Ye Ol' Armor Debate

[Diazo]

Okay.

I'm working on the numbers, here are the numbers for the 3 triangle ships in the game currently.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq-5UOjSWq7bdEVWVHl4NHA4elVGNjUwaElaYU1hNWc

Other spreadsheets to come.

D,

[keith.lamothe]

Okay.

I'm working on the numbers, here are the numbers for the 3 triangle ships in the game currently.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq-5UOjSWq7bdEVWVHl4NHA4elVGNjUwaElaYU1hNWc

Other spreadsheets to come.

D,

Interesting! Thanks for the work.

From that, basically it looks like Bombers -> Bombers and Frigates -> Bombers are the only 2 cases out of 9 where armor even has a significant impact, and even then not very much.

Another interesting fact, if I'm reading this right (which I might not be, pretty tired), is that no triangle case ever hits the 20% minimum damage rule.

[Diazo]

That's only because of the Fighter's Attack Multiplier however.

If you take away that attack multiplier, Fighters would be at 25% damage attacking a bomber 2 Mark levels higher then themselves.

Still working on that sheet with numbers for the Dmg*1000/(1000-Armor)

D.

[Wanderer]

I've read through this thread four times, and I'm not entirely sure what the hell it is we're trying to fix anymore from some of the suggestions.  I admit, that's probably my fault for not understanding them completely.

What armor does:
1) Keep high RoF-high Cap ships from tearing apart low cap ships with the billion bee-stings. (remove one-stop shopping for specialty ships)
2) Force everything but infinate Armor Piercers from being able to do significant damage to a heavily armored ship. (make ship selection matter more)
3) Make multiplier matter even more. (Make ship selection matter incredibly more depending on AI choices)

Can someone cliff-notes me into understanding if any of these suggestions meet these existing results of the current design?

[Hearteater]

We are trying to fix:

1) Armor and Armor Piercing cause large performance differences when different Mark ships target each other (Mark I vs Mark V).  Meanwhile ships without Armor or Armor Piercing don't have this problem.  As a result, the feel of Mark I vs Mark V is very different if the ships in question have Armor/AP or don't.  This is bad

2) Subtractive armor (Armor that substracts itself from a shot's damage) works very poorly with the huge swing in attack damage.  Autocannon Minipods do 560 damage, an Artillery Golem does 100,000,000.  As a result, Armor is frequently meaningless for many ships, and on other ships it caps out and is just 80% damage reduction.  Armor might as well be a flag that makes a ship take 80% damage reduction, which is almost the same as multiplying its health by 5.

Ideally we want:

1) A range of armor "values" is preferred to give more options in ship types.  This can be numerical armor values or a range of armor types, like we have a range of hull types.

2) Low attack values more affected by armor.  Largely because low attack value, high ROF matches up very well against a ship's on-paper DPS and there is no other counter to this in the game.  This would help makes low damage, high ROF and high damage, low ROF an interesting choice for ship types.  If you aren't convinced of this point, consider that hull multipliers further favor low attack value ships even more for maximum efficiency of DPS delivery.

[keith.lamothe]

Armor might as well be a flag that makes a ship take 80% damage reduction

I still don't think that's true; the triangle spreadsheet Diazo just showed us doesn't have a single case where it hits the 80% cap, even mkI with no AP vs mkV with the highest armor of the triangle.

There are certainly some ships that have a huge amount of armor, but not really among the bonus types (Armored Ships do get a bit high, of course), and there are some ships with very tiny damage-per-shot.  In those cases, 80% happens a lot, but I don't think it's the majority case with armor.

[Hearteater]

I didn't mean to imply all ships with armor presently would get that flag.  Most ships would not get that flag.  There would probably be less than 20 units in the game with the armor flag.  That's how insignificant armor is overall.  In the triangle case we see a max Mark-on-Mark reduction of 12% by armor.  But overkill damage obscures that minimal amount of damage reduction to the point it isn't noticeable.

[Wingflier]

I didn't mean to imply all ships with armor presently would get that flag.  Most ships would not get that flag.  There would probably be less than 20 units in the game with the armor flag.  That's how insignificant armor is overall.  In the triangle case we see a max Mark-on-Mark reduction of 12% by armor.  But overkill damage obscures that minimal amount of damage reduction to the point it isn't noticeable.

I agree with Hearteater that the problem with armor (if anybody doesn't understand) is that it's currently a basically insignificant or unnecessary mechanic.  Rarely, if ever, are dedicated anti-armor ships needed or used against high armor ships, which creates a pointless niche.  The only thing a player really considers when choosing counters are the opponent's hull type.  Considering that hull types need a serious revamp/redistribution, we should decide whether armor still plays an important or necessary role in the game.  If not, let's get rid of it.

[Mánagarmr]

I think the real problem with armor is that it can easily be overcome by overkill. The ship takes a lot of damage to go down? Bring MOAR ships to shoot it! If armor had a limit of "Hey, I simply don't take damage below this threshold", it'd turn into an "Oh sh..." moment.

[TechSY730]

I didn't mean to imply all ships with armor presently would get that flag.  Most ships would not get that flag.  There would probably be less than 20 units in the game with the armor flag.  That's how insignificant armor is overall.  In the triangle case we see a max Mark-on-Mark reduction of 12% by armor.  But overkill damage obscures that minimal amount of damage reduction to the point it isn't noticeable.

I agree with Hearteater that the problem with armor (if anybody doesn't understand) is that it's currently a basically insignificant or unnecessary mechanic.  Rarely, if ever, are dedicated anti-armor ships needed or used against high armor ships, which creates a pointless niche.  The only thing a player really considers when choosing counters are the opponent's hull type.  Considering that hull types need a serious revamp/redistribution, we should decide whether armor still plays an important or necessary role in the game.  If not, let's get rid of it.

There is something in ship matchups that armor gives that hull multipliers don't, some measure of protection against large number of weak shots. Is armor doing a good job of this in the current balance? For most ships, no, it's not playing a significant role. But that is a consequence of the current balance, not the current mechanic. If armor could be balanced relative to weapon damage better, and reviewing which units should have enough armor to make a significant impact on battles, then I would start considering armor.

I think the real problem with armor is that it can easily be overcome by overkill. The ship takes a lot of damage to go down? Bring MOAR ships to shoot it! If armor had a limit of "Hey, I simply don't take damage below this threshold", it'd turn into an "Oh sh..." moment.

True, but that is pretty much a problem for any sort of durability or damage mitigation mechanic. Even with hull multipliers, unless the hull multiplier turns out to be 0x, "MOAR" will win, with sufficient amounts of "MOAR".

Take for example that handgun vs a tank scenario I think someone mentioned earlier. So, who would win in a fight, a dozen guys with handgun or a tank (all in decent condition and build quality)? Tank, duh!. 100 guys with hand guns? Still betting on the tank. 5 million guys, each with a handgun? ...In that case, I'd bet on the handguns.

Now of course, it doesn't get that extreme in the game, but it does show that short of invincibility, "MOAR" is uncountable with sufficient amounts of MOAR.

I do think that things can be improved upon. While I would not like to see minimum damage due to armor (or whatever damage mitigation mechanic that may take its place) fall to 0 (small amounts of damage being bumped down to 0 when the datatype could clearly support more granularity just irks me for some reason), I would like to see it lower than the current 20%. That way, it would be harder to amass sufficient amounts of "MOAR" to take out huge, well armored targets.


EDIT: Now while I do think the current mechanic and formulas can be balanced, there is something to be said for switching to a new mechanic that would be easier to maintain balance wise as new stuff is added. With the current system, it is very easy for armor values to sort of be "forgotten" as the game shifts.

[keith.lamothe]

Take for example that handgun vs a tank scenario I think someone mentioned earlier. So, who would win in a fight, a dozen guys with handgun or a tank (all in decent condition and build quality)? Tank, duh!. 100 guys with hand guns? Still betting on the tank. 5 million guys, each with a handgun? ...In that case, I'd bet on the handguns.

If it was just 5 million handguns, the tank might still win, depending on what it had to do to win.  Though it might get its treads jammed on bullets or catch some in the exhaust or something like that.

I'd have my money on the 5 million guys, and encourage them to bring screwdrivers instead of handguns.  Somebody put that tank together, and somebody can take it apart!

[Wingflier]

, it is very easy for armor values to sort of be "forgotten" as the game shifts.

I agree with this, which is why I think turning armor into a separate hull type and/or integrating armor as a base mechanic into the game (ships automatically take less hull damage against weaker shots and more against stronger ones) are the two best suggestions balance wise. The latter would have us balancing all ships by max health, shots fired, and damage per shot, which would open up a ton of options while still keeping things relatively simple.

Also, with that system, we could add a new mechanic "self-repair", and designate a whole new class of bonus ships as long-range raiders and harassers who can self-repair for prolonged engagements.  Raptors would be a good candidate as an example.

[Mánagarmr]

Somebody put that tank together, and somebody can take it apart!

Lol! That'd be a sight to behold.

[rabican]

New attribute  extrasupermegagoodygoodygodlygood armor that increases maximum damage migitation to 95% . Slap it into some ships you want(not raid SS). Problem solved.

Really don't see any need for radical changes. It is fine background mechanic. It isn't overly interesting or aweinspiring, but frankly, it never can be.

No matter what the system is , armor of units will never need much of a thought when actually playing the game. Unless you go with near 1/0 option like some RTSes do, you cant damage tank with handgun.   And that would work.... poorly in AIWAR.  Do you really want units to be completly useless versus others for something like armor that you have to check for every single unit against every single unit?  There is enough of that already with the immunities and whatnots.

[Diazo]

Okay.

This spreadsheet with the Dmg*1000/(1000+Armor) is giving me fits in laying it out so it is actually usable.

(Wall of text mode is available but useless to actually use.)

However, I posted the Triangle ship numbers for two reasons.

1) See where the three ships that everything else is kind of based around were sitting at.  Interestingly the only ship that was seriously degraded in terms of damage was the bomber attacking another bomber, the fighter and frigate's 300 armor was essentially useless.

2) The other one that should have been low was the frigate attacking the bomber but the attack multiplier effectively acted as armor piercing so the armor did not do anything. Which is one of the reasons armor currently is not a big deal, once you find a ship with an attack multiplier against the target you are attacking, the armor of the defending unit does not matter, the attack multiplier will overwhelm it.

Still trying to come up with a useable spreadsheet for the proposed armor mechanic, we'll see if I can turn out something useable.

D.