Autocannons need a boost

[Kjara]

Yeah, I agree additive is generally better if you care about computation(though you can do fun stuff with taking only powers of 2 and then multiplying the ones you need if you want to get fancy on the other .

My issue is that stating that its a .95x cluster attack penalty doesn't really work in any sense really(unless its multiplicative--which it isn't).  Arguably what you should say is that its a -.05 cluster bonus or a .05 cluster penalty if you want it to be consistent with the way autocannons work/are written.

Edit: Imo exponential would work for the penalties for two reasons both dealing with the fact that the ship caps are so tiny(first the computation isn't that bad if you are only raising to the 10th or so power and second that its going to get tiny and hit the cap pretty quickly).--However it would be really confusing to have the two mechanics work differently so I'd be in favor of keeping them both additive.

Edit: Basically its really confusing thinking that if you combine .95 and .95 you get .9, and if you combine .95, .95 and .95 you get .85, etc.  Seems more intuitive to think that you combine .05 and .05 and you get .1.

[Revenantus]

Yeah, I agree additive is generally better if you care about computation(though you can do fun stuff with taking only powers of 2 and then multiplying the ones you need if you want to get fancy on the other .

My issue is that stating that its a .95x cluster attack penalty doesn't really work in any sense really(unless its multiplicative--which it isn't).  Arguably what you should say is that its a -.05 cluster bonus or a .05 cluster penalty if you want it to be consistent with the way autocannons work/are written.

Arguably true, as if you're mathematically inclined you're almost certain to interpret the current notation as the exponential version.

[Revenantus]

Edit: Imo exponential would work for the penalties for two reasons both dealing with the fact that the ship caps are so tiny(first the computation isn't that bad if you are only raising to the 10th or so power and second that its going to get tiny and hit the cap pretty quickly).--However it would be really confusing to have the two mechanics work differently so I'd be in favor of keeping them both additive.

From the look of things, the attack bonus is calculated for every shot. Perhaps if bonuses were only recalculated when ships entered / exited the planet the exponential versions would be more feasible?

[Kjara]

Edit: Imo exponential would work for the penalties for two reasons both dealing with the fact that the ship caps are so tiny(first the computation isn't that bad if you are only raising to the 10th or so power and second that its going to get tiny and hit the cap pretty quickly).--However it would be really confusing to have the two mechanics work differently so I'd be in favor of keeping them both additive.

From the look of things, the attack bonus is calculated for every shot. Perhaps if bonuses were only recalculated when ships entered / exited the planet the exponential versions would be more feasible?

Should be trivial to store the number of ships and the current bonus/penalty and just check the number of ships on each shot(and recalculate only when this number changes).

Edit Heck, if there are only 30 or so possible values, just precompute them and use a lookup table.

[Revenantus]

Graph attached if it's useful for anyone considering the concept.

[x4000]

In practice, I'm happy with how autocannons are working at the moment.  Especially with all the other things that need to get finalized in the next two days, I'm calling them good for now.  We can definitely revisit in the future if need be, but I don't think a hugely complex set of math analysis needs to go into this.  Right now it's very linear -- more autocannons of the same level = better.  I don't want this to cross levels because that makes them far too overpowered.  Also, I want the per-level effect so that this can be consistent with sentinel frigates and the like, which were far underpowered when grouped cross-level.