Testbed: Content patch - 9.98 deployed

[Yar Matey]

5 hours ago, AlteSocken said:

I'm one of those casual players, and I really have no issue with this. I'm just 2nd Lt. and never crafted any ship. Any ship I own was captured or just bought in one of my outposts. And up until now I dont see how it has any worth to me, to craft a ship, since it is somewhat tricky to get alle the material I would need for that (because I have to do a lot of ow sailing - the few time I have for playing this game ist better invested in fighting) and I could only build some basic ships-types. In the shop or ow i can find much better ships then i could build. Maybe a few thousend hours of playing later this may change.

So I think you refer to a luxury-problem of hardcore players who could easily invest the time neccessary to get the desired bonus, if they realy want it.

Crafting used to be something you spent 10 min every day doing and every once in a while for maybe an hour, you would sail around accumulating resources for crafting.  Eventually when you had enough crafted materials to craft a ship, you would simply hit the craft button and that was it.  You used to have RNG built into the crafting so some luck was involved in crafting.

Today, in order to craft a good ship, you need to spend countless amounts of hours sailing around in a trader ship to get materials at an outpost that will give you a regional bonus.  Not only is it way more risky as players roam the seas licking their chops to steal your materials you are planning to use to build yourself a ship, but it also 10x more time consuming.  If you build ships without a regional bonus, you are basically building a useless ship. 

The new crafting system is what is driving me away from this game currently.  I dont want to spend a half hour sailing from the port where I gathered materials to a free port only to have to ship those mats off to another free port, and then sail from that free port to a port where I can get a regional bonus I want.  My entire evening sometimes was eaten up by this whole new crafting system.  This means I spent my entire evening in a trader ship instead of a warship actually enjoying the combat aspect of this game.  I would much rather enjoy the combat than being chased in a trader all night. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Yar Matey

[Yar Matey]

6 minutes ago, Wraith said:

But I think this is how it should be, otherwise crafting as a primary activity is meaningless. If you're building an open world game where crafting as a primary activity is one type of player you're trying to support, then the crafting needs to be deep enough to support this. The biggest problem is that right now the crafting isn't deep, it's just a time sink.

I actually think that bringing back a small element of RNG to crafting wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Not something as substantial as the effect that mod slots had, but even that wouldn't be terrible now that most mods have been nerfed to irrelevance. I think that having a spectrum of ship quality that is produced by random chance creates more opportunity for "deals" to be made in the ship markets. This allows for the elite and rich to keep themselves in ships that they don't lose very often or can afford to replace, while the rest of us who lose ships more often or are willing to take more risks can buy these less than perfect, but still competitive builds to PvP with, without having to pay premium prices.

I personally don't want to spend much of my time crafting, but I want to support a world where crafters are rewarded.

The easiest way to fix the crafting system and leave the regional bonuses in the game is to add crafted materials to the game required for a specific regional bonus.  My days of sailing in an Indiaman with thousands of labor hours and gold worth of materials from a free port to a regional port for a crafted bonus are over!  I simply refuse to do it anymore. 

I had everything setup for crafting strong hull ships at Orinoco region and I already took the time and effort to get my crafting setup there.  I started to move everything out of that region when the British captured it and I realized that I would take me hours of sailing in a trade ship to get re-established somewhere to build ships with strong hull.  So, instead, I decided to just play a different game, because sailing around in a trade ship every night is boring.  We are talking a good solid week of playing this game to get setup somewhere else. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Yar Matey

[Yar Matey]

11 minutes ago, Wraith said:

But why would you "set up" crafting in a region that could be captured? All of us who craft regional build ships just get an outpost at the nearest free port to a regional port with the build we want and fill up an Indiaman or two with the goods for the ship we want to produce? I don't even keep an outpost open in the regions I build in, instead using a floating outpost that I use to open and close as I sail in with my trader filled with stuff, craft the ship that I want, and then tow it back to the outpost I want the ship in.  All my raw materials are shipped to the free port... 

In order for me to build a ship with a strong hull bonus (when we had orinoco) I had to ship everything to hat island in a trader ship (closest free port to my nation capital), then use the delivery system in quantities of 5k to ship to Guayaguayare.  Then Sail in a trader ship from there to one of the ports south of that free port.  That is 2x the amount of sailing around in a trade ship (especially an Indiaman) I should need to do.  I had enough materials at Cano to build 3 first rates.  I dont see that as specifically a lot of materials.  Now think about whats required to get re-established at one of the other strong hull regions?  So instead of actually enjoying the combat side of the game, I am forced to re-establish myself at another port.  Something I am simply not willing to do. 

Also, add on top of that all the enemy surprises lurking around Hat Island.  So if I get pulled into combat, I am basically a sheep running away for an hour until I can escape the battle.

I am pretty sure this new regional bonuses system has a lot to do with the decline of the player base.  People dont want to sail around in a trader ship in their evening after work to build ships.  They want to build ships then use it in combat. 

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Yar Matey

[Yar Matey]

35 minutes ago, Wraith said:

But if it's the combat you want, just buy your ships?  That's the real point. We need a crafting system that's deep enough to keep crafters playing, and a durability and reward system that encourages PvP'ers to buy their ships from people who really enjoy the trading, crafting and hauling required to do this.

You and I both know that this is not a valid argument.  A purchased ship is never going to be compedetive in PvP.  Only crafted ships with the right regional bonuses can compete and the only way to get one is to either craft one yourself or work with someone most likely in your clan to have one built.  

Also, pre regional bonuses system, you still did a decent amount of trading to get materials to build ships.  The difference is I needed to get those mats to our clans crafting hub which was usually a free port near our capital.  It was a much better system than we have now.  

You can argue for the regional bonus system as much as you like, but simply put, this is not the game for me anymore.  Sorry, but I don't want to play this game anymore in its current state.  Either the crafting system changes or I find new games to play.  I am done sailing in a Indiaman when I get home from work every night.  And that means no more good quality warships to play the game with which means no NA for me.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Yar Matey

[Farrago]

Is there a legitimate reason why they should not allow the sale of ships without full dura? It seems like it would be helpful for clearing out the rich folks' docks and enable newer players to upgrade their fleets by buying "used" ships.

[Yar Matey]

15 minutes ago, Wraith said:

No, you misunderstood me. I meant buy your ships from people who like to or have the capacity to craft them.  This is the goal in an open world, multiplayer game: Do what you like and leave the stuff you don't like to others. There are plenty of good, crafted warships available to purchase in any decent sized nation, we just need to reinforce this by attracting and keeping crafters and traders in the game.

I have both the capacity and I like to build ships.  I have outfitted entire clans with warships.  I am probably sitting on 5-10k worth of redeemable experience from people using ships I built.  I am telling you the new crafting system is way too hardcore and is the most punishing system I have had to deal with in any game.  Want proof?  Look in any nation capital and see how many 3/5 strong hull stiffness or build strength ships are selling.  I havent been on in a while, but last time I checked it was zero and I am still willing to bet that it is zero. 

You used to be able to buy a decent exceptional ship, even first rates, for 1 million gold or less. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, elite92 said:

this! we need a MORALE bar for battle not another unrealistic HP bar... obviusly with many leaks in a perfect broadside under the water line the ship will sink but in the majority of fights this should end in a surrender of the left crew after high losses.

edit: would be also very cool to see magazine explosion with a lucky critical shot maybe after a perfect rake like 1/100 or something with low chance

NO....I don't want my crew just to give up cause you hit me with a shock that breaks my moral bar jsut like a one shot moral kill in boarding.  I should be able to pick when to sink and how far to push my fight if I want to.  Though I do think this should be a feature of NPC ships.  They seem to stay a float way to long after stripping there side armor that would sink any normal player.  Than again this is prob cause they pretty much get all the mods in game.   I wouldn't mind seeing the mag hits explosions  once in a blue moon though.  Now what we do need is a better surrender options.  Like for traders to give up part of there cargo/fee/ransom and still keep there crew and ship.  I would prob let a lot more ships go if there was an option like this.

1 hour ago, Farrago said:

Is there a legitimate reason why they should not allow the sale of ships without full dura? It seems like it would be helpful for clearing out the rich folks' docks and enable newer players to upgrade their fleets by buying "used" ships.

