First Rates should become rare and very expensive = maintenance, baby!

[Teutonic]

No to maintenance.

I agree that 2nd and 1st rates should be more expensive, but I also argue that 3rds and 2nds should also be more.....powerful? 

I do align with @rediii when he states that he wants to create the game balance around 3rd rates being the main contender, but I don't believe adding a maintenance tax on 1sts is the rught approach.

I'd much rather see ship stats like HPs and BR get rebalanced (BR for port battles) to encourage players to bring out different ships. 

Another balance should absolutely be a big look into ships and their gun loadouts along with a cannon rebalance.

All of this would take time though.

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

22 minutes ago, Glorgir said:

I know they are just Pixels, but damn it, they are my Pixels, and I earned them.

Believe me, I know what you mean. I have the same feeling when I craft an Endymion. And it is much more fun to use than big dick symbols, if moderator excuses that expression for a change to 'fat duck'.

[Hethwill]

Again, hard data records could help the discussion. A full provisioning list for a given cruise would act as a baseline.

This is a historical painting example of what the open world in NA looks like, at squadron level - Nelson at Santa Cruz.

A couple 74s, frigates and support vessels. We all see this daily in NA  

Ships were built, crew was hired, repairs furnished, per ship/player. What other costs were to be supported by Admiralty/Player for this assignment ?

 

[Glorgir]

7 minutes ago, Percival Merewether said:

I feel that it ruins the immersion that there are so many first rates around - it's still a mystery to me why the devs decided to add three 1st rates, two 2nd rates but only one 3rd rate model. There has to be more diversity in the 3rd rate segment.

There are 3 third rates as far as I know, the Bellona, the Third Rate and the Wasa, are these all the same model, not being sarcastic, just dont know if they are or not.

10 minutes ago, Percival Merewether said:

27 minutes ago, Glorgir said:

If this is implemented I can see some peoples reactions, "OK, Ive lost my Santi, cant get another one for 22 days, lets Play something else, till my new one is ready"

So let's dismiss the idea completely then - that's much better than coming up with a counter argument... What if the wait was less? could be a week? could be four days? I'm looking for a compromise that would allow you to do exactly this:

I wasnt dismissing , the idea that a Nation has a set amount of first rates, but who has to then craft the replacement, is it the Player who lost it, or the Nation to whom he belongs, why would crafters even stockpile the mats to craft these ships, the Nation might not lose one for 3 or 4 months, again who is going to tie up their warehose Slots just on the offchance that a first rate will be sunk.

Everyone paid the same amount for the game, everyone has the right to expect that when he has qualified by rank experience and crafting, he can sail the same ships as everyone else.

This is after all a game not a historical reenactment

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

14 minutes ago, Le Raf Boom said:

I don't see where you got the 'cheap' part.

You did not understand my critics about the perceived inflation of First Rates in the game. Anyone can have one, after being able to command enough crew, which is only a matter of time. It is not difficult to make money as well, so all this combined leads to the ahistorical inflation of many, too many First Rates. As someone said, and I agree, they thus lose their "extraordinary" character.

So that makes them 'cheap'. Easy access, easy replacement, full warehouses spilling out materials to build them... I insist on using the word 'cheap'.

Or, if you care to look on the 'used ship market', a L'Ocean is available for about 5 million. Clans give them out for free to their members if expansion is on the schedule. Cheap.

[Hethwill]

Just now, rediii said:

1sts and 2nds are too efficient, thats why every PB fleets core is a core of 1st rates while it should be a core of 3rd rates.

That would be the historical order of battle yes. But we digress.

[Navalus Magnus]

1 hour ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

An idea would be to give each nation a maximum number of First Rates, distributed as slots between all clans of that nation. So, if there would be a max number of 25 First Rates for one nation and six clans with, say, more than ten active members in the last month, each clan would get the Royal allowance to contribute four First Rates and the rest (1) by one of the smaller clans. Maybe this would lead to less port battles or just another composition of battle fleets participating there. A single port battle would gain importance. That's fine, because so often they really did not take place in real life.

That's a fine idea!

But imo it's downsides are the exclusion of single players which want to have a 1st rate too.

 

Possible solutions imo might be:

 

1. Limit the number of SOLs every player can possess - like i mentioned above (and in the attached link in more detail).

 

2. 

45 minutes ago, Percival Merewether said:

I'd suggest giving players a 1st rate allowance - as a rear admiral you can redeem one every month and will be lost when you lose your ship. That means players are only "permitted" to lose one 1st rate per month.

... or week, or ... - that would need to be discussed and maybe tested!

 

What i would like to add is this:

Make that allowance nescessary to get a 1st rate in every way!

a ) You want to craft a 1st rate? Fine, where is your allowance?

b ) You want to buy a 1st rate in the shop? Fine, you need an allowance!

c ) You want to trade a 1st rate from player to player? Ok, ... but where is your allowance?

[Hethwill]

Quick and Dirty fix, imo.

A 1st rate, by its sheer volume, occupies way more dock real estate than a schooner.

Think about it. How many brigs would you be able to dock in the harbour space you could dock a Victory only ?

[Angus MacDuff]

4 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Quick and Dirty fix, imo.

A 1st rate, by its sheer volume, occupies way more dock real estate than a schooner.

Think about it. How many brigs would you be able to dock in the harbour space you could dock a Victory only ?

2, 3.  In reality a 1st rate wouldn't take much more room than a 3rd.  They were built upwards, not necessarily outwards.  HMS Victory in Portsmouth is surprisingly small.  Might be shorter than Constitution...

[Navalus Magnus]

5 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Quick and Dirty fix, imo.

A 1st rate, by its sheer volume, occupies way more dock real estate than a schooner.

Think about it. How many brigs can you dock in the space you could dock a Victory only ?

Also like that!

15 minutes ago, rediii said:

1st rates have too much HP in my oppinion. They were strong but 3rd rates were able to fight them, in this game they cant at the moment

Yes, that's certainly true and should also be fixed!

[Glorgir]

14 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Again, hard data records could help the discussion. A full provisioning list for a given cruise would act as a baseline.

This is a historical painting example of what the open world in NA looks like, at squadron level - Nelson at Santa Cruz.

Ships were built, crew was hired, repairs furnished, per ship/player. What other costs were to be supported by Admiralty/Player for this assignment ?

https://savoringthepast.net/2013/03/22/18th-century-sailors-food-ships-provisions/

This gives a quick breakdown of provisions for the Bellona and a Sloop, I believe for 4 months

https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=HMS-Victory

A Little Information as to the cost Setup and amount of sails etc carried on the Victory

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, Oberon74 said:

2, 3.  In reality a 1st rate wouldn't take much more room than a 3rd.  They were built upwards, not necessarily outwards.  HMS Victory in Portsmouth is surprisingly small.  Might be shorter than Constitution...

Sorry, Connie is 62m.  Vic is 69m

[Anne Wildcat]

I kind of like the idea of admiralty giving you 1 first rate a month. That way both casual players and hard core players can both sail them.  Not everyone has the mega millions that those who play 15+ hours a week do. 

[Navalus Magnus]

8 minutes ago, Oberon74 said:

2, 3.  In reality a 1st rate wouldn't take much more room than a 3rd.  They were built upwards, not necessarily outwards.  HMS Victory in Portsmouth is surprisingly small.  Might be shorter than Constitution...

You could make the dockspace available a matter of expanse:

The square-meters a ship would require for docking could be better suited for the intended purpose of Hethwill - but would need more complicated coding.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Navalus Magnus

[Anne Wildcat]

I think some suggested before making different docking requirements based on rate. For example, 4th rate and below, 1 slot, 3 rate 2, 2nd rate 3, 1st rate 4, or something similar. 

[Shrez]

2 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

I know I will start here an unpopular suggestion. Many guys just love the feeling of sitting in fat ducks blowing up everything up in range of their multiple max cannon decks. Nothing wrong with the feel of invincibility and power. But how often and how easy? And at the expense of what other game content?

--

Let's face it: the enormous costs of building and maintaining a first rate ship-of-the-line is not portrayed in the game properly. Anyone with a dockyard large enough and sufficient warehouse stock can build one or several SOL a day, especially when he has the support of his clan. We see in the hand of some major clans more First Rates than whole nations had in 18th century, and this is just one theater of operations (the Caribbean), while those nations had to distribute their naval power over several theaters, mainly Europe. So what we get in the game is inflation of First Rates - determining always the same maxed out composition of battle fleets in port battles. And as the SOL are so cheap, we even see ganking groups consisting of SOLs, which is absolutely ridiculous nonsense in naval authenticity. Why? Because SOL are for navy battles only and they were extremely expensive. Their lacking speed did not make them suitable for economy war.

The inflation of this overuse of fat ducks has undesirable side effects: other ship ranks become less significant. Almost nobody cares to build 2nd, 3rd rates - not to speak of 4th rate and lower, because fat ducks are so cheap and give the maximum fire power. So versatility suffers from the overuse. Tactics melt down to just brute force and nothing else matters. Who brings in more First Rates will win, who produces more a day keeps the upper hand.

Short glimpse back into history: First Rates were so expensive that just for being able to add one to the royal fleet, all merchants and businesses of a city would collect their money and sponsor a single ship, which would then gratefully bear the name of that city, for example "Ville de Paris". Navy reformer Duke de Choiseul went around France to encourage cities and regions to follow the example so the King would have enough ships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Ville_de_Paris_(1764)

If historically correct, a reduction of number of SOLs in Naval Action would altogether prove to be profitable for gameplay. We would see more options for setting up fleets for various purposes and other rates than the First would see a renaissance.

How could this be implemented?

An idea would be to give each nation a maximum number of First Rates, distributed as slots between all clans of that nation. So, if there would be a max number of 25 First Rates for one nation and six clans with, say, more than ten active members in the last month, each clan would get the Royal allowance to contribute four First Rates and the rest (1) by one of the smaller clans. Maybe this would lead to less port battles or just another composition of battle fleets participating there. A single port battle would gain importance. That's fine, because so often they really did not take place in real life.

Another idea, could be parallel with the first idea mentioned, has been touched already in this forum and I am all for it: having to pay maintenance for the largest ships, no matter if they are moored in docks or 'parked' in ship market. So you think twice before building them en masse. First Rates must cost daily money, and Second and Third Rates also, but to a lesser degree.

Third idea in that context is to introduce a cost inflicting each time to the owning clan when their First Rate gets sunk. They were highly prestigious symbols of power. A loss of a First Rate ship-of-the-line was felt as national tragedy. Not like in this game, where you shrug your shoulders and simply build another one. This 'prestige loss' could be expressed by deduction of marks, victory or PvP, to all clan members whose clan had that national slot for a First Rate which got sunk. A malus for the clan comparison ladder. Effect: eagerness to keep the First Rate alive at all costs. Smaller ships would be commissioned to protect the valuable First Rate - that's absolutely historic. Second Effect: enemy is even more keen on sinking First Rates, because then it would have consequences for the losing side beyond just another ship gone.

Niet!

We need Victory Mark to craft this ship.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Shrez

[Percival Merewether]

3 minutes ago, Glorgir said:

There are 3 third rates as far as I know, the Bellona, the Third Rate and the Wasa, are these all the same model, not being sarcastic, just dont know if they are or not.

The Bellona and the 3rd rate is the exact same model, the only difference is the texture.

Third rates normally mounted 64-80 guns making the Wasa questionable as a 3rd rate, but also a 4th rate putting it somewhere in the middle (due to the 32lbs). The Agamemnon is definately a 3rd rate but classified as a 4th rate with lower HP and thickness.

We only have one unique 3D model in the 3rd rate class in-game that is actually useful in large actions.

[Vernon Merrill]

Never played, but does everyone go tooling around in Titans in EVE?

 

[Hethwill]

28 minutes ago, Oberon74 said:

2, 3

there we go  that's a start

[Hethwill]

28 minutes ago, Glorgir said:

https://savoringthepast.net/2013/03/22/18th-century-sailors-food-ships-provisions/

This gives a quick breakdown of provisions for the Bellona and a Sloop, I believe for 4 months

https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=HMS-Victory

A Little Information as to the cost Setup and amount of sails etc carried on the Victory

Many thanks sir ! Will look into the first one ( hope it is not only sustenance supplies but everything ).

[Blackbrook]

30 minutes ago, Anne Wildcat said:

I kind of like the idea of admiralty giving you 1 first rate a month. That way both casual players and hard core players can both sail them.  Not everyone has the mega millions that those who play 15+ hours a week do. 

How about requiring a permit to sail SoLs? You get one 1st rate permit from the admiralty every four weeks if you have the rank for that. Also one 2nd rate permit every two weeks and one 3rd rate permit each week. If your SoL sinks also your permit is gone until you get a new one from the admiralty. That way you can craft and buy as many SoLs as you want, but you can't sail them. Probably these sailing permits should not be tradeable.

There should be a way to get more SoL sailing permits, but these extra permits must be very difficult and expensive to get. 

I think the current permit system for crafting ships is ok. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Blackbrook

[Percival Merewether]

4 minutes ago, rediii said:

Fhats wrong, Bellona and 3rd have different models. Trust me I recently sailed 3rds to test them.

 

So did I, where is the difference? Apart from the obviously removed decorations. I may have missed something.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure they're the same:

http://www.navalactionwiki.com/index.php?title=3rd_Rate

Looking at the screenshot the only difference I can spot is the decorations and paint-job. I do not know how reliable the article is anymore, but it states: "the third rate in the game is based on the Bellona and apart from paint job she looks and performs the same."

Edited May 9, 2018 by Percival Merewether

[huliotkd]

was already proposed by me long time ago during the discussion about 1 or 3 or 5 durability of ships, page 8

 

 

and here, page 2

 

we were also talking about something else but i proposed this mechanic that would have solved even the abuse of ALT acc slots

Edited May 9, 2018 by huliotkd

[Teutonic]

2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Increase the BR of First Rates and you will see less of them in Port Battles. They arent so common in OW engagements outside of RvR actions like hostility or screening.

agreed and I'm all for increase of BR, but the 1st also need a nerf to their stats, or other line ships need a buff to better perform against 1st rates.

had a discussion last night on teamspeak with a number of folks, granted I was more listening in then being in the discussion. It essentially came down to "if the enemy brings 1st rates and we don't then we lose."

The broader outcome is that in the majority of cases, if the enemy has bigger ships then the team with smaller ships will generally lose or be forced to flee, it's just easier to see the proliferation of power when you compare 1st rates to 2nds and 3rds.

[Christendom]

A simple solution would be to not allow them in certain port battles and/or increase the BR.  It would be nice if the capital port in most regions was 1st rate 25/25, but the smaller ports were all BR based and the 1st rate was not allowed.