facilities:
- type: STR_MISSILE_DEFENSES
defense: 500
hitRatio: 50
ammoNeeded: 2 # default 1
ammoItem: STR_AVALANCHE_MISSILES # default empty
fireSound: 5
hitSound: 10
STR_NO_AMMO: "NO AMMO!"
Why not (shots) × (ammo per shot)?Code: [Select]facilities:. . .
- type: STR_MISSILE_DEFENSES
defense: 500
hitRatio: 50
ammoNeeded: 2 # default 1
ammoItem: STR_AVALANCHE_MISSILES # default empty
No partial loads.
No custom messages per facility.
What would this actually accomplish or how would this improve the game in ways that aren't already possible?Different distributions for damage.
That aside, it's quite unlikely that the missiles used would be Avalanches in the first place, given that they are air-based missiles.Well, yeah. If SAM batteries (as surface “craft” ambushing enemies in engagement range) will be implemented, however, they may use the same ammunition.
Different distributions for damage.
Please demonsrate how 50d5 (sum of 50 uniform distributions from 1 to 5) is "already possible with different base defense facilities". Or even something remotely similar without giving half the base over to defence facilities.Point is that we already have different base defense facilities with different hit probablilities and damage power. What influence on the outcome do 50 seperate shots have that a single shot does not?
What it adds is modders' options, as always. Once these filter down to the players, it's exactly that, the ability to build 'shotgun' base facilities vs 'super cannon' defences. Whether these are useful or a worthwhile addition to the game will depend on the implementation."Modders option" can be (and basically is) used to justify pretty much any request. That alone isn't a good enough reason to implement something. Again, what difference does any of this make in terms of gameplay, and does it add meaningful player interaction?
Base defences are not necessarily binary, 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' exists.Which is why I wrote "basically binary outcome". I fucking knew I should have been more specific because of course somebody would use this to sidetrack the issue.
What influence on the outcome do 50 seperate shots have that a single shot does not?The same kind of influence a shotgun with 12 pellets has on the tactical game. Could be none if the modder fesses up, could be interesting for (base) weapon variety if not.
Because it does not influence anything beside presentation, i.e. base defense screen takes longer to play out. That is literally the only difference.Not necessarily. Nobody is saying the 9 or 50 or whatever missiles each need their own line in the defence screen. Shotgun pellets do not fire individually, now do they?
Which is why I wrote "basically binary outcome". I fucking knew I should have been more specific because of course somebody would use this to sidetrack the issue.No sidetracking, just you being plain wrong. With 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' there is a continuum of possible outcomes (UFO is destroyed, UFO survives and assaults the base with 1 alien, ... , UFO lands unmolested and all the aliens come out to play), different for each type of attacking craft (which is a sadly underused feature).
Citing lessAliensDuringBaseDefense as justification is quite pointless, because the mechanic works just fine with existing defenses - given that they either hit the UFO or they don't.Yes, but that is not the context where it was used. You said "...basically binary outcome (UFO is destroyed/UFO is not destroyed)". In that context, 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' is an entirely valid counter. Nobody was arguing that 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' somehow introduces grazes, crits or other non-binary ways to model single hits, rather that it makes the entire outcome non-binary. Which it does. It's the whole point of this feature.
"Modders option" can be (and basically is) used to justify pretty much any request. That alone isn't a good enough reason to implement something.Yes, which is why I'm personally not particularly enthusiastic about this proposal. What I'm doing here is pointing out that you're wrong and arguing in bad faith on top of that.
The same kind of influence a shotgun with 12 pellets has on the tactical game.Stop being obtuse, this is specifically not about the battlescape.
Do UFO armour and shields apply to base defences? If so...And if it doesn't all of this is irrelevant. Why bring up a moot point? Have you actually tested this or are you just speculating?
Not necessarily. Nobody is saying the 9 or 50 or whatever missiles each need their own line in the defence screen. Shotgun pellets do not fire individually, now do they?The 'do', actually (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4834.0.html). But, again, this harks back to you equating this to battlescape behaviour, which this simply isn't - on multiple levels. How would this even work in regards to the information presented to the player, either on the base defence or the base information screen?
No sidetracking, just you being plain wrong. With 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' there is a continuum of possible outcomesThe outcome of the base defense screen is literally either "UFO IS DESTROYED" or " ".
Why exactly is it so hard for you to understand that vanilla base defences are no longer the only game in town in OXCE?What you are referring to here has nothing to do with what is being proposed.
Yes, but that is not the context where it was used. You said "...basically binary outcome (UFO is destroyed/UFO is not destroyed)". In that context, 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' is an entirely valid counter.It's not, see above.
[...]would be murder on unarmoured UFOs and useless against anything with some armour. Since base size is quite limited, that might make for some interesting tradeoffs...
You're describing how you envision the mechanic should work, not what it actually accomplsihes or adds to the game.Very unlucky salvo is still 0, but it’s very rare. Very lucky salvo is a lot more damage, but it’s also very rare. That’s what it accomplishes. Different distribution.
"Different distributions of damage" is already possible with different base defense facilities,One roll per facility is not the same, for purpose of meaningful choices.
As far as I can tell it only makes a mechanic with no player engagement and a basically binary outcome (UFO is destroyed/UFO is not destroyed) longer and more tedious, if it's not skipped outright.Er… Why would it be longer? They still have opportunities only for 1 + #(grav shields) salvo each.
Indeed. And together these two can add up to strategical choices. In that optimums for "reliably weaken a Terror Ship landing party to a limping skeleton crew, but do not outright (we need that loot)”, “best chance to destroy a Battleship” and “best chance to destroy a base-killing missile” (for example) with the same limited resources (costs / space or time to set up on a fresh base) could be very different. Thus different choices for base designs, depending on placement (is it right next to an alien base? in air support range of an existing base?) and threats present at this stage of the game.
- What it adds is modders' options, as always. Once these filter down to the players, it's exactly that, the ability to build 'shotgun' base facilities vs 'super cannon' defences. Whether these are useful or a worthwhile addition to the game will depend on the implementation.
- Base defences are not necessarily binary, 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' exists. As does the ability to use smaller UFOs for base assaults, meaning different attackers can have different odds vs the same defenses.
Oh! Another idea. In terms of freedom of movement[...]My man, does this have anything to do with the actual topic? Might it not be ab better idea to move those suggestion to a separate thread instead of highjacking this one?
Very unlucky salvo is still 0, but it’s very rare. Very lucky salvo is a lot more damage, but it’s also very rare. That’s what it accomplishes. Different distribution.Again, you're describing how you envision the mechanic should work, not what it actually accomplishes or adds to the game. What would be the point of this that can not be achieved with existing mechanics? As far as I can tell the only difference here is "very occasionally cause more damage using one facility instead of two". I honestly don't see why that is worth the trouble of implementing it.
One roll per facility is not the same, for purpose of meaningful choices.Why not? What isn't "meaningful" about the way defense facilities currently work?
Er… Why would it be longer?Are you honestly asking why 50 damage rolls per facility on the base defence screen take longer to go through than a single damage roll per facility?
Indeed. And together these two can add up to strategical choices[...]I already pointed out why that is fallacious thinking, not withstanding that you can already do all of the above using existing mechanics.
Stop being obtuse, this is specifically not about the battlescape.You seem to have something against analogies, huh? The points I was responding to were 'different damage distributions' and 'takes longer'. These have a direct analogues on the battlescape, ones that aren't in any way controversial that I know. There is exactly zero inherent reason why these could not be ported over to other parts of the game. There may be specific reasons, but you've raised these objections as if they were self-evident and universal, and they are not.
...
But, again, this harks back to you equating this to battlescape behaviour, which this simply isn't - on multiple levels.
And if it doesn't all of this is irrelevant. Why bring up a moot point? Have you actually tested this or are you just speculating?You asked what this would add to the game. I manufactured a scenario that would be a somewhat interesting addition using this feature. If it needs other code to do so, well, it's a mark against implementing it but not an argument for not considering it at all. Which is what you've been doing with your previous arguments. 'Too much work for too little gain' I entirely agree with.
