Vigilantes > Suggestions & Feedback
Possible Changes to armour - your thoughts!
ushas:
--- Quote from: Daithi on July 26, 2017, 05:00:01 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Ok, forget I said AP bullets (not sure myself, it's not like you're going by RL), the notion is general: the idea is nice but the way your system works makes things that influence armour not so interesting unless very potent.
--- Quote from: Daithi ---Better armours have more condition points, so that will help them maintain condition.
--- End quote ---
Oh, I see, got it mixed up. So hits do point damage right? Like a hammer doing 2pt armour damage will mean -30% for armour with 6pt durability, but only -20% for the one with 10pt durability?
Must they always upgrade into the better though? Like a shopping list - buy components, mindlessly upgrade, gradually less vincible in battles.
Hadn't thought it through, probably stupid - can imagine one well-round armour (some crafting skill + materials + considerate time cost). For example:
Base armour: 5 CTH rating, 15% melee, 15% firearm, 15% explosive resist, 8pt durability, 6kg weight
Then the game offers upgrades or specials - with a higher pros & cons and price, need a high Crafting skill, a high lvl workshop upgrade, a rare material, or can only be looted from a boss. The way, so you're able to get hands only on one or two such armour pieces at max in a game.
Some examples of specials (numbers totally wrong, just trying to think of pros & cons):
Soft body armour: 0 CTH rating, 15% melee, 30% firearm, 15% explosive resist, 6pt durability, 6kg weight
Hard body armour: -10 CTH rating, 30% melee, 45% firearm, 30% explosive resist, 8pt durability, 12kg weight
Liquid body armour: 5 CTH rating, 0% melee, 60% firearm, 15% explosive resist, 5pt durability, 5kg weight
Blast-resistant suit: 0 CTH rating, 0% melee, 15% firearm, 60% explosive resist, 8pt durability, 12kg weight
Ceramic armour: 0 CTH, 100% melee, 100% firearm, 100% explosive resist, 1pt durability, 8kg weight
Plate armour: -15 CTH rating, 60% melee, 15% firearm, 15% explosive resist, 10pt durability, 18kg weight
Camouflage armour: 30 CTH rating, 0% melee, 0% firearm, 0% explosive resist, 4pt durability, 3kg weight
--- Quote from: Daithi ---I'm not sure what that is, but if you want to give me some info, I'll weigh it up.
--- End quote ---
Perhaps used wrong keywords. Just shortly simplified damage part: protection an armour offers can be either percentage/fraction-based, so hits always go through unless 100%; or threshold-based reduction, so any hit with a low penetration value (under the threshold) won't make it through (those over threshold may be reduced by a certain amount). Or it's often some combination of both, etc. Does make a better sense now? Not practical to theorize further though. It's not like you're sharing with us design goals (that's not a criticism, it's understandable). Not that it ever stopped me from wasting time.
Nomad:
--- Quote from: Daithi on July 26, 2017, 05:00:01 PM ---leaning is to do damage to the armour, for the benefit of the team
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I like the sound of that. It's a game mechanic. Sounds good.
--- Quote from: Daithi on July 26, 2017, 05:00:01 PM ---Haven't thought the whole system through just yet - can I ask why you have different ideas based on the case?
--- End quote ---
I was basing my idea on the armour flexing with the impact. The character takes more damage from blunt trauma, but the armour doesn't lose effectiveness against ballistics. Therefore, if the armour takes the same damage that the person does, then that doesn't work. However, you've now explained that you want melee characters to be able to expose themselves to the benefit of the team. That works. Just as you say below:
"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 ---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.
--- Quote from: Daithi on July 26, 2017, 05:00:01 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Yup. Sounds like a good plan.
Daithi:
--- Quote from: ushas on July 27, 2017, 09:30:25 PM ---Oh, I see, got it mixed up. So hits do point damage right? Like a hammer doing 2pt armour damage will mean -30% for armour with 6pt durability, but only -20% for the one with 10pt durability?
--- End quote ---
Yep, most likely a % of the damage would be converted to armour damage, and that % would be higher for blunt weapons.
--- Quote from: ushas on July 27, 2017, 09:30:25 PM ---Must they always upgrade into the better though? Like a shopping list - buy components, mindlessly upgrade, gradually less vincible in battles.
Hadn't thought it through, probably stupid - can imagine one well-round armour (some crafting skill + materials + considerate time cost). For example:
Base armour: 5 CTH rating, 15% melee, 15% firearm, 15% explosive resist, 8pt durability, 6kg weight
Then the game offers upgrades or specials - with a higher pros & cons and price, need a high Crafting skill, a high lvl workshop upgrade, a rare material, or can only be looted from a boss. The way, so you're able to get hands only on one or two such armour pieces at max in a game.
Some examples of specials (numbers totally wrong, just trying to think of pros & cons):
Soft body armour: 0 CTH rating, 15% melee, 30% firearm, 15% explosive resist, 6pt durability, 6kg weight
Hard body armour: -10 CTH rating, 30% melee, 45% firearm, 30% explosive resist, 8pt durability, 12kg weight
Liquid body armour: 5 CTH rating, 0% melee, 60% firearm, 15% explosive resist, 5pt durability, 5kg weight
Blast-resistant suit: 0 CTH rating, 0% melee, 15% firearm, 60% explosive resist, 8pt durability, 12kg weight
Ceramic armour: 0 CTH, 100% melee, 100% firearm, 100% explosive resist, 1pt durability, 8kg weight
Plate armour: -15 CTH rating, 60% melee, 15% firearm, 15% explosive resist, 10pt durability, 18kg weight
Camouflage armour: 30 CTH rating, 0% melee, 0% firearm, 0% explosive resist, 4pt durability, 3kg weight
--- End quote ---
Agree with the principle that the armours could do with more nuance. I was considering having a choice between a heavy / regular variant armour at the end. The heavy requiring a certain prowess & having an AP penalty. To get higher level armours, you'll have to find other, less common components. Like the idea of bringing this further, with ultra rare components. Damage is typically melee or ranged, and though you can probably count on more ranged from survivalist, more melee from churchers(which will have some ranged weapons later on), it's hard to say what armour might be effective and it might be tedious switching armour to suit enemy all the time, or building armour which turns out to be not useful.
I'd really like to enhance the crafting system - it would be one of the higher priorities if there's some extra time. Not sure how much more scope the current system has, without bigger changes. Definitely some food for thought here on armour variation, will have a look at it and see if can enhance the system with any of the ideas.
--- Quote from: ushas on July 27, 2017, 09:30:25 PM ---Perhaps used wrong keywords. Just shortly simplified damage part: protection an armour offers can be either percentage/fraction-based, so hits always go through unless 100%; or threshold-based reduction, so any hit with a low penetration value (under the threshold) won't make it through (those over threshold may be reduced by a certain amount). Or it's often some combination of both, etc. Does make a better sense now? Not practical to theorize further though. It's not like you're sharing with us design goals (that's not a criticism, it's understandable). Not that it ever stopped me from wasting time.
--- End quote ---
Ah, I see, like AOD. Likely won't go for this system exactly. 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. If you have any questions about how armour works, fire away :)
--- Quote from: Nomad on July 28, 2017, 06:38:50 AM ---I was basing my idea on the armour flexing with the impact. The character takes more damage from blunt trauma, but the armour doesn't lose effectiveness against ballistics. Therefore, if the armour takes the same damage that the person does, then that doesn't work. However, you've now explained that you want melee characters to be able to expose themselves to the benefit of the team. That works. Just as you say below:
--- End quote ---
Ah, ok. Current plan is to make blunt more effective at chewing up armour, but all damage types would factor in. Working on putting the weather system back in at the minute, mostly to tread water for a few days to get ideas on armour.
ushas:
--- Quote from: Daithi on July 28, 2017, 08:53:26 AM ---I was considering having a choice between a heavy / regular variant armour at the end. The heavy requiring a certain prowess & having an AP penalty.
--- End quote ---
IIRC, how much weight you can carry without being encumbered ought to depend on Prowess already, no? If you set the Prowess requirement on top of that, it shifts from inventory more to build consideration, if that's intended.
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.
Perhaps in a system with bigger AP pool or prospects. For example, if one starts the battle with a fair number of AP, usually, but it can go lower in many ways (wounded, injured, hamstrung, other debuffs, encumbered via Prowess penalty, or simply Max AP >> AP per turn) down the road - then perhaps (if we can strip the armour in case of need). Or something like S2 with bigger AP numbers overall. I dunno.
--- Quote from: Daithi on July 28, 2017, 08:53:26 AM ---Damage is typically melee or ranged, and though you can probably count on more ranged from survivalist, more melee from churchers(which will have some ranged weapons later on), it's hard to say what armour might be effective and it might be tedious switching armour to suit enemy all the time, or building armour which turns out to be not useful.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, tedious and cheesy. What I was picturing was like number of all specials to be lower or the same as number of party members. Your point about switching still stands, of course, but at least it's not like there is more than one of each. Or if the one piece is on the survivalist boss you simply don't have time to use it if this gang is the last one to destroy.
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.
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.
--- Quote from: Daithi ---Working on putting the weather system back in at the minute, mostly to tread water for a few days to get ideas on armour.
--- End quote ---
Just as I was about to report a sunshine bug on linux. Recalling some rain from older videos:)
PS: Have you meant like churchers throwing more stuff on us? That would be great!
ushas:
--- 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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version