Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Veterancy values are unintuitive #4841

Open
Basilisk3 opened this issue Mar 27, 2023 · 6 comments · May be fixed by #6110
Open

Veterancy values are unintuitive #4841

Basilisk3 opened this issue Mar 27, 2023 · 6 comments · May be fixed by #6110
Labels
area: balance related to units balance area: sim Area that is affected by the Simulation of the Game area: ui Anything to do with the User Interface of the Game

Comments

@Basilisk3
Copy link
Contributor

Scenario 1:
A T4 artillery destroys a Paragon. The result is that it will not gain the full 250k mass cost of the paragon as veterancy, but only around 83k. This is incorrect, and the unit would need to destroy several Paragons to even gain a single level of veterancy.

Scenario 2:
A land T4 destroys a paragon. The UI will now show that the unit has killed 14k mass (in the case of the Galactic Colossus). This results in it being impossible to instantly gain full vet, of a single unit. Balance wise, this makes sense in my opinion.

Nevertheless, the value displayed in the UI is still wrong and misleading. I have noticed that a lot of players use the veterancy UI to learn how much mass a unit has killed. However, as shown here, in some cases this is very inaccurate.

Another example could be: A tech 1 bomber killing a tech 2 mass extractor.

One possible solution would be to implement two separate indicators, one for the veterancy values, and one for how much mass the unit destroyed.

@Basilisk3 Basilisk3 added the status: new issue Is added to every issue to indicate that it has not been reviewed yet label Mar 27, 2023
@Garanas Garanas added area: balance related to units balance and removed status: new issue Is added to every issue to indicate that it has not been reviewed yet labels Mar 27, 2023
@Tagada14
Copy link
Collaborator

Tagada14 commented Jun 6, 2023

Re 1: Will need to investigate this.
Re 2: Units not being able to gain more than 1 vet level per unit kill is intentional but as you said it has some undesirable effects. Perhaps a solution with two indicators or something else would be something that the Game team would be interested in picking up. @Garanas

@MrRowey MrRowey added area: sim Area that is affected by the Simulation of the Game area: ui Anything to do with the User Interface of the Game labels Jul 1, 2023
@MrRowey MrRowey added this to the Balance Iteration I of 2024 milestone Jan 17, 2024
@MrRowey MrRowey removed this from the Balance Iteration I of 2024 milestone Apr 22, 2024
@MrRowey
Copy link
Member

MrRowey commented Apr 22, 2024

@clyfordv or @lL1l1 would you be interested in taking a look at this?

@lL1l1
Copy link
Contributor

lL1l1 commented Apr 22, 2024

With paragon this happens because it takes damage 3 times from a mavor: 5000 damage from the shell (it only has 5000 HP), 5000 damage from the inner nuke explosion, and 5000 damage from the outer nuke explosion. This means it took 15000 damage and 5000 came from the mavor, so the mavor gets 1/3 of its mass as vet, 83400 as shown in the bug.

@clyfordv
Copy link
Contributor

I'll take a swing at it.

@clyfordv
Copy link
Contributor

#6110

@clyfordv
Copy link
Contributor

I think two values by default (Experience and MassValueKilled) is probably a UI hazard, but some way of accessing total mass killed seems very reasonable. The overhead of tracking that for every unit is not nothing, so separate PR here: #6111

@lL1l1 lL1l1 linked a pull request May 1, 2024 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area: balance related to units balance area: sim Area that is affected by the Simulation of the Game area: ui Anything to do with the User Interface of the Game
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants