Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6

Author Topic: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?  (Read 2933 times)

Mondaymonkey

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
    • View Profile
Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« on: August 22, 2020, 12:06:08 PM »

I will not spent time to point the problem, as it well-known.

Suggestion: maximal amount of additional vents/caps is tied to percentage of filled mounts. Like, if you outfit capital ship, that have only 40% of mounts filled, you can not have more than 50*0.4=20 caps/vents (60*0.4=24 for LD3 skill). Bigger mounts contribute to total "mounts fill value" more than smaller.

Justification: it is looks like flux distribution isn't easy thing (lore, descriptions, etc), so it is should be significantly easier to dissipate/accumulate generated flux, if vents/caps are located closer to source. Hulls are probably designed in a way, that some vents/caps batteries are dedicated to serve specific mounts, they are close to, and using them for other mounts will lead to decreasing their general efficiency.

Obvious contras: That concept also requires some low-OP solutions to fill mounts of all sizes and types, to be present in game.

P.S. Yes, I am drunk again! ;D
Logged
I dislike human beings... or I just do not know how to cook them well.

Ced Riggs

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2020, 01:35:01 PM »

What if... empty sockets come with [Mining Laser equivalent of type/size] and you can only "upgrade" these stock weapons? I'm not thinking far ahead here.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 17422
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2020, 01:47:47 PM »

Hmm. I feel like this is assuming that "having weapons in all slots" is a good thing regardless of *why* there are weapons in all slots. I don't think that holds up - having weapons in all slots is good if you, well, want the weapons that are there and mean to use them.

Just having some random stuff there - or the cheapest possible, to be able to max out vents - or some other idea (say, not having weapons in a slot reduces armor, or w/e)... I think that'd just make a loadout feel messy, because you're putting weapons in for some reason other than actually wanting the weapons. "Put the weapons in a separate group and never fire them" could become a thing, etc.

I'm not entirely sold on the premise that "always have weapons in all slots" is good. If that were a goal, though, then I think the solution would probably involve increasing ship flux budgets (which could be troublesome to iron out balance-wise) and/or adding some very low-end, low-flux options for ... probably small and medium ballistic/energy slots. Though even if these cost 1-2 OP and generated no flux, it might be a hard sell in a lot of cases.

It seems like there is also some potential in somehow making burst damage potential "better" (which would make an over-fluxed loadout more desirable), but I haven't really thought that through, so that's mostly theoretical...
Logged

huhn

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2020, 03:12:48 PM »

the real "issue" i see with ship layout is vents in general. except for carrier and none combat ships vents are pretty much always maxed there are always exceptions and i don't think this needs fixing.

over flux layout are done all the time like 4 anti matter blaster on a doom or 4 tachyon paragon which just burst very high and usually use more flux then the vents can handle. what ever that's worth i see that burst dmg in player hand is already very valuable.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2020, 03:32:37 PM »

It would also be a huge AI burden for player fit ships since only the player ship could maximally fit all slots in order to maximize dissipation. This because the AI will fire those weapons and the player can ignore them.

As a “solution” I would far prefer utility equipment that fit into slots than I would forcing people to fit weapons. You would still have some of the same issues but with more choices (especially if they since they would compete with hull mods) you would be more likely to fit those slots.

An example of an item that could exist would be a shield projector. It would have HP/dissipation based on the mount type(and when overloaded would produce a strong EMP arc from that location) and would turn on to block incoming HE projectiles/missiles. You could even migrate some hull mods to slots as well. Aux thrusters could be direction specific and fit in a turret. I am not sure this is a good idea but I am pretty sure it’s better than the proposed idea

The easiest way to make overfluxing better is to make the AI better at using shields and weapons. In general ships with high armor and bad shields like to raise their shields to eat kinetic damage instead of tanking the kinetic damage. They do this until they’re high on flux and then they start armor taking.

This makes a lot of sense as a base logic for all ships* but it’s bad for heavy armor tankers. I went over this a bit in the onslaught thread but to reiterate an example. One of the easiest ways to win an onslaught 1v1 in the simulator is to just... not put your shields up. Every flux of kinetic damage to spend into its shields is twice the flux back you don’t take into armor. And so they get capped before you do and you get to overflux into their armor while they get to standard flux into your armor. (Provides your guns don’t shut off first!).

Including logic that lets your ships say “oh yes I can trade armor to flux dump on this target” will make flux dumping more efficient. Introducing logic that prevents a ship from overfluxing inefficiently into enemy shields will make this better as well.

Let’s think about what this logic might look like. (And please excuse anything that looks like specific code as I do not)

If (is target shooting at me = false) and (is target shield up = false ) then flux dump
If (is target shield up = true) then “fire weapon” if (shield dmg*target shield efficiency / flux weapon > current reserve capacity ratio) or [(sum (weapon flux) < dissipation) and (shield dmg/flux > other non-firing weapons)]
If (capacity > threshold) and (target shield up = false) then fire weapon if [(sum (weapon flux) < dissipation) and (armor dmg/flux > other non firing weapons) (and duplicate for shields up with high capacity)

If(projectile in air dmg vs armor dr> hard chosen value) or (armor < threshold percentage) and (flux capacity < threshold) then raise shields.

This isn’t perfect (it will cycle shields on/off in a fight as enemies stop shooting inefficient weapons which makes it easy to sneak in weapons like tachyon lances et al especially against front shield ships) but should be far better than current management which runs cap up by dumping inefficiently into shields and by shield tanking almost all damage always.  The AI would dump when enemies are vulnerable, would fire the more efficient weapons first in any situation and would attempt to armor tank when enemies were not shooting high armor damaging weapons.

*because it’s ideal for most ships, including almost all destroyer and smaller and most times a ship is outgunned but outmaneuvers their opponents. However the AI definitely does not flux dump effectively.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4260
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #5 on: August 22, 2020, 03:40:05 PM »

Iirc, one of the things contributing to the value of vents over capacitators is their utility during overload.
More vents decrease the amount of flux you will have after an overload (and the overload duration?), while caps increase it.

Maybe that should be reversed? If more vents were bad during an overload and more caps good, that would expand caps role as the safe, conservative alternative to even more daring, risky vents.

Iore-wise we could imagine that an overload means uncontrolled venting into the interior of the ship ( more vents mean more uncontrolled venting), while more capacitors are better able to absorb that chaotic venting.


Logged
Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #6 on: August 22, 2020, 03:53:26 PM »

Eh. Caps over vents doesn’t seem to be an issue. More caps are always good and people inefficiently choose to not fit caps in many situations.

Think about your ships total damage over a fight where it doesnt overflux. It will be DPS * health/enemy DPS.

A percentage increase in DPS is exactly equal to a percentage increase in health. And given that guns often shut off for many ships once you’re out of flux and taking armor damage... the better option of cap or vent is whichever provides the higher percentage increase.

Like, everyone takes hardened shields but on a number of ships slamming caps is more efficient
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #7 on: August 22, 2020, 04:03:51 PM »

Hmm. I feel like this is assuming that "having weapons in all slots" is a good thing regardless of *why* there are weapons in all slots.
Because filling up mounts with guns on ships looks good.  On the other hand, mostly unarmed ships look ugly, and it feels like an insult when such loadouts are more effective than one loaded with guns.  It is certainly non-intuitive.

Unarmed Drover and Astral with high-end fighters work good, but looks stupid!

If I do not use (Sabot) missiles on Aurora, loadout is two heavy blasters and maybe some pd beams, rest of OP into flux and shields.  Can win flux wars against other cruisers instead of losing by stalemate then PPT timeout because of insufficient flux trade advantage.  Looks incredibly stupid.

Odyssey with two plasma cannons, two good fighters, and little else is a good build for the playership (has flux and shields to outgun just about anything); AI suicides with plasma drive, but beside the point.  All those empty mounts, incredible eyesore.  On the other hand, if I fill all the mounts and attempt double plasma, my Odyssey loses the slugfest against an enemy battleship due to poor stats.

I want to put big high-end guns on Onslaught like I can on Conquest, but that does not work, at least not since 0.8a.  Instead, I need to be content with either SO-like loadout of HMG/chainguns (the Lucky build), or lots of needlers and missiles because dissipation is atrocious - yuck!

Mounts are meant to be filled with guns, not sacked for bonus OP, and it is a crying shame the game encourages that latter.   The bonus OP excuse for mounts seems like a terrible cop-out.  It was not that way with high-powered skills before v0.8a allowed most ships to fill every mount and kill things like they should.

(Related, in Diablo 2, I did not like helms like Vampire Gaze or Harlequin Crest [infamously called 'Shako'] on characters because they made them look hideously ugly, even if they were among the best items for various characters.)
« Last Edit: August 22, 2020, 04:06:10 PM by Megas »
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4260
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #8 on: August 22, 2020, 04:27:30 PM »

I kinda like the look of some empty mounts, now that they have covers.

[total damage over a fight] = DPS * health/enemy DPS

That "health" variable is quite the oversimplifcation of positioning, dodging, tactics, shield management...well, most of the combat gameplay, really.
Logged
Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4260
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #9 on: August 22, 2020, 04:40:04 PM »

Haha, maybe there could also be some 1-op fake weapons (with almost identical sprites) that the ai reacts to (with keeping distance, estimating damage potential etc) for the first 30-90 seconds of a fight. You know:

Spoiler
[close]
Logged
Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

SafariJohn

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1835
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #10 on: August 22, 2020, 04:40:47 PM »

I agree with Megas, it looks sad when a slot is left empty. Covers help, but only so much.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #11 on: August 22, 2020, 04:43:52 PM »

I kinda like the look of some empty mounts, now that they have covers.

[total damage over a fight] = DPS * health/enemy DPS

That "health" variable is quite the oversimplifcation of positioning, dodging, tactics, shield management...well, most of the combat gameplay, really.

No. Its not. Well it is, it just doesn't matter. Because positioning, dodging, tactics, shield management et all.. are all static on hull choice and so not determined by whether or not you shift some vents to caps or caps to vents. Which is to say [total damage over a fight] = (DPS * health/enemy DPS ) *Constant + Constant. Such that d(total dmg)/d(dps) is not dependent on them and so we don't actually care when choosing how to optimize caps and vents. They do not matter
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #12 on: August 22, 2020, 04:52:33 PM »

I do not mind few mounts empty.  Something like Conquest with few of the more useless mounts (like medium energy) empty?  Okay, fine.  Onslaught that leaves small mounts empty because they lack the range of bigger guns?  Fine.  But a ship (like carrier or non-Sabot Aurora) that needs to leave most mounts empty just to fight competently with the one or two main guns they need to use, and fight better than the same ship type that mounted lots of guns instead?  Not cool!

As for Hardened Shields, I like it more than more caps because venting is faster.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 17422
    • View Profile
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #13 on: August 22, 2020, 05:34:20 PM »

Because positioning, dodging, tactics, shield management et all ... and so we don't actually care when choosing how to optimize caps and vents. They do not matter

Well, that's not actually true, is it? See: phase ships and capacitors being comparatively a much better choice on them than on other ships, due to their ability to maneuver in and out, making high alpha strikes (and thus caps) more effective. Any ship that can choose the engagement can benefit more from capacitors over vents, with phase ships being the most extreme example (and, granted, they also need extra flux capacity to close in effectively, but that's not the only reason caps are good on them.)

Iirc, one of the things contributing to the value of vents over capacitators is their utility during overload.
More vents decrease the amount of flux you will have after an overload (and the overload duration?), while caps increase it.

Maybe that should be reversed? If more vents were bad during an overload and more caps good, that would expand caps role as the safe, conservative alternative to even more daring, risky vents.

Iore-wise we could imagine that an overload means uncontrolled venting into the interior of the ship ( more vents mean more uncontrolled venting), while more capacitors are better able to absorb that chaotic venting.

Hmm. So this is developing the idea of making overfluxed loadouts / alpha strikes more potent, right? That is, making caps better goes ... somewhat hand-in-hand with making overfluxed loadouts better. Not precisely, but still.

Thing is, I don't think that improving essentially a failure case ("oops, overloaded, 50% chance you're about to be deleted by some Harpoons anyway") is going to be a super effective way to go here. It feels like it'd need to improve something the player wants to do, not something they would avoid almost entirely with perfect play. Hmm.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4854
  • Quantum Mechanic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Possible "Empty mounts spam" solution?
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2020, 05:46:25 PM »

I don't think there is an inherent reason why a ship "should" use all its slots and the idea of putting on less guns in order to have more of other systems should be familiar to anyone thats played games with a resource tradeoff system. This is usually sci-fi/military fantasy games and notably not fantasy RPGs, where players are encouraged to fill every slot as a rule as there are usually no tradeoffs involved.

I usually use most slots because ships in my experience perform "better" with the slots used, but there are some exceptions, especially when I want to do a particular weapon combo in the other mounts that is flux hungry. For example, if on an Eagle I really want 2 Ion Beams for really high EMP lockdown, I'll need to leave some slots empty for better vent/cap stats.

"Better" of course is my personal definition to get the ships to do what I want, and someone else might have a different definition: according to my definition of "better" I will almost never install Reinforced Bulkheads as I see it as a straight OP waste on all but the most valuable ships that sometimes go POP, like Omens. I also as a rule want to be overfluxed by about 25-50% on my guns, and if for some reason my guns aren't overfluxed by that much I'll shift vents into caps, because I think the vents are wasted. Other people probably disagree with both of those. :D

(Also the medium energy on the Conquest are useful on some builds: for snipe/missile build a single Ion Beam on the Gauss side is good. For brawling build or a player Torpedo build a pair of Heavy Blasters gives it good cruiser forward firepower. In the next version when the Heavy Burst PD isn't terrible I might use it for PD and leave the small energies blank, we'll see. I do leave them empty sometimes, depending on what main guns/missiles are available.)

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6