0003783: Spirecraft Implosions and Mk Levels - Arcen Idea Tracker (Bugs and Features)

Notes
(0013033) TechSY730 (reporter) Aug 28, 2011 10:41 pm edited on: Aug 28, 2011 10:48 pm	So I don't clutter up the main post too much, here is what my proposed linear increase with .5% of target's current HP would look like. Mk. I: .5% of target's current HP Mk. II: 1% of target's current HP Mk. III: 1.5% of target's current HP Mk. IV: 2% of target's current HP Mk. V: 2.5% of target's current HP As you can see, it makes the lower marks much more useful but keeps MK. V from being quite so abusable. However, this may make the Spirecraft implosion ships too strong overall, as only the Mk. V gets nerfed by this change.

(0013034) keith.lamothe (administrator) Aug 29, 2011 7:45 am	I think there's some merit to this, but one thing to consider is that the costs increase a lot more than linearly as you get into mkIV and mkV because those asteroids are a a _lot_ rarer. On average (in my tests), a galaxy holds enough Reptite to build 160 Implosion MkIs, but only enough Adamantite to build 7 Implosion MkVs. So you can actually afford to build 16 implosion mkIs more readily than you can afford to build a mkV. While it's intentional that across-the-board costs increase faster than capabilities as mk level goes up, when it comes to these kinds of non-replaceable resources I think it warrants more than a linear increase in power. So I think it's appropriate that any spirecraft made from adamantite or titanite be head-and-shoulders above the others. Not that that's the case with spirecraft currently, of course ;) But it's something I plan to keep in mind as we make some changes to those in the future. All that said, yea, the first two marks (and even the third) could use a bit of a boost.

(0013035) TechSY730 (reporter) Aug 29, 2011 11:08 am	Good point. I didn't think about the rarity of the higher level asteroids. OK, a super linear growth rate of power is OK then, but IMO, exponential is too much. Polynomial maybe?

(0013036) keith.lamothe (administrator) Aug 29, 2011 11:30 am	I'm not sure I understand, isn't it already polynomial? In fact, it's less than quadratic. If I take a base of 25: Linear (BaseMark) 25 50 75 100 125 Polynomial (Base(Mark^2)) (that is, quadratic) 25 100 225 400 625 Exponential (Base^Mark) 25 625 15625 390625 9765625 So it's currently basically the second one, but with a lower degree than 2, and the points might not actually fit the curve. But unless I'm drastically misunderstanding the definition of an exponential function ( i.e. f(x) => a^x ), it certainly isn't exponential.

(0013037) TechSY730 (reporter) Aug 29, 2011 11:37 am	Try .25 * 2^(m-1), where m is the Mk. level of the unit and the result is a percentage damage. That gives you the current situation.

(0013038) keith.lamothe (administrator) Aug 29, 2011 11:38 am	Oh, I see what you mean, because currently it's: Base*(2^(Mark-1)) Which does have mark in the exponent. What are you suggesting as an alternative? Switching the 2 and the mark actually increases the severity (because then you get the quadratic numbers above with mkI doing .25 and mkV doing 6.25).

(0013039) TechSY730 (reporter) Aug 29, 2011 12:26 pm edited on: Aug 29, 2011 12:26 pm	And there is the challenge. Exponential may grow too fast, but what is a good replacement? As you noted, the naive way of making it polynomial will make things worse. Maybe N*(logN)^a (for some yet to be determined constant a and base b) or something? Maybe play around with the exponents or coefficients some in the polynomial form? I don't know.

(0013040) Hearteater (reporter) Aug 29, 2011 12:35 pm	Why not something simple like: 0.5% / 1% / 1.5% / 2% / 3%

(0013041) keith.lamothe (administrator) Aug 29, 2011 12:37 pm	Yea, perhaps nlogn. But to back up a moment: On average the raw resources exist in a galaxy to make: 162 MkIs 246 MkIIs (Pysite is significantly more common than Reptite) 173 MkIIIs (Xampite too, on average, though individual galaxies vary _widely_ on this) 50 MkIVs 7 MkVs So really the mkI, II, and IIIs can stand to be linear within that group, but a MkIV should probably be at least 2 (if not 3) times as useful as a mkIII, and a MkV could stand to be 5 times as useful as a MkIV, considering that Adamantite (and Titanite, but that's even rarer and doesn't make implosion spirecraft) should really be "trump cards" if you're playing with Spirecraft on. I'm pretty tempted to make the MkV even more powerful than it is for that reason ;)

(0013042) TechSY730 (reporter) Aug 29, 2011 12:58 pm edited on: Aug 29, 2011 1:06 pm	I think Hearteater has a good point. Instead of finding an equation, which would be quite difficult to get right, maybe each mark should have a its own power not necessarily with any relation to the previous or Mk. I power. So I guess a good approach would be Mk. I-III linear, and then from then on up, scale up by however much rarer the current Mk is compared to the last mark. There would be no easy equation to describe this, but that is okay, because the rarities have no easy equation to describe their values. EDIT: Which is pretty much what you suggested Keith. ;)

