With cordite in the air, splintered steel, shell casings and powder burns, there’s only one explanation...
Discuss & improve the game engine.

Moderators: Tequila, sparcdr, torhu

As I see it, range should be the maximum distance that the bullet keeps it's original damage. After the rage starts the decaying, until it reaches a threshold. It might not be 0, but something very low.

I'm talking as a programmer, not as an end user here.

After all, eventually a pistol will lose all of it's power.

Consider the formula I suggested before (Just as an example):

this is only applicable from the point that is the range of the gun. "Range", something like 600. this is a regular parabolic function, it rises in a parabolic manner until the "range" point in the X axis (distance) where it gets to the maximum in the Y axis (damage), from that point on it descend in a parabolic way with a slope defined as "degrade_constant", witch means it start degrading very slowly and then accelerate near the end.

Eventually it will reach the point when it crosses the threshold.

So there need to be two conditional statements, first is if the distance is lower then the range, if so the damage should be max, and if the result of the formula is lower then the threshold then the damage should be the threshold.

The formula I gave is just an example, there can be lots of formulas, even a different formula for each gun - but it has to have these conditions and parameters.

Hope this helps a bit.

(By the way, before you ask, I will not have time to actually code it. Sorry. And in any case, I'm a flash programmer that have no idea about the Q3 engine or even OpenGL)
iap
Pistolero

Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:08 pm
Location: Israel

@ Tequila:
I'm not against damage degradation, just against damage nullification (or close to nullification).
Current damage degration is not really effective, but I don't want that we change it from an extrem (more or less no degradation) to another (excessive degradation).
IMO, in the current map set, I think damage for pistol shouldn't fall under 30% of the initial firepower, even in El Paso.
And we should take in consideration that someone starting with 20\$, buy a schofield, and so have limited ammo. Many time I ran out of ammo in map like El Paso when starting with 20\$. If my bullet doesn't deal enough damage, it will be worse.

Joe Kari
SG Team

Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:44 pm
Location: France

Then get closer...
That is part of the decisions you have to make...
iap
Pistolero

Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:08 pm
Location: Israel

iap wrote:Then get closer...
That is part of the decisions you have to make...

I will have to get closer too if I have a shootpower reduced to 50% or 30%
No need to be excessive

Joe Kari
SG Team

Posts: 878
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 8:44 pm
Location: France

Some people have suggested limiting the damage the pistols do at long ranges more than is currently done. This would be a way of weaking the pistols. I've tried to find an easy way to do this, one way is shown in
this image, made with this web-basedgraphing calculator. The three first functions are for the pistols, the last for the two cheapest rifles.

It's just a cubic function that involves base damage, distance to target, and a 'damage retention constant'. Not sure what to call that last one. Note that 'range' is not used. In addition, damage reduction could be capped at maybe half base damage.

Is it something like this that you had in mind, guys? I'm not saying that I think this is a good idea, I'm just investigating options.
In game: =SG=monSter
Monster Browser

torhu
SG Team

Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:12 pm
Location: Norway

I think this would be a great idea. How does that graph compare to the current damage fall-off?

SmokeyBacon
Shootist

Posts: 77
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: Stuttgart

To compare with the current system, check out the spread sheet from my original post, it's the blue graph.
In game: =SG=monSter
Monster Browser

torhu
SG Team

Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:12 pm
Location: Norway

This COULD be a good idea in some cases.

For example, if we lower the damage of the colt peacemaker.
Then we could use this for the schoffield so that there is more difference between the two.

I would not use it for all 3 pistols. And cap it at 30% not 50%.

What you should not do, is change these 'little things' without first rethinking the whole weapons system.
My Latest fragmovies:
Winning BB cup

mLy!
Gunslinger

Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:46 pm

With lowered spread for rifles (as it is in beta2 servers now) and with spread for pistols remained as in 1.0... that will be probably much better than what we have now in 1.0.

dowoshek
Gunslinger

Posts: 134
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 12:29 pm
Location: Poland

simply lower the price from the winchester- rifle from 24 to 20... -->so its possible to buy the rifle in the first round or if you dont get a kill

s&w shotfield from 18 to 20 and
peacmaker from 22 to 25...
sorry for my english

Crank
Drifter

Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:05 pm
Location: Austria

Crank wrote:simply lower the price from the winchester- rifle from 24 to 20... -->so its possible to buy the rifle in the first round or if you dont get a kill

s&w shotfield from 18 to 20 and
peacmaker from 22 to 25...

why would the schofield be more expensive than a rifle? and why would raising the price of the peacemaker help if we already make rifles more accurate over greater distances?

it seems we need to decide on either lowering the prices or changing the weapons specs. or perhaps the best is a little of both but the prices must take into account the "upgrades" that these weapons might be receiving
SG Name: Sucalakafufu
Clan: [CWNN] - Clan With No Name

Sucalakafufu
Gunslinger

Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:59 am

torhu wrote:Some people have suggested limiting the damage the pistols do at long ranges more than is currently done. This would be a way of weaking the pistols. I've tried to find an easy way to do this, one way is shown in
this image, made with this web-basedgraphing calculator. The three first functions are for the pistols, the last for the two cheapest rifles.

It's just a cubic function that involves base damage, distance to target, and a 'damage retention constant'. Not sure what to call that last one. Note that 'range' is not used. In addition, damage reduction could be capped at maybe half base damage.

Is it something like this that you had in mind, guys? I'm not saying that I think this is a good idea, I'm just investigating options.

About 'damage retention constant', you can think it of the distance at which damage will decrease of one point.

Everyone should remind something, the damage applied will always be rounded to an integer before it is applied. That's essentialy why I don't think we should use complicated formula and we should only define few well-defined ranges with simple linear approximation.

So here is what I would like to try, where D is the hit distance, and R a damage reduction factor:
1) [0;RANGE] is defined as the range where full damage is applied. So if D<RANGE, DAMAGE=FULL_DAMAGE
2) [RANGE;2*RANGE] is the range where damage is reduced which such a formula: DAMAGE = FULL_DAMAGE - R * (D-RANGE)
3) [2*RANGE;10xRANGE] is the range where damage is reduced smoother to a minimum MIN_DAMAGE. In such range, the formula would become: DAMAGE=FULL_DAMAGE - 2/3 * (FULL_DAMAGE - MIN_DAMAGE) - R /10 * (D-2*RANGE)
4) [10xRANGE;infinity], DAMAGE=MIN_DAMAGE

In that way, we could define the reduction factor like this: R= 2 * (FULL_DAMAGE - MIN_DAMAGE) / ( 3 * RANGE )
So at 2*RANGE, DAMAGE will be reduced by 2/3*(FULL_DAMAGE - MIN_DAMAGE).

Of course, this is only a proposition. But we can start to add a cvar to select a damage reduction model and add the models described in this thread.

My point of view requires also to find a good minimum damage definition. I think we can safely define it as half the full damage, rounded to lower integer.

I updated the chart to compare it to the others. This is the green line in the graph.

Btw, in my opinion, if we reduce damage in that way, we should also reduce the spread for every weapon. So more people won't complain about hazardous shots.

Another point, people complains to players not being killed with their big heavy shot... what do you think if we add a feature to say something like 'You hit this guy, he got X points of damage' ? So people will have a better idea if their shot strength is really big... and this can help also people to choose a weapon with the distance they are trying to shoot someone.

I would also like to enhance the spread calculation using a player accuracy capacity which may be shown on the client part as a gauge. Such a gauge should decrease when player is running or jumping and should than only grown after a minimum delay. It should also decrease for a very short time just after any shot. And we may also have it grown toward 150% or 120% when staying crouched without moving or just standing up without moving.

Edition: Fixed missing "- 2/3 * (FULL_DAMAGE - MIN_DAMAGE)" in 3) formula
Last edited by Tequila on Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tequila
SG Team

Posts: 1083
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:33 pm
Location: Montpellier, France

i agree with most of the points tequila mentioned.

But two more things:

1) i like the linear formular you provide, but the details would have to be tested (min-damage, the damage-fall-off in distance, the ranges where the fall-off applies, ...). The concept sounds fine though.

2a) i am still against any sort of spread, altough a gauge would at least visualize the decreased accuracy. At the same time i doubt that a gauge would be a good visualisation of spread, since you still don't know what this practically means (let's say, the gauge is showing *a little bit of spread* - what exactly does this mean when shooting at someone in close-range, mid-range, far-range? -- in CS it is visualized within the crosshair afaik, which gives a real idea about what's happening - but again: i am not a fan of random aspects in games)

2b) again spread -- is it really a good idea to award someone who's not moving or slowly moving by giving him extra accuracy? -- The majority wants to play a simulation of wild-west. If we really would want to play a game where movement is rare, we'd simply switch to good old CS.

Don't get me wrong. Moving slowly sometimes, or staying in shelter for the time of reload etc. is and should be totally legal. But players who stay on crouch and/or walk round after round slow down the game a lot, and take away the fun of everyone who got killed and needs to wait until round ends. It's neither exciting to watch such a playstyle, nor it is exciting to play with/against them.

The problem i see here is, that there is NO DRAWBACK at all when someone is playing like that. To be honest, it even gives PLENTY of benefits: you don't make noise, you got less spread, you are usually the first to shoot, and so on.

So basically it makes sense for everyone to simply stay on crouch ALL the time. Please imagine what this would mean for the fun ingame.

To summarize: Not only weapon-balance should be fixed. Balance between the different types of movement needs to be fixed aswell (since crouching/walking is suprior to running in every aspect except speed [which is not important in the gametypes SG provides]).

/quit

moRtem
Gunslinger

Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:56 pm

@Tequila: your ideas seem good. i would like to test them

@moRtem: how is running not important? alot of times running is needed in SG or else you will be killed... or you will not rob the bank.. or your target will get away... or you will be a motionless/slow moving target...

to crouch requires alot more tactics. if you crouch all the time, you need to be thinking alot more...

i dont think crouching/walking is superior to running except in lower spread... but then that makes sense because a running man would shoot alot less accurately then a standing/crouching man... in most cases anyway
SG Name: Sucalakafufu
Clan: [CWNN] - Clan With No Name

Sucalakafufu
Gunslinger

Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:59 am

Sucalakafufu wrote:to crouch requires alot more tactics. if you crouch all the time, you need to be thinking alot more...

Ohh comon

dowoshek
Gunslinger

Posts: 134
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 12:29 pm
Location: Poland

PreviousNext