Test server branch opens today

[Hethwill]

Battle map ?

[admin]

Main post updated with a known issue of instance crash (disconnect) because of masts

[Cecil Selous]

6 hours ago, fox2run said:

End of big battles in OW?

Im done with this crap.

And again, it is just for the PVP event zone. But you don't know this because you don't play anymore. Also it is only on the testbed so there is no need for you to come here and comment in this way. 

[JeanJacques de Montpellier]

Sorry for my question (which is probably very stupid) but what is the center bar? Structure?
What structure? The ships of that period were practically empty inside, without even bulkheads.

This is the main deck of Hermione

Maybe the structure refers to the deck (i mean to the floor)?. A fairly difficult part could damage seen the kind of bullets (round balls with little speed).

 

Leaving aside the sense or otherwise of this central bar; now the game favors the stern rake, always just stern rake; when in fact the most common tactic was side VS side.
The more maneuverable ships have even more advantages now, a frigate could easily sink a SoL thing for the historical-simulation practically impossible.

As regards the possibility to demast reducing the central bar, is a total nonsense. Nonsense.
The balls that come from the stern can maybe even hit a mast (the last-one) from inside the hull, but with a force and insignificant quantities of motion, not able to cause no damage to the mast.

As said by akd, the old system was simplified but credible and enjoyable.

It would be better to focus on some of the game mechanics that do not convince, rather than waste time to change things that already work.
Of course, in my opinion.

[Destraex]

Not sure what this mechanic adds exactly? I was hoping that the health bars were gone and that you added proper location damage.

Just tested it and all it seems to mean is that you can rake a ship to death.

Have not tried from the side yet. But am assuming you would take a side off and sink the ship before destroying the internal structure.

 

Is this mechanic to ensure if pirates rake traders too much their quarry will sink?

EDIT: OK Starting to get it now as I have tested sides also and you don't sink with sides off. So you take off your chosen side off. Then unless you have too many leaks the enemy ship will not automatically sink until the centre structure has also been taken out. I like this as it means that taking off a side is not instant death. I like that a LOT! But it does mean that you can take the end of a ship off then take the structure off to sink.

I would however suggest that "structural" damage is a misleading term and that their should be two kinds of damage.

i) Planking damage - the sides as per normal. Technically the term armour is a little misleading as it makes me think of purpose built to stop cannon. I don't believe that shipwrights ever tried to armour the sides of ships against cannon they were expected to face on purpose in most cases. They just made them sturdier for combat with thicker planks of wood. I could be wrong here, Maturin?

ii) Internal Damage - enough of which renders the ship disabled causing it to be killed by disablement (I don't think it should be sunk unless it is leaking through leak damage). Leaving it with colours struck and drifting. This would be both more realistic and add more fun to having to go around struck ships.

p.s. I keep getting connection lost half way through a battle in the open world and so does my mate.

[Crayon]

20 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

The other thread is a bit too well structured for generic feedback, just going to write then here...

About the structure damage, and if you really want it in the game.  What is the main goal you are trying to achieve?

Really fast improvement could be.  If side armor have 1000hp and stern has 100hp, stern hits could do 10% damage to the structure.  Also you could consider increasing HP.

I do not like that it does not matter how you hit the stern, it seemed to cause maximum damage to structure always.

Consider also if hits with high angle to your stern, would actually destroy side armor.  Would you need structure after that?

Structure could be hitboxes as well, and not just hit the stern in any way you like.

Stern raking seems to be way way way too efficient.  I honestly do not understand why you want to weak sterns and so strong sides.  Crew got killed from sides as well, and broadsides were devastating to sides as well.  Why to make stern to be a head shot?  Stronger you make sides, probably stronger sterns should be as well.

I like more the idea that you cause leaks if you want to sink a ship before it loses its armor.  This is actually the best way to do it.  Leaks also were nerfed too much.  You get a good hit, it causes a leak OR you have HP bars to tear down.  I think HP bars are way more arcade way to do this.  Not against all HP bars, but not sure if all are good either.

I also like that side armor gets wrecked and not some central piece, that just is there, and then it just sinks.  Maybe cause side damage instead of central from stern hits as well?

Also another crew hitbox to stern, if the stern is hammered hard, closest men are dead -> Splinter damage should not cause additional casualties.  Balls that do not go straight in, should not cause crew damage at all, especially if all the cannons from stern are destroyed.

When hitting masts, you have very big ball hitboxes hitting mast hitboxes.  Consider making balls to be smaller.  This will cause way less hits to everything, and could make it in general better.

Yeah this guy has it imo. I really dont like the testbed's new armor system, and seems if anything, redundant. I would like to see more hp bars, but not with a central hull integrity bar, but rather multiple ship armor bars, as well as mast bars, and module bars.

The way I envision the quoted system, is the larger the ship, the more hull sections for armor there would be per broadside. So something like a first rate would have 5-6(depending on length of the ships) when a 5th rate would have no more than 2 or 3 armor panels per broadside. When the armor panels are low, and hit again, they would cause leaks which would lead to sinking. 

imo, this would call for a new repair system functionality as well where the repair ship would have an equal amount of repairs for the armor panels on one broadside and be specific to that area on use.

[Hethwill]

If you notice in the tests there are no more empty bars tanking. Impossible to pull that out now.

[akd]

It is impossible in older system also, except "tanking" with no HP stern, which results in severe punishment to crew and guns leading to defeat by other means.

[Hethwill]

Angle it and you will tank, especially given the absurd WoW-syndrome modules and perks ( offtopic but everything in NA is interwoven). Also crew damage with empty broadside from ball is...not catastrophic.

One of the "skill gaps" noticeable is the use of things that are broken, on pair with extremely efficient wind/crew pair with stabilized gunnery.

So improving the feeling is a good thing.

Also, not a single proper mil sim shows enemy info, from air combat to foot slogging, from any era.

 

[Sir Max Magic]

On 27.1.2017 at 5:20 PM, admin said:

 

• Port battle entry is only allowed 30 mins after login at sea. This penalty can be dropped if you enter any port. If you log off at sea and login within 5 mins (disconnects etc) you don’t get that penalty

 

+1.000

Without trying it out by now, this looks to be the FINAL solution to solve the log-out issue for PBs once and for all

Applause for thinking it through  

[Fluffy Fishy]

So I have had some time and loaded up the test bed server today, my initial reaction is that could we please have a redeemable for level 50 crafting and also every blueprint available, including the event obtainable ones, I feel like being able to easily craft and use the ships would be a very useful tool for obtaining the data that you need, It seems very odd to give us 1m in gold and 5 redeemable ships if we can't work out and play with the ships we want to at our own will to come to the data that you guys in the dev team want us to look into.

[TrackTerror]

17th century Swedish Vasa main gundeck with main mast visible, just for reference.

 

[Lannes]

On 28/01/2017 at 11:57 PM, JeanJacques de Montpellier said:

As said by akd, the old system was simplified but credible and enjoyable.

It would be better to focus on some of the game mechanics that do not convince, rather than waste time to change things that already work.
Of course, in my opinion.

I agree with this post. Always testing some thing that is not necessary.

Also, I read somewhere that the developers will make skilled players able to sink opponents even faster. Why? If they are skilled they already have an advantage, why add an artificial advantage? How are less skilled players like myself supposed to become more skilled if we get sunk even faster by the naval action aces? ILLOGICAL.

It seems like the perfect shooting AI ships that we had to fight against a few months ago!

[Pablo Frias]

First PB of this server: The "friendly" fort almost  destroys its own ship. This issue has to be fixed

Edited January 30, 2017 by Pablo Frias

[Hethwill]

30 mins before a PB the screen fleets are already active. At the bare minimum there will Signaling screeners on the lookout.

[Fluffy Fishy]

My initial reactions to combat in the new build are that the structure damage needs some tweaking, it would be nice to see slightly more structural damage when the armour is soaking up the damage and less of a sudden or dramatic drop caused by shots after the armour has gone. On the whole the model and idea works quite nicely, although the ships I sunk never looked very sunk after being declared dead. I am a particular fan of the way ships crumble a bit when they have poor structure, the new system puts a really nice feel to the game and it feels more realistic than how it used to, I just feel like ships structures shouldn't disintegrate like tissue paper once the armour goes, this isn't black sails.

[akd]

Fluffy, what on a ship is "armor" and what is "structure"?

[Destraex]

You have to remember they are Ukrainian Devs. In English Armour is simply the wooden planks on the side of the ship. Structure would be the interior being completely destroyed without the side to protect it. Basically making the ship un-fightable. A floating ship with its insides mashed to a pulp. By the time you destroy the interior most modules, deck planks, cannon and crew would be gone I think (you could if you wanted add the ships ribs to that including the interior planks). IMHO a crew would surrender at this stage.

