Hotfix 5 for patch 9.97 - event changes + minor fixes

[Ned Loe]

17 minutes ago, EliteDelta said:

I agree that sail damage will happen, but the masts won't fall. 

It is true that damage can be done without penetrating, but even 3 frigates (with 18lb long cannons) vs 1 conni won't be enough damage to knock down any masts - because the shots won't be penetrating.

 

I am only arguing against the thickness increase, not the hp (life). Increasing ho just means it would take a little longer to demast, which could be okay.

Now I did think about this, and to make everyone happy I would just add 1 tiny hit box per mast for each section. When player builds a ship hit boxes are spread out randomly along each mast section (historically every wood had it's weak point) each ship would be unique. Starting from the top hit box would be the largest, but still small. Now let's say we have 8 hit boxes on a frigate. To strike that hit box you will need luck, and if you do strike it, it will be considered a 'critical hit and mast will fall. This should be very rare case in 1vs1, rare in 6vs1 and doable in Port Battles where you get broadsides from 25 1st rates what equals to 25x chance increase to do a 'critical hit' on mast and bring it down .  

Critical hit bonus should be rewarded accordingly.

I hope Devs can read this. 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Wind said:

Now I did think about this, and to make everyone happy I would just add 1 tiny hit box per mast for each section. When player builds a ship hit boxes are spread out randomly along each mast section (historically every wood had it's weak point) each ship would be unique. Starting from the top hit box would be the largest, but still small. Now let's we will have 8 hit boxes on a frigate. To strike that hit box you will need luck, and if you do strike it, it will be considered a 'critical hit and mast will fall. This should be very rare case in 1vs1, rare in 6vs1 and doable in Port Battles where you get broadsides from 25 1st rates.  

I hope Devs can read this. 

 

I can tell you don't want demasting to exist, so we are not going to agree. However the vast majority of players disagree with your opinion on demasting.

The critical hit idea sounds too much like luck for my taste. The system we had was working, it didn't need to be changed.

[Ned Loe]

7 minutes ago, EliteDelta said:

I can tell you don't want demasting to exist, so we are not going to agree. However the vast majority of players disagree with your opinion on demasting.

The critical hit idea sounds too much like luck for my taste. The system we had was working, it didn't need to be changed.

Most of the people want gank to thrive , so it can kill this game before it reaches the final stage. It's fine with me, I am just providing ideas that would work for both pvp and pve people. Currently we only hear pvp crowd complaining. 

My suggestion only touches 'want to see mast fall' area. You can still demast a player with 3 Frigates even after buff. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Wind said:

Most of the people want gank to thrive , so it can kill this game before it reaches the final stage. It's fine with me, I am just providing ideas that would work for both pvp and pve people. Currently we only hear pvp crowd complaining. 

My suggestion only touches 'want to see mast fall' area. You can still demast a player with 3 Frigates even after buff. 

So the only way to demast in this scenario would be by ganking someone. That logic doesn't make any sense.. It should still be a viable tactic in 1v1 fights of similar sized ships. I'm fine with demasting being tricky, but I don't want it to be impossible.

[Kiithnaras]

@Wind Dude, we aren't talking about the gank. You wanna talk about thriving gank, let's talk about the absurd brokenness of Pirate-based speed builds that can deny or prevent escape in any action due to absurd stacking speed buffs (only available to pirates through the Pirate perk - 15-knot connies. Useless 1v1, but they never do or have to fight 1v1 anyway).

Furthermore, I very rarely pvp as it is. My total number of PvP kills or captures I could probably count on one hand since I picked up NA in February, and that's including port battles. You seem to be under this impression that whatever the Devs come out with and whatever decisions they make are infalliable edicts from heaven, and that everyone who speaks against them want to drag the game down a dark alley and shank it in the kidneys.

Back on topic, though, no - the randomized hitboxes for critical weak points is not a good idea, and too small to really make a difference. The core point at hand is that the range of doing reliable mast damage to ships of equivalent size is too short - at 50m or less, one can't even bring all of their guns to bear at a single point, so even hitting masts at a range that might be effective is practically implausible. My vote is to maybe give masts another 20% buff on top of this one, but drop their thickness back to somewhere around October levels. Yes, taking out another ship's masts should be a challenge and a deliberate tactical decision, and one that shouldn't be able to be performed outside of, say, 250m for ships of equivalent class, but one should not have to see the whites of their eyes in order to do effective damage to their masts.

To quote Maxim 22: If you can see the whites of their eyes, somebody's done something wrong.

Edit:

4 minutes ago, EliteDelta said:

So the only way to demast in this scenario would be by ganking someone. That logic doesn't make any sense.. It should still be a viable tactic in 1v1 fights of similar sized ships. I'm fine with demasting being tricky, but I don't want it to be impossible.

Yeah, that's a fine point. Complains about gankers being a problem, proposes ganking using 3v1 numbers.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Kiithnaras

[DeRuyter]

5 minutes ago, Wind said:

Most of the people want gank to thrive , so it can kill this game before it reaches the final stage. It's fine with me, I am just providing ideas that would work for both pvp and pve people. Currently we only hear pvp crowd complaining. 

Wind I respect your opinion but we should not be using mast thickness as a mechanism to balance or counter "ganking". You are advocating removing or altering an element of the combat model that provides an element of historical realism to enforce gameplay protections. It won't help you in the examples you suggest because as others have pointed out they will just use chain anyway. I would bet that is what most people do now.

Your suggestion that this shouldn't happen in 1v1 is incorrect. In most well recorded single ship duals the losing ship lost masts and both ships had rigging cut up. I agree that it should be very hard to kite an entire mast down from long range but at closer ranges standing rigging got shot away and masts fell. Justifying a 24 lb ball not penetrating a mast at close range because it helps avoid ganking just doesn't hold water.

[Ned Loe]

28 minutes ago, Kiithnaras said:

@Wind Dude, we aren't talking about the gank. You wanna talk about thriving gank, let's talk about the absurd brokenness of Pirate-based speed builds that can deny or prevent escape in any action due to absurd stacking speed buffs (only available to pirates through the Pirate perk - 15-knot connies. Useless 1v1, but they never do or have to fight 1v1 anyway).

Furthermore, I very rarely pvp as it is. My total number of PvP kills or captures I could probably count on one hand since I picked up NA in February, and that's including port battles. You seem to be under this impression that whatever the Devs come out with and whatever decisions they make are infalliable edicts from heaven, and that everyone who speaks against them want to drag the game down a dark alley and shank it in the kidneys.

Back on topic, though, no - the randomized hitboxes for critical weak points is not a good idea, and too small to really make a difference. The core point at hand is that the range of doing reliable mast damage to ships of equivalent size is too short - at 50m or less, one can't even bring all of their guns to bear at a single point, so even hitting masts at a range that might be effective is practically implausible. My vote is to maybe give masts another 20% buff on top of this one, but drop their thickness back to somewhere around October levels. Yes, taking out another ship's masts should be a challenge and a deliberate tactical decision, and one that shouldn't be able to be performed outside of, say, 250m for ships of equivalent class, but one should not have to see the whites of their eyes in order to do effective damage to their masts.

To quote Maxim 22: If you can see the whites of their eyes, somebody's done something wrong.

Edit:

Yeah, that's a fine point. Complains about gankers being a problem, proposes ganking using 3v1 numbers.

Other option is to keep everything like it was before, but Devs have to add Penalty to mast damage or mast Buff (what we have now) when ratio is not 1:1. In other words, when 2 players ganking 1 player (2:1) then: Victim sails are buffed to what we have now, but if it's a 1vs1 then system should keep stats the same as it was pre patch. I know many other games use similar penalties when numbers are uneven. It should not matter what ships are used, once ratio goes over 1:1 buff for smaller numbers should kick in.. I just wonder if it's hard to code such balance system. 

Example :

1:1 pre patch mast damage/health 

1:2 current buff to sails (1 is buffed)

2:2 pre patch mast damage/health

2:3 current buff to sails (2 are buffed) 

(Ship size does not matter)

Note, if battle starts with 2:2 ratio it will remain at pre patch mast damage. When 1 player is killed battle will become 2:1, but buff should not kick in in this case. In case reinforcements join and numbers become uneven again system should buff smaller number again and give larger chances to survive demast to weaker team.  

If battle starts with 3:2 ratio it will automatically buff 2 player sails and will remain through the battle.  

[Kiithnaras]

1 minute ago, Wind said:

Other option is to keep everything like it was before, but Devs have to add Penalty to mast damage or mast Buff when ratio is not 1:1. In other words, when 3 players ganking 1 player (3:1) then: Victim sails are buffed to what we have now, but if it's a 1vs1 then system should keep stats the same as it was. 

I'm getting tired of arguing on this point, so I'll just leave this and go do something else that's actually enjoyable: This is dumb. As @DeRuyter just said, altering the combat model to enforce gameplay protections is silly and won't solve the problem. A 3v1 is still a 3v1, and if you allowed yourself to be caught unawares by 3 other ships with no reasonable way out or backup, then shame on you. It sucks being on the receiving end of that - I know, I speak from personal experience. But that's why the Surrender option is there. The "I know I'm going to lose this, might as well get it over with" option. Or just go with plan F-it and slug it out the best you can, anyway. Who knows, maybe you'll take one of them out or shred their crew sufficiently to make your loss as painful as possible for them.

The heart of the matter is that you are using this arguing point as a means to mitigate so-called ganking that relies on a numerical advantage by altering game mechanics to protect the individual from the masses. I feel that this position is erroneous. Having a numerical advantage is purely and simply, a numerical advantage. The disadvantaged does not and should not magically receive a sudden buff in strength or durability just because they're outnumbered. In fact, I find it even more fun fighting at a numerical disadvantage with sound engagement tactics in order to still pull off the satisfying underdog victory.

[Ned Loe]

12 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Good god, why?  What would possess you to change the combat rules in a way that would vary the outcome of the exact same broadside on a ship's masts just because there are two other ships in the engagement beyond standoff range?  Does this make any sense at all?

I really don't see where demasting was overpowered prior to the patch. We must be playing entirely different games, as even engagements with certified mast snipers didn't devolve into mast shooting. It was viable, but not overpowered against other strategies. Roll it back.

Just trying to throw some ideas here, so gank is fixed. Ganking goes side by side with demasting/masts .It's like a twin brother. So, when you making changes to one it will effect the other one.   Devs asked in past to keep providing ideas that might fix the problem. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Wind said:

Just trying to throw some ideas here, so gank is fixed. Ganking goes side by side with demasting .It's like a twin brother. So, when you making changes to one it will effect the other one.  

No! This won't stop ganking at all.. 

[Ned Loe]

2 minutes ago, EliteDelta said:

No! This won't stop ganking at all.. 

Explain why?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Wind said:

Explain why?

Because people can chain. This is what large ganking groups typically do. It's quicker, takes less effort, and is effective. 

[Prater]

Because now the only people that can demast ARE gankers.

[Corona Lisa]

5 minutes ago, Wind said:

Just trying to throw some ideas here, so gank is fixed. Ganking goes side by side with demasting/masts .It's like a twin brother. So, when you making changes to one it will effect the other one.   Devs asked in past to keep providing ideas that might fix the problem. 

Why not just lower the points for bigger groups depending on their BR in comparison to the enemy in the PvP zone instead? It got suggested a lot of times already and has no disadvantage. Meanwhile mast buffs wont change a thing about ganking since most gankers shoot sails anyways (immediate effect -> your friends can close up faster to the victim).

[Ned Loe]

10 minutes ago, EliteDelta said:

Because people can chain. This is what large ganking groups typically do. It's quicker, takes less effort, and is effective. 

So, here is our problem. Isn't it? >>>Chain<<<

[Guest]

@Wind

No disrespect intended - Are you drunk?

Your arguments seem erratic at best.. 

[Ned Loe]

11 minutes ago, JonSnowLetsGo said:

Why not just lower the points for bigger groups depending on their BR in comparison to the enemy in the PvP zone instead? It got suggested a lot of times already and has no disadvantage. Meanwhile mast buffs wont change a thing about ganking since most gankers shoot sails anyways (immediate effect -> your friends can close up faster to the victim).

Like I said, many people point fingers at Chain shot. So, it is clear that chain needs balancing. 

Sorry for off topic, your signature has the wrong statement about wolves. 

copyhttp://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/110000/Wolf-Tricks-in-the-Circus--110106.jpgpaste

[Prater]

Yes, let's take chaining out now...

 

These changes ruin regular play more than they ruin gank play.  Why?  Because gankers still have the numbers to eventually accomplish it.

 

No amount of changing combat will stop ganks.  It must be solved in another fashion.  Every change to combat affects fair play and 1v1 play, which is something we do not want to touch.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Prater

[Ned Loe]

9 minutes ago, Prater said:

Yes, let's take chaining out now...

 

These changes ruin regular play more than they ruin gank play.  Why?  Because gankers still have the numbers to eventually accomplish it.

 

No amount of changing combat will stop ganks.  It must be solved in another fashion.

So, why Devs made the change? If Ganker numbers are larger then we need to somehow help the victim who is being ganked. 1. if numbers 3:1 nerf sail damage on chainshot/ball 2. if numbers 1:1 let it be. Is it that hard?

[Zoky]

What's the point in OW when every fight is 1:1? Why not delete OW then and make this game another WoT clone? Forcing fair fights is super quick way to losing players who are interested in OW and everything that brings to the table including fighting when outnumbered and outgunned. Every ******* military academy teaches you to create and fight from advantageous position, and when in disadvantage to retreat and regroup. Forcing 3:1 into 1:1 is so idiotic that english language doesn't even have a word to describe magnitude of that idiocy! Im shocked that anyone can defend this change 

[Sir Texas Sir]

10 hours ago, admin said:

Hotfix was deployed today. 

1. There are now 4 admiralty pop events during the day to bring more timezones into the picture. They alternate daily as before.
2. Capture zones were updated for all ports to take into account first port battle experiences
3. Time to win the port battle if you control all 3 capture zones was slightly increased (from 14 mins to 20 mins)
4. Bug with bow leaks causing abnormal number of leaks due to collider placement - fixed. 

The time to win with capture was all ready to fast with two zones, it's even faster with three.  There needs to be something to stop the capture time other than having more ships in there.  Other games have it that if you get shot you don't con't for the time.  Port battles are going to be nothing but small fast ships you race to the caps and win.   

Make it more like 30 mins and put more on kills than capping.  I'm sorry the fist PB we had no on was killed and most of us didn't even get a couple of broad sides off.  It was nothing a race to cap in a LINE SHIP port battle.  You might of lost a lot of players cause of theat.  Now it's pointless to bring SOL for a lineship battle, instead you need to bring a bunch of speed ships.   These battles are nothing but races just like your first EVENTS where.  We struggled to get half our numbers to even show cause of these new PvP events brought back PvP and now your making even the stupid PvE grind to get Port battles to only have a race and not a fight.  Port Battles should be about the fight not the race for some stupid zones.  You should not be able to win by only capping.  It should like the War Supplies only count for 50% of the capture points.  The rest should be from actually fighting.   Make each zone count for 25% of the total points you can earn.  When you max out that zone doesn't earn any more points but you don't loose them either.  This will get the PvP back into the Port battles too. I like the fact you have to bring a mix of ships. 

 

FIX THE BATTLE WINDOWS.   US PVP2 players can not fight during our prime time and you should not have any battles scheduled during time that can be down for maintenance.   The window right now is stupid.   It needs to be changed from no battles between 0400 UTC to 0900 UTC.  0900 is one hour after maintenance start and gives you no time to set up so it's a bad time.  If there is an update than that is up to one hour the port battle will be lost.  So to fix this the timers should be set to 0600 UTC to 1100 UTC that no battles can be done.  Though Ideally   0800 UTC to 1300 UTC would prob be the best time as It puts the server up time more into the SEA/AUSS prime time for port battles more  away from any down time for servers.     Look at when you have the events and that even tells you that if we can't have port battles during those events than your timers are set wrong since people in those prime times should be able to fight just like any one else.  Remember folks this game is needing to be designed for a future high pop not the current low pop of testers.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Sir Texas Sir

[Wesreidau]

1 hour ago, Wind said:

Just trying to throw some ideas here, so gank is fixed. Ganking goes side by side with demasting/masts .It's like a twin brother. So, when you making changes to one it will effect the other one.   Devs asked in past to keep providing ideas that might fix the problem. 

Ganking will not be fixed in the combat system. Ganking can only be fixed through the mechanisms that reward combat (high BR difference, no rewards) or the mechanisms that create combat (BR difference in tagging). Once a fight starts, if its unfair, that's a shame

 

[Corona Lisa]

52 minutes ago, Wind said:

Like I said, many people point fingers at Chain shot. So, it is clear that chain needs balancing. 

You have an idea how to balance it? I agree there are way too many people who seem to forget that ball even exist and its boring as fck to play against. But on the other hand you need something to slow running enemies down. I dont know how the devs could fix this problem.

[Prater]

Quote

If Ganker numbers are larger then we need to somehow help the victim who is being ganked. 1. if numbers 3:1 nerf sail damage on chainshot/ball 2. if numbers 1:1 let it be. Is it that hard?

What is the point?  Don't mess with combat then, mess with who can join.  Don't mess with the combat model to fix ganking.  That is the wrong way to do it.  Especially when you have a person saying buff masts so masts can't be dropped in 1v1 but still can in mass ganks (i.e. doesn't solve the problem at all).  As to your points 1 and 2, Why should gankers have their damage output changed?  Stop ganking, don't nerf it and don't change the combat model.

P.s.  Ganking and Mast destruction don't go hand in hand.  I've demasted plenty of times in 1v1 and I've been demasted plenty of times in 1v1. 

[Wesreidau]

If there's any time I want to demast someone, its in a 1v1 where I'm facings superior ship and can't outrun him otherwise. IE, being "ganked".