Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

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

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

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

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.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

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.

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

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

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

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

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.

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.

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.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

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.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

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

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.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

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

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

I did say that I played these rounds; I know what the stats looked like (and I actually looked at them very recently for completely unrelated reasons) I simply was asking for how weapons speed and agility made a difference to things - in the context of the thread I was really asking why a statsmaker would want to include them. Frankly I dont remember combat being very different when they were in effect. This ultimately seems not surprising as the answer from both you and Mz is that it does not make much difference - presumably why it was taken out.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Weaponspeed/Agility allowed for "faster" (Agility) ships like Fi to avoid a lot of damage against "slower" firing turrets, as fewer shots actually hit.

Not entirely sure it added anything other than over-complicating the stats, and making it harder to produce a decent set. I seem to remember there being some oddities that popped up with various ships due to weaponspeed/agility issues between them and ships potentially shooting at them.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Sorry for trying to explain it to you then.
Atleast someone else who havnt recently been looking at those sets might find it informative

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

If I was never intending to make them then why as I stated did I make some

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Yes they might.
My irritation at your constant blaming and doing down of p3n in other areas of the forums is bleeding over into this one, for that I apologise. Your information was not what I asked for but was perfectly informative and included useful sources - always a plus in my book.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

BB actually makes a good point or a helpful post every now and then; the difficulty lies in identifying it!

I'll reformat my set to be more alike what people want, but I won't go past submitting it. I've found Jintao's 'process' rather tedious and unproductive, sometimes with results I did not agree with.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

I've looked over the different options and i think it would be best to just finish patrikc's set from last round and use it for r67

I've contacted patrikc about it. Once i talk to him about it we'll put the set up for discussion so we can find any potential issues before it's finilized.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

You did not allow much time for submissions (I had not even noticed the thread before the submission date was past), and then go for a set that a large number in the community disliked so much they were willing to go for a very xp/xan heavy set instead. I hope the set has been radically overhauled.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

I know there are multiple people out there who has a "ready for submission" set, i think the biggest issue is that Jintao ask for people to make sets in a very distinctive manner, and those sets usualy gets bad critics from the playerbase.

I would suggest that we just re-run the set we have been rerunning over-and-over-and-over again, as its the only one that meet Jintaos initial demands.
We know what we are getting with that set, and we should just keep running it for those rounds thats none of the sets that is offered is acceptable.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

So we should expect you to 'throw' another unbalanced set together after public backlash against Patrikcs set.

De ja vu

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

As I've said before I can make a set very similar to the one I submitted except without Fr/De targeting each other, making it much less defensive.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

There is nothing wrong with the original set, what is wrong is the process of picking them and the strength of will of those in charge

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

ive been quite disappointed with the stat proposals ... no other takers?

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Please do that and lets see what it looks like pre jintao input.


:up:

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Tbh since the main objection to your stats Pat was that it was too fortable at the cost of allies who dont pl def all you need to do is make some ally def ships better at the same time as reducing the gal def ships. I don't think there was anyone saying the set was totally unbalanced.

p.s. are they up anywhere atm?

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

They are up at beta.

In my opinion, higher class ships should be better than same ETA ships, and there were plenty of alliance options. Only Etd doesn't have alliance ETA anti-Fi.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Thanks. Do we get a chance to discuss them this time?

You sure? Looks like Terran does not either; their only anti fi is the War Frigate.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Ah indeed, a few weeks of playing have faded away the details in my mind, I guess. :p

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Just looking at it.
No race has maximum 8 "combat ships"?
Have jintao told you to redo it?

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

No, he has not, and I would not redo them for that reason.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

i would change cutlass to kill and cutter to steal.
at minute i think zik kill too many ship classes, doing this swap would also let them steal fi, and zik should steal all classes they can build

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

They can already steal Fi?..

Doing this also removes Frig's ability to attack anything, sorry but that's a terrible change.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

still think they kill too many ship classes. im a traditionalist, zik should kill 3 classes max ;P

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

can you explain your thinking behind your beta stats so I know weather to take them to the woodshed or not?

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

You keep saying this every round, but nothing comes from it :salute:

Lets just say that zik/etd aint suppose to steal into any "interesting fleet compositions".
Cov-opping CO pods with cat also looks doable how ever.

They are basicly a ST set, and very "boring looking" to me personaly.

WIth offensive sets i usualy start look at Xan, as in most sets where defence might be less worthwhile people just tend to lean towards attacking.

While ETD FI can be stopped "easily" at allie eta, XAN CO "can't".
Xan CO just seems to be way stronger than Etd FI?

http://beta.planetarion.com/bcalc.pl?id=t8cx73a5nodn6od

By no means, they cannot free land "everything".

------

For me zik/cat FR is a no-go.
They are not particulary strong vs its "counterpart" FR. It also leaves a big hole vs BS as its defence synergy aint favourable.
They are the weak vs FR themself.
EMP eff is very low.

-------

Ter/cat BS is possibole, but very unfavourable from my point of view.
De seems to come out on top vs BS.
Their defence vs FR is weak.
The eff of the cat BS is disturbingly low?

-------

Zik/ETD CR could be decent, as its prolly the most unfavourable for DE to hit into.
I think DE is still a stronger option due to having cloak ability.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Not a bad write up, BB.

Etd Fi, specifically the Sylph, probably needs to be stronger in order for it to do what it's supposed to: strike quick and hard vs planets that either have their Fr out or are simply weak against Fi. Increasing its damage, perhaps at the cost of 1 armour, might help with that.

Xan Co is supposed to be similar to this round's except spread over 3 ships, I think it'd be more balanced that way. It's the whole reason I went with Xan Co instead of Fi, so that it's targeted by 3 classes.

I think Fr is not as strong as De but has an easier time landing due to EMP. I disagree with you on Cat/Zik having poor synergy vs Bs, but that's because the Mantis should have higher ERes. If you go Mantis/Rogue, Mantis are very cheap making them good flak for Rogues who then fire before Ter Bs.

De was obviously the biggest concern of many. I think it's very solid on defense, and perhaps slightly too easy to attack with as it prefires everything when combined, but you really don't need much value in any class to force a recall. They are the spacebricks, hard to attack, hard to attack with. Note that efficiencies are higher than where I wanted them.

I like where Cr is, my only concern was that both Zik and Etd have 4 ship builds with Fr/Cr that could make them pretty good defensively.

Ter/Cat Bs is supposed to be more offensive - if you put most of your resources into two ST ships, the result should be that you are strong against two classes, one fleet is strong, but you are weaker against the rest. Roach should definitely be 10-20% more efficient, though.


Going over the stats, my biggest complaint is that my unique EMP interactions were removed. Beetle, Mantis and Creditor are supposed to have higher relative ERes (similar to Recluse) to compensate for firing later. Instead now they just get frozen as usual and you need like 200% value in Beetle to stop a Fi inc - noone will choose Beetle over Wasp in this scenario (aside from support planets).

EMP efficiencies do still need a closer look, though, and settle somewhere between where they are and where r66's have ended up.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

Patrikc sadly didn't have time to finish his set so i tried to finish it based on the instructions he gave me before he left on vacation.

You can find the set Here

Pat's requested changes:
Emp changed (EMP eff's have been increased & Recluse, Beetle, Mantis and Creditor have been given good EMP armor )
Make ETD fi stronger vs FR (Sylph has been made cheaper)
Make De a bit weaker (Bolt thrower & Bomber have been weakend)
Make Fr a bit stronger vs DE (Ghost has been weakend & Clipper has been made stronger )

Hopefully this solves all the concerns people have with pat's set since it's most likely going to be used for R67.

If there are any other concerns please post them up below.

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

sorry Im out of the loop.
I thought this was discussing BB's set for r67?

Are we to start discussing Pats set? I just opened these.... Etd only 1 steal ship? Zik 4 kill ships? (i look at the basics...and I like steal ships)
Nice to see only 2 pods for each race



(edit; just looked again, with these I would go zik FICO, steal to cover DE and have shittons of mixed FICO. I'd build Buccs to cover CR(and to steal into my chosen BS defence..) and build Rogues for anti BS)

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

I thought when I saw this set again after this round I would think this set looks good by comparison but I find I still utterly loath them. The cat fr hole looks so totally contrived. Two races can have concentration of force; xan and etd... But with xans it is de and co not fr and cr, which is the better choice? The emp averages seem pretty high too... Though that might be because this is really a ST set masquerading as MT, which is probably why ppl voted for the real McCoy last round. I also like some things to be traditional; Ter should be harder to emp than other races and zik should not be terrans in red!

Re: R67 Shipstats proposals
 

SHIT just noticed that Cath FR hole. Agree with booji. Needs fix.

Need Ter to be tougher and Zik to have more steal ships and less kill ships