Energy weapon beam scattering

[Bauser]

If there was a single topic for minor suggestions, I would put this there, but there isn't.

I suggest that when a beam weapon is fired through a window, the ray has a chance to split and fire multiple, weaker beams in random directions. I don't know if it should terminate the parent beam (blocking the shot) or simply weaken it (representing that a portion of the laser passes through unhindered). I don't know if it should be a high chance or a low chance - I'm feeling somewhere on the order of 10%? So it's a consideration when firing, but not a constant danger. Presumably, any tile within line-of-sight from the window (or glass airlock, etc.) would be a potential target for the child beams.

The rationale for this suggestions is (as was recently brought up in another thread) that laser weapons' ability to fire through an infinite number of transparent barriers uninhibited is sufficiently powerful that other buffs for these weapons would generally render them overpowered. So, instituting a nerf like this could pave the way for later iterations of beam weapons with other buffs, like (as was also discussed in that thread) replaceable "cartridges" like battery packs.

[MO_oNyMan]

yeeeah boi. Trading a low chance of scattering for clips would be nice. It does however concern me that lasers basically lose their main distinction from ballistics (firing through windows reliably). Introducing this on its own would make them unusable

[Bauser]

It does however concern me that lasers basically lose their main distinction from ballistics (firing through windows reliably)

Well that's the point of making it only happen based on a relatively slim chance. If a laser only has a 10% chance of splitting, you can still shoot through a window without any problem 9 times out of 10. And that's really significant. Considering how few shots you generally take in a firefight to begin with, I'd say that figure is just enough to keep you on your toes and not so much that it'll force you to adapt your strategy.

[Kaed]

I would like laser refraction to become a mechanic that is used more than this.

There used to be some old code that let lasers shot at cultist Juggernauts refract and bounce around in other directions. I don't know what happened to it, but it was really cool. Maybe have some equipment that you can get or make in science that refracts lasers to reduce their damage?

[ShameOnTurtles]

There used to be some old code that let lasers shot at cultist Juggernauts refract and bounce around in other directions. I don't know what happened to it, but it was really cool. Maybe have some equipment that you can get or make in science that refracts lasers to reduce their damage?

That mechanic still exists, as well as it is present in ablative vests/helmets. I like it, it's neat.

 

It does however concern me that lasers basically lose their main distinction from ballistics (firing through windows reliably)

Well that's the point of making it only happen based on a relatively slim chance. If a laser only has a 10% chance of splitting, you can still shoot through a window without any problem 9 times out of 10. And that's really significant. Considering how few shots you generally take in a firefight to begin with, I'd say that figure is just enough to keep you on your toes and not so much that it'll force you to adapt your strategy.

I don't know how I feel about introducing more RNG to shooting. Take, for example, the 'near missing' mechanic. It's a pretty slim chance, although I don't know the exact number, yet it comes up A LOT. If this were given a 10% chance, then we'd be seeing it a lot more than 1 in 10. I think I cautiously support this mechanic, as long as the initial beam keeps it's direction and maybe just with a slight decrease in power and additional low power diffracted beams, if that makes sense.

It also might be cool to consider the difference between reinforced and non-reinforced glass, but considering how almost the entire map is made from reinforced glass, probably isn't that meaningful.

[Bauser]

If this were given a 10% chance, then we'd be seeing it a lot more than 1 in 10.

That's factually incorrect ._."

The definition of giving something a 10% chance is that it will occur in 1 out of every 10 instances.

Your observation just suggests that the chance for the "near miss" is greater than this. Though it could also just be true that you've had bad luck in that regard (or good luck! if the bullets were nearly missing you).

 

It also might be cool to consider the difference between reinforced and non-reinforced glass, but considering how almost the entire map is made from reinforced glass, probably isn't that meaningful.

The meaningful consideration I haven't brought up yet is the fact that most windows on the station are actually sets of two windows that are directional. So it would double the chance of scattering? That seems to bring the chance up too high. My preference would be to compensate for this by making it so that directional windows only add half the chance (5%) for scattering. So if you're only firing through one of those thin windows, you benefit from a decreased chance of scattering, and if you fire through the double-sets that are common throughout the station, this brings the chance up to the standard 10% (or whatever is decided on). And full-tile windows would have the full 10% chance, in this example.

EDIT: One feature of beam scattering that I am looking forward to is that laser tag games in the holodeck will look even crazier, like a rave, or like shining lasers at a disco ball.

[ShameOnTurtles]

If this were given a 10% chance, then we'd be seeing it a lot more than 1 in 10.

That's factually incorrect ._."

The definition of giving something a 10% chance is that it will occur in 1 out of every 10 instances.

Your observation just suggests that the chance for the "near miss" is greater than this. Though it could also just be true that you've had bad luck in that regard (or good luck! if the bullets were nearly missing you).

 

Just because something has a 1 in 10 chance doesn't mean it will always occur every 1 in 10 shots. Just because I roll a die 6 times doesn't mean I'll only get the number 1 once.

The usage of the example of 'near-miss' was to highlight that despite a relatively low chance of occurring, in the small sample size of a firefight it would happen a lot, and it [near missing] does happen a lot.

[Bauser]

Something having a 1 in 10 chance means it will occur 1 in 10 times on average. So while it's possible that it will occur more than that, it's just as likely to occur less than that, in a given sample. I don't think the near-miss example is useful unless we can actually find out the % chances of a near miss happening. You say it's roughly equivalent to a 10% chance because it is 'slim,' but without that number, discussing the relative probabilities is nothing but a shot in the dark.