Hotfix 9.83 Patch notes

[ulysse77]

Actually it wasn't. The French tactic was to aim high to disable rigging. British tactic was to aim for the hull to disable guns and crew. Which one do you suppose won the day most of the time?

 

I think the french tactics were based on the grand strategy... French didn`t had numerical advantage and priority were set to the objective. British strategy was to eliminate the french navy, to have a sea superiority the same way air superiority work.

 

So french mostly hit the sail in a way to end a fight and carry on.

 

off topic a bit but still something we have to remember, we need objective that are not just sink ship B...

[CaptVonGunn]

Actually it wasn't. The French tactic was to aim high to disable rigging. British tactic was to aim for the hull to disable guns and crew. Which one do you suppose won the day most of the time?

 

I agree that chain is now op - because it is too accurate at longer ranges. Chain should do damage to sails and more importantly standing and running rigging at closer range reducing a ships mobility and potentially causing a mast to fall due to loss of standing rigging supporting it.

 

  In that case.. the better trained British crews... They aimed for hull because they knew the French crews would break... But historically losing a mast was and should be devastating. But everyone moral in this game is beyond real...   Brits also were caro heavy compared to French which went with the shoot low... Yes they still dismasted a LOT of ships... because shots across the deck still hit the masts to.   But when dealing with smaller ships they wanted to take Sails were the main target for all Navys

 

 Chian isn't op due to accuracy.. they doubled the damage it does that last tweek.....   the patch after they made it more accurate.. the combo is nuts now

[hellshammy]

Regarding the patch notes:

-chain needs an accuracy nerf,there is no point to demast now since you can criple a ship with 2 chain broadsides and just ram it in the wind to stop,should be something  simmilar to grape maybe,shorter range for full efect

[DeRuyter]

  In that case.. the better trained British crews... They aimed for hull because they knew the French crews would break... But historically losing a mast was and should be devastating. But everyone moral in this game is beyond real...   Brits also were caro heavy compared to French which went with the shoot low... Yes they still dismasted a LOT of ships... because shots across the deck still hit the masts to.   But when dealing with smaller ships they wanted to take Sails were the main target for all Navys

 

 Chian isn't op due to accuracy.. they doubled the damage it does that last tweek.....   the patch after they made it more accurate.. the combo is nuts now

 

I don't disagree that losing an entire mast was devastating and often a ship may just strike once that occurred - but as you note we don't have a crew morale system in the game. Where we disagree is on the dismasting tactic in general. My point is that dismasting was not the main tactic used to capture ships. In other words rigging was hit and disabled, but it wasn't by specifically aiming at the masts to dismast a ship entirely, ships for the most part lost parts of masts and the ability to handle the sails and maneuver it was rarer to have the unicorn effect we have in game.  Maybe it is just that the effect of cutting the standing rigging is not modeled in the game or that you can tack just as well with 100% sails as you can with 70% sails.

 

The better training comes into play with the rate of fire and to a lesser extent accuracy - they didn't fire low because they were better trained. The British fired on the down roll to hit the hull for the damage effects. The French on the up roll which resulted in hits to the rigging but also lot of misses and it left the British gun crews and cannon relatively undamaged. In a close range fight both ships would likely have sustained a lot of damage to the rigging but the French ship struck because of crew casualties, hull damage and dismounted guns.

 

I just don't want people to have the idea that ships IRL deliberately sniped down masts from 1000m or even 500m away. That an issue with both round shot and chain. I agree that the adjustment was a double buff to chain - accuracy and damage. One other point about chain not in game is that not all ships carried it in large quantities the British in particular.

 

IMO - chain should be very inaccurate at ranges over 200-300m.

[Hethwill]

French articles of war at sea do specify disabling rigging whereas royal navy doesn't refer it and focus on the battering of the enemy ship. (Im)possible to model.

[Nyurtle]

Regarding the patch notes:

-chain needs an accuracy nerf,there is no point to demast now since you can criple a ship with 2 chain broadsides and just ram it in the wind to stop,should be something  simmilar to grape maybe,shorter range for full efect

It's a lot faster and effective to demast than chain. My enemies chain me I demast them works everytime since the last mast patch.

[Cpt Blackthorne]

 

• Penetrating leaks under waterline take slightly more water

 

Slightly? Sadly I've sunk too many players and NPC giving them 7-10 leaks in one broadside and down they go in less than 2 minutes. Maybe NPC isn't running repair/survival?

[CaptVonGunn]

I don't disagree that losing an entire mast was devastating and often a ship may just strike once that occurred - but as you note we don't have a crew morale system in the game. Where we disagree is on the dismasting tactic in general. My point is that dismasting was not the main tactic used to capture ships. In other words rigging was hit and disabled, but it wasn't by specifically aiming at the masts to dismast a ship entirely, ships for the most part lost parts of masts and the ability to handle the sails and maneuver it was rarer to have the unicorn effect we have in game.  Maybe it is just that the effect of cutting the standing rigging is not modeled in the game or that you can tack just as well with 100% sails as you can with 70% sails.

 

The better training comes into play with the rate of fire and to a lesser extent accuracy - they didn't fire low because they were better trained. The British fired on the down roll to hit the hull for the damage effects. The French on the up roll which resulted in hits to the rigging but also lot of misses and it left the British gun crews and cannon relatively undamaged. In a close range fight both ships would likely have sustained a lot of damage to the rigging but the French ship struck because of crew casualties, hull damage and dismounted guns.

 

I just don't want people to have the idea that ships IRL deliberately sniped down masts from 1000m or even 500m away. That an issue with both round shot and chain. I agree that the adjustment was a double buff to chain - accuracy and damage. One other point about chain not in game is that not all ships carried it in large quantities the British in particular.

 

IMO - chain should be very inaccurate at ranges over 200-300m.

 

 

     It does seem to be pretty in acturate over 300 hec the fact its range is about 1/2 that aof Ball to begin with makes it so..

 

     500-1000 m? dont see that anymore.. It takes a massed volley or 2 to take down masts at under 200 meters.. 

 

  I agree.. dismasting shouldn't be the main way to win... But it should be an even chance with Shooting low for damage... But with no morale system for crews and the Rage Boarding to Win boarding system it is hard for me to argue that dismasting is to easy right now...

 

   Saw a Mercury last night that had 73 Marines on it....  in Shallow water battle.. that is insane.. currently  a tag team both set for speed and max boarding mods is the Win Button....  

 

  We need a system where all 3 Hull shooting, Masts and Boarding have about the same chance of being a winning plan... neither should trump the other the way it is now..

Edited June 9, 2016 by CaptVonGunn

[CaptVonGunn]

Slightly? Sadly I've sunk too many players and NPC giving them 7-10 leaks in one broadside and down they go in less than 2 minutes. Maybe NPC isn't running repair/survival?

 

 Yuip saw 3 guys sunk last night that way in about a 5-6 min time frame.. which is NO WHERE near Historical...  The number of ships that sank from leaks caused by gun fire in the age of sail is very very low

[LeBoiteux]

Maybe NPC isn't running repair/survival?

 

If I remember well, NPC has no repair kit. 

I don't know about the survival mode.

[Quineloe]

About leaks:

Yesterday I was in a port battle and I received 11 leaks, despite being at heeling 0°.

This gave me 40% flooding, just a few more might have been too much. This really can't be right, it's one thing if you heel away at 10° like an idiot in a Trincomalee, but my Essex was exactly upright. Yet mass leaks from a broadside.

[Lannes]

I agree, leaks are absurd at the moment.

The other thing is that the white lines from my ship to the opponent's ship have become wavy again where they were straight in the previous patch, and they are less accurate to aim with. The AI is as accurate as ever.

[Lannes]

The other thing is the difficulty with getting into a DEEP WATER port. Why do we have SHALLOWS blocking our way?

[Destraex]

I don't like the fact you cannot escape once leaking. That kind of pre-determines your death if you have lost a side and forces you to wait around for it.

I liked the old system of attempt to run and escape if you can get far enough from battle.

[Quineloe]

I don't like the fact you cannot escape once leaking. That kind of pre-determines your death if you have lost a side and forces you to wait around for it.

I liked the old system of attempt to run and escape if you can get far enough from battle.

 

You can still disengage and repair your ship once to get out. However, once you've done that and got destroyed again, you are definitely sunk and people don't have to worry about keeping you tagged because you might click out with 90% water.

You also have the option of winning the fight before you actually sink.

[Destraex]

You can repair while engaged.... disengaging and repairing is good though while running... I am more talking about after you are almost done for. Repair kits done and somehow leaking with no hope of plugging the leaks even with full crew on it. 

 

Well I guess we have our differences there then. I don't like having no chance at all of getting out, but can live with it. Some in my clan cannot though.

I would prefer if you are doomed that you have to auto surrender. But I guess some people might enjoy going down fighting. At least give the player a message popping up saying that now is the time to abandon ship as we cannot stop the leaks SIR! Then an option to give the order or keep fighting. Otherwise new players will be confused about why the instance did not say battle over even though they had no longer a fighting chance.

[Cpt Blackthorne]

About leaks:

Yesterday I was in a port battle and I received 11 leaks, despite being at heeling 0°.

This gave me 40% flooding, just a few more might have been too much. This really can't be right, it's one thing if you heel away at 10° like an idiot in a Trincomalee, but my Essex was exactly upright. Yet mass leaks from a broadside.

Were the leaks recorded above the line or below? As far as I can tell the 0 0 above the line is for port and starboard holes above the water line and the 0 0 below the line are port and starboard holes below the water line

[Cpt Blackthorne]

I don't like the fact you cannot escape once leaking. That kind of pre-determines your death if you have lost a side and forces you to wait around for it.

I liked the old system of attempt to run and escape if you can get far enough from battle.

I agree, but I think they are trying to get more "surrender or sink" to happen rather than insta repairs once outside of battle, which isn't very realistic.

[Quineloe]

You can repair while engaged.... disengaging and repairing is good though while running... I am more talking about after you are almost done for. Repair kits done and somehow leaking with no hope of plugging the leaks even with full crew on it. 

 

Well I guess we have our differences there then. I don't like having no chance at all of getting out, but can live with it. Some in my clan cannot though.

I would prefer if you are doomed that you have to auto surrender. But I guess some people might enjoy going down fighting. At least give the player a message popping up saying that now is the time to abandon ship as we cannot stop the leaks SIR! Then an option to give the order or keep fighting. Otherwise new players will be confused about why the instance did not say battle over even though they had no longer a fighting chance.

 

Why would your ship suddenly stop sinking just because nobody shot you for two minutes?

 

 

 

Were the leaks recorded above the line or below? As far as I can tell the 0 0 above the line is for port and starboard holes above the water line and the 0 0 below the line are port and starboard holes below the water line

 

No, above the line means the leak is currently not taking water, and if it's below the line and red it now is taking water.

That is why you never see a higher number below the line than above.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Quineloe

[Jean Ribault]

Why would your ship suddenly stop sinking just because nobody shot you for two minutes?

....

 

 

Oh for crying out loud Quin, have you never seen Das Boot ?!  

[Nyurtle]

I agree, leaks are absurd at the moment.

The other thing is that the white lines from my ship to the opponent's ship have become wavy again where they were straight in the previous patch, and they are less accurate to aim with. The AI is as accurate as ever.

those lines for me become wavy when i reduce my graphic settings

[CaptVonGunn]

I don't like the fact you cannot escape once leaking. That kind of pre-determines your death if you have lost a side and forces you to wait around for it.

I liked the old system of attempt to run and escape if you can get far enough from battle.

Well yeah.. if your sinking why should you be able to escape just because they stopped firing at you since they could see you were sinking?

[Lannes]

Leaks are a little too easy and getting out of the battle has once more become half-way too hard. At the moment at which you have outdistanced the enemy sufficiently by sailing faster, you should be able to ESCAPE. Anything else makes this a game for people who have nothing else to do except play Naval Action. Pardon my terseness, but I see the need for BALANCE here.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Lannes

[Quineloe]

Leaks don't prevent you from exiting, because they are plugged in less than two minutes. It therefore was always impossible to leave a battle while you had leaks.

 

The big change of this patch regarding this was that ships that had taken too much damage to survive for another 5 minutes, ships that were damaged beyond staying afloat. And those ships leaving the battle with their ship almost sunk hurt casual players just as much if not even more than hardcore. It's not about leaks, it's about armor being gone.

Taking water does not prevent you from leaving, ships without bow armor are taking some water but they can leave because the pump can easily remove that water again.

Having water does not prevent you from leaving either, I had the leave timer start when I had 60% water recently because that was the point my repair had fixed my ship enough the water level wasn't rising anymore.

 

The system is near perfect, it only prevents the leave timer from starting when your water level is actually rising. I don't see how it could be improved upon.

 

The main issue people seem to have with it is that now more ships will sink. Which is actually necessary in a loss-driven economy.

 

The alternative system we've seen in POBS, where ships suddenly sink when the structure hits 0. That was a truly horrible system.

[Xhepnon]

this game disappointed me.  I will state some fundemental negative sides that needs to be told and then get constructive in this post. this will be a long post but I think it worths to read.

 

_________________

http://store.steampowered.com/app/311310/

 

I dont understand how devs can keep ignoring those very very obvious signs of  mistakes  they made. so called improvements are not improving anything but their self satisfaction .latest reviews %59 positive. 

 

http://steamcharts.com/app/311310

 

may 1___2179 players  (sunday)  peak

june 11____856 players (saturday) peak

 

game lost %60 of its player base and this doesnt tell you anything? you guys pushed away almost all of the veteran players by changing battle mechanics drastically while there were nothing else to do then battling and now you only hear nothing but crying of noobs which are giving incompatible feedbacks most of them arent even constructive(sorry dont wanna act arrogant but this is how it is).

 

you can say there is trade? trade yeah you are welcome to risk your haul +sail 3 hours this is no fun after a while even it can be profitable.

 

in short story battle is the core of this game it is perfectly fine to adjust battle mechanics little by little, or adding removing stuff time to time but when there is NOTHING else to do except battling you are basically saying F.ck you to your veterans  by making them throw all of their battle experiences, tactics strategies to trashcan because of drastic changes for a patch that is not even fun but only realistic?(reference to past patches)

 

ok so far these were focus of my critism I loved this game this is why Im putting time to making this comment because I think it deserves it I want this game to be better more fun.lets get more constructive,

 

- for sake of god please remember this is NAVAL ACTİON, not naval SIMULATOR  this game doesnt have to be precise when it comes to historical facts unless you  put that action part just to receive more attention. so please keep that in mind.

- basement of this game is battle everything revolves around it but if you want to build a skyscraper you better start adding floors to that basement otherwise a base without floors are just barebones. add stuff other then battle that are fun to do. add in-depth national mechanics etc

- ADJUST PIRATES, seriously pirates shouldnt be a nation. I dont know how you are going to solve it but I think solution comes from building bureaucracy to other nation's first.

 

Ive made some suggestions in one of my topics a while ago(06 april 2016) I think some of them still valid such as

__________________________________

""Every team should have a maximum battle rating lets say  (10300)25v25(9600)  rating decided  by nations strenght(based on port count, port variation, port economy) divided by active fleets. and yes fleets should be able to merge just as ai fleets merge at the port they are created at fleet section.

 

Since what I suggested in this idea can be a problem for weak defender nations, they would have serious disadvantages which might be balanced with homeport morale boost, high morale should increase crew's efficiency increase reload,repair speed.

 

or ports strengthen by additional defences I think ports should have their own charecteristics, like they should be able to transform, to a trading posts or battle focused ports or ship production focused,  it should be somehow varied. it should show somewhat they are alive and dynamic.

 

Maybe battle rating can be decided by the initial port that fleet formed by  admiral of fleet. players who wants to join to fleet should be able to join only if they have invitation or access like fleets should have options such as (publicly open, more then commodore rank, invitation only). that would utile fleet section aswell.

 

so how noobs will join fleets or port battles then  you may ask. there should be custom port battles just like normal battles that we can attend in ports when we want. and for balance sake attacker should has more players then defenders etc that is relatively easy part.

 

Every nation  should generate a fleet power in time depending on its strenght and player donations, fleet power should only be utilized by some players(lets say members of  council elected by players of that nation). like if a nation wants to form a 25 santissima fleet fine let them but they have to invest a huge partition of fleet power of nation which is hard to generate and could have been utilized more efficiently  in multiple various fleets.

 

This creates a question so if a nation forms a 25 santissima fleet while another one didnt, how are they going to fight agaisnt them? current situation in game is not that different but maybe with new patch port defences may vary, or devs can implement a  port development progress just like system in total war which is designed for cities. ports should develop in time or regress it should be decided by certain algorhytm which can be acceleratable by players who pay taxes to nation or donates gold, labor hours and materials to ports etc that would make a certain port has strong defences which is wished to be defendeble agaisnt a huge fleet."

 

as a reference to the topic: http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/12924-nation-port-battle-mechanics/

 

those were what I thought about this game I beleive this game has a great potential but in order to achive that state there are many things to do. even though I dont agree on everything that you have done so far devs, I only wish goodluck to you on your hardwork.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Xhepnon