Changing energy damage types
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Changing energy damage types
Spawned from this thread.
What I imagine energy damage types to be, in their most complete form:
What I imagine energy damage types to be, in their most complete form:
This would be a lot different obviously, but I think it would be good.Heat: fire and such
Cold: ice and such
Shock: lightning types - deal with energy directly. A better name could be proposed (Energy, Excite, etc.)
Null: unholy types - stop energy or erase it.
so I just want to be sure)Energy would probably be the best name for it. I imagine Undead would now only have -80% to it or something, although whatever. Undead are kinda hard to schematize as they don't exist, so really you could play around with it a lot.Ranger M wrote:so how would it be effective against undead? unless all shock energies are as good as holy was against undead. then there would be even more undead killers.
Also, the only other Energy attack I can imagine would bt Elder Mage lightning. You can only get that from Delfador right now...
I also imagine that Ghost damage would be the new NUll type whereas DA magic could be either Cold or Null. Lich touch would also be Null.
-
Becephalus
- Inactive Developer
- Posts: 521
- Joined: October 27th, 2005, 5:30 am
- Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA, Earth
Personally, I am confused as to what is to be gained from adding null when we have cold already. I think changing Holy to energy is a good idea though. Since almsot no units do lightning damage you sould just remove it entriely and say delfador shoots enegry bolts. We don't NEED lighting damage. Just because something exists in other gamesisn't a reason to introduce it here unless it adds something.
I like that each faction has less than 10 untis and I hope it stays that way. The whole KISS mentality is a good one. Adding new types of damage can require new untis as counters etc.
I like that each faction has less than 10 untis and I hope it stays that way. The whole KISS mentality is a good one. Adding new types of damage can require new untis as counters etc.
Last edited by Becephalus on January 19th, 2006, 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
I think getting rid of holy would have one nice point to it - make the game even less religious inclined. Keeping religion out is a rule already IIRC...
WesCamp-i18n - Translations for User Campaigns:
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesCamp
Translators for all languages required: contact me. No geek skills required!
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesCamp
Translators for all languages required: contact me. No geek skills required!
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
Well, I'd like to describe my proposal in more detail.
Currently, we have three (units)(unit sets) that use fire - Drakes, human Mages, and Orcish Archers. (Goblin Pillagers are unimportant.)
Drakes use their fire to excessive advantage over Undead. Mages use their fire well - their relationship with Undead is quite balanced.
Holy is just ridiculous - it's total slaughterage against Undead, but against other units, it's a constant resistance type - something that would be good to have, I think.
And cold is not really well defined at present. It's Undead's way of having any chance against Drakes, but it seems almost a hack and it doesn't seem consistent.
THEREFORE, my proposal is as follows:
The damage type Energy replaces Fire for the Mage and Holy for the White Mage. The paladin's Holy Sword becomes a normal sword. (after all, that is what a holy sword really is; and it still has holy healing.)
Energy is similar to Fire as it is currently in resistances to it, with two notable exceptions: Drakes and Woses. Drakes do not resist Energy, and Woses are not weak to it. Energy replaces Holy as the damage type that most units have about the same resistance to.
Undead might be slightly weaker to Energy than they are, at present, to Fire. However, almost all magi would be at least slightly resistant to Energy - manipulators of magic are adept at deflecting a direct magical assault.
Red Magi -> Great Magi retain fire, as do the Goblin Pillager and the Drakes. However, the Fire damage type is largely different than it is at present. Fire is dangerous because it burns the surface, i.e. the skin, of the unit, not because it causes everything to heat up near them.
Because of this, armor resists fire (it blocks the actual flames - the heat that goes with them doesn't get as close to someone's body, if they have plate armor.) Also, thick-skinned beings have some resistance to fire, just as they have their general toughness.
Skeletons would now heavily resist fire. Bones don't burn much. However, the most common unit that uses Fire against them - the Mage - would now use Energy. Fleshy undead like Ghouls, on the other hand, would be very vulnerable to fire. Dead flesh burns easily enough. Ghosts resist fire, since it's just as physical as any other damage type; they're vulnerable to energy.
There's one hole in this scheme so far - the Orcish Archer is no longer effective against Ghosts and Skeletons. Well, IMO it wasn't very effective anyway; and it's kind of ridiculous, killing a ghost with flaming arrows. I mean, imagine if that was written in a novel.
Cold is the last damage type to describe. Dark Adepts, Ghosts, and Saurian Tribalists use it.
Cold represents a draining of temperature all around the enemy unit. It can ONLY be accomplished by magic, and for another thing, it pratically ignores armor. Like Energy. Most units have no resistance, or weakness, to cold. (this includes heavy infantry...)
Undead resist cold, but not so much as they do now. (undead vs. undead fights should be more interesting...) Creatures that are tough or live in more harsh/cold enviroments resist a little, e.g. 20% resistance for dwarves, mermen, ogres, and trolls.
Saurians and Drakes are weak to cold, because they are cold blooded. (well, I don't know about Drakes, but whatever. They're weak to cold. Not as much as now though, since that's just a bit ridiculously much. They need to have a chance against the Undead which would now have fire resistant units.)
As to the several exceptions -
Kalenz and Elvish sorceresses use Cold damage. Well, the sorceresses, AFAIK, are going to be zilched sometime; and as to Kalenz, he could use either cold or energy, whatever Faery Fire is. It sure isn't fire. Energy would be better against undead in the Valley of Death, which is probably good.
Silver Magi would use Energy damage, and they would be highly resistant to Energy and slightly less so to Fire and Cold. Great, Arch, Elder, and "of Light" Magi would have more resistance to Energy as well due to increased magical skills.
Interesting note - Dark Adepts would resist energy a little, but Mages would not resist cold. This could balance against increased Undead weakness to Energy.
and finally - those Holy Amulets. Well, I'm not sure what effect turin is going for with his Amulets of Undead Slaughterage, but if necessary, we could keep the Holy type for special cases where undead slaughterage is desirable. Not for everyday units though.
Currently, we have three (units)(unit sets) that use fire - Drakes, human Mages, and Orcish Archers. (Goblin Pillagers are unimportant.)
Drakes use their fire to excessive advantage over Undead. Mages use their fire well - their relationship with Undead is quite balanced.
Holy is just ridiculous - it's total slaughterage against Undead, but against other units, it's a constant resistance type - something that would be good to have, I think.
And cold is not really well defined at present. It's Undead's way of having any chance against Drakes, but it seems almost a hack and it doesn't seem consistent.
THEREFORE, my proposal is as follows:
The damage type Energy replaces Fire for the Mage and Holy for the White Mage. The paladin's Holy Sword becomes a normal sword. (after all, that is what a holy sword really is; and it still has holy healing.)
Energy is similar to Fire as it is currently in resistances to it, with two notable exceptions: Drakes and Woses. Drakes do not resist Energy, and Woses are not weak to it. Energy replaces Holy as the damage type that most units have about the same resistance to.
Undead might be slightly weaker to Energy than they are, at present, to Fire. However, almost all magi would be at least slightly resistant to Energy - manipulators of magic are adept at deflecting a direct magical assault.
Red Magi -> Great Magi retain fire, as do the Goblin Pillager and the Drakes. However, the Fire damage type is largely different than it is at present. Fire is dangerous because it burns the surface, i.e. the skin, of the unit, not because it causes everything to heat up near them.
Because of this, armor resists fire (it blocks the actual flames - the heat that goes with them doesn't get as close to someone's body, if they have plate armor.) Also, thick-skinned beings have some resistance to fire, just as they have their general toughness.
Skeletons would now heavily resist fire. Bones don't burn much. However, the most common unit that uses Fire against them - the Mage - would now use Energy. Fleshy undead like Ghouls, on the other hand, would be very vulnerable to fire. Dead flesh burns easily enough. Ghosts resist fire, since it's just as physical as any other damage type; they're vulnerable to energy.
There's one hole in this scheme so far - the Orcish Archer is no longer effective against Ghosts and Skeletons. Well, IMO it wasn't very effective anyway; and it's kind of ridiculous, killing a ghost with flaming arrows. I mean, imagine if that was written in a novel.
Cold is the last damage type to describe. Dark Adepts, Ghosts, and Saurian Tribalists use it.
Cold represents a draining of temperature all around the enemy unit. It can ONLY be accomplished by magic, and for another thing, it pratically ignores armor. Like Energy. Most units have no resistance, or weakness, to cold. (this includes heavy infantry...)
Undead resist cold, but not so much as they do now. (undead vs. undead fights should be more interesting...) Creatures that are tough or live in more harsh/cold enviroments resist a little, e.g. 20% resistance for dwarves, mermen, ogres, and trolls.
Saurians and Drakes are weak to cold, because they are cold blooded. (well, I don't know about Drakes, but whatever. They're weak to cold. Not as much as now though, since that's just a bit ridiculously much. They need to have a chance against the Undead which would now have fire resistant units.)
As to the several exceptions -
Kalenz and Elvish sorceresses use Cold damage. Well, the sorceresses, AFAIK, are going to be zilched sometime; and as to Kalenz, he could use either cold or energy, whatever Faery Fire is. It sure isn't fire. Energy would be better against undead in the Valley of Death, which is probably good.
Silver Magi would use Energy damage, and they would be highly resistant to Energy and slightly less so to Fire and Cold. Great, Arch, Elder, and "of Light" Magi would have more resistance to Energy as well due to increased magical skills.
Interesting note - Dark Adepts would resist energy a little, but Mages would not resist cold. This could balance against increased Undead weakness to Energy.
and finally - those Holy Amulets. Well, I'm not sure what effect turin is going for with his Amulets of Undead Slaughterage, but if necessary, we could keep the Holy type for special cases where undead slaughterage is desirable. Not for everyday units though.
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.
Thing is, Undead used to be just a plot resource, and the holy damage type a great addition to that plot. Then they were factionized, and the holy weakness accompanied them. Of course this is AFAIK.Ranger M wrote:so how would it be effective against undead? unless all shock energies are as good as holy was against undead. then there would be even more undead killers.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me 
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
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
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
Wow, there were a lot of posts since I started posting. I will attempt to respond to them.
Energy would not be *that* good against undead - maybe around 20% or 30% weakness to it, for all Undead. Ghosts are special, maybe they should have 0% since they are already very weak to that due to low HP.
Lightning would absolutely NOT be categorized with fire - fire, in my new system, is (surprise!) ACTUALLY LIKE FIRE, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE. Lightning isn't. Lightning is energy.
And as to making the game less religious - I don't think it does that. This is very generic "holy". HOWEVER, Holy is ridiculous because they're no such thing as "Generic Holyness", especially as a damage type. You don't hit someone with a holyness. You don't holy people to death.
Removing religion is not the point I'm getting at - removing nonsense is the point.
Energy would not be *that* good against undead - maybe around 20% or 30% weakness to it, for all Undead. Ghosts are special, maybe they should have 0% since they are already very weak to that due to low HP.
Lightning would absolutely NOT be categorized with fire - fire, in my new system, is (surprise!) ACTUALLY LIKE FIRE, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE. Lightning isn't. Lightning is energy.
And as to making the game less religious - I don't think it does that. This is very generic "holy". HOWEVER, Holy is ridiculous because they're no such thing as "Generic Holyness", especially as a damage type. You don't hit someone with a holyness. You don't holy people to death.
Removing religion is not the point I'm getting at - removing nonsense is the point.
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.
IMHO, any discussion of the removal of holy is bound to descend into atheist-theist mortal combat. (EP has already begun the process, by saying that a holy sword is really just a normal sword).
I think holy should under no circumstances be removed. IMHO, it doesn't violate the no-religion-in-wesnoth idea, and it makes a lot of sense plot-wise. However, I WOULD advocate a switch to all units except undead having 100% resistance to holy, and giving all units that currently have holy an alternative, non-holy attack. That was originally Jetryl's idea, BTW.
I think holy should under no circumstances be removed. IMHO, it doesn't violate the no-religion-in-wesnoth idea, and it makes a lot of sense plot-wise. However, I WOULD advocate a switch to all units except undead having 100% resistance to holy, and giving all units that currently have holy an alternative, non-holy attack. That was originally Jetryl's idea, BTW.
For I am Turin Turambar - Master of Doom, by doom mastered. On permanent Wesbreak. Will not respond to private messages. Sorry!
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
And I hate stupid people.
The World of Orbivm
with the paladin he should probably get a magic (energy/fire) sword as paladins in general search the land for enemies on quests, so they have probably found a at least a reletively weak magic sword along the way, magic swords do feature in most stories about quests after all.
EDIT: *sees turin's post, agrees and just puts this in as possiblility if holy should get removed*
EDIT: *sees turin's post, agrees and just puts this in as possiblility if holy should get removed*
Last edited by Ranger M on January 19th, 2006, 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
Well, I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a holy sword is less good at killing people who are better at dodging, but is better at killing people who are wearing armor, than a normal sword.turin wrote:IMHO, any discussion of the removal of holy is bound to descend into atheist-theist mortal combat. (EP has already begun the process, by saying that a holy sword is really just a normal sword).
I really don't understand how random undead-slaughterage items (which, for some reason, only appear near undead) add to the plot in any way.turin wrote:I think holy should under no circumstances be removed. IMHO, it doesn't violate the no-religion-in-wesnoth idea, and it makes a lot of sense plot-wise. However, I WOULD advocate a switch to all units except undead having 100% resistance to holy, and giving all units that currently have holy an alternative, non-holy attack.
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.
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
Magic swords might be ok...Ranger M wrote:with the paladin he should probably get a magic (energy/fire) sword as paladins in general search the land for enemies on quests, so they have probably found a at least a reletively weak magic sword along the way, magic swords do feature in most stories about quests after all.
And it would NOT be fire. Not unless it was a Flaming Sword, at least, and really - a paladin with a flaming sword?
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.