I always wonder how the developer determined weapon damage scaling, what are the reason behind the numbers?
What i mean is, why some weapon "will do" a lot of damage while others "will not do" that amount of damage? What reason the developer use to determine it?
You see, both a dagger and a sword actually will do a lethal damage on a person, or even kill with just one strike. both actually do same amount of damage actually. The sharpness of a dagger is the same with the sharpness of a sword. Arrow damage always the weakest in any game, but in reality, people got killed with just one shot.
In my opinion, two handed sword is not originally "will do" greater damage than one handed sword....
Weapon damage scaling in DAO
Débuté par
Guest_Nizaris1_*
, nov. 26 2011 06:26
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 26 novembre 2011 - 08:20
Eustacia
-
- Members
- 137 messages
It's to create better balance within the game, not for realism's sake. Imagine how droll and unbalanced the game would be simply because daggers are faster. It's the way fantasy games have always worked. If there is any realistic reasoning behind it I would say because of the blunt force (?) behind a bigger weapon. But like I said, it's simply for balance and build sake.
#3
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Posté 26 novembre 2011 - 01:39
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Guest_Nizaris1_*
-
- Guests
Maybe it is time to change the game ruling in RPG? For example, both PC and NPC will be dead with one successful strike?
I play Jedi Academy, that what happen. The lightsaber damage is somewhat powerful, your character may die with one strike from a low level Sith cultist if you not playing it right. And you may kill a Sith cultist with one strike if you do it right. The level difficulty is not depends on damage scaling, but how you play it.
Try out Jedi Academy to see what i mean.
I play Jedi Academy, that what happen. The lightsaber damage is somewhat powerful, your character may die with one strike from a low level Sith cultist if you not playing it right. And you may kill a Sith cultist with one strike if you do it right. The level difficulty is not depends on damage scaling, but how you play it.
Try out Jedi Academy to see what i mean.
#4
Posté 26 novembre 2011 - 09:20
Eustacia
-
- Members
- 137 messages
Yeah, I agree that can work for some games. But imagine playing Dragon Age: Origins like that. The Archdemon would always win.
#5
Posté 26 novembre 2011 - 10:28
gandanlin
-
- Members
- 472 messages
Toward the end of the game it is possible to kill enemies with one strike -- even with one arrow.
A real-life battle between heavily armored knights could be a fairly long, drawn-out affair. And enemies that are able to expertly dodge attacks might require several attacks before being killed.
I suppose I prefer a bit of battle, myself. Enemies that drop at the first blow sort of lack interest to me.
A real-life battle between heavily armored knights could be a fairly long, drawn-out affair. And enemies that are able to expertly dodge attacks might require several attacks before being killed.
I suppose I prefer a bit of battle, myself. Enemies that drop at the first blow sort of lack interest to me.
Modifié par gandanlin, 26 novembre 2011 - 10:35 .
#6
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Posté 27 novembre 2011 - 04:00
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Guest_Nizaris1_*
-
- Guests
I just compare the DAO mechanic with Jedi Academy, thats all.
In Jedi Academy, the combat is based on the skill to use the lightsaber and the Force by both the player and the AI. Meaning, the lightsaber might kill the AI or the player with one successful strike, if if manage to make that strike.
So, the combat animation will have a bit of realism where the player and the AI dodging, blocking, attacking, using combos and both evading the attacks. Not all attacks will hit because of those combat movement. The challenge is to hit and making the successful attacks.
In DAO, the attacks are either hit or not hit and the damage is determined. For two handed sword will give certain damage, sword with certain damage, arrow with certain damage and just that. The focus is on hit and giving how far the damage can be dealt. Yes, in the later game there is one hit kill, it is just because it is a set up to be like that. and it is just like Diablo 2 mechanism, one hit kill critters.
IF DAO is like Jedi Academy, it is a mind blowing
In Jedi Academy, the combat is based on the skill to use the lightsaber and the Force by both the player and the AI. Meaning, the lightsaber might kill the AI or the player with one successful strike, if if manage to make that strike.
So, the combat animation will have a bit of realism where the player and the AI dodging, blocking, attacking, using combos and both evading the attacks. Not all attacks will hit because of those combat movement. The challenge is to hit and making the successful attacks.
In DAO, the attacks are either hit or not hit and the damage is determined. For two handed sword will give certain damage, sword with certain damage, arrow with certain damage and just that. The focus is on hit and giving how far the damage can be dealt. Yes, in the later game there is one hit kill, it is just because it is a set up to be like that. and it is just like Diablo 2 mechanism, one hit kill critters.
IF DAO is like Jedi Academy, it is a mind blowing
Modifié par Nizaris1, 27 novembre 2011 - 04:01 .
#7
Posté 27 novembre 2011 - 04:42
caradoc2000
-
- Members
- 7 550 messages
Three strikes and you're out, those are the rules.
#8
Posté 28 novembre 2011 - 01:41
Mr_Steph
-
- Members
- 800 messages
Fighting Cauthrien...oh my so many archers
#9
Posté 28 novembre 2011 - 02:21
Faelix_Majere
-
- Members
- 55 messages
It is correct that much of the balancing is for gameplay issues. Yet still, if examined in historic content, much of it makes sense.
The heavy twohander, for example, came as a response to the heavy armors of that time. Which people could use because they were mostly on horseback. These steelcasings actually protected against daggers and arrows and common swords. So for melee on foot, when that happened, the huge twohanded swords were "invented". The inertia of such a sword could penetrate a knights armor. If you see a fight against such 2 armored Knights, it is slow and full of wild swings, and the twohanded sword, is more of a necessity than an asset.
Then gunpowder came, and heavy armor made no sense, a bullet went right trough it. It made heavy armored people into sitting ducks instead.
And the fighter turned into the musketeer instead. He had a musket, and light armor he could move fast in. And when the armor turned light, the sword didn't need to be as heavy hitting, and it became the rapier.
So it's much a competition between weapons and armor, that has dictated how both looked at a given time. And the point being, a given weapon to use against a specific armor, more or less.
The heavy twohander, for example, came as a response to the heavy armors of that time. Which people could use because they were mostly on horseback. These steelcasings actually protected against daggers and arrows and common swords. So for melee on foot, when that happened, the huge twohanded swords were "invented". The inertia of such a sword could penetrate a knights armor. If you see a fight against such 2 armored Knights, it is slow and full of wild swings, and the twohanded sword, is more of a necessity than an asset.
Then gunpowder came, and heavy armor made no sense, a bullet went right trough it. It made heavy armored people into sitting ducks instead.
And the fighter turned into the musketeer instead. He had a musket, and light armor he could move fast in. And when the armor turned light, the sword didn't need to be as heavy hitting, and it became the rapier.
So it's much a competition between weapons and armor, that has dictated how both looked at a given time. And the point being, a given weapon to use against a specific armor, more or less.
Modifié par Faelix_Majere, 28 novembre 2011 - 02:27 .
#10
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Posté 29 novembre 2011 - 06:50
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Guest_Nizaris1_*
-
- Guests
If ever a musket gets into the game, i don't think one shot can kill heavily armored enemy
Perhaps, in this type of game, it is better damage is according to base damage and modifier to base damage, weapons just add bonus to X% critical chance with some bonus and some penalty?
Example,
base damage is 50
Sword give 15% critical chance
Two handed sword 20% critical chance, slower attack
Dagger give 30% chance critical, faster attack but 30% chance to miss
bow and Arrow give 40% critical, 50% chance to miss
and so on...
Perhaps, in this type of game, it is better damage is according to base damage and modifier to base damage, weapons just add bonus to X% critical chance with some bonus and some penalty?
Example,
base damage is 50
Sword give 15% critical chance
Two handed sword 20% critical chance, slower attack
Dagger give 30% chance critical, faster attack but 30% chance to miss
bow and Arrow give 40% critical, 50% chance to miss
and so on...
Modifié par Nizaris1, 29 novembre 2011 - 08:45 .
#11
Posté 07 décembre 2011 - 08:23
Eppam
-
- Members
- 1 messages
I would have liked to seen a spear as a weapon choice
#12
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Posté 07 décembre 2011 - 05:53
Guest_Nizaris1_*
Guest_Nizaris1_*
-
- Guests
Yes i agree on that, there is no spear in this game. it is nice if there is like Spartan 300 men style, spear + shield...
and there are no horses too, knights rode on horses
and there are no horses too, knights rode on horses
#13
Posté 08 décembre 2011 - 02:14
pinzig
-
- Members
- 66 messages
Jedi Acadamy is a twitch fight, hybrid third person melee/first person shooter. The chance to hit your target is determined the same as in say, halo, or half life. It's determined by the physics of your relative positions.
DA , by contrast, is a more classic RPG - meaning that the "to hit" chance is not decided by the hand eye coordination of the player, but rather by the 'statistics' of the individual character. you have 4 characters in a party with different skills, strengths, and weaknesses and you get them to work together. You control 1 person alone in a 1st person shooter, like JA, you control a party of 4 (more with pets) in DA. Different game design, I realize they both swing vaguely swordlike objects around but the similarity is superficial at best.
DA , by contrast, is a more classic RPG - meaning that the "to hit" chance is not decided by the hand eye coordination of the player, but rather by the 'statistics' of the individual character. you have 4 characters in a party with different skills, strengths, and weaknesses and you get them to work together. You control 1 person alone in a 1st person shooter, like JA, you control a party of 4 (more with pets) in DA. Different game design, I realize they both swing vaguely swordlike objects around but the similarity is superficial at best.
