Assault Transport Oversight?

[Red.Queen]

!!FUN!! is trying to backtrack damage calcs through numerous layers of functions, sometimes with identical names, spanning half a dozen classes, especially when it involves several rounds of bitshifting and rescaling, along with some test edits to confirm certain initial values are actually getting used and not overwritten.

Did my own testing to get exact numbers and test several scenarios to flush out precisely where in the chain something's not updating, and check the output in game matches what it theoretically should from what I've been able to track in the code so far.  Used Wormhole Guardposts as test dummies (this was a good idea, Chris).  Normal caps, since that affects the math due to scaling.

Math's legit, it really is doing 240x<shots> like the display says, and the number of shots fired checks out.

Carried strength is only used to determine total number of shots in the salvo, not damage per shot.  The whole "x shots per 10 units" thing is obsolete.  It does take that number into account, but not like how the tooltip says -- it uses it at one point for adjusting the base damage per shot.  So strength is used to derive shot count, and shots per unit is used to derive damage per shot.  Perfectly sane.    Gotta love looking over stuff that has had years to evolve, and where renaming junk would be far too annoying/dangerous to bother with, especially when (theoretically  ) no one who doesn't already know what's up will be looking at it.

Carried strength/count updates correctly on loading the AT.  Example -- if you load 80 units in an AT, then unload all, then reload 50, the damage output at the end is correct for 50 units of <whatever> total strength.

So the hole is on unloading.  I'll have to track down the unloading logic and insert a reset of the lastCarried strength/number there.  That should clear up the exploitable issue.

As for reining in the crazy damage, that's a different can of worms.

The damage-per-shot logic ATs use for that is fairly universal, so I can't just gut it and redo it.  I could stick a special case check in there where it looks to see if it's an AT and then <do something else>, but I'm not really thrilled by that as it's kind of a gross road to go down unless it's *really* needed.

I still have some options.  Worst case scenario, I can slash the two stats it feeds in to the relevant functions so that it's virtually impossible to scale up to Stupid Damage, though that will cripple AT damage output when not loaded with high power ships and make early/mid game more difficult, but tame endgame.  Given how abusable they become later on, it may be a worthwhile sacrifice.

The better option which is probably doable without making too much of a mess, will be to add an extra bit of logic to trim down the containedStrength it reports to the damage calcs.  I just need to make sure nothing else accidentally uses that bit and suddenly gets nerfed, since nothing else that multishots really stands out to me currently as having the same ability to go nuts.

I like the diminishing returns idea too, Draco18s, but yeah it's probably too heavy for the benefit in gameplay it would provide over just hardcapping reported strength or cutting to to some percent across the board.  Haven't poked into the custom math libraries to see if there's a custom lightweight version, but I suspect there isn't one as I haven't spotted one getting used anywhere yet, and Chris and Keith were already resorting to extensive use of bitshifting over more traditional manipulations, presumably to squeeze that extra fraction of performance, so I'd be surprised to see any operation more expensive than it absolutely *had* to be floating around, unless it was for something that had one hell of a benefit.

Crazy stuff.  Anyway, time for vodka and blowing things up to unwind.

TL;DR -- Ship tooltip lies, crazy damage math is not bugged, just OP, ATs update contents correctly on loading stuff, just need to make sure ATs wipe their remembered carried strength/numbers when they *unload* too.

[Radiant Phoenix]

My description of AT damage as puny was based on the assumption that the tooltip was correct.

What's the math on an AT with 200 ships totaling 10,000 Strength? 1000 shots for 20x base damage?

[Red.Queen]

Oh man.  It'd be 240x<something utterly ridiculous>number of shots.  The actual damage per shot never changes, only the number.  The "10" value that the tooltip still says is used to determine number of shots just gets used now in determining that per-shot damage (240).  Since the 10 never changes, damage per shot is static.

[Radiant Phoenix]

Let's see... on ultra-low caps, a Mk1 Missile Frigate's strength is 16, and it does 240x1.6 unbonused damage per volley every 10 seconds. An Assault Transport shoots every 4 seconds, so that means it does about 0.42x the DPS of the ship if you have appropriate targets, or 2.5x if you don't.

If you could load a golem in, that would be 3000 strength, so it would do 240x300 damage per volley, which is 72k damage per volley. Not so impressive compared to an Armored Golem doing 200k damage per volley twice as often.

[Red.Queen]

Holy crap Armored Golems do a lot of damage.  Then again, superweapon.

Part of the issue is the extreme life extension of the contents of the ATs, especially when you're talking about fleetships.  The boosted lifespan gives them a lot more S to DP in.  There's a synergy that gets out of hand, kind of like the infamous problem with Spire Railclusters in AI hands.  A mass of 20 of the things is far more effective than just 4x5.

I'm going to do a version of this patch with an addition of a swap to a more vulnerable hull type for ATs (regular Ts can keep their Scout hull, they already are lame enough as is) to see if the one-two punch breaks that runaway synergy.

[Chris_Stalis]

Part of the issue is the extreme life extension of the contents of the ATs, especially when you're talking about fleetships.  The boosted lifespan gives them a lot more S to DP in.  There's a synergy that gets out of hand, kind of like the infamous problem with Spire Railclusters in AI hands.  A mass of 20 of the things is far more effective than just 4x5.

The AT is basically a shotgun that gives a bigger shot the stronger the interior ships are (right now, at least). The danger, balance wise, is actually the ability of the shotgun to affect a huge number of targets in one go. Because the interior ships are protected from damage up until you lose or unload the AT, they can spread a whole bunch of damage around to a lot of different units. This means that the alpha strike from your main fleet coming out causes a major DPS drop in the opposing AI fleet as they tear through all the ships that were hanging on with barely any HP.

I'm going to do a version of this patch with an addition of a swap to a more vulnerable hull type for ATs (regular Ts can keep their Scout hull, they already are lame enough as is) to see if the one-two punch breaks that runaway synergy.

I disagree with changing the hull type, but I encourage others to give it a try. I think another avenue to try, though, would be adding some damage multipliers and targetting it to be much more effective against the heavy defenses like a fortress or force field.

Basically, I do want to remove the ability to just have the ATs flat out pwn a fleet to fleet contest, but I still want them to be useful for "assaulting" the difficult to kill targets. This may necessitate splitting the AT into 2 units, though (an "assault" varient and a "stealth" varient).

Of course this means I'm shooting my reserve knowledge pool in the foot, given how much I prefer the concept of these things -_-

[Red.Queen]

I looked at some ships that were about 3000K to unlock, preferring ones that leaned towards utility rather than pure DPS as the closest analogue to the AT, and had simple to calc damage (i.e. not Neinzul).  That turned up Mk.III Flagships and Mk.II Protector starships, a cap of each on Normal doing 3600 and 7200 a salvo, respectively.  A cap of Mk.I fighters would do 3840, and since that was involved in setting the unloaded baseline, that seems good so far, it would produce a spread of about 100% between unloaded and fully loaded, if you choose a max damage similar to the Protstar.  So far so good.

Then I looked at my notes for a single AT firing on a Wormhole post to review the numbers as they exist.

A *single* AT loaded with 550 strength strength does 5760 currently.  A cap of these then, which would contain a fleet of a mere 5,550 strength, nowhere near a late-game fleet, would be pushing out over 57,000 damage per collective salvo.  A lategame fleet of about 25000 strength then would be pushing over *250,000* damage per salvo from a full set of 10 ATs, with the current numbers.  No wonder the player currently feels zero incentive to unload their fleet and risk taking losses until they have to.

Both scenarios are massively, massively, beyond the 7200 for a cap of ATs suggested by the "look at other stuff costing 3000K to unlock" idea, which would divide the total damage output by about 8.

I'd like them to keep enough damage so that you don't have the tedium of unloading and reloading everything to just squash something minor, but not so much that you're incentivised to never unload until you have to even in a big battle.

The AT is basically a shotgun that gives a bigger shot the stronger the interior ships are (right now, at least). The danger, balance wise, is actually the ability of the shotgun to affect a huge number of targets in one go. Because the interior ships are protected from damage up until you lose or unload the AT, they can spread a whole bunch of damage around to a lot of different units. This means that the alpha strike from your main fleet coming out causes a major DPS drop in the opposing AI fleet as they tear through all the ships that were hanging on with barely any HP.

See, I would argue the reverse due to how I use them -- that the concentrated fire is what's out of whack.  I can commonly use ATs to completely eliminate all guardposts, Ion Cannons, OMDs, etc on even Mk.IV planets before they start to melt, taking at most a single retaliatory salvo, removing a tremendous amount of DPS supporting the enemy fleet.  Without the heavy-hitting fixed defenses in play, my fleet demolishes whatever is mobile on the planet, and if I need it, can be supported with warheads.

This discussion shows that ATs are pretty abusable whether you use them for tearing up fleets OR defenses...

I disagree with changing the hull type, but I encourage others to give it a try. I think another avenue to try, though, would be adding some damage multipliers and targetting it to be much more effective against the heavy defenses like a fortress or force field.

Downside is this approach would turbocharge the "better than Plasma Sieges" for rapidly cracking fixed defenses way of using them that I'm already able to push to silly levels.

Basically, I do want to remove the ability to just have the ATs flat out pwn a fleet to fleet contest, but I still want them to be useful for "assaulting" the difficult to kill targets. This may necessitate splitting the AT into 2 units, though (an "assault" varient and a "stealth" varient).

Hmmmmm... Thinking about this from a slightly different angle to complement the pure damage rebalancing element.

Storming Normandy Beach, the AI War version.  ATs sneak the fleet into position, close to some dangerous target.  The fleet rushes out, the ATs provide some kind of support... pure covering fire wouldn't work correctly, as the AI can't be suppressed and forced to flee shots really.

Engine damage to shots?  Though then that would encourage kiting like crazy and shredding all the engines before unloading, which would be abusive and also step on Riots' toes so probably no.

FFs or attack deflecting counterfire, while thematically logical, steps on Shield Bearers/Spire Corvettes and Protectors.  Also would almost certainly be OP no matter what and encourage conceptually silly things like always taking even an empty cap of ATs with you wherever.  Damage boost duplicates Muni Boosters and Flagships.

An armor damage effect on the shots could be a possibility to shift away from pure DPS to a damage/utility support mix.  It seems like the bonus ships that focus on debuffing armor are universally disliked and are also not common, so the effect could probably be cannibalised for ATs without it being OP or stepping on units people care much about/even show up in most games.

Alternatively, another thought I had before that comes up again would be to give it an AoE, like the Lightning Starship/Electric Shuttle burst or Riot taser.  You'd want to sneak it up to your target, ZAP!  And then doom-drop the fleet to go wild.

Ultimately need to encourage the player to actually unload the bus when doing a serious attack.

[Toranth]

Ultimately need to encourage the player to actually unload the bus when doing a serious attack.

Well, a REALLY easy way to do that would be to cause the units inside to take damage if the Transport is destroyed before they are unloaded.  50% damage, say, would be a really strong encouragement to unload before death.

Another way would be to limit the amount of attacking the Assault Transport can do when loaded.  If you add a counter to it that only charges when unloaded, and the counter goes down as the AT attacks, being unable to attack (or having a pitifully weak attack) when discharged might help.

[Radiant Phoenix]

A mass of 20 of the things is far more effective than just 4x5.

This is true of every unit. The rate at which your force dwindles is proportional to the current size of your enemy's force, which dwindles in proportion to the current size of your force. If you have one extra dude, he kills one enemy dude in the first interval, meaning you have two extra dudes in the second interval, meaning you have four extra dudes in the third interval, meaning... you get the picture. See: the Salvo combat model or Lanchester's laws.

