Thoughts on Damage Model

[Knite]

I've said in the past, and I still think that I'd prefer a more "impactful" damage system... but the key is, what does it do to gameplay? I think the positive impact to gameplay on a more granular system would be immersion. We DO have to be careful however of not making it too complicated, or it will never get implemented, AND have to keep in mind that this method would affect not only all planes, but GVs as well.

My thought was... right now we've got 2 "states", green(0% damage) and red(100%). It might be beneficial to go to a 3 or 4 "state" system... i.e. Green(0%), Yellow(50%), Orange(75%), Red(100%). This system could actually work WITH our current system and apply ok across all "objects" if applied properly. Here are some thoughts on how this system would work :

Wing - Green = 100% lift, Yellow = 87.5%, Orange = 75%, Red = Gone. 
Aerilon, Rudder, Elevator, Flaps, Gear - Green = 100% actuation/deployment speed, Yellow = 75%%, Orange = Stuck, Red = Gone.
Engine Oil / Fuel - Green = No fluid loss, Yellow = slow fluid loss+ small thin smoke (black/grey) trail, Orange = Medium leak + large black trail (similar to Red in our current damage system), RED = fluid dump, large "sputtering" trail. Of course when all oil is out it hits RED mode and starts damaging engine.
Engine (AC or GV) - Green = 100% good, Yellow = 87.5% power, Orange = 75% power and (sound change for cylinder misfire), Red = Dead as now.
Weapons - Green = 100% perfect, Yellow = 12.5% misfires, Orange = 25% misfires, Red = Dead as now.
Tracks - Green = 100%, Yellow = 87.5% speed, Orange = 75% speed, Red = Dead i.e. "Tracked"
Turret - Green = 100% rotation, Yellow = 87.5% rotation, Orange = 75% rotation, Red = "turreted"

This would not require changes to the current hit box structure, and WOULD make weaker weapons have an impact. In a gameplay aspect, in some ways, it could create a more "timid" style of flying, but at the same time, if you fly too timid, you could be damaged enough to the point where your only egress would be to fully engage and destroy the enemy. It would increase immersion by making every part of your vehicle/aircraft count which might actually LOWER the chances of collision and less chance of a HO attempt.

[Saxman]

Critical damage to one vstab on, e.g. a P-38, caused both to fall off.

FYI, this part is STILL the case. Lose one vertical stab and the other goes with it.

[OOZ662]

FYI, this part is STILL the case. Lose one vertical stab and the other goes with it.

Not true. Most often, I'm saved by the P-38's dual engines. Second-most often is the dual vstabs. Generally both booms fall off, though...

[Saxman]

D'oh. Vertical stabs. Sorry, for some reason I read that as the horizontal stabs....

[ToeTag]

So if this thread was condensed......


A).  I want my MG rounds to cripple a plane and make it less effective so I can shoot it down on the next couple of passes.

B).  I want my MG rounds to do more damage kind of like a cannon round does.

[OOZ662]

A) Yes.
B) No, that's what the people incorrectly interpreting us keep saying.

[ToeTag]

clarified  

Isn't that how it is currently modeled?

I.E. several passes to kill a bird with MG's

[Saxman]

Yes, but damage that those hits would cause before the wing pops off is NOT. While this applies to cannon as well, it has a much bigger effect on MGs since cannon are more likely to knock the wing off outright on the first pass anyway.

[Knite]

clarified  

Isn't that how it is currently modeled?

I.E. several passes to kill a bird with MG's

While it does take several passes to kill a bird with MGs, the issue is that for all intents and purposes that other plane isn't "injured". You could light an aircraft completely up with MG fire, and it can fly away with 100% combat capability, when in reality, the possibility of coming away 100% combat ready after getting lit up with MG fire was not very likely. As it stands right now, 1 pass with cannon will likely kill a bird, and at very minimal heavily damage it, and 1 pass with MG fire can at the very minimum, do absolutely nothing. The desire is for that 1 pass to have an increased chance to do SOMETHING, even if not crippling, as would have likely happened in a real A2A combat.

[hitech]

While it does take several passes to kill a bird with MGs, the issue is that for all intents and purposes that other plane isn't "injured". You could light an aircraft completely up with MG fire, and it can fly away with 100% combat capability, when in reality, the possibility of coming away 100% combat ready after getting lit up with MG fire was not very likely. As it stands right now, 1 pass with cannon will likely kill a bird, and at very minimal heavily damage it, and 1 pass with MG fire can at the very minimum, do absolutely nothing. The desire is for that 1 pass to have an increased chance to do SOMETHING, even if not crippling, as would have likely happened in a real A2A combat.

You are stating the obvious, cannons do more damage so yes 1 pass will do more damage with cannons than with MG. Changing the system will not change that fact. The only net result would be cannons would critically kill in one pass, MG would only slightly wound.

Now do not construe anything I state as being against a more fine detail damage modeling, I just want you all to think about the net effects of the changes.


HiTech

[R 105]

I fly a lot of US planes with 50s. Of coarse the 20mm and 30mm kill better. I flew a Brewster some the other day with it's 4 50 Cal's. I was surprised to find the the Brewster's 4 50s kill like 20mm cannon or so it seemed to me. I have never been able to get a kill that easy with any other 50cal mounted bird except maybe the P-47 with 8 Mg's. Is the Brewster guns easier to aim or some such.

[Saxman]

Part of this is because the Brewster is much easier to gain a good tracking shot on a target. It's the same with the FM-2: Assuming you can catch your opponent there's only a few planes that are going to be maneuverable enough to get out of her sights again. It's a lot easier to latch your claws on and chew him up if he doesn't accelerate away.

[Lusche]

I fly a lot of US planes with 50s. Of coarse the 20mm and 30mm kill better. I flew a Brewster some the other day with it's 4 50 Cal's. I was surprised to find the the Brewster's 4 50s kill like 20mm cannon or so it seemed to me. I have never been able to get a kill that easy with any other 50cal mounted bird except maybe the P-47 with 8 Mg's. Is the Brewster guns easier to aim or some such.

Being a very slow but good turning bord, you are probably just getting closer and have more time to deliver your bullets in a typical turnfight.
Faster, but somewhat less maneuverable planes do end up more often with short snapshots and/or longer shooting ranges.

[ToeTag]

Summed up you want to have MG and cannon equipped planes be able to cripple a plane/GV so it is easier to get the kill after you ping him up - got it

If everything in this game were modeled accuratly as far as damage was concerned it would make it less fun to play.

Nobody would fly Bombers

....why?

They are already easy enough to kill.  If you mad it any easier then nobody would take the time to fly it.

Nobody would drive any GV's

.....why?

Same as the buffs.  Imagine panzers being taken out by a few passes of .50's.  As it did happen in the RW.

If this happened I would not play so often as well as gv any longer.


Damage is based upon what makes it fun enough to pay to play. 

[Baumer]

I do have a question about updating the damage model. As I understand the current damage model there is no graduation on a components strength, so it's 100% until it's destroyed. As an example let's say the left wing on an F6F-5 requires X amount of damage before it is destroyed. I am flying along with my usual bad SA, and someone shoots my left wing (doesn't matter with what gun) doing X/2 damage. I think that the damage model should reduce the amount of loading the left wing can take before it fails, ie structural failure at 3.5g's vs 7g's for an undamaged wing.

Of course the percentages would have to be worked out and such, but it would certainly make it more interesting. Also the damage list would need to probably show the condition as well so that I know not to stress the plane so much. I think it could be as simple as having an item change color to show how badly it's damaged.

Perhaps something like this;

• Left Wing- 0% damage
• Left Wing- 1-33% damaged
• Left Wing- 34-66% damaged
• Left Wing- 67-99% damaged
• Left Wing- 100% destroyed