Seasonal Patch: The Missing Links Part 1

[Farrago]

2 hours ago, Archaos said:

I guess if they remove global chat then they have to remove the help chat too as if not everyone would use help chat as global.

That's why it would need to be moderated.

[Archaos]

5 minutes ago, Farrago said:

That's why it would need to be moderated.

The problem is that for proper moderation you need moderators who are always going to be online and for an unpaid job that is not very likely. We have had moderators before and what has happened to them? Some no longer play, some have probably given up moderating due to abuse they have received or accusations of being biased, there has even been tribunals raised regarding the mods.

For proper moderation you would need permanent monitoring of the channel by people who are not actually playing the game.

[Brig at sea]

9 hours ago, Aquillas said:

Just now...

What is the context of your post in relation to patch? 

[Farrago]

4 hours ago, Archaos said:

The problem is that for proper moderation you need moderators who are always going to be online and for an unpaid job that is not very likely. We have had moderators before and what has happened to them? Some no longer play, some have probably given up moderating due to abuse they have received or accusations of being biased, there has even been tribunals raised regarding the mods.

For proper moderation you would need permanent monitoring of the channel by people who are not actually playing the game.

Is it a perfect system? No. But I think having 8-10 or so Moderators who are only responsible for Help chat would provide enough coverage. “Violations” would be more clear cut. If it’s not players asking questions and being answered, it’s a violation. The system can periodically broadcast the sole purpose of Help Chat. Those who violate this can be assumed to not need Help Chat and have their access removed for some period of time. No tribunals. No appeals. First violation lose it for a day. 2nd for a week. 3rd forever. 

[Aquillas]

5 hours ago, Brig at sea said:

What is the context of your post in relation to patch? 

So few players on the test bed!

[Archer11]

1 hour ago, Aquillas said:

So few players on the test bed!

Would love to be there again, as it's quite a lot of fun to test the new stuff.

But when the clan I'm in decided to enter the testbed in an other nation I was there already there, sailing under the wrong flag. So I deleted my char and created a new one, only to find out, that you get the redeemables only once. No xp, reals, notes etc.

0xp, basic cutter, 3pd. still fun, but not quite the same...

Edited August 17, 2020 by Archer11

[Jan van Santen]

2 minutes ago, Archer11 said:

Would love to be there again, as it's quite a lot of fun to test the new stuff.

But as my clan decided to enter the testbed in an other nation I was there already there, sailing under the wrong flag. So I deleted my char and created a new one, only to find out, that you get the redeemables only once. No xp, reals, notes etc.

0xp, basic cutter, 3pd. still fun, but not quite the same...

same, as redeemable xp didnt show up after redeem, i deleted character...and lost my exp: but dlcs are still available.

Hint: with the new mechanics tutorial is a lot easier now. Shoot roughly in the direction of the target....and the masts are gone

Only issue is the boarding part, since you cant nudge into the wind anymore.

Adding my intermediate (strictly PvE) pov: can't see any advantage in the current build. Pen is a joke and removes the fineties of angling. If i dont need angling anyway, why do I need an other sailing model at all ?

Stack up on reload and reapair, go broadside towards ai and hammer it. I wouldnt call that any better than the previous.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Jan van Santen

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

1 hour ago, Jan van Santen said:

can't see any advantage in the current build. Pen is a joke and removes the fineties of angling.

You're scaring me.

I am not on testbed but regular server and here it feels quite right, as is.

The idea this super-penetration will hit live server does not promise nice times ahead. Otherwise, glad there is a testbed so there is still some consideration before we all get the full dosis.

[Jan van Santen]

1 hour ago, Cetric de Cornusiac said:

You're scaring me.

I am not on testbed but regular server and here it feels quite right, as is.

The idea this super-penetration will hit live server does not promise nice times ahead. Otherwise, glad there is a testbed so there is still some consideration before we all get the full dosis.

I assume this isnt the final version to hit life server.....

But i was really "scared"

1) how easy super pen made the demast exam in tutorial... I made it on first try and with just 8 mast hits....

2) ai Cerberuses pen this: (the super pen happens despite super armor...)

 

This is an ai Trinco I just capped: 99hull on testbed, would be 75 (na-map) now:

 

 

Next i tried the above Endymion vs a elite Trinco: Left after 20 mins since i could hardly do enough damage...

Edited August 17, 2020 by Jan van Santen

[Mercury1]

If after all changes that Endy's masts will be penetrable , just time to say goodbye to the project ! Too much time wasted !

[Jan van Santen]

Your base mast thicknes: 122. my Endymion on testbed has base mast thicknes 105 (see above)

Right now, 172 can be penned at the current testbed build (which again I dont think is final)

(these were taken from an Elite Wasa w my alt's LO on testbed)

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Jan van Santen

[mexicanbatman]

well im hoping this will make the game more enjoyable maby after all the wood changes are permanent . i can enjoy this as an new way to learn more skills so im kinda up for this idea of making things better 

as for now im not returning untill game has stabilized but hats off for thinking out of the box

Edited August 17, 2020 by mexicanbatman

[Redman29]

4 minutes ago, Jan van Santen said:

Your base mast thicknes: 122. my Endymion on testbed has base mast thicknes 105 (see above)

Right now, 172 can be penned at the current testbed build (which again I dont think is final)

 

The pen values for the guns are fine against Hull as I showed in my test. 

It’s the mast thickness/strength that needs to be increased. 

Reducing pen might allieviate the mast problem but will create another one in make ships hulls too strong. 

[Despe]

in my experience playing i guess the actual balance between penetration and hulls are ok, but mast tickness is too much since the last wooden patch, with ships sometimes literally indemastables. Before the last wooden patch the balance between penetration, hull and mast thicknes was really equilibrated in my opinion. As @Redman29 said in some comments balance in testBed server between hull and penetration is still equilibrated, but mast mechanic is totally broke and that need a fix because in mi opinion it is not playable in PvP server.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Despe

[Jan van Santen]

3 hours ago, Redman29 said:

The pen values for the guns are fine against Hull as I showed in my test. 

It’s the mast thickness/strength that needs to be increased. 

Reducing pen might allieviate the mast problem but will create another one in make ships hulls too strong. 

pen vs hull is okay for a duel between 2 (nearly ) equal ships ...but it was so before the testbed version already....

Whats out of balance now:

1) pen vs sailing (angling)

any ship with heavy guns can now pen an angling weaker ship. Even ai can, so hello seal clubbing, bb uphill challenge

Bad for PvE, eg in fighting heavy elites

2) pen/hull vs historical data 

3) demasting 

4) leaks are the new meta with that kind of superpen.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Jan van Santen

[Jan van Santen]

31 minutes ago, Lieste said:

.. she instead sat on her stern quarter and took her apart, 

Bad example .....it only worked because Essex lost her top main mast before battle and all 3 ships were at anchor during most of  the fight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Valparaíso

thats not working in NA.....else id go floating battery 

neither is teaming up. A patch that makes it essential to team up to achieve things previously doable solo is no improvement.

There needs to be a mechanism for uphill fights. Not in the "snow sinks LO" way, but to get challenging fights and also for eg fighting elites 1:1

Angling did that, and argueing with history is tricky, particularly in a thread were we discuss ships with 140 cm hull....

PS: what else is "sitting on stern quarter" other than using an angle aka angling ?

Hit the target from an angle were it cant hurt you .....

Edited August 17, 2020 by Jan van Santen

[Jan van Santen]

12 minutes ago, Lieste said:

 and wood loses in collisions with iron shot. (though less than rope or people do).

Depends on what iron at which distance against what wood from which position ....see your own example of the battle of Valparaiso. If iron would always win, the 32 pdr carronades of the Essex would have won the day,

You are again oversimplifying.  No good in a discussion about balancing

Here is the video again to prove that iron doesnt always win, ive already linked a few times:

https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/terra-x/die-korsaren-freibeuter-der-meere-100.html

(around 30 mins)

Edited August 17, 2020 by Jan van Santen

[DeRuyter]

On 8/16/2020 at 8:37 AM, Sir John said:

Thank you DeRuyter, I did... until the pandemic came and prevented her coming back out of dock for the summer season.  What did you sail, I wonder?  Judging from how you said "doused" in their gear, I'm guessing you sailed on a replica of a pre-18th century tall ship 😀

That is true of course, I only meant to say that the reason for avoiding a dead run was not because of wind shadows from other ships, but rather because of aftersail blanketing foresail within the ship.  It would be criminally dangerous for ships large fleets to be grouped so close together that they ruin each another's air.

The issue with furling sails is indeed purely semantic 😀 I should have used wording as clear as yours, but I tried to indicate that it's purely for historical discussion.  I also concurred about work aloft: in typical working of larger ships during this period men might be needed for working the upper stays'ls or shifting breast backstays if fitted, but otherwise it wouldn't be necessary.

Exactly a 17th century ship: Kalmar Nyckel. One of the few replicas with a sprit top'sl.  I also went to Gannon U. but that was before Niagara was rebuilt. I had hoped to sail on her a few years ago but we had to cancel our trip to Erie. I did see her sail and got on board at an OpSail event in NYC a while back. Still planning on visiting her and the museum in Erie someday. 

[DeRuyter]

27 minutes ago, Jan van Santen said:

Depends on what iron at which distance against what wood from which position ....see your own example of the battle of Valparaiso. If iron would always win, the 32 pdr carronades of the Essex would have won the day,

You are again oversimplifying.  No good in a discussion about balancing

Here is the video again to prove that iron doesnt always win, ive already linked a few times:

https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/terra-x/die-korsaren-freibeuter-der-meere-100.html

(around 30 mins)

Well I think the range range was the major factor at Valparaiso - after Essex lost her main topmast trying to make it to open sea. So your statement above could be; if Essex could have closed the distance her 32lb carronades may have won the day.  The British stayed out of effective range of the carronades, still Essex did do some damage with her 12lb battery. 

[Redman29]

2 hours ago, Jan van Santen said:

pen vs hull is okay for a duel between 2 (nearly ) equal ships ...but it was so before the testbed version already....

Whats out of balance now:

1) pen vs sailing (angling)

any ship with heavy guns can now pen an angling weaker ship. Even ai can, so hello seal clubbing, bb uphill challenge

Bad for PvE, eg in fighting heavy elites

2) pen/hull vs historical data 

3) demasting 

4) leaks are the new meta with that kind of superpen.

 

 

Well yes and no. The values for most gun pen has been increased by 30-40 whereas the base hull thickness has been increased by 25-30. Which means guns have a slightly improvement at being able to pen a flat target. The ability to do damage at range is slightly better than it is currently on the live server. Carronades also are only effective now at point blank range which imo is a good thing where as on the live server they still do decent damage around the 150-200 meter mark.

Angling has always been a huge factor and will always remain so. However, with the low mast thickness, angling means you now just shoot a raking broadside into the masts and sooner or latter they will fall. So in that regard, mast thickness needs to be increased as it is a lethal combination and not good gameplay.

Leaks are only marginally better now with the pen increase. It is still difficult to get underwater pens. If you knew how to do it, it was already fairly easy to leak sink on certain ships. I remember Port-de-Paix Port Battle there was 4 full health Bucs that were leaked sunk in that battle. Or Basse-Terre Port battle where Redii was sunk with 40+ leaks. 

As for historical data. It is dificult to figure that in when there are so many modifiers. Hull 4, Gunnery 4, Navy Planking, Navy Structure Refit, Carta Chalking, and on top of that the modifiers from the different woods. Then that is compounded more by the addition pen from gunnery 4 and pen mods. 

I mean atm on the live server the base thickness for an Ocean is 76cm (which is historically accurate) but I build it out of Live Oak (S)/ White Oak (S), hull 4, navy planking and navy structure gets it up to 114cm. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Redman29

[You]

5 hours ago, Lieste said:

Umm. 174cm for an 18 lb is as overcooked as the 142cm for L'Ocean or the 99cm for Trincomalee that have been referred earlier.

What is wrong with realistic values?

The 18lb gun with 1600 fps (a high estimate for 50m, IMO) would by Poncelet/Didion only show around 160cm. The Hull of a first rate is ~70-90cm, Frigates are thinner (50-60cm). (For context, the velocity predicted by Didion (via Bashforth) for this thickness of oak would be 2133 fps)

HMS Victory thickness at the waterline (thickest part) were only 60 cm.

[Jan van Santen]

32 minutes ago, Redman29 said:

 I mean atm on the live server the base thickness for an Ocean is 76cm (which is historically accurate) but I build it out of Live Oak (S)/ White Oak (S), hull 4, navy planking and navy structure gets it up to 114cm. 

So why increase it even further ? You can now get it to 140+ (my alt has a 144 cm hull 4,  tk(s)/wo(s) navy plank, navy struc LO on testbed....

A little extra to the historic values is fine, as she wasnt built lo/wo but european oak in France. If...you had built the historic LO with seasoned top quality lo and wo, she would indeed have a thicker hulll, but certainly not 140+ cm.

Edit:

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2015/10/08/walking-the-plank/#:~:text=This combination of white and,is approximately 22 inches thick.

This combination of white and live oak make up the ship’s “iron” sides. At the waterline, Constitution‘s hull is approximately 22 inches thick.

And thats the entire point of it: faster than anything with guns heavy enough to penetrate that hull and to strong for anything that could race it....

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Jan van Santen

[Redman29]

39 minutes ago, Jan van Santen said:

So why increase it even further ? You can now get it to 140+ (my alt has a 144 cm hull 4,  tk(s)/wo(s) navy plank, navy struc on testbed....

A little extra to the historic values is fine, as she wasnt built lo/wo but european oak in France. If...you had built the historic LO with seasoned top quality lo and wo, she would indeed have a thicker hulll, but certainly not 140+ cm.

 

Because you can't increase the gun pen by that much and not increase hull thickness.

Let's take a step back and look at the base numbers. Because you have to base this stuff off of the base amount. 

L: Test Data. R: Live Data

42 Longs increase in pen.

50 meters: 199 vs 160, increase of 39

100 meters: 194 vs 156, increase of 38

250 meters: 177 vs 142, increase of 35

500 meters: 153 vs 122, increase of 31

24 Longs increase in pen.

50 meters: 188 vs 145, increase of 43

100 meters: 182 vs 140, increase of 42

250 meters: 165 vs 125, increase of 40

500 meters: 139 vs 104, increase of 35

18 Longs increase in pen.

50 meters: 181 vs 136, increase of 45

100 meters: 174 vs 132, increase of 42

250 meters: 158 vs 117, increase of 41

500 meters: 133 vs 95, increase of 38

12 Longs increase in pen.

50 meters: 173 vs 124, increase of 45

100 meters: 167 vs 119, increase of 42

250 meters: 151 vs 104, increase of 41

500 meters: 125 vs 82, increase of 38

L'Ocean

Base Thickness: 100 vs 76, increase of 24

Base Mast Thickness: 120 vs 137, decrease of 17

Bellona

Base Thickness: 95 vs 72, increase of 23

Base Mast Thickness: 115 vs 130, decrease of 15

United States

Base Thickness: 90 vs 70, increase of 20

Base Mast Thickness: 110 vs 126, decrease of 16

Endymion

Base Thickness: 85 vs 68, increase of 17

Base Mast Thickness: 105 vs 122, decrease of 17

 

The hull thickness values correspond with the increase in the gun pen values. The increase in gun pen values is disastrous when accounting for the decrease in mast thickness values. 

As for historical accuracy. We don't have it on the live server to start with. I mean a base thickness of an United States on the live server is 70cm when in reality she had a hull thickness of 55cm. I have a Connie in game with 105cm of thickness. Not to mention the fact that I can print a brand new ship every 12 minutes or replace entire masts. 

I am taking the data and values that are given to us, comparing them with the live server, and making recommendations based off of those values, nothing else. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Redman29

[Jan van Santen]

26 minutes ago, Redman29 said:

Because you can't increase the gun pen by that much and not increase hull thickness.

Let's take a step back and look at the base numbers. Because you have to base this stuff off of the base amount. 

L: Test Data. R: Live Data

42 Longs increase in pen.

50 meters: 199 vs 160, increase of 39

100 meters: 194 vs 156, increase of 38

250 meters: 177 vs 142, increase of 35

500 meters: 153 vs 122, increase of 31

24 Longs increase in pen.

50 meters: 188 vs 145, increase of 43

100 meters: 182 vs 140, increase of 42

250 meters: 165 vs 125, increase of 40

500 meters: 139 vs 104, increase of 35

18 Longs increase in pen.

50 meters: 181 vs 136, increase of 45

100 meters: 174 vs 132, increase of 42

250 meters: 158 vs 117, increase of 41

500 meters: 133 vs 95, increase of 38

12 Longs increase in pen.

50 meters: 173 vs 124, increase of 45

100 meters: 167 vs 119, increase of 42

250 meters: 151 vs 104, increase of 41

500 meters: 125 vs 82, increase of 38

L'Ocean

Base Thickness: 100 vs 76, increase of 24

Base Mast Thickness: 120 vs 137, decrease of 17

Bellona

Base Thickness: 95 vs 72, increase of 23

Base Mast Thickness: 115 vs 130, decrease of 15

United States

Base Thickness: 90 vs 70, increase of 20

Base Mast Thickness: 110 vs 126, decrease of 16

Endymion

Base Thickness: 85 vs 68, increase of 17

Base Mast Thickness: 105 vs 122, decrease of 17

 

The hull thickness values correspond with the increase in the gun pen values. The increase in gun pen values is disastrous when accounting for the decrease in mast thickness values. 

As for historical accuracy. We don't have it on the live server to start with. I mean a base thickness of an United States on the live server is 70cm when in reality she had a hull thickness of 55cm. I have a Connie in game with 105cm of thickness. Not to mention the fact that I can print a brand new ship every 12 minutes or replace entire masts. 

I am taking the data and values that are given to us, comparing them with the live server, and making recommendations based off of those values, nothing else. 

The problem isnt numbers,, its the paradigm. Or if you prefer: the journey goes into the wrong direction.

Why increase pen and hull thicknes if you have to decrease it to get closer to history, (which is perfectly possible w/o creating playability probs....)

 ...decrease would also solve the demast issue, (maybe fix the accuracy a bit, too)

In reality masts came down because their stability was lost (ropes cut by chain shot...)

That would only need a little gfx fix: 70% sail doesnt mean a lot of holes in the sails, but a lost top main mast eg.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Jan van Santen

[admin]

On 8/15/2020 at 7:21 PM, Redman29 said:

So did a penetration test with the new pen vales vs hull thickness. Had 2 L'Ocean's, one with Gunnery 2 and one with Gunnery 3, One had hull 1 with thickness of 143 and the other had no hull bonus with a thickness of 142. Conducted 5 tests at 5 different ranges and fired 4 broadsides at each range to test damage and pen.

First test was at approximately 500 meters. 

42 Longs: Partial pens, 3-4 shots penning per broadsides. 

24 Longs: No pen

12 Longs: No pen

 

However, I believe the imbalance lies with the current mast thickness. Base mast thickness on the test server has been lowered while increasing the pen value and as shown numerous times already leads to a demasting fest which is not fun and will elaborate in the following post. 

thanks for artillery tests

I will tweak pens slightly so lower  LONG/NAVY calibers are useful at longer distances against heavily upgraded thickness. 
Will also review masts and change them slightly