Development Info Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #39: Classes, Cooldowns, Attacks, Damage vs. Armor, and Tilesets

[almondblight]

^ This is an extreme. It doesn't have to be this way, obviously. In a nutshell, it's about using the right tools for the right job, instead of having a single tool for all occasions.

It doesn't have to be, but that's what your example was. Swords suck against skeletons; use a hammer. It ends up being DPS, the only difference being that you have to figure out what the DPS is yourself. What weapon will give you the most damage per hit? There's no strategy involved, just looking at which numbers are larger. It'd be better if it gives you options that you can then plug into a larger strategy (IE the bashing weapons do less damage but pushes the opponent back, not bashing weapons are what you use against heavy armor).

I mean, nobody complains that most games have multiple stats and skills and gives up because he can't figure out how to build a character without a spreadsheet. In most cases, multiple skills add quite a lot without turning the game into a puzzle or options for the sake of options.

Well, I agree that the reason Sawyer gave for getting rid of that design element isn't great (that it was too hard for people to figure out what was optimal).

Same goes for weapon stats. Having a single stat sucks. Adding more stats like speed, for instance, greatly increases complexity without going overboard with it. Same goes for the damage type stats. Done in moderation they create interesting combinations that would make all weapons more useful to different characters.

They can, if they're different from what's been described. Otherwise they turn into a case of "Oh, a slime, time to use X weapon; oh, a skeleton time to use Y weapon." In which case damage types are like the picture I posted; they give you a square peg and ask you to put it into a hole - but you have 10 different holes to choose from!

 

[Captain Shrek]

They can, if they're different from what's been described. Otherwise they turn into a case of "Oh, a slime, time to use X weapon; oh, a skeleton time to use Y weapon." In which case damage types are like the picture I posted; they give you a square peg and ask you to put it into a hole - but you have 10 different holes to choose from!

If this is the scenario we don't want, then we need to think what the possible solutions are. The first one that comes to my mind is one I previously described as the Troll situation. The troll need not be uniquely be defined by ONE damage type, right? Neither should the damage type of the weapon decide much.

The real variation should come from (hey villain of the story) abilities that the player has. Using the same weapon with different abilities as described in this thread earlier will end up being a much more tactical way than simply choosing, as you call it, the 'square peg'.

 

[GordonHalfman]

This discussion seems strangely divorced from the actual update. Sawyer doesn't seem to be talking about removing damage types, if anything there is more of a "square peg -> square hole" design than before, the main problem he wants to fix is the player finding it non-trivial to work out that the peg is in fact square.

Slashing weapons do the most damage when compared to their counterparts from other categories. E.g., if you compare a greatsword to an estoc to a maul, the greatsword does the most damage. When targets have little to no armor, slashing weapons are the ideal choice. Piercing weapons negate a fixed amount of Damage Threshold, which is the primary way in which armor reduces damage. Though they don't do as much damage as slashing or crushing weapons, their ability to ignore even moderately heavy armor means that it is superior to other weapons in those circumstances. While armor can negate a large amount of damage, there's always a small amount that gets through. Crushing weapons do much more through armor, which makes them the best choice when dealing with very heavily armored targets.

This was the old system. While I generally think RPG formulas should be intuitive, what he describes here isn't exactly guage theory, weapons basically have three parameters. It has a more organic feel that the current version anyway.

 

[Roguey]

The difference with the old system was that one could probably do well enough attacking someone with slashing and piercing weapons or crushing and piercing depending entirely on the damage output of whichever the "ineffiecient" weapon/person was. Now that we have a straight up 50% loss before DT is even applied I see very little reason at all to use anything except slashing for no-armor, piercing for light-armor, crushing for heavy.

It sounded like attacking heavy armor with piercing or slashing was going to lead to doing minimum damage before, and it will likely be the same now.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63...r-elfhomes-but-first/?view=findpost&p=1293148

But yes, if you are facing an opponent in a stand-up fight and it has incredibly high DT, your best hope is to equip mauls, war hammers, and maces and wear them down over time. At a higher level, when your characters' bonuses and gear are upgraded, you may find that an opponent that previously suggested crushing weapons is now most vulnerable to your piercing or even slashing weapons.

Doesn't seem like it'll ever be the case now, not with that 50% penalty.

 

[kazgar]

On a side issue, I hope rpgcodex staff have implemented a roster system for PE newsposts, so the brofists they eventually receive are spread equally through staff. As these updates are known to come out at the same time and are going to happen weekly until err, eternity.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If the enemy beast or foe has a much higher defense rating than your teams accuracy, then you'll get a larger amount of misses and your statement that "Even if it is, the always hit system will ensure that your party can kill any beast or foe by ganging up on him/her/it and doing 50% of min damage per attack times 6" is not necessarily true.

I doubt that.

First, Obsidian/BIS games were always easy, so I wouldn't expect a challenging combat out of the blue.

Second, they don't have a habit of letting you attack enemies you aren't ready to attack yet, so I don't expect a large attack/defense discrepancy.

Third, Sawyer thinks that missing is like bad for business, so I don't expect him to let the player miss a lot just because he is a few levels below the target.

In a balanced fight, you have a 5% chance of missing. In an unbalanced fight this chance can probably go to 15% - a value usually reserved for critical chance attacks. Time will tell.

I could swear you quoted hormalakh on JS's design philosophy, and that the quote was mostly about how players should be allowed to know the system on beforehand.

Not in the context of supporting useless skills.

 

[FeelTheRads]

if anything there is more of a "square peg -> square hole" design than before, the main problem he wants to fix is the player finding it non-trivial to work out that the peg is in fact square.

Yeah, it's funny to see Sawyerists defend his decisions with "arguments" that contradict themselves. OMG Sawyer fixxorez RPGs! How? Well, he just takes a mechanic, strangles it, pisses on it, cuts it to its bare bones and then proclaims to be the best thing ever when it's just the same shit only vastly simplified.
But hey, people like almondblight (who also think levels have no place in RPGs) is who this game is for. Definitely not for those at which they marketed the Kickstarter. So, big fucking surprise. Liars will be liars.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

The main problem with armour in AD&D is that it's way too weak, which makes weapon bonuses insignificant. Also, there's no growth of AC but Thac0 grows without end, which makes armour outdated and turns the game in to a HP contest.

 

[tuluse]

Vault Dweller, you're assuming that a balanced fight will be designed around accuracy equally defense. The system could just as easily be designed for defense to be 10 points higher than accuracy throughout the campaign. I do admit that there is some evidence to support your assumption, given that's the example they showed us, but balancing is something that will be refined more as they make the game.

In case it isn't clear, I mean everyone's defense is about 10 points higher than most attacks. PCs, NPCs, monsters, the whole lot. And I'm thinking in terms of dnd-esque attributes so 10 points would be +5 which is a 25% change.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It doesn't have to be, but that's what your example was. Swords suck against skeletons; use a hammer. It ends up being DPS, the only difference being that you have to figure out what the DPS is yourself. What weapon will give you the most damage per hit? There's no strategy involved, just looking at which numbers are larger.

Is using one weapon better?

The idea behind different damage types isn't creating some kinda puzzle, but reducing the player's security level. Usually, you find a good sword, it's all you need to be ready for everything until the game decides that it's time for an upgrade. The different damage system says that one weapon isn't enough and you need more to feel safe. So, on a basic level it forces you to have and upgrade a small arsenal. The system starts shining when you run into mixed enemies, forcing you to make decisions and raising risk levels.

They can, if they're different from what's been described. Otherwise they turn into a case of "Oh, a slime, time to use X weapon; oh, a skeleton time to use Y weapon." In which case damage types are like the picture I posted; they give you a square peg and ask you to put it into a hole - but you have 10 different holes to choose from!

It doesn't have to be that simple either. Weapons can have more than one trait and you can build a fun system, especially if you add attack types and tie them to damage (like slash/thrust/chop). A rapier for example would do very high piercing damage. A saber mostly slashing with a bit of piercing (high damage slashing attack, low thrust). A broadsword - medium slashing, medium chopping, etc.

Tell me you wouldn't like to fuck around with a system like this one.

 

[Roguey]

Sawyer uses a spreadsheet to explain the DT problems and how damage variablity throws things off: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63...ge-vs-armor-and-a-tileset/page-6#entry1303123

When you see someone in mail, you don't know that mail has 30 DT. It may have 35 DT. Or it may have 40 and the target is wearing a ring that grants +5 more DT.

Let me. see the. numbers.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller, you're assuming that a balanced fight will be designed around accuracy equally defense.

Going by what Sawyer said:

A number between 1 and 100 is generated to determine the attack rules. If the Accuracy and target defense are the same value, these are how the results break down:

• 01-05 = Miss
• 06-50 = Graze
• 51-95 = Hit
• 96-100 = Critical Hit

A Hit is the standard damage and duration effects, a Graze is 50% minimum damage or duration, a Critical Hit is 150% maximum damage or duration, and a Miss has no effect. In a balanced Attack and defense scenario, the majority of attacks wind up being Hits or Grazes. If the Accuracy and defense values are out of balance, the windows for each result shift accordingly, while always allowing for the possibility of a Graze or a Hit at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Sawyer uses a spreadsheet to explain the DT problems and how damage variablity throws things off: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63...ge-vs-armor-and-a-tileset/page-6#entry1303123

When you see someone in mail, you don't know that mail has 30 DT. It may have 35 DT. Or it may have 40 and the target is wearing a ring that grants +5 more DT.

Let me. see the. numbers.

Looks pretty cool.

 

[tuluse]

Going by what Sawyer said:

A number between 1 and 100 is generated to determine the attack rules. If the Accuracy and target defense are the same value, these are how the results break down:

• 01-05 = Miss
• 06-50 = Graze
• 51-95 = Hit
• 96-100 = Critical Hit

A Hit is the standard damage and duration effects, a Graze is 50% minimum damage or duration, a Critical Hit is 150% maximum damage or duration, and a Miss has no effect. In a balanced Attack and defense scenario, the majority of attacks wind up being Hits or Grazes.If the Accuracy and defense values are out of balance, the windows for each result shift accordingly, while always allowing for the possibility of a Graze or a Hit at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

I think he's just saying balanced to mean attack equals defense, not that an encounter will be balanced by making them equal.

Consider this, if attack bonus is equal to AC in dnd, you also only have a 5% chance of missing.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Weapons can have more than one trait and you can build a fun system, especially if you add attack types and tie them to damage (like slash/thrust/chop). A rapier for example would do very high piercing damage. A saber mostly slashing with a bit of piercing (high damage slashing attack, low thrust). A broadsword - medium slashing, medium chopping, etc.

I hope they actually include something like this. It'd give you a reason to choose between axe and sword and some weapons that I always thought were cool like halberds might actually have a reason to be used and kept rather than like in D&D where you should really just go for a greatsword or something similar.

 

[Johannes]

It doesn't have to be, but that's what your example was. Swords suck against skeletons; use a hammer. It ends up being DPS, the only difference being that you have to figure out what the DPS is yourself. What weapon will give you the most damage per hit? There's no strategy involved, just looking at which numbers are larger.

Is using one weapon better?

The idea behind different damage types isn't creating some kinda puzzle, but reducing the player's security level. Usually, you find a good sword, it's all you need to be ready for everything until the game decides that it's time for an upgrade. The different damage system says that one weapon isn't enough and you need more to feel safe. So, on a basic level it forces you to have and upgrade a small arsenal. The system starts shining when you run into mixed enemies, forcing you to make decisions and raising risk levels.

Sure, necessitating to have a variety of different attack forms available is nice. For example, carrying a bow and a sword and choosing to either shoot as long as you can or rush in asap. Or having, for example, option between a magic sword that stuns people on hit or one that makes you regenerate health on hit. Or just the same sword with options to fight aggressively or defensively.

When you can opt for actually interesting things, why'd you go for dull, easily solvable damage calculations?

They can, if they're different from what's been described. Otherwise they turn into a case of "Oh, a slime, time to use X weapon; oh, a skeleton time to use Y weapon." In which case damage types are like the picture I posted; they give you a square peg and ask you to put it into a hole - but you have 10 different holes to choose from!

It doesn't have to be that simple either. Weapons can have more than one trait and you can build a fun system, especially if you add attack types and tie them to damage (like slash/thrust/chop). A rapier for example would do very high piercing damage. A saber mostly slashing with a bit of piercing (high damage slashing attack, low thrust). A broadsword - medium slashing, medium chopping, etc.

Tell me you wouldn't like to fuck around with a system like this one.

Well, it depends on what those different things would actually do. If it's just an elaborate formula where DPS components are varied, I'd rather have something else.

The reason why these spreadsheetable things are bad, is that they're too 1-dimensional to solve.

 

[Johannes]

Of course piercing/cutting/blunt categories make sense. In fact, the consequences of the different types of impacts in different materials and bodies should be taken further, to take account of all the problems mentioned. Yes, realism can be fun. That's how you design combat (in my perfect game, I guess). I can accept simpler combat, but that doesn't mean I will not bitch about it.

Well those three categories are a sensible way to categorize weapon impact. But how they actually function in about any game is the unrealistic part not the initial categorization.


Realistically, there's a few things to consider:
How hard must you strike that you just pierce the armor? Can you actually hit that hard at all with your weapon (probably not vs metal armor)? Basically a function of the blows momentum and contact area size.
Can you go around the armor, are there vulnerable spots where you could potentially aim with your weapon - eyes, armpits etc? Easily maneuverable weapons excel at this.
If you cannot get your weapon on the skin of your enemy (with a given hit, or at all), how much blunt force trauma will your blow cause? Simply bigger is better.

Then there's of course a lot of finer details too, for example will your weapon bend or dent a plate, and how will it alter the usability of said armor? Or when skin is reached, how lethal will that be and how easily will you pull it out?

 

[Irenaeus]

Well those three categories are a sensible way to categorize weapon impact. But how they actually function in about any game is the unrealistic part not the initial categorization.


Realistically, there's a few things to consider:
How hard must you strike that you just pierce the armor? Can you actually hit that hard at all with your weapon (probably not vs metal armor)? Basically a function of the blows momentum and contact area size.
Can you go around the armor, are there vulnerable spots where you could potentially aim with your weapon - eyes, armpits etc? Easily maneuverable weapons excel at this.
If you cannot get your weapon on the skin of your enemy (with a given hit, or at all), how much blunt force trauma will your blow cause? Simply bigger is better.

Then there's of course a lot of finer details too, for example will your weapon bend or dent a plate, and how will it alter the usability of said armor? Or when skin is reached, how lethal will that be and how easily will you pull it out?

Researching/answering these questions sound awesome. Applying that to a CRPG... I admit it may be too hard.

 

[Hormalakh]

Hey look at that. Did you guys see the newest "update" Josh put out? I asked him for information and he gave us some. People on the forums have been discussing the issues and trying to come up with solutions. Now we have a better idea of what's going on and we can actually work towards something that everyone would be happy.

http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/418562394038501179

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63...tion-damage-vs-armor-and-a-tileset/?p=1303123

I take payment in brofists, Reddit gold, and cash.

Seriously though, I don't have the expertise that some of you other guys have in combat and it would be nice for some of the "experts" to take a look and see what they can come up with. I'm talking people who've made games (Vault Dweller, et al) not the rabble that sqawk. When I have a little time to sit down and fully understand it, I'll try to chip in.

 

[Lord Andre]

Yeah, we've seen it. He managed to make a system so needlessly complicated that nobody could be bothered to give a fuck. And stop sucking VD's cock, his insights into game mechanics are just as hit and miss as his game. Experts he says.

 

[Hormalakh]

LOL first we have not complicated enough. Now we have too complicated? Not trying to brown-nose to VD; it's just he's made a game before. Few here have and pretty much (as is obvious from some comments) don't know what they're talking about when it comes to design. They just want a game to fit their needs. So their problem-solving is of limited value.

Anyway, like I said, we needed more information before we can yell "decline." Now we have it. Where did the pundits go?

 

[FeelTheRads]

that everyone would be happy.

Yeah, that always works... in deranged minds like Sawyer's. There will never be something that makes everybody happy. You have to choose. Obsidian chose next-gen dumbfuck kids. Period.

it's just he's made a game before.

Is it Thursday already where you are?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Researching/answering these questions sound awesome. Applying that to a CRPG... I admit it may be too hard.

There's a D20 supplement that applies all that stuff to PnP. It could be easily converted to a cRPG.

 

[Moribund]

Wow horbock, you have gone off the scale with your trolling, which was in guadaost territory right from the getgo.

How dare we criticize the genius behind The Southpark RPG and Alpha Protocol?!

 

[jewboy]

Well I'm glad that kooldowns are finally out. Sawyer said right from the beginning that his kooldown idea was subject to rejection through actual play testing. Maybe testing has revealed that they suck. Which is something that the rest of us already realized. It's not like Sawyer is the first person to ever attempt an RPG combat system. Lots of stuff has already been tested and found to suck. It was due to his hardon for kooldowns that I only backed at the minimum tier. It's too bad he couldn't have figured out that they sucked before the end of the kickstarter.

Hopefully testing will result in a game that is actually fun to play for someone who is not mentally retarded. If history teaches us anything about RPG design it is that oversimplifying is a bigger problem than too much complexity. I'd rather that sawyer err on the side of too much complexity. As far as the damage types vs armor types I like the idea and I thought ToEE's limited implementation of it worked pretty well, but it does present some difficulties. Trying to decide the type of armor that a particular monster has for instance. In terms of common sense monsters with rigid shells or made of rigid elements are obvious crushing targets, but what about fire elementals or ochre jellies? In those cases I think the whole system should probably be ignored. That is, slashing, piercing , and crushing damage should not be modified from the default. In that case you would only have to consider weapon type for a limited set of monsters where it actually makes sense.

Edit: Actually ochre jellies and slimes should probably be immune to all but crushing damage and slashing should probably split them into multiple (albeit less powerful) foes. Fire elementals and ghosts are probably better examples of foes where the weapon type shouldn't matter except that magic weapons may be required etc.