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

[Kirtai]

No. Fuck weapon speed discrepancies. "Bigger the weapon = slower it is" is one of the retarded tropes that need to die a miserable death. It's neither fun, interesting or unique. It's the fucking status quo of UNFUN.

Indeed. I have to wonder if these people who think big weapon = slow have ever even seen them weilded. Greatswords and staff weapons can be scarily fast.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Maybe. If a game gives you a blue, green, and yellow sword, and you should switch to the blue one when facing blue enemies, the green one when facing green enemies, and the yellow one when facing yellow enemies, does it add anything to the game? I'd personally prefer a single weapon.

It's sort of like saying that a choice of faction is nothing but choosing green shirt allies vs blue shirt allies, to continue the color theme. Can it be done in a better way? Absolutely. Same with damage types, I believe. I've already pointed out that it doesn't have to be red for red, blue for blue setup and that's just the very first thing that comes to mind.

Basically, just because you can describe something with a simple analogy doesn't mean that the complexity level can't rise above that of the analogy.

Can you think of many games where it worked out that way?

No, but how many complex RPGs with deep combat systems can you name?

The Baldur's Gate series had a system like the one you described, and I don't feel like it really added anything to the game. I don't think I ever switched for skeletons, because they died quickly enough anyway. I kept some extra +3 swords for any creature that was immune to anything lower. That was about it.

Because the game was too easy. Low difficulty can make anything pointless, like upgrades, stances, and even abilities in KOTOR 2. Why bother if you can kill anything with nothing but a stick?

I don't see any reason to pine for a "if it's a skeleton, use a hammer" system.

The skeleton comment was too a simple analogy aimed to show that you can communicate quickly what works and what doesn't, not that it was an example of rare depth and design brilliance.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No. Fuck weapon speed discrepancies. "Bigger the weapon = slower it is" is one of the retarded tropes that need to die a miserable death. It's neither fun, interesting or unique. It's the fucking status quo of UNFUN.

Indeed. I have to wonder if these people who think big weapon = slow have ever even seen them weilded. Greatswords and staff weapons can be scarily fast.

First, it's not about realism, it's about balance (i.e. a trade off). Damage for speed. Without the trade off, bigger is better by default.

Second, I've never wielded two-handers or seen them wielded professionally (it's a dying art, I'm afraid), but I'm pretty sure that you can stab someone with a dagger much faster than you can cleave them with a two-hander.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

I would assume that you can swing the two-hander fairly quickly, but the recovery and set-up for the next swing would be longer than the dagger.

 

[tuluse]

I've seen some fencing in the Olympics and such. They have different weapons they use, and the lighter ones are faster. Yes, the heavy ones are still very fast, but things get slowed down in video games to make it fun because if you had to deal with 10 attacks per round in BG it would be clusterfuck.

 

[almondblight]

It's sort of like saying that a choice of faction is nothing but choosing green shirt allies vs blue shirt allies, to continue the color theme.

If they're poorly done, yes. In the original Warcraft the two sides were the same besides for their magic, and the missions were about the same as well. I wouldn't advocate putting in factions that are identical to other factions and give identical missions. If there's no difference, then what are they there for? Flavor?

No, but how many complex RPGs with deep combat systems can you name?

Not many, which is why I'm not terribly bothered if people drop elements that were never implemented well. In terms of differentiating different weapons, I thought the AoD combat demo did a decent job of that, since the different weapons played differently (and it was hard to just switch between them). But that's done by giving them different abilities, not giving them damage bonuses against certain enemies.

Because the game was too easy. Low difficulty can make anything pointless, like upgrades, stances, and even abilities in KOTOR 2. Why bother if you can kill anything with nothing but a stick?

It wasn't just that enemies were easy to kill. With skeletons that was the case, but with other monsters, you had to have a +something weapon to do any damage. The problem was a +3 sword plays the same as a regular sword, so I have my characters do the same thing, I just have them equip the optimal weapon for it. If the weapon is the same but just does more damage, or does more damage to this enemy in this fight, then what does it add in terms of combat depth? I understand how it can add to the sense of progression, but that's a different issue.

The skeleton comment was too a simple analogy aimed to show that you can communicate quickly what works and what doesn't, not that it was an example of rare depth and design brilliance.

But it's not just an analogy, that's how the system has been implemented in the past, and how (based on the charts we saw) it looks like this system was going to be implemented. There was one weapon that did the most damage against a particular armor type, and one that did the least. Telling someone that their opponent has a rock and asking them to pick paper or scissors isn't very interesting.

 

[Lord Andre]

Watching Sawyer design a combat system is epic fail / face palm every time he comes up with something.

