Redman29

Same issues

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.

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.

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.

So correction on my post. Elite French on test server has been nerfed from 15% thickness to 8%. Which means with Mast and Rig 3, Elite French, and Navy Mast bands, Ocean lower mast thickness is 157. That means a 42 Long with gunnery 4 port bonus , has 160 pen(With No Pen mods) can penetrate the lower section of the mast of an Ocean with 2 mast mods at 500 meters. Hell, a 42 Long with Gunnery 4 and Gucuata Superior has a pen value of 146 and can pen a LO (S) Ocean, with no mast bonuses or mods, lower mast section at 750 meters

Ok, now for mast thickness. In the battles I've played on the test server they have turned into a demasting fest with the ability to spam masts and take them then being extremely easy. Frost posted the screenshots from the battle we had yesterday and they are all similar to that. I conducted a test with Batman, where I had an Ocean armed with nothing but 12 pounder longs and he was approximately 200 meters from me. After 4 broadsides this was the result. 4 Broadsides just from 12 longs took down an Ocean's foremast and that was just a full raking broadside, not single tapping. There are already several complaints about the ability to single tap and snipe masts. But making it so that withing 3-5 raking broadsides will bring down a mast or two will only make matters worst. This compounded with the wind shadow means that battles become a demasting and boarding competition and if you don't start with the wind, then there is very little incentive to even attempt to fight. In my opinion the base mast thickness for all ships needs to be increased significantly. This will bring it in line with what I believe the pen and hull thickness values have achieved in terms of being well balanced.

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 13 Shots total penetrated hull of target. Second test was at approximately 400 meters. 42 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull 24 Longs: Partial pen, 4-5 shots penning per broadsides. 12 Longs: No pen 98 Shots total penetrated hull of target. Third test was at approximately 300 meters. 42 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull 24 Longs: Partial pen, 7-8 shots penning per broadside. 12 Longs: Partial pen, 1-2 shots penning per broadside. 112 Shots total penetrated hull of target. Fourth test was at approximately 200 meters. 42 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull 24 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull 12 Longs: Partial pen, 8-9 shots penning per broadside, increasing to 12-13 by 4th Broadside. 42 Carros: No pen 172 Shots total penetrated hull of target. Fifth test was at approximately 70 meters. 42 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull 24 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull 12 Longs: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull 42 Carros: Full pen, almost every shot was penetrating target hull 274 Shots total penetrated hull of target. In my opinion, I believe that the increase in pen is well balanced with the increase in base hull thickness. 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.

The thing is, you can have Mast an Rig 3 (3%), Elite French Rig (15%) and Navy Mast Bands (20%) on an L'Ocean (Base mast thickness 120) and only get your mast thickness up to 165 on the lower mast section. A 42 long has a base pen value of 164 at 400 meters which means right under 400 meters it can start penning the lower mast section. 42 Long on a ship that has gunnery 4 and Gucuata Superior has a pen value of 168 at 500 meters. An Ocean with gunnery 4 port bonus and 1 pen mod can still penetrate the lower mast section of another Ocean with mast and rig 3 port bonus and 2 mast mods at 500 meters. And this is with 1st rates, just think of the trickle down for 5th rates.

I agree that wind shadow should have an effect just as lee currently does. But I think it is too much atm. Trafalgar is a perfect example of the wind and fleet heading in relatively the same direction. If wind shadow had as much effect at Trafalgar as it currently does in game then the Temeraire would of slowed considerably due to it being to the leeward of the rest of the column, yet was the second ship to break the line at behind Victory.

So as I understand it, the changes to battle sails were supposed to made them more desirable in the ability to maneuver as well as having a proportional change in regards to speed per percentage of sail area. I noticed from my tests today that there isn't a notable difference. These tests were done with an Ocean. 2 knots difference between full sail and battle sails is a significant amount for a first rate. Now after maxing the speed I chose to wear. It took 44 seconds to wear approximately 8 points at full sails. It took 41 Seconds to wear approximately 8 points at battle sails. On battle sails you lose 2.2 knots during the wear and at full sails you lose 2.7 knots during the wear. After this, I decides to tact both at full sail and then at battle sails. At full sails it took 2 minutes, starting at 8 knots, to go from a select point to the opposite point and during which the speed did not go into the negative. At Battle Sails it took 3 minutes, starting at 5.9 knots, to complete the same tact, at a point the ship did go into the negative. After testing both the mechanics and physics between the two in game, it doesn't feel to me that you are gaining anything from using battle sails over full sails. You are losing significant speed, they wear relatively the same, and in terms of a tact it takes much longer. Now yes, there is a use when having two lines sailing in parallel as the ships to leeward at battle sails are going the same speed as the ships to windward at full sails, however this does not negate the fact that both lines are going painfully slow and it is inherently better to form a single line in that case.

Yeah he’s being over dramatic. It’s Depse, but he brings up a point St Johns is a 4 4 4 4 Port. Only difference is mast and rig which yeah is great but no where near the bonuses the other 4 give. With this proposed mechanic I can craft there also without being in a clan which I am not. Actually it will come in handy as I need to level my crafting hour in my Swedish alt and St John’s port wise is one of only four 4 4 4 4 Ports, so I can actually use the ships rather than having ones with no port bonuses. Doesnt mean we’re deleting what we have, but it does remove the incentive to continue the grind.

I was leveling an account the other day. From nothing to 1 crafted nothing but trader lynx’s. 1 gold and 3 purple. From 1 to 6 nothing but blue. I’m convinced now that it’s all luck/RNG. With that said, I have had luck crafting consecutive purple ships

Well that was easier than I thought....... Power lol, I wish I had less responsibilities to the clan than I have now and go back to being a lonely pion, maybe then I would actually enjoy more aspects of the game. I quit this game once in 2017 when I was organizing/coordinating the GB-Dutch-USA alliance because the game become too much like a job. I swore I would never let it get that way again, and here we are all over again. And for me that's the reason behind me being opposed to this. I have spent countless time doing HDF's and eventually when they were sailed back to VC, I was the one doing it. I want a reward for my time and effort in doing the leg work and I have that. Why should I fell obligated to share that with others who haven't contributed and only have to avoid joining battles. I don't want this change because to me it feels like my time and effort has been lessened, that's the pure and simple truth of the matter at least from my standpoint. Anyways, we can agree to disagree. Happy hunting. o7

It is comprised of friends and a few others I choose to help out. You see most joined when SDC was owned by WTF and Belize was being attacked by the Spanish and it was looking like GB was going to lose most of their crafting ports. See, I tend to only open it up to people I like, like Liquicity, because I like and trust Liquicity and he is about one of the few Swede's I would ever consider allowing in. We might disagree on things, but that doesn't change my opinion and besides we used to fight together when we were both British in the 2016-2017 days. Where as you have insinuated that I have ulterior motives, well you clearly don't know me and have little chance of getting in because that's one of the easiest ways to piss me off. As for what people do with their ships, I don't really give a damn. You want to pvp in them against whoever, fine by me, hell even I've fought one and sunk it. Sell them, fine by me, I know one guy in which that's what he does with the majority of the ships he crafts. And to think I can threaten or manipulate other nations through my alt clan and crafting in VC. There are 15 guys with accounts in my clan spread across a couple different nations. If you think I can exert control over other nations by threatening 15 guys (13 of which are British spread across 4 clans) with removing their crafting ability then I would consider that an accomplishment. (Note that is sarcasm) And I never said there were no strings attached, which if you read you would of seen two ways you get removed. If we are at war (RVR) because let's face it, now you are using ships to take ports away from the nation in which you are crafting ships in, so no I am not going to allow you to do that. Also, if you break the rules and cause an issue for me, like the tribunal post I used as example. Guy used his Russian account to commit Green on Green against another Russia so all his accounts got removed. If you would have read the original post that you quoted of mine you would of seen how I pointed out that under this system his crafting account which was not involved after the incident would still of been able to craft in as long as it has positive karma. Do you not think clans should punish players for breaking the rules of the game beyond the scope that is outlined in the tribunal rules? Not going to debate what alts are allowed for and not allowed for as that has been defined before. 460 Million reals spent on money chests. 1400 wooden chests(On average that comes out around 800,000 Seasoned Logs which is a market price of 2.6-4 Billion Reals) invested in VC (REDS hasn't made that much from all their ports since the game was released). 127 Privateer fleets on average 30-45 minutes per fleet. That's 63 to 95 hours of grinding AI. 30-35 hours sailing the chests back to Vera Cruz. 93 to 130 hours of time invested. And this is just halfway to a fully upgraded port. If you spent that much time and effort grinding stupid AI only for anyone to have access to your port with no effort at all other than not joining a battle, how would you feel? What level of compensation warrants all of that which I listed?

Think about it for one second. I have 15 accounts. 13 I never fight with. Which means positive karma. Which means I can craft anywhere I want to. So by your reasoning it levels the playing field. Ok so be it. If that is the case and you are fighting an enemy and see that their ships are being crafted by neutral players in your crafting port then by that reasoning they are no longer using their own crafting ports. So it should not longer be a big deal if you decide to take that port right? But what about the players who have just one account or a few alts to help their main as we all know how hard it is to craft solo? What happens to those players who don't have an army of alts to be able to craft wherever they want to? If this system would benefit true neutral players then I would have no issue with it. But by in large it will benefit more from those with armies of alts. You think it will level the playing field, no it won't, it will level the playing field for the 1%, those of us with armies of alts and more money in game than we know what to do with. I mean I stand the most to benefit from this, hell take VC for all I care, I'll still be able to craft there with this system. If you want to level the playing field then let's revert the game back to the way it was in 2016 with no port bonuses and refund the clan who owns the port the investments, I would be all for that. As it stands, every clan that currently crafts in VC has contributed to upgrading the port and that effort should not be negated by opening it.