Remove random damage

[JackieChan]

Speed up game
Remove RNG damage (speedbonus is not rng)
Increase damage of everything, so that everything dies in 1-3 hits, meaning 1-2 hit for agi, 2 hits for a balanced build, 3 max for high IF/STR - not this hit 15 times with a 1h on a fully loomed high armor IF stacker and rq because SNOOZ

If you suggest this, dont forget to at least buff heavy armors, i mean its normall that a one handed sword doesnt kill a heavily armored guy so easily.

[Sniger]

u r rendering IF and armor point/use-less then

[Vibe]

u r rendering IF and armor point/use-less then

How is it useless? Stack IF/armor ~3 hits to die, don't ~2 hits. It's one more hit to kill you which is 50% more tankiness compared to two hits killing you.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

Armor should just make it easier to glance, not protect against proper hits whatsoever.

[Akynos]

Say what you will about random damage. But how is random damage breaking balance? If each person has equal chance to do random damage then it would have no effect on the balance of the game.

That's only true if you work in high numbers. If we worked with 1000 hits, the average would indeed be the same for both parties.

However, the combat limits each parties to a maximum of 3-5 hits per duel. As we work with small numbers one can easily be 'lucky' and score higher damage over the other person.

Speed up game
Remove RNG damage (speedbonus is not rng)
Increase damage of everything, so that everything dies in 1-3 hits, meaning 1-2 hit for agi, 2 hits for a balanced build, 3 max for high IF/STR - not this hit 15 times with a 1h on a fully loomed high armor IF stacker and rq because SNOOZ

Well I'll try an be as objective as possible despite using heavy armor:

I think damage with heavy armor should highly depend upon the swing = ie: there should be a barrier where damage below would do nothing and beyond it does much more damage

ie: 79 armor   Penetration point at 70 raw damage
 
knightly arming sword: raw damage: 50 ==> damage = 3 HP

Danish Greatsword ; raw damage : 75 ==> 40 HP


So beyond that 'penetration point' , the char would take a lot of damage as the armor would have been pierced and flesh would directly be exposed to the swing.

This would not apply to blunt damage as it does not penetrate armor.

Right now, the 7 dmg x 15 swings is bullshit. I think it would be more realistic that way.


this would force people to be more tactical about their targets.

[Kafein]

this would force people to be more tactical about their targets.

I don't agree that should be a thing.

[CrazyCracka420]

 

[Grumbs]

Going to quote this again from a thread I made in dec 2011, not sure how accurate it is:

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.

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.

If I read this right that means that your armour value only acts as between 45% to 100% of what it shows, so if you have a bad dice roll in 70 armour you might actually only have 31.5 armour for that hit

[Akynos]

'Dice roll' , exactly my point. Who likes to have their combat decided by a dice roll?
Anyway,enough ranting about that, as devs won't do shit to change it anyway.

[Vodner]

I think the best option would be to just peg armor and damage calculations to the average values (72.5% soak and reduce, and 95% raw damage).

I think damage with heavy armor should highly depend upon the swing = ie: there should be a barrier where damage below would do nothing and beyond it does much more damage

A player should never be in a 1v1 position where he is forced to go 'welp, there is literally nothing I can do here except lose'.

[Matey]

Remove IF and metal armour. now everyone dies in 1-2 hits. problem solved.

[Angantyr]

Yes, I've also never really understood this concept; the TW dev explaining it pre-release as 'the random chance of veins and arteries getting hit' or something along those lines didn't really justify it from a gameplay perspective, I think.

[Paul]

Well, I might repeat myself but my theory why the high armor randomisation was added has to do with single player and AI. Fixed armor value would pretty much mean there that a lower tier troop can never hurt a knight because bots can't into holds or using speed bonus to overcome (Native) soak. So with the chance of a low armor dice roll a zerg of lesser troops can whittle down a top tier troop given enough time and numbers, which is probably more realistic than a single knight soloing whole armies.

Cmp is the only one who could change it if he wanted to but he might be busy with Melee. Maybe he got a different opinion of the issue and don't want to remove/lessen the randomisation though.

[jacouille]

Buff me !

[Shaksie]

This is truly a glorious post, my commendations and utter support .