Mines

[JettJackson]

I'll point out that last game, Ingenious' planets were held for the most part throughout once they got to a deadly level. Mines are a speedbump, but an effective one; the cost in turns and money to uno from shooting mines is not trivial. In this game, MM's planet galaxy was mined pretty heavily and the uno was 15 from warp. I'd say thats pretty solid planet defense. And you're talking about making it even harder? Why bother? Just say "once you get a planet galaxy, its yours". Nobody in their right mind will bother trying to take them, because it'll have gone from being too hard to defend planets to too easy.

I'm not against changing the mine code so that mines are more effective, but if we simply revert them back to how it was, thats what we're going to get - exchanging one problem for another. A good middle ground needs to be found, and that isn't easy. One variable that affects that is the current playerbase; seeding and destroying mines take turns from players who are necessary to op. Maybe one team can get the activity level to manage all that, but I doubt you'll find enough players to make two - and then you get a one-sided game.

Anyone could have took that gal, the uno distance is long but its how the map generator laid the unos.

You might want to read my replies then as I offered middle grounds that you didn't even reply to.

[Beausoleil]

Further more, this isnt about a mine war, so any idea of that should be thrown out. This is only about protecting planet galaxies. Mine timers in neutral galaxies could be 12 hours for all I care. The limitation of mines outside the planet gal would easily stop huge mine fields. But people should have the right to be able to have a mine field to help protect planets. As of right now mines are merely a speed bump in an op which they shouldn't just be a speed bump. The fact is some goals have to be accomplished through some effort, and not easily handed to them.

You can't talk about adjusting mine code without the counter-issue being brought up of how reverting to old mine code could make the game turn into "mine wars". I've heard people say they would stop playing if it turned into that again; for that reason alone, we need to consider that its not as simple as that. There is a middle ground that has yet to be found.

People still do protect planet galaxies with mines. If mines were truly worthless, then alliances wouldn't be using them. Yet, major alliances led by experienced players are still doing minefields. Clearly its not as bad as its being made out to be by some.

Another idea is, adding a variable to the map maker, where you can limit the number of forces a person can lay. In other words, say planet gal are 36 sectors having a cap of 45 or 50 sectors at which a player can lay forces. This would surely be a limitation to the mine field size. Also it could be adjusted map to map, depending on how large or small the planet galaxies are. Honestly I can't think of someone needing more than 50 sectors of forces anyways even with 36 of them in a planet gal.

I don't think this would affect any of the major issues people have with mines; namely that they 1) are currently easy to clear and 2) would be too hard to clear if code was like how it used to be. 45, 50, unlimited sectors - I've yet to see anyone have seeds in more than maybe 20-30 sectors at a time anyhow.

[Freon22]

This is what I have on the attack mine code. You can only attack one stack at a time, a stack of 50/50/5, I will start with the mines.

Attacking Mines
100% - ((your level) + (rand(1,7)*rand(1,7)))

So if you are level 20 and there are 50 mines in that stack and the first random was say 3 and the next random is 5 it would be.

50 - ((20) + (3 * 5)) = 15 mines will hit for 20 damage points each = 300 Damage

PercentHitting = 100 - (PlayerLevel + rand(1,7)*rand(1,7));
if(MinesAreAttacker)
PercentHitting = PercentHitting / NumberOfConnections ^ 0.6;

Percent hitting is obviously bounded from 0-100, NumberOfConnections counts a warp as a connection.

Essentially it's the same as Freon said except for the number of connections taking effect (which they used to as well, although they now hit harder in 1-2 connection sectors than they used to.

I haven't had time to run the math but I did now. So like my example where out of the 50 mines only 15 hit. You then take that 15 and divide that by the number of connections to the powerOf 0.6
So taking that and appling it.
15 hitting mines with 1 connection = 15 mines hit for 300 Damage
15 hitting mines with 2 connections = 9.89 rounded up to 10 mines hitting for 200 Damage
15 hitting mines with 3 connections = 7.75 rounded up to 8 mines hitting for 160 Damage
15 hitting mines with 4 connections = 6.52 rounded up to 7 mines hitting for 140 Damage

I think you should change that powerOf to .4 or maybe even .3

[Infinity]

Yeah, that's pathetic damage for a DE or a tunnel.

Beau partially has a point, now I am not sure he's against fixing mines completely, I'd say not, but the part about getting big numbers for OPs is definitely true. Jett, last round three and a half alliances OP'd in a generally 1v1 game (as if it was two alliances only) and that is how numbers were generated. We had a hyperactive core (people who play with me when ever I lead, that's how you get a hyperactive core) of the alliance, which is why we always managed to get 10-12 people, on some occasions even more. That is not a normal, expected situation that would exist in the case of bigger player base.

For these reasons, it would be really bad to just revert mines to how they worked before, but they do need fixing. Small, moderate fixes, round after another till a satisfying solution is found. So lower that exponent to 0.45 and limit ships that can fire on mines to 1 (my guess is that this won't change a thing, but perhaps I'm wrong). So you get mines hitting a bit better, and you disable fleet clearing mines. Tbh it makes more sense that a mine stack being attacked by one alliance member disperses a bit of damage to his ally IS instead of the ally firing with him together. Those are mines, stationary but volatile objects through which you might rather navigate than fire upon them, not an enemy ship that both ship's scans caught and want blood.

So - please, fix the mines. Thank you.

[Page]

This is what I have on the attack mine code. You can only attack one stack at a time, a stack of 50/50/5, I will start with the mines.

Attacking Mines
100% - ((your level) + (rand(1,7)*rand(1,7)))

So if you are level 20 and there are 50 mines in that stack and the first random was say 3 and the next random is 5 it would be.

50 - ((20) + (3 * 5)) = 15 mines will hit for 20 damage points each = 300 Damage

PercentHitting = 100 - (PlayerLevel + rand(1,7)*rand(1,7));
if(MinesAreAttacker)
PercentHitting = PercentHitting / NumberOfConnections ^ 0.6;

Percent hitting is obviously bounded from 0-100, NumberOfConnections counts a warp as a connection.

Essentially it's the same as Freon said except for the number of connections taking effect (which they used to as well, although they now hit harder in 1-2 connection sectors than they used to.

I haven't had time to run the math but I did now. So like my example where out of the 50 mines only 15 hit. You then take that 15 and divide that by the number of connections to the powerOf 0.6
So taking that and appling it.
15 hitting mines with 1 connection = 15 mines hit for 300 Damage
15 hitting mines with 2 connections = 9.89 rounded up to 10 mines hitting for 200 Damage
15 hitting mines with 3 connections = 7.75 rounded up to 8 mines hitting for 160 Damage
15 hitting mines with 4 connections = 6.52 rounded up to 7 mines hitting for 140 Damage

I think you should change that powerOf to .4 or maybe even .3

First of all this maths is mostly wrong, the key bit being when you take: 100% - ((your level) + (rand(1,7)*rand(1,7)))
and turn it into: 50 - ((20) + (3 * 5))

What it should be is 50 * (100 - ((20) + (3 * 5))) / 100 = 32.5 (If you want the number that actually hit, you take off the 50 * if you just want the percentage hitting)
1 connection = 33 for 660
2 connections = 21 for 420
3 connections = 17 for 340
4 connections = 14 for 280
5 connections = 12 for 240

As you can this works out to a lot more damage at all levels than what you posted

[Beausoleil]

Yeah, that's pathetic damage for a DE or a tunnel.

Beau partially has a point, now I am not sure he's against fixing mines completely, I'd say not, but the part about getting big numbers for OPs is definitely true. Jett, last round three and a half alliances OP'd in a generally 1v1 game (as if it was two alliances only) and that is how numbers were generated. We had a hyperactive core (people who play with me when ever I lead, that's how you get a hyperactive core) of the alliance, which is why we always managed to get 10-12 people, on some occasions even more. That is not a normal, expected situation that would exist in the case of bigger player base.

For these reasons, it would be really bad to just revert mines to how they worked before, but they do need fixing. Small, moderate fixes, round after another till a satisfying solution is found. So lower that exponent to 0.45 and limit ships that can fire on mines to 1 (my guess is that this won't change a thing, but perhaps I'm wrong). So you get mines hitting a bit better, and you disable fleet clearing mines. Tbh it makes more sense that a mine stack being attacked by one alliance member disperses a bit of damage to his ally IS instead of the ally firing with him together. Those are mines, stationary but volatile objects through which you might rather navigate than fire upon them, not an enemy ship that both ship's scans caught and want blood.

So - please, fix the mines. Thank you.

+1

[Freon22]

First of all this maths is mostly wrong, the key bit being when you take: 100% - ((your level) + (rand(1,7)*rand(1,7)))
and turn it into: 50 - ((20) + (3 * 5))

What it should be is 50 * (100 - ((20) + (3 * 5))) / 100 = 32.5 (If you want the number that actually hit, you take off the 50 * if you just want the percentage hitting)
1 connection = 33 for 660
2 connections = 21 for 420
3 connections = 17 for 340
4 connections = 14 for 280
5 connections = 12 for 240

As you can this works out to a lot more damage at all levels than what you posted

Ok but 100% - ((your level) + (rand(1,7)*rand(1,7))) looks nothing like 50 * (100 - ((20) + (3 * 5))) / 100 = 32.5
Anyway I am glad I am wrong I was thinking how could you allow so little damage from a stack of 50 mines. Thanks for clearing this up Page! That damage looks much better, still a little low on 4 connectioning sectors but much better then the way the math looked.

Edit: I do have another question, since you have it so that the fleet fires on the mine field in the sector. Does the total of all stacks that are attacked by the fleet firing done the same way? Also how is the damage set on the fleet? Is it spread evenly across the whole fleet or is there some type of random on who/how many take the damage?

[JettJackson]

Further more, this isnt about a mine war, so any idea of that should be thrown out. This is only about protecting planet galaxies. Mine timers in neutral galaxies could be 12 hours for all I care. The limitation of mines outside the planet gal would easily stop huge mine fields. But people should have the right to be able to have a mine field to help protect planets. As of right now mines are merely a speed bump in an op which they shouldn't just be a speed bump. The fact is some goals have to be accomplished through some effort, and not easily handed to them.

You can't talk about adjusting mine code without the counter-issue being brought up of how reverting to old mine code could make the game turn into "mine wars". I've heard people say they would stop playing if it turned into that again; for that reason alone, we need to consider that its not as simple as that. There is a middle ground that has yet to be found.

People still do protect planet galaxies with mines. If mines were truly worthless, then alliances wouldn't be using them. Yet, major alliances led by experienced players are still doing minefields. Clearly its not as bad as its being made out to be by some.

Another idea is, adding a variable to the map maker, where you can limit the number of forces a person can lay. In other words, say planet gal are 36 sectors having a cap of 45 or 50 sectors at which a player can lay forces. This would surely be a limitation to the mine field size. Also it could be adjusted map to map, depending on how large or small the planet galaxies are. Honestly I can't think of someone needing more than 50 sectors of forces anyways even with 36 of them in a planet gal.

I don't think this would affect any of the major issues people have with mines; namely that they 1) are currently easy to clear and 2) would be too hard to clear if code was like how it used to be. 45, 50, unlimited sectors - I've yet to see anyone have seeds in more than maybe 20-30 sectors at a time anyhow.

Beau you just are not understanding my points here the neutral timer is a middle ground, to the mine field issue, if you are saying we should limit Planet gal mines then you wont find much support here for that. That isnt a mine war at all its helping defend planets and again getting to planets and busting them shouldn't be easy, thats part of the problem here. You are used to planet busts being easy because that's all you know, no this isn't an insult because you don't know it any other way.

You have yet to see that because of how mines are right now and have been since you started, so again you really can't make a distinction because you didn't play before the mine change.

[JettJackson]

Yeah, that's pathetic damage for a DE or a tunnel.

Beau partially has a point, now I am not sure he's against fixing mines completely, I'd say not, but the part about getting big numbers for OPs is definitely true. Jett, last round three and a half alliances OP'd in a generally 1v1 game (as if it was two alliances only) and that is how numbers were generated. We had a hyperactive core (people who play with me when ever I lead, that's how you get a hyperactive core) of the alliance, which is why we always managed to get 10-12 people, on some occasions even more. That is not a normal, expected situation that would exist in the case of bigger player base.

For these reasons, it would be really bad to just revert mines to how they worked before, but they do need fixing. Small, moderate fixes, round after another till a satisfying solution is found. So lower that exponent to 0.45 and limit ships that can fire on mines to 1 (my guess is that this won't change a thing, but perhaps I'm wrong). So you get mines hitting a bit better, and you disable fleet clearing mines. Tbh it makes more sense that a mine stack being attacked by one alliance member disperses a bit of damage to his ally IS instead of the ally firing with him together. Those are mines, stationary but volatile objects through which you might rather navigate than fire upon them, not an enemy ship that both ship's scans caught and want blood.

So - please, fix the mines. Thank you.

Limiting the number of people who can fire on mines would be a perfect fit which both of us have brought up multiple times.

[Purify]

The mine compromise I would be happy with for now is just them doing more damage. You used to be able to cause a ruckess to opping fleets with 50 bombs to the face but now like max 12 out of 50 hits the careless pilots. It is this fact that made me quit the game. Increase damage and maybe refresh times (to make mining more fun) and see where we are.