Base info QoL improvements

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Base info defense strength is quite unusable for player. It shows only summary nominal defense strength. Actual damage and hit probability varies with defense type involving complex computations. I doubt anyone uses it for evaluating base defense sufficiency. Moreover, Dreadnaught has 3400 damage capacity but the bar is just up to 1200 strength, which is obviously much below what is needed.

Would it be appealing for players to display more relevant information there? Assuming only largest UFO assaults base, it would be interesting to see the probability of total defense power combined to shot it down. This will be very useful info as player would be able to estimate current defense sufficiency and/or trade-off between higher probability and construction/maintenance cost. It will also visually fit the bar space nicely (0 to 100%).

In the same vein it would be probably more informative to display radar detection chances in detection info. Who cares how many radars one has if the detection chance need to be taken from the ruleset and then computed to give an answer.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

https://github.com/Xilmi/OpenXcom/pull/24

[Abyss]

Assuming only largest UFO assaults base

No. In megamods a number of UFO's assault bases. From tiny crafts and rockets (which damage facilities) to battleships. Please, take you time to play some megamods to get in line with actual knowledge of gameplay processes average player experiences.   

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

This is a computation assumption, not game assumption. Obviously, base is even better protected against lighter UFOs. Taking the process is probabilistic, this is just an estimate of base protection level to help not math savvy players.

How do you estimate it?

[Juku121]

The point is, this computation does not necessarily line up with the actual game. In XCF, the biggest baddest UFO has a damage capacity of 5500, while the most hardcore base-assaulting UFO has only 4000 (and there's another, non-UFO with 4500 in-between).

Also, I'm not sure your Gaussian assumption is fully justified since the number of addends is not too large (a base will rarely have more than 12 or so shots) and on-hit damage is neither of the same magnitude nor static (50%-150%). Maybe cross-reference your results with the Monte-Carlo simulator.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Once again, this is quality of life improvement to relieve player from their own statistical computations. Sure, it could be off by 1-2%. I never planned it to be exact. It does not even need to be exact as any value significantly lower than 100% would result in base being assaulted sooner or later.

The point is, this computation does not necessarily line up with the actual game. In XCF, the biggest baddest UFO has a damage capacity of 5500, while the most hardcore base-assaulting UFO has only 4000 (and there's another, non-UFO with 4500 in-between).

Yes, I understand it does not. It should not. It is just an estimate that is better than just listing combined facility defensive strength, which does not tell player much.
I can sure expose a configuration parameter that sets the UFO player wants to compute against if this clears your argument.

Didn't understand about difference between "biggest baddest UFO" and "most hardcore base-assaulting UFO". Is the latter more durable against base defense?

Also, I'm not sure your Gaussian assumption is fully justified since the number of addends is not too large (a base will rarely have more than 12 or so shots) and on-hit damage is neither of the same magnitude nor static (50%-150%). Maybe cross-reference your results with the Monte-Carlo simulator.

Oh man, I exactly did. Even with 1-2 facilities. the difference is 1-2%. So I took it as good enough approximation. I don't think anyone would care if real probability is 51% or 53%. In most cases player wants base to be well protected at 95%+ probability if they even bother to build a defense.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

If this is a concern, I can draw multiple bars on top of each other or next to each other for different assault UFOs. Probably 2-3 should fit.

[Juku121]

I can sure expose a configuration parameter that sets the UFO player wants to compute against if this clears your argument.

That might work. You could also take the biggest baddest UFO listed in these alien mission parameters:

Code: [Select]

    objective: 4
    spawnUfo: STR_DREADNOUGHT #Spawned for the final retaliation run


Didn't understand about difference between "biggest baddest UFO" and "most hardcore base-assaulting UFO". Is the latter more durable against base defense?

No, but the first does not necessarily assault bases. At all.



Edit:

If this is a concern, I can draw multiple bars on top of each other or next to each other for different assault UFOs. Probably 2-3 should fit.

I imagine a band of probabilites from highest (Alien Death Squad) to lowest (wimpiest retaliation UFO), possibly with some 'average' value if you can swing that, would work best. Not sure what the layout should be.



Come to think of it, while we're on the topic of base information QoL stuff, one thing that OXCE is likely not to revisit (don't recall if it's been explicitly rejected) that has bugged me for half of forever, is that all the base display info bars go off the right edge instead of scaling the bars according to their max value. No idea if that's something of interest to you.

Edit2: The same applies to craft equipment list icons, which also overflow really quickly and are thus mostly useless as information.  This could scale to 'maxItems' or 'maxStorageSpace', or some ruleset variable if these are not in use.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

That might work. You could also take the biggest baddest UFO listed in these alien mission parameters:

Code: [Select]

    objective: 4
    spawnUfo: STR_DREADNOUGHT #Spawned for the final retaliation run
No, but the first does not necessarily assault bases. At all.

Edit: I imagine a band of probabilites from highest (Alien Death Squad) to lowest (wimpiest retaliation UFO), possibly with some 'average' value if you can swing that, would work best. Not sure what the layout should be.

Do you mean they are all listed in alien retaliation missions? I.e. multiple mission types with different UFOs? I can extract them sure. Can you give me example of the ruleset with multiple possible UFOs those could attack a base?

Come to think of it, while we're on the topic of base information QoL stuff, one thing that OXCE is likely not to revisit (don't recall if it's been explicitly rejected) that has bugged me for half of forever, is that all the base display info bars go off the right edge instead of scaling the bars according to their max value. No idea if that's something of interest to you.

Edit2: The same applies to craft equipment list icons, which also overflow really quickly and is thus mostly useless as information.  This could scale to 'maxItems' or 'maxStorageSpace', or some ruleset variable if these are not in use.

Eh, sure. Start a new thread under BAI and we can talk details.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

I can extract base assaulting UFOs from ruleset but I don't think it is good to display defense probability for more than one on the base info screen. Even if I can draw multiple bars there is only one number there anyway and they can differ very much against different UFO capacities. Like easily 0-100%. So maybe it makes sense to display only the largest one that possibly can assault a base.

After all in most of the mods it is still one, even if not largest one.


What I mean is drawing multiple bars or values in a single row on base info screen is very unconventional and I don't think this simple QoL feature need to be that detailed work out. It is a good helping tool but it is not critical for game play. Those who like may use it for reference and quick defense evaluation.

[Juku121]

Do you mean they are all listed in alien retaliation missions? I.e. multiple mission types with different UFOs?

Don't recall something that isn't, offhand. Maybe there's something esoteric I'm forgetting, again , but I'm like 90% sure that's it.

Can you give me example of the ruleset with multiple possible UFOs those could attack a base?

Here.

I can extract base assaulting UFOs from ruleset but I don't think it is good to display defense probability for more than one on the base info screen. Even if I can draw multiple bars there is only one number there anyway and they can differ very much against different UFO capacities. Like easily 0-100%.

Most of the time, it's two numbers in that column, so min:max or avg:max should fit. Since probabilities are likely to be two-digit numbers, three could fit, but 100:100:100 might start pushing it.

So maybe it makes sense to display only the largest one that possibly can assault a base.

After all in most of the mods it is still one, even if not largest one.

Well, there are also base assault missiles (UFOs that explode and take out facilities instead of assaulting) and instant base defences (objective 6), so you could display one of those instead of min/avg.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Most of the time, it's two numbers in that column, so min:max or avg:max should fit. Since probabilities are likely to be two-digit numbers, three could fit, but 100:100:100 might start pushing it.

Yes, two digit may fit. I am thinking not about fitting but about whether most of the players will be confused by two numbers for mods where is only one such UFO?
One option would be to display the average. This will still be a single number suiting both single and multiple assaulting UFO mods.
For multiple UFOs it won't be very precise, though, as they can vary in wide enough ranges if their capacities are different enough. But what we can do if base defense made so variative by the mod itself?

So the options are:
1a) one number for max
1b) one number for average
2) min-max, although interface would be kind of complicated and not very clear for the same numbers range.
3) number is average but bar is min-max?

Well, there are also base assault missiles (UFOs that explode and take out facilities instead of assaulting) and instant base defences (objective 6), so you could display one of those instead of min/avg.

Yes, there are plenty of variations. I don't plan to cover them all. This is essentially a statistical calculator helper not pretending to be an ultimate answer to all questions.

[Juku121]

I am thinking not about fitting but about whether most of the players will be confused by two numbers for mods where is only one such UFO?

One option would be to display the average. This will still be a single number suiting both single and multiple assaulting UFO mods.

True. Average is not that precise also because there's no good way to estimate the 'average' UFO size that comes after your base.

The only dynamic improvement I can think of is to vary the 'max' according to which month the retaliation mission becomes available. Although that will not cover interceptor-caused retaliations all that well, I guess?

Also, you might want to check for 'ignoreBaseDefenses', in case some sneaky modder uses that.

Edit: Not sure having multiple bars or overlapping bars or something like that will make things better, either.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

And, unfortunately, two numbers won't fit when I add % sign.
😥

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

The only dynamic improvement I can think of is to vary the 'max' according to which month the retaliation mission becomes available. Although that will not cover interceptor-caused retaliations all that well, I guess?

Ugh. You are asking engine general improvement to account for what modders would do. That is, of course, impossible to satisfy all crazy minds. I guess, they will come to me asking for adjustment if they ever want it. For now it is better to start simple.

Also, you might want to check for 'ignoreBaseDefenses', in case some sneaky modder uses that.

That I do.

Edit: Not sure having multiple bars or overlapping bars or something like that will make things better, either.

Yes. As I said, let's start simple and complicate later only if it help players.