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

[Malekith]

 

@Josh, I'd like to reiterate from earlier in the thread that keeping the original BG-style selection circles would be my preference as well (green for party, red enemy, blue NPC, yellow for some state changes) with potential upgrades. Maybe selection circle thickness could represent relative armor level (I have no idea if that's visually doable). Just please don't make each party member's circle a different color or worse, as in BG:EE, some the same color as others; or moddable would be nice!

 

Tim and I, who are both color blind, would prefer to not use green/red for allied/enemy colors.

Maybe you could give us the option to choose the colors. I understand why you want to avoid these colors, but red is natural for enemies.Using a color combination that is awkward for those who can see the whole color spectrum could be avoided if the game offers the choice, green/red for those who want it, ?/? for the others.

Anyway, is not a serious matter but it would be nice you could do it

Edited January 24, 2013 by Malekith

[J.E. Sawyer]

Blue/red is a less common distinction than green/red but it's still pretty common and retains the near-universal "red = not your buddy" element.

[rjshae]

 

 

@Josh, I'd like to reiterate from earlier in the thread that keeping the original BG-style selection circles would be my preference as well (green for party, red enemy, blue NPC, yellow for some state changes) with potential upgrades. Maybe selection circle thickness could represent relative armor level (I have no idea if that's visually doable). Just please don't make each party member's circle a different color or worse, as in BG:EE, some the same color as others; or moddable would be nice!

 

Tim and I, who are both color blind, would prefer to not use green/red for allied/enemy colors.

Maybe you could give us the option to choose the colors. I understand why you want to avoid these colors, but red is natural for enemies.Using a color combination that is awkward for those who can see the whole color spectrum could be avoided if the game offers the choice, green/red for those who want it, ?/? for the others.

Anyway, is not a serious matter but it would be nice you could do it

 

Had a color-blind physics professor (EM Theory) back in college. His viewfoils were something to behold! Excellent instructor though.

 

Yes it would be nice if the colors were set in an init file somewhere so we could tweak it. But perhaps they have another approach in mind?

[Legolad]

It might be early to talk about specific UI implementations, but since we've touched on intuitiveness of combat mechanics I thought I'd throw out some ideas / options that may help with conveyance.

• When you select a character and move your cursor over an enemy to attack, the cursor could change to hint the expected performance of the given action. The verbosity is up to the design but a simple example would be "Advantage" or "Disadvantage" popping near the cursor. Problem with this approach is that it assumes you only have one companion selected. Perhaps for a group action the information could pop over the individual's portrait.

   

• Render a thin line between the selection circles of the assailant and it's target, then color code the line to indicate the effectiveness of their actions. To avoid visual clutter this feature could be hidden until the player presses ALT.

• Color code the combat log so effective and ineffective actions can be distinguished at a glance. 

Enemy attacks you - it's super effective!

You attack enemy - it sucks.

Enemy attacks you - it sucks.

You attack enemy - it's super effective!

 

Would you guys consider this over-conveyance, which reduces combat to a game of "try all the things until it turns green", or does it cut the headache of spreadsheeting and free the player focus on other fun decisions like character positioning?

 

I think it's a mixed bag and, for me at least, it is very dependent on how much time I'm given to read and whether the text is legible to me.

 

As I've aged, I find myself struggling more with a lot of games because the designers make specific assumptions about the size of visual elements. In EVE Online, for example, I prefer to play the game at the highest resolution I can, but until very recently I was not able to increase the font size independently from the graphics. This meant I had to fiddle with the resolution making trade-offs between legibility of the font size and detail of the resolution. Not a fun trade-off to have to make. Even now, the ability to change font sizes does not affect all fonts. Rather it's limited to menus and other specific elements, making it impossible to get my ideal visual experience: fully legible text and beautiful high-resolution graphics. 

 

So, for me, any solution that involves text must also include the ability to set the size, color, background, and transparency of that text. And I'm not alone. The mean age of gamers is shifting upward, bringing with it a lot of people closer to my age (49). That means more people with vision problems will also grow. Lump into that people who are color blind and people who have other vision issues and I assume there are plenty of players who would love to be able to adjust these settings, and not just for aesthetic reasons.

[IndiraLightfoot]

So, for me, any solution that involves text must also include the ability to set the size, color, background, and transparency of that text. And I'm not alone. The mean age of gamers is shifting upward, bringing with it a lot of people closer to my age (49). That means more people with vision problems will also grow. Lump into that people who are color blind and people who have other vision issues and I assume there are plenty of players who would love to be able to adjust these settings, and not just for aesthetic reasons.

 How very true! This is almost never implemented in CRPGs anymore (if ever), and these games tend to be text-heavy. It would increase the longevity of the game as well as be a welcome addition to it for heaps of middle-aged players or players with eyesight problems.

[Sensuki]

Blue/red is a less common distinction than green/red but it's still pretty common and retains the near-universal "red = not your buddy" element.

What color are you thinking of for non-hostile NPCs?

 

Blue/Red is straight from ToEE I understand, I'll deal with it if that's the final decision. Customization of such a trivial thing is probably a low priority. If it ends up being not a hard thing to implement for the options menu it would be nice

Edited January 24, 2013 by Sensuki

[Lephys]

I don't like percentile reductions (as a base armor system) either.

 

Anyhow. I'll offer you my armor mechanics system, because... I'd really like your project to succeed so if I can help in any way, I'd be glad. I'm a little bit jealous of it and I'd love to use it some day in an imaginary rpg that I'd be working on, but since that's most likely not going to happen, here it is:

 

- snip -

 

 

Kudos on the blueprint, Valorian, ^_^.

 

I like how it addresses the whole weapon effectiveness (and, on the other side of that coin, armor effectiveness). And yeah, it does seem more complicated at first than it really is, heh.

 

I dunno if Josh wants to change the whole 4-part-defense-roll system they've got right now (which takes care of certain aspects that the AQ range addresses), but the team could still easily work in part of your weapon/armor type relationship, even without adopting the whole thing.

 

For what it's worth, I give it several thumbs up.

[rjshae]

 

Blue/red is a less common distinction than green/red but it's still pretty common and retains the near-universal "red = not your buddy" element.

What color are you thinking of for non-hostile NPCs?

 

Blue/Red is straight from ToEE I understand, I'll deal with it if that's the final decision. Customization of such a trivial thing is probably a low priority. If it ends up being not a hard thing to implement for the options menu it would be nice

 

Yep, the ToEE colors seemed fine.    I wonder if we'll have a different color to mark broken morale, as we did in BG?

[SunBroSolaire]

So Josh, i've been playing with your excel sheet. Which of these are dependent and independent variables? Which one of these deals directly with the general type (piercing/slashing/crushing) of weapon you choose and which of these deals with the specific weapon you use?

 

I realize min-max will be different for specific weapons (independent variable).

 

Everything else is a dependent variable, right?

 

-(Rate is dependent on whether it's Fast, one-handed, two-handed ONLY)

-MDTDT is dependent on whether it's F/1H/2H AND whether crushing/non-crushing

-DWF is dependent of whether it's 1H/2H.

 

The reason I ask this, is will this change significantly between weapons of the same type/handling? Will there be Fast Slashing weapons with rates that aren't 0.9, DWF that isn't 1/2, and MDTDT that isn't 0.1?

 

Are you changing weapons only based on DMG*?

 

 

One issue I recognize immediately, is that the equations you're using for your crushing/slashing vs. piercing is different. I would try to find something that has the same equation all around, but where the dependent variables give you the nice gradients you're looking for. The first that came to my minds was Michaelis-Menton equations for me (but that's because I work with these everyday)

 

Finally, it's really non-intuitive how your piercing weapons do the least damage and yet you have some sort of middle armor tier that it works out for. It would make more sense to have your crushing weapons do the least damage, with the highest MDTDT (it's weird that it goes all the way up to 0.6 - I tried 0.45-0.5 and it worked better.

 

Sorry if I'm overstepping here All the best.

The piercing weapons tripped me up, too. Comparing his example here with this one made things a little clearer to me:

 

 

Basically the same thing, but with better sample size so the graph is clearer. The way I interpret it is this: Blunt weapons are always going to to some damage, because armor doesn't totally protect you from shock damage. That's where you get the MDTDT; even if your weapon can't pierce the armor, it will do a good bit of damage just from impact. Blunt weapons really shine because they're designed to hit with maximum force on a wide target area. The advantage of piercing weapons is that they can actually pass through armor (IE,  DT-). When they can't pass through armor anymore, they become inferior to crushing AND slashing because you're hitting with less force, in a very specific area. It's a really nice system, I'm sad I only really appreciate it now that it's gone

 

I can kind of understand where Josh is coming from saying that this is unintuitive, but I don't know that intuitiveness should necessarily be the most important factor. It's a cool system, it makes sense, and it serves it's purpose of giving each weapon their time to shine. I really like the nuance in that graph. I hope whatever they end up doing, that they can preserve the different 'flavor' of each weapon type.

