Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Poyraz

Tester
  • Content Count

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Poyraz last won the day on August 23 2014

Poyraz had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

129 Excellent

About Poyraz

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Istanbul

Recent Profile Visitors

617 profile views
  1. This will be somehow offtopic, but It is just a coarse concept model. You can increase and adjust the target values accordingly. According to your assumption, the points are gained via PvP. Lets think even if so, and the defender won't show up on open sea to counter the attackers, then this means no points for zerg attacker to reach the extra 200% or higher targets. There is allways the final PB opportunity.
  2. This sounds more or less like the unrest concept in PotBS, which worked OK besides the lottery system to join the final battle. Stage 1: Constructing the assault project / Building assault fleet / Build up of unrest in PotBS Attacker tries to rise the unrest point, defender tries to decrease it like in PotBS with activities around the port in open sea as well as in instances around the port. If the attacker reaches a definite amount of unrest, than there will be a PB scheduled 48 hours later. (24 hours would be more responsive though) I would like to add, that if the attacker goes past a definite percentage of completion of assult fleet, lets say 50%, and the defender than can reduce it again until zero, the port should go under martial law protecting it from an attack for consecutive 3 days. So, the defender would actually have the opportunity to repel the attack on first stage in open sea. Also one more target and initiative for attacker might be, if they could reach, lets say 200% unrest of the required amount, they might conquer the port with this open sea campaign without the need of a 25 v 25 instanced PB, where only 50 people have the opportunity to join the war effort instead of many more. Stage 2: Final port battle in instance 25 v 25 instanced battle for final result
  3. The elephant in the room everyone ignoring is that small and fast ships being able to attack multiple slow and big ships from long distance to keep them in battle, which is called griefing.
  4. I agree. A damage threshold to be able to keep the target in instance should be applied to prevent the potential griefing issues. http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14589-rules-of-engagements-on-open-sea-and-instances/
  5. I have seen 1 - 2 similar posts, but completely missed this thread. Both has the same time & location factor for joining open sea instances, which is mandatory in my opinion.
  6. This might be the most modified game mechanic until now and I would like to share some more ideas here. I have seen in different threads similar ideas, and here is my total RoE package for a robust, fun and sustainable PvP environment on the open sea. The Concept: The main difference here for the initiation of OS engagements is, that the location is not only factor for determining the allocation of ships in the instance, but also the time itself. So, basically after the OS attacking, the instance is created. And any ship, outside this first initiation circle, would be joining to the instance as reinforcements. Until this point, it is similar to the current system. The reinforcements on the other hand, would be again positional according to their open sea location, but the reinforcements would be relative further away to the engaging ships in the instance. I would like to use here the term cutter minutes, similar to light years, the distance a cutter would cover in one minute. For example, the first joiner would start in that instance 6 cutter minutes away (outer rims of orange circle) from the engaging ships. The reinforcement who joins after one minute of the start of the instance would be 6+1 minutes away (outer rims of green circle); the one who joins after 2 minutes of initiation would start 6+2 minutes away and so on. As a result, the more late you join a battle, the further away you would spawn from the initial battle location in the instance. What would this allow for the game? The open sea battle instances could stay open for much longer times instead of just 2 minutes, which would increase the dynamism and activity of the open sea and rendering it more lively. This would not end ganks, but if a captain is ganked close to a friendly port, there might be a chance for reinforcements to arrive at the horizon On the other hand, it might also lay the groundwork for a good organized gank, using the positional reinforcement. However, the distance to reinforcement point depending on timer (6 + x minutes) would still give a chance for the ganked captain. No BR limits Smooth transition from open sea to the instance Need and thrill of searching the horizon not only in open sea but also in the instance Attack Circle and Timer: The attack circle on open sea could be adjusted. A relative smaller circle and shorter timer, would increase the importance of the open sea positioning and engaging. Keeping the Target in Battle: At the current state, if you land a cannonball from 800 yard distance on the sails or hull and inflict some damage, you would reset the battle timer for the target. In most cases, this would result in a very long and boring chasing situation. The current tagging mechanism also gives opportunity to the griefers. To prevent those, a damage threshold could be applied like the need of inflicting minimum 1% damage to sails (or hull) to be able to reset the battle timer for the target. Similar measures were also taken in PotBS to prevent griefing. Even in the worst gank scenario, this would give the gankers at least several chances to attack the target for resetting the timer, whereas, the target also keeps its fair chance to be able to run away and click out. Instance Join Timer for Reinforcements: The timer for reinforcements could be easily increased in this concept. I would say a time between 5 and 10 minutes might be the optimal point. Ship Polars: Minor changes to the directional speed limits should be made according to the gameplay instead of realism here, I think. This means appointing different best speed directions for different ships, so that every ship could overtake others at a specific direction or similar to that. If we look below graph, Trincomalee curve (orange) is a good example being at some directions more slow and at some directions relative faster. In conclusion, I think all those rules together would render the open world much more lively and active place for PvP and RvR compared to the current situation.
  7. For the sake of simplicity, I would go with a circle If you would go for more realistic turn route, I would say it would look like more like a spiral shape instead of an ellipse, due to the variying speeds.
  8. After playing around with the old and new damage model, I would like to give some feedback about it. The detail of the model is quite impressive and it might also be fun to some extent. However, I think the "all or nothing approach" of the current armor/penetration mechanic is a bit too much. I will try to explain my concerns with the graph below. Currently, the penetration value of the cannon ball has to prevail the armor value to go through armor and inflict some damage. Otherwise, the cannonball bounces. The current penetration distribution over range is shared by the devs. It decreases over the range which is perfectly fine. However, another critical parameter here is the contact angle, which varies according many different factors: Positioning of your ship according to the target ship Rotation of target ship Distance adding more sloop to the cannonball curve vertically, resulting increased contact angle Vertical dispersion of cannonballs adding more curve vertically, resulting increased contact angle Horizontal dispersion of cannonballs adding for instance 12 meters per 100 meter, resulting increased contact angle (tan-1(0,12)~7 degrees) Different curvature of hull form Heaving due to weaves Now, if all those factors are at proper condition, a 18 pounder cannonball begin to deal damage to a 80 mm thick armor at around 325 meters. Since the distance is not the only factor, a 18 pounder cannonball could barely do damage at 325 yards. The damage distance is actually much more shorter than 325 meters according to the current damage model, which is currently rendering the medium and long range shooting absolute. My other concern is the distribution of the damage over range. Under perfect conditions, a 18 pounder would do 42 base damage until 325 meters and from there on, the damage falls to zero. (excluding penetrating and low damaging shots). With the current mechanics the real range is much more less, for instance 200 meters. So, the damage is 42 for 0 - 325 meters and then falls off to zero damage as can be seen in red curve in below graph. The ranges over 200 meter is actually feels like the invincible or TMTD magic like in PotBS. I think this also makes the damage model quite dull and unenjoyable. Furthermore, this model dictates that, even if you shoot 1 cannonball or 1000 cannonballs of the same caliber on the same target, there wont be any damage dealt the the armor. In real life there is the destruction over time mechanic, called fatigue. The woods built allows it to absorb energy, however, those wooden fibers also has a definite strength. IMHO, the distribution of damage over range should fall off on a continuous curve instead of step line with an instant drop off point. You can see below the blue curve decreasing continuously over range. The damage at point blank is around 3x more than the damage at long range. This number can be adjusted according to the feedback like modifying the armor and HP values accordingly. (Inflicting 5x more damage at close range compared to long range for example) The basic damage calculation would be: Damage@ x meter = ( Penetration@ x meter / Armor ) x Base damage
  9. Turn Rate: Describing the turning maneuver is quite complex, including also drift in real life and turning around pivot point instead of weight or geometrical cenre. Considering, ships in NA would perform a regular and circular turn maneuver, the turn rate would be defined by the linear speed and characteristic turn radius as in the following formula. ω = V / R The linear speed part V, varries according the ships maximum speed, set sail amount, hull resisstance, etc. The turning radius R is the distance gained during the turning maneuver of the ship. However, it is mostly unique for every ship's hull design. Some of the factors affecting the turn radius are: 1. Structural design and length of the vessel 2. Draught and trim of vessel 3. Propulsion power of sails 4. Distribution and stowage of cargo 5. Even keel or carrying a list 6. Position of turning in relation to the available depth of water 7. Amount of rudder angle required to complete the turn 8. External forces affecting the drift angle The only case turning radius R differs from original value is close to the maximum speeds, due to the interaction between hull and water. According to those basic rules, there are two approach for implementing the variation of turn rate of a ship for different situations. A. Constant turn radius: With a constant turn radius, turn rate only depends on the speed. Slower speeds slower turn rate, higher speeds higher turn rate. Turn radius stays the same for the given ship. To implement the below formula can be used, where speed V is variable and turn radius R is constant. ω (V) = V / R B. Turn radius depending on speed: Like in real life turn rate depends both on speed and turn radius, which also changes according to speed. High speeds means higher turn radius, slow speeds means shorter turn radius. This approach is little bit complex, but on the other hand it might add the realism and depth in turning maneuvers. For this approach both speed and turn radius are variables in the formula to define the turn rate. ω (V, R) = V / R The speed variable depends on the given ship, its maximum speed, its set sail percentage, hull resistance, ships polars (wind direction), etc, most of which are already implemented ingame. The turn radius variable depends on if the ship is sailing close to maximum speed or not. To define this change from the data here with a regression analysis, I would propose the following formula to define the turn radius over speed to get a curve as following. However, custom values can be added to modify a curve like this one, too. R (V) = ( -V2 / 125) + (V / 4) This simulates the turning radius at max speed larger and at slower speeds smaller. The turn radius and also turn rate can be shifted up at 0 speed to allow turning at land crashes, fully demasted situations, stucked at shallow positions and for other gameplay issues. With a varrying turn radius depending on speed, captains can adjust their turn circles according to the speed of their ships. It is more realistic, and also indirectly simulating the drift at speeds closer to the maximum speed. It would allow much more depth compared to the constant turn radius. If the turn rates would be according to the constant turn radius, the ship would sail on the same circle undepended from its speed. The speed would just change the time it takes to complete the maneuver. Conclusion: Finally, the change of turn rate over time should be similar to the graph below including acceleration and deceleration like in linear movement. I would presume a time between 2 to 8 seconds to gain maximum turn rate from Cutter to Santisima would be a good point to starts. This time is depending on the turn acceleration of the specific ship. Turning acceleration combined with linear acceleration would describe how agile a ship would be. Maximum speed at specific polars and turn rate are another criteria for defining the ship's limit speeds. Those two combined together with armor and gunpower values would allow to differentiate every type of ship with its advantages and disadvantages.
  10. Condisering the hydrodynamics (hull underwater) and ignoring the aerodynamisc (sails); If the interaction between water and ship hull would be constant, the turning radius would be same both for slow and high speed levels. At slower speed the ship would cover the same route but in longer times, which means slower turn rates. (degree/second). At higher speeds the ship would cover the same circle in shorter time, which would lead to higher turn rates. That is because turn rates describes the covered angle in a definite amount of time. However, in reality it is much more complex. While the speed gets higher, the interaction between hull and waterflow changes between laminar and turbulent flow range. This effecting the drag at hull and rudder, the turning circles might differ at maximum speed. To define the changing of the turning circles with the current model, the concept drift has to be introduced as well followed by turning around pivot point. At this point, I would assume going for constant turning circles together with varying turning speeds is the easy and lean way to go. PS: Some sea trial results could be found here. The turning radius is approximately same for all speed but maximum speed.
  11. You are right, there are so many parameters that even nowadays turning behaviors are defined after real sea trials. (Unfortunately no chance to sail Santisima or Victory today, but their replicas might give some insight) For instance, the rudder is only a trigger and has the duty to initiate the turning in a turning maneuver. After that the hull at bow below waterline acts as a huge shovel itself and rotates the ship's huge mass. The rudder ratio and hull shape are just two of many parameters in turning which are also mentioned here. Although the simulation is complex, one might say that the correlation between ship speed and turning could be defined as a second degree quadratic function. That is because the forces acting on rudder and ship's hull are changing depending on square of speed, V2. For example: 5 knots => 1x turn rate 10 knots => 4x turn rate 15 knots => 9x turn rate
  12. Thats right. As previous feedbacks, I was testing 3rd rate vs 3rd rate in AI missions. Shoots were made below 50m. Trying to dublicate the results again now.
  13. Just tested a stern rake with grapeshot on a 0% HP stern. It was like before patch killing 70+ crew. However, the rudder of target was also broken. Somehow, grapeshot is doing damage similar to ballshot. Also, tried to shoot on a 100% HP broadside another time. Grapeshot has done insane damage through broadside killing 80+ crew as if broadside has 0% HP.
  14. Anyone knows the approximate calculation between cannon penetration and armor thickness? If penetration is 75 and armor thickness 75 as well, does this mean a 100% penetrated shot or only 50%?
×
×
  • Create New...