Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   Strategic Discussions (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   R67 Shipstats proposals (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=201145)

Jintao 19 Mar 2016 08:29

R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Hey all,

Now that R66 officially started, it's time to start looking towards the future. So today we start looking for/working on the R67 stats set.

Anyone who wants to propose a set should do so before 26 March and post a link to his/her set in this thread. I do not expect the set to be final, but i expect it to be a first rough draft so we know what kind of set you are proposing.

What fields do I expect the proposed set to have?
  • Shipclass
  • T1,T2,T3
  • Type
  • Init
  • Race

Again i don't expect the values in these fields to be final. They are meant to give a good impression of the kind of set you envision.

Finally I would also like your submission post to include a few lines in which you describe your set and the ideas behind it. No essay's please!

After the weekend of 26/27 march everyone will get a first feedback on his/her proposal from me & the community and a next goal will be given.

A few guidelines to start with:
  • Steal ships can't chain steal into a class they can't naturally steal into or steal there own class
  • No more than 2 ships / class / race (excluding pods, sk's and resource ships)
  • 2 pod classes / race
  • Maximum 8 combat ships / race (excluding pods, sk's and resource ships)
  • No single targeting set ( MT or mixed MT/ST )
  • Same init fire is allowed, but not mandatory
  • Races have a balanced solo/teamup roiding ability (Not xan fi can roid everything and zik cr can only roid emp)
  • You are not required to stick to traditional races ( 5 etd like races are allowed if you wanna do a set like this )
  • Pods/sk's/resource ships can be set to die after they steal/kill
  • Salvage rates are open for debate as are salvage bonuses
  • Total ticks attacking/defending can be changed
  • T1-T2-T3 dmg rates can be changed
  • Races can be added or removed
  • Currently ships are targeted by count, is changable to total hull
  • Intelligent damage can be enabled: Today even if all harpy ships are dead, damage will continue to go to harpies or it can be toggled to be reused against other ships in the same target class.
  • Steal ships can be set to die or not + a cap on steal profit can be set
  • Weapon speed and agility are still in the combat engine from the pre 10 rounds and can be rused
  • Roid cap rate is changable
  • The combat engine supports 128 inits and has no fixes ranges for certain type of ships. So you have some wiggle room on inits if you need it. The current way of assigning race inits is nothing more than tradition.

The above list isn't final, but it's a starting point so everyone is working off the same base principles.

The goal is for appoco to announce R67's set as final at EORC. So people signing up to make a set should be aware they need to develop it during the round and not after the round has ended.

Currently we still have patrikc's set from last round which i still like and it's currently the front runner for next round. So the challange to stat makers is to submit an even better stat proposal.

Good luck to everyone and looking forward to seeing submissions from all the sailers who were yelling from the shore these past weeks. See this as an oppertunity to be part of the solution instead of the problem.

BloodyButcher 19 Mar 2016 16:32

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Stats mafia at work again :salute:

Sets that would fit the bill:

R65
R64/R54/R52/R50(wich all is a remake of the same set?)

All the other sets from R50-65 would not pass your initial guidelines demands.
Could you be so kind to explain:

* Steal ships can't chain steal into a class they can't naturally steal into or steal there own class
* 2 pod classes / race
* Maximum 8 combat ships / race (excluding pods, sk's and resource ships)
* Races have a balanced solo/teamup roiding ability (Not xan fi can roid everything and zik cr can only roid emp)

Jintao 19 Mar 2016 16:49

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250528)
Stats mafia at work again :salute:
* Steal ships can't chain steal into a class they can't naturally steal into or steal there own class

  • Co stealers can't target Co
  • If cat has a de that steals BS. There can't be a stealer that allows the cat to steal into cr.

As to why, mostly appoco that insisted on it :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250528)
* 2 pod classes / race

I'm guessing you are asking why here more than what it means.
It's hard enough balancing races with 2 pods, let alone 3. Let's not overcomplicate a set right now while people are screaming for something solid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250528)
* Maximum 8 combat ships / race (excluding pods, sk's and resource ships)

I'm guessing you are asking why here more than what it means.
The more ships the more balancing is needed. Let's not overcomplicate a set right now while people are screaming for something solid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250528)
* Races have a balanced solo/teamup roiding ability (Not xan fi can roid everything and zik cr can only roid emp)

All races should be playable without 1 race being far more superior than any others. Or 1 being far weaker than the rest.

ReaperSix 19 Mar 2016 16:53

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
If you want to have a productive chat ban butcher

BloodyButcher 19 Mar 2016 17:14

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250529)
  • Co stealers can't target Co
  • If cat has a de that steals BS. There can't be a stealer that allows the cat to steal into cr.

As to why, mostly appoco that insisted on it :p
.

I know why Appoco insists on it, but the arguments is lunacy.
And a lot of sets has broken this "golden rule" without Appocomaster even noticing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250529)
I'm guessing you are asking why here more than what it means.
It's hard enough balancing races with 2 pods, let alone 3. Let's not overcomplicate a set right now while people are screaming for something solid.

Again this is just silly. If people prefer 3 pods sets, make 3 pod sets.
Many past sets wouldve been excluded due to this rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250529)
I'm guessing you are asking why here more than what it means.
The more ships the more balancing is needed. Let's not overcomplicate a set right now while people are screaming for something solid.

Im not even sure the goal is to have a super balanced set.
And im not even sure if one or two more ship per race would make it harder to balance either

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250529)
All races should be playable without 1 race being far more superior than any others. Or 1 being far weaker than the rest.

Surely there is more aspects to this game than only attacking, even for a p3nguin player.
If one race has excelent defence ships/emp flack, or what not, that is a trade of from having a lesser attack fleet.
This is just madness, and again stats mafia at play again, if people aint seeing the red line through all these "demands" they must be blind.
The only ones who would get sets accept would be Mz, Tia or Jintao

Kaiba 19 Mar 2016 17:56

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250532)
I know why Appoco insists on it, but the arguments is lunacy.
And a lot of sets has broken this "golden rule" without Appocomaster even noticing it.



Again this is just silly. If people prefer 3 pods sets, make 3 pod sets.
Many past sets wouldve been excluded due to this rule.



Im not even sure the goal is to have a super balanced set.
And im not even sure if one or two more ship per race would make it harder to balance either



Surely there is more aspects to this game than only attacking, even for a p3nguin player.
If one race has excelent defence ships/emp flack, or what not, that is a trade of from having a lesser attack fleet.
This is just madness, and again stats mafia at play again, if people aint seeing the red line through all these "demands" they must be blind.
The only ones who would get sets accept would be Mz, Tia or Jintao

I'm begrudged to agree with butcher a bit here, a lot of these demands are super restrictive. If you want to go down this route just use a number generator to make stats because are not allowing any creativity to stat makers

Krypton 19 Mar 2016 18:27

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250528)
Stats mafia at work again :salute:

Sets that would fit the bill:

R65
R64/R54/R52/R50(wich all is a remake of the same set?)

All the other sets from R50-65 would not pass your initial guidelines demands.
Could you be so kind to explain:

* Steal ships can't chain steal into a class they can't naturally steal into or steal there own class
* 2 pod classes / race
* Maximum 8 combat ships / race (excluding pods, sk's and resource ships)
* Races have a balanced solo/teamup roiding ability (Not xan fi can roid everything and zik cr can only roid emp)

Well said :salute:

Mzyxptlk 19 Mar 2016 20:20

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250529)
If cat has a de that steals BS. There can't be a stealer that allows the cat to steal into cr.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that if there's a De -> Bs stealer, there may be no Bs class steal ships, except for those that steal into classes that all races that have steal ships can already steal into? Because that's silly.

Far more important is that races should only steal into classes that they themselves can build. For flak purposes.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiba (Post 3250534)
I'm begrudged to agree with butcher a bit here, a lot of these demands are super restrictive. If you want to go down this route just use a number generator to make stats because are not allowing any creativity to stat makers

I thought the same thing, until I reached the halfway point. Then suddenly all manner of insane freedom appeared. I mean, Agil/WpSp? Really?

BloodyButcher 19 Mar 2016 21:09

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3250538)
I don't understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that if there's a De -> Bs stealer, there may be no Bs class steal ships, except for those that steal into classes that all races that have steal ships can already steal into? Because that's silly.

Far more important is that races should only steal into classes that they themselves can build. For flak purposes.



I thought the same thing, until I reached the halfway point. Then suddenly all manner of insane freedom appeared. I mean, Agil/WpSp? Really?

The steal chain rule actually is one of the "rules" appoco points to stats mafia to explain, actually specificly you.
The reason is "pyramid" farming, or "chain" farming.
If etd have a FI that steals CO, and zik have a CO that can steal FI/FR/whatever, people will "abuse this to steal usefull ships".


The WP/Agility was actually something i suggested for a xmas round for nostalgia. Its basicly just a confusing damage/armor

Jintao 19 Mar 2016 21:25

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Ok i don't get all the complaints about too many restrictions...
  • Steal ships can't chain steal into a class they can't naturally steal into or steal there own class => This one i can understand the opposition against, but this is kind of the only thing appoco cares about in stats even if he doesn't always spot them...
  • No more than 2 ships / class / race (excluding pods, sk's and resource ships) => pat did 3 and everyone flipped over it being too defensive
  • 2 pod classes / race => most sets actually have this formula already
  • Maximum 8 combat ships / race (excluding pods, sk's and resource ships) => The majority of sets don't have more than 8 combat ships / race
  • No single targeting set ( MT or mixed MT/ST ) => Don't think anyone wants 2 ST rounds in a row
  • Races have a balanced solo/teamup roiding ability (Not xan fi can roid everything and zik cr can only roid emp) => who doesn't want a "balanced" set? Nowhere does it say a perfectly balanced set

So basically if you ignore the first item it matches what most sets are like already today. So what is wrong with saying what is more or less considered to be the default for the majority of the rounds? Or is everyone just tripping over that 1 item regarding steal ships in non zik races?

For all the rest below that it gives you crazy freedom and furthermose appoco is open to anything cause he helped me put that list together based on what's possible inside the current game setup.

So overall i would say you have more freedom than ever before since most probably didn't even know these possibilities before today. The only real limitation is not being able to create 5 pods / race and 20 ships / race. But i think 2 pods and 8 normal ships is plenty for a good solid set.

So seriously people stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.

BloodyButcher 19 Mar 2016 21:31

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250540)
Ok i don't get all the complaints about too many restrictions...
  • Steal ships can't chain steal into a class they can't naturally steal into or steal there own class => This one i can understand the opposition against, but this is kind of the only thing appoco cares about in stats even if he doesn't always spot them...
  • No more than 2 ships / class / race (excluding pods, sk's and resource ships) => pat did 3 and everyone flipped over it being too defensive
  • 2 pod classes / race => most sets actually have this formula already
  • Maximum 8 combat ships / race (excluding pods, sk's and resource ships) => The majority of sets don't have more than 8 combat ships / race
  • No single targeting set ( MT or mixed MT/ST ) => Don't think anyone wants 2 ST rounds in a row
  • Races have a balanced solo/teamup roiding ability (Not xan fi can roid everything and zik cr can only roid emp) => who doesn't want a "balanced" set? Nowhere does it say a perfectly balanced set

So basically if you ignore the first item it matches what most sets are like already today. So what is wrong with saying what is more or less considered to be the default for the majority of the rounds? Or is everyone just tripping over that 1 item regarding steal ships in non zik races?

For all the rest below that it gives you crazy freedom and furthermose appoco is open to anything cause he helped me put that list together based on what's possible inside the current game setup.

So overall i would say you have more freedom than ever before since most probably didn't even know these possibilities before today. The only real limitation is not being able to create 5 pods / race and 20 ships / race. But i think 2 pods and 8 normal ships is plenty for a good solid set.

So seriously people stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.

Re-read my initial post, if most sets is like this, why is only 3/15 sets the last 15 not matching your guidelines?

Mzyxptlk 19 Mar 2016 22:15

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250539)
The steal chain rule actually is one of the "rules" appoco points to stats mafia to explain, actually specificly you.
The reason is "pyramid" farming, or "chain" farming.
If etd have a FI that steals CO, and zik have a CO that can steal FI/FR/whatever, people will "abuse this to steal usefull ships".

Well that's weird. I like sets that have Zik stealing Bs with De and De with Bs, specifically to allow the 2 roiding fleets to help each other. That's 'worse' than chain stealing, so if Appoco points to me to explain why chain stealing is bad, then I'm going to have to disappoint.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250540)
Ok i don't get all the complaints about too many restrictions...

You correctly say the complaints are because of too many restrictions, but then list counters to objections to individual restrictions. That's a different point. The point is not if '2 combat ships per roiding fleet' or '2 pods per race' are bad or good restrictions, individually. It's that when you take them all together, you'll end up with 3 functionally identical sets.

Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. 2 pod, mixed ST/MT, no crazy imbalances, not too many ships. We know from experience stats that more or less fit that description tend to create reasonably good stats. But it sure doesn't leave much room for maneuvre for the stats makers, which are the people you've seen complaining.

Pit 19 Mar 2016 22:47

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3250543)
You correctly say the complaints are because of too many restrictions

I count 5. And they're listed as "guidelines" and "not final", so I suspect if you could come up with a set that doesn't conform but had good reasons for doing so it would probably be considered. But you'd probably be expected to explain those reasons.

I haven't noticed any stats yet, only complaining...

Kaiba 19 Mar 2016 23:03

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
We can be the solution when you try and make it so we can only make stats in your image. And 3 pods isn't defensive it does exactly the opposite

Cochese 19 Mar 2016 23:10

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250505)
  • You are not required to stick to traditional races ( 5 etd like races are allowed if you wanna do a set like this )
  • Total ticks attacking/defending can be changed
  • Races can be added or removed
  • Currently ships are targeted by count, is changable to total hull
  • Intelligent damage can be enabled: Today even if all harpy ships are dead, damage will continue to go to harpies or it can be toggled to be reused against other ships in the same target class.
  • Weapon speed and agility are still in the combat engine from the pre 10 rounds and can be rused
  • The combat engine supports 128 inits and has no fixes ranges for certain type of ships. So you have some wiggle room on inits if you need it. The current way of assigning race inits is nothing more than tradition.


Hold the phone, those are some pretty major game play factors there...Some of that stuff can make a round of shit stats pretty good if tweaked properly.

Surely some of those things can be considered outside of a proposed set of stats as well?

Kaiba 19 Mar 2016 23:17

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Let's also add that since I read the original post this morning when he posted it he has added like 10 more bullet points

Mzyxptlk 20 Mar 2016 08:40

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pit (Post 3250545)
I count 5. And they're listed as "guidelines" and "not final", so I suspect if you could come up with a set that doesn't conform but had good reasons for doing so it would probably be considered. But you'd probably be expected to explain those reasons.

Yeah, like that time we had a poll that was totally not going to determine which stats would be chosen and then it did. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pit (Post 3250545)
I haven't noticed any stats yet, only complaining...

Doing what we do best!

Jintao 20 Mar 2016 09:00

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochese (Post 3250548)
Hold the phone, those are some pretty major game play factors there...Some of that stuff can make a round of shit stats pretty good if tweaked properly.

Surely some of those things can be considered outside of a proposed set of stats as well?

Ofcourse they can. Suggest way :)

I just put it in there to show you around what factors you can build a set of stats.

Kaiba 20 Mar 2016 10:37

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250555)
Ofcourse they can. Suggest way :)

I just put it in there to show you around what factors you can build a set of stats.

What's the rules on same tick combat?

Jintao 20 Mar 2016 10:57

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiba (Post 3250556)
What's the rules on same tick combat?

Define what you mean by same tick combat please

Kaiba 20 Mar 2016 12:07

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250557)
Define what you mean by same tick combat please

Sorry I mean same int combat

Jintao 20 Mar 2016 12:51

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiba (Post 3250560)
Sorry I mean same int combat

No objections against it. Call it creative freedom.

Although i'm sure some people will object to that being in the stats

Kaiba 20 Mar 2016 14:03

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250561)
No objections against it. Call it creative freedom.

Although i'm sure some people will object to that being in the stats

I'm sure 'some' people will object to everything put in the stats

Mzyxptlk 20 Mar 2016 15:08

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Depends on how 'hard' you want your counters to be, really. If everything has the same init, all that matters is how much value you have available. If everything has a different init, then all that matters is how many fleet slots you have available. There are pros and cons to both aspects, though I'd advise against going to extremes, either way.

Kaiba 20 Mar 2016 15:27

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3250564)
Depends on how 'hard' you want your counters to be, really. If everything has the same init, all that matters is how much value you have available. If everything has a different init, then all that matters is how many fleet slots you have available. There are pros and cons to both aspects, though I'd advise against going to extremes, either way.

Mine was like a few ships that hit each other at the same time to create an actual battle, no combat is clean

For example Terran would have DEF but poor damage, like properly weighted in that way. You can raid them but not clean and you wouldn't take silly losses but it would be a battle, same in reverse in that it would take a lot to stop them attacking you but they wouldn't destroy the deffers, I want to make stuff like that.

ArcChas 21 Mar 2016 03:21

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250505)
............[*]You are not required to stick to traditional races ( 5 etd like races are allowed if you wanna do a set like this )

...........[*]Races can be added or removed

Two pretty significant ones here. The first I don't like at all - see my posts on wanting "casual players" to be able to have *some* idea of what ships do without poring over the stats first - and on trying to maintain some sort of consistency with the "back-story" to the game.

The second though, now there's something we could do something with. Many people have said how hard it can be to balance stats since the introduction of Etd - now we could just consign that race to the dustbin (where some might say it belongs). Looking at the number of Etd planets this round they might not even be missed.

Cochese 21 Mar 2016 03:33

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
That being said, look at the number of Etd planets last round. I played Etd for maybe the second time.

One of the--if not the biggest--issues is changing Attack/Defense tick(s) as it was in the "old days". Multiple attack/defend ticks...

It is a pretty huge issue on it's own, and up until now I didn't know that was something that was up for 'debate'.

Kaiba 21 Mar 2016 06:26

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cochese (Post 3250571)
That being said, look at the number of Etd planets last round. I played Etd for maybe the second time.

One of the--if not the biggest--issues is changing Attack/Defense tick(s) as it was in the "old days". Multiple attack/defend ticks...

It is a pretty huge issue on it's own, and up until now I didn't know that was something that was up for 'debate'.

Normally 1 race gets unused tho. I think going down to 4 would be great

BloodyButcher 21 Mar 2016 12:34

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

* 2/3 pod set
* EMP inn all attack claases excepy FI
* Steal-die-ratio undecided atm

DeeJay 22 Mar 2016 16:38

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
I've looked over your set BB
First impression - Xan is stronger than it should especially with 3 pod classes

Kaiba 22 Mar 2016 17:54

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250584)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

* 2/3 pod set
* EMP inn all attack claases excepy FI
* Steal-die-ratio undecided atm

Xan with 3 pods is instantly OP. The set needs overhauling

BloodyButcher 22 Mar 2016 18:28

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Comments in the other thread please.
Afaik this was just a "offer your stats thread.

Paisley 22 Mar 2016 20:57

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
To all the ship stats designers .... I want more detail in your thinking and explain how these stats will be fun and enjoyable to the masses that play PA

i'll give a weeks grace before I take the stats to the woodshed.

Hope to see some good ship stats.

BloodyButcher 22 Mar 2016 21:07

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250584)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

* 2/3 pod set
* EMP inn all attack claases excepy FI
* Steal-die-ratio undecided atm

My idea is that if emp breaks, everything is landable, or intend to be if they are passing the initial draft.

Race spread aint neccesary what i aim for, but roid class spread.

Playing with steal-die-ratio might make it more worthfull going zik than only init/dmg/whatever.

BloodyButcher 29 Mar 2016 13:08

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Does this mean my set is being ran next round as noone else proposed a set?

DeeJay 29 Mar 2016 14:55

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250708)
Does this mean my set is being ran next round as noone else proposed a set?

Yes, exactly like Pat's set was the only option this round
Ohh wait...

Pit 29 Mar 2016 17:40

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250708)
Does this mean my set is being ran next round as noone else proposed a set?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250505)
Currently we still have patrikc's set from last round which i still like and it's currently the front runner for next round. So the challange to stat makers is to submit an even better stat proposal.


Papadoc 29 Mar 2016 22:46

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
ETD is always the hardest race to figure out what to do with. Being able to remove it will allow someone to make a set that fits into Jintao's pre-init matrix.


I'm just now seeing this or i would have looked at revising that set i threw together before this round.

Kaiba 30 Mar 2016 06:12

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Papadoc (Post 3250721)
ETD is always the hardest race to figure out what to do with. Being able to remove it will allow someone to make a set that fits into Jintao's pre-init matrix.


I'm just now seeing this or i would have looked at revising that set i threw together before this round.

'Threw together' lol. You've been working on it for ages

Buddah 30 Mar 2016 06:51

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Like you would have a clue about that?

He made it when everyone in norse disliked patricks stats.
now go work on your own set instead of trolling...

BloodyButcher 30 Mar 2016 13:12

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddah (Post 3250727)
Like you would have a clue about that?

He made it when everyone in norse disliked patricks stats.
now go work on your own set instead of trolling...

Like he realy ever intended to make a own set :salute:

Kaiba 30 Mar 2016 14:19

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BloodyButcher (Post 3250734)
Like he realy ever intended to make a own set :salute:

Actually it's sitting on my laptop. It's done apart from the ac/dc. But whilst I was making it I was reading Jintaos criteria and comments from mz and you etc and decided how I would like the stats wouldn't be enjoyed by the majority who are left. Valuewhores and emos wouldn't do well with them so I shelfed them. No point in carrying on with something that would probably be rejected just because who made them either I thought

Mzyxptlk 30 Mar 2016 14:34

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
I resent being called a valuewhore!


Unrelatedly, after this round, I suspect it'll be a while before another highly offensive set like this one will be selected.

booji 30 Mar 2016 14:34

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250505)
[*]Intelligent damage can be enabled: Today even if all harpy ships are dead, damage will continue to go to harpies or it can be toggled to be reused against other ships in the same target class.

I am failing to understand this. Under what circumstances at the moment do harpies continue taking damage even after they are dead?
Do you mean a ship with high damage can only kill 1 ship as it only has one gun, even if the damage it deals could in theory kill large numbers of ships? I can see this would make a big difference if there were ever to be a battleship kill ship targeting fi or co. Been a long time since there have been any. While this seems logical I am pretty sure it is not what happens today... 4k clippers this round can kill a lot more than 4k harpies (9037 according to calc) despite their only having a gun each.
Or do you mean something along the lines of what we had with terran and etd a few rounds back where there is a big gap in the armour between the two? It was possible for the low armour fleet in a teamup to be wiped out and a good chunk of the high armour one survive. If this is the case then the harpy has to be just about the worst possible example as it is regularly one of the highest armored ships in the game in comparison to its cost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jintao (Post 3250505)
[*]Weapon speed and agility are still in the combat engine from the pre 10 rounds and can be rused

Perhaps you should remind people how these work... I for sure played these rounds but cant say I remember!

BloodyButcher 30 Mar 2016 14:44

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaiba (Post 3250736)
Actually it's sitting on my laptop. It's done apart from the ac/dc. But whilst I was making it I was reading Jintaos criteria and comments from mz and you etc and decided how I would like the stats wouldn't be enjoyed by the majority who are left. Valuewhores and emos wouldn't do well with them so I shelfed them. No point in carrying on with something that would probably be rejected just because who made them either I thought

hahaha.
As i said, you were never intending to make any.

Mzyxptlk 30 Mar 2016 14:51

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by booji (Post 3250738)
I am failing to understand this. Under what circumstances at the moment do harpies continue taking damage even after they are dead?
(...)
Or do you mean something along the lines of what we had with terran and etd a few rounds back where there is a big gap in the armour between the two? It was possible for the low armour fleet in a teamup to be wiped out and a good chunk of the high armour one survive. If this is the case then the harpy has to be just about the worst possible example as it is regularly one of the highest armored ships in the game in comparison to its cost.

This. Ships continue to be shot at, even if there are none left.

if 2000 guns with 1 damage each fire at 200 harpies with 4 armor each and 600 phantom with 2 armor each, then 200 * 2000 / ( 200 + 600) = 500 guns fire at the harpies 600 * 2000 / (200 + 600) = 1500 guns fire at the phantoms. This causes 125 harpies and 600 phantoms to die. If you add up the gunpower need to kill that number of ships, you get 125 * 4 + 600 * 2 = 1700 gundamage. The 300 gundamage is lost forever. This is flak, and it's the reason you don't create huge discrepancies in the size of ships in the same class. See Ter/Xan De in r50 for a counter-example.

It's actually worse than that. If the ships behind the 2000 guns have a T2, and there's a bunch of Beetle present as well, then those 300 guns that went up in smoke before will now fire at the Beetles.

And I can make it even worse: say those guns are contributed by 2 types of ship: 1000 from a ship with a T2, and 1000 from a ship without. Both ships have the same init, and they fire at 250 Harpies (1000 armor total) and a bunch of Beetles. The order in which those ships are given a chance to fire is undefined. If the ship with a T2 goes first, it kills all of the Harpies, with no guns left over, and then the ship without a T2 does nothing, because there's nothing left to fire at. If the ship without a T2 goes first, it kills all of the Harpies, but then the ship with a T2 does get a chance to fire at the Beetles. This can be a difference of up to about 30% extra value killed (50% of ships, 60% T2 eff), and the only way you can know which it is, is by running a bcalc. And no, the order of the ships on the stats page is not the order used by the combat engine, and neither is the reverse order.

All in all, the combat engine code is not fun. I spent some time figuring out how to write a bcalc, for use during the stats creation process (manually creating 10x10 bcalcs is boring as hell), and this is the reason I didn't go through with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by booji (Post 3250738)
Do you mean a ship with high damage can only kill 1 ship as it only has one gun, even if the damage it deals could in theory kill large numbers of ships? I can see this would make a big difference if there were ever to be a battleship kill ship targeting fi or co. Been a long time since there have been any. While this seems logical I am pretty sure it is not what happens today... 4k clippers this round can kill a lot more than 4k harpies (9037 according to calc) despite their only having a gun each.

This is overshooting. The stats page has been pretty unclear about this, with kill/steal/cloak ships all having 1 gun with X damage, rather than X guns with 1 damage. The latter is how the combat engine functions. The former is how the stats page implies it functions, especially because EMP is listed correctly: EMP ships have guns and each EMP gun can only EMP 1 ship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by booji (Post 3250738)
Perhaps you should remind people how these work... I for sure played these rounds but cant say I remember!

0.25 + attacker WpSp / 100- defender Agil / 100 = fraction of guns firing that hit.

Quite frankly, I've never been really sure what it added.

BloodyButcher 30 Mar 2016 14:56

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by booji (Post 3250738)
Perhaps you should remind people how these work... I for sure played these rounds but cant say I remember!

http://www.clawofdarkness.com/pawiki...d_2:Ship_Stats

Armor is how many shots a ship can take, when it reached 0 the ship is destroyed.
Init is the same as today.
Agility is the ability to dodge shots.
Weaponspeed is the chance to land shots. The formulae was something like ( 50% + weaponspeed of the ship shooting - agility of the ships being fired at )
Guns is the amount of shots fired each tick.
Power is the damage of the gun.
EMP ships always hit, E/R is the chance of to avoid being EMPed.

BloodyButcher 30 Mar 2016 15:05

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk (Post 3250740)

0.25 + attacker WpSp / 100- defender Agil / 100 = fraction of guns firing that hit.

Quite frankly, I've never been really sure what it added.

Its a reason for it being removed.
I asked if i could use it for a "xmas/community" nostalgia round stats, thats all.

booji 30 Mar 2016 15:10

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
I did not say I needed an explanation of early round stats just a reminder of weapon-speed and agility as I don't think Jintao was proposing reusing a set from prePAX. Apart from these two they are very similar anyway.

Thanks for your detailed explanation mz. Certainly does not sound very sensible as it is.

BloodyButcher 30 Mar 2016 16:37

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by booji (Post 3250743)
I did not say I needed an explanation of early round stats just a reminder of weapon-speed and agility as I don't think Jintao was proposing reusing a set from prePAX. Apart from these two they are very similar anyway.

Thanks for your detailed explanation mz. Certainly does not sound very sensible as it is.

Well you do need to know how the early round stats looked like, and i did give you the explaination of it aswell.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 15:15.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2018