Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Timber stats for next week patch


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

Can't you think for yourself?

Question is can you?

You see the word meta and come on here to say death to meta. Have you bothered to compare the stats? What is getting nerfed or buffed? If you would bother reading what most of the people have wrote is that we have largely achieved balance across the board and there is no clear meta atm. However, with proposed thickness changes and speed changes to the teaks it will create a teak meta all over again. 

Edited by Redman29
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thanks for the very thoughtful analysis. This short post will explain everything to you. Many wont understand but you will. Premise Previous cost balancing system was a huge idiocy. It was b

This coming from the Department that does nothing but drastic decisions.   I do not even care anymore what you do with woods just pick a stat and leave it alone ffs. We are getting tired of

Posted Images

On 7/10/2020 at 2:13 PM, admin said:

You should not make drastic decisions. The data in the table is provided for review and discussion. It might change (not significanly).

This coming from the Department that does nothing but drastic decisions.

 

I do not even care anymore what you do with woods just pick a stat and leave it alone ffs. We are getting tired of this game being treated as if it is still in BETA development. There is no reason why a game that is released shuld have massive changes made to it. That is what Alpha and Beta are for. When you release that is it except for slight tweaks. When are these DEVS gonna stop radically changing this game every other week. There is no reason for this constant changing of stuff. Bring back a test server so you can get things right before loading them into the game and messing up everyone's experience. Once a change has been decided as good in the test server then load it into the real game. This way you can see what effects are and get the appropriate feedback without massively disrupting everyone's game play with fixes that actually break things.

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Artagnu Pedrugn said:

This coming from the Department that does nothing but drastic decisions.

 

I do not even care anymore what you do with woods just pick a stat and leave it alone ffs. We are getting tired of this game being treated as if it is still in BETA development. There is no reason why a game that is released shuld have massive changes made to it. That is what Alpha and Beta are for. When you release that is it except for slight tweaks. When are these DEVS gonna stop radically changing this game every other week. There is no reason for this constant changing of stuff. Bring back a test server so you can get things right before loading them into the game and messing up everyone's experience. Once a change has been decided as good in the test server then load it into the real game. This way you can see what effects are and get the appropriate feedback without massively disrupting everyone's game play with fixes that actually break things.

This. Players expect patches to be of the same state as the game. Pre-alpha patches hotfixed significantly back and forth several times dont fit to a  released game..

If you arent sure how a patch works on the game balance, test it before it goes live.

 

Edited by Jan van Santen
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not talking necessarily about new timber (though there may be a connection), but if a released game receives design changes (here RvR rules, port battle initiation, flags), it is a direct reaction on abuse and exploits done by players. You've read like I did devs got tired of receiving complaints in tribunal about various exploits, griefing, whatever. They are trying to fight them.

How to fight them? By changing stuff.

If they would not change anything and just turn a blind eye, you would say: "devs don't care about us, they don't fix problems" up to absurd allegations in the style of "game is abandoned".

So...

be glad someone is investing time and effort to fix stuff caused by players, which in turn angered other players. Alpha. Beta. Released game. These are just words. What matters is the result. Or ongoing attempts in direction of a better result. Perhaps not always understood by particular players. Who defend their beloved petrified 'meta' or whatever.

Some trial and error seems unavoidable, too. Or finding the golden bridge of perfect balance, while from right and left flank reactionary player types keep shooting at unwelcome changes and influencing devs into reverting them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest don't see in which way the main problems in rvr will be fixed by new woods except giving to rich nation more powerful ships.. So funny to see bumping balls shooed by a first rate over the side of a second rate.. I like to fight against the best players, is a way to learn, but dude i don't have time to live inside a game to be competitive. 

All the new and seasoned woods for the new players, or back to the old one only. 

Add npc fleets around the seas to cap the flags, not to travel till a capital, is a time waste, one hour and more to find them with the risk to be tagged and sink by player is not a win win is a waste of time. 

O7

Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I dumped my live oak forest for a locust forest because it had thickness and speed, which I value over thickness and hit points (live oak).  Now locust and live oak are the same, but you're buffing teak to make locust irrelevant.  

Please make locust thickness and speed again, and keep live oak thickness and hit points as it was before the latest changes.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's got "timber stats for next week" to do with exploit fixing ?

And where did players complain about exploit fixing ?

On the contrary, it was players pointing to what needed to be fixed several times after that half-ready patch was released.

Speaking for myself only, and pointing

a) to a thing that could easily have been fixed by testing the patch before going live and

b) to the fact that several other posters had to point the devs to similar flaws of this patch:

 

On 6/26/2020 at 2:11 PM, Jan van Santen said:

A lo(s)/wo(s) LO is now faster than a lo(s)/tk(s) LO ? (9.02 vs 8.97 )

On 7/10/2020 at 3:27 PM, admin said:

Fix the inconsistencies (like teak slower than white oak),
 

Edited by Jan van Santen
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jan van Santen said:

 

If you arent sure how a patch works on the game balance, test it before it goes live.

 

In last 2 test servers testers failed to identify critical issues unfortunately (not their fault - there were just not enough of them). Critical issues could only be found by live usage. So for us test servers are a waste of time and resources with 1 programmer.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Redman29 said:

Teak (S) at 4.4%, Teak at 3.4%, Malabar Teak at 2.4% and then African Teak at 1.4%. 


The philosophy is 
Teak - ok
Teak S - great 
Rare teaks - super but rare

 

 

20 hours ago, Redman29 said:

These woods will still be highly sought after even without any proposed buffs and simply make teak redundant

They will be highly sought after yes. And they wont make teak redundant as there is just not enough supply. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, admin said:

In last 2 test servers testers failed to identify critical issues unfortunately (not their fault - there were just not enough of them). Critical issues could only be found by live usage. So for us test servers are a waste of time and resources with 1 programmer.

Not iirc. I did eg point you to the fact that cargo for cargo missions should not have zero weight as it had on testbed. You  still brought it to live patch with zero weight ...and later had to fix it bec it led to an exploit like mechanics of clans stockpileing missions.

Also i am sure players could have pointed you to the flaws of the timber patch after testing on  testbed.

But ofc its your choice whats the greater problem and your call what takes more work.

In the end I think testing patches on live server is detrimental for the games reputation, its reviews...and its sales.

Edited by Jan van Santen
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin said:

Teak S - great 

the problem is that with incomig patch teak will be very very super all players love Despe mega great, and imho will be an imbalance on that. Buff on thickness stats is not necesary atm, i guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, admin said:

In last 2 test servers testers failed to identify critical issues unfortunately (not their fault - there were just not enough of them). Critical issues could only be found by live usage. So for us test servers are a waste of time and resources with 1 programmer.

Really? Can you give some example?
I participated in testing of new damage model combined with introducing delivery missions and long-distance trade and numbers was tuned quite a lot during that testing.
It's understandable that some things can't be tested properly with small numbers of players, but at least you can balance them more precisely.

And it's interesting that during implementing economic changes that time you've made similar mistake as with current new rare Woods, but with repairs. Just as mentioned here:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Despe said:

the problem is that with incomig patch teak will be very very super all players love Despe mega great, and imho will be an imbalance on that. Buff on thickness stats is not necesary atm, i guess.

Even though I think balance is very important in the game, we should not forget that teak was and still is one of the best if not the best and most popular wood in shipbuilding. That is why I think it is right that teak has better values overall than most other woods.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lizzo said:

 That is why I think it is right that teak has better values overall than most other woods.

Following the vids on https://sampsonboat.co.uk about restoring a historic 48 ft/14.6m (LOA) race cutter will quickly rid you of that view:

If you want a top quality wooden ship and have a choice of the best materials, still today you  use seasoned live oak and seasoned white oak for frame and planks. Other woods are used in special parts of the ship only, teak eg for deck planks. Zjere are several episodes in the video series where the shipwright takes care to pick the best woods and explains his choices.

Also this ship won the Fastnet  regatta, being one of only 2 out of 15 ships actually reaching the finish....which goes to show that lo(s) /wo(s) doesnt historically mean "slow" but it meant tough....

Same as the oak built Endymion was faster than her pine (fir) sister ships...

Building a ship from tk entirely was limited to shipyards in regions that had plenty of tk but none of the better woods.

Edited by Jan van Santen
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sento de Benimaclet said:

DAmn, how many new woods, I'm going to have to go to Leroy Merlin for advice. Someone who understands it .. what new woods would you use for PvP and which ones for RvR? Thanks in advance.

your best choice is netlify's ship comparison (once the devs have finished hotfixing) 

https://na-map.netlify.app

you could also use the devs own spreadsheet, but thats to confuddled for good old crafting me....

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mM1LEvwbt1tXOudiDUpTsT97wum_DvZDEs-S1YrkVBw/edit?pli=1#gid=1878153524

 

Edited by Jan van Santen
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jan van Santen said:

your best choice is netlify's ship comparison (once the devs have finished hotfixing) 

https://na-map.netlify.app

you could also use the devs own spreadsheet, but thats to confuddled for good old crafting me....

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mM1LEvwbt1tXOudiDUpTsT97wum_DvZDEs-S1YrkVBw/edit?pli=1#gid=1878153524

Thank you very much. º7

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, admin said:


The philosophy is 
Teak - ok
Teak S - great 
Rare teaks - super but rare

The staging of the teak varieties as it is currently, is in my opinion ok.
The rare teak varieties were popular (although they only have small advantages in total), and the players are willing to pay high prices for it, as you can see. And they also fit well into the field of non-teak woods

Why not leave it like it is now, or consider Redman's suggestion?

The new adjustments should be limited to the speed of white oak only and to the search for a place for the new fir types and the other non popular types of new woods.

Edited by Holm Hansen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Holm Hansen said:

The new adjustments should be limited to the speed of white oak only and to the search for a place for the new fir types and the other non popular types of new woods.

Why not teak style ?

Fir ok fast

Fir (s) great faster

Rare Firs super fast but rare ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 12:27 PM, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

I am ready to run up the wall each time I hear about "meta". Can't you think for yourself? Always you need a canonized 'better-than-all' solution what all sheep are supposed to have.

If all wood reconsidering in stats have the ultimate aim to destroy any "meta" but offer many valuable combinations, I think the purpose of this revolution is met!

Death to the 'meta'!

True, why should all armies in the world use guns.. Lets go back to the middleage with sword and plate armour with cavalry right.. And use trebuchets instead of long distance rockets.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2020 at 7:50 AM, admin said:

The philosophy is 
Teak - ok
Teak S - great 
Rare teaks - super but rare

I agree with that. Even so, I would consider Malabar Teak and African Teak super compared to Seasoned Teak even if they didn't have the same speed. 

I also have concerns, as this allows the super teaks to be able to outclass several wood types, including some of the heavier woods.

image.thumb.png.f34ef97df0eb85b431205c023d93f720.png

These are the stats currently in game. Malabar Teak and African Teak on paper can take on most of these woods with no problem. The balance comes in with speed and hitpoints. Ships that are weaker than Malabar Teak and African Teak in terms of combination of hp and thickness (Danzig Oak, Oak (S), Teak (S), and Italian Larch) are faster, enabling them to disengage or control the engagement if they are the one's that initiated the engagement. Ships that are on par with Malabar Teak and African Teak in terms of hp and thickness (White Oak (S) and Sabicu (S)) have comparable speeds. Which means Malabar Teak and African Teak will have harder times controlling the terms of the engagement, enabling the ships with higher hp the possibility to get in close to negate the Teaks high thickness values. 

image.thumb.png.6a0ee8a30b5c3cdcbec00a59090f05fc.png

Now with the new stats. African Teak, Malabar Teak, Teak (S), and Danzig Oak have the best speed values of the ones listed above. Since they have the same speed values, Teak (S) will struggle to disengage from a Malabar Teak or African Teak ship in which it has little chance of winning a fight against. Danzig Oak is the least hit out of this as it still has the possibility to try and close the distance and make it's hp work in it's favor. The ones that really get hit hard are Oak (S), Italian Larch, White Oak (S), and Sabicu (S). Oak (S) and Italian Larch which will struggle in a fight against the super teaks no longer have the possibility to disengage, where as before they did. With White Oak (S) and Sabicu (S), which could fight the super teaks if they were able to close the distance and make their hp work will now struggle as the speed difference has gone from marginally similar to 3-3.8% faster. This means the super teaks will be able to control the distance, thereby ensuring that White Oak and Sabicu have no chance of being able to compete by closing the distance in which they can use their hp pool to their advantage. 

African Teak and Malabar Teak were already extremely strong but with their speed it enabled other ships to somewhat compete or have a chance a competing or the very least to disengage. With their proposed speed, combined with their high thickness values and ok hp values then they will be able to control the range of almost every engagement and a ship that can close the distance to them won't have the hp to fight them. 

That's the reason for my suggestion of their speed being staggered and I would honestly make Malabar Teak slower than African Teak if you choose to stagger them, but still keeping them within .5% difference of one another. 

Edited by Redman29
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2020 at 6:46 AM, admin said:

In last 2 test servers testers failed to identify critical issues unfortunately (not their fault - there were just not enough of them). Critical issues could only be found by live usage. So for us test servers are a waste of time and resources with 1 programmer.

This is funny cause I know a lot of exploits and bugs that we reported in test before the patch went live and they still went live and was later fixed after the server blew up on Devs.  It blew some of our minds when you ignored major problems we pointed out and changed the things that where working.

 

Hell I pretty much lived on the test servers cause I wanted to find problems and reeport them as did others.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with everything, but this:

1 hour ago, Redman29 said:

 ...and I would honestly make Malabar Teak slower than African Teak if you choose to stagger them.

If Malabar Teak, in addition to the lower thickness bonus, were additional slower than African Teak, no one would choose Malabar Teak, when you have to invest large sums of money for the purchase of the wood.

A few percent more hitpionts could hardly compensate that. The hp difference would have to be bigger then. But then it would go into the range of oak woods, which of course should not be the case.

It would create a wood that nobody use, like Caguairan and Sabicu, before the big wood change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Holm Hansen said:

I'm fine with everything, but this:

If Malabar Teak, in addition to the lower thickness bonus, were additional slower than African Teak, no one would choose Malabar Teak, when you have to invest large sums of money for the purchase of the wood.

A few percent more hitpionts could hardly compensate that. The hp difference would have to be bigger then. But then it would go into the range of oak woods, which of course should not be the case.

It would create a wood that nobody use, like Caguairan and Sabicu, before the big wood change.

The speed difference right now is .4% between the two and both are selling in the 15-20k range. .4% by the way is less than .1 knots on most ships, something like .04 knots on a Buc for example. 

Both these woods have the highest thickness values in game. Trust me, both are going to stay very valuable with or without the proposed buffs. 

I should of clarified though. When I meant having Malabar Teak slower than African Teak I was thinking more in line with the current difference between the two. 

Preferably, I believe the speed should be left alone in regards to the frame parts of the Teaks. And the super teaks really shouldn't be faster than 2% at most in my opinion. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Redman29 said:

The speed difference right now is .4% between the two and both are selling in the 15-20k range. .4% by the way is less than .1 knots on most ships, something like .04 knots on a Buc for example. 

Both these woods have the highest thickness values in game. Trust me, both are going to stay very valuable with or without the proposed buffs. 

I should of clarified though. When I meant having Malabar Teak slower than African Teak I was thinking more in line with the current difference between the two. 

Preferably, I believe the speed should be left alone in regards to the frame parts of the Teaks. And the super teaks really shouldn't be faster than 2% at most in my opinion. 

 

so with the values as they are live now, i completely statisfied with them.

malabar +speed
african +thickness
(only compared between these two, and minimal differences)

it makes both types of wood equally valuable, whereby the speed bonus of malabar does not come anywhere near the range of the weaker teak types. for me this sounds balanced

27 minutes ago, Redman29 said:

...

Both these woods have the highest thickness values in game. Trust me, both are going to stay very valuable with or without the proposed buffs. 

...

it´s correct, but nobody will choose the second best solution if he has to make a very high effort for both. so everyone would go for African teak, if it is ahead on both bonuses.

Edited by Holm Hansen
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...