Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Design ignores field testing

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Tech Support >> Design ignores field testing Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Design ignores field testing - 6/12/2020 1:45:30 PM   
WeaverofBrokenThreads

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 6/8/2020
Status: offline 		I have reason to believe, but no way to prove, that when a new model is generated, that it does not take into account the increase in base design value from field testing, but applies it afterwards. This is from empirical data, but there is a clue in the design window where the base design value is modified after the values are generated.

The result is that every model seems to generate values for engine, weapon and armour design based on the original base design value, or is modified by it in such a way.

EDIT: I also think that it is possible that it uses the newly generated structural design value before overruling it with the previous one.

< Message edited by WeaverofBrokenThreads -- 6/12/2020 1:48:59 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/12/2020 5:24:31 PM   
zgrssd

 

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline 		To my knowledge, Structural Design is the one fixed part of a design line. It will never improove of worsen. Indeed it will not even be rolled for a new design.

But otherwise? It is quite possible.

(in reply to WeaverofBrokenThreads)
Post #: 2
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/12/2020 6:03:22 PM   
WeaverofBrokenThreads

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 6/8/2020
Status: offline
quote:

[...] that it uses the newly generated structural design value before overruling it with the previous one.


(in reply to zgrssd)
Post #: 3
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/12/2020 6:07:07 PM   
Culthrasa

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 4/16/2017
Status: offline 		We had a discusson on the main tread, linked here. I agree with the OP it seems like it is not working as intended..

(in reply to WeaverofBrokenThreads)
Post #: 4
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/12/2020 9:22:49 PM   
YppY

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/4/2014
Status: offline 		Indeed I think you are right. I did some testing with a design with 169 base design. It appears that what matters are the structural and base design role made at the top of the design log. Even though they should have no effect.

(in reply to Culthrasa)
Post #: 5
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/13/2020 9:46:12 AM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		Posted this in the linked thread:

WeapDesign,ArmourDesign and EngineDesign are (BaseDesign/2)+4d20 and then modified for Structural Design. The Fire Power is modified for WD, The Engine power for ED and the Armour Strength fro AD.

If you make a new version of a Model, say MkII. It is possible that although BaseDesign has gone up due to Field Testing the random factor results in a roll for WD,AD or ED that is lower than that of MkI, in that case the MkI value is used because it is higher.

....

to add to that:

So a really good roll with an initial Model might make it hard to surpass ED,WD,AD in higher versions.


best wishes,
Vic


_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to YppY)
Post #: 6
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/13/2020 10:10:21 AM   
YppY

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/4/2014
Status: offline 		Take a look at this design then. GV VIII: Base design 169. Structural design 93.
Armor design = ⌊169/2⌋ + 4d20 => 87 < Armor design < 165
We do not know how Structural design modifies this.
In this image I got Armor design = 55. Is this possible with the Structural design modifier?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by YppY -- 6/13/2020 10:15:10 AM >

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 7
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/13/2020 10:17:55 AM   
WeaverofBrokenThreads

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 6/8/2020
Status: offline 		I can confirm it doesn't work, Vic. I have a model with 166 base design, but I still rolled 69 for weapon design. The lowest possible value should be 87. Structural design is 114.

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 8
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/13/2020 11:09:55 AM   
Culthrasa

 

Posts: 189
Joined: 4/16/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WeaverofBrokenThreads

I can confirm it doesn't work, Vic. I have a model with 166 base design, but I still rolled 69 for weapon design. The lowest possible value should be 87. Structural design is 114.


likewise...
Just to give an example.. Both my mark II and mark III have 116 base design, so even if the previous base design number was used it would still be 116 for the mark III. The mark III rolled a 58 for both engine and armor which should not be possible with the roll you described.

the formula:
WeapDesign,ArmourDesign and EngineDesign are (BaseDesign/2)+4d20 and then modified for Structural Design. The Fire Power is modified for WD, The Engine power for ED and the Armour Strength fro AD.

the roll:
116/2 is 56 plus at least 4 from 4d20 should be at least 60. The str.design is 108 so i'm assuming that will be a bonus on the roll, not a penalty. Not to mention the odds that 2 rolls would have been made with the lowest score possible which is 4^10(-11) :)






On a related note.. does the director's skill also apply somehow? What is its effect?

And thz for taking the time to explain. Understanding the mechanics helps a lot and leads to better decision making and thereby a more fun game!

< Message edited by Culthrasa -- 6/13/2020 11:11:31 AM >

(in reply to WeaverofBrokenThreads)
Post #: 9
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/13/2020 11:22:58 AM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		Right right... Thanks for not taking no for an answer. We might indeed be on to something here.

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to Culthrasa)
Post #: 10
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/13/2020 11:54:43 AM   
Vic


Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline 		I think a non correct Base Design stat has been used in the calcs. Will be fixed in v1.03-beta1.


_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 11
RE: Design ignores field testing - 6/13/2020 2:23:06 PM   
YppY

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/4/2014
Status: offline 		Are you sure the design is fixed. Here is another 55 Armor design with the same Base design 169 GI.
I'm still pretty sure the issue is that both the base and structural design at the top if the design log is used.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by YppY -- 6/13/2020 2:24:24 PM >

(in reply to Vic)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Tech Support >> Design ignores field testing Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.984