+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery Development (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Discovery Mod General Discussion (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: Player Base Damage Overview (/showthread.php?tid=122281)
Player Base Damage Overview - Karst - 10-28-2014
Like many players involved in base building, I've calculated how much damage a base at a certain level will survive, and how long it'll last against a certain number of attackers.
But hey, why redo the whole thing because you forgot the result or want different numbers?
I made this spreadsheet as a convenient overview.
<image too wide for forums>
The top row is the Core level of the base.
The second row is the amount of repair commodity types, 1, 2 and 3 for each Core level. The results assume the base doesn't run out of any of them.
Edit: Come to think of it, I could have also added 0 repair commodities. If you want results for that, simply replace the number with 0.
This will give you a divide by zero error for a Core 5 base with no attackers, since it doesn't take wear&tear damage, but yeah. The real result would of course be ∞.
Of course it would have been possible to add exact amounts, but since running out of repairs isn't (or shouldn't) usually be a deciding factor I decided it would be far more work than necessary.
The calculations also assume the shield doesn't run out of fuel - if it does, you're doing base building wrong.
The first column is the amount of attackers. On the example image, these are assumed to be heavy core battleships, firing Cerbs on recharge.
And finally, the actual results are the time in minutes a base will survive such an assault, from full health.
A negative result therefor means that amount of attackers can't overcome the base's repair rate, and a negative number is the time in minutes a base will fully repair itself, from zero.
But, why stop there? I was also interested in the balance aspect of bases. So I made most of the numbers needed in the formula variables, links to fields that can be changed, rather than constants.
These are as follows:
En. rech. - The attacker's powercore recharge, default 300 000, that of a heavy battleship like a turtle.
EPS - The energy drained per second by the weapon used. Default 110 000, that of a Battleship Cerberus Turret.
DPS gun The dps of the gun used, default 45 000, that of a Battleship Cerberus Turret.
DPS tot. The resulting dps of the ship, based on the three values above. Default 122 727-ish.
Repair C The repair constant. This value is used in the formula for the base's repair rate, and the default is 60 000.
Rep. c. f. "Repair Core Factor". This is simply a factor that's dropped into the repair rate, along with core level and number of repair commodity types. It's non-standard so obviously the default value is 1. I used this to play around with balancing.
Shield fac The damage multiplier for bases with active shields. Default is 0.03. If you want results for an unshielded base, just change this to 1.
Hull factor A simple multiplier that increases base hit points. Default is of course 1.
Core 1 hp (and the other four) The default base hit points (8, 12, 16, 24, and 32 million) * the value above.
Link to download the spreadsheet - includes an .ods and an .xls version. I've only tested it in OO though, can't guarantee anything in Excel.
<click me>
Anyway, have fun playing around with it if you're so inclined.
I have pretty extensively because I have some ideas of what I'd like changed. I think the main issue is that repair rates are too high and hit points too low. Meaning a siege has to be continuous, as even a very brief lull will allow a base to fully repair itself, and the time decrease is incredibly massive as more battleships are added.
Whether or not this is desirable is debatable, but anyway, this is supposed to be mainly informative, not so much a discussion about bases.
But yeah, if you have something to say about the results or god forbid, found an error, or you played around with the values and found a set you like, post on.
Another edit: This is what the actual formula looks like, if anybody was wondering:
IF(CoreLVL=1;Core1HP;IF(CoreLVL=2;Core2HP;IF(CoreLVL=3;Core3HP;IF(CoreLVL=4;Core4HP;Core5HP))))/(((TotalShipDPS*NumberOfShips)*ShieldFactor)-((RepairConstant*CoreLevel*RepairFactor*RepairCommodityTypes)-(200+(200*CoreLevel)))/20)/60
A bit messy, yeah. And some excess parentheses, I think. But I do believe it's correct.
RE: Player Base Damage Overview - Blodwyn O'Driscoll - 10-28-2014
I would have liked to see what it looks like with cruisers cerbs instead of BSs' .
RE: Player Base Damage Overview - Karst - 10-28-2014
(10-28-2014, 02:14 PM)Blodwyn ODriscoll Wrote: I would have liked to see what it looks like with cruisers cerbs instead of BSs' .
That's the lovely thing about the formula's flexible nature.
Simply change energy recharge to 120 000, energy per second to 60 000, and damage per second to 18 500 and you'll get the results for a cruiser with the core of a Scylla.
Which look like this.
Edit: Note that this will of course fail if the number of guns a given ship/gun combination could fire exceeds the amount of suitable hardpoints aiming in one direction.
In such a case you'll have to manually enter the desired dps.
RE: Player Base Damage Overview - Blodwyn O'Driscoll - 10-28-2014
That's very nice to have a flexible formula. Good Job !
RE: Player Base Damage Overview - Pavel - 10-30-2014
I think the point Karst is trying to make is actually base sieges don't really resemble siege but rather quick raid behind enemy lanes, given attacking side mustered enough caps on their side (and I wish good luck getting at least 10 caps online for few hours nowadays, when 40 slots taken is average GMT working day evening playercount).
If repair rates were lower, but compensated by more hit points, it'd mean smaller sieging parties also can damage your average somewhat well supplied POB, but:
- it would take longer to destroy base, due to more hitpoints - preferably few days
- players wouldn't have to be online ALL the time for siege, if bases repair slowly - people aren't cyborgs, and sometimes they have to, you know, go to work, school, sleep...
- instead of "3am few hours long conspiracy raids" base sieges would be prolonged events, maybe for weeks even, attracting activity to the region; assuming that bases have more hitpoints and repair slowly - aka "we can go to sleep and log again the next evening, because the base won't repair itself in 20 minutes after we stopped sieging it"
RE: Player Base Damage Overview - Karst - 10-30-2014
(10-30-2014, 08:10 AM)Pavel Wrote: I think the point Karst is trying to make is actually base sieges don't really resemble siege but rather quick raid behind enemy lanes, given attacking side mustered enough caps on their side (and I wish good luck getting at least 10 caps online for few hours nowadays, when 40 slots taken is average GMT working day evening playercount).
If repair rates were lower, but compensated by more hit points, it'd mean smaller sieging parties also can damage your average somewhat well supplied POB, but:
- it would take longer to destroy base, due to more hitpoints - preferably few days
- players wouldn't have to be online ALL the time for siege, if bases repair slowly - people aren't cyborgs, and sometimes they have to, you know, go to work, school, sleep...
- instead of "3am few hours long conspiracy raids" base sieges would be prolonged events, maybe for weeks even, attracting activity to the region; assuming that bases have more hitpoints and repair slowly - aka "we can go to sleep and log again the next evening, because the base won't repair itself in 20 minutes after we stopped sieging it"
This is 100% exactly my point.
I'll post a rough draft of number changes I like, but I haven't gotten a sufficiently satisfying result yet.
The main issue is keeping Core 1 bases, especially with few repairs, easy enough to destroy, without making high-core bases too vulnerable.
RE: Player Base Damage Overview - Lobster - 10-30-2014
I think such a thing would be a very good change of pace. The idea has my support.
RE: Player Base Damage Overview - Blodwyn O'Driscoll - 10-30-2014
(10-30-2014, 08:10 AM)Pavel Wrote: I think the point Karst is trying to make is actually base sieges don't really resemble siege but rather quick raid behind enemy lanes, given attacking side mustered enough caps on their side (and I wish good luck getting at least 10 caps online for few hours nowadays, when 40 slots taken is average GMT working day evening playercount).
If repair rates were lower, but compensated by more hit points, it'd mean smaller sieging parties also can damage your average somewhat well supplied POB, but:
- it would take longer to destroy base, due to more hitpoints - preferably few days
- players wouldn't have to be online ALL the time for siege, if bases repair slowly - people aren't cyborgs, and sometimes they have to, you know, go to work, school, sleep...
- instead of "3am few hours long conspiracy raids" base sieges would be prolonged events, maybe for weeks even, attracting activity to the region; assuming that bases have more hitpoints and repair slowly - aka "we can go to sleep and log again the next evening, because the base won't repair itself in 20 minutes after we stopped sieging it"
That
RE: Player Base Damage Overview - Sabru - 10-31-2014
(10-30-2014, 08:10 AM)Pavel Wrote: I think the point Karst is trying to make is actually base sieges don't really resemble siege but rather quick raid behind enemy lanes, given attacking side mustered enough caps on their side (and I wish good luck getting at least 10 caps online for few hours nowadays, when 40 slots taken is average GMT working day evening playercount).
If repair rates were lower, but compensated by more hit points, it'd mean smaller sieging parties also can damage your average somewhat well supplied POB, but:
- it would take longer to destroy base, due to more hitpoints - preferably few days
- players wouldn't have to be online ALL the time for siege, if bases repair slowly - people aren't cyborgs, and sometimes they have to, you know, go to work, school, sleep...
- instead of "3am few hours long conspiracy raids" base sieges would be prolonged events, maybe for weeks even, attracting activity to the region; assuming that bases have more hitpoints and repair slowly - aka "we can go to sleep and log again the next evening, because the base won't repair itself in 20 minutes after we stopped sieging it"
mm... sounds good. why didnt someone think of this in the first place?
RE: Player Base Damage Overview - Kirill - 10-31-2014
(10-30-2014, 08:10 AM)Pavel Wrote: I think the point Karst is trying to make is actually base sieges don't really resemble siege but rather quick raid behind enemy lanes, given attacking side mustered enough caps on their side (and I wish good luck getting at least 10 caps online for few hours nowadays, when 40 slots taken is average GMT working day evening playercount).
If repair rates were lower, but compensated by more hit points, it'd mean smaller sieging parties also can damage your average somewhat well supplied POB, but:
- it would take longer to destroy base, due to more hitpoints - preferably few days
- players wouldn't have to be online ALL the time for siege, if bases repair slowly - people aren't cyborgs, and sometimes they have to, you know, go to work, school, sleep...
- instead of "3am few hours long conspiracy raids" base sieges would be prolonged events, maybe for weeks even, attracting activity to the region; assuming that bases have more hitpoints and repair slowly - aka "we can go to sleep and log again the next evening, because the base won't repair itself in 20 minutes after we stopped sieging it"
As a baseowner, i approve this. So even slighty unsupplied base won't die to 3 caps in few hours.