First of all, thanks for your feedback.



We do not plan to add cloaking module for the moment. We prefer give effects to existing module like

Indeed, restricting scrapping on a besieged system make sense. I'll add this and try to deal it

For the terraforming by bombardment, imagine heavy module which are able to directly affect the core of the planet. Maybe, in order to terraform a planet, it will require several bombardment.

For the weapons formula, I think your idea is quite better indeed; I'll rework this part.

For the rally point, I'll see if it feasible without making the interface too heavy.



A detailed document on the ship design should come soon =)



Cheers,

Above everything else in this list the Rally point has got my attention as I have always wanted that sort of feature.



Would it be possible to set system rally points so that when ships are made in the system they are sent to a certain system to group together? It would make everything so much easier if I could do that late game when I am pumping out 50+ ships a turn.

KnightHawk wrote:
If that's the only option - transform to lava then sure...

No, I want a biobomb, rendering a lot of collateral damage due to introduction of excessively fast reproducing plants and wildlife onto a planet that convert it to a djungle.

>>> The rally point thingie makes my day!

>>> Ail's damage proposition makes sense (I think).



Anyway, looking forward to test it.

I don't understand why you'd have three different weapon types if they all work the same way. What's the point of that except complexity and confusion for newbies (I researched shields and he researched kinetics, so my fleet is wiped off the map, yay!)?



You could just as easily have one weapon type with lots of versions that have tweaked values, only it makes the defenses less confusing. This is particularly weird when in the other document you mentioned having long/medium/melee range versions of all the weapons. At the very least you could keep the weapon types with the range affinities as they are now, so that they're still distinct in some way, even if they do all use the same mechanics in battle.



As it stands right now you're making a ton of weapon combinations (long/medium/melee missiles/beams/kinetcs) that do the same thing as a much smaller number of combinations would accomplish (long missiles, medium beams, short kinetcs that all use the new formula). The reasoning behind that doesn't make sense to me and I think it's going to be even more confusing for newcomers than the current system.

I'll just stick to seconding Ail and King, here.

KingJohnVI wrote:
A simple solution to this would be to make it so that structures cannot be scrapped while the system is being seiged/blockaded.

Very good input!



Here's my 2 cent:



I really like the idea of being able to target stuff to make the combat more strategical.



But just like Nosferatiel, I'm also not too happy, that if you are going to change how defenses work anyways, you are still using formulas that can result in 0 damage.



In my simple world defenses should simply act as a percentage in damage-reduction. Without any kind of randomization or absolute reduction values.



Damage done=Raw damage*1-Defense/(Defense+DefMod)

DefMod is a value that determines how much Defense you need to increase the Effective Health by 100%.

So if it is 100, it means that every 100 Defense you need 100% more damage for the same effect.



This kind of formula is used in many different games whenever it comes to damage reduction.



I know it being used at least in:

WarCraft III

World of WarCraft

League of Legends

Diablo 3



I see no valid reason why not to use it in Endless Space aswell.



Some examples:



Low-End-Deflector has 10 Kinetics-Defense.

Let's say you have 5 of them on a ship:



Then Damage is multiplied by: 1-50/150=66%



Mid-Level-Deflector has 25 Kinetcs-Defense.

Fit five of them again:



Then Damage is multiplied by: 1-125/225=44%



High-End-Deflector has 80 Kinetics-Defense.

Once again with five of them:



Then Damage is multiplied by: 1-400/500=20%



I think with some value-tweaking that can be easily made into scaling well with the weapon-damage dished out.

It also prevents unkillable ships.

Bombardment from orbit, should easily crack any planet with enough firepower, basically all planets to lava!!

All of these are\would be massive improvements and look very good so far my only comment has to do with bombardment - I don't think terraforming should really be an option there, I'm not one to generally demand realism but the thought of an enemy fleet in my solar system\planet that is being actively defended and not being also invaded on land being able to simultaneously terraform a planet (from space) seems ummm really really unlikely unless the bombarding fleet has some kind of really special terraforming weapon (aka Star Trek - Genesis Device special terraforming bombardment module?).

Okay, I like everything but this part:

Meedoc wrote:




Weapons & Defences Formula

We want to make the battle easier to understand and more accessible to the modder. So, from now, all the weapons are going to use the same steps and formula. The difference is going to be done thanks to the tweak of the different values.

They are able to first deflect a part of the projectiles and then, they absorb damage they couldn’t deflect. The amount of projectiles deflected and the absorption are restored at each phase.

However the defenses are still related to a weapon types: kinetics are only defended by kinetic defenses, etc..





First, for each shot we determinate if it hits or not, thanks to the following formula:

Probability = WeaponModuleAccuracy – Target.Evade



Second, we check if the target’s defense can deflect the projectile if the deflection amount is not null

WillBeDeflected = DefenseModule.DeflectionStrength –WeaponModule.Evasion



If it succeeds, the deflection amount of the module is reduced by 1. Else,

DamageDone = WeaponModule.Damage – DefenseModule.Absorption.



If DamageDone < 0; DefenseModule. Absorption = -DamageDone

Else Absorption is null for the rest of the phase and Target.Health -= DamageDone.

Reasoning:

[LIST=1]

Wasn't it the exercise to diversify the weaponry in the first place? I'm not sure how this works out, til I see hard numbers, but it sounds bad. Simplification might be more mod-friendly, but also user-boring.

Defense - This is how a shield could work or even armor, but how does this relate to flak? Its kill the missile or be hit and I don't know how to motivate this behaviour, there.

Shot probability - Unless there's something converting this value to something new, you might have negative or zero outcomes. That is basic invulnerability and you'd need to watch out very hard for not generating any situation where e.g. Hero with mad def stats, def affinity, highest def order, +30% def battle action * power convergence and finally defensive formation bonus... *takes a breath* or anything like that ends up in a fleet being unkillable. I'd strongly recommend any kind of nonzero- nonnegative function, instead. You can still tweak the numbers the way you'd like, even if it is not that straightforward, anymore, but it would prevent any kind of abuse.

Damage - I'm fine with it for anything but missiles, because it simply works, mathematically, though I'd have liked at least one defense with diminishing returns or anything alike, just to get diversity in.

[/LIST]



That's my rant for now. I'll be getting some sleep after another rehearsal marathon, today. Afterwards I'll likely comment even more.

Looks good so far but a question on this:

Meedoc wrote:


"The player has now the possibility to bombard systems in order to weaken the population and the infrastructure and to start an instant invasion to conquer a system faster."

Here's the issue I see with this (though this may be intended): Once this is implemented, I know I will never siege again until it takes the minimum amount of time to conquer the system, and here's why: A person can scrap their structures just before an invasion is completed, so you usually end up with no structures when it is finally conquered. Bombarding, on the other hand, also kills structures, only it destroys their production faster, and you take the system faster. As a result, the bombarding would always be preferred to a siege. This is doubly true when you consider that every turn spent seiging a system is an extra turn they have to build additional ships and defenses.



A simple solution to this would be to make it so that structures cannot be scrapped while the system is being seiged/blockaded.

I really like the module revamp. What about modules that aren't weapons but for battle (like cloaking or jaming) ?

Ail wrote:
Very good input!



Damage done=Raw damage*1-Defense/(Defense+DefMod)

DefMod is a value that determines how much Defense you need to increase the Effective Health by 100%.

So if it is 100, it means that every 100 Defense you need 100% more damage for the same effect.



This kind of formula is used in many different games whenever it comes to damage reduction.



I know it being used at least in:

WarCraft III

World of WarCraft

League of Legends

Diablo 3



I see no valid reason why not to use it in Endless Space aswell.



Some examples:



Low-End-Deflector has 10 Kinetics-Defense.

Let's say you have 5 of them on a ship:



Then Damage is multiplied by: 1-50/150=66%



Mid-Level-Deflector has 25 Kinetcs-Defense.

Fit five of them again:



Then Damage is multiplied by: 1-125/225=44%



High-End-Deflector has 80 Kinetics-Defense.

Once again with five of them:



Then Damage is multiplied by: 1-400/500=20%



I think with some value-tweaking that can be easily made into scaling well with the weapon-damage dished out.

It also prevents unkillable ships.

interesting formula, but i'd be very careful. looking at this from a per tonnage point of view, let's take precision plating(10 deflected for 9 tonnage) and impenetrable hulls at the top of the tree (39 deflected for 18 tonnage).



assuming defMod is still 100.

Comparing these two with the formula, if i do 72 tons of precision plating, then that's

1 - 80/180 = 55% of damage is done



Where as 72 tons of impenetrable hulls is 1 - 156/256 = 39% damage is done



so for the same tonnage, the difference from the super low tech deflector to the highest deflector in the game is 16% of damage. (not to mention the increased industry cost)



Not to say it's a terrible idea, just be aware that if this idea is to be considered, there would have to be a complete revamp of all military tech values.



However, what's wrong with having ships take no damage? I guess the idea is that, after a point, you get diminishing returns on stacking more defenses? hmmm

Not if these ships are using the new multi-target module that allows a big ship to target two ships.

Couldn't you still have 3 destroyers go up against a fleet of 4 dreadnaughts, and still kill one of the dreadnaughts by targeting all missiles? That's just silly.

Igncom1 wrote:
Well that's a problem with battle time, not one I entirely share as the point of the new defences is to prevent a all or nothing situation, and instead have more battle taking place in the middle of these two points, taking damage, but not getting annihilated once defences run out.

That is exactly my point - if you won't get annihilated once the defenses run out, the battle will end in a draw. Getting one-shot in the Long Range Phase is cheap, but to simply stop firing after 3 phases is also cheap.



Thanks for the code suggestion, I will try it out...

Hm. About that code. Is it possible to increase the number of phases by adding additional segments to that code? Or is everything hard-coded to have only 3 phases?

Pietrak wrote:
But we will still be stuck on the 3-phase-long combat. If the defenses are getting an overhaul that will reduce the overall damage taken, shouldn't there be an option to prolong the battle until one fleet is destroyed?

Despite my continued love for this game, I am heart-broken when my fleets decide it's time to retreat while one more volley would eliminate the resistance....

Well that's a problem with battle time, not one I entirely share as the point of the new defences is to prevent a all or nothing situation, and instead have more battle taking place in the middle of these two points, taking damage, but not getting annihilated once defences run out.



However In the topic of battle length, you can create a mod for this very easily, just be editing the BattleSequence.xml



[CODE]

1.0













BattlePhaseArrival























%BattlePhaseFleetLongRangeDescription





BattlePhaseCombat

BattlePhaseModifierLongRange

4























%BattlePhaseFleetMediumRangeDescription





BattlePhaseCombat

BattlePhaseModifierMediumRange

4























%BattlePhaseFleetShortRangeDescription





BattlePhaseCombat

BattlePhaseModifierShortRange

4



























BattlePhaseReport









[/CODE]



Just edit the bold numbers to what you want!

Affinity wrote:
If my defenses only allow a very small amount, say 10%, of damage through, then repair modules will patch that up immediately. Wouldn't that still be an "invincible ship"? It's not hard to get decent repair per battle phase on ships. Unless you completely remove repairs from the game, you would still get situations of "invalid" weapons.

No, you would have regenerative ships who I have are hard time hitting, but I am still actually getting through, even if you end up repairing away the damage its the fact that your defences no longer prevent any damage whatsoever that's important.

I propose the real problem lies in repair modules and ship HP. If we want to get rid of the "all or nothing" business, ship HP should be increased, and repair should not take place during a battle, but only at the end of the turn. Change repair modules to 10% per turn, and remove the per phase part. Don't even need to change the damage formula, just change the way ships handle that damage.

That's a different problem entirely to defence.



And what you suggest would indeed fix that problem, but the two are not the same thing.

Igncom1 wrote:
Because if ships are able to take 0% damage from an attack, then you get the situation where by you just invalidate weapons, a rock paper scissors defensive type.



The new defence model allows us to expand on our weapon choices and our ways of dealing damage because even though we will be getting though, we won't be always dealing tons of damage.



And I feel like that is much, much superior to the way that defences currently work.

If my defenses only allow a very small amount, say 10%, of damage through, then repair modules will patch that up immediately. Wouldn't that still be an "invincible ship"? It's not hard to get decent repair per battle phase on ships. Unless you completely remove repairs from the game, you would still get situations of "invalid" weapons.



I propose the real problem lies in repair modules and ship HP. If we want to get rid of the "all or nothing" business, ship HP should be increased, and repair should not take place during a battle, but only at the end of the turn. Change repair modules to 10% per turn, and remove the per phase part. Don't even need to change the damage formula, just change the way ships handle that damage.

Igncom1 wrote:
we won't be always dealing tons of damage..

But we will still be stuck on the 3-phase-long combat. If the defenses are getting an overhaul that will reduce the overall damage taken, shouldn't there be an option to prolong the battle until one fleet is destroyed?

Despite my continued love for this game, I am heart-broken when my fleets decide it's time to retreat while one more volley would eliminate the resistance....

Affinity wrote:
interesting formula, but i'd be very careful. looking at this from a per tonnage point of view, let's take precision plating(10 deflected for 9 tonnage) and impenetrable hulls at the top of the tree (39 deflected for 18 tonnage).



assuming defMod is still 100.

Comparing these two with the formula, if i do 72 tons of precision plating, then that's

1 - 80/180 = 55% of damage is done



Where as 72 tons of impenetrable hulls is 1 - 156/256 = 39% damage is done



so for the same tonnage, the difference from the super low tech deflector to the highest deflector in the game is 16% of damage. (not to mention the increased industry cost)



Not to say it's a terrible idea, just be aware that if this idea is to be considered, there would have to be a complete revamp of all military tech values.



However, what's wrong with having ships take no damage? I guess the idea is that, after a point, you get diminishing returns on stacking more defenses? hmmm

Because if ships are able to take 0% damage from an attack, then you get the situation where by you just invalidate weapons, a rock paper scissors defensive type.



The new defence model allows us to expand on our weapon choices and our ways of dealing damage because even though we will be getting though, we won't be always dealing tons of damage.



And I feel like that is much, much superior to the way that defences currently work.

With all of these new additions and modules will all the tech trees be changed or primarily the warmonger tree?

Such as fighter designs being in the expansion tree along with the ship designs.



Will beam finally get a beginning era tech just like kinetics and missiles that can be researched at the start?



Will different races have a preference when it comes to weapons tech?

Such as Cravers preferring kinetics (getting a science break on them & the subsequent modules) and disliking beams (getting a slightly higher research cost)?



Will the Formation and Targeting replace the current battle action cards or will they be complementary to one another?

Such as selecting a defensive formation, yet doing weapons overclock during battle.



I'm really liking the changes listed here, and I'm sorry in advance for asking so many questions.