| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
S Park Finner
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
188
   |
Posted - 2013.07.29 13:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
Make splash damage a percentage of remaining shield, armour or shield and armour.
Set it up so direct damage is the way it is. Splash damage would be changed so that, depending on the type of weapon, it does a percentage damage to whatever it's supposed to hurt up to the maximum of a direct hit -- shields, armour or both. As you move up through the skills for the weapon it could have a bonus to the percentage damage it would do or to the blast radius.
Example:
Armour Grenades - basic say 300 direct damage to armour. Splash damage say 50% of remaining armour. If you start out with no shields and - 800 armour a direct hit would drop you to 500. Splash damage would drop your armour to 500. A second splash would drop them to 250 -- half of what was remaining but less than 300, the max of splash damage.
- 250 armour a direct hit would kill you. Splash damage would drop your armour to 125. A second splash would drop them to 63.
The idea is that splash damage can weaken all the troops within the splash radius but not kill them outright. It's advantage is it's area effect not it's absolute killing power -- for that you need a direct hit. |
Harpyja
DUST University
Ivy League
399
|
Posted - 2013.07.29 14:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
No, this will make weapons where their strengths are in splash damage completely useless (MDs and missiles). |
S Park Finner
BetaMax.
190
|
Posted - 2013.07.30 22:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:No, this will make weapons where their strengths are in splash damage completely useless (MDs and missiles). That's a legitimate criticism. The ideal would be that the weapon had two damage radii. The smaller one where splash damage did 100% of the weapon splash damage. The larger one where the damage went to zero. The damage would taper off between the two. If that didn't cost too much to compute I'd vote for that.
This would allow weapons to be very dangerous for accurate shooters while providing some area effect without that area effect being overwhelming. It would give several ways to balance... 1) The amount of splash damage, 2) the full-damage radius, 3) the rate it tapers off, 4) the distance where it stops having any effect. That could be one mechanism that would give very different feel to different weapons, especially if combined with different damage amounts to shields and armour.
For all I know this could be what the underlying mechanism is right now and we just don't know about it. It's hard to judge but splash damage doesn't seem to work that way now.
|
Harpyja
DUST University
Ivy League
409
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 00:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
The way splash damage seems to work is that it deals the same amount of damage within the splash radius (except grenades, they have correct explosion mechanics). It would be much better overall to make every explosive weapon act with this behavior. Give it a splash radius and splash damage starts from full direct damage and drops exponentially down to 0 at the edge of the splash radius. Explosive weapons would need to get their splash radii adjusted though. |
S Park Finner
BetaMax.
190
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 02:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:The way splash damage seems to work is that it deals the same amount of damage within the splash radius (except grenades, they have correct explosion mechanics). It would be much better overall to make every explosive weapon act with this behaviour. Give it a splash radius and splash damage starts from full direct damage and drops exponentially down to 0 at the edge of the splash radius. Explosive weapons would need to get their splash radii adjusted though. I didn't know grenades worked that way. That's a good thing and I agree it would be best if all splash damage worked that way. But I'm not sure about it dropping off immediately. The reason I was suggesting a full-damage radius is that strictly speaking the immediate fall off would only deliver full damage on a direct hit.
Do you thinks the full-damage radius is a good idea? Would it offer an additional dimension of balancing?
|
Garth Mandra
The Southern Legion
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 03:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:The way splash damage seems to work is that it deals the same amount of damage within the splash radius (except grenades, they have correct explosion mechanics). It would be much better overall to make every explosive weapon act with this behavior. Give it a splash radius and splash damage starts from full direct damage and drops exponentially down to 0 at the edge of the splash radius. Explosive weapons would need to get their splash radii adjusted though.
I like this idea.
This would produce extra server load but I wouldn't have though it would be much.
I don't know if you meant this but I wouldn't go for an exponential drop off. I'd prefer a flatter centre with a more gradual decrease. Perhaps a Gaussian or Lorentzian. Even linear would be acceptable albeit lazy. |
Harpyja
DUST University
Ivy League
410
|
Posted - 2013.07.31 04:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
Garth Mandra wrote:Harpyja wrote:The way splash damage seems to work is that it deals the same amount of damage within the splash radius (except grenades, they have correct explosion mechanics). It would be much better overall to make every explosive weapon act with this behavior. Give it a splash radius and splash damage starts from full direct damage and drops exponentially down to 0 at the edge of the splash radius. Explosive weapons would need to get their splash radii adjusted though. I like this idea. This would produce extra server load but I wouldn't have though it would be much. I don't know if you meant this but I wouldn't go for an exponential drop off. I'd prefer a flatter centre with a more gradual decrease. Perhaps a Gaussian or Lorentzian. Even linear would be acceptable albeit lazy.
Pressure waves decrease in strength faster as they get more spread out. This I believe is exponential, but this still makes the damage curve near the blast center fairly flat. It's an upside-down parabola. The only two factors that will determine the curve are direct damage (y-intercept) and blast radius (x-intercept). Unless if I'm terribly wrong, there is only one parabola that can be made using ax^2+bx+c for any combination of direct damage and blast radius (there are no horizontal shifts from a standard parabola; the only changes being made are vertical shifts and vertical/horizontal stretches)
Yes, linear would be extremely lazy but at least better than the current system. Though non-linear curves are much much better. I may have heard of the other two but I may have forgotten about them or simply never even heard of them. Going to look at them tomorrow; right now I'm off to sleep |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |