Patch 16: Control, Mast and Ship strengths rebalance.

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

Loosing a topmast is not that crippling in game as it can come back in a minute due to repairs..   It's like killing 40 sailors in one grape shot, that's not realistic, but as they can be revived, this repreasent more a kind of momentum.. So this stay balanced.

[victor]

3 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:

>8% sail force is too much! 
>Hmm... 
>Reduce it to 3%! 
>hello kitty, this shit is useless now
>make it 30%, let's see what happens

[HachiRoku]

50 minutes ago, rediii said:

take a privateer

Don't tell me what to do. You're not my real daddy

[TommyShelby]

Dayum, it is really hard to have a proper discussion with people if they disagree with you. 

@Licinio Chiavari
You want "tactical decisions" yet you want to remove 1 of the 2 ways of "crippling" doing damage to an enemies sails. I find that slightly ironic and contradicting...
You claim that "demasting" makes the game experience worse for a "Majority" of players, yet when asked how you simply ignore the question. 
You get very upset/frustrated about the issue and suddenly make wild statements like; 

22 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

So it was a nice battle even without demasting? Incredible. For some looks like we should play DEMAST ACTION.

Once more, i would like to point out that even the "super elite pro noscope 1337 demasters" are asking for demasting to be OP. 
They argue for balance between 2 tactics; Chain and Demasting. 
In fact, most of them have asked for Mast HP to be buffed for a long long time. Even longer than you have been active here on the forums.
- Add to this point, you can go back in this topic and find several comments from the "super elite pro noscope 1337 demasters" stating that the thickness nerf was unwarranted and not needed at all. 
 

25 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

I know. Losing a mast is far more crippling

Care to elaborate as to why you think losing a mast is far more crippling than losing sail HP? 

Could you also explain why "demasting" makes the game experience worse for a "majority" of players? (And maybe also explain how you know what the majority of players think?).

[maturin]

58 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Demasting historically was a consequence, not aimed for.

So when an entire French fleet was shooting ball into the rigging of their enemies, they weren't trying to dismast?

"Oh non non, monsieur. We merely try to make petit holes in sails. Why, to dismast? T'would be a scandal! Unjust!"

People need to stop making uninformed historical claims regarding gameplay that irritates them personally. It's really embarassing, you guys. Especially when people swear up and down that no cannon ball could possible destroy the mighty topgallantmast. It's a twig. If you get lucky and hit it a few times, it will snap.

The usual explanation for chase guns is that they were fired in hopes of knocking away an important spar. Well, upper masts can be thinner than lower spars.

 

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

On the same time he states that direct hit from iron cannonball can cause  fatal magazine detonation on wooden ships so..

Edited February 9, 2018 by Baptiste Gallouédec

[maturin]

1 minute ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

On the same time he states that iron cannonball can cause  fatal magazine detonation on wooden ships so..

I mean... if you drop it from orbit and manage to hit the magazine directly...

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

or heated shots of course.

[Licinio Chiavari]

22 minutes ago, maturin said:

So when an entire French fleet was shooting ball into the rigging of their enemies, they weren't trying to dismast?

"Oh non non, monsieur. We merely try to make petit holes in sails. Why, to dismast? T'would be a scandal! Unjust!"

People need to stop making uninformed historical claims regarding gameplay that irritates them personally. It's really embarassing, you guys. Especially when people swear up and down that no cannon ball could possible destroy the mighty topgallantmast. It's a twig. If you get lucky and hit it a few times, it will snap.

The usual explanation for chase guns is that they were fired in hopes of knocking away an important spar. Well, upper masts can be thinner than lower spars.

 

Again... 

<< in hopes of knocking away an important spar >>. All said.

About my erroneous statement, please clarify how is damn possible to aim (having a real chance of hitting, aside 'spray and pray') with a 1800 gun to a mast of a full speed running ship at overdose 100 mt from a rolling deck of another full speed running ship.

My statement about demasting (consequence and aimed for) was said to underline the utter impossibility to AIM AT MASTS AT COMBAT RANGE.

So the good ol'french fleet aimed chain shots (RN almost not using) AT RIGS (and not at masts - again impossible) to slowly cripple... And a mast falling was a consequence of stays/shrouds damage.

And we should discuss about who is born first: was rig shooting the tactic and so the downwind positioning (to aim guns higher) the consequence, or the choosen tactic was staying downwind (to be able to disengage), and shooting at rigs (due to ship heel) was the consequence?

If you're not intellectually honest while reading and replying, we have an issue.

 

[Hethwill]

Cannot simulate reality  Individual blocks, spars, lines, fitting being shot away, shrouds getting cut, etc.

[Licinio Chiavari]

19 minutes ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

On the same time he states that direct hit from iron cannonball can cause  fatal magazine detonation on wooden ships so..

Same realism of purposely aiming (and HITTING) at masts at 100+ mts away at full speed.

BTW, I'd quote the most famed: Orient during Battle of the Nile.

If you missed the sarcasm, it's not a problem of mine (aside not being english mother language)

 

[GrubbyZebra]

On 2/8/2018 at 7:32 PM, maturin said:

You've got it all backwards. Tagging people with chasers is wonky. It's silly and magical. Control perk is more like a real chase.

Many ships can't mount bow or stern guns.

was talking about this just last night. Control and prepared should be integral to every ship. Nobody would enter a battle without loading and running out their guns, and no ship would magically disappear from 500m just because they hadn't been hit in the past 90 seconds.

Edited February 10, 2018 by BPHick

[maturin]

22 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

About my erroneous statement, please clarify how is damn possible to aim (having a real chance of hitting, aside 'spray and pray') with a 1800 gun to a mast of a full speed running ship at overdose 100 mt from a rolling deck of another full speed running ship.

My statement about demasting (consequence and aimed for) was said to underline the utter impossibility to AIM AT MASTS AT COMBAT RANGE.

This wouldn't get so heated if you'd stop splitting hairs.

Yes of course, it was 'spray and pray.' You aim the whole broadside at the ship's rigging generally. 50 shots and 3-4 of them hit masts. This is a typical outcome in-game.

Not sure what 'full speed' has to do with it. The projectiles are supersonic, and the target is only going 10 knots. Your target is also 150 feet high, so a rolling deck isn't the end of the world.

 

If you're talking about individually aimed shot with the Spacebar, then yes, that is very silly. But absolutely, gunners would aim deliberately at the masts. Things like the mainmast cap were a reference point for managing gun elevation at various ranges. IRL the accuracy of the guns was much less, and success was determined by probability as much as marksmanship. At lower skill levels, this is also true in-game.

 

Quote

So the good ol'french fleet aimed chain shots [Citation needed]  (At long ranges and over long periods of time, the French were definitely not using much chain shot.)

(RN almost not using)  [Citation needed]

AT RIGS (and not at masts - again impossible) to slowly cripple... [Citation needed]  (This is just goofy as all hell. How do you shoot at a rig without also shooting at a mast? Where do you think the masts are located in relation to the shrouds?]

And a mast falling was a consequence of stays/shrouds damage.   [Citation needed] 

I understand that you have ragequit from getting dismasted in PvP, but please don't imagine that it has given you psychic powers for rewriting history.

Which ghostly captain told you that a supersonic 6-inch cannon ball is incapable of snapping an 8-inch pole made of Scots pine?

Damage to standing rigging weakens a mast. But if you put enough holes in a wooden pole, it will fall down. I can't believe this is controversial.

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 hour ago, TommyShelby said:

Dayum, it is really hard to have a proper discussion with people if they disagree with you. 

@Licinio Chiavari
You want "tactical decisions" yet you want to remove 1 of the 2 ways of "crippling" doing damage to an enemies sails. I find that slightly ironic and contradicting...
You claim that "demasting" makes the game experience worse for a "Majority" of players, yet when asked how you simply ignore the question. 
You get very upset/frustrated about the issue and suddenly make wild statements like; 

Once more, i would like to point out that even the "super elite pro noscope 1337 demasters" are asking for demasting to be OP. 
They argue for balance between 2 tactics; Chain and Demasting. 
In fact, most of them have asked for Mast HP to be buffed for a long long time. Even longer than you have been active here on the forums.
- Add to this point, you can go back in this topic and find several comments from the "super elite pro noscope 1337 demasters" stating that the thickness nerf was unwarranted and not needed at all. 
 

Care to elaborate as to why you think losing a mast is far more crippling than losing sail HP? 

Could you also explain why "demasting" makes the game experience worse for a "majority" of players? (And maybe also explain how you know what the majority of players think?).

The problem, Sir, is mine, not yours.

I said (repeatly for sure, my apologizes) simply that NA level of precision is out reality. While firing at hull or sails it doesnt change a lot a faster paced battle, coming to demasting, it changes the tall ship fight completely creating a 'meta' completely unreal.

So only way, IMO, to address this is making demasting something impossible to aim for... being simply impossible at that times.

As I said a way could be making a mast falling a chance bound to sustained sail damage (far more real) and or making mast hit box very small aside mast HP buffs.

Without aimed demasting battles will move back to manouver and gunnery and choosing between speed (full sails) risking crippling damage to rigs or slower and safer (more conservative battle sails).

Next step: reworking boarding, still keeping in mind, that it was the end of a great share of engagements.

I'd say more options but no last second tricks (like every 15 sec round choosing how many men commit to defense, attack, reserve, firing, just to say).

About majority... Excuse me, but every evening there are 500/700 people on line, so... Almost 1000+ regular players. How many write here? A few dozens, majority of them (including you for example) good or very good at demasting.

No one ever thought that kite+demasting+repairs could be a reason "carebears" do not fight even in numbers? Because even in numbers they can be smashed and humiliated even by a single "pro".

So: why should I have to risk my ship even 5v1 if against good demaster I'll lose her anyway without even sinking the enemy?

 

[maturin]

34 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

BTW, I'd quote the most famed: Orient during Battle of the Nile.

Orient was on fire for an extended period of time before exploding. No one got a lucky shot in her magazine. The British even aimed at the flames to disrupt the firefighting crews.

 

Quote

I said (repeatly for sure, my apologizes) simply that NA level of precision is out reality. While firing at hull or sails it doesnt change a lot a faster paced battle, coming to demasting, it changes the tall ship fight completely creating a 'meta' completely unreal.

So let's maybe talk about gun accuracy instead of making false claims about the physical properties of softwood tree trunks.

There are a few things which I believe could be done to gunnery that would affect mast shooting but not hull shooting. Namely, horizontal imprecision for rolling broadsides, and high-elevation ranging shots.

[TommyShelby]

2 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

The problem, Sir, is mine, not yours. Not to worry. 

I said (repeatly for sure, my apologizes) simply that NA level of precision is out reality. While firing at hull or sails it doesnt change a lot a faster paced battle, coming to demasting, it changes the tall ship fight completely creating a 'meta' completely unreal. No matter if you are demasted, or chained, losing sail HP changes the pace of a battle. Successful demasting can be devastating but so can 3 good broadsides of chain. (Hell, even 1 good broadside of chain, from a similar sized ship, can do 40-50% sail damage.) 
I don't understand why you think being demasted is worse for gameplay than being chained. In my perspective, 2 completely different approaches to reach the same goal is great for gameplay, it provides players with choice and variety in battles. 

So only way, IMO, to address this is making demasting something impossible to aim for... being simply impossible at that times.
I am no history nut, not at all. But in almost all the paintings i've seen from the age of sail, most of the ships are missing either whole masts or parts of their masts. 
Whether this was because of chain shot, "accidental" ball shots hitting masts/vital components of the rigging, i do not know. 

As I said a way could be making a mast falling a chance bound to sustained sail damage (far more real) and or making mast hit box very small aside mast HP buffs.
Mast Hitbox should be the same size as the visual representation of the mast. From what i can tell it is pretty close to being like this, if it isn't already like this. 

Without aimed demasting battles will move back to manouver and gunnery and choosing between speed (full sails) risking crippling damage to rigs or slower and safer (more conservative battle sails).
I have noticed this complaint from many a captain, claiming that demasting means you don't have to worry about manouvering and positioning. 
This is really a false claim, manouvering and positioning plays a huge role when it comes to being an able demaster, if we can call it that. 

About majority... Excuse me, but every evening there are 500/700 people on line, so... Almost 1000+ regular players. How many write here? A few dozens, majority of them (including you for example) good or very good at demasting.
I never claimed that i was speaking for the majority. You did however and that is what bugs me... I know very well that i do not represent the majority of NA players, and i would never claim to speak on their behalf. 
I argue for the things that i think makes for good gameplay, whether that is historical or not, i honestly don't care much. Gameplay is what matters to me. 

No one ever thought that kite+demasting+repairs could be a reason "carebears" do not fight even in numbers? Because even in numbers they can be smashed and humiliated even by a single "pro".
Even when masts were "invincible" (Yes, completely unable to demast anything because nothing could pen masts. We tested that.) the "pro" players were able to smash and humiliate people in 1v5's and worse. (Even ships too). 
The only difference is how they "smash and humiliate" people.

The following is not aimed at anyone specific.

No matter what you do, the "pros" will smash the "noobs". And most often the "noobs" will claim whatever tool the "pro" uses as being OP.
Whether they get raked, hull bashed, chained or demasted does not matter, it is OP if they lose. 

And i absolutely cannot understand the logic behind this kind of thinking. 
90% of people i meet in the OW can't demast for shit, they fire broadside after broadside but their aim i so terrible that only 1 out of 40 balls hit the target. Not only that, none seems to understand the fact that each section has its own HP and they keep switching it up; 
1 Broadside at my front masts Top Section.
1 Broadside at my front masts Middle Section.
1 Broadside at my front masts Bottom Sectoin.
1 Broadside at my middle masts Top Section.
1 Broadside at my... 
You get the idea.

People don't understand the game mechanics and are too drunk to aim, yet they know exactly what is OP and what isn't. (And furthermore, even if it is OP they can't do the same themselves.) 

TLDR; Humans are weird and i wish i was a martian.

[RaimundoJoe]

Someone forgot to inform us that one can explode now while in boarding... thanks i guess.

[RaimundoJoe]

not true, before while in boarding the crew went to survival by default.

 

[RaimundoJoe]

2 minutes ago, Wraith said:

You can still go into fire shock even if you have survival on.

The thing is we were in boarding, i was winning the boarding and after the boarding i had to fight 2 more ships. That explosion made a mess of my cunning plan. and i was left with 75 crew and catch on  fire and made boom myself. shit happens i guess

[Jarlath Morrow]

Since this patch has hugely rebalanced mast HP and mast thickness, it might be good to comment on those changes rather than continuing a personal crusade that's really just a holdover from an older version of the game.

I will say that I am very glad they adjusted the topgallant mast HP for Constitutions and other ships that lose 2 sails from their topgallants.

Also I think the slight reduction to the penetration of Double Charge is probably warranted, since ships are thinner.
 

1 hour ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

No one ever thought that kite+demasting+repairs could be a reason "carebears" do not fight even in numbers? Because even in numbers they can be smashed and humiliated even by a single "pro".

So: why should I have to risk my ship even 5v1 if against good demaster I'll lose her anyway without even sinking the enemy?

There's a lot to reply to, but this one bit stuck out. In every version of Naval Action you might lose 5v1, just accept it. Much better to go 1v1 the "pro", sink, and then get better. I am speaking from personal experience.

If your ship is a "risk" the ship you are sailing is too expensive.

[Sir Texas Sir]

7 hours ago, Wraith said:

I like the idea of having a bit more realism for the effects of chain, and am certainly willing to test it... but 1 minute of rigging shock seems overkill.

Perhaps start with a standard rigging shock timer?

With the new sailing models it's already quite easy to make it difficult on stern campers if you're smart. Making it any easier and you risk killing off the utility roles that small ships play in group PvP and nerfing the nice mix that we are seeing now.

I would start out around 15 secs to be honest as that is a very long time if your in a fight to have your sails locked, 1 min is an insane amount of time.  Though watching folks crash into each other and such is going to be funny.

7 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Looks smart.

However my main concern is the port UI. It really needs to be more "alive" and "interactive". It is the first thing we see when we enter the game and we spent some good time at port, it must be really well done.

Yah I don't want some silly J-k pop MMO interface that is all bling bling, but something better than the Win 98 screw would be nice.

7 hours ago, Wraith said:

Am I the only one that hopes they improve and maintain the current interface as an option? I don't need fancy art and twiddly knobs, to walk around town or click my way through 10 screens just to get to some basic information...

I want an option that is simple, clean, effective, and responsive. 

As long as they add port info I would be happy.  BR for Port battles, who ownes the port and what you can craft and such should be on the main page of the port.  Oh and the tax rate for that port should be listed too.  Stuff that we have all over the place that should be in one place for you to see when you enter port and know straight off about that port.

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Baptiste Gallouédec said:

On the same time he states that direct hit from iron cannonball can cause  fatal magazine detonation on wooden ships so..

What ships that are made of wood can explode or catch on fire?  NAH CAN'T BE?

3 hours ago, maturin said:

I mean... if you drop it from orbit and manage to hit the magazine directly...

I actually wonder if any one has ever gotten a mag hit on a mortar brig shot?  I mean I done some mean damage, but never blew some one up like that and you think it would happen more with a ball being dropped into the mag lol

2 hours ago, BPHick said:

was talking about this just last night. Control and prepared should be integral to every ship. Nobody would enter a battle without loading and running out their guns, and no ship would magically disappear from 500m just because they hadn't been hit in the pas 90 seconds.

Yah I awalys thought it was silly and some folks won't waist the 1 point for preppared to have other things, it's saved my life so many time. It should be something you learn as you rank up.  Along with the control perk, but maybe make it 500m range and if you take the perk it extends it to the 750m or something more.  I just hope we never see that coward perk, nothing piss you off more than getting a ship mast/sails down and than moving to board it and right when you are about to get the G it leaves even though you can almost reach out and touch it but you haven't shot it or done damage in a bit.  That was always very stupid and game breaking for me.

1 hour ago, AxIslander said:

The thing is we were in boarding, i was winning the boarding and after the boarding i had to fight 2 more ships. That explosion made a mess of my cunning plan. and i was left with 75 crew and catch on  fire and made boom myself. shit happens i guess

What you can do is stay in boarding until his crew puts the fire out, than finish him off. I done this many times when some one is trying to blow there ship up. I just rage board them and either wait until the fire out or it's burned down enough of the ship to be an instant sink than I finish him off.  Just cause you win a board should not mean you instantly put a fire out.

[maturin]

6 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

I actually wonder if any one has ever gotten a mag hit on a mortar brig shot?  I mean I done some mean damage, but never blew some one up like that and you think it would happen more with a ball being dropped into the mag lol

I doubt it because in the old UI you could do 100% damage to someone's magazine and nothing happened.

[blubasso]

1 minute ago, maturin said:

I doubt it because in the old UI you could do 100% damage to someone's magazine and nothing happened.

By the way: where usually were (Santabarbara in my language) magazines on ship, to eventually aim to it? It changes every ship class or they were more or less in the same places?

[maturin]

7 minutes ago, blubasso said:

By the way: where usually were (Santabarbara in my language) magazines on ship, to eventually aim to it? It changes every ship class or they were more or less in the same places?

Below the waterline, closer to the stern. Large ships could have a bow magazine as well. Every in-game ship has it's own hitbox for it.