Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

For topics that do not fit in another sub-forum.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2155
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#196 Post by Oberlus » Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:40 pm

swaq wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:52 pm
My gut feeling is that fighters are better to use as anti-fighters than flak with this targeting system because they can actually do some damage too. I think flak should probably be buffed in some way (cheaper, more shots, etc.).
Agree.
Flak cost 10 or 15 for starters.
Maybe also make fighters grow damage slower than bombers.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2155
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#197 Post by Oberlus » Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:27 pm

Can we start thinking on the next game? Arf arf.

I've seen that the ring shape has it's pros and cons for free or no diplomacy games:
- If you are lucky to get an alliance/cease-fire with one neightbour, you're good, otherwise you are fucked up. And it is not unlikely that both your neighbours get a pact with their other neighbours and you get nothing.
- With disc/box/elliptical shape, the many neighbours you can have might help/force people to create sign treaties with at least someone else.


Edit: it would be nice to test the new Arc Disruptor (multishot, antichaff, pilotless weapon).

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#198 Post by o01eg » Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:12 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:27 pm
Edit: it would be nice to test the new Arc Disruptor (multishot, antichaff, pilotless weapon).
If we want to test it we should either prepare 'default' content based on 0.4.9 release or switch back to weekly test builds.
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-9.2, boost-1.72.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io. Version 2020-04-05.aa122c8.
Donations are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2155
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#199 Post by Oberlus » Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:15 pm

o01eg wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:12 pm
either prepare 'default' content based on 0.4.9 release or switch back to weekly test builds.
What's better?
I guess test builds, if 0.4.9 is already tested enough.

o01eg
Programmer
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:46 am

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#200 Post by o01eg » Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:22 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:15 pm
o01eg wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:12 pm
either prepare 'default' content based on 0.4.9 release or switch back to weekly test builds.
What's better?
I guess test builds, if 0.4.9 is already tested enough.
Sincerely, I'd prefer to use vanilla 0.4.9 release. But next release is supposed to be soon so maybe it's worth a try.

Could this pull request and "KISS targets hard" be merge before next weekly test build?
Gentoo Linux x64, gcc-9.2, boost-1.72.0
Ubuntu Server 18.04 x64, gcc-7.4, boost-1.65.1
Welcome to the slow multiplayer game at freeorion-lt.dedyn.io. Version 2020-04-05.aa122c8.
Donations are welcome: BTC:14XLekD9ifwqLtZX4iteepvbLQNYVG87zK

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2155
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#201 Post by Oberlus » Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:43 pm

o01eg wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:22 pm
Sincerely, I'd prefer to use vanilla 0.4.9 release. But next release is supposed to be soon so maybe it's worth a try.
I have no vote on this, whatever you guys decide is OK for me.
o01eg wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:22 pm
Could this pull request and "KISS targets hard" be merge before next weekly test build?
Yes, please. Not having to mess with default folders is nice (specially if they come with the /r removed, Linux style, which makes files harder to read in Windows, which was the case last time).

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#202 Post by Ophiuchus » Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:46 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 3:40 pm
swaq wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:52 pm
My gut feeling is that fighters are better to use as anti-fighters than flak with this targeting system because they can actually do some damage too. I think flak should probably be buffed in some way (cheaper, more shots, etc.).
Agree.
Flak cost 10 or 15 for starters.
Oberlus, did you not have good use for flak? It does 5 shots with great pilots. Everybody else in the game had bad or average pilots. The flak is more or less like interceptors, but you need to get to plasma fighters for five shots and you need to spend an extra internal slot.
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: 2155
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#203 Post by Oberlus » Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:12 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:46 pm
Oberlus, did you not have good use for flak? It does 5 shots with great pilots. Everybody else in the game had bad or average pilots. The flak is more or less like interceptors, but you need to get to plasma fighters for five shots and you need to spend an extra internal slot.
I built no flaks, only interceptors (going organics I don't have spare external slots).

If you don't have great pilots interceptors is better regardless of tech level, and probably better in ant case once you get plasma:
Interceptors: 20 pp, kills vessels, soaks fighter/interceptor/flak shots to protect fighters/bombers.
Flak: 20 pp, kills vessels.

The internal slot that interceptors take is no relevant compared with the pp cost, if you grab the right hull line.