 

[JeanJacques de Montpellier]

These pictures show, if it was necessary, as it would be difficult to destroy the "internal" structure of a ship shooting from the stern.

Edited January 30, 2017 by JeanJacques de Montpellier

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Pablo Frias said:

First PB of this server: The "friendly" fort almost  destroys its own ship. This issue has to be fixed

Here are some more pictures just to showcase that it was deliberately targeting the defending ship, and not just getting caught in the line of fire.

[ryan_c]

On 2017/1/28 at 6:03 AM, McArdbeg said:

 

me and my clan mate tried the same, would be nice if you can reset the char on the testbed

same to me ,DEV plz , give another chance for the redeemable , PLZ , Orz  

[akd]

15 hours ago, Destraex said:

You have to remember they are Ukrainian Devs. In English Armour is simply the wooden planks on the side of the ship. Structure would be the interior being completely destroyed without the side to protect it. Basically making the ship un-fightable. A floating ship with its insides mashed to a pulp. By the time you destroy the interior most modules, deck planks, cannon and crew would be gone I think (you could if you wanted add the ships ribs to that including the interior planks). IMHO a crew would surrender at this stage.

 

 

 

Nonsense.  Exterior planking will hardly resist grapeshot on its own.  A wooden sailing ship's "armor" was its structure, and the degree to which structure provided "armor" (i.e. resisted penetration of shot), it protected the crew and guns behind the structure, not some internal squishy structure that was holding the ship together.  The exception is the beams, but these also have to be penetrated, and from the side they represent the thickest "armor" on the ship (because you must penetrate side planking, frame, interior planking and beam).  Technically the "armor" of a ship where a beam meets a frame is the full width of the ship!  From the stern or bow, multiple beams would have to be hit directly (they are only a tiny area of the space presented from bow or stern) and then penetrated in succession, which would require heavy, high velocity shot.

A ship is not a tootsie pop!

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by akd

[Sir Texas Sir]

On 1/29/2017 at 3:18 PM, Hethwill said:

If you notice in the tests there are no more empty bars tanking. Impossible to pull that out now.

Yah you know exactly how much player has left before they are truelly finished off.  We seen a lot of guys save there repair for when armor is stripped down on won side and should be sinking to suddenly repair and run cause we got in a habit of letting them go thinking they are going to just sink.   I lived through a few port battles just cause I turned every thing off and just sat there with crew all in survival.  Now you can't do that cause they will see exactly how much you have left.  I like the new system though think a few tweeks are needed still.   

[Yar Matey]

13 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Yah you know exactly how much player has left before they are truelly finished off.  We seen a lot of guys save there repair for when armor is stripped down on won side and should be sinking to suddenly repair and run cause we got in a habit of letting them go thinking they are going to just sink.   I lived through a few port battles just cause I turned every thing off and just sat there with crew all in survival.  Now you can't do that cause they will see exactly how much you have left.  I like the new system though think a few tweeks are needed still.   

Using your repair after the armor is stripped down to nothing is a risky thing to do.  Yes, I do it sometimes, but it requires WAY more crew to do this.  You need crew on survival, on top of more crew than you normally would in repair.  Also, any shots to that side with the armor stripped down is going to kill a lot more crew.  Yes you can squeeze more HP out of your ship by doing this, but it is extremely risky and it doesn't always work out for my enemy and it doesn't always workout for me.  When the armor is stripped and the enemy keeps taking on water, it is really easy to stay on that side because the water in the ship slows the ship down significantly.  On top of this, it takes a lot longer to get back into the fight doing this strategy.  You have to repair the ship to a point where you are no longer taking in water, then you have to pump the water out of the ship. 

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Yar Matey

[maturin]

17 hours ago, Destraex said:

You have to remember they are Ukrainian Devs. In English Armour is simply the wooden planks on the side of the ship. Structure would be the interior being completely destroyed without the side to protect it. Basically making the ship un-fightable. A floating ship with its insides mashed to a pulp. By the time you destroy the interior most modules, deck planks, cannon and crew would be gone I think (you could if you wanted add the ships ribs to that including the interior planks). IMHO a crew would surrender at this stage.

 

 

This picture doesn't show any "structure" at all, besides deck planks and beams (only small parts of which can be hit and no ship ever suffered serious battle damage to them).

The big beams in the middle are the riding bits for holding anchor cable, and they have no structural importance. On the deck above is just an oven.

That leaves the guns and crew and pumps, none of which are structurally important, and all of which already have hitboxes in the excellent damage model that was so carefully developed.