Armor Absorbtion split

[CheaterEater (OP)]

How about a chance to block each point of damage based on the thickness of the armor? For example, every layer of armor after the first gives a 5% chance to block a point of damage. One point of damage done to 10-thickness armor would have a 5% chance to be blocked by layer 2, a 5% chance for layer 3, etc. for a 37% chance to stop the damage in total across 9 layers. If multiple points of damage is done to one column the chances don't get reset. So if two points of damage were done to that 10-thickness armor and the first point was stopped after the 5th chance (layer 6) only the remaining 4 would have a chance of stopping the second point. This would combine some form of damage reduction from thick armor but also preserve its ablative nature and offer a graded chance for small attacks to get through.

[Jorgen_CAB]

That sounds as a simple enough system. I would like to add some more to that.

As armour is removed as damage it also loose its ablative properties so the calculation should be made after the hit has been assigned to a portion of the armour.

The fist damage point is resisted for each level you have by 5% (including the first level). If this point is absorbed the second point has a 5% chance for every two levels of armour the ships has. If even this point is stopped the third point has a 5% chance for every three layers of armour you have.

I really think this could be true for all weapons, not just missiles. Although it both weapons and shields would have to be rebalanced as well. I really would like shields to work differently as well. Most in the way of mitigating damage than just outright stopping it. This would work great if armour also functioned as above. Shields would complement armour in a better symmetry. Perhaps shields should more easily recharge low damaged attacks as well and once they are completely overwhelmed they will take along time to recharge. Their recharge rate could be on more of a logarithmic scale, slow in the beginning but faster in the end but they often don't fully stop damage from leaking through.

[Sharp]

How about a chance to block each point of damage based on the thickness of the armor? For example, every layer of armor after the first gives a 5% chance to block a point of damage. One point of damage done to 10-thickness armor would have a 5% chance to be blocked by layer 2, a 5% chance for layer 3, etc. for a 37% chance to stop the damage in total across 9 layers. If multiple points of damage is done to one column the chances don't get reset. So if two points of damage were done to that 10-thickness armor and the first point was stopped after the 5th chance (layer 6) only the remaining 4 would have a chance of stopping the second point. This would combine some form of damage reduction from thick armor but also preserve its ablative nature and offer a graded chance for small attacks to get through.

Yeah that sounds quite good, I would love to see Steve add this, I suppose it might need some reworking on missile warheads though because essentially a 1, 2 and 3 WH missile would all have the same chance of being blocked by armour while a 4 WH missile would have a better chance of damaging at least one point of armour. Although I suppose with the existing missile system but the new armour system it would just need a new class of missiles, 1 WH for unarmoured missiles as it is now, WH 2 and 3 for armoured missiles, fighters and lightly armoured ships and WH 4+ for heavier armoured ships.

5% per layer sounds about right so sandpaper attacks are less effective but still hazardous unless the ship is a behemoth.

[alex_brunius]

How about a chance to block each point of damage based on the thickness of the armor? For example, every layer of armor after the first gives a 5% chance to block a point of damage. One point of damage done to 10-thickness armor would have a 5% chance to be blocked by layer 2, a 5% chance for layer 3, etc. for a 37% chance to stop the damage in total across 9 layers. If multiple points of damage is done to one column the chances don't get reset. So if two points of damage were done to that 10-thickness armor and the first point was stopped after the 5th chance (layer 6) only the remaining 4 would have a chance of stopping the second point. This would combine some form of damage reduction from thick armor but also preserve its ablative nature and offer a graded chance for small attacks to get through.

I am afraid that doing it this might add slowdowns and extra calculations ( a random roll for every single damage point assigned that needs to use armour thickness as input ), without really changing any balance at all.

If I understand the suggestion right the chance of blocking the first point of damage from a WH 40 missile would be identical to blocking damage from a WH 1 missile.

So all it really changes is make thicker armour a bit better in general ( undesired rebalancing ) and adds a bit of extra randomness.

Similar results regarding the armour thickness would IMO be easier achieved by tweaking the armour tonnage formula to add less tonnage.

37% + 34% + 30% + 26% + 23% + 19% + 14% + 10% + 5% = 198% so statistically the same result would be achieved by just replacing 10 levels of armour with 12 for the same tonnage.

The difference being that the 12 levels would reliably stop 12 damage instead of due to randomness stopping around 10-14 damage normally.


If what you desire is adding randomness then it would be much easier to just make all damage vary by +-20% instead before applying it to armour, a single roll without having to worry about any rebalancing.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The best thing is if Steve just implemented the idea he had during the development of Newtonian Aurora into this version of the game. It is a rather extensive change but it was pretty sound. I hope he still likes that idea to one day make it a reality without the extra complex changes to the drive mechanics.

[CheaterEater (OP)]

I am afraid that doing it this might add slowdowns and extra calculations ( a random roll for every single damage point assigned that needs to use armour thickness as input ), without really changing any balance at all.

If I understand the suggestion right the chance of blocking the first point of damage from a WH 40 missile would be identical to blocking damage from a WH 1 missile.

So all it really changes is make thicker armour a bit better in general ( undesired rebalancing ) and adds a bit of extra randomness.

Similar results regarding the armour thickness would IMO be easier achieved by tweaking the armour tonnage formula to add less tonnage.

37% + 34% + 30% + 26% + 23% + 19% + 14% + 10% + 5% = 198% so statistically the same result would be achieved by just replacing 10 levels of armour with 12 for the same tonnage.

The difference being that the 12 levels would reliably stop 12 damage instead of due to randomness stopping around 10-14 damage normally.


If what you desire is adding randomness then it would be much easier to just make all damage vary by +-20% instead before applying it to armour, a single roll without having to worry about any rebalancing.

Although I can't comment directly on how Aurora is programmed, I doubt the additional "rolls" would seriously slow down the game considering they come during combat when most players are using 5-second increments anyway. I thought a significant portion of later game slowdowns came from sensors and large numbers of ships as they calculate contacts, which is much more computationally intensive than this. If you're truly concerned about it set up a chart in excel and see how quickly it recalculates things there so you have a sense of scale.

The goal is to reduce sandpapering and thus make larger warheads more useful. From what I stated, sure, the first point of damage in a single column would have the same chance of being blocked for a WH 40 missile as a WH 1 missile. The point is that these blocking chances recover between attacks, so x40 WH 1 missiles will suffer much more blocked damage than a single WH 40 missile as the additional damage per column from the single warhead will most likely not be blocked.

Is thicker armor being stronger unwanted balance? I thought a significant portion of this thread was people saying that exact sort of thing, or at least that it should be more resistant to small attacks. I don't think the goal was to give thicker a flat increase in strength versus all attacks but mostly versus small attacks. I don't think additional randomness ever came into this, is there something you can point to for support on that?

[alex_brunius]

The goal is to reduce sandpapering and thus make larger warheads more useful. From what I stated, sure, the first point of damage in a single column would have the same chance of being blocked for a WH 40 missile as a WH 1 missile. The point is that these blocking chances recover between attacks, so x40 WH 1 missiles will suffer much more blocked damage than a single WH 40 missile as the additional damage per column from the single warhead will most likely not be blocked.

That is true, since the 40 different hits are more spread out more of them would be absorbed, you are right there. For some reason I was thinking in terms of them landing in the same pattern of the big warhead

Is thicker armor being stronger unwanted balance? I thought a significant portion of this thread was people saying that exact sort of thing, or at least that it should be more resistant to small attacks.

My point was that thicker armor being stronger against all damage would be unwanted in the terms that it isn't the primary motivation behind the change.

I don't think additional randomness ever came into this, is there something you can point to for support on that?

There you lost me I am afraid. How would adding more random rolls possibly not add additional randomness to damage?

[CheaterEater (OP)]

That is true, since the 40 different hits are more spread out more of them would be absorbed, you are right there. For some reason I was thinking in terms of them landing in the same pattern of the big warhead

My point was that thicker armor being stronger against all damage would be unwanted in the terms that it isn't the primary motivation behind the change.

There you lost me I am afraid. How would adding more random rolls possibly not add additional randomness to damage?

Even if they did land in the same pattern they would still do less damage than the bigger warhead. Damage from one attack in a single column "clears the way" by using up each block's chance to stop a point of damage. If two points land in a column and the first point is stopped by the last block (as an example) the second point automatically goes through as all the armor that would stop it have already been used up. If on the other hand two points landed as separate attacks the second point is independent of the first (provided the first doesn't clear out armor). If the first point is blocked the second can still be blocked too which is not the same as if the damage arrives as one attack.

The armor is only significantly stronger against small attacks and only in large blocks. Although it would be slightly stronger against large attacks it would be much stronger against small attacks. Lasers, for example, would be barely affected owing to their deeply penetrating pattern. Whether that amount is acceptable or desirable is going to depend on Steve I guess but I'm positive armor could be rebalanced to take it into account.