(0013043) Hearteater (reporter) Aug 29, 2011 3:06 pm	Revised based on Keith's info: 0.5% / 1% / 1.5% / 3% / 10%

(0013087) soMe_RandoM (reporter) Sep 1, 2011 9:42 pm	@Hearteater Yeah i think that be correct. 1.25 / 1.46 / 2.92 / 5.05 / 36.1 this multiplier :P base on rarity from keith, i think if u times mark with how many u get u should get something like this 202.5 / 359.16 / 505.16 / 252.5 / 252.7 u get something like totall power level.

(0013100) TechSY730 (reporter) Sep 2, 2011 11:08 am	I was thinking. I don't think the other spire-craft have been balanced with the proper rarities in mind. All of the spire-craft may need a balance check.

(0013101) keith.lamothe (administrator) Sep 2, 2011 11:25 am	" I was thinking. I don't think the other spire-craft have been balanced with the proper rarities in mind. All of the spire-craft may need a balance check. " Yea, like I said, "So I think it's appropriate that any spirecraft made from adamantite or titanite be head-and-shoulders above the others. Not that that's the case with spirecraft currently, of course ;) But it's something I plan to keep in mind as we make some changes to those in the future." And in response to soMe_RandoM, yes, those numbers are useful, but I'm not looking for extra rarity to provide a linearly greater "bonus", somewhat less than that. Having MkV Implosions be able to 3-shot _anything_ would be a bit much ;)

(0013102) keith.lamothe (administrator) Sep 2, 2011 11:27 am	Oops, it wouldn't 3 shot due to it being a percent of current health, but it would be pretty severe ;)

(0013104) Hearteater (reporter) Sep 2, 2011 11:51 am	Have you considered changing asteroid rarity so it is easier to make a linear progression? If you are re-balancing the spire ships anyway (after AVWW comes out) it might make things easier if the resource is linearly increasing to start with.

(0013106) keith.lamothe (administrator) Sep 2, 2011 12:05 pm	I rather like the rarities the way they are right now, actually. Not everything in the game has to be linearly scaled.

(0013113) soMe_RandoM (reporter) Sep 2, 2011 6:51 pm	I found that i never get any more than 2 mark 5 spire craft. and crap load roughly 300 tier 1-2. maximine i found in game 120 planets is 5 (mk4) and 5(mrk5) this largest deposit i ever found @keith .25 / .32 / .57 / 3.2 / 10 40 / 80 / 100 / 160 / 70 0% / 128% / 178.125% / 182.4% / 312.5% X percentage of increase last mark power 0% / 128% / 50.125% / 4.275% / 130.1% N percentage increase between each mark Liner would be 62% N last mark .25 / .40 / .65 / 1.04 / 1.69 40.5 / 98.4 / 112.45 / 48.07 / 4.14 Linear makes mark 2-3 Strongest compared to rest mark as latency strength

(0013177) Sunshine (reporter) Sep 7, 2011 10:58 pm	Mk1 Implosion artillery are by no means underpowered. If you have a full cap of them, they are doing (roughly) as much damage as a single mark 4 implosion artillery. How often have people actually used these? Because even with just a handful of Mk1s, anything with massive amounts of hitpoints is absolute cake to destroy. I vehemently disagree with the proposition that Mk1 Implosion Artillery are underpowered, and would submit that they are possibly, in fact, overpowered.

(0013180) GeneReyva (reporter) Sep 8, 2011 1:27 am	Sunshine makes a good point. If you buff the lower Mk's damage then you might have to hit their ship cap. Each higher Mk. is two fold stonger than its predecessor. Mind you, if you have a group of them shooting at an armoured golem or Mk.3 fortress (or even a super fortress) they'd make swift work of it regardless, and surely that's their jobs? Shredding health off of a high helth target? Also, only having one of any of the implosion units would be foolish, you'd want as many of each, and don't the asteroids allow you to spawn 2 of some, depending on the rarity? Right now: 8 Mk.1 = 4 Mk.2 = 2 Mk.3 = 1 Mk.4 = 1/2 Mk.5 What was proposed in the first resonse would make the lower Mk.s stronger and the Mk.5 redundant. I would have to go against that because Mk.5s are meant to be awesome. The pinnacle of badassery... which 4% is if you think about it. The balancing of the rarity of the asteroids I have no clue about and thus no input for that.

(0013181) soMe_RandoM (reporter) Sep 8, 2011 3:12 am	I think Game dev should create tool that tells you average asteroid count in most games, then balance it so that latency strength is about 1.5 last mark. this could include reduce cap for lower marks to only 2 at time. or something.

(0017418) TechSY730 (reporter) Nov 4, 2011 10:04 am	If the power of the Spirecrafts is going to be adjusted to reflect asteroid rarity, make sure to update exo-wave costs too. Having AI spamming something 15x (or whatever) times as powerful for only 5x the cost would just be completely unfair.

(0018438) zharmad (reporter) Jan 31, 2012 7:09 am edited on: Jan 31, 2012 7:11 am	I don't think a full cap of mark Is should be equivalent to mark Vs in the case of spirecraft, as also based on rarity. The current spawning logics seems to be that most planets obtain Rep/Pys/Xam, in varying numbers. This means that you don't usually have to factor that into account when taking a planet. However, a planet on or near Adamantites or Titanites is always worth taking. Ebonite supplies are more of a fabricator-level decision. I usually take a full cap of mk. I (8, 2% total) and mk. IIs (6, 3% total) after a while, which adds a lot of use to mark IIIs (4, 4% total). The total reduction is useful enough as is. I think changes will need to take into account percentage-based damage as a whole, versus other spire-craft. A 10% mark-V could outshine every other ship for that asteroid.

(0030925) Bognor (reporter) Feb 26, 2013 8:37 am	I actually like it that some Spirecraft are more useful at the lower marks, others at the higher marks. I like Rams and Martyrs at low marks (avoid overkill); Implosion Artillery at high marks (non-linear scaling); Jumpships at either Mark I (expendable) or Mark V (immortal); Ion Blasters at AI tech level or above. This is a far more interesting dynamic than just having every Spirecraft's utility correlated with its mark level in some straightforward way, IMHO.

(0032169) TechSY730 (reporter) May 12, 2013 4:08 pm	How about what the current now buffed implosion guardian has? 1%/2%/3%/4%/5%. Gives a good buff to the lower tiers, without making the high tiers too stupidly overpowered.

Only registered users can voice their support. Click here to register, or here to log in.
Supporters:	TechSY730 ArcDM
Opponents:	zharmad

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
Aug 28, 2011 10:35 pm	TechSY730	New Issue
Aug 28, 2011 10:41 pm	TechSY730	Note Added: 0013033
Aug 28, 2011 10:41 pm	TechSY730	Note Edited: 0013033	View Revisions
Aug 28, 2011 10:48 pm	TechSY730	Note Edited: 0013033	View Revisions
Aug 29, 2011 7:45 am	keith.lamothe	Note Added: 0013034
Aug 29, 2011 11:08 am	TechSY730	Note Added: 0013035
Aug 29, 2011 11:30 am	keith.lamothe	Note Added: 0013036
Aug 29, 2011 11:37 am	TechSY730	Note Added: 0013037
Aug 29, 2011 11:38 am	keith.lamothe	Note Added: 0013038
Aug 29, 2011 12:26 pm	TechSY730	Note Added: 0013039
Aug 29, 2011 12:26 pm	TechSY730	Note Edited: 0013039	View Revisions
Aug 29, 2011 12:35 pm	Hearteater	Note Added: 0013040
Aug 29, 2011 12:37 pm	keith.lamothe	Note Added: 0013041
Aug 29, 2011 12:58 pm	TechSY730	Note Added: 0013042
Aug 29, 2011 1:06 pm	TechSY730	Note Edited: 0013042	View Revisions
Aug 29, 2011 3:07 pm	Hearteater	Note Added: 0013043
Sep 1, 2011 9:42 pm	soMe_RandoM	Note Added: 0013087
Sep 2, 2011 11:08 am	TechSY730	Note Added: 0013100
Sep 2, 2011 11:25 am	keith.lamothe	Note Added: 0013101
Sep 2, 2011 11:27 am	keith.lamothe	Note Added: 0013102
Sep 2, 2011 11:51 am	Hearteater	Note Added: 0013104
Sep 2, 2011 12:05 pm	keith.lamothe	Note Added: 0013106
Sep 2, 2011 6:51 pm	soMe_RandoM	Note Added: 0013113
Sep 7, 2011 10:58 pm	Sunshine	Note Added: 0013177
Sep 8, 2011 1:27 am	GeneReyva	Note Added: 0013180
Sep 8, 2011 3:12 am	soMe_RandoM	Note Added: 0013181
Nov 4, 2011 10:04 am	TechSY730	Note Added: 0017418
Jan 31, 2012 7:09 am	zharmad	Note Added: 0018438
Jan 31, 2012 7:11 am	zharmad	Note Edited: 0018438	View Revisions
Feb 26, 2013 8:37 am	Bognor	Note Added: 0030925
May 12, 2013 4:08 pm	TechSY730	Note Added: 0032169

Relationships