Implac vs redout

[ashley]

4 hours ago, Ponk said:

So your argument that the Implacable and Redoubtable should be close in stats based on design, while it's ok for the Rättvisan vs kronprins to not be is just freakin lazy from your part.

It dosnt matter what type of wood I am comparing the ships from, the point is the rng block and resource block a person get by not spending money on a equal ship which have no real drawback from the crafted one

 

This is not my argument at all. I've said it at least 3 times now yet you continue to argue. My argument is that if you want to compare 2 ships, don't give 1 seasoned woods and the other non seasoned woods and say the stats are off. You are increasing the stats yourself by adding seasoned woods to one and not the other, if you want to compare redoubtable and implacable, compare them BOTH, I'll say it again just to make sure you didn't miss it, compare them BOTH, with either seasoned or non seasoned wood.

Whether you want to believe it or not, objectively speaking, comparing the ships with different woods types is one of the main things that "matters" when doing a comparison. I know a lot of people hate objectivity here but you gotta accept it.

 

Hopefully you finally started to pay attention.

Edited January 31, 2020 by ashley

[Ponk]

9 hours ago, ashley said:

 

This is not my argument at all. I've said it at least 3 times now yet you continue to argue. My argument is that if you want to compare 2 ships, don't give 1 seasoned woods and the other non seasoned woods and say the stats are off. You are increasing the stats yourself by adding seasoned woods to one and not the other, if you want to compare redoubtable and implacable, compare them BOTH, I'll say it again just to make sure you didn't miss it, compare them BOTH, with either seasoned or non seasoned wood.

Whether you want to believe it or not, objectively speaking, comparing the ships with different woods types is one of the main things that "matters" when doing a comparison. I know a lot of people hate objectivity here but you gotta accept it.

 

Hopefully you finally started to pay attention.

And I still hope you would just read the OP and see I am not trying to discuss the diffrence in power of a ship I am trying to focus om availability, the PRICE!!! 

The Wood does not matter. if I post one fir/fir or lo/wo(s) the PRICE is still the same.

I am talking about that you CAN redeem a ship better than the basic version of the crafted one, in the top of it's rate class, that is being blocked by a RNG permit.

While you cannot redeem a Hermione better than a basic Endymion or a basic Trincomalee, a Rättvisan better than the Agamemnon, or a Leopard better than a basic Agamemnon.

And here is your qoute "Of course a seasoned ship is gonna have better stats than an unseasoned ship. Bad comparison."  Which only works if it's the same ship, these two arn't, the same as with Wasa and Rättvisan, even though they are the same design(historically, not depicted in game. Devs artistic freedom to do whatever).

My main reason for postning the images was the gun layout. Everything else is just a bonus 

Hopefully you finally start to pay attention

Edited February 1, 2020 by Ponk

[Ponk]

1 minute ago, RepairyMcRepairous said:

Looking at those stats inplaceble is better

Soo? Is it stil blocked by a rng permit?

[Sea Archer]

I don't think that 1st-3rd rates should be redeemables at all, it should only be the permit you get. Now you can redeem a full battle fleet every day, while the non-paying players can be happy to have one similar ship a week, even without having guaranteed s-woods. 

I understand that the devs want to earn some money, but imo this is the wrong way.

[Serk]

32 minutes ago, Sea Archer said:

I don't think that 1st-3rd rates should be redeemables at all, it should only be the permit you get. Now you can redeem a full battle fleet every day, while the non-paying players can be happy to have one similar ship a week, even without having guaranteed s-woods. 

I understand that the devs want to earn some money, but imo this is the wrong way.

+1, but just to add a precision: no one here is a « non-paying player ». We all bought the game at one time or another. 

[The Geth]

12 minutes ago, Serk said:

no one here is a « non-paying player ». We all bought the game at one time or another. 

Just another reason to reconsider adding high-level DLC. Many of the people who bought this game didn't sign up for the eventuality of having to purchase seasoned DLC ships to stay competitive. This is the worst kind of power creep, the kind that can only be fixed by opening your purse.

[Vizzini]

up until the release of the Leopard, wasn't every dlc also available for ingame currency ?

I wouldn't be surprised to see the recent arrivals available for combat marks in the near future

 

but in all seriousness people whine about P2W but I have yet to see anybody define what that means in a MMO

 

[Kira The Lost Soul]

I fully agree that any dlc ship from 3rd and up and should be a Free, redeemable and nontradeable permit instead. I even feel the same of 4th rate dlc and that is with me having Leopard.
Because dlc ship allow you to bypass the entire economy side of the game.

Player A owning Redoutable will bypass all this stuff needed (if the website is up to date here):


Meanwhile Player B wanting to build Implacable need to gather all of this to build it

That right there is a diffinition of p2w in term of bypassing so much effort/ingame cost.

If these DLC ship from 4th and up was free redeemable, nontradable permit everyone would be on equal footing.
As a plus bonus, people with DLC could decide what port bonus to get, aka where to build it like normal ship.

Edited February 1, 2020 by Kira The Lost Soul
mistype a word

[ashley]

4 hours ago, Ponk said:

And here is your qoute "Of course a seasoned ship is gonna have better stats than an unseasoned ship. Bad comparison."  Which only works if it's the same ship, these two arn't, the same as with Wasa and Rättvisan, even though they are the same design(historically, not depicted in game. Devs artistic freedom to do whatever).

But they are the same ship. All Temeraire class ships were built to the same specifications.

 

The Wasa class ships were not all built to the same specifications. I have already said this and provided you a link you wanted so stop going back to the Wasa class.

 

I'm not the one that needs to pay attention buddy.

[Ponk]

1 minute ago, ashley said:

But they are the same ship. All Temeraire class ships were built to the same specifications.

 

The Wasa class ships were not all built to the same specifications. I have already said this and provided you a link you wanted so stop going back to the Wasa class.

 

I'm not the one that needs to pay attention buddy.

And you seem to be a troll that can't read a post before posting something completely irrelevant. 

[Galvez88]

The next is cutter vs basic cutter 

[erelkivtuadrater]

btw anyone have a size comparison between wasa and redoutable? on threedecks.org redoutable should be 5m longer at the gundeck, and the gunports are 2,4-2,7m between them. So in theory Redoutable should have more or less 3 gunports more. I feel like either the redoutable and implacable are really oversized or the other 3rd rates are undersized. Because Implacable and Redoutable seems MASSIVE in therms of being 3rd rates

Edited February 1, 2020 by erelkivtuadrater

[AeRoTR]

The funny thing is, everyone saying why do you compare a dlc ship with "seasoned woods" to a ....

Why would anyone redeem a dlc ship without seasoned woods ? Having option to select normal woods on dlc ship is nonsense, will be done when people mistakenly selects so. @admin should remove the selection of normal woods from redeem screen.

And yes you always have to compare dlc ships with seasoned woods, they are what they are now. 

[ashley]

1 hour ago, Ponk said:

And you seem to be a troll that can't read a post before posting something completely irrelevant. 

 

Nothing I said is irrelevant, you made the claim that the Redoutable has better stats than the Implacable yet you used a comparison weighted in favour of the Redoubtable to do it. You then tried to argue against my point and included the Wasa class so I promptly removed that argument yet you decided to try and stick with it.

You don't have to agree, but objectively speaking, your comparison was completely skewed and anyone with common sense would have realised that. Perhaps they'll sell a common sense dlc at some point that I can gift you...

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

Fake comparison. Use same woods on both of them or it is not worth a look.

Shame on you for trying to fool the audience.

[ashley]

3 hours ago, AeRoTR said:

The funny thing is, everyone saying why do you compare a dlc ship with "seasoned woods" to a ....

Why would anyone redeem a dlc ship without seasoned woods ? Having option to select normal woods on dlc ship is nonsense, will be done when people mistakenly selects so. @admin should remove the selection of normal woods from redeem screen.

And yes you always have to compare dlc ships with seasoned woods, they are what they are now. 

Everyone keeps saying that people won't redeem dlc ships with normal woods so the comparison works but its completely wrong. What you say is right, in the fact that people will always redeem DLC ships with seasoned wood, but you cannot say that one ship has better stats than another when you are giving one seasoned and one unseasoned woods. How, why, when and where you redeem ships is irrelevant when comparing stats.

Edited February 1, 2020 by ashley

[AeRoTR]

5 hours ago, ashley said:

you cannot say that one ship has better stats than another when you are giving one seasoned and one unseasoned woods. How, why, when and where you redeem ships is irrelevant when comparing stats.

I can redeem that beast everyday with S wood, but they can not craft S wood Bellona everyday, not alone, not even with a clan.

[TheDread]

Seriously, I don't get why people don't understand what he's trying to do.  He's presenting the 'casual' configuration of both ships - what the average player can make in a day and sail out to do some pvp.   Most players won't be crafting a seasoned implacable to take to the PZ, but they can redeem a seasoned redoubtable.  

Sure, it would be more academically interesting to present Unseasoned Redoubtable vs Seasoned Redoubtable  vs Unseasoned Implacable vs Seasoned Implacable in 4 tabs.   But the most important number there won't be hull thickness...  it will be a calculation of how many gameplay hours and labor hours and reals it takes to make each - 0 for both redoubtables, A small pile for an unseasoned Implac and a gigantic pile for the seasoned one.   

[Dave Hadley]

Stop trying to nerf my 37 euros lol

[ashley]

14 hours ago, AeRoTR said:

I can redeem that beast everyday with S wood, but they can not craft S wood Bellona everyday, not alone, not even with a clan.

Whether you can redeem 1 a day or 100 a day doesn't matter. Read what I have been writing before you reply. OP was comparing the stats of the ships. I literally can't make it any clearer.

[Ponk]

On 2/1/2020 at 2:42 PM, ashley said:

 

Nothing I said is irrelevant, you made the claim that the Redoutable has better stats than the Implacable yet you used a comparison weighted in favour of the Redoubtable to do it. You then tried to argue against my point and included the Wasa class so I promptly removed that argument yet you decided to try and stick with it.

You don't have to agree, but objectively speaking, your comparison was completely skewed and anyone with common sense would have realised that. Perhaps they'll sell a common sense dlc at some point that I can gift you...

Cool man except that what I have said is that you CAN redeem a ship WITH BETTER stats than the basic build of the other. Which I tried to specify later on except you continue to write as you apperently know more of what point I try to make then I do. If you are unsure what point I try to make then you can ask me to clarify, not do what you did writing shit like ,"what ponk is trying to do"  And then continue om your dumb assumption that you know better than me what My point is about. 

If you can redeem something better than a basic build of a RNG permit ship, then there is No point in having it be a RNG permit ship.

You then continued with saying ships are of the same design which does not matter since its clearly not a 100% historacly accurate game which i further try to point out with the Rättvisan/Wasa since these two dont follow history. Devs can do whatever to balance a game.

My comparision is not skewed, it is only skewed because you think I am trying to make a point based on how you think, which I over and over try to explain you I am not, either you are on the spectrum, or you are actively trying to sway every single word I write into how you think, then you are a troll.

Just stop trying to tell yourself and others you understand my point wich you painfully clearly do NOT and stop bending reality like a  bloody salvador dali painting. Nothing you have posted is relevant att all to the point. Stop trying to advocate that it is.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Ponk

[Louis Garneray]

I get it, it's the regularity of production (every 24h available to build it with any wood you want [read seasoned wood of course]) that creates the inequality.

If you want its sistership it will cost you time, doubloon, material and some RNG luck.

If at least the RNG luck was removed it would help a little.

[ashley]

1 hour ago, Ponk said:

Cool man except that what I have said is that you CAN redeem a ship WITH BETTER stats than the basic build of the other. Which I tried to specify later on except you continue to write as you apperently know more of what point I try to make then I do. If you are unsure what point I try to make then you can ask me to clarify, not do what you did writing shit like ,"what ponk is trying to do"  And then continue om your dumb assumption that you know better than me what My point is about.

Your mistake was not specifying your argument correctly in your OP. Instead you mold it around whatever I say, therefore I am still focusing on your OP. Hopefully the next new post you make will be better explained at the start.

 

1 hour ago, Ponk said:

If you can redeem something better than a basic build of a RNG permit ship, then there is No point in having it be a RNG permit ship.

This comparison once again is stupid. You are saying that because a ship you can easily get is better than another ship that needs a rare permit that permits shouldn't exist. The Trinc is better than the Renomee, should we remove the permit for Renomee then? L'Ocean is better than Bellona, shall we remove Bellona permit too?

You see how stupid this argument is?

 

1 hour ago, Ponk said:

My comparision is not skewed, it is only skewed because you think I am trying to make a point based on how you think, which I over and over try to explain you I am not, either you are on the spectrum, or you are actively trying to sway every single word I write into how you think, then you are a troll.

I have told you how the comparison is skewed, your OP said " you can get the Redoubt with pretty much better stats once everyday " yet you used a seasoned ship vs a non seasoned ship to support that. If you change your argument half way through a discussion that's not my fault, that's on you for not properly communicating your argument in the first place. Calling someone a troll is a tactic used quite often to discredit or dismiss someones argument, unfortunately I am not a troll and you simply don't like being challenged.

 

1 hour ago, Ponk said:

Just stop trying to tell yourself and others you understand my point wich you painfully clearly do NOT and stop bending reality like a  bloody salvador dali painting. Nothing you have posted is relevant att all to the point. Stop trying to advocate that it is.

YOU don't even understand your own point, you have changed and added things to your argument as we have gone on to help back up your poorly written argument in the OP. Once again, that's on you, not me. I'll continue to attack your original point.

Edited February 2, 2020 by ashley

[Louis Garneray]

4 hours ago, ashley said:

YOU don't even understand your own point, you have changed and added things to your argument as we have gone on to help back up your poorly written argument in the OP. Once again, that's on you, not me. I'll continue to attack your original point.

stubbornness is not always the best...

 

[ashley]

20 hours ago, Louis Garneray said:

stubbornness is not always the best...

 

That's very subjective...