Previous
<<More pointed, and even more fluctuating stance-wise over the years, is the question of if we should even care about PvP at all, or instead focus strictly on PvE viability and let the PvP thing just sort of be whatever it's going to be.
I know this was a semi-rhetorical line of thought, but the latter is my preference. PvP should just be whatever it is. Obviously out of balance PvP things such as one-shot kills or cheese moves like original bard screams should be put in line, but a focused effort on PvP is not worth the effort given that the DR skill/experience model just doesn't lend itself well to a structured and balanced PvP environment.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
ABSOLON
BENNETTJ13
Re: Damage sponges
12/16/2015 11:32 PM CST
I'd trade my alpha strike for proper dev on any of the multitude of thief systems that are either incomplete, underdeveloped, or out of date. Deal?
Monster Elec
You hear the distant echo of a savage Horde snarling in barbaric disapproval of your deeds.
Monster Elec
You hear the distant echo of a savage Horde snarling in barbaric disapproval of your deeds.
BENNETTJ13
Re: Damage sponges
12/16/2015 11:37 PM CST
And for those not concerned with PVP... There's quite a group of people in DR that choose to PVP. For instance tonight there was a spur of the moment set of spars in the cemetery that brought about 20 people out, completely randomly. That's pretty awesome. As one of the Wyvern Trials directors, I see numbers around there as well on Monday nights. And not always repeats.
While I don't think dev should be done on the regular for PVP, I think that it's not something that should be ignored or neglected.
Monster Elec
You hear the distant echo of a savage Horde snarling in barbaric disapproval of your deeds.
While I don't think dev should be done on the regular for PVP, I think that it's not something that should be ignored or neglected.
Monster Elec
You hear the distant echo of a savage Horde snarling in barbaric disapproval of your deeds.
JULIAN
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 09:11 AM CST
>>I agree with 1 completely and sort of agree with 2 with a big BUT. Someone who knows how to be slippery and stay at missile isn't going to be easily bested at melee by known tactics.<<
Yeah, I don't think we disagree much. I think someone who knows how to be slippery and stay out of reach enjoying an advantage is ok to the extent that they have to be actively microing, and therefore taking time from other things or just straight up playing faster or making more efficient decisions. Pulsing inviso, Halo + OM, stun hiders, Holy Warrior, stuff that breaks engagement, the cleric stuff that prevents casting, barriers in general, things in general that qualitatively shut down your opponent's options ... end up being really OP for PvP. Because they make one side have to work so much harder than the other with minimal effort on the user's part. Or because they allow you to pile on so much denial that no amount of clever play is going to make the difference (Looking at you, Clerics).
Ideally (maximum fun for both sides) you'd want a PvP environment where you can tag me with all of your stuff and I can tag you with all of mine.
Mazrian
Yeah, I don't think we disagree much. I think someone who knows how to be slippery and stay out of reach enjoying an advantage is ok to the extent that they have to be actively microing, and therefore taking time from other things or just straight up playing faster or making more efficient decisions. Pulsing inviso, Halo + OM, stun hiders, Holy Warrior, stuff that breaks engagement, the cleric stuff that prevents casting, barriers in general, things in general that qualitatively shut down your opponent's options ... end up being really OP for PvP. Because they make one side have to work so much harder than the other with minimal effort on the user's part. Or because they allow you to pile on so much denial that no amount of clever play is going to make the difference (Looking at you, Clerics).
Ideally (maximum fun for both sides) you'd want a PvP environment where you can tag me with all of your stuff and I can tag you with all of mine.
Mazrian
2DUMBARSE
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 09:59 AM CST
>More pointed, and even more fluctuating stance-wise over the years, is the question of if we should even care about PvP at all, or instead focus strictly on PvE viability and let the PvP thing just sort of be whatever it's going to be. Our opinion there has historically flipped more than once.
I've never been under the impression that PvP is a strong dev focus and I'm OK with that if you and the other Powers That Be feel that's what's best for the game. In any case, the community normally points out when something's out of whack in PvP and, incidentally, it usually winds up being out of whack in PvE. Plus, I understand the number of people who have a "hardcore" interest in the former is relatively small.
On the other hand, taking a PvE stance and ignoring PvP altogether isn't a good thing for the game IMO. Setting aside that it would upset some of the playerbase(can't please everyone and people will lash out even when they don't fully understand changes), it would set a bad precedent. The logical next question would be, "Why have PvP at all since it's such a development headache and not THAT many people do it anyway?"
I honestly think it would be a benefit to every player, PvEers and PvPers alike, if there were a stronger focus on PvP. It's not like combat is fundamentally different between PvE and PvP, but people sure seem to find a lot more bugs in PvP. There also seems to be a growing interest in it, which is something that will keep players playing when they get tired of looking at numbers grow, and help them make new player friends when old friends depart the game (did for me). The mentors have done an amazing job at introducing PvP to new and returning players, and the plethora of great weekly, varied, player-run PvP events have facilitated it.
I know dev hands are limited, especially now, but I've read suggested having player liaisons like there used to be between guild GMs and players back in the day. (I think Gort mentioned it, but my memory is...) The liaisons' focus would be on PvP. Obviously, they'd have to have a pretty level head and be able to set aside bias for the betterment of the game, but I read posts on these forums from certain such people all the time. Some issues found in PvP are very significant and they fall off the forum and get reposted for a long time before getting fixed because, well, I imagine GMs have a million other things to do without even considering personal and professional life outside the game.
A PvP liaison might, as a requirement, make sure Epedia is up to date with current PvP bugs and/or communicate directly with GMs who feel like tackling bugs one week to let him or her know which are the most pressing. The liaison should also be involved in testing and elaborating on, when necessary, specific issues with empirical proof (e.g. logs).
I've never been under the impression that PvP is a strong dev focus and I'm OK with that if you and the other Powers That Be feel that's what's best for the game. In any case, the community normally points out when something's out of whack in PvP and, incidentally, it usually winds up being out of whack in PvE. Plus, I understand the number of people who have a "hardcore" interest in the former is relatively small.
On the other hand, taking a PvE stance and ignoring PvP altogether isn't a good thing for the game IMO. Setting aside that it would upset some of the playerbase(can't please everyone and people will lash out even when they don't fully understand changes), it would set a bad precedent. The logical next question would be, "Why have PvP at all since it's such a development headache and not THAT many people do it anyway?"
I honestly think it would be a benefit to every player, PvEers and PvPers alike, if there were a stronger focus on PvP. It's not like combat is fundamentally different between PvE and PvP, but people sure seem to find a lot more bugs in PvP. There also seems to be a growing interest in it, which is something that will keep players playing when they get tired of looking at numbers grow, and help them make new player friends when old friends depart the game (did for me). The mentors have done an amazing job at introducing PvP to new and returning players, and the plethora of great weekly, varied, player-run PvP events have facilitated it.
I know dev hands are limited, especially now, but I've read suggested having player liaisons like there used to be between guild GMs and players back in the day. (I think Gort mentioned it, but my memory is...) The liaisons' focus would be on PvP. Obviously, they'd have to have a pretty level head and be able to set aside bias for the betterment of the game, but I read posts on these forums from certain such people all the time. Some issues found in PvP are very significant and they fall off the forum and get reposted for a long time before getting fixed because, well, I imagine GMs have a million other things to do without even considering personal and professional life outside the game.
A PvP liaison might, as a requirement, make sure Epedia is up to date with current PvP bugs and/or communicate directly with GMs who feel like tackling bugs one week to let him or her know which are the most pressing. The liaison should also be involved in testing and elaborating on, when necessary, specific issues with empirical proof (e.g. logs).
FAMEBRIGHT
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 10:12 AM CST
It's always felt like a pretty nasty waste of development time when good PVP design and DR's basic game design are so completely at odds. It's not the worst PVP experience, but it doesn't compare favorably at all to games balanced from the ground up around PVP.
The best thing for PVP in DR would probably be to follow the modern precedent of separating your PVP build from your open-world build.
Your search-fu is pig dung!
The best thing for PVP in DR would probably be to follow the modern precedent of separating your PVP build from your open-world build.
Your search-fu is pig dung!
JULIAN
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 10:16 AM CST
>>It's an interesting and fair question to ponder "Should all guilds be equally effective in combat, in different but balanced ways, or should there be distinct combat guilds versus guilds that do other things better?" We've tried both ways over the course of DR's lifecycle, and in the semi-recent years have breathed new life into the non-combat aspect of the game.<<
I've played my character almost longer than I haven't at this point. I imagine a lot of us are in similar situations, or we're forging identities for new characters that we will put more years into. A character is such a long-term project that I feel like every guild should offer a range of combat and non-combat experiences so there's ample room for people to explore their changing tastes without abandoning the personas they've spent so long creating. Balance it all in the loosest possible way. Make things for every guild that feel cool and a little OP sometimes.
>>More pointed, and even more fluctuating stance-wise over the years, is the question of if we should even care about PvP at all, or instead focus strictly on PvE viability and let the PvP thing just sort of be whatever it's going to be. Our opinion there has historically flipped more than once.<<
PvP is a fundamental way people interact in DR. It's also one of the few ways players can genuinely challenge themselves and each other without staff running events or coding new quests or etc. IMO, there's no reason it shouldn't merit some consideration!
Mazrian
I've played my character almost longer than I haven't at this point. I imagine a lot of us are in similar situations, or we're forging identities for new characters that we will put more years into. A character is such a long-term project that I feel like every guild should offer a range of combat and non-combat experiences so there's ample room for people to explore their changing tastes without abandoning the personas they've spent so long creating. Balance it all in the loosest possible way. Make things for every guild that feel cool and a little OP sometimes.
>>More pointed, and even more fluctuating stance-wise over the years, is the question of if we should even care about PvP at all, or instead focus strictly on PvE viability and let the PvP thing just sort of be whatever it's going to be. Our opinion there has historically flipped more than once.<<
PvP is a fundamental way people interact in DR. It's also one of the few ways players can genuinely challenge themselves and each other without staff running events or coding new quests or etc. IMO, there's no reason it shouldn't merit some consideration!
Mazrian
DR-ARMIFER
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 10:37 AM CST
The issue of PvP balance being indicative of PvE balance is a good one, and one I think Veyl first articulated on the GM side of things. His stance was that PvP data was, in fact, a good source of learning whether a system was in balance. At the time (particularly Magic 2.1) we moved toward a system of sharp equality of PvP/PvE mechanics, where NPC and PC alike ran through the same equations.
That... sort of died a bit, both in 3.0 and before. They still more-or-less run through the same equations, but NPCs in particular have different vitality pools (for example: my 15 Stam noobler has more Vitality than an Adan'f Mage) and access to magic has not been especially strong in the post 3.0 environment for critters.
I also respect the notion that all classes should have access to both combat and non-combat options, though at the same time in our skillsets and particularly in crafting we, to some degree, set out that there are winners and losers. I'm not sure if that's a good precedent to carry forward into combat viability, but it is something that gnaws at the back of my mind.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
That... sort of died a bit, both in 3.0 and before. They still more-or-less run through the same equations, but NPCs in particular have different vitality pools (for example: my 15 Stam noobler has more Vitality than an Adan'f Mage) and access to magic has not been especially strong in the post 3.0 environment for critters.
I also respect the notion that all classes should have access to both combat and non-combat options, though at the same time in our skillsets and particularly in crafting we, to some degree, set out that there are winners and losers. I'm not sure if that's a good precedent to carry forward into combat viability, but it is something that gnaws at the back of my mind.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
DRFREAK3
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 12:55 PM CST
Are sure about that stamina comparison?
Ever since the combat change to stamina/vit, I think it is quite silly how much a 'good' hit takes off a PC with 80+ stamina.
A slight and light bleeder can kill a PC with 80+ stamina.
I noticed that a PC with 20 stamina and one with 80 stamina lose the same amount of health (percent wise) per pulse, which is idiotic if you ask me.
So, a PC with high stamina won't get actual body wounds, but WILL die from Vitality. That doesn't make sense to me.
DR-ARMIFER
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 01:04 PM CST
>>Are sure about that stamina comparison?
In retrospect I didn't doublecheck my numbers, I was going with something Zadraes and I saw when working on a project a few days ago. It could be the critter was wonky.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
In retrospect I didn't doublecheck my numbers, I was going with something Zadraes and I saw when working on a project a few days ago. It could be the critter was wonky.
-Armifer
"Perinthia's astronomers are faced with a difficult choice. Either they must admit that all their calculations were wrong ... or else they must reveal that the order of the gods is reflected exactly in the city of monsters." - Italo Calvino
DR-KODIUS
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 01:48 PM CST
The potency of barriers is one reason why PvP has proven impossible to balance. Some barriers are also not functioning correctly on top of that, which further complicates
issues.
Increasing damage across the board is not an option because critters already die too quickly/easily. We'd run into a situation where, in some cases, enemies would die in 1-hit and not spawn quick enough to award sufficient experience to ever mind lock you. Enemies already die in seconds in so many situations it makes me scream :(
Generally speaking I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours tweaking DR combat. This isn't an easy system to balance and even with my manic OCD unhealthy attitude towards it... achieving perfection has eluded me. From a design perspective, DR suffers from a couple of issues...
1). Weapons and Armor don't scale across skill levels
2). Monsters don't generally use buffs, players do
3). Monsters need to be easy enough to kill for players to have fun
4). Players need to be more durable than monsters
5). Vitality points aren't static. They regenerate in combat unlike most RPGs in existence.
I have been pondering if a flat nerf to player armor across the board is necessary. It would be relatively easy to allow players to receive 10% more damage from monsters and each other in PvP, without making it any easier to kill monsters. If nothing more, this would be a stop gap until the barrier review picks back up.
In some ways having players be durable in PvP is not an issue. Once poisons, enchanting and its TM Foci and weapon enhancements are live... well, folks will be wishing they were more durable :/
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
issues.
Increasing damage across the board is not an option because critters already die too quickly/easily. We'd run into a situation where, in some cases, enemies would die in 1-hit and not spawn quick enough to award sufficient experience to ever mind lock you. Enemies already die in seconds in so many situations it makes me scream :(
Generally speaking I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours tweaking DR combat. This isn't an easy system to balance and even with my manic OCD unhealthy attitude towards it... achieving perfection has eluded me. From a design perspective, DR suffers from a couple of issues...
1). Weapons and Armor don't scale across skill levels
2). Monsters don't generally use buffs, players do
3). Monsters need to be easy enough to kill for players to have fun
4). Players need to be more durable than monsters
5). Vitality points aren't static. They regenerate in combat unlike most RPGs in existence.
I have been pondering if a flat nerf to player armor across the board is necessary. It would be relatively easy to allow players to receive 10% more damage from monsters and each other in PvP, without making it any easier to kill monsters. If nothing more, this would be a stop gap until the barrier review picks back up.
In some ways having players be durable in PvP is not an issue. Once poisons, enchanting and its TM Foci and weapon enhancements are live... well, folks will be wishing they were more durable :/
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
ABSOLON
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 02:26 PM CST
<<PvP is a fundamental way people interact in DR. It's also one of the few ways players can genuinely challenge themselves and each other without staff running events or coding new quests or etc.
Change people and players to 'some people' and 'a relatively small portion of the player base' and this is an accurate statement. You're making it sound like most people pvp and that it's the only way outside of GM involvement and quests that people can find to challenge themselves.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Change people and players to 'some people' and 'a relatively small portion of the player base' and this is an accurate statement. You're making it sound like most people pvp and that it's the only way outside of GM involvement and quests that people can find to challenge themselves.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DRFREAK3
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 02:35 PM CST
Totally making up numbers based on my experience, but I'd say 30% of players regularly participate and like PVPing. The other 70% enjoy RPing without the combat aspect of it or the sparring. I've seen way more people engage in 'social rping' versus 'pvp rping', if that makes sense at all.
THAYET
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 03:06 PM CST
A relatively small portion of players actively seek out PvP but a much higher number of that are entirely willing to engage in PvP if it comes along and the scenario seems fun/fair. I'd say it's actually a minority that avoids any kind of PvP entirely.
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
Thayet
Twitter: @thayelf
Tumblr: thayette.tumblr.com
FAMEBRIGHT
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 03:10 PM CST
>I noticed that a PC with 20 stamina and one with 80 stamina lose the same amount of health (percent wise) per pulse, which is idiotic if you ask me.
Do they pulse back the same vit, though? My higher-stamina character definitely feels more survivable, but maybe she just doesn't get many bleeding wounds.
Your search-fu is pig dung!
Do they pulse back the same vit, though? My higher-stamina character definitely feels more survivable, but maybe she just doesn't get many bleeding wounds.
Your search-fu is pig dung!
DR-KODIUS
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 03:27 PM CST
Each bleeding level inflicts a range of damage per pulse. It shouldn't be % based, so more stamina = lives longer.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
DRFREAK3
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 03:34 PM CST
>Do they pulse back the same vit, though? My higher-stamina character definitely feels more survivable, but maybe she just doesn't get many bleeding wounds.
That is a good question. I didn't notice the pulse back rate.
Vit loss does not appear to be static across the Stamina range, but hits from PVE hits do. I didn't really gather numbers, but the 'good' hit is a good standard measure to test the vit loss and the pulse back. One of my noob characters with 20 stamina looses the same amount of vit from a 'good' hit as one of my 80 stamina characters. I don't know the pulse back though, which could very well make a big difference. A 'good' hit appears to take 8-10% vitality regardless of the stamina stat, so several good hits can take out a low stam and high stam character almost in exactly the same amount of hits, given they are back to back hits.
That is a good question. I didn't notice the pulse back rate.
Vit loss does not appear to be static across the Stamina range, but hits from PVE hits do. I didn't really gather numbers, but the 'good' hit is a good standard measure to test the vit loss and the pulse back. One of my noob characters with 20 stamina looses the same amount of vit from a 'good' hit as one of my 80 stamina characters. I don't know the pulse back though, which could very well make a big difference. A 'good' hit appears to take 8-10% vitality regardless of the stamina stat, so several good hits can take out a low stam and high stam character almost in exactly the same amount of hits, given they are back to back hits.
FAMEBRIGHT
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 04:29 PM CST
>but the 'good' hit is a good standard measure to test the vit loss and the pulse back. One of my noob characters with 20 stamina looses the same amount of vit from a 'good' hit as one of my 80 stamina characters
Ah, I get what you're saying now. My understanding of the combat system is the messaging adjective is chosen based on the percentage of total vitality damage done, so one person's "good" hit is another person's "Hodierna Winces!"
Your search-fu is pig dung!
Ah, I get what you're saying now. My understanding of the combat system is the messaging adjective is chosen based on the percentage of total vitality damage done, so one person's "good" hit is another person's "Hodierna Winces!"
Your search-fu is pig dung!
ABSOLON
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 05:25 PM CST
<<My understanding of the combat system is the messaging adjective is chosen based on the percentage of total vitality damage done, so one person's "good" hit is another person's "Hodierna Winces!"
"Good", "Light", "Demolishing", etc. are explicit damage level messages to a body part, so they're static in meaning from character to character. E.g. a good hit means 2 points of damage to that body part (made up number, I don't know the actual values) The value is messaged after all the attack and defence calculations are performed but before the vitality barrier kicks in. Thus a good hit, for example, might cause anywhere from 0 to 2 points of damage to a body part depending on how much vitality you started with.
The attack's secondary damage component of vitality damage is not messaged explicitly, but according to DRFREAK's data appears to be a static percentage range of vitality based on the physical damage level before the vitality barrier. E.g. a good hit always causes between 8 to 10% of vitality loss regardless of the size of your vitality pool.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
"Good", "Light", "Demolishing", etc. are explicit damage level messages to a body part, so they're static in meaning from character to character. E.g. a good hit means 2 points of damage to that body part (made up number, I don't know the actual values) The value is messaged after all the attack and defence calculations are performed but before the vitality barrier kicks in. Thus a good hit, for example, might cause anywhere from 0 to 2 points of damage to a body part depending on how much vitality you started with.
The attack's secondary damage component of vitality damage is not messaged explicitly, but according to DRFREAK's data appears to be a static percentage range of vitality based on the physical damage level before the vitality barrier. E.g. a good hit always causes between 8 to 10% of vitality loss regardless of the size of your vitality pool.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DISCOTEQ21
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 05:39 PM CST
>>If you don't far outclass someone it is literally impossible to kill another person unless 1. they don't know what they are doing, 2. are extremely drunk.
Gonna prove you wrong when you're not drunk.>>
Challenge accepted.
Im drunk right now tho.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Gonna prove you wrong when you're not drunk.>>
Challenge accepted.
Im drunk right now tho.
Don't forget to vote for dragonrealms:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
GODKIN
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 09:18 PM CST
"Should all guilds be equally effective in combat, in different but balanced ways, or should there be distinct combat guilds versus guilds that do other things better?"
No. Barbarians are the only combat guild. The rest are hobbyists! ;)
No. Barbarians are the only combat guild. The rest are hobbyists! ;)
DR-KODIUS
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 10:34 PM CST
>>"Good", "Light", "Demolishing", etc. are explicit damage level messages to a body part,
Not accurate unfortunately.
To determine what damage "level" to show, the system looks at the raw value of damage and the % of a whole and factors them both into an equation.
If we used explicit damage categories we'd run into the problem where...
One enemy has 400 vitality and another has 400,000, and you land a 200 damage hit, you wouldn't want that to be demolishing to both.
However, we do want to differentiate between hit levels even on boss mobs. So using a pure % isn't good either, because then all hits players are capable of would be "light" and nothing higher on a 400,000 vitality boss.
Hope that makes sense!
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Not accurate unfortunately.
To determine what damage "level" to show, the system looks at the raw value of damage and the % of a whole and factors them both into an equation.
If we used explicit damage categories we'd run into the problem where...
One enemy has 400 vitality and another has 400,000, and you land a 200 damage hit, you wouldn't want that to be demolishing to both.
However, we do want to differentiate between hit levels even on boss mobs. So using a pure % isn't good either, because then all hits players are capable of would be "light" and nothing higher on a 400,000 vitality boss.
Hope that makes sense!
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
ABSOLON
Re: Damage sponges
12/17/2015 11:25 PM CST
<<To determine what damage "level" to show, the system looks at the raw value of damage and the % of a whole and factors them both into an equation.
<<One enemy has 400 vitality and another has 400,000, and you land a 200 damage hit, you wouldn't want that to be demolishing to both.
That's all vitality damage and my statement specified body part damage. Are you saying then that the damage message is based on vitality damage caused, and not the damage level to a body part? Was it like that before 3.0 combat? I ask because the damage message has always seemed to correspond to the given amount of damage caused to the body part hit by that attack, and all discussion about damage calculations prior to this were always talked about in context of the limited scale of body part damage and not the large scale of vitality damage. And how is body part damage calculated then if attack power calculations are all vitality based?
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
<<One enemy has 400 vitality and another has 400,000, and you land a 200 damage hit, you wouldn't want that to be demolishing to both.
That's all vitality damage and my statement specified body part damage. Are you saying then that the damage message is based on vitality damage caused, and not the damage level to a body part? Was it like that before 3.0 combat? I ask because the damage message has always seemed to correspond to the given amount of damage caused to the body part hit by that attack, and all discussion about damage calculations prior to this were always talked about in context of the limited scale of body part damage and not the large scale of vitality damage. And how is body part damage calculated then if attack power calculations are all vitality based?
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DR-KODIUS
Re: Damage sponges
12/19/2015 10:25 PM CST
Damage messages have several parts. The first part is what I was referring to, and that has to do solely with vitality damage. The light, strong, cataclysmic hit. Then the second part indicating what condition the limb is in has to do with the current limb hit points remaining.
In this way you could land a light hit that still explodes the arm. The hit did 1 point of damage, but this caused the arm to pass some threshold for messaging that it exploded.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
In this way you could land a light hit that still explodes the arm. The hit did 1 point of damage, but this caused the arm to pass some threshold for messaging that it exploded.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
ABSOLON
Re: Damage sponges
12/19/2015 11:03 PM CST
So then it converts the vitality damage it causes into body part damage (less any vitality barrier reduction after the fact, of course) via the percent of the whole by and large, and grazing, skimming, and so forth are simply 0% vitality damage results. Which is why we see the same range of percent vitality loss for a 'good' hit regardless of target, for example? This would certainly explain why it's very hard to get anything more than light/good hits on bosses since the percent vitality damage will never be high. This is far more of a hit point system than I imagined DR to be.
I always thought the scaling issue that GMs always talked about with respect to vitality and wound levels was one of expanding a small scale to fit a large one, but it is actually the reverse: a problem of condensing a large scale to message meaningfully over a small one. The second part of the messaging (i.e. body part destruction due to wound levels reaching a threshold, etc.) always made sense.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
I always thought the scaling issue that GMs always talked about with respect to vitality and wound levels was one of expanding a small scale to fit a large one, but it is actually the reverse: a problem of condensing a large scale to message meaningfully over a small one. The second part of the messaging (i.e. body part destruction due to wound levels reaching a threshold, etc.) always made sense.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
FAMEBRIGHT
Re: Damage sponges
12/20/2015 12:58 AM CST
Ah, it makes sense that the damage adjective takes the incoming damage number into account... if it hadn't, we would never have seen the big adjectives in 2.0 when lots of your vitality never saw action since body part HP dominated so much!
Your search-fu is pig dung!
Your search-fu is pig dung!
DR-KODIUS
Re: Damage sponges
12/20/2015 11:05 AM CST
>>So then it converts the vitality damage it causes into body part damage
Yes, though it isn't a simple process. More like several thousand lines of code to do that. There are considerations for existing damage to the limb, which limb, what type of damage, phase of the moon, etc.
>>Which is why we see the same range of percent vitality loss for a 'good' hit regardless of target, for example? T
Well not exactly. As I said previously with 3.0 I attempted to base the first damage message off both base vitality AND % lost of the mob. In this way even bosses with 500k vitality show some variety of damage messages beyond just slight, light good... not entirely sure if that is working as intended as is took many weeks of tweaking before it felt right to me.
>>I always thought the scaling issue that GMs always talked about with respect to vitality and wound levels was one of expanding a small scale to fit a large one,
It is, and it isn't. Vitality can go from about 150 for weak enemies to many thousands for unique bosses. Body parts always only have 60 hit points. Again, there were many weeks.. maybe even months spent tweaking and testing how the vitality damage converts into limb damage. What good is 10k vitality if repeatedly throwing something at your chest kills you while you still have half your vitality left?
I know for sure that formula isn't perfect. But investing much more effort into something affecting such a tiny % of people such a tiny % of the time hasn't made sense thus far.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Yes, though it isn't a simple process. More like several thousand lines of code to do that. There are considerations for existing damage to the limb, which limb, what type of damage, phase of the moon, etc.
>>Which is why we see the same range of percent vitality loss for a 'good' hit regardless of target, for example? T
Well not exactly. As I said previously with 3.0 I attempted to base the first damage message off both base vitality AND % lost of the mob. In this way even bosses with 500k vitality show some variety of damage messages beyond just slight, light good... not entirely sure if that is working as intended as is took many weeks of tweaking before it felt right to me.
>>I always thought the scaling issue that GMs always talked about with respect to vitality and wound levels was one of expanding a small scale to fit a large one,
It is, and it isn't. Vitality can go from about 150 for weak enemies to many thousands for unique bosses. Body parts always only have 60 hit points. Again, there were many weeks.. maybe even months spent tweaking and testing how the vitality damage converts into limb damage. What good is 10k vitality if repeatedly throwing something at your chest kills you while you still have half your vitality left?
I know for sure that formula isn't perfect. But investing much more effort into something affecting such a tiny % of people such a tiny % of the time hasn't made sense thus far.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
GALLAHAN
Re: Damage sponges
12/21/2015 02:48 PM CST
The PvP balance question makes me wish there was a lot better support from fighting with groups.
I always liked the idea of different guilds specializing in different parts of combat. Group combat does happen, but spars are typically a 1 vs 1 affair because that is what challenge supports.
If PvP balance means making every guild having a counter for every other guild's abilities.. I'm not sure it is possible, or even desirable in my opinion.
Different guilds have different strengths and weaknesses. Using a certain cleric, paladin, and thief as an example, all three are somewhat close in skill and all three know how to use their guild's abilities very well. The results of a 1 vs 1 match often is the cleric beats the paladin, the paladin beats the thief, and the thief beats the cleric.
If those three continue to gain skill at the same rate and nothing drastic changes, I bet the results of the spars will stay the same. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.
I have no idea if adding support for group combat would require a complete redesign, if it is even possible...or if that is the direction that the GMs and players would want to go.
If so, I think I would rather see that come first and after that is accomplished we can balance PvP for a guild vs the group instead of guild vs guild.
If challenge could be setup where someone leading a group of people challenges another person leading a group of people, all the people in both groups would be included in the challenge, I bet a lot more group fighting would happen at spars.
As far as 3.0's vitality changes, spars can definitely end up lasting a lot longer. Two equal skill paladins who can't get past each other's shield, a paladin vs a ranger where the ranger can't get past the shield while the paladin can't see the ranger long enough to get a hit in.. or two stealthy people who are trying to use hit and run and doing a lot more running than hitting. I remember a few spars where I had exhausted all the ideas I could think of multiple times and nothing was getting by the paladin's shield.. I could keep running around trying, but I'm sure the people watching in the mirror are bored.. I'll just face him head on at melee and get it over with so the next pair can come out.
I don't know if the need to throw a fight or call a draw is a flaw in the system, or just the way things are... I think on a 1 vs 1 battle between certain guilds, it is kind of to be expected.
I do wish debilitation spells lasted a little longer. Before 3.0 they just felt a lot more useful to me.
I always liked the idea of different guilds specializing in different parts of combat. Group combat does happen, but spars are typically a 1 vs 1 affair because that is what challenge supports.
If PvP balance means making every guild having a counter for every other guild's abilities.. I'm not sure it is possible, or even desirable in my opinion.
Different guilds have different strengths and weaknesses. Using a certain cleric, paladin, and thief as an example, all three are somewhat close in skill and all three know how to use their guild's abilities very well. The results of a 1 vs 1 match often is the cleric beats the paladin, the paladin beats the thief, and the thief beats the cleric.
If those three continue to gain skill at the same rate and nothing drastic changes, I bet the results of the spars will stay the same. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.
I have no idea if adding support for group combat would require a complete redesign, if it is even possible...or if that is the direction that the GMs and players would want to go.
If so, I think I would rather see that come first and after that is accomplished we can balance PvP for a guild vs the group instead of guild vs guild.
If challenge could be setup where someone leading a group of people challenges another person leading a group of people, all the people in both groups would be included in the challenge, I bet a lot more group fighting would happen at spars.
As far as 3.0's vitality changes, spars can definitely end up lasting a lot longer. Two equal skill paladins who can't get past each other's shield, a paladin vs a ranger where the ranger can't get past the shield while the paladin can't see the ranger long enough to get a hit in.. or two stealthy people who are trying to use hit and run and doing a lot more running than hitting. I remember a few spars where I had exhausted all the ideas I could think of multiple times and nothing was getting by the paladin's shield.. I could keep running around trying, but I'm sure the people watching in the mirror are bored.. I'll just face him head on at melee and get it over with so the next pair can come out.
I don't know if the need to throw a fight or call a draw is a flaw in the system, or just the way things are... I think on a 1 vs 1 battle between certain guilds, it is kind of to be expected.
I do wish debilitation spells lasted a little longer. Before 3.0 they just felt a lot more useful to me.
BENNETTJ13
Re: Damage sponges
12/21/2015 03:25 PM CST
At the Wyvern trials, we have group fights. But you fight to the death. There are clerics around for you to fix you up. It's really not that big of a deal.
Monster Elec
You hear the distant echo of a savage Horde snarling in barbaric disapproval of your deeds.
Monster Elec
You hear the distant echo of a savage Horde snarling in barbaric disapproval of your deeds.
JULIAN
Re: Damage sponges
12/29/2015 12:57 PM CST
>>I also respect the notion that all classes should have access to both combat and non-combat options, though at the same time in our skillsets and particularly in crafting we, to some degree, set out that there are winners and losers. I'm not sure if that's a good precedent to carry forward into combat viability, but it is something that gnaws at the back of my mind.<<
I guess my opinion would depend on whether my main character's guild ended up a winner or a loser in that paradigm, and on what the alternative play experience was. Being worse at combat while being better at something else it's desirable to be good at might be ok. But in today's DR I'm not sure what that other thing would be. You can be a good crafter and good at combat if you're willing to put that into your routine. If you don't want to be a crafter, being good at the non-crafting lores means very little. Being good at non-combat survivals leaves Athletics, Perception, Outdoorsmanship and Thievery to focus on. I feel like there isn't enough game to make being worse at combat feel different from simply being worse.
Having combat niches seems good as long as the niches are well developed and the guild feels fun to play. What we have now is I think not a terrible situation for PvE, and the barrier / TM reviews will hopefully bring about some better PvP balance.
Mazrian
I guess my opinion would depend on whether my main character's guild ended up a winner or a loser in that paradigm, and on what the alternative play experience was. Being worse at combat while being better at something else it's desirable to be good at might be ok. But in today's DR I'm not sure what that other thing would be. You can be a good crafter and good at combat if you're willing to put that into your routine. If you don't want to be a crafter, being good at the non-crafting lores means very little. Being good at non-combat survivals leaves Athletics, Perception, Outdoorsmanship and Thievery to focus on. I feel like there isn't enough game to make being worse at combat feel different from simply being worse.
Having combat niches seems good as long as the niches are well developed and the guild feels fun to play. What we have now is I think not a terrible situation for PvE, and the barrier / TM reviews will hopefully bring about some better PvP balance.
Mazrian
CHUNGUS
Re: Damage sponges
12/29/2015 01:37 PM CST
<<I feel like there isn't enough game to make being worse at combat feel different from simply being worse.>>
Hit the nail right directly on the head.