My point is that we don't particularly desire additional randomness and that isn't a motivating factor. For the most part this would have minor effects in any battle of moderate scale as larger weapons are significantly less affected. Compared to other factors such as to-hit chances, shock, damage allocation or explosion chances this seems relatively minor. If it turns out to be too random for smaller battles there can be a threshold armor amount so that a single layer doesn't have a 5% chance to stop damage (which would be significant in small-scale battles).

*edit* Also, since this discussion seems to be outgrowing the original suggestion, could a mod move it into its own thread? We can discuss it more then without straying.

[Sharp]

*edit* Also, since this discussion seems to be outgrowing the original suggestion, could a mod move it into its own thread? We can discuss it more then without straying.

+1

[alex_brunius]

Even if they did land in the same pattern they would still do less damage than the bigger warhead. Damage from one attack in a single column "clears the way" by using up each block's chance to stop a point of damage. If two points land in a column and the first point is stopped by the last block (as an example) the second point automatically goes through as all the armor that would stop it have already been used up. If on the other hand two points landed as separate attacks the second point is independent of the first (provided the first doesn't clear out armor). If the first point is blocked the second can still be blocked too which is not the same as if the damage arrives as one attack.

Hmm that seems even more complex now that I better understand how you envision it.
So every armor block would also need to keep track of if it already failed to stop damage previously inside the scope of the same attack ( but not by a separate damage source happening the same time increment?).
And this temporary status is what gives the input to the chance following points in the same column have of being stopped, which needs to be re-rolled up to armor thickness amount of times for every point of damage.

You are not worrying about performance but I already experience some lighter slowdowns on combat updates where 50+ AMM or so hits in the same increment, so imagine the performance if each of these would need to go through 10+ extra rolls to check if they are stopped for every layer of amour + tracking all the states. I am still concerned that it could quickly add up...

[NihilRex]

I will say this - I _like_ the sandpapering of armor in general.

Ive said my piece about countermissile warheads already, but I dont have a problem at all with the general way armor works already, outside the use of AMMs as ASMs.

[CheaterEater (OP)]

Ultimately only Steve will know what kind of load it would place on the game. We could go back and forth all day but it would be just as useful to guess the color of his socks.

Here are some numbers to give a general idea of the damage reduction that would take place with different armor levels (all are approximate, and at 5% block chance per layer):

20 layers: 36% no blocking, 36% 1 point, 20% 2 points
15 layers: 45% no blocking, 36% 1 point, 13% 2 points
10 layers: 60% no blocking, 32% 1 point, 8% 2 points
6 layers: 72% no blocking, 24% 1 point, 3% 2 points
5 layers: 76% no blocking, 21% 1 point
4 layers: 80% no blocking, 18% 1 point
3 layers: 85% no blocking, 14% 1 point
2 layers: 90% no blocking, 10% 1 point

So for the most commonly used armor layers (1-6 or so) there isn't a huge change. If you compare worst case (all x1) vs. best case (all in one strike) the difference is 15-20%. Is that huge? If you want to use AMMs as ASMs it certainly is significant as you have to build the missiles, haul the missiles out and actually get them through whatever active defenses your opponent has. If you're using a Gauss cannon, max-range laser or some other similar weapon I doubt it. Oftentimes you outdamage the enemy significantly (jump points, planets) or simply outrange them in a fighting retreat. Since you aren't hauling ammo and you have time the 20% shouldn't be a problem. If you're in a real fight the rules apply equally and it only hurts the ships with little weapons which are probably outranged by bigger lasers or railguns anyway. When it really becomes big is when you have a dozen layers of armor, but at that point it seems reasonable that a fast-firing light cannon like a Gauss cannon would have trouble against such a big and heavily armored ship. It still does do damage but it's less effective, point for point, than a bigger weapon.

Those are my impressions from my games at least. It seems to support how I think combat should go and doesn't unduly restrict most weapons.

[Erik L]

I split this off. Not sure what to call it since I haven't been following it too much. Let me know and I can rename.

[MarcAFK]

I think its an interesting concept, but ultimately it just seems like another way of getting the same result as shock damage, basically smaller weapons become slightly less effective then large strikes with more power, perhaps it's not worth the added complexity?

[Conscript Gary]

So, if I read this right you propose giving armor cells an HTK value greater than one based on the height of the column? In a bit of a more roundabout way, but I personally think it would be better to use HTK since that pervades the game's mechanics already. Though that would make just using the height a bit too simple, probably.