Thread Rating:
Grenade/explosive damage fading

03262011, 03:41 PM,
(This post was last modified: 03292013, 08:23 AM by Victor.)




Grenade/explosive damage fading
The grenade is now sort of quadratic squarerootic. It squareroots the damage removal multiplier.
This was DarKnoT's idea ("Grenades are insane"). The chart provided shows the current stats: 5m range, 350 max damage, showing the fatal radius at 125/49 meters. See: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plo...rom+0+to+5 In case you're wondering, 125/49 meters means you can kill people 2.551... meters close to your grenade. Best regards,
Victor //victorz.ca Code: Your antithesis compares favorably with any high magnitude of pwnage. (you > p, you < p) 

03292013, 08:19 AM,
(This post was last modified: 04132013, 01:29 PM by Victor.)




RE: Grenade damage
The blue line is our current damage scaling method. Does anyone think another curve would better represent explosive damage fading? The turquoise line is AssaultCube's linear fading.
see http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plo...rom+0+to+1 The xaxis is the distance from 0 (next to the explosion) to 1 (out of range), and the y axis is the damage in percent. Best regards,
Victor //victorz.ca Code: Your antithesis compares favorably with any high magnitude of pwnage. (you > p, you < p) 

04142013, 10:04 AM,




[split] 2.5.8 Changelog
A realistic fading curve would be an inverse square(I believe), but that does fade away really quickly. It also doesn't have any set terminating point. I'm not sure how important those are though.


04142013, 10:14 AM,
(This post was last modified: 04142013, 10:20 AM by Victor.)




RE: 2.5.8 Changelog
We are currently using an 1(square root) curve. A 1(square) curve would be slower initially, then around 38%, be faster.
I don't see how 1/(x^2) would work because of the asymptote. EDIT: I've fixed that thread and moved this and the previous post to it. Best regards,
Victor //victorz.ca Code: Your antithesis compares favorably with any high magnitude of pwnage. (you > p, you < p) 

04142013, 11:28 AM,
(This post was last modified: 04162013, 09:01 AM by ruler501.)




RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading
I was talking about a curve more like 100/(x+1)^2
It works just you don't have a set point for damage to end(I'd think when it drops <1 would work). It also drops off extremely quickly. With 1470/(x+1)^2 you get 1470 at 0 120 at 2.5 and 40 at 5 EDIT: Here's an image with some inverse curves added in. Inverse square should be closest to real life, but that shouldn't really matter. EDIT2: added 1x^2 EDIT3: Added a variety of functions EDIT4: Removed some and added source http://maximaonline.org/#?in=range%3A5%...max%5D)%3B 

04142013, 12:51 PM,




RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading
Since reciprocals have asymptotes, if we use them, they don't reach 0 at the end, and then drop to 0 right after the cutoff line (the damage won't be smooth).
Best regards,
Victor //victorz.ca Code: Your antithesis compares favorably with any high magnitude of pwnage. (you > p, you < p) 

04142013, 03:12 PM,




RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading
The only thing about that though is that in real life there is no real cutoff either. That's why I said though it is probably the most realistic we could do it may not be ideal as it would greatly increase range for damage.


04142013, 03:32 PM,




RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading
Perhaps the 1(1x)^2 would work the best (slower damage fading when it's closer, and faster when it's far, compared to 1sqrt(x)).
Best regards,
Victor //victorz.ca Code: Your antithesis compares favorably with any high magnitude of pwnage. (you > p, you < p) 

04142013, 03:41 PM,
(This post was last modified: 04142013, 03:51 PM by ruler501.)




RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading
Do you mean 1x^2 because 1(1x^2) starts at 0 and goes up to 1.
I think the best way to figure it out would be just to create builds with each different kind and try it out to see how it feels. EDIT: I updated my earlier post to include the graph of 1x^2 

04142013, 03:44 PM,




RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading
I said 1(1x)^2, not 1(1x^2).
Best regards,
Victor //victorz.ca Code: Your antithesis compares favorably with any high magnitude of pwnage. (you > p, you < p) 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »
