Author Topic: General forum game discussion  (Read 41023 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • I want to be here less...
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: General forum game discussion
I actually prefer the text...

and I find the GIF moves too fast for me.

Seconded
« Last Edit: December 28, 2015, 04:24:50 am by 0rph3u5 »
"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

"...because they are not Dragons."

 

Offline Lorric

  • 212
Re: General forum game discussion
I too much prefer the text to the gif. Maybe if Spoon doesn't want to, we could copy in the orders we gave ourselves.

 

Offline niffiwan

  • 211
  • Eluder Class
Re: General forum game discussion
What if the gif were 5 separate images, or an "album" where you can browse each image at your leisure before moving on to the next one?
Creating a fs2_open.log | Red Alert Bug = Hex Edit | MediaVPs 2014: Bigger HUD gauges | 32bit libs for 64bit Ubuntu
----
Debian Packages (testing/unstable): Freespace2 | wxLauncher
----
m|m: I think I'm suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Bmpman is starting to make sense and it's actually written reasonably well...

 

Offline Spoon

  • Moderator
  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: General forum game discussion
Typing it all out in text is actually more time consuming than you might realize.

What if the gif were 5 separate images, or an "album" where you can browse each image at your leisure before moving on to the next one?
This wouldn't be too much extra effort to do.
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: General forum game discussion
Can I also ask for a more user-controlled overview of tactical combat? Whether a detailed writeup, or a slide-by-slide album makes no difference for me, but I'd like to be able to work through the tactical steps without having to wait for the .gif to cycle around again.

Also, regarding that accursed shiny new CRF project, can I ask:

  • Do the fleets to be repaired need to have an unbroken supply chain to home space?
  • Can fleets repair when in combat?
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline Spoon

  • Moderator
  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: General forum game discussion
I thought I answered this one, but I guess I do a lot of things in my mind  :p

1. No
2. Yes
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: General forum game discussion
Thanks Spoon,

Now, excuse me for a minute.

 :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline niffiwan

  • 211
  • Eluder Class
Creating a fs2_open.log | Red Alert Bug = Hex Edit | MediaVPs 2014: Bigger HUD gauges | 32bit libs for 64bit Ubuntu
----
Debian Packages (testing/unstable): Freespace2 | wxLauncher
----
m|m: I think I'm suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Bmpman is starting to make sense and it's actually written reasonably well...

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: General forum game discussion
First of all, happy new year to all from Greece!  :)

Secondly, I've got to say that, based on what I see so far, the CRF just seems to have all the answers when in the offensive. Valor is insanely good and pretty much hard-counters starbases. Similarly, Field Repair makes repair facilities irrelevant, since it can be used repeatedly, as long as the Minister has money to spare. Not only that, but CRF fleets can now repair fully while in combat, halfway across the map from their home space. Without having to waste an action to request resupply.  :banghead:

I acknowledge that the main reason I'm addressing this is because its nasty, nasty business end is pointing toward the DD, of course. I'm not crying imba, especially not with those supercomps doing work for the DD since early on. Still, while we're testing, can I ask for a more impartial opinion from the other players?

The upcoming T5 DD project might be an interesting counter, but it's not going to see much testing, I think. Details on that soon.

BTW, is FR a T4 project?
'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • I want to be here less...
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: General forum game discussion
Happy new year from the Baltic Sea!

Secondly, I've got to say that, based on what I see so far, the CRF just seems to have all the answers when in the offensive. Valor is insanely good and pretty much hard-counters starbases. Similarly, Field Repair makes repair facilities irrelevant, since it can be used repeatedly, as long as the Minister has money to spare. Not only that, but CRF fleets can now repair fully while in combat, halfway across the map from their home space. Without having to waste an action to request resupply.  :banghead:

I have a counter argument to that, however I dread that I get slapped again by someone in the CRF from giving information to "the enemy" if I were to present it in detail... Rest assured that I can bring some numbers to the table which make it seem less so overwhelming as you might think...
As for Valor, I got some numbers for that too ... once the game is over I am willing to present the argument there...

No "X is broken" is neccessary at this point... (well, Starbases were and might still be broken)
"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

"...because they are not Dragons."

 

Offline Spoon

  • Moderator
  • 212
  • ヾ(´︶`♡)ノ
Re: General forum game discussion
Happy new year from the Netherlands!

