Simple idea, fire/holy trait on attack not nulify base type

[TruePurple]

A revisal of my post for simplication. I had thought of several ways of doing it and settled on the best. As well as a better way of arguing for it. But I include my original post for reference so people can understand the context of responses. I'm putting this in the original post even though its listed further down because thats the post most people are going to read.

The idea:
A paladins sword be duel sword/arcane. This means you would take the defenses/weakness of sword and subtract from that of arcane weakness. Arcane resistence would be ignored.

In practice that means a paladin fighting a undead with +40 resistance sword but -50 arcane would have a effective resistance of -10 against the paladins arcane sword.

Where as two paladins fighting each other with swords would be like two knights fighting each other with swords. The arcane resistance would be ignored.

`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`

A few considerations:

With the combined type idea. It would mean that something with slashing resistance, like many undead have would nearly cancel out the extra damage done by their arcane weakness. But the paladin would still be better off using his sword against undead then say a great knight.

As it is now, a paladins weapon is effectively no longer a sword. Which is counter intuitive. A paladins weapon might do very little damage against something that is slashing vulnerable but arcane strong. Or alot of damage against something that is arcane vulnerable but slashing strong.

This means a great depature from how it works as a knight. A depature that makes balancing for a paladins weapon much more complicated. As well as learning for new players.

As well as a voilation of RIPLIB thing I think

But as I have purposed it, a paladins weapon remaining slashing type. Since all the knights considerations of what to slash with his sword still remain, with just the additional consideration of arcane weakness being extra reason to use the paladins sword.

Since it remains the same. It becomes simpler for balancing and playing alike.

It would require more coding and perhaps minor adjusting of stats initially and relearning from established long term players. But I think the real pay off for developers and players alike would be in the long term.

`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`

It would not just be about paladins long term either. It would open the door for mods and other special units with the same type of thing. Since balancing for such enchanted physical weapons to one of the elemental types (holy, ice, or fire) would be simpler. It would keep balancing simpler for such since the weapon and its function as it regards to other units would remain more the same.

When knights becomes paladins their swords become "holy" But that should not change the fact that its still a slash weapon. Because its now holy though its resisted by the many things that have holy resistance (just about everything thats not undead) When that unit might have weakness to slash type weapons.

Same with wolf riders becoming wolf raiders and having their attacks turn fire, and so on.

Different suggestions to that end.

Either you allow players to pick between a regular and a elemental type, like a paladin getting to choose between attacking with a holy sword or a slashing sword.

Or it just uses the version that does the most damage in a attack automatically.

Either would work and be a easy improvement IMO. The first would allow a player to pick a weaker attack if they wanted to leave a kill shot for something they want to level. But the second one would be less hassle and probably more realistic.

A third alternative.

Choosing between a base attack, in the example of paladin slashing.
Or slash/holy. Which would use the more damaging version. (for that afore mentioned option of picking a weaker attack for kill shot, but more realistic, since I could see a paladin picking to not make the hit holy, but not to not make it slashing, not as sure on the wolf raiders)

Granted these don't completely reflect the idea that the attack is both types. But I think anything better would probably be considered too complex for this game.

[Neoskel]

This is unnecessary. The Paladin still has a lance (which does loads of damage) and choosing Pillager over Goblin Knight is a tactical consideration.

Otherwise you are asking for an extra attack on each unit. Cuz thats exactly what you have described.

Edit: Also, Holy damage is no more. It has been replaced by arcane damage which has fewer high resisters.

[TruePurple]

The lance has the charge type(which means more risk to damaging the unit) and is pierce not slash. There is no reason to make a upgrade a bad thing in such a way. Nor does it make sense that now that the paladins sword is holy it would be doing notably less damage in many circumstances. Why would a sword being holy cause it to not also be slashing? (or what ever else, in the case of a artifact that makes a weapon holy)

And what if a handful of unit upgrades have a extra attack? Anyways the automatic option is simple enough and wouldn't require a extra attack.

What, do you think the idea is complex in some way? How? Or what disadvantage to the game would there be? I see nothing but advantage to this simply idea.

[Noy]

No.

First off, if you're going to make suggestions, please play the development version first. 1.3.13. Its not Holy anymore, it was changed to arcane. You're not really helping make changes on a year old version of the game.


Second, the idea of using weapons specials were rejected because they are not KISS. They add an unneeded complexity to the game for little use. Specials are not supposed to change the damage dealt, thats the job of the weapon type itself. Doing so would make all sorts of exceptions be added into the game, making it less clear to the player what unit may be good against what. You can just create two different types of attack, which effectively does the same thing and is much more clear to the user.

[TruePurple]

Sorry, I just downloaded what I found on the website a few days ago (but have been playing it nonstop, its a real nice game) You don't want to hear any ideas at all till I play this beta?

But I don't see how changing the name to arcane and removing resistance as standard for nondead units changes what I'm suggesting. (seems a bit strange for a paladin to be carrying a "arcane sword" though)

I do not understand you.

Who said anything about changing the base damage of the weapon?

I'm just saying that one should not forget that a "arcane"/fire/ice enhanced weapon is still that weapon. That a "arcane" sword is still a sword and you still slash with it.

You can just create two different types of attack, which effectively does the same thing and is much more clear to the user.

You mean my first suggestion? That for example, a paladin have two sword type attacks to choose from(as well as its normal lance attack) when attacking, a holy version, and a slashing one? You like that idea?

Heres another idea. Its not "simple" persay. But its not terribly complex either.

~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,
Combined type idea:

A two type weapon, a ice sword, a arcane mace.

If the target has say ice or arcane resistance then it acts as normal slash or normal bash. If it has weakness to one of those elements then that is subtracted from the other type.

..For example. If you hit a unit with a slashing ice sword which has weakness of 20 to ice, but resistance of +30 to slashing. In the end the effective resistance would be 10. If that unit has -20 weakness to slashing as well then the end attack would be -40.

Or put another way. A paladins sword would be slashing in regards to units defenses. But any arcane weakness would be added in.

~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,~,

I suppose such a system would be slightly harder for someone brand new to the game to understand. But I don't think too hard. And the combat screen showing the basic math involved should make it pretty clear whats happening and why.

Its a idea anyways. I think a good one but then thats not my call. If you like my first idea though then that would be a improvement IMHO anyways. I assume with that idea for defending, it would just pick the more effective option? Having players pick when attacking verses having it done automatically. I'm not sure I really see the advantage.*shrugs*

[zookeeper]

It's been discussed enough times before, and this particular iteration of the same suggestion isn't introducing any new compelling reason to make it happen this time. Maybe someone can find and give some links to the old discussions.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I hate it when people think they need to sacrifice gameplay on the altar of realism. You start down that road and whatever you end up with, it isn't fun anymore. Or fantasy for that matter.

The current way of doing things is simple, works with the current game system, is easy to understand, and works. There is no need for two damage types. This has been discussed many times anyways and always rejected, for those reason. Besides, some other games do the exact same thing. It has precedent.

[TruePurple]

Its not about realism, thats just a additional advantage. The real benefit is that having a weapon so enchanted be only a boon. I like thinking about stuff but I should never have to worry about whether or not getting a weapon enchanted might cause it to do less damage depending on unit its attacking.

To me it makes it simpler in a way for that reason. Opening the door for such weapons and said enchantments of, to be more practical. Which might be fun.

And that a units resistance or weakness to slashing piercing or bashing not be ignored so easily. What, the paladins sword becauses pure arcane and not even a sword anymore? Whats wrong with the first idea I mentioned? Sounds like noy might like it anyways.

Don't talk to me about roads, focus only on this idea and its pros and cons please. Don't talk to me about "needs" if it were a matter of "needs" then why bother developing the game any further or taking new ideas in the first place? The game works fine as it is and "needs" no change. But some changes might improve it and for that its worth checking out.

So Cat, what are the pros and cons that you see in my idea? Please don't speak so much in generalities.

[Raemon]

Hmm. The most recent relevant thread I could find: http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... din+riplib.

Somewhat unsatisfying. I don't know any WML, but I'd be willing to learn it just to add an 8-4 blade attack to the Paladin. It is minor, but it's still a violation of RIPLIB.

[tsr]

Hmm. The most recent relevant thread I could find: http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic. ... din+riplib.

Somewhat unsatisfying. I don't know any WML, but I'd be willing to learn it just to add an 8-4 blade attack to the Paladin. It is minor, but it's still a violation of RIPLIB.

I don't think you understand RIPLIB, the thing with RIPLIB is that there should be at least one path that satisfies the criteria that a unit that advances should not be weaker in any aspect (except the aspect of being able to kill more units and thus be more fragile vs a low-level unit spawn).

The RIPLIB advancement of the Knight is the Grand Knight, the paladin is an alternative path.

/tsr

[Raemon]

The Grand Knight has a base of 7 MP as opposed to 8.

[tsr]

Oh, ok, then you're spot on, didn't check the units too well it appears, but it seems better to just give the grand knight another mp.

/tsr - ending my part of the balancing etc stuff here

[Martinus]

If you choose a Paladin over Grand Knight, you make a tactical choice of choosing arcane damage instead of slashing. If you choose Pillager you made a choice of sacrificing slash damage for fire and ranged (apart from other differences). That's why I don't think your idea is necessary.

[Aethaeryn]

Oh, ok, then you're spot on, didn't check the units too well it appears, but it seems better to just give the grand knight another mp.

/tsr - ending my part of the balancing etc stuff here

Yes, I agree. That's the most KISS way of handling it instead of giving the paladin three (!) melee attacks and switching it from a specialist unit to a drake gladiator.

I don't mind the choice though - it's a choice between pure damage and a unit that keeps the role of scout with an interesting +4 heal as well.

[Raemon]

If you choose a Paladin over Grand Knight, you make a tactical choice of choosing arcane damage instead of slashing. If you choose Pillager you made a choice of sacrificing slash damage for fire and ranged (apart from other differences). That's why I don't think your idea is necessary.

The Pillager I won't argue about, but it's annoying that you can't have both a blade attack AND 8 MP when advancing the Knight.

Yes, I agree. That's the most KISS way of handling it instead of giving the paladin three (!) melee attacks and switching it from a specialist unit to a drake gladiator.

I wouldn't mind that happening either. I'd just like the RIPLIB violation fixed.