Re: Game 796

[Oerjan Ariander <oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx>]

Noam wrote:

> >>If the ship is stealth-2 and you're firing a b2 at it, the
> >>effective range is _still_ 17, but _your_ effective range _band_ is 8.
> >
> >Which is mathematically identical to saying that your *range bands*
> >are unaffected, but the *appearent range* has increased:
>
>Exactly. The two are mathematically identical. But they _feel_  different. 
>To me at least. There is a big difference in feel between this:
>Weapons Officer: "I _know_ they're in nominal range, but we just can't 
>lock and hit them because of that crap on their hulls! We need to get closer."
>and this:
>Tac Officer: "Their signatures are confusing our sensors, targeting thinks 
>they're farther away than they are, Sir. We need to close the range to be 
>effective."
>
>They are exactly the same _effects_.

Not only do they have the same *effects*; to the captain (player) they are 
exactly the same *report*: "We need to get closer to be able to hurt them". 
At the moment, FTJava doesn't tell the player that *at all*.

> >against Stealth-1 targets your weapons fire as if the range is 20% 
> greater than it
> >actually is (ie., the *appearent range* is 20% greater than the actual
> >range), and against Stealth-2 targets your weapons fire as if the range 
> is 50%
> >greater than it actually is.
>
>Yes. This mathematically identical to saying that Beam range bands go
>from 12 MU to 10 vs. stealth 1, and to 8 vs. stealth 2.

And presenting the effective range instead of letting the players work it 
out in their heads is MUCH, MUCH easier to handle for those players who - 
unlike you and me - have *not* played Stealthed ships for several years 
already.

You and I are *used to* calculating what range band a stealthed target is 
in by tracking the three different sets of range bands (vs. no stealth, vs. 
Stealth-1 and vs. Stealth-2). For us, it is easy.

The vast majority of FTJava players are only used to the *standard* set of 
range bands. For them it is much easier to see "effective range is 25.5 - 
OK, that's in the 3rd beam range band and the 5th P-torp range band" than 
it is to see "range is 17 and the target has Stealth-2 - OK, that means 
that the beam range bands are, um, 8mu I think so the target is in the 17/8 
rounded up = 2.something rounded up = 3rd range band, right? And P-torps 
have... 4mu bands, no? so it'll be in the 17/4 rounded up = 4.something 
rounded up = 5th range band... I think."

>(And torps for 6 to 5 and 4, respectively). I also argue that thinking in 
>terms
>of range bands is _easier_ than thinking in terms of modifying "effective 
>range"

Thinking in terms of range bands is easier *once you've gotten the hang of 
it*. Until then, it is harder. Getting the hang of it can take quite a 
while - and whereas you and I have *had* quite a while to figure it out, 
most others *haven't*.

>It is easier at the game table to divide _measured_
>range to target by 8 than it is to multiply it by 1.5 and then divide
>by 12.

This is true in FTF gaming where the player would have to do the 
multiplication by 1.5 *himself*, but in FTJava *the computer does that for 
him*. That leaves only the "divide by 12" part for the player to handle, 
and that is something he's done numerous times already in his standard FT 
games - it's not something he has to think hard about.

Dividing by 8 however is *not* something most FT players do automatically. 
How, then, is dividing by 8 in your head easier for the player than having 
*the computer* multiply by 1.5 after which the player can apply the same 
old standard 12mu range bands he's always used?

> >>> The only reason the targetting window shows the range AT ALL is
> >>> so the player can determine which ships are in range of his weapons (and
> >>> in what range band).
> >>
> >> Ah - but that parenthetical is not directly indicated by the range
> >> number value.
> >
> >It most definitly *is* directly indicated both by the range number
> >value and by the warning flag "Out of range" which ought to pop up whenever
> >you're attempting to target a ship which is out of range.
>
>I disagree. At range 11 you're in B2 range against both a standard
>hull and stealth 2. But you're in RB1 vs. standard, and RB2 vs
>stealth. You still have to know your range bands.

And if you've played Full Thrust for more than two or three games, you KNOW 
that the beam range bands are 12mu. When you've played FT that much (or 
little), it is already trivial for you to see that range 11 is inside the 
first beam range band and that range 16.5 (the effective range against 
Stealth-2) is in the second beam range band.

It is much harder to 1) figure out which of three possible range band 
lengths to use and 2) apply that range band length to the actual range.

>If you insist on making the effective range by multiplying the stealth 
>factor, first
>you end up with a decimal range (16.5)

Bullshit. Full Thrust *already has* "decimal ranges", since ships don't 
always end up at integer distances from one another. In spite of this fact, 
FTJava does not present decimal ranges. Why?

Simple: weapon ranges are not fractions; they're integers. A weapon might 
have a range of 16 or 17; but it does *not* have a range of 16.5. From the 
game's point of view, ranges 16.5 and 17.000000 have *exactly the same 
effects* - they're out of range for weapons with range 16, and in range for 
weapons with range 17 - so FTJava rounds the range fractions up to the 
nearest higher integer value. There is no reason whatsoever why it 
shouldn't continue rounding the ranges up in this way with the 
stealth-adjusted ranges as well.

>and you _still_ have to know your range bands

You need to know the STANDARD range bands - which you already *do* know if 
you've played a few FT games. You DON'T need to know the two additional 
MODIFIED sets of range bands - whereas with your system you *would* need to 
know them as well as the standard bands.

> >No, it isn't as informative as it should be - because in the "real world"
> >even if the captain/admiral at the start of the battle doesn't know what
> >effect the enemy's Stealth has on his weapon systems, his subordinates (the
> >sensor and weapons crews) will tell him within approximately ten seconds of
> >noticing that they can't get as secure target locks as they should at that
> >actual range. If they *don't* tell him about it, they're up for 
> court-martials for gross >negligence of their duty... assuming that they 
> survive, of course.
>
>Here's what that sounds like to me. Forgive me if I'm in error.
>I take it you are assuming here that FOW is being used, and you don't
>_know_ for 100% certain that you're trying to hit a stealth ship.
>You're saying that there should be some immediate feedback from the
>weapons fire dialog/drop down that firing at that ship at that range
>will be affected.

Got it in one. Key word is "at THAT SHIP".

>This can indeed be solved by either modifying the
>range to be a longer "effective range", or by using an "effective
>range band" display like I outlined.

Using an "effective range band display" does NOT tell you that firing at 
that particular ship *will be* affected. All it tells you is what the 
effect would be *if* that particular ship happens to be stealthed.

>However, 1) adding the "out of range" flag for stealth affected systems is 
>probably more
>important,

If the targetting window shows the modified range, you get the "out of 
range" flag automatically - all that algorithm has to do is to compare the 
weapon's max range with the modified range instead of with the actual range 
(just like the player does in his head).

>2) the "effective range band display" is more informative,

I don't think so. More confusing, yes; but confusion almost invariably 
*reduces* the amount of information relayed.

>and 3) modifying the range number is potentially additionally
>misleading; For example, I sometimes use these range numbers to help
>me plot my next movement phase. If they get modified, that utility
>goes away.

You use the *targetting ranges* to plot the next movement phase, rather 
than the ghost plots etc. in the map window?

Personally I'd much rather have the targetting window optimized for 
*targetting* instead of attempting to optimize it for *movement plots* <shrug>

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ariander@xxxxxxxxx

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry