Changing damage types

Discussion among members of the development team.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

User avatar
Noyga
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1790
Joined: September 26th, 2005, 5:56 pm
Location: France

Post by Noyga »

I think that altrought they have the same kind of damages (pierce damages) it make sense to separate them into two damages types.
The difference is not in the kind of damage (it is the same), but come from the attack itself.
While arrow would likely come from the sky an hit more amored less vulnerable parts of a mounted units, spear would likely come from the ground and hit less protected part doing more damage and penetrating more the armor because of the thrust of the horse movement (that point would not make a difference for the arrow).
For daggers it is also different from the arrow because it's a more precise attack so it would more likely penetrate armor, but it is also different from spears beacuse it is quite uneffective versus a mounted unit.
Well i don't think it is good to have zillons type of similar damages, so 3 types of damages is probably to much. I don't think a specific type of damage for daggers add much to the game so i would either classify them as 'blade' or 'missile'. The difference is quite high for 'missile' vs 'impale' so i think this distinction wlll add something to the game.

For crush vs impact it is also the same : the difference come from the attack, not from the kind of damage.

That is why i think that we shouldn't classify the damages types on only on the kind of damage, but rather on the effects of the attack. That's what i like in Cuyo Quiz approach.
The problem is we can't split all damages into multiple categories, there would like be too much damages types, so there would probably always some cases where the weapon damages seem a little unnatural.

What i really don't like in Dave's proposal is the damage type unification : we will have a lot more weapon of similar damage, therefore more units would be similar. I think it would make the game more boring. And if we look the effect of a sword and a club on a wose or a skeleton, it doesn't make much sense to have this weapons in the same category.

The different system is exposed before might be interesting because it make the things more intuitive, but it also complicates the system... I don't feel such a complication is necessary, but it is maybe not much more complicated than current system with a few more damages types.
Having similar damage type can be confusing IMHO. For example, for some unit it wouldn't be obvious wether we should use 'crush' damage or not ...
Dave
Founding Developer
Posts: 7071
Joined: August 17th, 2003, 5:07 am
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by Dave »

turin wrote:we could create a special ability, Flying, that made a unit immune to melee attacks when defending.
I think this is a rather good idea.

The main 'problem' with it I can see is that if a flying unit is surrounded by two units that only have melee attacks they would be able to restrict its movement but not actually attack it. Which seems....weird.

Perhaps we would have to then make an additional rule that ZoCs only work if a unit has at least one attack that they can attack the unit with.

David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

Actually, I think I'm liking my second suggestion, giving them steadfast, better. Although the description of steadfast doesn't fit it, I think the gameplay effect of steadfast makes sense... it reduces the melee damage against flying units, but doesn't negate it completely (which would probably be unbalanced).

I would suggest only giving it to high-flying units, like vamps and gryphons, and not to the drakes. ;)
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
User avatar
JW
Posts: 5046
Joined: November 10th, 2005, 7:06 am
Location: Chicago-ish, Illinois

Post by JW »

turin wrote:Actually, I think I'm liking my second suggestion, giving them steadfast, better. Although the description of steadfast doesn't fit it, I think the gameplay effect of steadfast makes sense... it reduces the melee damage against flying units, but doesn't negate it completely (which would probably be unbalanced).

I would suggest only giving it to high-flying units, like vamps and gryphons, and not to the drakes. ;)
Well, as we all know, drakes hop and glide, they do not really fly.

And IIRC steadfast doubles (positive) resistance up to 50%, so...it wouldn't affect any current flying unit...
User avatar
turin
Lord of the East
Posts: 11662
Joined: January 11th, 2004, 7:17 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by turin »

Oh, right... I was basing my statements on the old, pre-nerfed steadfast - takes 50% of normal damage. Period.
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
User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

The Flying ability sounds very good. However, flyers should be able to attack other flyers with melee. Would this somewhat remove the need for the "missile" damage type as a way to "give a weakness" to flyers, since the defense values of flyers could be reduced because mostly only ranged units could attack them anyway?
Dave wrote:Perhaps we would have to then make an additional rule that ZoCs only work if a unit has at least one attack that they can attack the unit with.
This sounds very good as well. Combine this with the flying ability and everything would be quite a bit cooler, IMHO. I can see how someone might think that this rule would be a bit on the unnecessarily complex side, though, but I can't really agree with that myself. These would be nice.
torangan
Retired Developer
Posts: 1365
Joined: March 27th, 2004, 12:25 am
Location: Germany

Post by torangan »

I agree about the flying part. It always seemed rather unatural to me that melee units could attack e.g. a Gryphon which is more likely to be high up in the air and only to come down when attacking.
Complex question would be: defense. If you opt for realism, melee defense can only occur as often as the flyer attacks unless we're changing the order. (4 attacks against 2 means A attacks twice then B defends once etc.)
WesCamp-i18n - Translations for User Campaigns:
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/WesCamp

Translators for all languages required: contact me. No geek skills required!
User avatar
Sapient
Inactive Developer
Posts: 4453
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 7:41 am
Contact:

Post by Sapient »

An interesting idea, but if you do it for flyers then it may leak over to swimmers. :wink:

And regarding number of attacks: it reflects the attack speed. So the griffon swoops down and claws you twice, and in that same period of time you manage to respond with several sword thrusts. I don't see how that is a problem.
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/User:Sapient... "Looks like your skills saved us again. Uh, well at least, they saved Soarin's apple pie."
deserter
Art Contributor
Posts: 291
Joined: September 12th, 2005, 9:48 am
Location: Finland

Post by deserter »

When did you have time to write a four page thread so fast?

Well, I think that Dave's idea is good. Although it makes more sense (to me) to just split the impact into impact and crush AND split the pierce to pierce and impale.

This would leave us with two more attack and resistance types.
Noy wrote:The rationale for making crush damage good against flyers is that they are able to avoid a crush type attack with a glancing blow. Well that has nothing to do with damage, and everything to do with avoiding an attack... ie movetype. We have separate catagories for a reason, and this would start blurring them, making it more complex and less intuitive. Ie not kiss.
So the crush resistance for flying units should be very low. Why would it be harder to score a crushing hit than a blade hit? If one has more strength it doesn't mean that it can't hit the flyers, I think.

For the flying ability:
It seems a bit complicated to me... For not being able to attack them in melee is maybe too powerful for the flyers. Though it's not logical if you can. The steadfast-like solution would be a compromise. Maybe it should just give resistance of say 70% against all melee assaults.
But, the ZoC is even harder issue...
User avatar
Cuyo Quiz
Posts: 1777
Joined: May 21st, 2005, 12:02 am
Location: South America

Post by Cuyo Quiz »

Nyoga wrote:The different system is exposed before might be interesting because it make the things more intuitive, but it also complicates the system... I don't feel such a complication is necessary, but it is maybe not much more complicated than current system with a few more damages types.
Having similar damage type can be confusing IMHO. For example, for some unit it wouldn't be obvious wether we should use 'crush' damage or not ...
As i see it, crushing would be a matter of weight and leverage. Your comomn mace/club doesn't have it, but if you have a heavy mace, flail, large axe or long or strong arms, you would likely "crush" your opponent.

As for flyers, i don't think it should be done. The implications of when a unit flies low to strike a foe and when he flies high to ignore them would be too much complicated for a correct interpretation in Wesnoth. I assumed that a flyer was bounding low because he was in an skirmish, also... how high a light Gryphon with a Dwarf on its back can really fly?.
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
Darth Fool
Retired Developer
Posts: 2633
Joined: March 22nd, 2004, 11:22 pm
Location: An Earl's Roadstead

Post by Darth Fool »

I have always assumed that the flyers must land to rest, and this is when they are vulnerable to attack. Still, it might be an ok special ability for a very small number of units to have. As for the whole missle issue, I do like having different types of missles do different damage. I like having arrows be ineffective against skeletons while having slings and boulders be more effective. Perhaps what is needed is a Shield ability which reduces damage from all ranged attacks. This would eliminate the need to have a seperate missle damage type or missle modifier to attacks. It would interestingly, and appropriately, give a bonus defense against many fire based attacks. The shield ability should only be given to units that have the equivalent of a tower shield, ie, something that you can crouch behind and get full cover from. Someone with a buckler wouldn't get it.
User avatar
Eleazar
Retired Terrain Art Director
Posts: 2481
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 1:47 am
Location: US Midwest
Contact:

Post by Eleazar »

I've been playing a while, and i think it's worthwhile to mention that i rarely pay attention to damage types and resistances.
In generally they don't seem to be worth the trouble of keeping track of, with the obvious exception of the undead.

I think any change (even if it added a few damage types) would make Wesnoth more playable if it made it damage types more intuitive and worth keeping track of.

I would really miss the Outlaw's impact missle i.e. sling.
Feel free to PM me if you start a new terrain oriented thread. It's easy for me to miss them among all the other art threads.
-> What i might be working on
Attempting Lucidity
User avatar
zookeeper
WML Wizard
Posts: 9742
Joined: September 11th, 2004, 10:40 pm
Location: Finland

Post by zookeeper »

BTW, with the new missile damage type, what would happen to the fire arrows of orc archers? Or other similar things (which aren't plentiful, but still)? Would it become effectively impossible (or just very discouraged) to give different damage types to ranged weapons like bows just to be consistent? It could be solved by allowing multiple damage types to be assigned to an attack, but it would probably become much too complicated.

Because of this and other reasons already mentioned, I don't think Dave's idea should go through. I very much like the missile damage type, but I think the restrictions it would probably inevitably impose wouldn't be nice. I'd like to try to find some ways to distinquish ranged and melee combat in other ways, instead (even though that wasn't the whole point of the original proposal, but a major part of it still, I guess). Also making resistances and such more intuitive and clear and easy to see would be a good improvement.
User avatar
Ranger M
Art Contributor
Posts: 1965
Joined: December 8th, 2005, 9:13 pm
Location: England

Post by Ranger M »

that is why I like Noyga's idea, still reletively simple, but it gives you combinations which can make more sense and allow unit designers to make different combinations allowing more variety

(incase some of you didn't see Noyga's idea it is on page 1)
deserter
Art Contributor
Posts: 291
Joined: September 12th, 2005, 9:48 am
Location: Finland

Post by deserter »

zookeeper wrote:BTW, with the new missile damage type, what would happen to the fire arrows of orc archers? Or other similar things (which aren't plentiful, but still)? Would it become effectively impossible (or just very discouraged) to give different damage types to ranged weapons like bows just to be consistent? It could be solved by allowing multiple damage types to be assigned to an attack, but it would probably become much too complicated.
Is the case any different from what it is now? Was the point in missile to split up pierse to impale and missile? So fire arrows could still do fire damage, and regular arrows could do missile attack. Only difference now is that regular arows do pierce damage. So fire arrows don't have pierce damage at all. And with sling we could have impact damage if you look into my prposal.
Post Reply