Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2
 

Erm... sounds good.

PvK, i don't really know if its a known issue or not, but i feel a bit odd about the planetary defenses in proportions. Since the beginning to be honest.

With the extreme ammount of cargo space you have on your homeworld, and the range bonus on the weapon platform mounts, its easily possible to build defenses, the enemy will never get trough.

This wouldnt be much of a problem in itself, but as the defense platforms cost nothing to maintain and the ships cost a lot, its questionable you'll ever have an army large enough to survive even the first round of planetary defense fire.

Fighters / missiles just hit an invisible wall about 2 squares away from the planet, so they are not an alternative either.

I guess you've tought about that as well, i just would like to know, if its an unwanted side effect, or in fact you intended homeworlds to be this strong. (btw: the 15-20k shield - depending on homeworld size) make the planet strong in itself, without any defenses.

Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2
 

Good question csebal.

This was partly done for counterpoint. In the unmodded game, an artificially low limit on planet capacity ("Sorry - _planet_ "full"!") results in planetary defenses being incapable of fighting off a fairly large fleet. So it both makes sense and offers a new situation.

In theory yes it is possible to put an enormous amount of units on a planet with a breathable planet - particularly the homeworld.

In practice, there may be a very large number of units on important planets, and it makes sense to take advantage of this to protect them. However, there is not a stalemate situation except potentially with a human defending against the AI (due to its weaknesses).

One simple reason it's not a stalemate is that you don't have to fight the weapon platforms if you have your ships not fire on planets. The planet is then blockaded, and this can effectively remove even a homeworld from effective contribution to an empire.

Also, in practice, it's very expensive and time-consuming to build fleet-stopping defenses. In the time it takes to build them up, they become less and less up-to-date, too. It's usually a better strategy to concentrate on mobile forces and economic development, with just enough defences to prevent your planets from being snatched by cheap raiding forces.

Finally, there are weapons which can overcome even a formidably defended homeworld. Planetary weapons do huge amounts of damage, and there are shield-skipping and shield-depleting weapons which can still overwhelm a powerful planet... but it's generally risky and expensive, which is how I intended.

One vital tip is to scout first - send ships to view the defenses before assaulting. Also, custom anti-planet designs can help - expendable with cheap components (no expensive sensors, top-end engines, or elite crews) but lots of cheap armor and effective anti-planet weapons are good choices.

PvK

Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2
 

This game on PBW is full with 12 players. I've therefore created a PvK's Proportions Game #3 in case there are more, and/or for players who would rather play in a game with fewer than 12 players.

Lots of players is nice in some ways, but also can lead to longer time between turns, and is more likely for someone to drop out.

PvK

Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2
 

Ok, there is a 3.0 preview posted HERE. With it, you can create empires for this game, and check out the changes. I will probably make another Last-minute change or two and you guys might catch some things, but this is more or less it and I'm confident the empire selection will not change, so you should be able to create empires using this.

Let me know if you have any suggestions or spot any problems.

Thanks,

PvK

Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2
 

Hey PvK,

The new mod looks great! Several of the new changes enhance that "epic" feel which makes Proportions such a great mod. Thanks for all the work you've once again put into it.

The only new change I'm not such a big fan of is the new fighter weapon firing rate. Although fighters in 2.x were powerful early on, by the time players researched armor plating and the later levels of shield tech, fighters have a hard time punching through these layered defenses.

In 3.0, fighter costs seem to have increased (making it less likely to mass produce so many fighters in a short period of time), they have now become much more of a tactical weapon with their lower supply limits, and the reworked shield values makes them less survivable. These changes are great. However, by halving the firing rates, I fear that fighters may become unable to inflict enough damage over time to justify their use. At the very least, by firing energy weapons only once every 2 turns they lose a lot of their value as "anti-fighter" interceptors.

Perhaps it would be possible to half firing rates on torps and such, but leave energy weapons as they were? Or perhaps, early Versions of a weapon could fire slower than later levels of the same weapon. I don't know if this is even possible, but can mounts be modded to effect firing rates? If so, you could create an "interceptor" mount - which would not be usable on the new bomber sizes - which could let the smaller fighters retain their value as interceptors by allowing them to fire every turn with low powered fighter energy weapons.

Aside from that, I think the new changes are great!

Thanks,
-Hippo

Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2
 

Hi Hippo - thanks for the feedback! Pardon my rambling reply, but it's late and I'm tired.

The main purposes of the fighter changes are:

* Remove their power vs. ships in early-game. You used to be able to get Fighter Level I, some DUC tech, and mass some fighters for a pretty good anti-ship force if the enemy didn't have fighters themselves. I think this is well taken care of, even without the ROF reduction you're concerned about.

