Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
sarahcovenant

Which is the better damage/resistance distribution?

This topic is 4465 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I was wondering, if i adopt the Rock-Scissor-Paper type of combat for a Browser Based Wargame should I split the damage up before defense bonuses or after? EXAMPLE: Group of 50 Fighters and 50 Battleships received 100 damage. Shields - damage = total damage received. 50 Fighters = 10 shields 50 Battleships = 30 shields Split before bonuses: 50 Fighters receives 50 damage - 10 shields = 40 damage received. 50 Battleships receives 50 damage - 30 shields = 20 damage received. OR split after bonuses: 100 damage - 10 shields - 30 shields = 60 damage 50 Fighters = 30 damage received. 50 Battleships = 30 damage received. ------------------------------------------ The difference... 1) Split before bonuses emphasize each group's resistance/vulnerability to damage. 2) Split after bonuses emphasize how much each group adds to the overall defenses of the army. What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
I think split before bonuses is more intuitive, and if you didn't have an in-game explanation of how it all worked, I think most players would assume that damage would get split before bonuses and be really confused if it was actually getting split after. Plus, most games I've seen split before bonuses.

If you like the gameplay aspect of grouped units offering protection, you could have passive effects on the battleships like "Grants +2 shields to all infantry units in group". Or have an effect that for every unit in a group, there is an overall defense bonus given to all of them that could show up in a tooltip ("Group Defense Bonus: 3 Shields"). Those sorts of things would make it much easier for the player to understand how the math works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by makeshiftwings
I think split before bonuses is more intuitive, and if you didn't have an in-game explanation of how it all worked, I think most players would assume that damage would get split before bonuses and be really confused if it was actually getting split after. Plus, most games I've seen split before bonuses.

If you like the gameplay aspect of grouped units offering protection, you could have passive effects on the battleships like "Grants +2 shields to all infantry units in group". Or have an effect that for every unit in a group, there is an overall defense bonus given to all of them that could show up in a tooltip ("Group Defense Bonus: 3 Shields"). Those sorts of things would make it much easier for the player to understand how the math works.


Good point. Thanks.

One thing I'm worried about is that splitting before bonuses makes it very hard to take down high HP units. Because the damage is split evenly by percentage composition (30% Battlecrusiers in the army = 30% damage goes to them) and then further gets reduced by their huge arse shields.

Maybe I can make it clear by saying that each unit increases the defense (shields) of the army. Thus each army will have a Shields rating, each ship adds to this Shields rating.

Damn it, i need to think more about this. Thanks anyway.

----------------------------------------

One more thing: how does both perform processing wise? Will making the split before bonuses and then calculating how much each group receives minus their respective shields be much slower than the other "split after bonuses" method? Or the difference is so small that i shouldn't even worry about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm... common sense would dictate the first is more appropriate. However in your system you are basically counting the whole fleet as one big ship in terms of the damage distribution, so why not combine the resistance too? On the other hand, you'd want ships with more shields to last longer, right? If two sets of ships had the same HP but different shields then by the second system they would last the same time. I think the more appropriate system might depend on the circumstances, but in all that I can imagine (and certainly in your 50 fighter, 50 battleship scenario) the first is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hi
1st system is better to me;
50 Fighters = 10 shields
50 Battleships = 30 shields
if damage dealt is 20, it appears "normal" that ships with 30 of shield remain untouched... it your shield protects you from a certain amount of damage. if shield works in a "percentage" way, the second may be ok but it doesn't seems nice from "strategic" point of view because in case 2, it's the same to have
50 Fighters = 10 shields
50 Battleships = 30 shields
or
50 Fighters = 20 shields
50 Battleships = 20 shields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm...thanks for the input guys. The first one is it!

Second question: If I wanted to make different types of ships have weakness to damages of certain types, what is the best way to do it?

Same Fighters, Battleships situation. This time, Fighters are "weak" to EMP damage (which damages their systems) while Battlecruisers are "weak" to Armor Piercing or AP damage (which punch thru their armour).

Scenario #1: Give all ships a different defence value against different attack types.

50 Fighter - Defence = 10 EMP, 50 AP
50 Battleship - Defence = 100 EMP, 10 AP

Then round up all damage types inflicted, say 200 EMP, 200 AP. Split them then account for damages. The Fighter group would receives 100 EMP and 100 AP damages which is reduced by its defences to end up with 90 EMP and 50 AP damage => 140 damage final.

Scenario #2: Gives all ship a generic defense value but explicitly state what they are weak against.

50 Fighter - Defence 100, Take 1.5 EMP damages.
50 Battleship - Defence 200, Take 1.5 AP damages.

Split up the damage again for Fighters into: 100 EMP and 100 AP. Then account for the fact that Fighters take 1.5 times from EMP => 150 EMP, 100 AP. Then lump them together into => 250 damage. Minus this total value with its defenses => 150 damage final.


I think Scenario #2 is "cleaner". What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Multiplying damage before shields feels a bit counter-intuitive. After all it's Armor Piercing, not Shield Piercing damage.

I would strive for something like this:

Add all damage, separated by type. Split each damage type equally between groups. Subtract shield amount from damage. Multiply damage by weakness modifier and apply.

This can't be applied directly in your case, because 200 AP damage will be better than 100 AP + 100 EMP. Maybe you can try percentages or something. I'm just saying that "(Damage - Shields)*ShipWeakness = FinalDamage" feels most natural. Unless you have different types of shields, not just weak/strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Digibo
Multiplying damage before shields feels a bit counter-intuitive. After all it's Armor Piercing, not Shield Piercing damage.

I would strive for something like this:

Add all damage, separated by type. Split each damage type equally between groups. Subtract shield amount from damage. Multiply damage by weakness modifier and apply.

This can't be applied directly in your case, because 200 AP damage will be better than 100 AP + 100 EMP. Maybe you can try percentages or something. I'm just saying that "(Damage - Shields)*ShipWeakness = FinalDamage" feels most natural. Unless you have different types of shields, not just weak/strong.


But you do agree that using a multiplier for weakness instead of assigning seperate defence values to each attack type is a much more elegant way of doing it right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Quote:
Original post by sarahcovenant
One thing I'm worried about is that splitting before bonuses makes it very hard to take down high HP units.


I would've thought that was the point of having a high HP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!