Discussion : Gradual Damage vs. Current model

[TheAce]

 

[Jayhawk]

Well put, good idea,  .  I can only imagine it's a huge overall and look at it from a business point of view:  How many players is HTC going to loose because of the damage model, it's not perfect but it's good enough for me to get enjoyment out of it, but how many people are really going to join the game because the damage model on Aces High was improved, not a huge selling point.  Now the terrain makes the game look prettier (looks great by the way, I love it).  I think HTC is more likely to gain more players (i.e. customers) with a new terrain vs. new modeling. So as much as I'm sure they want to do it, it's not priority from the business standpoint.

Aside from that, I would be all for this, I know when I look over at my wing and see multiple bullet holes I think to myself, "that had to hurt something".

[hitech]

Hello all,

As technology for both computers and the game changes, I was wondering about our current damage model...
Is there any thought/desire to change it? What are some gameplay aspects of changing the damage model, and would this be an improvement or detriment to the fun of the game?

Here's what I propose :
Currently (and correct me if I'm wrong), it appears that our damage model has damage "zones" that have a specified number of hit points. Once those hit points are expended (and I believe there is somewhat of a randomization factor), the part is "broken" and destroyed.

What I am thinking of, and recommending discussion of, is a degredation (sp?) of functionality of the parts, as well as a random % of failure (that increases with current damage sustained. I.e. if there is a current "hitpoint" total of 100hp for a part, at 100hp, part failure is 100% chance of failure. Perhaps at 25% damage, there's only a 10% chance of total failure).
Examples :
-Your plane gets hit in the nose of your 51. The oil blows (as it would now) and your engine is now down to about 85% effectiveness due to direct lead and/or shrapnel damage.
-You fire a burst into the left wing of an opposing spitfire. The spit is still flyable, does not lose the wing, but lift on that wing has been dropped by 10%, with another 5% reduction in roll rate due to that aerilon being damaged as well.
-You hit B24J in the tail with your ShVak cannon. It blows the Left rudder right off and the vert stabilizer is down to 75% effectiveness.

I believe that this would :
A) Introduce some perceived realism - I say perceived because I am not nearly the expert on things as many of you out there. IS this more realistic?
B) Alter gameplay. For better, or for worse I do not know. It would absolutely make taking damage a much more dangerous prospect just to get a shot, as you'd no longer want to risk getting shot up yourself just to get a snapshot (and hopefully reducing HOs), but at the same time would this increase timidness of other people to engage?

I know this idea would likely require much "COAD" to make work, but I love the concept at face value, only if it makes gameplay more interesting and is realistic. If neither or true, I'd say this was a poor idea. ;-)
Thoughts?

It is not a good idea, the concept of incremental damage is fine, but I have come to learn that people hate and complain about any form of randomization. As an example of what I speak of, look at pilot wounds. They simple randomize the amount of time it takes to die. And you see many complaints. Take a look at flack complaints.

When ever something can be done with out a randomize people will understand the limits better, and hence learn the edges. With randomization you can not ever learn the edge and hence it removes a lot of the fun.

Also there already is a very large pseudo randomization simple in the way guns work, ranges and where bullets hit already make for a very unpredictable out come. And when some one has you close in and shoots, the randomize will not effect anything, you will still be dead in a few seconds.

HiTech

[LLogann]

Not until 2 days ago did I come to know PW's are random time..........  Learned the hard way I might add.

As an example of what I speak of, look at pilot wounds. They simple randomize the amount of time it takes to die. And you see many complaints.

HiTech

[gyrene81]

There isn't anything wrong with the current damage model. Even the graphics associated with the hits. It's better than any current competitor and almost as good as IL2 that Anaxogoras appears to like so much.

[Anaxogoras]

It is not a good idea, the concept of incremental damage is fine, but I have come to learn that people hate and complain about any form of randomization. As an example of what I speak of, look at pilot wounds. They simple randomize the amount of time it takes to die. And you see many complaints. Take a look at flack complaints.

How would partial damage to a wing be randomized?  If it takes X damage to destroy that component, and it has taken X/2 damage, then there could be a definite % by which the efficiency of the wing is decreased.

I know you understand this stuff way better than I do, so if my thinking is wrong it would be good to know why.

[moot]

He probably meant the OP's suggestion.  It specifically calls for randomization.  Instead of modeling the damage against structures from each specific impact or packet of impacts.  A hit in one spot could do nothing but poke a hole, whereas a foot further could strike structural and functional bits, etc.

[Anaxogoras]

Oh, ok.  Otherwise I would fail to see how modeling partial damage to e.g. a wing would be a bad idea.

[moot]

I'm no coder, but aerodynamic damage looks like a headache to cheaply model.

[Knite]

It is not a good idea, the concept of incremental damage is fine, but I have come to learn that people hate and complain about any form of randomization. As an example of what I speak of, look at pilot wounds. They simple randomize the amount of time it takes to die. And you see many complaints. Take a look at flack complaints.
When ever something can be done with out a randomize people will understand the limits better, and hence learn the edges. With randomization you can not ever learn the edge and hence it removes a lot of the fun.
Also there already is a very large pseudo randomization simple in the way guns work, ranges and where bullets hit already make for a very unpredictable out come. And when some one has you close in and shoots, the randomize will not effect anything, you will still be dead in a few seconds.
HiTech

I can understand why it would be that way in terms of randomization, and that makes sense. As you said, in some cases the outcome seems fairly unpredictable as is. However, you're still open to the concept of incremental damage? Thanks for respondin. =)

FlipperK: Oddly enough, I've never played WWII online. Had considered it a few times, but I have a strict "do not play any pay per month games". *cough**cough*.... ahem....

Jayhawk: You make a very valid point. ROI (return on investment). The time it would take to implement gradual damage (removing randomization from the equation per Hitech's response) vs. the amount of "draw" is definitely a tricky point. Sure, you can put on a bullet point "revamped damage model", but it likely wouldn't be as noticable in terms of attempting to gain customers as something like revamping the fire/smoke system or adding more terrain/aircraft. The question then becomes, is this something good for the game beyond strictly numbers? i.e. What are the gameplay impacts? Personally, I would like the challenge of trying to fly home with unbalanced lift vectors on the aircraft due to damage. I could also see things like machine guns being more effective due to every shot making some sort of impact, instead of "the last one", and it could make bombers a real bear trying to bomb with moderate damage to the wings. However, my personal preference doesn't matter, is this a good thing for gameplay or bad? Would it force some aircraft to break off a fight to try and survive, or push the fight further knowing that his target can only get easier to hit? Likely it'd decrease timidness of some people to fire their guns, but what would it do to/for people that are big on the HO merge?

moot: It's all just a bunch of numbers. It can't be THAT hard.      It would likely be very difficult though, as we're not just talking about the air surfaces. Engine oil could be damaged to 50%, which would require calculations for oil pressure vs temperature vs throttle response. Same with things like engine damage... calculations of less power (which I suppose technically are already there as an engine at 90% efficiency would basically run like 90% throttle usage).

Does anyone think incremental damage would be a BAD move?


--Edit : Thought of an argument against this... Like an FPS game. Almost no FPS game have an "incremental" damage system. Why? When in a fight you want to concentrate on shooting the other guy and dodging them. This type of damage would make it tougher for the defender to defend, as every little "chip", "nick" and "ding" would lower your manueverability and escape possibilities, which REALLY stinks for people with poor SA like me.  

[Nemisis]

It is not a good idea, the concept of incremental damage is fine, but I have come to learn that people hate and complain about any form of randomization. As an example of what I speak of, look at pilot wounds. They simple randomize the amount of time it takes to die. And you see many complaints. Take a look at flack complaints.

When ever something can be done with out a randomize people will understand the limits better, and hence learn the edges. With randomization you can not ever learn the edge and hence it removes a lot of the fun.

Also there already is a very large pseudo randomization simple in the way guns work, ranges and where bullets hit already make for a very unpredictable out come. And when some one has you close in and shoots, the randomize will not effect anything, you will still be dead in a few seconds.

HiTech

I think he means like if you were to shoot at a plane, and your bullets just punched through the skin without hitting anything. Like if you shot at the fuselage, and hit inbetween the top and bottom fule tanks.