cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Game Balance Discussion => Topic started by: Thomek on November 08, 2011, 02:09:39 pm
-
Alright so here's the idea:
I think one can boil down most melee weapons to a very simple thing.
A stick with different lengths and different weights.
What would happen if one applied semi-realistic physics on them to figure out it's stats?
(Of course adding and substracting at the end for price, sophistication and specialty uses, modes etc.)
After a bit of googling, could this be the formula I'm looking for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_(mathematics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_(mathematics))
Anyway, I'm a retard when it comes to math, could someone help out on this?
How would Length and Weight influence Speed? (At different lengths and weights)
Can damage potential of a weapon be boiled down to a speed factor? (As in: Lower speed=more time to charge the weapon with energy)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Let's use the Longsword as a starting point as a "Standard Weapon". Not OP, Not UP.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
weapon length: 106
weight: 1.8
speed rating: 98
thrust damage: 23 pierce
swing damage: 36 cut
Check if Danish Greatsword fits the formula:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
weapon length: 124
weight: 2.5
speed rating: 92
thrust damage: 24 pierce
swing damage: 40 cut
-
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/board,69.0.html
-
Its correct.Longer sword is slower, but has more force(Its heavier).
-
removed
-
This is another idea that may seem balancing on the surface, or realistic, but is likely to cause more problems then it's worth in the long run.
-
So this is about Danish GS vs Longsword. I'm Danish GS user but I find Longsword a better weapon (I had it in the past). Only reason why I'm still using Danish is that no one is willing to give me MW Longsword for my MW Danish GS.
Danish GS is overused, overhyped but it's basically nothing special. Greatest thing about it is that it can assume many roles (can be used against cav). Other than that it has good damage (for a sword...) and can be used in crowd fights cause of stab range. But it's slow, it can't out range poleaxe and many polearms and it's very expensive weapon. Stab damage is good when compared to swords but in general it's crap cause with my 6 PS sometimes I need 4 stabs to kill average archer (thankfully head stab is usually insta kill). Stab is retarded as with all other swords, it's pain in the ass to fight katana, longsword, bastard sword, 1h swordsmen (without shield), any form of pike or spear etc etc...
Longsword on the other hand has decent range (it doesn't feel short like katana does), modest damage (39 cut on MW weapon isn't much) but it's really fast. Because of it's speed and decent range it's much easier to fight people who use greatswords, polearms and archer can't that easily block your feints and attacks. It's an epic weapon but sadly I don't see enough of them on the battlefield, probably because those who know to fight use hiltslash all the time so slowness of Danish isn't big of an issue for them and those who don't know to fight usually spam and therefore find longer range better.
-
After a bit of googling, could this be the formula I'm looking for? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_(mathematics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_(mathematics))
No. Try this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis) for weapon speeds if you insist, but energy and momentum are poor metrics for wound mechanics in general. Pressure and/or impulse are better for wound mechanics in principle but are largely useless in practice due to the specifics needed to determine them.
-
A lighter and/or shorter weapon can be accelerated faster, so you will achieve better rotational speed with the same force at the handle, which means it's hard to compare the momenta of both sword's tips. There should actually be an ideal length (to achieve maximal momentum at the tip) for a half arc distance using a constant force. Also, when dealing with rotations, inertia is not simply equal mass, but actually more like mass times length squared. This means that the same weight distributed on a rod double the length will need four times more force to accelerate to the same rotational speed.
But all this is moot anyway, because reducing weapon swings to rotations is an invalid oversimplification.
-
We don't believe in math, physics or any other kind of superstition.
-
Yes Manliness says bigger sword is better sword.
-
We don't believe in math, physics or any other kind of superstition.
or documenting code
-
All the big weapons like top tier 2h and polearms should be (much) slower than now and have a sort of "subtle crush through" . You shouldn't be able to crush through blocks with any big weapon ofc. But blocking massive cut/pierce weapons shouldn't be the same as blocking a short sword.
That "subtle crush through" could be many things. One example could be a small damage inflicted to the blocker, based on weapon weight and strenght comparison.
-
or documenting code
I document all my code using assembly language.
-
No. Try this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis) for weapon speeds if you insist, but energy and momentum are poor metrics for wound mechanics in general. Pressure and/or impulse are better for wound mechanics in principle but are largely useless in practice due to the specifics needed to determine them.
Thanks for replying, but I don't understand. :?
Could you perhaps elaborate, do you have any suggestion for a GENERAL THEORY OF WEAPON BEHAVIOUR that could work?
Assuming that all weapons are sticks that deal blunt or cut or just damage. For our use, wether the weapon has cut, pierce or blunt is just a matter of speciality. If we know the supposed damage potential, we could easily calculate the appropriate amount of blunt, cut or pierce damage from that.
I guess what I want, is a more accurate way of determining weapon speed and damage. I have a feeling it's a bit off in the long end of weapons. Of course, trial and error is not the worst method, but it took us a year to get where we are.. Ultimately I want to see more weapon variety actually being used in cRPG.
-
Just replace all the damage calculation formulas with those from Dwarf Fortress. I'd like to smack my teammates with an adamantine war hammer.
Also add bullet time, but only the guy with the highest level on the server can use it.
-
Thanks for replying, but I don't understand. :?
Could you perhaps elaborate, do you have any suggestion for a GENERAL THEORY OF WEAPON BEHAVIOUR that could work?
Assuming that all weapons are sticks that deal blunt or cut or just damage. For our use, wether the weapon has cut, pierce or blunt is just a matter of speciality. If we know the supposed damage potential, we could easily calculate the appropriate amount of blunt, cut or pierce damage from that.
I guess what I want, is a more accurate way of determining weapon speed and damage. I have a feeling it's a bit off in the long end of weapons. Of course, trial and error is not the worst method, but it took us a year to get where we are.. Ultimately I want to see more weapon variety actually being used in cRPG.
Next you are going to want to factor in drag coeficients and bernouli principle! Madness.
-
Also add bullet time, but only the guy with the highest level admin on the server can use it.
FTFY
-
With stuff like impulse and pressure you'd need more detailed hitboxes. A pick has high force on the end due it's small surface area. But a hit with the shaft would be pretty useless.
-
It seems I have been called, though as a prior note, I am a theoretical physics student, not a physics lecturer/teacher so if I am not clear in my explanation tell me.
Also as a secondary note I did take a mathematical view on this, I must say its bad for Warband, I calculated the highest speed rating for a glaive rotated about it's edge to be 66, which is clearly too slow. Polearms in real life are useless for slashing since they gain damage either for being longer, since their lengths make them harder to swing.
Ok rotational physics is about moment's of inertia, for a point particle rotated about a point:
I=mr^2 where r is the distance from rotational axis
For a body of many masses:
I=Sum(mr^2) where r is the distance from the rotational axis of each mass in the sum
This generalises to
I=Integral{r^2 dm} where dm is an infinitesimal mass unit (knowledge of calculus assumed here)
The stated integral in it's current form is rather useless but from it I will derive a more useful relation.
Density p=m/V where V=volume
So I=Integral{p*r^2 dV}
This is now useful, but results in some messy 3-Dimensional integrals. However fortunately for you guys we are not going to be doing wierd stuff like I have to with this relation, so we should have some pretty easy relations.
The moment of inertia is a parametre specifying the difficulty to rotate an object about some rotational axis, and hence varies depending on your chosen axis.
The amount of energy taken rotate an object is related to moment of inertia by:
E=0.5*I(omega)^2 where omega is the angular velocity you wish to rotate this object at.
Also as Tomas stated, the are of the point of the weapon hitting you matters greatly, since pressure, P=Force/Area=F/A .
So small areas result in larger pressures. Also the duration of impact matters since:
Impulse= F(Delta t)=(Delta mv) where delta() = the difference in maximum and highest value, for example Delta t is the duration of t.
Apologies on the format of the mathematics here, I could not seem to use any software to make integrals look prettier, I am sure most of you who understood this probably think that integrals are never pretty :)
-
Thanks, this will be useless.
-
I know, but a man asked for Physics, so the man gets Physics! I hope I have proven to you why nobody uses true physics in their balance systems, this stuff takes a long time to calculate and some incredibly well designed systems to implement.
-
Paul: OK.
Thanks Quantum :)
I just hoped that there would perhaps be some other reasoning to use, than what we think is UP or OP at any given moment.
I suspect that such an approach would, over time, change the way we think of cRPG melee combat. Perhaps I'm far off, but I would suspect it would be a move towards more powerful, but less nimble long polearms and swords.. Shieldbash could let us make 1h weapons less powerful, like a 1-arm weapon should be.
And generally, choosing your weapon should be a very specific choice for the specific role you play on the battlefield. No more one tool does it all. Rather let people be more dependent on teamwork.
-
Thomek I suspect such an approach willb e cumbersome tedious and unfun.
-
Instead of a realistic approach I would suggest instead that the stat balance of weapons is determined by having some constant equal to the product of each stat. It would go something like this:
k=a*b*c*d*e...
Each stat could have a relative weighting factor and could be a reciprocal of a value if it's better to have lower values for that stat. This would be a much better balancing system in my opinion.
-
It seems I have been called, though as a prior note, I am a theoretical physics student, not a physics lecturer/teacher so if I am not clear in my explanation tell me.
Also as a secondary note I did take a mathematical view on this, I must say its bad for Warband, I calculated the highest speed rating for a glaive rotated about it's edge to be 66, which is clearly too slow. Polearms in real life are useless for slashing since they gain damage either for being longer, since their lengths make them harder to swing.
Ok rotational physics is about moment's of inertia, for a point particle rotated about a point:
I=mr^2 where r is the distance from rotational axis
For a body of many masses:
I=Sum(mr^2) where r is the distance from the rotational axis of each mass in the sum
This generalises to
I=Integral{r^2 dm} where dm is an infinitesimal mass unit (knowledge of calculus assumed here)
The stated integral in it's current form is rather useless but from it I will derive a more useful relation.
Density p=m/V where V=volume
So I=Integral{p*r^2 dV}
This is now useful, but results in some messy 3-Dimensional integrals. However fortunately for you guys we are not going to be doing wierd stuff like I have to with this relation, so we should have some pretty easy relations.
The moment of inertia is a parametre specifying the difficulty to rotate an object about some rotational axis, and hence varies depending on your chosen axis.
The amount of energy taken rotate an object is related to moment of inertia by:
E=0.5*I(omega)^2 where omega is the angular velocity you wish to rotate this object at.
Also as Tomas stated, the are of the point of the weapon hitting you matters greatly, since pressure, P=Force/Area=F/A .
So small areas result in larger pressures. Also the duration of impact matters since:
Impulse= F(Delta t)=(Delta mv) where delta() = the difference in maximum and highest value, for example Delta t is the duration of t.
Apologies on the format of the mathematics here, I could not seem to use any software to make integrals look prettier, I am sure most of you who understood this probably think that integrals are never pretty :)
FINALLY SOME REAL MATH!
Not that damn coding stuff!
Was a nice read. Too bad we wont balance after this. Likes the one I'm quoting after this pharagraph, though. Seems like a nice way to do it (but maybe change k with the equipment price?
Instead of a realistic approach I would suggest instead that the stat balance of weapons is determined by having some constant equal to the product of each stat. It would go something like this:
k=a*b*c*d*e...
Each stat could have a relative weighting factor and could be a reciprocal of a value if it's better to have lower values for that stat. This would be a much better balancing system in my opinion.
-
That's more or less what they have now quantum. (AFAIK couldnt seem to find the link, but I think fasader posted it once) The problem with that kind of formula is that it doesn't take into account how certain stats make each other better than other stats.
I.ex Length*Damage is more powerful than Speed*Damage or speed*length i.ex.
It's the fact that some combos of stats are more powerful (in battle) than other combos of stats that worries me. This is not represented well in the current formulas, so I wanted to try another approach. Perhaps going physics is too difficult and time consuming.
Anyway, someone with a good knowledge of mathematics should be able to propose a formula that is balanced, even as certain stats improve and influence each other in positive and negative ways. What I mean is that if you in example:
The a(x)*b(y)*c(z)*d(r) formula is too simplistic, because as you increase length, damage indirectly becomes more powerful, and perhaps not in a linear way. Working with a more complex one could give more accurate results.
I think this could be the very reason all the popular/most effective battle weapons are so similar. (As in moderate speed, long range, good damage)
Of course the constants in such a formula would have to be adjusted and refined over time, but it could give more accurate results.
The formula basically needs to be in a system that allows for flexibility in how the stats influence each other power levels.
What would that look like Quantum? :)
-
FINALLY SOME REAL MATH!
Not that damn coding stuff!
Was a nice read. Too bad we wont balance after this. Likes the one I'm quoting after this pharagraph, though. Seems like a nice way to do it (but maybe change k with the equipment price?
Unfortunately I know the coding for damage in warband too, and I also code myself :) So I guess I satisfy both desired and undesired conditions there. In all fairness some of the warband engine maths is nice, it deals with air resistance I believe. Although they do deal with speed damage bonuses in terms of energies which is incorrect since the force and duration is what damage to a human body is truly given by, since not all energy of a swing will be dissipated on a person of course.
-
I just hoped that there would perhaps be some other reasoning to use, than what we think is UP or OP at any given moment.
I suspect that such an approach would, over time, change the way we think of cRPG melee combat. Perhaps I'm far off, but I would suspect it would be a move towards more powerful, but less nimble long polearms and swords.. Shieldbash could let us make 1h weapons less powerful, like a 1-arm weapon should be.
And generally, choosing your weapon should be a very specific choice for the specific role you play on the battlefield. No more one tool does it all. Rather let people be more dependent on teamwork.
That sounds very much like the stuff I was thinking about, did you read it?
http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,19564.0.html (http://forum.c-rpg.net/index.php/topic,19564.0.html)
I actually don't want to recycle my text there, but it fits in here, and it's not outdated, so ...
And long weapons being very slow with slashing is exactly what I was expecting, but I didn't have any numbers and relations, so thanks Quantum!
-
Unfortunately I know the coding for damage in warband too, and I also code myself :) So I guess I satisfy both desired and undesired conditions there. In all fairness some of the warband engine maths is nice, it deals with air resistance I believe. Although they do deal with speed damage bonuses in terms of energies which is incorrect since the force and duration is what damage to a human body is truly given by, since not all energy of a swing will be dissipated on a person of course.
Hehe, wasn't really that I was talking about. I meant the way you showed your math. Like you did this:
E=0.5*I(omega)^2
This is "normal" math and is readable for me. Just the way I like it
While chadz posts his formulas like this:
ceil((pow($troops, 1.03) * 2.5 - 100)/24)
Which is mumbo-jumbo code language that I have to look up and can't read naturally.
THAT'S what I meant with "real" math. Guess I should have specified it a bit more xD
-
Ah no problem, I find chadz' just as easy to read because I do both, it did take me a while to decipher how C code works though, since I was primarily a VB.net programmer until recently. I prefer handwritten or Open office maths, since you get beautiful looking notes/equations. I guess my preference is just due to the amount of integrals I encounter per day, essentially the prettier they are the less time I need to spend working out what I have to do with them.
On the matter at hand:
I think my method is too simplistic, since for poles length is a huge tradeoff for how well you can fight in a group. But for other weapon types length becomes majorly important. My thinking is however that length becomes less important the longer the average length of that weapon class is. For example a polearm user will not care too much for range over the average, but for a 2h it is a much higher advantage to get that extra range. Perhaps the value of the range in the balance model should matter less as higher lengths are reached. As for how though, I will need to think a little more.
-
Kajia, you have a similar feeling to how I see it, although I think I have a more moderate point of view. Depends how much of a "Vision" on how battles should be you put into it.
On one hand, it is a great fantasy to imagine battles where everyone has a specific role, and everyone needs to depend on teamwork to be successful. On the other hand, cRPG is mostly a game with randomers, and the great risk would be that such a system would NOT turn into organized battles, but rather lots of single players cursing their disadvantages, reducing their joy of playing the game. Forcing "realism" down their throats could reduce the playerbase to rubble.
I still think though, after all, that the situation we are in, where any weapon can win against any weapon, is a result of balancing mostly in duel situations. (IDK but it seems to me that weapon balance has a large duel-bias. Resulting in somewhat unequal battle effectiveness, again reducing the amount of weapon-types and builds we see on the battlefield.)
Nonetheless, I would like to see changes to that philosophy. (Although very successful)
I would like to see more specialized and "extreme" weapons. More dependent on teamwork than what we have. Even going as far as pushing the "non spammable rule", as in, no weapon can be spammed without a chance to strike back. As in great fucking axe meets nimble bastard sword. The great fucking axe can stun the bastard users, or even have a chance of making him drop the sword or crushing through, but if the bastard user come close he should be able to outspam the axe user so he cannot get a strike back in.
and I wrote too much again..
TLTR:
I want more specialized weapons, no swiss army knives, duel based balance is fail, battle based balance is better, make more difficult choices in cRPG, both on the battlefield and weapon choice. Decide how battles should look like, then start balancing.
Anyway.. A years work of balancing cRPG to near perfection would be more or less wiped out with such crazy ideas. On the other hand, rebalancing everything would lead to lots of activity on the forums! :-)
-
There is no such thing as writing too much, in comparision to my stuff at least :D
Well, you're right about the 'randomers'. I agree in all points.
I had the idea of a spinoff like modification of cRPG, a mod of the mod, that could serve as a alternative-balance-test, and when it's successful ...
I don't know. I don't like rivalry with this, but always these field tests, when a new change was in and all the complaining ... this would hurt, so maybe this way is more effective in trying.
-
You guys need to make your own engine ow.
-
I'd rather play a harder more realistic game that forces teamwork than the same re-hashed bs that is plaguing popular game design. Not that I believe the m&b engine is geared towards anything that advanced, but it should be looked forward to rather than belittled, imo.
-
You guys need to make your own engine ow.
-
I'd rather play a harder more realistic game that forces teamwork.
Teamwork is for the weak.
He didn't need teamwork, did he?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
But he was twohander and it's known that twohanders are the most epic beings in the whole universe. Especially swordsmen.
As Phyrex would say: polearms are for peasants, swords are for heroes :)
We should embrace our individuality and leave teamwork to ants and similar incects. Also teamwork = communism :wink:
-
Leshma, Sauron was also a wizard, so he doesn't fall into any crpg class. He is more akin to Paul, who is a wizard, unfortanately this is not a class.
-
Also teamwork = communism :wink:
8-)
In a more realistic medieval fighting game there would be twohanders as a kind of lonely guys bashing many, but get clusterfucked all the time, and outspammed, too. Something like lone heroes.
Aaaand fail!
Sauron actually used his mace with one hand! ;)
-
Leshma, Sauron was also a wizard, so he doesn't fall into any crpg class. He is more akin to Paul, who is a wizard, unfortanately this is not a class.
I knew that Paul is evil...
In a more realistic medieval fighting game there would be twohanders as a kind of lonely guys bashing many, but get clusterfucked all the time, and outspammed, too. Something like lone heroes.
We already have that. I'm exactly like that, I get cluckerfucked (or gangbanged) 75% of the time. Also I'm usually outspammed, either by one handers or spears, pikes, katanas... Sometimes even by flamburgers :(
Aaaand fail!
Sauron actually used his mace with one hand! ;)
That's because he's so big, that mace is twohanded mace in the hands of a normal dude :D