Early Access version 118

Understood. Let’s consider usage of 2 weapons in the ratio of x and 1 - x (0 < x <= 0,5). If I graph the bonus by x by my and your method, it will look like this:

My method: The bonus is calculated by f(x) = [1 - (0,5 - x)/0,5] x 1% x 2
Your method: The bonus is calculated by g(x) = 1% + [x/(1-x)] x 1%

(x-axis represents the first weapon usage (x), y-axis represents the bonus (%))

As you can see:
+) In your method, the bonus changes hyperbolically from 1% to 2%. The bonus got nerfed slightly in unbalanced case. And, the bonus of your method is always higher than mine.
+) In my method, the bonus changes linearly from near 0% to 2%. If you mainly used weapon for over 75% (the other less than 25%), the bonus will even drop below 1%. This encourage balanced usage of 2 weapons better.

So, to get the same bonus, you need to use 2 weapons more balanced in my method:

Let’s try a more complicated version. Consider weapon usage in the ratio of x : y : (1 - x - y) (suppose x was the most used).
+) In my method, the bonus is calculated by f(x) = (1 - |1/3 - x|/1/3) x 1% + (1 - |1/3 - y|/1/3) x 1% + (1 - |x + y - 2/3|/1/3) x 1%
+) In your method, the bonus is calculated by g(x) = 1% + y/x x 1% + (1 - x - y)/x x 1%
Alright I’m out can’t graph it in 3D

Alright how about 4 weapons? I tried to write out some examples and things get interesting:
The bonus in your method is always equal or higher than my method.

I noticed that I can simplify your function:
+) Let x be the ratio of most used weapon and n be the number of weapons share the largest ratio (if exist). Your function is simply [n + (1 - nx)/x] x 1%.
+) Now the factors matter is the usage of the most used weapon and the number of weapon used which shared the largest ratio, which is indeed impossible because you can’t perfectly balance them.
+) So, I can safely remove “n” from the function (n = 1), it will be [1 + (1 - x)/x] x 1% which imply that you define usage balance only by the usage of the most used weapon. Then the usage of all other remaining weapons won’t matter.

You can see, in your method, the bonus is the same for 0,5 : 0,2 : 0,2 : 0,1 as well as 0,5 : 0,3 : 0,1 : 0,1 since 0,5 was the only most used. But are these 2 case equally unbalanced? Generally, every ratio 0,5 : x : y : z … (obviously x, y, z… < 0,5) will result in the bonus of 2%, regardless of how unbalanced is x : y : z… and how many weapons else you used. Consider ratio 0,5 : 0,05 (x 10 times), your method will still 2% but mine is 5,5%.

A 0,4 : x : y : z… (x, y, z < 0,4) will always result in 2,5% bonus in your method. If 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 other weapons is equally used besides that 0,4 one; my method will result in the bonus of 2,6%; 2,8%; 3%; 3,2% and 3,4% respectively. I think my method did better in representing balance and also encourage usage of various weapons.


what the hell is this

didnt know i shot 5 grades higher up on math


I agree with the general idea, though since virtuosity would no longer be directly tied to weapon usage across all players over a set period, do you reckon it’d be possible to make that viewable somewhere?

1 Like

This happens if you’re stationary and fire (you’ll have to pause right as you click to see it)

I mean everybody like you got a stroke reading this, guy must be a math teacher or professional.

1 Like

Oh, it’s also the same thing with Vulcan and Moron.

Note: This ship was used in the Budget Constraint mission, this is NOT my actual spacecraft.


Also, since the Vulcan Chaingun fires “supersonic” shots, shouldn’t this have the same “penetration” effect as the Boron? And the Moron Railgun too.

Penetration? In what way?

Also, why does the Ironman competition announcement logo (in the Mail) not the Ironman mission logo, but is just a rocket icon? And can the daily mission types all get their logo at some point?

Space Race could be a finish flag in races, Daily Mission has an omelette, Ironman being Ironman’s head (obviously), giftbox for Weapons Training …

1 Like

Pot luck being a pot of gold, and maybe budget constraint can be a dollar bill since the uhf is losing money I guess

Suggestion: If you’re overheating (by any means), go into an Ice chicken’s zone immediately replenishes the cooldown bar similar to how a Coolant works. This immediately depletes said zone however.
If you’re overheating and you’re already in an Ice chicken’s zone, the zone depletes first, then the Coolant, if you have it.

This is basically from the previous scrapped Coolant buff idea that didn’t make it, just without the Coolant buff portion.

And another suggestion:
Extra Lives should be used after the first built-in life.

So currently, if you use Extra Lives, all Extra Lives will be used first, then the 1 built-in life as your last life. This simply reverses that, so you only actually spent keys on lives if you’ve died from the 2nd time onwards.

This should save some invisible key loss for newbies (1 life’s worth every mission), which really stacks up if they’re doing a lot of short missions.

  • :gear: All projectiles now ignore already-killed enemies in their collision checks (allows instant-hit weapons like Laser and Riddler, and to a lesser extent fast-moving ones like Boron and Hypergun, to ‘penetrate’ through enemies)

Note: this does NOT mean the bullets penetrate through already-killed enemies - if there are multiple shots per volley, they will usually hit the enemy and kill it, but if even one bullet kills the enemy, the rest will NOT collide with the enemy, therefore creating a “penetration” effect.

This suggestion is a bit on the more insane side, but: Hitbox Insight anyone?

1 Like

Although this may help in saving some keys for players, this doesn’t make sense logically for the purpose of the item.

It’s extra life. Why would you lose the extra first?

I agree, this will reduce key investment in lives for every players. Everyone will have 1 death without losing an extra life (which cost 5 keys in Galactic Store).

I always think of Extra Lives as the right to respawn, and we only have one “real” life, if we lose the “real” life, the mission is over.

We don’t know the exact mechanism of how lives work. If it’s just the right to respawn, why would the real original one different to the extras? They’re all just lives.

Don’t take this seriously:

Extra Life is a magical item that can instantly reverts your destroyed spacecraft to its previous state before it is destroyed, therefore giving the recruit another chance at the battle. If the recruit no longer has any Extra Lives, that means it is their last chance and if they are destroyed again, they are done.

Some games display lives to fall down to zero, but when it reaches zero, the player hasn’t lost yet and still has one more chance. In this case, the life counter is truly “Extra Lives”. We can change the display in this game to show like that, but it will be inconsistant with previous episodes.

1 Like

me when I realized I forgot to put my idea topics in ideas before showing em here:

But yeah, my take on lives is simple: they’re just carbon copies of your spaceship.
Copies that take firepower to make, and the stuff to make em is stored in a life.

It explains the firepower losage pretty well, though I don’t get why it took THAT much firepower whenever you need to make the same copy with less firepower.
(in cases where they had lots of firepower on them, that is)

The pilot is just controlling the ship with a remote somewhere on the planet itself so if the ship dies it’s no big deal. Release its weaker copy, time to fly again.
Though the pilot is a bit dumb when it comes to finding the most efficient path to take from constellation to constellation - probably faked their space nagivation license or something.


Conspiracy theory time… I don’t know if iA can explain how lives work.