News Discussion with Mark Allen on damage and defenses

[Mark Allen]

Maybe I can clarify my comment of
"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"

The intent is to point out that the flat damage variation is much smaller than the effective damage. To pick some numbers for the C1/C3 fixed beams vs stock sidewinder/anaconda hulls (note that I'm ignoring a few static modifiers for simplicity, like armour reduction).

Sidey (hardness 20)
C1 beam (base dps ~10, piercing 18) - total DPS = 9
C3 beam (base dps~25, piercing 50) - total DPS = 25
- C3 beam is 2.8 times as effective as C1.

Anaconda (hardness 65)
C1 beam (base dps ~10, piercing 18) - total DPS = 2.8
C3 beam (base dps~25, piercing 50) - total DPS = 19
- C3 beam is 6.8 times as effective as C1.

Against shields you do get the unmodified numbers which are more or less in line with the table Bunkerkind Anni posted furthr up. I'll admit a 2.5 times difference from C1-C3 is bigger than I thought when writing the post originally (I was writing from memory) but it's still a lot smaller than the 6.8 (or higher) it can be!

In general I've tried to keep the original post about mechanics which are unlikely to change massively, and avoid specific data is it does change fairly frequently (there's bigger changes over the umm...horizon ). This time actual numbers might help though.

 

[SushiCW]

Against shields you do get the unmodified numbers which are more or less in line with the table Bunkerkind Anni posted furthr up. I'll admit a 2.5 times difference from C1-C3 is bigger than I thought when writing the post originally (I was writing from memory) but it's still a lot smaller than the 6.8 (or higher) it can be!

The numbers I've been using as "rule of thumb" is that going up a class multiplies your raw damage by 1.5. So C2 is 1.5x C1 and C3 is 2.25x C1. I feel like this lines up fairly well with most weapons.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

thanks for clarification.

but really,x2.5 is by far not that small as you made it sound earlier.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

now, just a little bit math, regarding those damage numbers:

the sidey has 210 hitpoints if equipping reactive armor (because of the 1x thermal multiplier)
the conda has 1838 hitpoints with same armor

sideys combined two lasers would do theoretical 18 DPS, and need 102 seconds to bring down the condas hitpoints if it could sustain them for that duration
the condas combined three large laser would do 75 DPS, and need 2.8 seconds to bring down the sideys hitpoints, after 1 second for the shields.

what was that about "not one-shotting" things ?

the intresting part is actually, the "uselessness" of two small hardpoints on the federal corvette, compared to the one large the anaconda has more as forward firepower.
to bring down shields, those two smalls combined have 80% of the firepower of one large
to continue against the hull, their damage then is dwarfed down to ~30%.

is this correct?

 

[goemon]

is this correct?

depends on weapons loadout (which kind of lasers? or railguns?), but basically: yes.

 

[taleden]

It's a little misleading, though. Comparing 2 hardpoints to 3 hardpoints is hardly fair (if you're going to do that, why not just factor in all 8 on the Anaconda?), and the Anaconda is also a bit of an outlier on hull strength: 945 is a full 150% of the 2nd toughest hull (630 on the new Federal Gunship) and 175% of the 3rd toughest (540 on the Federal Assault and Dropships).

So yes, large weapons are definitely going to chew through small hulls faster than small weapons will get through large hulls, but that hardly seems surprising or inappropriate. And in practice, a small ship going up against a larger ship should be trying to use its superior agility to avoid getting hit in the first place.

 

[Almighty Bob]

You can see that Elite fans want this kind of information and it's fantastic that ED Developers are responding with more information. Thanks!

I picked this post at random from the other similar ones to support this new communication style from the FD. It is a great new feature, I just hope that we all remember that are treating the laws of physics with a little artistic licence.


I am really looking forward to the one that explains what happens when I accidently hit the wrong right panel option and switch off the module that work my engines whilst at full speed in SC.

 

[Winterwalker]

I am really looking forward to the one that explains what happens when I accidently hit the wrong right panel option and switch off the module that work my engines whilst at full speed in SC.

Well, while you can turn off thrusters, you can't switch off your powerplant;
Supercruise is a form of warp-drive, thrusters have no effect in SC.

I agree though, these interviews with developers and insights into how the game (ships) work are great.

 

[WR3ND]

Well, while you can turn off thrusters, you can't switch off your powerplant;
Supercruise is a form of warp-drive, thrusters have no effect in SC.

I agree though, these interviews with developers and insights into how the game (ships) work are great.

Have you tried turning off your thrusters in supercruise?

 

[Almighty Bob]

Well, while you can turn off thrusters, you can't switch off your powerplant;
Supercruise is a form of warp-drive, thrusters have no effect in SC.

I agree though, these interviews with developers and insights into how the game (ships) work are great.

I was in a long SC in a system and started playing around so that I had a low signature when I exited I hit something maybe my FSD engine and boom into normal space with damage.

So I am looking forward to an explanation of faster than light travel, sorry for the confusion with engines and drives or whatever it is. You can do it though by hitting your SC button twice whilst in super cruise, the first time it says WOOOO do you really want to do that if so do it again, hit it again and bang out you come a bit like an instant interdiction.

It may even be good tactic

 

[WR3ND]

As I understand the "science" of it, the FSD bends or compresses space, but your thrusters push you through that compessed space. That's why you need both in supercruise. (Random fun fact, supercruise is an actual thing that some jets are capable of, only for them it basically means traveling at faster than the speed of sound without using afterburners, which is more fuel efficient, at least as I recall.)

 

[Yokoshima]

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:
http://i.imgur.com/vivPX1e.png

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

But the DPE is about the same.

 

[Yokoshima]

Maybe I can clarify my comment of
"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"

The intent is to point out that the flat damage variation is much smaller than the effective damage. To pick some numbers for the C1/C3 fixed beams vs stock sidewinder/anaconda hulls (note that I'm ignoring a few static modifiers for simplicity, like armour reduction).

Sidey (hardness 20)
C1 beam (base dps ~10, piercing 18) - total DPS = 9
C3 beam (base dps~25, piercing 50) - total DPS = 25
- C3 beam is 2.8 times as effective as C1.

Anaconda (hardness 65)
C1 beam (base dps ~10, piercing 18) - total DPS = 2.8
C3 beam (base dps~25, piercing 50) - total DPS = 19
- C3 beam is 6.8 times as effective as C1.

Against shields you do get the unmodified numbers which are more or less in line with the table Bunkerkind Anni posted furthr up. I'll admit a 2.5 times difference from C1-C3 is bigger than I thought when writing the post originally (I was writing from memory) but it's still a lot smaller than the 6.8 (or higher) it can be!

In general I've tried to keep the original post about mechanics which are unlikely to change massively, and avoid specific data is it does change fairly frequently (there's bigger changes over the umm...horizon ). This time actual numbers might help though.

Is there anywhere that ship hardness and weapon penetration values are posted?

 

[Xanador]

Hi Mark,

is there any chance to estimate the healthpoints of the inner modules for each ship, so that we can see which one can be used as hull tank? Do they only depend on rating and class or are there any other multipliers?
I mean no exact numbers but something like "ships with more initial armor/ smaller profile... also have tougher (more covered, smaller bubbles) modules"

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

can we please have at least some "numbers" for missiles?

not only do they have a third damage type that is nowhere else mentioned ("explosive"),
the also have AoE damage that is not explained how it is applied to a target (aka can they multiple internals?)
the "penetration" value of the warhead is unclear, since the medium launcher just has more ammo, i suppose its shooting the same missiles.

the penetration "fix" of all weapons has further nerfed missiles. I can't even kill a mere eagle with two missiles after shields down -> and that when there is a great chance for them to miss, or getting shot down by any other weapon that shoots at the target.

someone please dig up those numbers and realise whats wrong

 

[SHADEVARI]

MOVED: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=197073

 

[JB_Jumper]

Mark, the post is just great as it gives good insight into the basic mechanics of how damage and defenses work. I hope you will give us more insight if changes from Version 1.5 and Horizons are noteworthy. Keep up the good work!!