Devnull Mod is back!

[Phoenix-D]

" When the design calls for point-defense the PDC is added at the beginning, when anti-ship-missiles I and mini-PD is available the ASM gets added (good). When higher levels of point-defense are researched the ASM gets replaced with mini-PD II (not good, IMHO). This has to do with order in the components file, roman numerals or whatever (S_J, Phoenix-D: Help!)."

The AI will use whatever shows up when you press "see only latest". If they BOTH show up, it will pick whichever does more damage.

Suggestion: add a useless ability to each.

Phoenix-D

[Rollo]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
The AI will use whatever shows up when you press "see only latest". If they BOTH show up, it will pick whichever does more damage.

Suggestion: add a useless ability to each.

Phoenix-D

---

Thanks, do you have any idea what determines what shows up when "see only latest"? Is it order in components.txt, roman numeral, whatever...

Adding a useless abilty to both could be the easiest way. I guess that trick can be used for other components that share the same ability as well (e.g. armor). Although it would complicate things, it is a nice way for an AI modder to use a specific component and optimize the designs. I guess some kind of index would have to be done that shows which useless ability causes what component to be added.
I would volunteer to do that, if we are going to make use of that. The question is: Is that really needed? How good to we want the AI to be able to use all the components that come with this mod? It is some extra work.

Geoschmo, what do you think? What does everybody else think?

Rollo

[Phoenix-D]

It's order in the file, IF the components of the same family are all in a row.

Say you had, in this order:
Armor I
Armor III
Armor V
Ion Engine I
Armor II
Armor IV

Armor in one family, engine in another. With all the armor researched, you'd see:
Armor V
Ion Engine I
Armor IV

when you pressed show latest.

Phoenix-D

[Rollo]

Thanks again, Phoenix-D .

Okay, all three PD Versions (PDC, mini-PD, and AFM) have different family numbers and they all show up.
What I still don't get is which one is chosen by the minister. If it was highest damage like you said, then AFM I (50 dmg) would not be replaced by mini-PD II (15 dmg), but it is.
So I thought the minister would use the higher roman numeral over damage (mini-PD II replacing AFM I), but this opens the question why normal PDC is not added in the first place, since it has an even higher roman numeral (PDC IV is available when mini-PD II is).
Very confusing....

Rollo *unable to find a pattern*

edit:

Wow, it gets even more confusing. Mini-PD II is replacing AFM I ONLY on designs that carry normal PDC as well (using the mine sweeping). Designs that carried AFM I as the only point-defense weapon will keep them. After fighters are researched (and AFM II and III become available) the mini-PD II gets replaced again with AFM III. I *think* I am beginning to see a pattern, but right now I see two solutions: A) not worry about it anymore, B) give both the mini-PD and the AFM useless abilities.

edit again: why do keep writing ASM for anti-fighter-missiles? It should be AFM. Anyway, I have corrected that (in this and previous Posts)

[This message has been edited by Rollo (edited 22 November 2001).]

[devnull]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogscoff:
A few things I remember about the changes you've been discussing:

Devnull's original intent when reducing the size of supply storage was simple: He thought it illogicakl that a 10kt engine stores 500 supplies but a 20kt supply storage component only stores the same amount. I don't know how (if at all) that afects your files.

Secondly, the fighter damage: This may have been introduced to counter the patch 1.35 fighter stacking bug. (remember that one?)Obviously that no longer apllies. Playtesting may be required to rebalance fighter damage.

---

Hi there, long time no talk. I'm amazed at how much interest this has, to resurrect what I thought was a long-dead mod =)

Anyway, as to my intentions for these changes when put in:

1) I did not know about the supply minister bug where it would choose engines instead of supplies. I vaguely remember finding that happening in playtesting, but not knowing why or how to fix it. Glad someone has found a fix for it. As to why I made them 10kT, it was because they filled gaps in ship designs much better and were generally far more useful that way than at 20kT. I even considered making them 5kT. I also considered leaving the amount of supplies held at 10kT the same as at 20Kt (thus actually doubling the supplies stored for the weight), but didn't think that balanced as well.

Now the big issue, fighter damage. No, the reductions were not because of the 1.35 fighter-stacking bug, which I knew would be fixed soon (and it was by the time the mod came out, I think). The reductions were part of a wholesale balance modification to small weaponry. After extensive playtesting with small weaponry on troops and fighters, I came to the conclusion that fighters were just plain too powerful for their cost. A stack of 10 or so of the largest fighter hulls at old small-weapon damage could easily take out most large ships in one shot, even when the large ship had a fair amount of PD. This was not at all balanced, IMHO. So, I experimented a lot with new damage for small weapons and it seemed that cutting them all by a factor of 10 made combats between fighters and large ships reasonable. Both sides with equivalent costs had about equal chances.

Yes, this may have been skewed by the fighter-stacking bug, but I tried hard to discount those effects in my testing. It's been a long time so I don't remember exactly what I did, but I do remember being fairly satisfied with the new balance, though I also wanted to get a good amount of playtesting from others to see if I should maybe raise the damage back up somewhat.

Anyway, as of the time I tested, I was pretty happy with fighter game balance. If new patches have made fighters and small weapons useless due to the low damages, then by all means, raise them to make them worthwhile. However, my intention in lowering the damages was general game balance.

[devnull]

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Rollo, I think that is an elegant solution to the problem. I expect Devnellicus would have done it that way originally if he had thought of it and been aware of the problem with the ship designs. The end result is the higher tech engines have a longer range, which is what the purpose was to begin with.

Thanks, and keep the suggestions coming.

Geo

---

Yup, that was the original intent. Higher tech engines seemed almost pointless for the amount of research they took and I wanted to give them some advantage worth spending the research on. Longer range seemed a good way to do that.

P.S. It's devnUllicus, not devnellicus =) However, since I no longer can get that name (the forum deleted my account, but won't let me re-register with that name), I'm using my old name of devnull anyway =)

[CombatSquirrel]

As I recall, there were a few bugs still in my 1.31 Devnull mod that I had to fix. I remember the engine supply storage, but I think that the fighter engines also had an error in reporting the proper supply amount.

CombatSquirrel