Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Cecil Selous

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Cecil Selous last won the day on November 23 2018

Cecil Selous had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

617 Excellent

About Cecil Selous

Recent Profile Visitors

1,671 profile views
  1. So if I bounce my shots or they just partially penetrate, it should transfer the most of the kinetic energy into the hull and to overall structure. At least more than penetrating shots that continue flying. scnr.
  2. I can understand the idea behind it but the problem is, that it is happening so ridiculously fast. 40 holes (or a even bit less than that) in you hull can mean a total disintegration of your ship and a loss of structural integrity. I am talking here about heavy frigate against light frigate. This is just so artificial and random. I like your wind example. Why not introducing this in the future? Varying wind strengths and the need to adjust your sails to that or risk losing a mast section. This would give depth to gameplay. We also need hitboxes for the shrouds And why did captains surrender that fast? The obvious reason of course is if the enemy is just superior. Like SOL against normal frigate. So if you find yourself in that situation without a possibility to escape and no real chance of winning or doing anything significant you surrender to avoid meaningless loss of life. If you are massively losing the gun battle you surrender for pretty much the same reasons. One batters the other into submission. Now with the new dmg model this should be represented in NA. But in a totally different way. By completely destroying ships in a few broadsides. And I just think that this is false and the wrong way. A few players in this thread already presented ideas of how crew and avoiding casualties should be the main thing to care about. A SOL will still always have the upper hand when it comes to that. While I mostly agree with the rest of your post, I can't get behind this. It equals consensual mass suicide of up to a few hundred men. Shouldn't be a thing. You say it yourself and yet the most prominent reason to lose after 1 to 3 broadsides in the testbed isn't that. I will wait for changes and I appreciate that we get the possibility to test all of this but can we stop talking about real and authentic as long as HP bars determine damage done and the mere number of cannonballs that enter your ship decide about loss of structural integrity. HP may be necessary to simulate damage it in a satisfying way without introducing a potentially extreme performance heavy more sophisticated damage/hitbox model. But then it has to be tweaked and tuned because right now it is just too much.
  3. Since you asked I will explain my thoughts behind my posts (that mental is meant in a totalyl harmless way I assume ). Of course it is just my opinion and I can't prove them with any studies, hard numbers and just approach this by my logic and general knowledge. This table shows the diameters of the cannonballs we use (I took them from this website https://www.arc.id.au/Cannonballs.html). Most of us also now the various videos on youtube about modern tests of naval cannons. For example the experiment with the part of a Niagara hull that gets shot by 12 lb, 24 lb and 32 lb carronades and the Test of the 24 lb long gun of the Vasa. They show what kind of damage is done to the hull and more importantly what happens after penetration inside the ship. The link to the Niagara video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGM6AlwjGS0 Those balls don't explode. They make holes at varying sizes mostly depending on velocity at time of the impact. Some are remarkable clean, some break out larger parts. All in all the important is what happens at the exit hole and what and where they hit. One broadside of a Victory (no carronades) shoots 16 x 42 lb, 15 x 24 lb and 22 x 12 lb cannon balls. At the moment one broadside of a Victory to the hull above water is enough to sink small frigates and sometimes also the medium ones if the majority of the shots connect. And that for me is simply not comprehensible. That's where I asked what kind of damage is done by those 53 solid cannonballs of different size that causes a fairly big wooden sail ship to be totally destroyed and sink without even a chance. That is where I asked the question of what we understand as Hull HP and cannonball damage and how they should relate to each other. That's also the point where I questioned the use of the term "historical" and "realistic" because they are thrown around here? Usually the example of the frigate La Sérieuse comes into play at this point to validate the current gameplay on the testbed. And then I simply said that we don't know in detail what happend to her. At least I don't. I couldn't find a really detailed source and have no book about the battle of the Nile to search for more. Maybe someone could help out here. The best I could find is that the frigate was heavily damaged, disabled and driftend onto a shoal. Then the next day it was scuttled by the french to avoid capture by the british. It is also highly questionable if we should take this particular example as the norm. A broadside of a first rate to a frigate is devastating and it should be. I totally agree with that. It is devastating because it is simply a huge amount of metal that enters the ship all at once with all the resulting consequences to the crew, cannons, everything that has anything to do with the rigging, modules etc but not in a way that immediately completely negates the ability of the ship to float and hold itself together. I said that I think this is a step into the right direction and I appreciate that we can test this on the testbed. But it needs a lot of tuning. Just two examples. Excuse the horrifying graphic settings This is what just three Trincomalee broadsides (32 lb carronades and 18 lb longs) do to a Cerberus, a light 5th rate. And this happens to a snow after 25 hull hits from a Trinc (full 32 lb carronade loadout) 2 and a half minutes into the battle. Nothing left and completely dismasted. Sure. Big frigate against a smaller frigate and a small 6th rate. But seriously guys. This is way over the top. And? Don't we have bad or new players? They should suffer extremely for being just that? Besides this doesn't only relate to first rate vs frigate. As the pictures above show. Like mentioned above. Those ships can be 2 - 3 shotted atm by ships in their own class.
