The new armor system and armor system ideas

[TrashMan]

Personally, I'm for specific resistance/damage reduction values for specific armors AND weapons having the option to deal multiple damage types (if applicable)

 

 

Something like field plate would have redicolously high resistance/DR from slashing and high resistance to both piercing and crushing.

A chainmail/splintmail armor would offer little almost no protection against crushing, but would be good against slashing and piercing.

and so on.

[elminster]

I won't vote in the poll, because I don't want to select any options in the 2nd and 3rd part, yet it requires me to do so.

 

About weapons not accurately representing one type of damage - why not give them values from all three types?

 

I suggested this before and I think it's still valid, though it was dismissed as too complicated. But!

 

1) a warhammer (a proper one, not the giant fantasy mauls) or a poleaxe deal both piercing and blunt trauma.

2) weapons could allow for different attacks with their parts - a sword blade deals slashing and piercing damage, while the pommel deals blunt. If you face a skeleton, you'd rather bash it with a pommel, or even hold the sword by the blade and use it as a hammer. Didn't Fallout have something like this?

 

3*) Missiles or ranged weapons being limited to piercing is also not true. You can have blunt arrows, slingshots and a boomerang could be a slashing one (or some kind of rotating thrown blade, whatever). While we're at it, if you wanted to deal with heavy armour, why not use heavy bodkin arrows? You'd get a bit of blunt, a bit of piercing.

 

OK, to the poll: that was clearly not the intention. I thought you could that answer the first question only. Is it technically possible to change that?

 

To the arrows: maybe I m mistaken there. Its just that I think that "normal" arrows / bolts are the standard weapon for most archers who use bows / crossbows. There are other types of ammo like heavy bodkin arrows but to represent them to much would be like a bias of arrow use. Just my 2 cents to that.

[Merlkir]

The right arrows for the job, that's just common sense. Hunters wouldn't carry many heavy bodkins around, but rangers expecting to hunt orcs might.

[Lephys]

i've never been fond of the whole "blunt, smashing, piercing" i'm mostly interested in one thing the pointy end goes into the orc and the orc dies. granted im used to playing JRPG's where this really doesn't matter period. though that is part of why i play them they are simply to figure out, i hate being forced to put in stat thingies into things like mag. physical. constitution. etc. because to me it makes things more complicated than what they need to be, i prefer they each do their jobs and character stats and weapon/armor damage types.

 

Yeah, I'm just curious here... if the simple inclusion of damage types makes things "more complicated than what they need to be," then how simple can you get before things fail to be complicated enough? Where's the "need to be" mark, and how have you determined it? Because if it's simply a matter of "damage types require more effort, and therefore are too complicated," then that reasoning would basically lead you to "Let's just compare the DPS between my party and the enemy group, and if mine's higher than theirs, give me a 'Kill All' button." There's gotta be a minimum of complexity to prevent that, and a reason for determining that minimum.

[keiichimorisato98]

i've never been fond of the whole "blunt, smashing, piercing" i'm mostly interested in one thing the pointy end goes into the orc and the orc dies. granted im used to playing JRPG's where this really doesn't matter period. though that is part of why i play them they are simply to figure out, i hate being forced to put in stat thingies into things like mag. physical. constitution. etc. because to me it makes things more complicated than what they need to be, i prefer they each do their jobs and character stats and weapon/armor damage types.

 

Yeah, I'm just curious here... if the simple inclusion of damage types makes things "more complicated than what they need to be," then how simple can you get before things fail to be complicated enough? Where's the "need to be" mark, and how have you determined it? Because if it's simply a matter of "damage types require more effort, and therefore are too complicated," then that reasoning would basically lead you to "Let's just compare the DPS between my party and the enemy group, and if mine's higher than theirs, give me a 'Kill All' button." There's gotta be a minimum of complexity to prevent that, and a reason for determining that minimum.

i just don't like damage types, different weapons sure. i'm sure there are WRPG mainstays that you don't like

Edited January 14, 2013 by keiichimorisato98

[Lephys]

i just don't like damage types, different weapons sure. i'm sure there are WRPG mainstays that you don't like

 

Well, I hate to tell you, but if it's as simple as "I don't like damage types, and therefore I don't want them in the game," then your ideal game wouldn't have any magic, or poison, or bleeding... and the only difference between abilities would be how much damage they dealt and how quickly. Same goes for weapons.

 

I'm sorry, but the complexity of things like damage types are part of what it means to play an RPG. You can't like chocolate cake, but hate chewing the chocolate cake simply because its effort. The effort is part of the eating of the cake. If we all had a gland in our mind that just let us taste whatever we wanted, people would still eat chocolate cake.

 

If the only reason you don't like damage types is that they require more effort, then you don't like anything that requires effort. And an RPG game cannot require zero effort and still be a game. Therefore, either you don't like playing RPGs, or you have some other reason for not wanting damage types in the game.

 

I don't particularly like the color red, but I don't think removing it would make the game any better. There's a difference between not-liking something and that something not-serving a purpose. That's all I'm getting at.

[keiichimorisato98]

i just don't like damage types, different weapons sure. i'm sure there are WRPG mainstays that you don't like

 

Well, I hate to tell you, but if it's as simple as "I don't like damage types, and therefore I don't want them in the game," then your ideal game wouldn't have any magic, or poison, or bleeding... and the only difference between abilities would be how much damage they dealt and how quickly. Same goes for weapons.

 

I'm sorry, but the complexity of things like damage types are part of what it means to play an RPG. You can't like chocolate cake, but hate chewing the chocolate cake simply because its effort. The effort is part of the eating of the cake. If we all had a gland in our mind that just let us taste whatever we wanted, people would still eat chocolate cake.

 

If the only reason you don't like damage types is that they require more effort, then you don't like anything that requires effort. And an RPG game cannot require zero effort and still be a game. Therefore, either you don't like playing RPGs, or you have some other reason for not wanting damage types in the game.

 

I don't particularly like the color red, but I don't think removing it would make the game any better. There's a difference between not-liking something and that something not-serving a purpose. That's all I'm getting at.

have you ever played a JRPG? what i explained is exactly it, i don't mind elemental weaknesses or bleeding, just i like characters to have a set weapons, like the warrior uses swords mages use staff hunter uses a bow etc. i already know that i wont get what i want, though i would like some heads up as to which weapon would be more effective against what enemies, like some sort of skill that scans enemies and tells you its weaknesses or something? and why not give that skill to like the hunter or rogue class. honestly i know what i want isn't what im going to get man, i know that just like everyone here i wanted to give my two cents. i don't like different weapons with different damage types, granted im used to laying JRPG's and strategy is a bit different in that, I'm sure ill like this game regardless even though i may totally disregard the whole flail, rapier, two sided type thing.

[Lephys]

have you ever played a JRPG? what i explained is exactly it, i don't mind elemental weaknesses or bleeding, just i like characters to have a set weapons, like the warrior uses swords mages use staff hunter uses a bow etc. i already know that i wont get what i want, though i would like some heads up as to which weapon would be more effective against what enemies, like some sort of skill that scans enemies and tells you its weaknesses or something? and why not give that skill to like the hunter or rogue class. honestly i know what i want isn't what im going to get man, i know that just like everyone here i wanted to give my two cents. i don't like different weapons with different damage types, granted im used to laying JRPG's and strategy is a bit different in that, I'm sure ill like this game regardless even though i may totally disregard the whole flail, rapier, two sided type thing.

 

Well, you're more than welcome to your preferences. I'm not trying to bash them or anything. I was just trying to get at the fact that the core of the design of this game might be drastically, fundamentally different than what you're looking for. I mean, JRPGs aren't typically built around loads of customization. The developers of those games typically do all the skill/stat/class/personality specifics for you, and you sort of linearly progress with everything from there and enjoy the ride. And I get that. I enjoy them as well. I just don't know if it's a very good idea to expect a cRPG to be that similar to a JRPG, with the exception of mathematical-mechanic similarities like HP and damage and levels, etc.

