Hotfix 9.72

[Anne Wildcat]

I think the AI challenge is good. Realize you may not finish every battle, you may need to run. Before, a group of 4 could finish off 8 AI without any running or loss, which is not realistic. Coming from POTBS where 1 to 2 men can take down a group of 8, this is a welcome challenge. My only suggestion is to dumb down AI in the first few level missions to help new players.

Edit

If you want a quick, relaxing, easy fight then do a lower level mission.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Anne Wildcat

[Lannes]

I am probably a more than average skill player. But, I cannot now beat AI Privateers in a Mercury with 3 permanent upgrades and 5 regular ones. Their accuracy is legendary. I am running before I sink.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Lannes

[victor]

Don't misunderstand me.  For sure, you definitely ARE taking more damage than you were prior to the patch.  You are also dealing more damage than you were before the patch.

 

AI's cannon were NOT buffed in a way that your cannon weren't.

AI's accuracy was NOT buffed in a way that your cannon weren't.

 

What happened was:

AI was made more accurate by removing a bug that caused them to: a. Shoot into the water/over your hull, behind your hull very frequently, and b. Shoot at you at angles that had a high chance of bouncing - effectively wasting their shot.  

In addition:

A bug that caused 10% of shots to ALWAYS fail to penetrate was fixed.  A 42lb ball had a 10% chance of not penetrating a cutter.  Ridiculous.

 

This has made AI stronger than they were before.  I agree with that, Admin agrees with that, and I'm sure every last jack in this thread agrees with that.

 

Now, when we hear people talk about "Cheating AI", and crap like that, our ears turn off, because we know for a fact that the AI has the same abilities that you as a player do.  Some of them carry some nice modules - yes.  However, those modules are no better or worse balanced than they are in the hands of a skilled player.

 

So, how about instead of saying that AI cheats, that they have abilities that we as players do not, that they're "unfair", let's do some testing and figure out:

 

1.  Is AI really too strong?  From a game playability standpoint, should players have a no challenge opponent that they can beat one handed while eating a sandwich and drinking a beer while watching Netflix on the other screen?  Is the game more fun giving a decent challenge when you attempt a fight with an AI in the same ship as you, or is it more fun being able to smash ships that are two "tiers" above you with zero effort?

2.  Are the changes to leaks and the resulting damage "increase" from the fixed penetration bug creating an unfun situation?  If so, should damage be scaled down a little to "adjust" for the increased number of penetrating balls?

3.  Are leaks too "firehose" right now?  Are they causing you to sink too fast?  Should the amount of flooding be scaled down, should maybe they not sink you as fast but require more crew to pump to provide a similar level of negative performance, or some other idea?

 

This forum isn't for ranting and complaining and threatening to leave.  This forum is to provide feedback on features and changes to the game.  Feedback isn't "The AI cheats, I'm leaving if you don't fix it."  That's a crap post and doesn't do anyone any good.  

 

Captains need to listen to what the Developers are telling you about what the changes actually did.  If you have hard, concrete evidence that a change isn't acting the way we are stating it should, then please provide the evidence.  Provide feedback on the change, which means suggesting solutions that are designed to better the game as a whole, not the game as you want to play it.

 

Let's be constructive and work towards a better game.  Running from thread to thread ranting and raving isn't the way this is going to work.

 

You know, I am an old guy and so I play this video games for fun, mostly to relax after a "challenging" day of work (in courts). Moreover if I come on the forum to comment about a change in the game is just to give my impressions about a game I paid in advance for the very purpose of testing and improving it.

 

So, since you are a moderator, would you please clarify to me a few concepts, so that I know how to behave in the future:

 

1) If I write something like "I find that the new AI has transformed NA missions in a stress more than a fun", is this a "crap" rant or a legitimate feedback about the game?

 

2) you ask for proof to support our comments but devs say clearly that combat log is not reliable at all. So, how could testers check things and provide detailed and grounded opinions on the new AI in absence of a reliable combat log?

 

3) since I was told that this is an alpha test, why should we listen to the developers but developers shouldn't listen to their testers (or customers) if they express an opinion on the overall level of difficulty of the missions?

 

4) of course it's up to the devs to define the challenge of the game, but nontheless it's up to players to decide if they feel missions are too challenging for them. Is there something wrong in it?

 

I repeat: I want just to know how things stand in order to avoid making "unappropriate" comments in the future. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited April 16, 2016 by victor

[Jan van Santen]

LOL, pve is too hard ? go in PvP guys....

 

PvE isn't too hard, it's just challenging, before it was just useles and not fun, this is really a good move in the right direction 

 

Your wrong assumption is that PvE is the same on PvP and PvE server. Well, it isn't. Due to player number we can't do what you guys do: gank the AI (or other players,) 

PvE on PvE server basically is a solo thing. And for that (in particular for the new players) AI is just op after 9.7

 

I just did a little experiment: I got me a free basic cutter (oak, 4pdr) in my capital like any new player would have to do and did a r1 mission. My AI opponent was a Privateer with 66 crew and 6pdrs compared to my 40 crew and 4pdrs.

I didn't have the slightest chance to win that, despite my r10 experience.

 

Now try to imagine a real new player  on PvE server. He does this 3 times, gets beaten 3 times and than he uses the Steam refund....

Edited April 16, 2016 by Jan van Santen

[Precious Roy]

Jan come to pvp2. You can pve with other players and easily avoid pvp.

[charognard666]

Your wrong assumption is that PvE is the same on PvP and PvE server. Well, it isn't. Due to player number we can't do what you guys do: gank the AI (or other players,) 

PvE on PvE server basically is a solo thing. And for that (in particular for the new players) AI is just op after 9.7

 

I just did a little experiment: I got me a free basic cutter (oak, 4pdr) in my capital like any new player would have to do and did a r1 mission. My AI opponent was a Privateer with 66 crew and 6pdrs compared to my 40 crew and 4pdrs.

I didn't have the slightest chance to win that, despite my r10 experience.

 

Now try to imagine a real new player  on PvE server. He does this 3 times, gets beaten 3 times and than he uses the Steam refund....

 

well come make pve on the pvp server

 

Even on pve server, NA is a game fovorising, encouraging the groupe gameplay

Edited April 16, 2016 by charognard666

[LeBoiteux]

Your wrong assumption is that PvE is the same on PvP and PvE server. Well, it isn't. Due to player number we can't do what you guys do: gank the AI (or other players,) 

PvE on PvE server basically is a solo thing. And for that (in particular for the new players) AI is just op after 9.7

 

I just did a little experiment: I got me a free basic cutter (oak, 4pdr) in my capital like any new player would have to do and did a r1 mission. My AI opponent was a Privateer with 66 crew and 6pdrs compared to my 40 crew and 4pdrs.

I didn't have the slightest chance to win that, despite my r10 experience.

 

Now try to imagine a real new player  on PvE server. He does this 3 times, gets beaten 3 times and than he uses the Steam refund....

 

What Charognard certainly meant is that a PvP fight is most of the time harder than a PvE one. It certainly was before the current patch. AI was and certainly still is less good than an average PvP player. However, right now, there may be some adjustments needed in terms of AI, especially with the low-end AI.

 

What Charognard also may imply is that in a PvP fight, most of a time... one player sinks / loses.

I have the impression that some PvEers don't want to lose and want to win each time. Easily. Why not ? That's a way to play.

But in most games (cards, chess...) or sport, you play and you win or lose. That's no big deal. That's part of the game. That's challenge.

 

In NA, in a Rank 5 mission (Lt Commander), you can lose after a nice fight (and lose a durability) and still earning 5500 gold and 110 XP if you do enough damage. That's enough to save and buy a new ship, grind and have fun. That was my case today : I made three big stupid laughable mistakes and sunk. Still it was fun.

 

In PvE, before the current patch, there wasn't much (if any) ship loss (I don't know now).

It isn't the case in PvP : pvpers lose ships all day long. No big deal for them.

 

On the other hand, about your experience of a basic cutter encountering an AI Privateer : a novice PvEers should do the same thing as a novice PvPers in the face of a superior force, that is trying to flee. Missions given on other islands are easier, that is against an AI cutter.

 

NA isn't about sinking ships all day long. It's about living the life of a captain during Age of Sail.

Sometimes, your ship sinks. Sometimes, it's your enemy's turn. But XP and gold reward aren't elitist in NA and let you keep on playing and improving.

 

Finally, I'd say that current missions may not be for beginners and for those who just want to win each time.

For them, new kinds of missions may be needed : http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/13295-newcomers-learning-curve/#entry242911

And for them, chasing AI traders in OW may be a source of fun and training.

[BobW-Bristol-RI-US]

I think the AI challenge is good. Realize you may not finish every battle, you may need to run. Before, a group of 4 could finish off 8 AI without any running or loss, which is not realistic. Coming from POTBS where 1 to 2 men can take down a group of 8, this is a welcome challenge. My only suggestion is to dumb down AI in the first few level missions to help new players.

Edit

If you want a quick, relaxing, easy fight then do a lower level mission.

 

[Not new - been here since sea trials, casual player]

 

Regarding "If you want a quick, relaxing, easy fight, then do a lower level mission"....

 

Then what's the point of having missions called out for particular ranks?

 

[CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTION ALERT:]

 

Maybe remove the rank connection to missions and just list them in a numeric scale of difficulty? That way, for future dev adjustments to AI and player combat effectiveness, no further adjustments to mission-rank alignment would be required.

 

It would seem that (previously) the missions were reasonably well balanced with the most recent AI versus average player capabilities. That is no longer the case with the AI corrections.

 

Regards all.

[Mr. Starbuck]

regarding the AI changes, I assume most players would be fine with:

 

• drop AI accuracy by 5-10%
• restrict their modules to 3/5 max AND adapt AI module buffs to AI level, e.g. basic for midshipman, mastercraft and above for Commodore+

I suppose this would remove most of the headache a large number of players currently has.

 

It would not gimp the AI again, implement a notable skill curve, AI would still be a challenging foe AND it would severly promote low rank/ newbie players not to drop in frustration because they get sunk by midshipman AI and can't do nothing about it.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Mr. Starbuck

[Lannes]

Before the patch, I was sailing an Exceptional Snow with 3 permanent and 5 regular upgrades. In missions I could sink any two Privateers together, as well as any single Brigs or Snows, often enough.

After this, I 'upgraded' to a Mercury. Compared to my Snow, I found it a lousy sailor and a lousy fighter, but I could put up with it. Then the patch came and I thought I better get rid of it and upgrade to a Niagara.

Now, my Niagara has barely won one fight against a Privateer, was set on fire in another fight with a Privateer and ran from a fight against a Cutter because of a quickly flooding leak. These are the FACTS. Before the patch, often winning using my skills and my ship to the maximum, sometimes losing. Now, NO chance against the AI with a comparable ship. The AI ships have a phenomenal accuracy. They hit most times, at any range. I cannot complete missions.

There is no point saying it's my fault because I am not skilled enough. The game against the AI is set, as Victor stated, at a stress level. It needs to be changed. Full stop.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Lannes

[Byng57]

To take up some of Henry d'Esterre Darby's points.

Shooting behind a player, at wrong angles or into the water isn't a "bug" it's an error that all human players make. (If some of my shots land in the sea behind my opponent I wouldn't press F11 to report a bug). As you say, by removing these "bugs" the devs have undoubtedly made the AI more powerful.

Combined with the new leak model - which I think was added to give skilled PVP players the change to critically hole an opponent - the AI gunners are now much more likely to hit these leak points and other critical items such as pump and rudder. I have had 6 leaks from one broadside and another player has reported 12.

