Knuckle Cracker

Particle Fleet => Gameplay Discussion => Topic started by: GoodMorning on May 14, 2017, 05:56:54 AM

Title: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: GoodMorning on May 14, 2017, 05:56:54 AM
I have noticed recently that ramming tactics and ship-sacrifices have become rarer in my play. This might be because a typical ship in the Exchange takes significant time to rebuild, and a Destroyer-size ship (as a typical sacrifice) seems to be thought deadweight by fleet designers.

Also, the Hammer-style seems to see progressively less use, again due to the upscaling in the Exchange. The time that a useful thickness of armour takes to build is now much greater, as armour can only be built one layer at a time. Shielded ramming craft also tend to take so much energy to operate that they negate the primary advantage of rams.

Is this an inferior playstyle showing, or is this a general change? How often are sacrifices and rams useful to you?
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: tornado on May 14, 2017, 06:21:49 AM
Depends. if I have multiples lathe- style ships bearing down on a single threat and they aren't going to make it, I will happily blow one up to keep the rest going. though yes, most ships tend to be too expensive or useful to use as cannon fodder. I think someone should do something about that.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: FOXX on May 14, 2017, 07:53:43 AM
I use ship ramming against large enemy ships and i like this strategy.
Or when you have to lathe a strong emitter sacrificing a ship [or more] can be very usefull to make sure your lathe doesn't get destroyed.
An example of ship sacrifice i don't like is the HQ Bomb when players sacrifice the HQ to destroy a large ship.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: Sorrontis on May 14, 2017, 09:00:43 AM
It is a very useful strategy in my many of my maps. Although, I prefer partial sacrifices - where I take a big ship and sacrifice a portion of it's hull and then get it to retreat.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: Keeper Decagon on May 14, 2017, 01:09:15 PM
Usually, I only tend to ram if I know I have energy to spare for rebuilding the sacrificed ship, or to finish off large targets (or destroy specific modules onboard said targets), as well as sacrificing smaller Frigates or Destroyers to save a Capital Ship. Perhaps also to quickly finish off doppels too.

Sacrificing the HQ via HQ bomb, like FOXX said, is something I never use, and I generally detest its use in nearly all situations where the map is clearly possible without it.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: D0m0nik on May 14, 2017, 02:00:55 PM
There is an alternative kind fo ramming, in Sorrontis' last map for example I stacked ships on top of each other by timeing their departure and was able to move 4 or 5 ships at the same time across the map. The ship that was slightly in the lead took most of the damage and allowed the other ships to pass over emitters and alongside enemy ships without taking too much damage. Ueful tactic for moving weaker but useful ships into 'hot' areas.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: D0m0nik on May 14, 2017, 02:35:20 PM
Just playing your latest map Decagon and using every ramming tool in the ramming tool box. For dopels you can use small ships to repeatedly ram them as they start to build, keeps them at bay until you can nullify them. Also the idea of stacking is useful for dopels, two ships hitting at exactly the same time packs a big and instant punch but saves both ships. Useful for quickly regenerating dopels.

I am realising playing this that I use ramming constantly but rarely sacrifice ships.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: GoodMorning on May 14, 2017, 06:39:12 PM
Thinking back, I think I agree - I don't sacrifice many ships (mistakes aside), but I regularly will scrape off significant amounts of hull, or even have a small ship throw itself in front of the engines of a retreating capital ship to protect them.

While I have used the stack tactic, it has tended to be for Struc-crunching.

It's interesting to hear your opinions and strategies.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: FOXX on May 15, 2017, 06:11:23 AM
Quote from: D0m0nik on May 14, 2017, 02:00:55 PM
There is an alternative kind for ramming, in Sorrontis' last map for example I stacked ships on top of each other by timeing their departure and was able to move 4 or 5 ships at the same time across the map. The ship that was slightly in the lead took most of the damage and allowed the other ships to pass over emitters and alongside enemy ships without taking too much damage. Useful tactic for moving weaker but useful ships into 'hot' areas.
This strategy i used sometimes but with 2 or 3 ships. Allign the ships after each other and use pause key to 'stack' the other ships on each other. This works good in the situation that D0m0nik says. This also works for ramming big ships.

When i ram ships usually i don't sacrifice the ship, only a part of it and then i retreat and use another ship if needed.
If a ship gets destroyed in this process it's fine but it takes longer to rebuild.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: D0m0nik on May 15, 2017, 12:56:15 PM
Looks like ramming is still a major part of the game, we have just refined how we use it and don't reserve just fro the traditional ramming ships.

In terms of ship design it would be great to see a range of different ramming ideas. Yums needle ship, very long and thin, was fantasic for almost surgicaly targeting a ships core, really great design and it took some skill to weild properly. A ship in the dhaped of an anchor would be uesful, fly alongside an enemy adn then rotate your ship pushing the tips of the anchor into components at the rear of your enemy. Perhaps other 'hook' deisgns. It's interesting if a ships shape can be as useful as it's size.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: GoodMorning on May 15, 2017, 06:07:45 PM
I had experimented with arrowhead rams, and found it effective in some situations.

Most dedicated rams seem to suffer from engine destruction after turning, foiling (or at least severely complicating) retreat.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: FOXX on May 16, 2017, 01:25:35 PM
For specific ramming ships i usually go for a not to big ship with a lot of hull obviously and little weaponry. Two or 3 engines would be sufficient.
Yums Needle is a good example for a ramming ship.
I think that king of design will be best for ramming ships.

When i finished fix your fleet i had a [maybe silly] thought for making a ramming ship who could take out 2 enemy ships if close enough together.
This came out of that idea
(http://i.imgur.com/Lv56RJV.jpg)
[close]
Originally it did not have shields. I've added those today.

It was NOT suited for the maze series and i didn't implement it to the new adventure mainly because of the build cost. [and i already have a big ship for the new series]
I don't know where i am going with this ship.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: Nicant on May 16, 2017, 03:20:39 PM
Do shields stack? Does having multiple shield modules make the shield stronger? If so, then you could make a heck of a ramming ship.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: FOXX on May 16, 2017, 04:49:42 PM
1 shield adds 1 to health of hull so in theory that is possible.
So i have added 4 more shields to the ship in previous message and it can withstand all particles [if in energy range] from an standard enemy emitter [interval 1, max particles 200 and i set the speed to 1] [and i used fields to aim the particles at the ship]
so that is quite good for hull strength.

Interesting for the future.

ps -> when i tested this i used both ships in the same map, build from the same energy source and placed when pause game and the ship with 6 shields builded a bit faster than the ship with 2 shields. Little strange because the ship with 6 shields costs more. I tested it again and the same thing happened.
A bit strange.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: cooltv27 on May 16, 2017, 04:50:42 PM
damage taken is calculated by 1/(1+number of shields)
so 1 shield makes you take half damage, 2 shields would be 1/3 and 3 shields would be 1/4 and so on.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: RrR on May 16, 2017, 06:47:51 PM
How much energy do shields take to run? And how does this compare with the cost saved by taking less damage?
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: GoodMorning on May 16, 2017, 07:10:32 PM
A shield is 15eps to run, half of the resupply rate of the ship. This cost is constant no matter how many shield modules are present. For comparison, a Reactor is 1.5eps.

The following can withstand standard particle storms more-or-less indefinitely, but collapses quickly when punctured or Stunned.
(http://knucklecracker.com/particlefleet/queryShips.php?query=thumbnailid&id=525)

The short answer is that each active Shield effectively represents another identical "ghost" ship on the same location, sharing the damage (but powered by the 15eps drain on the "real" ship).

Rams have a completely different set of needs to to other ships: More engines, protected, and a large nose. It's worth noting that the rebuild time of a large nose can be significant, and that a wide nose is something is a disadvantage, as a ran should be aiming for a CM/MK7/fighter-base, and therefore nearby destruction is wasted effort.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: cooltv27 on May 16, 2017, 08:52:25 PM
wait, more shields doesnt increase the drain rate?
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: GoodMorning on May 16, 2017, 09:46:02 PM
Running one shield module has the same cost as running ten shield modules. So the cost per module drops off, as 15eps/(count) per module, giving 15eps/count * count = 15eps.

I don't recall what the energy store of a shield module amounts to, but shields have higher priority for power than do lasers.

As a side note, this means that a "block of lasers ship" (with enough to counter a particle stream) that is hit by a single cannon shot, activating the shield, can suddenly have insufficient power to run the lasers. The ship then takes more hits from particles, causing the shield to stay up, and can be (has been) destroyed quickly.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: tornado on May 21, 2017, 12:50:14 PM
Since thus has such a High discussion rate, I'm going to go design a ship designed to ram the heck out of stuff.
Do give constructive criticism. I don't like it, but I can work with it.

If I remember correctly we want either very precise(one module, precise), or wide enough/storng enough to just walk through enemy lines.
I think I can work with both of those.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: cooltv27 on May 21, 2017, 03:52:22 PM
I recently built a ship with 18 reactors and [I dont actually know the number] shield modules
its capable of ignoring struct, emergent, and some of those really annoying turrets that sometimes exist
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: D0m0nik on May 22, 2017, 02:34:41 PM
For me there is nothing attractove about a ship which is almost invincible, where is the challnege?
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: FOXX on May 22, 2017, 04:57:54 PM
It's all about balance.
If you have strong ships -> make the enemy stronger.
But at one point you can't get any Bigger/Stronger.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: GoodMorning on May 22, 2017, 05:18:38 PM
Anything can be broken, and the larger the ship, the costlier a mistake. Also, speed running requires that as much as possible be done before the behemoth builds. Preferably the entire map.
Title: Re: Ramming and sacrifice
Post by: Keeper Decagon on May 22, 2017, 05:36:23 PM
Quote from: FOXX on May 22, 2017, 04:57:54 PM
It's all about balance.
If you have strong ships -> make the enemy stronger.

That's kinda my philosophy when it comes to map design. That's why, as ShadeofDead always says, the ships in my maps tend to "cheat", gaining way faster regen and energy recuperation to make them viable opponents whilst still giving stronger ships to the player. Steamrolling is thereby mitigated.

Just wanted to throw that out there. :P