[Explained] Hull and Armor Damage Mechanics: Hardness, Piercing, Etc.
- Thread starter Frenotx
- Start date
It was specifically mentioned at the time they released it that the FDL had special coating that made it more resistant to small arms, Its nice to see they weren't making it up I wasn't entirely sure they let it through lol.
If you wanted a possible error in the anaconda readout I've always found that its extremely difficult to actually hit an area on a conda to do full hull damage, you almost always hit some module somewhere on its hull and that reduces the damage the hull takes as far as I can tell. I almost felt this particular stat was bugged for the conda as it doesn't happen as badly on any other ship.
Lost track of the number if cannon shots i've wasted on 10% condas -_-
If you wanted a possible error in the anaconda readout I've always found that its extremely difficult to actually hit an area on a conda to do full hull damage, you almost always hit some module somewhere on its hull and that reduces the damage the hull takes as far as I can tell. I almost felt this particular stat was bugged for the conda as it doesn't happen as badly on any other ship.
Lost track of the number if cannon shots i've wasted on 10% condas -_-
Last edited:
The S/M/L, 0%/33%/66% reduction thing was meant to be more of a ballpark / rule of thumb / general picture sort of thing. Note that with that rule of thumb, a ship's "size" is determined by its maximum sized weapon hardpoint. The actual numbers are obviously a bit more complicated, but keeping in mind that small weapons are going to be resisted a bit by medium ships, and resisted a lot by large ones is really the take-home message.
If I had damaged a module instead of hull with some of those shots, they would have appeared to do less damage to the hull, which would have led to my calculated HFV being higher than the true value, not lower.
As for the FDL, its armour certainly is some high quality stuff. If you consider what other ships weren't in the game yet when the FDL was added, its armour is even more impressive. It really was in its own league when it was first introduced.
without really bothering to look over the numbers too much.
you were wondering why the anaconda seemed to be so squishy in comparison to some.
Could it be that the hull weight could also be a factor?
If you look at the corvette and cutter their hull weight alone is about double the anaconda (the anaconda is a giant balloon really its only 400T which is part of why its such a good exploration ship)
I mean I imagine its completely irrelevant (or should be anyways) but considering the T9, Corvette and cutter are the 3 heaviest ships (on hull alone) and they got the highest numbers on these numbers you are providing.
I don't know like I said just skimmed through it quickly too lazy to put the pieces together
I am curious what comes out of this topic tho
you were wondering why the anaconda seemed to be so squishy in comparison to some.
Could it be that the hull weight could also be a factor?
If you look at the corvette and cutter their hull weight alone is about double the anaconda (the anaconda is a giant balloon really its only 400T which is part of why its such a good exploration ship)
I mean I imagine its completely irrelevant (or should be anyways) but considering the T9, Corvette and cutter are the 3 heaviest ships (on hull alone) and they got the highest numbers on these numbers you are providing.
I don't know like I said just skimmed through it quickly too lazy to put the pieces together
I am curious what comes out of this topic tho
Last edited:
Your right of course I was thinking about the problem backwards like an idiot lol.
I suspect you might both be correct... at time of relevent posts.
Mark's post is from back in September.
I've had a feeling that Condas had gotten a fair bit more squishy since Horizons, and I seem to recall there was a patch around Horizons day that tweaked the armor values of several ships.
I'd thought it was just a case of me flying ships with more punch but maybe something has happened that caused the Anaconda to have the wrong armor value?
It's entirely possible. With projects of this size and complexity, and with as many "hands in the soup" as there are, it would be pretty easy for something like this to have been changed inadvertently, and not noticed. I'd really appreciate it if someone(s) could re-test the anaconda's hull via the procedures laid out in the OP, and see what value they come up with.
I tested the anaconda with another CMDR a while back and recorded the data in excel. We made sure to use the fixed small pulse on an area of the anaconda's belly that did not result in subsystem damage.
Test ship: Anaconda
Hull: 945 (No reinforcement)
# of shots fired to 80% Hull: 244
Armor damage per shot = (945*0.2)/244 = 0.77459
Base armor damage per shot = 2.48/1.2 = 2.06667
HFV = (20*2.06667)/0.77459 = 53.36155
Seems to be right smack dab in the middle between the earlier test of 46 and the dev's 65.
The anaconda I used in the test may have had some wear and tear on it. It was one of the first ships I tested, and I don't remember if I checked that, first (I know I did on all the other ships, though). With that in mind, the 53 you got sounds pretty darn accurate. Thanks.
I'm just reading the OP, but this seems to contradict with the information provided in this thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=170205
Specifically:
There's an important concept to explain first: Damage types and Defence. Elite currently uses 3 types of damage: Thermic, Kinetic and Explosive [...]
If you hit the hull then a much more complex process kicks off:
1) The first step is to multiply the damage dealt by the armours' defences as for shields.
2) There's a second step in damage reduction that's used only for hulls - Hardness.
Yeah that seems to be the case as confirmed here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=170205&page=9&p=2802177&viewfull=1#post2802177
This isn't a contradiction so much as the sequence of calculations is out of order. But because "Actual Damage" or "The unit damage dealt to hull" as mentioned in step 8 of the dev post is multiplied with the entire mathematical expression, the order doesn't change the end result.
The OP's intention is to gather the data to find base values for the ships and the weapons. Changing the bulkhead alloy/grade would result in either a change to total base armor or would give up to 3 different "Modified Base Armor Damage" numbers for a given weapon type, also resulting in 3 different weapon APFs. With that in mind, this data is valid as long as the total base armor is accounted for and up to lightweight/reinforced/military grade bulkheads are used in testing (because their alloy resistances don't change).
With that in mind, the universal calculation for "Actual Damage" or "Armor damage per shot" that includes alloy/grade type is the following multiplication of ratios:
And [Total Armor] = [Base Armor]*[Alloy Armor Multiplier]+[Hull Reinforcement Packages]
The multiplier only applies to base armor. HRPs will not add to the total multiplied value.
Found a mistake, shield damage per shot should be divided by the damage type modifier, not multiplied.
Actually i think not because a damage mod is written in decimal value . So if the damage mod reduces the base damage ( which without mod is 1 ) , then the final damage is D×(1÷mod) . Exemple : a weapon does half damages vs an armor type : mod = 1÷2 = 0.5 . So final formula is d×mod= d×0.5.
It allows to easily calculate the final damage because it is always a multiplication : damage increases if mod >1 and decreases if 0 <mod <1.
It allows to easily calculate the final damage because it is always a multiplication : damage increases if mod >1 and decreases if 0 <mod <1.
Normally I would agree if it was already in its base damage form, but if we want to convert a quantity with units from one form to another, we need to first cancel out its units. That's why the armor modifier is being multiplied on the numerator, and the shield modifier is being divided out on the denominator.
In this case, shield damage already has its modifier multiplied in, so its expanded form is actually [base damage] * [shield damage type modifier], so in order to convert the shield damage to armor damage, we have to divide out that shield damage modifier, get the base damage back, then multiply in our new units, i.e the armor damage type modifier.
Last edited:
Interesting thread, but I'll have to read it fully at a later point, in the meantime :-
.
Standard: 100% thermal, 120% kinetic, 140% explosive.
Reactive: 140% thermal, 75% kinetic, 80% explosive.
Mirrored: 50% thermal, 175% kinetic, 150% explosive.
Shields: 120% thermal, 60% kinetic, 10% explosive. (the explosive penalty there is subject of some internal discussion, may change somewhat)
.
What does 'standard refer to? Lightweight alloy?
And what are the values for reinforced & military grade alloys?
.
Standard: 100% thermal, 120% kinetic, 140% explosive.
Reactive: 140% thermal, 75% kinetic, 80% explosive.
Mirrored: 50% thermal, 175% kinetic, 150% explosive.
Shields: 120% thermal, 60% kinetic, 10% explosive. (the explosive penalty there is subject of some internal discussion, may change somewhat)
.
What does 'standard refer to? Lightweight alloy?
And what are the values for reinforced & military grade alloys?
Hi Cmdr,
'Standard' refers to lightweight or reinforced or military bulkheads ... because all three of these cause incoming fire to be treated in accordance with the standard modifiers.
The in-game Outfitting descriptions of reinforced and military bulkheads are currently misleading. They do not modify incoming damage. Rather, their effect is simulated by an addition to base hull hit points (as accurately reflected in coriolis and in the in-game Shipyard figures). In the case of military, +95%. Hence, they do not affect damage done to hit points garnered from HRP's.
Truesilver
Thanks for your reply , Ok so military bulkheads add 95% to base hull hit points & reinforced adds 40% (according to coriolis).
Re in game shipyard figures, has been done by comparing with & without armour figures I guess? (I can't test atm as I have cargo I don't want to sell yet).
.
But what does :-
.
Hence, they do not affect damage done to hit points garnered from HRP's mean?
, Ok so military bulkheads add 95% to base hull hit points & reinforced adds 40% (according to coriolis).Re in game shipyard figures, has been done by comparing with & without armour figures I guess? (I can't test atm as I have cargo I don't want to sell yet).
.
But what does :-
.
Hence, they do not affect damage done to hit points garnered from HRP's mean?
Last edited:
It means that a hull tank Fer-de-Lance without bulkheads has 1,755 hull hit points:-
http://coriolis.io/outfit/fer_de_lance/06E5E4E4E6E4E3C-1717--------2d2b2b2725.Iw18aQ==.Aw18aQ==
Whereas the same FdL with military bulkheads has 2,138 hit points:-
http://coriolis.io/outfit/fer_de_lance/26E5E4E4E6E4E3C-1717--------2d2b2b2725.Iw18aQ==.Aw18aQ==
But the latter does NOT have 3,510 hit points (1,755 x 2).
Put another way, the military bulkheads are additive to the HRP hit points, not multiplicative.
If, however, military operated to reduce incoming damage by 50% (as some Cmdrs used to believe) the effective hit points would indeed be 3,510. But the actual effect is much weaker because it is applied only to the original 'no HRP' hit points.
Note also that mirrored and reactive add precisely the same amount of hit points as military. It is merely the damage modifiers that change.
Hope that all makes sense! Let me know if not
Last edited:
Err, not really, lol, what's HRP?
.
So military b/heads don't increase hull by 95% then?? :S
.
So military b/heads don't increase hull by 95% then?? :S
Last edited: