Assault Transport Oversight?

[Pumpkin]

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...

To go alongside your "5. Antipersonnel ATs": try to use the infiltrators and see what they can't do. You'll then pay attention to all that is dark matter immune and maybe (maybe) you'll find it perfectly fit your "Pull their teeth against Structural and Command-Grade hulls". Else, the <1 hull multiplier sounds ok.

[Red.Queen]

Got a chance to settle down with this a bit and do some coding.

AT failure to update contained strength bug -- SOLVED.

I found the last piece of the puzzle while I was pulling together a reference list to keep handy while I worked and corrected the minor error in logic that was blocking ATs from realizing they needed to update if their contents went from something to nothing.  Fixing this would produce a small increase in extra work on the system as transport-class objects are no longer blocked from checking their contents' strength and count if the number contained is 0, but as they are empty, this should be a trivial effect.  I noticed no performance loss in testing.

Confirmed carriers wouldn't be affected as they can never cycle through contents from something to nothing back to something in the same object, since they self-destruct on hitting 0 contained ships.

Barracks have similar logic to ATs but probably not affected as I don't think I have ever seen one empty unless it was in the process of being destroyed or self-destructing on planet ownership change.

Incidentally, I discovered another thing I love about this game, if it throws errors it screams them not only out into the log, but into the message log in game.  I don't even have to alt-tab back and forth to see if I blew something up that didn't manage to take the game down.  It's so... practical. <wipes away a tear of dev joy>

Now that I have a debugged base for ATs, time to move on to the fun stuff of messing with their damage and abilities. 

[Chris_Stalis]

Now that I have a debugged base for ATs, time to move on to the fun stuff of messing with their damage and abilities. 

Cause clicking the unload button to automatically trigger the simultaneous destruction of both AI homeworlds and trigger the win condition?

[Red.Queen]

Test builds for 50% numshots and hardcapping max strength that can be used by an AT are functional, logs come up clean and math is checking out.

Dropping the Glass Cannon option, even with the slashed damage options I'm currently testing they still kick ass, just not every ass in the galaxy now.  I'd have to make them soap bubble fragile to get the effect I have in mind, and that would be obnoxious in actual play, especially for people who aren't as interested in micromanagement, which isn't an emphasis of this game anyway.  ("I'm gonna splat that one big thing before I unload/the ATs pop -- aaaand they're gone.")

Also dropping the Antipersonnel ATs option, I looked over the hull types of the guardposts and they're varied to the point I would have to nerf damage vs. nearly every hull type to actually get the result I want.  Pointless complication when I can just cut damage across the board.  Hull type distribution would have to be overhauled to gain more consistency to make this worth doing, and that is an entirely different can of worms that has produced much debate elsewhere.

Time to look at the knockback option.

Now that I have a debugged base for ATs, time to move on to the fun stuff of messing with their damage and abilities. 

Cause clicking the unload button to automatically trigger the simultaneous destruction of both AI homeworlds and trigger the win condition?

<snicker>  Only if I were to make Mk.III Nuke Transports!

[Pumpkin]

To go alongside your "5. Antipersonnel ATs": try to use the infiltrators and see what they can't do. You'll then pay attention to all that is dark matter immune and maybe (maybe) you'll find it perfectly fit your "Pull their teeth against Structural and Command-Grade hulls". Else, the <1 hull multiplier sounds ok.

I gave a closer look at this: it's lame. Only ion canons and OMD seems to be immune to dark matter ammo. Even the fortresses are not DM-immune. So bad.

[Red.Queen]

I gave a closer look at this: it's lame. Only ion canons and OMD seems to be immune to dark matter ammo. Even the fortresses are not DM-immune. So bad.

Yup, I was looking at that too while I was testing the damage nerf builds.  Lots of Sniper and Fusion Cutter immunities, but not Dark Matter.  And neither Sniper nor Fusion Cutter ammo type makes sense for ATs so that's out.  Oh well.  It was still a good thought Pumpkin.

***

Right, so trying to update the C# for the main function that assigns ship abilities crashes ILSpy/Reflexil every time, it can't handle manipulating a 31K line single function.  Guess it's back to the raw MSIL for me whenever I want to edit a ship's core stats.  <sigh>    That'll have to wait until later tonight or tomorrow, I have pizza on the way.  Pizza > other things.

[Draco18s]

it can't handle manipulating a 31K line single function

Jebus.

[Red.Queen]

it can't handle manipulating a 31K line single function

Jebus.

Yup.  Fun times in the world of reflection. 


Anyway, pizza was eaten, day job work was gotten out of the way, and the Knockback AT stuff was built, tested, and laughed at.  Which means...


Mod post updated with new version and info.

[Draco18s]

Yup.  Fun times in the world of reflection. 

I think you're doing something more akin to ASM than Reflection (modifying bytecode vs. invoking methods).

And I've looked into the abyss that is ASM.  It looked back.

[Red.Queen]

I think you're doing something more akin to ASM than Reflection (modifying bytecode vs. invoking methods).

True.  I was using the term a bit lazily as I use tools that use reflection to let me explore the assembly and emit MSIL.  Bad habit I picked up from reading too many very informal discussions on meddling with C# assemblies where it tends to get used rather broadly. 

And I've looked into the abyss that is ASM.  It looked back.

I think that's about the best summation/reaction to that I've ever come across. 

[Draco18s]

And I've looked into the abyss that is ASM.  It looked back.

I think that's about the best summation/reaction to that I've ever come across. 

I modified an avatar of my mine to reflect that.