New Ship Classes - The Transition

[Jacob Nion]

Lady Arlene, class 4T2

Longzhou, class 4A

I would like to keep them both level 4, if suitable. I don't think about stats right now, but they will keep their roles as trader and warship.

Additionally, I own the 5LA Blue Bonnet, unmoced.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Jacob Nion

[Bregir]

@Elostirion:

Holder's Secret: Class 2

Pearl Diving Canoe: Class 0

La Presto Canosa: Class 2

The Cotton Lady: She was always large for a class 2, I agree. Class 3.

Colonia: Maintains class 5

Cotton Island vessel: Class 1

@kaiju:

Wight Spider: Class 1

Mirthless Jest: Class 4

Lenore: Class 5

Dark Narwhal is Gedren's Moc. She seems like a class 2 to me.

King Archibald is Capt. Braunsfeld's and is a clear class 3 to me.

Bleak Angel: I think she is either a large class 5 or a small class 6. Up to you.

[Bregir]

On 8/7/2017 at 6:09 PM, Mike S said:

So are my 3 ship's classes staying the same?

Black Marlin class 2

Sulky Harlequin class 6

Armina class 5

Black Marlin: Class 3

Sulky Harlequin: Class 6

Armina: Class 5

[Bregir]

@Capt Wolf:

I would like to emphasize that while the difference in classes between your ships should make sense, the adherence to the benchmark classes should always be first priority, to avoid class creep (and keep it fair for all). I have looked at them again and would suggest the following:

Wolf: Class 3 (like the Lady of Madrice - she is a bit lower, but the Wolf is lighter built (and narrower, I believe)) Upon reconsideration, she should definitely be a class 3.

Far Horizon could possibly be a class 5, although I would say she seems on the small side. (Compares well to the Athena, I think?)

On 8/7/2017 at 6:28 PM, Capt Wolf said:

Yes, my understanding is that they are one in the same.

How so? Are two ships licensed on the same Moc? I need more info on this.

On 8/7/2017 at 7:16 PM, gedren_y said:

I would dispute this. I think her 5 rating should stand. The Firefly has a longer deck and hull, more sails, and more arms than the Consort's Duty (already classed as a 5). 

Since you have asked me to reconsider this, I have to say it would be most equal to the archetypes and the classifications of other people's vessels if they are both classed at 4. And since that would be most fair, I think that is what we should do. They are both low, flush-decked vessels.

As I said to Capt Wolf, what is important is that we always use the archetypes as reference, not other mocs, as the use of other mocs will lead to class creep.

On 8/7/2017 at 8:39 PM, Capt Wolf said:

May I suggest that, given some of the subjectiveness of the classification system, and the general impression that conversions to the new system seem to be resulting in a ship being rated at the same class or a class higher (or more in the case of the really big ships), that it might be a good rule of thumb that ships can remain at their previous class unless the owner desires the smaller class? Just an idea, but it would avoid any complaints about ships being downgraded.

You may, of course!

However, that is not what we will do. To keep the system fair for all, and the classes as correct as possible, some ships are downgraded, while others are upgraded. I am not a fan of carrying over old errors.

Also, I implore all to accept the new classes and the changes they might bring. I think it is a shame if people will not accept to be treated equally because they are set on some specific class. Since our ships may be battling each other, and competing in trade, it is important that all are treated equally.

@Legostone:

Colour of the Wind and Green Winds both are very lightly built and have very short waterlines. The long overhanging stern on both of them makes them appear larger fromt he top, but they simply don't have the bulk to compare to the other vessels. Their displacement is quite low compared to their length.

I still think the Green Winds would be most fitting as a class 4, but she *could* be a class 5. Colour of the Winds simply does not compare to the Ironsides (the archetype for class 5) so she *should* be a class 4. The Rojo Tormento is comparable to the Green Winds, so still a quite small class 5. Again - I think 4 would be more fitting.

And I have to say that I am not sure why this would be a problem. As I said above, since you will be competing with others, we have to be fair and try to make the classes fit as best we can. And the benchmark is the archetypes, which is a fixed benchmark for all.

Re: Dragon's Revenge

Thanks - you have addressed my question about this one - I agree she should be a class 7.

On 8/7/2017 at 8:53 PM, Legostone said:

can't we just follow the spirit of the builder?

On 8/7/2017 at 8:53 PM, Legostone said:

people build in different scales

I have to say no. We have discussed this a lot in court, and we have found that the only way to make it fair is to make size the determining factor for class. Otherwise, we cannot avoid class creep and misuse. You should not be able to get a higher rating by for instance pushing on more guns on the same moc. In RL, that would mean worse range, manouvre, or less room for cargo, just like it will under this customizable scheme.

That said, you shouldn't be punished for building low to the waterline, not using prefabs. What we are looking at is the size of the ship if it was build one prefabs (or alternatively, comparing them as if they don't have prefabs.)

So, if the Titanic moc is built without prefabs, we will either imagine that with prefabs, or the archetype without prefabs, and compare them like so, not put them on an imaginary scale and weigh the amount of bricks/prefabs used.

@Jacob Nion:

Lady Arlene: Class 4

Destiny's Bounty (Sorry, New Allegiance ): Class 4 (You were totally ripped off by TLC!)

You also have possible sisterships in the Warbringer (large class 2 I think) and Queen Annetta's Revenge (probably a class 6).

Next up, I will try to class my own ships! Dum dum dum!

[Jacob Nion]

49 minutes ago, Bregir said:

 

@Jacob Nion:

Lady Arlene: Class 4

Destiny's Bounty (Sorry, New Allegiance ): Class 4 (You were totally ripped off by TLC!)

You also have possible sisterships in the Warbringer (large class 2 I think) and Queen Annetta's Revenge (probably a class 6).

Next up, I will try to class my own ships! Dum dum dum!

Haha, aye, I was thinking the same when seeing the pictures. But who am I to complain about something like that. 

Personally, sistershipping is no option I'd like to use. But thanks for evaluating the Queen Annetta's. That will help me for future vessels.

So, when will the licenses be refunded? As soon as the new mrca is ahead?

[Bregir]

2 minutes ago, Jacob Nion said:

Personally, sistershipping is no option I'd like to use.

I tend to agree with you, but there are arguments for both sides, and we have discussed this quite a bit in court. You are free to chose, of course, but we will probably not change the sistershipping rules for some time now.

2 minutes ago, Jacob Nion said:

So, when will the licenses be refunded? As soon as the new mrca is ahead?

Phred is already working on it, I believe :) (It's a big task, but I believe you will get a heads up once he has refunded yours)

[Maxim I]

1 hour ago, Bregir said:

How so? Are two ships licensed on the same Moc? I need more info on this.

 

Margot was never licenced as the "Margot", but as the "Dread Treasure" by Eslandola :) so no, there never were 2 ships licenced on the same MOC :)

---

I think Phred already refunded the licences as I see all players received an amount of doubloons in the "vessel" section in the account summary

 

[gedren_y]

2 hours ago, Bregir said:

Since you have asked me to reconsider this, I have to say it would be most equal to the archetypes and the classifications of other people's vessels if they are both classed at 4. And since that would be most fair, I think that is what we should do. They are both low, flush-decked vessels.

As I said to Capt Wolf, what is important is that we always use the archetypes as reference, not other mocs, as the use of other mocs will lead to class creep.

Understood and accepted. I have edited the Consort's Duty class claim and stats plan accordingly.

[Jacob Nion]

1 hour ago, Bregir said:

I tend to agree with you, but there are arguments for both sides, and we have discussed this quite a bit in court. You are free to chose, of course, but we will probably not change the sistershipping rules for some time now.

Sure, I didn't mean to heat up the topic again; just my personal decision. Every lost ship is an opportunity to build a better one.

But one thing about the Queen Annetta's: for her size she had a very narrow deck with only 10 studs. I wonder how much this plays into account for considering the class.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Jacob Nion

[Professor Thaum]

1 hour ago, Maxim I said:

I think Phred already refunded the licences as I see all players received an amount of doubloons in the "vessel" section in the account summary

 

Shall we relicence the ships in the new format ? And so pay the new licence with the refund ? What about captured ships in successfull raid and free ships (for new players) ?

Edited July 20, 2017 by Professor Thaum

[Bregir]

3 minutes ago, Professor Thaum said:

Shall we relicence the ships in the new format ? And so pay the new licence with the refund ? What about captured ships in successfull raid and free ships (for new players) ?

Yes, you will need to relicense your ships, but the forms are not yet ready, so we ask you have a little patience

You will pay the new prices for the relicensing, and the refund should make it possible to pay for it generally. Free ships are still free. They will not be refunded (as you never paid for them ), but you will have to relicense them to determine their stats.

