Complex Damage System

Commander Keen wrote:

A bit late here, but better than never. Thanks for bringing this thread up, Waap.

~sciocont wrote:

For TOs, could we use generalized complex damage? Damage could be dealt out randomly (or specifically, depending on what's giing the damage) to separate "systems" in a TO.
For instance out tank would have the systems
-mobility
-armor
-arms
-electronics
A certain weapon (say and EMP bomb) could be built to target specific typpes of systems. Systems in a TO woul be determined by the FPs in the TO.

No offense Scio, but what would it help? I don't see any way how it could help the player (except simplifying the damage display to general areas like mobility or firepower), and computers are able to handle thousands of units with multiple damagable areas for some time already.

Also note that complex damage is only a factor for battles the player directly participates in. If he's on the other side of the world when the battle is fought, our only chance is to randomize.

Instead of tracking where damage is taken and applying it to parts in the TE, you implify it to if the tech is hit and what it's hit b, and the damage is dealt to those systems accordingly. Just a quick idea.

~sciocont wrote:

Instead of tracking where damage is taken and applying it to parts in the TE, you implify it to if the tech is hit and what it's hit b, and the damage is dealt to those systems accordingly. Just a quick idea.

Yes, that's how it works. But how does it affect gameplay? (except making intricate designs less useful due to less accurate simulation)

Commander Keen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Instead of tracking where damage is taken and applying it to parts in the TE, you implify it to if the tech is hit and what it's hit b, and the damage is dealt to those systems accordingly. Just a quick idea.

Yes, that's how it works. But how does it affect gameplay? (except making intricate designs less useful due to less accurate simulation)

It affects processing more than gameplay- a computer doesn't need to remember the "where" of damage. It neds to know only a few factors.
-the tech took damage
-the tech took damage type X in Y amount
-this reduces system A by B amount

It doesn't need to keep track of every FP or part of the tech and how much damage that has taken. Also, this means you could attack one system in the tech with a specialized weapon to destroy or disarm the tech. It's easier (and cheaper to short-circut an aircaft's computers than to asplode the aircraft.

Do you even read my posts?

Quote :

computers are able to handle thousands of units with multiple damagable areas for some time already

Want an example? Star Ruler, an indie game practically without any optimizations, frequently has more than five thousands units, each simulating complex damage. Possible because it only needs to rewrite some variables in addition to classical HP. Shots will have to raytrace with or without complex damage, and that's the most expensive part of simulating them.

Commander Keen wrote:

Do you even read my posts?

Quote :

computers are able to handle thousands of units with multiple damagable areas for some time already

Want an example? Star Ruler, an indie game practically without any optimizations, frequently has more than five thousands units, each simulating complex damage. Possible because it only needs to rewrite some variables in addition to classical HP. Shots will have to raytrace with or without complex damage, and that's the most expensive part of simulating them.

I've read it, and I understand your viewpoint. However, I'd like the programming side of things to be as simple as possible so we can reach more players and finish the game faster. We're simulating so much more than just the battle at one time, remember. I realize that shots have to raytrace to see if they contact the mesh of the tech, however, I'm more concerned, processing-wise, about the computer remembering specifically which tread on a tank got hit with a bullet. That seems like too much simulation to me- I think all you should really need to know is if the tank was hit and what it was hit with.

I'm with Keen. Combat is more complex than it appears.

Thank you, Rex.

Having the game done faster is a valid point, but unless we want to hardcode your system and make simulated damage impossible to do without lots of rewriting in the source code, we will still have to lay basics for it.

On the processing side of things, it isn't that bad. We can ignore small damage (even a thousand of machinegunners is never going to destroy a tank), there's not that much to simulate during the course of a battle (they are going to last a few hours at most), and of course simulating every little thing on the TO would be extreme - just the important things for running it. The point is not in what is simulated, but how it is simulated.

OK, this topic is getting lost again, but we still haven't settled any solution. Now, I want everyone to say what they think, to vote here.

There are three main options:

1. - Hardcode Scio's system into the game.

Pros - Fastest development
Cons - Implementing complex damage later will require large source code rewrites


2. - Implement complex damage before releasing the game.

Pros - Best possible connection with other parts of the game
Cons - Will delay the game release a bit


3. - Implement Scio's system, lay basics to complex damage and release it as an addon.

Pros - Players will be able to choose, doesnt hurt initial game release much
Cons - Takes the most work in total


I really want everyone to vote on this topic. I want to see your opinion on how should it be developed.

I vote two, because the first will still delay it later, and three takes more work.

2

Bringing Up The Post (B. U. M. P.)

I vote for two.

Bumping. I was sure we had more than four users.

Commander Keen wrote:

Bringing Up The Post (B. U. M. P.)

Did you mean 'Bringing Up My Post'? BUTP?

The Uteen wrote:

Commander Keen wrote:

Bringing Up The Post (B. U. M. P.)

Did you mean 'Bringing Up My Post'? BUTP?

My stupidity just doesn't have a limit.

The Uteen wrote:

Bumping. I was sure we had more than four users.

If no one votes here in a day, I'm going to make a Devblog.

Commander Keen wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Commander Keen wrote:

Bringing Up The Post (B. U. M. P.)

Did you mean 'Bringing Up My Post'? BUTP?

My stupidity just doesn't have a limit.

The Uteen wrote:

Bumping. I was sure we had more than four users.

If no one votes here in a day, I'm going to make a Devblog.

Not looking promising, the twenty four hours is almost up. Out of curiosity, I checked how many people have been online since you made that post... It's twenty seven. One ninth of those responded.

People just see "Complex damage system" and skip the topic entirely. If a devblog doesn't help here, nothing will.

Commander Keen wrote:

People just see "Complex damage system" and skip the topic entirely. If a devblog doesn't help here, nothing will.

... ...

P.S. My vote goes with yours Keen. Complex Damage from the start.

I vote option 2! The include complex damage one.

Also, Just to make sure...
Will the game be released piece by piece, like it was first said, or all at once?
Because all at once seems like it would take a bit too long, and releasing bit by bit would get us more attention.
Thank you.

Pyrotin wrote:

I vote option 2! The include complex damage one.

Also, Just to make sure...
Will the game be released piece by piece, like it was first said, or all at once?
Because all at once seems like it would take a bit too long, and releasing bit by bit would get us more attention.
Thank you.

Bit by bit.

I also have to vote for option 2

I don't know if this vote is still up, but to be honest I'd prefer to just vote for option 1... because I'm just of the opinion that Thrive isn't a standard Strategy game, and it could have different technology limits as a result... and I think that it's safer to go with the less intensive option first, and then when the game has all of it's other intensive features finished, it still runs exceptionally, the smart complexity can be added. Besides, as far as Thrive as an evolution game is concerned, it should be a higher priority to focus on other aspects of the game rather than military strategy...for now. I'm not saying it isn't important- this decision could directly impact the 'fun' of the strategy mode, but at the very least it wouldn't hurt to get the game much more publicity faster, and then code it later.
If, however, everyone is of the opinion that without the smartfire code the publicity would result in negative feedback, then it would most certainly be worth the wait. I leave it up to you, since I'm outvoted either way.

Zetal wrote:

I don't know if this vote is still up, but to be honest I'd prefer to just vote for option 1... because I'm just of the opinion that Thrive isn't a standard Strategy game, and it could have different technology limits as a result... and I think that it's safer to go with the less intensive option first, and then when the game has all of it's other intensive features finished, it still runs exceptionally, the smart complexity can be added. Besides, as far as Thrive as an evolution game is concerned, it should be a higher priority to focus on other aspects of the game rather than military strategy...for now. I'm not saying it isn't important- this decision could directly impact the 'fun' of the strategy mode, but at the very least it wouldn't hurt to get the game much more publicity faster, and then code it later.
If, however, everyone is of the opinion that without the smartfire code the publicity would result in negative feedback, then it would most certainly be worth the wait. I leave it up to you, since I'm outvoted either way.

The thing I personally am afraid of isn't that it needs focus now nearly as much as it is that complex damage will be very difficult to implement later on if we don't include it, if only partially, from the start.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Zetal wrote:

I don't know if this vote is still up, but to be honest I'd prefer to just vote for option 1... because I'm just of the opinion that Thrive isn't a standard Strategy game, and it could have different technology limits as a result... and I think that it's safer to go with the less intensive option first, and then when the game has all of it's other intensive features finished, it still runs exceptionally, the smart complexity can be added. Besides, as far as Thrive as an evolution game is concerned, it should be a higher priority to focus on other aspects of the game rather than military strategy...for now. I'm not saying it isn't important- this decision could directly impact the 'fun' of the strategy mode, but at the very least it wouldn't hurt to get the game much more publicity faster, and then code it later.
If, however, everyone is of the opinion that without the smartfire code the publicity would result in negative feedback, then it would most certainly be worth the wait. I leave it up to you, since I'm outvoted either way.

The thing I personally am afraid of isn't that it needs focus now nearly as much as it is that complex damage will be very difficult to implement later on if we don't include it, if only partially, from the start.

Right- and I'm not disagreeing with that fact, only saying that if we can't use it, it would effectively have just been a waste of the programmers time. And I don't think anyone wants that. Implementing something later on, albeit difficult, is of much less concern to me personally than actually getting the basis of the game functioning.

Don't worry, we don't have to implement the complex damage right from the start. Something extremely simple (a hitpoint system) could be used at first and then replaced when we start progressing further.

Commander Keen wrote:

Don't worry, we don't have to implement the complex damage right from the start. Something extremely simple (a hitpoint system) could be used at first and then replaced when we start progressing further.

That would be much more acceptable, I think.