Vehicle sizes

[MrToxin]

Suicide Junkie said:
So, are you using leaky shields in that mod?

Because otherwise, that large mount gun sounds pretty useless...
Same dmg/kt/turn, but -20% to hit.
+200% hp means more likely to be hit first.
+1 range is a benefit, but that's pretty thin compensation...

The double damage per hit would be a big benefit against leaky shields or powerful emissive armors, but makes no diff at all against normal shields and armor.

Actually, with the formulaic nature of SEV, I've been looking at a variety of leaky and non-leaky damage types. Normal shields and armor would leak different amounts of damage depending on what they were being hit with. It will be a pain to balance it all out (I'm still not 100% certain on the mount balancing - you pointed out it's imperfect that way and I will agree that it is) but it's not like I ever sleep anyway.

Anyway...the idea would be to have technology affect how well the weapons in question punch through the various types of defenses, while more advanced defenses would be better in general, but also specialize against other things. "Regular" armor would be leaky at best and never take damage first. Reactive armor would also leak but be nigh impossible to get through with purely physical weapons (uranium cannons, for example). Nanitic armor would NOT be leaky, as it uses nanomachines to spread the armor to where it is needed. The exception would be nanitic weapons, which are designed to sneak through holes in armor's molecules to bypass it entirely. Shields would be different kinds of energy that would be effective against different kinds of weapons.

OK, a bit on the complex side and perhaps too ambitious for somebody that still has a job, but it's certainly an interesting thing to play with.

I'm thinking about not only adding leaky defenses but also going 300% damage, 200% size, and 300% structure, with an extra bonus to range on large. Even bigger mounts are a different story entirely, though.

[Suicide Junkie]

In SE5, the whole leaky defenses scheme is not really possible as we know it.

Fixed percentage penetration instead of random, full hits to internals with armor degrading in absorption as it weakens.

Leaky shields can be done the normal way, but the downside is you lose SE5's fancy weapon animations.

Directional armor (IE inert internals) is not leaky, but it is tactically interesting in its own way.
Layered shielding (IE non-damagable, highly leaky armor) is interesting too, but it does the same thing every time; somewhat boring.

[MrToxin]

Suicide Junkie said:
In SE5, the whole leaky defenses scheme is not really possible as we know it.

Fixed percentage penetration instead of random, full hits to internals with armor degrading in absorption as it weakens.

Leaky shields can be done the normal way, but the downside is you lose SE5's fancy weapon animations.

Directional armor (IE inert internals) is not leaky, but it is tactically interesting in its own way.
Layered shielding (IE non-damagable, highly leaky armor) is interesting too, but it does the same thing every time; somewhat boring.

Ah, haven't quite noticed that yet...I haven't gotten around to doing armor components quite yet. I'm still fighting with vehicle sizes. I'm sure there's some way or another to do it. Perhaps even adding some unpredictability with random calls in the functions on the damage types. 'course, I could just be saying stupid impossible things because damage types I haven't played with yet.

Perhaps you could have if statements with random functions that cause all damage to pass through?

Couldn't armor be put in as a standard component and just left there? Armor could have a higher structure per kT than other components. Or are things more likely to be hit if they have more structure? Or is it based on size?

Eh...stuff what I need to test yet.

[Phoenix-D]

Its not based on size OR structure- its based on the direction the hit comes from.