TLDR: Went perfectly.
Now all that remains is the first part of the title of this thread.
Hitting moving targets.
I could once again explain of what my goal is. But I think I will only return here once I got some idea's in how to fix it.
The one and only solution as complete replacement doesn't use movement as a factor in the mechanic. Nor does the distance of the projectiles have anything to say about it.
Which is something that I want for both. But then with a balance that is fair and just.
I want to see a mechanic where the attacking distance and the enemy movement speed are both factors.
There are 2 options:
- Lowest value will give an penalty.
- The attacking distance is multiplied with the enemy movement.
2 demands for fairness are:
- 0 penalty is possible.
- 0 movement speed should yield a 0 penalty.
Both are met with the remaining 2 options.
The old way is like the first option.
But the result leads to a chain of 5/6 rolls.
And the attribute to change these rolls is a factor.
The weight of that attribute is a wild guess.
I wonder if it is possible to turn it into a simple roll with a clean weight factor if it changes.
I have the old way. And the 1 die roll way.
But each way is missing something important from the other way.
I will first think of how the values emerge in the game. And how much they might weight.
So I will come back later to this.
I am stuck with the attributes being possible in the positive AND negative range.
If I use a factor, it is 0, 1 (default), 2, 3 etc.
I can apply this to lineair and exponential penalties.
However, if I change the penalties in a lineair way to either lineair or exponential penalties. There are paradoxes present.
If the target moves with a speed of 0. Applying a penalty is a no go.
So, a factor is the only way.
I must check the balance once more while observing a lineair approach.
And perhaps I can use fractions?
What if.... and just if....
I have this attribute that is a factor. But I have one that is used as an extra die roll.
Thus an extra accuracy roll if you will. IF the enemy decides to move around.
And this accuracy roll has no effect if the penalty is 0 to begin with.
This time. The penalty is based on the lowest value of the attack range and enemy movement speed.
But the trick will be:
The die roll determines if a penalty roll is going to be accepted.
No matter what factor is applied. The penalty rolls are applied first.
Then depending on if the effect is positive or negative. The successes or failures will be re-rolled.
In order to keep it fair. I need to be careful applying these rules.
I think it is best to see if the attribute is positive or negative.
If attribute is 1 or less, a die will be rolled to see if the penalty will be rolled.
If attribute is yes, the penalty is rolled.
If attribute is no, the projectile hits.
If the penalty is yes, the projetile hits.
If the penalty is no, the projectile fails.
--> Attribute results in yes, this is bad.
--> Attribute 0 results in a no thus a hit.
--> Attribute 1 results in a yes, thus a penalty.
If attribute is more than 1, less than infinite, a die will be rolled as extra accuracy.
If the penalty is yes, the attribute is rolled.
If the penalty is no, the projectile fails.
If attribute is yes, the projectile hits.
If attribute is no, the projectile fails.
--> Attribute die results in yes, this is good.
If attribute is infinite, and penalties are present.
The projectile fails.
***
I need to rethink things here. I would prefer to have a 1 way program. Meaning, that the 2 parts can be combined in a fair way.
And the infnite attribute should result in having the 0 penalty remain 0. While the other penalties result in a fail.
But I also need to keep in mind that melee units will not be altered in their weapon weight when the infinity is applied. Thus the attribute will only be applied on the attack range part. Just like how I did with the Assault attributes and their link on the movement part.
[Faster projectile] and [Slower projectile].
The difference is when you roll the attribute roll and when you roll the penalty roll.
***
[Faster projectile #]
The number will indicate what a player needs to roll in order to skip the penalty roll. In other words, if the attribute roll is succesfull, the projectile will hit. For better understanding, you need to roll # or less in order to skip the penalty roll.
It works like an accuracy shot. But if it fails, you still have the penalty rolls that can end up in succes. So, every attribute roll that fails will be rolled once more in order to seek a succes.
The first weight factor is 12/(12-#).
The second weight factor is R/(R+3).
At an attack distance of 3. The penalty part is 50%.
If the attribute is for example 2. This part weights 120%.
The difference is 20%, and this is multiplied by 50%. So the true weight of the weapon will be multiplied by 110%.
What players don't see is that I use this formula for balance:
( ((12/(12-#))-1) * R/(R+3) ) + 1
And they see:
[Faster projectile #]
[Slower projectile #]
This one will be tricky. Because the mechanics are different than the [Faster projectile #]
Now, the penalty should be rolled first. Because if there is no penalty due to it being 0. The dice are not rolled to begin with.
The balancing principle is going to be the same. But then in the cheaper aspect.
I don't know how to make the 2 attributes work the same. The basic difference is within the attribute roll. One will skip the penalty, the other will only tell if the succes penalty is still an succes.
It can be very simple, the attribute rolls are only rolled if there is even a chance on penalty rolls.
So both attributes can be rolled in the same way. Rolled first, but the rules regarding the outcome will be different.
[Faster projectile #]
If you roll # or less.
You don't need to roll a penalty because the projectile is an hit.
[Slower projectile #]
If you roll # or less.
You are still allowed to roll the penalty.
In explaining the mechanics to the players that is. Once again, the rules written differently.
***
A penalty, is a die roll that will determine if a projectile still can hit.
Penalty by moving targets
When a player decides to attack.
And a target player decides to move.
A penalty may occur.
Compare the distance where the target is closest to the attacker.
With the number of fields that the target moves.
The lowest value will be the penalty.
A penalty of 0 simply means that there are no penalties.
Type of penalties, game version A and B
A (new)
The penalty shows what you have to roll for each projectile.
In order to determine if a projectile is still a hit.
Roll more than the penalty, and the projectile fails.
Remove this die from the die pool.
B (old)
The penalty shows the number of rolls you have to make for each projectile.
In order to determine if a projectile is still a hit.
Roll a 6 and the projectile fails.
Remove this die from the die pool.
Attribute effects
There are 2 attributes that can improve or worsen the penalty effect.
These attributes are linked to the weapon of the attacker.
These attributes are only applied if there is a penalty.
[Faster #] will improve your chances on hitting.
[Slower #] will worsen your chance on hitting.
The attribute rolls are rolled before the penalty rolls are rolled.
[Faster #]
If you roll # or less.
The projectile is a hit; the penalty is discarded.
[Slower #]
If you roll # or less.
You still have to roll the penalty.
If you roll more than #.
The projectile is a miss.
Trivia
[Faster 0] is the same as having no attribute. It makes no sense adding this to the weapon.
[Faster 6] will result in ALWAYS discarding the penalty.
[Faster 7 or more] still have the same effect as [Faster 6]
[Slower 0] is the same as always missing.
[Slower 6] is the same as having no attribute. It makes no sense adding this to the weapon.
[Slower 7 or more] still has the same effect as [Slower 6]
***
That said, I can choose if I keep using the lineair or the exponential approach. The weight factors stay exactly the same. The difference is that the penalties eventually reach 0 damage faster or slower.
-1/6th -1/6th -1/6th -1/6th -1/6th -1/6th
or
*5/6th *5/6th *5/6th *5/6th *5/6th *5/6th
If the penalty is 6. Lineair is already 0.
Exponentially, we have roughly 1/3th at that point.
Both are considered to be the default value's.
I am actually reluctant to let the exponential system go.
So I will keep it in my mechanics bag.
It can have replacement rolls at penalties 2, 4, 6 and 10.
The new attribute mechanic simply allow me to have more options now.
And balancing is supposed to be fairer. See the next post.
Edit:
Made some corrections.
[Slower #]
Will be calculated somewhat in the same way.
Rolling # or less is mathematically the same as rolling more than #.
So, not sure how to explain it to the players.
The counter intuitive works fine for the smarter players.
But the "american" way actually sound counter intuitive to most of us.
Either way. There is a chance that the projectile will be a miss, despite the penalty.
It is like an extra accuracy, occuring when the situation arrises.
So, let's say I treat it like an accuracy. Then it will be Roll # or less.
The first weight factor is 6+#/(12).
The second weight factor is R/(R+3).
At an attack distance of 3. The penalty part is 50%.
If the attribute is for example 2. This part weights 75%.
The difference is 25%, and this is multiplied by 50%. So the true weight of the weapon will be multiplied by 87.5%.
***
Now, what I didn't test yet is the true weight of a weapon when the projectile speed is max or 0.
In the old calculation we had 50% and 150%...
Which was bad in regards to the 50%.
With the new calculations. The attributes will be:
[Faster 6] and [Slower 0]
Let's assume both weapons have an attack distance of 3.
We then get 150% and 75%.
This sounds much better.
At an attack range of 12 (which requires the enemy to move at least 6), we have:
180% and 60%.
While the 60% goes into the 50% direction.
The 180% is higher once again... and perhaps not used at all.
So, I need to think a bit if the formula's that I use are correct.
If I use the exponential mechanic, it already makes more sense...
Perhaps capping the attack range adjustment in both formula's at 6?
This leaves me at 25% to 75% of the penalty part.
And now I have as maximums:
175% and 62.5%....
Ok, that doesn't help much.
Still, it is fair now.
I forgot that the weight of a choice is only 50% as well.
The effect is on the whole weapon. So I must choose wisely.
Either # is multiplied by 0.5. Or I average the end result with 100%.
I prefer the latter. But I have to look into that.
I also need to double check, if the formula's are correct to begin with.
Also, the Faster and Slower for a weapon doesn't make much sense in regards of the projectile velocity. I need something better. I think I make a separate topic on this.
I am thinking about how to name these attributes. But if I stick with 1 attribute name.
Would it be ok if there are 2 mechanics linked to one attribute?
And the display would be [V-#-] or [V+#-].
Where -# is the slower velocity. And the bigger the # the worse.
-6 would be the max.
The calculation of the weight would be different too.
Since -6 would mean 0% damage if the penalty is succesfull.
-6: 0%
-5: 16.7%
-4: 33.3%
-3: 50%
-2: 66.7%
-1: 83.3%
=0: 100%
+1: 116.7%
+2: 133.3%
+3: 150%
+4: 166.7%
+5: 183.3%
+6: 200%
If it was purely this factor. These value's would be on average with 100% from the non moving situation.
The system just got cleaner.
Which leaves me to 1 calculation for both.
The first weight factor is (6+#)/6.
The second weight factor is R/(R+3).
# and R are both capped at 6 for the lineair system.
Only # is capped at 6 for the exponential system.
--> Well, there is a new little choice for me to make.
But I will ignore this now.
Either way. If I take the average of the first weight with 100% or not, this will make a different end result after applying the other factor.
If # is -6 or +6.
We have 0% or 200%. But this should be considered with 100% being the default. We thus get -100% and +100%.
The averages of these with 100% are -50% and +50%. And the end result is 50% and 150% weight.
Now, if the second weight factor happens at a range of 3. We got the first factor multiplied by 50%.
In case of the first factor having -100% and +100%. This translates to -50% and +50%. Then taking halves results in -25% and +25%. The end result is 75% and 125%. Which feels nice since the effects can also be easily avoided.
If we use the average effects of the first weight, and multiply this with the 50% from the second weight. We get the exact same result. So I know this works well.
It didn't return this result with other calculations.
Now, at a maximum range of 6 and the maximum attribute ranges.
-50% * 2/3 = -33%
+50% * 2/3 = +33%
66.7% and 133.3% are perfect weight value's to work with!
I think I am done here. Unless someone actually followed all of this tldr stuff and actually can point something out :)
 | Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (2) by questccg |
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (37) by Jacob |
| I need a 5th category of encounters (7) by larienna |
| Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (2) by Stormyknight1976 |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
This time. The rules for the players are simple.
Action Assault will yield a penalty of 2.
Attribute Assault will make the Action Assault cost less AP.
But the penalty is 3 now.
Adjustments to the penalties are possible.
The balance formula for this is not for the players, but for me.
If the adjustment is a penalty of 6.
The Assault is simply not applied.
The Attribute with a penalty of 6 is exactly the same as the Action Assault with a penalty of 6.
The manual has been adjusted for the Assaults.
The Action list still needs to be modified.