AssaultCube Reloaded Forums
Grenade/explosive damage fading - Printable Version

+- AssaultCube Reloaded Forums (
+-- Forum: Gameplay (
+--- Forum: Suggestions (
+--- Thread: Grenade/explosive damage fading (/thread-12.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Grenade/explosive damage fading - Victor - 2011-03-26

The grenade is now sort of quadratic square-rootic. It square-roots the damage removal multiplier.
This was DarKnoT's idea ("Grenades are insane").

The chart provided shows the current stats: 5m range, 350 max damage, showing the fatal radius at 125/49 meters.

[Image: 20103643.gif]

In case you're wondering, 125/49 meters means you can kill people 2.551... meters close to your grenade.

RE: Grenade damage - Victor - 2013-03-29

The blue line is our current damage scaling method. Does anyone think another curve would better represent explosive damage fading? The turquoise line is AssaultCube's linear fading.

[Image: NFNJ7Ds.gif]

The x-axis is the distance from 0 (next to the explosion) to 1 (out of range), and the y axis is the damage in percent.

[split] 2.5.8 Changelog - ruler501 - 2013-04-14

A realistic fading curve would be an inverse square(I believe), but that does fade away really quickly. It also doesn't have any set terminating point. I'm not sure how important those are though.

RE: 2.5.8 Changelog - Victor - 2013-04-14

We are currently using an 1-(square root) curve. A 1-(square) curve would be slower initially, then around 38%, be faster.

I don't see how 1/(x^2) would work because of the asymptote.

EDIT: I've fixed that thread and moved this and the previous post to it.

RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading - ruler501 - 2013-04-14

I was talking about a curve more like 100/(x+1)^2
It works just you don't have a set point for damage to end(I'd think when it drops <1 would work). It also drops off extremely quickly. With 1470/(x+1)^2 you get 1470 at 0 120 at 2.5 and 40 at 5
EDIT: Here's an image with some inverse curves added in. Inverse square should be closest to real life, but that shouldn't really matter.
[Image: plot.html?g=p265638116.png&t=plot&db=r-1224424354]
EDIT2: added 1-x^2
EDIT3: Added a variety of functions
EDIT4: Removed some and added source*(x%2Frange)%5E4%2B1)%3B%0Aicub%3A%20max%2F(multiplier*(x%2Frange)%5E3%2B1)%3B%0Aisqr%3A%20max%2F(multiplier*(x%2Frange)%5E2%2B1)%3B%0Asqrt%3A%20max*(1-sqrt(x%2Frange))%3B%0Alin%3A%20max*(1-(x%2Frange))%3B%0Asqr%3A%20max*(1-(x%2Frange))%5E2%3B%0Acub%3A%20max*(1-(x%2Frange))%5E3%3B%0Aquad%3A%20max*(1-(x%2Frange)%5E2)%3B%0A%0A%0Aplot2d(%5Biquar%2Cicub%2Cisqr%2C100%2Clin%2Csqrt%2Csqr%2Ccub%2Cquad%5D%2C%5Bx%2C0%2Crange%5D%2C%5By%2C0%2Cmax%5D)%3B

RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading - Victor - 2013-04-14

Since reciprocals have asymptotes, if we use them, they don't reach 0 at the end, and then drop to 0 right after the cutoff line (the damage won't be smooth).

RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading - ruler501 - 2013-04-14

The only thing about that though is that in real life there is no real cutoff either. That's why I said though it is probably the most realistic we could do it may not be ideal as it would greatly increase range for damage.

RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading - Victor - 2013-04-14

Perhaps the 1-(1-x)^2 would work the best (slower damage fading when it's closer, and faster when it's far, compared to 1-sqrt(x)).

RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading - ruler501 - 2013-04-14

Do you mean 1-x^2 because 1-(1-x^2) starts at 0 and goes up to 1.
I think the best way to figure it out would be just to create builds with each different kind and try it out to see how it feels.
EDIT: I updated my earlier post to include the graph of 1-x^2

RE: Grenade/explosive damage fading - Victor - 2013-04-14

I said 1-(1-x)^2, not 1-(1-x^2).