Forums » General
Weapon damage types and armor types
Incarnate, in the Oct 15, 2013 newspost you posted the following.
Expanding the very nature of weapons and armor
We recently added the ability to differentiate between damage types in weapons and armor. In other words, we can create ship variants that are well-armored against energy weapons, weak against explosions, but fairly tough against collision damage, or any combination thereof. We can make different classes of missiles that do energy damage, or mines that primarily do collision damage along with concussive force. This makes for a more powerful range of options for unique and interesting types of weapons, ships, and challenges. New NPCs could arise that require specific loadouts and tactics to take them down, and new tactics using overlapping fields of mines with different properties.
Since this was implemented, has there been any application of it in the game?
Perhaps my impression is that it the application would give noticeable impacts to damage, necessitating a change of equipment to engage a target, rather than a possible lesser inconvenience.
Expanding the very nature of weapons and armor
We recently added the ability to differentiate between damage types in weapons and armor. In other words, we can create ship variants that are well-armored against energy weapons, weak against explosions, but fairly tough against collision damage, or any combination thereof. We can make different classes of missiles that do energy damage, or mines that primarily do collision damage along with concussive force. This makes for a more powerful range of options for unique and interesting types of weapons, ships, and challenges. New NPCs could arise that require specific loadouts and tactics to take them down, and new tactics using overlapping fields of mines with different properties.
Since this was implemented, has there been any application of it in the game?
Perhaps my impression is that it the application would give noticeable impacts to damage, necessitating a change of equipment to engage a target, rather than a possible lesser inconvenience.
Incarnate,
I've been thinking about writing a suggestion based around this feature, but how the suggestion is written is related to the present implementation of the feature.
Would you be able to shed some light on the current status of this?
I've been thinking about writing a suggestion based around this feature, but how the suggestion is written is related to the present implementation of the feature.
Would you be able to shed some light on the current status of this?
No.. I haven't had time to check into the status, and it's long enough ago that I don't recollect the details. That was why I hadn't responded.
Someone needs to carefully dig into the code and figure out the exact current situation, and we've been too busy with other pressing priorities.
Basically, it was something that (back then) I designed and spec'd out a certain way, and then slated for implementation, and it was supposedly implemented and tested.. but then when I went to use it, I discovered that it wasn't actually done to spec at all, and wasn't functional. And then 17 unrelated things caught on fire (major problems somewhere else) and took priority, so I couldn't re-allocate time to go back and properly implement it.
There are some pieces of it that are working, there are others that are not, or that have weird problems and limitations. I don't remember the details. It's still on my list, in terms of content changes.
I guess my recommendation would be writing the Suggestion based on what you would rather see, as opposed to basing it on "the present implementation". Generally speaking, Suggestions are more relevant to us if people just focus on "what they think would be best" as opposed to what they believe might be "easier" to implement, because users generally don't have much insight there anyway.
Someone needs to carefully dig into the code and figure out the exact current situation, and we've been too busy with other pressing priorities.
Basically, it was something that (back then) I designed and spec'd out a certain way, and then slated for implementation, and it was supposedly implemented and tested.. but then when I went to use it, I discovered that it wasn't actually done to spec at all, and wasn't functional. And then 17 unrelated things caught on fire (major problems somewhere else) and took priority, so I couldn't re-allocate time to go back and properly implement it.
There are some pieces of it that are working, there are others that are not, or that have weird problems and limitations. I don't remember the details. It's still on my list, in terms of content changes.
I guess my recommendation would be writing the Suggestion based on what you would rather see, as opposed to basing it on "the present implementation". Generally speaking, Suggestions are more relevant to us if people just focus on "what they think would be best" as opposed to what they believe might be "easier" to implement, because users generally don't have much insight there anyway.