Page 116 of 163
Re: Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion
Posted: Thu 31 Jul , 2014 3:32 pm
by Azarael
What I do think will cause rage is the splash damage rework. While inaccurate spamming is much less effective because the damage dropoff is quadratic, accurate fire will do far more damage than it did before. In some cases, most obviously Longhorn directs and M46 mines, that's a one-shot kill for a perfect hit.
I'm actually surprised that quadratic falloff wasn't implemented before. It's more accurate than linear dropoff, physically speaking, and vanilla BW explosives have ridiculously high damage, but seem to have ignored this aspect of the physics...
Re: Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion
Posted: Thu 31 Jul , 2014 3:54 pm
by iRobot
<my head>
ctrl+f quadratic
not found
Re: Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion
Posted: Thu 31 Jul , 2014 4:00 pm
by Azarael
Re: Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion
Posted: Thu 31 Jul , 2014 4:17 pm
by iRobot
Math things
Re: Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion
Posted: Thu 31 Jul , 2014 5:00 pm
by Pinky
Azarael wrote:I'm actually surprised that quadratic falloff wasn't implemented before. It's more accurate than linear dropoff, physically speaking, and vanilla BW explosives have ridiculously high damage, but seem to have ignored this aspect of the physics...
Wouldn't an exponential falloff be even more accurate and realistic?
Re: Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion
Posted: Thu 31 Jul , 2014 5:06 pm
by Rymosrac
Pinky wrote:Wouldn't an exponential falloff be even more accurate and realistic?
Same thing. y=x^2 is a quadratic function.
iRobot wrote:<my head>
ctrl+f quadratic
not found
You forgot to close your head.
Actually, that explains a lot.
Re: Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion
Posted: Thu 31 Jul , 2014 5:14 pm
by Oska
Rymosrac wrote:Pinky wrote:Wouldn't an exponential falloff be even more accurate and realistic?
Same thing. y=x^2 is a quadratic function.
Re: Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion
Posted: Thu 31 Jul , 2014 5:19 pm
by iRobot
Too much math
Re: Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion
Posted: Thu 31 Jul , 2014 5:20 pm
by Rymosrac
Well yeah, not all exponential functions are quadratic. But pretty much all quadratic functions are exponential.
Azarael wrote:I'm actually surprised. . . Vanilla BW. . . seem(s) to have ignored this aspect of the physics
I don't think surprise is the right word.
Re: Ballistic Bro Changelogs Discussion
Posted: Thu 31 Jul , 2014 5:34 pm
by Azarael
Pinky wrote:Azarael wrote:I'm actually surprised that quadratic falloff wasn't implemented before. It's more accurate than linear dropoff, physically speaking, and vanilla BW explosives have ridiculously high damage, but seem to have ignored this aspect of the physics...
Wouldn't an exponential falloff be even more accurate and realistic?
I'm concerned about the performance of Square() versus **. Can you offer any clarification? I can see how Square is internally handled as x * x, but, say, x ** 1.4?
Rymosrac wrote:I don't think surprise is the right word.
Not sure what you're getting at. I got a lot of stick for commenting that explosives did extreme damage in vanilla and that G5 rockets in particular were extremely free, yet not one of the realism-favouring players has ever mentioned that the linear dropoff model used in BW was completely wrong.
I'm almost beginning to think they don't actually care about realism, only about preserving status quo...