Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Knite on September 07, 2009, 05:34:53 PM
-
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?
-
Facepalm
-
Facepalm
Not intending offense, but care to explain?
I didn't think I said anything THAT dumb. Could be wrong though. :lol
-
Hopefully this is one of those 'systems in the game engine' that HTC recognizes as being 'in need of overhaul' according to the development update they posted a year back.
We had our convention this past weekend which gave us the chance to speak with players in person and talk about the future of AH. We’ve been thinking about how we were going to move forward and came to some conclusions that we decided to announce at the convention.
The main news is that we have decided to put Combat Tour on an indefinite hold. The reason for this is that we have decided that it is better to steer our development in a way that allows us to implement our CT developments first as part of the regular game.
The way we’ve been going has been like trying to fight a two front war with only one army. It’s stretched us too thin and has hurt our overall level of productivity. It also has handcuffed us in a lot of our development decisions by forcing us to indefinitely postpone a lot of other things.
Our biggest obstacle with CT is in breathing life into it to make it fun and immersive. While a basic structure is there, there’s a ton of detail work to be done to reach that end goal. Without it, it just has too much of a cardboard cutout feel that’s not going to engage players and hold their attention for long.
What this all means for now is that we are going to focus on core game development. We’re going to pull the CT AI mission system and redevelop it for use by CM’s in scenarios and special events. We’re working on new terrain upgrades in both the technology and the art used. We want to implement a character animation system. We want to bring back the old 8 player H2H but expand it both in the number of players and with additional gameplay capabilities. There’s a lot of systems in the game engine that are dated and in need of overhaul.
In hindsight, this is how we should have approached it from the start. This will keep us heading in the right direction while getting improvements out to our current players and speeding up our development. It’s really a chance to reboot our process to get back to our old development cycle that saw things moving at a faster pace.
-
Maybe a full facepalm wasn't needed, probably only a half facepalm.
I think it would be a huge change in the game. Kinda like the terrain update but larger. Meaning in the time HTC has to put it into it.
-
I'd see alot more "You stole my kill!" in the future were this implemented.
-
Not intending offense, but care to explain?
I didn't think I said anything THAT dumb. Could be wrong though. :lol
You didn't say anything dumb. Some people are afraid of change, thats all. I agree with motherland, and would love to see this implemented into the game. I feel this would help escort flyers, and outnumberd groups starting with an E advantage. The could make several passes before their E level is slightly greater than, or matches that of their opponets. Having reduced the efectivness of their opponets' planes, the outnumbered group now faces close to even odds.
-
You didn't say anything dumb. Some people are afraid of change, thats all.
Maybe if you read my second post.....
-
Maybe if you read my second post.....
Ooops, sorry, posted while I was writing mine.
-
I'd see alot more "You stole my kill!" in the future were this implemented.
Can't be worse than it is now...
Plane 1: *Flies by an enemy con, doesn't fire*
Plane 2: *Kills enemy con*
Plane 1: You still my kill, Plane 2!
-
Agreed spikes. I would love to see this, as it would get planes with only Mg's more use.
-
Agreed spikes. I would love to see this, as it would get planes with only Mg's more use.
That's an interesting gameplay side effect I didn't even think of. Increase effectiveness of all aircraft, not just cannon birds.
As far as the kill stealing argument, that happens now. Whether it takes 20hp or 100hp to blow of a wing, kill steals still happen if the person originally firing upon the target only does 95% possible of damage.
That brings up another point though... in the case of the "catastrophic failure" I mentioned earlier, would it be desired/possible the game remember THEN who "killed" the aircraft, and not wait until hitting the ground or on bail out, then only recording it if the plane does not make it back to base or ditches? This might actually LOWER the amount of kill stealing as there'd no longer be the race to do tons of damage to a falling aircraft as there sometimes is now.
-
Facepalm
I'm going to give you a facepalm for an inappropriate facepalm.
Updating the damage model would be a big improvement for AH. Il-2 serves as a good example that could be improved upon.
-
That's an interesting gameplay side effect I didn't even think of. Increase effectiveness of all aircraft, not just cannon birds.
As far as the kill stealing argument, that happens now. Whether it takes 20hp or 100hp to blow of a wing, kill steals still happen if the person originally firing upon the target only does 95% possible of damage.
That brings up another point though... in the case of the "catastrophic failure" I mentioned earlier, would it be desired/possible the game remember THEN who "killed" the aircraft, and not wait until hitting the ground or on bail out, then only recording it if the plane does not make it back to base or ditches? This might actually LOWER the amount of kill stealing as there'd no longer be the race to do tons of damage to a falling aircraft as there sometimes is now.
Knite im going to go off on a limb and say you have played WWII Online,
If anything from the flight model of WW2OL, the damage model they have is the reason why I fly. Its amazing, and even if some of the flight model is a bit off, the damage modeling is just a work of art.
Their modeling goes off the first person to cause catastrophic failure is awarded the kill. The only debate or down side is WHAT is a catastrophic damage? IE:
Plane A shoots planes C engine and it dies *Catastrophic damage*
Plane B shoots planes C left wing and it pops off *Also Catastrophic damage*
Plane A is awarded the kill because he was the first to cause the damage, but plane C was the one made a safe get away impossible.
Either way, anything is better than the current damage model.
WW2OL has an IL2 feel to it with the damage modeling. Every bullet has some effect on the planes lift capabilities, aerodynamics, and ect. even if nothing falls off a mouth full of .50cals into the wing has a HUGE effect on how the plane handles
-
Also see this post i made awhile back about this topic:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264652.15.html
-
:aok
-
Well put, good idea, :aok. 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".
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oh, ok. Otherwise I would fail to see how modeling partial damage to e.g. a wing would be a bad idea.
-
I'm no coder, but aerodynamic damage looks like a headache to cheaply model.
-
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. :rofl 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. :)
-
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.