Destroyable parts

Catch-all for all development not having a specific forum.
Makida
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 12:04 pm
Location: Canada

Post by Makida »

I think one challenge of applying localized damage to Allegiance is how repair work is to be done. Nanning would have to repair localized damage. I think one way to do this would be with what Andon suggested, so, shooting at the rear of the ship will damage its engines, nanning the rear of the ship will repair them. This makes a lot of stuff more difficult though. For instance, during a bomb run: Say the front or mid-section of the bomber takes a lot of damage, so the missile system goes offline (which should be a possibility if this is implemented). Then just nanning the bomber isn't enough, you will have to make sure you're nanning the right parts. In the chaotic environment of a bomb run this might be difficult, suggesting a need for further re-balancing if this is implemented. An alternative might be to repair different components randomly as a ship (or base) is nanned, until all the damage is gone, and everything works. Since the nan gun is supposed to shoot nanites at the target, this sort of makes sense, since the nanites can presumably move around the ship and decide what should be fixed first. Of course a REALLY awesome way to do this would be a "repair priorities" list for the pilot, so they get to decide what gets fixed first (an escorted bomber doesn't need sensors or forward gat guns much, but needs engines, missiles, etc.)

I think one way to do this would be to tie damage to the mounted components that are listed in F4. You could see that your Gat guns are damaged and only doing half-damage or whatever, or your booster just got knocked out. If you are in a gs/bomber/cap, you could see the turrets taking damage or being disabled. And some key combination could let you decide which element in the F4 screen gets top priority for repairs if you are being nanned. This leaves out sensors, engines, etc., however, since they're not separate components in F4. Either these can just be left out, on the logic that these components' main elements are built into the very heart of the ship, so they don't go until it goes, or a special section could be added to F4 for them... the chance of the radar getting knocked out or giving erroneous information is too fun to pass up. :P

One thing that bugs me though, is that combat in Allegiance is very fast-paced. A heavy mg3 interceptor can shred through many small ships in a few moments. So simulating specific damage seems to complicate things without adding too much. Of course sometimes you also have long, protracted dogfights, but since these are mostly a case of two ships circling around each other while trying to keep their guns aiming at each other, again damage seems a bit unnecessary. Most damage would always be dealt to the front of the ships anyway, and really it would just make things harder without really adding too much. The challenge in a dogfight is to have good aim, and to know how to dodge, and when to use boost/missiles/mines/etc. if you have them. Considering localized damage really doesn't add too much.

Also, combat nans are rare... Although perhaps they would become *less* rare if this was implemented?

But honestly I think localized damage should be reserved for larger ships -- mid-sized and up. A gunship or bomber taking damage to specific components adds to the game; a capital ship taking localized damage adds *a lot* to the game. A fighter taking damage to some component a few seconds before it's about to explode anyway? I am not so sure...
Andon
Posts: 5453
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Post by Andon »

Yeah, it's kinda useless for most small craft except in a few circumstances.

The directional parts is probably the easiest way, and having it go to the F4 screen seems nice. You could even do it by colors - White for perfect/near perfect, orange for slightly damaged, red for heavily damaged/destroyed. Adding engines and sensors may be the most difficult thing as well
Image
ImageImage
Adaven
Posts: 1959
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Greater Ozarks

Post by Adaven »

I would suggesting nans affect local target first. So if you are nanning the engines, the engines get repaired first, but once the engines are fully healed, more nanning to that region will start "spilling" over to other areas. Either going for the next closest damamged part, or being divided equally amongst all systems. That way there is still some strategy involved, but you aren't completely screwing over the run if nans want to hide behind the bomber/cap to keep from getting killed by defenders.
Last edited by Adaven on Thu Oct 16, 2008 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dark_Sponge
Posts: 386
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:43 am

Post by Dark_Sponge »

A localized damage system for bases would be cool. Having to hit a base on the same side that was already damaged could be an interesting gameplay element. Other things would have to be changed to make it worth caring about though (perhaps stronger base shields that regenerate much slower).
I loved Wing Commander II. If this was implemented I'd seriously consider making a WCII core.
Last edited by Dark_Sponge on Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImage
Andon
Posts: 5453
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Post by Andon »

It might be a bit harder with bases - you couldn't do a simple top/bottom/left/right/front/back like ships, as they don't really have specified front/back/left/right sides.
Image
ImageImage
sambasti
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:55 am
Location: the SF hiding in your home

Post by sambasti »

Personally, I really think this should be reserved for mid and large class ships. As Makida already said, small class ships wouldn't gain much form this. Also, you could maybe have a little button on f4 that triggers a menu where you can determine priorities. As a related question, what do the numbers next to the guns mean? I know they are somehow related to damage, but im not sure how. Anyway, for the disable a capship problem, the nan could just repair the capship and go back on rampage, disableing a capship next to you last base and leaving it there would be simply stupid.
Dorjan
Posts: 5024
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:56 am
Location: England

Post by Dorjan »

X-wing Vs Tie-Fighter has a simpler system for figs and stuff.

Every time the hull was hit you had a % chance of something going wrong etc Was fun to lose flight control off a fluke hit during a straffing run...
I decided to relive the days gone by in my new blog.
---
Remember, what I say is IMO always. If I say that something sucks, it actually means "I think it sucks" OK?
Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ Jan 31 2012, 03:09 PM) True story.

Except the big about dorjan being jelly, that's just spidey's ego.
ImageImage
Malicious Wraith
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by Malicious Wraith »

This is much better fitted for a slower fighting game than allegiance.

People die quick in Allegiance, the entire game mechanics has to do with this.
Unknown wrote:[Just want] to play some games before Alleg dies for good.
I don't want that time to be a @#(!-storm of hate and schadenfreude.
IG: Liquid_Mamba / Fedman
Andon
Posts: 5453
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: Maryland, USA
Contact:

Post by Andon »

Hence why it's agreed (by most people) that it should be something that's cap ships only
Image
ImageImage
Malicious Wraith
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:51 am

Post by Malicious Wraith »

Andon wrote:QUOTE (Andon @ Oct 17 2008, 01:31 PM) Hence why it's agreed (by most people) that it should be something that's cap ships only
Cap ships die too quickly.
Unknown wrote:[Just want] to play some games before Alleg dies for good.
I don't want that time to be a @#(!-storm of hate and schadenfreude.
IG: Liquid_Mamba / Fedman
Post Reply