Ship rating poll

[van Veen]

Inspired by discussion about the 5th March hotfix in this thread:

 

[Tom Farseer]

Voted with majority except on Indef: s
Should be 5th rate if carronades are banned from main gun deck. With full carro armament she can contend with any 4th rate, making her de facto a 4th rate.

[Slim McSauce]

These results are a sigh of a relief, constitution a 3rd rate? are you high? It's literally a 2 deck frigate.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Slim McSauce

[OjK]

I rather thought about buffing other 4th rates to Constitution level, rather than moving her to 3rd.

Indefatigable is basically an Agamemnon, so I'm ok with that as well.
Especially, when we consider that class doesn't really affect much.

 

What makes me worries, is that the carronades were the problem here.
So instead of fixing carronades, there are changes somewhere else, making another problems...

That's not cool.

[HachiRoku]

Be carefull with your ratings there guys because the endy and trinco are closer to 4th rates than they are to 5th rates. There should be a seperate rating for Heavy and superfrigates imo. I don't know the technical problems that would come with that. 

[Neads O'Tune]

I voted for both version's the connie to be 4th rates at least until the "buffs" to them are applied

[OjK]

Also, let's remember that 'rate' class system was based purely on amount of cannons. And Constitution by no means close to be classified as 3rd rate with just 48.

Also, whats the difference in ships class? It only counts towards some artificial limitation on missions and quest.

The progression is based on the crew You can have, and the RvR is based on the BR rating. 
The class system is only quite irrelevant indication.

If anything will be affected by that, is the popularity of Constitution for PvE content only - as there is absolutely no reason why would You go on a mission with Constitution if You can take Bellona.

Edited March 5, 2019 by OjK

[HachiRoku]

2 minutes ago, OjK said:

Also, whats the difference in ships class? It only counts towards some artificial limitation on missions and quest.

 

mods 1-3 are weaker. Its a nerf to ship. Nothing dramatic

[Jan van Santen]

1 minute ago, OjK said:

 

If anything will be affected by that, is the popularity of Constitution for PvE content only - as there is absolutely no reason why would You go on a mission with Constitution if You can take Bellona.

And likewise you wouldnt go on a PvE mission with an Indefat if you can take an Aga (poods is the word).

[OjK]

12 minutes ago, Jan van Santen said:

And likewise you wouldnt go on a PvE mission with an Indefat if you can take an Aga (poods is the word).

True, and I'm fine with that.

Indefatigable is actually exact same build what Agamemnon is. It's just missing guns on top deck.
And Indefatigable had always more dmg than Aggie on Long or mediums. Still nothing changes.

Poods are out of the question - Agamemnon was always a "dream ship" for poods. Nothing changes here either.

[Percival Merewether]

For the first time the NA community seems to agree on something; the Connie is a 4th rate.

Interestingly enough it is also the only purpose built 4th rate in-game (correct me if I'm wrong) - I see absolutely no reason to make it a 3rd rate.

[Jan van Santen]

Copied from pve chat: FINALLY consti had become what the american propaganda made her.much stronger than reality

Edited March 5, 2019 by Jan van Santen

[Guest]

8 hours ago, HachiRoku said:

Be carefull with your ratings there guys because the endy and trinco are closer to 4th rates than they are to 5th rates. There should be a seperate rating for Heavy and superfrigates imo. I don't know the technical problems that would come with that. 

I think youre looking for 4th rate rank but with 8-9k HP, while indef, connie and USS us at 10-11k and the difference should be the HP gap between heavy frigates and sols where i would place wappen and Inger around 12-3k HP and agamemnon at 14k hp

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

This poll is impressively clear in its message.

 

[van Veen]

I'd like to see Indefatigable in the same rank as Constitution, so moved to 4th rate. Agamemnon should be 3rd rate according to her historical rating. 

Ingermanland is in fact also historically a 3rd rate. Move her as well and you have the 4th rate populated by 2-deck frigates and super frigates which seems a good approach imho. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by van Veen

[StuntPotato]

21 hours ago, HachiRoku said:

mods 1-3 are weaker. Its a nerf to ship. Nothing dramatic

I agree, but it does mean that it can't be used for rank 4 missions. And if you can use a 3rd rate for the mission, I got a sneaking suspicion that noone will bring the USS US. Having it ranked at 4th rate meant that you'd have to choose between it, the Aga and now, the indefatigable. So rank matters, just not outside the mission system.

[HachiRoku]

16 hours ago, StuntPotato said:

I agree, but it does mean that it can't be used for rank 4 missions. And if you can use a 3rd rate for the mission, I got a sneaking suspicion that noone will bring the USS US. Having it ranked at 4th rate meant that you'd have to choose between it, the Aga and now, the indefatigable. So rank matters, just not outside the mission system.

Hmm I didn't know this. Last time I did a mission is when we could choose the rank and fleet or solo mission. 

[Bull Hull]

Per the standard British rating system - which this game is supposedly using - ships with 50-60 guns were/are 4th Rates - PERIOD.  Some, as in the "Great Frigates" or super frigates, were ALSO considered a SOL because they could serve in a battle line, but they were still 4th Rates; as in not 3rd Rates.  Ship rigged ships with 20-48 guns were/are 5th Rates (basically 32-44 guns) and 6th Rates (basically 20-28 guns).  Whether those guns were longs, mediums, or carronades was totally irrelevant as long as the gun was mounted on a gun carriage instead of a swivel.  The size and weight of the ship was essentially irrelevant.  The number of crew was irrelevant.  The HPs should be totally irrelevant.  The British Rating system that was and is the standard for objectively rating ships counted the number of cannons to determine a ship's rating.  Other considerations were essentially irrelevant.

Consequently, the USS United States, USS President (granted, not in the game), and USS Constitution were/are 4th Rate Great Frigates and nominal Ships of the Line.  They were not 3rd Rates.

As originally built the HMS Indefatigable was a 64 gun Ardent Class 3rd Rate.  After its conversion to a frigate the Indefatigable was a large 44 gun Great Frigate, AKA a 5th Rate, which is basically what we have in the game.

As originally built the HMS Agamemnon was a 64 gun Ardent Class 3rd Rate.  For all practical purposes we have the same ship in the game. Why the game makes it a 4th Rate has never really made much sense.  Granted, it was a small 3rd Rate, but it was still a 3rd Rate and not a 4th Rate.  If a small or relatively weak 3rd Rate routinely loses to some 4th Rates then oh well.  A 3rd Rate is still a 3rd Rate, a 4th Rate is still a 4th Rate, and a 4th Rate is not a 3rd Rate REGARDLESS of which ship wins or loses the most heads up fights.  That is just the reality of the way it was and thus the way is should be.

[Bull Hull]

On 3/5/2019 at 7:53 AM, Tom Farseer said:

Voted with majority except on Indef: s
Should be 5th rate if carronades are banned from main gun deck. With full carro armament she can contend with any 4th rate, making her de facto a 4th rate.

What a ship can contend with is and should be irrelevant.  What matters to a ship's rating is how many guns a ship has and not what it can contend with and not whether it has longs or mediums or carronades.  The Indefatigable frigate was a 44 gun "Great Frigate" and so it was a 5th Rate, by definition, and so it should be a 5th Rate in the game.

The only time an Indefatigable armed solely with carronades should be able to "contend with" a 4th Rate is if the skipper of the 4th Rate is incompetent enough to let the Indefatigable close range for the carronades to be effective.  The best defense against carronades is range.  Just ask the skipper of the Essex who lost because the Essex had only carronades, which is something the skippers of the Essex had been warning the Navy about for years.  That is also why the skipper of the Java lost when he fought the Connie.  Because of bad intelligence he got from the British embassy that the Essex was the only US ship operating in South American waters he thought the Connie was the carronade armed Essex.  So, he stood off at what he thought was a range outside of the effect range of the carronades on the Essex.  But when the Connie took away half his mizzen mast on the 2nd or 3rd broadside he figured out too late that he was not fighting the Essex.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Bull Hull

[Bull Hull]

On 3/5/2019 at 8:25 AM, OjK said:

I rather thought about buffing other 4th rates to Constitution level, rather than moving her to 3rd.

Indefatigable is basically an Agamemnon, so I'm ok with that as well.
Especially, when we consider that class doesn't really affect much.

 

What makes me worries, is that the carronades were the problem here.
So instead of fixing carronades, there are changes somewhere else, making another problems...

That's not cool.

What's really not cool is arbitrarily buffing or nerfing ships to satisfy some arbitrary and mythical standard of silly balance.  The ships in the game should accurately simulate how the real ships sailed and fought.  That is the only way for the game to succeed as tactical war game simulation.  I have no interest in playing Fantasy Naval Action. So the more the game leans on arbitrary/magical RNG and "balancing" the less interest I and many other people have in playing the game.  I have known more than a few players who quite because of the game getting too unrealistic.  The developers constantly treating us like stupid children who have to be manipulated into playing the way the developers think we should play doesn't help either.

[van der Clam]

@admin tagged. Very good results.

I'm curious if this was just an attempt to quickly add some ships to 3rd rate class? Carronades would've been the better balancing act. Maybe not having the same rated carros on all decks? But even so, we as captains, need to recognize what a ship is outfitted with and maintain our distance if they have all carros. Not easy to do when some mods allows Ludicrous Speed on some ships.

[Tom Farseer]

6 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

What a ship can contend with is and should be irrelevant.  What matters to a ship's rating is how many guns a ship has and not what it can contend with and not whether it has longs or mediums or carronades.  The Indefatigable frigate was a 44 gun "Great Frigate" and so it was a 5th Rate, by definition, and so it should be a 5th Rate in the game.

You argue on the basis of the british rating system. This system was never perfectly pictured in the game to begin with (see Cerberus for example, which has always been a 5th ingame while carrying only 26 guns). As long as the question how any one ship is rated has an effect on gameplay, gameplay issues must take precedence over historical accuracy.

Example: The - much argued about - HMS Indefatigable with her ability to carry all 42 pd carronades:
With that ship and the current damage model and HP stats as a 5th rate ingame ther is literally no reason except for personal taste to take any other ship into a 5th rate PvE mission. PvP may be another matter, but for PvE it will always be the only valid choice, especially for soloing group missions.
Upgrading her rate to 4th in game has only one effect: Taking her out of th equation for 5th rate missions. Nothing else.
Though to be honest, I'd personally rather have her loadout changed so that a full set of carronades are no longer an option, and mor importantly the damage overall and that of carros in particular reduced by a fair bit. And keep her in her historical rating.

6 hours ago, Bull Hull said:

The ships in the game should accurately simulate how the real ships sailed and fought.

So you want first rates unable to effectively Sail on anything closer to the wind than a beam reach, go around making 6 knots, maybe 8 on strong winds and be almost completely unable to tack? You want 5th rate frigates that take five to ten minutes for tacking as well? You want your own ship to surrender, without giving you a choice, after receiving one good sternrake because your crews morale is utterly broken?
Be carefull what you wish for, this is a game and as such it must always prioritise playabilty over perfectly applied realism historical accuracy.

[Bull Hull]

10 hours ago, Tom Farseer said:

You argue on the basis of the british rating system. This system was never perfectly pictured in the game to begin with (see Cerberus for example, which has always been a 5th ingame while carrying only 26 guns). As long as the question how any one ship is rated has an effect on gameplay, gameplay issues must take precedence over historical accuracy.

Example: The - much argued about - HMS Indefatigable with her ability to carry all 42 pd carronades:
With that ship and the current damage model and HP stats as a 5th rate ingame ther is literally no reason except for personal taste to take any other ship into a 5th rate PvE mission. PvP may be another matter, but for PvE it will always be the only valid choice, especially for soloing group missions.
Upgrading her rate to 4th in game has only one effect: Taking her out of th equation for 5th rate missions. Nothing else.
Though to be honest, I'd personally rather have her loadout changed so that a full set of carronades are no longer an option, and mor importantly the damage overall and that of carros in particular reduced by a fair bit. And keep her in her historical rating.

So you want first rates unable to effectively Sail on anything closer to the wind than a beam reach, go around making 6 knots, maybe 8 on strong winds and be almost completely unable to tack? You want 5th rate frigates that take five to ten minutes for tacking as well? You want your own ship to surrender, without giving you a choice, after receiving one good sternrake because your crews morale is utterly broken?
Be carefull what you wish for, this is a game and as such it must always prioritise playabilty over perfectly applied realism historical accuracy.

There were always some exceptions due to the role of a particular class, and there were some differences between two different time frames (i.e. pre Napoleonic verses post Napoleonic).  Nice try with that variation on a perfect solution fallacy.

Clearly your concept of what qualifies as a "valid choice" is drastically different from mine.  Clearly you think that personal tastes are invalid.  Some players don't care about min-maxing more than other considerations. Too bad you totally miss the real problem, which is the stupid way that PVE missions are now so unnecessarily limiting.  This is one of the best examples of how the developers treat us like stupid children who they have to manipulate into playing the game the way they want us to play it instead of empowering us to play the game we want to play it.  We the Players should have the choice to do all PvP, or all RvR, or all PvE, or all RvE, and ANY combination in between.  The combat missions should empower those differences in taste instead of arbitrarily limiting them by essentially punishing players who want something other than PvP and RvP gank fests.  There is no valid reason for us to not have the option/choice/freedom to be able to do combat missions for all/every ship regardless of rating the way we used to be able to do them solo or as a group or whatever.  Having to sail around for sometimes up to 45 minutes or more to MAYBE find a target of opportunity is a very unfun waste of time that serves no useful purpose.  Leveling up a ship is now a mind numbingly tedious waste of time.  Clearly the developers hate casual players to don't have a lot of time.  Clearly the developers hate players who have an interest in something other than PvP.  Clearly the developers hate solo players who have no interest in joining a clan.  Clearly the developers hate players who don't have deep pockets to afford multiple accounts.

I don't recall using the word perfectly.  That is your distortion.  But hey, if you need to be so literal then more power to you and any semantic games and false dilemmas you wish to embrace.  The simulations can be reasonably accurate instead of perfectly accurate.  They can be relatively accurate (i.e. as in relative to how other ships handle) instead of perfectly accurate.  But sure, I would LOVE the chance to sail and fight the ships with perfect accuracy so I can adapt and overcome exactly the same way real skippers had to adapt and overcome.  Then I could then use that benchmark as the standard for determining/measuring how to tweak the ships for reasonable playability and still have a reasonable level of accuracy.  I have no interest in playing Fantasy Naval Action, and I am getting sick and tired of the developers treating us like we are stupid children that they need to manipulate into playing the game the way they want us to play it instead of empowering us to play it the way we want to play it. But this is a topic for a different discussion.

If the damage carronades do is reasonably accurate to how carronades actually performed then there is no valid reason to arbitrarily change them.  Physics is physics.

[Angus MacDuff]

Too realistic is too slow.  @Tom Farseer is correct there.  Also, realism in some regards is a big problem to other aspects of the game.  An Indef with all carros , or any other ship with all carros is way too powerful for her rate.  Part of this problem is that the carros in game are far too accurate.  These guns were massively powerful, but in RL they were only of use in extremely close quarters.  That is why, in general, they constituted only a small percentage of the guns.  we don't want perfectly accurate sailing because it would be a yawn fest and we need to get a handle on the gun balance because overpowered guns with unrealistic accuracy is an ongoing problem.

[Angus MacDuff]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 9:53 AM, Tom Farseer said:

Voted with majority except on Indef: s
Should be 5th rate if carronades are banned from main gun deck. With full carro armament she can contend with any 4th rate, making her de facto a 4th rate.

Agree with you there except to say that there are too many carros/POODs on all ships

Edited March 8, 2019 by Angus MacDuff