In the game world why do lasers have such high penetration?

[Harker]

Well this doesn't really answer your central point, but it is a fun (and educational) way to spend 10 minutes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcS09dBSrvc&app=desktop

 

[Aleksej]

The damage model is changed in 1.4.

 

[Zorronov]

So is there anything that FD will not nerf if enough people whine about it?

 

[KayAitch]

Oh what fun, this is a game you know, if you are gonna pick on anything pick on faster than light travel. I had to chuckle when the lasers damage mechanic is not believed but light sabres are quoted as having realistic effects. Lasers exist lightsabres don't. Physics is complicated, we do not yet fully understand the mechanisms behind how damage is caused. However we do know that Lasers transfer energy and this energy causes the damage. it's a game but hey think of it like this if you like: lasers are organised electromagnetic radiation. Photons in synch if you like . Most lasers are designed to produce EM radiation of one wavelength only. But it is often the case that there are a range of unwanted wavelengths produced. Usually in the infra red spectrum. Now I imagine if I wanted to have a laser to do damage I would have designed it to consist of a range of wavelengths that cause damage by being absorbed or attenuated by the ships material. One of the wavelengths would visible so I could see it. And yep I imagine they developed a laser that can be seen in space. Why not.
I can see that it's easy to think hey laser are light and light stops at a surface. But the light is the energy and it's the energy that does the damage. Consider the production of ionising radiation that would cause damage in a very complicated way. High energy electrons neutrons x rays as well as thermal and mechanical shocks would all owner transfer energy further into the the ship. So I think lasers are fun. I think the balloons burst be mechanical shock and not by being burnt as is the easy assumption to make, but to be honest I don't know for sure.

This is a game, but it's also one that has gone to impressive lengths to model a realistic universe. Space stations even spin at the right rate and so on. Braben has said that his one big concession is light speed travel, as it wouldn't really work as a game if you couldn't quickly get around.

For the damage model they've already gone to significant lengths to make it realistic. Where it isn't they've done it for gameplay reasons - you can see lasers and hear impacts.

I don't think a lightsaber is realistic, but it is consistent within its fictional universe and everyone has a clear idea of how it will slice through matter.

Let's ignore lasers for a second - suppose instead you were dealing with a hose spraying water. You shoot it at a taut sheet of canvas and one of paper. You mimic beam weapons with a constant flow and projectiles by stuttering it on and off. Shoot it at the canvas and it doesn't go through - that would be low penetration. Shoot it at the paper and it will go through - that's high penetration. Shoot it in bursts at the paper and you'll get lots of holes, but shoot it constantly and it will effectively cut the paper.

Anything that is both high penetration and constant would cut a target in two. A powerful enough laser could certainly do both, but it would be devastating. It would one-hit kill most ships, and you could certainly expect it to cut Eagles and Sidewinders in two with a single swipe. A laser that wasn't powerful enough to actually slice through would still be very damaging, but it would not go through the ship and it would not have high penetration. In fact it would carve the weld-line scars that you see when you fire a beam up close or use a mining laser.

Unlike making lasers visible or adding sound this isn't for gameplay reasons - lasers are clearly unbalanced as everybody uses them. They wouldn't be the most popular weapon if they weren't and we would all have more choice than whether pulse or beams are the way to go. If lasers had terrible penetration that would balance them out.

 

[Euan Neo]

In space there's not remotely enough matter to make lasers visible that way, that doesn't even work in earth's atmosphere.

it does work in earth, as described above, shine a laser, blow dust/smoke through it and you'll see the beam lighting up particles. Its not the beam, its the particles, and its definetly visible...

 

[kingchub]

theres a song that makes me think of a giant lazer scorching the earth, leaving a crater or a trench as it moves across the ground.

base cannon

 

[SNaomiScott]

it does work in earth, as described above, shine a laser, blow dust/smoke through it and you'll see the beam lighting up particles. Its not the beam, its the particles, and its definetly visible...

What you're seeing there, IIRC, is the light from the beam reflecting off of the particles (which is also why the particles 'sparkle'; the particles are in motion so the reflection path changes, creating the 'sparkle' effect). The beam itself is essentially invisible to the naked eye because of its frequency but as soon as that beam hits something the light is reflected and the frequency changes depending on the material being impacted.

(It's a long time since I did anything involving real world lasers, so if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me.)

Edited:

The number of particles per cubic metre in 'space' is ridiculously low, so there would be little or no back-scatter from a laser beam, especially over the stupidly short ranges they have in the game. This same scarcity of particulate matter also means that theoretically the beams should remain attenuated for much longer than they do, so the effective range of the lasers in the game should be much higher than it is. However, that would definitely make lasers OP at their current outputs.

 

[igor37]

it does work in earth, as described above, shine a laser, blow dust/smoke through it and you'll see the beam lighting up particles. Its not the beam, its the particles, and its definetly visible...

Please read the post I answered before I have to repeat myself 3 more times. Lasers on spaceships are probably invisible because of their wavelength, and some dust particles won't change that. Nobody in his right mind would build huge weapons with red lasers.

 

[Crash1099]

The damage model is changed in 1.4.

Pulse lasers and Burst do less damage?

 

[Zorronov]

I used lasers in my research. I think the record for the number of lasers my group had operating at once was 9. Yes...in order to see the beam, there needed to be a reflective medium of some kind...smoke...dust...chalk dust from a couple of erasers banged together ...mirrors...prisms... The particle density in interstellar space wouldn't generally be sufficient for this. Some of them didn't automatically lase, however, and had to be adjusted while looking at the beam against a target. We often used white business cards for the ones that were in the visible spectrum. The way you could tell that a given laser had actually started to lase was...the cross-section of the beam would begin to sparkle.

Oh...and you had to be very careful you didn't get your finger in front of some of them. One of them could actually blow it off.

 

[Rowander]

If we are going to moan about weapon realism in Elite we could stay here all day. Not only lasers would be much longer range, they would also heat the target while doing their work. Projectile weapons would be troublesome too. Recoil on the firing ship would be hard to manage, and the receiving end would be in trouble too. A railgun slug would surely make the target spin wildly on impact.

This is a game, realism is good for a simulator, but space simulators need some concessions to gameplay if they aim to be fun.

 

[KayAitch]

This is a game, realism is good for a simulator, but space simulators need some concessions to gameplay if they aim to be fun.

Yes. They clearly strive for realism and break it when it benefits game play. I don't think high penetration lasers are a benefit to game play.

Lasers are only visible when they hit something (like dust or smoke particles, which there are very little of in space) but in the game they are visible.

Space battles would make no sound - the only noise you'd hear would be your own engine and anything hitting your hull. In the game explosions and all weapon contacts and enemy ship sounds can be heard, again for gameplay reasons.

In space lasers should have a massive range - light seconds or more. The game restricts them to 3km because otherwise they'd allow sniper kills.

A constant firing weapon with high penetration would cut through targets. I guess this may be too difficult to model in the game.

A laser would have low penetration, and in this case gameplay agrees - high penetration lasers are bad for gameplay as they make lasers the only really viable weapon. Laser down their shields, target power plan, kill target. You might have a back-up multi cannon or cannon, or a heavy hitter like rail guns or plasma accelerators, but everyone uses lasers as their main weapon because they kill shields and have high penetration.

 

[Rowander]

I don't think high penetration lasers are a benefit to game play.

A laser would have low penetration, and in this case gameplay agrees - high penetration lasers are bad for gameplay as they make lasers the only really viable weapon. Laser down their shields, target power plan, kill target. You might have a back-up multi cannon or cannon, or a heavy hitter like rail guns or plasma accelerators, but everyone uses lasers as their main weapon because they kill shields and have high penetration.

You are absolutely right. The most effective loadout this days, is gimballed pulse lasers. The cheapest weapon, is actually the best: most effective, uses no ammo, generates low heat, has good shield damage, and great penetration... This is nonsense from a gameplay point of view. Balance comes from limiting some aspects of the weapon so it does not perform well in every aspect.

Take, for instance, railguns:

+ Good damage to shields and hull, extreme penetration.
- Expensive, no gimball, low ammo count, very hard firing mechanic

Or guns:

+ Good hull damage, average price, average ammo count, gimballed
- Slow projectile speed, bad shield damage, limited ammo.

Beam lasers are somewhat balanced:

+ Great shield damage, good hull damage, average penetration, gimballed
- Very expensive, extreme power requirements, high heat generation

Then we have Pulse Lasers:

+ Cheapest weapon in game, good shield damage, good penetration, average hull damage, no ammo, low heat generation, gimballed
- ???

We could do with some weapon rebalance, namely pulse lasers and missiles (also named uselessiles)

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Time on Target should be the penetration calculation for lasers.

Beams: Constant damage on one spot (on average)
Burst: Multiple fast shots on ALMOST in the same spot
Pulse: Long pulse over a larger area of a ship

So beams have a higher penetration but I think lasers should be low on average due to them MELTING, and not really PENETRATING.

Lasers: D.E.F penetration
Kinetic: C.B.A penetration
Missiles: Explosive: No penetration but shockwaves of the explosion creates bleedthrough into modules close to the explosion and always cause a little module damage.
Plasma: C/D penetration due to beign a little bit kinetic and thermal

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

My god, gamers have been scratching their head about this since the 90's, you'd think someone would have labeled it common knowledge by now.

The material evaporated by a laser is what penetrates immediately, in the same way a plasma cutter cuts steel by pushing the arc and liquefied material through with a jet of gas.

Multiple layers of ablative armor negate the penetration of a rail gun, because after the first layer there is no slug left, only the debris and plasma of it's impact which is easily dispersed by laminates.

Militaries worldwide already use lasers to shoot down bunker buster missiles in 1 second pulses, and railguns remain a case study instead of being put into use because traditional kinetic and explosive artillery rounds remain almost as effective while being significantly cheaper.

Once again, not rocket science. 10 minutes with your buddy Google could have told you more about this subject than you ever wanted to know.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

My god, gamers have been scratching their head about this since the 90's, you'd think someone would have labeled it common knowledge by now.

The material evaporated by a laser is what penetrates immediately, in the same way a plasma cutter cuts steel by pushing the arc and liquefied material through with a jet of gas.

My only game-balance beef with this is rather simple - why even HAVE other weapons then when lasers are so good.

High armour penetration should then make a laser excellent at:

-Higher chance to hit modules through armour
-Less DAMAGE against modules due to it being a scalpel, not a hammer. It's a pinpoint focused beam, not a weapon designed to cause internal massive damage unless it vaporize the right part of a module to make it go boom.

And ballistics
-Should have the chance to PENETRATE shields since they are not pure energy but also MASS.
-Lower penetration ability due to not being a pinpoint weapon but higher module DAMAGE.

And then we have railguns
Basically a laser combined with a ballistic weapon so a chance to penetrate a shield, armour but unlike conventional ammunition a tungsten rod designed to PENETRATE not cause massive damage so the module damage is rather moderate.

Plasma is a fun mix then with Thermal and Kinetic so lower chance to penetrate shields but moderate to armour and can cause some damage to modules.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

My only game-balance beef with this is rather simple - why even HAVE other weapons then when lasers are so good.

High armour penetration should then make a laser excellent at:

-Higher chance to hit modules through armour
-Less DAMAGE against modules due to it being a scalpel, not a hammer. It's a pinpoint focused beam, not a weapon designed to cause internal massive damage unless it vaporize the right part of a module to make it go boom.

And ballistics
-Should have the chance to PENETRATE shields since they are not pure energy but also MASS.
-Lower penetration ability due to not being a pinpoint weapon but higher module DAMAGE.

And then we have railguns
Basically a laser combined with a ballistic weapon so a chance to penetrate a shield, armour but unlike conventional ammunition a tungsten rod designed to PENETRATE not cause massive damage so the module damage is rather moderate.

Plasma is a fun mix then with Thermal and Kinetic so lower chance to penetrate shields but moderate to armour and can cause some damage to modules.

The same reason that militaries use different weapons. If you're a one trick pony, all the enemy has to do is defend against that one trick very well and you are no longer a one trick pony. You're just a pony.

Ponies don't conquer nations.

This is like asking "Why play anything in a game of rock, paper scissors except for rock?"

 

[Snarfbuckle]

The same reason that militaries use different weapons. If you're a one trick pony, all the enemy has to do is defend against that one trick very well and you are no longer a one trick pony. You're just a pony.

Yea, and everyone ARE playing the one-trick pony nine times out of ten right now.

 

[KayAitch]

This is like asking "Why play anything in a game of rock, paper scissors except for rock?"

In this alternate world where rock always beats paper AND scissors why would anyone play that game? It would be poor game balance.

From a game balance perspective:

• Lasers should be pretty devastating against shields (as they are now)
• They should have 0 penetration and do little damage to hull.
• Mirrored composite should be almost laser proof.
• Cannon, MC, Rails, etc should have high penetration and do high damage to hulls, but little damage to shields.
• Missiles should devastate shields, do decent damage to hulls, but have very low penetration (this would make carrying point defence or ECM worthwhile, as at the moment missiles are a joke as anything but massive volleys).

That way both all laser and all projectile loadouts would be making serious compromises, and "stack as many pulse lasers and SCB as you can carry" would no longer be the only PvP strategy.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Yea, and everyone ARE playing the one-trick pony nine times out of ten right now.

Only for PvE, and only for one reason: Unlimited ammo.

In this alternate world where rock always beats paper AND scissors why would anyone play that game? It would be poor game balance.

From a game balance perspective:

• Lasers should be pretty devastating against shields (as they are now)
• They should have 0 penetration and do little damage to hull.
• Mirrored composite should be almost laser proof.
• Cannon, MC, Rails, etc should have high penetration and do high damage to hulls, but little damage to shields.
• Missiles should devastate shields, do decent damage to hulls, but have very low penetration (this would make carrying point defence or ECM worthwhile, as at the moment missiles are a joke as anything but massive volleys).

That way both all laser and all projectile loadouts would be making serious compromises, and "stack as many pulse lasers and SCB as you can carry" would no longer be the only PvP strategy.

They kind of did that serious compromise for CQC and it doesn't, in many people's opinion, work well because there isn't enough variety. Expect the same thing here. If you think people are using only pulses for PvP better stretch your legs and visit new places. I see multicannons and rails used regularly. Missiles and cannons need fixing. Most of all, we need more variety.