Menu
▾
▴
openme-developers
|
From: Oliver D. B. <oli...@ma...> - 2003-01-18 17:04:38
|
Well since the code is being reworked anyway I feel we should add a few = changes, simple changes due to our time need. Our goal would be to 1. Add a way for the attacker to more easily harm a base. Eg give up = with the old everything or nothing method. A method of wearing a base = down. 2. Add a way so the defender have a chance to at least take some of his = attackers with him(without the defender being logged on). Eg gie up on = the easy calculations. If we are 10 ships we will never die...so lets be = 10 ships This should be done simple with simple formulaes, and as little add-on = to teh current modules as possible. For goal 1 I am thinking of a simple damage formula, for every X points = of damage pr round there is a chance of destroying a turret/shield = gen/drone hangar. For goal 2 The simple round-robin way eg 10 attackers each get 1/10 of = the defense is not good enough. Our ecperience has shown that a = completely random way is not good either(noone will bust). But how and = why is my question So lets open teh discussion and keep in mind, use what we have know. = Dont add 100 imaginary features, cause I can gurantee you it wont be = implemented. Think as the attacker AND as the defender.=20 Middy |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-18 18:45:26
|
> Oliver Due Billing wrote: > > Well since the code is being reworked anyway I feel we should add a few changes, simple changes due to our time need. > > Our goal would be to > > 1. Add a way for the attacker to more easily harm a base. Eg give up with the old everything or nothing method. A method of wearing a base down. > I would make it dependend on amount of ships and total constructions(only SG/DH and turrets). Variables: totalShield # fill status of shield generators attackerCount # number of ships attacking totalConstructions # see below totalConstructions = turretCount + sgCount + dhCount; Then I would divide totalShield by number of attacking Ships. Suppose we have 5000 shields installed and 10 attacking ships ... then in the first round we assign 500 shield to each ship: totalShield / attackerCount. Lets call this: shieldPerAttacker. If a ship has done shieldPerAttacker damage, the remaining HPs(if any) destroy constructions (if they have armor damage). Very likel yin the first combat rounds there is more than 500 shield per ship, so the first combat rounds won't damage the base. When shield goes down at some point we will have shieldPerAttacker smal enough so that the first 1 or 2 or 3 shots remove that shield and the remaining 2 or 3 shots might hit a construction. Basicly you only need to calculate shieldPerAttacker at start of combat round, to change the firering of weapons to stop making shield damage, when the summed up damage exceedes shieldPerAttacker, and then call your new fucntion with the remaining weapons to fire on constructions. > 2. Add a way so the defender have a chance to at least take some of his attackers with him(without the defender being logged on). Eg gie up on the easy calculations. If we are 10 ships we will never die...so lets be 10 ships > > > This should be done simple with simple formulaes, and as little add-on to teh current modules as possible. > Init: numTargets = attackerCount; // ### numTurrets = base.turrets; numCDs = base.CDs; numCDTargets = attackerCount Loop: firingTurrets = numTurrets / 2; Distrubute firingTurrets on numTargets; fire! numTurrets = numTurrets - (numTurrets / 2); numTargets = numTargets - (numTargets / 2); goto loop; Do the same with CDs. The result is you have at least one turret on every target as long as you have enough turrets. The more in front of the line a ship is, the more turrets fire on it. For 20 turrets and 10 ships it looks like this: s s s s s s s s s s t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t This is when you round downwards in the / 2 calculations above. If you round upwards it is: s s s s s s s s s s t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t <<< t t The CDs could fire on the upper half of the attacker fleet, using a similar approach, or of course, also on the lower part. > For goal 1 I am thinking of a simple damage formula, for every X points of damage pr round there is a chance of destroying a turret/shield gen/drone hangar. > > For goal 2 The simple round-robin way eg 10 attackers each get 1/10 of the defense is not good enough. Our ecperience has shown that a completely random way is not good either(noone will bust). But how and why is my question > > So lets open teh discussion and keep in mind, use what we have know. Dont add 100 imaginary features, cause I can gurantee you it wont be implemented. Think as the attacker AND as the defender. > > Middy Anyway, I hope this is easy enough :-) Its a simplified version of my proposal for base/fleet combat which I had made in phorum some year ago. aos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
|
From: Farid K. <Far...@ro...> - 2003-01-18 23:34:02
|
Base building and base busting should both be risky businesses... all bases no matter of size should be bustable, and no bust should go without casualties. At a base's highest level, losing one ship per round is feasible; if you want it you will pay for it. I also think that once shields are gone, a base's defenses should be considered breached. News item: 1/18/03 - Morgana Comglomerate breached the defenses on base Castle Kindred, owned by Hawklan of Fear The Vampires in sector 8008. Battle Report sent to alliance: The defense on base "Castle Kindred" in sector 8008 were breached at 02:00 on 1/18/03 by Morgana Conglomerate. You have lost this base. Base DOES not need to be destroyed. It will have all of its buildings, hangars, research etc. intact. When you land and claim it, all merchants on base get booted and, we assume, will be podded. Now the base with its turrets, shields gererators, drone hangars, is intact, but has no shields. The attacking alliance can now decide to: 1- Keep and reshield the base 2- Destroy it (self-destruct). This could be timed, consider it building a self-destruct mechanism (building), once the building is complete, it causes the bases deletion. Let's for argument sake, needs as much explosives that the storage can hold, i.e. if the storage has 600 capacity then 600 explosives, if however, the owners got to storage to 1000 units, then it would need 1000 units of explosives to build... It takes 30 minutes to build, once it finishes, the base gets deleted, only the owner can start that building... The previous occupants can still re-take the base before the base goes... if they claim, the owner can cancel the self-destruct building... 02:30 1/18/03 - Fear The Vampires retook their base in sector 8008 or if they can't... 02:45 1/18/03 - Morgana Conglomerate self-destructed a base in sector 8008 Imagine the havoc you can create if you can bust and hold a base deep in enemy territory... They would have to spend resources and money to get it back, call in favours from other alliances... etc. This would not be hard to do, no additional tech required, other than the self-destruct mechanism... But, back to the busting code... I think that randomness of turrets can be achieved without too much code. Who says that all the turrets HAVE to fire? We can divide up the turrets between the attackers, add 3 to that number, then pick a random number of turrets between 0 and that number. So there is a chance that 0 turrets targeted that merchant, or 8 turrets So... A base with 50 turrets being attacked by 10 merchants, so, divide up 50 turrets by 10 ppl, so 5 turrets, add 3 to that, you get 8, get a random number between 0 and 8, and that is the number of turrets that fire... So if you have 10 and it goes like: Ship 1 gets 6 turrets Ship 2 gets 3 turrets Ship 3 gets 0 turrets Ship 4 gets 8 turrets <- if he isn't in a big ship, then he is probably dead :) Ship 5 gets 4 Ship 6 gets 4 Ship 7 gets 7 Ship 8 gets 2 Ship 9 gets 5 Ship 10 gets 3 Total turrets that fire: 42 Total turrets that missed/did not fire: 8 It will also so work out if the first 8 or 9 use up all 50 turrets then the 10th and maybe 9th won't get fired on any turrets... If when it reaches the end of the list and there are no more turrets, then the last person is just lucky. Drones can be the same, start with a percentage of available drones, then a +/- percentage increase, and fire those drones at an attacker, if you run out of drones by end of round then the last few people are lucky again. If we go back to old base building 970 turrets SGs at 100 shields), then shield damage to shield on base are slashed to 1/5th of their power... But shields die the regular way, just deduct them... I want to be able to include MAP alliances in BB, I don't care how long it takes for it to choose who will fire on it, in a realistic sense, coordinating fire from 10 ships should take time. This way, when you see 3 TA, 4 FT and 3 CE online, you can't know they are busting... better than seeing 10 Widowmakers and KNOWING they are up to something.. All that needs to be determined is how big a base can be, because that will determine how big the fleet can be to kill it. If bases can't get too big, then we can limit the number of ships IS. What do you all think? I think it is doable within the timeframe... Hawklan |
|
From: LJC. v. R. <va...@wa...> - 2003-01-19 13:44:03
|
>Our goal would be to > >1. Add a way for the attacker to more easily harm a base. Eg give up with >the old everything or nothing method. A method of wearing a base down. >2. Add a way so the defender have a chance to at least take some of his >attackers with him(without the defender being logged on). Eg gie up on the >easy calculations. If we are 10 ships we will never die...so lets be 10 ships > >This should be done simple with simple formulaes, and as little add-on to >teh current modules as possible. 1. Attacks to bases should be in two phases, shields first, the rest of the constructions once the protecting shield has been destroyed. Attacking the shields is currently aimed at taking down the actual shields. We should redo this to also destroy the shieldgenerators themselves, next to taking down the shields. In current design the hitpoints/damagepoints is 250points per SG. The armor damage of weapons could then be used to reduce these points. Any 250points of weapons damage would take out 1 SG. This would mean that Turrets and DroneHangars would not be damaged by attacks as long as the base has SGs and shields.. Also having ONLY shield weapons for busting will no longer do, since you cannot take out Turrets or DroneHangars with those weapons. We would have to add the damagepoints to the base_structures table and add a couple of lines of codes to check for damage dealt, plus removing destroyed SG when the check tells us so. 2. To damage bases more easily each attack, even by a single player, should have a similar success/fail chance for the attacker's survival. If this is done, there would basically be no more difference between multiple single attackers or a fleet, all firing at once in a single attack. I feel this chance should be dependent on the manouverability of the vessel, and accuracy of the turret. The first one would determine how many turrets would actually take aim at the ship, the second one would then determine hit or miss. I suggest we have a formula wherein the big warships have a chance of eg. 1 in 5 (20%) to get aimed at and the small warship eg. 1 in 10 (10%). With the turret max. at 100 a single large warship attacking would have 20 aimed at it. With turret accuracy at 33%-40% it could survive the attack, but be heavily damaged. The smaller warship would have 10 aimed at it. The odds would be the same for both and with sufficiently high aim/hit ratio the casualties among attackers would rise. |
|
From: Angelo S. <ang...@oo...> - 2003-01-19 14:21:21
|
Hi, I think there should be a way for sorting ships in current sector. A) busters might want to determine who is first in the line of fire B) sector combat with one on one fire creates a disadvantage for the one on top of the list of ships in current sector. If the ships are sorted in reverse order of last move date(this is allready recorded in the ship record) the ship entering sector latest is on top. This should be the first in a bust, IMHO. So reverse entering order is bust order for ships. The same order should apply to current sector listing, as this has the effect that a ship on which is fired might be dropping in the current sector list when furhter ships enter. Suppose we have a fleet battle, 10 of each kind. The guy on top of the list might be attacked by 3 or more enemies, next combat round he is still on top of the list: BAD!! All see him imediatly and fire again on him. Better: if more ships enter those get to the top. The attacker has to "look" for his victim to fire again. If no one enters in the meantime .... bad for the victim. As far as I know only a ORDER BY 'movetime' (DECREASING?) needs to be added to the sQL statement for cs display. Well, probably in a later version of the game only ship name and alliance name is displayed in CS and not the pilot. The new combat code will cause a lot of ALL FIRE ON CARNAUGH kills, or all fire on AOS ... depending which side you are on :-) aos ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Ang...@oo... Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X