CastIronFabric Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 1 hour ago, LadyWYT said: Speaking of smithing, it looks like we're going to be getting some proper tempering mechanics next update. While I don't expect to get new weapons, I think it'll make the weapons we currently have more interesting since the player can have some control over specific properties. A sword with more durability will last longer before it breaks, but make require an extra hit or two to kill an opponent since the softer metal can't hit as hard. A sword with a harder temper might do more damage and thus be more efficient at killing enemies, but that damage boost comes at the cost of the weapon having a lower durability. I doubt it. My prediction is that they will use the Wurm online model for tempering which is higher quality = more durable and more hit points, however, the process of tempering itself could introduce new tools.
MKMoose Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 33 minutes ago, LadyWYT said: Speaking of smithing, it looks like we're going to be getting some proper tempering mechanics next update. While I don't expect to get new weapons, I think it'll make the weapons we currently have more interesting since the player can have some control over specific properties. A sword with more durability will last longer before it breaks, but make require an extra hit or two to kill an opponent since the softer metal can't hit as hard. A sword with a harder temper might do more damage and thus be more efficient at killing enemies, but that damage boost comes at the cost of the weapon having a lower durability. I don't know if that could qualify for the unpopular opinions thread, but I feel like this will change quite literally nothing for combat. It's only a significant consideration when crafting the weapon (and I'll gladly welcome more complex smithing, don't get me wrong), but I'd imagine that many people will just choose something that seems fine enough and think nothing of it afterwards. I feel like combat issues tend to revolve more around insufficient depth in combat itself, while equipment crafting is just the means to get the required gear in the first place. Even if extra variety or complexity in combat were the goal of the heat treatments, then completely new weapon types or other tools would probably have more impact than minor stat variations over existing ones. 24 minutes ago, QueenGeeBee said: I just want to make steel tier clubs with the ability to stun enemies tbh. Realistically, a flanged mace would probably be most suitable, especially at the iron and steel tier. I do agree that some sort of a stunning weapon would be great, because it would lean into a currently very underutilized balance axis. As of now, every weapon has very similar knockback, and it could be beneficial to break that up and make certain weapons better either defensively (low damage, high stagger and knockback, useful against shivers) or offensively (high damage, doesn't push the enemy away, efficient but risky). Weapon choice would then be much more meaningful and case-by-case, instead of just comparing damage numbers. Roughly the same reasoning lies behind my suggestion for varied attack hitboxes, because a weapon with a small hitbox (especially the knife, probably the spear and the falx) might be very stong for single targets but forced to stay defensive if surrounded, whereas a weapon with a larger hitbox would be weaker against single targets but capable of controlling multiple enemies at the same time, again making for an actually interesting and meaningful weapon choice if balanced well. 3 minutes ago, QueenGeeBee said: I hope they sneak rebalanced spears into the update so i can rock a steel lance and fight some monsters I think Tyron has said that they're adding iron spears and rebalancing the rest in some way in the nearest major update. Haven't seen further details as of now, though, and I don't remember whether he clarified whether that will also include meteoric iron and steel. 2 minutes ago, LadyWYT said: Or just add iron/steel lances as a weapon separate from spears, and let it be a thing you either use like a proper lance while mounted(by the time you get iron/steel you can easily get a mount, outside of Homo Sapiens), or more like a pike on foot. That is, it's not a weapon that you either stab or throw, like the basic spear. I think that would give both weapons a good niche without either one overshadowing the other. Yeah, that's the one thing I don't get about the "but iron spears would be too strong when thrown" argument. Like, bruh, then just keep their ranged damage low enough to remain balanced. Or, as you suggest, add a different polearm that can't be thrown at all, which might be even better. Lances and pikes might be a somewhat odd fit for the game, since they were typically used for formation fighting and in cavalry charges. I could see one of them added, though, potentially with even greater reach than a spear (~4 m, maybe even ~4.5 m) and perhaps a short minimum range, as a situational but highly unique weapon used primarily to keep enemies at bay. Also, on the topic of polearms, I would personally love to have something like a poleaxe with a devastating anti-armor charge attack, requiring more deliberate placement but providing unmatched damage output against heavily armored targets. While it does creep a little into the "combat simulator" and "fantasy RPG" territory and is admittedly much less important than the more systemic improvements, I think that opening up some complex and specialized weapon choices would make for a satisfying reward for reaching iron and steel. Gating more complex weapons behind iron and steel would also naturally keep early-game combat experience much more streamlined. I have doubts about mounted combat, though, because it's a very niche feature that doesn't make me feel like it's worth the effort. Some games do it, and it often ends up cheesy and janky. I think I'd prefer any resources put into combat in the near future be directed at improving the core combat experience, whatever that might exactly entail for the devs. 3
LadyWYT Posted January 1 Report Posted January 1 3 minutes ago, MKMoose said: I don't know if that could qualify for the unpopular opinions thread, but I feel like this will change quite literally nothing for combat. It's only a significant consideration when crafting the weapon (and I'll gladly welcome more complex smithing, don't get me wrong), but I'd imagine that many people will just choose something that seems fine enough and think nothing of it afterwards. I feel like combat issues tend to revolve more around insufficient depth in combat itself, while equipment crafting is just the means to get the required gear in the first place. Even if extra variety or complexity in combat were the goal of the heat treatments, then completely new weapon types or other tools would probably have more impact than minor stat variations over existing ones. Possibly, but taking an extra hit to kill a monster can make a pretty big difference, especially if you're getting swarmed. It's also possible that hardening a weapon too much might mean that it can potentially shatter in combat, regardless of the durability remaining. However, that seems a bit complex to add. 8 minutes ago, MKMoose said: Yeah, that's the one thing I don't get about the "but iron spears would be too strong when thrown" argument. Like, bruh, then just keep their ranged damage low enough to remain balanced. Or, as you suggest, add a different polearm that can't be thrown at all, which might be even better. I think the main hurdle in terms of rebalancing the damage is that if flint spears have lower damage than current then everything at the stone tier feels underwhelming. However, if all the metal spears have their current damage nerfed then they don't really feel like too much of an upgrade. 10 minutes ago, MKMoose said: Lances and pikes might be a somewhat odd fit for the game, since they were typically used for formation fighting and in cavalry charges. I could see one of them added, though, potentially with even greater reach than a spear (~4 m, maybe even ~4.5 m) and perhaps a short minimum range, as a situational but highly unique weapon used primarily to keep enemies at bay. The pike would be my pick for the "different polearm" solution to the above dilemma though. I rolled the pike and lance into the same weapon since they're somewhat similar and it's a bit simpler(in theory) to account for one weapon instead of two different ones when it comes to code and game assets. I do agree that it would be an odd fit, but skewering enemies from horseback(elkback?) would be pretty fun in a temporal storm, as well as just staying out of drifter reach while mounted in general. As for fighting with a pike on foot, the extra poke range could be rather interesting, but the minimum range would be a necessity for balancing. Otherwise players are likely to rely too heavily on pikes. 15 minutes ago, MKMoose said: whereas a weapon with a larger hitbox would be weaker against single targets but capable of controlling multiple enemies at the same time, again making for an actually interesting and meaningful weapon choice if balanced well. Eh, I would argue that a weapon with a larger hitbox should still be very effective against single targets, with the drawback being that the player needs to have enough space to effectively maneuver the weapon. That is, the player shouldn't be able to just haul a greatsword into the narrow passages of the Resonance Archive and expect to slaughter everything in their path--that's a job for the falx! Provided the player has enough space to use the big weapon effectively, they should definitely have the advantage when it comes to controlling an area and dealing with multiple opponents. The other drawback to consider here though, is friendly fire--these aren't weapons that you can use while playing with your friends in multiplayer, unless everyone is really watching their positioning.
Thorfinn Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 12 hours ago, LadyWYT said: I think the main hurdle in terms of rebalancing the damage is that if flint spears have lower damage than current then everything at the stone tier feels underwhelming. However, if all the metal spears have their current damage nerfed then they don't really feel like too much of an upgrade. So much this! People keep saying they want more "granularity" but there's only so much meaningful "granularity" in the system. Creature HP are in whole number values, so the current "granularity" of 1/4 HP only makes any difference if it requires a multiple of 4 hits to take it down. Having the BBEG at 57.99 out of 58 means he's still just as dangerous as he was starting out. And, of course, the flip side, so are you. When there's only a half HP distinguishing betwixt tech levels, there's just not that much wiggle room. But, heck, it's all .json. You can try it out and see for yourself. See if there's some balance you would recommend. There's nothing engaging about sprinting backwards kiting enemies? There's a simple solution. Don't do it. If you think it's cheesy to pillar up, don't do it. Leave tactics like that to the newer players who are already having trouble. Just look through all the threads talking about how difficult battle already is, where the problem is not that they are leaving piles of bodies in their wake during temporal storms, but rather that they cower in a tiny hole. Heck, wolves and bears still get lots of complaints. 1
CastIronFabric Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 14 hours ago, MKMoose said: I don't know if that could qualify for the unpopular opinions thread, but I feel like this will change quite literally nothing for combat. It's only a significant consideration when crafting the weapon (and I'll gladly welcome more complex smithing, don't get me wrong), but I'd imagine that many people will just choose something that seems fine enough and think nothing of it afterwards. I feel like combat issues tend to revolve more around insufficient depth in combat itself, while equipment crafting is just the means to get the required gear in the first place. Even if extra variety or complexity in combat were the goal of the heat treatments, then completely new weapon types or other tools would probably have more impact than minor stat variations over existing ones. Most likely they will reduce the current durability of items, coupled with perhaps making even basic metal tools/weapons more involved. I only one of one game that has tempering to any level that is more than just a few clicks and that is Wurm. If I was a betting man I would bet the devs of this game are familiar with that games mechanics and find it compelling. If I am correct in that, looking at the Wurm Online/Unlimited tempering system would not be a waste of time when considering this subject.
MKMoose Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 (edited) 3 hours ago, Thorfinn said: There's nothing engaging about sprinting backwards kiting enemies? There's a simple solution. Don't do it. If you think it's cheesy to pillar up, don't do it. Leave tactics like that to the newer players who are already having trouble. Just look through all the threads talking about how difficult battle already is, where the problem is not that they are leaving piles of bodies in their wake during temporal storms, but rather that they cower in a tiny hole. Heck, wolves and bears still get lots of complaints. From a game design perspective, this is just not how it works. If there are mechanics that are seen as cheesy or boring or whatnot, then it's the designer's job to incentivize more engaging gameplay. "Just don't do it" can be a solution to dissatisfaction with combat in some cases, but it doesn't change that the boring options exist, many people will use them, and the game has to be balanced with them in mind. You may have heard the quote generally attributed to Sid Meier: Quote Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game. One of the responsibilities of the designer is to protect the player from themselves. This especially applies to things like running backwards and pillaring up, because they're just the most efficient combat strategies currently available in many situations. Sure, I can avoid utilizing them, but I will always have it in the back of my head that I will probably have an easier time if I use them. Or if I get killed, I will always have it in the back of my head that I could have probably survived if I just used some of the more cheesy strategies. Cheesy, grindy and overall unfun solutions are often a symptom of a problem, and in the case of Vintage Story I would identify that problem with a simple observation: the game doesn't offer any other accessible and reliable methods to avoid taking damage during combat. Maybe shields are a thing, but they're implemented in an unconventional way, occasionally just don't work against melee attacks, are much less effective against high-damage attacks, and take up the offhand slot which also increases hunger rate, leaving them impractical in the eyes of most people. As for wolves and bears specifically, I really feel like it's mostly a dead horse at this point. The complaints stem primarily from how unnaturally aggressive they are and how they give almost no warning before attacking, and not necessarily from anything directly related to combat. Or if it relates to combat, then the complaint tends to be that they are too difficult to dodge and run away from. Bears are actually quite realistic or even too slow, and would probably be absolutely fine even if they were faster if they didn't aggro onto the player so easily and immediately get aggressive. Wolves are also much larger and much more dangerous than real-life wolves, from what I've seen, but that's a separate point. I'll also take the opportunity to introduce another of Sid Meier's influences on games, the definition that "a good game is a series of interesting decisions", which can be seen as a different way to say that a game has to provide the player with a sense of agency (or autonomy as described by models like self-determination theory). This can apply at any scale, from the most high-level decisions like world generation parameters, through long-term strategic choices like deciding which equipment to craft, and down to tiny reactive choices like whether I should step back to avoid getting hit by an enemy or risk a hit to attack the enemy myself. As it is currently implemented, combat offers very few interesting decisions, because meaningful equipment variety is unimpressive and most of the time the player only can perform two or three fairly shallow actions: free movement (completely unimpeded by anything most of the time), a point-and-click attack (falx or spear), optionally a ranged attack (bow or spear). This is why I was suggesting a shove action which would push away nearby enemies, because (if balanced well with weapon knockback) it would allow a choice at any moment during combat between an offensive and defensive action. That is also why I was suggesting to add more meaningful weapon choices that are more effective in different contexts, to shake up what for most people boils down to "falx for melee, bow for ranged" with almost no wiggle room. Edited January 2 by MKMoose 5
The Lerf Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 2 hours ago, Thorfinn said: There's nothing engaging about sprinting backwards kiting enemies? There's a simple solution. Don't do it. If you think it's cheesy to pillar up, don't do it. Leave tactics like that to the newer players who are already having trouble. Just look through all the threads talking about how difficult battle already is, where the problem is not that they are leaving piles of bodies in their wake during temporal storms, but rather that they cower in a tiny hole. Heck, wolves and bears still get lots of complaints. Here's the thing though, I don't think that unfamiliarity with the game and it's AI is an adequate justification for these things. Playing the game is the same as learning the game, and the difficulty spike of Temporal Storms forcing players to hide is an issue, but it's not because they haven't learned the most effective tactics. Temporal Storms became unbearable with the addition of Bowtorns, and I don't feel like they've been tuned correctly for the situations Storms put you in. I think their projectile speed and accuracy is too high to make dodging or blocking a reliable way to avoid damage, and when you get a Bowtorn Storm it's suicide to try and fight when there's so many of them at all angles around you. I don't see a no-win situation as difficulty, because then the most effective tactic to survive is to hide. And if players are hiding, it's because they recognize these situations. Sure, I could stop kiting drifters (I don't personally pillar), but where does this line of thinking stop? Should I restrict my use of weapons too? At what point have I stopped playing the game in the way I want to play it, just to get more variation out of an incredibly simple system? I'm not seeking more difficulty, or artificial difficulty by tying my right arm behind my back. I'm seeking more ways to think and react to combat in VS. I want to sprint in combat to dodge attacks and be mobile, I want to have the best weapons to defend myself with, I want the list of choices to be larger than kite, pillar, hide. That's why I think the best way to improve it is by changing enemy behavior from being heatseeking meatball missiles to things that would make kiting and pillaring less effective. 1
pigfood Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 35 minutes ago, MKMoose said: As for wolves and bears specifically, I really feel like it's mostly a dead horse at this point. The complaints stem primarily from how unnaturally aggressive they are and how they give almost no warning before attacking, and not necessarily from anything directly related to combat. I don't get the whining about bears and wolves. They at least have attack sounds and offer the player a fair chance to run away. Pigs are unnaturally aggressive, hide pretty much everywhere (sometimes in large numbers) and completely silently attack with no warning whatsoever.
LadyWYT Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 3 hours ago, Thorfinn said: There's nothing engaging about sprinting backwards kiting enemies? There's a simple solution. Don't do it. If you think it's cheesy to pillar up, don't do it. Leave tactics like that to the newer players who are already having trouble. Just look through all the threads talking about how difficult battle already is, where the problem is not that they are leaving piles of bodies in their wake during temporal storms, but rather that they cower in a tiny hole. Heck, wolves and bears still get lots of complaints. 32 minutes ago, MKMoose said: From a game design perspective, this is just not how it works. If there are mechanics that are seen as cheesy or boring or whatnot, then it's the designer's job to incentivize more engaging gameplay. "Just don't do it" can be a solution to dissatisfaction with combat in some cases, but it doesn't change that the boring options exist, many people will use them, and the game has to be balanced with them in mind. Keeping the quotes brief to cut down on the novel writing here, but my general take on this is that not all cheese is bad. It depends heavily on developer intention versus what players actually do. The dirt pillar tactic is one cheese strategy that is still in the game, but I wouldn't really call it a "problem" due to the fact that it's somewhat risky due to the ranged enemies, requires the player to have some decent aim, and is only applicable in specific scenarios. Likewise, it's also a strategy that would be very difficult to patch out of the game due to how the game itself works regarding block placement. Blocking tunnels underground I view in a similar line; it's a strategy that has limited effectiveness, and can't really be patched out either. And before someone says "Oh, just make the monsters dig through blocks!", no, that's not really a very good option, and not just because it robs players of the ability to hide if they wish. The main problem is that chiseled blocks would need to be accounted for, and no one wants their chiselwork destroyed. However, if chiseled blocks(or other specific blocks) are excluded then all the player has to do is chisel everything or otherwise use a block that the monsters can't dig through. Therefore the "problem" never actually gets fixed. I think the key to balance here is to make sure that there are enough options the average player likes so that they're more likely to use those options instead of cheap tactics. In the event they decide they want to use cheap tactics, that's also okay too--in this case, the main concern is making sure the "cheese" isn't so effective that every player will automatically resort to those tactics. To cite the dirt pillar strategy again as an example: it works well for newer players or those who struggle with combat, but since it's not really that fun I don't get the impression that most players use it. 41 minutes ago, The Lerf said: Here's the thing though, I don't think that unfamiliarity with the game and it's AI is an adequate justification for these things. Playing the game is the same as learning the game, and the difficulty spike of Temporal Storms forcing players to hide is an issue, but it's not because they haven't learned the most effective tactics. I actually disagree here, to an extent. It's not uncommon for new player complaints to surface on the forums about one thing or another, and while sometimes they do have good points it's also not unusual for the complaint to be rooted in lack of awareness of certain gameplay features. I also suspect that many modern titles are balanced in such a way that the player is never really pushing their skill limits--everything thrown at them they can easily excel at regardless of what stage of the game that they're in. That's not really a bad thing, per say, but it's also very much not how Vintage Story is balanced. The game will quite happily throw the player into situations they can't quite manage until later in the game--temporal storms are a prime example. 50 minutes ago, MKMoose said: Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game. One of the responsibilities of the designer is to protect the player from themselves. Love that Sid Meier quote. While I generally agree with it, I will note that there are limits to how much the devs can/should do when it comes to protecting players from themselves. As the saying goes "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". From a design standpoint, you can give the player several options for how to approach the game, but you can't stop them from playing the meta every single time. I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement in the game, but I do think that many complaints are self-inflicted. 54 minutes ago, MKMoose said: As it is currently implemented, combat offers very few interesting decisions, because meaningful equipment variety is unimpressive and most of the time the player only can perform two or three fairly shallow actions: free movement (completely unimpeded by anything most of the time), a point-and-click attack (falx or spear), optionally a ranged attack (bow or spear). This is why I was suggesting a shove action which would push away nearby enemies, because (if balanced well with weapon knockback) it would allow a choice at any moment during combat between an offensive and defensive action. That is also why I was suggesting to add more meaningful weapon choices that are more effective in different contexts, to shake up what for most people boils down to "falx for melee, bow for ranged" with almost no wiggle room. Just throwing a note in here, but I don't think having only a few basic choices is necessarily bad. The key to that kind of design, in my opinion, is increasing the interactions between those choices. Minecraft's combat, ironically, feels like a good example of that, at least in my recent experience(which is limited to the update prior to the happy ghasts). There's not a lot of options up front, but there are some interactions between the choices that make them more interesting. The mace converts fall damage to extra damage, if you manage to hit the target, but what happens if you're shot with an arrow of slow-falling in the process and lose your momentum on the way down? In any case, that is one reason I'm partial to your shove suggestion. It's a very small thing, but has a lot of potential interaction with the stuff we already have available. Though I do think there are some enemies that should be immune to such knockback--mainly shivers, since in reality they're almost twice the size of the player. 23 minutes ago, sushieater said: I don't get the whining about bears and wolves. They at least have attack sounds and offer the player a fair chance to run away. I think the complaints are aimed mainly at the bears, since they don't have any loud noises to announce their presence until they're in the process of attacking. Wolves are easier to notice since they frequently howl, so the player doesn't need to spot them in order to avoid them. The complaint about wolves, I think, tends to be rooted from newer players getting shocked that a "low level enemy" can kill them so fast. 27 minutes ago, sushieater said: Pigs are unnaturally aggressive, hide pretty much everywhere (sometimes in large numbers) and completely silently attack with no warning whatsoever. In my opinion, the pigs aren't nearly aggressive enough. Wild pigs are dangerous, and while they do try to avoid people they also have no qualms about trying to kill you if they decide you're too much of a threat. In the game though, they aren't aggressive unless there are piglets nearby, or the player has attacked one of them. They won't even run away if you approach them, unless they're critically injured, which makes them an easy meal most of the time. 1
pigfood Posted January 2 Report Posted January 2 (edited) 34 minutes ago, LadyWYT said: In my opinion, the pigs aren't nearly aggressive enough. Wild pigs are dangerous, and while they do try to avoid people they also have no qualms about trying to kill you if they decide you're too much of a threat. Where I grew up, there were a lot of wild pigs and I frequently encountered them, including sows with piglets. They never attacked people. In VS, piglets are around half the year and the parents turn into silent killers, unless you have the fortune of encountering the squealing piglets first. \\ I've done a huge amount of travel (including a lot of US/Canadian states) and I've come extremely close to a lot of animals in the wild, including black and brown bears with cubs, wolves and moose with kids. The VS level of animal aggression is completely ridiculous compared to the real world. Edited January 2 by sushieater
The Lerf Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 8 hours ago, LadyWYT said: I actually disagree here, to an extent. It's not uncommon for new player complaints to surface on the forums about one thing or another, and while sometimes they do have good points it's also not unusual for the complaint to be rooted in lack of awareness of certain gameplay features. I also suspect that many modern titles are balanced in such a way that the player is never really pushing their skill limits--everything thrown at them they can easily excel at regardless of what stage of the game that they're in. That's not really a bad thing, per say, but it's also very much not how Vintage Story is balanced. The game will quite happily throw the player into situations they can't quite manage until later in the game--temporal storms are a prime example. You're right, I like to refer to it's balancing as the old RPG style, where it's the player's responsibility to turn around when they encounter a threat beyond their ability, or they die. I believe the first 3? Temporal Storms a player gets are actually weaker than normal to account for early game, but I think that the difficulty spike and scaling of storms gets a bit out of hand until late game. In regards to the player's ability to retreat, it's not something that you're really allowed to do during Temporal Storms, which is why hiding or sleep skipping is so common among newer players. That, and they don't have the equipment or game knowledge to deal with it yet. But the lack of 'game knowledge' isn't solved by reading the wiki, it's solved by the player learning the cheese strats of kiting backwards and pillaring. An unfamiliar player might die during their first few temporal storms, and the game design goal should be for them to learn how to deal with storms by playing them. Storms as they're currently implemented is such a huge barrier that without cheese strats, being outside is almost always a guarantee to die. And after the first death during a storm, it usually spirals into a death loop because you don't have your weapons and equipment, you have a smaller health bar, and you haven't found a temporal gear for a spawn point at home so you gotta run back, and then there's 3 monsters camping your corpse, and repeat. I remember my first storm, lol. By the end of the storm, your original death marker is no longer on your map, and you may have lost all your gear. I can completely understand why newer players will avoid every single storm from that point, or just drop the game. The first hill is tremendous with a pitfall back to day 3. That being said, Temporal Storms aren't a game skill/knowledge check, which is what I mean by that. The battle during a storm is hard, but not because of players not knowing the cheese. They're hard because they're poorly designed with an enemy sandbox that's too deadly to play against with honest tactics, and too high a penalty for inevitable failure. I don't think that the difficulty is justifiable just because if you're new you can cheese, and if you want challenge you can cheesen't.
ifoz Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 (edited) I feel like a decent way to shake up the current meta would be making the damage types into a real mechanic. Currently certain weapons list damage types (blunt and piercing for example), despite the fact these actually don't mean anything and don't affect anything. Having weapons such as maces designed for taking down mechanical foes (slam the metal plates around, disrupt the inner workings) while being worse than falxes at dealing with Rust monsters (they're thick-skinned and contain metal, so they absorb the blow better) would be a step in the right direction in my eyes. Making players choose what weapons to take along for what enemies they expect to encounter. That, and changing the way armour hit detection works. Currently it's a Morrowind style percentage chance. Even if it looks like a drifter hit you in the ankles, the game could roll the chance for that hit to apply to your head. This feels weird and completely untelegraphed (not to mention the fact this isn't mentioned anywhere in the handbook as far as I remember). Making it a system of actual hitboxes (legs, chest, head) could help with a decent amount of armour/combat jank I think. If you aren't wearing a helmet and a drifter swipes at your plate armoured legs, that should not count as a head hit. Edited January 3 by ifoz 2
QueenGeeBee Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 I like your idea Ifoz, so something like this? Mechanicals are weak to Blunt, because it smashes up their bits Rotbeasts/Rust monsters are weak to Slashing (What the falx does / maybe axe why not) Animals are weak to piercing, because it damages their internals (like the bow and arrow / spear, weapons a Hunter would use.) I think the important bit is to not make any enemies resistant to a damage type. It would just confuse players as to why weapons of the same tier kill enemies at confusing rates. They should allow people to realistically use any weapon they wanna use, and maybe just reward using some weapons on certain enemies. It would be a basic way to add some complexity, it still makes the falx the best weapon to take on rust monsters (as it was designed to do lore wise). That, combined with MKMoose's Shove action idea, and status affect infliction based on weapon type (Like blunt weapons stunning, or slashing weapons bleeding over time) would be a great start at making combat more worthwhile engaging with and learning the mechanics, while not completely making it unapproachable by new players. 4
LadyWYT Posted January 3 Report Posted January 3 10 hours ago, QueenGeeBee said: I think the important bit is to not make any enemies resistant to a damage type. It would just confuse players as to why weapons of the same tier kill enemies at confusing rates. They should allow people to realistically use any weapon they wanna use, and maybe just reward using some weapons on certain enemies. It would be a basic way to add some complexity, it still makes the falx the best weapon to take on rust monsters (as it was designed to do lore wise). I think in this case, all that would need to be done is give the falx a bit of bonus damage against monsters--the fleshy ones, at least--if it needs more of an edge to ensure it remains the prime choice for monster fighting. That's only if the falx needs an extra bonus aside from the autoloot feature though, which is much more useful than one might think. I do love my Blackguard shortsword, but there are times that it's just not possible to manually loot the corpses.
The Lerf Posted January 4 Report Posted January 4 If there was a mixture of enemies that had weaknesses to different weapons, I'd support it. But as the game is now, damage types as you describe just removes the reason to use any weapon you want. If you're going caving, why would you bring a spear if a Falx gets bonus damage on everything you meet? You've put yourself at a disadvantage without it. We just don't have any situations in game where there would be a mix of enemies weak to these different damage types, that would benefit from the added complexity.
LadyWYT Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 28 minutes ago, The Lerf said: If you're going caving, why would you bring a spear if a Falx gets bonus damage on everything you meet? I would suggest a hammer or mace rather than a spear, as a blunt weapon would be much better for smashing mechanical things. A falx is great for fighting fleshy things, but likely not so good when it comes to machines. The spear could still be decent in a cave though, since you can poke things that you couldn't otherwise reach without putting yourself in harm's way. Even so, it'd still be wise to have a sidearm(like the falx) as a backup weapon.
The Lerf Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 I'd forgotten completely about Locusts. And you know, that might be the only situation in game where two different enemy types can meet and be fought against simultaneously. 1
LadyWYT Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 Just now, The Lerf said: And you know, that might be the only situation in game where two different enemy types can meet and be fought against simultaneously. Not quite. There are at least two story locations where it's possible to fight two different enemy types at the same time.
The Lerf Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 Is that frequent enough to justify adding damage types? Those are the situations where such a system would shine. The overwhelming majority of the game has you dealing with only one type of enemy at a time.
LadyWYT Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 13 minutes ago, The Lerf said: Is that frequent enough to justify adding damage types? Those are the situations where such a system would shine. The overwhelming majority of the game has you dealing with only one type of enemy at a time. Maybe. It depends on who you ask. I don't think the player needs to consistently face multiple enemy types at the same time to justify adding such a mechanic; it's more a choice of "what kind of enemy do you want an advantage against?" It's also likely a mechanic that would have a lot more depth in a PvP situation than it would in PvE. As for my opinion, it's not my first choice when it comes to potential combat improvements. I'd rather see systems like status effects and herbalism fleshed out first, and see how much those tip the balance, before worrying about more drastic overhauls like damage types and whatnot.
ifoz Posted January 5 Report Posted January 5 On 1/3/2026 at 1:17 AM, MKMoose said: Maybe shields are a thing, but they're implemented in an unconventional way, occasionally just don't work against melee attacks, are much less effective against high-damage attacks, and take up the offhand slot which also increases hunger rate, leaving them impractical in the eyes of most people. VS has some weird systems like this that almost act like something you'd expect to see out of a 90's RPG. Not in a good way either, more just feeling like antiquated design. I'm talking about the way armour and shields work - they're an internal dice roll. It's a 3D open-world survival game, and yet hit detection works on a "20% chance head, 50% chest, 30% legs" system. If an enemy hits you in the legs, and you're wearing plate armour without a helmet, there is a 20% chance that hit actually registered on your head and so you'd take full damage. This is the kind of system that works for a 2D RPG where characters are simple sprites, but it feels quite wonky in a full 3D environment. I've talked about it before, but this system feels really out of place in the game in my eyes. It's not telegraphed at all, and it's not explained by the handbook. There also isn't really a reason for the hit detection to work like this, as it is not really fun, and certainly not realistic. It's fine enough as it is right now for just serving its purpose, but I think that making it true hit detection would be much more engaging and make much more sense. It might also help to relieve some of the combat frustrations that players have.
Recommended Posts