Function Part Discussion

NickTheNick wrote:

Did you copy and paste? Did you mean stockpiles?

Haha.. Thanks for pointing that out, that was sooo humiliating.

Also, I'm going to try and think of concepts for handles.

I'll post when I have any ideas.

OK let's start with handles.

When handles are placed in the Tech Editor, the player can edit their size (extend them) and rotation (can rotate them).

Then the player would have to define the holding point of the handle. The holding point is the area where the user of the Tech Object (a creature) will grip onto the tech object. The holding point wouldn't really have any effect on the TO itself, and will only be used to let the computer know where a creature should grip on to the object. Also, to make things simpler, the holding point can only be placed on the corners of the handle.

Once the holding point has been defined, the player would have to create the tip of the handle(I'm not sure how it should be called). Here, the player would create a main function for the handle and the object on it. The player would be able to choose axes, hammers etc. Once the tip of the handle has been created, the player would be able to modify the rest of the handle (place decorations).

Feel free to make any suggestions.

Sounds good. What do you mean by the corners of the handle though?

Also, just to make sure, these handles are solely for tools. The large, cylindrical wooden shafts used in water mills, for example, are not the same as handles. That sort of machinery is quite deep for the scope of the game, and will be added later on, when we figure out how to make an editor that would let the player make such contraptions. In the meantime, that mechanism of the water mill you saw would all be a single FP called Water Mill.

Anyways, back to Handles, the player could set multiple points at which the creature holds the handle, and could also use a mannequin of their creature equipped with the tool in the editor to rotate the object into a position for the creature to hold it. Think of all the different ways a creature could hold a gun. We don't want the computer having to guess how to position it.

Tip of the handle could be called the tool of the handle. Actually, that sounds kinda strange, so idk.

Corners of the handle- The top or bottom part of the handle

I realize these would be used solely for tools.

Yeah, I actually was also thinking about the mannequin thing, but I accidentally forgot to mention it.

Any more ideas?

Ahh, okay, those corners.

Tarpy wrote:

I realize these would be used solely for tools.

Yeah, I know, I was just clearing that for some of the others.

Any more ideas out there?

I think thats all there is for now.

@NickTheNick- I agree with you completely.

Handles are done.

Torches- These are going to be really simple.

You can adjust their height, but not width.

They would give off light in a certain x radius. The x radius would be divided into 5 light levels- 5 (very bright, usually right next to the torch),4 (bright, but not as much as 5),3 (dim),2 (dimmer), 1 (near dark) and 0 (areas not affected by light, dark). If two light levels of two different torches collide at one point, the areas where the light levels collide gets lighter, more precisely- The light level in the area equals light level 1+ light level 2. If the result is larger than 5, than it will become 5.

Ideas are welcome.

For units equipped with torches, they should get the ability light entities on fire, as well as lighting up their surroundings.

Also, i was thinking it would be nice if we could implement a way for AI wild organisms to be scared away from units equipped with torches, to simulate the large benefit torches gave historically to early humans in warding off wild beasts. It was also an integral component of Mammoth hunting.

The question then is, would it be easy to code?

For units being equipped with torches, their ability to light entities on fire would be very easy to implement (via boolean).

As for the wild organisms, it would be a moderate challenge, but I think it would be doable. Creatures would simply avoid straying into light levels above 0 that are emitted by torches.

We could expand it to just fire in general. However, are there any considerable numbers of organisms that dont get scared from fire?

Learning AI can handle reaction to fire, as long as we define a function along the lines of distanceToFire. Creatures will learn wether being close to fire is dangerous, or good.

Edit: They wont have an instinctivr fear og fire, hoewever. We woul have to harcode that

Ahh, okay, good. So I think thats all on torches.

NickTheNick wrote:

Ahh, okay, good. So I think thats all on torches.

yup.

Next are arrowheads, not much here either.

Okay, for arrowheads, basically...

Do X pierce damage. Can be attached onto handles. Fired from bow-like weapons, and by this I mean bows or any other ranged weapon made by the player similar enough to a bow to be tagged as one.

Now that's all that I can think of, but regarding the pierce damage I put an X above instead of a real number because now we have hit something pivotal. We now need to start plugging in numbers for the damage and combat system.

First of all, Pierce is one of the types of damage, think most RTS games. We need to pick a number for X to base all of our other numbers off of as a reference point. The number should be high enough so that it allows a certain bandwidth below it for melee attacks by organisms in the pre-sapience stages, but it should be low enough so that the damage done by late game weapons won't have to be in the trillions to compare. So, what number?

20?
It is hard to say as the first number. If we want less damage we can go to decimal numbers. Something like a human punch should be like 5, but from a different damage type (normal/blunt?).

The types of damage that I can recall right now are pierce, slash, blunt, and poison. I'll edit this once I get the rest.

20 seems good. I would prefer whole numbers. Also, Tarpy, I was thinking we merge spearheads and arrowheads, since they are basically the same shape, and both do only pierce damage. What would it be called?

Hmmmm... I don't know... Maybe weapon tips?

Does everybody agree with me?

Also, is there a thread on combat so I can go examine it?

(sorry for double post)

So basically these weapon tips would be divided into two categories: blunt, piercing and sharp. I'll describe each category in a detailed way.

Blunt

Blunt would be, basically, non-sharp objects, like warhammer heads and battering rams. By function, they would be seperated into the ones used in soldier-to-soldier combat, and the ones used in damaging buildings.

The ones used in soldier-to-soldier combat would have to be attached to either a handle or a rope/chain attached to a handle. These would do damage depending on the mass of the blunt tip. I need someone to think of a formula for the damage inflicted by the tip. (examples: War hammers, maces)

The ones in damaging buildings need extra force to operate. These would have to get close enough to the building to hit it, and although the length of the time intervals between the hits would be large, the damage inflicted would usually be quite large. (examples: Battering rams, scorpions)

Piercing

Piercing weapons would be divided into those used for ammunition and those used for melee.

Those used in ammunition would be attached onto a handle. The longer the handle, the more accurate ammunition is, but this decreases the length they travel. (due to larger mass) (Examples: Arrows)

Those used for melee would have to be attached to a handle. This would be hard to simulate, but it's worth mentioning. The longer the handle, the more effective these would be when fighting shock infantry/ cavalry, however, they would be harder to maneuver and slower and would be less effective against light infantry. (Example: Pikes, Spears)

Sharp

Sharp would be used in melee combat only.

Needs a more detailed description.

I wouldn't say weapon tips, that is way too general and could mean many things. I think just Spearheads would be best, since that was their original purpose before bows.

I found the attack types on a old thread here. The different types of attack are:

Slash
Blunt
Pierce
Biological
Ballistic
Energy

Each FP has different attack properties. A Spearhead does Pierce damage, a Blade does either Slash or Pierce, an Axe does either Slash or Blunt, etc.

Okay, big flow of ideas I have here. Lemme get my notes I took on combat.

There are several important elements here. First off, how do we calculate the percentages for when which attack type is done. For example, a typical blade, I would imagine, is used to slash 75% of the time, and stab 25% of the time. This would be simulated in game by making each attack by a Blade a 75% chance to be a slash, and a 25% chance to be a Pierce. However, what happens when the player reshapes the Blade in the Tech Editor to be curved? Then, the chance for it to be slash would either increase or become 100% altogether. Therefore, we need to measure how much the player curves the sword, using some index, and then calculate the percentages off of that. After the sword reaches a certain threshold of curviness, it would only slash, and making it curvier wouldn't change that. We would have to set specific numbers for all of this.

To measure how much the player curves the Blade in the editor, I was thinking we simply measure the angle from the handle to the tip of the Blade, as well as set a limit to how much it can be curved. Then, we set specific numbers for an equation that would look like:
For each degree a sword is curved, its chance to slash goes up X% and its chance to pierce goes down X%.

Also, just to make it clear, before the computer runs a check to see which attack is dealt, it must first run a test on whether the attack hits. This adds a new property to weapons, accuracy. How would the player's tweaking affect accuracy? Longer handles?

Furthermore, something else that must be determined is the numbers for the damage done itself. Daniferrito suggested 20 for the attack dealt by an arrowhead. But what if I made the arrow out of wood instead of iron, or if I made it out of silk, or concrete? The solution I see to this is to add a Boolean property to all compounds in the game, for whether it can be used for a tool. I don't think meat, or silk, or water vapour should be able to make tools. However, compounds that are true for this property, such as copper, would then have a further property which defines their effectiveness, which would be a percent. Their effectiveness rating would be multiplied by the tool's base stats to determine the final stats of the tool.

For example, I make a Spearhead. I make it out of bronze. Bronze has an effectiveness rating of 75%. A Spearhead has a base attack of 10-25 Pierce Damage. I apply this bronze Spearhead to a handle, name it a Spear, and equip all my warriors with it. Each warrior would do 7.5-18.75 Pierce Damage, since bronze has a 75% effectiveness rating. This way some compounds will be better for tools then others, which makes sense.

What do you guys think?

NickTheNick wrote:

Also, just to make it clear, before the computer runs a check to see which attack is dealt, it must first run a test on whether the attack hits. This adds a new property to weapons, accuracy. How would the player's tweaking affect accuracy? Longer handles?

Furthermore, something else that must be determined is the numbers for the damage done itself. Daniferrito suggested 20 for the attack dealt by an arrowhead. But what if I made the arrow out of wood instead of iron, or if I made it out of silk, or concrete? The solution I see to this is to add a Boolean property to all compounds in the game, for whether it can be used for a tool. I don't think meat, or silk, or water vapour should be able to make tools. However, compounds that are true for this property, such as copper, would then have a further property which defines their effectiveness, which would be a percent. Their effectiveness rating would be multiplied by the tool's base stats to determine the final stats of the tool.

For example, I make a Spearhead. I make it out of bronze. Bronze has an effectiveness rating of 75%. A Spearhead has a base attack of 10-25 Pierce Damage. I apply this bronze Spearhead to a handle, name it a Spear, and equip all my warriors with it. Each warrior would do 7.5-18.75 Pierce Damage, since bronze has a 75% effectiveness rating. This way some compounds will be better for tools then others, which makes sense.

On the subject of accuracy,( in the case of melee weapons), accuracy based on the handel depends on the type of weapon, as on a spear, the long handle allows the user to more easially reach enemies, while if you took a long handle/shaft/stick and stuck a morningstar head on it, it would be awkward to aim.

Now, onto the subject of weapon materials, i have made a basic chart which is based off of Nick's "bronze spearhead" from the last post.

Spoiler:

For the second part, very good work, that is exactly what I was looking for!

For the first part, that is true, yes. What I was referring to was when Tarpy mentioned arrows with longer handles would be more accurate. Of course, each weapon FP would have its own base accuracy, before other things are taken into account. What's important is to define when what makes what more accurate and by how much.

Raptorstorm wrote:

Spoiler:

My suggestion is to if your enemy have armor on him, effectivity of melee weapons be decreased.
As example, i made this little list:

Spoiler:

Player should also be able to use armor.There would also be armor what would protect mostly from long ranged weapons. Is list good?

I can help with blunt weapons damage.

Here, i will assume we have a mace, but any kind of blunt weapon would use the same calculations.
Here is a simple ascii drawing of such mace:

Code:

  MMMMM
  MMCMM
  MMMMM
    S
    S
    S
    S
    H
    S

Ms are the head of the mace
C is the center of mass of the head of the mace. If all the head is made of the same material, it is just at the center
S represents the stick (handle)
H is the holding point. The point at which the creature holds the mace

The head of the mace will be made out of a single material, with density d. As we know the volume, we can easily calculate the total mass m of the head (we will ignore the handle)
The distance from the holding point to the center of the head will be r. If there is a rope between the handle and the head, it will be added as well (when the head hits, it will be at the maximum distance)

The formula for kinetic energy of a rotating corpse is K = 0.5*m*r²*ω².
Now, that gives us energy transferred, but we want damage. If we assume double the energy applied means double the damage, we can apply a linear transformation. The only problem left is that ω, that means velocity. The faster you move the mace, the more damage it will do. Here, my assumption will be that no matter the characteristics of the mace, you will always move it at the same speed.

That leaves us with the following formula D = C*m*r², where C is an arbitrary number that translates energy to damage. If we want to nerf maces, we just lower it, if we want to buff them, we just make it bigger.

There is one last thing to take into consideration. We should put some kind of downsides to that variables, so people don't just make a 2000 kg mace with a 5 m handle that one shots any building. I can think of a few:
-The material you use to design each item are the cost of that item. This one is already agreed on.
-Each creature should be able to carry at most some amount of equipment, measured in Kg. Extra equipment makes the soldier slower on movement and attacks, to the point it cant move. This makes sure you don't go overboard on the mass.
-Length is somewhat problematic here. Probably longer maces makes the unit hitbox bigger (they need more space so they don't kill each other with the long mace) and reduces the hit chance, attack speed or both.

Tell me what you think of this. Also blunt damage probably ignores armor better than other damage types (no matter how are you covered, if you receive a heavy mace hit to the chest, you will notice it, where a sword probably wont do anything to a good plate armour)