|
Post by Drath on Feb 21, 2016 6:19:44 GMT -8
The Ryuvian mission is about the only mission I use rockets on. I haven't found any other mission where I need that high of a damage while risking flak. (Even in the Ryuvian mission it was risky as I already used all 3 of my flak offs on the 3 nightmares.) Have you found any other mission where it's worth the risk?
I'm generally a non-consumable player and mostly only use rockets for testing purposes. It's really good to hear more discussion on gameplay from other players though. Been saying relying on old testers only for balance adjustments could make things rather one-sided. But yes there are battles later where you'll be facing a bunch of dangerous reinforcements with no flak (or with only a single unit in their midst with significant flak which you can get rid of first with kinetics). No doubt the flak change for Arcadius ryders increases rocket/missile utility considerably as well. Also Beta 10 was sent out without MIRV torpedoes or Summon Alliance Battleship and it was quite possible back then. You might try it out that way and see if you find it more interesting. I have argued for MIRV torpedoes to become available only very late, perhaps no earlier than battle 6 (right now you can start MIRVing in battle 3) but well some people like them.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 21, 2016 5:10:04 GMT -8
Yeah, VG doesn't give any points back. (With patch 12.4a) This is the example I was looking for. The pirate mission with the Ryuvians.
I started the mission with 4k CMD. I full forwarded and managed the wipe the pirate force in 2 turns. On turn 3, the Ryuvians spawn in. After a little re-positioning with the local doctor, I VGed and MIRV torpedoed. After my other units cleaned things up, I ended my turn with 2710 CMDs. Over halfway to the next VG. Yea I think that's ok. Looks like pretty good play to me. You'll still need FlakOff to make sure those rockets hit or it could be quite a waste. And the rockets still need to be replaced. It was harsher back then in MoA because rockets/upgrades/items all drew on the same pool of cash. Now we are getting Intel at the same rate as we got cash in MoA and then we are getting Funds at a slightly reduced rate (as it factors in repairs). So essentially we were getting basically twice the amount of resources in previous Lib Day beta versions. From beta 12.3 onwards, repair costs are based on damage taken instead of hps at the end of battle, so that makes repairs more costly. Perhaps that results in about 1/3rd? (rough unscientific guess) drop for Funds but even so with the current system, it makes replacing rockets pretty much a non-issue.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 21, 2016 4:38:55 GMT -8
We are actually getting much less CP than we used to in MoA. While the current Liberation Day CP formula closely mimics the old MoA one, CP gain was basically halved across the board in beta 10 and has remained halved ever since. Also orders are also changed to encourage CP use (FF and AG duration reduced from 5 to 3, SRW cost increased if used repeatedly in a turn, Resurrection cost increased from 2000 to 2500, Vanguard Cannon now 4000 instead of 2500, etc). So yea in terms of CP gain and CP consumed, things are actually harsher than in MoA, but having the CP cap forces people to use CP actively which is IMHO the main reason why players are starting to finding it excessive. Back then people used to hoard CP to tens of thousands. See: innomenpro.com/forums/index.php?topic=843.0To get rid of excess CP, I now use SRW extensively in every battle. As accuracy is no longer a concern when able to SRW every turn, I take out or reduce accuracy upgrades for Sunrider and pump them elsewhere instead to improve damage output. It's not a great way to dispose of excess CP though admittedly.
As for Summon Alliance Battleship, I've never really believed it was balanced at 2k CP if you could place it anywhere on the battlefield and spam it repeatedly. It's certainly a better use of CP than repeated SRWs. I think the devs realize this was a little unbalanced though and are trying to curb its use. If implemented as once per mission that's probably fine (just to provide some aid in getting out of tight turns with lots of reinforcements).
As Marx stated, VGC doesn't give you any CP back, so hopefully it should take awhile before being able to VGC again. P/S - Honestly I think you guys should try the game on at least Admiral though. Time to push it up when the game isn't kicking you hard enough and it should come naturally to both long time players of the game and turn based fans. PP/S - Also for the record, I've never really supported the change from a single order per turn in MoA (except for SRW) to multiple orders per turn in Lib Day, thus allowing things like FF+AG every turn, heal from near zero to full in 1 turn with 2 repair drones, etc See: innomenpro.com/forums/index.php?topic=1548.msg67108#msg67108
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 21, 2016 4:02:41 GMT -8
mind you, there was a bug before the current version where the effect of difficulty modification was amplified if you move the mousecursor over units while the damage is being displayed. maybe even before that (while the rocket it traveling). this was initially reported as an issue with the vanguard cannon but affected all multi-damage scenarios. this should no longer happen in version 12.4a Ah that was the issue indeed. I reverted back to 12.3 when 12.4 had issues, forgot to reinstall 12.4a on my laptop and it slipped my mind that 12.3 did indeed have this bug. Just retested on 12.4a and I can no longer reproduce the bug. Damage values are correct. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 20, 2016 22:26:25 GMT -8
On enemy destroyer super rocket damage: Actually I'm still finding the figures a bit wonky. Worth rechecking as Marx stated. Had a Destroyer do 1000+ to main target, 700++ as splash damage. Observed floating damage figures. However the damage reduced an Alliance Cruiser who took splash damage from 1200 to 81 hps (this is on SW). 1)1000 actual dmg on main target on SW is fine with me. It should be brutal. But the classes.rpy states dmg of the rocket at 500? (I might be reading it wrong though, as there are a few super rocket entries) 2) Splash dmg at 75% is again fine with me and the observed floating figures appear to support this but actual dmg taken by checking hp after the strike doesn't tally for splash dmg targets. Observed: 700+ Actual: 1100+ I'll do some more stress testing on te superrocket when I get back home then. missile damage upgrades also play a role and everything gets complicated very quickly. Ok what I was referring to in my post above was the PACT Destroyer's AoE rocket, not Sunrider's MIRV torpedoes (so I don't think the player's missile upgrades play a part here). I checked library.rpy and can find a few entries (which is what confused me): First there was PACTDestroyerRocket(Missile) with dmg 700 and EN cost 50 but I don't think this is the right one as checking the PACT Destroyer entry reveals self.default_weapon_list as SuperRocket.
Then we have BossRocket(SuperRocket) with dmg 600, EN cost 70, eccm 25, fires 3 rockets which again doesn't seem to be the right one.
Then we also have SunriderMIRV(SuperRocket) with dmg 1200, splash reduction 0.5, which is obviously the player's rocket and not concerned with it right now. Finally I checked classes.rpy and found: SuperRocket(Missile) with dmg 500, EN cost 30 and eccm 10 I decided that the one in classes.rpy was the correct one I was looking for, however the expected damage still doesn't match up with observed damage.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 20, 2016 19:57:44 GMT -8
On enemy destroyer super rocket damage: Actually I'm still finding the figures a bit wonky. Worth rechecking as Marx stated. Had a Destroyer do 1000+ to main target, 700++ as splash damage. Observed floating damage figures. However the damage reduced an Alliance Cruiser who took splash damage from 1200 to 81 hps (this is on SW). 1)1000 actual dmg on main target on SW is fine with me. It should be brutal. But the classes.rpy states dmg of the rocket at 500? (I might be reading it wrong though, as there are a few super rocket entries) 2) Splash dmg at 75% is again fine with me and the observed floating figures appear to support this but actual dmg taken by checking hp after the strike doesn't tally for splash dmg targets. Observed: 700+ Actual: 1100+ On Cosette: Admittedly I hadn't really thought much about the wishall and deciding against her. Seems like the player would be pretty screwed in that case lol and yea I do suppose it would be quite unfair. So yea perhaps I misread the whole thing. I decided to gut her anyway even when I felt it was very likely that she might join, so it's actually nice hearing it from you that it may not turn out to be so. I will be happy to gut her without a second thought in future playthroughs
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 20, 2016 10:23:05 GMT -8
That's actually an unforeseen consequence of setting the Sunrider's MIRV rocket to 30 (from 60) earlier. the destroyers actually use the same weapon (as defined in the code) and changing the cost of one changes the other. maybe that's fair? dunno. Suggest keep PACT destroyers the way they are right now. They have a max of 8 rockets. If they only use 1 a turn, it'll take the whole battle before they even finish. Some battles are finishable in 4 turns. As you can see here, people aren't really scared of it. They hate PACT Supports a lot more. Also we've had too many decisions in our favor lately, MIRV down to 30EN, Arcadius no flak. So yea, I say keep it as it is. It's time to have a rocket unit for PACT that overshadows Pirate Ironhogs, and aren't rockets are supposed to be PACT's specialty anyway. the Havoc on your side? wouldn't that be nice Hmm the way you're putting it makes me think I'm probably mistaken. Well perhaps I am, but it was hinted all along that Cosette might join the Sunrider: the number on her plugsuit, being able to spare her, having affection values for her, etc. Not saying that's what Sam is going to do in the final version... or hell maybe in a future game (not even sure if Lib Day is the last as it is), but in my mind the Ongess rods/fuel were somewhat early compensation for not having Cosette. True or not, you guys decide xD
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 20, 2016 7:10:33 GMT -8
You need at least 5 points of affection with Icari to unlock the Cloak field generator. It's actually impossible to get it if you saved the diplomats as you'd have to choose to talk to her 3 times at the beach, which is not an option. This makes me think maybe I should set the requirement to 3 points or higher :/ Only by not telling the truth about Ongess to the press do you get the upgrades "Liquid Ongessite Fuel" (which reduces the movement cost of the Blackjack and the Paladin) and "Ongessite Injection Rods" (which unlocks the "Power to Engines" order). Morality does not power your engines. I don't know if I like this from a designing standpoint, isn't that encouraging the player to 'farm' affection points for certain items, rather than making their own choice. As it stands you could argue that Marx for example made the wrong choices altogether, because he didn't get any bonus items at all, which puts him in a disadventage. Wouldn't it be better if you had 2 items (a,b) and two routes (A,B). Both routes would be mutually exclusive: if you went for A you get a, and can't get b. If you went for B you get b, and can't get a. Of course items a,b have to be decently balanced. Just my two cents, I think it would be a lot fairer that way. If you don't tell the truth about Ongess, you will probably be able to get Cosette and therefore Havoc on your side. An extra ryder would be worth far more than an extra item. I don't think the extra items are that strong anyway. I did without either in previous betas.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 20, 2016 7:07:03 GMT -8
PACT destroyers now use 30EN to launch rockets and therefore can launch 3 a turn (instead of just 1 a turn in beta11), LMAO. I was shitting my pants there for a sec when I let one live. I was very lucky that my flak net caught all but I doubt I will be so lucky a second time. They are must kills now in whatever given situation, that includes expending CP on SRW to get near. This is where an overall changelog from beta11 to beta12 would be appreciated and result in less trauma... and repairs. Arcadius flak change, PACT destroyer superrocket EN cost change, etc... Morality does not power your engines Lol, that's a good one.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 18, 2016 21:23:50 GMT -8
Reran the last few turns of the Ion Storm battle, deliberately getting an Alliance Cruiser destroyed... and actually got less repair costs than before (168 vs 234) . I'll make several more runs to check for discrepancies but something feels not quite right at this point.Lol nvm, apparently I'm an idiot. Ok firstly, Awakening self damage is not factored in. As mentioned above, I'm ok with this. Secondly, when merc ships are destroyed, you have to pay for them again. That's why their repair cost is quite obviously zero. Once you take out Blackjack's and/or Seraphim's self inflicted damage, the figures do tally. Apologies for the non-issue. It shows that I should not test too late at night... and a good lunch helps focus
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 18, 2016 20:45:18 GMT -8
No Union battleship until after mission 5. =w= Thanks for the confirmation, Samu-kun. My old fix here involves hacking script.rpy which is very crude and doesn't really get to the root of the issue on why the check isn't working. I'll leave it to Vaen and the experienced coders to puzzle it out. Nemjen /Drath counters Magpie's e-coffee with an e-bagel Damn it now I've made myself hungry... unfortunately testing needs sustenance... laterz Marx-93 I think this is one of those missions where things are quite a bit easier on hindsight. If you've put considerable upgrades into missiles/rockets, they're ALL going to be wasted here. Fortunately you get one last chance before battle starts to tweak things and you are specifically told that missiles are not operable till at least turn 5, so a savvy tactician still has a chance to adjust. The first time I did this on beta 10, I also took quite a bit of damage and barely scraped by with kinetics. This second time round, I incorporated Histie's advice on getting Seraphim double kinetics earlier. Completely sacrificed Liberty's EN as her repairs are now basically just to prevent unit losses. Liberty is now a Disable bot so 100EN is as good as 100+ EN. She doesn't need FlakOff either in this battle for obvious reasons, so I wasn't concerned with getting her up to 140EN. The rest of the Intel for Seraphim's kinetics I raided from Sunrider's missile store and missile damage upgrades. I take this as part of the initial reconfiguration for upgrades (no way I'm using the standard upgrade scheme). And I will say I am quite pleased with the results as the battle went a good deal smoother. If you have a full kinetics setup (triple kinetic Paladin, double kinetic Seraphim, both Alliance Cruisers) going into this fight and start with Full Forward (on Space Whale I couldn't quite get enough CP from the previous fight, so I had to get 1 Arcadius down first with Phoenix), handling those Battleships should not be too hard and a good start gradually snowballs down, making turn 5 reinforcements less traumatic as well. Oh and it's good to have you back Marx
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 18, 2016 13:36:09 GMT -8
Making my way slowly through the game again. Here are some miscellaneous issues. None are particularly serious and the game is playable but still it would be nice to get them addressed. 1)Suppressive Fire debuff tag on enemy ship says "Reduces evasion by 25 points". This should be 15 as shown by changes in EV once you apply it. At 15 it's a pretty handy ability already. As there's no need to make it stronger, I favor fixing the tag. 2)Shield Jam duration bug is still present as first noted hereEssentially using Shield Jam again on an enemy unit at Shield Jam (0) does NOT increase the duration back to Shield Jam (1). 3)Concurrent buffs expiring bug is still present (though a little less noticeable now?) as first noted hereFull Forward and Damage Up buffs seemed to expire properly as expected if there were only these 2 buffs on a single unit, but once AimUp and Sentinel were added, AimUp did not reduce in duration when another buff expired. 4)I manually calculated repair costs according to (total damage taken/2) and it was correct in the 1st fight. a)However in the 2nd fight it seems damage to mercenary ships (ie Alliance Cruiser) is not taken into account? - this wasn't a Cruiser that joined later in the fight (Admiral's forces) but the one I hired via store - if this is indeed the case it doesn't seem terribly fair and some might exploit mercs by making them meat shields to reduce repairs b)Even if the above was true, repair was still off by 10 points... seems like I'm missing something herec)Checked if Sola's and Asaga's self inflicted Awakening damage added to repairs. Seems like these are not. - if intended to encourage awakening I guess I'm ok with it
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 17, 2016 2:30:44 GMT -8
Thanks for the speedy reply, Samu-kun. I guess in a way it does make sense. A unit without Assault should not have access to flak and should not counter. So this change, while undoubtedly being one that favors the player, is logical and IMHO should be quite acceptable. I guess those Arcadius ryders will be eating major missile damage from now on. /Drath rubs his palms, expecting more carnage
As for the other cases of flak value resets to zero (Sunrider and Alliance Cruiser for me), I think I've traced it to the previous battle. This in-battle save that I reloaded has a PACT Support as the last unit standing and which had put FlakOff on Sunrider and 1 Alliance Cruiser.
This time I waited for the debuff to wear off before ending the fight and to my horror, Sunrider's and the Alliance Cruiser's flak were STILL zero AFTER the debuff had faded. Bianca's Restore made no difference either on Sunrider's flak but it did restore flak on a new FlakOff put on the Alliance Carrier by said PACT Support.
It seems new debuffs applied probably work fine (will have to double check to be sure), but existing debuffs from older saves may be bugged and become a permanent reduction.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 17, 2016 1:23:43 GMT -8
The code in beta 12.3 is still the same as beta11 code and it still doesn't work.
class ContractUnionBattleship(StoreItem): self.visibility_condition = "store.mission5_complete == True" Kindly clarify if the Battleship actually is supposed to be available as having it purchasable that early is going to make missions 2-5 considerably easier. From the code and in view of balance considerations, I maintain that it was probably not intended and will not play with one in missions 2-5.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 17, 2016 1:02:08 GMT -8
was not able to confirm the following reports: units have their flak value reset to 0 if anyone can figure out what triggers these please let me know. On 2nd battle of Lib Day (Ion Storm) and Arcadius STILL has no flak in a fresh v12.3 game. Alliance Cruisers appear ok though. Checked library.rpy in beta12.3 for Arcadius and the code says: self.flak = 0 self.flak_range = 0 Checked library.rpy in beta11 for Arcadius and the code says: self.flak = 40 self.flak_range = 1 Unless my download of library.rpy is somehow corrupted, I'd say that's the reason, as in library.rpy needs to be fixed. I'll fix it in my current game so that it's still valid, no worries. P/S - also checked other parameters for Arcadius, and everything else is the same as in beta 11, except for flak. Why was flak changed? No idea lol. All I know is Arcadius has been having flak40 with a range of 1 ever since MoA days. PP/S - Then again, come to think of it Arcadius doesn't really have an Assault weapon. I think I previously assumed it used pulse to down missiles but I could be mistaken. Please recheck to see what was actually intended here... is it meant to have flak, is it meant to counter, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 16, 2016 3:31:52 GMT -8
my favourites are this one from Cold Steel Sugoi!! I now have a new favorite ^^ Cold Steel seems popular lately. I wish there weren't so many platforms sometimes, it's hard to catch all the good ones when they're all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 15, 2016 22:24:27 GMT -8
My first battle in v12.3: Enemy destruction reward: 2170 repair costs: 1092 (yea I got unlucky with rockets here) tax: 215 net gain: 862 Intel gathered: 1736 So yea, everything is as it should be. I note that you tweaked tax to be 20% over enemy destruction reward for Intel gain. That is good because it would be odd to take more damage to get more repairs to reduce net gain and so reduce tax. Tax remains as 20% over net gain (repairs factored in) for Funds gain. It feels grrrreat to be poor!!! And I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, I actually do like having less Funds. Less Funds = easier to balance things and prevent battles from getting too easy. All in all, my impression is: /thumbsup with gusto! I followed my old playthrough style more or less, though I'm thinking I might focus more on damage avoidance in future battles. Some further thoughts: 1)The best way to use Liberty now is to NOT repair if there is no risk of anyone dying that turn. Rather focus on total damage avoidance via Disable or even improving damage via AimUp/dealing direct damage via lasers as a finisher. 2)Blackjack's Awaken may prove costly in terms of repairs. I'm fine with all this of course. A bit of a paradigm shift for returning players though, so it would be nice to mention this in Tips at start of battle and/or in patch notes at the very start of Liberation Day launch.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 15, 2016 6:58:26 GMT -8
I think Magpie is very likely to be right. Bianca has always been a curious case, an exception whereby her shotgun which is technically a Kinetic weapon can be used to counterattack. No other units with Kinetics possess such capabilities and they all need to have Assault weaponry to qualify for counters.
In MoA, the counter worked for Bianca, because there was no check for ship.flak > 0 and Bianca's shotgun was classified as Assault.
In Lib Day, the check for ship.flak > 0 was added (probably to deny FlakkedOff units) and while Bianca's shotgun is now a Kinetic, she was also given an added flag (weapon.force_counter) to qualify for counters. However it seems the check for ship.flak comes first, BEFORE the check for weapon.force_counter. As Bianca's ship.flak has always been 0 (so that she doesn't contribute to flak and defence against missiles), she doesn't get to counter either because of the above check.
I'm playing v12.3 and am lazy to recheck, but it appears to me from surveying the code if the weapon.force_counter flag is checked before ship.flak then the counter should trigger properly.
Credits to Histidine for finding this (yes I've never had a situation in Lib Day where I used Bianca to counter lol, she's just too slow to position properly) and kudos to Magpie for providing the key to resolving this. Admittedly this one is pretty obscure though, I really don't blame anyone for not picking it up earlier (this is not a beta 12 bug, it's also there in beta 11 and likely stretches all the way back to beta 8).
P/S - And thanks for the speedy patch Vaen, will try to reassess Funds based on new repair costs. My initial thoughts are that Paladin's Drawfire has become a more attractive option and Evasion and other defensive upgrades are looking slightly better than before.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 15, 2016 1:57:19 GMT -8
I would recommend positioning her closer to spoiler enemy (this is becoming the official name xD) and trying again That's it, Sunrider trilogy now also has a "She who must not be named" lol. Wonder who's the ringbearer? xD
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 15, 2016 1:47:55 GMT -8
Screens custom.rpy redone according to actual figures/formulae in classes.rpy Version 1 (just fixing tax and net gain):
if store.Difficulty == 5: $wait += 0.1 text 'space whale tax: {}$'.format(int(store.net_gain * 0.2)): xpos 0.2 ypos yposition size 40 outlines [(2,'000',0,0)] at delay_text(wait) $ yposition += 0.05
$wait += 0.1 text 'net gain: {}$'.format(int(store.net_gain * 0.8)): xpos 0.2 ypos yposition size 40 outlines [(2,'000',0,0)] at delay_text(wait)
else: $wait += 0.1 text 'net gain: {}$'.format(int(store.net_gain)): xpos 0.2 ypos yposition size 40 outlines [(2,'000',0,0)] at delay_text(wait)
Version 2 (my preferred version for clarity): Tax fixed as above. Net gain taken out because it doesn't really show actual gain. Replaced with Intel gain and Funds gain. Placed on right hand side of screen because that part feels too empty.
if store.Difficulty == 5: $wait += 0.1 text 'space whale tax: {}$'.format(int(store.net_gain * 0.2)): xpos 0.2 ypos yposition size 40 outlines [(2,'000',0,0)] at delay_text(wait) $ yposition += 0.05
$wait += 0.5 text 'Intel gain: {}$'.format(int((store.total_money + store.surrender_bonus) * 0.8)): xanchor 1.0 xpos 0.8 ypos 0.6 size 40 outlines [(2,'000',0,0)] at delay_text(wait)
$wait += 0.1 text 'Funds gain: {}$'.format(int(store.net_gain * 0.8)): xanchor 1.0 xpos 0.8 ypos 0.65 size 40 outlines [(2,'000',0,0)] at delay_text(wait)
else: $wait += 0.5 text 'Intel gain: {}$'.format(int(store.total_money + store.surrender_bonus)): xanchor 1.0 xpos 0.8 ypos 0.6 size 40 outlines [(2,'000',0,0)] at delay_text(wait)
$wait += 0.1 text 'Funds gain: {}$'.format(int(store.net_gain)): xanchor 1.0 xpos 0.8 ypos 0.65 size 40 outlines [(2,'000',0,0)] at delay_text(wait)
Picture of new 2nd victory screen: i.imgur.com/EuzPdjy.png
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 14, 2016 21:14:02 GMT -8
I'll try to work on victory screen. Shouldnt be too difficult hopefully.
Using total damage sustained instead of final hp makes good sense, so let's just say I very much prefer that. However implementing it at this late hour will have a major effect on resource balance and management, so I'm requesting for it to be patched in fast so that testers have enough time to reassess balance. My gut feeling is it will probably work out quite well, but again that's no substitute for testing.
Assuming we are going with current repair costs and implementation of total dmg sustained as basis for repairs, Intel gain probably doesnt need to include repairs, as it may turn out to be quite a big hit.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 14, 2016 9:46:39 GMT -8
3 issues here to bring up: 1)Victory screen bugs are still not corrected since beta 11. a)Tax displayed is still slated at 25% when it is actually calculated at 20%. b)Net gain displayed still does not take into account tax. As both Intel and Funds take tax into consideration, net gain is meaningless. c)Intel gain still does not take repairs into consideration. However if this is truly intended, then so be it. For those wondering about the formulas: Intel gain = Enemy destruction reward - tax (20%) Funds gain = Enemy destruction reward - tax (20%) - repairs That's what is actually given. At this point the Victory screen numbers are only an added source of confusion for new players. 2)Repairs are now hugely increased, 7.5x more than before!!
Old repair costs: store.repair_cost += int(ship.max_hp * 0.2) New repair costs: store.repair_cost += int(ship.max_hp * 1.5)
So yea, now repairs can potentially run into the hundreds if you are unlucky in intercepting rockets. If this is intended to be the way to curb having too much Funds, I can tell you right away it won't work. All it will do is encourage killing off everything except 1 unit. In the Cosette fight, kill all except 1 Bomber and after it exhausts its missiles/rocket, it will just be left with Assault. Put Aim Downs on it and some high armor units upfront and it will just be frozen in place doing nothing and you can repair to full with Liberty at your leisure. 3)We appear to basically have as much Funds as before. I still have doubts whether this is balanced, seeing as we are getting twice as much as we received in MoA. However there are 2 new store items to invest on: Captain's Society Induction: 5000, appears largely reasonable and will make Warp + Cannon tactics easier to execute
Vanguard Spread Field: 20000, aka 'Funds sink of Lib Day', possibly overpowered for an also equally ridiculous cost. Hard to comment if actually balanced.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 14, 2016 4:34:52 GMT -8
LMAO, Vaen's the man. I just want to help out if I can as we have a crazy tight time frame right now. I might not actually have much time later this week, so you shouldn't expect too much. Also I'm still stuck back at Cosette after all these bugs. What do you expect me to do if I can't get a proper game in lol P/S - You know Douman's suggestion on Github made a good deal of sense in terms of modder participation... pretty sure we'll all sign NDAs if we need to... I've signed a couple in the past anyway (for HoMM5 and ToEE)
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 14, 2016 3:50:52 GMT -8
