Jump to content

On Armor Damage Modeling & Penetration


107 replies to this topic

#21 Amechwarrior

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 729 posts
  • LocationHawaii

Posted 30 November 2011 - 01:24 PM

Battletech never needed to tie the 'mechs physical design to the armor values. This is a huge problem moving to a PC-sim. You noted the problems about the quantity/size of sub sections vs graphically diverse 'mech designs. A system like this almost needs to be built along side the concept art and 3d modeling. It would need an large amount of testing to make sure some designs physical shapes to not confer enormous advantage and adding in customizations throws boxes of wrenches in that. I think the meta sections can still serve a purpose in game instead of many independent subunits.

What if you did keep some of the ablative damage spread? What if a AC/20 that hits sub section 1 of 3 does 10 damage to sub1 and 5 each to sub2 and sub3. The meta sections would lose overall armor as you focused on one sub section, but if you happen to hit a left torso high, you are not back at square one if you have been previously shooting LT/low. Of course total armor per subunit would need to be adusted, but it still groups the meta sections together in game instead of having 20 or so independent sub units across a 'mech. You could also tune which weapons concentrate the damage in one sub section. Arbitrary example: AC/5 vs Med. Laser, same total damage(5) but the lasers heat up the meta section doing 1.6 dmg to each of the 3 sub units and an AC/5 would do 3 damgae to the directly hit subunit and 1 to each of the other two subunits. This could also be used to replace the penetration mechanic. But it leaves the meta units feeling like a distinct section of the 'mech instead of just an administrative property.

I do love the idea of the internals being mapped out in-game instead of just another hitbox. I would love to see a "armorless" skeleton of every bit of internals displayed in game. To be able to see the Awesomes PPCs and try to directly knock them out of the chassis would be an amazing leap over any previous game. Also good call on the hips, it is an interesting area that looks like part of the torso but hip actuators are in the legs on the TT. Just making the hips a distinct area with its own armor and weaknesses like torso twist ring and hip actuators would be interesting.

#22 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 30 November 2011 - 02:05 PM

i like the system (suits my Hunchback nicely) but I'm worried about the penetration unbalancing the ballistic weapons.

#23 Alex Wolfe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,359 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 02:28 PM

Love it until the AP talk. I guess it would allow ballistic mechs to reign supreme, if even one "leftover" point of damage would mean you completely gut the attacked section, while the others need to wait for their weapons to recycle and then hope to damage the same body part again. Pass on that.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 30 November 2011 - 02:32 PM.


#24 Raeven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 324 posts
  • LocationHal's Bar. Middletown, Cathay District, Solaris VII

Posted 30 November 2011 - 02:45 PM

View PostCavadus, on 30 November 2011 - 12:11 PM, said:


You should have kept reading.


You are right. I was blinded by my hatred for the world of tanks mechanics, and only skimmed the rest of that section.

I dont understand. If they only penetrate if the armor value is below the damage rating, how is that better? They would penetrate anyway. I dint think any weapon should be able to skip past armor to internals. Your suggestion sound like you would essentially be doing double damage with that last shot. Too powerful.

#25 Paladin1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 836 posts
  • LocationCapellan March, Federated Suns

Posted 30 November 2011 - 03:02 PM

View PostCavadus, on 30 November 2011 - 10:53 AM, said:

According to the source materials the default munition for ACs is High-Explosive, Armor-Piercing.

So it sounds like it would be pierce armor to me...

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon


I don't disagree that a HEAP round has the potential to do internal damage, but it's not a Kinetic Energy penetrator round like the US Military uses, which is what I was talking about. The KE round is usually either tungsten carbide or depleted uranium and does not contain explosives but instead uses kinetic energy to penetrate a target's armor. This is fairly close to the description of the Armor Piercing rounds in the TT game and would play very well with your idea of punching through hit boxes and hitting actual components in the internal structure.

#26 VYCanis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 03:30 PM

HEAP and KE penetreators achieve sorta similar results-ish but using different means

HEAP rounds explode against armor in such a way to "clear the way" for an internal penetrator core to continue along and hopefully penetrate the armor.

KEPs are basically just dense fin stabilized darts that try to get the same job done through speed, material properties of the impactor, and momentum.

IIRC KEPs tend to punch through armor better, but HEAP is better general purpose.

and then you get into all the other systems like HEAT, which use explosives to force an amount of soft metal into a hypersonic wad
or HESH, that try to explode against armor in a way where they don't penetrate, but the shockwave they cause spalls up the inside of the tank in a bad way.

#27 Gunman5000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 106 posts

Posted 30 November 2011 - 04:38 PM

Great post, love the idea of having actual armour thickness instead of an arbitrary number for a considerably large area on a 'mech. I have no issues with the TT system, it works great for what it is intended for, definately think this is a good step in the right direction for a PC simulation though.

Like many others I disagree to an extent on the Armour penetration, but like you said play testing would be required to really work out the bugs. Its a good idea, and to a certain degree I think ballistics weapons could use a small bonus along those lines, I'm just not sold on the idea of being able to do that kind of damage that easily. As mentioned it would make it rather unbalanced against light 'mechs who may only have 10 or 12 points of armour in some sections. Yes an AC/20 or Gauss rifle should and would ruin their day, but I don't think it would need to ruin their day AND kill their pet hamster at the same time lol.

I actually like the TT rules better when it comes to penetration/critical hits, if there is armour, there is no penetration or critical hit unless the weapon does more damage than armour remaining. The extra damage (above and beyond any armour in the section) would cause that much damage to internal structure and potentially cause a critical. This is where I would diverge from the TT rules, instead of making it random if there is a critical hit or randomly selecting where the hit is, use the idea of actual internal hitboxes as described. If you blast through the Atlas' left forearm but the laser has already been disabled, or you miss the actuator then the round continues on its merry way (depending how detailed the armour damage modelling is, it could potentially cause damage to armour on the opposite side of the forearm). If that laser or actuator gets hit, then it takes damage (perhaps dividing the extra damage between I.S. and the component?) based on how much extra damage is left after the armour absorbed what it could. This still allows for penetration through focused fire (difficult using Cone of Fire but not impossible depending on weapons and how exactly it is implemented) but doesnt make any one weapon or type of weapon overpowered anymore than its straight up damage already does. Also it would make it easier for actual AP rounds, such as the special ammunition for Autocannons (which give autocannons a leg up already in versatility if implemented). These rounds would essentially deal less damage to armour but guarantee damage to internal structure and possibly hit an internal hitbox depending on aim.

#28 Gaius Cavadus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 404 posts
  • LocationNova Roma, Alphard

Posted 30 November 2011 - 06:59 PM

View PostPaladin1, on 30 November 2011 - 03:02 PM, said:

I don't disagree that a HEAP round has the potential to do internal damage, but it's not a Kinetic Energy penetrator round like the US Military uses, which is what I was talking about. The KE round is usually either tungsten carbide or depleted uranium and does not contain explosives but instead uses kinetic energy to penetrate a target's armor. This is fairly close to the description of the Armor Piercing rounds in the TT game and would play very well with your idea of punching through hit boxes and hitting actual components in the internal structure.


I know, it's called a sabot round. Rather than using sheer kinetic energy to force an incredibly dense dart HEAP uses a shaped charge to penetrate armor.

For reference, the old *** RPG-7's copper charge can penetrate 11 inches of steel. Obviously when you move up to stuff like the AT-4 and Javelin the armor penetration increases even more.

Also, M1 Abrams' munitions loads are split between sabot and HEAT (High-Explosive, Anti-Tank which is the same as HEAP, just a different name).

http://www.globalsec...ions/m830a1.htm

I can't find penetration data for the M830 but on the DM-12 MZ munition, which is supposedly identical, can penetrate 400-450mm of homogeneous steel. In contrast, the M829A3 (the latest and greatest U-238 depleted uranium sabot) is listed as penetrating 711mm of homogeneous steel (please keep in mind this is all against vertical plates, not sloped).

HEAP/T is still going to penetrate eventually.

Now that being said, for the sake of gameplay I'd be happy with choosing between Armor-Piercing and High-Explosive ammunition for an autocannon. HE doing sheer ablative and higher damage while the AP gets reduced damage but a limited ability to bypass armor under particular circumstances.

Perhaps you could do something like HEAP penetrating armor that is equal to or less than 25% of the round's total damage where AP would defeat armor once the value is reduced to equal or less than 50% of the damage... but that could be tricky since AP has reduced damage...

Hmmmm...

Of course, we're all predicating this on the assumption that each AC shot is going to be a single round. I'd actually prefer ACs didn't operate that way instead shot in a burst mode which means multiple projectiles. Multiple projectiles means the damage is split between them all.

So, if you break the AC-20s damage into a 5-round burst you're getting 4 damage per hit which means no penetration until the target area is at or below 3 armor.

It really depends on how ACs work I guess... if they're actually burst-fire or single shot.

#29 Dlardrageth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,198 posts
  • LocationF.R.G.

Posted 30 November 2011 - 07:22 PM

According to canon ACs do burst-fire. That's why they are called autocannons. ;) It's just the TT game treats one burst as a single shot for damage and to-hit determination/rolls. Also, as you mentioned WoT, you can't just transfer penetration mechanics over from there that easily.

Mind me, I think some of the game mechanics in WoT, especially zero-dmg crits are pretty retarded with the gameplay there. But then, beyond the initial armor layer, starts the difference. In WoT you have something called "hitpoints", which is a finite amount of "buffer" before you die. In BT, after you went past the armor, you get to the "internal structure". Any hit there gets automatically a crit chance on top of doing damage. Also, once the internal structure of e.g. a limb is gone, you basically lose it. It might even be turned mostly useless before if you hit an essential actuator there. And keep in mind, additional to this, many BT weapons have a basic chance to score a critical (in the TT rules, not sure what PGI will implement).

So the damage modeling in BT/MW is quite more detailed than in WoT (many people think the HP system in WoT is fundamentally flawed anyway). Also meaning, that (IMHO) introducing "penetrating hits" on top of BT damage modeling, would turn projectile weapons OP. On top of that, it would be a pretty hard nerf to lighter Mechs, who often don't have the armor to even withstand AC/5 penetration easily. And I really don't want MWO to become something like WoT where anything but the highest/heaviest tanks are pretty much cannonfodder. And mostly useless in UC/the strategic level.

If PGI decides to "simulate" penetration by giving some weapons (AC/20, Gauss Rifles, UACs e.g.) better crit chances, I'm all for it to avoid silly imbalances of earlier MW games. But to generally introduce a penetration "extra mode"... can't say I'm persuaded it'll work out.

#30 Gaius Cavadus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 404 posts
  • LocationNova Roma, Alphard

Posted 30 November 2011 - 07:26 PM

View PostDlardrageth, on 30 November 2011 - 07:22 PM, said:

According to canon ACs do burst-fire. That's why they are called autocannons. ;) It's just the TT game treats one burst as a single shot for damage and to-hit determination/rolls.


I know this. OTOH every single MW game has treated an entire AC "burst" as a single attack. Only the graphic accurately portrayed the autocannons' function.

Will MWO go the route of every single other MW game or will ACs finally distribute the attack's damage over X amount of shells fired (i.e. an AC-20 fires a four round burst, each shell delivering 5 damage)?

We have no idea.

Quote

Also, as you mentioned WoT...


Stop.

No one has advocated a WoT-style penetration model in this discussion. I brought it up in comparison and described it so people would understand it. That's all.

Edited by Cavadus, 30 November 2011 - 07:39 PM.


#31 Damocles

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 1,527 posts
  • LocationOakland, CA

Posted 30 November 2011 - 08:39 PM

View PostCavadus, on 30 November 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

OTOH every single MW game has treated an entire AC "burst" as a single attack. Only the graphic accurately portrayed the autocannons' function.


It has been so long since I have played MW3, but couldn't you walk your AC fire across several hitboxes?
and MW2 where you just held down the fire and each hit was separate dmg.

#32 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:04 AM

If an AC20 is treated as multiple round rather than a single shot the surely that negates it's one advantage over 4ML's?

#33 Gaius Cavadus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • The Spear
  • 404 posts
  • LocationNova Roma, Alphard

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:11 AM

View PostNik Van Rhijn, on 01 December 2011 - 12:04 AM, said:

If an AC20 is treated as multiple round rather than a single shot the surely that negates it's one advantage over 4ML's?

Between this thread and the "Autocannon" thread I'm starting to feel like ACs need a more radical revision than can be derived from the TT stats...

#34 EDMW CSN

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,073 posts
  • LocationOutreach

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:36 AM

I rather keep ACs as 1 big bore shell or behave as a single shot even though graphically it shows multiple shots.
Suspension of disbelief for the latter but spreading out the damage will make all regular ACs and UACs no different from LB series of mech shotguns.

#35 Dlardrageth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,198 posts
  • LocationF.R.G.

Posted 01 December 2011 - 12:36 AM

View PostCavadus, on 30 November 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

[...]
Stop.

No one has advocated a WoT-style penetration model in this discussion. I brought it up in comparison and described it so people would understand it. That's all.


You are aware you brought in WoT first into this discussion? ^_^

View PostCavadus, on 30 November 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:


I know but that was RNG based. I'm trying to get away from that. World of Tanks has critical hits as well and they're hugely frustrating because they do zero damage to the hull, which when depleted destroys the tank, and instead damage module or crew member.

It's really F'ing annoying when you're in a life and death battle, the other tank has 2 hitpoints left, and the RNG decides your awesome kill shot is instead going to be a 0 damage critical that knocks out the radio.
[...]


Don't really see you making a comparison there, but okay, whatever. ;) Back to the point you chose to not even mention in your last reply. How about the nerf to light(er) Mechs an extra penetration mechanism could be?

#36 Corsair114

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 01 December 2011 - 03:27 AM

Armor Penetration idea needs work. Not sure what, too late and tired to come up with any insightful comments on it other than that.

Rest of it is 100% gravy.

Anything that puts more onus on the pilot and less on RNG's is a plus in my book.

#37 Raeven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 324 posts
  • LocationHal's Bar. Middletown, Cathay District, Solaris VII

Posted 01 December 2011 - 03:34 AM

View PostCavadus, on 01 December 2011 - 12:11 AM, said:

Between this thread and the "Autocannon" thread I'm starting to feel like ACs need a more radical revision than can be derived from the TT stats...



Well, whatever changes get made to them needs to be balanced with changes to the other weapons or the changes need to be improvements on the AC. I'm all for awesome cool graphics and weapon effects, as long as it maintains the balance of the equipment tables. That's where Battletechs true strength is derived from, imo.

#38 God of War

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 447 posts
  • LocationGermany/Stuttgart

Posted 01 December 2011 - 03:56 AM

Cavadus, i agree with you with exeption of the penetraion idea.
Why should an a ballistic projektile pierce the ablative/multi-layer armor better than other weapons??? ^_^
It takes the dmg from energy weapons and transferse it while melting. and it takes the kinetic force and absorbs it by spreading it to larger area, breaking in the process. modern Chobham-armour works the same way.

ACs and Gauss etc. dont need a buff to compensate for tonnage and ammo. their simple firepower is more than enough to fix this drawbacks.

Edited by God of War, 01 December 2011 - 03:56 AM.


#39 Woodstock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • Mercenary
  • 1,166 posts
  • LocationKrakow

Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:34 AM

Hey

Nice post man ... fully behind you. Not overly sure about the 'some weapons pen' part ... but 99% love what you said.

BUT

I'm not a dev ... not a tech god in any way ... I'm just a smelly 'End User!'

So I might be talking out of my A5S ... please enlighten me.

Where will this complexity be handled? Server side? or Client side?

Server side is FAR from 'cheaters corner' as I understand it but the LAG MONSTER loves to loiter and eat all those tasty little data packages.
Client side is far from the LAG monster but close to Cheating S.O.B's corner.

Personally I'd say it should be Server side to maintain the integrity of the game and the fairness. So am I being paranoid? Is this 'complexity' in reality pretty simple and easily within the capabilities of modern server networks? Or would it become a Lag monster picnic area?

Especially as I am still hoping for EPIC 106 v 106 battalion battles!

please please please

^_^

#40 Dlardrageth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,198 posts
  • LocationF.R.G.

Posted 01 December 2011 - 05:10 AM

View Postwoodstock, on 01 December 2011 - 04:34 AM, said:

[...]
Especially as I am still hoping for EPIC 106 v 106 battalion battles!

please please please

^_^


A battalion of 106 Mechs? WTH? :D

What kind of battalion is that? That's usally 36, even a square battalion has only 48 Mechs, same 36 for a ComGuard Lvl III. You are more likely thinking of a short regiment of 3 battalions?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users