.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

Getting near time to put this one to bed (right before me)
But a couple of (quick) rebuttals:

Quote:

Yes, and your view is counter to how it should work.

You know, that's dangerously close to an 'argument from authority'. See my post about Galileo in the 'Rating Fyron' thread.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Quote:

(Re to-hit charts)I think that is a very, very bad idea. It makes things unnecessarily complicated, for no real gain.

I didn't think it was that bad! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif After all, as I said a lot of existing games work that way. In terms of complexity, players already look up and compare damage profiles by range for the weapons - why not an 'accuracy profile'. If nothing else, tell me why having (for example) a minimum range for missiles would be a bad idea.

Quote:

Of course they are synonymous. But, there is no reason why probabilities can not be added.

If you apply a strict mathematical definition of probability there is a very good reason. It's wrong! But the driving factor here is what works best for the game, as you say. I don't think we are any closer to convincing each other though.

Quote:

The point is that (in this example) the level 1 ECM is supposed to cancel out the level 1 CS, and vice versa. There is not supposed to be a net ECM bonus. To get this set up with multiplicative values is next to impossible when you take others nothing like what you were talking about, and can already be acheived. Set the first ranges to 0, and the missiles will not be launched at those ranges, but will be at the ranges where they have damage values. I know that you can do this with Direct Fire weapons, and it would make sense that it works with seekers too, though I have never tested that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If you apply a strict mathematical definition of probability there is a very good reason. It's wrong! But the driving factor here is what works best for the game, as you say. I don't think we are any closer to convincing each other though.

Speaking strictly from pure mathematics, maybe. But this is more of a reality thing, and not theoretical mathematics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Quote:

That comes down to the original design for the game, on which topic I'm quite prepared to defer...to an argument from authority

Bah. As I already stated, arguments from authority do not apply to the game (except maybe if you are arguing with the game designer, but that is still stretching the argument from authority definition very, very far).

Quote:

But - when I was arguing about edge effects at maximum weapons range, I was actually agreeing with your second point! You can go from 70% chance to hit at range 4 to 0% chance to hit at range 5... I wanted to express the chance to hit as a factor of actual range versus maximum range, so it would tail off more gradually.

Now this is different than what you have been saying before... but, consider that the maximum range is the range until the weapon dissipates (for an energy weapon, at any rate) so much that there is not enough energy to cause significant damage. So, it doesn't matter if you can hit them, if the weapon is no more powerful than a laser pen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Quote:

Why not simply have bonuses multiply and penalties divide?

So X% chance times 1.2 (+20%) sensor bonus, divided by 1.2 (+20%) ECM penalty = X% again.
No matter what X is.

Because that limits you to having only 2 bonuses. Or, you have to limit them to 1 of 2 categories that add together to get the multiplicative value. Which again, is more limiting than the current system. Also, what is 1.0 / 1.2? 0.833. Now, the 20% ECM penalty has dropped to 16.7% (or .167).

[ March 09, 2003, 01:38: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

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

Quote:

Because that limits you to having only 2 bonuses. Or, you have to limit them to 1 of 2 categories that add together to get the multiplicative value. Which again, is more limiting than the current system. Also, what is 1.0 / 1.2? 0.833. Now, the 20% ECM penalty has dropped to 16.7% (or .167).

What are you talking about?
If you want many bonuses and penalties, you just keep multiplying or dividing. I don't see the problem here.

And, come on now. You wanted the so called "20% ECM" description to mean that it cancels a "20% CS"
Now you're complaining that the effect isn't exactly 20% when the combat sensors are not involved?
Diminishing returns are part of the point of using multiplication!

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

Quote:

What are you talking about?

I am talking about an example where the CS I and ECM I were supposed to cancel each other out.

Quote:

If you want many bonuses and penalties, you just keep multiplying or dividing. I don't see the problem here.

The problem is that you get unpredictable results doing this. It creates many more complications than the few "problems" it solves.

Quote:

And, come on now. You wanted the so called "20% ECM" description to mean that it cancels a "20% CS"
Now you're complaining that the effect isn't exactly 20% when the combat sensors are not involved?
Diminishing returns are part of the point of using multiplication!

My point was that using multiplication is not that great of an idea. With your system, ECM does less than it should when there is no CS component.

