To clarify Cornflakes, by 'finite affinity' i meant that each type could have a non-zero affinity to every other type, so that no two types would be related by a 0% affinity.
Yeah good point on the static image in the HUD - it was late~. But I still think a clear presentation of a type's affinity profile is key.
So your spectrum-matching idea basically assigns an affinity based on the incompatibility between two types, right? I dunno man, it's a cool idea, but I think you could afford not to implement that - we could go down this rabbit hole forever.
Post
Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:03 am
#47
But it would serve lots of purposes at once, for once the damage type functionality, on another it makes damage types much easier to understand and relate and research.
Last but not least it would unify the damage type mechanics with the sensor mechanics, as you can just take the type graph and use it as sensor return graph, reusing knowledge of the player and making it much easier to determine types out of sensor graphs
Re: damage types and interactions
Based on similarity, yes.Scytale wrote: So your spectrum-matching idea basically assigns an affinity based on the incompatibility between two types, right? I dunno man, it's a cool idea, but I think you could afford not to implement that - we could go down this rabbit hole forever.
But it would serve lots of purposes at once, for once the damage type functionality, on another it makes damage types much easier to understand and relate and research.
Last but not least it would unify the damage type mechanics with the sensor mechanics, as you can just take the type graph and use it as sensor return graph, reusing knowledge of the player and making it much easier to determine types out of sensor graphs
Post
Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:45 am
#48
When I was talking about colors, I had conceded that at least according to the graphics so far, there are no such thing as plasma weapons or Ballistic weapons, missiles, or lasers, and they do not follow real physics. There are moving balls of light, guided balls of light and beams of light that have a finite range.
LT already uses RGB color, and my idea, rather than creating a complicated new mechanic, repurposes the existing features and just adds the rule that color value is a multiplier for damage in weapons and a multiplier for resistance in shields. It's true though that there are only 16 million possibilities and not 3e616 possibilities, and that yes white is only 768 times stronger than black (if it's a perfect 1x/RGBv multiplier). There are absolute best values, but these are merely multipliers to weapons and shields which can otherwise have values that are not absolute.
I also think that too much is being tied to the scanner and the use of frequencies, and while I think that there could be some spectroscopic indicator of weapon color value (especially for the colorblind), quantity overlap in color values would be sufficient in my book for shield / weapon variety. And besides, where does it say you can only have one type of shield or weapon at a time? I might be playing rock, paper and godzilla in the same hand, but you are playing scissors, gumdrops and Clint Eastwood in yours...
Re: damage types and interactions
When I was talking about colors, I had conceded that at least according to the graphics so far, there are no such thing as plasma weapons or Ballistic weapons, missiles, or lasers, and they do not follow real physics. There are moving balls of light, guided balls of light and beams of light that have a finite range. LT already uses RGB color, and my idea, rather than creating a complicated new mechanic, repurposes the existing features and just adds the rule that color value is a multiplier for damage in weapons and a multiplier for resistance in shields. It's true though that there are only 16 million possibilities and not 3e616 possibilities, and that yes white is only 768 times stronger than black (if it's a perfect 1x/RGBv multiplier). There are absolute best values, but these are merely multipliers to weapons and shields which can otherwise have values that are not absolute.
I also think that too much is being tied to the scanner and the use of frequencies, and while I think that there could be some spectroscopic indicator of weapon color value (especially for the colorblind), quantity overlap in color values would be sufficient in my book for shield / weapon variety. And besides, where does it say you can only have one type of shield or weapon at a time? I might be playing rock, paper and godzilla in the same hand, but you are playing scissors, gumdrops and Clint Eastwood in yours...
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post
Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:53 am
#49
Re: damage types and interactions
well, with multiple shields the damage could get split along the ratio of shields.
so if you have 2 shields of one type and 1 shield of another type the damage would get split by 2/3 on the one type and 1/3 on the other type.
or equal sheme along the shield hitpoints
so if you have 2 shields of one type and 1 shield of another type the damage would get split by 2/3 on the one type and 1/3 on the other type.
or equal sheme along the shield hitpoints
Post
Fri Sep 05, 2014 11:51 am
#50
Re: damage types and interactions
Well that would depend on how the shields are powered, layered and structured. if shields were like onions, than the outermost would take all the damage or allow that which it doesn't shield through. using color as an example, if you have red, then blue, then green shields, and a red weapon hits you, it would pass through the green and blue shields as though you had no shields at all, but when it hit the red shield, it would be blocked by the strength of the shield determined elsewhere. (Again, with RGB multipliers, so a dark red weapon will provide some shielding for a bright red weapon, but unless the other stats of the shield are sufficiently high, it will be overpowered.) if not pure RGB colors, the shields would have additive defenses for each other.
if the shields ate a quilt of coverage on the same level, then yes ratio damage makes sense.
if spatial in nature than your starboard shields defend your starboard, and your port your port, no additive or ratios involved.