1. Absolutely wanna hear ya'll thoughts on the balance in regards of projects. Like, its amusing to me that the CRF kind of had a lukewarm reaction to its T4 projects. But then I see Enoich and Niffiwan go  :banghead:
 :lol:

2. Unrelated but sort of related, in case you somehow missed it. Be sure to check out Axem's latest JAD dev blog
Urutorahappī!!

[02:42] <@Axem> spoon somethings wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> critically wrong
[02:42] <@Axem> im happy with these missions now
[02:44] <@Axem> well
[02:44] <@Axem> with 2 of them

 

Offline Lepanto

  • 210
  • Believes in Truth
    • Skype
Re: General forum game discussion
First of all, happy new year to all from Greece!  :)

Secondly, I've got to say that, based on what I see so far, the CRF just seems to have all the answers when in the offensive....

Subspace torpedoes. I rest my case.

Srsly, though, I'm not all up on balance. And my opinions on it, lacking statistical evaluation of the game so far, would inevitably be biased. Hope you're getting plenty of useful data, Spoon.
"We have now reached the point where every goon with a grievance, every bitter bigot, merely has to place the prefix, 'I know this is not politically correct, but...' in front of the usual string of insults in order to be not just safe from criticism, but actually a card, a lad, even a hero. Conversely, to talk about poverty and inequality, to draw attention to the reality that discrimination and injustice are still facts of life, is to commit the sin of political correctness. Anti-PC has become the latest cover for creeps. It is a godsend for every curmudgeon and crank, from fascists to the merely smug."
Finian O'Toole, The Irish Times, 5 May 1994

Blue Planet: The Battle Captains: Missions starring the Admirals of BP: WiH
Frontlines 2334+2335: T-V War campaign
GVB Ammit: Vasudan strike bomber
Player-Controlled Capship Modding Tutorial

 

Offline Veers

  • 29
Re: General forum game discussion
Hi From Aus, considering I was awake at midnight and awake again at 3am local *couldn't sleep and started work at 4am*. The future hasn't changed much, and started quite nicely for a change. Perhaps It shall be a good year.

Re: Balance, I think we'll all be able to delve into a deeper discussion on it once the game ends, that way we're not worrying about appearing with bias against another faction or spilling any beans on our own stuff that others may not have thought of or figured out yet.

Personally, I haven't looked into other factions abilities much so can't comment. Nor have I used Valor or looked at Field Repair, simply because it hasn't been of use to me yet.

But initial thoughts are each faction has varied tech which is interesting and useful when applied. Only concern being that if the game pairs down to 2v2 or such like this, then we end up with a 1v1 war regarding tech as both sides. So that seems mute in the sense that it waters down the unique-ness of the tech.

Umm... just thought of it. What if there was a limit to the amount of special tech you could be using at a time, or usable in a fleet?

Say. Minister has 4 tech slots, but has 5 special tech options. He needs to choose 4 that he can use over the next intreque/combat turn
Like:
Available: Field Repair, Super Computers, Adv Jump Drives, Academy, Fleet Insurance.
Active for next turn: (So on his turn, he chooses what to activate for the coming combat turn and his next turn. This current turn is decided by what he chose previously)
Field Repair, Super Computers, Academy and Jump Drives.

So he can use those.

A Fleet might only have 3 options available. And each change would require a refit.
Minister has Field Repair and Jump Drives available, jump drives can be installed on the fleet. So the 1st CRF is refitted with them

1st CRF
- Jump Drives
-
-

And next turn, perhaps now the Minister activates Mirage Fields instead. And the fleet is refitted with them.

And if the setup was like this

1st CRF
- Jump Drives
- Mirage Fields
- Valor

and they wanted to swap the jump drives for phase torpedoes, assuming the minister had that access. Then they could refit. With the result being

1st CRF
- Phase Torps
- Mirage Fields
- Valor.



-------

Blerg. Not thought out more than an idea. Seems interesting as it limits the amount of special tech that you can be running at any one time and makes fleets more unique rather than having everything available. I dunno.. would also be complex to keep track of each turn? A specific order sheet would help track it but I don't know how much more work would be on the back end.

Any thoughts/feelings on this?
Current Activities/Projects: Ideas and some storyline completed.

ArmA 2&3 Mission Designer and player.


WoD - I like Crystal. <3

 

Offline niffiwan

  • 211
  • Eluder Class
Re: General forum game discussion
Well, here are some of my opinions about both Phase Torpedoes and Field Repair...

Phase Torpedoes

1) 1v1 the repair cost of the damage dealt is not much more than the cost to fire them
2) 10% damage doesn't make much of a difference in determining who will win combat, correct positioning of your fleet has a far bigger effect. And I don't think there's any fleet damage/health combo's currently in action where 10% damage will take a 2 shot kill to a 1 shot (at least for centre fleets, with average %-hit RNG results)
3) Only useful as a 1st action, wastes a lot of resources if you miss your target
4) Works well when targets are concentrated; I feel its kinda reasonable to have a counter to the otherwise overwhelming advantages of concentrated force, it's also good to have options available apart from only concentrating forces

(OK, the stunt the UGCR just used on the SF really maximised the value of Phase Torps, not sure what the exact counter is for that one, although we couldn't have done it if the SF had brought their invasion fleet along)

Field Repair

1) Great action economy for fleets, considering the moves saved in using this vs having to retreat for (e.g.) 2 actions to get to a friendly shipyard for repair; it's even better the further away you are from a friendly shipyard
2) Minister actions aren't limited in number, so can repair fleets to full between strategy phases; essentially boiling down to fleets being invincible unless one-shotted (while resources last, 'natch)
3) May waste some resources since repairs must be done in 20% chunks (or the fleets are left between 81-99% health if you don't want to waste resources)
4) ?? unknown limitation alluded to by 0rph3u5 ?? Usable only once per fleet per Intrigue phase? But that doesn't quite seem to fit with:

Quote
The minister can initiate this project as many times as resources allow for.

Maybe there's some resource cost to activate the repair, but I'd expect that to have been advertised like phase torp cost was?

@Veers,

The limited slots idea sounds interesting, although that could make certain lesser-powered upgrades not worthwhile at all. And it seems to make more sense to me to be for fleets rather than ministers.
Creating a fs2_open.log | Red Alert Bug = Hex Edit | MediaVPs 2014: Bigger HUD gauges | 32bit libs for 64bit Ubuntu
----
Debian Packages (testing/unstable): Freespace2 | wxLauncher
----
m|m: I think I'm suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Bmpman is starting to make sense and it's actually written reasonably well...

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • I want to be here less...
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: General forum game discussion
4) ?? unknown limitation alluded to by 0rph3u5 ?? Usable only once per fleet per Intrigue phase? But that doesn't quite seem to fit with:

You are correct: As member of the CRF I know how much the project costs per execution; that cost was not made public the same way the cost for Phase Torpedoes was

@Veers,

The limited slots idea sounds interesting, although that could make certain lesser-powered upgrades not worthwhile at all. And it seems to make more sense to me to be for fleets rather than ministers.


It sounds interesting but there are some complications with projects that require fleets to be refited (Mirage Fields, Adv Jump Drives etc etc)
"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

"...because they are not Dragons."

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • I want to be here less...
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: General forum game discussion
Going over the last two turns of the combat at Uuni II, I noticed something:

Between I7 and I8, the morale of the 3rd DD rose from Good to Superb as well as the Garrions Morale from Ok to Good, that's from what exactly? The 3rd DD didn't refit and destroyed no targets....

Did I miss some project being activated?
"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

"...because they are not Dragons."

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: General forum game discussion
Wow, wasn't expecting this much of a response...  :nervous:

As I said above, the fact that the CRF and DD are currently interacting makes all of my observations suspect; and any objections I raise might pale in comparison to imbalances we haven't yet discovered because e.g. the DD and the UGCR decided to work together instead of butting heads. So, take everything with a grain of salt.

The way I see it now, the DD encourages turtley / defensive / time-buying play, to allow for the ecoomic bonus granted by the supercomputers and the high-tier projects to come into effect. It's meant to snowball into the lategame, and the early stats of the fleets reflect that: we get one of the most cost-effective shield-to-command-point ratios (heavy cruisers!), allowing us to play defensively and regen some of our lost health between tactical engagements, and we have a very solid range advantage over the other nations' fleets (artillery). At game start, however, our fleets are considerably weaker than our opponents' (low potential) and in the actual game, we will also start with a resource disadvantage. Furthermore, artillery @ range 3 has a very lackluster damage output and artillery fleets are very squishy.

The way I see it, this means you need to be able to hold enemies off as the DD; and this lack of hitting power during the early game needs to be offset by good late-game power, to balance things out. Now, consider the projects the DD has to offer (all of the following information can be gleaned from previous turnsheets, so I'm not divulging anything horrible):

Tier 2: Supercomps (2000/2000): Tier-for-tier, best project for the DD. I have no complaints about this. Best value-for-money we've had so far, and, in all honesty, this might need a nerf. Consder, however, that this allows the DD to economise MONEY, not RESOURCES; as such, resources are worth as much to the DD as they are to everyone else. Keep that in mind for the following projects, please.

Tier 3: Phase torps (1000/4000 for research, 0/1000 per shot, one shot per fleet per turn). Huge upfront cost, especially given that most of it is resource-based (4k resources is a lot). I, of course, acknowledge that other factions' projects probably have similar costs and am not crying imba - just pointing out that just making this available to the admirals isn't cheap. Then, of course, you need to spend 1k resources per shot and you are limited to only one shot per fleet per turn. Thankfully no refit is required to install this.

As niffiwan pointed out, this is only cost-effective when firing on more than one targets (you need at least 2 centres and 3 flanks as targets to cause cost-efficient damage). Furthermore, 10% damage across the board does not affect the damage output of the enemy fleet, unless you knock them under 50% (an 80% fleet does exactly the same amount of damage as a 100% fleet and is, therefore, equally dangerous in a tactical scrap). Furthermore, phase missiles hurt all fleets in a location, so they can't be fired in a melee, unless you are willing to suffer equal losses; and they can be blocked by inhibitors, so a sacrificial fleet can hold off the fire of an entire DD 3-fleet armada if it's willing to take a beating to protect the rest the invading force. Finally, there's the matter of action economy: admirals need to spend their first action to guarantee a hit. This takes a toll on DD fleet mobility.

i.e. your only chance to score kills (or seriously inconvenience an enemy) with phase missiles is to keep up a steady fire of them and pile on the damage, turn after turn. And the enemy needs to oblige you, by staying there and taking it.

Tier 4(a): Fleet modernisation (1000/3000): Adds 2 max potential, 10 shields to flanks and 15 shields to centres. Requires free refit. Probably comparable to 'speed doctrine' and other projects that add flat numbers to fleets' stats. I'd like to know what the cost of such projects is for others; note that modernising requires a free refit, which requires retreating / burning actions to get a small bonus. Frankly, I have no idea how significant this shield bonus is (it's equivalent to just 1 primary weapons hit or so), but the potential unlock is important, I think. Again, HEAVY resource cost.

Tier 4(b): Undying Loyalty(2000/0): Adds one morale to all, immediately. I like this, because it focuses on money, and rewards you for your earlier investment in supercomps. No objection here; again, some small nerf might be considered.Orpheus, this answers your question.

Note that NONE of the above projects gives you additional options in a tactical environment (where the actual damage to enemy fleets takes place), only small buffs to fleet stats via modernisation / morale. The DD starts with its main tactical advantage (peashooters with range); and other factions acquire skills that counter this advantage in the early/mid-game (T3). Mirage fields (that make artillery miss) and Valor (which closes the range to enemy artillery and supersedes the artillery firing order) are, essentially, hard-counters. The only additional tactical order that the DD gets is T5 (so, very lategame, I'd think) and it is, again, a range-based order, with some pretty heavy drawbacks for the DD. Also, heavy in resource cost (ugh) but, thankfully, no refit required. Can't say anything else at this point, and it remains to see how it's going to work, but I'm not very convinced.

Add to this that the latest CRF project appears to hard-counter our phase missiles, and you can understand why I'm attacking walls with my head. The CRF can now repair damage in 20% blocks, without a supply line or repair facility and with no (apparent) additional cost. They can also do it without the admiral burning repair orders - and they can do it in combat as well. So, essentially, they can keep their fleets moving, all the time, provided they have enough resources to throw at the problem. The piddly 10%/20% damage that the DD fleets can inflict with phase torps can get instantly repaired next tactical turn, even if the DD fleets follow their phase missile launch up with jumping in and engaging in a tactical fight. What's the point of softening up your opponents when they can immediately repair the damage they suffered before you follow up? And hasn't something gone horribly wrong when the enemy can repair better than you while in orbit over your besieged planet?

