battle pods 'bug'

Suggest or Vote on new features here.
User avatar
dirt-bag
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:16 pm

battle pods 'bug'

Postby dirt-bag » Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:29 pm

even the most rudimentary physics tells us that adding mass to the equation F=M*A will reduce the value of A given that the force of the engine remains constant. ipso facto (fancy latin argument enforcer) the speed of ships 'should' be reduced when adding battle pods. unfortunately the moo formula uses space available and not mass to determine ship speed.

i tested the engine HP on a podded BB vs an unpodded BB and they are the same. this implies the same engine in either ship.

no only should the podded ship be slower but it should also be easier to target (significantly easier imo)

i suggest that adding B pods to a ship should reduce a ships defenses by 50% as there is much more ship to hit. and if possible the formula should be re-written from a mass standpoint

User avatar
ALEX|D
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:54 pm
Location: Germany NRW
Contact:

Postby ALEX|D » Sun Jul 31, 2005 9:05 pm

Yea a FF with x speed has the same shipdefence than a Doomstar with the same speed.

1 combat speed gives u 5% shipdefense, whether Doomstar or FF.

I think we really need to change the fromula, how shipdefense is calculated.

A more huge ship should just be simpler to hit.

Maybe:

1 combat speed gives u 5% shipdefense and

FF +50% shipdefense
DD +30%
CA +10%
BB -10%
Titan -20%
Doomstar -30%

and bpods -10% shipdefense extra

or so ... !

User avatar
siron
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location: Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:15 am

First I would suggest a switch that battlepods work just like megafluxers.

Adding megafluxers on an empty ship doesnt increase the speed.

Just adding bpods on an empty ship does increase.

I really think thats a bug and LB could fix it easily I guess. Just a switch here would already reduce the shipdefense of these nasty empty ffs significantly. But a new shipdefense formula is also a nice idea...but more difficult to realize i guess.

User avatar
Cybersaber
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:36 pm
Contact:

Postby Cybersaber » Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:00 pm

I strongly agree with Siron. If empty BPs did NOT add any speed to a ship, then, as it was filled, it would drag the ship's speed down below that of a sister ship with no BPs, which would be much more realistic. A ship with BPs would thus be slower and easier to hit.

The problem is that the mechnism for the speed reduction is the consumption of space, so I suspect that this would be a very hard change to code. You couldn't just say that a BP had no space, because that would defeat the purpose of BPs. You would have to change the whole speed algorithm from space consumption to item addition.

User avatar
PK
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:47 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Postby PK » Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:05 am

Matter of bpods adding speed is CRITICAL. If u would change it in reverse way the whole strategy of game would be upside down. Imagine tractor ships so slow they cant be effective. Imagine low defence ships easly hurted by beams. And imagine an EMG missles which travels 22 fields per turn hurting u before any reasonable defence can be made. Its good bpods adds speed to ship. Bpods add space. And more space = faster ship. Its a bit logical considering game rules. Moo2 is a game not a life simulator :)

PK
PK

User avatar
dirt-bag
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:16 pm

Postby dirt-bag » Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:36 am

must resist change, must resist change...PK the redneck


yes pk is would change the tactics, for the better. u would have to climb out of that comforatble little shell and face a brave new world of real tactics.

missles should be faster than ships MUCH faster. ships with weapons should be more effective than ships with no weapons, MUCH more effective.

missles can be shot down.

what defense is there now to a BB with 4 tractor beams B pods aug engines and nothing else?....none board-raid KABOOM... this is a far cry from tactics. so dont whine about skewed tactics when there is none to be had with the current model. the notion that ships without weapons are even reasonably effective is silly. it seems to me u want status quo not tactics.

tractor ships will always be effective. they just cant get there on turn 1. so they will be effective as opposed to ultimate.

User avatar
PK
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:47 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Postby PK » Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:43 pm

If u would read my web site just a bit db - u would know that i made a mod and moved aug engines resonable reach. I like changes! I liked Siron`s dc mod and i made 8 versions of balance mod myself. Revolution 1.0 is new one - really changed. I agree that would have change the tactics for the better. Sadly it wouldnt be 1.31 moo anymore.

PK
PK

User avatar
siron
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location: Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:03 pm

AFAIK we discuss switches here.

Do you oppose any switch here? So far I dont get it what you wanna tell here.

If u would read my web site just a bit db - u would know that i made a mod and moved aug engines resonable reach.


Well, any opposition by you would look a bit inconsistent then.

And I prefer removing the battlepods bug by a switch.

And btw:

And more space = faster ship.


Thats even no general rule. There are counterexamples when you would be aware of the battlepods bug.

I will write later more....

User avatar
dirt-bag
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:16 pm

Postby dirt-bag » Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:36 pm

contained within the EXE is a table of minimum and maximum ship speedsbased on ship class and engine tech. the current maximum values are all exactly 10 higher than the minimum values. reducing the maximum values to 2 above the minimums yeilded some favourable results. adding battle pods had little or no effect to ship speed and empty frigates could not outrun fst missles indefinately. reducing the bonus to 2 assumes that the ship itself is the magority of the mass and the systems/weapons are relatively minor.

a scaling ship speed bonus might prove more palatable to some. in this case i would suggest a maximum bonus of 2 for frigates increasing by 1 for each ship size. this would yeild a speed bonus of 5 for battle ships (50% of the current). in this format only larger ships would benifit from the battle pods bug, but to a lesser degree.

it has also been suggested to have a ship speed bonus switch. i this case the maximum bonus could be adjusted at the onset of the game. however, it is just one more thing to argue about / hash out pre-game, and one more thing for LB to code.

in any case, i feel the game is much better served if empty ship tactics are removed from play. it opens a myriad of new (and old) tactics to try out. another big benifit is the 50 turn chases will be a thing of the past!

User avatar
siron
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location: Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:30 am

Difficult topic and fishy calculations.

I have tried to summarize the different proposals on my blog:

Combat Speed

I use a destroyer on nuclear drive level to explain:

I. explains the fishy status quo
II. My proposal Battlepods should work like megafluxers.
III. dbs above-mentioned proposal (unused space bonus=2)
IV. A SpaceConsumption Model. I guess it is quite easy to implement. And I strongly prefer such solution at moment.
------------------------
When you have further proposals I will try to add them in this post.
Last edited by siron on Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dirt-bag
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:16 pm

Postby dirt-bag » Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:37 pm

less simplistic solution....

reducing the potential bonuses was a simplistic solution, easy to implement and reasonably effective. a more complicated and more realistic solution:

currenttly ship speed is calculated by minimum speed +bonus, the bonus ranges from 0-10 and the bonus is multiplied(bug) by battle pods by as much as 1.5 or so

the calculation is something like empty space/hull size *10 which is supposed to yeild a number between 0 and 10

i propose to modify this calcultion to :

int((empty space/(hull size+(battlepodsflag*battlepodsmodifier))*10))-(battlepodsflag*3)

the battle pods modifier is equal to the space battle pods create in a ship

the battle pods flag is a binary flag 1 or 0

the empty space with the new equation can no longer exceed the hull size portion of the equation

the final portion of the equation is a drag effect of 3 combat speed for the added mass of battle pods (this assumes they are full, as with this equation in place there is no reason to have them empty).

furthermore, i would decrease ship defense by 50% as the target becomes much easier to hit with battle pods equiped.

this change seems harsh but it is actually quite reasonable from a physics stand point. and from a gaming perspective it makes battle pods a bit more of a choice as opposed to a given.

User avatar
siron
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location: Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:39 pm

DBs last proposal is similar to the megafluxers solution (see II in the link) with a further combatspeed & beamdefense penalty.

User avatar
Gusset
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:36 am
Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Contact:

Postby Gusset » Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:57 pm

dirt-bag wrote:i propose to modify this calcultion to :

int((empty space/(hull size+(battlepodsflag*battlepodsmodifier))*10))-(battlepodsflag*3)

the final portion of the equation is a drag effect of 3 combat speed for the added mass of battle pods (this assumes they are full, as with this equation in place there is no reason to have them empty).

furthermore, i would decrease ship defense by 50% as the target becomes much easier to hit with battle pods equiped.

this change seems harsh but it is actually quite reasonable from a physics stand point. and from a gaming perspective it makes battle pods a bit more of a choice as opposed to a given.


I like the mod to the existing part of the equation (the beginning), but I don't like the last part. Also, I would rather not see an additional ship defense penalty just because BP tech is on the ship.

Sure, it's probably a move toward realism, however there is game play to be considered here. Yes, it would be nice to see the end of ships that outrun missiles, but let's not make the mistake of going too far in the other direction. Ships that are beam magnets if they dare to have enough equipment on board to make them effective in combat could get just as old. Added defensive penalties would likely eliminate the need for beam computer tech.

For those that value "realism", perhaps you could just pretend that Battle Pod technology was not merely about bolting boxcars to the exterior of a ship, but also includes some small scale inertial damping technology to reduce the effects of the additional mass.

-Gusset

User avatar
Lord Brazen
Site Admin
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 10:16 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Postby Lord Brazen » Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:18 am

I have to agree with Gusset in every regard.

I'd also like to point out that the manual say "Battle pods are strap-on bays tha add equipment space without increasing the hull size. For a substantial construction cost, these allow you to fit more systems in a ship."

This implies miniturization of equipment as it is not physically possibe to stuff more equipment into the same hull size.

Also. from this statement one can see that the ship is not bigger and thus not easier to hit.

I see this as a game "feature" and not a "bug".

Many aspects of the game are not realistic...why should this one be.

I do agree however that runners (ships with no offensive weapons) and other ships that have no chance of stopping an attack (ships that can do no damage) should not be able to stop an invasion. These ships should not be able to stop you from bombing and landing troops.

I think that a better solution to these problems would be to have the game switch over to stratigic combat after 5 rounds of tactical combat when no damage is being done by either side. If you can't do any damage after 5 turns then the game should decide the battles outcome. There is no point in running around.

I believe this will end most of the running around and provide a little more realism to the combat model. Running still will be part of combat tactics but will not decide the outcome when no offensive ships are left.

Maybe I am in the minority here, but I think that slower ships will result in longer battles....

User avatar
ALEX|D
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:54 pm
Location: Germany NRW
Contact:

Postby ALEX|D » Sun Aug 14, 2005 11:58 am

If we fix bpods bug, then we should also work on "beamdefence calculations bug?!"

http://www.spheriumnorth.com/orion-forum/nfphpbb/viewtopic.php?t=58


Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests