• Posts: 7,941
  • Tag points: 14

Re: Attack Bonus Fault

If you can test

Run these against eachother

A - No attack bonus, no Science Bonus
B - 50% Attack no science
C - No attack bonus, 50% science
D - 50% Science, 50% Attack bonus


Now the way the formula is supposed to work is:

(Fig value {10} * (1+(science percentage)) * (1+(attack bonus)) * (1+(war bonus)) * (1+(tag bonus)) * (1+(no fear)) =  fighter points.

Now it always seemed to me there was a 1% randomness to each attack to 3% to prevent finding the formula.

Now casualties always was a little different... it always seemed to be based on pure fighter counts with a minor (not full) modification on science and attack so an attacker hitting a banker with far more fighters (but less total points) would do more harm than an attacker he hits (with same number of points)



And there is two explicit calls here, don't get me wrong! One is for determining how well ones fighters do against the other in terms defending trannies and bombers and the other calculates brute fighter losses (for defender at least, possibly attacker as well)

The calls here may be where the problem lies.

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 960
  • Tag points: 58

Re: Attack Bonus Fault

I like pie I'll try to find you on IRC. What channels do u hang out in?

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,791
  • Tag points: 185

Re: Attack Bonus Fault

i'm in #pie a lot, but i won't be there for another 9 hours or so.  I should be on all day tomorrow though.

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,791
  • Tag points: 185

Re: Attack Bonus Fault

"So either the guide is wrong, or there's some defensive bonus being factored in somewhere that I can't yet find."

After talking with Jaguar, I think both of these might be the case.  He pointed out the possibility that bonuses have nothing to do with this and after looking at the numbers I believe he is right.

This isn't an issue with the bonuses, it's an issue with an inherent defensive boost in fight calculations.  Unfortunately, the code isn't easy to understand so it's hard to pinpoint exactly where this is happening, but it is easy to prove in the numbers by testing two 0% bonus fleets of equal size against eachother.  Under the current system, the attacker will lose more each time.

Still, while technically not a "bug" I still feel like this is ill designed.  Jaguar mentioned that it behaves this way so as to offset the overall favor of attacking power in game.  I can see that being true, however I think it is/was confusing to implement in a way that negates the expectations put forth by unit strength and defensive values.

Unfortunately, I don't know have the answer as to what is "better" than the current system.  I think there is already a larger problem overall with the battle design, and it is something I want to look at sometime in the future, so this issue is going to be rolled into that project.

I appreciate everybody's feedback.  I gave you all some tag points for helping out.

Got a few bucks?  The Imperial Tip Jar is accepting contributions!

0 Dislike 0 Post Points