ZERGOR

A more robust structure: welding strength

Recommended Posts

Suggestion opened up to gather more feedback. :salute:

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like small, tidy, realistic looking builds as well - but the current explosive calculations make them vulnerable. I have tried to think about how to make "spaced armor" less appealing as well. (Something like "sloped armor" would do that, but it has no place in this game - Crossout focuses more on arcade-physics rather than simulation-physics.)

 

Your suggestion is a beautifully simple way to reward the dense, realistic, well-assembled builds. It may also reduce the effectiveness of seal-clubbers (who tend to assemble a barebones vehicle using overpowered modules).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Comrade_Tiki said:

I like small, tidy, realistic looking builds as well - but the current explosive calculations make them vulnerable. I have tried to think about how to make "spaced armor" less appealing as well. (Something like "sloped armor" would do that, but it has no place in this game - Crossout focuses more on arcade-physics rather than simulation-physics.)

 

Your suggestion is a beautifully simple way to reward the dense, realistic, well-assembled builds. It may also reduce the effectiveness of seal-clubbers (who tend to assemble a barebones vehicle using overpowered modules).

Thank you.

Yeah I tried to find a solution to the problem that doesn't require to rebuild the physics from scratch because we all know it would require a huge amount of time and money to change it. This is the best I came with. And I agree that it may help with seal clubbers but probably only to an extent. Seal clubbers that use for instance Goliath and Mammoths  will probably still be almost impossible to destroy. Removing or adding a few HP won't really change that. It may be a start though. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a system that promotes vehicles that look like actual vehicles, rather than the walking/flying pancakes that are all over high-PS.

Layered armor might actually become a viable armoring method.

Edited by DominusPericulum
choice of words
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like if spaced armor was nerfed and proper-looking car rewarded. Still not sure of what system would be the best. I like the basic idea of welding points having an influence on durability. The thing is, the current suggestion would just make properly welded vehicules ultra hard to kill with non-explosives, without making layered armor more attractive against explosives.

What about making structural parts gain 0.5% explosive resist for every welded point? It changes nothing for MGs, but makes properly built cars a bit stronger against explosive spam. Quasar and Pulsar would still obliterate layered armor, but they can be tweaked if they prove too strong after that.

Anyway, +1 to the general idea, because carefully using welding points and layered armor is the intuitive thing to do when you start the game, but it just doesn't pay off in XO.

Edited by Clebardman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ZERGOR  Well-thought and written idea.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Clebardman said:

I'd like if spaced armor was nerfed and proper-looking car rewarded. Still not sure of what system would be the best. I like the basic idea of welding points having an influence on durability. The thing is, the current suggestion would just make properly welded vehicules ultra hard to kill with non-explosives, without making layered armor more attractive against explosives.

What about making structural parts gain 0.5% explosive resist for every welded point? It changes nothing for MGs, but makes properly built cars a bit stronger against explosive spam. Quasar and Pulsar would still obliterate layered armor, but they can be tweaked if they prove too strong after that.

Anyway, +1 to the general idea, because carefully using welding points and layered armor is the intuitive thing to do when you start the game, but it just doesn't pay off in XO.

I don't think it would be that much of a problem (but I may be wrong). I play mostly non explosive weapons and destroying the vehicle is rarely a concern. Non explosive weapons (particularly heat based weapons) aim for the opponent's weapons to disarm them fast. When they are disarmed you can either go for next target or use your comfortable DPS to end a defenseless opponent over a few seconds. Weapons usually have a good amount of HP and I don't think welding points would have a lot of influence on that (we are talking around 20 HP for small weapons and maybe 100 HP for large ones without taking into account that their base health may be reduced for balance. Weapons tend to have a relatively low amount of welding points for their size, having only one welding side most of the time).

It will probably also have a higher impact on explosives overall. Increasing HP by 10% for a given part will only mean 10% more time for a heat based weapon (except in the rare cases it will overheat during that extra time). For explosives if you do it well some parts may go from taking one shot to 2. That would double their efficency at soaking shots. And many parts are just a bit short of that. A tsunami does 212 damages which decrease over the radius. For many parts that have around 100 durability, an extra 20 can be the difference between one shoted and two shoted depending on how far the middle of the blast is. With a bit of test people will figure out ways to make a compact armor that takes minimal damages from the first shot of a cannon.

Blast weapons are super efficient because many parts are one shoted by them. If they require two shot to pass through armor they are way less efficent, that is the reason why radar armor exist: Radars will soak the first shot forcing a second to destroy the armor behind it. If done well, welding strength should allow to do that too and if it does it will be more efficient because more compact mean less chances to be hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it! This way both spaced armor and tidy-neat looking builds would prevail in the battlefield because each would have their own pros and cons if done right!

qurja.jpg

Edited by lucashc90
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please! I love building my vehicles for style and compactness and this would help me and the game tremendously. Some weapons might be thrown a bit off balance by this, but I think it would be good for the game in the long run.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, _Lemmy44_ said:

Yes please! I love building my vehicles for style and compactness and this would help me and the game tremendously. Some weapons might be thrown a bit off balance by this, but I think it would be good for the game in the long run.

Yeah that would probably be the hardest part with that suggestion. Chosing what quantity of HP to remove to each part so balance stay the same overall. But I imagine that with enough data it may not be that hard. If devs have access to those, looking at the median number of welding points for each part, including weapons, should help with that (not the average, cause average may lead to an underestimation due to  builds that have parts connected using 1 point only).

For small weapons for instance most of the time they use their 4 welding points so they should probably lose between 15 and 20 HP to compensate the 20 they ll gain from welding (if my number of 5 hp/welding point is used). The goal is not to make weapons stronger but to reward compact structure.

That will probably cause some problem for some weapons. Goblins and frontal mg/shotguns for instance have many welding points compared to the other weapons. Those are underplayed though in my experience (except Goblins that have their niche) so maybe them having a bit more HP if you are creative enough to surround them by structure/other weapons is not so bad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would buff armor that is very needed. Big armor plates atm are just dead weight most of the times, that's why you see people armoring cars with radars so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs are very much indeed interested in ensuring vehicles in this game look like actual vehicles instead of carousels with candy bars or mobile radar stations. They will likely take this idea very seriously.

 

That being said I have some questions about this since I have some difficulty wrapping my head around it.

 

So if i understood correctly say, a 4x4 plate would become more durable if it was attached to the cabin with 16 connection points (4x4), basically attached flat onto the cabin. If you attach another plate on top of that the second plate would get same durability boost since it has 16 attachment points connected to something else. Is what i said correct? Doesn't matter what you attach the part to, you just get the boost or is it somehow related to the durability of the "other" part.

 

What happens to the first plate that's now sandwiched between the cabin and the outer plate and has 32 points connected? Will this part get boosted even further?

 

Is the buff per weld point connected somehow based on the part's own durability and/or weight or would it simply be a flat value? This is basically the opposite of the first question.

 

My suggestion would be not to give grilles any kind of durability boosts per welded points. After all the point of grilles is to use them to secure other connection points. By not giving them any buffs encourages people to use grilles they were initially intended to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spedemix said:

The devs are very much indeed interested in ensuring vehicles in this game look like actual vehicles instead of carousels with candy bars or mobile radar stations. They will likely take this idea very seriously.

 

That being said I have some questions about this since I have some difficulty wrapping my head around it.

 

So if i understood correctly say, a 4x4 plate would become more durable if it was attached to the cabin with 16 connection points (4x4), basically attached flat onto the cabin. If you attach another plate on top of that the second plate would get same durability boost since it has 16 attachment points connected to something else. Is what i said correct? Doesn't matter what you attach the part to, you just get the boost or is it somehow related to the durability of the "other" part. 

 

What happens to the first plate that's now sandwiched between the cabin and the outer plate and has 32 points connected? Will this part get boosted even further?

 

Is the buff per weld point connected somehow based on the part's own durability and/or weight or would it simply be a flat value? This is basically the opposite of the first question.

 

My suggestion would be not to give grilles any kind of durability boosts per welded points. After all the point of grilles is to use them to secure other connection points. By not giving them any buffs encourages people to use grilles they were initially intended to.

So your main question seem to be : Should different parts give different amount of hp ?

Both can work, I don't know what would be the best. The same amount of durability for everything would be better for simplicity Variable amounts would allow more fine tuning like for example having weapons give more HP to the part they sit on to help them stick (even if usually it's what grilles are for).

Talking about grilles, they could indeed be excluded. A 90% reduction of the health recieved works too in my opinion for balance and would give an incensive to integrate them in the structure.

Anyway most of this is fine tuning and if devs like the suggestion, these are probably things they will figure out better than me. Those new rules would probably require a bit of testing. Particularly choosing the numerical values associated to it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Spedemix said:

So if i understood correctly say, a 4x4 plate would become more durable if it was attached to the cabin with 16 connection points (4x4), basically attached flat onto the cabin. If you attach another plate on top of that the second plate would get same durability boost since it has 16 attachment points connected to something else. Is what i said correct? Doesn't matter what you attach the part to, you just get the boost or is it somehow related to the durability of the "other" part. 

If I've understood the idea correctly, it's a flat-rate gain granted to each of the adjoining parts.

7 hours ago, Spedemix said:

What happens to the first plate that's now sandwiched between the cabin and the outer plate and has 32 points connected? Will this part get boosted even further? 

Yes. But when the outer plate is destroyed, the middle plate loses that additional durability.

This may be accomplished two different ways, and I know not which is better:

1. By reducing the part's maximum health (meaning: if the middle layer loses 16 points of durability before the outer layer falls off, then losing the outer part doesn't lessen the middle's health),  or

2. By reducing the part's current health (meaning: if the middle layer has been heavily damaged and has less than 16 points of durability, destroying the outer layer will also cause the middle part's destruction).

 

Number 1 is a tankier solution. Number 2 is better for the attacker. Both have some appeal, so let's compromise:

3. A hybrid solution (reduce part's maximum durability, but also subtract 50% of the added durability) is slightly more complicated, but I think it would feel best for both building defensively & attacking the armor of others.

7 hours ago, Spedemix said:

Is the buff per weld point connected somehow based on the part's own durability and/or weight or would it simply be a flat value? This is basically the opposite of the first question. 

A flat value seems simplest, and fair. We already have factional differences in base-durability of parts. Might get way too complicated.

But I see your worry about grille parts, parts with damage passthrough. Their *effective durability* differs from their actual durability.  They can either be boosted at the rate of their damage obstruction (e.g. by 10% or 50% of the normal bonus) or omitted entirely. Because such small, light parts can easily provide weldpoints to buff adjacent parts, omitting them from gaining their own durability wouldn't be so bad, but they do come pre-loaded with a higher power score.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Comrade_Tiki said:

This may be accomplished two different ways, and I know not which is better:

1. By reducing the part's maximum health (meaning: if the middle layer loses 16 points of durability before the outer layer falls off, then losing the outer part doesn't lessen the middle's health),  or

2. By reducing the part's current health (meaning: if the middle layer has been heavily damaged and has less than 16 points of durability, destroying the outer layer will also cause the middle part's destruction).

I thought a bit about this one and it should probably be the max. Else against explosions this system may be less useful, and explosions are the main reason for it. If current health is reduced, parts that would be previously be destroyed by explosion and that "survive" because of the extra HP will probably crumble after losing their extra hp. The part that recieve a direct hit will 100% be destroyed (except some really strong parts) and the ones around it will probably be too anyway. Their destruction will remove a lot of welding points from parts around them that took the "almost survivable" part of the explosion. For them the extra HP lost would probably destroy them. Basically those parts would probably miss half their welding points after the explosion putting them around the same total nomber of HP they would have before the change. And if that's the case and the explosion destroyed them before, they would be destroyed now.

On the other hand if I understood correctly this thread:

The fact that the pieces initially blasted away have more HP should slightly reduce the damage taken by the other pieces so that may be enough for a "current health reduction" to still be useful. If the explosion is fully calculated before the pieces lose any extra HP due to welding points, the vehicle may soak more damages. Parts that are directly destroyed will lose their normal+extra HP due to explosion and reduce the blast for the other by that much, and they wouldn't be able to lose the extra HP due to parts around them being destroyed too because... they are already destroyed. This indeed mean than pieces will soak more damages from the explosion than before, thus protecting layers behind them. That would indeed make welding useful in that case.

I must admit though that all those explosion calculations are super complicated and I may be wrong on how that would work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Spedemix said:

That being said I have some questions about this since I have some difficulty wrapping my head around it.

IMHO the parts should have the same HP they always have, but have a percentage of damage resistance depending on the number of attached welding points. If a part that's been sandwiched between two other parts loses its outer layer, it loses the resistance bonus immediately.

Now how much of a resistance the parts should get, that's the difficult question here. But I think weapons, modules, and grilles (possibly bumpers also) should be excluded from this rule and always have the same HP value and get no resistance bonuses.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, _Lemmy44_ said:

IMHO the parts should have the same HP they always have, but have a percentage of damage resistance depending on the number of attached welding points. If a part that's been sandwiched between two other parts loses its outer layer, it loses the resistance bonus immediately.

Now how much of a resistance the parts should get, that's the difficult question here. But I think weapons, modules, and grilles (possibly bumpers also) should be excluded from this rule and always have the same HP value and get no resistance bonuses.

That's a good take on this idea too. That way you would maintain vehicle integrety without boosting out its HP in a way that Tusk hammers (for example) would become a threat.

Everytime you tweak something in a game which focus on player-made structures (cars, bases, etc) you always have to consider the possibility of exploitation and for me in this case it would be Tusks having 10%~20% more cabin health than before.

Movement parts should also be excluded from that list since... well, GOLIATHS!

Edited by lucashc90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lucashc90 said:

Movement parts should also be excluded from that list since... well, GOLIATHS!

Now that you said, I think this thing should only apply to structure pieces.

 

First of all movement parts have only couple of attachment points for frames (apart from tracks and augers) so it wouldn't do much there anyway.

 

Now that I read the OP again, it does mention weapons. Mmh, I smell trouble. Smaller weapons tend to be more fragile. They also tend to have fewer contact points. The weapons which benefited most from this change are large weapons like Tsunami or Typhoon which already have a high durability. So I don't know. Or the durability of such large based weapons would need to be nerfed a bit (so it balances out as a tiny buff for smaller turreted weapons). Certainly simpler solution would be to just exclude them and focus on structure pieces.

 

3 hours ago, _Lemmy44_ said:

IMHO the parts should have the same HP they always have, but have a percentage of damage resistance depending on the number of attached welding points. If a part that's been sandwiched between two other parts loses its outer layer, it loses the resistance bonus immediately.

Now how much of a resistance the parts should get, that's the difficult question here. But I think weapons, modules, and grilles (possibly bumpers also) should be excluded from this rule and always have the same HP value and get no resistance bonuses.

I think we have a winner.

 

You keep the durability of structure pieces as it is, nobody has to rebuild their crafts from scratch. You merely add damage resistance based on points welded. It's simple and therefore brilliant!

 

Off the cuff I'm thinking 2% damage resistance per welded point. You place a 4x4 half-wall onto a cabin, weld the 16 contact points and you get 32% damage resistance. If you slap two 8x4 APC panels onto a side of Humpback on top of each other, both panels get a 64% damage resistance, enough to fully tank out a double Typhoon salvo.

 

That'd be the best-case-scenario. In practice people won't be able to use all the contact points on a larger piece so it only goes down from there: Either you use large pieces with fewer points welded or maximize your weld points by using smaller parts - which often happen to have less structure.

Edited by Spedemix
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Spedemix said:

I think we have a winner.

This was the most constructive thread in 2019 so far. If this is implemented (and I don't see the reason why not to) this game will go several steps into the right direction: both spaced and compact builds will be able to perform well in battle without the players having to sacrifice their creativity in order to be efficient. 

Time to wrap this up and go to the test server :014:

Edited by lucashc90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The resistance idea is interesting. There should be a diminishing return though.

If you take your example of APC panel, if you slap it on something else and have all small sides in contact with other part you end with 4*8+4+4+8+8=56 welding points which would end up giving 100% damage reduction. I went for HP so there can't be a problem like that.

If it's done with resistance it should be multiplicative instead of additive so 100% can never be reached. Basically a part would take 0.98^weld*100 % of damages. Making sure this number is never 0 or less. Here with 56 welding points it would mean the part takes roughtly 32% of damages which is already a huge reduction. But same as with the HP a base health reduction for all parts would still be needed.

An other problem is that bigger parts have more HP naturally and more welding points. This can make bigger parts way more efficient than small ones beyond what is reasonable. Let's say structures gain 2 HP with my method (I reduced from 5 to 2 from my initial post cause mathematically 5 seem a bit high when most structures have 10 Hp of less) and 2% resistance with yours

A 20 HP part that usually has 6 welding points used will only have 22 HP with resistance where my method would bump it to 32 making it relevant.

A huge structure with 100 HP where there can be 50 welding points used will be indestructible with additive resistance, will have 274 effective HP with multiplicative resistance and 200 HP with my method.

Extra HP will be effective regardless of part size where resistance will only really affect big parts. And huge parts may become almost indestructible (just imagine the effect on a goliath if it works for tracks, 100 more HP on it with 50 weldings would be ok, 60% extra resistance would not).

Edited by ZERGOR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ZERGOR said:

The resistance idea is interesting. There should be a diminishing return though.

If you take your example of APC panel, if you slap it on something else and have all small sides in contact with other part you end with 4*8+4+4+8+8=56 welding points which would end up giving 100% damage reduction. I went for HP so there can't be a problem like that.

If it's done with resistance it should be multiplicative instead of additive so 100% can never be reached. Basically a part would take 0.98^weld*100 % of damages. Making sure this number is never 0 or less. Here with 56 welding points it would mean the part takes roughtly 32% of damages which is already a huge reduction. But same as with the HP a base health reduction for all parts would still be needed.

An other problem is that bigger parts have more HP naturally and more welding points. This can make bigger parts way more efficient than small ones beyond what is reasonable. Let's say structures gain 2 HP with my method (I reduced from 5 to 2 from my initial post cause mathematically 5 seem a bit high when most structures have 10 Hp of less) and 2% resistance with yours

A 20 HP part that usually has 6 welding points used will only have 22 HP with resistance where my method would bump it to 32 making it relevant.

A huge structure with 100 HP where there can be 50 welding points used will be indestructible with additive resistance, will have 274 effective HP and 200 HP with my method.

Extra HP will be effective regardless of part size where resistance will only really affect big parts. And huge parts may become almost indestructible (just imagine the effect on a goliath if it works for tracks, 100 more HP on it with 50 weldings would be ok, 60% extra resistance would not).

It doesn't need to be bonus per welding point, but bonus for how many of the total welding points of the part are welded. So that a part that has 16 out of 16 welding points attached gets the same resistance bonus as a part that has 88 out of 88 welding points attached. Since the big part already has more HP, it will still benefit from the bonus more, but at the same time, smaller parts will get the same percentual resistance. The cap on the total resistance for having all points welded could be as much as 50% and then it would drop from there for every point that has remained unwelded. So a 100% resistance would never be reached.

Maybe parts from different factions could have different caps on resistance or would get higher resistance to different stuff. Dawn Children would have a higher cap on energy resistance, Scavengers to explosives, Nomads to bullets, Steppenwolfs would get a smaller bonus to both bullets and explosives. Firestarters to fire and Lunatics to fire and explosions. But maybe this could be unnecessary and the same resistance should be applied to all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I really like the idea of having the max % resistance be the same for all pieces. Best idea to keep small pieces as relevant as they are now (they aren't)

Not a fan of different resistances for every faction tho, the game doesn't need more cryptic stuff that doesn't fit in the textboxes :'D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd still argue it won't make that much of a difference. It is almost impossible to weld all the points of a larger part and keep it that way. Remember: if you destroy the parts around it, it'll lose its resistance along the way. If you go out your way of welding every single point in an APC panel, the part is effectively obstructed so you can't damage it anyway until you destroy parts around or in front of it. :)

 

The examples i mentioned earlier are already pretty much the most extreme cases you'll ever get in practice. The resistance values only go down from there.

 

Now if it'd turn out someone really managed to somehow make indestructible parts, just cap the resistance at 85% or whatever. Still if you shoot an explosive there, something is always exposed and you'll deal significant damage to those parts, destroy them and the remaining parts begin to lose their resistance.

 

Giving different parts different types of resistances already makes this quite a bit more complicated and thus discourages the devs to implement this in the first place. I believe the reason why water reflections were implemented so quickly in XO was because I knew it'd be stupidly easy to put SSR in a modern video game. Had I suggested "we need RT in Crossout - now!", we would've prob gotten nowhere with it.

 

Lemmy's original take on solution is simple and elegant:

 

  • It buffs structure across the board
  • It buffs builds which don't use spaced armor
  • It buffs heavier armor more than light since the hp increase is based on a percentage.
  • Larger pieces have a chance of getting a higher resistance but utilizing it is harder
  • Smaller parts will have an easier time to weld all their points since you can fit them into small crevices and such

 

The way I see this play out is like this: Larger structure pieces from heavier factions serve as your cornerstone pieces when it comes armoring your vehicle. Then you'll be attaching quite a lot of smaller pieces onto these larger panels to maximize their resistance. You still have your 80 parts limit so you wanna choose wisely how many large parts you wanna use vs smaller parts to reinforce the larger ones.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to humbly say I created an account, just to upvote TC's suggestion. Bravo.

(Very elegant way to reward realistic building. Very easy to understand!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.