A Flawed Design

[Sensuki]

Nah that wouldn't be very fun.

[PrimeJunta]

Why d'you think?

[Matt516]

A little randomness is fun.

 

EDIT: Flat # for damage would make the damage log read something like:

 

(Bob's base damage is 15, Barry's DT is 5)

 

Bob hit Barry for 10 damage

Bob missed Barry

Bob hit Barry for 10 damage

Bob grazed Barry for 2.5 damage

Bob critted Barry for 17.5 damage

 

 

Not quite as interesting as having a random damage range.

 

 

Other reason is that a random damage range allows for a situation in which DT usually blocks almost all the damage of an attack, but not always. With only ACC affecting the damage, it'd be a much more binary system when DT was close to weapon damage.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Matt516

[IndiraLightfoot]

PJ: I know this is an area where don't exactly have the same view on what makes a CRPG fun, hehe. Dice rolls are one of my main fun ingredients in these types of games, as you know, and flat numbers, while making sense systemically, logically, and for transparent systems, are inherently boring in a CRPG. The excitement of seeing if you are lucky or not - the Casino effect - is very powerful and addictive to many people. Will I hit or not? Will I even get in a critical? Will my d6 fireball roll for 36 in damage or a paltry 6? Also, it can really be argued it's part of a RPG tradition (PnP), as well as in the IE games as a whole.

 

EDIT: And most importantly, I almost forgot, it enhances replayability big time, heck, even reloads, coz every fight will be different.

Edited September 8, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[PrimeJunta]

But why do we need two random numbers that go into it? We already have Accuracy. Why not just make that + weapon base damage the sole determinant of how much damage gets done?

 

If you want it more fine-grained, it could easily be a line that goes from 0 to double base damage instead of in discrete steps.

 

(Edit: I agree btw that it would be boring if combat action outcomes were completely deterministic.)

Edited September 8, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[IndiraLightfoot]

I have simple RPG needs:

-Let to-hit rolls have an element of randomness in them

-Let damage have an even bigger element of randomness.

 

Rinse and repeat...

 

Why would anyone even change this formula? It's like ripping out the aorta of combat in many PnP RPGs.

[leninghola]

Eliminate dice roll for the sake of transparency? I don't think there is enough of an issue in how damage is dealt and calculated to warrant such a clinical approach. Plus, mah random number fetish would go unsatisfied.

[PrimeJunta]

 

I guess I just don't understand humans very well. Curious creatures.

Edited September 8, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[IndiraLightfoot]

PJ: I knew it! You are a robot, admit it!  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Which is one argument for eliminating the randomness from damage altogether. Make it a flat number, with only Accuracy with miss/graze/hit/crit adjusting damage. It would be a good deal more transparent.

I could see that working if there were varying levels of grazes and hits.

[leninghola]

 

I guess I just don't understand humans very well. Curious creatures.

Damage rolls within a damage range were a best case compromise when simulating physical damage taken in a real fight. Even a solid hit isn't going to cause the same amount of damage to a human every time a hit is made. Not every hit is going to a vital organ, even when accuracy is taken into account. Battle is too chaotic, with moving bodies, areas of bodies that withstand more punishment and so on.  

[PrimeJunta]

@leninghola Bringing realism into the argument where damage is represented by hit points that get restored with a good night's sleep is a bit of a nonstarter IMO.

[Sensuki]

Randomness / luck is exciting. Not an RPG example but the Call of Duty games use math.random(x, y) to determine the pixel in the crosshair that bullets land when firing from the hip. It's not as fun anymore in the later titles because of the normalized damage, no 1b hs on most guns and railgun accuracy but in Call of Duty 1 and 2, getting a 1b hs with a thompson or something from a great distance never failed to produce a scream of excitement from anybody.

 

In one of my videos I got a 97 crit with the Arbalest and you can hear the excitement in my voice on that hit in the video, it was just natural.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

If damage was a function of base damage and accuracy with a to-hit roll, there would still be a random element. Your skill (specifically, attack vs defense) would just matter more. I don't really see the point of having randomized weapon damage on top of that.

 

Edit: that said, this figures roughly around the 11,334 spot on my current prioritized list of Things That Need Fixing. I.e. not particularly worth discussing. Therefore, consider my proposal withdrawn.

