Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
04-09-2013, 04:59 AM
Post: #21
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 04:33 AM)rocco Wrote:  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]

Cool. I would think that shield 1 and shield 4 would actually be somewhat similar. The key is surviving that first pass, and shield 1 might be just enough to do it. But of course, you'd really want to try 2 Plasma 3 on the IPC/Gauss ships and see how that plays out. That is great that Gauss has late-game appeal. Should be fun to have a fourth (and fifth! with nuke) weapon to mix into the "Rock-Paper-Scissors" mix of Plasma/IPC/Proton that we had before.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 05:09 AM
Post: #22
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 04:59 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Cool. I would think that shield 1 and shield 4 would actually be somewhat similar. The key is surviving that first pass, and shield 1 might be just enough to do it. But of course, you'd really want to try 2 Plasma 3 on the IPC/Gauss ships and see how that plays out. That is great that Gauss has late-game appeal. Should be fun to have a fourth (and fifth! with nuke) weapon to mix into the "Rock-Paper-Scissors" mix of Plasma/IPC/Proton that we had before.

Yeah, I tried that. It improved it a bit, but not enough (it was something like 50% plasma survived instead of 100%). So far adding that single, level 1 shield on an all plasma boat had enough effect that nothing else I've tried beats it. So I am hunting to make sure there is not a bug (like there was with the ship regen), and then will examine what should be done about it. If plasma3 with a single shield can't be beat, then its a bad thing.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 05:17 AM
Post: #23
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 05:09 AM)rocco Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 04:59 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Cool. I would think that shield 1 and shield 4 would actually be somewhat similar. The key is surviving that first pass, and shield 1 might be just enough to do it. But of course, you'd really want to try 2 Plasma 3 on the IPC/Gauss ships and see how that plays out. That is great that Gauss has late-game appeal. Should be fun to have a fourth (and fifth! with nuke) weapon to mix into the "Rock-Paper-Scissors" mix of Plasma/IPC/Proton that we had before.

Yeah, I tried that. It improved it a bit, but not enough (it was something like 50% plasma survived instead of 100%). So far adding that single, level 1 shield on an all plasma boat had enough effect that nothing else I've tried beats it. So I am hunting to make sure there is not a bug (like there was with the ship regen), and then will examine what should be done about it. If plasma3 with a single shield can't be beat, then its a bad thing.

Try a 50/50 mix of plasma/IPC, with charge close, target weakest. I suspect that will take out the 100% plasma ships.

And instead of a shield for the IPC/Gauss, use that extra slot to add an engine. Or HA. If you are going up against Plasma, you wouldn't use shields.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 05:26 AM
Post: #24
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 05:17 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Try a 50/50 mix of plasma/IPC, with charge close, target weakest. I suspect that will take out the 100% plasma ships.

And instead of a shield for the IPC/Gauss, use that extra slot to add an engine. Or HA. If you are going up against Plasma, you wouldn't use shields.

Is that half ships all plasma, and half ships all ipc. or all ships with half plasma/ipc.

As for the extra engines, I'd like to keep the systems as close as possible to remove them as variables.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 05:32 AM
Post: #25
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 05:26 AM)rocco Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 05:17 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Try a 50/50 mix of plasma/IPC, with charge close, target weakest. I suspect that will take out the 100% plasma ships.

And instead of a shield for the IPC/Gauss, use that extra slot to add an engine. Or HA. If you are going up against Plasma, you wouldn't use shields.

Is that half ships all plasma, and half ships all ipc. or all ships with half plasma/ipc.

As for the extra engines, I'd like to keep the systems as close as possible to remove them as variables.

6 plasma, 6 IPC per ship. The "VanderLegion Special". Very effective. If you are up against all IPC, go long. If you are up against all Plasma, charge close.

Otherwise, you need enough Plasma to burst through the shields (without adding engines). I don't know how much that would be - 2-4 should do it, I would think. So maybe 9 IPC, 3 Plasma?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 05:44 AM
Post: #26
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 05:32 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Otherwise, you need enough Plasma to burst through the shields (without adding engines). I don't know how much that would be - 2-4 should do it, I would think. So maybe 9 IPC, 3 Plasma?

Yeah, so this is why I think there might be a bug in the tester. The VL special lost both times, with or without shields. So something is fishy...

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:9,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNON​_III,3,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_III,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,2,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,T​ECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 2.75 / 6.00 ships ( 38% )
B: 0.42 / 6.00 ships ( 2% )
================================================================================​=====
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,2,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:9,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNON​_III,3,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_III,2,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_I​I,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 2.82 / 6.00 ships ( 37% )
B: 0.38 / 6.00 ships ( 3% )
================================================================================​=====
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 05:58 AM
Post: #27
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 05:44 AM)rocco Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 05:32 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Otherwise, you need enough Plasma to burst through the shields (without adding engines). I don't know how much that would be - 2-4 should do it, I would think. So maybe 9 IPC, 3 Plasma?

Yeah, so this is why I think there might be a bug in the tester. The VL special lost both times, with or without shields. So something is fishy...

The new movement method makes a huge difference, too. If you watch the battle, the ships pass each other. It is hard to turn the IPC mammoth around (or the VL special), and any plasma that survive are constantly raining down damage, slowing down the IPC if structure gets hit. The IPC can't do enough damage in one pass to hit structure on the plasma. That is why with Gauss I manually picked my Plasma targets. If you can do that, you can slow the plasma down, and then they die. I think gauss would take out Plasma with shield if the gauss had a couple plasma or laser with them (and you could manually select targets).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 06:32 AM
Post: #28
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
Ok, the shields were a red herring. The big difference was going from 3 combat engines to 2 combat engines. Anything below 3 combat engines the plasma has the advantage, even though both sides have the same speed.

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:6,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNON​_III,6,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_III,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_I​I,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 0.36 / 6.00 ships ( 4% )
B: 3.21 / 6.00 ships ( 26% )
================================================================================​=====
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,2,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:6,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNON​_III,6,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_III,2,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_I​I,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 1.87 / 6.00 ships ( 20% )
B: 0.73 / 6.00 ships ( 5% )
================================================================================​=====
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_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:6,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNON​_III,6,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_III,1,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_I​I,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 2.24 / 6.00 ships ( 25% )
B: 0.47 / 6.00 ships ( 3% )
================================================================================​=====
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,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:6,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNON​_III,6,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_III,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BU​LKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 1.60 / 6.00 ships ( 16% )
B: 0.86 / 6.00 ships ( 5% )
================================================================================​=====
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,3,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:6,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNON​_III,6,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_III,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,3,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,T​ECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 0.64 / 6.00 ships ( 7% )
B: 2.72 / 6.00 ships ( 22% )
================================================================================​=====
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:6,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNON​_III,6,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_III,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,2,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,T​ECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 1.68 / 6.00 ships ( 20% )
B: 1.14 / 6.00 ships ( 9% )
================================================================================​=====
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,1,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:6,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNON​_III,6,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_III,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,1,TECH_COMBAT_ENGINES,2,T​ECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 2.06 / 6.00 ships ( 26% )
B: 0.82 / 6.00 ships ( 6% )
================================================================================​=====
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_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATING_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKH​EADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
B: 6:SHIP_SIZE_MAMMOTH,SHIP_TARGET_WEAKEST,SHIP_CLOSE_RANGE:6,TECH_ION_PULSE_CANNON​_III,6,TECH_PLASMA_TURRET_III,1,TECH_ENERGY_SHIELDS_IV,2,TECH_HEAVY_ARMOR_PLATIN​G_II,2,TECH_REINFORCED_BULKHEADS_II,2,TECH_ECM_JAMMER
A: 1.57 / 6.00 ships ( 17% )
B: 1.63 / 6.00 ships ( 12% )
================================================================================​=====
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 06:51 AM
Post: #29
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 06:32 AM)rocco Wrote:  Ok, the shields were a red herring. The big difference was going from 3 combat engines to 2 combat engines. Anything below 3 combat engines the plasma has the advantage, even though both sides have the same speed.

Interesting. For some reason, with no engines the VL special (last test) won about as much as they lost, if I am reading the info correctly. And the results aren't perfectly linear.

On a mammoth, if you are going IPC you would certainly want 3 engines as a minimum, 4 if you can afford the space/cost.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 06:59 AM
Post: #30
RE: Round Table: Miscellaneous combat changes
(04-09-2013 06:51 AM)Diebo Wrote:  Interesting. For some reason, with no engines the VL special (last test) won about as much as they lost, if I am reading the info correctly. And the results aren't perfectly linear.

Yes, you are correct. The ones most in favor for plasma are the ones with 1 or 2 engines, with the only clear win for IPC being 3 engines.

My only speculation is that since we are only adding speed and not turn rate, there is a tipping point where the plasma cannot compensate. But that's just a wild guess.

The first four tests are without shields, the last four with shields.

Anyway, while I'm down here i am going to re-examine the movement points code. Its always been a little wonky in regards to combat pilots/engines/whatnot.
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