Damage Model/Ballistics

[VOWS Flawless]

I've posted this elsewhere but wanted more people to check this out (hence why i'm posting it here). I pulled up an old video from an old game (wwii online). I just wanted to point out how impressive the ballistics are in such an old game engine. In fact, I don't think any other game has come anywhere near as close to the realism of these ballistics.

I wanted to ask the community how they felt about whether or not implementing this sort of level of realism would be a good thing or a bad thing to the game we already know we love. Perhaps only certain elements? Check it out.

WWII Online: Battleground Europe- Damage Model - YouTube


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e366/mike433/flawsigbanner1.jpg

[SFJake]

Its called overcomplications for the sake of nothing but realism which tends to massively hurt gameplay in the end instead of helping it in any way, shape or form.

I mean, some people love those things. I personally don't. Arma 2 to me, is an example of "realism for the sake of realism". Who the hell cares: I want a game, and those realism elements however "cool" they are on paper, are a nightmare for the gameplay and the fun factor.

If a game is a platform for realism, then maybe its not even a game to begin with.

[maradine]

I do love that level of realism, but to use Jake's example, you can really fuck it up ala ARMA. You still need a good game on top of the system you built, and a good UX on top of that game.

[RSphil]

aces high 2 had good realistic ballistics and also flight modeling. that in the video is far too much though. id say planetside looks good as it is. if it had the realism of aces high 2 that would be great aswell and not over the top.

[VOWS Flawless]

and those realism elements however "cool" they are on paper, are a nightmare for the gameplay and the fun factor.

How do you figure?


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e366/mike433/flawsigbanner1.jpg

[ArcGuard]

How do you figure?

You get shot in the leg. You now have a broken leg. Your enemy leaves you to crawl back to your base, a mile away. You might bleed out on the way. You don't know if you'll make it or not. This next hour will be vital.

EDIT: Why is your signature image in the post itself...?

[kaffis]

How do you figure?[/IMG]
To stay a little more true to the example highlighted in the original post than ArcGuard's (no less valid) point...

When I shoot a tank, I want to know what will happen. It's great that the game can deterministically say "well, you managed to shoot the gunner's neck, what a lucky shot and a sucky result for the gunner!"... If I shoot at what appears to be the same spot next time and I don't kill the gunner, it looks like the effects of my shot are downright random. In an action and skill based FPS, that's not good gameplay.

[Sirisian]

I'm fine with simple components for vehicles. Engines on aircraft for instance, tracks on tanks. I don't think Planetside 2 would gain anything from a full simulation for all the armor plates. It would be a balance nightmare also seeing as the game relies on situational imbalances and exploiting one of them in the wrong way would create even more unbalance.

[Quantum Spices]

Locational damage is enough for me.

[VOWS Flawless]

When I shoot a tank, I want to know what will happen. It's great that the game can deterministically say "well, you managed to shoot the gunner's neck, what a lucky shot and a sucky result for the gunner!"... If I shoot at what appears to be the same spot next time and I don't kill the gunner, it looks like the effects of my shot are downright random. In an action and skill based FPS, that's not good gameplay.

To be fair, lets talk more about skill based FPS. First off every FPS is skill based. Secondly, it takes skill to hit a certain part of a tank (turret, tracks etc..) and even more skill to shoot off a wing of an aircraft. In WWII Online, you are either good at or suck at it... just like any other shooter, but the variables that take place with the damage model adds an element of realism that IMO does not take away from game experience, but rather make the experience as a whole much more appreciated.

For example.. I've piloted many planes in wwii online, once in a while a lucky round being fired from an opposing aircraft might go through my canopy and hit me right in the head, rendering me dead instantly. Other times I will hear hundreds of bullets clanking all over my aircraft but none seemed to hit the sweet spot to do any serious damage (other than bullet holes being real objects and affecting flight mechanics slightly in different ways).

I guess if you haven't played the game you may not truely appreciate the variables that come into play, but more often than not, the variables arent even noticed in a heated dogfight or tank battle... but at the same time they seem to be there just enough to make you say WOW!! DID THAT JUST HAPPEN?!


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e366/mike433/flawsigbanner1.jpg

[kaffis]

Yes, all FPS games are "skill based." However, you'll hear competitive FPS players sneer at many for including random elements. For instance, when TF2 launched, hardcore players despised the random damage range.

The video you opened the post with demonstrated that, while the damage modelling system is technically deterministic, it includes lots of elements that are literally hidden from view. When what happens when I shoot a tank depends on whether I successfully hit something I can't see... that doesn't feel like it's consistent.

You go on to point out just this very example. "... once in a while a lucky round being fired..." That lucky round is the difference between an instant kill and requiring "hundreds of bullets" that don't even do any "serious damage."

While this is very realistic, it's lousy gameplay for many styles of game.

Simulationists love it -- and I'm not knocking that, I love me some simulations. But PS2 isn't striving to be a simulationist game, it's striving to be one where you evaluate situations based on known quantities and reasonable expectations based on relative skill of the parties involved.

[TheDAWinz]

ARMA 2 is a prime example of what a milsim should be. Can't wait for arma 3. Those who say arma 2 should of taken out realism need to die, because ARMA 2 was made to be a MILSIM.

[maradine]

ARMA 2 is a prime example of what a milsim should be. Can't wait for arma 3. Those who say arma 2 should of taken out realism need to die, because ARMA 2 was made to be a MILSIM.

Do you think that claiming the holders of an opinion "need to die" makes your point more likely to be carefully considered, or less? I ask merely conversationally.

The point of referencing ARMA was not to claim that it is a bad MilSim, but to point out that many find that level of granularity distasteful if it is not married to good gameplay and a well-built user interface philosophy. I think ARMA, and ARMA2 in particular, would have been much more popular with things like a unified keymapping, better menu system, and more polished object interaction model. That doesn't make it bad at what it set out to do, but it does keep out people with a lower pain tolerance.

[TheDAWinz]

Do you think that claiming the holders of an opinion "need to die" makes your point more likely to be carefully considered, or less? I ask merely conversationally.

The point of referencing ARMA was not to claim that it is a bad MilSim, but to point out that many find that level of granularity distasteful if it is not married to good gameplay and a well-built user interface philosophy. I think ARMA, and ARMA2 in particular, would have been much more popular with things like a unified keymapping, better menu system, and more polished object interaction model. That doesn't make it bad at what it set out to do, but it does keep out people with a lower pain tolerance.

Less, thats why i said it :P Arma 2 is very good! i learned how it worked after a day or two after buying it and it is extremely fun! Keeps me occupied.

[AThreatToYou]

WoT has a full deflection, penetration, shot ballistics, shot velocity, shot pen. variations... a pretty realistic sha-bang when it comes to damage model. It's not bad and I'd like to something like that to be implemented in PS2 for the tanks besides a cheesy hyper-arcade HP pool that soaks up damage like nothing.

Now as far as SUPER realistic, broken legs and shit, fuel, tank critical hits on the treads and shit... no thanks. I just want a good damage model for the tanks that isn't something fitting of an arcade game.

[VOWS Flawless]

Now as far as SUPER realistic, broken legs and shit, fuel, tank critical hits on the treads and shit... no thanks. I just want a good damage model for the tanks that isn't something fitting of an arcade game.

Ok.. So minus the idea of critical/debilitating hits and take out multiple variables with infantry damage.

We've already managed to meet half way in the middle and we aren't even into page two of the thread yet..looks promising.


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e366/mike433/flawsigbanner1.jpg

[GreatMazinkaise]

Keep the milsim garbage out of Planetside please...

[AThreatToYou]

I mean, comparatively basic stuff for tanks. "Did the round penetrate or not?" is pretty much the ONLY complicated question I want ballistics system to calculate as far as tanks go. There's a lot of factors in that, but that seems to be all that's needed. Then we can just add in different ammo types for tanks and different AV systems. Some that are HE, some that are AP, some that are HEAP, etc.

HE rounds couldn't penetrate anything but the rear of the tank at certain angles, but they always do some damage (and absolutely massive damage if they do pen). AP rounds, on the other hand, are extremely likely to penetrate and deal good damage but if they don't penetrate, they don't do anything. HEAP rounds are in-between. They can penetrate the sides reliably and the front of a Prowler to do damage, and if they don't penetrate they still explode to do some damage.

Faction-balance wise, the NC might have the "best" AP rounds, the VS might have the best "HE" rounds, and the TR might have the "best" HEAP rounds. Swap those around a bit, probably. VS HEAP? NC HE? TR AP? "Best" being they would work best with their faction ideals, not that they are statistically superior.

Then there's varying armor thicknesses on the tanks. The front of the Vanguard would be nigh-impenetrable, but its sides are so flat its quite vulnerable to AP rounds there, thickest armor overall. The Magrider has comparatively thin armor on all sides to the Vanguard, but it's angled and thus less likely to be breached than a Prowler. The Prowler's armor would be a little over enough to stop penetration from HE rounds on the sides and from some HEAP rounds on the front, though AP rounds at it are extremely likely to penetrate. The Prowler might have the highest HP pool though, with the Vanguard and Magrider having nearly the same HP pools.

Stuff like that. Stuff that makes tank combat more than SHOOT SHOOT, HIT YEAH! OH SHI I MISSED, OH I HIT YEAH!

[VOWS Flawless]

It's refreshing to hear critique instead of harsh criticism on these forums. I'm liking your ideas a lot.


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e366/mike433/flawsigbanner1.jpg

[SgtExo]

I play allot of world of tanks and love the ballistic system in it, and being able to have that added to PS2 would be great. Imaging not being killed by dozens of rockets instantly when they hit your front because your team is protecting your thinly armored flanks. This is could differentiate PS2 tank battles from the rest the other vehicle FPSs out there.

[kadrin]

The video you opened the post with demonstrated that, while the damage modelling system is technically deterministic, it includes lots of elements that are literally hidden from view. When what happens when I shoot a tank depends on whether I successfully hit something I can't see... that doesn't feel like it's consistent.

Vehicles are usually designed to not reveal where things are located, there is no big sign on the side of the turret that says "Shoot here to hit our ammo rack!". Just because you cannot see what you're hitting does not make it inconsistent.

If you feel like you're hitting the same spot but the damage isn't consistent, then guess what? You're not hitting the same spot, not hitting it from the same angle, not hitting it with the same round, not hitting at the same range, etc.

Anyway, as cool as highly detailed damage models are, I don't think they fit in the faster pace of Planetside. Locational damage (front, side, rear, bottom, top) is about the best that can be done.

[SFJake]

Vehicles are usually designed to not reveal where things are located, there is no big sign on the side of the turret that says "Shoot here to hit our ammo rack!". Just because you cannot see what you're hitting does not make it inconsistent.

If you feel like you're hitting the same spot but the damage isn't consistent, then guess what? You're not hitting the same spot, not hitting it from the same angle, not hitting it with the same round, not hitting at the same range, etc.

Isn't that his point? If you feel like you're doing the same thing but the game constantly interprets it otherwise, it feels bad.

Ever played a shooter where your headshots never register properly?

Well, in a realistic game, you could say "but at the right angles it ricochets off the helmet!". Which to me, means, you implement something too realistic, or you just have something broken, they both cause frustration to the player.


In any case, you should never, ever, ever EVER add something with the primary reason being realism in a game. That is an instantly flawed design. You need to look at the gameplay interpretation, what it means, what it adds, and what effect it has on the player.

Thats for GAMES mind you. Simulators aren't games, I dare say.

[Accuser]

I don't expect anything more than locational damage from PS1. I don't really want a "lucky shot" to hit my Magrider's thermal exhaust port, starting a chain reaction which should destroy the station... I mean tank.

I thought about locational damage effecting tank performance, but that really hurts the Magrider more than the other tanks. If a side-hit disables or limits movement, a Vanguard or Prowler can still shoot and fight... a Magrider is f*cked.

[Mezorin]

The location damage model for vehicles and infantry like you see in most vehicle/infantry/air FPSes is probably good enough here. Randomness (outside of TF2 casual shenanigans and D&D) shouldn't be in the game any more than it already is with cone of fire weapons. We also have to consider that in PlanetSide there's a lot of shit going on at once, and all this said shit requires physics and net code. Most milsims are horribly CPU/GPU intensive and pretty laggy, and given that Planetside 2 is a 2000 players per continent game its not practical to have every machine gun bullet playing out like the Sniper Elite v2 kill cam with all the bouncing and tumbling and what not inside of a tank.

[kadrin]

Isn't that his point? If you feel like you're doing the same thing but the game constantly interprets it otherwise, it feels bad.

No, because if it didn't do what I expected it to do the first time, then I know I'm doing something wrong right off the bat and don't sit there and keep making excuses that the game is bad because I'm doing it wrong, and instead try to adjust and do it right.

Ever played a shooter where your headshots never register properly?

Well, in a realistic game, you could say "but at the right angles it ricochets off the helmet!". Which to me, means, you implement something too realistic, or you just have something broken, they both cause frustration to the player.


Plenty, and it's usually because the torso/chest hit box has overlap on the head hit box and rounds hit the chest/torso first and stop there. Some games correct this by tracking the round to see if it would have hit the head had the torso/chest not stopped it, and then allow it to hit the head instead, or allow the round to penetrate multiple hit boxes and apply damage from the most critical. Others don't, so aim higher.

If a game could actually model ricochets off a helmet I'd be impressed, though any round that could possibly ricochet off the helmet wasn't going to hit the head itself anyway.

Now applying hit box overlap on tanks, generally games that are detailed enough to have the various equipment and crew inside the tank to be hit will have modeled the round penetration well enough that it will hit whatever it's supposed to hit. If it penetrates the front armour, goes through a crew member and then into the fuel reserve behind him, congrats on a crew member kill and possible fire soon. If it just happens to miss all those because it was a couple inches to the right, well then you're SOL, aim better next time. (There are exceptions, such as World of Tanks LOLCRITICALHIT no damage shots, because apparently a crew member is enough to stop a 90mm AP round from causing damage to the tank when the 50mm of armour it just penetrated wasn't enough.)

[AThreatToYou]

I'm not asking for critical hits or randomness. As far as randomness goes, I think that should be largely left out. I'm asking for a shot penetration/deflection model for tanks and the suite of features that should go with it (ammo types and armor thickness variation).

On the note of HE/AP/HEAP and Factions... might actually be pretty neat and fitting if the Magrider could switch between AP and HE as fire modes! Or HE and HEAP, AP and HEAP, etc. depending on the pilot's customizations and certs...

[VOWS Flawless]

After hearing all the arguments, I'm leaning towards leaving detailed ballistics out of the game, but at least have locational damage.

I like the idea of AP, HE, and APHE rounds in tanks to at least make the locational-damage/infantry-annihilation a strategic ploy to help make it "feel" a bit more realistic.


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e366/mike433/flawsigbanner1.jpg

[AThreatToYou]

Actually, now that I think about it, realism isn't what I want and that isn't what I meant when I might say I "don't want something fitting of an arcade game". I want more strategy out of tank combat, other than the simple arcade-style, land-shot-anywhere-and-deal-damage-all-the-time.

A quickie casual player could still enjoy the system and tank combat by taking HE rounds. They would always do some damage if they hit a tank, and they are better against infantry. Probably the best choice for new players and the most tactically flexible in the first place. If you're a good shot and understand tank combat well enough to get set up in a good firing position, it would probably be a good idea to take AP rounds if the enemy is fielding a lot of armor. HEAP rounds would likely perform the best for unknown situations and the average-player who can land a good shot or two when they have to. Strategy, right there. Side-grades that fit the current F2P, progression, and strategy system... right there. An added level of (mostly optional) depth that other FPS games just don't have.


It appears to fit perfectly...

[Akadios]

I disagree with the concept that realism is ever a bad thing. However I do agree that Planetside 2 is not meant to be that realistic... Ala Heal Grenades... So with that being said I don't think there is a reason to go over board with realism in a game that has an AOE heal grenade.

[VOWS Flawless]

Actually, now that I think about it, realism isn't what I want and that isn't what I meant when I might say I "don't want something fitting of an arcade game". I want more strategy out of tank combat, other than the simple arcade-style, land-shot-anywhere-and-deal-damage-all-the-time.

A quickie casual player could still enjoy the system and tank combat by taking HE rounds. They would always do some damage if they hit a tank, and they are better against infantry. Probably the best choice for new players and the most tactically flexible in the first place. If you're a good shot and understand tank combat well enough to get set up in a good firing position, it would probably be a good idea to take AP rounds if the enemy is fielding a lot of armor. HEAP rounds would likely perform the best for unknown situations and the average-player who can land a good shot or two when they have to. Strategy, right there. Side-grades that fit the current F2P, progression, and strategy system... right there. An added level of (mostly optional) depth that other FPS games just don't have.


It appears to fit perfectly...

All points that i agree with and would have ellaborated on myself if i wasn't falling asleep while trolling the forums right now.


http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e366/mike433/flawsigbanner1.jpg

[Zar]

WoT has a full deflection, penetration, shot ballistics, shot velocity, shot pen. variations... a pretty realistic sha-bang when it comes to damage model. It's not bad and I'd like to something like that to be implemented in PS2 for the tanks besides a cheesy hyper-arcade HP pool that soaks up damage like nothing.

Now as far as SUPER realistic, broken legs and shit, fuel, tank critical hits on the treads and shit... no thanks. I just want a good damage model for the tanks that isn't something fitting of an arcade game. you also forgot gold tank shell's that you buy, that some how hit harder then their lead and armor pen counter part's O.O!

[Superbus]

The damage model in W.O.T. is completely unrealistic, just an f.y.i. All it is is just another method recording damage done. The only games I've seen attempt use real world physics when it comes to ballistics and armor penetration were WWII online and Red Orchestra 2.

With that said however, as much as I love ARMA and am looking forward to ARMA III I don't want this to be a military sim, and enjoy arcade shooters just as much as sims. Id rather see a simple damage model, such as damaged vehicles being disabled, after taking so many hits. That is about as complicated as I want it.

[Ivam Akorahil]

i think the question regarding milsim should be : do you want ps2 to be an arcady bf3 just in the future that you play a month and then it gets repetative?

or do you want a tactical game with depth that allows for so much more options and complexity that you can play it for 5 years and you still find challenging and itnerresting situations?

i think its about finding a good mix of milsim and arcade shooter. the game as it is now is pretty much like bf3, if there was now some more added complexity, like not over, but more indepth damage simulations, different ammunitions, and simply additions that add to a more tactical play instead of zerging, blobbing and god knows what people come up with to prevent any form of tactical enjoyment. id say take 50% arma, take 50% bf3 and you got a game that is easily accessable for newcomers but offers depth and complexity for people who played a year allready.

P.s cbb with spellcheck, deal with it -_-

[ParisTeta]

Such a damage model needs to enhance gameplay, and i think that there are easier way to do that. Don`t get me wrong, i enjoyed WWIIO alot.

Look at history, we are closing in on a more refined damage model, we have range drop off, weakspots. The next step would be "kinetic load" aka, the speed of your plane adds to the power of the bomb (guess we have that here already for bombs). What i really would like to see is angle of armor vs angle of impact, which could enhance gameplay so much, especially for heavier armor, like tanks.

It allow for:
Lighter Tank which are dangerouse close combat, but shots would bounce of at longer range, instead of wearing the target down. So you don`t kite a slower more armored tank, you go the offensive.

You have a medium armored tank, but you park it on an angle, "increasing" it`s armor because not every gun can penetrate it because not the full force is apllied to the target.

Heavy Tank can shrug off alot of shots, without much damage/non damage, so you can make the somewhat slow im comparison and give the heavy guns.

This tank would be countered by air, because the top of the tank is lightly armored, which would also allow Heavy Infantry at a higher point to kill a tank more easily while having alot more difficulty on the same level.

Imagine a Liberator attack, with it`s gun, chosing right angle of attack for damage, instead of shelling aoe damage like it is now.

But do we need spalling? Fires? Performance reduction? I think no!