Edited September 8, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Sensuki]

Hardly, because the Attack Resolution system normalizes the hits. It would just make the system more banal. If you're going to have flat damage, you may as well take out miss altogether and just turn it into Starcraft without the other RTS bits. But that would be boring, without a complete re-design of the game.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

This is not my experience. I've run a Numenera PnP campaign for most of the year, and while some of the mechanics stink to high heaven (<- won't go into it here), I like the basic resolution mechanic. It's stripped-to-the-bone simple, while allowing enough randomness, situational modifiers, and variation to let you do just about anything with it. The combat variant is based on a to-hit roll and flat damage soaked by armor, modified by tactical/strategic resources the player chooses to spend. It's transparent, simple, and enjoyable, and encourages you to do stuff rather than just standard-attack all the time.

 

Put another way, if the excitement in a combat system comes from the RNG, then the combat system needs some work. IMO as always.

 

That said, it would be even more enjoyable with grazes and crits, and with more computational resources than mental arithmetic I would modify the armor mechanic too so there's a little more to it than flat subtraction. But the basic idea is both sound and enjoyable IMO.

Edited September 8, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Sensuki]

Sure, but this is a game that is supposed to invoke D&D and Infinity Engine feels. That means random damage and random attack rolls IMO.

 

I disagree about excitement needing to come from somewhere other than randomness. Cards are shuffled randomly and cards are fun, I love playing 500. It is both luck and skill.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

Randomness can be an element in excitement, for sure. Games of chance can be fun; games of chance that combine randomness with strategy can be especially fun.

[No idea]

D&D's six attributes are honestly pretty terrible. Dexterity conflates agility and manual dexterity, Wisdom conflates willpower, perception, and wisdom, and no one can really agree on what Charisma is. I think Might is the only weak point in the PoE system. It's just a bit too abstract. With only six attributes, you're always going to have to make compromises.

 

The problem, imho, is that MIght is extremely confusing. What is it, exactly? It seems to be "strenght of soul" (whatever that might be), but then, we have no such a basic attribute for a RPG as PHYSICAL strenght (all rpg systems I know have physical strenght in one way or another). And if it is a mix of "strenght of soul" (again, whaever that might be) and physical strenght it becomes extremely confusing. The stronger somebody is the stronger his sould is? Why that connection? 

Edited September 8, 2014 by No idea

[Sensuki]

I think Might is the only weak point in the PoE system.

Are you talking in terms of simulation? Might is actually one of THE best attributes in the game. The damage bonus to everything could potentially easily be explained away by "Soul Powah".

 

Perception and Resolve are the worst attributes by a long long way. There will be a thread coming soon that debunks them completely, and proposes a fix to PE attributes backed by mathematics combined with logic alone.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Sensuki: Interesting. I must chip in, though, that Resolve, as a concept and an attribute, is something I really missed in D&D. It's a very cool attribute, but I agree that it's implementation is way off atm. 

[Sensuki]

Fixes incoming! Both attributes and their mechanics are staying, they're just being made a lot better, and balanced with the others. Resolve will be REALLY Resolve-y.

 

High Resolve characters will be a bastion of defense on the battlefield.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Sensuki

[Namutree]

Fixes incoming! Both attributes and their mechanics are staying, they're just being made a lot better, and balanced with the others. Resolve will be REALLY Resolve-y.

 

High Resolve characters will be a bastion of defense on the battlefield.

Tell us more!

[PrimeJunta]

Can't wait.

 

Also getting curious about your obvious and well-earned hotline to the devs... are we going to see that green tag next to your name any time soon...?

[Sensuki]

I seriously doubt that.

 

I am writing the proposal as we speak. We have worked out the majority of the logic issues with the solution with have come up with and we have done most of the calculations and provided graphs to visualize them. I've roughly written two parts of the three part proposal and Matt and I have been editing it every day as we find new logical arguments to support our solution and cutting unnecessary paragraphs. It should be ready either tomorrow or the day after.

 

I don't want to reveal anything without the backup maths and logical arguments. When you see the new arrays and read the arguments, it will probably make as much sense to you as it does to us. We believe our solution will be embraced by the majority as it adds so much more viability to the type of characters you can make, and offers interesting choices and trade-offs for existing builds.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Sensuki