Determined defender

[Thonys]

feedback, @admin

the last copple of days i have encountered some battles with high ranked captains in 5th and 4 rates who use the determined defender as a weapon of denial

when an LGV is shot his sail down to below 49 % and the lgv comes almost to a stop where boarding speed is reached, but the ships of the enemy is not willing to board but just sink the trader.

the only hope for the trader is to board the other vessel but is denied by the determined defender.

1. i want to propose a solution for rage boarding by only make the determined defender useable for the 7 rates and 6 rates

> for the 5 rates and up it (determined defender) is not useable anymore.

proposal .2 also, it should not be a perk of the officer anymore, but a 19500 balloons note from the Admiralty for only 7/6 rates.(here you see how high i value this cheat)

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Thonys

[Palatinose]

Denied. Reason: already tremendously high crew amount on 5th  rate trading vessels.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

IMO a senseless suggestion, as one rule to rule them all

- but -

reward for sinking a trader should be naught, zip, nada, zero currency award. sole reward for trader should be the prized goods.

just my 2 reals 

 

 

[Thonys]

27 minutes ago, Palatinose said:

Denied. Reason: already tremendously high crew amount on 5th  rate trading vessels.

overruled:

and when your but is raked to 150 men ?

 

oh..before i forget was Nelson killed by a cannonball ...or by a musket bullet? 

the whole defender cheat is a big joke. and shout not be in the game at the first place .it a big cheat to begin with. I would say remove it entirely.

ps.big boys who need a cheat it is just childish. 

but also that sad, i would be merciful to the 7 th and 6 rate...(only the youngsters)

Edited January 16, 2019 by Thonys

[Palatinose]

14 minutes ago, Thonys said:

overruled:

and when your but is raked to 150 men 

the whole defender cheat is a big joke. and shout not be in the game at the first place .it a big cheat to begin with. I would say remove it entirely.

ps.big boys who need a cheat it is just childish. 

Denied 2.0: when you are graped down even boarding won't help you against the "big boys". You argue against a denial of boarding though this is exactly what DD is used for. It has been discussed, a (for once) balanced solution has been found and here you are, once again argueing to support your playstyle without seeing the whole picture. An already sinking vessel and peeps just jump over highly motivated to kill the foes' crew. Sure, makes sense entirely.

[Licinio Chiavari]

In truth all DD mechanic is crap.

With a simple act of Will I deny any chance to start a boarding to my enemy, granted I have X men on board.

If I have X-1, magically, my Will is too weak and I can be boarded as usual.

I appreciated the idea of boarding at speed (shortest patch in NA history).

The idea was good, implementation was bad due too wide speed differential allowed (max speed 8 but +/-5 differential: from 3 to 13 kts vs a 8 kts enemy: too high and too easy among 1/2 rates).

Whining was so aloud that it was cancelled without any real try to rebalance.

IMO we should move to a higher speed limit to start the pull (like around 5 kts or even more) with a far smaller speed differential (like approx 2 kts) coupled with a longer "base pulling timer" (not taking into account side distance; so no insta-start if already touching) like 10 sec (may be it is even too much) during those I have to maintain speed very close to enemy one to not stop the timer. Becoming so matter of both sides sailing skill to break or mantain the pull.

The base pulling timer modified by crew differential (the more the defender and the less the attacker, the longer the timer - aka more people cutting ropes than those throwing them).

And then move DD as an extra on pulling time.

This could me meaningful.

And then rebalance/revamp boarding UI and values. Because it is fine to be able to defend with some books against a full boarder.

But now it is too in defender favour a 281 crewed Requin has to start 3+ boardings against an Hercules or a LGVR again 3 boardings versus a Belle Poule in order to break enemy defense.

[Angus MacDuff]

16 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

In truth all DD mechanic is crap.

With a simple act of Will I deny any chance to start a boarding to my enemy, granted I have X men on board.

If I have X-1, magically, my Will is too weak and I can be boarded as usual.

I appreciated the idea of boarding at speed (shortest patch in NA history).

The idea was good, implementation was bad due too wide speed differential allowed (max speed 8 but +/-5 differential: from 3 to 13 kts vs a 8 kts enemy: too high and too easy among 1/2 rates).

Whining was so aloud that it was cancelled without any real try to rebalance.

IMO we should move to a higher speed limit to start the pull (like around 5 kts or even more) with a far smaller speed differential (like approx 2 kts) coupled with a longer "base pulling timer" (not taking into account side distance; so no insta-start if already touching) like 10 sec (may be it is even too much) during those I have to maintain speed very close to enemy one to not stop the timer. Becoming so matter of both sides sailing skill to break or mantain the pull.

The base pulling timer modified by crew differential (the more the defender and the less the attacker, the longer the timer - aka more people cutting ropes than those throwing them).

And then move DD as an extra on pulling time.

This could me meaningful.

And then rebalance/revamp boarding UI and values. Because it is fine to be able to defend with some books against a full boarder.

But now it is too in defender favour a 281 crewed Requin has to start 3+ boardings against an Hercules or a LGVR again 3 boardings versus a Belle Poule in order to break enemy defense.

I disagree completely.  Boarding mechanic is crap because ships cant pull.  the only way boarding should be possible is if both ships are at zero speed and stay that way for a couple of seconds.  Tying ships together that are actually moving is ridiculous and pulling moving ships together when they each have some speed is ludicrous.  Talk about arcade games.

[Thonys]

1 hour ago, Palatinose said:

Denied 2.0: when you are graped down even boarding won't help you against the "big boys". You argue against a denial of boarding though this is exactly what DD is used for. It has been discussed, a (for once) balanced solution has been found and here you are, once again argueing to support your playstyle without seeing the whole picture. An already sinking vessel and peeps just jump over highly motivated to kill the foes' crew. Sure, makes sense entirely.

ask him he will tell you a other story

this is what i call a HONORABLE fighting captain ..

no DD chitty cheat.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Thonys

[Licinio Chiavari]

31 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

I disagree completely.  Boarding mechanic is crap because ships cant pull.  the only way boarding should be possible is if both ships are at zero speed and stay that way for a couple of seconds.  Tying ships together that are actually moving is ridiculous and pulling moving ships together when they each have some speed is ludicrous.  Talk about arcade games.

Ok.

A - I know a lot of people doesnt like being boarded. Like you clearly. I can only suggest you to move to a WWI-WWII naval simulation having not to be bored by ramming and boarding and going only with gunnery.

B - BUT this is an Age of Sail naval combat... And boarding was the most normal outcome.

C - what you propose is making boarding simply impossible. I could agree about your proposal being less arcade... When square rigged ship will tack in 10-20 minutes, will be unable to close haul at more than 70° on wind, masts will naturally fall due to rigging damage, and ships rigging got entangled and thus locking two ships.

D - how arcade is mast sniping?

E - so. Can you talk about resemblance of reality in our (NA) enviroment or you can only use the famed #alternate_current_realism_argument (aka ACRA)?

Edited January 16, 2019 by Licinio Chiavari

[Angus MacDuff]

1 minute ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Ok.

A - I know a lot of people doesnt like being boarded. Like you clearly. I can only suggest you to move to a WWI-WWII naval simulation having not to be bored by ramming and boarding and going only with gunnery.

B - BUT this is an Age of Sail naval combat... And boarding was the most normal outcome.

C - what you propose is making boarding simply impossible. I could agree about your proposal being less arcade... When square rigged ship will tack in 10-20 minutes, will be unable to close haul at more than 70° on wind, masts will naturally fall due to rigging damage, and ships rigging got entangled and thus locking two ships.

C - how arcade mast sniping is?

D - so. Can you talk about resemblance of reality in our (NA) enviroment or you Can only use the famed #alternate_current_realism_argument (aka ACRA)?

A.  Don't be so arrogant as to suggest someone move to another game if you don't like their argument. 

B.  I know that it's an age of sail game.  The most common outcome was striking colours after a beating.  Boarding was a very common outcome in this age, but not at speed.    Boarding occurred at very slow or stopped speeds. 

C. no it wouldn't.  But yes, it would make it much more difficult.  Please stop throwing arguments about other issues into this one.  It is your favourite tactic.

C (again?) Please stop throwing arguments about other issues into this one.  It is your favourite tactic.

D. Eh??

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

We don't have rigging getting fouled at any point in enemy or friend. So let's cut the realistic slaps a bit shall we ?

One can ram someone out of boarding ( that really drives me mad, literally... ) or into the eye of the wind and the rigs won't entangle...ships won't be immobile for a time while the winning crew tries to disentangle the ships !? Give me a break...

That's arcade  

 

 

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 minute ago, Angus MacDuff said:

A.  Don't be so arrogant as to suggest someone move to another game if you don't like their argument. 

B.  I know that it's an age of sail game.  The most common outcome was striking colours after a beating.  Boarding was a very common outcome in this age, but not at speed.    Boarding occurred at very slow or stopped speeds. 

C. no it wouldn't.  But yes, it would make it much more difficult.  Please stop throwing arguments about other issues into this one.  It is your favourite tactic.

C (again?) Please stop throwing arguments about other issues into this one.  It is your favourite tactic.

D. Eh??

A - you throwed an argument that translated in gameplay would mean "boarding is impossible". So a rude reply to a position to defend your playstyle.

B - or you add morale in combat (leading to a surrender more or less to the first good rake) or there's no way to make a computer player striking colours. I would underline that here almost never a player surrender EVEN IT'S A PLAIN WASTE OF TIME FOR BOTH SIDES KEEP THE BATTLE GOING FOR 10 MINUTES MORE.

C - no. It's close to impossible to reduce a ship speed to ZERO as you stated. I pointed simply out that (E - edited) you cant use realism ONLY if in favour of your playstyle. Get real sailing and rig entangled and falling masts due to rig damage... And NA will end to be 2 frigates getting side to side after one two manouvers and then dismantling each other with some musket fire in the meantime.

C+D+E - (edited) no.

It is this forum normal tactic to use "realism argument" only when supporting preferred playstyle, like in your case as I pointed.

Therefore my acronym about "alternate current realism argument".

You cant ask "perfect" realism ONLY if good for your preferred style... Ignoring it in other cases.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Think about everyone starting with Zero anyting, imagine post wipe if you will. You start with nothing. You think the XP and sinking of a trader is anything ? ( 999 reals plus some xp ? )

Prize treasure is the main goal for attacking traders... at least from a age of sail perspective, i will leave the metagame out of the way as i struggle to understand it.

Reals from the prizes, for example 68k reals from a single trader hit ( AI not player; from player i get way way more...), a lucky fortune for anyone, newcomer or veteran alike. Don't want them ? Hit warships, they give far far more XP than a trader.

Just a different POV. None of ours is right  only the Devs one is.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Hence the interpretation between hitting trade and hitting warships. One giving more XP, the other more reals. I mean, 63 XP for a Trader Snow is next to nothing, no one is going to develop "abstract skillz" by hitting traders BUT the pvp multiplayer raises it to something like 160 if i'm not mistaken, for the same model, a mere trader brig.

My notion is - if you going to attack enemy trade you will do it for 2 things - denial of resources -OR- capture of prize. Not simply because grief.

The intent must correlate with the result, else it is nothing but a mere game of brutes. As many raided fellows notice if they pay attention, i never sink a trader if i can help it ( i try to bring it to home base and open to recapture, i want the prize and also give the enemy the opportunity for recapture ) or if it is totally empty i might ( returned some to the owners as well ). The prizes are just too good to pass by. The XP is negligible, the Reals are not.

But as i said, i struggle with some metagame notions... sorry.

[Licinio Chiavari]

6 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

Hence the interpretation between hitting trade and hitting warships. One giving more XP, the other more reals. I mean, 63 XP for a Trader Snow is next to nothing, no one is going to develop "abstract skillz" by hitting traders BUT the pvp multiplayer raises it to something like 160 if i'm not mistaken, for the same model, a mere trader brig.

My notion is - if you going to attack enemy trade you will do it for 2 things - denial of resources -OR- capture of prize. Not simply because grief.

The intent must correlate with the result, else it is nothing but a mere game of brutes. As many raided fellows notice if they pay attention, i never sink a trader if i can help it or if it is totally empty ( returned some to the owners as well ). The prizes are just too good to pass by. The XP is negligible, the Reals are not.

But as i said, i struggle with some metagame notions... sorry.

The problem with (absolutely reasonable) capturing (ship or only cargo) in place of sinking is bound to a few problems.

1 - speed being too hurted by load, in a unrealistic way (ballast?). As a fast raider I cant load enemy cargo in general nor even if I have room for it: I condemn my ship to be easily intercepted.

2 - I cant capture (usually) the trader because, aside I have to spend 1 perk (and it could be fine), I will have to sail with her in fleet, badly hurting my OW speed and therefore making myself (again) a target for eventual revenge fleet.

3 - from a general perspective, the damage done to enemy economy with privateering is secondary and the gain for my nation economy bringing cargo and crappy trader to a friendly port is close to zero.

1+2+3 coupled with the cost of a nice raiding ship makes this kind of historical privateering war simply not working.

Or we get real effects of strangling a port (like reducing usable PB BR for the defending fleet), region (like having capitols being poorer and unable to buy trade goods), nation and real positive effects, on the contrary, delivering good to friendly ports, or sinking a trader will keep being preferable in 90+% of cases to capturing her or her cargo.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

1- is no problem. is decision making. risk of recapture worth the risk of the prize ? is on the player, not you individual, but the player in general. Can also go with the old maxim - take what you can, leave nothing behind. 

And this is something a newcomer must aprehend. This is not World of Rubber Ducks. This is NA age of sail. From the start the newcomer must start to mold his own... career...

2- without perk and crew being created out of nowhere, we cannot simulate it correctly. So the balance between having to have the perk and also having "1400 crew" in our pockets is a given fact of NA life. One means the other IMO.

3 - you are right. we don't hurt the enemy Nation, we hurt the individual player. But i tell you that is because "we" the players want it that way via years of development. Correct resources map was deem too harsh by the community and Nations would conquer to control access to resources which then drove many players to simply call it quits. Was tested ( kudos to northernwolves for making it possible through his extensive data ).

3.a - privateer ships could be expensive or not at all. same as in NA

1+2+3 - outside a player imagination ? You are right. Little war, little decisive action in War Server.

Your final conclusions bring me to a far past, but apparently anything that moves away from - quick access to everything right now - is often disregarded by the majority.

I'm okay with that. Doesn't give me that feeling of a grand strategy with wargame battles i would wish, but is highly entertaining, the best age of sail.

[Slim McSauce]

Back to determined defender, another case of a perk gone wild. Should just be once you lose 33% of your crew then you're open regardless of starting crew size. Simple solution would be to keep your crew up if you want to survive. 

[Licinio Chiavari]

5 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

1- is no problem. is decision making. risk of recapture worth the risk of the prize ? is on the player, not you individual, but the player in general. Can also go with the old maxim - take what you can, leave nothing behind. 

"Leave nothing behind" is the most viable solution in most cases.

6 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

2- without perk and crew being created out of nowhere, we cannot simulate it correctly. So the balance between having to have the perk and also having "1400 crew" in our pockets is a given fact of NA life. One means the other IMO.

I said in the past that limiting crew moves only in port would a) making raiders less effective b) it'll be more realistic c) allow to always capture, with a price: decrewing your main ship. Capture fleet ship should be always allowed. Leaving fleet perk for multi ship sailing from a port. d) getting back the perk allowing to "recruit" a part of surrendered ship crew as own. Realist indeed, and another choise for the player.

10 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

3 - you are right. we don't hurt the enemy Nation, we hurt the individual player.

I know. And indeed hurting really the poor newcomer, not the rich veteran.

11 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

3 - ... But i tell you that is because "we" the players want it that way via years of development. Correct resources map was deem too harsh by the community and Nations would conquer to control access to resources which then drove many players to simply call it quits. Was tested ( kudos to northernwolves for making it possible through his extensive data ).

"Approximately" correct resources map would be viable making wood differences smaller and making mods less strategic.

Therefore making the gear gap between who owns some resources and those not, less strategic.

This, with periodical server map resets (like in WWIIonline or even H&G) could be a solution. Those being in a nation "winning the map" should receive some nice stuff (mainly cosmetics or rare not OP ships - like Constitution Classic, Christian, Gunboat, Cecilia etc...).

16 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

3.a - privateer ships could be expensive or not at all. same as in NA

You know that a Raider has often a not so good life espectancy.

A crappy raiding ship even shorter.

I agree that using super cheap raiders aiming to 1-2 to 1 KD ratio is viable as using expensive ones aiming to 10+ to 1.

18 minutes ago, Chevalier du Ethuville said:

1+2+3 - outside a player imagination ? You are right. Little war, little decisive action in War Server.

Your final conclusions bring me to a far past, but apparently anything that moves away from - quick access to everything right now - is often disregarded by the majority.

I'm okay with that. Doesn't give me that feeling of a grand strategy with wargame battles i would wish, but is highly entertaining, the best age of sail.

Being a 30+ years wargamer I would prefer more "grand strategy" feeling.

Indeed atm most strategy is around "prima donnas" harassing each other... That's not exactly the play I would like to enjoy.

[Capn Rocko]

5 hours ago, Thonys said:

the last copple of days i have encountered some battles with high ranked captains in 5th and 4 rates who use the determined defender as a weapon of denial

Determined defender is designed to be a weapon of denial. Carry on.

[Licinio Chiavari]

40 minutes ago, Capn Rocko said:

Determined defender is designed to be a weapon of denial. Carry on.

Aye. Weapon of denial.

On top of that

- any decent sailor can deny a boarding... Not being boarded.

- anyone can make his ship unbeatable (aside impossible odds) in boarding with 2 books (marine15+barricade).

- anyone can make his ship a true pain to board with 2 books (barricades+handcombat).

- anyone can make his ship quite a pain to board with 1 book (barricade).

- almost anyone can make a boarding lasting 0 rounds (so making impossible to win the boarding for attacker) with 1 book and 1 mod (handcombat + boarding axes).

- any good boarder can often survive a full boarding ship even without any boarding book.

- and we have 2 perk available to help defender (the magical DD and the other one halving Defend order prep cost) and zero useful to a boarder.

... While a full boarder is devoting from 4 to 6 or more mods+books to it.

What's next? 😎

[Licinio Chiavari]

5 minutes ago, Wraith said:

Limited grape.  

But with voodoo rum.

Otherwise the poor "I_loveZ_blaZinG_gunZ" guy that lose 250 crew to 3 graped rakes on his Connie from a Requin... Cant survive!

I remember killing 893 crew to a Bellona... Being still unable to board him (he was really good... Still his crew should be -243 😂😂😂).

[Sir Texas Sir]

1 hour ago, Wraith said:

Limited grape.  

Honestly if we where to do that than Charge and Double ball should be given for free (no perk) since they are limited ammo too.  I really think the perk system needs to be revamped and a lot of it given as you rank up not as a perk.  Same with crafting system.  Get the Master Crafter perks once you can craft that level of ships as you rank up.  Getting Royal ship buidler when you hit 50.  Right now crafting levels above 35 and 45 don't mean any thing other than extra labor hours.

Oh and limit repairs to only when going battle sails or slower.

[Licinio Chiavari]

47 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

... and limit repairs to only when going battle sails or slower.

Reasonable (aside the brutal 1 rep per type - hull, sail, crew - per battle).

May be it could be implemented with amount repaired being reduced by 50%.

Then doubled if going Battle Sail and tripled if stopped.

Meaning you can repair as now only going Battle Sail the full time of repair. You can repair half going full.

Or repair 150% if stopped.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Licinio Chiavari

[Sir Texas Sir]

54 minutes ago, Licinio Chiavari said:

Reasonable (aside the brutal 1 rep per type - hull, sail, crew - per battle).

May be it could be implemented with amount repaired being reduced by 50%.

Then doubled if going Battle Sail and tripled if stopped.

Meaning you can repair as now only going Battle Sail the full time of repair. You can repair half going full.

Or repair 150% if stopped.

Are tier it for the speed scales, the main thing is it's just unreal to be doing full sail repairs or hull while going full sails running. If you tried that you prob destroy your sails not repair them.