Jump to content

Damage types should be refined or simplified.


AIEND
 Share

Recommended Posts

If we can't distinguish melee attacks as hack (swords, axes), jab (spears, pikes), thump (maces), and ranged attacks as pierc (arrows, javelins), smash (pebbles), cutt ( Throwing Axe), at least 6 damage types.
It's better to simply simplify it into "melee" and "throwing", instead of now, spearmen have two types of damage at the same time, which is very unfavorable for players to intuitively calculate the value.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was just pierce, hack, and crush no? IMO the different combinations of these make sense for the most part.

I guess there is also fire and poison, but these are not the core damage types.

Spears are fine to have both hack and pierce damage, as this speaks to their versatility. However, some more asymmetry between these values might be worth considering.

To have just 'melee' and 'ranged' damage types would oversimplify the game, and especially make melee fights less interesting. For example, what would then distinguish swords and spears other than their armor? Their armor would also be more simplified because in the blacksmith, the only armors available would then be "increase melee attack armor" and "increase ranged attack armor."

I think these values are actually in a pretty good spot at the moment, and I don't think adding many more damage types would be worthwhile either.

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I guess this is already the huge crush values for siege units, but you mean this should just be a 1 hit damage type? (for soldiers)

like AoE III canon have this damage.

Siege attack is the damage a unit deals to buildings.

http://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=1,23165,15510,all

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Siege attack is the damage a unit deals to buildings.

I see. This could make sense to separate units and buildings from seige attacks, but what about units like clubmen and axe cav?

In the a27 suggestion topic, @BreakfastBurrito_007 suggested some variation of crush armor between organic units.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Spears are fine to have both hack and pierce damage, as this speaks to their versatility. However, some more asymmetry between these values might be worth considering.

 

Meh, hard disagree. "Hack" is essentially a metaphor for melee combat. It's used this way for every unit except spearmen and it throws things off. :/

 

I don't think there needs to be a 4th attack type for siege. Crush works fine for this already. It just needs to be consistently applied. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Crush works fine for this already

yes it might not be necessary, but if units had a some more variance in crush armor, units like clubs could prove more useful than just siege.

But how is having pierce spears and pikes an issue?

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 小时前,real_tabasco_sauce 说道:

长矛可以同时具有黑客和穿刺伤害,因为这说明了它们的多功能性。 但是,这些值之间的一些不对称性可能值得考虑。

 

只有“近战”和“远程”伤害类型会过度简化游戏,尤其是让近战战斗变得不那么有趣。 例如,除了盔甲之外,还有什么可以区分剑和矛呢? 他们的盔甲也将更加简化,因为在铁匠那里,唯一可用的盔甲将是“增加近战攻击护甲”和“增加远程攻击护甲”。

我认为这些值目前实际上处于一个相当不错的位置,而且我认为添加更多的伤害类型也不值得。

In fact, the spear doesn't need hack damage, if we don't let the spear and bow share the same damage type, it only needs one kind of jab damage,otherwise we should make bows and javelins also have hack damage.

In addition, it makes no sense to distinguish between melee and long-range armor. Obviously, whether it is shield or armor, they can resist both melee and thrown weapons. It is more reasonable to use cavalry armor and infantry armor.

Edited by AIEND
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 小时前,Lion.Kanzen 说:

我认为应该有,粉碎,刺穿,砍杀和围攻。

围攻将是任何压倒性的攻击,超越人力。

Siege weapons do require unique damage types, and usually just this one is enough.

Edited by AIEND
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 小时前,real_tabasco_sauce 说:

我想这已经是攻城单位的巨大粉碎值,但你的意思是这应该只是一击伤害类型? (对于士兵)

Now that battering rams can no longer attack units, cavalry and infantry should lower their crush armor, provided that crush damage cannot be used by units other than siege weapons and ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AIEND said:

lower their crush armor, provided that crush damage cannot be used by units other than siege weapons and ships.

this should depend on unit type.

 

1 minute ago, AIEND said:

provided that crush damage cannot be used by units other than siege weapons and ships.

Crush is used by club/maces, axe cav, and slingers as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 小时前,wowgetoffyourcellphone 说:

嗯,很难不同意。 “Hack”本质上是近战格斗的隐喻。 除了长矛兵之外,每个单位都以这种方式使用它,它会把东西扔掉。 :/

 

我认为围攻不需要第四种攻击类型。 Crush 已经可以很好地解决这个问题了。 它只需要始终如一地应用。 

Since hack damage itself represents melee damage to a large extent, we should simply remove the piercing damage from spearmen and pikeman, and only give hack damage. In any case, spears and throwing weapons cannot share one damage type.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 分钟前,real_tabasco_sauce 说:

这应该取决于单位类型。

 

俱乐部/钉头锤、斧头骑士和投石手也使用粉碎。

When a catapult fires a 5kg stone, no matter how well-armored the cavalry and infantry are, they can't hold back, unless it's a large animal like an elephant.

The attacks of these units cannot be compared to siege weapons, as they can be blocked by shields and armor. Need to add new damage types to them instead of mixing them with siege weapons, like I added thump damage to maceman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, AIEND said:

In any case, spears and throwing weapons cannot share one damage type.

why not?

 

53 minutes ago, AIEND said:

When a catapult fires a 5kg stone, no matter how well-armored the cavalry and infantry are, they can't hold back, unless it's a large animal like an elephant.

The attacks of these units cannot be compared to siege weapons, as they can be blocked by shields and armor.

Thats why a catapult does over 210 crush, and a slinger does 1.1 crush. There is no need to overcomplicate these damage types because in both cases the type is a crushing effect, one is just a lot more than the other. In other words, I don't know why you would want to call the slinger's damage "thump." I just don't understand what the change in terminology achieves.

1 hour ago, AIEND said:

When a catapult fires a 5kg stone, no matter how well-armored the cavalry and infantry are, they can't hold back, unless it's a large animal like an elephant.

Yes I agree, but I was talking about the changed relevance of aforementioned units that do a little crush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 分钟前,real_tabasco_sauce 说:

为什么不?

So why does the javelin have no hack damage?
We know very well that spears and javelins are often a weapon, you just throw the spear and it becomes a javelin.

4 分钟前,real_tabasco_sauce 说:

 换句话说,我不知道你为什么要把投石手的伤害称为“重击”。 我只是不明白术语的变化会带来什么。

I gave the thump damage to the maceman and elephant instead of the slinger, I actually gave the slinger pure pierc damage.

In my mod, I want to make maceman more special, so cavalry and infantry's thump armor has a feature, champion and hero units tend to have lower thump armor than their hack armor.
Because the upper limit of armor's ability to withstand blunt weapon attacks is lower than that of sharp weapon slashes or jabs, this means that units with thump damage are better suited against champions and heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slingers having Crush damage has always been super sus to me. Sling stones are not siege weapons. 

There's just this odd hate for attack bonuses, so attack types get messed with to try to add something interesting. 

 

Clubs, etc. just give them a bonus vs. buildings or something. Giving them a crush attack now applies it against everything they attack.

Edited by wowgetoffyourcellphone
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 分钟前,wowgetoffyourcellphone 说:

拥有粉碎伤害的投石手对我来说一直是超级悬疑的。 弹石不是攻城武器。 

Obviously, the pebbles fired by the slinger can't compare to the heavy boulders fired by the catapult, so it doesn't make sense for the slinger to have crush damage at all.

Because even if 10,00 pebbles are thrown at the building, it is impossible to cause the same damage as a 5kg stone.

Edited by AIEND
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 分钟前,Lion.Kanzen 说:

这...

那么模板应该更正吗?

I don't think it's necessary to add weird attack bonuses, especially for buildings. In reality, people usually attack buildings with siege weapons or arson (this is my previous suggestion), not with weapons (whatever type) in their hands.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 分钟前,real_tabasco_sauce 说:

当然,我同意。 但是我们真的需要另外 3 种伤害类型来进行这些改动吗?

It is also possible to not increase any damage type, just change all melee units to hack damage, all ranged units to piercing damage, and let crush damage be the exclusive damage type for siege and warships.
So what I said in the title is refinement or simplification, there are two options, generally I tend to simplify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AIEND said:

there are two options,

there is a third: keep damage types the same. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

If changes need to be made to slingers (to remove crush if desired) or to clubs, they should be done under the current system and on a case by case basis, and perhaps with bonuses as @wowgetoffyourcellphone said. There is no need for these large-scale changes.

So far, I still don't see how this simplification (or the refinement) would improve gameplay. Change for change's sake?

Edited by real_tabasco_sauce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 分钟前,real_tabasco_sauce 说:

到目前为止,我仍然看不到这种简化(或改进)将如何改善游戏玩法。 为了改变而改变?

Only after the change will there be normal gameplay. I actually have a hard time understanding why slingers have crush damage, why spearmen and pikeman have piercing damage, these are not common designs at all, and it's wrong to think of them as something that's not a problem by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...