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

Ok ok, here is me 2 cents worth for SE5 :

*MODDING* - The same way as they did it in i-war2-EoC: All mods are zipped (with the corrtect paths in them) and will override the base game files (ONLY if they exist in the zip) and the zips are all placed in se5/mods subdir. Ingame then you choose just by clicking those mods that you want to turn them on.

*ORDERS* - (Re)make order queueing: All orders (say, for a ship) can be handeled same way as facilities in contruction queues; using mouse you can move orders up/down, replace or remove them. ALOT easier than clicking cancel and doing ALL those 20+ orders AGAIN due misclick on you minelayer...

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

Fyron,
Its not unpredictable. If it were, then you'd get a different answer each time you did the math.
It may not be blatantly obvious, but it is quite simple.

"ECM does less than it should when there is no CS component."
Bah, Fyron.
An ECM-50 device (50% defense bonus) under this system will halve your chance of being hit.

It will turn a 20% into 10%, and an 80% into 40%. You take (statistically) half the damage during combat. That is the way it is supposed to work.

[ March 09, 2003, 17:37: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

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

Quote:

*MODDING* - The same way as they did it in i-war2-EoC: All mods are zipped (with the corrtect paths in them) and will override the base game files (ONLY if they exist in the zip) and the zips are all placed in se5/mods subdir. Ingame then you choose just by clicking those mods that you want to turn them on.

Zipping them is overkill. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You can already place the mods into a Mods subfolder if you want. You just have to make sure to include that in the Path.txt. An in-game option to select the mod would be nice though.

Quote:

Fyron,
Its not unpredictable. If it were, then you'd get a different answer each time you did the math.
It may not be blatantly obvious, but it is quite simple.

It is unpredictable at the modding stage. You have no idea what other types of bonuses a ship is going to have when you design the values of the ECM components, for example. Sure, you can guess, but you end up with different levels of effects with your proposed system depending on what else is affecting the ships. This is what makes it essentially unpredictable.

Quote:

"ECM does less than it should when there is no CS component."
Bah, Fyron.
An ECM-50 device (50% defense bonus) under this system will halve your chance of being hit.

It will turn a 20% into 10%, and an 80% into 40%. You take (statistically) half the damage during combat. That is the way it is supposed to work.

If there was only one or two things that modify your to hit chances, then sure. But, there are many, many things that go into the calculations, which make your proposed system not a good one to use. That statement was made under the assumption that you did not forget about my previous post. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif With your system, a 20% ECM that cancels a 20% CS only gives 17% defense when there is no CS on the ship. When there are other modifiers in play, it will get even messier.

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

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Quote:

It is unpredictable at the modding stage. You have no idea what other types of bonuses a ship is going to have when you design the values of the ECM components, for example. Sure, you can guess, but you end up with different levels of effects with your proposed system depending on what else is affecting the ships. This is what makes it essentially unpredictable.



Um, Fyron, it's not quite so unpredictable as you think. As SJ said, an ECM-50% will halve your chance of getting hit. Regardless of any other factors. Period. If you had a 50% chance to get hit, it would drop to 25%. If you had a 10% chance to get hit, it would drop to 5%. And a CS-200% would either double your chance of hitting or halve your chance of missing (there is a difference, read the Stars! manual http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ), regardless of any other factors. How is that any more unpredictable than the current system, where a 40% to-hit bonus could be a big boon (if your tohit is 10%) or useless (if you have a Religious Talisman)?

More ideas...

Resource converters that can only convert specific types of resources, so you could have a "Radioactives Denaturing Facility" which converts radioactives into ordinary minerals but won't work at all on minerals or organics... and why not treat population as a resource for this purpose, so you could have a "Soylent Green Processing Plant" which converts people into organics (or minerals or energy or whatever your race is made of), but at a cost of unrest? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Racial traits that have more than one effect on the game, and racial traits that have a certain effect a specific ability or family of components/facilities/etc. without having to make duplicate entries for them - so I could create a "Natural Merchants" trait that not only eliminated the need for spaceports but doubled the carrying capacity of cargo modules, or a "Regenerating Shields" trait like in Stars! - all shields are 50% stronger and regenerate 10% per round, but internal components and armor have only 65% the normal hitpoints. (slightly modified from Stars! since Stars! treats armor differently)

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

Quote:

Um, Fyron, it's not quite so unpredictable as you think. As SJ said, an ECM-50% will halve your chance of getting hit. Regardless of any other factors. Period. If you had a 50% chance to get hit, it would drop to 25%. If you had a 10% chance to get hit, it would drop to 5%. And a CS-200% would either double your chance of hitting or halve your chance of missing (there is a difference, read the Stars! manual ), regardless of any other factors. How is that any more unpredictable than the current system, where a 40% to-hit bonus could be a big boon (if your tohit is 10%) or useless (if you have a Religious Talisman)?

