Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 73   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Let's play AoD!  (Read 562875 times)
cardtrick
Artisan

Posts: 553



View Profile
« Reply #210 on: January 11, 2008, 10:36:36 am »

As I understand it, they don't destroy armor -- they just ignore 5 points of the opponent's damage resistance, despite doing 50% less damage overall. This means it will be superior against heavy armor, but much less effective against light or medium armor.
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8069



View Profile
« Reply #211 on: January 11, 2008, 10:37:03 am »

It may sound confusing but what that means is your AP ammo won't do a lot of damage against unarmored opponents, but it will go through armor like a knife through butter. Basically, we added extra damage that will only be used against armor to reduce DR.
This doesn't make sense to me.  If I understand what you're saying, the purpose of armor-piercing bolts is to destroy armor?
No.

Let's say you wear armor with DR8. It means that the armor will absorb 8 points of damage per attack. Now AP increases the penetration, which means that the armor absorbs less and more damage is getting through. So, instead of using all 8 DR points, we use a temporary DR modifier (-5) to calculate the AP damage. In the descriptions, we use + x points vs DR, which means that there is an extra value to be added to your damage roll that will be applied only to your opponent's armor DR (i.e. if your opponent isn't wearing any armor, and you are using AP ammo for whatever reason, the extra AP value won't be applied.)

Acids do reduce armor DR permanently (x points per x turns; depends on your alchemy or if you bought/found it, on whoever's made it skills).
 
Quote
The physics of it suggest to me that bypassing the armor and dealing damage would be the point of a bolt.  This is why arrows are so devastating against heavily armored opponents after all.
That's pretty much what we have.
Logged
Priapist
*
Posts: 321



View Profile
« Reply #212 on: January 11, 2008, 10:44:41 am »

So the formula would be Actual Damage = (Raw Damage * AP multiplier) - (DR - AP modifier) with some conditional bits to handle barbed heads?

Right now it seems a bit underpowered - as soon as you start dealing more than 10 damage in a hit, then AP becomes redundant. For instance, a standard head doing 15 damage vs DR 10 does 5 damage, while 15 raw damage with an AP head only ends up doing 2.5 damage. Or an extreme example - 40 standard vs DR 20 does 20 damage / 40 AP vs DR 20 does 5 damage.

Or are you calculating the 50% after the calculation against DR? ie, Actual Damage = AP multiplier * (Raw Damage - (DR - AP modifier)) You'd get slightly higher results that way, but standard ammo still remains superior if you're dealing heavy blows against heavy armour. It may be that you just don't have that sort of situation in AoD, in which case, nevermind, but something irks me about the current formula.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 10:56:09 am by Priapist » Logged
cardtrick
Artisan

Posts: 553



View Profile
« Reply #213 on: January 11, 2008, 10:46:23 am »

So the formula would be Actual Damage = (Raw Damage / AP multiplier) - (DR - AP modifier) with some conditional bits to handle barbed heads?

Right now it seems a bit underpowered - as soon as you start dealing more than 10 damage in a hit, then AP becomes redundant. For instance, a standard head doing 15 damage vs DR 10 does 5 damage, while 15 raw damage with an AP head only ends up doing 2.5 damage. Or an extreme example - 40 standard vs DR 20 does 20 damage / 40 AP vs DR 20 does 5 damage.



Yeah, but in a game where characters have on the order of 20-40 HPs, 10 damage on a hit is a hell of a lot. I did think the same thing when I first saw the items list, though. Presumably if it's really unbalanced it will be tweaked during testing. After all, that's an easy fix.
Logged
jeansberg
Journeyman

Posts: 126



View Profile
« Reply #214 on: January 11, 2008, 11:21:38 am »

It may sound confusing but what that means is your AP ammo won't do a lot of damage against unarmored opponents, but it will go through armor like a knife through butter. Basically, we added extra damage that will only be used against armor to reduce DR.
This doesn't make sense to me.  If I understand what you're saying, the purpose of armor-piercing bolts is to destroy armor?
No.

Let's say you wear armor with DR8. It means that the armor will absorb 8 points of damage per attack. Now AP increases the penetration, which means that the armor absorbs less and more damage is getting through. So, instead of using all 8 DR points, we use a temporary DR modifier (-5) to calculate the AP damage. In the descriptions, we use + x points vs DR, which means that there is an extra value to be added to your damage roll that will be applied only to your opponent's armor DR (i.e. if your opponent isn't wearing any armor, and you are using AP ammo for whatever reason, the extra AP value won't be applied.)

Acids do reduce armor DR permanently (x points per x turns; depends on your alchemy or if you bought/found it, on whoever's made it skills).
 
Quote
The physics of it suggest to me that bypassing the armor and dealing damage would be the point of a bolt.  This is why arrows are so devastating against heavily armored opponents after all.
That's pretty much what we have.
Does this mean that certain enemies can permanently destroy your armor? That would be pretty cool. In a fight with them you would have to choose between wearing a good suit of armor for safety or a cheaper suit...
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8069



View Profile
« Reply #215 on: January 11, 2008, 11:46:52 am »

Right now it seems a bit underpowered...
You have a point there and we'll play with the numbers.

Quote
Or an extreme example - 40 standard vs DR 20 does 20 damage / 40 AP vs DR 20 does 5 damage.
Our numbers don't go that high.
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8069



View Profile
« Reply #216 on: January 11, 2008, 11:51:17 am »

Does this mean that certain enemies can permanently destroy your armor? That would be pretty cool. In a fight with them you would have to choose between wearing a good suit of armor for safety or a cheaper suit...
Well, we don't have acid-spitting enemies. Overall, acid is rare, but when it's used it's very effective. As for you, you'll have a choice: try to defeat your tough opponent without damaging his shiny armor or use acid if you have some and say goodbye to his armor.
Logged
Mephisto
Novice

Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #217 on: January 11, 2008, 11:58:17 am »

And if its used on you? You end with a damaged armor you cant repair?
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8069



View Profile
« Reply #218 on: January 11, 2008, 01:44:50 pm »

Yep. It won't happen often though.
Logged
Mephisto
Novice

Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #219 on: January 11, 2008, 01:54:55 pm »

Well, that kinda sucks. Is there a way to fix it? Maybe recraft the armor if you have the skill?
Logged
Vince
Developer

Posts: 8069



View Profile
« Reply #220 on: January 11, 2008, 02:04:17 pm »

Well, that kinda sucks.
Being killed also sucks, no?
Logged
Mephisto
Novice

Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #221 on: January 11, 2008, 02:12:31 pm »

If Im killed, I reload. So if my armor gets damaged beyond repair should I reload too?

But you didnĀ“t answer my question: Can I recraft the armor if I have the skill?
Logged
galsiah
Expert

Posts: 1415



View Profile
« Reply #222 on: January 11, 2008, 03:23:58 pm »

Well, that kinda sucks.
Why? Seriously - why should a setback make your experience of the game less entertaining? In fact in many ways it's worse if you can easily regain similar armour - since it means the event becomes nothing more than a time-sink. It's preferable if you're forced to step back, reassess, and take some action more meaningful than to spend-ten-minutes-getting-back-to-exactly-the-same-situation.
All that's important is that such setbacks change gameplay dynamics in interesting ways. If you can easily get everything back to how it was without consequence, that's not a good thing - it's a missed opportunity.


Quote from: Vince
You have a point there and we'll play with the numbers.
Good to know - but let me appeal again for as much of the mechanics as is simply/conveniently possible to be driven from text files or similar (ideally formulae as well as variables, but perhaps that's unlikely). Hopefully you'll get things well balanced, but you can't hope to test to the same level/breadth as thousands of users.
Logged
Mephisto
Novice

Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #223 on: January 11, 2008, 03:41:00 pm »

Quote
Why? Seriously - why should a setback make your experience of the game less entertaining? In fact in many ways it's worse if you can easily regain similar armour - since it means the event becomes nothing more than a time-sink. It's preferable if you're forced to step back, reassess, and take some action more meaningful than to spend-ten-minutes-getting-back-to-exactly-the-same-situation.
All that's important is that such setbacks change gameplay dynamics in interesting ways. If you can easily get everything back to how it was without consequence, that's not a good thing - it's a missed opportunity.

I completely agree with that. How can it be made a interesting consequence? All I can think is when that happens is that you will spend 20 minutes looking for a merchant that sells the same armor and spend some money to get back to the same situation you where before, which was optimal. Or if you are a crafter you melt it, use some spare ore and forge it back. Unless you are a masochist and want to go around with a sub-par armor with no reason whatsoever to do so.

I agree with you that its not interesting to do that, that is a time sink, but what is the other choice? To go around with a destroyed armor? That surely changes gameplay, but it is not interesting. How can it be made interesting? Besides, going with the broken armor is a "fake consequence" since you will have merchant and crafting at your disposal to revert the situation.
Logged
galsiah
Expert

Posts: 1415



View Profile
« Reply #224 on: January 11, 2008, 04:16:43 pm »

To go around with a destroyed armor? That surely changes gameplay, but it is not interesting. How can it be made interesting?
It can certainly be interesting, since it can have huge consequences for gameplay. As an extreme example, consider armour that acts as an effective God-mode. Does losing that make the game more interesting? Yes. Why? Because it introduces new risks, changes reasonable strategies.... Losing less extreme armour can do the same - both in and out of combat.
If losing armour simply means that the player follows the same strategies, but is slightly less efficient, the system is lacking.

Quote
Besides, going with the broken armor is a "fake consequence" since you will have merchant and crafting at your disposal to revert the situation.
Sure, but I never suggested this. I'm suggesting design with consequences - which forces the player to make tough choices, based on negative consequences of regaining the armour (or equivalent). [expecting that the player should take idiotic actions just to keep things interesting, would indeed be daft.]
For example, time lost can have significant implications for almost any game element. Money lost can be very significant, so long as money is limited, and time spent to regain it (if that's possible) would have negative consequences elsewhere. Going to certain locations can have negative implications - if you're wanted for crimes in an area; if enemies are tracking you; if you haven't paid your debts; if your presence there tips off enemies that you weren't killed, or that agents of faction X are operating in the area. Travel can be dangerous in itself....

The trouble is that players are so used to wandering around wasting time and making money without any meaningful consequence - so any setback is instantly presumed to be nothing more than a tiresome delay. The fault isn't with the player who spends ten minutes getting back to the same situation - it's with design that incentivizes this playstyle. (or arguably with both - but the design clearly isn't optimal)

A recent counter-example (in some cases) would be MotB - where time was a constant life-and-death issue for some character types. While it's arguable that this wasn't ideally handled, I think it's the type of mechanic that should be applauded - precisely for the above reasoning. Perhaps more wide-ranging, less in-your-face mechanisms would be preferable, but the MotB system was much better than nothing.
Another would be Fallout on a first playthrough, if you're taking the possibility of time-limit-based failure seriously. The initial presence of a known time-limit, combined with an unknown water-chip location provides a sense of urgency - clear reasons not to spend too much time messing around re-equipping. Then the presence of an unknown time-limit (how long until they find the vault?) combined with somewhat clearer objectives, functions similarly. Combined with the implications of late arrival in places like Necropolis, this works fairly well as a more hands-off incentive [though only works well until the player knows the time-limits and locations more clearly].
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 04:20:20 pm by galsiah » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 73   Go Up
Print
Jump to: