Hotfix 9.73

[Kazak77]

Using labor hours and building slots to produce compass wood is a complete waste of the most important resources in the game because

1. we don't have unlimited 3rd rates anymore and

2. you can get 300k+ from single max level mission, it takes literally 5 minutes and you can farm it for hours.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Kazak77

[DEK]

Pirates are being smart about the BR system, is not an exploit, they use lower BR ships in more numbers against higher Br ships with less numbers! I'm a Britsh player and i never got ganked for the guys in Carlisle! But i also never go sailing around my SOL thinking that i'm invincible! Dont get me wrong, i dont like the 1.5BR system, but people beig smarter then us, is not an exploit!

 

Em... what ? Exploit that is when pirates attack someone and if they are have to much BR, they are connecting on battle in enemy side and block him or shoot in his sails. Yeah, smart decision.

Edited April 20, 2016 by DEK

[ArmoredKorps]

 

Em... what ? Exploit that is when pirates attack someone and if they are have to much BR, they are connecting on battle in enemy side and block him or shoot in his sails. Yeah, smart decision.

 

I said about the BR system, everyone knows about the others explicit exploit, green on green was aways a known issue on the pirates! And i agree with you on that, lets holpe they fix the pirates issues on future updates!

[Hugo van Grojt]

Using labor hours and building slots to produce compass wood is a complete waste of the most important resources in the game because

1. we don't have unlimited 3rd rates anymore and

2. you can get 300k+ from single max level mission, it takes literally 5 minutes and you can farm it for hours.

 

Exactly!

 

But the current system encourages people to do exactly that.

The logice of the individual is:

"If I make more money than the guy next to me by using my compass building, I can offer more money to a ship crafter to make a ship for ME instead of the next guy"

The logic of the ship builder is:

"Why should I sell a ship cheap, if people can make unlimited amounts of money fleeting or running compass buildings? I am doing all the work here, so they better cough up 10 million bucks if they want a St. Pavel!"

The logic of the second individual is:

"Damn! Ship prices are really going up! I should tear down my (useful!) oak building and make all compass wood buildings to compete and get a ship for MYSELF!"

 

I know that the change in production buildings is not the CAUSE or main contributing factor, but it is ADDING to the problem instead of counteracting it. I am not sure if the devs intentionally want to run the economy into the ground to compile some data for later or if this is just an oversight ... Fact is, we will possibly see a return to commodity exchange at some point (paying ships in crafting notes, furnishings + carriages instead of gold) because trying to keep up with the inflation is just nor worth it. I am certainly contemplating that option, because I cannot change my pricing fast enough to keep up.

[Nordtman]

Everything looks fine

 

But the Peace in this war-game is still killing it.

Change diplomacy,

give more!!! XP for PVP fights

 

I fell a slight hope after the small Changes today. But summer is coming....

[sacapus]

Thanks for the changes Devs!

 

Great improvement !

[Samuel of Illiria Province]

 

Orders and Fleet orders now give XP to the whole group.

 

This seems to not work. No notice of gained xp anywhere and no mission completion. We also made so that we both have the same missions, no deal.

 

it worked for me and my friend. perhaps system is still buggy.

[Skippy]

I like this, thanks and good job!

 

 

Althou im not sure abotu the prod prices.  Id like you to take off completely the labor hours price when we produce ressources with mines. This is taking precious hours that we need and now the price just went up. So it would be more logical if it cost only money to produce, and hours only for crafting.

 

 

Also it would be interesting to be able to have 1 more prod building. I think it wont be too much.


 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Skippy

[Captain]

The changes to the lower level cannons will make it harder for new folks

[Lennyo]

The changes to the lower level cannons will make it harder for new folks

Not if they are fighting other lower level ships. And must human controlled small ships run carronades anyways.

[Skippy]

I like the distance the AI are now when we start a battle, its great.

Ships dont start right beside, and me and my clan were able to make good strategy formation with our fleet to attack the ennemy fleet. it is very cool

Edited April 21, 2016 by Skippy

[SeaMist]

Contract bug fixed - that forced players to sell to contracts lower than NPC prices

 

Thanks for this change too. Many buy contracts were at or sometimes below production costs and I had to just sail past sometimes major ports with shortages in my cargo  to sell somewhere else. 

[Eishen]

I like the distance the AI are now when we start a batle, its great.

