contact
July 15, 2019, 06:24:14 PM

Author Topic: BattleMentat  (Read 36108 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FatBuddha

  • Member
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #285 on: January 04, 2014, 09:57:21 PM »
Oh, and thanks for all the messages by the way!

It is just typical that the first time I do a beta release of BattleMentat before hand, that one of the worse bugs BattleMentat has had manages to slip through. :o

Maybe I should just stick with my previous 'release often and fight fires before too many people notice them' technique.  ;D

Offline Jacq

  • Member
  • Posts: 2070
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #286 on: February 02, 2014, 05:54:46 AM »
Raspberries!
aka Babe Ruthless

Offline GraemeCracker

  • Member
  • Posts: 299
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #287 on: February 22, 2014, 08:54:43 PM »
I'm not sure it's healthy to feed babies too many raspberries!  ;)  Mind you, I just noticed that there is a wiki attached to Battlementat, so you're probably right about no one reading the update!

Keep up the good work FatBuddha, we all appreciate it!

Offline FatBuddha

  • Member
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #288 on: February 22, 2014, 10:09:35 PM »
Thanks Graham!

At nursery, they recently fed him chocolate and custard. I fear that raspberries will no longer be sufficient.   ;D

I'm crazy busy with work at the moment, so not had chance to respond to a backlog of BattleMentat emails. Hopefully I'll get some time in the next few days. To anybody that has messaged me recently and not had a reply, please be patient - I've not forgotten about you!

Offline Aberrant72

  • Member
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #289 on: February 23, 2014, 07:47:08 AM »
FatBuddha are you sure the Curetes values are correct on your SIM? for Hired Guns?
MEAN -adjective,-er,-est.Offensive,Selfish, or unaccommodating; nasty; malicious: OLD-adjective, older, oldest or elder,eldest, far advanced in the years of one's or its life,BASTARD bastard Slang,a vicious,despicable,or thoroughly disliked person

Offline Bah

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #290 on: March 01, 2014, 09:53:58 AM »
FB, You are seriously the man. I may have said that before but it's worth repeating.

I love trim and effectiveness buttons, they save a micromanager like me a ton of time. Here's a challenge for you--a button that will tell me the most efficient split fleet amongst two (3, 4, 5!) targets.

Thanks again and absolutely raspberries ftw.
Dr Zed
Uni2 only

Offline Admiral T-Wayne

  • Member
  • Posts: 1002
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #291 on: March 01, 2014, 04:59:36 PM »
A very minor-priority feature -- displaying the calculation of the ratio of ship RSPs to defense RSPs for a target, with a maximum displayed value of something like "25+".

Offline Mazian

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #292 on: March 25, 2014, 04:20:18 PM »
Wondering if something was recently added to the battlementat page.  Just started getting it rejected by my firewall after years of using it with no issues.  It is being rejected as:

"Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:34:10 EDT
Username:***********
Source IP: ***.***.*.***
URL: GET http://battlementat.com/
Reason: MALWARE
Threat Type: othermalware
Threat Reason: IP address is either verified as a bot or has misconfigured DNS."

Not having a problem with it outside of this firewall, so it's not a DNS problem.

It's possible there has been an update to the firewall at my end, either with new heuristics or with tighter protocols, but - while certainly possible - it's unlikely.

Anyone else having the same issue?

(And it's a real PITA - because battlementat is an excellent tool.)

Offline Mazian

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #293 on: March 25, 2014, 04:47:06 PM »
A question and some suggestions.  I apologize if any have been covered before.  On a cursory look-through, I didn't find any references.

When using the embedded script, does battlementat pull in your techs, or is that something that is being done by my browser/cookies/cache?  In either case, I get weird and inconsistent results.  Sometimes my techs are accurately filled in, sometimes the fields are blank and sometimes the numbers are just scattered and have nothing to do with anything (that I can see).

If not-battlementat, realizing I have no idea how difficult it would be to implement, it would certainly be handy to have your techs autofilled.

In the same vein, it would be useful to have toggles for "Battle Commander", "Drive Engineer" and the various combat AMPs.

I must say, I'm really grateful for all the work put into this indispensable (and free!) tool.  Frankly, since the firewall problem, it's become just really inconvenient to play the game from this computer at all.  The other calculators (with all due respect to their creators and the work that THEY have put in as well), just aren't nearly as useful.  Battlecalc - you need to use NOVA, it's not automated, there are no fuel calcs;  SFC Tools - hasn't been updated to larger ship numbers or new classes of ships.

Until I can figure out how to get battlementat back through this firewall, can anyone recommend an alternate?   

Offline VikingTurd

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #294 on: March 26, 2014, 01:06:10 AM »
Battlementat is amazing! But why would there be no battle calculator made by the game developers??? Where we suppose to just eyeball it and make guesses? I know there is BattleCalc. But i don't know who made that.

And to Mazian... have you tried the original BattleCalc?

Offline Zarchne

  • Member
  • Posts: 1611
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #295 on: March 28, 2014, 04:12:51 AM »
Where we suppose to just eyeball it and make guesses?

Well... in the beginning, when there were only resources to build a few ships, you could figure it out by hand.  Although, for small battles, the outcome is not as predictable—which could be considered interesting... a clear underdog could sometimes end up with a draw on a battle... that kind of thing.

Some people still play that way.  (Not me; I went so far as to write my own simulator that allowed me to do all kinds of calculations, but BattleMentat covers most of it now... and does the LBA.)

Offline Mazian

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #296 on: March 28, 2014, 02:10:14 PM »
Battlementat is amazing! But why would there be no battle calculator made by the game developers??? Where we suppose to just eyeball it and make guesses? I know there is BattleCalc. But i don't know who made that.

And to Mazian... have you tried the original BattleCalc?

The original BattleCalc will have to do, in a pinch - given that it's clear now that battlementat is being blocked for me, with a clear malware warning. 

Until I discovered mentat, I used BC all the time.  However, respecting that all of the calc dev's are volunteers putting in a lot of work, by comparison, it's not very convenient.  It doesn't calculate hydro costs.  It's much harder to work out cost/benefit.  It doesn't dynamically recalculate.  It also hasn't been updated to include the now-not-so-new ships (so you'd need to run BC-nova).

After becoming accustomed to mentat, I just say that I'm profoundly sad that I need to look for something else - and frankly, I'd like to find something more helpful than battlecalc if possible.

Most significantly, nova.battlecalc will not allow you to input more than 99,999 of any attacking ship ... making it virtually useless for many top 200 players.  If you can do the combat with <100K of any given attack ship type, it will be helpful, but otherwise not.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 02:39:44 PM by Mazian »

Offline Zarchne

  • Member
  • Posts: 1611
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #297 on: March 28, 2014, 03:45:03 PM »
nova.battlecalc will not allow you to input more than 99,999 of any attacking ship

Here's a tip that may help: the battle algorithm is pretty linear, by which I mean that you can divide all the numbers by some factor and get pretty much the same outcome.   So if I have a battle with say, 1,000,000 Arties attacking 50,000 Hades, it comes out as a draw with about 255,000 Arties lost on one side and 11,600 Hades surviving on the other.  If you divide all the numbers by 1,000, in BattleMentat, it says about 257 Arties lost and about 12 Hades survive.  The error bars are larger, but as I said above, the bigger battles are more predictable than smaller ones, so you don't really need to worry about the large variability of outcomes.

However, I see if I plug the 1000 Arties vs 50 Hades battle into battlecalc.com, it says the Arties always win with 223 Arties lost.... Well, it disagrees with BM, so has to be wrong.  That's another reason why I wrote my own simulator (besides being able to doing more interesting stuff):  Battlecalc is just not correct much of the time.

Offline Zarchne

  • Member
  • Posts: 1611
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #298 on: March 28, 2014, 04:09:28 PM »
(Although, to be honest, my simulator would presumably have given the same erroneous results as Battlecalc in this case, until FatBuddha discovered the correct rule for explosion—a ship will only explode in a round where it received a new hit or hits, instead of every round after dropping below 70% hull, as the wiki seemed to imply.  On the other hand, I think in O-game, chance for explosion happens every hit, so a simulator doing that would be a different outcome again.)

Offline FatBuddha

  • Member
  • Posts: 197
    • View Profile
Re: BattleMentat
« Reply #299 on: April 03, 2014, 04:24:50 PM »
Zarache - I agree with you on all counts. :)

When I got in touch with battlecalc author a couple of years ago to outline where his calculations were going wrong, he explained to me that originally his calculations were correct. However, people using it had complained that it gave different results to speedsim, and that he should 'fix' it. So, he changed it to how it remains today, and never had the time or interest since to change it back (I guess).

Interestingly, people responded in exactly the same way to battlementat when I first released it. Many many people complained that battlementat gave bad results because it didn't agree with battlecalc. The difference was, I did a ton of tests to make sure that battlementat was giving the correct results, and stuck to my guns.