Shall we talk about the paper armors?

[Bluko88]

armor mitigation should feel rewarding, this is a main drive in RPG games, i would be fine if low tier would mitigate 1-20, medium tier 20-45 and high tier 45-75 for example, right now the best armor in the game will only mitigate around 40% damage while medium tiers closely behind will mitigate some 30-35%, it has basically no progression and make a third of armors in the game feel completely useless and not worth the effort while making high tier units weaker than the veterans clad from the head to toe they should be (this mainly affects infantry which is in a very bad spot right now lacking the range of archers, the mobility of cavalry and the tankness that should be their main strength).

I agree 40% is rather low.

65% would be a little more ideal, though from my experience anything (namely MMOs) 80%+ mitigation really just turns the game into cheese and usually creates a slew of balancing problems.

 

[vonbalt]

I agree 40% is rather low.

65% would be a little more ideal, though from my experience anything (namely MMOs) 80%+ mitigation really just turns the game into cheese and usually creates a slew of balancing problems.

I agree that no armor should make you completely invulnerable like it happened in warband of high tier armor making many attacks just bounce off your armor doing 0-1 damage but armor should be more protecting than it's now not for realism but for good gameplay and progression.

around 70~75% would be perfect to me and that's for the highest tier possible of armor in the game, of course most units would wear something with less protection.

 

[Akka]

And again if your Plate Chestpiece is hit with a large Warhammer or Mace it's going to hurt. It may not pierce your flesh in any way, but the force of the impact it still going to bruise you, may even break your ribs.

Seems to me then that it doesn't magically ignore armor but is actually heavily dampened by it.
So I rest my case, 100 % penetration is completely idiotic.

As for the formula, Fallout in 1996 could made one pretty easily : each armor had a treshold damage reduction (reducing any damage by a raw, direct number) and after that, a percentage reduction (reducing the rest of the damage by a fraction).
I could imagine the best armor in BL being something like 10 treshold, 70 % reduction afterward.

 

[wurmo]

Exactly dude, i and a few others made this suggestion before in other threads, if they are going with 3 sources or damage (cut, pierce, blunt) it's a no brainer that they should also have 3 sources of armor to counter those and create better gameplay.

In another thread i had suggested a system where armor rating was divided into deflection, absorption and hardness and each armor piece would have different ratings on each of those based on tier and visual representation, this way you could tailor your character to better protect against the most threating damage types you would typically face but no armor would be good against everything.

Maille would provide superb protection against cut, medium against pierce and low against blunt for example, the possibilities are endless in a system like this!

I know something like that would never be implemented by the devs, it doesn't pass the "can a 5y old handle it?" check so maybe modders will save the day but armor really needs a rework anyway.

This could feel more naturally.
I already wrote (another thread) that i could make sense if the energy of an attack gets calculated, and thats blunt then.
And damage can only become cutting and piercing if it gets through a certain amount of armor.
So armor could have 3 different values :

R) the Rigidity
F) the Firmness
C) the Cushioning

First R gets substracted from the damage.
If the remaining damage is from a Cutting weapon,
it gets checked against F.
Anything above F becomes Cut,
wich should result in higher damage,
while in addition ignoring C.

If the remaining damage is Pierce,
it gets checked against F also.
The damage should be higher than Blunt and lower than Cut (or depending on hit location), but F would be loweredt.

Parallel to that damage-bonus-calculation the base-damage gets calculated, wich would be the same for Blunt and Cut/ Pierce wich falls below F :
Also R gets substracted as a fixed number, but then a divider substract a percentage for C.

How could this look like ?
I compare a chain coif to a plate-helmet.
The coif gets R=0. The helmet gets R=10.
This should help against fists, stones, improvised wooden weapons.
I want them to e both equally effective against Cuts.
I give the coif an F=30.
The helmet already has an R=10, so i give only F=20 here.
Now both come along with some padding,
so i give them both C=15.

Nevertheless the helmet would be more effective against blunt,
due to it's R=10, wich gets substracted prior to C.
The helmet would be also more effective against Pierce.
Because Pierce would only lower F, but not R.

( sorry for having looked only at first pages of the thread )

 

[Bluko88]

Seems to me then that it doesn't magically ignore armor but is actually heavily dampened by it.
So I rest my case, 100 % penetration is completely idiotic.

As for the formula, Fallout in 1996 could made one pretty easily : each armor had a treshold damage reduction (reducing any damage by a raw, direct number) and after that, a percentage reduction (reducing the rest of the damage by a fraction).
I could imagine the best armor in BL being something like 10 treshold, 70 % reduction afterward.

Hmm that's an interesting way of doing things. Suppose that appropriately simulates getting hit by say a Pebble i.e. small/slow things that wouldn't damage you.