Once this happens the devs themselves have said that each leak requires a separate crew allocation in survival mode and sufficient leaks will sink your ship even if all you crew are manning the pumps. At one time my Renomee (with extra pump) had 130 crew in survival mode and sank like a stone.

Although the penetration leakage model may be fine in PvP, I think the balance is wrong when it's combined in missions with AI ships which now never make mistakes.

I think the devs did not foresee the combined impact of the two changes in AI missions, which are not their main priority.

Everybody appreciates a challenge and the need for a learning curve to improve skills but a challenge must offer some hope of success.

I have been playing since Christmas and have worked my way through 85 - 90 missions to reach Lieut. Comm level gradually improving my skills during that time.

I have never complained the grind was too hard or expected to reach the highest ranks (possibly ever) as I don't have the time to devote to intense play.

Since the update I tried the beginners mission (one cutter vs another)as a beginner (except that I had enough gold to fit 12 carronades against his 6lb cannons.)

I was sunk in short order in spite of my "experience" and in spite of using one repair kit and one Urgent repair. I earned 12 XP and 84 gold.

If I had been a beginner I might have reached for the Steam refund tab at that point.

One of the stated aims of the update was to reduce the grind and this was done by lowering the thresholds between ranks.

However before the update I could earn 250-300 XP from an LC mission (40 missions for 10000 XP.)

Since the update I averaged 70 XP per battle (plus the loss of 1 dura on an exceptional Oak Renomee) (143 missions for 10000XP ).

This doesn't seem to have made the grind easier.

Hopefully the devs can find a way to provide challenging missions which offer a solo player some hope of success, or could offer some suggestions (other than "phone a friend") to help solo players get something from the game in future.

I haven't threatened to stop playing the game if they don't but sadly admit that I am daunted at the prospect of some hundred hours more relearning battle tactics just to get back to a levelof play which I was enjoying before Tuesday.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Please bear in mind:

 

These changes aren't set in stone.  No change made to the game is ever flat out permanent.  Everything can be tweaked based on feedback and additional ideas as presented.

 

Don't be daunted or feel like you have to quit because of this patch, instead work through the way to make things better by presenting feedback and ideas in this thread and I'm sure you'll see changes and tweaks that will bring the joy back.

[Marcomies]

Combined with the new leak model - which I think was added to give skilled PVP players the change to critically hole an opponent - the AI gunners are now much more likely to hit these leak points and other critical items such as pump and rudder. I have had 6 leaks from one broadside and another player has reported 12.

Once this happens the devs themselves have said that each leak requires a separate crew allocation in survival mode and sufficient leaks will sink your ship even if all you crew are manning the pumps. At one time my Renomee (with extra pump) had 130 crew in survival mode and sank like a stone.

Although the penetration leakage model may be fine in PvP, I think the balance is wrong when it's combined in missions with AI ships which now never make mistakes.

I think the devs did not foresee the combined impact of the two changes in AI missions, which are not their main priority

I really don't think that the ability to sink even a large ship with just hitting the waterline is that good for pvp. It really doesn't take any massive display of skill to hit a waterline and it kinda breaks the old dynamic of raking for crew and guns vs shooting sails for reduced mobility vs shooting at hull to sink. Now shooting at waterline will just do all that for you: it takes crew away to deal with the leaks, taking water slows the ship down and you don't really even need to take down the whole side armor to sink the enemy.

 

In addition to gameplay reasons I would also not want to see shooting the waterline for quick kills become the meta of the multiplayer because it couldn't be much further from the tactics and goals of a historical age of sail combat. Sinking ships was already bit too easy and common as it were. I'm not saying go back to what the leaking from gunshots used to be but it should definitely be toned down to where a ship with armor/structure and crew left won't at least sink.

[gyps]

I regard to AI accuracy I took on a brig in a trinc

 

Out of a full broadside I managed to miss with 8 while AI fired 8 shots and had 8 direct hits, I'm using a pellews at mastercraft so what the hell is he using to hit everytime

 

the miss rate for AI seems well out of whack to humans - now I might not be the greatest shot but even using one gun to get range a broadside has some misses for me 

Edited April 16, 2016 by gyps

[Nash]

I regard to AI accuracy I took on a brig in a trinc

 

Out of a full broadside I managed to miss with 8 while AI fired 8 shots and had 8 direct hits, I'm using a pellews at mastercraft so what the hell is he using to hit everytime

 

the miss rate for AI seems well out of whack to humans - now I might not be the greatest shot but even using one gun to get range a broadside has some misses for me 

 

not a good point. A brig is low on water and its not an easy target. For a trinc, you are super high on water so you are an easy target as a result, a brig can hit you with its broadside.

 

My suggestion: If we could have 2 AI system in place, from the first level to M&C, give people easy AIs. When you get to post captain, you are going to fight harder AIs.

 

 

Oh btw since I know our Dev love Dark Souls

Edited April 16, 2016 by Nash

[Trevish]

You know, I am an old guy and so I play this video games for fun, mostly to relax after a "challenging" day of work (in courts). Moreover if I come on the forum to comment about a change in the game is just to give my impressions about a game I paid in advance for the very purpose of testing and improving it.

 

So, since you are a moderator, would you please clarify to me a few concepts, so that I know how to behave in the future:

 

1) If I write something like "I find that the new AI has transformed NA missions in a stress more than a fun", is this a "crap" rant or a legitimate feedback about the game?

 

2) you ask for proof to support our comments but devs say clearly that combat log is not reliable at all. So, how could testers check things and provide detailed and grounded opinions on the new AI in absence of a reliable combat log?

 

3) since I was told that this is an alpha test, why should we listen to the developers but developers shouldn't listen to their testers (or customers) if they express an opinion on the overall level of difficulty of the missions?

 

4) of course it's up to the devs to define the challenge of the game, but nontheless it's up to players to decide if they feel missions are too challenging for them. Is there something wrong in it?

 

I repeat: I want just to know how things stand in order to avoid making "unappropriate" comments in the future. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are plenty of casual games on the internet you can relax to, this is not one.  The game is and should be challenging but I will agree that lower level ai should probably be toned down for newer players.

[maturin]

You know, I am an old guy and so I play this video games for fun, mostly to relax after a "challenging" day of work (in courts). Moreover if I come on the forum to comment about a change in the game is just to give my impressions about a game I paid in advance for the very purpose of testing and improving it.

So, since you are a moderator, would you please clarify to me a few concepts, so that I know how to behave in the future:

1) If I write something like "I find that the new AI has transformed NA missions in a stress more than a fun", is this a "crap" rant or a legitimate feedback about the game?

2) you ask for proof to support our comments but devs say clearly that combat log is not reliable at all. So, how could testers check things and provide detailed and grounded opinions on the new AI in absence of a reliable combat log?

3) since I was told that this is an alpha test, why should we listen to the developers but developers shouldn't listen to their testers (or customers) if they express an opinion on the overall level of difficulty of the missions?

4) of course it's up to the devs to define the challenge of the game, but nontheless it's up to players to decide if they feel missions are too challenging for them. Is there something wrong in it?

I repeat: I want just to know how things stand in order to avoid making "unappropriate" comments in the future. Nothing more, nothing less.

Darby was responding first of all to people that claim the AI cheat.

This is a very different accusation from your valid opinion that the AI is too hard.

[Mr. Starbuck]

Please bear in mind:

 

These changes aren't set in stone.  No change made to the game is ever flat out permanent.  Everything can be tweaked based on feedback and additional ideas as presented.

 

Don't be daunted or feel like you have to quit because of this patch, instead work through the way to make things better by presenting feedback and ideas in this thread and I'm sure you'll see changes and tweaks that will bring the joy back.

Yes. The general direction- increasing the challenge is fine!

 

I think a little fiddling with stats and some adjustements and the job is done.

 

Some senior users should (excluding you ) bear in mind, that the learning curve is already steep for newbies. Gotta take care of them as well. We need a constant influx of new people.

[Skippy]

I like challenge, but i dislike unfair flawless AI.  They need to make also a few mistake.  Shooting at wrong angle, shot in water, shooting behind.. they need to also do that sometime, not too often. Also the penetration of small caliber is too high now, looks like the 6 and 9pds are kind of bugued. 

 

Ships Dura. Id like you guys to upgrade the ships dura for the ship of the lines. Third rate at 4 or 5, 2nd Rate at 4 or 3, and 1rst rate at 3 or 2.  Please.  If other people think it would be a good idea, post here that you agree.  We could maybe make a poll about this too.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Skippy

[Lannes]

Once more, I put my Niagara up against an AI Brig. I holed that Brig until it was so full of leaks it must have been like a sieve, yet I had to run away because, again, my leak was making it impossible to fight on without losing the ship.

 

As always criticism of the developments in the game that players like myself and so many others do not like and find nearly game-breaking, unfortunately brings out the egos who want to say:

(1) It's all your fault because you're not a good player, look how good I am.

(2) The developers are good guys who just want to make the game better for you. (It's a version of mummy/daddy just want the best for you. Look how I am a good boy/girl.)

 

Well, for me it's a case of, if you developers want to stuff up a game that for me was already phenomenal, go down the path of Rome II Total War-in reverse and do it. But, you will get jolly bad press.

Another mistake that organizations make is that they make a change which makes things worse and then they feel obliged to (a) argue its benefits; (b make changes, but not withdraw the original bad move which would simplify everything and would get them back to the point where things started to go wrong.

Are you listening DarthVader? Do the right thing: restore the game to where it was and start from that point again--and don't blame the poor developer who thought it up; he was doing his best; it just didn't work.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Lannes

[Ned Loe]

Some people want AI to be extremely hard and challenging (prepare to sink)

Some want AI for relaxing times

The rest just goes to pvp

 

We would like to remind everyone the two rules of this forum. 

1. Respect

The goal is to support open exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion. We understand that there could be conflicts that happen when people voice opinions.  Users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

 

2. Ranting and trolling

A rant is a post that is filled with angry and counterproductive comments. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Trolling is when you structure your posts to anger and insult other players to achieve an emotional response. Please post your thoughts clearly and avoid trolling.

 

 

Now. Players who disagree with something MUST do it in a respectful constructive manner 

If someone disagrees with you this is not appaling. If you do'nt like people disagreeing there is no place for you in any forum.

Game is unfinished and will change multiple times. AI changed multiple times and WILL change again. 

 

We are going to enforce rules on rules 1 and 2 more and more starting now. 

Just add loot and everybody will get quiet because there are shiny things drop from ships.   Everybody likes shiny things...

[Lennyo]

The more I play, the more I like the new AI. However I'm still concerned with new players and would still like penetration to be reduced a bit, especially for smaller calibers.

[Coderre]

IMPORTANT:

 

1.5 BR mechanic is allready being abused by pirates (I will not name them).

 

3 Pirate Constitutions were sailing in our water, accompanied by 1 spanish 3rd rate (they were sailing in group together). When our fleet was about to grap them, "their" spanish 3rd rate tagged the conni's.. Which didn't even allow a fair fight from our side.

 

This is probably not how this mechanic is intended.

 

Hopefully the mechanic will be tweaked soon.

[Justme]

My concern is I fought an AI navy brig with my navy brig yesterday.

I killed 25 of crew and put 5 leaks in its hull and it didn't sink. I get 2 leaks and only lost 10 crew and I sank.

It should be equal if it takes more than 5 to sink it, it should take 5 to sink me as well.

[Hethwill]

Depends where they are, how is the heeling acting on them etc

 

You can effectively counter heel and buy time for your crew to fix leaks.