Vehicle sizes

[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.