Randomness on Damage

[Grumbs]

I was wondering how accurate this site is for theory crafting damage: http://infinitum.dyndns.org/crpg/calc.htm

"It appears that random factor is included in damage calculation."

With 42 cut damage if someone has like 60 armour (+3 sarranid guard armour + mail gauntlets for eg) then you can do 1-29 damage with 7 powerstrike, 150 wpf. Why such a large damage range? For 32 piercing its 10-29, much more reliable damage but still very random. Apparently this is independent of the area you hit someone, its just flat RNG applied on the hit.

Is it really like that because it seems a bit strange that damage could be so random for a game like this

[HoboJoe]

There is nothing random about the damage. It's a combination of weapon base damage, where you hit and the speedbonus.

[Vodner]

There is nothing random about the damage. It's a combination of weapon base damage, where you hit and the speedbonus.

Looking through the source for the damage calculator, it looks like they are accounting for a substantial random factor:

Code: [Select]

// Urist:
// "However here is where randomisation kicks in again. I think that a
// random number between the full and the half armor value are used."
var min_damage = potential_damage - 1 * arm * soak_factor;
var max_damage = potential_damage - 0.5 * arm * soak_factor;

//Damage reduction

// Urist:
// "The same random armor between the half and full armor points
// of the armor is used."
min_damage = min_damage * (1 - arm / 100.0 * reduction_factor);
max_damage = max_damage * ( 1 - 0.5 * arm / 100.0 * reduction_factor );
Assuming this is correct, it would be nice if this could be removed. Random factors are always bad.

I'm not familiar enough with Warband modding to comment on whether or not this is correct, however.

[Skysong]

Looking through the source for the damage calculator, I believe there is a substantial random factor:

Code: [Select]

// Urist:
// "However here is where randomisation kicks in again. I think that a
// random number between the full and the half armor value are used."
var min_damage = potential_damage - 1 * arm * soak_factor;
var max_damage = potential_damage - 0.5 * arm * soak_factor;

//Damage reduction

// Urist:
// "The same random armor between the half and full armor points
// of the armor is used."
min_damage = min_damage * (1 - arm / 100.0 * reduction_factor);
max_damage = max_damage * ( 1 - 0.5 * arm / 100.0 * reduction_factor );
Assuming this is correct, it would be nice if this could be removed. Random factors are always bad.

I don't think this is about randomness. It should be more likely about targets distance/weapon reach. As when your target is too close you deal almost no damage with melee.
Still i can be wrong about this.

[Paul]

Raw damage(without armor) isn't randomised much, it's between 90 and 100%. For both armor soak and reduction calculation, the armor value gets a good chunk of randomness with being between 45 to 100% of the shown value. It's Native and not changed yet with WSE as far as I know.

[Angantyr]

I remember a TW dev once commenting that this was supposed to represent how some hits could be more critical than others, as in veins and arteries getting hit through chinks in the armor and such.

[Vodner]

Raw damage(without armor) isn't randomised much, it's between 90 and 100%. For both armor soak and reduction calculation, the armor value gets a good chunk of randomness with being between 45 to 100% of the shown value. It's Native and not changed yet with WSE as far as I know.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I don't suppose the devs would be willing to fix those values to 95% raw damage and 72.5% effective armor? I can't speak for the rest of the community, but I think the possibility of losing or winning a fight from a bad damage roll is unfortunate.

[MrShine]

pros of reducing randomness: gives you a better sense of what your build can handle, less cheesiness.
cons of reducing randomness: will provide players a better chance to fine tune/tweak their hp levels to their ideal (devs in the past seemed to be irked by this but I personally think it's fine)

But yeah random in general is bad.  When you can duplicate an exact fight and based on the random damage factor a different player could win each time, that's kinda lame.

[Grumbs]

Interesting. So this is something that can be changed with WSE? Personally I feel for a game as skill based as this you shouldn't have too much RNG. A good player could win no matter what, but when you have 2 good players you would hope the best player wins, or the one who makes the fewest mistakes. Should be higher minimum damage and less variance imo.

I also noticed cut seems pretty sub par, no matter what armour people have. With higher armour blunt and piercing are better, even with 10 less in the stat, and with lower armour they do more minimum damage and the max cut damage is only a few extra.

[Vodner]

I also noticed cut seems pretty sub par, no matter what armour people have. With higher armour blunt and piercing are better, even with 10 less in the stat, and with lower armour they do more minimum damage and the max cut damage is only a few extra.

Cut is pretty good on 2H and polearms. I would really like to see a damage increase for 1h though. I say this as somebody playing out a 2h gen right now.

[hippy_with_a_scimi]

Cut is pretty good on 2H and polearms. I would really like to see a damage increase for 1h though. I say this as somebody playing out a 2h gen right now.

i would say yes to that , but people think i dish too much damage already with 1h

[Bobthehero]

Same here balby.

[hippy_with_a_scimi]

Same here balby.

no you its different you gdamn poke hacker

[San]

I would be fine with taking away randomness, since speed bonus is already an important skill-based variable that affects damage. I would like to see speed-bonus more.. out in the open in terms of how much you've taken/received.