11th slow game wishlist

For topics that do not fit in another sub-forum.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3177
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#16 Post by Oberlus »

ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 4:36 pm The strong ones can win together.
I'm talking from experience in MP games. People doesn't get into alliances that they don't find necessary. Alliances tends to balance themselves because empires that feel threatened look for more support among the ones that are feeling the same way.
In any case, it is incontestable that fixed teams can't regulate disadvantageous situations, while free diplomacy does allow it.

User avatar
Voker57
Space Kraken
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:46 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#17 Post by Voker57 »

ThinkSome wrote:
I just don't think this is the right approach to prevent/delay snowballing.
It is the only one we have. So removing it is a very bad idea.
ThinkSome wrote: It helps prevent chaff. Also see the other discussions on it being strange that
a simple flak cannon costs more than the ship it is mounted on. Though I agree
that one could explain that as the "flak cannon" being "flak cannon" + "support systems".

But still, I think the cheapest hull should still cost more than the cheapest weapon.
So is there some numbers which prove it's more balanced? Also, I don't see a problem with chaff.
ThinkSome wrote: I thought this was a wishlist?
It is, and I am expressing a firm disagreement with your wishlist item.
Team S.M.A.C.: destroying dreams of multiplayer 4x since 2017.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3177
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#18 Post by Oberlus »

Voker57, you could open a poll in this thread.

I'd put the following options:

- Two fixed teams.
- No teams, no diplomacy.
- Max one winner, free diplomacy.
- Max winners 1/3 of players, free diplomacy.

- Ring galaxy shape.
- Cluster galaxy shape.

Max two votes (one for galaxy shape and one for team&diplomacy settings).

I'm assuming no monsters, no natives and low specials is already OK for majority of players, but feel free to include some of those (maximum 10 options in the poll).

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#19 Post by Ophiuchus »

I would mostly wish for using more combat bouts with balance scaling as explained here: Multiplayer slow game server

That is for generating feedback where balance scaling is not working in an acceptable way/where shifts in balance still happen.
So while I aim for four combat bouts in master I would like to have a larger number of bouts (at least six) in order to have more noticable effects.
Changes are expected in fighters mostly (launch bouts and not-yet-launch bouts have less effect) and to a lesser extend planetary defense passive protection (defense scales with weapon damage and not with structure).

On another note i play I want to improve the game by testing - so I am usually fine with balance changes introduced by progression of the base branch. So I would wish to have monsters in the game too, because I am quite certain that those did not get enough love in 0.4.9 and 0.4.10
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3177
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#20 Post by Oberlus »

I'd like to test first 4 bouts, which are untested and are less disruptive.
Four bouts is already a nerf for fighters: against full PD defense, they get destroyed in bout 2, which means they do 33% of maximum damage (instead of current 50%). Cannons in ships that last until fourth bout against same-tier shields do 50% damage (66% if ultimate pilots). All this might be OK but needs testing, and the MP is great for that.

With 6 bouts, fighters do 20% of maximum damage against full PD defense. That PD defense would cost the same than for 3 or 4 bouts, right?
I don't think that can ever be OK. I bet best ship designs would be high armor with few cannons (so that the expensive cannons last longer), and PD when some fool mounts fighters.

I recommend testing 4 bouts first, since it must be tested, and invite the more adventurous players to test more bouts in SP.
I myself I'm not interested on more than 4 bouts, because of the following:
All weapon types must be able to do similar damage for the same cost against the same degree of defense, so if cannons vs shields do 50%, fighters vs max. PD should be able to do 50% too (or maybe 33%). That could be balanced with more than four bouts by adding more fighters per hangar or increasing cost of PD (or reducing cost of hangars and launch bays). All that could be doable but introduces new headaches for no gain. I mean, I understand the gains from upping bouts to 4: better balance for 3 different weapon ranges (we could also stick to 3 bouts and 2 ranges and would get as most of the gains compared to single range cannons). What do we get from having 6 bouts? Longer combat bouts, computationally more expensive turns, but no new weapon strategies or whatever (no more than with four bouts, at least). So I'm not kind to the idea.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#21 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 8:39 am I'd like to test first 4 bouts, which are untested and are less disruptive.
Four bouts is already a nerf for fighters: against full PD defense, they get destroyed in bout 2, which means they do 33% of maximum damage (instead of current 50%). Cannons in ships that last until fourth bout against same-tier shields do 50% damage (66% if ultimate pilots). All this might be OK but needs testing, and the MP is great for that.
ship weapons vs shields balance should be the same as before. you are right on the nerf against full PD but comparing against max damage is not really valid. four bouts is a buff plus 12.5% to max damage because of less launch time so one has to compare the average-damage per-bout (or normalized damage-per-combat). So a 12 damage surviving fighter is like a 8 damage weapon for three bouts and a 9 damage weapon for four bouts. so the nerf against full PD is minus 25% like this: a 12 damage one-shotted fighter is like a 4 damage weapon for three bouts and like a 3 damage weapon for four bouts.
Oberlus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 8:39 am With 6 bouts, fighters do 20% of maximum damage against full PD defense. That PD defense would cost the same than for 3 or 4 bouts, right?
I don't think that can ever be OK. I bet best ship designs would be high armor with few cannons (so that the expensive cannons last longer), and PD when some fool mounts fighters.
Yes, more bouts means better flak and more extreme results. Going from 3 to 4 bouts means 50% better flak when counting the number of downed enemies, going from 3 to 6 bouts means 250% better flak. But it is really easy to address that - we could double the fighter damage if that theory is valid (so a 6-2-1-2).

That said I am also ok with four bouts in order to test the four bouts as a default.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3177
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#22 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 10:17 am comparing against max damage is not really valid
Why not? That's how I do it always. Just in case: I mean maximum full-combat damage for the whole "weapon" (so the whole set of fighters from an hangar), I'm not talking about damage per shot.
With current three bouts, an un-countered fighter will be shooting at the enemy for 2 bouts, while if it is killed asap it will shoot just one bout, so either 100% or 50% damage.
With four bouts, it shoots between 3 and 1 bouts, hence between 100% and 33% of total damage output per part.
For 6 bouts, shooting 1 out of maximum 5 bouts, between 100% and 20%.
The more bouts to put in, the harder to balance that without messing with more stats (costs of parts, fire rate of PDs, fighters per hangar, etc.)
Ophiuchus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 10:17 am we could double the fighter damage if that theory is valid (so a 6-2-1-2).
Absolutely not, that would be totally broken: it would make PD defense mandatory since un-countered bombers would be wreaking havoc like no other weapon. If any fool would not mount PD, you could send bombers for 1/4 of the cost of the enemy fleet and destroy everything.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1814
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#23 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 11:10 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 10:17 am comparing against max damage is not really valid
Why not? That's how I do it always.
Because the base is a different one. You need to compare it main weapon damage to put it into context.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3177
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#24 Post by Oberlus »

Ophiuchus wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 11:38 am Because the base is a different one. You need to compare it main weapon damage to put it into context.
What's main weapon damage?

User avatar
LienRag
Space Dragon
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#25 Post by LienRag »

ThinkSome wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 4:36 pm The strong ones can win together.
I will never play a shared-victory game that isn't fixed teams, as it is indeed an invitation to bullying.


Apart from that my wishlist is just to participate in this new game (as long as it's either fixed teams or one-winner-only) as I never tried multiplayer.

I have no idea how, though.

User avatar
Voker57
Space Kraken
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:46 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#26 Post by Voker57 »

I actually would like to remove fighters. They make shields obsolete, and don't introduce any interesting new challenges except pain in the ass to figure out how much flaks you need.
Team S.M.A.C.: destroying dreams of multiplayer 4x since 2017.

ThinkSome
Dyson Forest
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:13 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#27 Post by ThinkSome »

Revamp stealth and you can blow carriers out of the sky before they can launch.

Fighters add diversity to the game, I'd hate to see them gone. One could make them cost PP to replenish, so you'd have them stocked at planets and they'd be used to replenish destroyed ones. Also going to 4 combat turns will make cannons a bit better than they are now.

User avatar
Voker57
Space Kraken
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:46 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#28 Post by Voker57 »

Oberlus wrote: Thu May 28, 2020 6:07 pm Voker57, you could open a poll in this thread.

I'd put the following options:

- Two fixed teams.
- No teams, no diplomacy.
- Max one winner, free diplomacy.
- Max winners 1/3 of players, free diplomacy.

- Ring galaxy shape.
- Cluster galaxy shape.

Max two votes (one for galaxy shape and one for team&diplomacy settings).

I'm assuming no monsters, no natives and low specials is already OK for majority of players, but feel free to include some of those (maximum 10 options in the poll).
Polls are not precise enough. The procedure i'm thinking of, if I'm organizing the Eleventh:

1. I post an announcement with game rules
2. A questionnaire: "I will play if, and only if, these changes to rules is made __ I will definitely not play if these changes to rules are made ___"
3. Then I read the answers and try to end up with as many players as possible.
Team S.M.A.C.: destroying dreams of multiplayer 4x since 2017.

User avatar
Voker57
Space Kraken
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:46 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#29 Post by Voker57 »

ThinkSome wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 2:38 pm Revamp stealth and you can blow carriers out of the sky before they can launch.

Fighters add diversity to the game, I'd hate to see them gone. One could make them cost PP to replenish, so you'd have them stocked at planets and they'd be used to replenish destroyed ones.
Let's get real, nobody will implement this.
Team S.M.A.C.: destroying dreams of multiplayer 4x since 2017.

User avatar
Querens
Space Krill
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:01 pm

Re: 11th slow game wishlist

#30 Post by Querens »

ThinkSome wrote: Sat May 30, 2020 2:38 pm Revamp stealth and you can blow carriers out of the sky before they can launch.

Fighters add diversity to the game, I'd hate to see them gone. One could make them cost PP to replenish, so you'd have them stocked at planets and they'd be used to replenish destroyed ones. Also going to 4 combat turns will make cannons a bit better than they are now.
And I hate to see that shields mean nothing right now. I invested heavily in fleet with shields( this is the first game since a long time, I wouldn't do that anymore) and that was pure dumping of resources because everybody builds hulls with fighters and no shields for 30-40% cheaper while fighters work just like common hull fully armed and ignore shields(!). Yeah, you blow them up with 1 hit, but hey, they are free and unlimitied!

Post Reply