Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
04-09-2013, 01:15 AM
Post: #11
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 12:53 AM)rocco Wrote:  
Quote:Ideally, I think it would be nice if Test 1 resulted in a +/ 5-10 percent chance that one or the other side would win, given those setups. Sometimes IPC would win, sometimes Plasma. Boosting Plasma damage a little bit, or reducing IPC, would get at a little better equity.

For this you need to run the battle again but on a different turn. If you rerun it on the same turn, it uses the same random number sequence. So having your combat on another turn should provide slightly different results.

In addition, the change should encourage more hybrid weapon configurations. For example, giving either side a couple of nukes (assuming you don't null them out with PDS etc) would drastically tip the odds in their favor due to the long range slow.

Also, there is a new targeting order MULTIPLE SHIPS. I added it for cases like this, where you might include a nuke ship and want it to slow as many other ships as possible, it will spread its fire out among as many targets as it can.

Yeah, I only ran it once. Testing all four of these scenarios multiple times would be good.

Does Nuke affect structure only after it punches through armor? Or is that bonus applied even if there is still armor, but no shield? If so, that would certainly strengthen Nuke and make it more versatile.

And I agree, I would expect more hybrid weapon configs. I was just testing single-weapon to get a feel for the most simple version. I suspect ships will want a combination of gauss and/or IPC to bust through structure, as well as plasma to bust through shields. Laser is the loser here, with its weak damage to structure.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 01:29 AM
Post: #12
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 01:15 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Does Nuke affect structure only after it punches through armor? Or is that bonus applied even if there is still armor, but no shield? If so, that would certainly strengthen Nuke and make it more versatile.

The bonus damage goes straight to structure, even if you have armor. To be clear, if a nuke hits an undamaged ship the normal nuke damage would take out a piece of the armor, and an additional 5% of the current structure. If the ship had shields, then the shield would be damaged for the normal nuke damage and NO structure damage.

Nukes are suddenly a very versatile and powerful weapon, but still easily shut down by PDS/ECM.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 01:30 AM
Post: #13
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 12:58 AM)rocco Wrote:  I am writing some unit testing code today (ie something that will quickly run a bunch of combats under different scenarios and print out the results). If you have suggestions on scenarios I should include, please post them.

I'd like to see the four scenarios I posted tried multiple times.

Then changed to add Shield 4 (and any gauss/IPC would get 2 Plasmas to help punch the shield). Drop an armor or structure to get shields.

Then swap one of the six mammoth on gauss/IPC side to be a nuke-only mammoth (if nuke bonus damage applies past armor). Using burst mode/target multiple of course).

How about gauss mammoth vs IPC? Try with and without shields (and 2 Plasma).

Does laser have any later-game use? Have we finally made laser less desirable than nuke/gauss? You can't get all three on the first pass - I suspect laser might need some buffing. So some tests in the cruiser range (no shields) between gauss/laser/nuke ships.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 01:36 AM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2013 01:36 AM by rocco.)
Post: #14
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 01:30 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Does laser have any later-game use? Have we finally made laser less desirable than nuke/gauss? You can't get all three on the first pass - I suspect laser might need some buffing. So some tests in the cruiser range (no shields) between gauss/laser/nuke ships.

LaserIII should still better than everything but PlasmaIII at taking down shields at close range. I don't think we should buff laser offensively; its place is early-mid game, and it is still a decent second choice late game as a plasma replacement.

It might be that I give lasers an extra PDS defensive quality (maybe 2 lasers can shoot down a nuke? 4 lasers shoot down a torp?). Again, doesn't make it ideal in that situation but it can make it a good second.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 02:04 AM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2013 02:05 AM by Diebo.)
Post: #15
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 01:36 AM)rocco Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 01:30 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Does laser have any later-game use? Have we finally made laser less desirable than nuke/gauss? You can't get all three on the first pass - I suspect laser might need some buffing. So some tests in the cruiser range (no shields) between gauss/laser/nuke ships.

LaserIII should still better than everything but PlasmaIII at taking down shields at close range. I don't think we should buff laser offensively; its place is early-mid game, and it is still a decent second choice late game as a plasma replacement.

It might be that I give lasers an extra PDS defensive quality (maybe 2 lasers can shoot down a nuke? 4 lasers shoot down a torp?). Again, doesn't make it ideal in that situation but it can make it a good second.

Good point on the shield busting. You'll want at least one shield-popping weapon, and you won't want to waste your nukes on shields. And I like the concept of PDS destruction by laser. Would the laser also do damage, or would 2 shots be used on the missiles?

What is order of fire? Plasma, then laser, then proton, then nuke, then IPC, then gauss? That is the order I think I'd want to see weapons use, anyway. Well, if they didn't have shields, I would want nuke first to maximize structural damage. That would be fun to be able to control order of fire (for the entire fleet) for each battle, depending on what your enemy had.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 02:17 AM
Post: #16
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 02:04 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Good point on the shield busting. You'll want at least one shield-popping weapon, and you won't want to waste your nukes on shields. And I like the concept of PDS destruction by laser. Would the laser also do damage, or would 2 shots be used on the missiles?

I would imagine any laser that was used for PDS wouldn't get to fire for damage. Would be a tad unfair otherwise. It'd make a laser fleet pretty much unstoppable against a nuke fleet. They probably already would be mostly there since they just have to survive long enough for the nukes to run dry then kill the nuke ships, but at least with not doing damage when working as PDS, it gives the nuke ships a chance to retreat. If they do both, it'd be a bloodbath (as long as they can get in range of course)

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 04:09 AM
Post: #17
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
Got something working, may not be bug free yet but the results look somewhat believable.

I don't want to read too much into it yet as I just did a few tests, but a few initial observations are fun to do anyway:

1) evasion is worse than long range, probably a combination of the new movement code improving long range and the "flying in circles at the boundary" issue. Could also be due to the new firing penalty.

2) keeping range is an easier task the less ships there are in combat (common sense, the less ships the less overall confusion and congestion, the easier it is to stay at range)

3) kiting with lasers spreads out the damage among ships (it is target closest to keep the best range), which results in consistent damage through the fleet but less actual ships destroyed. Gauss is the opposite; it is unable to hit lots of ships, but once a ship is caught and slowed it won't survive.


More to come later...

Code:
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:3,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III
B: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_I​II
A: 1.00 / 1.00 ships ( 100% )
B: 0.00 / 1.00 ships ( 0% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_EVASION:3,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III
B: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_I​II
A: 0.10 / 1.00 ships ( 10% )
B: 1.00 / 1.00 ships ( 47% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III​
B: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_I​II
A: 0.00 / 1.00 ships ( 0% )
B: 1.00 / 1.00 ships ( 64% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:3,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III​
B: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_​III
A: 1.55 / 10.00 ships ( 15% )
B: 7.80 / 10.00 ships ( 27% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_EVASION:3,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III
B: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_​III
A: 3.10 / 10.00 ships ( 31% )
B: 9.80 / 10.00 ships ( 47% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_LASER_BEAM_II​I
B: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_​III
A: 0.00 / 10.00 ships ( 0% )
B: 10.00 / 10.00 ships ( 71% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III,​1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_I​II
A: 1.00 / 1.00 ships ( 99% )
B: 0.00 / 1.00 ships ( 0% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_EVASION:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III,1,T​ECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_I​II
A: 1.00 / 1.00 ships ( 100% )
B: 1.00 / 1.00 ships ( 49% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III​,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_I​II
A: 0.00 / 1.00 ships ( 0% )
B: 1.00 / 1.00 ships ( 41% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III​,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_​III
A: 2.45 / 10.00 ships ( 24% )
B: 4.55 / 10.00 ships ( 14% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_EVASION:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III,1,​TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_​III
A: 4.65 / 10.00 ships ( 46% )
B: 7.70 / 10.00 ships ( 31% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_II​I,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:3,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_​III
A: 0.00 / 10.00 ships ( 0% )
B: 8.90 / 10.00 ships ( 50% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III,​1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:2,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_I​II,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
A: 1.00 / 1.00 ships ( 60% )
B: 0.00 / 1.00 ships ( 0% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_EVASION:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III,1,T​ECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:2,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_I​II,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
A: 0.00 / 1.00 ships ( 0% )
B: 1.00 / 1.00 ships ( 34% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III​,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 1:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:2,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_I​II,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
A: 0.00 / 1.00 ships ( 0% )
B: 1.00 / 1.00 ships ( 26% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III​,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:2,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_​III,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
A: 1.50 / 10.00 ships ( 13% )
B: 5.70 / 10.00 ships ( 17% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_EVASION:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_III,1,​TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:2,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_​III,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
A: 2.55 / 10.00 ships ( 25% )
B: 9.25 / 10.00 ships ( 43% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 20 test runs
A: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:2,TECH_LASER_BEAM_II​I,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
B: 10:SHIP_SIZE_DESTROYER,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:2,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_​III,1,TECH_NUCLEAR_MISSILE_III
A: 0.00 / 10.00 ships ( 0% )
B: 7.70 / 10.00 ships ( 38% )
================================================================================​=====
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 04:27 AM
Post: #18
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
@diebo these are the tests that you requested, averaged over 100 battles. I could not do the last one, as I have not coding in the ability to set targets for these tests.

