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]

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.

+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]

May suggest that rather than have blunt weapons do more damage to armour, have them ignore a certain amount of it.

Will keep it in mind - leaning is to do damage to the armour, for the benefit of the team

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.  =)

Haven't thought the whole system through just yet - can I ask why you have different ideas based on the case?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yep, hotloaded ammo deteriorates weapons more quickly. Explosives could do that too - open to possibility and think they could be more useful.

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.

Correct about cth & damage reduction.

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.

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.

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:)

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.

PS: Are threshold-based armour mechanics out of question?

I'm not sure what that is, but if you want to give me some info, I'll weigh it up.

[ushas]

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.

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.

Better armours have more condition points, so that will help them maintain condition.

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

I'm not sure what that is, but if you want to give me some info, I'll weigh it up.

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]

leaning is to do damage to the armour, for the benefit of the team

Yeah, I like the sound of that. It's a game mechanic. Sounds good.

Haven't thought the whole system through just yet - can I ask why you have different ideas based on the case?

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."

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.

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.

Yup. Sounds like a good plan.

[Daithi]

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?

Yep, most likely a % of the damage would be converted to armour damage, and that % would be higher for blunt weapons.

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

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.

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.

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 

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:

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]

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.

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.
 

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.

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.

Working on putting the weather system back in at the minute, mostly to tread water for a few days to get ideas on armour.

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]

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.

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.

[Daithi]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PS: Have you meant like churchers throwing more stuff on us? That would be great!

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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 

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.

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.

Yay!

[Daithi]

• 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.

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.