Talk:Damage - Revision history

Morgan525: /* TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525 */

2012-09-25T02:38:33Z

TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:38, 25 September 2012
Line 344:		Line 344:
	::: Yeah I know how that goes myself. I suspected you were just working your way down the page and hadn't got to Zombie's example yet. It makes sense to leave that for last as 'advanced reading'. Good luck, and thanks! [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:08, 1 April 2011 (EDT)		::: Yeah I know how that goes myself. I suspected you were just working your way down the page and hadn't got to Zombie's example yet. It makes sense to leave that for last as 'advanced reading'. Good luck, and thanks! [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:08, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

	== TFTD Damage and questions re ~~Morgan525~~ ==		== TFTD Damage and questions re Tycho ==

	Morgan525 has identified that TFTD damage is 50-150% from 'all sources'. That has a big impact on previous assumptions about the relative effectiveness of weapons, particularly against targets with high armour levels and/or high damage resistance. Basically it means that the TFTD HE weapons (for which we correctly assumed 50-150% damage range) will be relatively more effective compared to the other TFTD weapons (for which we incorrectly assumed 0-200% damage range as per EU). Basically if you were assuming the best weapon against a high-armour, high-resistance target was a direct fire weapon, due to the greater armour penetration from getting into the 150%-200% range, that assumption now looks wrong. A direct fire weapon is no more effective against armour than an area weapon with the same base damage value - and the area effect weapon gives you the chance to attack under armour on a direct hit, which is a decisive advantage vs. a hard target.		Morgan525/Tycho has identified that TFTD damage is 50-150% from 'all sources'. That has a big impact on previous assumptions about the relative effectiveness of weapons, particularly against targets with high armour levels and/or high damage resistance. Basically it means that the TFTD HE weapons (for which we correctly assumed 50-150% damage range) will be relatively more effective compared to the other TFTD weapons (for which we incorrectly assumed 0-200% damage range as per EU). Basically if you were assuming the best weapon against a high-armour, high-resistance target was a direct fire weapon, due to the greater armour penetration from getting into the 150%-200% range, that assumption now looks wrong. A direct fire weapon is no more effective against armour than an area weapon with the same base damage value - and the area effect weapon gives you the chance to attack under armour on a direct hit, which is a decisive advantage vs. a hard target.

	Questions for ~~Morgan525~~:		Questions for Tycho:
	#There are some special cases in EU, notably the Stun Bomb which has 0-200% damage range, despite being an area effect weapon. Are you sure there is not a special routine or exception for the Thermal Shok Launcher, also giving it 0-200% damage range? )I've left the TSL example on the main page untouched for now at 0-200%).		#There are some special cases in EU, notably the Stun Bomb which has 0-200% damage range, despite being an area effect weapon. Are you sure there is not a special routine or exception for the Thermal Shok Launcher, also giving it 0-200% damage range? )I've left the TSL example on the main page untouched for now at 0-200%).
	:''In EU and TFTD all damage is handled by the DoDamageToUnit subroutine. In EU, the damage type was checked against HE and routed to the script that generated 50-150%, all else (including Stun) went through the main script to generate 0-200%. TFTD still does this check but all results lead to the same script.[[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] 22:34, 24 September 2012 (EDT)''		:''In EU and TFTD all damage is handled by the DoDamageToUnit subroutine. In EU, the damage type was checked against HE and routed to the script that generated 50-150%, all else (including Stun) went through the main script to generate 0-200%. TFTD still does this check but all results lead to the same script.[[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] 22:34, 24 September 2012 (EDT)''

Morgan525: /* TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525 */

2012-09-25T02:36:35Z

TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:36, 25 September 2012
Line 354:		Line 354:
	:''I'm not certain about object and terrain but I can check. [[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] 22:34, 24 September 2012 (EDT)''		:''I'm not certain about object and terrain but I can check. [[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] 22:34, 24 September 2012 (EDT)''
	#Also, to be clear, does the 50-150% range also apply to alien attacks, including alien terrorist built in attacks, alien explosives, etc? Does it apply to SWS weapons? You're saying it applies to "all sources" of damage so I'm assuming "yes" to all that for now. :)		#Also, to be clear, does the 50-150% range also apply to alien attacks, including alien terrorist built in attacks, alien explosives, etc? Does it apply to SWS weapons? You're saying it applies to "all sources" of damage so I'm assuming "yes" to all that for now. :)
	:''I am 95% certain that this is correct.[[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] 22:34, 24 September 2012 (EDT)''		:''I am 99% certain that this is correct for both sides.[[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] 22:34, 24 September 2012 (EDT)''

	And I've had a first stab at a rewrite.		And I've had a first stab at a rewrite.

	[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 09:43, 20 September 2012 (EDT)		[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 09:43, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

Morgan525: /* TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525 */

2012-09-25T02:34:00Z

TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:34, 25 September 2012
Line 350:		Line 350:
	Questions for Morgan525:		Questions for Morgan525:
	#There are some special cases in EU, notably the Stun Bomb which has 0-200% damage range, despite being an area effect weapon. Are you sure there is not a special routine or exception for the Thermal Shok Launcher, also giving it 0-200% damage range? )I've left the TSL example on the main page untouched for now at 0-200%).		#There are some special cases in EU, notably the Stun Bomb which has 0-200% damage range, despite being an area effect weapon. Are you sure there is not a special routine or exception for the Thermal Shok Launcher, also giving it 0-200% damage range? )I've left the TSL example on the main page untouched for now at 0-200%).
			:''In EU and TFTD all damage is handled by the DoDamageToUnit subroutine. In EU, the damage type was checked against HE and routed to the script that generated 50-150%, all else (including Stun) went through the main script to generate 0-200%. TFTD still does this check but all results lead to the same script.[[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] 22:34, 24 September 2012 (EDT)''
	#In terms of Terrain and Object damage effects for TFTD, do all weapons behave like explosions do in EU (50%, no variation), or is there some other behaviour seen?		#In terms of Terrain and Object damage effects for TFTD, do all weapons behave like explosions do in EU (50%, no variation), or is there some other behaviour seen?
			:''I'm not certain about object and terrain but I can check. [[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] 22:34, 24 September 2012 (EDT)''
	#Also, to be clear, does the 50-150% range also apply to alien attacks, including alien terrorist built in attacks, alien explosives, etc? Does it apply to SWS weapons? You're saying it applies to "all sources" of damage so I'm assuming "yes" to all that for now. :)		#Also, to be clear, does the 50-150% range also apply to alien attacks, including alien terrorist built in attacks, alien explosives, etc? Does it apply to SWS weapons? You're saying it applies to "all sources" of damage so I'm assuming "yes" to all that for now. :)
			:''I am 95% certain that this is correct.[[User:Morgan525\|Tycho]] 22:34, 24 September 2012 (EDT)''

	And I've had a first stab at a rewrite.		And I've had a first stab at a rewrite.

	[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 09:43, 20 September 2012 (EDT)		[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 09:43, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

Spike: /* TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525 */

2012-09-20T15:18:53Z

TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:18, 20 September 2012
Line 351:		Line 351:
	#There are some special cases in EU, notably the Stun Bomb which has 0-200% damage range, despite being an area effect weapon. Are you sure there is not a special routine or exception for the Thermal Shok Launcher, also giving it 0-200% damage range? )I've left the TSL example on the main page untouched for now at 0-200%).		#There are some special cases in EU, notably the Stun Bomb which has 0-200% damage range, despite being an area effect weapon. Are you sure there is not a special routine or exception for the Thermal Shok Launcher, also giving it 0-200% damage range? )I've left the TSL example on the main page untouched for now at 0-200%).
	#In terms of Terrain and Object damage effects for TFTD, do all weapons behave like explosions do in EU (50%, no variation), or is there some other behaviour seen?		#In terms of Terrain and Object damage effects for TFTD, do all weapons behave like explosions do in EU (50%, no variation), or is there some other behaviour seen?
			#Also, to be clear, does the 50-150% range also apply to alien attacks, including alien terrorist built in attacks, alien explosives, etc? Does it apply to SWS weapons? You're saying it applies to "all sources" of damage so I'm assuming "yes" to all that for now. :)

	~~Also~~ I've had a first stab at a rewrite.		And I've had a first stab at a rewrite.

	[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 09:43, 20 September 2012 (EDT)		[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 09:43, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

Spike: /* TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525 */ new section

2012-09-20T13:43:41Z

TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:43, 20 September 2012
Line 343:		Line 343:

	::: Yeah I know how that goes myself. I suspected you were just working your way down the page and hadn't got to Zombie's example yet. It makes sense to leave that for last as 'advanced reading'. Good luck, and thanks! [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:08, 1 April 2011 (EDT)		::: Yeah I know how that goes myself. I suspected you were just working your way down the page and hadn't got to Zombie's example yet. It makes sense to leave that for last as 'advanced reading'. Good luck, and thanks! [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:08, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

			== TFTD Damage and questions re Morgan525 ==

			Morgan525 has identified that TFTD damage is 50-150% from 'all sources'. That has a big impact on previous assumptions about the relative effectiveness of weapons, particularly against targets with high armour levels and/or high damage resistance. Basically it means that the TFTD HE weapons (for which we correctly assumed 50-150% damage range) will be relatively more effective compared to the other TFTD weapons (for which we incorrectly assumed 0-200% damage range as per EU). Basically if you were assuming the best weapon against a high-armour, high-resistance target was a direct fire weapon, due to the greater armour penetration from getting into the 150%-200% range, that assumption now looks wrong. A direct fire weapon is no more effective against armour than an area weapon with the same base damage value - and the area effect weapon gives you the chance to attack under armour on a direct hit, which is a decisive advantage vs. a hard target.

			Questions for Morgan525:
			#There are some special cases in EU, notably the Stun Bomb which has 0-200% damage range, despite being an area effect weapon. Are you sure there is not a special routine or exception for the Thermal Shok Launcher, also giving it 0-200% damage range? )I've left the TSL example on the main page untouched for now at 0-200%).
			#In terms of Terrain and Object damage effects for TFTD, do all weapons behave like explosions do in EU (50%, no variation), or is there some other behaviour seen?

			Also I've had a first stab at a rewrite.

			[[User:Spike\|Spike]] 09:43, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

Spike: /* Rewrite */

2011-04-01T18:08:58Z

Rewrite

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:08, 1 April 2011
Line 341:		Line 341:

	:: I must also remember to come back and fix the errors - I seem to have left out a lot of words that I thought I put in. Was probably reading off the work that's in my head when I was proofreading! -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 08:06, 1 April 2011 (EDT)		:: I must also remember to come back and fix the errors - I seem to have left out a lot of words that I thought I put in. Was probably reading off the work that's in my head when I was proofreading! -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 08:06, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

			::: Yeah I know how that goes myself. I suspected you were just working your way down the page and hadn't got to Zombie's example yet. It makes sense to leave that for last as 'advanced reading'. Good luck, and thanks! [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 14:08, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

NKF: /* Rewrite */

2011-04-01T12:06:07Z

Rewrite

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 1 April 2011
Line 331:		Line 331:
	:I agree a nicer formula layout would be nice. I'm sure such things can be done in wiki layout language. Er, somehow.		:I agree a nicer formula layout would be nice. I'm sure such things can be done in wiki layout language. Er, somehow.
	:Sorry for this exercise in 'armchair editing'. I'm a bit too groggy this morning to actually tackle the text itself. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 05:42, 1 April 2011 (EDT)		:Sorry for this exercise in 'armchair editing'. I'm a bit too groggy this morning to actually tackle the text itself. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 05:42, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

			:: Don't worry about armchair editing. Feedback is just as useful.

			:: To be honest, I've only spent time on the sections I edited and haven't really had a chance to look at anything from Zombie's example onwards to see how it all fits together.

			:: The article can start off with the basics and then progress to more advanced material. Zombies example could be left in further down the page as a bit 'further reading' for advanced readers that want something a bit more elaborate, while simpler examples earlier in the page would be more beneficial for the casual reader.

			:: Some material might even deserve their own articles but we'll see how it goes.

			:: I must also remember to come back and fix the errors - I seem to have left out a lot of words that I thought I put in. Was probably reading off the work that's in my head when I was proofreading! -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 08:06, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

Spike: /* Rewrite */

2011-04-01T09:42:25Z

Rewrite

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:42, 1 April 2011
Line 327:		Line 327:

	Finally, is there a nicer way to display the formulas? Preformatted text boxes are starting to look so passe now that we've been adding a bit of bling to the articles. ;) -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 04:42, 31 March 2011 (EDT)		Finally, is there a nicer way to display the formulas? Preformatted text boxes are starting to look so passe now that we've been adding a bit of bling to the articles. ;) -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 04:42, 31 March 2011 (EDT)

			:It's a good edit. The article is looking a lot more logical. I still worry there is too much detail and maybe overlapping or redundant detail about the nitty gritty mechanics. A simple example would be better first. E.g. most readers are not trying to determine the exact probability of some event, they just want to know generally how it works. So Zombie's example probably isn't the best one to use here. A simple example would be to look at one case (not the range of probabilities) and say X damage, Y health damage, Z armour damage, N chance of fatal wounds. Maybe do Fatal wounds last because it's the only thing that's not deterministic, given X amount of damage. I'm thinking maybe the Damage - Armour Damage relationship can go. It's more or less a statement of the obvious and while it does help in making the formula clear, a few examples would do the same job of clarification, I don't think the whole table is needed.
			:I agree a nicer formula layout would be nice. I'm sure such things can be done in wiki layout language. Er, somehow.
			:Sorry for this exercise in 'armchair editing'. I'm a bit too groggy this morning to actually tackle the text itself. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 05:42, 1 April 2011 (EDT)

NKF: /* Rewrite */

2011-03-31T08:42:06Z

Rewrite

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:42, 31 March 2011
Line 321:		Line 321:
	: Thanks, but it's not quite right as of yet. It's actually a rather complex topic once I got down to thinking how to rewrite it so that it read easier. Perhaps the first thing that should be shown to the reader are the formula (or formulas), then break it down from there? -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 00:49, 29 March 2011 (EDT)		: Thanks, but it's not quite right as of yet. It's actually a rather complex topic once I got down to thinking how to rewrite it so that it read easier. Perhaps the first thing that should be shown to the reader are the formula (or formulas), then break it down from there? -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 00:49, 29 March 2011 (EDT)
	:: No I think you are doing it the right way by introducing concepts and definitions first. Maybe you could 'tease' with a formula at the beginning. But opening with just maths is usually off-putting for most people. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 15:24, 29 March 2011 (EDT)		:: No I think you are doing it the right way by introducing concepts and definitions first. Maybe you could 'tease' with a formula at the beginning. But opening with just maths is usually off-putting for most people. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 15:24, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

			Rewrite take 2 - don't know if that's made it better or worse, but I tried to reorder the sections into a more logical manner. Mainly moved the formula section up so that the sections after it read more like elaborations on the variables that affect damage.

			Also don't think we needed all the damage modifiers (for UFO) on display, so pointed to the article instead and just gave a short explanation on what it is.

			Finally, is there a nicer way to display the formulas? Preformatted text boxes are starting to look so passe now that we've been adding a bit of bling to the articles. ;) -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 04:42, 31 March 2011 (EDT)

Spike: /* Rewrite */

2011-03-29T19:24:16Z

Rewrite

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 29 March 2011
Line 320:		Line 320:

	: Thanks, but it's not quite right as of yet. It's actually a rather complex topic once I got down to thinking how to rewrite it so that it read easier. Perhaps the first thing that should be shown to the reader are the formula (or formulas), then break it down from there? -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 00:49, 29 March 2011 (EDT)		: Thanks, but it's not quite right as of yet. It's actually a rather complex topic once I got down to thinking how to rewrite it so that it read easier. Perhaps the first thing that should be shown to the reader are the formula (or formulas), then break it down from there? -[[User:NKF\|NKF]] 00:49, 29 March 2011 (EDT)
			:: No I think you are doing it the right way by introducing concepts and definitions first. Maybe you could 'tease' with a formula at the beginning. But opening with just maths is usually off-putting for most people. [[User:Spike\|Spike]] 15:24, 29 March 2011 (EDT)