The 'do', actually.Not in any sense that would meaningfully prolong the firing animation, the direct analogue of 'takes longer to play out'.
Are you honestly asking why 50 damage rolls per facility on the base defence screen take longer to go through than a single damage roll per facility?Yes. Because the software needing another ms to do its work is irrelevant to the user.
How would this even work in regards to the information presented to the player, either on the base defence or the base information screen?Base defences can just add the total value, same as any other defence facility regardless of hit chance. Defence screen: same as auto-shot in the Pedia? Mock-up in the attachments.
The outcome of the base defense screen is literally either "UFO IS DESTROYED" or " ".Oh, now we're arguing about the base defence screen, as if it's something quite on its own and not tied to anything else at all?
Yes my man, that is a binary outcome.You can draw arbitrary lines onto anything that's not binary and call it 'essentially binary'. Doesn't make it so.
There is no "continuum of possible outcomes".Yes, there is. I literally spelled it out for you. Your inability to see things in context is your problem.
The outcome is either "base defense mission happens" or "base defense mission does not happen", and lessAliensDuringBaseDefense has zero impact on this.No, the actual end result is 'base is defended' or 'base is overrun', and both 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' and if the latter is on, then the actual proceedings in the base defense screen have a massive impact on that.
Nor does the proposed 'idea' impact how lessAliensDuringBaseDefense works.Not in a technical sense. Very much in the 'how do you defend your base with both facilities and troops' sense.
What you are referring to here has nothing to do with what is being proposed.This is a proposal. If it needs more code and proposals to be meaningful, it's something to discuss, not to dismiss.
You're literally complaining about an "underused" feature that has nothing to do with the changes to base defences OP is requesting, not to mention that you haven't even bothered to check if your proposed "justification" for all of this actually works.
Everything you have been trying to bring up in defense is independant of the mechanic being proposed here and it would not add anything meaningful to the game that isn't already possible.
a) you might want to actually try this out yourself before using theorycrafting to push an idea which might not actually workThis is a suggestion. It's entirely about theorycrafting new possibilities. I don't know why you think it's some sort of 'gotcha'.
...no point in only overkilling unarmored UFOs if your defense can instead kill all UFOsBut it might not. Facility slots are extremely limited. If one facility (over)killed all weak retaliation UFOs, and that's all you'd have to worry about for a few years or for new bases, that could be a massive space/time/money saver.
Why would you ever go for less than the maximum protection possible, given that you can manually "allow" a UFO to land if you want/need base defence missions?Base slot tax.
c) taking a) and b) into account, "interesting tradeoffs" would already be possible
I already pointed out why that is fallacious thinking, not withstanding that you can already do all of the above using existing mechanics.So, where's my example of a 50d5 base defence setup? Or, more specifically, an example of a single base facility that will 99% kill all Scouts and will do absolutely nothing to anything Medium or above, even if you cover your entire base with them? Another example that will 99% destroy a Battleship yet won't touch any high-evasion scouts and missiles?
d) still needs to be balanced against crafts&craft weaponsYes. It'd be difficult and probably not worth all the work. But if someone really wanted to, they could make it work.
Again, I see nothing that would justify the time being spent on rewriting base defense mechanics...Neither do I. I have not been arguing for the suggestion, rather against your reasoning for it.
does this have anything to do with the actual topic? Might it not be ab better idea to move those suggestion to a separate thread instead of highjacking this one?It’s purely about interactions of UFO with defenses, so about as much as the salvo proposal. And it’s a matter of how to make the most use of the salvo mechanics. Range of hit probabilities vs. range of dodge values.
Why not? What isn't "meaningful" about the way defense facilities currently work?Even in vanilla some of starting weapons remain useful after you get laser, and laser weapons are not completely useless when you have plasma.
Are you honestly asking why 50 damage rolls per facility on the base defence screen take longer to go through than a single damage roll per facility?Those rolls are not high-end simulation of rocket surgery. On their own, dozens of random rolls plus simple damage calculation won’t take human-observable time even in a spreadsheet.
I already pointed out why that is fallacious thinking, not withstanding that you can already do all of the above using existing mechanics.I’m yet to see either.
You can already "reliably weaken a terror ship", "ensure your best chance to destroy a battleship" and "best chance to destroy a base-killing missile" (hint: something that is going to destroy a battleship will likely also destroy a misisle) based on different stats for defences and UFOs.Really? What choices would fit either of these goals? “Build more of the best defense you have” vs “Build more of the best defense you have” vs “Build more of the best defense you have”? ;D
How would this even be "reliable" when you are - if anything - more likely to either destroy or fail to sufficiently weaken said terror ship and risk losing your base? What happens when you're not attacked by said terror ship but by a bigger UFO?My point exactly: it looks like a matter of risk management. In the specific situation. Which happens in context of other risk/reward modifying decisions, like building a base within easy reach of an older base’s interceptors or quick-building a base next to the enemy base.
There is no actual "trade-off" here that you can't already implement with existing mechanics.You repeat this bizarre claim in several forms.
You mean the underlying issue of the whole base defence minigame being rather barebones, poorly integrated into the rest of the game, thus needing a redesign and more engine-level support?Greater variety in “UFO interacts with base” is good.
You mean the underlying issue of the whole base defence minigame being rather barebones[...]
QuoteDo UFO armour and shields apply to base defences? If so...And if it doesn't all of this is irrelevant. Why bring up a moot point? Have you actually tested this or are you just speculating?
No, because if they don't, it's a simple thing to amend the request to include making UFO armour and evasion part of the base defence calculations. I mean, I've been trying to get this very point across several times now, and you're still acting like it's some sort of 'gotcha'. ???
unlike what you claim, cannot be replicated with current mechanics unless you're willing to give a sizeable chunk of the base over to defences. And even then, it's only an approximation.
[snip]
My point is exactly getting rid of single path of upgrade in 4 steps, and having to adapt countermeasures to risks and resources instead.That argument doesn't make any sense. Nobody is forcing modders to adopt "a single path of upgrade in 4 steps". OXCE already enables you to mod attacking UFOs and base defences to your hearts content. Again, what does your idea actually accomplish that isn't already possible? Can you provide us with a concrete use-case? "Making low-grade defenses more useful" doesn't make any sense, because the actual mechanics don't change. All you are doing is turning "low-grade" into "mid-grade"or "high-grade" defenses.
My point exactly: it looks like a matter of risk management.That is the exact opposite of the point being made here and invalidates the only use cases given so far. The operating word here was "reliably", which your proposal isn't.
Do you understand the difference between 1 roll of 10..100 (with flat distribution) and 10 rolls of 1..10? And how the choice of former vs latter may be optimal for different goals? Because that’s my entire point.And what does any of this actually accomplish that existing mechanics can not? How do you envision this would change gameplay, given that none of the actual mechanics do?
And that’s before armor is taken into accountOnly it isn't. Even if it were, it would be part of the existing defence mechanics and change nothing in regards to your proposal being pointless.
Because all I am seeing here is theorycrafting upon theorycrafting how this would supposedly "improve" the game without even checking if any of this would actually work out.How exactly does one 'check out' a feature that the game does not have? Never mind one that requires you to build a moderately complex retaliation system more or less from the ground up. If one was inclined to build their own alien defence simulator, there'd be no need for an OXCE suggestion in the first place.
Now you even have to argue that this would - somehow - make the automated base defences "better" without actually changing anything about how base defences work.So 'use armour and evasion' will change absolutely nothing, it's already possible and your criticisms along these lines are completely without substance? A UFO with 9999 armour and 1 HP that's totally invulnerable to everything but the 10k defence facility will change nothing about retaliations? Are you even reading what you're arguing here?
...
Even if it were, it would be part of the existing defence mechanics and change nothing in regards to your proposal being pointless.
My man, the solution to the supposedly boring base defence mechanic is not to cram more base defences into a single facility - which is all this accomplishes.No, it isn't. Go back and actually try understanding the examples I - not TBeholder, me - have brought up, don't just state "This does nothing!" over and over again with zero backup like a broken record.
