armor - subsystems - why isn't this getting fixed in 1.3?

[Darth Ender]

You have subsystems (supposedly items located in various specific spots around your ship that usually can only be hit directly). These subsystems have a certain damage limit before destroyed/disabled.

You have armor. This should sit on top of subsystems (most, but some are not). This armor (and the armor reinforcement modules) have a certain damage limit until you are destroyed.

The Concept: modules with hull on top (internal modules) have an initial damage variable that is equal to the ship's armor hp. This has to reach 0 before shots begin damaging the module. Overall armor health reduction doesn't affect the specific armor health on a given submodule. This simulates exposing a module so that it can be damaged.

This doesn't appear to be a very complicated behavior and it would go a long way towards fixing the uselessness of armor in general.


As of beta 6 I haven't heard of this being implemented in any form.

 

[Bazorlag]

No idea, it´s one of the big flaws in this game. Surface components should be easier to kill and internals should require some really big sticks (maybe torpedo or something, that poor thing is pretty useless atm).

 

[CyberGrim]

yep, I hope that they will address this next. It is pointless to upgrade your ship with armour or the or hull reinforcement as every one just goes for the engine or power modules.

 

[Morbad]

The Concept: modules with hull on top (internal modules) have an initial damage variable that is equal to the ship's armor hp. This has to reach 0 before shots begin damaging the module. Overall armor health reduction doesn't affect the specific armor health on a given submodule. This simulates exposing a module so that it can be damaged.

I do not like this at all.

These are very lightweight craft, in terms of volume to mass ratio. Virtually no concievable part of any ship's internal volume is protected by true hard cover. It's mostly concealment, except when you have to pass through the entire volume of the ship, or are shooting from a very shallow angle.

Having to shoot off armor over modules is like me having to shoot out a window before being able to shoot someone on the other side of that window...this only makes sense with the weakest of weapons, which in ED already have correspondingly poor armor penetration.

Angle of attack and location within the craft already matter. Modules on most ships are already rather well protected except from close range with near perpendicular angles. It's on the pilot of a craft to not make their critical components easy targets.

There the only change to the current system I would find plausible and beneficial is if armored bulkheads reduced penetration in addition to reducing hull damage.

As of beta 6 I haven't heard of this being implemented in any form.

Good, because it's silly.

 

[Rall]

I do not like this at all.

These are very lightweight craft, in terms of volume to mass ratio. Virtually no concievable part of any ship's internal volume is protected by true hard cover. It's mostly concealment, except when you have to pass through the entire volume of the ship, or are shooting from a very shallow angle.

Having to shoot off armor over modules is like me having to shoot out a window before being able to shoot someone on the other side of that window...this only makes sense with the weakest of weapons, which in ED already have correspondingly poor armor penetration.

Angle of attack and location within the craft already matter. Modules on most ships are already rather well protected except from close range with near perpendicular angles. It's on the pilot of a craft to not make their critical components easy targets.

There the only change to the current system I would find plausible and beneficial is if armored bulkheads reduced penetration in addition to reducing hull damage.



Good, because it's silly.

I agree, these ships are constucted more like aircraft than warships, the Anaconda is 180m long and only weighs the same as a modern unarmoured Naval Frigate.

IRL you don't shoot off armour, you penetrate it with weapons designed to pierce the belt. There's still can be indirect damage, through impact shock, vibrations etc. A direct frontal hit from an HE artillery shell on a modern Main Battle tank won't even put a dent in the armour, but there will be secondary effects from the explosion .i.e. Thrown tacks, damaged external sensor/comms, broken internal mountings, damaged electronics, ruptured line etc.

They just need make the armour and armour piercing weapons actually count for something. Internal modules receive the same under armour damage resistance that the hull does. Armour piercing weapons do just that, bypass armour and damage modules directly, requires a high degree of precision - Railguns, Fixed Lasers. Otherwise you need to deal indirect damage which has a much lesser effect, Cannon, PA's, Multicannon.

 

[Darth Ender]

I do not like this at all.

These are very lightweight craft, in terms of volume to mass ratio. Virtually no concievable part of any ship's internal volume is protected by true hard cover. It's mostly concealment, except when you have to pass through the entire volume of the ship, or are shooting from a very shallow angle.

Having to shoot off armor over modules is like me having to shoot out a window before being able to shoot someone on the other side of that window...this only makes sense with the weakest of weapons, which in ED already have correspondingly poor armor penetration.

Angle of attack and location within the craft already matter. Modules on most ships are already rather well protected except from close range with near perpendicular angles. It's on the pilot of a craft to not make their critical components easy targets.

There the only change to the current system I would find plausible and beneficial is if armored bulkheads reduced penetration in addition to reducing hull damage.



Good, because it's silly.

You either only trade or only explore because nobody working with combat would agree that subsystems should be entirely exposed and armor upgrades shouldn't affect them.

What you get is a "shields or run" mentality as everyone will target subsystems which inevitably are destroyed long before your overall hull would have failed (regardless of weapons...which contradicts what rall wants to have everyone believe in the following post to yours).

In order for non-shielded gameplay to exist, hull upgrades and reinforcements need to augment the damagability of subsystems. I'm sorry but that's the end of the story.

Armor penetration and such stats dont mean anything when your subsystems are not protected by armor.

Higher armor penetration seems to just mean how much hull damage you inflict vs just being affective against shields. All weapons will more than happily eat up a subsystem and ignore any kind of hull upgrades or reinforcements you may have. Effectively making the hull a pointless attribute (and thus the upgrades and modules that affect it) to all but those players with the poorest aim.

 

[Bazorlag]

Does the penetration rating at fitting screen actually mean anything? Because it gives stuff like pulse and beam lasers rating A. Personally I find that ludicrious.

 

[Synther]

I've been thinking about a Paperdoll like system for some time now. Think of it similar to mechwarrior.

http://www.destructoid.com//ul/user/6/64202-240691-paperdollHUDjpg-620x.jpg

Modules and w/e have armor that surround them but after the armor is stripped the internals get exposed. What we have right now is the internals already exposed with a fixed overall health being the hull.

 

[Draggin]

I agree, these ships are constucted more like aircraft than warships, the Anaconda is 180m long and only weighs the same as a modern unarmoured Naval Frigate.

IRL you don't shoot off armour, you penetrate it with weapons designed to pierce the belt. There's still can be indirect damage, through impact shock, vibrations etc. A direct frontal hit from an HE artillery shell on a modern Main Battle tank won't even put a dent in the armour, but there will be secondary effects from the explosion .i.e. Thrown tacks, damaged external sensor/comms, broken internal mountings, damaged electronics, ruptured line etc.

They just need make the armour and armour piercing weapons actually count for something. Internal modules receive the same under armour damage resistance that the hull does. Armour piercing weapons do just that, bypass armour and damage modules directly, requires a high degree of precision - Railguns, Fixed Lasers. Otherwise you need to deal indirect damage which has a much lesser effect, Cannon, PA's, Multicannon.

Salute Commanders!

Rall, do you REALLY believe that stuff you just wrote? There is a reason subsystems are armored, AND the different armor types.(I hope) What aircraft do you want to compare? WWI, WWII, Modern day? How bout tanks? How bout the Real armor value of sea vessels? I can do the WWI, WWII, and tanks, but not modern day sea vessels. although I do have to say ships don't sink in space. Hopefully hull breaches are prepared for at this games day and age.
That window, in space, is RESISTANT at least, if not bullet proof. That armor, if not totally whateverproof, should be resistant at least.. not paper.
I agree that energy weapons for energy shielding, then kinetic weapons for armor plating is completely logical. But penetrate that armor FIRST before the subsystem is damaged, or there is no reason at all for armor on your ship.
Now engines are another matter entirely....

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

ED's damage model is very primitive; I think we all would like to see more complexity, without obvious vulnerability (or at least you need to work hard to exploit that vulnerability)

As I see it now, ED ships are most similar to WW1 fighter aircraft with simple canvas or aluminium skin over the airframe and internals - no effective armour over subsystems, or covering the subsystems themselves. I want to see subsystems armoured in of themselves (and then under the main armour).

Hull Reinforcements appear useless, not even increasing proportionally the amount of damage that needs to be dealt to a subsytem to destroy it. It only appears to help if the attacker is not targeting a subsystem.

Reinforced, Military Composite, Mirrored and Reactive probably reduce the effective damage dealt by weapons to subsystems, but its hard to see through the variability, there's a RNG for damage in there too it seems).

 

[Rall]

Salute Commanders!

Rall, do you REALLY believe that stuff you just wrote? There is a reason subsystems are armored, AND the different armor types.(I hope) What aircraft do you want to compare? WWI, WWII, Modern day? How bout tanks? How bout the Real armor value of sea vessels? I can do the WWI, WWII, and tanks, but not modern day sea vessels. although I do have to say ships don't sink in space. Hopefully hull breaches are prepared for at this games day and age.
That window, in space, is RESISTANT at least, if not bullet proof. That armor, if not totally whateverproof, should be resistant at least.. not paper.
I agree that energy weapons for energy shielding, then kinetic weapons for armor plating is completely logical. But penetrate that armor FIRST before the subsystem is damaged, or there is no reason at all for armor on your ship.
Now engines are another matter entirely....

I'm in agreement with you, maybe my wording is confusing? The weapon all have armour piercing stats in ED, they just are pointless as the subsystem aren't actually under the armour even if you equip armour in game the subsystem are just as easily damaged, there's nothing to pierce.

It's like building a battleship and putting your engines and magazine unprotected on the deck.

 

[Zplintz]

It's not being 'fixed' because FD don't consider it broken.

Personally I don't like how vulnerable some key systems are once shields are down. It seems to make any kind of armour tanking pointless.

However making sub system invulnerable until hull is down would make aiming at sub systems pointless instead.

What would work better than we have now?

 

[Schattenbogen]

You have armor. This should sit on top of subsystems (most, but some are not). This armor (and the armor reinforcement modules) have a certain damage limit until you are destroyed.

The Concept: modules with hull on top (internal modules) have an initial damage variable that is equal to the ship's armor hp. This has to reach 0 before shots begin damaging the module. Overall armor health reduction doesn't affect the specific armor health on a given submodule. This simulates exposing a module so that it can be damaged.

I'm really not sure ED developers knows much about combat ships or aircraft.

Since 1910 when it was introduced for the first time, and surely since World War 2, all combat ships are based on "All-or-Nothing" protection :
Do not protect minor parts of the ships in order to better protect essential part of the ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_or_nothing_(armor)

When buying armor upgrade, it should better protect all essential part of the ships, powerplant to begin with, per extension all the fixed modules (which type cannot be changed) and not the non essential part such as fuel scoop or cargo.

 

[edgar]

I think the armour should better protect subsystems too, but not all of them equally. Things like Weapons and Thrusters, which are necessarily exposed, should remain more vulnerable. However it would make sense to me if Hull Reenforcement added extra protection to modules you would expect to be buried deeper within a ship's hull.

The added armour effect ideally applied to modules would vary depending on the particular ship as well, for example maybe the armour for a Conda is better at protecting its powerplant, but the same armour on a Clipper protects the powerplant less because it is more exposed in the Clipper's design.

I would also like it if lasers did significantly less hull damage, but instead applied heat damage in the targeted ship's modules, causing malfunctions.

 

[Mogz]

You have subsystems (supposedly items located in various specific spots around your ship that usually can only be hit directly). These subsystems have a certain damage limit before destroyed/disabled.

You have armor. This should sit on top of subsystems (most, but some are not). This armor (and the armor reinforcement modules) have a certain damage limit until you are destroyed.

The Concept: modules with hull on top (internal modules) have an initial damage variable that is equal to the ship's armor hp. This has to reach 0 before shots begin damaging the module. Overall armor health reduction doesn't affect the specific armor health on a given submodule. This simulates exposing a module so that it can be damaged.

This doesn't appear to be a very complicated behavior and it would go a long way towards fixing the uselessness of armor in general.


As of beta 6 I haven't heard of this being implemented in any form.

great idea, something that is definately needed to ease a little the dependancy on shields for survivability, would even make armour/hull tanking a viable option depending on how it would be implemented

 

[Huita]

Nothing to say here, just "yes, we need this".

 

[Vasious]

I think the armour should better protect subsystems too, but not all of them equally. Things like Weapons and Thrusters, which are necessarily exposed, should remain more vulnerable. However it would make sense to me if Hull Reenforcement added extra protection to modules you would expect to be buried deeper within a ship's hull.

The added armour effect ideally applied to modules would vary depending on the particular ship as well, for example maybe the armour for a Conda is better at protecting its powerplant, but the same armour on a Clipper protects the powerplant less because it is more exposed in the Clipper's design.

I would also like it if lasers did significantly less hull damage, but instead applied heat damage in the targeted ship's modules, causing malfunctions.

I like this point of view,
Adding some sort of game play where one targets sub systems beyond the power plant.
Opponent has good shields aim for the generator
Opponent using gimbals and turreted weapons, smoke his sensors
Opponent has one of those fancy Power Play weapons, burn it off their ship

 

[Unfluffydave]

I agree, these ships are constucted more like aircraft than warships, the Anaconda is 180m long and only weighs the same as a modern unarmoured Naval Frigate.

Many aircraft, especially in WW2 had armour around vital components.

IRL you don't shoot off armour, you penetrate it with weapons designed to pierce the belt. There's still can be indirect damage, through impact shock, vibrations etc. A direct frontal hit from an HE artillery shell on a modern Main Battle tank won't even put a dent in the armour, but there will be secondary effects from the explosion .i.e. Thrown tacks, damaged external sensor/comms, broken internal mountings, damaged electronics, ruptured line etc.

What is wrong with having the armour on a ship be ablative rather than plain resistant? take a look at how armour works in Fracture Space for example.

They just need make the armour and armour piercing weapons actually count for something. Internal modules receive the same under armour damage resistance that the hull does. Armour piercing weapons do just that, bypass armour and damage modules directly, requires a high degree of precision - Railguns, Fixed Lasers. Otherwise you need to deal indirect damage which has a much lesser effect, Cannon, PA's, Multicannon.

Exactly, as it is now armour is irrelevant and is just something to make your ship heavier.

 

[Sendraks]

Exactly, as it is now armour is irrelevant and is just something to make your ship heavier.

Agreed.
Also, having other modules as targets is also pretty irrelevant because in the vast majority of situations people just target the powerplant or engines. The cargo hatch makes sense for pirates.
That's really about it.

It really shouldn't be as easy as it is to target those key modules and pop a vessel. As others have said, it renders armour pointless outside of PvE and places all the emphasis on a ships ability to shield itself.

The ability to damage modules and how armour interacts with them needs a re-think by FD.

 

[Muetdhiver]

This should be a priority fix combat wise, it makes for poor gameplay so far.

Armor damage reduction should apply to all sub-systems, even exernal ones. Also, somebody fitting
reactive armor should be pretty much immune to small arms fire like multicannon rounds.
Maybe via some bounce mechanic ?

Hull packages should apply to the internal modules, and maybe have a 50% effect on external ones.

The problem is not just armor though, the hitboxes would have to be fixed so that powerplant cannot be hit from
the front of a dropship for exemple.

Also, even if the powerplant issue is fixed (maybe having its output reduced to some x% of emergency power when
reaching 0% instead of boom), then the drive will be the next issue. Maybe leaving it at x% thrust when reaching 0%
would be ok (emergency thrust, using cold fuel as reaction mass, i.e. should drain the fuel tank mighty fast ^^).

If FD was to introduce sensor vs chaff/ecm mechanic, then targeting the sensors may be an interesting options.
The more 'viable' options available, the better the gameplay will be.