(BTW, Spoon, can an admiral give the repair / refit order while in combat?)

And if the argument is 'outspend the enemy', then I'd like to remind you that the DD can economise money with the supercomps, but we are as dependent on resources as everybody else. 1k resources spent for your enemy to spend 400 money and 700 resources to immediately repair is, arguably, not a good deal.







'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • I want to be here less...
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: General forum game discussion
1. I have not run the numbers on the DD fleets as to the curve they take with concerning potential but potential does only an incrimental combat effect, each point of potential (Morale and Veterancy) translates in a single point of evasion (-1 to enemy accurracy) and a single percent accuracy for accuracy based weapons... While the effects can cummulate with enemy stats, the change so far does not surpas the single or low double digits in the averages.

Also, you downplay the advantage that the highter shield ratio has on sustained combat - causing a reduction of permanent damage of inbetween 25-50 percent against any non-Neutron attack is breathtaking (most fleets average out at about 200 (SF Assault) and 340 (UGC Regulars) for their Centres alone in their peak range*, around half of that for the flanks; most DD Fleet elements have 100+ shields right out of the gate ).

*UGC Mercs are considered an outliner and not included

EDIT: Might I redirect your attention to this post, for a sample of comperative DD vs CRF stats as far as average damage and effective hitpoints go: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90442.msg1807330#msg1807330
(Note: At that point in time, both 2nd and 3rd CRF are full fleets at 90% hull strengh, the 3rd DD still a full fleet at full strength while DD Garison is only a Centre and a Flank at 100%)

2. Valor is very high-risk-reward for the CRF if you look at the pure fleet stats - in combat against the UGCR more than against the DD (the damage figures of the UGCR Regulars are -before Neutron extra dmg- beyond compare in the R0-1 range). When in comes to firepower the CRF enjoys more consitency across its 1-2 range than any other faction - esspecially since most don't have much R2 firepower - but pay for that with a vurnability in R0 (exception is the Vigilance Fleet).
On the Tactical Field the effects are even worse and I'd happy to discuss that after the game is concluded (before that I fear CRF counterintelligence is watching me to closely)
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 10:50:11 am by 0rph3u5 »
"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

"...because they are not Dragons."

 

Offline Enioch

  • 210
  • Alternative History Word Writer
Re: General forum game discussion
1. I have not run the numbers on the DD fleets as to the curve they take with concerning potential but potential does only an incrimental combat effect, each point of potential (Morale and Veterancy) translates in a single point of evasion (-1 to enemy accurracy) and a single percent accuracy for accuracy based weapons... While the effects can cummulate with enemy stats, the change so far does not surpas the single or low double digits in the averages.


The modernisation project does not grant us extra potential - it just allows us to gather XP / morale to bring the effectiveness to above 120% (which is our baseline).

Also, keep in mind that potential adds to damage, not hit percentage. 1 point of potential adds ~1 to your evasion and 10% to your damage.

Quote
Also, you downplay the advantage that the highter shield ratio has on sustained combat - causing a reduction of permanent damage of inbetween 25-50 percent against any non-Neutron attack is breathtaking (most fleets average out at about 200 (SF Assault) and 340 (UGC Regulars) for their Centres alone in their peak range*, around half of that for the flanks; most DD Fleet elements have 100+ shields right out of the gate ).

*UGC Mercs are considered an outliner and not included


No argument on the effectiveness of shields from me. Note that I have identified 'good shields' as one of the two calling cards of the DD (the other being 'good range, with poor damage').

What I am arguing is that the modernisation project just adds a flat 15 shields to centres and 10 to flanks. That is e.g. ~3 percent of effective HP for a heavy fleet. Is such an upgrade cost-effective? Maybe. Dunno. Not a lot of testing, I suppose.

Keep in mind that no matter how effective shields are, if your fleet needs two attacks to kill a target DD fleet in the first place, then a 3% increase in shields is not going to make much difference.

Quote

EDIT: Might I redirect your attention to this post, for a sample of comperative DD vs CRF stats as far as average damage and effective hitpoints go: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90442.msg1807330#msg1807330
(Note: At that point in time, both 2nd and 3rd CRF are full fleets at 90% hull strengh, the 3rd DD still a full fleet at full strength while DD Garison is only a Centre and a Flank at 100%)

What's your point? Are you comparing the effective firepower and health of a brawling fleet (the 3rd DD is built to brawl, and has the HP and short-range punch to reflect that) with a CRF sniping fleet (2nd and 3rd CRF are mostly Carrier fleets)? Apples and Oranges. The 2nd and 3rd CRF are meant to stay at range 2 and snipe, not brawl.

A comparison of a DD Heavy to a CRF Vigilance would be more appropriate, I think. Again, DD has better shields and overall HP (haven't run the numbers on damage output), but DD Heavy fleets are considerably more expensive and have higher repair costs.

Quote
2. Valor is very high-risk-reward for the CRF if you look at the pure fleet stats - in combat against the UGCR more than against the DD (the damage figures of the UGCR Regulars are -before Neutron extra dmg- beyond compare in the R0-1 range). When in comes to firepower the CRF enjoys more consitency across its 1-2 range than any other faction - esspecially since most don't have much R2 firepower - but pay for that with a vurnability in R0 (exception is the Vigilance Fleet).
On the Tactical Field the effects are even worse and I'd happy to discuss that after the game is concluded (before that I fear CRF counterintelligence is watching me to closely)

Valor used as an attack might have the risk/reward problem that you are raising, but keep in mind that Valor can also be used as a retreating technique. Also keep in mind that Valor uniquely moves the fleet before firing orders take effect, allowing you to close from e.g. range 4 to range 2 (death against DD artillery fleets) - or drop from range 2 to range 4, and evade counter-fire.

Honestly looking forward to seeing your feedback after this is over. This has evolved into a more interesting conversation than I'd expected after my (on hindsight slightly whiny) OP

'Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent'  -Salvor Hardin, "Foundation"

So don't take a hammer to your computer. ;-)

 

Offline 0rph3u5

  • 211
  • I want to be here less...
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: General forum game discussion
1. I have not run the numbers on the DD fleets as to the curve they take with concerning potential but potential does only an incrimental combat effect, each point of potential (Morale and Veterancy) translates in a single point of evasion (-1 to enemy accurracy) and a single percent accuracy for accuracy based weapons... While the effects can cummulate with enemy stats, the change so far does not surpas the single or low double digits in the averages.


The modernisation project does not grant us extra potential - it just allows us to gather XP / morale to bring the effectiveness to above 120% (which is our baseline).

Also, keep in mind that potential adds to damage, not hit percentage. 1 point of potential adds ~1 to your evasion and 10% to your damage.

RAW, not actually my post but:
Experience: Fleet experience will go up one a level after a tactical combat*, and adds to the Potential. New fleets start at Regular (+0) and go up to Veteran (+1) and Elite (+2)
Morale: Like Experience, Morale adds to the Potential of a fleet. Morale is generally influenced by faction and Admiral achievements.
Morale ranges from Broken (-2), Shaken (-1), Ok (+0), Good (+1), Excellent (+2) and Zealous (+3)
Potential: There are several factors that can contribute to a fleet's effectiveness, such as good morale, crew experience, a solid commander in charge and so forth. But there is only so much a motivated crew can do to overcome technical limitations. This is reflected in a fleet's potential. This stat affects a fleet's damage and evasion.

How potential affects damage is not specified, for my purposes I always simply modified accuracy, since number of shots and damage per shot are easier to maintain as fixed values for the purposes of calculation an average:

EDIT slightly wrong formula:

nshots x dper shot x ((vaccuracy)/100) = daverage
(this has the ellegance that I can just take it "x 1 + (vmorale + vveterancy - venemy evasion) / 100" for adjusting it to potential and enemy evasion - there are better ways to do this but this is fast)

EDIT: right one:
nshots x dper shot x ((vaccuracy + vmorale + vveterancy - venemy evasion)/100) = daverage

if "(vaccuracy + vmorale + vveterancy - venemy evasion) > 1" it equals 1
if "vmorale + vveterancy > lmax potential" then it equals lmax potential

NOTE: This is math 101, not some secret knowledge which must be withheld

Quote
Also, you downplay the advantage that the highter shield ratio has on sustained combat - causing a reduction of permanent damage of inbetween 25-50 percent against any non-Neutron attack is breathtaking (most fleets average out at about 200 (SF Assault) and 340 (UGC Regulars) for their Centres alone in their peak range*, around half of that for the flanks; most DD Fleet elements have 100+ shields right out of the gate ).

*UGC Mercs are considered an outliner and not included

No argument on the effectiveness of shields from me. Note that I have identified 'good shields' as one of the two calling cards of the DD (the other being 'good range, with poor damage').

What I am arguing is that the modernisation project just adds a flat 15 shields to centres and 10 to flanks. That is e.g. ~3 percent of effective HP for a heavy fleet. Is such an upgrade cost-effective? Maybe. Dunno. Not a lot of testing, I suppose.

Keep in mind that no matter how effective shields are, if your fleet needs two attacks to kill a target DD fleet in the first place, then a 3% increase in shields is not going to make much difference.
[/quote]

You ignore the clarification of "sustained combat", I was not simply talking about single rounds of combat but every round of combat - shields recharge every round after all ... in a 1-on-1 all but Neutron-armed fleets (which will eat DD fleets faster) looses up to half of its potential damage before it damages a DD fleet's, hull so a DD fleet suffers from less attrition if the combat goes on

Quote
Quote
EDIT: Might I redirect your attention to this post, for a sample of comperative DD vs CRF stats as far as average damage and effective hitpoints go: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=90442.msg1807330#msg1807330
(Note: At that point in time, both 2nd and 3rd CRF are full fleets at 90% hull strengh, the 3rd DD still a full fleet at full strength while DD Garison is only a Centre and a Flank at 100%)

What's your point? Are you comparing the effective firepower and health of a brawling fleet (the 3rd DD is built to brawl, and has the HP and short-range punch to reflect that) with a CRF sniping fleet (2nd and 3rd CRF are mostly Carrier fleets)? Apples and Oranges. The 2nd and 3rd CRF are meant to stay at range 2 and snipe, not brawl.

2nd CRF - Carrier Centre + 2x Carrier Flank
3rd CRF - Sentinel Centre + 2x Carrier Flank (I make due with what I am given, acutally I want my Vigilance Flanks back at the very least)

My point being, what I stated above:
CRF fleets enjoy consitency in damage output due to the ability to attack with 3 figure damges (exception Vigilance) at Range 1-2; in case of the Carrier Fleet even 0-2. But they do not come close to the peak damages other fleets can put out (SF Fleets not withstanding, but they go another bag of tricks). But in turn 1/3 of our fire power is negated by the Centre Shields of 3rd DD alone.

Note: The 3rd DD is also a bit sub-standard according to my math

Quote
A comparison of a DD Heavy to a CRF Vigilance would be more appropriate, I think. Again, DD has better shields and overall HP (haven't run the numbers on damage output), but DD Heavy fleets are considerably more expensive and have higher repair costs.

Cost efficency has not factored into my calcuations yet (that's why the UGC Mercs are out of picture), as I am an Admiral and less concerned with building fleets then killing them - but the comparison of single fleets from different factions doesn't serve a purpose either...

The DD Heavy Fleet for example can't be explained without the DD Light and the DD Artillery, in between which it stands: The Light Fleet which is the true DD brawler and the Artillery Fleet has a one more range bracket but less damage except for the R2-3 band.

Everything else, after the game concludes.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 01:00:32 pm by 0rph3u5 »
"When you work with water, you have to know and respect it. When you labour to subdue it, you have to understand that one day it may rise up and turn all your labours into nothing. For what is water, which seeks to make all things level, which has no taste or colour of its own, but a liquid form of Nothing?" - Graham Swift, Waterland

==================

"I am Curiosity, and I've always wondered what would become of you, here at the end of the world." - The Guide/The Curious Other, Othercide

"As you sought to steal a kingdom for yourself, so must you do again, a thousand times over. For a theft, a true theft, must be practiced to be earned." - The terms of Nyrissa's curse, Pathfinder: Kingmaker

"...because they are not Dragons."