Vigilantes > Suggestions & Feedback
Possible Changes to armour - your thoughts!
Daithi:
Have been considering making some changes to armour, for a while, would like to get your thoughts.
Currently, armour provides 100% (of the relevant protection) until it hits <50% condition. Then it provides 25% + condition%.
I'm considering giving armour slightly better protection %, and have that protection degrade in a linear fashion. So, at 50% condition, it gives 50% protection. Damage to armour will have a more pronounced effect on its ability to absorb damage. The main reason I'd like to do this is to add a small, extra dimension to combat: the tactic of damaging armour to soften up targets.
Building on this, blunt weapons would do more armour damage, and would likely replace the passive for blunt weapons to give a chance to do even more damage. Enemies don't have armour yet, but they will probably get it (if they have a high enough equipment level) in this update. Another effect of this would be further differentiation of melee weapon types (unarmed, bladed, blunt) which is something I think is needed.
Nomad:
I like it.
If armour is at 79% health/condition, then it delivers 79% of it's bonus. Makes sense. Straightforward implementation that will translate as the armour deteriorates.
May suggest that rather than have blunt weapons do more damage to armour, have them ignore a certain amount of it.
Eg: a wrench ignores 60% of armour.
Game calculates the Maximum of 0% and [current armour condition] minus 60%. Then it works out how effective the armour is at reducing the incoming damage (with a minimum armour effectiveness of zero).
I guess it comes down to how the condition of the armour itself is reduced. Is it based on the damage it takes instead of the character? In that case, I recommend the method above. If it takes damage based on how much damage the character takes, then I'll recommend another method. =)
Oh... as a side note... doesn't one of the armour upgrades give a bonus versus melee? If the armour is set up to handle blunt trauma... then why have blunt weapons be better? And if we're going down that route... what about armour piercing rounds?
Quite frankly... even now... Ray does more damage with a punch than most guns do. Does armour really need to be less effective against that?
If you want the idea of melee being a trade-off between being exposed and being able to deliver damage, then yes... do it. Then it creates tactical decisions.
Daithi:
Thanks for the feedback. The idea would be that a character with a baseball bat/sledge hammer could soften up heavily armoured enemies. This wouldn't provide an immediate damage bonus to the blunt weapon, but rather help the whole team. Though, technically, unarmed does blunt damage, it would have its own specialities - this would just be for hammers, baseball bats etc.
Armour piercing ammo is a possibility - difficult to say just yet though.
ushas:
--- Quote from: Nomad on July 26, 2017, 03:02:29 AM ---If armour is at 79% health/condition, then it delivers 79% of it's bonus. Makes sense. Straightforward implementation that will translate as the armour deteriorates.
--- End quote ---
+1 liking the principle.
Likewise, I think the idea that some weapons deteriorate armor more than others adds a depth to durability mechanic. You're doing something like that with loaded ammo, right? IIRC, shooting the loaded bullet damages the weapon faster. What if some frag grenades are more damaging to armors too?
However, it all depends how it works together. Sorry, I must sound like a broken record already. :/
So now we can wear armor with properties: 7 armor, 12% melee, 12% firearm, 12% explosive resist - at 100% durability.
IIRC, the first number lowers the attacker's CTH via being added as one of many CTH multipliers akin cover and distance modifiers (if = 11 -> equivalent as if you were one tile farther). I think the other three are damage multipliers (x0.88)? Then the bigger the incoming damage, the bigger protection.
It has impact statistically, a bit less likely to be hit and getting a slightly less damage (5-> 4.4 dam; 20-> 17.6 dam) accumulated over time. I'm not sure how armor deterioration goes now, but based on the past versions I would say it progresses very slow. Within a battle you're more likely to be bothered by Max HP lowering than this. However, also depends whether we can afford the repair time between battles (is repairing 80% armor around 40 min?).
So will it become: 5.25 armor, 9% melee, 9% firearm, 9% explosive resist - at 75% durability?
It's not a huge difference. Btw. the better armors will be more harmed.
Preliminary suggestions:
-- Upping the base armor deterioration
-- Some tuning of repair times down the road
-- Can my pack mule carry a spare one?
-- If the armour system is percentage based and works as one additional ingame multiplier (the above) and you want items designed to help against armored targets (the mentioned blunt subgroup or armour piercing ammo) -> their effectiveness at armour negating/destroying must be very high to be able compete with superiority of choosing bigger damage instead. For example, each hit by a hammer doing -25% to durability, AP ammo fully negating damage protection, etc. Yep, I'm serious:)
PS: Are threshold-based armour mechanics out of question?
Daithi:
--- Quote from: Nomad on July 26, 2017, 03:02:29 AM ---May suggest that rather than have blunt weapons do more damage to armour, have them ignore a certain amount of it.
--- End quote ---
Will keep it in mind - leaning is to do damage to the armour, for the benefit of the team
--- Quote from: Nomad on July 26, 2017, 03:02:29 AM ---I guess it comes down to how the condition of the armour itself is reduced. Is it based on the damage it takes instead of the character? In that case, I recommend the method above. If it takes damage based on how much damage the character takes, then I'll recommend another method. =)
--- End quote ---
Haven't thought the whole system through just yet - can I ask why you have different ideas based on the case?
--- Quote from: Nomad on July 26, 2017, 03:02:29 AM ---Oh... as a side note... doesn't one of the armour upgrades give a bonus versus melee? If the armour is set up to handle blunt trauma... then why have blunt weapons be better? And if we're going down that route... what about armour piercing rounds?
--- End quote ---
It does. Blunt would do less damage to the character wearing melee reinforced armour, but similar damage to the armour. For the most part, it's about adding a little extra depth and distinguishing the melee weapon types.
--- Quote from: Nomad on July 26, 2017, 03:02:29 AM ---Quite frankly... even now... Ray does more damage with a punch than most guns do. Does armour really need to be less effective against that?
If you want the idea of melee being a trade-off between being exposed and being able to deliver damage, then yes... do it. Then it creates tactical decisions.
--- End quote ---
Melee will deal damage more consistently at first (unless you are fighting a melee specialist who can dodge) at the cost of being more exposed. Ranged will gain ground as characters level up though.
--- Quote from: ushas on July 26, 2017, 04:19:05 PM ---Likewise, I think the idea that some weapons deteriorate armor more than others adds a depth to durability mechanic. You're doing something like that with loaded ammo, right? IIRC, shooting the loaded bullet damages the weapon faster. What if some frag grenades are more damaging to armors too?
--- End quote ---
Yep, hotloaded ammo deteriorates weapons more quickly. Explosives could do that too - open to possibility and think they could be more useful.
--- Quote from: ushas on July 26, 2017, 04:19:05 PM ---So now we can wear armor with properties: 7 armor, 12% melee, 12% firearm, 12% explosive resist - at 100% durability.
IIRC, the first number lowers the attacker's CTH via being added as one of many CTH multipliers akin cover and distance modifiers (if = 11 -> equivalent as if you were one tile farther). I think the other three are damage multipliers (x0.88)? Then the bigger the incoming damage, the bigger protection.
--- End quote ---
Correct about cth & damage reduction.
--- Quote from: ushas on July 26, 2017, 04:19:05 PM ---It has impact statistically, a bit less likely to be hit and getting a slightly less damage (5-> 4.4 dam; 20-> 17.6 dam) accumulated over time. I'm not sure how armor deterioration goes now, but based on the past versions I would say it progresses very slow. Within a battle you're more likely to be bothered by Max HP lowering than this. However, also depends whether we can afford the repair time between battles (is repairing 80% armor around 40 min?).
So will it become: 5.25 armor, 9% melee, 9% firearm, 9% explosive resist - at 75% durability?
It's not a huge difference. Btw. the better armors will be more harmed.
--- End quote ---
Agree, armour deterioration will have to be more rapid for this to be meaningful. Also, will look at increasing the % reduction for damage types, to make difference more substantial. Yes, Hadn't thought about the armour rating, will look at doing this too. Better armours have more condition points, so that will help them maintain condition.
--- Quote from: ushas on July 26, 2017, 04:19:05 PM ---Preliminary suggestions:
-- Upping the base armor deterioration
-- Some tuning of repair times down the road
-- Can my pack mule carry a spare one?
-- If the armour system is percentage based and works as one additional ingame multiplier (the above) and you want items designed to help against armored targets (the mentioned blunt subgroup or armour piercing ammo) -> their effectiveness at armour negating/destroying must be very high to be able compete with superiority of choosing bigger damage instead. For example, each hit by a hammer doing -25% to durability, AP ammo fully negating damage protection, etc. Yep, I'm serious:)
--- End quote ---
1 & 2 are pretty much given. 3 probably. As for AP bullets, it's possible, but it's a different can of worms, would be better to consider that later.
--- Quote from: ushas on July 26, 2017, 04:19:05 PM ---PS: Are threshold-based armour mechanics out of question?
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure what that is, but if you want to give me some info, I'll weigh it up.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version