PDA

View Full Version : weapon "to hit","criticals" and "shield modifiers"



ragface
03-19-2009, 10:24 AM
Let's say daggers would have a minimal "to hit" modifier but when you hit a monster it would have a higher chance scoring a critical than a sword..
for e.g. if you slith a throat.. that hurts a lot,
but when you slash an arm, it isn't as severe:)

And it would be cool if you could aim at different body parts.. and loose body parts if your not careful..

Sorry if these ideas are already mentioned..

edit:
forget about teh "shield modifiers"

EDIT: this was actually shit, but I tought more about it and started a new thread..

Silfir
03-19-2009, 10:45 AM
Are you, perchance, a Dwarf Fortress player? :)

ragface
03-19-2009, 12:13 PM
Are you, perchance, a Dwarf Fortress player? :)
No, are these "properties" available there? is it a rogulike?
ADOM is the only computer game I play:p
if I play something else its usually old sega megadrive rpgs..

Elone
03-19-2009, 01:09 PM
This already existed in Diablo. Even simple nonmagical weapons had certain properties unique to them. All spears could be generated with a chance to pierce armour, thrown daggers and daggers could be spawned with a speed bonus, thrown axes would get a knockback feature, A maul would have a chance to score a crushing blow, polearms would leave open wounds, crossbows had a piercing attack (just about same as adom's archer's final class skill) and so on.

I think that I suggested it already in an earlier topic, before I even found out it exists in Diablo.

I play an MMO where my character changed classes, from a knight class to a spy class. I found out that my whip deals more damage than I could deal with twin oversized battleaxes swung at once as a knight. And not with a lash, but with a strangle attack. (the attack worked against undead, constructs, even literally regular mosquitoes.) I asked for an explanation, and I was told that being strangled by a whip can be quite painful. I said "If I swing those axes, my enemy wont have a neck!" They told me that I'm unrealistic.
Swords can lethally slit necks too, not just daggers. Let's not go too far with the ideas, please.
But yes, JADE is nice to dream of...

Silfir
03-19-2009, 07:55 PM
Dwarf Fortress has a very detailed damage system in which all body parts and major organs can be injured or severed, and targeted in the roguelike part of the game. The programmer's currently working on a new version which simulates the body even more closely, with tissues, hair and whatever.

Battle in Dwarf Fortress is a very, very bloody affair.

sgeos
03-19-2009, 11:12 PM
DF is an RL.

Silfir
03-20-2009, 12:44 AM
Dwarf Fortress has Fortress Mode, Adventure Mode and Legends. Only Adventure Mode is what I'd call a roguelike. Fortress Mode is more of a mixture of Dungeon Keeper, The Sims, The Settlers and Theme Hospital.

sgeos
03-20-2009, 01:39 AM
DF has an insane learning curve. So much so that they have a motto to the effect of "dying in DF is fun".

ragface
03-20-2009, 07:30 AM
This already existed in Diablo. Even simple nonmagical weapons had certain properties unique to them. All spears could be generated with a chance to pierce armour, thrown daggers and daggers could be spawned with a speed bonus, thrown axes would get a knockback feature, A maul would have a chance to score a crushing blow, polearms would leave open wounds, crossbows had a piercing attack (just about same as adom's archer's final class skill) and so on.

I think that I suggested it already in an earlier topic, before I even found out it exists in Diablo.

I play an MMO where my character changed classes, from a knight class to a spy class. I found out that my whip deals more damage than I could deal with twin oversized battleaxes swung at once as a knight. And not with a lash, but with a strangle attack. (the attack worked against undead, constructs, even literally regular mosquitoes.) I asked for an explanation, and I was told that being strangled by a whip can be quite painful. I said "If I swing those axes, my enemy wont have a neck!" They told me that I'm unrealistic.
Swords can lethally slit necks too, not just daggers. Let's not go too far with the ideas, please.
But yes, JADE is nice to dream of...

Yes swords can slit necks too, its not as agile as with daggers but thats not the point..
the point was because daggers are very "short ranged" weapons, it would be much more difficult to hit with them but when you hit you would have a higher chance scoring a critical than say a mace(cause you don't slit throats with maces;)), and that doesn't mean you cant score critical with maces and that you always score critical with daggers. Just for e.g. that there's an 10% chance to score critical with daggers on grand mastery, and a 5% chance with maces on grand mastery..

Sorry if my first post was unclear, english is not my native language as you can probably tell..

ragface
03-20-2009, 11:38 AM
Yes swords can slit necks too, its not as agile as with daggers but thats not the point..
the point was because daggers are very "short ranged" weapons, it would be much more difficult to hit with them but when you hit you would have a higher chance scoring a critical than say a mace(cause you don't slit throats with maces;)), and that doesn't mean you cant score critical with maces and that you always score critical with daggers. Just for e.g. that there's an 10% chance to score critical with daggers on grand mastery, and a 5% chance with maces on grand mastery..

Sorry if my first post was unclear, english is not my native language as you can probably tell..

edit: and maces could have a small chance stunning people:p

Soirana
03-20-2009, 12:05 PM
i'd rather see speed/energy discounts for daggers.