Did you read the rest of my Posts? I said it becomes unpredictable when you have more than just CS and ECM affecting to hit chances. Then, I went on to do some math to show that the ECM has a different level of effect when the attacker has CS and when the attacker does not have CS. Now, add 10 other factors into the calculations, and they get extremely messy, with not enough net gain to justify it.

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

Orders for ships: How about an editable order sequence like Stars! -- That is the one feature of the game that I really liked. You could create a complete sequence of actions and 'apply' them to any given ship. It would be really great to be able to tell a transport in SE to go to here, pick up exactly this many mines/sats/troops, go to here, drop this many mines/sats/troops, etc. You could hve one transport handling many types of cargo at once instead of crudely picking up all it can carry of ONE cargo type and dumping all it carries of that ONE cargo type. This degree of automation would reduce 'micro-management' dramatically in SE V.

Resources: You know, the 'Value Improvement Plant' strikes me as stupid and I've modded my SE IV to have seperate facilities to improve each resource. I put them in the upper three levels for each resource extraction field since the Robotoid Factory is always a better choice than any of the specialized facilities, and it actually makes sense to combine those abilities since automation can improve all forms of production/harvesting.

ConVersion could logically be split up as well, but the hardcode would have to be changed to allow it. There are lots of good applications, too. Organic races ought to be able to convert organics to minerals early on, for example. Call it 'bio-mining' where they have the plants extract the minerals from the soil and then harvst and refine them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Other types of conVersion should be very rare and difficult. Converting anything to radioactives, for example.

As for 'Soylent Green'... that's an 'ethical' thing. There ought to be a racial trait, call it 'Xenophage', where your race regards other races as food and is willing to eat them. This would provide extra food when you capture alien populations (boosting population growth) but would make most other races hate you and affect diplomatic relations very badly. Resistance on conquered worlds would logically be much more persistent and desperate, too. I suppose you could logically let these races have a special facility to convert population to organics to represent other uses of the corpses. We use 'everything but the squeal' with pigs, as they say. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It has been asked more than once in the beta forums why the 'advanced storage' trait doesn't affect ship cargo like it does planet cargo. Keep asking. MM will notice sooner or later.

As for regenerating shields, I was thinking that Temporal races need some defense advantage. Self-regenerating shields would be a good one for them. Shields normally regenerate after combat anyway. It makes sense for time manipulation to let you get regeneration in combat more easily than other races. Give them a same sized shield generator that also does regeneration. No need for extra component.

[ March 10, 2003, 00:38: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

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

Quote:

Then, I went on to do some math to show that the ECM has a different level of effect when the attacker has CS and when the attacker does not have CS.

And what we are saying is that it has THE EXACT SAME effect when the attacker has CS and when the attacker does not have CS.
"It halves (quarters/4-5ths/etc) the to hit chance" Is that so hard?

What you are saying is that the absolute chance to hit goes down by a varying amount. Very true, but a constant absolute change means that the real effect of the bonus varies depending on the situation.

---

Examples:
Base to-hit chance = 100%
ECM bonus: 50%
Additive : 100-50 = 50% chance. Your ship survives twice as long.
Multiplying: 100*.5 = 50% chance. Your ship survives twice as long.

Base to-hit chance = 50%
ECM bonus: 50%
Additive : 50-50 = 0% chance. Your ship survives FOREVER.
Multiplying: 50*.5 = 25% chance. Your ship survives twice as long.

When adding multipliers, that ECM-50 changed from a decent defense to an invulnerability device.
When multiplying, the effect on the combat was the same independent of the base chance.

Baron Munchausen:
Lots of good stuff there, but I'm sure the xenophages would be horrible to implement.
Perhaps it would be better to have a simple
"each turn, mixed populations change into race's population (max 10M converted per turn)"
and
"Reproduction rate doubles when mixed populations are present"

[ March 10, 2003, 00:03: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]