Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: 0.10a battle objectives change  (Read 2538 times)

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4661
    • View Profile
    • GitHub profile
0.10a battle objectives change
« on: August 21, 2020, 02:04:37 AM »

Hidden in the Personal Contacts comment thread was this big upcoming update to battle objectives:

Oh, this sounds interesting!  I do miss having objectives be relevant - there were flaws with the old objectives = deployment value system, but it did two things very well that the current system can't really do at all: it made objectives important to take and hold, and it made small fast ships have a place even in large fleet battles, since you needed to contest with the enemy's screening forces before you could put your main combat ships on the field.

Ah, actually, let me paste the relevant patch notes! Basically, instead of just giving a small buff (which they still do), objectives also let you *do* something - deploy more ships. So that's real, qualitative impact - from playtesting, capturing one actually feels fun, since you're anticipating which ships you get to deploy.

This makes using smaller ships to capture and skirmish over them worthwhile. And there are supporting changes that both don't penalize you for putting officers in small ships, and remove any incentive for lugging around 10-15 "give me more deployment points" Paragons. And, capturing objectives doesn't let you snowball an advantage - it's more about evening out the playing field.

(This also connects up with using story points to temporarily hire above-the-limit mercenary officers; there's a lot of stuff that factors in.)

   Combat against REDACTED will have battle objectives (Nav Buoys etc)
      Staton battles and battles against automated defenses of salvageable derelicts still don't
   Deployment point distribution between opposing fleets now based primarily on number/level of officers
      Is no longer updated as ships are destroyed; only computed once when an engagement round starts
      Officer contribution does not depend on what type of ship they're in
         But they do have to be on a ship, unassigned officers do not contribute
   Battle objectives (Nav Buoys, Sensor Arrays, Comm Relays):
      Now grant bonus deployment points equal to a percentage of battle size
         5% for Nav Buoys and Sensor Arrays
         10% for Comm Relays
      Total with bonus can't exceed 60% of battle size (which is the normal cap for the larger fleet)
         So: no bonus points for a fleet that already vastly outnumbers the enemy
      Goal is to give player means to even out a battle where they're outnumbered through aggressive play/splitting their forces
   Adjusted enemy admiral AI to value controlling points more


Thoughts:

- The obvious stuff: Fixing the Paragon DP inflater and making frigates (and officers on frigates) matter again is clearly good. It's also neat that holding objectives acts as an equalizer for the smaller side while not making the larger side even stronger (compared to present).

- Basing the distribution on officers seems like a direct advantage to the Hegemony in fights with other factions, with its higher-quality and more numerous officers in doctrine ("5-1-1" memes coming soon to a Discord server near you).
That may actually be good (to keep the Hegs threatening despite all the enemies they have in modded games), but is it intended? Does this also affect autoresolve?

- With objectives mattering again, knowing which objective the enemy fleetblob is headed to suddenly becomes important for the player (previously I'd just wait for the horde to come to me, now I might actually have to intercept them ahead of time). Might we see a return of the Recon order?

- Will positioning of objectives at battle start be changed? As in, seems like if the weaker side happens to get two comm relays spawning close to its edge the map, it's done, it gets the full DP bonus and doesn't have to worry about objectives any further unless it gets pushed back all the way to the map border.
Although, I like that pushing the enemy back to the edge actually has benefits (rather than only making your retreat/reinforcement cycle slower and theirs faster).
« Last Edit: August 21, 2020, 02:12:30 AM by Histidine »
Logged

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2020, 02:56:13 AM »

Yeah the random position of objectives wasn't super important before, but I guess it could get annoying now. It could very well become a reason to reload a save in tough battles. And if the position of objectives was always the same, then that could also get boring after a while since you'll be doing the same exact thing each time. This to me seems like the biggest question right now, since it will greatly affect gameplay.

I honestly can't see autoresolve getting changes because of this. There's not really much of a benefit for doing that when you're gonna screw up factions completely with it. Also then the ''5-1-1'' thing would be a no brainer for the player's doctrine setting.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #2 on: August 21, 2020, 10:28:37 AM »

Is the Paragon thing real? Getting even a single one means you are at the top of your game, no matter the odds.
From my personal perspective, it means I'm getting a boost, because not every engagement I'll fight is going to be where I get minimal DPs. Since I like a good challenge, that's a shame.

FooF

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #3 on: August 21, 2020, 01:47:58 PM »

Re: Random Objective placement

If the random placement really is the deciding factor in an otherwise close battle, I think that will be an edge case rather than the rule. I think where they could be re-tooled so that the ones that are closer to one side or the other are Nav Buoys or Sensor Arrays (i.e. smaller bonus) and the Comm Relays are almost always equidistant or at least in a contested location between both sides.

However, what the Objectives are creating is local zones of importance in an otherwise featureless battle space. We have random nebula and asteroids but their impact on actual battle is practically non-existent (nebula used to have slow down but that was removed). I think it would spice up gameplay if more was going on in/around the Objectives. Perhaps an Objective is encased in a large asteroid or shield with a modest HP pool so that a lone Frigate couldn't capture it right away. Perhaps Objectives have drone defenses initially or minefields. I know the AI being able to deal with these hazards is a core issue in all of this but I still contend that the battle space needs more variable terrain.

Likewise, I think "rare" Objectives that provide some sort of buff/debuff on some maps could keep things fresh. This could be random, mission-generated, or even player-controlled. If there were rare, spendable, inventory items that can be deployed as Objectives but only take effect when captured in-battle. It's a risk, though, because the enemy fleet might get it before you do. Or, it could be a Story Point thing so that it doesn't feel quite so bad if works out against you. These would be high-priority targets and worth fighting over.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #4 on: August 21, 2020, 03:48:49 PM »

It doesn't affect autoresolve, no.

Yeah the random position of objectives wasn't super important before, but I guess it could get annoying now. It could very well become a reason to reload a save in tough battles.

I was half-wondering about this myself, yeah.

My feeling/hope is that...
If the random placement really is the deciding factor in an otherwise close battle, I think that will be an edge case rather than the rule.

... this would hold true.

I think where they could be re-tooled so that the ones that are closer to one side or the other are Nav Buoys or Sensor Arrays (i.e. smaller bonus) and the Comm Relays are almost always equidistant or at least in a contested location between both sides.

But that might be worth a look; let me make a note. That's really the big outlier - if you end up with a couple of comm relays up close, that changes things a lot.

I did tweak objective placement somewhat already, btw, so that it's more interesting (e.g. the "three in a line close together in the middle" placement really wasn't, that sort of thing).
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #5 on: August 21, 2020, 04:59:15 PM »

The worst one is two on the left and one on the right because that was the AI breaker one.  Rally at the one on the right and enemy mostly camps on the two on the left.  Enemy sends a trickle of ships to capture yours on the right.  Just kill the trickle of ships that slowly flow to the right one at a time.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #6 on: August 21, 2020, 05:03:25 PM »

Right, yeah. That shouldn't happen anymore, regardless. Are you sure that it still happens in this release? I'm not 100% when on when I fixed it but thought it was a while ago.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12118
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #7 on: August 21, 2020, 05:12:20 PM »

Right, yeah. That shouldn't happen anymore, regardless. Are you sure that it still happens in this release? I'm not 100% when on when I fixed it but thought it was a while ago.
No idea.  Ever since the 0.8a skill revamp, I mostly ignored objectives.  Not to mention that fights against Ordos do not have them.

But before 0.8a, I totally abused that "two-left-and-one-right" map in hard fights.
Logged

pedro1_1

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #8 on: August 21, 2020, 05:37:52 PM »

Right, yeah. That shouldn't happen anymore, regardless. Are you sure that it still happens in this release? I'm not 100% when on when I fixed it but thought it was a while ago.
No idea.  Ever since the 0.8a skill revamp, I mostly ignored objectives.  Not to mention that fights against Ordos do not have them.

But before 0.8a, I totally abused that "two-left-and-one-right" map in hard fights.

 I can say it still happens from time to time, but I see more Xs, squares, horizontal lines and random point placement maps than those
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2020, 05:45:49 PM »

Ah - what I meant wasn't the objective layout not happening, but rather the "enemy AI consistently trickling stuff in" behavior.
Logged

Cyan Leader

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 718
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2020, 06:05:38 PM »

To add some perspective, the mod Secrets of the Frontier added some different types of capture points, with the most important one being one that gave Remnant reinforcements. That point ended up being crucial to some battles, and I did reload some of them when at the start 2-3 of them spawned next to the enemy while having none for my side. So yeah, reloads could become a problem.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23988
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2020, 06:28:34 PM »

Thank you for the added info! Hmm. This does sound like a bit of a more extreme case than what would happen here. In particular the enemy wouldn't get much help from even this unlucky kind of spawn if they already had an edge; at worst it'd more or less even out. Still...

(Edit: in any case, just made it so that the comm relay distribution is always reasonably fair.)
« Last Edit: August 21, 2020, 06:38:17 PM by Alex »
Logged

pedro1_1

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2020, 09:06:40 PM »

Ah - what I meant wasn't the objective layout not happening, but rather the "enemy AI consistently trickling stuff in" behavior.
As for the behavior, it now works as a wave, like first frigates, then destroyers, Etc, so even after the behavior change, but you can still chease the AI using the map and concentrated fire, just not as simple as it used to be
Logged

majorfreak

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2020, 06:08:25 PM »

perfect. a nerf to those who corner hug (guilty as charged)...not to mention field an absurd amount of officers while preventing the AI from fielding more than 3. hehe.

Logged

Tartiflette

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3529
  • MagicLab discord: https://discord.gg/EVQZaD3naU
    • View Profile
Re: 0.10a battle objectives change
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2020, 02:56:38 PM »

Speaking of which, since I'm facing some infuriating situation related to objectives I should ask: With objectives being that much more important, will AI ships with a capture order actually capture the point instead of floating outside the capture range if there is an enemy around?
Because stuff like this is just... (it's been 5 min since I issued that order)
Logged
 
Pages: [1] 2