Lothic wrote:

I kind of assumed most MMO games (at least in the last 10-15 years) already dealt with AoEs in terms of spheres (3D) instead of circles (2D) anyway. At least the physics calculations to determine hits-n-misses could be done fairly fast with simple spheres at any rate. If the game needed to tell the difference between an effect that could only damage someone on the ground (versus hovering in the air) the game could simply check the "on ground" flag that I'm sure is associated with every MOB (PC or NPC) in the game.
The real trick is to allow for LoS (Line of Sight) considerations. Let's say a target would be within an AoE attack's range but is covered by some solid element of the environment (like say hiding behind a car). Is the game smart enough to allow the car to reduce or eliminate the damage taken from that AoE? Maybe the car would reduce physical type damage but do nothing for a mental/radiation type blast. Those are the kinds of details that would make combat more "tactical" in games like this.

Lothic is correct in both answering your question, Radiac and going beyond the question.
To take this a step further, we have the capability to have spherical and cylindrical shapes to our area of effects.

Using objects for cover is being considered, and many of the pieces for the proper mechanics are in place, there is just a whole bunch of stuff that has to be figured out if it is something for this game. One concern is that the game play would become more of a duck and run / fire and cover and therefore 'twitchy'. There are other concerns, but that is a high priority concern.

Radiac wrote:

Okay. I was mainly talking about like in DnD you get Fireball, which has a ranged volume of effect which is spherical, but then Flame Strike does a Cylinder, Cone of Cold is a cone, etc. You never SAW the entire volume in CoX for things that went 3D in most cases. Rain of Fire showed you the volume reasonably well, but a lot of other stuff did not, like the Green Stuff patched that Anti-Matter would lay down, etc. I guess I'm mostly asking about being allowed to see the entire volume somehow, and beyond that the different shapes possible (cube, rectangular box/prism, pyramid, etc).

There's a difference between how a game handles to-hit calculations using simple geometric shapes to simplify the physics of the situation and what it does to graphically display the effects of an attack to the players.

For instance while a DnD-styled Flame Strike might use a cylindrical volume to calculate whether it hits or not that doesn't necessarily mean that it would have to look like a perfect red-orange colored cylinder if it were translated into a MMO. In that case I would imagine the "graphical appearance" of the Flame Strike could look more like the semi-chaotic beam of flame that you'd get from a real world flame thrower.

Now I have nothing against some AoE attacks graphically appearing exactly the same size/shape used to define its in-game mathematical representation (like your Rain of Fire example). But in practice I don't think every AoE needs to "look" exactly like the strict geometric shapes they are based on.

Radiac wrote:

I agree, but then having things like the target's name visible above it's head aren't immersive in that sense either, and yet there they are. As for the actual graphics of the powers themselvs, fine, make them look cool at the expense of defining the actual volume of interest, but ca we ALSO get a frame or semi-transparent ghost shape of the volume of interest too somehow? Like the "red zone of exiting" we had in CoX's outdoor instances, for example. Maybe even just when dropping a given VoE power, it would be nice of the person activating it could seee what they're hitting and what they're not hitting.

So you're talking more about having some kind of "visual highlighting" that could be used for targeting or reacting to upcoming attacks instead (or in addition to) the actual graphics of the attack?

Sure I could see that being appropriate for some cases (like aiming a catapult in a fantasy MMO) but I would probably only allow that kind of thing for long-cast/long-range type attacks instead quick shorter ranged powers. In the heat of face-to-face combat it's less reasonable that you're going to have the time to properly aim everything perfectly like that. Perhaps getting these visual cues would be tied to related Aim powers so that if you want to take the time to get the cues your attacks will take longer to activate.

Regardless I would make anything like that completely optional so that you can choose whether you want any "visual cues" like that or not.

Brighellac wrote:

One choice tobe made is whether the center of the aoe will be the center of mass for the toon or its skin.
Would make a significant difference on toon size for AoE centric toons

IIRC, CoH was "size agnostic" when it came to targeting situations. Doing this kept everyone equal regardless of character size so that people couldn't exploit making themselves super-small to make themselves harder to hit.

I would imagine CoT will also try to prevent size from being a factor for targeting. As Radiac said physics-wise everyone will probably be represented as an equally-sized "collision cylinder" with a fixed center for targeting purposes.

Empyrean wrote:

But my one little vote would be for some use of cover if feasible. Sounds fun.

In order for Cover to be a functional game mechanic, there's two things that need to happen.

One: Animate First ... Resolve After.
This permits "ducking behind cover" to be possible so as to evade/avoid projectile based attacks. If doing the reverse, Resolve First ... Animate After, then the "value" of cover is substantially rendered meaningless/worthless. That's because Cover winds up being essentially a factor of (completely?) blocking Line of Sight.

Two: Hitbox Designed For Multi-hit Determinations.
Tabula Rasa did a rather simplified system for this which actually worked quite well. Instead of having a single hitbox, yielding a boolean (Y/N) result for Line of Sight calculations, instead there were functionally 9 hitboxes arranged in a 3x3 grid oriented perpendicular to the attack. The game then did a Line of Sight ray trace from the attacker to each of the 9 hitboxes. The game then used thresholds for number of hitboxes blocked to determine the value of Cover granted against the incoming attack. It was just run on a percentage basis, rather than on a "tetris pattern" of configurations. So, for example, if 3 of the hitboxes (didn't matter which ones, pick any 3) had Line of Sight Blocked then you'd get a certain Resistance value against incoming fire from that direction.

The beauty of the multi-hitbox system in Tabula Rasa was that it was fairly straightforward to program and actually made use of the available terrain an important consideration when playing the game. Cover actually "worked" as Cover, reducing incoming damage. And best of all, the configuration of that coverage didn't really matter. A vertical tree could offer as much protection as a ridgeline or a gunport. This in turn made positioning and tactical maneuvering an important consideration when planning an attack or when making a retreat. There was also a difference betwen "soft" Cover (hardly any protection) and "hard" Cover (lots of protection) in terms of how much "stuff" you could put between yourself and the hostile incoming fire trying to kill you. And, of course, if Line of Sight to all of your hitboxes was broken, you took no damage at all, because the damage all went into the Terrain Geometry, not into your PC.

Redlynne wrote:

Tabula Rasa did a rather simplified system for this which actually worked quite well. Instead of having a single hitbox, yielding a boolean (Y/N) result for Line of Sight calculations, instead there were functionally 9 hitboxes arranged in a 3x3 grid oriented perpendicular to the attack. The game then did a Line of Sight ray trace from the attacker to each of the 9 hitboxes.

Interesting. Albeit, i would just use 2 by X to make use of Symmetry as my excuse. ;)
Thay Column of blocks for the left hand, left Ark, Left this left that.. etc... for the right side. Forget the Head. One Box, one hit Dead! ;D
J/K. I'm against anything that will make Twitch pervasive... as it will tire my eyes out sooner and make me have to hunch and stiffen my back more. >:(

I believe it is far safer to say that even with some tweaks game play will resemble CoH's and not anything like Tabula Rasa.

I do have a concern with twitch'ISH Avoiding AoE patches mechanic.
It took many MONTHS before most of the players in many of the Incarnate trials started to finally work together... and 90% of them STILL, even after many many MONTHS, still dont know WHY they had to Just Do It that way. ;)

On a smaller scale, the Apex Trial was also a good example of this in the AV fight with the War Maiden. In EVERY run, The Blue'ish patches on the floor would ALWAYS kill players, even ones that have played the game for years on end. :{

I would make the argument that this type of Dodge Mechanic was very unpopular... and regular players would not ask others to run that Trial. The only time that trial was run was Primarily when it was Part of the Trial of the WEEK for whatever the Weekly TF reward (was it Hero Merits? I forget)

I feel the Incarnate Trials made me feel like just a handful of players knew what was Needed to be done, and the rest were just Flocks of Sheep obeying. Even though I've Headed a few Incarnate Trials, I really despised that feeling.

