Is the new damage system described in the latest monthly update another attempt to reduce the workload for developing new systems, or is the emphasis more on fidelity? How do you intend things given that so many "knobs" that you could otherwise tweak are embedded into the physics simulation?asked by Beer4TheBeerGod
TL;DRThe physically based damage system is meant both to reduce workload and improve fidelity, replacing arbitrary damage values with physics-based ones and making weapons feel consistent across ships.
This guy definitely has some good questions. The answer to that question is both. In the same way that the damage system on the ships was introduced so that it would perform better, looks better and takes less work, the physically based damage of projectiles will reduce the workload (once everything is converted). Right now we're putting in arbitrary values for damages etc and trying to base those values on what we think should happen, where once this is introduced everything should make more sense relative to everything else. It also makes it so that the barrels for different ammunition types will have to match etc. Yes we do intend to tweak just as many and the same knobs, but they'll be a part of the physics simulation instead, changing density, size etc. They just come now with physics based names rather than arbitrary "damage" values.
And they can be called meaningful things, like if you want it to be depleted uranium ammunition...
And any changes would be standardised across ships, so if weapons are the same they'll FEEL the same, which is the cool part! If you make something a real physically based system, what comes from that are game elements that feel right to the player. That's what makes this such an important thing. AND it's easier. So.