Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(content): Core System Changes (Extracted from 6439) #8751
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat(content): Core System Changes (Extracted from 6439) #8751
Changes from all commits
62f0c581a14fcd2105baead94a8770baa72e1f29e5740e04a258d6e52b683904a712cdb16191abb2dc730180168117ca8e2dfeba88336025c1bc18da45b69f0211d43e6feb9df13def8edffa9ee09abeffee518c3d3e523File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure we should be using burn damage when heat damage will do the same thing, without creating potentially annoying status effect particles.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The burn is explicitly intentional.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What purpose does it serve? Give that this is heat from stellar irradiance near the core, it doesn't make sense for it to be a persistent agent, and mechanically it isn't going to be meaningfully different from heat damage at these levels either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is a slightly abstract approximation for the effect of radio-thermal spalling (thermal spalling triggered by the presence of X-rays, and other high-energy radiation types) which does have a persistent effect that takes a bit to wear off.
And yes, it is a small effect on this hazard, it's a larger effect on the other, more severe, hazard which is exclusive to the Xapleaux PR (because it's not used in any of these systems).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are you referring to cosmic ray induced spallation of nuclei? Because I've never heard of thermal spalling induced by x rays, nor can I think of why that would cause a persistent effect (I'm assuming you aren't referring to mechanical spall either, because that wouldn't make any sense).
I still am not seeing how this is mechanically different from an equivalent amount of heat damage, given that an amount of burn damage will create an equal amount of heat over its lifetime as it decays, and hazards constantly apply the damage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No.
It is mechanically different because if you are approaching the limit, you might then jump out of that system, and be temporarily disabled on the other end of the jump.
It applies a small risk to jumping from one bad situation into another if you don't think about where you're going properly, which is an intentional part of the hazard.
This is a novel gameplay experience that is not currently simulated elsewhere.
Which leads me to reprise a statement I've made a few times: Just because something is not necessary is not intrinsically an argument against it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The values of burn damage presented here are so low that it would decay almost instantly, so I don't think there actually is a mechanical difference. The realism justification also doesn't seem to stand up either.
A burn damage hazard seems much more appropriate for something outside human space, such as Xapleaux space or the Ember Waste.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Having a minor transition into relevantly dangerous burn damage is a far better way to introduce both the concept and the risk it poses.
If these values are too low to do that, then the proper response is not to nix them, but to instead change the balance point in these introductory systems to more obviously do so. Ie: buff it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FYI Sheratan has the
Core Sheltered Heathazard. But I like that, it suggests there's more to the area. I don't want to get involved in which systems have what hazards though, I'm not fussed about whether Sheratan has the hazard or not.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(low burn damage does not mean it boils off quickly, it's exponential decay and dissipates at the same rate at all times- the amount present is cut in half approximately every 69 frames. It'll have a low impact, but it'll still linger for the exact same amount of time as any other amount of burn damage)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This has the potential to actually cool a ship off more than normal (i.e. outside the Core), as its base values are both higher than the heat produced by the Core Sheltered Heat hazard and it has a strength of between 100% and 300%, as opposed to the 65-85% range of the Core Sheltered Heat hazard.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, that is intentional. It needs to add a significant cooling off amount to achieve the desired effect. It is not used on its own.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense, given that a passing shadow shouldn't cool a ship off more than if it wasn't exposed to the heat source in the first place.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The actual hazard implementation in a system should never be set up to have that much of an effect, but the hazard definition needs to be capable of this or it actually just doesn't work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm just not sure this is needed at all for Syndicate space. We shouldn't be adding heat hazards strong enough that they can overheat a player ship and softlock them in human space. That kind of thing should be reserved for the Xapleaux PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd have to agree with Azure on this one. We shouldn't be doing any sort of system-wide hazards like that in human space, at least space that is accessible to the player early on. It seems much better reserved for uninhabited core + xapleaux systems rather than creeping into humans'.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's only applied very gently to the one system (Polaris or Sheratan, I forget which) where the planet description calls out how much brighter and closer to the core it is. It's not implemented at a level that's remotely capable of soft-locking anyone in human space.
It is however used for the uninhabited systems beyond that that are included as part of the overall core system package.
Which again, is not meant to be set at a level capable of softlocking anyone who's ship outfitting isn't already running way way too hot to be doing anything safely.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To me this just means the additional complexity of the shadow hazard is unneeded in human space entirely.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is not in human space. Look at the map file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Human space having a gentler version of more dangerous hazards further out in space is a good way to introduce the player to the possibility that these hazards could possibly even exist out there in space. It depends on the actual geography of the galaxy, but I would want a fairly gradual change from no heat to significantly dangerous bouts of heat, and it should occupy multiple systems, especially over the entirety of at least one route between two inhabited systems. I think that would inoculate the player to the notion of "significant heat can come from the space you're sitting in, too."