Tell me what exact script mines use and we'll talk.pelador wrote:Can you explain further?
Without that it does not fit into the reactive system.
Moderators: Moderators for English X Forum, Scripting / Modding Moderators
Tell me what exact script mines use and we'll talk.pelador wrote:Can you explain further?
But I'm trying to possibly convey that it's not where the problem lies though in a reactive system. Mines will operate OOS as they currently stand.Gazz wrote:Tell me what exact script mines use and we'll talk.pelador wrote:Can you explain further?
Without that it does not fit into the reactive system.
21 to 100 ? how high can fighter skill possibly get?The fighter target has 21 skill.
%.damage = random -21 to 100 (low capped at 0)
Damage = 30000 * %.damage / 100
So... the higher the fighter's skill, the lower the average damage it gets hit for and the higher the chance to completely avoid getting hit.
I meant -21 so everything 0 and below would = no hitwyvern11 wrote:21 to 100 ? how high can fighter skill possibly get?
looks good to me !! is like thac0 - because in other words - if skill higher than random ==> no hit
I like my latest design (the thac0 spin-off) best but one thing keeps eluding me.from my point of view there are two ways to combine that:
a) combine the ship-stats-modifiers of both victim and attacker, then weigh the skills against each other
b) calculate both ships completely and weigh ships
my point exactly - but this is a slim system as you pointed outGuess there's no way around precomputing a 3x3 damage matrix.
Small laser vs small ship, small laser vs medium...
I'd have a -21 to 100 distribution instead of a 0 to 100 distribution.wyvern11 wrote:so basically we have a random distro 0-100 and do a linear transformation based on the skills etc on that.
Code: Select all
...
63 ; 5507
64 ; 5436
65 ; 5266
66 ; 5549
67 ; 5420
68 ; 5326
69 ; 5540
70 ; 5344
71 ; 5435
72 ; 5604
73 ; 5377
74 ; 5481
75 ; 5405
76 ; 5347
77 ; 5444
78 ; 5468
79 ; 5364
80 ; 5396
81 ; 5471
82 ; 5469
83 ; 5356
84 ; 5481
85 ; 5480
86 ; 5428
87 ; 5257
88 ; 5367
89 ; 5332
90 ; 5435
91 ; 5388
92 ; 5391
93 ; 5501
94 ; 5447
95 ; 5321
96 ; 5454
97 ; 5478
98 ; 5440
99 ; 5357
100 ; 5357
Even though I'm not going to do that, you have some valid points.s9ilent wrote:So what I'm suggesting is a much more advance model (that will probably eat my very underpowered cpu :(). The model will have several phases.
MARS is actually quite effective at protecting it's ship while still destroying the enemy.For fighters vs big ships,
Once again, turrets are the main defensive hindrance. I don't think that there should be any bonuses to the big ship, and that the fighters hit rate should be near 100 (or 100 to make it computationally easier)
'cause their speed is lower, they stay much longer in firing range. they do not tend to do long detours before returning to firing positions. they are not distracted by patrols appearing ----> it fits into placeFiring time:
M4: 11 - 14 %
M3: 15 - 16 %
M6: 21 - 36 %
That's not nearly so bad any more as the potential 2.2 GJ damage output (30 sec) of an M3. =)
Surprisingly enough, the M6 actually did a great job there.
no. =Pwyvern11 wrote:carrier firepower reduction is nice to have but I think it is easily left out for performance reason....
make it an option, like "enhanced OOS-combat" yes/no??
I'm thinking of assigning something like 30-40% to the M7. While their maneuvering is poopy, they do all the damage on the initial charge. That would mean a high firing %.Firing time:
M4: 11 - 14 %
M3: 15 - 16 %
M6: 21 - 36 %
no one in his right mind will use a carrier in "big gun situation" anyway, if oos-combat should have been redesigned ....Is it fair? I think so. Most of the time at least.
Of course, this would affect big guns only. With medium/light lasers, a carrier doesn't have energy problems IS, either.
Yah, but I will include the "average chance to hit" in the weapon's damage.wyvern11 wrote:experience gives you an edge in dogfights, but not so against flak-wielding cap-ship - shrapnel is more like dumb luck
Small ships seem to have low firing time because of low turning rates (20% rudder tuning) and weak weapon reactors.After some more grunt work (n > 10000) I can actually say how ship's cockpit guns should be handled.
I logged the time ships spent firing vs not firing at a moving (attack enemies) M7 Shrike.
Fighter Turret scripts were off so it was main guns only.
Any reduction of laser energy over 30ms meant that the ship "is firing" for the next 2 seconds.
Firing time:
M4: 11 - 14 %
M3: 15 - 16 %
M6: 21 - 36 %
I don't like this and the TM, TS and TL class seem to be to strong too.Completely unrelated idea:
Carriers are disproportionally strong OOS because their smaller laser generators suddenly cease to be a hindrance.
(Okay, there is the Tokyo but I bet that one was simply overlooked during balancing)
So for every actual carrier (10+) docking bays, I'd reduce the OOS firepower to maybe 75 % to account for typical IS-behaviour.
(10+) docking bays because these smaller ships (like a Cerberus or TM) can't really act as a carrier and there are already mods to add 1-2 external docking bays to M2 and the likes, making practically every huge ship technically a carrier...
Also exludes all normal M7 which are extremely well balanced as is. (no, the Panther is not balanced at all =)
I don't want to mess with any of those mini carriers.
Maybe even something extremely simple like:
if hangar.bays > 10
Firepower reduction (%) = hangar.bays / 2
Simple and transparent for everyone.
Carriers are supposed to use their fighters. AI carriers certainly do. =)
Oh, there will be precomputed tables. 3 in fact, for damage against each ship class.Dumminion wrote:You seem to waste the possibility to precompute tables, by using
easy things like:
- if hangar.bays > 10 then Firepower reduction (%) = hangar.bays / 2
- we have three laser classes - corresponding to three "default-target" object-classes :wink: