Discussion now public.

Would it be possible to reconsider long-range weaponry not operating in melee conditions and vice versa?



I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that. Maybe an extreme penalty, like 50% less accuracy or something instead.

Meedoc wrote:


Weapon Property

[LIST=1]

TYPE: Kinetic, Laser or Missile

FAMILY: Long Range, Medium Range or Melee

LEVEL: 1, 2 or 3

ACCURACY: Probability to hit the target.

DAMAGE: Damage dealed to the target.

EVADE: Certain modules have a negative evasion score because they make the ship heavier.

WEIGHT: Tonnage used by the module

COST : Industry cost of the module

[/LIST]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but is there only three levels of weapons now? Isn't that going to make the gap between level 1 missiles and level 2 missiles (as an example) absolutely enormous? If there's more than 3 levels of defenses, won't you be getting defensive upgrades more often than offensive ones?

I would like to see that too 1Eevee. Kinda pointless to spray the space with kinetics at long range that hardly hit anything

With all of these extra modules, with some only having limited extra add-ons, would you guys be considering upgrading the number of ship designs one can have in game? Right now it is quite constraining. And it will be ridiculously constraining with all of these extras. And you cannot resurrect legacy versions after you delete them for different designs.

As per last time YET TO ALL OF THE ABOVE!

Meedoc wrote:
With the exp pack, we want to strengthen the military playstyle of each faction. For that, we're going to have unique stats for the Hull for each faction. For instance, Cravers Hull will have more Health Point than others whereas Amoebas' are going to have a tonnage reduction on defence module... In addition to those differences, we add a specificity which is common to all the hull of a Faction.



Besides, we want to strengthen the interest of all the hull class, and we're going to add new mechanism to reinforce the use of the three existing family (small, medium and large).



In addition to the tonnage limit, each Hull has a specific number of special slots: a special module can only be placed if there are enough free special slots and enough tonnage left. This system forces the players to customize and specialize their ships and makes bigger hulls more interesting.

This is really good, I like the goal here. And now to nitpick.

Meedoc wrote:


The idea is to rationalize how the different weapons and defences work in order to help the player to understand accurately what could be the outcome of a fight. Now, for each type of weapons, there are 1 module specialized for every battle phase: 1 kinetic module more efficient in long range, another for medium range…

• Long range modules are 100% efficient in Long Range and 50% efficient in Medium Range.
• Medium range modules are 100% efficient in Medium Range and 33% Efficient in Long Range and Melee Range
• Melee modules are 100% efficient in Melee and 50% efficient in Medium Range.
  
  

There are different stats tweaks depending on the phase and the weapon type. However, there is only one type of defence, 100% effective in every phase.

I feel like this goes a bit too far, and a listing of intended overall effectiveness vs defenses to more clearly show the benefits of the range types would be nice to see also. Something like:

• Long range modules are 80% efficient in Long Range, 50% efficient in Medium Range and 20% efficient in Melee Range.
• Medium Range modules are 50% efficient in Long Range, 80% efficient in Medium Range and 50% efficient in Melee Range.
• Melee Range modules are 40% efficient in Long Range, 70% efficient in Medium Range and 100% efficient in Melee Range.
  
  

Meedoc wrote:
Each weapon is subdivided with a distance specialization: Long Range, Medium Range & Melee.

In addition to the rules regarding the efficiency established above, the specialization slightly modifies the tuning of the properties, the twist is that it's also linked to the weapon type. For instance Long Range missiles have more damage than others whereas Long Range Kinetics emphases Accuracy.



With this new system, it’s going to be easier to have efficient defences. However, by playing with the value we still can create tendencies within the weapons. For instance, Flak can have values tuned to be better against long range weapons. Thus, equipping its fleets with Short Range Missiles is more rewarding but also more risky.

This looks like a really good way to implement the intended variances on ranges and follows with the core game combat balance.

Meedoc wrote:


Damage Formula



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



Probability = WeaponModuleAccuracy – Target.Evade



Then, we use the following formula to determinate the real damage:



Damage done= WeaponModuleDamage * 1- Target.Defense/(Target.Defense+ Target.DefMod)



The DefMod is a variable which defines the efficiency of the defense. Higher the DefMode, higher the damage done. The DefMod can be affected thanks to hull class, faction traits, heroes’ abilities …

ACK, NO... Probability doesn't look bad, I hope that there is still accuracy falloff from range. Mostly because I'd rather see this as the hit chance equation: WeaponModuleAccuracy * (1-(Target.Evade/100))



Damage on the other hand... It looks like you're using a simple X/X+Y formula[unlesstheforumsdroppedsome()], which is a problem if you're intending a high X(Target.Defense) to be a good thing. It seems like (Target.Defense+Target.DefMod)/((Target.Defense+Target.DefMod)+100) would be a much better formula, giving a 1% effective health increase for each point of Target.Defense. Additionally consider (Target.Defense* (1+Target.DefMod)) with Target.DefMod expressed as a %.



EDIT: See my post in [EXP] Overview as there seems to be more discussion on this section over there.

Meedoc wrote:


Support

Certain support modules are going to affect the battle resolution and new ones appear. Moreover, some support modules which are not using special slots have a tonnage value based in percent instead of a flat value.

Current module categories:

• Engine: they affect the ship’s evasion in addition to the movement speed. The tonnage value is a percent.
• Invasion: they are dedicated to invasion and invasion only. Moreover, troop modules are also taken into account to invade a system. The values are going to be higher.
• Civilian: they reduce a lot the evasion of the ship. -30%
• Scout: they affect the weapon’s accuracy. +x% on all weapon accuracy. The tonnage value is a percent.
  
  

What happened to Power modules? Being replaced by the 'special' modules? Will their existing functions be replicated?



Percent value for tonnage on modules seems to make sense for engines and power, however you might want to consider the way it was implemented in EvE Online(as the penultimate Space MMO of our era). Which is to say scaling module sizes and effect, so you'd have a small module(20ton) for +100/tonnage movement and a medium module(40ton) for +200/tonnage movement. You can put the medium on a small ship and then you have a really fast scout, or put the medium on a large ship and have it get only a small bonus.



Side note: Additional varieties or tech upgrades on civilian modules would be nice.

Meedoc wrote:
These are the modules which require special slots in addition to tonnage. There are no other restrictions; so a player can combine one Ultimate Weapon and one Ultimate Defence if there are enough special slots.

Keep in mind that the following sample are work in progress, and we'll be glad to read your own proposals =)





Special Weapons



Multi targeting Weapon: this weapon targets several ships at the same time. Requires 1 unique slot.

Tonnage: 20

Industry cost: 500



Paralysing Weapon: this weapon paralyses its target for the next phase and it shoots once per phase. No Weapon can be equipped on this ship. Requires 2 unique slots.

Tonnage: 50

Industry cost: 1000



Instant Killing Weapon: this weapon can kill a ship instantly but only shoot once per fight. The phase in which it shoots depends on the module: it can be either the last round of the 2nd phase or the last round of the 3rd phase. A FX warns the opponent that a ship is equipped with this weapon. Requires 3 unique slots.

Tonnage: 100

Industry cost: 2500



Neutron Beam: this weapon destroys all the troop modules of the targeted ship. Requires 1 unique slot.

Tonnage: 100

Industry cost: 2500





Special Defences



Fleet Shield: for one specific phase (depending on the module), the fleet cannot attack nor be attacked. Neither invasion modules nor troop modules can be equipped on this ship. Requires 3 unique slots. Fighters, Bombers & paralysing weapons can still go through.

Tonnage: 100

Industry cost: 2500



Beacon: forces opponent to focus on this ship before being able to aim others. It also cancels the targeting priority system. Multi targeting weapon is forced to only aim this ship. Requires 2 unique slots.

Tonnage: 50

Industry cost: 1000



Lightning Rod: the ship cannot be paralysed. Requires 1 unique slot.

Tonnage: 20

Industry cost: 500



Hadron Shield: this shield automatically cancels any Neutron Beam targeting the ship. Requires 1 unique slot.

Tonnage: 20

Industry cost: 500





Special Support Module



All the modules in the following category require at least 1 special slot: Fighter, Bomber, Troop.

Multi-targeting weapon: Does this enhance the other weapons on the ship or provide a highly efficient tonnage to damage ratio? We actually already have these(sorta), its the +10% fleet damage module.

Paralysing weapon: Looks good, seems like it should be a normal weapon and have partial effects, not all or nothing. This would allow stacking on a ship to be the 'disabler' or spread through the fleet as minor electronic warfare.

Instant Kill: Theres plenty of sci-fi tropes for this, I hope its a beam weapon. I also hope its scaled with multiple ship sizes with a smaller, insta-kill destroyers version and a cripple but not quite kill Dreadnaughts. Shields should be effective against it.

Neutron Beam: Too specialized, the cost/benefit would have to be far too weighted to balance its specialization for it to be used. i.e. why not spend that tonnage to destroy the ship when you are crippling a module not used in the space battle?



Fleet Shield is interesting though Cloaking Device might be a better name.

Beacon: A taunt for tanks, I thought people were getting tired of MMO tropes.

Lightning Rod: meh, needs to exist but... meh

Hadron Shield: If neutron beams are good enough to be used this will be required on every troop transport, otherwise useless. See Neutron Beam.



Special modules have a lot of potential, I'd like to see more of what the community will come up with idea wise, this list is an interesting start.

I actually love the idea of weapons that work in long or melee phase cannot work in the other.

I think we are going to need to be able to have more ship designs. i mean i run out as it is, with all these extra options we are definetly going to need more than 10 slots

Indeed, the ability to expand out the ship types box to include a vast amount of space for various ship designs and ones seen to be used by your enemy's would be cool.

We will definitely need more than 10 slots.



Perhaps if they add boarding to the game, than, like Igncom said, there could be slots for where an enemy design would go if you had taken control of it.



Finally, watching battles will be interesting again.



Only one question: What is the breakdown on the Instant killing weapon? I.O. What is its accuracy? Is there any way to stop it?

Ail wrote:
The good thing is:

With the new damage-formula and the possibility to focus-fire you no longer need to always have the best of the best in every fleet since even somewhat outdated or smaller fleets will be able to deal at least some damage. (Unless it is negated by repair, which might well happen)

whoa whoa whoa what is this possibility of focus fire? I'm pretty sure that would make glass cannon strategies even more prevalent than they already are.

For instance Long Range missiles have more damage than others whereas Long Range Kinetics emphases Accuracy.



With this new system, it’s going to be easier to have efficient defences. However, by playing with the value we still can create tendencies within the weapons. For instance, Flak can have values tuned to be better against long range weapons. Thus, equipping its fleets with Short Range Missiles is more rewarding but also more risky.

As for the whole range business, I'm a bit confused on what the advantages and disadvantages would be. Why would I want short range kinetics over long range kinetics? long range, I get to fire first, and it seems like deflect would be less effective at long range? So why would I ever want short range kinetics? If they have enough deflect, I'm not going to retrofit to a different range of kinetic, i'm going to retrofit to missles or beam.



Same for missiles. Meedoc said short range missles are more risky but more rewarding....yes that's how short range works, isn't that how kinetics work currently? Why would I not want to just use short range kinetics instead of missiles? the only scenario I can think of is if they have a lot of deflect and flak, in which case short range missiles would have a higher potential, but in that case I'd just switch to beam! And I definitely can't think of a situation where I would equip medium range missiles, when the heck would that be better?



Maybe i'm missing something but I feel like there won't be much incentive to pick one range over another. I know Meedoc mentioned playing with values to create defense "tendencies" but I can't really see that making a big enough difference to warrant someone taking short range missiles over just regular kinetics.



Also, I feel like this whole range thing makes it needlessly complicated where it isn't needed I'll prolly get some hate for that There is already a ton of factors in combat, many of which are already not really balanced. *cough*heroes*cough*



However, new ship hulls and bonuses from the faction affinity, that is a great idea and should be implemented posthaste.

Affinity wrote:
whoa whoa whoa what is this possibility of focus fire? I'm pretty sure that would make glass cannon strategies even more prevalent than they already are.









As for the whole range business, I'm a bit confused on what the advantages and disadvantages would be. Why would I want short range kinetics over long range kinetics? long range, I get to fire first, and it seems like deflect would be less effective at long range? So why would I ever want short range kinetics? If they have enough deflect, I'm not going to retrofit to a different range of kinetic, i'm going to retrofit to missles or beam.



Same for missiles. Meedoc said short range missles are more risky but more rewarding....yes that's how short range works, isn't that how kinetics work currently? Why would I not want to just use short range kinetics instead of missiles? the only scenario I can think of is if they have a lot of deflect and flak, in which case short range missiles would have a higher potential, but in that case I'd just switch to beam! And I definitely can't think of a situation where I would equip medium range missiles, when the heck would that be better?



Maybe i'm missing something but I feel like there won't be much incentive to pick one range over another. I know Meedoc mentioned playing with values to create defense "tendencies" but I can't really see that making a big enough difference to warrant someone taking short range missiles over just regular kinetics.



Also, I feel like this whole range thing makes it needlessly complicated where it isn't needed I'll prolly get some hate for that There is already a ton of factors in combat, many of which are already not really balanced. *cough*heroes*cough*



However, new ship hulls and bonuses from the faction affinity, that is a great idea and should be implemented posthaste.

Some of the info you asked about may be located here:

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13127-exp-overview



I think the ranges are just being added so that there is more of an unknown element to the enemy fleet.

Affinity wrote:
As for the whole range business, I'm a bit confused on what the advantages and disadvantages would be. Why would I want short range kinetics over long range kinetics? long range, I get to fire first, and it seems like deflect would be less effective at long range? So why would I ever want short range kinetics? If they have enough deflect, I'm not going to retrofit to a different range of kinetic, i'm going to retrofit to missles or beam.



Same for missiles. Meedoc said short range missles are more risky but more rewarding....yes that's how short range works, isn't that how kinetics work currently? Why would I not want to just use short range kinetics instead of missiles? the only scenario I can think of is if they have a lot of deflect and flak, in which case short range missiles would have a higher potential, but in that case I'd just switch to beam! And I definitely can't think of a situation where I would equip medium range missiles, when the heck would that be better?



Maybe i'm missing something but I feel like there won't be much incentive to pick one range over another. I know Meedoc mentioned playing with values to create defense "tendencies" but I can't really see that making a big enough difference to warrant someone taking short range missiles over just regular kinetics.



Also, I feel like this whole range thing makes it needlessly complicated where it isn't needed I'll prolly get some hate for that There is already a ton of factors in combat, many of which are already not really balanced. *cough*heroes*cough*



However, new ship hulls and bonuses from the faction affinity, that is a great idea and should be implemented posthaste.

This is the problem I have with it too. I don't understand why we need long/medium/short range missles, long/medium/short range beams, and long/medium/short range kinetics. There's a ton of duplication there.



Since the formulas are already being changed so the weapons work similarly in terms of mechanics, it'd make more sense to just keep the long missiles, medium beams, short kinetics base that exists now. You've still got your different ranges and can adjust power levels accordingly, but you haven't cluttered it up with a ton of extra modules that don't seem to serve any purpose.

I think instead of having different ranged weapons It might be more elegant to create "switches" on the pre-battle screen to set your weapons for different optimal ranges. This may require the ability to divide 10 missle banks into 2 sets of 5 (for example) but I still think it's a more elegant execution of the idea.



Off the top of my head:



"paralyzing beam", IMO, should have its name changed to describe hacking another ships system and shutting it down.



there could be an ability to cause a ship to explode "really big" doing Area of effect damage to the enemy fleet.



there could be an ability for a destroyed ship to create a "gravity well" or "miniature black hole" that redirects fire from some of your other ships harmlessly into it.



there could be an ability that creates "dupes" of ships in your fleet to fool the enemy. You may also consider (as the opposite of a cloaking device) a "duping" device that falsely displays the amount or strength of a fleet on the map as more than it really is (maybe a system best left for another race who are "masters of deception").



a device that negates your ability to attack and grants you the ability to reflect all attacks at you



a device that counters an opponents card at the cost of loss of attack or loss of card played for the previous or next round.

Depends what the ranges do to the weapon mods.



Long-range kinetics are said to be highly accuracy, but might be lacking in slavos fired and damage potential.



And short range missiles are said to be high damage, but this might came at the cost of interception evasion and accuracy.



Essentially it turns a 3 weapon load out to a 3 weapon type, differing on what the ranges do to the weapons.

Igncom1 wrote:
Depends what the ranges do to the weapon mods.



Long-range kinetics are said to be highly accuracy, but might be lacking in slavos fired and damage potential.



And short range missiles are said to be high damage, but this might came at the cost of interception evasion and accuracy.



Essentially it turns a 3 weapon load out to a 3 weapon type, differing on what the ranges do to the weapons.

Isn't that already how missiles work? High damage, when they don't get totally blocked? Are long range missiles now going to be low damage but evade flak more easily?



It still seems like complexity for the sake of complexity to have effectively 9 types of weapons when they all use the same combat forumlas.

Tridus wrote:
Isn't that already how missiles work? High damage, when they don't get totally blocked? Are long range missiles now going to be low damage but evade flak more easily?

The current details arn't clear, but it seems the team want to broaden the weapons we have available by having things like this.



And quite frankly vanilla ES and Galcivs weapons are boring as hell and often only come down to being a mass effect type of colour selection to what you prefer.

It still seems like complexity for the sake of complexity to have effectively 9 types of weapons when they all use the same combat forumlas.

Considering the newer combat formulas being presented (And that other games have done so much more with less) I don't think that it will be that complicated to understand, and may actually be easier to learn for the players of most 4X space games.



Considering the flat boring and frankly dumb mechanics of vanilla ES combat, and addition to complexity will prevent people from 'gaming' the system and building fleets of glass cannon ships.



A change I support.

Igncom1 wrote:
Considering the newer combat formulas being presented (And that other games have done so much more with less) I don't think that it will be that complicated to understand, and may actually be easier to learn for the players of most 4X space games.



Considering the flat boring and frankly dumb mechanics of vanilla ES combat, and addition to complexity will prevent people from 'gaming' the system and building fleets of glass cannon ships.



A change I support.

That's not really going to change because of this. It's still in the end going to come down to playing rock paper scissors where if you picked the right defensive modules you're going to be far stronger than if you don't. Adding long range kinetics and short range missiles doesn't change that a whole lot.

Tridus wrote:
That's not really going to change because of this. It's still in the end going to come down to playing rock paper scissors where if you picked the right defensive modules you're going to be far stronger than if you don't. Adding long range kinetics and short range missiles doesn't change that a whole lot.

It's not RPS when you add this:



Probability = WeaponModuleAccuracy – Target.Evade (Accuracy on range and ship evasion ability)



Damage done= WeaponModuleDamage *1- Target.Defense/(Target.Defense+ Target.DefMod) (The damage of weapons when put up against defences)



RPS is a game of chance in it's essence, and this is no chance, this is players pitting their accuracy's against an opponents evade, and pitting defences against weapons, where even a weapon can beat it's counter.