cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Topic started by: Spa_geh_tea on March 25, 2011, 04:06:19 am
-
So, your wounded in the battle do you really think you can still swing that hunk of metal with the same gusto as before? Probably not.....so, random thought. Why not have weapon damage(maybe even swing speed) be linked to your health, damage outputed is reduced the more damage you take.
Now some of you will say, why dont we just ex off agi players all together. Well, normally as an agi player your gonna die in one hit anyway. So, why not make it that the enemies your fighting be effected by those little bits of health you keep taking away. It would also make peasants in their support roles more effective by diminishing combat effectivess of higher level characters.
Anyway, food for thought.
-
Wow, people would absolutely hate archers even more then now, interesting idea though.
-
Well it would give archers a bigger role. Didnt consider that, hmmmm.
-
Well it would give archers a bigger role. Didnt consider that, hmmmm.
:D Want to take the idea back now?
A good idea but character balance would be thrown off a bit. I can think of 2 things happening:
1.) People would drift toward 1 hander and shield.
2.) People would drift toward str builds. More hit points means you get more health and therefore take more hits before the negative effect takes a significant roll on your char.
Overall thought I like the idea, it would definitely limit the spam, people would be forced to block a bit more and play a bit more intelligently.
+1 from me.
-
I think it's a great idea, and a sound principle.
Anyone who is worried about it being unbalanced needs to realize:
The key lies in how much the injury affects your stats. It could be a little, it could be a lot, or it could be something in between.
Testing would decide.
-
I would only agree to this if the damage reduction for low health is extremely small.
-
-1 from me it would only lead to a lot more pure str and 1h+shield builds.
And at least untill the current ranged spamfest is fixed it would be extremely frustrating, already in at least 1/4 of the rounds I die before having the chance to engage in melee, I can only imagine how frustrating this would be.
-
1 from me it would only lead to a lot more pure str and 1h+shield builds.
Hehe. Yes. Like in Real Medieval life.
-
:D Want to take the idea back now?
A good idea but character balance would be thrown off a bit. I can think of 2 things happening:
1.) People would drift toward 1 hander and shield.
2.) People would drift toward str builds. More hit points means you get more health and therefore take more hits before the negative effect takes a significant roll on your char.
Overall thought I like the idea, it would definitely limit the spam, people would be forced to block a bit more and play a bit more intelligently.
+1 from me.
Do it by a percentage of your health then, that would mean that you knock out number 2 :)
But I do support a targeted effect area... I mean, I don't know if this is hardcoded (stupid stupid stupid hardcoding) but there are numerous times I have shot people in the legs thinking it would slow them down. (This was after my return after Fallout New Vegas.) I mean I have been shot countless times in the shoulder and thought "Bloody hell, if that was me, I would barely be able to move my arm... Oh wait... Bugger, thats kinda half real! =/)
So I would fully support where you get hit, I mean, head, normally kills you outright as normal and chest would just cause pain as well, no demoralising effects.
-
I support most suggestion that intend to increase the realism of the game and this seems like a good suggestion.
I just can't imagine if it would make the game more fun or not...
I guess it would be more fun with some extra realism added.
It would certainly take some time to balance and get used to but it may be worth it.
The question is how much the health decrease should affect the damage output.
Let's say you deal 1% damage with 1% hp left, rounded up to a minimum of 1 damage.
This would definately not work as low health players dealing minimum to no damage to each other would make some rounds become draws...
Making it something like:
5 hitpoints lost = total damage dealt - 1
would work, I think... and it wouldn't change the game too much.
And 2 tincans would still be able to kill each other with 1 hp left each.
-
Yes, I think this is cool. I would make the damage penalty less though. Lets say if you have 50% health, you will do 20% less damage.
I'd take it one step further and suggest that if you take leg damage, you move slower.
-
I think its a cool idea, and IronFlesh could reduce the penalty... more shielder would make it more realistic, i know i know if i want realism go outside, but still it would be pretty cool
-
You do realise the huge buff this would be for ranged.
-
This would probably help ranged alot, but what if the accuracy would decrease a lot if damaged?
-
And how exactly can a melee damage a ranged? Any ranged would just shoot at you till you get close, than this would give him the advantage in a melee fight, despite his lower wpf/ps.
-
Shields maby? and archers can focus more at attacking enemy archers.
-
As a guy with a main that is a dedicated Archer, I have to say I do not like the power this gives my class.
I wound 4 people on average for every one I kill, and some days on NA where I have proper ping and a large enough team to sport three quivers, I end up hearing over 20 "thunks" not counting kill shots.
This is just too powerful for range users to exploit. And trust me, I hit like a truck with my build.
-
But with like 5 IF one hit from an arrow wouldnt do very much damage, so unless you get like 2 or 3 arrows in you there shouldnt be a very big penalty.
-
But with like 5 IF one hit from an arrow wouldnt do very much damage, so unless you get like 2 or 3 arrows in you there shouldnt be a very big penalty.
I have 8 PD and a heirloomed warbow and bodkins, I used to have 10PD last build.
I can one shot any peasant, and two shot anyone without armor better then the 13K stuff unless it is a long range shot that lost a lot of power.
I say blowing away 40% to 60% of a health bar would be noticeable enough for the penalty to kick in, yes?
Some archers are plinker or headshots, others hit much harder for bodyshots, and heavy and sniper crossbow hit very hard as well.
-
Then more people should bring shields so they can avoid getting hit by arrows :D
-
Let me guess you're an archer
-
I am not an archer, i use a spear without shield but putting 2 skillpoints into shields wouldnt do much harm
-
:D Want to take the idea back now?
A good idea but character balance would be thrown off a bit. I can think of 2 things happening:
1.) People would drift toward 1 hander and shield.
2.) People would drift toward str builds. More hit points means you get more health and therefore take more hits before the negative effect takes a significant roll on your char.
Overall thought I like the idea, it would definitely limit the spam, people would be forced to block a bit more and play a bit more intelligently.
+1 from me.
There is no such thing as spam to a skilled player with a competant build, -1
-
So you are telling me that there is no one out there that jumps into a crowd and swings left to right, right to left without blocking and running around in a circle? You sure we are playing the same game? :shock:
-
Spam is a highly over-used word. It seems there primarily two definitions for spam, people seem to forget this a lot. here is my definition of spam I think its about time we add this to the cRPG dictionary.
Spam(er):
1. noun; one who apparently lost his RMB (i.e. does not or can not block) and
2. verb; a consecutive number of attacks that are so fast one can not get an attack in.
there are a bunch of number ones out there and the people who complain about number two are usually number ones themselves.
On topic interesting idea +1 from me!
-
This sounds like a really good idea...
-
Actually skilled players know many forms of spam.
Clueless spam, drunken spam, the omg-he-was-backstabbed-and-turned-around-i-can-finally-release-rmb-huscarl-shielder-spam, spam because your weapon is better, spam because you chambered, spam that causes chambers, spam because it rains, bastard sword spam after your third shield broke (my personal favourite), and many others.
-
And how exactly can a melee damage a ranged? Any ranged would just shoot at you till you get close, than this would give him the advantage in a melee fight, despite his lower wpf/ps.
That's kind of
The point of being ranged
Major advantage before you close in and rip his face off/engage
Use a shield till you get close
You can still carry a shield and your bigass two-hander.
Think this might promote shield walls, 1hnd and shield in front, 2 handers in back
So, yes lots of support.
-
Actually skilled players know many forms of spam.
Clueless spam, drunken spam, the omg-he-was-backstabbed-and-turned-around-i-can-finally-release-rmb-huscarl-shielder-spam, spam because your weapon is better, spam because you chambered, spam that causes chambers, spam because it rains, bastard sword spam after your third shield broke (my personal favourite), and many others.
Spam is a highly over-used word..
Covered :D
-
In a nut shell, I love it. Makes the game more complex and makes strategy more important. The key ,as stated, would all be in how much it affects your ability. +1
-
And how exactly can a melee damage a ranged? Any ranged would just shoot at you till you get close, than this would give him the advantage in a melee fight, despite his lower wpf/ps.
Yes, because there are never archers shooting at other archers...I use xbow and I am always targeting enemy archers.
I thought it was assumed the injury penalty would affect archers and xbows too (at least for accuracy), but no, of course this is made into infantry vs ranged like always.
-
I think the idea is not bad.
The lack of realism is actually the thing that ticks me off most after playing a few weeks of M&B.
Swing speed and damage (resp. accuracy/damage for throwers and accuracy/shooting speed for bows/xbows) clearly should go down when you are bleeding from several wounds and have an axe dangling in your face...
And to spin this further: things like running/fatigue should also kick in. When I just ran half a mile round a castle in full armor, I should hardly be able to lift my sword (in old times people actually fought in 5-15 minute intervals - no-one was able to fight longer with those heavy weapons and armors...) and be able to kill an enemy only by the stench of my armpits...
And that I as an archer can jump around and run at will and then pull off a head shot at 100 yards is a joke as well - I should have to wait until my heart rate and breathing is down to normal.
OK - probably not possible with that game engine.
Imbalance towards ranged: not exactly. I often lose 20-60 percent very early thanks to some 0 WPF sniper-xbow-sidearm-wielding tincan, an archer buddy, or a capable thrower.
And btw - that is just what ranged were for: bleeding, annoying, delaying and wounding the enemy, so they arrived with less motivation and power and were easier to finish off. If you want melee duels at full health, go duel server.
-
This is a terrible idea and you should feel terrible for proposing it. Who in their right mind would want to play this game if you could be gimped by a hail mary sniper bolt in the opening seconds of the game? This isnt fucking armed assault where everyone gets a weapon that can kill out to 2km. All this would do is pressure players to be even bigger pussies than they are now.
-
what i can imagine is a lot of archers/crossbowmen would shoot you and then run away so you'll be almost useless on the battlefield, while they don't have to take any chances, though if it would only affect your running speed it would be less of a mayor gameplay change.
-
@Berethorn
With the exception of maybe Hirlok, I don't think anyone has suggested a nerf to run speed, and his suggestion is about stamina not injury.
------------------------
The penalty does not have to be gimp-worthy levels, so please (everyone) stop assuming worst-case scenarios. This topic ought to be about whether the concept is sound, and I think it is. It should only be a matter of working out the numbers. I'll try to give an example of how the most severe penalties could be reserved for those near death.
---------------------------------------------------------
Example:
Player has 50 hp max.
(90-100%) 45-50 hp :: No penalty
(70-90%) 35-45 hp :: -10% wpf & [-5% melee damage/throw damage/ranged draw & reload speed] & -1% swing speed
(40-70%) 20-35 hp :: -20% wpf & [-10% melee damage/throw damage/ranged draw & reload speed] & -2% swing speed
(10%-40%) 5-20 hp :: -30% wpf & [-25% melee damage/throw damage/ranged draw & reload speed] & -3% swing speed
(1%-10%) 1-5 hp :: -50% wpf & [-40% melee/throw damage/ranged draw & reload speed] & -5% swing speed
For those with most of their health, the penalty is very minimal. It's only those with low health, or critical levels, that would feel the full brunt of the penalty.
-
that's what i mean. if someone with normally a high WPF and has been shot by an xbow he'll be a lot less efficient and usefull on the battlefield. wich means that a lot of people would start to shoot at the more skilled players so they can even kill the knights without being that good. the only thing you'd have to do before entering battle with someone is shoot him and then your chances of winning are much greater. just because the enemy is weaker because of his damage.