Seasonal Patch: The Missing Links Part 1

[Botq]

@admin You have buffed side thickness but i think bow and stern thickness stayed same. Probably forgot or intended ?

[admin]

23 minutes ago, Lieste said:

This is a subset of the data from the Missing Link patch, (Carronades, Long Guns, and three sample thicknesses (1st rate, large frigate 5th rate, brig)).
On the left the bizarrely manipulated data for this 'fix' and on the right, an estimate based on one set of parameters consistently modelled for the same guns using the nominal shot size.

Note that to obtain this level of performance from smaller guns, the historical forumulae for penetration require upwards of 4000 fps in the "fixed" model. (It goes without saying, but I will say it anyway that this is a ludicrous level of performance (also note that the carronade performance has been tuned in the opposite direction to anything shown in the historical record, being completely different to the penetration characteristics of double shot, which it should match nearly exactly, losing around 800m+ of range for penetration of a thickness compared to it's own calibre gunshot, but being subsonic retaining a higher proportion of the penetration it starts with over longer range than the gun is able to do.

Your chart on the right is wrong - where is it taken from?

This is how pen looked for 24lb for example
https://imgur.com/pZN8qZW

https://imgur.com/kWqJeU6

In terms of of penetration we don't see overperformance, that you infer or derive in your statements  

 

• 36lb medium gun has 31 inch (79.8 cm) on a historical table at 1km
• 36lb medium gun has 80.2 pen in game!
• At point blank the difference is slightly higher (175 in game vs 167.64 historically)

But this difference is negligible statistic wise. Not sure what you mean by liducrous level of performance

We have proper curves now compered to before and we have better penetrations compared to before (much closer to realism in shape and somewhat historical even in numbers)

[Thonys]

just a shot in the dark

is it not better to have separate values for

-british gun

-and french /dutch guns 

they use different charts for the metric system and load of ammo.

 

[Rektified]

7 hours ago, admin said:

All changes serve the purpose; to recreate the historical combat in battles. 

Deadpiratebob knew this since feb 2016.
I am pushing for changes i want in game. We were rookies before and allowed some features to be designed by the committee of the arcmchair designers with no experience in game making, were not appreciated for that nor got any reward. We value all feedback very much, but not all feedback is valuable for the game (or possible to implement)

Now we weather storms with calm. Wind is howling, ship is going. 

Wind shadow is perfect and all professional sailors said it is almost exactly the same in real life.

You guys have this strange attitude...

You make some vague claim in the past and then radically alter the game to fit your vision - not caring that you're upsetting a dwindling playerbase.  The game isn't going to grow much any more.  With every major change, even if it pleases 60% of people, 30% are neutral or accept it, but 10% hate it... you lose that 10%.  You guys HAVE to be careful.  Nowhere were wind shadows mentioned in 2016.  You vaguely talked about them last year.  Even earlier this year the chance was only "30%".

And for all your claims of being experienced developers - and you have become experienced - there's still a lot to learn from the playerbase.  Remember when you nerfed trade missions so they gave almost no dubs?  You had to revert that change because people were pointing out that newbies couldn't compete and casual players couldn't rebuild.

The playerbase works *around* many game design decisions.  There's a reluctance to take crafting ports because everyone knows that they're going to lose players and content.

Other decisions of yours - to introduce increasingly more powerful and expensive woods - are made (presumably) with seemingly-sound reasoning in mind, to reduce the number of reals in the economy... but that leaves casual and semi-casual players even further behind.  People with 6-7 accounts don't have much difficulty sustaining those builds.

And the original bad decision - to include clans AND nations - continues to haunt this game.  Combined with the devastating cost of rebuilding economies, people figured out the only way to consistently have fun is to join the biggest nations.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Rektified

[admin]

36 minutes ago, Lieste said:

The 24lb has 149cm at 27 yds. (distant charge). Ignore the line above for 1/2 charge as that is not a service charge, but rather a proofing charge. **

 

I am sorry but we are not going ignore something just because you said so. 

62.99 inch pen for the 24lb is almost 160 and in game its slightly higher across all guns at close range because we need it so for gameplay. at 1/2 charge its 63 and at 1/3 charge it is 59.99 inches.

You demanding us to use only 1/3 charge pointing at 3 inch difference between 1/3 and 1/2 charge (someones dick) looks weird, dont be that ****

 

Now about this

You call our numbers for carronades arbitrary and MADE UP. 

Arbitrary

Capricious? Random? Unpredictable? No reason or system??

As your computer only understands 1 or 0 - i have to translate everything into ones and zeroes. Its all units and ships are from 5cm to 10 cm on your screen depending on zoom and monitor size. and while we can argue about the unit, we cant say they are arbitrary, as they area deliberately chosen by me to fit the design goals and the game logic/systems. Sometimes they are chosen to just fit the screen.

• For carronades indeed we need the collapsed trajectory while keeping relative differences the same.  
• We do it often across many categories
  • For example if we need to balance certain historical number for three in game elements
    • A 200 units
    • B 100 units
    • C 90 units
    • for gameplay purposes lets say having A at 100 will make 10x more sense - Then all numbers go down while keeping relative differences the same.
    • Same will happen if we need to flatten range (make it more narrow - range will be narrower but relative difference will always stay the same.

Without replication of some historical deficiencies of carronades it is impossible to give them historical range. 

Please refrain from calling something incorrect or arbitrary on this forum without fully understanding of the goals of the systems and what they are trying to achieve or achieve. 

It just started to feel that you are just throwing numbers whenever game numbers are different compared to your opinion to prove the point that everything is wrong.

You know that our in game day is 20 mins. Not too much? How is your data mining is addressing this difference with real life? Or the fact that you can cross cuba in just half an hour (still 10x slowe than any other game?)

 

 

[admin]

19 minutes ago, Lieste said:

Carronades are equivalent to the heavy calibre gun, firing double shot with a reduced charge. With less deck burden, smaller crews and cheaper expenditure of only a single ball and half the powder. Performance wise, they are 'double shot' which is useful against thinner targets, and closer distances because of the reduced margin of performance over thicker sides.

 

That's exactly how they work in game.
They cannot use double shot keep almost all damage from caliber but have slightly starting lower penetration (to due to lower charge) that drops very fast for gameplay purposes to keep them being a short range weapon

It seems you are just attacking arbitrarily for the reasons to be a dick. 

[Urchin]

Well after three battles last night this appears to be the worse update since 8kt boarding.  As expected anything smaller than a ship with 32lb guns is near obsolete.  

 

 

 

[Koltes]

I like most of the changes (especially of sailing mechanics).
Here thoughts and feedback from my clan.

1. Cost of the woods is a game killer right now. People are tired of spending 80% of their time trying to afford ships. We go from dura 5 ships to promote PVP and go to meta woods that only rich large nations/clans can afford making smaller nations out of reach. I think cost of woods needs to be dropped at least half;

2. Costs in general to afford playing is too high. We are ending up going back to 2017 when people couldnt afford to fight.

3. Availability of woods - any important woods that makes PB fleet invincible (such as  African Oak / Malabar Teak) needs to be able to make buildings to harvest and cost to drop - else its making strong stronger and weak weaker.

4. Battlesails needs to have more speed reduction twitch (maybe another knot down), but take even less damage from chains (maybe take 20% sail damage when on battlesails).

5. Cost increase of teleport is a bad idea imho. Teleport was done so smaller nations/clans could get into PBs and fight. 25k was a decent medium that smaller clans can afford to keep fighting. 50k is not manageable to fight PBs over a front line. And it will just halt the RVR as clans now will wait to get the amount rather that use the sailing to port option 

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by Koltes

[admin]

6 minutes ago, Koltes said:

4. Battlesails needs to have more speed reduction 

 

No. There will be a separate post on this tomorrow during hotfix. The sail power increase in proportion to sail raise is 100% perfect according to sources. 
 

