DT and DR

[Sensuki]

What's the deal with using both DT and DR ? 

 

DR hasn't been mentioned once at all before

 

Seems to me like it would be better off using one or the other ?

Edited September 26, 2014 by Sensuki

[C2B]

What's the deal with using both DT and DR ? 

 

DR hasn't been mentioned once at all before

 

Seems to me like it would be better off using one or the other ?

Its a bit weird, especially considering FNVs development.

[Sensuki]

I'm not exactly sure how it works but the way NCarver described it it was like ... DT was used for low damage and then DR was used for high damage or something, but I'd take that with a grain of salt

 

if that's the case, that absolutely renders lower damage weapons complete trash, as if they weren't already bad enough

 

straight DR would actually be completely fine, and it would balance low dmg/faster and high damage/slower weapons

[Captain Shrek]

I personally dislike the entire graze/DT idea. It is a terrible invention that forces constant attrition instead of being able to evade it via good gameplay. Just another way may be to feel make the encounters 'longer' I guess. 

 

Can some one actually put out a valid argument why they are a good thing? I would appreciate feedback from beta backers as to how they would feel about the removal of these two related features. 

[mutonizer]

Think he meant that both were used, but DT has more of an impact against low damage, while DR was more effective against high damage.

 

For example, 10DT and 10%DR.

• You take 20 damage. -10 from DT, -2 from DR
• You take 200 damage. -10 from DT, -20 from DR

That's why we had very small variations in damage taken during last builds I think, that was the % reduction from low damage. Concept is a bit odd and tooltips don't make it any easier currently to sort things out since I'm not sure what information is actually displayed.

 

As a note, I'm 100% against the "min damage" values. If damage < DT, no damage whatsoever should be dealt ever, period.

Edited September 26, 2014 by mutonizer

[Sensuki]

Seems a bit convoluted to me. DT absolutely ruins low damage weapons (doesn't matter if they attack faster). Damage values can be altered, but it would be much simpler to just use one or the other IMO.

[Captain Shrek]

Is DT/DR damage specific or a universal modifier?

[ctdavids]

Is DT/DR damage specific or a universal modifier?

 

Most items have a base value and a couple specific values.  Like platemail has (made up numbers, but spread based on recollection) 20% DR base, but 40% DR against slashing and only 10% DR against lightning.  DT has similar effects.

 

I assume they operate on a "most specific" value system.  Though, the whole DR/DT thing (as well as accuracy vs. defences) lacks any explanation in the game save for reading the combat log.  I don't think the short forms are even expanded anywhere.

[Captain Shrek]

At least the DR system seems to make sense then if you take time to check the values. Plate mail ought to be good against Slashing... 

[Lephys]

It really is a bit redundant, though.

 

It's basically like saying "this armor blocks ((10%) + X) of damage." I would think the percent would be the best way to go. You could even apply modifiers to it, based on weapon type, etc. "Mace? Oh, then cut the DR in half... so 5% instead of 10%", etc. Instead of having to set a hard DT for every single foe/armor. Or, I mean, if you're going to do that, I would at least tie DT to weapon type. It would just be a modifier. "You're hitting plate with a shortsword? -7 base damage."

 

That would be my suggestion. Stick with flat DR on armor, so that it's a percentage. That still works as intended. Your weapon does 30 damage? -10% is 3 damage, so you're still doing 27. It does 10 damage? -10% is 9, so you're doing less damage. Then, instead of a DT value, have a similar value (maybe even a percentage?), as a modifier (positive or negative) pertaining to weapon-type/armor-type pairing.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Lephys

[Sensuki]

DR is the easiest to understand and the easiest to balance. DT is more 'interesting' but harder to understand and harder to balance.

 

If flat DR was used, weapon damage ranges would be pretty balanced, although attributes might need a bit of a tweak (ie might 3% damage, dex 2% ias)

[mutonizer]

hmm, isn't flat DR just DT? Or do you mean vertically across all damage type?

 

Personally think DT should be split from damage type and be a fixed value across the board, while DR be the one value affected by damage type, therefore impacting more high bursts than small hits.

 

Afterall, a weak hit from crushing weapon against a plate armor wouldn't do much anyway, just like a weak piercing or slashing hit. However, a massive hit from crushing weapon will really screw over plate, while a massive slashing or piercing hit would be much less painful.

 

note: I mean when keeping the game logic, not real life stuff.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I personally dislike the entire graze/DT idea. It is a terrible invention that forces constant attrition instead of being able to evade it via good gameplay. Just another way may be to feel make the encounters 'longer' I guess. 

 

Can some one actually put out a valid argument why they are a good thing? I would appreciate feedback from beta backers as to how they would feel about the removal of these two related features. 

^This times a thousand! I really dislike it now that I've been playing three different beta builds with it. It's just one big annoyance and it bereaves the game of all combat clarity and joy over a real hit or even a crit. I'd much rather have OE take a leaf or two from how turn-based WL2 does these things than some MMO-ish friction fest of procs and tics (sounds like illnesses and insects).

[Sensuki]

hmm, isn't flat DR just DT? Or do you mean vertically across all damage type?

No

 

DT 10 reduces 11 damage to 1 damage (1.1 damage in PE system due to 10% rule)

 

DR 50% reduces 11 damage to 5.5 damage

 

Big difference.

[mutonizer]

Don't understand then what you mean by "flat" DR...

[Lephys]

DT is more interesting, I suppose. I really don't think it's that hard to understand. If the enemy DT is 10, and you do 7 damage per attack, then you're not going to do anything. If you do a little over 10 damage, you're going to consistently deal a little damage. If you do MUCH more than 10 damage, then most of your damage will get through.

 

The only thing I kind of don't like about it (and I say "kind of" because, in a way, it's kind of nice from a simulation-y perspective) is that, if you have the wrong "weapon type" (in this case, something like a dagger that's low-damage, frequent attacks), you're basically nullified, instead of just being crappier. If you do 9 damage against 10DT, you might as well just not even attack. Whereas, if you simply suffered a DR percentage, you'd STILL do some amount of damage, if you needed to.

 

Your options would always be lessened in effectiveness, but not shut off entirely. *shrug*

 

Seems like DT drastically favors high-damage weapons, while DR (%) favors low-damage weapons. Assuming a 10-damage dagger is balanced for its attack speed, going up against 50% DR, it would still be doing 5 damage really frequently. While a big, slow great hammer or something that does 40 damage would only be doing 20 damage, and far less frequently.

 

But, that's why I say weapon-type modifiers would probably be needed. If you didn't want slashing to be effective against plate, for example, then plate could have a base 40% DR, and slashing weapons could suffer an additional 15% DR against plate. You COULD even give the weapon type you wanted to be extra effective, a bonus. But you don't have to, if the DR values and damage values are already designed to complement one another. What I mean is, if Crushing weapons already do the most numerical base damage, then more damage is already getting through against any given DR %. So... just depends on how you want to do that.

 

I do think the most intuitive thing is probably simple DR % on any given armor/target, plus modifiers (defensive talents, weapon modifiers, etc.). It would all contribute to the same "this is the percentage of damage that will be ultimately blocked" percentage... none of that "this percentage of THAT percentage" math... heh.

 

See, DT handles the weapon-type effectiveness right off the bat, but then, it doesn't really allow for anything other than "at some point, this is completely negated." And, yeah, that fast 10-dmg dagger is way more effective, DPS-wise, against an unarmored target than that 40-dmg maul, but then you've gotta balance stuff against either still doing REALLY good damage. Whereas, with DR %, you can just have a maul do like 15 damage, and a dagger do 10 (you don't need to distinguish the weapon type as much via straight base damage numbers), and still have them affect different armors differently.

 

When you marry it all together (damage reduction AND damage AND weapon type-vs-armor-type), you get some just-plain weird side effects.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Lephys

[Captain Shrek]

DT is really not 'interesting' than it is obtuse. It is a passive mechanism to prolong combat. The same holds with graze. It is a passive mechanism to speed up combat. If you remove both the game practically remains the same. 

 

This is a typical example where cluttered mechanics != deep/complex mechanics.

 

I would think that DT/Graze is good for MMOs where you need to have huge HP bloats. But here is adds nothing. 

[Elerond]

DR is the easiest to understand and the easiest to balance. DT is more 'interesting' but harder to understand and harder to balance.

 

If flat DR was used, weapon damage ranges would be pretty balanced, although attributes might need a bit of a tweak (ie might 3% damage, dex 2% ias)

 

I think that it Josh intent to do interesting system in this case instead of simple.

 

Also in my opinion DT is easy to understand as basic system, as it is just - DT amount damage to all attacks and as player has at least some kind idea what kind damage ranges there are it is quite easy to judge how much protection armor offers. But PoE's T system becomes more difficult to follow because armors have DT reductions or increases depending on damage type and most of the armor in the game don't offer this information to player.

 

DR is quite easy concept, but its overall effectivity can be bit harder to determine because of percent based reduction means that there is always damage that goes through so you need to take account how fast someone hits addition to how much damage one hit does to know how effective armor will be in combat.

 

Combination of both systems and different values against different damage types plus speed reductions makes armor system quite complex and makes determining best armor choice bit harder than what you typically have in RPGs. But it is for everyone to determine themselves is such system good or bad thing for the game, but at least it's interesting. I myself don't find it too convoluted and I don't feel that it needs to be changed, although there maybe still need for some balancing when it comes to lower damage range weapons. 

[Elerond]

DT is really not 'interesting' than it is obtuse. It is a passive mechanism to prolong combat. The same holds with graze. It is a passive mechanism to speed up combat. If you remove both the game practically remains the same. 

 

This is a typical example where cluttered mechanics != deep/complex mechanics.

 

I would think that DT/Graze is good for MMOs where you need to have huge HP bloats. But here is adds nothing. 

 

Armor systems are meant prolong combat, like for example AC from AD&D is there only to make people miss more. And there is usually counter mechanics that are meant to end combat sooner, like weapons that do more damage, bonuses to hit, abilities that make your characters hit faster. 

 

I would say that graze system isn't there to make combat faster, but add more variety in it and maybe be more pleasing for those that prefer more simultaneous systems.

[Captain Shrek]

You do not really control graze to have any variety in it. The chance of NOT grazing is 1 in 20 anyway. Which means you almost always graze. I do not understand what is pleasing about a passive out of control mechanics. 

 

Also AC is a terrible idea from D&D. D&D did a lot of things wrong, despite being an over all great system to play with. I am not going to justify these designs just because they were in IE games. 

[Sensuki]

Don't understand then what you mean by "flat" DR...

No DT.

 

DR is quite easy concept, but its overall effectivity can be bit harder to determine because of percent based reduction means that there is always damage that goes through so you need to take account how fast someone hits addition to how much damage one hit does to know how effective armor will be in combat.

The current weapon damage ranges are balanced against 0 DT. Using DR would make 1H weapons, implements and Bows viable.

 

They can also be balanced against pure DT as well, but it would require a bit more work.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Sensuki

[Elerond]

You do not really control graze to have any variety in it. The chance of NOT grazing is 1 in 20 anyway. Which means you almost always graze. I do not understand what is pleasing about a passive out of control mechanics. 

 

Also AC is a terrible idea from D&D. D&D did a lot of things wrong, despite being an over all great system to play with. I am not going to justify these designs just because they were in IE games. 

 

I think typical distribution is 5% misses 45% grazes 45% hits and 5% critical hits when accuracy and defense stat are same and there is no bonuses/minuses involved from other sources. 

 

They bring variety in by adding additional hit type. 

 

When hitting is determined by dice roll is always passive and out of player's control, which I have though to be one of such systems lures, as it adds luck factor in picture which some people find exciting. Player's active role in this type mechanics come in preparation where player tries to max their changes before dice roll, by buffing, selecting right tools and building right sort character, etc.. 

[Captain Shrek]

I don;t know dude. In my mind, removing graze practically changes nothing. The current system is pretty much basic D&D with graze/DT added to it. Which I do not really see giving us any real choice in the matter of how to fight. I would appreciated more active ways to defend: you know, all those parry techniques that actually historically existed and could have been active abilities. Even ****ty modal ones as was implemented in NWN/NWN2 would be better than this. Because admittedly active abilities are hard to manage in Real Time with Party games. 

[Matt516]

 

You do not really control graze to have any variety in it. The chance of NOT grazing is 1 in 20 anyway. Which means you almost always graze. I do not understand what is pleasing about a passive out of control mechanics. 

 

Also AC is a terrible idea from D&D. D&D did a lot of things wrong, despite being an over all great system to play with. I am not going to justify these designs just because they were in IE games. 

 

I think typical distribution is 5% misses 45% grazes 45% hits and 5% critical hits when accuracy and defense stat are same and there is no bonuses/minuses involved from other sources. 

 

They bring variety in by adding additional hit type. 

 

When hitting is determined by dice roll is always passive and out of player's control, which I have though to be one of such systems lures, as it adds luck factor in picture which some people find exciting. Player's active role in this type mechanics come in preparation where player tries to max their changes before dice roll, by buffing, selecting right tools and building right sort character, etc.. 

 

 

This is correct. The change of NOT grazing is 11 in 20 base, then modified by the difference between accuracy and defense.

[thelee]

Personally, as someone who absolutely loved Fallout 2, I heartily welcome the re-introduction of DT/DR (in one cohesive system, unlike the ad-hoc random DR in F:NV) back into a game system.

 

I hope this means we expect to see the equivalent of hollow-point and armor-piercing weapons (i.e. more than that one stiletto mod that gives it 5 DT penetrating), and potentially interesting non-standard armor (i.e. 0 DT but high DR, or high DT but no DR or negative DR to a specific damage type).

Edited September 26, 2014 by thelee