Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Shynras

Ideas for collision damage

Recommended Posts

Allahu Akbar....

 

This reminds me of an old FPS game where you could run around with a primed grenade, for some reason i got banned all the time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh perhaps someone has mentioned it but it worth saying again.

 

Collisions makes space fun because you have to think about your actions or die and not just ghost true each other or object.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh perhaps someone has mentioned it but it worth saying again.

 

Collisions makes space fun because you have to think about your actions or die and not just ghost true each other or object.

Thing is there's no "Ghosting" with ships, but there's no damage on collisiosn iether. NQ has momentum and inertia, which means they could implement something like the system I suggested. Only remains to be seen if they got the time to add it ... or the will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NQ has stated they want to avoid collision mechanics as much as possible and its a decision i agree with. While bouncing off other ships is unrealistic and kinda sucks the alternative of adding complex systems and other forms of damage is far worse. My largest current concern with combat is how the balance of skills, weapons, armor, damage, tackling, stealth etc etc will all play together. So many combat aspects and how they all have to work together to feel like there isn't just one ultimate ship or solution. The more types of damage and systems you add on the harder it is to balance it all out.

 

While i think twerks solution could work I can start to see some holes with it. To start with its confusing for players to understand but also requires a lot of information about materials to be added to the game. Once again all these strengths and weakness will need to be factored in to the world economy and balanced properly with other elements like damage resistance etc.

 

Another simple issue is there is now a way to lose a huge ship nearly instantly. Flying towards an asteroid or some large space station and lag out for 20 seconds, BUMP and your ship is possible gone or heavily damage. This is the type of mechanic that would make people quit the game right away. Expecting perfect connections to the server is unrealistic and the first time someone loses their expensive ship because of some crappy server lag may be the last time they play the game.

 

"You tried to play chicken with your battlecruiser by trying to joust with another battlecruiser but you forgot to engage your maneuvers and dodge AWAY from the path of the enemy battlecruiser? You both explode."

 

This right here i can think of TONS of great reasons to take that trade. Easy example i have a ship with no guns/extremely similar build as another ship, maybe even the same base BP. They add 10 guns to their ship to make it a more standard fighting ship. We know that means they have to add 10 more players to man those guns. They also need ammo to fire those guns. I fly my ship with no guns and possibly no one else on it, into that ship. We both explode. I die but all 10-11 of them die and they possibly lose all their ammo and guns they added to the ship. The rest of the 9 members of my org are on some other cheap ship. They loot up what remains of both ships and we come out ahead in the battle/war.

 

As i stated originally this is just something that should be avoided entirely, i don't see way to put this in the game that isn't going to drastically effect balance and not come with a huge amount of issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Ostris, what you mean is that NQ shoudl dial back on its complexity ?

You are debating situational and rare occasions man. Nobody in their right mind would build a capital ship just to "trollpedo" another capital ship. That's as unrealistic as those peoplew ho say "but how can my small org domiante a planet if I can't automate an army of drones????? NQ, pl0x gib me amry of robots".

A ship's hull is worth far more than the guns on it. And again, if you put a person that's a moron to pilot your captial, YOU DESERVE to lose that capital.  You wouldnt put an idiot in charge of a space station your faction owns, you wouldn't hand a 12 yo a Captail Ship either. Your suggestion is just out of this owlrd. Taking out the guns from the ship to "Trollpedo" another ship., is like saying "hey guys, take the glove compartment out of my car, I am going to T-bone another car, but I can't risk losing the valuable glove compartment, we all know the aluminium, the machienry and the engine cost pennies comapred to the glove compartment".

Here is something that wil lcreate a lot of issues - lack of Collision damage. People already checkd out of the game on social media just by seeign responses by people (from this forum) saying "oh, thert'es no collsioin damage".

Guess what's the first thing people say. "Oh, No Man's Sky then shit flying? Peace, I'm out".

If you don't have or operate within a sizeable organisation, you will never fly a battleship. And even if collisions are in the game, Lua scripts CAN help with avoiding a collision with anything if the ship detects an obstacle within a certain range and autoamtically manuvuer or slow down  Does that sound difficult? It isnn't, it's just math.

Oh wait, people are cretins and never liked math, should NQ remove Lua scripts or gut them to the point of them being used only for Hello World, uh?

Should also NQ remove aerodynamic profiles (WHICH THEY ALREADY IMPLEMENTED) cause people are also cretins and won't understand why their box-shaped starshit won't fly well? 

Or should NQ add space-friction cause people are used to that in other games that don't bother coding vacuum and go like "eh, fork it, we are here to make cashgrab with Unity, not make a good game" ???

Should also NQ simplify CoM physics cause Lil'Timmy doesn't understand that uneven shapes don't make good flying vehicles?

Should NQ remove the realistic economy, cause let's face it, I will RMT Scam 97% of the present community - no remorse, I like punishing less econnomically savvy people, there's no stopping that, NQ might as well remove it, cause it's "going to create a lot of issues".

In fact, remove voxels. We don't need them. They will eventually create unbalance. Make everything prefab meshes we snap together. That sounds fun and "more fair".

In fact, remove the multicrew thing, who needs it? Make everything automated. I mean, Multicrews will only create issues later on. Plus, it's a waste of code having a 2000 to 5000 lines of code dedicated for walking on board a ship.

And... I mean, planets. Let's not be silly, those things just cost server space, remove them altogether, we don't even need planets, as we all know, Lord Cringeworth and his One-Man-Battleship buddies will never dock on anything. I mean, the skill training as well needs to go, it will create issues later on, mainly cretins not understanding how timers work.

In fact, the whole seamless transition thing... it's not really needed to begin with. Just make the whole game like [Korean Trash MMO #12687833212], and instance everything on 100 USD Hivelocity servers.

And that one "single-shard" thing, not really needed either. I mean, think about it, you will be playing against Koreans and Japanese playeers. That's like putting Solid Snake to duel to the death with Dora the Explorer. The whole "single-shard" universe idea, is definitely gonna create issues. I mean, who can compete with drunk australians to begin with? Have you ever heard of a Drunk Australian Siege Fleet losing in EVE? Think about it.


See how your arguement of "it will create issues later on" can be applied on anything - and yes, I don't say that often, but your arguement in this occasion is flawed and not thought out, and comes from a selfish place in you mate. You know, you sound like an EA Executive - which kinda makes your claim of "I work in an office for a cloud company" make a hell of a lot more sense now - you turn into an executive O_O .

"What?! You want to update the carcass of Odyssey Engine we call Frostbite Engine for Mass Effect : Andromeda so the facial animations don't look horrible?!!! NO! Make pretty graphics, the marketing guys (who in my opinion as Twerk should all be executed for treason ) say people want graphics and lighting and stuff!! Make me more graphics!!! Nobody plays Mass Effect for the immersion in the story! In fact, I will prove it to you, uglify any female character and you'll see, NOBODY will notice!!! In fact, make the game more like that Witcherror game from Finland or some shit, just make it open world or something and don't you FRIGGING dare updating the lock-on combat system we have been using from MAss Effect 1, just disguise it better!".

If you suck at piloting, do the smart thing, don't fly an expensive ship. That's what I plan on doing, cause my level of flying anything consists of  "I can do VTOLs, please don't give me a space-jet". Cause in the end, your arguement is one of selfish nature.

Ships exploding from bad piloting can make a person's ability to fly a ship WORTH it. In EVE, you just have to wait 148 days to fly a carrier. And that's it. It's just a droneboat with more powerful drones (fighters). You didn't really prove you are an amazing pilot and earning your seat as a battleship / carrier pilot. 


And please, your arguement of "it will take more time to code in the game this"...

Really? So you mean to say, you  think all the resistances each metal and alloy NQ added in the game, is "not an issue", but adding Tensile Strength on those materials as an extra stat and pulling an average of G tolerance out of a ship's entire voxel count is "going to create issues".

Tell me, do you think, that voxels will all have the same HP??? No, they won't and there is a scientific formula for tensile stnregth on materials even depending on theri composition NQ can adapt for the game's materials to figure out the numbers fast.

Start making good arguements. This is getting boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do play Kerbal Space Program and use the Atomic Rockets website(http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/) if that is what you are talking about.

 

Personally, my biggest concern for having physics-based collision is the strain on the server to calculate all the physics and stuff. KSP doesn't have multiplayer for a reason(and DMP isn't very reliable). Also, stop being salty. 

 

 

Also, the missile can get up to relative velocity with the target up close and personal, and explode, with the explosion flying with the ship. When I said spaceborne nukes, I was talking about those USAF designs from the 50s and the 60s, and don't forget, our old friend, SDI.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I do play Kerbal Space Program and use the Atomic Rockets website(http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/) if that is what you are talking about.

 

Personally, my biggest concern for having physics-based collision is the strain on the server to calculate all the physics and stuff. KSP doesn't have multiplayer for a reason(and DMP isn't very reliable). Also, stop being salty. 

 

 

Also, the missile can get up to relative velocity with the target up close and personal, and explode, with the explosion flying with the ship. When I said spaceborne nukes, I was talking about those USAF designs from the 50s and the 60s, and don't forget, our old friend, SDI.

 

That's the point, they already calcualte momentum and inertia.

 

They already HAVE collisiojns for ships, they don't have colision dmage, cause they don't want voxel deformation caused by voxel connections. Voxel-to-voxel grinding is the resource hog ,cause every voxel is an entity on its own. But my model treats the WHOLE ships as 1 entity. not many. Essentially, it combines ALL the voxels into a common health pool and when it reaches zero, the ship explodes, by virtue of its fuel tanks compressing as the Hlll no longer tanks the "G forces for the whole ship.

 

Very simple. It also ensures ships of smaller mass can't hurt your battleship, as you are FAR FAR heavier than them. And more or less, a planet wins i nany collsion that exeeds a ship's maximum tensile strength tolerance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Math!

Science! :V

 

In fact, Math is the main reason people are afraid of the very mechanism I propose, cause some people thought " LOLZIES, I WILLK ENVER NEED MATH IN MY LIFE xD " at school. 

 

Now, now they feel the burn. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science! :V

 

In fact, Math is the main reason people are afraid of the very mechanism I propose, cause some people thought " LOLZIES, I WILLK ENVER NEED MATH IN MY LIFE xD " at school. 

 

Now, now they feel the burn. :P

 

Well, technically there's maths in many games. Even if it's something as simple as calculating what your armor class would be with a certain set of armor, after adding your Dexterity proficiency capped at what type of armor you are wearing, and what your skill for wearing it is. As per classic D&D rules, or old school RPGs. 

 

Then everything got boring with dumbed down mechanics, and automatic calculators for everything. I blame the console generation. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, technically there's maths in many games. Even if it's something as simple as calculating what your armor class would be with a certain set of armor, after adding your Dexterity proficiency capped at what type of armor you are wearing, and what your skill for wearing it is. As per classic D&D rules, or old school RPGs. 

 

Then everything got boring with dumbed down mechanics, and automatic calculators for everything. I blame the console generation. :P

It's what I think EVE does right. You NEED to know your math on- let's say - a Cormorant, when using Antimatter charges and a Coilgun. You need to know what's the maximum trannsversal your guns can take.

 

Many people in EVE - even 10 year old veternas - don't even know you can place your ship at rest with the opponent's direction, to reduce their speed-tanking ability. Which is sad in retrospect.

 

If DU can create certain situations, where I can play a long range sharpshooter and be like "in this type of planet with this atmosphere, I need THIS type of ammunition and THIS amount of difference in angular velocities to cause a perfect shot on the target" I would be really happy with this kind of complex and rewarding "simple but deep" combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. There you go. Of course, unless said small ship is going really fast. 

Very simple. It also ensures ships of smaller mass can't hurt your battleship, as you are FAR FAR heavier than them. And more or less, a planet wins i nany collsion that exeeds a ship's maximum tensile strength tolerance.

 

Math and Science go hand in hand. And Engineering and Technology too. I hate seeing posts online saying how math is useles... Ironic since the computer used to type it, the software used to run and display the web browser, the infrastructure needed to run the server and the Internet, all took a lot of math to set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point, they already calcualte momentum and inertia.

 

They already HAVE collisiojns for ships, they don't have colision dmage, cause they don't want voxel deformation caused by voxel connections. Voxel-to-voxel grinding is the resource hog ,cause every voxel is an entity on its own. But my model treats the WHOLE ships as 1 entity. not many. Essentially, it combines ALL the voxels into a common health pool and when it reaches zero, the ship explodes, by virtue of its fuel tanks compressing as the Hlll no longer tanks the "G forces for the whole ship.

 

Very simple. It also ensures ships of smaller mass can't hurt your battleship, as you are FAR FAR heavier than them. And more or less, a planet wins i nany collsion that exeeds a ship's maximum tensile strength tolerance.

Ah. There you go. Of course, unless said small ship is going really fast. 

Very simple. It also ensures ships of smaller mass can't hurt your battleship, as you are FAR FAR heavier than them. And more or less, a planet wins i nany collsion that exeeds a ship's maximum tensile strength tolerance.

 

Math and Science go hand in hand. And Engineering and Technology too. I hate seeing posts online saying how math is useles... Ironic since the computer used to type it, the software used to run and display the web browser, the infrastructure needed to run the server and the Internet, all took a lot of math to set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so heres my thoughts on the collision. A good chunk of it was already stated, and some of the details of some systems were mentioned so I can skip over it. 

 

First of, I would like to see a voxel damage system like in Space Engineers or Starmade, but I understand thats resource heavy and wouldnt work well for something on this scale. Maybe in 10 years when we have carbon nano tube transistors and 1k times the power we do now. 

 

But I would like to see some collision effects.  Afterall, as much as they are hated, kinetic kill projectiles will be a major part in space battles, and its fun to design system to make them practical in battle. So for this maybe they could use a system similar to Avorion. 

 

I just recently started playing it and its one of those early access games, so some of the mechanics and how they work are unkown. Theres a few things that dont seem to be consistent. But basically, every block you add to your ship adds HP. Each system/component, such as a turret or engine could have its own health so they can be targeted for destruction, but the voxel construct is looked at as a whole. In battle, you take damage and it drains from your total HP. When its gone youre dead. The damage can be from weapons or collision. So for DU, collisions could just be an overall damage thing. Based on the overall inertia of the 2 ships, maybe an average in material strengths. And each ship takes damage and its pulled from the overall.  I would like to see a system that allows you to puncture through a few blocks over having to blow up the whole ship. This would allow breaching and/or focus fire to get to critical system. 

 

I do like the idea of a minimum velocity difference to initiate damage. While you could argue that docking and landing damage adds immersion, in reality for games that have it for low speeds, it becomes a hassle. But I would keep it fairly low so it helps protect from every day maneuvers and docking. Afterall, if you're just a bad pilot there should be some sort of penalty.

 

As for bumping collisions, this could work with nearly every system implemented for collision damage. And as annoying bump greifers are, it would be odd if two ships could just ram each other and not budge or bounce. And I would think implementing a system where I could push or pull your ship as a tug worked (we need space tugs right), but grief raming didnt. And having collision damage is a good way to at least limit bump greifers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so heres my thoughts on the collision. A good chunk of it was already stated, and some of the details of some systems were mentioned so I can skip over it. 

 

First of, I would like to see a voxel damage system like in Space Engineers or Starmade, but I understand thats resource heavy and wouldnt work well for something on this scale. Maybe in 10 years when we have carbon nano tube transistors and 1k times the power we do now. 

 

But I would like to see some collision effects.  Afterall, as much as they are hated, kinetic kill projectiles will be a major part in space battles, and its fun to design system to make them practical in battle. So for this maybe they could use a system similar to Avorion. 

 

I just recently started playing it and its one of those early access games, so some of the mechanics and how they work are unkown. Theres a few things that dont seem to be consistent. But basically, every block you add to your ship adds HP. Each system/component, such as a turret or engine could have its own health so they can be targeted for destruction, but the voxel construct is looked at as a whole. In battle, you take damage and it drains from your total HP. When its gone youre dead. The damage can be from weapons or collision. So for DU, collisions could just be an overall damage thing. Based on the overall inertia of the 2 ships, maybe an average in material strengths. And each ship takes damage and its pulled from the overall.  I would like to see a system that allows you to puncture through a few blocks over having to blow up the whole ship. This would allow breaching and/or focus fire to get to critical system. 

