Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Discuss the future of Warzone 2100 with us.
Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 19 Jun 2018, 22:12

Ok so giving the latest iteration of the cambalance mod a go and I notice a small mistake on on alpha 04 even though the base has been destroyed the little red light is still flashing.

Image

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 19 Jun 2018, 22:18

well i see your problem it's probably this weapon Bad component BabaBuggyTwinMG

that's suddenly causing problems it means that bababuggytwinmg is missing
don't think so because the mod works fine for me, and if it was a bad label like that then it would cause the game to crash.

keep in mind though that you have to name the mod the same as it was when you made the save.

so if you make a save running a mod called camBalance123 and then you update the mod and call it camBalance12345 if you try to load a save made with camBalance123 it wont work and it will complain that it can't find camBalance123.

I do however get a lot of stuff like this

Code: Select all

--- Starting log [C:\Documents and Settings\<user name>\Desktop\Warzone 2100_portable-master\Warzone 2100 master\logs\WZlog-0619_201003.txt]---
info    |08:12:27: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Scripts not initialized yet
info    |08:12:27: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Assert in Warzone: qtscript.cpp:1364 (scriptsReady), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:12:27: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Scripts not initialized yet
info    |08:12:27: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Assert in Warzone: qtscript.cpp:1364 (scriptsReady), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:13:45: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Scripts not initialized yet
info    |08:13:45: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Assert in Warzone: qtscript.cpp:1364 (scriptsReady), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:13:45: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Scripts not initialized yet
info    |08:13:45: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Assert in Warzone: qtscript.cpp:1364 (scriptsReady), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:19:20: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Scripts not initialized yet
info    |08:19:20: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Assert in Warzone: qtscript.cpp:1364 (scriptsReady), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:19:20: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Scripts not initialized yet
info    |08:19:20: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Assert in Warzone: qtscript.cpp:1364 (scriptsReady), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:21:09: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Scripts not initialized yet
info    |08:21:09: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Assert in Warzone: qtscript.cpp:1364 (scriptsReady), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:21:09: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Scripts not initialized yet
info    |08:21:09: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Assert in Warzone: qtscript.cpp:1364 (scriptsReady), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:22:18: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Scripts not initialized yet
info    |08:22:18: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Assert in Warzone: qtscript.cpp:1364 (scriptsReady), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:22:18: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Scripts not initialized yet
info    |08:22:18: [triggerEventSeen:1364] Assert in Warzone: qtscript.cpp:1364 (scriptsReady), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:30:39: [removeFromGroup:435] Bad group count in group -1 (was 0)
info    |08:30:39: [removeFromGroup:435] Assert in Warzone: qtscriptfuncs.cpp:435 (newValue >= 0), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:30:52: [removeFromGroup:435] Bad group count in group -1 (was 0)
info    |08:30:52: [removeFromGroup:435] Assert in Warzone: qtscriptfuncs.cpp:435 (newValue >= 0), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:32:43: [removeFromGroup:435] Bad group count in group -1 (was -1)
info    |08:32:43: [removeFromGroup:435] Assert in Warzone: qtscriptfuncs.cpp:435 (newValue >= 0), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:32:43: [removeFromGroup:435] Bad group count in group -1 (was 0)
info    |08:32:43: [removeFromGroup:435] Assert in Warzone: qtscriptfuncs.cpp:435 (newValue >= 0), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:33:35: [removeFromGroup:435] Bad group count in group -1 (was 0)
info    |08:33:35: [removeFromGroup:435] Assert in Warzone: qtscriptfuncs.cpp:435 (newValue >= 0), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:35:21: [removeFromGroup:435] Bad group count in group -1 (was 0)
info    |08:35:21: [removeFromGroup:435] Assert in Warzone: qtscriptfuncs.cpp:435 (newValue >= 0), last script event: '<none>'
info    |08:35:21: [removeFromGroup:435] Bad group count in group -1 (was -1)
info    |08:35:21: [removeFromGroup:435] Assert in Warzone: qtscriptfuncs.cpp:435 (newValue >= 0), last script event: '<none>'
although it doesn't appear to affect anything.

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 573
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 19 Jun 2018, 23:24

What I usually did before the light cannon get moved to alpha 04 is the following:

At the beginning of alpha 05, I only recycle 2 HMG tanks and produce two more mortars and don't switch from wheels to halftracks. That means for alpha 05 I have 8 HMG tanks, 22 mortars and 2 sensor tanks. I start with the 8 HMG tanks and 2 repair units. First, I activate my reinforcements by climbing the hill in the middle. I take care that I don't activate the trigger zone. That's the reason why I didn't know that this zone also activates the southern base. I agree that this shouldn't be.
Then I destroy the scavengers at the southwestern blip and move back to my LZ because in the meantime my LZ is compromised. After I cleaned the LZ the first transport with 2 trucks, one sensor tank, two repair units and 5 mortars arrive. The next transport includes the second sensor tank, 4 repair units and 5 more mortars. The two next transports include each 4 repair units and 6 mortars.
After the first reinforcement arrived I build a sensor tower at the southeastern corner of the northern hill with my LZ. I move the first sensor tank to the gap between the hill in the middle and the NP hill and activate the northern scavenger factory, always protected by the repair units. This trigger area doesn't activate the southern base. Now I destroy one produced unit after the other to gain experience. After all mortars arrived I activate the scavenger garrison in the north and destroy them.
With 25-30 minutes left on the timer, I destroy the northern scavenger base. That's the moment when usually the southern garrison attacks me. And that's why I suggested activating the southern factory after the northern scavenger base is destroyed. Now I attack the NP and place a bunch of repair units between the NP units and my sensor unit. The mortars are destroying the NP units one after the other and I move slowly to the entrance of the NP base. As soon as my sensor can reach the repair facility of the NP I destroy it with my mortars. With the new southern base, I also send one sensor unit and 4-5 mortars south and gain experience by destroying all newly produced units.
After the repair facility of the NP is destroyed it's relatively easy to move north and destroy the NP factory. I let the sensor tower of the NP intact and research everything as far as I come. With 5 minutes left on the timer, I destroy the southern scavenger base. I destroy the NP sensor tower shortly before the timer runs out. I also produce some units for my home base that repel the NP attack in alpha 06 while I research the commander. I use mainly mortars attached to a sensor to gain as much experience as possible.
Bethrezen wrote:The reason I ask is that with machine guns we gave 1 damage upgrade with mk 1 machine guns 1 damage upgrade with twin machineguns and the third with heavy machine guns so it makes sense to follow the same pattern from cannons

1 damage upgrade with light cannons 1 damage upgrade with medium cannon and 1 with heavy cannon, of course that may well leave the light cannon slightly underpowered, so I'm not sure how that would play out something worth thinking about anyway.
I also tested alpha 05 with the weapon values I suggested using light cannons instead of heavy machine guns to fight the scavengers and the NP and I can say that the light cannon needs two damage upgrades for alpha 05 or it's no viable alternative to the heavy machine gun. Even with two damage upgrades it' not as good as the heavy machine gun against scavengers and structures, but it's very useful against the stronger units of the NP.
Bethrezen wrote:so if you make a save running a mod called camBalance123 and then you update the mod and call it camBalance12345 if you try to load a save made with camBalance123 it wont work and it will complain that it can't find camBalance123.
But shouldn't it be possible to reload a with mod saved game if you start the game without any mods? If I remember right it worked that way in the past. In the past, if the game didn't found the right mod it starts the saveload without mod. Now it don't. It denies starting the saveload.
Attachments
logs alpha 05.zip
(6.42 KiB) Downloaded 26 times

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 19 Jun 2018, 23:46

Ok so just given alpha 05 a go and currently all my weapons are completely useless against the new paradigm turrets.

Mortars are definitely to weak with only 1 damage upgrade and barley dent there turrets / walls now, light cannons, heavy machine-guns and flamers are also equally useless against there turrets and do almost nothing.

so much so that I had 36 units (18 heavy machine-gunners and 18 light cannons) pounding on 1 turret and i couldn't destroy it, I then tried 18 heavy machine-gunners & 18 flamers with exactly the same result, 18 mortars also struggled to do anything.

At this rate I'm going to need like 100 units before I'm going to have enough firepower that i can actually get past there turrets.

The new scav base is also incorrectly being activated when i trigger this trigger point activating the default scav base

Image

the new scav base should only be activating if i go up the north or west ramps on the hill

Image

or i attack the new paradigm base.

now with the order change its some what less annoying, however i have been noticing some big groups of scavs seemingly coming out of no where now if i had to hazard a guess as to what is going on then i'd say it's probably the group of units where the new scav base is being triggered before they are supposed to be probably as a result of the new scav base being triggered before it should be because those units to the south of the new paradigm base on the hill don't normally trigger till after i destroy the default scav base and I move south a little to collect the artefact.

thinking about it, it would probably be ok to have the new scav base activate when the scav group that is up on the hill activate which i think is when you collet the artefact from the default scav base as that would be in keeping with how the level is structured, that is of course assuming that the player hasn't already triggered the base by attacking the new paradigm base or moving up one or other of the ramps leading to the base.

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 20 Jun 2018, 00:03

But shouldn't it be possible to reload a with mod saved game if you start the game without any mods? If I remember right it worked that way in the past. In the past, if the game didn't found the right mod it starts the saveload without mod. Now it don't. It denies starting the saveload.
As i recall if you don't have any mods and you try to reload a save that was mad with a mod loaded then you should get an error that it cant find the mod and that it will try to reload the level without it.

however I'm not sure this will work if you try to load a game that had a mod when you have a mod by another name in that case it will probably just crash so what you might wanna try is remove all mods from the folder then start the game and try and load your save you will probably get an error that it cant find the mod so its going to try and load without it, at which time you should make a new save without the mod then turn off the game add the updated mod and ten load the save that didn't have the mod and i think that should work.

Or you can just do what i do and simply name the updated mod the same all the time see i always call the mod

campaignMaster + rules + camBalance.wz

thus avoiding this problem, and then i will just delete saves for the levels where changes have been made so in this instance changes where made on alpha 04 and 05 so I delete the alpha 04 and 05 saves and reload from the end of alpha 03

now you are probably wondering why i call the mod that well that's because I'm still running on master warzone2100-master-20180204-051309-ab17b9b.exe since the newest masters still aren't working on xp

which means i need to add the changes from the campaignMaster & rules mods as well because my version of master is outdated and even then i don't see all the updates cos some are hard code.

Of course none of this works for me because there is a long standing problem with warzone where if i alt tab to the desktop the game crashes and as the error about the missing mod makes the game minimise and go back to the desktop the whole game crashes.

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 573
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 20 Jun 2018, 00:20

Bethrezen wrote:however I'm not sure this will work if you try to load a game that had a mod when you have a mod by another name in that case it will probably just crash so what you might wanna try is remove all mods from the folder then start the game and try and load your save you will probably get an error that it cant find the mod so its going to try and load without it, at which time you should make a new save without the mod then turn off the game add the updated mod and ten load the save that didn't have the mod and i think that should work.
This doesn't help because I can't open a saveload even if I removed all mods from the mod folder and all subfolders. The game doesn't load any saveload. And I think it's clear that it doesn't because we replaced all scavengers. And without a mod, the game doesn't know what a BabaJeepHeavyMG is for example. So I think the only solution at the moment is to name every mod cambalance0706. My bad, I shouldn't have renamed it.
Bethrezen wrote:Mortars are definitely to weak with only 1 damage upgrade and barley dent there turrets / walls now, light cannons, heavy machine-guns and flamers are also equally useless against there turrets and do almost nothing.

so much so that I had 36 units (18 heavy machine-gunners and 18 light cannons) pounding on 1 turret and i couldn't destroy it, I then tried 18 heavy machine-gunners 18 flamers with exactly the same result, 18 mortars also struggled to do anything.

At this rate I'm going to need like 100 units before I'm going to have enough firepower that i can actually get past there turrets.
That's strange because as I wrote in one of my posts before I used 18 mortars to attack the NP base and I could destroy it. And I also used the latest camBalance mod. It took its time but I was successful. What values for the mortar you get shown in the design menu?

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 20 Jun 2018, 00:47

That's strange because as I wrote in one of my posts before I used 18 mortars to attack the NP base and I could destroy it. And I also used the latest camBalance mod. It took its time but I was successful. What values for the mortar you get shown in the design menu?
perhaps that was badly worded what i meant was that my units do so little damage to the new paradigm turrets that its taking several minutes to destroy just 1 and as a consequence I couldn't actuality get through there defences, at the moment it's taking so long to destroy the new paradigm turrets that there units either destroy mine or force them to retreat because they take to much damaged, like i said at this rate I'm going to need like 100 units just to have enough fire power to get in to there base and if this is what alpha 05 is like when you only have like a half dozen turrets to deal with then alpha 06 is going to be utterly impossible to complete, because its simply going to take to long to get past there defences.

here is what the mortar is showing for me currently

Image

unfortunately that's no where near enough and I'm of the opinion that the mortar needs at least 2 upgrades.

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 573
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 20 Jun 2018, 00:55

Bethrezen wrote:
That's strange because as I wrote in one of my posts before I used 18 mortars to attack the NP base and I could destroy it. And I also used the latest camBalance mod. It took its time but I was successful. What values for the mortar you get shown in the design menu?
perhaps that was badly worded what i meant was that my units do so little damage to the new paradigm turrets that its taking several minutes to destroy just 1 and as a consequence I couldn't actuality get through there defences, at the moment it's taking so long to destroy the new paradigm turrets that there units either destroy mine or force them to retreat because they take to much damaged, like i said at this rate I'm going to need like 100 units just to have enough fire power to get in to there base and if this is what alpha 05 is like when you only have like a half dozen turrets to deal with then alpha 06 is going to be utterly impossible to complete, because its simply going to take to long to get past there defences.
Giving the mortar just one damage upgrade was an idea of mine because it felt too easy for me to beat the NP with all three damage upgrades. I don't insist on this, as a compromise we can give the mortar the second damage upgrade in alpha 04. And maybe with my suggested new values, the light cannon can do a remarkable damage because cannons have a modifier of 100 against hard structures while mortars have a modifier of 75 and machine guns of 25.

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 20 Jun 2018, 13:40

And maybe with my suggested new values, the light cannon can do a remarkable damage because cannons have a modifier of 100 against hard structures while mortars have a modifier of 75 and machine guns of 25.
ok so been having a tinker around with the settings for the light cannon and this seems to work quiet well

Code: Select all

Cannon1Mk1": {
        "damage": 30,
        "firePause": 10,
}
Leave the default base damage for the light cannon as is at 30 then increase the rate of fire from 15 to 60

That gives the light cannon an attack power of 48, and a damage per min value of 2880 when you add the third damage upgrade that gives it a damage per minute value of 3420 which is just slightly higher than the heavy machine-gun which has a damage per minute value of 3210 when it has 3 damage upgrades, this is of course before you apply damage reduction modifiers.

I also tried playing around with the modifiers and even when the hard value of the all rounder modifier was increased to 200 the light cannons effectiveness against the new paradigm turrets was still pretty meh but I'd presume that this is probably due to its relatively low damage per shot value.

so in order for light cannons to really be effective against the new paradigm turrets they would probably need a bigger punch per shot, which is why mortars are probably still going to be your best bet against the new paradigm turrets, and I'd bet if i was to tinker with flamers I'd find the same problem even if you increased the hard value to like 200 the damage they would do would be negligible due to there low damage per shot value.

I also noticed another glitch some times when i attack this flame tower the new paradigm base will incorrectly activate.

Image

AndrewTheOnly
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 19
Joined: 30 May 2018, 20:57

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by AndrewTheOnly » 20 Jun 2018, 15:17

Hello. I saw this post about recreating the campaign, and with my little experience, I wanted to help you, problem is I just can give my opinions about the changes in the campaign, since I don't know how to code.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I wanted to test the latest camBalance mod, but I can't seem to manage to install it. If I try to put it in mods/autoload and maps, the game crashes.

Can someone help me out?

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 573
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 20 Jun 2018, 17:57

Bethrezen wrote:That gives the light cannon an attack power of 48, and a damage per min value of 2880 when you add the third damage upgrade that gives it a damage per minute value of 3420 which is just slightly higher than the heavy machine-gun which has a damage per minute value of 3210 when it has 3 damage upgrades, this is of course before you apply damage reduction modifiers.
You should include the enemy armour in your calculations. As I posted before the HMG has a damage per minute on more than 12.000 in beta 05 but does nearly no damage against the collective tanks because of their strong armour. And in the calculation for my suggested values for the cannons (look here), you can see that with the same base damage per minute the real damage per minute including the enemy armour for the heavy cannon is more than twice as high as the real damage per minute for the light cannon. With a base damage of 30 and a firePause of 10, a light cannon would make a higher damage to an NP halftrack scorpion body unit than a lancer with a base damage of 120 and three damage upgrades.

The corresponding calculation:

Light cannon: Base damage 30, two damage upgrades of each 30 % gives a damage of 48.
48 x 110 % (modifier against halftrack units) = 52.8 rounded by the game to 53
Damage per round: (53 - 12 (armour of scorpion body)) = 41
Damage per minute: 41 x 60 (ROF) = 2460

Lancer: Base damage 120, three damage upgrades of each 25 % gives a damage of 210
210 x 120 % (modifier against halftrack units) = 252
Damage per round: (252 - 12 (armour of scorpion body)) = 240
Damage per minute (240 x 10 (ROF) = 2400

If the light cannon with two damage upgrades is as powerful as a lancer with three damage upgrades what values do you want to have for medium and heavy cannon?
Last edited by alfred007 on 20 Jun 2018, 18:04, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 573
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 20 Jun 2018, 18:02

AndrewTheOnly wrote:Hello. I saw this post about recreating the campaign, and with my little experience, I wanted to help you, problem is I just can give my opinions about the changes in the campaign, since I don't know how to code.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I wanted to test the latest camBalance mod, but I can't seem to manage to install it. If I try to put it in mods/autoload and maps, the game crashes.

Can someone help me out?
Do you use version 3.2.3 or the latest master version? The camBalance mod is only working with the latest master version. If you want to download the latest master version read this:

Berserk Cyborg wrote:You can go into the master commits section and there will be green check-marks next to the successful commits. Click the check-mark next to the commit you want and select the details link next to AppVeyor. Then click on artifacts and choose what you want to download.
You will get a zip-file that includes the latest master version for windows.

It's ok if you don't know how to code because Bethrezen and I don't know either.

AndrewTheOnly
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 19
Joined: 30 May 2018, 20:57

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by AndrewTheOnly » 20 Jun 2018, 18:13

alfred007 wrote:
AndrewTheOnly wrote:Hello. I saw this post about recreating the campaign, and with my little experience, I wanted to help you, problem is I just can give my opinions about the changes in the campaign, since I don't know how to code.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I wanted to test the latest camBalance mod, but I can't seem to manage to install it. If I try to put it in mods/autoload and maps, the game crashes.

Can someone help me out?
Do you use version 3.2.3 or the latest master version? The camBalance mod is only working with the latest master version. If you want to download the latest master version read this:

Berserk Cyborg wrote:You can go into the master commits section and there will be green check-marks next to the successful commits. Click the check-mark next to the commit you want and select the details link next to AppVeyor. Then click on artifacts and choose what you want to download.
You will get a zip-file that includes the latest master version for windows.

It's ok if you don't know how to code because Bethrezen and I don't know either.
Ok, thank you Alfred!

Bethrezen
Regular
Regular
Posts: 638
Joined: 25 Sep 2009, 02:05

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by Bethrezen » 20 Jun 2018, 19:11

You should include the enemy armour in your calculations. As I posted before the HMG has a damage per minute on more than 12.000 in beta 05 but does nearly no damage against the collective tanks because of their strong armour. And in the calculation for my suggested values for the cannons (look here), you can see that with the same base damage per minute the real damage per minute including the enemy armour for the heavy cannon is more than twice as high as the real damage per minute for the light cannon. With a base damage of 30 and a firePause of 10, a light cannon would make a higher damage to an NP halftrack scorpion body unit than a lancer with a base damage of 120 and three damage upgrades.

The corresponding calculation:

Light cannon: Base damage 30, two damage upgrades of each 30 % gives a damage of 48.
48 x 110 % (modifier against halftrack units) = 52.8 rounded by the game to 53
Damage per round: (53 - 12 (armour of scorpion body)) = 41
Damage per minute: 41 x 60 (ROF) = 2460

Lancer: Base damage 120, three damage upgrades of each 25 % gives a damage of 210
210 x 120 % (modifier against halftrack units) = 252
Damage per round: (252 - 12 (armour of scorpion body)) = 240
Damage per minute (240 x 10 (ROF) = 2400
that's might be what the math says but clearly the math and the game play experience disagree because with your calculations light cannons perform worse than heavy machine guns, doing base damage of 30 and rate of fire of 60 the light cannons while still slightly weaker then the heavy machine gun due to only having 2 damage upgrade still performs comparably with the heavy machine-gun.

and as i understand it the damage per minute value isn't everything, because while the lancer has a lower damage per minute value then the heavy machine gun its still performs a good deal better, the question is why ?

my theory is that its less affected by the opponents armour due to the fact that each time the lancer fires it does over 400 damage assuming both rockets hit so lancers are less affected by damage reduction modifiers, where as with a weaker weapon like the heavy machine gun due to the fact that each shot only does like 30 damage most of that is absorbed by the damage reduction modifiers so while in theory the heavy machine gun should do almost twice the damage of the lancer in practice it doesn't and the same holds true with the light cannons while in theory it should be stronger then the lancer in practice it's not due to the fact that most the damage from each shot is absorbed since each shot is only doing like 46 damage
If the light cannon with two damage upgrades is as powerful as a lancer with three damage upgrades what values do you want to have for medium and heavy cannon?
At the moment I don’t have anything for the medium and heavy cannon because I have just been playing round with the damage and firepause the values in the weapons.json loading up alpha 5 building 18 light cannon tanks and then just giving things a go to see how it plays rather than getting all tied up in theoretical math.

So if you do

Code: Select all

Cannon1Mk1": {
        "damage": 30,
        "firePause": 10,
}
Then load up alpha 05 build 18 light cannons and then just play the level you will find that actually they performs just about the same as the heavy machine gun do.

That’s not theoretical math, that’s actually game play experience, which trumps theoretical math every time.

The one issue I have with this though is that still leaves light cannons weak against the new paradigms turrets.

Having said that however I'm of the opinion that there is something funny going on because when I do

Code: Select all

ALL ROUNDER": {
        "BUNKER": 200,
        "HARD": 200,
        "MEDIUM": 200,
        "SOFT": 200
}, 

Cannon1Mk1": {
        "damage": 62,
        "firePause": 20
} 
Which gives light cannons a per shot damage value of 100 and a rate of fire of 30 which is more powerful then mortars with 3 damage upgrades I would expect my light cannons to crush the new paradigm turrets in seconds only that’s not what happens, and I don’t understand why, clearly I'm missing something.

[edit]
humm.... I'm not sure all rounder is working right, because when i do

Code: Select all

Cannon1Mk1": {
        "damage": 50,
        "firePause": 20,
        "weaponEffect": "ANTI PERSONNEL",
},

ANTI PERSONNEL": {
        "BUNKER": 100,
        "HARD": 75,
        "MEDIUM": 100,
        "SOFT": 200
},
my light cannons crush the new paradigms turrets with ease yet when i do

Code: Select all

Cannon1Mk1": {
        "damage": 50,
        "firePause": 20,
        "weaponEffect": "ALL ROUNDER",
},

ALL ROUNDER": {
        "BUNKER": 100,
        "HARD": 75,
        "MEDIUM": 100,
        "SOFT": 200
},
my units seem to struggle more, which makes no sense since I'm using the exact same values, and the exact same units.

User avatar
alfred007
Regular
Regular
Posts: 573
Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 06:25
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Help needed testing 3.2.x Campaign games!

Post by alfred007 » 20 Jun 2018, 19:34

Then load up alpha 05 build 18 light cannons and then just play the level you will find that actually they performs just about the same as the heavy machine gun do.
Against what? Scavengers? Walls? Turrets? NP Units? Everything?
That’s not theoretical math, that’s actually game play experience, which trumps theoretical math every time.
That's right but if you talk about game experience we don't need a second damage upgrade for the mortar because I beat the NP with just one damage upgrade. And I was never talking about that these values won't work. What I say is that you are on the way to an overpowered weapon.

Post Reply