View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:58 pm



Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Endgame? Hybrid ships? Stuff to do? 
Author Message

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:50 pm
Posts: 10
Reply with quote
danny420dale wrote:
I wonder what cannon assembly order would cause a maximum recoil/energy cost. This would make a dandy recoil-compensator or AMAZING thruster!


- For recoil force, order doesn't matter because recoil is based on the damage and rate of projectiles leaving the barrel (I tested this with a ship with different cannon configurations on opposite sides)

- For energy usage, the usual damage/velocity first (doesn't matter which order as they both multiply), then range.

- Range parts contribute so little recoil, for all intents and purposes they are never better than another damage part.

- Two velocity parts generate more recoil (also more dps) than the rate amplifier at negligible energy efficiency loss:
Rate part: 2x rate @ 1.2x energy = 2.4x energy consumption rate. 2x rate at 2.4x energy use = 0.83 energy efficiency
2 Velocity parts: 2.25x rate @ 1.21x energy = 2.72x energy consumption rate. 2.25x rate at 2.72x energy use = 0.826 energy efficiency

- You still need a combination of damage and velocity parts to achieve good recoil.

- Edit: Recoil per projectile appears to be proportional to the damage of the projectile. This means it's always better to use 1 large damage amplifier over 2 small ones because using 2 small ones would drain slightly more energy.

- N+1 velocity parts + X dmg/shot seems to slightly beat out N velocity parts + 1.5*X dmg/shot. Presumably the projectile velocity also contributes a little bit of recoil.


Last edited by Entity on Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:10 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:07 am
Posts: 365
Reply with quote
This is similar to my empirical testing in the Kzinti Reverse thread. Range bits do diddly for thrust/fuel [note the terminology change]. Thanks for the rate amplifier tip; I'll be removing them from all future designs.

_________________
Reassembly Web Dev Kit, by TTFTCUTS!

Muzzle Brake. Because not everyone is a fan of Noisy Crickets!

Empire of the Red Sun


Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:22 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:50 pm
Posts: 10
Reply with quote
danny420dale wrote:
This is similar to my empirical testing in the Kzinti Reverse thread. Range bits do diddly for thrust/fuel [note the terminology change]. Thanks for the rate amplifier tip; I'll be removing them from all future designs.


This actually implies that the rate amplifier needs some tuning because:
- you can only use one.
- it isn't as useful as 2 velocity amp because +400 projectile speed makes it easier to hit stuff too.
- doesn't do anything for energy efficiency.
- sits at the end of your cannon so it's usually the most vulnerable piece, and cuts your dps in half if lost.
- being at the end of your cannon means it is terrible to use in combination with range amplifiers as you want range amps to be the last in the chain.

So it really needs to contribute more to the cannon. Perhaps the rate amplifier should have a smaller energy cost multiplier (10-15% maybe?)


Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:47 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:51 pm
Posts: 62
Reply with quote
Becuase the rate amplification compounds the damage per shot added by the damage multipliers, the optimal combination is not a constant ratio. How much energy you're willing to spend matters too.

If I had any numbers at all for the kickback of the projectiles, I could generate some useful formulas here.



With all of this, I'm not sure that a weapon for the purpose of thrust is very useful, since the AI doesn't know how to use it.


Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:06 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:07 am
Posts: 365
Reply with quote
Zistack wrote:
With all of this, I'm not sure that a weapon for the purpose of thrust is very useful, since the AI doesn't know how to use it.

That's the entire purpose of the Kzinti Reverse thread. :D

_________________
Reassembly Web Dev Kit, by TTFTCUTS!

Muzzle Brake. Because not everyone is a fan of Noisy Crickets!

Empire of the Red Sun


Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:32 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 3:13 am
Posts: 283
Reply with quote
Zistack wrote:
Becuase the rate amplification compounds the damage per shot added by the damage multipliers, the optimal combination is not a constant ratio. How much energy you're willing to spend matters too.

If I had any numbers at all for the kickback of the projectiles, I could generate some useful formulas here.



With all of this, I'm not sure that a weapon for the purpose of thrust is very useful, since the AI doesn't know how to use it.


The AI may not, you do!
Imagine flying at 30 000 km/h, with a melee block at the front, crossing the universe in a few seconds!

_________________
Using Beta, always! (Well, for Reassembly)
(Also known as GATC on Steam)


Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:51 pm
Posts: 62
Reply with quote
The whole point of the over-optimization is to generate agents that pose a real challenge to players (at least for me). If the AI has no idea how to use the 'thruster', then why create an agent with this capability? However, it is also true that the optimization itself, whether it be for the purpose of creating agents, or for the purpose of creating ships that are seriously OP when player-driven, can be considered an endgame challenge.

I would like to see the AI get smarter about weapons with kickback. I think it would make designing ships surprisingly interesting. Still, the weapon on my Tinkrell destroyer costs more than 4k P, so you can't have two pointing in opposite directions. While having two slightly weaker weapons technically would result in a higher overall DPS, only half of it is directed in a useful place at a given time under most circumstances. For this reason alone, I would not design a ship that uses the kickback of a weapon to cancel the kickback of the main cannon.

BTW, the farmers are really hard to optimize, but you can summarily discard some of their weapons, as they are subsumed by others. For example, there is never any reason to use any laser other than the Arkus PRP-1. It has better range and a higher damage/(second*P) than any other laser in that faction. It is similarly a waste of time to use the HC2 or HC3, as they are subsumed by the MC3 in the same way.


Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:26 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:36 pm
Posts: 326
Reply with quote
Zistack wrote:
If the AI has no idea how to use the 'thruster', then why create an agent with this capability?

Give the AI a long range negative recoil fixed mount gun, tada! a thruster gun they *technically* know how to use. [This is assuming negative recoil is possible]
This does require modding, but it's an idea.


Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:56 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:50 pm
Posts: 10
Reply with quote
Zistack wrote:
For this reason alone, I would not design a ship that uses the kickback of a weapon to cancel the kickback of the main cannon.


It's actually useful if you give it a little bit of range. then you can use it to kill stuff that manages to get behind you. But the main reason I made a ship like that is so that I can chase down stuff instead of using all available thrust to compensate for the recoil. It also makes it so the ship behaves consistently when moving whether firing or not.
Obviously it's a waste to design an agent this way as they don't use the rear cannon, but for a player ship it's fine.

Zistack wrote:
BTW, the farmers are really hard to optimize, but you can summarily discard some of their weapons, as they are subsumed by others. For example, there is never any reason to use any laser other than the Arkus PRP-1. It has better range and a higher damage/(second*P) than any other laser in that faction. It is similarly a waste of time to use the HC2 or HC3, as they are subsumed by the MC3 in the same way.


Yep, noticed that. I really think these items should be tweaked so they all have a reason to be used.


Mon Jul 27, 2015 6:03 am
Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:51 pm
Posts: 62
Reply with quote
Amazigh wrote:
Give the AI a long range negative recoil fixed mount gun


You mean an implosion cannon? Yes, the AI would use this one more effectively, but it would just result in the AI divebombing the enemy while spitting, in this case, implosive death at them. I think it would be entertaining to watch though.

Entity wrote:
But the main reason I made a ship like that is so that I can chase down stuff instead of using all available thrust to compensate for the recoil.


If you use thrusters to compensate for recoil, when you are not firing, you have enough thrust to go pretty fast. I can definitely chase things down with my Tinkrell Destroyer.

Entity wrote:
It also makes it so the ship behaves consistently when moving whether firing or not.


I suppose that if you aren't particularly interested in going the fastest that you can go be default when not firing, then this is a point for reactionary cannons. My Tinkrell Destroyer does not have this property.


Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:54 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software