The 10 pp per flak is what I'm getting from my calculations for the general weapon system.
Edut: but 15 could be enough.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#204 Post by Ophiuchus » Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:29 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:12 pm
Ophiuchus wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:46 pm
Oberlus, did you not have good use for flak? It does 5 shots with great pilots. Everybody else in the game had bad or average pilots. The flak is more or less like interceptors, but you need to get to plasma fighters for five shots and you need to spend an extra internal slot.
I built no flaks, only interceptors (going organics I don't have spare external slots).

If you don't have great pilots interceptors is better regardless of tech level, and probably better in ant case once you get plasma:
Interceptors: 20 pp, kills vessels, soaks fighter/interceptor/flak shots to protect fighters/bombers.
Flak: 20 pp, kills vessels.

The internal slot that interceptors take is no relevant compared with the pp cost, if you grab the right hull line.

The 10 pp per flak is what I'm getting from my calculations for the general weapon system.
Interceptors as chaff are only helpful if you employ other fighters or the enemy employs Fighters. Against Fighters also ship-chaff works.

If you went robotic instead of organics you would be hard pressed for internal slots. Also cant mix Interceptors with other fighters. So bomber robotic with a flak makes sense.

So if your enemies do not use shields you could completely skip research on fighters.

So I think flak has a niche. Question is at what price the flak would be OP in that niche.
Oberlus wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:43 pm
o01eg wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 6:22 pm
Could this pull request and "KISS targets hard" be merge before next weekly test build?
Yes, please. Not having to mess with default folders is nice (specially if they come with the /r removed, Linux style, which makes files harder to read in Windows, which was the case last time).
Get yourself a decent text editor (notepad++ is that still a thing? :lol: ) and pleaaaase have a look at PR-2665 for merge to master.
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: 2155
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#205 Post by Oberlus » Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:04 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:29 pm
Interceptors as chaff are only helpful if you employ other fighters or the enemy employs Fighters. Against Fighters also ship-chaff works.
Interceptors are also good if you use bombers/fighters and your enemy uses interceptors.
If your enemy uses interceptors, you going for interceptors is better than going flak.

If you went robotic instead of organics you would be hard pressed for internal slots. Also cant mix Interceptors with other fighters. So bomber robotic with a flak makes sense.
That's why I don't go robotics if I want to abuse fighters.

Against Hyperant, going fighters (static hull) was rather destructive, I could take down twice the PPs of my offensive fleet because he only had cannons and few flaks. Should he had fighters or interceptors as well, my fighters would have done way less damage. In that scenario flaks are worse. There is no scenario for organic hulls in which flak is better.
Robotics without shields and with interceptors would also be better against my bombers or fighter organic builds than with flaks (because he was average pilots).

So if your enemies do not use shields you could completely skip research on fighters.
Unless your enemy does not use PD, in that case fighters/bombers is better than cannons because they attack for whole combat (not shot down).
So I think flak has a niche
Agree.
We have to do some specific simulations of flak vs interceptors efficiency to be sure.

Get yourself a decent text editor (notepad++ is that still a thing? :lol: )
Noted, :lol:
I hope that works on unregistered Windows 7.
pleaaaase have a look at PR-2665 for merge to master.
Isn't it the same as the KISSHardTarget branch for 0.4.9?

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#206 Post by Ophiuchus » Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:13 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:04 pm
pleaaaase have a look at PR-2665 for merge to master.
Isn't it the same as the KISSHardTarget branch for 0.4.9?
Well, I did not keep the 0.4.9 branch completely up to date with the discussion. The base is the same.
The branch for master has the pilot skill and heavy bomber changes following the discussion.

I just did the 50PP to 25PP bugfix for the heavy bomber and i think that was the last obstruction - IMHO it can be merged.
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.

defaultuser
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:15 pm

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#207 Post by defaultuser » Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:09 am

What is the targeting change and what is the decision process for it?

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Eighth game on the multiplayer slow game server (0.4.9 KISS targets hard)

#208 Post by Ophiuchus » Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:37 am

defaultuser wrote:
Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:09 am
What is the targeting change and what is the decision process for it?
Have a look at the PR description, the PR code and the linked discussion in the PR description.
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