Page 2 of 3

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:27 pm
by Eterna
that is indeed one of the end-goals, but it may end up being pushed back till it can be done properly.

quote: 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.

very good input though, that is the sort of thing we like to see - this discussion is to field any possible ideas.
I consider this a very good one, it will be considered

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:03 pm
by ace2k
Hello everyone, I am new here but very excited by what I am seeing. A couple of things I have thought of are:

Blockade a planet- Another option instead of attacking. Sending a blockade force to a planet could reduce research output, low orbit ship yard production and transport to and from the blockaded planet. This tactic could be used on a player with multiple planets to draw a fleet off a heavy protected planet X to counter the blockade on planet Y therby reducing defenses of planet X and leaving an oportunity for attack. Holding a blockade would be expensive in resources so would be a costly option. Modifying options could include how long the blockade is to be held. Where the focus of the blockade is orientated. If the blockade wants to focus on the planet, they would have an increase in defence on attacks from the planet but a reduction in defence on attacks from an incomming rescue fleet. If the blockade wants to guard against incoming rescue fleets, then they would have the reverse modifyer. To implement a blockade you would have to choose how long with a minimum time that could allow a player to know fleet size and send reinforcements or counter in some way. This might allow an offset for modifyer bonus on a blockade instead of an attack.

Planetery defense- I like the idea of a population to weapon ratio. What about an option to make the weapons "hot"? A QRF (quick response force) on stand-by, adjustable from 0%-100% of availabe weapon systems. Having your weapons locked, loaded, manned and ready to rock should give you an advantage in defense. Pros, this option can be turned on or off and would heighten defenses if attacked. Cons, a man working a rocket launcher can't be doing research or anything else at that time and production/research speed would be reduced. It is costly to have a man stand at ready thus resources would be taxed in addition to reduced output of research/production. NOTE: only effective if activated before battle begins. Otherwise it is a regular fight.

I hope this was the right place to post this.

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:21 pm
by Bruin22
different parts of your post are appropriate, however the sugggestion goes into the game suggestions forum so that it can be reviewed by the community. ill excise the necesary part and put them where they belong.

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:34 pm
by Eterna
Both good points to bring up, and while this isn't exactly the best point to bring it up, it is a good place to bring up suggestions.
@Bruin - if you can cut the paragraphs down, then do a URL link saying "Read More..." directed to the post then it would fit in nicely.

To any others who wish to suggest new components, new strategies, and new ideas on how to actually "battle" then please - post a summary of the idea here but post in the Suggestions box as well - then we can continue on specifics here while extrapolating more on other ideas within separate threads - easier to keep on topic that way.

This also means ANY old suggestions related to combat that were even moved the archives can also be brought up.

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:05 am
by carninesix
Hello, and I know I join this topic late.

I have been looking at two options for changing battle calculations other than getting into the ship specs as such.

1 - Battle planning. Ships go into battle one type at a time basically. Fighters/small units move in at high speed a strafe. Medium units then roll in and clear a path for the large/capitol units. The battle continues until a set of conditions is met.

a - one player has no units left.
b - the attacker withdraws, but the defender can still attack. This means battles would happen in real time so the attacker can withdraw. Once the attacker withdraws he no longer fires upon the defender but the defender can fire upon the retreating attacker at minimal losses. Bigger ships need more time to withdraw than smaller ones, but the fleets stay together. So the withdrawal time would be 200% of the attack time before withdrawal.

2 - Targeted strikes. In this idea, similar to some posted before the attacker uses some or all of a fleet to target a particular subsystem or type of ship.

a - Subsystems are weapons, engines or shields. So the attacker can send a fleet to try and disable one particular subsystem. The defender will also have this option even though they may not be online at the time of the attack. So the attacker would target weapons/shields and the defender would target engines typically.
b - Ships come in with some strengths and some weakness. An attacker may want to send in a wave of ships to target another type of ship or planetary defense directly. The defender would also have a similar option too, but would not always need to use it, as the attacker would be attacked by all ships in the defenders fleet and or planetary defenses not just the ones they attack.

These ideas reflect more on real world as they have been used in the past.

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:42 pm
by Eterna
Only a few problems in this theory that I see.

Battle planning withdraws - what would trigger this? Since battles are not "live" they wouldn't be recalled by the player - are you saying they get to a certain point then sit and get hit a few more times?

Targeted strikes - what would be the effect? Subsystems meaning weapons or engines - would this be only for the battle or for a set period of time?

What about attrition? What if another player attacks at the same time, or shortly afterwards?

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

PostPosted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:41 pm
by carninesix
Eterna wrote:Battle planning withdraws - what would trigger this? Since battles are not "live" they wouldn't be recalled by the player - are you saying they get to a certain point then sit and get hit a few more times?

Make battle semi live if the attacker wants too. Give the player two options for a battle.

1 - full auto, with this option they get a normal/better strike rate by a few points as no further communications would be needed.
2 - semi auto, with this option the attacker gets a message after each wave with a "YES or NO" answer to continue the attack. Penalty for this option is the defender gets a bonus on defense as their fleet controllers have more time mobilize/organize.

Eterna wrote:Targeted strikes - what would be the effect? Subsystems meaning weapons or engines - would this be only for the battle or for a set period of time?


Attacker, each wave gets its own orders, options predefined when battle started.
Defenders bonus, the fleet that attacks them loses which ever subsystem or percentage thereof is targeted for 24 hours. This gives the attacker or others the change to go after the attackers fleet, repairs are only carried out when fleet is stationary.

Eterna wrote:What about attrition? What if another player attacks at the same time, or shortly afterwards?


Same time, friendly fire could come in to play, the more attackers the more friendly fire. Also the attackers should have a slight disadvantage. Inter fleet communications means they would have been detected earlier by the defenders fleet commanders, thus giving them a chance to strike first even though they are defending.
Shortly afterwards ( time span to be decided ), the defenders fleet would already be battle ready so they would get a bonus for that.

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:07 am
by Eterna
To make the combat "live" would require that all users install a program or client - a web interface would require too much resources, not to mention fall very short on expectations, for it to be a viable way for live direct control combat.
It COULD be possible to do this, but the max cap on the number of users, active fleets, etc would be drastically affected.
Don't get me wrong - it's a great goal to have, it's just beyond what is possible right now. It would require more money, resources, and talent that we simply don't have at this time.

Targeted strikes - this is something within our means. Something very similar is planned for the next revision of the combat engine. The only problem is how the scripts currently run - too many references, database checks, etc and it slows down the calculation quite a bit. This wouldn't be something that would last beyond the battle though, it simply wouldn't work. Each ship is only stored as a digit in the planet details within the database - to try and retain effects from even one battle would multiply the size of the database 100 fold, this would slow down the server astronomically...even crash it.
Our idea on the way targeted strikes would work is that it would be a random result of the first round, the second round onwards would work with the effects of the first round. This randomization would be reduced by a tech and an officer - to a certain degree... the randomization would have a max cap to keep things fair: i.e. no more than 90% could be wiped out.
There would be an additional % for the defender to restore their ships - repair or restart functions - this chance would also be affected by a tech and an officer. That way each round after the first one allows the defender to try and recoup losses automatically.
i.e. attacker reduces 40% of defender's ships weapons in round 1, defender restores 20% of affected ships in round 2, then restores 20% more in round 3, so on.

Attrition.
There's one concept that is unspoken. It is not explained, it is merely assumed that people would ALSO assume the same.
Time is very different in The Outer Rings - consider 1 minute an entire day (or more, this is an estimate only - the 3D galaxy gives an approximate idea by showing the orbital time). The Frontier is even faster. EV as a whole is faster than most, and that's actually an issue with a few people - the next Galaxy will have a reduced speed!
To have effects lasting an hour.. we're talking 60 days of ships being out of commission.
In wartime that would be debilitating to the extreme.

To keep strain off the server and keep the speed up for all users, it's best to just keep the effects, damage, losses, and repair time as part of the actual combat mission. The only way to make this sort of concept work the way you describe would be to severely reduce the number of ships a user could have - defeating the purpose of having a massive scale battle engine... In a game where individual units took damage you would see less than 100 units - take starcraft for example.. If done in a client it makes the users machine set the limit of units by limiting RAM (memory) and CPU (processing power). If done on the server...our max cap of users goes from 150-250K down to 1500-2500.. the difference is quite frightening.

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:45 am
by carninesix
Eterna wrote:To make the combat "live" would require that all users install a program or client - a web interface would require too much resources, not to mention fall very short on expectations, for it to be a viable way for live direct control combat.
It COULD be possible to do this, but the max cap on the number of users, active fleets, etc would be drastically affected.
Don't get me wrong - it's a great goal to have, it's just beyond what is possible right now. It would require more money, resources, and talent that we simply don't have at this time.

I am not talking "live" in the real sense, more of a battle that has 2 distinct phases. The attacker would receive a battle report after the first wave as they would normally do, but included in it would be two buttons. 1 - retreat, 2 - continue. Failure too press either would result in an automatic continue. The retreat button would only work for 5 mins.

Eterna wrote:Targeted strikes - this is something within our means. Something very similar is planned for the next revision of the combat engine. The only problem is how the scripts currently run - too many references, database checks, etc and it slows down the calculation quite a bit. This wouldn't be something that would last beyond the battle though, it simply wouldn't work. Each ship is only stored as a digit in the planet details within the database - to try and retain effects from even one battle would multiply the size of the database 100 fold, this would slow down the server astronomically...even crash it.
Our idea on the way targeted strikes would work is that it would be a random result of the first round, the second round onwards would work with the effects of the first round. This randomization would be reduced by a tech and an officer - to a certain degree... the randomization would have a max cap to keep things fair: i.e. no more than 90% could be wiped out.
There would be an additional % for the defender to restore their ships - repair or restart functions - this chance would also be affected by a tech and an officer. That way each round after the first one allows the defender to try and recoup losses automatically.
i.e. attacker reduces 40% of defender's ships weapons in round 1, defender restores 20% of affected ships in round 2, then restores 20% more in round 3, so on.

I would not even consider a ship by ship method, more of class by class method. So all ships a one type would be effected at the same time, even limit it to particular technologies. So you could just target Hyper Drives.
Eterna wrote:Attrition.
There's one concept that is unspoken. It is not explained, it is merely assumed that people would ALSO assume the same.
Time is very different in The Outer Rings - consider 1 minute an entire day (or more, this is an estimate only - the 3D galaxy gives an approximate idea by showing the orbital time). The Frontier is even faster. EV as a whole is faster than most, and that's actually an issue with a few people - the next Galaxy will have a reduced speed!
To have effects lasting an hour.. we're talking 60 days of ships being out of commission.
In wartime that would be debilitating to the extreme.

OK, I'll give you that one :P

Eterna wrote:To keep strain off the server and keep the speed up for all users, it's best to just keep the effects, damage, losses, and repair time as part of the actual combat mission. The only way to make this sort of concept work the way you describe would be to severely reduce the number of ships a user could have - defeating the purpose of having a massive scale battle engine... In a game where individual units took damage you would see less than 100 units - take starcraft for example.. If done in a client it makes the users machine set the limit of units by limiting RAM (memory) and CPU (processing power). If done on the server...our max cap of users goes from 150-250K down to 1500-2500.. the difference is quite frightening.

As above, class/tech by class/tech rather than ship by ship.

Re: NEW Discussion of Combat Engine

PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:12 pm
by Eterna
Ok that makes a bit more sense - I'll re-read through it again and see what might be viable for the planned engine.

About the split combat, I'm not sure how much it would be used or how advantageous it would be. I'd like others in the community to add their 2 cents too!