  4. Exaggerate? Did you test it? If you can get a good tag (or a good position when you get tagged) and the poor guy lies right next to you, he is done before he can raise his sails. In a bigger battle it is also not far fetched, that you get the opportunity to deliver a perfect broadside. For the smaller frigates you don't even need to hit with every cannon. This may have the positive effect, that lone or a just a small number of frigates don't tag SOLs from now on but still I don't like it. I needed 5 broadsides to sink stupid AI Surprise, L'Hermione and an Indefatigable. Imho a first rate should never sink a 5th rate with one broadside despite all La serieuse dreams. I am fine with the penetration though.
  5. I want to ask something since we kind of loosely throw the words historical and realistic around here. What exactly is HP for you? What does it mean? What does it represent regarding the damage that a ship can take and the damage that is done by cannon balls. What kind of damage is done by a broadside, that immediately sinks another ship? Also again: How does the weight of the solid shot exactly translate into damage. How can those parameters be tweaked to still get the general characteristics we have now on the testbed but with a better feeling without oneshotting frigates or in general ships, that are two classes below your ship. I still think the relation between HP and damage is not quite there yet.
  6. Yeah, I would like to know how exactly HP correlates to weight respectively how the calculation is. Next step, getting rid of every speed mod But yes, I have a slight fear this could be the case
  7. I just did a rake on a Wasa with the Victory from around 250 meters. took 3/4 of its structure away. EDIT: but another player in a Vic was next to her and shot a broadside into her side too. So I can't verify the exact amount, that I did. Before both broadsides, the Hull HP of the Wasa was around 3/4 on both sides.
  8. Ok guys. Any more sources than the serieuse from Aboukir, which didn't sink immediately? Simple logic should tell anybody, that a ship doesn't sink all time it gets hit by 50 - 60 cannonballs. It was wrecked and drifted onto a shoal. We don't know what exactly happend, what got hit, rigging status etc. This is one example. It will be the norm in NA now. I just spawned next to a Surprise and simply send it to the bottom in less then 5 seconds. Do we want that? I am all for bigger damage from bigger ships and frigates that are far inferior to SOLs but not sinking in one broadside (and sinking really fast here). Again, in NA they just sink. And where does this idea come from, that those ships get shredded by 60 cannons. look at the size of those balls. We are talking here about the extreme case that some here take as the norm. New system is a good move in the right direction, but it definitely needs some tuning. And I still think that HP bars in general are the devil
  9. We couldn't hit the masts below deck before. At least I never got a hit marker before.
  10. I don't get what you don't understand. If you rake someone, the first mast in line is the mizzen mast, so the probability to hit it is way higher than hitting the other two. If you are close and directly behind your opponent the chance to hit one of the others is very low. So as i read it we finally can hit the mast portions that are below the decks and thus dismast with raking fire.
  11. That's not true. What I can imagine is, that a ship you saw in OW before decided to take a shortcut through land. Big issue but a totally different one.
  12. So basically the idea is to get rid of ahistorical nations via implementing something that is even more ahistorical? This is kind of hypocrite imho. Making the game even more clan based and change the 4-5 major nations into mostly PvE nations or at least keeping them out of RvR and so limiting content to an even smaller player base that join the so called hardcore faction? I honestly don't see a necessity for all of this. Everything you want is already possible. Well, except for real control and modification of ports by the owner. That is a thing I also would really like to see, that the owner (a clan) can shape a port how they like it (defenses, taxes,trading, buildings etc). But everything else seems to me like fixing a problem that isn't there. Or I simply don't see it (can happen ) because I am not very versed in RvR and maybe should shut up about it . Just say what you really want. You want a game that is totally clan based with flags, nations and factions more or less being cosmetic. That isn't the game I want. that's my opinion on this. I am not even sure that getting rid of some nations means more battles, RvR and PvP. If the overall amount of players stays the same, there will be even less players to fight if some of the prussians, russians and poles are now with you in the british navy. Going the other route and adding more nations also doesn't mean more PvP either. I agree we have to find a healthy balance with amount of factions. On the other hand a nation maybe has more players, who can take part in RvR that way but not if it gets artificially limited by making it even more clan based. But I am not sure on that either What keeps people from RvR now and how can we change that? I don't think adding a "hardcore" faction for clans and keeping the others out is a solution.
  • Create New...