Development Design Questions about Tech causing and recieving damage

[TRYNNUN]

So in previous major builds I've done, I always follow some simple core rules that are always priority first;
1) Maximize connection points for toughness: Creating a lot of Redundancies so when met with a high damage percentage (loss of body), the tech will still be able to perform and operate as originally designed.
2) Practicality & Performance: Often following the spirited old martial arts saying of "Speed, Precision, and Power" while keeping the practicality of the build at the forefront for function of said performance.
3) Attention to detail with Efficiency of Design for intended purpose: Making sure that each and every component can support the surrounding components to perform their intended function when focusing on "Esthetics" (as-well-as additional toughness and increasing connection points) after all other rules are followed to attempt to make the Tech as pleasing to the eye without diminishing any function, practicality, or performance.


While I realize the average builder(player) may not focus on these things my questions while focusing on these rules has lead me to question a few things about the core of the game. In other games I've played, building and design mattered greatly especially if PVP was involved which lead to certain building techniques taking advantage of the actually design and physics of the game focusing how the techs could perform, but mainly how to maximize toughness of the over all build...

Questions:
1) Is there energy transference through parts when receiving various damages either from impact to splash damage of explosions from weapons?
Other games refer to this as a type of heat transfer which lead to a building practice known as "Tri-Forcing" which when done correctly maximizes the build/tech's resistance to heat transfer making a much lighter build/tech be just as tough as a build/tech that used only the highest HP valued cubes/blocks/parts.

2) Will TerraTech ever incorporate specific types of weapon damage such electrical damage(spread of heat damage throughout the entire tech or partially decreasing the over all health of affected parts along with slight stun), EMP(stun), Freeze (slow) damage, and visual impairing weapons that can cause blindness or decrease visual of target for a short time, and also disorientation style weapons (these would be terrible on flyers)?
I recognize that currently we have impact damage (from weapons as well like the rail gun, which is one of my favorite weapons because it's more penetrative than anything else), Explosive damage (splash), and a few different types of Melee damage, fire, plasma, and physical.

Depending on the answers, I may, or may not have the intended follow up questions.

Thank you for your time and effort on one of my all time favorite games.

 

[Olli_DXD]

Splash does damage to all blocks inside the radius of the explosion. Bullets and melee do damage to the blocks they hit with the exception of railguns, which have penetration, but otherwise they’re the same as bullets. AFAIK damage transfer does not exist.

 

[TRYNNUN]

Splash does damage to all blocks inside the radius of the explosion. Bullets and melee do damage to the blocks they hit with the exception of railguns, which have penetration, but otherwise they’re the same as bullets. AFAIK damage transfer does not exist.

So what your saying is that in regard to the depth of my question is that there are no hidden numbers or hidden physics related code taking place; what you see visual is what's actually happening and will always stay that way? So there is no ground work to implement a more advanced system with any blocks or weapons in the future? Because that's really what I'm asking.

 

[Sozin]

Yes. Any such rework that you seem to be looking for would be
a) extremely complex and not for the faint of heart
b) take pretty much an overhaul of the game engine
c) be extremely resource intensive

Making it unlikely in the extreme to ever happen.
If it ever does, it *should* be only tackled after extensive optimizations have been done, or TerraTech will literally be unplayable on all but the most high end machines.
Of course, multiplayer also should *NOT* have been tackled until after the core mechanics have been set in stone, so who knows.

 

[TRYNNUN]

Yes. Any such rework that you seem to be looking for would be
a) extremely complex and not for the faint of heart
b) take pretty much an overhaul of the game engine
c) be extremely resource intensive

Making it unlikely in the extreme to ever happen.
If it ever does, it *should* be only tackled after extensive optimizations have been done, or TerraTech will literally be unplayable on all but the most high end machines.
Of course, multiplayer also should *NOT* have been tackled until after the core mechanics have been set in stone, so who knows.

Well I'm not looking for a rework, I'm asking what's currently there concerning any foundation work. I don't know to what depth, if at all, if this question has even been asked before. It seems based on your reply you really want to know some of these things as well. While I know they may not want to divulge any such information if there is such information, it never hurts to ask what they are comfortable with talking about. With the introduction of the multiplayer they currently have, it will certainly beg the question based off it's popularity over the coarse of the next year or two- how extensive they plan on making attack and defense. If they have begun or are thinking about laying out such ground work, perhaps they might be willing to share their thoughts on their current stance regarding all of this. These are things that the design team all has to weigh on and talk about in many round tables with what's within their capability and what should be the priority for the long term with how and what they work on for the benefit of the game. As their success increases overtime, more members can be hired on and suddenly they find themselves a lot more capable. But to rule it out as never going to happen seems a little premature to me. If it's not currently on the table however, that's still not a never going to happen, haha.

Concerning what they should be doing and how, I'm going to leave that up to the design team and QA specifically, as I haven't a clue as to how complex all the lines are for each object loop as they have them in C# and JS. Depending on how efficient their logic is written, would depend on the difficulty if such rework is needed with each "loop." But things do tend to change all the time, and only they know what's pipe-lined for the next year or two... Which is kinda what I'm asking while respecting if they don't want to share. I'm sure with as good as they are at producing results however this isn't out of their scope by any means. Especially if it's already in the works perhaps already laid such ground work if that is a direction they want to go if at all. It's all about that vision and how to achieve it while paying the bills along the way, which any number of things can happen, including the "Evolution" of the vision. They wouldn't be my favorite development team in the industry if they didn't stick to their guns and waste ammo on things that would yield weak results or non-bankable concepts and ideas. No Sir, they are expert marksmen who know how to use their guns at just the right times... also they are incredibly impressive at how they can produce so much, so consistently, with such a small team in proportion to their game. Which is also why I don't think it's outside their scope.

 

[{insert_name_here}]

and also disorientation style weapons (these would be terrible on flyers)?

There is a planned AA gun that will shoot bullets that disorient flying techs.