Patch 30: Combat and boarding feedback

[Roadkill]

Really coming round to the new battle damage model....initially some of the battles have been quicker.  Did single shot a player Hercules in a L'Ocean but that is more realistic than what went before.  It takes a lot more tactical sailing now for smaller ships to take down a larger ship.  I am particularly enjoying some of the group missions which have been challenging but with great rewards.  Have noticed how much more damage occurs through the stern but again it adds a level of challenge and good sailors will still be able to use the wind and tactics to achieve the best results.  Feel really positive about the way the game is heading at the moment.

[Mr. Doran]

14 hours ago, Neads O'Tune said:

The "lower BR" reinforcement should NOT apply to the attacking side. If I attack a 500 BR in a 200 BR ship then the battle should instantly close. Other wise it is just open to abuse

For example, I couldn't leave Tumbado in a Indef at one point today because every time I tried, a Russian Herc sitting at the dock put it's sails up to follow so I turned back. NOW I wasn't bothered about the Herc as such (They are easy enough to take care of if you know what you are doing) what concerned me was the fact it had a lower BR, meaning that it was VERY likely that the player's goal was to tag me into battle with the lower BR to enable a much larger ships to join like Bellonas or even speed built second rates.

Yep......

 

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, z4ys said:

Had a fight against a surprise with my privateer. Could rake the surprise only to 2bars left after that no dmg anymore.

@admin with a hardcap how can i sink a bigger ship now even if iam skillfull enough to stay out of his broadside arc?

15 hours ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

Do you mean killing an individual ship by raking both its bow and its stern, or killing one ship through just its stern, and another ship through just its bow?

 

I believe it still is, but in this case I was going for just structure damage.  (I swapped to grape to go for the board when it seemed like he would not sink through stern rakes.)

15 hours ago, Iroquois Confederacy said:

I think sterns are still artificially protected - by that I mean, there seems to be a threshold where you cannot sink someone through stern rakes.  Just took on a United States in an Endymion, and was able to hug his stern fairly effectively, raking him... a dozen or two times, actually.  First with double ball, then with ball, then with grape since it was apparent there was no way to sink him through rakes.

Essentially, if this damage model is to allow smaller ships to engage larger ones, the larger ones have to be vulnerable to stern rakes.  If you rake them down to 25% structure, but then still have to engage their broadside, it's a no-win scenario - especially with multiple repairs per fight.

 

Several problems arise when you are able to sink a ship through raking fire alone:

1. It creates a false dichotomy on whether your goal is disable or sink a target.

If raking fire is able to sink a target then there is no disabling; your choice is an illusion because you are always sinking the target and as it currently stands much more likely to sink the target through raking than disabling it. 

2. Raking fire ignores mast thickness  now which is a feature that was totally irrelevant until the damage to structure was heavily reduced at the lower threshold it currently is at. 

Reinforcing point one, raking fire damage to mast is supposed to give you more disabling options. If the target just sinks then all that is achieved is maximum irony that you end up SINKING the target with DISABLING fire. 

3. It is quite frankly over powered when you can sink a target through raking fire alone. 

We tested this before when structure was introduced initially and it was turned off almost immediately due to how ridiculous it is. It is easy enough to sink a target through regular hull damage but when you can also do it through raking it just makes things too easy which leads me to point four. 

4. The risk of going for raking fire also becomes trivially low. Again, adding to the false dichotomy aspect. 

Part of what makes good disabling play in Naval Action is the inherent risk if you do commit to trying to bring a target down through disabling fire and end up failing to do so you are punished for your actions. You expended HP and crew to try to bring down the target with disabling fire and your opponent did not; if you committed and were unsuccessful you are not heavily rewarded. When you can sink an enemy in totality with only raking fire you are always rewarded for taking the rake; matter of fact you are over-rewarded for your actions to a massive degree. I'm not categorically opposed to being able to do massive amounts of structure damage through raking but it must be capped to be balanced. You are still highly punished and easier to sink if it is capped and disabling fire will remain disabling fire instead of sinking fire.

5. If you want to take a target as a prize you are unable to perform additional raking fire on to that target once it has reached its critical HP point. 

The fact you could sink a target with raking fire alone created a deep irony that you cannot further de-fang a target once its structural HP was low enough due to there being the massive risk that you could accidentally sink them. Some of you might think that is great but I think it just homogenizes combat towards sinking and only sinking; again, it just becomes a false dichotomy at that point. 

 

However, there is still a problem here even with damage to structure capped and those who I have quoted are on the right train of thought. It is still, probably more so due to the caliber differences being more drastic now, to take down larger ships with raking fire.

The reason for this is dead simple, we do not do enough crew and gun damage with ball and double shot. Simultaneously, we are able to repair away significant amounts of gun and crew loss with repair system we have. It is simply very difficult to have damage done out pace damage that can be repaired. The solution is to either increase gun and crew loss or heavily reduce the amount that can be repaired; when I mean heavily I do mean a shit ton. Mast mods are not helping smaller vessels disable larger vessels either. 

Three things need to be addressed 

1. The damage done to crew and guns needs to be higher or have a higher degree of permanence through repairs being able to repair far less than what is currently available to us. 

2. Demasting cannot be the gear-based mess it currently is. If disabling fire is to be functional smaller vessels, within reasonable difference in ship size, need to be able to score penetrating hits on masts of larger vessels consistently but only at close range. 

I leave here with two write-ups I have done that address the current demasting situation  and disabling situation. 

-------------------------

Demasting

Demasting values are still heavily out of balance. Let’s take Endymion for as an example. By default, an Endymion has 117 mast thickness. This is enough for a 24-pound long to demast its lower sections at over 250 meters away and an 18-pound medium at over 100meters away. With these kinds of ranges available to demast with demasting is absurdly unbalanced. The problem with the different balancing approaches summed up in the past is this, when demasting ranges for similar vessels are too far away it becomes too easy to demast but simultaneously when HP is too high it just becomes impractical to ever attempt to demast.

My proposal is, as it has been, is to bring the demasting range for vessels that should be able to demast each other down to the 50-meter range. Ironically, with Heavy Rig and the French Rig Refit an Endymion will have a mast thickness of 146 which will allow a 24-pound long to penetrate at only 50 meters. A thickness of 146 does not allow an 18-pound long to penetrate at 50 meters but it still would be a better start compared to being able to demast at a range of over 150 meters with the default thickness. When demasting ranges are brought to close range it increases the skill ceiling for demasting because it reduces the time opportunity window for when demasting fire can be done. Players with better control and timing with sailing will be the ones who are able to demast effectively. Since the range is so limited HP does not need to be unreasonably high on masts as well. Even the current HP of mast might be suitable to an appropriate level of difficulty if the demasting range were to be changed to 50 meters. 

The current situation with mods is total insanity. Thickness stacking out-scales penetration stacking. If there is to be any semblance of demasting balance you cannot have the option to make your self immune to demasting fire with the only exception being raking. The raking damage to mast helps but does not solve the problem. For equal vessels or greater vessels by time you manage to fall a mast purely through raking it is extremely likely that the target structure is already or about to be in sinking range. The total removal of mast HP and thickness mods along with a logical approach to balance is the only way forward for balance.

 

*note- It should be clarified that I do not think the demasting range should be universally 50 meters in the situation where there is a difference in rate and gun caliber. Larger ships should still be able to demast their smaller counterparts at longer ranges that they can demast them. 

--------------------

Grape Shot

For raking to be a functioning element in combat ball shot and double must be able to perform the task of killing crew and guns at an effective enough level where you do not need grape shot to disable the target. Making grape an absolute necessity to kill crew makes raking as a tool disproportionately more difficult to achieve to the point where it is almost pointless to try. Luckily grape shot just feels kind of useless right now compared to ball. However, it does not need to be this way. In the past when grape fit in the best with gameplay the key to properly employing it in battle was very specific and even technical. Grape at its finest had three roles. First, to do massive amounts of crew damage through raking fire if you were able to set up ahead of time the geometry to force a rake with it. Two, to rake the quarter deck and forecastle of enemy ships at non-raking angles where they are vulnerable to attack I.E. a 60 to 80-degree angle of attack. Three, to punish people who were actively trying to maneuver in boarding prep or who maneuvered poorly in boarding prep. Grape in its present form can only slightly perform one of these roles and that is raking targets astern and if you are lucky doing more damage, receiving more reward, than you otherwise would from just preforming a ball rake.

The reason why grape is so lack-lust in its current form is due to the simple fact that many patches ago it was made range-based effective. It simply does not do the damage it needs to at ranges it needs to do it in order to perform all the outlined roles. The solution is simple, remove the range-based effectiveness limiter as it once was long ago. Fore-castle and quarter raking at odd angles was a very fun and interesting addition to combat and it is sad that is still currently removed from combat.

[admin]

Several addressable findings so far.

• Carronades are too strong due to pure weigh/area model and need to be adjusted. 
• Long guns are good but we cannot find any logic (especially knowing that they are only crafteable by players).
• Demasting through raking starts too late and by the time you can demast through raking the target is already dead. 

As a result

• We will lower the carronade damage but keep their splinter damage high, to support the theory that smashers are good for creating splinters and not so good for destroying the hull completely.
• Long gun damage will be increased to support the theory that higher energy = more damage. Medium guns will receive slightly increased splinter damage.
• Structural support of masts will start being damaged earlier.

[Holm Hansen]

It would be nice if the required amount of repair materials for one repair process in port UI will displayed.

The missing light sources in harbor scenario have been added again, thanks for that. But in battle instance they still seem to be missing. The ships still appear very dark there,  just as they did in the port before too.

....ooohps wrong thread, sorry for that

Edited March 4, 2019 by Holm Hansen
wrong thread, post can be deleted

[admin]

4 minutes ago, Holm Hansen said:

It would be nice if the required amount of repair materials for one repair process in port UI will displayed.

The missing light sources in harbor scenario have been added again, thanks for that. But in battle instance they still seem to be missing. The ships still appear very dark there,  just as they did in the port before too.

....ooohps wrong thread, sorry for that

please post in general feedback topic and provide screenshots 

[Hawkwood]

27 minutes ago, admin said:

We will lower the carronade damage but keep their splinter damage high, to support the theory that smashers are good for creating splinters and not so good for destroying the hull completely.

"Nerfing" Hercules so to speak....

[Cmdr RideZ]

19 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

SOLs should never fear a light ship.  However, they should also never be able to catch a light ship.  The balance has been thrown off by buffing one aspect of the game and not the rest.  We would not see "nothing but SOLs" if they were properly slow in relation to lighter ships.  SOLs belong on the line of battle...not out hunting frigates and traders.

admin said SOLs in strong winds were fast. I believe him. It does not make a good game tho. I understood sailing profiles will be changed again to be more like it was before. I remember reading something like this. admin can of course verify.

Old flag RvR system made scouts useful. Today with hostility there is little to no reason for small scout ships. Another way to balance SOLs would be to give other reasons to sail frigates.

From combat perspective it was more fun when we had more options.

[Cmdr RideZ]

47 minutes ago, admin said:

• We will lower the carronade damage but keep their splinter damage high, to support the theory that smashers are good for creating splinters and not so good for destroying the hull completely.

Another option is to lower penetration or slightly both.

In the last model carronades were not good enough. Don't nerf too much.

[admin]

8 minutes ago, Thomas Fremantle said:

Fix the deam Group Kill Missions .

general feedback goes to another topic. This section is for combat only.

[HachiRoku]

3 hours ago, Mr. Doran said:

Demasting values are still heavily out of balance. Let’s take Endymion for as an example. By default, an Endymion has 117 mast thickness. This is enough for a 24-pound long to demast its lower sections at over 250 meters away and an 18-pound medium at over 100meters away. With these kinds of ranges available to demast with demasting is absurdly unbalanced. The problem with the different balancing approaches summed up in the past is this, when demasting ranges for similar vessels are too far away it becomes too easy to demast but simultaneously when HP is too high it just becomes impractical to ever attempt to demast.

I don't really see a point in that. Sniping masts accurate is done at no more than 50m anyway. It can be done further but it is very very ineffective. If you decrease the range to 50m that would have no effect on equal skilled captains in ships of the same class. The most effective way to snipe masts is at a range were you have a 90% hit probability and raking masts at more than 100m can only be done on a windward ship with very little effectiveness. The devs issue is that they need to make masts underpowered since they have added 5-10 mast mods. I personally consider it a design flaw and your proposal would be good if masts mods only gave you hp increases. Right now mast mods are meta and until that's changed dismasting will be a huge issue. You have addressed the mod issue but if the devs do listen to you they should remove the thickness buff to allow mast mods. Insanity is a good word to describe them. 

[HachiRoku]

1 hour ago, admin said:

Long gun damage will be increased to support the theory that higher energy = more damage. Medium guns will receive slightly increased splinter damage.

As a long gun user I think you should leave the damage. They are accurate and that is what makes them good! Accuracy is rarely considered when it comes to how good guns are in game. Maybe increasing carronades mass to nerf their speed boost could also be an option. It's nice that Carros do damage. Please don't nerf them to much. 

[staun]

5 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

I don't really see a point in that. Sniping masts accurate is done at no more than 50m anyway. It can be done further but it is very very ineffective. If you decrease the range to 50m that would have no effect on equal skilled captains in ships of the same class. The most effective way to snipe masts is at a range were you have a 90% hit probability and raking masts at more than 100m can only be done on a windward ship with very little effectiveness. The devs issue is that they need to make masts underpowered since they have added 5-10 mast mods. I personally consider it a design flaw and your proposal would be good if masts mods only gave you hp increases. Right now mast mods are meta and until that's changed dismasting will be a huge issue. You have addressed the mod issue but if the devs do listen to you they should remove the thickness buff to allow mast mods. Insanity is a good word to describe them. 

Think we have 5 with thickness. Guess Kristmati, there can only be few left in the game. Elite french is good, but since they need book, I doubt it is on every ship.

If you put french, Pino and the navy on the ship. Think ships of same class still can penetrade mast in range of 150 yard, and would need around 8-9 hits. Is my math wrong?

[huliotkd]

reduce pen and damage of carro only after 100mt...but under 100mt, they must be lethal and devastating both splinters and damages

[Mr. Doran]

46 minutes ago, HachiRoku said:

I don't really see a point in that. Sniping masts accurate is done at no more than 50m anyway. It can be done further but it is very very ineffective. If you decrease the range to 50m that would have no effect on equal skilled captains in ships of the same class. The most effective way to snipe masts is at a range were you have a 90% hit probability and raking masts at more than 100m can only be done on a windward ship with very little effectiveness. The devs issue is that they need to make masts underpowered since they have added 5-10 mast mods. I personally consider it a design flaw and your proposal would be good if masts mods only gave you hp increases. Right now mast mods are meta and until that's changed dismasting will be a huge issue. You have addressed the mod issue but if the devs do listen to you they should remove the thickness buff to allow mast mods. Insanity is a good word to describe them. 

Any improvement to the demasting balance is contingent on the mast mods being addressed and addressed in such a manner that impunity from shot is no longer possible. Without so there is no way forward out of the insanity. 

Edited March 4, 2019 by Mr. Doran

[Hawkwood]

20 minutes ago, huliotkd said:

reduce pen and damage of carro only after 100mt...but under 100mt, they must be lethal and devastating both splinters and damages

A compromise, a good one.

[HamBlower]

33 minutes ago, huliotkd said:

reduce pen and damage of carro only after 100mt...but under 100mt, they must be lethal and devastating both splinters and damages

Jep.

The higher the risk, the higher the profit. 

[Angus MacDuff]

2 hours ago, admin said:

Several addressable findings so far.

• Carronades are too strong due to pure weigh/area model and need to be adjusted. 
• Long guns are good but we cannot find any logic (especially knowing that they are only crafteable by players).
• Demasting through raking starts too late and by the time you can demast through raking the target is already dead. 

As a result

• We will lower the carronade damage but keep their splinter damage high, to support the theory that smashers are good for creating splinters and not so good for destroying the hull completely.
• Long gun damage will be increased to support the theory that higher energy = more damage. Medium guns will receive slightly increased splinter damage.
• Structural support of masts will start being damaged earlier.

As a Herc/Carro user, I fear this, but I agree that it is the right thing to do.   Another option which I mentioned earlier is to limit the number of carros allowed on a ship.  This has historical precedent and would balance the game more.  Yes, there were "all carro" ships, but only a few in the later years. 

The dismasting model that is currently in the game is in my opinion, complete rot.  Dismasting should happen by happy accident, not by design.  We're too accurate.  A little more inaccuracy would extend battles and give us more fun.  Changing the damage model to near RL values but leaving our accuracy so high has created yet another imbalance.

[AeRoTR]

Worse accuracy for single shots for sure!

We still have laser accurate stern chasers aside from already accurate single shot. 

Why why why, which patch is it gonna be corrected? 

[Cmdr RideZ]

Notice that Doran is explaining how he thinks the game should be. He divides it to "rakes to disable" and "hull bashing to sink". The division is only one way to think how the game should be. In Dorands dichotomy raking is always an option to win. First of all it creates players that only rake and if balance set correctly they always win. This was the sad part and why it does not work. The game can have more to offer than raking.

Doran has there very good points but overall Dorans dichotomy does not work.

1vs1 with the same ships:
Should always be about side bashing on equal level.
Upgrades set so that you cannot "I win", small bonuses, not to change tank to be F1.
Because of similar sailing profiles it should be only possible to rake on cumulative positioning mistakes.
Masts and Rigging should be strong enough to last over the fight. The current chain damage forced to be high because high mast damage.
Hull bashing is the most difficult way to win in Naval Action. Why 1vs1 should be all about it. All other ways have always been tricks to win fast. Demasting in 5 minutes while the nub hammers your hull? Rageboard? One rake + board? Demast + rageboard? Demast + rake + board?
This brings us to repair kits. When you are bad at positioning, avoiding damage and estimating how ships will eventually move you want to repair through all your mistakes. You don't want any thickness as then you cannot penetrate.
Boarding should be only used as finalizing move. Once player took too many rakes. If you board 1vs1 without rakes, you should always lose, your gear should not matter here. Defender has defenders position. You have to always soften the target before boarding. Boarding should not be gear to win. Boarding should last much longer. If it is not 1vs1 other players should have time to come to help.
Boarding got a major buff when rigging damage was set high and tacking stops and reverses your ship.

1vs1 small vs big ship
Small ship has enough agility to be able to avoid damage and rake. Big ship goes for demasting and rigging. Small ship should not be OP and not lose rigging or masts too fast.
Small ship needs a good starting position from OW. If Big ship has the wind, much more difficult for smaller ship.
Big ship should have higher change to win. Does not mean that small ship should not have a change. On average it should need 2 small ships to win a big ship.
If rigging/masts are lost too fast, it is boring for the small ship.
If crew/cannons are lost too fast, it is boring for the big ship.
High rake/rigging/mast damage wont make this fun. I know it makes combat fast and easy, but because of that it belongs to "trick" category, which is a fail.
Speed and agility should belong to problems of big ships.
1/1 repairs are the best. If small ship loses a mast it can repair it. It cannot repair it the second time so the captain has to decide if he stays or runs. If he decides to run he has better change to save his ship but he has to make his decision now. If he believes that he can still win he will stay but it will be then fight to the end. You make final decision when you click repair.

2 big vs fleet
2 big ships are able to support each other to over come their problems with bad maneuverability.
If big ships are too maneuverable and fast, then why to sail small ships? Many useless frigates and less options for max rank captains. Not fun.

fleet vs fleet
The game is all about unbalanced fights. Unbalanced fights make Naval Action much more interesting than arena fights. Zergs wont in case you did not know it. Combat model that does not give a change for smaller fleet is not fun. ROE is the only tool to remove Zergs?
Losing rigging/masts fast will be boring. It wont support these unbalanced fights on any level. Now if you were able to win 1vs1 by fast rigging/mast victory, these unbalanced fights would not work. Dorans idea does not work.

[Mr. Doran]

2 minutes ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

Notice that Doran is explaining how he thinks the game should be. He divides it to "rakes to disable" and "hull bashing to sink". The division is only one way to think how the game should be. In Dorands dichotomy raking is always an option to win. First of all it creates players that only rake and if balance set correctly they always win. This was the sad part and why it does not work. The game can have more to offer than raking.

My very point is that when you can sink the enemy through raking it is over-powered and utterly defeats what the point of disabling fire is supposed to be about. In the current damage-model if you only rake you DO win and its how you are winning in which the problem lay. 

[Teutonic]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Doran said:

My very point is that when you can sink the enemy through raking it is over-powered and utterly defeats what the point of disabling fire is supposed to be about. In the current damage-model if you only rake you DO win and its how you are winning in which the problem lay. 

But that allows smaller ships a window to still win against larger ships.

We are already too close to making smaller ships useless and there is already a larger incentive to just pick the biggest ship.

 

[z4ys]

@Mr. Doran explain to me how raking fire currently disables a ship. Especially when you are not using high caliber guns. The only debuffs that disable a ship are "crew shock" + "reload shock" + "rigging shock". Even a rudder that is taken out can be repaired in a blink of an eye with urgent repair. As long there is no "raking shock" you cannot disable a ship by raking fire. It will still turn and shoot you.

Edited March 4, 2019 by z4ys

[Mr. Doran]

Just now, z4ys said:

@Mr. Doran explain to me how raking fire currently disables a ship. Especially when you are not using high caliber guns. The only debuffs that disable a ship are "crew shock" + "reload schock" + "rigging schock". Even a rudder that is taken out can be repaired in a blink of an eye with urgent repair. As long there is no "raking shock" you cannot disable a ship by raking fire. It will still turn and shoot you.

If you read my post you will see that raking fire does not disable ships it SINKS them.  

2 minutes ago, Teutonic said:

But that allows smaller ships a window to still win against larger ships.

We are already too close to making smaller ships useless and there is already a larger incentive to just pick the biggest ship.

 

If raking fire killed an appropriate number of crew, guns, while also doing mast damage we would not have this problem and there was a time long ago when we did not. The incentive always lay in maneuverability which simply is not as important when the crew/gun kills are paltry and when gun/crew can be repaired to such an absurd extent. For example, in Sea-Trials a Surprise could take on a Constitution 1v1 because crew losses were extremely high from raking fire. We do not have that now. What we have is a false dichotomy when it comes to "disabling" fire and regular hull bashing. Currently, no matter which one you pick, the result is sinking.   

[Mr. Doran]

6 minutes ago, z4ys said:

@Mr. Doran explain to me how raking fire currently disables a ship. Especially when you are not using high caliber guns. The only debuffs that disable a ship are "crew shock" + "reload schock" + "rigging schock". Even a rudder that is taken out can be repaired in a blink of an eye with urgent repair. As long there is no "raking shock" you cannot disable a ship by raking fire. It will still turn and shoot you.

My point, as long winded in explanation it be, is that raking fire should disable ships, it should not sink them which is what we are currently stuck with. 

[huliotkd]

as example...