[TrashMan]

How about a weapons flag that causes a weapon to do more/less damage depending on the distance

A flag and the following setting:

+Fallof:  -10/100   (meaning - after each 100m the damage is reduced by 10%)

OR

+Falloff: +10/100  (after each 1000m the damage is encreased by 10%)

[LtNarol]

not a bad idea, but the syntax would probably have to be something like

+falloff: -10 100

and

+falloff: 10 1000

[IceFire]

We already have this...with inner and outer blast radius.  Inner radius is where the weapon does maximum damage as indicated by the damage points.  Outer radius is a gradient from 100 to 0 percentages of the points delt.

How is this different?

[kasperl]

Originally posted by IceFire
We already have this...with inner and outer blast radius.  Inner radius is where the weapon does maximum damage as indicated by the damage points.  Outer radius is a gradient from 100 to 0 percentages of the points delt.

How is this different?

thi9s is for primarys i geuss, and not for an explosion, but from the position launched and the place were it explodes/impacts.

[TrashMan]

To put it so simple evean a retard can understand it.
You fly a fighter with a primary that does 10 damage per shot.

the Falloff  for the weapons is set to -10 100

- If you shoot at an enemy fighter that's 200m away he will recive 8 damage per shot

- If you shoot at an enemy fighter that's 800m away he will recive 2 damage per shot..

If the fallof is set (for a capship) to 10 1000 and the weapons does 1000 damage by default then:

- If the enemy caphip is 3000m away, he would recive 1300 damage..

you get it NOW?

[LtNarol]

IceFire, you're thinking damage done in based on distance from impact / detonation; we're talking about damage done based on distance between point of origin and point of impact.

I'd go with a geometric reduction approach instead of an arithmetic reduction approach.  IE decrease by X percentage of the remaining damage amount, so that a -10 100 falloff doesn't leave a 100 damage weapon doing 80 at 200 meters, but 81.  This way, the weapon will still do damage upon impact as long as its within range (the damage could be infinitely small, but you'd still do damage).

[TrashMan]

Thats' even better!:D

Any takers?
Any takers?

[IceFire]

Originally posted by TrashMan
To put it so simple evean a retard can understand it.
You fly a fighter with a primary that does 10 damage per shot.

the Falloff  for the weapons is set to -10 100

- If you shoot at an enemy fighter that's 200m away he will recive 8 damage per shot

- If you shoot at an enemy fighter that's 800m away he will recive 2 damage per shot..

If the fallof is set (for a capship) to 10 1000 and the weapons does 1000 damage by default then:

- If the enemy caphip is 3000m away, he would recive 1300 damage..

you get it NOW?

Yes even my retarded intellect can decipher that.

I thought we already had that done in one of the SCP releases.  I think Bobboau did this...or was working on it.

[Galemp]

Definitely a good idea! :yes: Anything that puts more variety in weapons gets my full support.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Hear hear.

Very good idea, the excuse for it would be that the projectiles are unstable, and so weaken and dissipate after a very short time.

[Flaser]

Projectiles shouldn't suffer from this problem - another reason to stick with them during the T-V War.
On the other hand, they should be much slower - so it would be harder to hit with them, and high grade lasers would eventually deliver a lot bigger damage.

[TrashMan]

Well, it's a flag...
Who in their right mind would want to stick it to a projectile?

Is any code wizzard up for this? Shouldn't be hard to make...

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Well even the so-called "lasers" in FS are projectile weapons, as they fire a projectile, albeit one made up of light or gas or whatever.

[Flaser]

I wish we could turn them into Mechwarrior-3 style lasers (I still don't understan why they had to change that in Mech-4) - so lasers would hit immediately and on the dot.
On the other hand they could truly have a cone of fire, moreover there should be just a little delay between pulling the trigger and the weapon actually firing.
That would make the tech descriptions - like the one given to the Prometheus babbling about radar and ect. mroe apropiate.

[pyro-manic]

Interesting idea. What about using this to have weapon shots fizzling out at the end of their flight? You'd have it take effect at say 80% of the weapon's maximum range. This would give you optimum ranges for weapons use, while allowing you to hit targets further away if needed (albeit at reduced damage). Basically, the Subach HL-7 would act as normal up to it's effective range (800m IIRC), but wouldn't fade until a few hundred metres after that.

I like Flaser's laser idea - sounds a bit like fighter beams, but burst-firing, rather than continuous beams.

[Flaser]

It was already suggested, though I'm in favor of the idea.
I think the whole model should be reworked though-the shots should be streched to their absolute limit where they should dissipate altogether - 32bit color = transparency channel :devil:.
Weapons could have a higher rof when they start firing, so it would simulate heat buildup too.
So when I pull the trigger, a rapid array of lasers - streching pretty far- fade out in short succesion, that later slows down to longer, but less frequent shots.

[TrashMan]

*BUMP-O-MANIA!*

[Fry_Day]

Originally posted by Flaser
It was already suggested, though I'm in favor of the idea.
I think the whole model should be reworked though-the shots should be streched to their absolute limit where they should dissipate altogether - 32bit color = transparency channel :devil:.
Weapons could have a higher rof when they start firing, so it would simulate heat buildup too.
So when I pull the trigger, a rapid array of lasers - streching pretty far- fade out in short succesion, that later slows down to longer, but less frequent shots.

You do NOT need an alpha channel for that. to fade something away you simply lower the alpha values at vertices. true alpha would require implementing some sort of sorting for polygons (since the order in which they're drawn becomes important, unlike in the current add-blend), which will not happen. Drop it.

[TrashMan]

[SIZE=10]ULTRA-EXTRA-SUPER-MEGA-HYPER BUMP[/SIZE]

[Ulala]

I rather like the weapons fine the way they are, but this does sound like a cool idea. Hope it works out.