 

I do like the idea of a minimum velocity difference to initiate damage. While you could argue that docking and landing damage adds immersion, in reality for games that have it for low speeds, it becomes a hassle. But I would keep it fairly low so it helps protect from every day maneuvers and docking. Afterall, if you're just a bad pilot there should be some sort of penalty.

 

As for bumping collisions, this could work with nearly every system implemented for collision damage. And as annoying bump greifers are, it would be odd if two ships could just ram each other and not budge or bounce. And I would think implementing a system where I could push or pull your ship as a tug worked (we need space tugs right), but grief raming didnt. And having collision damage is a good way to at least limit bump greifers. 

 

I did suggest something similar only it works with G thresholds.

 

Case in point, if your sip can take 10 Gs of accelreation, if you go from 100 m/s to 0 in 1 second, your ship wil ltake damage, NOT explode, but take damge to its Collision HP (which is tied to the HOP total of all voxels on the ship.).

 

Each Voxel contributesa Tensile Strength Factor, which is an average of G toelrance of materials divided by Structure Volume - notice, this is the STRUCTURE's volume, not the SHIP volume. Emtpty space inside a ship does not reduce its Tensile Strength. The arguement can be made that ship Elements (cargo containers) add to its mass, but that's affecting collisio nas far as momentum goes.

 

The tolal voxel HP for Collision Damage = Structural Integrity.

 

The more the Gs exceed the Tensile Strength, them ore the damage your Voxel HP take. The more voxels you got destroyed o nyoru ship, theLESS the Collsion HP is. Collsion HP reaches 0 = Fuel Tanks + Capacitors explode. Ship goes boom.

 

This ensures only a ship of EQUAL mass can actually kill your ship right off - or a very nasty head on collsion with an equall massive ship.

 

So, no Trollpedo ships. This system is just guaranteeing that. And its' not about Voxel Deformatino like Space Engineers. That shit is COSTLY. A surface of 100x100 voxels grinfing aginast a surface of 100x100 voxels would force the suerver to calcualte the damge done to them every single second of the collisino times the number of collisions. 

 

In my model. only 1 thing is comapred with 1 other thing and even if 5 shisp collide together, thats' FAR less claculatiosn than ANYTHING invovlding voxle to voxel collision calcualtion - this is Construct collidign with a consturct and incidentaly, JC has cofnirmed the planet s in DU are viewed as "special" Cosntructs by the game engine. And NQ has already implemented inertia and momentum, it's easy for them to implement this mechanic for collision - I just hope they won't go "idiot friendly" and just forfeit collisiosn cause Jeff doesn't understand what happens if you jump off the 10th floor or Timmehdoesnt't understand that standing in the middle of the street will end up bad for you (parking a ship in front of a stargate).

 

People were not happy when No Man's Sky main feature - the flying - was as simple as "nose dive land a ship". Just saying.  The model I mentioned does follow a sense of believablility AND is actually in accord with the way they have programmed the game - from what we know.

 

 

Avorion is very low-tech compared to DU as far as programming goes. Voxel game to voxel game varies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem however, from my understanding, it's about collisions detection, not just how to calculate collision damage

No, the main problem is Voxel-to-Voxel grinding.  Collision detection doesn't matter, only if you exceed your G threshold in the model I proposed.

 

 

Look at GDC 2017 stream, when JC bumps on another hovercraft. his hovercraft bounces back from it. That's inertia. That's Third Law of Motion.

 

 

They system I proposed is ignoring the CPU-Hungry Space Engineers model. It works with G forces. You exceed them you take damage. It's that simple. G forces apply on acceleration - and deccelerations are just Gs in the opposte direction your momentum is headed. Oh yeah, DU has also momentum.

 

It's that simple really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did suggest something similar only it works with G thresholds.

 

Case in point, if your sip can take 10 Gs of accelreation, if you go from 100 m/s to 0 in 1 second, your ship wil ltake damage, NOT explode, but take damge to its Collision HP (which is tied to the HOP total of all voxels on the ship.).

 

Each Voxel contributesa Tensile Strength Factor, which is an average of G toelrance of materials divided by Structure Volume - notice, this is the STRUCTURE's volume, not the SHIP volume. Emtpty space inside a ship does not reduce its Tensile Strength. The arguement can be made that ship Elements (cargo containers) add to its mass, but that's affecting collisio nas far as momentum goes.

 

The tolal voxel HP for Collision Damage = Structural Integrity.

 

The more the Gs exceed the Tensile Strength, them ore the damage your Voxel HP take. The more voxels you got destroyed o nyoru ship, theLESS the Collsion HP is. Collsion HP reaches 0 = Fuel Tanks + Capacitors explode. Ship goes boom.

 

This ensures only a ship of EQUAL mass can actually kill your ship right off - or a very nasty head on collsion with an equall massive ship.

 

So, no Trollpedo ships. This system is just guaranteeing that. And its' not about Voxel Deformatino like Space Engineers. That shit is COSTLY. A surface of 100x100 voxels grinfing aginast a surface of 100x100 voxels would force the suerver to calcualte the damge done to them every single second of the collisino times the number of collisions. 

 

In my model. only 1 thing is comapred with 1 other thing and even if 5 shisp collide together, thats' FAR less claculatiosn than ANYTHING invovlding voxle to voxel collision calcualtion - this is Construct collidign with a consturct and incidentaly, JC has cofnirmed the planet s in DU are viewed as "special" Cosntructs by the game engine. And NQ has already implemented inertia and momentum, it's easy for them to implement this mechanic for collision - I just hope they won't go "idiot friendly" and just forfeit collisiosn cause Jeff doesn't understand what happens if you jump off the 10th floor or Timmehdoesnt't understand that standing in the middle of the street will end up bad for you (parking a ship in front of a stargate).

 

People were not happy when No Man's Sky main feature - the flying - was as simple as "nose dive land a ship". Just saying.  The model I mentioned does follow a sense of believablility AND is actually in accord with the way they have programmed the game - from what we know.

 

 

Avorion is very low-tech compared to DU as far as programming goes. Voxel game to voxel game varies.

Yeah, I saw your post. I just didnt make sure I covered every detail. 

 

I think the way you mentioned by using tensile strengths is a good idea, Im not sure if its something they already plan on doing and takes some processing. What you could do is set a minimum force requirement based on material. If 100% of the ship is titanium, use titaniums value. if its 50% titanium and 50% iron, average them. 

 

But to say a small ship does no damage to a large ship is breaking from reality.  While its mass is small so the imparted force on the ship is small, it does in reality, and should in the game do some damage.  So 1 small craft cant take out a BS, but a few hundred could. By not calculating the voxel damage, and just doing a structural damage you reduce the calculation requirements, while still allowing for ramming ships or kinetic torpedos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I saw your post. I just didnt make sure I covered every detail. 

 

I think the way you mentioned by using tensile strengths is a good idea, Im not sure if its something they already plan on doing and takes some processing. What you could do is set a minimum force requirement based on material. If 100% of the ship is titanium, use titaniums value. if its 50% titanium and 50% iron, average them. 

 

But to say a small ship does no damage to a large ship is breaking from reality.  While its mass is small so the imparted force on the ship is small, it does in reality, and should in the game do some damage.  So 1 small craft cant take out a BS, but a few hundred could. By not calculating the voxel damage, and just doing a structural damage you reduce the calculation requirements, while still allowing for ramming ships or kinetic torpedos. 

Nobody knows, I just proposed an ideabased on their Actor based programming (everything being math based). 

 

The idea to treat the entire ship's strcture as on e mass. Cast-steel armor for tanks, is not the same as plated armor. Plates move, plates bounce. Cast-steel abosrbs the whole impact in its whoel body. On a Neeton to Volume ratio, a spaceship made out of Cast-Aloy would be able to absorb the shockwave of minor impact - up to a point of their Pascal threshold ( G / m3 ), which is what Ultimate Tensile Strength is, Pressure limit. This can be explaiend by the way the nanoformer works in the lore. Not creating plates of armor, but mollecularly fusing a ship's didfferent alloys to share their tensile strength as one.

 

I'd suggest lookingup the french tanks in WW2 for more info. If you think Panzers were tough, look at the french tanks and how the Panzers'' main cannon could not evne hurt their cast-steel armor. It rung like a bell after each hit, but Panzers could NOT break it, cause their shots had not enough power behind them.

 

It's not perfect, but it makes pilots who know how to fly better and punishes people who want to "No Man's Sky" land a ship regret it.

 

Latest DevDiary shows that entering a planet i nthe wrong angle causes ship damage - as NQ confirmed it. We can only hope they won't chicken out and will add something like this model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...it makes pilots who know how to fly better and punishes people who want to "No Man's Sky" land a ship regret it.

 

Latest DevDiary shows that entering a planet in the wrong angle causes ship damage - as NQ confirmed it. We can only hope they won't chicken out and will add something like this model.

 

I think if they continue with this type of approach to the game mechanics it will be overall good for the game. It'll create more specialized gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if they continue with this type of approach to the game mechanics it will be overall good for the game. I can imagine people who are better at piloting being payed more to move larger, harder to pilot and land ships :P

That's the way I see it.

 

I'd pay a good builder for building a good looking ship. I'd pay a good scout to scout ahead for me with a hauler. The pilot s should have somethign else to worry other than "put ship in orbit and go afk". G tolerance on a ship would be a good addition. And even if "Space debir" is an issue - as tanything not "belonging" to a planet or a construct belongs to the "solar system" core unit - the alternative is to concentrate space debri into asteroid belts and thus recycle tiny pieces of debri into materials in an asteroid belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the main problem is Voxel-to-Voxel grinding.  Collision detection doesn't matter, only if you exceed your G threshold in the model I proposed.

 

 

Look at GDC 2017 stream, when JC bumps on another hovercraft. his hovercraft bounces back from it. That's inertia. That's Third Law of Motion.

 

 

They system I proposed is ignoring the CPU-Hungry Space Engineers model. It works with G forces. You exceed them you take damage. It's that simple. G forces apply on acceleration - and deccelerations are just Gs in the opposte direction your momentum is headed. Oh yeah, DU has also momentum.

 

It's that simple really.

 

In a simple collision system, the servers tell to the client "this volume can't be accessed" so it bounces back your construct

With collision detection instead, i meant the detection of the contact point (where you'd apply the damage bubble for local damage), and this is way heavier on the servers: how does the game knows where the collision happened? It has to check each voxels or use some heavy vectorial calcs. 

 

NQ's idea of combat is: target a voxel, an aoe aorund it damages what's nearby. So it's actual local damage, there's no Hp bar. 

What you propose could work but how are you going to distribute the damage with your system since you don't know where the impact happened? RNG wouldn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main concern with Collision Damage as a concept comes from the punishing effect it has on any connectivity dips or drops.

 

Yes, connectivity issues will always be a problem for an MMO, if you have a connectivity issue during combat, you will be at a disadvantage. That being said, having a collision damage mechanic turns simple transportation into the most dangerous and potentially punishing game-play activity. I see this constantly during games of Space Engineers. I'm flying a mining craft to an asteroid, at a reasonable pace, on a course where even if I overshoot I won't crash into it.

-I brake and slow my craft near the asteroid, and briefly fire engines to approach at the desired angle.

-My connection slows/drops briefly, my ship continues to accellerate despite the fact that I'm holding brake and pulling up.

-I crash into the asteroid full-speed, front half of the ship pops including the cockpit and gyroscope, my ship spins wildly out of control away from me. I'm out a ship, stranded on the other side of the system.

This is not a poorly build ship mind you, the drill components were extended beyond the nose of the ship several blocks, and there was even an "oopse" cage around the cockpit.

 

In that above scenario I did everything right: I had a responsible approach vector, I used light touches to navigate, the ship was built well. I STILL managed to crash, lose my ship, and die in the middle of nowhere due to a two-second connectivity hiccup. This has occurred dozens of times, often during times where I don't have the resources to replace a whole ship, and it is often enough for me to need to re-start from scratch.

 

If what the devs have mentioned so far is correct, that building a ship capable of leaving a planet was something you would have to work towards for a while, any collision damage mechanic that can outright disable or destroy a ship with no fault of the player is far too punishing. If a collision damage mechanic is put into place, the most basic shielding system needs to be able to mostly or fully negate any kind of crash caused by a hiccup or piloting error that would occur outside of combat.

 

I would propose that shielding systems, for as long as you have at least 1% of your shields, ought to prevent you from disabling or destroying your ship in a collision (though it might drop your shields if they are low). This would make maneuvering carefully critical during combat, but would prevent your ship being destroyed crashing into a moon you intended to orbit just because you had a brief latency issue.

 

TLDR: Collission damage is bad for the game if shields don't mostly or fully mitigate it. Crashing, after your shields are dropped, should hurt you bad. Crashing during a routine flight because your internet crapped out for two seconds should not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah one thi g I always hate in games and movies is that a shield can protect you from a bullet or laser but not a collision. And sure theres some reasons that would be the case, in most theorized methods of making a shield, it wouldnt be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a simple collision system, the servers tell to the client "this volume can't be accessed" so it bounces back your construct

With collision detection instead, i meant the detection of the contact point (where you'd apply the damage bubble for local damage), and this is way heavier on the servers: how does the game knows where the collision happened? It has to check each voxels or use some heavy vectorial calcs. 

 

NQ's idea of combat is: target a voxel, an aoe aorund it damages what's nearby. So it's actual local damage, there's no Hp bar. 

What you propose could work but how are you going to distribute the damage with your system since you don't know where the impact happened? RNG wouldn't work.

A) Voxels have HP. You can't expect a Titanium Voxel and Wooden Voxel to have the same HP. Look up the GDC video, it's in there, JC said it himself. So please, stop dreaming of making an iron shit-ship that will go up against a Titanium ship.

 

B) The system I suggest takes all the Voxel HP on the ship and combines it into one single HP Bar for collisions. Bar reaches zero, ship expldoes (capacitors, fuel tanks, reactors overlaod, etcetera).

 

C) Do you even understand my suggestion is about NO VOXEL DEFORMATION. Where the ships collides does not matter, you won't PUNCTURE anyone's ship with a beak-like trollpedo boat. This system guarantees this.  

 

D) Collision in the model I suggested, is the same model used by ANYONE and their mother in any game other than Space Engineers, means you got a limtied Delta of acceleration. You can't go past that.

 

You can't brake from 200 m/s to 0 m/s in 1 second without suffering a 22 G decceleration and you can't go from 0 to 200 m/s in 1 second without sufferign a 22 G accelreation. In both cases ,if your ship can only take 2 Gs of accelaratio, means you exceeded your ship's G tolerance by 11 times  = your ship explodes. What you can't push your mind away from is Space Engineers.THIS IS NOT ABOUT VOXEL DEFORMATION. This si about ships having G tolerance and taking "Fall damage" if they exceed it.

 

 

So please mate, quit your bullshit arguements. this system I suggested is used from WoW to even BF1 for falling damage. In fact, in WoW, the "Water-Walking" buff makes you take fall damage if you land on watter. Why? Cause it makes you have as priority to detect the water's mesh model. So, no, get your mind out of the Space Engineers model. I am not talking about destroying voxels on Collision. It's about a constrtcut having a total Falling Damage HP bar. 

 

And yes, destroying part of the ship reduces that falling damage HP, so if you had a ship that has 50% of its voxels missing after being shot a lot in a battle, it has 50% less Falling Damage HP.

 

 

Yeah one thi g I always hate in games and movies is that a shield can protect you from a bullet or laser but not a collision. And sure theres some reasons that would be the case, in most theorized methods of making a shield, it wouldnt be the case.

 

In this model I suggested, shields are a buffer for collision, they got their own "HP" so they can act as a layer before you take structure damage.

 

If a ship can block kinetic projectiles it sure as shit can mitigate a collision.

 

And the arguement "but what if they pummel your shields down with smaller ships?". No they won't. If your ship's shields have more HP than their ships shields + hull HP, then THEY will take damage on each collision. But hey, most people in here don't even know math, let alone what the Third Law of Motion is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...