* Increase the diversity, interest and depth of the fighter tree, so there are various options and they can be viable weapons in late game, but only if they are researched to high levels. They should also improve fairly constantly with research, so stockpiled peacetime fighters will be meaningfully out-of-date compared to new purchases. Again, I hope I've managed this, and again, ya it doesn't need the lowered ROF.

* Change role of most fighters to tactical rather than strategic. The supply limits tend to remove or greatly limit their ability to be used without carriers, as they were in 2.5, where they could for example be massed at warp points without a carrier. Again, not related to ROF.

The more relevant part:

* Reduce the ability of "anti-fighter" weapons to blow away lots of ships quickly, with enough fighters. While I think Proportions 2.5 fighters are ok on this score when everything's taken into account, I also notice the frequent feedback that a large number of fighters with common anti-fighter weapons like DUCs, MBs, APBs, can bLast a large number of ships even if they have a good amount of PD. Doing the math, you could put 2-3 such weapons on a not-so-high-tech 2.5 fighter, and then a few dozen of them could add up a lot of damage and be hard to hit. You're right that high-tech well-designed 2.5 ships can hold their own on a cost basis if using shields and armor, but it was still quite a strong technique. Although I have addressed much of that in other ways, I thought I wanted to reduce the damage these weapons could do to ships, but not have to divide down the damage to the point that the weapons started being hard to tell apart. Halving ROF keeps the weapon damage relationships to each other, while reducing the damage to ships (except for the first volley, which remains as strong). To keep fighter-vs-fighter damage strong enough, I greatly reduced the damage capacity of fighters by changing the shields to deflectors (as you saw) and also reducing the structure Ratings of many of the components (I was thinking of reducing the weapon structure a lot too, but didn't get to that). Someone some months ago suggested using higher ROF, with the idea it could represent the time taken for fighters to maneuver onto a new target, and at first I resisted that, and still am not sure I entirely like it, but I thought it was worth a try for the reasons I just mentioned.

I have been so busy with this that I have only briefly tested the results. I think it could use a bunch of testing to see how it really turns out in practice. It's a lot more complex than before, because there are many more levels of fighter tech, and more possible designs, and I'm not sure how they might tend to encounter different ship tech levels. It will no doubt need some tweaks.

I do know that the first fighters available will now stink. They'll be like a goofy shuttlecraft with one weapon attached launched to distract the enemy and get killed. But the higher tech fighters get to be just as respectable, or more, than the 2.5 fighters... except for the ROF change.

A good testing niche is probably to look for fighters that can avoid PD easily and still mount 2-3 Meson BLasters and have supplies to fire them a lot (say 50-75 supplies).

Oh, and I had some Point Defense changes I meant to make but didn't put in yet. That will also affect the other half of the above thought problem, which is, by the time you can get those fighters without neglecting other stuff too much, how advanced are typical enemy ships? That's going to take a bit to figure out, and also depend a bit on what I do to the PDC.

In sum, I think your concern is on-target, but I don't know yet if it hits the mark! Needs testing!

(I don't think mounts can reduce ROF, but yes it is an idea to have higher-tech weapons have lower ROF.)

Time for sleep... I hope that was coherent enough. Thanks again for the feedback!

PvK

Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2
 

I did some data file digging to see how the new proportions changes affected my favorite tools.

Some things i noticed that doest seem to be right
04-08-11 20.30GMT
- Unlike stated in the preview changelog, the organic / radioactive contruction speed of ALL spaceyard (the planetary ones as well) got halved compared to the previous Versions.
- The above change may cause an issue with the build times of colonial improvements, especially the high end ones, which cost enormous ammounts of organics / radioactives, as well as minerals. So their build time is effectively doubled this way.

I know its not the final Version, then again, bringing it up can do no harm.

-------------
EDIT:
I dont even know where to start.

First of all, with the preview Version, i was able to get 65-70k research on a single medium sized homeworld by turn 24, 80k mineral production by turn 36, and 110k research by turn 70.

This is because the complexes / megaplexes are far too easy to access.

The fighter movement system is beyond my understanding. A Fighter engine x 1 , which by description gives 6 standard movement points allows my fighter to move 1! square every turn. Other than that, it looks consequent to be honest. The combat movement is 1/6 of whats specified in the description, but somehow i doubt it that this is the way it was meant to work

The description of cities / metropolis facilities and such can be confusing in some cases. Megalopolis for example states, that it gives 400 research, but in reality it only gives 200 and 100% research bonus for the planet. This can mean much when building on planets with cultural centers, as those give far higher research bonuses. In such a case, building a research megaplex, which gives 300 research without any modifiers is better than building a metropolis, as the latter only gives 200 points, and as far i know its research bonus does not stack with that of the colony world.

The tonnage space cost of some fighter engines seems to be mistyped. The one i noticed to be wrong was Small Chemical thruster III x 3, which was 8kT instead of 6kT

All in one, the mod look really good (i especially like the way cultural centers are done), but it definitely needs some more love http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Well, thats it for tonight. Hope it helps
csebal

Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2
 

Essentially true. I neglected to mention that when I mentioned that radioactives rate was also halved. The build rates in general though also can be researched, in theory, up to 50% higher than in 2.5.
More or less, except for the availability of more powerful space yards. The high end colonial improvements however are also now hugely more powerful to have than they used to be, because of their multipliers on planetary output (mainly mineral and research).
Ok... this probably needs to be reduced... at least the research aspect. I think I need to reduce the multipliers and increase the base output of the cultural center, and as you say, take another look at the complex/megaplex time. I thought it'd take at least a bit longer to build those up.
I mentioned that low-tech fighters were weak. Research a bit of Fighter Propulsion tech.
Consequent? I don't understand.
It is 2 standard MP per move for every 5 kT of fighter mass, so yes a Small Fighter goes one for every 6 points of standard movement.
Yes, the descriptions for those facilities take into account their own multiplier, and assume it is the highest multiplier present. If I'd taken time to think about it longer, I might have realized I needed to re-write the descriptions to be clearer. I've been rushing to get this done, so that came out confusing, and it is a bit odd when you build one on a homeworld, or where there is a larger city. On the other hand, it does make sense for them to have diminishing effect where they are overshadowed by a larger cultural presence. The description should be reworded though, and perhaps the numbers re-considered. That ought to take me a few hours thought and cut & paste... hmm...
Thanks - good catch. I think the others are as intended, but there are some interesting values. This is mainly to offer some variety and slightly more interesting choices to make. e.g.:
* Small Chemical Thruster I's, Small Contra - Terrene Engines and Small Quantum Engines are 2 kT in size but give only 1 kT structure each.
* Small Jacketed Photon Engines are smaller than others, and have less structure, and the values are a little peculiar but are as intended. The single-system is 1/1, whereas multiple engines are 1/1 + 1/0.

Yes, thanks very much!

PvK

Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2
 

Ok, I set up a sreadsheet to get a handle on this, and see what's going on.

I'll be re-working the Cultural Center numbers. Looking at a release by this coming monday. Looks like I will be giving the Cultural Center a hefty intrinsic research value, and lowering the research multiplier a lot. Maybe some of that too for the resource multipliers. And the research requirements for megaplex III's will be getting a second look, too. If I get time, I may standardize the text description of all the cultural facility production numbers.

(Actually, it looks to me like SE4 is also doing some slightly weird math with the modifiers, but that's not that important. Mainly, I just hadn't done all the math to check the final numbers I had in.)

PvK

Re: PBW PvK Proportions Game #2
 

If there is anything i can help you with to speed up the release of 3.0, let me know. (ICQ#8876653)

btw: spotted another one:
Minor City
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>Ability 4 Type := Point Generation - Research
Ability 4 Descr := Generates 26 research points each turn.
Ability 4 Val 1 := 13
...
Ability 17 Type := Planet Point Generation Modifier - Research
Ability 17 Val 1 := 15</pre><hr />
This only gives the building about 14 research points (assuming SE4 is handling these modifiers correctly)

City
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>Ability 4 Type := Point Generation - Research
Ability 4 Descr := Generates 52 research points each turn.
Ability 4 Val 1 := 13
...
Ability 17 Type := Planet Point Generation Modifier - Research
Ability 17 Val 1 := 25</pre><hr />
Same as above, only with 25%, which gives 16.25pts instead of 52

oh, before i forget:
i would also give these buildings some intel bonus, especially the cultural centers.

What about 2000 base research / 100 base intel for cultural centers, with an added modifier of 10x to both research and intel.

This would leave a base value of 20k research / 1k intel, plus any research / intel buildings you may place on the homeworld, giving an average of 25k research (with 5 research labs)

Down from that, you could have
500% research / intel on colony world cc
200% research / intel on arcology
150% on megalopolis
100% on metropolis
75% on major spaceport cities (which should have increased costs compared to major cities)
50% on major cities
35% on spaceport cities (which again should have a cost between city and major city)
25% on cities
20% on minor spaceport cities (+price increase)
15% on minor cities
8% on colonial communities

What do u think?