Author Topic: So, this whole armor thing  (Read 31893 times)

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #60 on: April 14, 2013, 10:24:19 pm »
I guess nailing down what hull types are supposed to "model" vs armor stat, so we don't get some, what is effectively in balance terms, "blurring" of them that we get for some of the hull types (light, heavy, ultra heavy, et. al).

By doing this, we can then get a better idea about how good or bad the balance of the current hull type distribution is now, how it relates to armor, and where to go from there.

@Arcain_one
Woa, it's been a while.
Just wanted to let you know that your suggestion about permanent AI defenders you made long ago (that I reposted onto mantis), IIRC, helped in part to inspire the current strategic reserves mechanic.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #61 on: April 14, 2013, 10:31:12 pm »
Well, I'd love to move to a system where each ship has a "hull type" and a "hull size" and can have multipliers against either (though I'd also like ships to just have a "weapon type" which determines their multipliers rather than them be per-ship-type without a lot of intuitiveness), and thus just leave armor out, but it seems like that would be a metric ton of work for... mostly conceptual cleanness, compared to the current situation.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #62 on: April 14, 2013, 10:35:58 pm »
Well, I'd love to move to a system where each ship has a "hull type" and a "hull size" and can have multipliers against either (though I'd also like ships to just have a "weapon type" which determines their multipliers rather than them be per-ship-type without a lot of intuitiveness), and thus just leave armor out, but it seems like that would be a metric ton of work for... mostly conceptual cleanness, compared to the current situation.

I hate to say this, but I think any solution is going to require a metric ton of work, or at least a short ton of it.  :-\

I guess the question now is which solution can get us to a reasonable place but can be "spread out" over many increments for the migration instead of requiring "all or nothing".

Offline Arcain_One

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #63 on: April 14, 2013, 10:39:47 pm »
We agree things aren't optimal but the biggest problem of all is that we don't agree as to exactly what that is not optimal.

Seems a bit vague so I don't really understand the problem you're seeing with it (not saying I don't see problems, but that doesn't mean I know which ones you see).  To clarify, what changes would you want to see happen?

I see current armor as an easy mechanic to understand how a ships power is affected. Armor cuts damage by a fixed amount.

Effective Damage = Damage - Armor

Hulls and hull bonuses are not as easy to grasp. Hull bonuses give a damage multiplier only to certain ships.

if(Enemy Hull == Target Hull)
{
Effective Damage = Damage * Hull Multiplier
}
Else
{
Effective Damage = Damage
}

Unless you are viewing ships in you game with hulls in mind or already know which ships have which hulls it comes out to be a mysterious mechanic. Unless the player meta-knows these thing they are at a disadvantage (specifically ones new to the game).

I specifically target this mechanic for the same traditional reason that ships don't have upgrades: it is not intuitive to the player.

I would not mind if the hull mechanic were to be written out.

The problem with that is the existing bonuses, for witch I don't have an idea about at the moment.
Quote from: keith.lamothe
In general, the level of complaining is driving Developer-Progress up and we're considering launching a wave ;)

Offline Radiant Phoenix

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2013, 12:19:01 am »
We agree things aren't optimal but the biggest problem of all is that we don't agree as to exactly what that is not optimal.

Seems a bit vague so I don't really understand the problem you're seeing with it (not saying I don't see problems, but that doesn't mean I know which ones you see).  To clarify, what changes would you want to see happen?

I see current armor as an easy mechanic to understand how a ships power is affected. Armor cuts damage by a fixed amount.

Effective Damage = Damage - Armor

Hulls and hull bonuses are not as easy to grasp. Hull bonuses give a damage multiplier only to certain ships.

if(Enemy Hull == Target Hull)
{
Effective Damage = Damage * Hull Multiplier
}
Else
{
Effective Damage = Damage
}

Unless you are viewing ships in you game with hulls in mind or already know which ships have which hulls it comes out to be a mysterious mechanic. Unless the player meta-knows these thing they are at a disadvantage (specifically ones new to the game).

I specifically target this mechanic for the same traditional reason that ships don't have upgrades: it is not intuitive to the player.

I would not mind if the hull mechanic were to be written out.

The problem with that is the existing bonuses, for witch I don't have an idea about at the moment.
I like the hull mechanic because it makes DPS calculations easier. You just find the raw DPS, and multiply by the multipliers to find bonused DPS. You can also easily see what's best against what (ignoring armor)

Armor is something like "Dps = max(0.2*D,D-A)/T", which needs to be calculated for every single ship-vs-ship comparison.

Offline orzelek

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,096
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #65 on: April 15, 2013, 12:57:37 pm »
Well, I'd love to move to a system where each ship has a "hull type" and a "hull size" and can have multipliers against either (though I'd also like ships to just have a "weapon type" which determines their multipliers rather than them be per-ship-type without a lot of intuitiveness), and thus just leave armor out, but it seems like that would be a metric ton of work for... mostly conceptual cleanness, compared to the current situation.

I actually think that redoing hulls/weapons and armor at one step is only way to get more proper model. Currently hulls and damage modifiers are replacing a lot of "heavy" stuff that should be handled by ships having varied armor and proper armor piercing. Fact that bombers are anti-heavy units and have no armor piercing looks strange.

Offline Radiant Phoenix

  • Sr. Member Mark II
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #66 on: April 15, 2013, 01:21:49 pm »
Confusion with armor has come up in the K costs thread. Actually analyzing armor effects isn't as intuitive as you might think.

Offline orzelek

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,096
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #67 on: April 15, 2013, 03:29:01 pm »
I know that analyzing armor is tricky.

We haven't found system which would reduce the complexity but still hold the current effect on rof vs damage per shot relation with armor. There was an idea that would add armor piercing directly dependent on shot damage - not sure if ti would work if we moved to %-age based armor.

The problem with abuse of Heavy/Ultra-Heavy hulls is here from quite some time. It lead to quite few re-balances and potentially some of power creep (I have this new heavy unit but it's to fragile due to counters.. soo lets get a bit more hp shall we?).

I'm still hoping that we can find system where hulls/anti-hull bonuses would give specialization to ships but general "toughness" of ship would be described by it's hp and armor. Having separate hull and size with modifiers against each could help with this (size would take on current sturdiness modifier) and I think we could live with this complication. It would still leave armor as a bit secondary mechanic to bonus modifiers - one of problems now as I understand (armor is not visible enough on battle field).

I think that moving to %-age reduction could work if we would allow armor piercing to also be a %-age and differ heavily. With allowing to get actual armor into 95% range and potential armor piercing based on damage of unit and some special bonuses for units meant to counter armor we could use armor to replace currently common hulls by making targets that should be hard to kill have very high base armor.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 03:31:47 pm by orzelek »

Offline Ranakastrasz

  • Full Member Mark III
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #68 on: July 31, 2013, 10:37:05 pm »
I think we need to compare the old shields with the current armor.

The Old shields were compared directly to range. As in, (Range-shield)/Range As chance to hit, with minimum of 5%. That is probably not the equation, but close enough to show what it did.
~Essentially, it was seen as matching the attack's frequency, to nullify it. Faster moving attacks (Higher range) give less time for the shield to calculate the frequency and match it. Stronger shields, however, don't need nearly as close a match, and so tend to ignore even longer ranged attacks, unless they close range. (Sniper being instant, due to infinite range, ignores shields entirely)

The effect of this is that closing distance reduces shield's effect. Building turrets closer to a wormhole helped. And no matter how much or how little damage an attack did, it would scale up or down with distance and shielding, and NOTICEABLY. (Unless sniper or equivalent)
This also paired up certain traits. Damage to Health (Tier Multiplied, but cancels). Range to Shielding. Now, however, Range has this artificial, patchy Radar dampening (which keeps getting added to tons of structures, because range mitigation is NEEDED), and Damage , armor, Health, and Tiers, which is four variables, 6 total. No wonder it is so hard to balance.

Radar dampening is essentially a replacement for old shields, which used to force ships to get closer anyway, but without as much of a hard limit. Your chance to hit (which could have translated straight into damage reduction at distance) scaled from 5%, until you hit a threshhold (based on target's shield) and increased up to 100% as you approach. Hence most ships were essentially radar dampened, but it wasn't absolute, and snipers still ignored.

~Space tanks had 30k shielding, which was what made them special. 95% of most attacks would just bounce right off, and only the really long ranged attacks would go through.

The current Armor, on the otherhand, compares to damage. Damage - Armor, minimum of 20%. Aside from a different minimum, Damage fluxuates insanely in comparison to range, and in more cases, too.


Damage, first of all, Varies a lot. Bigger ships tend to have more damage. Some ships have more damage anyway, with a longer cooldown to match. HIGHER TIER ships have more damage.
Now, higher tier ships also have more Armor, but attacks from lower tiers to higher tiers tend to be highly mitigated, and higher to lower are super effective. Hence armor only really applies at matched tiers, and then only for comparable ships anyway. Its a chaotic mess, because of how many variables you have to manage.

The solution, to me at least, seems obvious. Or at least part of the solution. Reduce complexity. Exclude Tiers from the Calculations.

All Tiers of ships, I to V, have the same level of armor. However, on taking a hit, multiply the armor by the tier of the ATTACKER, and negate that much damage. (down to 20%, or, preferably, 5%)

I think the effects of this, should be obvious. No matter what tier matches you have, the effects of armor will be the same. Like the old shields, Armor will not care about ship tier. Hence, only damage and armor will be part of the equation, and tier won't invalidate it 80% of the time.

It is feasible, to totally rip off the old shield equation instead. (Rename armor to Deflectors. Not gonna be confused with Shields&Forcefields, both being common bubble names)
(Range-Deflectors)/Range = Coef . Then, we can either A, Use Coef as chance to hit, or B, Deal Coef * Damage. Either way, we win, as it lets us drop the rigid Radar Dampening, and replace armor with it, like before, and, takes us from 4 variables messing with damage, to only 2, like before.

The Question here, is whether or not we want a Random Factor. I seem to recall someone saying that the Random factor was why we got rid of Shielding. (It might have been name confusion however, which is easily mitigated with keeping Armor, or using Deflectors)
I can understand why the mechanic seemed too Random, in some cases. In the case of Heavy, slow attacks, from singular units (Golems? Did they exist back then?), Massed fire, with hundreds or thousands of shots, would tend to average out FAST.
Regardless, it had something else VERY important: Visibility. Every time a space tank took a shell, it had a little green gem to the side moving up. And it took no damage. And you could easily alter the relation between range and shield by approaching the target, see the % chance to hit by mousing over, and mitigate it that way. That was fine, and understandable. And tanks were terrifying unless you unlocked snipers... (Or I was just bad at the game. High likelyhood, admittedly)

However, If the Random Factor is Really THAT BAD, it is Easy to make it a simple Scalar, and just reduce damage linearly. Admittedly, you must then recalculate damage dealt relatively often as you close distance, but showing the mult next to the target, instead of damage, may be advisable... (Actually, this needs a different suggestion, applicable immediately)

So, In conclusion. A Is my first choice, B my Second, C my Third.

Current:
~Range, Radar Dampening~ Interaction
~Damage, Tier, Armor, Health~ Interaction

A:
-Remove Armor from damage Equation. Damage * Mult -> Health.
-Projectiles, on Impact, have a ("Distance Between Ships" - "Target Armor") / ("Attacker Range") Chance to Hit. Else show the highly visible Green pulse effect.
-Display, with selection, while hovering over a target, Minimum and Maxium chances to hit. (possible average and median as well)
-Armor Renamed to deflector (optional)
~Has Random Factor.
~Armor effects Highly Visible
~Range, Armor~ Interaction
~Damage, Health~ Interaction


B:
-Alter Damage Equation to (("Distance Between Ships" - "Target Armor") / ("Attacker Range")) * Damage * Mult -> Health.
-Display, with selection, while hovering over a target, Minimum and Maxium Range Mult. (possible average and median as well)
-Armor Renamed to deflector (optional)
~NO RANDOM FACTOR
~Armor effects Highly Visible
~Range, Armor~ Interaction
~Damage, Health~ Interaction

C:
-Reduce Armor on all ships to T1 Values
-Multiply armor by Attacker's tier
-Reduce 20% minimum to 5% minimum
~NO RANDOM FACTOR
~Range, Radar Dampening~ Interaction
~Damage, Armor, Health~ Interaction
« Last Edit: July 31, 2013, 10:58:31 pm by Ranakastrasz »

Offline LaughingThesaurus

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,723
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #69 on: July 31, 2013, 10:46:41 pm »
Honestly... I would really rather go with a super simple solution.

Each ship has an armor value. The armor value is a percentage of damage that it doesn't take from each attack that comes in. A ship with 5% armor doesn't take 5,000 damage out of a 100,000 damage attack. Armor Piercing is something that is far more common under this system. You end up with a lot of ships that have a little bit of armor piercing. Some really big ones or specialized ones have a lot of armor piercing. The "infinite armor piercing" is 100%. Armor piercing is subtracted from the target ship's armor value, and what's left is the total damage reduction.
So, a ship with 10% armor piercing attacks a ship that has 95% armor. That target ship takes 15% of the damage that attack would normally do. Simple. No numbers you have to just intuit as a percentage of damage reduction, no complex formulas, no hit chances, no screwing over low damage ships over high damage ones, none of that nonsense. It's just a little bit of light percentage-based math.

I am vehemently against any kind of 'random chance to take no damage', by the way. Random factors you can't predict in a strategy game kind of completely undermine the strategy, I feel.  I'm not about to vote in favor of bringing shields back.

Offline Ranakastrasz

  • Full Member Mark III
  • ***
  • Posts: 242
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #70 on: July 31, 2013, 10:55:24 pm »
Honestly... I would really rather go with a super simple solution.

Each ship has an armor value. The armor value is a percentage of damage that it doesn't take from each attack that comes in. A ship with 5% armor doesn't take 5,000 damage out of a 100,000 damage attack. Armor Piercing is something that is far more common under this system. You end up with a lot of ships that have a little bit of armor piercing. Some really big ones or specialized ones have a lot of armor piercing. The "infinite armor piercing" is 100%. Armor piercing is subtracted from the target ship's armor value, and what's left is the total damage reduction.
So, a ship with 10% armor piercing attacks a ship that has 95% armor. That target ship takes 15% of the damage that attack would normally do. Simple. No numbers you have to just intuit as a percentage of damage reduction, no complex formulas, no hit chances, no screwing over low damage ships over high damage ones, none of that nonsense. It's just a little bit of light percentage-based math.

I am vehemently against any kind of 'random chance to take no damage', by the way. Random factors you can't predict in a strategy game kind of completely undermine the strategy, I feel.  I'm not about to vote in favor of bringing shields back.

The first part, I agree with as on par with C as an improvement. That would work, as it too would remove the Tier factor (which is a huge part of the problem as is)
However, I think Fixing the Radar Dampening Vs Range thing is VERY important.

The Random Factor isn't as huge as you might think. Note that AI wars frequently has hundreds or thousands of ships, and hence hundreds and thousands of shots. with a 5% chance to hit, you still easily get 50 shots hitting per volly, and it averages out fast. That, and closing the range actively reduces the chance of ignoring anyway.
Regardless, I expected reactions like this (Even if it isn't reaction to my post, which is likely, considering no comment on range vs radar damp vs shields) and hence included the linear reduction instead.

Offline LaughingThesaurus

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,723
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #71 on: July 31, 2013, 11:23:07 pm »
The thing is, even if it averages out on huge quantities of ships... what about people who use starships? What about the early game? What about a streak of bad luck where you have this decisive engagement where all of your bad rolls got stacked all at once and you miss every single shot? Luck can completely ruin you, even if it averages out quickly. I've seen it happen countless times in other games. Notably, board or pen and paper games. I'd burn all my great Pathfinder rolls on a shooting gallery, and miss every time in actual combat while the DM would score regular confirmed criticals. I've seen opponents with great figures in Heroscape, and yet they just lose because every time they attack they miss completely.

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #72 on: August 01, 2013, 03:41:56 am »
Hm, that's a new idea. Bring back the old shield mechanic, but interpret the resulting percentage as a multiplier to damage instead of a probability, putting determinism back into the system.

However, it still suffers from the other problem the old shield system had; hard to estimate at a glance what kinds of expected orders of magnitude of damage reduction would be getting in ordinary matchups, aka, not intuitive. (Remember, the tool-tip only helps so much, sometimes there are no enemy ships around that you can hover over, and the tool-tip won't help you with estimating how much damage you will be taking from the enemy ship, though the new reference tab in the stats screen helps somewhat).


Still, this seems like a viable new option to add to the growing list of proposals. :)

Offline Martyn van Buren

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #73 on: August 01, 2013, 04:18:02 am »
I am a bit puzzled about the armor-as-percentage idea --- am I right to think it would be the same as extra HP except for some bonus ships with armor effects?

Making range matter does seem kind of interesting, but would definitely favor predictable damage reduction over random factor.  If it's going to average out, might as well just average it out to begin with.

Offline Shrugging Khan

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,217
  • Neinzul Y PzKpfw Tiger!
Re: So, this whole armor thing
« Reply #74 on: August 01, 2013, 06:31:36 am »
Well, I'd love to move to a system where each ship has a "hull type" and a "hull size" and can have multipliers against either (though I'd also like ships to just have a "weapon type" which determines their multipliers rather than them be per-ship-type without a lot of intuitiveness), and thus just leave armor out, but it seems like that would be a metric ton of work for... mostly conceptual cleanness, compared to the current situation.

Yes please!
The beatings shall continue
until morale improves!