Author Topic: Ye Ol' Armor Debate  (Read 27138 times)

Offline sarudak

  • Newbie Mark III
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Ye Ol' Armor Debate
« Reply #150 on: July 17, 2012, 02:39:11 pm »
Does this mean that higher class ships will get more free armor piercing throwing off the class 2 is twice as good as class 1 dynamic?

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Ye Ol' Armor Debate
« Reply #151 on: July 17, 2012, 03:15:37 pm »
Does this mean that higher class ships will get more free armor piercing throwing off the class 2 is twice as good as class 1 dynamic?
No; sorry, I mentioned it a few times but wasn't consistent: this is based off the mkI damage.

So really, in the game it won't look like a direct computation from damage, it's just establishing a baseline to get the relationship between RoF and how-well-it-does-versus-armor we want.
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 Diazo

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • I love/hate Diff 10
Re: Ye Ol' Armor Debate
« Reply #152 on: July 18, 2012, 09:41:45 am »
Okay, this thread has slowed down so I think the discussion is starting to peter out on what's should/going to happen to armor and AP (armor piercing).

Some units will get a bonus to armor piercing (such as Anti-Armor) but for the innate AP due to damage, here's where I see things being at the moment.

We are pretty much down to figuring out the exact curve we want but rather then starting with the curve, I think we should start with the numbers and make the curve fit.

To that end, what are peoples opinion on what the following should be?

Should there be a minimum damage to get AP at all? If so, what?
What should the fighter at 4,800 damage get?
Light Starship at 6,200 damage?
What should the Frigate/Bomber at 9,600 damage get?
Youngling Tiger at 11,600 damage?
Zenith Electric Bomber at 76,000 damage?
Raid Starship at 102,400 damage?
Zenith Bombard at 180,000 damage?
Plasma Siege Starship at 400,000 damage?

Thoughts? Opinions?

D.

Should there be a innate AP cap? At what percent?


Offline PokerChen

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,088
Re: Ye Ol' Armor Debate
« Reply #153 on: July 18, 2012, 10:19:53 am »
Should there be a minimum damage to get AP at all? If so, what?
(ship-list)
Should there be a innate AP cap? At what percent?

I'd suggest that only things like Fortresses and Golems should be able to get near/reach innate AP cap. The actual values depend on what kind of %-based armours we can afford to slap onto fleetships - it should be enough to penetrate that, but not very special ships such as, say, raid starships.

So, if fleetships (excepting a couple of bonus ship-types) get a maximum of 30% armour, then it shall be 30% auto-AP capped. (So 30-30 becomes initial damage again.)

As for the minimum auto-AP, I think that a sizeable fraction of existing fleetships can just go without. If players see like 2% on practically every ship in the galaxy, we may as well just bump armour. This puts a minimum damage at >~5000, i.e. not fighters (base), cutlasses (high rof) nor grenade launchers (HE splash) .

So, I'd rank light starships and bombers/frigs at about ~2%, electric bombers at about ~5%, plasma sieges at ~10%, and finally armoured golems at ~20%.  This is assuming again that fleetships will rarely, if ever, get >=30% armour. If we need more on bombers then we give them some armour piercing.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 10:22:02 am by zharmad »

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Ye Ol' Armor Debate
« Reply #154 on: July 21, 2012, 12:54:54 pm »
FYI, I'm probably going to hold off on implementing this for at least a few more days; I want the difficulty balance changes in 5.046 to have a bit of time to pan out, etc.
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 TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: Ye Ol' Armor Debate
« Reply #155 on: July 21, 2012, 01:01:31 pm »
FYI, I'm probably going to hold off on implementing this for at least a few more days; I want the difficulty balance changes in 5.046 to have a bit of time to pan out, etc.

Probably a good idea, that way if the game turns out too hard or too easy, we know what to look at, rather than questioning whether we buffed the AI too much or too little, or are the new armor values too out of wack? When turning multiple "knobs" at once, it is hard to tell which knobs contributed to which parts of the new result.

Offline Cyborg

  • Master Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,957
Re: Ye Ol' Armor Debate
« Reply #156 on: July 21, 2012, 01:50:26 pm »
I'm relieved this is actually going to be a logarithmic curve. That's exactly the right choice for a game like this, where you need some kind of scalable curve that cannot be abused into instant kills on either side.
Kahuna strategy guide:
http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,13369.0.html

Suggestions, bugs? Don't be lazy, give back:
http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/

Planetcracker. Believe it.

The stigma of hunger. http://wayw.re/Vi12BK

Offline Diazo

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,717
  • I love/hate Diff 10
Re: Ye Ol' Armor Debate
« Reply #157 on: July 21, 2012, 02:55:12 pm »
Do you have some final (or near final) numbers you can post for us to look at or do you want to keep it under wraps until we've played it to get un-tainted gameplay feedback?

The last actual numbers you posted are from quite a while ago so I'm interested in what's actually going to go into the game.

D.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: Ye Ol' Armor Debate
« Reply #158 on: July 23, 2012, 02:16:09 pm »
Do you have some final (or near final) numbers you can post for us to look at or do you want to keep it under wraps until we've played it to get un-tainted gameplay feedback?

The last actual numbers you posted are from quite a while ago so I'm interested in what's actually going to go into the game.
Part of the reason I've not implemented it yet is I haven't had time to sit down and work out the numbers because I don't want to just implement the mechanic and leave the numbers as-is for future balancing (as we did basically when switching the mechanic from "shields" to "armor") because that just makes a total dog's-breakfast of balance ;)  Not that it won't be a bit of wild ride at first anyway.

Right now I'm thinking of:

A) Change the internal "apply armor to incoming damage" calculation according to step 1 of my earlier post:

Quote
1) Calculate Defender_Armor_Percent, starting from zero:
1.a) Add the defender's base armor rating.
1.b) Subtract armor rotter damage
1.c) Multiply according to armor boosting (or zero out if there's one of those armor-negaters around).
- We may also have armor boosting add some base amount to help that mechanic work on armorless ships, but that's not core to this.
1.d) Set to 1000/(1000+number_computed_thus_far) to yield a number between 0 and 1.
- A simple change would be to let armor rot exceed armor by some margin, making this actually able to yield a number somewhat larger than 1.

B) Change the display of armor to the percentage value corresponding to (1000/1000+armor), and probably not show the internal value.

C) Change existing armor values something like:
- For fleet ships, things with armor typically have something from 150*mk through 750*mk (by steps of 150).  I think the armored ship is an outlier.  Anyway, I'll just change that to 5% through 25%.  Or perhaps 10% through 50%.  Obviously the internal numbers are different (10% is about 112, 20% is about 250, 30% is about 429, etc). 
-- Not scaling up by marks, of course.
- For other stuff basically just playing it by ear; thankfully it's fairly intuitive to know if something "makes sense" as unarmored, lightly armored (10-15%), moderately armored (20-35%) or heavily armored (40+%) or whatisgoingonmyshotsarenotdoinganything (90%).

D) Change the armor piercing calculation according to steps 2 and 3 of my earlier post (a few changes since the above) :
Quote
2) Calculate Attacker_ArmorPiercing_Percent, starting from zero:
2.a) Add the attacker's base armor piercing rating (this is just the literal number like you see it now, but fewer ships would have this and it would effectively be some number between 0 and 1)
2.b) Add someFunction(markI_damage_per_shot), which returns some number between 0 and 1
- Note that markI_damage_per_shot is literally the base attack power per shot (for the mark I variant of that ship), so something firing 10 shots per salvo doing 1,000 per shot is very different than something firing 1 shot per salvo doing 10,000 per shot.
2.c) If greater than Defender_Armor_Percent, set to Defender_Armor_Percent

3) Calculate Effective_Armor_Multiplier, starting from One:
3.a) Subtract (1-Defender_Armor_Percent)
3.b) Add Attacker_ArmorPiercing_Percent
3.c) If < 0.1, set to 0.1 (the minimum 10% damage rule)

For "someFunction" I'll probably just pick one of the ones already in this thread, and see what kind of numbers that produces.

E) Change armor piercing display to just show the effective percent-subtractor.

F) Change existing armor piercing values to... something reasonable :)  Fleet ships right now are also more like 150*mk, 300*mk, etc, and I'll probably convert that on a similar scale as I am the armor values themselves.  A lot of ships will probably have their explicit armor piercing values reduced or removed because now they're getting the implicit bonus from damage-per-shot.

G) Change the math behind the polarizer's damage modifier to fit the new armor values.

H) Adjust armor rotting values to be lower since armor values will be lower, otherwise this mechanic stays the same.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk