.com.unity Forums - SE5, Tell Aaron what's on your Wish List

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- SEIV (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=149)

- - SE5, Tell Aaron what's on your Wish List (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=8397)

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List

Leaders!!!! Ones that improve specific areas of your empire, addding, for example a % bonus. Kinda like an upgraded minister. Or other examples:
- a legendary fleet commander that adds +5%
- Scavenger- ship/fleet needs no maintenance
- Defector Scientist adds +3 empire research
- Hot Rod- commander gets extra movement
- Games comissioner- may upgrade the happiness state of any given planet by 1 each turn.
- Black market contact- random boosts in minerals

You can run wild with this concept! will also add to the roleplaying feel.

Basic % chance per turn of acquiring one (like 05%), may trade for them, or find them (special tech).

Include Facilities that improve your chances or attracting leaders.

This would be Kool!
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List

Stone Mill:

The Star Trek mod does have 'Captains' which give various bonuses and things like that.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List

I hate to admit I have never looked at the Star Trek Mod but I'm guessing the "Captains" are small components with various Abilities such as:
Repair, Attack, Deffend, Storage and others?

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List

Quote:

Originally posted by Gryphin:
I hate to admit I have never looked at the Star Trek Mod but I'm guessing the "Captains" are small components with various Abilities such as:
Repair, Attack, Deffend, Storage and others?

You'd be correct, but your first statement causes me great pain http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif !

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List

captain,
It is a reflection of my limited mind and newly found self control. I also admit I like to try devloping in a vacume.
Maybe when the Gryphin mod is semi finished.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List

This thread went forum -> private -> back to forum because we thought it would be of general interest..

Quote:

Rigelian: Posting this as private because it's getting OT for that thread (do you agree?).
Fyron: No, because this is directly related to suggestions for SEV. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And so it returns.. 8-)

Quote:

Rigelian: 1) I don't think I understand that distinction between current and base chance; if all the modifiers are additive surely the end result is the same? If that's too simple a question please direct me to a link that explains the mechanics.

Fyron:The base chance to hit is 100%. A 20% bonus makes this base chance 120, a 20% penalty makes is 80. Then, range modifiers are taken into effect, which decrease the base chance to hit by 10% for each square distant. The problem with a multiplicative system is that if you have a lower base chance to hit (such as 50%, as 10% of 50 is 5, so each range of distance would give a 5% penalty in additive terms to the to hit chance), then the range modifiers are much less (half in this instance). MM seems to be of the opinion that it is better for the range modifiers to remain constant, as well as some of the other modifiers.

Hmm, we obviously don't agree on how to interpret something like "range modifiers to remain constant". To be clear, I am advocating a probability-based, multiplicative system across the board, including for range modifiers. So instead of having a 10% penalty per square and applying that in an additive manner, I would have a multiplicative factor by range. Translating the current scheme directly, that would be 1.0 at range 1, 0.9 at range 2 and so on: 0.8, 0.7, 0,6 and so on down to a factor of zero at (max range +1). My argument runs along the lines that in this scheme, the range modifiers are MORE constant, not less. So if the factor for range 6 were 0.5, and the factor for range 7 were 0.4, you would always be 20% less likely to hit at range 7 than range 6.

Let's extend this a little further, because I think this is interesting. This also 'bleeds' into another thread currently running on variable damage. In fact I would not use the scheme above, translated directly from the current additive one, because of course you could never hit at beyond range 10. What you would actually need is some scheme which expressed your relative chance of hitting based on actual range versus maximum range.

Option a) Constant for all weaponry
This would have to replace the 'base chance of 100%' with a factor based on range. That would then be modified, in multiplicative probability fashion of course, by factors like crew quality, ecm, sensors and so on. For a nominal range 10 weapon, you could have a scheme looking like:
Range 1 - base chance = (11-1)/10 = 1.0
Range 2 - base chance = (11-2)/10 = 0.9
..
Range 7 - base chance = (11-7)/10 = 0.4
..
Range 10 - base chance = (11-10)/10 = 0.1

But for a range 5 weapon, the base chance would go 1.0, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4. 0.2

Now, the subtle bit about this is that it does eliminate a situation where you can be 5 squares from an enemy and have a ~100% chance of being hit, because you are within his maximum range and the other factors favour the attacker. But if you were 6 squares away your chance would be ZERO. This is precisely the sort of 'edge effect' I was talking about. I did not support this point very well originally, so thanks for disputing my original idea and making me think about this much more deeply 8-)

Option b) - weapons vary in their range profile. This is where we are crossing over into the 'variable damage' thread. This is also where I'm plagiarising Starfire and SFB shamelessly. What we would have here (and this is an increase in complexity, granted) would be a table per weapon of its base 'to hit' chance and damage at each range within the maximum. The hit chance should always 'tail off' towards the maximum range. The damage does not have to. Like missiles in Starfire, or SE4 for that matter; a hit is a hit. Or the old SFB Photons versus Disruptors argument. So some of those very long range energy stream/pulse weapons could have attenuated 'to hit' profiles. Conversely, the base chance to hit for some weapons might be lousy or nil at short range. Run the destroyers in close to the battleships and their guns can't be brought to bear... you can also have some weapons that are inherently more or less accurate than others (analagous to the additive WMG bonus.. but I would spread it out over its optimum range bracket).

Quote:

Rigelian: 2) I still think it _should_ work as probabilities rather than the abstract additive system. Firstly because expressing the bonuses/penalties in percentage terms implies that, and it is intuitive. Secondly, because it makes it too easy for chances to go 'off scale' to zero or 100 (1 or 99, whatever), given the large numbers flying around. That's what I mean by 'edge effects'; an effect at the limits of a range that is wildly different to that nearer the middle.

Fyron: No, it actually does not imply either system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There's a limit to how far that 'implies' argument can be taken of course, because we are postulating what others, or at least a majority of others, might understand by a 'percentage chance'. But for me, at least, "50% chance" is synonymous with a probability of 0.5. Similarly, I interpret "20% bonus" for a particular factor as meaning "20% more likely with that factor than without it", and hence I would think of that as being 1.2 times the probability. Conversely a 20% penalty would mean (20% less likely with that factor than without it", and hence 0.8 times the probability. As I said above, in probability terms that bonus or penalty always has exactly the same effect.

Quote:

Fyron: If a ship has many advanced ECM-related components and excellent training and you have no Combat Sensors or training, you should not expect be able to hit them very often.

One of the major problems with a multiplicative system is that it degrades the value of each modifier. If 20% lowered the overall to hit chance after range was taken into effect, it would have nearly no effect at long ranges, but large effect at short ranges. This also has your edge effect problems. Another problem is that you have to set up a complicated system of when each modifier goes into effect in the calculations, which makes it much harder for players to figure out chances to hit on their own, for not that much benefit (as you eliminate one edge effect, but create another).

Disagree. . As argued above, in probability terms the relative chance of hitting at range X versus range X+1 would always be the same. No edge effect at all. The argument about "when each modifier goes into effect in the calculations" I reject because it depends on using a mixture of addition and multiplication. Both operations are associative and commutative in themselves;

a + b + c = c + b + a = (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)
a * b * c = c * b * a = (a * b) * c = a * (b * c)
BUT
(a + b) * c != a + (b * c)

In fact the current system has mixed the operations; in that we have a series of additive operations, resulting in a number. That number is then divided by 100 to give a probability. I'm advocating no additives at all, but multiplication for all these calculations.

Quote:

Rigelian: 3) In terms of additive values making sense. Part of the problem there is again that a percentage implies a proportion. For example take maintenance reduction. I know how this works, but in my Last game I had to explain to an (experienced and pretty good) ally why it was so critical to take maximum. He had assumed, quite reasonably, that a 20% reduction meant just that; a reduction from the base, not a 20-point reduction from the 25% default. Now I agree that here the calculation makes perfect sense, but it's not intuitive. If you look at Construction rate or resource production for example it works in precisely the intuitive manner - a percentage, multiplied bonus on the base amount.

Fyron: Actually, no. The construction bonuses are additive too. Take Hardy Industrialists and 120 Const. Apt. That gives you a 45% bonus to planetary SY rates, which is definitely additive. The pop modifiers are also added to this bonus amouny.

I stand corrected completely on this one. 8-) As someone who habitually makes use of that particular nice little additive modifier, I am hoist on my own petard now... but in the interests of consistency I guess I would have to swallow that if we went multiplicative...

Quote:

Rigelian: I'd be really interested to find out if machine limitations led Malfador to go with addititive and the corresponding integer math; I guess we will find out with SEV.
Fyron: You could always email MM asking about this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I think I did, when I first downloaded the SE4 demo, a long while back now. I've had an enforced 1 year break from SE4, so the talk of SEV had not even begun at that stage. Part of the reason I suspected machine limitations/unacceptable overhead of floating-point calculations was that large battles can take so long to calculate as it is, on a lower-spec machine.

This grew to a real beast of a posting, apologies to anyone who made it down here...

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List

The additive system allows for more bonuses and penalties to be applied at the same time without making the mathematics unnecessarily complex.

The percentage to hit is indeed a probability, but the method of acheiving the final probability currently used in SE4 allows for more flexibility and more options.

Quote:

Hmm, we obviously don't agree on how to interpret something like "range modifiers to remain constant". To be clear, I am advocating a probability-based, multiplicative system across the board, including for range modifiers. So instead of having a 10% penalty per square and applying that in an additive manner, I would have a multiplicative factor by range. Translating the current scheme directly, that would be 1.0 at range 1, 0.9 at range 2 and so on: 0.8, 0.7, 0,6 and so on down to a factor of zero at (max range +1). My argument runs along the lines that in this scheme, the range modifiers are MORE constant, not less. So if the factor for range 6 were 0.5, and the factor for range 7 were 0.4, you would always be 20% less likely to hit at range 7 than range 6.

Your system makes all bonuses/penalties have less effect at long range than they do at short range though. A 20% penalty to hit from the enemy having ECM I currently gives you a to hit chance of 80%, modified by range. In your system, you get to hit chances like this with a range 10 weapon:

range 1: 1.0 * .80 = .80
range 2: 0.9 * .80 = .72
range 3: 0.8 * .80 = .64
range 4: 0.7 * .80 = .56
range 5: 0.6 * .80 = .48
range 6: 0.5 * .80 = .40
range 7: 0.4 * .80 = .32

So, at range 1, the ECM provides a 20% to hit penalty (from 100% to 80%). At range 5, it provides only 12% to hit penalty (from 60% to 48%). Your system makes the ECM less effective at longer ranges, which does not make any sense (being counter-intuitive and all). The same thing applies to all other modifers too. They are not supposed to provide variable bonuses, but constant bonuses.

Quote:

There's a limit to how far that 'implies' argument can be taken of course, because we are postulating what others, or at least a majority of others, might understand by a 'percentage chance'. But for me, at least, "50% chance" is synonymous with a probability of 0.5. Similarly, I interpret "20% bonus" for a particular factor as meaning "20% more likely with that factor than without it", and hence I would think of that as being 1.2 times the probability. Conversely a 20% penalty would mean (20% less likely with that factor than without it", and hence 0.8 times the probability. As I said above, in probability terms that bonus or penalty always has exactly the same effect.

This requires that the to hit modifiers be very strictly limited to only a few input values, instead of all possible modifiers just being added to the to hit chance. It also unnecessarily complicates the calculations, while granting counter-intuitive effects.

Quote:

Disagree. . As argued above, in probability terms the relative chance of hitting at range X versus range X+1 would always be the same. No edge effect at all. The argument about "when each modifier goes into effect in the calculations" I reject because it depends on using a mixture of addition and multiplication. Both operations are associative and commutative in themselves;

a + b + c = c + b + a = (a + b) + c = a + (b + c)
a * b * c = c * b * a = (a * b) * c = a * (b * c)
BUT
(a + b) * c != a + (b * c)

In fact the current system has mixed the operations; in that we have a series of additive operations, resulting in a number. That number is then divided by 100 to give a probability. I'm advocating no additives at all, but multiplication for all these calculations.

I know how algebra works...

Converting a percentage to a decimal probability value is completely irrelevant to this argument. That one operation of division in no way makes the se4 system have mixed operations. All chances to hit are added, there is no multiplication in them.

Quote:

Part of the reason I suspected machine limitations/unacceptable overhead of floating-point calculations was that large battles can take so long to calculate as it is, on a lower-spec machine.

Only if you use unnecessarily large floating point variables. With the to hit chances, you really only need them to have 4 digits, the 1 place and 3 decimals. Any more does not have a significant effect with rounding errors on the calculations. These variables are not much larger than the integer variables, as they can also get 4 digits in them. Both require negative input values, so that balances out in the memory size of the variables.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List

Also, how would you propose to implement both ECM and Combat Sensors? Which gets priority? Say both have a 20% modifier. Base chance to hit is, say, 80%.

Do CS first, then ECM (the other way gets the saem answer):
.80 * 1.2 = .96
.96 * .80 = .768

With either method, the 20% bonus and 20% penalty do not cancel each other, and you are left with an overall penalty to hit, even though you have the same power of ECM and CS. You would have to very carefully calculate the values of ECM and CS to make sure that they actually cancel each other, and not end up with stupid results like getting an overall to hit penalty. Or, you have to add the .2 and -.2 to the base 1.0 modifier, which results in using additive properties again. The current SE4 system does not have any of these problems. They become more severe when you start adding even more factors to the calculation (various armors, training, racial bonuses, facility bonuses, etc.)

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List

Quote:

Originally posted by Kwok: The Star Trek mod does have 'Captains' which give various bonuses and things like that.

I checked out the site (nice!) and I'm eager to heve a look. I had no idea. Pardon my ignorance. I hope this does roll forward into SEV.

Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List

Malfador has produced the best Space strategy game ever (SEIV) and I am sure they could do a great planet base strategy game kinda like Smac or EOFS (Empire of the fading suns). What does this has to do with SEV you might ask yourself.... well I was thinking that it would be really fun to combine such game with SEV into one. And since I still want SEV to be a Space Empire game that SMACalike game should be a seperate game but fully linkable with SEV. It might be a micomanagement hell but I am sure I am not the only one that enjoys that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Also Malfador has come up with great solutions in SEIV to reduce the micromangement so I guess they could do so as well in this.