feat(mechanics): Make stray projectiles not hit disabled fighters

[tibetiroka]

Feature

This PR implements the feature suggested by @Amazinite during the last campfire chat.

Summary

This PR makes it so fighters/drones don't get hit by stray projectiles when disabled. Specifically:

• When disabled, all projectiles targeting them clear their target
• Projectiles not specifically targeting a disabled fighter/drone will not hit it
  • Blast damage will still damage disabled fighters/drones
  • Proximity-triggered weapons (trigger radius) will still be triggered by the fighter/drone

Effectively, this means that most projectiles en route will not hit and destroy disabled fighters/drones, greatly enhancing their survivability.

Testing Done

• Fighters get disabled
• Disabled fighters are not hit by random fire
• Disabled fighters are hit by targeted fire

Performance Impact

Should be negligible.

[Hurleveur]

Please make this only happen for player fighters or we'll end up with many annoying disabled fighters everywhere

[tibetiroka]

The devs specifically said that this would have to be common to all fighters. I'm about to do some real playtesting to get an idea of how annoying the fighters get; I'll have some results in a couple of hours.

[Amazinite]

This is actually a lot easier than I was originally anticipating. 👀
I guess the collision set refactor from #6276 helped out a fair bit.

[EjoThims]

"When disabled, all projectiles targeting the ship clear their target
Projectiles not specifically targeting the ship will not hit it"

Does this apply to all "ships" or only to "fighters/drones"? The way it switches back and forth in the description is unclear to me, and I don't know enough about the code to make sure either way.

If it applies to everything, this is a huge buff to looting/capping play styles.

[tibetiroka]

The 'ship' is a drone/fighter in every case, I didn't change the mechanics for any other type. Sorry for the confusion.

[tibetiroka]

Okay, here are my impressions:

For mining, this feels great. In systems with occasional pirate spawns my drones no longer die instantly. This is great, because now I can mine in some safer systems in the South without having to go back to the core for more mining drones. I have 3 Sunders and 6 mining drones, and now a single Fury doesn't mess up my day. Anything more serious still does enough damage to my drones to make mining unviable (because the drones have to be picked up, and a full Sunder isn't fast enough to catch most asteroids).

In combat, I tested a stock carrier build against various other ships. It seems that the number and type of missiles used is what really matters.

Against other enemies without missiles, or only weak missiles like javelins, most (or often all) drones/fighters survive the battle in a disabled state. However, against heavier weapons like torpedoes, they tend to still die in great numbers. Using the carrier against a stock Dreadnought with Torpedoes kills about half of them, and that's a certain victory for the carrier. Firelights tend to clear out nearly every drone/fighter, as they have a trigger radius.

Interestingly, the Solifuge with its barrage of trackers kills pretty much every drone and fighter. I think this is because multiple projectiles can damage the ship in one frame, even if it gets disabled. While this might be a bug, I think it actually helps the balance somewhat.

If someone has a save file for major FW battles, I could test how many fighters are left there. I couldn't find any snapshots amongst my own saves, unfortunately.

[tibetiroka]

Well, at least that explains why missile barrages were still killing my fighters... They have a much higher survival rate now. Might even be too high for comfort.

[Amazinite]

The devs specifically said that this would have to be common to all fighters.

They have a much higher survival rate now. Might even be too high for comfort.

I did also say though that I'm willing to give only the player this ability if that works out better. The AI doesn't need to worry about having its fighters survive combat, while the player does. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to give only the player a leg up in having their fighters survive combat more often.

Although at that point, might make sense for this to be a gamerule.

[tibetiroka]

Some realistic testing in FW battles using Warp's saves:

Continuous:

• Defend Cebalrai: 3 surviving combat drones
• Capture Cebalrai: 1 drone + 1 Lance
• Attack Kaus Borealis: 6 drones + 1 Lance
• Liberating Delta Sagittarii: 2 drones

With these changes:

• Defend Cebalrai: 10 drones + 2 Lances
• Capture Cebalrai: 4 Lances
• Attack Kaus Borealis: 10 drones + 3 Lances
• Liberating Delta Sagittarii: 5 drones + 1 Lance

I've only done these tests once and there seems to be a lot of variance.

[Hurleveur]

I honestly feel like even with how things currently are there are often too many enemy fighters left over (tho the boarding preference changes alleviated the issue I have with that)

[tibetiroka]

Honestly, even with these changes it doesn't feel like a 'fighter graveyard' to me... sure, there are more things to cycle through if you want to cap something, but it's not too bad.

[Hurleveur]

Looks good code wise but it'd be nice to make this a gamerule (and maybe include there if it applies only to player ships or not, too)
I'd like the default to be it only applies to them but as players test this we'll be sure to get feedback and could adjust it then

[tibetiroka]

Actually, looking at it a bit more closely you could do it in Projectile::Move like how it is done with targetGovernment: Store the state of the target when the projectile is launched/created, and if the original state is enabled and the new state is disabled, then break the target.

Honestly, that sounds like overcomplicating it compared to just using the events

[quyykk]

Honestly, that sounds like overcomplicating it compared to just using the events

I mean maybe? But it would just involve adding a single if check vs looping through every event and then every disabled fighter, so it on that part it would be simpler.

[tibetiroka]

That's true...

Any other opinions?

[RisingLeaf]

+1 to what quyykk suggests

[Amazinite]

We still only want to break targeting with fighters.

[eljaredoe]

I would like to ask to please get this as a plugin. I've been hoping for this change since the last two campfire discussions lol. I don't know how to implement this myself and it would absolutely make my week if it isn't too much trouble.

If it is too much trouble, where can I find out how to add this to my game?

[tibetiroka]

You cannot use this as a plugin, unfortunately. You can still get access to this feature via ESLauncher2 or ESManager by using this pull request for an instance. (You can find more info on ESLauncher2 in the discord server, and ESManager should be pretty straightforward from there if you are on linux.)

[Tecmes]

As pointed out early, this creates multiple disabled drones when facing navy. Then it becomes even harder to board anything else. It is said above that the devs wanted this feature to affects both player and AI, but I don't understand why?

[Hurleveur]

I agree, honestly there were too many drones already for me, and this can only make that worse.
That said, the mixed boarding value feature does make it more bearable, but it remains annoying

Definitely worth opening an issue to at least get the option to turn it off for the AI, I think.

[quyykk]

Would prioritizing non-drones when pressing Board be a possible solution? No idea if this is a good idea though.

[Saugia]

As pointed out early, this creates multiple disabled drones when facing navy. Then it becomes even harder to board anything else. It is said above that the devs wanted this feature to affects both player and AI, but I don't understand why?

I had mentioned that we feel it odd to give the player advantages or mechanics that we wouldn't give the AI. This isn't 100% the case, but for something like disabled status, it would be unfair if the player's ships are given a sort of immunity, but the AI's aren't.

Then it becomes even harder to board anything else.

I don't think this is good enough reason against the above to not implement it. Boarding isn't the primary content of the game, and isn't much of a concern versus ship status and destruction. Typically you'll be visually selecting and boarding vessels. I get that hitting B is easier, but, well, it makes sense that the more ships there are, the more you have to navigate them.

Would prioritizing non-drones when pressing Board be a possible solution? No idea if this is a good idea though.

Now, perhaps we could consider priorities in boarding. I'm not sure what the others think about such a code though, and personally, like the above, I don't feel like this warrants something like a code enhancement for easier boarding. Having a cycling boarding key, or being able to cycle targets/nearest targets, seem more than appropriate for navigating this situation.

[Hurleveur]

Would prioritizing non-drones when pressing Board be a possible solution? No idea if this is a good idea though.

If you use the value preference, or even mixed, thats pretty much what it does and why I coded it (tho it goes beyond drones ofc)