EternaVerse
The Forum

NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Post all mobile phone suggestions here.

NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Postby Eterna » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:53 pm

Combat Engine Theory

THESE ARE THEORIES ONLY - JUST BOUNCING IDEAS AROUND.

Problems to solve:
1. Ships are calculated as blocks -
i.e. 1000 Light Fighters vs 1000 Light Fighters = 1 BIG LF vs 1 BIG LF
2. Shields do not take damage properly -
i.e. currently “patched” but display is incorrect, it is showing total damage absorbed as total damage taken
3. Armour is calculated as the cost of the metal and crystal = armour. This makes it so costs can’t be changed without drastically changing the ship itself. Let’s make it a static value in vars
4. RapidFire doesn’t work correctly.
5. How it targets each ship is unknown.

Most important features desired:
1. Clear way to control targeting.
2. Shields take incremental damage - if in first round the shields of 1000 takes 400 points in damage, in the second round the shields should be 600 (1000 - 400).
3. Implementation of some form of random and deliberate targetting like this example.
https://github.com/shoghicp/UGaBattle/b ... Battle.php
4. Weapon types cause different types of damage -
i.e. Plasma weapons cause splash damage
Laser weapons cause equal damage to shields and armour
Ion weapons cause higher damage to shields but less to armour
5. Tactics? Perhaps change how ships act based off their position?
i.e. Tactical choice is to have fighters in front, cruisers in middle, battleships in back - the
battleships get a attack points penalty, the cruisers have no change, and the fighters take
more damage in the first round but cause more in the second.
6. Spread of ships gets a separate calculation each
i.e. Light Fighters are best against X ship, they target X ship with ½ their number,
Battleships are best against X ship, so they target X ship with ½ their number.
7. When ships are destroyed, they cause slight damage to remaining ships at the end of
each round.
8. Combat takes TIME - each round adds time to the “hold time” done at the end of combat (ships are not attackable nor can they be recalled)
i.e. Done in 1 Round - 3 minutes
Done in 2 Rounds - 8 minutes
Done in 3 Rounds - 11 minutes
Done in 4 Rounds - 15 minutes
Done in 5 Rounds - 18 minutes
Done in 6 Rounds - 20 minutes total time spent in hold
Hold defined as time added to the return time - if travel to combat is 5 minutes, combat is over in 2 rounds so a total of 13 minutes are required to return home.


Solution theory #1:

New Technology - Fleet Control
Affects in any single attack, acs attack, and acs defense - each level allows X amount of population to be sent in battle.

i.e. Level 1 is 391 population @ factor of 1.5
Level 2 is 586
Level 3 is 880
Level10 = 15,036 population
Level 30 = 5,000,000 population

Light Fighters for example.. 2 population each. Level 30 means only 2,500,000 ships.
Battleships take 400 - so only 125,000 could be used.

Tech explained as: The Fleet Control Research is the only means to maintain contact with fleets during war maneuvers - only through this technology can you maintain faster than light communications.

Solution theory #2

New Orbital Defense - Unarmed - Fleet Control Orbiter & Fleet Control Tower?
Affects in any single attack, acs attack, and acs defense - each one allows X amount of population to be sent in battle.

Must have a hard cap of 30 allowed - if attempts to build more than that a message needs to be sent to the user, and only able to be built on one planet at a time - perhaps by requiring a building that can only be built on one planet?

i.e. 1 FCO allows 391 population @ factor of 1.5
2 FCO allows 586
10 allows 15,036
30 allows 5,000,000

Orbital explained as being the only way to get a signal through your atmosphere, long range scouts being too unreliable so all warfare functions are controlled by the computer in the Tower?

Destroying the orbiters means no attacks can be made till they are rebuilt.



Please feel free to comment or suggest anything else. Naturally, any limitation put on total size of attack fleets would result in a change in defenses too
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Postby Eterna » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:20 pm

One thing to consider - the two solution theories take several key changes to be viable.

1. Remember, you can ACS yourself - The limitation is only on any single fleet. You may send double the fleet limit in an ACS attack with two fleets.
2. Defenses would have some form of limitation as well - perhaps standing population?
i.e. You probe a target and see they have 2 million population on hand - there are 2.000.000 light lasers on the planet, but at 4 population per.. you know that only 500,000 light lasers will be called into action.
To counter this, a new strategy comes into play - population moved from one planet to another greatly increases the defenders power. To further weaken the defenses, the attacker can resort to missiles which destroy a random amount of population. *brings up an old topic, biological missiles that target and kill more population*
To defend against this, a new defense or building? - shelters - they protect population.
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Postby lust » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:32 pm

i like solution 1 personally you can make the tech affect both ships and defences, i dont think there should be a cap it just becomes exponentially more expensive to get a bigger fleet/defences. i could also see making this into an officer where each officer has a base cost that allows you to use that much population in battle. we could call them "captains" , for example sense we will say a captain cost 100 dm and allows you to take 1000 more population into battle, this leaves an element of surprise cause it doesnt effect points and also people can bluff with alot of defences and not have the captains to back it.
User avatar
lust
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:28 am

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Postby Eterna » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:49 pm

good idea on the captains - excellent in fact ;) - and re: the cap, the cost of the tech will be the cap - the limit would be level 255 (as with all the other techs)

can probably say we would create a temporary bonus as well
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Postby Bruin22 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:51 pm

255? or 25?
Image
User avatar
Bruin22
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 7:36 pm
Location: Here, there, and no where

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Postby lust » Tue Sep 11, 2012 5:58 pm

the one thing im worried about is if we make there so many requirements to fleet and such itll slow the game down which can be bad, the more activity the more players you will have
User avatar
lust
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:28 am

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Postby Eterna » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:27 pm

255.

please refer to number 1. Remember, you can ACS yourself.

the idea is not to make the game slower, but make it so the action actually increases. Think of it this way, you have to send a battlegroup instead of a mass amount of ships in one big block.

Now, the ONLY reason why any mention of a cap is brought up is due to one problem.
It's a significant one.

Once you start doing math in the gazillions.. even the fast server we're on will lag and slow if this is occurring all day (when there are thousands of users) plus on top of that.. the math becomes erroneous with significant delays, resulting in some major problems - some of which we see in fleets doubling or just plain disappearing.

To bring the math down, and keep the game enjoyable, there has to be a significant change.
I also think players are used to the idea of huge fleets... and that brings up another point - don't take the CURRENT population requirements into account, a lot of ships will have to have changes.

One final thing - how does this affect moon destruction missions?

Might end up being part of the solution to how to find the right calculations..but I digress.
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Postby AvatarAcid » Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:03 am

It should be noted, there is another thread which closely relates to this one. Ideas eoS has put forth which should be considered before you read this and before the Combat Engine on the EV Road Map.

Please read this post:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1382
AvatarAcid
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:44 pm

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Postby Eterna » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:03 pm

Thank you Av - that is definitely tied to this discussion.

also, there have been additional ideas put forward that cause a real change.

1. Separating Alliance War combat completely - have it so that players can commit forces as a whole and combat what the opposing alliance can put forward - i.e. every alliance A member puts in 100 BS, 30 members total - so 3000 BS are commited. alliance B then puts in 150 BS, 30 members total.. you end up with 4500 BS attacking the 3000 BS. Perhaps a display of "estimated" force or "success chance" will show as each alliance member commits ships. The "War" would be announced with a set deadline, giving each alliance time to prepare.

2. Have Combat affect a "threat indicator" where the more aggressive a player is in each system... the higher the chance of a random attack by an NPC. (yes, this idea has been under work for a long time) Only by spreading attacks across multiple systems can players avoid the random attack, but some may choose to use it to their advantage ;)
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

Postby littlee » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:58 pm

This might solve some problems: PLAYERS CAN CONTOL: whether their fleets are aggressive (+50% to weapons -60% to shields and -40% to armor) normal (no changes) or cautions ( -50% weapons +70% weapons and armor) when attacking, and when defending they can control whether their defensive systems are going to hit the biggest amount of X ship ( say 100 lf 300 BS and 1 avatar come knocking on your door. With this option you can choose to blow up all the BS then all the lf then the avatar) or to target the weakest ship( blowing up a lf over a BS) or target the strongest (blowing up that avatar before the lf or BS). And then we could have something to control when to retreat (this I think would be loved by everyone! I mean who hates getting ninja'd and losing their entire fleet in one attack) this option says that if you choose to retreat at 50% overall forces then once half your fleet is gone then your high tailing it outta there. But I think there should be an option that says retreat when 50% of BS gets destroyed. This saves your heavy hitters from going boom and your fleet coming home with lfs and hfs.If you put all this in then it balences very well (played another game with these idea in the game and it balanced pretty well( only time someone got to use that to their advantage is when millions of ships go after someone who has like 300k defenses. And their defenses are set on most amount of x ship.)
littlee
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:22 pm
Location: Usa

Next

Return to Mobile Suggestions

  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron