JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)

With respect to such ideas:

  • I fully agree, also in relation to the other threads, Developers should consider these suggestions

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • I agree with the ideas of this thread without considering other threads

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • i agree partially (I will argue below what I disagree with)

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • i completely disagree and i will argue below why

    Votes: 7 43.8%

  • Total voters
    16

Users who are viewing this thread

INTRODUCTION

This thread was created to suggest a different approach to balancing armor and to intervene in the relationship they have with the attack system both at a distance, mainly to balance it, but also in hand-to-hand combat, to make it deeper.
The basic idea is to add a greater number of hurtboxes making sure that, once the character is equipped with the various parts of the armor, some hurtboxes, small, remain uncovered and vulnerable, while the one covered are protected in a more or less effective from a given type of damage depending on the type of armor you wear.
All in such a way that the covered areas are "strongly protected" compared to how they are now, while those uncovered are highly vulnerable and that any injury in those hurtboxes does not simply involve numerical damage, but also consequences in terms of gameplay on the immediate combat and also on the rest of the campaign.
This system also strongly balances the relationship between ranged and melee units as well as between ranged units and cavalry.

LINEUP OP TOPICS:
First,I will write a short version for those who do not want to go into detail, although it is the detail that makes the difference.
Then, I'll talk about the head hurtboxes, the helmet, a mechanic related to it, and the headshot mechanic.
After that, I will cover the main topic of this thread, the system of hurtboxes throughout the body.

SHORT VERSION:
In general it is a question of increasing the number of hurtboxes, making some SMALL and NOT COVERABLE by pieces of armor and increasing the armor value of the armor by a lot but in a manner consistent with the type of material they are made of.
The minimum number of hurtboxes to add would be 4, the directions from which you can attack.
This would bring the number of total hurtboxes to 10.
But for greater immersion and coherence a few more would be needed.
How much should the armor values of the pieces of armor be increased?
For example, an armor value such as to bring the damage even to 0 would also be fine for the plates.
While for less solid materials and structures values that reduce damage but clearly not as much as a plate would.
In general this is a conspicuous increase in value such as to represent the realism of the armor.

Keep in mind that the 4 uncovered hurtboxes will be weak points where that armor won't apply damage reduction.

So even a plate-armored warrior can be killed, but only if you hit those SMALL, UNCOVERED hurtboxes.

The consequences of this system are better described in the course of the thread with various examples, so if you do not want to read the details but only the examples, just go down to where you read "qualitative examples" or "qualitative estimates".

LONG VERSION:

HELM and HEADSHOT

Let's imagine the hurtboxes of the head as forming a cube with 6 faces.
We consider one of the faces of the cube as the one in which the face of the character's 3d model will overlap.
The lower face, the one crossed by the neck will be part of the hurtboxes of the neck, so let's exclude it from those of the head.
In total, for the head, we have 5 hurtboxes: 4 on the side and the one on top.

Helmets without visor generally protect the 2 side faces, the back and the top.
Some helmets (closed or with visor) also protect the front face.

DAMAGE CALCULATION:

In case an arrow / projectile hits the helmet in one of the faces, this arrow / projectile inflicts damage that:
1) depends on the momentum of the bullet and that of the character (intended as vectors)
2) the reduction is a function of the armor value of the helmet
3) the reduction is a function of the cosine of the absolute value of the angle formed between the velocity vector of the projectile and the axis orthogonal to the hit face (surface vector).


HEADSHOT:
If an arrow hits an unprotected face, the shot is considered a headshot (tell me if it has to kill on the spot or just introduce a damage multiplier) .. I favor instant death. Maybe an option that allows us to choose between the two modes would not be bad.


NEW MECHANIC: HELMET FLIES AWAY
Set an angle "A", formed by the surface vector (orthogonal to the surface) and by the velocity vector of a bullet hitting that surface, as a threshold.
We can make sure that an arrow that hits a protected face with an angle smaller than the threshold angle "A", inflicts damage that, although not lethal, takes into account the concussion, and therefore MAKES THE HELM JUMP AWAY FROM THE HEAD.
The helmet can be recovered from the ground with an animation that can put you at risk as it takes time to perform.

Without the helmet, the head remains uncovered and therefore subject to headshot on any of its hurtboxes.
For the damage, however, we will use a formula similar to that for the other hurtboxes covered, which we will discuss below.


DIFFERENT PROJECTILE/BULLETS/JAVELIN/DARTS/THROWING WEAPONS:

The various bullets / arrows / darts / javelins are of different size and different weight.
The threshold angle for activating the "HELMET FLIES AWAY" mechanics (helmet removal) increases with increasing projectile weight.
Therefore javelins and throwing axes will tend both to do more damage than an arrow (due to the momentum involved and the greater contact surface) and to remove the helmet with greater ease and therefore frequency.

Let's move on to the main content of the thread


MAIN TOPIC: ARMOR SYSTEM
Often the problem of archers that are too strong is highlighted ... but in itself the problem is not the archers or their damage, but the efficiency of the armor, which does not reflect the realisticity that they should possess (i.e. if a blow arrives on the armor , it is the armor that absorbs and disperses most of the energy and the body of the attacked soldier receives no harm that is not blunt ).

The lack of such realisticness in the "conception of how armor should work in the game" leads to the consequences that are at stake.

How can we make sure that the armors are really protections against bullets / arrows etc .. in a realistic but functional way to the gameplay?
(armor also refers to horse harnesses)

SOLUTION: HURTBOXES IN THE JOINTS
The system currently relies too much on "numbers" and does not exploit damage location as it could and should.
The body of our character or of an NPC can be considered as made up of hurtboxes that coincide with the various parts of the body.

The armor, on the other hand, since it covers these hurtboxes, we can see it as consisting of hitboxes that collide with the enemy weapon's hitbox when an attack is directed towards the limb covered by that armor.

If you have hurtboxes that the armor cannot adequately protect with their hitboxes (coinciding with the model of the armor piece) because at that point you cannot equip anything or you do not have the armor piece, or because that articulation of the body is delicate or because it is not possible to cover it as it would prevent movement, then it is the opposing player's aim to hit those uncovered hurtboxes avoiding hitting those covered by the armor.

But to prevent these uncovered or "unprotected" hurtboxes from being easily guilty, you need to make them CONSISTENTLY SMALL and such that a bit of precision is needed by the opponent during the execution of the slashes or thrusts, for these to be hit.
(and combat becomes more tactical instead of compulsive hit spam)

Adding hurtboxes to the joints between two parts of the body could be a good way to simulate both the realism and the "bad luck" of being hit there by an arrow or bullet.



QUALITATIVE ESTIMATE ON ARMORES VS ARCHERS, OLD SYSTEM:

If we consider the entire surface of the body with a value of 1 with the system currently in play, it means that, without a shield, 100% of the body is vulnerable to projectiles.
If we had a plate armor, two-handed broadsword and each arrow would take away ABOUT 10 life points in the different points of the body, 10 arrows would be enough to knock us down and if there are 20 archers in front of us, EVEN while we are on horseback, not it is so unlikely to be hit by 10 arrows along the way as we load them.
Certainly, if the arrows come to cover the entire area occupied by the front part of our body (therefore the archers are accurate but not precise), 100% of the bullets that hit us will still do us a not negligible amount of damage.
If out of a group of 30 archers 10 hit us and the damage of each arrow is 10, we are dead.
And an arrow only subtracts 10 if the armor value is very high.
Generally an arrow removes more than 30 at realistic difficulty, therefore a volley of arrows fired by 30 archers can eliminate 6-7 knights, who with the single charge certainly do not kill 6-7 archers and if they do not fight hand to hand and decide to turn around to charge further, they end up being hit from behind by arrows and then head-on again, losing the fight.

We'll do a quick estimate after introducing the additional hutrboxes and new damage transmission parameters to see how that changes.

HURTBOXES AND JOINTS:
The HURTboxes to be added must be divided into: ARMOR slot and JOINT slot.
-ARMOR slot are hurtboxes into which a piece of armor suitable for that slot can be inserted.
-JOINT slot are hurtboxes in which you cannot insert pieces of armor but which can (in a few particular cases) receive protection from a piece of armor inserted in an armor slot adjacent to it.

Number of hurtboxes and performance cost.
The cost in terms of calculation is proportional to the increase in hurtboxes, so the point is to introduce a quantity such as to have great immersion and acceptable costs or sacrifices.
For example, an increase in hurtboxes can be countered by a reduction in the number of models in battle.
Considering that other mechanics such as the reinforcement system are redundant (and unrealistic), I would say that big battles are not possible, which leads me to consider that perhaps it would be better to have smaller numbers but greater realism and depth of playability of the game.
So instead of doing 1000 vs 1000 battles, you could opt for 600 vs 600, but with much greater realism.
The minimum number of hurtboxes that should be added should be 4, as 4 are the directions from which attacks can start.
If you leave the other 6 blankets, then this 4 should not be covered and reasonably made small.
it is obvious that a greater number of hurtboxes would make the system more realistic and there would be more weak points to be hit (although difficult to hit) but this would impact on PC performance.

So I will write the maximum number of hurtboxes that would guarantee perfect immersion to the game but keep in mind that they are not strictly necessary and that 4, as a minimum number, would already be enough to radically change the immersion of the game.

The number of hurtboxes that we could insert in a model to have the maximum immersion and realisticity of the armor system is given by the hurtboxes that I will write below, but bear in mind that it is not necessary to insert all the hurtboxes that I will write and even 4 of them, the minimum number, placed in points of the model such as to be hit by the 4 directions of attack, it would be sufficient.
So these are the hurtboxes:

1) shoulder

2) armpit

3)
neck, already present.

4) Between thigh and pelvis -> hip and groin

5)
the arm and forearm hitboxes should be separated, as well as the thigh and leg hitboxes.
In this way we can use them for collisions and to decide which armor protects a particular area of the body better than another.
A gauntlet that starts from the shoulder and reaches up to the hand will protect both the hitboxes of the arm and the forearm, vice versa a iron plates on the glove will come to protect the forearm, but not the arm.
The accumulation of protection would make certain areas more protected and others less.

6) from point 4 other hitboxes can be deduced: the joint between arm and forearm, the elbow joint , and that of the knee joint(an adventurer would be forced to retreat if hit here)

7) Hurtbox of the chest (heart and lungs) separated from the hurtbox of the belly (often the armor tends to cover both of these hurtboxes, but we have seen how certain bigans dressed in skins tend to have their chests uncovered and their bellies covered)

8 ) the pelvis should have a hurtbox separate from the torso, so that one acts as a low hurtbox and the other as a high abdominal hurtbox (belly + chest).
Furthermore, you could separate the two slots for the armor and create armor both that occupy both slots and the individual slots (there would be both more customization both in terms of aesthetics and in terms of protection).
The hutbox of the pelvis contains an additional hurtbox which is that of the genitals (for the nutshot), which are generally covered.
In general in the pelvis area we have these hutboxes: the pelvis, the groin (joint) and the genitals.

9) hip-torso joint, which is often where the armor leaves a small gap (not all armor leaves that gap)For example, a waistband, inserted in the slot of the pelvis, will occupy only the pelvis slot and only a part of that of the torso (the belly), covering this hip-torso joint.

10) the foot (as armor slot) and the joint between leg and foot = ankle.

Now let's break it down into armor and joint slots:

ARMOR SLOTS :head, shoulders, arm, forearm,hand, chest, belly, pelvis (+ genitals), thigh, leg, foot

JOINTS SLOTS
: face area (depending on whether covered or not, but the helmet is removable as we have already said), neck, armpit, elbow, belly-pelvis, groin, knee, ankle.

NOTE: The various armor slots can cover some joints, moreover more armor slots can cover the same joint, cumulating their effects (properties and effects will be discussed below, in the appropriate section).

Here there is an image that show the base armor and joints slots of a body:


and here some examples of how the armor pieces putted in the slot cover the hurtboxes and how differently they protect the hurtboxes based on the different type of armor pieces are equipped


as you can see in this image the arm is not covered by the shoulder armor piece because if this were the case the engine would do so to cover the arm whatever the type of piece of armor worn on the shoulder. If you wanted to have a differentiation of the protection by ensuring that the piece of armor worn in the shoulder also protects the upper part of the arm, then the shockbox of the arm should be divided into several parts, specifically 3, two on the upper part (one towards the 'external joint to the shoulder and the other internal one near the armpit) and the third joint to these 2 and to the elbow.





QUALITATIVE ESTIMATE ON ARCHERS VS ARCHERS, NEW SYSTEM (after introducing everything):

Let's assume that our system is introduced and that our plate armor protects us so well that the arrows that hit the armor deal 1 damage, while those that hit the uncovered hurtboxes come to cover damage that depends on the hitbox, suppose 15-20 damage on uncovered hurtboxes.
We can estimate that a good 85% of the body is well covered by armor and this means that the same archers as before have a 15% chance of inflicting significant damage on us.
So only about 1 out of 6 arrows will hit us doing 15-20 damage and this means that to kill us it will take at least 30 arrows (in case of 20 damage on hurtbox uncovered).
If instead we assume that the arrows on covered areas inflict 0 damage and that our character is on horseback and therefore our legs are quite covered together with the hurtboxes of the pelvis (covered), then we would only have a 10% or less chance of being hit. .

With 20 damage on exposed joints it would take 50 arrows to take us down.
And if we consider that the joints may not all have the same damage (because some are more vital and others less), then the number of arrows needed to kill us increases.

Thus 3 problems are partially solved:
1) cavalry which during a frontal charge is cut down by archers
2) infantryman with a 2-handed weapon (falxman or berserker) who finds himself against an archer risks being killed easily.
If, before, the archer simply aimed at any part of the infantryman's body to be sure to hit him, now he will have to aim well at an exposed part or he will not be able to kill him before resorting to the melee weapon to defend himself.
This situation has such dynamic in "1vs1".
Considering instead the case of 20 archers and 20 infantry men advancing in non-wide two-line formation, then the archer has a greater chance of hitting an enemy, since if the one in the front line is missing, perhaps the arrow could hit the one in second line.
3) it is not necessary to make the shield hurtbox larger than the 3d model of the shield, as the armor probably covers that part of the body.

NOTE:In case you have doubts about a possible imbalance between footed infantry with shields and archers, I suggest this other thread of mine that would introduce a further balance.
From the link’s title you should guess what it is.
[POLL] SHIELD + STUCKED PROJECTILE = ENCUMBRANCE
There is a poll, so it will be appreciate if you vote.

Having said all that, I could end the thread here and what I wrote as a suggestion would be enough, so what I will write now is optional but I would be happy if you read it.

The concepts I want to deal with are:
collision detection.
types of armor and effects in game.


COLLISION DETECTION: RISKS AND SOLUTIONS.
When a weapon hitbox collides with a hurtbox, if the weapon passes through the model, there is a risk that it will hit the other hurtboxes and there is a cascade of damage that shouldn't be there.

The methods I suggest to balance this problem are three:

A) Once the weapon hits a part of the body, it is affected by the impact, bounces and therefore does not cross the model.

B) once the first hurtbox of the model is hit, the collision for the other hutboxes of the model are not detected, therefore the weapon while crossing the model does not detect additional collisions.

C) The number of collisions detected must depend on the momentum the weapon possesses.
During impact with each of the hurtboxes the weapon must lose momentum, to the point where impact with a hurtboxes does not allow it to pass through. In this way, based on the type of weapon in play and the character's statistics, you would have a greater or lesser ability to cross multiple hurtboxes and chain attacks. In extreme cases with a single attack you could cross all the hurtboxes of a shirtless enemy and also hit the enemy close to him, vice versa if you hit an enemy with plate armor or chain mail you will certainly not be able to cross the 'hurtbox.

So which method?

Method A is realistic, but tends to reduce the frequency of use of chained attacks, which can therefore only be used as "pseudo feints" to attack.

Method B allows you to detect impacts with the hurtboxes of other models that are hit by the same animation and therefore allows you to use chained attacks.

Method C works like method A when the momentum is low, for example because you did not have much of it at the start or because you hit an enemy in heavy armor, or because the first enemy you hit and of which you are through all the hurtboxes (it was unarmored) it still absorbed a lot of momentum and now the weapon does not cross the next enemy's hutboxes.
So if more enemies are without armor or with light armor or the momentum of our weapon is really high, then we can cut cleanly an enemy and hit the next one too, otherwise if the enemies are well protected or we have not impressed much momentum of the weapon, the shots will not cross the hurtboxes.

I prefer method C, it offers more possibilities and contains method A along with the advantages of method B.


TYPES OF ARMOR, PROPERTIES AND CUMULATION EFFECTS:
There is already a differentiation between the types of armor in the game, but I see that it is developed in reference to the current system of hurtbox and armor slot and therefore only brings a mathematical formula for the reduction of the damage in the points where the hitbox of the weapon collides with those of the armor, but on 100% of the hurtboxes of the body covered by an armor that would not actually cover 100% of the body since it would leave uncovered joints, and these functions seem to have an exponential trend with exponent greater than 1 for low values of armor and that becomes less than 1 towards high armor values, thus passing from an exponential to an irrational trend which however tends to keep almost equally unprotective armor with ranges ranging from 0 to 30 ... which is quite annoying in game.

This means that low or medium armor values have damage reduction that is quite small (to the point where some wonder if armor below 25 defense is of any use).

This happens precisely because there are no "discovered" hurtboxes that would give the opportunity to drastically change these formulas in such a way as to greatly increase the protection in the covered areas and make it very vulnerable where it is not covered ..
As you have read above, a plate armor that receives a dart or an arrow, or a thrust of a spear or sword, tends to convert what is initially a piercing damage into a blunt one and also tends to increase the surface in which the energy is transmitted from the weapon to the armor.
When the plate is hit by the arrow, having a certain mass (the plate), in the impact it will acquire a given momentum and consequently it will move going to collide with the body (if there is nothing else under the plate or there is only a very light fabric) and this will be exchanged with the body of the wearer of the armor, producing blunt damage which, however, is not well absorbed by anything other than the possible bending of the plate (the energy is dispersed by dissipating through the oscillations due to to the bending of the metal).
To reduce them it is necessary to wear something that "like a spring" absorbs part of the energy and which, being soft and with an extended structure, disperses the energy throughout its structure, thus reducing what is absorbed by the body.
This something can be one or more layers of clothing, or a gamberson.

To take into account the above, I have thought of 2 quantities to be associated with the armor that take into account both the type of damage arriving, and the type of armor and clothing worn and through these two quantities we obtain the amount of damage suffered and that type of damage you suffer.

The two quantities are:
DAMAGE ABSORPTION: It is the percentage of damage that is absorbed by the equipment and that does not reach the body.
DAMAGE CONVERSION: It is the percentage of damage that is converted to another type before the absorption calculation.

Conversions and absorption occur first for the outermost equipment and then for the innermost ones.

TYPES OF ABSORPTION:
cut = CA
perforation
= PA
blunt
= BA

TYPES OF CONVERSIONS:
from CUT to BLUNT
= (C → B)
from PERFORATION to BLUNT
= (P → B)
The sum of the damage conversions cannot be greater than 1.
Therefore (C → B) + (P → B) <= 1






DURABILITY OF THE ARMOR:
The durability of the armor is an indication of its condition and therefore efficiency.
The higher the durability of the armor, the better it absorbs and converts damage.
Specifically, I wrote a thread about the durability of the armor and the variation of their efficiency as a function of durability (it is not a linear function, don't worry).
I'll put the link there, so you can take a look at us and go into more detail about the system.
SMITHING SKILL, EQUIPMENT DETERIORATION and MAINTENANCE system, PRICE BALANCE.

If you've read the durability thread, then we can very well tie the percentage reduction of damage conversion and damage absorption quantities to the formula for equipment deterioration.

For example by substituting the formula:
CURRENT ARMOR = MAX ARMOR * C (x)

of the section "ARMOR CALCULATION FORMULA AND DETERIORATION CURVE".
of the thread on equipment deterioration,
with the following two formulas:

CURRENT ABSORBTION = max absorbtion * C (x)
CURRENT CONVERSION = max conversion * C (x)


which give us the values of damage absorption and damage conversion of the armor according to its condition.

QUALITATIVE EXAMPLES(open the spoiler):
In these qualitative examples I associate the absorption and conversion values of the various damage to each part of the armor and fix the damage that a blow would inflict on a character without armor and finally calculate the final damage and how it is divided into the various types.
Clearly the absorption and conversion values are arbitrary but reasoned (I hope), so in case you do some tests with values you have attributed that you suppose are fine.
But keep in mind that in the uncovered hurtboxes all these accounts are useless because the damage is maximum.


the examples will have the following structure:
-armor considered: describes the equipment with associated values
-Equipment Used: Describes which of the armor items considered are used if the armor considered is more than 1
-calculus: do the math.


Armor considered:
plate armor:

cut absorption: 100%
perforation absorption: 100%
blunt absorption: 66%
damage conversion from slash to blunt: 50%
damage conversion from piercing to bludgeoning: 10%

calculus:
- a hit that would remove 100 piercing damage would instead deal:
conversion from armor-piercing to blunt: 10% => from 100 to 90 armor-piercing + 10 blunt
Piercing Damage Absorption: 100% => 90 to 0 piercing damage.
bludgeoning damage absorption: 66% => 10 bludgeoning damage to (10-6.6) approximately (10-7) = 3 bludgeoning damage
total suffered: 3


- a hit that would deal 100 slash damage:
slash to blunt conversion: 66% => 100 slash damage to 50 slash + 50 bludgeon
cutting damage absorption: 100% => 50 to 0.
blunt damage absorption: 66% => 50 to (50-34) = 16
Total suffered: 16 damage.


- a hit that would inflict 100 bludgeoning damage:
bludgeoning damage absorption: 66% => 100 to (100-66) = 33 bludgeoning damage.
total suffered: 33 blunt damage


This damage occurs where the Hurtbox is covered.

In the uncovered hurtboxes, however, very high damage is taken.

In the case of bullets, hitting one of the uncovered joints from a distance will be unlikely and from near the difficulty is not as low as it is thought, since if the probability of hitting already depends on the area exposed to the risk, it is also necessary to consider any sudden movements, aimed at avoiding the bullet.

Armor considered:
chain mail:
cut absorption: 100%
perforation absorption: 10%
blunt absorption: 10%
blunt to blunt conversion: 30%
conversion from piercing to blunt: 5%

gamberson:
cut absorption: 15%
perforation absorption: 50%
blunt absorption: 66%
blunt to blunt conversion: 60%
conversion from piercing to blunt: 20%

equipment used:
chain mail (external) + gamberson (internal) involves first the conversion of the damage related to the chain mail, and after absorbing the damage the calculation on what has not been absorbed but has been converted is carried out on the gamberson, therefore it applies conversion again and finally absorption.

Calculus:
If a hit that would cause 100 slash damage hit a chain mail armor and gamberson the final damage would be:
(chainmail) slash to blunt conversion: 30% => 100 to 30, 70 slash damage remains
(chainmail) cut damage absorption: 100% => 70 cut to 0 cut.
(chainmail) blunt absorption: 10% => 30 damage to (30-3) = 27 damage.
(gamberson) bludgeoning absorption: 66% => 27 damage to (27-1:cool: = 9 bludgeoning damage
total suffered: 9 bunt damage

But this only happens in the hurtboxes covered by these armor.


Armor considered:
studded leather (yes I know it has never been used, the weapons pass between the rivets .. and in fact it sucks as you can see):
cut absorption: 33%
perforation absorption: 10%
blunt absorption: 33%
Cut to blunt conversion: 33%
conversion from piercing to blunt: 20%

calculus:
suppose you hit a thrust of a fairly large sword, inflicting 60 piercing and 30 slashing and 10 bludgeoning damage, in total 100.
cut to blunt conversion: 33% => from 30 cut damageto (10 blunt + 20 cut)
conversion from piercing to blunt: 20% => from 60 piercing to (12 blunt + 48 piercing)
slash absorption: 33% => 20 to (20-7) = 14 slash damage.
piercing absorption: 33% => 48 to (48-5) = 43 piercing damage.
blunt absorption: 33% => from (10 + 10 + 12 = 32 to (32-11) = 21
total damage sum: 14 + 43 + 21 = 78 total damage.
total suffeed: 78 damage

(does not protect well even where there is armor)


Armor considered:
boiled leather (cuir bouilli)

cut absorption = 50%
perforation absorption = 10%
blunt absorption: 40%
cut to blunt conversion: 33%
conversion from piercing to blunt: 20%

calculus:
suppose the attack inflicts 80 cut damage and 20 blunt damage
cut to blunt conversion: 33% =>from 80 cut damage to (54 cut damage +20+ 26 blunt damage)
perforation to blunt damage:20% => we have no perforation damage so it will remain 54 cut damage + 46 blunt damage
cut absorbtion=> from 54 to 27
blunt absorbtion=> from 46 to 27
total damage sum: 27 cut damage + 27 blunt damage = 54
total suffered: 54

All the values written above are estimates entered for examples only, but trying to make reasonable considerations.



CONSIDERATION ABOUT THE TYPE OF DAMAGE:
If the damage of the weapons in the game is not divided into "cut (C), piercing (P), blunt (B)" types because its "subdivision" is perhaps linked to physical quantities, the problem can be solved without changing the nature of the system in play.
The damage of a weapon is that number calculated on the basis of the momentum of the weapon on an enemy without protection and keeping constant the various multiplicative coefficients which are functions of some statistics or perk.
By associating this damage with a function that divides it into components C, P, B according to the "shape of the weapon" and the collision detected in the impacts between hitboxes and hurtboxes, then we can divide the damage into 3 types without altering the way in which the game calculates the damage.
If a weapon hits with a very thick and wide hitboxes, with an almost flat impact surface (or with a slight curvature), the damage will be mostly blunt type (if not totally) => hammer / sledgehammer.
A weapon whose width and thickness are very small compared to its length, which is not sharpened on the sides and which strikes with the tip, will have predominantly piercing damage.
A weapon with a non-negligible length, a small thickness and a width of 4-5 cm that hits with the side not equipped with a blade (flat) will have mostly blunt damage but a very small cutting component cannot be excluded.
The same type of weapon mentioned above which instead of having the flat side has a sharpening, identifiable with a variation in thickness as you move along the width axis, then will have main cutting component.



OPTIONAL:
In calculating the damage, before applying the conversion and absorption, the method described in the case of bullets could also be adopted, using the angle and therefore considering the cosine of the absolute value of the angle as a multiplicative coefficient.
After applying this, conversion and absorption are applied.


about some hurtboxes:
The hurtboxes inherent to: head, neck, heart (in case a separate hurtbox should be introduced) and genitals, can be considered "vital" and therefore a different multiplicative factor for damage could be associated with them. (I leave these considerations to the developers, I just wanted not to leave them on the back burner)



CONCLUSION:
This system in addition to balancing the relationship between ranged units and melee units, also balances the relationship between the khuzait and the other factions since the khuzait are predominantly archers.
It will be necessary to equip the recruits with a minimum of protection (at least in the torso), otherwise the armies composed only of recruits will be annihilated too quickly.
But if we do not consider the recruits but any other unit with a minimum of protection, then the clashes will be slower and the lines of men will be more resistant even in close combat since the probability of being hit in an open area is proportionally inverse of the protection they wear and the quality of the equipment.
This will allow you to have time to prepare pincer maneuvers and other actions that you don't have time to perform in a too fast fight with too weak units.
Furthermore, as developers, you will be able to focus more on making morale come into play in a more present way, as a greater resistance of men also means more time available to both armies to bring down the morale of the opponent. .
And if the loss of morale is also linked to the number of allies that are lost in the vicinity, then a greater resistance of men also implies the loss of a few of them turns out to be a serious blow to the morale of their comrades.


If you've read the topic, please contribute with your vote in the poll at the beginning of the thread.

e thread, vote on the poll
 
Last edited:

geala

Sergeant at Arms
I see where you're coming from. Partly good thoughts but I think it would be rather complicated to introduce such an elaborated hitbox system. I don't know wether all the necessary data could be measured and calculated.

In my opinion we could live with the current hitboxes (head, shoulder, arms, breast, abdomen, legs) if there would be some random factors and a method to decide "penetration or not". The decision about penetration all depended on speed during hit. If the system could get the data about speed of hit, a rough fixed penetration model could be made per armor material. The quality of the armor could be expressed by the numbers of armor resistance (a metal helmet is not like all other metal helmets, there can be a 30 armor and a 50 armor helmet of the same form, but differently made).

For example, arrow with 80 pierce damage hits head with helmet on. Like in Kenshi there should be a random protection factor, let's say 75 % for a helmet without visor. So there's an 1:3 chance of full damage (I know that many people don't like randomness, but combat is very much about luck, aka random events). If the game rolls "helmet hit" it should calculate "penetration or not", depending on the speed and damage style of the arrow, the material and the armor rating of the armor. If no penetration, a very small amount of damage should be applied as blunt damage, lets say 5 damage (because blunt damage on rigid surfaces is negligible except the hitting object is very heavy, like a poleaxe head). If penetration is the result, 75% (or so) of the damage should be applied (simulating the energy loss from penetration). So you could get 5 to 80 damage from a head hit, as in "real life" ...

And so on. For some regions of the body a random critical factor should be defined. It is a big difference if an arrow hits the belly and penetrates the guts only or if it hits a big blood vessel. The former means slow death in the old times or survival in our times or fantasy worlds with good health care, the latter means quick incapacitation and death. So there could be a random 10% factor of critical damage in the abdominal and maybe 20% in the chest area.

But you know, I bet we will have the current system in the released game. :mrgreen: So they should just redefine, with the primitive formulas used in effect, how damage is related to the armor materials and numbers, as done in some mods (Custom Damage the best of it, in my opinion).
 
I see where you're coming from. Partly good thoughts but I think it would be rather complicated to introduce such an elaborated hitbox system. I don't know wether all the necessary data could be measured and calculated.

In my opinion we could live with the current hitboxes (head, shoulder, arms, breast, abdomen, legs) if there would be some random factors and a method to decide "penetration or not". The decision about penetration all depended on speed during hit. If the system could get the data about speed of hit, a rough fixed penetration model could be made per armor material. The quality of the armor could be expressed by the numbers of armor resistance (a metal helmet is not like all other metal helmets, there can be a 30 armor and a 50 armor helmet of the same form, but differently made).

For example, arrow with 80 pierce damage hits head with helmet on. Like in Kenshi there should be a random protection factor, let's say 75 % for a helmet without visor. So there's an 1:3 chance of full damage (I know that many people don't like randomness, but combat is very much about luck, aka random events). If the game rolls "helmet hit" it should calculate "penetration or not", depending on the speed and damage style of the arrow, the material and the armor rating of the armor. If no penetration, a very small amount of damage should be applied as blunt damage, lets say 5 damage (because blunt damage on rigid surfaces is negligible except the hitting object is very heavy, like a poleaxe head). If penetration is the result, 75% (or so) of the damage should be applied (simulating the energy loss from penetration). So you could get 5 to 80 damage from a head hit, as in "real life" ...

And so on. For some regions of the body a random critical factor should be defined. It is a big difference if an arrow hits the belly and penetrates the guts only or if it hits a big blood vessel. The former means slow death in the old times or survival in our times or fantasy worlds with good health care, the latter means quick incapacitation and death. So there could be a random 10% factor of critical damage in the abdominal and maybe 20% in the chest area.

But you know, I bet we will have the current system in the released game. :mrgreen: So they should just redefine, with the primitive formulas used in effect, how damage is related to the armor materials and numbers, as done in some mods (Custom Damage the best of it, in my opinion).

My suggestion is to avoid using an RNG-based system and also avoid relying heavily on "scaling" the armor value in the individual equipment (even if present). My idea is to increase the number of hurtboxes and leave some "unprotected" in such a way that the clash between two opponents is based on their ability to hit those weak points and to exploit the techniques at their disposal to let the enemy discover that weakness. In addition, the problems related to arrows and projectiles, ie the fact that certain heavily equipped units are annihilated by arrows, is resolved.
In fact, altering only the armor value or introducing only a coefficient to the current hurtboxes to deal with this problem has a consequence: that alteration also affects the melee and this leads to an imbalance between the melee units. It also tends to make 1vs1 combat less tactical, since while the damage is slightly localized, the hurtboxes are so few and the localization of damage is so mild that even spamming attacks regardless of where you are hitting still has a positive result.
Furthermore, the risk (which already exists and is evident in the game) is that of having an infantry whose armor seems to have no effectiveness and infantry lines that last at most 1 or 2 minutes, not even giving the time to prepare advanced maneuvers.
My suggestion is precisely to avoid this.
I do not think that the increase in the number of hurtboxes leads to a greater influx of data, since, if after the first collision the following ones were not detected (by the developer's choice), then the collisions would depend only on the frequency of the attacks, which is not linked to the number of hurtboxes or hitboxes. If, on the other hand, the number of maximum detectable collisions is greater than 1, this would be the responsibility of the machine, but one could work on the number of the collisions to balance everything. For example, in the case of hurtboxes of different models, in the event that a blow crosses a model (without dia rmature therefore) and hits the other, a single collision could be detected for each of them, so as not to burden the calculations too much.

For example, arrow with 80 pierce damage hits head with helmet on. Like in Kenshi there should be a random protection factor, let's say 75 % for a helmet without visor. So there's an 1:3 chance of full damage (I know that many people don't like randomness, but combat is very much about luck, aka random events)
As you can read in the "helmet flies away" section, I don't eliminate randomness, but confine it to dynamics.
Which in practical terms means: the angle at which it hits the head determines how much damage the blow does and whether the emo flies away. Since the collision will still be detected, at this point it is also convenient to detect the impact angle and through a special function (I suggested the square of the cosine of the absolute value of the angle) a coefficient is obtained that multiplies the reinforcement value of the 'helmet, so hits that come in perfectly straight lead to more impact and fly the helmet, while hits that come at a wide angle inflict little damage and don't fly the helmet (developers could add an animation of the arrow which is deflected and slips away).
Clearly the angle with which the arrow will impact can hardly be decided with precision both by the archer and by who will be hit, which implies a randomness that depends on the situation in which one is and not arbitrary.
The randomness is reduced the more the two opponents will try to exploit their position and knowledge of mechanics to hit the enemy with a small angle and the other to move in such a way as to prevent this angle from being too small.
( normally the opponent will tend to dodge the arrow rather than being hit at a large angle)
 
I agree that this suggestion is a viable fix to the game's ranged damage issues.

My concern is that it's overly complex for a game of bannerlord's scope.
 
I agree that this suggestion is a viable fix to the game's ranged damage issues.

My concern is that it's overly complex for a game of bannerlord's scope.
For the player there is nothing complex, indeed it is just the opposite.
The brain generally understands better what is obvious and intuitive.
If in game you hit the enemy's armor and the enemy seems to suffer nothing, the brain immediately understands that "this is normal to happen".
And if you hit bare skin and severely injure it the brain says "it's obvious".
But if you see the heavily protected enemy in game and then the armor, apparentrly heavy, is instead made of "paper" and you do a lot of damage, the brain says "there is something wrong".
In other cases, however, you do so little damage that the brain says, "but that other armor, similar to this in appearance, sucks in comparison."

Here, I have tried to eliminate these inconsistencies and make the combat system more based on the player's ability to hit the weak points than on mere numerical parameters.
 
For the player there is nothing complex, indeed it is just the opposite.
The brain generally understands better what is obvious and intuitive.
If in game you hit the enemy's armor and the enemy seems to suffer nothing, the brain immediately understands that "this is normal to happen".
And if you hit bare skin and severely injure it the brain says "it's obvious".
But if you see the heavily protected enemy in game and then the armor, apparentrly heavy, is instead made of "paper" and you do a lot of damage, the brain says "there is something wrong".
In other cases, however, you do so little damage that the brain says, "but that other armor, similar to this in appearance, sucks in comparison."

Here, I have tried to eliminate these inconsistencies and make the combat system more based on the player's ability to hit the weak points than on mere numerical parameters.
All of the following criteria would have to be met:
1. Armors would have to be specifically programmed so that they took different amounts of damage in different locations, and these checks would all be the same for different damage types.
2. AI would have to be programmed to attack vulnerable armor spots
3. AI would have to be programmed to defend vulnerable spots
4. The above would need to run on an below average gaming PC
5. The above would need to not take away programmer resources working on essential bannerlord content
6. The above would need to result in more sales revenue than it cost.

Now, I'm not a professional programmer but the above seems impossible for a game based on 500v500 battles.
 
4. The above would need to run on an below average gaming PC
What is a "Below avarage Gaming PC"? In my world, Bannerlord in it´s current state does not run on such a computer. I agree though, here is probably the bottleneck for this suggestion. We would likely go passed the "Avarage Gaming PC" for minimum requirement here.
5. The above would need to not take away programmer resources working on essential bannerlord content
That´s a question of prioritation.
6. The above would need to result in more sales revenue than it cost.
Some features are for sales. Some for quality. Quality might or might not have a direct link to profit but it´s a great way to feed the ambassadors of the game which can be worth alot! If the most active and most watched streamers asks for this feature, it can be worth alot! But I don't thnik they do, honestly. They asks for cheats and shortcuts.
 
1. Armors would have to be specifically programmed so that they took different amounts of damage in different locations, and these checks would all be the same for different damage types.
It is not a question of programming the armor as if it were a single piece but of dividing the armors into the parts they are made of and associating each part with an armor slot that they will cover.
Each part will be associated with the damage conversion coefficients (from cut to blunt and from piercing to blunt) and damage absorption (cut, piercing and blunt) depending on the type of material and structure of the armor (going by type, nothing complicated).
For example, chain mail will tend to convert much of the cut damage into blunt damage.
The remaining slash damage will be completely absorbed, while the blunt damage only partially.
It is not very different from what we do now, the only difference is that you have to raise these defenses a lot so as not to make this increase in hurtboxes useless.
In general, the only difference in terms of gameplay is that at the shopkeeper you would find either more pieces of armor, or armor that tells you which hurtboxes they cover.
2. AI would have to be programmed to attack vulnerable armor spots
This is true, but I don't think it's very complicated.
Attacks occur either horizontally or vertically.
What the AI has to do is rotate the horizontal and vertical plane to ensure that a point of the hitbox is found along the trajectory of the weapon, lying on the plane.
Work that I suppose the AI already does because the localized damage in play is already present and therefore, if I am not too optimistic, the AI is already programmed to exploit in its favor any points less protected than the enemy.
3. AI would have to be programmed to defend vulnerable spots
If such work is necessary then it should be done, but the AI already defends itself by all means it has from the directions from which attacks are coming.
I don't think we need to do anything in this case, because the work has already been done.
4. The above would need to run on an below average gaming PC
the system would run either lowering the graphics quality or reducing the maximum battle size.
Or by optimizing the collision check method of weapon hitboxes with character's hurtboxes
5. The above would need to not take away programmer resources working on essential bannerlord content
"essential bannerlord content".
This thread talks about the armor system, the heart of the gameplay, or at least the action part in a direct way, and that of balancing the units at war in a less direct way.

No content can be more essential than the part of gameplay that takes up 50% of the player's time, the combat system.
(assuming it is no more than 50% and assuming the other half has moved on to planning the economy, strategies on the campaign map and buying butter)
6. The above would need to result in more sales revenue than it cost.
The cost is not high and if I have to be honest, foresight should push them to create a combat system that cannot be questioned, in order to be able to focus on the rest and save over time, as well as giving their community a deep and solid fighting system in which to have fun while waiting for other improvements.
Now, I'm not a professional programmer but the above seems impossible for a game based on 500v500 battles.
An estimate made in another thread with other users has led to the result that if the game currently holds up to about 2000 units, it would be enough to bring this number to 1/3 (keeping the rest of the options at the maximum level).
So it could go with 600 vs 600.
 

Ailliau

Recruit
I completely disagree and my argument is as follows: In my own experience playing the game which steam has clocked at 325 hours mostly spent in tournaments early game in single player. from that perspective I think that this game is stylistically more dependent on character and item stats and traits than the players skill for its combat system as i usually find that my own abilities in playing the game are hampered severely by a low level character primarily in the realm of movement speed and attack speed. I feel like I would only be hampered further in the early and mid stages by such a complex system as i usually find myself struggling to get a hit off at all having to usually pass a shield and a developed opponents own faster attack speed and movement speed. which means that they can crowd inside my reach and attack fast enough to beat my counter attack or shield bash in some cases. having to aim for a much smaller target such as the neck and armpit in addition to that would be very aggravating until very late in the game, and i feel that the accuracy of the archers gives some clue as to how easily the ai would be able to attack those weak points on myself.

Archers are also my biggest gripe when it comes to armor effectiveness. the most basic padded armor is more than enough to completely negate a rock thrown by hand. the neck is the real weak spot when it comes to projectile damage not the head provided you have some kind of metal helmet on.

Also in real life the damage of a projectile decreases the moment that it begins to drop on a flat trajectory which means that crossbows have a higher range of "Maximum" dammage because they have a much higher draw weight than a bow but a bow has a longer effective range per pound or draw weight because of a more aerodynamic and lighter projectile. but both have much to great damage at long range against armored targets. the ai shoots at things at the greatest distance the weapon can possibly reach and hits them. I think a simple missile resistance increase according to armor tier is the way to go for that coupled with a negative missile resistance based on closer distance to target.
 
I completely disagree and my argument is as follows: In my own experience playing the game which steam has clocked at 325 hours mostly spent in tournaments early game in single player. from that perspective I think that this game is stylistically more dependent on character and item stats and traits than the players skill for its combat system as i usually find that my own abilities in playing the game are hampered severely by a low level character primarily in the realm of movement speed and attack speed. I feel like I would only be hampered further in the early and mid stages by such a complex system as i usually find myself struggling to get a hit off at all having to usually pass a shield and a developed opponents own faster attack speed and movement speed. which means that they can crowd inside my reach and attack fast enough to beat my counter attack or shield bash in some cases. having to aim for a much smaller target such as the neck and armpit in addition to that would be very aggravating until very late in the game, and i feel that the accuracy of the archers gives some clue as to how easily the ai would be able to attack those weak points on myself.
1) it is true that the game is calibrated on statistics and traits, but also on equipment.
2) being of "low level" and having problems in surviving the fights, is linked precisely to the fact that the game currently depends too much on arbitrary and unrealistic numerical parameters.
At low levels, you are not without armor.
And if you are at the beginning it doesn't take long to get something.
Currently the game assigns low armor values to armor because there are few hurtboxes.
The risk of having high armor values would be to prolong the clashes by making the characters harder or to recall that a certain character with very strong armor becomes practically invulnerable.
This is because the hurtboxes are few and all can be covered and therefore would not have weak points.
So the developers are forced to decrease the armor value to address these two problems.

If instead you used the system described above at low levels and with an armor that really protects the AI you would have to hit those exposed points, as you too should do with it, but both would be prone to errors due to the fact that both models they move.
Basically, AI, while it's made to hit you and hurt you, isn't tuned to be perfect.
And in this case, if it were calibrated for perfection, it could not reach it because your movements would take place after the departure of its attacks, calibrated to hit a point that was in another position previously.
Net of this, even if you were at a low level and he at a high level, you can still defeat him with a few hits if well aimed.
It goes without saying that if you enter a tournament without equipment and without a leveled character you cannot win, but it should be the norm.

Regarding the attack and defense system, balancing measures could still be suggested (such as a posture system that decreases the attack speed as it increases), but as soon as you talk about something like this people write "no stamina bar" as if it were stamina.

Also, in case you are surrounded by 2-3 enemies and all of you are well protected, you could focus on one of them in particular and while fighting with him you move to perform the attack animations and these bring your hurtboxes in. different positions with respect to the trajectories of the attacks of the other two enemies, which partly protects you and allows you to face a battle 1 Vs 2-3.
Currently in play such a thing although possible is annoying and difficult.
Wherever they hit you they take away a lot and stop your attacks.
I would prefer to make these confrontations more balanced and discourage spam.

Archers are also my biggest gripe when it comes to armor effectiveness. the most basic padded armor is more than enough to completely negate a rock thrown by hand. the neck is the real weak spot when it comes to projectile damage not the head provided you have some kind of metal helmet on.

Also in real life the damage of a projectile decreases the moment that it begins to drop on a flat trajectory which means that crossbows have a higher range of "Maximum" dammage because they have a much higher draw weight than a bow but a bow has a longer effective range per pound or draw weight because of a more aerodynamic and lighter projectile. but both have much to great damage at long range against armored targets. the ai shoots at things at the greatest distance the weapon can possibly reach and hits them. I think a simple missile resistance increase according to armor tier is the way to go for that coupled with a negative missile resistance based on closer distance to target.
Let's say this thread was born to solve the problem you posed regarding archers.
Archers aim is great at "hitting the whole model", but not "a specific point", because even if that were the case, that specific point would move over time as the whole model moves.
In reality, with the system of the base game the problem posed by you arises and with what I propose the problem is reduced with the increase of the protections worn (understood as the number of hurtboxes covered).
However, the game is calibrated to make the archers more or less precise.
If necessary they make them less precise ... although I do not think it is necessary with the system I propose.
From the distance they would not be able to aim in the right places and from close range they would still have considerable difficulties.
 
Top Bottom