Damage Model

[Barberouge]

If you're interested in a damage model which could represent the resistance of the planking and the average holes, PotBS featured quite a good one. The PotBS armor would represent the NA planking resistance (depth, density), and the PotBS structure would represent the NA planking integrity (holes or not). Instead of having to destroy the structure to make the powder chamber explode (PotBS), the ship would start leaking water as soon as the planking would have lost some hit points.

 

In PotBS there were 4 HP bars aswell (armor) and a structure bar. Damage was calculated shot per shot. The single shot damage depended on the basic damage of a poundage and the distance. A simple lerp was applied: from 100% damage at min range to 50% at max range. Each ammo type also had its specific hull/sails/crew damage.

 

The number of hits depended on the distance aswell, but 2 lerps were applied (with specific tables). From min to mid range, the lerp was slow. From mid to max range the lerp was sharper, making the broadsides less and less dangerous at longer ranges. Each ammo type also changed the range (max and mid) of a battery: round shots had 100% range, grape shots only 30%. If the overall accuracy was less than 100%, a random hits number was generated.

 

2 parameters made the hull stronger: "damage reduction" (DR) which protected from a fixed amount of shot damage, and then "damage resistance" which removed a % of the damage. DR was applied to armor damage only, but resistance was applied to both armor and structure (and each resistance value could be different). DR was also directly related to the remaining armor %: if the base DR was 6 and armor was at 50%, the applied DR was 3. And there was another parameter called "resistance penetration": the bigger the poundage, the less resistance could be taken into account (with specific tables depending on range: min, mid and max range penetration values with lerps in between).

 

The effective damage of a hit was split between armor and structure depending also on the remaining armor %, but differently than DR: as long as armor wasn't completely destroyed (0%), at least 25% of the effective damage was directed to armor. At 100% armor, 100% of the damage was taken by armor. At 0.001% armor, 25% was taken by armor and 75% went to structure. At 0% armor, the full 100% damage went to structure.

 

That seems a bit complicated, but made for a realistic feeling when firing and enabled players to setup optimal fighting range. If there are only 4 parts and lateral leaning, you just have to remove damage resistance (maybe ?), put some other structure HP bars (one for each part of the planking), apply Digby's waterline shots % and you're done.

 

[admin]

Thanks Barberouge

[Barberouge]

Then we can bring a little bit of complexity. Whether a player can aim at different parts of the hull, how he would aim doesn't matter. To every battery fired corresponds a number of shots that hit the masts, the gundecks or the waterline. We got a HP bar that represents the average area of the waterline planking (the smaller the HP bar, the bigger the area that is open to water i.e. destroyed). 4 bars actually. How to link that HP bar to the flow of water actually entering into the hull ? Let's use %.

 

 

 

1. Water flow

 

Let's define some numbers to ease the process. The starboard waterline planking area is 300m². It has taken a broadside that destroyed 10% of its HP bar (this is a lot).

 

The waterline planking has 2 parts: one part is under water, the other is above water. This is not represented by HP bars, but it is what actually happens. 20% of the overall waterline planking is under water, 80% is above water.

 

10% of the under water area is destroyed, and 10% of the above water area is destroyed aswell. The above water area doesn't matter regarding the flow of water entering the hull.

 

The destroyed under water area is: 300m² * 20% * 10% = 6m². The speed of the water is 2m/s. Thus the water flow entering the starboard side of the hull is 6 * 2 = 12m³/s.

 

Let's say the under water part of a hull is a half cylinder with volume = ( π * w² * l ) / 2. If the width of the hull is 8m and its lenght 50m, the volume of the hull is ( π * 5² * 50 ) / 2 = 5026m³. The hull will take 5026 / 12 = 419s (7min) to be full of water.

 

 

 

2. Consequences

 

Then we can say a ship looses 1% of its acceleration, turning acceleration and speed for every % of the hull filled with water. The more water, the less sailing caracteristics.

 

But at 25% of the hull filled with water, the ship will sink.  In the example, after taking this broadside that destroyed 10% of the waterline planking, the ship will sink after 7min * 25% = 1min45s.

 

We can also say a ship will lean at 15° when it sinks. That gives a 0.6° leaning for every % of the hull filled with water.

 

We can say that pumps can put 1m³/s out of the hull. Thus the ship will sink after 1min54s instead of 1min45s.

 

We can say carpenters can repair 6m²/min of the waterline planking. The 10% destroyed waterline planking will be repaired in 1min. It has to be separated into ticks (let's say one tick per second). I won't calculate it here.

 

If you link this sinking system with the damage system I explained in my previous post (#26, i.e. resistance bar + integrity bar), if I'm not mistaken this is almost exactly the example you described in your OP.

 

 

 

3. Hull representation

 

Now let's have a look at what would be interesting to be shown to the players, i.e. the hull representation. Some informations can be known (numbers), but the informations that have to be quickly understood could be shown (schematics).

 

Representing the integrity of the waterline planking (HP bar) doesn't really matter. What information would it give to a player to see that 10% of the planking is destroyed ?

 

The resistance of the waterline planking (resistance bar) is more interesting though, because the player would see if this side can still take damage before loosing too much integrity.

 

What a player wants to see is how fast water enters the hull (water flow) and how much water is already in the hull. What he wants to know is especially how much time he's got before sinking.

 

Thus here is how I would represent the hull:

 

- schematics: planking resistance, water flow, water in the hull

 

- numbers: planking integrity, time before sinking

[Barberouge]

Now more complexity can be added. The goal here is not to create a realistic system, but a system that will provide a more interesting gameplay. Once again, how aiming is done doesn't matter. To simplify, there would be no underwater shots and no longitudinal leaning.

 

 

 

1. Draft

 

A ship is a rectangle. When it's empty the draft is the smallest. When it sinks it's because it reached its maximum draft. The maximum draft directly depends on the weight. The weight of the ship depends on its equipment (cannons, cargo...) and the water that leaked.

 

Let's say the maximum draft difference is 2m. The actual waterline is at 1m (middle), thus only the upper part of the planking that could touch water can take hits. The ship takes a broadside that destroys 10% of its planking integrity. The upper part is at 90% integrity, the lower part at 100%.

 

By the hand of god, the ship weights and its draft is increased by 20cm (1.2m waterline). Because the upper part now touches water, the ship starts leaking. There is 20% of the upper part under water, and 10% is destroyed. The water flow is 150m² * 20% * 10% * 2m/s = 6m³/s.

 

Now let's say the ship was at 50cm waterline when it got shot. 66% went to the upper part, 33% to the lower part. The upper part is at 94% integrity, the lower part at 97%. Then its draft is increased by 1m (1.5m waterline). The waterflow is: ( 150m² * 100% * 6% * 2m/s ) + ( 150m² * 50% * 3% * 2m/s ) = 225m³/s. Pray or swim

 

 

 

2. Leaning

 

Whatever where leaning comes from, what is important is that the height of the planking that could touch water would vary. We still need the maximum height to apply the % to the upper or lower part.

 

This formula would work: H = tan A * ( L + ( ΔD / sin A ) ) with Height of the planking, maximum Angle of leaning, Width of the ship and ΔD as maximum Draft difference. This formula calculates the maximum height of the planking that could touch water (i.e. from minimum draft to maximum draft, at maximum angle).

 

Let's say the max angle of leaning is 20°, the width 10m, the max draft difference 2m. Thus the max height is 5.8m, so the lower part is 2.9m and the upper one aswell.

 

The actual angle is 15° and the actual waterline 50cm. The wind is coming from starboard and the shots aswell. The total height of the planking that is out of water is: tan 15° * ( 10 + ( 1.5 / sin 15° ) ) = 4.2m. So the full upper part is out of water, and 45% of the lower part. After the shot, 7% of the upper part is destroyed and 3% of the lower one.

 

Then the ship has to tack, and sails with the wind from port. The total height of the planking that is under water is tan 15° ( 10 + ( 0.5 / sin 15° ) ) = 3.2m. So the full lower part is in water, and 10% of the upper part.The water flow is ( 150m² * 10% * 7% * 2m/s ) + ( 150m² * 100% * 3% * 2m/s ) = 111m³/s. There is just too much water flow and the leaning is starting to increase because of the water in the hull. The ship turns again and repairs.

 

 

 

3. Weather

 

No more numbers are needed. With a simple separation of the waterline planking, a lot of tactical options have been created. The ship representation would have to be modified to let players know how their ship would be damaged. The system isn't perfect but it makes for a good base, and it requires so few calculations compared to a full realistic system. Then new features can be added to polish it, such as below waterline shots.

 

If you want to include waves you can add waves average height calculations. Wind force and direction changes could be good features aswell, making the maps always interesting.

[BullpupBarrie]

.......What a player wants to see is how fast water enters the hull (water flow) and how much water is already in the hull. What he wants to know is especially how much time he's got before sinking.

 

Thus here is how I would represent the hull:

 

- schematics: planking resistance, water flow, water in the hull

 

- numbers: planking integrity, time before sinking

 

I don't think there should be hull schematics showing players exactly what the state of their ship is at any given moment.  Similarly, a read-out telling a player precisely how many seconds he has left until sinking is just not necessary.  This level of info available to competitive players just encourages a "numbers game" where they can for example work out exactly how many shots they can get off before having to turn away and attempt to escape.

 

I would suggest that players should have to use the graphical representation of the hull and the degraded handling characteristics of their ship coupled with their experience to inform themselves of how serious the damage is.  Maybe they could get damage reports from crew members too.

 

Likewise, and off-topic, I would also rather speed was not a UI readout but should be judged by experience.  Otherwise, people could just angle their ship to get the most speed out of the wind simply by watching until the readout hits the max.  This would take all the skill out of sailing.

 

Sailing should be an art and not a numbers game.

[Barberouge]

The time before sinking might seem too much. But players could estimate it with water flow and water in the hull. Although I'm not sure the knowledge of time before sinking would create a numbers game: there are so many other parameters that can't be anticipated. Broadside to broadside shooting would be a numbers game, but not when ships move.

 

What you call "graphical representation" is what I called "schematics".

 

But I get what you mean and I agree numbers aren't always a good thing. Although like you said, a captain could realistically get informations: damaged parts, leaks, level of the water in the hull, how this level is increasing, waterline outside of the ship, plumb line. Like compass or sextant for navigation.

 

Speed should be known because captains used speed logs. A player should know how fast overall his ship sails at different wind angles, but the sea conditions could change that. However, the precise best wind angle shouldn't be able to be set, because the wind actually lightly changed, and the roll/pitch changed the sails reaction. As long as the course to wind angle is analogically set, the technic of sailing couldn't be broken by numbers.

 

Also an eye should be kept on the possibility for players to actually test how things work out. Those who got the information would then have an advantage over those who wouldn't. I'm usually a supporter of giving informations. What makes a game is not the knowledge of numbers, but the experience and smartness of how to use those numbers.

[BullpupBarrie]

I would rather have the ship model in game display how badly it is beaten up without need of a schematic, so that I can judge it's condition just by looking at it.  Having officers shout at you - "she's taking on water captain, and down by the bow" (even by text messages) would be so much better than a handy plan with red flashing lights and a big number saying "436 hit points remaining".

 

What I mean is speed shouldn't be known with absolute accuracy.

 

If there was a digital readout of speed then players could just jiggle the angle of their ship to get the sweetspot simply by monitoring the speed.

 

For example - 4.2 knots, turn a bit, 4.25 knots, turn a bit, 4.27 knots, turn a bit, 4.26 knots, turn back a bit, 4.28 knots HOLD HER THERE.

 

This kind of precise information would take away the skill in sailing that should be earned by experience.

[Barberouge]

I agree everything shouldn't be displayed to other players. Whether the state of a ship can be accurately displayed on the ship model, I don't know. Although I'd prefer having schematics (which ease remembering which ship took damage 5 minutes ago - that would have been done by officers in reality) rather than having to use the spyglass to determine the planking and waterline state of every possible target.

 

I think I'd be fine with an absolute accuracy display giving the speed at different points of sail. If we hadn't that information, I could make a ship travel between 2 stopped ships and take a stopwatch. What's the point of testing things that could be directly given ? But the best speed could vary depending on weather conditions: numbers complexity rather than no numbers.

 

There should be other factors which require skill than knowing the best point of sail by experience, which is after all quite a simple knowledge.

 

In a combat situation (which is the most interesting part IMO), whatever which numbers are given, it is not possible to judge a situation based on numbers only. There are so many numbers, that relying on actual experience is a better way to achieve victory. Numbers just give a better understanding. There is a bit of numbers knowledge and experience, and a lot of visual experience.

 

Sailing in reality might be compared to an art, but not in a video game where the reality is shortcut.

[PIerrick de Badas]

Hi,

I've read a big part of the topic and first, you cant find there every Potbs ingame mechanic in regard of defense/offense.

It's sadly wrriten in french but google may translate it in russian or english.

I may still have xls files on my own computer if you're interest in.

 

I agree with what barberouge said. It's a bit hard to speak with you about sinking stuff when we don't know how water and wind will impact the game.

For example, when you get the wind, you show a part of your ship that will be under water as soon as you turn and give up the wind. In real battles, you can't shot with your lower deck in case of tempest or big wind due of the water. Just give up teh wind to your opponent and then you will be able to shot full broadside but a large part of your ship will be easy to shot.

 

I've loved the idea of vertical part of ship. The upper part would be the one that kill/crew/mast/gun and the lower part would be the one that make you sunk.

 

About Sinking ships it's really important to consider them as destroyed ships are consider in WOT. I know we are not sepaking about a really realistic game but in fact in open water, you can't sails through a sunked ship! This one may have let mast or hull into water what may destroy your own hull or dismast your ship!

You have to consider few minutes (in really hours) before sailing throw sunked ships.

 

Near the coast it's really more interesting; A ship may block a channel or been sunked while still be visible. It depend on the amount of water under it but i think you have to consider this 2 aspect with sunked ships depending where they are sunk.

In a same way, a sunked sloop will not damage your ship as a sunked first rate... The size of the ship has to be consider to.

[Daniel Alessi]

In relation to sailing being an art, it can be in real life, but it'll be a turnoff to people relatively new to the concept. We have to compromise somehow so that although the realism feeling isn't affected, basic sailing can become intuitive after a few hours of practice. Else fustration might ensue. Nobody wants to be frustrated, do they? 

[admin]

In relation to sailing being an art, it can be in real life, but it'll be a turnoff to people relatively new to the concept. We have to compromise somehow so that although the realism feeling isn't affected, basic sailing can become intuitive after a few hours of practice. Else fustration might ensue. Nobody wants to be frustrated, do they? 

 

exactly. 

 

when designing elements we always are looking at them from the perspective of the 1000th battle not the 1st one. Every part of the game should be as fun, interesting on the 1000th battle. 

[Ampen]

First off, on the subject on aiming, wich has come up:

There were calculations for range and aim used in the artillery during the black powder era that was quite accurate. More interesting, a veteran artillery crew mostly made the aiming on gut feeling, and was surprisingly accurate, despite using very crude methods of aiming, such as using wedges and woodparts to increase/decrease elevation.

Therefore, for me aiming seems better left to the gunners, with either some sort of penalty for a rookie crew, or a bonus for a veteran/crack crew.

 

 

 

Hello Everyone;

 

We would like to briefly cover our system for sinking the ship that we are finishing now.

 

1. The ship side armor (wood) has certain amount of HP (hitpoints)
2. Armor is split into right, left, stern and bow armor. So to increase survivability the player will have to maneuver changing broadsides (showing healthier side armor to the enemy) 
3. When HP of side armor is reduced to a certain level (for example 20%) that side start taking water through leaks (DoT) that fills the ship with water
4. This water can be pumped out by the crew (who can do it better if player sends more sailors to survival functions, lowering maneuver and reload
5. Ship will also lean to the side that is leaking
6. When the amount of water taken reaches a certain level it starts an irreversible process of sinking, if the player have spent all repair (e.g. repair kits)
7. Sinking ship can still fight for a certain time (with penalties)
8. When the amount of water reaches a final level the ship goes under

Ship basically can be taken out of combat without it going under; for example some side planking is destroyed, certain % of cannons destroyed and crew killed or injured, BUT because leaks are small ship can still try to fight in a semi-disabled state. (Or player can decide to surrender)

 

We would like to hear your opinion, feedback and constructive critique on this.

 

 

Then on to subject:

As stated earlier, being shot in the bow should become raking, wich would then make a certain type of damage to certain specifics, as the crew, rigging or so, this because the bow of a ship is very narrow, and a very bad angle to sink a ship from, why this mostly resulted in just raking shots.

 

Being fired upon in the stern could potentially be dangerous for the ship integrity, since this area, while narrower than the broadside, still is plain, and not pointed against the firing ship such as the bow, This could differ depending on the ship, since this is more valid on bigger ships, while on smaller ships this as well more turns into raking shots.

 

Other than that, all I might suggest is some sort of morale value for the crew. If morale stays up (and better crews could have better morale etc), the crew (or main part of it) continue to fight, while morale breaking (due to morale penalty from ship sinking) would make the crew stop fighting and either strike their colors, or abandon ship,

[admin]

Other than that, all I might suggest is some sort of morale value for the crew. If morale stays up (and better crews could have better morale etc), the crew (or main part of it) continue to fight, while morale breaking (due to morale penalty from ship sinking) would make the crew stop fighting and either strike their colors, or abandon ship,

 

It can be done easily. But we think that it could be bad design to take something away from player in the heat of the battle - something that is not controlled by him but by some formula. Imagine a couple of lucky shots at your ship.. and your crew surrenders. what would you think of this?

[Ampen]

It can be done easily. But we think that it could be bad design to take something away from player in the heat of the battle - something that is not controlled by him but by some formula. Imagine a couple of lucky shots at your ship.. and your crew surrenders. what would you think of this?

 

Didn't mean for it to be active like that, My point was merely for a ship about to sink. As I understood it, a ship can take damage and limp out of combat, no need for the crew to abandon then, it would be more dangerous for the crew.

But a ship that is shot up so bad it is without doubt going to sink, rather than that in every case having the crew continue fighting and firing, this is where morale could kick in as a variable for the crew abandoning ship.

[Ned Loe]

http://s23.postimg.org/8tp4b4s0b/ttt.jpg

 

Split hull into sections. Lets say 350HP on each side (100/100/100/50). When ship is hit (canons, cargo and planking is lost from ship's side and that side gets lighter and will tilt). At 300HP when ship is hit, one side of the ship is starting to tilt and take water.

(Water flow code/timer will need to be implemented, as it will slowly move the whole ship underwater) ... 

(Player can maneuver and switch to other side, and send man to plug the leaks or remain on the damaged side)

 

If, player continues to stay on damaged side at 250HP ship is tilted even more and bottom deck cannons are disabled due to the water lvl and angle.

 

Also, if player decides to flip sides and start fighting with an undamaged one (top deck cannons will be pointing up (will need to use a skill "move cargo" to balance the ship and even it up), overtime when HP points are even or close to even on both sides - ship will balance back to normal position. (cannons will be still damaged due to water and wet black powder) .

 

---Ship hull flooding.

 

First holes in the ship (depends where hit), if above water line then ship sink timer is not triggered, if below water line - sink timer is triggered and ship very slowly goes underwater. Player will need to take risk and fight while sinking or use skills and send man to patch the holes (slow reload and maneuver for example).

 

I think player must be aware of how badly damaged his ship is, water % inside ship's hull and angle that will disable cannons. (Repairing, balancing ship and maintaining normal water lvl inside hull)

 

Just a rough imaginary concept from my head.

 

 

 

 

I hope that link is working...

 

 

Thanks.

[admin]

link is working well . thanks a lot

[Adair]

I believe the decision to surrender should lie with the captain, but morale is an important factor. Low morale means the crew won't serve the guns as rapidly or accurately as they otherwise might, Similarly, ship handling would suffer.

 

If the captain needs incentives to surrender, it could very well be that they'll preserve a portion of their able hands and officers for their next ship if they don't fight to the bitter end. Ships took years to build, but a crack crew took just as long.

 

The hard part is determining just what kind of penalties one suffers from losing. It needs to be significant, and needs to play into the economy, but not be so punishing that a recovery takes days or weeks (such as EVE, taking the most extreme example). POTBS had a decent churn for ships, but it could still take an hour or more to get back into the fight. And no one ever used their most expensive ships except in the biggest, most important battles. Even then, losing a durability off a First Rate was, effectively, a catastrophic loss.

[Barberouge]

A captain shouldn't be able to die. If his ship would be destroyed he would hold on a wreckage, until his mates would rescue him or he would be rescued by the opponents. Then he would have to pay a ransom, and would be transported into the nearest allied port. If noone would rescue him he would just build a raft (sailable).

 

There could be different types of surrenders. In reality, I think a surrender just meant that the crew wouldn't be killed, but the ship and cargo would be taken anyway, and the crew put in prison waiting for a ransom. But maybe there could be surrenders like in PotBS: the captain keeps his ship, his cargo and his crew. Or maybe he would give a part of his cargo to keep his ship and crew.

 

About the losing penalties, I usually favor low penalties, but I know many PotBS players advocated high penalties to increase the excitement of PvP. Maybe a compromise could be found, with low penalties to low-end ships and high penalties to high-end ships.

[Ampen]

 

About the losing penalties, I usually favor low penalties, but I know many PotBS players advocated high penalties to increase the excitement of PvP. Maybe a compromise could be found, with low penalties to low-end ships and high penalties to high-end ships.

 

Sounds perfect. The more you bring into the fight, the higher the stakes. Would also promote different playing styles I reckon. players not keen on high cost losses will gather up in hunting packs etc. 

Come to think of it, it's a good incitement for small scale piracy for those who like.

[admin]

We believe that very high stakes will reduce incentives to actually go PvP. 

[Mortiferum]

I believe low penalty with a moderate high reward will be the thing that encourages PVP.

 

And try to find a way to make the smaller, weaker boats having a use is also going to be important, otherwise, the game will become unbelievably dull with nothing but first-rates doing everything.

[SerrialKiller]

I have seen many things getting sad but the bow of an ship is pretty tough to shoot true the stern well in the early days if there was an enemy ship at your stern. This would be very damaging for your ship if you where unlucky it could reach your powder storage's and your ship would blow up partly or fully. The ship will need to break apart as well look into the games of totalwar they make great things from it the most and best game there is to look at east india company they did an wonderful job at the damage and more. there are an few things not so great about it but the naval combat is very nicely done.

 

An lot of game develpors are making mistakes by listening to people to make the games to easy we want to sail like it is an real ship. If you get into an storm you can take damage or even worse the same is like whit the AI. The Ai should not be doing stupid stuff it should think and then act so that every action you take it reacts at like you go aggressive it reacts by lining up defensive. and maneuver ships should be protect by escorts and much more. If you want me to help in any way i got free time enough and you have my mail adress wrote an mail yesterday.

[SerrialKiller]

And stakes for pvp must be high in the early days an battle could be lost and the ships had to be rebuild. I would not recommend any advantages for paying ore non paying for the game if you want that you might just do an monthly superscription of not to much because if the game is good then it will attract players that love it. The same should be whit you fighting an fleet on your own you risk your ship against more then you and win you should be greatly rewarded for that because of the high risk. Same as whit the pvp high risk high reward think about like capture the ship and pull it into port. it should not transfer to an port you should have to bring it into it. the same like make money true trade ore true pvp selling the captured boats and penalty's for if the boat you sail is like not your class and things.

[Ampen]

Low risk for small and cheap ships, while the bigger ships, the more risk and expense if you lose. I think that would promote PvP, and also somewhat cap flooding of extreme ships. I also belive it would promote use of different ships as well.

[Mortiferum]

Low risk for small and cheap ships, while the bigger ships, the more risk and expense if you lose. I think that would promote PvP, and also somewhat cap flooding of extreme ships. I also belive it would promote use of different ships as well.

It will not work.

 

All that a "Lose a boat" type punishment will do is drive players to simply use the most overpowering thing possible to avoid losing it. Yes, it is expensive to lose a large vessel, so what? Everyone will be using that massive ship anyway since it is much harder to lose.

 

A system where your ship is gone, or taken is NOT going to work IMO.