incentive to move

I have recently read a post from 123stw that mentions the game offers little incentive to move and found it quite agreeable

and as such I thought up an idea and thought id post it and c wat ppl think

what if the enemy’s hit percentage is more drastically effected by speed?

like 3 or 4 times it is now

so that instead of just mobility speed can be used as a practical combat defense system




PS: the post from 123stw can b found here viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5753

im not really sure that this is the way to go,but i do agree with you that brickwalls are bad,only sick puppies do them,and sick puppies need to be put to sleep
i think the speed evasion bonus is more or less good as it is now,maybe a less drastic increase might be desirable

Hear, hear!

This has been discussed before, if my recollection is correct, with variations on a theme ranging from requiring all ships to have engines to area of effect weapons that would be particularly devastating against packed, motionless ships. I also add “lets require battle areas to be a minimum size depending on the size of the fleets involved,” to avoid another battle setup trick that kills maneuver–the postage stamp battle area with a huge fleet on it. No place to move and one starts out within Cruiser Laser range. . . .


I think speed and tracking speed should be like average armor and armor piercing, and shield strength and shield piercing. So you will know in advance which weapons will be able to hit and which won’t.

So a weapon with 2.80 tracking speed can not hit a ship with more than 2.80 speed, except for lucky shots of course. The speed values of ships or the tracking speeds of weapons would have to be redone though to take this into account, so I’m not saying it should be like this with the current values in place.

what you are proposing is impossible, if not game code wise then completely unrealistic and would require massive balancing
as you may know, radial velocity is relative,it increases with decreasing distance,and the further the target is the relative radial velocity decreases
implementing this would cause the turret tracking speed to ultimately change to match these circumstances… im sure you can see the potential problems with this,especially if you take into account that radial velocity also greatly depends on relative vectors of the moving ships

I know this is kind of tooting my own horn, but my Maintain Minimum Range order suggestion seems like an important part of adding an incentive to move. Without it, any non-rush fleets trying to use speed as a defense will inevitably end up charging into the enemies’ short-ranged weapons.

In terms of implementing your suggestion of speed as a defense for non-fighters, two possible additions would be a version of guidance scramblers that have significantly less effect (thus speed is needed to avoid the partially scrambled missiles) but shoot faster/shoot an AoE. Another would be the addition of superheavy plasma, with more damage/cost but less tracking speed.

This is totally pie in the sky, not a feasible suggestion (at least I don’t think so. . .)


Right now we have a penalty to hit based on the target’s speed. What if, in addition, there was a chance to dodge some percentage of the damage, based on the speed of the vessel being struck? This would end up being a penalty for motionless or very slow ships–they would suck up more damage, on average, than speedy ships, which would stand a good chance to shed some percentage of the damage.

Hmmm…details, details. This would apply to damage hitting a ship, not a ship’s shield. Maybe some weapons would have the quality “penetrating” which would nullify in part or entirely the dodge effect.

In Space Opera-ese this would be “roll ship!” to take something on the armor belt, or Lt. Sulu reflexively twitching the Enterprise just enough so the disruptor bolt wipes out the kitchen instead of the front phaser array.

Hmmm…more pie in the sky details…maybe in GSB II, there could be a very good reason to have a cruiser-strength tractor beam–to reach out and slow town an intended target. . .the counter (aside from blasting it so much the engines degrade and it slows down for that reason) to a speed defense, in the best rock paper scissors style.

Just yakkin’ at this point…


While I agree that some changes might help, a flat increase is a bad idea because then fighters/frigate won’t be hit by anything.

So instead I suggest an adjustment curve.


NOTE to Cliff - please respond if this is the wrong hit rate equation, as my suggestion is highly dependent on it being correct

Hit Rate = (1-(ship speed / tracking speed))*(0.5 + (ship size / 256)*0.5)

Speed effect = (1-(ship speed/tracking speed)), or 0.02, whichever is greater.

So if we assume a weapon with tracking of 2
Speed of 2 returns a multiplier of 0
Speed of 1 returns a multiplier of 0.5
Speed of 0 returns a multiplier of 1

Change To

Speed effect = (1-((ship speed^X)/(tracking speed^X))), or 0.02, whichever is greater.

X is a value between 0 > X > 1

Suppose we set X = 0.5
So again with a weapon with tracking of 2
Speed of 2 returns a multiplier of 0
Speed of 1 returns a multiplier of 0.3
Speed of 0 returns a multiplier of 1

The idea is to favor some movements especially on the lower ends, without making dodge completely OP on the higher end. I would suggest X to be somewhere around 0.7

What I like about current ship stats:
average armor vs armor piercing
shield strength vs shield piercing
if average armor is greater than armor piercing, then the attack has “no effect” (except for lucky shots)
if shield strength is greater than shield piercing, then the attack has “no effect”
So, in advance, while designing your ships, you will know which weapon will be able to damage your ship and which weapon won’t.

It’s not so with tracking speed and speed. For this some fancy formula is used as 123stw showed. I don’t like this. I can’t see in advance what my chances will be to hit a 2.40 speed fighter for example.

So I would like to see:
If speed is greater than tracking speed, then the attack has “no effect” (except for lucky shots)

All weapon tracking speeds would have to be adjusted though. But it would greatly increase clarity.

I understand it probably can’t be as black and white as armor and shields, but I would really like to know my chances. At the moment, tracking speed is just some number that doesn’t mean anything by itself. If I’m wrong and it’s actually really easy to understand my hit chances, it would be good for the tooltip to explain more, instead of learning the effects by trial and error.

What’s so hard to understand about 1-(speed/tracking)?

If your speed is 0, then u get hit 100%
If your speed is half of tracking, then you get hit 50%
If your speed = tracking, then you get hit 0%, but Cliff added a minimum of 2% chance to hit.

This is how it looks like on a graph

As it currently stands, the amount of tracking on most weapons are simply too high for cruiser to avoid, relative to the cost of engines.

What I proposed is to add a ^0.7 to both speed and tracking. The numbers will be the same when speed is 0 (100%), and when speed = tracking (2%), the only difference is that in between the 2 you get hit less than you do now, so if speed is half of tracking, you get hit 38% of the time.

This is how it looks like on a graph

If it still doesn’t make sense, just remember that except for the purpose of getting in range, speed = useless for cruiser as it currently stands.

That’s how it works.

What we have here is a countering mechanic that’s too soft:

Low tracking weapons (read: plasma) should be good against slow or stationary fleets but are not in practice until you’ve dedicated most of the fleet to them.

On the other side, engines/speed should be good against fleets with low tracking weapons. In practice, it’s cheaper or more effective just to equip additional weapons (and even the same weapons) instead of equipping significant engines and working out the logistics of a moving fleet.

This is why I suggest changes to plasma cannons. They currently have a low DPS, “balanced” against missiles in part because they can’t be scrambled. The problem with this is you’re never going to feasibly dent big stupid hitpoint monsters with low counts of a low DPS weapon. The other significant difference plasma has from other weapons is the low tracking, and that’s probably the balancing factor we should be seizing on. Ideally just a few attached to a balanced, mobile fleet should provide edge enough to bust up a near stationary fleet, but the same weapon shouldn’t be much of a threat to one that is mobile. Think heavy plasma cannons with even lower base tracking but a much higher rate of fire - the lower tracking ensures that even minor speed increases pay off and rate of fire increases (rather than straight damage) keeps the weapon from being too “lucky”.

Of course, it would then be necessary to look at the other various problems associated with driving AI.

of course, that will unbalance missiles compared to plasma. Which could prompt a re-balancing of the entire weapon system.

Regarding this formula, does it work for every weapon, including missiles / rockets ?

Second question, about painter module : does it give a flat 100% chance to hit to missiles, some kind of huge tracking speed increase, or something else ?

The linear equation was the only hit rate equation that was ever released.

As for painter, I think it ignores movement speed, but not ship size. One way to test is

  1. Make a rapid fire target painter so enemy ship can remain painted at all time
  2. Add the modified painter with missile launcher with a cruiser with 256 size, send the challenge to yourself.
  3. Create a cruiser with 1 size, add the modified target painter in with a missile launcher
  4. Have the 2 ships fire at each other and check the hit rate.

Thanks. I was mostly curious about the speed effect. I’ll test the size effect when I get the time.

Yeah painter definitely bypass speed. MWM with 0.6 tracking has no problem hitting 0.89 speed frigates once painters are introduced.