Ships dont start right beside, and me and my clan were able to make good strategy formation with our fleet to attack the ennemy fleet. it is very cool

 

really? I find it too much at least in normal mission .... even opened a F11 report in my first time with this rule as oponent  were  not  to appear even in map and I though it was lost... half current distance wold seems sufficient most time, at least to non-fleet engagements

[312_JS]

Could you, the Devs, please provide an official Cannon Breakdown graph of some sort?

 

Would love to be able to compare all the cannons against each other.

 

Damage / Reload / Penetration / DPS etc... 

Probably no point in doing this now, as the stats will might change during the development.

[BallsOfSteel]

We have another hotfix, hope to hear whats its all about before going back into battle.

[Will Collister]

(Copied from my reddit post)

Ahoy!

Like me, you may have found yourself wondering which ships were most affected by the reload time increase and damage nerfs/buffs to various guns. Seeing as I have a pretty quick method of updating the DPS, etc. for ships because of my obsession with writing Guides for Naval Action, I just quickly drew up the charts linked.

When I calculate DPS and damage per broadside for loadouts of Carronades, Medium Cannons and Long Cannons, I assume that folks just equip the heaviest available gun of each type to each slot. For the largest ships (Constitution and up), Carronades are not available in the lower decks, and so for these Medium Cannons are used in the Carronade loadout as substitutes.

It's notable that the ships most strongly affected are the unrated vessels, obviously, as a result of the smaller caliber guns seeing the greatest changes. The bigger the guns, the lesser the impact.

The only "winners" this patch are the Pirate Frigate and Essex, both using 18 pound cannons, which see a buff to damage. Although note that their DPS still goes down, with the rest, albeit not as much.

Anyway, personally I think this is a good change, so please note I'm not posting this to complain or anything - just thought that it might be useful information for you other Captains!

Fair winds!

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Was testing the 6 pounders thoroughly and I am pleased. Used them in a Surprise, full complement of long 6 pounders and gladly had the opportunity to shoot at all types of targets, from cutter up to the Ironsides.

 

It does its job against the light timbers of sloops and brigs. It was more than adequate against another Suprise although the 9 pounders of the adversary forced for more smart wind usage, so the 6 pounder is not as effective anymore.

Against a sturdy Frigate it starts to show the lack of punch and on the Ironsides it does very very little.

 

Will test the mediums later today.

[William Livingston Alden]

 Can you bring more adverse weather? Higher waves, I have never seem such calm seas in reality. Love the game! - 7

 

No, no, no the weather is fine at the moment, and I can live with that in the moment. I'mean its raining enough and i had realy bad weather the last two days over a couple of hours where you cant play because the sight is so bad that you see nothing. and as long the NPC can shoot with laser balls even when their ship goes up and down in the waves its not an option.

 

i can live with more and longer smoke of the guns, thats an option for me, as long it is a sight shield. that opens tactical playing. but not the weather at all.

 

and you must also think about all the newcomers(?) here in the game. they also should have a chance at the beginning.

[fox2run]

Bach made this very good and informative post:

 

 

"Soldiers vs Gladiators my friend. Two different philosophical approaches to pvp.

A soldier wants to fight a WAR. That means that if his platoons task is to control a hill side or pass it means from ALL enemies. So if a lone enemy wanders into the pass the whole platoon does their job and kills him. They don't consider it a gank. It's war. If the soldiers job is to protect the homeland, trainees or civilians then jump into all those fights to protect is his job. He doesn't let them die just because the enemy only brought 1 man. The psycological affront the 1.5 BR rule is to soldier pvp players is high.

A Gladiator is only out there looking for great 1v1 fights and is what he considers the most fun. He doesn't really care about any war. He only cares about individual fights and the quality of those fights. For him to do what he does best and likes most requires a "fair" starting point for all the battles he fights. He tries to be the best 1v1 fighter he can be. Even if it means his team, if he does even consider himself part of a team, loses some silly war which to him it's not as important as the individual fights. He will consider anyone who kills him 1v10 as unskilled cowardly gankers. Even if he was that lone fighter who wandered into the mountain pass the soldiers were guarding. Even if he is that lone fighter attacking trainees and civilians off the homeland that the platoon over runs. He will always consider the large force as "gankers".

Basically, anytime you put the two different mantras of pvp into the same sand box your going to have the problems. The gladiators want the sand box to resemble an arena and the soldiers want it to resemble a war zone."

 

I hope that you devs really read this in order to develop the game further. As I see it the platform you have right now may actually benefit both... The gladiators could have 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3 etc fights in an arena based ladder exerience - much like the "small battles" or "large battles" that exsists now.

 

The soldiers needs the OW without too many restrictions maybe with some diplomatic features etc. and some trading focus so there will be "soft targets" to protect versus them evil enemies.... 

[Will Collister]

Bach made this very good and informative post:

 

 

"Soldiers vs Gladiators my friend. Two different philosophical approaches to pvp.

A soldier wants to fight a WAR. That means that if his platoons task is to control a hill side or pass it means from ALL enemies. So if a lone enemy wanders into the pass the whole platoon does their job and kills him. They don't consider it a gank. It's war. If the soldiers job is to protect the homeland, trainees or civilians then jump into all those fights to protect is his job. He doesn't let them die just because the enemy only brought 1 man. The psycological affront the 1.5 BR rule is to soldier pvp players is high.

A Gladiator is only out there looking for great 1v1 fights and is what he considers the most fun. He doesn't really care about any war. He only cares about individual fights and the quality of those fights. For him to do what he does best and likes most requires a "fair" starting point for all the battles he fights. He tries to be the best 1v1 fighter he can be. Even if it means his team, if he does even consider himself part of a team, loses some silly war which to him it's not as important as the individual fights. He will consider anyone who kills him 1v10 as unskilled cowardly gankers. Even if he was that lone fighter who wandered into the mountain pass the soldiers were guarding. Even if he is that lone fighter attacking trainees and civilians off the homeland that the platoon over runs. He will always consider the large force as "gankers".

Basically, anytime you put the two different mantras of pvp into the same sand box your going to have the problems. The gladiators want the sand box to resemble an arena and the soldiers want it to resemble a war zone."

 

I hope that you devs really read this in order to develop the game further. As I see it the platform you have right now may actually benefit both... The gladiators could have 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3 etc fights in an arena based ladder exerience - much like the "small battles" or "large battles" that exsists now.

 

The soldiers needs the OW without too many restrictions maybe with some diplomatic features etc. and some trading focus so there will be "soft targets" to protect versus them evil enemies.... 

 

 Wow, this makes so much sense. Completely agree with you here. The OW should be a war zone - if you want to fight arena-style combats then go for the quick battle menu. 

[Cossack]

PLEASE remove the slow-boating at the beginning of missions... Adds ZERO gameplay and just costs you 5min of your time... Infuriating without A. SINGLE. BENEFIT.

 

Actually i like this change for one reason only, the fact that when i select FLAG captain missions in my 3rd sometimes i get pavel which with the new a.i my 3rd rate cannot beat. So i am able to leave before combat starts. Unless ship ranks are restricted to their proper rank in missions then "slow-boating" must stay. 

[Scud]

Bach made this very good and informative post:

"Soldiers vs Gladiators my friend. Two different philosophical approaches to pvp.

A soldier wants to fight a WAR. That means that if his platoons task is to control a hill side or pass it means from ALL enemies. So if a lone enemy wanders into the pass the whole platoon does their job and kills him. They don't consider it a gank. It's war. If the soldiers job is to protect the homeland, trainees or civilians then jump into all those fights to protect is his job. He doesn't let them die just because the enemy only brought 1 man. The psycological affront the 1.5 BR rule is to soldier pvp players is high.

A Gladiator is only out there looking for great 1v1 fights and is what he considers the most fun. He doesn't really care about any war. He only cares about individual fights and the quality of those fights. For him to do what he does best and likes most requires a "fair" starting point for all the battles he fights. He tries to be the best 1v1 fighter he can be. Even if it means his team, if he does even consider himself part of a team, loses some silly war which to him it's not as important as the individual fights. He will consider anyone who kills him 1v10 as unskilled cowardly gankers. Even if he was that lone fighter who wandered into the mountain pass the soldiers were guarding. Even if he is that lone fighter attacking trainees and civilians off the homeland that the platoon over runs. He will always consider the large force as "gankers".

Basically, anytime you put the two different mantras of pvp into the same sand box your going to have the problems. The gladiators want the sand box to resemble an arena and the soldiers want it to resemble a war zone."

I hope that you devs really read this in order to develop the game further. As I see it the platform you have right now may actually benefit both... The gladiators could have 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3 etc fights in an arena based ladder exerience - much like the "small battles" or "large battles" that exsists now.

The soldiers needs the OW without too many restrictions maybe with some diplomatic features etc. and some trading focus so there will be "soft targets" to protect versus them evil enemies....

+1

Brilliant analysis. I have allways thought this, but never had the right words to express it. I hope the devs read and comprehend this fabulous nugget of gaming philosophy!

[Scud]

Actually i like this change for one reason only, the fact that when i select FLAG captain missions in my 3rd sometimes i get pavel which with the new a.i my 3rd rate cannot beat. So i am able to leave before combat starts. Unless ship ranks are restricted to their proper rank in missions then "slow-boating" must stay.

I agree. I don't bother with 169xp and up orders, even though i'm nearly a commodore. I always get 2 connies, a pavel, etc. The funny thing is the 152xp orders only get me a single frigate or belle poule if i'm lucky, and usually I get a scrubby niagara and cerberus. Definately needs to be a smaller gap in what spawns from 152xp to 169xp missions.

[Lannes]

Bach made this very good and informative post:

"Soldiers vs Gladiators my friend. Two different philosophical approaches to pvp.

A soldier wants to fight a WAR. That means that if his platoons task is to control a hill side or pass it means from ALL enemies. So if a lone enemy wanders into the pass the whole platoon does their job and kills him. They don't consider it a gank. It's war. If the soldiers job is to protect the homeland, trainees or civilians then jump into all those fights to protect is his job. He doesn't let them die just because the enemy only brought 1 man. The psycological affront the 1.5 BR rule is to soldier pvp players is high.

A Gladiator is only out there looking for great 1v1 fights and is what he considers the most fun. He doesn't really care about any war. He only cares about individual fights and the quality of those fights. For him to do what he does best and likes most requires a "fair" starting point for all the battles he fights. He tries to be the best 1v1 fighter he can be. Even if it means his team, if he does even consider himself part of a team, loses some silly war which to him it's not as important as the individual fights. He will consider anyone who kills him 1v10 as unskilled cowardly gankers. Even if he was that lone fighter who wandered into the mountain pass the soldiers were guarding. Even if he is that lone fighter attacking trainees and civilians off the homeland that the platoon over runs. He will always consider the large force as "gankers".

Basically, anytime you put the two different mantras of pvp into the same sand box your going to have the problems. The gladiators want the sand box to resemble an arena and the soldiers want it to resemble a war zone."

I hope that you devs really read this in order to develop the game further. As I see it the platform you have right now may actually benefit both... The gladiators could have 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3 etc fights in an arena based ladder exerience - much like the "small battles" or "large battles" that exsists now.

The soldiers needs the OW without too many restrictions maybe with some diplomatic features etc. and some trading focus so there will be "soft targets" to protect versus them evil enemies.... 

 

 Sounds okay, but is not in fact totally historical. There were 1 to 1 fights between champions in ancient times and in mediaeval times to determine the result of a conflict. Not so sure if this was so during the 18th century, which is the current era of gameplay.

 

But, the consequences for gameplay of the above suggestions are that people will venture out only in larger and larger groupings, the logical end of which will be one great fleet for each nation. So, the possibility of single or double PvP will be lost altogether, except for fights against the current unstable AI. (Unstable because rendered artificially superpotent, instead of simulating ascending levels of human player skill, as is the case in computer chess games.)

Edited April 21, 2016 by Lannes

[Scud]

Sounds okay, but is not in fact totally historical. There were 1 to 1 fights between champions in ancient times and in mediaeval times to determine the result of a conflict. Not so sure if this was so during the 18th century, which is the current era of gameplay.

But, the consequences for gameplay of the above suggestions are that people will venture out only in larger and larger groupings, the logical end of which will be one great fleet for each nation. So, the possibility of single or double PvP will be lost altogether, except for fights against the current unstable AI. (Unstable because rendered artificially superpotent, instead of simulating ascending levels of human player skill, as is the case in computer chess games.)

I see your point, but do not think that is the case.

For one thing arena like combat is available through the matchmaking system currently, and is in unaffected by OW engagement rules.

Secondly, people should eventually gravitate toward running in packs, especially if they venture far from friendly controlled and patrolled waters. Lone wolf traders and raiders should be reletively uncommon, and really only be found wandering in more remote, rarely traveled portions of the OW.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Scud