News Discussion with Mark Allen on damage and defenses

[Yank31]

Fantastic initiative, thank you for sharing this long-waited for bit of information!

I'm still unclear on two things (edit : three) :


1°) hull reinforcement = armour, right?

(...) Hull re-inforcements & Armour at the moment primarily increase your total hitpoints (which indirectly reduces penetration chances - after taking the same punishment your hull health is higher which is factored into step 3). (...)

Just for the sake of clarification, I was under the impression that hull reinforcements were only adding a fixed amount of armour to the stock armour value of your ship. Therefore, that hull reinforcement = armour. Thus, they'd primarily increment your overall damage reduction (the more armour, the better damage reduction). And, incidently, give your ship more "hit points", before it reaches 0% hull.

Sorry if this feels like extreme nittpicking (I can see how it could), but it's really just for clarification.


2°) What about bulkheads?!

You never talked about bulkheads!

I would assume they intervene at step n°1, seeing as what they do is reducing damage.

Edit : I just only discovered that, according to the shipyard, bulkheads do add armour to your ship. Thus, and given your post, I'm currently under the almost certain impression that : ship stock armour value + bulkhead + hull reinforcement(s) = ship total armour = DR on everything (hull, internal and external modules)

This, however, would be quite a shocker given the fact that we always thought that bulkheads didn't protect modules (sub-systems) at all. Now it looks that they protect them all.
​

Could we get a confirmation on that? If not, when/how do they interact in the whole picture?


3°) What about the armour value of Military Grade, Mirrored Surface and Reactive Surface ?

On an Anaconda for instance, and according to the shipyard, these three bulkheads give the same amount of armour. But we know from the tooltips they are not supposed to protect from the same type of damage.

Regarding their effects, the common belief is the following :

Lightweight Alloy : 0% DR thermal, 0% DR kinetic
Reinforced Alloy : 25% DR thermal, 25% DR kinetic
Military Grade : 50% DR thermal, 50% DR kinetic
Mirrored Surface : 75% DR thermal, 25% DR kinetic
Reactive Surace : 25% DR thermal, 75% DR kinetic

How could the last three give the same amount of armour?

What would make the most sense to me is that bulkheads do in fact give two separate amount of armour (one against thermal, an other against kinetic), and we're only shown the average of the two values in the shipyard. This would explain why the values of armour are identical for the last three bulkheads, while the effects are different.

But, could we get a confirmation/explanation on that aswell?


In advance and again, thanks for your time!

 

[Kanharn]

Good Information.

 

[Mark Allen]

Just popping in to clarify armour/bulkheads/etc, it seems there's still a lot of confusion on this point! Probably the best way is to illustrate it with an example (note that the numbers are pulled out of the air, I'm writing from home and don't have access to the real ones, nor can I check if I'm allowed to post em ).

Assume a default ship has a 100hp hull with the default armour (also called bulkheads, interchangeable name) taking 80% damage from thermal and 120% damage from kinetic. Upgrading to the Reinforced or Military versions will increase the hp of the ship, something like x2 for the top end (giving a 200hp hull) - but do not affect the damage reduction. Mirrored and Reactive versions will both increase the hp and shift the damage type resistance (mirrored is better vs thermal but worse vs kinetic, Reactive is the opposite). Those damage reduction values do apply to hits to modules as well (as illustrated in the OP) but as these don't change between lightweight/military hulls, the only direct damage reduction comes from mirrored/reactive. What the armour does affect is the penetration chance as the ship gets damaged.

Hull reinforcements behave in a similar way to reinforced/military armour - increasing the hp, so the military armoured ship with two +10% hull reinforcements would have 220hp.

So what exactly does this mean for penetration/damage to modules? When the hull is at full health there is no difference what armour/hull re-inforcements you have fitted. As the ship becomes damaged there are some differences though. Take the following two ships:

Default: 100hp
Well geared (Military + hull reinforcements): 220hp

Assume they've both been hit for 50 hull damage so far this fight. And are now being shot by a normal weapon:

Default: hull at 50/100 health, penetration chance: 60%
Well Geared: hull at 170/220 health, penetration chance: 49%

Further down the fight, they've both taken 95 hull damage and are again shot normally:

Default: hull at 5/100 health, penetration chance: 78%
Well Geared: hull at 125/220 health, penetration chance: 58%



So.. Better armour does affect module damage, but not in the way people often expect! I't something we're looking at as part of the loot/crafting update Michael mentioned in a recent dev update (along with several other combat balance issues), until then we've bigger fish to fry . There's several conflicting goals we're trying to juggle: To start with the question of randomised vs deterministic penetration - which is a highly subjective thing and from our investigation so far it tends to feel better for the attacker if deterministic, but better for the defender if it's slightly random. We also agree that changing armour should have a bigger effect on the damage your ship and modules take, but even the best armour should never protect them enough to make targeting modules a useless strategy. Not to say we're out of ideas, just nothing I want to commit to here .

-Mark.

 

[Iskariot]

This just is the most interesting tech thread ever.
I'd love to see more like this.

What is most encouraging is that you (Mark Allen) demonstrate the ongoing process of development of existing core game systems. Truly great stuff.

 

[shazbot]

Thanks for the info Mark!! Love hearing about the inner workings and the plans going forward with crafting/rebalance sounds interestin

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

So thanks Mark for confirming that crafting and looting is ship related topic Expected wrecks a bit sooner but hey, still nice to have (see what I did here)

 

[Dreossk]

Just popping in to clarify armour/bulkheads/etc, it seems there's still a lot of confusion on this point! Probably the best way is to illustrate it with an example (note that the numbers are pulled out of the air, I'm writing from home and don't have access to the real ones, nor can I check if I'm allowed to post em ).

Assume a default ship has a 100hp hull with the default armour (also called bulkheads, interchangeable name) taking 80% damage from thermal and 120% damage from kinetic. Upgrading to the Reinforced or Military versions will increase the hp of the ship, something like x2 for the top end (giving a 200hp hull) - but do not affect the damage reduction. Mirrored and Reactive versions will both increase the hp and shift the damage type resistance (mirrored is better vs thermal but worse vs kinetic, Reactive is the opposite). Those damage reduction values do apply to hits to modules as well (as illustrated in the OP) but as these don't change between lightweight/military hulls, the only direct damage reduction comes from mirrored/reactive. What the armour does affect is the penetration chance as the ship gets damaged.

Hull reinforcements behave in a similar way to reinforced/military armour - increasing the hp, so the military armoured ship with two +10% hull reinforcements would have 220hp.

So what exactly does this mean for penetration/damage to modules? When the hull is at full health there is no difference what armour/hull re-inforcements you have fitted. As the ship becomes damaged there are some differences though. Take the following two ships:

Default: 100hp
Well geared (Military + hull reinforcements): 220hp

Assume they've both been hit for 50 hull damage so far this fight. And are now being shot by a normal weapon:

Default: hull at 50/100 health, penetration chance: 60%
Well Geared: hull at 170/220 health, penetration chance: 49%

Further down the fight, they've both taken 95 hull damage and are again shot normally:

Default: hull at 5/100 health, penetration chance: 78%
Well Geared: hull at 125/220 health, penetration chance: 58%



So.. Better armour does affect module damage, but not in the way people often expect! I't something we're looking at as part of the loot/crafting update Michael mentioned in a recent dev update (along with several other combat balance issues), until then we've bigger fish to fry . There's several conflicting goals we're trying to juggle: To start with the question of randomised vs deterministic penetration - which is a highly subjective thing and from our investigation so far it tends to feel better for the attacker if deterministic, but better for the defender if it's slightly random. We also agree that changing armour should have a bigger effect on the damage your ship and modules take, but even the best armour should never protect them enough to make targeting modules a useless strategy. Not to say we're out of ideas, just nothing I want to commit to here .

-Mark.

Why isn't that all explained in the game? Why do we have to come to forums to read about critical information like that? Why aren't all the modules clearly detailed like that?

 

[Kris]

Why isn't that all explained in the game? Why do we have to come to forums to read about critical information like that? Why aren't all the modules clearly detailed like that?

Because everything doesn't need to be explained everytime. Some things are better to be "black box". Some might agree, some might disagree.

 

[Parmo]

So.. Better armour does affect module damage, but not in the way people often expect! I't something we're looking at as part of the loot/crafting update Michael mentioned in a recent dev update (along with several other combat balance issues), until then we've bigger fish to fry . There's several conflicting goals we're trying to juggle: To start with the question of randomised vs deterministic penetration - which is a highly subjective thing and from our investigation so far it tends to feel better for the attacker if deterministic, but better for the defender if it's slightly random. We also agree that changing armour should have a bigger effect on the damage your ship and modules take, but even the best armour should never protect them enough to make targeting modules a useless strategy. Not to say we're out of ideas, just nothing I want to commit to here .

-Mark.

Confusing. I wonder why?
'Better armour does affect module damage' - are not bulkheads classed as modules?
Can the bulkheads themselves take damage? Be they reinforced alloys or reinforced or whatever?
What are your definitions of armour, bulkhead, module?
Some definitions:
'Armour (spelt armor in the United States of America) is a protective covering that is used to prevent damage from being inflicted to an object, individual, or vehicle by direct contact weapons or projectiles, usually during combat'.
'A bulkhead is an upright wall within the hull of a ship or within the fuselage of an aeroplaneA bulkhead is an upright wall within the hull of a ship or within the fuselage of an aeroplane'
'Armoured bulkhead associated with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_bulkhead'
Hull reinforcements - no direct definition here but is usually associated with strengthening bulkheads, decks, struts, hull plating etc.
[==]
Your description, your conceptual view does not seem to fit with these definitions which are universally accepted.
May be that is why players find the game so confusing in this respect, more so due to lack of information presented in the game and outside of it.
I would like to know how the World of Warships handles all this. Armour modules? Don't think so.

 

[Dreossk]

Because everything doesn't need to be explained everytime. Some things are better to be "black box". Some might agree, some might disagree.

Who would agree that buying something and not even knowing its stats and how it works is acceptable? The lack of information in this game is a major problem and I don't understand why it's taking so long to correct it. Having to leave the game and go to a third party website each time I want to buy something is inadmissible.

 

[Kris]

Who would agree that buying something and not even knowing its stats and how it works is acceptable?

In my opinion, some pointers are good, but i don't think knowing full stats is good things. Like i said - some agree, and some disagree.

I'm not against knowing things, and this thread is good thing. But we don't need to know everything (but it helps to know some things).

 

[Barking_Mad]

Who would agree that buying something and not even knowing its stats and how it works is acceptable? The lack of information in this game is a major problem and I don't understand why it's taking so long to correct it. Having to leave the game and go to a third party website each time I want to buy something is inadmissible.

#firstworldproblems

 

[Parmo]

In my opinion, some pointers are good, but i don't think knowing full stats is good things. Like i said - some agree, and some disagree.

I'm not against knowing things, and this thread is good thing. But we don't need to know everything (but it helps to know some things).

We need to know items of information, accurate items of information, to prevent confusion. Mark Allen admits there is a LOT of confusion.
The question is: why is there a lot of confusion on this matter?
Go figure.

 

[LeoKesler]

Who would agree that buying something and not even knowing its stats and how it works is acceptable? The lack of information in this game is a major problem and I don't understand why it's taking so long to correct it. Having to leave the game and go to a third party website each time I want to buy something is inadmissible.

I agree, its like to pay for a new expensive game (wrongly called an expansion) without seeing any game play.

 

[Starlear]

We also agree that changing armour should have a bigger effect on the damage your ship and modules take, but even the best armour should never protect them enough to make targeting modules a useless strategy.

I don't think anyone wants targeting modules to be a useless strategy - we just want the game to not be essentially immediately over once shields go down. As it stands now, you can drop modules to 0% pretty quickly. Even with the powerplant change that's coming soon, you're still basically dead if your powerplant goes offline, because even if you sit there rebooting it to get it going again, it's going to immediately take the 4-5% health it gets back from the repair in damage, and be down again. I'd much prefer a system where it was hard to fully disable/destroy a module but malfunctions happened more and more often as they got low on health (even when not being shot - they should just malfunction sometimes at random).

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Who would agree that buying something and not even knowing its stats and how it works is acceptable? The lack of information in this game is a major problem and I don't understand why it's taking so long to correct it. Having to leave the game and go to a third party website each time I want to buy something is inadmissible.

Because it removes emphasis on hardware part and put more emphasis on skill part. All Elite games has been min/maximers nightmares and this aims for same goal. They won't explain everything to you. They have clear vision which information they want to expose and which they don't.

 

[Quineloe]

Just popping in to clarify armour/bulkheads/etc, it seems there's still a lot of confusion on this point! Probably the best way is to illustrate it with an example (note that the numbers are pulled out of the air, I'm writing from home and don't have access to the real ones, nor can I check if I'm allowed to post em ).

Assume a default ship has a 100hp hull with the default armour (also called bulkheads, interchangeable name) taking 80% damage from thermal and 120% damage from kinetic. Upgrading to the Reinforced or Military versions will increase the hp of the ship, something like x2 for the top end (giving a 200hp hull) - but do not affect the damage reduction. Mirrored and Reactive versions will both increase the hp and shift the damage type resistance (mirrored is better vs thermal but worse vs kinetic, Reactive is the opposite). Those damage reduction values do apply to hits to modules as well (as illustrated in the OP) but as these don't change between lightweight/military hulls, the only direct damage reduction comes from mirrored/reactive. What the armour does affect is the penetration chance as the ship gets damaged.

Hull reinforcements behave in a similar way to reinforced/military armour - increasing the hp, so the military armoured ship with two +10% hull reinforcements would have 220hp.

So what exactly does this mean for penetration/damage to modules? When the hull is at full health there is no difference what armour/hull re-inforcements you have fitted. As the ship becomes damaged there are some differences though. Take the following two ships:

Default: 100hp
Well geared (Military + hull reinforcements): 220hp

Assume they've both been hit for 50 hull damage so far this fight. And are now being shot by a normal weapon:

Default: hull at 50/100 health, penetration chance: 60%
Well Geared: hull at 170/220 health, penetration chance: 49%

Further down the fight, they've both taken 95 hull damage and are again shot normally:

Default: hull at 5/100 health, penetration chance: 78%
Well Geared: hull at 125/220 health, penetration chance: 58%



So.. Better armour does affect module damage, but not in the way people often expect! I't something we're looking at as part of the loot/crafting update Michael mentioned in a recent dev update (along with several other combat balance issues), until then we've bigger fish to fry . There's several conflicting goals we're trying to juggle: To start with the question of randomised vs deterministic penetration - which is a highly subjective thing and from our investigation so far it tends to feel better for the attacker if deterministic, but better for the defender if it's slightly random. We also agree that changing armour should have a bigger effect on the damage your ship and modules take, but even the best armour should never protect them enough to make targeting modules a useless strategy. Not to say we're out of ideas, just nothing I want to commit to here .

-Mark.

May I go somewhat OT here and tell you that it's very frustrating to lose 75% of your torpedoes damage because it hit something as important as the fuel scoop?

 

[Faybs]

Just popping in to clarify armour/bulkheads/etc, it seems there's still a lot of confusion on this point! Probably the best way is to illustrate it with an example (note that the numbers are pulled out of the air, I'm writing from home and don't have access to the real ones, nor can I check if I'm allowed to post em ).

Assume a default ship has a 100hp hull with the default armour (also called bulkheads, interchangeable name) taking 80% damage from thermal and 120% damage from kinetic. Upgrading to the Reinforced or Military versions will increase the hp of the ship, something like x2 for the top end (giving a 200hp hull) - but do not affect the damage reduction. Mirrored and Reactive versions will both increase the hp and shift the damage type resistance (mirrored is better vs thermal but worse vs kinetic, Reactive is the opposite). Those damage reduction values do apply to hits to modules as well (as illustrated in the OP) but as these don't change between lightweight/military hulls, the only direct damage reduction comes from mirrored/reactive. What the armour does affect is the penetration chance as the ship gets damaged.

Hull reinforcements behave in a similar way to reinforced/military armour - increasing the hp, so the military armoured ship with two +10% hull reinforcements would have 220hp.

So what exactly does this mean for penetration/damage to modules? When the hull is at full health there is no difference what armour/hull re-inforcements you have fitted. As the ship becomes damaged there are some differences though. Take the following two ships:

Default: 100hp
Well geared (Military + hull reinforcements): 220hp

Assume they've both been hit for 50 hull damage so far this fight. And are now being shot by a normal weapon:

Default: hull at 50/100 health, penetration chance: 60%
Well Geared: hull at 170/220 health, penetration chance: 49%

Further down the fight, they've both taken 95 hull damage and are again shot normally:

Default: hull at 5/100 health, penetration chance: 78%
Well Geared: hull at 125/220 health, penetration chance: 58%



So.. Better armour does affect module damage, but not in the way people often expect! I't something we're looking at as part of the loot/crafting update Michael mentioned in a recent dev update (along with several other combat balance issues), until then we've bigger fish to fry . There's several conflicting goals we're trying to juggle: To start with the question of randomised vs deterministic penetration - which is a highly subjective thing and from our investigation so far it tends to feel better for the attacker if deterministic, but better for the defender if it's slightly random. We also agree that changing armour should have a bigger effect on the damage your ship and modules take, but even the best armour should never protect them enough to make targeting modules a useless strategy. Not to say we're out of ideas, just nothing I want to commit to here .

-Mark.

A wild dev appears! Thanks for the explanation, stuff like this is always very welcome. Any chance you could shed some light on whether B rated modules (the really heavy ones) have more hp or some form of damage reduction?

 

[Rooskimus]

May I go somewhat OT here and tell you that it's very frustrating to lose 75% of your torpedoes damage because it hit something as important as the fuel scoop?

I don't see it as so off-topic...and totally agree. Maybe if they had it so that if a sub-system wasn't targeted it could take max 50% damage or something from a hit it'd be better. The only reason it's no fun to take down a ship by its hull is because you'll often pound it for a while and hit sub-systems without seeing many good hits to the hull. It'd be good if there were weapons (aside from missiles which always put unwanted bounties on my head with their splash damage) with less penetration as options (maybe a different kind of bullet option for multis and canons, for example) that went more for the hull and less for the sub-systems.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

Why isn't that all explained in the game? Why do we have to come to forums to read about critical information like that? Why aren't all the modules clearly detailed like that?

I don't think it's ideal for all that information to be in-game. It's way too "behind the curtain" for my liking.

Yes to: "Blah weapon is effective at penetrating most military armour and hull reinforcements, and deliver effective damage to internal modules". Good information for pilots trying to stay alive in a rough, tough galaxy.

No to: "Blah weapon imparts 68% damage to ship hitpoints, if making a random penetration throw of 60%, with 1.2 base multiple against mirrored hulls, and 0.8 base multiple against reactive hulls". Good information for min-maxxers who are power-gaming 2 win.


I respectfully suggest that most "min-maxxers who are power-gaminng 2 win" will be on these forums, sucking up every jot of information relating to game mechanics.


In my opinion, there's no need to beat every passerby to death with all this information.


I'm also of the opinion that the game could present more and better info on weapons, armour and stuff than it currently does. No argument there! But I'd rather not have the curtain ripped away in-game.