Space Combat: Bugs or Illumination?

[Paradigm]

I wonder if the D.I.E. fleet might have been treated as if it were WP assauting when in fact it wasn't?

[D.I.E.]

I wonder if the D.I.E. fleet might have been treated as if it were WP assauting when in fact it wasn't?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is an important point, Paradigm. And it is my personal leading candidate for the nature one of the two bugs I think we are seeing. (The other problem being ineffectual fighters, as you also mentioned.)

 

This it is specifically why I included the information that this was not a true WP assault in my original message.

 

D.I.E.

[octagon999]

If it was treated as a warp point assaut (occuring at a warp point) but wasn't (because the co-location occurred as a result of a MOVE, not WARP order) that would go a LONG way towards explaining the discrepancies, since your fleet would not have been moving in en-masse until later during the battle, and in fact, would have full strength FC but low strength weapons through the WP (hence, damagin, not destroyin targets).

 

only problem with this theory is that your fighters didn't attack until later. I thought they were supposed to attack on round one?

[Hughestrog]

only problem with this theory is that your fighters didn't attack until later.  I thought they were supposed to attack on round one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That has been mentioned before.....

[D.I.E.]

only problem with this theory is that your fighters didn't attack until later.  I thought they were supposed to attack on round one?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That has been mentioned before.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, Hughestrog. But I like the sound of people agreeing with me. So please... let him speak.

 

Octagon, that is one of the reasons that I think we are looking at TWO bugs.

 

D.I.E.

[D.I.E.]

I'm looking into this battle - the only way to really examine it in detail is to simply re-run it on the main database backup that I create just before the processing begins.  Pretty much watching it run line by line as the battle progresses.

 

Retargeting does occur regularly throughout the battle.  On another note, if you should see unusually high point defense ratings for your ships (perhaps with ships that have no point defenses at all), that's umbrella coverage being provided for them, usually by fighters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you very very much for taking a look at this, Pete!

 

But... don't leave us sitting on pins and needles, here! Can you tell us what you learned, if anything? Ideally, I'd like to understand a bit about what went on in this battle before I send the rest of my fleet into combat this turn. (Orders are due tomorrow!!!)

 

Thanks again!

D.I.E.

[Locklyn]

I second that! It would be happy time not having to execute more naval designers for faulty designs and hearing there pitiful cries of "But we didn't have a manual"

 

Locklyn

[Ur Lord Tedric]

We've finally had a chance to really look at the battle now and would like to present from a different hypothesis - and remembering a Pete quote from a long time ago.

 

The hypothesis is that there's nothing wrong with the battle system.

 

The quote is "rolling waves of fire"....

 

Let's assume that the report reflects what happened and that, if we do think in 'rounds', which may not be the best and that:

 

Firepower = 7 to 17 (Ratio 1:2.43)

 

Round 1 - 54 losses vs 23 losses (Ratio 2.35:1)

 

Round 2 - 51 losses vs 25 losses (Ratio 2.04:1)

 

Round 3 - 9 losses vs 5 losses (Ratio 1.8:1)

 

Round 4 - 0 losses vs 2 losses

 

And that there were only 4 rounds.

 

Let us consider 2 things. Firstly that we do not know the effect of racial characteristics on the battle, this may affect targetting..

 

Secondly, what if the small ships have such low integrity that the 'glob' is not mitigated enough and takes out more than one each time?

 

Then we could think of a further possibility - perhaps the battle module multiplies the targetting value by a consistent amount to each side when so many ships are present to reduce the number of iterations to process. This is done particularly to cope with the 'puffball' screen strategy, which could otherwise slow up battle processing significantly.

 

Our postulation is that the report if correct and that nothing was wrong. And that the end result is as expected.

 

But it would be great to have a comment if the Oracle is able to.....

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[Paradigm]

> Our postulation is that the report if correct and that nothing was wrong. And that the end result is as expected.

 

Based on what? A history of bug free software in the real world?

 

I'm hoping Pete will rerun this battle line by line and determine exactly what happened. Then either amend the information published to date that makes these results seem odd, or at least tell us we are missing key information that we'll have to find the hard way.

 

I assume the players involved are more interested in making sure the combat system works correctly at this point than the outcome of this one battle.

[D.I.E.]

We've finally had a chance to really look at the battle now and would like to present from a different hypothesis - and remembering a Pete quote from a long time ago.

 

The hypothesis is that there's nothing wrong with the battle system.

 

The quote is "rolling waves of fire"....

 

Let's assume that the report reflects what happened and that, if we do think in 'rounds', which may not be the best and that:

 

Firepower = 7 to 17 (Ratio 1:2.43)

 

Round 1 - 54 losses vs 23 losses (Ratio 2.35:1)

 

Round 2 - 51 losses vs 25 losses (Ratio 2.04:1)

 

Round 3 - 9 losses vs 5 losses (Ratio 1.8:1)

 

Round 4 - 0 losses vs 2 losses

 

And that there were only 4 rounds.