Captured ships that are not yet active (you have captured an unmoced vessel, but never started using it for the MRCA) will simply count as a license in the new rating system. (eg. a class 4A will count as any class 4 license.)

If you have captured a moc'ed ship, you will still have the rights to use it. Therefore, you will have it refunded and be able to relicense it. (You could/should ask the original owner how he sees that stats)

33 minutes ago, Jacob Nion said:

But one thing about the Queen Annetta's: for her size she had a very narrow deck with only 10 studs. I wonder how much this plays into account for considering the class.

Is this for her gundeck or upper deck? (i.e. is she narrow, or is it just the upper deck due to tumblehome?). If she is rather narrow, she might be more fitting for a class 5, as it is the "total size" that should matter, not a narrowly defined length or width. However, looking at her, I would say she is closer to the class 6 archetype than the class 5. Thoughts? (I have linked all the mocs below)

Class 5 archetype: Ironsides

Class 6 (Both of the ships here are class 6's:

 

51 minutes ago, gedren_y said:

Understood and accepted. I have edited the Consort's Duty class claim and stats plan accordingly.

Super, thanks!

1 hour ago, Maxim I said:

Margot was never licenced as the "Margot", but as the "Dread Treasure" by Eslandola :) so no, there never were 2 ships licenced on the same MOC :)

Thanks for the update, Maxim. Sort of reverse sistershipping, though - not sure how it makes sense IC!

[Jacob Nion]

@Bregir Both. The brick built hull is only 14 studs wide instead of the 16 studs width of the prefab hull pieces, so the tumblehome leaves only 10 studs for the deck. 

That was because I couldn't manage to build the bow any wider. I think I nailed exact the overall proportions where it doesn't feel awkward. But for level 6 I think it would just feel like too less tonnage. 

While I appreciate the evaluation system I wonder how much impact an altered width to length ratio would have. Of course there are not many reasonable ways to build a ship that's shorter but wider and bulkier than the archtypes, I find it interesting to think about something like that. Imagine I would build a complete square vessel that's comparable in mass to a certain arch type- how would the court rate it?

On a side note: the arch types suggest that class 7 is the maximum one can achieve using prefab hulls. That sounds reasonable since a ship on prefab longer or higher than the Margot would definitely start to look out of place. 

[Bregir]

Just now, Jacob Nion said:

@Bregir Both. The brick built hull is only 14 studs wide instead of the 16 studs width of the prefab hull pieces, so the tumblehome leaves only 10 studs for the deck. 

That was because I couldn't manage to build the bow any wider. I think I nailed exact the overall proportions where it doesn't feel awkward. But for level 6 I think it would just feel like too less tonnage. 

So, we are landing on a class 5 if I understand you correctly?

Just now, Jacob Nion said:

While I appreciate the evaluation system I wonder how much impact an altered width to length ratio would have. Of course there are not many reasonable ways to build a ship that's shorter but wider and bulkier than the archtypes, I find it interesting to think about something like that. Imagine I would build a complete square vessel that's comparable in mass to a certain arch type- how would the court rate it?

Hmm, probably like that archetype. But this is a very hypothetical question, and hard to answer without an actual example! And how would you define the stats? It could be a bulky, floating fortress with a high gun-rating, but a very low manouvreability and range, and then it could make sense.

And example could be Elostirion's Cotton Lady. She isn't longer than most other class 2s, but very bulky and thus I think she is a class 3.

1 minute ago, Jacob Nion said:

On a side note: the arch types suggest that class 7 is the maximum one can achieve using prefab hulls. That sounds reasonable since a ship on prefab longer or higher than the Margot would definitely start to look out of place. 

Well, while I would agree with you that it will be hard to make anything prefab larger than the Margot seem harmonic, this is not a rule. If someone wants to experiment with a very long and sleek prefab ship (or something else), we are not holding them back. And like that it may be possible to create something interesting for class 8 or even higher. I would add that the higher classes would require some very large mocs, which should be obvious from the archetypes!

Historically, there was very few of the largest ships, especially before the Napoleonic period, which seems to be the generally accepted timeframe for BoBS. So while we are not discouraging a humongous class 10 flagship, we don't want to see them by the dozen! (Well, we are not going to stop people if a high number of great looking class 10's are built! )

[Legostone]

7 minutes ago, Jacob Nion said:

On a side note: the arch types suggest that class 7 is the maximum one can achieve using prefab hulls. That sounds reasonable since a ship on prefab longer or higher than the Margot would definitely start to look out of place. 

 

I'll straight up disagree here. 6 midsections, 2 decks is certainly easily possible (which would be bigger than the Margot), and with some compromises, 3 decks, 22 wide and 7 midsections remains a possibility. If you really want to challenge me on that I might consider trying it (Although I would have to order 2 more midsections...)

[Bregir]

Just now, Legostone said:

f you really want to challenge me on that I might consider trying it

Challenge accepted! No wait...

The other way around: CHALLENGE OFFERED!

[gedren_y]

5 minutes ago, Bregir said:

Challenge accepted! No wait...

The other way around: CHALLENGE OFFERED!

I think the phrase you're looking for is, "I dare ya!"

[SilentWolf]

There you go. ;) 

Though as this is even before I joined  BOBS it isn't very good. I'm sure Legostone can do one that is cleaner and way better looking. 

[Jacob Nion]

55 minutes ago, gedren_y said:

I think the phrase you're looking for is, "I dare ya!"

exactly!

[Bodi]

1 hour ago, Legostone said:

I'll straight up disagree here. 6 midsections, 2 decks is certainly easily possible (which would be bigger than the Margot), and with some compromises, 3 decks, 22 wide and 7 midsections remains a possibility. If you really want to challenge me on that I might consider trying it (Although I would have to order 2 more midsections...)

I should second Legostone's opinion, here's an example of a ship built with 6 midsections, my sotl for the last challenge E:

As you can see here, the stern is overhanging extravagantly and length wise, I think it's comparable to a 7 midsections without the overhang, and it does not look disproportionned to me, ok that's very subjective but I kind like my ship.

If i'm not mistaken, I recall Captain Greenhair has built a sotl with 7midsections and our illustrious Kolonialbeamter has also built an enormous first rater on prefab hulls. As long as we pay attention to the length/width proportion, by widening the prefab hull with jumpers and inverted slopes, we can manage to build a good looking ship with 7midsections.

[Capt Wolf]

6 hours ago, Bregir said:

Wolf: Class 3 (like the Lady of Madrice - she is a bit lower, but the Wolf is lighter built (and narrower, I believe)) Upon reconsideration, she should definitely be a class 3.

FWIW, the Wolf uses the same hull pieces (small prefab with two middles) and roughly the same sail plan as CGH's El Matador, which is a class 4. I agree the Wolf is at the bottom end of class 4, but I do think it reaches that level. The cabin hanging off the back end, lower build, and general aesthetics make the Wolf look skinnier.

[Bodi]

@Bregir As we are talking here, I'd like to ask your expertise about the class of my latest ships, ie, the twodecker and the frigate for the challenge E, the Malto Express, the Ardent and the Fishing/Patrol Boat. They are all unlicensed and before licensing them, I'd like to know in which classes they belong.

 

[Bregir]

A few updates:

Due to concerns that the Athena and the Ironsides where too similar in size, the Asesino now takes the spot as archetype for class 4. (Stats are just suggestions)

This change in the archetypes has led us to revisit a few vessels:

@CelesAurivern: The Sparta is probably a small class 5.

@Capt Wolf: Both the Far Horizon and the Sleeping Siren are probably most fitting as class 5s.

@kaiju: The Sirrus is probably a class 4 or 5.

@kabel: La Salamandra: Class 3

@Captain Green Hair: El Matador: Class 4

@Bodi:

Bodi's SOTL I - Smallish class 8

Bodi's Frigate I - class 6

Bodi's Galleon - class 5

Bodi's SOTL II - looks smaller than the other one, but I think we would have to ask to confirm. Class 7?

Patrol vessel - class 2

__________________________

We are currently working on the ship registry form. Should anyone have any questions, feel free to ask them here.

[Bodi]

Thank you Bregir for your assessment! 

The sotl no.2 is indeed a little bit smaller, it has 5 midsections and the sotl no.1 has 6. The difference is minor so I propose to license them both as class 7 ships. 

I'm ok with the classes of the rest, since they coincide with my expectation.

[Mesabi]

Alright, what's y'all's opinion on my WTC Aurora? I want her to be a four, but, she is rather small, so I would accept a class three.

 WTC Aurora by North White, on Flickr

[Bregir]

@Mesabi: I am certain that after close deliberation and comparison to the archetypes, you will see that she is most similar to the current class 2 archetype.