[SCR] OOS Combat Rebalance (alpha 0.32 - 06.08.10)

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Tue, 9. Jun 09, 18:31

These are the figures with "average" evasion but that doesn't mean I couldn't tone them down further for small ships.
An M2 simply has silly firepower if it concentrates on something as fragile as a fighter...

Under the current system an M2 could annihilate about 4-5 fighters per round - only using counterfire.

I have a feeling that this killing speed is too much. =)

Most (2/3) of the huge ships' damage comes from their medium battery which is counted at 60 % vs fighters.
This percentage is used for any laser that attacks something "1 level smaller", such as PPC vs M6.

If I reduce that to then cap ship damage vs fighters drops considerably.

wyvern11 · Post by **wyvern11** » Tue, 9. Jun 09, 18:32

Is the counterfire too heavy?
My intention was to damage attacking small ships/drones but not instantly incinerate anything that touches a capital ship.

M1/M2 firing for 5 sec hit a fighter for 200.000-500.000 damage.

I was under the impression that CF would divide up between the attacking M3
So M1/M2 would be able to scratch 3-6 Fighters per CF. This is not nice for the Fighters but sounds realistic. modern gunships attacking a SAM-site having it's full attention should have an equal survival rate.

there will be a random and an evade-skill affixed to the CF-damage - maybe you can make this steep enough that *real good* pilots get a chance while noobs get torn to pieces (The average WW-pilot survived a handful of missions at best)

only updated to newest version now

this is how it was in previous:

Code: Select all


row: time ship seconds 

20101:749992 IM3SA-32 30
20107:749993 IM3IW-88 31
20108:749993 IM3IW-88 31
20114:749996 ADRDB-70 30
20115:749996 ADRDB-70 30
20121:749997 IM3SA-32 5
20122:749997 IM3SA-32 5

micha@Administrator ~
$ sed 's/ /_/g;s/;/  /g' /cygdrive/c/Users/micha/Documents/Egosoft/X3TC/log01338.txt | grep -n add | awk '$5>0 {print $1, $2, $13 }' | awk '$4=check {check=$4; print $1, $2, $3} '

<nothing found>

cygwin rules for windows !!

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Tue, 9. Jun 09, 18:52

wyvern11 wrote:I was under the impression that CF would divide up between the attacking M3
So M1/M2 would be able to scratch 3-6 Fighters per CF. This is not nice for the Fighters but sounds realistic. modern gunships attacking a SAM-site having it's full attention should have an equal survival rate.

Well, it does divide.
The maximum that any battery has for "a round" is 30 sec.

If the last round was > 45 sec ago, it's counted as a new engagement, which is capped at 5 sec for the first round.

If Seconds.Remaining <= CF.Burst.Length
then no CF is allowed.
So no CF during the first round of an engagement.

If the M2 is attacked by 2 fighters:
- Round 1: the M2 is hit by both fighters, not firing back because it only has 5 sec, saving that for the main target
- Round 2: the M2 now has 30 sec available and uses 5 each to CF when attacked by each fighter
- Round 2: the M2 fires the remaining 20 sec at whatever it decides to attack
it also fires it's main gun for 30 sec against the same target

That's the theory...

So if you saturate a ship with drones along with the fighters, there's a chance that the drones will attack first and therefore soak some of the counterfire.

wyvern11 wrote:there will be a random and an evade-skill affixed to the CF-damage - maybe you can make this steep enough that *real good* pilots get a chance while noobs get torn to pieces (The average WW-pilot survived a handful of missions at best)

Yes, I want some skill based damage mitigation(always) and avoidance (rare).

Avoidance and mitigation don't need to be constant, either.
Everquest uses these to balance the melee classes.
Real tanks (tm) have high mitigation, resulting in low but constant damage that the healers can rely on and keep up with.
Involuntary tanks like rangers and whatnot have high avoidance allowing them to often well... avoid getting hit. But if that fails it hurts. Really bad. So they can tank in a pinch but that keeps the healer on his toes.

X3 fighters would clearly use mostly avoidance, which would be based on speed (size?) as the "main attribute".
Dancing around PPC bullets is fine but if you do get hit, it's not funny.

An M2 is built to get hit. It's the main tank of our party.
Avoidance? Pah! Gimme your best shot!
M2 could get mitigation, making them the tough cookies they are supposed to be.

Variable evasion systems can probably be tailored to our needs easier than one "formula to rule them all".

wyvern11 · Post by **wyvern11** » Tue, 9. Jun 09, 19:26

so what you describe is actually as is to be expected: a cloud of fighters attacking flak wielding target :

round by round the cap-ship slowly erodes the attack wings. do take in mind that eventual capitals accompanying the fighter wings get less fire. or ships wielding more cap-ship-weapons are more effective in big gun battles

Code: Select all

3817:751313 XM7NP-41 11
3818:751313 XM7NP-41 11
3825:751313 BM4XP-41 30
3826:751313 BM4XP-41 30

micha@Administrator ~
$ sed 's/ /_/g;s/;/  /g' /cygdrive/c/Users/micha/Documents/Egosoft/X3TC/log01338.txt | grep -n add | awk '$5>0 {print $1, $2, $13 }' | awk '$4=check {check=$4; print $1, $2, $3} '

micha@Administrator ~
$

so still nothing found

Most (2/3) of the huge ships' damage comes from their medium battery which is counted at 60 % vs fighters.
This percentage is used for any laser that attacks something "1 level smaller", such as PPC vs M6.

If I reduce that to then cap ship damage vs fighters drops considerably.

yeah maybe you better (for look and feel reasons). but realistically not much fighters return from a determinedly defended capship

first wave of americans at midway had 6 planes return out of more than 40....

EDIT

Code: Select all


3584:751187  XM7NP-41  Xenon_Q  CF:_add_battery  1  shield_DPS  13576  hull_DPS  4696  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  0  Effectivity_Perc  60
3603:751187  XM7XD-31  Xenon_Q  CF:_add_battery  1  shield_DPS  13300  hull_DPS  4606  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  5  Effectivity_Perc  60
3626:751204  XM7WI-36  Xenon_Q  add_battery  1  shield_DPS  15280  hull_DPS  5265  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  5  Effectivity_Perc  60
3664:751217  XM7NP-41  Xenon_Q  add_battery  1  shield_DPS  13576  hull_DPS  4696  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  31  Effectivity_Perc  60
3788:751302  XM7NP-41  Xenon_Q  add_battery  1  shield_DPS  13576  hull_DPS  4696  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  5  Effectivity_Perc  60
3818:751313  XM7NP-41  Xenon_Q  add_battery  1  shield_DPS  13576  hull_DPS  4696  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  11  Effectivity_Perc  60
3894:751386  XM7VI-55  Xenon_Q  add_battery  1  shield_DPS  12466  hull_DPS  4489  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  5  Effectivity_Perc  100
3956:751418  XM7WI-58  Xenon_Q  add_battery  1  shield_DPS  13447  hull_DPS  4843  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  5  Effectivity_Perc  100
4058:751449  XM7WI-58  Xenon_Q  add_battery  1  shield_DPS  13447  hull_DPS  4843  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  31  Effectivity_Perc  60
4074:751450  XM7WI-36  Xenon_Q  add_battery  1  shield_DPS  15280  hull_DPS  5265  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  5  Effectivity_Perc  60
4105:751454  XM7SV-09  Xenon_Q  add_battery  1  shield_DPS  14774  hull_DPS  5321  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  5  Effectivity_Perc  60
4127:751460  XM7WI-36  Xenon_Q  add_battery  1  shield_DPS  15280  hull_DPS  5265  pierce_DPS  0  sec_left  10  Effectivity_Perc  60

M7-CF is not that deadly [/code]

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Tue, 9. Jun 09, 20:22

wyvern11 wrote:round by round the cap-ship slowly erodes the attack wings. do take in mind that eventual capitals accompanying the fighter wings get less fire. or ships wielding more cap-ship-weapons are more effective in big gun battles

That's the master plan behind it. =)
A ship like a Boreas using 100% PPC/IBL would not be able to counterfire at all and would have to kill fighters the "old way", destroying one per round.

And if a carrier (or a ship with drones) attacks a more regular M2 - which often equip a large number of medium lasers (CIG) - then a sizable chunk of the M2's firepower can be soaked by fighters / drones.

That's what offsets the carrier's enforced (by me =) reduction of firepower.
The carrier is actively protected because it's fighters tie a number of the enemy's guns.
The MARS drone principle - just in a strategy game variant. =)

A more tactical game where carriers work with their fighters. Not just either or.
And the beauty of it is - the X3 AI does not need to learn this. They already do that except that it never had a deeper purpose. =)

yeah maybe you better (for look and feel reasons). but realistically not much fighters return from a determinedly defended capship

It's just no fun losing 5 (player) fighters to an M2 - because of the micromanagement involved in replacing them.

I saw one LX do 1 million shield damage in a 30 sec round.
So it would take 600+ fighters to one-round an M2... (not counting missiles =)

With 60 fighters you need 10 rounds, during which your fighters are reduced to smoking wrecks, most likely failing to destroy the target because of the erosion of numbers.

I think we need a balancing goal.
X Nova Raider should be able to destroy an M2 of suchandsuch type with Y losses.
Some ballpark values to aim for.

We can use arbitrary mitigation / avoidance values until the numbers fit.
Then these skill boni can be gained somehow.
Be it by speed, pilot skill, target size class, object class... whatever.

But first we need a clear idea of what we want the result to be. =)
My first step was merely to assign relatively accurate damage values.
That's a good start because it removes the insane peaks we'd get from the vanilla OOS damage.
But the eventual balance will be... what it needs to be. The damage values are just raw data.

Any carrier users out there?
What is the expected fatality rate (IS) when destroying an M2 solely with fighters?
Ideally a MARS M2 because the vanilla M2 more or less goof around, waiting for the big flash. If they destroy a fighter it's mostly by coincidence.

M7-CF is not that deadly

Hmmkay.
Roughly 40k shield damage from the M7 CF.

So we can probably concentrate on the M1/2 that are bristling with guns.
Maybe assign them a smaller CF.Burst.Length so they'd spread their fire more...

wyvern11 · Post by **wyvern11** » Tue, 9. Jun 09, 21:18

1. do codea-carriers count?
b) how can I determine a MARS-opponent (besides it hurts more) AI use MARS = true is obvious

you should ask this in the codea-threads - seems like *there* is a better carrier-user-density. I only had one encounter panther + 8 spitfyre + 8 cutlass against two hoshi : one spitfyre lost (got run over... hehe)

but i guess it was because i was in range and fighters largely ignored

2.

Hmmkay.
Roughly 40k shield damage from the M7 CF.

So we can probably concentrate on the M1/2 that are bristling with guns.
Maybe assign them a smaller CF.Burst.Length so they'd spread their fire more...

looks like a good decision to me. a frigate has to concentrate CF or it harms many and kills none.

EDIT: how can one get the base-DPS-values of the weapons?

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Tue, 9. Jun 09, 21:55

wyvern11 wrote:b) how can I determine a MARS-opponent (besides it hurts more) AI use MARS = true is obvious

If you enable that, all AI big ships will use MARS.
Fighters will not.

you should ask this in the codea-threads - seems like *there* is a better carrier-user-density. I only had one encounter panther + 8 spitfyre + 8 cutlass against two hoshi : one spitfyre lost (got run over... hehe)

Yah, true.

EDIT: how can one get the base-DPS-values of the weapons?

Good question. They don't show in any logs and the damage values are modified by bullet speed to account for delivered damage as well as special effects like PSG. (yes, PSG can actually be useful OOS)

I'll have to find a way to data dump them somehow. Maybe with a script call from the setup.

But not today. Too tired to think about numbers greater than 5. =)

thunderai · Post by **thunderai** » Tue, 9. Jun 09, 22:58

I have my CODEA set to not launch when large and huge ships exisit on th eplaying field, so I can't talk to much about that.

But because of the pain in replacing fighters, if I lose two in a match I reload.

Marodeur · Post by **Marodeur** » Tue, 9. Jun 09, 23:22

How about an "overwhelm"-Bonus for attacking fighter squadrons?

If a M2 can concentrate on one fighter its dust. If there are 2 or 3, they are dust. But if there are much more fighters than turrets (like 60 fighters from a carrier), the M2 gets "overwhelmed" and gets a lowered effectiveness.

Maybe if fighters = number of turrets * 2 will be a good choice

Only question is how to realize that.

Lancefighter · Post by **Lancefighter** » Wed, 10. Jun 09, 05:15

he updated the first post after i posted that the first time >.<
naturally i only click the 'view new posts', and never saw it...

But thanks

Marodeur · Post by **Marodeur** » Wed, 10. Jun 09, 10:15

No problem....

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Wed, 10. Jun 09, 12:22

Marodeur wrote:How about an "overwhelm"-Bonus for attacking fighter squadrons?

If a M2 can concentrate on one fighter its dust. If there are 2 or 3, they are dust. But if there are much more fighters than turrets (like 60 fighters from a carrier), the M2 gets "overwhelmed" and gets a lowered effectiveness.

My measuring stick against fighters here is the MARS M2. The Vanilla M2 is not using it's lasers for good effect and I wouldn't want to model the OOS combat after an insufficient turret script.
If fighters are allowed to use their weapons efficiently, the M2 must be allowed as well.

Now what's happening if you send 30 fighters instad of 15 is a higher fatality / minute.
Overwhelming? Hah! You couldn't do a MARS M2 a greater favour than putting it into a target rich environment.
With 15 fighters you may have 4 good and 2 excellent targets. With 30, you'd have 4 excellent targets...

And as some CODEA users have already commented, a MARS M2 does bad things to fighter wings.
Hmmm yummy! Fighter wings! (*pluck* *munch*)

How bad? I don't have enough data, yet, since I never did any serious tests in TC. I only have the results from early development with Reunion.

Marodeur · Post by **Marodeur** » Wed, 10. Jun 09, 12:51

Maybe Mars is "to effective" for X3 TC, M2 shouldnt be jack-of-all-trades (in my opinion). Thats maybe one reason i dont use Mars to give the fighters a chance.

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Wed, 10. Jun 09, 17:47

Marodeur wrote:Maybe Mars is "to effective" for X3 TC, M2 shouldnt be jack-of-all-trades (in my opinion). Thats maybe one reason i dont use Mars to give the fighters a chance. ;)

Well, this isn't about if MARS is too good or not.

At the moment I'm only interested in the OOS balance and what it should represent.

Fighters are reasonably effective IS. If you tell them to attack a cap ship they do nothing else (for the most part) but fire at this ship.

So the fighter AI works but the M2 turret AI is early stone age.
It attacks... something random. Whatever it can see, whatever is closest.
And it keeps shooting at this (fighter) target as long as it's in view and flying circles.
So most of the time it's shooting holes into space while the fighters do something useful... and kill the M2.
Is that how it "should be"?

MARS uses the existing capabilities of M2 and only corrects the "I" in the turret AI so turrets do something useful, too - just like the fighters.
Of course one can argue that M2 were never balanced for being able to use all these lasers they have while fighters had been balanced under the assumption that they would actually use their lasers against the target...

In a "MARS universe", I would definitely consider weakening the anti-fighter capability of M2.
Right now it looks kinda like this. (on a good day =)

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Wed, 10. Jun 09, 20:30

Version 0.25 released.

Scripts updated with the changes from TC 2.1.

No functional changes.

wyvern11 · Post by **wyvern11** » Wed, 10. Jun 09, 21:07

scary movie...

thanks for the 2.1 hint. depending on time i'll do some tests with spawned ships (otherwise only Q's in the log)

*Single* Attack run of 15 M3* (8 cutlass, 7 spitfyre) on a MARS Brigantine IS: two cutlass and a spitfyre lost, one spitfyre severely damaged (looked like plasmaburst)

EDIT:

One Battle, Zeus didn't return fire... Still over sorta fast :

Code: Select all

754181;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;ATTACK;Trinity Sanctum;PM1RL-53;Paranid Military Zeus
754181;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add battery;2;shield DPS;419872;hull DPS;74292;pierce DPS;0;sec left;5;Effectivity Perc;100
754181;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add battery;1;shield DPS;0;hull DPS;0;pierce DPS;0;sec left;5;Effectivity Perc;110
754181;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add battery;0;shield DPS;0;hull DPS;0;pierce DPS;0;sec left;5;Effectivity Perc;120
754181;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;total damage;Shield;2099360;hull;371460;pierce;0;t.size.class;2;sec;5
754181;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;Target status;PM1RL-53;Paranid Military Zeus;Shields;5000000;Hull;400000
754181;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;Lasers fired at;PM1RL-53;Paranid Military Zeus;Shields left;2900640;Hull left;400000
754193;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;ATTACK;Trinity Sanctum;PM1RL-53;Paranid Military Zeus
754193;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add battery;2;shield DPS;419872;hull DPS;74292;pierce DPS;0;sec left;12;Effectivity Perc;100
754193;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add battery;1;shield DPS;0;hull DPS;0;pierce DPS;0;sec left;12;Effectivity Perc;110
754193;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add battery;0;shield DPS;0;hull DPS;0;pierce DPS;0;sec left;12;Effectivity Perc;120
754193;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;total damage;Shield;5038464;hull;891504;pierce;0;t.size.class;2;sec;12
754193;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;Target status;PM1RL-53;Paranid Military Zeus;Shields;2916240;Hull;400000
754193;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;Lasers fired at;PM1RL-53;Paranid Military Zeus;Shields left;0;Hull left;25570
754196;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;ATTACK;Trinity Sanctum;PM1RL-53;Paranid Military Zeus
754196;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add battery;2;shield DPS;419872;hull DPS;74292;pierce DPS;0;sec left;3;Effectivity Perc;100
754196;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add battery;1;shield DPS;0;hull DPS;0;pierce DPS;0;sec left;3;Effectivity Perc;110
754196;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add battery;0;shield DPS;0;hull DPS;0;pierce DPS;0;sec left;3;Effectivity Perc;120
754196;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;total damage;Shield;1259616;hull;222876;pierce;0;t.size.class;2;sec;3
754196;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;Target status;PM1RL-53;Paranid Military Zeus;Shields;0;Hull;25570
754196;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;Lasers fired at;PM1RL-53;Paranid Military Zeus;Shields left;0;Hull left;0;DESTROYED

OnBoard-Weapons

Code: Select all

754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;Get config data;Main Ver;25;My Ver; null;Var;GZ.OOSD.SHIP.DATA;Data;NOT FOUND
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;Laser.Setup;Dmg Perc;105;Fight Skill;20;Trade Skill;0;Is.Freighter;0;Hangars;0;Skill Dmg Bonus;5
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add laser;105;Incendiary Bomb Launcher
754084;XM1FI-05;Xenon Small Orbital Weapons Platform;add DPS;2;419872;74292;0;54;Incendiary Bomb Launcher;Amount:;1680

Gazz · Post by **Gazz** » Thu, 11. Jun 09, 22:20

Version 0.28 released.

On a version upgrade a log 1340 is created.
It contains the full laser list with damage values as they are used by OOSD.

Actual ship damages are still modified for "cockpit laser", carrier, or pilot skill.

Given DPS values are used as is - against their corresponding target.ship.class.

"speed corrected %" has already been figured in.
It only shows at what hit % (and therefore damage %) this laser is operating.
It's easy to see how the faster lasers are more efficient.
All DPS from turrets is halved as intended.
A turret can only cover 180°.

wyvern11 wrote:One Battle, Zeus didn't return fire... Still over sorta fast :

An OWP (huge target) would need to be "intentionally" attacked by the Zeus.
No counterfire.
Main battery Attacks have to be ordered by the fight script. Only it controls the main batteries.

Still - 15 sec is fast.

Hmm. That OWP had an effective 16.8 IBL and 400000 shield DPS.
It is supposed to have half that because they are turreted so the resulting DPS would be half that number.

In the OWP attack script I let the OWP cheat a bit and attack at longer range, them being stationary guns and all.
They are bolted to the vacuum and therefore have a steadier aim. Or somesuch.

Depending on the OOS timing, a ship might spend up to 30 sec "approaching" while the OWP can already fire.
This might make attacking a Large OWP interesting. Alas, many of them are only lightly equipped. Not remotely enough IBL to give them a proper bite. A L OWP could have 48 IBL.
Now there's a proper fortress!
Do you feel lucky, punk? =)

In vanilla X3, OWP wouldn't attack at all OOS so I guess noone noticed how powerful they could be...

Damage from turrets is now halved (oops) so the counterfire to fighters just got a lot less heavy.

ragamer · Post by **ragamer** » Fri, 12. Jun 09, 11:30

Very interesting initiative. Just a few comments that follow the spirit "OOS as close to IS as possible":

Laser fire evasion is a must to model

A human pilot on X3 (That knows how to strafe) can represent what an Elite AI skilled pilot would do and... Are you hit usually by a Cap battery (MARS equiped or not) on a fast (and small fighter)? No... The number of batteries shot from the same enemy is irrelevant, all can be dodged by the same pattern... Specially if the fighter pilot keeps his distance and uses overloaded Cockpit laser bursts at max distance.

The AI doesn't strafe at all and lacks a "bomber logic" like the above programmed into it, but even like this, speed, size and (paradoxically) shorter laser ranges play a role on AI evasion... All of this, OFC, compared to a single quality of the firing battery... Bullet Speed.

What follows will be a proposal on how to calculate the evasion chances of an average figther (That uses the dumb AI they all have IS) (All units in meters or meters/second). The logic used is a comparison between Time to Hit (TTH) and Time to Evade (TTE):

TTH: LR / BS

TTE: HS / SS

Evasion Factor (EF): TTH / TTE

Where:
LR: Laser Range of the Attacking Fighter
BS: Bullet Speed of the Shooting Battery
HS: Hull Length in the direction of movement
SS: Attacking Fighter Speed

The actual chances can be calculated using different conversions between EF and real chances to avoid completely a hit. The proposal I will give is just a tabular example (the numbers are just a guide and OFC subject to fine tuning):

EF
1-: 0%
2-: 10%
4-: 20%
8-: 40%
12-: 60%
20-: 80%
20+: 90%

There are a lot of details and rationale to explain still and some tricks to speed-up a calculation process like the above... But the post is already big enough so I will add them if there is interest on an idea like this.

wyvern11 · Post by **wyvern11** » Fri, 12. Jun 09, 11:50

@gazz I didn't expect the Zeus to CF (misunderstanding), I just expected him to fire at all by regular script. Because my outfitting script maximizes the loadout, OK, my fault (poor Zeus).

Will check again with random / default weaponry

@ragamer evasion is not yet part of the alpha, but has been discussed at length in the "planning-thread" mentioned in first post. feel free to discuss / add your ideas to the solutions posted there

ragamer · Post by **ragamer** » Fri, 12. Jun 09, 11:55

I will add the post to the "planning thread" in a more detailed way... I just added the note about evasion because you are already trying to fine tune damage applied on fighters WITHOUT simulating evasion...

...Meaning that you will have to do the job again, as fighters will be receiving less damage once ANY decent evasion model is in place.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

[SCR] OOS Combat Rebalance (alpha 0.32 - 06.08.10)