left of the depth of combat. Don’t nerf it to the ground, but tune it down some. Rakes should be powerful and in some cases deciding. But at the moment it detracts from skilled positioning to setup broadside exchanges and traditional rigging shooting to cripple or dismast.
  2. Did you read the rest of my post? I'm not at all against single-shot demasting. I was making a point that it is the closest representation we have to a gun captain aiming a gun. We become the gun captain. But the ship wasn't firing one gun, waiting a while, firing another, etc. Not if I understand the way gun crews worked. You'd have each gun pointed by a gun captain. Several guns overseen by an officer/midshipman and they'd all fire one right after the other, in a rolling line down the side of the ship. Right? We don't quite have that in game, since we are aiming the cannons ourselves. It takes longer and gives the "pew....pew....pew....*crew cheers as mast falls*" that so many people seem to hate and call unrealistic. I am not one of those people. I wasn't arguing *against* the mechanics we have in the game. I was arguing for them. Pointing out the logic behind why single-shot mast sniping is ok. But thank you for the reply.
  3. No...they didn't fire them "single-shot" one at a time to hit a mast and take it down. On ship firing 50 broadside guns, 50 gun captains would point each individual cannon at the rigging. 50 gun captains would fire each individual cannon. One, by one, by one. In a rolling line down the length of the vessel. I don't have 50 gun captains aboard my ship that I can tell to shoot rigging (not that shooting the rigging does mast damage in NA). I have a computer that attempts to guess where I want to put the cannonballs if I click-fire the whole broadside. It doesn't work very well most of the time. Or I can be the gun captain and point each and every one of those 50 cannons myself, aiming and firing them into the masts of the enemy (since we don't have rigging hitboxes). I choose to use the mechanic which most closely represents a gun captain pointing his cannon. And that happens to be single-shotting the broadside. Implement proper rigging damage that is tied to variable wind strength, remove mast repairs, increase penetration values for all guns, decrease mast thickness to almost zero (because pine masts don't bounce much), and decrease accuracy a bunch if you want historical accuracy. But it won't be fun to play that when the majority of your cannonballs miss, and then most battles are decided with a few broadsides that do hit. And that last point is just silly. How can you simultaneously ask for realism and also ask for limitation on how fast you can fire the cannons, or make firing a single cannonball do less damage? As much as I dislike the current damage model, demasting isn't an issue right now. You can very easily run enough mods to make your masts invulnerable. You can regrow your masts with magical repairs every 12 minutes. I agree with @van Veen, there are plenty more pressing issues to address before we look at yet another damage model which will introduce a whole new set of bugs and exploits and shift the meta balance again.
  4. I look forward to variable wind speeds. Can you tie in mast HP to wind speed? So if you set too many sails and the wind is too strong, your masts might carry away (or be shot away very very easily)? I think this could be good for depth of combat. If you sail a ship and set all sails, you might be faster than the ship sailing more conservatively, but turn your yards too hard into the wind or have a cannonball hit your mast and it falls. The chase scene from Patrick O'Brian's Desolation Island comes to mind. I've quoted the relevant part here: [Context: the Leopard has been stalked by the Waakzaamheid for quite some time. In rough weather in the roaring 40s, the Waakzaamheid is closing in. Jack has just pointed a stern chaser and it fired...] Its fictional....but I think it could probably happen. Would be cool to see that in the game. Also, I highly recommend that book. The building suspense as Waakzaamheid chases Leopard through the roaring 40s is top-notch writing, as is the norm with the Aubrey-Maturin series.
  5. Exactly! I fought a player who sailed an Endymion with a DPS build (I think he said 12pd carronades....might have been the same player you speak of lol) Anyways he had a friend in a Bellona with him. I was sailing my Wapen. I could outrun the Bellona, but the Endymion was trying to hug my side until he sank me. I faked a couple tacks and eventually pulled enough distance to demast him and he ran back to his Bellona friend and I escaped. DPS builds only work when the player you’re fighting is inexperienced enough to not know what to do against it.
  6. Your apparent comprehension of what I wrote is as lacking as the “logic” you base your arguments off of. Do you have any facts or informed opinions to counter the points I made in my previous reply to you, or do you prefer to just troll in the patch feedback thread? If I was unclear in any point, I am happy to explain in further detail if you’re actually curious to understand why these overpowered bonuses are bad for the balance of the game. But something tells me you’d prefer to keep your incorrect ideas and hide behind the kind of trollish comments as above. In response to the one point you bring up: I only said that fir ships still have their uses if you read a sailing profile chart for a ship with a mega stack of speed mods. Again I’ll leave it to you to investigate that and see if you think there might possibly be any use for a ship that hits the speed cap at multiple sailing angles. Oh, and btw, fir first rates were great before the speed nerfs 🙂 Forgive those of us who are “crying” if we choose to point out massive imbalances that punish the players who aren’t super skilled and competent enough to get the OP gear. Don’t you worry about our access to OP gear, in time we’ll each have a full fleet of seasoned ships. But ask yourself if it’s worth it to further widen the skill gap between a skilled veteran player and someone who has done maybe 10 port battles in their entire time in the game. Isn’t it punishment enough for that player that he sinks every time he meets a decent player in a somewhat equal battle? Does he need to be punished further because his nation can’t get good port bonuses, and his access to seasoned woods is severely limited? Is this what you’re supporting? Back when I was just getting my feet wet in PvP, I could get a ship that was comparable to my enemy’s ship without any issue. If I lost it, I could get another easily. We even had durabilities back then (there’s good and bad with that, granted), so the mods (which were cheap and somewhat balanced) lasted a while. Unfortunately modern NA punishes the losers so hard, many don’t stick around long enough to get good. And that’s a shame. Maybe your argument is that players should just buy the DLC. And if that’s the case then I guess there’s a fundamental difference in how we view the role of the dlc ships. I think they should provide an easy way for someone to sail out and fight in a ship that is better than a shop frigate or AI capped ship. I don’t think they should have to be relied on as the only way players in a nation without access to port bonuses and capabilities to get seasoned woods can get a competitive ship. See the preceding paragraph for why easily obtainable competitive ships should be built into the game.
  7. Are we playing the same game? Because you can easily stack some excellent repair bonuses, mods for iron masts, mods for speed, hull thickness, etc. How can he outrun you if you also have speed mods? How can he out-shoot you (as you put it) if your masts are invulnerable and you're mildly competent and angling your hull? How can he board you if you're semi-competent at manual sailing (you should never be boarded 1v1 when you have more than 70% sails standing; if you are boarded under those conditions...its entirely your fault). What wonderful area are you hunting where players sail side-by-side with you and let you pump 13 or 14 broadsides into them without them turning away? Because I'd like to take my Santisima there and farm some combat medals Sure, teak is fast enough most of the time. But fir is faster still. You should look at the netlify map. You might find some interesting things happen with mega speed stacking and fir/fir. I'll leave it up to you to do that investigating for yourself though. Have you ever tried to board a competent player who didn't want to let you board him? Its quite hard to do, actually. You're inventing scenarios that simply don't happen unless you only fight the most unskilled players. Its fine to have customization abilities. Its fine to min/max builds (even if those builds are useless), or go with more general purpose stacking. What isn't fine, is introducing all new woods that are incredibly difficult/expensive to obtain, and only further widen the gap between the skilled veteran players/clans, and the unskilled/newb players/clans. This captain gets it. Well said here + the green text.
  8. Wait a minute...I think remember what you're talking about. And if we're thinking of the same clan (MLP) those weren't PvE players LOLOLOL They were a certain skilled clan from PvP1 known for their superb demasting skills, and they schooled us because only a very very small percentage of PvP2 knew how to sail properly, hold the wind, demast, angle, etc. And even that small percentage of us were no match for the best from PvP1. Trust me, I know, I was there. I fought them. I later spoke with the player I was fighting and confirmed he was, in fact, a PvP1 player. You got trolled. I got trolled. We all got trolled by them. And it was hilarious. Anyways, on topic...I think if PvE server advertises a safe space with no PvP...then it should remove all possibility of PvP happening. I'll never set foot there, because AI doesn't provide much of a challenge to me. But it seems like Admin is aware of the issue and has a fix in the works. But this thread has been great! 😂😂
  9. Re-reading what I wrote, perhaps I wasn't so clear in that point. I was pointing out that several folks in this thread have come at it from the angle "Hurr-durr you need to stop metagaming so hard and just sail a regular [trash] ship, let skill win the day." Well that sort of works on a very small 1v1 or 2v2 3v3 etc. scale; especially when the skill gap is large. I was just trying to emphasize that the biggest impact of seasoned woods is not on the solo/small group player, but rather on the players who do RvR. Where you absolutely NEED those good ships in your fleet. Because 25 seasoned ships vs 25 legacy ships isn't much of a fight at all, if skill is even remotely equal. I didn't mean that I promote excluding small group players from having good ships as being ok. Because its not. But if port bonuses are here to stay (as I think they are, sadly), then I think the only requirement to craft a ship with port bonuses should be being on the friend's list. Now that the list is able to contain more clans, space isn't so much an issue. As long as your clan contributes to the nation's cause, you get port bonuses. I like that the friend's list provides a way to punish clans who actively work against the interests of the nation (interests which are defined by the most powerful clan in the nation). And it seems that most nations have a catch-all clan that will take in anyone who asks for an invite, and they're generally on the friends list because a few of them will turn up for screening at each port battle. So that part of it works out usually. But I still don't like OP port bonuses. With that being said, I've always been of the stance that good ships should be easily accessible by all players. Remove port bonuses and seasoned woods and it'll be that way. Let skill be the deciding factor in fights, not gear. It was this way a long time ago. Most ship upgrade stackings were maximum +/-10% from the base stats, and most were very easily accessible. I'm still not sure why we moved away from that... I'd say do away with seasoned woods altogether, remove port bonuses, and maybe even remove some upgrades too.
  10. What should have been done, is something like what Fluffy Fishy had suggested: the implementation of green wood. I'd add a twist to that: Place green wood into the shops at free towns, in unlimited supply. When you select the option to build a ship with green wood, the requirement for a permit goes away. So you could build any craftable ship in the game with green wood, but it'd have worse-stats than a player-built ship, but more reliable quality than what you might capture off of AI. The historical argument against it has already been made too: ALL warships were built of seasoned wood (with a few exceptions). Building an expensive warship from inferior green wood wouldn't make a lot of sense, unless your nation was running out of wood. Furthermore, seasoning isn't sorcery. You cut the timber, stack it in the shed, keep it semi-dry, and re-arrange it once in a while. After a year or three, your timber is seasoned. If you absolutely had to use some green wood in your ship, you could use it where it mattered less, like deck beams or interior planking.
  11. Do you want to play a game that rewards skilled play, or do you want to play a game where fancy gear makes the difference in a fight? Because one of these things is not like the other . I can beat any noob in a seasoned ship, with my non-seasoned ship. Thats not an issue. One-on-one PvP fights aren't relevant to the discussion. Go to the battle results threads and see how many noobs lose frigates to Snows and Hercules. Or how many first rates were sunk with a third rate. Where the issue lies, is in RvR. Naval Action punishes the losers in RvR so hard (you lose your main crafting port and its GG; there is no recovery from that unless some other nation comes to bail you out), that you must win every important RvR fight. And to ensure you win every important RvR fight, you must have your best players in that battle, all sailing the best gear. Conclusion: to RvR, you must have seasoned wood ships. Its quite a grind to get seasoned woods. From my understanding, you'll have to PvE grind quite a bit to get them. I hate PvE. Sure, I could take a fleet of players and sit next to where I think someone else is going to do that PvE, and attempt to hunt those, but we'd probably end up just sitting there for a few hours, wasting time. No fun. Now, assume I have replaced my fleet of standard wood ships, with seasoned wood ships. I'll only sail seasoned wood ships then. Any player worth his salt will be in the same position. Adding these woods did not add any depth to the game. It only created a grind wall. Eventually that grind wall will be passed, and most good players and good clans will be in seasoned ships. Only the quality of combat will drop, because people don't like to lose expensive ships. Remember when ships were cheap, and upgrades weren't so overpowered? People sailed out, fought, sunk, said "GG," and came back out of port again in another ship. Because they had access to good ships, at a good price, and they wanted fights. I remember those times. I miss those times. Fine woods v2.0 was a step in the wrong direction.
  12. NO. Bad idea, already tried, already failed. YES. I will create further imbalance. More than what we already have. Get rid of the fine woods (seasoned woods). All that does is remove the usefulness of regular woods. We already had some useless woods like caguarian and sabicu and bermuda cedar, why would we want to increase the number of useless woods?
  13. Port Battle for Cayman Brac Attackers: British LURE, Commander: Shocktrooper Basteyy (?) Defenders: Russian VSC and friends, Commander: Christendom Outcome: Russia defends Despite not having the wind at the start of the battle, we were able to maneuver the fleet a bit and take the wind before we engaged the enemy fleet. Many ships were damaged, and there were some well-executed blocking maneuvers by both fleets. We sank 4 ships and had a few more of them damaged. Points accumulated before we could sink more. Good fight, thanks to those who made it happen.
  14. Have you considered some kind of interface that will let us pick exactly which sails we want to set, and allow us to set extra sails (like additional staysails and royals on ships that could fly them)? Also, if you implement varying wind strength, I think you should tie mast HP into the amount of sails set, and the strain from the press of sails. This way, a ship with already damaged masts cannot set full sails in a strong wind, without risk of losing his masts. And a small ship won't be able to carry a full press of canvas in strong winds, for fear of carrying it all away or getting thrown broadside to the sea and broaching. I look forward to more depth in the sailing model. You mentioned battle sails. I think this is already in game (feels like it is); but battle sails should make the ship roll less. The press of wind into the sails would stabilize the ship. Ideally, battle sails would be the optimum sail setting that minimizes roll while maximizing speed, without setting additional sails that will cause the ship to roll or pitch more violently. It feels like battle sails already does this in game, but I don't remember if it was ever outright stated.
  15. You're right: why they built different sized ships has nothing to do with wind gusts. But you said you didn't think big ships could be faster than smaller ships. You called it "fantasy." I pointed out (as did others), that large ships could be faster than smaller ships. I went on to point out that what is fantasy is pretending that all ships are useful. The exact points you just made are all points I addressed in my post above. Ignoring shallows for a moment, and remembering that cost has no bearing in Naval Action, there is no reason to sail a smaller ship, when a bigger one can do the job better. Put simply, you called one thing fantasy, I called something else fantasy. So, no, its not a direct reply to anything specific in your post. I was just pointing out a generalization that most people seem to have (and that I inferred you believed as well) that "every ship must have a purpose" For example, that line of thought states that "If ship X has advantage A, then ship Y must have advantage B." We had that for a long time in Naval Action. That still works for many ships in NA. But there are some that it doesn't work for... We had some changes and what we have now in Naval Action is that "Ship X has advantages A and B, making ship Y useless." I don't like that. I'm just stating it the way it is. Then I suggest ways to fix it. Yes, I see your previous replies. Saw them when I posted. I still posted my reply though, because I wanted to analyze it from a different angle. Everyone mentioned the mechanics of why certain ships could do better with certain wind, but it wasn't brought up why you might want to have a 12kn frigate, which is in every way mechanically and functionally inferior to one of those fast third rates (except in shallow draught), in your fleet. I mentioned the cost reasons that influenced these decisions in real life. Then I mentioned why that is a non-factor in NA. And again, I suggested ways to fix it (by diversifying sailing profiles again, the way they used to be). MANY things about this game were better in previous iterations. Some are better now. Thats my opinion. Thats also the opinion of the majority of players I speak to. You call it "basic and vanilla" I call it cutting out the magical bonuses and bringing us back to a skill-based game where it doesn't matter if you don't have meta gear, you can make up the small differences with skill. Its kind of hard to make up a 25%+ gear advantage unless you only fight unskilled players. So we do the grind and conform to the meta gear game, and we can have some fun. But declining game population tells me that maybe not everyone is happy to do that. The first part of my response is a reply to your post. The rest where I discuss mechanics are not in reply to you specifically. Consider that just general feedback regarding the current state of the game. All of which was arrived at from considering why a lineship might sometimes outrun a frigate, or vice-versa. I've expressed my displeasure with various aspects of patches multiple times, and to any party that wants to read it. I think at this point admin knows that I want to see the combat model rolled back to 2017-2018 model; a DLC for the old UI; a rollback to the old, small bonus mods and no port bonuses; and a rollback to 1/1 repair system. I don't expect any of that to happen, but I like to mention it in every feedback thread that relates to it .
  • Create New...