Weapon Damage Reduction – Mechanics?

[Cablefast]

There is a game mechanic that reduces the damage output of small and medium weapons. It works something like this:
-
Small weapons only do 66% of their rated damage against medium ships.
Small weapons only do 33% of their rated damage against large ships.
Medium weapons only do 66% of their rated damage against large ships.
-
There are a few rumors I’ve read regarding the implementation of this mechanic. I would like to know if anyone can confirm/deny any of these rumors. I would also like to know if you’ve heard any rumors not listed here.
-
1. Damage reduction only applies to hull damage. In effect, weapons do full damage to shields, but reduced damage to ship hulls.
-
2. Some weapons are exempt from the damage reduction mechanic (torpedoes, rail guns, plasma accelerators, cannons).
-
3. Ship size is based on landing pad size (as opposed to mass lock factor).
-
4. Damage reduction is based on hardpoint size and not weapon size. In other words, a small weapon on a large hardpoint would not have its damage reduced.

 

[TruffleSnout]

Small weapons only do 66% of their rated damage against medium ships.
Small weapons only do 33% of their rated damage against large ships.
Medium weapons only do 66% of their rated damage against large ships.

Slight correction to your numbers there.

2 - Don't know about the others, but Railguns in particular "punch one size above their rating". I.e. a small Railgun only has the medium reduction in effectiveness. A medium RG has no reduction. That's what I've heard rumor of.

4 - Hadn't heard this. Would be weird if so.

1 & 3 - That's what I understand as well, but no evidence to back it up.

 

[Brimstone]

Here is no damage penalty against shields.

 

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

Sounds like crap to me. They're ranked among their respectively rated modules not among other tiers and there's no numbers involved so I don't see this really being something people can prove, just a way certain people "feel".

 

[Cablefast]

Slight correction to your numbers there.

2 - Don't know about the others, but Railguns in particular "punch one size above their rating". I.e. a small Railgun only has the medium reduction in effectiveness. A medium RG has no reduction. That's what I've heard rumor of.

4 - Hadn't heard this. Would be weird if so.

1 & 3 - That's what I understand as well, but no evidence to back it up.

I have edited my original post to reflect the correct number. Thank you for catching it. Seems like you've read many of the same things as I have. I do agree that number 4 would be weird if true.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like crap to me. They're ranked among their respectively rated modules not among other tiers and there's no numbers involved so I don't see this really being something people can prove, just a way certain people "feel".

I agree with you that it seems like a weird mechanic. It might be completely untrue. It does get posted enough that I figure its worth asking the community.

 

[Bardolin]

When it comes to most mechanics, you have to dig around the forums, since currently Frontier doesn't provide a lot of info about them but occasionally a dev will confirm or correct someone's testing a specific one.
And speaking of confirming, Frontier did confirm that this mechanic existed, although it was months ago back when the Fer-de-Lance was about to be added and there was a discussion about how its hull had even better damage reduction against smaller weapons than usual.

 

[Mark Allen]

I can comment on a few of those, the full mechanics are a bit lengthy to explain here (plus it's midnight and I'm off to bed!) - I may be able to go into more details another time.

There is a game mechanic that reduces the damage output of small and medium weapons. It works something like this:
-
Small weapons only do 66% of their rated damage against medium ships.
Small weapons only do 33% of their rated damage against large ships.
Medium weapons only do 66% of their rated damage against large ships.

Close - though the scale is more fine grained than that, not simply based on hardpoint/ship size category. In general yes, smaller weapons work proportionally worse against bigger targets.

1. Damage reduction only applies to hull damage. In effect, weapons do full damage to shields, but reduced damage to ship hulls.

Currently correct. Technically this isn't enforced, just that no shields (yet) have damage reduction set.

2. Some weapons are exempt from the damage reduction mechanic (torpedoes, rail guns, plasma accelerators, cannons).

Sort of, the listed weapons do pierce better but are not immune.

3. Ship size is based on landing pad size (as opposed to mass lock factor).

Not actually sure what you mean here? Landing pad size is chosen purely by which pad the artists wanted to put that ship on, it has no in-flight effects (other than the obvious ones of being a bigger target etc).

4. Damage reduction is based on hardpoint size and not weapon size. In other words, a small weapon on a large hardpoint would not have its damage reduced.

Nope, entirely on the weapon - doesn't matter if it's in a Small or Huge hardpoint.


Hope that's helpful for some degree . Right now bed is singing to me... or maybe it's a thargoid trap.

 

[Klab]

Useful info, thank you Mr. Programmer & OP

 

[agentmoo]

-snip-.... it's a thargoid trap.

*adjusts tinfoil.

 

[Huita]

I can comment on a few of those, the full mechanics are a bit lengthy to explain here (plus it's midnight and I'm off to bed!) - I may be able to go into more details another time.



Close - though the scale is more fine grained than that, not simply based on hardpoint/ship size category. In general yes, smaller weapons work proportionally worse against bigger targets.


Currently correct. Technically this isn't enforced, just that no shields (yet) have damage reduction set.


Sort of, the listed weapons do pierce better but are not immune.


Not actually sure what you mean here? Landing pad size is chosen purely by which pad the artists wanted to put that ship on, it has no in-flight effects (other than the obvious ones of being a bigger target etc).


Nope, entirely on the weapon - doesn't matter if it's in a Small or Huge hardpoint.


Hope that's helpful for some degree . Right now bed is singing to me... or maybe it's a thargoid trap.

