Hopes & Dreams for Changes to Combat

[Chuckerton]

9 hours ago, DarkGold said:

I like this idea in principle, but there are 2 troubles with weapon or armor strategy in the game at the moment:

1. Inventory space: carrying multiple armor and weapons eats it up.
2. In games where you are making these choices, you are usually tailoring it to the areas/enemies you are fighting. At the moment, the enemy variety in VS isn't so high that you aren't often fighting all possible enemies at once (besides choosing between hunting animals and fighting monsters).

I don't think either of these problems are unsolvable, but they'll require looking at other systems to really make everything work together nicely. It's great that the whole next update will be tackling combat, because the implications of the changes will likely be far reaching if they want to make bigger changes like this.

I dont really anticipate enemy types changing much (although i think bandits would be a cool new enemy, though i doubt we will be getting that for many reasons).

If were not getting new enemy types then that rules out equipment strategy in that regard. i do think that armor strategy exists in this game and i think weapon strategy would follow it in the same thing, which is environment. You dont typically walk around exploring and gathering and all that in plate armor, but if you know youre going somewhere that you expect to fight in, you bring it if you have it. I think weapons would be the same way, you bring the weapon depending on the conditions you expect to face. 

If weapons swing in arcs, maybe they can collide with walls? A big broadly swinging greatsword probably wouldnt do great in a cave, but a polearm you can poke with would be nice to have. Same with a temporal storm on the surface, a polearm that pokes in a straight line at a single target would probably not be as good as a greatsword that can threaten many enemies at once and doesnt have issues swinging in wide arcs. 

Either way i do hope we get multiple attack types with weapons, at least just stabs vs slashing. Some weapons could be better than others at different attacks but considering the advantages of either kinds of attack during a fight would be very engaging i think. 

[Chuckerton]

5 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Fear of fire could apply to many wild animals in general, not just wolves. Waving a torch might be a crude early game solution, but the player could perhaps have access to some kind of flare later. Flares could be better at spooking animals, as well as potentially used to confuse certain monsters.

I think i saw someone else here talking about a way to stun many enemies instead of outright killing them for the strategy of escaping, and it made me think that we only have 1 actual grenade, the beenade. The ottoman janissaries used glass balls with explosive material in them as grenades and i think that could be something applicable here. A glass or ceramic ball with some kind of bright and fast burning filler to make a primitive kind of flashbang. I love the limited chemistry in this game and would love to see people making magnesium grenades. Or you know, just filling them with explosive powder and throwing them. You could even make iron ball grenades which cant be thrown as far and dont explode on contact but are very lethal due to the shrapnel \:,'

Edited 23 hours ago by Chuckerton

[LadyWYT]

38 minutes ago, Chuckerton said:

Either way i do hope we get multiple attack types with weapons, at least just stabs vs slashing. Some weapons could be better than others at different attacks but considering the advantages of either kinds of attack during a fight would be very engaging i think.

I was mulling it over earlier about various damage types, and one general drawback of such systems is that blunt and piercing damage end up being incredibly useful in certain scenarios while slashing damage tends to be resisted by everything. In some ways it makes sense--swords are a staple weapon and you want to encourage players to pick different weapons from time to time, and slashing damage is also a little easier to mitigate and serves as a solid "general purpose" damage type. However, it can also be a little disappointing to stick to a slashing weapon as your main choice, and never really have a chance for that choice to shine. 

What could give slashing weapons their own special niche though, I think, is different damage modes. Take the sword for example--a sword is often used for cutting, but it can also be used for stabbing or even as a club. From a game balance standpoint, a sword might do slashing damage by default, but could also have modes for piercing and blunt damage rather than slashing. Piercing damage could be about the same as slashing, but with a much smaller hitbox than a slashing attack, meaning that the player will need to be more precise with their attack in order to actually do the damage. Blunt damage could be rather low, so the sword isn't going to outclass proper blunt weapons, but it's there if you really need it for some reason. Daggers could operate in a similar fashion to swords regarding damage. Axes could be somewhat similar, but rather than have two different damage modes they could instead have their total damage split between slashing and blunt.

And of course, the falx specifically should probably deal some bonus damage to non-mechanical monsters, since in the lore it's supposed to be more effective at fighting the unnatural.

[Bruno Willis]

21 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

What could give slashing weapons their own special niche though, I think, is different damage modes. Take the sword for example--a sword is often used for cutting, but it can also be used for stabbing or even as a club. From a game balance standpoint, a sword might do slashing damage by default, but could also have modes for piercing and blunt damage rather than slashing.

I'm picturing pressing F and choosing a mode (like with a pro-pick) in the middle of combat... Doesn't sound very smooth to me, but maybe it could be?

I could imagine holding a weapon in hand and pressing F and being given a quick list of stances to choose from instead (maybe 4?). Aggressive, precise, wide and defensive say. Those stances would then change the type of attack each weapon does, and offer alternative animations with them:

• Aggressive: Swords, falx, axe = big overhead swings, get more damage out of falx and axe. Spears = slower lunges with more power. Bows draw faster, for less damage.
• Precise: Swords, spears & bows deal extra damage against the head, all weapons deal a little extra against armored opponents.
• Wide: Longer weapons can be swung in wide arcs, hitting multiple opponents (sword, falx, axe). Spears and Polearms (ruined bardiche, etc.) deal some extra damage (or maybe just have a wider arc). Bows gain extra range.
• Defensive: Nimble weapons (sword, spear) get a parry option. Shields block extra damage. Bows draw slower for more damage.

You'd have to press F and choose a stance whenever you wanted to shift stances, which would mean the average player would set a stance as they went into a fight, and leave it at that. It'd be a real skill learning to pick your moment and switch stances mid fight, which might be cool.

Although, maybe stance switching could be keyed to your movement keys, since you're already going to have your fingers there while fighting. Essentially, you'd press F, which would bring up a grey cross with the four stance options, then if you pressed W (forward) you'd go straight into aggressive stance, if you pressed S you'd go into defensive, and to either side would do wide or precise. That way, even if you are flummoxed or press F accidentally, you don't get locked into an inventory screen, you might just enter a stance that's not ideal. You'll still be able to attack. 

[MKMoose]

7 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

I could imagine holding a weapon in hand and pressing F and being given a quick list of stances to choose from instead (maybe 4?). Aggressive, precise, wide and defensive say. Those stances would then change the type of attack each weapon does, and offer alternative animations with them:

It seems to me that having manually switched stances, while certainly an interesting option, would end up quickly annoying to play with, especially with four of them and not two like most systems tend to default to, mainly because switching stances would inherently be an interruption to combat.

If more varied attacks are the goal, then it seems to me that it would be a better idea to choose different attacks automatically based on directional inputs as well as sprinting and crouching, and perhaps some added parameters like current player speed, input duration or enemy proximity. This approach can have several possible advantages:

• instead of having to press a button or even two buttons each time you want to switch modes, the modifiers would apply instantaneously and could be easily varied in the middle of an attack sequence,
• automatically executing different attacks depending on other inputs effortlessly adds variety even when the player doesn't make a conscious effort to switch attacks - if done well, it can lead to very intuitive and satisfying combat,
• having certain powerful attacks restricted to specific input combinations can create limitations which reinforce the intended purpose of an attack and contribute to its balance, e.g. an overhead chop requiring forward input and no side inputs or a full-power bow draw requiring no movement at all and a standing (i.e. not crouching) stance would be inherently more risky and commited than other moves.

Bonus points if different attacks have drastically different properties and can be chained neatly, e.g. a strafing low-damage swipe which briefly cripples the target's movement and a powerful stationary overhead chop which requires a wind-up and is normally difficult to hit on moving targets.

Granted, stances can work well in their own right, albeit they serve a notably different purpose from motion inputs (direction + attack), context-sensitive inputs and other methods to increase variety of available attacks. Motion inputs fall quite squarely under the category of mechanical execution skills, allowing the player to combine inputs and chain them in complex ways. Automatic attack selection based on context can be a purely rule-of-cool choice, but also serve to simplify the inputs by giving the player what they most likely want depending on conditions, making for a more engaging and visually appealing system that retains a low skill floor. Stances, on the other hand, tend to be associated with prediction and risk management, used largely as a method of matching the player's capabilties to the opponent at hand or the environment. Problem: this kind of stances appear most often in mechanically complex games where characters have tightly defined movesets, but VS can easily just allow the player to carry multiple weapons and other equipment, which effectively allows to switch "stances" (actually weapons and accessories) at any moment.

 

8 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

What could give slashing weapons their own special niche though, I think, is different damage modes. Take the sword for example--a sword is often used for cutting, but it can also be used for stabbing or even as a club. From a game balance standpoint, a sword might do slashing damage by default, but could also have modes for piercing and blunt damage rather than slashing.

For example the sword here, to keep it relatively simple as the baseline multipurpose weapon, could have three primary attacks with different damage types each:

• cut (slashing) - the default attack, possibly with a few directional variants but those would likely be largely cosmetic differences,
• thrust (piercing) - requires forward input (ideally only brief input, or with low character velocity, or otherwise limited to avoid using it repeatedly while chasing a target) or potentially crouching, intended as a quick wounding jab to harass or open up the target (could have a charged attack variant as well to allow tighter negative edge timing),
• pommel strike (blunt) - requires backwards input (and ideally should check for enemy proximity), has low damage and some stunning or knockback effects to help with keeping enemies away.

Edited 14 hours ago by MKMoose
Clarify stances and why I think VS doesn't need them.

[williams_482]

16 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

When it comes to chapter two, it definitely makes having a mount a more attractive option for travel. Currently, you can cover the distance on foot in about the same time as you can on the elk, partly due to the fact that if you're on foot you don't really need to make a detour around dense forest or rough terrain. 

I've seen people say this, but in my experience it's not accurate. An elk makes travel enormously faster as long as you have a bone flute and are willing to dismount in really rough terrain. Riding on flat ground or very steep terrain is much faster than on foot, and when you encounter a dense forest there's no need to go around it. Just dismount and run through it, blasting away on the flute to keep your elk close, and when you reach clear ground again hop back on and keep riding. 

[williams_482]

Regarding damage types, if they were implemented I'd like to see something like this. Note that any numbers are illustrative, not exact.

- Weapons have two modes of attack: swing and thrust. Many have only one mode (i.e. arrows), others have two but one is obviously superior (i.e. spears)

- Thrust attacks do piercing damage, swing attacks do cutting damage. Cutting attacks have higher base damages and are more likely to deliver disabling status effects. Piercing attacks are more likely to deal extra damage to fleshy creatures if they penetrate armor significantly, but won't do very much against mechanicals. There is also a third damage type which we will cover below, blunt damage, which might have some extra benefits against mechanicals.

- Every weapon attack has a base damage along with two other stats, which we'll call "sharpness" and "heft". Sharpness effectively refers to how small the business end of the weapon is, while heft is how much force it strikes with. Let's imagine sharpness is on a scale of 0 to 1. A club (blunt instrument, no edge) would have a sharpness of zero for both swing and thrust attacks, a rapier (sharp point, weak cutting edge) would have sharpness 1 for thrust and maybe 0.3 for swing. A falx (no real point, big sharp cutting edge) would be sharpness 0.2 for thrust but 0.8 for swing. Etc. 

- Sharpness determines how well the weapon can penetrate various forms of armor. Armor has different resistances to thrust and piercing attacks. Chain mail is a notable example: it will stop cutting attacks cold assuming comparable material between weapon and armor (swing sharpness reduced by 90%), but is vulnerable to small points which slip between and possibly split the rings (pierce sharpness reduced by 20%).

- Heft determines how much blunt damage is dealt if the weapon partially or completely fails to penetrate. Different armors will mitigate blunt damage different amounts, but all armors will mitigate blunt damage less than piercing or cutting damage. Based on the effective sharpness of weapon vs armor, the attack will deal a percentage of it's damage as either piercing or cutting, then the remainder as crushing damage, modified up or down based on the heft of the weapon. A club is a hefty weapon will fail to penetrate even an unarmored target: it will always deal 100% blunt damage. A falx is a hefty weapon which will at least partially penetrate most armors, but even poor penetration will still deal significant blunt damage. A rapier is a sharp but very light weapon. When swung it will very rarely penetrate even light armor, and will deal negligible blunt damage either. When thrust, it has much higher sharpness so it will get some penetration against all but the heaviest armors, but if stopped it will again deal negligible blunt damage. 

This system has several advantages:

- it's realistic. This is a pretty good model for how points, edges, and blunt instruments interact with various armors and with human bodies. 

- It creates sensible tradeoffs. Different weapons are good against different armors and different targets, but there would still be a clear progression of better armors. Chain is extremely popular in-game, as it was historically. It's exact penalties and benefits should be tuned to maintain that, despite it being relatively less effective against drifters and bowtorn than against shivers, bears, and falx-wielding humans. Clubs become most useful against heavily armored opponents and mechanical creatures, while spears are the better bet against animals and lightly armored players. 

Bells become much more dangerous under this system: they are obviously mechanical, and will be highly resistant to arrows. Shooting them from outside detection range won't really work, you have to run up and bash them with something heavy. That seems appropriate. 

There is one obvious disadvantage: complexity. Which I'll admit might be fatal. The complex formulas are not that important to the player and easily hidden, like armor calculations are now, but it does add a number of extra stats to each weapon: damage, sharpness, and heft for each of up to two attack types per weapon, and sharpness reduction for two attack types plus damage reduction for three damage types for armor. 

It also leaves the question of controls for two types of attack per weapon. left-click swing, right-click thrust falls apart immediately for spears which can also be thrown, and F to select modes mid-combat is much too clunky to be workable. With only two melee options F as a swap key instead of bringing up a menu might be fine, but does require that the interface clearly communicate what mode you are in. 

Edited 14 hours ago by williams_482

[LadyWYT]

9 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

I'm picturing pressing F and choosing a mode (like with a pro-pick) in the middle of combat... Doesn't sound very smooth to me, but maybe it could be?

It's not the smoothest, but it does allow the player control over what kind of damage they're doing, and perhaps acts as a bit of a balance. That being said...most tools that have different modes only have a couple of modes available, so it probably wouldn't be too hard to turn F into a simple toggle rather than bring up a full menu. The one exception is the chisel, which should still retain the menu due to how the item is used.

 

4 hours ago, MKMoose said:

It seems to me that having manually switched stances, while certainly an interesting option, would end up quickly annoying to play with, especially with four of them and not two like most systems tend to default to, mainly because switching stances would inherently be an interruption to combat.

This is probably why Skyrim's combat is set up the way that it is. Forwards/backwards tends to focus on a single target, while sideways can create a sweep attack with the right weapon. 

 

5 hours ago, MKMoose said:

Bonus points if different attacks have drastically different properties and can be chained neatly, e.g. a strafing low-damage swipe which briefly cripples the target's movement and a powerful stationary overhead chop which requires a wind-up and is normally difficult to hit on moving targets.

The best thing about charging at a target with a power attack is that while the attack can do a lot of damage if it hits...it's very easy to miscalculate and have the momentum carry you past the target. In which case, your backside is going to be wide open for a counterattack while you take a couple of seconds to recover.

 

5 hours ago, MKMoose said:

For example the sword here, to keep it relatively simple as the baseline multipurpose weapon, could have three primary attacks with different damage types each:

• cut (slashing) - the default attack, possibly with a few directional variants but those would likely be largely cosmetic differences,
• thrust (piercing) - requires forward input (ideally only brief input, or with low character velocity, or otherwise limited to avoid using it repeatedly while chasing a target) or potentially crouching, intended as a quick wounding jab to harass or open up the target (could have a charged attack variant as well to allow tighter negative edge timing),
• pommel strike (blunt) - requires backwards input (and ideally should check for enemy proximity), has low damage and some stunning or knockback effects to help with keeping enemies away.

I think I would still prefer some sort of key-cycle rather than directional input here. The reason I say that is that forwards and sideways attacks are easy enough to land, but backwards attacks are actively moving you away from the target, if only a little bit. Striking with the blade it's not a big deal, since the pointy end has a lot more reach, but trying to strike with the pommel means you need to be fairly close to hit the target since you're not using the full reach of the sword. So either the range of the pommel strike ends up unrealistic, or the attack itself winds up useless because the benefits just aren't worth the difficulty of trying to land the attack.

 

3 hours ago, williams_482 said:

I've seen people say this, but in my experience it's not accurate. An elk makes travel enormously faster as long as you have a bone flute and are willing to dismount in really rough terrain. Riding on flat ground or very steep terrain is much faster than on foot, and when you encounter a dense forest there's no need to go around it. Just dismount and run through it, blasting away on the flute to keep your elk close, and when you reach clear ground again hop back on and keep riding. 

Yes, the elk will still be a bit faster, but that's why I said about the same time. 

 

1 hour ago, williams_482 said:

With only two melee options F as a swap key instead of bringing up a menu might be fine, but does require that the interface clearly communicate what mode you are in. 

The stance animation could change depending on what weapon mode is selected. Using the sword as the example again--when slashing is selected, the current default hold animation could be used. When thrusting is selected, the character could lower the sword's point and hold the weapon back slightly. When bashing is selected, the character could hold the sword higher, with the pommel facing forward.

 

1 hour ago, williams_482 said:

It also leaves the question of controls for two types of attack per weapon. left-click swing, right-click thrust falls apart immediately for spears which can also be thrown

It also removes adding a more streamlined block/parry system to right-click.

Overall I do like the write-up, but I would be concerned about the sharpness stat getting confused with the sharpness the grinding wheel adds. Sharpness is sharpness, but the base sharpness value isn't quite the same thing as the bonus the grinding wheel adds.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

11 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

What could give slashing weapons their own special niche though, I think, is different damage modes. Take the sword for example--a sword is often used for cutting, but it can also be used for stabbing or even as a club. From a game balance standpoint, a sword might do slashing damage by default, but could also have modes for piercing and blunt damage rather than slashing. Piercing damage could be about the same as slashing, but with a much smaller hitbox than a slashing attack, meaning that the player will need to be more precise with their attack in order to actually do the damage. Blunt damage could be rather low, so the sword isn't going to outclass proper blunt weapons, but it's there if you really need it for some reason. Daggers could operate in a similar fashion to swords regarding damage. Axes could be somewhat similar, but rather than have two different damage modes they could instead have their total damage split between slashing and blunt.

And of course, the falx specifically should probably deal some bonus damage to non-mechanical monsters, since in the lore it's supposed to be more effective at fighting the unnatural.

I think the inherent reason why I don't like different damage types is because it feels like a very cheap way to force weapon diversity. The weapons don't actually function any different other than you run into an enemy where your weapon is just straight up worse and you should use it, not because the enemy behaves a certain way or is in a certain environment, but simply because the numbers changed. It complicates the game in a boring way imo, because now you have to pay attention to these stats, rather than the gameplay situations your entering and strategizing around that.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

12 hours ago, Chuckerton said:

I think i saw someone else here talking about a way to stun many enemies instead of outright killing them for the strategy of escaping, and it made me think that we only have 1 actual grenade, the beenade. The ottoman janissaries used glass balls with explosive material in them as grenades and i think that could be something applicable here. A glass or ceramic ball with some kind of bright and fast burning filler to make a primitive kind of flashbang. I love the limited chemistry in this game and would love to see people making magnesium grenades. Or you know, just filling them with explosive powder and throwing them. You could even make iron ball grenades which cant be thrown as far and dont explode on contact but are very lethal due to the shrapnel \:,'

I'm telling yall, firecrackers would be tons of fun.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

10 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

I'm picturing pressing F and choosing a mode (like with a pro-pick) in the middle of combat... Doesn't sound very smooth to me, but maybe it could be?

I could imagine holding a weapon in hand and pressing F and being given a quick list of stances to choose from instead (maybe 4?). Aggressive, precise, wide and defensive say. Those stances would then change the type of attack each weapon does, and offer alternative animations with them:

• Aggressive: Swords, falx, axe = big overhead swings, get more damage out of falx and axe. Spears = slower lunges with more power. Bows draw faster, for less damage.
• Precise: Swords, spears & bows deal extra damage against the head, all weapons deal a little extra against armored opponents.
• Wide: Longer weapons can be swung in wide arcs, hitting multiple opponents (sword, falx, axe). Spears and Polearms (ruined bardiche, etc.) deal some extra damage (or maybe just have a wider arc). Bows gain extra range.
• Defensive: Nimble weapons (sword, spear) get a parry option. Shields block extra damage. Bows draw slower for more damage.

You'd have to press F and choose a stance whenever you wanted to shift stances, which would mean the average player would set a stance as they went into a fight, and leave it at that. It'd be a real skill learning to pick your moment and switch stances mid fight, which might be cool.

Although, maybe stance switching could be keyed to your movement keys, since you're already going to have your fingers there while fighting. Essentially, you'd press F, which would bring up a grey cross with the four stance options, then if you pressed W (forward) you'd go straight into aggressive stance, if you pressed S you'd go into defensive, and to either side would do wide or precise. That way, even if you are flummoxed or press F accidentally, you don't get locked into an inventory screen, you might just enter a stance that's not ideal. You'll still be able to attack. 

See, to me this is too much. I like the idea of crouching causing a more defensive attack stance, one that works along side shields. Like I mentioned before, this is very easy to see with spears since irl when you walk around with a spear, you're mostly skipping around and abusing the reach of the spear to tap and harass opponents, whereas when you plant down with a shield to hold a position, it's more about using the spear to maintain distance and create even more of a defensive barrier. As a result, I thought it would make sense if when you're standing, the spear could attack a little faster, it does less damage, and has little knockback or hitstun, whereas while you're crouched, the spear attack is closer to the one in game, but physically pushes enemies to the end of the spears reach. I think anything past 2 different attacks though is getting too complicated in general, I think it's good that each weapon have a little more to it, but in general, I think more diversity in combat utility should come from combinations of different items in your hotbar, rather than combinations of different mechanics in each weapon.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

6 hours ago, MKMoose said:

For example the sword here, to keep it relatively simple as the baseline multipurpose weapon, could have three primary attacks with different damage types each:

• cut (slashing) - the default attack, possibly with a few directional variants but those would likely be largely cosmetic differences,
• thrust (piercing) - requires forward input (ideally only brief input, or with low character velocity, or otherwise limited to avoid using it repeatedly while chasing a target) or potentially crouching, intended as a quick wounding jab to harass or open up the target (could have a charged attack variant as well to allow tighter negative edge timing),
• pommel strike (blunt) - requires backwards input (and ideally should check for enemy proximity), has low damage and some stunning or knockback effects to help with keeping enemies away.

This type of weapon attack diversity I think is a lot more organic to the game, I don't think directional inputs are a good idea, if not especially to just keep the vanilla game distinct from combat overhaul, but this makes more sense to me. I still don't understand the point of the damage types, it especially feels like redundant bloat when all of the weapons are made to perform an attack that does it, and tying those attacks to movement just make everything more frustrating because now, to do optimal damage to an enemy, I might have to exclusively hit it while back pedaling, which could be annoying. 

To me, it should function more like this:

cut: default attack, pretty much what's in the game
thrust: moving/sprinting forward, more committed attack, higher crit, if they're adding hitboxes to the game, then improved headshot damage, also is a longer animation to compensate

pommel strike: walking backward, quick slap move that does little damage but provides enemies with a little more hitstun. 

 

This is more what I think fits in the game, different utilities for different attacks, rather than different damage types. I definitely don't think there should be more than 3 per weapon.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

3 hours ago, williams_482 said:

Regarding damage types, if they were implemented I'd like to see something like this. Note that any numbers are illustrative, not exact.

- Weapons have two modes of attack: swing and thrust. Many have only one mode (i.e. arrows), others have two but one is obviously superior (i.e. spears)

- Thrust attacks do piercing damage, swing attacks do cutting damage. Cutting attacks have higher base damages and are more likely to deliver disabling status effects. Piercing attacks are more likely to deal extra damage to fleshy creatures if they penetrate armor significantly, but won't do very much against mechanicals. There is also a third damage type which we will cover below, blunt damage, which might have some extra benefits against mechanicals.

- Every weapon attack has a base damage along with two other stats, which we'll call "sharpness" and "heft". Sharpness effectively refers to how small the business end of the weapon is, while heft is how much force it strikes with. Let's imagine sharpness is on a scale of 0 to 1. A club (blunt instrument, no edge) would have a sharpness of zero for both swing and thrust attacks, a rapier (sharp point, weak cutting edge) would have sharpness 1 for thrust and maybe 0.3 for swing. A falx (no real point, big sharp cutting edge) would be sharpness 0.2 for thrust but 0.8 for swing. Etc. 

- Sharpness determines how well the weapon can penetrate various forms of armor. Armor has different resistances to thrust and piercing attacks. Chain mail is a notable example: it will stop cutting attacks cold assuming comparable material between weapon and armor (swing sharpness reduced by 90%), but is vulnerable to small points which slip between and possibly split the rings (pierce sharpness reduced by 20%).

- Heft determines how much blunt damage is dealt if the weapon partially or completely fails to penetrate. Different armors will mitigate blunt damage different amounts, but all armors will mitigate blunt damage less than piercing or cutting damage. Based on the effective sharpness of weapon vs armor, the attack will deal a percentage of it's damage as either piercing or cutting, then the remainder as crushing damage, modified up or down based on the heft of the weapon. A club is a hefty weapon will fail to penetrate even an unarmored target: it will always deal 100% blunt damage. A falx is a hefty weapon which will at least partially penetrate most armors, but even poor penetration will still deal significant blunt damage. A rapier is a sharp but very light weapon. When swung it will very rarely penetrate even light armor, and will deal negligible blunt damage either. When thrust, it has much higher sharpness so it will get some penetration against all but the heaviest armors, but if stopped it will again deal negligible blunt damage. 

Ok this post has given me a little more to think about damage types and I think get to brass tacks over the kind of combat additions I think are beneficial to the game. These damage types are interesting or warranted if they do actually result in qualitative outcomes in combat, and contextualize new interactions with the environment. For example, to refer to my previous idea about stunning shivers by hitting them in the head while their mouth is open, maybe this can only be performed with a thrust/piercing attack. Blunt attacks provide stun to enemies, and can actually upset the environment, meaning if you were in a mine, or near a hillside, you could intentionally swing a blunt instrument at an unstable region and force the terrain to collapse on your opponent. I don't really know for a 'slash' style of attack, to me it's the default so it should be the standard across most weapons and attacks, and thus shouldn't really do anything special, maybe you can damage the limbs of enemy combatants best with slashing attacks, leaving them crippled in various ways, but idk. Either way, the biggest thing is that if you add a new damage type, the biggest contributions are going to be new types of interactions with npcs and the environment, otherwise I think they're going to be an added annoyance for most players.

[LadyWYT]

19 minutes ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

I think the inherent reason why I don't like different damage types is because it feels like a very cheap way to force weapon diversity. The weapons don't actually function any different other than you run into an enemy where your weapon is just straight up worse and you should use it, not because the enemy behaves a certain way or is in a certain environment, but simply because the numbers changed. It complicates the game in a boring way imo, because now you have to pay attention to these stats, rather than the gameplay situations your entering and strategizing around that.

Damage types are meant to help push players to use different strategies every so often, as well as meant to help different equipment choices actually feel different. For example, a piercing weapon like a spear or bow would be quite strong against wild animals, but struggle against mechanical enemies since they're made of metal. A mace would be really good against metal enemies since it can crush the metal parts, but might not be a good choice for confronting a bear since flesh and hide is squishy and can absorb the impact. For games with magic systems, it means playing a frost mage build will give you a distinct advantage against opponents that are weak to frost, but means you're going to suffer if you fail to account for enemies that are resistant/immune to frost damage. That could mean learning a couple of basic spells that do other damage, or it could mean using scrolls, potions, or buying a weapon specifically for that encounter.

To use TES games as an example here--in Skyrim, undead creatures are immune to frost and poison damage, but are weak to fire and holy damage. Holy damage won't hurt living creatures so spells and enchantments that deal that kind of damage aren't something you'll use all the time, but it can be useful to have a few "turn undead" scrolls or a weapon with that enchantment with clearing a barrow or vampire lair. Characters that choose to specialize in that kind of magic will be exceptionally good at battling undead creatures. In previous TES games, ghosts could only be damaged by spells, enchanted weapons, or silver weapons, which meant that more martial characters would need to invest in specialized weapons or spell scrolls every now and then.

For a Vintage Story context, I would still expect the player to be able to take pretty much any standard weapon into most encounters and still be able to win. It's just that they might struggle with some encounters more than others depending on their choice of equipment.

[MKMoose]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

Overall I do like the write-up, but I would be concerned about the sharpness stat getting confused with the sharpness the grinding wheel adds. Sharpness is sharpness, but the base sharpness value isn't quite the same thing as the bonus the grinding wheel adds.

The grinding wheel increasing sharpness in that three-parameter configuration would arguably be a much more interesting bonus than a critical hit chance, so I see no reason not to integrate the two together.

But otherwise, it's just a matter of naming. You could name it "piercing", and boom - exact same mechanics, no name conflicts.

 

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

I think I would still prefer some sort of key-cycle rather than directional input here. The reason I say that is that forwards and sideways attacks are easy enough to land, but backwards attacks are actively moving you away from the target, if only a little bit. Striking with the blade it's not a big deal, since the pointy end has a lot more reach, but trying to strike with the pommel means you need to be fairly close to hit the target since you're not using the full reach of the sword. So either the range of the pommel strike ends up unrealistic, or the attack itself winds up useless because the benefits just aren't worth the difficulty of trying to land the attack.

The point of restricting the pommel strike to a backwards motion input is exactly that it limits the attack's usefulness to cases where the player is attacked and on the back foot. If all attacks are equally viable in all circumstances, then that's arguably a bit boring. Making a pommel strike easier to perform while the player is getting mauled and backing up would be quite intuitive and allow a satisfyingly fast reaction to a threat which would have taken ever so slightly more fiddling about if you had to change the stance first.

If range is a concern, proximity detection should do the trick - if there is no close-by enemy, do the normal cut. Making the attack range somewhat unrealistic would be quite fine as well, I think, since we already have swords with 2.5 m range. And ultimately, the intended purpose of the attack is to keep aggressive enemies at bay, so you're more likely to use it when an enemy is close-by.

 

25 minutes ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

tying those attacks to movement just make everything more frustrating because now, to do optimal damage to an enemy, I might have to exclusively hit it while back pedaling, which could be annoying. 

If a system leads you to use one attack exclusively to deal optimal damage, then whether you have to walk backwards to use that attack doesn't change the fundamental problem of one attack being always optimal. A well-designed system will incentivize you to weave different attacks. Or if that's not possible and you still end up with just one optimal attack, then any competent designer will make sure that the most common and universal moves are not annoying to execute.

Edited 10 hours ago by MKMoose

[LadyWYT]

19 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

The point of restricting the pommel strike to a backwards motion input is exactly that it limits the attack's usefulness to cases where the player is attacked and on the back foot. If all attacks are equally viable in all circumstances, then that's arguably a bit boring. Making a pommel strike more intuitive to perform while the player is getting mauled and backing up would be quite intuitive and allow a satisfyingly fast reaction to a threat which would have taken ever so slightly more fiddling about if you had to change the stance first.

Sure, but it doesn't make sense to limit that attack to being a purely defensive reaction. My argument is that it should be an aggressive action, and one the player is able to use easily enough if they need/choose to, but not an attack that's going to do the same damage as a weapon actually specialized for blunt damage.

It's definitely possible to land backwards attacks, but it's a very clunky system in my experience. While trying to backpedal while fighting is an awkward maneuver anyway, I don't think it's one that should feel awkward to the player to execute. The awkwardness is part of the reason I don't even bother with those attacks most of the time in Skyrim, despite the benefits. It tends to be a waste of time and resources since the attacks are fairly tough to land and it's easy to shift yourself out of position while doing said attacks.

19 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

If range is a concern, proximity detection should do the trick - if there is no close-by enemy, do the normal cut. Making the attack range somewhat unrealistic would be quite fine as well, I think, since we already have swords with 2.5 m range. And ultimately, the intended purpose of the attack is to keep aggressive enemies at bay, so you're more likely to use it when an enemy is close-by.

Eh, maybe. But I can think of a few scenarios where I might want to be bashing with the pommel and not using the blade. Fighting locusts and most other mechanical creatures, for one. Doing non-lethal damage to a target for another; not necessarily to knock the target out(and potentially rob it), but giving it a stern smack to make it run away and stop bothering me. Or to potentially confuse it for a split second so I can stab it. Also to pester my hunter friend without actually hurting said hunter.

Edit: Pommel bashing is also a decent way to avoid dulling the blade, so it could be used as a way to deal with smaller threats and save the cutting edge for more serious ones.

Edited 10 hours ago by LadyWYT

[MKMoose]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

Sure, but it doesn't make sense to limit that attack to being a purely defensive reaction. My argument is that it should be an aggressive action, and one the player is able to use easily enough if they need/choose to, but not an attack that's going to do the same damage as a weapon actually specialized for blunt damage.

Well, then that changes things. I was presuming that it would be a defensive action, so if you want to lean into a more offensive use then that fundamentally requires some different design assumptions.

I want to note two details regarding backpedaling while attacking:

• If movement is ever given proper momentum instead of having practically instantaneous acceleration to target speed, then a quick motion input wouldn't cause positioning problems.
• There are alternative motion inputs that could be used, for example (back > forward + LMB, i.e. "move backwards, then forward and attack"), which may be deemed unsuitable due to excess complexity but they address positioning issues and change the move into a counter which is easier to follow up on.

Simply making the pommel strike a universal proximity input could work fine, including for something like your example of beating up locusts.

The problem I'm running into is that simply making it an offensive action creates a lot more functional overlap with the regular cut. If that's the intent, then a stance change could work fine as well. I'm not sure if I like the theming, because swords are generally known for the blade and not for smacking things with the pommel.

And lastly, the same caveat as before: switching to a mace would be functionally almost the same thing as switching to blunt damage on the sword, so I'm not sure if I really see the point of pure stance changing, at least in this specific context. It could work better if that stance change has other effects besides just different attacks, though I'm not sure what effects those could be.

Edited 8 hours ago by MKMoose

[LadyWYT]

29 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

I'm not sure if I like the theming, because swords are generally known for the blade and not for smacking things with the pommel.

A fair point, but I think a good part of this is due to how swords and other weapons are simplified in a lot of videogames and other media. Swords are meant primarily for slashing and thrusting, so it's easier to limit the weapon to those attacks since using the sword as a club or bludgeoning things with the pommel isn't going to be the primary course of action in most cases. But I do think that opting for the easier route is a missed opportunity to make swords and such more interesting weapons.

 

29 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

And lastly, the same caveat as before: switching to a mace would be functionally almost the same thing as switching to blunt damage on the sword, so I'm not sure if I really see the point of pure stance changing, at least in this specific context. It could work better if that stance change has other effects besides just different attacks, though I'm not sure what effects those could be.

I don't think it would be much of a problem. A mace or other weapon meant for bludgeoning will be outputting much more blunt damage than a sword pommel ever could. Likewise, those weapons could ignore armor more easily, break bones, or have a higher chance to stun targets for longer periods of time. In contrast, allowing a pommel attack option for swords makes them stronger as a general-purpose weapon and can potentially provide some interesting combat options(smack something with the pommel to confuse for a split-second, giving you just enough time to get in an uncontested attack or make a break for safety), but you're not necessarily going to want to tackle a bell with it or use the blade on locusts when you could smash them with the pommel. On the latter, a Blackguard might still get away with one-shotting locusts with a slash or stab, but other classes could have the option of using the sword pommel to kill the locusts in a single hit since they're weak to blunt damage.

Edited 8 hours ago by LadyWYT
Grammar

[Bruno Willis]

1 hour ago, LadyWYT said:

I don't think it would be much of a problem. A mace or other weapon meant for bludgeoning will be outputting much more blunt damage than a sword pommel ever could. Likewise, those weapons could ignore armor more easily, break bones, or have a higher chance to stun targets for longer periods of time. In contrast, allowing a pommel attack option for swords makes them stronger as a general-purpose weapon and can potentially provide some interesting combat options(smack something with the pommel to confuse for a split-second, giving you just enough time to get in an uncontested attack or make a break for safety), but you're not necessarily going to want to tackle a bell with it or use the blade on locusts when you could smash them with the pommel. On the latter, a Blackguard might still get away with one-shotting locusts with a slash or stab, but other classes could have the option of using the sword pommel to kill the locusts in a single hit since they're weak to blunt damage.

I really don't see the point in giving a pommel attack to swords, as realistically, it's going to have the same range and damage as a punch with an armored fist: i.e. meaningful, but not meaningful enough to have a special mode for. I'd guess it's not going to deliver more force than the blunt force that comes off a strike with the blade (leverage). The only time a pommel strike makes sense is when you can't hit them with the blade, and just want to punch your enemy to get a bit of distance.

I'd say rather than using slashing, piercing, crushing damage types, it'd be more useful to have damage and 'true damage.' damage is blocked by armor and shields, while true damage is not (or is not blocked as much). Basically edged weapons are doing a lot of damage, but very little true damage, while clubs are doing only true damage. I think that removes an unnecessary differentiation between piercing and slashing but retains the idea that some weapons just deliver more force, while others wound far worse if they can find flesh. 

[coolAlias]

As a kind of out there idea: since combat seems fairly important when progressing the story in VS, what if each class had a different fighting style, sort of like an old-school beat-em-up side-scroller (think Streets of Rage)? Or, since we already have the clockmaker, more of an RPG take on differentiating how the classes approach combat - the clockmaker could be a master of artificial minions, the hunter would specialize more in ranged combat, etc. Lean into each with actual combat mechanics beyond a few stat bonuses.

[Chuckerton]

I dont think i like the idea of a bunch of different damage types for pretty much this reason. 

6 hours ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

I think the inherent reason why I don't like different damage types is because it feels like a very cheap way to force weapon diversity. The weapons don't actually function any different other than you run into an enemy where your weapon is just straight up worse and you should use it, not because the enemy behaves a certain way or is in a certain environment, but simply because the numbers changed. It complicates the game in a boring way imo, because now you have to pay attention to these stats, rather than the gameplay situations your entering and strategizing around that.

I like the idea of different weapons or different attacks being able to apply different status effects, like slashing weapons causing bleeding more often than stabbing weapons, which might do some other disability, which differ from statuses from blunt weapons. They did talk about making more visceral hit reactions, which to me sounds like attacks causing noticeable injuries or effects to the target. But i dont like "this enemy just resists the damage numbers from this weapon more and this weapon less". I think different damage types and strengths and weaknesses of the total damage you deal overcomplicate things a little. Otherwise, it should be which weapons feels nice for which players. Some players might prefer the range of a spear, others might prefer the heft and wide sweeps of a greatsword (meeeee). 

I also dont like the idea of "stances" as the way to select attacks. Having different movesets for different types of weapons is fine but having to switch stances in a fight would be clunky. I prefer directional attacks like bannerlord or chivalry (1 or 2), though really just having a choice between 2 types of attacks would be fine i think for this game, seeing as theres not complicated enemies that you would be "dueling"... yet i guess. I guess we might see how they cook with this, maybe drifters can become a more interesting fight. If they were once people (i dont know if they were but they look humanoid enough), it would make sense that they could swing a blade like people used to (for nightmare drifters). 

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, coolAlias said:

As a kind of out there idea: since combat seems fairly important when progressing the story in VS, what if each class had a different fighting style, sort of like an old-school beat-em-up side-scroller (think Streets of Rage)? Or, since we already have the clockmaker, more of an RPG take on differentiating how the classes approach combat - the clockmaker could be a master of artificial minions, the hunter would specialize more in ranged combat, etc. Lean into each with actual combat mechanics beyond a few stat bonuses.

Class bonuses already play into that. It's not something you want to go completely overboard on though, since it's going to be up to the player to do everything in singleplayer and you don't want players feeling like they locked themselves out of portions of the game simply due to their class choice(like not being able to delve into cramped dungeons because they picked Hunter).

[coolAlias]

4 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Class bonuses already play into that. It's not something you want to go completely overboard on though, since it's going to be up to the player to do everything in singleplayer and you don't want players feeling like they locked themselves out of portions of the game simply due to their class choice(like not being able to delve into cramped dungeons because they picked Hunter).

For sure, but I'm just thinking of games like Borderlands, Mass Effect, etc. where every class is viable but feels very different to play, you know what I mean? It could give the game even more replayability and also give some inspiration for making combat less samey.

[LadyWYT]

3 minutes ago, coolAlias said:

For sure, but I'm just thinking of games like Borderlands, Mass Effect, etc. where every class is viable but feels very different to play, you know what I mean? It could give the game even more replayability and also give some inspiration for making combat less samey.

Kind of? But it's also the kind of thing that I think is better suited to linking to the player's equipment choice and their actions over time. Basically, the player's class choice determines their general background and what their character is already inclined to be good at. Equipment choice determines how well said character can perform particular jobs, and since equipment is easily to swap, the player can switch pieces of armor, tools, and weapons as needed in order to do various jobs. They could equip themselves with ranged weapons for a hunting trip, then switch to heavy armor and melee weapons later to clean out a deep cave system or dungeon. To further influence a character's development, the player could acquire additional bonuses to certain actions over time, as long as they consistently put in the practice to maintain those bonuses. Want to be better at ranged combat? Go hunting more often or practice shooting at a target dummy. Want to be better at close quarters combat? Pick up a sword or other melee weapon and start practicing. Class choice could provide some influence with these acquired skills, in that Hunters will obviously be able to learn the ranged bonuses a little faster while struggling with the melee bonuses in return.

I think that's kind of how the class system in Morrowind and Oblivion works. The player picks a class, which determines not only which skills will have the highest values at the beginning of the game, but also which skills the character will improve at the fastest. From there, how the character actually turns out depends heavily upon how the player chooses to play the game.

[coolAlias]

2 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

I think that's kind of how the class system in Morrowind and Oblivion works. The player picks a class, which determines not only which skills will have the highest values at the beginning of the game, but also which skills the character will improve at the fastest. From there, how the character actually turns out depends heavily upon how the player chooses to play the game.

Sure, that could work too. I'm up for anything that improves the current jump/sprint-strafe/circle left-click spam that seems to be the current state of VS combat.