First of all, thank you for increasing the damage caused by collisions.

I decided to start crashing into things today to see how it was working and noticed that on average, I was only losing 5% damage on an EC-88 and Warthog mk2 at full turbo. If I managed to bounce into another surface after the initial impact I would lose more, though the most I lost was only about 25%.

This still seems to be quite low compared to the state of collision damage in the past, which could cause you to explode if you hit a roid or station too fast.

that seems totally fine to me. Again, we are not in a realistic space sim.. we shouldnt explode when we hit anything at full speed.

I'm not suggesting that we should explode on contact, however, 5% is very low, especially considering what we used to have. If you're going full turbo into something and bounce a few times, you should be severely hurting afterward.

I don't know what magical land you're remembering but I never remember damage between ships being more than a mere few %

Hitting a roid on the other hand I do recall losing upto 50 or more % depending on how fast I was going heh

My crash tests only involved roids and stations.

Hitting a roid going full speed definately made more than 50% damage back in the day.

Black roids in space ... older (fixed) Nvidia bug under Linux. heh

we are not in a realistic space sim.. we shouldnt explode when we hit anything at full speed

that is true of ships as it would be exploitable but if you slam into a roid or a station at full turbo
you should explode and the death march tune should play

Should be closer to 15-20% being more realistic about gameplay.

So, at this point, we are pretty damned sure that the collision damage is exactly the same as it was in 2012 before the "great physics change" that upset everything. Ray did a code comparison.. it's pretty unlikely that there's a difference.

But, that being said, there were prior times, in the more distant history of the game, when collision damage was higher. That was a pretty long time ago (years and years), but it's possible that foggy memories are conflating different periods.

There were also cases with specific ships that could induce the "wingbug" in the past (and not always on the wings), which would cause you to explode, and sometimes it might seem more "deserved" than others.. but it was still a bug spiking collision damage way too high.

I don't personally have a problem with the current values, but I'm always open to tweaking things. If people want a different "feel", let me know (on Suggestions). I think I can artificially reduce the collision damage of just the EC-89, to help newbies, which would be my only concern. So, I'm fine with changing damage otherwise. (But, note that, if we add more dense navigational challenges, as I'd like, you may then ask me to dial it back down again).

"Realism" doesn't really enter into it. We aren't comparing against crashing the ISS into an asteroid, these ships are made out of alloys that don't exist in our world, and have relatively low masses, and frankly are traveling at pretty low speeds. It gets into the situation of why you can flick the beetle across the room and he's fine, but if you throw a person across the room he's badly injured; basically a strength-to-mass (momentum) tradeoff.

If you really want to blow up, load up some samoflange and turbo into a station and I imagine it'll be accommodating.

Ya, I'm positive it was way prior to 2012 that when you'd hit a roid, etc that the ship got more than 50% damage.

Thanks Inc.

I think I can artificially reduce the collision damage of just the EC-89, to help newbies, which would be my only concern.

Why not make it stay relatively low at low speeds and increase the damage dramatically at speeds higher than ~180m/s or so. That'd keep safety bumpers on all the newbie ships while forcing pilots of fast, expensive interceptors to watch where they're flying.

I'm fine with it the way it is, personally.

+1 to speed related damage 180 = 5% 225 = 50%
adjust numbers to suit

I don't think enough players are unhappy enough to warrant a change here. -1

Also, this is not a bug. It's a suggestion.