Hockey/Football Zone Forums (Subspace | Continuum)

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Static Damage  (Read 1316 times)

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Static Damage
« on: January 19, 2017, 08:06:15 AM »

First off, the apology, I was wrong and I am sorry.  Now on to the fun!

Now on to the good news, static damage is achievable with the current settings/modules etc, so I am going to try it in go small.  If we figure it out fast enough it can be used in the 5v5 tourney.

There are two core settings:
Base Damage
Upgrade Damage

Total Damage = {Base Damage} + {Bullet Level - 1} x {Upgrade Damage}

So: Level 1 = Base Damage
      Level 2 = Base Damage + Upgrade Damage
      Level 3 = Base Damage + 2 x Upgrade Damage
      Level 4 = Base Damage + 3 x Upgrade Damage

One number I still need is the multiplier applied to damage for users carrying the ball.  I am not totally sure if its a constant or a setting, but we can make it work either way.  Goldeye?

We may(very likely) have to change a ships max energy to make the static damage system work, for now if this occurs the costs/recharge rates will be changed so there is effectively no change to the other ship settings.  This will isolate static damage from other nerfs/buffs to ships.

The way forward:
Step 1) The spreadsheet: Once all the numbers are known a handy dandy spreadsheet will help visualize what is needed and keep everyone on the same page.  I can use Excel but I am no expert, anyone out there live and breathe this stuff?
Step 2) The discussion: Keep it civil.  The stated goal of this first effort is to make the current damage model static.  The model may have to change a bid but lets not get crazy yet.
Step 3) The implementation: This I have to do, maybe alone but possibly with help
Step 4) The iteration: After playing with it enough
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2017, 10:26:25 AM »

Step 1) The spreadsheet: Once all the numbers are known a handy dandy spreadsheet will help visualize what is needed and keep everyone on the same page.  I can use Excel but I am no expert, anyone out there live and breathe this stuff?

Here's the sheet I used to guide conversion from random damage to random level:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NhuLoMJ2lN329gxjdRjJ8Cwcg6e62G1qwruGwkrWZe4/edit?usp=sharing
Logged
Shlazzer> dont you ppl realize once our sun goes supernova, NOTHING anyone or anything has EVER done or said on this planet will EVER matter?

Thrill> also i have a gr8 personality

I made $124.03 for a single season of HZ!
Nubby> U could b 3rd highest payed player
Nubby> Maybe 2nd

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2017, 05:01:24 PM »

So it looks like the Multiplayer used for on ball damage is flaggerdamagepercent, so it is controllable. Cool
Logged

dragonwing0

  • Registered Posting Whore
  • *
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2017, 05:02:19 PM »

Just adding a detail to keep in the back of your mind while manipulating ship energy levels. We need to keep in mind afterburner energy usage. Is it a percentage of max energy or a fixed energy rate. Don't want to make jav/Levi have turbo for the majority of the map while making them beefy enough to take an L2 for example.
Logged

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2017, 05:47:19 PM »

We may(very likely) have to change a ships max energy to make the static damage system work, for now if this occurs the costs/recharge rates will be changed so there is effectively no change to the other ship settings.  This will isolate static damage from other nerfs/buffs to ships.

As I mentioned above, but correct dw0.  To elaborate, the costs/recharge rates are ship centric so they can be consistent whether the max energy is 1000, recharge rate is 100, and thrust cost is 10, or the numbers are 100/10/1.  Damage and total energy are the only way ships interact with each other.
Logged

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2017, 08:26:46 PM »

I am a simple guy.  The spreadsheet I envisioned was one where you could enter the bullet setting numbers, energy level, and see how many shots it took to kill ships with each type of bullet.

Like:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rywufA9n89IoqPLDx0KjYmkPP-xqul7rTLrkG6CqbfY/edit?usp=sharing

Simple but a good tool to come up with a target.
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2017, 08:01:05 AM »

Goldeye, can you define what "old" and "new" are in respect to your spreadsheet? Is "old" classic continuum settings in the 2nd tab? This appears to have the bullet level set as a maximum damage possible with a smooth negative probability curve approaching the maximum. This contradicts what I (any perhaps others) may have expected 'classic' settings to be for static damage.
"old" is classic random damage, wacky as it is.

Quote
I think everyone arguing for static damage agrees that the blue curves are better than the smooth red curves. I am just confused that the red curves existed in classic settings #1, and think the overall preference would be to eliminate different tiers in the blue curves altogether.
What does that mean?

Quote
We would also first need to standardize on expected bullet damage value based on our current random settings.

For Warbird L1 On Ball has 70% chance of 170, 30% chance of 335, giving a mean expected value of 219.5 (this is assuming the data in the google doc matches current settings which I doubt it does). That would be the target static value.
That seems like a reasonable starting point, but you probably won't be able to match that target because of the discrete values of bullet damage.
Logged
Shlazzer> dont you ppl realize once our sun goes supernova, NOTHING anyone or anything has EVER done or said on this planet will EVER matter?

Thrill> also i have a gr8 personality

I made $124.03 for a single season of HZ!
Nubby> U could b 3rd highest payed player
Nubby> Maybe 2nd

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2017, 01:25:46 PM »

Did you want to set up the permissions as anyone with link or request access?  It is request access currently
Logged

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2017, 03:27:12 PM »

Warbird: 200
Javelin: 595
Spider: 400
Levi: 695
Terrier: 400
Weasel: 385

Numbers are close with the values you are someone else keyed in: 47/24/4.6

With some minor(tenths) adjustment of the multiplier the L4 level can be moved above the Levi Energy...

Big question: should the levi be able to tank another levi/jav?

Probably also need to include recharge rate in consideration of multiple hits.

Logged

Thrill HZ

  • Spaceship Commentator
  • RSHL Captain
  • Out of Control
  • *
  • Posts: 9305
  • All stat requests go through my agent, BlueGoku
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2017, 09:22:42 PM »

I agree, a ball carrier shouldnt be able to survive a lev bullet. However I do think we need to remove the option where the levi can fire like 4 times in 1-2 seconds when multifire is on. If you have super high checking power that should not also be accompanied by super low checking delay, in fact logic would probably argue in the opposite direction.
Logged
thrill is super awkward and likely rubs it out to himself in the mirror

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #10 on: January 27, 2017, 04:26:43 AM »

Big question: should the levi be able to tank another levi/jav?

No. Let them BK instead :)

While you're at all this, think about getting rid of the whole energy / level correlation.  Along the lines of giving spid higher energy and a worse check than terr, and giving lev somewhat lower energy.    Also, if spid gets L2 and terr gets L3, we can boost spider so it can be a reasonable offensive contributor while remaining balanced.

I still think VRBL is really cool and adding a chance of higher level bullets at high speeds would be beneficial.  Plays built on tanks are fine but there should be a reasonable risk of it backfiring... none of the "I KNOW YOU WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT KILL ME" that is very possible at today's levels. (Bias: I often play weasel, so I see that a lot.  I think it's a lame thing of it's own right, just because it is so dependable -- it really discourages lunging, which we don't want the settings to discourage...
Logged
Shlazzer> dont you ppl realize once our sun goes supernova, NOTHING anyone or anything has EVER done or said on this planet will EVER matter?

Thrill> also i have a gr8 personality

I made $124.03 for a single season of HZ!
Nubby> U could b 3rd highest payed player
Nubby> Maybe 2nd

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #11 on: January 27, 2017, 01:28:45 PM »

I am still wrapping my head around the velocity based damage part of hz_bullets.

A velocity based damage that at close to full forward velocity overcomes the gap and at full backward velocity just sneaks under it would be fantastic.

Wouldn't be too crazy a swing for the jav/levi L3 tank. 

The WB/Weasel check at full velocity taking down a terrier/spider?  Hmm

I also see the isNearBall calculation and now understand the situations where someone gets a double-kill when players on on top of each other.   
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2017, 01:48:16 PM »

A velocity based damage that at close to full forward velocity overcomes the gap and at full backward velocity just sneaks under it would be fantastic.
It's relative velocity independent of position and ship orientation.  If the checker and ball carrier are moving the same direction & speed, it's the same as not moving.  if they're moving opposite directions, the bonus is maximized regardless of the actual orientation and timing of the bullet.  That's a bit awkward physically, but I think it works out fine for gameplay since it's probably a hard-to-land bullet whenever those physics are awkward.

Quote
The WB/Weasel check at full velocity taking down a terrier/spider?  Hmm
I believe this is (/ would be, because I'm pretty sure the chances right now are too low) a good thing.  It gives the offensive ships a reason to lunge rather than collapse and use their prox.  That means more space, and more opportunities for quick transitions.

Quote
I also see the isNearBall calculation and now understand the situations where someone gets a double-kill when players on on top of each other.
Remind me what that is?
Logged
Shlazzer> dont you ppl realize once our sun goes supernova, NOTHING anyone or anything has EVER done or said on this planet will EVER matter?

Thrill> also i have a gr8 personality

I made $124.03 for a single season of HZ!
Nubby> U could b 3rd highest payed player
Nubby> Maybe 2nd

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2017, 02:35:17 PM »

for (i = 0; i < MAXBALLS; ++i)
   {
      int squareDistance = abs(hitPlayerX - pdat->ballX) + abs(hitPlayerY - pdat->ballY);
      if (squareDistance <= ad->nearBallRadius)
      {
         isNearBall = TRUE;
      }
      if (squareDistance < distFromBall)
         distFromBall = squareDistance;

      if (pdat->carriers == hit)
      {
         isCarrier = TRUE;
      }
   }

   if (isCarrier || isNearBall)
   {
      totalBonus = pdat->onballVelocityBonus;
      wpn->level = pdat->onballLevelBase;
   }
Logged

Thrill HZ

  • Spaceship Commentator
  • RSHL Captain
  • Out of Control
  • *
  • Posts: 9305
  • All stat requests go through my agent, BlueGoku
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2017, 02:58:47 PM »

level 1 bullets should not be able to consistently take out a spider/terrier no matter what their velocity is. You're basically completely negating the warbirds checking handicap if you do that, because what are the odds they are going to be at low velocity when they are going for these checks? Almost none. It's actually fairly easy to hit lunges with the warbird because of its speed and handling. This doesn't matter when there is a reasonable possibility of a player surviving the check, thus making the decision making an important factor. Maybe you wait to go for the check until you have noticed they have thrusted a lot or just got checked by another ship, etc. But if you make it to where the warbird gets significantly increased damage at high velocity? You might as well just remove their low bullet damage altogether.

And as for the chances being too low right now... I'd say it's the opposite. lvl 1 bullets kill high or full energy ships way pretty regularly as it is and that's one of the problems I have with random damage to begin with. 
Logged
thrill is super awkward and likely rubs it out to himself in the mirror

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2017, 03:56:49 PM »

level 1 bullets should not be able to consistently take out a spider/terrier no matter what their velocity is. You're basically completely negating the warbirds checking handicap if you do that, because what are the odds they are going to be at low velocity when they are going for these checks? Almost none. It's actually fairly easy to hit lunges with the warbird because of its speed and handling. This doesn't matter when there is a reasonable possibility of a player surviving the check, thus making the decision making an important factor. Maybe you wait to go for the check until you have noticed they have thrusted a lot or just got checked by another ship, etc. But if you make it to where the warbird gets significantly increased damage at high velocity?

Has a chance != basically negates.  Your conclusion "You might as well just remove their low bullet damage altogether" is ridiculous.
But, your argument about timing the check is a relevant one.  Counterpoint there is that it doesn't apply to people deliberately going straight through a L1 at full energy (a situation which also tends to increase the VRBL because the carrier's velocity matters too).

The core question here is whether the any-ship-but-wb ball carrier lunging at an WB/WZL is lame.

Quote
And as for the chances being too low right now... I'd say it's the opposite. lvl 1 bullets kill high or full energy ships way pretty regularly as it is and that's one of the problems I have with random damage to begin with.
If the numbers are the same as in Zero Seven's post, there is a 0% chance of a WB/WZL bullet killing a full energy non-WB ship.

I think 70/30 (for an actual kill, not an L2) would be a good target for the max VRBL result.
Logged
Shlazzer> dont you ppl realize once our sun goes supernova, NOTHING anyone or anything has EVER done or said on this planet will EVER matter?

Thrill> also i have a gr8 personality

I made $124.03 for a single season of HZ!
Nubby> U could b 3rd highest payed player
Nubby> Maybe 2nd

Fur of Fur

  • Samba Lagger
  • Donator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *
  • Posts: 2891
  • Hockey Zone Watch.
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2017, 07:01:36 AM »

I thought at the moment a full thrust Wessel warbird bullet had like a 3-5% chance to kill a spider / terr / weasel.

Barely Worth the risk of lunging as you get close to your NET

25-33% May be enticing, enough, maybe we could introduce a pucktime penalty on checkpickup? To reduce the chance of a WB  lunge and Carry across entire Ice making a goal... ( If thats OP )
Logged
"I like Fur, and I would expect some good slapshot outlets from him on defense." - Thrill 2011

Steve Cheese

  • Donator
  • My post count proves I'm better than you
  • *
  • Posts: 3496
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2017, 12:08:13 PM »

30% seems way too high.
Logged

Goldeye

  • Local Moderator
  • Armed and Dangerous
  • *****
  • Posts: 5768
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2017, 08:51:51 PM »

Gold eye, I see no problem with a ship 'knowing' they will absolutely tank an L1. That is skill, it's just energy management vs calculated risk that a full velocity L1 ship has a 30% chance of killing.

The problem isn't about skill, it's that lunges are good for the game; lunge attempts create rush offense when successful and create holes in the defense when unsuccessful.  If lunging is guaranteed useless then the smart thing to do is always back up, which is the opposite of fun
Logged
Shlazzer> dont you ppl realize once our sun goes supernova, NOTHING anyone or anything has EVER done or said on this planet will EVER matter?

Thrill> also i have a gr8 personality

I made $124.03 for a single season of HZ!
Nubby> U could b 3rd highest payed player
Nubby> Maybe 2nd

Doobie

  • Local Moderator
  • Inspiration to Trolls Everywhere
  • *****
  • Posts: 2274
Re: Static Damage
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2017, 09:16:46 PM »

My thoughts are the warbird/weasel gets the velocity based kill at basically ninepedo velocities, full running start, basically a charge.



Logged
 

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 24 queries.