Testbed Feedback - Battle UI, Localization, Patrols, Delivery quests

[Licinio Chiavari]

1 hour ago, Palatinose said:

Dear @admin please do not feel offended by the following words, even so some might be sarcastic. What is your goal for this game? In the last year you stated on multiple occasions, you don't want this game to be for everybody as it is very hardcore. Now you seem to switch politics to go for numbers. That's fine, good actually. What I do not understand is the fact, that you tweak aspects of this game to go for full (or as much as possibe) realism (gunnery) while other fundamental aspects, like sailing are not affected? A SOL simply would lose almost every bit of its' ability to sail forewards when luffing higher than beam reach, a tack would require half an hour. Why is this part not addressed while the roaring SOL broadsides now finally cause devastating damage to 4ths and below?

Did you think this through? New metas will occur, those adapting to them will - as always - flourish. Why do think would anyone sail a 5th rate if the possibility of a 12.5kn fir/fir Bellona with prepared perk spawns right next to you, demasting (by luck - mmh no let's call it universal skill) you in the first broadside and even if you repair instantly it will just catch up, even close hauled. Do you really think casuals will be happier now because they will get killed by SOLs instead of frigates? 

You had something great, a nice balance: SOLs could sail irrealistically fast up wind, but therefore did not sink/cripple 5th rates and below in one broadside. It felt really nicely balanced. Now you shift one aspect towards more realism, while the other stays unrealistic. Overall this creates: more unrealism. 

What about economical aspects of maintenance and crafting costs: if you went for realism, perhaps one in 200 players should sail a 1st rate. On the other hand YOU KNOW (see highlighted part in the quote) that biggies are what people (quote: "much bigger numbers") want and buy this game for. Quite a dilemma don't you think? If you act customer friendly, everybody sails SOLs because it will become necessary meta, smaller vessels will have some spots in frigate or light ship events, but that's it. Negative: fewer diversity, harder start for newcomers. Following the pro realism approach, I predict to mainly see frigates in OW accompanied by some 3rd rates, but people will call for HMS Victory or Santissima Trinidad. Negative: smaller pop(?). 

I defended nearly every change you made in the last 1,5 years, because I truely believed it would finally lead to a better, nicely balanced between realism and gamyness, game. This one I simply cannot understand. Therefore the question of the beginning again: What is your goal for this game, whom do you want to please?

I cant agree more.

I am happy with general trend of reworking gameplay: the fact small hard hitting ships were the meta able to hunt SoLs was failed. And IMO it was hurting the game playerbase more than helping it: first a good share of players come to NA to enjoy the big stuff and it was not possible due to above "meta"; secondly, more importantly, while any less experienced player could accepting to lose a 3rd rate to another one, better handled and better equipped, far less people can withstand the "utter humiliation" of losing a Santissima to a Snow.

But, as perfectly nailed in above quote post, the origin of the Snows hunting Santissimas came out from TWO issues.
One, properly replied (to be balanced, but working in right direction) by testbed damage rework, and it was, as pointed by @admin, the 4pd DPS being the highest and 42pd one the worst.

But the other one being the unreal sailing qualities of ships.

So, if we are moving toward hard realism/simulation we need to take care also of sailing.

That means reworking all sailing profiles: all ships top speed should sit between 1 tick downwind of broadreach and 1 tick downwind of beam reach; moreover NO square rigged ship should be able to go more than 1 tick upwind of beam reach (while fore-aft rigged ones yes... still with a closest point around 45-55°); therefore making a tack in combat a really dangerous manouver (as it was) lasting long (and deadly) minuteS. And at the same time reworking turning rates in specular way as done for damage: keeping 6-7th rates balanced and nerfing more and more as we take into consideration bigger stuff.

[OjK]

47 minutes ago, admin said:

I know for the fact that if i copy your moves i will not have a drastically different time on the live server (against an weak oak NPC ship)

But with much less structure after planking hitting 0, and with much less crew, and with much bigger risk of beeing demasted due to changes.
So basically, You're in really much worse position.

 

And how about the other parts of the post? About making even bigger gap between the classes? Any ideas to somehow counter this "Uber damage"?
To make 74s some valid choice (they're not with current form)? 

I don't want to end up where everyone around will sail 1st rates only.
 

[Hawkwood]

1 hour ago, OjK said:

There You go. With 20% reload reduction, that would be exactly 3 minutes.

 

DPS might look slightly increased, but to me, it does not look like "uber damage", considering you using doubles whole time, and the enemy is made of Oak/crew space...So, what´s the story?

Edited February 9, 2019 by Hawkwood

[Vernon Merrill]

The story is:  Do you want battles between the BIGGEST ships in game to last 10 minutes?  

Gameplay wise?  Its a fair debate.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Vernon Merrill

[Teutonic]

I'd mirror some of @rediii's and @Hethwill's request at this time

- increase the costs or amount of resources it takes to build lineships now. the damage lineships dish out is awesome now - but a price should come with that and it should be exponentially more expensive. people may lose 5th rates quickly if they engage poorly against a lineship - but it should literally be a drop in the bucket and "already replaced" mentality.

- adjust HPs of all ships still - lineship vs lineship fighting seems fine, but as you get smaller (6-4th rates) the damage of guns and HPs of ships seems odd and should be looked at.

- I would argue for a reduction in max speed for ALL lineships, by a factor of 1 to 2 knts each. In this new damage model smaller ships should always be able to out-run larger ships (even if it is not entirely accurate, for game balance it is needed). Essentially a 5th and 4th rate should always be able to run both in the OW and in battle against lineships.

The threat that a lineship brings should always be the devastating broadside it wields. Never should a lineship be able to be "fast" though - if a lineship has more speed AND more broadside power than any other ship then we are going to have a worrisome issue.

I'll state it again, I truly agree that lineships should have the ability to rip up smaller ships easily - but the offset should be that they can never catch them if the small ship decides to run or stay away.

[z4ys]

1 hour ago, Intrepido said:

Due to the high penetrations the angling game is almost gone, which I believe is not good.

Agamenon vs Agamenon almost every ball is penetrating at extreme angles.

 

 

That is actual good. Nothing was more annoying as when dmged to go upwind and start bouncing shoots till repair is through.

Edited February 9, 2019 by z4ys

[HachiRoku]

 

30 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

I'd mirror some of @rediii's and @Hethwill's request at this time

- increase the costs or amount of resources it takes to build lineships now. the damage lineships dish out is awesome now - but a price should come with that and it should be exponentially more expensive. people may lose 5th rates quickly if they engage poorly against a lineship - but it should literally be a drop in the bucket and "already replaced" mentality.

- adjust HPs of all ships still - lineship vs lineship fighting seems fine, but as you get smaller (6-4th rates) the damage of guns and HPs of ships seems odd and should be looked at.

- I would argue for a reduction in max speed for ALL lineships, by a factor of 1 to 2 knts each. In this new damage model smaller ships should always be able to out-run larger ships (even if it is not entirely accurate, for game balance it is needed). Essentially a 5th and 4th rate should always be able to run both in the OW and in battle against lineships.

The threat that a lineship brings should always be the devastating broadside it wields. Never should a lineship be able to be "fast" though - if a lineship has more speed AND more broadside power than any other ship then we are going to have a worrisome issue.

I'll state it again, I truly agree that lineships should have the ability to rip up smaller ships easily - but the offset should be that they can never catch them if the small ship decides to run or stay away.

Its not just the lineships its certain larger frigates against slightly smaller ones. You know the indefatigable will most likely be the open sea meta now. Those 42s are completely crazy and in all fairness they were in real life too but the gaps between individual ships are also just way to high on testbed. There are no 2 ships of the same class that will have an even fight now.

Santi>Ocean>Vic>Buc>Pavel>bellona>wasa>inger>connie>wappen>indef>Endymion>trinco>essex>frigate>suprise>renomme>cerberus etc

Not sure, wappen might even get hammered by carro frigates.

I forgot many ships but atm its seems that a ship that is a bit bigger will rip the slightly smaller ship apart. Maybe santi ocean and some other ships get an even fight but broadside gaps are huge in game. Maybe, and just maybe if the BR are perfectly balanced it could work in large scale battles but I highly doubt it. 

@admin please tell me when doubles was changed to +50% damage. Is this new in testbed? A UI mistake or has this been on live server a while now? 

Edited February 9, 2019 by HachiRoku

[HachiRoku]

I dont know. Someways I love changes someways I hate them. We need pvp to test it more. 

[Teutonic]

1 minute ago, HachiRoku said:

I dont know. Someways I love changes someways I hate them. We need pvp to test it more. 

I agree - I feel we need a couple "trafalgar" events with 10-20 players to see the implications. if only we had those small/large battle buttons in ports again.....(please bring them back)

[Hawkwood]

2 hours ago, Sven Silberbart said:

With this, i fear it isnt long and I am leaving the game *check*

Atm it takes much time on OW to find any enemy. If i find someone it seldom is the same class as my ship.

5th rate meets 4th rate. What happens in that case?

1) 5th rate turns and sail away, because he cant win

2) 4th rate turns and sail away because he cant catch up

How big is the Chance to meet the same class of ship or an equal group? Much too low to have fun with this game.

Well, you need to move away from your fluffy Gustavia habitat, and explore the beautifull caribbean area. "It takes too much time to on OW to find an enemy"..Are you kidding???

[HachiRoku]

 

1 hour ago, Teutonic said:

I agree - I feel we need a couple "trafalgar" events with 10-20 players to see the implications. if only we had those small/large battle buttons in ports again.....(please bring them back)

If they keep the damage like this then I believe the devs need to look at @Hethwill sail ideas.(Cant remember thread or post about it.) It would make tacking slower and more realistic and less like motorboats.

Another idea I have is to maybe all ship turn rates need to be slower. Slowing the combat down a bit might make the battles more of a chess game? Players need to think more ahead of how they want to execute maneuvers.

Edited February 9, 2019 by HachiRoku

[OjK]

2 hours ago, admin said:

on the live servers the side by side result  against the oak/crew space NPC will not going to be drastically different.
In fact it will be the same (time to remove side planking to 0 is tuned to be almost the same as in the old model)

(if you copy your exact maneuvers (DPS from both sides you might even destroy the enemy faster on the live server)

I just did exact same manouver on live server.

However, with small changes - I had to use L'Ocean, as I don't have any Victory on live - and it actually ended up against another L'Ocean - but they have just 5% more HP compared to Santi I fought on testbed. The rest - exactly the same - no realod mods, no reload books, no anything.

So it's actually equalise - I deal bit more dmg, but the target has also bit more HP.

Results?

From first cannon shot to structure at 0, it took 5 minutes and 40 seconds! its over 1/3 more! (as per timer it took 3:40 on testbed)

Not only that!

Crew lost in that time was 197 compared to 278 lost during the 100%-0% on testbed.

Lets look more and compare the amount of structure lost during the salvos:

After 2nd salvo:
LIVE SERVER - Planking 50%, Structure almost full
TESTBED - Planking 40%, Structure already at 80%

3rd salvo:
LIVE SERVER: Planking about 20%, Structure about 80%
TESTBED: Planking about 10%, Structure at 50% 

Screenshots:

 

For me, that's quite a difference in a shape of the ship, don't You think?

The old dmg model - is still quite operational.
The new model - I'd consider that dead already.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkwood said:

DPS might look slightly increased, but to me, it does not look like "uber damage", considering you using doubles whole time, and the enemy is made of Oak/crew space...So, what´s the story?

Read above.
 

[HachiRoku]

14 minutes ago, Wraith said:

All due respect to @Hethwill but I think that just slowing turn rates down and nerfing sailing profiles isn't really the solution that's necessary. I'd argue that if you're committed to the "realistic" damage model (which, I'd argue to @admin that the testbed isn't any more "real" than the old model, just different and enforcing a different meta, but I digress), then what needs to happen is that rigging and shroud damage needs to be better simulated, or at least a proxy for it should be brought into the damage model.

The biggest problem that I currently see with "reality" on the testbed is that ships shouldn't be sinking as fast as they currently are. Instead, "damage" should be doing several things:

1) There needs to be another damage bar, that's hidden, which models shroud and rigging damage. This hidden damage bar should be reduced every time cannons of any weight hit hull, sails, or masts, and be hugely increased by the use of chain.  As this bar goes down then yard movement times increase, sailing profile starts to contract, and most importantly, the sailing crew required goes up.

2) As shroud/rigging damage increases, then the possibility of demasting at higher press of sail should go up as well. So if you're at full sail after taking a broadside of raking chain from any weight cannon then you're at risk of losing a top mast from random chance alone. You can reduce the likelihood of this by using battle sails, etc.

3) To accompany this, structure should be hugely difficult to remove from a ship. But balanced by massive crew loss once your side armor is gone.

These changes would change the meta significantly:

Ships would no longer be sinking as often. Ship capture would be key, especially in RvR (as it was in "reality"), and disabling of ships would be far more common relative to sinking. I'm of the belief that ships should be much less costly and easy to produce, reflecting the admiralty's role in providing ships to naval captains, but a captain's crew pool should be the costliest part of sailing.  This would accomplish two things: encourage surrender once disabled to reduce the cost of loss, and two, make sailing and the choice of taking a line ship out of the harbor a potentially risky endeavor, and encourage captains to maintain smaller crew pools and sail ships with lower crew costs.

