Bitfighter Forums

Posted: **Wed Sep 09, 2015 2:45 pm**

Here is a Idea instead of all asteroids instant killing you what if they did damage relative to there size as follows

Size 1 : 20% <> Size 2 : 40% <> Size 3 : 60% <> Size 4 : 80% <> Size 5 : 100% of a ship's health gauge.

This would balance them out and make them more usable and have more usage in a game....

Posted: **Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:57 pm**

What would happen after they hit you? Bounce off like testItems?

Posted: **Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:00 pm**

Ooooo sounds good. Maybe it would disappear when it hit you?

Posted: **Wed Sep 09, 2015 5:12 pm**

Preferably just bounce off like test items so only shots would break them.....

Still I think this would really balance them out and make them less game breaking......

Posted: **Wed Sep 09, 2015 8:31 pm**

No I think they should break when they hit you lol

Posted: **Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:27 pm**

Break and change direction probably makes the most sense... but isn't killing good?

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:35 am**

Here's how I feel about asteroids.

Because they are one hit kill items, it's extremely easy to misuse them.
You can easy make a room impassible by flooding it with asteroids. And if they spawn on you you're instantly dead.

It's difficult to reach the happy medium when dealing with absolutes.

Posted: **Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:50 am**

I'd be willing to give this a try if there was some sort of consensus. Anyone want to make the case for keeping asteroids as-is?

Posted: **Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:08 am**

Ok after some thought I deciced.

I think that asteroids should do .2 damage for each size.

Asteroids should break down and change direction after hitting a ship.

and asteroids should still be affected by bullets.

To me logically a large asteroid would do more damage to a ship at least realisticly

However as raptor said I would like to see someone else's opinion for leaving it as is.

Posted: **Wed Sep 16, 2015 2:05 am**

To play devil's avocado, this seems like it would limit the danger appeal of asteroids. If I knew colliding with an asteroid would only somewhat injure me, I'd be a lot less nervous when entering a room full of them. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. Just something to think about.

On the other hand, it would turn spontaneously dying by a random asteroid to only losing a chunk of health... which is significantly less annoying

Posted: **Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:23 pm**

*Gives Fordcars a Devilfruit instead (eat at your own risk).

I think it would be better as right now asteroids are under utilized due to the fact they instant kill people so adding even a single asteroid spawn breaks a map this would help make asteroids more useful in design.

Posted: **Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:41 pm**

amgine wrote:*Gives Fordcars a Devil fruit instead (eat at your own risk).

Awnu!

Posted: **Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:13 am**

Added a poll!

I couldnt think of another no answer to maintain fair bias against yes....

Posted: **Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:37 am**

I'll make a fledgling case for keeping it 'as is':

Smaller asteroids move faster than larger ones, so if we pretend it be like real physics, then the faster moving asteroids could easily add the same amount damage (or more, since energy is related to the square of the velocity).

We could make this incredibly complex and base the damage off of: impact speed of both objects and the size of the asteroid.

Or we can leave it 'as is'.

Posted: **Mon Nov 02, 2015 2:01 pm**

The question is should asteroids only maim, or should they kill? I would not advocate for different size asteroids doing different size damage.

Posted: **Tue Nov 03, 2015 3:27 pm**

It would be really easy for new players to understand big = more damage small = less damage and logicly it makes more sense a bowling ball hurts more than a grape.

As for removing Asteroid kills No it would remove their ability to be a threat and make them test items.

Posted: **Wed Nov 04, 2015 1:46 pm**

amgine wrote:a bowling ball hurts more than a grape

Actually, in space a frozen turd can rip through a moving spaceship simply because of velocity

Posted: **Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:08 pm**

Skybax wrote:Actually, in space a frozen turd can rip through a moving spaceship simply because of velocity

Can this replace asteroids in the next update

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:48 pm**

I think this would be a good change

The threats from a asteroid is just to great you barely touch one of any size and it instantly kills you which makes no sense generally even spacecraft have to take damage before they are destroyed.

It would also make Nexus more playable nothing more annoying then collecting 50 flags then barely grazing a asteroid and losing all your progres..

Posted: **Thu Nov 12, 2015 12:00 am**

While it's true that tiny frozen turds could destroy a ship in space, given velocity, that logic does not explain why an asteroid kills you but resource and test items don't-- we don't want a logical game, we want a fun game.

Asteroids do damage because it's cool to have something like that. I think smaller ones doing damage would be cool, because then, with skill and luck, you can actually survive flying through an asteroid field, and that would be cool accomplishment.

Posted: **Fri Nov 13, 2015 1:15 am**

furbuggy wrote:that logic does not explain why an asteroid kills you but resource and test items don't

Anti-Magnetic shields :ugeek:

Posted: **Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:10 am**

Personally I think its better Having a More size does more damage mechanic makes more sense to me and perhaps new players then having one size does a fixed damage it also would take out the overly high risk of getting instant killed from as with skill you could fly trough a asteroid field unharmed or at least with little damage.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:52 pm**

Maybe all asteroids deal 75% of damage? If you're already weak, boom you're dead. If you have full health, you scrape by. The threat of asteroids remains very real but it's a little less harsh.

Posted: **Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:29 pm**

Thats actully higher right now it does 50% and can kill you so you want it to do 75% instead?

unless you mean only up to 75% and not kill which I disagree I still think it should do 20 40 60 80 100% of a ships health gauge.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:56 am**

50% damage can only kill you if you have equal to or less than half health

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:40 pm**

Wouldnt buffing the damage asteroids do make them less usable though?

right now no one really uses asteroid spawns due to its spawn/damage rate bineg so high it only takes 5 asteroids to overrun a level.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:16 pm**

Amgine, currently asteroids do 100% damage. As in, you touch them, regardless of how much health you have, and you die. They kill 100% of you.

75% damage, if you're full health, would only kill you 75% of the way. Meaning 25% of you is still alive and shooting. Meaning you wouldn't die.

So making the asteroids only deal 75% damage would not be buffing the asteroid damage. It would be nerfing it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:17 pm**

that logic is flawed Damage is irrelevant without a point of relativity which is a ship's Hp which Is what im using and this thread is based on.

for example 1/10 is 10% but 10/100 is still....10%

So If a asteroid does 100000 damage but only 99% it does 999999 damage.

If it does 99% of a ships health it does 99 damage huge difference.

That is why I think having a asteroid do a % damage of a ship's health gauge based on its size is the best and most logical setup.

This is also important cause Damage amounts would still be the same even if a ship's health was increased later.

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:01 pm**

Amgine that's exactly what I just said

Posted: **Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:29 pm**

Its not but lets not hijack threads with pointless arguments.

The point is asteroids should do damage relative to size agree or disagree?

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:30 pm**

All damage is relative... from 0-1 (or from 0-100% if you prefer). There is no absolute number of "hit points".

Posted: **Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:24 pm**

Ok.

Could we create a level gen to test this maybe on a map like airlock?

I think 20 40 60 80 100 % (.2 .4 .6 .8 1) makes more sense It would.

1. Levels cant get over run with asteroids.
2. Damage would be easier For beginners to understand.
3. Makes having levels in asteroid spawns in levels more strategic.

Posted: **Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:52 pm**

raptor wrote:I'll make a fledgling case for keeping it 'as is':

Smaller asteroids move faster than larger ones, so if we pretend it be like real physics, then the faster moving asteroids could easily add the same amount damage (or more, since energy is related to the square of the velocity).

We could make this incredibly complex and base the damage off of: impact speed of both objects and the size of the asteroid.

Or we can leave it 'as is'.

Correcting you on your incorrect concept of physics here larger objects have more interia so they have a higher top speed comaped to small ones but they also reqire more energy to get moving.

More People seem for this then against this should we try it for 1 build and see if it sticks?

By congressial vote we have the 70% needed to pass it into law.

Posted: **Thu Mar 29, 2018 8:35 pm**

What even.

Smaller objects move faster than bigger objects if they are each given the same amount of force, not just because of mass but because of surface area friction. Everything has the same top speed.

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:12 pm**

Skybax wrote:What even.

Smaller objects move faster than bigger objects if they are each given the same amount of force, not just because of mass but because of surface area friction. Everything has the same top speed.

this is wrong

larger objects have more potential energy and have a higher top speed but require more energy to get started. they also require more energy to stop due to newtons 2nd law and interia look it up.

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:24 pm**

Technicallyyy all objects have the same top speed though

(the speed of light)

More massive objects do have more kinetic energy than smaller objects if they travel at the same speed, though.

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:28 pm**

Keeping this on track should this be changed?

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:29 pm**

Personally, I find changing this would add more complexity with not that much benefit, but I would like to hear what others have to say...

Posted: **Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:50 pm**

idk I think it makes more sense big asteroid = more damage and smaller = less damage then evry size insta kills yu for no reason.

Bitfighter Forums

Asteroid Size and Damage.

Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.

Re: Asteroid Size and Damage.