[Koltes]

1 minute ago, admin said:

No. There will be a separate post on this tomorrow during hotfix. The sail power increase in proportion to sail raise is 100% perfect according to sources. 
 

I understand the source and not doubting it. Its just makes a less reason why use full sail in the battle. The difference is not high enough. The above suggestion makes sense for different tactics. I guess will have to keep testing it and get more feedback

[DonaldJTrump]

6 minutes ago, admin said:

No. There will be a separate post on this tomorrow during hotfix. The sail power increase in proportion to sail raise is 100% perfect according to sources. 
 

all my friends quit the game because the woods cost more than you can make as a solo player unless you never sink

[admin]

56 minutes ago, Lieste said:

They underperform compared to their equal calibre gun, but match guns of lighter calibre for penetration at moderate ranges.


The 4lb performance requires 4100fps at 27yds- where does this magic performance spring from?  (2lb is 9369 fps if 4000+ wasn't silly enough).

No mate. For game-play they cant match guns of lighter caliber at moderate ranges because then they will devastate light ship combat balance (niagara can carry 32lb). And they did not really match them in reality as it was found by 1860. Read Douglas for example on what eventually was found to be the only key determinant for power in ordnance.

Carronades fulfill my design vision to fill historical and emotional patterns. 

• They replicate the devastation inflicted by HMS Rainbow at close range. |
• And they get outcompeted out of service by long guns at medium and long range found after napoleonic wars around 1815 and up (thats why navies eventually dropped carronades in favor of a long gun), its also confirmed by many period or modern sources. Every treatise on gunnery after 1840 states that the best and most accurate gun is the long gun of heaviest possible caliber. But we need carronades in game and need them to be useful. 

 

Now This vision is fulfilled by current numbers and design.
You of course might not like some numbers that deliver the required result and want to simulate the detailed fps? at 27 yards

Maybe you even want simulate the difference of cannonball flight between shooting towards or against earth rotation. Who knows.. But please find another developer who will be willing to adapt their game to your delicate simulator requests. Hmmmm, interesting is not always fun. 

Not every component of the system must be simulated 

To give you an example 
You can derive 5 in multiple ways.
1+1+1+1+1, 10/2, 3+2, -5*-1. 

I dont even need components in code - i can just set answer to 5.

If HMS Rainbow example (abnormally devastating short range broadside) is 5, and i get 5 in game. I dont need all your components if i always get five. 5 is what users want and we deliver. If you want it at 1+1+1+1+1 but i get it by dividing 10 by 2, you should still be happy, that HMS Rainbow is possible.

[admin]

6 minutes ago, Koltes said:

I understand the source and not doubting it. Its just makes a less reason why use full sail in the battle. The difference is not high enough. The above suggestion makes sense for different tactics. I guess will have to keep testing it and get more feedback

yes no reason.
tomorrow hotfix will make battle sail king. There will be NO reason to fight at full sails (as it was in reality). Full sails will only be for general chase or running, for combat they are becoming useless after tomorrow maintenance.

[Koltes]

2 minutes ago, admin said:

yes no reason.
tomorrow hotfix will make battle sail king. There will be NO reason to fight at full sails (as it was in reality). Full sails will only be for general chase or running, for combat they are becoming useless after tomorrow maintenance.

Ok got ya. Thanks for clarification

Edited August 22, 2020 by Koltes

[admin]

30 minutes ago, Koltes said:

2. Costs in general to afford playing is too high. We are ending up going back to 2017 when people couldnt afford to fight.

 

 

4 hours ago, freddykrueger66 said:

oh god... first the woods and now they made it so cannons cost way more reals to craft too (42 pdr longs went from 103 reals to 2300)... this kind of weird logics is really starting to push me away from this game and makes me think the devs have no clue how people play their game. 

Cost changes are deliberate and calculated. There is no weird logic.

All elements that give power will eventually have exponential cost growth. This is a right way and initial pain and outcry is understandable but will be ignored. 2x power should cost 20x more money. 2300 for long guns is just groshen compared to what navy guns will cost when they will be added to crafting. This is how all mmos work. 

 

Comparisons with WOT or COD are completely out of place Freddy. This is not wot and cod. And free guns at 100 real never gave any retention anyway. We know why.

 

[admin]

59 minutes ago, Lieste said:

performance of *say* 800m to 1200m of the long gun, at 0-400m from the carronade's position (and then continuing at this slow decay to their carry range of 1000m+ at 5 degrees elevation (on carriages capable of 11 degrees or more)).

The 4lb performance requires 4100fps at 27yds- where does this magic performance spring from?  (2lb is 9369 fps if 4000+ wasn't silly enough).

To add a point
Not every component of the system must be simulated 

To give you an example 
You can derive 5 in multiple ways.
1+1+1+1+1, 10/2, 3+2, -5*-1. 

I dont even need components in code - i can just set answer to 5.

If HMS Rainbow example (abnormally devastating short range broadside) is 5, and i get 5 in game. I dont need all your components if i always get five. 5 is what users want and we deliver. If you want it at 1+1+1+1+1 but i get it by dividing 10 by 2, you should still be happy, that HMS Rainbow is possible.

 

59 minutes ago, Lieste said:

 

this is not sea legends . Which is going to be a practical simulator

[DonaldJTrump]

32 minutes ago, admin said:

 

Cost changes are deliberate and calculated. There is no weird logic.

All elements that give power will eventually have exponential cost growth. This is a right way and initial pain and outcry is understandable but will be ignored. 2x power should cost 20x more money. 2300 for long guns is just groshen compared to what navy guns will cost when they will be added to crafting. This is how all mmos work. 

 

Comparisons with WOT or COD are completely out of place Freddy. This is not wot and cod. And free guns at 100 real never gave any retention anyway. We know why.

 

well a lot of people already quit and wont be coming back

[Mercury1]

Personally, I would remove "nation" chat in open world and in Battles ! "Nation" chat should be available only in towns , "Global" chat should be available only in capital towns or free towns,  something like that ! This game just drives me crazy with that  "radio interceptions " ! Some trader attacked by enemy player , trader instantly send telegram to his nation about coordinates " Yes yes nearby that wind over there , yes yes need help, yes take all yours ships " 

P.s i know about "discord" , "team speak" ... etc ! But i think communication with other players when you in open sea is bullshit ) thanks for reading !

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by Mercury1

[Rektified]

1 hour ago, admin said:

All elements that give power will eventually have exponential cost growth. This is a right way and initial pain and outcry is understandable but will be ignored. 2x power should cost 20x more money. 2300 for long guns is just groshen compared to what navy guns will cost when they will be added to crafting. This is how all mmos work. 

Let me just address this because it touches on a point I commented elsewhere:

By making ever more elite hardware for ever more expensive prices, you're contributing to the growing divide in the game and inability of casuals to compete.

Furthermore, by making *competitive* gear expensive, you are reducing the desire and ability of players to engage in PvP.

The way to get more content into the game is to make the loss of competitive ships less painful.

[SIlver_Trail]

So quick question about this patch, Was the daubloon drops removed from PVE kills????

I have killed a number of ships and got nothing but shitty upgrades from 5th-3rd rates

[Macjimm]

15 hours ago, GhostOfDorian said:

That's your business. When players do 5 hours trade sails it's not your business.

You see, I don't mind, if you don't do that grind. I didn't ask to implement it into game, but I will do what is required to get the best ships. As long as you don't complain that my ships are better than your DLCs everything is fine. But as soon as the whining starts, you should think twice about your idea to just play a game which fits more to your play style.

Respectfully, perhaps you misunderstood my post.  I don't mind 5 hours of sailing to trade with others.  I'm not snivelling about the game, or that you think your ships are better than mine.  

I disagree with you when you say "It's the same boredom for everybody. But some people do that grind even though it's boring. Others like you don't do it."   It's not the same for everyone ... I say some players are not bored, and some never grind.  Some players have fun sailing and trading.   What you think is a grind might be nice for others. 

I don't like crafting ships.  For me building ships would be a grind.  And I would rather do other things that spend a half hour, or 5 hours, gaming in manner that was not pleasurable.  

This is not life.  It's a game.  I play games for interest and entertainment. 

NA is interesting and entertaining.  Our Admin is pleased with the combat.  The ship, sea  and scenery graphics are very beautiful. 

[freddykrueger66]

5 hours ago, admin said:

 

Cost changes are deliberate and calculated. There is no weird logic.

All elements that give power will eventually have exponential cost growth. This is a right way and initial pain and outcry is understandable but will be ignored. 2x power should cost 20x more money. 2300 for long guns is just groshen compared to what navy guns will cost when they will be added to crafting. This is how all mmos work. 

 

Comparisons with WOT or COD are completely out of place Freddy. This is not wot and cod. And free guns at 100 real never gave any retention anyway. We know why.

 

Well, it gives unfair disadvantages to casual players. in other mmo's like wow there is also severe grinding but at least you can keep the gear after the grind. It's just not really fun to have this big of a gap in between mods, woods, guns etc. It takes away the skill from this game and promotes this attitude of shit I'm escaping this battle because there is a small chance I lose my expensive ship. Surely that's not how you guys envision the gameplay to be like? So many people just run from battles now and waste your time for 1 hour even in the PZ. What's the point of farming this long for the expensive ships if you only want to use them for ganking? and then you have the people taking dlc ships with medium guns to the PZ without mods and it's a walk in the park to sink them. literally doesn't take any skill to kill them, captured ships are even worse. If the combination of woods, mods and guns in total only make a ship about 15% different that would make sense. The powercreep with unique woods, unique guns, and best mods is just insane. I wonder what people like the most, equal chances with equal ships, or hey he farmed more hours so you lose (unless he's suuuuper bad at the game)

[Conte D. Catellani]

Interesting upgrade : the Trinco fix mean that I can redeem it at will without using the fleet trick? 

Edited August 22, 2020 by Conte D. Catellani

[Aquillas]

8 hours ago, admin said:

yes no reason.
tomorrow hotfix will make battle sail king. There will be NO reason to fight at full sails (as it was in reality). Full sails will only be for general chase or running, for combat they are becoming useless after tomorrow maintenance.

Is it also planned to get  fix about crazy dismasting?

[CaptLouis]

Applause to the Devs for finally addressing the wind and sailing model, sounds like it needs serious tuning though. The term 'wind shadow' is a bit misleading and we'd only use it in RL sailing if for example you were in the lee of an island that blankets you almost completely. The related effect from other vessel's sails is always referred to as 'dirty air' or just 'dirt', because it's turbulent wind - not the absence of wind! Its affect is relative to wind speed as noted in posts above. Apart from in very light airs it has only a marginal effect, but marginal is critical in racing where 1/4 kt or 1/2 kt is quite noticeable. With tuning this feature will really help the game though, removing the arcadey blob battle nonsense.

Really happy to see battle sails becoming almost obligatory too. Unless chasing or fleeing, no captain in the age of sail would have gone into action without furled courses in their right mind. Topsails give you the speed and control you need, and crucially they counteract both heel and roll (the variation in heel due to wind and wave). Would love to see these two more distinct in the game.

Please can we have control of bracing over all three masts on a ship rigged ship, not just foremast and everything aft ganged together. You still can't heave-to by backing your main mast, 5+ years after I started playing There need to be controls for all three masts!

Dismasting (especially with ball shot) was way rarer in reality than in the game. There are plenty of accounts of even slender topmasts having multiple shot embedded in them after a battle to no detriment. 'Aiming' for a mast is completely retarded nonsense, it would be a very lucky and probably ineffective shot. Dismasting was all about shooting the backstays, usually with bar shot if available. Chain worked too but was better for attacking running riggng. The other strategy, used by the British in particular, was to target the chains with ball to weaken the weather shrouds. Halliards and other running rigging are significantly more likely to receive damage than for a dismasting to happen.

Edit: more nuanced rigging damage and less dismasting will make for a skillful, interesting and fun game.

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by CaptLouis