[DONE][Suggestion] Base Defense Facility Ammunition

[krautbernd]

While I applaud your initiative, have you actually fixed the underlaying issue which prevents this from being even remotely useful?

[Juku121]

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? No, obviously not.

If you mean a specific feature, do tell. I personally don't think there's any singular new feature that will make base defence 'work' on the spot.

[TBeholder]

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.
OXCE capabilities expand parameters, so e.g. CQC accuracy can ensure close-range weapons retain their niche even though long-range weapons exist (X-Com Files uses it extensively, for one).
But “Flyswatter -> Flyswatter +1 -> Flyswatter +2 -> Flyswatter +5” with each next step strictly better in every way (except cost) does not offer a meaningful choice. It’s just a single path of “upgrade once you can”.
This also makes balance trickier. Either low-grade defenses are so weak they are useful only in huge clusters (like in vanilla), or there would be only marginal benefit from most upgrades.

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.
Time it takes to “go through” them is purely a matter of chosen interface features. I assume that using interface adequate to the mechanics (“Firing! … 3/9 hit!”, for a trivial example) is obvious, why would it be a problem?

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”? 
Also, you seem to conflate "hit” and “destroy”. Do you assume lack of trade-offs between hitting probability and damage? That one can be done even now.
My point is exactly getting rid of single path of upgrade in 4 steps, and having to adapt countermeasures to risks and resources instead.

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.
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 that’s before armor is taken into account, which also affects optimization vs. different targets (since damage reduction applies to each hit separately).

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.
Now there’s another mission, allowing airstrike/nuke/insertion options; troop insertion could be modded further, perhaps into head-on attack troops vs. sneaky mind-controlling infiltrators.
And the defenses are theoretically 2-dimensional rather than 1-dimensional. But it’s still kind of flat. Hence my proposals:

• defenses facility: different salvo volume — different effect vs. low/high armor and dodge
• UFO mission: altered dodge chance; probably not good without good range of defenses hit probability, such as from salvo
• UFO mission: defenses may have varied amount of shots (before Grav Shield gives an extra round) — then airstrike could have 1, troop insertion more, but not necessarily the same for battleship, troop transport and smaller infiltrator; again, greater variety of target profiles

[krautbernd]

You mean the underlying issue of the whole base defence minigame being rather barebones[...]

No my man, I do not. I am referring to this:

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?

Let me guess, you didn't actually check that our only actual usecase for this actually works?

[Juku121]

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'.

But in any case, 1) even that will not automatically make the base defense good without a whole lot of additional work on UFOs, retaliation missions and whatnot; and 2) even without all that the distributions of results for even 5d5 at 20% accuracy vs 1d50 at 10% accuracy are considerably different and, 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.

[krautbernd]

Happy Holidays

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'.

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. 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.

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. Every single argument being advanced here why this is "needed" falls apart the moment you actually look at the proposed use cases.

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.

You still haven't been able to demonstrate why this mechanic is even needed. What difference in outcome can base defences firing 50 times instead of 4 or 8 times provide, when the result is binary?

None, actually. If anything it is counterproductive.

Your "examples" were:

"reliably soften up terror ship without destroying it"
"shoot down missiles"
"destroy battleship"

and that somehow this proposed mechanic would let you do something in regards to these examples that the existing mechanics do not. What and how exactely?

You can not "reliably" soften up a terror ship by applying more random damage. 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?).

The other two cases don't show why the mechanic is needed either, since both rely on dealing max damage to the target. Something that can "reliably" destroy a battleship will reliably destroy anything else you're throwing at the player. 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.

Because the result of of the base defence screen is binary.

Nothing about the proposed mechanic changes that, nor does it actually make it "good".

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.

[snip]

To cut some of these short without cluttering up the thread even further:

- No, it does not have anything to do with the original request, which was specifically about base defences using consumables, not about damage values or anything else along the lines of your new request.

- Trying to invoke vanilla and battlescape mechanics makes no sense and I already pointed that out. Neither does invoking "low-grade base defences. All your proposal does is cram more base defences into a single facility. It doesn't actually change anything about how base defence works. Can you actually come with a concrete use case that requires this mechanic or what it would actually accomplish?

- Point taken, if you make it concise enough in the UI it wouldn't necessarily take longer to display.

- See either what? Your proposal wouldn't add anything new to the game, it only enables modders to cram more base defences into a single facility. I am still waiting for explanation regarding the "meaningful choices" any of this would entail that existing mechanics don't support.

- Either what? Reliably weakening an attacking UFO vs. reliably destroying it? Your proposal doesn't accomplish either, because dealing *random* damage is the opposite of reliable. On the other hand, the existing mechanics already let you do both. Again, you providing an actual concrete use case might be helpful here.

- If you wasn't aware that you can hit a UFO without destroying it I would hardly have pointed out that you can't reliably weaken a UFO using your proposed mechanic, see lessAliensDuringBaseDefense.

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 account

Only 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.

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.

[Juku121]

Spoiler" When will this end?":

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.

Not to mention the goal post shift from 'armour does not work so your proposal will not, either' to 'maybe it will but have you tested the proposed feature?'. Do suggestions have to come with pull requests and extensive player feedback now?

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.
...
Even if it were, it would be part of the existing defence mechanics and change nothing in regards to your proposal being pointless.

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?

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!"

I mean, this is the exact same kind of argument as "What difference does it make if the hit chance is 1% or 99% when the result is binary? The 'hitRatio' field needs to be deprecated because it's useless and irrelevant. Make everything 50% and there will be no meaninful difference in gameplay!"

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"
...
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?

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?

It'd also be pretty weaksauce so presumably rather cheap and fast to erect.

You can not "reliably" soften up a terror ship by applying more random damage.

Your proposal doesn't accomplish either, because dealing *random* damage is the opposite of reliable.

Yes, you can, because the randomness is different. Are you even congisant of the difference between the Irvin-Hall distribution and the uniform distribution?

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 'softening up' is useful because you may not have enough troops and equipment to defend against 20 aliens, but you might be okay against 8. I imagine if one was using 'brutal AI', that difference could be night and day, even. Or maybe you don't have the patience for doing an involved mission the 193rd time in a row, but could still be bothered with a cakewalk.

Larger UFOs can be delayed to later stages of the game. Until then, the 'cheap but reliable' defences can be built quicker and will work more reliably against harassing assaults. When the big ones come knocking, it's time to upgrade. Or set up crack defence squads, or whatever.

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.

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.

No, it's not 'needed'. It'd be useful, maybe. With a modder dedicated to using it.

I also notice you've conveniently skipped providing any examples I've asked for, or even arguing about my proposed mock-up scenarios, only TBeholder's, while claiming they're not actual examples for... reasons.

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'.

That having damaged a UFO with 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' on leading to a different defence mission is also 'fallacious thinking'.

That it's possible to build 'shotgun' defence facilities using current mechanics.

That it's possible to build missile-killing defences that leave battleships 100% intact using current mechanics.

I've yet to see any of that, either.

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?

The point of these was that the proposal vs vanilla is similar to other OXC(E) changes in other parts of the game that are not considered problematic, more the contrary. I mean, the outcome of any single shot is also binary, you either kill the alien or you do not.

[Meridian]

I guess nobody ever used this feature, eh?

Since the beginning, no ammo was spent when a shot missed.
Fixed today.

[Ethereal]

I guess nobody ever used this feature, eh?

Since the beginning, no ammo was spent when a shot missed.
Fixed today.

It’s just that the stationary defense function has not yet been highly refined. It does not take into account the "shieldCapacity" of the UFO (which should also include the "shieldDamageModifier" parameter for defensive structures), as well as "avoidBonus" and "armor". In addition, it is not certain that the "raceBonus" is taken into account. This is actually why such little things as ammunition consumption go unnoticed and seem unimportant.