Messages

1

Game Balance Discussion / Re: We Are Reverting

« on: March 25, 2016, 11:06:09 am »

There are situations where you're rewarded for being inaccurate with a wider crosshair.
There are also situations where you're rewarded for being inaccurate with a pinpoint accurate crosshair.

The head does not consist only of its center. The center of the head is the bullseye. If you hit the side of the head, you still hit the target. The reason you're rewarded for being inaccurate with a wider crosshair is because you would have otherwise missed the target. The only reason you hit the target is because of a random element that was outside of your control.

I'm not arguing for or against RNG either way. RNG is simply inherently less skill-based because you have less control over whatever action RNG is involved in. This doesn't mean that you don't need a high level of skill in order to compensate for random deviation, but to say that it takes no skill to use something pinpoint accurate that is otherwise identical in this context is misguided.

2

Game Balance Discussion / Re: We Are Reverting

« on: March 24, 2016, 02:36:32 pm »

I don't play this mod (much, at all, anymore, etc), but the fact that you brushed off arguments with carefully manipulated examples bugs the fucking shit out of me.

Compensating for wide crosshairs requires skill; shooting with pinpoint accurate ranged weapons does not. Landing a headshot into a 20 pixel head is harder with a 30 pixel crosshair than with a 1 pixel crosshair, and it doesn't come down to luck. If you center your 30 pixels into the 20 pixels, chances are you'll hit. If you aim at the top left edge of the earlobe with your 1 pixel, you'll still hit although you technically didn't aim at the center of the head.

First off, the bolded part is horseshit. I don't even know how you can have this viewpoint.

In your example, aiming at the center of the head lets you hit 100% with a pinpoint crosshair and ~66% with the wider crosshair. Aiming at the top left edge of the earlobe with a wide crosshair only gives you increased chance to miss because you didn't aim at the center of the head. Additionally, aiming at 1 pixel to the side of the head misses with a pinpoint crosshair, yet you still have a chance to hit the head with a wider crosshair.

(click to show/hide)

Not quite; imagine a player has a jittery hand, thus consistently misses the pixel he wants to aim at by an average of 10 pixels into any direction. He wants to aim at the center of a 20 pixels sized head with a pinpoint accurate weapon. Instead, he slips as usual and hits a point 10 pixels away from the center of the head. Due to the pinpoint accurate weapon, the shot hits the 20 pixels sized head missing the center by 10 pixels. It is still a headshot.

In the next case, imagine the jittery player uses a weapon with a 20 pixels sized crosshair. He wants to aim at the center of the 20 pixels sized head again, but slips by 10 pixels. 50% of the 20 pixels sized crosshair is now outside the area of the 20 pixels sized head, meaning he will miss with a likelihood of 50%.

Now assume a player with perfect aim and a weapon with a 20 pixels wide crosshair. He aims at the center of the 20 pixels sized head, doesn't slip unlike the jittery one, and the shot hits despite the inaccuracy of the weapon because the crosshair perfectly overlaps the head.

The pinpoint accurate system does the jittery player a favor, because he is able to land shots he otherwise wouldn't. The perfectly aiming player is indifferent about pinpoint accuracy or the 20 pixels sized crosshair, because he hits either way.

Consequently, the pinpoint accurate system promotes careless shooting into the general direction of the head, whereas the system involving randomness requires special care to center the wide crosshair over an equally-sized area. The prior needs less skill, the latter needs more.

Increase the jittery player's inaccuracy by 1 pixel, or slightly reduce the size of the head and he misses with the pinpoint crosshair every time.

Here is a mastercraft picture illustrating my point. (http://i.imgur.com/Nx407dv.png for people who don't want to log into this horrible forum)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


The white dot represents a pinpoint crosshair, enlarged for viewing purposes. The red circle represents a wider crosshair approximately the size of the head.

In the image, the pinpoint crosshair misses, while the wider crosshair has a decent chance of hitting the head. If the wider crosshair user hits the head, he wasn't more skilled than the pinpoint crosshair user, he just got lucky. The random inaccuracy caused him to hit, not his skill.

It's true that there are times when you can hit with a pinpoint crosshair and miss with a wider one. However, the only reason you missed is because of the random inaccuracy that is inherent in the wider crosshair; random inaccuracy that can equally cause a hit on a missed pinpoint shot. You're rewarded for being inaccurate compared to the pinpoint crosshair. This is less skill-based. Just because you're inherently penalized for shooting doesn't mean you're more skilled.

3

Suggestions Corner / Re: Ranged stun: Should it stay or should it go

« on: January 26, 2014, 07:26:40 pm »

Without ranged stun, low damaging projectiles will become pointless.

Not really. Even just the normal stun of being damaged is enough to make an attack that would have been blocked a hit. Additionally, it's easier to stun somebody repeatedly to prevent them from firing/reloading/moving/whatever with faster weapons (which are typically less damaging), simply because you have more projectiles in the air.

Right now they are used to interrupt enemy attack and stop him in his tracks.

You don't need rangedstagger for that, it just makes it ten times easier to line up another shot (or swing at somebody, etc). And, obviously, it makes archers (or throwers, or crossbowmen) on hills able to send you flying downhill at top speed.

That is to say, rangedstagger isn't an enjoyable game mechanic, at least for me and many others. It's like being kicked, except it has incredibly long range and can be achieved completely by accident and without intention.

Essentially, it's RNG bullshit. It needs to be removed, and any ranged balance changes after that can be applied if neccessary.

4

General Discussion / Re: Making Level 33 was the worst moment in my CRPG experience

« on: October 18, 2012, 12:25:41 am »

"WPF calculation can have minor error (1-2 WPF), as it is based on player observations and not exact function like before (thanks Gafferjack)."

This was Espu having inaccurate coding methods for the WPF numbers. Papikikikifarikki (or however you spell that, good lord) ended up fixing it, and then it reverted back to being incorrect for some reason a short while after.

If you want to know the exact amount of WPF you can get, just use my thread. I had information in my thread that was incorrect when Vargas added it to the calculator; after I corrected it he never updated.

It's accurate enough as it is, a few points difference is insignificant.

cbadevteam

5

Closed Requests / Re: Ban Huey Newton

« on: September 30, 2012, 03:03:48 am »

lol

lol

lol

Predated.

6

General Discussion / Re: Nonse hit detection- will be ever fix?

« on: June 27, 2012, 06:15:49 am »

The fact that you take full damage from being hit by the tip of a weapon that didn't penetrate more than 2-3 cm into your flesh is fairly unrealistic, unless HP is supposed to model pain tolerance.

So:

•The hitboxes are deep enough to constitute a solid hit.

or

•HP is modeled on pain tolerance.

Which of these is the official stance on game mechanics? Or does the tip of the weapon already not do full damage? I can infer that it's probably the first option, but the fact that there is no crippling/damage of body parts leads me to believe the second (and that we're indestructible beings). I also still don't understand the logic behind weapons like picks having a length longer than the actual striking head's tip.

7

General Discussion / Re: Nonse hit detection- will be ever fix?

« on: June 27, 2012, 12:22:24 am »

I just played 2 hours as twohander on duel server and there weren't any of the problems mentioned here.

In my experience, it wholly depends on the weapons you face; it's very common on some one-handers (Italian Sword, Long Espada Eslavona, Nordic Champion's Sword, for example), and weapons like the Morningstar, although there is an underlying problem (at least in my opinion) about effective weapon length.

After the big ghost range correction all weapons are exactly as long as their models...

In general, this is an undesirable way to model weapon length outside of people being completely naked. I'd assume that most armors are, in fact, not part of your skin. A gambeson should be at least 1-2 cm of thickness, not counting any of the heavier armors. The fact that you take full damage from being hit by the tip of a weapon that didn't penetrate more than 2-3 cm into your flesh is fairly unrealistic, unless HP is supposed to model pain tolerance.

There is no definitive way to "fix" it, because technically it isn't even a bug.

For the most part, ghost-reach complaints are about being hit by the near-invisible fast-moving tip of a weapon. Normalizing weapon length should actually be pretty easy. Taking off at least 2-3cm from each weapon would make it so the 'ghost-reach' essentially never happens. Ideally it would be 5-6cm so you can actually justify taking full damage from an attack that penetrates your armor, but I can understand why this wouldn't happen.

Picks having a length longer than the tip of their pick head is fairly stupid. I used the Military Pick for a long time, and got some stupid hits where the actual pick never hit my enemy, just the top of the model (where it's completely flat). Mace and axe weapons would ideally have their length reduced from the top of the head/ball (so you're actually hitting them with part of the head, and not sliding off their armor). A good example is the morningstar, where its length is calculated based on the top spike protruding from the ball. Getting hit by this shouldn't cause full damage, especially considering you only need to be hit by the very tip of it.

Another weapon that I feel really exemplifies the inadequacy of weapon length is the Bec de Corbin. Its length is calculated on the very top of the thrusting spike. This means that you get hit by full swinging piercing damage from a tip slash. This would be a weapon that would benefit greatly from the proposed feature that changes the damage/type based on what part you hit the weapon with, in addition to normalizing effective weapon length; getting hit by a swing with the stabbing point would be cut damage, and not full pierce damage, and you'd actually have to penetrate a decent amount of the weapon into the person to cause said damage.

8

General Discussion / Re: NA gets Patch

« on: June 21, 2012, 08:51:38 pm »

Requiring *all* blocks to be made within a 1/4 second time-frame is something that might actually add considerable depth to the game. There would need to be severe rebalancing done so that an opponent can't simply sit with a chambered sideswing held to your side, though.

Aside from your given example of a guy holding an attack direction for a million years and microholds, this is pretty much the time that people already block in; otherwise they take the hit.

A change like this - something that cranks up the learning curve of the game, and potentially adds a large amount of depth to the game - is an example of a good change.

Remove manual blocking, shorten player-hit stun animation. Skill ceiling skyrockets, depth variable. Alternatively, you can add a 1/10 to 1/8 second manual block so 2-direction weapons aren't useless beyond highly coordinated teamplay. Shields could be 1/3 second, I guess.

Then again, my opinion is probably shit, so whatever.

9

General Discussion / Re: Hello every one.

« on: January 25, 2012, 04:46:59 pm »

Welcome back, etc.

By the way, WPF stacking was nerfed to shit (or at least relative shit, compared to before.)

10

Beginner's Help and Guides / Re: Some attribute and wp related questions.

« on: November 01, 2011, 11:58:47 am »

I'll preface the Archery topic with this link that you might find useful.

When it comes to archery, what exactly makes the crosshair hold longer, power-draw or WPF?

For reticle-holding, WPF will always help. The more WPF you have, the longer you'll be able to hold. Power Draw over the requirement of the bow lets you hold the reticle for longer, for the most part.

Is WPF the sole responsible for draw speed?

In addition to the base speed of the weapon and WPF, Power Draw also affects how fast you can draw the bow. The higher the Power Draw, the slower the drawspeed; at least in my experience.

Is power-draw useful for requirements and extra damage alone?

As mentioned above, Power Draw over the bow requirement lets you hold the reticle longer (usually). Higher Power Draw also increases the missile speed of the arrow, giving it less of an arc and allowing for more distance over time. For the most part, this is extremely useful, since you don't have to lead a target as much.

Do athletics alone define how fast your character moves around? Do agility points have any influence here?

WaltF4 made a study about this. The short answer is that Agility adds a small amount of movespeed per point, with Athletics adding more per point. Movespeed is also reduced by the total amount of weight you're carrying, and is further reduced by the specific length and weight of the weapon you have in your hands. You're also penalized for holding more than one shield.

Is power-strike solely responsible for melee damage? Does strength make any difference?

Strength adds a flat damage bonus after WPF and PS are taken into account. Vargas' Toolkit has a good calculator for this, and should be up to date with the most recent armor soak/reduce values.

Hope this helps.

11

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Find a niche for the Longbow

« on: October 04, 2011, 12:58:45 am »

No it's because you meant getting 200+ WPF although you yourself knew it's actually impossible, but you were still talking about it

Let's discount the fact that WPF still helps to reduce the delay (which happens to be an incredibly valid benefit of getting more WPF):

Delay is fucking awful, combined with the lack of ability to hold the arrow for even a split second.

...now there is a small delay again and you always miss the point where your reticule is smallest...No way to shoot at the perfect moment.

More WPF will let you release at max-accuracy, will let you hold your reticle longer, and will lessen the delay...

So, you're arguing that since I knew you couldn't completely eliminate the delay of the Long Bow, that even with all the other points I addressed, there was actually no sense to my post, just because of that one fact. Am I correct? Because if that's the case, I concede defeat to the unholy amount of retard logic I'm having to deal with.

12

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Find a niche for the Longbow

« on: October 03, 2011, 08:23:31 pm »

Actually I was talking about the Long Bow and it's delay and you were just saying "get more WPF".....sorry that I didn't consider your posts as trollposts in the first place, but it seems that's everything you wanted here

More WPF will let you release at max-accuracy, will let you hold your reticle longer, and will lessen the delay (but not completely remove it, because that's impossible with the Long Bow's current speed and the current WPF progression.) So, yeah, getting more WPF will help. I'm failing to see where the sense in my original post is lacking; is it because I didn't immediately explain that you can't completely remove the delay, currently? I apologize, then.

13

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Find a niche for the Longbow

« on: October 03, 2011, 07:57:51 pm »

Gafferjack where is the sense in your post?

It should be possible to get rid of this delay without 230 WPF^^  Especially because only the Long Bow has it :/

What is this I don't even

I never implied that the Long Bow should have the delay, or that you shouldn't be able to get rid of it.

You have managed to deduce an entirely separate, unrelated meaning from the majority of my posts. Either this is an elaborate troll, or you need to work on your reading comprehension.

14

Game Balance Discussion / Re: Find a niche for the Longbow

« on: October 03, 2011, 04:24:00 am »

Don't you get it?

Since you're going to be snide about it and misinterpret my post, I'll re-quote myself with emphasis and clarification:

The 'delay' will always be present... ...you can only get rid of it with very high WPF.

And by 'very high' I mean above 230, or so. So in other words, you can't get rid of it; not in the current state of cRPG. The fact that you had the delay before 7PD is perfectly normal and expected, so I don't know what point you were trying to make with that comment.

15

Suggestions Corner / Re: Some easy helmets?

« on: October 02, 2011, 06:00:41 am »

You mean like this?

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

I would enjoy having a wingless Winged Great Helm in the game, myself.