Code:
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 100 test runs
A: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:12,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_II​I,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEAD​S_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
B: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_WEAKEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:12,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNO​N_III,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULK​HEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 1.49 / 6.00 ships ( 21% )
B: 1.80 / 6.00 ships ( 14% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 100 test runs
A: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:12,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_II​I,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEAD​S_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
B: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:12,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNO​N_III,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULK​HEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 0.67 / 6.00 ships ( 8% )
B: 3.13 / 6.00 ships ( 27% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 100 test runs
A: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:12,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_II​I,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEAD​S_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
B: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:12,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_II​I,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEAD​S_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 0.31 / 6.00 ships ( 5% )
B: 3.42 / 6.00 ships ( 29% )
================================================================================​=====
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 04:29 AM
Post: #19
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
and for kicks and giggles, those tests run again but with the new slowing rule by structure turned off:

As anticipated, makes a huge difference for gauss.

Code:
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 100 test runs
A: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:12,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_II​I,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEAD​S_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
B: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_WEAKEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:12,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNO​N_III,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULK​HEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 1.45 / 6.00 ships ( 17% )
B: 1.78 / 6.00 ships ( 16% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 100 test runs
A: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:12,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_II​I,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEAD​S_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
B: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:12,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNO​N_III,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULK​HEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 0.71 / 6.00 ships ( 6% )
B: 2.41 / 6.00 ships ( 23% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 100 test runs
A: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:12,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_II​I,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEAD​S_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
B: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:12,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_II​I,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEAD​S_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 2.12 / 6.00 ships ( 28% )
B: 0.77 / 6.00 ships ( 6% )
================================================================================​=====
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 04:33 AM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2013 04:42 AM by rocco.)
Post: #20
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
tests run again, this time replacing one combat engine with an energy shields 4. Results as expected, neither ion or gauss is good against shields.


[edit] this one needs closer examination. I tried again and bumped it down to shields 1 with similar results. Then I reverted the shields buff, again with similar results. so looking for a bug somewhere. [/edit]

Code:
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 100 test runs
A: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:12,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_II​I,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,2,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2​,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
B: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_WEAKEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:12,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNO​N_III,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,2,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_​II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 5.43 / 6.00 ships ( 88% )
B: 0.00 / 6.00 ships ( 0% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 100 test runs
A: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:12,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_II​I,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,2,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2​,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
B: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:12,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNO​N_III,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,2,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_​II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 5.66 / 6.00 ships ( 92% )
B: 0.00 / 6.00 ships ( 0% )
================================================================================​=====
Results are the avg of 100 test runs
A: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_LONG_RANGE:12,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_II​I,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,2,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2​,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
B: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_CLOSEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:12,TECH_GAUSS_TURRET_II​I,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,2,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2​,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 6.00 / 6.00 ships ( 100% )
B: 0.00 / 6.00 ships ( 0% )
================================================================================​=====
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Starbase Orion | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication