Author Topic: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion  (Read 11660 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sloanjh (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2011, 08:51:19 AM »
The point of armoring individual systems is to help prevent them from being killed by a shot that has just barely penetrated armor.  If you look at the example Steve gave, the quad turret went froma htk of 12 to 20.  If a 6 point laser got through armor then the chance of killing that turret goes from 1 in 3 to 3 in 13, or a drop of 10% from 33.3% to 23.1%.  In addition to this change if a heavier hit that exceeds the htk of the system gets through then the amount of damage that this 1 system absorbs goes from 12 to 20.  That big of a jump means that 1 - 2 other systems are not going to be damaged.  Overall the question becomes what is the difference between adding a couple of points of armor to the turret vs armoring the ship as a whole.  A lot depends on the specifics of the weapons being fired at you.  If it is mostly lasers, then having the extra internalls may be more important.  If is mesons then those extra internals are critical.  All of the rest have a broader damage pattern where the extra internals may mean less than having a couple of extra points of armor for the ship overall.

Brian

The other reason is to keep chained secondary explosions from going super-critical (in the nuclear bomb sense).

Let's say you've got 20x magazines on your ship, each of which has 1 HTK, a 20% chance of blowing up, and will do 20pts of damage if it does blow up.  The point is that the secondary explosion acts as negative HTK. If the magazine is hit it subtracts 1HTK from the total strength of the penetration, but has a 20% chance of adding 20pts, so on average it will add 3pts to the strength of the penetration (-1 + 0.20*20); it has an effective HTK of -3.  If another magazine is hit it too, on average, will add to the strength of the penetration and you end up with a good chance that all 20 magazines will go up in a chain reaction, destroying the ship (think "Hood").

If, on the other hand, the magazines are armored up to 5 HTK, then each one will have an effective HTK of 1 and secondaries are more likely to fizzle out.

John
 

Nabobalis

  • Guest
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2011, 09:00:34 AM »
Safe to assume this will be a database + exe patch?
 

Offline Charlie Beeler

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2011, 09:10:48 AM »
Safe to assume this will be a database + exe patch?

Since the version id is changing from 5.42 to 5.50 that is correct.
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline dooots

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • d
  • Posts: 129
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2011, 10:27:28 AM »
The other reason is to keep chained secondary explosions from going super-critical (in the nuclear bomb sense).

Let's say you've got 20x magazines on your ship, each of which has 1 HTK, a 20% chance of blowing up, and will do 20pts of damage if it does blow up.  The point is that the secondary explosion acts as negative HTK. If the magazine is hit it subtracts 1HTK from the total strength of the penetration, but has a 20% chance of adding 20pts, so on average it will add 3pts to the strength of the penetration (-1 + 0.20*20); it has an effective HTK of -3.  If another magazine is hit it too, on average, will add to the strength of the penetration and you end up with a good chance that all 20 magazines will go up in a chain reaction, destroying the ship (think "Hood").

If, on the other hand, the magazines are armored up to 5 HTK, then each one will have an effective HTK of 1 and secondaries are more likely to fizzle out.

John


To me this just says keep your magazines and power plants at 1 HS.  Anything bigger and you have to trade extra space to get the same effective HTK.  Hmm I wonder if this even gets better for larger magazines when you start adding armor.

Code: [Select]
HS HTK capacity cap/HTK
1  2   14       7        -- same effective HTK?
2  4   27       6.75
3  6   39       6.5
4  8   51       6.375
5  10  62       6.2
5  9   63       7        -- same effective HTK?
6  10  75       7.5
These were taken from a game with compressed carbon armor and base missile techs.

Is this better for the 1 HS magazine or worse?  If I understand what you were saying correctly a 5 HS magazine can get the same effective HTK for one less HTK but is that actually a good thing?  I really don't know what to make of this.

I'm not trying to say you are wrong or anything, its just when I read it the first thing that popped in my mind is smaller is better and I think I might be missing something as I'm not really sure what to think about the table above.
 

Offline sloanjh (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2011, 12:33:18 PM »
To me this just says keep your magazines and power plants at 1 HS.  Anything bigger and you have to trade extra space to get the same effective HTK.  Hmm I wonder if this even gets better for larger magazines when you start adding armor.
Everything I've seen says it's best to keep magazines at 1HS with current mechanics.  The problem I have is that I don't know the algorithm for calculating magazine explosion size - is it the number of warhead points stored?  The magazine size?  Something else?
Quote
Code: [Select]
HS HTK capacity cap/HTK
1  2   14       7        -- same effective HTK?
2  4   27       6.75
3  6   39       6.5
4  8   51       6.375
5  10  62       6.2
5  9   63       7        -- same effective HTK?
6  10  75       7.5
These were taken from a game with compressed carbon armor and base missile techs.

Is this better for the 1 HS magazine or worse?  If I understand what you were saying correctly a 5 HS magazine can get the same effective HTK for one less HTK but is that actually a good thing?  I really don't know what to make of this.

I'm not trying to say you are wrong or anything, its just when I read it the first thing that popped in my mind is smaller is better and I think I might be missing something as I'm not really sure what to think about the table above.

This is a GREAT table.  It took me a while to understand it, but your "same effective HTK" label is perfect.

Yes, those two magazines have the same effective HTK, because the HTK/HS are the same.  Since each HS should have the same chance of blowing up and do the same damage (assuming it's full and the algorithm cares), then the actual HTK/HS will be the same for both magazines.

The difference is that you need more magazines to get the same number of missiles with the 5/9 design.  So you're better off using 63*5 size-1 HTK2 magazines than 70 size-5 HTK 9 magazines (same number of missiles) or 63 size-5 HTK 9 magazines (same number of HS).  While the 70 size-5 configuration gives you more HTK, that's because you burned an extra 35 HS on magazines, which you could have used on armor instead (either external, or internal by replacing some size-1 HTK2 magazines with size-1 HTK3 magazines).

[Pause while sitting in design window]
Ummm ok.  size-1 HTK3 also has a capacity of 14, with a cap/HTK of 4.666, so no one should ever build the HTK2 version for these stats (another one of those rounding things....).  Let's look at two "pretend" possibilities, though, both of which are worse magazines that the "real" one: capacity 13 and capacity 12.

For a pretend size-1, HTK3 Capacity 13 magazine, the cap/HTK would be 4.333, which means better effective HTK per missile.  Plus you could fit 65 missile points into 5 of them, which beats the 63 missile points of the size-5 HTK 9 magazine.

For capacity 12, the cap/HTK is 4, but you can only fit 60 into 5 of them.  But if you use 2 HTK2 and 3 HTK3, then you have 64 missile points (2*14+3*12), the same number of HS, and 2 with same effective HTK/missile and 3 with better HTK/missile.

So it's better to put more armor on a size-1 magazine than to create bigger magazines with the same HTK.

John

 

Offline Bgreman

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 213
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2011, 05:09:46 PM »
And here I've just been building three magazine sizes: 5 HS, 15 HS, and the max, 30 HS, and using those magazines in varying combinations to outfit my ships.   I've never considered just building 1HS magazines and putting a zillion of them on the ship.

The more you know!
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #36 on: June 15, 2011, 07:45:58 AM »
Well, logistically, it's always easier^^
 

Offline voknaar

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 201
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #37 on: July 13, 2011, 01:59:02 PM »
Black holes = majestic as they are deadly... Not looking forward to jumping into a system in a new game to find i'm sitting a stones throw away from the event horizon of a black hole  :-\ I wonder if The Invaders are immune or subject to the same effects.
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2011, 03:11:55 PM »
Considering they still jump into Nebulae and then just sit there.... I wouldn't bet on anything.^^
 

Offline Hawkeye

  • Silver Supporter
  • Vice Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • Silver Supporter Silver Supporter : Support the forums with a Silver subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2011, 12:01:33 PM »
The new colony list is great!
Ralph Hoenig, Germany
 

Offline sloanjh (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 2805
  • Thanked: 112 times
  • 2020 Supporter 2020 Supporter : Donate for 2020
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2011, 03:42:24 PM »
New Population List

And there was much rejoicing.

John
 

Offline Thiosk

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 784
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #41 on: July 24, 2011, 06:01:27 PM »
/dance
 

Offline ardem

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • a
  • Posts: 814
  • Thanked: 44 times
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #42 on: July 25, 2011, 07:35:32 AM »
ditto
 

Offline Xeno The Morph

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • X
  • Posts: 15
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #43 on: July 25, 2011, 01:41:37 PM »
Indeed thank you very very much ;D

It looks brilliant!
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20350 times
Re: Change Log for 5.50 Discussion
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2011, 04:04:52 PM »
I have also added an alternative view of populations. You can now group them function and system instead of just by system. Clicking the Group by Function checkbox will display populations as below. I have not expanded all branches for this screenshot



Steve