Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » WM » Blunderbuss
Blunderbuss Wed, 11 June 2008 02:26 Go to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
Is it any good for anything?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Wed, 11 June 2008 05:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Soobie

 
Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia
tech trade?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Wed, 11 June 2008 05:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
Um...anything else?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Wed, 11 June 2008 07:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Soobie

 
Officer Cadet 3rd Year

Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia
Making light BCs and using them as last movers or on SBs for defense against range 1 BBs??

Loading up a DN or 5 to go a sacrifial kill of a SB?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Fri, 22 June 2012 23:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1109
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
Could they help orders get a primarily range 2 beam ship to do more damage by closing range? Maybe extra helpful with Gatling type weapon.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Sat, 23 June 2012 11:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eagle of Fire

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5
That's already what 'max damage' does. If you set a beam ship with maximize damage tactic it will try to close to range 0 no matter what.

Don't confuse 'max damage' with 'max damage ratio'.


[Updated on: Sat, 23 June 2012 11:03]




STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Sat, 23 June 2012 14:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1109
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
Eagle of Fire wrote on Sat, 23 June 2012 08:03

... close to range 0 no matter what.

Don't confuse 'max damage' with 'max damage ratio'.


not quite

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Sat, 23 June 2012 19:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eagle of Fire

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5
Not quite what? I don't see the link with your link. Razz


STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Thu, 19 July 2012 06:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
neilhoward wrote on Sun, 24 June 2012 04:28
Eagle of Fire wrote on Sat, 23 June 2012 08:03
... close to range 0 no matter what.

Don't confuse 'max damage' with 'max damage ratio'.


not quite


Adding range 0 weapons won't help in that situation, because they won't be in range. The ship will only move forward if weapons already in range can do more damage by doing so.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Thu, 19 July 2012 20:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1109
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
might want to test that

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Fri, 20 July 2012 07:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
neilhoward wrote on Fri, 20 July 2012 10:23
might want to test that


Are you saying you have?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Sat, 21 July 2012 01:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eagle of Fire

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5
Max damage orders make the ship try to maximize damage. Since beam weapons do more damage the closer they get, the AI always try to get to range 0. No matter what.

It was the whole point of my post.



STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Wed, 25 July 2012 21:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1109
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
magic9mushroom wrote on Fri, 20 July 2012 04:57
neilhoward wrote on Fri, 20 July 2012 10:23
might want to test that


Are you saying you have?

Yes. My hypothesis is confirmed.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Wed, 25 July 2012 21:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1109
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
Eagle of Fire wrote on Fri, 20 July 2012 22:22
Max damage orders make the ship try to maximize damage. Since beam weapons do more damage the closer they get, the AI always try to get to range 0. No matter what.

It was the whole point of my post.

Nope. You are wrong because you don't understand what you are talking about. It *always* does it, *except* when it doesn't. No matter what, except all the things you don't understand which make your statement completely false. That, and no it doesn't.

Making emphatic claims about something you do not understand, does not change the fact that you don't understand it. It does make you seem more foolish when you are wrong, which is more often than it needs to be since instead of actually taking 5 minutes to test your claims, you just say always, never, no matter what, while you repeat yourself over and over, failing to demonstrate anything but your own ignorance. Ignorance is one thing, but wilful ignorance is another (namely pitiable).


[Updated on: Wed, 25 July 2012 21:53]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Thu, 26 July 2012 18:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eagle of Fire

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5
Neil, you often say things without anybody backing you up. You have no proof, no data, whatever.

The very purpose of Max Damage is to maximize damage. Since beam weapons get weaker every square of distance, the AI calculate that it is more efficient to get closer. End of story.

Even if you would be able to prove that there is a 1% oddity occurrence in the battle engine, the principle still apply.



STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Fri, 27 July 2012 02:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
neilhoward

 
Commander

Messages: 1109
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023
I understand where you are coming from. I have been very surprised to see that battles don't always work they way I expected. I can show you turn files of Max Damage Ratio closing to range when Max Damage does not. Anyway, you can look back through bar and academy topics and find several mentions of unanticipated behaviour related to failing to close to range with beams and/or max damage. I see some really old usenet posts about this too.

I don't need or want other people to back me up. The best case scenario is that someone shows me that I am wrong, because there are a huge number of things that I am potentially mistaken about, but a much smaller finite number of instances where I might receive correction. If arguing were about who's understanding is correct at the end, instead of who was right from the begining, it would not be a zero sum game and we all could profit from it.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Fri, 27 July 2012 19:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eagle of Fire

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5
At least give me some data to work with. Give me the exact design of your test which showed an oddity and I'll try it too. We'll see.


STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Fri, 27 July 2012 21:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
nmid

 
Commander

Messages: 1590
Registered: January 2011
Location: GMT +5.5

neilhoward wrote on Sat, 23 June 2012 12:27
Could they help orders get a primarily range 2 beam ship to do more damage by closing range? Maybe extra helpful with Gatling type weapon.


Coming back to the original observation of adding blunderbuss helping range2 beam ships get in range... don't we need to factor in how much additional damage the token component will do? (2/4/6/... considering a BB design).

If the ship will die at the 1st enemy shot, then stars! will disregard the blunderbuss token which would not cause sufficient damage in it's own right. (Eg a BB with 2 blunderbuss, 6 sappers and 12 R2 beams). If you are talking about 10+ blunderbuss designs, it might make a difference.

If stars! still calculates that the additional damage done by a token component slot of 2 blunderbuss isn't enough to tip the edge so to speak, it won't take the ship closer with the default orders of max damage ratio.

If we are talking about max damage orders, I have not seen any battles in my actual games (with conventional designs) where ships have failed to move the maximum cells feasible.



I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Blunderbuss Thu, 13 September 2012 22:03 Go to previous message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1154
Registered: May 2008
neilhoward wrote on Fri, 27 July 2012 16:20
I understand where you are coming from. I have been very surprised to see that battles don't always work they way I expected. I can show you turn files of Max Damage Ratio closing to range when Max Damage does not. Anyway, you can look back through bar and academy topics and find several mentions of unanticipated behaviour related to failing to close to range with beams and/or max damage. I see some really old usenet posts about this too.

I don't need or want other people to back me up. The best case scenario is that someone shows me that I am wrong, because there are a huge number of things that I am potentially mistaken about, but a much smaller finite number of instances where I might receive correction. If arguing were about who's understanding is correct at the end, instead of who was right from the begining, it would not be a zero sum game and we all could profit from it.


To be blunt, ranting about how people are stupid and wrong without actually showing your proof is an exercise in intellectual masturbation. No-one will be convinced by such a guarded argument, and so the only one that gains anything is your bloated ego.

I am perfectly fine with being proven wrong, but someone pulling this sort of ridiculous confusing drivel goes squarely in my "trolling" box.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: DN vs Nubian
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Nov 21 05:15:41 EST 2017