Critical hits, misses and additional effects

[Lephys]

^ Just because 5% is a bad number in your scenario doesn't mean that there's no possible way for crits to work. If there's a point at which they're too frequent, and a point at which they're not frequent enough, then there's obviously a point in the middle there (if not a range) at which they function properly.

 

And crits don't add directly to your tactical ensemble because they aren't within your direct control. However, neither are misses, blocks, dodges, knockdowns, and any status effects that are based on percentage chances (blind, etc.). What these things are are factors. Chance provides a wonderful means of governing them, because they represent factors that are sometimes in play and are sometimes not. Sometimes you dodge a sword, and sometimes you don't. You must then formulate/adjust your tactics with these factors in mind. That's how they affect tactics.

 

So, unless you want for all percentage-based effects to be removed from the game, regardless of what they are or what purpose they serve, then that, in and of itself, is not a good reason for criticals not to be implemented.

 

Most of your concern seems to stem from instances of critical hits having been badly implemented in other games. Well, here, we have the opportunity of figuring out specifically why, and how they could be adjusted to work better.

 

There's no need to take an axe to the A/C unit because you're too cold. It's got a thermostat adjustment.

[UpgrayeDD]

the biggest problem I see is that most of the suggestions for the effects to go with the criticals are pretty heinous. your basically saying that everysingle enemy on the feild would have the potential to Break your weapon or armor, cause loss of controls of your character (fear/stun/almost want to classify drop weapon here but not quite), the only reasonable ones of the listed effects are the stat damage and the movement loss. The causing injury that wont heal in combat is a given from what the devs say about health vs stamina. Don't forget that enemies and pcs will likely already have tools to cause these things to happen on their own. Giving an automatic chance on every attack is simply not needed.

[Lephys]

^ You misunderstood. Everyone in favor of critical effects is not suggesting that any potential status effect that might be caused by a critical would ALWAYS be able to be caused by ANY critical from ANY character/enemy. I don't even think anyone said "I want an enemy to be able to strike you, get a critical hit, and cause blind, knockdown, broken weapon, broken armor, bleeding, burning, drymouth, nausea..."

 

So, let's imagine a scenario in which there's a 1% chance of criticals occurring. Now, imagine that only certain enemies wielding certain weapons can cause certain effects. It's even possible that after you hit that 1% chance and actually LAND a critical, you don't automatically cause any effect other than increased damage. Perhaps there's only a 33% chance that a critical will actually cause some extra effect.

 

Would that really be so ridiculous? Let's assume you get attacked 1,000 times throughout the entire game, just for a numbers example. You'd have been hit by 10 critical hits, and roughly 3-4 of them would've caused a stun, or an armor break, or a bleeding wound. Since I'm just guestimating numbers to make a point of how they affect the game, I'm going to assume it could be better balanced than that. BUT, to some, it's exciting that that Ogre has the chance to stun you because he gets a lucky hit (because such things happen in real life, and thus we're familiar with the notion of not being able to control every single minute detail, and stuff happens), and to the ones for whom it ISN'T exciting, did that really ruin your game?

 

IF (and I say "if," here) 10 lucky hits in 1,000 attacks is going to ruin your entire gameplay experience, then I dare say you demand too much control over the battlefield.

 

Honestly, come to think of it, I'd almost rather see criticals being the thing that breaks your equipment than the numerical durability "Your equipment is simply going to suck worse and worse until you repair it, in between every single repair" system. But that's a different discussion, methinks.

[UpgrayeDD]

I was never suggesting that all the effects happened all at once. I was stating that anyone of those effects would be bad enough on its own when tirggered. weapon and armor breaks are purely a poor mechanic. It's something that when 95%+ of the player have it happens would just trigger a reload because of what a pain in the ass it would be. And considering they plan an unforgiving mode in "ironman" the spikyness of the other effects on combat could easily turn a situation that should of been tough fight into "wtf just happened?" scenario. and "well you knew the risk when you decided to play ironman" doesnt really cut it when you add random crowd control spikes into the game.

 

Making crits happen one percent of the time in order to put these effects in my opinion would also be a bad choice. Why? Becausde people simple like to crit. Most games that have crit mechanics and ways to improve crits have most of the player base wanting them. Why are you guys even making a thread about crits? Because crits are fun. You like it when you see a spike in damage in which you stick it to the other guy. But they are already powerful and popular in a way that they don't need help to have people wanting them more. I'll agree that 1 percent would greatly reduce the risk of said effects happening to the point where they will become moot. But then what was the point of having them anyways?

[Lephys]

The point of criticals is the exact same point of misses and evasion. They don't exist "because people like the damage spike." Do you see people reloading the game UNTIL they crit in combat? No. Is anyone arguing that evasion should be removed because the enemy could dodge, negating one of your attacks that could've been very strategic, and that that would be devastating to gameplay? I haven't seen anyone opt for that. So, I don't see a valid reason not to attempt to balance a critical chance mechanic, other than "it could sometimes be annoying to people," which is true of literally every single mechanic in the game.

 

You say that weapon and armor breaks are purely a poor mechanic... Based upon what data? You're just assuming the worst-possible scenario for armor and weapon breaks. "Break" is a very non-specific word. Breaking one's armor could be simply putting a crack in it. There doesn't have to be a durability system in place, or a "you literally can't use that armor now until you fix it" system. That's the beauty of details. They can change, all within the giant umbrella of the over-arching idea. That's kind of what I'm getting at, here. If 1% is too low, then that can be raised, and the potency of the effects can be lessened. There are more factors involved than simply the percentage chance.

 

I don't expect you spend all your free time working out JUST how armor and weapon breaks could work in this game. If you're not interested, that's fine. Really. That doesn't make you a worse person or anything. But, there's no point in arguing that it couldn't work when you don't really know it couldn't work. I don't know that it WILL work, but I know that it's possible it could work well, and I believe pretty likely.

 

I understand how these things could be annoying if done poorly, and IF it so happens that they can't be done any other way than poorly, then I will gladly do without them. But, how much would you appreciate it if you found out Obsidian wasn't going to implement, I dunno... combat, because they just assumed it wouldn't work well in the game without annoying people, rather than actually working through all the details to see the results?

 

There's just no need to discourage us from trying to figure out the problem purely because there might not be a good solution. But you have every right to be skeptical.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Lephys

[UpgrayeDD]

You say that weapon and armor breaks are purely a poor mechanic... Based upon what data? You're just assuming the worst-possible scenario for armor and weapon breaks. "Break" is a very non-specific word. Breaking one's armor could be simply putting a crack in it. There doesn't have to be a durability system in place, or a "you literally can't use that armor now until you fix it" system. That's the beauty of details. They can change, all within the giant umbrella of the over-arching idea. That's kind of what I'm getting at, here. If 1% is too low, then that can be raised, and the potency of the effects can be lessened. There are more factors involved than simply the percentage chance.

 

I've played several games where weapons and armor can break. Never once did I think it added to the game in a positive way. The only game where I didn't consider weapon and armor breaks completely obnoxious was Fallout: New Vegas and only because you can usual fix them on the spot. Most games that include them are mmo's that need a way to punish failure in a world where you can autores and as a money sink. The earliest game I played that had them was lands of lore. Everytime certain enemies attack they was a chance that you're armor would outright be destroyed. The only thing that experience taught me was to save often in those areas. If they add durablity into the game I don't think I'd care that much but if every monster is sundering my equiptment that just gets old real fast.

 

The point of criticals is the exact same point of misses and evasion. They don't exist "because people like the damage spike." Do you see people reloading the game UNTIL they crit in combat? No. Is anyone arguing that evasion should be removed because the enemy could dodge, negating one of your attacks that could've been very strategic, and that that would be devastating to gameplay? I haven't seen anyone opt for that. So, I don't see a valid reason not to attempt to balance a critical chance mechanic, other than "it could sometimes be annoying to people," which is true of literally every single mechanic in the game.

I wasn't asking what the point was to the chance to crit or automiss. I'm asking what would be the point of empowering them and then making them so rare they never occur. Lets make crits and automiss more devastating(and yes loss of control of your character is a big deal in combat) but make them happen less often. I guess I just don't see the point then.

I don't expect you spend all your free time working out JUST how armor and weapon breaks could work in this game. If you're not interested, that's fine. Really. That doesn't make you a worse person or anything. But, there's no point in arguing that it couldn't work when you don't really know it couldn't work. I don't know that it WILL work, but I know that it's possible it could work well, and I believe pretty likely.

 

I understand how these things could be annoying if done poorly, and IF it so happens that they can't be done any other way than poorly, then I will gladly do without them. But, how much would you appreciate it if you found out Obsidian wasn't going to implement, I dunno... combat, because they just assumed it wouldn't work well in the game without annoying people, rather than actually working through all the details to see the results?

 

There's just no need to discourage us from trying to figure out the problem purely because there might not be a good solution. But you have every right to be skeptical.

I'm am simply stating my opinions and views on the matter just as you are. Just because they don't fall into "I'm on board" catagory doesn't mean I can't post in this thread. I'm simply highlighting what I see as the flaws in the idea. The biggest factor I consider with most of the changes that people suggest on these forums are

1. Is this going to make the game more fun?

2. How difficult would it be to impliemn said idea?

Now I don't really see a huge problem with number 2 because it would be a mechanic in the game. But I do have to say the Idea of random armor breaks and crowd control sound like a bad idea period. I'm sure most of the worst ideas that have come into games had a group of people sitting there saying the same things you guys are saying now. "wouldn't it be cool if" I've dealt with random equiptment breaks and its just not fun it IS annoying. It doesn't keep me wanting to play more. It doesn't make think "that was awesome" If you asking why I'm posting this it's to get people to think.

[Atreides]

I hope critical hits are in, so there's differentiation in combat styles - choosing variance over consistency etc.

[Lephys]

I've played several games where weapons and armor can break. Never once did I think it added to the game in a positive way.

 

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 asking what the point was to the chance to crit or automiss.

 

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'm am simply stating my opinions and views on the matter just as you are. Just because they don't fall into "I'm on board" catagory doesn't mean I can't post in this thread. I'm simply highlighting what I see as the flaws in the idea.

 

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.

[UpgrayeDD]

In what world would needed to head back through a dungeon to town to repair your broken weapons and then travel back to the place you were before be fun? Thats like saying everytime in the game you got beat up you should need to have a doctor see it before you can weild a sword. Would it add some form of realism? sure. would it add to the flow and atmosphere of the game? sorry but again I'd have to say no. and if I'm not gonig to waste my time going back to town I'll waste my time reloading. so if wasting time was the goal of allowing this them * clap clap clap* let do equiptment breaks.

I wasn't asking what the point was to the chance to crit or automiss.

 

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."

again your missing the point of what I'm saying. I like having crits and automiss as things in the game. I think they are fine as is. Always missing an opponent or criting them is powerful enough as is. They don't need boosts to help them out. And play do gime a list of the pros because I never once saw them. I merely saw people saying this is how it should be done. I see you trying to fix something thats not broke. and in your attempt to fix things that aren't broken you end up breaking something which then needs to be fixed. IE if we do these things to crits and automiss then we need to nerf how often they happen.

 

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.

One of you biggest beefs with me seems to be that "you have no way of knowing". well I don't know for certain I am only speaking from experience. Well I've played games with weapons and armor breaking and I've played games with crowd control effects. And I know what its like to lose control of a character for a long period of time. And the devs are likely going to give all if not most of those effects as class abilities in some form or fashion. Adding on a random chance of them occuring on top of those class abilities creates the opprotunity for them to overlap and chain. so not only in order to make this work would they need to nerf critical hit and miss chances but they'd need to balance all of those other abilities around them as well.

 

You talk about how great it would be to hit a guy and have this effects happen to opponents but its more then likely that most enemies wont survive many hits from your characters anyways. In fact they just got crit and if they aren't already dead then they are liekly at its door. When they happen to your opponents they will liekly be short lived or unnoticed. Any enemy that will live long enough for you to notice will likely be immune to certain status effects anyways(again speaking from playing experience in which this is prevalent in most rpgs/games. boss immunites are pretty rampant). So in essense that for the most part would mean that these effects will be noticed most of the time as happening to your character.

 

You talk about me pointing out how it wont but please point out the positives and tell me how these changes will add to the game and make it better. explain to me the awesome situations and circumstances that would make the game better. I would love to see the good things in the idea.

[Radres]

Since your trouble seems to be focused and fixated on armor an weapons breaking, i need to urge that it's not a confirmed feature nor was a similar mechanic in BG or PT games so it probably won't be in P:E. Critical Hits by nature are there to offer dynamc challenges/rewards in combat. Sometimes this could depend on your partys equipment, sometimes it's your positioning choice of your characters in combat . It offers a certain level of exitement to combat since unexpected events could unfold , and if these mechanics are balanced those moments will be remembered fondly.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Radres

[ReyVagabond]

Personaly i dont like critical hits, and i hope there are active skills to do all kind of conditions.

 

so i dont like the idea, specialy in the resiving end, a mage reciving a crit hit and beeing left silenced by chance and luck. its the worst feeling ever.

I hate games like the early levels of BG where i reloded time after time just so i cab beat something thank to a crit hit. Or needing Helmets to protect you character from crits, etc.

 

So with that in mind, remove critical hits, keep to luck to the Attack/Defence and that should be it.

[Lephys]

@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.

[UpgrayeDD]

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?"

"Should critical hits cause additional effects like blind, stun, knockout..etc?" That sentance isn't asking if critical hits and misses should be in the game. Please reread the OP because this was never about whether or not they should be in the game period The person making the post already takes it as a given weither that crits will be in the game. And rightly so as criticals are in more than 95% RPGs. The thread is not about having crits its about adding the extra effects. This thread and the people post were always talking about adding those effects. And I certainly was never advocating the removal of criticals. In fact I indeed like criticals and think the way they are in most games work well. But "this" threads suggestions to empower them are in my opinion not good ones and would only serve to hurt and not improve the gameplay.

[Lephys]

"Should critical hits cause additional effects like blind, stun, knockout..etc?" That sentance isn't asking if critical hits and misses should be in the game. Please reread the OP because this was never about whether or not they should be in the game period The person making the post already takes it as a given weither that crits will be in the game.

 

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.

[Jobby]

I'm all for status ailments although i dont think they should nessecarily be linked to criticals, i'd rather have a "called shot" mechanic or something different for that (a tactical descision to cause an ailment as opposed to a lucky shot), im kinda in agreement with UpgrayeDD in that they could make the game as much about luck as tactics and remove a degree of control from the player.

[StarSword]

Critical hit = opponent has a chance to flinch. (Pokemon terminology, mind: opponent loses a turn.)

[StarSword]

Critical hits - depends on WHERE you hit the enemy (or the enemy hits you) Hit on the head could cause stunning. Hit on the arm coudl cause a weapon drop, etc...

 

Critical miss - random result. Ranging from leaving yourself open (reduced defense for next enemy attack) to worse. Nothing negative happning would also be a possible result (simulating that you managed to recover in the lat second)

So, a little like a cross between vorpal dice and VATS mode from Fallout?