Awesome damage model during Kickstarter! What happened to it???

Thynome · Jan 31, 2015

This video is from the official FD YouTube channel, uploaded at the end of the Kickstarter campaign.
http://youtu.be/Xg9k7E4ngFw
Braben says only ingame material was shown so I'm wondering why they removed this awesone detailed damage system??? It is CLEARLY more realistic than this "I shoot until you've reached 0%" system we got now...

What do you guys think? Would you also want to have the detailed system shown in the vid over the the current one?

If someone from the FD team reads this, please explain why you changed it. And if I can hope to see it someday ingame by myself.

rote1 · Jan 31, 2015

I like it a lot, when can we have it?

kelticfury · Jan 31, 2015

Yes, I could get behind that.

DextersIndignation · Jan 31, 2015

We want this....

Also more PE SL profits

Tinman · Jan 31, 2015

The bigger ships like the Anaconda actually already has damage states implemented:

Maybe not to the extreme level we saw during the Kickstarter, but it's there. I guess we might see more as they start to model the interiors properly in the future expansions.

Jake Zane · Jan 31, 2015

You can see damage. Especially if you get close enough, but in that video there's no cockpit view so it doesn't really seem the same.

Oddity · Jan 31, 2015

Well, they kept the key aspects; dumb fire missile own larger ships, Anacondas underperform in battles and turret are mostly for firework.
scnr -.-

WO-One · Jan 31, 2015

I agree and understood it was the reason behind the ships being fully designed from the inside out, not just so we could (one day) walk around inside them.

Snakebite · Jan 31, 2015

Thynome said:
This video is from the official FD YouTube channel, uploaded at the end of the Kickstarter campaign.
http://youtu.be/Xg9k7E4ngFw
Braben says only ingame material was shown so I'm wondering why they removed this awesone detailed damage system??? It is CLEARLY more realistic than this "I shoot until you've reached 0%" system we got now...

What do you guys think? Would you also want to have the detailed system shown in the vid over the the current one?

If someone from the FD team reads this, please explain why you changed it. And if I can hope to see it someday ingame by myself.

Please remember that this is an early access, more features will be added....

Jordan Cobalt · Jan 31, 2015

Snakebite said:
Please remember that this is an early access, more features will be added....

If this was sarcasm I missed it

It looks like it was already working and they removed it for some reason. It's a shame because it looked pretty cool.

Loskene · Jan 31, 2015

Damage models are in game, if you get close enough you can see the other ships riddled with bulletholes and having bits and pieces flying off them. We just don't seem to get massive critical hull damage effects, with entire sections of the ships missing yet. I figure this would be rare to see in combat though, most of the weaponry in the game doesn't inflict that kind of massive damage unless we get ordnance that detonates after piercing the hull. So far it's mostly armour piercing for taking out subsystems and the damage model tends to match that level of destruction.

3BC3E6D0443E47D6D7B65DD0076AD3C11FCB57B2

Thynome · Jan 31, 2015

Jake Zane said:
You can see damage. Especially if you get close enough, but in that video there's no cockpit view so it doesn't really seem the same.

Nah, not really. Just some sparks you can see randomly while damaging and then a sudden boom. Sometimes when I'm really concentrated while fighting and don't pay attention to the enemy's holo, I'm really like "Huh, already dead??". Because you don't see a bit of destruction until it makes boom.

But I hope Frontier had just some problems with the old system and will bring it back later...

Apostle · Jan 31, 2015

Agree this would be great but would like to see some more actual meat on the bones of this game first. Better missions, dangerous areas, things to find and do.

Sernimble · Jan 31, 2015

I've actually wondered when this portion of the kickstarter stuff would be implemented. When I was watching it during the Kickstarter, I was thinking that variable performance by damage would be implemented also. Thrusters damaged at 75% shouldn't perform the same as brand new ones, etc.

Hopefully they will implement and sooner rather than later. Not just on the 'big' ships either.

Tinman · Jan 31, 2015

Sernimble said:
I've actually wondered when this portion of the kickstarter stuff would be implemented. When I was watching it during the Kickstarter, I was thinking that variable performance by damage would be implemented also. Thrusters damaged at 75% shouldn't perform the same as brand new ones, etc.

Hopefully they will implement and sooner rather than later. Not just on the 'big' ships either.

Damaged components have a higher likelihood of malfunctioning already. This has been in the game since Alpha 1. The effect seem to have been dialed down though in the later stages of development and personally I would like them to increase the likelihood for this happening a bit again.

They never intended for decreased performance of components when hit since this means a "spiral of doom" for whoever is hit first, which isn't fun. If you target a thruster and blow it away with your first railgun shot the opponent would automatically lose that fight since he/she no longer can maneuver efficiently. That is why damage to subsystems increase likelihood for malfunctions instead of reducing performance.

Loskene · Jan 31, 2015

Tinman said:
Damaged components have a higher likelihood of malfunctioning already. This has been in the game since Alpha 1. The effect seem to have been dialed down though in the later stages of development and personally I would like them to increase the likelihood for this happening a bit again.

They never intended for decreased performance of components when hit since this means a "spiral of doom" for whoever is hit first, which isn't fun. If you target a thruster and blow it away with your first railgun shot the opponent would automatically lose that fight since he/she no longer can maneuver efficiently. That is why damage to subsystems increase likelihood for malfunctions instead of reducing performance.

Yeah I'd like to think these rugged, spaceworn, heavy duty, long haul starships that we're flying have enough high tech subsystem redundancy to be able to operate with only minor malfunctions when heavily damaged. They should be able to patch around fried circuits and destroyed components on the fly to get the remaining working bits to compensate for their loss.
If you compare these ships as the 34th century equivalent of today's armoured cars, designed for hostile environments and direct attacks from similar craft, you'd have the same expectation of safety systems and redundancy to keep you and your assets secure.
Thrusters running just a little bit shaky even though they've lost 75% health? Think of them like runflat tires. Each of those thruster banks have more than one point of thrust, to maintain attitude control in the event of catastrophic failure. I shouldn't expect to see more than ablated armour coming off a ship until its reactor overheats and explodes. When we start getting armour-piercing missiles that detonate after impact and destroy subsystems outright, I'll think differently.

Jordan Cobalt · Jan 31, 2015

Loskene said:
Thrusters running just a little bit shaky even though they've lost 75% health? Think of them like runflat tires. Each of those thruster banks have more than one point of thrust, to maintain attitude control in the event of catastrophic failure. I shouldn't expect to see more than ablated armour coming off a ship until its reactor overheats and explodes. When we start getting armour-piercing missiles that detonate after impact and destroy subsystems outright, I'll think differently.

Um run flat tires don't even compare in complexity to what would have to insanely complex thrusters. put a couple of bullets into a cars engine and see if it runs at 100% capacity expect with occasional cut outs.