Update #39: Non-Core Classes, Cooldowns, Attack Resolution, Damage vs. Armor and a Tileset!

[zimcub]

I personaly would not find constant weapon switching to be fun. Beacause it becomes unecessarily tedius. Even with a cooldown it wont really change anything because you will just switch as soon as its up, and then you need to manage the cooldowns of several party members for every monster they fight each, and end up with just a big headache of unecessary micromanagement that isnt really fun.

 

A fun example of weapon swaping for me would be like an in BG2. You see a mage casting confusion on your party but remeber that one of your characters happens to own a sword that protects you from that spell so you swap it to a weaker blade and it helps you get through the powerful attack that can potentionally kill your whole party.

 

If there has to be a weapon vs armor switching mechanic in the game, then at least make it so that you can do it only once or twice each battle. (But thats also a weird mechanic that i would rather stay away from.)

Or limit it with weapon specializations so that weapon swaping isnt always the best choice and balace it around that.

Edited January 28, 2013 by zimcub

[rivetHead]

Like I said in my last post, it's going to come down to the frequency of swapping required and how easy the UI will be to use. I don't see it being much of a problem if it's only one or two swaps per encounter and the function is a key-stroke away.

 

I guess the part I'm not sold on is the fact that these swaps or choices always have a correct answer, which doesn't make for an interesting decision imo. An exception, and this might have been the intention of the designers all along, is to extend the cool-down penalty to the point where misjudging enemy composition would cost you dearly. This way scouting will be important, ambushes would hurt, and weapon choice would become more about the initial strategy and less about reactive tactics. I'd still want to see more weapon distinction akin to the spear and flail example I gave in my previous post, which takes things like character placement and damage patterns into account. Perhaps that sort of stuff will be added in a later design pass. Looking forward to see what the designers come up with!

[rjshae]

^^^^

They could perhaps a lot of the supposed tedium by having a light/medium/heavy weapon slot for each character (allowing for possible duplication of weapon). The AI could then be set to selecting the appropriate weapon at the start of combat, based on knowledge of the opponent type. If the opponent is unknown, then the AI could be set to choose the favorite, general-use weapon.

[rivetHead]

^^^^

They could perhaps a lot of the supposed tedium by having a light/medium/heavy weapon slot for each character (allowing for possible duplication of weapon). The AI could then be set to selecting the appropriate weapon at the start of combat, based on knowledge of the opponent type. If the opponent is unknown, then the AI could be set to choose the favorite, general-use weapon.

 

I had a similar idea. The initial decision might take some thought, but if we automate it to that degree it turns into "why have the mechanic in the game in the first place?"

[Somna]

 

 

^^^^

They could perhaps a lot of the supposed tedium by having a light/medium/heavy weapon slot for each character (allowing for possible duplication of weapon). The AI could then be set to selecting the appropriate weapon at the start of combat, based on knowledge of the opponent type. If the opponent is unknown, then the AI could be set to choose the favorite, general-use weapon.

 

I had a similar idea. The initial decision might take some thought, but if we automate it to that degree it turns into "why have the mechanic in the game in the first place?"

To have (at least) three weapons to keep upgraded instead of one uber weapon, probably?  I could easily see "Use best weapon for circumstance" being a checkbox difficulty option, with a warning in the text that tells you if the party recognizes the opponent's defenses enough to switch weapons.

 

This idea is sort of reminding me of the Mythology skill from Wizardry 7, where all you'd get is something like ?MOTH? if the skill was low; it could have been a Glow Moth (weak moth with a sleep spell) or Glow Mothra (Glow Moth on steroids with a beefier Sleep) since the model and attack animations were the same between the two types.

[rjshae]

 

^^^^

They could perhaps a lot of the supposed tedium by having a light/medium/heavy weapon slot for each character (allowing for possible duplication of weapon). The AI could then be set to selecting the appropriate weapon at the start of combat, based on knowledge of the opponent type. If the opponent is unknown, then the AI could be set to choose the favorite, general-use weapon.

 

I had a similar idea. The initial decision might take some thought, but if we automate it to that degree it turns into "why have the mechanic in the game in the first place?"

 

Well... having separate boxes for the character's pre-selected light/medium/heavy weapon would at least make it easy to switch during the combat. it lets you perform some tactical planning prior to getting into an extended run of combat.

[Valorian]

The AI could then be set to selecting the appropriate weapon at the start of combat, based on knowledge of the opponent type.

 

 

Brilliant and ingenious....   There are few things more *wonderful* than out-of-character NPCs with knee-jerk weapon switching capabilities. 

[Lephys]

Brilliant and ingenious....   There are few things more *wonderful* than out-of-character NPCs with knee-jerk weapon switching capabilities.

 

I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with pure, mocking sarcasm. Does it just make you feel better? Do you need that to get through the day?

 

I know you are quite intelligent, but your voluntary actions don't always show it.

 

He already acknowledged the folly of that particular suggestion here:

 

Well... having separate boxes for the character's pre-selected light/medium/heavy weapon would at least make it easy to switch during the combat. it lets you perform some tactical planning prior to getting into an extended run of combat.

 

How constructive is it to basically rub it in?

 

 

Back to the armor/damage issue at hand, the problem isn't the ability to switch weapons often to be more effective, it's the necessity to switch weapons often just to be reasonably effective. It's not a problem in that you can't make a functional game designed in such a way. It's a problem in that the restrictiveness tends to outweigh any depth it brings to the table. In fact, the more complexity you inject at that point, the more of a chore the weapon-swapping becomes.

 

Imagine if you had 12 companions, and you had to pick a different set of 6 for every single battle, or suffer a 50% effectiveness penalty. Constantly.

 

I think this is one major strength the new system has that the old one didn't really account for (well, at least). And now we just have to wait for all the details on the new system, 8P

[rjshae]

^^^^ Err... dude? Lighten up will you? Sheesh.

Edited January 28, 2013 by rjshae

[rjshae]

 

Brilliant and ingenious....   There are few things more *wonderful* than out-of-character NPCs with knee-jerk weapon switching capabilities.

 

I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with pure, mocking sarcasm. Does it just make you feel better? Do you need that to get through the day?

 

I know you are quite intelligent, but your voluntary actions don't always show it.

 

He already acknowledged the folly of that particular suggestion here:

 

>>Well... having separate boxes for the character's pre-selected light/medium/heavy weapon would at least make it easy to switch during the combat. it lets you perform some tactical planning prior to getting into an extended run of combat.

 

How constructive is it to basically rub it in?

 

Ah... well I missed that one. That's the drawback of having somebody in an Ignore list, I suppose.

Edited January 28, 2013 by rjshae

[Lephys]

I'm lightened up. I apologize if my words suggested otherwise (tone is often iffy in text).

 

I'm simply curious as to why Valorian feels that it's more important to accurately stress the degree of stupidity he feels people's ideas and suggestions possess than it is to simply point out problems he foresees with them and, perhaps, even suggest some alternatives as well (both constructive actions in a discussion.)

[Valorian]

I'm lightened up. I apologize if my words suggested otherwise (tone is often iffy in text).

 

I'm simply curious as to why Valorian feels that it's more important to accurately stress the degree of stupidity he feels people's ideas and suggestions possess than it is to simply point out problems he foresees with them and, perhaps, even suggest some alternatives as well (both constructive actions in a discussion.)

After detailed explanations (about why xx "solution" is horrible) fail to get through, it's important to stress the degree of stupidity*, as succinctly as possible, in order to avoid it.

 

It can come across as ruthless and shocking, cause hair to fall out from the stress, induce hysterical crying etc., but it's all for the greater good.

 

*Hey, you used that word.. I don't think there was unadulterated stupidity in rjshae's post, but rather copious collateral silliness.

[Lephys]

After detailed explanations (about why xx "solution" is horrible) fail to get through, it's important to stress the degree of stupidity*, as succinctly as possible, in order to avoid it.

 

It can come across as ruthless and shocking, cause hair to fall out from the stress, induce hysterical crying etc., but it's all for the greater good.

 

*Hey, you used that word.. I don't think there was unadulterated stupidity in rjshae's post, but rather copious collateral silliness.

A) I used it specifically in reference to your meaning. It was either inaccurate, or it was not.

B) You felt no need to change/correct the word choice in that post ^ there, but rather the need to aim at yet another arbitrary one-upping to help yourself feel accomplished (rather than simply accomplishing actual constructive discussion.)

C) You have yet to deny that you feel it's necessary to point out to people how wrong they are even after they've acknowledged a mistake or unforeseen problem with their own point.

 

I sincerely hope it's all somehow worth it inside that mind of yours, because it remains quite pointless outside of it. *shrug*

Edited January 29, 2013 by Lephys

[rjshae]

I see nothing wrong with allowing players to decide for themselves how much control AI should have over their characters. If players want to play by allowing AI to choose the weapons of the party at the start of combat, then that's a perfectly viable approach. There are players who prefer to focus on other aspects of the game. It's hardly idiotic; merely a personal preference. For example, I may choose to play the game by letting some NPCs switch weapons automatically and then fine tuning where I see fit. If that makes me an idiot... so be it.

 

As for Valorian, well... I'm unimpressed. But perhaps time will expand his horizons.

[Valorian]

When I use the term "AI" I use it to reference enemy AI; he used it in the context of party member AI apparently. So I was actually talking about the silliness of enemy AI being able to willy-nilly switch damage types (which was one of the suggestions offered previously, by someone).

 

Lephys, I'm glad that you feel the need to stress how important constructive discussion is, while going on with your amateur psychological profiling for several posts in a row. That's interesting... from a psychiatric point of view.

[Lephys]

Lephys, I'm glad that you feel the need to stress how important constructive discussion is, while going on with your amateur psychological profiling for several posts in a row. That's interesting... from a psychiatric point of view.

Well, I'm simply sharing my advice and analysis, in the interest of avoiding needless non-discussion. If you were already aware of my observances, then you obviously don't care if you're constructive or not. I just thought I'd share, in the event that you did actually care. I'm not here to make you care. I'm just here to attempt to help foster discussion.

 

I'm glad that you're glad, though. Group morale is always important, ^_^

[JFSOCC]

 

 

50% seems like a really harsh penalty. I would assume crushing weapons aren't getting the -50% applied against light/medium armor, which would mean carrying a slashing weapon would be a huge liability. If one third of the time it does moderately higher damage than piercing/crushing, but two thirds of the time does 50% less damage + potentially misses DT altogether, you're going to end up with a weapon that is basically useless. I can't imagine any reason to use anything but clubs and mauls in this scenario.

 

On the other hand, if crushing and piercing weapons ARE penalized against lighter armor, you have basically a game of rocks-paper-scissors.

 

I don't see what the problem was with the original system. Maybe you wouldn't immediately know what the optimal weapon would be in any given situation, but you could make a pretty good guess, and observing the combat log would basically seal it. I don't think it's intuitive at all for some weapons to just not work against some armor. In the old system, it sounded like you would be able to get by with a suboptimal weapon. In this system you HAVE to match up the damage type and armor type.

 

Josh and Tim obviously know better than me, since they've been playing with the system; this is just how it appears to me.

 

Well, we're going to try this system out, but I do admit that I'm not 100% sold on it.  I was really having a lot of trouble working out the wide variation in values in the original system (I made a post with the spreadsheet on the previous page) after adjusting formulae and values for weeks.  If we do "go back" to the original system, it will need to include some remedies for communicating relative damage in the interface.  At the high end of the DT spectrum, the decrease in damage is 90% over initial values for fast Slash/Pierce weapons, the worst of those (the fast Pierce, e.g. Stiletto) being less than 1/6th the value of the ideal weapon: the two-handed Crush (e.g. Maul).

 

 

This made me think about a small worry I've had

I was hoping there would be no definitive "this weapon is always better than that one" since this effectively penalizes you for choosing proficiency in weapon types which are on the **** end of the spectrum. Ever since watching the first Bourne movie, I've been impressed with Kali

(I've been trying to work those videos in on the forums for ages, finally an excuse! )

So, I very much have a preference for a weapon (dagger) and it'd suck if I couldn't build a character capable of wielding it with enough skill to be effective in combat.

 

So I was hoping you guys will consider alternatives to damage type vs armour type, perhaps with mods to the weapons themselves, perhaps some weapon related skills/feats could deny armour benefits (showing you're capable enough to focus on the more vulnerable parts of your opponents)

Whatever it is you choose, I would hope that no weapon is automatically the wrong choice.

[J.E. Sawyer]

There will absolutely be circumstances where using a certain weapon, weapon type, spell, spell type against a specific enemy will be a tactically inferior choice, just as there is in A/D&D. The reason you have a party and the ability to switch weapons, spells, abilities, etc. is to allow you to adapt to the tactical requirements of different battles.

 

In 3E/3.5, if you have a character equipped with a mace and a character equipped with a longsword facing off against a zombie and a skeleton, insisting on attacking the skeleton with the longsword and the zombie with the mace will almost always be a bad tactic.  Insisting on casting sleep against them is a bad tactic.  If you cast Reflex-based AoE damage spells against rogues and monks, that's usually a bad tactic.  Casting fireball at a red dragon is a bad tactic.  If a tactic is never circumstantially bad, that's the death of tactical challenge.  Why think of something else to do when the thing you've always done works just fine?

 

But just to make clear, in contrast to A/D&D, PE's weapon types will not be strategically inferior, i.e. bad even in the absence of context.  There are a ton of weapons in every edition of A/D&D that are flat-out terrible on paper compared to other weapons.  In 3E/3.5, it's usually Simple weapons, but there are plenty of Martial weapons that most people would never take.  For example, why would I use a Heavy Mace when I could use a Morningstar?  The latter weighs less, does the same damage, has the same crit range/multiplier, and two damage types (B/P vs. the Heavy Mace's B).  Why would I use a Greatclub when I could use a Heavy Flail?  The Heavy Flail weighs 2 lbs. more but has a higher crit range and has bonuses against disarming and when making trip attacks.

 

So if you want to make a dagger-wielding character, even a dagger-wielding fighter, that will absolutely be a viable choice in PE.  If we do our jobs well, it should be roughly as viable -- and vulnerable to tactical challenges -- as a fighter who uses longswords or a pike.  I wouldn't say that's usually the case in A/D&D.  But there will be cases where Dagger Guy is going to run into problems against a particular enemy -- just as there will be for Longsword Guy and Pike Guy.

[JFSOCC]

yeah, that was basically what I meant. obviously no weapon will always be the right choice, that'd be just as lame.

thanks.

[Shadenuat]

So if you want to make a dagger-wielding character, even a

dagger-wielding fighter, that will absolutely be a viable choice in PE.

 If we do our jobs well, it should be roughly as viable -- and

vulnerable to tactical challenges -- as a fighter who uses longswords or

a pike.  I wouldn't say that's usually the case in A/D&D.  But

there will be cases where Dagger Guy is going to run into problems

against a particular enemy -- just as there will be for Longsword Guy

and Pike Guy.

 

And what ideas have you came up with to do that? Your example has weapons with three general ranges of reach (dagger, sword and spear), are you going into reach modificators territory, like Codex Martialis?

[zimcub]

There will absolutely be circumstances where using a certain weapon, weapon type, spell, spell type against a specific enemy will be a tactically inferior choice, just as there is in A/D&D. The reason you have a party and the ability to switch weapons, spells, abilities, etc. is to allow you to adapt to the tactical requirements of different battles.

 

In 3E/3.5, if you have a character equipped with a mace and a character equipped with a longsword facing off against a zombie and a skeleton, insisting on attacking the skeleton with the longsword and the zombie with the mace will almost always be a bad tactic.  Insisting on casting sleep against them is a bad tactic.  If you cast Reflex-based AoE damage spells against rogues and monks, that's usually a bad tactic.  Casting fireball at a red dragon is a bad tactic.  If a tactic is never circumstantially bad, that's the death of tactical challenge.  Why think of something else to do when the thing you've always done works just fine?

(This is me assuming the -50% rules will be used if all else fails)

I think the problem is the occasion, where you will be engagaging enemies with different slash/pierce/blunt resistance, will be much more numerus than in the D&D. If you are engaging a simple party of adventurers, you will already need to have all 3 weapon type damage on your party (vs mage, fighter, rogue) . Or if you engage simple goblins with light armor and then engage the next wave of heavier armored orcs. You will always get a prefered weapon type. And i assume that stronger and bigger creatures will also have armor types like wryms and dragons.

(obviously i have no idea what kind of monsters you will face in PE so i'm just giving general examples)

I think -50% is way too harsh if the number of occasions will be so high.

Edited February 5, 2013 by zimcub

[Tsuga C]

So if you want to make a dagger-wielding character, even a dagger-wielding fighter, that will absolutely be a viable choice in PE.  If we do our jobs well, it should be roughly as viable -- and vulnerable to tactical challenges -- as a fighter who uses longswords or a pike.  I wouldn't say that's usually the case in A/D&D.  But there will be cases where Dagger Guy is going to run into problems against a particular enemy -- just as there will be for Longsword Guy and Pike Guy.

Some weapons are, in fact, superior to others.  Why would a dex-based fighter dual-wielding daggers be roughly as viable as a similar fighter wielding a hand-and-a-half sword in an open field of battle?  In a cluttered alleyway or a tight/low tunnel in a cave system, sure, he might have an advantage because the terrain inhibits one's range of motion with a sword.  In an open area where there are no restrictions on one's movements, the fellow with the daggers should end up dead 90% or more of the time. 

 

Will you be implementing attack modifiers based upon terrain?  If not, how else can this egalitarian viability be justified?

[JFSOCC]

Will you be implementing attack modifiers based upon terrain?  If not, how else can this egalitarian viability be justified?

Perhaps it's not the weapon but the skill with which it is wielded which decides how effective a weapon is, with the difference between weapons becoming negligible the more skill is applied.

 

Realism is one of those things... a single dagger thrust to the neck would be enough to kill someone, yet I highly doubt there will be single hit kills in this game. or permanent damage and loss of limbs for the PC. Just how realistic do you want it?

[Tsuga C]

Just how realistic do you want it?

Verisimilitude ranks quite high with me.  P:E need not be an exacting combat simulator, but I do think that it should retain a reasonably high degree of realism.  If all the slashing/piercing/crushing weapons are more or less as effective as all other slashing/piercing/crushing weapons, what's the point in having more than three weapons (one from each category) in the entire game?  It's merely a matter of aesthetics if two daggers are as good as two short swords or if flails are as good as maces with no significant advantages or disadvantages to speak of.

 

Does weapon selection matter from lower to higher levels, or are such choices as we make at higher levels merely a game of paper dolls?  Does my light, flanged mace go with these boots or should I go with my quarterstaff?  Yes, I'm being facetious with that last question, but not with the rest of this post.  I'm both concerned and curious about the significance of the "tactical challenges" regarding weaponsplay.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Tsuga C

[Lephys]

Meh, I think that particular type of style (I wanna be a crafty, agile, master of daggers instead of a plated-out knight with a longsword and super-proper form and tactics, etc.) is kind of the heart of WHY we make video games.

 

You are not wrong, Tsuga, as far as verisimilitude, but I don't think that level of it does anyone any good. Why? Because you'd either have to forcibly make the story take place in mostly small alleys (when the player picked a Rogue), OR just tag-team out party members when specific ones were ineffective, OR everyone would be the exact same thing. Or, at least, you'd have like 3 fighters and 2 archers and a Wizard or something. 

 

Especially when you throw in soul powers and supernatural abilities. You don't really know how effective someone could be with 2 daggers, if he had different powers than someone who favored the sword had.

 

The real world is about "How do we do this the absolute best, most efficient way, with the given factors?"

 

Video games are about "How interesting could we make this situation if we weren't limited by all the real-life factors?"

 

This isn't about "Do we worry about verisimilitude, or DON'T we?". I think it's extremely important, within reason. So long as it doesn't start stepping all over the imaginative freedom that's essentially at the heart of a fictional, fantasy video game world, it should always be opted for.

 

Just because a dual-dagger guy is pretty viable in our fictional world doesn't mean we can't still maintain as much verisimilitude as possible. He probably will fight very differently than a longsword-wielding fellow. He probably won't take on 5 people at once, because he lacks the reach and weapon-stopping power required, etc. "Viable" simply means you won't be definitely obliterated. Doesn't say anything about how you have to make it work. I would imagine dual-daggers would be frustrating to stick to for someone who didn't love the fighting style.