For example, regarding the armor thing, I can think of a better system off the top of my head. Like so, index style:

- Scrap the concept of heavy/medium/light armor, it's stupid.
- Better armor as in plate over leather gives higher DT.
- Big weapons as in greataxes, greatswords, military hammers have huge damage but are very slow.
- Normal weapons as in swords, regular axes, spears have good damage and normal speed.
- Light weapons as in daggers, rapiers, short swords have low damage but are very, very fast.
- Balance speed and damage as in the points above so that against 0 DT, light weapons have best DPS, against medium DT (leather armor), normal weapons have best DPS, and against high DT (plate), big weapons have the best DPS.
- This also implies that if you attack an agile enemy with a big hammer, before you get your second strike in he has already hit you five times with his dagger. You would do huge damage but you might be dead before you get to deliver it.
- Also, the heavier your armor (as in weight) the more penalty you get to your weapon speed.
- This system brings more depth to the decision of how you equip your characters as there will always be a trade off and it also feels more organic.

There. I just made up a better system in 5 minutes and it also plays better to not having rounds and using a real time engine.

No. Fuck weapon speed discrepancies. "Bigger the weapon = slower it is" is one of the retarded tropes that need to die a miserable death. It's neither fun, interesting or unique. It's the fucking status quo of UNFUN.

Oh, snap ! Now I know how Sawyer feels. You throw out a nice idea and then some random sand nigger comes and dismisses it with some childish non-sense. Still, he's getting paid for the mother-fucker so I suppose it balances out.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If they're poorly done, yes.

Everything sucks if poorly done, no? But just because something is done poorly in one game doesn't mean it can't be done better in another.

Not many, which is why I'm not terribly bothered if people drop elements that were never implemented well.

Same here. I signed up for great dialogues, lore, and story. The only reason I posted in this thread is Sawyer's "too complicated" reason.

It wasn't just that enemies were easy to kill. With skeletons that was the case, but with other monsters, you had to have a +something weapon to do any damage.

That's bad design, in my opinion. Not that it was difficult to acquire magic weapons in BG games.

But it's not just an analogy, that's how the system has been implemented in the past...

Not an indicator.

... and how (based on the charts we saw) it looks like this system was going to be implemented. There was one weapon that did the most damage against a particular armor type, and one that did the least. Telling someone that their opponent has a rock and asking them to pick paper or scissors isn't very interesting.

That I agree with.

 

[Captain Shrek]

You guys are wasting time.

Best discuss the solutions instead of dissecting this bullshit combat system.

 

[Zeriel]

That Kickstarter post of theirs regarding difficulty modes doesn't exactly reassure me about the intended challenge of the game. It sounds like they're setting it up (like so many recent games that harken back to the old days, like XCOM) to be piss-easy on Normal. Path of the Damned, their ultimate, super-hard difficulty mode, just restores encounters to their original, designed intent? Kind of silly, but at least now I know not to expect much of a strategy game approach to it.

 

[Infinitron]

That Kickstarter post of theirs regarding difficulty modes doesn't exactly reassure me about the intended challenge of the game. It sounds like they're setting it up (like so many recent games that harken back to the old days, like XCOM) to be piss-easy on Normal. Path of the Damned, their ultimate, super-hard difficulty mode, just restores encounters to their original, designed intent? Kind of silly, but at least now I know not to expect much of a strategy game approach to it.

Hard to satisfy, aren't you?

It's a common complaint about today's popamole games that higher difficulty levels only bloat enemy HP and damage, instead of meaningfully altering enemy behavior. They're trying to do something different, giving you different encounters for each difficulty level, and still you complain?

The Path of the Damned just puts the encounters of all three difficulty levels together. It's not the "originally designed intent" at all. It might even be imbalanced and ridiculously difficult to beat.

 

[Zeriel]

That Kickstarter post of theirs regarding difficulty modes doesn't exactly reassure me about the intended challenge of the game. It sounds like they're setting it up (like so many recent games that harken back to the old days, like XCOM) to be piss-easy on Normal. Path of the Damned, their ultimate, super-hard difficulty mode, just restores encounters to their original, designed intent? Kind of silly, but at least now I know not to expect much of a strategy game approach to it.

Hard to satisfy, aren't you?

It's a common complaint about today's popamole games that higher difficulty levels only bloat enemy HP and damage, instead of meaningfully altering enemy behavior. They're trying to do something different, giving you different encounters for each difficulty level, and still you complain?

The Path of the Damned just puts the encounters of all three difficulty levels together. It's not the "originally designed intent" at all. It might even be imbalanced and ridiculously difficult to beat.

Tch, obviously. In all seriousness, though, the way they describe it, it sounds more like Path of the Damned is Twisted Rune style fights, while everything below that is kind of downgraded and dumbed down. Which is fine as far as it goes and I understand the design perspective. I was just too lazy to hand-wave and give twenty "well, maybe they're not actually doing this and it will be fine and challenging" exceptions. No one but them (and not even really them at this stage) knows how this is going to pan out, but I wouldn't be surprised if the game ends up only really being challenging once you combine Path of the Damned, Expert Mode, and Iron-Man all together.

 

[Infinitron]

I suspect the game might be easy on Easy (of course) and Normal, but I'm hoping Hard will actually be hard, and not just Path of the Damned. Will play on the latter regardless.

Expert Mode doesn't seem to be strongly related to combat difficulty, though.

 

[Irenaeus]

Let me spill my bullshit at the "bigger the weapon = slower it is" issue. A number of points:

• Some large weapons could be fast as fuck, provided you have the strenght, dextery and skill to wield it.

• Bigger could be better, in terms of damage, provided you can manage the weapon efficiently.

• Fighting with them could eat your stamina, which means only the most fit would realistically use them.

• The malus of using a large weapon without the proper skills could be grand, in terms of speed and recovery from misses.

• Hitting small and nimble targets with large weapons could be a problem.

• Those large weapons could be more expensive and rarer, in a given world only a few elite fighters would be using them.

In conclusion, you COULD design a game around these rules and they MIGHT work, that depends on how you want your gameworld and gameplay to be.

 

[Lord Andre]

These niggers talking about bigger is not slower are just fucking retards. In a "no metal armor situation" the deadliest sword made by man is the fucking rapier, with the katana as a close second. No matter how strong you are, if you ever played with a simple machete, you would know that it doesn't matter how quick you swing down, it's the recovery that is slow. For a so called greatsword, the only way to fight unmounted is to wield it in a drill, a pattern like string of stances, so you advance or withdraw which each step and every swing ends up in the perfect position for the next one and so on. Hell, most two-handed sword drills favor piercing with the tip over slashing because it's faster to lounge and retreat than to chop. And always a rapier guy would run you through before you can move more than 20 inches.

And no, having big muscles doesn't help, because big muscles are slow, their purpose is to move a huge load without ripping appart but they contract very slow because of this.
For example, a bodybuilder would suck at sprinting and running speed. You need quick lean muscles to attack quick and retreat just as quick.

Plate armor changes the equation of course, but 3 peasants circling a full plate guy can tip him over like a cow and slit his throat.

Dumb niggers, gonna' dumb nigger though...

 

[St. Toxic]

But initial-strikes shouldn't necessarily be slow, so that your opponent has a speed advantage with a smaller weapon only if he survives the first blow. There's also range-closing to account for with smaller weapons so, while the strike may be faster in itself, it may still balance out when accounting for the opponent moving into position.

 

[Irenaeus]

And no, having big muscles doesn't help, because big muscles are slow, their purpose is to move a huge load without ripping appart but they contract very slow because of this. For example, a bodybuilder would suck at sprinting and running speed. You need quick lean muscles to attack quick and retreat just as quick.

Have you ever seen Olympic 100m sprinters? They look big and strong as fuck.



Also, check'em

Dumb niggers, gonna' dumb nigger though...

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

http://swordsedge.ca/Issue15/ArticleMechanicsOfMelee.html
http://swordsedge.ca/Issue16/ArticleMechanicsOfMelee2.html

Have you ever seen Olympic 100m sprinters? They look big and strong as fuck.

These guys look like 13-17 str. If you want to test "Big and strong as fuck", take dudes that participate in Strongman competitions.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Its not just muscle size that matters - whether the muscle fibers are predominantly fast or slow twitch is also a factor. Fast twitch can contract and expand more rapidly than slow twitch, so they are better for explosive generation of force over a short period of time (so things like sprinting, jumping) while slow twitch are more efficient and, therefore, better for endurance type activities like distance running.

Although I've heard that one of the problems you with top level athletes using steroids is that as their muscles become larger than what is normal, the amount of force they can generate will exceed what the connective tissue and bones are capable of handling, making them more susceptible to certain types of injuries.

 

[Moribund]

faster vs slower is all in the implementation, I guess. Make it interesting.

If a dagger means 8 attacks that equal the total damage of a two hand sword attack it's not that interesting.

But if smaller weapons have less penetration, like in Darklands that's pretty interesting. You can still do a little damage to enemies and sometimes luck into a penetrating hit but a handier weapon is generally way more effective against lightly armored foe.

Whereas heavy weapons like great hammer (which has big spike on the end) is perfect for taking down heavily armored foes but can't slice through bandits 6 at a time like you could with a short sword.

But what's annoying is when there's a large bias forcing you into things that's not too realistic, damage resistance can be really annoying in DnD. It should be either for only really powerful characters, or very small.

 

[Roguey]

This weapon speed derail is a nonissue because the type of armor you're wearing determines the speed of all your actions and Sawyer doesn't like it when an aspect of a system is modified by more than one input.

 

[Lord Andre]

Sawyer doesn't like it when an aspect of a system is modified by more than one input.

'Cause it's harder to track in a spread sheet ? Sawyer can't into multiple variable functions ? Tsk, tsk.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

http://swordsedge.ca/Issue15/ArticleMechanicsOfMelee.html
http://swordsedge.ca/Issue16/ArticleMechanicsOfMelee2.html

Those are pretty interesting. I think his distinction between levels of realism and levels of detail is a good one.

All of these factors, speed, reach, and both passive and active defensive ability should be factored into any simulation of melee combat.

I can think of recent one game that effectively utilizes all of the elements he cites: Dark Souls.

 

[Captain Shrek]

It is difficult to believe that people here are actually eating this shit about attack speed and DPS.

 

[Roguey]

Sawyer doesn't like it when an aspect of a system is modified by more than one input.

'Cause it's harder to track in a spread sheet ? Sawyer can't into multiple variable functions ? Tsk, tsk.

Balance. It's always about balance.