New Fuel Settings?

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
Morlic
AI Contributor
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:54 am

Re: New Fuel Settings?

#16 Post by Morlic » Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:47 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:00 pm
Would exchanging an external slot for 2 fuel (so 3.5 fuel) make sense to you?
Speaking of early game (up to military techs of Laser, Zortrium and first shields):
With current balancing (4 external slots), the robotic hull is only cost-efficient* if you use shields against MD4 level (i.e. 6 damage per shot or below) and have both Zortrium and Laser. Otherwise, the organic hull offers better combat stat efficiency, more speed and fuel regen. This also means that robotic hull designs probably do not want to use the internal slot for extra fuel. Organic hull designs, however, do want to use the fuel pod (or engines) as shields are cost-inefficient on them (unless the enemy has bad pilots or otherwise worse than standard MD4 level of 6 damage per shot).

Removing another external slot from the robotic hull (i.e 3 external slots) pushes the cost-efficiency of the shielded robotic hulls below the cost efficiency of shielded organic hulls after Zortrium Armor (i.e. the first armor upgrade) is researched. In other words: Robotic hulls lose their niche in the eco-system of ship designs.

So, I don't think a nerf of the external slots and subsequently the cost-efficiency of the hull is warranted. Just give it the 2 fuel.



* Using the definition cost_efficiency = (structure*damage)/cost^2
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: New Fuel Settings?

#17 Post by Ophiuchus » Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:01 am

by the way morlic opened an issue on the mentioned documentation problems #2541
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1458
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: New Fuel Settings?

#18 Post by Oberlus » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:19 pm

I've splitted the posts about cost efficiency of hulls/ship designs to a new thread.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: New Fuel Settings?

#19 Post by Ophiuchus » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:28 pm

Morlic wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:47 pm
Ophiuchus wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:00 pm
Would exchanging an external slot for 2 fuel (so 3.5 fuel) make sense to you?
Speaking of early game (up to military techs of Laser, Zortrium and first shields):
With current balancing (4 external slots), the robotic hull is only cost-efficient* if you use shields against MD4 level (i.e. 6 damage per shot or below) and have both Zortrium and Laser.
That seems to be a very small niche for a ship design. But maybe I was undervalueing organic 2Zortrium 1MD designs (because cost efficiency is even better than with lasers) and I should not tech up as fast as I do (in that case the niche would make more sense).

Buuut the real value of that robo design is that is very fleet cost-efficient even against lasers (didnt check for plasma yet). By that I mean cost efficiency when considering fleet upkeep. It has the best value for the hulls I compared on that tech level (robohulls, organic, multicell, symbiotic).

That value almost drops to multicell level if I take away one external slot. So the hull should keep it(?) or is it OP in that regard? How about a slight cost increase to 45 PP for the fuel increase? Cost efficiency against MD4 drops from 1,71% to 1,60%; organic 2Z 1MD is ata 1,51%)
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
alleryn
Space Kraken
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: New Fuel Settings?

#20 Post by alleryn » Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:23 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:28 pm

Buuut the real value of that robo design is that is very fleet cost-efficient even against lasers (didnt check for plasma yet). By that I mean cost efficiency when considering fleet upkeep. It has the best value for the hulls I compared on that tech level (robohulls, organic, multicell, symbiotic).

That value almost drops to multicell level if I take away one external slot. So the hull should keep it(?) or is it OP in that regard? How about a slight cost increase to 45 PP for the fuel increase? Cost efficiency against MD4 drops from 1,71% to 1,60%; organic 2Z 1MD is ata 1,51%)
To answer this question, i think we would need to determine how important fleet upkeep efficiency vs. small fleet efficiency is at this stage of the game. This is an extremely complex question, but my intuition is that no one is really investing heavily into military at this stage of the game (unless its a 2-player (or 2-alliance) game), as conflict is just a bad strategic idea in non-zero-sum games. As such, i would guess that small fleet efficiency is more important at this phase, but those of you with multiplayer experience are naturally much better poised to answer this.

My personal take right now is that robo hull isn't really overpowered at this point (all this talk of trading slots for fuel at some precise ratio is, to me, a bit silly as it presumes that the hulls are already perfectly balanced, which not that i think they are extremely out of whack, but i also don't think some little fudging for the sake of this fuel system rework is going to really upset some intricately-7-spinning-plates-while-juggling-corgis type of balance, and i would agree with morlic:
Morlic wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 1:47 pm
Just give it the 2 fuel.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: New Fuel Settings?

#21 Post by Ophiuchus » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:50 pm

alleryn wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:23 pm
My personal take right now is that robo hull isn't really overpowered at this point (all this talk of trading slots for fuel at some precise ratio is, to me, a bit silly as it presumes that the hulls are already perfectly balanced
The point is having a framework for keeping the balance for ships of the same fuel efficiency without having to do a full rebalancing.


The numbers say that robo hull is for its level in a sense overpowered - its better than the higher tech alternatives symbiontic/multicell.

If my calc is correct fleet cost efficiency has a big influence - if you build at least for three robo 2Z 2L the fleet is more cost efficient than anything else. Even more efficient than fully grown symbiontic ships which have almost double the ship cost efficiency. Breaking point is at tiny 315PP - this is counterintuitive to me, so i will have to check my numbers again.

So after correcting my formulas this looks more sensible. Breaking point is rather at stellar 30,000PP (268 robos are more powerful than 500 multicells at the same cost). So ship efficiency prevails until then.

So for closing this subdiscussion I will just give the 2 fuel and wait for reports of further need of rebalancing hulls.

I probably also will open a thread for finding suggestions how to give (robo hulls with) shields-3 more meaning.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

Post Reply