Summary: the power of a fleet is proportional to the square of its size.

Part of the issue is the extreme life extension of the contents of the ATs, especially when you're talking about fleetships.  The boosted lifespan gives them a lot more S to DP in.

The thing is, the AT attack does not happen simultaneously with the attack by the units inside. Oh, the AI doesn't get a chance to rebuild, but it doesn't have to endure being shot at by your missile frigates while it deals with being shot at by the AT. And that matters.

Now, it might still be too strong, but you have to take the separation into account.

If it turns out that the fight with the transport with 200 missile frigates in it is equivalent to fighting 140 missile frigates (discounting the fight afterwards), then I think the math is that it's roughly equivalent to a normal cap of missile frigates of that mark.

[Chris_Stalis]

Storming Normandy Beach, the AI War version.  ATs sneak the fleet into position, close to some dangerous target.  The fleet rushes out, the ATs provide some kind of support... pure covering fire wouldn't work correctly, as the AI can't be suppressed and forced to flee shots really.

What about an attract fire aura? If the AI fires at any ship a range of x distance to the AT, the AT will become the target of the intended damage. I know there are units that already have this ability, so it would just be a matter of making sure the effect got invoked correctly.

Further tweaking could then be done by modifying the available health of the ATs. Heck, for this ability, I'd even be willing to give up the guns on the AT entirely.

[Pumpkin]

attract fire aura

This plus no guns? I like this idea. The player need to unload the fleet to attack ; the fleet do itself its own damage and the AT still protect the fleet.

Something that bugs me that this suggestion would solve, is the damage abstraction of the AT: ships inside an AT has no more bonus but no more special ammo type. For instance fusion cutters or dark matter guns are able to attack targets normally immune to this kind of ammo from inside an AT. Range is also wiped from the board: snipers and vampires get the AT's range. Suicide ships (rams, autobombs) or attrition ships (younglings) are also weirdly tweaked.

Hey? What about just giving AT the dark matter munition type? For some specific targets, the player must unload, but for passing through an annoying fleet, no need to unload. But maybe what you (all) are seeking is how to kill a specific target with AT and force players to engage fleets with fleet.

Sorry,
the "I don't care" guy passing by.

[Red.Queen]

Well, a REALLY easy way to do that would be to cause the units inside to take damage if the Transport is destroyed before they are unloaded.  50% damage, say, would be a really strong encouragement to unload before death.

True, or to bring them in line with how Carriers work and pass damage through.  The Scout hull would still provide a net reduction in total damage taken, but the stuff inside isn't perfectly safe

Another way would be to limit the amount of attacking the Assault Transport can do when loaded.  If you add a counter to it that only charges when unloaded, and the counter goes down as the AT attacks, being unable to attack (or having a pitifully weak attack) when discharged might help.

Reminds me a little of Build Points that stuff like the Hive Golem use, but for guns.  Or an inverse of how the Firefly works.

Summary: the power of a fleet is proportional to the square of its size.

Yup.  This is the root of some of the issues with how the AI can exceed caps on certain ships.  It might be paying a cost that appears to be proportional, but it's still effectively underpaying due to this multiplicative effect.  I think the slipperiness of accounting for that is one of the reasons why certain problem ships are still causing disproportionate trouble in AI hands.

The thing is, the AT attack does not happen simultaneously with the attack by the units inside. Oh, the AI doesn't get a chance to rebuild, but it doesn't have to endure being shot at by your missile frigates while it deals with being shot at by the AT. And that matters.

Now, it might still be too strong, but you have to take the separation into account.

If it turns out that the fight with the transport with 200 missile frigates in it is equivalent to fighting 140 missile frigates (discounting the fight afterwards), then I think the math is that it's roughly equivalent to a normal cap of missile frigates of that mark.

True, but you're also cutting out worrying about matching up strong vs. weak subsections of your fleet, everyone now gets to do Energy Bomb damage and not worry about damage multipliers.  So anything that would be weak against your current target now gets a significant straight DPS boost that flies under the radar.

Another point that's harder to assign hard numbers to is that you're also drastically cutting your refleet expenses and time, as well as your exposure to reprisal waves by squeezing this much extra efficiency and lifespan out of your fleet.  I know I give zero... ducks about rebuilding half a dozen ATs, but if I had to rebuild most of the 1200 units inside of it (and eat whatever probably-hideous Reprisal wave was inbound) I would *not* be happy!

What about an attract fire aura? If the AI fires at any ship a range of x distance to the AT, the AT will become the target of the intended damage. I know there are units that already have this ability, so it would just be a matter of making sure the effect got invoked correctly.

Further tweaking could then be done by modifying the available health of the ATs. Heck, for this ability, I'd even be willing to give up the guns on the AT entirely.

That's an interesting possibility for a replacement of their guns.

I think the Decoy Drones are the main thing that has this, with one or two other ship types having some limited fire attraction (specific ammo type, they're such a nonentity I can't even remember the specific ship).  There's not already a crowd of ships covering this effect, so it might not seem redundant to grant it to one that you always have access to if you want to pay the K.

Plus, if you want to take advantage of the ability on the ATs, you have to make the choice to likely sacrifice them and have a more dangerous trip wherever you are going afterwards, which would keep them from overshadowing the far more expendable and spammable Decoys...  You want cheap, wide-coverage shot attracting?  Use the purpose-built ship.  An emergency while landing the fleet happens?  Circle the wagons (ATs) and let them eat fire while the fleet makes a stand.

I like.

This one combo'ed with a thread over in the Strategy section to also remind me about Translocation Knockback, that's another effect that could fit and might be worth trying out.  Slash the number of shots (and thus the damage), but let the ATs valiantly punt stuff away to open up breathing room for the fleet to strike.

attract fire aura

This plus no guns? I like this idea. The player need to unload the fleet to attack ; the fleet do itself its own damage and the AT still protect the fleet.

Looks like we have three votes for trying out the decoy effect!  I will put together and post a test patch for this one this weekend then so people can start trying it out.

Something that bugs me that this suggestion would solve, is the damage abstraction of the AT: ships inside an AT has no more bonus but no more special ammo type. For instance fusion cutters or dark matter guns are able to attack targets normally immune to this kind of ammo from inside an AT. Range is also wiped from the board: snipers and vampires get the AT's range. Suicide ships (rams, autobombs) or attrition ships (younglings) are also weirdly tweaked.

Yeah, it gets a little odd, Carriers end up with the same effect (same thing for how they lose their immunities to AoE and certain damage types when packed inside).  I don't think it's really avoidable though.

Hey? What about just giving AT the dark matter munition type? For some specific targets, the player must unload, but for passing through an annoying fleet, no need to unload. But maybe what you (all) are seeking is how to kill a specific target with AT and force players to engage fleets with fleet.

I assume a lot of stuff is immune to that damage type?  Almost nothing uses it so I haven't paid attention to what resists it.

That does also raise the simple, quick and dirty option of simply sticking the ATs with a Fortress-style nerfing multiplier against certain hull types.  As much as it pains me to say because I take advantage of this all day long, but they really shouldn't be so good at structural killing I think.  When I think of ATs, I think of things like amphibious troop transports from WWII or modern-day APCs, their weapons are meant for covering fire, not artillery...

***

Anyway, lots of good input from everyone that's raised a lot of interesting considerations!  I think I've got enough data/suggestions to kick out a batch of patch options that people can start playing with and debate which they like best.

The list I think I'll try:

1. No Guns, Pure Stealth -- Already done, no point in throwing away work, I won't delete it.

2. Decoy ATs -- I'll just have to test to make sure that the cloaking doesn't interfere with the shot attraction.  If it does, no big deal, I'll just nerf their damage down to something nominal so they still break their cloaking as they pew-pew and make themselves eligible to be shot.  Nope, forgot Decoys were Experimental class, they should stay unique.

3. Translocation Knockback ATs -- Similar deal to #2, pair with a heavy damage cut so the primary effect is the knockback.

4. Pure Damage Nerfing -- Probably make a high and a moderate level of reduction as options since there doesn't seem to be a consensus on exactly how far it should be cut.

5. Antipersonnel ATs -- Pull their teeth against Structural and Command-Grade hulls with a severe nerfing multiplier so you can still have a nice cloaked alpha strike against fleets before you unload, but no leveling a whole planet's defenses with them.  You want the posts/FFs gone, unload the big guns and tank the losses.  Pair with a hull type nerf to cut their lifespan if they still feel OP against fleets (first inclination is to pick something Fighters or Missile Frigates do well against, Bombers already get enough love). Never mind, guardpost hulls are all 31 flavors of Baskin Robbins, simpler to just cut damage across the board and be done with it.

6. Glass Cannon ATs -- Mostly leave damage alone, but change their hull type to something commonly countered so they don't get long to exploit the high damage in pitched combat.  You get a nice alpha, choose your target wisely. Nope, I'd have to cut their durability to "self-destructs at a stern look" to get the same effective DPS reduction over time as the plain damage nerf, which would makes ATs just annoying to use.  They're Assault Transports, not Annoyance Transports.

***

If ATs somehow *still* feel weird after all those options, hopefully at least whatever the remaining hangup is will have been narrowed down to be squashed, assuming it's not just a matter of tuning some numbers further.  (The "battery charging" shots thing Toranth mentioned *begs* to be attached to a Golem someday I think, but that's a different topic.)

[Toranth]

2. Decoy ATs -- I'll just have to test to make sure that the cloaking doesn't interfere with the shot attraction.  If it does, no big deal, I'll just nerf their damage down to something nominal so they still break their cloaking as they pew-pew and make themselves eligible to be shot.

My preference would by a straight damage nerf, but this is the one I want to talk about.

I strongly oppose giving ATs a Decoy ability.  There is a good reason that Decoy Drones are an experimental, fab-only ship.  The Decoy ability is very powerful.  Combined with something like Shieldbearers or Protector Starships, they can render a large number of AI units worthless for a good length of time.  There are no normal units, even bonus ships, with this ability because it would be too powerful.  They'd be better than Protector Starships, which are already cheese-like.

If ATs had Decoy abilities, they would still be a must-unlock, but for fleet protection reasons rather than their current brute firepower role.

[Red.Queen]

2. Decoy ATs -- I'll just have to test to make sure that the cloaking doesn't interfere with the shot attraction.  If it does, no big deal, I'll just nerf their damage down to something nominal so they still break their cloaking as they pew-pew and make themselves eligible to be shot.

My preference would by a straight damage nerf, but this is the one I want to talk about.

I strongly oppose giving ATs a Decoy ability.  There is a good reason that Decoy Drones are an experimental, fab-only ship.  The Decoy ability is very powerful.  Combined with something like Shieldbearers or Protector Starships, they can render a large number of AI units worthless for a good length of time.  There are no normal units, even bonus ships, with this ability because it would be too powerful.  They'd be better than Protector Starships, which are already cheese-like.

If ATs had Decoy abilities, they would still be a must-unlock, but for fleet protection reasons rather than their current brute firepower role.

Ah hell, you're right, I completely forgot they were a purely experimental ship.  I had them once but misremembered it as being an ordinary fab.  Anything experimental should stay unique on the strength of the thematic reasons alone, before even considering mechanical ramifications.

Scratch that one then.

[Radiant Phoenix]

I recently tried out using the AT while a 10-shipyard spire fleet (strength ~50k) was inside it. Most impressive.

That said, it's basically made of wet tissue paper once it decloaks, so this basically just saves me the micro of unloading and reloading the fleet.