Author Topic: [Feedback] Suggestions on aircombat  (Read 4354 times)

Offline Eddie

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
[Feedback] Suggestions on aircombat
« on: February 06, 2018, 12:27:09 am »
Right now, of the three attack stances only two are ever used. Agressive or cautious. There is no reason whatsoever to use normal attack. I would suggest changing the modes to max range, max damage and max accuracy (the economy setting). The max accuracy mode would be used to maximize payload efficiency in exchange for longer time under enemy fire.
Max range has low accuracy and low fire rate.
Max accuracy has low fire rate and low distance
Max damage has high fire rate at low distance with medium or low accurracy. The resulting DPS is higher than in max accuracy mode.

...or something similar

The proper implementation that requires the modders to do some work would be to extend the range and accuracy parameters of a weapon to hold three values like the firing speed. The no-work-for-modders implementation is to have fixed multipliers for the stances. For example max accuracy mode has a range multiplier of 0.7, an accuracy muliplier of 1.2, while having a firing interval multiplier of 1.5.



Furthermore, I would like the option to reduce air combat outcome variance, as this really annoys me. Is there any reason why enemy ufos have a 0-100% damage range while your interceptors do 50-100%? I would like the option to give enemy ufos 50-100% damage range as well.

What further increases variance is a high evade, mostly reached through pilot bonuses. The high evade low hp craft can then win encounters unscathed or die in two shots. In heroes of might and magic 5 there was the ethereal stat that gave a 50% miss chance. It was implemented in a very not-annoying way. If you missed two consecutive attacks, the next attack was a sure hit. To balance it, it worked the other way around too. If there were two consecutive hits, the third attack was a guaranteed miss.

Implementing this for other miss chances than 50% could look like this:
For a 10% hit chance, if 9 attacks miss, the 10th attack is a guaranteed hit. Allowed consecutive misses before a guaranteed hit is triggered is 1/percentage, rounded up, minus one. So 11% hit chance would be 1/0.11 = 9.09. Rounded up to 10, minus 1 gives 9 misses before a guaranteed hit. Obviously this mechanism needs a 2 missed shot cap at the low end. I would also be in favor of having a cap on the high end of 10 missed shots that would prevent evade abuse.

It might not be necessary to implement the other end as well that would prevent the two shot death, a guaranteed miss after a hit for a high evade craft. The player got a bonus to air combat when pilot bonuses where introduced. If my suggested changes increase the guaranteed damage of ufos, this is just fair to counterbalance the pilot bonuses.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2018, 02:25:31 pm by Meridian »

Offline Meridian

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 8617
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions on aircombat
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2018, 12:38:21 am »
Right now, of the three attack stances only two are ever used. Agressive or cautious. There is no reason whatsoever to use normal attack.

Funny.
I'd say I use:
- 60% normal
- 30% aggressive
- 10% cautious

I'll read the rest later... just wanted to share...

Offline Eddie

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions on aircombat
« Reply #2 on: February 06, 2018, 02:32:04 am »
May I ask why do you use normal? What is the benefit over agressive?

Offline Meridian

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 8617
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions on aircombat
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2018, 02:31:37 pm »
May I ask why do you use normal? What is the benefit over agressive?

Easier escape (than from aggressive), while still using both guns (as opposed to cautious).

As for the other things: I don't have any strong opinions on that...

PS: just started playing HoMM 5 two weeks ago... that Ethereal ability is annoying as heck!

Offline Eddie

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions on aircombat
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2018, 07:20:11 pm »
Another small suggestion: out of range message when picking a target.
If you send your craft to a destination it is not able to reach because of limited range, you are informed right after giving the order (pop up). You then have the option to proceed anyway or to select a different target.

I have no idea how hard it is to implement that. Someday I will learn how to code so I don't have to ask for these things but can contribute them myself.

Offline Meridian

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 8617
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions on aircombat
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2018, 07:31:15 pm »
Another small suggestion: out of range message when picking a target.
If you send your craft to a destination it is not able to reach because of limited range, you are informed right after giving the order (pop up). You then have the option to proceed anyway or to select a different target.

I have no idea how hard it is to implement that. Someday I will learn how to code so I don't have to ask for these things but can contribute them myself.

I have tried this last week.

It is very.... fuzzy.

The issue is that craft fly every 5 seconds, but only consume fuel every 10 minutes.
That means there is 9 minutes and 55 seconds error margin for such calculation.

For fast craft with low fuel capacity, that can mean a significant difference... e.g. with speed=7000 and fuel capacity=160... the range will differ almost by 20% depending whether you take off at 0:00:00 or 0:09:55.

It would be possible to add also the take-off time to the calculation formula... but that would require either adding a lot of new parameters to some fundamental craft routines.... or duplicate everything.
I'm not keen on either.

Offline Eddie

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions on aircombat
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2018, 11:23:14 pm »
Wow. I had feared something like that. But now I know I can maximize range by properly adjusting take off time...

Easy half assed solution: take the worst case range for the warning.

Proper, complicated solution: change engine to update fuel more often.

But I guess you have already thought about that.

Offline Meridian

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 8617
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions on aircombat
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2018, 11:39:45 pm »
Easy half assed solution: take the worst case range for the warning.

Then, I would tell player he can't go there, even if he can.
No go.

Proper, complicated solution: change engine to update fuel more often.

You don't want to put everything into 5 seconds routine... it gets slow.
Just look at how crippled the game is with "predict ufo trajectory" option.

Offline Eddie

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions on aircombat
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2018, 02:21:44 am »
The issue is that craft fly every 5 seconds, but only consume fuel every 10 minutes.

In my eternal quest to break the game, knowing this mechanic helped me to discover a new cheese:
You can almost double the range of your craft by micromanaging. Let the craft fly, then change to hold position just short of every 10 minute mark, then continue flying when the 10 minute mark has passed. When fuel consumtion is calculated (at every 10 minute mark), the craft consumes half fuel for this 10 minute period.

To prevent this cheese, the fuel consumption script would need to be changed. Sorry...
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 02:23:25 am by Eddie »

Online ohartenstein23

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1931
  • Flamethrowers fry cyberdisk circuits
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions on aircombat
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2018, 03:52:03 am »
Yes, if you want to micromanage to that level, the game will crumple before you; this was an exploit available since the original game.