Damage and Sharpness: a different take on equipment scaling

[Theishiopian]

A few days ago I made a post called damage is ridiculous, complaining about how much damage animals can do. While thats really its own problem that sounds like it will be fixed in the future, it got me thinking about how damage is handled in games in general, and minecraft-likes in particular. In games like minecraft or vintage story, the damage a weapon does is tied to what its made of. In minecraft, a sword made of iron does +6 damage, an iron sword does +7, etc. Vintage story is similar, with stone spears doing 2 damage, copper doing 2.5 (or maybe more since it was buffed) etc. But the thing is, thats not really terribly realistic. If i stab you with a flint spear, its going to hurt about as much as an iron spear. Sure, the iron one can take more of an edge, but really it takes just as many stabs with one to kill someone as it does with the other. The main benefit of better materials, the way I see it, is better durability, and thus the ability to hold an edge longer.

With that in mind, I propose an idea for a different way to balance weapons and tiers, as well as a new mechanic that could tie into it. All weapons of a specific type do a set amount of damage, say 3 for a spear, 4 for a sword, etc. However, that damage is directly tied to durability, so that as the durability goes down, so too does the damage, to a minimum of maybe 50% at 1 durability.  This scales with durability, so a higher tier weapon is going to do more damage for longer. This encourages upgrading in the long term while at the same time meaning you don't necessarily need to immediately. This also opens up the possibility of a new mechanic: sharpening. When you sharpen a weapon, you shave off some of the material to make it cut better. The way this would work is you sacrifice some durability for a boost to damage. This can offset the dulling of a  weapon, but on weapons that have low durability its not such a great idea, since they're liable to break from over-sharpening. 

The advantage of this from a gameplay perspective is it shifts focus away from the weapon itself and more onto the player, and the tactics and strategies they can think up. A guy with a copper sword but better skill is now able to take on a guy with an iron sword and weak skill. Additionally, it makes combat easier to balance, as you only have to balance around one "tier". Is the system perfect? No, its not. One flaw I can immediately think of is that it doesn't really work for a bludgeoning weapon like a club, or maces if they ever get added. It also might not work super well for bows, since sharpening each arrow would be a pain in the ass. Still, I think it would be a neat way to differentiate from other similar games. 

Critique is welcome, as is possible advice on how to mod this idea into the game as a proof of concept.

[Erik]

I generally really like the idea of a more even playing field, where player skill is more important than the tier of equipment, but I'm opposed to adding a sharpening system that encourages constant babysitting of the weapon. I don't think the durability cost is enough to discourage people from doing it, but balancing it to avoid tedium may be possible, with very significant durability costs. But then you're at a point where sharpening it pointless, because sharpening is not worth the cost.

The sharpening topic has also been discussed twice before, so you can get some players opinions and ideas:

I'd rather see a system with minor damage differences (the best sword doing twice as much damage as the worst) and significant durability differences, as it would also make player skill more significant while not adding more tedium and a tool repairing system where you trade maximum durability for durability (as suggested by Luk).
 

[Theishiopian]

Another idea I had for sharpening is it "resets" the dulling curve, so that the weapon's damage is reset back to default, but durability is unchanged, so that it now ramps down even faster. I agree sharpening is the weak point of this idea, I just like the thought of a whole team of hunters sharpening their weapons before going out lol. 

[redram]

I like they way you're thinking Theishiopian.  I myself was proposing a 'tier vs tier' system where the damage reduction depended on the relative tiers of the weapon and the armor.   part of that system was that a given weapon type does the same base damage for all metals.   But the amount that gets through depends on whether the targeted armor is lower or higher in tier.  I ran some numbers on it though and I don't think it's necessarily good for primary damage reduction.   It'd still work for some secondary factors.

The level weapon damage is probably great for a fighting game, but I'd say VS is more about tiering up in metal, and it'll help if the systems support that.  I'm not sure if durability alone would be enough or not.  I think it would be good if there were still some tier vs. tier effects - but not the primary reduction.    For instance, attacking a higher tier armor could degrade the weapon faster.  If the tiers are the same, 1:1.  If the armor is one tier higher, maybe the weapon loses twice the durability it would have.  two tiers higher?  4x, etc.  In that fashion your weapon swiftly will break if you're constantly using it against higher tier armored opponents.  The converse might also be true of course; armor that is lower tier than the attacking weapon might take extra damage.   One must keep in mind though that mobs do not have the same concerns as players, so having it work in reverse may not really be good.   There's other ways to bring the tiers into play as well.  Part of what plays into that though is what kind of enemy gradient the game gets.   Animals would all be pretty low tier, so no real incentive to tier up beyond copper, aside form straight durability.   It's still not clear to me how the enemy difficulty curve will work, and how necessary it will be to climb it.

As for sharpening, you're quite correct that it doesn't make sense for blunt weapons.   That's why in the original proposals I suggested to have 'weapon repair kits', not "sharpening" stones.  Keep it generic.  However I could also see it perhaps working such that sharpening your weapon gives it X bonus damage for Y hits.   Like maybe .5 extra damage for 20 hits.   But there's a trade-off, in that you degrade the durability of the weapon when you do that.  In this way sharpening becomes an optional bonus task, not an annoying maintenance nuisance.   And moreover, the fact that blunt weapons can't be sharpened isn't that big a deal.  Because sharpening also has a drawback.  You could have a portable sharpening stone which damages the weapon a lot, and a non-portable grindstone that damages it less.  Blunt weapons might make up for the non-sharpen-ability by having more durability overall vs edged weapons.   You'd perhaps only sharpen your weapon when you're going to fight a boss mob or something, not for fighting common wolves and such.   Framing it as a bonus enhancement, rather than a chore to avoid penalties, could make it tolerable I think.

[Theishiopian]

Another possibility is that blunt weapons bypass armor more effectively than bladed ones, which is their special "feature", as opposed to sharpening. Though hitting an armored target should subtract more durability depending on the armor tier to compensate. You are hitting your mace into a plate of metal, after all!

[redram]

Realistically speaking a blunt weapon would be the least damaged of all weapons.  They're more durable, hence my suggestion earlier.  Bypassing armor more effectively is also not very realistic for blunt weapons, imo.  I think they would have been the least effective at that.  I think historically their main advantage was that they were easy and cheap to make, and probably took a lot less skill to use that most other weapons, I'd imagine.  Both features kind of hard to translate into VS without some major changes to manufacture of bladed weapons.  Now I'll be the first to say gameplay>realism/believability, but I think we can have both in this case.

[Kyel Logen]

How about if higher metals tiers get a bonus against armored targets?

Blunt weapons should also do more damage against armored targets.
Blunt weapons were used against armored targets because they have more power in the strike,...Higher tiers could also come in difference from the simple mace to a morning star.

Sorry, for my bad englisch. I'm too lazy and quickly used a translator for this. : P

Edited September 19, 2019 by Kyel Logen

[redram]

3 hours ago, Kyel Logen said:

How about if higher metals tiers get a bonus against armored targets?

Metal tiers in theory is an arms race.  Higher tier armor has greater damage reduction, but higher tier weapons have greater damage.   I don't think there's any reason to give higher metals a bonus *against* armor.  The bonus is simply that they do more damage.    If you're speaking in terms of the op's original idea that weapons do the same damage at all tiers, Why would they do more damage against an armored opponent than an unarmored one?  There's no logical justification for that, and in terms of gameplay I think there's better ways to handle it.  Now, you could have some types of armor reduce the damage of blunt weapons *less*.  That's kind of like a bonus to blunt weapons, but it's done via the armor.  This is what TFC did.  It can work, and it can sort or make sense.  Or at least serve a gameplay purpose.

 

[Kyel Logen]

Its not like the higher Tier metal weapon should get "more" Damage vs. armor
More like gets an,.. I dunno,... "+1 Ignores  armor" with the higher Tier.
But ya, it should depending on the typ of armor. : )


 

[Theishiopian]

Historically, maces at least have been used against armored targets, due to the fact that they do their damage through impact alone, which carries through armor (especially mail) much better than a bladed edge. I do agree however that doing the bonus on the armor rather than the weapon is a good idea, probably easier to implement.