Testbed: Content patch - 9.98 deployed

[fox2run]

Yes. Maybe. But in real life no teleport existed. All nations did not sail in a Santissima Trinidad or Constitution. Very few pirates where hunting the seven seas and most ships was trading ships. Furthermore an average officer saw very little combat during his years of service and very few, if any, large fleet battles took place in the Caribbean Sea let alone Port Battles.

A trip around West Indies took several weeks and months if the wind was bad. Hurricane season made travel hazardous and was avoided.

All this is historically accurate. But implementing this would be.... Boring.

It's a pc game and we need some variation in battles and outcome. No fun if players just put the white flag on the table to avoid loss of expensive men. We need some extra drama. 

Naval Action. Not Naval Simulator.

Tnx.

[JeanJacques de Montpellier]

1 hour ago, fox2run said:

It's a pc game and we need some variation in battles and outcome. No fun if players just put the white flag on the table to avoid loss of expensive men. We need some extra drama. 

Naval Action. Not Naval Simulator.

Tnx.

Maybe yes, but

this game is also a "NAVAL ACTION IS AN EXCITING, REALISTIC, AND BEAUTIFULLY DETAILED NAVAL ".

[Havelock]

Next version to test? Im in! Perfect moment to write down my last feedback from old version:

 

- Forts, increased damage: The amount of dmg per shot feels way better, now a fort is an actual threat. However i think that the range and accuracy is too low to have an impact on PBs. On the screenshot below you can see the fort, me in an LGV close to it and a bit further, a Constitution NPC. The Constitution is now on max shooting range (guessing about 1200m?). You will notice some cannonball impacts on the water next to it. Theyre very spread out, missing the center of the ship by approx a ship length in every direction. To score good hits, the Constitution would have to be at least 800m away and sail broadsided to the fort. However, the circles in PBs are large and still have some distance to the beach, which will always leave them mostly undefended by forts (towers are basically not noticable). Imo circles must be smaller and closer to land, or the forts have to stick out of the beach more. I wouldnt advise to boost dmg/range/accuracy more as this would make forts OP, but make it so that the attacker somehow has to deal with them (mechanic of surpressing a fort by shooting at its direction?). On a side note: The right side of the fort (where it has its entry) is bugged and wont start shooting.

 

 

- For the next round of testing: You made crafting changes to lineships. However were all starting with craft lvl 0. Additionaly ports dont produce anything on testbed because theres no maintenance. If you want us to test crafting too, give us a craft XP boost. No maintenance also means no Port Battles. We cant test these atm even tho this is the place where forts and towers need to be tested.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Havelock
typo

[fox2run]

21 minutes ago, JeanJacques de Montpellier said:

Maybe yes, but

this game is also a "NAVAL ACTION IS AN EXCITING, REALISTIC, AND BEAUTIFULLY DETAILED NAVAL ".

No. It's not at all realistic. Realism means nothing dramatic happens for 99,9% of the time. That's why we need pc games. 

Historical accuracy has been misinterpreted and used as players like the game to be. You like white flags. I like explosions and sinking ships more. Players are different. But my historical accuracy is as good as yours.

[elite92]

test server is up

[Liq]

Destroyed a Fort in a PB on the testserver in just under 4 minutes, not sure if it's been possible to do that fast before.
But the increased fort-range surely will result in defenders camping in the parts of the circles that are in fort range, IF the attackers fail to get their mortar brig in position. Not too sure if I'm a fan of that.

[elite92]

8 minutes ago, Liquicity said:

Destroyed a Fort in a PB on the testserver in just under 4 minutes, not sure if it's been possible to do that fast before.
But the increased fort-range surely will result in defenders camping in the parts of the circles that are in fort range, IF the attackers fail to get their mortar brig in position. Not too sure if I'm a fan of that.

u can destroy a tower under 250 m with a 1st rate in few broadside, dunno if it is the same on live server

[SneakyTurtle]

A Forts in a Port Battle took down 2 mast on a Agamemnon fairly quickly, without much ship damage.  Took out a Bellona mast without trying to.  The mast may be way to easy to take down on the Testbed server

[Fargo]

7 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Here I go.

Pavel vs Pavel. 200xp mission.

Rewards: 39661+5000 gold, 756+200 xp. Repairs: around 6300, Profit: 38000 gold +/- (no crew cost included).

Considering that before it was almost the half, it is an improvement, but still not enough money. Producing 328 of oak I have to pay 23944, hire cost crew still 500gold, 42lb cannon for 20000gold, one green pellew sight for 36000gold... Economy is balance, and still there is a lot of work to be done.

Also delivery missions/trading have one problem, you have to pay first for the trading resources. So, if you have not money you cant do anything. So you will be grinding missions too much.

I noticed no port is producing crafting resources, repair kits, materials and medkits. Be careful if you choose a player driven economy cause with a population of only a few hundreds I doubt it could work.

Good job, but are missions not going to be removed nevertheless?! Didnt they also say that gold rewards for damage are going to be removed in the future as well?! 

Otherwise you should stop the rough time for a mission, and note the crew loss. Assumed 20min/mission this is 114k gold/hour + LH value. Not too bad while e.g. the resource value for a 5th rate is only 60k/dura?!

Its hard to say what income would be "enough", but thats not our task. Also your oak production cost will be paid by your customers when you sell it + additional income. Crew cost will drop depending on med kit value, med kit value depends on LH value, LH value depends on money value. Upgrade cost, unless they become consumption goods, shouldnt be considered. 

You should assume about 2k players/server, unless you already gave up on NA.

[sterner]

10 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Here I go.

Pavel vs Pavel. 200xp mission.

Rewards: 39661+5000 gold, 756+200 xp. Repairs: around 6300, Profit: 38000 gold +/- (no crew cost included).

Considering that before it was almost the half, it is an improvement, but still not enough money. Producing 328 of oak I have to pay 23944, hire cost crew still 500gold, 42lb cannon for 20000gold, one green pellew sight for 36000gold... Economy is balance, and still there is a lot of work to be done.

Also delivery missions/trading have one problem, you have to pay first for the trading resources. So, if you have not money you cant do anything. So you will be grinding missions too much.

I noticed no port is producing crafting resources, repair kits, materials and medkits. Be careful if you choose a player driven economy cause with a population of only a few hundreds I doubt it could work.

 

I have seen more variety of the nations on OW. Thats good. However I would like to see less warships and more contraband traders from all nations.

 

 

Profitability goes down for rates. Frigates have the best profitability comparing with expenses. Rate is an expensive toy.

[Fargo]

27 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Mate, this rewards are obtained with the new system that dont give you gold for damage and crew.

My oak will be paid by my customers if I had them. Lets me explain. Small nations have very few dedicated sellers, so there is no price competition. As a result, most goods will reach very high prices. If your gold rewards are so low as now, you cant afford to buy them. If you dont buy, you cant craft. No craft, no pvp.

Take into account that contracts are not working anymore in the testbed server so ALL the crafting goods will need to be bought or gathered. I think you dont see the whole picture of how a chore this can be.

I dont gave up with NA. But Im realistic, this game is not for everyone. We will have lucky if we keep 1,2k players/server.

Ok nice, but are missions going to stay?!

Of course its not working with 5 players on the testbed.... also with redeemables you dont need to buy anything. If you run out of money/ships.... reinstall the testbed. But you cant produce oak without any demand, and then use the cost to argue the income is too low. 

In general balancing the combat income means balancing the money flowing in the market with money going out of the market (pure resource value sank, taxes, etc.), this has not much to do with personal opinion.

[Fargo]

Only if pve players can find enough ships in the same time. Dont want you to stop testing, but you should keep track of important numbers like crew loss and time spend. They probably know the direct rewards for sinking specific ships.

[fox2run]

Hmm. Its like no NEW ideas are coming. They are only fine tuning the old ones... 

[DeRuyter]

On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 3:22 AM, fox2run said:

Battle of Eckernførde and battle of Lyngor one in three ships blew up. In almost each large battle at least one ship blew up. Glorious first of June, Trafalgar, Wagers Action, 5 October 1804.... etc. That's common to me and should be reflected in the game.

It was not unsual that at least one ship blew up in the battles in the age of sail.

 

Okay  first explosions are represented In the game and it is spectacular when it happens. Second the combat model should reflect how often this happened.

 Eckernforde -  Christian VIII set on fire by heated shot from fort but surrendered not blown up. Lyngor - Danish frigate set on fire by British 64 - surrendered, not "one in three ships blew up". Setting a ship on fire is not the same or burning it after the battle is not the same as a ship exploding during battle. Glorious 1st of June - no explosions but most of the ships lost surrendered because they were dismasted and unable to maneuver. Trafalgar 1 of 70 ships, Battle of the Saints - 1 out of 60+ ships (after being boarded).  I can also come up with lists of battles with no exploding ships as well. Cape St. Vincent, Glorious 1st of June, etc. It is rarer with single or small squadron actions.

So again you are not looking at the big picture - take all these battles together and you have an uncommon occurrence. I know you want exciting and spectacular battles as you have posted, but some people do want a reasonably realistic combat model  not something out of POTC.  We can certainly leave it at that and agree to disagree on game play.

[Yoha]

I am too concerned with having +2 dura for 1st rates but it may not necessarily be a bad thing and here is why:

1. It seems that they will be increasing the cost to craft the ship so it will be more like a 3 ships in one type deal.

2. It will make it easier for players to get back out to battle if they get sunk, assuming they still have dura left of the ship.

3. Players will be less concerned about losing upgrades which was really the biggest "fear" factor when using 1 dura ships.

4. Players won't have to be stuck on the sidelines after sinking and necessarily have to wait to re-craft a ship, so less grindyness and more fighting. It will give them more time to craft a replacement 3 dura 1st rate.

 

What it comes down to is as long as the 3 dura 1st rates cost about the same as 3 one dura 1st rates, the current 1st rate balance will not necessarily be thrown off. The same goes for other ships and their cost to dura ratio. Once this update hits the actual servers it will probably cause players to purge their fleets of the current 1 dura 1st rates... maybe there will be a bunch for sale  at competitive rates!

 

[fox2run]

22 hours ago, DeRuyter said:

Okay  first explosions are represented In the game and it is spectacular when it happens. Second the combat model should reflect how often this happened.

 Eckernforde -  Christian VIII set on fire by heated shot from fort but surrendered not blown up. Lyngor - Danish frigate set on fire by British 64 - surrendered, not "one in three ships blew up". Setting a ship on fire is not the same or burning it after the battle is not the same as a ship exploding during battle. Glorious 1st of June - no explosions but most of the ships lost surrendered because they were dismasted and unable to maneuver. Trafalgar 1 of 70 ships, Battle of the Saints - 1 out of 60+ ships (after being boarded).  I can also come up with lists of battles with no exploding ships as well. Cape St. Vincent, Glorious 1st of June, etc. It is rarer with single or small squadron actions.

So again you are not looking at the big picture - take all these battles together and you have an uncommon occurrence. I know you want exciting and spectacular battles as you have posted, but some people do want a reasonably realistic combat model  not something out of POTC.  We can certainly leave it at that and agree to disagree on game play.

Check your sources once again please. Christian VIII did blow up. Not all men made it out alive. Najaden also blew up at Lyngor after receiving four tons of cannonballs during the battle. 

Count the danish sea-battles in 19th century and you will have a good picture. My guess would be approx 50% or more of all major engagements.

 

[Cecil Selous]

I don't know if we shouldn't test the PVE challenges but you should really reconsider the ship pairings in these. The demasting challenge is cutter vs. Snow. Almost every broadside of the snow at almost every angle sends you into reloadshock. In the time challenge you are in a snow against two mercuries who shred right through you. It is challenging, but not much fun

[Cecil Selous]

yeah, that's the "not much fun" part.

[Yoha]

10 hours ago, fox2run said:

Check your sources once again please. Christian VIII did blow up. Not all men made it out alive. Najaden also blew up at Lyngor after receiving four tons of cannonballs during the battle. 

No need to discuss any further with you Trump-alike way to represent alternative facts for the public.

Count the danish sea-battles in 19th century and you will have a good picture. My guess would be approx 50% or more of all major engagements.

 

fox, I don't think you get what he was trying to say. Right now there are ships exploding in almost every engagement. He wants it toned down a bit.

 

[Sir Texas Sir]

3 hours ago, Cecil Selous said:

I don't know if we shouldn't test the PVE challenges but you should really reconsider the ship pairings in these. The demasting challenge is cutter vs. Snow. Almost every broadside of the snow at almost every angle sends you into reloadshock. In the time challenge you are in a snow against two mercuries who shred right through you. It is challenging, but not much fun

I have made many comments on this an d F11 every time I try one. I have yet to see any one finish any other than I think one time some one scored on the kills one with the Exxes they got one kill.  That and we have no clue what the stats of the free ship is and they seem to just get melted.  As for the Demast one I can see doing it like the kills.  One ship at a time, but not two higher BR ships.  Essex vs two trincs we know who's going to win that one.  Just like the cutter vs 2 snows you spend most your time in reload shock so you never get a fire off as they melt your ship like butter.   That and ships like the Trinc and a few other have extremely strong mast that can't be pen by most guns of it's tier unless your point blank.   They should be a bit of a challenge, but they should not be geared to a level that only the 1% elite can do and it seems even they can't get on the score boards.   I'm about an average player in my book when it's 1 vs 1 so I figure i can get some score, but I haven't even been able to finish any of them before I'm sunk using the NPC given ships.  If no one else is on the score baord I should be able to make it up there, even if it's a crappy score, but if your being completely sunk every time there is no point to do them.

[Sir Texas Sir]

Ok since we don't have craft levels I was wondering what is the new mats needed to build the 3 dura 1st rate ships and such?   Has any one even seen what it takes to make anything of the new stuff.

[Bucket O'Scurvey]

Lookin forward to it

[fremen]

You can't take ships in the test server? I just take a trader snow and was unable to send ship to port or take to fleet...

[Havelock]

8 minutes ago, fremen said:

You can't take ships in the test server? I just take a trader snow and was unable to send ship to port or take to fleet...

 

In testbed, you have to spend points on perks to use fleet ships. The "Send to Outpost" feature has been disabled. If you didnt unlock a fleet slot before leaving port you will have to sink captured ships.

[fremen]

Thanks havelock. By the way, i try also the PVE events and...well, they are almost impossible to do. Something wrong with these?

Sincerely, if someone can beat two brigs with a cutter...well,