Collision Fix

[Cortex]

Haven't thought about it, just typing down an idea...

What if the collision class would be split up into a "gives collision damage" and a "takes collision damage" class. So you could say:
Lt. hull does almost no damage to utl hull but also takes only light damage. (Scouts can ram cons without killing them but can do that for quite a while.)
Med. hull does a lot of damage against lt. hull and med. shields and takes hardly any against lt. hull but quite some against med. shields. (Ints can 'fly through' scouts killing them without a penalisation and can do a lot of damage ramming bombers but will also take moderate damage doing so.)
etc.

As I said, haven't thought this through. (Yes, this requires a core format change, but that is completely unavoidable in the near future if we want to improve Alleg gameplay, imho.)


-- Cort

[madpeople]

QUOTE (Adaven @ Sep 26 2006, 04:04 AM) Just tested it in game, and it seems to work about like I thought. just by editing the collisions damage index in 10 seconds I created a hvy int that could ram the shield off a giga garrison but would die if it hit a scout.

dam we need more damage indexes so we can make ships like this... and more weapon numbers 16 isnt enough! /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

well, i guess we have to try it and see

QUOTE Haven't thought about it, just typing down an idea...

What if the collision class would be split up into a "gives collision damage" and a "takes collision damage" class. So you could say:
Lt. hull does almost no damage to utl hull but also takes only light damage. (Scouts can ram cons without killing them but can do that for quite a while.)
Med. hull does a lot of damage against lt. hull and med. shields and takes hardly any against lt. hull but quite some against med. shields. (Ints can 'fly through' scouts killing them without a penalisation and can do a lot of damage ramming bombers but will also take moderate damage doing so.)
etc.

As I said, haven't thought this through. (Yes, this requires a core format change, but that is completely unavoidable in the near future if we want to improve Alleg gameplay, imho.)


-- Cort[/quote]yes. i thought i started a thread once upon a time about a new core format, is new core format for R4 or R5
(perhaps R5, add some cool stuff to R4, then R5 the big change)

if we did do a new core format, i thnik it would be cool if it was in a relational database form, then you cold just create aditional damage classes and weapon classes as you need them (un-limited possibilities)... complicated though

EDIT: NO and yes, split it so you select one damage class, and it then displays what damage that damage class gives to all the damage classes
QUOTE So how does it work, could you make cons do less damage to ships ramming them off rocks for example? And if so would that end up doing more damage to the con than is desirable (we don't want them being killed by a ram scout after all)?

I suggested a while back that each armour class be given a seperate damage table but as that'll need a new core file it's a long way off. This will at least give core devs some flexibility.[/quote]
i quite like the damage levels you get from ramming cons right now

[Cortex]

QUOTE (madpeople @ Sep 26 2006, 11:00 AM) dam we need more damage indexes so we can make ships like this... and more weapon numbers 16 isnt enough! /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Yes, of course. There is no valid reason why the new core format should have a limited number of hull and damage classes, pre/def-ids or any other 'amount'-restriction. That's a matter of course to me.


-- Cort

[Raveen]

Y_P was starting work on a XML based core replacement, and I'm sure I started a thread on features for a new core format. Must have both been in the old forums as I've searched to no avail.

[Radar]

My opinion is :

We all lived with the unfair old bug in the code and got used to it.

Sometimes we died faster than other times depending on if we were on the fair or unfair side of the equation.

Who hasn't carefully rammed a con and died like it was 200 mps ? The unfair side.

And who hasn't ram a con forever without dying ? The con got the unfair side.


Point made:


Before the bug fix you don't know what side of the equation you got.

After the fix the behavior will be consistent all of the time.

The fix helps make the ramming thing more learnable and less random appearing.


If you like less ramming damage to your ship :

keep the fix to make it fair and predictable.

Adjust the damage formula up or down.

Don' keep a broken formula.

radar

[Adaven]

QUOTE (Raveen @ Sep 26 2006, 03:16 AM) So how does it work, could you make cons do less damage to ships ramming them off rocks for example? And if so would that end up doing more damage to the con than is desirable (we don't want them being killed by a ram scout after all)?

My rough estimate is that the current collision damage index is for recieving damage only. For instance, I set lt hull/shield to .1 (10% normal), med hull to 2 (200% normal) and station hull/shield to 50 (5000% normal). The difference between ramming an adv fig and a hvy int into a garrison @200 mps seemed to damage the garrison an amount proportional to the hp difference bewteen the ships (figs= 450 hull +150 shield, ints=750 hull). Even though the garrison had a rating of 50, that had no bearing on the damage dealt to colliding ships, and the rankings of the ships didn't seem to affect how much they damaged the garr.

You could make ships get damaged less by cons when bumping them, but it'd also reduce the damage they recieved from ramming other ships/asteroids.

There might be a partial work around: Hull and shield have separate damage values, so by playing around with these things you might be able to have ships ram cons/miners without messing up most ship ramming other ship dynamics.

[Radar]

yes Adaven,

that's the idea.

Everything in the game is controlled on purpose or on accident by some decisions in the code.

All damages that actually hurt or repair things have calculation formulas to regulate them.

So, A rock, a base, a miner, a con or anything else could have separate values.

But I think it makes more sense to humans that more (speed + mass) or more hard = more damage or more protection.

A belters scout ramming a fully shielded bomber to death is unreal to me unless the scout is going 2000+ mps ( for example ).

So the formulas sort of need to model the real world to be believable.

..........................................................................

Everything we do is a trade-off. ( even doing nothing trades-off the new changes )

So the trick is to try to think it out so we can get what we all agree we want.

Then, if needed, we can try it out and adjust the results as we learn more about it.

radar

[Terralthra]

QUOTE (Adaven @ Sep 27 2006, 08:01 AM) My rough estimate is that the current collision damage index is for recieving damage only. For instance, I set lt hull/shield to .1 (10% normal), med hull to 2 (200% normal) and station hull/shield to 50 (5000% normal). The difference between ramming an adv fig and a hvy int into a garrison @200 mps seemed to damage the garrison an amount proportional to the hp difference bewteen the ships (figs= 450 hull +150 shield, ints=750 hull). Even though the garrison had a rating of 50, that had no bearing on the damage dealt to colliding ships, and the rankings of the ships didn't seem to affect how much they damaged the garr.

You could make ships get damaged less by cons when bumping them, but it'd also reduce the damage they recieved from ramming other ships/asteroids.

There might be a partial work around: Hull and shield have separate damage values, so by playing around with these things you might be able to have ships ram cons/miners without messing up most ship ramming other ship dynamics.

Correct. The amount of damage a ship deals is not dependent on its hull, the damage/armor tables only affect how much damage is taken by a ship of each armor class when it rams/is rammed.