Vigilantes > Suggestions & Feedback
Possible Changes to armour - your thoughts!
Daithi:
--- Quote from: ushas on July 29, 2017, 01:23:27 PM ---AP penalty, not sure... When we start with 5 max AP, no one gonna use the armour (maybe at max with a high Fleetness and the perk). AP too precious.
--- End quote ---
If this was available right away, yes, but this heavy armour (if it happens) variant would be a branch for level 4 or 5 armour, so you'll have quite a lot more AP by then. Depending on how you build, your tactics, it may or may not be of interest.
--- Quote from: ushas on July 29, 2017, 01:23:27 PM ---I guess you see it from the perspective to be useful, in general worth the investment. That's good. I was just narrowly thinking from the tactical pov (and a twist to enemies, like that Ceramic one, but other examples were frankly dull). Right now when we start wear armours, will become less vincible, but doesn't much change what my team members do on different battles. Would be interesting if some middle-ground is possible, ie. if utilizing some of them varies depending on the situation we face or character builds, but still most of them being useful enough so players don't feel being forced into juggling. Perhaps pros & cons in a vein of that camouflage piece can be seen as such. However, it's just an option, don't need to force anything that doesn't fit.
--- End quote ---
The most I could see happening is two separate armours, each with a linear (or mostly linear upgrade path). Happy to chew over making these different enough to be interesting to players.
--- Quote from: ushas on July 29, 2017, 01:23:27 PM ---Hm. I must say liking Nomad's idea of blunt trauma:)
So there are same basic rules right? A subset of weapons being an exception here and there. Just rolling alternatives:
-- Bypasses certain amount of protection but doing less damage to armour (eg. blunt trauma providing weapons)
-- Damages armour more but the user is more protected (maybe knives?, grenade fragments? hey a shotgun shells?)
-- Thinking it, grenades (AOE) should bypass the armour CTH rating completely, it's not like the blast less sees you.
--- End quote ---
Yep, I've been thinking about Nomad's idea too. Similar to your suggestions, bladed weapons could do significantly less armour damage, but slightly more overall damage, or perhaps be more effective VS lightly armoured enemies.
--- Quote from: ushas on July 29, 2017, 01:23:27 PM ---PS: Have you meant like churchers throwing more stuff on us? That would be great!
--- End quote ---
Churchers do prefer explosives and melee. Some will get firearms, but it will be uncommon. Given a high enough equipment level, basic troops may also get explosives.
Daithi:
--- Quote from: ushas on July 30, 2017, 05:47:37 PM ---
--- Quote from: Daithi on July 28, 2017, 08:53:26 AM ---But was considering armour penetration as a factor and it's not off the table yet, but it would be another step. Bringing the system a little closer to what you mentioned, was considering armour providing a flat reduction (like 2 hp), then a % based reduction on remainder. Both of these protections would degrade with armour condition.
--- End quote ---
Let's say:
Pistolman A (PA) shoots Normandy 1x in a turn and does 20 damage per hit,
Pistolman B (PB) shoots Patriot 2x in a turn and does 10 damage per hit.
(huh, such numbers are like at skill around 50 already, I think).
Assuming they always hit:
Protection 1a: 20% resist, no durability reduction
=> 32.0 dam from PA vs. 32.0 dam from PB in 2 turns
Protection 1b: 20% resist at 6/6 durability, 10% of dam dealt durability reduction
=> 33.1 dam from PA vs. 33.6 dam from PB in 2 turns
Protection 2a: first 2 DR, then 20% resist, no durability reduction
=> 28.8 dam from PA vs. 25.6 dam from PB in 2 turns
Protection 2b: first 2 DR, then 20% resist at 6/6 durability, 10% of dam dealt durability reduction
=> 30.1 dam from PA vs. 27.8 dam from PB in 2 turns
So durability reduction is a slightly favorable to doing more attacks in this exact setup. Armour damage reduction, however, harms the lower damage more. Of course, the reality is more complicated. PA will probably have a higher CTH; but PB has at least a good chance to land one hit in a turn, will probably shoot more often in the battle overall. Etc.
I recall the situation from PoE. They used damage reduction, the problem was a damage bloat (thus also hp). For PoE2 they're introducing the penetration stat for weapons to be compared to armor thresholds, damage is deliberated. Still in development, but I think the change there is for the better. The situation here is different, of course, albeit some side-effects of mechanics are universal.
--- End quote ---
Useful to get some figures. Leaning more toward 2b, but will make a spreadsheet to calculate this stuff first thing in the morning. Been a pretty long day, but finished off the churcher base map.
ushas:
--- Quote from: Daithi on July 31, 2017, 08:13:33 PM ---If this was available right away, yes, but this heavy armour (if it happens) variant would be a branch for level 4 or 5 armour, so you'll have quite a lot more AP by then. Depending on how you build, your tactics, it may or may not be of interest.
