An Argument For Dismasting

[Cmdr RideZ]

And I thought that we already learned the fact that dismasting is not some pro-gamers only trick.

Masts were made very weak and everyone was able to take down masts.  Some had been shooting those more than others, but clearly it was something that everyone can learn pretty fast.  If you seriously think that shooting masts makes you pro, I recommend that you play another 1000 hours of Naval Action.

The main reason why none was shooting masts at some point was because none believed that devs have implemented something as broken as that.  Some people knew the meta so they abused it and were sure victorious.  (Situation could be the same still)

The question is do you want that everyone is shooting masts or if it should be valid to win with other tactics as well?  What I know, some here want easy and fast way to win by sniping/raking masts.  Mast/Rake damage should have a reason, but should not provide change for people to become "One trick ponies".

Edited November 30, 2017 by Cmdr RideZ

[Malachy]

7 hours ago, HachiRoku said:

That is simply not true. Even a 42 medium with double ball will not dismast a surprise in one shot. My guess is a min of 4 hits to bottom sec. 

1 shot took the midsection out. He had 1 sail left on each mast. About 40 percent sails left after 3 charged balls.

[Malachy]

5 minutes ago, rediii said:

videoproof or never happened

Do it yourself, Anyone can  

[Malachy]

1 hour ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

And I thought that we already learned the fact that dismasting is not some pro-gamers only trick.

Masts were made very weak and everyone was able to take down masts.  Some had been shooting those more than others, but clearly it was something that everyone can learn pretty fast.  If you seriously think that shooting masts makes you pro, I recommend that you play another 1000 hours of Naval Action.

The main reason why none was shooting masts at some point was because none believed that devs have implemented something as broken as that.  Some people knew the meta so they abused it and were sure victorious.  (Situation could be the same still)

The question is do you want that everyone is shooting masts or if it should be valid to win with other tactics as well?  What I know, some here want easy and fast way to win by sniping/raking masts.  Mast/Rake damage should have a reason, but should not provide change for people to become "One trick ponies".

Those that make use of it love it, it's a really quick way to end a fight because sail repairs never really catch up. I personally never liked it, I consider it cheesy. But when I am outnumbered, masts start falling like leaves.

[Malachy]

57 minutes ago, rediii said:

You cant just say something and then ask others to proof it.

Go ahead make a video, anyone can

Can't my computer will explode lol I run a dinosaur from 2008

[Malachy]

8 minutes ago, rediii said:

Trust me it will not explode.

Get OBS, capture window, set it in 4000 bitrate (enough for NA) and record. Not hardware intensive. Video isnt too big either

I'll wait til my new computer gets here in a few weeks. Ordered it last night. It's not a hardware issue so much as things are falling apart and it runs close to redline heat when I'm gaming.

What  I need to do is figure out what I can do to renomee with 18 lb ball lol. Snows and surprises are very susceptible. I just started playing with demasting, always considered it beneath me before (plus it never seemed to work)

Edited November 30, 2017 by Malachy

[CaptVonGunn]

12 hours ago, TommyShelby said:

Those going on about #JustNerfCannonAccuracy 

That's great and all, but just nerfing accuracy is not going to make a difference here. Your top and middle sections will still go down extremely fast, and even if you make Cannons as "Inaccurate" as Carronades you will still be able to snipe bottom sections at 150-200 meters and have a hit rate above 75%. 

Repairs, Cannon Values, Ship Values, Mast Values, etc will all have to be tweaked (Small tweaks everywhere). That is how we will achieve proper balance between all the different tactics in-game. 
(Atleast that is the only solution i see.) 

Yes and no Tom... I think the problem with accuracy is that  with all the mods it is like using a zeroed rifle... and smooth ore canons on a rolling and moving ship firing at the same kind of target just were not that good consistently. But then I am one of those.. No mod should be more then 1% bonus and all mods should have a 1% negative .. which would mean your never getting more then a 5 or 6% reduction in the random scatter that "should" be part of every shot to simulate the rolling and pitching of the deck we just really  dont get 

[HachiRoku]

7 hours ago, CaptVonGunn said:

Yes and no Tom... I think the problem with accuracy is that  with all the mods it is like using a zeroed rifle... and smooth ore canons on a rolling and moving ship firing at the same kind of target just were not that good consistently. But then I am one of those.. No mod should be more then 1% bonus and all mods should have a 1% negative .. which would mean your never getting more then a 5 or 6% reduction in the random scatter that "should" be part of every shot to simulate the rolling and pitching of the deck we just really  dont get 

accuracy mods are not as effective as people make them out to be. I use pellews but its for chaining more than for balls. 

[Archaos]

18 hours ago, Malachy said:

Those that make use of it love it, it's a really quick way to end a fight because sail repairs never really catch up. I personally never liked it, I consider it cheesy. But when I am outnumbered, masts start falling like leaves.

You know an even quicker way to end a fight is not to have it at all. This is what they all forget when they defend the dismasting tactic, people will just stop turning out to fight because there is no point. It is alright for people to say practice and get good, but do we really want a game where the whole battle becomes about who can take out the others masts first.

People mention the realism factor and I am not an expert on fighting in the age of sail, but I thought most battles were broadside to broadside not stay at range and snipe.

[TommyShelby]

7 hours ago, CaptVonGunn said:

Yes and no Tom... I think the problem with accuracy is that  with all the mods it is like using a zeroed rifle... and smooth ore canons on a rolling and moving ship firing at the same kind of target just were not that good consistently. But then I am one of those.. No mod should be more then 1% bonus and all mods should have a 1% negative .. which would mean your never getting more then a 5 or 6% reduction in the random scatter that "should" be part of every shot to simulate the rolling and pitching of the deck we just really  dont get 

I'm not a big fan of the current mod system either. 

But if i can snipe masts at 200 meters with Carronades and hit 3/4 shots then it is quite obvious that nerfing accuracy in itself will not fix the issue. It will be a step in the right direction, but many more things will need change before we achieve the balance everyone is looking for. 

[TommyShelby]

1 minute ago, Archaos said:

You know an even quicker way to end a fight is not to have it at all. This is what they all forget when they defend the dismasting tactic, people will just stop turning out to fight because there is no point. It is alright for people to say practice and get good, but do we really want a game where the whole battle becomes about who can take out the others masts first.

People mention the realism factor and I am not an expert on fighting in the age of sail, but I thought most battles were broadside to broadside not stay at range and snipe.

Please... Please go back and read the entirety of the topic and the comments made here. 

As far as i can tell none of the people defending demasting as a tactic is asking for it to stay the way it is. In fact if you looked around you'll notice that a lot of the suggestions on how to tweak demasting is made by those being so vocal about demasting.. 

We want balance as much as you want. But some of the people that come on the forums raging about demasting are either too frustrated to think clearly, or they don't understand the game mechanics, because they tend to suggest things that would remove demasting as a valid tactic. (And that is not called balancing things, that is just removing what is currently an issue. If we did that to everything we'd have nothing left at all.) 

Who is mentioning realism? I know i haven't. 
But now that you mention it, maybe you don't remember but we did indeed have "broadside to broadside" gameplay at one point. (50 meter to pen 1st rate with 42pd longs). Worked out great! lol.

[Grundgemunkey]

7 minutes ago, Archaos said:

You know an even quicker way to end a fight is not to have it at all. This is what they all forget when they defend the dismasting tactic, people will just stop turning out to fight because there is no point. It is alright for people to say practice and get good, but do we really want a game where the whole battle becomes about who can take out the others masts first.

People mention the realism factor and I am not an expert on fighting in the age of sail, but I thought most battles were broadside to broadside not stay at range and snipe.

to be fair in the age of sail ... most  engagements 1v1 ended pretty quick .. as soon as the ship with the most firepower got the wind gauge was in range and fired a shot across the bows the smaller ship surrendered ... thats why some fights like the constitution v java are so famous

[Archaos]

18 minutes ago, TommyShelby said:

Please... Please go back and read the entirety of the topic and the comments made here. 

As far as i can tell none of the people defending demasting as a tactic is asking for it to stay the way it is. In fact if you looked around you'll notice that a lot of the suggestions on how to tweak demasting is made by those being so vocal about demasting.. 

We want balance as much as you want. But some of the people that come on the forums raging about demasting are either too frustrated to think clearly, or they don't understand the game mechanics, because they tend to suggest things that would remove demasting as a valid tactic. (And that is not called balancing things, that is just removing what is currently an issue. If we did that to everything we'd have nothing left at all.) 

Who is mentioning realism? I know i haven't. 
But now that you mention it, maybe you don't remember but we did indeed have "broadside to broadside" gameplay at one point. (50 meter to pen 1st rate with 42pd longs). Worked out great! lol.

My comments were not aimed at people making valid suggestions or explaining ways to counter dismasting, but at peoples who's response was "git gud" and others who see no problems with a mast being taken out in a single shot. I fully understand that an experienced player will win most even or slightly worse odds battles due to experience, but if the opponent feels there is not even a chance to fight back because they are dismasted in the first few minutes of the battle then they will stop showing up. Whether it is a valid tactic or not it will drive players away.

Regarding realism, I raised that because there was some talk in either this thread or others on the dismasting topic that in reality dismasting was a thing, and I just wanted to point out that although dismasting did happen regularly it was not because it was a tactic but rather because of the sheer weight of broadsides.

[TommyShelby]

16 minutes ago, Archaos said:

 I fully understand that an experienced player will win most even or slightly worse odds battles due to experience, but if the opponent feels there is not even a chance to fight back because they are dismasted in the first few minutes of the battle then they will stop showing up. Whether it is a valid tactic or not it will drive players away.

If a better player manages to get on your stern in the first few minutes you will feel the same way. Whether you choose to stop showing up, or if you choose to try to get better, that is a personal choice. 

But no matter what there will always be a huge skill gap between the "veterans with thousand of hours" and the "New player" and "Average players". 
You can't avoid it, this is how it is in all games with Player vs Player combat. The difference mostly lies in the fact that everyone is used to some kind of matchmaker holding their hand making sure they only face opponents of the same skill level, whereas in NA there is no matchmaking and 90% of the people ingame have played the game for hundreds of hours. So most often a new player will be decimated because there is barely anyone around his skill level left in NA at this point. 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Archaos said:

Regarding realism, I raised that because there was some talk in either this thread or others on the dismasting topic that in reality dismasting was a thing, and I just wanted to point out that although dismasting did happen regularly it was not because it was a tactic but rather because of the sheer weight of broadsides.

I see, i misunderstood what you meant! My mistake
My personal view on realism; I'm glad history gives us inspiration to make games like Naval Action. However i think gameplay is a thousand times more important than realism because realism almost never makes for a fun game. 

[Malachy]

2 hours ago, TommyShelby said:

Please... Please go back and read the entirety of the topic and the comments made here. 

As far as i can tell none of the people defending demasting as a tactic is asking for it to stay the way it is. In fact if you looked around you'll notice that a lot of the suggestions on how to tweak demasting is made by those being so vocal about demasting.. 

We want balance as much as you want. But some of the people that come on the forums raging about demasting are either too frustrated to think clearly, or they don't understand the game mechanics, because they tend to suggest things that would remove demasting as a valid tactic. (And that is not called balancing things, that is just removing what is currently an issue. If we did that to everything we'd have nothing left at all.) 

Who is mentioning realism? I know i haven't. 
But now that you mention it, maybe you don't remember but we did indeed have "broadside to broadside" gameplay at one point. (50 meter to pen 1st rate with 42pd longs). Worked out great! lol.

Changing gun accuracy to be less accurate not only improves realism but fixes the demasting issue. Instead of being able to land every ball exactly where one wanted, you would need to fire your entire broadside and hope for a random hit which is how demasting happened in real life. It could still happen, and be much more likely with a bigger ship, but the cheesy mast sniping would be a thing of the past.

i was in a 6 on 2 vs some pirates last night. We sank 1 of them, then my partner exploded... he didn't realize fire shock was dangerous now. So, facing 5 on 1 odds, I decided to flee. Two ships were so badly damaged they were no threat. The other three, I just sniped top mast sections, popped my sail repair and walked away. Technically, with those odds, it should have been a lot harder, and would have been if I had not had pinpoint accuracy.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Malachy

[Liq]

12 minutes ago, Malachy said:

he didn't realize fire shock was dangerous now

Wat

[Malachy]

1 minute ago, Liq said:

Wat

You get hit with fire shock and you can end up dead real quick. He went from half armor to zero health and structure in a very short time. I knew fire was more damaging now if uncontrolled but that was plain nuts lol. He had planned to use the fire shock to get them to back off a bit while he repaired. It backfired lol.

Edited December 1, 2017 by Malachy

[TommyShelby]

1 hour ago, Malachy said:

Changing gun accuracy to be less accurate not only improves realism but fixes the demasting issue.

No it does not. 
I'd be happy to explain why, but it would probably be the 5th time i'd be doing it just in this topic alone. Go back and read comments in case your wondering why it doesn't fix the issue.

[Malachy]

34 minutes ago, TommyShelby said:

No it does not. 
I'd be happy to explain why, but it would probably be the 5th time i'd be doing it just in this topic alone. Go back and read comments in case your wondering why it doesn't fix the issue.

I've read em and don't buy it, sorry. No offense intended. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

[Cmdr RideZ]

Many try to make it so that if you do "hull bashing" you are doing something wrong.  This attitude in my opinion sucks.

There are probably many who can win 1vs2 by mast/stern raking, probably even 1vs3.  The same guys cannot win 1vs2 by hull bashing.  Then they come here to tell that mast/stern raking is pr0-1337.  Or does that mean that so far in NA "hull bashing" is clearly the most skill oriented way to win?

More efficient it is to mast/stern rake, less tactical the game is.  Especially if mast raking/sniping is efficient.  Positioning/Maneuvering, Wind and energy, tactical side of NA has less role if you don't have to care an F about it and just snipe masts.

If this game turns to mast sniping/raking game for dummies I simply stop playing.  NA can be a really nice "tactical shooter".  It can clearly separate itself from the rest by keeping this tactical gameplay in it.  Don't F it up please.  NA should stay on level that you have to outsmart your enemy, use your brain to win.  Naval Battles took hours, not 5 minutes.

And when I want to show my 1337 sniping skills I go to play CS.

I am sorry guys but mast sniping game is simply too simple.  Boring shite.

[TommyShelby]

1 hour ago, Malachy said:

I've read em and don't buy it, sorry. No offense intended. We are all entitled to our own opinions.

Haha fair enough. That will definitely make for a great discussion. 

Lets just go with your solution and nerf accuracy. How much would you like to nerf it to be exact? (And do you want to nerf both Cannon and Carronade accuracy?) 

Meanwhile you could go practice sniping with Carronades for say, 1000 hours? Perhaps then you will understand that nerfing Cannon Accuracy won't achieve what you think it will.
 

44 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Many try to make it so that if you do "hull bashing" you are doing something wrong.  This attitude in my opinion sucks.
We are saying that demasting is not properly balanced right now, BUT, it should be as viable a tactic as any. Meanwhile alot of the guys who are against demasting just want to remove it from the game. (Great balancing and attitude there.) 

There are probably many who can win 1vs2 by mast/stern raking, probably even 1vs3.  The same guys cannot win 1vs2 by hull bashing.  Then they come here to tell that mast/stern raking is pr0-1337.  Or does that mean that so far in NA "hull bashing" is clearly the most skill oriented way to win?
So tell me, how do you know that those guys cannot win 1v2 without demasting? (There have been long periods of time where demasting wasn't an option and we only had hull bashing/stern raking/chaining as option, you dont think those guys won 1v2's back then?)

More efficient it is to mast/stern rake, less tactical the game is.  Especially if mast raking/sniping is efficient.  Positioning/Maneuvering, Wind and energy, tactical side of NA has less role if you don't have to care an F about it and just snipe masts.
Really? So if your going for demasting you dont have to worry about "Positioning/Maneuvering, Wind and Energy"? 
Sounds like you don't actually know what you are talking about when you say such things Cmdr. 

If this game turns to mast sniping/raking game for dummies I simply stop playing.  NA can be a really nice "tactical shooter".  It can clearly separate itself from the rest by keeping this tactical gameplay in it.  Don't F it up please.  NA should stay on level that you have to outsmart your enemy, use your brain to win.  Naval Battles took hours, not 5 minutes.
No one is asking for demasting/raking to be only viable tactics. We are arguing for the sake of balance between all tactics. 

And when I want to show my 1337 sniping skills I go to play CS.
I'm glad to hear it! 

I am sorry guys but mast sniping game is simply too simple.  Boring shite.
Again, no one have asked for that. 

Blue text is my response. 

[Malachy]

6 minutes ago, TommyShelby said:

Haha fair enough. That will definitely make for a great discussion. 

Lets just go with your solution and nerf accuracy. How much would you like to nerf it to be exact? (And do you want to nerf both Cannon and Carronade accuracy?) 

Meanwhile you could go practice sniping with Carronades for say, 1000 hours? Perhaps then you will understand that nerfing Cannon Accuracy won't achieve what you think it will.
 

Blue text is my response. 

My suggestion is a 5 meter randomization when a cannon is fired with a 15 to 20 percent chance of hitting what you aim at. So the ball will land within a 10 meter window, but you have to work for that instant gratification shot. Doing this would make demasting more difficult but doable, without impinging on hull shots. It would also more closely simulate smooth bore ballistics. Right now we have rifled ballistics.

[Hethwill]

At 800m, artillery batteries ( 6pdr - 12 pdr ) were expected to hit a frontage of 70m consistently. Pretty much artillery focusing infantry in line.

It is the age of mass fire into one spot. So, for you mathematicians, how much deviation from 0m to 70m at 800m in degrees, horizontal? 

Let's translate that to sea. 70m square area at 800m. What is the angle maximum deviation for X and Y at 50m intervals ?

[TommyShelby]

We could go to realistic values sure. 

Just keep in mind why we don't have realistic values  (Looking at it from game development perspective and not realism perspective).

[Hethwill]

Exactly. Game has limitations. If you fire a broadside you will see changes of trajectory at fairly regular intervals of cannon groups.

We had it more pronounced way back but there was a problem. A player problem. Broadsides were half flying high, half getting into a sudden wave. And guess what the suggestion was ?