Read by Council A Bold Idea - Remove almost all advantages of docked entities and replace their functions

[Nauvran]

I absolutely think this way. Also HELLO Lecic I want to tell you that we tried your ARMOR TANK ship there against a <50k (actual) mass WIP competitive ship and with the embedded weapons we were able to overheat the ship in less than 5min while the shield took 1m to put down. Had to turn ship <180° before test (so we did go throught FRONTAL ARMOR) and that took me one minute.

Relax.

 

[Lecic]

I absolutely think this way. Also HELLO Lecic I want to tell you that we tried your ARMOR TANK ship there against a <50k (actual) mass WIP competitive ship and with the embedded weapons we were able to overheat the ship in less than 5min while the shield took 1m to put down. Had to turn ship <180° before test (so we did go throught FRONTAL ARMOR) and that took me one minute.

Again, not my ship. Why do you keep calling it that?

Were you actually fighting the ship, or just shooting at one?

 

[Groovrider]

Some things I've observed...

Fighting AI tends to last until the shields buckle.
Fighting a player can last through several cycles of shield blown/regen and can't really be compared.
Advanced armor is useful if its backed up by armor hp.
Tertiary effects on weapons are underused and underrated.
Shield capacity is often favored over regen.
Many don't build resilience into their power plants, often redlining during combat. This can be exploited.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Sorry, My PC isn't powerful enough for me to Cap a video while I run a 3v3 Cheroke VS Slaanesh (old video from before rail docker update, but an idea of what it's up against as profile hasn't changed)fight...But I can tell you cheroke lost 0:2.7 (one slaanesh lost shields under concentrated fire and took some actual block damage to it's anti-missile array 1 of 3 3v3 fights, probably because it took friendly fire from another slaaneshi main gun) in all cases the cheroke was wiped from existence about 4-7 minutes after combat started (in one case with quite a slide-show).
The cheroke is a great "looks nice" ship. It is NOT a "tank", it is an APC at best. With it's movement profile it's not even very PC. AFAICT in actual combat a cheroke servs the same function as a 9^3 "distraction drone" that's only purpose is to hold aggro away from a "real" ship....but much slower, larger, and worse at it. I can sit in spaceman mode inside the "space bar" I've got set up inside my primary turret on a slaanesh, sipping tea while the shields flux. My astro survives all those fights even with the occasional glitch-beam firing past it's head as it bypassed the walls. THat's a TANK:sipping tea in combat wile things burn outside your plating.
Conclusion: Armor is great, but it's "real damage" taken MUCH WORSE than the "virtual damage" shields soak (duh, no one argues that) and MUCH MUCH worse than damage AVOIDANCE maneuverability brings. Cheroke is a great design for an NPC: but it shouild NEVER be brought into a conversation about PvP unless it's a collision damage engagement, and SOMEHOW the opponent has worse maneuverability so the Cherokee can RAM them.

 

[Lecic]

Sorry, My PC isn't powerful enough for me to Cap a video while I run a 3v3 Cheroke VS Slaanesh (old video from before rail docker update, but an idea of what it's up against as profile hasn't changed)fight...But I can tell you cheroke lost 0:2.7 (one slaanesh lost shields under concentrated fire and took some actual block damage to it's anti-missile array 1 of 3 3v3 fights, probably because it took friendly fire from another slaaneshi main gun) in all cases the cheroke was wiped from existence about 4-7 minutes after combat started (in one case with quite a slide-show).

Were you having it fight AI Cherokees? If so, well. That's a fucking joke. You can't count a ship's effectiveness based on its fighting ability when it's being run by AI.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Were you having it fight AI Cherokees? If so, well. That's a fucking joke. You can't count a ship's effectiveness based on its fighting ability when it's being run by AI.

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

slaanesh is actually designed to have 4 "broadside" gunners (human), and 2 more "forward cannon" gunners, as well as optional human control of 2 of it's 3 main turrets. having it on AI control is likely JUST as hampering. Since it was AI VS AI, both took their cripples. Don't use it as an example if it isn't an example. If it IS an example but it's STILL losing, that might say something about the philosophy.

Regardless the point of this thread is docked entities. Oe of the most interesting things I noticed during my firefight there was how quickly systems damage penalties utterly screw the larger ship types, and how docked entities "kept it fighting" long after it should have been totally thrashed (when they didn't cause a slideshow)

 

[FlyingDebris]

Hi!

I'm the designer of the Cherokee, and to put it simply if you're testing AI cherokees you're testing them at less than half efficiency. The ships have ion, punch, and pierce passives, amd without those the armor is totally useless. Also, the AI fires all weapons at once instead of in cycles like it's supposed to. DPS is far from everything, you don't need a 'big' gun to kill a 'big' target.

If you still doybt the effectiveness of my ship, post your IGN here and we can have a duel on the NFD Build server using my Cherokee and any ship of your choice. If you win, I'll back your claims. If I win, Lecic's claims are proven valid.

Long story short, testing AI vs. AI when using the Cherokee that requires its passives and correct use of the weapons to stay in the fight really just doesn't do it justice and provodes an inaccurate view of how the ship performs in combat...


-Deb

 

[DrTarDIS]

Long story short, testing AI vs. AI when using the Cherokee that requires its passives and correct use of the weapons to stay in the fight really just doesn't do it justice and provodes an inaccurate view of how the ship performs in combat...

All these "penalties" also apply to the ship i tested it against. Less "special pleading" more actual thread content, please.(It IS a nice ship, I STILL say you used too much HH and not enough basic/standard to "fatten up" it AP-pool:Mass ratio)
As above: goalposts, Standards.
As above: docked and their advantages, (or not)

 

[FlyingDebris]

Well, this is the case ship being tested for the thread, evidently, so naturally it is important that the thing is tested properly. Are you turning down my offer?

 

[Lecic]

All these "penalties" also apply to the ship i tested it against. Less "special pleading" more actual thread content, please.(It IS a nice ship, I STILL say you used too much HH and not enough basic/standard to "fatten up" it AP-pool:Mass ratio)
As above: goalposts, Standards.
As above: docked and their advantages, (or not)

Are you seriously denying his request for a fair player vs player fight, rather than AI vs AI? Have you considered that your ship might have been, say, I don't know, less effected by being run by AI than his ship?

 

[DrTarDIS]

Well, this is the case ship being tested for the thread, evidently, so naturally it is important that the thing is tested properly. Are you turning down my offer?

Me? Yes, I can't hold more than 10 FPS in that kinda of combat. Rig just doesn't have the "oomph" for that level of combat. (thus why I uses 3v3 trade guild vs pirates).
Slaan also has Ion and Piercing (not punch though, explosive&stop instead) also had those "negated" by being in AI control. Is also not-quite-power-stable when it's main gun is trying to fire with several missile banks and it's broadside guns are fireing 90degrees away from target due to AI-derps.

HerrColonel might want to be your sparring partner if you feel like proving negating 20% (80%*25%) with pierce&punch, after shields drop, while you still have AP, changes things.

 

[Jaaskinal]

Me? Yes, I can't hold more than 10 FPS in that kinda of combat. Rig just doesn't have the "oomph" for that level of combat. (thus why I uses 3v3 trade guild vs pirates).
Slaan also has Ion and Piercing (not punch though, explosive&stop instead) also had those "negated" by being in AI control. Is also not-quite-power-stable when it's main gun is trying to fire with several missile banks and it's broadside guns are fireing 90degrees away from target due to AI-derps.

HerrColonel might want to be your sparring partner if you feel like proving negating 20% (80%*25%) with pierce&punch, after shields drop, while you still have AP, changes things.

You can have six ships all running with all of their turrets on in singleplayer but you can't handle two ships in multiplayer?

 

[FlyingDebris]

Me? Yes, I can't hold more than 10 FPS in that kinda of combat. Rig just doesn't have the "oomph" for that level of combat. (thus why I uses 3v3 trade guild vs pirates).
Slaan also has Ion and Piercing (not punch though, explosive&stop instead) also had those "negated" by being in AI control. Is also not-quite-power-stable when it's main gun is trying to fire with several missile banks and it's broadside guns are fireing 90degrees away from target due to AI-derps.

HerrColonel might want to be your sparring partner if you feel like proving negating 20% (80%*25%) with pierce&punch, after shields drop, while you still have AP, changes things.

If you can load six ships of that size shooting at each other, having just two on a server and not straining on your computer itself should be perfectly fine and actually should run even better.

 

[DrTarDIS]

You can have six ships all running with all of their turrets on in singleplayer but you can't handle two ships in multiplayer?

Ya, cause under AI control, looking away from combat, it doesn't matter if I'm reduced to single-frame-per-second rendering.
In player vs player, FPS = hit accuracy.
AI VS AI accuracy is a statistical numbers game outside of frames-per-second input.
Testing pilot skill and MOBA skill-rotations isn't in the scope of this AFAICT, feel free to disagree. Like I said earlier:

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...Don't use it as an example if it isn't an example.

Perhaps you should clearly state what, exactly, the flying brick is an example of that requires it to be human piloted? If that was clearly stated way back when it was linked, I probably wouldn't be pointing out the "moving the goalposts" / "special pleading" thing. "here's an armor tank" "oh wait you can't fight this armor tank if it's AI" "nono you can't fight it AI VS AI" "nono, you see there's this very special set of circumstances you need to set up so that..." That's malarkey bro.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Having player vs/ player is far from a 'very special set of circumstances'. The ship was never designed to be used as an AI ship, which frankly is the rarer of the two circumstances, those being pvp or AI vs AI. If you personally can't use the ship, I'm sure there's an equally skilled pilot willing to fly it.

 

[DrTarDIS]

Like I said, yer free to disagree, I am likewise free to disagree.
How about that "clearly stated" bit? I'm rather sick of three diff people talking to me like they are each in-on this clear statement, and yet talking in 3 different points about it State it clearly, or you are wasting all of our time.
Framing an argument | DiploFoundation

 

[Jaaskinal]

Ya, cause under AI control, looking away from combat, it doesn't matter if I'm reduced to single-frame-per-second rendering.
In player vs player, FPS = hit accuracy.
AI VS AI accuracy is a statistical numbers game outside of frames-per-second input.
Testing pilot skill and MOBA skill-rotations isn't in the scope of this AFAICT, feel free to disagree. Like I said earlier:

Perhaps you should clearly state what, exactly, the flying brick is an example of that requires it to be human piloted? If that was clearly stated way back when it was linked, I probably wouldn't be pointing out the "moving the goalposts" / "special pleading" thing. "here's an armor tank" "oh wait you can't fight this armor tank if it's AI" "nono you can't fight it AI VS AI" "nono, you see there's this very special set of circumstances you need to set up so that..." That's malarkey bro.

Moving the goalposts implies that an expectation was set, the goal was reached, and then those who set the expectation moved the expectation.
It seems like the arguement was that the armor on the front was strong/the ship was poorly designed. Then you come along with a random test about AI vs AI and state it as definitive while the other side argued that the passives are very important and that an AI vs AI battle that does not include passives is not representative of the performance of the ship.

The ship was definitely poorly designed - it's Debbies :^)
But it was definitely designed for a pilot and not for AI. I doubt the other ships were either. The test was very poor though, it was essentially like arguing about how easy it is to grow sunflowers vs aspens in a cave with a sealed entrance.

Also, I find your constant references to fallacies disturbing. There's a thing called the fallacy fallacy - it can be incorrect to assume that an arguments logical conclusion is false simply because it has a fallacy in it.

 

[Lecic]

It seems like DrTarD is just stepping around FlyingDebris's challenge out of fear it won't go as he plans. It's hardly "moving the goalposts" to ask for a ship to be used in the proper environment.

Why are you so opposed to the idea of doing another test with PvP? Because it might go against your bias?

 

[FlyingDebris]

You know, if you're going to be an ass about it...

I'm putting this simply and clearly.
The Cherokee is an armor tank. Any good armor tank is naturally a shitty AI ship as it cannot use its passives and often does not fight correctly. This is one point against the AI Cherokee.
The Cherokee is designed to be piloted. This means that the ship's guns are set up to not fire all at once, which the AI does exclusively.
This is another point against the AI Cherokee.
The Cherokee makes extensive use of docked entities and reactors, which if not engaged will make the ship completely unable to function on a basic level, and many of the reactors are not easily visible. They also have to be turned on manually.
This is the third point against the AI Cherokee.

If a person sets up and pilots the Cherokee, these issues go away. So, either test it PvP or you're not using the ship correctly. I didn't put a [DOESN'T WORK WELL WITH AI] tag on the thing since anyone with an understanding of how passives work would know that the ship was designed to be flown instead of set to AI.

Good day, sir.

 

[DrTarDIS]

It seems like DrTarD is just stepping around FlyingDebris's challenge out of fear it won't go as he plans. It's hardly "moving the goalposts" to ask for a ship to be used in the proper environment.
Why are you so opposed to the idea of doing another test with PvP? Because it might go against your bias?

Me? Yes, I can't hold more than 10 FPS in that kinda of combat. Rig just doesn't have the "oomph" for that level of combat. (thus why I uses 3v3 trade guild vs pirates).
Slaan also has Ion and Piercing (not punch though, explosive&stop instead) also had those "negated" by being in AI control. Is also not-quite-power-stable when it's main gun is trying to fire with several missile banks and it's broadside guns are fireing 90degrees away from target due to AI-derps.

HerrColonel might want to be your sparring partner if you feel like proving negating 20% (80%*25%) with pierce&punch, after shields drop, while you still have AP, changes things.

Also, I find your constant references to fallacies disturbing. There's a thing called the fallacy fallacy - it can be incorrect to assume that an arguments logical conclusion is false simply because it has a fallacy in it.

"constant" ?
One example is constant?
./derail thread with slander
No assumptions on false were given. Just pointing that out.

You know, if you're going to be an ass about it...

I'm putting this simply and clearly.
The Cherokee is an armor tank. Any good armor tank is naturally a shitty AI ship as it cannot use its passives and often does not fight correctly. This is one point against the AI Cherokee.
The Cherokee is designed to be piloted. This means that the ship's guns are set up to not fire all at once, which the AI does exclusively.
This is another point against the AI Cherokee.
The Cherokee makes extensive use of docked entities and reactors, which if not engaged will make the ship completely unable to function on a basic level, and many of the reactors are not easily visible. They also have to be turned on manually.
This is the third point against the AI Cherokee.

If a person sets up and pilots the Cherokee, these issues go away. So, either test it PvP or you're not using the ship correctly. I didn't put a [DOESN'T WORK WELL WITH AI] tag on the thing since anyone with an understanding of how passives work would know that the ship was designed to be flown instead of set to AI.

Good day, sir.

All likewise applies to the ship I used in engagement. I tried to match them up "fairly" If you don't think it was fair, that's cool. My point was that using SHP/AHP on a main entity as your tank isn't the smartest choice. As far as I'm concerned I've validated that. If you disagree, not my problem. Take the results and use them, or deride and ignore.