Thoughts on Damage Model

[Saxman]

Guys can we keep the thread on the damage model itself and not bring kill recording into it?

[Anaxogoras]

I'm curious to see how many more times this thread is going to cycle through enthusiasm for an updated damage model and hitech poking his head in to try to dampen it, only for the enthusiasm to continue.  Such irreverence is uncharacteristic for the AH boards.

[Saxman]

At least from my perspective I wasn't seeing hitech as trying to dampen it, but is playing devil's advocate by reminding us that there's a lot more involved in updating the damage model than just slapping on effects, especially if we want something that strikes the usual balance between playability and realism.

[hitech]

Anaxogoras: Do not think my statements are wanting to dampen the desire for a change for a damage model.

My statements are designed to put the correct expectations and logic to the outcome of any change. I have a base concept for how I will implement the system, but I do not wish to state what my plans are now simply because I have learned that it will just cause more whining if I state what I will do before a release in most cases. It is much simpler to state the outcome after I make it, and listen to players input for the design before I create the change.

In reality when we made the last damage change 1 or 2versions ago to more components for future expansion we also added to the core system floating point damage (incremental damage really is not a good term because we have incremental damage now) as people here are asking for. Long before this topic started I have had a basic outline of how I am going to implement more detailed damage and incremental damage.

This is a programming assumption on my part but let me know if I am incorrect.  Every single plane part has, say 100 damage points.  When each part is reduced to zero, the plane part fails.  Maybe 1 beebee reduces a plane part by 2 hit points where as a 30 mm tater will reduce that plane part by 100 hit points.  I don't believe it is fair that a 50 cal plane can say, reduce 15 plane components by 15 damage points for a total of 225 hit points causing no actual damage to the plane under the current damage modeling system.  Another plane can then come in and actually kill the air plane by shooting off the left wing for a total of the 125 remaining hit points but since the the sprayer acrued 225 hit points, he gets credit.  (Please don't pay too much attention to my numbers as they are all hypothetical, and obviously inaccurate but only used to illustrate my point)

Your basic assumption of how things work is correct, except the damage done is also based on velocity of strike. For vehicles there is a different system that also includes detail armor penetration systems based on vel and angle of impact to armor.

But your argument for a change may or may not  be closer to real life. Your argument really ask for a very simple damage model of 1 component so 100 total damage from MG = 100 total damage from an Cannon no matter where they hit on the plane. So based on your logic you really just want to ignore where the bullet struck.

What I have been doing in this thread is trying to set expectations , and have people also try think about how any changes will effect peoples tactics. Your argument is simply based on the concept you want MG's to be more lethal then they are now as compared to cannon.  To prove your argument you can not start from the premise that scattering MG's  is worse than scattering cannon. That may be true, but you also must show that in the real world your desire is also true.

HiTech

[grizz441]

But your argument for a change may or may not  be closer to real life. Your argument really ask for a very simple damage model of 1 component so 100 total damage from MG = 100 total damage from an Cannon no matter where they hit on the plane. So based on your logic you really just want to ignore where the bullet struck.

What I have been doing in this thread is trying to set expectations , and have people also try think about how any changes will effect peoples tactics. Your argument is simply based on the concept you want MG's to be more lethal then they are now as compared to cannon.  To prove your argument you can not start from the premise that scattering MG's  is worse than scattering cannon. That may be true, but you also must show that in the real world your desire is also true.

Perhaps you have misunderstood what I am asking for.  Am I wrong in assuming that in when the system decides who gets a kill, it compares the total number of damage points Plane A inflicted compared to the total number of damage points Point B inflicted and is completely blind to which plane actually caused plane parts to fail?  I am missing your point how I am wanting MGs to be more lethal because that is not the case.  What I essentially want added in the coding world is a damage point bonus added on to the total number of damage points of the plane that lands the final kill shot (Per your new update defining a kill shot: Full wing, full stabilizer horizontal or vertical, tail section, or fuel fire).  So lets say Player A sprays up a plane and tallies 200 total damage points on the enemy.  Player B comes in and shoots off the left wing for 160 damage points.  Since Player B got the kill shot, he is rewarded a 50 damage point bonus for a total of 210 damage points and will get the kill over Player B.  What percentage of the total damage the bonus would be worth would be up to you on what you think would be fair (assuming you see where I'm coming from here) but I think there should be some sort of additional reward in a multi planed engagement for ending an enemy threat.  Pilots in general get much more frustrated when they put the kill shot on a guy and are rewarded an assist rather than a kill.  It's nice to randomly get a kill after you peppered a guy a little bit 30 seconds ago, but it's more of just a pleasant surprise, not an expectation.  You then hear on range soon after, "Assist? I shot that guy in half how do I get a gosh darn assist!"

Sure this would still happen with my request but it wouldn't happen as frequently and would be a little better in balancing the two sides of the coin.  I hope this cleared up what I'm asking for.

[Karnak]

Well, I am glad to hear a revised damage model is in the works.  I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with.

[Saxman]

Indeed.

[hitech]

grizz: Yes I miss understood what you are asking. I am not against a crit hit bonus as you describe, but I would have to make the bounces very small, because the bigger the bonus the more it promotes kill stealing.

I.E. look at the extreme case of you spent 1 min going around with the guy have a wing 99% damaged. You would not want the damage great enough to case some one to swoop in, put 1 303 on the target and get the kill.

HiTech

[Ack-Ack]

If only some more people who wish for a more complex damage system had flown Air Warrior.   

I actually liked the system in AW, except when someone hit my hydraulic lines then it really sucked 


ack-ack

[Saxman]

I actually liked the system in AW, except when someone hit my hydraulic lines then it really sucked 


ack-ack

Won a duel that way once. First shot I took about 5 seconds into the fight severed his elevator cable.

[grizz441]

grizz: Yes I miss understood what you are asking. I am not against a crit hit bonus as you describe, but I would have to make the bounces very small, because the bigger the bonus the more it promotes kill stealing.

I thought the latest patch got rid of the kill stealing problem?  As I suggested, once a player causes a critical part to fail per your definitions of 'critical part', no more damage can be done to that aircraft.  I don't see how the bonus would change gameplay because the intent of gameplay is to always shoot the airplane down, nothing would change gameplay wise.

I.E. look at the extreme case of you spent 1 min going around with the guy have a wing 99% damaged. You would not want the damage great enough to case some one to swoop in, put 1 303 on the target and get the kill.

Very true.  You'd have to find a way to balance it so the borderline damage point cases sway in the favor of the pilot who actually dealt the kill shot.  As far as coding it, you'd have to decide on a method of how to add a bonus.  Say Player A caused the kill shot but had done a little less overall 'damage' than Player B.  Say you want to give the kill to Player A if the differential between the damage was less than 15%(Again this would be your percentage as what you deem fair and small). 

int differential = PlayerADmg/PlayerBDmg;
if(differential <= .15)
{
    Blah Blah Blah;
}

I am obviously simplifying the coding aspect, but I am not totally ignorant on the subject matter either.

[grizz441]

After rereading my post it sounds like I'm trying to tell you how to do your job, that's not the case, was just offering a possible implementation if it interests you.   

[hitech]

After rereading my post it sounds like I'm trying to tell you how to do your job, that's not the case, was just offering a possible implementation if it interests you.   

I did not take it that way at all, we are just speaking about ideas.

[LLogann]

Speaking of ideas..............   What's up with a pilot on the runway getting the credit for my kill when I clearly was closer and should have gotten the Proxy?     

I did not take it that way at all, we are just speaking about ideas.

[bcadoo]

Well yeah, you can only kill a plane once, doesn't matter how much you mutilate the plane, it's 0 or 1, killed or not.

This is a programming assumption on my part but let me know if I am incorrect.  Every single plane part has, say 100 damage points.  When each part is reduced to zero, the plane part fails.  Maybe 1 beebee reduces a plane part by 2 hit points where as a 30 mm tater will reduce that plane part by 100 hit points.  I don't believe it is fair that a 50 cal plane can say, reduce 15 plane components by 15 damage points for a total of 225 hit points causing no actual damage to the plane under the current damage modeling system.  Another plane can then come in and actually kill the air plane by shooting off the left wing for a total of the 125 remaining hit points but since the the sprayer acrued 225 hit points, he gets credit.  (Please don't pay too much attention to my numbers as they are all hypothetical, and obviously inaccurate but only used to illustrate my point)

I'm not saying a pilot should get credit 100% of the time for simply shooting off the critical component but imo there should be some balance.  Perhaps a bonus should be credited to the pilot that gets the kill shot and that bonus is added to his total damage points.  I might be off base here as I am making an assumption as how the damage model works, but this seems a little more fair to me.

 Say you had Pilot A shoot off an elevator, an aileron, oil leak, pilot wound, and then Pilot B shoots off the left wing.  I don't think Pilot B should get the kill just because he landed the fatal shot, but should get a small damage bonus for doing so.  I'm assuming it could be coded to where Pilot A would still get the credit for inflicting so much damage prior.  Balance would be key.

Sorry for the late reply...been away a bit.

My thoughts are pilots shared kills in RL.  So how would it be if somebody did more than 33% damage then nobody got the kill and both pilots got an assist?  3 assists = 1 kill ?  There is nothing more frustrating than killing somebody who is showing no visible signs of damage and getting an assist, but wouldn't be so bad if I knew the first guy to shoot him got an assist on it as well.