project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment  (Read 10507 times)

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2008, 05:59:54 pm »
As far as I'm aware, armour does not degrade, (much as I believe it should, as this would actually be an issue once heavier types are available) which means that using the default system would be less resource intensive than you might otherwise believe. Extending the default system to encompass terrain penetration however, rather than using a seperate dynamic, would demand that obstacles feature many more values; one for each damage type.

Basically, the advantage of such an extension would be less work for the coders (they don't have to write in an additional seperate dynamic). Mappers would also be given more granular control over terrain resilience, allowing them to determine the penetrative effectiveness of specific types of damage.

Its disadvantages as compared to a seperate penetration/reduction system however, would be that each distinct obstacle requires a far larger set of values, thus requiring consumption of more resources. Penetrative capabilities specific to each weapon, without alteration of damage values and typing aren't possible either.

A hybrid approach might be the ultimate solution, whereby each weapon has a definable penetrative value independant of damage and type, and obstacles feature damage type specific resistances, allowing mappers a signifigant measure of additional control over obstacle penetration, while simutaneously permitting for more customizability with respect to weapon penetration. Of course, this consequently means more work for the coders, and more values for the game to keep track of than either of the solutions alone.

Sophisanmus

  • Guest
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2008, 02:01:27 am »
Well, resource demand is one of the main considerations in my preference for a single-value system, with the other being re-working existing maps to include the new values.  Of course, that could be...

[remaining post added at later time]

...mitigated to some extent by having texture-linked default values, but that again requires more work in terms of coding the system and accounting for brushes with multiple textures. 

As JerryLove posted below, the separation of damage potential from penetration potential is an important factor in my opinion.  A high-penetration bullet with sufficient force behind it could well pass through a target, causing damage of course, but inflict less damage than a projectile designed to fragment inside the target, yet with lower penetration value.  Plasma bolts also are capable of great destruction, but since their membrane coating bursts upon any impact, penetration potential would be zero in practically all cases, even against windows and the like.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2008, 04:44:20 am by Sophisanmus »

JerryLove

  • Guest
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2008, 02:05:19 am »
A seperate value allows damage to be decoupled from penetration. Using existing values (as rightly pointed out) lets barriers to be of different strengths to different types of ammo, but inexorably ties penetration and damage together.

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2008, 05:13:28 pm »
Quote
As JerryLove posted below, the separation of damage potential from penetration potential is an important factor in my opinion.  A high-penetration bullet with sufficient force behind it could well pass through a target, causing damage of course, but inflict less damage than a projectile designed to fragment inside the target, yet with lower penetration value.  Plasma bolts also are capable of great destruction, but since their membrane coating bursts upon any impact, penetration potential would be zero in practically all cases, even against windows and the like.

With the default system this does exist at a rudimentary level. For example, you could have a normal_heavy weapon that does 20 damage, and a normal_light that does 50. When both weapons are used against a piece of given armour, it is quite possible that the more 'damaging' but less penetrative round (the normal_light one) actually does less total damage versus an armoured target than the less potent, but more penetrative normal_heavy one. Plasma's total lack of penetrative ability could be reflected by an extremely high armour value. However, I do agree that the ability to define specific, per weapon penetrative capability is a desirable one.

Sophisanmus

  • Guest
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2008, 07:15:13 pm »
I have gotten the impression, though, that the normal_* attributes are, to reference RPG logic, elements, to which armors have varying resistances.  A given heavy armor likely has higher damage-subtraction and/or -division resistance to the lighter damage types, which is more of an attribute of the armor than the weapon or ammunition.  At least that has been my understanding of the current system, I haven't had a look at the actual formulas.  Please clarify if my assumption is incorrect?

I don't like the idea of map assets having a "high resistance" to plasma damage to present the illusion that the packet bursts on contact.  This may even present particular problems with regards to windows and other fragile breakables, should their damage and resistance formulas meet.  I don't think we need to go assigning armor values to breakables, at least not by default.  Perhaps at some point that may be useful for some specific map assets, off the top of my head a firing-capable tank asset that may appear in certain military-base missions. 
« Last Edit: July 30, 2008, 07:24:11 pm by Sophisanmus »

Offline Darkpriest667

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 149
    • View Profile
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2008, 12:14:56 pm »

I don't like the idea of map assets having a "high resistance" to plasma damage to present the illusion that the packet bursts on contact.  This may even present particular problems with regards to windows and other fragile breakables, should their damage and resistance formulas meet.  I don't think we need to go assigning armor values to breakables, at least not by default.  Perhaps at some point that may be useful for some specific map assets, off the top of my head a firing-capable tank asset that may appear in certain military-base missions. 


I dont like the engine they use either but they are sticking with it... 5000 celsius dont mean crap to 2084 concrete apparently

Sophisanmus

  • Guest
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2008, 06:55:17 pm »
Let me put it this way: plasma is not going to be punching holes in walls, for game engine reasons.  The alternative is having projectiles pass through walls.  Now, plasma weapons are likely very capable of eating through a 208x wall, but since that is out, we just have one thing to consider; whether the plasma can punch through a wall and keep going.  The plasma tech fiction describes globs of plasma encased in a plastic-like projectile, which bursts on contact or at sufficient range.  Colliding with a wall will break the projectile, and so it will not continue through. For the sake of keeping the confusion level for new mappers down (and from an internal logic standpoint) it seems to me better to associate the inability of the plasma projectile to pass through obstacles with a low overall 'piercing' value, rather than attributing high "resistance" to plasma to all map brushes. 

Conversely, though, there may be certain exceptions which may need to be handled in terms of func_breakables, such as windows and their inability to absorb or stop laser weapons fire.

Offline Doctor J

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2008, 02:34:32 am »
If hiding behind a wall becomes no defence against a particle rifle, things are going to get rather difficult for us poor beleagured earthmen.

The fix for that is to edit the mission equipment file so that they don't get PB weapons until you've had time to build up.  They should at least get used to using the Plasma stuff first...

Surrealistik

  • Guest
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2008, 03:11:58 am »
Quote
I have gotten the impression, though, that the normal_* attributes are, to reference RPG logic, elements, to which armors have varying resistances.  A given heavy armor likely has higher damage-subtraction and/or -division resistance to the lighter damage types, which is more of an attribute of the armor than the weapon or ammunition.  At least that has been my understanding of the current system, I haven't had a look at the actual formulas.  Please clarify if my assumption is incorrect?

Yes, they're 'subsets' of differing 'elemental' damage types, but effectively, the same as seperate elements in their own right. What really serves to cement the relationship of these subtypes is the fact that A: they come from the same qualitative type of weapon, and B: they respond to a given armour type similarily (usually) to other subtypes of the same overarcing category.

Offline blondandy

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2008, 10:08:20 am »
As far as I'm aware, armour does not degrade, (much as I believe it should, as this would actually be an issue once heavier types are available) which means that using the default system would be less resource intensive than you might otherwise believe. Extending the default system to encompass terrain penetration however, rather than using a seperate dynamic, would demand that obstacles feature many more values; one for each damage type.


I just checked trunk rev 18138 (current-ish)

src\game\g_combat.c

(i would link to to the sf.net code web interface, but that is down a lot ATM)

see G_Damage()

I think armour does not degrade.

JerryLove

  • Guest
Re: Differentiating Between Cover and Concealment
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2008, 09:54:00 pm »
Let me put it this way: plasma is not going to be punching holes in walls, for game engine reasons.  The alternative is having projectiles pass through walls. 
The other alternative is having the blast penetrate walls but not the projectile.

Projectiles which burst on impact would just have a penetration at or about zero.