I'm not going to pretend to understand everything involved in damage calculations (nor do I want to), but I would like to see damage work more like this:

(This is with initial damage going down from 100 to 0 versus armor going up from 0 to 100)

Basically Cut gets a bonus against no armor, but a slight penalty against any armor. Pierce just straight up ignores half armor. And Blunt gets a penalty against no armor, but basically ignores most armor. So da math is...

Cut=[Damage*1.15]-(Armor*1.05)
Pierce=Damage-(Armor*0.5)
Blunt=[Damage*0.8]-(Armor*0.15)

So some actual examples:

• Swing a Falchion (58 Cut Damage) at the Torso wearing some simple cloth (5 Armor) you'll do some bonus at 61 Damage. (5% Increase)
• Fire a Steppe Bow (46 Pierce Damage) at the Torso wearing simple cloth (5 Armor) and you'll do 43 Damage. (7% Decrease)
• Use a Spiked Mace (44 Blunt Damage) at the Torso wearing simple cloth (5 Armor) and you'll do 34 Damage. (23% Decrease)

So Cut Damage is the clear winner against a lightly armored foe. But what about a lightly armored opponent i.e. some simple Leather?

• Swing a Falchion (58 Cut Damage) at the Torso wearing Leather (25 Armor) you'll do 40 Damage. (31% Decrease)
• Fire a Steppe Bow (46 Pierce Damage) at the Torso wearing Leather (25 Armor) and you'll do 34 Damage. (26% Decrease)
• Use a Spiked Mace (44 Blunt Damage) at the Torso wearing Leather (25 Armor) and you'll do 31 Damage. (29% Decrease)

Cut is still the winner, but not much. And Pierce and Blunt are about equal. But what about an armored opponent i.e. full Chainmail?

• Swing a Falchion (58 Cut Damage) at the Torso wearing Chainmail (40 Armor) you'll do 25 Damage. (43% Decrease)
• Fire a Steppe Bow (46 Pierce Damage) at the Torso wearing simple cloth (40 Armor) and you'll do 26 Damage. (57% Decrease)
• Use a Spiked Mace (44 Blunt Damage) at the Torso with Chainmail (40 Armor) and you'll do 29 Damage. (35% Decrease)

Now Cut is the loser and you're better off with Pierce or Blunt. But what about a well armored Lord i.e. quality Lamellar?

• Swing a Falchion (58 Cut Damage) at the Torso wearing Chainmail (60 Armor) you'll do 4 Damage*. (93% Decrease)
• Fire a Steppe Bow (46 Pierce Damage) at the Torso wearing simple cloth (60 Armor) and you'll do 16 Damage. (65% Decrease)
• Use a Spiked Mace (44 Blunt Damage) at the Torso with Chainmail (60 Armor) and you'll do 26 Damage. (41% Decrease)

Cut is basically ineffective and you'll have to use Pierce or preferably Blunt weapons to do any real damage.
*I suggest the Pierce attack with Swordlike weapons be equal to their Cut attack so they have a viable use against heavy armor.

So Cut is great against foes with little to no armor, but becomes increasingly less effective against well armored foes, unless the raw damage is very high. Pierce is always okay and will actually deal the most damage if the raw damage is high. Blunt isn't too good against lightly armored foes, but against heavy armor is your safest bet.

 

[vota dc]

Ah thank you for sharing. I was thinking Damage Received worked more like:

Cut Damage Received=IF(((Damage*1.1)-Armor Value)<=0,,ROUND((((Damage*1.1)-Armor Value),))
or Basically
Cut Damage Received=(Damage*1.1)-Armor Value

I thought Cut was supposed to do extra damage against unarmored/low-armored opponents.

I would definitely agree Blunt should probably be more like:
Blunt Damage=magnitude* 100/(100 + armour)-0.1*armour

So if you have the very best Armor, 60 Armor Value, and get hit by a 4 Damage Rock err you get -3.5 Damage? Hmm well LOL may be that's not a good way to go afterall.

Frankly I don't think there should be any situation in-game where getting hit by a Rock (or anything) doesn't hurt at least a little bit. Again even with the best Plate Armor I don't think getting with hit 100 Tennis Ball sized Rocks would feel very good.

Simplest approach Is kcd with 3 values for armor, It would fix the ranged combat too.

 

[Clsy]

a simple single armour value works, the problem we now have is the ridiculously high damage and its penetration

ranged can be tweaked by speed/range factor, or even damage type by changing some low tier bow into cut

 

[Helstrom]

That's a ridiculous level of irony that you're calling me a troll while being the one making personal insults and nothing factual or productive said otherwise.

Plate armour didn't exist for a long while after the 10th and the 11th century. Between your insults and demonstrated ignorance, you should have no trouble understanding why I'll be hard pressed to pay further attention to your obvious trolling.

I concur with your logic in multiples of your threads. This is not the armor of the game and it even doesn't depict the quality armor from when it was relevant.

The exhaustion shown by both is real. It only takes mere minutes to set in. When you can't fight anymore is when the rondel dagger (dagger of the 14th onwards, era of the armor in the video) goes in you back, groin, armpit or neck.

Lastly, I have been in armor and smacked around like that and will share what I experienced. They do not have points on those weapons nor are they sharp. The reason is so that the broad surface of the axes cause minimal damage to large armor surfaces. And, it still hurts like hell when using proper weighted axes, not saying there are not as I do not know. You are bruised, sore and you tear muscle. Getting a career ending move in these tourneys is a real danger and they don't fight to the death. Imagine those hits on chain mail though. One of them would be on the ground on the first hit. Really, who cares if a hit shows damage to the armor if it busts your spleen in two.

Don't get baited by the haters man.

 

[ratschbumm]

Hmm that's an interesting way of doing things. Suppose that appropriately simulates getting hit by say a Pebble i.e. small/slow things that wouldn't damage you.

I'm not going to pretend to understand everything involved in damage calculations (nor do I want to), but I would like to see damage work more like this:

(This is with initial damage going down from 100 to 0 versus armor going up from 0 to 100)
t.

Would you like to give any details about how the 1 kilo mace is doing some damage, but 1 kilo axe isn't?

 

[Clsy]

Would you like to give any details about how the 1 kilo mace is doing some damage, but 1 kilo axe isn't?

a horse weight about half ton

 

[ratschbumm]

a horse weight about half ton

sorry, did not follow. Horse speed is adding to the impulse of the weapon in the same manner as just hand.

 

[Oakenlix]

Would you like to give any details about how the 1 kilo mace is doing some damage, but 1 kilo axe isn't?

The raw weapon damage doesn't have to depend entirely on its weight though, I don't see how it's relevant here.

 

[Akka]

Hmm that's an interesting way of doing things. Suppose that appropriately simulates getting hit by say a Pebble i.e. small/slow things that wouldn't damage you.

That's the point. Scratch damage is negated by armor, and beyond that it reduces the severity. It's a pretty good way to have somewhat realistic results while keeping it simple and clear.

Basically Cut gets a bonus against no armor, but a slight penalty against any armor. Pierce just straight up ignores half armor. And Blunt gets a penalty against no armor, but basically ignores most armor. So da math is...

It's not a bad idea, but it put the armor penetration quality entirely on the type of damage, while it's more logical to have instead different kind of armor being efficient against different kind of weapons.
For example, padded armor are in fact quite better at absorbing blunt damage than piercing.

I'd stick with the Fallout method, which actually had armor having different kind of DT (damage treshold, straight up reducing damage) and DR (damage resistance, removing a percentage of the damage left) according to the type of damage. So some armor were better against rifles, other were better against lasers.
So we could for example have a chainmail shirt being :
DT 8 - DR 60 % against cutting
DT 7 - DR 50 % against blunt
DT 6 - DR 40 % against piercing
And a lamellar being :
DT 12 - DR 70 % against cutting
DT 10 - DR 60 % against piercing
DT 8 - DR 55 % against blunt

And so on.
(numbers being completely unpolished, just a spur-of-the-moment example)

 

[ratschbumm]

The raw weapon damage doesn't have to depend entirely on its weight though, I don't see how it's relevant here.

However, I do not see a way how an axe head of mass Y, moving with velocity X will deliver less damage than mace head of mass Y moving with velocity X.

 

[Oakenlix]

However, I do not see a way how an axe head of mass Y, moving with velocity X will deliver less damage than mace head of mass Y moving with velocity X.

Well that's the point, nobody has claimed that it would. It seems like you're implying that an axe does raw cut damage equal to a raw blunt damage of a mace of the same weight, but that's not the case nor should it be.

 

[ratschbumm]

Well that's the point, nobody has claimed that it would. It seems like you're implying that an axe does raw cut damage equal to a raw blunt damage of a mace of the same weight, but that's not the case nor should it be.

Don't think about cut or blunt. Think about damage. If math doesn't show enough, just imagine same blow with same axe, but first time with butt and second with its bit. Best if you can get an axe and go to the tree to check.

 

[Oakenlix]

Don't think about cut or blunt. Think about damage. If math doesn't show enough, just imagine same blow with same axe, but first time with butt and second with its bit. Best if you can get an axe and go to the tree to check.

I agree that an axe will do more damage than a mace of equal weight, I just don't think it proves any point you're trying to make.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Ah yes, naked I take 90 damage of my HP and die from the next hit, but now with this amazing max armor I take only 60 damage and die from the next hit.

lol.

 

[ratschbumm]

I agree that an axe will do more damage than a mace of equal weight, I just don't think it proves any point you're trying to make.

In than case, please clarify, should target with armor 55 receive any damage from axe, according to the picture I started with?

 

[Oakenlix]

In than case, please clarify, should target with armor 55 receive any damage from axe, according to the picture I started with?

You do realize it depends on the axe's base damage value?