Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
C# Mechanics / Re: v1.14.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Froggiest1982 on Today at 02:50:52 PM »
Thanks Steve, at least getting dusted on the fighter module post has had its effects  ;D ;D ;D

I am glad squadrons are back as it will allow managing big fighters groups in a more comprehensive way.

I am really looking forward to 2.0 now and I know we always say it's ready when it's ready but if we were to give a pin, would it be prior to or after Distant Worlds 2?

I guess you are going to put your hands on that too and it may take a good chunk of your time for a few weeks at least...
2
C# Suggestions / Re: Leaky Shields
« Last post by kilo on Today at 02:09:08 PM »
I do not think that the idea of leaky shields presented here is good. High damage weapons are currently extremely effective against armor, as they can penetrate multiple layers of it and possibly even reach internal modules in a single salvo. This makes these weapons extremely dangerous. At the same time, this comes at a significant price, which are a huge displacement as well as a long recharging time. Shields are great to counter this type of weapons, as their damage per increment and ton tends to be low and shields do not leak and do recharge. Their weakness on the other hand are fast firing guns, which tend to be smaller and are rather bad at defeating armor.
If armor is not competitive compared to shields, you should consider reducing the cost and displacement of armor. This would allow you to bring more layers. Leaky shields would simply obsolete smaller guns.
3
C# Suggestions / Re: Leaky Shields
« Last post by nakorkren on Today at 01:44:16 PM »
If the "problem" is that shields get too good at high tech level, why not make microwaves more effective against shields at higher tech levels? That way there is a way to address it, but it requires you (or the NPR) to utilize mixed-arms approaches.
4
C# Suggestions / Re: Leaky Shields
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on Today at 10:28:02 AM »
I think folks are misunderstanding shield mechanics. Regeneration is not the problem with shields in most cases, since shield regeneration tech is the amount of shield points regenerated per HS per five minutes. Even a size-50 generator at MaxTech (regen 15) can only regenerate 12.5 points of shield per 5-sec increment, and with the kind of weapons you should be using at MaxTech this should not be a difficult amount to punch through. Shields are stronger against high-damage weapons because they negate the armor penetration profile of such weapons, the regeneration rate is a relatively minor consideration.

The only exception to this is if you are using missiles, only firing a wave every few minutes or longer, and not using enough to overwhelm the enemy PD + shields + armor to actually destroy the ship, which usually means you have either made a serious tactical error or have not done sufficient reconnaissance.

The problem with shields, if you consider it a problem, is that they are too efficient relative to armor in terms of raw damage absorption. This is due in large part to the scaling of Size^(3/2) which leads to size-50 shield generators providing about 75% of the same damage absorption as armor at the equivalent tech level. With armor, a generally accepted rule of thumb is that a ship will consistently take internal damage once its armor integrity drops below 50%, whereas for shields the entire shield must be defeated to deal any other damage, so in practice shields have a clear tactical superiority over armor in addition to their intended strategic superiority (due to not requiring expensive repair work). If we need to fix shields, I would prefer to see this scaling rebalanced so that armor remains a viable tactical option, rather than worrying about regeneration.

That being said, the suggested change would be an interesting way to add some balance here. At MaxTech, where shields are most powerful relative to armor, the strongest possible shield is 50*sqrt(50/10)*15 = 1677 strength, so a weapon with more than sqrt(1677) = 41 damage will leak through. The MaxTech particle lance can reach 100 damage, IIRC, so still 59 damage will leak through and likely drill a hole into the ship's interior. Similarly, a MaxTech advanced spinal laser (120cm) would deal something in the range of 400 damage (I don't have the game at hand to check this), most of that would get through a shield as well. If anything maybe the sqrt scaling is too much, but I think it is at least interesting to consider as another tactical option - the disadvantage of such high-damage weapons is their very slow ROF, so a fleet with higher-DPS weapons will be able to strike back several times even if the initial exchange of fire is unfavorable.
5
C# Mechanics / Re: v1.14.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by Steve Walmsley on Today at 10:03:12 AM »
It would be useful if individual parasites remembered which squadron they were last part of, and had a "go to task group A, land on your assigned mothership, rejoin the squadron." It would prevent you from having click through a sub-menu navigation to find the correct squadron.

Yes, I agree. This occurred me last night after I went to bed :)

I'll add an assigned squadron in the same way as an assigned mothership.

I've updated the original post (and the code) to include the 'assigned squadron':

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=12523.msg158331#msg158331
6
C# Suggestions / Re: C# Suggestions
« Last post by SevenOfCarina on Today at 08:17:04 AM »
I think I've suggested this before, but whatever : make missile warheads increase in efficiency with size, like shields do now. Use this formula instead of the current one:
Warhead Strength = (Warhead Size in MSP) * (Warhead Strength per MSP) * SQRT(Warhead Size in MSP)

I've tested this before (by editing the DB after finalising missile designs), and it seems to work pretty well at making larger missiles more effective and at addressing the AMM spam problem at high tech. An AMM with a levitated-pit implosion warhead would need ~0.4 MSP for the warhead instead of 0.25 MSP, while one with an antimatter warhead would need ~0.14 MSP instead of 0.05 MSP. This penalises warheads that are too small and provides strong advantages to going larger, which should hopefully offset some of the issues with large missiles doing poor damage against strong point-defence.
7
C# Suggestions / Re: Leaky Shields
« Last post by M_Gargantua on Today at 07:52:10 AM »
I don't think the general overpenetration in the same vein as the current shock damage model is appropriate for shields.  If you start to allow them to "leak" damage then its just armor mechanic under a different name.  You just shift the tonnage from armor into shield generators.  Better to just rebalance shields vs weapons.  Maybe add a regen delay where you need a few combat ticks of delay without meaningful damage (don't want to allow stunlock with gauss) where the shields can't transition from tanking to regenning.  Or substantial buffs to microwave or some missile equivalent.
8
C# Mechanics / Re: v1.14.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by alex_brunius on Today at 07:14:36 AM »
So uhm.. How tricky would it be to let Fighters to support ground units one Squadron at a time instead of one fighter?  ::) Asking for a friend...
9
The Academy / Re: Problem with an orbital miner
« Last post by Kiero on Today at 03:11:06 AM »
Go to "System View Window" and mark OM Eligible.
ME next to a system body name will tell you if you could use orbital miners on it.
10
C# Mechanics / Re: v1.14.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Last post by mtm84 on Today at 02:53:32 AM »
Big thanks for adding back a squadron mechanic, even in a reworked form.  Will it have an auto random name like in VB6?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk