Idea for a more realistic damage model...

[Sealgaire]

OK, first the standard praise for the game, incredibly fun, addictive, and original. The devs are doing an awesome job.

Now to my idea, which may work better as a mod, as most people might already be happy with the system in place.

I was thinking instead of all armor just reducing damage, the heavy ones such as mail and plate would have a % chance of negating ALL damage from cutting and some piercing weapons. Blunt weapons and weapons historically designed to pierce or crush these kinds of armor (war hammers, lances, maces, bolts etc.) would all deal damage normally, with the armor value reducing damage.

As the thickness and coverage of the armor goes up, the chance of slipping through it should go down, with black armor being the hardest to get past. I'm not sure what lowest chance of getting a hit in should be, maybe 25%, but testing would be necessary to find the right balance between the two ways of ruining someones day.

This would represent something like a sword or arrow getting a lucky hit at a joint or other weak spot in the armor and should negate the armor value and deal full damage to make up for the difficulty of landing such a blow.

If you don't like this damage model being applied to ALL armor, I think it would work well for helmets if nothing else. This would eliminate the ease of killing dozens of heavily armored men with single headshots at close range.

Well, feel free to tear apart or add to this idea as you see fit.

 

[Crispy Pigeon]

I was under the impression that full plate armour with a chainmail undercoat was extremely difficult for a bladed weapon to pierce; hence the popularity of blunt weapons in the later stages of the medieval period. It was also designed so arrows would glance off and so on.

Your idea seems quite reasonable to me.

 

[Kniggit]

I was under the impression that full plate armour with a chainmail undercoat was extremely difficult for a bladed weapon to pierce

Uh, you wouldnt want to wear a maille hauberk under a full suit of plate. Considering the shirts were ABOUT 25 - 40 pounds and plate was anywhere from 30 -60. They wore a padded shirt with maille parts, covering places like the exposed elbow and armpits. Yes it would be almost impossible to pierce, also impossible to move

Ian

 

[Thraundil]

You got that right Most armors was not at all covering the whole body - only if you where mounted

But implementing that idea, would just DEMAND an adding of least 1 more weapon the Falx! If anyone ever played Rome Total War, they would notice that falxmen cut down armored men at will

 

[Nairagorn]

Mmmm... falx...



Nasssty weapon, woul be good to see, wouldn't be too hard to model* and impliment, give it a good bonus vrs shields...





*I am not a modeler, I may be totally wrong.

 

[Sealgaire]

Yup, that's a falx, though it's over a millenium too old to appear in M&B. Thats not to say that some weapons already in the game aren't a little out of period.

But then again, armagan isn't going for a recreation of medieval Europe, so I guess anything is possible (except magic )

 

[Cataphract]

If we disregard roman times, the chainmail in medieval times was a good protection from all blade and arrow weapons, you could pierce it with thrusting a sword to it, but it that was very rare. When crossbows arrived (1200-1300?) they were capable of penetrating chainmail. In 1300's plate was invented for almost purely for protecting against crossbows, plate protected from anything except crossbows, it tolerated blunt weapons too, but the wearer probably didnt

 

[Istadan]

Heheh... I recently saw a picture of a 14th century breastplate from a full suit of plate, with a 5 inch hole in the middle from a crossbow bolt.
I like the idea: that would give an excellent reason for high level characters to use crossbows, as it would be garaunteed to pierce heavy armor.

 

[okiN]

At least if it hit it perpendicular to the plate surface.

 

[DaLagga]

I don't really see the point in altering the current damage system. I mean, lets say an attack will deal 20 damage, and your armor will block 15 damage, so you take 5. Whats the difference between that and saying that you have a 25% chance of receiving that 20 damage? Its all the same in the end, its just more balanced feeling and less random under the current system. I mean sure, in real life a guy with armor may be able to survive 40 hits from arrows, but his buddy next to him in the exact same armor gets killed by a single lucky arrow. Some guy may have a grenade go off 2 feet from his face and aside from being knocked on his ass and a few minor cuts and burns, get up and be fine, but a piece of shrapnel kills his friend who was 30 feet away. I don't think things like that would add to a game like this...maybe in an rts that would be a cool feature, but not this. Think about how frustrating it would be to go into battle and get hit 10 times, taking no damage at all, then getting hit 3 additional times receiving 30+ damage from each of them...killing you...

 

[Sina]

I agree with the head shot thing. If it is not too hard to program and implement, maybe it could be just another realistic mod (like the no-save-without-quit mode)

 

[Ummu]

Yup, that's a falx, though it's over a millenium too old to appear in M&B. Thats not to say that some weapons already in the game aren't a little out of period.

But then again, armagan isn't going for a recreation of medieval Europe, so I guess anything is possible (except magic )

Have you not seen troops.txt? Undead crap everywhere! I would call that magic.

 

[Vaerraent]

That's old stuff.

 

[Sealgaire]

I don't really see the point in altering the current damage system. I mean, lets say an attack will deal 20 damage, and your armor will block 15 damage, so you take 5. Whats the difference between that and saying that you have a 25% chance of receiving that 20 damage? Its all the same in the end, its just more balanced feeling and less random under the current system. I mean sure, in real life a guy with armor may be able to survive 40 hits from arrows, but his buddy next to him in the exact same armor gets killed by a single lucky arrow. Some guy may have a grenade go off 2 feet from his face and aside from being knocked on his ass and a few minor cuts and burns, get up and be fine, but a piece of shrapnel kills his friend who was 30 feet away. I don't think things like that would add to a game like this...maybe in an rts that would be a cool feature, but not this. Think about how frustrating it would be to go into battle and get hit 10 times, taking no damage at all, then getting hit 3 additional times receiving 30+ damage from each of them...killing you...

Well, over time the damage between the two systems should be pretty much the same. The idea is to add a bit more variety and realism to battles. That randomness your talking about would make combat more interesting in my opinion.

But remember what I said about it working better as a mod or option in the game. If someone wants a more predictable rpg experience they could stick with the current system. If they want a more realistic battle simulation thats less dependant on character skills they could use this.

 

[Eird-Way]

The damage system should make sense in the context of exactly one attack. Right now it makes no sense.

This is the same kind of abstaction as when in DnD a 20th level fighter gets hit with a 200-damage fireball, and you're supposed to imagine that he just rolled out of the way. (it still would have counted as drawing blood for other purposes, such as poison and vampirism). That's stupid. Computers have the ability to avoid that kind of stupidity, and they do not leave much room for you to imagine "he just rolled out of the way", such as is explicitly stated in the Starwars d20 game, for example.

M&B is already a very believable game, but there are still ridiculous gouts of blood, Mortal Kombat style. The simple truth is that armor, especially plate armor, exists primarily to deflect blows, not mitigate them. A slashing weapon should usually bounce off a suit of full plate with no effect.

No hero, no matter how many "levels" he has, should lose ten gallons of blood before going down.

A good, realistic, satisfying game is one in which you GET HIT LESS OFTEN.

 

[CrushU]

That's why this game is so good. It really does emphasize avoiding getting hit, rather than tanking the blows. If you doubt, just don't right-click for one battle.

The trainer says it, that the point is to avoid getting hit, not to just ignore hits. You can get hit twice and die. Hence, "Don't get shot!" The point of heavy armor is to take hits for you. It doesn't mean you can effectively tank (again, just try a battle without right-clicking) just that lucky shots aren't as likely, and of course, you own anyone without a good weapon. (Like, say, River Pirates. This is perfectly believable. You aren't likely to kill a fully armored knight with a club.)

 

[Sina]

Though we have to keep in mind, although it is nice to have a more realistic game, this is still more game than a simulator and it will be so no matter what. Trying to pass the line between game and simulator is not good :p

 

[Sealgaire]

I don't think the game is in any danger of becoming an overly realistic simulator. But I agree. First and foremost, the goal should be to make the it fun, which Armagan and Ipek are doing a great job at.

I do think there's a little room for more realism before it becomes a dry, boring sim though.