--- End quote ---
Yep, limited to very high speed characters (+strong?). That's what 5AP at the start means. Similar with weapons' costs > 5AP, when players are expected to rise AP if they want to use it. Not a fan, but in principle it's not a problem. Just another piece in balancing.
--- Quote from: Daithi on July 31, 2017, 08:13:33 PM ---Yep, I've been thinking about Nomad's idea too. Similar to your suggestions, bladed weapons could do significantly less armour damage, but slightly more overall damage, or perhaps be more effective VS lightly armoured enemies.
--- End quote ---
Was thinking the opposite, that the armour is being more effective against sharp things, but also is more damaged. However, I suppose using bladed weapons to rather attack the least protected parts, thus the opposite effect, means less stupid attacker ;D
So may as well adjust weapons how you want and the imagination will take care of whys.
There are some unknowns to me (pardon if overlooked):
* Shall we loot armours of enemies?
If not, then it would make a sense to have two armour progressions - one for the player as you mentioned; but the armours for enemies can be solely designed from the pov what interesting challenge it offers when encountered.
* Will armored foes be a common occurrence (eg. from some tier up), or a gang-based, or it's limited, eg. to leaders/specialists?
If the player ought to wear protection but enemies only sporadically, then when adjusting how weapons should influence armours, it would be interesting to consider how gangs can make our life harder. On the other hand, the more common an armored opposition the more it's important to take into account weapon->armour relations from the perspective of the player as the attacker.Based on the fact that the game is asymmetric, thus I think makes difference. Naturally, the hardest path is in the middle.
--- Quote from: Daithi on July 31, 2017, 08:13:33 PM ---Churchers do prefer explosives and melee. Some will get firearms, but it will be uncommon. Given a high enough equipment level, basic troops may also get explosives.
--- End quote ---
Yay!
Daithi:
--- Quote from: ushas on August 02, 2017, 10:03:11 PM ---
* Shall we loot armours of enemies?
If not, then it would make a sense to have two armour progressions - one for the player as you mentioned; but the armours for enemies can be solely designed from the pov what interesting challenge it offers when encountered.
* Will armored foes be a common occurrence (eg. from some tier up), or a gang-based, or it's limited, eg. to leaders/specialists?
If the player ought to wear protection but enemies only sporadically, then when adjusting how weapons should influence armours, it would be interesting to consider how gangs can make our life harder. On the other hand, the more common an armored opposition the more it's important to take into account weapon->armour relations from the perspective of the player as the attacker.Based on the fact that the game is asymmetric, thus I think makes difference. Naturally, the hardest path is in the middle.
--- End quote ---
1) Have been thinking about this. The solution I'm leaning toward is if you take down an enemy who is wearing armour, there will be a chance to get armour components from the damaged armour in the loot. These may be the regular components, or "broken" versions, which need to be combined with another broken component to make a regular one. I agree that there's some scope to customise enemy armours, as they don't require illustrations. Can't be certain will pursue this, as am looking at a trait system for enemies, which will have similar, but wider ranging effects on the challenge enemies present.
2) Current plan is that it will relate to equipment level. Survivalist grunts will likely start with basic armour, but other factions will have to invest in equipment level to get armour. I'd expect that armour quality will be capped by the level of the troops also - don't think it would be good if the basic churcher troop can wear the best armour - these would be reserved for the leadership.
ushas:
1) That's an interesting solution. Only, wouldn't damaged components require icons too?
Yeah, adding dimensions to challenge isn't necessarily a good thing. It's just that an armour mechanic provides natural opportunities without additional programming. For example, that ceramic-like piece makes the user invincible on the first hit, but afterwards practically shatters. Another one can be so hard to target (high CTH rating) that nuking or using a shotgun (air. AOE) may end up preferable. Then a liquid-like (the faster the impact the better protection -> huge ranged % reduction) makes a slow hammer an attractive prospect. Or a fortified grenadier with so encumbering suit that in a turn can only either move (like 4 tiles max) or throw a grenade, but he's so greatly protected (high explosive % resist and DR overall) that low damage hits are practically ineffective. Or something around targeting different body parts. Etc.
2) Ok, then it's like in the middle or towards a common occurrence I guess -> players may see merit in armour-damaging strategies.
However, it would be useful if some variety across gangs and equipment tiers is still possible, even for armours of regular troops. If something like all-round protection is common, it's not so great for battle pacing.
Obviously I don't know about tiers. So just random general suggestions:
-- A higher tier may not necessarily mean better gear in all parameters.
-- You may prioritize one type of upgrades more for a while.
-- Some things may even downgrade at the time.
-- I recall you said a gang AI may be able to react to players being a nuisance by upgrading equipment. Would be also possible (not sure if desirable though) that it may choose between some upgrades / rackets based on what we often used against them in the recent past? I don't mean on each tier. On the contrary, something like just once or twice per a whole game but having very distinctive effect, would be neat.
Edit: Heh, all I wanted to say was practically: make the ascending road bumpy.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version