What difference in outcome can base defences firing 50 times instead of 4 or 8 times provide, when the result is binary?Easier base defence mission post-firing. Thinner bands of probability for said alien crew reductions. Less facility slots (and/or money/time/base Tetris) spent on protecting against small base assault UFOs. More reliability of outcome vs better but more chancy outcomes. These have all been brought up multiple times now, and you just refuse to listen or engage and go back to "But it's binary! Binaryyyyy, I say!" :(
None, actually. If anything it is counterproductive.So, no arguments and only a statement here, as usual.
Your "examples" were:No, they were not. They were TBeholder's. If you want to dispute him, don't quote me.
"shoot down missiles"But at least I can answer that one while creating another example to answer the other questions. Suppose we have a 50-HP missile, a 200-HP Medium Scout (loaded with Chryssalids or whatever to make it somewhat threatening, and much less threatening with only 1-2 Chryssalids) and a 3000-HP Battleship. Unless you remove hit chance altogether and make defence undeterministic and boring, a single facility will only shoot down the missile some of the time (80% max for vanilla Fusion Balls). A 50(d5+1) 50% hit chance defence (nominal damage 4, actual damage 2-6, since AFAIR facilities also do 50-150% damage; correct me if I'm wrong about defences needing to do full damage to kill the UFO) will virtually always do about 80-180 damage, killing the missile and seriously weakening the Scout with a rare chance for a kill, but will need at least ~15 friends to have any sort of realistic chance at the Battleship. How do you replicate all of this with a single vanilla facility?
...
Again, what does your idea actually accomplish that isn't already possible? Can you provide us with a concrete use-case?
...
And what does any of this actually accomplish that existing mechanics can not?
You can not "reliably" soften up a terror ship by applying more random damage.Yes, you can, because the randomness is different. Are you even congisant of the difference between the Irvin-Hall distribution and the uniform distribution?
Your proposal doesn't accomplish either, because dealing *random* damage is the opposite of reliable.
As I pointed out, you are likely to either destroy it or lose the base (why do you need to "soften" up the crew in the first place? How do you deal with larger UFOs?).Only with vanilla defences. I don't know how it's still not getting through to you, but this change will indeed not do a lot for vanilla defences and will need a considerable amount of rework.
The other two cases don't show why the mechanic is needed either, since both rely on dealing max damage to the target.No, defending against evasive but low-HP missiles relies on doing 'max hits' on target. Battleships I'll grant you, but that was never my argument in the first place.
Something that can "reliably" destroy a battleship will reliably destroy anything else you're throwing at the player.Not a 100-evasion missile, and certainly not with the same investment of resources.
Nothing about the mechanic enables you to give the player "a choice" that wasn't possible before. I mean maybe I am missing something here, but none of your proposed use cases show why the mechanic is needed.No, it's not 'needed'. It'd be useful, maybe. With a modder dedicated to using it.
Again, I have yet see either of you come up with an actual concrete exmaple as to why any of this would be needed or what it would actually accomplish gameplay wise that isn't possible right now.
Either what?That thinking there are strategic choices in the ability to build weaker but more reliably damage-dealing defences and having weak assault UFOs vs the big guns and Battleships is 'fallacious'.
Because the result of of the base defence screen is binary.And I have already told you the base defence screen in and of itself is meaningless. The end result (of base defence) is not binary in anything but the most vanilla examples.
Nothing about the proposed mechanic changes that, nor does it actually make it "good".No, but it does not need to. The knock-on effects in both Geoscape base building and base defence missions (if 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' is active) have that potential.
The issue with base defences is not that they don't go *pewpew* enough. The issue is that there is no player engagement or interactivity.It may or may not be the issue. I don't think it's necessary to add direct interactivity to make base defences interesting - which would need so much UI work that the whole thing'd be outside the scope of OXCE anyway - and making UFO stats usable in base defence + multi-shot defences + a modder interested enough in overhauling bas defence could make in interesting. I doubt all these ingredients will come together in reality, though.
Trying to invoke vanilla and battlescape mechanics makes no sense and I already pointed that out.Still having trouble with analogies, I see?
I guess nobody ever used this feature, eh?
Since the beginning, no ammo was spent when a shot missed.
Fixed today.