marecek05
-
Posts
424 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by marecek05
-
-
Gentlemen,
Our ships are overgunned compared to the historical loadouts the captains of the time used. Currently, the game uses the “if it fits, it sits” mentality in regards to armaments. However, the captains of time certainly did not. Take captain Hull for example. First thing he did was to get rid of long 18-pounder battery on USS Constitution as soon as there was a lighter carronade replacement available. Why did he and other captains of the time generally used lighter armaments that were technically possible on their ships? Answers I found could be summarized as follows:
- Less crew – On a smaller sized ship (think frigate), it actually got logistically quite difficult to carry complement that would be able to man all the guns, if all the guns were long guns
- Performance – The ships speed, heel and manoeuvrability was heavily influenced by the armament as the carronades were third or a quarter of the weight of the long cannon of the same ball weight.
- Damage to the ship itself – As evidenced by the French ships (which tended to use the “if it fits it sits” mentality at some points) that were captured by the Brits and underwent their general repairs, they were in considerably worse shape than their not overgunned counterparts. If you compare the forces that are applied on the ship when firing 12 pounder and 18 pounder, the increase is exponential. You fire heavier shell, which is going faster from a heavier gun.
How to address this in the game and thus impose realistic armaments while keeping in the ability to choose the loadout? Here are my proposals:
1. Crew capacity is based on the hull, but the requirement is based on the guns. I.e. USS Constitution can carry 450 men, while each 24 pounder requires 12 men, 18 pounder requires 10 men, while 32 pound carronade requires 5 men.
Therefore 30 * 24 lbs + 24 * 18lbs = 600 men, therefore the ships is crewed only as 75% and suffers those penalties.
However 30*24lbs + 24*32lbscar= 480 men, therefore she is crewed as 93.75% and suffers less penalties.
2. Make the speed, heel and turn more dependent on the gun and where are they placed. This means get rid of speed mods and present large difference based on the built wood type. The subtle gun type effect gets overshadowed quite heavily by the +5% speed overall, so either get rid of that, or get rid of that and make gun, ballast distribution, trimming and fiddling with ship part of the game :-).
3. Firing heavier guns than was historically correct for the vessel will damage the ship overtime as a random leak (not an armour decrease), with each shot fired, compounded by the built wood type. I.e.:
Oak Belle Poule with 12 lbs (as she was built) has a chance of 0.1% for a random leak. Fir Belle Poule 12lbs has a 1% random leak chance.
Oak Belle Poule with 18lbs has a 3% random leak chance. Fir Belle Poule with 18lbs has a 30% random leak chance.
(The numbers should of course be adjusted, however the idea that overgunned ship built from low quality wood should be almost guaranteed to have random leaks during engagement should be preserved.)
-
22
-
+1 for no speed modules
There would be plenty room for ship customisation if we´d get to trim our ships.
- more trim aft, slightly better downwind performance but worse close-hauled, more trim forward, the other way round.
- more ballast overall -> stiffer, slightly better performance upwind, but slower on a beam reach and running.
- abilty to add a additional false keel when in port -> better performance close-hauled, less speed downwind
- ability to remove some cannons on the quarterdeck and forecastle for a slight speed buff or in combination with more ballast a stiffer ship
Add randomisation when crafting (e.g. + / - 0.3 on close-hauled, beam reach and running performance, but balanced, so if you lose .2 knots close-hauled, you´ll get it back running or broad reach) and we´d get truly unique and personal ships.
And we´d have to conduct some sort of sea trials to find the 'ideal' load waterline for our ship and playstyle. Would be pretty cool imo.
This brings me memories of some Formula 1 games, where you could really fine tune aspects of the car, braking ratio, transmission ratios, etc.
If we could do that in the game that would be something. Not have a flat +5% to speed overall but the ability to play with weight placement, even with different sail plans. As Malachi proposes they would have each consequences.
Imagine a trincomalee without the spar deck guns, but with extra balast - less heel.
-
1
-
-
Ok, yes, maybe pirates have a different advancement system and only go by XP. That is the bonus of being a pirate. There then has to be a downside. Now that there are so many free ports there really isn't a downside. So the pirate ranks should have less crew. Only with several of the very best crew mods and gold crew space will a pirate be able to man a 74 at 100% and only if they are the highest rank.
Perhaps the amount of honor kills needs to be lessened for Nationals, but I don't know. I am Captain (US). I need to kill 10 ships in a Frigate and 10 in a Bellepoule. All I have to do is hunt down 20 Frigates or lone 74s. That isn't so bad, especially if I have carronades. I shouldn't be able to speed level.
I agree on pirates with Prater.
It is not so bad to do it, but it is quite boring. I got demoted to capitaine de corvette and had to kill 10 frigs in cerbs. The kill itself is not difficult at all, I just sterncamp and grape it to submission in about 10-20 minutes. Then I have to find another lone frigate, as 2 are too much for me in a cerberus and there are no 2 and 1 cerberus fleets that I have seen. And repeat that 10 times. Really boring.
I would love to be able to engage a 2 frigate fleet or a 74, use my maneuverability advantage to do some damage and flee before the enemy can bear it's guns to me. Or to help in a larger fleet action. But I am penlized for such behaviour since, it is a waste of time that could have been spent sterncamping a frig.
I understand that I am a tester, but for the final gameplay the repetition in order to progress would be horrible....
-
Proposal:
I don't like an abstract notion of honor be tied to a mathematical equation. In this regard I like the system that has been implemented in many Mobas, that being the players that played with a person judging his character.
I imagine that after the instance players would be asked to evaluate players they were in battle with, which would accrue over time. There could be some rewards for being highly honorous, a.k.a. honour over 5000, either some upgrades, cosmetic stuff maybe even certain special ships.It would also be visible to other players in the game.
In regards to be tied to specific ship, I like that aspect in testing, but it should be tied to damage, not specific ships. I.e. 50 000 dmg done to cerberus or higher in cerberus. If implemented in final game, there should be an option to pick a ship from several ships of similar rating.
-
Hardly a fair fight ? A Frigate should not be challenged by 3 brigs so therefore it shouldn't be classed as an equal/honourable opposition.
I disagree in principle. I would rather fight a trincomalee or constitution or even 74 in a frigate than 10 brigs. What is the exact number is debatable, but principle is not.
-
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.
1. Does constitution need a buff as currently she is in a very unhappy place? Yes2. Do its plans and written historical evidence suggest she should be behaving in certain way and have certain characteristics? Yes
3. Is it a nationalistic matter? No
No one wants to make her a supership with stars and stripes skin that plays "Hail to the chief" everytime it joins an instance.
It is a very long ship, it is a relatively narrow with straight hull - I would say should be fast and her turning should be nothing to write about at best.
She used the most difficult wood to work, which is also the strongest available for her scantlings - Should be expensive and have relatively better "armour" than what would be expected from her.I arrived to these conclusions just by using logic and yet, we have historical evidence that fully supports this.
In regards to armament, there are so many wrongly armed ships that I don't care to be honest. Trinc, surprise, mercury and my personal winner Frigate.
-
4
-
-
The whole point of Constitution was to be superb in 1v1, whether in fight or in flight.
I see her as a solo players eldorado.
Let her be the premier cruiser balanced by high buidling cost, same as a Vic.
She will still be useless for port battles.Trinc will still be the scourge of the seas, since it would be significantly cheaper than Consti.
-
2
-
-
More like land battles i would happy to see boarding fight visualisation or some kind of animation of it.
I imagine rainbow 6/door kickers planning style. You would have a minute or so after boarding to set tasks and orders to your crew then both players would hit the play and see the action pan out. Pause, repeat planning, play again.
-
1
-
-
No, that was for a technical reason : a small player base was enough for data collecting and wasn't a threat for the stability of the server.
(Not an expert about that. Admin wrote about that. Easy to find posts about that.)
I remember it being hand in hand. Too many new players behaving like asses and thus wasting resources that could have been used for development instead of community management, while the number of players sufficient for testing. But I might be mistaken too. I found only a post in the news section, but I remember a post here in tribunal. However since the OW amnesty and all posts being deleted I cannot find it. Maybe some other veterans with better memory can correct me, if I am mistaken.
-
this, we are testers, we should not be punished for use of exploitation(even though personally im against it), however as soon as it is up for public sale the use of exploits should be met with huge consequences for those who used the exploits(depending on the type and severity of the exploit of course), all is getting wiped after all soon anyways.
I am afraid that is oversimplification. We are not only testers, but also players and core of the community that will form after the full release.
Those 100 players that are online will form the structure. We have organized groups smaller and larger for every nation in game. With the influx of new players these groups will provide model for others and as such, their behaviour must hold up to scrutiny.
After all that is why the alpha access was closed right?
Until now every "exploit" scandal has been dealt with firmly. The damage farming in sea trials after cerberus and navy brig was launched. Threats of hard punishment with one being actually handed out (although he deserved it more for his behaviour on these boards). Money duping scandal - Hard punishment threatened if not remedied by players. All that in order to shape up the core community and help testing.
I cannot see how this is different from these two? Point of this build after wipe was to test economy and crafting. Is crafting really thoroughly tested? Then give everyone every recipe and lets focus on testing something else.
-
4
-
-
First of all.
I have not witnessed the exploit while playing, so I had nothing to report to, but since there is a post in Tribunal, I voice my opinion on the breach of conduct despite not being the direct witness, as with most Tribunal matters. On the other hand I can attest that last week there were couple of constis and trincos at most. Now there are abundant Vics Bells and Pavels.
I don't understand how is this different than the gold exploit. Speeding up your resource (recipes are a resource) gain by using a deficiency in game. The gold issue has been dealt with swiftly and harshly. I just don't understand the double standard.And in regards to Steels advice to Pierrick to get off the high horse and to also use the exploit, I have to say that, if this is where the community is heading, I am very disappointed.
When rakers were using some exploits (in my opinion they weren't really exploits, but rather unsavoury tactics) everyone hated them and there was a general war against them. Now there are people using real exploits and it is somehow ok? I don't get it.As I said, I understand the focus is elsewhere. But in the end, the entry to alpha was closed to allow the devs to shape the core community to the standards of behaviour they are expecting from all the players. And standards need to be enforced.
-
1
-
-
For me personally I would love to see the consti being fast, well "armoured" (comparably to a 74), relatively slow to accelerate and not very maneuverable. Building it should cost very similarly to a 74 in terms of resources and labour, but should give less crafting xp to be balanced.
But overall for me consti, isn't that far from being good, for me a slight armour buff would do it.
As currently the game favours very close engagements, due to power of boarding and the fact that every ship is crewed by a herculian crew able to pull thousand tonne ship sideways, while moving. In close engagement, nimble and manouverable Cherubim gets the advantage and when combined with its ability to carry all carronades it really makes it difficult for a consti captain.
If frigate would have to rely on its weight only to actually stop the consti, while consti would be allowed to carry 68 pounder carronades on the gun deck, we would see a very different results.
Therefore for me, problem isn't the consti itself, but close distance engagemetns due to the ease of initiating the boarding and weird armament rules for ships. -
Right now, we have to adopt a tester's view, not a player's one. The issue will be fixed. Great. That's all that matters. Right now, current exploiters don't seem to be a threat for NA development (from devs' view). Great. I don't want devs to waste their time with what seems to be a solved issue.
I am sorry, but I have to disagree, due to the reasons outlined in my post. Fixing the exploit pro futuro is the no. 1 priority. Good.
But it is undisputable that the testing opportunities were diminished, by obtaining end game items by a sizeable proportion of players by a way that they were not meant to obtained. It is also undisputable that balance between players was diminished, which when achieved by extremely unsavoury means does not benefit the whole population of players/testers.
The reaction of devs to this issue has been extremely lenient so far, especially when compared to previous cases of players/testers using exploits for personal gains. The issue is that this in my view is the most serious of the exploits we have encountered so far, but this point is debatable.
Devs said they need to finish some other stuff first and then will respond to this thread. Fair enough, I understand and concurr that there are propably other more pressing priorities, but I am of the opinion that this issue has to be dealt with.
-
1
-
-
After reading this whole post I have come to the following conclusions:
1. Screwing economy - The whole point of this build was thouroughly check the crafting paths, chances of recipes being dropped, resource bottlenecks etc. How can you test recipe drop rate of high tier ships from crafting, when everyone got them by breaking them down? Then you have only the first guy who got the recipe as a data subject, which is statistically irrelevant.
2. Port Battles - We don't know when and where are they coming. We would have been able to test the natural progression leading to port battles. If devs felt there was a low number of 1st rates and wanted to test behaviour of 1st rates in port battles they could have given us a redeemable. Either based on rank or to everyone, whichever would have worked for them better.
3. Consistency - How is this exploit less harmful then money exploit? Those perpetrators were forced to give up everything they have.
In the way I see this there are three options
1. Give everyone all of the recipes - which means we are done with the testing of crafting;
2. Wipe - this will make perpetrators very popular;
3. Targeted wipe of perpetrators.
For me personally I am very curious about the stand the devs take with this issue. I hope my suspicions, why is this one being let slide will be proven incorrect.
-
3
-
-
I propose a toast:
I raise the glass in memory of the fallen and veterans of all sides;
May the memory of their duty amidst the carnage never be forgotten;
May the names of all brave men of Trafalgar always arouse respect;
Nelson, Lucas, Collingwood, Infernet, Hardy, Cosmao
Semper memoriam!
(please feel free to add names of distinguished spanish sailors, as due to language barrier, I am sadly ignorant of the spanish account)
-
2
-
-
I am against this.
I believe it would unnecessarily split community and would lead to constant arguments about x nation's ship being OP and needed rebalanced.
Other game I play quite a lot uses 1400 nation specific units, does an extremely good job balancing them, however the forums are constantly full of cries.
Example topics that would spring up:
"Naval Action unplayable, Belle Poulle is a terminator!"
"VICTORY OP!"
"Constitution needs a nerfbat!"
"Soviet bias!"Also, except fullfiling certain craving for e-nationalism, I don't see what good would it do compared to everyone having all.
-
1
-
-
If I remember correctly, during the later part of the game period 1750-1815 (this is what we have now, the oldest being renomee 1750s), the large gold transporting ships existed only in Pacific in the form of Manila galleon.
Due to the increased organization of other powers, especially Britain, it started to be dangerous to send convoys of large ships, therefore the gold was transported in a larger number of naval frigates that could flee effectively (as was also seen in Post Captain by O'Brien).
This makes sense to be honest:
Fighting pirates and couple of frigates, it is better to have a few large heavily armed ships, however fighting against organized naval force with ships of the line, it would be better to have several smaller frigates.
I might be mistaken, so please feel free to correct me.
In game I could see it as several squadrons of frigate typed vessels that would leave national ports. If engaged in battle they would not fight, but instead attempted to run, in different directions to each other...
Not that much fun, especially challanging, but quite rewarding...
-
1
-
-
Hi marecek
Whats yours nick in game? I will help you to get better ship and make more xp if you want I am Marek right now, easier to pronounce on teamspeak. I am always for PVP, although right now I am trying to focus on crafting and trading more this build. But seeing that I am unlucky in rolls and seem not able to learn how to craft any advanced designs, I might just go to fighting :-)....
-
Come on Ragnar, you know that not every french player is the same. That particular post was at best fishy.
In regards to getting jumped, i was jumped by 2 us snows in my trader snow and lost 20k worth of stuff.
I got angry and went off for the day, but it was all fairplay. I risked by going through shorter route and they chased me well (wasnt able to force them to make mistake)...
-
1
-
-
I agree. I really want the white flag of "La Royale" too.
I would like to have this one (the "constitutional monarchy" one):
-
Well if it was the Kingdom of france (Royal French navy) i would be all over it =)
But im not to sure since its the early Republic / french empire (1794)
Since thats the only time period they used the tricolore as the naval flag prior to the 1830s.
And i like the "Royal" French navy (and there feats) more then that of there actions during the French Revolutionary war / napoleonic war.
Frances largest Naval successes was under the white banner (No Irony) while during the revolutionary wars / napoleonic war they mostly sufferd catastrophic defeat after catastrophic defeat.
The pre revolution time was also where the french had the greatest presance in the americas and the largest number of french ships in the americas.
So with it currently just being the Americas Map id say the Pre revolution France makes alot more sense =P.
I guess im looking to much into things xD but thats how i roll.
I tried Spain a bit but everyone was just speaking spanish in the main chat =P.
Wich i think is kinda rude since far from all players of a nation in the game are of that nationallity.
We have english speakers in French chat
.Also, if you wish to yell Vive le Roi, you are free to do as you please...
-
You can tell the Dutch are a fun loving bunch. All the above mentioned plus Grolsch, honorable mention to Heineken; If I'm gonna drink like a lady, Heinie's fit the bill.
I am sorry, although I like the Dutch, I really cannot recommend Dutch beers. I've tried most of Dutch beers available in supermarkets and they weren't good. There might be some good microbrews, but the bigger ones were very disappointing. Therefore I drank mostly Belgian beer while there...
-
I never tried poffertjes as I am not that much for sweet food. That is also why I haven't discussed the desserts, as I haven't really tried that many of them. Might try them next time I get to Netherlands.
In regards to the Netherlands as a whole, I think that it is sad that tourists, especially younger, tend to view it thorugh the lens of weed and whores. All the while it is really beautiful and quite calm (due to all the Dutch hurrying to meet their agenda book appointments and preplanned leisure).
Btw, I might be going for a week to Utrecht in November. As I have seen most of Holland proper, do you have tips for east and north netherlands? I have heard that Groningen is quite nice.
-
Entanglement existed in the early version of the game - ships were stuck until the end of the battle.
It was fun for the winner + creates unrealistic disentanglement. It is impossible to unstuck ships without some clowney ship jumping ruining the visuals (thats how physx works).
In addition to that having so many extra physical colliders (50 bowsprits, and 150 shrouds) will force us to reduce the number of ships per battle. It will only be possible in 3-5 years once Moore's law does its thing a couple of times more. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law)
+ We see a double standard here.
First you guys request that repeat boarding should not happen, then you support proper realistic entanglement for boarding that creates guaranteed repeat boarding.
The technical impossibility is definitely an argument here. In regards to the double standard, in my "I hate boarding post", I proposed both as applicable, in order to chose the better. Not both at once...
Whats yours nick in game? I will help you to get better ship and make more xp if you want
Little things you'd like to see
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
Beating of a drum as a sound que when you attack or are attacked in the OW would be really nice.