The crew cost model I would use is this:

No he did not say that. The turn rate was my idea. Hethwill was only talking about sails. Nothing major but it would have impact on the way square riggers go through the wind like motorboats. I kind of put it the wrong way  

Edited February 9, 2019 by HachiRoku

[Palatinose]

4 hours ago, admin said:

We always said that we will revisit ship and upgrade rebalance before release. Here it is - the revisit is here.

• The balance was great of course but it was great for one class of ship. Cheap fast turner with heavier calibers.
• This balance was supported by the fact that 4lb had biggest DPS in game and 42lb had worst DPS in game. 
• This balance was standing because you could tank with bow and stern due to 25% hard limits forcing lineships to avoid raking shots.

When a ship avoids raking shots it tells me something is wrong.  You call it great balance.

Please do not drag quotations out of the context theyre embedded in. I said nice balance, referring to the two major aspects of sailing profiles of SOLs and damage output of respective ships. You attend only - and drastically - to one of these important parameters, although they correlate gameplay wise significantly.

"The balance was great of course but it was great for one class of ship. Cheap fast turner with heavier calibers." - could you be precise? Which ships do you consider to fall in that category? I agree this was a reason for long ships like Conny or Endymion to be less used, as they often couldn't bring in good broadsides against faster turning ships like Aga or PFrig/Essex.

Also imo the hard limit on structural damage was too low, that's why I did not say it is balanced, especially not greatly. Meta was and always will be (unless penetration rises drastically or armour gets lowered likewise) to angle at about 45° as one only shows the smallest area to penetrate. Personally I consider this a skill, as it always needs constant adjustment of speed and direction via perfect manual sailing to find this sweet spot. 

Perhaps asides adjusting the structure damage hard limit, fixing (get rid of) the bug/feature of cannons showing as destroyed but magically reloading would have helped.

Edited February 9, 2019 by Palatinose

[Marquês do Bonfim]

46 minutes ago, Wraith said:

All due respect to @Hethwill but I think that just slowing turn rates down and nerfing sailing profiles isn't really the solution that's necessary. I'd argue that if you're committed to the "realistic" damage model (which, I'd argue to @admin that the testbed isn't any more "real" than the old model, just different and enforcing a different meta, but I digress), then what needs to happen is that rigging and shroud damage needs to be better simulated, or at least a proxy for it should be brought into the damage model.

The biggest problem that I currently see with "reality" on the testbed is that ships shouldn't be sinking as fast as they currently are. Instead, "damage" should be doing several things:

1) There needs to be another damage bar, that's hidden, which models shroud and rigging damage. This hidden damage bar should be reduced every time cannons of any weight hit hull, sails, or masts, and be hugely increased by the use of chain.  As this bar goes down then yard movement times increase, sailing profile starts to contract, and most importantly, the sailing crew required goes up.

2) As shroud/rigging damage increases, then the possibility of demasting at higher press of sail should go up as well. So if you're at full sail after taking a broadside of raking chain from any weight cannon then you're at risk of losing a top mast from random chance alone. You can reduce the likelihood of this by using battle sails, etc.

3) To accompany this, structure should be hugely difficult to remove from a ship. But balanced by massive crew loss once your side armor is gone.

These changes would change the meta significantly:

Ships would no longer be sinking as often. Ship capture would be key, especially in RvR (as it was in "reality"), and disabling of ships would be far more common relative to sinking. I'm of the belief that ships should be much less costly and easy to produce, reflecting the admiralty's role in providing ships to naval captains, but a captain's crew pool should be the costliest part of sailing.  This would accomplish two things: encourage surrender once disabled to reduce the cost of loss, and two, make sailing and the choice of taking a line ship out of the harbor a potentially risky endeavor, and encourage captains to maintain smaller crew pools and sail ships with lower crew costs.

The crew cost model I would use is this:

That's actually a pretty good idea! I wish we had that.

[Farrago]

6 hours ago, admin said:

Yes yes. Finally

We have finished with the UI and almost finished with localization and now are fixing the long overdue issues with the combat model.

No ship should tank with bow and stern - check
5th rate must avoid lineships - check
DPS paradox must be solved - check

We have stated that we are FULLY AWARE that some players will be very unhappy, and we are fine with it because WE KNOW lots of players will be extremely happy. (much bigger numbers)
We do not have resources to continue feeding thousands average players to a 100 pro players in 5-6th rates (who sink in their 1st rate to hercs or belle poules and leave - because it does not fit the historical pattern they have been sold on all their life).  5th rates should hunt 5th rates and 4th rates and sometimes gank 3rd rates 25 to 1. 

Model requires tuning but we are not coming back. A light 5th rate (like hercules or surprise) should be 1-2 shotted by a 3rd rate. Or devastated losing most combat capabilities. 

Okay. Hopefully your read on the community’s wishes is correct. I know I am in favor of this change. But only if the problem below is dealt with...

We are going to see 1-2 rates go hunting for frigates and smaller ships — the small ships that new players can crew and afford. (And the small ships many of us prefer sailing.) 

May I suggest that rather than trying to figure out how to make the cost to obtain 1-2 rates expensive enough to make them rare, we make using them and maintaining them very expensive. Then make port battles and killing line ships very lucrative.

So, it takes a large investment to pull your 1st rate out of the dock but if you are using it as designed, it will pay off. If you’re wasting it and risking it in hostile waters to kill frigates and smaller, you’ll probably be operating at a deficit.

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

3 hours ago, Teutonic said:

I'd mirror some of @rediii's and @Hethwill's request at this time

- increase the costs or amount of resources it takes to build lineships now. the damage lineships dish out is awesome now - but a price should come with that and it should be exponentially more expensive. people may lose 5th rates quickly if they engage poorly against a lineship - but it should literally be a drop in the bucket and "already replaced" mentality.

- adjust HPs of all ships still - lineship vs lineship fighting seems fine, but as you get smaller (6-4th rates) the damage of guns and HPs of ships seems odd and should be looked at.

- I would argue for a reduction in max speed for ALL lineships, by a factor of 1 to 2 knts each. In this new damage model smaller ships should always be able to out-run larger ships (even if it is not entirely accurate, for game balance it is needed). Essentially a 5th and 4th rate should always be able to run both in the OW and in battle against lineships.

The threat that a lineship brings should always be the devastating broadside it wields. Never should a lineship be able to be "fast" though - if a lineship has more speed AND more broadside power than any other ship then we are going to have a worrisome issue.

I'll state it again, I truly agree that lineships should have the ability to rip up smaller ships easily - but the offset should be that they can never catch them if the small ship decides to run or stay away.

I most definitely agree with everything stated especially the first point. Also I agree with setting up another Trafalgar event. Award paints possibly to the winning side or participants. Something to test out PvP with the new cannon setup.

I also do not think you should feel the UI is done. There is always room for improvement and should be looked at omce again at a later date for small changes. 

[Gregory Rainsborough]

I'm going to enjoy zipping around in a fir/fir 1st rate clubbing all the little ones, it'll be easier than ever!

[NethrosDefectus]

@admin Before messing around with this sort of thing, should you not be trying to fix more important things like, chain shots rendering as ball, sail damage not rendering so you have no idea what area you need to focus to damage sails further, shots landing nowhere near the ship but still registering as a hit OR the other way round, where a hit is clearly rendered but not registered. All controls randomly locking up, and so on and so on

[Carlos_Condell]

1 hour ago, Wraith said:

All due respect to @Hethwill but I think that just slowing turn rates down and nerfing sailing profiles isn't really the solution that's necessary. I'd argue that if you're committed to the "realistic" damage model (which, I'd argue to @admin that the testbed isn't any more "real" than the old model, just different and enforcing a different meta, but I digress), then what needs to happen is that rigging and shroud damage needs to be better simulated, or at least a proxy for it should be brought into the damage model.

The biggest problem that I currently see with "reality" on the testbed is that ships shouldn't be sinking as fast as they currently are. Instead, "damage" should be doing several things:

1) There needs to be another damage bar, that's hidden, which models shroud and rigging damage. This hidden damage bar should be reduced every time cannons of any weight hit hull, sails, or masts, and be hugely increased by the use of chain.  As this bar goes down then yard movement times increase, sailing profile starts to contract, and most importantly, the sailing crew required goes up.

2) As shroud/rigging damage increases, then the possibility of demasting at higher press of sail should go up as well. So if you're at full sail after taking a broadside of raking chain from any weight cannon then you're at risk of losing a top mast from random chance alone. You can reduce the likelihood of this by using battle sails, etc.

3) To accompany this, structure should be hugely difficult to remove from a ship. But balanced by massive crew loss once your side armor is gone.

These changes would change the meta significantly:

Ships would no longer be sinking as often. Ship capture would be key, especially in RvR (as it was in "reality"), and disabling of ships would be far more common relative to sinking. I'm of the belief that ships should be much less costly and easy to produce, reflecting the admiralty's role in providing ships to naval captains, but a captain's crew pool should be the costliest part of sailing.  This would accomplish two things: encourage surrender once disabled to reduce the cost of loss, and two, make sailing and the choice of taking a line ship out of the harbor a potentially risky endeavor, and encourage captains to maintain smaller crew pools and sail ships with lower crew costs.

The crew cost model I would use is this:

i really like this Idea... and what lucinio sais about Sailing profiles... now it feels broken.
also is really cheap to replace any SOL, no reason to sail smaller ships, if you have The best upgrades u can always catch up smaller vessels... 

 

if you want to sail a big ship, you must need a Strong economy to support that ( crew cost highly increased ( given some good use to a existent but not used perk for crew discount, materials, permits... etc)

[Guest]

@admin since so many seems to be afraid that no one would use frigates in the OW, would it be an idea to add certain crew cost to 5th rates and below as reals and trained crew for sips of the line as doubloons or some sort? Just an idea from the top of my head

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

2 hours ago, Wraith said:

slowing turn rates down and nerfing sailing profiles

Nope, that's not what I said. I said review the actuating forces on the sail plans. Stay sails and jibs are pushing massive hulls up wind and by rule, this is not a invention, there's a point where square sails and even fore and aft ships cannot go beyond, thus having to either fall back to the wind or initiate a change of tack through the wind.Second, turn capability of a ship is dynamic and linked mainly, but not exclusively, to straight vector speed. So the more speed the longer the turn, the longer the hull the longer the turn, the heavier the ship the longer the displacement of its tonnage, etc.

Same as cannon shot mass being propelled by a certain amount of gunpowder charge at range.

Both things are well documented but for some mmo arcadish pleasure we have all kinds of rigs going as close to the eye of the wind as it is impossible.

So, real gunnery real ship handling  

What you call nerf I call correcting.

[OjK]

Well, that was a really weird day in NA for me.
With very contrary feelings.

I've spent quite a few hours playing and recording some weird things on testbed.
Switched game client live-testbed-live-testbed many times, to see the comparison and feel the difference.

From one way, You like some changes, from the other You're scared to death.

What I'm mostly uncomfortable with right now, is the feeling of beeing lost.
Like what was the point of all what was done last year? Weren't we really close to launch?
Why suddenly, when we slowly expected that the launch will happen, there are so drastic changes tested (to be implemented)?

 

I totally agree some areas required fixing. But fixing does not neccesarily mean total makeover... Instead of small adjustment, we're making some huge changes which will start the process of balancing once again. Why? What for? Why now?

Why can't we just stay with current system (which worked properly for quite a time) with just small adjustments to fix few issues (dps paradox, hugging, etc) and launch the game?

Don't change the game from engaging and complex combat into "Who shoots first, and with bigger guns" slugfest.
There is Skull and Bones coming from Ubisoft very shortly - and no way NA can compete with this AAA game aimed for casual ship slugfesting.

Lets keep Naval Action where is it now, with just small fixes, not makeovers...

[Palatinose]

2 hours ago, Intrepido said:

Have you fought in the testbed?

You know I haven't

[greybuscat]

I don't want to clutter this page up more by quoting Wraith's enormous post, but his ideas regarding sail damage and demasting are spot and closely align with things I've been mulling over for a long time.

 

54 minutes ago, NethrosDefectus said:

@admin Before messing around with this sort of thing, should you not be trying to fix more important things like . . . where a hit is clearly rendered but not registered. . .

 

This is one of the reasons why I miss the shot logger. I remember that ~4-5% of all my shots would be desynched, against AI and against players, dating all the way back to sea trials. I have no reasons to believe this has changed. I just don't get verifiable proof of it anymore.

 

25 minutes ago, Hethwill said:

Both things are well documented but for some mmo arcadish pleasure we have all kinds of rigs going as close to the eye of the wind as it is impossible.

God forbid the game be enjoyable to play or fun to watch. 🙄 Whenever I see someone imply that some aspect of Naval Action is in any way for "casuals," I have only one reaction. I don't know what kind off MMOs or arcades you've been playing, dude.