battleaxerx
True Bro
"You can't take the sky from me."
Posts: 773
|
Post by battleaxerx on Dec 7, 2011 17:06:06 GMT -5
What about an exponential decrease every now and then? Or a logarithmic decrease? Is linear damage drop realistic or something? Would it be just a useless way to add variety and or gun characteristic?
I think it would be cool! Curvy damage charts ftw. Maybe in the future??
|
|
|
Post by saddaminsane on Dec 7, 2011 19:34:22 GMT -5
i'm not sure how hit detection works in BF, but it seems making your computer process anything including exponents / radicals would make it slower than a simple linear equation for damage. but perhaps in the future...
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Dec 8, 2011 14:09:33 GMT -5
What damage should look like. Bottom is meters. For a carbine, like a M4. Pistols would have higher close range and faster drop off (1/X) Snipers would have lower super close damage and keep max damage over a long period (til 300M), something like {1/(x/100)^2}-{1/(x/100)^3} The quadratic possibilities are endless!
|
|
|
Post by SheWolf on Dec 8, 2011 14:56:40 GMT -5
but...why?
it would be goddamn irritating to deal only 75% damage up close. for what reason?
|
|
dog
True Bro
woof
Posts: 10,608
|
Post by dog on Dec 8, 2011 15:26:48 GMT -5
but...why? it would be gosh darn golly gee whiz irritating to deal only 75% damage up close. for what reason? probably because at point blank, the bullet would just bore a hole through the victim's body and exit the other end, causing a less severe tissue damage than a bullet that tumble/fragment inside the body, wrecking havoc to all the internal organs and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Dec 8, 2011 15:33:38 GMT -5
Realism. While the projectile has maximum kinetic force when discharged out of the barrel, the ballistics could mean that for rifle rounds, there would be little "tumbling" upon entry, and a clean exit wound would result. Pistol rounds are meant to be extremely effective at close range, rifle rounds not so much, as their application is puncturing body armor and foliage. When the round loses some energy, it would be more prone to tumble, causing massive internal damage, and create a sizeable exit wound.
Of course, then there is the .50 BMG which will wreck your shizzz anywhere really.
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Dec 8, 2011 15:33:55 GMT -5
but...why? it would be gosh darn golly gee whiz irritating to deal only 75% damage up close. for what reason? probably because at point blank, the bullet would just bore a hole through the victim's body and exit the other end, causing a less severe tissue damage than a bullet that tumble/fragment inside the body, wrecking havoc to all the internal organs and stuff. What he said
|
|
|
Post by SheWolf on Dec 8, 2011 15:36:14 GMT -5
but...why? it would be gosh darn golly gee whiz irritating to deal only 75% damage up close. for what reason? probably because at point blank, the bullet would just bore a hole through the victim's body and exit the other end, causing a less severe tissue damage than a bullet that tumble/fragment inside the body, wrecking havoc to all the internal organs and stuff. you can't say that generally for all bullets. all kinds of them behave differently, balistics are a lot more complicated than that if we are starting to simulate every bullet on this level then we open a can of worms that should remain closed. not to mention that this would be retarded while keeping the hitpoint system. no, close range = more damage is as accurate as it needs to be.
|
|
|
Post by sushicake on Dec 8, 2011 15:36:47 GMT -5
You have to look at it from a gameplay perspective. If damage wasn't linear and was parabolic or something like that, it would be terrible. People would stand in the optimal range for their gun and wouldn't bother moving because their gun would suck if they were too close/too far to their enemies.
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Dec 8, 2011 15:54:46 GMT -5
You have to look at it from a gameplay perspective. If damage wasn't linear and was parabolic or something like that, it would be terrible. People would stand in the optimal range for their gun and wouldn't bother moving because their gun would suck if they were too close/too far to their enemies. Not necessarily... On maps with flanks, there would be great value in disrupting that range. I feel as though it would encourage less corner tactical loitering and more movement, as you must constantly reposition yourself based on enemy movement.
|
|
|
Post by sushicake on Dec 8, 2011 16:19:37 GMT -5
rudybojangles, just saw your example. It looks good. For some reason I was only thinking of extreme examples (like a bell curve) in my previous response, lol. I probably shouldn't have posted so hastily.
Yeah, I think a carefully thought out damage plot would be better than the typical linear plots we've been seeing.
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Dec 8, 2011 16:31:43 GMT -5
rudybojangles, just saw your example. It looks good. For some reason I was only thinking of extreme examples (like a bell curve) in my previous response, lol. I probably shouldn't have posted so hastily. Yeah, I think a carefully thought out damage plot would be better than the typical linear plots we've been seeing. The important point for my damage plot is that the worse you can do (with the above example) is 50% of maximum damage. Check these out for size: Sniper Pistol (ignore first part) Rifle
|
|
battleaxerx
True Bro
"You can't take the sky from me."
Posts: 773
|
Post by battleaxerx on Dec 8, 2011 17:03:53 GMT -5
Nice! Another idea could be customizable rounds (Please don't assume games aren't capable of being this complex in the future) and also extra sweet spots. (Heart penetration)
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Dec 8, 2011 17:14:14 GMT -5
Crotch penetration for the win!
Other things: Major artery penetration. Leg hits make you slow Arm hits reduce accuracy Brain shot. YY 360 Noscope ladderstall fakie bounce rocketjump box4box collateralls
|
|
|
Post by SheWolf on Dec 8, 2011 17:26:23 GMT -5
the problem with that would be that the game would become similar to a real firefight: extremely random and governed by pure chance. you hit the heart? great, instakill for you, even though the other guy saw you first. it would most likely boil down to a rage inducing luck fest
|
|
|
Post by sushicake on Dec 8, 2011 19:11:29 GMT -5
Good sample plots. The general idea is solid. Weapons should have different niches where they're slightly better than other weapons. This kind of approach would help with intraclass weapon diversity too. I'm sick of seeing weapon clones/inferior weapons.
|
|
|
Post by saddaminsane on Dec 8, 2011 22:58:45 GMT -5
these charts me gusta They could make buckshots similar to pistol round behavior And flechettes like a dumbed down rifle round, weaker at point blank but better at range
|
|
|
Post by rudybojangles on Dec 9, 2011 9:10:25 GMT -5
the problem with that would be that the game would become similar to a real firefight: extremely random and governed by pure chance. you hit the heart? great, instakill for you, even though the other guy saw you first. it would most likely boil down to a rage inducing luck fest I agree with this actually. However, I still say add more zones than Legs, Head and everything else. Like upper legs, upper arms, upper chest. Makes sense no?
|
|
|
Post by dertyyp on Dec 10, 2011 16:38:51 GMT -5
I think everybody forgets what probles the netcode already has^^ e.g. You run and get a headshot behind a wall... how could you ever implement more diverse hitboxes if it doesnt work anyway? would be nice if it actually worked though...
|
|