Why do you need to put them up for sale?  Just do like most of my clan does.  Donate them to new players or put them in our fleets until they loose the last dura or even just break them up.   I would prefer to just give them to a new player than try to re-sale a half used up ship.  While this is not a PvP2 problem I think one way to fix the guys that buy store made NPC ships and than jack them up in price and resale them, is to make them not able to be resold on the market.  Now the Pirate Frig was one ship a lot of Nats liked to buy off us pirates and we would do this, and resale them in free ports, but other ships we left alone.  Now that the P Frigate can be crafted by some there really is no need for this.  Even though I think this should be a Pirate only blue print.

[Rebel Witch]

Okay so it seems like the Devs are going in the complete opposite direction of 1 dura for all ships. Which is totally their call despite at least half the server expressing interest in trying one dura ships (all ships)

 

I have a recommendation. In the crafting window give us the option to choose how much Dura we give a ship build. So those who want to build 1 dura ships can do so, thus costing far less in resources compared to a 3dura SOL.

Also, you could give players the option to "ADD" dura to an already existing ship. So lets say your victory or Connie is down to 1 dura, you could have a crafter ADD 2 more dura and the cost is the resources for 2 dura of that ship.

 

More options for players = happy players

[fox2run]

3 hours ago, Angus McGregor said:

LoL

I've seen a few of my suggestions (laughed at) from the past resurrected by others later to remarks of "what a good idea!" 

Yep - I've commented in the past that it's wrong that there's no 'crew morale' bar. It's crazy that we can order our crews to commit suicide. The ultimate in arcade gaming.

Actually history got examples of this. When crews fought to the very end knowing their ship would blow up.

[Cecil Selous]

25 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

NO....I don't want my crew just to give up cause you hit me with a shock that breaks my moral bar jsut like a one shot moral kill in boarding.  I should be able to pick when to sink and how far to push my fight if I want to.  Though I do think this should be a feature of NPC ships.  They seem to stay a float way to long after stripping there side armor that would sink any normal player.  Than again this is prob cause they pretty much get all the mods in game.   I wouldn't mind seeing the mag hits explosions  once in a blue moon though.  Now what we do need is a better surrender options.  Like for traders to give up part of there cargo/fee/ransom and still keep there crew and ship.  I would prob let a lot more ships go if there was an option like this.

I agree in a way, that autosurrender would be bad game design. The decision should always be made by the captain. But that also means, that you as the captain only give the orders which your crew executes. I think it was discussed very often before, that a connection between crew morale and crew effectivness could be tested. So that if you are losing significantly you will get into trouble because of low crew morale (even longer reload than just due to low crew, way slower sailing maneuvers, lower morale before a boarding action even if you are at 100% boarding prep etc.) 

Better surrender options is a good idea imho. Ransom money for crew and cargo sounds good (My dream would be that we get rid of perks and modules and only connect their present effects to crew experience, which will be persistent until they die. That way ransom money in case of a capture would make even more sense and surrender will be more common, since you don't care about the cost for new crew but about their gained battle and sailing experience).

[elite92]

1 hour ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

NO....

 

i had no doubt

[DeRuyter]

4 hours ago, fox2run said:

I can think of the first many battles with exploding ships even before consulting with sources:

Battle of the Nile, Battle of Copenhagen, Battle of Køge Bugt, Battle of Øland, Battle of Lyngør and the last fight of the lineship Prinds Christian Frederik (include this brute in the game, please). Many more from other nations also had this destiny. Explosions where COMMON!

The occurrence of magazine explosions was still relatively rare when you consider the number of battles and the number of ships involved in each battle. So at the Nile - one ship blew up L'Orient out of approximately 30 ships fighting over many hours. Same at Copenhagen and at Koge it was 1 out of 50+ ships. At Oland the ship that exploded had nothing to do with enemy gun fire. My point is that take these battles and all the other where no ships exploded and it is not common. It is fine as is in the game.

(We should however have sails catching fire when players sail around at full sail all the time but that's another issue).

45 minutes ago, fox2run said:

Actually history got examples of this. When crews fought to the very end knowing their ship would blow up.