If that thing has advantage it is being quick.

RndmNumGenerator
03-22-2009, 03:13 AM
i'd rather see speed/energy discounts for daggers.

If that thing has advantage it is being quick.

For a while I used to think weapon mechanics worked this way(I really don't know why). Now I know better, but I think it would be cool if in JADE the base energy costs were based on the weight of the weapon, possibly 500 + stones*10 for one-handed weapons, and 500 + stones*5 for two-handed weapons. Several weapons could either be wielded in one hand(allowing a shield) or in two hands(faster attacks) For example:

One Hand:
Dagger: 600 Energy Points
Shortsword: 800 Energy Points
Longsword: 900 Energy Points
Battle Axe: 1200 Energy Points

Two Hands:
Battle Axe: 850 Energy Points
Halberd: 1000 Energy Points
Heavy Club: 1100 Energy Points

This system works quite well until you get weapons weighing 200 stones or more. Special considerations would need to be in effect for these weapons. 1500 Energy Points for a Heavy Club is a lot as it is. 4500 Energy Points for the Hammer of the Gods or 6500 for the Axe of the Minotaur Emperor is ridiculous.

Epythic
03-22-2009, 12:36 PM
This system works quite well until you get weapons weighing 200 stones or more. Special considerations would need to be in effect for these weapons. 1500 Energy Points for a Heavy Club is a lot as it is. 4500 Energy Points for the Hammer of the Gods or 6500 for the Axe of the Minotaur Emperor is ridiculous.

Not if you invoke some arcane formula that makes it faster the more strength you have, but only if the weapon is heavy. Something like this:

Dagger+Str=10: 400 energy points
Dagger+Str=100: 399 energy points
Battle Axe+Str=10: 1400 energy points
Battle Axe+Str=100: 500 energy points

I hope that explains what I mean.

Ars
03-22-2009, 04:25 PM
Doesn't sound right to me, that attacking with small weapons would be quicker... In ADOM, attacking fast gives the ability to hack'n'back, and it would rather make more sense that you do that with a long weapon, not an extremely short one. Unless you make different action costs for the first attack than the attacks after that, if you don't do other actions than attacking between the attacks.

RndmNumGenerator
03-23-2009, 03:30 AM
Maybe certain weapons like two-handed swords or spears could strike from two squares away? Anyway, it is certainly much easier to attack with a dagger 2 or 3 times before you can attack once with a claymore. Attacking faster with larger weapons makes no sense at all.

@ Epythic: I like that idea, though I think it needs some adjustment. It doesn't matter how strong you are, the intertia of a colossal weapon will always make is take longer to swing then a small one... Maybe something like:

St 10, Dagger: 600 Energy Points
St 30, Dagger: 580 Energy Points
St 70, Dagger: 560 Energy Points
St 99, Dagger: 550 Energy Points
St 10, Flail: 1500 Energy Points
St 30, Flail: 1200 Energy Points
St 70, Flail: 1000 Energy Points
St 99, Flail: 900 Energy Points
St 10, AotME: 6500 Energy Points
St 30, AotME: 4000 Energy Points
St 70, AotME: 2000 Energy Points
St 99, AotME: 1500 Energy Points

Elone
03-23-2009, 04:12 AM
A dagger at strength of 30 (which is current adom's starting strength for strongest melee characters) is 580 energy, but a big axe at same strength is 4000? Which would mean that a dagger would attack 7 times in a row per one axe attack? Am I the only one who sees unbalance here?

Ultimately, what is the point of this? Making stronger weapons so weak and undesirable, that they will be on par with (or less than) smaller weapons? As a person who played many games, and even made some, I will give an advice. Dont make weapons stronger than each other easily. If you give a character four guns, and one of them is strongest, then the other three will not be really used. Since you end up with only one gun, the game becomes boring. If you already want to make the weapons more interesting, then give them actual differences that can make them more interesting or useful to use. A phase dagger is one of the weakest weapons in Adom, but it has an interesting effect that other weapons generally dont. Likewise, there could be a set of [+0,+0] clothes, but TB added prefixes and suffixes so that empowered clothes of carrying (or any other lucky find) can be rather desirable.

I enjoy the "what if" games because many good ideas can come out of them. But sometimes the "what if" games disregard all realism factors, all coding effort needed for it (and if its worth it), and worst of all, the resulting fun factor that the ideas produce (or a complete lack of those).

Silfir
03-23-2009, 11:54 AM
Is a weapon faster or slower solely because of its weight? I though that was at least partially about balance. High-quality weapons should be faster and easier to use than cheap junk. Damage to the weapon should affect its balance, as well - if damage to the weapon were to be simulated. It would give more of an incentive to carry several weapons.

Should a dagger even effective to use at all in melee combat? A guy with a longsword should be at so much of an advantage it's not even funny - it should be relatively easy to keep the dagger guy at a distance. Daggers might be more of a last resort, and they are preferred for sneaky types because they are easier concealed and less noisy.

Then again I have no clue about this stuff.

Sradac
03-25-2009, 02:55 PM
Let's say daggers would have a minimal "to hit" modifier but when you hit a monster it would have a higher chance scoring a critical than a sword..
for e.g. if you slith a throat.. that hurts a lot,
but when you slash an arm, it isn't as severe:)

And it would be cool if you could aim at different body parts.. and loose body parts if your not careful..

Sorry if these ideas are already mentioned..

edit:
forget about teh "shield modifiers"


I agree with 0% of this. Why the heck would slashing a throat with a dagger be more deadly than slashing a throat with a sword?? if anything the other way around, sword could decapitate! And a dagger should have a lower chance to crit, smaller blade harder to get in close and get it to that neck, sword you just swing that sucker towards the *foo*'s head!

I myself feel that the chance of a "crit" should be based more on that characters skill than the weapon itself. I see a stealthy assassin being able to get those weak points in a body much easier than a healer. just saying.

Elone
03-26-2009, 12:51 AM
I agree 100% with what what Sradac said. Especially on the critical hit chance derived from skill and not the weapon type. Unless each weapon would have a different type of "critical" (effects other than increased damage mutiplier), in which case it would be the combination of both.

vogonpoet
03-26-2009, 08:21 AM
Yeah, wot Sradac and Elone said. Remember, we are trying to avoid the default "spear and shield" syndrome.
In which case, a level 14 skill in any weapon should have similar chances for crit success, all other things being equal. What would be cool, in a whats your flava sort of way, is if the weapon types all had a particular type of critical hit, which wouldn't necessarily do any more damage (really doesn't matter if you are beheaded by an axe, a sword, a piece of cheese wire wielded by a strong and skillful assassin, or an incredibly powerful blow to the lower chin which rips your head off your body after exploding your spinal column, sending your head careering off into the distance (think tiger woods on steroids wielding skull driver, the artifact club, as you lay on the floor), you still have no head), but would give really cool individual messages.

I would like to see more messages relating to the tactics choice too, instead of just "your cowardly attack misses the foe" or whatever.

Your frenzied stabbing critically hits the foe (dagger, beserk).
Your insane whirling dervish critically hits the foe. (mace, true beserking).
Your careful thrust critically hits the foe (spear, careful).

?

/ha - he thrusts his fists against the post and still insists he sees the ghost.

sgeos
03-26-2009, 10:53 AM
You want to give reasons to use different weapons, but these things can be hard to balance. Different damage types are one way of relatively simple way of doing this (slash, bash, pierce).

Gimmicks such as hitting from two spaces away will require extra time/iterations/feedback to balance. Unless the game is being actively developed, one or two weapons will probably outshine others. FWIW, isn't long sword one of the better skills in Nethack? (For a lot of classes at least?)

ragface
03-26-2009, 12:00 PM
You want to give reasons to use different weapons, but these things can be hard to balance. Different damage types are one way of relatively simple way of doing this (slash, bash, pierce).

Gimmicks such as hitting from two spaces away will require extra time/iterations/feedback to balance. Unless the game is being actively developed, one or two weapons will probably outshine others. FWIW, isn't long sword one of the better skills in Nethack? (For a lot of classes at least?)

Yeah cause it's boring always using the spear shield combo, and I just wrote the idea, without actually thinking about it.. MY BAD. sorry
I will start a new thread and think it through this time..

UnknownSoldier
03-26-2009, 12:43 PM
One of the most ignored quality of weapons in computer game, roguelike included, is the notion of reach/wieldyness (is that a word ?)
A long sword or a rapier will always be better in a RL fight than a dagger because the dagger will not be able to close in safely. The sword/rapier are fast enough and long to prevent the dagger to be even remotely effective.
Against a pike, which is really long (macedonians pikes were reported to be longer than 4m (12 feet)), The dagger become again useful because the pike is really unwieldy. It will have one chance of scoring a hit and that's all. This is realist : pikes were only useful in formation, not for a single fighter.

So I would like to see implemented some notion of this ratio : it is not only the speed of the weapon that is important but also the reach.

vogonpoet
03-26-2009, 12:59 PM
it is not only the speed of the weapon that is important but also the reach.

Is that not effectively implemented currently in ADOM via long swords having better damage than short ones, which in turn are better than daggers - 1d8, 1d6, 1d4.

UnknownSoldier
03-26-2009, 03:25 PM
Is that not effectively implemented currently in ADOM via long swords having better damage than short ones, which in turn are better than daggers - 1d8, 1d6, 1d4.

Not exactly:
A fight between a dagger and a sword "should" be this way :
- the dagger try to close in, taking some damage when it is not in reach and inflicting none
- the sword try to stay out of reach and when it is in reach of the dagger takes some damage and inflict little.

Morality : the fighter that can stay the most at the correct range of engagement will win, with a bonus to the heavier weapon that will inflict more serious damage and bypass armor more effectively.

Ars
03-26-2009, 07:53 PM
Having melee weapons strike across multiple tiles sounds like a bad idea to me. But what could work out is that weapons would have different energy costs and/or to-hits depending if the enemy hit you his last turn, and/or if you hit the enemy last turn. It could be a bit complicated, to balance and for the player to optimize.