Edited January 25, 2013 by SunBroSolaire

[Hormalakh]

Oh wow.. I completely missed the DT- column! Back to the drawing board..

 

eDIT: Ok got it working... Now let's see what we have here.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Ieo]

Blue/red is a less common distinction than green/red but it's still pretty common and retains the near-universal "red = not your buddy" element.

Oh, that would still work great. Thanks.

 

BG:EE's treatment is pretty awful, so as long as PE stays away from that... 

[Valorian]

 

I don't like percentile reductions (as a base armor system) either.

 

Anyhow. I'll offer you my armor mechanics system, because... I'd really like your project to succeed so if I can help in any way, I'd be glad. I'm a little bit jealous of it and I'd love to use it some day in an imaginary rpg that I'd be working on, but since that's most likely not going to happen, here it is:

 

- snip -

 

 

Kudos on the blueprint, Valorian, ^_^.

 

I like how it addresses the whole weapon effectiveness (and, on the other side of that coin, armor effectiveness). And yeah, it does seem more complicated at first than it really is, heh.

 

I dunno if Josh wants to change the whole 4-part-defense-roll system they've got right now (which takes care of certain aspects that the AQ range addresses), but the team could still easily work in part of your weapon/armor type relationship, even without adopting the whole thing.

 

For what it's worth, I give it several thumbs up.

Admit it, you liked it because the allure of a large post was just too strong. I know you! :D

 

 

Jokes aside, yes, they would keep the flavour, but get rid of the stiffness. I think it would be interesting for the player to compare and experiment with different damage/AP and DT/AQ combinations. Weapons with high AP would still be preferable against armors with high DT and armor penetration (AP) wouldn't be a piercing damage exception. If every weapon has this stat, the player has to keep it in mind when judging the effectiveness of said weapon, and that adds a bit more fun in finding new weapons, I think.

No spreadsheets would be needed though; the rules are simple - the bigger the numbers the better the weapon/armor is!

[Hormalakh]

Hi Josh,

 

So I've looked at the weapons/mechanics and I think that you don't need to change a thing. You just have to present it to your players differently, and you have to set some ground rules for your weapon designs. As a general rule, it seems that better slashing weapons should increase DMG*, better piercing weapons should increase DT-, and better crushing weapons should increase MDTDT. Individual weapons can have slight alterations in any of the other variables that you want, but the majority of the changes should be made in their respective "character," i.e. a "better" piercing weapon can have a 1-5% increase in damage output, but it's main improvements should be in DT-. Similarly with the other weapons.

 

Then when you want to show this information to your players, make your weapons have "characters." Slashing character, crushing character, piercing character. If players want to have a weapon that fights better against mid-level armors, they'll want something with more "piercing character." Heavy armor? Add to the "crushing character." etc etc.

 

The other suggestion that I have is to change the way you "add" to your armors. Don't add straight to the DT if you have a +1 mail or something like that. Make any efficiencies in your armors be straight across the board. A better chain mail is a better chain mail regardless of what weapon strikes it. So instead of doing a (dmg subtracted from ((DT+armor bonus) subtracted from  DT-). Make the armor bonus a percentage across the board. armorbonus*(dmg - (dt - DT-)). A +1 would give something like a minimal amount up to whatever maximum you want (+5?). For example, a +1 through a +5 would give 5%, 9%, 13%, 16%, 20% damage reduction across the board, respectively..

 

Edit: Other ideas:

 

When you describe weapons, specifically piercing weapons, instead of stating what DT- the piercing weapon has, make it an "attribute." For example, a "leather-piercing" dagger starts with a DT- of 20 (or whatever it is for leather armor). A mail piercer starts at the DT- of 30 (35? I can't remember.)

 

Finally, if you want a player to make a "real" decision between a mail+1 and a regular mail, what you can do is get your mail+1 to have that 5% reduction but then drop the DT down a few points. It's still in the same range, so a scale armor would be +25 DT, but a scale+1 would be 5% armorbonus, +21-24 DT.