 

Let us consider 2 things.  Firstly that we do not know the effect of racial characteristics on the battle, this may affect targetting..

 

Secondly, what if the small ships have such low integrity that the 'glob' is not mitigated enough and takes out more than one each time?

 

Then we could think of a further possibility - perhaps the battle module multiplies the targetting value by a consistent amount to each side when so many ships are present to reduce the number of iterations to process.  This is done particularly to cope with the 'puffball' screen strategy, which could otherwise slow up battle processing significantly.

 

Our postulation is that the report if correct and that nothing was wrong.  And that the end result is as expected.

 

But it would be great to have a comment if the Oracle is able to.....

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A VERY interesting hypothosis, Ur-Lord. At first evaluation at least, this looks to be very well thought out. In fact, if the Oracle declares the battle to be 100% correct and "bug free," I would nominate this approach as the the new paradigm for understanding space combat.

 

I am not entirely ready to abandon my bug theory. But this is looks to be a very good alternate explanation. I despirately want to hear what Pete has to say about the battle.

 

One questions: You give a good accounting of the destroyed ships in your description. But, how does your hypothosis describe or explain the large number of damaged ships on my side?

 

D.I.E.

[D.I.E.]

I'm hoping Pete will rerun this battle line by line and determine exactly what happened.  Then either amend the information published to date that makes these results seem odd, or at least tell us we are missing key information that we'll have to find the hard way. 

 

I assume the players involved are more interested in making sure the combat system works correctly at this point than the outcome of this one battle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly!!!

 

At this point, we need a word or two from Pete. He already said that he was examining the battle. I really, really want to know if this particular battle has illuminated the combat system for us (perhaps thanks to the U-Lord's analysis) or has revealed one or more bugs. I trust Pete to fix any bugs he finds... and I can happily live with a new view of the combat system... I just want to know which is the case.

 

D.I.E.

[RTGPete]

At this point, we need a word or two from Pete.  He already said that he was examining the battle.

I'm sorry - I haven't been able to re-run this battle yet on the backup, and am busy getting this turn cycle going today. The results look good, ie the final tallies, but the way it reported does look odd. Only a complete line-by-line examination as it runs will give me more info (this takes hours, not minutes, as I need to watch it very carefully throughout the process). I'll definitely do it.

[Ur Lord Tedric]

> Our postulation is that the report if correct and that nothing was wrong. And that the end result is as expected.

 

Based on what?  A history of bug free software in the real world? 

 

I'm hoping Pete will rerun this battle line by line and determine exactly what happened.  Then either amend the information published to date that makes these results seem odd, or at least tell us we are missing key information that we'll have to find the hard way. 

 

I assume the players involved are more interested in making sure the combat system works correctly at this point than the outcome of this one battle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey!

 

"Postulation" & "hypothesis".....

 

Given that we all seem, relatively, to agree that the result doesn't seem unreasonable - then I'm prepared to suggest that there's an equally reasonable chance that nothing was wrong at all - it's just that we don't undertand everything yet....

 

And there's still the chance that there's a bug too - in which case the result is an accident....

 

Slightly Offended Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[Ur Lord Tedric]

A VERY interesting hypothosis, Ur-Lord.  At first evaluation at least, this looks to be very well thought out.  In fact, if the Oracle declares the battle to be 100% correct and "bug free," I would nominate this approach as the the new paradigm for understanding space combat.

 

I am not entirely ready to abandon my bug theory.  But this is looks to be a very good alternate explanation.  I despirately want to hear what Pete has to say about the battle.

 

One questions:  You give a good accounting of the destroyed ships in your description.  But, how does your hypothosis describe or explain the large number of damaged ships on my side?

 

D.I.E.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, if we assume something like up to 60 ships were actually targetted - for whatever reason (FC=17 x 4(?) = 68.....???) each of the 4 rounds by the enemy, whilst you were whittling them away...

 

Then 4 x 64 and subtracting the actual number of ships that were destroyed leaves plenty of potential targets that weren't destroyed and thus end up damaged....

 

But again, it's only a SWAG today - but a reasonable one!

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

[D.I.E.]

Oh, if we assume something like up to 60 ships were actually targetted - for whatever reason (FC=17 x 4(?) = 68.....???) each of the 4 rounds by the enemy, whilst you were whittling them away...

 

Then 4 x 64 and subtracting the actual number of ships that were destroyed leaves plenty of potential targets that weren't destroyed and thus end up damaged....

 

But again, it's only a SWAG today - but a reasonable one!

 

Chief Warmaster to Ur-Lord Tedric

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah! I see. Very reasonable, indeed!

 

I look forward now to Pete's final evaluation of the battle.

 

D.I.E.