Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

William Death

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by William Death

  1. Its not going to happen. As someone who sails medium sized (3rd-5th rates) for PvP, sometimes alone, I do NOT want my time wasted by some 7th rate. For every one 7th rate skipper who wants to have a real fight (and is competent enough to put up a real fight), there are a dozen more who just want to waste time while a gank fleet assembles. And do what with port battle BRs? And doesn't everyone whinge that nobody ever takes 6th rates into PBs? Doing what you say, will only make the Surprise/Reno/Herc shallow PB spam even worse. Sail a proper ship if you want to fight other proper ships. Use the small ships for what they were intended for (hunting traders and other small ships). A Snow or Prince or Niagara has enough BR to tag 5th rates and even 4th rates, last I checked. So sail those if you insist on trying to fight bigger ships.
  2. It is intentional. You need a certain amount of BR in order to tag. I believe the last numbers I read were that you can tag 5x greater BR when solo. Groups scale differently. Perhaps someone can confirm those multipliers, I'm not absolutely certain those numbers are correct anymore. Its done to prevent trolling people. Before that mechanism was implemented people would buy a cheap ship, or even just use a cutter and tag in entire fleets and kite them in battle to waste their time. Realistically, you're not going to defeat someone with 5x your BR unless they're very, very, very bad, and you're very good. Or they're AFK.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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! 😂😂
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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 .
  18. Or, you could have a poorly trimmed (or even poorly designed) frigate, that is quite slow. And a well-trimmed and well designed 3rd rate that is extremely fast. There are plenty of accounts of lineships going faster than frigates. Fouling, captain skills, all that plays a part. But we can't ignore design differences. Others already made some good points. But larger ships don't necessarily use "different wind" (ignoring even that they catch the 'better' wind higher up in the atmosphere). They just have more sails and can catch more of the wind. And they have larger, heavier hulls, that will stand up to more of the wind too. What is fantasy, is attempting to assign a purpose to what would, essentially, be useless ships. Imagine you're the Royal Navy, and you're in a perfect universe where you aren't worried about costs to build, maintain, or man ships (sounds like Naval Action). Ignoring ability to poke around shallow waters, why would you want to send a 12 knot, 12lb frigate on a cruise, when you could send a 12kn 3rd rate with 3x the firepower and more crew too? There aren't too many reasons left that come to mind. Even fewer that apply to Naval Action. "Diversity" IRL was created by cost and advancements in ship design. So in real life, some old designs (and smaller ships) could be found sailing next to state of the art designs (and more powerful ships). NA has tried to mimic that in game by artificially buffing or nerfing ships to create a balance. But that's become harder to do as mod stacking + wood stacking yields higher and higher percentages that we can modify our ships with. You end up with some ridiculous numbers at times. I will once again call for a massive reduction in all modifiers. Take us back to +/- 5-10% modifiers (TOTAL stacking of all modifiers for that class). And a return to the older (less realistic, but better for balance) sailing profiles. Then we can have a purpose to take that frigate instead of the SOL. Because it'll be faster upwind and more agile too. If you were referring to wind boosts in OW...well that's been hashed out thoroughly already. If you're not AFK, you should have no problem maneuvering around, getting a counter tag, and negating any possibility for "SOL warp speeded into my tag circle and pulled me. He had prepared and sank me before I raised my sails! *insert favorite expletive here*"
  19. Port Battle: Puerto Plata Date: 13 October 2019 Outcome: Russia Captures the port Commanders: Russia: Christendom Swedes: Teutonic (?) With good wind and sturdy ships, we formed double lines and cut the Swedish line in two. We lost a few of our ships early on, and an explosion severely weakened ships on both sides for a bit. The Swedish fought gallantly, but we were able to sink them faster than they sank us, while maintaining circle control. Thanks to everyone who made this fight possible, it was fun. As always, Santisima > L'Oceantrash, as evidenced by the K/D ratio of them in this battle
  20. Just go full out clan vs clan. Clan you don't like owns the port? Take it from them. Solo players can hunt whoever. Port bonuses and the other magic just needs to be gone totally. Go back to cookie cutter ships with a small pool of reasonable-percentage mods that allow for customization of performance. Let skill triumph over pretty pixels once again. Agreed on "pass port ownership" option. Should already be in the game. Agreed that we need larger friends list so more clans can be added. Why limit it to 15? Somewhat agreed on having the shielding effect of capital ports removed. I'd go with Hammy's suggestion in his thread about reversing the roles of capital and surrounding ports: first take the surrounding ports, then take the capital. Or implement a sliding BR effect. So if you want to take the capital without first conquering the surround ports, you'll only have room for half the BR that the defenders can bring. Take more of the surrounding ports, and you can fit more BR into the battle. Take all the surrounding ports and you can fit full BR into it on both sides. Disagree on what the clan ownership should entail. It SHOULD allow a clan to put pressure on other clans, by refusing the use of resources. It'll drive clan wars within a "nation." See above for my suggestion to go all-out clan based gameplay. Have the nations (and cut nations back to 4-6 nations max, no need for so many) be like a loose affiliation of players under the same flag, but clans fly their own flags and wage their own wars. Sometimes those are civil wars against other clans within their nation. If the friendly clan list can extend beyond nation boundaries, then we can have true diplomacy in the game. And one does have to wonder...if the friendly clan list was working well for you, would you be complaining about the terrible mechanics? When my friends who remained in pirates after some of us left the nation got removed from the friendly clan lists, it was all well and good in the world: because they weren't deemed "true pirates." Perhaps another pirate king has risen to power and deemed you unfit to be a "true pirate" and removed you from the friendly list. Perhaps power blinded some to the injustices they wrought.
  21. Depends how fast you sail, and how far in the join circle a person joins. I've had battles before and kept a careful eye on my speed and direction, and instructed my allies to join on top of the enemy. Its always fun to watch the tide turn so quickly and go from running for your ship's safety, to turning and sinking some gankers. And my allies get to finally make use of that prepared perk I always nag them about (I think its useless most of the time, but it does have its moments). I digress. Anyways, the join circles are positional. If you know how they work, you can generally control where you put the join circles in the initial tag. Putting them in unfavorable wind positions for your enemies is great. Putting the join circles in land or in shallows is even better. Furthermore, join circles allow quite a lot of positioning room inside them. Notice in the join circle how far back in the circle the Hercules joined. He has at least a minute or two of sailing just to make it to the front edge of the join circle where he could have joined. Then he's got to get to about where the crossed swords are in OW, (which appear about where the ship that was tagged is). Thats another minute or two of sailing in the instance. Meanwhile, the Trincomalee is communicating with his friends outside, telling them how far he has gone, and in what general direction. Another minute or two has passed, and at this point, the Hercules and his companions are starting to get inside the enemy's join circle. The second rates join the battle and erase a third rate. Nothing seems amiss to me, but Ink has already responded that he'll look into it.
  22. Again I suggest we just go back to 1/1 of each and be done with it. And go back to the "tank" of repairs like we used to have. Say you can carry 10 repairs in the "repair gas tank." You can fill these up in any port for a few reals. If you want to carry extra repairs, you can carry crafted "repair kits" in your hold. Just like we used to. Simple, effective, focuses on skill. And it doesn't require you to participate in the "engaging player driven economy" that is essentially price gouging on repairs, which hurts primarily new/learning players who aren't in with clans that already truck around thousands of repairs to every outpost before operations. And I don't see anything in your suggestion about mast repairs. Now I'm not a fan of regrowing masts (its unrealistic and annoying). I feel like if you get demasted, you should stay demasted. But many people feel the need to have some kind of mast repair available. Enough that admin has said in the past that mast repairs will probably stay. (I think he even said multiple repairs would stay, but I hope he might change his mind on that). So I suggest (again) that we compromise with having only 1 hull repair and 1 rig repair (that also repairs masts). So you get one chance to regrow a mast and recover from your mistake. I like the idea of individual sets of sails (furthermore, if you have a set of light canvas for speed and heavy canvas for a little damage and fire resistance), with the option to replace only certain sails in a set, so if you get damaged topsails and courses, but your topgallants are OK, you can just replace the damaged ones. I also like the idea of getting to select where my repair goes. I don't care about my bow and stern HP. I don't care about the missing 10% on my right side. I want the missing 60% on my left side repaired! But all that, and what you propose, is quite a bit of work to implement I'd imagine. I doubt we'll see that in NA. Maybe NA2 . I would offer caution regarding the structural limitations you suggest. (I'm assuming we're speaking of the center bar as the ship's structure). Structure goes FAST when you get a good rake. Like 3-4 rakes and he's at 20% and has crew permanently in survival, masts are ready to fall over, and sides are laughably easy to damage. We can argue all day the merits of the new combat model that was implemented this year. I do not like it one bit, the old one was so much better. It was much more balanced, and had much more focus on the skill of a player, less about if you have enough cannons of large enough caliber to to just spam broadsides till you win. But arguing about the merits of the new combat model is pointless. Devs have said its here to stay. So if you limit repairs to only "armor" (I'm assuming you mean the side HP bars), then all that has to be done is core out enough of your structure that you begin to lose significant amounts of thickness, making your side HP drop very easily. So it'll shift the focus away from angling, smashing broadsides, and the occasional rake; to more of a focus of raking ships to death. I'm not sure if thats a good shift in combat strategy or not. On the one hand, proper raking takes more skill than the average noob has, which means skill is rewarded, which is good. But on the other hand, fights where all we care about is getting stern rakes is maybe not the most enjoyable thing either. Its a fine balance. And as much as I dislike the current combat model, at least it somewhat rewards both careful positioning and proper raking. It doesn't reward careful positioning as much as it should though. Battles feel way too much like "point the first rate guns at the target and watch it be deleted." Where before it took skill to delete someone using your first rate. Anyways, the combat model and the repair model are intimately connected. Dramatically changing one without changing the other can be tricky. And I don't think the changes you propose would work well with the current model. Maybe with the older combat model it would.
  23. Now THAT is something I (and probably many others) could go along with. It should have been in the game a long time ago, IMO. If within looting range of a (still floating) friendly ship, you can trade with him. Even go a step further, and allow us to trade with enemy ships in battle. Chasing that trader who swears he'll pay you well if you don't sink him? Have him heave to and you sail near his ship and trade with him. Then you can choose to be the honorable captain and allow him to go on his way, or be a cutthroat pirate, throw your honor out the window, take his money and sink him too!
  24. I don't think you understand what I mean. You damage me. I repair my ship. My alt brought repairs in a fir/fir requin and joined my side. My alt repairs my ship again. I get 2 repairs for the price of one. Or you damage me. I repair my ship. My clanmate who hasn't been shot at because everyone focused me lets me have his repair. He repairs me and plays cautiously for 12 minutes. Meanwhile the enemy team is doing the same thing. Nobody is sinking because even focused fire of 4-5 ships against 1 is not enough to sink it the moment it turns away to angle and repair. If your goal was to make sure fewer of your teammates sink, then your suggestion will accomplish it. But it'll also mean fewer of your enemies sink (unless you only fight inexperienced players who won't know the proper tactics to use the repair meta). I escaped many ganks under the old 1/1 repair. I know for a fact you did too. In fact, I'd argue it was easier to escape the ganks then. Because then I could string them out in a line behind me, chain, demast, or even sink the fastest ship, pop my repair and get away. I remember doing just that to you guys before I joined BLACK on PvP2. The remnants of our PB fleet got tagged by a whole bunch of you guys. I had a Bellona that wasn't particularly fast, but it was faster than your ships. After a while, only one of your ships (Connie?) was keeping up with me. I slowed down, tricked him to turn, filled his sails full of holes. Repeated after he did his repair, popped my repair, and sped away to safety. I had a blast, and I remember the satisfaction of out-maneuvering a superior fleet. Currently with the multi-repair meta, the game encourages ganks even more. How would you defeat a super fancy gold Bellona that does 13.8kn+, has northern master carpenters, and unbreakable masts? Easiest method is to bring something fast to keep it tagged and get some chain, and a couple tanky ships to brawl it out and sink it. Sounds like a gank to me. You've been out of the game a long time. Perhaps you haven't seen a battle where ships get smashed to the point of almost sinking, pull away for a few minutes, print a new ship using hull repair, and jump right back into the fight. I have, and its not as fun for either side. What would make it even less fun is if we could have an alt (or someone dedicated to staying out of the action) sail away with them and repair them completely back to full. Bottom line: Allowing a player to use more repairs is not a way to add depth to combat. What it will do, however, is make sure players sink even less often. Sounds like some players would like it to, sadly.
  25. No. Repair meta is strong enough as is. Crew 4 + Northern Master Carps + Carpentry Combat Reports + Carpenter perk is too much repair spec as it is, yet everyone is running that (or the poor man's version of that) anyways because its the best. Better idea as I've suggested dozens of times already: Go back to max 1 repair of hull, 1 repair of rig in battle. No necromancer Rum repair. No cooldowns. Reduce mods to a maximum (all stacked) of +/- 5% Result: Game goes back to more skill-based combat, not repair and gear meta.
  • Create New...