 

 

Hope these ideas are things you haven't tried yet and I hope that these help the situation be a little more intuitive for your players. I'll keep playing with these numbers Good luck

 

Everyone else, let me know what you think about this idea: do you like it, hate it, not understand it?

Edited January 25, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Brasidas]

Can someone (not necessarily Mr. Sawyer) explain the choice of high minimum damage instead of increased armor penetration (DT-) for crushing weapons? Tinkering with quick mock up (though turn based) that gives crushing weapons increased DT- instead of high minimum damage, and drops their standard damage below piercing weapons, worked well. However, the mock up is not nearly as complex (three weapons, three armor types). Why does the complexity in Josh's system necessitate this choice?

 

If the system's problem is too many input variables as Josh mentioned, what's a reasonable number to shoot for? Is there an analogous system in other RPG's that accomplishes the elegance Josh is looking for? My experience lies primarily with D&D and White Wolf, but I wasn't finding them helpful. Maybe someone who has spent time with GURPS, JRPG's, or LoL/DOTA would have some useful examples.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Brasidas

[Hormalakh]

Can someone (not necessarily Mr. Sawyer) explain the choice of high minimum damage instead of increased armor penetration (DT-) for crushing weapons? Tinkering with quick mock up (though turn based) that gives crushing weapons increased DT- instead of high minimum damage appeared to work well. However, the mock up is not nearly as complex (three weapons, three armor types). Why does the complexity in Josh's system necessitate this choice?

 

If the system's problem is too many input variables as Josh mentioned, what's a reasonable number to shoot for? Is there an analogous system in other RPG's that accomplishes the elegance Josh is looking for? My experience lies primarily with D&D and White Wolf, but I wasn't finding them helpful. Maybe someone who has spent time with GURPS, JRPG's, or LoL/DOTA would have some useful examples.

 

Hi! It's a little difficult to explain, but ultimately SunBroSolaire did a good job explaining it. Basically think of a piercing weapon as something like a knife, a crushing weapon as something like a club, and a slashing weapon something like a scythe. If you get hit with a scythe, that thing has disembowel you so it it stands that it could do a lot of damage. A knife however is really more of a "stabbing" weapon. It's great for bypassing medium sized armors and low armors. Think about how you'd use a knife. You can stab through something like scale or leather, but at some point, you just can't stab through a material like steel or iron. The numbers just work out that way and intuitively that's how you think of a knife. A club however, doesn't disembowel you or stab you. It basically knocks you around. The damage done really doesn't care much about what armor you're wearing. If the armor is heavier, you still get knocked around.

 

So MDTDT acts as a "floor" for damage. This is your crushing weapon. It doesn't matter what armor you're wearing, it'll always knock you around and yu'll have a minimum "threshold" for damage.

 

DMG acts as your scythe. If you aren't wearing armor, you get disemboweled. If you wear a little armor, you get less disemboweled. If you wear plate, you don't get disemboweled at all.

 

Finally DT- acts as your "stabby protection." If you wear a paper thin armor, you can stab through that with a knife. A scale armor is harder, and a piece of metal is practically impossible.

 

I don't think the problem is too many variables. It's the the variables are being adjusted improperly when describing weapons. When you have a better knife, you can cut through thicker materials. A samurai blade (thin blade) compared to a scythe might increase its DMG slightly, but it increases "stabby potential" more significantly (i.e. you increase the DT-). Thus your samurai blade goes through heavier armors, but it wouldn't disembowel anyone but the unarmed. But it might not go through plate mail.

 

So TL;DR: weapon characters must fit their variables. You don't have too many variables. You have just the right amount. You just have to be careful to change the right variable when you're trying to "improve" a weapons particular characteristic.

[SunBroSolaire]

Hi Josh,

 

So I've looked at the weapons/mechanics and I think that you don't need to change a thing. You just have to present it to your players differently, and you have to set some ground rules for your weapon designs. As a general rule, it seems that better slashing weapons should increase DMG*, better piercing weapons should increase DT-, and better crushing weapons should increase MDTDT. Individual weapons can have slight alterations in any of the other variables that you want, but the majority of the changes should be made in their respective "character," i.e. a "better" piercing weapon can have a 1-5% increase in damage output, but it's main improvements should be in DT-. Similarly with the other weapons.

 

Then when you want to show this information to your players, make your weapons have "characters." Slashing character, crushing character, piercing character. If players want to have a weapon that fights better against mid-level armors, they'll want something with more "piercing character." Heavy armor? Add to the "crushing character." etc etc.

 

The other suggestion that I have is to change the way you "add" to your armors. Don't add straight to the DT if you have a +1 mail or something like that. Make any efficiencies in your armors be straight across the board. A better chain mail is a better chain mail regardless of what weapon strikes it. So instead of doing a (dmg subtracted from ((DT+armor bonus) subtracted from  DT-). Make the armor bonus a percentage across the board. armorbonus*(dmg - (dt - DT-)). A +1 would give something like a minimal amount up to whatever maximum you want (+5?). For example, a +1 through a +5 would give 5%, 9%, 13%, 16%, 20% damage reduction across the board, respectively..

 

 

Hope these ideas are things you haven't tried yet and I hope that these help the situation be a little more intuitive for your players. I'll keep playing with these numbers Good luck

 

Everyone else, let me know what you think about this idea: do you like it, hate it, not understand it?

I like this idea a lot. Giving each weapon type their own stat could reinforce the unique feel of each type. With good names, I think it would be pretty clear what was going on, e.g., DT- = penetration, MDTDT = blunt force. For example:

 

Mace:

Damage: 12 - 18

Penetration: 0

Blunt Force: 40%

 

Long Sword:

Damage: 15 - 21

Penetration: 5

Blunt Force: 20%

 

Pike:

Damage: 8 - 12

Penetration: 15

Blunt Force: 10%

 

Looks like a lot of fun to compare these, rather than just saying, "I need a crushing weapon now, which one has the most damage?". Plus I like the idea that weapons could be on the border between slashing/crushing (flail) or piercing/slashing (katana, halberd), or piercing/crushing (warhammer, maul). There's a gradient of weapon types instead of three distinct classes.

Edited January 25, 2013 by SunBroSolaire

[Hormalakh]

I like this idea a lot. Giving each weapon type their own stat could reinforce the unique feel of each type. With good names, I think it would be pretty clear what was going on, e.g., DT- = penetration, MDTDT = blunt force. For example:

 

 

Mace:

Damage: 12 - 18

Penetration: 0

Blunt Force: 40%

 

Long Sword:

Damage: 15 - 21

Penetration: 5

Blunt Force: 20%

 

Pike:

Damage: 8 - 12

Penetration: 15

Blunt Force: 10%

 

Looks like a lot of fun to compare these, rather than just saying, "I need a slashing weapon, which one has the most damage?"

 

Bingo! It's actually a very beautiful mechanic and I've never really played a game like this before. It would be amazing, it just has to be presented to the players well enough (which I'm sure GAME DESIGNERS know how to do ). Please Josh, don't drop this mechanic. It's really good.

[Brasidas]

Nice post, Locust. Changing the armor bonuses to a percentage reduction and never varying the base DT values for each armor type would keep weapon effectiveness consistant against armor types. That goes a long way for letting the player judge, at a glance, whic weapons are most effective in each situation.

 

I see two possible objections. First, your solution introduces a new variable, increasing complexity. Imagine explaining it to a new player: 

 

"So, your weapon has a base damage, and your opponent's armor reduces the damage taken by a flat amount. However, if your weapon is a piercing weapon, it can overcome a certain amount of DT, and if it is a crushing weapon it will never do less than 60% damage. Your opponent also as a defense value to overcome, measured against your attack. If you don't overcome their defense, you will do 50% less damage, before DT is applied, but you still can't do less than a weapon's minimum damage. (Or is it half minimum damage on a graze? I've forgotten.) On top of this, if their armor is magical, it will reduce the damage you do to them, after other calculations, by a flat percentage. If your weapon is magical, it does..."

 

The above objection may not be fatal, but I think it illustrates the value of reducing complexity. Second, the percentage reduction might interfere with the scaling Josh has been talking about. To be fair, I don't really understand what he means by scaling. If he's referring to increasing armor DT as one upgrades to better versions of armor in the same class (Plate --> Plate +1 or Bronze Plate --> Iron Plate), this would definitely mess with that dynamic. However, something very similar has been tried out in New Vegas, so we should look at the combined DT/DR mechanic there to evaluate its effectiveness.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Brasidas

[Hormalakh]

The way I explain Bonuses on armor is this:

 

A better chain mail is a better chain mail regardless of what weapon attacks it.

 

wrt scaling, he's talking about outrageous numbers that just become whacky when you start changing the numbers too much. This is true. If you go outside your range, the numbers become "OP." The game shouldn't very suddenly become easier/harder because you went out of the DT armor range.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Lephys]

The other suggestion that I have is to change the way you "add" to your armors. Don't add straight to the DT if you have a +1 mail or something like that. Make any efficiencies in your armors be straight across the board. A better chain mail is a better chain mail regardless of what weapon strikes it. So instead of doing a (dmg subtracted from ((DT+armor bonus) subtracted from  DT-). Make the armor bonus a percentage across the board. armorbonus*(dmg - (dt - DT-)). A +1 would give something like a minimal amount up to whatever maximum you want (+5?). For example, a +1 through a +5 would give 5%, 9%, 13%, 16%, 20% damage reduction across the board, respectively..

 

You slightly lost me here. If a better dagger has 7DT- instead of 4 DT-, wouldn't it make sense for a better chainmail to have 7DT instead of 4DT? I'm seriously asking. I'm mildly confused. I mean, I think I get what you're suggesting the armor bonus be, instead of an increase in damage threshold. You want an actual percentage of damage reduction factored in. Correct?

 

I think one main problem with the previous system is that... I dunno... something's a bit muddy feeling with the three different types, is it not? Slashy the Sword that does 15 damage does the most damage, until an enemy has 5DT. Then, Piercy the dagger that only does 11 damage but bypasses 5DT (meaning it does 11 damage instead of 10 from the Sword). UNTIL something has like 11 DT. Then, Crushy the Club comes in and says "Well, even though I only do 7 damage, I can't do less than 5."

 

I get that it's more valuable than this, but, in a way, isn't that just a super convoluted substitute for "A Sword does 15 damage, and armor lowers that by 10, so a Dagger does 22 damage (12 after the 10 armor is better than 5 from the sword). But then higher armor lowers that by 20, so a Mace does 27 damage (so 7 still gets through instead of none getting through.)"?

 

I mean, Slashing does damage, but then armor negates damage, so Piercing NEGATES the negation of damage, but then armor out-negates the negation-negation of Piercing, so Crushing negates armor's damage negation in a different way that results in more damage. Right?

 

It just... I dunno. It's like Slashing gets screwed. "Like swords? Better stick to enemies that don't wear armor, u_u..."

 

That's why it seems like DT (or whatever form of base bonus you use for armor) should be separate from whatever damage-type-vs-armor-type effectiveness scheme you go with. Slashing should be more effective, in some interesting manner, against a certain TYPE of armor. So, if someone's wearing Medium armor with 4DT, you're actually doing less damage with your sword than if they were wearing Light armor with 7DT. Something like that.

 

It makes sense to still have the DT ceilings increase as you go from Light to Heavy (maybe Light armor maxes out at 10, Medium maxes out at 13, and Heavy maxes out at 16?). But if you're basing all your weapon effectiveness on the DT value, then you wind up ruling out weapons sheerly by increasing armor values.

 

So, yeah... Maybe I oversimplified and/or missed something? But, I think the new proposal is good. Also, as I said, I think Valorian's proposal has much to offer. I think damage-type-vs-armor is a good place for percentage chance, rather than hard/static penalties.

 

I mean, as a very simple example, imagine if you simply adjusted the damage range on weapons, based on the armor.

 

Slashy the Sword does 5-10, but versus Light armor, it does 5-17. So, against Medium armor, you're still doing 5-10 with the Sword, while Piercy the Dagger (being effective against medium) will do 5-17. Then, against Heavy armor, Crushy the Mace will do 5-17 instead of 5-10 with the sword or the dagger. (This assumes all armor is 0DT and is merely different TYPES of armor.)

 

OR, going with my example of one bad, one okay, and one good damage type for every armor type, you could lower the minimum damage for the "bad" type.

 

So, against heavy armor, Slashy the Sword would do 1-10, Piercy the Dagger would do 5-10, and Crushy the Mace would do 5-17. Etc...

 

Obviously, Valorian's system accomplishes the same effect (and more), but more elegantly. I was just trying to simplify it to show that difference. But, the point is, when you use a "good" weapon type against a certain armor type, you're not DEFINITELY doing more damage on every swing, you're just able to do more damage. You might still do between 5 and 10 damage (with these example numbers), but you CAN do between 11 and 17, also.

 

When you factor in DT, it's still an armor bonus across the board. And a sword that does 10 more damage is always going to be that much better against armor with 10 DT, but it's going to be worse compared to the mace (and/or dagger, depending on whether or not you go with "bad/okay/good" or "okay/okay/good."

Edited January 25, 2013 by Lephys

[Hormalakh]

-snip-

 

If you add it to DT, it isn't an armor bonus across the board: it affects piercing weapons more than any other weapon type the equation works that way. Adding armor bonus as a DT removes armor bonus's distributive property.

 

 

The older mechanic gives each weapon sort of like a "character" with its own stats. Look at SunBroSolaire's description. If you are fighting a heavy armored person, you want the most "crushing" character that you can get. Mid armor, get the most piercing you can get. Low armor, get the most slashing you can get. This general rule holds true. When several attributes start changing, for a new weapon, you can start asking yourself, do I want a weapon that's more slashy, crushy, or pointy? Each one plays well with certain armors, but obviously has drawbacks.

 

No weapon is considered as a specific type. Like real-life every weapon has qualities that distinguish them and make them suitable for certain problems. You are told these qualities as a function of how "slashy/crushy/pointy" they are.

 

 

The players should learn: slashing damage characteristics do the most damage. Piercing damage characteristics bypass up to a certain armor (weapons are slated as to up to what materials they can pierce (as I described a DT bypass of 25 wouldn't be called "piercing: 25" it'd be called "mail piercing." So the player knows that it can pierce up to mail armor)). Crushing damage increases your minimum value regardless of armor.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Hormalakh

[some guy]

Personly I think that having weapons that are extra effective against a specific enemy class would be allot easier to manage and prepear for. Say a sword that can take down archers very quick but fails against big brutes or whatever. Kinda abstract way of doing it but it lay down the rules very easily and gives your fighters their own target to go for and specialise against. When you randomly mixes armor with different fighting styles it kinda put all advantages and disadvantages all over the place.

 

 

Edit:

Actually, after thinking about it, it might not be all that abstract after all. Big swords or spears against the big guy feels more intuitive instead of a rapier or dagger because he wear some armor type or whatever. I think different armor types should really focus on what skills you plan to give the character and speed and such rather than trying to put some tactics into who attacks who and such.

Edited January 25, 2013 by some guy

[SunBroSolaire]

It just... I dunno. It's like Slashing gets screwed. "Like swords? Better stick to enemies that don't wear armor, u_u..."

But that isn't the way it works in the spreadsheet. Slashing weapons are superior up to 10 DT, and after that remain a pretty competitive option if two-handed. If anything, I think piercing needs a wider band, since it's usually only the optimal choice if dual-wielded. I don't think that armor should have straight bonuses, beyond maybe a max of +5 DT for high quality leather/mail/scale etc... In order to keep slashing and piercing relevant. light armor already has the advantage of faster attack rate, so I think it's safe to assume that we'll see light armor into late game. If leather armor +5 has 40 DT, first, that doesn't make much sense, and second, slashing will be seriously underpowered against high level enemies.

Edited January 25, 2013 by SunBroSolaire

[Hormalakh]

Personly I think that having weapons that are extra effective against a specific enemy class would be allot easier to manage and prepear for. Say a sword that can take down archers very quick but fails against big brutes or whatever. Kinda abstract way of doing it but it lay down the rules very easily and gives your fighters their own target to go for and specialise against. When you randomly mixes armor with different fighting styles it kinda put all advantages and disadvantages all over the place.

 

Big brutes would have heavy armor. So what quality would you be looking for most in your weapon? (Crushing)

Archers with low armor need to be cut down quickly. So what quality will you be looking for in your weapon? (Slashing)

But you got archers with mail armor. Your sword does 10-15 damage, it has no armor piercing. Your mail-piercing dagger has 6-8 damage. Which one would you pick? (The mail-piercer).

[laszlolaszlo]

Is it set in stone wheather or not a specific weapon can only have one type of damage? Longswords for instance can be used for piercing attacks as much as a rapier and daggers are extremely efficient as slashing weapons. Both weapons perhaps most commonly used this way in certain martial arts(shaolin), and taught in the military(daggers that is).