Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Tom Farseer

Members
  • Content Count

    304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

326 Excellent

About Tom Farseer

  • Rank
    Junior Lieutenant

Profile Information

  • Location
    : Somewhere in a blizzard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Started in GB, took midshipman missions, won the first two, got sunk in the third... Next basic cutter, rinse and repeat First steamreview I wrote 35 hours into the game as M&C I think... Lot's of BC grinding back then^^
  2. Please take a look at BR so we can keep the ship diversity in port battles. This is very important to discuss before patch goes live.  This! Very much this! With the raw power a first rate will provide in the new combat model, the complete BR needs to be reworked. I personally think with the amount of ships in the game the overall range needs to be increased to around 1.5k BR (Port BR limits must obviously be tuned to fit as well). First rates deserve to be powerhouses but they must not be the only sensible choice in PBs...
  3. I know there were 74 going faster that some frigates. But at some point the compromise between playability and realism has to be found. If Bellonas can hunt any frigate with impunity then anyone not able to crew a 3rd rate will have a hard time getting there.
  4. I originally had one question to all the people who say this change will force everyone to sail 1st rates only. Why? Anyone can still take any frigate out to play, you just have to stay the hell away from heavy lineships. Then I doublechecked the current sailing profiles. With the current sailing model a Fir/Fir Victory will be faster than a Live/White Indefatigable at any point of sail! So the thing we need is a speed reduction for the large classes. Because yes, a lone frigate should not be able to go hunt 1st rate lineships for sport. But a Lineship (at least anything above 4th rates) should not be able to catch a frigate, no matter the wood combination. Once that is implemented I'd personally be fine with Ball damage and Ship HP based on mass.
  5. @admin Any chance to get more redeemables on the testbed? I heard several people complaining about having to grind stuff in order to test the combat system. Personally I see no reason why you shouldn't just give every new character on the testbed 10 notes of each ship to allow for more extensive testing. Also, while we're at it, additional funds to pay for guns (a few 100k reals) would be very welcome.
  6. I'm with you on the whole griefing issue. But Screening fights are not neccessarily griefing but often enough fully fledged OW PvP fleet battles. There have been times where we had great fun fighting screening fleets instead of making the PB. So, in my opinion making PBs lobby based would be detrimental to the game. It would also take away the opportunity for the rest of each nation to partake and contribute because a lobby based PB would only encounter those select few in the PB fleet itself....
  7. Difficult, yes. But it should be damn near impossible. And it should also be the same for three or four light ships which it currently isn't. I'll go so far as to say that I am above average in Skill with sailing SoLs. Set three good Requin captains against me in an Ocean and the best I can hope for is that they won't manage to turn me into the wind or slow me down enough to board, so I just survive the full 90 minutes. And that in my opinion should change. The biggest problem I see at the moment is that most currently active players are veterans withh 1000+ hours that have become used to the current system and have found workarounds for most of its problems. The systems as it is on the testbed right now needs adjusting. but with a few important tweaks the it may well be working better than the current one.
  8. @admin From what I could gather from feedback here and videos posted, it seems to me that masts will fall a bit too quickly at the moment. Take this with a grain of salt, I have not the time for extensive tests at the moment, due to RL... The problem I see with masts as it is right now is that they only get damaged by direct hits with ball/double/charge. That model is in itself a bit weird, if you ask me. A cylindrical piece of hard wood with a diameter of over 1m will shrug off almost anything... Even direct hits with a 42 pd cannon will probably only take of a few splinters. The reason masts fell in reality was mostly due to the standing rigging (shrouds, stays and backstays) being damaged by chain shots or their anchors to the hull (deadeyes) being destroyed by incoming fire. Changing from a mast hitbox system is arguably too complicated to get fast results. Therefore I suggest the following adaptation Buff mast properties to the point where ball will only be a danger to tops and topgallants, but not the main sections (except for maybe 42pd at less then 100m with reduced damage or buffed mast HP). Couple those stats directly to sail HP and Structure. Let mast thickness go down with sinking hitpoints (much like the armor thickness). The effect will be that only once a ship is sufficently shot up (eg. damage to structure and rigging) the main section of a mast becomes more vulnerable. Because every mast is connected to all other masts via stays and to hull via shrouds and backstays even the mizzen can fall more easily when for example the main-topmast is gone. So there is no need to differentiate rig damage any further. Just the overall percentage will be enough. Also while we're at it I would greatly increase the amount of ship notes and resources people can redeem on testbed. the idea is to sink stuff to test things. No need to have ppl grind up resources just to keep testing.
  9. I sadly can't test much the next days... Can anyone maybe redeem a fir/fir Bellona on Testbed and test it against someone with a T/Wo build? Just to see how long it holds under fire.
  10. To be honest, I find the idea of limiting wood types for lineships interesting. The problem I see with it though, is that it is a forceful limitation. It would be better if we could find ways to motivate players to choose the correct woods whithout putting in a hard limit. My alternate suggestion would be to simply reduce SoL speed to a more appropriate level. Bear with me for a little example: Currently a Live Oak/ White Oak Ocean with Bridgetown Frame Refit has a top speed of 8.75 knots. It's base top speed without Wood and upgrade bonuses is at 9.76. going Fir/Fir with Art of Shiphandling, and a Naval Clock would get us to 11.8. All these values are taken from Felix Victor's map here and are without repairs. So we get: Live White Tank: 89% relative speed (8.75/9.76) Base speed obviously at 100% (9.76/9.76) Fir/Fir speedy: 121% relative speed (11.8/9.76) I we shaved of about 1.5 knots of the base speed, that should leave us with 8.26 base speed (8.26*0,89=) 7.35 knots for the tank (8.26*1.21= ) 9.99 knots for the fir ship. The same exemplary builds for a bellona would be: Tank: 10.2 -> 89% Base: 11.4 -> 100% Fir: 13.8 -> 121% Again -1.5 knots on base speed: Tank: 8.8 -> 89% Base: 9.9 -> 100% Fir: 11.9-> 121% Those are still decent values in my opinion. The ships still sail fast enough to not make a PB 45 minutes of sailing towards each other and they would give lighter classes that speed buff. One could even only reduce the speed penalty to -1 knot. The effect would still kick in I think. Also while doing that one might take a look at speed differences of ships of the same class (#MakeWasaUsefullAgain )
  11. Nicely written. And no matter which server three days to get the final exam done starting basically from zero is a nice achievement! Quite a few of those guys looking down on the PvE-Stuff probably couldn't have done that 🤨 Greetings from the War-Server. Maybe even see you there sometime
  12. Sorry mate but that statement is just wrong. If only wind and sails determined the speed of a sailing vessel than ships going before 24 knot winds would be sailing at 24 knots. However they don't. The top speed of any object moving along the surface of a liquid is determined by the turbulence it creates in said liquid because of it's drag. In case of a ship that is the combination of it's bow wave and it's wake. Above a certain threshold (the maximum hull speed), if you put more energy into the ships sails (e.g. stronger wind) it results in the bow wave becoming higher instead of faster. So the ship will keep it's original speed but will heave much more. So whether the Wasa would be quicker than the Bellona depends on it's underwater lines much more than on the sail plan. Don't get me wrong i share your opinion that SoLs should be slower. In terms of balance and giving every ship it's niche I think making the Wasa faster in realtion to the Bellona is the way to go. Also yes: Hold size of the Wasa is atrocious
  13. see my post exactly above yours. you interpret stuff into admins notes that is not there....
  14. Where in the exact statement of admin below does it say that chances of hitting aftmost mast from astern and foremast from afore, have changed? Exactly nowhere. It is only stated that raking fire in general will be more effective which, considering the higher damage and penetration of new gun model, is entirely logical. The second sentence was true before, assuming one raked masts instead of hull.
  15. Depending on the angle of fire, more balls might hit the main or even the foremast from astern but that is indeed much less probable than them hitting the mizzen or no mast at all.
×
×
  • Create New...