I think you have this backwards. @Angus McGregor was in favor of a morale bar precisely because officers and crews did not fight to the bitter end, especially if their ship caught fire and it could not be controlled.

[JeanJacques de Montpellier]

1 hour ago, Cecil Selous said:

Better surrender options is a good idea imho. Ransom money for crew and cargo sounds good (My dream would be that we get rid of perks and modules and only connect their present effects to crew experience, which will be persistent until they die. 

YES!

[Cmdr RideZ]

1. This forum does not automatically represent half the "server".  Most are experienced players.

2. I personally have hard time sailing a trader.  I often quit the game before I get my trader out.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Cmdr RideZ

[Farrago]

2 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

Why do you need to put them up for sale?  Just do like most of my clan does.  Donate them to new players or put them in our fleets until they loose the last dura or even just break them up.   I would prefer to just give them to a new player than try to re-sale a half used up ship.  While this is not a PvP2 problem I think one way to fix the guys that buy store made NPC ships and than jack them up in price and resale them, is to make them not able to be resold on the market.  Now the Pirate Frig was one ship a lot of Nats liked to buy off us pirates and we would do this, and resale them in free ports, but other ships we left alone.  Now that the P Frigate can be crafted by some there really is no need for this.  Even though I think this should be a Pirate only blue print.

Certainly what you suggest is an option if you are the one with the extra ships but I'm looking to buy, not sell.

What you old timers seem to forget is not everyone is a level 50 crafter, not everyone is a rear admiral, not everyone is stinking rich because they were around for fine woods, not every nation or clan has unlimited number of captured or crafted ships to give away, etc etc.

Basically, unless newbies like myself can become competitive in our equipment, we're not going to be able to grow to be competitive in our combat skills.The reverse is also true.

I haven't found a lot of demand to give away my 3 dura remaining gold 5-7 rates. When new players are trying to learn/level crafting, it sure would be nice to be able to recoup some of the cost making these ships that I spent 10% of my net worth on. It's great if you don't need the gold or if you can use them to help a new player but often that's not the scenario.

[CatSwift]

1 hour ago, Farrago said:

What you old timers seem to forget is not everyone is a level 50 crafter, not everyone is a rear admiral, not everyone is stinking rich because they were around for fine woods, not every nation or clan has unlimited number of captured or crafted ships to give away, etc etc.

I'm one of those with millions, and I cannot wait for the server + asset wipe. Without a monetary struggle this game becomes boring fast.

What needs implementated is taxation, specifically higher tax rates the more money you have.  Otherwise even when the servers get wiped we'll just be right back here in x number of months, sitting on piles of cash and nothing to do.

[elite92]

Just now, CatSwift said:

I'm one of those with millions, and I cannot wait for the server + asset wipe. Without a monetary struggle this game becomes boring fast.

What needs implementated is taxation, specifically higher tax rates the more money you have.  Otherwise even when the servers get wiped we'll just be right back here in x number of months, sitting on piles of cash and nothing to do.

once devs say something about a final objective on the open world, after that a wipe. like a war of x months and after every war a wipe. but this was long time ago, dunno if they ever think about it really

[Jean Ribault]

The testbed should be used, starting now, to test out new economic ideas.  Can't wait til last minute on that.

[sterner]

Testbed has got changes that are a part of economics changes. Leveling and rewarding are changed. It will be good if you provide any feedback.

[TommyShelby]

1 hour ago, sterner said:

Testbed has got changes that are a part of economics changes. Leveling and rewarding are changed. It will be good if you provide any feedback.

Seems to me that some of the things you want us to test are very hard to test with just 5-15 ppl online. (15 is the max i've seen on the test server at any given time).

[Snoopy]

Yeah something broke on the testbed Even recreating your toon wont yield redeemables.

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 hours ago, TommyShelby said:

Seems to me that some of the things you want us to test are very hard to test with just 5-15 ppl online. (15 is the max i've seen on the test server at any given time).

