battle pods 'bug'

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

Postby dirt-bag » Sun Aug 14, 2005 6:37 pm

currently there is absolutely no downside to battle pods. even if the bug is fixed we are left with no downside and all upside.

increasing hull space by 50% effectively doubles or triples command points

take a BB with any sheild,r hulls, inertials, augies, battle scanner. then add weapons

take a BB with B pods any sheild,r hulls, inertials, augies, battle scanner then add weapons

analyse weapons / command points(4)

battle pods are huge with absolutely no downside

as i suspected people are too married to battle pods to give anything up on them, all i can say is, i tried....

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

Postby siron » Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:05 pm

this change seems harsh but it is actually quite reasonable from a physics stand point.


I agree here with LB and Gusset. These changes are too harsh. Sledgehammer tactics. -50% bd is like posicomps for free for any opponent.
I would never touch the combat speed or beam defense value of an full bp-ship. These are key values for the whole combat system.

battle pods are huge with absolutely no downside


First of all, I want a battlepods-bug fix because of:
a) less beamdef for empty runners so you can shoot them down.
b) no longer 29+ combat speed emg ships and KABOOM in 1st combat round.
c) no longer so fast transporters ships and KABOOM in 1st combat round.
d) no longer so fast tractorbeams ships and KABOOM in 1st combat round.

These are IMHO exploits and it would be nice to have an option to remove them.

But of course it is true that there is no downside at moment. And the pure megafluxers solution wouldnt generate any.

When you want a moderate downside look at solution IV the spaceconsumption model:

The key values (speed & bdefense of full bp-ship) are identical to the status quo but non-bp ships (noone uses them sofar so it seems ok to me to change them a bit) have a speed bonus (and therefore bd bonus) compared to the status quo.

as i suspected people are too married to battle pods to give anything up on them, all i can say is, i tried....


Your proposal is almost as extreme as my mod solutions (reducing bp-increase to 25%). But we talk here about a patch and no pure mod. It is simply too extreme for LBs patch.

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

Postby siron » Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:22 pm

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.


Hmmm. I had this discussion with DB (and he convinced me). I have to admit that I have no clue what the english expression "strap-on bays" really means.

I had a look into the german manual and the translation "Andockbuchten" sounds pretty clear to me that these pods are at the OUTSIDE of the hull.

I interpret "the same hull size"-part just as a hint that command points are unchanged. Nothing more.

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.


Heh. I dont like this solution at all. But I am surprised that DB doesnt support it. :lol:

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

Postby dirt-bag » Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:37 pm

i dont oppose to the strat solution, i just think it would be a moot point if battlepods were fixed. and perhaps 'damage' needs to be clarified. is denting the sheilds 'damage' or a ship repairs due to cybernetic to full each turn has it been 'damaged'

i feel if b pods were fixed battles would be a lot quicker not slower as predicted by others

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

Postby siron » Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:30 pm

BTW. One reason why I prefer a space consumption model (IV):

Let us assume we have same design and just add megafluxers. (results for status quo)

For a non-bp ship see the red graph. (Space consumption 0-60)

bp ship the blue graph. (Space consumption 0-90) Status quo results....there is even the above mentioned speed decrease.

The speed decrease will be eliminated in a pure megafluxers solution....but results similar to the red graph will persist. And IMO there is no convincing explanation for such behaviour.

see graphs here:

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/258/1643/1024/megafluxersspeedchange.jpg

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

Postby dirt-bag » Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:23 pm

space consumption model is ok. but some space should be attributed to the battle pods themselves so that adding battle pods to an otherwise identical ship will cause a decrease in speed.

and a fully loaded ship without battle pods should be faster than the same ship with battle pods added (and nothing else) with the speed further decreased and this battle podded ship gets loaded down to full capacity.

if ur reaction is 'this is too drastic' consider that with this model in place runners will still be a dominant tactic. the only way to eliminate runners is to severely reduce the ship speed bonus itself(my simplistic solution...first post).

the first solution isnt all that bad, and it is the only way to end the reign of runners. if we consider the ship itself consumes the bulk of the mass and the weapons and systems are a minor component in terms of ship mass. in this case an empty ship and a full ship have nearly the same speed, one is much cheaper to build as the systems take more labour than mass.

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

Postby siron » Thu Aug 18, 2005 4:42 am

but some space should be attributed to the battle pods themselves so that adding battle pods to an otherwise identical ship will cause a decrease in speed.


Such modification could be implemented...and you would have better results in this model compared to the graphs in the previous post.

and a fully loaded ship without battle pods should be faster than the same ship with battle pods added (and nothing else) with the speed further decreased and this battle podded ship gets loaded down to full capacity.


Actually, thats not that important imho. Building a bp ship....with empty battlepods is completely idiotic in this model,...since battlepods are no turbo engines here.

if ur reaction is 'this is too drastic' consider that with this model in place runners will still be a dominant tactic.


Depends on your penalty you have in mind.
-1 comb speed seems acceptable to me
-3 would be too drastic...since a full bp ship is already 3-4 combat speed slower than a full non-bp ship. (This model makes full non-bp ships faster.)

the only way to eliminate runners is to severely reduce the ship speed bonus itself(my simplistic solution...first post).


I still think a switch where you can enter the maximum speed would be very fine. You could use it for both models. (In this model you dont need such a big reduction compared to status quo.)

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

Postby Cybersaber » Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:35 pm

I have thoroughly studied Siron's math in the various tables on his website, and thought about his formulas. I have to weigh in and say that I STRONGLY agree with his proposed formula as the solution. I think it is simple, realistic and elegant. LB, I would really like to see you implement this, if possible. I also LOVE your idea about switching to Strategic Combat if no damage is done in 5 turns. No player could make 3 other players watch the clock for 30 minutes ever again.

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

Postby dirt-bag » Fri Aug 19, 2005 3:51 pm

space consumtion model seems to work as well as any i could dream up.
cyber and i cant agree on b pods themselves having a drag effect. i realize it is space combat but really we are using a naval combat model in moo2.

any solution is a good solution at this point. space consumption looks good on paper. nobody seems to dislike it (so far). so if LB can code it we are off and running...

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

Postby siron » Sat Aug 20, 2005 5:09 am

I propose to implement the bp-extra malus in the following way:

Just change the factor (10/1.5) to 9/1.5=6

So we have:

combat speed = maximum combat speed - round down [6 * ( consumed space / hull size )] and -1 when bps are used.

"destroyer - nuclear drive
SpaceConsumption Model
BP-Malus"
consum; combat speed
100-105; 7
90-99; 8
80-89; 9
70-79; 10-11
60-69; 11-12
50-59; 13
40-49; 14
30-39; 15
20-29; 16
10-19; 17
0-9; 18


61-75 depends on battlepods.
0-60 using battlepods is inefficient.
76-105 necessary.

Adding BPs and consuming the extra space is always a loss of 4 combatspeed and -20 beamdefence then.

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

Postby siron » Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:48 am

I have updated my combat speed post

IVa) contains more details.

IVb) and c) were added.

User avatar
StepNRazor
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Tualatin, OR . U.S.
Contact:

Postby StepNRazor » Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:24 pm

Mass increase in ships is insignificant, unless the ships where so immens as to have a noticiable gravety.
Think of free body diagrams with no normal force.
Bp's add more volume with no penalty in mass relized in zero G.
I imagine bp's are pods attched as hard point arround the ship as opposed to an attached weapons array all in one pod. This design makes less impact on defensive penalty. even as such I would think it is a penalty in some fireing arc's depending on how many extra pods are placed to satisfy additional weapons from the total bp's weapon slots available. say like if it was all 360 fireing arc's the ship would have a -ship def no what which arc length the ship was fire on. but if it was all in forward arcs then apply the penalty there if mixed spilt t up.
Increase in speed in moo is a matter of mass the formula are like they are not applied to zero G, remove a weapon ship go's faster so there is an inhereint flaw here that bp is just a part of. I can think of a nasty solution or two say perhaps require ships to max volume useing bomb slots if need be. But as I said this is a nasty solution but my point is bp is not the only rotten apply in this mass casulaty, ( eeww bad pun), I would hope if any code corection could be made it would also include many mass removed from a ship would not increase the ships speed.
Agmented engines or better drives should be the only option for increasing speed but perhaps there is another method similar to what caro planes use for short runway take off rocket assited take off's. where rockets are used up to increase excelleration. Perhaps this is the invisble force of the moo2 game invisbile rockests fill the empty BP's LOL!!!

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

Postby PK » Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:46 pm

that headless chicken is a masterpiece :D
PK


Return to “Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest