number of missiles in antinuke silos (split from BA 7.75 thread)

[albator]

btw, I think default anti nuke system number should be set default to 4 and not 5 so nuke spam can be countered by multiple anti nuke system and player don't need to set up to 4 manually.

[Silentwings]

I don't understand what you mean - what is the advantage of 4 compared to 5?

[albator]

If you set all anti to 4 and an area is covered by 2 anti-nukes, then, if 5 nukes are fired at once on that area, 4 missiles will be shot down by one anti, and the 5th by the other. Point is the anti need time to fire. The distance between the nuke launcher and the anti is such that in most of the map configuration, the time an anti fire 5 missile, it has already been reach by the nuke. Thus forcing another anti to take care of it alleviate the 1st anti and solve the problem.
So switch to 4 ? pips don't really want to do that manually I guess.

[klapmongool]

If you set all anti to 4 and an area is covered by 2 anti-nukes, then, if 5 nukes are fired at once on that area, 4 missiles will be shot down by one anti, and the 5th by the other. Point is the anti need time to fire. The distance between the nuke launcher and the anti is such that in most of the map configuration, the time an anti fire 5 missile, it has already been reach by the nuke. Thus forcing another anti to take care of it alleviate the 1st anti and solve the problem.
So switch to 4 ? pips don't really want to do that manually I guess.

It is still not completely clear what the problem is, to me.

Is this related to anti missiles being too slow for the last nuke in a multi-nuke-attack?

[albator]

Is this related to anti missiles being too slow for the last nuke in a multi-nuke-attack?

Complety.

It is not to be a problem when air was more powerfull and you were able to kill any target with air (even you would lose most your air). iirc, it was about 6.68 before tfc give ba balance to other dudes.

Basically, the eco and air mechanics are such now that 5 nuke spam is easily achievable at 25 min in ffa with a bit of eco porcing. So i think that is a good thing to make it public (i dont really care I modify the widget myself so I wont have the problem...)

[klapmongool]

So in case of a multi-nuke-attack:

if an anti nuke has 5 missiles loaded the 5th missile is launched too late to intercept the 5th nuke.

if two anti nukes have 5 missiles loaded and the attack is in the area they both cover 1 anti will launch 5 missiles and the other none

Solution:

Load only 4 missiles per anti and 1 anti will launch 4 missiles and 1 will launch 5?

Isn't there a better solution: making the anti not launch missiles that can't intercept any more?

[albator]

Yep that is the only fast work around I know.
Unfortunately, Silentwings does not want to apply that quick fix. And I got no explanation why.

So from now, there will a small number of players who will know how to protect from nuke spam, and all the other who will not be able to do anything...

More frustration for the noobies in perspective...

[Silentwings]

The explanation which you got, Alba, was:

5 is 'safe' in the sense that although 4 is optimal in some situations, 5 is ok for basically *all* situations that come up. So I won't change this default; it would be v. confusing for newbies if their anti didn't fire because it had purposefully not made enough missiles.

Your quick fix is only even a 'fix' when the antinuke & nuke are a specific distance apart.

Isn't there a better solution: making the anti not launch missiles that can't intercept any more?

Yes! I'll give it a go but my memory is that mod doesn't have complete control over this

if two anti nukes have 5 missiles loaded and the attack is in the area they both cover 1 anti will launch 5 missiles and the other none

This is not what happened when I tested it - all available anitnukes released missiles simultaneously until either they run dry out or until one anti missile has been released for each incoming nuke missile.

[albator]

5 is ok for basically *all* situations that come up.

That is where I disagree.

I think 4 is optimal, because in most of ffa map (or in dsd), the number of 5 imply death. If you are not convinced about that, you can check some replays (most ffa replay from last Sunday on dworld)

Also, as I argue, with 4 loaded anti missiles on repeat, you are protected from 5 nuke missile because the time 4 missile are fired, a new anti missile has the time to be build (40 sec)...

The explanation which you got, Alba, was:

[...] it would be v. confusing for newbies if their anti didn't fire because it had purposefully not made enough missiles.

I reply to this by:

But 4 also does not make such a huge difference in the sense you can build 3 anti while one nuke is build.
4 is 80% of 5...
Long story short, the time you fire 5 nukes is longer than 40 sec (the time to build a new anti) -> problem solved !

Plus at the point opponent has 5 nukes, you definitely has at least 2 (especially if he waited longer to have 5) , so there if you get nuke you super under ecoed or play with fire.

And it is about that reply I did not get any explanation...

[Silentwings]

When I tested with multiple antis:

all available anitnukes released missiles simultaneously until either they run dry out or until one anti missile has been released for each incoming nuke missile.

so there is no need to 'force' a second antinuke silo to fire; if a second antinuke silo is there then it already does all that it can, automatically.

[BrainDamage]

I cannot reproduce alba's problem, attached is a replay where 2 antinukes ( which aren't even equidistant from target ) fire simultaneously
for those on windows that cannot watch the replay, here's some screenshots that clearly shows simultaneous anti fire ( split evenly among them )

screenshots: http://imgur.com/a/ojsqJ#3
replay: http://filebin.ca/h7ZygjctiBx/20130515_ ... Dry_94.sdf

here's another with ally-owned antis: http://filebin.ca/h7iex65xebG/20130515_ ... Dry_94.sdf

if you wonder why the 5th is intercepted successfully in the 2nd link, is because the engine algo assigns randomly* where to assign the odd numbered nuke missile which might not lead to optimal result, in the first, it was the farther anti, in the 2nd it was the closest


* not actually random, but based off creation time due to unitid iteration

[albator]

Nice I mistaken, so nothing need to be changed. I checked the replays I saw it was happening and fire indeed happen at the very end of one of the anti circle that the reason I got confused.
I don't why but I was convinced it used to be like that and that it has never change.

At least now I know I can increase the value as well (to play ssm :D)