Author Topic: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread  (Read 64766 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 230 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #285 on: March 07, 2023, 08:47:04 AM »
I think I still like the third option out of all of those it is the simplest one as long as you understand that getting 100% is most of the time nearly impossible.

There could be three inputs that you use for each fire control in this instance... you set a "minimum" number of shots distributed for each incoming missiles a desired "minimum" hit chance per missile and the lastly a percent of how many shots out of the total assigned to that fire-control it is allowed to use (both minimum and maximum).

This give you a pretty good control over how the fire-control works with relatively little math needing to go on in your head aside from figuring out if you want to restrict the number of shots the fire-control may use.

This also should make it fairly simply to code... if you say that it has to shoot a minimum of "2" times per missile it will do that as first priority, then it will look at the minimum hit probability of there is any shots left. The minimum shots per missiles override both of the other settings, so if you set the fire-control to fire only 50% of it's shots that inly impact when it looks at the minimum hit chance. It should always respect minimum number of shots per missile regardless.

So.. I could set that I want to at least 2 shots on each missile and a minimum hit probability of 80% and that it may use 50/100% (minimum 50% and a max of 100%) of the weapons assigned.

The two shots are respected in combination with other fire-controls in the fleet... the fire control with then use at least half of the shots to reach the minimum hit probability. The fire-control will use at least half the shots even if the minimum to hit probability is reached and is allowed to fire all shots but will stop when to hit probability is reached. Shots above the minimum probability should just be evenly distributed among all missiles with no real regards with "to hit" probability anymore.


This way you can use both these methods... you can say you want to fire 5 shots on each missile and have a hit probability of 10%. Then you effectively are just using the first method in that instance.

I think that with these three simple settings you would mainly have to set it up with intuition rather than using a bunch of math. The minimum to hit probability is something you will only misunderstand once when you put 100% and all shots go into one missile. Also, what I'm trying to avoid here are that I have to tinker with the PD settings for each incoming missiles salvo. I want something that can most of the time be quite generic. Say "2" shots per missile 90% minimum hit probability and 75-100% usage of the fire control. This should then work in 90% of all cases most likely, especially if I have shields to cover any leakers.

My main concern regarding having a minimum hit chance is that it is not straightforward that setting this moderately high may cause a lot of shots to be absorbed by a small fraction of the incoming missiles. This problem is more prominent when the chance to hit of each shot is low.

A minor point is more of a personal preference. When facing a superior opponent where the PD shot is not abundant, perhaps engaging all missiles with a 50% leak chance for each is better than engaging 1/3 of the missiles with a 10% leak chance but leaving the other 2/3 unopposed. I.e., if the min hit chance limit is set, it may still have to be adjusted based on each opponent.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2839
  • Thanked: 674 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #286 on: March 07, 2023, 01:13:38 PM »
My main concern regarding having a minimum hit chance is that it is not straightforward that setting this moderately high may cause a lot of shots to be absorbed by a small fraction of the incoming missiles. This problem is more prominent when the chance to hit of each shot is low.

This I understand... but should be something we all can overcome with information and experience fairly quickly.
 

Offline Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 230 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #287 on: March 07, 2023, 03:02:08 PM »
My main concern regarding having a minimum hit chance is that it is not straightforward that setting this moderately high may cause a lot of shots to be absorbed by a small fraction of the incoming missiles. This problem is more prominent when the chance to hit of each shot is low.

This I understand... but should be something we all can overcome with information and experience fairly quickly.
I wish there will be a simulator of some sort after the new PD mechanics are implemented, so the players get an idea of their PD capability (and if the PD system is set up correctly) before heading into real battles :)
 
The following users thanked this post: LiquidGold2

Offline Andrew

  • Registered
  • Commodore
  • **********
  • Posts: 698
  • Thanked: 132 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #288 on: March 07, 2023, 03:05:30 PM »
SM create several ships , SM Create a 2nd Player race , shoot . Then delete the created ships instant simulator
 
The following users thanked this post: Steve Zax

Offline Vivalas

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • V
  • Posts: 95
  • Thanked: 32 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #289 on: March 07, 2023, 04:22:19 PM »
ITT: Aurora addicts salivating over how to beat the fun out of the newest meta as quickly as possible with min-max :P


Give it a break and just play through it when it comes out, the game is your simulator. I'm looking forward to the trial and error aspect of it, since RP wise that's basically how most naval doctrine advancements in history have happened anyways.
 
The following users thanked this post: StarshipCactus, nuclearslurpee

Offline Steve Zax

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • S
  • Posts: 28
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #290 on: March 07, 2023, 04:40:05 PM »
Quote from: Vivalas link=topic=13098. msg164496#msg164496 date=1678227739
ITT: Aurora addicts salivating over how to beat the fun out of the newest meta as quickly as possible with min-max :P


Give it a break and just play through it when it comes out, the game is your simulator.  I'm looking forward to the trial and error aspect of it, since RP wise that's basically how most naval doctrine advancements in history have happened anyways.

So you're saying "most naval doctrine advancements in history happened" in live fire against live hostiles? REALLY?
Do you work for the Naval Torpedo Factory Newport?
Maybe we trial-fire some of these damn things _BEFORE_ we send your sons and daughters out to face the unknown with them? OK? MAYBE???
 
The following users thanked this post: LiquidGold2

Offline Iceranger

  • Registered
  • Commander
  • *********
  • I
  • Posts: 391
  • Thanked: 230 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #291 on: March 07, 2023, 05:27:31 PM »
SM create several ships , SM Create a 2nd Player race , shoot . Then delete the created ships instant simulator
Of course, something easier than that is appreciated :P
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2839
  • Thanked: 674 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #292 on: March 07, 2023, 05:45:22 PM »
To be honest... we already have a simulator in SM and we are likely to have to use that one. I don't think Steve want to spend time on something like that when there already is a perfectly good way to do it. I have used this way to test stuff in the past and will likely do it in the future as well.
 

Offline nuclearslurpee

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3009
  • Thanked: 2265 times
  • Radioactive frozen beverage.
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #293 on: March 07, 2023, 06:22:52 PM »
So you're saying "most naval doctrine advancements in history happened" in live fire against live hostiles? REALLY?
Do you work for the Naval Torpedo Factory Newport?
Maybe we trial-fire some of these damn things _BEFORE_ we send your sons and daughters out to face the unknown with them? OK? MAYBE???

I mean, this is basically the torpedo situation in WWII. And the AA gun situation...

It's not so much that we don't test things before we deploy them, it's more that the intended use case for most weapons does not always reflect the actual use case, historically. Personally for me that's part of the fun in Aurora!  ;D
 

Offline Destragon

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • D
  • Posts: 151
  • Thanked: 87 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #294 on: March 07, 2023, 07:24:24 PM »
By the way, if I remember right, didn't laser warheads in VB6 use the damage pattern of normal missiles? Are they using the damage pattern of lasers in C# or of normal missiles?
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2839
  • Thanked: 674 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #295 on: March 07, 2023, 07:27:01 PM »
Also... for the PD distribution... the absolute simplest solution is an "auto" function that just distribute all of the shots as evenly as possible starting with the highest hit ratio first. So if you have 10 shots that hit on 30% and 10 that hit on 10% and 5 incoming missiles you have two shots of 30% and two shots of 10% on each missile.

This way you have to do no math and you should get a reasonably decent result from the shooting.

I at least would like to avoid specifying how many shots per missile. This work well for missiles as there you have several turns to intercept, but here you only get one chance so every time you intercept anything you have to calculate how many missiles there are and how many shots you have available. There should not be much need to do this calculations... but there could be an option to do so if someone want to do that.
 
The following users thanked this post: Black, Iceranger

Offline ranger044

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • r
  • Posts: 74
  • Thanked: 65 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #296 on: March 07, 2023, 11:17:53 PM »
CLUSTER BOMBS   ;D :D ;D :D
 

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #297 on: March 08, 2023, 01:22:48 AM »
Also... for the PD distribution... the absolute simplest solution is an "auto" function that just distribute all of the shots as evenly as possible starting with the highest hit ratio first. So if you have 10 shots that hit on 30% and 10 that hit on 10% and 5 incoming missiles you have two shots of 30% and two shots of 10% on each missile.

This way you have to do no math and you should get a reasonably decent result from the shooting.

I at least would like to avoid specifying how many shots per missile. This work well for missiles as there you have several turns to intercept, but here you only get one chance so every time you intercept anything you have to calculate how many missiles there are and how many shots you have available. There should not be much need to do this calculations... but there could be an option to do so if someone want to do that.
The way I read the rules, I think this is what you get if you set all the FCs to max shots per missile and all vessels to the same defense priority, and prioritize the FCs in descending order of hit chance.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11695
  • Thanked: 20557 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #298 on: March 08, 2023, 03:04:03 AM »
Also... for the PD distribution... the absolute simplest solution is an "auto" function that just distribute all of the shots as evenly as possible starting with the highest hit ratio first. So if you have 10 shots that hit on 30% and 10 that hit on 10% and 5 incoming missiles you have two shots of 30% and two shots of 10% on each missile.

This way you have to do no math and you should get a reasonably decent result from the shooting.

I at least would like to avoid specifying how many shots per missile. This work well for missiles as there you have several turns to intercept, but here you only get one chance so every time you intercept anything you have to calculate how many missiles there are and how many shots you have available. There should not be much need to do this calculations... but there could be an option to do so if someone want to do that.
The way I read the rules, I think this is what you get if you set all the FCs to max shots per missile and all vessels to the same defense priority, and prioritize the FCs in descending order of hit chance.

Yes, that's correct.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2839
  • Thanked: 674 times
Re: v2.2.0 Changes Discussion Thread
« Reply #299 on: March 08, 2023, 05:29:15 AM »
Also... for the PD distribution... the absolute simplest solution is an "auto" function that just distribute all of the shots as evenly as possible starting with the highest hit ratio first. So if you have 10 shots that hit on 30% and 10 that hit on 10% and 5 incoming missiles you have two shots of 30% and two shots of 10% on each missile.

This way you have to do no math and you should get a reasonably decent result from the shooting.

I at least would like to avoid specifying how many shots per missile. This work well for missiles as there you have several turns to intercept, but here you only get one chance so every time you intercept anything you have to calculate how many missiles there are and how many shots you have available. There should not be much need to do this calculations... but there could be an option to do so if someone want to do that.
The way I read the rules, I think this is what you get if you set all the FCs to max shots per missile and all vessels to the same defense priority, and prioritize the FCs in descending order of hit chance.

Yes, that's correct.

Then I think all is on order... and we don't have to worry much about it to be honest.