Changing damage types

Discussion among members of the development team.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

User avatar
Ranger M
Art Contributor
Posts: 1965
Joined: December 8th, 2005, 9:13 pm
Location: England

Post by Ranger M » January 19th, 2006, 9:00 pm

Noyga:

I really like them too, it will alow more freedom to make unique damage types (and weeknesses) when making units for factions, the only downside is that new code (in small amounts I would guess) would be needed, along with having almost all of the units re-done and balanceing performed.

Dave:

Something that I don't like about clubs being slash is that they are supposed to be good against undead, thus making the HI and thugs less powerful and useful, so this would also need balancing, and although there would be less, IMHO it would be worse than Noyga's suggestion

(bandits aren't the most powerful faction, and removing their strength against undead and armoured units would be a major problem)

User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager » January 19th, 2006, 9:02 pm

Ranger M wrote:(bandits aren't the most powerful faction, and removing their strength against undead and armoured units would be a major problem)
Bandits ARE NOT A FACTION AT ALL.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.

User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW » January 19th, 2006, 9:11 pm

I really don't think making clubs "Slash" weapons is a logical idea. If anything were to change I think it would be to seperate Pierce damage into:
Impale = spears and such
and
Pierce = daggers and arrows and such
I think this would REALLY save a lot of time and effort than heavy/medium damage aspects, as that is basically what this would seperate.

You could also do the same with Impact if you really want to seperate the troll hits from clubs that badly...e.g.:
Crush = troll clubs, wose, etc
Impact = human clubs, staves, fists (aka punch [cmon, it doesn't cut...]), etc
As for how more resistance types would affect the game - I think it would benefit the game as it would be more realistic, albeit SLIGHTLY more complex, although the complexity would probably be negligible as the information would be easier to chunk due to pre-existing real life schemas.

Becephalus
Inactive Developer
Posts: 521
Joined: October 27th, 2005, 5:30 am
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, Earth

Post by Becephalus » January 19th, 2006, 9:21 pm

For example I think a good basline run might be the following.

cloth/robe/naked/etc. (mage/thief/adept/footpad)
STRIKE -20
IMPALE 0
CRUSH -10
MISSILE -20

leather armor/breastplate (bowman/thug/spearman)
STRIKE 10
IMPALE 10
CRUSH 0
MISSILE 10

full armor
STRIKE 30
IMPALE 20
CRUSH 10
MISSILE 30

modifiers

Flying
STRIKE 20
IMPALE 20
CRUSH 20
MISSILE -40

Mounted
STRIKE 10
IMPALE -40
CRUSH 0
MISSILE -20

Shield
STRIKE 10
IMPALE 0
CRUSH 0
MISSILE 10

just some ideas...
There are three roads to ruin: by gambling, which is the quickest; through women, which is the most pleasurable; and through taking the advice of experts, which is the most certain. -de Gaulle

Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1539
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Post by Soliton » January 19th, 2006, 9:33 pm

Hi,

I would like to know what the problem with the current damage type system is to better understand what all the new proposals aim at rectifying.
As far as I can see people don't like that piercing arrows and spears are as effective vs horse based units for example. Is that correct? What else is wrong with the current system?

I would like to point out that indeed many resistances are rather arbitrary atm. Why not point those out that you (anyone) don't agree with and we can make those more intuitive/realistic?
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott

User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Re: Changing damage types

Post by JW » January 19th, 2006, 10:11 pm

Dave wrote:Impaling (replaces pierce used in melee contexts): This damage type is used for long melee weapons that are designed to impale an opponent. Weapons such as pikes, spears, and lances use this damage type. Shorter stabbing weapons such as daggers and short swords use 'Slashing' instead.
Dave wrote:Crushing (replaces blunt): Units that rely on very high impact to inflict damage use this damage type. Usually a unit has to be larger than humanoid size to inflict this type of damage. For instance, a troll or wose. Humanoid units that use clubs now simply inflict slashing damage. It may be a unique feature of dwarves that they possess units with warhammers that can inflict crushing damage.
Dave wrote:In general the criteria for possessing 'crushing' damage is that the force must be powerful enough that a defender possessing armor or shield will be at no advantage compared to an unarmored unit. Against a wooden club, armor is likely to be very effective. A Dwarven warhammer might be said though to be powerful enough so that a helmet -- along with the head inside it -- would be crushed by its blow.
Dave wrote:Missile (replaces pierce/blade in ranged contexts): Units with bows use this damage type. Units with small ranged weapons such as darts and daggers may use this damage type, or they may use slashing.
Dave wrote:I think this system would make things much more interesting. Horsemen could have a clear weakness to spears and pikes without us giving them awful resistance to bows. Units such as gryphons -- which currently have very boring resistance numbers -- could suddenly be much more interesting, powerful units who must be careful not to come in range of enemy bows.
So, to sum up, Pierce for arrows is not good and Impact is bad in distinguishing what can and cannot go through shields.

I think my ideas solve both problems quite nicely and without confusing people as to why clubs would slash someone.

Becephalus
Inactive Developer
Posts: 521
Joined: October 27th, 2005, 5:30 am
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, Earth

Post by Becephalus » January 19th, 2006, 10:21 pm

Soliton I think the problem is that the damage types and resistances as they are now do not properly map onto real world effects.

Of course simply re-examining all the resistances would go a long way towards solving this problem. I really do like the idea of a missle category though as right now flying units resistances don't make a lot of sense.
There are three roads to ruin: by gambling, which is the quickest; through women, which is the most pleasurable; and through taking the advice of experts, which is the most certain. -de Gaulle

User avatar
Cuyo Quiz
Posts: 1777
Joined: May 21st, 2005, 12:02 am
Location: South America

Post by Cuyo Quiz » January 19th, 2006, 10:25 pm

I support the strike/crush/impale/missile separation.

As for the strike explanation, it has already been made. If it can be used as a sword or staff, it just strikes the enemy, breaking bones by force with a staff is hard and uncommon.

As for the crush problem, a club/quarterstaff against a bone or a shield is not very effective, but a warhammer it is, the difference being in the sheer force. I'm guessing that heavy axes could in some cases do crushing damage, just because of sheer strenght, which would be good enough seeing how it would be beter to pierce armours too.

The other two seem to be fairly well differentiated.

I guess that for differentation, Drakes would be resistant to crush, just because of their volume, and then be more resistant to arrows than the actual format, because those would become missile.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me :D
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004

User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW » January 19th, 2006, 10:39 pm

"Missle" as a category seems ridiculous to me. Missle refers to distance, not damage. Arrows would be Pierce just like daggers. Lances would be Impale.

User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager » January 19th, 2006, 10:46 pm

I prefer "Puncture" over "Pierce". :wink:
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.

User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW » January 19th, 2006, 11:05 pm

Elvish Pillager wrote:I prefer "Puncture" over "Pierce". :wink:
Whether Puncture or Pierce, it should include daggers and the like and not be called Missle!

User avatar
Cuyo Quiz
Posts: 1777
Joined: May 21st, 2005, 12:02 am
Location: South America

Post by Cuyo Quiz » January 19th, 2006, 11:22 pm

JW wrote:
Elvish Pillager wrote:I prefer "Puncture" over "Pierce". :wink:
Whether Puncture or Pierce, it should include daggers and the like and not be called Missle!
I disagree. In this system arrows and daggers aren't good against armour, as they are in reality.

However, there were special daggers/knifes that were good enough to go through armour, these were either heavy or shaped like a very short rapier, with this they focused the energy in a very literal "point" and went through. I guess such special daggers could be Impale instead of Strike.

I am now fudging a system in regards of functionality (if it should pierce armour, ignore it, be affected by it, etc). If i succeed, i shall report.

*runs to the bath*
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me :D
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004

Soliton
Site Administrator
Posts: 1539
Joined: April 5th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Location: #wesnoth-mp

Post by Soliton » January 19th, 2006, 11:28 pm

Becephalus wrote:Soliton I think the problem is that the damage types and resistances as they are now do not properly map onto real world effects.

Of course simply re-examining all the resistances would go a long way towards solving this problem. I really do like the idea of a missle category though as right now flying units resistances don't make a lot of sense.
So then propose changes to the resistances of units where you think they are non-sensical/unintuitive!
Don't forget that there is a difference between resistance and chance to hit though. You can't really say for example a horse shouldn't be weak to arrows because they would be hard to hit.


As for the split of impact and pierce damage I think we need to consider if it's worth to make the game a bit more complex to better suit some (maybe rare?) matchups that are unintuitive or not.
That's why I wanted to know what exactly bothers people with the current system. It is and always will be only an approxiamtion to reality.
"If gameplay requires it, they can be made to live on Venus." -- scott

User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager » January 19th, 2006, 11:36 pm

Cuyo Quiz wrote:
JW wrote: Whether Puncture or Pierce, it should include daggers and the like and not be called Missle!
I disagree. In this system arrows and daggers aren't good against armour, as they are in reality.
I think you don't quite get what we're saying here. At least as I see it, instead of "Missile", we would have "Puncture", which would go both for arrows and for rapiers. And it would indeed not be that good against armor.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.

Noy
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 13th, 2005, 3:59 pm

Post by Noy » January 19th, 2006, 11:39 pm

I'm with soliton on this one... unless people come up with concrete examples of where it isn't realistic or intuitive, I think the Crush damage idea is a rather large step backwards, because it starts mixing up CTH, with armor, which is a very large negative. It makes the system less intuitive overall, to the very serious detriment of gameplay and game design.

Post Reply