Welcome to another long post by Ranos.
Impaler wrote:It seems logical to fold the effects of Resistence in as a modification on the effective level of thickness. A weakness decreases the effect by 1, a bonus incresses it by 1. So for example if Armor X is Medium Thickness and weak against Energy damage an Energy weapon will damage the ship AS IF the armor was Thin. Conversly Armor Y which is Medium Thickness on your ship if hit with a Damage type that its resistent too it will act AS IF the armor was Heavy for that attack. By folding all the desired effects into + and - effects on a single paramiter the player gets a much better idea of how each element contributes to the whole.
This goes along with the earlier Idea I had conserning Tec Refinment of Armor being the basis of the Protection factor. Now the full equatin is
Level of Armor Tec/Refinment + Thickness Modifier (+1, 0, -1) + Resistence Modifier (+1, 0, -1) = Effective level of Defence
Well, here I go pointing out the downside of yet another idea. It seems to be my lot in this thread.
Even though this seems like a simpler way of doing Resistances, it really isn't. The reason why is simple, you are changing the ammount of armor HP with the modifier instead of the damage being done. While it may simplify it in programming and writing down +1, 0, -1 is easier than 80%, 100%, 120%, it complicates the the damage calculation for the attack.
Using percent resistances, the way damage would be calculated is as follows: Final Armor HP = Starting Armor HP - (Damage * Resistance) or F = S - (D * R).
That is a very simple calculation. If armor is used in the traditional manner with HP (as opposed to the system proposed by Impaler), then this is the simpler way of doing it. To use the "Folding Principle" (FP) would require an adjustment to be made to the HP of the shield for each different weapon type. If my ship has Medium Duranium armor on it which gives 1000 HP and has +1 against Energy and -1 against Kinetic, then the armor thickness would have to be recalculated for every single shot fired against the ship. Lets say the scale works like this: No armor = 0, Very light armor = 1, light armor = 2, medium armor = 3, heavy armor = 4 and very heavy armor = 5. For Duranium armor, the HP number would be N = 0, VL = 250, L = 500, M = 1000, H =2000 and VH = 4000. The base number for calculation in the FP would be 125.
An energy weapon is fired at my ship that does 100 damage. The armor has to be recalculated to light and damage factored in. I am writing this at 3:30 AM and I am having trouble working out the exact formula for the calculation but I do know there is wone of two ways of doing it. If armor is double for every level as I used above, the formula is actually simple. Damage is multiplied by 2. If the increase in thickness works in some other way, first it would complicate the way thickness is determined and then it would complicate the formula. Basically, the easiest way to do it is to double the damage. This gives absolutely no depth to the resistance system. Damage is doubled and halved for -1 and +1 to thickness, quadrupled and quartered for -2 and +2, etc.
Using percentages for resistance allows for far more customizability and depth. Percentages could be anywhere from 1 - 1000% or we could even go with tenths of percents if we wanted to get that picky. The formula is still easy and I think it makes more sense to say damage done is 80% of normal compared to armor thickness is adjusted by -1.
Impaler wrote:About Shields: Ranos I dont want to sound rude here but Ablaze, Utilae and myself are able to see the depth of strategy involved with these various shield types and many others mentioned earlier. Please give us the benefit of the doupt here, rather then constantlly saying "Theirs no point to that, its adsactly the same, I dont like it, take it out ect ect", instead ASK for elaboration. You said yourself this is Brainstorming not a desision making thread you cant "take out" or "Get rid of" an idea thats not even anyware near getting into the game yet.
What strategy? The only benefit of any of those over the other is that Screens give a definate 30% reduction, Flux have a 33.333% chance of giving a 45% reduction and Roulette have a 16.667% chance of giving a 100% reduction. The shortfalls are Screens give a definate 30% reduction, Flux have a 33.333% chance of giving a 15% reduction and Roulette shields have both a 16.667% chance of giving a 0% reduction and a 66.667% chance of giving a 20% reduction. The only thing that could benefit from Roulette shields are small ships that would get wiped out by a single hit from the gigantic guns of the late game. In other words, their only possible usefullness is in the late game. But that usefullness will never come because of Wall shields which will be able to take at least one if not 2 hits from the big weapons before failing. The only two viable options here are whether you want to have a gauranteed 30% reduction or take the risk of only a 15% reduction at the same time as a possible benefit of a 45% reduction. That is merely player choice. There is no strategy involved.
When you get down to it, all shields would be the same in that respect. To make all of the shields viable in the game, they must be balanced and be equally good choices. But unless all shields have HP, which in utilae's last update on the list, only Wall and Regen shields had HP, then the shields without HP will be overpowered because they will never run out.
Actually, I take that back. There would be strategy involved in the choice of two shields, Screen and Deflector. 30% reduction compaired to 15% reduction but doing that damage to an enemy ship. That is the only strategic choice. In the end, smaller ships would be equipped with Wall shields because of the stop all damage benefit and large ships would be equipped with Screen or Deflector shields because they never run out.
The only way to make different kinds of shields have strategic options is if shields also have resistance. Personally, I see no problem with this. If you look at my last counter proposal at the bottom of page 3, there would be strategic options in choosing between those three shields. They would also opperate differently than armor. Kinetic and Explosive weapons would need to be more expansive and/or do less damage to balance out the different damage types. The other option is of course to make multiple shield types that each have their own resistances and have them effect all weapons in the same manner.
One of the biggest arguements against resistances on shields and armor was that that would make double layered resistance. This would add more strategy to the game. You could go into a battle with your shiny new ships with your newest weapon and do massive ammounts of damage to ships that have a single resistance layer that takes more damage from that weapon type or you could end up getting your hind end kicked by ships that have a double resistance to the weapon. That could mean the survival or death of a small empire. If they were able to strongly counter the big empires weapons, they would actually be able to overcome the big empire and maybe even gain a system or two that would tip the balances even and allow them to survive to fight another war.
Back to Impaler's quote, I did ask for elaboration and got it and liked it. Then skdiw showed up and pointed out how mathematically, three shields would be the same and I felt I needed to make a comment in regards to that. I said that it would be my only commment in regards to mathematics and it would have been if you hadn't commented on it.
skdiw wrote:Another thing about refinements is that if X, Y, and Z yield exact same results independent of any other factors, then as soon as the player picks one and advances through that path, all other becomes a dead weight in the tech tree. I don't think we want that and also see it again in designing ship menu. If you wanted, you can go screen -> flux -> roulette with greater statistical benefits as you research up the tree so the roulette ultimately replace the other two.
I am assuming that X, Y and Z are different weapons since that is the only way that sentence would make sense. If X, Y and Z are all the same type of weapon that are available at the same level in the tech tree, then yes, you are correct. But since weapon delivery types will be spread out all over the tech tree and damage types will be a part of the factor, every single weapon will be unique and therefore would not be dead weight. Take a look at this thread, viewtopic.php?t=907
, for the last discussion on refinements. That will hopefully explain refinements better. That was a discussion on weapon refinement but shields and armor would/could work in the same manner.
utilae wrote:Yes, well take them out when we start filtering the list of shield types. I think Ranos and skdiw are simplifying everything down to statistical averages too much. You guy's say that the roulette, screen and flux shields are exactly the same. Ranos, you say that all shields are the same (they either stop some damage or all damage). Also all shields should be the same in terms of balance, which is how much damage they stop. They key is how they stop it.
Yes but if they are all balanced then it doesn't matter which one you pick because by the time a battle is over, you should have taken the same ammount of damage regardless of which type of shield you have. Tell me why I should pick Roulette shields over Screen shields? Why should I pick Regen shields over Wall shields? What benefits do each of them give to me over the other? If there is no clear benefit, then why bother confusing somebody with multiple things that in the end, do the same thing?
These arguements against the math go along the same lines as the elaboration that I was arguing for earlier. If you can't show what the benefit of one over the other is, then the complicated ones will get thrown out in favor of the uncomplicated ones that do the same thing.
utilae wrote:I dont want an RPS element for shields. We have already discussed an RPS element for armor and weapons. If shields also have an rps element, then weapons will have two layers of RPS to go through (one for shields and one for armor). This would violate KISS. I think it is simpler to have shields not involved in an RPS system, like we have been discussing (how they stop damage).
Actually, I don't think it would violate KISS. I think the KISS principle is to make the game easy to understand and simple to program. It wouldn't be any more difficult to understand both armor and shields having resistances than it would be for armor to just have resistances. If armor can be programmed to work with resistances, then it wouldn't take much more work to make shields work with them too.
utilae wrote:I think you are simplifying things too much. The roulette shield can possibly stop all damage, but is very risky. It is more useful on a small ship that will die using other shields (as Ablaze explained). The flux shield is risky, but less so then roulette shields. Also you talk about averages, but you are talking about using the shields on 30 ships or something and saying that statistically they are the same. What if you used a shield on one ship. Would they be the same then. Would you use a roulette shield or a screen shield. Roulettes are probably too risky to be used on one ship. I know what you are saying though. Roulette, flux and screens are really just small variations of each other. They all stop damage in the same way, just have some numbers changed. If I was to throw one out, it would be flux I think. But still I like it, cause it fluctuates. And roulettes are crazy, but awesome on a small ship, I like this alot if it helps out small ships more.
If I wouldn't use a shield on a single ship, then why would I want to use it on thirty ships? If I got to have only one ship and I had to use only one of those three shields, I would pick Screen because it would give me the most solid results through an entire battle. Now if I was using multiple ships, I might use Flux shields because the probability that a 3 will be rolled will be increased because of the ships and I would be more willing to take the risk that I would only roll a 1. Roulette shields though are far too risky because of the statistics. They would have a 66.667% chance of rolling 2-5 which would result in 20% damage reduction and then the 16.667% chance that there would be no damage reduction. That means that most of the time, damage would be reduced less than Screen and Flux shields. That is why I would never use Roulette shields.
The End. (of this post)
200 and still a Wyrm!?! I don't want to be a Wyrm anymore. I've been a Wyrm for 100 posts now.