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]

#31
>>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...

No wonder it never got fixed, the devs didn't even know this about the game they work on... Confused

Since you apparently weren't aware, adding two modules of HE will give less explosive damage on the shell than 2*damage of one module. These diminishing returns apply to ALL modules and it's one of the primary reason why cannons spewing lots of short, fairly high caliber shells have ruled the meta for literally years now. Two shells with 1 HE module will do 10%+ more damage than one shell with 2 HE modules. A long shell with a dozen modules can do up to 60% less damage than the total of a dozen shells with one HE module. Between that, beltfeds, and the AI being complete spaghetti at aiming (even .000001 acc railguns never hit the exact block they were told to hit) spamguns totally outclass slower firing guns on every front.
Reply

#32
(2018-01-16, 03:57 PM)draba Wrote: Yep, my guess for a starting formula is 50 x MAX(0, MATERIAL_ARMOR - 5).
No reduction for wood, metal ignores 500 from every explosion so needs heavy APS, HA ignores 2000 so needs CRAM/torpedos/PAC.
10 AP detection won't take damage from APS HE further than ~5m.

In case the stacking check is a noticeable slowdown in the explosion algorithm IMO it's worth canning.
Right now there is not that much practical difference between 40 armor and 100 against HE,
with some number tweaks in the new algorithm only the flavor loss is worth worrying about IMO.

This could be interesting. So for APS->HA you'd either need to use kinetic rounds, or perhaps could build something more devious. Combining something like AP + HE + penetration depth fuse, you could perhaps end up with rounds that punch through the armor, and cause an explosion inside the ship - and if the remaining HA kept that explosion mostly trapped inside the ship, and the aim point algorithm aims for ammo / AI...
Workshop: Voidware, INARI and more.
Reply

#33
are barrels/ammo boxes using the new explosion code?
gets high on math
Reply

#34
(2018-01-16, 04:32 PM)Azzandra Wrote:
(2018-01-16, 02:50 PM)Gladyon Wrote: That said, maybe the boost should be added to shells as well... 2000mm CRAM depths charge would become really interesting...
Please do consider this. It would add a lot more utility to shells equipped with supercavitation bases; imagine firing a broadside of supercavitating HE shells and having them detonate below the target's waterline for extra effect, it would make for a nice tradeoff to the warhead penalty such shells currently have to give them a situational bonus as well.

Potentially could help APHE designs too, if the target's below-waterline armour stops the round the detonation underwater could cause significant damage regardless.

We could also have cram bombers that fire altitude fused 2000mm crams to dispose of those pesky subs
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply

#35
(2018-01-16, 05:22 PM)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...

No wonder it never got fixed, the devs didn't even know this about the game they work on... Confused
It's been less than 4 months that I work on FtD, before I was only a player.
There are a few areas I do not know well because FtD is such a huge game.


(2018-01-16, 05:22 PM)epicfaillord Wrote: Since you apparently weren't aware, adding two modules of HE will give less explosive damage on the shell than 2*damage of one module. These diminishing returns apply to ALL modules and it's one of the primary reason why cannons spewing lots of short, fairly high caliber shells have ruled the meta for literally years now. Two shells with 1 HE module will do 10%+ more damage than one shell with 2 HE modules. A long shell with a dozen modules can do up to 60% less damage than the total of a dozen shells with one HE module. Between that, beltfeds, and the AI being complete spaghetti at aiming (even .000001 acc railguns never hit the exact block they were told to hit) spamguns totally outclass slower firing guns on every front.

Having diminishing returns is usually done to avoid excessive spamming.
Excessive spamming is usually bad from a gameplay point of view (yes sabot spam without shields, I look at you).
On top of that, diminishing returns is used in a lot of places in FtD.

Perhaps the diminishing coefficient is a bit high in that case, perhaps it should be completely removed, I cannot say.
It's balancing, and it's not worth to balance very precisely a game whose mechanics are still modified on a monthly basis.
So, either it's a real big problem and we fix it fast by modifying the coefficient with a better value, either it's just an annoyance and we don't touch it for now.


So, the question is, does that coefficient prevent the use of shells with 3-4 HE components because they would really be under-powered?
Reply

#36
(2018-01-16, 05:50 PM)LoSboccacc Wrote: are barrels/ammo boxes using the new explosion code?
Yes they are, same thing for PAC, missiles, laser pumps (and all exploding blocks).
The explosions stats are hard-coded for the exploding blocks.


(2018-01-16, 06:07 PM)Finnwolf88 Wrote: We could also have cram bombers that fire altitude fused 2000mm crams to dispose of those pesky subs
In fact, they already work, without the new algorithm I mean.
But now they work better, and if I add the explosion bonus underwater (which I'll probably do if it's easy to code), they will work even better.
Reply

#37
I think the module stacking bonus comes from the fact that reload is sub-linearly proportional to volume; module penalties prevent long-and-skinny from beating higher gauges. I am not too sure it is necessary, though--long shells have a ton of disadvantages, starting with a reload speed penalty relative to shorter and thicker shells of the same volume. (And regardless, it should be made consistent between HE/Flak with a penalty and frag (and I think EMP) without).

(2018-01-15, 11:41 PM)dmoniks Wrote: In general i think, that if we give "no damage threshold" high enough level, than it will stop people from going to small explosive dakka with high ROF as good meta against high level of armor, and force them to add some more heavier, slower guns, or try to get at less armored parts of the enemy craft, or use specialized ammo, thus enhancing tactical aspect of gameplay.
I like this change a lot Smile

Right now small HE is very bad, and I do not think this changes that: formerly, small radius explosions tend to run out of blocks to hit before exhausting their damage pool, and now they dissipate quickly. It seems rather inconsistent to try to make small-gauge explosives are literally useless (not merely inefficient) against armor when small-gauge kinetics work quite well. (I am in favor of shifting away from accumulative damage toward needing to match heavy armor with hard-hitting projectiles for aesthetic reasons, but Nick has specifically rejected it to try to ensure that small vehicles can pose a threat in aggregate.)
Allr andask.
Reply

#38
I think underwater explosion boosts for everything should definitely be a thing.

Great update! Finally I'll be able to use some of my designs messed up by subobject clipping! It will also be a nice boost to explosions inside the hull, making pendepth work decently well, and actually be a consideration for APS. Hopefully it should serve to balance APS and CRAMs relative to each other better.

About diminishing returns, frags don't have it, so I typically use a mix of HE/Frag for my shells, since HE gets pretty bad quick, to the point where a mix of HE/flak is better for straight up damage in a lot of cases.
(2017-04-20, 06:54 PM)Hikari Wrote: I made something that has an impact of a type 1a supernova. The projectile already breaks laws of physics by going way past the speed of light.

2000mm HE Dakka Enthusiast
Reply

#39
One thought--as long as HE is a viable general-purpose warhead, giving it an underwater explosion boost would be devastating to submarines, as supercavitating HE would have a net 3x? bonus (I forget what the bonus is right now). I think submarines actually have decent balance right now--projectiles are somewhat less efficient against them but that is compensated by subs' lack of evasion, and while beamrider torpedoes are cheap and effective they are mostly single-purpose. I think 3x supercav would devastate subs--it is not fully specialized, and subs have little counter to IFHE.

I have no problem with giving CRAM the bonus because without high-velocity shells or supercavitation bases they are very unreliable without being right on top of the target, and depth charges are cool.
Allr andask.
Reply

#40
(2018-01-16, 07:07 PM)Blothorn Wrote: I think the module stacking bonus comes from the fact that reload is sub-linearly proportional to volume; module penalties prevent long-and-skinny from beating higher gauges. I am not too sure it is necessary, though--long shells have a ton of disadvantages, starting with a reload speed penalty relative to shorter and thicker shells of the same volume. (And regardless, it should be made consistent between HE/Flak with a penalty and frag (and I think EMP) without).

(2018-01-15, 11:41 PM)dmoniks Wrote: In general i think, that if we give "no damage threshold" high enough level, than it will stop people from going to small explosive dakka with high ROF as good meta against high level of armor, and force them to add some more heavier, slower guns, or try to get at less armored parts of the enemy craft, or use specialized ammo, thus enhancing tactical aspect of gameplay.
I like this change a lot Smile

Right now small HE is very bad, and I do not think this changes that: formerly, small radius explosions tend to run out of blocks to hit before exhausting their damage pool, and now they dissipate quickly. It seems rather inconsistent to try to make small-gauge explosives are literally useless (not merely inefficient) against armor when small-gauge kinetics work quite well. (I am in favor of shifting away from accumulative damage toward needing to match heavy armor with hard-hitting projectiles for aesthetic reasons, but Nick has specifically rejected it to try to ensure that small vehicles can pose a threat in aggregate.)

Small HE is supposed to be weak unless used in right way. Panzerfaust is prime example - explosive power of this weapon next to the armor does almost nothing, but when it is closed in form of shaped charge, it destroys entire tanks.

Another example are bunkers - as long as you drop HE charges on top of them, they barely scratch the surface, but if one penetrates wall and explodes inside - it cleans out entire place of life.

New algorithm heavily supports this mechanic - tunnel explosion enhancing as well closed space explosive power increase play towards this nicely.

With that in mind we would go from lots of dakka to smart dakka, even small craft with good ammo can be still dangerous.
So Far So Good
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)