934 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Aermas wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

When you separate visuals & mechanics you create a discrepancy in the "internal consistentcy"/realism/whatever-you-think-is-the-proper-term. Somehow one character is taking less damage than another when one is (visually) geared better than the other.

If you attack someone with a sword at level one and where then to hit the same, exact thing again at level 20 you would do more damage. You have increased statistically which is the analogy for: you have gotten better at it.

If your defense statistic goes up, as in: you have gotten better at defending yourself, should it not lead to taking less damage? And if that's the case, unless "defense" as a numerical factor is tied exclusively to armour (which I think you'll agree isn't realistic), then the game will always be open to the effect you mention above, whether or not you feel they are appropriately clothed.

The discrepancy is that visually unarmored people are taking the same damage as visually armored people

And you're saying that's the case in DA2? Any sort of proof for that?

Modifié par AlexXIV, 02 décembre 2010 - 08:30 .

[Matchy Pointy]

AlexXIV wrote...

Aermas wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

When you separate visuals & mechanics you create a discrepancy in the "internal consistentcy"/realism/whatever-you-think-is-the-proper-term. Somehow one character is taking less damage than another when one is (visually) geared better than the other.

If you attack someone with a sword at level one and where then to hit the same, exact thing again at level 20 you would do more damage. You have increased statistically which is the analogy for: you have gotten better at it.

If your defense statistic goes up, as in: you have gotten better at defending yourself, should it not lead to taking less damage? And if that's the case, unless "defense" as a numerical factor is tied exclusively to armour (which I think you'll agree isn't realistic), then the game will always be open to the effect you mention above, whether or not you feel they are appropriately clothed.

The discrepancy is that visually unarmored people are taking the same damage as visually armored people

And you're saying that's the case in DA2? Any sort of proof for that?

As far as I know, no, nothing of the like have been released as confirmed.

Modifié par Matchy Pointy, 02 décembre 2010 - 08:38 .

[Alet]

Aermas wrote...

The discrepancy is that visually unarmored people are taking the same damage as visually armored people

Why do you think this is going to happen?

[Sir JK]

Aermas wrote...

 Because with your theory Isabela will always be hit lighter, & a visually armred character will always be hit harder

No Aermas, they "will only be hit lighter" when the take the exact same amount of damage. In other situations other explanations will apply. Only when we compare them when they take the exact same amount of final damage do we need to say that the lighter armoured ones were better off. Given that damage is first randomized and then mitigated by defence and armour it will be very unlikely that they ever take the exact same amount of damage.

To clarify: my theory, as you call it, relies on that the explanation of what happened change to fit the situation.

However:
In most cases companions with a lower armour score will take more damage and a person with higher armour score will take less. While in theory it's possible the one visually wearing less armour have the higher score I'm fairly certain our visually heavy armoured characters will in general be the ones with the higher value (unless we artificially alter it ourselves).

[Lotion Soronarr]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

The discrepancy is that visually unarmored people are taking the same damage as visually armored people

Riiiiight, and if the one in armour has low defense and the one in cloth has high?

Shouldn't defense skill determine how good one is at blocking/parrying - in other words AVOID getting hit at all? I guess you could extend that to twist and turn your bady to minimize damage, but still....

Armor should practicly neutralize lesser damage, and minize greater amount of it.

Isabella is wearing a fetching blouse and no trousers. She's a practiced
duelist and used to defending herself. Her armour rating is 5 and her
defense rating is 50

Bob the warrior is wearing his bodywieght in
plate, but he's never actually seen combat. His armour rating is 50 and
his defense rating is 5.

If they both take the same damage from
the same hit, one could say that Isabella is better at actively
mitigating the blow, by parrying or moving, making it glancing by
controlling the angle or similar, while Bob is taking the full load, but
is protected by the metal, but in actuality it's an abstraction of the
whole combat process, from swing to damage, and not just a single step
in the process - determining damage once the blow has connected.

If there is no difference in the end result and battle flow, then what's the point of such a mechanic?
Why even bother with armor and defense as two different things, when they do the EXACT same thing?

It's like having Health and Vigor and both increase your HP.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 02 décembre 2010 - 11:52 .

[Maria Caliban]

Defense = reduced chance to be hit
Armor = less damage when hit
Missile Deflection = negates missile hit.

[Sir JK]

And hit points = Continued ability to fight at full effectiveness.

[Ziggeh]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Shouldn't defense skill determine how good one is at blocking/parrying - in other words AVOID getting hit at all? I guess you could extend that to twist and turn your bady to minimize damage, but still....

Armor should practicly neutralize lesser damage, and minize greater amount of it.

If there is no difference in the end result and battle flow, then what's the point of such a mechanic?
Why even bother with armor and defense as two different things, when they do the EXACT same thing?

It's like having Health and Vigor and both increase your HP.

As I said, I'm simplifying the effect of defense for the sake of the example, think of it as the average damage taken per swing after avoidance. I was just illustrating a mechanism that allowed for what aemas is calling an inconsistency.

[David Gaider]

AlanC9 wrote...
Anyone else noticed that we've seen a lot of this sort of thing lately? Poster puts up something that he doesn't actually mean because it sounds more important than what he does actually mean, someone calls him on it, and the thread degenerates. The behavior seems to be associated with the DA2 skeptics. I guess because they really want to have their points noticed.

There is lip service paid to the idea by some posters that they're trying to be persuasive and actually convince others of their points, but evidence would indicate that isn't really the case.

The strange part is that anyone who's paying attention knows that this not only doesn't work on Bio staff, it's counterproductive. Even I can't match Gaider when he's in full contempt mode, which is all the response that this kind of rhetoric gets you.

**FULL CONTEMPT MODE ACTIVATED**

ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL

[upsettingshorts]

Even I can't match Gaider when he's in full contempt mode, which is all the response that this kind of rhetoric gets you.

I have supreme confidence in few of my abilities.  I would take that challenge and expect to meet it, if it wouldn't absolutely get me banned.  

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Even I can't match Gaider when he's in full contempt mode, which is all the response that this kind of rhetoric gets you.

I have supreme confidence in few of my abilities.  I would take that challenge and expect to meet it, if it wouldn't absolutely get me banned.  

Hah, indeed, I was about to say, I find him quite restrained considering some of the things he gets to respond to.

[upsettingshorts]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Hah, indeed, I was about to say, I find him quite restrained considering some of the things he gets to respond to.

I practice so much self-censorship on the forums.  The kind of crap I remove from my posts would earn me perpetual banhammers.  Sometimes I don't catch it all, and then I get mildly annoyed PMs from John Epler.

But yeah, I am often impressed by the Bioware folks' restraint.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2010 - 04:29 .

[Winter Wraith]

AlanC9 wrote...
Even I can't match Gaider when he's in full contempt mode, which is all the response that this kind of rhetoric gets you.

Much as I'm sure you're famous for contempt in your part of the world, possibly involving statues of you, there is a vast difference between being able to show contempt and being able to be banned for showing it.

Modifié par Winter Wraith, 02 décembre 2010 - 05:08 .

[AlanC9]

Winter Wraith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Even I can't match Gaider when he's in full contempt mode, which is all the response that this kind of rhetoric gets you.

Much as I'm sure you're famous for contempt in your part of the world, possibly involving statues of you, there is a vast difference between being able to show contempt and being able to be banned for showing it.

Hah. Yep, I'm afraid I internalized the rules of good forum debate after I dropped out of RPGCodex.

[soteria]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Hah, indeed, I was about to say, I find him quite restrained considering some of the things he gets to respond to.

I practice so much self-censorship on the forums.  The kind of crap I remove from my posts would earn me perpetual banhammers.  Sometimes I don't catch it all, and then I get mildly annoyed PMs from John Epler.

But yeah, I am often impressed by the Bioware folks' restraint.

I'm obviously not trying hard enough or something, because I've never gotten one of those PMs.    Obviously, I need to stop being so darned moderate.  Or, I could work on what I'm already good at--derailing discussions.  Hmm, choices.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Can anyone clarify or point me in the direction of the specialized weapon info?



It sounds like a Dynasty warriors/ME2 upgrade hybrid system.....is that far off the mark, and help would be appreciated

[upsettingshorts]

soteria wrote...

I'm obviously not trying hard enough or something, because I've never gotten one of those PMs.    Obviously, I need to stop being so darned moderate.

Get drunk, then use inflammatory - but not obscene - language to slam a particular gameplay feature.  Be careful to be deliberately vague, you'll think you're doing it because you're being clever, but it will allow it to be easily interpreted as personally insulting to anyone who liked the feature.

I'm sure others have their own approach.  The one I go to most when sober and not thinking clearly is I let one post or poster set me off into a tirade towards many posts and posters, leaving the person I'm responding to wondering if they killed my dog or something.  That's another one.

Sooner or later a will come along, heh.

I do not recommend working towards getting those PMs

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 décembre 2010 - 08:24 .

[Qset]

ok, what happened to the violence and nakedness that was promised?



I see it was a lie, just like cake.....

[Piecake]

Qset wrote...

ok, what happened to the violence and nakedness that was promised?

I see it was a lie, just like cake.....

pie is better than cake anyways

[Qset]

Piecake wrote...

Qset wrote...

ok, what happened to the violence and nakedness that was promised?

I see it was a lie, just like cake.....

pie is better than cake anyways

pie certainly comes before cake in your case. Which is better is a matter of opinion - I would hate to say subjective given the recent diaglogue here

Still, if you are offering steak and kidney pie, followed by a nice slice of apple pie and cream, that will go someway to making up for the absense of violence, nudity and of course cake in this thread.

Or do you think that might be pastry overload?

[the_one_54321]

Darth Gaider wrote...
**FULL CONTEMPT MODE ACTIVATED**

ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL

[tmp7704]

more like...

[AlexXIV]

Considering that for once devs don't have to post here or read here to begin with and also that the worst punishment would probably be that they just stop posting, it would be rather easy to show contempt.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 décembre 2010 - 12:15 .

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Can you restate that I can't tell what you mean

For the sake of this example, the numbers are random and I'm simplifying the effect of defense.

Isabella is wearing a fetching blouse and no trousers. She's a practiced duelist and used to defending herself. Her armour rating is 5 and her defense rating is 50

Bob the warrior is wearing his bodywieght in plate, but he's never actually seen combat. His armour rating is 50 and his defense rating is 5.

If they both take the same damage from the same hit, one could say that Isabella is better at actively mitigating the blow, by parrying or moving, making it glancing by controlling the angle or similar, while Bob is taking the full load, but is protected by the metal, but in actuality it's an abstraction of the whole combat process, from swing to damage, and not just a single step in the process - determining damage once the blow has connected.

Think of it as AC versus DR in D&D
Dodging is not Armor, if you dodge the attack you take no damage.
Armor should reduce the amount of damage.


If they have completely separate the visual armor from the mechanical armor then what's the point of wearing armor, we should all fight naked.

[Ziggeh]

I can't imagine what I was thinking using an example based on a slightly different abstract process than the one people are familiar with.