Following up the previous post, I think I've located the source of the error. The adjustments for difficulty on damage is done in functions.rpy and the code that calls the get_modified_damage function in functions.rpy is located in classes.rpy. Regular damage is processed as usual as above. Heals are also treated like damage but there's a part of code in the receive_damage function in classes.rpy that prevents the code from calling the get_modified_damage function. That part is under '#handle healing' and triggers if wtype == "Support". In beta11 and previous betas, this function was set before the part that calls the get_modified_damage function and correctly called, thus preventing Difficulty from influencing heals. In beta12, this '#handle healing' is: 1)set AFTER the get_modified_damage function is run 2)no return statement at the end of the #handle healing code I cut out the #handle healing segment, including the parts that would run after triggering wtype==Support, pasting it before get_modified_damage function, leaving the else part (for cases not satisfying wtype==Support) to go through regular damage modification and hp reduction. Tried leaving out returns, seems workable still. Final code:
#handle healing if wtype == 'Support': BM.battle_log.append("{0} is healed for {1} HP".format(self.name, str(int(damage)))) self.hp = increment_attribute(self,'hp',int(damage)) if self.hp > self.max_hp: self.hp = self.max_hp else: #difficulty fudging damage = get_modified_damage(damage,self.faction) store.damage = damage #the global variant is used by the health_animation screen BM.battle_log_insert(['attack'], "{0} inflicts {1} damage to {2}".format(attacker.name, damage, self.name)) self.hp -= damage
Retested and it seems to work now. Liberty now heals for 300, not 75 or 435. Also tested damage to make sure I didn't break something else. Seems ok.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 14, 2016 1:18:47 GMT -8
I believe what is happening is the difficulty variables are applied to the heal. On Waifu, the constant is 0.25 for all damage taken, and the game now treats Liberty's heal like damage so it's 0.25 x 300 = 75. On Space Whale, the constant is 1.45 for all damage taken, and so it's 1.45 x 300 = 435. The figures more or less hold up so I think that's where the problem is.
Configure heals to 300 (already done I think), and prevent self.damage from multiplying the difficulty constant (if it's a heal) and hopefully things should get back to normal
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 13, 2016 23:45:50 GMT -8
Yea I also think it might be related to the artwork. I played sparing the Legion, and got the usual portrait and the usual stats window (similar to previous betas).
Also the actual current Flak resistance values are still not displayed in the stats window. Reported in beta 11. Hopefully this gets added soon while fixing the stats window.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 13, 2016 23:20:55 GMT -8
Managed to reproduce this as well on a fresh 12.2 game. Oh man... more time for testing please...
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 13, 2016 23:14:48 GMT -8
Isn't that 100% in scientific notation? (There's three Nightmares and a Ryuvian Falcon covering the missile path) Yep that was my understanding of it as well. Too much flak there and anything above 100% is probably displayed as such
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 13, 2016 23:04:03 GMT -8
LMAO yes I can confirm this, repaired on Waifu mode for 75hp and then repaired on Space Whale for 495hp. Yes the displayed figures matches the actual hp increase, so it isn't just a display bug this time. As mentioned in other bug threads, this beta is just fraught with issues and we can't even begin to assess balance till everything else is sorted out. Would like to ask for another few weeks as in delay release to sort things out (cite technical difficulties or something lol). I dunno about you guys, but I'm really feeling the pressure here to get things done.
P/S - And in case you guys are wondering, beta 11 didn't have all these issues: random flak errors, random extra EN used, weird repair bugs, etc. Must have been some really hefty code changes since then. Not saying we go back to that, but any code changes made since then should really be scrutinized. And yes the repair figures above were made on a fresh v12.2 playthrough, so it's not a case of old saves being problematic/broken.
EDIT1: Tested with Liberty's Portable Repair Booster and now getting 661hps and 769hps repaired instead of the usual 500, on SW. 121 and 141hps repaired on Waifu mode.
|
|
|
Post by Drath on Feb 13, 2016 12:15:35 GMT -8
Lol it's ok. Better to find out now than on March 4th. I've seen Steam users being even more irritable Takes a while sometimes to fix certain bugs, don't worry about it. Just see how long it took the bug to even get reported in the first place. We have another 2 weeks and 4 days to catch and fix everything. I think we'll all have our hands full these next few weeks lol. /Drath makes the sign of a cross (not that he's actually religious or anything of course)
|
|