I thought this was a useful feature so I've made my first patch with some help from FLOZi.

It adds four new TDF tags, dynDamageExp, dynDamageMin, dynDamageInverted and dynDamageRange.

dynDamageExp=0 / >0
Exponent of the damage formula, 0 disables dynamic damage.
Defaults to 0. 1 means linear scaling.

edit:
dynDamageMin = 0 / >0
Minimum damage value. Disabled when set to 0.
ex: firstDamageValue = 500, dynDamageMin = 100, modifier will be 1/5

dynDamageInverted = 0 / 1
Inverts the curve (or line).

edit:
dynDamageRange = 0 / >0
If set it will use this value instead of the range value from the weapon in the calculation.

Formulas:
Damage = (1 - (1 / WeaponRange * TraveledDistance)^Exp * OrigDamage
Damage = OrigDamage - (1 - (1 / WeaponRange * TraveledDistance)^Exp * OrigDamage (inverted)

Graph:

(clicky for a bigger picture)
x = distance, y = damage.
Red's the inverted one. This is with an exponent of 2.


Patch:
http://rattle.from-hell.net/spring/patc ... atch.patch

If there are any issues such as ugly code tell me. There are some problems left in when using an inverted curve. When a weapon is fired from maximum range it should do ~100% damage. Instead it was doing only ~77%. No idea why...

I still think it would be better to make local copies of the damage array in the weapon itself rather than altering defs which should remain static... even if it means extra work.

It's not a big deal to change that, however as I pointed out the damages array direclty affects everything which is related to damage (size of scars, size of muzzle flares, etc.). I am working with the original values, this is why I added a backup array.

Does anyone else think that this is bad idea?

edit: Hmm it seems that this doesn't work with beam lasers. :(

Nothing works with beam lasers >_>

Yeah, we're already used to that.

there should also be one like 10 - (10x)^(1/2) for if you want it to drop off quickly and then slowly.

I'm being stupid again, I've tested this on XTA's annihilator weapon, that's what I thought at least. I edited the wrong weapon in the end because of XTA's stupid naming system. :P

So nothing's wrong (I hope).

Still this doesn't get applied to beamlasers. Could someone tell me what method is called for beam lasers to do damage?

Bonus points for making the tag accept arbitrary expressions in RPN, additional secret bonus for making it accept infix expressions, kudos for JITting them :)

Suggestion:

Add another tag, dynDamageRange, which is used in the calculation. Default is weapon range. This improves the flexibility of the curves we can produce quite considerably.


Also, just checking, is the damage value automatically clamped after exceeding max range of the weapon? (to prevent -ve damages)

TraveledRange is limited to weaponDef->range, the damage would go into the negatives I think. I'll add the additional range tag.

I was going to suggest you always clamp it to dynDamageMin, meaning you can't deal -ve damage.

It is if dynDamageMin is defined.

I know, but i mean always do it - dynDamageMin defaults to 0, so if its not set otherwise the damage is clamped to 0, preventing issues with dealing -ve damage.

Hmm... what's -ve damage?
It's limited to "0" damage by default.


If it ever goes into the negatives it will be 0.0001 anyway.

shortform for negative I belive

-ve = negative

And ok, was just checking.

That's good, I tend to forget things...

Damn, I totally missed this before - dynDamageMin might (would be for me, anyway) be better off as an integer value rather than a %... Simpler to calculate a % of the original damage as an integer than to calculate an integer as a % of the original, well, not exactly, but its juist nicer, to me, anyway. </rambling>

That's why i was suggesting what i was suggesting before, hadn't read it closely enough.

edit: also, could you upload the latest .patch for me to look over?

This is a product of range and not flight-time, so high arc weapons won't be probably the best to use with this tag. Or am I missing something?

The first thought I had when reading about these new tags was for perhaps tank-vs-tank and battleship-vs-battleship duels. I like the inverse curve especially in that case.