Vega-strike-engine-source: All weapons except on ships loaded from save game are nerfed (ineffective).

[royfalk]

It seems commit 31634b nerfed (weakened) all weapons.
Exempt from this are possibly saved ships and missiles (requires more investigation).

[royfalk]

Issue seems to be due to a game_option. The original xml parser generated damage and phase damage via this line:
damage = game_options.weapon_damage_efficiency * whatever's in the xml.
The new factory only took what's in the xml.

[stephengtuggy]

Yikes. We will definitely want to get that fixed soon.

[royfalk]

52 is relevant here as it's still unclear what the bug is. It may be that a bug was fixed but the game behavior has changed.

[ministerofinformation]

To consolidate some comments from gitter:

1. weapon_damage_efficiency defaulted to 1.0 and was never overriden in the config or code, so that's probably not the source of a change in behavior

2. Roy confirmed that the starting ship (Llama.begin) is still easily bested by a fighter barracks in his testing, whereas his other testing ship was impervious for ~2 minutes of assault from the fighter barracks

3. Running the following test mission

<mission>
<variables>
<var name="credits" value="1"/>
<var name="defaultplayer" value="blue"/>
<var name="mission_name" value="1v1_test" />
<var name="splashscreen" value="bad_guys_vs_good_guys.bmp" />
<var name="system" value="stage_sector/white" />
<var name="description" value="FBtest" />
</variables>

<flightgroups>

<flightgroup name="navajo" faction="privateer" type="Goddard" ainame="default" waves="1" nr_ships="1">
<pos x="1000000000000" y="10000" z="1000000000.0"/>
<rot x="180.0" y="180.0" z="180.0"/>
</flightgroup>

<flightgroup name="comanche" faction="klkk" type="Fighter_Barracks" ainame="default" waves="1" nr_ships="1">
<pos x="1000000000000" y="4000" z="1000000000.0"/>
<rot x="180.0" y="180.0" z="180.0"/>
</flightgroup>

</flightgroups>
</mission>

on my machine does not seem to replicate the reported symptoms (fighter barracks cannot damage player ship) for my build (repo even with master as of 6/25/2021)

Observed behavior in my test is as follows:
0) fighter barracks initially non-hostile, aggro'd by firing on it with Goddard beam weapons [ have repeated tests with both shield penetrating and non-shield penetrating weaponry on Goddard]
1) initial PD turret fire ineffective (but this is expected, given units involved, and consistent with listed damage/shield/shield-regen values);
2) initial heavy beam turret fire misses due to being off axis and turrets have slow traverse
3) hostile fighter launch from fighter barracks confirmed
4) once on target, heavy beam turrets quickly destroy shields, armor, player hull at a rate consistent with listed damage values

[ministerofinformation]

I have tested with a vessel modified per conversation to closely resemble the shield/recharge/armor stats and use the same base vessel type.

Testing experience is the same as before; could not replicate the symptoms (endured PD fire without issue, blew up once heavy beams targeted the vessel)

Units.csv line of testing vessel provided below:

Schroedinger.testing,./vessels/Schroedinger,Schroedinger,,Vessel,INTERCEPTOR,"The Schroedinger serves as a scout ship, lightly armed when compared to most other vessels. As per the infamous cat, its acceleration curve and advanced ECM and stealth hardware make it difficult to discern whether its in the same state it was last seen in.",schroedinger-hud.spr,1.5,,,,12.5,{schroedinger.bfxm;;},,,,,,,160,160,10,512,64,64,64,64,64,64,64,64,1024,1024,1024,1024,,,,,256,0,360,720,120,TRUE,1,,200,40,1,4,50000,50000,50000,90,90,90,30000,30000,22000,5000,5000,5000,5000,650,650,FALSE,TRUE,300000000,5,180,10,75,1,0.3,0.1,1,FALSE,,0,0,0,1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1,1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,,,,mult_shady_moreupgrade;mult_shady_morethrust;mult_shady_moreshields;mult_shady_moregunrecharge;mult_shady_moreshieldrecharge;mult_shady_moreturning;upgrades/Overdrive:1;upgrades/Capacitors:1;upgrades/Reactors:1;upgrades/Armor:1;upgrades/Sensors:1;upgrades/Shield_Systems:1;upgrades/Passenger_Quarters:1;upgrades/Repair_Systems:1;upgrades/ECM_Systems:1,,;;;;;;,{supernova.bmp.bfxm;0;-.5;-5.5;10;;;;;},{DisruptorBeam;;;Light Autotracking;0;3;.5;;;;;;;;;1;1},,,,,,0,325,0,,,,,,pPiI

[ministerofinformation]

Have you been able to replicate the issue with any other testing vessels?
Since we don't have a verifier for units.csv, a single typo could have complicated effects.

If you have a chance, please try a default Goddard as your test ship and let me know if you're having the same symptoms - it has both high damage output weapons (including one light-cap beam weapon) and thick, high recharge shields (3600, recharge of 200)

[ministerofinformation]

@royfalk Can we close this now that you've confirmed that, once within the traverse of the heavy beams, the testing unit is being appropriately damaged?

[stephengtuggy]

@ministerofinformation I'm not sure we're ready to close this just yet. There have been some questions lingering for probably a couple of months now, regarding whether some or all of the weapons were nerfed. I would like to see us confirm that all of those are fixed in general, before closing this ticket.

[ministerofinformation]

Sure. We did find one data side error (for the starting weapon). We should make sure that's resolved before closing this, I guess (even though it's in the assets repo, not the engine). We should definitely (longer term) have a vessel in the testing data set that has one of every type of weapon so that we can do quick target practice testing.

[stephengtuggy]

Okay, I'm satisfied that this is fixed as of @ministerofinformation 's latest PRs for the engine and the assets. I would be content to close this ticket now.