Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
V2.13 [dev test and development only]

#11
Are diminishing returns on module spam going to go away?

Otherwise the meta will become to be beltfed 500mm HE shells.

Also, it's probably a good idea to base the "no damage threshold" on AC, with stacking taken into consideration. So smaller shells might damage wood, but won't ever do any damage to stacked HA.

How will this affect nukes? Will we be able to construct nukes that obliterate whole fleets of light craft, or seriously damage the entirety of large craft?
Reply

#12
Sounds good, coming thru the dev version?
I think my wooden cover on metal would efficiently suck explosion energy...
From the Depths english playlist starts here, before that it's hungarian:
https://youtu.be/Ltdx0yVI9cA?list=PLImar...ZokVtdBa73
MULTIPLAYER!

[Image: 6yFiDvF.jpg]
Reply

#13
An alternative to %HP-based reduction would be to use one based on the AC of the material affected(no stacking).
While testing explosions I arrived at reducing the damage by 50 x MAX(0, MATERIAL_ARMOR - 5), before the normal armor reduction.

That way small explosions can still affect wood and internals, but metal+ is practically immune to them.
Also gives a break to detection equipment/LAMS nodes, if you up their armor to 10-ish they are still very vulnerable but need pretty close hits to be swept off.
Reply

#14
(2018-01-16, 02:41 AM)randomness5555 Wrote: Ah, so what's the max blast radius now? Is there any or is it just down to the shell now?

It's hard to tell.
The max radius is the min between the radius indicated by the explosion and the absolute max radius configured for all explosions (25m by default).

But, the real radius will likely be less than that, because the explosion loses energy over blocks or air cells it meets.

In the log file the real radius of each explosion is indicated in order to help us to balance the explosions.
Reply

#15
(2018-01-16, 03:10 AM)epicfaillord Wrote: Are diminishing returns on module spam going to go away?
Otherwise the meta will become to be beltfed 500mm HE shells.
I don't know, in fact I didn't even knew that worked like that...
I suppose that if it's too obvious that it's a problem then it will be fixed someday.


(2018-01-16, 03:10 AM)epicfaillord Wrote: Also, it's probably a good idea to base the "no damage threshold" on AC, with stacking taken into consideration. So smaller shells might damage wood, but won't ever do any damage to stacked HA.
I will probably add that possibility, so it will be possible to play with both thresholds.


(2018-01-16, 03:10 AM)epicfaillord Wrote: How will this affect nukes? Will we be able to construct nukes that obliterate whole fleets of light craft, or seriously damage the entirety of large craft?
Nukes are standard explosions with 80000 power and 50m radius.
These values may be changed in the future.


(2018-01-16, 09:54 AM)draba Wrote: An alternative to %HP-based reduction would be to use one based on the AC of the material affected(no stacking).
While testing explosions I arrived at reducing the damage by 50 x MAX(0, MATERIAL_ARMOR - 5), before the normal armor reduction.
I'm not sure I understand exactly.
You mean to give back energy to the explosion when a block isn't destroyed by basing that value on the AC of the block?

Currently, I use the standard algorithm that calculate the energy lost by the explosion to damage the block, and give back a part of it.
That energy lost is computed using AC and HP, I don't have the formula in mind but that's the old one.
Reply

#16
Is 200 m flak radius now actualy going to be that?
Still in school so cant check
There is always a weak-spot if you search Hard enough.

If you fire enough AP at that shield, at some point you're going to come through.

There is no "best" I wouldn't even say there is anything universally good, Good is subjective, I find everything bad even if it's in theory good against this or that.

Reply

#17
Noice.
"If it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid."-TheMightyJingles.

My last name is Proctor
The Proctor is a ship in the game
Yay. I'm happy.

Blueprint thread: http://www.fromthedepthsgame.com/forum/s...?tid=28006
Reply

#18
@Gladyon, with the new explosion algorithm- I only see two different material types considered - air and blocks. I was wondering whether that would mean that when say, a torpedo explodes underneath a hull, that the water will be treated as air and the explosion will propagate far easier than it should, and far less explosive force will be directed into the hull that should be. Is this correct?
WHAT! But.... that worked perfectly in my imagination!
Reply

#19
(2018-01-16, 10:45 AM)Skyer Wrote: Is 200 m flak radius now actualy going to be that?
Still in school so cant check

There's an absolute max explosion radius, for technical reasons (mainly memory...).
Before it was 11m, now it is 25m by default and can be configured up to 50m (but it will consume a lot of memory...).

And there's also the fact that explosions lose energy over the volume they expand in.
If an explosion run out of energy it just stops.


The radius indicated in the explosion (200m for some really heavy flak) is only an indication now.
It is used in the calculation, so the higher this radius is, the less the explosion will lose energy over empty blocks, so it should expand further.
Reply

#20
(2018-01-16, 10:33 AM)Gladyon Wrote:
(2018-01-16, 09:54 AM)draba Wrote: An alternative to %HP-based reduction would be to use one based on the AC of the material affected(no stacking).
While testing explosions I arrived at reducing the damage by 50 x MAX(0, MATERIAL_ARMOR - 5), before the normal armor reduction.
I'm not sure I understand exactly.
You mean to give back energy to the explosion when a block isn't destroyed by basing that value on the AC of the block?

Currently, I use the standard algorithm that calculate the energy lost by the explosion to damage the block, and give back a part of it.
That energy lost is computed using AC and HP, I don't have the formula in mind but that's the old one.

Just bad wording on my part.
Now you have a mechanic where blocks do not take any damage if the explosion does less than X% of their current HP.
And alternative to that would be reducing the power of the explosions against the given block based the material's armor, starting above a lowish armor threshold.
No stacking and the reduction happens before the normal armor damage multiplier applies.

That way:
- do not have to care about multiblocks and stacking, lots of weak explosions(<200 spam) are less of a performance hog
- small explosions are still useful against wood and stone, IMO soft materials over HA tanking them indefinitely feels wrong
- detection/LAMS can be adjusted easily, with the other method they'd need a significant HP boost to have any durability
- if needed the wear&tear aspect can be added by reducing the effective AC of a block based on its current HP
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)