Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Let's just say I've been watching a lot of sci fi recently, specifically with ship combat.
One of the classic things that happens is that before the ship is actually destroyed, stuff gets damaged before then. Ships lose shield or weapons or sensors or whatever.
In EVE, however, you don't get that feeling of classic sci fi. Presuming you've got your skills trained to five, your shields are perfect, your armor is perfect. A smashing hit or penetrating hit doesn't do either in EVE. The game has a kind of sterile feel to it and I think in large part it's because either you're playing PVE and you're watching your little bars slowly go down and you can almost time when you need to get out. Or you're playing PVP and either it's over really fast (<10 seconds) or you also have a ton of hit points and people are trying to slowly burn through them. That said, I haven't been in a multi-thousand participant fleet fight, but it seems like that shouldn't be the only time this stuff gets interesting.
Perhaps really good hits should do some small amount of damage to modules as if you were overheating them. Enough good hits get in and a module could end up being disabled.
Because of my limited experience in large fleet fights I was wondering what people thought of this and what alternatives could we come up with that gives us something between working 100% and dead. This may be a terrible idea, but I think the idea at least deserves some brainstorming. |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
133
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
A ***** to code, game breaking when the RNG hates you and lets all your modules die after a couple hits, and doesn't bring much besides random chance to the game.
It's a nice idea, but it doesn't fit in with EVE Online. |
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:A ***** to code, game breaking when the RNG hates you and lets all your modules die after a couple hits, and doesn't bring much besides random chance to the game.
It's a nice idea, but it doesn't fit in with EVE Online.
As a developer (not CPP) I wouldn't imagine this would be that hard to code up, nor would it add that much more processing time.
Also I wasn't thinking of a couple of hits. They don't loose their systems suddenly -- they were getting hammered before that. So damage would accrue over time.
As for bringing random chance --- maybe EVE could use a little more of that. Right now there's too many knowns. One big complaint about PvE is that once you look up the mission you really don't have to think much past that. There's very little to adapt to. Really right now the biggest thing I have to watch for is damage to drones. If it weren't for that it's me just choosing target priorities. EVE can be more than that. It was actually the damage to the drones that got me thinking about that. It's more things to keep track of in engagements which I think is a good thing. EVE's supposed to be about skill right? EVE lacks dynamism once you're engaged in most PVE content. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
15
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
I think this idea makes armor logistics ships (and armor tanking as a whole) obsolete: once you are out of shields - no amount of armor rep will help you rep all those modules, even worse if they were already damaged from overheating. |
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:18:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:I think this idea makes armor logistics ships (and armor tanking as a whole) obsolete: once you are out of shields - no amount of armor rep will help you rep all those modules, even worse if those modules were already damaged from overheating. If you make armor reps to affect broken modules that might be interesting as that might give active armor tanking a new life in pvp.
My intention was that it didn't matter if shields were up or not. Shields wouldn't actually protect you from this either. Take Star Trek, even when shields were still up stuff kept exploding around them and getting damaged.
I think the idea behind damaged while shields are up is there's no where for the energy to go. Shields help distribute attacks across the entire ship and irradiate the areas outward, but some still gets through. Hence why the electrical systems always start shooting sparks.
So it would affect shield and armor tanking though actives might have better module repair systems. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
15
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Quintessen wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:I think this idea makes armor logistics ships (and armor tanking as a whole) obsolete: once you are out of shields - no amount of armor rep will help you rep all those modules, even worse if those modules were already damaged from overheating. If you make armor reps to affect broken modules that might be interesting as that might give active armor tanking a new life in pvp. My intention was that it didn't matter if shields were up or not. Shields wouldn't actually protect you from this either. Take Star Trek, even when shields were still up stuff kept exploding around them and getting damaged. I think the idea behind damaged while shields are up is there's no where for the energy to go. Shields help distribute attacks across the entire ship and irradiate the areas outward, but some still gets through. Hence why the electrical systems always start shooting sparks. So it would affect shield and armor tanking though actives might have better module repair systems.
You may think of armor ehp as resistance to hull breach: a thick armor will prevent attacks from penetration. Once your armor plates cannot hold enemies' attacks anymore (armor hp = 0) - you start getting explosions inside ship. So instead of modules being damaged on shield/armor hit, make them suffer on hull damage. And a reverse: make hull rep affect damaged/broken modules and damaged drones in bay. |
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Quintessen wrote:Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:I think this idea makes armor logistics ships (and armor tanking as a whole) obsolete: once you are out of shields - no amount of armor rep will help you rep all those modules, even worse if those modules were already damaged from overheating. If you make armor reps to affect broken modules that might be interesting as that might give active armor tanking a new life in pvp. My intention was that it didn't matter if shields were up or not. Shields wouldn't actually protect you from this either. Take Star Trek, even when shields were still up stuff kept exploding around them and getting damaged. I think the idea behind damaged while shields are up is there's no where for the energy to go. Shields help distribute attacks across the entire ship and irradiate the areas outward, but some still gets through. Hence why the electrical systems always start shooting sparks. So it would affect shield and armor tanking though actives might have better module repair systems. You may think of armor ehp as resistance to hull breach: a thick armor will prevent attacks from penetration. Once your armor plates cannot hold enemies' attacks anymore (armor hp = 0) - you start getting explosions inside ship. So instead of modules being damaged on shield/armor hit, make them suffer on hull damage. And a reverse: make hull rep affect damaged/broken modules and damaged drones in bay.
Despite what Hollywood would have you believe, that's not actually how the physics work. Kinetic energy has to go somewhere. So rigid armor would prevent penetration, but either the entire ship would move or vibrations in the ship would start shaking things loose.
If you cause enough vibrations to a person in a suit of armor that amazingly doesn't buckle you'll still liquefy the person inside. Yeah Iron Man is unrealistic.
This is possible I think. |
StarStryder
The Terrifying League Of Dog Fort Get Off My Lawn
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
I would say that penetrating hits on shields should have a chance to damage shield system mods. Armour penetrating hits should have a chance to damage armour system mods. All hits have a much smaller chance of damaging non-tank mods.
Make the Damage Control module repair such damage over time. The better hits the enemy gets the harder it is for the DC to keep up.
The fiction logic is simple. Strong hits on the shield cause a surge in the shield generation power conduits. Armour penetration is obvious. |
De'Veldrin
East India Ore Trade The East India Co.
968
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 17:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
I thought modules did take damage when you went into structure? Or is that just my imagination? The Margin Trading Scam: If you fell for it, it's your own damned fault. Malcanis for CSM 8
Eve Online: The full-contact sport for your brain. |
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:07:00 -
[10] - Quote
StarStryder wrote:I would say that penetrating hits on shields should have a chance to damage shield system mods. Armour penetrating hits should have a chance to damage armour system mods. All hits have a much smaller chance of damaging non-tank mods.
Make the Damage Control module repair such damage over time. The better hits the enemy gets the harder it is for the DC to keep up.
The fiction logic is simple. Strong hits on the shield cause a surge in the shield generation power conduits. Armour penetration is obvious.
I really like these specifics. Perhaps also modules that are on have a higher chance of being damaged. Passive modules are always considered to be on. This might be doable without penalizing passive builds too heavily, but perhaps neut immunity should come with some more drawbacks. |
|
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
105
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:I thought modules did take damage when you went into structure? Or is that just my imagination? Confirming that mods do take damage when you go into structure. |
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 18:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote:De'Veldrin wrote:I thought modules did take damage when you went into structure? Or is that just my imagination? Confirming that mods do take damage when you go into structure.
For most battles the time spent in hull means that this never comes up. It comes up so infrequently that I didn't even know that this happened even as a Gallente pilot armor tanking.
So I liked the idea above where armor defensive modules would take damage if penetrative hits and shield defensive modules would take damage when the shields get hit.
If something comes up so infrequently that no one remembers it exists, then that's a problem. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
16
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
Quintessen wrote:If something comes up so infrequently that no one remembers it exists, then that's a problem. That just means that hull tanking needs a buff. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
81
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
You have to consider the technology we are dealing with.
The whole ship is just about swinmming in nanites that continuously repair things. So that damage may be taking place, but between multiple redundant systems and the fact that the ship is actually healing itself internally at a fairly rapid pace means you rarely if ever actually makes an impact on the ships performance.
To affect the larger chunks like the main structure or armor plating you need large nano hives continuously breaking down debris and churning out new plate sections and structural members. Though seemingly more difficult, the fine electronics and such that comprise the ships more delicate systems are actually easier for the nanites to handle locally. |
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
21
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:25:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:You have to consider the technology we are dealing with.
The whole ship is just about swinmming in nanites that continuously repair things. So that damage may be taking place, but between multiple redundant systems and the fact that the ship is actually healing itself internally at a fairly rapid pace means you rarely if ever actually makes an impact on the ships performance.
To affect the larger chunks like the main structure or armor plating you need large nano hives continuously breaking down debris and churning out new plate sections and structural members. Though seemingly more difficult, the fine electronics and such that comprise the ships more delicate systems are actually easier for the nanites to handle locally.
Yeah, I was kind of expecting this kind of response eventually. The question is why can't nanites repair overheated modules. We already have to apply nanite paste specifically for things, why not these as well? Apparently armor nanites can't repair hull and hull nanites can't repair armor. Maybe there are specific module nanites. If there are, then we can get damage to various systems as proposed in this thread. |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
727
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 19:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
Hull tank is a joke atm. What they need to do is to buff hull tank to better than shield tank, at the tradeoff of module dmg. Man-tank ftw! Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
643
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
u can overheat ur modules as u start taking damage. they'll start switching off one by one and can be repaired by nanites
my own ships have so many redundancy systems and are made of such super duper materials that my systems are completely unaffected by the amount of damage the ship takes.
|
Skorpynekomimi
430
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 01:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
Quintessen wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:You have to consider the technology we are dealing with.
The whole ship is just about swinmming in nanites that continuously repair things. So that damage may be taking place, but between multiple redundant systems and the fact that the ship is actually healing itself internally at a fairly rapid pace means you rarely if ever actually makes an impact on the ships performance.
To affect the larger chunks like the main structure or armor plating you need large nano hives continuously breaking down debris and churning out new plate sections and structural members. Though seemingly more difficult, the fine electronics and such that comprise the ships more delicate systems are actually easier for the nanites to handle locally. Yeah, I was kind of expecting this kind of response eventually. The question is why can't nanites repair overheated modules. We already have to apply nanite paste specifically for things, why not these as well? Apparently armor nanites can't repair hull and hull nanites can't repair armor. Maybe there are specific module nanites. If there are, then we can get damage to various systems as proposed in this thread.
It's more the specific coding contained in the module. Mostly so you don't leave the armour rep running and suddenly you're converting capacitor into another ship entirely, or random growths. |
Astroniomix
Thorn Project Ushra'Khan
433
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 03:16:00 -
[19] - Quote
Skorpynekomimi wrote:Quintessen wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:You have to consider the technology we are dealing with.
The whole ship is just about swinmming in nanites that continuously repair things. So that damage may be taking place, but between multiple redundant systems and the fact that the ship is actually healing itself internally at a fairly rapid pace means you rarely if ever actually makes an impact on the ships performance.
To affect the larger chunks like the main structure or armor plating you need large nano hives continuously breaking down debris and churning out new plate sections and structural members. Though seemingly more difficult, the fine electronics and such that comprise the ships more delicate systems are actually easier for the nanites to handle locally. Yeah, I was kind of expecting this kind of response eventually. The question is why can't nanites repair overheated modules. We already have to apply nanite paste specifically for things, why not these as well? Apparently armor nanites can't repair hull and hull nanites can't repair armor. Maybe there are specific module nanites. If there are, then we can get damage to various systems as proposed in this thread. It's more the specific coding contained in the module. Mostly so you don't leave the armour rep running and suddenly you're converting capacitor into another ship entirely, or random growths. Space cancer. |
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
57
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:56:00 -
[20] - Quote
Quintessen wrote:Let's just say I've been watching a lot of sci fi recently, specifically with ship combat.
This is the problem. And, admitting that EVE might (or might not) have some limitations to it's current combat system, watching shows that represent fake combat, that has yet to actually be tested in the real world will not help anything.
You are watching a fantasy show that happens to deal with the "future" or some form of technology. These shows last about 45 minutes. I say keep those ideas in that time limit. Have fun while you're watching. But don't take it home with you.
Thank you. |
|
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 05:36:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sol Weinstein wrote:Quintessen wrote:Let's just say I've been watching a lot of sci fi recently, specifically with ship combat. This is the problem. And, admitting that EVE might (or might not) have some limitations to it's current combat system, watching shows that represent fake combat, that has yet to actually be tested in the real world will not help anything. You are watching a fantasy show that happens to deal with the "future" or some form of technology. These shows last about 45 minutes. I say keep those ideas in that time limit. Have fun while you're watching. But don't take it home with you. Thank you.
One of my hobbies in my teens was the real physics and theories behind most of the concepts they were applying in these shows. They actually did a good job of sticking to things that were theoretically possible, but beyond our science at the time.
Frankly it's all sci fi until it's real. So we have to extrapolate from what we know. EVE ships don't work like anything else out there. They kind of work like subs, but are still missing quite a bit. They don't work like real space ships. They don't work like battleships, destroyers, etc. They also don't really work like aircraft.
So what's wrong with picking something that's generally enjoyed by the fandom and borrowing for it. It's clear that EVE isn't going for realism (e.g. accel/decal) so we should be striving for interesting game mechanics. The idea I had started from watching these kinds of shows, but even if it hadn't, I would still think it's a good idea for EVE as it makes certain combats more interesting.
Saying that these shows show fake combat doesn't really show that the ideas presented are unviable for regular usage. If you have a specific reason as to why they won't work please enlighten us, but saying disparaging an idea because of its source is a logical fallacy. |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
16
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 07:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
Quintessen wrote:If you have a specific reason as to why they won't work please enlighten us, but saying disparaging an idea because of its source is a logical fallacy. In sci fi shows to destroy computer or data on it or stop it from doing something they often think that destroying monitor is enough... |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
1957
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 07:56:00 -
[23] - Quote
OP...
don't get me wrong... I like shiny and I like realism... but at the end of the day this is a game and in order to remain healthy as a game it needs to maintain some semblance of balance and have mechanics that are "easier to handle."
Is it realistic that a ginomous battleship or capital carrier will have trouble fending off lone interceptor? Hell no. Realistically, the battleship and/or carrier would be able to field a wide array of point defense that would wipe out the frigate. However... in order to create a "Rochambeau game" (see: "rock, paper, scissors game") every class of ship is supposed to have a reasonable weakness that can be exploited.
Are the speeds that we see in EVE realistic? Absolutely not. 300 m/sec is a little over Mach 1. Most planets are orbiting their stars faster than that. However, making speeds more "real" would require a total overhaul of how propulsion, speed, and inertia mods work... because they add speed based on percentages. Without such an overhaul you'd see already fast ships going at ludicrous speeds while slower ships would at relatively slower speeds.
And yes... the physics in EVE makes you feel like water. But it's easier to maneuver and execute strategies using Newtonian rules rather than true zero-G physics.
And yeah... I have to agree with many of the others here... a "realistic" space combat scenario would not be as it appears on TV or in the movies. It would be less "wind your way through the asteroids to avoid fire" and more "predict flight path of enemy vessel based on current trajectory... factor asteroid gravity fields and compensate... aim railgun at 30 by 90 degrees... fire... time to hit; 30 minutes... stand by..."
Quintessen wrote:Goldensaver wrote:A ***** to code, game breaking when the RNG hates you and lets all your modules die after a couple hits, and doesn't bring much besides random chance to the game.
It's a nice idea, but it doesn't fit in with EVE Online. As a developer (not CPP) I wouldn't imagine this would be that hard to code up, nor would it add that much more processing time. Every time someone says this I die a little inside. Coding even the simplest of things in a massive game like EVE is bound to cause problems that will take days or even weeks to work out.
I remember when CCP tweaked the autopilot so that you could autopilot to stations, the whole system became borked. If I recall correctly, the autopilot would no longer allow anyone to select the "safest route"... instead taking everyone on "shortest route" to the destination. It took 2 weeks to figure out what happened and low-sec pirates had a field day.
Quote:My intention was that it didn't matter if shields were up or not. Shields wouldn't actually protect you from this either. Take Star Trek, even when shields were still up stuff kept exploding around them and getting damaged.
... (snip)...
So it would affect shield and armor tanking though actives might have better module repair systems. So basically... shields are useless as a viable tanking system. Might as well armor tank if the damage is going to bleed through regardless of the shields. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Atrocitas
110
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 10:00:00 -
[24] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:A ***** to code, game breaking when the RNG hates you and lets all your modules die after a couple hits, and doesn't bring much besides random chance to the game.
It's a nice idea, but it doesn't fit in with EVE Online.
Mostly this.
In addition, this adds more calculations for the servers to process similar to crimewatch being an issue in Asakai. When you get large fleet battles the RNG calculations would slow things up further. I agree it's a neat idea but it would cause you to pull your hair out sooner rather than later. |
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 12:29:00 -
[25] - Quote
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris wrote:Quintessen wrote:If you have a specific reason as to why they won't work please enlighten us, but saying disparaging an idea because of its source is a logical fallacy. In sci fi shows to destroy computer or data on it or stop it from doing something they often think that destroying monitor is enough...
Maybe they're all iMacs or tablets with the guts behind the monitor? Who cares? I'm not talking about computers. I'm talking about space flight and getting hit by ships. |
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 12:46:00 -
[26] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:OP... don't get me wrong... I like shiny and I like realism... but at the end of the day this is a game and in order to remain healthy as a game it needs to maintain some semblance of balance and have mechanics that are "easier to handle." Is it realistic that a ginomous battleship or capital carrier will have trouble fending off lone interceptor? Hell no. Realistically, the battleship and/or carrier would be able to field a wide array of point defense that would wipe out the frigate. However... in order to create a "Rochambeau game" (see: "rock, paper, scissors game") every class of ship is supposed to have a reasonable weakness that can be exploited. Are the speeds that we see in EVE realistic? Absolutely not. 300 m/sec is a little over Mach 1. Most planets are orbiting their stars faster than that. However, making speeds more "real" would require a total overhaul of how propulsion, speed, and inertia mods work... because they add speed based on percentages. Without such an overhaul you'd see already fast ships going at ludicrous speeds while slower ships would at relatively slower speeds. And yes... the physics in EVE makes you feel like water. But it's easier to maneuver and execute strategies using Newtonian rules rather than true zero-G physics. And yeah... I have to agree with many of the others here... a "realistic" space combat scenario would not be as it appears on TV or in the movies. It would be less "wind your way through the asteroids to avoid fire" and more "predict flight path of enemy vessel based on current trajectory... factor asteroid gravity fields and compensate... aim railgun at 30 by 90 degrees... fire... time to hit; 30 minutes... stand by..." Quintessen wrote:Goldensaver wrote:A ***** to code, game breaking when the RNG hates you and lets all your modules die after a couple hits, and doesn't bring much besides random chance to the game.
It's a nice idea, but it doesn't fit in with EVE Online. As a developer (not CPP) I wouldn't imagine this would be that hard to code up, nor would it add that much more processing time. Every time someone says this I die a little inside. Coding even the simplest of things in a massive game like EVE is bound to cause problems that will take days or even weeks to work out. I remember when CCP tweaked the autopilot so that you could autopilot to stations, the whole system became borked. If I recall correctly, the autopilot would no longer allow anyone to select the "safest route"... instead taking everyone on "shortest route" to the destination. It took 2 weeks to figure out what happened and low-sec pirates had a field day. Quote:My intention was that it didn't matter if shields were up or not. Shields wouldn't actually protect you from this either. Take Star Trek, even when shields were still up stuff kept exploding around them and getting damaged.
... (snip)...
So it would affect shield and armor tanking though actives might have better module repair systems. So basically... shields are useless as a viable tanking system. Might as well armor tank if the damage is going to bleed through regardless of the shields.
First, it's all neutonian physics. The different being that instead of being in a vacuum we're clearly in some sort of hi drag coefficient environment -- like water. It's not about neutonian versus relativity. And I'm not calling for realistic space combat. I'm requesting a very specific change to make combat more interesting and give the players, especialy PvE, more to deal with.
With regards to ease of coding: while I make no claims to know the details of CCP's internal codebase I do work on massively scalable systems. And your analogy doesn't equate. Pre-carbon work I would have agreed with you. Clearly their code base was in a mess, but they've been working steadily on improving it. But you are selling CCP short if you think every change, even a supposedly small one, has the potential to completely go screwy. If that were the case CCP couldn't get anything done.
The speed of damage can be tweaked. I imagine people are concerned their modules are going to pop in two seconds. I'm not suggesting that at all. But in longer term engagements this would come up. When being hit by ridiculous numbers of shots from larger sources it would be a problem. I'm not talking about frigates firing on titans would start damaging their modules. Damage would have to be a certain percentage of total shields before the module would be overwhelmed. |
Quintessen
Nakamori Ventures
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 13:00:00 -
[27] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Goldensaver wrote:A ***** to code, game breaking when the RNG hates you and lets all your modules die after a couple hits, and doesn't bring much besides random chance to the game.
It's a nice idea, but it doesn't fit in with EVE Online. Mostly this. In addition, this adds more calculations for the servers to process similar to crimewatch being an issue in Asakai. When you get large fleet battles the RNG calculations would slow things up further. I agree it's a neat idea but it would cause you to pull your hair out sooner rather than later.
First I'm curious why people think RNG calculations require lots of processing time -- they don't. Computers constantly produce random numbers -- likely thousands or tens of thousands a second without even registering on you computer's resource monitor. Random numbers are a key to a great many algorithms and shouldn't be something we worry about.
Also, the number of calculations required for crimewatch greatly outweighs the number of calculations required for this. Some versions of this require slightly more calculations, but they already do this work when you're into hull. They would just need to know what modules you're using, what group they're in and finally what the RNG came up with. Then it would apply the damage and check to see if it's destroyed, forcing it to turn off. But again they're already do this when you get into hull so clearly it's just a matter of extending the logic a bit and checking for groups. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |