Ships should suffer inertial damage

[Morbad]

Games with first-person fighter-like combat, like Elite: Dangerous, become a hell of a lot less fun when maneuverability and speed are lessened.

I think having to account for module placement/mass distribution, structural reinforcement trade-offs, cargo, passengers, etc, when deciding how hard to push those manuvering thrusters, would be a hell of a lot more fun. Indeed, the best first-person fighter-like combat games I've played took at least some of this sort of stuff into account, and you could readily back/redout or rip the wings off your aircraft by pushing things too far for the situation or loadout at hand.

Do you kill all those imperial slaves in your hold by trying to keep your Anaconda pointed at the Viper orbiting you? Do you armor all of your ship, or do you leave modules placed far from the center of rotation more exposed, so you can concentrate mass and protection near the middle for better manuverability? Can your ship, shot up as it is, even hold together if you do? Are you willing to take that risk? Maybe if you jettison some fuel/cargo/modules to lighten things up and/or keep them from crashing around...

All decisions I'd like to be able to make.

We don't need real-world constraints...it's fine if our ships and our CMDRs are considerably tougher than modern materials and people. However, the utter lack of limits deprives us of much gameplay potential.

 

[Morded]

There is inertial damage. Go to a station, advanced maintenance, and see the ship integrity. It decreases when you go from very high speeds to a stop, and works as a multiplier for other damage sources.

Edit: wrong word

 

[SpocksOddSocks]

There is inertial damage. Go to a station, advanced maintenance, and see the ship integrity. It decreases when you go from very high speeds to a stop, and works as a multiplier for other damage sources.

Edit: wrong word

I think integrity is solely related to distance travelled in supercruise and nothing else. I'm not 100% certain on that, but that's what I remember reading around three years ago.

 

[clivewil]

I think integrity is solely related to distance travelled in supercruise and nothing else. I'm not 100% certain on that, but that's what I remember reading around three years ago.

that was my understanding of it too. nothing i've seen since has caused me to think otherwise.

 

[fus roh potato]

Games with first-person fighter-like combat, like Elite: Dangerous, become a hell of a lot less fun when maneuverability and speed are lessened.

They also become a lot less fun when turn rates are no longer balancing factors because the largest ships can turn on a dime. It was fairly well balanced in 2.0. Now it's just ridiculous.

 

[Kamiyoda]

and works as a multiplier for other damage sources.

No it doesnt, it reduces your HP by a flat percentage.

 

[Stealthie]

Why do I get the feeling this is one of those things that's likely to end in tears, if implemented?

In practical terms, calculating everything from the effect of shields to the point-stresses applied during a collision in order to apply impact damage in a plausible manner is likely to be a nightmare.

You know that bit in The Last Jedi where purple-hair-woman decides to crash the Alliance ship into the Imperial flagship?
I'm not sure we want that in ED.

Equally, given the way some people already feel about shields, do we really want people in big ships with mega-shields to be able to steamroller through a battle, collecting up smaller ships like bugs on a windscreen?

 

[Morbad]

In practical terms, calculating everything from the effect of shields to the point-stresses applied during a collision in order to apply impact damage in a plausible manner is likely to be a nightmare.

It doesn't need to be especially detailed to give a credible approximation, especially compared to the current system that just assumes the ship is infinitely rigid and not subject to inertial stresses at all.

You know that bit in The Last Jedi where purple-hair-woman decides to crash the Alliance ship into the Imperial flagship?
I'm not sure we want that in ED.

Equally, given the way some people already feel about shields, do we really want people in big ships with mega-shields to be able to steamroller through a battle, collecting up smaller ships like bugs on a windscreen?

Taking momentum into account and increasing collision damage would make this considerably less of a thing than it is now. Before the reduction to collision damage collisions were generally something to be avoided because of the risk it presented to both ships, unless there was an enormous mass advantage. Now ships of similar masses regularly attempt ramming attacks against each other.

Large ships would still be able to crush smaller ones that didn't get out of the way for some reason (there is very little excuse for allowing one's self to be rammed when one is in the vastly more agile vessel), but it would be a more costly attack than it is now, and the smaller vessels would have a greater maneuverability advantage.

 

[Screemonster]

Honestly I'd like to see shield damage affect modules to a degree, whether from the jolt of going from 500m/s to 0 in the space of a second, or from other sources. Personally I'd like to see it applied to weapons fire too - not a huge amount, but enough to make shields less of a gamechanger over hulltanking. Think of Star Trek, when weapons hits will still toss the crew around and make panels fly open, even if the shields hold and there's no hull damage.

To avoid weapons getting trashed too fast, have MRPs treat them as internal modules for the purposes of protection and make modules not be directly targetable through shields - ie. a shield strike that does x damage will have that damage spread across every module slot the ship has with weighting according to the size of the slot and the typical integrity of a module that size (damage to empty slots or those which are equipped with undamageable modules such as HRPs is wasted, so unequipping a module doesn't magically make all your other modules more vulnerable)

To avoid any particular weapon being the ultimate modulekiller, divorce resistances from this entirely. Have the armour penetration value play a part, however, so things like the cytoscrambler don't end up becoming accidentally OP. Likewise have shield pips reduce the damage (possibly by substituting for the armour hardness value when compared to the pen value of the weapon)

With this, a megashield will still be a potent defence, preventing things like plant-sniping as well as greatly adding to your health pool, but you'll no longer be able to hang out in a CZ literally forever as those little rail-eagles will eventually wear your modules down to the point of malfunctions.

 

[Autoculto]

Well if you want that sort of then there would be a load of crash damaged buildings on surface ports and outposts

 

[Morbad]

Well if you want that sort of then there would be a load of crash damaged buildings on surface ports and outposts

Indeed, I'd expect very stringent traffic control laws to prevent just such damage and severe penalties for those that violated them, or who otherwise behaved in a reckless manner around expensive structures. Deviating from one's assigned flight corridor should result in stern warnings, followed quickly by a devastating barrage of surface-to-sky fire to reduce the offender to pieces small enough to significantly mitigate any damage.

 

[xxThe_Dice_manxx]

Honestly I'd like to see shield damage affect modules to a degree, whether from the jolt of going from 500m/s to 0 in the space of a second, or from other sources. Personally I'd like to see it applied to weapons fire too - not a huge amount, but enough to make shields less of a gamechanger over hulltanking. Think of Star Trek, when weapons hits will still toss the crew around and make panels fly open, even if the shields hold and there's no hull damage.

To avoid weapons getting trashed too fast, have MRPs treat them as internal modules for the purposes of protection and make modules not be directly targetable through shields - ie. a shield strike that does x damage will have that damage spread across every module slot the ship has with weighting according to the size of the slot and the typical integrity of a module that size (damage to empty slots or those which are equipped with undamageable modules such as HRPs is wasted, so unequipping a module doesn't magically make all your other modules more vulnerable)

To avoid any particular weapon being the ultimate modulekiller, divorce resistances from this entirely. Have the armour penetration value play a part, however, so things like the cytoscrambler don't end up becoming accidentally OP. Likewise have shield pips reduce the damage (possibly by substituting for the armour hardness value when compared to the pen value of the weapon)

With this, a megashield will still be a potent defence, preventing things like plant-sniping as well as greatly adding to your health pool, but you'll no longer be able to hang out in a CZ literally forever as those little rail-eagles will eventually wear your modules down to the point of malfunctions.

I had not thought of it before but shouldn't large weapon strikes effect momentum or does it? I can't say I have noticed getting blasted and the ship veering off in the opposite direction.Only when I collide with another ship will this happen and not very realistically.

My thoughts are that as long as the shield is up you should take little to no interior damage , you should feel impacts as in ship shaking and maybe very slight integrity damage.

This ramming thing needs looking at as it does not seem to be working right to me but what do what I know about physics is very little.

 

[Kenneth McGrew]

Yup. And FD knows it, which is why they proposed a change (including diminishing returns on boosters). But people were really very very very very very upset that they would no longer be invulnerable so they backed of it, promising to revisit the idea 'soon'.

Lol

 

[lovely lovely]

"If a plane crashes into the ground it crushes onto itself and disintegrates, shield or no shield."

cool, which planes have shields please?

 

[Ian Skippy]

i would like to see crashes on planets without the ship to explode.





it might be a lot of work to implement, space legs necessary too

Not really. You could simply have collissions do module damage. If thrusters are down, you are stranded without AFMU.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Lol

Yeah, I think 'lol' is the only appropriate response.

 

[Cmdr Nemo]

Should they fix the ramming issue. Then they should also fix the ability to do combat if and when one has passenger's. ANY and all movements a ship was to do regardless of their being the victim or aggresor, would cause any and all passengers to be tossed around in their suites like a lone pea in a pod. Banging off the bulkheads, deck, furniture. Not to mention spilling their drinks.

I mean you board a transit bus to go somewhere, when all of a sudden, the driver starts driving like an combat pilot being attacked by roadmen (pirates). Even if he's the victim, any and all evasive manovers, is going to bounce one around like a lone pea in a pod. Hence the reason some passenger include in there mission description, no hull damage.

 

[QUASAR-M]

OP, you are normal, and very reasonable. The current collision model is laughable and should not be left as it is. The shields shouldn't even engage in collisions with objects with a mass larger than... x percent of the ships mass, or with a velocity under x. The shields should engage only when high velocity projectiles and objects with a mass up to let's say X % of the ships mass are on collision course with the ship hull, in order to give any credibility. Is this EliteANGEROUS or Pinball? Or should it be dangerous only when one gets ganked? I want it dangerous all the way, especially in areas where one can improve and become a better pilot.
I'm sick of seeing bouncing ships. I don't expect damage models aso, just a bit of decency. It really bugs me since day 1 when I've played ED. All those who say is ok to have these odd pinball like collisions, maybe should play Pinball instead? ED bleeds credibility all over. At least it should stay credible in some aspects, and iron out these glaring immersion breaking issues first and foremost. This is an eye popping thing that i see over and over again, reminding me that hey, this is just a planetarium with mini-games that I'm navigating, and the ships are nothing more than placeholder for camera viewpoints. And it is really not. I love this game for so many aspects. But this glaring BUG reminds way to often... it is just a game that lacks big time in some aspects.

 

[amadeus1171]

I've flown on a lot of planes... Never saw one with a shield...

This actually made me laugh. lol

 

[amadeus1171]

Why do I get the feeling this is one of those things that's likely to end in tears, if implemented?

In practical terms, calculating everything from the effect of shields to the point-stresses applied during a collision in order to apply impact damage in a plausible manner is likely to be a nightmare.

You know that bit in The Last Jedi where purple-hair-woman decides to crash the Alliance ship into the Imperial flagship?
I'm not sure we want that in ED.

Equally, given the way some people already feel about shields, do we really want people in big ships with mega-shields to be able to steamroller through a battle, collecting up smaller ships like bugs on a windscreen?

And why not? Big ships should be able to steamroller over smaller ships. As it stand small ships can steamroller, in another way, over big ships with shield killing torpedoes. That ain't right...