the first level of waves are too complex, too many simple ennemy vessel arrive at the same time #233

New issue

Closed

opened 2026-09-12 17:28:43 +00:00 by metaheavens · 1 comment

metaheavens commented

2026-09-12 17:28:43 +00:00

Owner

No description provided.

metaheavens referenced this issue from a commit

2026-09-16 05:42:26 +00:00

#233: open with fewer enemies, of one kind, arriving in sequence

metaheavens commented

2026-09-16 05:43:21 +00:00

Author

Owner

Done in cb3650e.

Measured before changing anything. The two halves of the title needed opposite fixes, and the first one made the second worse.

Too complex. Variety was gated on fleet size alone, so a player who had grown early met two kinds of trouble in the first wave they ever saw — a fleet of four opened on two lancers and three chasers. Each roster entry now carries a min_wave as well, so the openings teach one enemy at a time whatever the fleet already looks like.

That alone pushed wave 1 against a fleet of six from a mixed six to seven chasers — budget that used to buy a lancer now bought two more chasers. So an early wave also has a size ceiling, 2 + wave_number * 2:

before   wave 1 fleet 4 -> 2 lancers, 3 chasers
         wave 1 fleet 6 -> 1 sniper, 2 lancers, 3 chasers
after    wave 1 fleet 4 -> 4 chasers
         wave 1 fleet 6 -> 4 chasers

The cap stops binding by wave 6 and nothing about later balance moves.

"Arrive at the same time" was literal: the whole wave spawned inside one frame as a closed ring around the fleet, which reads as a wall rather than as an attack. The first hull still lands immediately so a wave is never felt as late, and the rest follow every 0.45s. Same enemies, same bearing, same total — they simply do not all exist at once.

Four existing cases objected and each was right to, because they encode intents that still hold later: a large wave must be varied, fleet growth must open more kinds, a wave can field a lancer at all, and killing a wave must bring the quiet back. The first three now ask at a wave number where variety is permitted rather than being weakened. The fourth runs the arrivals out before killing anything, and gained an assertion that doing so adds enemies — which fails if the staggering ever collapses back into one frame.

Done in cb3650e. Measured before changing anything. The two halves of the title needed opposite fixes, and the first one made the second worse. **Too complex.** Variety was gated on fleet size alone, so a player who had grown early met two kinds of trouble in the first wave they ever saw — a fleet of four opened on two lancers and three chasers. Each roster entry now carries a `min_wave` as well, so the openings teach one enemy at a time whatever the fleet already looks like. That alone pushed wave 1 against a fleet of six from a mixed six to **seven chasers** — budget that used to buy a lancer now bought two more chasers. So an early wave also has a size ceiling, `2 + wave_number * 2`: ``` before wave 1 fleet 4 -> 2 lancers, 3 chasers wave 1 fleet 6 -> 1 sniper, 2 lancers, 3 chasers after wave 1 fleet 4 -> 4 chasers wave 1 fleet 6 -> 4 chasers ``` The cap stops binding by wave 6 and nothing about later balance moves. **"Arrive at the same time"** was literal: the whole wave spawned inside one frame as a closed ring around the fleet, which reads as a wall rather than as an attack. The first hull still lands immediately so a wave is never felt as late, and the rest follow every 0.45s. Same enemies, same bearing, same total — they simply do not all exist at once. Four existing cases objected and each was right to, because they encode intents that still hold *later*: a large wave must be varied, fleet growth must open more kinds, a wave can field a lancer at all, and killing a wave must bring the quiet back. The first three now ask at a wave number where variety is permitted rather than being weakened. The fourth runs the arrivals out before killing anything, and gained an assertion that doing so **adds** enemies — which fails if the staggering ever collapses back into one frame.

metaheavens closed this issue

2026-09-16 05:43:22 +00:00

No labels

No milestone

No project

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference

metaheavens/spaceship#233

No description provided.

Rows
Columns