 

Also, I was just trying to point out that hoping something isn't in the game simply because you don't like it suggests a conflict of interest and choice. I mean, it would be mildly paradoxical for me to say I love FPSes, but I hope this new one doesn't have headshots in it. That's sort of core to the damage system in almost every FPS known to man. Damage/armor types have been around quite a while, as well, even if they don't show up in every RPG (RPGs have a much more vast amount of factors for variety to affect.) And, just like how, without headshots, some of the fun is taken out of sniping (part of the bonus of a sniper rifle is its precision, which doesn't matter nearly as much if you can't get what's essentially a realistic critical hit), without damage/armor types, your Rogue with twin daggers and your Paladin with a two-handed warhammer aren't nearly as robust in what they can do in combat.

 

The fewer damage factors you have, the more it's just how much damage you do versus how much damage your enemy does, across the board. Your party members just become man-power. That's why in JRPGs you've got different elemental damage types and such. If your Mage did 50 damage with Lightning Bolt, no matter what, and your Warrior did 50 damage with his sword, no matter what, then the only real difference would be purely aesthetic. Not only are some foes weak to electricity and some are resistant to it, some foes are weak to physical damage and some are weak to magic damage. Not to mention the commonly found "armor break" and "magic defense break" skills and such that work along the same lines. In JRPGs, they expect you to use "Magic Defense Down" on an enemy with high magic resistance, and in P:E, they expect you to use a huge mace on an enemy with high armor. They're really pretty similar, when you think about it.

[Gavinfoxx]

Inaccurate Armor names... please, please, please don't use Bad Fantasy Armor Names!

 

For the love of all that is holy, HAVE SOMEONE BUY THIS AND READ THROUGH IT:

 

http://www.rpgnow.com/product/65250/Codex-Martialis-Set-%5BBUNDLE%5D

 

And use real armor and weapon names, please! This document is fantastically well researched...

 

'Brigandine', not 'Studded Leather'! Maybe 'Reinforced Leather' or 'Boiled Leather' if it has some extra bracing or something...

 

'Scale Armor' NOT 'Scale Mail'. The only 'scale mail' I can think of is Lorica Plumata, roman scale and chainmail hybrid, ie, 'feather armor'...

 

'Plate Harness' or 'Plate Armor' not 'Plate Mail'. Maybe 'Plate and Mail' if it is a hybrid!

[Lephys]

'Plate Harness' or 'Plate Armor' not 'Plate Mail'. Maybe 'Plate and Mail' if it is a hybrid!

 

Or "Plate - Male" if it's tailored to fit a male. . That wraps up today's episode of... Fun With Homonyms!

Edited January 14, 2013 by Lephys

[Gavinfoxx]

Plate fit for males and plate fit for females would look pretty damn similar. They might even be the same. You'd still want a Peascod breastplate, and those have a particular look to them. Though I would like to see something like:

 

Plate - Unfitted

and

Plate - Fitted for [Character], after you take it to an armorer to be modified to fit you. Getting Plate Armor should be a Really Big Deal.

[keiichimorisato98]

have you ever played a JRPG? what i explained is exactly it, i don't mind elemental weaknesses or bleeding, just i like characters to have a set weapons, like the warrior uses swords mages use staff hunter uses a bow etc. i already know that i wont get what i want, though i would like some heads up as to which weapon would be more effective against what enemies, like some sort of skill that scans enemies and tells you its weaknesses or something? and why not give that skill to like the hunter or rogue class. honestly i know what i want isn't what im going to get man, i know that just like everyone here i wanted to give my two cents. i don't like different weapons with different damage types, granted im used to laying JRPG's and strategy is a bit different in that, I'm sure ill like this game regardless even though i may totally disregard the whole flail, rapier, two sided type thing.

 

Well, you're more than welcome to your preferences. I'm not trying to bash them or anything. I was just trying to get at the fact that the core of the design of this game might be drastically, fundamentally different than what you're looking for. I mean, JRPGs aren't typically built around loads of customization. The developers of those games typically do all the skill/stat/class/personality specifics for you, and you sort of linearly progress with everything from there and enjoy the ride. And I get that. I enjoy them as well. I just don't know if it's a very good idea to expect a cRPG to be that similar to a JRPG, with the exception of mathematical-mechanic similarities like HP and damage and levels, etc.

 

Also, I was just trying to point out that hoping something isn't in the game simply because you don't like it suggests a conflict of interest and choice. I mean, it would be mildly paradoxical for me to say I love FPSes, but I hope this new one doesn't have headshots in it. That's sort of core to the damage system in almost every FPS known to man. Damage/armor types have been around quite a while, as well, even if they don't show up in every RPG (RPGs have a much more vast amount of factors for variety to affect.) And, just like how, without headshots, some of the fun is taken out of sniping (part of the bonus of a sniper rifle is its precision, which doesn't matter nearly as much if you can't get what's essentially a realistic critical hit), without damage/armor types, your Rogue with twin daggers and your Paladin with a two-handed warhammer aren't nearly as robust in what they can do in combat.

 

The fewer damage factors you have, the more it's just how much damage you do versus how much damage your enemy does, across the board. Your party members just become man-power. That's why in JRPGs you've got different elemental damage types and such. If your Mage did 50 damage with Lightning Bolt, no matter what, and your Warrior did 50 damage with his sword, no matter what, then the only real difference would be purely aesthetic. Not only are some foes weak to electricity and some are resistant to it, some foes are weak to physical damage and some are weak to magic damage. Not to mention the commonly found "armor break" and "magic defense break" skills and such that work along the same lines. In JRPGs, they expect you to use "Magic Defense Down" on an enemy with high magic resistance, and in P:E, they expect you to use a huge mace on an enemy with high armor. They're really pretty similar, when you think about it.

i dont expect cRPG's to be like JRPG's at all... i'm just hoping something are a bit more streamlined like level progression, i don't want ability points to increase my stats (becuase i ALWAYS end up ruining my character or second guessing weather or not I'm doing the right thing) picking and choosing skills i can get down with (as long as i can unlock every skill at some point in the game, i hate not being able to unlock every skill) and i never use debuffs in JRPG's i always found it pointless because they are timed and normally don't last for the duration of the battle, though... FFXIII has forced me to do so... either way i don't want to argue about this anymore, i just hope i enjoy the game.

[TrashMan]

Different weapons can realistiy deal multiple type of damage. They may not be AS good as sonme other weapons, but they can.

 

Example:

- the warhammer ... blunt/crushign damage with one end, and it usually has a spike on the other for piercing damage

- zweihander - slashing with the blade, piercing with the tip or the sharpened handguards, blunt with the pommel or the blunted handguards

 

 

Now, there's two ways that this can be done - damage type done is automatic (most effective) or decided by the player. Or something in between, where damage type is randomized, with a prefference - because you can't always deal the perfect blow, so you settle with any hit whatsoever

 

 

The weapon does X damage and the damage can be of type A, B or C, depending on the enemy and weapon (some weapons can only deal 1 type of damage)

The weapons does X chrusing and Y slashing and Z piercing (all at the same time)

The weapons does X chrusing OR Y slashing OR Z piercing (only one at a time)

 

Setting every character to prioritize a specific damage type might be to micro-intensive... or not.

A character automaticly trying to deal more blows with damage type A might be better.

 

So your character swings a zweihander and deals X slashing damage. Not very effective sicne the enemy is in plate, so his next attack is a stab, using the zweihander as a spear he deals Y piercing damage. However, due to moving and parrying/dodging, he can't consistently deal piercing damage (Or can he?), so for his next attack he pommel strokies the enemy for Z crushing damage.

 

Something like that.

[Jarmo]

- zweihander - slashing with the blade, piercing with the tip or the sharpened handguards, blunt with the pommel or the blunted handguards

 

Yeah, now I remember something I disliked in damage types.

 

Let's assume you slash with a sweihander, the mail stops the attack so you do no damage?

Lets assume you slash with a pole the size and weight of a sweihander, it's crushing so it does damage despite the mail?

 

Same weight, same size, but the other is sharp so doesn't work. It'd work better if it was a dull blade?

 

 

All weapons should have a crushing damage component derived from weapons weight and dimensions.

Maybe that could "kick in" if the armor penetration of piercing and slashing component fails? Or somethign.

[Bartimaeus]

i dont expect cRPG's to be like JRPG's at all... i'm just hoping something are a bit more streamlined like level progression, i don't want ability points to increase my stats (becuase i ALWAYS end up ruining my character or second guessing weather or not I'm doing the right thing) picking and choosing skills i can get down with (as long as i can unlock every skill at some point in the game, i hate not being able to unlock every skill) and i never use debuffs in JRPG's i always found it pointless because they are timed and normally don't last for the duration of the battle, though... FFXIII has forced me to do so... either way i don't want to argue about this anymore, i just hope i enjoy the game.

 

You don't want your attributes to affect your statistics, (which, in this context, I assume is meant to mean like skill bonuses, damage bonuses, etc.)? Then, what, exactly, are your attributes supposed to do?

 

And regarding skills and debuffs...um...yes, well, I certainly hope you enjoy the game, too.

[TrashMan]

- zweihander - slashing with the blade, piercing with the tip or the sharpened handguards, blunt with the pommel or the blunted handguards

 

Yeah, now I remember something I disliked in damage types.

 

Let's assume you slash with a sweihander, the mail stops the attack so you do no damage?

Lets assume you slash with a pole the size and weight of a sweihander, it's crushing so it does damage despite the mail?

 

Same weight, same size, but the other is sharp so doesn't work. It'd work better if it was a dull blade?

 

 

All weapons should have a crushing damage component derived from weapons weight and dimensions.

Maybe that could "kick in" if the armor penetration of piercing and slashing component fails? Or somethign.

 

You make a good point.

Technicly, a zweihander would do do crushing damage with each slash (but not with a stab).

The sharper a weapon, the more it cuts and the les it crushes.

 

 

so for example:

- slash: 1-6 salshing, 1-6 crushing (a shaper version would do more slashing and less crushing)

- stab: 2-12 piercing

- pommel stike: 1-10 crushing

- reverse chop (holding the sword by the blade and striking with the pomel/handguard) - crushing/piercing

[Jarmo]

Technicly, a zweihander would do do crushing damage with each slash (but not with a stab).

The sharper a weapon, the more it cuts and the les it crushes.

 

Even a stab would do crushing only if it failed to penetrate the armor.

Let's imagine a very thin mithril shirt, can't stab through but it'll still hurt when you deliver that 300 pound strike.

 

I'd say yeah, sharper weapon does more cutting and less crushing... if the hit penetrates.

Against a strong hauberk, it makes no difference how sharp the blade is, if it still fails to go through.

[keiichimorisato98]

i dont expect cRPG's to be like JRPG's at all... i'm just hoping something are a bit more streamlined like level progression, i don't want ability points to increase my stats (becuase i ALWAYS end up ruining my character or second guessing weather or not I'm doing the right thing) picking and choosing skills i can get down with (as long as i can unlock every skill at some point in the game, i hate not being able to unlock every skill) and i never use debuffs in JRPG's i always found it pointless because they are timed and normally don't last for the duration of the battle, though... FFXIII has forced me to do so... either way i don't want to argue about this anymore, i just hope i enjoy the game.

 

You don't want your attributes to affect your statistics, (which, in this context, I assume is meant to mean like skill bonuses, damage bonuses, etc.)? Then, what, exactly, are your attributes supposed to do?

 

And regarding skills and debuffs...um...yes, well, I certainly hope you enjoy the game, too.

you know how some cRPG's when you level up you are given a certain number of points so you can build your character, and that is the only way for your character to get stronger... i don't mind those points for like a skill tree, just not for "building" my character.... i don't know if i'm communicating it right...how about this you get 5 skill point or attribute points (some games call it differently) and when you level up you don't stronger in anyway until you use these points, i hate that kind of system because i have a hard time trying to figure out how i should build my character that i end up simply putting said point into str. def. and health. on EVERY character i play as regardless of class (except mage or mage like classes i'm not THAT dense)

[Lephys]

- zweihander - slashing with the blade, piercing with the tip or the sharpened handguards, blunt with the pommel or the blunted handguards

 

Yeah, now I remember something I disliked in damage types.

 

Let's assume you slash with a sweihander, the mail stops the attack so you do no damage?

Lets assume you slash with a pole the size and weight of a sweihander, it's crushing so it does damage despite the mail?

 

Same weight, same size, but the other is sharp so doesn't work. It'd work better if it was a dull blade?

 

 

All weapons should have a crushing damage component derived from weapons weight and dimensions.

Maybe that could "kick in" if the armor penetration of piercing and slashing component fails? Or somethign.

 

That's what the Damage Reduction or Damage Threshold values (and the damage values on the weapons, regardless of damage type) are meant to address. If someone has Full Plate (DT 7), and you try to hit them with your longsword (8 damage), then you're going to only deal 1 damage. This just means that the structure of the armor was thus that the physics of kinetic-force transferrence from the shape and weight of your sword was only enough to get 1/8th of the force to actually bypass the absorption of the armor's structure.

 

A sword doing "slashing" and a hammer doing "crushing" isn't meant to say that there's no bruising/rib-cracking force behind the weight of a sword. But, that's why, if you're wearing chainmail, the DT would be lower (Maybe 4?). The sword may not cut you, but it's still going to transfer the force of the swing through the much-thinner chain better than it will with the rigid plate (which doesn't necessarily even allow the force of the sword to make direct contact with your body unless the armor's structure is compromised.)

 

Think of it like this: If a longsword deals 9 damage (change from 8 for simplicity's sake in this example), then pretend it does 3 slashing damage, 3 piercing damage, and 3 crushing damage. If you strike a target with no armor (or very light armor), you deal all three types of damage (maybe reduced by 1 or something from the light armor). If you strike a target wearing medium armor (chainmail, we'll say), it stops the slashing damage, so only the piercing and crushing get through and you deal 6 damage. If you attack someone with heavy armor (full plate), you only deal the crushing damage, so you deal 3 damage.

 

It's just example math, but the point is that the total possible damage and the exact damage reduction take into account your concern (which is a perfectly valid one, by the way), even if they do it rather abstractly. If full plate has a damage threshold of 5, and your slashing sword has the ability to bypass 0 damage threshold, then that means its crushing capability is not strong enough to affect the plate. So, you can still deal 4 damage with that 9-damage longsword. Whereas, the hammer is specifically designed to make the plate armor less effective, so it might bypass 5 damage threshold, meaning that a 7-damage warhammer deals all of its damage, even to the plate. The sword fails to deliver enough effective (crushing) force to the plate armor to affect it. It's not that all its force is focused into slicing, and it couldn't possibly crush anything.

 

So, a warhammer will still severely hurt an armorless target. Hell, it might even slash their flesh a bit, if you were to try to do so (even blunt hard metal edges will tear through flesh), but the sword is always going to slash much more flesh with the same force applied. The hammer might crush the hell out of your ribcage and organs, but it is never going to crush the side of your torso in AND slash across your torso in the same strike. The sword, likewise, will deliver some crushing/bruising damage to your bones as it swings, but the more it slashes, the less it crushes, and it can't crush as much as a hammer can. Swinging it like a hammer at the side of a target's torso would result in a very precise cut of damage that could be quite deep, but the force wouldn't be transferred to as much of the surrounding ribcage and organs as with the hammer (which wouldn't strike as deeply).

 

(Note: I realize you have to swing a different way to effectively pierce instead of slash or crush, but this system simply abstracts the specifics of your swing to take into account what all you COULD do with that weapon. If we are able to choose how to swing our weapons, as has been suggested, then the system would need to be altered. I acknowledge that, and am not against allowing different modes of attack for the weapons with multiple actual damage types.)

[Gavinfoxx]

If you want to hit full plate with your longsword and get through it, grab the blade to stiffen it...

 

I want some characters to be able to half-sword, dammit! Seriously, I would LOVE to see that in a video game! Lower your reach, limit the ability to do a particular set of techniques, but improve armor piercing and grappling capability via halfswording...

[TrashMan]

Technicly, a zweihander would do do crushing damage with each slash (but not with a stab).

The sharper a weapon, the more it cuts and the les it crushes.

 

Even a stab would do crushing only if it failed to penetrate the armor.

Let's imagine a very thin mithril shirt, can't stab through but it'll still hurt when you deliver that 300 pound strike.

 

I'd say yeah, sharper weapon does more cutting and less crushing... if the hit penetrates.

Against a strong hauberk, it makes no difference how sharp the blade is, if it still fails to go through.

 

Against plate? If a piercing attack doesn't go trough, it's usually because it was deflected - hence no crushing damage at all.

If a sword/dagger stab isnt' deflected but fails to penetrate field plate, all it will do is create a small dent and iritate the wearer, since the force will be distributed across the rigid plate. Which is what made plate so good.

Non-rigid armors were at the mercy of crushing force.

[TrashMan]

It's just example math, but the point is that the total possible damage and the exact damage reduction take into account your concern (which is a perfectly valid one, by the way), even if they do it rather abstractly.

 

A bit too abstractly for my tastes, as it just lacks the neuances of real combat and it doesn't really work that well. Besides, I really want to see hits completely negated by armor. Not even 1 point of damage.

 

Can you "abstract" everything with just one value? Yes. Shold you do it? Nope. Let's not forget that was abstract everything if we want.

 

For example - take World of Tanks.

 

Distance and angle of a shot, as well as shell armor penetration and armor thickness in the hit zone all determine what will hapen. Position your tank properly and there's a high chance enemy shots will bounce off.

Could you have made the game without all those equations and just used armor and penetration? Yes. Would it have made a better game? Hell no.

[Lephys]

^ A fair take. I wasn't intending to suggest it was perfect, but it's a prototype. We still don't know if there will be weapon stances, various types of attack with the same weapon, etc. If they can do it with their resource limitations and time constraints, then sure... the more effective factors we can put into the system, the better. But, I just don't see 17 different possible factors going into how damage and armor interact in an isometric, party-based game.

 

I'm not saying it's 17 factors or 1. Like I said, the more reasonable complexity they can add, the better, in my book. I just personally will be fine with a more abstracted approach than what you would rather see as the minimum mark, methinks. Which is fine. Just a preference difference is all that is. It doesn't really have any bearing on the value of not over-simplifying combat calculations.

[TrashMan]

The minimum necessary to get the proper feel IMHO.

 

Now, what is the proper feel and what constitutes minimal may be debatable. But frankly I don't see a problem with complex calculations. Modern computers have CPU power to spare. Use it. If On-line multiplayer games can get away with that, that singleplayer games should have no problem whatsoever.

 

If we are talking about complexity towards the player (micromanagment), it can be automazied a fair bit too.

Let's say that the PC automaticly changes stances and uses different types of attack (thrust, swing left, overhead chop, pommel strike, etc...) and parries depending on his lvl and skill rank with the weapon.

Let's also assume that each type of attack or parry has different properties (different damage or armor pen).

The more skilled with the weapon, the better will a NPC/PC perform in a logical fashion (without resorting to just attack bonus stacking)

Edited January 17, 2013 by TrashMan