Author Topic: Why an artificial combat triangle?  (Read 6954 times)

Offline Kjara

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 822
Re: Why an artificial combat triangle?
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2009, 02:39:03 pm »
In regards to dynamic vs static generation of good/bad:
Ahha, I hadn't realized that this was now the case, I've gotten to the point where I generally know what units are good against what units and don't need to use it for much.  Also my test case the ai had so many different unit types by that point its was hard to tell :).  I agree that turrets/starships need some looking at though.

In regards to the spire:
I had thought that the 2 main advantages the spire had over the zenith was a) higher boost range and b) ammo type(it can target things near ai home command centers/anti-missile turrets since its shell rather than missile).  Not going to complain too much about a range boost though (though it will make taking out enemy home worlds tougher since they tend to have at least 2 or 3 spires under the shields defending the ai command center).  On that note, I wouldn't mind seeing anti-missile turrets be slightly more common for the ai.


On the general topic:
Honestly I tend to not react too much to enemy ship concentrations.  I'm with haagenti's comments in the attritioning the enemy post that I play against the meta game, and while I do react somewhat to the ai ship types(moreso early on), I often rely on numbers to make ships that are not good but not that bad work against units(300 cruisers will generally do pretty well against any 20 or so non-starship units even fighters) and focus on creating situations where I can bring overwhelming force against the enemy(and defeat it in detail).

My biggest problem with the good/bad numbers is the fact that they don't take into account range and while I do understand the reasoning for it, this makes snipers look useless and tends to overvalue short range/slow units.  In reality if my cruisers/deflectors/etc. are going to be facing tanks(or some other slowish lowish range unit), I'm going to kite the tanks and take pretty much no losses, even if the tanks claim to do well against my cruisers(I don't remember if they do, just an example).  Even against units that are faster than cruisers slightly, by moving directly away you can reduce their effective speed to ~4-8 for many units, giving you plenty of time to take advantage of the high range.  On the flip side, I don't see any way to capture this better without biasing the data in the direction of the ranged units and making units good at wormhole assaults look worthless.

Offline Velox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
Re: Why an artificial combat triangle?
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2009, 03:41:36 pm »

     What's in a name?  That which we call a shield by any other name would make a ship harder to hit at range.  So a bomber would, were it not a bomber call'd, retain that ability to blow fighters to smithereens without that title. 

     Yet people would not insist t'were otherwise, because of assumptions.

     New suggestion: rename "shields" to "phased magnadoobers", fighters to "zippamajigs" and bombers to "kablastoids."  AI War is too unique to saddle with the conventions of the rest of the genre, which seems to be its fate as long as it shares any vocabulary.

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: Why an artificial combat triangle?
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2009, 03:50:49 pm »
 ;D
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Kohan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3

Offline Gankenstein

  • Newbie Mark II
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Why an artificial combat triangle?
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2009, 04:22:29 pm »
"phased magnadoobers"
I hadn't realised Ms. Parton appears in this game.

Offline RCIX

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,808
  • Avatar credit goes to Spookypatrol on League forum
Re: Why an artificial combat triangle?
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2009, 06:45:26 pm »
Well, see, i have problems with the way units are tested, but that's another thread.

Regarding the unit toughness, most units are of "average toughness" which means that tooltips will read like "Strong vs: ... Cruiser 99% 0s ... Weak vs: ... Fighter 85% 2s ..." (not from the game exactly) but then there are the high toughness ships that will read something like "Weak vs: ... Cruiser 56% 216s ... ". So you have to use the defeat times, the "swarminess" and the unit's health to gauge how string it is.
Avid League player and apparently back from the dead!

If we weren't going for your money, you wouldn't have gotten as much value for it!

Oh, wait... *causation loop detonates*

Offline raptor331

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
Re: Why an artificial combat triangle?
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2009, 10:41:31 am »
big words they hurt my head!!!!!!!!!!! :'(

Offline Cintia

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Why an artificial combat triangle?
« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2009, 07:35:16 am »
I'd have to agree on both sides here. The system does take quite some time to learn and isn't really intuative. But the reason for that is simple: another system can't provide the game with the same ammount of flexability and different unit types. Furthermore this system is easier to change to adjust imbalance where needed.
Fair enough, just tell it as it is.

Still, I do feel there should be some sort of combination of these two opposites ends at the spectrum.
I'm fine with large bonuses against certain types but there should be at least some kind of underlying logic. Base vallues that *are* intuative.

Examples:

Ammo types -vs- different armor types. Like reflective armor is good vs laser but weak vs shells.
And certain armor and shield strengths like Light/Medium/Heavy.
Maybe even change shields to something more active rather just a simple mitigation factor.

This way you learn a few basic 'universal truths' that are pretty much accepted in all other games.
And on top of this each ship has some unique features that make them suited against what they are supposed to be effective or ineffective against.

Just my 2.5 cents.