Hotfix 9.72

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

If a 10% bounce chance was removed, then another bug was created. Please check it. 

 

A friend and I dueled each other in Belle Poule's (well armored ship) last night. We started at close range (duel start range) and increased that range. Even at ranges where a large number of shots missed due to dispersion, the shots that hit almost always penetrated. We could not distinguish a difference between penetration values of the 12lb longs vs 6lb longs. The both penetrated the same (a lot).

 

Again, please check the code as this now negates the need for armor whatsoever.

 

To fully clarify - it's not that all chance of bounce was removed, it's that the maximum chance to penetrate at close range was erroneously set at 90%.  So at a range where a ball should always penetrate, there was still only a 90% chance that it would.  At correct ranges, balls should still bounce.

 

With regards to your specific situation, please repeat the test with your friend.  F11 when you think the 6lb balls should be bouncing.  That bug report is how any investigation can be done on the Developers side.

[Prater]

Ricochets typically only happen at the correct angle.  I am still able to get ricochets.

[Lennyo]

Ricochets typically only happen at the correct angle.  I am still able to get ricochets.

Yes, that is still working. Angling still works in our testing.

[Lennyo]

To fully clarify - it's not that all chance of bounce was removed, it's that the maximum chance to penetrate at close range was erroneously set at 90%.  So at a range where a ball should always penetrate, there was still only a 90% chance that it would.  At correct ranges, balls should still bounce.

 

With regards to your specific situation, please repeat the test with your friend.  F11 when you think the 6lb balls should be bouncing.  That bug report is how any investigation can be done on the Developers side.

Will do, will try tonight. Thank you.

[Baron Von WeisenCracker]

That means that before you could only have access to AI missions in which AI sailed the same kind of ships as your rank did (and one rank below ?). Now, you can access to all AI missions under your rank and choose to have AI sailing a privateer while you are say in a LGV. 

It enables  players to have easy missions.

Did I miss something? How do you get to choose the opponents boat? I don't see that option .. readjusting glasses.

[Prater]

Did I miss something? How do you get to choose the opponents boat? I don't see that option .. readjusting glasses.

 

You don't get to choose a specific ship, but you can choose a midshipman mission as a rear admiral when you are sailing a Gros Ventre.

[Baron Von WeisenCracker]

You don't get to choose a specific ship, but you can choose a midshipman mission as a rear admiral when you are sailing a Gros Ventre.

Yeah .. I thought that was a mis-quote.

 

We had to reduce our missions last night to get better acquainted with how the changes were effecting damage. Evidently the AI's got laser scope aiming sights with HEAT Rounds! ...

 

Did notice that the AI traders do ALOT more evading now! not just straight line runners.

 

Is there somewhere (List/table) that depicts the BR for each of the ships?

 - kind of need something to determine if we (running as a group) are going to attempt to get into a battle with either too little or too great a BR for the opponent target.

 

Cheers!

-Yank

[Blackjack McGee]

The bottom line of all of these posts.

In a 1v1 previously with the same NPC ship the player had a very decisive advantage. Now, the NPC has a very decisive advantage. The tweak went too far and just needs adjusting.

Previously taking on two NPC ships of a slightly lower level was challenging but definitely manageable. Now, it is suicidal to attempt.

I give the Devs credit for addressing the leaks (which personally is still to much) and returning the Contrband traders in a timely manner.

Small adjustments needed not major changes. Hopefully the Devs will realize that the vast majority of players are asking for a moderation of the changes before too many people rage quit and leave the game.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

The bottom line of all of these posts.

In a 1v1 previously with the same NPC ship the player had a very decisive advantage. Now, the NPC has a very decisive advantage. The tweak went too far and just needs adjusting.

Previously taking on two NPC ships of a slightly lower level was challenging but definitely manageable. Now, it is suicidal to attempt.

I give the Devs credit for addressing the leaks (which personally is still to much) and returning the Contrband traders in a timely manner.

Small adjustments needed not major changes. Hopefully the Devs will realize that the vast majority of players are asking for a moderation of the changes before too many people rage quit and leave the game.

 

The player still has an advantage, they can think ahead and plan.  The NPC can only react.  The player can maneuver and present a smaller angle when they know the NPC is about at the end of their reload, etc.  There are all manner of interesting things one can do to an opponent that doesn't plan ahead.

 

With regards to taking on two slightly lower enemies, it should be extremely risky and challenging.  One can rake while the other plies your broadside.  Further, look at weight of throw:

 

1 Surprise - You

2 Cerberus - Them.

 

Surprise - 12 9lb on the gun deck, 7 6lb on the weather deck - total broadside weight: 160lbs

Cerberus - 13 9lb - total broadside weight: 117lbs.  Times two ships - 234lbs.

 

You're outclassed - all the moreso since half of those guns can bear on you in any direction.  While you can still win by stringing them out a bit (the AI still doesn't chase very well, if you can keep one engaged and running with you, the other will try to rake you and fall far enough behind to no longer be a factor), it should be touch and go.  It should be extremely challenging and require a lot of skill.

[JimDandy]

My PC is down can't play today so came here with a question and while forlornly sitting here hoping for an answer I have been following the thread as it unfolds.

It seems a lot of people are upset with the recent ai buff. They cite examples of how the ai have become overpowering and so on. What I find interesting is the response from the moderators and self described "Good Players" as they defend this mess.

 

It seems the main argument in support of the buff has evolved to be if you weren't such a shitty player it wouldn't be a problem! or none of the things you described really happened! great intimidation tactics designed to make you feel that the problem is with you not the buff.

 

Really though while this may shut many of you up it won't change the reality of what's been done and to put it in perspective, who cares, it's there's to do with what they want if the game is not fun anymore people won't play and a change will come.

[Azenya]

I agree with the pace of the fixes! Good job!

 

I still need an answer to the long list of players, who like me think the AI is at an unbalanced level. If the devs think that its at the right level, we either adapt or leave.

 

I don't mind a smart AI, and a tough fight. But being smashed by smaller ships with "on the paper" weaker stats, is just a wrong turn.

 

I still need this to be adressed or simpy verified, if its on the right level or being looked into, before I return to the game again.

[maturin]

 

 

It seems the main argument in support of the buff has evolved to be if you weren't such a shitty player it wouldn't be a problem! or none of the things you described really happened!great intimidation tactics designed to make you feel that the problem is with you not the buff.

I for one am trying to understand the situation. I haven't had time to get into enough PvE fights yet, so maybe I'll come around later.

 

But in the meantime I've been looking for video or visual evidence of impossible AI and haven't found it. Many people are still jaded and fed up by the scores of forum members that have already spent months whining and telling fables about the cheating AI who sail faster, turn faster, reload faster, regardless of damage.

[Prater]

My PC is down can't play today so came here with a question and while forlornly sitting here hoping for an answer I have been following the thread as it unfolds.

It seems a lot of people are upset with the recent ai buff. They cite examples of how the ai have become overpowering and so on. What I find interesting is the response from the moderators and self described "Good Players" as they defend this mess.

 

It seems the main argument in support of the buff has evolved to be if you weren't such a shitty player it wouldn't be a problem! or none of the things you described really happened! great intimidation tactics designed to make you feel that the problem is with you not the buff.

 

Really though while this may shut many of you up it won't change the reality of what's been done and to put it in perspective, who cares, it's there's to do with what they want if the game is not fun anymore people won't play and a change will come.

 

No, the response is use your head.  If you can't take 2 Conis, don't take a Flag Captain mission.  It doesn't matter if you are Rear Admiral.  Take a Captain mission, or a Master Commandant mission.  When I saw that Flag Captain missions now give 2 Ingermandlanders, I stopped taking Flag Captain missions and pull Captain or Master Commandant when I sail my Essex.  Lt and down ai do need to be worse though.  Beginning missions need to be almost always doable for new players to get the hang of it.  See my previous post to the link to my ideas for the new player experience.

 

In other games, do you run into hard areas where the npcs are better than you and get upset when you can't kill that better npc?  Example:  In the Division, it only took me once or twice running into a dark zone area where the npcs were a few levels above me to realize that you can't solo in that area when you are a few levels below them.  Solo, you die in 2 shots.  So I stopped doing it.  When doing missions, put carronades on your ships, request easier missions, and kill the ai.  Stop requesting missions that are too hard for you.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

My PC is down can't play today so came here with a question and while forlornly sitting here hoping for an answer I have been following the thread as it unfolds.

It seems a lot of people are upset with the recent ai buff. They cite examples of how the ai have become overpowering and so on. What I find interesting is the response from the moderators and self described "Good Players" as they defend this mess.

 

It seems the main argument in support of the buff has evolved to be if you weren't such a shitty player it wouldn't be a problem! or none of the things you described really happened! great intimidation tactics designed to make you feel that the problem is with you not the buff.

 

Really though while this may shut many of you up it won't change the reality of what's been done and to put it in perspective, who cares, it's there's to do with what they want if the game is not fun anymore people won't play and a change will come.

 

There are two schools of thought in game design (at least related to the issue you're raising):

 

1.  Everyone is always a hero.

2.  Skill is important and that means sometimes you lose.

 

Up to now, AI has been more along the lines of #1.  Simple, very very easy to defeat, even when the AI was in a ship that was way above your class.  It's been moved far more towards #2 now.

 

Yes, I'll agree that making a game challenging will certainly cause players to leave.  The question is, what type of player?  Is it the type of player that just wants to grind up to maximum, then gets bored and leaves anyways?  Is it the type of player that doesn't want a challenge - just wants to win constantly and again, will get bored and leave anyways?  Perhaps it's the type of player that is discouraged but could potentially grow to love the game despite the challenge.  Possibly you're causing new players to uninstall and refund out of frustration.

 

Some of these players will leave anyways.  The game, regardless of the features, isn't suitable for them.  Others are valuable and those players are good for the game.  It's very possible AI will be scaled so that at low levels, they're the old, simple, stupid, inaccurate AI that we've seen so far (and by the way - look at the posts about AI around the time that EA launched - they were WAY TOO HARD, cheaters, and needed to be nerfed - those posts trailed off over time), but by the time you're in a 5th rate, they're the current challenging skill-requiring hardness that they are right now.  This issue simply isn't "AI is too hard now, make them bad again please".  

[Atomic Moose]

whether the intended changes to ai are what we need just look at the population last nite down almost 10-15% on all servers people want to have fun not suicidal missions

sure you can take lower missions but that doesnt help the fairly new players at all

no one was complaining about the ai much before now that is all the talk why fix something that wasnt broken to the players

your time could have been use wisely somewhere else maybe fixing missions or land maybe been broke since jan

 

my clan is  doing fleet missions and they are fun but all the lesser ships really have to watch out to not be sunk now and people are not going to risk there really good ships its the eve syndrome all over again as it is always in these gank or be ganked games

please adjust the acc or lessen it for lower levels 

 

and please stop saying this is the way it is either adapt or you can leave that is not a mind set of health game and people are leaving and you cant aford to lose any more

 

450 people on last nite on pvp1 after a big patch at 9pm cst does not bode well

i am almost admiral i can adapt but the lower rank players are srceaming loud to fix this

Edited April 15, 2016 by Atomic Moose

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

PvE players have been howling for more diversity and something to do for months. They got their wish, I'd say it was time well spent personally.

 

Either way, this has to be looked at holistically - macro not micro. "I can't beat the AI (I can't beat them when there are two of them, when they're in the same ship, etc) so it needs to be nerfed" isn't the correct way to approach the problem. "New players can't do their starter missions now." That's the correct way to look at this.

[Alado]

In very bad player.more or less that was my last Batlle:

Ia bellota, me constitution.

Both ships toghether,same way.

Both shot at same time. Normal that bellona do more damage.

I wait reload and shot.

Bellona reload but.... Somethings happen, vasily saitchev take control and shot one to one, one per second poun ... Poun..... Poun... His song dont stop, and his mosin nagan never fail.... Poun...Poun....This night i will have that nightmare...Poun..Poun...

Edited April 15, 2016 by Alado

[JimDandy]

I have written 3 posts in yesterdays thread relating detailed observations from my game play on Wednesday my sense was they were ignored, I will not take the time to write them again.

I have almost 1800 hours on this game

I do not come here to whine

I do not seek easy battles with ai, on the contrary I always search out fleets and go 1v 3,4,5 and 6

 

When I started in early October of 2015 the Dev's wanted candid feedback I have only done that on a few occasions when I felt the situation warranted it this is one of those occasions.

 

My hard drive crashed so my only experience with the patch is from game play on Wednesday the ai behavior on that day was inconsistent with what I would consider "balanced" Game play so much so that I believe it will create many unintended consequences which will ultimately have a negative impact on the game.

 

Based on that experience I am taking the side of those making the noise and am frankly appalled at the response from the Dev's & Moderators

[Porpoise]

I am really impressed by the speed the devs are responding to the problems. 

[Azenya]

I for one am trying to understand the situation. I haven't had time to get into enough PvE fights yet, so maybe I'll come around later.

 

But in the meantime I've been looking for video or visual evidence of impossible AI and haven't found it. Many people are still jaded and fed up by the scores of forum members that have already spent months whining and telling fables about the cheating AI who sail faster, turn faster, reload faster, regardless of damage.

You seem to be pretty focussed on people who whine. I don't spend time on recording the games I play. And when I participate in an Alpha game, and feel there is something which I don't like. I report it here, and hope its taken serious. When so many players adress the same thing, that is enough evidence for me. 

 

If you don't have a porblem with it, well good for you! 

 

Feel free to call me a noob player, that doesn't really matter. I bought a game, and I don't need to be a pro to have fun. 

Edited April 15, 2016 by Azenya

[maturin]

You seem to be pretty focussed on people who whine.

Whining is fine. But in my post I referred to people who--long before this patch was ever released--spread misinformation about the AI because it was beating them.

 

I don't spend time on recording the games I play. 

 

I never said you had to. I don't even have recording software on my PC. But someone does. And pretty soon someone has to help us narrow down what the real problem is with some actual evidence. I promise it will take less effort than all the alarmism and anguish on the forums right now.

 

This is an earnest call for serious reporting of issues, with actionable evidence. Sooner or later, it all boils down to the scientific method.

[JimDandy]

There are two schools of thought in game design (at least related to the issue you're raising):

 

1.  Everyone is always a hero.

2.  Skill is important and that means sometimes you lose.

 

Up to now, AI has been more along the lines of #1.  Simple, very very easy to defeat, even when the AI was in a ship that was way above your class.  It's been moved far more towards #2 now.

 

Yes, I'll agree that making a game challenging will certainly cause players to leave.  The question is, what type of player?  Is it the type of player that just wants to grind up to maximum, then gets bored and leaves anyways?  Is it the type of player that doesn't want a challenge - just wants to win constantly and again, will get bored and leave anyways?  Perhaps it's the type of player that is discouraged but could potentially grow to love the game despite the challenge.  Possibly you're causing new players to uninstall and refund out of frustration.

 

Some of these players will leave anyways.  The game, regardless of the features, isn't suitable for them.  Others are valuable and those players are good for the game.  It's very possible AI will be scaled so that at low levels, they're the old, simple, stupid, inaccurate AI that we've seen so far (and by the way - look at the posts about AI around the time that EA launched - they were WAY TOO HARD, cheaters, and needed to be nerfed - those posts trailed off over time), but by the time you're in a 5th rate, they're the current challenging skill-requiring hardness that they are right now.  This issue simply isn't "AI is too hard now, make them bad again please".  

 

 After re-reading your response I was remiss in not pointing out that patronizing explanations will not make this problem go away.

 

Game labs has a problem being in denial is not a solution.

 

But there I go trying to evoke reason how foolish of me.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

There's no denial.  The contents of these posts are being read, considered, and any actions that may be taken regarding the new features and tuning will be undertaken with people's feedback here in mind.  The feedback in this thread has already generated discussion behind the scenes. Do not, however, expect a Developer to come in here, throw themselves prostrate, and beg forgiveness, though.  

 

My posts in this thread have been an attempt to guide the conversation.  I'm sorry if you feel that my pointing out how things work is condescension, I'm simply disagreeing with a number of the assertions that have been made.  I'm also attempting to stem the tide of people who like things to be easy and simply want an AI battle to be a guaranteed "I win" situation.  I'm not entirely sure that's good for the game itself.

 

We're allowed to disagree with each other without calling names or resorting to histrionics to do so.

[LeBoiteux]

 After re-reading your response I was remiss in not pointing out that patronizing explanations will not make this problem go away.

 

Game labs has a problem being in denial is not a solution.

 

But there I go trying to evoke reason how foolish of me.

 

Come on, Mr. Darby really tries to find a solution. He's far from patronizing. And his reasoning and conclusion merit more consideration.

He analyses the situation correctly, especially about NA being a skill-based game, and proposes something interesting for starting missions : using the old inaccurate AI at low levels.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

I have written 3 posts in yesterdays thread relating detailed observations from my game play on Wednesday my sense was they were ignored, I will not take the time to write them again.

I have almost 1800 hours on this game

I do not come here to whine

I do not seek easy battles with ai, on the contrary I always search out fleets and go 1v 3,4,5 and 6

 

When I started in early October of 2015 the Dev's wanted candid feedback I have only done that on a few occasions when I felt the situation warranted it this is one of those occasions.

 

My hard drive crashed so my only experience with the patch is from game play on Wednesday the ai behavior on that day was inconsistent with what I would consider "balanced" Game play so much so that I believe it will create many unintended consequences which will ultimately have a negative impact on the game.

 

Based on that experience I am taking the side of those making the noise and am frankly appalled at the response from the Dev's & Moderators

 

That they haven't changed things overnight based on your feedback isn't surprising, and I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect changes that fast.   Changes take time, and receiving enough data to make an intelligent change versus just slamming them in left and right every time there is a complaint is important.