Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Tom Farseer

Members
  • Content Count

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

127 Excellent

About Tom Farseer

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Profile Information

  • Location
    : Somewhere in a blizzard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Tom Farseer

    Bring boarding to a new level

    Do you realise that 100m is just under two shiplengths for first rates? In my opinions that is way to far for any boarding actions. Muskets would be so ridiculously inaccurate at that range you might as well save the ammo.
  2. Tom Farseer

    Classic Connie--Your Killing Us Here!

    Care to elaborate for non-native speakers who and what you mean by that? 😃
  3. Tom Farseer

    Classic Connie--Your Killing Us Here!

    I would be careful with calling the speed curves even remotely realistic for the following reasons: Speed is not only dictated by sail plan, but in large part by the hull shape below the waterline. All ships in Naval Action can run absurdly close to the wind. Even modern high-end racing yacht with drop keels can go no closer than about 30° to the wind. Square riggers drop to negligible speeds on anything closer than 80°. Both those points are understandable though, because simulating laminar streams in fluids (1.) is ridiculously complicated and this is still a game and as such should be playable without having to wait 10 minutes for a large frigate to finish tacking.
  4. Tom Farseer

    Port Battle Screenshots (New BR)

    Kindly stop making sense, so I don't have to agree with you 😁 The changes you propose seem sensible as far as I can tell, while we're at it I have two propositions: lower Edymions and Trincomalees BR to somewhere just below 300. They may be thos most used 5th rates but they are not that good. Maybe migrate this discussion into a new thread, in order to keep this one as only a list of PB fleet composition data.
  5. Tom Farseer

    Aquiring meaningful Data for calculating Battle Rating

    should i change the tags?
  6. Tom Farseer

    Aquiring meaningful Data for calculating Battle Rating

    ...sigh... once again: This post is not about changing the system with which the BR is calculated. It is ONLY about starting the process with clean data and not with logs that encompass the times when ships where blatantly overpowered and thus sailed very much, as opposed their stats ingame now after being nerfed. Take the Wasa as an example: The only reason it was used in PBs with it's current stats was because the BR was a lot lower than the Bellona's (305<365). In OW it was underpowerd compared to the rest of it's class and saw next to no use. However the time when it was very powerful makes for a higher rate of usage in Ow in the logs. That data however is irrelevant, but it still contributed to the Wasa BR being the same as the Bellona (both at 450). One can already tell that makes no sense, because the Wasa is worse in every aspect except a very minor advantage in turnrate. It just generates the need for more iterations until the BR fits. The BR will at some point align to a good place, if their method works. It will just do so quicker if we start at a point that already makes some sense, e.g. use unpolluted data as a base.
  7. Tom Farseer

    Port Battle Screenshots (New BR)

    Port Name: Bonacca BR Limit: 2740 Notes: US probably did not get their whole fleet in. GB were mostly there for screening, not knowing the complete friendlist of the defending clan. GB joined spontaneously after US got in on the islands backside. Agamemmnons and 3rd rate were intended to join in cas US made it in (low BR copmared to firepower). Connies and Wasa joined after, as BR the in battle was still low enough, to give more of an edge against the American frigates. Not a planned setup on both sides, I think.
  8. Tom Farseer

    Duel/Small Battles

    Fun little salt-free flotilla battle. Looking forward to the next one as well!
  9. Tom Farseer

    Surrender = Deny Everything

    I can't quite follow your point here. If a player surrenders and an ally then takes his loot before you reach him, how is that supposed to be a problem? That's basic teamwork. If I understand the post correctly you could not loot because the tower got awarded the kill and the loot was then reserved for it. That has nothing to do with the surrender.
  10. Tom Farseer

    Aquiring meaningful Data for calculating Battle Rating

    I have not once in my post talked about the algorithm that is used to calulate BR. Just about it's starting condition. Hull HP and DPS obviously are not enough parameters by a long shot for such a complex model. From what admin said in the Patch Notes thread and the Requin feedback thread, the BR in it's new form is chosen by the devs according to overall metadate of the ships, meaning win/loss ratio and some such. So we don't know if there is an actual mathematical algorithm at all, or if it's just sense of proportion by the devs. My suggestion is using a set of such data that is not polluted by changes in ship stats over time.
  11. Tom Farseer

    Surrender = Deny Everything

    Aah, now you have found the root of the problem It's not about surrending at all. That works fine. I very much agree with this suggestion.
  12. Tom Farseer

    Aquiring meaningful Data for calculating Battle Rating

    If the algorithm works, yes it should. My suggestion just aims at feeding said algorithm a better suited starting point, to make it converge on it's finite solution faster.
  13. Tom Farseer

    Aquiring meaningful Data for calculating Battle Rating

    It can be reevaluated at any time. Right now I'd say the data set that is used is flawed, because of it's history. @admin may well correct me on that. My suggestion is to do it again with a cleaner set of data.
  14. Cross-Post: I created a Suggestion topic for a way to aquire meaningful data sets for BR calculation: Let me (and the devs!) know what you think about it.
×