Also how do we test ships we would use.  Every redeemable I have gotten have been pretty much a combo I would never us in a ship I would man that wasn't some random freebie.  That and we can't even test the PvE missions cause they are all broken with very bad BR combos.  I have yet to see any one actually score on any of them.  I kinda stopped logging in cause it's hard to test things when we aren't given the tools to test them out.  Been trying to get some other clan mates on to test some things too.

[fox2run]

11 hours ago, DeRuyter said:

The occurrence of magazine explosions was still relatively rare when you consider the number of battles and the number of ships involved in each battle. So at the Nile - one ship blew up L'Orient out of approximately 30 ships fighting over many hours. Same at Copenhagen and at Koge it was 1 out of 50+ ships. At Oland the ship that exploded had nothing to do with enemy gun fire. My point is that take these battles and all the other where no ships exploded and it is not common. It is fine as is in the game.

(We should however have sails catching fire when players sail around at full sail all the time but that's another issue).

I think you have this backwards. @Angus McGregor was in favor of a morale bar precisely because officers and crews did not fight to the bitter end, especially if their ship caught fire and it could not be controlled.

Battle of Eckernførde and battle of Lyngor one in three ships blew up. In almost each large battle at least one ship blew up. Glorious first of June, Trafalgar, Wagers Action, 5 October 1804.... etc. That's common to me and should be reflected in the game.

It was not unsual that at least one ship blew up in the battles in the age of sail.

 

[Alex Connor]

17 hours ago, JeanJacques de Montpellier said:

Sorry I do not agree.
We already have something to do with the killing of the crew and cannon.
This structure is a bar; a bar that has not figured out what it refers to.
This bar you can destroy shooting especially from the stern and / or sides (if the armor is gone).
So what is it?

Realistic? It does not seem right.
The current system damage is not entirely realistic, but it is logical. The structure bar is not neither.
Wanting to talk about realism, it would be enough to have two bars on each side:
-above the waterline; destruction of guns and killing the crew
-under water line; leaks and if the bar is all gone, sinking.

Ships sinking rarely; rightly it was quite difficult to shoot below the water line. In addition, they were without of vital organs inside (engine rooms, control room, etc.) and then shoting inside the hull you killed mainly men and did unusable some cannons. After several dead and wounded damage (beyond the fact that the ship could also be dismasted) the ship surrendered.

Argument about sinking vs surrender is an old one. For full simulator, yes it is more realistic for most fights to end in surrender, but for gameplay purposes devs want ships to sink.

Preferably then this sinking should be realistic, only accelerated so sinking happens more often.

With regards to real ships sinking, cannonballs are not explosive, they only put small 4in-6in holes in the ships hull, most of which will be above the waterline, and it would take an extraordinary amount of firepower to cause structural breakup of the hull. Between two equal ships, or even 2 ships fighting 1 it would be almost impossible to cause a ship to sink from damage to the hull alone. 

The reason why ships sunk (or surrendered because they were in danger of sinking) was almost entirely down to crew loss and pump damage. Even a very badly damaged ship might only be making 3-4ft of water per hour in the hold, with sufficient men to pump water and patch leaks that ship could most likely be saved, hence it was common for ships on the verge of sinking to surrender and request assistance from the victor. But of course we don't usually surrender in Naval Action, so ships just sink instead.

The current system in naval action is not very realistic, ships sink from damage to the hull and everything else is just secondary. You are fighting and destroying the hull, not the men inside. Also, there is the gameplay problem that a ship can be one shot from sinking because of damage to one side, but simply turn the other side (or even show stern) and remain afloat indefinitely until one side is reduced to 0. 

Changing the mechanics so that sinking occurs from internal damage is both more realistic and better gameplay, gets people to tank with their broadsides, protecting their more vulnerable bow and stern from raking that would cause greater damage.

[Angus McGregor]

13 hours ago, fox2run said:

Actually history got examples of this. When crews fought to the very end knowing their ship would blow up.

I think the historical record is full of many, many more cases where casualties were light, but the captain surrendered when he knew that to continue would result in horrendous losses or mutiny. (no national jibes please) Mutiny was definitely an issue with crews that didn't exactly volunteer for service.

It was a different story if surrendering placed the nation (or even fleet) in jeopardy, or probably meant death anyway. Those situations can motivate fighting on to the end.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Angus McGregor