News Discussion with Mark Allen on damage and defenses

[xXCheeChowXx]

I agree with Kris....Knowing that one weapon is better against shields and another type is better when shields are down is enough. When exact figures are known about every weapon/armor combination and where all the hit boxes are on a ship,this kind of info opens the game up to exploits....And we all know there are people, out there, who, instead of playing A game as it was ment to be played would rather spend their time looking for things to exploit. I think keeping a little grey area here is the way to go.

 

[EUS]

Re:bulkhead explanations. Thanks again for sharing vital gameplay info.

 

[Zmaj od Bosne]

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

When you are playing a game like ED, you want to immerse yourself into the game universe. You can't do that if you have to tab out and search the internet for basic information. These things should be in the game. Everything about the ships, modules, weapons etc.. should be in the game. You should be able to spend hours studying these things in the shipyard. The amount of information available in the game is just pathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

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 completely agree with you. Things like this are why people complain that there is no depth to this game.

- - - Updated - - -

#firstworldproblems

Ignoring such problems is why third world is what it is. They sell you trinkets for your most precious resources.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

it would be great if the interface would tell you the difference between A and A rating of "penetration" for some weapons, or in case of bulkheads:

the INFO of Shield-harderner and Hull reinforcements tells you EXACTLY the modifier (hield hardener is +x% increase, and hull reinforcements have +X hitpoints).
now why cant shield generators and bulkheads show you the EXACT numbers?

as far as i can tell, hull has: hitpoints, resists (general damage reduction towards damage types) and hardness (another hidden modifier depending on weapon size).

 

[_ZT_]

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....

Spoiler

(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.

Thank you for your detailed response.
Mark, can I ask you about the missiles and torpedoes?
Tell please about the them rooted in mechanics

 

[Kestril]

Thank you! it's great to know about this information. thanks for sharing frontier.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

Thank you for your detailed response.
Mark, can I ask you about the missiles and torpedoes?
Tell please about the them rooted in mechanics

first question to answer would be: what size are torpedos? in that other topic someone said they work well against condas, but from my experience they do not work well vs. phytons.

 

[_ZT_]

first question to answer would be: what size are torpedos? in that other topic someone said they work well against condas, but from my experience they do not work well vs. phytons.

Thank you.
___


I want to know. Class 1 and 2 (missiles and torpedoes):

how the guidance?
like resets guidance? countermeasures;
what determines the damage done?
how to apply the damaged modules? (which affects?)
heating depending on the class;
maximum speed and distance depending on grade;
the type and amount of damage (on the shield and the body) ..​

In part, answers to these questions, I know, but based on the gaming experience.
I would like to hear answers from the developer that to know where the weapon operates as laid \ conceived, and where an error has occurred

 

[Yank31]

My apologies for posting this so late, I sort of forgot to do it. I think this will be relevant to the interests of anyone reading this thread.

Also, a token to Mark Allen sympathy and good will (on a sunday, mind you!).

***

Greetings,

Thank you for your post about damage and defense, made a lot of things clearer, and was much appreciated by me - and many!

However, skimming through the comments, I fail to understand how bulkheads work.

In fact, I do have two questions I would really appreciate you to take a look at.


Here's a post I made in the topic :

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

I'm still unclear on two things :


1°) hull reinforcement = armour, right?

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.

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

If you have time, I would really appreciate if you could answer these two questions!

Thanks in advance,

Keep up the good work, cheers

I keep meaning to go back to that thread and explain a few points, good a time as any to clarify armour . The post there might make things clearer, but as a direct answer:

1) hull re-inforcements are simialr to armour, but where I mention armour in the OP I'm talking about bulkheads in game. hull re-inforcements do indeed *only* add hitpoints.

2) see above, bulkheads == armour . But still primarily affect hitpoints not damage reduction.

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to me, on this sunny sunday.

I have to say, though, that I am now more confused than I ever was. I ran some tests during the night and edited my post with a third question, as well as a... formula. I was hoping for my mental sake that the formula was correct, but your current answer makes me doubt about it.

If you could take a look at the "edited" version, I would be so grateful : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=170205&page=7&p=2696660&viewfull=1#post2696660


And if you can't, well, thanks nonetheless for the reply! And for all the good stuff, too.

Have a fine day

Sure - I assume you're asking about the table you've written about the different armour types damage reduction?

Armour has 3 meaningful stats (again, not accurate numbers - but the relationships are about right):

Health multiplier - multiplies base health of the ship, I believe this is the only stat displayed in outfitting.
Thermal Damage multiplier (1 means no effect, lower is better).
Kinetic Damage multiplier (1 means no effect, lower is better).

Lightweight Alloy: 1.0 health mult, 0.8 thermal multiplier, 1.2 kinetic multiplier
Reinforced Alloy: 1.5 health mult, 0.8 thermal multiplier, 1.2 kinetic multiplier
Military Grade: 2.0 health mult, 0.8 thermal multiplier, 1.2 kinetic multiplier
Mirrored Surface: 2.0 health mult, 0.6 thermal multiplier, 1.4 kinetic multiplier
Reactive Surface: 2.0 health mult, 1.0 thermal multiplier, 1.0 kinetic multiplier

For comparison, most shields have 1.2 thermal multiplier, 0.8 kinetic.


Does that make any more sense?

This is absolutely marvelous and I wonder if I'm allowed to post this on the french forum I'm part of? (http://forum.canardpc.com/threads/98516-Elite-Dangerous-Friendship-drive-charging)

However, this is not what confused me the most (!)


What confuses me the most right now is the total ship armour value displayed in the shipyard, not in the outfitting section, but when you "store" a ship.

For instance, this is what the shipyard reads with Lightweight Alloy (Armour = 945) :



This is what it reads with Reinforced Alloy (Armour = 1323)



This is what it reads with Military Grade (Armour = 1838)



Note that it reads the same value with Military Grade, Mirrored Surface or Reactive Surface.


And this is what it reads with either Military, Mirrored or Reactive, and a 5D hull reinforcement pack (which gives +240 armour, according to outfitting tooltips) (Armour = 2078)





So what confuses me, after reading your reply, your OP and your last post, is :

1) what does this "armour" value mean ? Is it only a hit-point modifier then ?

2) Part of my confusions comes from the fact that, in your OP, you mention : "1) The first step is to multiply the damage dealt by the armours' defences as for shields.". At first I assumed the armour you were talking about there was the armour value shown in the "stocked ship" part of the shipyard. But now, it seems that this is not the case, right? That you were in fact refering to bulkheads defences, and not "total ship armour as shown in the shipyard"... ?


Dear dev, i'm sorry to inflict you such a post on a sunday. But this is what has kept me awake last night, and confuses me right now, after reading your last post and replies.

Go ahead and repost if you like

ahhh, yes the armour value shown in the screenshots you posted is just the health of the ship, not any kind of damage reduction - bit of an unclear name there I guess, will mention it to the UI team. The defences I mentioned in the OP is just referring to the kinetic/thermal damage multipliers in the last reply.

Thank you very much.

Have a nice day !

And to you , fly safe & shoot well!

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

...With that in mind, when you hit a shield the process is fairly simple - the damage is multiplied by the shields' defences and health subtracted. If damage spills over after bursting the shield it will be applied to the hull but otherwise stops there.
...
So a small pulse laser (20) would deal full damage to a sidewinder (also 20), but less than a third damage to an anaconda (65). The main intent of this mechanic is not to penalise small ships, but to make large weapons effective against large ships without one-shotting smaller vessels - they don't actually do that much more flat damage than a small weapon but by piercing much better are far more effective against the harder target.
....

when i look at these statements, i would expect that the damage difference of the three availiable fixed beam laser sizes against shields would not differ significantly.

but when i look at this chart:

then the DPS of them differs rather drastic against shields already.

 

[WR3ND]

#firstworldproblems

#firstworldthread

 

[NavyBee]

when i look at these statements, i would expect that the damage difference of the three availiable fixed beam laser sizes against shields would not differ significantly.

but when i look at this chart [see above] then the DPS of them differs rather drastic against shields already.

I do not see a contradiction here, as there is no reference to weapon energy in the original statements. Laser weapons of different class/size should deal different amounts of damage.
Additionally, thesecon statement you quoted refers to hull damage, while the table only shows shield damage.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

I do not see a contradiction here, as there is no reference to weapon energy in the original statements. Laser weapons of different class/size should deal different amounts of damage.
Additionally, thesecon statement you quoted refers to hull damage, while the table only shows shield damage.

1. he clearly wrote the base damage differs not that much.
2. he clearly wrote that the damage is multiplied by the resists (=defences) of what it hits - shield or hull.
3. he clearly wrote that if the damage hits the hull (its still the SAME BASE) its also multplied by another factor that isn't applied when it hits shields.

and i have picked the beam lasers for the sole reason that they should not have different rate of fire, so DPS and Damage are aequivalent.

now, the tested damage vs. shields, where no other factor aside shield resists factors in, which is the same for any size according what he wrote (at the beginning and at the end of my quote).

you see a DPS aka Damage difference between a fixed large beam laser (30 dps) and a fixed small beam laser (11 dps). thats almost 200% more base damage on the large beam, and that is contradicting with the statement that the base (flat) damage doesnt differ that much.

actually, i consider posting this as bug report, since it looks like the "armor hardness" factor in his example for pulse lasers (20/65) comes pretty close to the chart i had linked

 

[goemon]

1. he clearly wrote the base damage differs not that much.
2. he clearly wrote that the damage is multiplied by the resists (=defences) of what it hits - shield or hull.
3. he clearly wrote that if the damage hits the hull (its still the SAME BASE) its also multplied by another factor that isn't applied when it hits shields.

and i have picked the beam lasers for the sole reason that they should not have different rate of fire, so DPS and Damage are aequivalent.

now, the tested damage vs. shields, where no other factor aside shield resists factors in, which is the same for any size according what he wrote (at the beginning and at the end of my quote).

you see a DPS aka Damage difference between a fixed large beam laser (30 dps) and a fixed small beam laser (11 dps). thats almost 200% more base damage on the large beam, and that is contradicting with the statement that the base (flat) damage doesnt differ that much.

actually, i consider posting this as bug report, since it looks like the "armor hardness" factor in his example for pulse lasers (20/65) comes pretty close to the chart i had linked

i see what you mean, but...

large laser: 8 T, medium laser 4 T, small laser 2 T - relation of mass 3 : 2 : 1, relation of damage 3 : 2 : 1

large laser are simply larger, and therefore deal more damage, smaller lasers are smaller, but neither the large one gets a damage bonus for "largeness" (agaist small ship shields), nor the small one gets one for being small (against large ships shields)

 

[NavyBee]

1. he clearly wrote the base damage differs not that much.
2. he clearly wrote that the damage is multiplied by the resists (=defences) of what it hits - shield or hull.
3. he clearly wrote that if the damage hits the hull (its still the SAME BASE) its also multplied by another factor that isn't applied when it hits shields.

and i have picked the beam lasers for the sole reason that they should not have different rate of fire, so DPS and Damage are aequivalent.

now, the tested damage vs. shields, where no other factor aside shield resists factors in, which is the same for any size according what he wrote (at the beginning and at the end of my quote).
you see a DPS aka Damage difference between a fixed large beam laser (30 dps) and a fixed small beam laser (11 dps). thats almost 200% more base damage on the large beam, and that is contradicting with the statement that the base (flat) damage doesnt differ that much.
actually, i consider posting this as bug report, since it looks like the "armor hardness" factor in his example for pulse lasers (20/65) comes pretty close to the chart i had linked

Thanks for the clarification, I understand where you are arguing from. Still, my interpretation of Mark Allen's statement

large weapons [...] don't actually do that much more flat damage than a small weapon but by piercing much better are far more effective against the harder target

is that damage does still scale somehow with weapon class, but not 1:1 with weapon mass, e.g.

mass: 8:4:2:1
class: 4:3:2:1

dps: 4:3:2:1 ??

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

Thanks for the clarification, I understand where you are arguing from. Still, my interpretation of Mark Allen's statement

is that damage does still scale somehow with weapon class, but not 1:1 with weapon mass, e.g.

they do against hull. thats what he wrote about the additional "pierce" vs. "hardness" modifier that is according his words, only applied to hull damage. the hardness is something completely hidden, and the "pierce" value is unclear. the equip screen shows something called "penetration rating", but that is most likely the modifier that controls how much of the damage goes to the hull, and how much to a subsystem, if a subsystem is hit.

my current interest is focused on shield damage.

if my suspicion is right, the damage scales like almost everything in that damage calculation in 20% steps.

small weapon = 100%
medium weapon = 120%
Large weapon = 140%

comparing the 21.62 DPS of the Large pulse laser vs. a large target, with the 9.35 DPS of the small pulse laser, i get a factor of 0.41 for the "penalised" small laser.
divide the 0.41 by a factor of 1.4 (aka the 140%), i end up with "0.31" -> and oh wonder, thats almost exactly the result of 20/65 pierce/hardness multiplier.

strange coincidient

 

[goemon]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140240

c3 beam fixed: 30 dps on shields, c2 beam fixed: 20 dps, c1 beam fixed: 10 dps. 3:2:1 as it is the mass of those weapons... coincidence?

 

[NavyBee]

[...]
my current interest is focused on shield damage.

if my suspicion is right, the damage scales like almost everything in that damage calculation in 20% steps.

small weapon = 100%
medium weapon = 120%
Large weapon = 140%

comparing the 21.62 DPS of the Large pulse laser vs. a large target, with the 9.35 DPS of the small pulse laser, i get a factor of 0.41 for the "penalised" small laser.
divide the 0.41 by a factor of 1.4 (aka the 140%), i end up with "0.31" -> and oh wonder, thats almost exactly the result of 20/65 pierce/hardness multiplier.
strange coincidient

... which would imply shield damage is bugged or rather not implemented in the way described by the designer. At the same time, the data we have also allows for the possibility that shield damage just works as described. In this case I go with Occam's razor, assuming -as long as no other data from testing against small ships' shields is available - that damage against shields is just a hitpoint vs. hitpoint calculation.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=140240

c3 beam fixed: 30 dps on shields, c2 beam fixed: 20 dps, c1 beam fixed: 10 dps. 3:2:1 as it is the mass of those weapons... coincidence?

AFAIK, the mass is 8:4:2:1, a class 4 weapon module weighs 16t, class 1 2 t?

Either way - I find this a great discussion we are having.

 

[goemon]

... which would imply shield damage is bugged or rather not implemented in the way described by the designer. At the same time, the data we have also allows for the possibility that shield damage just works as described. In this case I go with Occam's razor, assuming -as long as no other data from testing against small ships' shields is available - that damage against shields is just a hitpoint vs. hitpoint calculation.





AFAIK, the mass is 8:4:2:1, a class 4 weapon module weighs 16t, class 1 2 t?

Either way - I find this a great discussion we are having.

correct. 8:4:2:1. so, large weapons get a malus on shielddamage in mass/dps relation

 

[WR3ND]

correct. 8:4:2:1. so, large weapons get a malus on shielddamage in mass/dps relation

It would make more sense if larger weapons did more damage per their mass, but regarding game dynamics, it makes enough sense as it is now, I guess. We don't want larger ships too overpowered, do we?