Lephys

I'm... not really sure where that came from. *Confusion*. I never suggested in any way, shape, or fashion that a CPU should be asked a question. o_o. I was merely comparing questions to ask when constructing a damage-type system... questions for humans to ask... humans who design games. I apologize if something about the way I said it caused a misunderstanding. EDIT: Ohhh, I see now. By "a system that asks," I merely meant figuratively asks. As in "a system designed with this question in mind." I am very sorry about that. I see how you read that the way you did. Using the damage-type-versus-resistance-type system, you end up with just various different ways of calculating damage. But you're always simply calculating different amounts of damage. So, by allowing different damage/attack types to potentially produce multiple different affects (aside from just damage), the resistances can then allow, prevent, or lessen any one effect or combination of any number of affects tied to that damage/attack type. It's more work, but it's a more robust system. Other games have used more effects than simply damage, but the system is usually 90% designed around damage, with various effects (chill, poison[which is still only affecting damage/HP, really], burning, stun) sprinkled in. If you design the system around the effects AND the damage at the same time, you give the player a lot more ways for combat to be tactically affected, rather than simply "make sure your attacks are doing high damage (by matching damage-type to low resistance) instead of low damage (by matching damage-type to high resistance)."

@Game_Exile: I get what you're saying. I guess I'm just saying that you have to make sure it doesn't just go one way. If all the significance of actions and choices that aren't directly involved with the combat system lies purely within the extent to which they ultimate indirectly affect the combat system, then you're left with a game that's purely about combat. Obviously that's just an example of the extreme end of the spectrum, but, you've got to allow combat to indirectly contribute to eventual instances of non-combat complexity, too. If a part of the game allows you to choose more combat over less combat (amongst alternatives), then the rewards of that combat challenge should be applicable in dialogue options and non-combat skill effectiveness. If you use experience or other rewards from combat to improve your stealth skills in order to utilize them to bypass a different combat scenario, then combat was used to support the depth of the stealth system, without any immediate concern for stealth turning around and supporting combat again. It should just be very symbiotic, rather than parasitic. It's fine for combat to be prevalent in 70% of the game, but the non-combat skills and systems should be able to rely on support from the combat system for their 30% prevalence. The simple act of splitting the skill pool into 2 groups doesn't affect whether or not you'll have a party-of-all-trades. This is just as possible in the single-skill-pool system. The only difference (unless it's horribly balanced) is that, now, your characters don't have to skip an improvement in combat effectiveness to improve alchemy. Also, with 2 separate pools, there are opportunities to grant non-combat skill points without granting combat skill-points, and vice versa. All other effects are up to the mathematical balancing, same as the 1-pool system.

You are absolutely correct, but actual exploitable design flaws aren't inherently known to everyone who plays the game. It's really the same principle as a bug. The developers design a system a certain way, for a certain range of challenge, or with certain limitations in place, and it just so happens that something else in the game contradicts this design. Well, maybe a player says "I have discovered this, and now I intentionally want to use it." However, it doesn't ONLY affect the people who discover it and intentionally exploit it. Just like a bug. Bugs affect those who accidentally bump into them, regardless of whether or not SOME players enjoy the effects, the effects were still not intended to be caused by the method. Think of it like this: If you try to pick a difficult lock, and you break all 40 of your lockpicks (which are limited in number, and therefore finite), and you decide to reload the game from a save before you started attempting to pick the lock and try again with another 40, that's hardly any different from going out and grinding up some more gold to buy 40 more lockpicks and continue picking the lock. Sure, it's a shortcut, but some other player is never going to be affected by the fact that you CAN reload the game and reroll all 40 of those lockpick attempts. However, if backing out of lockpicking a certain way caused all your broken lockpicks to be restored to your inventory, this would completely negate the established system of finite, breakable lockpicks, which is part of the design of the game that numerous players enjoy. If you want to reload all day, or set your game to Easy instead of Normal to "play your own way," then by all means, do that all day long. That doesn't affect me. But if the game suddenly switches to Easy on me when I'm trying to play on Normal, you can't say that's not a problem because some people might like the lower difficulty. It's not a matter of preventing people from playing the way they want (within the established design of the game, i.e. difficulty modes, settings, provided methods of avoiding combat, etc.). It's a matter of the game functioning according to its design and not contradicting itself.

So... the people who are intentionally exploiting the unintentional effects of game mechanics are playing "abnormally"? Maybe you're right, though. I mean, if there's ever a certain corner of a building you can run into from a certain angle and some quest automatically gets flagged as complete, who are the devs to name that a "bug" and FORCE you to actually go and complete the quest by "fixing" it? Why not just leave it in the game, and those who want to play the game the "right" way can simply avoid that structure's corner. u_u Silly devs... implementing limitations for reasons and whatnot. Limitations are for strange, Iron Man, Insane Difficulty people.

^ Ahhh, the weighted chain. In one D&D campaign, I noticed that one of the the effects for weapon enchantments was essentially Charm, and the default suffix to the item name was "of Command." Our DM mistakenly rolled for a range of items and effects, then allowed me to choose from this pool for my character's reward for something. What resulted was the Chain of Command. Yes, I have a pun-smithing problem. The first step is acknowledging that I have a problem.

You're actually absolutely correct there. That was my mistake. My only point that remains there is that whether or not armor breaks are a good idea is completely separate from whether or not any other status effect is a good idea, to apply to critical hits, I mean. You sort of emphasized your reasons for disliking equipment breaking so much, in response to my general comments about the possible pros of various status effects on criticals, so I was just trying to point out that I wasn't really pushing for equipment breaks in particular as much as I was pushing for the strategic element of effects vs. damage-only in critical hits.

One could also ask, why in Narnia should those who unintentionally stay low level be forced to put up with a lack of challenge in all the story progression simply because of the way the game mechanics happen to work? Shouldn't the difficulty setting serve that purpose just fine, rather than a hole in the scaling mechanic (whose soul purpose is to preserve relative combat challenge throughout the game, to whatever degree)? It's one thing to allow people, who so choose to, to put in extra effort to level up beyond the "average level" for an encounter and therefore make it easier to take on, but it's another thing entirely to say "This boss will no longer present a challenge to you because you didn't complete enough optional content before getting to him." Not everyone who wants to try a speed run (or just doesn't want to partake in certain content) also wants to make the game less challenging. Therefore you have a mechanic with an unintentional effect, which is what would make that a design flaw, in that scenario.

Given the touched-upon utility of firearms in the piercing of mages' (and maybe other classes') magical/supernatural barriers at close range, I could see some manner of blade/gun combo weapon as something that creative people in Eternia (totally don't know what the world's gonna be called) would try their hand at inventing. Not necessarily something that would be accurate at a range farther than about 7 feet, but just enough "gun" worked into a bladed weapon to provide a means of piercing said shields in a pinch. *shruggles* Oh, and I condone the strategic implementation of sword-breakers. ^_^

I wasn't aware you ever said that. I was only aware that you questioned the implementation of skills that "won't affect anything outside of 10 or 100 specific instances of success/failure die rolls". Skills tend to have a quantity of points spent in them, i.e. "levels" (usually 0-100). So, I was just wondering why skills couldn't be made to affect more than just die rolls. Also, I'm confused, because you cited that Lockpicking tends to work that way (i.e. tends to affect nothing outside of specific instances of die rolls), yet you very specifically state here... ... that Lockpicking already affects combat. I would say that pretty much everything affects combat. as long as it gains you an item or some EXP. So I don't understand how balancing non-combat skills based on their effects on combat is any different from every single implementation of non-combat skills already. Regardless of whether or not I am an idiot, I simply don't understand what you're trying to get at. If combat is so interesting because it has such depth, then why is the only possible means of adding depth to other systems to tether them to combat as much as possible? Is the story and game in its entirety (minus combat) simply a means of augmenting the depth of combat, or is combat simply a means of augmenting the depth of the story and the rest of the game? Also, sentient, hostile treasure chests would factor lockpicking into combat greatly. You have to admit it would achieve the desired result.

Why don't they just have a "Voice of Eternity" contest? Post some sample snippets and take submissions from the fan base. Reward is a Collector's Edition Box, and the person gets to voice an NPC. Some people will happily contribute their voice for the good of the game (and don't need to do it for a living), and some of these people might actually have awesome voices for certain parts.

^ A skill level is not restricted to merely affecting success/failure die rolls. Also, you're saying that combat is so interesting because lots of deep combat mechanics affect a bunch of aspects of combat, and because "it's more complex than the other stuff." Doesn't it, then, follow, that making the other stuff deeper and more complex would bring it closer to the level of interest that combat provides? Also, how do you balance something like Lockpicking based on its impact on combat? Sentient, hostile treasure chests?

I don't get it. The only two types of damage we need are "high" for your characters, and "low" for all your enemies. Anything else requires effort and is annoying, u_u. . In all seriousness, I think the best way of handling this is to allow different types of damage to have multiple potential effects in different scenarios. When you limit it to a change in the amount of damage (simple resistance system, and nothing more), it's not very exciting. Sure, it's better than a lack of that and nothing else, but why not add some utility? A good example would be the one I made regarding skeletons in the situational skill-effectiveness thread. Cold/ice damage may slow living, fleshy enemies (and inflict damage because of the effects of extreme temperature on skin/organs, etc), whereas it may not slow a skeleton down at all (no muscles to slow the movement of... but maybe a bola [i think that's what that rope with a weighted ball on each end is called] or entangling skill could still slow the skeleton's movement). However, it could cause the bones to become more brittle, allowing for a higher critical hit chance, and or easier limb shattering (if you shatter his arm, he drops his weapon.) Maybe it still does damage, depending on the specific ability (if it's the physical impact of a weapon or spell projectile, or simply a magical or nom-magical change in temperature). That's another overlap of different damage types and their effects I hadn't really thought of when I began typing this. Physical impact and cold/freeze. In this same manner, the heat of a fireball may do nothing to a fire elemental (or a stone golem/earth elemental), whereas the physical, forceful impact of a fireball could still stun, knock back/down, or even simply briefly interrupt the elemental's actions. I guess a simple way of putting it is this: Instead of "Is this damage type effective in this situation?," I'd like to see a system that asks "HOW is this damage type effective in this situation?"

(I'm not trying to imply that I'm Josh here. I just thought I'd comment while we wait on his potential reply amidst his busy schedule.) I don't understand how there'd be any new problem in this area with separate skill types (non-combat/combat) as opposed to the non-separate system, except that now, instead of having a Mage who's awesome at Speech and Alchemy, a Rogue who's good at Climb and Bluff, and a Warrior who's good at Throw and Intimidate, you could have any one of those classes specialize in any one of those example skill sets (without sacrificing stats/skills that affect combat effectiveness.) Are you wondering how to avoid having all party builds possess a wide range of non-combat skills? It's highly possible I'm not understanding your question.

Yeah. I just think it only make sense to be one way or the other (that those are the only two ways that make the most sense of handling skeletons... not that you can't implement both options at once). Either you have to sever the force animating the skeleton (kill the reasonably-available re-animator in question), OR you have to "kill" the skeleton. Which, since it's only kept "alive" by a mystical force, would basically be damaging the non-supernatural bones of the skeleton beyond the fore's ability to keep them animated in the form of a skeleton. Either it has has a limit, or the skeleton is immortal, haha. But, yeah, a lot of games go overboard with this idea. Or... they oversimplify it, rather. The idea that things will be less effective against a skeleton. True, a 10-lb longsword has a sharp edge for slashing (and even a point for piercing, when thrusting), so obviously it would be incapable of causing tissue, organ, or bleeding damage. Any specifically piercing-based skills/abilities would be pretty moot. BUT, the fact remains that that longsword is fully capable of damaging human bones, assuming you aren't battling the skeleton of Wolverine from the X-men. Obviously, a mace would be even better at this, but a sword would not be rendered completely useless in the absence of flesh. A dagger... well, a dagger lacks the weight and would be a lot less useful. Perhaps it could be used to hook between limb bones and such and "disarm" the skeleton? (pun completely intended) This also goes for some spells, though. Ice spells typically get rendered inert against skeletons, because the "chill" effect is typically the slowing of flesh and muscles due to lowered temperature. BUT, just because a skeleton has no muscle tissue to slow does not mean that bones do not become more brittle when frozen. So, again, a good combination of realism and gameplay-ability might be to allow ice-based spells to cause an increased chance of critical hits/bone-shattering hits. Again, the "best" way to handle this depends completely on what other factors exist in the design of the combat system. Just my thoughts on something I've often thought could be handled better than we tend to see it handled.

I actually just posted a long bit about this in the level cap thread, heh. So, I'll just reiterate the relevant portion here: Whether or not to scale levels is merely one possible pair of choices in how to address the control of the challenge presented by combat. Even in a game in which levels aren't used (in which case level scaling would be moot), this control must be balanced. Otherwise, combat is allowed to be infinitely easy and/or infinitely difficult. Even without scaling enemies, you're making the exact same type of adjustment by limiting the amount by which the player characters' hitpoints/armor/damage/abilities/equipment can change per level. Leveling, itself, is a mechanic specifically designed to control the rate at which your characters progress in power and prowess. Also, as I pointed out, since levels are merely an organizational tool for various stats and attributes, using levels to regulate the power difference is simply using a specific set of stat/attribute values to do so (as opposed to using a different set than what levels encompass, or even individual values.) There are many different ways of adjusting the player-enemy power difference that all affect different aspects of the game beyond that power balance. So, is there a reasonable way of using level-adjustment to accomplish the goal? And, if not, how SHOULD it be handled?

True. It has the potential to not be done well enough. What I was getting at is this: an enemy's level is merely an organizational bracket to group together similar mathematical ratings for a variety of factors (damage, hit point pool, armor class, attack speed, etc.). There's a problem to be dealt with no matter which route you go: Option A) Don't scale your enemies at all. Well, now if you incorporate LvL-1 Goblins (we'll just stick with goblins, purely for example's sake) into the game beyond the very early parts, then they're pointless. You can't say "Ha-HAH! Can you get past these GOBLINS to handle this really-important-to-the-main-story situation?! o_O". Because your sheer existence slays the goblins within a 10-foot radius. You're like the Spartans at the Hot Gates. The Goblins' numbers will count for nothing. So, maybe you just don't ever factor Goblins into combat challenges after Level 3. That's a LOT of the game that Goblins are pretty much useless, meaning you're completely restricted from having them be a part of the game world and the story in any way, shape, or fashion. Even though they are potentially useful to the story. It doesn't seem so bad with Goblins, perhaps, but, imagine this happening with any and all enemies that never scale. Bandits suddenly don't exist in the world anymore, because you've become too powerful for them. Option B)Scale your enemies. Now, they can easily be implemented throughout the game as a perpetual part of the story and lore, BUT, you run the risk of ruining the sense of your characters not feeling like they're progressing in prowess. It seems to me that the solution lies somewhere in-between: to make sure they're always getting weaker, relative to you, but maybe not quite as pointless as adhering to hard level numbers-groupings would make them. Thus, you gain the benefit of not having to restrict enemies to level-appropriate zones like an MMO. i.e. "Wolves ONLY live in this one forest, and only different, more difficult enemies will populate other forests because wolves would be far too weak." True. However, just how easy can you let the enemies get before it stops providing any benefit and starts being pointless? Also, unless you adhere to the restriction I mentioned above, how satisfying would it be to go "Oh no, this next chapter in the story is presenting quite the dilemma! If I don't stop these 300 Goblins, this town will be decimated! *Casts Firestorm* Oh, look at that... they all died instantly." While the pro is that it allows you to feel powerful, there's obviously a reasonable limit to that. If you walked into a room, and all the enemies instantly died, how much satisfaction would you get from literally expending no effort to kill them? All things in moderation, Absolutely. But, suggesting that every fight SHOULD be an uphill hundred-to-one odds hail mary is equally as extreme as suggesting every fight should be a cake walk. I know you're not suggesting that, but my point is that, if we obviously want some fights to be more difficult than a cake walk, and we obviously want some fights to be less difficult than climbing a mountain with your teeth and no safety equipment, then the answer must lie somewhere in between. Whether you don't scale the enemies, or you scale the enemies, or you don't cap the player's level or cap the player's level, what's being effected is the possible difference between the player's capabilities and the enemies', and how quickly or slowly the player can progress through that range. The only thing that matters is the player characters' powers RELATIVE to the enemies' powers, and how that's allowed to change over time. If that difference can be too small, then it automatically has the potential to be too great, as well. The real issue here is how to address that power difference to achieve the best sense of progression while still allowing other affected mechanics to flourish.

^ Agreed, vigorously. If you're going to say "We allowed you to equip two weapons instead of just one!" and call it a day, then don't do it. That's not implementing two-weapon fighting. It's implementing two-weapon equipping. That's almost like putting in "ranged combat" by just having your character swing his sword (with accompanying melee-range animations) while an enemy 20 meters away loses HP. You didn't really implement ranged combat. You merely implemented weapon range. 8P

@UpgrayeDD: I really, honestly don't have a beef with you. I think we just have a misunderstanding. Bottom line: obviously many previous renditions (from other/current games) of similar mechanics (such as durability and armor breaking) come to mind easily when someone suggests ANY implementation of equipment damage. The fact remains that those specific ways that those games did such things are not the only possible ways of doing them. Implementing armor damage does NOT inherently mean instituting a 1-100% point scale that drops every time you get hit, nor does it automatically mean that you'll have to trek all the way back to town just to have your armor at full effectiveness. This thread isn't even about "is armor breaking good or bad?". I even said "Maybe armor breaking doesn't work, and we leave it out of the game. (paraphrased)" The original post asked "Do you support the idea of critical hits, in some form or fashion. If so, how should it be done? Maybe status effects could be a part of it. If so, which ones COULD be a part of it, and how COULD that work?" It is not my intention to say "Status effects would absolutely be better no matter what, and you should think that way, too." I have pointed out several pros provided by status effects, as DIFFERENT from just-plain damage in criticals, and even acknowledged cons that would still be there, and that it would be difficult to balance. Every system in the GAME provides negative effects, when approached from some perspective. Pros and cons of every system exist in unison. You wouldn't say "Well, having hit points could be really frustrating, if you keep dying in combat. So let's just make everyone immortal." No... you would lose almost all challenge to combat. If there's no possibility of a negative effect, then positive effects are meaningless. That's exactly what balancing is about. So, if my previous comments on the matter were not clear, then I apologize. It is only my intention to explore the specific design details required to maximize the potential benefits that status effects in criticals provide that pure damage-boosting criticals do not provide. That's what I'm advocating. Exploration of how it COULD be done differently from previous games, rather than assuming it simply couldn't. So, I'm honestly not trying to be snide. I only mean the following literally: There isn't any need to attempt to persuade me that it won't work, because I'm going to try to do the math, regardless. If you don't want to sit around doing the math, that's fine. If you want to point out the flaws in my work all day long, then by all means, do so. I welcome it. But pointing out flaws, then suggesting that their existence automatically means that the pros are pointless, or that there are none, isn't necessary. You're allowed to believe that. You're even allowed to post it. It just isn't accomplishing anything as far as discussion is concerned. It's simply re-iterating your opinion, which has already been acknowledged as valid, but not applicable to my exploration of the mechanic's possibilities. It isn't my intention to change your opinion, or to suggest that your opinion is less important than anyone else's. It's just that your feeling there is no need to discuss this mechanic's possibilities does not prevent me from wanting to do so anyway.

The only -- ONLY, mind you -- valid thing to take from the DB universe is that, no matter how ridiculously imbalanced and terrible the rest of the whole setup is, they always make sure there's a challenge. Everything else about the DB universe only supported humor, in regards to any kind of cRPG systems. Haha. It was pretty poorly executed as itself, much less as a game's mechanics.

I LOVE stuff like that! It's pretty much optional, but the fact that it exists enhances the game world so much. I hate it when there are simply books and journals lying around, just in the event that you happen to love to read text for reading's sake. But then, any necessary book just automatically assumes your character got anything even potentially useful out of it, simply by picking it up, and marks your quest tracker/minimap with stuff (i.e. "Find the hidden key that the book you didn't read told you about! 8D"). Not that I think that everything should require reading 20 pages of game-world literature to figure out, but, I think that particular Skyrim example was spot on. Anyone who doesn't ever want to read a single page of a single book can lockpick that door if they want to get to what's inside. But, the people who happen to enjoy reading get to take the time to find the key, and they get an easier time of opening the door (even if they already could have lockpicked it). Completely optional, yet so contributory to the available gameplay experience. The burning of the remains is a little more vague. It still fits, but, you don't really KNOW that burning a guy should really produce any effect at all, whereas you inherently know that a key is made to open a particular lock. You just have to be a bit careful with things like that, because you'll start running into journals that describe how such-and-such always wanted to punch Harry the Town Guard in the face, and you're wondering "Well, if burning that guy where he wanted to be burned produced some beneficial effect, then maybe...! *punch*... *ARRESTED!* ... Awwwwww... -___-" Like I said, it's not wrong, it's just walking a fine line.

This thread, much like true love, IS ETERNAL!!! *Rides atop Falcor* Never-ending Looooooove THREEEEEEAAAADDDDD! Ahh-ahh-ahh-AHHHHHHHH-ahh-ahh-AHHH-ahh-ahhhhhh...

Going along with PrimeJunta's "when realism and interesting gameplay collide" comment, I think the best way to handle something like that is to allow maces to trump every other weapon versus skeletons, rather than making every other weapon less effective than it already is when using it against skeletons. Relatively, the goal is achieved (even though it isn't perfectly realistic), but regular swords won't be doing 2 damage against a 500HP skeleton and making you feel like a frustrated idiot. "It was doing 49 damage a minute ago! I swear this never happens!" . I know it might seem silly, but the goal is actually to have a distinction between which weapon you use on a skeleton, and that goal can be accomplished by a single advantage, rather than introducing both an advantage AND a detriment. Or, you at least don't want to introduce a huge detriment, like in some games (suggested in the situation above). Otherwise, it just feels like a penalty, and all you're getting for going out of your way (i.e. carrying around maces all day and equipping them every time you fight a skeleton) is the negation of the penalty. Exactly how it's done is up in the air. You could even, say, prevent non-blunt weaponry from producing any criticals, while giving the blunt weapons extra criticals against skeletons. Or, maybe sharp things deal 10% less damage (something not TOO bad, but noticeable when applied across the board), while blunt things deal regular damage AND have a 20% chance to shatter skeletal limbs. That becomes a more strategic advantage (weapon arm shatters so weapon is dropped, legs smashed so movement reduced to crawling, etc.) rather than a simple matter of damage only. I mean, fully "realistically," skeletons don't really have "health," anyway. They're just understood to be reanimated by some unseen force (it's obviously not muscle tissue and ligaments), and you're sure as hell not telling me that maces do extra damage against magical reanimatory forces than swords. You're simply destroying the skeleton to the point where, apparently, the unseen force is too weak to keep all the numerous pieces together. Otherwise, all the bone fragments would would simply puzzle themselves back together, and you'd be fighting a skeleton for eternity, or until you hunted down and killed the person who reanimated it. Sorry... got a bit carried away with that singular example. It got me thinkin', and me thinkin' is never a good thing. o_o

Oh, definitely. The first/simplest thing that came to mind was an active skill. Whereas, if you had a short sword, you would have a different skill (or the very same type of Disarm or Defense Breach skill would provide a different effect, as a short sword would obviously not hook the top of a shield to forcibly lower it.) I get where you're coming from, but I hate to tell you... medieval armies didn't all line up for 1-on-1 duals or little squad-based skirmishes, and they trained accordingly. My history buff friend does a lot of re-enactment type fighting, and studying the way they did it. He was showing me how to use a 2-handed sword, and a sword-and-shield, and a sword and axe (even a short spear and an axe) to fight in the midst of a battle. Although, that's a whole different story all-together. I mean, once the line (between all your allies and all those foes) breaks, you pretty much just hope 3 foes within your vicinity don't all kill their engagers at the same time and turn toward you. It's all still viable, in one way or another, though. It's just like different martial arts styles. One might involve almost nothing but kicking, and you may think "there are situations in which you'd want to just use your hands instead." But, you'd be surprised. These people don't just develop entire fighting techniques because they like using their feet, or because they like holding a weapon in each hand. Also, I understand what you mean by different scenarios, like fighting trolls, or a bear, or even a dragon. But, I don't think ANY set of weaponry or fighting style doesn't lose effectiveness against a non-human or a dragon. I don't think it's so much lost effectiveness as it is a different bracket of effectiveness. I mean, you're fighting something that isn't capable of the exact same movements that you are, and it's using a much more feral strategy. Not to mention the strength difference. But, just because you can't pull a bear's shield down or feign attacks to deflect its blade arm doesn't mean that dual weapons are inherently less effective against it. Also, I don't see how 2 short swords are any less effective versus heavy armor with a big shield than one short sword is (sort of part of the dragon/bear point, as well). I would think it wold be a lot easier to catch a fully-plated-out enemy in the armor joints with 2 daggers than it would be to do so with a greatsword, for example. Sure, the greatsword may do more damage directly against the armor and shield, as it swings with more force, but that's the tradeoff. Doesn't make the twin daggers any less viable. I almost see the difference between dual weapons and a single weapon as equal to the difference between different weapon types (short spears/staves, daggers, mauls, flails, etc.)

If every time you drank some milk, it happened to be spoiled, that wouldn't say anything at all about the existence and/or quality of non-spoiled milk. I wasn't responding to your specific rhetorical question involving 1% crit chance being too low. You're suggesting, in the gist of everything you've said, that having status effects on criticals would be horrific, because it's already bad enough that criticals exist in the first place. If a chance for the enemy to get some boost is inherently bad, no matter what the percentage chance, or any of the other mathematical balancing factors, then why does it matter if it's a stun or extra damage? I've acknowledged the potential cons of the mechanic (all dependent upon how it's balanced and implemented), and I (and several others) are simply trying to point out perfectly valid potential pros of the mechanic. I never said "If you do things just like all other games have but add status effects to crits with absolutely no other balancing, it's totally the perfect system with no flaws." I never said otherwise. I even said that you have every right to be skeptical. I was merely pointing out that it's unnecessary to point out flaws in specific iterations of a mechanic that neither I nor anyone else ever claimed would work. I even specifically stated that I was pretty sure your idea of equipment breaks was based on overly simplified durability mechanics from other games... mechanics which I was not arguing were ideal or should be used. I'll say again that "equipment breaks" could constitute almost anything in a virtual representation. Maybe the effect is temporary. Maybe it's assumed that you repair your armor once battle is over. Maybe the temporary aspect fits more with disarms and knocking pieces of armor loose. Maybe we don't go with armor/weapon breaks. That still has no bearing on the rest of the list of possible effects. We would need to check each one in turn. Maybe some information Obsidian reveals about the game in a week provides a system that isn't very receptive to status effect criticals in any shape or form. I haven't said none of this is possible, and that we should definitely institute them, no matter what, and that they are magical and good and not in any way potentially negative. Basically, I've got a torch, and I'm saying "Hmm, I bet I could light something else on fire with this torch." To which you're responding, "No, I know that a torch will not light a rock on fire, and therefore it's impossible for you to light something on fire with that torch." Pointing out ways in which the balancing of the mechanic would not work is validly contributory. It eliminates possibilities so that we can exclude them from the specific implementations to consider. But, that doesn't in any way prove that there is simply no possible implementation that could work well. So, if you believe there isn't (which you have every right to believe), I don't understand the point of stressing repeatedly in the midst of those who desire to keep working through the possibilities.

*shrug*... I made a Dragonball joke, because the Dragonball universe followed the tiniest crumb of power-balancing rules for a game (there should always be a challenge, however powerful you are), and I don't think people got the idea that I thought DBZ, in its entirety, would be the perfect model for balancing P:E. Heh.