So, which Multi Player event felt most appealing?
I have to give a thumbs up to Rikti Raids. Specifically the Take-down of the Pylons. THAT act felt allot more Satisfying, and that didnt need me to explain it in 3 Very Long Paragraphs, what we needed to do. ;)

But they were a part of CoH, so no reason not to have them be a part of CoT.

And in my experience, all MMO players try to get all group content to bumrush ability. :p

Now I have fond memories of running the all Scrapper Apex and Tin Man Incarnate TFs!

Out of curiosity, in a "state of the technology" kind of way, is it possible to make AoE attacks adapt to the environment, as it were? I.e. The volume remains constant, as in the classic sphere in a corridor example (without parts of it vanishing through the roof, floor, etc.).

Darth Fez wrote:

Out of curiosity, in a "state of the technology" kind of way, is it possible to make AoE attacks adapt to the environment, as it were? I.e. The volume remains constant, as in the classic sphere in a corridor example (without parts of it vanishing through the roof, floor, etc.).

You will need to give an more precise example. :(

If i was to guess, you're talking about the Cylinder Collider on a flat surface, and how it could ADAPT to an Incline?
ex:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/8JIAIQo.png[/img]

Use a Number of Ray Traces instead? :)

Interdictor wrote:

I didn't mind the "blue fire" or similar effects in CoH. Those and the "telegraphed" AoE boss attacks in some games I generally don't consider "twitchy" - so I'd be fine with them in CoT.

I agree. When the attack is so telegraphed that it's basically thrown at you underhand two-handed, I don't think that's a twitch problem.

Just make sure telegraph it in a tasteful way, like with cool animations BEFORE the damage sets in, not a "here's where it's going to be" graphic. I hate those. Too "I'm-playing-a-video-game".

I know, I know, I actually AM playing a game, but don't rub my nose in it :P. I'm fantasizing here!

Tannim222 wrote:

But even then Tankers were relegated to little more than moving taunt bots. Inwould venture to say that we should be a bit more careful in how and when these thpes of mechanics are used.

I agree, being mainly a solo scranker who, when teaming, always lead or off-tanked. But, I wonder if the increased versatility of power choices in CoT might help further mitigate that?

Someone who's main role is to tank might more easily be able to do more than just taunt as they often had to in CoH when forced out of melee.

Darth Fez wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
Area volume adjusted by terrain can be possible depending upon a whole bunch of factors but mainly supported by the engine's physics and 'rules' set by design of said physics. ... I think more importantly is the expectation of what will occur for the caster of a power in that utilizing volume adjustments post cast may result in unintended applocation of a power. It would be a whole lot simpler to have the effect localized to its actual location than to adjust to the terrain if only for the simplicity factor of play.

I was also curious what the potential balancing/exploitation issues might be, if such a thing were implemented. Primarily it's interesting to know that it's not only possible but, from the sound of it, relatively easy. Thanks.

Oh no, I did not mean to imply it was relatively easy. Relatively is too loaded a term as is. The engine's use of physics will help in this regard, but there are other fundamentals we would need to address and those may neither be intuitive, immediately apparent, and possibly difficult to properly set. I only meant to imply that there is a (remote) possibility that I foresee possible to explore but it doesn't mean that it is feasible to implement.

Empyrean wrote:

Tannim222 wrote:
But even then Tankers were relegated to little more than moving taunt bots. Inwould venture to say that we should be a bit more careful in how and when these thpes of mechanics are used.

I agree, being mainly a solo scranker who, when teaming, always lead or off-tanked. But, I wonder if the increased versatility of power choices in CoT might help further mitigate that?
Someone who's main role is to tank might more easily be able to do more than just taunt as they often had to in CoH when forced out of melee.

