This site is in archival mode. A replacement is being developed. In the meantime, please use the PBW2 Forums for community discussions. The replacement software for this site will use a unified account system with PBW2, and any newly created threads will carry over.
Welcome to
Login or Register

· Content
· Downloads
· Forums
· Game Info
· Image Gallery
· Links
· Shipyards
· Topics
· Staff

User Info
· Welcome, Anonymous
· New: Astorre
· New Today: 0
· New Yesterday: 0
· Overall: 3155

People Online:
· Visitors: 93
· Members: 0
· Total: 93 :: Sensible combat damage patterns? Looks plausible! :: View topic
Forum FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in

Sensible combat damage patterns? Looks plausible!

Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Gritty Galaxy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Leaky Guru

Joined: May 28, 2005
Location: Canada!

PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:46 am    Post subject: Sensible combat damage patterns? Looks plausible! Reply with quote

I was recently linked to from IRC.

[19:55] SuicideJunkie: Man, I wish battle damage was randomizable in SE5
[19:55] Skyburn: Fighters themselves are good, but not carriers
[19:56] Skyburn: Yeah, that's a shame
[19:56] Skyburn: Azacools leaky armor think is probably the closest you could get
[19:57] Skyburn: *thing
[19:57] SuicideJunkie: What did he do?
[19:57] SuicideJunkie: I tried the 20% absorption layers, and non-armor directional armor.
[19:57] Skyburn: Something with AI tags
[19:57] SuicideJunkie: Nothing satisfied the need
[19:58] Skyburn: One sec, let me find his post
[19:58] SuicideJunkie: Only X damage? Hmm
[19:58] SuicideJunkie: Is only-X not directional?
[19:59] Skyburn:
[20:00] Skyburn: I'm not sure
[20:00] Skyburn: I've always wanted to test it, but never had the chance
[20:01] SuicideJunkie: Hmm. It is described as still directional, but randomly skipping components
[20:04] SuicideJunkie: Might be interesting if you made all the weapons 100% chance to hit.
[20:04] SuicideJunkie: Then have 1% chance of hitting each component.
[20:05] Skyburn: But you'd always damage something
[20:05] SuicideJunkie: A ship with 50 components would then have, effectively, 60% ECM
[20:05] SuicideJunkie: vs a ship with 100 components having 36% ECM
[20:06] Skyburn: It wouldn't keep going until it damaged something?
[20:06] SuicideJunkie: Just based on the chance of the incoming damage rolling natural 1's on every component it checked
[20:06] SuicideJunkie: Nah, if you fire a weapon destroyer at a ship with no weapons, it doesn't infinite loop Smile
[20:06] Skyburn: Ah, right
[20:06] Skyburn: duh
[20:07] SuicideJunkie: You could have just one generic hull, and put as many components on as you like Smile
[20:07] SuicideJunkie: The tiny ships would be really hard to "hit", and the battleships would have huge firepower
[20:07] Skyburn: That's an interesting mod idea
[20:08] SuicideJunkie: Probably can't fit QNP into that idea tho
[20:08] SuicideJunkie: But more importantly, with a very small % per component, you're pretty randomized as to what gets the damage.
[20:09] SuicideJunkie: There will be a modest bias towards the components on the side that takes the hit, but that's ok.
[20:09] Skyburn: Why no QNP?
[20:10] Skyburn: You could make it like the crew system in ekolis's mod
[20:10] SuicideJunkie: That's additive, not multiplicative
[20:10] Skyburn: Ah
[20:11] SuicideJunkie: I did have a scheme where each component needed a certain number of crew or computers Smile
[20:12] SuicideJunkie: Hmm, might be possible tho.
[20:13] SuicideJunkie: Some sort of rule that says the amount of "ballast" must be equal to the sum of the other components times the number of engines.
[20:13] SuicideJunkie: put two engines on for speed 2, and you need 8kt of "ballast" for a 40kt ship. Put 4 engines on, and you need 16kt of ballast for a 40kt ship
[20:14] SuicideJunkie: Yeah, that could be done with an AI tag on every component which matches its tonnage
[20:15] SuicideJunkie: then restriction 1 = abilityAmount(ballast_tag) * abilityAmount(engine_tag) >= abilityAmount(tonnage_tag)
[20:16] SuicideJunkie: Bit of oddness in that getting the ballast shot off doesn't affect speed, but it should be proportional to the engine loss rate.
[20:18] Skyburn: You could make the ballast be fuel tanks
[20:18] Skyburn: So if the ship doesn't lose speed it still won't get very far without ballast
[20:19] SuicideJunkie: Or, if you simply had the ballast tag equal to the tonnage tag for engines, then you'd be able to require certain size engines for 1mp each based on the tonnage used!
[20:19] SuicideJunkie: It would be like mountQNP
[20:20] SuicideJunkie: If you put dinky "150kt" rated drives on your 200kt cruiser, then it will be illegal. But if you put 200kt or better drives, then you're good to go.
[20:21] SuicideJunkie: Now, what abilities can those mounts affect?
[20:22] SuicideJunkie: I don't suppose it is possible to hide components from the ship list based on the abilities present on the design so far?
[20:22] SuicideJunkie: *from the component list
[20:24] Skyburn: I don't know
[20:24] SuicideJunkie: If engines were the only thing to use supply, then the mount can scale up the supply use. Then you just check to make sure that the design's (supplyUse)*EngineCount > tonnage!
[20:25] SuicideJunkie: You want the supply use to go up for bigger drives anyways, so its win/win Very Happy
[20:25] Skyburn: You might need to use an AI tag to represent tonnage
[20:25] SuicideJunkie: QNP and leaky armor in one go, hip hip hooray!
[20:25] Skyburn: I think the function to do it directly is broken
[20:25] SuicideJunkie: Yeah, you'd need that as noted above
[20:26] Skyburn: Oh, right, I was thinking hull size
[20:26] Skyburn: But there is only one hull size
[20:26] SuicideJunkie: Man, without being ruined by a crappy damage model, I'll have to mod SE5.
[20:27] SuicideJunkie: Upgrading from 1% absorption armor to 2% will be a huge tech to research Smile
[20:29] Skyburn: Wouldn't that make it more likely to be hit, but also more likely that hit will be on the armor and not internals?
[20:29] SuicideJunkie: Yeah.
[20:30] SuicideJunkie: Your ships would get hit more often, in general, but take less internal damage.
[20:30] SuicideJunkie: And those plates would have extra HP to compensate
[20:30] Skyburn: An interesting tradeoff
[20:31] SuicideJunkie: Say there was only 5 components, one of which is armor, and it is checked first due to placement. 10% chance to hit each, means the second component only suffers a 9% chance to be hit.
[20:32] SuicideJunkie: With 20% armor and double the hitpoints, the armor survives just as long, but the second component only has 8% chance to be hit.
[20:33] Skyburn: I've learned not to go against you on math Smile
[20:33] SuicideJunkie: Smile
[20:33] SuicideJunkie: Best of all, if you do get unlucky, and the armor is wiped off, your ship's overall chance to hit drops because you've got fewer components rolling for a chance to be hit
[20:34] SuicideJunkie: So, vaporizing a ship is a VERY inefficient use of weapons.
[20:34] SuicideJunkie: Even moreso than in CB, you want to spread your shots around.
[20:35] SuicideJunkie: Take a potshot at the wreck with one gun left and 4% chance to be hit, or drop some pain on the fresh battlcruiser with lots of guns and 70% chance of being hit.
[20:36] Skyburn: Can you customize the strategies in se5 to do that?
[20:37] SuicideJunkie: Yeah, but it isn't a good idea usually Smile
[20:37] SuicideJunkie: You also suffer from the fact that ONE ship will be the first to enter weapons range with each of your ships in turn.
[20:37] SuicideJunkie: That guy at the front of the arrowhead will be the only available target for every one of the enemy ships' first shot.
[20:37] SuicideJunkie: Once you're in the furball its ok tho
[20:38] SuicideJunkie: Best to put a 20kt scout up front so they waste their shots Smile

The mod is demanding to be exhumed!

Back to top
Space Emperor

Joined: Mar 12, 2008

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you're going to replace your existing damage model with the new one? Why not just start a completely new mod?

Back to top
Leaky Guru

Joined: May 28, 2005
Location: Canada!

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The unsatisfying damage model was probably the biggest problem I had killing interest.

The economics, graphics, research scheme and other stuff is just fine. Not fully developed, but it is much easier to work on when there is hope. Smile

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Gritty Galaxy All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Powered by phpBB
All logos and trademarks used on this site, all comments and stories posted for reading, all files hosted for download,
and all art work hosted for viewing are property of their respective owners; all the rest copyright 2003-2010 Nolan Kelly.
Syndicate news: News RSS Feed - Syndicate forums: Forums RSS Feed
Page Generation: 0.21 Seconds