But again shields depend on allocated energy, designed strength, and other factors too. type /color shouldn't have too much effect, and multiple strong shields would likely be very energy intensive, you would be a tough little turtle.
Some people despise turtles, but it's a perfectly valid survival strategy.
if the shields ate a quilt of coverage on the same level, then yes ratio damage makes sense.
if spatial in nature than your starboard shields defend your starboard, and your port your port, no additive or ratios involved.
But again shields depend on allocated energy, designed strength, and other factors too. type /color shouldn't have too much effect, and multiple strong shields would likely be very energy intensive, you would be a tough little turtle.
Some people despise turtles, but it's a perfectly valid survival strategy.
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post
Tue Jul 28, 2015 4:28 pm
#51
Re: damage types and interactions
well... had some discussion with Cha0zz in the IRC, and it probably best fits here.
so, enjoy.
so, enjoy.
Code: Select all
<+Cornflakes> hm... did we ever have a discussion about theft in LT?
<+Cha0zz> only about blueprint theft
<+Cornflakes> then, brainstorming
<+Cornflakes> how could we access a container without breaking it
<+Cha0zz> flying in it?
<+Cornflakes> heh?
<+Cha0zz> what do you mean with container?
<+Cornflakes> any object capable of holding anything transportable
<+Cha0zz> could be a ship?
<+Cornflakes> ship, station, anything
<+Cha0zz> k
<+Cha0zz> get close enough for transfer beam range
<+Cornflakes> hm
<+Cornflakes> how to defend against that?
<+Cha0zz> maybe reduce the targets health to a certain level before you can steal
<+Cornflakes> hm
<+Cha0zz> sounds a bit gamey hmm
<+Cornflakes> i'd prefer a way that works completely without damage
<+Cha0zz> well then maybe a sort of equipment that blocks transfer beams
<+Cornflakes> maybe plain shields?
<+Cha0zz> well
<+Cha0zz> that would require damage
<+Cornflakes> not necessarily
<+Cha0zz> since you need to tone the shields down
<+Cornflakes> shields need power
<+Cha0zz> emp?
<+Cornflakes> so civilians probably wont have them running all the time
<+Cha0zz> wouldn't be to sure of that
<+Cornflakes> well, npcs turning off shields and weapons for energy reasons would give ambushes a point
<+Cornflakes> i think it would give the world a general feel of being more alive
<+Cha0zz> it would
<+Cha0zz> but civilians wouldn't really be a good target
<+Cha0zz> maybe a few bucks to steal but nothing much else
<+Cha0zz> transports on the other hand
<+Cha0zz> good target
<+Cha0zz> much value for your effort
<+Cornflakes> civilians = non-combat ships
<+Cornflakes> in my thinking at least
<+Cha0zz> yeah, I don't know about you, but if I know that people can steal that easily I would make sure that my transports can handle constant shields
<+Cornflakes> (as i still dont see how mr T's civilians would be different from normal NPC's)
<+Cornflakes> hm
<+Cornflakes> true
<+Cornflakes> maybe with different shield penetration values?
<+Cornflakes> if you have a cooperating or offline target you can use beams with maximum rate
<+Cornflakes> else you have to trade for penetration
<+Cha0zz> How about a device that disables all transfer beams from and to your ship
<+Cha0zz> with a timout when disabled
<+Cornflakes> and how to disable it?
<+Cha0zz> this would make targets vulnearable during loading
<+Cha0zz> the ship owner does
<+Cornflakes> hm
<+Cha0zz> he wants to load some ore at a station and thus needs his beam, disables device
<+Cha0zz> a thief is on the lookout and spots him
*** Scytale (mibbit@gamesurge-5b0fc529.galcit.caltech.edu) has quit IRC: Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client
<+Cha0zz> goes in to steal
<+Cornflakes> hm
<+Cornflakes> as would mining miners be
<+Cha0zz> aye
<+Cornflakes> hm
<+Cornflakes> flat on/off or maybe some sliding scale with strenght?
<+Cha0zz> sliding scale?
<+Cha0zz> hmm
<+Cha0zz> that could work
<+Cornflakes> so you disable the ship or overpower its defenses
<+Cha0zz> you mean that a strong beam would be able to penetrate a weak defence don't you?
<+Cornflakes> yes
<+Cha0zz> yeah that would make sense
<+Cha0zz> and it would give you a reason to invest in a better system for valuable transports
<+Cornflakes> why not merge with shields?
<+Cornflakes> both do the same
<+Cha0zz> so
<+Cornflakes> and having a dedicated transfer beam disruptor is probably overkill
<+Cha0zz> disabeling shields when transfering?
<+Cornflakes> yes
<+Cha0zz> hmm
<+Cha0zz> why not
<+Cha0zz> but there should be a timer before they can be enabled again
<+Cornflakes> well, i hope theres already some timer on shield activation
<+Cha0zz> yeah
<+Cha0zz> I like it
<+Cornflakes> as with "when disabled reload to x% and then reenable"
<+Cha0zz> all ships are vulnerable to theft when transferring
<+Cornflakes> mhm
<+Cha0zz> and some are vulnerable during transport
<+Cornflakes> due to penetration?
<+Cha0zz> yeah
<+Cornflakes> hm
<+Cornflakes> we could generalise that to general shield penetration ability
<+Cha0zz> but when penetrating the strength of the beam is reduced causing it to be less efficient
<+Cha0zz> nah
<+Cornflakes> i'd say the beam trades the capability to penetrate at all for transfer rate
<+Cha0zz> shields should have different values for kinetic, energy and transfer
<+Cha0zz> gives options for specialized shields
<+Cornflakes> i'd personally couple penetration capability in general to damage types
<+Cha0zz> you mean?
<+Cornflakes> this weapon has x% penetration capability modified by the damage type of the shield it goes against
<+Cornflakes> say, you have laser, plasma and graviton shields and weapons
<+Cha0zz> so penetration is a weapon modifier
<+Cha0zz> ?
<+Cornflakes> it is
<+Cornflakes> with some modulation on its penetration depending on damage type interatcion
<+Cha0zz> I was more thinking of shields absorbing a certain value and letting the rest pass
<+Cha0zz> but yours is better
<+Cha0zz> I think
<+Cornflakes> so a laser weapon thats good against plasma shields would have a bonus to its penetration value
<+Cornflakes> if it has penetration at all
<+Cha0zz> penetration should be rare I think
<+Cornflakes> and a malus when going against graviton shields which it is bad against
<+Cha0zz> something expensive
<+Cornflakes> no objection
<+Cha0zz> making ships vulnerable during transfers also gives you a good reason to protect your stations and miners
<+Cornflakes> mhm
<+Cornflakes> didnt think about that
<+Cornflakes> a station would probably have its shields down all the time
<+Cha0zz> most of the time
<+Cha0zz> depending on the station type
<+Cornflakes> mhm
<+Cha0zz> a station that's basically a large ship-hangar would use its shields a lot
<+Cha0zz> a trading station mostly down
<+Cha0zz> weapon platforms would be vulnerable during resupply
<+Cornflakes> i really like that to be honest
<+Cha0zz> which would open some nice tactical options
<+Cha0zz> and it also makes sense from a theoretical standpoint
<+Cornflakes> mhm
<+Cha0zz> since shields would be designed to block radiation
<+Cha0zz> and stuff
<+Cha0zz> so why should they allow transfer beams?
<+Cha0zz> unless they can penetrate
<+Cornflakes> and if we generalise the penetration capability we keep it consistent
<+Cornflakes> no "why wasnt that weaponised"
<+Cha0zz> ?
<+Cornflakes> well, if we have transfer beams that can penetrate shields
<+Cornflakes> why cant we build beam weapons that penetrate as well?
<+Cha0zz> ah yeah
<+Cha0zz> indeed
<+Cha0zz> You know, I really like this
<+Cornflakes> mhm
<+Cha0zz> it opens up tactical and defensive options and also allows for a nice consistency
<+Cha0zz> learning a traders goal and patrols would be valuable info
<+Cha0zz> because you can lay ambushes at stations and stuff
<+Cornflakes> and knowing targets shield parameters would be valuable beyond shooting it
<+Cha0zz> yep
<+Cha0zz> also gives rise to more diverse shields
<+Cornflakes> mhm
*** xanax` (~unknown@f2c34696:e3e72e05:e0de9676:IP6) has quit IRC: Quit: bye
<+Cornflakes> i wonder if it would be overkill if the penetration has an independent "damage type" from the actual weapon?
<+Cornflakes> for example weapons that would be bad against some type of shield get good when using penetration
<+Cha0zz> hm
<+Cha0zz> on the same weapon?
<+Cornflakes> same weapon
<+Cornflakes> it does x type impact damage, but the penetration "rolls" against y
<+Cha0zz> I don't think that a non-penetration weapon should be able to gain penetrating capabilities without tinkering/ researching it
<+Cornflakes> thats not what im saying
<+Cornflakes> say you have plasma weapons
<+Cornflakes> they are all crap against the type of shields your enemy uses
<+Cornflakes> so you research a penetrating variation of them
<+Cornflakes> the penetration effect uses a different type of damage
<+Cha0zz> type of damage?
<+Cornflakes> so the penetration variation is effective against the enemys shield
<+Cha0zz> like kinetic/ thermal?
<+Cornflakes> for example
<+Cha0zz> don't like that
<+Cornflakes> im thinking of more technobabble/continous way
<+Cha0zz> a laser won't suddenly gain bullets
*** Unknown command: DAMAGE
<+Cornflakes> thats why im for technobabble damage types
<+Cha0zz> and isn't the whole point of penetration that you don't have to care about the shield?
<+Cornflakes> so a laser weapon can gain a tachyon based penetration effect
<+Cornflakes> it should still affect penetration
<+Cha0zz> true
<+Cornflakes> so some shields are good against tachyon damage
<+Cornflakes> those shields you couldnt penetrate
<+Cornflakes> (as well)
<+Cha0zz> hmh
<+Cornflakes> and others are susceptible to tachyon, those are easier to penetrate
<+Cha0zz> hmh
<+Cha0zz> and what about it's original thermal damage?
<+Cornflakes> that gets partially applied to the shield, draining it as usual
<+Cornflakes> and the penetrating part goes against armor
<+Cha0zz> I don't like it
<+Cha0zz> it looks like a way to circumvent different weapon type trade-offs
<+Cha0zz> thermal weapons are instantaneously and kinetic ones aren't
<+Cornflakes> and what about thermite loaded missles/bullets?
<+Cornflakes> i'd personally say "screw kinetic"
<+Cha0zz> explosive
<+Cornflakes> its still not an instagib weapon
<+Cha0zz> hmm
<+Cornflakes> kinetic gives too much headache in combination with other types
<+Cha0zz> it doesn't feel right to me :/
<+Cornflakes> i'd use a complete spectrum of weapon types
<+Cornflakes> like the sensor system
<+Cornflakes> and every spectrogram gives a different damage type
<+Cha0zz> I think it doesn't feel right because it lacks realism
<+Cha0zz> :\
<+Cornflakes> imo the lack of a single type is manageable compared to the endless possibilities gained by not having it
<+Cha0zz> I'm not really sure if I like it that weapons would do different types of damage at the same time
<+Cha0zz> seems like a balancing hell
<+Cha0zz> somehow
<+Cornflakes> well, it still only does damage with only a single type
<+Cornflakes> a penetrating laser weapon still damages armor with laser type
<+Cha0zz> not like you said
<+Cha0zz> you do thermal to the shields and kinetic to the hull with what you said
<+Cornflakes> no
<+Cornflakes> they do thermal to both
<+Cornflakes> but if its a tachyon penetrator the damage multiplier of tachyon gets used for penetration
<+Cha0zz> yeah
<+Cha0zz> thus you do thermal to the shield an at the same time kinetic to the hull
<+Cornflakes> no, you dont
<+Cornflakes> you penetrate using "kinetic"
<+Cornflakes> but damage to both is thermal
<+Cha0zz> well
<+Cha0zz> that seems completely wrong
<+Cornflakes> only the penetration is calculated using the second type
<+Cha0zz> thermal weapons that do thermal damage but penetrate as if they were kinetic weapons?
<+Cornflakes> kinda
<+Cha0zz> nope
<+Cha0zz> don't like it
<+Cha0zz> if you do thermal damage you penetrate as thermal
<+Cornflakes> then the shields you cant damage you also cant penetrate
<+Cha0zz> yes
<+Cha0zz> you can damage
<+Cha0zz> just less efficient
<+Cornflakes> you know what i mean
<+Cha0zz> that's a trade-off of weapon choice and target picking
<+Cornflakes> if you are crap against a shield, you are always crap against shield
<+Cornflakes> *the shield
<+Cha0zz> or have multiple weapons mounted
<+Cha0zz> like plasma and thermal
<+Cha0zz> not one magical 'beats all' weapon
<+Cha0zz> but tactical choices
<+Cornflakes> i mean, whats the point of having penetration if the weapons that tear down the shields in the first place are also good penetrating them
<+Cornflakes> im not saying that we should create a magical beats all weapon
<+Cha0zz> huge shields take long to tear down
<+Cornflakes> but i'd say that a weapon thats bad damaging a shield shouldnt be bad penetrating a shield
<+Cha0zz> and penetration should be an unusual modifier to a weapon
<+Cha0zz> not all weapons can penetrate
<+Cornflakes> not saying that
<+Cha0zz> but i'd say that a weapon thats bad damaging a shield shouldnt be bad penetrating a shield
<+Cha0zz> that's why shields should have a 'penetration resistance'
<+Cornflakes> you arent
<+Cornflakes> then the uber penetration weapon is always uber penetrating
<+Cha0zz> that was a copy paste from you =P
<+Cha0zz> not against specialized shields
<+Cha0zz> just like a thermal weapon is not good against a specialized shield
<+Cha0zz> see penetration as its own type of damage
<+Cornflakes> then you have the same as i outlined except that you have only one type for penetration instead of x
<+Cha0zz> yes
<+Cha0zz> maybe
<+Cha0zz> hmm
<+Cornflakes> so a shield with high penetration resistance is always good against penetrating weapons
<+Cornflakes> i'd say that you have flowing damage types for both
<+Cornflakes> so you can adapt in all directions
<+Cha0zz> it allows for shields specifically against penetrating weapons, your system doesn't allow that
<+Cornflakes> mine allows for shields against a special brand of shield penetrators
<+Cornflakes> so if you have tachyon penetrators you can build anti tachyon shields and they cant be penetrated anymore
<+Cornflakes> by that type of weapon
<+Cornflakes> if someone else builds penetrators based on another type they can be penetrated again
<+Cha0zz> so to stop a penetrator attack you would at least need different anti-penetration shields?
<+Cornflakes> yeah
<+Cornflakes> so your anti penetrator shields dont work against all penetrator weapons
<+Cha0zz> hmm
<+Cornflakes> only against a certain range of weapons
<+Cha0zz> it feels icky
<+Cha0zz> but I don't know why :/
<+Cha0zz> give me some technobabble to convince me
<+Cha0zz> why can a thermal weapon penetrate as a kinetic one?
<+Cornflakes> kinetic is such a butt type
<+Cornflakes> say, its a particle beam sheathed laser
<+Cha0zz> as a plasma then
<+Cornflakes> the particle beam opens a channel through the shield
<+Cornflakes> and the laser blasts through that hole
<+Cornflakes> if the shield is good against particle weapons, that doesnt work
<+Cornflakes> if its weak against particle weapons, it works better
<+Cha0zz> I'm not convinced :/
<+Cha0zz> but meh
<+Cornflakes> im bad at convincing people :P
<+Cha0zz> screw it
<+Cornflakes> lol
<+Cha0zz> I don't see holes in you theory
<+Cha0zz> but for some reason I don't like it :P
<+Cornflakes> lol
<+Cha0zz> but since I can't poke holes in it, screw my doubts
<+Cha0zz> :P
<+Cornflakes> lo
<+Cornflakes> lol
<+Cornflakes> you need better cornflakes theory penetratig weapons
<+Cha0zz> lol
<+Cornflakes> so, brb
<+Cha0zz> If I kept saying 'nope' my only argument would be 'I don't like it because it feels wrong'
<+Cha0zz> and that's one amazing argument :/
<+Cha0zz> :P
<+Cornflakes> looool
<+Cornflakes> i know that feeling, though