Tom Farseer
-
Posts
718 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Tom Farseer
-
-
Fun little salt-free flotilla battle.
Looking forward to the next one as well! -
9 minutes ago, z4ys said:
Wasnt that already done by calculating the BR because of hull hp and dps?
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.
-
Just now, Percival Merewether said:
In time the BRs should balance out due to more varied use.
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.
-
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.
-
@admin
I have the following suggestion to introduce a way to generate data for modeling a meaningful Battle Rating.
Taking data from the logs you have now will result in a bad starting position for any iterative process, whether it is applied by hand or automated. It will require many iterations to get to a stable solution.
The reason for this is, the fact that you have (if I understand it correctly) data that encompasses different phases of the game with several buffs and nerfs along the way. This would at least explain why the Wasa has the same BR as the Bellona, despite being worse in every aspect except for a light advantage in turning rate and a negligibly better sailing profile. Also ships not being used does not mean they are weak (e.g. the Agamemnon,) there are just better alternatives that are as easy to obtain (why sail an Aggy if you can afford and crew a Bellona?)
My suggestion is as follows:
Create a build of a battle instance. Load one AI ship on both sides, with equivalent starting postions (eg. facing each other at a beam reach).
Pair each ship with every other ship. Run the battle as often as you can, considering resources, for every pairing. This will create a set of data that shows each ships relative performance without taking into account different skill levels and knowledge stuff or fleet composition etc..
Use this ranking as a base for a BR order, which can be adjusted on data that will be accumulated from then on. You will get a starting point for the proess that resembles the current situation without the many tunings of the past.
EDIT: This post is solely about the way that data is acquired, not about how it is used to calculate BR!-
6
-
-
You do have a point there. Stays would get in the way with hauling over braces (is it called a brace on a lateen sail? no idea...).
Alas, that would mean in my opinion that dismasting a xebec should if anything be easier than most square riggers.
So while losing the bowsprit should not have much of an effect on Requin it might be worth thinking about nerfing his mast HP to reflect the weaker overall construction of the standing rigging. -
1 minute ago, Licinio Chiavari said:
I personally repeatly suggest to double masts HP to make not viable mast hitting... but making mast total HP function of % sail damage. So plenty damage to sail (so to running ropes) will make masts unstable (and easier to lose) as in reality.
I would concurr on the condition of saying that it is damage to standing rigging, not running ropes. Running rigging cannot (or rather must not) have any effect on the riggings stability as it is, well, running. You can just throw loose everything. Would be kinda crappily constructed if that could affect integrity of the masts...
-
9 minutes ago, z4ys said:
the fore mast is not hold by the bowsprit.
Yes and no... It is set on the keel and secured on the ships transverse axis by shrouds and backstays, and stabilised on the longitudinal axis by the stays. Killling the bowsprit, therefore breaking up the flow of tension from fore to aft will greatly affect the stability of all masts of the ship. It may not outright bring the foremast to fall but it will significantly destabilise it.
-
2
-
-
The whole dismasting thing is modeled incompletely in the game (probably for simplicity and resource economy). IN reality, a mast is way easier to kill by destoying the standing rigging instead of trying to damage the wood itself. Kill a few shrouds and a stay and the windforce and our dear beloved gravity will do the rest.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, z4ys said:16 minutes ago, Banished Privateer said:
And Requin has rigging connected to bowsprit
do you know what the line on the bow controlls?
I am quite sure that line is a stay and not running rigging. As was discussed in many posts before those lines (stays) were integral to the stability of all masts. Creating a chain of tensions from the bow of the ship all the way to the stern, securing the masts in staying upright. Much like the shrouds, only on a perpendicular axis.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Banished Privateer said:
The GB-Spanish war struggle:
To be honest, GB "council" channel (if you could bear calling it that atm) looks about the same 🤣
-
How about everyone fights in a premade identical 5/5 Ship, only the tournament winner gets to keep it?
Ship rates, types and builds (speed/tanky/board-all-the-things) will just cycle through. There should be enough combinations to possible to make it worthwhile. Entry should still cost you some, especially when there is no ship loss.-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Old Crusty said:1 hour ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:
There is a reason aircraft carriers have escort ships
Um, aircraft carriers do not have their own offensive ship to ship firepower to defend themselves. That is s large part of the reason to have an escort.
You comment one the snide remarks and miss the important part.
1 hour ago, Gregory Rainsborough said:People really seem to have difficulty with reversing.
[...] lose the *line up alongside to shoot* mentality.
Put your ship into the wind, and start reversing. Works against Herc, works against Reqs if you do it right.
-
1 hour ago, qw569 said:
do not understand how UI affects on Economy rebalance and partial resource wipe.
@qw569 I think it is the opposite way around:
The economy rebalance (whit the partial wipe) will affect the port UI (crafting menu, shop lists etc). So instead of having to deploy another version of the new port UI after the rebalancing is done, they will just wait and release the new port UI after the eco patch dropped. -
Occasional Deckhand on the SS Thor Heyerdahl
A three-masted topsail schooner (steel hull LoA ~50m, wooden rig about 30m high)
Thor Heyerdahl - Wikipedia
The Ship is mostly used for outdoor education for students between 14 and 16.
Hoping to move up through the stations in the years to come and maybe get some experience on other traditional tall ships.
JPG file is too large to post on here...smaller pic:
-
6
-
-
22 minutes ago, Aquillas said:
1v1, a 6th rate xebec would kill all 5th rate frigates.
Make that a "could", maybe.
I killed a xebec (Sayid, not really a noob/bad player imo) before in a fir/fir Indiaman. Granted there was some luck involved (leaks for the win :D). But I also had him at half structure when I sank him by putting 8 leaks in him. I was pretty beat up too. He would have needed two more full broadsides to sink me, I would have needed one more to sink him without the leaks. I can provide a screenshot later if you want. Not on my PC at home atm. That was before the recent nerfs. Now imagine how that fight would have gone had I been in a T/Wo Endymion or something like that...-
2
-
-
My reaction when reading the reward sum and not directly realising it is obviously a placeholder:
-
4
-
-
If there is one thing, Naval Action players are good at, it is finding an insult where none was meant...😂
-
4
-
-
6 minutes ago, Flinch said:
This is bullshit. The brits provided the french with 20 free first rates so they could come down to guatamala and help fight the US there.
Lol What? You should check in with your sources and adapt the dosage of whatever meds they use.😂
-
From the patch notes:
On 3/7/2018 at 3:27 PM, admin said:Example
- 1-3 ports: 1 victory mark
- 4-6 ports: 2 victory marks
- 7-9 ports: 3 victory marks
- 10-12 ports: 4 victory marks
- 13-15 ports: 5 victory marks
- 16-18 ports: 5 victory marks
- etc..
You have two ports you say? Then 1 VM is the appropriate amount =)
-
Now now, @Gregory Rainsborough did his fair share of complaining. He is just more adept at masking it behind a thick layer of cynism 😋
Alas, I can understand why the sarcasm in Grundges comments can be hard to discern at times. Such is the lot of the old angry dog... *sighs overdramatically*-
1
-
-
While I too am sceptical about the changes disceussed here, I don't think that a lot of this retagging will happen because after the first battle the trader will have the "Recently Killed" status [X] unless that gets changed. Hunters in hostile waters might think twice on wether it's worth sinking the rest of the fleet for close to no reward or take on the ships and sail them home, which could take quite a while.
I would however suggest extending the [X] timer for a lot longer or at least until the recently killed player reaches a home port. Otherwise people can exploit this by retagging and kiting the killed trader for an hour getting another round of at this point basically free PvP-Marks once the timer runs out. -
All ships? So we should hold simming contests for ports? 😛
-
One thing I would add to this suggestion is that sips in testing shall not reward PvP marks both by being sunk and being used to sink other ships to counter effects on the rest of the game.
As for the far future (post release), an interesting model could be an open testing client comparable to DICEs CTE-Servers on the Battlefield franchise, to give patches and DLCs a platform to iron out the kinks before releasing them. This is obviously an ideal and would highly depend on player numbers for financial sutainability, but one can dream 🙃
Aquiring meaningful Data for calculating Battle Rating
in Current Feature Improvement Suggestions
Posted
...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.