Ramming Damage

[PvK]

The default values in settings.txt favor the target, not the rammer.

I think the main reason for this, and for making ramming warheads expensive and not very powerful is balance, and the fact that the ramming mechanic isn't very realistic or fair. Since the current mechanic makes it pretty easy to ram even faster ships (or drones or even FIGHTERS), ramming has to be disadvantaged some other way, or it will become a better strategy to build lots of ram ships than to invest in real weapons and sensors and stuff.

IMO, reducing the damage from ramming is a hack solution, but I also think it is far better than letting ram ships dominate. Ideally, the ramming mechanic would actually make sense. It wouldn't be automatically successful, and would be impossible or nearly impossible to ram faster or more maneuverable targets, especially fighters.

PvK

[tbontob]

Originally posted by PvK:
The default values in settings.txt favor the target, not the rammer.

PvK, are you saying that it is the reverse and it is the rammer who is likely to take 100 damage and the defender 60?

[Slick]

Ok, now I am confused. Can anyone post some math that shows how mass (rammer and rammee), warhead strength, and the settings.txt entries add up?

Also, what happens if 2 rammers meet? I would guess that the one to move Last is the rammer. But what happens if the rammee has a cobalt warhead? Is it similar to drones in that it would not explode but only add mass to its ship?


Slick.

[couslee]

Originally posted by PvK:
The default values in settings.txt favor the target, not the rammer.

I think the main reason for this, and for making ramming warheads expensive and not very powerful is balance, and the fact that the ramming mechanic isn't very realistic or fair. Since the current mechanic makes it pretty easy to ram even faster ships (or drones or even FIGHTERS), ramming has to be disadvantaged some other way, or it will become a better strategy to build lots of ram ships than to invest in real weapons and sensors and stuff.

IMO, reducing the damage from ramming is a hack solution, but I also think it is far better than letting ram ships dominate. Ideally, the ramming mechanic would actually make sense. It wouldn't be automatically successful, and would be impossible or nearly impossible to ram faster or more maneuverable targets, especially fighters.

PvK

The only favorable thing for the target I read is shields work for the target, but not the attacker.
And considering the cost both mineral wise and KT used is balance enough IMO. A fleet of ramming ships would be very expensive to build.

The way I would mod the weapon is this (I know very little about modding, so don't go nutso if I say something that won't work):
Range: 1
Ability: may only be used once
Cost: maybe increase it 150%-200% (2000 minerals)
Mass: double it to 100kt
**damage resistance: leave at 50, or reduce to 20 or 25

If too powerfull, reduce the damage done from 100, 200, 300 per level to 75, 150, 225 (-25%).

Instead of veiwing it as a hard mount ramming warhead, view it as a detachable ramming warhead.

As it is now, they are useless. Why even have them in the game when you get better ramming numbers using cheap-*** armor.

**Late edit: lots of cross-posting and speedy replies.

[ February 03, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: couslee ]

[geoschmo]

Aha, I was all wrong.

The tonnage of the other ship does matter, and the advantage from settings does go to the target.

The rammer gets damage equal to 100% of the structure of the target. The target gets damage equal to 60% of the structure of the rammer.

So a smaller * ship ramming a larger ship will always be destroyed. A larger ship ramming a smaller ship will not be destroyed. It might not necesarily destroy the smaller ship though on the first ram. It depends on the size difference between the two.

And it does appear, but I am not certain yet, need to test it more, that only intact comps are factored into the damage. Not positive either how the warhead is factored in, but I will let you knwo if/when I figure it out.

Geoschmo

*EDIT: Smaller and larger are not technically correct. Since a ship can be smaller and have more strutcure since armor and other comps can have more structure then they take up in space. The critical number is structure not size.

[ February 03, 2003, 20:19: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[couslee]

Slick.
It appears the damage rating of the warhead is added to the damage total (300+50kt). If the target ship has a ramming warhead, only the mass counts (50kt)

And I seriously doubt the settings.txt are mis-worded. attacking and target are not going to be confused. (unlike some of the other .txt wordings. lol)

[couslee]

On a side note. WOW at all the replies and views. I am glad I asked this question.

Thanks to one and all.

[Fyron]

I am fairly certain that only current HPs (not max HPs) are factored into the damage. If a ship has 20 damage, but no destroyed comps, it will do 20 less damage when it rams (or is rammed).

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by couslee:
And I seriously doubt the settings.txt are mis-worded. attacking and target are not going to be confused. (unlike some of the other .txt wordings. lol)

No, it's not misworded. But that didn't stop me from misinterpreting it.

[couslee]

Me either. I mis-understood it too. I just did another quick test not using the ramming ship
I attacked
He took 60% of my HP in damage
I took 100% of his HP in damage
Damaged components are not included, only remaining HP are used.

warhead test will have to wait until I get a ship hardy enough to survive the above +300. I fear it adds 300 damage to each ship. but no idea until it can be tested.

Edit in.
That stinks. If your ramming, your are hitting nose first and structural planning would be used to make that the most resistant to impact (we have bumpers on cars,eh?) When your ramming, you could be doing a corner ram at the engines, or a broadside. you would cause more damage than you would recieve. I think the setting are backwards, but that is just my opinion.

[ February 03, 2003, 21:24: Message edited by: couslee ]