Discussion Revert the Copperhead Broadside Nerf - Patch v1.21.2

[Bone]

We talk about this change happening because of feedback. The LARGE majority of feedback that staff receives, I'd assume, is about stuff that is subjectively broken about the game, such as JSB's power or Copper being too strong. Of course if there are complaints about such things, they will be voiced. however, things that we like about the game we aren't going to mention in feedback because that would just feel redundant possibly?

Now that the change has been made to nerf JSB and Copper, but copper more specifically, we are getting complaints on the other side. There is never a right answer and that's the issue. Many of us who enjoyed how Coppers previously worked are upset now just as the people who were salty about their storm chasers before the nerf.

This feels like dumbing down the ship upgrades to me, but I can see how others can see differently. Personally I feel that the different ship classes are like different classes in Team Fortress 2. Each have their benefits, like some are strong but have bad mobility. Some have great mobility but in exchange have lesser power. Now with all ships having similar attack power, it feels like the playing field is being leveled in a way that it's no longer like TF2 but like CoD.

I don't see a point anymore in getting a copper. They do have that power, but after this nerf it's not worth all the extra mats and gold to get just a little more hit points each broadside when you can get the speed benefits of storm chasers and just slightly less attack power.

 

[TheLastOfOne]

This feels like dumbing down the ship upgrades to me, but I can see how others can see differently. Personally I feel that the different ship classes are like different classes in Team Fortress 2. Each have their benefits, like some are strong but have bad mobility. Some have great mobility but in exchange have lesser power. Now with all ships having similar attack power, it feels like the playing field is being leveled in a way that it's no longer like TF2 but like CoD.

This is exactly the point of having different choosable classes or equipment classes in any pvp-based environment. There has to be a distinction between classes, something that makes them unique, in a way that gives each class a different playstyle.

There are people that want to sail fast and nimble and dart around doing precise/poke damage- they can pick stormchasers.
There are people that want reliable damage output without much changing the base sailing maneuverability - they can pick skull and bones.
Then there are people that would prefer to sacrifice mobility for power and want a tank - this used to be the point of copperhead.

No I'm not a TLOPO developer, but I am a game designer in general. It wasn't perfect in POTCO, but it was certainly much more properly aligned with basic pvp design. I just don't see the point of keeping Copperhead in TLOPO at all if you're just going to lower the damage output and have the speed higher than it used to be in POTCO. If you want to go the route of having a basic, classless pvp system, just require only one ship type to be used in pvp.


That's not even to say anything about how this update affected non-pvp play. Yes, people from SVS might have complained about Copperhead performance in that specific environment; but I have not been aware of any similar complaints about how they perform in pve. So why is it at all reasonable to apply such a sweeping change of a fundamental part of the game? You cant apply a solution for one type of gameplay to everything. I understand that the coding might not allow for having separate sailing mechanics for SVS and PVE, but theres other ways you can get around that. Tweeking chances of special ammo by a few percent, lowering/raising ship speed, turning, or armor to accentuate the attributes which make the ship unique. These would have a much less significant impact on play outside of the actual area of which there has only been debated to be a problem.

 

[Truecrash]

This is exactly the point of having different choosable classes or equipment classes in any pvp-based environment. There has to be a distinction between classes, something that makes them unique, in a way that gives each class a different playstyle.

There are people that want to sail fast and nimble and dart around doing precise/poke damage- they can pick stormchasers.
There are people that want reliable damage output without much changing the base sailing maneuverability - they can pick skull and bones.

Then there are people that would prefer to sacrifice mobility for power and want a tank - this used to be the point of copperhead.
No I'm not a TLOPO developer, but I am a game designer in general. It wasn't perfect in POTCO, but it was certainly much more properly aligned with basic pvp design. I just don't see the point of keeping Copperhead in TLOPO at all if you're just going to lower the damage output and have the speed higher than it used to be in POTCO. If you want to go the route of having a basic, classless pvp system, just require only one ship type to be used in pvp.

That's not even to say anything about how this update affected non-pvp play. Yes, people from SVS might have complained about Copperhead performance in that specific environment; but I have not been aware of any similar complaints about how they perform in pve. So why is it at all reasonable to apply such a sweeping change of a fundamental part of the game? You cant apply a solution for one type of gameplay to everything. I understand that the coding might not allow for having separate sailing mechanics for SVS and PVE, but theres other ways you can get around that. Tweeking chances of special ammo by a few percent, lowering/raising ship speed, turning, or armor to accentuate the attributes which make the ship unique. These would have a much less significant impact on play outside of the actual area of which there has only been debated to be a problem.

I do both game design and development professionally as well so perhaps I can offer a more in-depth perspective on this, and hopefully as a fellow game designer you'll be able to agree with me.

When designing a game, balance is one of the hardest things to get right. In fact, true balance within a game is both implausible and simply not the goal when making changes such as this. Instead, the goal is to simply align things in such a way that players are able to freely choose between options without feeling forced into one specific route -- often called "cookie cutter builds".

Pre-change copperhead was one such "cookie cutter" upgrade path. It was so good that there was almost no point in going for anything else, in both SvS and SvE. So, as a designer, you would agree that this obviously needs correcting -- yes? Otherwise we wind back up at your original point, where we might as well only allow one ship type in the first place.

As far as complaints in SvE, they were certainly there, so it made sense to implement a change that took care of that as well. Remember, we see far more than just the forums through the use of the feedback systems, so if we're making a change like this it's almost positive that there was enough feedback to warrant it.

However, this being said, saying that there's no reason to go for the copperhead upgrade is an over-exaggeration, and simply not true. The upgrade path is still completely viable, even given the cost, and will likely be receiving some minor buffs in the future to help compensate it a little should it need them. In addition, it does have properties that set it apart from other upgrade paths already -- high armor and the ability to melt through opposing ship armor to name a few.

Hopefully this helps clarify a bit more about why these changes were necessary, and the first step into fixing the problem. A designers work is never done, after all!

 

[TheLastOfOne]

I have to categorically disagree both that the Copperhead was "too good" that made it the only viable build for SVS, as well as the idea that the changes made to it were appropriate even if it was cookie cutter. I agree that something would have to be done to a gameplay element that seemed mandatory, but your insistence that Copperhead was the only viable build for SVS seems relatively as unfounded as you think my claims are that it is no longer viable: when it came to choosing upgrade type, the primary purpose should always be preferred playstyle. I would never use Copper, even before the change, because it didn't fit my playstyle, even though I realized that in the proper hands, it would be a fantastic ship. However, the exact same can be said about every other ship type; a good SC captain was able to run circles around Copperhead.

The problem that I have, as a game designer, is the removal of uniqueness from a game element, which was created with the intent of catering to different playstyles. The Copperhead was designed with the intent on being a tank/tankbuster, in the same way that Stormchaser was designed to be more of a flank, Skull 'n Bones being dps, etc. The entire point of sailing that boat was to be slow, to take hits, and to hit hard. There was absolutely no problem with the amount of damage it output besides people being lazy about ship alignment and not dodging broadsides. There already exist mechanics in the game to allow players to work around the strengths of Copper - maneuverability and Take Cover, to name the big ones. And even if, after extensive testing to prove that the ship was actually unfair, rather than basing it off of player reports, the problem remains the same: so strictly nerfing the strengths of Copper destroys its usefulness and viability as a game option for those that want a slower, tankier playstyle. I want to make it absolutely clear that my claims that the current build of Copper not making much point of being in the game is not at all based on "how good it is", but what the point of playing it is. You have taken a ship with a very distinct playstyle and taken away the things that made it fit that playstyle.

I am adamant that a more appropriate consideration would have been to focus on accentuating the design points which made it fit that niche. For instance, rather than taking away its strengths and leaving its weaknesses relatively the same (broads and maneuverability, respectively), it would be much more faithful to the purpose of the ship class to mitigate its strengths by making it a bit slower, and harder to turn. This would allow faster ships to play around it more appropriately to what their own abilities should allow for as well, and thus mitigating the potential damage they could take by giving them more opportunity to dodge. After all, who ever stands directly in front of a cannon and then complains about having a hole in their chest? The issue is not that the cannon is too strong, that's the point of the cannon- if you don't want to die, step to the side.
This particular route seems to me especially crucial of something you should have looked into first, considering you have previously stated in this thread that TLOPO Copper is 3 knots faster than POTCO Copper, a change that already flew in the face of its intended purpose and gameplay. If the TLOPO crew is so intent on recreating POTCO ship mechanics that they are willing to rewatch 'hour-long videos' over and over and do damage calcs on broadsides, why is such a blatant change from the original ship design still present? Certainly, Coppers being of similar mobility as they were in POTCO might have a significant impact on how "cookie cutter" they are for SVS?

Im sorry, I don't mean to make light of your work, and I understand that there is a significant amount of effort that goes in to making this game work. However, I feel like there are very many other options that are more reasonable that were not at all explored, considering how global of a change this makes for sailing as a whole.

 

[Truecrash]

This particular route seems to me especially crucial of something you should have looked into first, considering you have previously stated in this thread that TLOPO Copper is 3 knots faster than POTCO Copper, a change that already flew in the face of its intended purpose and gameplay. If the TLOPO crew is so intent on recreating POTCO ship mechanics that they are willing to rewatch 'hour-long videos' over and over and do damage calcs on broadsides, why is such a blatant change from the original ship design still present? Certainly, Coppers being of similar mobility as they were in POTCO might have a significant impact on how "cookie cutter" they are for SVS?

Im sorry, I don't mean to make light of your work, and I understand that there is a significant amount of effort that goes in to making this game work. However, I feel like there are very many other options that are more reasonable that were not at all explored, considering how global of a change this makes for sailing as a whole.

This route was considered. However, players are often fighting multiple ships at once (including multiple copperheads at once!), and it became apparent that "Just dodge!" was not a viable strategy. Likewise, the assumption that players are "Just standing still" and not using the game's mechanics to beat the copperhead is wildly inaccurate, as consideration was given to stationary, high-mobility, and a hybrid of the two play-styles.

Your assumption is that we did not already consider every possible change, which is simply not true. Again, I feel the need to reiterate that balancing is not as simple as it sounds, and that there are many angles to consider when making a change -- something we are very aware of.

As for making light of the work, I don't feel like you're doing that at all and there is certainly no need to apologize. It's clear you've put thought into what you're proposing and I always welcome a talk with other game designers, but it is all things we've already considered and thought of before making any changes. Trust me when I say, we do think of these things, and only make a change when we're confident that it's a step in the right direction. As I've stated multiple times, this is also not the last we'll be revisiting the tweaks to SvE and SvS, so there will likely be more opportunities for balancing in the future.

With that being said, I think I've said all I can on this subject, so I'll leave the rest for you pirates to discuss among yourselves. Best of luck to all of you, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on future updates!

 

[Topper]

so why doesn't everybody use exclusively coppers for many years now since u claim they were so good that there was no point in getting anything else? is this not proof that they are not so overpowered as u claim? and if the copperhead is worth the time to upgrade then why would u need to buff it in the future likely? lol! there is no winning strategy to take on multiple ships at once! if u are in that position then u already lost or at least should lose. just like u probably shouldnt be close enough to get broadsided in the first place.

 

[Charles Warmonk]

View attachment 115861

Why did your stance on copperheads change?

Like I have said many of times in numerous post... I agreed with a NERF to copperhead. - I am just NOT ok with the DEGREE of the CURRENT nerf.

The copperhead is not worth the value or work people their hard earned materials into it right now.

So no, my stance didn't change.

 

[Charles Warmonk]

Please refer to my post above regarding this, specifically:

Firstly, I would like to thank you for stepping into this discussion and explaining yourself and your actions on this forums discussion. Your input just like everyone else's means a lot to the community.

Moving on, so you're saying you do plan on re-balance [I hope buffing] the currently nerfed copperhead? That's EXACTLY what I would like to see done, personally. The topic of "Reverting" a patch was only to drag attention/suggest toning back the update's change. I want to stress, I don't plan on saying anything as childish as "THIS ENTIRE UPDATE IS A WASTE OF TIME AND RUINS THE GAME".

It was intending to make a part of the game [Mainly the SvS community] more enjoyable and balance place to compete. I respect that wholeheartedly as an competitive looter. The SvS community's word should be addressed in balancing ships, upgrades, and skills.

Onto your actually response, I respect your choice to WAIT and see how the meta changes for the SvS community. HOWEVER, I would also like to see you keep an open mind to our [As the best way I can name it] material running/non-SvS community. [The PvE players] Just like the SvS community we wouldn't want our community suffering for the sake of another. I am sure the TLOPO team wouldn't nerf guns just so they don't "Ruin" PvP. I wouldn't be logical to make the majority suffer for the few.

So to summarize to progress with this discussion. Are you willing/going to look at both communities groups point of view? Or strictly SvS community's view?

If you pick the latter, this conversation and debate will be rendered pointless.

 

[Charles Warmonk]

lot of reading. but im glad I caught this before I bought a copperhead. sounds like it is ruined. Charles warmonks argument makes sense. I sure did hate those copperheads in svs! that's why u don't get in broadside range! unless the copperhead is made great again just the way it was there is absolutely no reason to get it. it can barely move and it costs much more than any ship.

Glade to see you joining into the debate! Thanks for your feedback!
Don't waste them materials yet! I am sure we can come to a conclusion/update that will make copperhead a good choice again! [Not fully to it's over-powered strength though! Sorry you missed out on that!]

 

[Charles Warmonk]

Why not just ban copperheads in svs and rollback the change? There could be a vote on the main tlopo website to see if players don't want the copperhead in svs.

I would hate to see something just flat out "banned" in SvS. - Also, not everyone plays to the "rules of the seas". Some people just see the rules as.... "guidelines"

Unlike in PvP, you can pick and choice who you play with/who joins. - In SvS it's a free for all and anyone can come in with a copperhead and ruin people's fun! That's not ok and I think we should all keep an open mind in finding a middle ground.

Thanks for joining in though! Keep thinking of solutions!

 

[Charles Warmonk]

We talk about this change happening because of feedback. The LARGE majority of feedback that staff receives, I'd assume, is about stuff that is subjectively broken about the game, such as JSB's power or Copper being too strong. Of course if there are complaints about such things, they will be voiced. however, things that we like about the game we aren't going to mention in feedback because that would just feel redundant possibly?

Now that the change has been made to nerf JSB and Copper, but copper more specifically, we are getting complaints on the other side. There is never a right answer and that's the issue. Many of us who enjoyed how Coppers previously worked are upset now just as the people who were salty about their storm chasers before the nerf.

This feels like dumbing down the ship upgrades to me, but I can see how others can see differently. Personally I feel that the different ship classes are like different classes in Team Fortress 2. Each have their benefits, like some are strong but have bad mobility. Some have great mobility but in exchange have lesser power. Now with all ships having similar attack power, it feels like the playing field is being leveled in a way that it's no longer like TF2 but like CoD.

I don't see a point anymore in getting a copper. They do have that power, but after this nerf it's not worth all the extra mats and gold to get just a little more hit points each broadside when you can get the speed benefits of storm chasers and just slightly less attack power.

Although I understand and partly agree with you, we do have to find a middle ground. - Balance is a very hard thing to do in some situations. [Especially in a MMO] - So saying things like "There is no right answer" is a awful way to engage a constructive debate. I hope you can use your knowledge from your past game experience to help give us a idea of steps in balancing the currently nerfed copperhead.

 

[Charles Warmonk]

This is exactly the point of having different choosable classes or equipment classes in any pvp-based environment. There has to be a distinction between classes, something that makes them unique, in a way that gives each class a different playstyle.

There are people that want to sail fast and nimble and dart around doing precise/poke damage- they can pick stormchasers.
There are people that want reliable damage output without much changing the base sailing maneuverability - they can pick skull and bones.
Then there are people that would prefer to sacrifice mobility for power and want a tank - this used to be the point of copperhead.

No I'm not a TLOPO developer, but I am a game designer in general. It wasn't perfect in POTCO, but it was certainly much more properly aligned with basic pvp design. I just don't see the point of keeping Copperhead in TLOPO at all if you're just going to lower the damage output and have the speed higher than it used to be in POTCO. If you want to go the route of having a basic, classless pvp system, just require only one ship type to be used in pvp.


That's not even to say anything about how this update affected non-pvp play. Yes, people from SVS might have complained about Copperhead performance in that specific environment; but I have not been aware of any similar complaints about how they perform in pve. So why is it at all reasonable to apply such a sweeping change of a fundamental part of the game? You cant apply a solution for one type of gameplay to everything. I understand that the coding might not allow for having separate sailing mechanics for SVS and PVE, but theres other ways you can get around that. Tweeking chances of special ammo by a few percent, lowering/raising ship speed, turning, or armor to accentuate the attributes which make the ship unique. These would have a much less significant impact on play outside of the actual area of which there has only been debated to be a problem.

I do both game design and development professionally as well so perhaps I can offer a more in-depth perspective on this, and hopefully as a fellow game designer you'll be able to agree with me.

When designing a game, balance is one of the hardest things to get right. In fact, true balance within a game is both implausible and simply not the goal when making changes such as this. Instead, the goal is to simply align things in such a way that players are able to freely choose between options without feeling forced into one specific route -- often called "cookie cutter builds".

Pre-change copperhead was one such "cookie cutter" upgrade path. It was so good that there was almost no point in going for anything else, in both SvS and SvE. So, as a designer, you would agree that this obviously needs correcting -- yes? Otherwise we wind back up at your original point, where we might as well only allow one ship type in the first place.

As far as complaints in SvE, they were certainly there, so it made sense to implement a change that took care of that as well. Remember, we see far more than just the forums through the use of the feedback systems, so if we're making a change like this it's almost positive that there was enough feedback to warrant it.

However, this being said, saying that there's no reason to go for the copperhead upgrade is an over-exaggeration, and simply not true. The upgrade path is still completely viable, even given the cost, and will likely be receiving some minor buffs in the future to help compensate it a little should it need them. In addition, it does have properties that set it apart from other upgrade paths already -- high armor and the ability to melt through opposing ship armor to name a few.

Hopefully this helps clarify a bit more about why these changes were necessary, and the first step into fixing the problem. A designers work is never done, after all!

Firstly, I want to say to both of you. Although you are both "Game Designer's" and one is a "Developer" that should't be a factor in this currently debate. When you start a debate by presenting your degree, it is suggesting "Due to this, my opinion means more than yours..." Although, reading the rest of your post and judging by your personalities and approach this is NOT what you are intending to do. And I just want to make that point out to you both and anyone else joining the debate.

Onto your points, I believe the "Cookie Cutter" build wasn't a correct description for the copperhead.
- You gain massive damage [Which I agree should've been more lightly nerfed]
- You lose speed,
- You lose maneuverability,
- You lose consistency, [15% explosive is a low rate.]

There were still situation where I'd choice Storm, and Skull upgrade over copperhead.

Storm was more SvS savvy due to it's speed and the damage output.

Skull was more consistent for sinking non-hunter/warships for loot runs.

and Copperhead was the ship for farming materials from Hunters/Warships. [Being the hardest to gain materials for that reason I believe.]

So although I did read though all your points, I do still find that in order to progress. We should debate on the fundamentals of what upgrade should do WHAT better than other. You've heard my views on what upgrades are [was in terms of copperhead] designed and created for.
Could I get your response on these 3 specific upgrade branches?
- What should a Copperhead be good at?
- What should a Storm be good at?
- What should a Skull be good at?
As well as why one wouldn't be chosen over the other.

 

[Charles Warmonk]

so why doesn't everybody use exclusively coppers for many years now since u claim they were so good that there was no point in getting anything else? is this not proof that they are not so overpowered as u claim? and if the copperhead is worth the time to upgrade then why would u need to buff it in the future likely? lol! there is no winning strategy to take on multiple ships at once! if u are in that position then u already lost or at least should lose. just like u probably shouldnt be close enough to get broadsided in the first place.

They have feedback that the SvS community wanted this to be nerfed. - It was a popularly demanded update that got pushed to the developers attention after many months of requests.

I do agree it was over powered, getting 5-8 explosives in a single broadside is CRAZY! That should'be be possible imo for the svs community's sake. [Although it doesn't effect us PvE players] So if my choice, I'd find the middle ground and leave it with a explosive max, but I would lighten the max explosives that can be shot to 3-4 instead of 1.

 

[Truecrash]

So to summarize to progress with this discussion. Are you willing/going to look at both communities groups point of view? Or strictly SvS community's view?

If you pick the latter, this conversation and debate will be rendered pointless.

We pay very close attention to both SvS and SvE with changes such as this, to ensure neither experience is ruined. In situations where you can't change one without changing the other, it becomes difficult to find that perfect middle-ground, but we're dedicated to doing just that!

In short, yes, we're looking at both communities point of views, and always have been. That's why we made sure not to touch the actual damage of the explosive shot itself, so as to reduce impact to SvE as much as possible. In fact, one of the reasons we went with this particular change is because of complaints from the SvE community about the strength of copperhead, and this was seen as a good way to address that without going overboard.

so you're saying you do plan on re-balance [I hope buffing] the currently nerfed copperhead?

Right. It's clear to us that the balancing for it isn't finished and we knew that when releasing the update that we'd likely have to revisit this more in the future, but we like to take the slow approach to ensure each tweak we make is the correct one. Slow and steady wins the race!

So although I did read though all your points, I do still find that in order to progress. We should debate on the fundamentals of what upgrade should do WHAT better than other. You've heard my views on what upgrades are [was in terms of copperhead] designed and created for.
Could I get your response on these 3 specific upgrade branches?
- What should a Copperhead be good at?
- What should a Storm be good at?
- What should a Skull be good at?
As well as why one wouldn't be chosen over the other.

I personally view copperhead as a consistent tank. Even with the changes, it's still more effective at stripping away armor of enemy ships rapidly thanks to its explosive shots high burst damage, allowing for gunners to get in more damage before the enemy can repair. In terms of solo-play and SvE, there's less emphasis on the raw power of the explosive shot and more in the slow nature of the copperhead, whittling down opponents while maintaining a high health bar due to its high amounts of armor, allowing for players to sustain themselves longer in large hunter groups without having to focus as heavily on repairs. I believe this also helps to accent captain skill more, as now the enemies will live long enough that you'll need to learn how to properly fight them compared to before.

Storm is a high damage and fast-moving ship, that sacrifices its armor as a trade-off and focuses heavily on its ability to maneuver around incoming attacks. This means that more focus must be towards repairs for sustained trips, if your captain isn't skilled at dodging enemies. I believe this ship truly shines with its ability to perform hit-and-run tactics, especially on slower ships like the copperhead, which makes it especially powerful in SvS.

For Skull, I feel like it's the middle-ground between two extremes. Fast, but not too fast, and it has some nice consistent damage from its fury shots, while also sporting a decent amount of armor. All in all, there's really not much for me to say about this one.

The above views are my own, mind you, and I can't speak for the team as a whole on this.

 

[Floms]

In short, yes, we're looking at both communities point of views, and always have been. That's why we made sure not to touch the actual damage of the explosive shot itself, so as to reduce impact to SvE as much as possible. In fact, one of the reasons we went with this particular change is because of complaints from the SvE community about the strength of copperhead, and this was seen as a good way to address that without going overboard.

You mention complaints from the SvE community vis a vis the strength of copperhead, could you share a few examples? I have a number of friends that sail or cannon PvE exclusively and have never heard complaints from any of them.

Would be curious to see what the complaints are, might be helpful in guiding a constructive conversation.

 

[squintz]

I've learned that people who claim to speak for an entire community often are only speaking for a few of their friends. I'm sure you're not aware as you aren't often involved in Privateering; however, the Copperhead "nerf" was highly requested by many people who take part in SvS. At best, you speak for players who don't really privateer. Perhaps nerfing the copperhead isn't the perfect solution, but it's the best solution at the moment as there weren't many viable alternatives. If you can think of any, please suggest them.


Yes. We determined this to be fair as a Copperhead (War Brig/War Frigate) could sink any ship with one broadside and was extremely overpowered. I'm sorry that you can't run your solo loot runs anymore. However, the Stormchaser War Brig is an excellent choice to do a loot run with.


This is subjective.

Before you claim to "speak for the entire community", pleasure ensure that you actually are gaining the opinions of many different types of players.

EDIT:
Also for clarification, each cannon still has a 15% chance to shoot an explosive, the difference is that they'll stop once one is fired. One Explosive does approximately 6,000 damage which is the equivalent of 4-6 Thunderbolts. What we did is known as "balancing". Copperheads still remain the strongest ships in terms of armor as well.
6480.0 Level 5 explosive shot from broadside
1620.0 Level 5 thunderbolt from broadside

Would it be programming hell and impossible to make certain nerfs, whatever they be, only applicable in certain modes such as PVP and NOT effect the entire game? Once you join pvp, then the nerfs or rules come into play and are dropped once you leave.

Because your point works both ways, I don't pvp, and I don't believe it's fair you're cow towing to a certain group of players. The PVP do NOT speak for the entirety as well.

 

[squintz]

You may be right with that statement, but if you look at the enemy ships who fire the fury and lightning with their broadsides, you'll see they fire the same way/number as our ships do. Which this is my whole point. It makes sense that our ships should emulate the enemy ships abilities with broadsides. Lol, and I remember the days in POTCO when our ships could not emulate how the enemy ships fire the specialty ammo. God bless, those were the days!

It makes no sense for a pirate ship to fire an explosive from each broadside at the same time in one 'round' upon an enemy ship. None of the enemy ships shoot at us that way.

To reiterate Steph's argument, this was and EXTREMELY unfair advantage in SvS.

"To reiterate Steph's argument, this was and EXTREMELY unfair advantage in SvS"
And to reiterate, if this is a good or bad nerf either way, why is it global and now effects my pve experience? I could give two duck lips what's unfair in PVP, but why penalize the rest of the players with their cries of unfairness?
If pvp'rs crying about unfairness in their pvp world, leave it in the pvp world, stop making across the board 'corrections'.

 

[Truecrash]

could you share a few examples?

No, private feedback is kept between players and staff. You may be able to find threads on the forums regarding this matter, however.

Would it be programming hell and impossible to make certain nerfs, whatever they be, only applicable in certain modes such as PVP and NOT effect the entire game?

why is it global and now effects my pve experience? If pvp'rs crying about unfairness in their pvp world, leave it in the pvp world, stop making across the board 'corrections'.

In this specific instance, it was in our best interest to implement a change that covered both SvE and SvS. There were complaints from SvE players as well, enough to warrant a change. Please refer to my other posts for more information on this.

 

[squintz]

While I'm not gonna say for certain that the "entirety" of the SvS community agrees with the copperhead change, I can confidently say that the vast majority loves the change and svs has been far more enjoyable as a result. Whatever community you refer to most definitely did not and has not taken part in TLOPO SvS as it was common knowledge that before the nerf coppers were extremely overtuned like Teague pointed out.

So, what you are saying is the majority of pvp'rs who haven't been able to accomplish building a copperhead and get sunk by people who achieved this milestone can now not feel so picked on and sunk so much because the more powerful ship has been nerfed down to them?
Hasn't it always been in mmos one builds units as strong as possible in a game so they can be dominate? At least for a period until others make their level?
Just one of the many reasons pvp lacks any appeal to me with all the drama and why it always is upsetting to see nerfing done for one portion of a community that effects everyone. This goes for weapons as well.

 

[Bone]

No, private feedback is kept between players and staff. You may be able to find threads on the forums regarding this matter, however.

Please, if feedback is private then generalize it so that we can understand where the problem in SvE is. I don't think people would say "my mat runs are going too fast, I need these broadsides nerfed so that my runs take longer. I can't stand sinking hunters this fast."