Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

51

Ideas / Re: Steam Achievement Ideas

« on: January 18, 2019, 03:39:45 PM »

I meant to do that! Miss your target, hit and destroy another combat hostile instead.
Survival is optional Get caught in a Sigix Terminator blast.

52

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / Re: [Beta 7.2] Derelict log intel not showing messages upon loading.

« on: January 18, 2019, 07:50:59 AM »

More information:
Stockpile and security intel shows messages just fine, but Terminal Intel whenever I go out of a Waste zone doesn't show any messages.

53

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / [Beta 7.2] Unintended item swaps.

« on: January 18, 2019, 07:35:17 AM »

I'm using mouse. I wanted to drag and swap an item, but I took a wrong one, so I just dropped it below my item slots. For some reason the engine I held was swapped in! The exact place where I dropped it is shown in the screenshot and I can repeat it from the attached save, as long as it's Lgt. Angular Momentum Engine replacing Imp. Deuterium Engine.

I have noticed this odd behaviour at other times, but I was just clicking fast, so I wasn't 100% sure it wasn't my error. Sometimes a utility accidently swaps into some other utility's space and it can probably happen with other parts.

54

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / Re: [Beta 7.2] Gun-only volley not switching targets.

« on: January 18, 2019, 02:15:04 AM »

None of the requirements you mentioned were broken. And it happened again at a later time, with different guns.

55

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / [Beta 7.2] Gun-only volley not switching targets.

« on: January 17, 2019, 10:50:51 AM »

I fired a 4-gun volley. My third shot destroyed the target. There was no message about switching to a secondary target (hostile sentry was visible). Gunslinging was supposed to be guaranteed.

56

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / Re: [Beta 7.2] Robots not fighting eachother.

« on: January 16, 2019, 04:17:29 AM »

Right. I had another instance of it happening, where my friendly behemoth was trading fire with an Alpha 7, and at some point my behemoth randomly stopped shooting for ~10 turns, while taking fire. I checked that his weapons were active and he was sitting in a pile of matter, so those weren't an issue. He definitely was aware of Alpha7's presence and had a clear line of fire. No other bots were present. He just sat in one place and took damage for several volleys.

I saved it and wanted to post that file, but after loading the game, the behemoth started shooting immediately :O

57

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / [Beta 7.2] A ghost hauler?

« on: January 14, 2019, 11:43:36 AM »

In the attached save I'm standing right next to a hauler, but I can't attack him. I get a message "no melee target". I also can't view his info, as if this tile was an empty floor tile.

EDIT: It was due to sensors; it moved out of vision but, for some reason, sensor data of him remained where I could see normally.

58

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / [Beta 7.2] Robots not fighting eachother.

« on: January 14, 2019, 10:05:33 AM »

In the attached save robots stopped fighting eachother. Sometimes only robots on one side stop attacking.

I loaded up this save and one robot started shooting (but not the other).

59

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / [Beta 7.2] Derelict log intel not showing messages upon loading.

« on: January 12, 2019, 09:12:03 AM »

I've got enough Terminal and Fabricator Intel logs for Factory that after a trip to Wastes and back to Factory they load again. However there is no message this time for "Loading Factory Terminal intel data" this time.

60

Ideas / Re: Steam Achievement Ideas

« on: January 11, 2019, 04:30:59 AM »

Deadly precision Destroy 50 hostiles via critical hits.
Well done, please! or simply Well done (hidden) Reach critical temperature (500 units).
Just one more minute! or Just one more turn! or Just one more level! Have 10 hours of cumulative play time (excludes AFK time).

I thought to put 100h in the latter achievement, but then people might want to AFK to get it out of the way... And completionists will be put off by such an achievement, even though it will be obtained by the time they obtain many other achievements. I feel like people who spent <10h don't aim for specific achievements yet, or at least are very close to 10h mark. Or maybe just make it hidden? But there might be more "one more minute!" feel for players around 10h mark than ~100h mark. It probably needs to be obtained mid-run, not on score summary. Or maybe add one for 10h and then a hidden one for 100h (I have a life! I swear!)? Needs to state that it excludes AFK time, otherwise people will look at steam.

Man, I really like all those achievements. More than I expected. And have suprising fun coming up with more Going for 512 now! 

61

Strategies / Re: Single power slot combat build [Spoilers!].

« on: January 04, 2019, 08:20:17 AM »

I'm trying to lose mass for hover builds. No wonder legs want 3 heavy reactors

I'm kind of rediscovering Fusion Compressors. 5 mass, 20 or 40 energy generation? That is really good, but it's hard to find replacements. Imp. Fusion Compressor + Exp. Energy Well = 2 * (20 energy generation + 500 energy storage) for only 7 mass, instead of the usual ~40 mass worth of reactors. Saves a prop slot.

There are plenty of endgame power-hungry utilities, but I often find myself unable to equip them along with processors and armor, hence why I'm searching for 1 or 2 more util slots in my builds.

62

Strategies / Single power slot combat build [Spoilers!].

« on: January 03, 2019, 12:16:19 PM »

I noticed that if I get enough power AA in S7 (especially if I replicate an Integrated Singularity Reactor), I can beat extended even after losing all my reactors. So maybe I could evolve an additional utility slot instead of a power slot?

I tried it. The plan here was to use energy-related utils, until I could get power AAs. Unfortunately, I decided on this AFTER -7, which is the best floor to pick up a Fusion Compressor, which would be an excellent item for this! Instead I got myself a Zio. Light DM Reactor, which I had to pair up with a Zio. Biocell (I was imprinted) for factory floors. This was a CProg farming run, so I was using hover propulsion and I had EMDS, which uses more energy than regular energy weapons, hence I needed some storage (and Zio. reactors have 0 storage). That's quite an energy devouring build, whether moving or fighting.
At -4 Zhirov gave me +10 energy! Just in time! Energy was getting really tight by that point. At -3 I got my hands on an Imp. Fusion Compressor schematic (from a green terminal in large unaware base in -3/Proximity Caves) and managed to fab it in Research, in case I will need more energy generation soon. It proved to be super useful soon (QC + EMDS, more hover slots, other high tier utils consume a lot of energy as well...)! At -3 I went to L instead of Q. Got CE (weapon slot) and Heat Dissipator. -2 had T and S7. I didn't find any strong energy cannon (I recognized from DC intel that none of the barriers held Potential Cannons; maybe I should've checked them anyway for a Null Cannon or a Cld. Nova Cannon?). S7 had no energy AAs. Not a single one. Even LRC Energy Well would help greatly, but no!
I considered evolving a 2nd power slot for the final floor. But I decided otherwise. Imp. Fusion Compressor really carried this run and matter wasn't an issue (but I wasn't using it until my energy reserves got very low -- that's why it survived for so long). I ended up using a Zio. Heavy DM Reactor + Imp. Fusion Compressor + Exp. Energy Well, with a backup Exp. Energy Well and a Graviton Reactor. I could use QC + Energy Cannon (or Molecular Deconstructor) and AEGIS Shield. Ended up with a w6++.

Some conclusions about single power slot builds from this experiment:

Single reactor builds have a problem with energy storage and often need a slot dedicated to Energy Well anyway.

Ground-based builds would probably be just fine with a single F-Cell Engine (great storage for combat, enough generation to replenish energy stores while moving) in Factory floors. I didn't need 1000 energy stored in my Biocell until lategame and if I didn't hover, I probably wouldn't need 20+ energy generation from Zio. reactors. Visiting Cetus for a Quantum Reactor might be enough for Factory floors as well (without any energy utils, such as Energy Wells).

F-Cell Engine + a Fusion Compressor would probably be the best combination. -7 is the best floor to grab some rating 4 Fusion Compressors. That could be enough to solve your energy issues until you get energy AAs (or survive to the next evolution if you find none).

In the end, I used 3 slots for energy management, which is pretty normal if I don't get energy AAs. But if I got a Subatomic Replicator and an Integrated Singularity Reactor, I could probably take it all down to just one slot with a Quantum Reactor, used for energy storage rather than energy generation And an LRC Energy Well would be really useful for a single power slot build, since energy storage is quite an issue there. Saving on a power slot only to spend a slot for an Energy Well might not be that great. Then again, Energy Wells are much lighter than reactors and don't generate any heat.

I might be going for this kind of build more often now. Partly, because I'd like to see how it fares if I get a Subatomic Replicator + Integrated Singularity Reactor combo (my usual way of spending SR anyway).

63

Ideas / Re: Steam Achievement Ideas

« on: January 03, 2019, 11:03:06 AM »

Hackwars Intercept hostile hacking attempt.

I was wondering about some RIF related achievements. Some of these can teach new players that there are multiple "levels" of robot hacking system: basic, RIF required, RIF + coupler required. But using all these would be an overkill?
Join the dark side Install RIF
Mindtrick Use a coupler hack
Basic hack Hack a robot without RIF
Freebies Use a free RIF hack

Versatile Use 10 different robot hacks
Robot hacking tour Hack 10 different robot types

There are already achievements for assimilation hacks. I thought about achievements for each type of hack, but for some hacks there is no easy way to tell which group it belongs to.
Knowledge is power Gain information through a robot hack

64

Ideas / Re: We make bad suggestions and come up with horrible ideas

« on: December 27, 2018, 03:11:24 AM »

You can now equip 2 Core Expanders before you exceed the slot limit.*






* You start with 1 slot fewer.

65

Strategies / Ratings of items found in Storage.

« on: December 17, 2018, 12:45:20 PM »

Does anyone know the ratings of prototypes in Storage depending on depth and room types?

I think I got stashes of 5* weapons (Ion Burst Cannons and Cld. Plasma Cannons) just laying on a floor of random rooms in -8 Storage, but I can't seem to replicate it. I know that behind the doors to a single cell there are 4* and 5* rating items regardless of depth, including items unique to Storage (Lgt. Regenerative Plating, Gui. EMP Blaster, Gui. Missile Launcher). I thought that other doors can hold prototypes of out of depth ratings, but I can't replicate it either. Then there's the trapped room, which always has a stash of 6 non-faulty 4* or 5* prototypes? And the blue barriers seem to contain on-depth prototypes usually, but rarely non-prototypes too.

Anyone has more info on this?

66

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / [Beta 7.2] Zone Layout did not reveal nearby rooms.

« on: December 17, 2018, 09:38:54 AM »

Check the screenshot

I'm standing right next to the terminal where I hacked Zone Layout. The terminals above me should be revealed by it, together with rooms they're in.

I'm also attaching a save and the previous backup from before the zone layout was used.

67

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / [Beta 7.2] "Storage entrance" derelict log didn't work

« on: December 15, 2018, 09:53:45 AM »

I picked up a derelict log in Mines with a message

00084_ Acquired derelict log, extracted data.
Data stored: Storage entrances (x1).

but when I stumbled upon an exit leading to Storage from Factory, it was unidentified. I identified the zone after I entered it and used a terminal.

I attach a message log from that run.

68

Strategies / Re: Coverage Vs Integrity Formula

« on: December 14, 2018, 05:47:25 AM »

This

it calculates the chance of survival at a damage, then multiplies that by the chance of survival at the next damage and so on,

does not equal this

which gives you the chance of survival of those damages combined

They would be equal, if the correspoding events were independent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_(probability_theory)#Independent_random_variables). But they are not. It's like rolling a 6-sided die and saying that the probability of getting 4 or higher ( 50% ) equals the probability of not rolling a 1, multiplied by probability of not rolling a 2, multiplied by probability of not rolling a 3, which gives (5/6)^3.

The division is so that it calculates the Expected Value (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value), which is given by finding the mean of each result

That is also incorrect. You should calculate the mean by multiplying the numerical value of each result by the probability of its occurence. No need for further division. Take a 6-sided die roll as an example again. Expected value of the rolled number is

where p_i = 1/6 (probability of rolling i) for each i. There is no need to divide this again by the number of possible results -- the averaging was taken care of via weighting each result by its probability!


Ah, and since the expected lifetime of a part equals (Integrity/PartCoverage)*TotalCoverage, and all your parts share the same value of TotalCoverage, then to compare item's expected durability you only need to compare their Integrity/PartCoverage ratio! Kyzrati's way is the correct way -- now proven mathematically!
...With a caveat that we assume that each point of damage rolls independently for which part it hits. Which is not true, since damage comes in chunks (shots). The difference is the most noticeable for parts with current integrity so low as to be destroyed within 1 or 2 hits (math geeks playing boardgames are probably familiar with this phenomena, since those games work with much fewer rolls than video games). I will not provide mathematical proof for this, but give an example instead:
Consider a part with 10% coverage and only 10 integrity remaining. A single 10 damage shot has 10% chance to destroy it. If we split this damage into n chunks, then the chance for destroying this parts equals (1/10)^n, which is 1/100 for 2 shots of 5 damage, or an astronomically low 1/10000000000 for 10 shots of 1 damage each (this last way is how Integrity/PartCoverage bases off its estimate). This also shows that damage reduction (Force Field, Thermal Shield, etc.) might be better than coverage for protecting those low integrity items, for example 50% damage reduction more than doubles life expectancy of those parts; to accomplish similar effect you'd have to more than double your TotalCoverage.

Unfortunately, accounting for "chunked" nature of damage requires the knowledge of received hits distribution (i.e. which weapons and how often hit you across a floor/ across a run/ across the next encounter, etc..., which depend on your build (avoidance), tactics you employ (short-ranged vs long-ranged, stealth, running from slow enemies but not from swarmers...) and map generation (which enemies you encounter, how close you come up on them). So the Integrity/PartCoverage is probably the best we can ever have.

TLDR for those, who want to skip all this math:

• Integrity/PartCoverage is the best metric to compare durability of items that we can mathematically analyze
• Life expectancy of a part (expected amount of damage received by Cogmind before that part gets destroyed) is (Integrity/PartCoverage)*TotalCoverage
• The above two measures greatly overestimate life expectancy of parts with very low current integrity (those that will get destroyed in 1-2 shots), such as hackware

69

Strategies / Re: Coverage Vs Integrity Formula

« on: December 13, 2018, 04:59:50 PM »

Hi SimonScience!

If I understand it correctly, you calculate the probability of an item surviving up to D damage by multiplying the probabilities that the item survives exactly d damage (let us call their corresponding events A_d). However, events A_d are dependent on eachother, so simple multiplication won't yield the desired probability. I also do not understand where is the division by (L - Integrity) coming from.

I believe that "which point of damage will destroy the part" follows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_binomial_distribution + the number of "failures". Then the expected value equals pr/(1-p) + r, where p=(1-PartCoverage/TotalCoverage) and r=Integrity, which results in (Integrity/PartCoverage)*TotalCoverage. So it turns out that Integrity to PartCoverage ratio is not the exact expected durability (using your definition), but it's closely related (note that TotalCoverage depends on PartCoverage).

Heh, I was expecting to get exactly Integrity/PartCoverage.

70

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / Re: [Beta 7.2] Scoresheet average stats wrong.

« on: December 10, 2018, 05:30:37 AM »

I don't see any issues with the move speed average code, which using the same averaging as all other stats and simply adds your current move speed to the pile every time you make a move. (Also not just the code--I just spent a while testing it and it behaves as expected.)

This makes me think you're counting average over moves, instead of average over time (I might be totally wrong ). The formula for average over time (what we think of when we say "average speed") is [distance traveled]/[time spent traveling]. In Cogmind's case you could use the following substitutions:
[distance traveled] = spaces moved
[time spent traveling] = sum of move costs (in TU, not %) divided by 100 (since we want turns, not TU)
to get average number of moves per turn. Multiply it by 100% to get the movespeed%.

Perhaps more concerning here is that your scoresheet also says you took 2467 actions compared to 2446 spaces moved, meaning 21 non-move actions, yet (without even examining all possible turn-consuming actions) just firing your launcher and attaching parts was 45 actions. (As a side note, this amounts to 54 turns of non-movement.)

That said, you might have jumped a fair number of robots, which would undercount actions compared to moves (since jumping counts as multiple moves). Anyway, I've added a new score sheet entry for Beta 8 so we can see the jump count as well

I like hopping. These numbers look reasonable to me if we account for hopping.
You'd probably want the number of actions for pickup, drop, detach, (attach is already in), quick attach, detach & drop and wait. And number of spaces hopped over, and number of hops themselves (1 action of hopping could make 2 or MORE moves).

71

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / Re: [Beta 7.2] Scoresheet average stats wrong.

« on: December 09, 2018, 03:17:42 AM »

Well turns are unrelated to average speed, since it only counts moves, not time.

Let me rephrase. Average speed of 802% combined with 2446 spaces moved tells me I spent ~305 turns on moving. Then, since I know that my run took 631 turns, it follows that 326 turns (more than half!) was spent not moving. And that is definitely wrong.

And the temperature value looks like it does because it doesn't include zeroes in that average, in order to actually be meaningful (otherwise we may as well remove it from the scoresheet, because pretty much everyone's average will be 0, given all the turns you go without generating heat!).

Because only positive values at the end of your turn update are averaged in, if you blasted your heat super high like you did here, but spent the rest of your short run (a speed run, apparently) producing no excess heat (as with most speed runs), then this would be a reasonable result

Oh! That makes perfect sense! Although the name "average temperature" is a bit confusing then. It's "average positive temperature", but that name is probably too long and it's still confusing! "Average of positive temperatures" is not confusing?

72

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / [Beta 7.2] Scoresheet average stats wrong.

« on: December 08, 2018, 02:29:35 PM »

I've noticed that some scoresheet stats are wrong, namely in the first one average temp is way too high

Highest Temperature        6352
  Average Temperature      4664

I definitely did not sustain these ridiculous temperatures for more than half my run.

In the other scoresheet the average speed seems to be wrong:

Spaces Moved               2446
  Core                     84
  Treads                   0
  Wheels                   0
  Legs                     0
  Hover                    0
  Flight                   2362
  Fastest Speed (%)        1666
  Average Speed (%)        802

These stats combined with 631 turns run imply that for 326 turns (more than half the turns!) I was not moving! This must be wrong too!

Maybe temp/speed from later in the run are weighted more towards these averages?

73

Ideas / Ramming through walls.

« on: September 11, 2018, 12:53:48 PM »

I thought it'd be cool if you could drive your heavy tank through a wall. Or sufficiently beefy leg build could kick a wall with enough force to break it down. That could be just treads/legs thing, where success chance depends on mass/support or ramming damage, or something similar.

Need more ways to make a dramatic entrance!

74

Fixed Bugs & Non-Bugs / [Beta 7] Trace progress on the first hack unaffected by defensive hackware.

« on: September 06, 2018, 02:24:41 PM »

For the one hack that starts trace progress, trace progress itself is not reduced by defensive hackware or hub bonuses. So a hack with 50% success chance can go to 50% trace in the first try, despite having 50%+ defensive bonuses. Every subsequent 50% hack progresses the trace by 15% (or was it 10%?).

This bug is older than Beta 7.

75

General Discussion / Re: Oddities of time system.

« on: September 04, 2018, 07:35:13 AM »

2) That enemies can only fully notice the player at the 100 TU turn changes, regardless of their stats, and feels almost 4th wall breaking, compared to the otherwise very fluid and alive feel of the world.

Not sure where you got that info, since the way sight knowledge works is as you might expect: enemies notice you on their turn, whenever that is.

Both of you are correct? Enemies can spot you only on their turn, but all of their turns occur at Cogmind's 100 TU turn changes.

Abusing it isn't even as tedious as you seem to think. When you're moving very fast, all events happen at the same time. Like when you move at 20 TU, all other robots move at your 5th move, your energy rises at your 5th move, and your heat dissipates at your 5th move. This means that the game is making it APPARENT for when you can be spotted/shot at and it constantly reminds you, every 5 moves.

So, during my recent speedrun attempts, I actually started counting moves until the next turn change when there are hostiles in view, so I can duck into cover/use robots as cover at the right time. I literally count "1,2,3,4,duck,1,2,3,4,duck,...".
And when 100 isn't divisible by my movespeed, that's not a problem either. At 17 speed I have (rarely) 5 or (usually) 6 moves, so it's "1,2,3,4, duck (if they didn't act, duck again!), ...".

I kind of feel bad for bringing this topic to attention, because it's not very significant quirk of this time system, but it seems it is very hard to change (it affects so many other things that probably bugs will pop up everywhere if this system is changed). When I posted this, I thought that changing this system would be simple. But now I know that is not the case, so IMO it's better for Kyzrati to focus on other changes to the game!