Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-07T13:25:26+02:00

Yes, this thread has gone on for quite a bit. For sizes sake, if you want to continue the Titan discussion then open a new thread (hawkei has a hail mary of a post btw)

Locked

Statistics: Posted by TheKoopa — 07 Jun 2016, 13:25

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-07T13:17:18+02:00

Don't argue with stupid. They will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 07 Jun 2016, 13:17

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-07T11:57:56+02:00

maybe close this thread?

25 worthless pages should be enough

Statistics: Posted by Mephi — 07 Jun 2016, 11:57

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-07T11:07:21+02:00

This simulation doesn't take account of unit losses and hence deterioration of the enemy teams unit count or DPS over time

funnily it does )). you happened to pick just the right constant XDDD.

Statistics: Posted by Turinturambar — 07 Jun 2016, 11:07

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-07T09:03:27+02:00

turinturambar42 wrote:
a very god number to determine the combatstrengh of a unit is (dps/mass)*(HP/mass) it never let me down yet.
idk if the kiting calcutaion is that usefull (ofc its nice to have and very reasonable for e.g. loyalists) but for slower units pathfinding of bigger groups >10 could be a huge issue.
(were the unit numbers in you calculation dicrete or continous?)

The combat strength parameter, which you define is very similar to the combat value in my calculation. In my analysis Combat Value = (DPS1 * HP1) / (DPS2 * HP2) / MassRatio^2. So this is essentially the ratio of combat strength between the two units. With HP1 modified by the closure damage.

The kiting calculation is important when the speeds and ranges are different. As I have made allowance for "free damage" as the shorter ranged unit is forced to close. Something which is further complicated with kiting and micro. If we assume that the longer ranged units are controlled by an intelligent player, then they will run away, and the closing speed will be the difference between the two units. For example. With the Titan vs. Hoplite the standard damage model yields a combat value of 3.48. Which is huge. But if we consider that the Titan has speed = 4 and Hoplite speed = 3.6. The rate of closure is only 0.4, and in the time which it takes the Titan to close from range 37 to 20, 2.4 Hoplites would have completely eliminated the Titan. So kiting makes a big difference to combat value.

For the purposes of my calculation I have assumed continuous unit numbers. Which is represented by a mass ratio modifier. I assume that the Titan is facing it's mass equivalence in other units, and I multiply the enemy DPS and HP by this ratio. For example one Titan would face one Loyalist, 1.62 Rhino or 2.4 Hoplites. This simulation doesn't take account of unit losses and hence deterioration of the enemy teams unit count or DPS over time.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 07 Jun 2016, 09:03

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-07T08:12:19+02:00

a very god number to determine the combatstrengh of a unit is (dps/mass)*(HP/mass) it never let me down yet.
idk if the kiting calcutaion is that usefull (ofc its nice to have and very reasonable for e.g. loyalists) but for slower units pathfinding of bigger groups >10 could be a huge issue.
(were the unit numbers in you calculation dicrete or continous?)

Statistics: Posted by Turinturambar — 07 Jun 2016, 08:12

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-07T05:27:34+02:00

Brilliant

Statistics: Posted by biass — 07 Jun 2016, 05:27

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-07T05:19:47+02:00

I feel the need to wrote a post just to say that the above is a top notch post. Well done sir.

*Coughs in Zock's direction*

Statistics: Posted by briang — 07 Jun 2016, 05:19

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-07T05:10:28+02:00

I got a little Bored at work yesterday, and started to do some calculations. Cause I was actually curious about how the Titan performs on paper.

What I've attempted to do, in the attached spread sheet is calculate the combat value of the Titan in relation to a range of different units. In doing this, I took account of mass cost, speed, range, HP, and DPS. With the definition of combat value being the mass equivalence of enemy units which the Titans can destroy, before being destroyed by the mass equivalent numbers of that unit. As such, a combat value of 1.0 represents the ability to inflict equal casualties on the enemy team.

In addition to this, I have taken account of the range and speed differentials between units. In the first standing fight. I assume that both forces close and shoot. The longer ranged force starts shooting first, while the other will continue to close. The HP loss of the second force = closure time x DPS of the other force. Where the closure time = range difference / speed of the shorter ranged force. In the second series of calculations I assume that the longer ranged units will kite the other force. In this case closure time = range difference / (speed of shorter ranged force - speed of longer ranged force). In this situation, when the longer ranged units can also move faster there is perfect kiting, and the combat value = 0.0

The results were actually quite interesting. The combat effectiveness of the Titan was as follows, with the kiting values given in brackets:
- vs. Loyalist = 0.90 (0.0 with kiting)
- vs. Harbringer = 0.69 (0.41)
- vs. Othuum = 0.60 (0.51)
- vs. Pillar = 1.16 (1.07)
- vs. Mongoose = 2.09 (0.0 perfect kite kill)
- vs. Rhino = 1.33 (1.25)
- vs. Hoplite = 3.48 (0.0)
- vs. Obsidian = 0.97 (0.97)
- vs. Blaze = 2.22 (0.0)
- vs. Illshavoh = 1.02 (0.90)
- vs. Percival = 0.91 (0.75)
- vs. Brick = 1.02 (0.85)

These results are actually quite interesting. Based on these figures, the Titan should perform well against Pillars and Rhino's. It is excellent against Mongoose and Hoplite if they can close distance. But will otherwise be slaughtered in a kite. It Performs slightly worse than the Obsidian, and about the same as an Illshavoh depending on whether or not there is kiting, and is 0.9 the value of a Loyalist. The Titan is excellent against Blazes if it can ever catch them.

An interesting result is it's performance against Bricks. In a standing fight it performs better. But with kiting is slightly worse. Against the Percival it doesn't do that well and against Othuum and Harbringer it is woefully inadequate.

Changing the Titan range has a minor impact on performance. The most critical thing being it's relationship with Pillars, Rhino's, and Blazes. With modified combat value of 1.19, 1.37, and 2.27 respectively.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 07 Jun 2016, 05:10

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-06T03:49:09+02:00

Mycen wrote:
But as I said, there are plenty of rewards for getting a T3 Land HQ. While I personally wouldn't argue the Titan provides many immediate rewards, especially in a close situation, you still have not explained why it should provide them, when the other benefits of going to T3 are so obvious. The point I made is that you do not build a T3 land factory in order to get Titans, so it is perfectly reasonable not to include the cost of the techup and associated infrastructure when considering whether the unit's stats make it reasonably powerful enough for its cost.

Yes you are correct. I suppose with this in mind the first units rolling off the T3 land factory should be demolishers, and the next ones should be T3 engineers to build Ravagers. When fielded in small numbers Demolishers tend to be a better anti-spam option than the Titan. The dilemma which the UEF player is often faced with is that the Titan is naturally an anti-low tech unit. Which logically means you will want to get them out early. But the reality is that they are best when fielded in larger groups - and in situations when manoeuvrability is both required and advantageous. At which point, they are more likely to be matched against defensive battalions of T2 tank.

The reality is that there are times when UEF is forced to build Titans. Because, Pillars and Percies cannot keep pace with a rolling Loyalist or Harbinger formation. UEF's mobile options are characteristically slow moving. So the Titan is a necessary counterpoint to the UEF force as a whole.

Mycen wrote:
What do you mean by "incidental"? It seems to me that you are saying that the Titan is SO useless that the only reason one would ever build it is because they like to look at them....

Incidental meaning that they play no central role in a players strategy - and as such would only be built if T3 land was built for some other purpose.

Mycen wrote:
Also, you make a lot of good points in this post, but of the two main weaknesses you identify I don't see why weakness against T2 units is important. There is no reason that "spamming Titans against T2 tanks should not be a hard loss for the UEF player" any more than there is that spamming Summits against T2 destroyers (or T1 frigates!) should not be a hard loss. That's not what the unit's stats are optimal for, and so it's not good at those things. Players will learn not to do that again after they lose doing it a few times

If the Titan's fire cycle makes it most effective against T1 units and its speed and regenerative abilities make it most effective for runbys, drops, and raids, then that's what it should be good for. You made a really good point about needing to adjust the turret turn rates in order to allow the Titan to aim and maneuver effectively, those are the sorts of small changes that would be good for the unit.

Thank you, I'm glad you appreciate my points. In creating and testing my mod I am already playing around with an idea I have in mind for the unit. Which I believe should be as a micro intensive manoeuvrable unit. So I targeted the two key things which inhibit this utility. IMO the yaw buff should have been implemented when the turn rate was also buffed. Because when yaw is equal or less than turn rate, you get a unit which sometimes cannot fire. So I haven't actually changed the DPS or HP. I've just made the unit more efficient while in micro-intensive combat.

I posted the mod as an attachment in my previous comment (because Vault is not working ATM). Please feel free to install it and test the unit's performance for yourself.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 06 Jun 2016, 03:49

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-06T01:32:34+02:00

Hawkei wrote:
While this is all very interesting, the fact remains that teching involves some inherent risk. As the player is diverting some of their economy from combat units, and funnelling it into the infrastructure required to field the higher tier units. So for a player to do this, there must be a reward for doing so. ATM the Titan doesn't provide this.

But as I said, there are plenty of rewards for getting a T3 Land HQ. While I personally wouldn't argue the Titan provides many immediate rewards, especially in a close situation, you still have not explained why it should provide them, when the other benefits of going to T3 are so obvious. The point I made is that you do not build a T3 land factory in order to get Titans, so it is perfectly reasonable not to include the cost of the techup and associated infrastructure when considering whether the unit's stats make it reasonably powerful enough for its cost.

Talking about the shield energy drain as an additional cost that must be considered is specious, because the drain is so small that it is hardly noticeable. In T3 pgens it only costs 32 mass per Titan to power its shields - one Titan wreck can power 13 other Titans' shields, if that provides some perspective. The typical Supcom game has players with intact economies running at least a surplus of a few hundred energy as they transition into T3, with the surplus increasing as the game continues. Building a few Titans is not going to require any additional energy development, and even then the cost is vanishingly small.

Hawkei wrote:
There shouldn't be anything such as an incidental T3 unit - and this includes Titans. So we come back to defining what the Titan is and what it should be.

What do you mean by "incidental"? It seems to me that you are saying that the Titan is SO useless that the only reason one would ever build it is because they like to look at them - any direct fire ground combat situation would be better served by strikers, Pillars, Mongooses, Riptides, or Percivals. I don't buy this argument, and in these last 20+ pages there have been plenty of examples of how the Titan can be a decent choice.

Also, you make a lot of good points in this post, but of the two main weaknesses you identify I don't see why weakness against T2 units is important. There is no reason that "spamming Titans against T2 tanks should not be a hard loss for the UEF player" any more than there is that spamming Summits against T2 destroyers (or T1 frigates!) should not be a hard loss. That's not what the unit's stats are optimal for, and so it's not good at those things. Players will learn not to do that again after they lose doing it a few times.

If the Titan's fire cycle makes it most effective against T1 units and its speed and regenerative abilities make it most effective for runbys, drops, and raids, then that's what it should be good for. You made a really good point about needing to adjust the turret turn rates in order to allow the Titan to aim and maneuver effectively, those are the sorts of small changes that would be good for the unit.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 06 Jun 2016, 01:32

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-05T23:52:10+02:00

briang wrote:
If we're going to use economic terms the tech is the barrier to entry and the E is a variable cost

Well kinda. In economics there is one resource. Money. In SupCom there are two resources. Mass and energy. Now if we take the mass as being the true currency, then we need to equate the energy requirements to a mass equivalent. Which is essentially that mass which is required to build the Pgens in the first place. Considering that T3 land has a higher energy to mass cost ratio, that means that a higher outlay in pgens is required to convert that mass into combat units. So not only does the tech player need to make the HQ, but they also need to make additional pgens - and in economic terms this is all part of the "variable cost". Which is to say that the more T3 units you build, the cheaper they will be. As the cost of a unit is the sum of fixed and variable costs. So the more units you build, the cheaper they become.

However, the Titan introduces another cost. Which is the energy drain for it's shield, and this is neither a fixed or a variable cost. As the number of Titans being fielded increases more power must be built to support them. So initially this maintenance power is a fixed cost, but, as Titans die and newer ones are brought in to replace them this turns into a variable cost.

While this is all very interesting, the fact remains that teching involves some inherent risk. As the player is diverting some of their economy from combat units, and funnelling it into the infrastructure required to field the higher tier units. So for a player to do this, there must be a reward for doing so. ATM the Titan doesn't provide this.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 05 Jun 2016, 23:52

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-05T23:03:45+02:00

If we're going to use economic terms the tech is the barrier to entry and the E is a variable cost

Statistics: Posted by briang — 05 Jun 2016, 23:03

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-05T22:43:32+02:00

I don't agree. Of course it is relevant. T3 has the higher build power requirement, and also a HQ requirement, and the Titans in particular have an energy maintenance requirement This is called a barrier to entry. It is an upfront cost which must be paid to get those units. So if the unit you get in return doesn't give you anything. Then it is a dud unit and shouldn't be built.

There shouldn't be anything such as an incidental T3 unit - and this includes Titans. So we come back to defining what the Titan is and what it should be.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 05 Jun 2016, 22:43

Re: Titan buff

2016-06-05T21:47:28+02:00

TheKoopa wrote:
You don't take into account the t3 HQ you need, the build power, and the t2 pgens required to make t3 ^^

Of course you don't take those things into account, they are not relevant to the scenario. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think people run a starting build order to get a T2 economy so they can jump to T3 land and defeat their opponent with T3 bots. Unless you're Aeon, I suppose.

You're going to be upgrading to T3 and a T3 economy regardless of what you build out of your T2 and T3 land factories, so the cost of that reasonably has to be distributed across all the other stuff you also get for the T3 HQ: your T3 engineers, T3 pgens, T3 AA, T3 mobile arty, Percies, Spearheads, Ravagers, etc.

When you're looking at the share of the cost of that T3 HQ and infrastructure that associated with 5-10 Titans you might build in addition to the UEF's ridiculous number of other T3 choices, it's really not significant.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 05 Jun 2016, 21:47