Just wanted to say thanks - it's a very interesting info. Apart from the level of which "listen weapons" ignore the size difference, everything's clear now.

 

[Cablefast]

I can comment on a few of those, the full mechanics are a bit lengthy to explain here (plus it's midnight and I'm off to bed!) - I may be able to go into more details another time.



Close - though the scale is more fine grained than that, not simply based on hardpoint/ship size category. In general yes, smaller weapons work proportionally worse against bigger targets.


Currently correct. Technically this isn't enforced, just that no shields (yet) have damage reduction set.


Sort of, the listed weapons do pierce better but are not immune.


Not actually sure what you mean here? Landing pad size is chosen purely by which pad the artists wanted to put that ship on, it has no in-flight effects (other than the obvious ones of being a bigger target etc).


Nope, entirely on the weapon - doesn't matter if it's in a Small or Huge hardpoint.


Hope that's helpful for some degree . Right now bed is singing to me... or maybe it's a thargoid trap.

Let me echo the others here in thanking you for this info (+1). It is always nice getting information from the source. I hope you have a good night.
-
To clarify: when I said "ship size is based on landing pad size (as opposed to mass lock factor)" I meant that I did not understand the measure by which ship size is gauged. I figured a large ship was one that needed a large landing pad. However, the game has other methods for measuring ship size such as the mass lock metric. These two don't always line up.

 

[Faded Glory]

Great post and great dev response. Thanks.

 

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

Good to see a Dev response on this. Sometimes it's good to be wrong, but in this case I'm not sure why this mechanic exists. Why make it harder for a smaller ship to take on a larger one when they're already at such a big disadvantage?

 

[sgurr]

Let me echo the others here in thanking you for this info (+1). It is always nice getting information from the source. I hope you have a good night.
-
To clarify: when I said "ship size is based on landing pad size (as opposed to mass lock factor)" I meant that I did not understand the measure by which ship size is gauged. I figured a large ship was one that needed a large landing pad. However, the game has other methods for measuring ship size such as the mass lock metric. These two don't always line up.

It's great we have devs talking on the forums regularly again, thanks Mark
He might come back in to answer but for further information:
- The mass lock factor is a number which is related but independent of a ship's actual mass or ship size, ie. don't use a ship's mass to decide what it can mass lock or not. For example the mass lock effect does not change if you make your ship heavier. (Verified by testing, search the forums, some patient soul figured out where each ship sat on the mass lock scale)
- The ships's size, (eg. small, medium, large) for which landing pad it can use is not the same as the one deciding the damage effect of weapons. The obvious example being a Python which can land on a medium pad but which takes damage from small weapons like a large ship and which can mass lock ships which need a large landing pad.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

Currently correct. Technically this isn't enforced, just that no shields (yet) have damage reduction set.

I do hope that is not something you intend to enforce.

I get that smaller weapons do less damage on a hull due to having more mass, thicker armour and more importantly VOLUME to hit so the damage is proportionally smaller.

But on an energy field? Hitting a point on the shield reduces the overall integrity of the shield and the shield does not exactly have more mass or volume - merely energy density in MJ's.

It would also be crippling to smaller ships if shields were even harder to punch through against larger ships.
EDIT: The shield meta game is bad enough.

BTW: does the reduction in damage also affect MODULES on larger ships or is that based on actual module size?

 

[Poseidal]

All the landing pad size means is what landing pad you can land on.

I think the 'penalty' of smaller weapons on ship size is likely different for almost every single ship.

 

[Cablefast]

It's great we have devs talking on the forums regularly again, thanks Mark
He might come back in to answer but for further information:
- The mass lock factor is a number which is related but independent of a ship's actual mass or ship size, ie. don't use a ship's mass to decide what it can mass lock or not. For example the mass lock effect does not change if you make your ship heavier. (Verified by testing, search the forums, some patient soul figured out where each ship sat on the mass lock scale)
- The ships's size, (eg. small, medium, large) for which landing pad it can use is not the same as the one deciding the damage effect of weapons. The obvious example being a Python which can land on a medium pad but which takes damage from small weapons like a large ship and which can mass lock ships which need a large landing pad.

I was just trying to figure out what number is used to calculate ship size with regard to damage reduction. I started this thread thinking it was the landing pad size. Now I know that's not true but I still don't understand what number is used. Is it the mass lock factor? Is it the actual ship mass? Is it another number that we don't see?

 

[Tacyon]

I get that smaller weapons do less damage on a hull due to having more mass, thicker armour and more importantly VOLUME to hit so the damage is proportionally smaller.


But on an energy field? Hitting a point on the shield reduces the overall integrity of the shield and the shield does not exactly have more mass or volume - merely energy density in MJ's.

And it's that megajoules "tank" that you're hitting against versus the "X" hull plates. Not saying this is the way it is, but a small beam for example could have an output of lets say, 100 joules per second. A large beam could have an output of lets say, 1000 joules per second. Shoot a small beam and a Anaconda (large MJ capacity) and it shouldn't drain, blow hole in, or damage the targeted shield in the same degree / rate as the larger beam laser. AND .... vise-a-versa. A large beam should decimate the shields of a small craft but have the penalty of tracking reduction. (inability to stay on target with a agile, quick maneuvering hull.)

 

[Bardolin]

It's great we have devs talking on the forums regularly again, thanks Mark

Indeed it is: seeing a dev presence in the community is always welcome.

 

[KaizoMK]

It's true what they say, the best way to get information on the internet is to post something wrong on the internet. :3