Well the "tanker roles" are more defined by the Masteries than they are about the power set choices. Though there will be more possible versatility for the tank role through power sets since secondaries will include our version of Assault sets which include ranged attacks and the there are the ranged Tertiaries that will be available too. These will provide a wider range of functionality but the basis will still lean heavily on the Mastery combinations.

Greyhawk wrote:

Meh. My only concern is forced inaccuracy. If my character is toe-to-toe with the bad guy and I fire off a PBAoE effect and MISS! Then I will be one very unhappy player.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Spider-Man fairly routinely dodges point-blank PBAOE's in the comics. And of course a force field might completely deflect a point-blank AOE.

Both of those would have been misses in terms of CoH game mechanics.

Empyrean wrote:

Greyhawk wrote:
Meh. My only concern is forced inaccuracy. If my character is toe-to-toe with the bad guy and I fire off a PBAoE effect and MISS! Then I will be one very unhappy player.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Spider-Man fairly routinely dodges point-blank PBAOE's in the comics. And of course a force field might completely deflect a point-blank AOE.
Both of those would have been misses in terms of CoH game mechanics.

I had several Dual Sword/Willpower Scrappers and Brutes. There was one combo that gained a PBAoE. On the test server and when it first went live it was lovely to behold. Every enemy within arm reach took damage. If the final power was enhanced enough, the damage could devastate a circle of minion class enemies up to one level above the player.

Then they decided it was too deadly and cranked it back to a maximum of 10 enemies and about half to three-quarter of a minion's total HP. It never failed that it would hit behind and to the sides, but the 11th enemy chosen by the mechanic would be the one standing right dead in front of my character.

Most annoying. I could wipe out everyone I could not see but the guy right in front of me would be missed almost every single time!

Greyhawk wrote:

I had several Dual Sword/Willpower Scrappers and Brutes. There was one combo that gained a PBAoE. On the test server and when it first went live it was lovely to behold. Every enemy within arm reach took damage. If the final power was enhanced enough, the damage could devastate a circle of minion class enemies up to one level above the player.
Then they decided it was too deadly and cranked it back to a maximum of 10 enemies and about half to three-quarter of a minion's total HP. It never failed that it would hit behind and to the sides, but the 11th enemy chosen by the mechanic would be the one standing right dead in front of my character.
Most annoying. I could wipe out everyone I could not see but the guy right in front of me would be missed almost every single time!

If the Devs of a game decide to balance a power by making it so that it only affects X number of targets one would hope that they could make it smart enough to prioritize those targets by what makes the most situational sense. For instance for a 360 degree PBAoE one might assume that targets towards the 180 degrees in front of the player would be more likely hit before targets in the 180 degrees behind the player.

The only real problem with target prioritization like this is that it's more complicated than just having a RNG picking random targets in range. To properly prioritize everything the game would have to near-instantly calculate the relative positions between the player and all the targets in question and compute a sorted list from most to least likely targets. That would simply be hard to accomplish in the heat of a battle. Not impossible mind you, simply harder than the alternative we seem to have which is the random target selection scheme.

Hopefully CoT will come up with more reasonable solutions to this situation.

Brand X wrote:

That was a bit annoying. Always thought the enemy you had targeted should be made part of your limit of targets in an AOE (unless it was some positional based cone).

Yeah at the very least the critter you have specifically targeted should be part of any prioritized list of candidate targets to be affected.

Radiac wrote:

I don't know if this is harder to do, in terms of code, but I would prefer not to have "maximum number of targets" with AoEs but instead I would prefer "maximum damage dealt" meaning that if you DO manage to lure like 20 minions into your AoE zone, the power's total damage cap dictates that they'll all take far less damage than if only 10 targets were covered by it. You probably need to have a per-target damage cap and a total damage cap for this to work I I guess.
So for example if you want your Hulk's foot stomp AoE to be able to deal, at maximum, 100 damage to a maximum of 10 targets, you'd set the total damage cap to 1000 points and the per-target cap to 100 points. That way if you only get 9 targets in the zone, you only get 900 total points of damage dealt, 100 to each, but if you get 20 targets covered, they each take 50 points.
I have no idea how to code that, as I am not a programmer. Also, the actual damage taken by the targets will be subject to damage resistance, roll to hit, etc AFTER the per-target damage cap is calculated, so if it misses some people, they still siphon some damage away from those who got hit, and those who got hit still apply resistance tot he damage they do take after THAT.

I understand what you've suggested here but in terms of making it work in software it's probably not really that much quicker/easier than the "prioritized position" target list I suggested earlier. In both cases the game would be doing more target picking calculations to resolve the entire AoE attack than a relatively simplistic target selection based on a RNG.

Besides let's assume a PBAoE that's based on a radiation blast. Realistically speaking the potential targets that are closest to you should take more damage from that than the ones farther away. Unfortunately your suggestion would violate basic physics by "spreading" the damage out equally across multiple targets regardless of distance from you. This would technically inflict too little damage on the closest targets and too much damage on the farther targets. Besides you could get into situations where if there were too many targets your AoE effectively does no damage to any of them. I'd rather my AoEs affect a limited number of targets with max damage than to get overwhelmed doing no damage to any of them.

Radiac wrote:

I don't disagree with Lothic here.
As I said, I don't know what the coding implications are, I'm just brainstorming ideas. And I agree that this is probably the LEAST "realistic" in terms of imersiveness. MOST types of explosion would probably tail off as an inverse square of the distance from the center. The physics of this, in the real world, is that your shock wave (or whatever is dealing the damage) expands in all directions and contains a finite constant amount of energy. As the wave gets farther from the center, the wave front occupies the entire surface of an imaginary sphere which is expanding outward. The distance from the center of the blast to the target is the radius of that sphere and as the sphere's radius increases, the total AREA of the spherical surface increases as A = 4*pi*R^2, while the total energy contained remains the same, thus the Intensity, which is energy per unit area, decreases as E/A, (that is, it goes as some constant over R squared) and you get and inverse square law.
That said, not all things are radially expanding explosions or whatever. Radioactive decay of an isotope sample would work as an inverse square law, as you said. Rain of Fire, on the other hand, was an effect that would seem to have dealt the same DoT to everyone in it, regardless of their distance from the center. You could even have a power that creates an inwardly-directed Ring of Pain that makes the damage greater at the edge and less in the center, so as to try to trap the demon in the eye of the storm, so to speak. So a lot of things are possible through developer fiat there. That said the damage caps I'm talking about are still probably the least realistic option in terms of immersion. Whether or not they work well in terms of mechanics is a different question, and not necessarily a question that my proposed system provides the BEST answer to either, I'll admit.

I have no problem with having different types of AoEs that inflict their damage in different ways than a typical "blast" pattern. In the superhero setting I'm sure you could come up with powers that would justify almost any kind of target distribution.

This is why coming up with an effective "positional priority" algorithm would be very beneficial for CoT. Not only could it solve the annoyance Greyhawk mentioned (with sword-based PBAoEs missing targets directly in front of him) but also would allow for different damage patterns for different AoEs. Have a PBAoE that's supposed to affect distant targets before nearer ones? The pattern algorithm could be adjusted so that those distant targets are prioritized in favor of closer ones. If we must live with max target caps we should at least be able to count on hitting the subset of targets that make the most sense within a large grouping of critters instead of it always being completely random.

Tannim222 wrote:

There was the idea of varying radii of effect, which serves to encourage clumping targets together for the best results. Its an easy way to move those who enjoy area effect play styles from easy of play to required strategy for ideal results. The next step was a way of ensuring only an ideal number of targets fit within a given area of effect - using the collision detection between npcs / pcs as a means to ensure that the "ideal scenarios" are established and then the reductive reasoning (whatever it would be) after this idea number. All of these can be just as detrimental to area effect use and strategies. What about persistent patches where targets can end up moving in and out of? Each set ends up with different designs that can make it difficult to test appropriately to ensure intended bounds of performance.

I was in favor for this primarily to help out SOLO Troller type of builds. :)
I remember DREADING having to run a mission SOLO once on a Grav / Empathy troller. Took me 3 to 4 times as long as it would have with my scrapper, but Felt like it took 8 times longer.
Never Again will i try to SOLO that build. *[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA4iX5D9Z64]NEVER EVER[/url]!* >:( Yes.. i'm channeling Taylor Swift! ;D

Ohh wait, that Build didnt have a Damage based AoE? :{
Tehehe. ;D

No wait.. what about the one that immobilizes all the foes around the Targeted foe? :/

The truth is, your expectations were not met due to flawed perceptions. Comparing a typical CoH controller build to a typical scrapper build, particularly without eyeing specialized builds (including IOs and such), the accurate perception is that the scrapper is designed for damage and sustainability and therefore a very capable soloing character. Compared to the controller designed for control of targets paried with a primarily team-focused secondary, it should not be a very capable solo character on its own - capable of achieving minimum expected bounds of performance certainly, but if compared with that of the scrapper? It would certainly 'feel' terrbiy slow in comparison, and the game data would likely back up that 'feeling'.

The expectation that all builds will perform equitably in all scenarios is a false assumption and should not be made. We have some leeway here in offering more possibilities of different classifications being build for one or multiple functions, and certainly with the availability of our Tertiary sets will make it even easier to make a similar team-oriented class / spec that can still solo if needed. But comparing something like a team-centric class / spec of a say a control / buff with some offensive tertiary powers to that of a damage / sustainability centric class / spec, and it'll still underperform in certain respects - like solo performance.

Tannim222 wrote:

Really, the results are that we end up with an "ideal scenario" which is basically a maximum number of targets particular areas of effect can affect. Using this as our metric for bounds of performance allows us to tune into what works best for a given area of effect. There's a whole bunch more to it than this, under the hood, that I can't get into, but I'll leave it at the power designer system takes everything into account.

[i]Ideally ...[/i] there's a couple of refinements that you can make to this model, both of which functionally work via somehow "staging" the Volume of Effect in ways that work like either a division or a multiplication of the VoE.

Division would involve dividing a particular volume into sections and then "ordering" the prioritization of those sections. For instance, a spherical VoE could define one of the hemispheres to Go First and the other hemisphere to Go Last. That way, it would be possible to "prioritize" which Foes fall into the Max Target Limit.

So let's say that you've got a Max Target Limit of 10 on a PBVoE Power (say, a sweeping melee attack of some kind).

What the programming would do under the hood is randomly pick up to 10 Foes in the Front Hemisphere of the PBVoE to attack. If there were more than 10 Foes within the defined (front) volume, then only 10 of them would be attacked and the "extras" in front would not be attacked. Furthermore, if there were more than 10 Foes within the defined (front) volume, then none of the Foes within the defined other/rear volume would be attacked, because the Max Targets Limit had already been reached.

However, if the front hemisphere had only 7 Foes to attack, the remaining portion of the Max Target Limit would allow up to 3 Foes to be attacked within the defined volume of the rear hemisphere.

Needless to say, "divisional" VoE apportionment of targeting in this fashion is best done for "directional" attacks. Indeed, the typical "Cone" volume styled attack could even be defined as a restricted version of this system, in which the "additional sections" of the spherical volume are defined as having a Max Target Limit of zero, preventing anything within those vectors from being attacked. That way, only the selected portion of the VoE actually "attacks" multiple targets, with all of the extra sectors not attacking anything.

This basic model could then be used to create a variety of sectional divisions, such as 2 sections (hemispheres), 3 sections (ie. forward/sides plural/rear), 4 sections (ie. forward/side/side/rear), 5 sections (ie. forward/side/side/flanks plural/rear), or even 6 sections (ie. forward/front side/front side/flank/flank/rear). Distinctions between 3-4 and 5-6 sector prioritization could potentially be relevant for Asymmetrical Builds ... such as Axe And Shield, for example, where you'd expect (based on avatar design?) to have a slightly asymmetrical prioritization of attacks, effects. Allow the arc of each sector to be defined by a variable (so long as the whole adds up to 360 degrees) and you're all set. This would then be a relatively simple way to make FACING a factor that Players have [b]some[/b] control over in terms of influencing the prioritization of targets within a VoE. The assumption would then be that anything "behind" your avatar is a lower priority than anything in front of you.

Ideally, you could even go so far as to define the arc of each section (relative bearing start to relative bearing stop), the "order" in which it gets checked for targets to affect (first listed, first affected / last listed, last affected), the Global Max Target Limit for the entire Power across all sections and the Sectional Max Target Limit for each section. That way you can do things like have a Power with a Global Max Target Limit of 10, but in the Rear Arc that specific arc has a Sectional Max Target Limit of only 3, representing limited coverage/effect in specific directions. Need more sections? Just keep adding more lines of coding until you're done defining sections and they all add up to 360 degrees (or whatever you need if you're not doing a whole sphere). Also note that such a system could be reduced down to a single section (of 360 degrees?) in which the Global and Sectional Max Target Limits are equal, creating an omni-directional VoE.

For simplicity of display on a wiki purposes (or even in-game!), you could simply have two concentric circles. The middle circle would have a number in it that is the Global Max Target Limit in it. Between the two circles would be radial lines representing the arcs that the power defines, and within each section there would be two numbers ... degrees of arc and the Sectional Max Target Limit within that specific section. That would then give a quick and dirty visual representation of the "shape" of the arcs and sections for all VoE attacks.

The other option is a multiplicative VoE ... where you are applying OVERLAPPING VoEs. This would then create opportunities for Damage Reduced By Distance. But instead of doing a complicated divide by r[sup]2[/sup] computation, instead you're just doing multiple VoEs to the same volume.

So you could have a Power that does 2 VoEs to represent a sort of "blast radius" effect. There's a "small" central radius of 5 meters that does damage first, and then a larger radius of 10 meters that does damage a second time. Foes caught within the smaller radius CAN (but don't have to be!) in effect get hit "twice" for an increased chance of suffering a greater effect.

You'd effectively be able to "reuse" a lot of the same programming I was outlining above for sectional prioritization, with a Global Max Target Limit and a Sectional Max Target Limit, creating a situation in which Foes that are "further away" from the center of the effect are less likely to be attacked when dealing with a Target Rich Environment™. Again, the notion is to pre-determine "how" specific Powers "prioritize" their effects in the event that there are Too Many Targets for the Power to affect, where distance from center of VoE influences that prioritization.

Again, it would be perfectly possible to define a set of 4 co-centric radii (5/10/15/20 meters, for example) as all having the same Max Target Limit of 10 for both Global and Sectional variables ... but because of the priority of the overlaps, [i]the 10 Targets closest to the center of the VoE[/i] are the most likely to be affected, so the distribution of the effect is not completely random within the maximum 20 meter radius.

You'd want to define an extra variable to determine if a Target can be affected multiple times by the Power, so as to simulate r[sup]2[/sup] decay/reduction of effect(s) simply because the multiple VoEs can be defined as overlapping. And, of course, if you want a homogenous "random" volume you can still do so by defining only a single VoE with nothing overlapping it.

For truly advanced(!) applications, there's no reason why you couldn't (theoretically, if your programmers are clever enough) DO BOTH ... multiplication AND division ... so as to simulate Narrow Beam Cones with "danger space" surrounding them that you wouldn't want to be in, even if you aren't being hit directly by the main narrow beam. You know ... [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHDxYYHBDZE]something like a Macross Reflex Cannon[/url] ...